Improving revenue generation capabilities of LGUs PAM

1. 1. MA. PAMELA P. QUIZON Chief, Local Revenue Enforcement Division Bureau of Local
Government Finance
2. 2. »“Honest and effective governance—truly transparent, disciplined and serving the interest
of the country and its people” is the vision of the Philippine government for the Philippine
public financial management system (PFM). (COA, DBM, and DOF, 2011)
3. 3. »The public finance agencies of the Philippine government are ―collectively committed to
promote fiscal responsibility and good governance through transparency and accountability
in financial transactions in the Philippine government. (COA, DBM. and DOF, 2011)
4. 4. » LGU growth lagging behind population growth and inflation. » For the past decade the
growth of LGU revenues have failed to catch up with the combined growth of population as
well as prices. » LGU revenues grew annually by 5.85% compared to the combined growth
of population and prices of 6.46%. Annual Growth Rates of LGU Sources of Revenues (in %)
2001-2010 Province City Municipality Total Local Sources 7.65% 5.97% 4.72% 5.92% IRA
and other grants and aids 5.12% 4.95% 6.49% 5.66% All other sources 4.13% 10.19%
10.36% 8.45% Total Revenues 5.50% 5.73% 6.23% 5.85% Adequacy of LGU Revenues
Annual Population Growth Rate 2001-2010 1.88% Annual Inflation rate 2001-2010 4.58%
Population Growth + Inflation 2001-2010 6.46%
5. 5. »Continued high dependence on the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA). »Dependence on
the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) and other grants at all levels of LGUs remained high –
75% for provinces, 79% for municipalities, and 42% for cities.
6. 6. » Local revenue sources negatively affected by elections. » LGU local revenue sources,
especially local tax collections, are negatively affected by a 3-year election related cycle. For
the different LGU levels, election-related cyclical behaviors in different local revenue sources
have been observed (ADB, 2007): ˃ Provinces — real property tax (RPT), business tax, fees
and charges and economic enterprises. ˃ Cities — economic enterprises, other receipts ˃
Municipalities — RPT, business tax, fees and charges and economic enterprises, other
receipts.
7. 7. » Delay in updating of the Schedule of Market Values (SMV). » The inability of most LGUs
to regularly enact updated schedules of market values is indicative of considerable delay
problems (10 to 20 years) associated with the politicalization of the LGU SMV updating
process. Year Gross Value Added in Real Estate at Current Prices Gross Value Added in
Real Estate at Constant 2000 Prices Implicit Price Index for Real Estate (2000 = 100) 2001
356,982 333,272 107.11 2011 1,097,765 634,456 173.02 Annual Growth Rate 11.89%
6.65% 4.91% Year Taxable Assessed Value No. of Property Units (PU) Taxable Value/PU
2001 1,245,954,783,602 30,398,830 40,987 2011 2,515,274,287,897 33,217,384 75,722
Annual Growth Rate 7.28% 0.89% 6.33%
8. 8. » Institutional deficiencies. Institutional bottlenecks like the issue of titling delays for
properties covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and system
deficiencies like lack of information sharing between LGU departments Year Gross Value
Added in Real Estate at Current Prices Gross Value Added in Real Estate at Constant 2000
 Prices Implicit Price Index for Real Estate (2000 = 100) 2001 356,982 333,272 107.11 2011
1,097,765 634,456 173.02 Annual Growth Rate 11.89% 6.65% 4.91% Year RPT Collection
No. of Property Units (PU) Collection/PU 2001 16,842,815,948 30,398,830 554 2011
27,399,920,255 33,217,384 825 Annual Growth Rate 4.99% 0.89% 4.06%
9. 9. » Problematic real property accounts Collection efficiencies as of 2011 are still low
primarily because of problematic real property accounts. » Net of problematic accounts, the
collection efficiency in 2010 would have been 93.2%, but because of the problematic
accounts, RPT collection efficiency is a low of 56.10%. Weighted average RPT rate 2.1%
Gross Taxable Value 52,433,591,950 Collection efficiency based on gross taxable value
52.3% Taxable value net of problematic account 29,413,036,523 Net taxable values as a %
of gross taxable value 56.10% Collection efficiency based on net taxable value 93.2%
10. 10. » Difficulty in capturing business income levels for taxation. The slow growth of business
taxes is saddled by problems related to the identification of new businesses for taxation
purposes and the undervaluation of declared gross sales. The full capture of business taxes
is estimated to have the potential to increase LGU business tax revenue by a factor ranging
from 1.5 to 2.0. (ADB TA 7451, Aug. 2012).
