LGU Segmentation Report (Edt Mar 16)

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 4
I. Overview 6
II. Validation of Initial Results 7
III. Segmentation Results
A. LGU Capacity and Performance

i. Overall numbers 7
ii. Income classification 8
iii. LGU Type and Income Classification
a. Provinces 10
b. Cities 11
c. Municipalities 13
iv. Regional Distribution 14
B. Capacity
i. Considerations for full devolution 17
ii. Clusters
a. Planning, Budgeting and 18
Reporting
b. Strategic Bodies 22
c. Plantilla Officers 26
iii. Per quadrant analysis 29
iv. Non-complied Capacity Indicators under 31
Quadrant I
v. Non-complied Capacity Indicators under 34
Quadrant II
vi. Non-complied Capacity Indicators under 38
Quadrant III
vii. Non-complied Capacity Indicators under 42
Quadrant IV
C. Performance
i. Overall observation 46
ii. Provinces 47
iii. Cities 49
iv. Municipalities 50
v. Non-complied Indicators under 52
Quadrant I
vi. Non-complied Indicators under 57
Quadrant II
2
vii. Non-complied Indicators under 62
Quadrant III
viii. Non-complied Indicators under 67
Quadrant IV
IV. Recommendations 72
ANNEX A: List of LGUs in Each Quadrant by Region 74
ANNEX B: Technical Notes 122
3
INTRODUCTION
One of the key responsibilities of the Local Government Academy

(LGA) during the transition to full devolution under Executive
Order (E.O.) No. 138 issued on 1 June 2021 is to ensure that its
initiatives are enhanced to serve the capacity needs of local
government units (LGUs), DILG personnel in the national,
regional and provincial levels and other key stakeholders.
The DILG’s Memorandum Circular No. 2021-101 or the
Guidelines on Developing Capacities of Local Government Units
in the Context of Full Devolution states that LGUs must be
prioritized for capacity development (CapDev) provision based on
their level of capacity and performance. In accordance to this, a
segmentation was conducted to divide LGUs into capacity and
performance quadrants with the purpose of providing them
CapDev support according to their needs. In the segmentation,
the capacity and performance of LGUs were evaluated according
to the results of the Seal of Good Local Governance (SGLG)
assessment in 2019.
Along with the three-year Capacity Development Agenda, the
LGU Capacity-Performance Segmentation helps in identifying
LGU capacity and performance realities and guides them towards
possible ways to address weaknesses or gaps and build on their
current accomplishments and existing programs, projects and
activities.
The following document is a report on the results of the
segmentation following validation by the DILG Regional Offices
to consider changes in data two years after the last SGLG
assessment. This report provides an analysis according to
income classification, LGU type and region. The report also
contains analyses of how LGUs fare in each of the capacity and
performance indicators selected for the segmentation. Finally,
there is also a recommendation of how the segmentation process
can be enhanced as well as how the data gathered can be utilized
by stakeholders for further study into LGU’s CapDev needs and
the selection of LGU models.
4
LGU SEGMENTATION INTO
CAPACITY-PERFORMANCE
QUADRANTS
as of February 23, 2022
5
I. Overview
Cognizant of the fact that not all local government units (LGUs) are at the same
level of capacity and performance, and therefore one-size-fits-all interventions
could not be rolled out to all LGUs, the Local Government Academy (LGA)
devised the Capacity-Performance Quadrants. Using capacity and performance
as the measures for classification, each quadrant is described as follows:
- Q1: EVOLVE LGUs with high capacity and high performance into sources of
good practice and innovation, and exemplars of local governance under full
devolution
- Q2: ENABLE LGUs with low capacity to unlock capacity issues to seize in full
the promises of full devolution and reinforce performance as a result of
targeted capacity development (CapDev) solutions
- Q3: ENGAGE LGUs with low capacity and Low Performance to catch up with
other LGUs, and provide them with targeted CapDev solutions
- Q4: ENERGIZE LGUs with high capacity to translate this into high
performance in the context of full devolution through targeted CapDev
solutions
The quadrants will serve as guide for the Department of the Interior and Local
Government (DILG), LGA, national government agencies (NGAs) and other
service providers in prioritizing the LGUs for CapDev provision, and in identifying
specific CapDev interventions to be provided to LGUs in each quadrant.
6
II. Validation of Initial Results
The initial LGU segmentation into the Capacity-Performance quadrants was
conducted in June 2021 using data from the 2019 Seal of Good Local
Governance (SGLG). In order to ensure its accuracy, the DILG Regional Offices
validated the initial segmentation results.
The following procedures were followed during the validation process:
1. Field Officers collected updates on the segmentation indicators as of June

2021 using a template provided to them and submitted to their respective
Provincial Offices (POs) with supporting documents.
2. POs/Clusters validated the status of LGUs on key indicators and
submitted to the Regional Office (RO).
3. RO submitted to LGA the validated indicators, signed by the Regional
Director (RD).
4. Based on RO’s submissions, LGA affirmed or adjusted the segmentation
results.
Only LGUs with 2019 SGLG data, a total of 1706 out of 1715 LGUs (99.5%),
were considered in the segmentation and the subsequent validation. In
particular, all 81 provinces and 146 cities were included, while only 1479 out of
1488 municipalities were with data for the segmentation.
All regions, with the exception of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim
Mindanao (BARMM), Regions IV-A (CALABARZON), IV-B (MIMAROPA) and XI
(Davao Region), submitted updated data on the SGLG indicators as of 2021.
The segmentation of LGUs in regions who were not able to submit validated data
retained their quadrant classification from the initial results.
7
III. Segmentation Results
A. LGU Capacity and Performance
i. Overall numbers
The overall numbers following the validation show that 878 LGUs
are classified under Quadrant 1 (high capacity and high
performance). This accounts for 51.5% of the LGUs with data for
the segmentation. There are also 455 LGUs under Quadrant 3 (low
capacity and low performance) or 26.7% of the overall tally of LGUs
with segmentation data. In other quadrants, there are 197 LGUs
(11.5%) under Quadrant 2 (low capacity and high performance)
and 176 LGUs (10.3%) under Quadrant 4 (high capacity and low
performance).
Quadrant Tally % to Total

Q1 (HC, HP) 878 51.5%
Q2 (LC, HP) 197 11.5%
Q3 (LC, LP) 455 26.7%
Q4 (HC, LP) 176 10.3%
TOTAL 1706 100%
Table 1. Overall numbers following the validation of segmentation results
A total of 1054 LGUs or 61.8% of the overall tally of LGUs have

been rated with high capacity. On the other hand, 652 LGUs or
38.2% have been deemed to have low capacity. A total of 1075
LGUs or 63% have been seen to have high performance while 631
LGUs or 37% have been considered having low performance.
ii. Income classification (IC)
The distribution of LGUs according to their income classification is

as follows:
8
IC Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total
1st 270 62.9% 37 8.6% 64 14.9% 58 13.5% 429
2nd 103 47.7% 30 13.9% 57 26.4% 26 12% 216
3rd 153 49.8% 39 12.7% 85 27.7% 30 9.8% 307
4th 224 53% 51 12.1% 115 27.2% 33 7.8% 423
5th 116 40.8% 35 12.3% 106 37.3% 27 9.5% 284
6th 7 24.1% 5 17.2% 15 51.7% 2 6.9% 29
Special 1 50% 0 0% 1 50% 0 0% 2
New 4 25% 0 0% 12 75% 0 0% 16
TOTAL 878 51.5% 197 11.5% 455 26.7% 176 10.3% 1706
Table 2. Overall numbers on the basis of income classification following

validation of segmentation results
a. First Class
Of the 429 first class LGUs, 270 were classified under
Quadrant 1, accounting for 62.9%. Meanwhile, 37 are in
Quadrant 2 (8.6%), 64 in Quadrant 3 (14.9%), and 58 in
Quadrant 4 (13.5%).
Three hundred twenty-eight (328) first class LGUs or 76.5%

of their total number were found to have high capacity while
101 or 23.5% were seen to have low capacity. Three hundred
seven (307) or 71.6% have high marks in performance
indicators while 122 or 28.4% were considered low on said
indicators.
b. Second Class
Among the 216 second class LGUs, 103 LGUs (47.7%) were
deemed to be under Quadrant 1 while 30 are in Quadrant 2
(13.9%), 57 in Quadrant 3 (26.4%), and 26 in Quadrant 4
(12%). There are 129 second class LGUs with high capacity
(59.7%), 87 with low capacity (40.3%), 133 with high
performance (61.6%) and 83 with low performance (38.4%).
c. Third Class
Among the 307 third class LGUs, 153 LGUs (49.8%) were
9
(9.8%). There are 183 third class LGUs with high capacity
d. Fourth Class
Among the 423 fourth class LGUs, 224 LGUs (53%) were
(12%), 115 in Quadrant 3 (27.2%), and 33 in Quadrant 4
(7.8%). There are 257 fourth class LGUs with high capacity
performance (65%) and 148 with low performance (35%).
e. Fifth Class
Among the 284 fifth class LGUs, 116 LGUs (40.8%) were
(9.5%). There are 143 fifth class LGUs with high capacity
f. Sixth Class
Among the 29 sixth class LGUs, seven (7) LGUs (24.1%)
were deemed to be under Quadrant 1 while five (5) are in
Quadrant 2 (17.2%), 15 in Quadrant 3 (51.7%), and two (2)
in Quadrant 4 (7%). There are nine (9) sixth class LGUs with
high capacity (31%), 20 with low capacity (69%), 12 with high
g. Other Income Classifications

In terms of the two (2) LGUs classified as special according
to income classification, Quezon City has been placed under
Quadrant 1 (high capacity, high performance) while Manila
City is under Quadrant 3 (low capacity, low performance).
On the other hand, 16 LGUs have been classified as new.

Four (4) of these LGUs have been placed under Quadrant 1
(25%) while there are 12 in Quadrant 3 (75%) and none in
Quadrants 2 and 4. Four (4) new LGUs have high capacity
(25%) while 12 have low capacity (75%), four (4) have high
performance (25%) and 12 have low performance (75%).
10
iii. LGU Type and Income Classification
a. Provinces
IC Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 TOTAL
1st 25 56.8% 5 11.4% 7 15.9% 7 15.9% 44
2nd 6 37.5% 3 18.8% 5 31.3% 2 12.5% 16
3rd 3 25% 3 25% 5 41.7% 1 8.3% 12
4th 3 50% 1 16.7% 1 16.7% 1 16.7% 6
5th 0 0% 0 0% 3 100% 0 0% 3
TOTAL 37 45.7% 12 14.8% 21 25.9% 11 13.6% 81
Table 3a. Tally of validated segmentation results among provinces
All 81 provinces in the country have been able to submit data

for the segmentation. Following the validation by the
Regional Offices, 37 provinces have been found to be under
Quadrant 1 (45.7%) while 12 are in Quadrant 2 (14.8%), 21
in Quadrant 3 (25.9%) and 11 in Quadrant 4 (13.6%). Forty-
eight (48) provinces have high capacity (59.3%), 33 with low
capacity (40.7%), 49 have high performance (60.5%) and 32
have low performance (39.5%).
In terms of income classification, first class provinces have

the highest number of percentages in Quadrant 1 at 58.6%
while third class provinces have the highest percentages in
Quadrant 2 at 25%. Meanwhile, all fifth class provinces
have been classified under Quadrant 3. Lastly, fourth class
provinces have the highest percentages classified under
Quadrant 4 at 16.7%.
b. Cities
1st 31 56.4% 6 10.9% 6 10.9% 12 21.8% 55
2nd 8 47.1% 4 23.5% 4 23.5% 1 5.9% 17
3rd 19 61.3% 3 9.7% 7 22.6% 2 6.5% 31
4th 17 63% 1 3.7% 8 29.6% 1 3.7% 27
5th 3 33.3% 1 11.1% 4 44.4% 1 11.1% 9
6th 2 40% 1 20% 2 40% 0 0% 5
Special 1 50% 0 0% 1 50% 0 0% 2
TOTAL 81 55.5% 16 11% 32 21.9% 17 11.6% 146
Table 3b. Tally of validated segmentation results among cities
11
All 146 cities in the Philippines have been able to submit
data for the segmentation. After the validation, 81 cities are
under Quadrant 1 (55.5%), 16 under Quadrant 2 (11%), 32
under Quadrant 3 (21.9%) and 17 under Quadrant 4
(11.6%). Ninety-eight (98) have high capacity (67.1%), 48
have low capacity (32.9%), 97 have high performance
(66.4%) and 49 have low performance (33.6%).
In terms of income classification, fourth class cities have the

highest number of percentages in Quadrant 1 at 63%.
Second class cities have the highest percentages in
Quadrant 2 at 23.5%. Fifth class cities have the highest
number classified under Quadrant 3 at 44.4%. Lastly, first
class cities have the highest percentages classified under
12
Component Cities
1st 16 66.7% 3 12.5% 3 12.5% 2 8.3% 24

2nd 5 38.5% 3 23.1% 4 30.8% 1 7.7% 13
3rd 18 60% 3 10% 7 23.3% 2 6.7% 30
4th 17 63% 1 3.7% 8 29.6% 1 3.7% 27
5th 3 33.3% 1 11.1% 4 44.4% 1 11.1% 9
6th 2 40% 1 20% 2 40% 0 0% 5
TOTAL 61 56.5% 12 11.1% 28 25.9% 7 6.5% 108
Table 3c. Tally of validated segmentation results among component

cities
Sixty-one (61) out of 108 component cities (CCs) have been

classified under Quadrant 1 (56.5%) while 12 are under
Quadrant 2 (11.1%), 28 under Quadrant 3 (25.9%) and seven
(7) under Quadrant 4 (6.5%). Sixty-eight (68) CCs have high
capacity (63%) while 40 have low capacity (37%), 73 have
high performance (67.6%) and 35 have low performance
(32.4%).
In terms of income classification, first class CCs have the

highest number of percentages in Quadrant 1 at 66.7%.
Second class CCs have the highest percentages in
Quadrant 2 at 23.5%. Fifth class CCs have the highest
number classified under Quadrant 3 at 44.4%. They also
have the highest percentages classified under Quadrant 4
at 11.1%.
Independent Component Cities
TOTA
IC Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 L
1st 2 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2
2nd 2 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2
3rd 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1
TOTAL 5 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 5
Table 3d. Tally of validated segmentation results among independent

component cities
All five (5) independent component cities (ICCs) have been

classified under Quadrant 1 following the validation of the
segmentation results. Two (2) first class and second class
13
ICCs each have been placed under Quadrant 1 while one (1)
third class ICC had the same result.
Highly Urbanized Cities
1st 13 44.8% 3 10.3% 3 10.3% 10 34.5% 29
2nd 1 50% 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% 2
Special 1 50% 0 0% 1 50% 0 0% 2
TOTAL 15 45.5% 4 12.1% 4 12.1% 10 30.3% 33
Table 3e. Tally of validated segmentation results among highly

urbanized cities
Fifteen (15) out of 33 highly urbanized cities (HUCs) have

been classified under Quadrant 1 (45.5%) while four each are
under Quadrants 2 and 3 (both 12.1%) and 10 under
Quadrant 4 (30.3%). Twenty-five (25) HUCs have high
capacity (75.8%) while eight (8) have low capacity (24.2%),
19 have high performance (57.6%) and 14 have low
performance (42.4%).
In terms of first class HUCs, most of them are classified under

Quadrant 1 at 44.8%. There is one (1) second HUC each
under Quadrants 1 and 2. In addition, there is also one (1)
special HUC classified each under Quadrants 1 and 3.
c. Municipalities
1st 214 64.8% 26 7.9% 51 15.5% 39 11.8% 330
2nd 89 48.6% 23 12.6% 48 26.2% 23 12.6% 183
3rd 131 49.6% 33 12.5% 73 27.7% 27 10.2% 264
4th 204 52.3% 49 12.6% 106 27.2% 31 7.9% 390
5th 113 41.5% 34 12.5% 99 36.4% 26 9.6% 272
6th 5 20.8% 4 16.7% 13 54.2% 2 8.3% 24
New 4 25% 0 0% 12 75% 0 0% 16
TOTAL 760 51.4% 169 11.4% 402 27.2% 148 10% 1479
Table 3f. Tally of validated segmentation results among

municipalities
14
Of the 1488 municipalities in the country, 1479 were able to
submit data for the segmentation. This accounts for 99.4% of
their total number. Following the validation, 760 have been
deemed to be under Quadrant 1 (51.4% of the municipalities
with segmentation data) while 169 are under Quadrant 2
(11.4%), 402 under Quadrant 3 (27.2%) and 148 under
Quadrant 4 (10%). Nine hundred eight (908) were found to
have high capacity (61.4%) while 571 have low capacity
(38.6%). Nine hundred twenty-nine (929) have high
performance (62.8%) and 550 have low performance
(37.2%).
In terms of income classification, first class municipalities

have the highest number of percentages in Quadrant 1 at
64.8%. Sixth class municipalities have the highest
percentages in Quadrant 2 at 16.7%. Meanwhile, new
municipalities have the highest percentage concentrated
under Quadrant 3 at 75%. Lastly, second class
municipalities have the highest percentages classified under
iv. Regional Distribution
All regions have the majority of their LGUs classified under

Quadrant 1, with the exception of Region 4-B (MIMAROPA),
Region 5 (Bicol Region), Region 7 (Central Visayas) and
BARMM, where majority of LGUs are classified under Quadrant
3.
Total Number of LGUs per Quadrant

Among Quadrant 1 LGUs, Region 3 (Central Luzon) has the
highest number of LGUs classified under it at 105. Region 3 is
followed by Region 1 (Ilocos Region) at 102, Region 6 (Western
Visayas) at 78, Region 10 (Northern Mindanao) at 76, and Region
2 (Cagayan Valley) at 67. The National Capital Region (NCR)
has the lowest number of Quadrant 1 LGUs at nine (9), followed
by Region 4-B (MIMAROPA) at 18, Region 11 (Davao Region) at
30, CARAGA at 34, Region 7 (Central Visayas) and Region 9
(Zamboanga Peninsula) at 36. When it comes to the percentage
of LGUs in each quadrant, the regions with the highest
percentage of LGUs in Quadrant 1 (HC, HP) are: Region 12
(80%), Region 1 (79%), Region 10 (78%), Region 3 (77%) and
Region 2 (68%). On the other hand, Region 4-B has the lowest
percentage of Q1 LGUs at 23%, followed by Region 7 (26%),
Region 5 (33%), BARMM (37%) and Region 4-A (39%).
15
Region 4-A (CALABARZON) has the highest number of
Quadrant 2 LGUs at 29, followed by Region 6 (Western Visayas)
at 21, Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) at 20, Region 5
(Bicol Region) at 16 and Region 8 (Eastern Visayas) at 15.
Region 12 (SOCCSKSARGEN) has the lowest number of
Quadrant 2 LGUs with only one (1), followed by NCR at two (2),
Region 4-B (MIMAROPA) at six (6), Region 10 (Northern
Mindanao) at seven (7), and CARAGA and BARMM at eight (8)
each. The regions with the highest percentage of LGUs in
Quadrant 2 (LC, HP) are CAR (24%), Region 4-A (20%), NCR
(18%), Region 11 (17%) and Region 6 (15%). Meanwhile,
Region 12 has the lowest percentage of Q2 LGUs at 2%,
Regions 3, 7, 10 and BARMM at 7%, Region 4-B at 8% and
Regions 8 and CARAGA at 10% and Region 1 at 11%.
On the other hand, Region 7 (Central Visayas) has the highest

number of Quadrant 3 LGUs at 80, followed by BARMM at 63,
Region 5 (Bicol Region) at 51, Region 8 (Eastern Visayas) at 46
and Region 4-B (MIMAROPA) at 42. NCR and Region 12
(SOCCSKSARGEN) have the lowest number of Quadrant 3
LGUs at two (2) each, followed by Region 10 (Northern
Mindanao) at four (4), NCR at five (5) and Region 1 (Ilocos
Region) at six (6). Region 7 (59%), BARMM (55%), Region 4-B
(46%), Region 5 (43%) and CARAGA (35%) are the regions with
the highest percentage of LGUs in Quadrant 3 (LC, LP). The
regions with the lowest percentage of LGUs in Q3 are Regions
10 and 12 (4%), Region 1 (5%), Region 3 (9%), NCR and Region
2 (12%) and Region 6 (15%).
Region 8 (Eastern Visayas) has the highest number of

Quadrant 4 LGUs at 22, followed by Region 6 (Western Visayas)
at 19, Regions 4-A (CALABARZON) and 4-B (MIMAROPA) at 18
each, Region 5 (Bicol Region) at 14 and Regions 7 (Central
Visayas) and 10 (Northern Mindanao) at 11 each. The region with
the lowest number of Quadrant 4 LGUs is BARMM at only one
(1), followed by CAR at three (3), NCR at four (4), Region 11
(Davao Region) at six (6) and Regions 1 (Ilocos Region) and 2
(Cagayan Valley) at seven (7). The following regions have the
highest percentages of LGUs classified under Quadrant 4 (HC,
LP): NCR (24%), Region 4-B (23%), Regions 8 and 12 (15%),
Region 6 (14%), and CARAGA and Regions 4-A and 5 (12%).
The regions with the lowest percentages of Q4 LGUs are:
BARMM (1%), CAR (4%), Region 1 (5%), Regions 2 and 3 (7%)
and Region 7 (8%).
16
REGION Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
NCR 9 53% 2 12% 2 12% 4 24%
CAR 39 47% 20 24% 21 25% 3 4%
R1 102 79% 14 11% 6 5% 7 5%
R2 67 68% 12 12% 12 12% 7 7%
R3 105 77% 10 7% 12 9% 10 7%
R4A 58 39% 29 20% 42 29% 18 12%
R4B 18 23% 6 8% 36 46% 18 23%
R5 39 33% 16 13% 51 43% 14 12%
R6 78 56% 21 15% 21 15% 19 14%
R7 36 26% 9 7% 80 59% 11 8%
R8 66 44% 15 10% 46 31% 22 15%
R9 36 48% 10 13% 21 28% 8 11%
R10 76 78% 7 7% 4 4% 11 11%
R11 30 56% 9 17% 9 17% 6 11%
R12 43 80% 1 2% 2 4% 8 15%
CARAGA 34 44% 8 10% 27 35% 9 12%
BARMM 42 37% 8 7% 63 55% 1 1%

TOTAL 878 51% 197 12% 455 27% 176 10%
Table 4. Regional distribution of quadrants following validation. Regions marked

in bold submitted validated results.
17
Overall observations
The data shows that the majority of all LGUs are concentrated in
Quadrant 1 (HC, HP) at 51%. On the other hand, 27% have been placed under
Quadrant 3 (LC, LP). Meanwhile, 61.8% of all LGUs with segmentation data
were found to have high capacity, 38.2% with low capacity, 63% with high
performance and 37% with low performance. This shows that a majority of
LGUs have either high capacity, high performance or both.
Quadrant 4 (HC, LP) accounts for the lowest percentage of LGUs with
segmentation data at only 10%. Quadrant 2 (LC, HP) has only 12% of all
LGUs.
B. Capacity
i. Considerations for full devolution
The indicators from the Seal of Good Local Governance (SGLG)

were used in this segmentation of LGU into Capacity-
Performance Quadrants. The SGLG indicators contain both
capacity and performance measures that determine the
effectiveness of local governance in various sector requirements.
For the purposes of this LGU Segmentation, the indicators were
selected according to the emerging need for capacity
development of LGUs in terms of their full responsibility over their
devolved functions and their additional share in the national
revenue taxes. In this regard, the priority for capacity
development are the indicators that determine the LGUs’
absorptive capacity, effectiveness in service delivery, and
integrity in the use of public funds. The principle behind it is
based on the expectation that LGUs must demonstrate the
capacity to effectively and efficiently allocate their resources
through planning, which, in turn, will allow them to perform by
utilizing these resources appropriately. 1
1
Medina-Guce, Czarina. 2021. Policy Brief: Structuring the evidence base for LGU capacity
development support categories. Department of Interior and Local Government – Support for Local
Governance Program
18
ii. Clusters
a. Planning, Budgeting and Reporting
Indicators 1 0 No Score
1. Approved CY 2021 Annual 1642 96.25% 64 3.75% 0 0.00%
Budget
2. Compliance with the Full 1584 92.85% 122 7.15% 0 0.00%

Disclosure Policy
3. Availability of plans and

documents that integrate DRR-
CCA related measures
a. PDPFP/CLUP 1067 62.54% 637 37.34% 2 0.12%
b. LDRRMP 1524 89.33% 179 10.5% 3 0.18%
c. LCCAP 1304 76.44% 396 23.21% 6 0.35%
d. Contingency Plan 1143 67.00% 559 32.77% 4 0.23%
4. Approved 10-Year Solid Waste 1470 86.17% 233 13.66% 3 0.18%

