Republic of the Philippines

Province of Bohol
MUNICIPALITY OF GETAFE

PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT

(PFMAR)
Covering FYs 2013-2015

a) Executive Summary

The second normal assessment of Getafe’s PFM system marks another milestone
in the Municipal Government’s thrust “to improve the socio-economic condition
of its population through sustainable development and responsive management
of its resources in active partnership with all concerned sectors.”

With the establishment of baseline information on the current state of its PFM
system, the local government is provided with a springboard for PFM
improvement efforts that will ensure the attainment of one of its identified goals
– “to improve the efficiency of the local government to respond to the needs of the
population.”

Using the assessment framework provided by the Public Financial Management

Assessment Tool for Local Government Units ( PFMAT for LGUs), and taking into
weight the information contained in official records and reports for fiscal years
2013 to 2015, the Municipality of Getafe obtained an overall average score of
3.38. This indicates that while elements of an open and orderly PFM system are
not complete, the existing elements are nevertheless fully operational.

The score of 3.38 is the average of the following scores obtained in the seven
critical dimensions of an open and orderly PFM system.

Page 1 of 18 – Getafe PFMAR

 Critical Dimensions:
SCORE
1 Policy-based Budgeting
4.5 2 Comprehensiveness and
4
Transparency
3.5
3 Credibility of the Budget
3
2.5
4 Predictability and Control in the
2 Budget
1.5 5 Accounting, Recording and
1 Reporting
0.5 6 Internal and External Audit
0 7 Citizens’ Participation

PFM Areas Where the Municipality is Strong

It should be noted that the LGU obtained the highest scores in Critical Dimensions
2 and 5, namely Comprehensiveness and Transparency, and Accounting,
Recording, and Reporting.

The Municipality of Getafe had obtained a 4.00 score under Critical Dimension 2
which is Comprehensiveness and Transparency. This success was attributed
mainly by the collaborative efforts in consistently ensuring that budget
information in the Appropriation Ordinance covering the Annual and
Supplemental Budgets are complete and in prescribed form. Another factor that
contributed to this success was the religious compliance with the Full Disclosure
Policy of the DILG.

Also, under Critical Dimension 5, the Municipality was able to ensure that for FYs
2013-2015, bank reconciliation for the General Fund bank accounts takes place
monthly, and within five (5) working days from receipt of the bank statements.
Further, this Municipality, likewise, ensures the timeliness of reconciliation and
liquidation of cash advances. The timely compliance thereof was made possible
by sending demand letters to the concerned personnel for the liquidation of their
corresponding cash advances and not allowing a subsequent cash advance to the

Page 2 of 18 – Getafe PFMAR

same personnel without first submitting a liquidation report of their previous cash
advances and refunding the balance if there’s any.

PFM Areas to be Strengthened

On the other hand, the LGU obtained the lowest score in Critical Dimension 1
which is Policy based Budgeting. Although, the Appropriation Ordinance
authorizing the Annual Budget was enacted by the Local Sanggunian and
Approved by the Local Chief Executive prior to the start of the budget execution
stage, it was submitted to the appropriate reviewing authority beyond three days
after its approval for the last three years. This delay caused this local government
unit to obtain a score of 2.25 which is the lowest in all the critical dimensions.

Consequently, the Municipality of Getafe shall endeavor to come up with the

appropriate measures that will address the critical dimensions with low scores. At
the same time, appropriate measures will also be undertaken to further improve
on the critical dimensions where the LGU fared relatively well.

b) Introduction

The importance of good governance in the attainment of development goals

cannot be understated. Part and parcel of good governance and the
strengthening of public institutions is the continued improvement of the local
PFM system.

But for PFM improvements to be effectively undertaken, the LGU should be able
to establish baseline information on the state of its PFM system. The issuance of
the Public Financial Management Assessment Tool for Local Government Units
(PFMAT for LGUs) is therefore timely as it serves as a mechanism by which the
LGUs could measure their current PFM system and determine which areas need
improvement.