11. 11. »Track 1 - Proper Management of LGUs Taxing and Revenue Raising Power »Track 2 –
Stimulate Progress through Investments and Other Economic Activities »Track 3 - Exercise
of Corporate Powers and Partnership Arrangements »Track 4 – LGC Review and
Amendments
12. 12. 1994 & succeeding years = 40% 1993 = 35% INTERNAL REVENUE ALLOTMENT
Gross Internal Revenue Collections based on third preceding Calendar Year Provinces 23%
Cities 23% Municipalities 34% Barangays 20% 50% Population (NSO) 25% Land Area
(LMB) 25% Equal Sharing (1) Total BRGY.SHARE – BRGYs. with 100 inhabitants = NET
Brgy.Share (2) Net Brgy.Share 1992 1993 1994 forward 40% Pop. 50% Pop. 60% Pop. 60%
E.S. 50% E.S 40% E.S. A. Base B. Level C. LGU Allocation D. Intra LGU Allocation 1992 =
30% CY 2015 Php 389.86B
13. 13. • Means through which the national government support the delivery official public
services. • Used to equalize or lessen disparities in fiscal capacities among LGUs. o More
allotments can be given to LGUs with greater needs and less resources. • Allotments can
influence the activities of LGUs. oMore allotments can be given to help themselves by
collecting taxes efficiently.
14. 14. »Central Transfers creates ”fiscal illusion” in the form of a flypaper effect” that is
associated with lump sum grant-transfers from the national government like the IRA and
other shares from the national wealth.
15. 15. » Coverage » Assessment » Collection
16. 16. »Updating Local Revenue Codes »General Revision of Real Property Assessment »Add
new taxes, fees and charges using Section 186 »Revalidate/Reduce Exemptions
17. 17. » Use of Presumptive Income Levels » Updating the Unit Base Schedule of Market
Values » Developing models for determination of fee rates/ cost recovery » Inspection of
books of accounts
18. 18. » Efficient delivery system (e.g. client satisfactions, simplification of procedures) »
Computerized Assisted System » Effective Tax Information (Social Marketing) » Issuance of
Demand Letters » Field Collections (e.g. house to house, mall based collection) » One Stop
Shops » Participation of Barangays (billing, identification of tax subjects) » Enforcement of
Civil and Administrative Remedies » Sale at Public Auction
19. 19. 1. Anchor provisions on legal basis 2. Expand Coverage (explore section 182) 3.
Elimination of unproductive bases of revenues/bases which the LGU has no intentions of
enforcing 4. Adjust/Update Rates (fixed rate, benchmarking, inflation, cost of delivery) 5.
