Skip Navigation
Philippines

Improving local govs' performance (PH0037)

Overview

At-a-Glance

Action Plan: Philippines National Action Plan 2015 – 2017

Action Plan Cycle: 2015

Status: Inactive

Institutions

Lead Institution: Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG)

Support Institution(s): Commission on Audit, Commission on Human Rights, Council for the Welfare of Children, Department of Budget and Management, Department of Education, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of Finance, Department of Health, Department of Social Welfare and Development, Department of Trade and Industry, Government Service Insurance System, Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, National Council on Disability Affairs, National Council on Indigenous People, National Economic and Development Authority, National Police Commission, Office of Civil Defense, Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry Philippine Commission on Women Philippine Health Insurance Corporation Philippine National Police. Union of Local Authorities in the Philippines. Center for Disaster Preparedness, Jesse M. Robredo Institute of Governance, Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in Rural Areas, Transparency and Accountability Network

Policy Areas

Capacity Building

IRM Review

IRM Report: Philippines End-of-Term Report 2015-2017

Starred: No

Early Results: Major Major

Design i

Verifiable: Yes

Relevant to OGP Values: Public Accountability

Potential Impact:

Implementation i

Completion:

Description

Status quo - There exists a continuing challenge for local governments to perform better, and achieve a desirable condition where local governments are able to:
 Sustain the practice of transparency and accountability in the use of public funds;
 Prepare for challenges posed by disasters;
 Demonstrate sensitivity to the needs of vulnerable and
marginalized sectors of society
 Encourage investment and employment;
 Protect constituents from threats to life and security; and
 Safeguard the integrity of the environment. The objective is to stipulate good governance behavior among local governments specifically in: a) the proper utilization of public funds; b) providing exemplary services to local communities; and c) promoting transparency, accountability and participation. Relevance - This commitment is relevant in advancing transparency and citizen participation through the various performance criteria required for eligibility of the SGLG. This seeks to improve government service delivery by fostering opennes and participation through compliance with the Full Disclosure Policy and representation of sectors in local decision bodies; and improve governance and capacity of local governments.
The Seal is a demonstration that transparency and accountability work for the interest of the citizen, not only in knowing the financial health of the local government and the range of services it provides, but also where citizens are able to draw local information and engage in good service delivery. Ambition - Raising the performance benchmarks of LGUs intends to improve aspects of local governance, such as transparency in local plans and budgets and mandatory representation of CSOs in local special bodies.

IRM Midterm Status Summary

For Commitment details, see https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/philippines-mid-term-progress-report-2015-2017.

IRM End of Term Status Summary

9. Enhance performance benchmarks for local governance

Commitment Text:

Status quo or problem/issue to be addressed

There exists a continuing challenge for local governments to perform better, and achieve a desirable condition where local governments are able to:

· Sustain the practice of transparency and accountability in the use of public funds;

· Prepare for challenges posed by disasters;

· Demonstrate sensitivity to the needs of vulnerable and marginalized sectors of society

· Encourage investment and employment;

· Protect constituents from threats to life and security; and

· Safeguard the integrity of the environment

Main Objective

The objective is to stipulate good governance behavior among local governments specifically in: a) the proper utilization of public funds; b) providing exemplary services to local communities; and c) promoting transparency, accountability and participation. Brief Description of Commitment From its pilot run in 2010, the Seal of Good Housekeeping (SGH) promotes transparency and accountability in local operations. In 2012, 84% of provinces, cities and municipalities were conferred with the SGH. This indicates readiness of local governments to take on greater challenges. In 2014, the Department scaled up the Seal of Good Housekeeping into the Seal of Good Local Governance (SGLG), a recognition of good performance of provincial, city and 31 municipal governments, not only on financial housekeeping, but also on other areas that directly benefit the people. These performance areas are: good financial housekeeping, disaster preparedness, social protection for the basic sector, business friendliness and competitiveness, environmental management, and law and order and public safety.

OGP challenge addressed by the commitment

· Improving Public Services

· Increasing Public Integrity

· More Effectively Managing Public Resources

Relevance: This commitment is relevant in advancing transparency and citizen participation through the various performance criteria required for eligibility of the SGLG. This seeks to improve government service delivery by fostering openness and participation through compliance with the Full Disclosure Policy and representation of sectors in local decision bodies; and improve governance and capacity of local governments. The Seal is a demonstration that transparency and accountability work for the interest of the citizen, not only in knowing the financial health of the local government and the range of services it provides, but also where citizens are able to draw local information and engage in good service delivery.

Ambition: Raising the performance benchmarks of LGUs intends to improve aspects of local governance, such as transparency in local plans and budgets and mandatory representation of CSOs in local special bodies.