Management Plan (SWMP)
Table 5a. Tally of LGUs by score in each indicator under the Planning,
Budgeting and Reporting cluster
For the Planning, Budgeting and Reporting cluster of

capacity indicators, 96.3% of all LGUs with segmentation
data have an Approved CY 2021 Annual Budget and
92.9% of them have complied with the Full Disclosure Policy.
In terms of plans that integrates the DRR-CCA measures,

62.5% of LGUs have an approved Provincial Development
and Physical Framework Plan (PDPFP) for Provincial
Governments or Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for
CIties and Municipalities, 89.3% have a Local Disaster Risk
Reduction and Management Planning (LDRRMP), 76.4%
have a Local Climate Change Action Plan (LCCAP), 67%
have a Contingency Plan, and 86.2% have an approved 10-
year Solid Waste Management Plan.
19
Provinces
Budget

Disclosure Policy

documents that integrate
DRR-CCA related measures
a. PDPFP/CLUP 64 79.01% 17 20.99% 0 0.00%
b. LDRRMP 81 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
c. LCCAP 73 90.12% 8 9.88% 0 0.00%
4. Approved 10-Year Solid 73 90.12% 8 9.88% 0 0.00%

Waste Management Plan
(SWMP)
Table 5b. Tally of provinces by score in each indicator under the

Planning, Budgeting and Reporting cluster
There are 81 Provinces in the Philippines. In terms of

Planning, Budgeting and Reporting, most of these LGU have
been compliant with the indicators. Seventy-nine (79 or
97.5%) of Provinces have an approved CY 2021 Annual
Budget, 80 Provinces (98.8%) have complied with the Full
Disclosure Policy, and 73 (90.1%) Provinces have an
approved 10-Year Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP).
Integrating DRR-CCA measures in local plans is also
apparent among these Provinces. All 81 provinces in the
country have an approved LDRRMP, 73 Provinces have an
LCCAP, and 68 Provinces have a Contingency Plan. Despite
having 17 (20.99%) provinces lagging in terms of the sub-
indicator on the PDPFP/CLUP, the majority are still
compliant.
20
Cities
Budget

Disclosure Policy

documents that integrate DRR-
CCA related measures
a. PDPFP/CLUP 118 80.82% 28 19.17% 0 0.00%
b. LDRRMP 144 98.63% 2 1.37% 0 0.00%
c. LCCAP 131 89.73% 15 10.27% 0 0.00%
4. Approved 10-Year Solid Waste 141 96.58% 5 3.42% 0 0.00%

Management Plan (SWMP)
Table 5c. Tally of cities by score in each indicator under the Planning,
Budgeting and Reporting cluster
Among the Cities the Approved CY 2021 Annual Budget

and the availability of LDRRMP indicators have the highest
number of compliant LGUs at 144 (98.6%). This is followed
by Compliance with the Full Disclosure Policy and Approved
10-Year Solid Waste Management Plan both at 141 (96.6%).
On the other hand, the sub-indicator on PDPFP/CLUP under

the Availability of plans and documents that integrate DRR-
CCA related measures has the highest number of non-
compliant cities at 28 (19.2%), followed by the Contingency
Plan sub-indicator at 26 (17.8%) and LCCAP at 15 (10.3%).
21
Municipalities
1. Approved CY 2021 1419 95.94% 60 4.06% 0 0.00%
Annual Budget

Disclosure Policy

documents that integrate
DRR-CCA related measures
a. PDPFP/CLUP 885 59.84% 592 40.03% 2 0.14%
b. LDRRMP 1299 87.83% 177 11.97% 3 0.20%
c. LCCAP 1100 74.37% 373 25.22% 6 0.41%
4. Approved 10-Year Solid 1256 84.92% 220 14.87% 3 0.20%

Waste Management Plan
(SWMP)
Table 5d. Tally of municipalities by score in each indicator under the

Planning, Budgeting and Reporting cluster
For municipalities, the Approved CY 2021 Annual Budget

indicator has the highest number of compliant LGUs at 1419
(95.9%). This is followed by Compliance with the Full
Disclosure Policy at 1363 (92.2%) and the availability of
LDRRMP at 1299 (87.8%).
Meanwhile, the sub-indicator on PDPFP/CLUP under the

Availability of plans and documents that integrate DRR-CCA
related measures has the highest number of non-compliant
municipalities at 592 (40.03%), followed by the Contingency
Plan sub-indicator at 520 (35.2%) and LCCAP at 373
(25.2%).
22
b. Strategic Bodies
1. Functionality of Local
Development Council
a. Has a Sanggunian- 1302 76.32% 402 23.56% 2 0.12%

approved PDPFP/CDP
b. LDC 1213 71.10% 493 28.9% 0 0.00%
3. Convened LDRRMC 1380 80.89% 325 19.05% 1 0.06%
4. Convened Solid Waste 1394 81.71% 307 18.00% 5 0.29%

Management Board
5. Anti-Drug Abuse Council 1451 85.05% 254 14.89% 1 0.06%

organized.
Table 5e. Tally of LGUs by score in each indicator under the, Strategic
Bodies cluster
For the Strategic Bodies cluster of capacity indicators, the

indicator on the organization of the Anti-Drug Abuse
Council has the highest number of LGUs with satisfactory
ratings at 1451 (85.05% of all LGUs with segmentation
data). This is followed by the Solid Waste Management
Board (SWMB) at 1394 (81.7%) and a convened LDRRMC
at 1380 (80.9%).
On the other hand, the sub-indicator on the Local

Development Council has the highest number of non-
compliant LGUs at 493 (28.9%). This is followed by the
indicator on the Sanggunian-approved PDPFP/CDP at 402
(23.6%) and the LDRRMC at 325 (19.1%).
23
18
Provinces
Development Council

approved PDPFP/CDP
b. LDC 68 83.95% 13 16.05% 0 0.00%
3. Convened LDRRMC 67 82.72% 14 17.28% 0 0.00%

Management Board

organized.
Table 5f. Tally of provinces by score in each indicator under the

Strategic Bodies cluster
The sub-indicator on the Sanggunian-approved

PDPFP/CDP under the Functionality of Local Development
Council is the indicator with the highest number of
compliance among provinces at 75 (92.6% of provinces).
This is followed by the indicator on the Solid Waste
Management Board at 73 (90.1%) and the LDC at 68
(83.95%).
Meanwhile, 14 provinces each are lagging in terms of both

convening the LDRRMC and organizing the Anti-Drug
Abuse Council (17.3%). This is followed by the LDC sub-
indicator at 13 (16.05%) and the Solid Waste Management
Board at seven (7) (8.6%).
24
Cities
Development Council

approved PDPFP/CDP
b. LDC 114 78.08% 32 21.92% 0 0.00%
3. Convened LDRRMC 130 89.04% 16 10.96% 0 0.00%

Management Board

organized.
Table 5g. Tally of cities by score in each indicator under the Strategic
Bodies cluster
In terms of cities, the indicators on the Solid Waste

Management Board and Anti-Drug Abuse Council both
have the highest number of compliant LGUs at 135 each
(92.5% of the total number of cities). This is followed by
the LDRRMC at 130 (89%) and the Sanggunian-approved
PDPFP/CDP at 122 (83.6%).
On the other hand, the sub-indicator on the functionality of

the LDC has the highest number of non-compliant cities at
32 (21.9%), followed by the Sanggunian-approved
PDPFP/CDP at 23 (15.8%) and LDRRMC at 16 (11%).
25
Municipalities
Development Council
approved PDPFP/CDP
b. LDC 1031 69.71% 448 30.29% 0 0.00%
3. Convened LDRRMC 1183 79.99% 295 19.95% 1 0.07%

Management Board

organized.
Table 5h. Tally of municipalities by score in each indicator under the

Strategic Bodies cluster
For municipalities, the indicator on the organization of an

Anti-Drug Abuse Council has the highest number of
compliant LGUs at 1249 (84.5% of municipalities with
segmentation data). This is followed by the convening of a
Solid Waste Management Board at 1186 (80.2%) and the
convening of the LDRRMC at 1183 (79.99%).
Meanwhile, the sub-indicator on the functionality of the

LDC has the highest number of non-compliant
municipalities at 448 (30.3%) followed by the presence of a
Sanggunian-approved PDPFP/CDP at 373 (25.2%) and the
convened LDRRMC at 295 (19.9%).
26
c. Plantilla Officers
No Score/Not
Indicators 1 0
Applicable
1. Functionality of LDRRMO 1411 82.71% 295 17.29% 0 0.00%
2. LSWDO is a registered social worker 1419 83.18% 287 16.82% 0 0.00%
3. Established Persons with Disability 1513 88.69% 188 11.02% 5 0.29%

Office (PDAO)
4. Presence of tourism officer 952 55.8% 92 5.39% 658 38.57%
Table 5i. Tally of LGUs by score in each indicator under the Plantilla
Officers cluster
For the Plantilla Officers cluster of capacity indicators, the

indicator on the establishment of a Persons with Disability
Office (PDAO) has the highest number of compliant LGUs at
1513 (88.7% of all LGUs with segmentation data) followed
by the LSWDO being a registered social worker at 1419
(83.18%) and the functionality of the LDRRMO at 1411
(82.7%).
Meanwhile, the indicator on the functionality of the

LDRRMO was seen to have the highest number of non-
compliance among all LGUs at 295 (17.3%) followed by the
LSWDO at 287 (16.8%) and the PDAO at 188 (11.02%).
27
Provinces
No
Indicators 1 0 Score/Not
Applicable

Office (PDAO)
Table 5j. Tally of provinces by score in each indicator under the Plantilla
Officers cluster
Seventy-eight (78) provinces have functional LDRRMOs

(96.3% of all provinces), being the indicator under the
Plantilla Officers cluster with the highest number of
compliance under this level. This is followed by the indicators
on the LSWDO at 71 (87.7%) and the PDAO at 70 (86.4%).
Meanwhile, 11 provinces are lagging behind when it comes

to the establishment of a PDAO (13.6%). This is followed
by the LSWDO at 10 (12.3%) and the functionality of the
LDRRMO at three (3) (3.7%).
Cities
No
Indicators 1 0 Score/Not
Applicable

Office (PDAO)
Table 5k. Tally of cities by score in each indicator under the Plantilla
Officers cluster
28
The indicator on the LSWDO has the highest number of
compliant cities at 137 (93.8%). This is followed by the
indicators on the PDAO at 136 (93.2%) and the LDRRMO at
130 (89.04%).
The indicator on the functionality of the LDRRMO has the

highest number of non-compliance among cities at 16
(11%). This is followed by the indicators on the LSWDO and
the PDAO at both nine (9) (6.16%).
Municipalities
No Score/Not
Indicators 1 0
Applicable
2. LSWDO is a registered social 1211 81.88% 268 18.12% 0 0.00%

worker

Office (PDAO)
Table 5l. Tally of municipalities by score in each indicator under the

Plantilla Officers cluster
For municipalities, the indicator on the establishment of a

PDAO has the highest number of compliant LGUs at 1307
(88.4% of municipalities with segmentation data). This is
followed by the indicators on the LSWDO at 1211 (81.9%)
and the LDRRMO at 1203 (81.3%).
Meanwhile, the sub-indicator on the functionality of the

LDRRMO has the highest number of non-compliant
municipalities at 276 (18.7%) followed by the indicators on
the LSWDO at 268 (18.1%) and the PDAO at 168 (11.4%).
29
iii. Per quadrant analysis
Frequency Distribution of LGUs in Quadrant 1
Types of LGUs Number of LGUs
Provinces 37
Cities 81
Municipalities 760
Total 878
Table 6a. Tally of number of LGUs under Quadrant 1 per LGU Type
Among the 878 LGUs classified as Quadrant 1, thirty-seven

(37) of which are provinces, eighty-one (81) are cities and
seven hundred sixty (760) are municipalities.
Provinces 12
Cities 16
Municipalities 169
Total 197
Table 6b. Tally of number of LGUs under Quadrant 2 per LGU Type
One hundred ninety-seven (197) LGUs were classified

under Quadrant 2. Twelve (12) of which are provinces,
sixteen (16) are cities, and one hundred sixty-nine (169) are
municipalities.
30
Provinces 21
Cities 32
Municipalities 402
Total 455
Table 6c. Tally of number of LGUs under Quadrant 3 per LGU Type
The overall numbers following the validation show that four

hundred fifty-five (455) LGUs are classified under Quadrant
3. Twenty-one (21) of which are provinces, thirty-two (32)
are cities and four hundred two (402) are municipalities.
Frequency Distribution of LGUs under Quadrant 4
Provinces 11
Cities 17
Municipalities 148
Total 176
Table 6d . Tally of number of LGUs under Quadrant 4 per LGU Type
Among the one hundred seventy-six (176) LGUs in

Quadrant 4, eleven (11) LGUs are provinces, seventeen
(17) LGUs are cities, and one hundred forty-eight (148) are
municipalities.
31
Non-Complied Capacity Indicators under Quadrant I
A. Planning and Budgeting B. Strategic Bodies C. Plantilla Officers
Availability of plans and documents that

Functionality of Local Development
Comp integrate DRR and CCA-related
Council
Approv liance measures Conv Anti Local
Conven
Region ed CY in Full ened
ed SWM
Drug LDRR
LSWDO PDAO
Touris
2019 Disclo Conti Approved 10 Approved LDRR abuse MO m
PDPFP/CL LDRR Board
Budget sure ngen year PDPFP/ Compos MC Council Officer
LCCAP
Policy UP MP cy Management CDP, LDIP & ition
Plan Plan AIP
I 0 0 8 1 7 2 21 5 0 0 2 0 2 3 3 32
II 0 0 8 4 4 3 2 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 4
III 0 0 6 0 4 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 3 36
IVA 0 0 0 0 3 2 5 0 2 1 1 3 3 4 1 0
IVB 0 0 0 2 3 3 1 1 0 0 4 1 1 2 0 0
V 0 1 1 2 6 9 6 6 0 2 1 4 2 2 0 26
VI 0 1 1 1 12 11 2 2 6 1 0 0 4 1 2 0
VII 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 8 3 10
VIII 0 0 0 1 9 12 1 1 1 2 4 1 2 4 0 19
IX 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 0 0 5 4
32

Functionality of Local Development
Comp integrate DRR and CCA-related
Council
Approv liance measures Conv Anti Local
Conven
Region ed CY in Full ened
ed SWM
Drug LDRR
LSWDO PDAO
Touris
2019 Disclo Conti Approved 10 Approved LDRR abuse MO m
PDPFP/CL LDRR Board
Budget sure LCCAP ngen year PDPFP/ Compos MC Council Officer
Policy UP MP cy Management CDP, LDIP & ition
Plan Plan AIP
X 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 1 0 1 2 3 2 8 30
XI 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0
XII 0 0 0 3 7 3 2 2 0 1 4 0 0 1 4 4
XIII 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8
NCR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
CAR 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 39
BARMM 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 12 3 0
Total 0 3 24 16 66 68 48 30 17 11 24 17 24 43 37 212
0.34 7.74 24.15

% 0.00% 2.73% 1.82% 7.52% 5.47% 3.42% 1.94% 1.25% 2.73% 1.94% 2.73% 4.90% 4.21%
% % %
Rank 15 14 7 12 3 2 4 6 11 13 7 11 7 4 5 1
33
Non-Complied Capacity Indicators under Quadrant I
Under Quadrant 1, the requirement least complied by the LGUs is the presence
of Local Tourism Officer with a total of two-hundred twelve non-complying LGUs or
24.15 percent of LGUs in Quadrant 1. This was followed by the DRRM Contingency
Plan with a total of sixty-eight (68) non-complying LGUs or 7.74 percent 68 non-
compliant LGUs (7.74%) of LGUs under Quadrant 1.Third, is the availability of
LCCAP with a total of sixty-six (66) LGUs which accounts for 7.52 percent of LGUs
under Quadrant 1. Fourth is the Approved 10-Year Solid Waste Management Plan
with a total of forty-eight (48) non-complying LGUs or 4.90 percent of LGUs under
Quadrant 1. Fifth, is the presence of PDAO Officer with a total of thirty-seven (37) non
complying LGUs or 4.21 percent of LGUs under Quadrant 1.
On the other hand, the Approved CY 2019 Budget was complied with by all
LGUs under Quadrant 1. This was followed by Compliance with Full Disclosure
Policy with a total of three (3) non-complying LGUs or 0.34 percent of LGUs under
Quadrant 1. Third, is the Convened LDRRMC with a total of twelve (12) non-complying
LGUs or 1.37 percent of LGUs under Quadrant 1. Fourth, is the Availability of
LDRRMP with a total of sixteen (16) non-complying LGUs or 1.82 percent of LGUs
under Quadrant 1. Fifth, is the Composition of Local Development Council with a
total of seventeen (17) non-complying LGUs or 1.94 percent of LGUs under Quadrant
1.
33
Non-Complied Capacity Indicators under Quadrant II
Availability of plans and documents that Functionality of

integrate DRR and CCA-related
Anti
measures Local Development Council
Region Compliance Conve Drug Local
Approved Convene
in Full ned abus LDRR LSWD Touris
CY 2019 d PDAO
Disclosure SWM e MO O m
Budget Approved Approved LDRRMC
Policy LC Board Coun Officer
PDPFP/ LDRR Contingenc 10 year PDPFP/C Compositi
CA cil
CLUP MP y Plan Managem DP, LDIP on
P
ent Plan and AIP
0 0 8 3 5 5 8 10 3 1 4 0 4 1 4 9
I
0 0 6 5 8 8 1 9 6 3 1 1 3 1 2 2
II
0 1 7 1 8 3 0 8 4 3 2 1 2 0 3 6
III
2 0 0 5 7 15 0 27 29 5 6 7 13 6 1 2
IVA
0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 6 0 2 0 1 0 0 0
IVB
2 6 6 2 8 11 8 8 8 4 4 7 3 5 3 13
V
0 0 0 3 7 7 0 0 16 4 6 3 4 0 1 1
VI
34

Anti
Approved Convene
CY 2019 d PDAO
CA cil
P
ent Plan and AIP
0 2 2 1 4 3 1 1 6 1 1 3 1 6 1 6
VII
1 1 1 0 1 5 4 4 10 3 6 4 2 3 3 8
VIII
0 1 1 1 1 3 5 5 5 1 6 1 1 1 3 1
IX
1 0 0 1 2 3 3 3 2 3 1 0 2 0 2 5
X
1 0 0 0 2 6 0 0 8 4 3 4 4 1 0 1
XI
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
XII
0 0 0 3 2 6 0 0 3 5 3 3 4 2 2 5
XIII
0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
NCR
35

Anti
Approved Convene
CY 2019 d PDAO
CA cil
P
ent Plan and AIP
0 1 1 2 3 5 2 2 5 1 4 0 4 1 1 20
CAR
0 2 2 1 5 6 7 7 7 6 5 5 4 8 3 0
BARMM
7 14 34 28 66 88 39 84 120 44 54 39 52 35 29 79
Total
33.
14.21 19.8 26.40 17.77 14.72 40.10
3.55% 7.11% 17.26% 50 44.67% 19.80% 42.64% 60.91% 22.34% 27.41%
% % 0% % % % %
%
16 15 12 14 5 2 9 3 1 8 6 9 7 11 13 4
Rank
36
Non-Complied Capacity Indicators under Quadrant II
Under Quadrant 2, the requirement least complied by LGUs is the composition of a

functional Local Development Council. The said requirement was not complied by
one hundred twenty (120) LGUs or 60.91 percent of LGUs under Quadrant 2. This
was followed by DRRM Contingency Plan with a total of eighty-eight (88) non-
complying LGUs or 44.67 percent of LGUs under Quadrant 2. Third least complied
requirement is the availability of LDRRMP with a total number of thirty-four (34) non-
complying LGUs or 17.26 percent of LGUs under Quadrant 2. Fourth is the presence
of Local Tourism Officer with a total number of seventy-nine (79) non-complying
LGUs or 40.10 percent of LGUs under Quadrant 2. Fifth is the availability of LCCAP
with a total of sixty-six (66) non-complying LGUs or 33.50 percent of the LGUs under
Quadrant 2.
Among the 196 LGUs under Quadrant 2, the most complied requirement is the
Approved CY 2019 budget with only a total of seven (7) non-complying LGUs. This
constitutes 3.55 percent of the total LGUs under Quadrant 2. Following this is the
Compliance with the Full Disclosure Policy. The said requirement was not complied
by fourteen (14) LGUs which is 7.11 percent of the LGUs under Quadrant 2. Third is
the presence of PDAO Officer with twenty nine (29) non complying LGUs. This
constitutes 14.72 percent of LGUs under Quadrant 2. Following this is the
PDPFP/CLUP which is complied by thirty four (34) LGUs. This constitutes 17.26
percent of the total number of LGUs in Quadrant 2.
37
Non-Complied Capacity Indicators under Quadrant III
Functionality of
integrate DRR and CCA-related measures
Regio Complia Local Development Council Anti
Approv Conven Conven Local
n ed CY
nce in
ed ed
Drug
LDRR LSWD Touris
Full abuse PDAO
2019 LDRRM SWM MO O m
Disclosur Approved Approved Counc
Budget C Board Officer
e Policy PDPFP/CL LDRR LCCA Continge 10 year PDPFP/C Composit il
UP MP P ncy Plan Managem DP, LDIP ion
ent Plan and AIP
0 2 3 5 5 4 5 3 2 2 2 0 2 3 1 2
I
1 1 4 2 6 9 4 5 9 8 1 1 8 4 4 4
II
3 2 7 2 6 6 2 11 8 4 1 3 4 2 3 7
III
1 1 2 16 27 31 5 35 37 18 13 16 18 6 4 3
IVA
2 7 7 10 17 24 5 5 30 21 20 13 13 17 6 3
IVB
10 26 26 10 32 43 26 26 34 34 30 26 21 19 15 46
V
2 1 1 5 10 12 0 0 15 9 4 5 3 6 4 5
VI
38
Functionality of
n ed CY
nce in
ed ed
Drug
LDRR LSWD Touris
Full abuse PDAO
ent Plan and AIP
6 11 11 16 40 65 17 17 66 47 34 35 29 38 12 55
VII
8 4 4 10 20 30 2 2 33 24 24 20 16 18 12 24
VIII
0 1 4 3 7 16 1 1 16 15 9 11 11 5 1 13
IX
1 0 0 2 4 3 0 0 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 3
X
1 0 0 1 3 6 0 0 9 5 3 3 4 1 3 0
XI
0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
XII
1 8 8 10 12 23 4 4 23 19 10 18 13 12 5 12
XIII
0 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
NCR
39
Functionality of
n ed CY
nce in
ed ed
Drug
LDRR LSWD Touris
Full abuse PDAO
ent Plan and AIP
0 0 0 3 10 12 4 4 7 6 6 1 5 0 3 15
CAR
BARM 16 34 34 25 40 50 58 58 53 41 46 31 43 60 33 12
M
52 101 114 121 241 335 133 172 347 254 208 185 192 192 110 205
Total
11.43 26.59 52.97 55.82 45.71 40.66 42.20 42.20 24.18 45.05
22.20% 25.05% 73.63% 29.23% 37.80% 76.26%
% % % % % % % % % % %
16 15 13 12 4 2 11 10 1 3 5 9 7 8 14 6
Rank
40
Non-Complied Capacity Indicators under Quadrant III
Under Quadrant 3, the least complied requirement is the Composition of Local

Development Council. The said requirement was not complied by three hundred
forty-seven (347) LGUs and was 76.26 percent of the total LGUs under Quadrant 3.
This is followed by the availability of DRRM Contingency Plan, with a total of three
hundred thirty-eight (335) non-complying LGUs or 73.63 percent of the total LGUs
under Quadrant 3. Next is the Composition of Convened LDRMC, which was not
complied by 254 LGUs or 55.82 percent of the total LGUs in the quadrant. Fourth is
the availability of LCCAP. The said requirement was not complied by two hundred
forty-three (241) LGUs or 52.97 percent of LGUs. Fifth is the Composition of
Convened SWM Board, which was not complied by two hundred seven (208) LGUs
or 45.71 percent of the total LGU under Quadrant 3.
On the other hand, the most complied requirement by LGUs is the Approved
CY 2019 Budget Officer with only a total of fifty-two (52) non-complying LGUs or
11.43 percent of LGUs under Quadrant 3. Following this is the Compliance of the
Full Disclosure Policy with a total of one hundred (101) non-complying LGUs or
22.20 percent of the LGUs under Quadrant 3. Third is the PDAOfficer which was not
complied by one-hundred ten (110) LGUs and it constitutes 24.18 percent of LGUs
under Quadrant 3. Fourth is the availability of PDPFP/CLUP which was not complied
by one hundred fourteen (114) LGUs or 25.05 percent of the LGUs under Quadrant
3.The fifth most complied requirement is the availability of LDRRMP with a total of
one hundred thirty-three non-complying LGUs or 29.33 percent of the LGUs under
Quadrant 3.
41
Non-Complied Capacity Indicators under Quadrant IV
Functionality of
Regi Availability of plans and documents that
integrate DRR and CCA-related measures Anti
on Complia Local Development Council Local
Approv Conven Conven Drug
nce in Touris
ed CY ed ed abus LDRR LSWD PDA
Full m
2019 LDRRM SWM e MO O O
Disclosur Approved Approved Office
Budget C Board Coun
e Policy PDPFP/CL LDRR LCC Contingency 10 year PDPFP/C Composit r
cil
UP MP AP Plan Managem DP, LDIP ion
ent Plan and AIP
I
0 0 3 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0
II
0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
III
0 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0
IVA
0 0 0 3 4 9 0 0 2 0 2 1 7 5 0 0
IVB
0 3 3 3 4 8 0 0 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 0
V
0 0 0 1 5 8 3 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0
VI
0 0 0 3 5 7 2 2 4 3 1 2 1 1 1 0
42
Functionality of
nce in Touris
Full m
Budget C Board Coun
cil
ent Plan and AIP
VII
0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 0
VIII
0 0 0 2 5 11 3 3 0 2 5 0 6 2 2 0
IX
0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 0 0 0
X
0 0 0 1 2 5 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 4 0
XI
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0
XII
0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0
XIII
0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 4 2 1 0 0
NCR
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
43
Functionality of
nce in Touris
Full m
Budget C Board Coun
cil
ent Plan and AIP
CAR
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BARM 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
M
0 3 10 13 35 66 13 10 11 12 21 13 25 18 11 0
Total
19.89 10.23 6.25