The PFM assessment was undertaken over the course of two weeks and primarily
involved the following Offices, the Heads of which form part of the LGU’s PFM
Team:

Page 3 of 18 – Getafe PFMAR

 1. Budget;
2. Treasury;
3. Engineering; and
4. Accounting.

The Office of the Municipal Mayor is also represented in the PFM Team through
the Municipal Administrator.

The assessment covered the LGU’s total budgets for 2013 to 2015, and entailed
looking into the LGU’s local revenue raising capacity also for the last three years.

This report embodies the results of the evaluation of this LGU’s PFM system,
which, in turn, are envisaged to serve as springboard for the more important
undertaking of identifying and implementing PFM improvement measures.

c) Background Information

Getafe is a third class municipality

of the Province of Bohol. It is
located in the
Northern tip of Bohol Province
approximately 92 kilometers from
the City of Tagbilaran.

According to the latest census, it

has a population of 28,172 with an
average growth rate of 1.03%.

The Municipality has 24 barangays

comprising of 5 upland barangays,
10 coastal barangays and 9 island
barangays. It has a total land area of 17,917 hectares.

During Spanish occupation, Getafe is a small fishing village/settlement close to

the sea known as “AMBACON”. The name Ambacon is derived from a Visayan

Page 4 of 18 – Getafe PFMAR

word “AMBAK” which means “to go down” since the inhabitants from the upland
needs to go down to reach the coastal area for fishing.

Pursuant to a Royal Decree promulgated on 12th of October, 1874, Ambacon’s

name was changed by the Spaniards to Jetafe which was named after the name of
their native town in Spain called Getafe.

In November 16, 1990, the sister town relationship between Jetafe (Philippines)
and Getafe (Spain) was firmly established upon the approval of the Agreement
Establishing Fraternal Bonds on both parties.

Pursuant to Resolution No. 28-135 series of 1990, the municipality restored the
original orthography of its name from Jetafe with an initial letter “ J “ to Getafe
with an initial letter “ G “. So, Jetafe, Bohol is now Getafe, Bohol like Getafe in
Madrid, Spain.

Its declaration on responsive and participatory management of its resources as

means of attaining socio-economic development sets the tone for the LGU’s PFM
reforms. The declaration bespeaks of the local government’s commitment to
advance sound PFM practices so it can further improve on the following:

Fiscal Performance:

PARTICULARS 2015 2014 2013

Revenues
Local Sources 8,428,172.67 5,899,599.21 5,469,280.89
External Sources 76,043,767.69 66,649,772.81 58,855,707.58
Expenditures
PS 29,853,554.92 30,892,900.29 32,296,609.33
MOOE 18,174,837.65 17,549,193.68 17,732,258.87
CO 1,003,888.55 1,298,102.20 2,362,723.70
SPA 5,713,152.47 7,354,407.73 5,900,253.08
Aggregate Savings 29,726,506.77 15,454,768.12 6,033,143.49

Allocation of Resources:

Page 5 of 18 – Getafe PFMAR

 SECTOR ACTUAL BUDGETARY ALLOCATION
2013 2014 2015
General Public Service 26,020,272.83 34,020,573.37 35,810,141.20
Sector
Executive Services 7,039,736.50 8,583,897.31 8,872,008.06
Legislative Services 7,039,736.50 11,387,813.81 11,868,370.18
Planning & Development 997,854.90 1,086,680.81 1,153,813.57
Budgeting Services 979,453.49 1,060,976.36 1,132,402.58
Treasury Services 3,152,908.68 3,214,642.59 3,388,710.63
Accounting Services 1,607,651.76 1,807,663.74 1,865,807.17
Administrative Services 1,662,778.66 1,804,972.71 1,862,026.09
Civil Registry Services 1,316,487.86 1,429,309.56 1,469,128.20
General Services 2,527,446.77 2,531,617.74 2,875,496.01
Assessment Services 888,612.95 972,998.74 1,182,378.71
Auditing Services 40,000.00 40,000.00 40,000.00
Legal Services 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00
Social Services Sector 7,703,981.20 9,880,637.93 12,876,326.29
Education & Manpower 70,000.00 2,200,000.00 4,744,923.60
Health 5,546,339.87 5,583,780.27 6,012,325.38
Housing and Community 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00
Development
Social Welfare 1,087,641.33 1,096,857.66 1,119,077.31
Economic Services Sector 9,188,355.62 7,634,534.69 7,189,729.99
Agriculture 1,562,624.20 1,736,398.19 1,886,798.98
Engineering Services 1,870,731.42 1,998,136.50 2,202,931.01
Natural Resources Services 2,000,000.00 1,400,000.00 1,500,000.00
Economic Enterprise & 1,355,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,600,000.00
Public Utilities
Tourism 2,400,000.00 1,000,000.00 0
Other Services Sector 18,587,390.5 17,464,254.01 24,123,802.52

