Table 1 – A

Implementation Status of the LPE cluster, NTF-ELCAC

N=80

Indicators 5 4 3 2 1
Total Adj. Rank
f x f x f x f x f x
x Int.
1. Conduct dialogues between the RTFs-ELCAC/LTFs- 34 2.13 40 2.0 4 .15 1 0.3 1 .01 4.32 ALI 8
ELCAC and community stakeholders. (Meron bang
dayalugo na naganap)

2. Conduct of Payapa at Masaganang Pamayanan 39 2.44 35 1.75 5 .19 0 1 .01 4.39 ALI 6.5
(PAMANA). (May sinagawa bang PAMANA)
3. Converge efforts at the regional, provincial, municipal, 40 2.5 35 1.75 4 .15 0 1 .01 4.41 ALI 4
and barangay levels. (MEron bang mga pagtatagpo
sa lebel ng lalawigan, nayon, at barangay)
4. Conduct of Local Conflivt Analysis (LCA) such as 38 2.38 38 1.9 2 .08 0 2 .03 4.39 ALI 6.5
assessment of area profile, identification of actors, and
prioritization of issues (Nagsagawa ban g LCA ditto sa
inyong lugar gaya ng assessment, at pag bigay
prayoridad sa mga isyu)
5. Coordinate ground/community on social preparation of 43 2.69 34 1.7 3 .11 0 0 45 ALI 1
programs led by DSWD and DILG (naisagawa ba ang
koordinasyon sa kumunidad bago paman isagawa
ang mga programa na pinamumunoan ng DSWD at
DILG)
6. Coordinate with the other agencies to join the Local 38 2.38 39 1.95 1 .04 1 0.3 1 .01 4.42 ALI 3
Peace Engagement Team (LPET) to conduct the
community problem-solving sessions (Nagkaroon ba
ng koordinasyon sa mga ahensya ng pamahalaan
upang sumali sa LPET para sa pag resolba ng mga
problema)
7. Advocate information drive to the affected barangays 45 2.81 30 1.5 2 .08 1 0.3 2 .03 4.45 ALI 2
and conduct Pulong-pulong/Summit-up of RCSP to
ensure total participation of the community. (Meron
bang tagapag taguyod ng impormasyon sa mga
apektadong barangays at nag sagawa ng pulong-
pulong? Dumalo ba ang mga dapat ng dadalong
partisipante)
8. Monitor and evaluate that appropriate measures are 41 2.56 34 1.7 3 .11 0 2 .03 4.40 ALI 5
being undertaken to respond to the issues and
concerned raised. (Nagkaroon ba ng monitoring at
ebalwalsyon para masiguro na tama ang mga
hakbang para masagot ang lahat ng isyu at
panganga-ilangan)
9. Recommend action to the NTF-ELCAC for issues that 42 2.63 29 1.45 3 .11 0 2 .03 4.22 HLI 9
require Presidential intervention or executive,
legislative and judicial action. (Nag rekomenda ng
aksyon sa NTF-ELCAC chingil sa mga isyo na
nangangailangan nang kasagutan mula sa Pangulo,
Lehislatura o sa Hudikatura)
Total: 4.39 ALI

Legend:
Scale Range Adjectival Interpretation
5 4.24 – 5.04 Advanced Level Implementation (ALI)
4 3.43 – 4.23 High Level Implementation (HLI)
3 2.62 – 3.42 Medium Level Implementation (MLI)
2 1.81 – 2.61 Low Level Implementation (LLI)
1 1.00 – 1.80 No Implementation at all (NI)
Table 1-A shows the implementation status in the LPE Cluster

NTF ELCAC is a community consultation and problem solving session. Of the 9 indicators, 8 indicators obtained, the average
weighted mean ranging from 424-5.04 with the adjectival ratio of advanced level implementation. Only one (1) of the 9 indicators
obtained an average weighted of 4.22 with the adjectival interpretation as High level of implementation. The top 3 indicators are
indicators 5, 7 and 6 with an average weighted mean of 4.50, 4.45 and 4.42 respectively with the adjectival rating of advanced level
of implementation. These findings confirms with the study of ______________________________________________
___________________________.
The results imply that the implementation of the LPE clusters, NFE – ELCAC in community consultations and problem solving
sessions are in the Advanced Level of implementation. It further imply that collaboration is highly evident among the ensured
stakeholders for as advanced level of implementation.