Simplify Provisions (minimize requirements to the most essential) 6. Increase transparency
(those easily understood has greater chances for voluntary compliance) 7. Input Economic
Sensitivity (amount passed on) 8. Encourage or discourage activities (rate variation)
20. 20. Year Inflation Rate Consumer Price Index 2002 2.97% 103.0 2003 3.45% 106.5 2004
5.98% 112.9 2005 7.63% 121.5 2006 6.24% 129.1 2007 2.81% 132.7 2008 9.30% 145.0
2009 3.25% 149.8 2010 3.83% 155.5 2011 4.65% 162.7 2012 3.20% 167.9 2013 3.30%
173.4 2014 (est.) 4.50% 181.2
21. 21. » RPT is the biggest and most potent source of revenues » It is indexed on immovable
(land, building, machineries and other structures) » It benefits all levels of LGU » It supports
elementary and high school education through SEF » Real property values floats with
inflation and development
22. 22. Valuation » Updating the schedule of values closer to market level » Identification of new
structures (taxmapping , barangay –based support) » Capture the changes in the land use
classification » Conduct of general revision of real property assessments » Computer
assisted mass appraisal and assessment records system » Improving capacity of
Assessment Offices Collection » Information and education campaign (barangay/school
 based support) » Efficient distribution of notices of delinquencies » Policies to improve tax
effort (incentives like discounts and relief, payment in kind etc) » Enforcement of civil and
administrative remedies » Conduct of sale at public auction » Bundling of taxes
23. 23. The LGU’s Role in Stimulating Progress: • Provider of economic infrastructure • Enabler
– the creator of a business friendly environment for sustainable development • Planner and
promoter of in-bound investments - bringing in investments creates more jobs, increase
productivity, generates resources for the government and leads to improving the quality of
life in the communities.
24. 24. »Steps in pursuing economic activities: ˃ Plan ˃ Organize ˃ Implement
25. 25. Economic Dynamism Size of economy, Growth of Economy and Investments,
Employment, Prices, Productivity, Business Groups, Financial Deepening Government
Efficiency Transparency and Accountability, Public Finance, Recognition of Performance /
Governance Responsiveness to Business and Basic Government Services Infrastructure
Basic Infrastructure, Technology Infrastructure and Social Infrastructure.
26. 26. Overall Rank Overall Score City/ Region Rank Economic Dynamism Government
Efficiency Infrastructure 1 53.242 Makati, NCR 2 4 4 2 49.363 Cagayan de Oro, Region X 9
5 2 3 49.075 Naga City, Region V 4 1 18 4 47.717 Davao City, Region XI 11 13 1 5 45.465
Marikina City, NCR 19 16 3 6 45.003 Iloilo City, Region VI 23 2 7 7 43.686 Cebu City,
Region VII 10 55 5 8 43.148 Manila, NCR 3 56 10 9 43.021 Valenzuela City, NCR 7 23 11 10
42.703 Paranaque City 1 93 13
27. 27. 1. Updated and approved LGU Plans 2. Structure leading local economic investment and
incentive promotion 3. Local policies and ordinances consistent with national investment
policies 4. Streamlined transactional services 5. LGU Roadmap to attract investments and
generate employment 6. Active partnership with business sector 7. Infrastructure to basic
local businesses 2/12/2015 For Discussion
28. 28. »The significant borrowings of LGUs triggered the development of local economic
infrastructure like public markets, slaughterhouses, transport terminals & post- harvest
facilities »The operation of most of these local economic enterprises is usually subsidized by
the LGUs »The challenge is to make local economic enterprises “revenue positive” or viable
29. 29. ˃ Public-Private Partnership + Power & Water Utilities Joint Venture Project of Bohol
Province + Bulacan Toll & Packaging Center undertaken with the private sector to promote
micro-small-medium enterprises + Mandaluyong Public Market ˃ Bond Flotation + Boracay-
Aklan Provincial Bonds for Tourism Development ˃ Inter-local Cooperation (LGU Initiative) +
Inter-LGU cooperation of Metro Naga Development Council + Gingoog Bay Development
Council (LGUs share a common resource base) + Partido Development Authority in
Camarines Sur created by an act of Congress providing legal framework for inter-LGU
cooperation ˃ Corporatization of Basic Services (Congressional Initiative) + La Union
Medical Center - an act of Congress corporatizing La Union Provincial Hospital ˃
Corporatization of Public Utility (LGU Initiative) + Corporatization of Misamis Oriental
Telephone System (MISORTEL) as initiated by the Misamis Oriental Province to ensure
efficiency & viability of MISORTEL. The corporation has been registered with SEC.
