SIE CY 2004 Volume 1 New

D
Deeppaarrttm
meenntt ooff FFiinnaannccee
B
BU
UR
RE
EA
AU
UO
OFF L
LO
OC
CA
AL
LG
GO
OV
VE
ER
RN
NM
ME
EN
NT
T FFIIN
NA
AN
NC
CE
E
LGU FISCAL AND

FINANCIAL PROFILE
SSTTA
ATTE
EM
ME
EN
NTT O
OF
F IIN
NC
CO
OM
ME
EA
AN
ND
DE
EX
XPPE
EN
ND
DIITTU
UR
RE
ESS
C
CYY 22000044 PPU
UBBLLIIC
CAATTIIO
ON
N
VOLUME I
The CY 2004 Statement of Income and Expenditure

is a maiden publication prepared by the
Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF)
of the Department of Finance (DOF).
For technical inquiries, please contact us at : (632) 5228771
Or check out our website www.blgf.gov.ph
TERMS OF USE OF BLGF PUBLICATION

The BLGF-DOF reserves its exclusive right to reproduce all its publications in
whatever form. Any part of this publication should not be reproduced, recopied,
lend or repackaged for other parties for any commercial purposes without written
permission from the BLGF-DOF. Any part of this publication may only be
reproduced for internal use of the recipient. Should any portion of the data in this
publication are to be included in a report / article, the source of the data, the title of
the publication and the BLGF-DOF as publisher should always be cited. Any
information derived from the manipulation of data contained in the publication will
no longer be the responsibility of BLGF DOF.
DISCLAIMER
All financial data related to the Statement of Income and Expenditures were
derived from the reports submitted by the LGUs and certified by their respective
Treasurers
Published by the
Department of Finance
Bureau of Local Government Finance
8th floor, EDPC Bldg., Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
Complex, Roxas Blvd., Pasay City
Philippines
January 2007
The CY 2004 Statement of Income and Expenditures Publication

is available only in electronic format (CDRom: Excel/Word/PDF)
and can be downloaded through www.blgf.gov.ph
MESSAGE
We take this opportune time to thank all the Local Government Units who have
been religiously submitting their Statement of Income and Expenditure (SIE) to the BLGF.
Since it was promulgated in CY 2001 as the primary data capture instrument to reflect
local fiscal and financial operations, submission has consistently increased, reaching its
peak at 98% in CY 2004. The manifestation of the genuine effort of cooperation has
prompted us to push for this publication. Hopefully, the policy makers, government
agencies, academe, local government units, and other stakeholders can utilize the
information in shaping up a better decentralization environment in the near future.
The maiden publication provides a compilation of CY 2004 SIE submissions and
CY 2001 SIE used as baseline data to measure the overall trends and directions of each
LGU. This period exhibited major fluctuations as a result of reenacted IRA, business tax
collection efforts, real property slowdown, low level borrowings and high positive surplus.
Through the collective efforts of the LGUs and the BLGF-DOF, policy directions and
interventions were set as safety nets to lessen the impact of global and political setbacks.
While a decrease of IRA shares by 2% followed by an increase of LGU revenues
indicates growth in local revenues, there is still continuing dependence of LGUs from IRA,
particularly the provinces and municipalities.
For the majority of the summary, the breakdown is between internally and
externally generated resources and profile for the year. There may not be much
elaboration as to the major income and expenditure clusters, but we shall be making
some meaningful adjustments in the next issuance. In fact, there are attempts of
interpreting and highlighting individual LGU performances as well as minor comparative
analyses between the performing LGUs. We shall continue to improve on the content and
focus on the more important and useful information for our end users.
We encourage the readers to provide feedbacks so we can continue to improve
the publication. You may include figures you may want to see so that these can be
integrated in the subsequent publication.
Looking forward, we will not stop with portrayal of collections, dependency ratios,
borrowings and surpluses. We will also pursue further analysis in collection efficiencies
and cost to collection ratios. If there will be success in reflecting the financial profile with
rating service delivery these will be accordingly published in the near future. This maiden
issue is the start of the reporting tradition, aimed at presenting the LGUs in their
aspiration to contribute to national development through transparency and accountability.
DIR. MA. PRESENTACION R. MONTESA

Executive Director
Bureau of Local Government Finance Department of Finance (Volume I)
FOREWORD
Local Government Units (LGUs) are critical pillars of national development even before
the Decentralization Act was passed in CY 1992. It was only through that Act that the
LGUs were formally empowered resulting in massive efforts to address the current
challenges. In synergy with Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF) Department
of Finance (DOF), from the period of transition to experimentation and innovation, the
LGUs diligently strived hard to mobilize resources and keep at pace with the national
development goals.
This LGU Fiscal and Financial Profile is a way to characterize the kind of efforts and
magnitude of fiscal and financial accomplishments that the LGUs exerted over so many
years. It is an attempt to reflect which among the provinces, cities and municipalities have
creditably performed, the range of activities they have engaged in, the achiever regional
groups and the LGU contributions to the overall fiscal efforts.
Among the many statistical data that will be presented, it may be of interest to know the
basic facts and figures such as per capita income, rate of expenditure, expenditure
directions and debt service. The idea is for BLGF to be able to provide pro-active advisory
to the LGUs and management on the policy formulation, and synchronize performance
based targeting for capacity building activities. It is the intent of the publication to become
a useful tool not only as reference but for a more active effort at the LGU level.
Since this is the maiden publication, readers will find deficiencies in the forms and
substance. We have exerted full efforts to minimize these deficiencies but in case of
oversight we will gladly accept constructive observations. You may send them to the
Bureau of Local Government Finance at the 8th floor, EDPC Building, Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas Complex, Roxas Blvd, Manila or email: www.blgf.gov.ph. Rest assured that
BLGF will try to keep pace with your expectations.
Thank you and may this publication be useful to the sector!!!
FROM THE EDITOR
ii
Table of Contents
(Volume 1)
Message from Exec. Dir. Ma. Presentacion R. Montesa
Foreword
ii
Table of Contents
Definition of Terms
2-3
Historical Antecedent
4-5
BLGF Mission Statement
BLGF Mandate
BLGF Logo
Organizational Chart
Notes on the Statement of Income and Expenditures
9-10
Statement of Income and Expenditure Analysis
11-29
Top Ten LGUs for each Category
30-41
Notes on the Income Classification of LGUs
42-43
Directory
Central Office
45-46
Regional Office
47-48
Publication Staff
49
Definition of Terms
I.
INCOME
Business Tax: The tax on business is an annual tax imposed on the act
of doing business within the LGU.
Extraordinary Receipts / Aids: foreign and domestic aid or grant
provided for the LGU in the form of money and/or materials
Income: consists of monies and resources of the local government which
are available for payment of expenditures, obligations or purposes
not specifically declared by law as accruing and chargeable to, or
payable from, any other fund.
Loans / Borrowings: proceeds of loans from foreign and domestic
sources and bond flotation; and transfer between funds and LGUs
Local Sources/Revenues: consist of income coming from locally
collected tax and fees.
Non-Tax Revenues: financial charges in the form of fees for the rent of
Government property, and purchase of Government permits and
forms
Other Receipts for Non-Tax Revenues: receipts not falling in any of the
other Non-Tax Revenue categories
Other Tax Revenues: financial charges in the form of taxation imposed
on transaction related to transfer of property/ ownership, practice of
profession requiring Government exam, and all inhabitants of the
Philippines 18 yrs old and above
Real Property Tax: this account is used to record the ad valorem tax
imposed on real properties and their improvements. Real Property
includes land, buildings, machinery and other improvements affixed
or attached to the real property.
Receipts from Economic Enterprises: Impositions for the operation of
economic enterprises in connection with the governments exercise
of its proprietary functions.
Regulatory Fees: fees derived from the exercise of the regulatory
powers of local governments (police power) such as Mayors Permit,
Slaughter Permit Fees, etc.
Service / User Charge: reasonable charges for services rendered
Shares from National Tax Collection: monetary allotment coming from
shares in various national level grants, aids and tax collection.
Tax Revenue: are compulsory contributions to finance government
operations. Taxes are computed at the rate established by law to a
defined base such as income, estate, imports, exports, foreign
exchange, etc., without any direct relation to the services rendered
to the individual assessed
Toll Fees: toll fees or charges for the use of any public road, pier or
wharf, waterway, bridge or telecommunications system.
II.
EXPENDITURE
III.
Debt Service: This sector covers expenditures for the repayment of loans,
interest and other service charges for debts of the LGU.
Economics: This sector refers to activities directed to the promotion and
enhancement and the attainment of desired economic growth.
Education: This sector covers expenditures for the support of schools and
education facilities; planning and manpower development; sports and
cultural preservation and enrichment.
General Public Service: This sector covers expenditures for services that are
indispensable to the existence of an organized state. This includes
executive and legislative services; overall financial and fiscal services; the
civil service; planning; conduct of foreign affairs; general research; public
order and safety and centralized services.
This excludes general
administration, regulation, research and other support services of
departments that can be identified under a separate sector.
Health: This sector covers expenditures for the health program including
medical, dental and health services; planning and administration of
nutrition programs, population and family planning programs and
administration of these programs.
Housing: This sector covers expenditures for the provision of housing and
sanitary services, promotion of community development, slum clearance,
zoning and control of pollution.
Labor: This sector covers expenditures for the formulation, implementation and
regulation of labor policies; promotion, placement, and regulation of
domestic and overseas employment and the maintenance of industrial
peace.
Other Purposes: This sector covers expenditures for all other services not
falling under any of the other sectors.
Social Service: This sector covers expenditures for the upliftment of
disadvantaged families and children; the rehabilitation of the physically
and socially handicapped; assistance to distressed and displaced
individuals and families; care of the aged and other welfare services and
payments for retirement, pension and other social security benefits. Also
included are expenditures for the provision of services and facilities for
recreational, religious and other social activities not elsewhere classified.
OTHERS
Income Class: social class dictated by the income / revenue generated

by each LGU.
Per Capita Income(Y): ( Y = Total Income Generated / Population),
average annual income of each individual under an LGU.
Rate of Expenditure (RE): (RE = [Expenditure / Income] x 100%)
average consumption of available resource in a year.
CHAPTER I:
The BUREAU OF LOCAL

GOVERNMENT FINANCE
Striving to provide policy direction and universal goals for development, the Bureau
of Local Government Finance (BLGF) is the sole Government office that is centered in
advocating and implementing the financial element of the Local Government Code.
The BLGF is one of the attached bureaus under the Department of Finance which
coordinates and links with all the provinces, cities and municipalities. It provides the LGUs
with the necessary support through capacity building, policy, training, and other services
which they need to implement the Local Government Code.
HISTORICAL ANTECEDENT
The past year saw the evolution of the Bureau of Local Government Finance from
a mere organizational unit of the Provincial and Municipal Finance Division of the
Department of Finance to its present status as a specialized bureau centered in servicing
the LGUs. The former unit was restructured into Local Government Finance Division
consisting of 35 personnel. On September 24, 1972, three days after the declaration of
Martial Law, PD No. 1 was enacted to effect reorganization and administrative reforms in
the government machinery thus the Local Government Finance Division evolved into
Local Government Finance Service.
On December 21, 1977, PD 1266 was enacted to provide for the establishment of
the Regional Offices of the Department of Finance and to further restructure the Local
Government Finance Service into the Office of the Local Government Finance. This
Decree was aimed at providing effective mechanism for the implementation, coordination
and monitoring of national and local fiscal plans and programs at the local level. The
Office of Local Government Finance, headed by a Director and two Assistant Directors for
Local Fiscal operations and the Real Property Tax Administration, exercise direct
supervision over the regional offices of the Department, as well as local treasury and
assessment offices at the provincial, city and municipal levels.
The issuance of Executive Order 766 on January 7, 1982 effected the turn-over of
supervision of the Real Property Tax Administration (RPTA) Program from the Ministry of
Local Government and Community Development (MLGCD) to the Ministry of Finance
(MOF) including the technical and administrative support of the project together with the
personnel, appropriations, equipment and records. The transfer of the administration of
the RPTA Project was a result of evaluation of the project conducted and the consensus
of the agencies directly involved in the project rationalizing the MOF as the agency
responsible for the administration of the real property tax as provided under the Real
Property Tax Code (PD 464).
The urgent demands of national economic recovery after the 1986 February
revolution necessitated changes in the organizational and functional structure of the
bureaucracy. Hence, on January 30, 1987, by virtue of Sec. 43 of the Executive Order
No. 127, the Department of Finance was reorganized, and the Office of the Local
Government Finance was elevated to a Bureau, headed by an Executive Director and
assisted by two Deputy Directors. The structure of the Bureau was adapted accordingly to
provide for the workforce required to carry out its expanded functions supportive of the
national development objectives. On July 25, 1987, Sec. 40 and 41 of Executive Order
No. 292 promulgated the Administrative Code of 1987 which stated that the Regional
Offices of each operating Bureau under the Department of Finance should be under the
technical supervision and control of the head of the Bureau to which they belong.
At present, the BLGF Central Office is composed of five major units the Internal
Administration Office; the Local Finance Policy Enforcement Service; the Intelligence and
Investigation Office; the Field Operations Examination Group; the Special Projects
Management Service and fourteen Regional Offices. The Bureau has a personnel
complement of 116 in the Central Office and 280 in the regional offices at present.
BLGF MISSION STATEMENT