Page 6 of 18 – Getafe PFMAR

d) Assessment of the Municipality’s Public Financial Management
System

PFM Areas Where the Municipality is Strong

Of the seven critical dimension of an open and orderly PFM system, the LGU was
able to obtain the highest scores in Comprehensiveness and Transparency, and
Accounting, Recording, and Reporting.

The Municipality of Getafe had obtained a 4.00 score under Critical Dimension 2
which is Comprehensiveness and Transparency. This success was attributed
mainly by the collaborative efforts in consistently ensuring that budget
information in the Appropriation Ordinance covering the Annual and
Supplemental Budgets are complete and in prescribed form. Another factor that
contributed to this success was the religious compliance with the Full Disclosure
Policy of the DILG.

It is noteworthy to mention that the Municipal Government was able to ensure

that for FYs 2013-2015, bank reconciliation for the General fund bank accounts
takes place monthly, and within five (5) working days from receipt of the bank
statements. Further, this Municipality ensures the timeless of reconciliation and
liquidation of cash advances. To reiterate, the timely compliance thereof was
made possible by sending demand letters to the concerned personnel for the
liquidation of their corresponding cash advances and not allowing a subsequent
cash advance to the same personnel without first submitting a liquidation report
of their previous cash advances and refunding the balance if there’s any.

These circumstances enable this municipality to obtain a score of 4.00 in

Comprehensiveness and Transparency and 3.75 in Accounting, Recording and
Reporting, on the average.

PFM Areas to be Strengthened

On the country, the LGU obtained the lowest score in Critical Dimension 1 which
is Policy based Budgeting. Although, the Appropriation Ordinance authorizing the
Annual Budget was enacted by the Local Sanggunian and Approved by the Local

Page 7 of 18 – Getafe PFMAR

Chief Executive prior to the start of the budget execution stage, it was submitted
to the appropriate reviewing authority beyond three days after its approval for
the last three years. This delay caused this local government unit to obtain a score
of 2.25 which is the lowest in all the critical dimensions.

The table on the next page provides the details of the results of the assessment:

Page 8 of 18 – Getafe PFMAR

 Critical
Indicator/s
Dimension
1. Policy-based 1. Multi-year perspective in
Budgeting fiscal planning and
budgeting
1.1 Linkage between
PDPFP/CDP and LDIP
1.2 Linkage between LDIP
and AIP
1.3 Linkage between AIP
and Appropriation
Ordinances
2. PFM improvement
policies are included in
the budgets covered by
Appropriation Ordinances
3. Orderliness of Activities in
the annual budget process
3.1 Adherence to a fixed
calendar for budget
preparation and
authorization
Average
Score Remarks
Score
Linkage between CDP and LDIP is strong as PPAs in the LDIP
2.67 were based in the CDP. Likewise, the linkage between LDIP
and AIP is relatively strong, though this LGU attained only once
(2014) in the last three years a 100% PPAs in the AIP that were
4.00
based in the LDIP but its percentage in 2013 and 2015 were
high being 91% and 93%, respectively. This is due to the
2.00
necessity to incorporate a priority PPA to address the needs of
the populace. Further, linkage between the AIP and
2.00 Appropriation Ordinance has been strong for the last three
years due to the strict enforcement of the policy by the
budgets reviewing authority.
2.25
2.00 Over the last three years, the LGU was able to adopt and
enforce the following PFM-related policies:
2.33 1. Allocation for E-NGAS
2. Allocation for E-TRACS (FY 2012)
3. Compliance with the full Disclosure Policy Portal of the
2.00 DILG
4. Revision of Tax Mapping (RPTIS program)
5. Community Based Monitoring System
The LGU complied within the authorized period in all steps of
the budget preparation and authorization phases except in the
AIP Preparation which was completed on September 16, 2013.
Page 9 of 18 – Getafe PFMAR
 Critical
Indicator/s
Dimension
3.2 Timely enactment and
approval of the
appropriation Ordinance
authorizing the Annual
Budget
3.3 Timely submission of the
Appropriation Ordinance
Authorizing the Annual
Budget to the appropriate
Reviewing authority
4. Financial self-reliance of
Local Economic Enterprise
(LEEs)/Public Utilities (Plus)
Average
Score REMARKS
Score
In all of the past years, the Appropriation Ordinance
4.00 authorizing the Annual Budget was enacted by the Local
Sanggunian and Approved by the Local Chief Executive prior to
the start of the budget execution.
In all of the last three years, the Appropriation Ordinance
1.00 authorizing the Annual Budget was submitted to the
appropriate reviewing authority but beyond three days after
its approval.
The LGU has two LEEs namely the operation of public market
2.00 and waterworks system. In all of the last three years, only in
2013 that 100% of the total financial requirements were
funded by their respective income since major repair in the
waterworks system were made in 2014 and 2015 due to the
damaged caused by the 7.2 magnitude earthquake.
Page 10 of 18 – Getafe PFMAR
 Critical
Indicator/s
Dimension
2. Comprehensive- 5. Comprehensiveness of
ness and Budget information
Transparency Contained in the
Appropriation Ordinance
Covering the Annual Budget
6. Public access to key
information
3. Credibility of the 7. Actual local revenue
Budget Collections compared With
estimated revenues In the
budget
8. Actual expenditure
Compared with
Appropriations by Allotment
class
8.1 Total allotments
Released compared With
total appropriations
8.2 Total actual obligations
compared with total
allotments released
8.3 Total actual
disbursements compared
with total obligations
Page 11 of 18 – Getafe PFMAR
Average
Score REMARKS
Score
The LGU, through its Municipal Budget Office, has
4.00 consistently ensured that budget information in the AO
covering the Annual Budget was complete and in
4.00 prescribed form for the last three years.
The LGU fully complied with the Full Disclosure Policy of
4.00
the DILG.
In all of the last three years, the total actual revenue
4.00 collections of LGU-Getafe exceeds one hundred percent
(100%) of the estimated local revenues or 122% for FY
2013, 119% for FY 2014 and 148% for FY 2015 to be exact.
This success was attributed to the massive tax campaign
conducted by the Municipal Treasurers Office and the
strict enforcement of remedial measures in case of non-
3.00
payment.
In all of the last three (3) years, FYs 2013-2015, the total
3.50 released allotments for each allotment class were 100% of
4.00 the total appropriations.
Of the total released allotments, 64%, 76% and 78% were
1.00 obligated for FY 2015, FY 2014 and FY 2013, respectively.
Of the total obligations, 97%, 97% and 99% were disbursed
for FY 2015, FY 2014 and FY 2013, respectively.
4.00
 Critical
Indicator/s
Dimension
4. Predictability 9. Real Property Tax
And Control in Accomplishment Rate
Budget Execution
10. Effectiveness of tax
Enhancement measures
10.1 Computerized RPT
Database system linkages
10.2 Effectiveness of
Implementing tax Collection
strategies For delinquent
Real Property Tax (RPT)
Page 12 of 18 – Getafe PFMAR
Average
Score REMARKS
Score
LGU-Getafe obtained 90% - 100% Real Property
2.00 3.18 Accomplishment Rate twice in the last three years or 97%,
70% and 111% for FY 2013, FY 2014 and FY 2015,
respectively, to be exact. This success was attributed to
the massive tax campaign conducted by the Municipal
2.67 Treasurers Office and the strict enforcement of remedial
measures in case of non-payment.
1.00
This LGU has a Real Property Tax Information System
3.00 (RPTIS), a computerized database system in the office of
the Municipal Assessor, but was not linked with the
accounting and treasury office. The LGU is working on
linking the database, through the implementation of E-
TRACS, with the accounting and treasury office.
The enforcement of remedial measures, public auction of
tax delinquent properties, resulted to 15% increase in the
collection of delinquent accounts.
 Critical Average
Indicator/s Score REMARKS
Dimension Score
10.3 Effectiveness of civil
remedies on tax payment N/A
(For Provinces and cities
Only)
10.4 Planning and This LGU has a tax map and is updated regularly every time
Monitoring of tax Mapping 4.00 there is subdivision or consolidation of lots.
11. Predictability in the
Availability of cash for 4.00
Commitment of
expenditures
11.1. Cash availability to In all the last three years, cash programming was very good
support budgeted 4.00 thereby ensuring that all allotments, including liabilities,
programs, projects And have available cash.
activities (PPAs), and
liabilities
11.2 Preparation and A cash flow forecast was prepared and was quarterly
Updating of cash Flow 4.00 updated based on the cash flow analysis.
forecasts and Cash flow
analysis

