Compliance to Relevance:

The Futures of Philippine Local Development

Planning

Members:

Alvarez, Kristoffer Dave R.

Beltran, Jay-ar T.
Castro, Ma. Bernadette M.
De Jesus, Lance Andrei
Dogup, Trisha Marie A.
Gogolin, Kitch Karianne
Landicho, Monette
Paredes-Vasquez, Ethyl Mae A.

1
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The paper delves into the challenges faced by local government units (LGUs) in the
Philippines regarding local development planning since the enactment of the Local Government
Code of 1991. It highlights the significant weaknesses in the planning-budgeting framework, with
LGUs often viewing planning as a compliance task rather than a tool to benefit constituents. The
core issues include inadequate monitoring, limited technical capacity, short-termism, political
influences, and lack of measures to ensure plan implementation and impact assessment.
Stakeholders, including legislative bodies, national government agencies, and civil society
organizations, are impacted by these deficiencies, leading to adverse effects on societal
development. The paper utilizes diverse methodologies to analyze the problem
comprehensively, identifying scenarios, and offering policy recommendations. The proposed
solutions aim to foster strategic, inclusive, and future-oriented planning, emphasizing community
oversight, user-friendly processes, and codification of future-oriented local development plans
to enable sustained, inclusive, and responsive development for communities.

2
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 4
Problem Definition................................................................................................................................................. 4
Stakeholders............................................................................................................................................................ 7
Objective .................................................................................................................................................................. 8
Purpose of the Paper ............................................................................................................................................. 8
Scope and Delimitation ......................................................................................................................................... 9

Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 9
STEEP Framework................................................................................................................................................... 9
Social ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 10
Technological ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 10
Economic..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Political ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 11

Forces of Change Mapping ................................................................................................................................ 11

Futures Triangle ................................................................................................................................................... 12
Pull of the Future................................................................................................................................................. 12
Push of the Present ................................................................................................................................................................................ 12
Weight of History .................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Key Factors Forecasting ........................................................................................................................................................................ 13
High Uncertainty, High Impact .......................................................................................................................................................... 13

Key Informants Results and Themes ............................................................................................................... 14

Findings ..................................................................................................................................................... 14
Interview Results ..................................................................................................................................... 14
Compliance ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 14
Providing Solutions ................................................................................................................................................................................ 14
CSO participation and Mandated Local Plans ............................................................................................................................. 15
On Imposing Sanctions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Scenarios..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15

Recommendation .................................................................................................................................... 16
Policy Alternative .................................................................................................................................... 16
References................................................................................................................................................. 19
APPENDIX A .............................................................................................................................................. 20
APPENDIX B .............................................................................................................................................. 31

3
Introduction

Upon the signing of the Local Government Code of 1991, local government units (LGUs)
have been bestowed with autonomy to provide services to their constituents that are responsive
and tailor-fitted to their needs. This passage has indeed enshrined the critical role of LGUs in
commencing initiatives that are evidence-based, strategic and comprehensive. This has been
manifested with meticulous processes, steps and planning strategies in order to ensure that it is
well aligned with the needs of its beneficiaries or stakeholders. At present, our LGUs are
expected to develop more than 30 plans yearly, having their respective budgetary allocations,
tools, and even councils. Not all LGUs are bestowed upon the imminent capacity, both technically
and human capital-wise, to be able to develop and formulate such plans. With the demands and
the expectations of national agencies that require these plans to be developed; to a degree, we
can argue that with the bulk of these plans, quality and responsiveness may be deemed
compromised at the outset. In the article of Sicat et al. (2019), the two (2) critical major
weaknesses of the planning-budgeting framework of our LGUs are their compliance with the
planning-budget process at the national level and the confluence of local short and long-term
development-mandated plans. Mores et al. (2019), through a mixed-method approach, LGUs
have limited technical capacity in developing their plans. Alongside the demanding processes and
stages of development planning, the complexity, and the ‘westernized’ academic processes have
also served as an issue raised by LGUs in this research. Conversely, one can seek the argument
that the complexity and the demanding nature of the development planning process; and the
lack of simplicity of it all, may contribute to their inability to develop comprehensive, holistic and
sound plans for the constituents. In its simplest sense, it applies the bottom-up approach, placing
a bird-eye’s view on the landscape of local development planning and the simple, yet profound
solutions that may be the key towards responsive programs for the Filipino communities.

Problem Definition

The problem centers on the LGUs’ cursory understanding and appreciation of the LGUs’
leadership in local development planning (LDP). Most, if not all LGUs, view LDP as a form of
compliance more than it being an instrument to effectively add value to their constituents’

4
quality of living. This is further manifested with the existing monitoring and evaluation
mechanisms on the compliance of LGUs to the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP)
Formulation. In the data shared by the Bureau of Local Government Development (BLGD) this
year, the monitoring is only limited to the presence, absence or the outdatedness of CDPs:

Fig.1 Summary of 2023 CDP Status across all LGUs in the country
Further, the existing CDP Assessment Monitoring Tool only checks on the form, process, content,
and whether or not it is risk-informed.

