LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUES AND

NEEDS IN LAND ACQUISITION

AND TITLING PROCESS

UNION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES

2015

INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW AND OBJECTIVES
The Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP) the umbrella organization of all leagues of local
government units and locally elected officials in the country with the AustralianAID (DFAT)The Asia
Foundation (TAF) partnership in the Philippines, and Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEF), conducted
a Focus Group Discussion and Workshop on Section 4 of the Residential Free Patent Act (RFPA) or RA
10023.

The issues on the untitled public lands utilized by the LGUs for public use was first raised during the
conduct of the consultation meetings of ULAP with the LGUs under the RFPA advocacy campaign from
March to July 2015. The issues centered on the fact that since the passage of RA 10023, the Implementing
Rules and Regulations (IRR) on Section 4 was released on March 3, 2015 through Administrative Order No.
2015-01, but, only for public schools with untitled lands. The IRR for the titling of lands for the LGUs and
NGAs is still under the development phase, as reported by Director Emelyne Talabis of the DENR Land
Management Bureau to the ULAP National Executive Board (NEB)1 during the 77th National Executive
Board Meeting on August 7, 2015.

Consequently, the ULAP NEB passed Resolution No. 2015-23, Pursuing Policy Research and Advocacy to
Support the Development of the Residential Free Patent Act (RA 10023) Section 4 for Local Government-Used Lands.
ULAP NEB deemed that with its capacity and political capital as the umbrella organization of all the
local government units and officials, ULAP should be the forefront and prime advocate of the issues on
Section 4 of RA 10023 to DENR and other concerned agencies. Moreover, the resolution further instructs
the conduct of further study on the specific section with regard to the issues and concerns of the LGUs
on land titling and develop necessary policy support materials to pursue the advocacy.

Given the demand from the LGUs with regard to the issues of the IRR of Section 4 on LGU-used untitled
lands, and with support from the TAF partnership, ULAP conducted a workshop on Section 4 of RA 10023
on August 28, 2015 at Maxs Restaurant, Circle Food Complex, Quezon City Circle, Elliptical Road, Diliman
Quezon City. ULAP invited the Provincial Administrator and/or Provincial Assessor of the provinces from
Regions 2, 3, 4A, 4B, and 5, and cities from NCR to attend the workshop. A total of 45 participants from 20
LGUs participated in the workshop.

The said workshop focused on the issues and concerns of the LGUs with regard to their untitled public
lands for public use and that can be reflected in the IRR. The following are the objectives of the focus group
discussion and workshop:

To gather initial data on properties solely or co-owned by LGUs;

To discuss possible issues and concerns with untitled LGU properties that can be reflected in the
draft IRR; and,

The ULAP NEB is composed of the top two officials of each of its 10 member leagues.

Page 2 of 15

To gather support from provincial governments for the issuance of an IRR for titling of LGU
properties under Section 4 of RA 10023.

WORKSHOP PROPER
A total of 45 participants from 20 LGUs participated in the workshop, of which list is documented in Annex
A: List of Workshop Participants. Herein under is the list of participating LGUs:2

Region 2
Isabela

Region 3
Bataan
Bulacan
Nueva Ecija
Pampanga
Tarlac
Zambales

Table 1. List of Participating LGUs

Region 4-A
Region 4-B
Region 5
Quezon
Marinduque
Camarines Norte
Batangas
Oriental Mindoro
Masbate
Palawan
Romblon

NCR
Quezon City
San Juan City
Caloocan City
Muntinlupa City
Pasig City

During the workshop preliminaries, Atty. George Katigbak of FEF presented the components of RA 10023,
concentrating on the Section 4 of the law. Through the first session of the workshop, it was noted that
majority of the participants are unaware of RA 10023, especially on Section 4. This encouraged the
participants to ask queries on how to solve their issues on LGU land titling in their respective areas which
will be addressed in the second part of the workshop.

The workshop proper, facilitated by ULAP Executive Director Czarina Medina-Guce, served as avenue for
the participants to discuss their respective issues on the current status of their untitled lands as well as on
the titling process The participants were asked to fill out worksheets that asked them to fill out the
following information:

Their list on untitled lands;

Issues arising on the use of the un (titled properties, and;

Actions taken on to resolve these issues.

ULAP Executive Director Medina-Guce proceeded in processing the issues experienced by the LGUs
concerning their untiled properties. The succeeding section maps out all the issues generated from the LGU
worksheets and the group processing to summarize the range of issues and needs expressed by the LGUs.

