SIE 2014

Definition of Terms

I. INCOME
Business Tax: Tax on business is an annual tax imposed on the act of doing business within the
LGU.
Extraordinary Receipts/Aids: Foreign and domestic aid or grant provided for the LGU in the
form of money and/or materials.
Income: Amount of money or its equivalent received during the period in exchange of services,
sales of goods, or as a profit from financial operations (net income).
Loans/Borrowings: Amount of long-term or short-term indebtedness received by LGU from
foreign or domestic creditors that is covered by a contract.
Local Sources: Local taxes, fees and charges and economic enterprises that accrue to the local
government units in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and R.A. No. 7160.
Other Tax: Tax imposed on transaction related to transfer of property/ownership, practice of
profession requiring government exam, and all inhabitants of the Philippines 18 years old and
above.
Real Property Tax: Basic tax imposed on real properties and their improvements. Real property
includes lands, building, machinery and other improvements affixed or attached to the real
property.
Income from Economic Enterprises: Imposition for the operations of economic exercise of its
propriety functions.
Regulatory Fees: Fees derived from the exercise of the regulatory powers of local governments
(police powers) such as Mayor’s Permit, Slaughter Permit Fees, etc.
Service Income/User Charge: Reasonable charges imposed by the LGUs for the services
rendered.
Share from the National Tax Collection: Share of LGU from specific national tax collection in
accordance with the provisions of the laws.
Tax Revenue: Compulsory contributions to finance government operations. Taxes are
computed at the rate established by law to a defined base such as income, state, imports,
exports, foreign exchange, etc., without any direct relation to the services rendered to the
individual assesses.

pg. 1
SIE 2014

Toll Fees: Toll fees or charges for the use of any public road, pier or wharf, waterway, bridge or
telecommunication system.

II. EXPENDITURES
General Public Services: Covers sector expenditures for services that are indispensable to the
existence of an organized LGU. These include executive and legislative services; overall financial
and fiscal services; the civil service; planning; conduct of foreign affairs; general research;
public order and safety; and centralized services. These exclude general administration,
regulation, research and other services of departments that can be identified directly under
each specific sector.
Department of Education: Covers sector expenditures for services in support of schools and
education facilities; planning and manpower development, sports and cultural preservation
and enrichment.
Health, Nutrition and Population Control: Covers sector expenditures for health program
including medical, dental and health services; planning and administration of nutrition
programs; population and family planning programs, and administration of these programs.
Labour and Employment: Covers sector expenditures for the formulation, implementation and
regulation of labour policies; promotion, placement and regulation domestic and overseas
employment; and maintenance of industrial peace.
Housing and Community Development: Covers sectors expenditures for the provision of
housing and sanitary services, promotion of community development, slum clearance, zoning
and control population.
Social Security/Social Services and Welfare: Covers sector expenditures for the upliftment of
disadvantaged families and children; the rehabilitation of the physically and socially
handicapped; assistance to the distressed and displaced individuals and families; care of the
aged and other welfare services and payment of retirement pension and other social security
benefits. Also included are expenditures for the provision of services and facilities for
recreational , religious and other social activities not elsewhere classified.
Economic Services: Covers sector expenditure for activities directed in promotion,
enhancement and the attainment of desired economic growth.
Debt Service: Covers expenditures for payment of loan principal, interest and other service
charges for debts of LGU.

pg. 2
SIE 2014

Other Purpose: Covers expenditures for all other services not falling under any of the other
sectors.

III. OTHERS
Income Class: Social class dictated by the income/revenue generated by each LGU.
Per Capita Income (Y): = (Y=Tot Income Generated/Population), average annual
income of each individual under an LGU.
Rate of Expenditure (RE): (RE=[Expenditure/Income] x 100) average consumption of
available in a year.
Source: DOF BLGF Statement of Income and Expenditures CY 2005-2007 Publication

pg. 3
SIE 2014

Statement of Income and Expenditure Analysis 2014

The Statement of Income and Expenditure (SIE) serves as the primary instrument for data capture to
monitor the fiscal and financial performance of a local government unit (LGU). This report provides an opportunity
for the LGU to take positive actions to correct or improve its fiscal and financial operations. The SIE helps policy
makers, LGU creditors, researchers, financial officers and other stakeholders to provide support facilities to LGU
development.