0.00% 1.70% 5.68% 7.39% 37.50% 7.39% 5.68% 6.25% 6.82% 11.93% 7.39% 14.20% 0.00%
% % % %
14 13 10 6 2 1 6 10 10 8 4 6 3 5 9 14
Rank
44
Non-Complied Capacity Indicators under Quadrant IV
For the Quadrant 4 capacity indicators, the availability of contingency plan

has the highest number of non-compliant LGUs at sixty-six (66) or 37.50% of all LGUs
with segmentation data. This is followed by availability of LCCAP with a total number
of thirty-five (35) non-compliant LGUs or 19.88%. Third is the presence of LDRRMO
with twenty-five (25) non-compliant LGUS or 14.20%. Fourth, with 21 (11.93%) non-
compliant LGUs is Convened local solid waste management (SWM). Following this
indicator is the presence of LSWDO with eighteen (18) non-compliant LGUs or
10.23%.
On the other hand all LGUs complied the Local Tourism Officer and
Approved CY 2019 Budget making it the most complied indicators on the said
quadrant. Following this is the Compliance in the Non-Disclosure Agreement with
three (3) non-compliant LGUs or 1.70% of LGUs. Lastly, the availability of
PDPFP/CLUP, Approved PDPFP/CDP, LDIP and AIP, and composition of
Functional Local Development Council were complied by ten (10) LGUs or 5.68%
of the total LGUs under Quadrant 4.
45
A. Performance
i. Overall Observation
1. Audit Opinion + 30% of 1115 65.36% 388 22.74% 3 0.18%

recommendations fully complied with
2. Utilization rate of the 20% 1301 76.26% 404 23.68% 1 0.06%

component of the annual Internal
Revenue Allotment or Development
Fund CY 2017
3. Utilization rate of LDRRMF’s 70% 1316 77.14% 386 22.63% 4 0.23%

allocation for disaster prevention and
mitigation, preparedness, response,
rehabilitation and recovery, CY 2018
(Current Fund)
4. DRRM Service Delivery Outputs

(multiple items)
a. EWS 1447 84.82% 251 14.71% 8 0.47%
b. EVAC CENTER 1256 73.62% 442 25.91% 8 0.47%
c. PREPOSITIONING 1421 83.29% 227 13.31% 8 0.47%
d. SAR 1462 85.70% 235 13.77% 9 0.53%
5. Peace and Order, and Public Safety 1510 88.51% 192 11.25% 4 0.23%
(POPS) Plan implementation
6. Completion rate of, or fund 1397 81.89% 290 17.00% 16 0.94%

utilization for, 2018 Local School
Board (LSB) Plan
7. DSWD-accredited LGU-managed 1115 65.36% 388 22.74% 3 0.18%

residential care facility
46
For the Performance Indicators, Peace and Order, and Public
Safety (POPS) Plan implementation has the highest number
of LGUs with satisfactory ratings at 1510 compliant LGUs. This
is followed by the sub-indicator under DRRM Service Delivery
Outputs which are SAR at 1462 compliant LGUs and
Prepositioning with 1421 compliant LGUs respectively.
On the other hand, the DSWD-accredited LGU-managed

residential care facility has the highest number of non-
compliant LGUs at 1290 non-compliant LGUs. This is followed
by Evacuation Center as a DRRM Service Delivery Outputs
sub-indicator with 442 non-compliant LGUs and Utilization
rate of the 20% component of the annual Internal Revenue
Allotment or Development Fund CY 2017 with 404 non-
compliant LGUs.
ii. Provinces
1. Audit Opinion + 30% of 62 76.54% 19 23.46% 0 0.00%


Fund CY 2017

rehabilitation, and recovery, CY 2018
(Current Fund)
4. DRRM Service Delivery Outputs

(multiple items)
a. EWS 80 98.77% 1 1.23% 0 0.00%
73 90.12% 8 9.88% 0 0.00%

b. EVAC CENTER
d. SAR 77 95.06% 4 4.94% 0 0.00%
76 93.83% 5 6.17% 0 0.00%

5. Peace and Order, and Public Safety
47
6. Completion rate of, or fund utilization 78 96.30% 3 3.70% 0 0.00%
for, 2018 Local School Board (LSB)
Plan

The indicator mostly complied by provinces is the Early

Warning System under the DRRM Service Delivery Output
Indicator which is complied by 80 out of 81 cities. This is
followed by Completion rate of, or fund utilization for,
2018 Local School Board (LSB) Plan with 78 complying
LGUs, and SAR which is a sub-indicator of DRRM Service
Delivery Outputs with 77 complying LGUs.
On the other hand, the least complied indicator is the DSWD-

accredited LGU-managed residential care facility with 27
non-complying LGUs. This is followed by the following
DRRM Service Delivery Outputs: Prepositioning (9 non-
complying LGUs) and Evacuation Center (8 non-complying
LGUs).
48
iii. Cities
1. Audit Opinion + 30% of 130 89.04% 16 10.96% 0 0.00%


Fund CY 2017

(Current Fund)
4. DRRM Service Delivery Outputs 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

(multiple items)
a. EWS 140 95.89% 5 3.42% 1 0.68%
b. EVAC CENTER 131 89.73% 14 9.59% 1 0.68%
d. SAR 141 96.58% 4 2.74% 1 0.68%
5. Peace and Order, and Public 138 94.52% 8 5.48% 0 0.00%

Safety (POPS) Plan implementation

utilization for, 2018 Local School
Board (LSB) Plan

The indicators mostly complied by cities are the following

DRRM Service Delivery Outputs: SAR (141 complying
LGUs) and EWS (140 complying LGUs). This is followed by
implementation of Peace and Order, and Public Safety
(POPS) Plan with complying LGUs.
The least complied indicator, on the other hand, is the

DSWD-accredited LGU-managed residential care facility
with a total of 85 non-complying LGUs. This is followed by
the Utilization rate of LDRRMF’s 70% allocation for
49
disaster prevention and mitigation, preparedness,
response, rehabilitation and recovery, CY 2018 with a
total of 24 non-complying LGUs, and Utilization rate of the
20% component of the annual Internal Revenue
Allotment or Development Fund CY 2017 with 18 non-
complying LGUs.
iv. Municipalities
1. Audit Opinion + 30% of 1123 75.93% 353 23.87% 3 0.20%

recommendations fully
complied with

component of the annual
Internal Revenue Allotment or
Development Fund CY 2017
3. Utilization rate of LDRRMF’s 1140 77.08% 335 22.65% 4 0.27%

70% allocation for disaster
prevention and mitigation,
preparedness, response,
rehabilitation and recovery, CY
2018 (Current Fund)
4. DRRM Service Delivery 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Outputs (multiple items)
a. EWS 1227 82.96% 245 16.57% 7 0.47%
b. EVAC CENTER 1052 71.13% 420 28.40% 7 0.47%
d. SAR 1244 84.11% 227 15.35% 8 0.54%
5. Peace and Order, and 1296 87.63% 179 12.10% 4 0.27%

Public Safety (POPS) Plan
implementation

utilization for, 2018 Local
School Board (LSB) Plan
7. DSWD-accredited LGU- 1178 79.65% 265 17.92% 21 1.42%

managed residential care
facility
50
The indicator mostly complied by municipalities is the
implementation of Peace and Order, and Public Safety
(POPS) Plan which is complied by 1296 LGUs. This is
followed by the following DRRM Service Delivery Outputs:
SAR (1244 complying LGUs) and Prepositioning (1210
complying LGUs)
On the other hand, the least complied indicator by

municipalities is the Evacuation Center as a DRRM Service
Delivery Outputs sub-indicator with 420 non-complying
LGUs. This is followed by the Utilization rate of the 20%
component of the annual Internal Revenue Allotment or
Development Fund CY 2017 with 371 non-complying
LGUs, and fully complied Audit Opinion + 30% of
recommendations with 353 non-complying LGUs.
51
Non Complied Indicators in Quadrant I
6.
5. Peace Completion
2. Utilization rate of 3. Utilization rate of
4. DRRM Service Delivery Outputs and Order, rate of, or 7. DSWD-
1. Audit Opinion the 20% LDRRMF’s 70% allocation
and Public fund accredited
+ 30% of component of the for disaster prevention and
Safety utilization LGU-
Region recommendations annual Internal mitigation, preparedness,
(POPS) for, 2018 managed
fully complied Revenue Allotment response, rehabilitation
Plan Local residential
with or Development and recovery, CY 2018
EVAC PREPOSI- implement- School care facility
Fund CY 2017 (Current Fund) EWS SAR
CENTER TIONING tation Board
(LSB) Plan
I 3 5 3 0 4 2 0 1 3 68
II 0 1 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 47
III 2 0 2 0 2 1 1 0 1 68
IV-A 4 0 1 1 4 1 0 1 0 0
IV-B 4 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1
V 4 3 5 2 3 2 0 0 2 37
VI 6 1 3 3 1 2 3 0 2 22
VII 5 1 3 0 0 3 0 1 1 5
VIII 3 2 1 1 2 1 6 2 5 55
IX 1 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 26
X 2 3 1 1 3 4 1 2 1 60
52
6.
5. Peace Completion
2. Utilization rate of 3. Utilization rate of
4. DRRM Service Delivery Outputs and Order, rate of, or 7. DSWD-
1. Audit Opinion the 20% LDRRMF’s 70% allocation
and Public fund accredited
+ 30% of component of the for disaster prevention and
Safety utilization LGU-
Region recommendations annual Internal mitigation, preparedness,
(POPS) for, 2018 managed
fully complied Revenue Allotment response, rehabilitation
Plan Local residential
with or Development and recovery, CY 2018
EVAC PREPOSI- implement- School care facility
Fund CY 2017 (Current Fund) EWS SAR
CENTER TIONING tation Board
(LSB) Plan
XI 1 4 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
XII 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
XIII 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 29
NCR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
CAR 5 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 39
BARMM 3 0 1 5 5 2 4 0 0 0
Total 45 33 28 14 30 22 18 8 22 459
% 5.13% 3.76% 3.19% 1.59% 3.42% 2.51% 2.05% 0.91% 2.51% 52.28%
53
Non Complied Indicators in Quadrant I
The indicator least complied by LGUs is the presence of DSWD-Accredited

LGU-Managed residential care facility with 459 (52.28%) non-complying LGUs. This
is followed by fully complied Audit Opinion + 30% of recommendations with 45
(5.13%) non-complying LGUs, Utilization rate of the 20% component of the annual
Internal Revenue Allotment or Development Fund CY 2017 with 33 (3.76%) non-
complying LGUs, Evacuation Center under DRRM Service Delivery Outputs with 30
(3.42%) non-complying LGUs, and Utilization rate of LDRRMF’s 70% allocation for
disaster prevention and mitigation, preparedness, response, rehabilitation and
recovery of CY 2018 with 28 (3.19%) non-complying LGUs.
On the other hand, the indicator mostly complied by LGUs is the implementation
of Peace and Order, and Public Safety Plan with 8 (0.91%) non-complying LGUs. This
is followed by the following DRRM Service Delivery Outputs: EWS with 14 (1.59%) non-
complying LGUs and, SAR with 18 (2.05%) non-complying LGUs. Lastly is the
Prepositioning and Completion rate of, or fund utilization for, 2018 Local School
Board (LSB) Plan with 22 (2.51%) non-complying LGUs.
56
Non Complied Indicators in Quadrant II
3. Utilization rate of 6.
2. Utilization rate 4. DRRM Service Delivery Outputs
LDRRMF’s 70% Completion 7. DSWD-
of the 20%
allocation for disaster 5. Peace and rate of, or accredited
1. Audit Opinion + component of the
prevention and Order, and fund LGU-
30% of annual Internal
Region mitigation, Public Safety utilization managed
recommendations Revenue
preparedness, EVAC Preposi- (POPS) Plan for, 2018 residential
fully complied with Allotment or EWS SAR
response, rehabilitation CENTER tioning implementation Local School care
Development
and recovery, CY 2018 Board (LSB) facility
Fund CY 2017
(Current Fund) Plan
I 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 11
II 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 10
III 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 0 1 8
IV-A 1 1 5 7 10 9 4 0 2 1
IV-B 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
V 0 0 1 3 11 5 3 2 5 16
VI 4 1 1 1 4 1 2 0 3 7
VII 1 1 2 0 3 4 1 0 0 1
VIII 0 1 4 0 1 3 0 2 2 15
57
3. Utilization rate of 6.
2. Utilization rate 4. DRRM Service Delivery Outputs
LDRRMF’s 70% Completion 7. DSWD-
of the 20%
allocation for disaster 5. Peace and rate of, or accredited
1. Audit Opinion + component of the
prevention and Order, and fund LGU-
30% of annual Internal
Region mitigation, Public Safety utilization managed
recommendations Revenue
preparedness, EVAC Preposi- (POPS) Plan for, 2018 residential
fully complied with Allotment or EWS SAR
response, rehabilitation CENTER tioning implementation Local School care
Development
and recovery, CY 2018 Board (LSB) facility
Fund CY 2017
(Current Fund) Plan
IX 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 8
X 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 5
XI 0 1 1 3 4 2 2 0 0 0
XII 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
XIII 0 0 3 1 4 4 3 0 0 7
NCR 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1
CAR 4 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 20
BARMM 1 0 1 6 4 2 5 0 0 1
Total 14 15 19 23 50 33 27 7 16 111
% 7.11% 7.61% 9.64% 11.68% 25.38% 16.75% 13.71% 3.55% 8.12% 56.35%
58
Non Complied Indicators in Quadrant II
In Quadrant 2, the least complied performance indicator is the DSWD-

accredited LGU-managed residential care facility with 111 (56.35%) non-complying
LGUs. This is followed by the following DRRM Service Delivery Outputs: Evacuation
Center with 50 (25.38%) non-complying LGUs, SAR with 33 (16.84%) non-complying
LGUs, Prepositioning with 33 (16.75%) non-complying LGUs and EWS with 23
(11.68%) non-complying LGUs.
On the other hand, the performance indicator mostly complied by LGUs is the
implementation of Peace and Order, and Public Safety (POPS) Plan with 7 (3.55%)
non-complying LGUs. This is followed by fully-complied Audit Opinion + 30% of
recommendations with 17 (7.61%) non-complying LGUs; Utilization rate of the 20%
component of the annual Internal Revenue Allotment or Development Fund CY
2017 with 19 (9.64%) non-complying LGUs; Completion rate of, or fund utilization
for, 2018 Local School Board (LSB) Plan with 16 (8.12%) non-complying LGUs; and
fully-complied Utilization rate of LDRRMF’s 70% allocation for disaster prevention
and mitigation, preparedness, response, rehabilitation and recovery, CY 2018
(Current Fund) with 19 (6.64%) non-complying LGUs.
61
Non Complied Indicators in Quadrant III
3. Utilization rate of
2. Utilization rate of LDRRMF’s 70% 6. Completion 7. DSWD-
1. Audit Opinion the 20% component allocation for disaster 4. DRRM Service Delivery Outputs 5. Peace and rate of, or accredited
+ 30% of of the annual prevention and Order, and fund LGU-
Region recommendations Internal Revenue mitigation, Public Safety utilization for, managed
fully complied Allotment or preparedness, (POPS) Plan 2018 Local residential
with Development Fund response, rehabilitation implementation School Board care
CY 2017 and recovery, CY 2018 EVAC PREPOSI- (LSB) Plan facility
EWS SAR
CENTER TIONING
(Current Fund)
I 1 5 4 0 2 1 1 0 1 4
II 7 10 7 2 4 4 3 1 3 10
III 4 7 7 4 7 3 4 3 5 12
IV-A 18 24 22 17 27 19 11 11 14 0
IV-B 27 23 20 13 25 17 9 12 12 1
V 30 31 36 17 42 24 24 29 18 51
VI 15 15 11 1 9 2 1 2 4 7
VII 48 54 50 33 59 31 20 30 35 7
VIII 21 25 31 16 33 13 19 24 20 41
IX 11 9 10 8 15 7 6 14 13 18
62
2. Utilization rate of LDRRMF’s 70% 6. Completion 7. DSWD-
1. Audit Opinion the 20% component allocation for disaster 4. DRRM Service Delivery Outputs 5. Peace and rate of, or accredited
+ 30% of of the annual prevention and Order, and fund LGU-
Region recommendations Internal Revenue mitigation, Public Safety utilization for, managed
fully complied Allotment or preparedness, (POPS) Plan 2018 Local residential
with Development Fund response, rehabilitation implementation School Board care
CY 2017 and recovery, CY 2018 EVAC PREPOSI- (LSB) Plan facility
EWS SAR
CENTER TIONING
(Current Fund)
X 2 2 0 2 2 2 3 0 1 3
XI 1 7 5 1 6 2 1 1 3 0
XII 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
XIII 12 19 15 10 17 12 7 6 13 26
NCR 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0
CAR 12 15 12 7 6 5 3 2 9 19
BARMM 42 13 21 54 58 45 49 13 44 2
Total 254 260 252 185 312 188 162 150 197 201
% 55.82% 57.14% 55.38% 40.66% 68.57% 41.32% 35.60% 32.97% 43.30% 44.18%
63
Non Complied Indicators in Quadrant III
In Quadrant 3, the least complied performance indicator is the Evacuation

Center under DRRM Service Deliver Output indicator with 312 (68.57%) non-complying
LGUs. This is followed by Utilization rate of the 20% component of the annual
Internal Revenue Allotment or Development Fund CY 2017 with a total of 260
(57.14%) non-complying LGUs; fully-complied Audit Opinion + 30% of
recommendations with 254 (55.46%) non-complying LGUs; Utilization rate of the
20% component of the annual Internal Revenue Allotment or Development Fund
CY 2017 with 252 (55.38%) and DSWD-accredited LGU-managed residential care
facility with 201 (44.18%) non-complying LGUs.
On the other hand, performance indicator mostly complied by LGUs is the

implementation of Peace and Order, and Public Safety (POPS) Plan with 150
(32.97%) non-complying LGUs. Following this are the following DRRM Service Delivery
Outputs: SAR with 162 (35.60%) non-complying LGUs, Prepositioning with 188
(41.32%) non-complying LGU, and EWS with 185 (40.66%) non-complying LGUs.
Lastly, with 197 (43.30%) non-complying LGUs is the Completion rate of, or fund
utilization for, 2018 Local School Board (LSB) Plan.
66
Non Complied Indicators in Quadrant IV
2. Utilization rate
of the 20% 7. DSWD-
LDRRMF’s 70% 6. Completion
1. Audit Opinion component of 4. DRRM Service Delivery Outputs 5. Peace and accredited
allocation for disaster rate of, or fund
+ 30% of the annual Order, and LGU-
prevention and mitigation, utilization for,
Region recommendations Internal Public Safety managed
preparedness, response, 2018 Local
fully complied Revenue (POPS) Plan residential
rehabilitation and School Board
with Allotment or implementation care
recovery, CY 2018 EVAC PREPOSI- (LSB) Plan
Development EWS SAR facility
(Current Fund) CENTER TIONING
Fund CY 2017
I 2 4 3 0 0 0 1 1 4 6
II 2 6 4 0 0 0 0 1 2 4
III 5 5 4 2 2 1 1 2 5 8
IV-A 5 12 11 6 7 3 5 7 5 0
IV-B 13 12 13 6 6 4 3 2 6 1
V 8 6 6 1 4 2 4 2 2 13
VI 10 7 9 3 2 2 3 0 5 8
VII 2 7 7 2 3 2 0 1 0 4
VIII 10 16 12 1 7 4 4 3 9 21
IX 3 2 3 0 4 5 1 4 3 8
67
2. Utilization rate
of the 20% 7. DSWD-
LDRRMF’s 70% 6. Completion
1. Audit Opinion component of 4. DRRM Service Delivery Outputs 5. Peace and accredited
allocation for disaster rate of, or fund
+ 30% of the annual Order, and LGU-
prevention and mitigation, utilization for,
Region recommendations Internal Public Safety managed
preparedness, response, 2018 Local
fully complied Revenue (POPS) Plan residential
rehabilitation and School Board
with Allotment or implementation care
recovery, CY 2018 EVAC PREPOSI- (LSB) Plan
Development EWS SAR facility
(Current Fund) CENTER TIONING
Fund CY 2017
X 2 6 4 3 6 3 3 1 4 10
XI 3 4 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
XII 6 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 4 0
XIII 4 6 3 1 3 3 1 2 2 8
NCR 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 3
CAR 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3
BARMM 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0
Total 75 96 85 28 49 33 28 29 57 98
% 42.61% 54.55% 48.30% 15.91% 27.84% 18.75% 15.91% 16.48% 32.39% 55.68%
68
Non Complied Indicators in Quadrant IV
The least complied performance indicator in Quadrant 4 is the Utilization rate

of the 20% component of the annual Internal Revenue Allotment or Development
Fund CY 2017 with 96 (54.55%) non-complying LGUs. This is followed by DSWD-
accredited LGU-managed residential care facility with 98 (55.68%) non-complying
LGUs; Utilization rate of LDRRMF’s 70% allocation for disaster prevention and
mitigation, preparedness, response, rehabilitation and recovery, CY 2018
(Current Fund) with 85 (48.30%) non-complying LGUs; fully complied Audit Opinion
+ 30% of recommendations with 75 (42.61%) non-complying LGUs; and Completion
rate of, or fund utilization for, 2018 Local School Board (LSB) Plan with 57
(32.39%) non-complying LGUs.
Peace and Order, and Public Safety (POPS) Plan was not complied by 29
(16.48%) LGUs, making it the most complied requirement in Quadrant 4. This was
followed by SAR and EWS as part of the sub-indicators of DRRM Service Delivery
Outputs with 28 (15.91%). Following this is the Prepositioning with 33 (18.75%) non-
complying LGUs. Lastly is the Evacuation Center with 49 (27.84%) non-complying
LGUs.
71
IV. Recommendations
The following are the recommendations based on the LGU segmentation results.
1. Communicate results of segmentation to other stakeholders. The results of

the segmentation must be communicated to other stakeholders to inform them of
prioritization of LGUs for CapDev.
2. Analyze regional trends in CapDev Needs. Results of the segmentation

provide the grouping of LGUs according to priority in the provision of CapDev but
also provide basic information about the (initial) Foundational CapDev
requirements of LGUs for full devolution, particularly in the concern areas of
absorptive capacity, service delivery and integrity in use of funds. However, ROs
must now analyze using the DTP CapDev Agenda of LGUs per quadrant to
identify CapDev needs along the three (3) levels - Foundational, Enabling and
Developmental.
https://www.dilg.gov.ph/PDF_File/issuances/memo_circulars/dilg-memocircular-202198_6d8d0429a6.pdf
A challenge in the said analysis by the FOs and ROs will be the classification of
interventions since the CapDev Agenda template does not label interventions as
F/E/D.
3. Analyze CapDev supply and demand. Using regional trend analysis, ROs can
now determine if the available CapDev interventions provided by service
providers in their areas address the top capacity requirements of their LGUs. This
analysis will help the RO and LGRRC manage and harmonize the provision
and/or development of interventions for their LGUs.
For its part, LGA can check the availability and/or map (national and regional)
programs that address the top capacity needs of LGUs, and determine how these
will be addressed:
● National/regional/provincial level delivery based on proposed
expertise sharing;
- The LGA shall focus on building competencies and
leadership development (and management systems)
through the NEO Program and other CapDev provisions.
- The LG Bureaus and attached agencies shall focus on
providing expertise on sector-specific technical knowledge
and systems, including policies
- The ROs shall focus on geographical & area-specific
CapDev interventions and in collaboration with DILG-LG
Bureaus, Service Units, attached agencies and LGA.
● Special programs for development/partnership with service
providers
● Intervention modalities - online/f2f training, coaching, mentoring
72
4. Identify and document experiences of LGU models. The ROs and LGRRCs
are likewise in the best position to determine which among those in Q1 could
serve as models to the Q3 and Q2 LGUs, matching the strengths to the specific
capacity and performance requirements.
The ROs, through the LGRRCs, can document the experiences of LGU models
to facilitate knowledge sharing even beyond the region. The LGA can provide
support through the REAP initiative.
5. Update segmentation using SGLG results. The Segmentation results must be

updated with the latest results of the SGLG, but may reconsider indicators used.
If enhanced SGLG will focus on performance indicators, LGA must identify
corresponding capacity requirements (minimum) to be able to measure LGUs’
level of capacity
73
74
LGU SEGMENTATION TO
CAPACITY-PERFORMANCE QUADRANTS
Released on February 7, 2022
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION

Quadrant
Province City Municipality
Quadrant 1. Mandaluyong City
1 2. Quezon City
HC, HP 3. San Juan City
4. Caloocan City
5. Malabon City
6. Navotas City
7. Muntinlupa City
8. Parañaque City
9. Valenzuela City
Quadrant 1. Taguig City 1. Pateros

2
LC, HP
Quadrant 1. Pasay City

3 2. City of Manila
LC, LP
Quadrant 1. Pasig City

4 2. Makati City
HC, LP 3. Marikina City
4. Las Pinas City
75
LGU SEGMENTATION TO
CORDILLERA ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

Quadrant
Quadrant 1. Bucay, Abra
1 2. Danglas, Abra
HC, HP 3. Dolores, Abra
4. La Paz, Abra
5. Lagangilang, Abra
6. Peñarrubia, Abra
7. Pilar, Abra
8. Sallapadan, Abra
9. San Isidro, Abra
10. San Juan, Abra
11. San Quintin, Abra
12. Tayum, Abra
13. Tineg, Abra
14. Tubo, Abra
15. Calanasan, Apayao
16. Flora, Apayao
17. Luna, Apayao
18. Pudtol, Apayao
19. Bokod, Benguet
20. Buguias, Benguet
21. Itogon, Benguet
22. Kapangan, Benguet
23. Kibungan, Benguet
24. La Trinidad, Benguet
25. Mankayan, Benguet
26. Sablan, Benguet
27. Tuba, Benguet
28. Tublay, Benguet
29. Kiangan, Ifugao
30. Lagawe, Ifugao
31. Lamut, Ifugao
32. Alfonso Lista, Ifugao
33. Asipulo, Ifugao
34. Rizal, Kalinga
35. Bauko, Mountain Province
36. Besao, Mountain Province
37. Bontoc, Mountain
Province
38. Natonin, Mountain
Province
39. Paracelis, Mountain
Province
76
CORDILLERA ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
Quadrant
Quadrant 1. Apayao 1. Bangued, Abra
2 2. Benguet 2. Lacub, Abra
LC, HP 3. Kalinga 3. Lagayan, Abra
4. Mountain Province 4. Luba, Abra
5. Malibcong, Abra
6. Manabo, Abra
7. Pidigan, Abra
8. Villaviciosa, Abra
9. Sta. Marcela, Apayao
10. Atok, Benguet
11. Bakun, Benguet
12. Kabayan, Benguet
13. Balbalan, Kalinga
14. Tanudan, Kalinga
15. Sabangan, Mountain
Province
16. Tadian, Mountain
Province
Quadrant 1. Abra 3. Baguio City 1. Boliney, Abra
3 2. Ifugao 4. Tabuk City, Kalinga 2. Bucloc, Abra
LC, LP 3. Daguioman, Abra
4. Langiden, Abra
5. Licuan-Baay, Abra
6. Conner, Apayao
7. Kabugao, Apayao
8. Banaue, Ifugao
9. Hungduan, Ifugao
10. Aguinaldo, Ifugao
11. Hingyon, Ifugao
12. Tinoc, Ifugao
13. Lubuagan, Kalinga
14. Pasil, Kalinga
15. Pinukpuk, Kalinga
16. Tinglayan, Kalinga
17. Barlig, Mountain Province
Quadrant 1. Mayoyao, Ifugao
4 2. Sadanga, Mountain
HC, LP Province
3. Sagada, Mountain
Province
77
LGU SEGMENTATION TO
REGION I
Quadrant
Quadrant 1. Ilocos Norte 1. Candon City, Ilocos 1. Bacarra, Ilocos Norte
1 2. Ilocos Sur Sur 2. Badoc, Ilocos Norte
HC, HP 3. La Union 2. Vigan City, Ilocos Sur 3. Bangui, Ilocos Norte
4. Pangasinan 3. San Fernando City, 4. Banna, Ilocos Norte
La Union 5. Burgos, Ilocos Norte
4. Alaminos City, 6. Currimao, Ilocos Norte
Pangasinan 7. Dingras, Ilocos Norte
5. Dagupan City 8. Paoay, Ilocos Norte
6. San Carlos City, 9. Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte
Pangasinan 10. Piddig, Ilocos Norte
7. Urdaneta City, 11. Pinili, Ilocos Norte
Pangasinan 12. San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte
13. Sarrat, Ilocos Norte
14. Vintar, Ilocos Norte
15. Bantay, Ilocos Sur
16. Burgos, Ilocos Sur
17. Caoayan, Ilocos Sur
18. Cervantes, Ilocos Sur
19. Galimuyod, Ilocos Sur
20. Gregorio del Pilar, Ilocos
Sur
21. Lidlidda, Ilocos Sur
22. Magsingal, Ilocos Sur
23. Quirino, Ilocos Sur
24. San Esteban, Ilocos Sur
25. San Ildefonso, Ilocos Sur
26. San Juan, Ilocos Sur
27. San Vicente, Ilocos Sur
28. Santa, Ilocos Sur
29. Santa Lucia, Ilocos Sur
30. Santiago, Ilocos Sur
31. Sta. Catalina, Ilocos Sur
32. Sta. Cruz, Ilocos Sur
33. Sta. Maria, Ilocos Sur
34. Sto. Domingo, Ilocos Sur
35. Sugpon, Ilocos Sur
36. Suyo, Ilocos Sur
37. Tagudin, Ilocos Sur
38. Agoo, La Union
39. Aringay, La Union
40. Bacnotan, La Union
41. Bagulin, La Union
42. Balaoan, La Union
78
REGION I
Quadrant
43. Bangar, La Union
44. Bauang, La Union
45. Burgos, La Union
46. Caba, La Union
47. Naguilian, La Union
48. Pugo, La Union
49. Rosario, La Union
50. San Gabriel, La Union
51. San Juan, La Union
52. Santo Tomas, La Union
53. Santol, La Union
54. Sudipen, La Union
55. Tubao, La Union
56. Agno, Pangasinan
57. Aguilar, Pangasinan
58. Alcala, Pangasinan
59. Anda, Pangasinan
60. Asingan, Pangasinan
61. Balungao, Pangasinan
62. Basista, Pangasinan
63. Bautista, Pangasinan
64. Bayambang, Pangasinan
65. Binalonan, Pangasinan
66. Binmaley, Pangasinan
67. Bolinao, Pangasinan
68. Bugallon, Pangasinan
69. Burgos, Pangasinan
70. Calasiao, Pangasinan
71. Dasol, Pangasinan
72. Infanta, Pangasinan
73. Laoac, Pangasinan
74. Lingayen, Pangasinan
75. Malasiqui, Pangasinan
76. Manaoag, Pangasinan
77. Mangaldan, Pangasinan
78. Mangatarem, Pangasinan
79. Natividad, Pangasinan
80. Pozorrubio, Pangasinan
81. Rosales, Pangasinan
82. San Fabian, Pangasinan
83. San Manuel, Pangasinan
84. San Nicolas, Pangasinan
85. San Quintin, Pangasinan
86. Santa Barbara,
Pangasinan
87. Sta. Maria, Pangasinan
88. Sto. Tomas, Pangasinan
89. Tayug, Pangasinan
79
REGION I
Quadrant
90. Umingan, Pangasinan
91. Urbiztondo, Pangasinan
Quadrant 1. Laoag City, Ilocos 1. Nueva Era, Ilocos Norte

2 Norte 2. Adams, Ilocos Norte
LC, HP 3. Alilem, Ilocos Sur
4. Cabugao, Ilocos Sur
5. Salcedo, Ilocos Sur
6. San Emilio, Ilocos Sur
7. Banayoyo, Ilocos Sur
8. Sinait, Ilocos Sur
9. Villasis, Pangasinan
10. Labrador, Pangasinan
11. Mabini, Pangasinan
12. Mapandan, Pangasinan
13. Sual, Pangasinan
Quadrant 1. Carasi, Ilocos Norte
3 2. Nagbukel, Ilocos Sur
LC, LP 3. Narvacan, Ilocos Sur
4. Sigay, Ilocos Sur
5. San Jacinto, Pangasinan
6. Sison, Pangasinan
Quadrant 1. Batac City, Ilocos 1. Dumalneg, Ilocos Norte
4 Norte 2. Marcos, Ilocos Norte
HC, LP 3. Pagudpud, Ilocos Norte
4. Solsona, Ilocos Norte
5. Luna, La Union
6. Bani, Pangasinan
80
LGU SEGMENTATION TO
REGION II
Quadrant
Quadrant 1. Quirino 1. Tuguegarao City, 1. Alcala, Cagayan
1 Cagayan 2. Allacapan, Cagayan
HC, HP 2. Cauayan City, Isabela 3. Baggao, Cagayan
3. City of Ilagan, Isabela 4. Buguey, Cagayan
4. Santiago City 5. Camalaniugan, Cagayan
6. Enrile, Cagayan
7. Lasam, Cagayan
8. Gonzaga, Cagayan
9. Pamplona, Cagayan
10. Lallo, Cagayan
11. Peñablanca, Cagayan
12. Rizal, Cagayan
13. Sanchez Mira, Cagayan
14. Gattaran, Cagayan
15. Santa Praxedes, Cagayan
16. Iguig, Cagayan
17. Solana, Cagayan
18. Tuao, Cagayan
19. Alicia, Isabela
20. Angadanan, Isabela
21. Benito Soliven, Isabela
22. Burgos, Isabela
23. Cabagan, Isabela
24. Cabatuan, Isabela
25. Cordon, Isabela
26. Dinapigue, Isabela
27. Echague, Isabela
28. Gamu, Isabela
29. Jones, Isabela
30. Luna, Isabela
31. Maconacon, Isabela
32. Delfin Albano, Isabela
33. Mallig, Isabela
34. Naguilian, Isabela
35. Quezon, Isabela
36. Quirino, Isabela
37. Ramon, Isabela
38. Roxas, Isabela
39. San Guillermo, Isabela
40. San Isidro, Isabela
41. San Manuel, Isabela
42. San Mariano, Isabela
43. San Mateo, Isabela
81
REGION II
Quadrant
44. Tumauini, Isabela
45. Ambaguio, Nueva
Vizcaya
46. Aritao, Nueva Vizcaya
47. Bagabag, Nueva Vizcaya
48. Bayombong, Nueva
Vizcaya
49. Diadi, Nueva Vizcaya
50. Dupax del Norte, Nueva
Vizcaya
51. Dupax del Sur, Nueva
Vizcaya
52. Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya
53. Kayapa, Nueva Vizcaya
54. Quezon, Nueva Vizcaya
55. Santa Fe, Nueva Vizcaya
56. Solano, Nueva Vizcaya
57. Villaverde, Nueva Vizcaya
58. Aglipay, Quirino
59. Cabarroguis, Quirino
60. Diffun, Quirino
61. Maddela, Quirino
62. Saguday, Quirino
Quadrant 1. Nueva Vizcaya 1. Ivana, Batanes
2 2. Sabtang, Batanes
LC, HP 3. Abulug, Cagayan
4. Aparri, Cagayan
5. Sta. Ana, Cagayan
6. Sto. Niño, Cagayan
7. Sta. Teresita, Cagayan
8. Divilacan, Isabela
9. Palanan, Isabela
10. Reina Mercedes, Isabela
11. Santa Maria, Isabela
Quadrant 1. Batanes 1. Basco, Batanes
3 2. Itbayat, Batanes
LC, LP 3. Mahatao, Batanes
4. Uyugan, Batanes
5. Ballesteros, Cagayan
6. Calayan, Cagayan
7. Piat, Cagayan
8. San Agustin, Isabela
9. San Pablo, Isabela
10. Sto. Tomas, Isabela
11. Alfonso Castañeda,
Nueva Vizcaya
82
REGION II
Quadrant
Quadrant 1. Cagayan 1. Amulung, Cagayan
4 2. Isabela 2. Claveria, Cagayan
HC, LP 3. Aurora, Isabela
4. Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya
5. Nagtipunan, Quirino
83
LGU SEGMENTATION TO
REGION III
Quadrant
Quadrant 1. Bataan 1. Balanga City, Bulacan 1. Bagac, Bataan
1 2. Bulacan 2. City of Malolos, 2. Dinalupihan, Bataan
HC, HP 3. Nueva Ecija Bulacan 3. Hermosa, Bataan
4. Tarlac 3. Meycauayan City, 4. Limay, Bataan
Bulacan 5. Mariveles, Bataan
4. San Jose del Monte 6. Morong, Bataan
City, Bulacan 7. Orani, Bataan
5. Gapan City, Nueva 8. Orion, Bataan
Ecija 9. Pilar, Bataan
6. Science City of 10. Samal, Bataan
Muñoz, Nueva Ecija 11. Angat, Bulacan
7. Palayan City, Nueva 12. Balagtas, Bulacan
Ecija 13. Baliuag, Bulacan
8. San Jose City, Nueva 14. Bocaue, Bulacan
Ecija 15. Bulakan, Bulacan
9. Angeles City 16. Bustos, Bulacan
10. Mabalacat City, 17. Guiguinto, Bulacan
Pampanga 18. Hagonoy, Bulacan
11. City of San Fernando, 19. Pandi, Bulacan
Pampanga 20. Plaridel, Bulacan
12. Tarlac City, Tarlac 21. Pulilan, Bulacan
22. San Ildefonso, Bulacan
23. San Rafael, Bulacan
24. Santa Maria, Bulacan
25. Doña Remedios Trinidad,
Bulacan
26. Bongabon, Nueva Ecija
27. Cabiao, Nueva Ecija
28. Carranglan, Nueva Ecija
29. Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija
30. Gabaldon, Nueva Ecija
31. General Tinio, Nueva
Ecija
32. Guimba, Nueva Ecija
33. Jaen, Nueva Ecija
34. Licab, Nueva Ecija
35. Llanera, Nueva Ecija
36. Nampicuan, Nueva Ecija
37. Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija
38. Rizal, Nueva Ecija
39. San Antonio, Nueva Ecija
40. San Isidro, Nueva Ecija
84
REGION III
Quadrant
41. San Leonardo, Nueva
Ecija
42. Santa Rosa, Nueva Ecija
43. Santo Domingo, Nueva
Ecija
44. Talavera, Nueva Ecija
45. Talugtug, Nueva Ecija
46. Zaragoza, Nueva Ecija
47. Apalit, Pampanga
48. Arayat, Pampanga
49. Bacolor, Pampanga
50. Candaba, Pampanga
51. Floridablanca, Pampanga
52. Guagua, Pampanga
53. Lubao, Pampanga
54. Macabebe, Pampanga
55. Magalang, Pampanga
56. Masantol, Pampanga
57. Mexico, Pampanga
58. Minalin, Pampanga
59. Porac, Pampanga
60. San Luis, Pampanga
61. San Simon, Pampanga
62. Santa Ana, Pampanga
63. Santa Rita, Pampanga
64. Sto. Tomas, Pampanga
65. Anao, Tarlac
66. Bamban, Tarlac
67. Camiling, Tarlac
68. Capas, Tarlac
69. Gerona, Tarlac
70. Mayantoc, Tarlac
71. Moncada, Tarlac
72. Paniqui, Tarlac
73. Pura, Tarlac
74. Ramos, Tarlac
75. San Clemente, Tarlac
76. San Manuel, Tarlac
77. Sta. Ignacia, Tarlac
78. Victoria, Tarlac
79. San Jose, Tarlac
80. Botolan, Zambales
81. Castillejos, Zambales
82. San Antonio, Zambales
83. San Narciso, Zambales
84. Subic, Zambales
85. Baler, Aurora
86. Dilasag, Aurora
85
REGION III
Quadrant
87. Dingalan, Aurora
88. Maria Aurora, Aurora
89. San Luis, Aurora
Quadrant 1. Zambales 1. Calumpit, Bulacan

2 2. Marilao, Bulacan
LC, HP 3. Obando, Bulacan
4. Paombong, Bulacan
5. Laur, Nueva Ecija
6. Lupao, Nueva Ecija
7. Sasmuan, Pampanga
8. Candelaria, Zambales
9. Sta. Cruz, Zambales
Quadrant 1. Aurora 1. Cabanatuan City, 1. Norzagaray, Bulacan
3 Nueva Ecija 2. San Miguel, Bulacan
LC, LP 3. Aliaga, Nueva Ecija
4. General Mamerto
Natividad, Nueva Ecija
5. Pantabangan, Nueva
Ecija
6. Quezon, Nueva Ecija
7. La Paz, Tarlac
8. Palauig, Zambales
9. Casiguran, Aurora
10. Dinalungan, Aurora
Quadrant 1. Pampanga 1. Olongapo City 1. Abucay, Bataan
4 2. Concepcion, Tarlac
HC, LP 3. Cabangan, Zambales
4. Iba, Zambales
5. Masinloc, Zambales
6. San Felipe, Zambales
7. San Marcelino, Zambales
8. Dipaculao, Aurora
86
LGU SEGMENTATION TO
REGION IV-A
Quadrant
Quadrant 1. Batangas 1. City of Bacoor, Cavite 1. Alitagtag, Batangas
1 2. Cavite 2. City of Dasmariñas, 2. Bauan, Batangas
HC, HP 3. Laguna Cavite 3. Calaca, Batangas
4. Quezon 3. City of Imus, Cavite 4. Calatagan, Batangas
5. Rizal 4. Biñan City, Laguna 5. Lemery, Batangas
5. Calamba City, Laguna 6. Mabini, Batangas
6. San Pablo City, 7. Taal, Batangas
Laguna 8. Carmona, Cavite
7. City of San Pedro, 9. Indang, Cavite
Laguna 10. Kawit, Cavite
8. City of Sta. Rosa, 11. Magallanes, Cavite
Laguna 12. Maragondon, Cavite
9. Antipolo City, Rizal 13. Mendez-Nuñez, Cavite
14. Naic, Cavite
15. Noveleta, Cavite
16. Rosario, Cavite
17. Silang, Cavite
18. General Mariano Alvarez,
Cavite
19. Kalayaan, Laguna
20. Mabitac, Laguna
21. Paete, Laguna
22. Pagsanjan, Laguna
23. Pakil, Laguna
24. Sta. Cruz, Laguna
25. Candelaria, Quezon
26. Guinayangan, Quezon
27. Gumaca, Quezon
28. Mauban, Quezon
29. Mulanay, Quezon
30. Padre Burgos, Quezon
31. Panukulan, Quezon
32. Plaridel, Quezon
33. Sampaloc, Quezon
34. San Antonio, Quezon
35. Unisan, Quezon
36. Angono, Rizal
37. Binangonan, Rizal
38. Rodriguez, Rizal
39. Morong, Rizal
40. Pililla, Rizal
41. San Mateo, Rizal
42. Tanay, Rizal
87
43. Taytay, Rizal
44. Teresa, Rizal
Quadrant 1. Batangas City, 1. Balete, Batangas