A total of 20 out of 28 invited LGUs participated in the workshop

Page 3 of 15

ISSUES AND NEEDS IDENTIFIED

SUMMARY
During the FGD-workshop, the LGUs were asked to identify different issues and concerns they are
experiencing with regard to untitled LGU lands for public use and the actions they have taken to resolve
such issues and concerns. Moreover, they were also asked to identify problems encountered in the process
of titling the LGU properties.

The issues and concerns identified during the discussion are summarized in the diagram below, with each
issue discussed in the succeeding sections.

Diagram 1. Summary of Issues on Untitled LGU Lands and Titling Process

Page 4 of 15

ISSUE CLUSTER 1: CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS

The first cluster of issues represent the concerns that arise from the lack of proper classification and
categorization of public lands.

[1] UNSYSTEM ATIC INVENTO RY OF UNTITLED LANDS

Most of the LGUs do not have an inventory of untitled lands within their jurisdiction. This can be attributed
to the lack of capacity of the LGUs in identifying their untitled lands. The LGUs have difficulty in
identifying which among the untitled lands belong to the LGUs since there is no current system in place
that harmonizes and streamlines the process. There are national government agencies that have different
land records that are used for titling purposes. Under DENR Regional Office, there are records on approved
survey lands with technical description and approved cadastral maps. On the other hand, DENR-CENRO
holds lot status and land classification map. LRA has the judicial decrees, which are titles that were granted
by the courts.

Given the vast data on land records, the LGUs expressed that they have very limited access to these since
no mechanism or system for data sharing and integration of land records thus provides difficulty in having
an inventory of titled and untitled lands. In order for them to create an inventory, they must gather all the
data relative to their LGU from all of these agencies and consolidate these data.

According to the Provincial Assessor Joselito Javier of Batangas, Right now as an assessor, we cannot
determine what properties are classified as public land because most of these lands are undeclared. This was
supported as well by the others, wherein 18 of the participating LGUs put in their worksheets that they
have incomplete or no inventory of untitled public lands. In the case of Bataan, the Provincial Assessor also
manifested that their current database only contains lands that are utilized as public roads and highways.
As a result, there is under-utilization or non-utilization of the properties of the LGUs that should have been
allocated to projects intended for the development of the community.

[2] UNSYSTEM ATIC V ALIDATION OF UNTITLED LAND S

In connection with the previous issue, the LGUs also expressed that they have no means of validation if
untitled lands truly belong to them. Even if they have identified properties that do not have titles, validation
of who owns the property is another issue. Though it is the mandate of DENR to process the titling of these
untitled lands, LGUs must provide evidence to prove that they have ownership over the property, which
in most of the cases are difficult to produce. This is further discussed in a later section: Issue Cluster 3.2 (Lack
of Evidence to Prove Land Ownership).

Supporting this issue is the case of Nueva Ecija wherein they have conducted surveys in their LGU,
however, they have a problem in validating the data they have gathered.

Page 5 of 15

[3] LACK OF PROPER CATEGORIZATION OF LANDS B ASED ON ACTUAL USE

The 1987 Philippine Constitution classifies lands of the public domain into agricultural, forest or timber,
mineral lands, and national parks. The two major classifications of land are the Alienable and Disposable
(A&D) and the Forest lands, both of which are considered lands of public domain. Alienable and disposable
lands refer to those which have been declared but not needed for forest purposes. Alienable and disposable
are limited to lands classified as agricultural lands and may be further classified according to the uses to
which they are devoted. On the other hand, forest lands are areas in the public domain that have been
classified for forest use such as public forest, permanent forest or forest reserves, timberlands, grazing lands,
game refuge and bird sanctuaries, and areas which are not yet declared in the other classification.

The problem arises when lands that are utilized by the LGUs are classified as Forest Lands. This is the case
of the local government of Palawan wherein they are unable to utilize their reserved lands as they are
classified as protected area. This is a concern for the LGU of Palawan since 90% of their lands remain
unclassified, thus limiting the powers of the provincial government to utilize their lands and expand
projects and programs for development in the province.

[4] CONFLICTING CLASSIFI CATION OF LANDS LE ADING TO THE ENCROACHM ENT OF

LGU LANDS
Untitled public lands which are used by the LGUs for public purpose are always subject to the Regalian
Doctrine, which means that all untitled public lands are owned by the State (national government). The
conflict arises in cases such as in the Province of Isabela wherein the Certificates of Land Ownership Award
(CLOA) that were given to farmer beneficiaries of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)
by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) are untitled lands initially owned and used by the LGU for
public use. Since there is no proof of ownership from the LGU, the national government has distributed
the said land, even with the standing question from the LGU.