In this year and even in the past, the relatively good performance of the City Government of Calapan to
generate revenues can be attributed to the current administration’s efforts towards financial independence. It is a
stark reality that the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) as LGU’s share from the national budget, cannot suffice for
the delivery of social services to the people for the improvement of their lives. As practical measure, strategies
were devised to generate more revenues and neutralize the adverse effects of too much dependence to the
national government. Besides, the local autonomy granted to LGUs by virtue of RA 7160 otherwise known as the
Local Government Code of 1991 can be best realized when an LGU already enjoys its financial independence.

The task of augmenting the city’s income has to be engaged by the City Treasury Department. Being the
collection arm of the City Government, this department has to devise solutions and strategies to effect higher local
tax collection. In the same capacity, it has to provide ample support to the city’s all-out campaign on generating
more revenues for the city’s coffers.

The City Assessor’s Department has also contributed through its computerization of assessment of real
property taxes. With the replication of technology from other successful LGUs, assessment of real properties has
become more precise and transparent. Furthermore, it contributes to the government’s campaign on good
governance thru transparency and accountability.

Bolstered by the previous years’ drive towards financial sufficiency, this year’s performance on revenue
generation could be attributed to various improvements in the institution’s management system. With the
maintenance of key processes to ISO 9001:2008 Quality Management System, doing business is now getting easier
for anyone who wishes to venture on business and entrepreneurship. These innovations took the first step and
since then, the city continues to reap the product of what has been initiated before.

Awards and recognitions are indeed factors that contributed to the significant increase in the city’s income.
Bagging the Most Business Friendly City in the Philippines Award (Small Cities Category) for three consecutive
years (2012-2014), the city’s efforts to provide the business community with that well-deserved ease and comfort
to taxpayers in the process of making business paid off when it was declared Hall Of Famer in the said annual
search. It is now evident that Calapan City has become the target of business sector for ventures that range from
small to medium enterprises (SMEs) of various types. Construction of establishments in significant commercial
areas boomed and business stalls are now everywhere. Shopping malls continue to flourish which only indicates
one thing: viability of more business prospects. Commercial, savings and thrift banks mushroomed along the city’s
business district which prompted the flow of capital and investments in agribusiness and microenterprises. Micro-
financing through loan/credit agencies gave way to the opening up of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in
urban and rural communities. There was also the influx of tourists, both local and foreign, which in part,
contributed to the city’s external sources of income.

pg. 4
SIE 2014

.
Comparative data showing the significant increase of locally-sourced revenues in 2013 and 2014:

2013: 109,092,397.00
2014: 114,044,376.73
Increase of 4,951,979.73 – (4.9M) or 4.54% increase

Graph 1

pg. 5
SIE 2014

IRA vs Local Income 2013

Internal Revenue Allotment – 347,422,391.00 or 76% share

Locally-sourced income - 109,092,397.00 or 24% share

Graph 2

IRA VS LOCAL INCOME 2013

109,092,397.00,
24%

Internal Revenue Allotment

347,422,391.00,
76% Locally-sourced income

IRA vs Local Income 2014

Internal Revenue Allotment – 390,902,915.00 or 23% share

Locally-sourced income - 114,044,376.73 or 77% share

Graph 3

IRA vs Local Income 2014

Locally-sourced
income
23%

Internal Revenue
Allotment
77%

pg. 6
SIE 2014

IRA and Local Source2011-2014

2011 2012 2013 2014

IRA 377,536,028.00 323,808,149.00 347,422,391.00 390,902,915.00

Local Source 85,822,699.00 105,439,149.00 109,092,397.00 114,044,376.73

Graph 4

IRA and Local Source 2011-2014

450,000,000.00
400,000,000.00
350,000,000.00
300,000,000.00
AMOUNT

250,000,000.00
200,000,000.00
150,000,000.00
100,000,000.00
50,000,000.00
0.00
2011 2012 2013 2014
IRA 377,536,028.00 323,808,149.00 347,422,391.00 390,902,915.00
Local Source 85,822,699.00 105,439,525.00 109,092,397.00 114,044,376.73