The Bureau of Local Government Finance is a God-centered and service-oriented agency
that links the national and local governments. It is a change agent in the field of local
government finance, providing guidance and assistance to LGUs, the public and private
sectors, through responsive local fiscal policies, transforming LGUs into self-reliant and
financially viable communities. It is vigilant and dedicated to the continuous discipline,
development and professionalization of the Bureau and the local treasury and
assessment services
BLGF MANDATE
The following are the BLGF mandate under Section 43 of Executive Order No. 127, as
amended, PD 1914, other pertinent provisions of the Local Government Code of 1991
and other related laws:
Assist in the formulation and implementation of policies on local government

revenue administration and fund management;
Assist LGUs in the development and implementation of Real Property Tax

Administration (RPTA) projects;
Develop plans and programs for the improvement of tax collection enforcement
mechanism and credit utilization schemes at the local levels;
Exercise administrative and/or technical supervision over local treasury and

assessment operations;
Exercise line supervision over its regional offices and coordinate regional activities
to maximize manpower and financial resources; and
Perform such other appropriate functions as maybe assigned by the Secretary or

Undersecretary of Finance.
BLGF LOGO
Our Symbol expresses our ideology of
service to the Filipino people with the seal
of the Republic of the Philippines.
As the center, the core of the whole
guarded with two sea lions which symbolize
the relentless vigilance and commitment of
the Bureau in carrying out its objectives and
mission embedded in the mandate of the
whole
structural
consonance
with
institution
the
and
in
socio-economic
objectives of the national development

programs
The key and plume symbolizing the continuous efforts in harnessing local resources and
talents to achieve economic and financial stability for local treasury and assessment
offices.
The colors: gold for prosperity with equality, purple for valor and virility, red for bravery
and audacity, blue for truth and serenity, white for purity, and yellow symbolizing
collaborative efforts and unity to serve the people and the nation as a whole.
* For details and functions of each unit, visit our website www.blgf.gov.ph.
CHAPTER II
NOTES ON THE INCOME

AND EXPENDITURES
The Bureau of Local Government Finance was created to fully implement, through
efficient and equitable governance, the financial objectives of the Local Government
Code. One of its key mandates is to collect and maintain financial information on all
local government units, monitor LGU performance, and assist in the development
of LGUs access to private capital sources. This stirred the Bureau to design and
implement the Statement of Income and Expenditures (SIE) reporting system by virtue
of DOF Department Order 04-2003 dated January 3, 2003 as well as the
institutionalization of the SIE Manual.
The system developed aims to provide near
realistic and timely information on the fiscal performance of LGUs.

In order to achieve the goals of the reporting system, the BLGF- Local Revenue
Enforcement Division (REV) updates and maintains the SIE database with the guidance
of the SIE Manual by collection of baseline data submitted by all 79 Provinces, 117 Cities
and 1,501 Municipalities. Financial data from the SIE reports of the LGUs are processed
and managed for simulation to produce basic and vital information needed by the
management, other government agencies, private sector, the academe and other
researchers.
This maiden publication contains all LGU SIE data for CY 2004 (Cumulative Cash
Basis) covering financial records on Tax Revenue, Non-Tax Revenue, and other sources
of income such as Loans, Grants, Transfers, Borrowings and the Shares from the
National Government. CY 2001 SIE data were also utilized for comparative assessment
of the performance of the LGUs in terms of growth or decline in income generation.
Volume I of this report is divided into four chapters containing the Profile of the BLGF,
analysis of income and expenditure, Top 10 LGUs in terms of Income Generation and the
latest Income Reclassification of LGUs. Also included in this volume are the Definition of
Terms, Directory of Central and Regional Offices, and the Messages of DOF
Undersecretary Roberto B. Tan and Executive Director Ma. Presentacion R. Montesa.
Volume II contains the detailed statements of income and expenditures of all
provinces, cities and municipalities.
10
CHAPTER III
STATEMENT OF INCOME
AND EXPENDITURE
ANALYSIS
Development of LGU functions in the recent years has paved way to more
productive local units where accountability and responsibility matter. This direction led to
growth in income generation and broader sources of aids and grants to assist in
improving basic services. On the national level, this improvement led to an increase in
contribution to the overall fiscal effort and eventually became the second biggest
contributor of income.
In CY 2004, the total LGU revenue contribution to the national income reached
Php 14.8 billion, second only to the combined collection of GSIS/SSS/PHIC. This has
been the trend for the last three years when LGU contribution ballooned by more than
fifteen times its CY 2001 contribution. Capacity building efforts supported by advocacy of
various intervention programs that efficiently and equitably deliver LGU services has
proved valuable in this development.
A high compliance rate of SIE Submission. . .
The Statement of Income and Expenditure (SIE) is the primary data capture
instrument promulgated by the Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF) to monitor
the fiscal and financial performance of the local government units. It superseded the
Budget Operations Statement (BOS) with more details hoping to provide policy makers,
LGU creditors, researchers, financial officers, and other LGU stakeholders with complete,
accurate and timely information. It is a baseline for simulation, deeper analysis and
evidence based decisions.
The SIE was formally adopted in CY 2001 through an issuance with
corresponding information dissemination and seminar workshops. While the LGUs
experienced initial difficulties in changing to the new reporting formats, familiarity through
the years slowly gained momentum and compliance was at its peak in CY 2004
registering a rate of 98%. Out of 1,694 LGUs, 1,641 submitted their 4th Quarter SIE
reports for the year 2004 which became the basis for this Report.
Table 1. Compliance Rate of SIE Submission of LGUs: CYs 2001 2004
CY 2001
CY 2002
With
SIE
Report
79
116
1489
%
Rate
Province
City
Municipality
Total
No. of
LGUs
79
116
1496
TOTAL
1,691
1,684
CY 2003
With
SIE
Report
77
112
1378
%
Rate
100%
100%
99%
Total
No. of
LGUs
79
116
1496
99%
1,691
1,567
CY 2004
With
SIE
Report
78
115
1413
%
Rate
97%
97%
92%
Total
No. of
LGUs
79
116
1496
93%
1,691
1,606
With
SIE
Report
77
116
1448
%
Rate
99%
99%
94%
Total
No. of
LGUs
79
116
1499
95%
1,694
1,641
97%
11
97%
100%
97%
Major sources of income of LGU. . .

Incomes of LGUs can be classified in two main types, namely: (1) revenues; and
(2) receipts. Revenues are normally those that are related to taxation while receipts are
that of non-tax related. Incomes can also be categorized as regular income to include
IRA, taxes, fees and charges which are regularly collected and accrued to the general
fund of the LGUs while sale of assets and one time revenues are non-regular income.
According to source, incomes are either internally or externally obtained. Locally or
internally sourced income includes tax revenues from real property, business and other
local taxes; and non-tax receipts from fees and charges, government business
operations, and other miscellaneous income. On the other hand, externally sourced
income includes the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA), shares under special laws, grants
and aids and other transfers to LGUs. Table 2 enumerates the income structure of LGUs.
Table 2. Income Structure of LGUs
EXTERNALLY SOURCED
INTERNALLY SOURCED
Local Source
Tax Revenues
Real Property Tax
Tax on Business
Other Taxes
Non-Tax Revenues
Regulatory Fees
Service/User Charges
Receipts from Economic Enterprises
Toll Fees
Other Receipts
Share from National Tax Collection

Internal Revenue Allotment
Local Govt Stabilization & Equalization Fund
Local Affirmative Action Project
Priority Development Assistance Fund
Share in National Wealth
Share in Tabacco Excise Tax
Share in Expanded Value Added Tax
Share from Economic Zone
Others
Extraordinary Receipts/Grants/Aids
Grants (Foreign or Domestic)
National Aids
Share from Lotto
Rebates from MMDA Contribution
Other Extraordinary Receipts
Loans and Borrowings
Foreign
Domestic
Bond Floatation
Inter-Local Transfers
Overall Revenue Performance of LGUs in CY 2004

As shown in table 3, the LGUs aggregate income reached Php 178.66 billion as of
CY 2004. Since CY 2001, the Sector is experiencing positive growth, however, at a
decelerating rate. From a high of 15.7% in CY2001-02, growth rate has declined to a
meager 0.9% in CY 2003-04. This was due to the decline of the more dominant externally
sourced income particularly the internal revenue allotment.
A positive note for CY 2004 is the strong performance of the LGUs in generating
internal resource, increasing local revenues by 5.3% while external sources declined by
1.1%. The steady increment, although decelerating, manifest the growing efforts by LGUs
to collect internally resourced revenue despite the economic slowdown, an attempt to
counter the syndrome of declining IRA. Although it is not yet the trend, it may be
significant to note that share of internally sourced income increased to 32.3%, the highest
in four years.
12
Table 3. Revenue Performance of LGUs (Local Sources vis vis

External Sources): CY 2001-2004
2001
2002
2003
2004
AVERAGE
138,066.11
43,274.65
94,791.46
159,709.91
49,639.50
110,070.41
177,327.07
54,933.13
122,393.94
178,899.84
57,849.96
121,049.88
163,500.73
51,424.31
112,076.42
100.0%
31.3%
68.7%
100.0%
31.1%
68.9%
100.0%
31.0%
69.0%
100.0%
32.3%
67.7%
100.0%
31.4%
68.6%
15.7%
14.7%
16.1%
11.0%
10.7%
11.2%
0.9%
5.3%
-1.1%
9.2%
10.2%
8.7%
AMOUNT (in PMillion)

Total Revenue
Local Sources
External Sources
% DISTRIBUTION
Total Revenue
Local Sources
External Sources
GROWTH RATE
Total Revenue
Local Sources
External Sources
Internal/Locally sourced income continuously increased over the past four years
with the highest level achieved in CY 2004. Tax revenues remained to be the lifeblood of
local revenues with contributions no less than 75% and steadily increasing but at a
decelerating rate. Among few assistance which National Agencies like the BLGF
contributed to the LGUs include trainings in updating of the local revenue code (385
LGUs assisted from CY 2001-2004), and resource mobilization (248 LGUs assisted).
While positive growth were noted, it may be significant to point out that the growth
of 5.3% is almost equal to the inflation rate for the year. This means that there is no real
growth experienced at the local level. LGUs therefore need to exert additional effort to set
the increment higher than the inflation rates. The challenge therefore is for the oversight
agencies like the BLGF to accelerate its assistance program in mobilizing internally
generated income.
Table 4. Performance of LGUs (Tax Revenue vis vis Non-Tax
Revenue): CY 2001-2004
2001
2002
2003
2004
AVERAGE

Total Local Sources
Tax Revenue
Non-Tax Receipts
43,274.65
32,786.09
10,488.56
49,639.50
38,505.22
11,134.28
54,933.13
41,836.82
13,096.31
57,849.96
43,467.19
14,382.77
51,424.31
39,148.83
12,275.48
100.0%
75.8%
24.2%
100.0%
77.6%
22.4%
100.0%
76.2%
23.8%
100.0%
75.1%
24.9%
100.0%
76.2%
23.8%
14.7%
17.4%
6.2%
10.7%
8.7%
17.6%
5.3%
3.9%
9.8%
10.2%
10.0%
11.2%
% DISTRIBUTION
Total Local Sources
Tax Revenue
Non-Tax Receipts
GROWTH RATE
Total Local Sources
Tax Revenue
Non-Tax Receipts
Local tax revenues are forced contributions to finance government operations.

These are imposed at the rate established by law (through a local ordinance) applied to a
defined base. The biggest revenue sources of LGUs are the real property and business
taxes.
13
For the year 2004, the aggregate income of all LGUs from taxation is Php 43.464
billion, where 49.6% comes from real property tax, 44.9% from business taxes and the
remaining portion from other taxes. The share of business taxes to LGU revenue
performance gained by 2.9% while the real property tax share decreased by 2.7%. The
effort of Cities to generate resources such as updating local revenue codes and
computerization can explain the huge increase in business tax. On the other hand, there
are clear setbacks in real property tax as can be manifested by the declining rate of LGUs
conducting general revision. In CY 1992, 88% of the Cities and Provinces revised the real
property assessment but through the years, compliance rate declined significantly to 24%
in CY 2004. This was further aggravated by some LGUs granting real property tax
amnesties and condonation prior to an election.
Table 5. Tax Revenue Performance of LGUs : CY 2001-2004
2001
2002
2003
2004
AVERAGE

Total Tax Revenue
Real Property Tax
Basic
SEF
Business Taxes
Other Taxes*
32,786.09
16,842.82
8,510.48
8,332.34
13,784.10
2,159.17
38,505.22
19,531.27
10,069.25
9,462.02
16,705.23
2,268.72
41,836.82
21,877.77
11,267.56
10,610.21
17,574.51
2,384.54
43,467.19
21,569.11
10,900.07
10,669.04
19,511.60
2,386.48
39,148.83
19,955.24
10,186.84
9,768.40
16,893.86
2,299.73
100.0%
51.4%
26.0%
25.4%
42.0%
6.6%
100.0%
50.8%
26.2%
24.6%
43.4%
5.9%
100.0%
52.3%
26.9%
25.4%
42.0%
5.7%
100.0%
49.6%
25.1%
24.5%
44.9%
5.5%
100.0%
51.0%
26.0%
25.0%
43.1%
5.9%
17.4%
16.0%
18.3%
13.6%
21.2%
5.1%
8.7%
12.0%
11.9%
12.1%
5.2%
5.1%
3.9%
-1.4%
-3.3%
0.6%
11.0%
0.1%
10.0%
8.9%
9.0%
8.7%
12.5%
3.4%
% DISTRIBUTION
Total Tax Revenue
Real Property Tax
Basic
SEF
Business Taxes
Other Taxes*
GROWTH RATE
Total Tax Revenue
Real Property Tax
Basic
SEF
Business Taxes
Other Taxes*
Non-tax receipts include the aggregate of regulatory fees, service/user charges,

receipts from economic enterprises, toll fees and others. On the national level, LGUs
posted a 9.8% increase in CY 2004 which is much higher than the percentage increase in
tax revenue collections.
Table 6 also highlights the emergence of economic enterprises as an earner under
the non-tax receipts as it produced more than Php 6 billion in collection, the highest in its
account. This is due to an influx of borrowed and financed economic enterprises such as
markets, slaughterhouses or bus terminals. However, while it is true that economic
enterprise produced income, it may be interesting to verify if the enterprises financed
through borrowings are revenue positive to benefit the LGUs.
Cursory assessment of the figures also points to the inability of LGUs to properly
price their services because collections from service fees/user charges are extremely low
producing, with only 13.4% of the account in CY 2004. In the case of garbage fees as an
example, cost for cleaning the surroundings, and collecting and disposing waste are more
than the amount of aggregated resources generated by all LGUs. Such services are
provided only because they are heavily subsidized by the Government. The oversight
agencies may initiate an in-depth review of the cost-benefit of LGUs delivery of services
14
and operations of economic enterprises. This should not be the case in the long-run since
the aim of the LGC is to make the LGUs self-sufficient to reduce the burden in the
national government.
Table 6. Non-Tax Revenue Performance of LGUs : CY 2001-2004
2001
2002
2003
2004
AVERAGE

