LAND GOVERNANCE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS PILOT STUDY IN THE PHILIPPINES:
IMPLICATIONS FOR NATIONAL POLICY DIALOGUE
Floradema Eleazar, Brian Garcia and Bonaparte Masangcay
LAM Governance Consultant, Portfolio Manager, and GIS Specialist
Land and Governance Innovations, Inc.
eleazarfolay@yahoo.com
Paper prepared for presentation at the
“2015 WORLD BANK CONFERENCE ON LAND AND POVERTY”
The World Bank - Washington DC, March 23-27, 2015
Copyright 2015 by author(s). All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim copies of this
document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright notice
appears on all such copies.
Abstract
The study looked at six key indicators of land governance based on data from five pilot local government
units in the Philippines to assess availability, quality, reliability and feasibility of collecting data for
global reporting. These are: (i) total area mapped; (ii) share of land in women’s name; (iii) number of
registered transactions of different types and prices paid; (iv) number of expropriations and payments
made; and (vi) tax assessments and amount of taxes collected.
The findings revealed that inefficiencies and delays in implementation of LAM programs by the national
agencies due to limited funding, weak capacities, outdated policies and overlapping mandates impact on
local government’s abilities to generate revenues, produce quality land use plans, expand titling coverage,
and properly record gender data.
The data collected indicate the importance of selected indicators for equity, fiscal performance, planning,
recording and recognition of ownership and tenure rights. However, critical steps have to be taken to
improve reliability and regularity of collecting information. Thus, an oversight mechanism needs to be in
place to ensure agreement is reached among relevant agencies to produce and share the required
information to enable meaningful policy dialogue and addressing the issues appropriately at local and
national levels.
Key Words:
benchmarking, local land governance, monitoring, policy dialogue
2
1.
Introduction
Properly chosen goals and performance targets at national and sub-national levels can have positive
effects for both service delivery and government accountability, particularly when embedded in a process
of participatory dialogue on bench-marking and priority setting. Linking engagement in the land sector
with drives for open data and transparency can generate the pressure required to address the root causes
impeding the delivery of services required for sustainable economic growth.
The land sector is well suited to such information driven change approach as it is unique in the sense that
providing reliable information to land owners and other interested parties is its core mandate and should
do so automatically. These are the “big data” in the land sector. In fact, land institutions are a key piece of
institutional infrastructure for making land information public, which is essential for markets. Therefore,
the land sector is more amenable to providing data for monitoring key indicators on a regular basis than
most other sectors, so that proper indicators and targets can guide development and implementation of
reforms. To the extent that registries comply with their mandate, disaggregated spatially referenced data
on land that are reliable and regularly updated should thus be available on a routine basis and, to the
extent that they can be linked to internal management of land agencies, can actually help to drive change
and realize synergies by combining different data sources in innovative ways. Such relevant and agreed
indicators can also help address problems arising from the sector’s institutional complexity, technical
sophistication, and political sensitivity.
2.
Importance of land governance for inclusive growth in the Philippines
The Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2011-2016 adopts a framework of inclusive growth, defined as
poverty reduction in multiple dimensions and massive creation of quality employment – as the desired
outcome. The Plan recognizes four major structural underpinnings that need to be overcome to achieve
these objectives: (a) inadequate infrastructure; (b) weak institutions and governance failures; (c)
inadequate levels of human development; and (d) poor and degraded state of environment and natural
resources. Good governance and anticorruption provide the overarching themes.
Against such backdrop, effective and equitable governance of land is vital for stimulating investments in
property development, agricultural production, rural development, gender equity, and environmental
sustainability in the Philippines – all essential elements towards inclusive growth. While land is the most
fundamental of all natural resources, its availability especially for development, agriculture and urban
3
settlement is scarce. By 2020, as the country’s population is expected to exceed 200 million, there will be
increasing pressure for more rationalized allocation of land to support the multifaceted demands.
It is increasingly acknowledged that institutional arrangements governing land and tenure security are key
factors for inclusive and sustainable growth, poverty reduction, equity and stability. Land-related issues
are cross-sectoral, and all too often; in the process of engaging in investments for forestry, mining,
infrastructure, disaster risk management and so forth, the underlying land issues seem to be either ignored
or considered to be less important. Land issues very much underpin the triple-bottom line approach to
sustainable development, with implications for economic, social and environmental dimensions.
Although the Philippines has a significant land mass of around 30 million hectares, it actually has less
than 15% of this land mass suitable for development and habitation. More than half of the landmass, at
52% (15.9 million hectares) is classified as forestlands1. Slightly less than half of the land mass, at 47%
(14 million hectares) are considered to be alienable and disposable lands2, but due to a range of factors,
much of this land is disaster prone (floods, landslides, earthquakes, excessive slope and so forth), thereby
reducing this to less than 15%, which can be considered used for habitation, agriculture and
development.3 Tenure and land use planning determine whether cities will indeed function as engines of
economic development in the Philippines. The sustainability of urban growth and the development of
housing, transport and other infrastructure, all require complete and reliable cadastral (land parcel)
mapping at appropriate scales (at least 1:2,500 in urban and 1:10,000 in rural areas), land records and land
valuation systems, as well as systems of responsible and enforced land use zoning and building permits,
that encourage citizens to invest in their housing, enable effective planning and allow for capturing
increases in land values via taxes for financing service delivery.
Support to the land sector is included in the priorities of the PDP 2011-2016, for both rural and urban
lands, including agricultural development, realization of comprehensive land use plans (CLUPs) by local
governments and more accurate tax mapping. The government’s priorities for the land sector are specified
in Chapter 10 of the PDP, which is based upon the Land Sector Development Framework (LSDF),
1
Philippines Development Plan, 2011-2016.
Some 5.4 million hectares of total classified forestlands have been either established or considered as protected areas making up a total of 240
protected areas. Of the 15.9 million hectares of forestland, only 6.343 million hectares or 41% were still forested in 2003, a significant decline
from the 17 million hectares recorded in the 1930s. Recent analysis using 2007 satellite imagery indicates that only around 19% of the country’s
total land mass remains as forested.
3
The 1987 Constitution, Commonwealth Act 141, of the Philippines, the supreme law of the Philippines stipulates that lands of the public domain
are classified into: (a) Agricultural; (b) Forest or timber; (c) Mineral; and (d) National parks. All lands of the public domain are owned by the
state. Only lands classified as agricultural are alienable and disposable, or those that can be owned privately by Filipino citizens. Alienable and
disposable (A&D) lands refer to those lands of the public domain which have been declared as not needed for public purposes. A&D lands are
further classified according to their use and purpose as: (a) Agricultural; (b) Residential, commercial, industrial or for similar productive
purposes; (c) Educational, charitable or other similar purposes; and (d) Reservations for town site and for public or quasi-public purposes.
2
4
following its endorsement by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA). The LSDF
itself defines the strategic agenda for the Philippines land sector until 2030, and articulates how reforms
defined therein will contribute to economic growth, increases in public finance, and improvement in
human development index.4 Accordingly, the expected impacts of LSDF are:
1.
Maintaining the level of investments between 23-25% of gross domestic product (GDP), against
the fluctuating rate of 15-18%, owing to the investment effects of real property market reforms;
2.