Top Ten Local Source of Income

1. Business Tax – 40,165,068.53

2. Income from Markets – 14,277,385.95
3. Permit Fees – 11,226,887.85
4. Real Property Tax – 11,181,360.56
5. Clearance and Certification Fees – 4,457,770.07
6. Franchise Tax – 4,203,675.84
7. Tuition Fees – 3,038,195.38
8. Garbage Fees – 2,964,640.00
9. Property Transfer Tax – 2,928,888.40
10. Community Tax – 2,844,677.75

pg. 7
SIE 2014

The table shows the ranking in terms of which revenue becomes the top gross-earner of the year.
Occupying the top spot is taxes coming from business establishments which contributed a lot to the city’s reserves.
Placing second is income generated from the Public Market in the form of stall fees which also provide steady
income. Coming in for third place is income generated through permit fees. This indicates that the city’s regulatory
power is functional and continues to exercise regulation over businesses and local transport industry. The real
property taxes (RPT) come only in fourth because of the old market values consequent upon reversion of RPT
assessments to GRA 1997. Its collection, however, from residential subdivisions, tried to offset those deficiencies in
other taxable establishments. Due to this, the actual collection surpassed the target (total taxable assessed value)
of 5% set by the Bureau of Local Government Finance which was highly favourable for the City Government. This
can be attributed to the Assessor’s Office when it devised a means to enhance its assessment thru computerization
of its processes which include tax mapping of all real properties and intensive fieldwork to discover all new
buildings and improvements in the city. Said move certainly boosted the tax collection efforts and eventually
contribute to income generation initiatives. This could also be very significant because it promotes good
governance and values of transparency and accountability.

Graph 5

Top Ten Local Source of Income

3% 3%
3%
3% Business Tax
5%
Income from Markets
4% Real Property Tax
41%
Permit Fees
Franchise Tax
12%
Clearance and Certification Fees
Garbage Fees
Tuition Fees
11%
Property Transfer Tax
15% Community Tax

Locally-sourced income includes revenues coming from collected fees, taxes, earnings of the city’s various
economic enterprises and other income. From 2011 to 2014, the city’s revenues accumulated higher gains and this
was made possible thru the Treasury Department’s strategies and efforts in collecting fees. These include fees on
weights and measures, permit and registration fees, fines and penalties, clearance and certification, garbage,
inspection, medical, dental, laboratory and processing fees. (Refer to Graph 5)

pg. 8
 SIE 2014

Graph 6

TARGET VS ACTUAL COLLECTION 2014

60,000,000.00
50,000,000.00
40,000,000.00
AMOUNT

30,000,000.00
20,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
0.00
Economic
Real Property Tax Business Tax Fees & Charges
Enterprise
Target 25,323,306.04 48,594,000.00 27,093,000.00 19,585,000.00
Actual 26,724,504.04 54,663,566.77 30,371,029.86 17,842,073.17

As in previous years, there was a significant increase in the amount of taxes collected from various sources
which considerably occupied a share in the city’s revenues. The relatively good performance from the Real Property
Tax (RPT) can be attributed to the Treasury Department’s collection efficiency in hitting revenue targets. The
department was able to hit it through exerting all efforts and strategies against delinquent real property owners.
The table below shows the progress report of collection as of December 31, 2014:

Income Sources Target Actual Over Collection % of Collection

(Under Collection)
Real Property Tax 25,323,306.04 26,724,504.04 1,401,197.24 106%
Business Tax 48,594,000.00 54,663,566.77 6,069,666.77 112%
Fees & Charges 27,093,000.00 30,371,029.86 2,458,029.66 109%
Economic Enterprise 19,585,000.00 17,842,073.17 (1,742,926.87) 91%

pg. 9
SIE 2014

Graph 7

Top 5 Tax Revenues 2014

5%
5%
7%
Business Tax
Real Property Tax
18% Franchise Tax
Property Transfer Tax

65% Community Tax

Top 5 Tax Revenues 2014

Business Tax – 40,165,068.53

Real Property Tax – 11,181,360.56
Franchise Tax – 4,203,675.84
Property Transfer Tax – 2,928,888.40
Community Tax – 2,844,677.75

pg. 10
SIE 2014

Graph 8

Top 5 Tax Revenues 2013

5% 7% 5%

Business Tax
18%
Real Property Tax
Property Transfer Tax
65%
Franchise Tax
Community Tax