Page 13 of 18 – Getafe PFMAR

 Critical Average
Indicator/s Score REMARKS
Dimension Score
12. Value for money Controls 2.40
of procurement
12.1 Use of public bidding Of all the procurement activities, only 5% (11 out of 225) of which
For the procurement of 0.00 were awarded through public bidding due to either of the
Goods (excluding following reasons:
Common-use supplies And a. No supplier posted their bid resulting to two failure of bidding
equipment), civil Works b. The ABC of those procurement opportunities were within the
and consulting Services in threshold for small-value procurement as allowed under R.A. No.
accordance With R.A NO. 9184.
9184 and its IRR
12.2 procurement of The LGU availed the alternative mode of procurement of either
Common-Use Supplies 0.00 shopping or negotiated procurement for small-value
And Equipment from procurements in procuring common-use supplies and equipment
DBM-Procurement as authorized under RA 9184 and its Revised implementing rules
Services and regulations.
12.3 Effectiveness of All LGU procurements were made in accordance with the
Procurement 4.00 approved Annual/Supplemental Procurement Plan. This success
was attained through proper monitoring and control by reviewing
prior to the preparation of the necessary bidding documents to
12.4 Publication of ensure that all the items to be procured were included in either
Procurement related 4.00 the APP or SPP.
activities All procurement opportunities (ITB/RFQ) were duly posted in the
mandatory places/sites for posting/publication and within the
prescribed period as required RA 9184 and its RIRR.

Page 14 of 18 – Getafe PFMAR

 Critical Average
Indicator/s Score REMARKS
Dimension Score
12.5 Timeliness of 100% (225 out of 225) of all the procurement activities were
Completed procurement 4.00 delivered/ completed on time.
Activities

13. Effectiveness of payroll 4.00 100% of Personal Services expenditures have no adverse COA
Controls findings.
14. Effectiveness of internal 100% of Non-PS (MOOE & Capital Outlays) expenditures have no
Controls for non-Personal 4.00 adverse findings.
Services (PS)
5. Accounting, 15. Timeless and regularity 100% of bank reconciliation for the General Fund bank accounts
Recording And Of accounts reconciliation 3.50 took place monthly, and within 5 working days from receipts of
Reporting bank statements.
15.1 Regularity of bank 4.00
reconciliation
91% of the total cash advances were liquidated within the
prescribed deadline for liquidation. The timely compliance thereof
was made possible by sending demand letters to the concerned
3.75 personnel for the liquidation of their corresponding cash advances
and not allowing a subsequent cash advance to the same
personnel without first submitting a liquidation report of their
previous cash advances and refunding the balances if there’s any.

In all the past three years, there were no adverse COA findings on
both the quality and timeliness of the regular financial reports and
annual financial statements.