30. 30. ˃Strong political will with entrepreneurial mind set ˃Stakeholders participation
+Transparency +Accountability +Empowerment ˃Capacity building/ technical assistance
˃Selection of appropriate financing option ˃Peace and order ˃Political harmony
31. 31. » Vague policy/legal framework ˃Lack of roadmap for LGUs to establish and disengage
in the operation of LEEs ˃Vague legal basis of LGUs to establish LGU corporations
˃Absence of clear-cut guidelines for LGUs to enter into joint venture with private sector
32. 32. THE REVIEW OF THE 1991 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE Improving Lives Through
Local Governance Reform: Transparency, Accountability and Better Services
33. 33. SYMPOSIUM ON THE REVIEW OF THE 1991 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
Improving Lives Through Local Governance Reform: Transparency, Accountability and
Better Services
34. 34. The LGC review will focus on fiscal provisions 1. Expenditure assignment 2. Revenue
assignment & taxing powers 3. Intergovernmental fiscal transfers 4. LGU borrowing and
credit finance 5. Creation of LGUs 6. Inter-LGU alliances/cooperation 7. Fiscal administration
35. 35.  They are critical to LGUs’ ability to deliver basic services.  It is important to conduct a
review of the provisions using a holistic framework.
36. 36. SYMPOSIUM ON THE REVIEW OF THE 1991 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
Improving Lives Through Local Governance Reform: Transparency, Accountability and
Better Services 1. Expenditure Assignment
37. 37. Issues:  Overlapping and at times unclear assignment of functions across various
levels of government (NG and different levels of LGUs) Results in waste of resources 
Unfunded mandates Results in relevant services not being delivered at all or not delivered
in sufficient quantities In either case, the welfare of local communities is adversely affected.
38. 38. Direction of reform (1)  Clarifying expenditure responsibilities/functions by
distinguishing between fully devolved functions and delegated functions (i.e., functions which
are related to the attainment of national objectives but implementation of which at the local
level are assigned to LGUs) Making the distinction has implications on how functions are
financed o fully devolved functions best financed through block grants and own-source
revenues o delegated functions best financed through conditional transfers  if this happens
there will be no need for Section 17 (f) except when said Section is interpreted in the context
of conditional transfers Consultation result – agreement in LVM
39. 39. Other amendments suggested during the consultations (1)  Reassign responsibility for
solid waste management, specifically operation of sanitary landfill to province (LVM) 
Delete Sections 147 (1) (xi), 458 (1) (xi) and 468 (1) (xi) of the LGC authorizing the LGUs to
provide for additional allowances and other benefits to judges, prosecutors, and other
national government agency officials operating in LGUs (LVM)
40. 40. Other amendments suggested during the consultations (2)  Full disclosure of
allocation for field offices of NGAs operating in LGUs per budgets of said NGAs (like DepEd,
PNP, etc.) in GAA (VM)
41. 41.  Own-source revenues  Intergovernmental fiscal transfers  LGU borrowing and credit
finance
42. 42. SYMPOSIUM ON THE REVIEW OF THE 1991 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
Improving Lives Through Local Governance Reform: Transparency, Accountability and
Better Services 2. Own-Source Revenues and Revenue Assignment
43. 43.  Issues (1)  Lack of productive source of local revenues ► high LGU dependence on
transfers ► weak revenue autonomy ► perverse incentives and weak accountability
Promotes less than efficient and fiscally responsible spending Allows LGUs not to impose
