5. MAJORITY OF THE LOCAL
LEADERS OF CAMARINES SUR
SUPPORT HB 4820
24 MAYORS
24 VICE MAYORS
MAJORITY OF COUNCILORS
MAJORITY OF BARANGAY CAPTAINS
NGOS AND CIVIC ORGNIZATIONS
BUSINESS SECTOR, AND
MANY NON-POLITICAL ORGS./GROUPS
6. MAYORS OF CAMARINES SUR
SUPPORTING HB 4820
4TH DISTRICT 3RD DISTRICT
1 GOA HON. ANTERO S. LIM 10 CALABANGA HON. EVELYN S. YU
11 BOMBON HON. MA. LUISA DC. ANGELES
2 CARAMOAN HON. CONSTANTINO H. CORDIAL, JR.
12 CAMALIGAN HON.EMMANUEL T. PRADO
3 PRESENTACION HON. JOEY DELEÑA
13 CANAMAN HON. EMMANUEL S. REQUEJO
4 SAGÑAY HON. EVELYN B. FUENTEBELLA
2ND DISTRICT
5 SIRUMA HON. KAREN POLINGA
14 GAINZA HON. WILLIAM ABILAY
6 TIGAON HON. ARNULF BRIAN B. FUENTEBELLA 15 LIBMANAN HON. MARILYN A. JIMENEZ
7 TINAMBAC HON. RUEL T. VELARDE 16 SAN FERNANDO HON. EUGENIO LAGASCA JR.
17 PAMPLONA HON. GEMINO IMPERIAL
5TH DISTRICT 18 MINALABAC HON. LEOVEGILDO BASMAYOR JR.
8 IRIGA CITY HON. MADELAINE Y. ALFELOR-GAZMEN 19 PASACAO HON. ASUNCION ARCEO
9 BAAO HON. MELQUIADES I. GAITE 20 MILAOR HON. ROGELIO A. FLORES
6
7. BICOL REGION
COMPARATIVE STATISTICAL DATA
PROVINCE LAND AREA POPULATION
(Km2) 2007
ALBAY 2,565.80 1,187,185
CAMARINES NORTE 2,320.10 513,785
* CAMARINES SUR 5,502.00 1,693,821
CATANDUANES 1,492.20 232,757
MASBATE 4,151.80 768,939
SORSOGON 2,119.00 709,673
*CamarinesSur is the largest province in the Bicol
Region in terms of Land Area (30.23%) and
Population (33.17%)
Sources: LMB, NSCB &NSO
7
8. PROFILE OF 1
4
CAMARINES
2 3
SUR
5
PARTICULARS CY 2010
NO. OF TOWNS 35
NO. OF CITIES (Iriga-component, Naga- chartered) 2
NO. OF CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS 5
NO. OF BARANGAYS 1,036
POPULATION 1,693,821
8
9. LEGAL BASIS OF HB NO. 4820
1. Article X, Section 10 of the 1987
Philippine Constitution.
2. Section 461 of R.A. 7160 - 1991
Local Government Code
10. Article X, Section 10 of the
1987 Philippine Constitution
No province xxx may be
xxxDIVIDEDxxx or its boundary
substantially altered, EXCEPT in
accordance with the CRITERIA
established in the LOCAL
GOVERNMENT CODE and subject to
approval by a majority of the votes cast
in a PLEBISCITE in the political units
DIRECTLY AFFECTED.
11. SECTION 461 OF R.A. 7160
1991 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
1. Average income for the last two years of not less than
P20M, based on 1991 CPI (present value = P65M);
-and either-
2. Population of not less than 250,000;
-or-
3. Land area of not less tha 2,000 sq. km.
PROVIDED:
1. The division does not reduce the income population, or land
area of the LGU to less than the minimum requirements of
this Code; and
2. The income classification of the original LGU shall not fall
below its current classification prior to such division.