Top 5 Tax Revenues 2013

Business Tax 37,013,465.22

Real Property Tax 10,420,006.95
Franchise Tax 3,653,188.96
Property Transfer Tax 2,901,988.84
Community Tax 2,806,562.92

This shows that in the years 2013 and 2014, revenues from the business sector top the list of all the tax
revenues. The graph indicates a larger percentage shared where taxes from real properties come in second spot.
There is not much difference in the performance of revenues from franchise, property transfer and community
taxes or the cedula.

Distribution of CY 2014 BT and RPT

Business Tax 40,165,068.53

Real Property Tax 11,181,360.56

pg. 11
SIE 2014

Graph 9

Distribution of CY 2014 Business Tax and Real

Property Tax

22%

Business Tax
Real Property Tax
78%

The Revenue Generation Program implemented by the City Treasury Department is geared toward
strengthening the internal sources of the agency and anchored on a well-laid out vision of the City Government
aiming to become a Model City and Centre of Good Governance.

Through this project, it generated an actual collection amounting to Php26,323,306.04 from CY 2014 as
against target collection of Php25,323,306.04 with an excess of Php1,401,197.24 or an equivalent of 106%. This
increase was brought about by the intensive collection campaign against delinquent taxpayers within 62 barangays.

Further, the continuous development growth in the real estate investment thru the development of high
end subdivisions/villages also contributed to the increase in RPT collection and in effect increased the current
assessed value of properties which leads to surpass the target collection by 6%.

Moreover, the department continued to adopt and implement strategic measures to attain its goal that
include the following: 1. Information dissemination by means of tri-media approach (TV, local newspapers, local
radio programs) concerning tax obligation, conduct tax information thru barangay assembly meetings, house to
house or personal approach to the taxpayers, sending bills and regular sending of notice of tax delinquency.
(Source: Accomplishment Report 2014)

pg. 12
SIE 2014

EXPENDITURE
Summary of Expenses from 2010-2013:

Items of Expenditures 2014 2013 2012 2011

Environment/Sanitary 18,537,188.87 22,440,284.69 30,085,623.97 53,362,390.70
Services
Salaries and Wages – 111,402,096.55 111,473,190.06 91,508,935.48 86,254,829.58
Regular
Salaries and Wages- Casual 2,078,610.01 1,786,181.17 3,272,300.79 1,364,716.79
Gasoline, Oil & Lubricants 18,879,736.36 17,040,459.03 24,468,617.08 20,217,517.45
Expenses
Electricity Expenses 19,440,053.89 20,266,607.05 20,284,457.00 20,177,607.10
Other Professional Services 57,805,753.12 37,550,634.88 32,254,116.48 13,600,903.68
Interest Expenses 14,225,149.13 14,399,445.82 15,409,719.23 19,762,669.30

Graph 10

EXPENDITURES 2011-2014

120,000,000.00
100,000,000.00
80,000,000.00
60,000,000.00
40,000,000.00
20,000,000.00
0.00

Year 2014 Year 2013 Year 2012 Year 2011

pg. 13
SIE 2014

Graph 11

Wages and Salaries, Other Compensation, Personnel Benefits

Contributions – Regular Employees

190,000,000.00

180,000,000.00

170,000,000.00

160,000,000.00

150,000,000.00

140,000,000.00

130,000,000.00
YEAR 2012 YEAR 2013 YEAR 2014

Wages and Salaries, Other Compensation, Personnel Benefits Contributions – Regular Employees

2012 - 154,338,091.09
2013 - 184,553,731.22
2014 - 181,748,960.39

The steady increase in expenditure for salaries and wages of regular employees can be attributed to the
implementation of salary standardization program where the mandated increase for employees’ welfare is taken
into account. As the need for additional workforce becomes more evident than before, creation of plantilla
positions becomes a necessity to respond to the growing and expanding offices. With such a scheme, it demanded
a relatively bigger source of financial resources to adapt to fiscal requirements in providing employees with not just
the basic salaries but also the fringe benefits due them as mandated by pertinent labour laws.