taxes on their constituents commensurate with the services they deliver, resulting in weak
local demand and accountability
44. 44.  Issues (2)  Wide flexibility in taxes and fees that LGUs are allowed to impose ►
increased uncertainty on part of local investors as local revenue codes differ significantly
from one location to another May hurt inflow of investments and local economic growth 
Some LGUs impose nuisance taxes and fees that increase the cost of doing business and/or
cause inefficient allocation of resources without a commensurate increase in revenue take
45. 45. Direction of reform (1)  Identification of a closed positive list of local taxes, fees, and
charges over which LGUs have full autonomy in setting tax rates  Simplification of rate
structure of local business taxes (LVM)  Indexation of tax rates, fees and charges that are
fixed in peso terms to inflation (LVM)  Revisit of situs provision (i.e., derivation basis) with
respect to local business tax (agreement in principle with LVM but M support for Escudero
bill)
46. 46. Direction of reform (2)  Assign the conduct and approval of the general revision of the
schedule of market value of real property to the national government while retaining full
autonomy on setting of assessment levels and real property tax rates to LGUs (LVM) 
Provide mechanism for administrative recourse in case of disputes related to LGU taxing
powers – Amend Section 195 (M)  Assign more revenue-productive taxes to LGUs 
Piggybacking on NG taxes like personal income tax  Green taxes
47. 47. Other amendments suggested during the consultation  Repeal provisions of other
legislation effectively amending Section 193 re tax exemptions of GOCCs, etc. (LVM) 
Provide that LGUs may require establishments to submit/ open their book of accounts (VM)
48. 48. SYMPOSIUM ON THE REVIEW OF THE 1991 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
Improving Lives Through Local Governance Reform: Transparency, Accountability and
Better Services 3. Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers
49. 49.  Issues (1)  Intergovernmental transfers mainly take the form of the IRA Does IRA
provide sufficient resources needed for LGUs to deliver fully devolved services? (vertical
balance issue) Does the IRA assist fiscal equalization so that it provides more resources to
LGUs with greater needs and less to LGUs with greater tax capacity? Does IRA have
disincentive effect on local revenue generation?  Lack of well-structured set of conditional
transfers to leverage national government policy objectives
50. 50.  Issues (2)  Reforming the system of intergovernmental transfers … Should be done
in coordination with reform in revenue assignment and expenditure assignment Should not
threaten macroeconomic and fiscal stability Reforms, even if substantive, can be designed
and implemented in a marginal and sequential way so as not to harm any LGU in the
process HOW DO LGUs PAY FOR DEVOLVED SERVICES? Intergovernmental Fiscal
Transfers
51. 51.  Direction of reform (1)  Revisit vertical balance problem  Introduce transfer
mechanism that will take into account disparities in revenue raising capacity of LGUs in line
 with their expenditure needs (equalization grant) (LVM) Provided it is funded from
additional transfers from the current 40% share of IRA in national internal revenue taxes
HOW DO LGUs PAY FOR DEVOLVED SERVICES? Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers
52. 52.  Direction of reform (2)  Establish system of conditional transfers with well- defined
cost-sharing provisions and performance indicators (especially with regards to delegated
functions) [LVM – conditional transfers to be performance based] HOW DO LGUs PAY FOR
DEVOLVED SERVICES? Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers
53. 53.  Direction of reform (3)  Review current provisions related to LGU share in national