Responsible institution: Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG)

Supporting institutions: Commission on Audit, Commission on Human Rights, Council for the Welfare of Children, Department of Budget and Management, Department of Education, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of Finance, Department of Health, Department of Social Welfare and Development, Department of Trade and Industry, Government Service Insurance System, Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, National Council on Disability Affairs, National Council on Indigenous People, National Economic and Development Authority, National Police Commission, Office of Civil Defense, Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry Philippine Commission on Women Philippine Health Insurance Corporation Philippine National Police, Union of Local Authorities in the Philippines, Center for Disaster Preparedness, Jesse M. Robredo Institute of Governance, Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in Rural Areas, Transparency and Accountability Network

Start date: January 2015

End date: April 2017

Commitment Aim

The commitment aimed to encourage good performance among local governments through the Seal of Good Local Governance (SGLG). The SGLG recognizes good performance among provincial, city, and municipal governments in areas that directly benefit people. This includes good financial housekeeping, disaster preparedness, social protection for the basic sector, business-friendliness and competitiveness, environmental management, and peace and order. To achieve its desired objective, the commitment aimed to enhance the performance scales of SGLG, assess 1,653 provinces, cities, and municipalities (PCMs) annually from 2015-2017, confer Seals to all qualified PCMs, and ensure representation of CSOs in the SGLG assessment team.

Status

Midterm: Substantial

Substantial progress had been made by the midterm, with three of the four deliverables completed. In January 2016, the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) issued a guideline that upgraded the assessment criteria and indicators for compliance.[Note: The Seal of Good Local Governance 2016 Awardees http://www.dilg.gov.ph/PDF_File/issuances/memo_circulars/dilg-memocircular-2016111_e820585515.pdf. ] In 2015, 1,676 PCMs were assessed[Note: In 2016, 1,673 LGUs were assessed for 2016 SGLG according to corrected data provided by the Bureau of Local Government Supervision (BLGS) of the DILG. At the time of writing the IRM Progress Report 2015-2017, only the 2015 figures were available.],[Note: PH-OGP. Midterm Self-Assessment Report; Zara, Girlie, LGOO VII, Bureau of Local Government Supervision (BLGS) - Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). Interview on 24 October 2016 at DILG Office, Quezon City.] and 306 were awarded the Seal using the upgraded criteria. XX[Note: Seal of Good local Governance 2016 Awardees http://www.dilg.gov.ph/PDF_File/reports_resources/dilg-reports-resources-20161027_8441b747a6.pdf. ]XX This was a 20 percent increase from the 254 PCMs awarded the Seal in 2015. All SGLG assessment teams included CSO representatives for the 2015 and 2016 evaluation rounds.[Note: For details, see Aceron, Joy. 2017. Philippines Progress Report, 2015-2017. Open Government Partnership Independent Reporting Mechanism. ] At the time of writing the progress report, the assessment of PCMs for 2016 was ongoing and so this could not be marked as complete.

End of term: Complete

This commitment has been completed. The government used the upgraded criteria to assess 1,671 PCMs during the period, more than the targeted number of 1,653 PCMs. The other deliverables were completed in the first year of implementation.

Did It Open Government?

Public Accountability: Major

The state of development and governance in local governments across the country varies. Some local governments continue to struggle, while a few are performing well but inconsistently. This commitment encouraged local governments to improve performance as measured by criteria and indicators that are important to the development and growth of their constituencies. The increase in the number of recipients of SGLG Seals shows the improvement in local governments according to the standards set by SGLG. The fact that there has been a decrease in the number of local government units (LGUs) with adverse findings from COA[Note: Zara, Girlie, LGOO VII, Bureau of Local Government Supervision (BLGS) - Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). Interview on 24 October 2016 at DILG Office, Quezon City.] on issues related to budget allocations and responsiveness indicates continued improvement in the financial management of LGUs. Girlie Zara, the DILG official responsible for this commitment, attributes the 100 percent assessment coverage to the political support of the former secretary, as well as and improvements in the system (i.e. a pre-existing structure, personnel, and linkages). XX[Note: Ibid. ]XX The awareness campaign of the Union of Local Authorities in the Philippines also helped to generate local government participation.[Note: For details, see Aceron, Joy. 2017. Philippines Progress Report, 2015-2017. Open Government Partnership Independent Reporting Mechanism. ]

This commitment has not been coded as outstanding because challenges remain in how data can be used by citizens to pressure local governments to perform better. While there has been an increase in number of local governments receiving the SGLG seal, there are still many LGUs that are not compliant. Input on the SGLG assessment of LGUs from civil society on the ground might help to ensure accuracy of the assessment and serve as leverage for civil society in pushing for sustained improvements to performance.

Carried Forward?

The SGLG has not been carried forward in the next action plan. According to the representative of PH-OGP, there is a need for DILG to clarify how their deliverables will build on its current accomplishments in the third action plan.[Note: Marianne Fabian, PH-OGP Secretariat, DBM. In a roundtable discussion on ‘Did it Open Government’ organized by Government Watch. October 12, 2017.] As recommended in the IRM progress report, the SGLG would benefit from another platform that could monitor and advocate for it. The SGLG could be integrated with other programs that make use of the information it generates and then leverage it to pass relevant reform measures. Deliverables should focus on the engagement and use of external stakeholders of the SGLG process and results. It should also be harmonized with other related performance assessment systems and tools.