Fig. 2 Portion of the consolidated monitoring tool used for CDP Assessment in 2023
Presently, there are no stringent measures to ensure that the committed projects,
programs, and activities (PPAs) in CDP and other mandated plans are implemented and that such
implemented PPAs achieve the desired impact. Hence, LGUs aim for the minimum requirement
- compliance. Digging deeper, this policy brief identifies several systemic causes of the problem:
LGU lacks necessary technical skills and capacity to lead/ undertake the LDP process - Some
elected Local Chief Executives are not knowledgeable on LDP as well as the members of the
planning team who are mostly the department heads of the LGU. The LDP process is a holistic
approach that goes through all sectors and therefore entails technical skills (Pulhin et al., 2017).
The LGU may know the planning process and are familiar with the tools but oftentimes due to
lack of expertise, this is haphazardly done.

5
Fig. 3 The planning process in a snapshot; entails an intricate and collaborative approach which
oftentimes pose a challenge among LGUs that lack the capacity to undertake such process
Short-termism and political influences - Oftentimes, LCEs are only particular with the
performance of the LGU during his/her term (Garces et al., 2021; Marques, 2017). If an incoming
LCE gets elected, he/she will most likely discontinue the initiatives of the previous administration,
failing to ensure continuity and sustainability of the good practices in planning.
Mediocrity (kinasanayan na) - It is a culture among the LGUs to continue the existing practices
in planning whether or not it is effective and efficient.
Avoidance of accountability - There is no penalty for LGUs without plans or even those with
ineffective plans so the accountability among local officials on planning is loose.
National-centric Planning perspectives- The policies issued at the national level concerning
development planning may employ mechanisms that are uniform across all regions, failing to
recognize the contexts that put LGUs’ capacities at different levels.

6
Absence of tools to monitor status of plans; gauge improvements based on capacity
development interventions provided - Monitoring of plans only covers their presence and
absence but doesn’t look at how many of the PPAs included in the plan are implemented. The
impact and results of the previous plan is also oftentimes not considered in the formulation of a
new plan.
These systemic causes can be further linked to the worldviews on LDP which includes:
1. Planning is for compliance - Most LGUs don’t see how it can significantly impact the
constituents so it is being formulated but only for compliance to the directive of the
national government.
2. Third world mentality - LGUs are predisposed to believe that a third-world or an
underdeveloped country like the Philippines can only do so much. Thus, the quality of our
local development planning remains unchallenged.
3. Perennialism - To most LGUs, the local development planning is suntok sa buwan. It’s
difficult to come up with a well-crafted plan especially with factors such as political
influences, insufficient budget and expertise, and the amount of workload the LGUs are
faced with on a daily basis.

Stakeholders

The following are the stakeholders for this policy issue:

1. The Legislative Branch - It entails legislation of proposed policies, the role of the
legislative branch is crucial.
2. National Government Agencies (NGAs) - NGAs such as DILG, DBM, NEDA, and DOF have
the power to supervise, influence, and capacitate the LGUs, therefore, the LGUs capacities
on planning also reflect the quality of interventions done by NGAs. The LGUs’
performance serves as a critique on the NGAs as well, enabling them to tailor-fit their
PPAs for the LGUs.
3. Local Leagues - The problem on LDP can serve as inputs to how they might support and
complement the LGUs’ lacking resources

7
 4. Learning Resource Institutes (LRIs) - The gaps on LDP can serve as a research agenda and
can suggest how LDP can be further strengthened.
5. Civil society organizations/communities (CSOs) - CSOs are included in the sectoral groups
involved in local development planning. Hence, their inputs and participation can greatly
influence how planning is done in a certain locality.
This policy brief aims to study the possible scenarios in local development planning by 2040.
This is in line with the termination of Ambisyon Natin 2040, to which all the national and local
level efforts on development are directed.

Objective

Purpose of the Paper

This study aims to explore policy options that shall be instrumental to the realization of
the preferred futures for Local Development Planning in the Philippines by 2040. Specifically, this
study aims to:
1. Identify and recommend a policy measure that shall influence local governments
across the country to prioritize local development planning as a crucial tool
towards inclusive and sustainable development.
2. Provide recommendations that shall persuade statesmen and concerned National
Government Offices to craft and support appropriate measures that shall establish
long-termism and guarantee vertical and horizontal alignment of development
plans from the local and national government.
3. Serve as reference of similar and related studies in the future and aid in developing
a culture where all local government units have high regard to development
planning as a prerequisite to assuage pressing societal issues and boost local
economic growth by institutionalizing incentives programs and/or imposition of
sanctions.