Total Non-Tax Revenue
Regulatory Fees
Receipts from Economic Ent.
Other Receipts
10,488.56
2,679.55
1,525.94
3,487.74
2,795.33
11,134.28
2,893.59
1,300.06
4,539.70
2,400.93
13,096.31
3,424.64
1,634.42
5,909.57
2,127.68
14,382.77
3,396.71
1,920.30
6,319.65
2,746.11
12,275.48
3,098.62
1,595.18
5,064.17
2,517.51
100.0%
25.5%
14.5%
33.3%
26.7%
100.0%
26.0%
11.7%
40.8%
21.6%
100.0%
26.1%
12.5%
45.1%
16.2%
100.0%
23.6%
13.4%
43.9%
19.1%
100.0%
25.3%
13.0%
40.8%
20.9%
6.2%
8.0%
-14.8%
30.2%
-14.1%
17.6%
18.4%
25.7%
30.2%
-11.4%
9.8%
-0.8%
17.5%
6.9%
29.1%
11.2%
8.5%
9.5%
22.4%
1.2%
% DISTRIBUTION
Regulatory Fees
Other Receipts*
GROWTH RATE
Regulatory Fees
Other Receipts
The amount of IRA actually received by provinces, cities and municipalities

surprisingly declined in CY 2004 from Php 122.39 billion to Php 121.05 billion. The
reenacted budget compounded by the loan deductions may have contributed to the
decrease. It is also important to take note that aside from the IRA, the rest of the LGU
shares are negligible and erratically structured. This was due to the difficulty in
estimation, and release procedures.
Borrowings have reached the Php 3.3 billion mark thrice in 4 years. This trend
shows that borrowing is fast becoming a popular mode of financing development project.
This shows that more LGUs have performed since they already have the borrowing
capacity to avail of higher loanable amount. It also indicates that more Provinces, Cities
and Municipalities are also primed at having development projects to provide better basic
services to their locality.
15
Table 7. External Source of LGU Receipts: CY 2001-2004

2002
2003
2004
AVERAGE
94,791.46
88,285.02
87,146.09
396.39
742.54
1,081.20
4,929.19
496.05
110,070.41
107,595.58
107,063.80
7.20
292.84
231.74
592.04
1,415.65
467.14
122,393.94
116,472.02
113,917.46
523.29
385.56
1,140.25
26.65
478.40
0.41
1,796.04
3,287.82
838.06
121,049.88
115,402.61
113,103.88
296.72
371.94
524.05
9.01
1,089.07
7.94
1,013.82
3,358.31
1,275.14
112,076.44
106,938.82
105,307.81
206.80
361.68
659.65
8.92
391.87
2.09
1,120.78
3,247.74
769.10
100.0%
93.1%
91.9%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
1.1%
5.2%
0.5%
100.0%
97.8%
97.3%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
1.3%
0.4%
100.0%
95.2%
93.1%
0.4%
0.3%
0.4%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
1.5%
2.7%
0.7%
100.0%
95.3%
93.4%
0.2%
0.3%
0.9%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
2.8%
1.1%
100.0%
95.3%
93.9%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
3.0%
0.7%
16.1%
21.9%
22.9%
0.0%
-26.1%
0.0%
-68.8%
0.0%
0.0%
-45.2%
-71.3%
-5.8%
11.2%
8.2%
6.4%
7167.9%
31.7%
0.0%
392.0%
0.0%
0.0%
203.4%
132.2%
79.4%
-1.1%
-0.9%
-0.7%
-43.3%
-3.5%
127.6%
-54.0%
-66.2%
1836.6%
-43.6%
2.1%
52.2%
8.7%
9.7%
9.5%
3562.3%
0.7%
127.6%
89.7%
-66.2%
1836.6%
38.2%
21.0%
41.9%
2001
Total External Source
Shares from Natl Tax Collection
IRA
1/
Special Allocations
National Wealth
Economic Zone
Tobacco Excise Tax
EVAT
2/
Other Receipts
% DISTRIBUTION
IRA
1/
Special Allocation
National Wealth
Economic Zone
Tobacco Excise Tax
EVAT
2/
Other Receipts
GROWTH RATE
IRA
1/
Special Allocation
National Wealth
Economic Zone
Tobacco Excise Tax
EVAT
2/
Other Receipts
A. INCOME BY LEVEL OF LGUs

1. Income Generated by LGUs
The provinces posted a total income of Php 41.15 billion in CY 2004 which is about
0.5% lower compared to the income figure registered in CY 2003. The decrease in
income attributed to a decrease in the share from externally sourced income particularly
the internal revenue allotment by 1.3%. The income from tax revenues increased by 4.3%
and non-tax revenues by 29.4%, however, this performance failed to offset the negative
increment from IRA. Provinces remained too dependent on the IRA by some 85% of
income.
16
Table 8. Revenue Performance of Provinces: CY 2001-2004

2001
2002
2003
2004
AVERAGE
33,698.97
5,172.43
3,209.38
1,963.05
28,526.54
25,956.80
0.00
37,800.50
5,197.02
3,334.72
1,862.30
32,603.48
31,864.47
0.00
41,360.05
5,445.22
3,446.36
1,998.86
35,914.83
33,571.84
0.00
41,148.11
6,180.94
3,594.00
2,586.94
34,967.17
33,149.99
0.00
38,501.92
5,498.91
3,396.12
2,102.79
33,003.01
31,135.78
0.00
100.0%
15.3%
100.0%
13.7%
100.0%
13.2%
100.0%
15.0%
100.0%
14.3%
84.7%
86.3%
86.8%
85.0%
85.7%
12.2%
0.5%
3.9%
-5.1%
14.3%
22.8%
0.0%
9.4%
4.8%
3.3%
7.3%
10.2%
5.4%
0.0%
-0.5%
13.5%
4.3%
29.4%
-2.6%
-1.3%
0.0%
7.0%
6.3%
3.8%
10.5%
7.3%
9.0%
0.0%

Total Revenue
Local Sources
Tax Revenue
Non-Tax Revenue
External Sources
IRA
Others
% DISTRIBUTION
Total Revenue
Local Sources
Tax Revenue
Non-Tax Revenue
External Sources
IRA
Others
GROWTH RATE
Total Revenue
Local Sources
Tax Revenue
Non-Tax Revenue
External Sources
IRA
Others
The cities can be considered as the best performing LGU group posted a total
income of Php 74.15 billion in CY 2004, or an annual growth of 2.0%. Partly attributable
to the extensive revenue raising powers granted to the Cities under the Local
Government Code and their extensive collection efforts, income from tax revenues and
non-tax receipts increased by 3.3% and 4.8% respectively. As an LGU group, Cities IRA
dependency ratio is below 50%. In fact, they have consistently reduced their dependency
from IRA through the last four years.
Table 9. Revenue Performance of Cities: CY 2001-2004
2001
2002
2003
2004
AVERAGE

Total Revenue
Local Sources
Tax Revenue
Non-Tax Revenue
External Sources
IRA
Others*
57,062.83
28,507.93
23,462.11
5,045.82
28,554.90
25,329.29
64,572.84
33,293.58
27,894.33
5,399.25
31,279.26
30,106.37
72,720.59
37,604.22
30,840.60
6,763.62
35,116.37
32,018.34
74,147.57
38,952.62
31,862.92
7,089.70
35,194.95
31,878.30
67,125.96
34,589.59
28,514.99
6,074.60
32,536.37
29,833.08
100.0%
50.0%
100.0%
51.6%
100.0%
51.7%
100.0%
52.5%
100.0%
51.4%
50.0%
48.4%
48.3%
47.5%
48.6%
13.2%
16.8%
18.9%
7.0%
9.5%
18.9%
0.0%
12.6%
12.9%
10.6%
25.3%
12.3%
6.4%
0.0%
2.0%
3.6%
3.3%
4.8%
0.2%
-0.4%
0.0%
9.2%
11.1%
10.9%
12.4%
7.3%
8.3%
0.0%
% DISTRIBUTION
Total Revenue
Local Sources
Tax Revenue
Non-Tax Revenue
External Sources
IRA
Others*
GROWTH RATE
Total Revenue
Local Sources
Tax Revenue
Non-Tax Revenue
External Sources
IRA
Others*
17
The municipalities posted a total income of Php 63.604 billion, an increase of 0.6%
compared to Year 2003. Aggregate Income from tax and non-tax revenues increased by
6.1% and 8.6% respectively. Dependency from IRA remained high at about 80%, which is
slightly a better ratio compared to provinces.
Table 10. Revenue Performance of Municipalities: CY 2001-2004
2001
2002
2003
2004
AVERAGE
47,304.31
9,594.29
6,114.60
3,479.69
37,710.02
35,860.00
0.00
57,336.57
11,148.90
7,276.17
3,872.73
46,187.67
45,092.96
0.00
63,246.43
11,883.69
7,549.86
4,333.83
51,362.74
48,327.28
0.41
63,604.16
12,716.40
8,010.27
4,706.13
50,887.76
48,075.59
1.90
57,872.87
11,335.82
7,237.73
4,098.10
46,537.05
44,338.96
0.58
100.0%
20.3%
100.0%
19.4%
100.0%
18.8%
100.0%
20.0%
100.0%
19.6%
79.7%
80.6%
81.2%
80.0%
80.4%
21.2%
16.2%
19.0%
11.3%
22.5%
25.7%
10.3%
6.6%
3.8%
11.9%
11.2%
7.2%
0.6%
7.0%
6.1%
8.6%
-0.9%
-0.5%
363.4%
10.7%
9.9%
9.6%
10.6%
10.9%
10.8%
363.4%

Total Revenue
Local Sources
Tax Revenue
Non-Tax Revenue
External Sources
IRA
Others*
% DISTRIBUTION
Total Revenue
Local Sources
Tax Revenue
Non-Tax Revenue
External Sources
IRA
Others*
GROWTH RATE
Total Revenue
Local Sources
Tax Revenue
Non-Tax Revenue
External Sources
IRA
Others*
Table 11. Average Percent Distribution and Growth Rate of Revenue: CY 2001-2004
TOTAL
PROVINCES
CITIES
MUNICIPALITIES
100.0%
14.3%
61.9%
38.1%
85.7%
94.3%
0.0%
100.0%
51.4%
82.5%
17.5%
48.6%
91.7%
0.0%
100.0%
19.6%
63.9%
36.1%
80.4%
95.3%
0.0%
7.0%
6.3%
3.8%
10.5%
7.3%
9.0%
0.0%
9.2%
11.1%
10.9%
12.4%
7.3%
8.3%
0.0%
10.7%
9.9%
9.6%
10.6%
10.9%
10.8%
363.4%
AVERAGE % DISTRIBUTION
Total Revenue
Local Sources
Tax Revenue
Non-Tax Revenue
External Sources
IRA
Others*
AVERAGE GROWTH RATE

Total Revenue
Local Sources
Tax Revenue
Non-Tax Revenue
External Sources
IRA
Others*
18
1. a. Income Profile of Local Government Units

Chart 1 shows the aggregate
income profile of all LGUs. Fifty Nine
and 67/100 percent (59.67%) of the
total income comes from the share
from natl tax collection/IRA. Only
29.96% and 7.45% comes from tax
revenue and non-tax revenue
respectively. Loans and borrowings
remained at low 1.72% while inter
local transfers and extra ordinary
receipts are negligible. (Chart 1)
Chart 1. Income Profile of All LGUs Combined
59.67%
0.53%
1.72%
2.38%
0.66%
7.45%
29.96%
Tax Revenue
Non-Tax Revenue
Share from National Coll
Extra Ordinary Receipts/Grants
Inter-Local Transfer
1. b. Income Profile of Provinces

Provinces: Locally sourced income
from tax revenue and non-tax revenue
of provinces only accounts for 8.75 %
and 6.30% respectively of the
aggregate income of the province.
Eighty One and 63/100 percent
(81.63%) of the total income of
provinces comes from the share from
national tax collection/IRA. Loans and
borrowings and other sources of
income are negligible. (Chart 2)
Chart 2. Income Profile of Provinces
81.63%
0.91%
1.60%
2.41%
8.75%
0.80%
6.30%
Tax Revenue
Non-Tax Revenue
Loans and Borrow ings
1. c. Income Profile of Cities

Cities: In contrast to the provinces,
the share from national tax
collection/IRA of cities only accounts
for 43.75% of the total income,
making them not IRA dependent.
Locally sourced income from tax
revenue and non-tax receipts
accounts for 42.97% and 9.56%
respectively. Cities registered a
slightly higher but low level of
borrowings. (Chart 3)
Chart 3. Income Profile of Cities