Raising local government unit (LGU) annual real property tax (RPT) potential by an amount
ranging from a low of Php 71.9 Billion to a high of Php 315.7 Billion, with the “most likely”
values between Php 150.2 to Php 157.1 Billion; following the proposed valuation reforms;
3.
Improvements in human development index (HDI) at the local level, and reduction in the
proportion of people living below the poverty line at the local level, subject to sound public
expenditure management of incremental local tax revenues.
Under the LSDF, the government has committed to ensuring all of its land records are computerized and
secure, and that all land parcels are accurately surveyed and mapped. This will create a national georeferenced inventory of land parcels with associated information. This fundamental spatial data will be
the primary information layer of the national spatial data infrastructure (NSDI). Other important NSDI
spatial themes are also being progressed including the geodetic (positioning) infrastructure, updated
topographic mapping, disaster risk mapping, and other thematic layers, led by National Mapping and
Resources Information Authority (NAMRIA). Also, the government has committed to improve the
property valuation system and RPT collection by LGUs, which are highly inefficient and ineffective – as
set out in the Department of Finance (DOF) Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF) Roadmap for
Valuation and RPT Reform.
The achievement of the above outcomes hinges on the implementation of a full range of reforms in land
administration, land management, including valuation and taxation. While the government is making
progress in some fronts, fundamental challenges remain, thus constricting the ability of the sector to
unleash its full potential for economic growth, equity, and reducing poverty.
3.
Key challenges in the land sector
Access to land, equitable rights over land and land policy are at the centre of development discussion in
the Philippines for decades. As a result, the Philippines has a legal framework that offers important entry
4
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. June 2010. Land Administration and Management Project Phase 2. Land Equity
International, AusAID TA Report. Economic Development Statement for the LSDF
5
points for equity, in particular for indigenous peoples, sustainable investment in agriculture, low-cost
housing, private sector development, land use planning.
The institutions involved in the land sector in the Philippines are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The Land Management Bureau (LMB) under the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) is responsible for the management of public lands and the regulation of land
surveying.
The NAMRIA, under DENR, surveys and maps the land and water resources of the Philippines
and is the lead agency for the NSDI and leads national mapping.
The Land Registration Authority (LRA) under the Department of Justice (DOJ) is responsible for
registration of all transactions of freehold (private) land, including land that is first alienated from
the state (patents) and land allocated under Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
The BLGF, under the DOF is responsible for prescribing valuation standards and monitoring real
property tax administration by LGUs.
The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) is responsible for implementation of CARP.
The Forest Management Bureau (FMB), under DENR, is responsible for the management of
public forestlands, including the issuance of property rights or tenure instruments.
The Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB) of DENR is responsible for the establishment of
protected areas and the management of the protected area (PA) system.
The Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB), under DENR, is responsible for the regulation of
mining including the administration and registration of mining tenements.
The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) documents the claims of indigenous
peoples over their ancestral lands, and confirms these rights through the issuance of certificates of
ancestral domain titles (CADTs) in ancestral domain areas.
Local government units are responsible for CLUP preparation and regulation through Zoning
Ordinances, as well as regular updating of schedule of market values (SMVs) and administration
of RPTs.
However, the land administration system in the Philippines is generally considered as inefficient and
constrains economic development, lacks the confidence of both the banking and financial sectors, reduces
opportunities for the poor, and discourages sustainable management of land resources. About 33% of
rural parcels are still untitled. The cost of obtaining a title that can be defended in the courts is generally
over US$2,000. Even if a title is obtained, disputes are costly and time-consuming to resolve due to
multiple agencies involved in land administration and the lack of an overall institutional mechanism to
resolve outstanding issues. Banks in the Philippines are also extremely wary of titles presented for
mortgage applications due to high levels of fraud. Land grabbing is a constant threat to land owners,
including the government, with sophisticated syndicates operating using fraudulently produced
documents endorsed by corrupt government officials. The recent headlines involving a major fraudulent
land grabbing by the Torres Corporation in Quezon City for twenty-four hectares is not isolated.5
5
Torres Land Title Fake: QC Officials Tells House. Balana, Cynthia. Philippine Daily Inquirer. September 22, 2011.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/62953/torres-land-title-fake-qc-official-tells-house#ixzz39s1qBM9H (accessed August 9, 2014).
6
Improving confidence in title records would require complete and updated information on land records
and ownership, and improvement in the integrity of processes.
In rural areas, uncertainties surrounding land ownership brought about by delays in CARP and restrictions
on the transfer of land discourage investments in agriculture, as this effectively strips farmers of their
collateral, limiting their access to credit from formal financial intermediaries. On the part of LGUs, these
uncertainties in ownership have affected RPT collections, as both landowners and farmer beneficiaries
refuse to pay property taxes until after the transfer has been concluded. CARP implementation, which
seeks to redistribute agricultural land to landless farmers, has been slow due to lack of political will, legal
and bureaucratic bottlenecks which has plagued the program in the past decades. At the same time,
restrictions on the use of land have resulted in the premature or unregulated conversion of agricultural
lands to urban and other uses, thus undercutting rural economic growth. These inefficiencies, combined
with high land tax rates, in turn, lead poor communities to rely on informal land markets, resulting in
long-term land insecurity and decreased government revenues from land-related taxes. The program’s
component on redistribution is now on its tail end of redistribution, but it is expected that adjudication of
land cases will continue; and that beneficiaries will have 30 years remaining to repay their land to
government. A proposal for CARP extension is already in Congress, and is due to be decided in the
immediate future.
The land administration system has evolved from the Spanish and American colonial periods and over
time a multitude of governmental agencies were established, each with a different, sometimes
overlapping, mandate related to land governance at the central, provincial and local level. The land
administration system is characterized by: (a) weak and inefficient institutional structure due to multiple
agencies involved; (b) rigid and outdated land laws and regulations; (c) multiple and inconsistent land
valuation systems used in various government agencies; and (d) lack of transparency and accountability in
the land registration system.
These systemic weaknesses have resulted in severe land insecurity,
fraudulent titles and lands documents, incomplete and unreliable cadastral (land parcel) mapping, insecure
land records management, and lower government revenues from land related taxes and fees.6
Over the past decade, the government has embarked on a number of reforms to the land administration
system.
These include computerization of the Register of Deeds aiming at improvements in the
6
DENR- Philippine Australia Land Administration and Management Project. October 2002. Land Equity International. Winning the War
Against Poverty: Policy Studies Integrated Report.
7
registration of properties and guarantee security and integrity for titles and deeds of land and real
properties7. Under the Second Land Administration and Management Project (LAMP2), the LMB, under
the DENR through the World Bank and AusAID funded Land Administration and Management Projects
(Learning and Innovation Loan and Phase 2) has been leading legal and institutional reform which has
resulted in Free Patent amendment so that first time titles can be issued over residential lands more
efficiently and without restrictive encumbrances. Other activities are support to local government with
systematic land registration (first time titling), computerization of all LMB land records and acceleration
of cadastral surveying and mapping, aimed at completing the surveys for the entire country by end of
2015.
Although there is high level commitment to land sector reform and improvement of land governance,
many fundamental changes, especially those bills regarding institutional reform to establish a single land
administration agency (LARA) and a national valuation agency (NVA) have continued to stall in the
legislative system.8
Other legislative proposals that will support the resolution of other systemic weaknesses such as the
absence of a framework for land use and allocation include the National Land Use Act, which has been
actively debated upon in Congress for the last two decades, but has failed to meet the required support to
merit approval.