Philippines's Commitments

  1. Civil society participation to improve LGU service delivery

    PH0042, 2017, Capacity Building

  2. Engage communities in the fight against corruption, criminality and illegal drugs

    PH0043, 2017, Capacity Building

  3. Ease of Doing Business:Competitiveness

    PH0044, 2017, Legislation & Regulation

  4. Ease of doing business: Philippines’ Anti-Red Tape Challenge)

    PH0045, 2017, Capacity Building

  5. Citizen Participatory Audit)

    PH0046, 2017, Audits and Controls

  6. 8888 Citizens’ Complaint Center

    PH0047, 2017, Public Participation

  7. Government feedback mechanism

    PH0048, 2017, Capacity Building

  8. Access to Information Legislation

    PH0049, 2017, Capacity Building

  9. E-Participation through the National Government Portal

    PH0050, 2017, Citizenship and Immigration

  10. Open Budget Index and Budget Reform Bill

    PH0051, 2017, E-Government

  11. Philippine Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative

    PH0052, 2017, Beneficial Ownership

  12. Institutional Mechanisms for Disaster Response

    PH0053, 2017, E-Government

  13. Shelter Development for Informal Settler Families

    PH0054, 2017, E-Government

  14. Open Local Legislative Processes

    PH0055, 2017, E-Government

  15. Law on ATI

    PH0029, 2015, Right to Information

  16. Transparency of local govs plans and budgets

    PH0030, 2015, Fiscal Transparency

  17. Open Data

    PH0031, 2015, Open Data

  18. Extractive Industries' Transparency

    PH0032, 2015, Extractive Industries

  19. CSO engagement in public audit

    PH0033, 2015,

  20. Civic enagement in local budget planning

    PH0034, 2015, Participation in Budget Processes

  21. Civic Enagement in Local Budget Planning – Community Capacity-Building

    PH0035, 2015, Capacity Building

  22. Improving public service delivery

    PH0036, 2015, Public Participation

  23. Improving local govs' performance

    PH0037, 2015, Capacity Building

  24. Improve the ease of doing business

    PH0038, 2015, Private Sector

  25. local government competitiveness

    PH0039, 2015, Capacity Building

  26. Public and private sector dialogue

    PH0040, 2015, Private Sector

  27. Improving corporate accountability

    PH0041, 2015, Private Sector

  28. Sustain transparency in national government plans and budgets

    PH0020, 2013, E-Government

  29. Support for the passage of legislations on access to information and protection of whistleblowers

    PH0021, 2013, Legislation & Regulation

  30. Engage civil society in public audit

    PH0022, 2013, Public Participation

  31. Enhance performance benchmarks for local governance

    PH0023, 2013, Capacity Building

  32. Enhance the government procurement system

    PH0024, 2013, E-Government

  33. Strengthen grassroots participation in local planning and budgeting

    PH0025, 2013, Participation in Budget Processes

  34. Provide more accessible government data in a single portal and open format

    PH0026, 2013, E-Government

  35. Starred commitment Initiate fiscal transparency in the extractive industry

    PH0027, 2013, Extractive Industries

  36. Starred commitment Improve the ease of doing business

    PH0028, 2013, Private Sector

  37. Disclose Executive Budgets

    PH0001, 2011, Fiscal Transparency

  38. Access to Information Initiative

    PH0002, 2011, Right to Information

  39. Broader CSO Engagement

    PH0003, 2011, OGP

  40. Participatory Budget Roadmap

    PH0004, 2011, Participation in Budget Processes

  41. Local Poverty Reduction

    PH0005, 2011, Subnational

  42. Empowerment Fund

    PH0006, 2011, Capacity Building

  43. Social Audit

    PH0007, 2011, Public Participation

  44. Results-Based Performance

    PH0008, 2011, Capacity Building

  45. Performance-Based Budgeting

    PH0009, 2011, Capacity Building

  46. Citizen’s Charters

    PH0010, 2011, Capacity Building

  47. Internal Audit

    PH0011, 2011, Audits and Controls

  48. Single Portal for Information

    PH0012, 2011, E-Government

  49. Integrated Financial Management System

    PH0013, 2011, E-Government

  50. Electronic Bidding

    PH0014, 2011, E-Government

  51. Procurement Cards

    PH0015, 2011, Open Contracting and Procurement

  52. Manpower Information System

    PH0016, 2011, E-Government

  53. Expand the National Household Targeting System (NHTS)

    PH0017, 2011, Public Participation

  54. e-TAILS

    PH0018, 2011, E-Government

  55. Budget ng Bayan

    PH0019, 2011, Fiscal Transparency