43.75%
0.26%
2.30%
3.45%
9.56%
1.15%
42.97%
Tax Revenue
Non-Tax Revenue
19
1. d. Income Profile of Municipalities

Municipalities.
Similar to the
provinces, the municipalities are highly
dependent on the share from national
collection/IRA. Total share from national
tax collection/IRA accounts for 77.58%
of the total income. Income from tax
revenue and non-tax revenue only
accounts for 12.62% and 7.41%
respectively. Borrowings remained at
low 1.52%.(Chart 4)
Chart 4. Income Profile of Municipalities
77.58%
0.73%
1.52%
1.66%
12.62%
0.14%
7.41%
Tax Revenue
Non-Tax Revenue
2. Income of LGUs from Tax Revenue

Provinces. The real property tax is still the biggest earner among the provincial
taxes producing 81.9% of total taxes generated in CY 2004. Despite the many
business taxes allocated by the Local Government Code for the Provinces, these
have very limited potentials. The income of provinces from tax revenue increased
by 4.18% over last years tax revenue mainly due to the increase of business tax
by 14.06% with the help of real property tax by only 3.73% while other local taxes
decreased by 3.60%.
Cities. The cities increased income by almost nine times higher than the
provinces in CY 2004. This became possible because aside from the fact that
Cities can impose the provincial and municipal taxes, the tax rates with certain
exceptions can be increased further by 50%.
Likewise, the platform of revenue raising has already changed for the Cities.
Collections are more from business taxes than real property taxes posting an
increase in income from tax revenue by 3.11%. Income from tax on business
reached the Php 15.6 billion mark surpassing the previous years collection by
12.36%. While income from real property tax decreased by 4.79% or Php 14.6
billion. Income from other local taxes, which is only about 0.5% of total income
generated, also decreased by 1.46%.
Municipalities. The municipalities posted collections of Php 8.01 billion for CY
2004 or an increase in income from tax revenues by 3.97% compared to year
2003. Revenues from real property tax is slightly higher than business taxes
registering a collection of Php 21.57 billion, an increase of 0.29%. Tax on
business, which grew by 7.9%, registered a collection of Php 19.51 billion. Other
local taxes increased also by 8.5%.
Interesting is the discrepancy in the growth rates of real property and
business taxes. The real property tax, which is supposed to be within the normal
cycle of general revision did not progress very well. This is symptomatic of the
declining popularity of the said tax base and the ambivalence of the LGUs to revise
existing assessments. Statistics showed that general revision was conducted by
20
only 24% of the LGUs which maybe accounted for the minimal increase in
revenue. On the other hand, the 7.9% growth in business taxes manifests some
positive actions done by the LGUs. This may imply passage of local ordinances
updating their respective revenue codes or attempts to enhance efficiency
because CY 2004 is still a period affected by economic slow down. As the trend
will continue, even the municipalities may eventually experience the shift in the
revenue platform from real property to business taxes.
Table 12. Summary of Tax Revenues of LGUs for CY 2004
Tax Revenue
2004
Province
3,590,319,922.35
Real Property Tax

Tax on Business
Other Local Taxes
2,940,607,775.66
388,264,258.83
261,447,887.86
City
31,862,910,018.84
Real Property Tax

Tax on Business
Other Local Taxes
14,602,115,284.81
15,622,706,270.25
1,638,088,463.78
Municipality
8,010,645,085.72
Real Property Tax

Tax on Business
Other Local Taxes
4,024,840,219.66
3,499,743,164.49
486,061,701.57
Total
43,463,875026.91
Real Property Tax

Tax on Business
Other Local Taxes
21,567,563,280.13
19,510,713,693.57
2,385,598,053.21
2.a. Income of Provinces from Tax Revenue

At Forty Nine Percent (49%),
receipts from real property tax
collection still remains the main
source of income from tax revenue
of LGUs. This is followed by income
from tax on business at 45% and
income from other local taxes
contributed .06 % of the total
collection from tax revenue. (Chart
5)
Chart 5. Percentage Distribution of Income from Tax

Revenue
5%
50%
45%
Real Property Tax
Tax on Business
Other Local Taxes
2.b. Income of Provinces from Tax Revenue

Provinces. Among the LGUs,
the provinces are heavily
dependent from the income
from real property tax at 82%.
Income from tax on business
and
other
local
taxes
contributed 11% and 7%
respectively. This is due to
the fact that the taxing powers
of provinces are limited
compared to cities and
municipalities. (Chart 6)
Chart 6. Percentage Distribution of Income from Tax Revenue

of Provinces
11%
7%
82%
Real Proper t y Tax
Tax on Business
Ot her Local Taxes
21
2.c. Income of Cities from Tax Revenue

Cities.
Income from real
property tax and tax on business
contributed to 49% and 46%
respectively to the income on tax
revenue.
This indicates that
cities are not totally dependent
on income from real property
tax. Income from other local
taxes only contributed a meager
5% (Chart 7)
Chart 7. Percentage Distribution of Income from Tax

Revenue of Cities
5%
46%
49%
Real Propert y Tax
Tax on Business
Ot her Local Taxes
2.d. Income of Municipalities from Tax Revenue

Municipalities:
Income from
real property tax contributed
50%
of
the
income
of
municipalities on tax revenue,
while income from tax on
business and other local taxes
contributed
44% and
6%
respectively. Compared to the
provinces, the municipalities
have bigger tax base.
Chart 8 . Percentage Distribution of Income from Tax

Revenue of Municipalities
6%
50%
44%
Real Propert y Tax
Tax on Business
Other Local Taxes
3. Income of LGUs From Non-Tax Revenue

Provinces. The provinces registered an over-all increase of 47.0% in non-tax
receipts. The increase is attributed to a relatively high collection on toll fees.
Collection of service/user charges, registration fees, receipts from economic
enterprise and other receipts also increased. Since it is also noted that most LGUs
are not properly pricing their services and facilities, this account is expected to
produce more in the near future.
Cities. Total income from non tax receipts of Cities reached Php 7.09 billion in CY
2004. Moderate increase of 8.0 % was registered. Economic enterprises, despite
producing some amounts are expected to produce more since many Cities have
borrowed funds to support the construction and management of economic
enterprises at the LGU level. Hospitals aside from the traditional market,
slaughterhouses and bus terminals have been given attention by many LGUs.
User charges given that it will be passed on at full cost should also be expected to
produce revenues. Surprisingly, the toll fees and miscellaneous receipts show big
leap at 91% and 22% growth respectively.
22
Municipalities. The municipalities also registered a slight increase of 8.0% in the

collection on non-tax revenues manifesting the same behavior as cities. Given the
amounts of income from non-tax receipts, it may be interesting to review the
performances of local economic enterprises and the manner by which LGUs pass
on user charges to their constituents.
Table 13. Summary of Non-Tax Revenues of LGUs for CY 2004
Non-Tax Revenue
2004
Province
Reg Fee
User Charge
Economic Enterprise
Toll Fee
Other Receipts
City
Reg Fee
% Inc/Dec
2,582,904,741.26
47%
215,904,649.52
27%
324,094,696.64
48%
1,066,381,903.16
3%
26,201,961.10
100%
950,321,530.84
34%
7,089,705,861.97
8%
2,045,626,628.41
5%
User Charge
1,060,924,107.86
8%
Economic Enterprise
2,818,073,736.93
5%
4,727,023.94
91%
1,160,354,364.83
22%
Toll Fee
Other Receipts
Municipality
4,703,742,387.67
8%
Reg Fee
1,135,315,297.10
3%
User Charge
Economic Enterprise
Toll Fee
Other Receipts
Total
534,668,128.07
13%
2,430,068,554.01
11%
39,291,767.49
95%
564,398,641.00
-6%
14,376,352,990.90
15%
Reg Fee
3,396,846,575.03
6%
User Charge
1,919,686,932.57
16%
Economic Enterprise
6,314,524,194.10
7%
70,220,752.53
97%
2,675,074,536.67
20%
Toll Fee
Other Receipts
3.a. Income of LGUs from Non-Tax Revenue

Income from Receipts from
Economic
Enterprises
contributed 43% of the total
income from non-tax revenue of
LGUs. This is followed by
income from regulatory fees,
service/user charges and others
receipts
which
contributed
23.63%, 13.35 % and 18.61%
respectively.
Chart 9. Percentage Distribution of Income from Non-Tax

Revenue
18.61%
0.49%
13.35
43.92%
Regulatory Fee
Economic Enterprise
Other Receipts
23.63%
User Charge
Toll Fee
23
3.b. Income of Provinces from Tax Revenue

Revenue of Province
Provinces. Forty Three Percent

(41.29%) of the total income on
NonTax Revenue of provinces
came from Receipt from Economic
Enterprises and followed by other
receipts and service/user charges
at 36.79% and 12.55% respectively.
Income from regulatory fees only
contributed 8.36% to the total nontax revenue of the provinces. This
is due to the fact that most of the
regulations for impositions of nontax revenue are done at the city and
municipal levels.
8.36%
12.55%
36.79%
1.01%
41.29%
Regulatory Fee
Economic Enterprise
Other Receipts
User Charge
Toll Fee
3.c. Income of Provinces from Tax Revenue

Revenue of Cities
Cities. Similar to the provinces,

the major source of non-tax
revenues of cities for this year
came from receipts from
economic
enterprise.
Regulatory
fees
and
service/user
contributed
28.85%
and
14.96%
respectively to income on nontax revenue.
16.37%
0.07%
39.75%
28.85%
14.96%
Regulatory Fee
Economic Enterprise
Other Receipts
User Charge
Toll Fee
3.d. Income of Provinces from Tax Revenue

Municipalities. Receipts from
economic enterprise registered
a 51.66% of the total income
of municipalities on non-tax
revenue. This is followed by
regulatory fees and other
receipts at 24.14% and
12.00% respectively.

Revenue of Municipalities
12.00%
0.84%
24.14%
11.37%
51.66%
Regulatory Fee
Economic Enterprise
Other Receipts
User Charge
Toll Fee
B. Expenditures of Local Government Units

The functional classification of expenditures focuses on the purpose for which
expenditures of the LGUs are made. The general purposes of LGUs outlays are
categorized into: General Public Services, Education, Health, Nutrition and Population
24
Control, Labor and Employment, Housing & Community Development, Social Security /
Social Services & Welfare, Economic Services, Debt Service, Other Purposes.
Expenditure of LGUs by Sector For Year 2004
General Public Services. This sector covers expenditures for services that
are indispensable to the existence of the LGUs. This includes executive and
legislative services, overall financial and fiscal services, planning, affairs,
general research, public order and safety and centralized services. A total of
Php 64.8 billion or 39.91% of the combined total budget were spent by the
LGUs (Provinces, cities and municipalities combined) for General Public
Services
Education. This sector covers expenditure for the support of schools and
education facilities; planning and manpower development; sports; and cultural
preservation and enrichment. A total of Php 10.7 billion or 2.08% of their
combined total budget were spent by the LGUs (Provinces, cities and
municipalities combined) for the Department of Education.
Health, Nutrition and Population Control. This sector covers expenditures
for the health program including medical, dental and health services; planning
and administration of nutrition programs, population and family planning
programs; and administration of these programs. The LGUs (Provinces, cities
and municipalities combined) spent 10.91% of their combined total budget or
Php 17.52 billion for health, nutrition and population control.
Labor and Employment. This sector covers expenditures for the formulation,
implementation and regulation of labor policies; promotion, placement and
regulation of employment; and the maintenance of industrial peace. The LGUs
(Provinces, cities and municipalities combined) spent Php 115.7 millions or
0.07% of the total budget for labor and employment.
Housing and Community Development. This sector covers expenditures for
the provision of housing and sanitary services, promotion of community
development, slum clearance, zoning and control of population. The LGUs
(Provinces, cities and municipalities combined) spent 2.08% of their combined
total budget or Php 3.3 billion for housing and community development.
Social Security / Social Services and Welfare.
This sector covers
expenditures for the upliftment of disadvantaged families and children, the
rehabilitation of the physically and socially handicapped, assistance to
distressed and displaced individuals and families, care of the aged and other
welfare services. Also included are expenditures for the provision of services
and facilities for the recreational, religious and other social activities not
elsewhere classified. The LGUs (Provinces, cities and municipalities combined)
spent 2.41% of their combined total budget or Php 3.86 billion for social
security/social services and welfare.
Economic Services. This sector refers to activities directed to the promotion
and enhancement and the attainment of desired economic growth. The LGUs
(Provinces, cities and municipalities combined) spent 15.96% of their combined
total budget or Php 25.62 billion for economic services.
25
Debt Service. This sector covers expenditures for repayment of loans, interest
and other service charges for debts of the LGU. The LGUs (Provinces, cities
and municipalities combined) spent 2.76% of their combined total budget or
Php 4.43 billion for debt service.
Other Purpose. This sector covers expenditures for all other services not
falling under any of the other sectors. The LGUs (Provinces, cities and
municipalities combined) spent 19.23% of their combined total budget or Php
30.88 billion for other purpose.
Table 14. Summary of Exoenditures of LGUs for CY 2004
LGU's Expenditure
Province
General Public Service
2004
37,435,594,331.08
11,470,949,737.84
Department of Education
1,951,072,990.58
Health, Nutrition, Population Control
7,550,240,857.29
Labor and Employment

Housing and Community Development
Social Security/Social Services and Welfare
19,085,255.78
328,256,489.45
570,440,250.70
Economic Services
6,249,884,385.08
Debt Service
1,076,636,934.37
Other Purposes
City
8,219,027,429.99
64,773,609,556.57
23,792,842,246.72
6,710,003,674.20
5,171,057,748.05