12. LEGAL COMPLIANCE
OF HB NO. 4820 TO
SECTION 461 OF RA 7160
(1991 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE)
13. COMPLIANCE OF H.B.
4820 TO
SECTION 461
OF R.A. 7160
BLGF CERTIFICATION – MARCH 10, 2011
NSO CERTIFICATION - MARCH 07, 2011
LMB CERTIFICATION - APRIL 07, 2011
PARTICULARS REQUIREMENTS COMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE
CAMARINES SUR NUEVA
(MOTHER PROVINCE) CAMARINES
DISTS. 1,2&3 (NEW PROVINCE)
DISTS 4 & 5
AVE. INCOME (1991 CPI) P20.0 M P283.48 M P223.4 M
AND EITHER
(2010=P65M)
POPULATION OR 250,000 892,203 801,618
LAND AREA (sq. km.) 2,000 2,531.60 2,970.4013
14. BLGF COMPUTATION OF THE
AVERAGE ANNUAL INCOME
TO COMPUTE FOR THE AVE. ANNUAL INCOME FOR
2009 & 2010, THE 2009 & 2010 INCOME SHOULD BE
DEFLATED BASED ON 1991 CPI
THE DEFLATORS WERE ARRIVED AS FOLLOWS:
1991 CPI(2000 as base year) = 53.60
2009 CPI(2000 as base year) = 160.00
2010 CPI(2000 as base year) = 166.10
2009 DEFLATOR = 160.00/53.60 = 2.985
2010 DEFLATOR = 166.10/53.60 = 3.099
14
15. INCOME CLASSIFICATION
To compute income classification:
Get actual income last 4 years (2007-2010)
Get the average then compare with income brackets
INCOME CLASSIFICATION BRACKET OF PROVINCES
1ST CLASS – P450.0 M OR MORE
2ND CLASS – P360.0 M TO P 450.0 M
3RD CLASS – P270.0 M TO P360.0 M
4TH CLASS – P180.0 M TO P270.0 M
5TH CLASS – P90.0 M TO P180.0 M
6TH CLASS – BELOW P90.0
15
16. MOTHER PROVINCE REMAINS
AS A FIRST CLASS PROVINCE
SECTION 461 OF R.A. 7160 MANDATES THAT THE INCOME
CLASSIFICATION OF MOTHER PROVINCE IS NOT REDUCED
YEAR INCOME
2007 P 567,475,416.64
2008 P 671,207,205.49
2009 P 848,188,234.55
1ST CLASS
2010 P 848,088,883.09 PER DOF DO
TOTALS P 2,934,959,739.09 NO. 23-08
DTD 7/29/09
DIVIDED BY 4 YEARS
AVE. INCOME P 733,739,934.94 P450M Average
BLGF Certification dated March 10, 2011 Income for 4 yrs
16
17. NUEVA CAMARINES
AS A SEPARATE PROVINCE
MAY ALSO BECOME A
FIRST CLASS PROVINCE
YEAR COMPUTED INCOME
2007 P 478,288,701.38
2008 P 548,315,572.68
2009 P 648,611,023.38
2010 P 689,675,196.63 1ST CLASS
PER DOF DO
TOTALS P 2,364,890,494.07 NO. 23-08
DIVIDED BY 4 YEARS DTD 7/29/09
AVE. INCOME P 591,222,623.52
P450M Average
BLGF Certification dated March 10, 2011
Income for 4 17
yrs
18. COMPARATIVE DATA ON NEW &
ORIGINAL (MOTHER) PROVINCE
PARTICULARS MOTHER PROVINCE NUEVA CAMARINES
DISTS 1,2&3 DISTS. 4 & 5
NO. TOWNS 19 + NAGA CITY 16 + IRIGA CITY
POPULATION 892,203 801,618
LAND AREA (sq. km.) 2,531.60 2,970.40
AVE. INCOME (1991 CPI) P283.5 M P223.4 M