wealth and national taxes for the purpose of facilitating release, promoting more efficient
utilization and, possibly, promoting greater equity In VM, suggestion to provide for direct
remittance/ payments to LGUs by GOCC/ private companies of their share in national wealth
HOW DO LGUs PAY FOR DEVOLVED SERVICES? Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers
54. 54.  Other amendments suggested in consultations  Increase fixed share of LGUs in
national taxes Amend Section 284 by replacing “national internal revenue taxes” with
“national taxes” (LVM) Increase share of IRA in national internal revenue taxes from 40% to
50% (LVM) Clarify that the term “national internal revenue taxes” in Section 284 include
VAT/ excise tax collections of the BOC as in the case filed by Cong Mandanas in the SC
(VM)  Provide conditional transfers to LGUs for the protection of municipal waters (VM) 
Liberalize provision regarding utilization of share in NW (VM) HOW DO LGUs PAY FOR
DEVOLVED SERVICES? Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers
55. 55. SYMPOSIUM ON THE REVIEW OF THE 1991 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
Improving Lives Through Local Governance Reform: Transparency, Accountability and
Better Services 4. LGU Borrowing and Credit Finance
56. 56.  Issues (1)  Subnational borrowing important if LGUs are to be enabled to finance
lumpy investments on local infrastructure  At present, subnational borrowing is low relative
to LGU financing for local infrastructure  Need to streamline procedures governing LGU
access to credit market
57. 57. Issues (2)  Important to manage fiscal risks arising from LGU borrowing  Review
Section 296 of LGC which allows LGUs to borrow for the purpose of stabilizing finances 
Improve measurement of LGU borrowing capacity  Preference for gov’t financial institutions
as LGU depository bank (Section 311 of LGC) ► discourages entry of private institutions in
LGU credit market  Greater competition has potential to reduce LGU borrowing cost HOW
DO LGUs PAY FOR DEVOLVED SERVICES? LGU Borrowing and Credit Finance
58. 58.  Direction of reform (1)  Require LGUs to repay loans not used to finance capital
investments (i.e., loans incurred to stabilize finances) within the current fiscal year 
Alternatively, limit use of LGU borrowing to the financing of capital investment only (Golden
Rule) [L] HOW DO LGUs PAY FOR DEVOLVED SERVICES? LGU Borrowing and Credit
Finance
59. 59.  Direction of reform (2)  Define the debt service ratio in terms of the net operating
surplus before interest payments and capital expenditures instead of regular LGU income to
make ratio more aligned with LGUs’ capacity to service their debt  Liberalize Section 311 of
LGC to remove preferential treatment given to GFIs as LGU depository bank (LVM) HOW
DO LGUs PAY FOR DEVOLVED SERVICES? LGU Borrowing and Credit Finance
60. 60.  Other suggestions made during consultations  Monetary Board approval should be
removed/ facilitated (LVM)  Streamline regulatory processes related to approval of LGU
borrowing (LVM) HOW DO LGUs PAY FOR DEVOLVED SERVICES? LGU Borrowing and
Credit Finance
61. 61. SYMPOSIUM ON THE REVIEW OF THE 1991 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
Improving Lives Through Local Governance Reform: Transparency, Accountability and
Better Services 5. Inter-LGU Alliances and Cooperation
62. 62.  Issues  Inter-LGU cooperation deemed necessary and critical when delivery of
devolved service involves: economies of scale (e.g., solid waste management, water
supply) externalities or spillover effects (e.g., coastal resource management, environmental
management)  Attempts at inter-LGU cooperation to date have been hamstrung by
questions related to how they will manage funds they have contributed to the alliance, how
they can access financing from both credit and capital markets, etc.