Economic Services
Debt Service
Other Purposes
Municipality
25,500,453.48
2,330,115,338.58
1,456,709,120.99
11,449,008,078.07
2,291,160,092.55
11,547,212,803.93
58,288,297,363.08
29,018,351,641.31
1,962,026,152.17
4,875,607,349.74

59,882,872.71
638,053,141.01
1,809,242,675.01
Economic Services
7,611,445,908.19
Debt Service
Other Purposes
Total
1,007,889,103.77
11,305,798,519.17
160,497,501,250.73
64,282,143,625.87
10,623,102,816.95
17,596,905,955.08

Economic Services
Debt Service
Other Purposes
104,468,581.97
3,296,424,969.04
3,836,392,046.70
25,310,338,371.34
4,375,686,130.69
31,072,038,753.09
26
For year 2004, the total expenditure reported by 94% of all LGUs amounted to Php
160.5 billion. This represents a 3.0% increase in expenditure of all LGUs compared to
their expenditure in Year 2003. The total expenditure of all provinces increased by 1.0%,
cities increased by 5.0% and municipalities also increased by 2.0%.
B.1. Expenditure of LGUs
LGUs in general, spent
39.91% of their total budget
to general public services.
Only 2.76% went to debt
servicing
while
19.23%,
15.96% and 10.91% went to
other purpose, economic
service and health, nutrition
and population control. Only
a small portion of their
budget went to labor &
employment,
housing
&
community development and
social service at 0.07%,
2.08%
and
2.41%
respectively.
Chart 13. Expenditure Profile of All LGUs

0.07%
2.08%
2.41%
10.91%
6.67%
15.96%
2.76%
19.23%
39.91%
37.95%
Economic Services
Other Purposes
Debt Service
B.2. Expenditure of Provinces

Provinces. Chart 14 shows
that
30.86%
of
the
expenditure of the provinces
went to general public
services, 19.63% went to
health,
nutrition
and
population control sector,
22.28% went to other
purpose. A small portion
went
to
labor
and
employment, department of
education, social service and
debt service at 0.05%,
1.01%, 1.61% and 2.97%
respectively (Chart 13).
Chart 14 Expenditure Profile of Provinces
19.63%
1.01%
0.05%
1.61%
17.00%
4.58%
42.25%
2.97%
22.28%
30.86%
Economic Services
Other Purposes
Debt Service
B.3. Expenditure of Cities

Cities.
Compared to the
provinces, the cities spent
more for general public
services at 37.73% of their
total expenditure. This is
followed by expenditure from
economic service, other
purpose and department of
education
at
17.32%,
16.99%
and
10.39%
respectively.
Labor
and
employment, social sector
and housing & community
development only accounted
for 0.07%, 2.17% and 3.94%
respectively (Chart 15).
Chart 15 Expenditure Profile of Cities
7.94%
3.94%
0.07%
2.17%
10.39%
17.32%
37.75%
3.44%
16.99%
37.73%
Economic Services
Other Purposes
Debt Service
27
B.4. Expenditure of Municipalities

Municipalities. As shown in
Chart 16, the municipalities
spent
the
biggest
expenditure
in
general
public services at 49.60%
of their income. This is
followed by other purpose,
economic
service
and
health, nutrition and pop
control at 18.68.%, 13.45%
and 8.43% respectively.
Similar to the provinces and
cities, municipalities spent
only small portion of their
budget
to
labor
and
employment, housing &
community
development
and social service at 0.14%,
1.16%
and
3.12%
respectively.
Chart 16. Expenditure Profile of Municipalities

8.43%
3.54%
0.14%
1.16% 3.12%
13.45%
1.88%
34.01%
49.60%

Economic Services
Other Purposes
18.68%
Debt Service
Surplus / Deficit of Income over Expenditures

Surplus is the difference between incomes and expenditures. It shows the amount
of resources which can be carried forward by the LGUs to the subsequent budget year.
For CY 2004 the LGUs realized a combined surplus of Php 17.82 billion or approximately
10% of total income generated. The amount however is lesser compared to the surplus
reported in Year 2003 in the amount of Php 21.0 billion. The 10% surplus to total income
ratio is relatively high considering that CY 2004 is an election year. However, a cursory
review of the surplus distribution showed that the amounts are concentrated in endowed
LGUs which have started the accumulation of resources as a strategy for future
development. The temporary pooling of resources will be utilized for quality infrastructure
later on or initiate placements including the possibility of inter-LGU lending.
Summary
In CY 2004, the fiscal and financial performance of LGUs remained creditable.
Against the backdrop of slow economic growth, the LGUs total income reached the new
peak of Php 178.90 billion. Although the amount is just 0.9% above the CY2003
performance, the adjustments made in the expenditure side allowed LGUs to realize a
Php 17.8 billion surplus or a hefty 10% surplus to income ratio.
On the aggregate, the internal revenue allotment (IRA) remained as the principal
source of income contributing no less than 63.5% of total income. The dependency ratio
has slightly gone down but it has been fluctuating over the past few years. This was
brought about by the unpredictability of the IRA due to successive reenacting of the
General Appropriations Act.
Internally sourced income manifested stronger performance than IRA by
registering higher growth rate by 5.3%, taxes grew by 3.9% on the other hand non-tax
28
receipts increased by 9.8%. While these positive ratios are encouraging, the increases
are barely equal to the inflation rate meaning the LGUs as a sector is not experiencing
real growth. When distribution is considered, many LGUs would be suffering because
they can provide fewer services than before. A cross section of the specific revenue
sources, show that real property tax remains as the primary revenue source, but
manifested some degree of stagnation. A closer look at the cause points to the inability of
some 76% to conduct the general revision of real property assessments. Compliance rate
to the Codal provision of revising assessments had declined over the last decade, from a
high of 88% in CY1994 to just 24% in CY 2004. LGUs on the other hand had shifted to
business taxes for revenues to increase income generation. Updating of local revenue
codes, activities enhancing the collection efficiency and other measures had propelled
growth in revenue under business taxes by 8%. In fact, business taxes contribute the
biggest portion on the total revenue source of the Cities.
The Cities, the hub of economic activities and cross roads of development, is the
best performing LGU cluster. It generated income and taxes which is approximately twice
that of the provinces and nine times than the municipalities. Growth rates were positive.
Partly benefited by its expanded revenue raising powers and market based economic
structure, it has consistently generated resources greater than the IRA granted to them.
Borrowings have been kept to a minimal level. Although maximum debt service
capacity was pegged at 20% of regular income, aggregate debt service is below 2%.
LGUs borrow from the growing financing windows such as the GFI's, Municipal
Development Fund Office, PFI's and pension funds. This is a manifestation of the
increasing confidence in the sector. LGUs also float bonds to a lesser extent for income
generating and self-liquidating projects. It is therefore anticipated that new and quality
projects will be packaged as the LGUs will be more comfortable with financing and private
sector partnerships.
With more resources at their disposal, total LGU expenditures rose by 3% from
year 2003. LGU spending on all sectors posted increases except on General Public
Service, Housing and Community Development and Social Security Services in the case
of provinces, Labor and Employment in the case of cities and Housing and Community
Development, Labor and Employment, Economic Services in the case of municipalities.
Overall, the sector ended its CY 2004 with a positive effect to the consolidated
public sector deficit. Despite being an election year, LGUs gained a Php 17.8 billion
surplus, an indication of the positive gains in decentralization.
29
CHAPTER IV
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE
STATEMENT OF INCOME
AND EXPENDITURES: TOP
TEN LGU FOR CY 2004
This chapter of the publication aims to give acknowledgement to the efforts and
resourcefulness of those Local Government Units that have exceeded the best
performance of the rest.
Listed are the top ten LGUs under the categories of Income, expenditures,
revenue from tax and non-tax, and per capita income which falls under each group
(Provinces, Cities and Municipalities). Also included in this chapter are the highlights and
basic comparative analysis between performances of each performing LGUs.
30
Top 10 LGUs in terms of highest Total Income generated for CY

2004 as compared to their status in CY 2001
(P0.00)
CY 2004
REGION
LGU
RANK
TOTAL
INCOME
CY 2001
RANK
TOTAL
INCOME
PROVINCE
Region IV-A
Laguna
1st
1,367,306,372
1st
1,460,698,000
Region VII
Cebu
2nd
1,347,540,180
8th
865,295,926
Region III
Bulacan
3rd
1,255,450,000
3rd
1,031,662,212
Region IV-A
Batangas
4th
1,224,891,025
9th
808,790,000
Region VI
Negros Occidental
5th
1,195,573,660
4th
906,778,000
Region IV-A
Cavite
6th
1,137,908,069
5th
900,383,000
Region IV-A
Rizal
7th
1,116,380,166
17th
676,428,576
Region I
Pangasinan
8th
1,073,615,523
2nd
1,168,226,116
Region IV-A
Quezon
9th
1,008,383,950
10th
746,339,000
Region II
Isabela
CITY
10th
935,086,000
16th
694,133,916
Region XI
Davao City
1st
2,222,330,947
1st
1,914,272,000
Region VII
Cebu City
2nd
1,652,994,616
2nd
1,757,383,980
Region IV-A
Antipolo City
3rd
1,143,787,328
12th
591,193,630
Region X
Cagayan de Oro City
4th
1,134,256,526
3rd
976,386,362
Region III
Olongapo City
5th
1,118,463,848
74th
160,852,282
Region IX
Zamboanga City
6th
1,078,490,000
4th
901,431,754
Region IV-A
Calamba City
7th
921,272,904
16th
532,061,780
HIGHLIGHTS
The Province of Laguna retained its first position among provinces of the country
in terms of total income generated. In CY2004, the province has reported an
estimated income amounting to P1.37 billion from various tax and non-tax
sources.
Among the top 10 provinces, the Province of Rizal registered the highest growth
in total income generated, and improved its rank from 17th place in CY2001 to 7th
in CY2004.
Among the cities, Davao City has maintained its top position in CY2004 with a
total income generated of more than P2.22 billion.
A dramatic improvement was registered by Olongapo City when its income
increased almost six times from P0.16 billion in CY2001 to P1.12 billion in
th
th
CY2004. As a result, its rank jumped from 74 to 5 place.
The Municipality of Bian, Laguna performed better in CY2004 capturing the
prime position with income totaling P447.09 million.
th
th
Ranking 17 in CY2001, the Municipality of Rosario, Cavite has gone up to 4
overall, increasing its income by more that three times from P109.83 million to
P371.87 million.
To p LG U's in CY 2004 fo r e ach LG U Cate g o ry
2,500
2,222
2,000
1,500
1,367
in
1,000 m illions
447
500
0
Region IV-A
Batangas City
8th
885,532,395
8th
703,729,211
Region IV-B
Puerto Princesa City
9th
831,846,079
6th
754,663,105
Region VI
Iloilo City
MUNICIPALITY
10th
792,518,720
7th
712,300,400
Region IV-A
Bian, Laguna
1st
447,085,296
3rd
266,079,290
Region IV-A
Cabuyao, laguna
2nd
443,427,643
1st
314,230,583
Region IV-A
Cainta, Rizal
3rd
389,836,107
2nd
294,651,000
Region IV-A
Rosario, Cavite
4th
371,868,860
17th
109,825,000
1 ,2 0 0
Region IV-A
Dasmarias, Cavite
5th
367,470,834
4th
248,132,000
1 ,0 0 0
Region IV-A
Bacoor, Cavite
6th
318,385,434
5th
238,466,000
800
Region IV-A
Imus, Cavite
7th
313,195,926
6th
206,153,000
Region IV-A
Gen. Trias, Cavite
8th
276,468,840
13th
152,477,000
Region IV-A
Bauan, Batangas
9th
245,454,658
7th
201,031,000
Region III
Meycauayan, Bulacan
10th
236,560,000
8th
184,482,398
D avao C ity
Laguna
Bian,
Laguna
HIGHLIGHTS
OF TOP TEN
LGUS
H ig h e s t P e r f o r m in g LG U in G r o w t h o f To t a l
In c o m e p e r LG U C a t e g o r y
1,116
1,118
676
600
372
400
in
M illio n s
161
200
0
R iz a l
O lo n g a p o
C ity
110
R o s a rio ,
C a vit e
CY 2 0 0 1
In c o me
CY 2 0 0 4
Top 10 LGUs in terms of highest collection on Locally Sourced

