A MODEL FOR EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION
OF ANNUAL INVESTMENT PLANS
ALFREDO L. QUESADA, JR.
INTRODUCTION
Situation Analysis
Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No, 7160), specifically Section 106
provides that “each shall have a comprehensive multi-sectoral development plan
that would serve as a guide in the direction of economic and social development
programs within their respective jurisdictions. Accordingly, Section 287 of the
Code provides that “each local government unit shall appropriate in its annual
budget no less than twenty percent (20%) of its annual internal revenue allotment
for development projects. Copies of the development plans of local government
units shall be furnished the Department of Interior and Local Government. Also,
Section 294 provides that “the proceeds from the share of local government units
(in the national wealth) shall be appropriated by their respective sanggunian to
finance local development and livelihood projects.” Further, Section 296 provides
that “it shall be the basic policy that any local government unit may create
indebtedness, and avail of credit facilities to finance local infrastructure and other
socio-economic development projects in accordance with the approved local
development plan and public investment program.” Furthermore, Section 297
provides that “a) a local government unit may contract loans, credits, and other
forms of indebtedness with any government or domestic private bank and other
lending institutions to finance the construction, installation, improvement,
expansion, operation, or maintenance of public facilities, infrastructure facilities,
housing projects, the acquisition of real property, and the implementation of other
capital investment project, subject to such terms and conditions as may be
agreed upon by the local government unit and the lender; b) a local government
unit may likewise secure from any government bank and lending institution short,
medium and long-term loans and advances against security of real state or other
acceptable assets for the establishment, development, or expansion of
agricultural, industrial, commercial, house financing and livelihood projects, and
other economic enterprises” (Nolledo, 1991).
These provisions of the Code tell that socio-economic development of the
local government units (LGUs) takes place largely on the basis of their capability
to source funds to augment the 20 percent of internal revenue allotment to
finance local development and livelihood projects. Collorary to this is the ability
of the LGUs to formulate and attain their respective investment plans.
Records show that there are LGUs nationwide that performed well, and
some, outstandingly in implementing their developmental programs and projects.
These are national, regional and/or provincial awardees. Some are consistent
awardees for a number of times. In Region 1, there are LGUs that have gained
prominence up to the present time because of their best practices in local
governance particularly in areas of human development. To name a few,
Cabugao, Ilocos Sur is a recipient of the following awards: a) Most Outstanding
Municipal Mayor in Region 1 (2005), b) Pambansang Pamilihan Award (2005), c)
Cleenest and Greenest Municipality (2003, 2004, & 2005), d) Finalist – Gawad
Galing Pook (2004), e) Most Oustanding Economic Performer in Region 1 (2004)
- Likas Yaman Award on Environmental Excellence Development in Vetiger
Grass for Bio-engineering System (2004), and Save Cabugao River Project
(2003), f) Cleanest and Healthiest Public Market in Region 1 (2003 & 2004), g)
Most Outsanding Local Government Unit (2002 & 2003), h) Sentrong Sigla
Award (2002), i) Distinguished Service Award – Given by the Association of
Private Schools and Colleges and Universities in Region 1 (2003), j) Most
Improved Economy in Region 1 (2003), and k) Most Outstanding Mayor and
Local Government Unit (2002 & 2003).
Agoo, La Union has been a consistent recipient of awards and
recognitions since 1998, priding itself of a total of 18 awards, national and
regional. The awards are the following: a) National Finalist (Cleanest and
Greenest Town in the Phils) – 2004, b) National Literacy Award (Most
Outstanding LGU in Basic Literacy Promotion – 2004, c) Most Outstanding
Municipal Civil Registry Office – 2004, d) Best Anti-Illegal Drug Abuse Council in
Region 1 – 2004, e) National Champion (Cleanest and Greenest Municipality in
the Phils. Gawad Pangulo sa Kapaligiran Municipal Category A), f) National
Champion (National Library Awards. Most Outstanding Local Government Unit) –
2003. g) Hall of Fame Ilocos Region National Literacy Awards. Most Outstanding
Local Government Unit for Three Consecutive Years from 2001-2003, h) National
Finalist and First Runner Up (Cleanest and Greanest Municipality in the Phils..
Gawad Pangulo sa Kapaligiran Municipal Category A) – 2002, i) National
Champion (National Literacy Awards. Most Outstanding Local Government Unit.
NFE Category) – 2002. j) Regional Champion (Ilocos Region Cleanest and
Greenest Municipality in the Phils. Municipal Category A) – 2002, k) Public
Enterprise Development Award Parangal Pangkabuhayan ng TLRC – 2002, l)
National Finalist and First Runner Up (Cleanest and Greenest Municipality in the
Philippines. Municipal Category A) – 2001, m) National Finalist and First Runner
Up (National Literacy Awards. Most Outstanding Local Government Unit. NFE
Category) – 2001, n) Most Outstanding Municipal Registry in the Philippines –
2000 and 1999, o) Most Outstanding Municipality in Budget Management – 1999,
p) National Finalist (Most Child Friendly Municipality in the Philippines – 1999, q)
Regional Champion (Ilocos Region Most Child Friendly Municipality in the
Philippines) – 1999, and r) Cleanest Slaughterhouse (Region 1) Awarded by
National Meat Inspection Commission – 1998.
The City of San Fernando has the following awards to show that it
deserves the recognition as a model component city in Region 1: a) Pamilihan ng
Lalawigan – 2005, b) Huwarang Palengke Award –2000-2005, c) Second Runner
Up – Gawad Pangulo sa Kapaligiran (Kaunlaran ng mga Pamahalaang Local sa
Kalinisan at Kapaligirang Luntian) – 2003, d) Declaration as Healthy Lifestyle city
in Region 1 by DOH – 2003, e) Top 3 Most Child Friendly Award – 2003, f) Top 3
Clean and Green Award – 2003, g) Fourth Place Lifestyle Award – 2003, h)
Second Runner Up Rafael Salas Award (Population and Development Award) –
2003, i) Recipient for Crystal or ASM Award – 2003, j) Awardee of Adanaver
Medal of Excellence in Local Governance – 2003, and k) First Runner Up Most
Competitive Growing Cities of the Philippines (Small Cities Category) by AIM’s
Pinoy Cities on the Rise - 2003 However, even with these exemplary achievements of
the cited LGUs, there is still a general perception of the populace that some elected and
appointed local officials are incapable to respond to the development needs of their
respective LGUs, be it a provincial LGU, a municipal LGU, or a city LGU. This perception
is simply based on the populace’s observation on the practically turtle-pace turnover, if
ever there was, of concrete evidence of the achieved and sustained socio-economic
development in one LGU as compared in another LGU.
Ironically, the people have the notion that some LGUs do not even
prepare/formulate their investment plans, though a requirement as provided for in
Sections 106 and 109a of the Local Government Code, hence, ending up nothing to
direct or guide them in their yearly programs of economic and social development. This
could be probably true to LGUs whose elected/appointed officials, with particular
reference to the Local Chief Executive and the Sangguniang Bayan members, have
made vested interests the priority of focus over and above the good of their constituents.
This observation corroborates the report UMP – Asia Occasional Paper No. 5 on
April 1994, which says “Lack of necessary skills and experience in preparing an annual
(let alone multi-year) maintenance programs alone is already a major handicap on the
part of the LGUs” (www. serd.ait.ac.th/ump/op5.pdf, 7/12/2004).
In preparing the Annual Investment Plan (AIP), the City/Municipal Planning and
Development Coordinator, City/Municipal Development Council and the Sanggunian
Panlungsod/Bayan are the key bodies. The C/MDC, headed by the mayor, is composed
of: a) all punong barangays in the city/municipality, b) chairman of the committee on
appropriations of the sangguniang panlunsod or sangguniang bayan concerned, c) the
congressman or his representative, and d) representatives of NGOs operating in the city
or municipality who shall constitute not less than ¼ of the members of the fully organized
council (Nolledo, 1991).
Conceptual Framework
Strong republic is the vision of the Arroyo administration. This is the theme of
her SONA on July 22, 2005. One closest interpretation of a strong republic would be the
ability of the LGU units to compete in giving good service to the people. It is not enough
for the LGUs to have a good heart, it is to have strong technical capabilities as well. The
LGUs must be good in what they do, they must be technically proficient, and must excel
in their fields of expertise.
It would be best to interpret the field of expertise to mean local chief executives’
ability to revolutionize development process in their respective local governments. It
must be geared toward social development – the improvement of the quality of life of the
population. Specifically, social development covers the areas of: 1) self reliance – the
ability to identify, develop and make full use of capabilities; 2) welfare – adequate
provision of basic needs, and remedial and preventive measures to reduce stresses of
change; and 3) social justice – equitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealth.
The LGUs must evaluate their performance along the following dimensions: a)
leadership and learning – are they providing good leadership, and are they helping the
organization learn what it needs to learn to develop?; b) financial – how well are they
using up resources? Are they cost-effective? Do they have the right systems and
processes?; c) administrative – how well are they doing their management tasks and
performing the actions to deliver services?; d) stakeholders - how well are they
partnering with other sectors, offices, actors? Is there synergy in what they do?; and e)
costumers – who are their customers, their target beneficiaries? Are they satisfied with
their services? Do they go out of their way to find out what they say or think about them
and their office?
The main concern of this study is to formulate a model for effective
implementation of annual investment plan based on best practices of the selected LGUs.
The best practices are in summary the quality of service delivery to the population in the
areas of infrastructure, health and social welfare services, and agriculture, cooperative
and livelihood development during the calendar years 2002-2004.
The quality of service delivery of the LGUs to its clienteles can be influenced by
the perception of respondents according to identified factors such as priority programs,
collaboration, implementation, effectiveness and budgetary support. These factors are
assumed to have a significant bearing on the national and local government effort to
improve the life of the poor Filipinos and ultimately becoming self-reliant and active
partner of the government in attaining and sustaining all the facets of human and
economic development.
The formulation of model for the implementation of the annual investment plan of
the LGUs is anchored on the theory that institutional inputs are not enough to guarantee
the effectiveness in the delivery of quality service to the people. There has to be
effective management process of implementation to ensure the attainment of the goals
and objectives of the plan at a lesser cost and shorter time. One critical aspect of
management process is the effectiveness of the program/project manager (here, it is the
Local Chief Executive) to mobilize all the resources needed in the course of
implementation.
A paradigm, which explains the conceptual framework of the study is presented
in Figure 1.
The paradigm of the study made use of the input-process-output model. In the
input box is the implementation of the annual investment plan of the selected local
government units of Region 1 as to the level of priority of development programs and
projects, level of collaboration of LGUs, Department Heads (DHs), Sangguniang
Panlungsod/Bayan (SP/B), School Administrators (SAs), and Business Sector (BS) in
planning and implementation, level of collaboration, level of effectiveness, and level of
adequacy of budgetary support.
In the process box are the statistical treatments, analyses and interpretation of
the priority development programs and projects of selected LGUs : a) Priority
development
programs
and
projects
of
LGUs,
b)
Level
of
collaboration of LGUs, DHs, SP/B, SA, and Business Sector in planning and implem
entation of AIPs, c) Level of effectiveness of implementation
of
the
AIPs,
d) Level of adequacy of budgetary support in implementation of AIPs, e)Strength,
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis of the implementation of AIPs, and f)
Formulation of a model for effective implementation of AIPs.
Plans.
In the output box is the Model for Effective Implementation of Annual Investment
Input
Process
Output
1. Level of Priority
of
Development Progra
ms and Projects in the
AIPs of Three
Selected Local Governmen
t Units in Region I



Agoo, La Union
San Fernando City
Cabugao, Ilocos Sur
2. Level of Collaboration
of LGUs,
Department Heads,
Sangguniang Panlungsod/
Bayan, School Administrat
ors, and Business Sector
in Planning
and Implementation of
the Annual Investment
plans
3. Level of Effectiveness
of Implementation of
the Annual Investment
Plans
A. Statistical
Treatments, Analyses
and Interpretations
of the Following:
a. Level of Priority
of Development Program
s and Projects of
Selected LGUs
b. Level of
Collaboration of LGUs,
DHs, SP/B, SA, and BS
in Planning
and Implementation of
AIPs
c. Level of Effectiveness of
Implementation of
the AIPs
d. Level of Adequacy
of Budgetary Support
in Implementation of AIPs
e. Relationship
Between and Among the
Three Areas of AIP
B. Documentary
Analysis of LGU Funds
for the Implementation
of AIPs
C. SWOT Analysis
of
LGUs
in Planning and Imple
Fmentation
E E D B A C K
of AIPs
4. Level of Adequacy
of Budgetary Support on
the1.Implementation
Figure
The Research Paradigm
of Investment Plan
D. Formulation of a Model
for an
Effective Implementatio
n of AIPs
Model for the Effective
Implementation of
Annual Investment
Plans (AIPs)
Level of Priority of Development Programs/Projects in the
Areas of Infrastructure, Health and Social Service, and
Agriculture Cooperative and Development
Agoo LGU
Infrastructure
Table 2 presents the level of priority of development programs/projects on
the annual investment plans of the three selected local government units.
Respondents had perception average means that range from 3.03, moderately
high (MH) for water supply to 3.80, high (H) for barangay roads and bridges. The
infrastructure programs/indicators such as shore protection/river control, water
supply, post-harvest facilities, and communal toilet/comfort room were perceived
moderately high (MH), while the barangay roads and bridges, health center,
barangay hall, and day care center were perceived high (H).
These perceptions reconcile with available data. Results of 2000 census
indicated that out of 9945 households in the municipality, 34.19 percent have
water-sealed, sewer/septic tank used exclusively by households, 8.30 percent of
households have water-sealed, sewer/septic tank shared with other households,
2.30 percent have water-sealed other depository used exclusively by
households, and 18.38 percent have water-sealed other depository and shared
with other households.
For barangay roads, out of 90.846 kilometers of roads classified as
national, provincial, municipal, and barangay, 51.60 percent or 46.881kms are
barangay roads. By surface type, the barangay roads are 2.334 km concrete,
1.109 km asphalt, 27.186 km gravel, and 16.252 km earth fill.
Table 2. Level of Priority of Development Programs/Projects on the Annual
Investment Plans of the Three Selected Local Government Units as
Perceived by Groups of Respondents.
Dev’t. Progams/Projects
AG
SFC CA
OM
DE
3.80
3.47
3.49
3.58
3.27
3.03
3.22
3.07
3.37
3.90
3.42
3.81
3.52
3.09
3.29
3.03
3.27
3.42
4.35
4.41
4.16
4.27
4.14
4.02
3.77
4.12
4.16
4.02
3.77
3.82
3.79
3.50
3.45
3.34
3.49
3.65
VH
H
H
H
H
H
MH
H
H
3.60
3.09
3.57
3.32
4.16
3.88
3.65
3.43
H
H
INFRASTRUCTURE
A. Barangay Roads and Bridges
B. Health Center
C. Barangay Hall
D. Day Care Center
E. Shore Protection/River Control
F. Water Supply
G. Post-Harvest Facilities
H. Communal Toilet/Comfort Room
Section Mean
HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES
A. Immunization
B. Nutritional Status
C. Micronutrient Supplementation
D. Prenatal and Post Partum Care
E. Cases and Treatment of Notifiable Diseases
Section Mean
3.09
3.25
2.53
3.11
3.26
3.44
3.04
3.33
3.81
3.68
2.75
3.66
3.39
3.46
2.77
3.37
MH
H
MH
MH
AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE
AND LIVELIHOOD DEVELOPMENT
A. Ginintuang Masaganang Ani
B. High Value Commercial Crops
C. Livestock Production
D. Fisheries Program
E. Support Program
F. Regulatory Program
G. Extension
H. Community Training and Employment
Section Mean
2.97
3.08
2.75
2.73
2.99
2.88
2.89
2.80
2.89
3.34
3.25
3.11
3.13
3.22
3.24
3.06
3.04
3.17
3.61
3.85
3.85
3.69
3.93
3.85
3.79
3.53
3.76
3.31
3.39
3.24
3.18
3.38
3.32
3.25
3.12
3.27
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
Legend:
AG - Agoo
H – High
SFC – San Fernando City
MH – Moderately High
CA – Cabugao
DE – Descriptive Equivalent
OM – Overalll Means
Forty seven of the 49 barangays have their respective day care centers.
There are twelve barangay health centers located in 12 different barangays and
one main rural health center located in the urban area. The rural health unit is
headed by one (1) Municipal Health Officer, one (1) Public Health Nurse, one (1)
TB PHN Coordinator, eleven (11) Midwives, two (2) Provincial Sanitary
Inspectors, one (1) PHO TB Microscopist, one (1) Medical Technologist, one (1)
Leprosy Corrdinator, one (1) Dungue/Malaria Coordinator (DOH), one (1) Dentist,
one (1) Dental Aide (PH), and one (1) clerk (Agoo Socio-Economic Profile 2006).
The section mean for all the projects/indicators is 3.37, which is described
as moderately high (MH) level of priority.
Health and Social Services - Immunization was perceived the highest
with average mean of 3.60, a high (H) priority, and cases and treatment of
notifiable diseases had the lowest average mean of 2.53, a fairly high (FH)
priority. The remaining projects/indicators’ average means fall under the
descriptive rating of a moderately high (MH).
The perception levels jibe with available data for 2005 on immunization. Of
the 1,727annual target patients, 99.82 percent or 1,724 patients have been
immunized of BCG. The very high percent accomplishment in immunization
contrasts with the perceived high (H) priority. This could be attributed to the
respondents’ lack of enough information on data of accomplishments in health
care delivery service of the LGU. Data are usually regularly posted in the
information bulletin of the health care centers and units, but this may not be
enough to keep the people abreast of the development. There is probably a need
to make the information materials available in other public assembly places of
strategic locations in barangay like the barangay hall, and individual houses, etc.
Information program of the LGU health unit is an effective way of making
available to the people of the data in health care delivery service, and others.
Other immunization activities were DTP1, DTP2, DTP3, OPVF1, OPV2,
POV3, measles for fully immunized children (FIC); HEPA B 1, HEPA B2, HEPA B3
for fully immunized mother (FIM). In its national tuberculosis program, 1,347 of its
annual target patients have been assisted, and 153 persons or 11.36 percent
were treated/diagnosed for T.B. In family planning, 1,032 acceptors of all
methods have been targeted and 652 acceptors or 63.18 percent were assisted.
There were 2,199 current users of all methods or 93.53 percent of the 2,351
annual target have been provided family planning assistance.
All these accomplishments in health services must have been largely due
to the number of day care workers which totaled 48 in all 47 barangays. Two
barangays have 2 daycare workers each, one barangay – San Jose Sur has no
daycare worker, probably due to the fact that the barangay captain is a medical
doctor in the person of Dr. Juan V. Komiya, and the rest of barangays have 1 day
care worker each (Agoo Socio-Economic Profile 2006).
The section mean of the perception levels for the projects/indicators is
3.11, which is described as moderately high (MH) level of priority.
Agriculture Cooperative and Livelihood Development - High value
commercial crops had the highest average mean of 3.08, and the lowest average
mean is that of fisheries program, 2.73. However, all the projects/indicators were
perceived to have been a moderately high (MH) priority.
Relative to the above perception means is the area of lands devoted to
high value commercial crops like rice and other crops, and as per record of the
Department of Agriculture, croplands cover a total area of some 1,706 has. or
33.33percent of the total area of the municipality, consisting of 1,214 has. or
71.71percent of irrigated ricelands, 355 has. or 20.80 percent rainfed ricelands,
and 137 has. or 8.03 percent of diversified crops (Agoo Socio-Economic Profile
2006).
The section mean average 2.89 thus indicate that the projects/indicators
are perceived as moderately high (MH) priority by the LGU.
San Fernando City LGU
Infrastructure - The respondents’ average means of perceptions range
from 3.03 (MH) for post-harvest facilities to 3.90 (H) for barangay roads and
bridges.
Relative to the level of perception of the respondents are the data on the
infrastructure facilities of the city. In post-harvest, the city has Ice Plant and
Storage (by the Valero Group of Companies) at Quezon Ave., Barangay 3. As
shown in the Table 3 below, of the city’s total road network 189.946 kilometers,
barangay roads comprised the largest 69.48 percent, a total of 106 barangay
roads that are concrete, asphalt, and gravel/dirt surfaced (the barangay roads
total 131.9723 km. Out of this total length of barangay roads, 92.380 km. is
Table 3. Existing Roads by Administration and Type of Surface Pavement,
2004
(in km.)
Administration
Length
(in km)
% to
Total L
Width
Area
Surface Pavement (in km)
(inOthers
m) Occupied
(dirt rd)
Concret Asphalt Gravel Others
(in ha.) e
(dirt rd)
National
38.216
20.12
20.0
76.432
14.370
Provincial
12.848
6.76
15.0
19.272
12.643
City
6.910
3.64
10.0
6.910
6.910
Barangay
131.972
69.48
10.0
131.972
92.380
Totals
189.946 100.00
234.586 126.303
% Totals
100.00
66.49%
Source: Socio-Economic Profile of San Fernando City, 2004
7.385
7.385
3.89%
2.786
13.675
0.205
7.067
32.525
10.058 46.200
5.30% 24.32%
concrete, 7.067 km is gravel, and 32.525 km. is dirt road. Also, the city has a
total of 27 barangay bridges. Bridge length by construction materials is 181 km.
concrete, 132 km. timber, and 76 km. foot bridge. (San Fernando City SocioEconomic Profile 2005).
The City of San Fernando, La Union has a Local Health Center located at
the second floor of the Marcos Building which administers/coordinates health
environmental sanitation activities within the locality. The year 2004 significantly
marked major breakthroughs/innovations in terms of health services/systems as
the local City Health Unit was upgraded to a Lying-in Hospital. Like a primary
medical center, it is developed and furnished with spacious rooms, such as the
Admission, Treatment, Pre-natal/Immunization, Delivery Room, Operating Room,
Recovery Room, Dental, Laboratory, Pharmacy, Conference Room and offices,
etc. It is now being utilized in the admission of pregnancy deliveries and other
health care services on overnight basis, medical consultations, laboratory
examination services, etc. As such, it prides to have launched an Emergency
Medical Services (EMS) delivery round-the-clock.
Since 2003, the city had initiated the putting up of another five (5) Lying-in
Clinics (now in existence/located in strategic places/barangays) to enhance,
intensify and sustain health care programs delivering various health/sanitary
services and to ensure expanded basic health delivery coverage. Barangay
Health Stations is also present in each of all the 59 barangays of the city.
In water supply, the Metro La Union Water District (MLUWD) under the
Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) supplies potable water that is largely
confined within the Poblacion and nearby consisting of 28 barangays. The water
system involves individual house pipe connection where water supply are
treated/sanitized through 24 hours.
In 2002 many infrastructure projects were bidded and carried out that cost
Php 41, 919, 521.48. The projects included ten school buildings, two barangay
health centers, and four cluster Lying-In Clinics (San Fernando City SocioEconomic Profile 2005).
The respondents’ levels of perceptions had a section mean of 3.42, and
descriptively, it is a high (H) priority by the LGU.
Health and Social Services - Immunization had the highest respondents’
average means of 3.57, descriptively a high (H) priority by the LGU, and cases
and treatment of notifiable diseases had the lowest of 3.04, moderately high
(MH).
The perception reconcile with city’s record that the City Health Center
concentrates on the delivery of basic health services among the populace along
the following areas, namely: 1) medical and health service, 2) maternal and child
care, 3) heath education, 4) public health laboratory examination, 5)
environmental sanitation, and 6) control of communicable diseases through
immunization, medical consultation and nursing care.
In the aspect of nutritional status, for the CY 2004 nutritional status of
children below seven years old in the city, a good percentage (79.87) represents
normal weight higher compared to 2003’s 72.83 percent (San Fernando City
Socio-Economic Profile 2005).
The section mean of the respondents’ perceptions tell that the LGU had a
moderately high (MH) level of priority (3.33) for all the projects/indicators.
Agriculture Cooperative and Livelihood Development - The average
means for the projects/indicators range from 3.04 to 3. 34, and descriptively, fall
in moderately high (MH) level of priority.