63. 63.  Direction of reform  Clarify pre-requisite conditions related to the formation of inter-
LGU alliances  Establish regulatory framework for said alliances including legal personality
of the same and treatment in terms of fiscal administration, accounting and reporting
64. 64. SYMPOSIUM ON THE REVIEW OF THE 1991 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
Improving Lives Through Local Governance Reform: Transparency, Accountability and
Better Services 6. Creation of LGUs
65. 65.  Issues  For various reasons, growing trend in favor of… conversion of municipalities
to cities Breaking up of existing provinces/ municipalities/ barangays into two or more new
provinces/ municipalities/ barangays  Such a trend tends to result in inefficiently sized
jurisdictions
66. 66.  Direction of reform  Amend existing LGC provisions that have unwittingly incentivize
such behavior  Strengthen existing provisions that regulate creation of new LGUs  Adjust
income requirements for the creation/ conversion of highly urbanized cities, provinces and
municipalities to make consistent with RA 9009 which provided new income criteria for the
creation of component cities (V)  Make stricter requirements for creation of LGUs (L)
67. 67.  Other suggestions raised during consultations  Include other criteria (e.g., level of
urbanization, competitiveness, potential for growth, poverty incidence, etc.) in addition to
income, land area and population (LVM)  Re “IRA-less” barangays,  Provide IRA even to
barangays that are created by Sanggunian (V)  Only barangays created by Congress
should be given IRA (M)
68. 68. SYMPOSIUM ON THE REVIEW OF THE 1991 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
Improving Lives Through Local Governance Reform: Transparency, Accountability and
Better Services 7. Local Fiscal Administration
69. 69. Issues  Some of the existing provisions of the LGC on fiscal administration deemed
antiquated, not consistent with other laws enacted after the LGC, etc. Direction of reform 
Review provisions related to, among others: Cap on personal services expenditures Full
disclosure/ transparency (LVM) Creation and operation of local economic enterprise
Authorize DOF to undertake income classification of LGUs and update income
classification of LGUs (LVM)
70. 70. 1. LGUs’ exercise of corporate powers must be inspired by some guiding principles ˃
LGUs’ role in economic development is to be an enabler and creator of a conducive
environment for sustainable development ˃ LGUs are more effective if they play the catalytic
and regulatory roles and do not compete with the private sector ˃ LGUs should act primarily
as planner, broker and promoter of inward investments. LGUs can play the role of investor in
basic enterprises where private sector is absent. 2. LGUs operation of local economic
enterprises could be viewed as two-pronged ─ As stand-alone investment by improving
returns realized directly from the use/operation of such enterprise ─ As a catalyst for
economic growth by utilizing the enterprise as a strategic & deliberate tool for local economic
development 3. LGUs operating public economic enterprises must have a well-defined exit
strategy
71. 71. » The LGU FSS shall be used to set the criteria and system on the regular performance
fiscal and financial performance assessment of local government units. » LGUs were
evaluated in the areas of revenue generation capacity, local collection growth, expenditure
management, and reportorial compliance.
72. 72. Summary per Region of LGUs Score in Fiscal Sustainability Scorecard Region 2012
Region XI 55.57 Region III 55.51 CAR 53.58 Region VII 51.58 Region X 51.46 CARAGA
50.98 Region VI 49.64 Region I 48.88 Region IX 45.90 NCR 44.95 Region IV-A 43.07
Region XII 39.56 Region VIII 36.46 Region V 31.00 Region II 28.86 Region IV-B 25.53
73. 73. Summary per Region of LGUs Score in Fiscal Sustainability Scorecard Region 2012
Excellent Very Good Good Average CAR 3 (4%) 8 (10%) 12 (14%) 28 (34%) NCR 1 (6%) 3
(18%) 2 (12%) 4 (24%) Region I 3 (2%) 19 (15%) 25 (20%) 31 (25%) Region II 1 (1%) 4
(4%) 8 (9%) 22 (24%) Region III 7 (5%) 23 (17%) 23 (17%) 38 (28%) Region IV-A 14 (10%)
12 (9%) 21 (15%) 27 (19%) Region IV-B 1 (1%) 1 (1%) 6 (9%) 10 (14%) Region V 0 (0%) 7
(6%) 9 (8%) 17 (14%) Region VI 1 (1%) 12 (9%) 25 (18%) 28 (20%) Region VII 7 (5%) 24
(18%) 29 (21%) 28 (21%) Region VIII 1 (1%) 1 (1%) 15 (10%) 33 (22%) Region IX 0 (0%) 6
(5%) 19 (16%) 30 (25%) Region X 3 (3%) 10 (10%) 16 (16%) 27 (28%) Region XI 2 (2%) 11
(21%) 9 (17%) 11 (21%) Region XII 0 (0%) 2 (2%) 15 (12%) 27 (22%) CARAGA 2 (3%) 5
(6%) 14 (18%) 23 (29%)
74. 74. Thank you