2 Batangas 2. Laurel, Batangas
LC, HP 2. Lipa City, Batangas 3. Lobo, Batangas
3. Tanauan City, 4. Nasugbu, Batangas
Batangas 5. Padre Garcia, Batangas
4. Lucena City 6. Sta. Teresita, Batangas
7. Taysan, Batangas
8. Tuy, Batangas
9. Alfonso, Cavite
10. General Emilio Aguinaldo,
Cavite
11. Tanza, Cavite
12. Bay, Laguna
13. Liliw, Laguna
14. Luisiana, Laguna
15. Lumban, Laguna
16. Magdalena, Laguna
17. Majayjay, Laguna
18. Nagcarlan, Laguna
19. Pangil, Laguna
20. Rizal, Laguna
21. Victoria, Laguna
22. Catanauan, Quezon
23. General Luna, Quezon
24. Lucban, Quezon
25. San Narciso, Quezon
Quadrant 1. Sto. Tomas, Batangas 1. Agoncillo, Batangas
3 2. Tagaytay City, Cavite 2. Ibaan, Batangas
LC, LP 3. Trece Martires City, 3. Lian, Batangas
Cavite 4. Malvar, Batangas
4. Tayabas City, Quezon 5. Mataasnakahoy,
Batangas
6. San Nicolas, Batangas
7. Talisay, Batangas
8. Tingloy, Batangas
9. Amadeo, Cavite
10. Ternate, Cavite
11. Alaminos, Laguna
12. Cavinti, Laguna
13. Famy, Laguna
14. Pila, Laguna
15. Sta. Maria, Laguna
16. Agdangan, Quezon
17. Alabat, Quezon
18. Atimonan, Quezon
19. Buenavista, Quezon
20. Burdeos, Quezon
88
21. Calauag, Quezon
22. Dolores, Quezon
23. Gen. Nakar, Quezon
24. Infanta, Quezon
25. Jomalig, Quezon
26. Lopez, Quezon
27. Macalelon, Quezon
28. Patnanungan, Quezon
29. Perez, Quezon
30. Pitogo, Quezon
31. Quezon, Quezon
32. Real, Quezon
33. San Andres, Quezon
34. San Francisco, Quezon
35. Tagkawayan, Quezon
36. Cainta, Rizal
37. Cardona, Rizal
38. Jalajala, Rizal
Quadrant 1. Cavite City, Cavite 1. Balayan, Batangas
4 2. General Trias, Cavite 2. Cuenca, Batangas
HC, LP 3. Cabuyao City, Laguna 3. Rosario, Batangas
4. San Jose, Batangas
5. San Juan, Batangas
6. San Luis, Batangas
7. San Pascual, Batangas
8. Calauan, Laguna
9. Los Baños, Laguna
10. Siniloan, Laguna
11. Pagbilao, Quezon
12. Polillo, Quezon
13. Sariaya, Quezon
14. Tiaong, Quezon
15. Baras, Rizal
89
LGU SEGMENTATION TO
REGION IV-B
Quadrant
Quadrant 1. Occidental Mindoro 1. Calapan City, Oriental 1. Sablayan, Occidental
1 2. Palawan Mindoro Mindoro
HC, HP 2. Gloria, Oriental Mindoro
3. Naujan, Oriental Mindoro
4. Pinamalayan, Oriental
Mindoro
5. Puerto Galera, Oriental
Mindoro
6. San Teodoro, Oriental
Mindoro
7. Victoria, Oriental Mindoro
8. Bataraza, Palawan
9. Narra, Palawan
10. Roxas, Palawan
11. Alcantara, Romblon
12. Romblon, Romblon
13. San Agustin, Romblon
14. San Fernando, Romblon
15. Ferrol, Romblon
Quadrant 1. Abra de Ilog, Occidental
2 Mindoro
LC, HP 2. Calintaan, Occidental
Mindoro
3. Lubang, Occidental
Mindoro
4. Pola, Oriental Mindoro
5. Banton, Romblon
6. Santa Fe, Romblon
Quadrant 1. Marinduque 1. Boac, Marinduque
3 2. Romblon 2. Buenavista, Marinduque
LC, LP 3. Gasan, Marinduque
4. Mogpog, Marinduque
5. Santa Cruz, Marinduque
6. Torrijos, Marinduque
7. Looc, Occidental Mindoro
8. Magsaysay, Occidental
Mindoro
9. Mamburao, Occidental
Mindoro
10. Paluan, Occidental
Mindoro
11. Rizal, Occidental Mindoro
90
REGION IV-B
Quadrant
12. Sta. Cruz, Occidental
Mindoro
13. Baco, Oriental Mindoro
14. Bansud, Oriental Mindoro
15. Bulalacao, Oriental
Mindoro
16. Mansalay, Oriental
Mindoro
17. Agutaya, Palawan
18. Balabac, Palawan
19. Busuanga, Palawan
20. Cagayancillo, Palawan
21. Cuyo, Palawan
22. Dumaran, Palawan
23. El Nido, Palawan
24. Linapacan/Abordo,
Palawan
25. Magsaysay, Palawan
26. San Vicente, Palawan
27. Taytay, Palawan
28. Kalayaan, Palawan
29. Culion, Palawan
30. Rizal, Palawan
31. Cajidiocan, Romblon
32. Calatrava, Romblon
33. Corcuera, Romblon
34. San Andres, Romblon
Quadrant 1. Oriental Mindoro 1. Puerto Princesa City 1. San Jose, Occidental
4 Mindoro
HC, LP 2. Bongabong, Oriental
Mindoro
3. Roxas, Oriental Mindoro
4. Socorro, Oriental Mindoro
5. Aborlan, Palawan
6. Araceli, Palawan
7. Brookes Point, Palawan
8. Coron, Palawan
9. Quezon, Palawan
10. Sofronio Española,
Palawan
11. Concepcion, Romblon
12. Looc, Romblon
13. Magdiwang, Romblon
14. Odiongan, Romblon
15. San Jose, Romblon
16. Santa Maria, Romblon
91
LGU SEGMENTATION TO
REGION V
Quadrant
Quadrant 1. Camarines Norte 1. Legazpi City, Albay 1. Camalig, Albay
1 2. Sorsogon 2. Ligao City, Albay 2. Daraga, Albay
HC, HP 3. Tabaco City, Albay 3. Guinobatan, Albay
4. Iriga City, Camarines 4. Jovellar, Albay
Sur 5. Libon, Albay
5. Naga City 6. Malilipot, Albay
6. Masbate City, 7. Malinao, Albay
Masbate 8. Polangui, Albay
7. Sorsogon City, 9. Basud, Camarines Norte
Sorsogon 10. Capalonga, Camarines
Norte
11. Mercedes, Camarines
Norte
12. Paracale, Camarines
Norte
13. Baao, Camarines Sur
14. Del Gallego, Camarines
Sur
15. Magarao, Camarines Sur
16. Pasacao, Camarines Sur
17. Sagñay, Camarines Sur
18. Sipocot, Camarines Sur
19. Tigaon, Camarines Sur
20. Pandan, Catanduanes
21. San Andres,
Catanduanes
22. San Miguel, Catanduanes
23. Virac, Catanduanes
24. Barcelona, Sorsogon
25. Bulusan, Sorsogon
26. Castilla, Sorsogon
27. Gubat, Sorsogon
28. Irosin, Sorsogon
29. Juban, Sorsogon
30. Pilar, Sorsogon
Quadrant 1. Catanduanes 1. Oas, Albay
2 2. Masbate 2. Pio Duran, Albay
LC, HP 3. Daet, Camarines Norte
4. Balatan, Camarines Sur
5. Libmanan, Camarines Sur
6. San Jose, Camarines Sur
7. Siruma, Camarines Sur
92
REGION V
Quadrant
8. Caramoran, Catanduanes
9. Aroroy, Masbate
10. Batuan, Masbate
11. Cataingan, Masbate
12. Cawayan, Masbate
13. Casiguran, Sorsogon
14. Sta. Magdalena,
Sorsogon
Quadrant 1. Albay 1. Bacacay, Albay
3 2. Camarines Sur 2. Manito, Albay
LC, LP 3. Santa Elena, Camarines
Norte
4. Bato, Camarines Sur
5. Bombon, Camarines Sur
6. Buhi, Camarines Sur
7. Cabusao, Camarines Sur
8. Calabanga, Camarines
Sur
9. Camaligan, Camarines
Sur
10. Caramoan, Camarines
Sur
11. Gainza, Camarines Sur
12. Garchitorena, Camarines
Sur
13. Goa, Camarines Sur
14. Lagonoy, Camarines Sur
15. Lupi, Camarines Sur
16. Milaor, Camarines Sur
17. Minalabac, Camarines
Sur
18. Ocampo, Camarines Sur
19. Pamplona, Camarines
Sur
20. Pili, Camarines Sur
21. Presentacion, Camarines
Sur
22. Ragay, Camarines Sur
23. San Fernando,
Camarines Sur
24. Tinambac, Camarines Sur
25. Bagamanoc,
Catanduanes
26. Baras, Catanduanes
27. Bato, Catanduanes
28. Gigmoto, Catanduanes
29. Panganiban,
Catanduanes
93
REGION V
Quadrant
30. Viga, Catanduanes
31. Baleno, Masbate
32. Balud, Masbate
33. Claveria, Masbate
34. Dimasalang, Masbate
35. Esperanza, Masbate
36. Mandaon, Masbate
37. Milagros, Masbate
38. Mobo, Masbate
39. Monreal, Masbate
40. Palanas, Masbate
41. Placer, Masbate
42. San Fernando, Masbate
43. San Jacinto, Masbate
44. San Pascual, Masbate
45. Uson, Masbate
46. Bulan, Sorsogon
47. Donsol, Sorsogon
48. Matnog, Sorsogon
49. Prieto Diaz, Sorsogon
Quadrant 1. Rapu-Rapu, Albay
4 2. Santo Domingo, Albay
HC, LP 3. Tiwi, Albay
4. San Lorenzo Ruiz,
Camarines Norte
5. Jose Panganiban,
Camarines Norte
6. Labo, Camarines Norte
7. San Vicente, Camarines
Norte
8. Talisay, Camarines Norte
9. Vinzons, Camarines Norte
10. Bula, Camarines Sur
11. Canaman, Camarines Sur
12. Nabua, Camarines Sur
13. Pio V. Corpuz, Masbate
14. Magallanes, Sorsogon
94
LGU SEGMENTATION TO
REGION VI
Quadrant
Quadrant 1. Aklan 1. Passi City, Iloilo 1. Balete, Aklan
1 2. Antique 2. Bacolod City 2. Banga, Aklan
HC, HP 3. Capiz 3. Sagay City, Negros 3. Batan, Aklan
4. Guimaras Occidental 4. Buruanga, Aklan
4. Silay City, Negros 5. Ibajay, Aklan
Occidental 6. Kalibo, Aklan
5. Victorias City, Negros 7. Lezo, Aklan
Occidental 8. Makato, Aklan
9. Malinao, Aklan
10. New Washington, Aklan
11. Numancia, Aklan
12. Tangalan, Aklan
13. Anini-y, Antique
14. Barbaza, Antique
15. Belison, Antique
16. Caluya, Antique
17. Culasi, Antique
18. Libertad, Antique
19. Pandan, Antique
20. Patnongon, Antique
21. San Jose de Buenavista,
Antique
22. San Remigio, Antique
23. Cuartero, Capiz
24. Dao, Capiz
25. Dumalag, Capiz
26. Dumarao, Capiz
27. Ivisan, Capiz
28. Jamindan, Capiz
29. Panay, Capiz
30. Pilar, Capiz
31. Pontevedra, Capiz
32. President Roxas, Capiz
33. Sapian, Capiz
34. Sigma, Capiz
35. Tapaz, Capiz
36. Nueva Valencia,
Guimaras
37. San Lorenzo, Guimaras
38. Sibunag, Guimaras
39. Alimodian, Iloilo
40. Anilao, Iloilo
41. Barotac Viejo, Iloilo
95
REGION VI
Quadrant
42. Batad, Iloilo
43. Bingawan, Iloilo
44. Cabatuan, Iloilo
45. Calinog, Iloilo
46. Carles, Iloilo
47. Concepcion, Iloilo
48. Dingle, Iloilo
49. Dueñas, Iloilo
50. Dumangas, Iloilo
51. Igbaras, Iloilo
52. Janiuay, Iloilo
53. Lambunao, Iloilo
54. Leganes, Iloilo
55. Maasin, Iloilo
56. Miag-ao, Iloilo
57. Mina, Iloilo
58. New Lucena, Iloilo
59. Oton, Iloilo
60. Pavia, Iloilo
61. Pototan, Iloilo
62. San Dionisio, Iloilo
63. San Miguel, Iloilo
64. Tigbauan, Iloilo
65. Tubungan, Iloilo
66. Zarraga, Iloilo
67. Binalbagan, Negros
Occidental
68. Isabela, Negros
Occidental
69. San Enrique, Negros
Occidental
Quadrant 1. Negros Occidental 1. Roxas City, Capiz 1. Altavas, Aklan
2 2. Cadiz City, Negros 2. Madalag, Aklan
LC, HP Occidental 3. Tobias Fornier, Antique
3. Kabankalan City, 4. Hamtic, Antique
Negros Occidental 5. Tibiao, Antique
4. San Carlos City, 6. Valderrama, Antique
7. Maayon, Capiz
Negros Occidental
8. Mambusao, Capiz
5. Sipalay City, Negros
9. Buenavista, Guimaras
Occidental 10. Estancia, Iloilo
11. Candoni, Negros
Occidental
12. Enrique B. Magalona,
Negros Occidental
13. Hinigaran, Negros
Occidental
96
REGION VI
Quadrant
14. La Castellana, Negros
Occidental
15. Manapla, Negros
Occidental
Quadrant 1. Iloilo 1. Escalante City, 1. Nabas, Aklan

3 Negros Occidental 2. Laua-an, Antique
LC, LP 2. Himamaylan City, 3. Sebaste, Antique
Negros Occidental 4. Ajuy, Iloilo
3. La Carlota City, 5. Banate, Iloilo
Negros Occidental 6. Lemery, Iloilo
4. Talisay City, Negros 7. San Joaquin, Iloilo
Occidental 8. San Rafael, Iloilo
9. Sara, Iloilo
10. Calatrava, Negros
Occidental
11. Cauayan, Negros
Occidental
12. Hinobaan, Negros
Occidental
13. Ilog, Negros Occidental
14. Moises Padilla, Negros
Occidental
15. Murcia, Negros
Occidental
16. Pulupandan, Negros
Occidental
Quadrant 1. City of Iloilo 1. Libacao, Aklan
4 2. Bago City, Negros 2. Malay, Aklan
HC, LP Occidental 3. Bugasong, Antique
4. Sibalom, Antique
5. Panitan, Capiz
6. Jordan, Guimaras
7. Badiangan, Iloilo
8. Balasan, Iloilo
9. Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo
10. Guimbal, Iloilo
11. Leon, Iloilo
12. San Enrique, Iloilo
13. Santa Barbara, Iloilo
14. Pontevedra, Negros
Occidental
15. Toboso, Negros
Occidental
16. Valladolid, Negros
Occidental
97
REGION VI
Quadrant
17. Don Salvador Benedicto,
Negros Occidental
98
LGU SEGMENTATION TO
REGION VII
Quadrant
Quadrant 1. Cebu 1. Lapu-Lapu City 1. Alicia, Bohol
1 2. Bais City, Negros 2. Calape, Bohol
HC, HP Oriental 3. Carmen, Bohol
4. Danao, Bohol
5. Dimiao, Bohol
6. Duero, Bohol
7. Garcia-Hernandez, Bohol
8. Jagna, Bohol
9. Loay, Bohol
10. Loboc, Bohol
11. San Miguel, Bohol
12. Sikatuna, Bohol
13. Talibon, Bohol
14. Trinidad, Bohol
15. Tubigon, Bohol
16. Bien Unido, Bohol
17. Asturias, Cebu
18. Bantayan, Cebu
19. Dalaguete, Cebu
20. Medellin, Cebu
21. Ronda, Cebu
22. Samboan, Cebu
23. San Remigio, Cebu
24. Sogod, Cebu
25. Tudela, Cebu
26. Amlan, Negros Oriental
27. Vallehermoso, Negros
Oriental
28. Enrique Villanueva,
Siquijor
29. Larena, Siquijor
30. Lazi, Siquijor
31. Maria, Siquijor
32. San Juan, Siquijor
33. Siquijor, Siquijor
Quadrant 1. Bogo City, Cebu 1. Antequera, Bohol
2 2. Bilar, Bohol
LC, HP 3. Candijay, Bohol
4. Clarin, Bohol
5. Corella, Bohol
6. Ubay, Bohol
7. Alegria, Cebu
8. Tabogon, Cebu
99
REGION VII
Quadrant
Quadrant 1. Negros Oriental 1. Carcar City, Cebu 1. Baclayon, Bohol
3 2. Siquijor 2. Cebu City 2. Balilihan, Bohol
LC, LP 3. Danao City, Cebu 3. Buenavista, Bohol
4. City of Naga, Cebu 4. Catigbian, Bohol
5. Talisay City, Cebu 5. Cortes, Bohol
6. Toledo City, Cebu 6. Dauis, Bohol
7. Bayawan City, Negros 7. Guindulman, Bohol
Oriental 8. Getafe, Bohol
8. Canlaon City, Negros 9. Lila, Bohol
Oriental 10. Loon, Bohol
9. Dumaguete City, 11. Mabini, Bohol
Negros Oriental 12. Panglao, Bohol
10. Guihulngan City, 13. Pilar, Bohol
Negros Oriental 14. Pres. Carlos P. Garcia,
11. Tanjay City, Negros Bohol
Oriental 15. Sagbayan, Bohol
16. San Isidro, Bohol
17. Sevilla, Bohol
18. Sierra Bullones, Bohol
19. Valencia, Bohol
20. Alcantara, Cebu
21. Alcoy, Cebu
22. Aloguinsan, Cebu
23. Argao, Cebu
24. Badian, Cebu
25. Barili, Cebu
26. Boljo-on, Cebu
27. Borbon, Cebu
28. Carmen, Cebu
29. Catmon, Cebu
30. Compostela, Cebu
31. Consolacion, Cebu
32. Cordova, Cebu
33. Daanbantayan, Cebu
34. Dumanjug, Cebu
35. Ginatilan, Cebu
36. Liloan, Cebu
37. Madridejos, Cebu
38. Malabuyoc, Cebu
39. Minglanilla, Cebu
40. Moalboal, Cebu
41. Oslob, Cebu
42. Pilar, Cebu
43. Pinamungahan, Cebu
44. Poro, Cebu
45. San Fernando, Cebu
46. San Francisco, Cebu
47. Santa Fe, Cebu
100
REGION VII
Quadrant
48. Santander, Cebu
49. Sibonga, Cebu
50. Tabuelan, Cebu
51. Tuburan, Cebu
52. Ayungon, Negros Oriental
53. Bacong, Negros Oriental
54. Basay, Negros Oriental
55. Bindoy, Negros Oriental
56. Dauin, Negros Oriental
57. Jimalalud, Negros
Oriental
58. La Libertad, Negros
Oriental
59. Mabinay, Negros Oriental
60. Manjuyod, Negros
Oriental
61. Pamplona, Negros
Oriental
62. San Jose, Negros Oriental
63. Siaton, Negros Oriental
64. Sibulan, Negros Oriental
65. Tayasan, Negros Oriental
66. Valencia, Negros Oriental
67. Zamboanguita, Negros
Oriental
Quadrant 1. Bohol 1. Tagbilaran City, Bohol 1. Alburquerque, Bohol
4 2. Mandaue City 2. Anda, Bohol
HC, LP 3. Batuan, Bohol
4. Dagohoy, Bohol
5. Inabanga, Bohol
6. Maribojoc, Bohol
7. Balamban, Cebu
8. Sta. Catalina, Negros
Oriental
101
LGU SEGMENTATION TO
REGION VIII
Quadrant
Quadrant 1. Samar 1. Baybay City, Leyte 1. Arteche, Eastern Samar
1 2. Biliran 2. Ormoc City 2. Can-avid, Eastern Samar
HC, HP 3. Tacloban City 3. Dolores, Eastern Samar
4. Catbalogan City, 4. Maydolong, Eastern
Samar Samar
5. Maasin City, Southern 5. Oras, Eastern Samar
Leyte 6. Quinapondan, Eastern
Samar
7. Salcedo, Eastern Samar
8. San Policarpo, Eastern
Samar
9. Sulat, Eastern Samar
10. Taft, Eastern Samar
11. Alangalang, Leyte
12. Barugo, Leyte
13. Bato, Leyte
14. Calubian, Leyte
15. Dagami, Leyte
16. Hindang, Leyte
17. Javier, Leyte
18. Julita, Leyte
19. Leyte, Leyte
20. Mahaplag, Leyte
21. Mayorga, Leyte
22. Palompon, Leyte
23. San Miguel, Leyte
24. Sta. Fe, Leyte
25. Tabontabon, Leyte
26. Tolosa, Leyte
27. Gamay, Northern Samar
28. Laoang, Northern Samar
29. Lavezares, Northern
Samar
30. San Roque, Northern
Samar
31. Basey, Samar
32. Calbiga, Samar
33. Daram, Samar
34. Gandara, Samar
35. Hinabangan, Samar
36. Marabut, Samar
37. Sta. Rita, Samar
38. Sto. Niño, Samar
39. Villareal, Samar
102
REGION VIII
Quadrant
40. Paranas, Samar
41. Tagapul-an, Samar
42. Pagsanghan, Samar
43. Bontoc, Southern Leyte
44. Hinunangan, Southern
Leyte
45. Libagon, Southern Leyte
46. Liloan, Southern Leyte
47. Macrohon, Southern
Leyte
48. Malitbog, Southern Leyte
49. Padre Burgos, Southern
Leyte
50. Pintuyan, Southern Leyte
51. Saint Bernard, Southern
Leyte
52. Sogod, Southern Leyte
53. Limasawa, Southern
Leyte
54. Almeria, Biliran
55. Cabucgayan, Biliran
56. Caibiran, Biliran
57. Culaba, Biliran
58. Kawayan, Biliran
59. Maripipi, Biliran
Quadrant 1. General MacArthur,
2 Eastern Samar
LC, HP 2. Giporlos, Eastern Samar
3. Guiuan, Eastern Samar
4. Hernani, Eastern Samar
5. San Julian, Eastern
Samar
6. Carigara, Leyte
7. Inopacan, Leyte
8. Jaro, Leyte
9. San Isidro, Leyte
10. Villaba, Leyte
11. Catarman, Northern
Samar
12. Pambujan, Northern
Samar
13. Matuguinao, Samar
14. Sta. Margarita, Samar
15. Zumarraga, Samar
Quadrant 1. Eastern Samar 1. Borongan City, 1. Balangiga, Eastern Samar
3 2. Leyte Eastern Samar 2. Jipapad, Eastern Samar
LC, LP 3. Northern Samar 2. Calbayog City, Samar 3. Lawa-an, Eastern Samar
4. Llorente, Eastern Samar
103
REGION VIII
Quadrant
5. Maslog, Eastern Samar
6. Mercedes, Eastern Samar
7. Abuyog, Leyte
8. Babatngon, Leyte
9. Capoocan, Leyte
10. Mac Arthur, Leyte
11. Matag-ob, Leyte
12. Palo, Leyte
13. Pastrana, Leyte
14. Tabango, Leyte
15. Tanauan, Leyte
16. Tunga, Leyte
17. Allen, Northern Samar
18. Biri, Northern Samar
19. Bobon, Northern Samar
20. Capul, Northern Samar
21. Catubig, Northern Samar
22. Lapinig, Northern Samar
23. Mondragon, Northern
Samar
24. Palapag, Northern Samar
25. Rosario, Northern Samar
26. San Antonio, Northern
Samar
27. San Jose, Northern
Samar
28. San Vicente, Northern
Samar
29. Silvino Lobos, Northern
Samar
30. Victoria, Northern Samar
31. Lope de Vega, Northern
Samar
32. Almagro, Samar
33. Jiabong, Samar
34. Pinabacdao, Samar
35. San Sebastian, Samar
36. Talalora, Samar
37. Tarangnan, Samar
38. Anahawan, Southern
Leyte
39. San Francisco, Southern
Leyte
40. San Ricardo, Southern
Leyte
41. Naval, Biliran
104
REGION VIII
Quadrant
Quadrant 1. Southern Leyte 1. Balangkayan, Eastern
4 Samar
HC, LP 2. Albuera, Leyte
3. Burauen, Leyte
4. Dulag, Leyte
5. Hilongos, Leyte
6. Isabel, Leyte
7. Kananga, Leyte
8. La Paz, Leyte
9. Matalom, Leyte
10. Merida, Leyte
11. Las Navas, Northern
Samar
12. Mapanas, Northern
Samar
13. San Isidro, Northern
Samar
14. Motiong, Samar
15. San Jose de Buan, Samar
16. San Jorge, Samar
17. Hinundayan, Southern
Leyte
18. San Juan, Southern Leyte
19. Silago, Southern Leyte
20. Tomas Oppus, Southern
Leyte
21. Biliran, Biliran
105
LGU SEGMENTATION TO
REGION IX
Quadrant
Quadrant HUC 1. Katipunan, Zamboanga
1 1. Zamboanga City del Norte
HC, HP 2. Labason, Zamboanga del
CC Norte
2. Dapitan City, 3. Liloy, Zamboanga del
Zamboanga del Norte Norte
3. Dipolog City, 4. Manukan, Zamboanga del
Zamboanga del Norte Norte
5. Mutia, Zamboanga del
Norte
6. Piñan, Zamboanga del
Norte
7. Polanco, Zamboanga del
Norte
8. Manuel Roxas,
Zamboanga del Norte
9. Siayan, Zamboanga del
Norte
10. Sibuco, Zamboanga del
Norte
11. Sindangan, Zamboanga
del Norte
12. Siocon, Zamboanga del
Norte
13. Sirawai, Zamboanga del
Norte
14. Tampilisan, Zamboanga
del Norte
15. Jose Dalman, Zamboanga
del Norte
16. Leon B. Postigo,
Zamboanga del Norte
17. Kalawit, Zamboanga del
Norte
18. Dimataling, Zamboanga
del Sur
19. Dumalinao, Zamboanga
del Sur
20. Dumingag, Zamboanga
del Sur
21. Labangan, Zamboanga
del Sur
106
REGION IX
Quadrant
22. Mahayag, Zamboanga del
Sur
23. Midsalip, Zamboanga del
Sur
24. Ramon Magsaysay,
Zamboanga del Sur
25. San Miguel, Zamboanga
del Sur
26. Tabina, Zamboanga del
Sur
27. Tambulig, Zamboanga del
Sur
28. Guipos, Zamboanga del
Sur
29. Diplahan, Zamboanga
Sibugay
30. Imelda, Zamboanga
Sibugay
31. Naga, Zamboanga
Sibugay
32. Siay, Zamboanga Sibugay
33. Tungawan, Zamboanga
Sibugay
Quadrant 1. Zamboanga del 1. Salug, Zamboanga del
2 Norte Norte
LC, HP 2. Sibutad, Zamboanga del
Norte
3. Baliguian, Zamboanga del
Norte
4. Dinas, Zamboanga del
Sur
5. Tukuran, Zamboanga del
Sur
6. Lakewood, Zamboanga
del Sur
7. Mabuhay, Zamboanga
Sibugay
8. Payao, Zamboanga
Sibugay
9. Titay, Zamboanga
Sibugay
Quadrant 1. Zamboanga del Sur 1. Pagadian City, 1. Rizal, Zamboanga del
3 2. Zamboanga Zamboanga del Sur Norte
LC, LP Sibugay 2. Isabela City, Basilan 2. Gutalac, Zamboanga del
Norte
3. Godod, Zamboanga del
Norte
107
REGION IX
Quadrant
4. Aurora, Zamboanga del
Sur
5. Lapuyan, Zamboanga del
Sur
6. Margosatubig,
Zamboanga del Sur
7. San Pablo, Zamboanga
del Sur
8. Josefina, Zamboanga del
Sur
9. Sominot, Zamboanga del
Sur
10. Vincenzo Sagun,
Zamboanga del Sur
11. Tigbao, Zamboanga del
Sur
12. Alicia, Zamboanga
Sibugay
13. Buug, Zamboanga
Sibugay
14. Kabasalan, Zamboanga
Sibugay
15. Malangas, Zamboanga
Sibugay
16. Olutanga, Zamboanga
Sibugay
17. Roseller T. Lim,
Zamboanga Sibugay
Quadrant 1. La Libertad, Zamboanga
4 del Norte
HC, LP 2. Sergio Osmeña,
Zamboanga del Norte
3. Bayog, Zamboanga del
Sur
4. Kumalarang, Zamboanga
del Sur
5. Molave, Zamboanga del
Sur
6. Pitogo, Zamboanga del
Sur
7. Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay
8. Talusan, Zamboanga
Sibugay
108
LGU SEGMENTATION TO
REGION X
Quadrant
Quadrant 1. Misamis Occidental HUC 1. Damulog, Bukidnon
1 2. Misamis Oriental 1. Cagayan de Oro City 2. Dangcagan, Bukidnon
HC, HP 3. Impasugong, Bukidnon
CC 4. Kadingilan, Bukidnon
2. Malaybalay City, 5. Kalilangan, Bukidnon
Bukidnon 6. Kibawe, Bukidnon
3. Valencia City, 7. Kitaotao, Bukidnon
Bukidnon 8. Lantapan, Bukidnon
4. Oroquieta City, 9. Libona, Bukidnon
Misamis Occidental 10. Malitbog, Bukidnon
5. Tangub City, Misamis 11. Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon
Occidental 12. Maramag, Bukidnon
6. El Salvador City, 13. Pangantucan, Bukidnon
Misamis Oriental 14. Quezon, Bukidnon
7. Gingoog City, 15. San Fernando, Bukidnon
Misamis Oriental 16. Sumilao, Bukidnon
17. Talakag, Bukidnon
18. Cabanglasan, Bukidnon
19. Catarman, Camiguin
20. Mahinog, Camiguin
21. Mambajao, Camiguin
22. Sagay, Camiguin
23. Bacolod, Lanao del Norte
24. Baloi, Lanao del Norte
25. Baroy, Lanao del Norte
26. Kapatagan, Lanao del
Norte
27. Sultan Naga Dimaporo,
Lanao del Norte
28. Kauswagan, Lanao del
Norte
29. Kolambugan, Lanao del
Norte
30. Lala, Lanao del Norte
31. Linamon, Lanao del Norte
32. Magsaysay, Lanao del
Norte
33. Maigo, Lanao del Norte
34. Matungao, Lanao del
Norte
35. Poona-Piagapo, Lanao
del Norte
36. Salvador, Lanao del Norte
109
REGION X
Quadrant
37. Sapad, Lanao del Norte
38. Tagoloan, Lanao del
Norte
39. Tangcal, Lanao del Norte
40. Tubod, Lanao del Norte
41. Aloran, Misamis
Occidental
42. Bonifacio, Misamis
Occidental
43. Calamba, Misamis
Occidental
44. Clarin, Misamis
Occidental
45. Concepcion, Misamis
Occidental
46. Jimenez, Misamis
Occidental
47. Plaridel, Misamis
Occidental
48. Sapang Dalaga, Misamis
Occidental
49. Sinacaban, Misamis
Occidental
50. Tudela, Misamis
Occidental
51. Don Victoriano, Misamis
Occidental
52. Alubijid, Misamis Oriental
53. Balingasag, Misamis
Oriental
54. Balingoan, Misamis
Oriental
55. Claveria, Misamis Oriental
56. Initao, Misamis Oriental
57. Kinoguitan, Misamis
Oriental
58. Laguindingan, Misamis
Oriental
59. Lugait, Misamis Oriental
60. Magsaysay, Misamis
Oriental
61. Medina, Misamis Oriental
62. Opol, Misamis Oriental
63. Salay, Misamis Oriental
64. Sugbongcogon, Misamis
Oriental
65. Tagoloan, Misamis
Oriental
110
REGION X
Quadrant
66. Talisayan, Misamis
Oriental
67. Villanueva, Misamis
Oriental
Quadrant 3. Bukidnon HUC 1. Baliangao, Misamis
2 1. Iligan City Occidental
LC, HP 2. Lopez Jaena, Misamis
Occidental
CC 3. Panaon, Misamis
2. Ozamiz City, Misamis Occidental
Occidental 4. Lagonglong, Misamis
Oriental
Quadrant 1. Camiguin 18. Pantao-Ragat, Lanao del
3 Norte
LC, LP 19. Pantar, Lanao del Norte
20. Binuangan, Misamis
Oriental
Quadrant 1. Lanao del Norte 1. Baungon, Bukidnon
4 2. Don Carlos, Bukidnon
HC, LP 3. Guinsiliban, Camiguin
4. Munai, Lanao del Norte
5. Nunungan, Lanao del
Norte
6. Gitagum, Misamis
Oriental
7. Jasaan, Misamis Oriental
8. Libertad, Misamis Oriental
9. Manticao, Misamis
Oriental
10. Naawan, Misamis Oriental
111
LGU SEGMENTATION TO
REGION XI
Quadrant
Quadrant 1. Davao del Norte 1. Panabo City, Davao 1. New Corella, Davao del
1 2. Davao Oriental del Norte Norte
HC, HP 3. Compostela Valley 2. Island Garden City of 2. Bansalan, Davao del Sur
Samal, Davao del 3. Magsaysay, Davao del
Norte Sur
3. Tagum City, Davao 4. Matanao, Davao del Sur
del Norte 5. Sulop, Davao del Sur
4. Digos City, Davao del 6. Banaybanay, Davao
Sur Oriental
7. Boston, Davao Oriental
8. Cateel, Davao Oriental
9. Lupon, Davao Oriental
10. Manay, Davao Oriental
11. San Isidro, Davao
Oriental
12. Tarragona, Davao
Oriental
13. Compostela, Compostela
Valley
14. Laak/San Vicente,
Compostela Valley
15. Maco, Compostela Valley
16. Maragusan, Compostela
Valley
17. Mawab, Compostela
Valley
18. Monkayo, Compostela
Valley
19. Montevista, Compostela
Valley
20. Nabunturan, Compostela
Valley
21. New Bataan, Compostela
Valley
22. Don Marcelino, Davao
Occidental
23. Malita, Davao Occidental
112
REGION XI
Quadrant
Quadrant 1. Mati City, Davao 1. Carmen, Davao del Norte
2 Oriental 2. Kapalong, Davao del
LC, HP Norte
3. Talaingod, Davao del
Norte
4. Braulio E. Dujali, Davao
del Norte
5. San Isidro, Davao del
Norte
6. Hagonoy, Davao del Sur
7. Padada, Davao del Sur
8. Baganga, Davao Oriental
Quadrant 1. Davao del Sur 1. Asuncion, Davao del
3 Norte
LC, LP 2. Sto. Tomas, Davao del
Norte
3. Kiblawan, Davao del Sur
4. Malalag, Davao del Sur
5. Santa Cruz, Davao del
Sur
6. Jose Abad Santos, Davao
Occidental
7. Santa Maria, Davao
Occidental
8. Sarangani, Davao
Occidental
Quadrant 1. Davao Occidental HUC 1. Caraga, Davao Oriental
4 1. City of Davao 2. Governor Generoso,
HC, LP Davao Oriental
3. Mabini, Compostela
Valley
4. Pantukan, Compostela
Valley
113
LGU SEGMENTATION TO
REGION XII
Quadrant
Quadrant 1. North Cotabato ICC 1. Alamada, North Cotabato
1 2. South Cotabato 1. Cotabato City 2. Carmen, North Cotabato
HC, HP 3. Kabacan, North Cotabato
4. Libungan, North Cotabato
Component Cities
5. Magpet, North Cotabato
1. Kidapawan City, North 6. Matalam, North Cotabato
Cotabato 7. Midsayap, North Cotabato
2. Tacurong City, South 8. Mlang, North Cotabato
Cotabato 9. Pigcawayan, North
Cotabato
10. Pres. Roxas, North
Cotabato
11. Tulunan, North Cotabato
12. Antipas, North Cotabato
13. Banisilan, North Cotabato
14. Aleosan, North Cotabato
15. Arakan, North Cotabato
16. Polomolok, South
Cotabato
17. Surallah, South Cotabato
18. Tampakan, South
Cotabato
19. Tboli, South Cotabato
20. Tupi, South Cotabato
21. Sto. Niño, South Cotabato
22. Lake Sebu, South
Cotabato
23. Bagumbayan, Sultan
Kudarat
24. Columbio, Sultan Kudarat
25. Esperanza, Sultan
Kudarat
26. Isulan, Sultan Kudarat
27. Kalamansig, Sultan
Kudarat
28. Lebak, Sultan Kudarat
29. Lutayan, Sultan Kudarat
30. Lambayong, Sultan
Kudarat
31. Sen. Ninoy Aquino, Sultan
Kudarat
32. Alabel, Sarangani
33. Glan, Sarangani
114
REGION XII
Quadrant
34. Kiamba, Sarangani
35. Maasim, Sarangani
36. Maitum, Sarangani
37. Malapatan, Sarangani
38. Malungon, Sarangani
Quadrant 1. Tantangan, South
2 Cotabato
LC, HP
Quadrant 1. Koronadal City, South 1. President Quirino, Sultan
3 Cotabato Kudarat
LC, LP
Quadrant 1. Sultan Kudarat HUC 1. Makilala, North Cotabato
4 2. Sarangani 1. General Santos City 2. Pikit, North Cotabato
HC, LP 3. Banga, South Cotabato
4. Norala, South Cotabato
5. Palimbang, Sultan
Kudarat
115
LGU SEGMENTATION TO
CARAGA
Quadrant
Quadrant 1. Agusan del Norte 1. Surigao City, Surigao 1. Carmen, Agusan del
1 2. Surigao del Sur del Norte Norte
HC, HP 3. Dinagat Islands 2. Tandag City, Surigao 2. Las Nieves, Agusan del
del Sur Norte
3. Esperanza, Agusan del
Sur
4. Prosperidad, Agusan del
Sur
5. Rosario, Agusan del Sur
6. San Francisco, Agusan
del Sur
7. Trento, Agusan del Sur
8. Burgos, Surigao del Norte
9. Claver, Surigao del Norte
10. Del Carmen, Surigao del
Norte
11. Gigaquit, Surigao del
Norte
12. Mainit, Surigao del Norte
13. Malimono, Surigao del
Norte
14. Sta. Monica, Surigao del
Norte
15. Sison, Surigao del Norte
16. Tubod, Surigao del Norte
17. Cagwait, Surigao del Sur
18. Carrascal, Surigao del
Sur
19. Cortes, Surigao del Sur
20. Hinatuan, Surigao del Sur
21. Lanuza, Surigao del Sur
22. Madrid, Surigao del Sur
23. Tagbina, Surigao del Sur
24. Basilisa, Dinagat Islands
25. Cagdianao, Dinagat
Islands
26. Dinagat, Dinagat Islands
27. Libjo, Dinagat Islands
28. Loreto, Dinagat Islands
29. San Jose, Dinagat Islands
116
CARAGA
Quadrant
Quadrant - 1. Butuan City 1. Jabonga, Agusan del
2 Norte
LC, HP 2. Kitcharao
3. Santiago
4. San Luis, Agusan del Sur
5. Alegria, Surigao del Norte
6. San Isidro
7. Lingig, Surigao del Sur
Quadrant 1. Surigao del Norte 1. Cabadbaran City, 1. Magallanes, Agusan del

