Public Financial

Management Assessment
Tool for Local Government
Units
(PFMAT for LGUs)
Public Financial Management
A system of rules, procedures and practices for
government to manage public finances
Public Financial Management
Encompasses seven (7) elements:
1. Budgeting
2. Accounting
3. Auditing
4. Cash Management
5. Procurement
6. Revenue Generation
7. Public Reporting on Public Sector Financial Operations
Project analysis7slide
Key 2 Elements
Cash Management
Budgeting

Procurement
Accounting
PFM
Revenue Generation
Auditing
Public Reporting on Public
Sector Financial Operations
 7 Critical Dimensions
CD 2
CD 1 Comprehen CD 3
Policy- -siveness Credibility
based and of the
Budgeting Transparenc Budget
y

CD 4 CD 5 CD 6
Predictabilit Internal
Accounting CD 7
y and
Control in
, Recording and Citizens’
and External Participation
Budget
Execution Reporting Audit
Take note!
• Re-assessment year: 2019
• Immediately preceding year: 2018
• Next preceding year: 2017
• 3-year assessment period: 2016-2017-2018
 Critical Dimension 1

Policy-based Budgeting
CD 1 Policy-based Budgeting
The indicators measure if the budget is prepared
with due regard to government policy.
 CD 1 Policy-based Budgeting

Responsible Unit Indicator(s) Sub-indicator(s)

Planning and 1. Multi-year 1.1 Linkage between
Development perspective in fiscal PDPFP/CDP and LDIP
Office planning and 1.2 Linkage between the LDIP
budgeting and AIP
1.3 Linkage between the AIP
and AO covering the budgets
Critical 1. Policy-based Score Criteria
Dimension Budgeting
Indicator 1. Multi-year
perspective in 4 100% of the number of programs /projects/activities in the duly
fiscal planning approved LDIP were based on the duly approved PDPFP in the case
and budgeting
of Provinces or CDP in the case of cities and municipalities.
Sub- 1.1 Linkage
Indicator between 3 90% - 99% of the number of programs /projects/activities in the duly
PDPFP/CDP and approved LDIP were based on the duly approved PDPFP in the case
LDIP
of Provinces or CDP in the case of cities and municipalities.
Data Table 1
Source PDPFP / CDP; 2 80% - 89% of the number of programs /projects/activities in the duly
Documents LDIP; approved LDIP were based on the duly approved PDPFP in the case
Minutes of LDC of Provinces or CDP in the case of cities and municipalities.
Meetings
1 70% - 79% of the number of programs /projects/activities in the duly
approved LDIP were based on the duly approved PDPFP in the case
of Provinces or CDP in the case of cities and municipalities.
0 Less than 70% of the number of programs /projects/activities in the
duly approved LDIP were based on the duly approved PDPFP in the
case of Provinces or CDP in the case of cities and municipalities; OR
the LGU has no duly approved LDIP or PDPFP / CDP.
Data Table 1: Instruction - Based on the duly approved LDIP, fill-in the total number of
the PPAs. Compare the said PPAs with the PPAs in the PDPFP / CDP to determine the
total number of PPAs derived from the PDPFP / CDP.
Critical 1. Policy-based Score Criteria
Dimension Budgeting
Indicator 1. Multi-year
perspective in 4 In ALL the last three years , 100% of the number of programs/
fiscal planning projects/activities in the duly approved AIP was based on the annual
and budgeting
slice of the duly approved LDIP.
Sub- 1.2 Linkage
Indicator 3 TWICE in the last three years, 100% of the number of programs/
between the
projects/activities in the duly approved AIP was based on the annual
LDIP and AIP
slice of the duly approved LDIP.
Data Table 2
Source LDIP; AIP 2 ONCE in the last three years, 100% of the number of programs/
Documents projects/activities in the duly approved AIP was based on the annual
slice of the duly approved LDIP.
1 In ANY of the last three years, 70%-99% of the number of programs/
projects/activities in the duly approved AIP was based on the annual
slice of the duly approved LDIP.
0 In ALL the last three years, less than 70% of the number of programs/
projects/activities in the duly approved AIP was based on the annual
slice of the duly approved LDIP; OR the LGU has NO approved LDIP
or AIP.
Data Table 2: Instruction - Based on the duly approved LDIP, indicate the total number of
PPAs programmed under each of the last three years. Based on the duly approved AIP/s
for the last three years, indicate the number of PPAs per year which were derived (the
same or identical) from the pertinent annual slice of the LDIP
Critical 1. Policy-based Score Criteria
Dimension Budgeting
Indicator 1. Multi-year
perspective in 4 In ALL the last three years, 100% of the Appropriation Ordinances
fiscal planning covering the annual and supplemental budgets were based on the
and budgeting
duly approved AIP.
Sub- 1.3 Linkage
Indicator between the AIP 3 TWICE in the last three years, 100% of the Appropriation Ordinances
and AO covering covering the annual and supplemental budgets were based on the
the budgets
duly approved AIP.
Data Table 3
Source AIP; AO 2 ONCE in the last three years, 100% of the Appropriation Ordinances
Documents covering the annual and supplemental budgets were based on the
duly approved AIP.
1 In ANY of the last three years, 70% - 99% of the Appropriation
Ordinances covering the annual and supplemental budgets were
based on the duly approved AIP.
0 In ALL the last three years, less than 70% of the Appropriation
Ordinances covering the annual and supplemental budgets were
based on the duly approved AIP
Data Table 3: From the last three years’ Appropriation Ordinances covering the budgets,
indicate the total number of PPAs which were derived from the pertinent duly approved
AIP.
 CD 1 Policy-based Budgeting