The levels of perceptions seem to agree with the data from the Office of
the City Agriculture for the CY 2000 that had been cited in the article on city
socio-economic profile of San Fernando City, La Union. The data show that the
total area planted to rice was 2,396.5 hectares (consisting of 250 hectares fully
irrigated, 1,516 hectares rain fed and 630.5 hectares (palagad/upland) being
cultivated/served by a total of 3,475 farmers and with corresponding yield of
1,221 tons, 7,404 tons and 3,079 tons, respectively, (or about 98 cavans of palay
per hectare). Other crops are corn planted by 125 farmers to an area of 25
hectares to yield 121.25 tons; peanut by 700 farmers to an area of 275 hectares
with 440 tons production; mungo by 700 farmers to an area of 165 hectares with
a yield of 214.5 tons; fruit vegetables by 846 farmers to an area 260 hectares to
yield 3,310 tons; leafy vegetables by 273 farmers to an area of 55 hectares and a
yield of 261.5 tons; root crops by 100 farmers to an area of 40 hectares with a
yield of 406 tons; and fruit tree crops by 2,500 farmers to an area of 151 hectares
and a yield of 2,550
Also, it reconciles with the city profile articles that say agriculture is the
main source of livelihood of the people with most arable lands planted to rice,
legumes, leafy vegetables, root crop, fruit trees, corn, and tobacco (San
Fernando City Socio-Economic Profile 2005).
The respondents’ perceptions had a section mean of 3.17, moderately
high (MH) level of priority by the LGU.
Cabugao LGU
Infrastructure - The respondents’ average means of perceptions range
from 3.77 to 4.41, and descriptively, from high (H) to very high (VH) level of
priority by the LGU.
The level of perception seem to reconcile with data available that tell
Cabugao has 32 day care centers, 133 km of barangay roads, three springs as
water supply sources - Magarang Spring, Quinalian Spring and Roma Spring,
and three irrigation systems - Simabusa-Nagbayruangan Communal Irrigation
System, Gaco Dam Communal Irrigation System, and Sisim-Alinaay Communal
Irrigation System (Cabugao Socio-Economic Profile).
All the projects/indicators had a section mean of 4.16, which descriptively
mean a high (H) priority by the LGU.
Health and Social Services -Average means range from 2.75 for cases
and treatment of notifiable diseases to 4.16 for immunization, and descriptively, it
is from moderately high (MH) to high (H).
Available data tell of zero (0) maternal mortality rate, and 6.66 infant
mortality rate (Cabugao Socio-Economic Profile).
The section mean average is 3.66, a high (H) level of priority by the LGU
for all the projects/indicators.
Agriculture Cooperative and Livelihood Development - All the
projects/indicators had respondents’ perceptions average means ranging from
3.53 to 3.93, and fall under descriptive rating of high (H).
The data on crops and corresponding land areas used tell the level of
priority, hence, tend to agree with the level of perception of the respondents. An
area of 2,347 ha. are planted to rice and a production of 11,910 MT, for corn is
409 has. and a production of 10.40 MT, and other crops is 30 ha., and a
production of 11.30 MT. (Cabugao Socio-Economic Profile).
The section mean is 3.76, a descriptively high priority by the LGU to all the
projects/indicators.
Comparison of Perceptions on the Level of Priority of
the Development Programs/Projects in AIPs
of the Three Selected LGUs
Table 4 shows the results of the Analysis of Variance on the level of
priority of the development programs/projects in AIPs of the three selected LGUs
in the areas of infrastructure, health and social services, and agriculture,
cooperative and livelihood development.
Infrastructure
A comparison of the perceptions of the groups showed significant
differences (p<.01) as to the level of priority development of the LGUs in the area
of infrastructure.
Further test employing Scheffe’s test of differences (Table 4) indicate that
the significant difference lies in the case of Cabugao’s level of prioritization for
infrastructure which is much higher than Agoo, La Union and San Fernando City,
La Union. The latter two (2) LGUs are insignificantly different at .05 level
(P>.05). Such findings imply that in 2002-2004, Cabugao put more effort in
infrastructure development
Table
4.
Comparison
Programs/Projects
Selected LGUs
Groups
Infrastructure
Cabugao, I. S.
Agoo, L. U.
CSF, L. U.
Health and Social
Services
Cabugao, I. S.
Agoo, L. U.
CSF, L. U.
Agricultural Cooperative
and livelihood Dev’t.
Cabugao, I. S.
Agoo, L. U.
CSF, L. U.
on
the
Level of Priority
of
Development
in Annual Investment Plans (AIPs) of the Three
Mean
F
p-value
4.16 a
3.37 b
3.42 b
22.318*
.000
3.39 a
3.41 a
3.42 a
2. 366
.136
3.76 c
2.89 a
3.17 b
105.762*
.000
*Significant
Means with same letters are significantly different at 0.05 level of significance
than the LGUs in La Union in terms of implementation. The appropriations for
infrastructure as indicated in Table 5 could be a good basis to explain the level of
perception. With the exclusion of San Fernando City, La Union, which
undoubtedly has the edge over the two because of its city status, it would show
that Cabugao, Ilocos Sur is better in its appropriation for priority infrastructure
than Agoo, La Union.
The recently completed or current activities in infrastructure development
may be perceived either low or high depending on the extent of activities in
infrastructure in the past. If the boom in infrastructure development were seen to
be greater during the recent or current years than in the past decades, then the
level of perception of priority would be high.
It would be noteworthy to mention that the high perceptions of
respondents might have been the offshoot of a vigorous infrastructure
development that have been undertaken by the Cabugao LGU during the
immediate past years and continuing until today. The boom in infrastructure
development started during the first term of office of the incumbent LCE, whose
government’s battle cry is the slogan “Intayon Cabugao”, an answer to its original
battle cry “Cabugao Agriing Ka! Cabugo Agbalbaliw Ka” (Wake-up Cabugao!
Change for Cabugao!). Among the major infrastructures are: 1) completion of the
Northern Ilocos Sur Trade Center (NISTC) that houses 2 big and spacious
buildings for trade and commerce which was inaugurated in March 2002, 2) Save
Cabugao River (SCR) Program which is a long term project with multidimensional component like river re-channeling and establishment of a mini park,
among others, 3) Watershed Development and Reforestation Project in 5-km
radius at the Magarang Hill and 4) a major bridge north of the municipal hall that
connects the national highway and which was newly opened to traffic in July
2006. The SCR program made Cabugao, Ilocos Sur a recipient of the Likas
Yaman Award for Environmental Excellence for CY 2002 and 2004. The SCR is
an example of program
that perfectly fit under the Philippine Agenda 21’s
Environment and Natural Resources Accounting (ENRA), a management tool for
integrating environment and the economy (www.un.org/esa/earthsummit/pilip.cp.
htm, 7/28/2004).
All these programs and projects are the results of extensive planning after
the Lakbay-Aral of selected key personnel of the LGU to model LGUs like
Marikina City. The visit and planning with the guidance of the Marikina City
subsequently led to their sisterhood ties (Intayon Cabugao, 2006).
The boom in infrastructure being generally new in the LGU, and the
vigorous effort is considerably in its young phase compared to the other two
LGUs, it would mean a tremendous impact on the peoples’ perception,
particularly to the respondents.
Comparatively, the City of San Fernando, La Union and Agoo, La Union
on the other hand have been in the forefront of vigorous infrastructure
development as early as the 1980’s, specifics of these have been mentioned in
the discussion under agriculture cooperative and livelihood development, hence,
the continuing infrastructure development this 21st century is seemingly being
viewed already by the respondents as an ordinary event that is taking place. This
would explain why the respondents’ perceptions are lower than the Cabugao
LGU respondents’ perception.
Generally, however, the three local government units’ “moderately high” to
“very high” priority for infrastructure as perceived by their stakeholders indicate
that they have graduated from their dependence to central government. The
UMP-Asia Occasional Paper No. 5 on April 1994 says the local government units
in the Philippines have been too dependent in the past on the Central
Government for the delivery of basic municipal infrastructure, more particularly in
funding and implementation (www.serd.ait.ac.thump/op5.pdf, 7/12/2004).
Apparently, this does not hold true after more than a decade from the
release of the report. It should also be taken note that the report was made 3
years after the implementation of LGC of 1991, which maybe considered the
infancy transition period for the LGUs. The ratings tell that the LGUs, most
specially Cabugao, Ilocos Sur now have the required special management an
d technical skills in infrastructure planning and development (www.serd.ait.ac.th
ump/op5. pdf, 7/12/2004). This could be attributed also to the fact that it is
already a decade since the passage into law of the Local Government Code of
1991. The period must have provided the LGUs enough time to improve greatly
from the above-mentioned 1994 report.
The capability of the LGUs to undertake infrastructure development is
boosted by the partnership with the national government agencies, which gave a
bigger funding share. This of course would be the general scenario since most
municipalities have a low income and belonged to the fourth income class and
below. A 4th class municipality has an average annual income of P20M or more
but less than P30M (Department of Finance-Bureau of Local Government
Finance).
The Asian Development Technical Assistance in the Philippines report in
December 2001 says that investment in local roads is mostly funded by national
government agencies (NGAs) such as DPWH, Department of Agriculture,
Department of Agrarian Reform, Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, and National Irrigation Authority, as part of broader national
Government projects aimed at improving agriculture, environment, irrigation, or
other sectors (www.adb.org/Documents/TARs/PHI/R2_02.pdf, 12/20/2001).
This multi-agency partnership in road infrastructure projects is likely to
have been continuously practiced onwards since the year of the report. Hence, it
is likely possible that this has influenced the perceptions of the respondents.
Also, the partnership with the inclusion of legislators through the
congressional initiatives, dispels the observation of Medalla (1994) that nationally
funded projects may not be the priority of the LGUs and the regional
development council due to rivalry between local government officials and legi
slators (http://adb.org/Documents/Events/2004/Infrastructure_Development/Seco
nd-Work, 4/14/2003).
The perception would perhaps be more consistent if the LGUs had been
beneficiaries, or probably even currently, of the technical and credit assistance of
the national government. This kind of assistance is extended through the
Municipal Development Fund Office (MDFO) or government financial institutions
that channel financial resources to LGUs that are considered a better-off LGU
and have a sufficient debt-serving capacity under the financial scheme
of borrowing at high interest rates to access funds (www.adb.org/Documents/TA
Rs/PHI/r2_02pdf, 12/20/2001). The municipal development fund (MDF) was
created by law (PD No. 1914)) as a special revolving fund and eventually
became the sole long term financing mechanism for LGU access to credit (http://
www.bestpractices.org/cgi.bin/bp98.cgi?cmd=de, 5/17/2003).
The annual income of the municipal LGUs could be one factor that would
facilitate access to credit under the financing mechanism.
The three LGUs’ income classification as per DOF Order No. 32-01,
indicates their qualification under this borrowing scheme. LGUs of Agoo, La
Union and Cabugao, Ilocos Sur are classified second class, and San Fernando
City, La Union as a component city is classified third class (Regional Social and
Economic Trends 2003, NSCB Regional Division 1).
The recent income classification of 2005 reclassified Agoo, La Union and
Cabugao, Ilocos Sur to 1st income class on the bases of their average annual
incomes from CYs 2000-2003. First income class municipalities have an average
annual income (AAI) of P50M or more. Agoo’s average income was P53,
981,000.00, while Cabugao’s was P77,340,472.21 (DOF Order NO. 20 -05).
This new reclassification further provides an indication that Agoo, La
Union and Cabugao, Ilocos Sur had consistently given a big slice fund for
prioritization in programs and projects in infrastructure. The constructed and well
-maintained infrastructures apparently have eventually contributed tremendously
Table 5. Summary of Report of Appropriations in Infrastructure of the
Three
LGUs
LGU
Agoo, La Union
Sn. Fdo. City, L. U.
Cabugao, Ilocos Sur
2002
P2,890,080.00
P18,132,120.86
P6,085,000.00
2003
P8,859,207.18
P9,244,141.50
P7,995,000.00
2004
P6,877,633.99
P2,302,162.94
P5,435,000.00
Extracted from the reports of the three LGUs on Appropriations, Allotments, Expenditures and
Obligations for CY 2002-2004
to the increase in AAI. Agoo, La Union for instance had appropriated for capital
outlay, which covers construction/repair/maintenance of roads and bridges,
public building, livestock trading center, and government facilities,
P2,890,080.00M, P8,859,207.18M, and P6,877,633.99M for 2002, 2003, and
2004, respectively. Cabugao, Ilocos Sur on the other hand had P6,085,000.00,
P7,995,000.00, and P5,435,000.00, for 2002.2003, and 2004, respectively, for its
infrastructures (Table 5).
The infrastructure efforts of the LGUs seem to be closely or at par with the
infrastructure efforts of other LGUs in the country. Among the most notable
successful MPD projects were those of municipalities and cities in provinces like
Batangas, Bulacan, Metro Manila, Davao, Cebu, Palawan, Tacloban, Naga,
Surigao, and Bataan (http://www.bestpractices.org/cgi.bin/bp98.cgi?cmd=de,
5.17/2003).
Also consistent with the perception, would be of being grantees of fund
assistance from the Local Government Infrastructure Fund (LGIF), which is a
United States Assistance for Infrastructure Development (USAID)-Philippines
joint project that directly addresses high priority small-scale infrastructure
projects of LGUs.
A concrete example under this scheme is the case of Legaspi City whose
infrastructure projects were granted loan from USAID. The infrastructure
projects included the setting up of four modules of satellite market, a bus terminal
complete with amenities, and 3.8 kilometers of new city roads (www.globalink.ne
t.ph/-cpdoleg/projects.htm, 10/27/200).
In summary, the LGUs’ perceived “moderately high to high” level of priority
to infrastructure, is generally indicative of product of good visioning, and planning
of their respective local chief executives (LCEs), city/municipal councils, and
other stakeholders. This focus to infrastructures by the LGUs and their visions
clearly conforms with Asian Development Bank (ADB) report saying that
the infrastructures like roads, water supply systems, storage facilities, electricity,
ports and communications would not only increase agricultural productivity
but also facilitate a range of non-farm economic activities (www.adb.org/
Documents/News/1998/nr, 10/05/2004).
Health and Social Services
ANOVA results showed that insignificant differences exist as to the level of
priority development of LGUs in health and social services. It implies that the
LGUs had a uniform and/or a not so undifferentiated level of priority in HSS.
The Early Childhood Development Project that started 1998 and 2005 had
one component that provided program support for provincial local government
units. This included immunization package, child illness package, malnutrition
prevention and control package, parent effectiveness service package, and
a Grade 1 early child experience/early child development package (http://www.
worlbank.org/publicsector/decentralization, 10/19/2003).
The provincial local chief executive is a key to the success of the program
in his geographical political jurisdiction. At the same time, there has to be a good
working relationship, which in all instances dictated primarily by political party
affiliation and secondly by kinship.
Relative to this, the local chief executives of the city/municipal local
government units covered by the study and their respective provincial local chief
executives are close political allies. In Philippine politics, this is a political relationship that exists and it ensures of support of any forms, especially funding to p
rograms and projects. It is logical to assume that the LCEs of the city/municipal L
GUs would have been provided all the supports, especially financial, in the d
elivery of the HSS to their respective constituents. This might have directly c
ontributed to the good performance of the city/municipal LGUs in terms of prioritization, hence perceived appreciably high by their respective stakeholders.
The above-cited contention regarding the level of support of provincial
LGU to city/municipal LGUs like City of San Fernando is based on the fact that it
is a component city of the LGU Province of La Union. And LCEs of the two
levels of LGUs, including the Congressman of the Second District of La Union,
belong to one family clan and political party. Existing political culture in the
Philippines speaks of knitted support with one another among the family and/or
political party members especially in the furtherance of their service to their
respective constituencies.
This assumption could be substantiated by document on 2002 best
practices in local governance of the LGUs in Ilocos-Pangasinan region,
unpublished. The province of La Union was cited of its excellence in Early
Childhood Care and Development Program.
Relative to this, the City of San Fernando, La Union vied for the Gawad
Galing Pook 2005 (Appendix C) by highlighting its program “Basic Integrated
Approach on Good Governance” (BIAGG) for 2002-2004, which shows that
health and social services program is its priority (San Fernando City SocioEconomic Profile 2005).
Additionally of similar bearing to the level of priority for HSS of the City are
the legislative enactments by the Sangguniang Panlungsod for 2004 such as 1)
Ordinance No. 2004-1, 2) Ordinance No. 2004-002 and, 3) Ordinance No. 2004006.
The City has also a sanitary landfill, soon to be upgraded to an
Engineered Landfill. It is its showcase of an effective solid waste management
making it a model in the country and a popular eco-tour destination (San
Fernando City Socio-Economic Profile 2005). This has undoubtedly overcome
the observation that the technical know-how and appropriate technology for solid
waste management in fast-growing/developing cities and municipalities are very
wanting, and that the Philippine experience on sanitary landfill system,
engineering-wise and operation-wise is practically nil (www.serd.ait.ac.thump/op
5.pdf, 7/12/2004).
Agoo, La Union on the other hand, allotted 54.71percent of the
development fund as the annual average for CY 2002-2004 to health and social
services. This left less than one half of the fund for economic development and
infrastructure (Appendix D). This alone is a strong proof of the extent of priority
provided by the LGU to HSS, and will make the people feel of the impact, hence
the rating of “moderately high” by the respondents.
Other concrete proofs of the priority of health and social services program
of Agoo LGU are the national awards it received. Among these are in the areas
Agoo literacy and environment protection.
In addition to these are the enacted municipal ordinances that have direct
and indirect bearing to HSS such as a) Mun. Ord. No. 0-2002, b) Mun. Ord. No.
03-2003, c) Mun. Ord. No. 04-2003, and d) Mun. Ord. No. 04 (Agoo SocioEconomic Profile 2006).
Cabugao’s priority for health and services is best manifested by the
enactment of the two municipal codes such as Municipal Code 2002-3 and
Municipal Code 2002-2 (“Intayon Cabugao”, a document submitted to RDC,
Region 1 for its bid for Galing Pook Award 2005).
In addition are the awards received as further proofs like (a) Gawad
Galing Pook, (b) Cleanest and Greenest Municipality 2003, (c) Outstanding Local
Government Unit 2003, and (d) Cleanest and Healthiest Public Market in Region
1 (Intayon Cabugao, 2006).
Also, implementation completion report in another World Bank-assisted
Philippine project “The Women's Health and Safe Motherhood Project”, tells a
successful implementation that the researcher perceived it had surely covered
too the LGUs in the study. This was approved 9 March 1995 and closed 30 June
2002. It aimed to improve the health status of women, with particular focus
on women of reproductive age, and thereby support the Government's longterm goals of reducing fertility, female morbidity and maternal mortality.
Service data in project barangays showed increases in utilization between
1996 and 2001 for all key services - prenatal visits; postpartum care; iron, Vitamin A and iodine supplementation. Rates of increase ranged from 14 percent
for post-partum visits to 302 percent for iodine supplementation (http://www.
worlbank.org/publicsector/decentralization, 10/19/2003).
This project is perceived by the researcher to have provided the impact to
continuing health care service delivery of the three (3) LGUs, considering that the
different areas of health care service in the LGUs have been given similar
perception on level of priority by their respective four groups of
stakeholders/respondents. Again, the researcher would venture to speculate that
the municipal LGUs had and continue to be a recipient up to now even the
program is already closed, through their PLCEs, of financial support of the
national government in health care delivery. The LCEs of the provincial and
municipal LGUs and the national leadership are very close political allies too.
Agriculture Cooperative and Livelihood Development
ANOVA shows that significant differences exist in the level of prioritization
of the LGUs in terms of agriculture cooperative and livelihood development.
Further test using Scheffe (Table 4) indicated that Cabugao, Ilocos Sur placed
higher level of priority than Agoo, La Union and San Fernando City, La Union
with the latter LGU (San Fernando City) as the least.
Such findings is not surprising since Cabugao, Ilocos Sur is predominantly
an agriculture-based municipality (www.com.intayoncabugao, 3/17/2005) as
compared to Agoo, La Union and San Fernando City, La Union, which although
the main source of income/livelihood is agriculture (San Fernando SocioEconomic Profile 2005, and Agoo Socio-Economic Profile 2006), are apparently
considered the booming centers of commerce/industrial development and
education in La Union.
Present profiles of these three LGUs in the area of commerce and
industry, and education suggest that San Fernando City, La Union and Agoo, La
Union have a tremendous edge over Cabugao, Ilocos Sur.
San Fernando City, La Union, in particular, remains as the center of socioeconomic development activities in Region 1. In Relation to the region, San
Fernando is identified in the Northwestern Luzon Growth Quadrangle
Development Program or North Quad to be the center of the Quad Central. It is
the center of commerce and trade, transportation and communication and,
finance and governance.
Updated records showed that there are 5,004 business establishments
operating in the City of San Fernando. (San Fernando City Socio- Economic
Profile 2005).
Agoo LGU is tailing closely the LGU San Fernando City. It has big state
and private universities/colleges and schools. It has 65 industry-related business.
In the Regional Physical Framework Plan for Region 1, the Agoo LGU is
identified as a minor urban center. It shall be a trade and commerce center,
administrative district, higher education center, tourism center and hub of interregional transport route. For the calendar year 2006, the LGU was elevated to a
first class municipality (Agoo Socio-Economic Profile 2006).
The agriculture-based economically booming Cabugao LGU has farming
and fishing as the main occupations. It is the second top Virginia tobacco
producer in the province (Intayon Cabugao, 2006 – submitted to RDC Region 1
as supporting document in its bid for 2005 Gawad Galing Pook award).
It has a new market complex, the Northern Ilocos Sur Trade Center
(NISTC). The NISTC was built in a three-hectare lot right at the center of the
municipality’s geographical jurisdiction and is groomed to become a trading
center of the North. It was inaugurated on March 22, 2002, and also its first day
of trading and business (Intayon Cabugao, 2006).
Cabugao, Ilocos Sur has three irrigation systems that sustain the
agriculture activities. These are the Simabusa-Nagbayruangan Communal
Irrigation System, Gaco Dam Communal Irrigation System, and Sisim-Alinaay
Communal Irrigation System (Cabugao Socio-Economic Profile).
Comparison of Overall Means on the Level of
Priority Per Program/Project in the AIPs
Across the Three LGUs
Table 6 shows the results of the Analysis of Variance of overall means on
the level of priority per program/project in the AIPs across the three LGUs.
ANOVA results show that there are no significant differences on the
overall means on the priority level for the projects/indicators in areas of
infrastructure, and agriculture cooperative and livelihood development (ACLD) of
AIPs across the three LGUs. This indicates that LGUs had put equal importance
on all the projects/indicators in their development efforts, and recognized as
priority needs of the LGUs’ constituents.
The insignificant differences of the overall mean perceptions of the groups
of respondents on the level of priority of the three selected LGUs in infrastructure, and agriculture, cooperative and livelihood development seem to
reconcile with the regional infrastructure and economic development situationer
for 2001-2003. The three LGUs are assumed to must have had contributed
significantly to the regional data.
Some of the projects/indicators in the AIPs have been specifically cited in
the planning process for the Medium Term Regional Development Plan (MTRDP)
2005-2010. These are the infrastructure’s water supply and the ACLD’s high
value commercial crop, livestock production and fisheries program.
As to water supply, the situationer tells that the number of households
served with potable water supply increased by 15.6 percent from 661, 950 in
2001 to 765,121 in 2003. An additional 103, 171 households were provided
access to potable water supply during the three-year period or an average of 51,
585 households per year. In terms of irrigation coverage, the number of hectares
provided with irrigation water in the region increased by 10 percent from 20012003. The actual irrigation service area increased from 152, 875 hectares in
2001 to 168, 804 hectares in 2003 or an average increase of 7,964.50 hectares
per year.
Table 6. Comparison of Overall Means of Perceptions of Groups of
Respondents
on the Level of Priority Per Program/Project in the AIPs
Across the
Three LGUs
Groups
Mean
Infrastructure
Barangay roads and bridges
Health center
Barangay hall
Day care center
Shore protection/river control
Water supply
Post-harvest facilities
Communal toilet/comfort room
Health and Social
Services
Immunization
Nutritional status
Micronutrient supplementation
Prenatal and post partum care
Cases and treatment of notifiable
Diseases
Agricultural Cooperative
and livelihood Dev’t.
Ginintuang ani
High value commercial crop
Livestock production
Fisheries program
Support programs
Regulatory programs
Extension
Community training and employment
F
.763
p-value
.626
3.749*
.041
.131
.994
2.78 a
3.39 a
3.43 a
3.44 a
3.78 b
*Significant
Means with same letters are significantly different at 0.05 level of significance
Also, the situationer tells that, overall, the agriculture production registered
growth rate of 33.93 percent during the 2001-2003 period. Except for grains
production (rice and corn), all positively increased in the average with the
livestock posting the highest annual average growth of 79.39 percent. Likewise,
in MT/Hectare the average productivity of the agri subsector is pegged at 3.30
with the high value cash crop showing greater average of 7.89 and the livestock
with the least at 0.04. And accordingly, support for the Agriculture and Fishery
Modernization Act (AFMA) and Fishery Resource Management Project (FRMP)
continued. Despite being under-funded, it led to positive agriculture sector growth
(Region 1 Ilocos-Pangasinan Regional Development Plan 2004-2010).