In many of these legislative proposals, vested interests have come into play in the political process of law
making, thus leaving the fundamental constraints unresolved, at great opportunity costs to the general
public, local and national governments, private sector and the general clients of the system.
4.
Assessment of Land Governance
Moving forward on land governance requires commitment across sectors, which can be stimulated by a
shared comprehensive assessment of the land sector. The Land Governance Assessment Framework
(LGAF), an instrument used for benchmarking of land governance in a highly participatory way, enabled
the generation of scores or ratings for various dimensions that is comparable across countries. Its
7
To improve the registering of properties, the LRA, under the Department of Justice (DOJ) has embarked on a Land Titling Computerization
Project (LTCP), which aims to guarantee security and integrity for titles and deeds of land and real properties and provide a comprehensive and
efficient registration service. This work is being undertaken through a Build Own Operate contract through a private sector consortium. 90% of
provincial and city Register of Deeds are already operational, and work is expected to be completed over the next few years.
8
These legislative measures are referred to as the Land Administration Reform Act (LARA), and the Valuation Reform Act (VRA).
8
consistent application provide for an objective assessment of the level of governance for particular
dimensions, thus aiding in tacking progress over time. The LGAF is already applied in over 35 countries
globally including the Philippines. The country assessment was completed in 2013, and covered the
following modules:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Legal and institutional framework
Land use planning, management and taxation
Public provision of land information
Public land management
Dispute resolution and conflict management
Large scale land acquisition
Forestry
The LGAF findings revealed that while there are strong land policies; weaknesses in implementation, lack
of data sharing, and institutional issues impinge on the ability to harness the potential of the sector to
achieving inclusive growth. Among the key areas where the Philippines have been rated as struggling to
meet good governance and that will affect inclusive development include the following:
High proportion of untitled properties (11m parcels of untitled urban/residential and rural properties out
of 24.2 million parcels, rough estimates)9; This situation is affecting land market activity and investments,
exposes the property owners (particularly the poor) to undue risks; and results in incomplete tax rolls of
LGUs, thereby affecting property tax collections.
Women’s land rights are recognized, but are not properly recorded in the registry While the law does not
discriminate the registration of properties in the name of women owners either individually or jointly; in
practice, titles are issued in the name of the head of the family, usually the male member. Moreover, the
land records database of agencies, including titling forms do not capture gender data, thus making it
difficult to monitor the extent of land distribution across gender.
Complex processes for formalization of urban housing (associated with records not up to date, not
reliable) result in about 15% of the country’s urban population, including informal settler families not
having access to land for socialized housing.
9
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Philippines-Australia Land Administration and Management Project. Land Equity
International. Land Tenure Study, 2004.
9
Disincentives for registration of land transactions come in the form of high transfer taxes10 and other
costs, as well as the perceived bureaucratic processes required and are additional factor affecting the
completeness of the registry.
Expensive and lengthy processes for appeal of land dispute rulings. Data from 2012 revealed that in more
than 90% of the cases decided by Supreme Court, it took more than 20 years for cases to be resolved with
finality, such that cases first filed with the lower court in 1970 were only decided by the Supreme Court in
2012.
Lost tax revenues; high LGU dependence on budget transfers from the national government and weak
ability of local governments to raise resources to finance local development projects.
1. The non–reporting of transaction or undervaluing affects collection of appropriate taxes and fees
by the government, and breeds dishonesty in registration of property transfers.
2. Non implementation of betterment taxes (special levy) deprives the government of lost potential
revenues, inability to recoup parts of public expenditures for infrastructure; and in worst cases;
have resulted in the influential privately benefitting therefrom.
3. Use of inappropriate valuation methodologies, lack of regular updating of LGUs SMVs, poor
collection efficiency, huge LGU discretion in grant of exemptions, in combination have resulted
in low collections from property taxes by local governments; and affects determination of just
compensation for properties expropriated by LGUs.
On expropriation, the absence of national resettlement policy to compensate for socio economic and
income losses (small businesses and commercial establishments) from public expropriation proceedings
has affected fairness in compensation of private property owners. Existing policies are varied and
inconsistent such that resettlement action plans are prepared for foreign funded projects only; only
national infrastructure projects make reference to prevailing market values as basis for compensation and
pay upfront. This has affected the timeliness in implementation of infrastructure projects and contributed
to disputes and clogging of land cases in Courts.
There is weak framework for large-scale land investments resulting in conflicts, uneven sharing of
benefits, and increased investors’ risks and costs. Other factors contributing to these include absence of
or outdated comprehensive land use plans and forestland use plans, weak monitoring of contracts, lack of
10
The international good governance benchmark for costs of property transfers is less than 1% of property values; whereas in the Philippines,
estimates has it that these costs amount to about 10% of the market value, 62% of the assessed value, and 30% of the values as declared in the
Deeds of Sale.
10
grievance redress mechanisms, and lack of transparency and access to information and terms of
investments.
The strong horizontal overlaps in mandates of key land agencies (DAR, DENR, LRA, NCIP), are partly
causing the issues raised above and thus affecting efficiency in service delivery, as well as prohibiting
access to complete, reliable and up to date land records. This creates confusion among the public, results
in long standing disputes; and provides fertile ground for the emergence of syndicates and informal
payments.
In a sense, the LGAF broadened the analysis of LAM issues revealed from earlier LAMP initiatives, to
enable assessment of the impacts of land use planning and taxation, including the extent and effects of
unresolved disputes. The aspects of public land management, institutional and policy environment for
large scale land acquisition, and forest governance were covered as well, thus surfacing interrelated issues
and other dimensions of land governance. More importantly, the LGAF provided clear benchmarks upon
which future actions and progress can be measured against.
5.
Tracking progress on land governance at the LGU level
To demonstrate how land governance play out and impacts at the LGU context, a pilot study was
conducted from January to April 2014 focused on generating data on key indicators at the local
government level, that were identified as critical based on the LGAF. The review documented the actual
and potential sources of data on selected indicators, assessed reliability and quality of data available, and
determined whether these are routinely collected, and in the form that can be meaningfully used for
reporting and analysis. The study likewise highlighted issues with data collection, the policy implications
of the initial results as well as priority actions to upscale data gathering and reporting at the national level.
5.1
Core indicators and relevance to land governance at LGU level
Area mapped with owners identified (under different types of tenure)
The extent of area mapped in the LGU territory provides information on the status of land that serves as
the base for proper planning. In the Philippines, land is classified according to the following:
1.
Public lands (pubic forests, protected areas or national parks, mineral lands), or lands which
remain in the public domain; mainly under the jurisdiction of DENR
2.
Alienable and disposable (A & D) lands (agricultural lands, residential lands) which can be
alienated or titled for private use. Ancestral domains of indigenous peoples fall under the
definition of A & D lands.
11
A complete inventory of these lands, including ownership or rights holders provide a good indication of
the local government’s land tenure profile that is essential for tenure security planning and allocation of
investments. More accurate data on all parcels is likewise important for more efficient tax collection
efforts by the LGUs.
Documentation of and confirmation of rights in public lands on the other hand, is essential for improving
the likelihood of sustainable management of natural resources and wise investments in land. Clearly
defined and well respected rights of upland communities, indigenous peoples are important not only for
recognition of de facto regimes, but also to ensure negotiations on investments in land are made with the
rightful holders, thus promoting equity and removing opportunities for improper practices.