Page 15 of 18 – Getafe PFMAR

 Critical Average
Indicator/s Score REMARKS
Dimension Score
15.2 Regularity of 91% of the total cash advances were liquidated within the
Reconciliation and 3.00 prescribed deadline for liquidation. The timely compliance thereof
Liquidation of cash was made possible by sending demand letters to the concerned
advances personnel for the liquidation of their corresponding cash advances
and not allowing a subsequent cash advance to the same
personnel without first submitting a liquidation report of their
previous cash advances and refunding the balances if there’s any.

16. Quality and timeliness of In all the past three years, there were no adverse COA findings on
Regular financial reports 4.0 both the quality and timeliness of the regular financial reports and
And annual financial annual financial statements.
statements
6. Internal and 17. Effectiveness of internal
External Audit 3.0 The Municipal Accountant performs dual function under the local
Audit government set-up namely as an accountant who will prepare the
17.1 Existence of an
financial statements/reports and as an internal auditor who will
Operational internal Audit 3.0
conduct pre-audit in all disbursement transactions. In this LGU, its
Service (IAS)
Municipal Accountant, likewise, performs internal audit services.
17.2 Frequency and
3.50 Although internal audit reports are not regularly prepared, still the
Distribution of Internal 3.0
accounting office renders internal audit services when the
audit reports
circumstances requires such as:
a. Conduct appraisal of the adequacy of internal controls
17.3 Extent of
of the LGU
Management Action on 3.0
b. Conduct management audit
internal
c. Evaluate the results of operations
Audit findings

Page 16 of 18 – Getafe PFMAR

 Critical Average
Indicator/s Score REMARKS
Dimension Score
18. Follow up on external 4.0
Audit
18.1 Compliance with All audit recommendations issued by COA were complied.
audit recommendations 4.0
No notice of disallowances was issued by the COA in the COA
18.2 Extent of COA Annual Audit Report.
4.0
Disallowances
18.3 Magnitude of COA
4.0
Disallowances settled
7. Citizen’s 19. Civil Society Organization The LGU has a well-established CSO accreditation system. This
Participation (CSO) accreditation by the 4.0 LGU already accredited a total of thirty-nine (39) CSOs.
Local Sanggunian
20. Degree of Citizen’s 3.50 Some of those accredited CSOs are members of the Municipal
Participation in the 3.0 Development Council of this LGU. As member, they participated
Budget process in the budget preparation more specifically in the formulation of
the PPAs for the 20% Local Development Fund.
TOTAL AVERAGE SCORE 3.38

Page 17 of 18 – Getafe PFMAR

e) Recommendations

Improvement efforts should, foremost, be focused on the critical dimensions with

the lowest scores.

Under Critical Dimension 1, it is of primordial importance for the LGU to re-

examine and update the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) and Local
Development Investment Plan (LDIP) in order for the said plans/documents to be
more responsive to the present needs of the people through participatory
strategic workshop to be attended by the concerned stakeholders.

Under Critical Dimension 2, the municipality should seek a services provider to

provide web hosting services of the LGU website for it to be operational to enable
the LGU to comply fully with the posting of the required reports pursuant to the
Full Disclosure Policy of the DILG. Also, the LGU should hire IT personnel with
competitive remuneration package to maintain the LGU website.

Notwithstanding higher scores obtained for the rest of the critical dimensions, the
Municipality should also consider the following:

a. Pursuit of innovative local revenue raising measures to strengthen the LGUs

thrust of continuous delivery of quality services, particularly to the needy rural
folks;

a. Doubling the collection efforts, particularly collection of delinquent RPT

accounts, as a means of lessening the Getafe’s dependence on the Internal
Revenue Allotment (IRA) and realize its goal for an accelerated economic growth;
and

b. Focus on the computerization program on the integrated Revenue Collection

and Financial Management System.

Prepared by PFM Team: Approved by:

ATTY. JAIRUS T. SOCIAS, CPA CASEY SHAUN M. CAMACHO

PFM Team Leader Municipal Mayor

Page 18 of 18 – Getafe PFMAR