Responsible Unit Indicator(s) Sub-indicator(s)

Budget Office 2. PFM
improvement
policies are
included in the
budgets covered by
Appropriation
Ordinances
Critical 1. Policy-based Score Criteria
Dimension Budgeting
Indicator 2. PFM
improvement 4 Over the last three years, the LGU included at least seven (7) PFM
policies are improvement policies in the budgets covered by Appropriation
included in the
budgets covered Ordinances.
by Appropriation
Ordinances 3 Over the last three years, the LGU included five to six (5 - 6) PFM
improvement policies in the budgets covered by Appropriation
Sub-
Indicator Ordinances.
Data Table 4 2 Over the last three years, the LGU included three to four (3 – 4) PFM
Source Local Sanggunian improvement policies in the budgets covered by Appropriation
Documents Resolutions; Ordinances.
Appropriation
Ordinances 1 Over the last three years, the LGU included one to two (1 – 2) PFM
covering improvement policies in the budgets covered by Appropriation
Annual /
Supplemental Ordinances.
Budgets 0 Over the last three years, the LGU has not included any PFM
improvement policy in the budgets covered by Appropriation
Ordinances.
Data Table 4: Based on the approved Appropriation Ordinances for the last 3 years, cite
PFM improvement policies related to the seven (7) key elements of PFM that have been
included in the annual/supplemental budgets for the last three years.
 CD 1 Policy-based Budgeting

Responsible Unit Indicator(s) Sub-indicator(s)