8
Scope and Delimitation
This paper shall study the trends and patterns of all local government units (LGUs) across
the country using relevant national data available from national government agencies such as
the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), National Economic and
Development Authority (NEDA), Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development
(DHSUD), among others. Key stakeholders were also interviewed; such as local chief executives
(LCEs), functionaries, and civil society organizations (CSOs). In consideration of the limited time
and scarce resources, the researchers shall primarily utilize data from the Seal of Good Local
Governance (SGLG) by looking into specific indicators directly related to local development
planning as well as indicators that are indirectly affected by the same. Further, each of the
researcher were tasked to gather information from key stakeholders through an unstructured
Key Informant Interview (KII) using a set of questions prepared by the group.The results of these
unstructured KII shall be assimilated through roleplaying by the researchers during the processing
of data.

Methodology

STEEP Framework

The analysis used in this particular method was the STEEP framework. A brainstorming
workshop exercise was undertaken to elicit the insights from the members of the Team.

9
Social

There is still a prevailing “silos” mindset among local government officials wherein they
will only work on what is assigned to them or their particular unit.; Planning for the future is still
not on the horizon for local government functionaries; neither is it a part of their culture or seen
as a necessity; Planning has been reactive and only complied with as it is being required by
national government agencies; Planning requires highly trained personnel and therefore
demands the assistance of experts in the planning process.

Technological

Local Government Functionaries are still in denial or are yet to understand and embrace
opportunities that may be provided by technology.; “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it” mindset; Most
tools used in planning are embedded in software. These tools and instruments aid the LGU
planning technical working group in better identifying and prioritizing which PPAs are needed in
the plan, as well as the budget to be allocated for each and monitoring and evaluation.

Economic

Local government units who do not have the technical capability or expertise in planning
resort to contracting third-party entities like UP Planades and the like and planning is perceived
to be a tedious process, LGUs resort to and rely on the executive powers of the Mayor to decide
on these matters.

Environmental

National-centric planning perspective - Policies fail to take into account the multitude of
concerns and varying dynamics on the ground; There is limited to no participation from
stakeholders at the community level.

10
Political
Planning is deeply influenced by political biases, agendas and influence; Lack of
meritocracy in hiring competent personnel; Some LGUs only have a designated planning officer;
The discrepancy between the local plans and the current administration’s priority thrust. (PPAs
in Local Plans that may be issues-based do not reflect/follow the administration’s priority thrust);
There is no sanction for having outdated or no local plans at all.

Forces of Change Mapping

Fig. Forces of Change Mapping

In the context of local planning, the forces of change shown above were agreed upon by
the group. Each corresponds to certain factors contributing to the gaps in local planning. As it
currently is, local planning is mostly done in some LGUs in the country for the reason that it is
required by the law, making it a product of compliance rather than aiming for what is needed by
the community. With this, there is a notion that only LGUs with quality sources of income and
other resources take local planning meticulously as they have the advantage in technology and
digitalization. Other crucial factors that affect local planning are the competence of personnel
who are the key actors in local planning, the political interests of Local Chief Executives who have
the final say in the execution of local plans, and the prominence of technology which hampers
the process of local planning for senior personnel. The planning process itself is also a challenge
for LGUs, it is a rigorous process of workshops and complicated tools, and it’s not a “one shoe fits
all.” These forces fall under the “Low Uncertainty, High Impact” quadrant as these are forces that
we want to prevent most, being that these have the greatest impact on local planning.
Additionally, although the intricate process of local planning calls for an adequate amount of

11
resources, various options are available for the LGU to proceed with it as provided by guiding
NGAs, LRIs, and other partner stakeholders. Lastly, local planning being part of various incentive
programs such as the SGLG, it can be generalized that whether or not it is one of such programs’
indicators on granting of incentives, LGUs must proceed with planning as it is a vital key to
realizing their platforms and other forms of development of the community.

Futures Triangle

Pull of the Future

Geared towards meritocracy and further professionalizing civil servants at the local level
and as more and more LGUs become capable and aware of the significance of anticipatory and
evidenced-based planning, it can be foreseen that local government functionaries and more
importantly its leaders will have a bigger involvement in the planning process. Consequently, as
the technology becomes more available and apparent to LGU officials, key stakeholders from the
community will also be given voice and will readily be consulted regarding the LGUs’ programs,
activities and more importantly, development plans.