In the Philippines, the DENR has completed the mapping and demarcation of forestlands, except those in
the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). In all, about 79,245 km of forest boundaries
have been delineated, and declared about 15.9 million hectares as part of the forest estate, representing
52% of the country’s total land area. It is important for DENR to proceed with the final stages of
evaluating the forest boundary delineation and the process of legislation as required by the Constitution.
This will be useful for both national and LGU level planning and land use allocation. To be useful to
LGUs and other users, it would be necessary to make this information available on line and in digital
form for LGUs.
In the case of protected areas, the government needs to accelerate mapping and demarcation of
boundaries. There are 240 protected areas covering 5.4 million hectares of terrestrial areas; but only 12
have fully demarcated boundaries.
For A & D lands, the DENR is set to complete the cadastral surveys for the entire country in 2015. By
mid May 2014, 952 municipalities have been completed with a total area of 18.08 million hectares; 610
municipalities have on going surveys covering 13.6 million hectares; while 72 municipalities more are for
bidding of cadastral contracts. The completion of surveys is essential for settlement of political
boundaries which is one of criteria for computation of internal revenue allotment for LGUs; and to ensure
there is accurate base map as basis for land use planning and titling.
Ancestral lands constitute about 7.7 million hectares, mainly located within forestlands and protected
areas. Of these, only 4.3 million hectares have been issued certificates of ancestral domain claims
representing 56%; while the rest (3.4 million hectares) are either undergoing social preparation, survey or
12
on process of approval of CADT or certificates of ancestral land titles (CALT). The 2009 draft
Indigenous Peoples (IP) Master Plan targeted the completion of the remaining more than 3 million
hectares in five years time.
The non-completion of the above basic surveys and demarcation has brought about conflicts in land uses
and claims on public lands.
Share of land registered in women’s name
This is a good indicator of gender equity in access to land as a basic resource. Although Philippine laws
on inheritance, adjudication and registration of titles do not discriminate against women, cultural practices
continue to influence how women get a share among siblings and how adjudication procedures can be
biased in favor of the male household head in the naming of titles.
No. of registered transactions of different types and prices paid for sales transactions
Transactions reflect the volume of transfers made on the land, be it through sales, inheritance or donation.
Sale of properties is an indication of land market activity, and when assessed on the types and locations of
properties transacted, is essential to monitor the direction of development and investments in land through
transfers.
In the Philippines where there are social, cultural factors and fiscal disincentives to formal registration of
transactions, it is important to monitor how changes in these conditions can affect these trends over time.
It is known that the Philippines has one of the highest transfer taxes, comprising about 8% of the value of
property, against international best practice of less than one percent. The computerization of registries has
added to this cost, wherein an additional information technology (IT) fee of Php 280 or (US$ 6) per
document is being charged for registration at the Register of Deeds (RoDs). Inheritance likewise carry
with it high fees in the form of estate taxes, ranging from 5-20%, depending on the net value of the
property at the time of the original owners’ death. Thus, many families opt not to update formal
registration of transfers, just to avoid payment of these taxes.
The bottom line is that LGUs need to have up to date information on these transactions to ensure their tax
database is reliable to improve collection efficiency; and that it is able to capture appropriate taxes due on
the LGUs for these transactions.
13
The LRA reported that throughout the Philippines, the following registrations were recorded, indicating
an increasing trend in property transactions.
Table 1. Registration of Titles and Deeds in the Philippines, 2010-201211
2010
2011
2012
Issuance of Original
Certificates of Title (OCTs)
678
583
1,061
Issuance of Transfer
Certificates of Titles (TCTs)
642,351
639,171
657,232
2,690,819
2,702,481
3,427,516
Php 4.249 Billion
Php 4.561 Billion
Php 4.918 Billion
Number of deeds/instruments
acted upon for registration
without issuance of OCTs and
TCTs
Annual Income12
No. of expropriations/privatizations and amount of compensation paid or payments received
Expropriation for public purposes is a regular function of government, in support of infrastructure
projects. This function is undertaken both by the national government and LGUs in the course of their
development work. In some cases, this is the recourse taken to provide lands also for socialized housing
projects and provision of other basic services. Privatizations on the other hand, is resorted to dispose of
government lands that are deemed no longer needed for public purposes.
In many cases, expropriation proceedings drag for many years due to dispute over the basis of valuation.
However, existing laws are very much in favor of government, thus leaving very little option for the
private property owner to negotiate for market values, unless the case is taken to the Courts.
Monitoring the number of expropriations, amount of compensation, and adherence to procedures are good
indicators of fairness, transparency by government. In keeping track of procedural fairness, it is also
important to look at whether there are avenues for lodgment of objections, as well as the proportion of
objections upheld versus those that are rejected.
Tax assessments and amount of land taxes collected by local governments
Sources: Physical Reports of Operations: 2010-2012 (www.lra.gov.ph/ts/pdf/phrepoper.pdf); and LRA Annual Income
(www.lra.gov.ph/ts/pdf.income/pdf)
12 includes both general fund and special fund
11
14
This is a direct indicator of LGU performance in real property tax collection, which is a basic mandate
under the Local Government Code. Its importance lies in the fact that RPT, together with other local fees
and taxes, are direct sources of internal revenues that it can appropriate for its own development
programs, at least for cities and provinces. Collections from RPT are shared between the following:
In case of Provinces:
Provincial LGU -
35%
Municipal LGU -
40%
Barangay LGU -
25%
In case of Cities:
City LGU
-
70%
Barangay LGU -
30%
In the Philippines, most local governments have not maximized the resource mobilization potential from
RPTs, and associated internal revenue sources such as fines and penalties13 and property transfer taxes14.
In a study undertaken by the National Tax Research Center (NTRC), it was revealed that for the period
2003 to 2010, an average of 59% of the real property taxes due were collected by LGUs. Broken down
annually, the ratios of the taxes collected did not change much over the years, as shown in the table
below.
Table 2. Trends in RPT Collections of LGUs in the Philippines, 2003-2010
Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average
% Collection Efficiency
57%
58%
61%
66%
61%
57%
59%
54%
59%
This results in heavy reliance on national government fiscal transfers for implementation of development
programs by local governments. Thus, as of June 2013; Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) dependence of
LGUs stood at 80% for provinces; 76% for municipalities; and 43% for cities.
Underperformance by LGUs in internal revenue generation from property taxes and other sources
contribute to the financial burden on the national government. An analysis of trends in the ratio of locally
sourced revenues and RPT collections to GDP shows these remained the same over the period 2000-2013,
contributing a mere 1% and 0.4% respectively. (Figures 1 and 2).
13
14
Fines and penalties are sourced from delinquent tax payments.
The amount of transfer taxes that the LGUs collect depend on the level of land market activity, and extent of reporting to LGUs
15
Measurement of LGU performance in this indicator, and understanding the constraints they face would
greatly help in addressing these thus making available, financial resources for local development.