The ANOVA results in area of health and social services of AIPs show that
there are significant differences on the overall means of the groups of
respondents on level of priority for projects/indicators across the three LGUs.
Further test using Scheffe (Table 6) shows that immunization (HSS 1st
project/indicator) is significantly different from “cases and treatment of notifiable
diseases” (5th project/indicator), but not significantly different from other
projects/indicators.
The findings suggest that the groups of respondents perceived that the
three selected LGUs gave priority to all the projects/indicators of HSS, though
immunization was given more priority when compared to “cases and treatment of
notifiable diseases”.
This indication seems to agree with existing report data. In the survey
questionnaire of the study, one of the sub-indicators under immunization is
“pregnant mothers immunized against tetanus”. In the 2005 Regional Social and
Economic Trends (RSET) Ilocos Region report, these are sub-indicators tetanus
neonatorum and tetanus in the reported cases of notifiable diseases by
province/city. These reflected an average rate of 2.35 and 3 in the years 2000
and 2001, respectively. The rate is per 100,000 population. However, in 20022004, there were no cases reflected in the report (RSET 2005). The zero rate
during the period for immunization program by province/city in Region I is
indicative of really a high priority in the preceding years of every municipal and
city LGU, hence it would also imply to mean acceptably true to the three selected
LGUs.
Comparing with other sub-indicators with their corresponding rates under
notifiable diseases as reflected in 2005 RSET, the immunization seems
indicatively far better. However, it should be noted that the figures below are in
decreasing trend, which would imply that these were effectively planned and
implemented. Diarrhea was 908.4 and 845.5 in 2000 and 2001, respectively, and
852.7, 870.7, 693.0 in 2002, 2003 and 2004, respectively. Pneumonia was 529.9
and 508.6 in 2000 and 2001, respectively, and 477.6, 539.0, 395.3 in 2002, 2003
and 2004, respectively.
Level of Collaboration Among LGU, DH, SB, BS, and SA
in Planning and Implementation of the
Annual Investment Plan
Infrastructure, Health and Social Services, Agriculture
Cooperative and Livelihood Development
Table 7 shows the summary of ratings of the four sets of respondents in
the three model local government units (LGUs) on their perceptions on the level
of collaboration in planning and implementation of programs/projects in the areas
of infrastructure, health and social services, and agriculture cooperative and
livelihood development. The four sets of respondents were the department heads
(DH), members of the sangguniang bayan (SB), business sector (BS), and the
school administrators (SA).
Agoo LGU
Infrastructure - The means of perceptions of the four groups of
respondents – department heads (DH), sangguniang bayan (SB), business
sector (BS), school administrators (SA) - on the level of collaboration among
stakeholders - LGU, BS, and SA - in planning and implementation range from
2.63 for the project/indicator water supply to 3.77 for health center. The latter and
including barangay roads and bridges, barangay hall, and day care center were
each descriptively perceived as high (H) collaborated. The other
projects/indicators were each descriptively perceived as moderately high (MH))
collaborated.
The section mean of the perceptions for the projects/indicators is 3.21,
and descriptively, it is moderately high (MH) collaborated.
Health and Social Services - Means range from 2.67 for project/indicator
cases and treatment of notifiable diseases to 3.25 for project/indicator
immunization. All projects/indicators were each perceived by the groups of
respondents to have been collaborated moderately high in terms of planning
Table 7. Level of Collaboration of LGU, DH, SB, BS, and SA in Planning
and
Implementation AIPs’ Programs/Projects.
AG
SFC
CA
OM
DE
3.49
3.77
3.60
3.60
2.96
2.63
2.85
2.80
3.21
3.57
3.61
3.55
3.84
3.41
3.50
3.62
3.75
3.60
4.02
4.35
4.18
4.07
3.70
3.64
3.75
3.86
3.95
3.69
3.91
3.78
3.84
3.26
3.26
3.41
3.46
3.59
H
H
H
H
MH
MH
H
H
H
A. Immunization
B. Nutritional Status
C. Micronutrient Supplementation
D. Prenatal and Post Partum Care
E. Cases and Treatment of Notifiable Diseases
Section Mean
3.25
3.03
2.86
2.94
2.67
2.96
3.62
3.49
3.36
3.07
3.14
3.34
3.84
3.77
3.60
3.65
2.93
3.56
3.57
3.43
3.27
3.22
2.91
3.29
H
H
MH
MH
MH
MH
AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE
AND LIVELIHOOD DEVELOPMENT
A. Ginintuang Ani
B. High Value Commercial Crops
C. Livestock Production
D. Fisheries Program
2.86
2.98
2.62
2.63
3.34
3.13
3.23
3.38
3.58
3.75
3.90
3.75
3.26
3.29
3.25
3.25
MH
MH
MH
MH
INFRASTRUCTURE
A. Barangay Roads and Bridges
B. Health Center
C. Barangay Hall
D. Day Care Center
E. Shore Protection/River Control
F. Water Supply
G. Post-Harvest Facilities
H. Communal Toilet/Comfort Room
Section Mean
HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES
E. Support Program
F. Regulatory Program
G. Extension
H. Community Training and Employment
Section Mean
2.95
2.67
2.87
2.82
2.80
3.01
3.21
3.23
3.07
3.20
3.76
3.79
3.58
3.47
3.70
3.24
3.22
3.23
3.12
3.23
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
Legend:
AG - Agoo
H – High
SFC – San Fernando City
OM – Overalll Means
CA – Cabugao
DE – Descriptive Equivalent
MH – Moderately High
and implementation.
The section mean is 2.96, a descriptively moderately high collaborated
planning and implementation of each of the projects/indicators among the
stakeholders.
Agricultural Cooperative and Livelihood Development - The means of
the perceptions range from 2.62 to 2.98, which fall in the description of
moderately high collaborated planning and implementation of each of the
projects/indicators among the stakeholders. The section mean is 2.80, which
means a moderately high collaborated planning and implementation of the
projects/indicators among the stakeholders.
San Fernando City LGU
Infrastructure - The means of the perceptions of the four groups of
respondents range from 3.41 for the P/I shore protection/river control to 3.84 for
the P/I day care center. All the projects/indicators were each perceived
descriptively as high collaborated in planning and implementation among the
stakeholders. The section mean is 3.60, which falls under the same descriptive
rating.
Health and Social Services - The lowest mean is 3.14, which is
descriptively moderately high collaborated, for P/I cases and treatment of
notifiable diseases, and the highest mean 3.62, which is descriptively high
collaborated, for P/I immunization. The section mean of the perception of the
respondents is 3.34, which descriptively means that all the projects/indicators
were moderately high collaborated in planning and implementation among the
stakeholders.
Agricultural Cooperative and Livelihood Development - The means of
the projects/indicators range from 3.07 for the P/I community training and
employment to 3.38 for the fisheries program. The grand average mean of
perceptions of the four groups of respondents is 3.20, which means descriptively
that the planning and implementation of the projects/indicators among the
stakeholders is moderately high.
Cabugao LGU
Infrastructure - The means of the perception of the respondents range
from 3.64, which is descriptively high collaborated, for P/I water supply to 4.35,
which is descriptively very high collaborated, for P/I health center. The grand
average mean is 3.95, which is descriptively high (H) collaborated planning and
implementation of the projects/indicator among the stakeholders.
Health and Social Services
The lowest mean 2.93, which is descriptively moderately high, for P/I
cases and treatment of notifiable diseases, and the highest mean is 3.84, which
is descriptively high (H), for P/I immunization. The grand average mean is 3.56,
which is descriptively high (H) collaborated planning and implementation of the
projects/indicators.
Agricultural Cooperative and Livelihood Development
The perceptions means range from 3.47 to 3.90, which descriptively in the
description of high (H) collaborated planning and implementation of
projects/indicators among the stakeholders. The grand average mean is 3.70,
which falls in the same descriptive rating.
Comparison on the Level of Collaboration Among the
LGU, DH, SB, BS, and SA in Planning and
Implementation of Programs/Projects
Table 8 shows the results of the Analysis of Variance on the level of
collaboration in planning and implementation of the development
programs/projects in AIPs in the areas of infrastructure, health and social
services, and agriculture cooperative and livelihood development of the three
selected LGUs.
Infrastructure
Results of the Analysis of Variance indicated significant variations (P<.01)
on the perceived level of collaboration of the LGUs with respect to infrastructure
planning and implementation. Further test employing Scheffe (Table 8) showed
that Cabugao’s collaboration level with DH, SB, BS, and SA in planning and
implementation of AIP is significantly higher than Agoo, though insignificantly
different (P<.05) with San Fernando City. Such findings suggest that the level of
high collaboration efforts of the different stakeholders of development in
Cabugao, Ilocos Sur and San Fernando City, La Union is triggered by the high
prioritization of the program/projects in these LGUs.
Also, these findings suggest that it disproves the report that politics
continued to influence the identification and prioritization of projects and that
project proposals are based mainly on the priorities and biases of local
executives. The perceived “high collaboration” indicates that the emergence of
Table 8. Comparison on the Level of Collaboration Among the LGUs, DH, SB,
BS, SA in Planning and Implementation of AIPs’ Programs/Projects
Groups
Infrastructure
Cabugao, I. S.
Agoo, L. U.
CSF, L. U.
Health and Social
Services
Cabugao, I. S.
Agoo, L. U.
SFC, L. U. l
Agriculture Cooperative
and Livelihood Dev’t.
Cabugao, I. S.
Agoo, L. U.
SFC. L. U.
Mean
F
11.578*
p-value
.000
3.95 b
3.21 a
3.60 a
6.132*
.015
6.611*
.000
3.55 b
3.95 a
3.33 ab
3.70 c
2.80 a
3.20 b
*Significant
Means with same letters are significantly different at 0.05 level of significance
these LGUs as government forces is occurring hand in hand with the emergence of active NGO’s and the other stakeholders (http://www..fao.org/DOCREP/
004/AC158E/ac158e0f.htm#bm15.1, 10/28/2004). Additionally, results of actions
are sustainable when community is sharing ideas and experiences with program
planners.
The
twoway exchange of information through people friendly and gender sensitive
interaction, leads to projects that respond best to the real need of users (Pasha,
1994). A significant level of people’s participation in local development process –
especially
in
the
planning
and implementation
of
programs - can result in effective and efficient delivery of services (http://www.
socialwatch.org/es/informeImpreso/pdfs/artiocle2001_phi.pdf, 11/08/2001). It too
indicates that the authorities have made consultation with the people and had
considered the following: a) establish clear priorities; (b) identify effective and
efficient strategies; and, (c) bring these together into clear action plans, the
progress of which can be monitored through appropriate performance indicators
and outcome measures (http://www.odpm. gov.uk/stellent/groups, 3/17/2004).
These conditions are best exemplified, as far as participation is
concerned, in two provinces that received the Galing Pook Award for effective
and efficient service: Bulacan province for Information System & Technology,
and Bohol province for Cultural Tourism and Investment Program. These two
provinces have been recipients of the Broadened Participation in Formulation
and Implementation of Public Policies in 1994-2001, which one of its foci is
to help LGUs become more democratic and more effective through incorporating
broad-based participation into governance via NGO involvement (http://www.fao.
org/DOCREP/004/AC158E/ac158e0f.htm#bm15.1).
Health and Social Services
ANOVA statistical findings showed that significant variations exists (P<.05)
on the level of collaboration of LGUs with respect to health and social services.
Scheffe test (Table 8) shows that Cabugao’s level of collaboration indicated
higher than Agoo, La Union but insignificantly (P<.05) different with San
Fernando City, La Union. Such findings indicate similar level of collaboration
effort of Cabugao, Ilocos Sur and San Fernando City, La Union as to Health and
Social Services planning and implementation.
This findings lead exactly to same premises cited corollary to the statistical
results in the area of infrastructure discussed above as follows: 1) that the high
prioritization level is triggered by the high collaboration efforts of the different
stakeholders of development in these LGUs, 2) that it disproves the report that
politics continued to influence the identification and prioritization of projects and
that project proposals are based mainly on the priorities and biases of local
executives, 3) that the perceived “high collaboration” indicates that the emergence of these LGUs as government forces is occurring hand in hand with the e
mergence of active NGO’s and the other stakeholders (http://www.fao.org/DOCR
EP/004/AC158E/ac158e0f.htm#bm15.1, 10/28/2004).
The premises could further be substantiated by the existing municipal
codes or ordinances of the LGUs that are directly and indirectly related to health
and social services. These are considered to have been worked-out based on
the concept of collaboration between LCEs, SBMs and other stakeholders. The
participation of stakeholders who are the electorates themselves and which
comprise of business group and academe among others, in the process of the
enactment of the ordinance may discourage the exercise of the power of
initiative. Local initiative is the legal process whereby the registered voters of a
local government unit may directly propose, enact, or amend any ordinance
(Nolledo, 1991). The stakeholders must have been properly consulted before the
enactment of an ordinance.
Cabugao LGU has the following collaboration outputs of: (1) Cabugao
Sanitation Code of 2002 which was enacted pursuant to provisions of LGC of
1991 (RA 7160) and PD 856 which mandates the Sangguniang
Bayan/Panglunsod to provide for efforts directed towards the protection and
promotion of health. (2) Cabugao Solid Waste Management Code of 2002, which
would aptly fall in the category of social services. This was enacted pursuant to
the provisions of the LGC of 1991, Section 447 (a) 5 (xiii) which mandates the
Sangguniang Bayan/Panglunsod to provide for an effective system of solid waste
and garbage collection in the search for 2005 Gawad Galing Pook Award).
San Fernando City, La Union on the other hand, has the following
ordinances and resolutions that are related to health and social services: (1) City
Ord. No. 2002-003, creation and establishment of an Office of Persons with
Disability Affairs. This proves the commitment of the city government to the plight
of the PWDs, (2) City Ord. No. 2004-006, an ordinance promulgating rules and
regulations for the protection of children in the city, (3) Res. No. 04-32, resolution
approving the application for accreditation of people’s organization, NGOs and
private sector for membership in the local special bodies of the city, (4) Res. No.
02-131, resolution adopting and endorsing the five-year development plan for
children, (5) City Ord. 2002-011, an ordinance penalizing owners and or
proprietors of internet cafes and computer services shops for leniency in
permitting minors to access pornographic websites in the internet, and (6) City
Ord. No. 2001-002, an ordinance prohibiting minors from smoking cigarettes and
any other tobacco product within the territorial jurisdiction of the City and
providing penalties thereof (City’s unpublished paper submitted to RDC Region 1
as a supporting paper in the search for 2005 Gawad Galing Pook award).
Agoo LGU has the following: 1) Mun. Ord. No. 04-2004, an ordinance
imposing minimal charges or fees for dental services in the Agoo Municipal
Health Office, 2) Mun. Ord. No. 04-2003 – an ordinance regulating the sale,
serving and drinking of alcoholic beverages in places of amusements, business
establishments and public places, and providing penalty for violation thereof; and
3) Mun. Ordinance 04-2003, an ordinance regulating smoking in public
conveyances, theaters, assembly halls, hospitals, schools and public offices
within the jurisdiction of the Municipality of Agoo, La Union, 4) Mun. Ord. No. 032002, an ordinance fully supporting and promoting the salt iodization program in
the Municipality of Agoo, La Union (Agoo Sangguniang Bayan Compiled
Ordinances/Resolutions).
In addition to these ordinances as evidences of good collaboration of the
stakeholders are the awards received by the Agoo LGU that have great bearing
to health and social services such as: 1) Hall of Fame Ilocos Region National
Literacy Awards. Most Outstanding Local Government Unit for Three
Consecutive Years from 2001-2003, 2) National Finalist and First Runner Up
(Cleanest and Greenest Municipality in the Philippines, Gawad Pangulo sa
Kapaligiran Municipal Category A) – 2002, 3) National Champion (National
Literacy Awards. Most Outstanding Local Government Unit. NFE Category) –
2002, 4) Regional Champion (Ilocos Region Cleanest and Greenest Municipality
in the Phils. Municipal Category A) – 2002, 5) Public Enterprise Development
Award Parangal Pangkabuhayan ng TLRC –2002, 6) National Finalist and First
Runner Up (Cleanest and Greenest Municipality in the Philippines Municipal
Category A) – 2001, and 7) National Finalist and First Runner Up 2001 ( National
Literacy Awards - Most Outstanding Local Government Unit, NFE Category)
(Agoo Socio-Economic Profile 2006).
Agriculture Cooperative and Livelihood Development
ANOVA results (Table 8) indicated significant difference (p<0.01) on the
level of collaboration between the municipalities with regard to agriculture
cooperative and livelihood development. Further test employing Scheffe (Table
4.b) indicated that the LGUs significantly differ, with Cabugao’s level of
collaboration higher than those of other two LGUs.
Such result strengthens and corroborates earlier findings (Table 4) that
Cabugao, Ilocos Sur gave much higher priority to agricultural cooperative and
livelihood than San Fernando City, La Union and Agoo, La Union. And this
indicates active participatory planning and implementation of AIP in agricultural
cooperative and livelihood of the different stakeholders of Cabugao LGU.
The practice of Cabugao LGU seems to parallel the Naga City experience
that led to the city’s recognition and inclusion in the best practices database in
improving the living environment. The database is a collection of best practices of
LGUs in different countries, rich and poor. The Naga City People’s Council
(NCPC) set the stage for what has been a revolutionary experiment in local
governance. It is a civil society counterpart to the City Council empowered to
work closely with the local government to design, implement and evaluate the
City’s development agenda (http://www.bestpractices.org/bbriefs/urban_governance, 10/05/2004).
On the other hand, San Fernando City, La Union remains to be the center
of socio-economic development activities in Region 1. It has gone not only local
but has started going international through its City Development Strategy (CDS).
The CDS was formulated under the technical assistance of the World
Bank and through the cooperation of NEDA and with active participation of the
different stakeholders, government agencies and NGOs. The CDS is the key that
opened the doors of the international institutions to extend assistance to the city
(San Fernando Socio-Economic Profile 2005).
Agoo LGU’s mean seems to indicate that it has a low level of collaboration
with the stakeholders, although has the same descriptive rating with San
Fernando City, La Union. However, looking at the performance of the LGU
through its municipal agriculture office, it had embarked in increasing crop and
livestock production through the following: rice production program/distribution
and certification program, livestock and poultry program, animal dispersal
program, fishery program, livelihood program, and organic farming/fertilizer
utilization program. All these programs are community-based or directed to
farmers in the rural, hence collaboration with the intended beneficiaries must
have effectively taken place. The collaboration is further shown by the active
partnership of an NGO, the KASAMA which is a SEC registered women/s
organization, with the LGU in livelihood projects such as candle making, soap
making, wall-décor and fan making. The funds for these projects were shared
between LGU and KASAMA ((Agoo Socio-Economic Profile 2006).
Overall, the practice of the LGUs in the area of collaboration with the
different stakeholders has generally led to the objective of developing the
capacities of local government units to promote sustainable development
practices through community involvement in planning and decision-making.
This practice’s success has been documented in the Province of
Guimaras. In 1994, the Provincial Government of Guimaras in partnership with
the Canadian Urban Institute (CUI) embarked on a community-based and multistakeholder development planning process involving all the three levels of local
governments (engaging a total of 102 local government units).
The project has been able to engage more than 5000 stakeholders from
national government agencies, local authorities, private sector and civil society in
a community-based planning and decision-making process. This process
resulted in the completion of strategic plans in all three levels of local
government: provincial, 5 municipalities and 96 barangays. The strategic plans
initiated in 1996 are providing directions for the local governments in mobilizing
human and financial resources for the various priority economic, environmental
and social development thrusts in the island province.
As a result of the outcomes and impacts of the Guimaras experience, the
CUI and the Province of Guimaras were asked to share their experiences in
three different places: Boracay Island, the Province of Aklan, and the Municipality
of Malay, Aklan Province (http://www.acturban.org/biennial/doc_net_comm/urban
_governance_briefs.htm, 3/29/2003).
The USAID program in the Philippines - Broadened Participation in
Formulation and Implementation of Public Policies is believed to have benefited
the three LGUs covered by study.
Under this program is the Governance and Local Democracy (GOLD)
activity that had institutionalized participatory development tools and approaches.
The LGUs under this program received the prestigious Galing Pook award
for effective and efficient public service (http://www.usaid.gov/pubs/cbj
2002/ane/ph/492-006.html, 5/21/2004).
Comparison on the Level of Collaboration Among LGU, DH, SB, BS,
and SA in Planning and Implementation of Per Project/Indicator
in Areas of Infrastructure, HSS, and ACLD in AIPs
Table 9 shows the results of the Analysis of Variance of the overall means
of perceptions of groups of respondents on the level of collaboration in planning
and implementation of the development programs/projects in AIPs across the
three selected LGUs.
ANOVA results show that there are no significant differences on the level
of collaboration in planning and implementation of each project/indicator in areas
of infrastructure, health and social services, and agricultural cooperative and
livelihood development across the three selected model LGUs.
This indicates that a uniform level of collaboration was observed in all the
projects/indicators in the areas of infrastructure, health and social services, and
agricultural and livelihood development. Looking at a different standpoint the
factors that were discussed to explain the differences in the perceived level of
collaboration of the three LGUs with the stakeholders of development, it would be
aptly appropriate too to consider them as points to explain the possible
implications of the ANOVA results above.
Discussions on the results of the comparisons of the perceptions on the
level of collaboration of LGUs in planning and implementation of programs/
projects in infrastructure, HSS, and ACLD are points to reckon. Although results
Table
of
of
9.
Comparison of Overall Means of Perceptions of Groups
Respondents on the Level of Collaboration in the Implementation
Programs/Projects in the AIPs Across the Three LGUs
Groups
F
.967
p-value
.486
Health and Social
Services
Cabugao, I. S.
Agoo, L. U.
SFC, L. U.
1.614
.245
Agricultural Cooperative
and livelihood Dev’t.
Cabugao, I. S.
Agoo, L. U.
SFC, L. U.
*Significant
.095
.998
Infrastructure
Cabugao, I. S.
Agoo, L. U.
SFC, L. U.
showed that Agoo LGU is a little lower than of San Fernando City LGU and
Cabugao LGU, these could be considered to imply that the three LGUs had a
generally uniform level of collaboration in planning and implementation of all the
projects/indicators under each of the three main areas of programs/projects in
the AIP. This premise holds true, especially in the areas of HSS and ACLD.
Under HSS, the LGUs had a number of ordinances that directly and indirectly
addressed the projects/indicators. While under the ACLD, the LGUs had
economic activities that directly and indirectly dealt with the projects/indicators.
In another perspective that deals on the per province accomplishment
data on the areas of HSS, and ACLD, it would be assumed that the three LGUs
had significant contributions.
Under HSS projects/indicators nutritional status, and cases of notifiable
diseases, the data below (Table 10) show that there was a generally consistent
number of children weighed, and a decreasing rate of reported cases of notifiable
diseases, respectively, from 2002-2004. The trends in figure for both
projects/indicators would mean that these were successfully addressed as a
result of close collaboration of the LGUs.
Under ACLD projects/indicators ginintuang ani, high value crops, and
livestock production, the 2002-2004 RSET data presented in Table 10 show
good production performance of the provinces of Ilocos Sur and La Union.
2002
Ilocos Sur La Union
2003
Ilocos Sur La Union
2004
Ilocos Sur La Union
86,066
87,536
76,882
HSS
Nutritional Status
High No. of Children
Weighed
Notifiable Diseases
Reported Cases
(Rate per 1,000,000
population)
ACLD
Ginintuang Ani
Rice (k)
Corn (k)
95,526
SFC
21,663
95,208
SFC
18,621
80,179
SFC
19,621
606.48
195.85
489.33
186.65
352.62
98.07
142,440
26,471
114,934
10,556
156,934
28,708
110,208
13,641
155,662
30,298
117,185
17,822
High Value Crops (k)
53,880
28,595
53,510
30,537
57,554
32,921
Livestock Program
(k)
895,276
1,239,719
1,086,434
1,589,999
1,259,638
1,571,361
Table 10. Health and Agriculture Production Status in Ilocos Sur and La Union
Data extracted from the 2005 Regional Social and Economic Trends (RSET), Ilocos Region
For La Union, the ginintuang ani production was within the range of 100
thousand kilos t0 135 thousand kilos, while in livestocks it reached close to
maximum of 1.6 M kilos. Ilocos Sur on the other hand, had a ginintuang ani
production within the range of 160 thousand to 180 thousand kilos, and
livestocks production with a maximum close to 1.3 M kilos.