INCOME CLASSIFICATION P733.7 M-1ST CLASS P591.2 M-1ST CLASS
COMPUTED RESULTING INCOME
(AVERAGE FOUR YEARS INCOME) CLASSIFICATION
2010 REGULAR INCOME P 848.1 M P 689.7 M
BLGF CERTIFICATION – MARCH 10, 2011
NSO CERTIFICATION - MARCH 07, 2011
1
LMB CERTIFICATION - APRIL 07, 2011
3 4
2
MOTHER NUEVA
PROVINCE 5 CAMARINES
Dists. 1,2, & 3 Dists. 4 & 5
18
19. RATIONALE FOR PROPOSING TO
CREATE A NEW PROVINCE
1
3 4
2
MOTHER NUEVA
PROVINCE 5 CAMARINES
Dists. 1,2, & 3 Dists. 4 & 5
1. GOOD GOVERNANCE
2. POVERTY INCIDENCE
19
20. INDICATORS IN DETERMINING
GOOD GOVERNANCE
• ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE INDEX
• POLITICAL GOVERNANCE INDEX
• ADMINISTRATIVE GOVERNANCE INDEX
A. EDUCATION INDEX
B. HEALTH INDEX
C. POWER AND ICT INDEX
20
21. PER NATIONAL STATISTICAL COORDINATION
BOARD (NSCB) ANALYSIS, THE FOLLOWING
ARE INDICATORS OF GOOD GOVERNANCE
• ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE INDEX
• Total Financial Resources Generated Per
Capita
• Per Capita Tax and Non-Tax
• Per Capita Total Deposits
• Per Capita Expenditure on Social Services
• Unemployment Rate
• Underemployment Rate
• Inflation Rate
• Poverty Gap
• Poverty Incidence
22. INDICATORS OF GOOD GOVERNANCE
(C0NTINUED)
• POLITICAL GOVERNANCE INDEX
•Crime Solution Efficiency Rate
•Voter’s Turnout Rate
• ADMINISTRATIVE GOVERNANCE INDEX
A. EDUCATION INDEX
• Elementary Teacher to Pupil Ratio
• High School Teacher to student Ratio
• No. of Public Elem. Sch. per 1000 School Age
population
• No. of Public High Sch. per 1000 School Age pop’n
23. INDICATORS OF GOOD GOVERNANCE
(C0NTINUED)
A. EDUCATION INDEX (continued)
• Enrolment in Gov’t. Elem Sch per 1000 Sch. Age Pop’n
• Enrolment in Gov’t. HS Sch per 1000 Sch. Age Pop’n
• Elementary Pupil-Classroom Ratio
• High School Pupil-Classroom Ratio
B. HEALTH INDEX
– Total Health Personnel per 1000 Population
– % Birth less than 2500 grams
– % Of Household with access to safe water
– Barangay Health Station per 100,000 Population
C. POWER AND ICT INDEX
– Power Index/Electrification
– ICT Index (Telephone Density per 1000 Population)
24. IN DETERMINING
POVERTY LEVEL
1. AN ANNUAL FAMILY
INCOME OF PhP16,000 and
below is classified as “poor”
24
25. PRESENT OUTLOOK OF CAMARINES SUR
CAMARINES SUR IS AMONG THE BIGGEST
PROVINCES IN THE COUNTRY. IT’S LAND AREA
IS 5,502 SQUARE KM WHICH IS ALMOST AS BIG
AS THE PROVINCES OF ILOCOS NORTE AND
ILOCOS SUR COMBINED (6,100 SQUARE KM)
RANKS SECOND TO THE LOWEST IN GOOD
GOVERNANCE (78TH OUT OF 79 PROVINCES)
MAGUINDANAO BEING THE 79TH.