In addition, initially identified and used by the LGUs for public use are vulnerable to the encroachment of
individuals or other entities. Once occupied by informal settlers, it will be an additional burden to the LGUs
to find another property to transfer them. This will take time and additional resources from the LGU that
should have been used for other purposes. If ever the LGU will already utilize the property, the delay
caused by transferring informal settlers can result in losses of economic opportunity. Also in the case of
Isabela, the lot of the old provincial capitol of Isabela was also occupied by informal settlers and have
secured land titles in their favor. Aside from informal settlers, provincial offices of national government
agencies also occupy the same property, which complicates the issue of ownership even further.

[5] LACK OF DEFINITIVE C LASSIFICATION OF LAN DS AS TO PROPERTY FO R PUBLIC USE

OR PATRIMONIAL PROPERTY
Article 423 of the Civil Code provides that the property of provinces, cities, and municipalities is divided
into property for public use, and patrimonial property. Furthermore, property for public use in the LGU
consists of the provincial roads, city streets, municipal streets, the squares, fountains, public waters,
promenades, and public works for public service paid for by said LGU. All other property possessed by
any of them is patrimonial.

Page 6 of 15

As explained by the representatives of Palawan, if the property is owned by the LGU in its proprietary
capacity, it has the exclusive right to sell, lease or dispose of the property. Elia Cay from Oriental Mindoro
added that in this sense, the LGU has the capability to use the property to its advantage to acquire funds
by selling the property or acquiring loans by using the property as a credit capital. This provides LGUs
additional financial opportunity, especially for those that are dependent on their IRA, to fund their
programs and projects within their jurisdiction. However, LGUs encounter difficulties in declaring
patrimonial lands being used for public purpose as their own property because it needs to undergo lengthy
and arduous legal proceedings.

ISSUE CLUSTER 2: DRAFTING OF SURVEY MAPS

This category discusses the issues that arise from the use of different survey maps in the titling process of
LGU lands.

[1] MULTIPLE AND CONFLIC TING SURVEY MAPS THAT LE ADS TO DIFFICULTIES IN
IDENTIFYING UNTITLED LANDS
The most common survey map used by the LGUs is the cadastral map, which shows the metes and bounds
or political boundaries of cities, municipalities and provinces. However, the cadastral map issued by DENR
is incomplete. This is because the function of DENR to conduct isolated and special surveys were devolved
to LGUs in 1992. But due to lack of manpower and financial resources, not a single municipality had
completed its cadastral survey. Because of this, DENR issued DENR Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 200123 which reverted back to the agency the functions to execute, supervise and manage lands surveys.
However, as of January of 2015, DENR has only completed 86.84% out of the total of 1,631 cities and
municipalities under its jurisdiction.

Moreover, the Land Registration Authority (LRA) has its own survey map, which uses technical
descriptions of land titles. However, technical descriptions on land title may differ with the actual ground
survey using the Global Positioning System (GPS). A tax map, on the other hand shows location,
dimensions, and other information pertaining to a parcel land subject to property taxes.

Each of these surveys maps serves their own purpose. However, based on the LGUs experience, there are
discrepancies with the different maps, often times producing conflicting metes and bounds. The reason for
these discrepancies come from the different sources of the data for DENR, data come from actual ground
survey using GPS, while for LRA, data are from the lot data computation. Thus, since data are from two
different sources, there are cases wherein discrepancies in political subdivision in the maps are evident.
This scenario then poses a problem in identifying untitled lands because the LGUs do not know which
survey map to use. Moreover, having multiple survey maps lead to additional expenses in the titling
process since the LGUs need to pay for all of them.

Page 7 of 15

[2] BOUNDARY DISPUTES DUE TO INCONSISTENT SURVEY M APS

As mentioned above, there are different types of Survey Maps that are being used by LGUs that are
inconsistent with each other. The Provincial Assessor Romeo Dizon of Pampanga mentioned that Cadastral
map governs all other maps. There are a lot of problems with regard to boundary disputes of municipalities. So which
shall prevail, the title or the cadastral map? Virgilio Tuazon, Provincial Assessor of Camarines Norte added
that, Between the Public Land Survey and the Cadastral Map, which one prevails? Example, the Registry of Deeds
does not accept Cadastral Map Survey. The confusion on which survey map prevails over the other creates
the boundary disputes between LGUs.