Table 2
Challenges Encountered in the Implementation of LPE Cluster NTF-ELCAC
N = 80
a. Community Consultations and Problem-Solving Sessions
Indicators f % Rank
1. Involvement of the local chief executives and the other local officials in the conduct of trainings 72 90 7.0
and capacity-building (Kasapi sa mga training na ginawa ang local na hepe ehikutibo o local
na opisyal)
2. Coordination with the other concerned units in-charge with the delivery of baic services such 75 93.75 1.0
as education , health, shelter and other primary services (Koordinasyon sa ibang sangay sa
pag tugon / pag bigay ng mga basic na serbisyo gaya ng edukasyon, kalusugan, tirahan at iba
pa.)
3. Coordination between the RTFs-ELCAC/LTFs-ELCAC and community stakeholders 72 90 7.0
(Koordinasyon sa pagitan ng RTFs-ELCAC/CTFs-ELCAC at ng kumunidad)
4. Conduct of Local Conflict Analysis (LCA) (Gumawa ng pag Analisa sa local na alitan) 74 92.50 2.0
5. Campaigns on information drive to the affected barangays and conduct Pulong-pulong 73 91.25 4.0
(Kampanya sa pag siwalat ng impormasyon sa mga apektadong barangays)
6. Funding given in the conduct of community consultations (Pondo na binigay sa pag sagawa 70 90 8.0
ng kunsultasyon sa kumunidad)
7. Coordination with the other agencies to join the Local Peace Engagement Team (LPET) 73 91.25 4.0
(Koordinasyon sa ibang ahensya na lumahok sa LPET)
8. Cooperation at all levels in the effective investigation, decisive prosecution, and regular 73 91.25 4.0y
monitoring of offences and relevant cases relating to national security (Kooperasyon sa lahat
ng lebel para sa epektibong imbistigasyon, mapag pasyahang prosekusyon, regular na
monitrong ng mga pagkakasala may kinalaman sa pambansang seguridad)

b. Local Peace Dialogues with the Surrenderees

Indicators f % Rank
1. Convergence of efforts at the community level such as delivery of basic services and socio- 70 88.50 7.0
economic packages (Pag iisa ng mga kakayahan sa kumunidad kagaya ng pangunahing
serbisyo at pang kabuhayan)
2. Government campaigns in disrupting the rebel groups (Kampanya ng gobyerno para pigilan 76 95 1.5
ang mga rebeldeng grupo)
3. Peace dialogues with armed members of the group who will avail of the E-CLIP 73 91.25 5.5
(Mapayapang dayalogo sa mga armadong grupo na gusting maka avail ng E-CLIP)
4. Neutralization campaigns against all armed threats/armed groups in the communities 73 91.25 5.5
(kampanya sa neutralisasyon laban sa bantang grupo sa kumunidad)
5. Enhanced local Integration Program (E-CLIP) to facilitate the healing, reconciliation, and 76 95 1.5
protection of former rebels into society (Pinalawak na E-CLIP upang mapangasiwaan ang
pagkaka ayos, pag papanumbalik at proteksyon ng dating mga rebelde sa sosyodad)
6. Purpose of Peace talks, community dialogues/backchannel talks, confidential talks and other 72 90 4.0
 peace incentive packages to reach out to radicalized sectors of society (layunin ng pag
uusap pangkapayapaan, konpidensyal, ibang uri ng pangkapayapaang insintibo upang
maabot ang mga radikal na sector sa lipunan.)
7. Joint Regional Taskforce 74 92.5 3.0

Table 2 shows the ranking of the challenges encountered in the implementations of the LPE cluster NTF-ELCAC along community
consultations and problem solving sessions, of the eight (8) indicators, indicator no. 2, involvement _________ obtained a total
frequency of 75 out of 80 (93.75%), rank 1. This was followed by indicator no. 4, with a total frequency of 74 (92.58%), rank 2. Third
in the list were tied among indicators no. 5 ______ 7_______, and 8_______ getting a total of 73 out 80 (91.25%) rank 4. No.1
_______ and 3 _______ obtained 72 out of 80 (90%) rank 7 while the last was indicator no. 6 with the frequency of 70 (90%) rank
8.
The above data implies that all the listed indicators are challenges met in the implementation of the LPE cluster NTF-
ELCAC. They only in the ranks.
Along the Social Peace Dialogues with the surrenders, indicators 2 _______ and 5 ________ tied with 76 or 95%, rank 1.5
This was followed by indicator 7,_________ 74 in 92.5, rank 3. Rank 4 is indicator no. 6 ______ with 72 or 90%. Rank 5.5 is tied
between indicators 3,_______ and indicator 4 _______ with 73 or 91.25%. Last in the rank is indicator no. 1 __________, with 70
or 88.50%, rank 7