pg. 14
SIE 2014

Graph 12

Repair and Maintenance

20,000,000.00

15,000,000.00

10,000,000.00

5,000,000.00

0.00
YEAR 2012 YEAR 2013 YEAR 2014

YEAR 2012 YEAR 2013 YEAR 2014

Repairs and Maintenance

2012 - 11,738,420.00
2013 - 10,610,329.43
2014 - 18,351,600.39

There is a slight difference in the repair and maintenance expenses from 2011-2013 which actually include
land improvements, office building and equipments, parks, plazas and monuments, machineries and heavy
equipments, IT equipments, software and motor vehicles. This 2014, repair and maintenance of motor vehicles
tops the list with 60% attribution. This is due to the fact that majority of the city’s vehicles were still bought in
second hand and demand a great deal of maintenance. For several years already, the wear-and-tear condition of
these vehicles required high maintenance that the City Government can do nothing but repair them to the
detriment of the treasury (having more funds disbursed) and to the benefit of suppliers who earn much from the
government. It is recommended therefore, that, if funds are available, CGC can venture into purchasing brand new
service vehicles and equipments which are maintenance-free for at least a few years which can be translated to
savings. To support this, and the thrust of good governance, vehicles must be limited to official uses only and
should not be intended for personal and private use.

pg. 15
SIE 2014

Graph 13

Wages and Salaries – Casual Employees

3,500,000.00
3,000,000.00
2,500,000.00
AMOUNT

2,000,000.00
1,500,000.00
1,000,000.00
500,000.00
0.00
YEAR 2011 YEAR 2012 YEAR 2014
AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURES 3,272,300.79 1,786,181.17 2,078,610.01

Wages and Salaries – Casual Employees

2012 - 3,272,300.79
2013 - 1,786,181.17
2014 - 2,078,610.01

The graph shows the increase in expenses for the wages of casual employees. It was CY 2012 when it hit a
relatively high number of political appointees. Although a prerogative of the appointing authority, hiring of many
casual employees implies a possible drain of funds. After a significant decline in 2013, it again hit an increase in
2014. This practice, however, is partly regulated by regulatory agency like the Commission on Audit or COA.

Graph 14

Water and Electricity Expenses

30,000,000.00
25,000,000.00
20,000,000.00
AMOUNT

15,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
0.00
YEAR 2011 YEAR 2012 YEAR 2014
AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURES 19,701,499.93 26,268,834.37 24,423,349.13

pg. 16
SIE 2014

Water and Electricity Expenses

2012 - 19,701,499.93
2013 - 26,268,834.37
2014 - 24,423,349.13

Water and electricity are basic utilities everywhere. In running an institution like the City Government of
Calapan, these items are very valuable for its daily operations. It is noticeable that there is drop in the consumption
of these two utilities. Apparently, there is not much effort on the part of the government to devise austerity
measures with regard to their use. To this effect, the City Government is not exempted from the burden brought
about by soaring rates of electricity. The same is true with the increasing rate of water being sold per cubic meter
by a private concessionaire. These two expense items when combined can already form part of the city’s high
expenditures. This being considered, the administration may resort to simple yet effective austerity measures in
saving both electricity and water consumption so that these savings, however great or small, can effect an efficient
fiscal management in the City Government.

Graph 15

Environment/Sanitary Services
35,000,000.00
30,000,000.00
25,000,000.00
AMOUNT

20,000,000.00
15,000,000.00
10,000,000.00
5,000,000.00
0.00
YEAR YEAR YEAR
2012 2013 2014
AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURES 30,085,623.97 22,440,284.69 18,537,188.87

Environment/Sanitary Services

2012 - 30,085,623.97
2013 - 22,440,284.69
2014 - 18,537,188.87

The graph indicates a decline in spending for environment/sanitary services for the last three years (2012-
2014). Bulk of expenses of this type normally goes to the purchase of chemicals and waste treatment facilities
alongside solid waste management program of the city. These efforts can be enhanced still if people will be taught
on how to properly segregate and recycle wastes and really learn from it. The City Government thru the
Sangguniang Panlungsod can adopt a legislative measure authorizing the collection of minimal service fees from

pg. 17
SIE 2014

every household and establishments in the city. With this, allotted funds for the purpose could be augmented to be
distributed to other equally important services.