Push of the Present

The Department remains to be a driving and motivating force in terms of pushing for the
institutionalization of mechanisms in drawing out sound policies that pushes for the consistent
updating of the comprehensive development plan (CDP) and comprehensive land use plan (CLUP)
as evidenced by its inclusion in the Seal of Good Local Governance requirement. In accordance
with the Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 10 S.2017 and Republic Act 10587,
Local Planning & Development Coordinators should be a passer of the Environmental Planner
Licensure Examination.

Weight of History

History leans on past experiences of our tendency to conform to norms and traditions like
the prevalent patronage or “padrino system” whereby whoever holds authority is prescribed
with the most power and tends to discard long term plans set forth by the previous

12
administration regardless of how sound the plans or meticulous the process was. This also bleeds
to the alignment of plans and priorities of the local government units when it negates important
considerations over political and personal agenda.

Key Factors Forecasting

Key factor: Sound local planning is viewed as an indispensable step in local governance
Under the Business as Usual Scenario, despite the presence of guidelines and issuances from the
Department, local government units only formulate mandated plans to comply with memoranda
directing them to draft or formulate local plans instead of looking at planning from a strategic
standpoint. In our Preferred Scenario, local government units view the planning process as an
integral part of determining their plans and programs and put a premium on consulting their
constituents and other stakeholders to ensure that their interventions directly answer the needs
and demands of the general public. In contrast, the Disowned Scenario, represents a view
wherein planning may be done in some cases (e.g. a requirement to a certain criteria) and can be
dispensed of in lieu of the local chief executive’s priority agenda or what may seem an apparent
need that needs to be addressed. The Integrated Scenario posits that while some local
government units may have already developed some level of appreciation for the need to plan
for their constituents, other factors affect and challenge their planning initiatives. More
aggressive measures to secure the LGUs buy in along with an environment that rewards sound
local planning is pursued.

High Uncertainty, High Impact

Local Plans are just for compliance: While the Comprehensive Development Plan and the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan are both mandated plans, there is no denying that Local
Government Units will still be able to carry out their functions or the delivery of basic services
even without it. An even bigger consideration are the priorities and thrusts of the local chief
executive, which may even supersede and negate existing LGU plans which came before his
administration.

13
Key Informants Results and Themes

It is deemed logical to garner various insights from key informants, such as the
stakeholders identified in this paper. A thematic analysis shall be conducted in order to thresh
out the commonalities, and even contrasting perspectives from the stakeholders.

Findings

Interview Results

The key informants from this paper are the following: 1 Municipal Mayor, 3 Sangguniang
Bayan Members, 2 National Government Agency (NGA) members, 1 Civil Society Organization
(CSO) Member, 1 Local Resource Institute (LRI) and 1 LGU representative.

Compliance

Majority of the responses expressed that LGUs see planning as a mere compliance
brought about by the varying priorities of local officials, the numerous plans they ought to
prepare, and how it is a mere document as reference, or basis, deemed required by the DILG. It
can be highlighted that one Mayor has expressed that plans somewhat limit the LCEs to include
their respective political agenda. At the outset, however, it was also expressed that they see the
value of planning, however, a LGU Functionary representative expressed how the LGU ultimately
lacks the capacity to secure its development, to ensure proper monitoring and to work on all of
the planning processes within the varying dynamics of the LGU.

Providing Solutions

There are various solutions provided by the KIs, such as suggestions of SB Members, to
make use of the leagues and to provide responsive technical assistance on the aspect of data
management and data analysis. An LGU Functionary has suggested that there should be a
deliberate monitoring mechanism facilitated by the higher LGUs/ or NGAs to evaluate and assess
the mandated plans. Lastly, they have also expressed the imminent need to harmonize and
simplify the tools, strategies and processes.

14
CSO participation and Mandated Local Plans

All participants have expressed their agreement that local plans are instrumental in
improving CSO participation. It creates awareness, it serves as a platform for them to work with
the LGUs, and it secures inclusive and responsive interventions embedded within the said
mandated plans.

On Imposing Sanctions

There were opposing views with regard to imposing sanctions brought about by the
inability of LGUs to develop plans. SB Members, the CSO representative and the LGU Functionary
have expressed their agreement to this, noting that it imposes accountability amongst the
officials. Another NGA agreed saying that it will ensure and require LGUs to elicit comprehensive
and science-based plans. However, in the outset, another NGA expressed its disagreement,
noting that it disagrees with the LGU’s autonomy and it disengages them even more. More to
this, the LRI representative disagreed saying that it might be a reasonable approach, however,
there should be a need to address first the perennial issues, such as the clear guidelines, provision
of support, and even promote a culture of accountability amongst officials rather than resorting
to punitive measures.