Figure 1. GDP and LGUs Locally Sourced Revenue Effort
from CY 2000 to 2013, DoF - BLGF
1.35%
1.30%
Percentage
1.25%
1.20%
1.15%
1.10%
1.05%
1.00%
20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13
LGUs' Locally Sourced
1.311.181.231.271.191.231.251.191.161.191.181.181.191.13
Revenue Effort
Figure 2. GDP and RPT Collection Effort from CY 2000 to 2013
(DoF-BLGF)
0.60%
0.50%
Percentage
0.40%
0.30%
0.20%
0.10%
0.00%
200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 201 201 201 201
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
RPT ratio to GDP 0.45%0.46%0.49%0.51%0.44%0.47%0.45%0.41%0.39%0.39%0.36%0.37%0.35%0.35%
Number of disputes of different types between private parties and the state
Properties that remain under dispute impact on the ability of local governments to collect the land taxes
due, and prevents the property from being actively traded in the market. Likewise, unresolved disputes,
particularly those that have been brought to the Courts, can impose high legal costs on the parties
concerned.
This indicator therefore measures the proportion of parcels under dispute, the types of dispute, and the
length of time the dispute has remained unresolved.
16
5.3
State of Records and Sources of Data for National Level Analysis of Land Governance
Indicators
Land records and data on the indicators subject of this study are held at different national land agencies.
The DENR holds maps and information on surveyed areas, untitled parcels and rights holders and maps
of the public domain.
The country’s land records are held by DENR under the LMB and the regional DENR Land Management
Services (LMS) offices. These land records pertain to documents for state lands (public domain) as well
as alienable and disposable lands up until the time of first registration. DENR’s computerized system for
managing the public land records, including cadastral surveying plans, subdivision surveys and maps as
well as information for land administration and management was developed and tested under the LAMP2
and is called the Land Administration and Management System (LAMS). The LAMS is only fully
operational in five provinces – Ilocos Norte, Bohol, Bukidnon, Cavite and Laguna. The National Capitol
Region is also into full-blown data capture. DENR has plans of accelerating the computerization of all
land records and roll-out its new computerized land administration system in all regions for the period
2015-2017. To date, the grooming of records has been completed, and encoding has begun. The function
of integrated verification and approval of surveys (IVAS) has also been operational in all regions.
DENR is also supporting local government unit led systematic land registration (first time titling) which
has been proven in 200 LGU partnerships. However, these efforts are hampered by the high cost of
registration at the RoD, with the imposition of IT fees upon migration of RD offices into the
computerized system.
Once alienated and titled, the responsibility for administration of land parcels is with LRA. The LRA
maintains a land titles records management system for registered lands from the time of first registration
and all subsequent transfers, including inheritance, leases and mortgages. Over the past several years, the
LRA has almost fully completed its computerization of land records to “disaster-proof” the title records
and to modernize land titling service delivery.
For public lands, NAMRIA would have the maps of forest lands and protected areas; being the agency
mandated to undertake the country’s land classification, and demarcation of forest boundaries. It also
carries out the delineation and demarcation of protected areas, through a Memorandum of Agreement
with the Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB). The documentation and issuance of tenure rights
17
within forest lands and protected areas however, are the responsibilities of DENR regional offices. The
maps and databases on the tenure holders in these areas are likewise maintained by these field offices.
The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) is responsible for documentation of rights and
claims by indigenous peoples, surveying of their ancestral domains, and issuance of certificates of
ancestral domain titles (CADTs). Once issued, these are then registered at the RoDs. The NCIP maintains
a list of all ancestral domain claims, the CADTs issued, as well as corresponding approved surveys as
basis of CADT issuance.
Expropriation is performed by a number of national government agencies. These include the Department
of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), the National Irrigation Authority (NIA), National Housing
Authority (NHA), Department of Agriculture (DA) and Department of Transportation and
Communications (DOTC). Data on these are kept separately with these agencies. The LGUs also
undertake expropriations to support their local development programs. Since there is no single agency
collecting and monitoring expropriations and privatizations; national level reporting and analysis on these
indicators would be difficult.
The Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF) under the Department of Finance (DOF) together with
the National Tax Research Center (NTRC) are leading land valuation and property tax reform and has
established national standards for valuation, procedures for implementing current schedules of market
values, reliable tax mapping and professional regulation of real estate services providers under the Real
Estate Services Act (RESA). BLGF has also launched the “Iskor ng Bayan”; an LGU scorecard that seeks
to measure LGU financial performance on the following aspects: (a) revenue generation capacity; (b)
local collection growth; (c) expenditure management; and (d) reportorial compliance. Specific indicators
include: (a) proportion of IRA and internal revenues to total LGU income; (b) growth of tax and non tax
revenues; and (c) updating of SMVs. Among others, the BLGF has likewise instituted the regular on line
submissions of eSREs, and Quarterly Reports on Real Property Assessments (QRRPA) from LGUs.
The Courts maintain records of cases lodged before it. The key classifications however, are only distinct
between criminal and civil cases. Most Courts have paper records, and very few have computerized. The
World Bank supported Judicial Reform Project attempted to start the development of databases of cases
with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has an E-library which contains all decisions made and
resolutions signed since 1901. However, there is no facility to sort these according to the nature of the
case. Moreover, cases filed and still being heard at the lower courts are not part of this system.
18
Local government units regularly collect and report on property tax collections to their respective
Councils and submit quarterly reports to BLGF. To do this, LGUs maintain a property tax database with
supporting tax maps. A number of cities have embarked on computerization of local Assessors and
Treasury Offices, but the performance of these systems has been variable, and in a number of LGUs, there
have been switching of computerized systems as new Chief Executives enter office.
5.5
Findings on Core Land Indicators
The review focused on local governments that have been active in pursuing local innovations in LAM
reform namely: Bayawan, Legazpi, Tayabas and San Carlos cities and the municipality of Nabunturan
(Figure 3).
Table 3. Summary Findings on Core Land Indicators
Feasibility regular
reporting
Indicators
Area mapped
Findings
Coverage
Quality
For A and D lands
Incomplete cadastral
LGU data on property Routinely available:
survey; only 68% of A and ownership and sizes
Land tax mapping complete- 94 % D lands have complete
inaccurate, not up to Cadastral maps in
surveyed area tax mapped by
survey
date with transactions paper forms with
LGUs
DENR; digitized for
(informal and
LGU tax maps incomplete registered at RoD)
only some provinces
68 % area surveyed and mapped for unsurveyed areas (i.e.,
with right holders identified
for 32% of all A and D
Ownership data on LGU tax maps are
digitized for some
lands)
untitled and
unsurveyed properties LGUs only
Incomplete coverage for not up to date
untitled properties. (i.e.,
32% of A and D lands
have incomplete
documentation of rights
holders as surveys have
not been completed
For public lands (forest lands and
protected areas)
Areas mapped in LGU CLUPs
Survey of occupants and tenure
holders incomplete and not up to
date; no inventory with LGUs
Complete mapping in
LGU pilots
Incomplete documentation
of public land occupants
Not up to date and
shared by DENR to
LGUs
DENR maps and
tenure data in public
lands not routinely
shared with LGUs.
However, there could
be arrangements with
DENR to share data
(96% of timberland area in
Bayawan and 12% of
19
Feasibility regular
reporting
Indicators
Findings
Coverage
Quality
parcels in Legazpi)
Gender
Area: Women own 17 % of land
area alone and 48 % in joint
property; men own 35% alone
Based on complete lists of Data from LGU pilots Gender data not
property owners with
with certain degree of captured in land
LGUs
reliability
records.