This would imply too that the three LGUs had significantly performed in
the attainment of the production levels as a result of their collaboration efforts
with the stakeholders.
The data show that there as a generally sustained increment in the levels
of production of the two provinces, hence, would imply the same trend in the
three selected LGUs.
Level of Effectiveness in the Implementation of Annual Investment Plan
Table 11 shows the summary of the ratings of the four sets of respondents
in the three model local government units (LGUs) on their perception on the level
of effectiveness in implementation of the AIP’s programs/projects in the areas of
infrastructure, health and social services, and agriculture cooperative and
livelihood development.
The level of effectiveness of implementation of the annual investment plan
is assessed through the perceptions of the groups of respondents on the benefits
contributed by the programs/projects implemented.
Agoo LGU
Infrastructure - The means of the perceptions of the respondents range
from 3.07 for benefit “improved supply of potable and irrigation water” to 3.46 for
benefit “enhanced intellectual, physical, spiritual and cultural well-being of
community residents”.
The means have descriptive ratings that range from effective (E) to highly
effective (HE). The was 3.32, which means that there were effective (E) benefits
contributed in the implementation of the projects/indicators under infrastructure.
Health and Social Services - The lower mean is 3.26 for benefit
“improved nutritional status of pre-school-age children”, and the higher mean is
3.41 for benefit “improved health of community residents specially children and
pregnant mothers and reduced incidents of illnesses, diseases and death”. The
grand mean is 3.33, which is descriptively an effective (E) benefits contributed by
the implementation of the projects/indicators.
Agriculture Cooperative and Livelihood Development - The range of
the means is from 3.11 to 3.33, falling under descriptive rating of effective (E).
The grand mean is 3.23, which descriptively mean an effective (E) benefits
contributed by the implementation of projects/indicators under ACLD.
San Fernando City LGU
Infrastructure - The means of the perception of the groups of
respondents range from 3.07, which is descriptively rated effective (E), for the
benefit “enhanced intellectual, physical, spiritual and cultural well-being of
community residents” to 3.76, which is descriptively a highly effective (HE), for
benefit “faster travel time/movement of people”.
Table 11. Level of Effectiveness of Implementation of AIPs’ Programs/Projects
Benefits Contributed
INFRASTRUCTURE
Benefits Contributed by Infra Projects
1) Improved marketing of agr’l. projects
2) Faster travel time/movement of people
3) Improved agricultural production
4) Improved supply of potable and irrigation water
5) Improved health and sanitation
6) Improved protection of life, property and agr’l.
crop
7) Enhanced intellectual, physical, spiritual
and cultural well-being of community residents
Section Mean
.
HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES
Benefits Contributed by HSS
1) Improved health of community residents
specially children and pregnant mothers, and
reduced incidents of illnesses, diseases
AG
SFC
CA
OM
DE
3.42
3.39
3.12
3.07
3.43
3.48
3.76
3.44
3.52
3.50
3.53
3.70
3.47
3.58
3.72
3.48
3.62
3.34
3.39
3.55
HE
HE
E
E
HE
3.33
3.28
3.44
3.35
E
3.46
3.32
3.07
3.44
3.80
3.61
3.44
3.45
HE
HE
and deaths
2) Improved nutritional of pre-school-age
children
Section Mean
AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE
AND LIVELIHOOD DEVELOPMENT
Benefits Contributed by ACLD
1) Increased agr’l. production, employment
and income
2) Improved health of livestock/poultry animals
and reduced incidents of livestock/poultry
disease
3) Improved health protection of community
residents
4) Improved environmental protection and
conservation of natural resources
(forest, land, marine, etc.)
5) Increased access top credit/financing
6) Enhancement of knowledge, skills,
awareness and leadership opportunities
Section Mean
3.23
3.41
3.36
3.29
3.39
E
3.26
3.34
2.90
3.13
3.19
3.24
3.12
3.24
E
E
3.11
3.16
3.31
3.19
E
3.29
3.12
3.44
3.28
E
3.33
3.06
3.24
3.21
E
3.20
3.28
2.93
2.91
3.46
3.39
3.20
3.19
E
E
3.17
3.05
3.11
3.46
3.83
3.25
3.37
E
E
Legend:
AG - Agoo
OM – Overalll Means
H – High
SFC – San Fernando City
DE – Descriptive Equivalent
MH – Moderately High
CA – Cabugao
Health and Social Services - The lower mean is 2.90 and the higher
mean is 3.36, all falling under the descriptive equivalent of effective (E). The
grand average mean is 3.23. This would imply a successful delivery of health and
social services.
Agriculture Cooperative and Livelihood Development - The range of
the means is from 2.91 to 3.16, which is descriptively equivalent to effective (E).
The grand average mean is 3.05. This would imply a tremendous impact of the
programs/projects in the ACLD to the people, particularly the farmers group.
Cabugao LGU
Infrastructure - The range of the means of perceptions of the
respondents is from 3.44 to 3.80, which fall in descriptive rating equivalent of
highly effective (HE). The grand average mean is 3.61. This would imply a
successful impact of the LGU’s programs/projects to the people.
Health and Social Services - Both benefits contributed by HSS
implementation had means equivalent to descriptive rating of effective (E). The
grand average mean is 3.24. This means a great benefit of the programs/projects
was enjoyed by the people.
Agricultural Cooperative and Livelihood Development - The range is
from 3.24, which is descriptively equivalent to effective (E), to 3.83, which is
descriptively equivalent to highly effective (HE). The grand average mean is 3.46,
which is descriptively equivalent to highly effective (HE). This implies that the
people, particularly the farmers group have benefited tremendously from the
programs/projects.
Comparison on the Level of Effectiveness of Implementation
of AIP’s Programs/Projects in the Areas of
Infrastructure, HSS, and ACLD
Table 12 shows the results of the Analysis of Variance on the level of
effectiveness in implementation of the development programs/projects in AIPs of
the three selected LGUs in the areas of infrastructure, health and social services,
and agriculture cooperative and livelihood development.
Infrastructure
ANOVA finding shows that significant variation (p<.05) exists on the level
of effectiveness of implementation of AIP’s infrastructure by the three selected
LGUs.
Scheffe results (Table 12) indicated that similar level of effectiveness exist
(p>.05) between Agoo LGU and San Fernando City LGU, and between San
Fernando City LGU and Cabugao LGU, with the latter municipality (Cabugao)
exhibited higher level of effectiveness as to implementation of infrastructure
programs.
In terms of effectiveness thru budget, the implication contradicts the data
below (Table 13), which show that Cabugao LGU might had the lowest allocation
for infrastructure for 2003-2004 when it would be based from the 2005-2006
allocation as the point of inference. However, the researcher would interpret the
perceived effectiveness as due to the actual presence of big infrastructures like
the NISTC and the Pres. Sergio Osmeña Bridge among others.
These indicate that Cabugao, Ilocos Sur was perking up to its
infrastructure programs cited earlier in the topic on priority programs and
projects, possibly towards industrial development or at least in support to its
agricultural development thrust.
Table 12. Comparison on the Level of Effectiveness in the Implementation
of AIP’s Programs/Projects in the Areas of Infrastructure, HSS
and ACLD.
Groups
Infrastructure
Cabugao, I S.
Agoo, L. U.
SFC, L. U.
Health and Social
Services
Cabugao, I S.
Agoo, L. U.
SFC, L. U.
Mean
F
p-value
.147*
4.932
.517
.641
3.61 b
3.31 a
3.44 a
3.30 a
3.31 a
3.28 a
Agricultural Cooperative
and livelihood Dev’t.
Cabugao, I S.
Agoo, L. U.
SFC, L. U.
11.772*
.001
3.45 b
3.23 ab
3.05 a
*Significant
Means with same letters are significantly different at 0.05 level of significance
Table 13.
Three
Summary of Budget Appropriation
Selected LGUs (In Million Pesos)
LGU
2003
2004
Agoo, L. U.
SFC, L. U.
Cabugao, I. S.
120,937,000
48,399,000
75,423,716
34,745,900
in
Infrastructure
of
the
2005
2006
3,986,412
4,500,000
Extracted from the Annual Development Plans of the LGUs
In general, the perception implies that client satisfaction was attained
because the projects are successful and satisfied the needs of their intended
users/beneficiaries (Pinto and Kharbanda, 1995).
It could be safe to cite here that all the LGUs, especially Cabugao, have
the capability to duplicate the experience of GOLD-assisted PLGUs that received
the prestigious Galing Pook award for effective and efficient public service in the
area of infrastructure: Bulacan province for Information Systems and Technology;
Bohol province, for cultural tourism and investment promotion (http://www.usaid.
gov/pubs/cbj 2002/ane/ph/492-006.html, 5/21/2004. Effectiveness and efficiency
of LGU should not be hampered by financial matter, and financial adversity
should be surmounted by the extra efforts exerted by LCE in sourcing
funds from external sources in attaining the developmental objectives as
exemplified by Alburquerque, Bohol (www.sunstar.com.ph.index/html,6/18/2005).
Health and Social Services
ANOVA test revealed no significant differences (P>.05) existed on the
level of effectiveness of implementing health and social services among the three
(3) LGUs. Such findings indicated that the LGUs implemented the programs at
similar level of effectiveness.
The perceived uniform level of effectiveness of implementing the HSS
could have been affected by the impact of a project to the LGUs. The project
must have successfully put in place all its objectives, especially the letters b and
c of the following paragraph below. Further, the project is believed to have
developed a sense of commitment and responsibility to the LGUs to continue its
implementation on their own initiative and funding after its closure.
The USAID Urban Health and Nutrition Project was approved on June 8,
1993, and closed on June 30, 2001. The project's development objectives were
to (a) improve the health and nutrition status of slum-dwellers in the project cities;
(b) build the capacity of city and municipal governments to plan, finance and
implement cost-effective slum health and nutrition programs, in partnership with
communities, NGOs and the Department of Health (DOH); (c) help slum
communities identify their own health, nutrition and environmental problems and
participate in planning, implementing and monitoring appropriate interventions
(http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/EASTASIAPACIFICEXIT/EXTEAPREGTOPHEANUT/0, 10/16/2003).
The City of San Fernando, La Union is officially nationally recognized to
be effective in health and social services through the award of the City Mayor
Mary Jane C. Ortega as 2004 Most Outstanding City Mayor of the Philippines in
the Field of Social Welfare and Development.
One of the credentials submitted for the award was the Program
Appropriation and Obligation by Object for 2003 and 2004 that specify the
objects of expenditures and costs of programs (Table 14).
The City vied for the 2005 Galing Pook Award and has submitted the
same set of data as one of its credentials. The City’s financial profile of its
program “Basic Integrated Approach on Good Governance” (BIAGG) for 20022004 shows that health and social services program is its priority. A significant
Table 14. Summary of Expenditures in Health Care Services of San
Fernando
City, La Union.
Object of Expenditures
Program for Women
Nutrition Program
Program for the Children
Medicare Para sa Masa thru
the Philhealth Insurance Corp.
2003
P321,757.90
P245,807.50
P1,442,243.00
P 999,745.00
2004
P300,000.00
P1,680,000..00
P2,187,000.00
P1,797,36o.00
accomplishment of the program during the third quarter of 2004 is the operation
of five (5) lying-in clinics in 5 barangays on a 24-hour operations (San Fernando
City Socio-Economic Profile 2005).
For Agoo LGU, among the other concrete proofs of the effectiveness of
health and social services program are the national awards it received. Agoo was
the 2003 awardee of the National Gawad Pangulo sa Kapaligiran and among the
top three national finalist in 2004. Also, it is the national champion for three
consecutive years, 2002-2004, as the Most Outstanding Local Government Unit
(Municipal Level Class A) in national literacy (Agoo Socio-Economic Profile
2006).
Cabugao LGU’s proofs include the awards it received in relation to health
and social services: 1) Gawad Galing Pook – national finalist 2004 for project
Oplan Clean Living, 2) Cleanest and Greenest Municipality 2003 (Provincial
Level) for Search for Gawad Pangulo sa Kapaligiran, 3) Outstanding Local
Government Unit 2003 for Search for Healthy Lifestyle Award, and 4) Cleanest
and Healthiest Public Market in Region I for Search for Healthy Places - 2003 &
2004 (Intayon Cabugao, 2006).
It is very likely that all the three LGUs, especially the City of San
Fernando, La Union would duplicate the Gawad Galing Pook award of Nueva
Vizcaya province for effective and efficient service for its health sector quality
improvement program. Nueva Viscaya was a GOLD-assisted LGU
(http://www.usaid.gov/pubs/cbj 2002/ane/ph/492-006.html, 5/21/2004).
Agricultural Cooperative and Livelihood Development
Results of the ANOVA on the level of effectiveness of implementation on
Agriculture Cooperative and Livelihood Development showed significant
differences (P<.01). Further test (Table 12) revealed that Cabugao’s
implementation level is significantly higher than Agoo, La Union but insignificantly
different (P>.05) from San Fernando City, La Union. Such findings imply that
although industrial development is apparent in the City of San Fernando, La
Union and Cabugao, Ilocos Sur, agricultural development is given similar if not
equal attention, hence an agro-industrial based approach is still the forefront of
economic activities of the two LGUs in their thrust of leapfrogging economic
development.
The main source of income and livelihood of the City of San Fernando, La
Union is agriculture. Data from the Office of the City Agriculture for the CY 2004
revealed that the total area planted to rice is 2,055 hectares, consisting of 450
hectares fully irrigated, 1,350 hectares rainfed and 255 hectares palagad. Other
crops are planted to 25 hectares, mongo to 165 hectares, peanut to 275
hectares, fruit vegetables to 260 hectares, leafy vegetables to 55 hectares, root
crops to 40 hectares, fruit tree crops to 151 hectares. The main commercial/cash
crop cultivated during summer is tobacco. National Tobacco Administration
(NTA) disclosed that for CY 2004, 646 hectares are planted to tobacco (San
Fernando City Socio-Economic Profile 2005).
Cabugao, Ilocos Sur has a new market complex, the Northern Ilocos Sur
Trade Center (NISTC) groomed to become a trading center of the North.
The NISTC complex houses among others what is termed “Bagsakan”,
where traders of agricultural and related products from other provinces and
regions as far as the National Capital Region (NCR) from the south and Cagayan
from the north, converge for scheduled period of time during every quarter period
of the year. The complex must be one of the economic elements that boost the
intensification of agricultural activities of its people, hence the perceived “higher
level of priority in agricultural cooperative and development. Main agriculturalbased products are tobacco and rice (Cabugao’s unpublished article – Northern
Ilocos Sur Trade Center - submitted to RDC Region 1 as supporting document in
its bid for 2005 Gawad Galing Pook award). Cabugao is the top producer of
hybrid corn in Ilocos Sur as of 2005, with more than 350 has. of land devoted to
corn annually (www.com.intayon cabugao, 3/17/2005).
The two LGUs are very likely to follow Dumaguete City as a recipient of
Gawad Galing Pook award for effective and efficient service for its integrated
livelihood and ecological program; and the municipality of Looc, Romblon for
coastal resource management. Dumaguete City was a GOLD assisted LGU (http
://www.usaid.gov/pubs/cbj 2002/ane/ph/492-006.html, 5/21/2004).
Comparison on the Level of Effectiveness in
Implementation of Programs/Projects in
the AIPs Across the Three
Selected Model LGUs
Table 15 shows the results of the Analysis of Variance on the level of
effectiveness in implementation of the development programs/projects in AIPs
across the three selected LGUs.
ANOVA results show that there are no significant differences in the overall
means of perceptions of the groups of respondents on the level of effectiveness
of implementation of programs/projects in infrastructure, health and social
services, and agricultural cooperative and livelihood development across the
three selected LGUs.
Infrastructure
Agoo LGU - The second benefit “faster travel time/movement of people”
is believed to have been the presence of adequate roads for rural areas, which
have a road length of 25.59 km. and met the required standard length of rural
road. To date, road conditions is satisfactory, this being maintained by the LGU,
DPWH, and the Provincial Engineering Office.
The third and fourth benefit “improved agricultural production” and
“improved supply of potable and irrigation water”, respectively, are believed to
have been brought about by the surface water system of the LGU that comes
from the NIA-Masalip Irrigation System (Aringay River) located at Tubao, La
Union, and its irrigation facilities located at San Jose Norte, Agoo, La Union.
Table 15. Comparison of Overall Means of Perceptions of Groups
of
Respondents on the Level of Effectiveness of Programs/Projects
in
the AIPs Across the Three Selected LGUs
Benefits Contributed
F
p-value
Infrastructure
.692
.660
.320
.082
Improved marketing of agr’l. projects
Faster travel time/movement of people
Improved agricultural production
Improved supply of potable and irrigation water
Improved health and sanitation
Improved protection of life, property and agr’l.
crop
Enhanced intellectual, physical, spiritual
and cultural well-being of community residents
Health and Social
Services
Improved health of community residents
specially children and pregnant mothers, and
reduced incidents of illnesses, diseases
and deaths
Improved nutritional of pre-school-age
children
Agricultural Cooperative
and livelihood Dev’t.
.404
.837
Increased agr’l. production, employment
and income
Improved health of livestock/poultry animals
and reduced incidents of livestock/poultry
disease
Improved health protection of community
residents
Improved environmental protection and
conservation of natural resources
(forest, land, marine, etc.)
Increased access top credit/financing
Enhancement of knowledge, skills,
awareness and leadership opportunities
*Significant
In fifth benefit – “improved health and sanitation”, this is believed to have
been the impact of the following projects in place: a) 12 barangay health centers,
b) I main rural health center, and 3) 47 day care centers in the 49 barangays,
which comprise of 14 urban barangays and 35 rural barangays (Agoo SocioEconomic Profile 2006).
It is in the seventh benefit contributed by infrastructure projects that
apparently seems to manifest its impact – “the benefit of enhanced intellectual,
physical, spiritual and cultural well-being of community residents”. The most
viable proof would be the award of “Most Outstanding Local Government Unit
(Municipal Level Class A) in the National Literacy Awards”. Agoo, La Union was
the national champion awardee for three consecutive years, from 2002 to 2004.
Agoo, La Union was cited for having a Municipal Development Plan that
clearly describes its visions/goals on non-formal education and continuing
education, transforming it into a substantially specific initiatives and
corresponding resource allocations in its Annual Investment Plan such as among
others, (1) scholarship for indigent youth, (2) community learning centers, and (3)
establishment of Municipal VocTech Center. It has also its first LGU-funded
public high school, the President Elpidio Quirino National High School Annex
(PEQNHS-Annex), which was renamed Don Eufemio F. Eriguel Memorial
National High School (DEFEMNHS) (Agoo Socio-Economic Profile 2006).
San Fernando City LGU - Accomplishment report 2003 of San Fernando
City (City of San Fernando Library) had the following data to substantiate the
assumption being considered.
In the benefit of “faster travel time/movement of people”, the following is
believed to have contributed considerably - concreting of barangay roads – Don
Teodoro Street, Carlatan, and barangay road Apaleng – costing a total of
P1,377,899.41 (Appendix E). A detailed report of accomplishments further shows
proof of the perceived effectiveness in the implementation of infrastructure
projects/indicators of San Fernando City. In the City’s Accomplishment Report
2004 (Appendix F), the infrastructure projects/indicators that might have
addressed significantly the benefit of “faster travel time/movement of people”
were the concreting and widening of barangay roads, construction of slope
protection, and installation of cross drainage.
In benefit of “improved agricultural production”, which is dependent among
others to water supply, the project/indicator that has been part of the
accomplishment report was the Naguilian River Basin Project, which is a joint
project with the Philippine Business for Social Progress and the provincial
government.
In the benefit of “improved protection of life, property and agricultural
crops”, the shore protection/river control project/indicator reported part of the
accomplishment was the Carlatan Creek Development Program’s conduct of
fencing and planting of mangrove trees.
Cabugao LGU - Available data point to the “Save Cabugao River
Program” that is believed to have had made the impact benefits on “ improved
agricultural production and improved supply of potable and irrigation water. The
program caused the LGU to be a recipient of the “Likas Yaman Award for
Environmental Excellence for the CY 2003 and 2004 (Intayon Cabugao, 2006).
Health and Social Services
Agoo LGU - The two benefits contributed by HSS – “improved health of
community residents specially children and pregnant mothers and reduced
incidents of illnesses, disease and deaths, and improved nutritional status of preschool and school-age children”– had the following projects/indicators in their
percentage accomplishments for 2004 as exhibits for the above-mentioned
benefits: a) children immunized with BCG – 99.82 percent b) OPV1 to OPV3 –
84.80 percent) fully immunized children – 77.01 percent) fully immunized mother
– 53.15 percent, and e) operation timbang high number of children weighed –
7,213.
The above-cited data are complemented by the accomplishments of
Kababaihan Sandigan ng mga Mamayan ng Agoo (KASAMA) to wit: 1) conduct
of feeding to malnourished children in selected barangays, 2) deworming and
provision of vitamins and medicines, and 3) provision of packed rations to
indigent families. KASAMA is a trusted and formidable partner in service and
development of LGU (Agoo Socio-Economic Profile 2006).
San Fernando City LGU - Appendix E shows the accomplishments of the
City that are considered to reconcile with the perceived effectiveness in the
implementation HSS projects/indicators. These include program on children,
crisis intervention to children, program on youth, program on family, program on
women, program on persons with disabilities, program on elderly, and program
on emergency (City Accomplishment Report 2003, City of San Fernando
Library).
In its bid for Gawad Galing Pook 2005 submitted to the Regional
Development Council, Region 1 on November 3, 2005, the number of
beneficiaries and financial profile of the program “ Basic Integrated Approach on
Good Governance (BIAGG) as shown in Appendix A, reveal proof of the
effectiveness in implementing the basic health and social services, which
covered the period from CY 2002-CY2004. The program was a simplified
approach on the delivery of basic services. The city’s social welfare and
development office (SWDO) was joined by national government agencies
(NGAs), non-government organizations (NGOs), and barangay LGUs in
executing the program.
Accomplishments for the different sub-programs, which are all items
perfectly under the two benefits enumerated in the topics under Agoo LGU, were
all above the 100 percent (Gawad Galing Pook 2005 entry document submitted
to RDC, Region 1), and this imply well of effectiveness.
Of equal importance as additional proofs are the children and community
residents’-oriented city ordinances and resolutions to wit: a) City Ordinance No.
2004-006 (An ordinance promulgating rules and regulations for the protection of
children in the city), b) City Ordinance 2002-001 (An ordinance penalizing owners
and or proprietors of internet cafes and computer services shops for leniency in
permitting minors to access pornographic websites in the internet), c) City
Ordinance 2001-002 (An ordinance prohibiting minors from smoking cigarettes
and any other tobacco product within the territorial jurisdiction of the City, and d)
City Ordinance No. 2002-003 (Creation and establishment of an office of persons
with disability affairs in the City) (Gawad Galing Pook 2005 entry document
submitted to RDC, Region 1).
Cabugao LGU - Available data point to the enactment of municipal
ordinances that had to do with the LGU’s effectiveness in the implementation of
projects/indicators under HSS program. These are as follows: 1) the Cabugao
Sanitation Code of 2002 (Municipal Code 2002-03) whose primary goals are to
ensure that sanitary laws are in keeping with modern standards of sanitation and
to provide a handy reference and guide for their enforcement. This code is
enacted pursuant to pertinent provisions of the Local Government Code of 1991
(RA 7160) as well as PD 856 which mandates the Sangguniang Bayan to provide
for efforts directed towards the protection and promotion of health, 2) the
Cabugao Solid Waste Management Code of 2002 (Municipal Code 2002-02)
whose one of the purposes of its enactment is to promote and protect the health,
safety, peace, convenience, and general welfare of the inhabitants of the
municipality.
Agriculture Cooperative and Livelihood Development
Agoo LGU - The benefit “increased agricultural production, employment
and income” is best manifested by the year 2004 agricultural production in the
area of livestock and poultry, which registered 50.016 MT and 63.79 MT,
respectively. In fish production, the total is 1,624.90 MT, which had a value of
P97,594,000.00. The fish production is from freshwater aquaculture, municipal
fishing, commercial fishing, brackish/sea farming, and communal fishing.