Scenarios

Two (2) scenarios were identified to be feasible based on the data gathered by the
researchers. Firstly, in this integrated scenario, there was a call to simplify policies and
procedures in the process of formulating the plans. It was duly expressed in various forms of
research; such as the likes of Mores et al. (2019) arguing that the ‘compliance’ perspective of
LGUs were attributed to the complexity, and the treatment of the planning process within our
LGUs. More to this, it can be noted that there are existing initiatives that have been initiated by
key agencies in order to harmonize, streamline and simplify these mandated local plans. Such as
the engagement of local resource institutions (LRIs) in the planning process of the LGUs, the
provision of a guidebook for LGUs, and various technical assistance. It was also emphasized,
through the data gathering measures, that there must be an ‘aggressive’ measure to ensure that

15
the LGUs have a buy-in and appreciation on the local development plans. Secondly, the preferred
future is deemed the ideal future; In this, the plans become an avenue for the shared aspirations
of a local government to be realized. Regular monitoring is in place, and plans are updated as
necessary. LGUs view audits not as an attack to their competence but as a way of knowing and
understanding their performance, therefore being able to adjust their plans accordingly.
Policy Alternatives Matrix

Recommendation

Policy Alternative

As a result of the study conducted, the researchers have determined the need to enact a law that
shall address the pressing gaps in local development planning in the Philippines. In order to
provide a comprehensive solution to this, the researchers recommend for the Congress to enact
a law providing for the Rationalization of Mandatory Plans of Local Government Units that shall

16
further reinforce the effective implementation of CLUP and CDP among other local plans. It is
also noteworthy to ensure the inclusion of the following salient provisions in the proposed Policy
Measure.
Salient Provisions of the Policy Measure
1. Creation of User-Friendly Urban Planning Tool Guide/ Manual that shall harmonize all local
plans and ensure vertical and horizontal alignment with National Government development
plans.
2. Provision of guidelines enumerating liabilities and sanctions that may be imposed to
administratively hold LGU officials accountable for the absence of approved mandatory local
plans and failure to fill-up plantilla positions following the prescribed Local Planning and
Development Office structure.
3.Lengthen coverage of mandatory local plans to ensure sustainability of development across
shifting political administrations and generate more long-term solutions for better
developmental and economic impact.
4. Allocate/ subsidize projects/ grants as incentives to LGUs that have implemented their
respective plans at a certain acceptable percentage to be determined by a Monitoring and
Evaluation Council to be created by virtue of the provisions of this law.
Rationale for the Recommendation
The researchers posits that once the law is enacted along with the subsequent
enforcement and implementation of its salient provisions, the nudge of simplifying the planning
process will trigger a gradual shift in the collective understanding of local government unit
officials and functionaries and their consequent appreciation of the need to develop responsive
local development plans within their respective communities. By looking into an inclusive,
participative and bottom-up approach in this recommendation, one could be able to reinforce
the role of local governments–autonomy–towards national development.
Key Actors/Players
The Bureau of Local Government and Development (BLGD) of the DILG shall trigger the
enactment of the law and act as the lead convenor of the technical working group which will craft
the Rationalization of Mandatory Plans of Local Government Units along with other agencies such

17
as NEDA, DBM, DOF and DHSUD. Other major stakeholders such as the Local Leagues, Local
Resource Institutions particularly the NCPAG and CSOs shall be consulted in drafting the bill to
be lobbied at the house of representatives.
Plan for Implementation
Upon its institutionalization, the policy ultimately aims to undergo the following
implementation plan, to wit:

Stage Phase Activities

Establishing Scoping Interagency coordination and

consultation meetings; consultation
with notable stakeholders; Leveling
and Identification of development
gaps

Elaboration Development of the Tools and Designing and Modelling of the User
Enhancement of Existing Guidelines Friendly Urban Planning Tools; Review
on the and revision of Existing Guidelines

Execution Testing and Finalization of tools Use Case Analysis and Testing
Finalization of the User Friendly Urban
Planning Tools
Regional Consultation and Critiquing;
Issuance of Guidelines and
Memoranda
Piloting of the Tool

Sustainability (M&E) Once the User Friendly Urban Consultation with key stakeholders;
Planning Tools has already been data analytics; imposing rewards and
developed. A randomized sample of incentives to those performing LGUs
LGUs will be targeted nationwide to
test the usability and readiness of the
tool for LGUs; Continuous effort to
improve the initiative through various
of consultations and tools

18
References
Charlotte, J., Sicat, M., Mariano, Angel, F., Castillo, C., Adaro, R., & Maddawin. (n.d.).

Assessment of the Philippine Local Government Planning and Budgeting Framework.

https://pidswebs.pids.gov.ph/CDN/PUBLICATIONS/pidsdps1918.pdf

Garces, L., Jandoc, K., & Lu, M. G. (2021). Political Dynasties and Economic Development:

Evidence using Nighttime Light in the Philippines. Philippine Political Science Journal,