3 Agusan del Norte Norte
LC, LP 2. Bayugan City, Agusan 2. Nasipit, Agusan del Norte
del Sur 3. Tubay, Agusan del Norte
4. Remedios T. Romualdez,
Agusan del Norte
5. Bunawan, Agusan del Sur
6. Loreto, Agusan del Sur
7. Sibagat, Agusan del Sur
8. Bacuag, Surigao del
Norte
9. Dapa, Surigao del Norte
10. General Luna, Surigao del
Norte
11. Pilar, Surigao del Norte
12. Placer, Surigao del Norte
13. San Benito, Surigao del
Norte
14. San Francisco, Surigao
del Norte
15. Socorro, Surigao del
Norte
16. Taganaan, Surigao del
Norte
17. Barobo, Surigao del Sur
18. Bayabas, Surigao del Sur
19. Cantilan, Surigao del Sur
20. Lianga, Surigao del Sur
21. Marihatag, Surigao del
Sur
22. San Miguel, Surigao del
Sur
23. Tago, Surigao del Sur
24. Tubajon, Dinagat Islands
117
CARAGA
Quadrant
Quadrant 3. Agusan del Sur 2. Bislig City, Surigao 1. Buenavista, Agusan del
4 del Sur Norte
HC, LP 2. La Paz, Agusan del Sur
3. Sta. Josefa, Agusan del
Sur
4. Talacogon, Agusan del
Sur
5. Veruela, Agusan del Sur
6. Carmen, Agusan del Sur
7. San Agustin, Agusan del
Sur
118
LGU SEGMENTATION TO
BARMM
Quadrant
Quadrant 1. Basilan 1. Lamitan City, Basilan 1. Maluso, Basilan
1 2. Maguindanao 2. Sumisip, Basilan
HC, HP 3. Tuburan, Basilan
4. Balabagan, Lanao del Sur
5. Kapai, Lanao del Sur
6. Piagapo, Lanao del Sur
7. Ditsaan Ramain, Lanao
del Sur
8. Saguiaran, Lanao del Sur
9. Taraka, Lanao del Sur
10. Wao, Lanao del Sur
11. Calanogas, Lanao del Sur
12. Buadiposo-Buntong,
Lanao del Sur
13. Kapatagan, Lanao del Sur
14. Ampatuan, Maguindanao
15. Buldon, Maguindanao
16. Datu Paglas,
Maguindanao
17. Datu Piang, Maguindanao
18. Datu Odin Sinsuat,
Maguindanao
19. Shariff Aguak,
Maguindanao
20. Matanog, Maguindanao
21. Pagalungan,
Maguindanao
22. Parang, Maguindanao
23. Sultan Kudarat,
Maguindanao
24. Sultan Sa Barongis,
Maguindanao
25. Kabuntalan, Maguindanao
26. Upi, Maguindanao
27. Talayan, Maguindanao
28. South Upi, Maguindanao
29. Barira, Maguindanao
30. Gen. Salipada K.
Pendatun, Maguindanao
31. Datu Montawal,
Maguindanao
32. Paglat, Maguindanao
119
BARMM
Quadrant
33. Sultan Mastura,
Maguindanao
34. Guindulungan,
Maguindanao
35. Datu Abdullah Sangki,
Maguindanao
36. Jolo, Sulu
37. Talipao, Sulu
38. Simunul, Tawi-Tawi
39. Sibutu, Tawi-Tawi
Quadrant 1. Lanao del Sur 1. Lantawan, Basilan
2 2. Balindong, Lanao del Sur
LC, HP 3. Butig, Lanao del Sur
4. Masiu, Lanao del Sur
5. Lumbaca Unayan, Lanao
del Sur
6. Datu Unsay,
Maguindanao
7. Tandubas, Tawi-Tawi
Quadrant 1. Sulu 1. Marawi City, Lanao 1. Tipo-Tipo, Basilan
3 2. Tawi-Tawi del Sur 2. Akbar, Basilan
LC, LP 3. Al-Barka, Basilan
4. Hadji Mohammad Ajul,
Basilan
5. Ungkaya Pukan, Basilan
6. Hadji Muhtamad, Basilan
7. Tabuan Lasa, Basilan
8. Bacolod Kalawi, Lanao
del Sur
9. Bayang, Lanao del Sur
10. Binidayan, Lanao del Sur
11. Ganassi, Lanao del Sur
12. Lumba Bayabao, Lanao
del Sur
13. Lumbatan, Lanao del Sur
14. Madalum, Lanao del Sur
15. Madamba, Lanao del Sur
16. Marantao, Lanao del Sur
17. Pagayawan, Lanao del
Sur
18. Pualas, Lanao del Sur
19. Tamparan, Lanao del Sur
20. Tubaran, Lanao del Sur
21. Marogong, Lanao del Sur
22. Maguing, Lanao del Sur
23. Picong, Lanao del Sur
24. Bumbaran, Lanao del Sur
120
BARMM
Quadrant
25. Sultan Dumalondong,
Lanao del Sur
26. Buluan, Maguindanao
27. Mamasapano,
Maguindanao
28. Sultan Sumagka (Talitay),
Maguindanao
29. Datu Saudi Ampatuan,
Maguindanao
30. Rajah Buayan,
Maguindanao
31. Datu Blah T. Sinsuat,
Maguindanao
32. Datu Anggal Midtimbang,
Maguindanao
33. Mangudadatu,
Maguindanao
34. Pandag, Maguindanao
35. Northern Kabuntalan,
Maguindanao
36. Datu Hoffer Ampatuan,
Maguindanao
37. Datu Salibo,
Maguindanao
38. Shariff Saydona
Mustapha, Maguindanao
39. Indanan, Sulu
40. Kalingalan Caluang, Sulu
41. Luuk, Sulu
42. Hadji Panglima Tahil,
Sulu
43. Panamao, Sulu
44. Pangutaran, Sulu
45. Parang, Sulu
46. Pata, Sulu
47. Patikul, Sulu
48. Siasi, Sulu
49. Tapul, Sulu
50. Banguingui (Tongkil) ,
Sulu
51. Panglima Estino, Sulu
52. Lugus, Sulu
53. Pandami, Sulu
54. Omar, Sulu
55. Panglima Sugala, Tawi-
Tawi
56. Bongao, Tawi-Tawi
57. Sitangkai, Tawi-Tawi
121
BARMM
Quadrant
58. South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi
59. Languyan, Tawi-Tawi
60. Sapa-Sapa, Tawi-Tawi
Quadrant 1. Maimbung, Sulu
4
HC, LP
122
123
Local Government Units (LGU) Segmentation
for Capacity Development Support
Technical Notes (June 24, 2021)1
Contents
[1] Rationale and Background ..................................................................................... 2
[2] Formula Development: Technical Notes ........................................................................ 4
[Step 1] Indicator Selection ..................................................................................... 4
[Step 2] Descriptive Baselining .................................................................................. 6
[Step 3] Formula Development .................................................................................. 6
[Step 4] Formula Deployment: LGU Assessment .............................................................. 9
[Step 5] Assigning the LGU Scores as ‘High’ or ‘Low’ ....................................................... 10
Annex A. Indicator-level Technical Notes ......................................................................... 14
[A1] Capacity Indicators ....................................................................................... 14
[A2] Performance Indicators .................................................................................. 17
Annex B. Inventory of SGLG 2019 Indicators’ Status of Inclusion to the Segmentation Formula .... 19
List of Tables
Table 1. Formula Development Process ................................................................................................. 3
Table 2. Principles for Indicator Selection ............................................................................................... 4
Table 3. Final Indicators .......................................................................................................................... 5
Table 4. Cluster Weight Assignments Summary .................................................................................... 7
Table 5. Weight Assignments for Capacity Formula ............................................................................... 8
Table 6. Weight Assignments for Performance Formula ........................................................................ 8
Table 7. Sample Formula Deployment: Capacity ................................................................................... 9
Table 8. Sample Formula Deployment: Performance ........................................................................... 10
Table 9. Capacity: Threshold (Weighted Average) of Provinces, Cities, and Municipalities ................ 12
Table 10. Performance: Threshold (Weighted Average) of Provinces, Cities, and Municipalities ........ 13
1 This report was developed by the Local Government Academy, Bureau of Local Government
Supervision, and Support for Local Governance Program, with technical support from
governance specialist Ms. Czarina Medina-Guce.
124
[1] Rationale and Background
 Transitioning into the National Tax Allocation (NTA), DILG seeks to strategize its capacity
development (capdev) support to account for the variations in capacity and performance of
LGUs. The strategic direction is to provide capacity development support to LGUs according
to their level of capacity and performance. This approach segments the LGUs into high/low
capacity and high/low performance, creating the four quadrants described in the figure below.
 Determining such variation requires evidence-based assessment of each LGU.
 To date, the most comprehensive dataset on LGU processes and functions comes from the
Seal of Good Local Governance (SGLG) assessment.
o However, the SGLG as a whole does not demonstrate a coherent technical logic or
Theory of Change (TOC) about LGU capacity or performance. It is currently a
mishmash of input, throughput/activities, and some output indicators reflecting a range
of national government (NG) priorities through the years. Despite the technical
challenge, the prestige and political value of the award, and its place in the measures-
incentives ecosystem programs of DILG, keeps the SGLG as the most sought-after
recognition for LGUs.2
o DILG is intent to re-rationalize the SGLG to reflect development outcomes of

governance. For the purposes of the capdev support segmentation, however, the
SGLG still makes available a rich set of indicators that can be re-rationalized for the
capacity-performance assessment.
 For the interim assessment, the SGLG – at the indicator level – is mined to comprise a
precursory logic expressing the priority issues about the implementation of the Supreme Court
(SC) ruling on the share of LGUs from national taxes.
2
Medina-Guce, Czarina. 2021, May. Structuring the Evidence Base for LGU Capacity Development Support
Categories (Policy Brief). Department of Interior and Local Government – Support for Local Governance Program.
125
o DILG’s policy conversations3 with experts and practitioners highlighted that the SC
ruling only increases the fiscal space but does not change any other laws and
policies on LGUs. As such, the priority issues for the transition are absorptive
capacity, service delivery, and integrity in the use of public funds.
o For the LGU segmentation, the priority issues imply that the selection of indicators
should first anchor on the logic of the increased funding.
 Hence, the precursory logic for the capacity-performance LGU segmentation is:
With the increase in IRA (NTA), LGUs are expected to demonstrate:

The capacity to effectively and efficiently allocate resources through planning, and,
To perform by efficiently spending the funds allocated to local priorities. 4
 This document provides the technical explanation on the formula used to segment LGUs
according to capacity and performance levels. The formula is a product of a series of workshops
among DILG’s Local Government Academy, Bureau of Local Government Supervision, and
Support for Local Governance Program.
 Table 1 summarizes the formula development process. The succeeding sections provide the
principles used for each step.
TABLE 1. FORMULA DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

# Steps Explanatory Note
1 Indicator Selection Examining the SGLG indicators to shortlist which expresses the precursory
logic for capacity and performance
2 Descriptive Baselining Generating the SGLG assessment of each indicator, disaggregated per LGU
level, for sensitization on which indicators suggest high and low passing rates
3 Formula Development Assigning ‘weight’ values for each indicator for a weighted average approach
4 Formula Deployment Applying the formula per LGU
5 Segmenting “High” Establishing the threshold of ‘high’ versus ‘low’ for capacity and performance
and “Low”
 Annex A provides the summary of the technical notes per indicator (selection) and the weight
assignments in the final formula.
 Annex B provides an inventory of the SGLG 2019 indicators and the annotations for the
inclusion/exclusion of each indicator. This responds the query (from the internal conversations):
To what extent does the LGU segmentation formula and the SGLG overlap?
o As per the inventory: 25 indicators were included in the LGU segmentation formula,
while 43 indicators were not included.
o However, the proportion should not be taken against either the SGLG or the LGU
segmentation formula, because they have different logics being followed.
3 DILG. 2021, March 22. Reimagining local governance and the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG)
under a Full Devolution Policy Environment: Summary of focus group discussions with experts on the implementation of
the Supreme Court ruling on the just share of LGU Internal Revenue Allotment.
4 Medina-Guce 2021
126
[2] Formula Development: Technical Notes
[Step 1] Indicator Selection

 For the interim formula, selection worked within the parameters of the SGLG 2019
design. The principles for indicator selection are summarized in Table 2.
TABLE 2. PRINCIPLES FOR INDICATOR SELECTION

Variable Principles, Explanatory Notes
Capacity • All indicators related to planning, budgeting, and reporting of local funds are
included.
o Meanwhile, indicators on local legislations, ‘codes,’ and similar policies are
not included since accomplishing them is not attributable to local fiscal
capacity.
• Indicators pertaining to local councils are included, subject to the following

conditions:
o The councils, as per their guiding laws, should have strategic functions on
allocation of local funds.
o Indicators about representation requirements of the council (i.e.,
composition with non-government members) are also acknowledged for
the effectiveness and integrity dimensions of local planning and budgeting.
o Sub-indicators, if any, are chosen for their relevance to the strategic fiscal
logic. This means that sub-indicators pertaining to activities (e.g.,
compliance to frequency of meetings) are not included.
• Indicators on assigning regular/plantilla personnel in agenda-setting and service

delivery offices are included. The personnel assignment should be prescribed by
law.
o Among all the plantilla officers included in the SGLG dataset, the Local
Economic and Investment Promotion Officer (LEIPO) is excluded from the
final list because it is prescribed by a DILG MC (2010-113), while all the
others are prescribed by law.
Performance • Indicators pertaining to utilization, reporting, and auditing of funds are included.
o However, indicators on LGSF (e.g., AM, CMGP, etc.) and PCF utilization
are not included because not all LGUs qualify to receive the programs.
• Indicators pertaining to service delivery outputs (across the six non-Financial

Administration assessment areas) are included especially since these output
indicators are the ‘farthest’ that the SGLG indicators account for the logic of LGU
performance (i.e., the intention of the spending is to provide for such items).
o However, the fund source of the outputs should have a clear legal basis to
establish the connection to the increase in IRA/NTA. The logic, then, is that
these outputs should be accomplished upon NTA implementation because
the increased fiscal space ‘ripples out’ to the specific funds for the outputs.5
5
This criterion applies, for instance, to the DRRM outputs (e.g., facilities and early warning system) because the law
requires the allocation of local funds for DRRM (RA 10121 et.al.). But the criterion does not applyto the PhilHealth
accreditation of hospitals and facilities because, while health is a devolved function, there is no law that says that this
indicator should be the priority measure of what a good health service performance is.
 These criteria apply as far as the SGLG dataset can account for the appropriate indicators. This
limitation was observed in two instances:
o Peace and Order Councils are required by the LG Code, but the SGLG captures only
the ‘convening’ element (frequency of meetings) as indicator, which does not echo the
same logic as the LDC and LDRRMC composition sub-indicators. Hence, the PO
Council is excluded from the indicators used for the formula.
o Two indicators that fit the criteria were not included: (a) Local council for culture and
arts, and (b) Utilization of the budget appropriated for the conservation and
preservation of cultural property, CY 2018. In SGLG 2019, these indicators are under
the Cultural Heritage Promotion and Conservation assessment. To pass, LGUs must
meet three (3) out of four (4) indicator options6. However, the SGLG 2019 dataset does
not disaggregate which among the four options were met by the LGU; only if the
condition was met or not. Both indicators are excluded in the final set of indicators.
 Applying these selection principles, the indicators included in the formula are as follows (Table
3). Annex A summarizes the indicators, selection logic, and the technical annotations.
TABLE 3. FINAL INDICATORS