Budget Office 3. Orderliness of 3.1 Adherence to a fixed
activities in the calendar for budget preparation
annual budget and authorization process
preparation and 3.2 Timely enactment and
authorization approval of the AO authorizing
the annual budget
process
3.3 Timely submission of such
AO to the appropriate reviewing
authority
Critical 1. Policy-based Score Criteria
Dimension Budgeting
Indicator 3. Orderliness of
activities in the 4 The existing annual calendar for budget preparation and
annual budget authorization phases is strictly observed and adhered to.
preparation and
authorization 3 The existing annual calendar for budget preparation and
process
authorization phases is observed but there are delays in not more
Sub- 3.1 Adherence to
Indicator a fixed calendar than 2 steps, excluding Steps 8 and 9.
for budget 2 The existing annual calendar for budget preparation and
preparation and
authorization authorization phases is observed but there are delays in 3 but not
process more than 4 steps, excluding Steps 8 and 9.
Data Table 5 1 The existing annual calendar for budget preparation and
Source Budget Call authorization phases is observed but there are delays in more than 4
Documents issued by LCE; steps, excluding Steps 8 and 9.
Appropriation
Ordinance 0 The existing annual calendar for budget preparation and
covering the authorization phases is totally not observed and adhered to.
Annual Budget
Data Table 5: Instruction - On the following data table, write the actual timelines based on
the budget preparation and authorization activities undertaken in the immediately
preceding year. Compare the standard calendar with the actual dates and note the
reason for delay.
Critical 1. Policy-based Score Criteria
Dimension Budgeting
Indicator 3. Orderliness of
activities in the 4 In ALL the last three years, the Appropriation Ordinance authorizing the
annual budget Annual Budget was enacted by the Local Sanggunian AND approved
preparation and
authorization by the Local Chief Executive PRIOR to the start of the budget year.
process 3 TWICE in the last three years, the Appropriation Ordinance authorizing
Sub- 3.2 Timely the Annual Budget was enacted by the Local Sanggunian AND
Indicator enactment and
approval of the approved by the Local Chief Executive PRIOR to the start of the budget
AO authorizing year.
the annual
budget 2 ONCE in the last three years, the Appropriation Ordinance authorizing
the Annual Budget was enacted by the Local Sanggunian AND
Data Table 6
approved by the Local Chief Executive PRIOR to the start of the budget
Source Appropriation year.
Documents Ordinance
covering Annual 1 In ALL the last three years, the Appropriation Ordinance authorizing the
Budget Annual Budget was enacted by the Local Sanggunian PRIOR to the start
of the budget year BUT was approved by the LCE AFTER the start of the
budget year.
0 In ALL the last three years, the Appropriation Ordinance authorizing the
Annual Budget was enacted by the Local Sanggunian AND approved
by the Local Chief Executive AFTER the start of the budget year.
Data Table 6: Instruction - Indicate the actual dates when the Appropriation Ordinances
authorizing the Annual Budget for the past three years were enacted by the Sanggunian
and approved by the LCE.
Critical 1. Policy-based Score Criteria
Dimension Budgeting
Indicator 3. Orderliness of
activities in the 4 In ALL of the last three years, the Appropriation Ordinance1
annual budget authorizing the Annual Budget was submitted to the appropriate
preparation and
authorization reviewing authority within three days after its approval
process
3 TWICE in the last three years, the Appropriation Ordinance
Sub- 3.3 Timely authorizing the Annual Budget was submitted to the appropriate
Indicator submission of
such AO to the reviewing authority within three days after its approval, and ONCE
appropriate beyond three days after its approval.
reviewing
authority 2 ONCE in the last three years, the Appropriation Ordinance
Data Table 7 authorizing the Annual Budget was submitted to the appropriate
reviewing authority within three days after its approval, and TWICE
Source AO covering
Documents Annual Budget; beyond three days after its approval.
Proof/s of receipt
by reviewing 1 In ALL of the last three years, the Appropriation Ordinance
authority authorizing the Annual Budget was submitted to the appropriate
reviewing authority but beyond three days after its approval.
0 In ANY of the last three years, the Appropriation Ordinance
authorizing the Annual Budget was not at all submitted to the
appropriate reviewing authority.
Data Table 7: Instruction - Indicate the actual dates when the Appropriation Ordinance
authorizing the Annual Budgets for the past three years were submitted to the
appropriate reviewing authority.
 CD 1 Policy-based Budgeting

Responsible Unit Indicator(s) Sub-indicator(s)

Budget Office 4. Financial self-
reliance of Local
Economic
Enterprises (LEEs)/
Public Utilities (PUs)
Critical 1. Policy-based Score Criteria
Dimension Budgeting
Indicator 4. Financial self-
reliance of Local 4 In ALL the last three years, 100% of the total financial requirements
Economic for operations of all LEEs / PUs was funded by their respective
Enterprises
(LEEs)/ Public incomes.
Utilities (PUs)
3 TWICE in the last three years, 100% of the total financial requirements
Sub- for operations of all LEEs / PUs was funded by their respective
Indicator
incomes.
Data Table 8
Source LEEs’ Statements 2 ONCE in the last three years, 100% of the total financial requirements
Documents of Income and for operations of all LEEs / PUs was funded by their respective
Expenditures; incomes.
Appropriation
Ordinances 1 In ANY of the last three years, 1%-50% of the total financial
covering Annual / requirements for operations of all LEEs / PUs was funded by their
Supplemental
Budgets respective incomes.
0 In ALL of the last three years, more than 50% of the total financial
requirements for operations of all LEEs / PUs was not funded by their
respective incomes but by LGU transfers / advances.
Data Table 8: Instruction – Based on all LEEs’/PUs’ Approved Budgets for the last three
years, fill in the total financial requirements for operations of all LEEs / PUs. Based on the
LEEs’ / PUs’ Statement of Income and Expenditures, fill in the total income of all LEEs /
PUs. Based on the Appropriation Ordinances covering Annual and Supplemental budgets
of the LGU concerned for the last three years, please indicate the total LGU
transfers/advances to LEEs / PUs. Compute the percentage of the total financial
requirements for operations of all LEEs/PUs funded by their respective incomes and by
LGU transfers/advances.
 Critical Dimension 2