41(3), 215–261. https://doi.org/10.1163/2165025x-bja10010

Marquardt, J. (2017). How Power Affects Policy Implementation: Lessons from the

Philippines. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 36(1), 3–27.

https://doi.org/10.1177/186810341703600101

Mores, L. S., Lee, J., & Bae, W. (2019). University-Community Partnerships: A Local

Planning Co-Production Study on Calabarzon, Philippines. Sustainability, 11(7), 1850.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su11071850

PIDS Team. (2020). Studies on Philippine Local Government Planning and Budgeting.

https://pidswebs.pids.gov.ph/CDN/EVENTS/dissemination_lgsf-

am_baseline_study_on_fiscal_and_governance_gaps_and_the_assessment_of_local_pl

anning_and_budgeting_july_16_2020.pdf

Pulhin, J. M., Tapia-Villamayor, M. A., de Luna, C. L., Cruz, R. V. O., Peria, A. S., Anacio, D.

B., Carandang, W. M., Carandang, V. Q., Peras, R. J. J., Sabino, L. L., Gevaña, D. T., Grefalda,

L. B., Pulhin, F. B., Garcia, J. E., Tiburan, C. L. Jr., & Almarines, N. R. (2021). Enhancing

resilience through capacity building in LCCAP formulation in the local government of

Aurora, Philippines. APN Science Bulletin, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.30852/sb.2021.1411

19
APPENDIX A
Key Informants Interview Responses

Respondent Why do you think LGUs Based on your answer As a member/ partner Do you think imposing
seem to look at planning on Q1, how can we of development sanctions to concerned
as mere compliance? help develop the LGUs councils, do you think official/s of LGUs without Local
appreciation of local local plans are Plans is reasonable to increase
planning? instrumental in accountability in public office?
improving CSO Why?
participation in local
governance?

Mayor It may be because local We can give examples Yes. So that major Yes, so that more
leaders’ political agenda of success stories on organizations within the comprehensive, data driven and
is not in line on what the how local planning locality will support the science based planning will be
plans indicate. have changed the development priorities formulated. This will make a
course of development of the LGU and have more stable and fact based
of an LGU ownership in the plan, plans and not be based on
which may help hasten clamor of certain individuals.
implementation of the
plan.

SB Member 1 Because some LGUs use the leagues to There should be sanctions.
simply look at it as is. As enforce altho we Malficence and milficents is
a plan to be submitted to cannot impose to actually grounds for
the DILG. For Sadanga, it other LGUs basta sa administrative case. "Public

20
 should be something to atin, we intend to Office is a public trust". Public
be fulfilled. We should fulfill or plans. servants should serve the
back our plans with people and not the other way
commitment and around. Sovereighty emanates
dedication. DILG from the people. "We are
issuances are just guide. accountable to the people".

SB Member 2 Because of the changing Assist the LGUs in the Yes, because it creates Yes! Because planning is a
priorities of the changing timely realization of awareness to the CSOs primary mandate for LGU
local officials the PPAs contained in on the direction of the officials
the plans LGU and how they can
be part in the
Because of the formulation and
uncertainty of the realization of the PPAs
continuity of the PPAs in in the plans
the plans

SB Member 3 It is an integral part of The agency should In this time of I agree with this, every official
the LGU to plan for the always capacitate continuing delivery of should know its accountability
development of the public administrators good governance, CSOs the first time they step into
community to establish a and local government play a very important public service, as we always
clear vision of what will officials role in the planning and know, public service is a public
happen in the future and working with the LGUs. trust.
will serve as a blueprint
for the next
administrators

NGA 1 I think LGUs seem to look To develop LGUs I think local plans are No. This will only make them
at planning as mere appreciation of local instrumental in feel alienated from the national

21
compliance because of planning, we need to improving CSO government and feel that the
the numerous plans that find ways to: participation. CSO LGU's autonomy is being
they need to prepare and participation are most disregarded. What we can do is
Capacitate them on important during plan
the limited number of find ways to make planning
data management and validation workshops,
workforce that they have easier and more valuable for
data analysis as well as public consultations,
at the planning office. them so that we don’t need to
encourage LGUs to and dissemination
Plans are also technical impose sanction/s.
promote inter-unit or forums as they provide
documents that need
inter-office valuable inputs to the
technical inputs and
collaboration on plan Plan considering their
analysis, and some even
preparation so that the perspectives on working
require mapping
burden will not only be on the ground and
competencies which
on the planning office. working with the
stretches the time and
This will also promote vulnerable groups.
ability of the limited During plan preparation
accountability as the
number of available staff. workshops,
planned programs and
Thus, they just prepare consultations, and
projects will be coming
the plans to comply. forums, they are always
from all the concerned encouraged to give
Another reason is that offices and units. If inputs, provide
plans are not well what was included in accomplishments, and
appreciated. Some the plan are those that raise their issues and
planners and LCEs look at are important to each concerns. This
it as a reference office or unit of the involvement also
document while most LGU, they will own and contributes to making
forget about it after it was appreciate it. them feel that they are
published, thus plans just part of the development
become plans only. Very Simplify and harmonize planning process and
few go back to the plans the number of plans that their inputs are
during the actual the LGUs need to valued. When they feel
that they are valued,