No of parcels: Women own 14%
of all parcels; while men alone
own 19%
LGUs had to decode
gender data from
names of property
owners
Women own less land than men
and possess smaller parcel sizes;
35% less parcel size on the
average
Transactions
0.35 % of parcels with
transactions reported in
Assessors’ Office
Incomplete, based only on LGUs do not have
Can be routinely
reports by property owners access to Registry
collected from LARES
to Assessors’ Office
records of
–LTCP computerized
transactions, resulting database and GIS
“Official” sale prices undervalued
in inaccurate property maps; if given access
against actual market values
ownership records, to data
affecting taxation
Property Tax
Collection
94 % of land parcels tax mapped Complete coverage
46% - 73% tax compliance rate
(collection efficiency 59%
national average)
Mixed with
delinquency
payments and
discounts
Routinely collected
and reported by LGUs
to BLGF
Some LGUs have
Incomplete tax maps computerized tax
and outdated
records with GIS
ownership and
connectivity
property data as basis
for assessment and
collection
Requires cleansing of
Assessors Office
records based on title
and transaction
records from RoD
and survey data from
DENR
Expropriation
Very minimal cases of
expropriations recorded
Incomplete data; only
Not reliable, due to
FAPs in DPWH have list absence of
consolidated
Not routinely
collected, no agency
monitoring all
20
Feasibility regular
reporting
Indicators
Findings
Coverage
Quality
Most LGUs opt for direct
but access is difficult
reporting system
negotiations with property owners
Other agencies involved
Prices paid depend on outcome of keep their own data (NIA,
negotiations; lower or higher than NHA and DOTC)
prevailing market values
Disputes
Land with disputes/conflicts
represent less than 10% of total
parcels
Most disputes have remained
unresolved for more than 10 years
affecting titling efficiency, land
markets and tax collection efforts
Incomplete, collected by
LGUs if data impacts on
RPT collections
expropriations. An
agreement among all
agencies involved
would be required, to
share these data. A
lead agency to be
designated to monitor
these.
Court data not
Mixed with other data
segregated by type of in Courts; Not
case
routinely collected.
Discussions with the
Court would be
required to capture
No systematic
such data in their
recording by
planned
Barangay Justice
computerization
Committee
program
21
Figure 3. Location of Pilot LGUs, Land Governance Monitoring
22
Indicator 1 - Area mapped with owners/right holders identified
The total area covered by the five pilot LGUs cover 625,266 hectares, with a total population of
590,88015. For purposes of this study however, Legazpi city and the municipality of Nabunturan
provided data for selected barangays only, thus the total area where information on surveys and tenure
status are available is only 141,678 hectares.
For the five LGUs (Bayawan, Legazpi, Tayabas and San Carlos cities) and municipality of Nabunturan;
about 68 % of the A and D lands were surveyed and mapped with right holders identified. The data is
quite variable across LGUs though. Only Tayabas and the pilot barangays of Nabunturan are completely
surveyed; while Bayawan, Legaspi and San Carlos cities are only partially surveyed at 57%, 65% and
75% of their total A and D areas. In the case of Legazpi, there are about 48 parcels representing more than
3 hectares or 14% of the pilot area where there are no records of owners. Completion of cadastral surveys
is required before parcels and claimants on public alienable and disposable lands can be documented as
basis for titling. The backlog in this century old program has been one of the major obstacles to the
speedy titling in the country.
Indicator 2 - Share of land registered in women’s name
Gender data is not routinely collected/captured in official forms or land records held by government
agencies, thus rendering it too difficult to report and monitor on this indicator.
While this may be the case, the five LGU pilots segregated gender data based on female/male names
appearing in their tax records. This exercise revealed some gender disparities in property ownership.
In the five LGU pilots, women own less land than males. Sole female ownership account for only 17% of
land area and 48% in joint property; while men own 35% of all properties alone. In terms of number of
parcels, women own much less, only up to 14% of all parcels combined. In addition, women owned
properties are smaller in sizes by an average of 35% compared to male owned properties. It is interesting
to note that the patterns are the same in varying degrees in all the LGU pilots, regardless of the type of
barangay – i.e., rural or poblacion barangay. These findings, while limited, demonstrate that land
administration processes are not contributing enough to women’s tenure security.
15 As of 2010.
23
It is important to note that while the law does not discriminate the registration of properties in the name of
women owners either individually or jointly; in practice, titles are issued in the name of the head of the
family, usually the male member. Under LAMP, such practice has been rectified, such that more detailed
investigation is conducted to determine whether possession was acquired through the male or female
spouse, and subsequently recorded. However, this is not widely implemented in other areas outside of the
LAMP covered provinces. A review of the adjudication procedures is in order to ensure women’s rights
are accurately recorded in titles and subsequent transactions on the land.
More importantly, policies and procedures should be in place to systematically capture gender data and
enable monitoring. Currently, no gender data are available on the ownership of lands titled through
judicial means (i.e., Original Certificate of Title and Transfer Certificate of Title). This is because the land
records database of the ROD are not gender-disaggregated. The process of title registration does not
require the identification of sex/gender of the title holders. Gender - disaggregation of land records is also
difficult for all types of land titles – both administratively and judicially issued – because land tenure
judicial forms do not bear the sexes of the owners -- sex-disaggregation at this period relies merely on the
sounds of the names of holders – and do not indicate the nature of ownership of lands titled to married
individuals (i.e., individual or conjugal properties). To determine the true extent of any gender bias would
require the RODs to keep a record of gender data for ownership of all parcels and to keep it up to date as
transfers occur. In the same vein, in the rest of the Philippines, original titles issued by the DENR in the
form of Free Patents should capture gender information on the owners.
Indicator 3 - Land transactions registered
Pilot LGUs have recorded only 0.35% of properties transacted in the years 2010-2012. This data is
considered an under estimate as the RoD would have complete records of all registered transactions in its
computerized system. However, LGUs do not have access to these data, thus rendering their ownership
records out of date, affecting their ability to collect property taxes from the right owners. It is common
practice for property owners to be able to register their properties at the RoD without the required LGU
clearance.
It is also usual practice for officially reported sale prices to be undervalued against actual market values in
order to evade payment of transfer taxes and other fees, thus resulting in lost tax revenues for both the
LGUs and national government.
24
These findings are consistent with the LGAF and calls for actions to address disincentives to formal
registration of transfers. Moreover, the provisions in the Local Government Code that requires RoDs to
submit regular reports to LGUs on transactions should be enforced, to ensure LGU data are up to date and
accurate.
To upscale gathering and reporting on this indicator, regular reporting by RoDs would be required, based
on its computerized records.
Indicator 4 - Number of expropriations and compensations paid
There have been very minimal cases of expropriations recorded at the LGUs, as most of them opt for
direct negotiations with property owners in a bid to avoid the complex processes. As reported by the LGU
pilots, prices paid for these transactions varied widely, depending on the outcome of such negotiations.
This situation calls for clear procedures to reduce the risk associated with lack of transparency in
negotiated sales.
In the case of Bayawan City, there were only two instances of expropriations, involving two titled
agricultural parcels in barangay Villareal. It should be noted that while the appraised values are much
lower, the amount paid for expropriation were much higher. Both properties were paid and proceedings
finalized in August 2003.