Discussions with the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) showed that the cadastral survey
submitted to them by the Land Management Bureau (LMB) increased the total land area of the country by
four thousand square kilometers (4,000 km2) compared to the survey it submitted in the year 2001 3. A
possible reason for this is that the land areas of newly created LGUs were not subtracted from the land area
of the LGU it formerly belonged to, thus doubling the land area. Furthermore, LGUs that have pending
land disputes still include the land area in their survey even though the dispute has not been resolved.

[3] LACK OF FINANCI AL AN D TECHNICAL CAPACITY OF LGUS IN THE CONDUCT OF

LAND SURVEYS
Difficulties in conducting land surveys are common among LGUs. This causes delays in the titling process
because LGUs do not have existing land surveys to produce as evidence that the land is public and untitled.

According to DENR Administrative Order 2001-23, the lack of technical manpower and financial resources
hampered the capacity of the LGUs to conduct land surveys, such as cadastral, lot and isolated and special
surveys. DENR, transferred the responsibility of conducting land surveys from the LGUs to the national
agency, through the Land Management Bureau (LMB). However, the policy does not prevent the LGUs
from initiating and funding the conduct of land surveys.

Representatives from Palawan and Tarlac proposed that if the LGUs have the technological and technical
knowledge in conducting their own land surveys, it can expedite land titling process since the data and the
conduct of survey will come from the LGUs, without waiting for the DENR-PENRO.

Representatives from DBM, DILG, and ULAP discussed issues on shares of LGUs in National Wealth in a meeting held last 25 August 2015 in Holiday Inn,
Ortigas Center, Pasig. There are three components in the computation of Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) received by LGUs and one of which is the Land Area
that accounts for 25%.
3

Page 8 of 15

ISSUE CLUSTER 3: PROCESSES ON LAND TI TLING AND SURVEYS

Application for land titling and survey by LGUs undergoes a lengthy process, which involves the President
and the DENR central office. The process is as follows:

Authorized officer or LGU shall file for the application of a special patent or proclamation to DENR
CENRO. DENR CENRO then forwards the application to DENR PENRO for verification and then
to DENR Regional Office. The DENR Regional will again verify the application then will forward
to the Land Management Bureau;
The Director of Land Management Bureau shall submit to the Secretary of the DENR the
application subject to the recommendation of the latter to the President; and,
President approves or disapproves the Special Patent.

The issues discussed in this category pertain to problems that LGUs encounter in the system of land titling.

[1] LACK OF STANDARD RULES AND REQUIREMENTS IN LAND SURVEYING

Once a title is awarded by DENR, one must register the title in the Registry of Deeds (RD). However, RD
requires the registration in LRA as well. The LRA then processes the title to be included in their database.
There is also an issue on inconsistent guidelines on what type of survey map the RD accepts for titling. As
shared by Acting Provincial Assessor Virgilio Tuazon of Camarines Norte, The process usually takes 6
months to 1 year since RD does not accept DENRs Cadastral Map, instead uses Public Land Survey. We encountered
this problem in the municipality of Talisay when we applied for special patent.

Aside from the lengthy process, LGUs also need to produce numerous documents that are required in the
titling and surveying process:

In the case of Camarines Norte, they encountered difficulties in producing and processing the
requirements, particularly on the submission of the conveyance of donation of the property.

Zambales is also having difficulties in producing the cadastral map that will be used for the titling
of its provincial capitol.

On the other hand, the province of Isabela cannot process the title for its new provincial capitol
since it lacks a requirement that needs to be secured from the DPWH.

According to Atty. Jefrie Sahagin of the Provincial Government of Palawan, the lack of standard rules and
requirements produces delays in the titling process, which also hinders the capacity of the LGUs to identify
their properties. Here is where the value of titling LGU properties comes in these properties with titles are credit
capital. Using LGU properties, we can loan additional resources for our projects and programs, instead of being just
dependent in IRA (translated from Filipino).

Page 9 of 15

[2] LACK OF EVIDENCE TO PROVE LAND OWNERSHIP

The best evidence of ownership that can be shown to DENR is the certificate of title duly issued by the RD.
In the absence of a title, tax declaration coupled by actual possession and existence of improvement also
substantiate claim for ownership. However, possession and ownership are two different things. Possession
means actual and exclusive control of property by physical occupation and this could be in good faith or
in bad faith. On the other hand, ownership implies the legal right of possession, control and enjoyment by
the owner who has established evidence that he owns the property. This is where the problems of the LGUs
arise, wherein some of their properties that were acquired or donated lack the necessary evidentiary
documents to support their acquisition.