Comprehensiveness and
Transparency
CD 2 Comprehensiveness and Transparency

The indicators measure if budget information

provide a complete picture of revenue forecasts,
prior, current and budget years’ expenditures and
the expected outputs. They also measure whether
fiscal and budget information are accessible to the
public.
 CD 2 Comprehensiveness and Transparency

Responsible Unit Indicator(s) Sub-indicator(s)

Budget Office 5. Comprehensiveness
of budget
information
contained in the
Appropriation
Ordinance covering
the Annual Budget
Critical 2. Score Criteria
Dimension Comprehensive-
ness and
Transparency
4 In ALL of the last three years, the budget information contained in
Indicator 5.
Comprehensive- the Appropriation Ordinance covering the Annual Budget is
ness of budget comprehensive (100% score in all the last three years).
information
contained in the 3 TWICE in the last three years, the budget information contained in
Appropriation the Appropriation Ordinance covering the Annual Budget is
Ordinance
covering comprehensive (100% score in two of the last three years).
the Annual 2 ONCE in the last three years, the budget information contained in
Budget
the Appropriation Ordinance covering the Annual Budget is
Sub-
Indicator comprehensive (100% score in one of the last three years).
Data Table 8 1 In ANY of the last three years, three to five of the mandatory
Source Appropriation budget documentary requirements were in prescribed forms (50%
Documents Ordinance - 99% score in any of the last three years).
authorizing
Annual Budget 0 In ALL of the last three years, less than three of the mandatory
budget documentary requirements were in prescribed forms (less
than 50% score in all of the last three years).
Data Table 9: Instruction - Using the budget documentation from the last three years,
identify whether or not the following documents forming part of the Appropriation
Ordinance covering the ANNUAL BUDGET were completely accomplished in the
prescribed form:
 CD 2 Comprehensiveness and Transparency

Responsible Unit Indicator(s) Sub-indicator(s)

Office of the 6. Public access to
LCE key information
Critical 2. Score Criteria
Dimension Comprehensive-
ness and
Transparency
4 In the immediately preceding year, there was 100%
Indicator 6. Public access to
key information compliance with the posting of reports pursuant to the Full
Sub- Disclosure Policy of the DILG.
Indicator
3 In the immediately preceding year, there was 90% - 99%
Data Table 24
compliance with the posting of reports pursuant to the Full
Source Reports required
Documents under the Disclosure Policy of the DILG.
“Full Disclosure 2
Policy” of
In the immediately preceding year, there was 80% - 89%
the DILG compliance with the posting of reports pursuant to the Full
Disclosure Policy of the DILG.
1 In the immediately preceding year, there was 70% - 79%
compliance with the posting of reports pursuant to the Full
Disclosure Policy of the DILG.
0 In the immediately preceding year, there was less than 70%
compliance with the posting of reports pursuant to the Full
Disclosure Policy of the DILG.
Data Table 24: Instruction - Using the immediately preceding year’s data, determine
whether or not the enumerated reports have been posted pursuant to the “Full Disclosure
Policy” enunciated under DILG Memorandum Circular No. 2010-83 dated 8 October
2010. In order to get full credit for each type of report, posting requirements must be fully
complied with.
Data Table 24: Instruction - Using the immediately preceding year’s data, determine
whether or not the enumerated reports have been posted pursuant to the “Full Disclosure
Policy” enunciated under DILG Memorandum Circular No. 2010-83 dated 8 October
2010. In order to get full credit for each type of report, posting requirements must be fully
complied with.
Data Table 24: Instruction - Using the immediately preceding year’s data, determine
whether or not the enumerated reports have been posted pursuant to the “Full Disclosure
Policy” enunciated under DILG Memorandum Circular No. 2010-83 dated 8 October
2010. In order to get full credit for each type of report, posting requirements must be fully
complied with.
 Critical Dimension 3