Graph 16

Travelling and Training Expenses

7,000,000.00

6,000,000.00

5,000,000.00
AMOUNT

4,000,000.00

3,000,000.00

2,000,000.00

1,000,000.00

0.00
YEAR 2012 YEAR 2013 YEAR 2014
AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURES 6,310,073.73 3,847,207.37 6,574,385.92

Travelling and Training Expenses

2012 - 6,310,073.73
2013 - 3,847,207.37
2014 - 6,574,385.92

The expenses on travelling and training (local) were trimmed down in the year 2013 but went up again in
2014 as seen on the graph. If not really intended for relevant purposes, the government must have a hand to
control the travelling allocations of its officials and employees.

pg. 18
SIE 2014

Graph 17

Gasoline, Oil and Lubricants Expenses

25,000,000.00

20,000,000.00
AMOUNT

15,000,000.00

10,000,000.00

5,000,000.00

0.00
YEAR YEAR YEAR
2012 2013 2014
AMOUNT OF
24,468,617.98 17,040,459.03 18,879,736.36
EXPENDITURES

Gasoline, Oil and Lubricants Expenses

2012 - 24,468,617.98
2013 - 17,040,459.03
2014 - 18,879,736.36

The graph shows that expenses on gasoline, oil and lubricants post its relatively high spending in the year
2012. This may partly be attributed to the fact that bulk of the city’s spending was incurred in the middle year
where most programs, projects and activities are already in their full implementation. 2013 and 2014 marked a
relatively lower spending that could partly be attributed to the LGU-initiated austerity measures.

pg. 19
SIE 2014

Graph 18

Percentage Distribution of
Expenditures – 2014
Donations

Salaries and Wages – Regular

17% 11%
6%
Salaries and Wages – Casual
5%
Gasoline, Oil and Lubricants
54%
6%
Environment/Sanitary
1%
Services
Electricity Expenses

Other Professional Services

Percentage Distribution of Expenditures – 2014

Donations - 36,991,523.40
Salaries and Wages – Regular 181,748,960.39
Salaries and Wages – Casual 2,078,610.01
Gasoline, Oil and Lubricants 18,879,736.36
Environment/Sanitary Services 18,537,188.87
Electricity Expenses 19,440,053.89
Other Professional Services 57,805,753.12

As shown in the chart, salaries and wages for its regular employees took in the biggest share of the pie
when it records expenses amounting to P181,748,960.39. The said amount can be divided into basic salaries, other
compensation, benefits, contributions and other personnel benefits. Donations come in second when it posts a
remarkably big amount that may partly be attributed to financial aids given to other government agencies and the
private sector. Expenses used to pay for honoraria of professionals rendering services to the City Government such
as consultancy and resource persons to various seminars occupies the third largest share in the pie. This, however,
can be minimized if the local government initiates to build its own pool of speakers and facilitators who will serve
as resource persons in every LGU-initiated trainings and seminars.

pg. 20
SIE 2014

Sectoral Investment for 20% Local Development Fund Source

The issuance of Joint Memorandum Circular No. 2011-1 on 13 April 2011 provided “Guidelines on the
Appropriation and Utilization of the 20% of the Annual Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) for Development Projects
which explained the logical distribution of allocation to the so called “development projects”. This circular only
allowed projects to be funded within 20% LDF if these “shall contribute to the attainment of desirable socio-
economic development and environmental management outcomes”. This is to minimize irrational use of funds
which often results to wastage of financial resources.