In some cases, LGUs have already developed the area, however, the property is still untitled. This is the
case of Pampanga wherein a parcel of land that was donated to them did not have a proper title. Now that
they are trying to use the property to build a hospital, the heirs of the donor are claiming the property back.
Similar to this case, a parcel of land was donated to the provincial government of Marinduque in the 1940s,
however, the descendants of the donors are claiming back the property.

There are also cases wherein the LGUs have current possession of the property, however, the land titles are
declared under a different owner. This is the experience of Marinduque in which the lot occupied by one
of their District Hospitals is titled under the Roman Catholic Church; however, in the Tax Declaration of
the same property, a private person is shown to own the land. In the same province, the parcel of land used
as a provincial jails site is declared under the Department of Agriculture. These cases show that
discrepancies in the declaration of properties, similar to the case previously cited, further complicate the
titling process for LGUs.

[3] DELAY IN LAND TITLING DUE TO CENTRALIZED APPROV AL PROCESS

In the current system of acquiring free patents, the application passes through different agencies from the
provincial level up to the national level. As discussed above, the process includes the approval of the
President, traversing the bureaucratic process from DENR CENRO up to the DENR Central Office for
recommendation.

The participating LGUs are looking at the possibility of getting the approval of the application at the
PENRO level, like the case of the residential public lands and untitled public schools. Also, the province of
Palawan is proposing that the approval of the cadastral survey map to be delegated to the PENRO level to
further hasten the process.

[4] FEES ON GOVERNMENT T O GOVERNMENT TRANSAC TION WITH REGARD TO LAND

TITLING PROCESS
Application for both land titling and survey requires processing fees and charges. The Provincial Assessor
of Batangas mentioned that, All of these matters on land that are being discussed require the use of money. Why
dont we request that all the expenses incurred in the titling process are free of charge since the owner of the property
is the government itself and not a private entity (translated from Filipino)? The expenses incurred by the LGU

Page 10 of 15

in the titling process are resources that can fund other programs and projects of LGUs in the delivery of
other services. Since these are government to government transactions, and the payments for these fees
come from the governments resources, deferring the fees and charges might be possible to help the LGUs.

[5] IMPOSING CAPITAL GAI NS TAX ON CLASSIFIED NON-ECONOMIC AND NONCOMMERCIAL LANDS
Capital Gains Tax is a tax imposed on the gains presumed to have been realized by the seller from the sale,
exchange, or other disposition of capital assets. Capital Gains Tax amounts to 6% of the market value of the
property or the contract price, whichever is higher.

When the government forecloses a property, this tax is still being charged by the BIR even though no gain
was actually received by the LGU. In Palawan, the provincial government is still paying the capital gains
tax of a property that was foreclosed by the LGU because the debtor was not able to pay the mortgage of
the property. The said tax must be waived once the property is foreclosed and/or transferred to the custody
of the LGU since basically the LGU does not benefit from the said property.

Page 11 of 15

MOVING FORWARD
Given the above issues and concerns of the LGUs, the following are recommendations by the participating
LGUs during the workshop, as processed by the ULAP team:

Harmonization of survey maps is necessary since this is the primary requirement in titling of lands
of LGUs. Having a harmonized survey map will address many, if not all, land dispute issues
between LGUs. This shall also resolve the issue on which map to use or follow.
Thus, concerned national government agencies must look into the harmonization and alignment
of the existing different maps. Although each map has its own purpose, technical descriptions on
the maps must be aligned to avoid conflicting map results. In addition, technical capacity building
must be provided to the LGUs to be able to conduct the survey maps.

Proper classification of lands should l help LGUs in the inventory of lands within their jurisdiction.
From the inventory, they can identify which areas are public or private, public use or patrimonial,
titled or untitled. A clear and unified guideline in classifying lands must be developed.

Streamlining the process on land titling and surveying shall hasten the application for patent of
LGUs. Having a clear set of guidelines to follow, with definite requirements and length of time of
approval shall give LGUs the proper guidance they need for titling their lands, which is the essence
of the proposed IRR of Section 4 of Republic Act 10023. Approval of application may be done at
the regional or provincial level (PENRO) of DENR, which is currently done for the residential
public lands and untitled public schools.