Credibility of the Budget

CD 3 Credibility of the Budget
The indicators measure whether or not the budget is
realistic and is implemented as intended.
 CD 3 Credibility of the Budget

Responsible Unit Indicator(s) Sub-indicator(s)

Treasurer’s 7. Actual local
Office revenue
collections
compared
with estimated
revenues in the
budget
Critical 3. Credibility of Score Criteria
Dimension the Budget
Indicator 7. Actual local
revenue 4 In ALL of the last three years, total actual local revenue
collections
compared collections was 90% - 100% of the estimated local revenues.
with estimated
revenues in the 3 TWICE in the last three years, total actual local revenue
budget collections was 90% - 100% of the estimated local revenues.
Sub- 2
Indicator ONCE in the last three years, total actual local revenue
Data Table 11 collections was 90% - 100% of the estimated local revenues.
Source Treasurer’s 1 In ANY of the last three years, total actual local revenue
Documents Statements of collections was 70% -89% of the estimated local revenues.
Receipts and
Expenditures 0 In ALL of the last three years, total actual local revenue
(SREs); AO
covering collections was less than 70% of the estimated local revenues.
Annual and
Supplemental
Budgets
Data Table 11: Instruction - From the last three years’ budgets, fill-in the estimated
revenues (excluding external sources) (Source: last three years’ Annual Budgets). From the
year-end Statements of Receipts and Expenditures (SREs), fill-in the actual local revenue
collections, (excluding external sources) (Source: last three years’ SREs).
 CD 3 Credibility of the Budget

Responsible Unit Indicator(s) Sub-indicator(s)

Budget Office 8. Actual 8.1 Total allotments released
expenditures compared with total
compared with Appropriations
appropriations by 8.2 Total actual obligations
allotment class compared with total
allotments released
8.3 Total actual disbursements
compared with total
obligations
Critical 3. Credibility of Score Criteria
Dimension the Budget
Indicator 8. Actual
expenditures 4 In ALL of the last three years, total released allotments for each
compared with
appropriations by allotment class was 90% - 100% of the total appropriations.
allotment class
3 TWICE in the last three years, total released allotments for
Sub- 8.1 Total
Indicator allotments each allotment class was 90% - 100% of the total
released appropriations.
compared with
total 2 ONCE in the last three years, total released allotments for each
Appropriations
allotment class was 90% - 100% of the total appropriations.
Data Table 10
1 In ANY of the last three years, total released allotments for
Source Statements of
Documents Allotments, each allotment class was 70% -89% of the total appropriations.
Obligations and
Balances (SAOBs); 0 In ALL of the last three years, total released allotments for each
AO covering Annual
and Supplemental allotment class was less than 70% of the total appropriations.
Budgets
Critical 3. Credibility of Score Criteria
Dimension the Budget
Indicator 8. Actual
expenditures 4 In ALL of the last three years, total actual obligations for each
compared with
appropriations by allotment class was 90% - 100% of the total allotments
allotment class released.
Sub- 8.2 Total actual
Indicator obligations 3 TWICE in the last three years, total actual obligations for each
compared with allotment class was 90% - 100% of the total allotments
total
allotments released.
released 2 ONCE in the last three years, total actual obligations for each
Data Table 10
allotment class was 90% - 100% of the total allotments
Source SAOBs; Local
released.
Documents Budget Matrix
(LBM); Allotment
Release 1 In ANY of the last three years, total actual obligations for each
Orders (AROs) allotment class was 70% -89% of the total allotments released.
0 In ALL of the last three years, total actual obligations for each
allotment class was less than 70% of the total allotments
released.
Critical 3. Credibility of Score Criteria
Dimension the Budget
Indicator 8. Actual
expenditures 4 In ALL of the last 3 years, total actual disbursements for each
compared with
appropriations by allotment class was 90% - 100% of the total obligations
allotment class incurred.
Sub- 8.3 Total actual
Indicator disbursements 3 TWICE in the last 3 years, total actual disbursements for each
compared with allotment class was 90% - 100% of the total obligations
total
obligations incurred.
Data Table 10 2 ONCE in the last 3 years, total actual disbursements for each
Source SAOBs; Local allotment class was 90% - 100% of the total obligations
Documents Budget Matrix
(LBM); Allotment incurred.
Release
Orders (AROs) 1 In ANY of the last 3 years, total actual disbursements for each
allotment class was 70% -89% of the total obligations incurred.
0 In ALL of the last 3 years, total actual disbursements for each
allotment class was less than 70% of the total obligations
incurred.
Data Table 10: Instruction - From the last three years’ budgets, fill-in the total
appropriated amounts (Source: last three years’ Appropriation Ordinances covering
Annual and Supplemental budgets). From the year-end Statements of Allotments,
Obligations and Balances (SAOBs), fill-in the released allotments and obligations (Source:
last three years’ SAOBs). From the year-end Report of Disbursements, fill-in total
disbursements.
Data Table 10: Instruction - From the last three years’ budgets, fill-in the total
appropriated amounts (Source: last three years’ Appropriation Ordinances covering
Annual and Supplemental budgets). From the year-end Statements of Allotments,
Obligations and Balances (SAOBs), fill-in the released allotments and obligations (Source:
last three years’ SAOBs). From the year-end Report of Disbursements, fill-in total
disbursements.
 Critical Dimension 4