Revenues for CY 2004 as compared to their status in CY 2001
(P0.00)
REGION
LGU
CY 2004
TOTAL
RANK
INCOME
CY 2001
TOTAL
RANK
INCOME
HIGHLIGHTS
PROVINCE
Region IV-A
Laguna
1st
653,422,182
1st
694,942,000
Region IV-A
Rizal
2nd
530,139,739
5th
282,924,077
Region III
Bulacan
3rd
445,654,000
2nd
442,786,984
Region IV-A
Cavite
4th
423,882,052
3rd
314,501,000
Region IV-A
Batangas
5th
287,024,382
6th
279,547,000
Region VII
Cebu
6th
279,591,468
8th
186,574,804
Region IV-A
Quezon
7th
246,787,917
12th
106,684,000
Region III
Bataan
8th
191,577,214
7th
225,815,333
Region IX
Zamb. Del Norte
9th
176,727,653
14th
98,632,582
Region I
Pangasinan
10th
151,872,773
11th
119,114,989
The Province of Laguna which collected P653.42 million, the City

of Cebu which collected P1.04 billion and the Municipality of
Cabuyao, Laguna which collected P357.30 million topped their
respective categories as the best LGUs in collecting locallysourced revenues.
Marked improvements were recorded by the Province of Quezon
moving from 12th to 7th place, Olongapo City from 58th to 3rd place
and the Municipality of Mauban, Quezon from 95th to 6th.
T o p L G U 's i n C Y 2 0 0 4 fo r e a c h L G U C a te g o r y
1 ,2 0 0
1 ,0 4 3
CITY
Region VII
Region XI
Cebu City
1st
Davao City
2nd
Region III
Olongapo City
Region IV-A
Batangas City
Region IV-A
1,042,696,639
1st
800
829,787,296
826,839,979
2nd
3rd
761,750,582
58th
43,127,564
4th
593,025,222
3rd
454,571,639
Calamba City
5th
528,704,826
4th
441,579,780
Region X
Cagayan de Oro City
6th
496,323,505
5th
380,948,951
Region VI
Iloilo City
7th
482,817,850
7th
326,235,603
CAR
Baguio City
8th
412,513,060
9th
319,783,829
Region VII
Lapu-Lapu City
9th
363,466,508
8th
320,232,630
Region IV-A
Tagaytay City
MUNICIPALITY
10th
340,053,430
18th
138,686,000
653
698,787,000
Region IV-A
Cabuyao, Laguna
1st
357,304,432
1st
280,470,740
Region IV-A
Cainta, Rizal
2nd
266,994,234
2nd
201,470,000
Region IV-A
Bian, Laguna
3rd
225,409,720
3rd
196,634,220
Region IV-A
Bauan, Batangas
4th
194,097,421
4th
172,253,000
Region IV-A
Carmona, Cavite
5th
183,604,103
7th
130,698,000
Region IV-A
Mauban, Quezon
6th
181,353,567
95th
15,302,490
Region IV-A
Bacoor, Cavite
7th
165,456,026
6th
135,336,000
Region IV-A
Imus, Cavite
8th
161,211,590
8th
129,020,000
Region III
Meycauayan, Bulacan
9th
149,836,000
11th
112,080,955
Region IV-A
Dasmarias, Cavite
10th
147,273,847
5th
142,057,000
1 ,0 0 0
600
In
M illio n s
400
357
200
0
Laguna
C e b u C ity
Ca b u y a o ,
Laguna
HIGHLIGHTS
OF TOP TEN
LGUS
H ig h e s t P e rfo rm in g L G U fo r G ro w th in L o c a lly
S o u rc e d R e v e n u e s in e a c h L G U C a te g o ry
762
800
600
In
M illio n s
CY 2 00 1
400
200
0
CY 2 00 4
247
107
Q u e zo n
32
181
43
O lo n g a p o C ity
15
Ma u b a n , Q u e zo n
Top 10 LGUs in terms of highest collection on Real Property Tax

for CY 2004 as compared to their status in CY 2001
(P0.00)
CY 2004
REGION
LGU
CY 2001
RANK
TOTAL
INCOME
RAN
K
TOTAL
INCOME
PROVINCE
Region IV-A
Laguna
1st
469,077,428
1st
444,053,000
Region IV-A
Cavite
2nd
271,329,835
3rd
211,675,000
Region IV-A
Batangas
3rd
229,832,216
4th
195,126,000
Region IV-A
Rizal
4th
219,039,918
6th
160,661,147
Region III
Bulacan
5th
210,290,000
2nd
246,292,511
Region III
Bataan
6th
143,383,151
5th
180,500,160
Region IV-A
Quezon
7th
136,564,521
13th
38,217,000
Region VI
Iloilo
8th
91,548,770
9th
46,683,850
Region I
Pangasinan
9th
88,303,608
7th
77,273,686
Region VII
Cebu
10th
67,047,504
11th
40,169,281
Region IV-A
Calamba City
1st
358,506,033
3rd
283,218,000
Region VII
Cebu City
2nd
330,935,756
1st
306,911,868
Region IV-A
Batangas City
3rd
313,907,990
2nd
300,343,235
Region IV-A
Tagaytay City
4th
251,626,968
15th
77,564,000
Region XI
Davao City
5th
249,257,041
4th
234,834,000
Region IV-A
Antipolo City
6th
218,427,275
5th
161,040,148
Region VI
Iloilo City
7th
191,847,370
11th
98,609,372
Region X
Cagayan de Oro City
8th
160,805,182
6th
137,353,647
Region IV-A
Tanauan City
9th
139,775,761
17th
62,703,150
Region VI
Bacolod City
10th
120,475,640
13th
87,283,000
110,299,236
CITY
MUNICIPALITY
HIGHLIGHTS
LGUs located in Region IV-A creditably performed in the collection
of real property taxes. The top three highest collections for
CY2004 in all LGU categories (except for the City of Cebu) were
Region IV-A LGUs. This can be explained by the growth of
investments and property developments in the region.
Ranked 1st in each category are the Province of Laguna with
P469.08 million collection from real property taxes; Calamba City
with P358.51 million and the Municipality of Cabuyao, Laguna with
P180.52 million.
Moving its position several notches up are the Province of Quezon
which leaped from 13th in CY2001 to 7th place in CY2004 and
Tagaytay City from 15th to 4th place. Both LGUs notably posted an
increase of more than three times in collection from CY2001.
Meanwhile, the Municipality of Mauban, Quezon markedly
increased its collection from P4.62 million to P111.22 million in just
three years, jumping from 81st to second place in CY2004.
T o p L G U 's i n C Y 2 0 0 4 fo r e a c h L G U C a te g o r y
359
181
Laguna
Cabuyao, Laguna
1st
180,515,857
1st
Region IV-A
Mauban, Quezon
2nd
111,224,994
81st
4,622,864
Region IV-A
Bian, Laguna
3rd
98,744,303
2nd
96,893,000
300
Region III
Limay, Bataan
4th
89,771,235
3rd
80,478,801
250
Region IV-A
Cainta, Rizal
5th
88,677,809
5th
63,014,000
Region IV-A
Gen. Trias, Cavite
6th
56,634,086
6th
60,613,000
Meycauayan, Bulacan
7th
52,800,000
9th
41,675,227
Region IV-A
Dasmarias, Cavite
8th
47,896,815
8th
45,664,000
Region III
Marilao, Bulacan
9th
47,260,000
25th
19,531,415
Region III
Norzagaray, Bulacan
10th
47,115,000
7th
49,608,022
C a la m b a
C it y
In
M illio n s
Cabuy ao,
Laguna
HIGHLIGHTS
OF TOP TEN
LGUS
H ig h e s t P e rfo rm in g L G U fo r c o lle c tio n o n R P T

p e r L G U C a te g o ry
Region IV-A
Region III
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
469
252
200
In
150
M illio n s
137
111
78
100
38
50
Q u e zo n
33
T a g a yta y C ity
Ma u b a n , Q u e zo n
Cy 2 0 0 1
CY 2 0 0 4
Top 10 LGUs in terms of highest collection on Business Tax for CY

2004 as compared to their status in CY 2001
(P0.00)
REGION
LGU
CY 2004
TOTAL
RANK
INCOME
CY 2001
TOTAL
RANK
INCOME
HIGHLIGHTS
PROVINCE
Region IV-A
Laguna
1st
62,302,281
1st
71,070,000
Region III
Bulacan
2nd
49,603,000
3rd
41,998,145
Region IV-A
Rizal
3rd
49,140,992
4th
34,341,127
Region II
Cagayan
4th
25,475,000
21st
4,467,000
Region IV-A
Cavite
5th
25,247,683
12th
9,346,000
Region V
Camarines Sur
6th
12,653,000
26th
3,684,667
11,183,194
Region III
Pampanga
7th
10,398,603
10th
Region VI
Iloilo
8th
10,388,680
32nd
2,181,620
Region IV-A
Batangas
9th
8,802,296
5th
20,637,000
Region VII
Cebu
10th
8,350,862
23rd
4,064,140
The Province of Laguna remained 1st overall in the collection of

business taxes in CY2004 despite a drop of almost P10 million
from CY2001 collection. On the other hand, the Province of
Cagayan is the best performer moving from 21st in CY2001 to 4th
place in CY2004 increasing its collection by almost 500%.
Cebu City still ranked number one with a notable increase of
P146.38 million in collection in CY2004 against its CY2001
collection while Batangas City rose from 11th to 7th place, with
more than a 100% increase in income from business taxes.
The Municipality of Cabuyao, Laguna retained as the highest
income-generating municipality in terms of collection of business
tax and the highest growth of percentage collected is credited to
Mauban, Quezons 700 % increase in income.
T o p L G U 's in C Y 2 0 0 4 f o r e a c h L G U C a t e g o r y
CITY
450
400
350
300
In
250
200 M illio n s
150
100
50
0
422
Region VII
Cebu City
1st
421,736,073
1st
275,359,255
Region XI
Davao City
2nd
354,711,176
2nd
274,039,000
Region X
Cagayan de Oro City
3rd
231,936,719
4th
152,508,838
Region VII
Lapu-Lapu City
4th
199,330,807
3rd
154,597,353
Region VI
Iloilo City
5th
189,503,260
5th
145,286,500
Region IV-A
Sta. Rosa City
6th
185,597,412
6th
131,147,000
Region IV-A
Batangas City
7th
180,196,507
11th
80,631,550
CAR
Baguio City
8th
138,193,666
8th
100,023,614
Region IX
Zamboanga City
9th
119,056,000
10th
88,358,309
Region IV-A
Calamba City
10th
115,834,836
7th
124,094,000
MUNICIPALITY
Region IV-A
Cabuyao, Laguna
1st
160,367,039
1st
158,604,514
Region IV-A
Cainta, Rizal
2nd
132,514,839
2nd
114,918,000
Region IV-A
Carmona, Cavite
3rd
117,315,848
4th
75,199,000
Region IV-A
Bian, Laguna
4th
94,110,530
3rd
75,401,000
Region IV-A
Imus, Cavite
5th
72,787,096
6th
59,811,000
Region IV-A
Bacoor, Cavite
6th
69,464,057
5th
60,563,000
Region III
Meycauayan, Bulacan
7th
67,234,000
9th
45,999,048
Region IV-A
Dasmarias, Cavite
8th
62,270,164
7th
48,502,000
Region IV-A
Mauban, Quezon
9th
61,662,769
48th
7,712,267
Region IV-A
San Pedro, Laguna
10th
44,110,707
8th
48,459,000
160
62
Laguna
C e b u C it y
Cabuy ao,
Laguna
HIGHLIGHTS
OF TOP TEN
LGUS
Highest Performing LGU on collection of

Business Tax per LGU Category
180
160
140
120
100
In
Millions 80
60
40
20
0
180
81
CY 2001
62
26
8
5
Cagayan
34
Batangas City
Mauban,
Quezon
CY 2004
Top 10 LGUs in terms of highest collection on Fees and Charges for

CY 2004 as compared to their status in CY 2001
(P0.00)
REGION
LGU
CY 2004
RA
TOTAL
NK
INCOME
HIGHLIGHTS
CY 2001
TOTAL
RANK
INCOME
PROVINCE
Region III
Bulacan
1st
84,420,000
10th
13,655,049
Region IV-A
Laguna
2nd
70,752,769
2nd
47,410,000
Region VII
Negros Oriental
3rd
51,454,349
64th
1,348,500
Region IV-A
Quezon
4th
49,079,338
1st
63,647,000
Region XII
North Cotabato
5th
23,019,072
73rd
270,668
CARAGA
Agusan Del Sur
6th
20,984,087
31st
6,262,843
CARAGA
Agusan Del Norte
7th
20,718,021
11th
12,490,052
Region XII
South Cotabato
8th
18,399,324
23rd
7,667,890
Region IV-B
Oriental Mindoro
9th
15,270,750
38th
4,162,000
Region VII
Bohol
10th
13,977,409
24th
7,643,484
Among the LGUs in each category, the Province of Bulacan, the

City of Cebu and the Municipality of Bacoor, Cavite ranked 1st
with fees and charges collection amounting to P84.42 million,
P127.54 million and P27.19 million, respectively. In the past
three years, LGUs have experienced big increments as they
revise ordinances and adjusted the regulatory and service fees.
Better performances in fees and charges collection were
exhibited by the Provinces of North Cotabato and Negros
Oriental, the City of Olongapo and the Municipality of Bacolor,
Pampanga, thus improving their ranking in CY2004.
Top LGU's in CY 2004 for e ach LGU Cate gory