Figure 1

Social Services Sector

3% 2%
Social Security, Social
Services & Welfare
10%
Expanded Scholarship

25%
60% Historical, Cultural and Arts
Programs
Health, Nutrition and
Population Program
Employment Generation
Program

Social Services Sector :

 Social Security, Social Services & Welfare – 12,526,248.64

 Expanded Scholarship – 5,266,036.91
 Historical, Cultural and Arts Programs – 2,146,677.56
 Health, Nutrition and Population Program – 554,796.56
 Employment Generation Program – 400,000.00

The total allocation for Social Service Sector is Php20,893,759.67. The said amount was distributed
among the various components for the efficient delivery of social services to the people. The biggest share of the
pie was allotted to social security, services and welfare which included provisions of the following: seed capital for
livelihood and health card for medical benefits of indigents. Coming in for second top priority was the expanded
scholarship programs that catered to financially incapable but deserving students who were given opportunities to
study in the government-run City College of Calapan and other tertiary schools in the city for the different courses
of their choice.

pg. 21
SIE 2014

Figure 2

Physical Services Sector

20,000,000.00

15,000,000.00
AMOUNT

10,000,000.00

5,000,000.00

0.00
Infrastructure Environment
Development Program Management Program
PROGRAM

Physical Services Sector: Total Allocation – Php21,059,095.78

 Infrastructure Development Program – Php16,059,095.78

 Environment Management Program – Php5,000,000.00

The bulk of the funds resting on the infrastructure component conform to the 20% LDF utilization
which prescribes among others that it must be allocated to projects that will promote social and economic
developments. Infrastructure and environment management programs complement with the set criteria. Priority
projects that may conform consist of the following:

 Construction or rehabilitation of the following:

 Health centres, RHUs, hospitals

 Potable water supply system
 Manpower development centres
 Evacuation centres
 Multi-purpose hall
 Communal irrigation system
 Local roads and bridges
 Drainage systems, sanitary landfills

The preceding projects may seem to be infrastructure-related and correspond to the criteria that must be
“pro-people and pro-poor”. In a wide array of development projects, it must be taken into account the immediacy
and priority of those that respond to climate change issues and how to reduce risks of vulnerability to disasters.
Thus, people must be provided with ample support when it comes to livelihood side by side with protecting their
lives and properties. Here is where environmental management projects which are non-infrastructure complement
to the administration’s commitment to environmental conservation efforts.

pg. 22
SIE 2014

Figure 3

Economic Services Sector

30,091,145.20

1,851,685.50 1,500,000.00 1,294,084.46

Agricultural Trade and Technology Economic

Dev’t Program Industry and Livelihood Enterprise
Development Dev’t Center
Program

Economic Services Sector

 Agricultural Development Program – 30,091,145.20

 Trade and Industry Development Program – 1,851,685.50
 Technology and Livelihood Development Program – 1,500,000.00
 Economic Enterprise – 1,294,084.46

Economic security especially for the marginalized people has been one of the priorities of the City
Government. The agriculture sector tops the list with 30M allotment for farmer beneficiaries. Other livelihood
projects are designed to augment people’s income with more emphasis on sustaining their income. This became
possible upon the adoption of modern technology which can later on be translated into stable income. On the
other hand, the City Government itself had to invest in revenue-generating enterprises that can gradually lessen its
dependence on Internal Revenue Allotment or IRA.

General Public Services Sector

Debt Service – 27,500,000.00

The Php27.5M allocation for debt servicing had been one of the provisions in 20% LDF utilization. The
amount covered the principal and interest for the loaned amount utilized in the establishment of the New Public
Market that replaced the old one being destroyed by fire in 2008.On top of it is the return of investment (ROI)
which this new enterprise contributes in the form of income coming from the rented stalls and parking fees.

In the Fiscal Year 2014, unlike in previous years, there was a lone realignment of funds whose original
intention was to allocate for General Public, Social and Economic Services Sector but was realigned to other
equally-important projects and for other purposes. This was due to the findings of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
when this legislative body noticed that there were programs and projects in AIP FY 2014 that must be charged
appropriately to General Fund but were found out to be charged against the 20% Local Development Fund.
Accordingly, it violated DBM-DILG Joint Memorandum Circular No. 2011-01, issued April 13, 2011 which stipulates

pg. 23
SIE 2014

vividly when and how the 20% Local Development Fund (20% of the entire IRA) can be utilized in development
projects as enumerated in the circular. Here is the title of the mentioned resolution:

CDC Resolution No. 01 – 14: Authorized realignment of Php8,000,000.00 from General Public Services, Social
Services and Economic Services Sector to Other Equally-Important Projects and For Other Purposes.

pg. 24