A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Pastrana, Cleofe S.; Lagarto, Marites B. Working Paper Camarines Sur assessment of the bottom-up budgeting process for FY 2016 PIDS Discussion Paper Series, No. 2016-25 Provided in Cooperation with: Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), Philippines Suggested Citation: Pastrana, Cleofe S.; Lagarto, Marites B. (2016) : Camarines Sur assessment of the bottom-up budgeting process for FY 2016, PIDS Discussion Paper Series, No. 2016-25, Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), Quezon City This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/173546 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu Philippine Institute for Development Studies Surian sa mga Pag-aaral Pangkaunlaran ng Pilipinas Camarines Sur Assessment of the Bottom-Up Budgeting Process for FY 2016 Cleofe S. Pastrana and Marites B. Lagarto DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES NO. 2016-25 The PIDS Discussion Paper Series constitutes studies that are preliminary and subject to further revisions. They are be- ing circulated in a limited number of cop- ies only for purposes of soliciting com- ments and suggestions for further refine- ments. The studies under the Series are unedited and unreviewed. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not neces- sarily reflect those of the Institute. Not for quotation without permission from the author(s) and the Institute. June 2016 For comments, suggestions or further inquiries please contact: The Research Information Staff, Philippine Institute for Development Studies 18th Floor, Three Cyberpod Centris - North Tower, EDSA corner Quezon Avenue, 1100 Quezon City, Philippines Telephone Numbers: (63-2) 3721291 and 3721292; E-mail: [email protected] Or visit our website at http://www.pids.gov.ph PROVINCIAL REPORT: CAMARINES SUR ASSESSMENT OF THE BOTTOM-UP BUDGETING PROCESS FOR FY 2016 Cleofe S. Pastrana Marites B. Lagarto Philippine Institute for Development Studies Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ iv Abstract ................................................................................................................................ vii I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 1. General Features of the Bottom-up Budgeting Process ....................................................... 1 2. Objectives of the Study ......................................................................................................... 3 3. Approach and Methodology ................................................................................................. 3 4. Limitations of the Study ........................................................................................................ 6 II. SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE .................................................................................................. 6 1. Camarines Sur ....................................................................................................................... 6 2. Municipality of Goa ............................................................................................................... 7 3. Municipality of Lagonoy ........................................................................................................ 9 4. Municipality of Libmanan ................................................................................................... 10 III. ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF JMC 5-2014 IN THE FIELD ................................ 12 1. Barangay Development Planning ........................................................................................ 12 1.1. Kalahi-CIDSS (KC) Cycles completed .......................................................................... 12 1.2. Conduct of the Participatory Situation Analysis (PSA) ................................................ 13 1.3. Conduct of Barangay Assembly .................................................................................. 14 1.4. Selection of sitio representatives and BDC Vice-chairs .............................................. 15 2. Inclusiveness of CSO Assembly ........................................................................................... 15 2.1. On who selected/prepared the list of CSOs to be included in the Notice of Municipal CSO Assembly and signatory of the invitation letters ................................................ 16 2.2. On the inclusiveness of the Notices/Invitation Letters .............................................. 18 2.3. Attendance of CSOs .................................................................................................... 18 2.3.1. Comparison of CSOs attendance to the CSO Assembly for FY 2015 and FY 2016 BUB ......................................................................................................... 19 2.4. Observed organized CSOs and assistance provided by NGOs/Entities to CSOs ......... 20 2.5. Non-attendance of CSOs and reasons for non-attendance ........................................ 21 2.6. Views of selected LGU Officials/CSOs on the participation of accredited vis-à-vis non- accredited CSOs .......................................................................................................... 22 3. Quality of CSOs’ Participation in CSO Assemblies ............................................................... 23 3.1. Representativeness of CSOs which attended the CSO Assembly ............................... 24 3.2. Conduct of Poverty Situation Analysis ........................................................................ 27 3.3. Extent of CSO Participation in the CSO Assembly ....................................................... 31 i 3.4. Selection of CSO Representatives to LPRAT and CSO Co-Chair and CSO Signatories of LPRAP .......................................................................................................................... 33 4. Conduct of LPRAT Orientation ........................................................................................... 35 4.1. Attendance of LPRAT Representatives from the 3 LGUs ............................................ 36 4.2. Major Comments/Observations on the LPRAT Orientation ....................................... 36 4.2.1. On the Program Flow ...................................................................................... 37 4.2.2. On the Resource Persons from the Line Agencies .......................................... 37 4.2.3. On the Specific Line Agency Concerns............................................................. 37 4.2.4. On the JMC 5 Provisions and Other BUB Matters ........................................... 38 5. LPRAP Workshop: Identification and Prioritization of BUB projects .................................. 38 5.1. Attendance to LPRAP Workshop ................................................................................ 38 5.2. Validation of Poverty Situation and Review of CSO Assembly Outputs ..................... 40 5.3. Identification of Strategies and Projects..................................................................... 44 5.4. Prioritization of identified projects ............................................................................. 45 5.5. Changes in the FY2016 LPRAP before submission to the RPRAT ................................ 50 5.6. Submission of FY 2016 LPRAP to and Feedback from the RPRAT (configuration of approved LPRAP)......................................................................................................... 54 5.7. Extent of CSO participation in identification of projects ............................................ 56 5.8. Satisfaction with sub-projects included in FY 2016 LPRAP: responsiveness to urgent needs of LGU, contribution to poverty reduction, responsiveness to CSO proposal . 58 5.9 Menu of Programs ...................................................................................................... 60 5.10. Role of the Community Mobilizer (CM) in the CSO Assembly and LPRAP workshop . 62 6. Grassroots Participation: CSO Representatives vs BDC Vice-Chairs ................................... 64 6.1. Participation of CSOs and BDC VCs in CSO Assembly and LPRAP workshop .............. 64 6.2. Advantages and disadvantages