22
 implementation of prepare. This will they participate more
programs and projects. significantly impact the often and willingly work
Maybe, the numerous way they prepare plans hand in hand with the
plans to consider in as they will have more local government.
program or project time to plan and
implementation can be implement the plan.
one of the reasons for the
low appreciation of LGUs.
Require them to
prepare a monitoring
mechanism (like results
matrices or monitoring
plans as accompanying
documents of the
plan). This will require
the LGU to look at the
plans and implement
what was planned
during the prescribed
timeframe. This will
also ensure the vertical
and horizontal
alignment of plans and
the previous plan’s
assessment will be
used as input to the
next planning period.

NGA 2 It may be because local we can give examples Yes. So that major Yes, so that more

23
 leaders’ political agenda of success stories on organizations within the comprehensive, data driven
is not in line on what the how local planning locality will support the and science based planning will
plans indicate. have changed the development priorities be formulated. This will make a
course of development of the LGU and have more stable and fact based
of an LGU ownership in the plan, plans and not be based on
which may help hasten clamor of certain individuals.
implementation of the
plan.

CSO 1 * For some LGU's, it may *DILG has been doing Definitely yes. That's one of the
seem like compliance its part and you have elements in public
Yes, because through
because it is basically a been diligent to your accountability. Penalties and
planning, CSO'S are
requirement by task of providing TA's, sanctions for no compliance.
empowered and are
regulating, supervising supervision and It's a way of enhancing
given the avenue to
and/or monitoring guidance, trainings and accountability. Outlining and
take part in City/
agencies especially DILG. other similar activities. imposing penalties show that
municipality or
Perhaps, more we are all serious that planning
Although on a deeper Province- building.
patience to teach and is very important for the LGU to
perspective, submitting a There's also a sense of
ignite their passion serve, care and give the best
plan for the sake of fulfillment and self-
and burden for their for her constituents. Planning is
compliance expresses a worth because voices
own Province/ a part of the moral duty of
lack of visionary leaders are heard and issues are
municipality or city by LGU's, so if they neglect such
who should be creative addressed. It also leads
incorporating true duty, it must be penalized for
and innovative that these them to have ownership
situationers in every lives are at stake.
ideas produce an added of the plan and
presentation. The
value to the LGU. Most of definitely they will
why's why we need to
the time, same ideas and "fight" for the plans and
plan for a better,
PPA's are executed year voluntarily take part in
effective and satisfying

24
 in and year out. public service. executing such plans.
Other LGU's, they just
don't see it a priority
thus giving no
importance to planning.
If it is viewed this way, a
reflective question
should be asked: is the
LGU serving for
somebody's need? Or is
it serving for somebody's
greed that we do away
with planning between
LGU and the
stakeholders?
On the other side, some
LGU's may look like doing
this process of planning
because some CSO
partners are not able and
capable to contribute
significantly to the over
all plan.

LRI During my time providing Capacitate and bring Yes. Local plans serve as Imposing sanctions on
technical support on them to somewhere powerful tools to concerned officials of LGUs

25
planning to various LGUs, where they can grasp enhance CSO who fail to comply with Local
I have observed that ideas and inspire them participation in local Plans can be a reasonable
planning goes beyond to plan. Allocate governance. By approach to increase
mere compliance; it is enough resources for engaging in the planning accountability in public office.
their active effort to them to implement process, CSOs can However, it is essential to
serve the communities. the plan without contribute to the establish clear guidelines,
Planning became an resource limitation. development of provide support, and promote
essential function in both Sometimes LGU inclusive policies, a culture of accountability
the executive and officials are pessimists advocate for change, rather than solely relying on
legislative branches of when resources are and secure resources to punitive measures. By doing so,
Local Government Units limited; this is one of address community we can foster a system where
(LGUs). While the the barriers for an needs. To ensure the public officials are committed
primary role of SB effective planning success of CSO to serving their communities
members is legislation, process. participation, it is diligently and responsibly.
their involvement in essential for local
LGUs are inspired to
planning is crucial as I governments to actively
plan when there are
observe in LGU Victoria involve and empower
other institutions
and Naujan. CSOs in the formulation
helping them, like the
and implementation of
SUCs. Other LGUs do
local plans. Together,
not have access to
Although it is the CSOs and local
SUCs or they are not
responsibility of LGUs to governments can work
aware. Sometime they
comply with the mandate towards building
don’t know where to
of the Department of the sustainable and thriving
ask for technical
Interior and Local communities.
assistance.
Government (DILG), they
view planning as an Through education and
integral part of their awareness programs,
function and collaboration with

26
responsibility. It serves as planning professionals,
the foundation for the promoting public
implementation of participation, and
formulated plans and utilizing technology,
programs. we can empower LGUs
to embrace the
significance of local
In my observation, planning.
planning is not merely a
bureaucratic process but
a means to render
service to the
communities they
govern. They engage
various stakeholders for
an effective planning.