The key issue with collecting data on expropriations is that this is not routinely reported by the LGUs, and
that there are multiple agencies involved in these transactions. Other agencies involved in expropriations
include:

Department of Public Works and Highways

Department of Transportation and Communications

National Irrigation Administration

National Housing Authority
Thus, at the national level, an integrated reporting system would need to be set up to ensure all the
relevant activities of agencies are adequately reported, and monitored.
Indicator 5 - Tax assessments and amount of taxes collected by LGUs
The pilots reported that while 94% of their land parcels have been tax mapped, compliance rates stood at
only between 46 to 74%. This is consistent with the national average collection efficiency at 59%.
25
Reporting by most LGUs is combined with discounts and delinquency payments. More reliable reporting
would require isolation of current year’s collection against receivables, similar to the Tax Compliance
Studies carried out by the pilot LGUs under this study.
Moreover, LGUs would need to put in place, systems for proper cleansing and updating of their property
data, based on survey and parcel records from the DENR and RoDs.
The low property tax collection efficiencies manifest the issues with inaccurate and outdated ownership
and parcel information. It has been identified that as much as 30% of land parcels may not be included in
the property tax maps of LGUs. Other factors impact on compliance rates such as presence of a large
number of absentee property owners; uncertain individual property rights and tax payment responsibilities
due to collective CLOAs, slow implementation of CARP, and huge proportion of untitled properties.
Low levels of collection and efficiency rates are also reflective of low LGU compliance in regular
revision of and below market valuation of schedules of market values. Very few LGUs have complied
with the mandatory provision for regular updating of SMVs every three years. As of June 2013; 62 out of
80 provinces and 114 out of 144 cities are in default in their SMV updating. Coupled with attitudinal
issues, inadequate tax campaign effort, weak LGU capacities - these impact on the local revenue
generation potential of local governments, thus perpetuating their high dependence upon the IRA to
finance local development. Thus, the average IRA dependence among LGUs is as follows: 80% for
provinces, 76% municipalities, 43% cities.
Indicator 6 - Number and types of disputed properties between private parties and the state
Among the LGU pilots in this study, land with disputes/conflicts represent less than 10% of total parcels.
Moreover, most disputes have remained unresolved for more than 10 years affecting titling efficiency,
land markets and tax collection efforts. These findings call for easier and cost effective approaches to
resolve land disputes, and the activation and capacity building of Barangay Justice Committees in
resolving land related disputes.
In the case of Bayawan City, there are a total of 67 parcels covering 204 hectares that have pending
disputes. These properties are all untitled and surveyed, indicating that these were discovered during the
titling process. Among these, only seven properties involve dispute with the barangay local government
and road right of way, involving merely 1,050 sq m. The following shows the summary of disputed
properties:
26
Although the Philippines provide for a community based process for resolution of conflicts through the
Barangay Justice System, the fact remains that not all such Committees are active; and key officials need
capacity development to enable them to dispose of conflicts in a speedy and fair manner. Otherwise, the
Court system is the only recourse, but it is widely acknowledged that this process is very lengthy and
expensive on the part of both parties. A review of existing laws and mechanisms for land dispute
resolution, is also essential to formulate more cost effective ways of resolving disputes. The revival of
land adjudication courts, could help ease the backlogs in the resolution of land conflicts. These could
greatly contribute to unlock the affected properties and make these available in the market, ensure social
security, and assist in increasing revenue collections.
A key issue with collection of these data is that these are not routinely collected, one has to go through the
property databases of local governments to extract the information. Even so, the LGU records could be
incomplete, as it does not capture those which have not been reported by the property owners. The
records of the Courts are likewise not computerized, and that land related cases are mixed with criminal
and civil cases. Any effort to improve the Court database should pay attention to the segregation of land
related disputes and monitoring progress towards resolution.
6.
Emerging Policy Issues and Gaps
It is apparent that based on the above findings from pilot LGUs, upscaling land governance monitoring to
enable national level reporting and analysis would require improvements in the way that relevant data are
presented, collected and accessed. The following actions are recommended to address limitations in
regular monitoring of the above core indicators, considering that except for the indicator on tax collection
efficiency, the rest are not routinely collected and reported, and comes from multiple sources.
First, the computerized RoDs would have complete records of all titled properties and subsequent
transactions on these properties. The LRA and Phil-LARES, Inc. - LTCP should be able to prepare
regular management reports on these databases, and share these with LGUs and agencies. This is
one of the most important piece of information that should be shared with the LGUs to complete and
update their property inventory; and should provide the most reliable source of information for
monitoring land transactions. Agreements on how LRA and RoDs should be able to provide such
information, the contents and frequency of management reports so that these are useful for LGUs and
national level monitoring would be required.
27
Related to the first indicator, the DENR should complete the mapping of tenure rights holder in the
public domain, and share these with the LGUs, and incorporate such data into the forest land use
plans and CLUPs. A directive and budget by DENR to do this should be made, in order to clarify tenure
rights and boundaries in the public forest.
Second, it is important for DENR to complete cadastral surveys of the entire country, and share
these and related records to LGUs. As the LGU pilots show, clear reference to survey records as the
base map for LGU planning and tenure inventory would ensure that the political boundaries are resolved,
and that any discrepancies in parcel count and mapping are avoided. It is common knowledge that a large
number of political boundary conflict still remain, thus impacting on the amount of IRA share among
LGUs involved. Sharing of cadastral surveys with LGUs is also not current practice and depends only on
how the LGUs perceive this as important for their own use. At the national level, agreements between the
DILG and DENR can be forged so that future LGU planning and mapping are based on commonly agreed
reference maps.
Third, efforts should be made to systematically capture gender data on land. The LGU findings
reveal disparities in gender ownership of land. While difficult to measure, this indicator needs to be
closely monitored to ensure the titling and registration processes are fair and equitable. At first instance,
pilot LGUs can segregate such information; and prospectively ensuring that both DENR and RoDs are
able to incorporate such data in subsequent transactions. This would improve the likelihood that over
time, this information is made routinely available for decision making.
Fourth, there needs to be an integrated reporting mechanism to keep track of expropriations and
privatizations made, the amount of compensation paid, as well as other mechanisms by which
government acquire private properties. Expropriations involve a number of agencies, and following the
LGAF and this pilot, securing data on this has been very difficult. It is thus important that a mechanism
for national reporting of these activities be made, to properly monitor the fairness, transparency, and
consistency by which both national and local governments execute these functions.
Fifth, it is essential to improve the reporting and analysis of property tax collections by the LGUs,
such that discounts, and prior year’s collections are not mixed with current year’s data. This should
provide a more accurate picture of tax compliance rates at the LGU level. More importantly, the findings
reveal the potential to harness the real property taxes to substantially increase local revenue collection
capacities. At 59% on the average, there are clear socio economic and financial benefits of devising a
28
program to increase collection efficiencies to acceptable levels. From the perspective of national
government, this means improving the cost effectiveness of national government transfers so that there
are adequate local counterpart funds to finance programs. From the perspective of local governments, this
should clearly translate into improved ability to deliver socio economic services to constituents as more
funds become available at their disposal.
To realize the above, however, it is evident that it is essential to improve performance on other indicators,
that impact on property tax collection efficiency, that are within the purview of other government
agencies:
3.
Accelerate titling of all remaining untitled properties (DENR)
4.