Since agriculture, particularly rice farming, is the number one source of
livelihood of the populace, there are eighteen (18) entrepreneurs in rice milling as
of 2003 to 2004, and each employs a minimum of three (3) workers. Also, in the
fishing industry there are three (3) entrepreneurs in motorized boat making, and
1,440 fishermen from coastal barangays (Agoo Socio-Economic Profile 2006).
San Fernando City LGU - Appendix G shows the accomplishments of the
City that seem to reconcile with the perceived effectiveness in the
implementation of ACLD projects/indicators. In the benefit of improved
environmental protection and conservation on of natural resources (forest, land,
marine, etc.), the prominent accomplishments were the following: a) reforestation
and land use management activities, b) coastal resources management and
water quality management, c) solid waste management program and pollution
abatement, and d) pollution monitoring activities (City Accomplishment Report
2003, City of San Fernando Library).
Cabugao LGU - In the absence of any record of Cabugao LGU’s Annual
Investment Plans for the years 2002-2004, it is the 2005-2007 Local
Development Program that will be the basis of inference of clues that will provide
possible implications towards effectiveness in the implementation of the
projects/indicators under ACLD in the preceding years.
Appendix H shows that among the projects/indicators, improvement of
farm to market roads has the biggest proposed budget, P7M per year. Following
in the rank are grain production, and irrigation facilities with budgets of P2M and
P1.5M per year, respectively. The other projects/indicators such as livestock
development, fisheries program, and integrated pest management have lower
proposed budget, but considerably substantial. Among the long list of possible
implications of the above-mentioned data would be that these are the
continuations of past activities on the same projects/indicators that were too
provided budgets of nearly the same amount indicated above.
Mentioned too in the discussion on the perceived level of priority of
Cabugao LGU in ACLD is the cited data in its entry document for its bid for 2005
Gawad Galing Pook Award as the second top Virginia tobacco producer in the
province of Ilocos Sur (Cabugao unpublished article – Northern Ilocos Sur Trade
Center – submitted to RCD Region 1). And as of April 2005, Cabugao is the top
producer of hybrid corn in the province, with more than 350 has. of land devoted
to corn annually (Intayon Cabugao, 2006). These are data that imply that the
benefit “increased agricultural production, employment and income” was attained
in the implementation of projects/indicators under ACLD.
All the above data in the three LGUs in is agreement to the following
statistics in economic and social indicators from 2003, 2004 and 2005 that
provide a regional situation in Region 1: (a) GVA in agriculture, fishery and
forestry growth – 4.7 percent, 5.2 percent, and 7.9 percent, respectively; (b) GVA
in services growth – 5.2 percent, 5.7 percent, and 4.7 percent, respectively;
average annual family income in 2000 and 2003 – P120,898.00 and
P124,437.00, respectively; incidence of poor families in 2000 and 2003 – 29.5%
and 24.4%, respectively; annual per capita poverty threshold in 2000 & 2003 –
P13,276.00 and P14,198.00, respectively (http:www.nscb.gov.ph/ru1/SW.HTM).
Level of Adequacy of Budgetary
Support in Implementation of
Annual Investment Plan
Table 16 shows the summary of the ratings of the four sets of respondents
in the three model local government units (LGUs) on their perception on the level
of budgetary support in AIP programs/projects in the areas of infrastructure,
health and social services, and agricultural cooperative and livelihood
development. The four sets of respondents were the department heads (DH),
members of the sangguniang bayan (SB), business sector (BS), and the school
administrators (SA).
Agoo LGU
Infrastructure - The respondents had perception average means that
range from 2.55 for project/indicator “water supply” to 3.30 for project/indicator
“barangay hall”. Except the former project/indicator whose mean is descriptively
equivalent to fairly adequate (FA), the mean of the latter and the other
projects/indicators had descriptive equivalent of adequate (A). The grand mean
of the perceptions is 2.95, which is descriptively equivalent to adequate (A)
budgetary support of the LGU.
Health and Social Services - The perception average means range from
2.59 for project/indicator “cases and treatment of notifiable diseases” to 3.03 for
project/indicator “immunization”. The mean of the latter had a descriptive
equivalent of fairly adequate (FA), and all other projects/indicators had means
that are descriptively equivalent to adequate (A).
Table 16. Level of Adequacy of Budgetary Support in the Implementation of
AIP Programs/Projects.
Dev’t. Programs/Projects
AG
SFC
CA
OM
DE
INFRASTRUCTURE
A. Barangay Roads and Bridges
B. Health Center
C. Barangay Hall
D. Day Care Center
E. Shore Protection/River Control
F. Water Supply
G. Post-Harvest Facilities
H. Communal Toilet/Comfort Room
3.10
3.20
3.30
3.13
2.62
2.56
2.90
2.80
3.71
3.68
3.39
3.67
2.96
2.88
3.21
2.80
4.31
3.80
4.16
4.14
4.03
3.88
3.99
3.99
3.71
3.56
3.62
3.65
3.20
3.10
3.37
3.20
HA
HA
HA
HA
A
A
A
A
Section Mean
2.95
3.29
4.04
3.43
HA
HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES
A. Immunization
B. Nutritional Status
C. Micronutrient Supplementation
D. Prenatal and Post Partum Care
E. Cases and Treatment of Notifiable Diseases
Section Mean
3.03
2.72
2.65
2.78
2.59
2.75
3.32
3.19
3.21
3.18
3.21
3.22
4.15
3.93
3.88
3.89
3.64
3.90
3.50
3.28
3.25
3.28
3.15
3.29
H
A
A
A
A
A
AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE
AND LIVELIHOOD DEVELOPMENT
A. Ginintuang Ani
B. High Value Commercial Crops
C. Livestock Production
D. Fisheries Program
E. Support Program
F. Regulatory Program
G. Extension
H. Community Training and Employment
Section Mean
2.89
2.96
2.78
2.68
2.76
2.85
2.69
2.76
2.80
3.41
3.24
3.25
3.47
3.44
3.19
3.15
3.32
3.31
3.78
3.86
4.06
3.97
4.18
4.17
3.85
3.77
3.96
3.36
3.35
3.36
3.37
3.46
3.40
3.23
3.28
3.36
A
A
A
A
HA
HA
A
A
A
Legend:
AG - Agoo
OM – Overalll Means
SFC – San Fernando City
DE – Descriptive Equivalent
CA – Cabugao
MH – Moderately High
H – High
The grand mean is 2.75, which is descriptively equivalent to adequate (A)
budgetary support of the LGU.
Agriculture Cooperative and Livelihood Development - The perception
average means range from 2.69 for P/I “extension” to 2.96 for project/indicator
“high value commercial crops”. All the means fall under the descriptive equivalent
of adequate (A). The grand mean is 2.80, which is descriptively equivalent to
adequate (A) budgetary support of the LGU.
San Fernando City, LGU
Infrastructure - The perception average means range from 2.80 for P/I
“communal toilet/comfort room” to 3.71 for project/indicator “barangay roads and
bridges”. The range falls under the descriptive equivalents of adequate (A) to
highly adequate (HA). The grand mean is 3.29, which is descriptively equivalent
to adequate (A) budgetary support of the LGU.
Health and Social Services - The perception average means range from
3.18 for projects/indicators “micronutrient supplementation, and cases and
treatment of notifiable diseases” to 3.31 for P/I “immunization”. The range falls
under the descriptive equivalent of adequate (A). The grand mean is 3.22, which
is descriptively equivalent to adequate (A) budgetary support of the LGU.
Agricultural Cooperative and Livelihood Development - The
perception average means range from 3.15 for project/indicator “extension” to
3.47 for project/indicator “fisheries program”. The range falls in the descriptive
equivalents from adequate (A) to highly adequate (HA). The grand mean is 3.31,
which is descriptively equivalent to adequate (A) budgetary support of the LGU.
Cabugao LGU
Infrastructure - The perception average means range from 3.80 for
project/indicator “health center” to 4.31 for project/indicator “barangay roads and
bridges”. The latter mean falls in the descriptive equivalent of very highly
adequate (VHA), and the rest of the means are descriptively equivalent to highly
adequate (HA). The grand mean is 4.04, which is descriptively equivalent to
highly adequate (HA) budgetary support of the LGU.
Health and Social Services - The perception average means range from
3.64 for project/indicator “ cases and treatment of notifiable diseases” to 4.15 for
project/indicator “ immunization”. All the means are descriptively equivalent to
highly adequate (HA). The grand mean is 3.90, which is descriptively equivalent
to highly adequate (HA) budgetary support of the LGU.
Agricultural Cooperative and Livelihood Development
The perception average means range from 3.77 for P/I “ community
training and employment” to 4.18 for P/I “support program”. The means are
descriptively equivalent to high adequate (HA). The grand mean is 3.96, which is
descriptively equivalent to highly adequate (HA) budgetary support of the LGU.
Comparison on the Level of Budgetary Support in Annual
Investment Plans Programs/Projects
of the Three Selected LGUs
Table 17 shows the Analysis of Variance of the perceptions of the groups
of respondents on the level of budgetary support in annual investment plan
programs/projects of the three selected LGUs in the areas of infrastructure,
health and social services, and agriculture cooperative and livelihood
development.
Infrastructure
ANOVA results showed that the perception means on the levels of
budgetary support by LGUs to their respective infrastructure projects are
significantly different (P<.01). Further test (Table 8.b) revealed that Cabugao’s
level of adequacy of budget support is higher than those of San Fernando City,
La Union and Agoo, La Union. However, the latter LGUs are of similar level at
P>.05.
Table 17. Comparison on the Level of Budgetary Support in Annual Investment
Plans Programs/Projects
Groups
Mean
Infrastructure
Cabugao, I. S.
4.04 b
F
30.164*
p-value
.000
Agoo, L. U.
SFC, L. U.
2.95 a
3.29 a
Health and Social
Services
Cabugao, I. S.
Agoo, L. U.
SFC, L. U.
75.642*
.000
157.224*
.000
3.90 c
2.75 a
3.22 b
Agricultural Cooperative
and livelihood Dev’t.
Cabugao, I. S.
Agoo, L. U.
SFC, L. U.
3.96 c
2.80 a
3.31 b
*Significant
Means with same letters are significantly different at 0.05 level of significance
Data below (Table 18) shows the summary of budget allocation for the
programs/projects of the three selected LGUs. Although allotted budgets for the
infrastructure programs of the two LGUs for 2003 and 2004 differed in amount,
the insignificant difference of perception means of the groups of respondents
would still seem to reconcile with what should be a general idea that all
programs/projects should be given equal attention in terms of budgetary support.
The situation of infrastructure development in the two LGUs at present would
bear out that there was really considerable budgetary support.
Citing a few for instance, Agoo, La Union has at present barangay roads
equivalent to 51.69% of its road network. These roads have surface pavements
such as concrete-paved, asphalt-paved, gravel-paved, and earth-fill paved.
Additionally, there are forty seven (47) day care centers located at forty seven
(47) barangays (Agoo Socio-Economic Profile 2006).
San Fernando City, La Union on the other hand, has about 190 kilometers
Table 18. Summary of Budget Allocation per Program/Project of the
Three
Selected LGUs
Programs/
Projects
Infrastructure
Health and
Social
Services
2003
2004
2005
2006
Cabugao
Cabugao
Agoo
SFC
Agoo
SFC
120,937,000
48,399,900
75,423,718
34,745,900
3,986,412
4,500,000
1,440,500
5,267,736
7,541,412
7,455,000
2,109,412
15,495,696
Agricultural
Cooperative &
Livelihood
Development
5,969,855
3,050,000
2,380,750
23,341,000
13,700,000
12,200,000
Source: LGUs’ Proposed Development Investment Plans
of roads and highways, and barangay roads comprised the largest 68.48 percent
or equivalent to 132 kilometers. Of the total length, thirty two point fifty kilometers
(32.53 km) is still gravel and dirt-surfaced. The 100 kilometer length is concrete
and asphalt-paved. The city has 27 barangay bridges, which comprise of 12
concrete bridges and 15 timber bridges. As to health facilities, it has barangay
health station in each of the 59 barangays, 5 lying-in clinics and 1 local health
center, which has been upgraded into a lying-in hospital. Like a primary medical
center, it is developed and furnished with spacious rooms, such as the
Admission, Treatment, Pre-natal/Immunization, Delivery Room, Operating Room,
Recovery Room, Dental, Laboratory, Pharmacy, Conference Room and offices,
etc. It is now being utilized in the admission of pregnancy deliveries and other
health care services on overnight basis, medical consultations, laboratory
examination services, etc. As such, it operates an Emergency Medical Services
(EMS) delivery round-the-clock (San Fernando City Socio-Economic Profile
2005).
Cabugao, Ilocos Sur’s higher level of adequacy implies that said LGU is in
the midst of infrastructure development at present and is set in motion into its
industrial and commercial development. The infrastructures put up and some
continuing ones cited in the discussion under topic priority (Table 2) are the
viable proofs for the high rating.
Also, inferring from available data on the Local Development Investment
Program/Plan 2005-2007 of Cabugao, Ilocos Sur (Appendix I), the infrastructure
development program, and to include infrastructures under other program have
several millions of pesos budget for each project. Example is the concreting of
farm to market roads, which has an estimated cost of P7M for each year of 2005
–2007. According to the LCE, this is part of the development agenda of its
administration to pursue vigorously the infrastructure development to be able to
compete effectively with other LGUs in domestic and global commerce.
There seems to be no signs of pessimism, even the slightest, about the
determination of the present dispensation to pursue its development objectives.
This could be probably attributed to the LCE’s optimistic view that the funding
could be generated by the LGU through its ability to raise its own revenues by
collecting real estate, business taxes, fees and charges, and the exercise of its
corporate powers as provided for in Sec. 16 and Sec. 22, respectively, of the
LGC 1991 (Nolledo, 1991). A proof to this is the Municipal Code of 2003-04,
which amended the provisions of the Revenue Code of 1999 for better tax
collection based on fair and just taxes and fees adjustments (Intayon Cabugao,
2006).
In addition is the internal revenue allotment (IRA) share, of which 20
percent of the IRA is used for the implementation of development plans, and a
share from the legislative pork barrel that the congressman disposes of
according to his priorities like supporting the programs and projects of his political
ally LGU (http://www.socialwatch.org/es/informeImpreso/pdfs/artiocle2001_phi.p
df, 11/08/2001). As already mentioned earlier, the congressman, PCLE and
MCLE are political allies.
Health and Social Services
ANOVA results showed that the differences in LGUs level of adequacy of
budgetary support in implementing health and social services is significant
(p<.01). Sheffe’s test (Table 17) further revealed that the LGUs significantly
differ, with Cabugao, Ilocos Sur at highest level, followed by San Fernando City,
La Union and Agoo, La Union in that order of significance.
While there exist an insignificant difference in the implementation of the
HSS between the LGUs, the above statistical findings on the area of adequacy
show otherwise.
From the same data on the Local Development Investment Program/Plan
2005-2007 of Cabugao, Ilocos Sur with regard to estimated cost and funding
source (Appendix G) show that Cabugao LGU had the edge over the two other
LGUs. This could probably be further explained by the fact that the Cabugao’s
LCE is a medical doctor practitioner, including the wife, hence, a great selfmotivational drive for a sustained health care program for the LGUs constituency.
Inferring from available data, the 2005 report on development fund
utilization (Appendix J), it confirms further that Cabugao LGU put health and
social services its top priority as indicated by the individual program and project
funding requirement programmed and disbursed. These include the following: 1)
Okey Ka Doc Medical Mission - P500,000.00 and P492,808.40, respectively; 2)
Solid Waste Management – P640,000.00 and P637,357.26, respectively; and 3)
Clean and Green - P800,000.00 and P798,882.02, respectively.
In connection to San Fernando City, La Union, its article “City Profile” says
that grants and assistance for the implementation of its various programs and
projects came from the World Bank, World Health Organization, Canadian
International Development Agency, Japan International Cooperating Agency,
Ford Foundation, Asian Development Bank, Asia Urbs, Deutsche Stiftung fur
Internationale Invictlung, Habitat-United Nations, USAID-AEP-ACEC and USAIDARD-GOLD (San Fernando City Socio-Economic Profile 2005). Very appropriate
to additionally mention here is the data presented above in the discussion on
health facilities under topic infrastructure of San Fernando City. They strengthen
the general result of perceptions of the groups of respondents to be valid.
The efforts of the city government to propel the city to genuine economic
development through availing of grants and assistance are concrete proof of a
goal-oriented stand. This is so provided in Section 297 of the LGC of 199 which
says that a local government unit may contract loans, credits, and other forms of
indebtedness with any government or domestic private bank and other lending
institutions to finance the construction, installation, improvement, expansion,
operation, or maintenance of public facilities, infrastructure facilities, housing
projects, the acquisition of real property, and the implementation of other capital
investment project (Nolledo, 1991).
Agoo, La Union on the other hand, while posting third, is not all the way
left behind in terms of budgetary support to various HSS programs and projects.
The level of perception seems outweighed by the LGU’s records of
accomplishments, hence implying that it gave a sound support.
Its records for the awards and accomplishments in the area of HSS speak
of its level of budgetary support. These are enumerated in the HSS discussion
under level of priority, level of collaboration and level of effectiveness (pages
100, 136 and 159).
Perhaps the level of perception of the four sets of respondents was
affected by the idea or notion that the Agoo LGU has to put more budgetary
support over and above what had been provided budgetary support that led to
the attainment of the self-energizing awards and accomplishments. And this
simply implies greater challenges for the LGU to make double or triple folds the
accomplishments attained so that HSS delivery to LGU’s constituents will be put
to a greater height. This would in effect inspire the LGU to make consistent its
focus to HSS programs/projects and at same time aiming high to surpass its past
accomplishment for the ultimate goal of attaining excellence in HSS delivery.
Agriculture Cooperative and Livelihood Development
Results of the ANOVA showed that significant differences (P<.01) exist on
the level of adequacy of budgetary support in implementing agricultural
cooperative and development between the LGUs under study. Further test (Table
8.b) indicated that Cabugao Ilocos Sur’s level of budgetary support is significantly
higher than San Fernando City, La Union and Agoo, La Union in that order. Such
findings are indicative that Cabugao, Ilocos Sur is also giving more support to
this area of AIP as compared to the other LGUs.
Inferring from the same data (Appendix J) all agricultural-related programs
and projects have considerably enough funding requirement programmed and
disbursed. The two programs/projects with the biggest funding amount are rice
and corn production with P100,000.00 programmed and P99,000.00 disbursed;
and financial assistance to fisherfolks with P314,000.00 programmed and
disbursed.
This level of budgetary support by Cabugao LGU to its agricultural
cooperative and livelihood development programs and projects, as perceived and
as shown by the fund allotment cited above, is on the direction of the practices of
the LGUs that have been successful in the implementation of the projects.
The accomplishment report for calendar year 2004 of Alburquerqe, Bohol
mentioned that it had spared its livelihood programs huge amount of money to
address the needs of more than 80 percent of the constituents (http://www.sunst
ar.com.ph/gensan/index.html, 3/12/2005).
In Guagua, Pampanga, livelihood programs started with hog dispersal with
P300,000.00 from Congressman Egmidio Lingad. Collection were flowed back
and expanded to other livelihood projects such as Manukan sa Bakuran,
Relending, Organic Fertilizer, Sheep Dispersal, Handmade Paper, SampaguitaIlang-Ilang Seedlings, making a combined income of more than P300M for the
five-year period from 1990-1995. The LCE initiated the Guagua Municipal
Employees Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. with a start up capital of P9,250.00
and with 37 members in 1990, and in 1995 has a total of member of 210 and with
assets of more than P1M. The municipality’s income increased
from P3M in 1986 to P34M in 1994 and the municipality was classified from
third class to second class municipality (www.serd.ait.ac.th/umc/bestprac/guau
a.htm, 7/12/2004 ).
Cordon, Isabela is primarily an agricultural town and with this the
Municipal Agriculture Office continue to assist farmers by providing season-long
training Integrated Pest control for rice and corn and establishing a technology
demonstration farms for the promotion of hybrid rice and corn
(www.cordon.isabela.gov.ph/indexphp?cat+23, 7/14/2003).
Comparison on the Level of Budgetary Support in
The Implementation of Programs/Projects in the
AIPs Across the Three Selected LGUs
Table 19 shows the results of Analysis of Variance of the overall means of
perceptions of groups of respondents on the level of budgetary support in
implementation of the development programs/projects in AIPs across the three
selected LGUs.
Infrastructure, Health and Social Services,
Agriculture Cooperative and Livelihood Development
ANOVA results show that there are no significant differences on the level
of budgetary support in the implementation of programs/projects in infrastructure,
health and social services, and agriculture cooperative and livelihood
development in the AIPs across the three selected LGUs. This indicates that
LGUs had, as in levels of collaboration and effectiveness, put equal importance
on all the projects/indicators under the three main programs/projects in the AIPs,
hence, funding support for implementation was well allotted.
The assumed implication cited above could be sufficed by the Summary of
Budget Allocation per Program/Project of the Three Selected LGUs presented in
page 180 - 2003-2004 AIPs of the Agoo, La Union and San Fernando City, La
Union, and the 2005-2006 AIPs of Cabugao, Ilocos Sur as bases of inference in
the absence of any record in the preceding years. The figures under each
program/project would give a good idea on the level of budgetary support of the
LGUs
Table 19. Comparison of Overall Means of Perceptions of Groups
of
Respondents on the Level of Budgetary Support Per Progra
m/
Project in the AIPs Across the Three LGUs
Infrastructure
A. Barangay Roads and Bridges
B. Health Center
C. Barangay Hall
F
.411
p-value
.882
D. Day Care Center
E. Shore Protection/River Control Water Supply
G. Post-Harvest Facilities
H. Communal Toilet/Comfort Room
Health and Social
A. Immunization
B. Nutritional Status
C. Micronutrient Supplementation
D. Prenatal and Post Partum Care
E. Cases and Treatment of Notifiable Diseases
.170
.949
Agriculture Cooperative
and Livelihood Dev’t.
A. Ginintuang Ani
B. High Value Commercial Crops
C. Livestock Production
D. Fisheries Program
E. Support Program
F. Regulatory Program
G. Extension
H. Community Training and Employment
.043
1.0
* Significant
It could be noticed that the infrastructure budget of P120,937,000.00 for
Agoo, La Union for the CY 2003 was bigger by 60.34 percent than the
P75,423,718.00 budget for 2004. The AIP of the year 2003 (Appendix K) shows
that this was due to the big projects such as construction of 18 units rock
bulkhead shore protection, and dredging of three waterways (Prinsipe River,
Manacliw River, Capengpeng Lagoon), with budgets of P40,500,000.00 and
P43,000,000.00, respectively, and rehabilitation/ improvement of Prinsipe River
dikes with budget of P3,000,000.00
San Fernando City, La Union, total budget of P39,093,000.00 for 2004 for
projects identified and marked as falling under category infrastructure in the
study (Appendix L) was also lower than the 2003 budget of P49,708,500.00
(Appendix M). Among the projects/indicators under infrastructure, the difference
was mainly due to bigger budget programmed for barangay roads and bridges in
2003 (P29,233,000.00), which was higher by
P4.64M than the 2004
(P24,590,000.00). It seems of good likelihood to interpret that the lower total cost
of infrastructure budget for 2004 was because most of infrastructure projects in
the area of barangay roads have been already put in place or implemented in the
preceding year. And therefore, the reduced budgets programmed for 2004 would
not mean that the LGUs Agoo and San Fernando City had lowered its budget
support to the projects/indicators.
For Cabugao, Ilocos Sur case on the other hand, inferring from its
programmed budgets for CYs 2005-2006 (Summary of Budget Allocation per
Program/Project of the Three Selected LGUs, page 166), it would seem to
indicate that in the CYs 2003-2004 Cabugao had a practically not too big
differences between yearly programmed budget for infrastructure, and therefore,
it would mean a uniform level of importance in implementation was put to all the
projects/indicators through budget support.
From same data, budget programmed by Agoo, La Union and San
Fernando City, La Union for HSS projects/indicators had also gone down in the
second year. San Fernando City’s 2003 budget went down to 194% in 2004
budget. However, as in the trend of the infrastructure budget, the very high
amount of budget of HSS for 2003 was due also to the P5M and P4.6M budgeted
for purchase of medicines and family planning, respectively (Appendix N). And
correspondingly, the implication of the budget situation would be the same as in
infrastructure, that is, while the budget was lower during the year 2004, it would
be interpreted too that projects/indicators had been well put in place and
implemented in the preceding years. And in all likelihood, it would still generally
imply that all projects/indicators had similar level of budgetary support,
regardless of the amount allotted. This applies too to the case of Agoo LGU.