140
128
120
CITY
100
Region VII
Cebu City
1st
127,537,456
1st
101,621,733
Region XI
Davao City
2nd
96,914,076
2nd
66,761,000
Region IV-A
Batangas City
3rd
49,746,442
5th
34,682,362
CAR
Baguio City
4th
49,668,458
4th
34,694,254
Region III
Olongapo City
5th
40,803,251
54th
4,904,931
Region X
Cagayan de Oro City
6th
37,487,056
7th
32,318,713
CARAGA
Butuan City
7th
35,847,561
19th
14,587,464
Region VI
Bacolod City
8th
35,082,200
10th
27,036,000
Region VII
Mandaue City
9th
28,101,246
14th
21,046,445
Region IV-A
Sta. Rosa City
10th
27,201,479
11th
26,692,000
84
60
Bulacan
Bacoor, Cavite
1st
27,194,625
5th
13,085,000
Dasmarias, Cavite
2nd
27,140,924
2nd
18,752,000
Region IV-A
Gen. Trias, Cavite
3rd
24,279,190
8th
10,354,000
Region IV-A
Imus, Cavite
4th
22,938,242
3rd
15,957,000
Region IV-A
Carmona, Cavite
5th
21,480,638
1st
21,305,000
Region IV-A
Cainta, Rizal
6th
20,849,516
9th
10,303,000
10.0
Region III
Bacolor, Pampanga
7th
19,658,000
below 100
916,637
0.0
8th
17,354,000
no report
Silang, Cavite
9th
15,748,147
13th
7,205,000
Region III
Meycauayan, Bulacan
10th
13,743,000
7th
11,043,198
Cebu City
Bacoor,
Cavite
HIGHLIGHTS
OF TOP TEN
LGUS
Highest Performing LGU on Collection of Fees

and Charges for each LGU Category
Region IV-A
Porac, Pampanga
20
0
Region IV-A
Region IV-A
In
M illions
40
27
MUNICIPALITY
Region III
80
50.0
40.8
40.0
In
M illions
30.0
23.0
19.7
20.0
CY 2001
CY 2004
0.3
North Cotabato
35
4.9
Olongapo City
0.9
Bacolor,
Pam panga
Top 10 LGUs with highest Income and Expenditures per Capita

showing the Rate of Expenditure CY 2004 (P0.00)
REGION
LGU
HIGHLIGHTS
RANK
INCOME
PER
CAPITA
EXPENDITUR
E PER CAPITA
RATE OF
EXPENDITU
RE
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4) = (3) / (2)
PROVINCE
Region II
Batanes
1st
7,372
6,763
91.74%
CAR
Apayao
2nd
2,845
2,661
93.53%
Region X
Camiguin
3rd
1,888
1,784
94.52%
CAR
Abra
4th
1,860
1,734
93.22%
Region VII
Siquijor
5th
1,843
1,642
89.07%
Region II
Quirino
6th
1,744
1,645
94.30%
CAR
Mt. Province
7th
1,527
1,105
72.41%
CAR
Ifugao
8th
1,519
1,290
84.91%
CAR
Kalinga
9th
1,495
1,411
94.40%
Region III
Aurora
10th
1,415
1,263
89.21%
85.92%
The Province of Batanes registered the highest per capita for CY2004.
This can be attributed to the low population and relatively high level of
IRA. It also reflected a high expenditure rate of 91.74% in an attempt to
provide more services to its constituents.
The City of Tagaytay registered the highest income per capita as well as
expenditure per capita for cities. The high levels provide a good
indication of improved level of economic activities in the area. The
relative low level of expenditure rate presupposes some intent to trigger
development projects by the City.
Among municipalities, Divilacan, Isabela topped the list. The results of
the income per capita apparently confirm the imperfection of the IRA
formula because many developed areas are not even in the top 10.
Among the top ten in each LGU categories, Mt. Province, Tanauan City
and the Municipality of Uyugan, Batanes have the lowest expenditure
rate with an average expenditure of only three-fourths of its income.
CITY
T op per Capita Income generating LGU per Category vs.

per Capita Expinditure
Region IV-A
Tagaytay City
1st
10,234
8,793
Region III
Olongapo City
2nd
5,758
5,727
99.47%
14,000
Region IV-B
Puerto Princesa City
3rd
5,161
5,570
107.94%
12,000
Region II
Santiago City
4th
4,489
4,182
93.15%
Region IV-A
Trece Martires City
5th
4,189
4,344
103.70%
6,000
4,000
Region III
Palayan City
6th
3,755
3,659
97.45%
Region IV-A
Batangas City
7th
3,577
2,976
83.20%
Region VI
La Carlota City
8th
3,533
3,408
96.47%
Region VIII
Maasin City
9th
3,433
3,310
96.42%
Region IV-A
Tanauan City
10th
3,425
2,682
78.30%
13,862
10,234 12,508
10,000
7,372
8,000
6,763
8,793
2,000
Incom e
0
Batanes
Ex penditure
MUNICIPALITY
Income
Expendi tur e
Tagay tay
City
Div ilac an,

Is abela
Region I
Divilacan, Isabela
1st
13,862
12,508
90.24%
Top Incom e ge ne ra ting LGU's vs. LGU's w ith the Low e st

Ex pe nditure ra te
Region I
Adams, Ilocos Norte
2nd
12,459
10,132
81.32%
100
Region I
Carasi, Ilocos Norte
3rd
10,831
10,410
96.12%
90
Region I
10,685
7,936
91.74
4th
Region I
Uyugan, Batanes
Alfonso Castaeda, Nueva
Vizcaya
74.27%
5th
9,348
10,952
117.15%
Region I
Dumalneg, Ilocos Norte
6th
8,639
8,577
99.28%
Region I
Maconacon, Isabela
7th
8,587
11,239
130.88%
30
20
Region I
Ivana, Batanes
8th
8,219
7,475
90.95%
10
0
Region I
Tineg, Abra
9th
7,902
7,468
94.50%
Region I
Daguioman, Abra
10th
7,830
7,439
95.00%
90.24
85.92
80
78.3
72.41
70
74.27
60
Pe r ce nt
50
40
B at anes
Province
City
Municipality
Income includes external sources and loans & borrowings
M t.
Tag ayt ay
Pro vince
Cit y
36
Tanauan
Cit y
Divilacan,
Isab ela
M uni ci pa l i ty
Ci ty
P r ovi nce
Uyug an
B at anes
HIGHLIGHTS
OF TOP TEN
LGUS
Top 10 LGUs in terms of highest Total Income generated

(P0.00)
CY 2004
National Capital
CLASS RANK TOTAL INCOME
Region (NCR)
CY 2001
RANK TOTAL INCOME
CITY
Quezon City
1st
6,496,282,210
3rd
4,276,721,410
Makati City
2nd
6,247,252,757
1st
5,122,321,279
City of Manila
3rd
6,029,451,082
2nd
4,422,171,694
Pasig City
4th
2,969,849,218
4th
2,220,682,718
Kalookan City
5th
1,681,228,300
6th
1,493,125,921
Mandaluyong City
6th
1,601,355,056
7th
1,165,955,784
Paraaque City
7th
1,590,065,300
5th
1,533,439,002
Muntinlupa City
8th
1,250,547,925
8th
1,087,802,228
Pasay City
9th
1,246,598,000
9th
1,075,895,000
Valenzuela City
10th
1,173,179,686
10th
872,868,370
MUNICIPALITY
San Juan
Navotas
Pateros
1
1
3
1st
2nd
3rd
519,580,000
276,671,818
72,952,324
2nd
3rd
4th
430,370,000
292,835,782
62,188,114
HIGHLIGHTS
The top three highest income-generating cities in the National Capital
Region are Quezon City, Makati City and the City of Manila, all have
exceeded the P6 billion total income in CY2004. The LGUs income
also confirms the primacy of the Region in socio-economic activities.
These three cities have also shown tremendous effort when each
collections improved by more than P1 billion. It also initiated a friendly
competition in revenue generation. Other NCR LGUs also manifested
exemplary performances and exhibited increments from CY2001 to
CY2004.
Among NCR municipalities, San Juan ranked number 1 in CY 2004
and a notable increase of 25% in income generated. While San Juan
can potentially become a City, its land area and population are still
below existing threshold.
Top 3 Cities in NCR with the highest Total Income Generated
6,496
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
In
Millions 3,000
2,000
1,000
0
6,247
6,029
5,122
4,422
4,277
Quezon City
Makati City
CY 2004 CY 2001
City of Manila
Total Income Generated in the Municipalities of NCR
600
HIGHLIGHTS OF TOP TEN LGUS

IN THE
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
520
430
In
Millions
400
277
200
0
73
San Juan
Navotas
CY 2004
293
37
CY 2001
Pateros
62
Top 10 LGUs in terms of highest collection on Locally Sourced Revenues

(P0.00)
CY 2004
National Capital
Region (NCR)
RANK
CY 2001
TOTAL
INCOME
RANK
TOTAL
INCOME
HIGHLIGHTS
CITY
Makati City
1st
5,517,950,894
1st
4,025,747,594
Quezon City
2nd
5,017,075,110
3rd
3,003,845,840
City of Manila
3rd
4,098,495,303
2nd
3,296,995,880
Pasig City
4th
2,563,022,902
4th
1,937,781,943
Paraaque City
5th
1,257,408,350
5th
997,772,550
Mandaluyong City
6th
1,142,906,888
6th
903,198,305
Pasay City
7th
1,071,555,000
7th
819,900,000
Muntinlupa City
8th
928,983,761
9th
662,597,304
Kalookan City
9th
852,216,622
8th
731,062,490
Marikina City
10th
804,771,830
12th
420,090,000
Makati City remained as the best collecting LGU of locally-sourced

revenues with P5.52 billion in income. Quezon City followed closely with
a collection of P5.02 billion and the City of Manila with P4.10 billion.
In terms of growth rate however, Quezon City posted the highest
increase of 67.02% from CY2001 to CY2004. During the same period,
Makati City grew by 37.07% while the City of Manila pushed its collection
up by 24.31%.
San Juan ranks number one among the municipalities of NCR with
P454.71 million in collection and also the highest growth in percentage
increase.
Top 3 Cities in NCR with the Highest collection of locally sourced

Revenues
6,000
In
Millions
5,518
5,017
4,026
4,000
3,004
4,099
3,297
CY 2004
2,000
CY2001
0
Makati City
MUNICIPALITY
San Juan
1st
454,709,000
2nd
369,194,000
Navotas
2nd
155,708,998
3rd
133,994,187
Pateros
3rd
32,260,531
4th
28,064,384

IN THE
Quezon City
Collection of Locally Sourced Revenues for the Municipalities of

NCR
500
400
455
369
300
In
Millions 200
CY 2004
156
134
100
0
City of Manila
38
CY 2001
32
San Juan
Navotas
28
Pateros
Top 10 LGUs in terms of highest collection on Real Property

Tax for CY 2004 as compared to their status in CY 2001
(P0.00)
CY 2004
National Capital Region
RANK
(NCR)
TOTAL
INCOME
HIGHLIGHTS
CY 2001
RANK
TOTAL
INCOME
CITY
Makati City
1st
2,508,642,036
1st
1,723,611,778
Quezon City
2nd
1,599,089,600
2nd
1,389,175,560
City of Manila
3rd
1,091,135,381
3rd
1,061,806,716
Pasig City
4th
1,006,017,728
4th
832,186,692
Paraaque City
5th
691,056,140
5th
534,915,410
Pasay City
6th
490,602,000
6th
450,663,000
Mandaluyong City
7th
405,771,665
7th
338,426,613
Muntinlupa City
8th
404,045,793
8th
327,623,039
Marikina City
9th
403,136,500
12th
170,360,000
Valenzuela City
10th
386,807,346
10th
235,760,508
The top three LGUs continued to occupy the same spot from CY2001
st
to CY2004 in terms of collection on real property taxes. On the 1
place is Makati City with P2.51 billion in collection followed by Quezon
City with P1.60 billion and City of Manila with P1.09 billion.
Noteworthy is the performance of Marikina City in CY2004 when it
registered a sizable 136% increase or more than twice its collection in
CY2001, moving its rank from 12th to 9th place.
All municipalities in the NCR with the exception of Navotas increased
its collection of RPT. San Juan remained the municipality with the
highest collection in RPT
Top 3 Cities in NCR with the Highest collection of RPT
3,000
2,500
2,000
2,509
1,724
In
1,500
Millions
1,000
1,389
1,062
1,599
1,091
CY 2004
CY 2001
500
MUNICIPALITY
San Juan
Navotas
1st
2nd
179,916,000
53,467,308
2nd
3rd
165,556,000
79,025,072
Pateros
3rd
12,520,238
4th
10,543,963
Makati City
200
166
150
39
CY 2004
79
In
100
Millions
CY 2001
53
50
City of Manila
Collection of RPT in the Municipalities of NCR
180

IN THE
Quezon City
13
San Juan
Navotas
11
Pateros
Top 10 LGUs in terms of highest collection on Business Tax

(P0.00)
HIGHLIGHTS
CY 2004
CY 2001
National Capital Region

RANK TOTAL INCOME RANK
(NCR)
TOTAL
INCOME
CITY
Quezon City
1st
2,753,350,830
3rd
1,181,073,040
Makati City
2nd
2,480,830,542
1st
1,835,750,129
City of Manila
3rd
2,234,148,853
2nd
1,579,410,496
Pasig City
4th
1,099,280,205
4th
753,151,261
Mandaluyong City
5th
606,598,556
5th
458,744,328
Paraaque City
6th
493,087,040
6th
382,883,615
Muntinlupa City
7th
307,822,996
8th
228,435,766
Kalookan City
8th
299,029,324
7th
268,945,064
Valenzuela City
9th
289,903,327
11th
189,174,846
Pasay City
10th
251,542,000
9th
225,497,000
Quezon City chalked up a 133% increase in collection from

business taxes amounting to P2.75 billion thus, improving its rank
from 3rd in CY2001 to 1st place in CY2004.
Makati City and the City of Manila both fell a notch below in CY2004
with collection reaching P2.48 billion and P2.23 billion, respectively.
The Municipality of San Juan retained its number one position in all
municipalities in NCR with a total collection of P201.83 million.
Top 3 Cities in NCR with the Highest collection of Business

Tax
2753
3000
2481
2500
2234
1836
2000
In
1500
Millions
1000
1579
1181
CY 2004
CY 2001
500
MUNICIPALITY
San Juan
Navotas
1st
2nd
201,829,000
57,879,665
1st
3rd
136,607,000
33,968,526
Pateros
3rd
8,096,588
4th
6,465,758