Table 1 – B
Implementation Status of the LPE cluster, NTF-ELCAC on Local Peace Dialogue with the Communist Terrorist Group
(CTG)
N = 80
Indicators 5 4 3 2 1 Total Adj. Rank
f x f x f x f x f x x Int.
1. Peace dialogues with armed members of the 41 2.56 3 1.55 5 .1 0 3 .04 4.34 ALI 5
group who will avail of the E-CLIP without the 1 9
benefit of Local-Level Peace Agreement (LLPA)
(Pakikipag dayalogo sa armadong grupo na nais
makakuha ng benepisyo sa E-CLIP na walang
ano mang benepisyo mula sa LLPA.)
2. Convergence of efforts at the community level 40 2.5 3 1.7 4 .1 0 2 .03 4.38 ALI 3
such as delivery of basic services and socio- 4 5
economic packages (Pag iisa ng mga hakbangin
sa kumunidad gaya ng mga pangunahing serbisyo
beysik o kaya serbisyong pang sosyal at
ekonomiya)
3. Complementation of programs and services 43 2.69 3 1.5 4 .1 1 .03 7 .09 4.46 ALI 2
provided to the Individual Former Rebels (FRs), 0 5
their families, and communities (Napupunan ang
lahat na programa at serbisyo na binibigay sa
indibidwal na FR, pamilya at komunidad)
4. Culture, values, gender and conflict sensitive 39 2.44 3 1.55 8 .3 0 2 .03 4.32 ALI 6
peace agenda-identification in the province 1
(Kultura, mga halaga, kasarian, sinsitibong
tungalian at dayalogo sa pag kilanlan ng agenda
sa probinsya)
5. Local capacities for conflict prevention, resolution 38 2.38 2 1.35 13 .4 0 2 .03 4.25 ALI 7
and management (Local na kapasidad sa pag 7 9
iwas sa tunggalian, pag resolba at pag hawal)
 6. Draft the ground rules and formulate the agenda 40 2.5 2 1.0 10 .3 0 2 .03 3.91 HLI 8
such as formal peace dialogues (Burador or draft 0 8
ng mga alituntunin sa mga talakayin ng isang
pormal na dayalogong mapayapa)
7. Hold the local-level peace agreement (gumawa ng 42 2.63 2 1.3 10 .3 0 2 .03 4.34 ALI 4
kasunduan sa local na lebel) 6 8
8. Conduct information, Education and 48 3.0 2 1.4 2 .0 1 .03 1 .09 4.6 ALI 1
Communications activities in PROs to emphasize 8 8
the membership of the PNP in the LPE teams
(Gumawa ng aktibidad hingil sa pagsiwalat ng
impormasyon, edukasyon sa PROs upang bigyan
diin ang membership ng PNP sa LPE teams)
Total 4.33 ALI

Table 1-B presents the implementation status of the LPE cluster NTF-ELCAC on local peace dialogue with communist terrorists
group (CTG) indicators obtained the total weighted mean ranging from 4.24 – 5.04 with the adjectival interpretation of advanced
level of implementation (ALI). The top 3 indicators in the list are: indicators no. 8, _________ indicator 3,__________ and indicator
2,_________ with the total average weighted mean of 4.6, 4.46 and 4.38 respectively with an adjectival interpretation of advanced
level of implementation.
However, indicator no. 6_________ got an average weighted mean of 3.91 (High Level) of implementation (HLI).
The total average weighted mean for Local Peace Dialogue with Communist Terrorist was 4.33, advanced level implementation
The above findings suggest the research of ____________ which implies that there’s a need to sustain the activities
conducted by the local units on the conduct peace dialogues with communist terrorist group a collaborative efforts by ensured
stakeholders.
On the whole, there’s a need for a continuous dialogue with surrenderers for a successful implementation of the program