The Cabugao, Ilocos Sur scenario in the budgetary support for the
implementation of HSS projects/indicators as gleaned from the trend of the
budget support in the year 2005-2006 (Summary of Budget Allocation per
Program/Project of the Three Selected LGUs, page 180) implies that there was a
considerable budgetary support too for the implementation of the
programs/projects in the immediate preceding years by the LGU. And it might
have been generally similar in level of budget allocation with those of 2005-and
2006.
In the area of agriculture cooperative and livelihood development, based
on the same aforementioned data source, the Agoo, La Union scenario was the
same as in the above-discussed infrastructure and HSS scenarios. However, it
was the opposite of the San Fernando City, La Union scenario, which had a jump
of 665% from the 2003 budget of P3.05M to P23.3M for 2004.
The very significantly high increase was the result of budget allocation to
post-harvest facilities and communal irrigation system, P7.6M and P6.8M,
respectively (Appendix O). All other 2004 projects/indicators were allocated
budgets that were higher than the 2003 allocation in the range of 50% to 100%
With these scenarios in the budget planning and allocation made by the two
LGUs, It is assumed that every project/indicator was provided budgetary support
for its implementation, regardless of the budget, whether big or small. The bottom
line is that LGUs had in all indications the all out budgetary support in
implementing the projects/indicators under the three main programs.
Inferring from the data on ACLD for Cabugao, Ilocos Sur 2006 (Summary
of Budget Allocation per Program/Project of the Three Selected LGUs, page
180), it implies that the level of budgetary support of Cabugao LGU in
implementing the ACLD for the year 2005 and 2006 is an indication that same
level seemingly was observed in the immediate two preceding years, and was
generally similar with that of infrastructure and HSS.
Relationships Among the Level of Priority of Three Areas of
Annual Investment Plan - Infrastructure, Health and
Social Services, Agriculture Cooperative
and Livelihood Development
Table 20 shows the results of the Pearson Correlation Analysis on the
level of priority of the LGU in the three areas of AIP - infrastructure, health and
social services, and agriculture cooperative and livelihood development.
Agoo LGU
Pearson Correlation Analysis revealed that all the correlation coefficient
values are described as very high positive correlation, and that infrastructure
priority level is significantly related to HSS (r=0.97); and ACLD (r=0.95) at .01
level of significance. HSS on the other hand is also significantly related to ACLD
(r=0.93) at .01 level of significance.
Table 20. Relationship Among the levels of Priority of the Three
Development
Programs and Projects.
Infrastructure
Agriculture Cooperative and
Livelihood Development
Agoo LGU
Health and Social Services
Infrastructure
0.97**
0.95**
0.93**
San Fernando City LGU
Health and Social Services
Infrastructure
0.86**
0.80**
0.71**
Cabugao LGU
Health and Social Services
Infrastructure
0.82**
0.83**
0.62**
p = .o5  p .01
The high significant relationships between and among infrastructure, HSS
and ACLD indicate that there are aspects in programs and projects of the three
areas that are of co-equal importance and supportive to each other in achieving
the aimed benefits for the people. Examples are on the areas of health care,
literacy, and capability building and entrepreneurship.
Under these are the social services-related ACLD programs and projects
like establishment of the first LGU funded vocational school for the poor that
offers courses such as caregiver, cosmetology, tailoring, dressmaking and
tourism, and the Agoo First Lady-led KASAMA – Kababaihan Sandigan ng mga
Mamayan ng Agoo – that undertakes livelihood projects such candle making,
soap making, wall-décor and fan-making. The KASAMA waste
management/composting/organic fertilizer projects and KASAMA canteen are the
additional entrepreneurship endeavors.
With regard to health services, Agoo has the La Union Medical Center,
which serves which the entire province of La Union, especially the towns in the
second district. Complementing the health services of the municipality are the 12
barangay health centers located in 12 barangays and the main rural health
center, which is located at Poblacion, eight medical clinics and thirteen dental
clinics (Agoo Socio-Economic Profile 2006).
All these facilities have interconnected impacts to the relationships. Good
infrastructures that are related to health care and social services, and agriculture
will eventually result to influencing high productivity level to agriculture-related
activities. This conforms well to the common simple idea that has universal
application that says “a healthy person performs better and contributes
significantly to production and delivery of goods and services”. He becomes an
active participant and partner of the community in economic development. He
won’t be a burden to the community, such as becoming one of the foci of
attention most especially of the government unit, as indigent.
San Fernando City LGU
Pearson correlation test revealed significant relationships among the three
areas of AIP at .01 level of significance. The r coefficient values point to a very
high positive correlation between and among the areas of investment plan.
This indicates that the City of San Fernando’s level of priority for
infrastructure is influenced by levels of priority in HSS and ACLD, and vice versa
(HSS and infrastructure, r=0.86; HSS and ACLD, r=0.80; and, infrastructure and
ACLD, r=0.71). On the average, the correlation coefficient values point to a very
high positive correlation.
There are specific programs that could be considered to encompass all
the three areas. One program that could be considered as generally geared
towards the attainment of development goals in the three areas is the sanitary
landfill. This has an infrastructure aspect because the site had to be properly
engineered to install all the necessary safeguards for the health aspect that
would directly affect immediate vicinities that are all populated residentials. The
HSS aspect of it is on the sanitation and hygienic condition of the entire city as
dwelling area for the populace, business and offices, educational institutions, and
tourism. The ACLD aspect on the other hand is the establishment of livelihood
project in solid waste segregation of recyclable materials.
Also, a program in HSS on the upgrading of the city health office into a
lying-in clinic and putting up of five lying-in clinics in five barangays, and health
centers in all barangays have extensive infrastructure aspect.
All the infrastructure facilities have to be put up to facilitate and harness
health care and social services, and level of productiveness in agriculture-related
activities for self-sufficiency.
Cabugao LGU
Pearson Correlation Analysis results revealed high significant
relationships of programs and projects between health and social services (HSS)
and infrastructure (r=0.82), between HSS and ACLD (r=0.83), and between
infrastructure and ACLD (r=0.62) at .01 level of significance. The first two r
coefficient values indicate very high positive correlation and the last value
indicate high positive correlation.
The high significant relationship between HSS and infrastructure and
between HSS and ACLD could be likely explained by the enactment of municipal
ordinances that would directly and indirectly link to programs and projects in the
two areas. The ordinances are Solid Waste Management Code, Sanitation Code,
and the Northern Ilocos Sur Trade Center Code or simply the Cabugao Market.
The established NISTC or the Cabugao Public Market, was adjudged as
the cleanest and healthiest in entire Region I in 2002 and 2003. Its sanitation and
environment codes resulted into programs and projects that earned LGU the
awards and recognitions of outstanding local government unit for Healthy
Lifestyle Award 2003, Cleanest and Greenest Municipality provincial level 2003,
Gawad Galing Pook national finalist 2004, and Likas Yaman Award for
environmental excellence 2003 and 2004 (Intayon Cabugao, 2006). The Likas
Yaman award of the LGU, specifically for the 2003 Save Cabugao River Project;
and the NISTC (Cabugao Socio- Economic Profile 2006) are main features for
the infrastructure-ACLD significant relationship. These two directly and indirectly
addressed the goal to accelerate agriculture production activities. The river
project is a means to insure water supply for a sustained agricultural production
activities, while the NISTC served as a catalyst to further increase agriculture
production of the farmers. The assurance that the farmers’ products are
converted into cash is the immediate impact of the NISTC.
Relationships on Level of Collaboration of LGU in
the Implementation of the Three Areas of Annual
Investment Plan – Infrastructure, Health and
Social Services, Agriculture Cooperative
and Livelihood Development
Table 21 shows the Pearson Correlation Analysis on the level of
collaboration of LGU in the implementation of the three areas of AIP infrastructure, health and social services, and agricultural cooperative and
livelihood development.
Agoo LGU
Pearson Correlation Analysis result showed that collaboration of LGU in
the implementation of HSS programs and projects is highly significantly related to
the collaboration of LGU in implementation infrastructure programs and projects
Table 21. Relationships on the Level of Collaboration with DH, SB, BS and SA
in
the Implementation of Annual Investment Plan
Infrastructure
AgricultureCooperative and
Livelihood Development
Agoo LGU
Health and Social Services
Infrastructure
0.98**
0.97**
0.95**
0.81**
0.89**
0.77**
0.95**
0.95**
0.93**
San Fernando City LGU
Health and Social Services
Infrastructure
Cabugao LGU
Health and Social Services
Infrastructure
p = .o5  p .01
(r=0.98); between HSS and ACLD ( 0.97); and between infrastructure and ACLD
(0.95) at 0.01 level of significance. The r coefficient values indicate a very high
positive correlation between and among the three areas of the AIP.
In HSS-Infrastructure, HSS-ACLD, and infrastructure-ACLD relationships
in terms of level of collaboration, the best proof would likely that some
infrastructure and HSS programs and projects implemented had led to attaining
some of the ACLD programs and projects. An example to this is LGU-NGO
KASAMA education and literacy program and the LGU-funded vocational school
for the poor. These collaborated programs/projects led to livelihood projects such
as candle making, soap making, and wall-décor and fan-making that are jointly
funded by the LGU and NGO KASAMA (Agoo Socio-Economic Profile 2006).
The other proofs are likely would be the twelve barangay health centers,
one main rural health center, which is located in the urban center, 46 day-care
centers, and two ORT-day care centers (Agoo Socio-Economic Profile 2006).
San Fernando City LGU
Pearson Correlation test revealed that there is high significant relationship
between LGU level of collaboration in implementation of infrastructure-HSS
(r=0.81), HSS Ps&Ps and ACLD Ps&Ps (r=0.89), infrastructure-ACLD (r=0.77) at
.01 level of significance. The r values are within the description of very high
positive correlation.
The high significant relationship of implementation of HSS and ACLD’s
Ps&Ps seems to follow the same implications as that provided above for the
discussion of LGU San Fernando City, La Union priority programs and projects.
Cabugao LGU
Pearson Correlation Analysis result revealed significant relationships
between and among level of collaborations of the AIP’s programs and projects.
The implementation of HSS and infrastructure Ps&Ps (r=0.95). Correlation
between HSS and ACLD (r=0.95), and between infrastructure and ACLD (r=0.93)
are significant at .01 level of significance.
The high significant correlation between and among the infrastructure,
HSS, and ACLD in the level of collaboration in implementation confirm further the
significant correlation of the level of priority in the three areas of AIP as
discussed above. It sums up that when there is significant correlation of the three
areas of AIP in terms of level of priority, there follows the same level of
correlation in terms of level of collaboration in the implementation. The three
areas of AIP are seen here as interconnected in the attainment of community
development.
Relationships on the Level of Effectiveness of the LGU in the
Implementation of the Three Areas of Annual Investment
Plan – Infrastructure, Health and Social
Services, Agriculture Cooperative
And Livelihood Development
Table 22 shows the Pearson Correlation Analysis of the perceptions
means of the groups of respondents on the level of effectiveness of the LGU in
the implementation of the three areas of AIP - infrastructure, health and social
services, and agriculture cooperative and livelihood development.
Agoo LGU
Pearson Correlation Analysis result showed that relationships of the LGU
Agoo’s effectiveness of implementation between and among the three areas HSS and infrastructure (r=0.98); HSS and ACLD (r=0.98); and infrastructure and
ACLD (r=0.99); are significantly high at .01 level of significance. All the r
coefficient values indicate very high positive correlation.
The findings indicate that Agoo LGU was effective in the implementation
of the AIP’s three areas. The effectiveness could be substantiated by the listed
awards and recognitions received by the LGU as presented in the foregoing
discussions, as results of the programs and projects that been successfully
implemented. Of particular importance to be mentioned is the area of HSS where
the LGU put up and operated in 2002 the Pres. Elpidio Quirino National High
School (PEQNHS-Annex), the first LGU funded public high school. This
composed of makeshift classrooms out of the Agoo old hospital, Doña Gregoria
Memorial Hospital. As early as 2005 the Don Eufemio Eriguel Memorial National
High School was established to replace the PEQNHS-Annex.
Table 22. Pearson
Effectiveness
Programs and
Correlation Analysis of Means of Level of
in Implementation of Infrastructure, HSS and ACLD
Projects.
Infrastructure
Agricultural Cooperative and
Livelihood Development
Agoo LGU
Health and Social Services
Infrastructure
0.98**
0.98**
0.99**
0.83**
0.78**
0.77**
0.94**
0.97**
0.98**
San Fernando City LGU
Health and Social Services
Infrastructure
Cabugao LGU
Health and Social Services
Infrastructure
p = .o5  p .01
Another HSS program is the first LGU funded vocational school for the
poor, Agoo Technical & vocational Education Training Center (ATVET). Of
similar importance to cite is the establishment of 46 community learning centers
where functional literacy, quality of life improvement income generating and other
non-formal education programs. Graduates of these programs have become
entrepreneurs who now male use of their acquired skill in industrial sewing
machine operation, plastic waving, food processing, baking and pastry making,
dressmaking, haircutting and others (Agoo Socio-Economic Profile 2006).
All these encompass the three areas of the AIP because these are the
outputs of infrastructure, social services and livelihood development.
San Fernando City LGU
Pearson Correlation Analysis showed that the relationship between and
among the LGU’s effectiveness in the implementation of the HSS, infrastructure,
and ACLD is highly significant at .01 level of significance - infrastructure and
HSS (r=0.83); infrastructure and ACLD (r=0.77); and, HSS & ACLD (r=0.78). The
r coefficient values indicate very high positive correlation.
The highly correlated level of effectiveness in implementation of the three
areas of AIP could be explained by the same discussion provided in the
correlation analysis findings under San Fernando City LGU level of priority
development programs and projects. This further confirm the idea that when the
programs and projects are put as priorities, the level of collaboration intensifies to
finally attain the effectiveness of AIP’s Ps&Ps to target community and clienteles.
Cabugao LGU
Pearson Correlation Analysis revealed significant relationships between
and among the LGU’s levels of effectiveness in implementation of the AIP’s three
areas at .01 level of significance - HSS and infrastructure (r=0.94); HSS and
ACLD (r=0.97); infrastructure and ACLD, (r=0.98). This indicates that the
effectiveness in implementation of one area did affect the effectiveness in
implementation of the other AIP’s area.
As indicated by the numerous national and local awards the LGU received
that have been cited in the foregoing discussions, there’s apparently an equally
effective implementation of the AIP’s three areas of concerned. The awards and
recognitions, as cited in the foregoing discussions are proofs that the LGU had
implemented effectively the programs and projects under the three areas and
have been complimentary to each other to attain the LGU’s development goals.
One particular example here is in the areas of infrastructure and, health
and social services. The Clean and Green Project, Solid Waste Management
Program, and Market Operation were made very effective by forging sisterhood
with City of Marikina and adopting the best practices (Intayon Cabugao, 2006).
The adoption resulted to national awards as 2003, 2004, 2005 Cleanest and
Greenest Municipality; 2004 Most Outstanding Economic Performer in Region 1;
2003, 2004 Cleanest and Healthiest Public Market in Region1; 2005
Pambansang Pamilihan Award; and 2003 Most Improved Economy in Region 1
(Cabugao Socio-Economic Profile).
Relationships of Means of Level of Budgetary Support of
LGU in Implementation of the Three Areas of Annual
Investment Plan – Infrastructure, Health and
Social Services, Agriculture Cooperative
and Livelihood Development
Table 23 shows the Pearson Correlation Analysis on the level of
budgetary support of LGU in the implementation of the three areas of AIP infrastructure, health and social services, and agriculture cooperative and
livelihood development.
Agoo LGU
Pearson Correlation Analysis result revealed that there is high significant
relationship between the LGU’s level of budgetary support for infrastructure and
HSS Ps&Ps (r=0.98); HSS and ACLD (r=0.98); infrastructure and ACLD (r=0.95)
at .01 level of significance. The correlation coefficient values indicate very high
positive correlation.
The findings on highly significant relationship of the budgetary support for
the three areas of the AIP do confirm the findings in the foregoing discussion that
these are significantly related in terms of level of effectiveness of LGU in
implementation. Simply, this would mean that the budget support for the
implementation of infrastructure has a direct influence on the budgeting for HSS
and ACLD programs and projects, and vise versa.
Budgets for infrastructures undoubtedly have been put up to compliment
the implementation of the HSS programs and projects. This could be apparently
seen, particularly in the area of social services that include those for literacy and
capability-building program for the poor.
Table 23. Pearson Correlation Analysis of Means of Level of
Budgetary Support
in Implementation of Infrastructure, HSS and AC
LD Programs and
Projects
Infrastructure
Agricultural Cooperative and
Livelihood Development
Agoo LGU
Health and Social Services
Infrastructure
0.98**
0.98**
0.95**
0.22ns
0.57**
0.49*
0.94**
0.96**
0.95**
San Fernando City LGU
Health and Social Services
Infrastructure
Cabugao LGU
Health and Social Services
Infrastructure
p = .o5  p .01
On the other hand, while budget support for HSS Ps & Ps are
complemented through the LGU’s budget support in infrastructure Ps & Ps, there
were HSS literacy and capacity building programs in the LGU that have been
jointly financed by LGU and NGO. The NGO that had actively supported the LGU
in the area HSS was the KASAMA (Agoo Socio-Economic Profile 2006). This
scenario has been discussed in the foregoing sections of priority development
Ps&Ps, level of collaboration, and level of implementation.
San Fernando City LGU
Pearson Correlation Analysis result revealed that in terms of LGU
budgetary support there is no significant relationship at .01 level of significance
between HSS and infrastructure (r=0.22, which indicates very small positive
correlation); HSS and ACLD (r=0.57 which is a high positive correlation) is highly
significant; infrastructure and ACLD (r=0.49), which is a moderately small positive
correlation).
One project that tells that budgetary support for infrastructure-HSS is not
significantly correlated is the Fisherman’s Village located at Poro, San Fernando
City. The project is actually a three-pronged developmental strategy that
encompass the three areas of the AIP – infrastructure, HSS, and ACLD. The
putting up of infrastructure such as housing units, roads and water supply is not
just simply addressing the housing problem, but the project is simultaneously
addressing agricultural productivity, and health.
The project is consistent with the present thrust of the government to
provide decent housing to the people especially from poor families. It is intended
to address the increasing demand for housing and to decongest crowded places.
In relocating those who are in the danger zones, the project intends to provide a
healthy, livable, and safe environment for the informal settlers.
Also, by integrating livelihood opportunities, the program would help the
people avail of alternative source of income to cope up with the seasonal types of
livelihood and to achieve a better quality of life (City Accomplishment Report
2006).
Cabugao LGU
Pearson Correlation Analysis revealed that there is high significant
relationship between infrastructure and ACLD, between HSS and ACLD, and
HSS and infrastructure in terms of level of budgetary support (r=0.95, and r=0.96,
r=0.94), respectively at .01 level of significance. The r coefficient values indicate
very high positive correlation.
The findings on high significant relationships could be likely explained by
the accomplished big infrastructure project NISTC or the Cabugao Public Market,
which was inaugurated on March 22, 2002. While the congressional share from
the RA 7171, An Act to Promote the Development of the Farmers in the Virginia
Tobacco-Producing Provinces, formed the bulk of the funding for the program,
and provincial fund was also tapped (Intayon Cabugao, 2006). The program
seems to have ramified its effect, might be indirectly, to the level of LGU’s
budgetary support for HSS and ACLD.
The direct means might have been through the enactments of the
municipal ordinances that have bearings to HSS and ACLD, and the full
operation of the NISTC. These are the Municipal Ordinances Nos. 2002-02- Solid
Waste Management Code, 2002-01- NISTC Code, and 2002-03- Sanitation
Code (Intayon Cabugao, 2006).
These ordinances must have prompted the LGU to provide and
appropriate funds for the attainment of its infrastructure-related HSS and ACLD
Ps & Ps. For instance in the NISTC code, the provisions of market stalls, roads,
subways, waterways, drainage and other connections, and parking spaces
address the health and social services Ps & Ps delivery. Similarly, in the case of
sanitation code, the provision of sanitary abattoir addresses too the HSS. In
waste management code, wherein one among its purposes is to promote and
protect the health safety and general welfare of the inhabitants of the
municipality, provides for the installation of infrastructure-like facilities such as
wheeled solid waste disposal materials in designated public places, and a waste
transport truck (Intayon Cabugao, 2006).
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)
in the Implementation of the Annual Investment Plan (AIP)
Table 24 shows the indicators with the highest percentage frequency
counts for indicators that fall in the bracket from 50% and above, and were
considered for each of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats
(SWOT).
Strengths
1. LGU/NGO/PO/Business Sector Linkage
2. Adequate Local Funding due to High LGU Income
Table 24. Means in Percent of Interviewees in Their Perceptions on
SWOT
Factors in the Implementation of the Annual Investment Plan
(AIP)
Factors
s
%
w
%
o
%
T
%
83.95
9.88
6.17
0.00
75.39
7.41
17.28
0.00
85.13
1.23
13.58
0.00
87.65
0.00
13.99
0.00
86.03
8.64
7.41
0.00
74.07
14.81
11.11
0.00
81.48
7.41
20.97
0.00
66.66
22.22
22.22
0.00
0.00
81.47
0.00
18.52
0.00
88.88
0.00
19.58
0.00
86.41
0.00
22.22
0.00
86.41
0.00
22.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
86.41
80.24
78.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.22
22.22
21.16
33.33
40.74
0.00
0.00
62.96
59.25
0.00
0.00
40.74
0.00
59.25
0.00
40.74
40.74
40.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
59.25
59.25
59.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
40.74
0.00
59.25
0.00
Set A Factors
Infrastructure/HSS. ACLD
a. LGU/NGO/PO/Business
Sector Linkage
b. Adequate Local Funding Due
High LGU Income
c. Dedicated Service of
Local Chief Executive
d. Dedicated Support of SB
Members to LCE
e. Active LCE Fund Sourcing
Initiative
f. Receptive/Cooperative
Beneficiaries
g. Good Peace and Order
Situation
h. Involvement of Beneficiaries in
the Operation and Maintenance
of Infrastructure
Set B Factors
Infrastructure/HSS/ACLD
a. Poor LGU/NGO/PO/Business
Sector Partnership
b. Poor Local Funding Due to
Low LGU Income
c. Poor Service of Local Chief
Executive
d. Poor Support of SB Members
to LCE
e. Poor LCE Fund Sourcing Initiative
f. Poor Peace and Order Situation
g. Partisan Politics
Set C Factors
Infrastructure/HSS/ACLD
a. Generate Employment
b. Generate Small Skill
Entrepreneurships (SMEs)
c. Generate Large Skill
Entrepreneurships (LSEs)
d. Induce Tourism Boom
e. Increase in Agricultural Production
f. Substantial Decrease in Illness/Death
g. Improved Peace and Order Situation
h. Increase in Private Capital
Investment
Table 14. Means in Percent of Interviewees in Their Perceptions on
SWOT
Factors in the Implementation of the Annual Investment Plan
(Cont’n)
Factors
i. Increase Qualification for
Sisterhood with Highly
Urbanized LGUs
j. Expansion of BOT and variants in
the Financing & Implementation of
Major Infra Projects
k. Availability of Overseas Dev't.
Assist. and Private Infra Dev't.
Funds for Major Projs.