“Minsan kasi nagiging

mere compliance sya sa
tingin kasi mandated by
the DILG na dapat
makapag submit talaga
sila ng plan, pero based
on my observation, hindi
naman, medyu matagal
nga lang sila magcomply
yun iba munisipyo kaysa
sa iba kasi may capacity

27
yun iba yun iba wala.

Yun mga munisipyo na

walang capacity to
formulate a plan,
specially yun enhanced
LCCAP and CDP+ talagang
ang lagay magiging
compliance na lang
talaga nila, kasi need nila
gawin yun kung hindi, di
hindi sila mabibigyan ng
seal of good governance.
Kaya need nila
magcomply.

Pero sa mga LGU na

capacitated na, hindi na
lang compliance yun sa
kanila talaga need nila
gumawa ng plan to
developed into a more
greener and resilient
municipality.”

28
LGU Functionary Most LGUs look planning Higher LGU/s or NGAs Partly. When CSOs are Yes. To ensure that all LGUs
as mere compliance should establish a part of the whole adhere to the mandates of the
because of the following mechanism to monitor planning process and NGA/s; and; To eliminate the
reasons, viz: the implementation of not just for wasting of resources in project
mandated plans, not documentation and implementation.
• Weak monitoring
just through the representation
mechanism from the
documentation but purposes as required by
higher Local Government
through an actual the DILG, specifically
Units (LGUs) and
assessment/evaluation during the Municipal
National Government
; and continuously Development Council
Agencies (NGAs) to
provide capacity meeting.
ensure that plans are
development and
being implemented as
alignment of PPAs
targeted in the said
from National level,
document/s;
down to grassroots.
• Absence of
sanctions for non-
implementation of PPAs;
• Lack of funds to
implement the plans;
• Change
priority/thrust of the
local Chief executive/s or
NGAs;
• Lack or absence
of technical expertise to
implement technical

29
projects; and
• Approved Annual
Investment Program
(AIP) can stand alone
without ensuring the
PPAs are included in
other approved major
plans.

30
APPENDIX B
Policy Alternatives Matrix

Approach 1: Policy alternative formulation using the integrated scenario

Policy Alternative Strengths Weaknesses

Enact a law to ensure that local plans are not Establishes a clear distinction on the politics- Requires a policymaker to champion the reform
dependent on the length of term of office. (e.g. administration dichotomy at the LGU level
Plan effectivity/ years of coverage is not term-
based)

Imposition of sanctions to LGUs without updated Ensures adherence to the development of plans; Doesn’t assure their level of responsiveness or
mother local plans (CLUP, CDP, ELA, etc.) stringent adherence of LGUs quality of plans; it promotes a compliance way of
thinking rather than one’s commitment to the
community

Implement Enticing Rewards and Incentives There are existing incentives program facilitated by There are current rewards and incentives program;
Program the DILG; they serve as proof to how there was a it might impose a mere compliance mindset
substantive increase of LGUs adhering to policies
on the development of local plans

Enact an overhaul policy that aims to harmonize Ensures the simplification, inclusivity and It might require inter-agency commitments; an
the multitude of development plans of the LGUs harmonization of the 30 plus mandated local plans overhaul of the major planning processes across
the Philippine bureaucracy

31
 Approach 2: Policy Alternative Formulation using the preferred scenario

Policy Alternative Strengths Weaknesses

Review and consider the root causes of Determines ultimately the issue and concerns that serve Case to case contexts and perspectives of different
issues/justifications of LGUs that can‘t comply with as an input on overhauling the policies LGUs, LCEs
the ideal/prescribed planning process

Institutionalize security of tenure of personnel Ensures a workforce that is well-trained and able to Doesn’t ultimately consider the political dynamics in the
with appropriate skills and focus for planning in formulate sound, well-curated and responsive plans process of formulating the plans
each LGU

Reorganize LDC composition and strengthen Places value on the role of CSOs and varying sectors to Requires policy overhaul
sectoral representation in the planning process secure a responsive and inclusive planning process;
away from varying political agenda.

32