Land governance in the local level has just been put into meaningful discourse through the ULAPs
facilitation of the RFPAs presence in selected LGUs, in partnership with AusAID (DFAT)- TAF, and in its
National Executive Board, which is composed of all local government units and local officials leagues.
Given the issues and concerns from the LGUs with regard to Land Acquisition and Titling Process and
possible recommendations from the participants, ULAP, as the forefront and representative of the LGUs,
is looking at the opportunity to progress the discussion with the national government, specifically with the
DENR. This paper will be used to start-off policy assessment and advocacy of ULAP for the continuation
of RFPA and development and implementation of Section 4 of the law. Moreover, ULAP will also continue
to gather more evidence from the LGUs to support this advocacy that will help the DENR in the effective
implementation of RFPA.

Page 12 of 15

ANNEX A: LIST OF WORKSHOP

PARTICIPANTS
NAME
Virgilio Tuazon

LGU

POSITION

1.

Camarines Norte

Acting Provincial Assessor

2.

Alice Fetalvero

Romblon

Provincial Administrator

3.

Joselito Jaiver

4.

Elia Cay

5.

Batangas

Assistant Provincial Assessor

Oriental Mindoro

LAOO II

Flores Ilagan

Tarlac

OIC Provincial Assessor

6.

Maxima Alfonso

Tarlac

LAOO II

7.

Anthony Buenaventura

Tarlac

LAOO III

8.

Leonisa Dequito

Quezon

LAOO III

9.

Glenn Vallejo

Palawan

DMO IV

10. Jefrie Sahagin

Palawan

Chief of Staff

11. Nerrie Rodriguez

Palawan

Provincial Assessor

12. Theresa Reyande

Masbate

LAOO IV

13. Mark Soriquez

Bataan

Admin Consultant

14. Ramir Relicio

Bataan

Technical Consultant

15. Ricardo Herrera

Bataan

Provincial Assessor

16. Cruzaldo Lacosta

Bulacaan

Tax Mapper IV

17. Dahilo Pineda

Nueva Ecija

Statistician I

18. Mcjohn Viernes

Nueva Ecija

LAOO II

19. Rodrigo Opis

Marinduque

Provincial Assessor

Zambales

Provincial Assessor

20. Rolando Marca

21. Dumaser Ponce

Zambales

LAOO II

22. Romeo Dizon

Pampanga

Provincial Assessor

23. Nalyna Pineda

Pampanga

Assistant Assessor

Isabela

Provincial Assessor

24. Guillermo Barreta

25. Necie Guico

Muntinlupa City

Assistant Assessor

Mandaluyong City

LAOO IV

27. Edgardo Briones

San Juan City

City Assessor

28. Leonilo Magno

San Juan City

LAOO IV

29. Jaime Macario

San Juan City

Security I

30. Shirley Estrellon

Caloocan City

HHRO

31. Teodoro Acemorino

26. Erwin Navaro

Caloocan City

PA Staff

32. Delfin Torres Jr.

Quezon City

LAOO III

33. Edgardo Ostaco

Quezon City

LAOO IV

34. Jessie Avellano

Quezon City

LAOO II

35. Rodolfo Ordanes

Quezon City

City Assessor

36. Orlando Urbano

Pasig City

City Assessor

37. Normia Salangsang

Pasig City

Computer Officer

38. Ark Barnac

Pasig City

Administrative Officer

Page 13 of 15

NAME
39. Rhealyn Dealca

LGU

POSITION

FEF

Consultant

40. George Katigbak

FEF

Consultant

41. Nila Tamoria

FEF

Consultant

42. Genixon David

ULAP

Director, Plans Programs & Policy

43. Kenneth Turaray

ULAP

ICT Officer

44. Carlos Fernandez

ULAP

ULAP

Consultant/Project Officer
Manager, Plans Programs &
Policy
Executive Director

The Asia Foundation

Assistant Program Officer

45. Eunice Dela Cruz

46. Czarina Medina-Guce
47. Marco Naguilat

ULAP

Page 14 of 15

For details and further clarifications regarding this report, please contact:

UNION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES

Unit 2803 Summit One Tower, 530 Shaw Boulevard, Mandaluyong City
Tel: (02)718-1812, 534-6789 Fax: (02)717-1810Email: ulapnatsec@gmail.com
Website: www.ulap.net.ph Facebook: www.facebook.com/ulap.org.ph

This report is developed by the ULAP Technical Team composed of the following, as completed on
September 15, 2015:

Lead Researcher

Czarina Medina-Guce, M.A.

Executive Director

Co-Researcher

Genixon David

Director, Plans Programs & Policy Unit

Research Associates

Norbert Peter Indunan

Technical Officer

Carlos Alipio Serafin Fernandez

Project Officer

Page 15 of 15