2ND TO THE HIGHEST POVERTY INCIDENCE IN
BICOL REGION AND THIRD OVER ALL IN THE
MAGNITUDE OF POOR FAMILIES IN THE
PHILIPPINES
25
26. MAGNITUDE OF THE AREA
OF THE PROVINCE
• Camarines Sur has 1,036
Barangays
• There is only 365 DAYS in a year
• It will take more than 3 years to
visit all barangays
26
27. SMALL AND BIG PROVINCES COMPARED
NSCB, 2011
GGI
Provinces POVERTY
SMALLER Area Pop’n, (79 -
which have CLUSTER/
PROVINCES FROM (km2) 2007 INCIDENCE worst)
decided to IlocosNorte Ilocos 3,504 547,284 5/12.4% 24
divide in the Ilocos Sur Ilocos 2,596 632,255 4/ 17.0% 12
past have done QUIRINO N.Viscaya 2,323 397,837 4/ 12.3% 14
much better in SIQUIJOR Negros Or. 337 87,695 2/ 38.0% 2
terms of good AURORA Quezon 3,147 187,802 3/ 24.2% 17
governance, BILIRAN Leyte 536 150,031 2/ 34.9% 15
poverty GUIMARAS Iloilo 604 151,238 4/ 20.5% 38
alleviation, and KALINGA Kalinga A. 3,231 103,633 3/ 25.9% 3
in governing CAMIGUIN Misamis Or. 237 81,293 2/ 44.6% 1
their economic, BIG PROV.
MASBATE Sorsogon 4,151 768,939 1/54.2% 76
political and
Ambos
administrative
CAM SUR Cam 5,502 1,693,821 1/ 47.0% 78
affairs. QUEZON 9,069 1,646,510 3/ 32.5% 74
LEYTE 6,515 1,722,036 3/ 34.3% 77
The state of poverty in divided provinces was much
27
better than in Cam Sur.
28. Negative consequences
of “BIGNESS”
- Public Finance Institute of the Philippines, Headed byAIM President and former
Sec. of Finance Hon. Roberto De Ocampo
Difficulty of establishing accountability.
Too many people involved
Residents are at a loss on who is doing what
and how redress can be sought when public
service is badly delivered.
The absence of accountability induces under-
performance, abuse of powers, and
inefficiencies, and corruption.
28
29. BIGGER LGUsDON’T NECESSARILY
MEAN BETTER
The Province of Rizal which was broken into smaller
local government units and was not merely fragmented
into 2 or 3 separate and independent LGUs, but 15
LGUs, namely:
1. Las Pińas 6. Malabon 11. Makati
2. Parańaque 7. Navotas 12. Pasay
3. Muntinglupa 8. Pasig 13. Mandaluyong
4. Taguig 9. Marikina 14. Quezon City
5. Pateros 10.Caloocan 15. San Juan
The Province of Rizal did not lose its financial viability
and its socio-economic growth stunted.
29
30. LOGODEF STUDY
• The primordial concern of the Local Government Code in
establishing the minimum standards for creating a new
province is to establish a local government system that is
capable of local governance and local development. Said
minimum standards should not be ignored because that
would be anathema to the long-term foundation of robust
central-local government relations for development.
• The provisions of the Local Government Code establishing
criteria or requisites for creation of a new province “CANNOT
BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN THAT BIGGER LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS ARE BETTER AND MORE VIABLE
MECHANISM FOR EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE”.
30
31. Camarines Sur is poorly governed --
compared to its regional peers and
the entire country
• Compared to the 79 provinces
in the Philippines, Camarines
Sur is ranked 78 in good
governance in 2008, down by
two ranks compared to 2006
(NSCB, 2011)
• “Compared to its regional
peers,Cam Sur is the worst-
run province in the entire
Bicol region.”(Prof. Ben Diokno,
UP School of Economics, former
DBM Secretary)
31
32. Poverty incidence and the number of
poor people increase in CamarinesSur at
rates higher than the national average
In 2009, poverty
Poverty Magnitude of Poor Change
incidence in Incidence People
Cam Sur was 2006 2009 2006 2009 % No.
47.0, higher than
the national Philippines 26.4 26.5 22,173,190 23,142,481 4.4 969,291
average of 26.5 Region V 45.2 45.1 2,335,684 2,422,267 3.7 86,583
and regional Albay 42.8 43.6 512,762 512,079 -0.1 -683
average of 45.1.