IN THE
Quezon City
Makati City
Collection of Business Tax for the Municipalities of NCR
250
202
200
137
150
In
Millions 100
CY 2004
58
50
0
City of Manila
San Juan
40
Navotas
CY 2001
34
8
Pateros
Top 10 LGUs (NCR) with highest Income per Capita

showing the Rate of Expenditures for CY 2004
HIGHLIGHTS
(P0.00)
NATIONAL
INCOME PER
EXPENDITURE
RATE OF
CAPITAL REGION RANK
RANK
CAPITA
PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES
(NCR)
(3)
Having the highest per capita income for the NCR with P14,043,
Makati City also has the highest expenditure with P8,240 however,
its expenditure rate was the lowest among the region with only
58.7%.
The same with Makati City, the Municipality of San Juan also has
the highest income and expenditure per capita of P4,415 and
P3,902, respectively but the lowest expenditure rate of 88.4%.
(1)
(2)
Makati City
1st
14,043
1st
8,240
58.7%
Pasig City
2nd
5,880
2nd
5,737
97.6%
Mandaluyong City
3rd
5,750
3rd
5,108
88.8%
14,000
City of Manila
4th
3,813
4th
3,695
96.9%
12,000
Paraaque City
5th
3,535
5th
3,322
94.0%
Pasay City
6th
3,512
8th
2,645
75.3%
Muntinlupa City
7th
3,297
7th
2,844
86.3%
4,000
Quezon City
8th
2,988
6th
2,987
99.9%
2,000
Marikina City
9th
2,871
10th
1,990
69.3%
Valenzuela City
10th
2,417
11th
1,941
80.3%
San Juan
Pateros
1st
3rd
4,415
1,271
1st
3rd
3,902
1,255
88.4%
98.7%
Navotas
4th
1,201
4th
1,101
91.7%
(4) = (3) / (2)
CITY
Top 3 Highest Income per Capita in the NCR

16,000
98%
6,000
89%
8,240
10,000
8,000
120%
14,043
5,880 5,737
59%
5,750
5,108
100%
80%
Income
60%
Expenditure
40%
Rate of Expenditure
20%
0%
Makati City
Pasig City
Mandaluyong
City
MUNICIPALITY
In c o m e p e r C a p ita o f M u n ic ip a litie s in N C R
5 ,0 0 0
4 ,5 0 0
4 ,4 1 5
100%
99%
98%
3 ,9 0 2
4 ,0 0 0
96%
3 ,5 0 0
94%
3 ,0 0 0
2 ,5 0 0
92%
90%
2 ,0 0 0

IN THE
1 ,5 0 0
1 ,0 0 0
1 ,2 7 1
88%
1 ,2 5 5
1 ,2 0 1
1 ,1 0 1
88%
86%
84%
500
0
82%
S a n Ju a n
92%
41
P a t e ro s
N a vo t a s
In c o me
Ex p e n d itu r e
Ra te o f Ex p e n d itu r e
CHAPTER v
NOTES ON THE INCOME

CLASSIFICATION OF
THE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT UNITS
Income classes are set by the Bureau of Local Government Finance as
standards to measure the performance of each LGU. It provides the basis for the
maximum amount expandable for salaries and wages, salary scales and rates of
allowances, per diems, and other emoluments that the local government officials
and personnel may be entitled to. It also dictates the number of Sanggunian
members and policy direction implemented by the LGUs. The classifications play
a major factor in pre-determining selection of LGUs which are qualified for foreign
and local loans and grants, and serve as the basis for increase (decrease) of
national allotment.
As mandated under Executive Order no. 249, sections 1 and 2, dated July
25, 1987, LGU income class bracketing will be evaluated and changed every four
years with the exception of the City of Manila and Quezon City which shall remain
as Special Class cities. Income ranges for each bracket will also be adjusted
based on the Financial Statements of LGU in the last four years.
Per Department Order 20-05 of the Department of Finance dated July 29,
2005 the classification of provinces, cities and municipalities will be based on the
following:
Bureau of Local Government Finance Department of Finance
42
Type of LGU 1/
Class
Average Annual Income
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
Sixth
P 350M or more
P 280M or more but less than P 350M
Below P 70M
CITIES are also units of local

administration created by a
special law which serves as its
charter
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
Sixth
P 300M or more
Below P 60M
MUNICIPALITIES are public

corporation created by an Act
of Congress and is governed
by the Municipality Law
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
Sixth
P 50M or more
Below P 10M
PROVINCES are the largest

political unit in the country
1/ Definitions of the types of LGU from The 2002 LGU E-Governance Readiness Survey Report
43
BUREAU OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

FINANCE
CENTRAL AND REGIONAL OFFICE DIRECTORY
44
CENTRAL OFFICE
Office/Division
Office of the Executive
Director
Official
MA. PRESENTACION R. MONTESA
Executive Director
FLOSIO F. FANLO-TAYAG
ICO-Deputy Executive Director for
Administration & Concurrent Director of IIO
NORBERTO G. MALVAR
ICO-Deputy Executive Director for Operations
Local Finance Policy

Enforcement Service / Field
Operations & Examinations
Group Service
JOSE ARNOLD M. TAN
International Administration
Office
ARMI M. ADVINCULA
Planning and Policy

Research Division
PERFECTA D. STOKES
Financial Management
Division
DIVINA M. CORPUZ
Local Government Loan

Review Division
ALFREDO C. DELGADO
Project Execution &

Management Division
ANDRITO C. MENDOZA
Investigation and
Prosecution Division
JIMMY B. MORALES
Intelligence Division
In-Charge of Office & Concurrent Director of

PMS
In-Charge of Office
Planning Officer V
Financial and Management Officer II
Chief Local Treasury Examiner
Development Management Officer V
Attorney V
GEORGE T. ROMA
Intelligence Officer V
Local Tax Policy Research

and Review Division
FELICIDAD R. APOLONIA
Plans and Programs

Development Division
AMI MARY MAGDALENE B. SALVA
Project Monitoring Division
Acting Chief
Acting Chief
SHIRLEY A. MACALINTAL
Acting Chief
45
Office/Division
Official
Real Property Assessment

Examination Division
ESTELITO C. SANGALANG
Local Assessment
Operations Division
MERCY N. SANTOS
Financial Operations
Examination Division
LUZ S. GONZALES
Management Information &

Data Systems Division
MA. FLORIZELDA A. ENRIQUEZ
Local Treasury Operations

Division
CONSOLACION Q. AGCAOILI
Local Revenue Enforcement

Division
MA. PAMELA P. QUIZON
Public Information and

Assistance Division
LUZ N. VILLAPANDO
Acting Chief
Acting Chief
Acting Chief
Acting Chief
Acting Chief
Acting Chief
Supervising Administrative Officer
46
REGIONAL OFFICES
REGION
CAR
(2nd Floor, LBP Bldg. Harrison

Road, Baguio City)
REGION I
(2nd Floor, Mabanag Justice Hall

Bldg., Gov. Luna Street, San
Fernando City La Union)
DIRECTORS/ ASST.
DIRECTORS
RICARDO T. CAWED
ICO-Regional Director
PETER D. BALUYAN
OIC-Regional Director
CONTACT #
(074) 442-8043 Fax
442-6704
(072) 242-7080
242-0503 Fax
OFELIA M. DE VERA
OIC-Asst. Regional Director
REGION II
ORLANDO L. MINA
(Cagayan Provincial Road, 17

Caritan Sur, Tuguegarao City,
Cagayan)
Regional Director
REGION III
OSCAR H. MICLA
(Benigno Aquino Memorial Hall

Provincial Capitol Compound, San
Fernando City, Pampanga)
Regional Director
REGION IV A
CALABARZON
EDUARDO L. DEL ROSARO
TESSIE S. MANGACCAT
(078) 844-6064
844-3305
846-1683 Fax

(045) 961-3041 Fax
961-1343
MA. LUNINGNING R. LLANTO

Regional Director
(043) 723-3015
980-0212 Fax
(Peoples Mansion Compound,

Batangas City)
REGION IV B
MIMAROPA
MANUEL E. LEYCANO, JR.

(043) 723-3015
980-0212 Fax
(Peoples Mansion Compound,

Batangas City)
REGION V
VERONICA B. KING
(Former EIIB Building, Camp

General Simeon Ola, Legazpi City)
Regional Director
FLORENCIO C. DIO II
(052) 472-3666 (NAGA)

473-8177
480-7818
REGION VI
(2nd Floor, Phil. Veterans Bank

Bldg., Corner Valeria-Delgado
Streets, Iloilo CIty)
MELBA B, SULLIVAN
(033) 336-0348 Fax
SUSAN C. GANANCIAL
47
REGION
DIRECTORS
REGION VII
CONCEPCION C. DAPLAS
(3 Floor, BF Building, N. Escario

Street, Cebu City)
OIC- Regional Director
rd
RENEE T. EMPACES
CONTACT #
(032) 412-6778
254-4152
256-2797 Fax
Asst. Regional Director
REGION VIII
(2nd Floor, Tri-Star Building, 170

Avenida Veteranos Street,
Tacloban City)
REGION IX
(3rd Floor, Ramon Tan Building,

Campaner Street, Zamboanga City)
REGION X
(6th Division, corner Tejero St.

Cagayan de Oro City)
RENEE T. EMPACES
TERESITA S. ATUEL
(053) 321-2018 Fax

325-5029
325-7860
TALIB A. TAPSI
CARMELAINE G. TUGAS
EDUARDO V. MANLANTAO
(062) 991-2936 Fax

991-4927
(088) 2273-7826 Fax

(CTO) 2271-1886
858-3895
REGION XI
RAMONITA G. TUGAS
(Helen K. Lee Building, corner

Juan Luna & Juan dela Cruz
Streets, Davao City)
REGION XII
JAIME R. VELASCO
(157 Sinsuat Avenue, Corner

Gonzalo Javier Street, Cotabato
City)
CARAGA
ADULFO A. LLAGAS
(Baladad Compound, J.C. Aquino

Avenue, Libertad, Butuan City)
(082) 227-3118
221-3054 Fax
ZENAIDA A. TIPON
(064) 421-3025
421-3615 Fax
(085) 342-6301
815-9474 Fax
48
The Statement of Income and Expenditures CY 2004

Publication Staff
MA. PRESENTACION R. MONTESA
Executive Director
NORBERTO G. MALVAR
ICO-Deputy Executive Director for Operations
JOSE ARNOLD M. TAN
In-Charge of Office & Concurrent Director of PMS
Local Revenue Enforcement Division

( R.E.V. )
MA. PAMELA P. QUIZON
Acting Chief, REV
REBECCA A. FERNANDEZ
Senior Local Treasury Examiner
FLORITA I. ORCAJADA
Local Treasury Examiner II
AMOR G. DIO
Loan Examiner II
ROSANNA E. SALVADOR
Statistician II
MA. BERMA S. CABRERA

Consultant
EMELINDA F. SAN ESTEBAN

Consultant
EDMOND M. YEE
Consultant
49

8th Flr., EDPC Building, BSP Complex,
Roxas Blvd., Manila 1004
Website: www.blgf.gov.ph

SIE CY 2004 Volume 1 New

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SIE CY 2004 Volume 1 New

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

SIE CY 2004 Volume 1 New

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

D

LGU FISCAL AND

The CY 2004 Statement of Income and Expenditure

TERMS OF USE OF BLGF PUBLICATION

The CY 2004 Statement of Income and Expenditures Publication

DIR. MA. PRESENTACION R. MONTESA

Bureau of Local Government Finance Department of Finance (Volume I)

FROM THE EDITOR

Bureau of Local Government Finance Department of Finance (Volume I)

Message from Exec. Dir. Ma. Presentacion R. Montesa

BLGF Mission Statement

Notes on the Statement of Income and Expenditures

Statement of Income and Expenditure Analysis

Top Ten LGUs for each Category

Notes on the Income Classification of LGUs

Bureau of Local Government Finance Department of Finance (Volume I)

Bureau of Local Government Finance Department of Finance (Volume I)

Income Class: social class dictated by the income / revenue generated

Bureau of Local Government Finance Department of Finance (Volume I)

The BUREAU OF LOCAL

Bureau of Local Government Finance Department of Finance (Volume I)

Bureau of Local Government Finance Department of Finance (Volume I)

BLGF MISSION STATEMENT

Assist in the formulation and implementation of policies on local government

Assist LGUs in the development and implementation of Real Property Tax

Exercise administrative and/or technical supervision over local treasury and

Perform such other appropriate functions as maybe assigned by the Secretary or

Bureau of Local Government Finance Department of Finance (Volume I)

objectives of the national development

Bureau of Local Government Finance Department of Finance (Volume I)

Bureau of Local Government Finance Department of Finance (Volume I)

NOTES ON THE INCOME

The system developed aims to provide near

realistic and timely information on the fiscal performance of LGUs.

Bureau of Local Government Finance Department of Finance (Volume I)

Bureau of Local Government Finance Department of Finance (Volume I)

Bureau of Local Government Finance Department of Finance (Volume I)

Major sources of income of LGU. . .

Share from National Tax Collection

Overall Revenue Performance of LGUs in CY 2004

Bureau of Local Government Finance Department of Finance (Volume I)

Table 3. Revenue Performance of LGUs (Local Sources vis vis

AMOUNT (in PMillion)

AMOUNT (in PMillion)

Local tax revenues are forced contributions to finance government operations.

Bureau of Local Government Finance Department of Finance (Volume I)

AMOUNT (in PMillion)

Non-tax receipts include the aggregate of regulatory fees, service/user charges,

AMOUNT (in PMillion)

The amount of IRA actually received by provinces, cities and municipalities

Bureau of Local Government Finance Department of Finance (Volume I)

Table 7. External Source of LGU Receipts: CY 2001-2004

A. INCOME BY LEVEL OF LGUs

Bureau of Local Government Finance Department of Finance (Volume I)

Table 8. Revenue Performance of Provinces: CY 2001-2004

AMOUNT (in PMillion)

AMOUNT (in PMillion)

Bureau of Local Government Finance Department of Finance (Volume I)

AMOUNT (in PMillion)