Implement the Local Government Code provision mandating the RoDs to regularly provide
updates to LGUs on transactions on properties (RoDs)
Other actions that are within the scope of LGU responsibilities include: (a) regular updating of SMVs
and ensuring that these are based on current market values; (b) cleansing of real property databases; (c)
keeping tax maps up to date through regular inventories and field validation; (d) reduce discretion in the
granting of exemptions; and (e) investing in tax collection efforts. All these imply the need for strong
monitoring and oversight by the Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF), and more aggressive
technical assistance to LGUs to improve their capacities.
Finally, proper recording of properties in disputes could help in monitoring this indicator. A
system whereby the LGU is given reports on properties subject to dispute lodged at both the barangay
Justice Committee and the Courts would greatly assist in proper understanding the extent to which these
are prevalent, and aid in monitoring the process of settlement. More relevant however, is to find ways to
reduce the length of time to resolve land related disputes, thereby reducing the social and financial costs
to the parties; and improve the prospect of deriving financial and economic benefits from these properties.
A review of relevant laws with respect to documentation of claimants for first time titling; quality
assurance of adjudication procedures; provisions on dispute resolution processes, among others, is in
order. A more comprehensive response to reducing land related cases can be formulated through an
assessment of the main causes of disputes pertaining to land and the reasons why these have persisted for
long periods.
Underpinning all of the above, it is essential to have a more coordinated response to enable more strategic
approach to resolving the policy and institutional issues, while at the same time, working out specific
29
solutions at the local level to bring about immediate benefits. Engagement with civil society groups, the
private sector is also necessary to circulate the findings more widely and enable more informed
participation in pushing for reforms.
7.
Conclusions and Recommendations
7.1
Relevance for policy dialogue: Moving land policy up on the government agenda
Adding key indicators for land governance to the results matrix for the Philippines development plan
provides an impetus for improving land governance. First, having a national commitment and integrating
land related performance indicators in the results matrix will provide needed continuity so that progress
will not be dependent on changing political alliances and priorities. Second, the ability to document
impacts of action in an objective way can help catalyze action across different Departments. Finally, it
could allow support to the sector be based on results rather than intentions, establish feedback to program
implementation and, given the importance of land for virtually all population groups, help differentiate
impacts by gender or wealth to avoid harm to specific groups.
In fact, regular monitoring can aid in picking up timely problems that may produce conflicts and even loss
of rights. With awareness of associated opportunities and risks, these data can open up avenues not only
for monitoring but for improving quality and outreach of service provision via current information on
what is happening on the ground (e.g. conflicts or transactions registered), linking hitherto disparate
sources of information together (e.g. on gender or taxes), and through just-in time provision of reports and
information products (e.g. land market monitors) to assist private sector decision-making.
Moreover, the above cases strongly demonstrate that these are inextricably linked to local revenue
generation, and improving governance at the LGU level. Thus, monitoring of land governance would be
highly relevant for NEDA, which has recently appointed a Governance Director; DoF to keep track of
local land tax collections; and the DILG, which is promoting good governance among LGUs, as one of its
key results areas.
7.2
Recommended Actions to Upscale Land Governance Monitoring at National Level
The above findings confirmed the relevance of these six core indicators for policy dialogue at the country
level and the feasibility of data collection. The pilot study has likewise demonstrated how crucial it is for
30
local governments to collectively monitor and analyze the results to improve their capacities for executing
the mandated functions of land use and investment planning, local revenue collection and management,
and service delivery.
To improve data reliability, enable collection of meaningful data, and feed into national level reporting on
the indicators, it is essential to undertake and address the following:
5.
Design an integrated national data collection and reporting system on key land indicators at
national level (results matrix NEDA) and sub-national level and designate a lead agency at the
apex to coordinate work of agencies to report on indicators under the leadership of NEDA. This
would entail engagement with appropriate government agencies, civil society and other
stakeholders and will also involve development of land governance monitoring indices across
LAM agencies, in provinces, and key cities.
6.
Assess and prioritize the land indicators for national level monitoring. Key considerations
include: importance for (i) tracking progress in the implementation of the Land Governance
Agenda, and (ii) achievement of the country’s priority development goals specified in the
Philippine Development Plan (PDP); (iii) cost effectiveness of data collection; and (iv) data
quality and availability. The selection will be undertaken through a consensus building process,
with due consideration to various options and needs and priorities afforded by various
stakeholders; and users of information at various levels.
7.
Review and support parallel initiatives that will improve data reliability and availability. These
include the completion of cadastral surveys in the Philippines, as well as the planned
computerization of DENR land records.
8.
Resolve access to data of LRA-RoD that are maintained by the Land Registration System, Inc. Land Titling Computerization Project (LARES-LTCP). These should free up transaction, titles
and ownership information that would be most relevant for keeping track of progress in and
analysis of indicators 1 and 3. Likewise, these should feed into improving performance in
property tax collection, and resolving disputes (indicators 5 and 6).
9.
A policy on data standards and regular sharing of land information among agencies should be in
place. These should ease the cross referencing of DENR survey records, LRA/RoD title records,
and LGU property tax cadaster. When combined with other information and overlays at the local
governments these should prove essential to tax administration, land use planning and disaster
risk management, tenure security improvement, and better capture of gender data and information
on property ownership. In addition, parallel programs to improve data quality, such as the
planned computerization of DENR records through the LAMS should be enhanced; and their data
31
capture and reporting mechanism reviewed to be consistent with land governance indicator
monitoring.
10.
A review of existing systems for data collection and generation of statistics should be made to
determine the feasibility of routine reporting on the above indicators, in a more cost effective
way.
11.
Prepare regular reports, their public launch and presentation and discussion at regular fora to
engage with civil society and other groups to ensure improved ratings and performance against
indicators.
12.
Develop pilot LGUs to serve as showcases of how poor and good land governance impacts on
performance, service delivery and promotion of inclusive growth.
32
References
ADB/JFPR REGALA Project. 2012. Real Property Tax Compliance Study for the City of Legazpi, Abay,
2011.
ADB/JFPR REGALA Project. 2012. Real Property Tax Compliance Study for the City of San Carlos,
Negros Occidental, 2012.
ADB/JFPR REGALA Project. 2012. Real Property Tax Compliance Study for the City of Tayabas,
Quezon, 2012.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Philippines-Australia Land Administration and
Management Project. Land Equity International. Land Tenure Study, 2004.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. June 2010. Land Administration and Management
Project Phase 2. Land Equity International, AusAID TA Report. Economic Development Statement for
the LSDF.
DENR. Philippine Australia Land Administration and Management Project. October 2002. Land Equity
International. Winning the War Against Poverty: Policy Studies Integration Report.
Eleazar, F. C., B. S. Garcia, E. S. Guiang, L. D. Isorena, A. Hererra, R. Ravanera, and E. S. Serote, 2013.
Improving Land Governance in the Philippines: Implementation of the Land Governance Assessment
Framework (LGAF). http://econ.worldbank.org/lgaf
Garcia, Brian. 2013. Land Governance Assessment Framework: Philippines Country Study. Expert
Investigation Report on Land Administration.
http://www.sancarloscity.gov.ph/index.php/profile?showall=&start=2; accessed on Aril 22, 2014.
Land Governance Data and Maps from Bayawan, Legazpi, Tayabas and San Carlos cities and
municipality of Nabunturan.
NEDA. 2010. Philippine Development Plan: 2010-2016.
Philippine Constitution of 1987.
Republic Act 7160, The Philippine Local Government Code. 1991
33