Variable Indicators/Clusters
Capacity [A] Planning, Budgeting, Reporting
1. Approved CY 2019 annual budget
2. Compliance with the Full Disclosure Policy
3. Availability of plans and documents that integrate DRR and CCA-related measures.
4. Approved 10-Year Solid Waste Management Plan
[B] Strategic Bodies

5. Functionality of Local Development Councils sub-indicators:
a. Approved PDPFP/CDP, LDIP and AIP
b. Composition (25% for non-government representatives)
6. Convened LDRRMC sub-indicator: Composition
7. Convened local solid waste management (SWM) board sub-indicator: Composition
8. Anti-drug abuse council organized sub-indicator: Composition
[C] Plantilla Officers

*Sub-indicators under the functionality/convening of respective offices
9. LDRRMO
10. LSWDO
11. PDAO
12. Local tourism officer
Performance [A] Financial Administration (SGLG)
1. Audit Opinion + 30% of recommendations fully complied with
2. Utilization rate of the 20% component of the annual Internal Revenue Allotment or
Development Fund CY 2017
[B] DRRM-related
3. Utilization rate of LDRRMF’s 70% allocation for disaster prevention and mitigation,
preparedness, response, rehabilitation and recovery, CY 2018 (Current Fund)
4. DRRM Service Delivery Outputs (multiple items)
6
The four options are: (1). Presence of a local council for culture and the arts; (2) At least 75% utilization rate of
budget appropriated for the conservation and preservation of cultural property; (3) Presence of cultural property
inventory; and (4) Documented and published narrative of history and culture.
Page 5 of 26
Variable Indicators/Clusters
a. Early warning system
b. Evacuation center
c. Prepositioned goods and resources
d. Equipped and trained SAR or ER teams
[C] Other Funds

5. Peace and Order, and Public Safety (POPS) Plan implementation
6. Completion rate of, or fund utilization for, 2018 Local School Board (LSB) Plan
7. DSWD-accredited LGU-managed residential care facility
[Step 2] Descriptive Baselining

 The indicators were processed for the passing rate per LGU type: province, city, municipality
(PCM). The results are treated as the baselines, and serve two functions:
o They inform if there is variance to work with per indicator. For instance, if any indicator
registered 100% (all are passers) for any of the PCM, then the indicator would have
been removed from the list as it provides no value to segmenting the LGUs. (No such
result emerged.)
o The weighted average of all indicators sets the threshold of ‘high’ versus ‘low’ of
capacity and performance. (This is further explained in Step 5, with the computation of
the descriptive baseline per indicator.)
[Step 3] Formula Development

 The formula for capacity and performance each follows a weighted average approach. This
means that some indicators are treated ‘of greater value’ than others because they vary in
expressing the precursory logic of the NTA/IRA increase.
 At an indicator level, the principle applied is that those expressing more foundational
characteristics or processes of the precursory logic are given higher weight values. This
principle is operationalized as follows:
o By impact on LGU fiscal processes: For example, under Performance, the utilization
rate of LDF has greater bearing than the utilization rate for POPS7. The LDF is 20% of
the IRA, and its utilization is being used as a proxy indicator to measure an LGU’s
spending capacity. On the other hand, the POPS is limited to one functional area of the
LGU. Hence, while both are fund utilization measures, the LDF indicator is assigned
higher weight than the POPS indicator.
o By complexity of indicators in SGLG: For example, the LDC functionality sub-indicators

include both the approved plans and the composition (representation), which represent
a more complex scope of LGU processes, compared to the other councils which are
measured only by their ‘existence’ according to the prescribed composition
7
Indicator for PCM: Adopted plan, and at least 75% completion of, or utilization of fund allocated for, POPS Plan
programs and/or activities within CY 2018
Page 6 of 26
(representation of sectors). Hence, the LDC is given a higher weight value than the
indicators for the other strategic bodies.
 The Capacity and Performance formula apply weight assignments differently due to the
difference in number of indicators. The Capacity formula has 12 indicators, while Performance
has 7, making the latter more manageable to distribute a 100% weight total. The difference of
the application of weights is explained Table 4.
TABLE 4. CLUSTER WEIGHT ASSIGNMENTS SUMMARY

Variable Explanatory Note
Capacity Two-level Weight Assignment:
Because there are 12 indicators in the Capacity formula, there are two layers of weights
assignments.
1. Individual indicators are first ‘weighted,’ according to impact and complexity.
2. Cluster weights are then applied.8
Cluster weight assignments are as follows:

• Cluster A: Planning, Budgeting, Reporting = 40%
• Cluster B: Strategic Bodies = 40%
• Cluster C: Plantilla Officers = 20%
The lower weight assignment for the Plantilla Officers Cluster C is an acknowledgment that
Clusters A and B represent a higher impact value and more complex LGU processes for
the precursory logic (Capacity to effectively and efficiently allocate resources through
planning).
Performance Direct Indicator Weight Assignment:
Because there are only 7 indicators in the Performance formula, the weights are directly
distributed among the component indicators following the general principle of impact and
complexity.
However, the subtotal of ‘clustered’ indicators still follows the same logic as the Capacity
formula. Specifically, cluster weight subtotals are as follows:
• Cluster A Financial Administration = 40%
• Cluster B DRRM-related = 35%
• Cluster C Other funds = 25%
The decreasing weight value acknowledge that the Cluster A Financial Administration
indicators express higher impact value and more complex scope of processes than Cluster
B, and so on.
 The weight assignments are itemized as follows (Tables 5 and 6).
8
To illustrate the logic: This weighted averaging is similar to the grading criteria system for students with multiple
outputs in a course. For example, a course’s output areas could be recitation (10%), a number of papers (collectively
weighted at 30%), midterms (30%), and finals (30%). The student has a grade for each output (translating to pass/fail
of SGLG), which is weighted by output areas (weight values assigned per indicator or cluster). The resulting weighted
average is the student’s final grade.
Page 7 of 26
TABLE 5. WEIGHT ASSIGNMENTS FOR CAPACITY FORMULA
Clusters # Indicators Weight
Value
Cluster A: 1 Approved CY 2019 annual budget 40%
Planning, 2 Compliance with the Full Disclosure Policy 25%
Budgeting, 3 Availability of plans and documents that integrate DRR and
Reporting CCA-related measures.
• PDPFP/CLUP 10%
• LDRRMP 5%
• LCCAP 5%
• Contingency Plan 5%
4 Approved 10-Year Solid Waste Management Plan 10%
Sub-total 100%
Cluster A Weighted (40%) 40%
Cluster B: 5 Functionality of Local Development Councils
Strategic Bodies • PDPFP/CDP 25%
• LDC composition 30%
6 Convened LDRRMC 15%
7 Convened local solid waste management (SWM) board 15%
8 Anti-drug abuse council organized 15%
Sub-total 100%
Cluster B Weighted (40%) 40%
Cluster C: 9 LDRRMO 40%
Plantilla Officers 10 LSWDO 20%
11 PDAO 20%
12 Local tourism officer 20%
Sub-total 100%
Cluster C Weighted (20%) 20%
FINAL: Weighted Average of the Clusters 100%
TABLE 6. WEIGHT ASSIGNMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE FORMULA

Cluster # Indicators Weight
Value
Cluster A: Financial 1 Audit Opinion + 30% of recommendations fully complied with 20%
Administration (40%) 2 Utilization rate of the 20% Local Development Fund 20%
Cluster B: 3 Utilization rate of LDRRMF’s 70% allocation for disaster 15%
DRRM (35%) prevention and mitigation, preparedness, response, etc.
4 DRRM Service Delivery Outputs (multiple items)
• Early warning system 5%
• Evacuation center 5%
• Prepositioned goods and resources 5%
• Equipped and trained SAR 5%
Cluster C: 5 POPS Plan implementation 12%
Other Funds (25%) 6 Completion rate of, or fund utilization for, 2018 LSB Plan 12%
7 DSWD-accredited LGU-managed residential care facility9 1%
Weighted Average of the Indicators 100.0%
9
For #7 indicator in the performance formula, it is assigned 1% because (a) it applies only to provinces and HUCs,
and (b) while required by law, an LGU may refer or physically transfer custody, care and case management of
residents to partner-facilities. The layered conditions make the indicator an unreliable reference for LGU comparison.
Page 8 of 26
[Step 4] Formula Deployment: LGU Assessment
 At this point in the process, the formula for Capacity and Performance can be deployed to
compute for every LGU’s score.
 An LGU’s score is computed by applying the formula to the

LGU’s SGLG assessment results per indicator.
o The formula deployment begins with filling out if the LGU passed or failed per
indicator (binary 1-0 which is the SGLG assessment design).
o Then the weight values are applied – the two-level weight assignments for Capacity,
and the direct indicator weight assignment for Performance (explained in Step 3).
 Process Notes:
o To facilitate the efficiency of the process, the formula deployment has been
programmed into an MS Excel document. It speeds up the assessment since the only
input needed is the binary (1,0) per indicator.
 Tables 7 and 8 demonstrates this process with two sample municipalities.
TABLE 7. SAMPLE FORMULA DEPLOYMENT: CAPACITY

Clusters # Indicators Weight MUNICIPALITY MUNICIPALITY
Value SAMPLE A SAMPLE B
(%) SGLG Weighted SGLG Weighted
assessment Score assessment Score
(pass/fail) (Weighted (pass/fail) (Weighted
value x value x
baseline) in % baseline)
Cluster A: 1 Approved CY 2019 annual budget 40% 0 0 1 40

Planning, 2 Compliance with the FDP 25% 1 25 1 25
Budgeting, 3 Plans: DRR, CCA-related measures
Reporting • PDPFP/CLUP 10% 1 10 1 10
• LDRRMP 5% 1 5 1 5
• LCCAP 5% 1 5 1 5
• Contingency Plan 5% 1 5 1 5
4 Approved 10-Year SWM Plan 10% 1 5 1 10
Sub-total 100% 60 100
Cluster A Weighted (40%) 40% 24 40
Cluster B: 5 Local Development Council
Strategic • PDPFP/CDP 25% 1 25 1 25
Bodies • LDC composition 30% 0 0 1 30
6 Convened LDRRMC 15% 1 15 1 15
7 Convened SWM board 15% 1 15 1 15
8 Anti-drug abuse council organized 15% 0 0 1 15
Sub-total 100% 55 100
Cluster B Weighted (40%) 40% 22 40
Cluster C: 9 LDRRMO 40% 1 40 1 40
Plantilla 10 LSWDO 20% 1 20 1 20
Officers 11 PDAO 20% 1 20 1 20
Page 9 of 26
Clusters # Indicators Weight MUNICIPALITY MUNICIPALITY
(%) SGLG Weighted SGLG Weighted
assessment Score assessment Score
value x value x
baseline) in % baseline)
12 Local tourism officer10 20% 1 20 0 0

Sub-total 100% 100 80
Cluster C Weighted (20%) 20% 20 16
FINAL: Weighted Average of the Clusters 100% 66 96
TABLE 8. SAMPLE FORMULA DEPLOYMENT: PERFORMANCE

Cluster # Indicators Weight MUNICIPALITY MUNICIPALITY
(%) SGLG
assessment
Weighted
Score
SGLG
assessment
Weighted
Score
value x value x
baseline) baseline)
Cluster A: 1 Audit Opinion + 30% of 20% 1 20 0 0

Financial recommendations fully complied with
Admin. (40%) 2 Utilization rate of the 20% LDF 20% 1 20 0 0
Cluster B: 3 Utilization rate of LDRRMF’s 70% 15% 1 15 0 0
DRRM (35%) allocation for disaster prevention and
mitigation, preparedness, response
4 DRRM Service Delivery Outputs
• Early warning system 5% 1 5 1 5
• Evacuation center 5% 0 0 1 5
• Prepositioned goods 5% 1 5 1 5
• Equipped and trained SAR 5% 1 5 1 5
Cluster C: 5 POPS Plan implementation 12% 1 12 1 12
Other Funds 6 Completion rate of, or fund utilization 12% 1 12 1 12
(25%) for, 2018 LSB Plan
7 DSWD-accredited LGU-managed 1% n/a 1 n/a 1
residential care facility11
Weighted Average of the Indicators 100.0% 95 45
The sample municipalities’ scores are:

• Municipality Sample A: Capacity = 66, Performance = 95
• Municipality Sample B: Capacity = 96, Performance = 45
[Step 5] Assigning the LGU Scores as ‘High’ or ‘Low’

 At this point in this process, the LGU already has a score for capacity and performance. The
final step is to assign the score as ‘high’ or ‘low’.
 The process takes the threshold from the weighted average of all passers of the LGU level,
echoing a ‘national average.’ This LGU-level weighted average is computed by applying the
10
For the Local Tourism Officer – Capacity Indicators, LGUs that have “3 = n/a” scores will get the corresponding weight (+4% of
total CAPACITY score)
11
For the Residential Care Facility – Performance Indicator, LGUs that have “3 = n/a” scores will get the corresponding weight (+1%
of total PERFORMANCE score)
Page 10 of
weights-per-indicator to the descriptive baseline per indicator per LGU type (refer to Step
2). The weighted average is different for provinces, cities, and municipalities.
 If the weighted average of the LGU is equal to or higher than the weighted average of its
LGU level (PCM), then it is considered “high.” The logic is that it is higher than its LGU
type’s national average.
 Meanwhile, if the weighted average of the LGU is lower than the weighted average of its
LGU level (PCM), then it is considered “low.” The logic also follows that it is lower than it
LGU type’s national average.
 Tables 9 and 10 provides the computations for weighted averages of provinces, cities, and
municipalities. These serve as the threshold of high/low for capacity and performance.
Page 11 of
VALIDATING THE SEGMENTATION RESULTS
Page 12 of
Rationale for Validation
Given that the original data set utilized is lifted from the SGLG 2019, it has become apparent
that an updating of information is needed to better reflect the current realities of the identified
indicators. This is done by validating the produced information with the DILG Regional Offices.
Ideally, the LGU Segmentation results are to be consistently updated in line with the annual
SGLG Results. However, for 2020-2021, the SGLG Assessment has been suspended to safety
concerns brought about by the COVID-19 Pandemic. Because of this, LGA has taken its own
initiative to allow for the updating of information pertaining to the LGUs latest compliance status
with the LG Segmentation’s indicators.
By doing so, the information generated is considerably more accurate and up to date while also
providing parity for LGUs that have made efforts to correct their areas of improvement from 2019.
Validation Process
The Validation process was conducted last October 2021. During this period, the various DILG
offices of differing administrative levels were tasked to collect updated information on the
indicators and subsequently validated and forwarded to LGA. The validated results are checked
by LGA, including the submitted MOVs via cloud storage. Thereafter, LGA enhances the LG
Segmentation results with new information making necessary adjustments to scores and
Segment classifications of LGUs as needed.
Field officers
collected P.O./cluster R.O.
updates on the validated the submitted to LGA checked
segmentation R.O.’s LGA issues
status of LGUs LGA validated submissions and updated version
indicators as of on key indicators, adjusted of the LGU
June 2021 and indicators and signed by the segmentation Segmentation
submit to P.O. submit to R.O. Regional results
with supporting Director (RD)
documents
Page 13 of
Table 9. Validation Checklist
Page 14 of
Adjusting the Descriptive Baseline
As mentioned previously, the Descriptive Baselines are the average score for Capacity and
Performance for the three LGU Types. In essence, it is the threshold that the LGUs must
maintain or surpass to be considered High Capacity and High Performance, respectively. The
validated results have resulted in the adjustments of said average thresholds. And while the
resulting changes are incremental, they are more reflective of the actual realities concerning
these indicators.
Table 10. Old and New Descriptive Baselines per LGUs

Descriptive Baseline
Indicators Provinces City Municipalities
OLD NEW OLD NEW OLD NEW
Capacity 90.07% 90.07% 89.03% 89.49% 80.86% 80.86%
Performance 83.95% 83.95% 89.11% 89.25% 76.93% 76.94%
Updated Results
After applying the new Descriptive Baselines to the new Datasets we are able to produce the following
general results:
Table 11. Initial and Validated Results (as of February 16)

Validated
Quadrant Results
Initial Results (as of Feb 16)
Q1 574 878
Q2 138 197
Q3 582 455
Q4 186 176
TOTAL 1706 1706
Overall, there is an improvement in overall performance of LGUs as it can be seen in the substantial
increase of them belonging in Quadrant 1 with significant decrease in LGUs belonging to the other less-
than-ideal quadrants, with the most decrease being apparent among Quadrant 3 LGUs, or the Low
Capacity and Low Performance. Given this, it can be said that between 2019 and 2021, a significant
number of LGUs were able to address the previously identified gaps relevant to LG Segmentation during
the most recent SGLG Assessment.
Moving forward, with the presumption of the resumption of the regular SGLG Assessment. It can be
expected that LGA will continue to utilize the LG Segmentation to help us keep track of LGU Foundational
Institutional Capacity and Performance and respond to them accordingly.
Page 15 of
TABLE 9. CAPACITY: THRESHOLD (WEIGHTED AVERAGE) OF PROVINCES, CITIES, AND MUNICIPALITIES
Clusters # Indicators Weight PROVINCES CITIES MUNICIPALITIES
Value (%) Baseline of passers Weighted Score Baseline of Weighted Score Baseline of Weighted Score
(%) (Weighted value x passers (%) (Weighted value x passers (%) (Weighted value x
baseline) in % baseline) baseline)
Cluster A: 1 Approved CY 2019 annual budget 40% 95.06 38.02 97.93 39.17 94.46 37.78
Planning, 2 Compliance with the Full Disclosure Policy 25% 97.53 24.38 96.55 24.14 90.34 22.59
Budgeting, 3 Plans: DRR and CCA-related measures
Reporting • PDPFP/CLUP 10% 76.54 7.65 75.86 7.59 52.97 5.30
• LDRRMP 5% 97.53 4.88 98.62 4.93 85.47 4.27
• LCCAP 5% 91.36 4.57 88.28 4.41 71.96 3.60
• Contingency Plan 5% 82.72 4.14 77.93 3.90 54.59 2.73
4 Approved 10-Year Solid Waste Management Plan 10% 91.36 9.14 95.86 9.59 85.74 8.57
Sub-total 100% 92.78 93.72 84.84
Cluster A Weighted (40%) 40% 37.11 37.49 33.94
Cluster B: 5 Functionality of Local Development Councils
Strategic • PDPFP/CDP 25% 76.54 19.14 83.45 20.86 68.45 17.11
Bodies • LDC 30% 79.01 23.70 72.41 21.72 56.15 16.84
6 Convened LDRRMC 15% 81.48 12.22 82.76 12.41 68.99 10.35
7 Convened local SWM board 15% 91.36 13.70 92.41 13.86 76.69 11.50
8 Anti-drug abuse council organized 15% 77.78 11.67 86.90 13.03 76.35 11.45
Sub-total 100% 80.43 81.90 67.26
Cluster B Weighted (40%) 40% 32.17 32.76 26.90
Cluster C: 9 LDRRMO 40% 93.83 37.53 83.45 33.38 73.11 29.24
Plantilla 10 LSWDO 20% 82.72 16.54 87.59 17.52 75.27 15.05
Officers 11 PDAO 20% 83.95 16.79 97.24 19.45 90.20 18.04
12 Local tourism officer 20% 98.77 19.75 99.31 19.86 94.93 18.99
Sub-total 100% 90.62 90.21 81.32
Cluster C Weighted (20%) 20% 18.12 18.04 16.26
FINAL: Weighted Average of the Clusters 100% 87.41 88.29 77.11
Interpretation (sample): For PROVINCES: If a province’s final weighted average is equal to or higher than 87.41, then it is considered HIGH CAPACITY. If
lower than 87.41, then it is LOW CAPACITY.
Page 12 of 26
TABLE 10. PERFORMANCE: THRESHOLD (WEIGHTED AVERAGE) OF PROVINCES, CITIES, AND MUNICIPALITIES
Cluster # SGLG Indicators Weight PROVINCES CITIES MUNICIPALITIES
Value (%) Baseline of
passers (%)
Weighted Score
(Weighted value
Baseline of
passers (%)
Weighted Score
(Weighted value
Baseline of
passers (%)
Weighted Score
(Weighted value
x baseline) x baseline) x baseline)
Cluster A: 1 Audit Opinion + 30% of recommendations fully complied with 20% 72.84 14.57 83.45 16.69 68.11 13.62
Financial Admin. 2 Utilization rate of the 20% component of the annual Internal 20% 76.54 15.31 80.69 16.14 65.54 13.11
(40%) Revenue Allotment or Development Fund CY 2017
Cluster B: 3 Utilization rate of LDRRMF’s 70% allocation for disaster 15% 59.26 8.89 77.24 11.59 68.18 10.23
DRRM (35%) prevention and mitigation, preparedness, response, etc.
4 DRRM Service Delivery Outputs (multiple items)
• Early warning system 5% 97.53 4.88 94.48 4.72 77.84 3.89
• Evacuation center 5% 85.19 4.26 84.83 4.24 58.65 2.93
• Prepositioned goods 5% 92.59 4.63 91.03 4.55 76.62 3.83
• Equipped and trained SAR 5% 93.83 4.69 97.24 4.86 79.59 3.98
Cluster C: 5 POPS Plan implementation 12% 92.59 11.11 91.03 10.92 92.50 9.90
Other Funds 6 Completion rate of, or fund utilization for, 2018 LSB Plan 12% 96.30 11.56 86.90 10.43 77.03 9.24
(25%) 7 DSWD-accredited LGU-managed residential care facility 1% 61.73 0.62 72.73 0.73 n/a 0
Weighted Average of the Indicators 100.0% 80.51 84.87 70.73
Interpretation (sample): For PROVINCES: If a province’s final weighted average is equal to or higher than 80.51, then it is considered HIGH PERFORMANCE.
If lower than 80.51, then it is LOW PERFORMANCE.
Capacity Performance
Score W.Ave of All Muni (Threshold): 77.11 Score W.Ave of All Muni (Threshold): 70.73
Returning to the sample municipalities from Step 4:
Municipality Sample A 66 LOW CAPACITY 95 HIGH PERFORMANCE
Municipality Sample B 96 HIGH CAPACITY 45 LOW PERFORMANCE
Page 13 of 26
Annex A. Indicator-level Technical Notes
[A1] Capacity Indicators
Precursory Logic: Capacity to effectively and efficiently allocate resources through planning
Clusters # Indicators Connection to Precursory Logic Technical Annotations Weight

Value (%)
Cluster A: 1 Approved CY 2019 annual budget Absorptive capacity: Timely preparation of Foundational indicator for absorptive capacity. 40%
Planning, the budget is fundamental to efficiently The formula will follow SGLG’s assessment of
Budgeting, finance development at the local level.12 pass/fail, regardless if the budget was passed
Reporting before end of 2018 (or the budget followed in
early 2019).
2 Compliance with the Full Integrity: Adherence of LGUs in FDP which The indicator is foundational to the capacity of 25%
Disclosure Policy requires them to fully disclose particular LGUs. Hence, it will be used ‘as a whole’ and will
financial transactions to show how funds are not be broken down into sub-indicators.
managed, disbursed and used.
3 Availability of plans and Service Delivery: All indicators demonstrate the logic.
documents that integrate DRR Presence of legally mandated local plans that
and CCA-related measures will help the LGUs identify, strategize, and
• PDPFP/CLUP allocate resources in alignment with DRR and 10%
CCA considerations.
• LDRRMP 5%
• LCCAP 5%
• Contingency Plan 5%
4 Approved 10-Year Solid Waste Service Delivery: Capacity of the LGU to The SGLG assessment has considerations for 10%
Management Plan safeguard the environment by complying with different scenarios per P/C/M.13 However, these
RA 9003 particularly on the adoption of a 10- nuances need not affect the logic of the main
year SWM Plan pursuant to Section 2 and 17 indicator.
of the Act
Sec 319 of the Code provides that LGU’s annual budget for the ensuing fiscal year must be enacted on or before the end of the current fiscal year.
12
Indicators: (a) Provinces, cities and municipalities: Approved 10-year SWM Plan. (b) Consideration is given to a city or municipality with an SWM Plan that is still under review of
13
NSWMC, (c) Consideration is also given to a province if it has at least 75% of component cities and municipalities with approved and/or submitted SWM plan to NSWMC.
Page 14 of 26
Value (%)
Sub-total 100%
Cluster A Weighted (40%) 40%
Cluster B: 5 Functionality of Local All priority principles: The LDCs are The LDC functionality indicator is not taken ‘as a
Strategic Development Councils mandated to help strategize the allocation, whole,’ since some of its sub-indicators are not
Bodies • PDPFP/CDP implementation, and monitoring of local necessarily demonstrative of the allocative 25%
• LDC composition funds. efficiency capacity of LGUs (e.g., frequency of 30%
meetings).
Priority indicators are:

[a] Approved PDPFP/CDP, LDIP and AIP:
planning effectiveness logic
[b] Composition (25% for Non-gov): LGC
Sec.10714 (also has implications to integrity as a
priority principle in the transition)
6 Convened LDRRMC All priority principles: The LDRRMCs have Similar to the other council-oriented indicators, 15%
strategic and integrative functions for the the composition sub-indicator is more apt for the
allocation and management of the DRRMF.15 selection logic (over the frequency of meetings
indicator).
7 Convened local Solid Waste All priority principles: The Board is convened Similar to the other council-oriented indicators, 15%
Management (SWM) board as per provisions of RA9003. the composition sub-indicator is more apt for the
selection logic (over the frequency of meetings
indicator).16
8 Anti-drug abuse council organized All priority principles: Organized pursuant to Similar to the other council-oriented indicators, 15%
RA 9165 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs the composition sub-indicator is more apt for the
Act of 2002 and pertinent DILG MCs
14
Sec. 107 of the Code provides for the inclusion of NGO/CSO representatives, whom are to constitute note less than ¼, of the council. This aims to ensure and maximize
cooperation of more sectors in local development planning.
15
Section 11 of RA 10121; LDRRMC Functions include (a) Approve, monitor and evaluate the implementation of the LDRRMPs and regularly review and test the plan consistent with
other national and local planning programs; (b) Ensure the integration of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation into local development plans, programs and budgets
as a strategy in sustainable development and poverty reduction.
16
Indicators are: (a) SWM Board composition should show CSO and private sector membership and the names of representatives, (b) SWM Board convened at least once in CY
2018
Page 15 of 26
Value (%)
selection logic (over the frequency of meetings
indicator)17
Sub-total 100%
Cluster B Weighted (40%) 40%
Cluster C: 9 LDRRMO All priority principles: LGU/offices’ capacity is The specific sub-indicators are: 40%
Plantilla the highly influenced by the presence of the [a] Plantilla LDRRM Officer (Head of
Officers appropriate human resources Office)
[b] Plantilla LDRRMO staff
10 LSWDO P/C/M indicator (SGLG 2019 MC): Specifies 20%
plantilla position for the SWDO
11 PDAO RA10070 specifies the establishment of PDAO, 20%
with nuances on the designation of the officer
per P/C/M.18
12 Local tourism officer RA 9593 indicates that for PCMs in which 20%
tourism is a significant industry shall have a
permanent position for a tourism officer.
Sub-total 100%
Cluster C Weighted (20%) 20%
FINAL: Weighted Average of the Clusters 100%
17
Indicators are: Provinces, cities and municipalities: (a) Organized ADAC, and (b) met at least once every quarter for all CY 2018 quarters
18
Indicators for P/C/M: (a) Provinces and HUCs: PDA Office established by an ordinance, and a permanent PDAO Head whose appointment has undergone the prescribed
recruitment process, Consideration is given to a province/HUC with PDAO established through an executive order; provided that there is at least a designated PWD affairs officer,
(b): CCs and municipalities: Designated PDA Officer/focal person
Page 16 of 26
[A2] Performance Indicators
Precursory Logic: Perform by efficiently spending the funds allocated to local priorities
Cluster # Indicators Connection to Precursory Logic Technical Annotations Weight

Value
Cluster A: 1 Audit Opinion + 30% of Integrity translates to clear and The indicator is most relevant to fiscal efficiency of 20%
Financial recommendations fully complied with accountable fund disbursement. LGUs. Hence, it will be used ‘as a whole’ and will
Administration not be broken down into sub-indicators.
(40%) 2 Utilization rate of the 20% component Absorptive capacity and Service The indicator is most relevant to fiscal efficiency of 20%
of the annual Internal Revenue Delivery: Indicates effective LGUs. Hence, it will be used ‘as a whole’ and will
Allotment or Development Fund CY management of available financial not be broken down into sub-indicators.
2017 resources to help LGUs implement
priority development initiatives
Cluster B: 3 Utilization rate of LDRRMF’s 70% Absorptive capacity and Service The indicator has two sub-indicators that are both 15%
DRRM (35%) allocation for disaster prevention and Delivery: Indicates effective required for all PCM19. Hence, it will be used ‘as a
mitigation, preparedness, response, management of available financial whole’ and will not be broken down into sub-
rehabilitation and recovery, CY 2018 resources for DRRM purposes indicators.
(Current Fund)
4 DRRM Service Delivery Outputs Service Delivery: As provided by The DRRM assessment area incorporates many
(multiple items) RA10121 and other complementary output-based sub-indicators. The selection is
• Early warning system policies based on the increased funding logic. Such 5%
• Evacuation center criterion excludes items, e.g., production of guides, 5%
• Prepositioned goods and standard operating procedures, et.al., which LGUs 5%
resources are more likely accomplish even without the
• Equipped and trained SAR increased funds. 5%
The service delivery sub-indicators are:
[a] Early warning system
[b] Evacuation center
[c] Prepositioned goods and resources
19
Indicators for PCM: (a) Should have appropriated no less than 5% of the estimated revenue from regular sources in 2017 as LDRRMF for 2018; AND, (b) At least 50% utilization of
the 70% component (Preparedness Fund) of LDRRMF for 2018 Current Fund
Page 17 of 26
Cluster # Indicators Connection to Precursory Logic Technical Annotations Weight
Value
[d] Equipped and trained SAR or ER teams: for the
equipage20
Cluster C: 5 Peace and Order, and Public Safety Service Delivery: Implementation of The indicator is uniform across PCM, with no 12%
Other Funds (POPS) Plan implementation the plan means provision of priority further conditionalities.21
(25%) action and program thrusts for
peace and order and public safety
6 Completion rate of, or fund utilization Service Delivery: For provision of The indicator is uniform across PCM, with no 12%
for, 2018 Local School Board (LSB) facilities, materials, et.al., for further conditionalities.23
Plan education22
7 DSWD-accredited LGU-managed Capability of the LGU to advance The indicator is assigned 1% because (a) it applies 1%
residential care facility the welfare and well-being of the only to provinces and HUCs, and (b) while required
vulnerable sectors with the provision by law, an LGU may refer or physically transfer
of care facilities which are LGU- custody, care and case management of residents
managed or owned24 to partner-facilities. The layered conditions make
the indicator an unreliable reference for LGU
comparison.
Weighted Average of the Indicators 100.0%
20
E.g., motorized vehicle, generator set, water rescue kit, extrication kit, personal protective gear, first aid kit and emergency medical kit
21
Indicator for PCM: Adopted plan, and at least 75% completion of, or utilization of fund allocated for, POPS Plan programs and/or activities within CY 2018
22
DBM-DEPED-DILG JMC 01-2017 on Special Education Fund (SEF): (i) Operation and maintenance of public schools (e.g., payment of compensation/allowances of teachers); (ii)
Construction and repair of school buildings; (iii) Facilities and equipment (e.g., internet connection, maintenance, etc.); (iv) Educational research other than the research subject
areas funded in the DepEd budget; (v)Purchase of books and periodicals; and (vi) Expenses for school sports activities
23
Indicator for PCM: At least 85% completion rate on either PPAs or utilization rate of fund allocation for 2018 LSB Plan
24
Facilities such as Bahay Pag-asa or Youth Home, Group Homes and other similar entities pursuant to RA 10630, RA 9710, RA 7277, RA 9994
Page 18 of 26
Annex B. Inventory of SGLG 2019 Indicators’
Status of Inclusion to the Segmentation
Formula
This annex provides an inventory of the SGLG 2019 indicators and the annotations for the
inclusion/exclusion of each indicator. This responds the query (from the internal conversations): To what
extent does the LGU segmentation formula and the SGLG overlap?
As per the inventory: 25 indicators were included, while 43 indicators were not
included. However, the proportion should not be taken against either the SGLG
or the LGU segmentation formula, because they have different logics being
followed.
Indicators LGU Segmentation Formula Explanatory Note
(RUNNING TOTAL) (for exclusions)
Included Excluded
FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION
Good Financial Housekeeping
1. Audit Opinion + 30% of 1
2. Compliance with the Full Disclosure 2
Policy of Local Budget and Finances, Bids
and Public Offerings (CY 2018 all
quarters, CY 2019 1st quarter), posting in:
a. Three conspicuous places
b. FDP Portal
c. e-SRE
Financial Performance
3. Average local revenue growth from 1 The indicator is excluded
CYs 2015 to 2017 because it does not pertain to
direct management of the
increased IRA/NTA.
Financing Development
4a. Functional local development council 3 The LDC functionality indicator is
(LDC): structures and socio-economic (partial) not taken ‘as a whole,’ since
plans and policies some of its sub-indicators are not
necessarily demonstrative of the
Provinces, cities and municipalities: Must allocative efficiency capacity of
comply with all tests of functionality – LGUs (e.g., frequency of
composition; meetings (both semesters in meetings).
CY 2018); executive committee; approved
PDPFP/CDP, LDIP and AIP; and Priority indicators are:
Secretariat [a] Approved PDPFP/CDP, LDIP
4b. Functional LDC: and AIP: planning effectiveness
Satisfactory participation of its CSO logic
members [b] Composition (25% for Non-
gov): LGC Sec.10725 (also has
implications to integrity as a
priority principle in the transition)
25
Sec. 107 of the Code provides for the inclusion of NGO/CSO representatives, whom are to constitute note less
than ¼, of the council. This aims to ensure and maximize cooperation of more sectors in local development planning.
Page 19 of 26
Included Excluded
5. Utilization rate of the 20% component 4
of the annual Internal Revenue Allotment
or Development Fund CY 2017
6. Utilization rate of Performance 2 Indicators on LGSF (e.g., AM,
Challenge Fund, if applicable CMGP, etc.) and PCF utilization
are not included because not all
LGUs qualify to receive the
programs.
7. Utilization rate of funding assistance 3 Indicators on LGSF (e.g., AM,
from Assistance to Municipalities program CMGP, etc.) and PCF utilization
(formerly Bottom-Up Budgeting and are not included because not all
Assistance to Disadvantaged LGUs qualify to receive the
Municipalities), if applicable programs.
8. Approved CY 2019 annual budget 5
DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
1. 2018 1st Place National Gawad 4 The award represents its own
KALASAG (KAlamidad at sakuna logic of what performance is. The
LAbanan SAriling Galing ang Kalaigtasan) segmentation exercise needed to
Awardee for Best Local Disaster Risk engage more granular indicators.
Reduction and Management Councils
(LDRRMCs),
or Hall of Fame Awardee for Best
LDRRMCs, OR
2. Convened LDRRMC 6 Similar to the other council-
(partial) oriented indicators, the
Provinces, cities and municipalities -- composition sub-indicator is
LDRRMCs must: more apt for the selection logic
1. Be composed of at least 4 CSO and 1 (over the frequency of meetings
private sector members, AND indicator).
2. Had convened at least once for every
quarter of CY 2018
3a. Functionality of LDRRMO: Plantilla 7
LDRRM Officer (Head of
Office)
3b. Functionality of LDRRMO: Plantilla
LDRRMO staff
Availability of plans and documents that integrate DRR and CCA-related measures:
4. PDPFP or CLUP 8
5. LDRRM Plan and Budget 9
6. Local climate change action plan 10
7. Contingency plan 11
8. Utilization rate of LDRRMF’s 70% 12
(Current Fund)
9. CBDRRM Plan and Budget 5 The indicator applies only to
cities and municipalities.
10. Early warning system (EWS) 13
11a. Evacuation management – 14
Evacuation center
Page 20 of 26
Included Excluded
11b. Evacuation management -- 6 The indicator pertains to an
Evacuation information guides output that does not connect to
the increased IRA/NTA. It
For cities and municipalities: At least 75% describes informational and
of barangays with evacuation guides logistical functions.
11c. Evacuation management -- 15
Prepositioned goods and resources
12. Standards Operating Procedure 7 The indicator pertains to an
output that does not connect to
describes informational and
logistical functions.
12a. SOP -- LDRRM Operations Center 8 The indicator pertains to an
The establishment of LDRRM Operations the increased IRA/NTA. It
Center is pursuant to Rule 6 Section 4 describes coordinative, logistical,
(24) of the IRR of RA 10121. Based on and informational functions.
the National Disaster Preparedness Plan:
Disaster Preparedness Minimum
Standards Vol. 2, the OpCen must (1) be
able to function 24/7 (3 shifts); (2) have a
dedicated officer; and (3) develop and
implement Standard Operating
Procedures and Contingency Plan.
12b. Evacuation management -- 16
Equipped and trained SAR or ER teams
12c. Incident Command System (ICS) 9 The indicator pertains to an
Incident Command System is a temporary the increased IRA/NTA. It
organization and an on-scene disaster describes coordinative, logistical,
response that will be activated in and informational functions.
response to disasters or emergencies
pursuant to NDRRMC MC. No 04, s.
2012.
Pursuant to NDRRMC Memo No. 4 s.
2012, LGUs are mandated to capacitate
its ICS organization through conduct of
ICS trainings to institutionalize ICS. The
ICS Cadre shall take the lead in
undertaking the ICS capacity building and
development program under the
leadership of the Office of Civil Defense.
12d. Pre-emptive and forced evacuation 10 The indicator pertains to an
describes coordinative, logistical,
and informational functions.
SOCIAL PROTECTION
1. Seal of Child-friendly Local 11 The award represents its own
Governance, CY 2018 (for cities and logic of what performance is. The
municipalities only)
Page 21 of 26
Included Excluded
segmentation exercise needed to
engage more granular indicators.
2. Completion rate of, or fund utilization 17
for, 2018 Local School Board (LSB) Plan
3a. Mechanisms for GAD 12 Mechanisms (a) to (d) are all
informational and does not
(a) Focal Point System engage the precursory logic of
(b) Database the increased IRA/NTA.
(c) Accomplishment report
(d) Updated Code – updating may be in Mechanism (e) does not assert
the form of: adopting a new Code, the same expectation as the
amending or revising particular section(s) other plan-related indicators
of existing Code (which require the plans to be
(e) CY 2019 Plan and Budget reviewed by passed an implemented) and
DILG Field Office; consideration is given fund-related indicators (which
to plan and budget that is at least measure utilization rates).
submitted for review
3b. Mechanisms for VAWC (for cities and 13 The indicator is applied to cities
municipalities only) and municipalities only. The
requirements also do not engage
1. 100% of barangays with VAWC desks, the precursory logic of the
AND increased IRA/NTA.
2. At least 80% of barangays with
submitted reports for all quarters of CY
2018
4. Local Code for Children 14 Indicators on local legislations,
‘codes,’ and similar policies are
not included since accomplishing
them is not attributable to local
fiscal capacity.
5. Philhealth-accreditation of LGU-run 15 While health is a devolved
hospitals and main health facilities, CY function, there is no law that
2018 or 2019 requires this indicator to be the
primary measure of good health
Presence of LGU hospitals or heath service delivery.
facilities accredited by Philhealth to be
capable of delivering particular health
services.
6a. Compliance with Accessibility Law 16 The requirements also do not
engage the precursory logic of
Adherence to structural features of LGU the increased IRA/NTA. LGU
buildings i.e., provincial capitol or could observe the accessibility
city/municipal hall and main hospital/ standards indicated without any
health facility to facilitate accessibility and increased funds.
mobility of persons with disabilities
pursuant to BP 344.
(a) Ramps with 2-level handrails on both
sides by the entrance/exit; and
(b) PWD toilet that is wheelchair-
accessible (can enter/exit and has a
Page 22 of 26
Included Excluded
turning space in the toilet) and with L-
shaped grab bars
Specifications for wheelchair-accessible
toilets: .90m door entrance width
clearance, and 2.25 sq.m. turning space
with a minimum dimension of 1.50m for
wheelchairs.
6b. Established Persons with Disability 18 The LGU segmentation formula
Office (PDAO) (partial) reflects only the provision of the
plantilla officer among the list of
To ensure that PPAs for persons with PDAO requirements.
disabilities are given due priority, Sec. 1
of RA 10070, or the law amending the
Magna Carta for Disabled Persons,
mandates the creation of PDAO in
provinces, cities and 1st-3rd class
municipalities and designation of a Focal
Person for 4th-6th class municipalities.
Provinces and HUCs: PDA Office

established by an ordinance, and a
permanent PDAO Head whose
appointment has undergone the
prescribed recruitment process
Consideration is given to a province/HUC

with PDAO established through an
executive order; provided that there is at
least a designated PWD affairs officer
CCs and municipalities: Designated PDA

Officer/focal person
7. DSWD-accredited LGU-managed 19
(for P/HUCs only)
8. LSWDO is a registered social worker 20
9. Indigenous Peoples Mandatory 17 The requirements also do not
Representation in the Sanggunian engage the precursory logic of
the increased IRA/NTA. This is
an affirmative action policy.
10. Absence of illegal dwelling units OR 18 The indicators apply only to cities
LGU efforts for resettlement of informal and manifests coordinative and
settlers (for cities only) logistical functions. It does not
engage the precursory logic of
the increased IRA/NTA.
11. Implementation of Provision of 19 Indicators on LGSF (e.g., AM,
Potable Water Supply-Sagana at Ligtas CMGP, etc.) and PCF utilization
na Tubig sa Lahat (SALINTUBIG) projects are not included because not all
LGUs qualify to receive the
programs.
PEACE AND ORDER
Page 23 of 26
Included Excluded
1. Peace and Order (POC) Performance 20 The audit, similar to earlier
Audit rating, CY 2018 award-related indicators,
represents its own logic of what
performance is. The
2. POC convened 21 The indicator does not engage
the precursory logic of the
Provinces, cities and municipalities: POC indicators because it captures
convened, at least once every quarter for only frequency of meetings (no
all quarters of CY 2018 composition requirement or other
output dimensions.
3. Peace and Order, and Public Safety 21
4. Anti-drug abuse council organized 22
(a) Composition (MC 98-227, 2012-94):

Governor/ Mayor as Chairman; PNP
Provincial / City Director / Chief of Police
as Vice Chair; and the following as
members: DILG Provincial Director (in the
case of provinces), DepEd Division
Superintendent/ District Supervisor, DOJ
Provincial/ City Prosecutor/ Municipal
Judge, Local Health Officer, LSWDO,
Local Information Officer, NGO/ Socio-
Civic Group Representative, and religious
group representative
(b) Meetings: at least once in every

quarter
5. Provision of logistical support to the 22 The indicator does not engage
PNP the precursory logic of the
indicators because it captures
logistical and coordinative
functions.
6. Organized and trained BPATs, 23 The indicator does not engage
barangay tanods, and/or any similar unit the precursory logic of the
functions.
7. Actions against illegal drugs: Drug- 24 The indicator does not engage
cleared barangays the precursory logic of the
functions.
8. Firecracker and pyrotechnic devices 25 Indicators on local legislations,
regulation ‘codes,’ and similar policies are
fiscal capacity.
Page 24 of 26
Included Excluded
BUSINESS FRIENDLINESS AND COMPETITIVENESS
1a. Finalist of the PCCI's Most Business- 26 Similar to earlier award-related
Friendly LGUs Award indicators, represents its own
logic of what performance is. The
1b. Ranked among the Top 50 (Top 50 27 Similar to earlier award-related
Cities and Top 50 Municipalities) of the indicators, represents its own
2018 Competitiveness Index logic of what performance is. The
2. Presence of local economic and 28 The indicator, while specifying
investment promotion office (LEIPO) the need for an officer, is not
supported by law (RA). The basis
for the indicator is DILG MC No.
2010-113.
3. Presence of citizen’s charter for 29 Indicators on local legislations,
securing permits for new business and ‘codes,’ and similar policies are
business renewal not included since accomplishing
fiscal capacity.
4. Simplified business processing and 30 The indicator does not directly
licensing system engage the precursory logic and
5. Tracking system for business / 31 speaks of systems development
investment-related data requirement for cities and
municipalities.
6. Local Investment Incentive Code 32 Indicators on local legislations,
‘codes,’ and similar policies are
fiscal capacity.
7. Utilization of Conditional matching 33 Indicators on LGSF (e.g., AM,
Grant to Provinces for Road Repair, CMGP, etc.) and PCF utilization
Rehabilitation and Improvement (CMGP; are not included because not all
formerly KALSADA program), if applicable LGUs qualify to receive the
programs.
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1. Convened local solid waste 23
management (SWM) board
2. No operating open and/or controlled 34 The indicator does not engage
dumpsite the precursory logic of the
logistical, coordinative, and
monitoring functions.
3. Approved 10-Year Solid Waste 24
Management Plan
4. Materials Recovery Facility 35 The indicator is applicable to
cities and municipalities only.
Cities and municipalities: Material
Recovery Facility (MRF), or an existing
partnership with similar entity
Page 25 of 26
Included Excluded
5. Access to sanitary landfill (SLF) 36 The indicator is applicable to
cities and municipalities only.
TOURISM, CULTURE AND THE ARTS
TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
1. Presence of local tourism officer 25
2. Tourist information and assistance 38 The indicators pertain to outputs
center or desk that do not connect to the
3. Tracking system of tourism data 39 increased IRA/NTA. They
describe coordinative, logistical,
and informational functions.
Cultural Heritage Promotion and Conservation
4. Presence of local council for culture 40 The indicators on the council and
and the arts the budget were considered.
5. Utilization of the budget appropriated 41
for the conservation and preservation of To pass, LGUs must meet three
cultural property, CY 2018 (3) out of four (4) indicator
6. Cultural property inventory/registry 42 options. However, the SGLG
7. Published narrative of history and 43 2019 dataset does not
culture disaggregate which among the
four options were met by the
LGU; only if the condition was
met or not. The indicators are
excluded in the final set of
indicators.
Page 26 of 26

LGU Segmentation Report (Edt Mar 16)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LGU Segmentation Report (Edt Mar 16)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LGU Segmentation Report (Edt Mar 16)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

II. Validation of Initial Results 7

III. Segmentation Results

A. LGU Capacity and Performance

ANNEX A: List of LGUs in Each Quadrant by Region 74

ANNEX B: Technical Notes 122

One of the key responsibilities of the Local Government Academy

The following procedures were followed during the validation process:

1. Field Officers collected updates on the segmentation indicators as of June

Quadrant Tally % to Total

Table 1. Overall numbers following the validation of segmentation results

A total of 1054 LGUs or 61.8% of the overall tally of LGUs have

ii. Income classification (IC)

The distribution of LGUs according to their income classification is

2nd 103 47.7% 30 13.9% 57 26.4% 26 12% 216

3rd 153 49.8% 39 12.7% 85 27.7% 30 9.8% 307

4th 224 53% 51 12.1% 115 27.2% 33 7.8% 423

5th 116 40.8% 35 12.3% 106 37.3% 27 9.5% 284

6th 7 24.1% 5 17.2% 15 51.7% 2 6.9% 29

Special 1 50% 0 0% 1 50% 0 0% 2

New 4 25% 0 0% 12 75% 0 0% 16

Table 2. Overall numbers on the basis of income classification following

Three hundred twenty-eight (328) first class LGUs or 76.5%

g. Other Income Classifications

On the other hand, 16 LGUs have been classified as new.

Table 3a. Tally of validated segmentation results among provinces

All 81 provinces in the country have been able to submit data

In terms of income classification, first class provinces have

Table 3b. Tally of validated segmentation results among cities

In terms of income classification, fourth class cities have the

1st 16 66.7% 3 12.5% 3 12.5% 2 8.3% 24

Table 3c. Tally of validated segmentation results among component

Sixty-one (61) out of 108 component cities (CCs) have been

In terms of income classification, first class CCs have the

Independent Component Cities

Table 3d. Tally of validated segmentation results among independent

All five (5) independent component cities (ICCs) have been

Highly Urbanized Cities

Table 3e. Tally of validated segmentation results among highly

Fifteen (15) out of 33 highly urbanized cities (HUCs) have

In terms of first class HUCs, most of them are classified under

Table 3f. Tally of validated segmentation results among

In terms of income classification, first class municipalities

iv. Regional Distribution

All regions have the majority of their LGUs classified under

Total Number of LGUs per Quadrant

On the other hand, Region 7 (Central Visayas) has the highest

Region 8 (Eastern Visayas) has the highest number of

CAR 39 47% 20 24% 21 25% 3 4%

R1 102 79% 14 11% 6 5% 7 5%

R2 67 68% 12 12% 12 12% 7 7%

R4A 58 39% 29 20% 42 29% 18 12%

R4B 18 23% 6 8% 36 46% 18 23%

R5 39 33% 16 13% 51 43% 14 12%

R6 78 56% 21 15% 21 15% 19 14%

R8 66 44% 15 10% 46 31% 22 15%

R9 36 48% 10 13% 21 28% 8 11%

R10 76 78% 7 7% 4 4% 11 11%