Set D Factors
Infrastructure/HSS/ACLD
a. Lack of Budgetary Support from
National Gov't.
b. Lack of Budgeatry Support from
Dist. Representative
c. Lack of Budgetary Support from
Senators
d. Lack of Budgetary Support from
Prov. Gov''t.
e. Lack of Access to Domestic Loan
f. Lack of Access to Foreign Loan/
Assistance
g. Lack of Legal and Adm. Support.
from National/Prov'l. Gov't
h. Lack of Political support from SB
i. Partisan Politics
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
s
%
w
%
o
%
T
%
40.74
0.00
59.25
0.00
37.03
7.41
55.55
0.00
37.03
7.41
55.55
0.00
29.63
0.00
25.92
44.44
0.00
25.92
0.00
74.07
0.00
25.92
22.22
51.85
0.00
7.41
22.22
85.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
25.92
18.52
22.22
81.47
51.85
0.00
3.71
11.11
85.18
0.00
0.00
11.11
8.23
18.52
7.41
88.88
47.73
dedicated service of local chief executive (LCE)
dedicated support of SP/B members to LCE
active LCE fund sourcing initiative
good peace and order situation
Receptive/Cooperative Beneficiaries
Involvement of Beneficiaries in the Operation and Maintenance of
Infrastructure
Weaknesses
1. Poor LGU/NGO/PO/Business Sector Partnership
2. Poor Local Funding Due to Low Income of the LGU
3. Poor service of Local Chief Executive (LCE)
4. Poor support of SP/B members to LCE
5. Poor LCE Fund Sourcing Initiative
6. Poor Peace and Order Situation
7. Partisan politics
Opportunities
1. Generate Employment
2. Generate Small Scale Entrepreneurships (SMEs)
3. Generate Large Scale Entrepreneurship (LSEs)
4. Induce Tourism Boom
5. Increase in Agricultural Production
6. Substantial Decrease in Illness/Death
7. Improved Peace and Order Situation
Threats
1. Poor Budgetary Support from the National Government
2. Poor Budgetary Support from District Representative
3. Poor Budgetary Support from Senators
4. Poor Budgetary Support from Provincial Government
5. Poor Access to Domestic Loan
6. Poor Access to Foreign Loan/Assistance
7. Poor Legal and Administrative Support from Nat./Provincial Government
8. Poor Political Support from Sangguniang Panlungsod/Bayan
9. Partisan Politics
Analysis
It could be construed that the factors that were perceived to be the
strengths of the LGUs in the implementation of the Annual Investment Plans
were the most viable strategies that would translate the plans into concrete
accomplishments, which would lead to the attainment of the aimed impact to
growth and development of the LGUs.
The perceived weaknesses were construed as the negative attitudes of
the stakeholders and the inability of the LGUs to generate income and, good
peace and order in the pursuit of effective implementation of the programs and
projects. These weaknesses lead to failure in attaining the needed impact of the
Annual Investment Plans to effect growth and development.
The perceived opportunities, which were the factors rated very low
compared to the factors for strength, weaknesses, and threats, were construed to
be the impact of the effective implementation of the Annual Investment Plans.
When these are properly and very significantly put in place in the LGUs, the
expected growth and development is realized, hence, attaining a significant rise
in people’s economic condition.
The perceived threat factors that were rated zero percent were construed
as those financial supports from outside the LGUs, including foreign assistance
that would supposedly push the effective implementation of the Annual
Investment Plans, but were poorly provided to the LGUs and/or the LGUs had
poor access, including non-partisan politics. The poor state of these factors could
be attributable to poor managerial skill of the LCEs, political biases, including
most importantly, the perceived strength factors.
Model for Effective Implementation of Annual Investment Plans
In view of the generally effective implementation of the Annual Investment
Plans of the three selected LGUs, justifies the need to develop the Model. The
model is simply described by four basic components. The input boxes are areas
of concern that lead to good planning up to evaluation of implementation. These
are the variables structures, policy, strategies and programs/projects. The subvariables or indicators of structures are local chief executive (LCE), city/municipal
development council, city/municipal planning and development coordinator,
sanggunian panlungsod/bayan, and city/municipal people’s council. The subvariable of policy is RA 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991). The subvariables of strategies are direction, participation, and coordination. The subvariables of programs/projects are infrastructure, health and social services, and
agriculture cooperative and livelihood development.
The process box is the elements of administration and programs/projects.
The sub-variables are planning/programming, organizing, budgeting,
implementing, monitoring, and evaluation.
The output box is the expected improved agri-socio-industrial
development as a result of the programs and projects such as infrastructure,
health and social services, and agriculture cooperative and livelihood
development.
The outcome boxes will be the improved agri-industrial economic growth
and improved social development that will ultimately result to improved quality of
life of the Filipino people.
In discussing the input box’s structure and process box’s elements of
administration, the result of the SWOT analysis is incorporated.
Rationale
The three selected LGUs have been generally effective in the implementation of their annual investment plans – based on the results of the perceptions of
respondents on the level of effectiveness of the LGUs, and the documents
gathered that would correspondingly substantiate the perceptions. The LGUs are
considered the model LGUs based on the long list of national, regional and local
awards and recognitions they received as early as 1998 for Agoo, La Union,
2003 for San Fernando City, La Union, and 2002 for Cabugao, Ilocos Sur. Best
practices of the three selected LGUs presented and discussed in the foregoing
topics have been in consonance with the Local Government Code of 1991. The
specific provisions of the Code will form the core of a model for effective
implementation of the annual investment plan (AIP).
Objective
The input-process-output-outcome (IPOO) model will serve as a guide for
the LGUs in effectively implementing the annual investment plans to attain the
Input
Process
Outcome
Improvement in AgriIndustrial Development
A. Structures
a. Local Chief
Executive
b. Local
Development
Council
b.1.
Executive
Cou
ncil
b.2. Sectoral/
Functional
Committees
c. City/Municipal
Planning and
Development
Coordinator
d. Sangguniang
Panlungsod/Bayan
B.
Programs/
ts
Projec
A. Infrastructure
Elements of
Administration
1. Planning/
Programming
1. Infrastructure
2. Health
and Social
s
Output
Service
3. Agriculture
Cooperative
C.
andPolicy
Livelihood
RA 7160
evelopment
D
2. Organizing
(Local Government
Code of 1991)
D. Strategies
a. Direction
3. Budgeting
 Improved marketing of a
gricultural products
 Faster travel time/
movement of people
 Improved agricultural
production
 Improved supply of
potable and irrigation
water
 Improved health and
sanitation
 Improved protection of
life, property and
agricultural crops
 Enhanced intellectual,
physical, spiritual and
cultural well-being of
community residents
B. Agriculture
Cooperative
and Livelih
ood Dev’t.
 Increased agricultural
production, employment
and income
 Improved health of
livestock/poultry
animal
s and reduced incidents
of livestock/
poultry diseases
 Improved environmental
protection and
conservation of natural
resources
 Increased access to
credit/financing
 Enhancement of
knowledge, skills,
aw
areness and leader- ship
opportunities
Improvement in Social
Development
A. Health &Social Services
 Improved health of
community residents
 Improved nutritional
st
b. Participation Figure 2. Model for Effective Implementation of Annual Investment Plan
atus of pre-school
and school-age children
c. Coordination
4. Implementing
Improved
AgriIndustrial
Dev’t.
Improved
Quality of
Life
Improved
Social Dev’t.
necessary impacts for community development such as developments in the
areas of infrastructures, health and social services, and agriculture, cooperative
& livelihood development.
Requirements for Effective Implementation of Annual Investment Plan
A. Structures
A.1. Local Chief Executive - The local chief executive is the leader of all
councils, committees, and individuals that/who work in all activities that concern
the annual investment plan.
The LCE should have, based on SWOT analysis results, the strengths in
the areas of dedicated service, fund sourcing initiative, maintaining peace and
order, and non partisan politics to pursue community development, etc.
One particular example of leadership is shown in the ECOSAN project of
San Fernando City, La Union which begun in 2004, and marked the completion
of all efforts of the city in reducing, reusing and recycling waste. This was thru the
leadership of the LCE by forming a Technical Working Group (TWG) to ensure
and oversee the implementation of the project. In addition to the TWG, a
consortium was put in place too. It composed of the Center for the Advanced
Philippine Studies (CAPS), Foundation for Sustainable Society Inc. (FSSI), Solid
Waste Management Association of the Philippines (SWAPP), Institute for the
Development of Educational and Ecological Alternatives, DMMMSU-NLUC, and
barangay councils of San Agustin and Nagyubuyuban. The city is the very first in
practicing ECOSAN technology in the entire country.
Relative on the above, under the dynamic leadership of the city’s LCE the
City Development Strategy was formulated with the technical assistance of the
World Bank and NEDA Region 1. Through the CDS, the city is able to compete
with the different cities of the world. This has resulted to being recipient of
numerous awards and grants from various international institutions, one of which
is the United Nations Habitat Scroll of Honor Award, a recognition given to the
city’s LCE for advocating the empowerment of women and for drawing support to
city’s sustainable development.
Grants and assistance for the implementation of various programs and
projects came from the World Bank, World Health Organization, Canadian
International Development Agency, Japan International Cooperating Agency,
Ford Foundation, Asian Development Bank, Asia Urbs, Deutche Stiftung fur
Internationale Invictlung, Habitat-United Nations, USAIP-AEP-ACEC, and
USAID-ARD-GOLD.
The City Development Strategy opened the doors of these institutions to
extend assistance to the city and has brought San Fernando City, La Union into
the global map. The CDS, is a key factor for the fast growing City of the North to
be a “globally competitive and a world-class city” (San Fernando City SocioEconomic Profile 2005).
The Cabugao LCE, in its effort to change the image of Cabugao, Ilocos
Sur, has devised a transformation scheme with the belief that having the political
will and commitment to serve, everything will be placed to order. Hence, “Intayon
Cabugao” was born as the answer to the original battle cry “Cabugao Agriing Ka!
Cabugao Agbalbaliw Ka! ( Wake-up Cabugao! Change for Cabugao!”). Intayon
Cabugao is the municipality’s battle cry for social and economic progress to
include the development of tourism, healthy environment and the improvement of
the quality of life of the 35, 000 Cabugenians. It encourages participation in the
development projects and other activities of the local government unit and the
driving force to unite all Cabugenians, regardless of political color, culture, class
and status in the pursuit of prosperity, happiness and commitment.
The Cabugao LGU is mandated to establish economic structures that will
serve as groundwork for sustainable development. The implementation of vital
reforms to serve as catalyst to ensure survival and achievement lies on positive
transformation in order to strengthen the foundation for stability and growth. With
this, the LGU initiated the implementation of the following: “OPLAN: DR. DIO-C” - Orderly and peaceful locality; Pro-GOD, pro-poor, pro-life, and pro-environment;
Literacy, labor and employment; Adequate provision of public service responsive
to the needs and welfare of the people; No to illegal drugs, gambling,
lawlessness and political dynasty; Democratic and transparent administration;
Revitalized and re-structured program of sports, youth and cultural development;
Delivery of basic services; Infrastructure, agriculture and commercial
development; Outreach programs for total economic mobilization and extensive
social amelioration through medical missions, provision of free PhilHealth
Insurance Coverage and implementation of Senior Citizen Program; for
Cabugao, La Union (Intayon Cabugao, 2006).
In connection with the above, the LCE of Cabugao, Ilocos Sur initiated
lakbay-aral of selected key personnel of the LGU, traveling to neighboring
municipalities and far-away provinces with the sole purpose of getting information
on best practices being implemented by the concerned LGUs. The Cabugao
LGU forged sisterhood ties with Marikina City, to which the programs Clean and
Green, Solid Waste Management and Market Operation were adopted.
To start the implementation of the programs, the LCE created a task force
to spearhead the information dissemination and initial implementation of the
programs.
The LCE of Agoo, La Union on the other hand, manifested his leadership
in the following: (a) led his constituents in Agoo’s clean and green program and
resulted to winning the Cleanest and Greenest Town National Award in 2003 and
one among the top three national finalist in 2004 in the Gawad Pangulo sa
Kapaligiran. (b) the Agoo’s LCE leadership in literacy program was recognized
thru the national awards the Agoo LGU received as national champion in
National Literacy Awards for three consecutive years, 2002-2004. The LCE’s twin
priority projects as provided in Municipal Development Plan of Agoo, La Union
were (1) transformed President Elpidio Quirino National High School-Annex
(PEQNHS-Annex) into an ideal LGU-sponsored public high school, and (2) put
up the Agoo Technical Vocational Education Training Center, the first LGU
supported technical school. (c) the LCE constituted the Municipal Anti-Drug
Abuse Council (MADAC) and the LGU was cited the Best Municipal Anti-Drug
Abuse Council during the celebration of the 1st Anti-Illegal Drugs Special
Operations Task Group (AIDSOTG) held at PRO1 Camp Gen. Oscar Florendo
Headquarters in San Fernando City, La Union. Agoo, La Union was the only
municipality in Region 1that received said award. The council sponsored several
anti-illegal drug symposiums among the youth to instill awareness of the harmful
effects of dangerous dugs, and initiated intensive drive to rehabilitate drug
dependents by sending them to rehabilitation center in Magalang, Pampanga
(Agoo Socio-Economic Profile 2006).
A.2. Local Development Council - The councils and committees are
Code-mandated such as the (a) local development council who assists the
sanggunian in setting the direction of economic and social development, and
coordinating development efforts within its territorial jurisdiction (Sec. 106);
formulate long-term/medium-term, and annual socio-economic development
plans and policies, and annual investment programs, appraise and prioritize
socio-economic development programs and projects, and coordinate, monitor,
and evaluate the implementation of development programs and projects (Sec.
109a); submits its proposed policies, programs, and projects to the sangguniang
panlungsod/bayan for appropriate action (Sec.114); (b) executive committee who
represents the LDC and acts on its behalf when it is not in session (Sec. 111);
and (c) sectoral/functional committees who assist the LDC in the performance of
its function (Sec. 112) (Nolledo, 1991).
Since the local development council is headed by the local chief executive
(LCE), in terms of community development it follows that whatever is attributed
as actions and accomplishments of the LCE is also the actions and
accomplishments of the LDC, and all other councils that the LCE may create and
head, both code-mandated or non-code.
A.3. City/Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator - The
planning and development coordinator formulates integrated economic, social,
physical, and other development plans and policies for consideration of the local
government development council (Sec. 476b1), and promote people participation
in development planning (Sec. 476b7) (Nolledo, 1991).
My interviews of the Planning and Development Coordinators tell that a
PDC should be patient in soliciting participation from the different stakeholders,
especially in getting their feedbacks and outputs for the annual investment plan
and deliberating on these before finally inputting in the plan. This includes the
punong barangays, representatives of NGOs operating in the LGU, and different
department heads of the local government unit, most especially with those incharge in delivery of services in the area of health and social services, livelihood
development, and infrastructures as well. At the same time the patience and
good working relationship extend to dealings with the municipal development
council members and city/municipal sangguniang bayan members for a better
planning and implementation of the annual investment plan. Accordingly, the
PDC should be able to generate unison of minds of all stakeholders in the
framing of the annual investment plan.
A.4. Sangguniang Panlungsod/Bayan - The SP/B approves the annual
investment plan (Sec. 444b1ii and Sec. 455b1ii). It also approves the annual and
supplemental budgets of the municipal government and appropriate funds for
specific programs, projects, services and activities of the city/municipality, or for
other purposes not contrary to law, in order to promote the general welfare of the
municipality and its inhabitants (Sec. 447a2i and Sec. 458a2i). It also approves
ordinances that shall ensure the efficient and effective delivery of the basic
services and facilities (Sec 447a5 and Sec 458a5).
In addition to these is the presence of a member of the sangguniang
panlungsod/bayan – the chairman of the committee on appropriations – in local
development council as a regular member (Sec. 107). This further strengthens
the role of the SP/B in the implementation of the programs and projects through
budget appropriations (Nolledo 1991).
One good case to cite here in the area of approving ordinances is the San
Fernando City, La Union’s City Ordinance No. 2004-010 which established the
agriculture-related Kasay Marine Protected Area (MPA) in December 2004. The
MPA is 30 hectares in area, and established for the rehabilitation and
replenishment of fishery and coastal resources.
Other accomplishments of the SP of the City are the approval of
ordinances related to health and social services such as the following: (a)
Ordinance 2004-001 which prescribes sanitary requirements for junk shops for
the maintenance of a healthier environment; (b) Ordinance No. 2004-004 which
provides for the conduct of human rights education; (c) Ordinance No. 2004-006
which promulgated rules and regulations for the protection of the children; and
Ordinance No. 2004-007 which designated pedestrian lanes in the city in
response to traffic problem and to protect pedestrians, particularly school
children; Ordinance No. 2003-004 which prescribed policies and measures for
the prevention and control of HIV/AIDS in the City of San Fernando; and
Ordinance No. 2003-007 which provided for the solid waste management of the
city being a model LGU (San Fernando City Socio-Economic Profile 2005;
Ordinance No. 2002-002 which required producers and manufacturers of foodgrade salt to iodize their products and food establishments to use iodized salt in
their food preparation; and Ordinance No. 2002-003 which established a
Philhealth Capitalization Fund for qualified indigent families of the City of San
Fernando, La Union.
Additionally, with clear understanding of the roles of the Sanggunian as
policy maker, law maker, representative and constituency builder as vital
ingredients to effective performance in legislation, the San Fernando City, La
Union Sanggunian members attended various seminars/trainings and
conferences both here and abroad. Most notable of them were the Seong-Ho
Cultural Festival in Ansan City, South Korea; Seminar on Environmental
Challenges, International Conference for Renewal Energies in Germany; and the
Signing of the Memorandum of Agreement establishing friendly city relationship
with the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China;
Water Cities Session in Osaka, Japan; 5th Luzon Island Congress in Palawan;
Technical Exchange of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities International
Partnership Program in Langley, Canada (San Fernando City Socio-Economic
Profile 2005).
In connection to the Cabugao LGU’s effort to maximize the coverage of
the implementation of the programs previously cited above (Clean and Green,
Solid Waste Management and Market Operation), the SB of Cabugao, Ilocos
Sur, in its firm resolve passed the following ordinances: (a) Solid Waste
Management Code, (b) Sanitation Code, (c) Northern Ilocos Sur Trade Center
Code, (d) Patakaran at Alituntunin sa Pamilihang Bayan, and (e) Anti-Rabies
Ordinance (Intayon Cabugao, 2006).
Sangguniang Bayan of Agoo, La Union on the other hand manifested its
responsiveness in the implementation of LGUs programs and projects thru the
enactment and approval of ordinances such as the following: (a) Ordinance No.
03-2002 which provides for fully supporting and promoting the salt iodization
program in the municipality; (b) Ordinance No. 06-2002 which provides for the
use, management, protection, conservation, and development of the coastal and
marine resources as well as regulating the fisheries and fishing enterprise in the
municipality; (c) Municipal Ordinance No. 01-2003 which provides for regulating
the sale, serving and drinking of alcoholic beverages in places of amusements,
business establishments and public places; (d) Municipal Ordinance 04-2003
which provides for regulating smoking in public conveyance, theaters, assembly
halls, hospitals, schools and public offices within the jurisdiction of the
municipality; and resolutions made from 2002-2004 approving the development
plan and endorsing the annual investment plan to the provincial and regional
development councils (Sangguniang Bayan Journal).
The united cooperation and collaborative efforts of all the six elements of
the structures in input box in the pursuit for a developed community through the
programs and projects determined and specified in the annual development plan
by themselves, which cover the infrastructure, health and social services, and
agriculture, cooperative and livelihood development, will ultimately redound to
opportunities that have been identified in the SWOT analysis. These are the
opportunities in (a) creating employment, (b) generating small-scale and largescale entrepreneurships, (c) inducing tourism boom, (d) increasing agriculture
production, (e) substantially decreasing illnesses/death, (f) increasing capital
investment, (g) increasing qualification of the LGU for sisterhood with highly
urbanized LGUs, (h) expanding of BOT and variants in the financing and
implementation of major infra projects, and (i) accessing overseas development
assistance and private infrastructure development funds for major projects.
B. Programs and Projects In infrastructure the projects include, barangay
roads and bridges, health center, barangay hall, day care center, shore
protection/river control, water supply, post-harvest facilities and communal
toilet/comfort room.
In health and social services the projects include, immunization, nutrition,
micronutrient supplementation, prenatal and post partum care, treatment of
notifiable diseases.
And in agriculture cooperative and livelihood development, the projects
include ginintuang ani, high value commercial crops, livestock production,
fisheries program, support programs, regulatory programs, extension, and
community training and employment.
C. Policy - The policy for the planning and implementation of the annual
investment plan is based on specific provisions of RA 7160 (Local Government
Code of 1991) in relation to annual investment plan.
The RA 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) provides the different
policies, rules and regulations in the conduct of process concerning annual
investment plan. The provisions of the local government code give a clear
direction on how the process that concern annual investment plan will be carried
out by the local government unit.
The following sections of the Code have the necessary bearings to annual
investment plan. These are Sections 106 -115 (Local Development Councils);
Sec. 444 and Sec. 455 (The Chief Executive: Powers, Duties, Functions and
Compensation); Sec. 447a2 and Sec. 458a2 (Powers, Duties, Functions and
Compensation of Sangguniang Panlungsod/Bayan); Sec. 476 (Planning and
Development Coordinator Powers and Duties); Sec. 287 (Local Development
Projects); Sec. 106 (Local Development Council); Sec. 111 (Executive
Committee); Sec. 112 (Sectoral/Functional Committees); Sec. 114 (Relation of
Local Development Councils to the Sanggunian and the Regional Development
Council);
Sec.
107 (Composition of Local Development Council); Sec. 109 (Functions of
Local Development Councils); and Sec. 287 (Local Development Projects)
(Nolledo, 1991).
All these provide specific and clear policies that pertain to concerned LCE
officials in their actions and decisions that are community development-oriented.
When the specifics of the different sections of the code are recognized and
adhered to with diligence by the concerned officials, the intensity of action and
effect of development efforts in all fronts, from infrastructure and health to
agriculture, cooperative and livelihood development, will be translated to genuine
economic prosperity of the LGU.
D. Strategies
D.1. Directing - The local chief executive directs the implementation of
the development plan upon approval thereof by the sangguniang
panlungsod/bayan (Sec. 444b1ii and Sec. 455b1ii). The LCE calls upon any
national official or employee stationed in or assigned to the municipality to advice
him on matters affecting the city/municipality and to make recommendation
thereon, or to coordinate in the formulation and implementation of plans,
programs and projects (Sec. 444b1xvi and Sec. 455b1xvi).
Additionally, the local chief executive presents as may be deemed
necessary at the opening of the regular session of the sangguniang
panlungsod/bayan for every calendar year, the program of government and
propose policies and projects for the consideration of the sangguniang
panlungsod/bayan as the general welfare of the inhabitants and the needs of the
local government unit may require (Sec. 444b1iii and Sec. 455b1iii).
Similarly, the local development council may call any local official
concerned or any official of national agencies of offices in the local government
unit to assist in the formulation of development plans and public investment
programs (Sec. 107d) (Nolledo, 1991).
D.2. Participation - The city/municipal planning and development
coordinator promotes people participation in development planning (Sec. 476b7).
The city/municipal development council deliberates on the consistency of the AIP
with their priorities identified in the strategic plan. The members of the council are
allowed to propose specific projects and activities in the plan, including their
budget (http://www.socialwatch.org/es/informeImpreso/pdfs/artiocle2001_phi.pdf,
11/08/2001).
D.3. Coordination - The local development council (LDC) coordinates the
implementation of development programs and projects (Sec. 109a5). The local
chief executive (LCE) coordinates the implementation of technical services
rendered by national and provincial offices, including public works and
infrastructure programs in the municipality (Sec. 444b4ii and Sec. 455b4ii)
(Nolledo, 1991).
Elements of Administration of Programs and Projects
It consists of planning/programming, organizing, budgeting, implementing,
monitoring, and evaluation.
A. Planning – The city/municipal mayor directs the formulation of the
city/municipal development plan, with the assistance of the city/municipal council
(Sec. 444b1ii). The city/municipal development council shall assist the
corresponding sanggunian in setting the direction of economic and social
development (Sec. 106). The council formulates annual socio-economic
development plans and policies and, annual public investment programs (Sec.
109a1 and 2).
On the other hand, the planning and development coordinator formulates
integrated economic, social, physical, and other development plans and policies
for consideration of the local government development council (Sec. 476b1), and
promote people participation in development planning (Sec. 476b7) (Nolledo,
1991).
Generally, in the annual planning process, the city/municipal planning and
development coordinator (C/MPDC) drafts the first version of the annual
investment plan (AIP) or the spending program for the 20-percent development
fund. This draft is presented to the members of the local development council,
who deliberate on the consistency of the AIP with their priorities identified in the
strategic plan. The members are allowed to propose specific projects and
activities in the plan, including their budget. After the approval of the proposed
spending for projects and programs by the LDC, the plans are forwarded to the
sangguniang panlungsod/bayan for approval. In some cases, the plans are
remanded to the LDC for revisions and corrections (http://www.socialwatch.org/e
s/informeImpreso/pdfs/artiocle2001_phi.pdf, 11/08/2001).
The local chief executive, sangguniang panlungsod/bayan, local
development council, and in coordination with other stakeholders will make sure
always that the programs and projects such as infrastructure, health and social
services, and agriculture, cooperative & livelihood development are given equal
level of priority based on the concept of optimizing minimum resources for
sustainable development.