Cam Norte 41.5 42.3 215,911 232,685 7.8 16,774
Except for
Masbate, its Cam Sur 44.9 47.0 760,730 794,832 4.5 34,102
other provincial Catanduanes 44.3 28.5 99,457 66,801 -32.8 -32,656
peers in the Masbate 52 54.2 425,966 441,688 3.7 15,722
Bicol region had Sorsogon 44.9 41.3 320,858 374,183 16.6 53,325
addressed
poverty much From 2006 to 2009, the number of poor people
better. in Cam Sur increased by 2% or by 34,102.
32
33. Cebu, Negros Occidental and Camarines Sur continue to
have the biggest share in the total number of poor families
33
34. Economic Arguments
by: Prof. Benjamin Diokno, UP School of Economics, former DBM Secretary
The body of evidence is that Camarines Sur is not
governed well and it has not addressed the welfare
of its constituents. The dissatisfaction with the
present state of affairs explains the clamor for an
alternative province (Nueva Camarines). This bill
will give those who are against the present state
of affairs the right to ‘vote with their feet’ [a
phrase coined by Charles M. Tiebout in his seminal
article “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures,”
Journal of Political Economy 64(October 1956), pp.
416-4240] 34
39. HOW DID CAMSUR PROVINCIAL
GOV’T SPEND TAXPAYERS MONEY
IN 2010?
PARTICULARS TOTALS
Casuals P 33,571,232.93
Consultancy 22,304,821.10
General Services 120,385,877.69
Other Professional Services 10,460,241.46
Gas, Oil & Lubricants 35,625,319.03
Donations 90,815,330.71
Confidential Expense 40,000,000.00
Food Supplies 97,775,981.28
Security 22,304,821.10
Other Supplies 30,068,549.91
Advertising 4,390,957.64
Drugs and Medicine Expense 133,547.13
Medical, Dental & Laboratory Supplies 97,664.15
39
40. DISCRETIONARY FUNDS OF THE
GOVERNOR
GOVERNOR’S OTHER
PARTICULARS OFFICE PROVINCIAL TOTALS
OFFICES
Casuals P 6,000,000.00 P P 33,476,000.00
27,476,000.00
Consultancy 5,000,000.00 21,570,000.00
16,570,000.00
General Services 10,676,201.30 41,190,308.00 51,866,509.30
Other Prof. Services 2,000,000.00 6,619,500.00 8,619,500.00
Other MOOE 6,049,500.00 174,003,913.96 180,053,413.96
Donations 6,967,032.32 65,897,515.52 72,864,547.84
Confidential Expense 30,000,000.00 2,368,932.00 32,368,932.00
Intelligence Expenses 25,685,697.00 2,000,000.00 27,685,697.00
TOTAL DICRETIONARY P92,378,430.62 P336,126,169.48 P428,504,600.10
FUNDS OF THE GOV
40
41. BREAKDOWN OF SPECIAL PURPOSE APPROPRIATION
(PROVINCIAL ENGINEER’S OFFICE)
Particulars Amount %
R&M-Office Buildings, School Buildings, Hospitals & 205,000.00 0.10%
Health Centers, Other Structures, Office Equipment,
Motor Vehicles, Highways and Bridges
R&M-Other Public Infrastructure 18,000,000.00 8.43%
Construction-School Buildings 10,000,000.00 4.68%
Construction-Other Infrastructure 130,900,000.00 61.31%
Construction-Other Public Infra 30,000,000.00 14.05%
Gasoline, Oil and Lubricants 10,000,000.00 4.68%
Land Improvements 1,000,000.00 0.47%
Procurement-Motor Vehicle,IT Equipment & Software, 3,100,000.00 1.45%
Technical & Scientific Machinery &Eqpt, & Other PPE
Others 10,302,515.57 4.83%