Best practice of Cabugao, Ilocos Sur LCE was that before the full blast
planning was to be done, the LCE initiated lakbay-aral of selected key personnel
of the LGU, traveling to neighboring municipalities and far-away provinces with
the sole purpose of getting information on best practices being implemented by
the model LGUs, like Marikina City. This lakbay-aral equipped the personnel the
needed knowledge and bright ideas in going through the planning process
(Intayon Cabugao, 2006). The pre-planning activities reconcile with the idea of
Burke (1979) that effective planning cannot be accomplished unless all the
necessary information becomes available at project initiation.
B. Organizing – The mayor shall form the development council, which he
shall head. The council in turn shall form its executive committee chaired by the
city/municipal mayor that will represent it and act on its behalf when it is not in
session (Sec. 111). The mayor shall form other sectoral/functional committees to
assist it in the performance of the council’s functions (Sec. 112) (Nolledo, 1991).
The mayor shall lead in organizing stakeholders groups identified target
beneficiaries of LGU programs and projects. The scenario in the implementation
of the “Program in Providing Resettlement Areas for Settlers Located in Danger
Zones” in San Fernando City LGU as elaborated under letter d below is the good
example. After seeing the gravity of the problem on the basis of the inventory of
families affected by the problem she conducted, organized the stakeholders,
explaining that they are living in a danger zone and that there is a need to
relocate them inland for their safety.
The Agoo LGU’s partnership with a SEC registered women’s organization
in funding livelihood projects and literacy program as discussed in the foregoing
topics in Agoo’s levels of collaboration, and budgetary support is one best
example of partnership that could be directly related to organizing skill of the
local chief executive.
Similarly, the Cabugao LGU efforts in its programs “Clean & Green and
Solid Waste Management” was started with the LCE’s formation of a task force,
after several months of studying the different development thrusts of model LGUs
like Marikina City, to spearhead the information dissemination and its initial
implementation (Intayon Cabugao, 2006)
The high collaboration efforts of the three model LGUs, when put to work
by any other LGU will ensure that the planning and implementation of programs
and projects is always reflective of the participation of all stakeholders. Hence,
genuine effort and
C. Budgeting - Each local government unit shall appropriate in its annual
budget no less than twenty percent (20%) of its annual revenue allotment for
development projects (Sec. 287). The sangguniang panlungsod/bayan approves
the annual and supplemental budgets of the local government and appropriate
funds for specific programs, projects, services and activities of the
city/municipality (Sec. 447a2i and Sec. 458a2i) (Nolledo, 1991).
Aside from the code-mandated 20% development fund, budgets for
programs and projects should include the funds that would be sourced by the
LCE, as an offshoot of the his active initiative for fund sourcing – this being one
of the strengths of the LGU enumerated in the SWOT analysis results.
There has to be equitable appropriations for programs and projects in the
three areas of annual investment plan in order to fell the impacts of
implementation.
D. Implementing – The city/municipal mayor implements, upon approval
of the development council and the sangguniang panlungsod/bayan, the
development plan (Sec. 444b1ii and Sec. 455b1ii). Section 444b2 and Sec.
455b2 also provide that the LCE implements all approved policies, programs,
projects, services and activities of the city/municipality. Similarly the local
development council coordinates the implementation of development programs
and projects (Sec. 109a5) (Nolledo, 1991).
One good example of the LCE’s role in implementing the programs and
projects is the case of San Fernando City, La Union - the program in providing
resettlement areas for settlers located in danger zones.
Upon completion of their city profile under the City Development Strategy
(CDS) process, the City of San Fernando realized that they had some 200 fishing
families located in a danger zone along its coastal area. The City Government
was alarmed by this situation as every time a typhoon would hit the city, strong
waves and floods would destroy their homes and property.
To address the situation, the LCE (Mayor Mary Jane C. Ortega) first
conducted an inventory of the families living in the area. It was then that she
found out that there were 240 families living there. She then organized the
stakeholders, explaining that they are living in a danger zone and that there is a
need to relocate them inland for their safety. The Mayor assured them that each
family would be given a piece of property in a safer location on the condition that
they monitor the number of people living in their area to ensure that no new
families relocate there. Mayor Ortega allocated a portion of the city’s funds to
purchase a 5,000 sqm. property at Bgy. Poro, Catbangen, at the western portion
of the city located along a safe portion of the shoreline. The present site can
accommodate relocation sites for 100 families. After that, she applied for a grant
under the World Bank’s JSDF fund to finance the housing construction. The
property has now been cleared and is ready for construction. But while they are
awaiting the release of the funds for the housing construction, she asked the
future settlers to organize themselves into “blocks” so that they can choose their
own property. At the same time, the City Government also issued Certificates of
Property Rights to each future landowner as their security that once construction
is completed, the house, and the land it is built on will be turned over to them
(http://www.cdsea.org/CDSKnowledge/best%20practices/best_practices2.htm,
10/24/2004).
Similarly is the Agoo, La Union case wherein the LCE donated his own lot
of 5,000 sq.m. situated at Barangay Consolacion to establish the first LGUfunded national high school – Don Eufemio F.Eriguel Memorial NationaL High
School (Agoo Socio-Economic Profile 2006).
For Cabugao LCE’s role in implementing the programs and projects, it has
to do with its Clean & Green and Solid Waste Management Programs. After
several months of studying the different developmental thrusts of model LGUs,
the local administration headed by Mayor Diocaesar S. Suero undertook a
decisive action, make Marikina City a sister city of the municipality (Intayon
Cabugao, 2006).
Generally, all the above-cited best practices are within the sphere of the
idea advanced by Todaro (1995), which says that the challenge of development
is to improve the quality of life especially in the world’s poor countries. It
encompasses, as end in themselves, better education, higher standards of health
and nutrition, less poverty, a cleaner environment, more quality of opportunity,
greater individual freedom and a richer cultural life.
In addition to the Code-mandated LCE functions in the aspect of
implementation of programs and projects, the LGU’s strategies in implementation
of infrastructure, health and social services, and agriculture, cooperative and
livelihood development should be those enumerated strategies perceived
effective by the respondents in page 208.
E. Monitoring and Evaluation - The local development council monitors
and evaluates the implementation of development programs and projects (Sec.
109a5). Also, the planning and development coordinator monitors and evaluates
the implementation of the different development programs, projects, and
activities in the local government unit (Sec. 476b4). Similarly, the
sectoral/functional committees will assist the local development council in their
functions of monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the development
programs and projects (Sec. 112) (Nolledo, 1991).
Improved Agri-Industrial Development
The immediate impact of effective implementation of the annual
investment plans is the acceleration of agri-industrial development in the LGUs .
This will lead to a consistent rise in economic growth and eventually, wide spread
benefit sharing among the LGUs. Inter-LGU spill-over concept of development
comes into play and will lead to (a) narrowing down agriculture and nonagriculture labor productivity gap, (b) small and medium scale enterprises will
grow in number, (c) bridge gap between between demand and supply thereby
increasing employment opportunities, and (d) wage compliance by the employer
sector will improve.
Improved Social Development
The immediate impact of the effective delivery of health care services to
the people is a healthy, educated, productive and empowered citizenry.
Improved Quality of Life
Improved quality of life is the capacity of the people, specially the poor, to
get good access to goods, services and information, and an improved social wellbeing.
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The study aimed to evolve a model for an effective implementation of AIPs
based on the selected model LGUs in Region 1.
Specifically, it sought to answer the following: 1) the level of priority of
development programs/projects in AIPs of selected local government units in
Region 1; 2.1) the comparison of the perceptions of the respondents using OneWay ANOVA; 2) the level of collaboration of LGUs, Sangguniang
Panlungsod/Bayan, Academe, and Business Sector in planning and
implementation of the annual investment plans of selected LGUs of Region 1;
2.1) the comparison of the perceptions of the respondents using One-Way
ANOVA; 3) the level of effectiveness of implementation of the annual
investment plans of the three selected LGUs in Region 1; 3.1) the comparison of
the perception of the respondents using One-Way ANOVA; 4) the level of
adequacy of budgetary support to annual investment plan implementation in the
three selected LGUs in Region 1; 4.1) the comparison of the perceptions of the
respondents using One-Way ANOVA; 5) the relationships between the three
areas of AIP in terms of levels of perceptions of the groups of respondents using
the Pearson correlation analysis formula; 6) the strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats (SWOT) in implementation of AIPs in selected LGUs in
Region 1; and finally, 7) a model for effective implementation of annual
investment plans.
The study followed the descriptive method of research, which included
correlational survey technique, with the use of a structured questionnaire as the
main data gathering instrument, and supplemented by interview and
documentary analysis.
The assessment covered three (3) selected LGUs: Agoo and San
Fernando City in La Union, and Cabugao, Ilocos Sur. The total respondents
population was 111 in four (4) sets of respondents grouped as follows: a) Local
Government Unit Department Heads; b) Sangguniang Panlungsod/Bayan; c)
Business Sector; and d) School Administrators. The instrument was validated
through pilot testing to 20 respondents in LGU Rosario, La Union (not part of the
selected LGUs), comprising of department heads, sangguniang bayan members,
business sector, and school administrators. To test the reliability of the
instrument the Kuder-Richardson formula 20 was used. There was a very high
index of reliability. The reliability coefficient was recorded at 0.998 for part 1
questionnaire; 0.996 for part 2 questionnaire; 0.997 for part 3 questionnaire; and
0.995 for part 4 questionnaire. The validity of the instrument was sought from the
approval of the Oral Examination Committee. Statistical tests employed were
average weighted means and Analysis of Variance to test the significant
differences in the perceptions of the respondents. Scheffe’s test was used to
further determine which pairs of means were significant. Spearman correlation
analysis was used to test the relationships of three areas of annual investment
plan of the LGU. Specifically the findings were as follows:
1. Level of Priority
Comparison of perceptions of the groups of respondents showed that in
infrastructure, Cabugao, Ilocos Sur’s level of prioritization was much higher than
Agoo, La Union and San Fernando City, La Union.
In health and services, insignificant differences existed as to the level of
priority development of LGUs. It implied that the LGUs had a uniform level of
priority in HSS.
In agriculture cooperative and livelihood development, Cabugao placed
higher level of priority than Agoo and San Fernando City, with the latter LGU
(San Fernando City) as the least.
However, there were no significant differences on the priority level per
project/indicator in areas of infrastructure, and agriculture cooperative and
livelihood development across the three selected LGUs.
2. Level of Collaboration
With regard to infrastructure, Cabugao, Ilocos Sur’s collaboration level
with DH, SB, BS, and SA in planning and implementation of AIP was significantly
higher than Agoo, La Union though insignificantly different (P<.05) with San
Fernando City, La Union.
In health and services, Cabugao, Ilocos Sur’s level of collaboration
indicated higher than Agoo, La Union but insignificantly (P<.05) different with San
Fernando City, La Union. With regard to agriculture cooperative and livelihood
development, Cabugao Ilocos Sur’s level of collaboration was higher than those
of other two LGUs.
However, there were no significant differences on the level of collaboration
in planning and implementation of per project/indicator in areas of infrastructure,
health and social services, and agriculture cooperative and livelihood
development across the three selected LGUs.
3. Level of Effectiveness
Similar level of effectiveness existed (P>.05) between Agoo, La Union and
San Fernando City, La Union and between San Fernando City, La Union and
Cabugao, Ilocos Sur with the latter municipality (Cabugao, Ilocos Sur) exhibited
higher level of effectiveness as to implementation of infrastructure programs.
No significant differences existed in the means of perceptions of the
groups of respondents on the level of effectiveness of implementing health and
social services between the three (3) LGUs.
On the level of effectiveness of implementation on agriculture cooperative
and livelihood development, Cabugao Ilocos Sur’s was significantly higher than
Agoo but insignificantly different (P>.05) from San Fernando City, La Union.
However, there were no significant differences on the level of
effectiveness in implementation of the development per program/project in areas
of infrastructure, health and social services, and agriculture cooperative and
livelihood development across the three selected LGUs.
4. Level of Adequacy of Budgetary Support
In infrastructure, Cabugao, Ilocos Sur’s level of adequacy of budget
support was higher than those of San Fernando City, La Union and Agoo, La
Union. However, the latter LGUs were of similar level.
In implementing health and social services, Cabugao, Ilcos Sur was at
highest level, followed by San Fernando City, La Union and Agoo, La Union in
that order of significance.
In implementing agricultural cooperative and development, Cabugao
Ilocos Sur’s level of budgetary support was significantly higher than San
Fernando and Agoo in that order.
No significant differences existed on the level of budgetary support in
implementation of the development programs/projects in AIPs across the three
selected LGUs.
5.1. Relationships Among the Level of Priority of the Three Areas
For Agoo, La Union, the infrastructure priority level was significantly
related to HSS and ACLD. HSS on the other hand was also significantly related
to ACLD.
For San Fernando City, La Union, significant relationships existed bet
ween and among the three areas of AIP.
For Cabugao, ILocos Sur, there were high significant relationships of
programs and projects between health and social services and infrastructure,
between HSS and ACLD, and between infrastructure and ACLD.
5.2. Relationships Among Level of Collaboration of the Three Areas
In Agoo, La Union, collaboration in the implementation of HSS programs
and projects was highly significantly related to the collaboration in
implementation of infrastructure programs and; and between infrastructure and
ACLD.
For San Fernando City, La Union, there was high significant relationship
between level of collaboration in implementation of infrastructure-HSS; HSS
Ps&Ps and ACLD Ps&Ps; infrastructure-ACLD.
For Cabugao, Ilocos Sur, significant relationships existed between and
among level of collaborations of the AIP’s programs and projects -
implementation of HSS and infrastructure; between HSS and ACLD; and
between infrastructure and ACLD.
5.3. Relationships Among the Level of Effectiveness of the Three Areas
For Agoo, La Union, relationships of the LGU Agoo’s effectiveness of
implementation between and among the three areas - HSS and infrastructure;
HSS and ACLD; and infrastructure and ACLD - were significantly high.
For San Fernando City, La Union, the relationship between and among
the LGU’s effectiveness in the implementation of the HSS, infrastructure, and
ACLD was highly significant.
For Cabugao, Ilocos Sur, significant relationships between and among the
LGU’s levels of effectiveness in implementation of the AIP’s three areas existed.
5.4. Relationships Among the Level of Budgetary Support of the
Three
Areas
For Agoo, La Union, high significant relationship existed between the
LGU’s level of budgetary support for infrastructure and HSS Ps&Ps; between
HSS and ACLD; and between infrastructure and ACLD.
For San Fernando City, La Union, there was no significant relationship
between HSS and infrastructure; between HSS and was highly significant;
between infrastructure and ACLD was a moderately small positive correlation.
For Cabugao, Ilocos Sur, there were high significant relationships between
infrastructure and ACLD, between HSS and ACLD, and HSS and infrastructure in
terms of level of budgetary.
6. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)
LGUs have similar strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats as
results of the respondents’ perceptions on the pre-determined factors in each
area.
7. Model for Effective Implementation of Annual Investment Plans
The underlying principle for framing the model was building on the levels
of priority, collaboration, effectiveness, and budgetary support in implementation
of the annual investment plans of the selected LGUs, and the strengths and
improving weaknesses, opportunities and threats in effective implementation of
the annual investment plans based on the perceptions of the respondents. The
model was an input-process-output-outcome (IPOU), which spells out the
structure, programs/projects, policy, and strategies under input; elements of
administration under process; improvement of agri-industrial and social
development under outcome; and improved agri-industrial-social development to
finally result to improved quality of life of citizenry under outcome.
Conclusions
Based from the findings of this study, the following conclusions are drawn:
1. There is a uniform level of priority of all programs and projects in
infrastructure, health and social services and, agriculture cooperative and
livelihood development.
2. The comparison of overall means of perceptions of respondents across the
three LGUs tell that there is a uniform level of collaboration with DH, SB, BS,
3.
4.
5.
6.
and SA in planning and implementation of AIP in areas of infrastructure,
health and social services and, agriculture cooperative and livelihood
development.
Overall means of perceptions of respondents across the three LGUs indicated
that there is a uniform level of effectiveness of implementation of annual
investment plan in the areas of infrastructure, health and social services and,
agriculture cooperative and livelihood development.
Respondents across the three LGUs indicates that there is a uniform level of
budgetary support in implementation of the AIP in the areas of infrastructure,
health and social services and, agriculture cooperative and livelihood
development.
The degree of relationships between and among the three areas of AIP in
each model LGU in terms of level of priority of development, level of
collaboration, level of effectiveness, and level of budgetary support in
implementation, is dominantly a very high positive correlation.
There are similar perceptions on the pre-determined factors in each of
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the three selected LGUs
in effectively implement the annual investment plans.
Recommendation
1. The LGUs should give equal priority the programs/projects in
infrastructure, health and social services and, agriculture cooperative and
livelihood development in budget allocation and implementation.
2. The LGUs should constantly maintain an extensive collaboration with
all the stakeholders, especially the grassroots, in planning and implementation of
the annual investment plan. The collaborative planning and implementation of
programs and projects will provide LCE and other, i. e. SPB, school
administrators, etc – this will provide a good data of the actual needs and
aspirations of the people that would be considered for priority.
3. For the effective implementation of the AIP, there should be adequate
and equitable appropriation on priority programs and projects in the three areas
of AIP.
4. The LGUs should develop the skill of allocating budget by optimizing
minimum resources to make sure that budget is equally provided in the three
areas of the AIP for the successful implementation so that the impacts will be felt
by the community. The LGUs should learn to effectively communicate its goals of
governance purposely for the aim of conveying its selling point for budgetary
assistance from donors - local, national, foreign countries, and international
lending institutions.
5. The LGUs, regardless of income class should put equal focus in
programs and projects in three areas of the AIP in terms of budget,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation in the aim of achieving
complementary impacts of the results to each of the three areas of AIP.
6. The LGUs should further enhance their strengths; overcome their
weakness thru more focused commitment to community development; take
advantage of the opportunities that are within their reach; and remove or convert
the threats into strengths or opportunities.
7. Finally, in the light of the slow development and economic progress of
other local government units in the country, particularly Region 1 based on
income class, the proposed Model is strongly recommended for adoption as a
means to improve the quality of planning and implementation of annual
investment plan. The model is necessary for LGUs' genuine governance,
community development, agro-industrial development and employment
generation, the eventual rise in commerce and industrial economy, and global
competitiveness.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. BOOKS
Abellana, Rosalina. 1988. Principles of Teachings and Educational Technology. National
Bookstore, Inc. Manila
Bratton, John & Jeffery Gold. 2003. Human Resource Management Theory and Practice 3rd Ed.,
Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Burke, Rory. 1999. Project Management:Planning and Control Techniques 3rd Ed., Hohn Wiley &
Sons Ltd. United Kingdom.
Calmorin, L. P. & Calmorin M. A. 1995. Methods of Research and Thesis Writing. Rex
Book Store, Inc., Manila
Legaspi, Perla E. et al., 1998. The State of the Devolution Process: The Implementation of the
1991 Local Government Code in Selected LGUs. Local Government in the Phils. and
National College of Public Administration and Governance, University of the Phils.
Nolledo, Jose N. 1991. The Local Government Code of 1991 with Introductory Features.
Phil. Graphic Arts, Inc., Kalookan City, Philippines.
NSCB. __. Regional Social and Economic Trends (RSET) 2003, Region 1
NSCB. ----. Regional Social and Economic Trends (RSET) 2005, Region 1
Pinto, J. K. & O. P. Kharbanda. 1995. Stakeholder Conflict of Succesful Project
Managers. Van Nostrand Reinhold. USA.
Sevilla, Consuelo G. et. al. 1992. Research Methods, Revised Edition. Rex Book Store.
Quezon City.
Todaro, Michael P. 1997. Economic Development. 6TH Ed. USA: Addison-Wesley
Reading. New York
B. JOURNALS AND OTHER SOURCES
Agoo Sangguniang Bayan Journal of Ordinances/Resolutions
Agoo Socio-Economic Profile 2006
Agoo Status of Appropriations, Allotments and Obligation Report 2002,
2003,
2004
Cabugao Socio-Economic Profile 2006
City Accomplishment Report 2003, City of San Fernando Library
City Accomplishment Report 2006
Department of Finance – Bureau of Local Government Finance Journal 2005
DOF Order No. 32-01. Classification of Municipalities
DOF Order NO. 20 –05. Classification of Municipalities
Executive Order 309, as amended, Series of 1998
Gawad Galing Pook Award 2005 Cabugao’s paper submitted to RDC
Region 1
Gawad Galing Pook Award 2005 San Fernando City’s paper submitted to
RDC
Region 1 - Basic Integrated Approach on Good Governance
(BIAGG), of
San Fernando City
Intayon Cabugao, 2006
Journal, Office of Sangguniang Bayan Secretary
NEDA Region 1. Best Practices in Local Governance of the LGUs in the
Ilocos-Pangasinan
Region I Ilocos-Pangasinan Regional Development Plan 2004-2010
Regional Social and Economic Trends, Ilocos Region 2006
Report on the Utilization of the 20% Development Fund, 2002-2004
San Fernando City Socio-Economic Profile 2005
D. ELECTRONIC SOURCES
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/AC158E/ac158e0f.htm#bm15.1/4/14/97
www.un.org/esa/earthsummit/pilip.cp.htm/2/16/2004
http://www.odpm. gov.uk/stellent/groups/5/21/2003
http;//www.bestpractices.org/cgi.bin/bp98.cgi?cmd=d/5/17/2003
www. serd.ait.ac.thump/op5.pdf/7/12/2004
www.adb.org/Documents/TARs/PHI/r2_02.pdf/12/20/2001
www.globalink.net.ph/pdoleg/projects.htm/10/27/2004
www.adb.org/Documents/News/1998/nr/10/05/2004
http://adb.org/Documents/Events/2004/Infrastructure_Development/SecondWork/4/14/2003
http://web.worlbank.org./WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/EASTASIAPACIFICEXT/EX
TEAPREGTOPHEANUT/0/9/27/2004
www.adb.org/Documents/News/1998/nr 1998037,asp/7/30/2000
http://www.sunstar.com.hp/e-magazine/index.html/1/30/2005
www.com.intayoncabugao/3/17/2005
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/AC158E/ac158e0f.htm#bm15.1/4/19/2005
http://www.eworks.com.ph/pcps/lgu&cso.pdf/6/15/2005
http://www.fao. org/DOCREP/004/AC158E/ac158e0f.htm#bm15.1/10/28/2004
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/3/17/2004
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/AC158E/ac158e0f.htm#bm15.1/10/23/2003
www.bestpractices.org/bpbriefs/html/9/21/2004
http://www.adb.org/Documents/News/PhCO/phco-pr200501.pdf). /10/04/05
http://www.adb.org/Documen/Events/2002/Citizen Participation/Philippines
.pdf#se
arch=local%20government%20units/%20agricultural%20cooperativ
e%and
%20livelihood%20development”/10/05/2003
www.acturban/org/biennial/doc_netcomm/urbangovernancebriefs.htm/3/29/2003
www.un.org/esa/earth summit/pilip.cp.htm/7/28/2004
http://www.usaid.gov/pubs/cbj 2002/ane/ph/492-006.html/5/21/2004
http://www.sunstar.com.ph./index/html/6/18/2005
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/ stellent/groups8/10/2003
http.www.sunstar.com.ph/gensan/index.html/3/12/2005
http://www.news.inq7.net/breaking/index.htm/9/17/2004
http://www.cdsea.org/CDSKnowledge/best%20practices/best_practices2.
htm/10/
24/2004
http://www.noticias.info.asp.Communicados.asp?nid=105519&sre=/10/31/2004
http://www.adb.org/printer-friendly.asp?fr=%2Fdocuments%2Fnews%F19
99%2F
nr1999133.asp/6/20/2002
http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/decentralization/10/19/2003
www.pia.gov.ph/p041013.htm/8/11/2005
www.gov.ph/catlabor/preseedprog.asp/2/9/2005
www.cordon_isabela.gov.ph/indexphp?cat1+23/7/14/2003
www.globalink.net.ph/-cpdoleg/projects.htm/10/2/2004
http://www.cdsea.org/CDSKnowledge/best%20practices/best_practices
2.htm)/10/14/2005
http:www.nscb.gov.ph/ru1/SW.HTM
http://www.socialwatch.org/es/informeImpreso/pdfs/artiocle2001_phi.
pdf
http://www.bestpractices.org.bbriefs/urbangovernance/10/05/2004
http://www.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXERNAL/COUNTRIES/EWASTAS
IAPACIFICEXTERAPRETPHEANUT/O/11/16/2003