Total Special Purpose Appropriation (PEO) 213,507,515.57
OUT OF 213 M SPECIAL PURPOSE APPROPRIATION, 188 M OR
88% WAS USED ON OTHER PURPOSES WHICH PRACTICALLY
AMOUNTS TO AN ADDITIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUND
42. NEGLECT OF BASIC
INFRASTRUCTURE
THE CY 2011 SPECIAL PURPOSE APPROPRIATION
OF P213.5 MILLION UNDER THE OFFICE OF THE
PROVINCIAL ENGINEER ALLOTED A MEASLY P205
THOUSAND FOR REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF:
OFFICE BUILDING P 1,000.00
SCHOOL BUILDINGS P 1,000.00
HOSPITALS & HEALTH CTR P 1,000.00
OTHER STRUCTURES P 1,000.00
OFFICE EQUIPMENT P 500.00
MOTOR VEHICLES P 500.00
HIGHWAYS & BRIDGES P 200,000.00
43. NEGLECT OF AGRICULTURE
THE CY 2011 BUDGET OF P41.4 MILLION OF THE
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURIST
ALLOTED A MEASLY P1.24 MILLION FOR THE
FOLLOWING:
AGRICULTURAL MACHINERIES P 30,000.00
AGRI, FISHERY & FORESTRY EQPT P 50,000.00
OTHER MACHINERIES & EQPT P 10,000.00
OTHER PROPERTY, PLANT & EQPT P 50,000.00
ANIMAL/ZOOLOGICAL SUPPLIES P 1,000,000.00
AGRICULTURE & MARINE SUPPLIES P 100,000.00
45. CONCLUSION
1. THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS HAVE
BEEN COMPLIED WITH;
2. THE PROCESS OF
CONSULTATION WAS FULLY
OBSERVED;
45
46. CONCLUSION
3. THE OLD CAMARINES SUR HAS BEEN
TRYING UNSUCCESSFULLY TO
COPE WITH THE PROBLEMS AND
NEEDS OF A LARGE AREA (5,502 SQ.
KM), AND A BIG NUMBER OF
POPULATION (1,693,821), TOWNS (35),
CITY (1) AND BARANGAYS (1,036)
(EXCLUDING NAGA CITY);
46
47. CONCLUSION
4. THE TWO EMERGING PROVINCES
WILL DEVELOP AN AREA ROUGHLY
50% OF THE OLD PROVINCE AND
SEE TO THE NEEDS OF ALSO
ROUGHLY 50% OF ITS
POPULATION;
47
48. CONCLUSION
5. THE FUNDS TO BE MADE
AVAILABLE TO BOTH EMERGING
PROVINCES WILL BE MORE THAN
THAT OF THE OLD (WHOLE)
PROVINCE IN TERMS OF PER
CAPITA AND PER SQUARE KM.
48
49. CONCLUSION
6. IT IS NOT TRUE THAT DIVIDING A
PROVINCE WEAKENS BOTH NEW
PROVINCES AS CAN BE SEEN IN
THE FIGURES BELOW:
REGULAR INCOME INCOME CLASS
MOTHER PROVINCE FIRST CLASS
– CAMARINES SUR
P848.1 M
(DIST 1,2&3)
NUEVA CAMARINES MAY BECOME
(DIST 4&5)
P689.7 M
BLGF:RESULTING FIRST CLASS
COMPUTED INCOME
49
50. CONCLUSION
7. DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS WILL
BE FOCUSED ON SMALLER AREA
AND FEWER LOCAL
GOVERNMENT UNITS; SERVICES
WILL BE DELIVERED TO FEWER
POPULATION.
50
51. CONCLUSION
8. THE CREATION OF THE PROVINCE OF
NUEVA CAMARINES WILL ACCELERATE
THE POLITICAL, SOCIAL AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL
GREATLY BENEFIT NOT ONLY THE
PEOPLE IN THE PROPOSED PROVINCE,
BUT ALSO THOSE IN THE MOTHER
PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR, NOT
TO MENTION THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.
51
52. IN SUMMARY
THE CREATION OF NUEVA CAMARINES
SHALL BRING ABOUT BETTER
GOVERNANCE AND IMPROVED ECONOMIC
PROSPECTS WHICH COULD LEAD TO
REDUCTION IN POVERTY INCIDENCE.
ERGO
ACCELERATED ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND
POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT FOR THE TWO
CAMARINES PROVINCES (CAMARINES
SUR AND NUEVA CAMARINES)
52