Predictability and Control in

Budget Execution
CD 4 Predictability and Control in Budget Execution

The indicators measure if the budget is implemented

in an orderly and predictable manner and whether
or not there are arrangements for the exercise of
control and supervision in the use of public funds.
 CD 4 Predictability and Control in Budget Execution

Responsible Unit Indicator(s) Sub-indicator(s)

Treasurer’s 9. Real Property
Office Tax (RPT)
Accomplishment
Rate
Critical 4. Predictability Score Criteria
Dimension and Control in
Budget Execution
Indicator 9. Real Property 4 In ALL of the last three years, Real Property Tax
Tax (RPT) Accomplishment Rate was 90% - 100%.
Accomplishment
3 TWICE in the last three years, Real Property Tax
Rate
Accomplishment Rate was 90% - 100%.
Sub-
Indicator 2 ONCE in the last three years, Real Property Tax
Data Table 12 Accomplishment Rate was 90% - 100%
Source Assessor’s/
1
Documents Treasurer’s In ANY of the last three years, Real Property Tax
Reports; SREs Accomplishment Rate was 70% - 89%.
0 In ALL of the last three years, Real Property Tax
Accomplishment Rate was less than 70%.
Data Table 12: Instruction - From the last 3 years’ Treasurer / Assessor’s Reports, fill-in the
RPT due1 as estimated from the assessed value of taxable real properties but limited to
the LGU’s share only (Source: last 3 years’ Treasurer / Assessor’s Reports). From the year-
end Statement of Receipts and Expenditures (SREs), fill-in the actual RPT collected
(Source: last 3 years’ SREs).
 CD 4 Predictability and Control in Budget Execution

Responsible Unit Indicator(s) Sub-indicator(s)

Treasurer’s 10. Effectiveness of 10.1 Computerized RPT
Office tax enhancement database system linkages
measures 10.2 Effectiveness of
implementing tax collection
strategies for delinquent RPT
10.3 Effectiveness of civil
remedies on tax payment (For
provinces and cities only)
10.4 Planning and monitoring of
tax mapping
Critical 4. Predictability Score Criteria
Dimension and Control in
Budget Execution
Indicator 10. Effectiveness
of 4 LGU has a computerized RPT database system that
tax enhancement is linked to all three departments.
measures
Sub- 10.1 3 LGU has a computerized RPT database system that
Indicator Computerized
RPT database is linked to two of the three departments
system linkages
Data Table 13 2 LGU has a computerized RPT database system that
Source Database Map / is linked to one of the three departments.
Documents Manual
1 LGU has a computerized RPT database system but is
NOT linked to any of the three departments.
0 LGU has no computerized RPT database system.
Data Table 13: Instruction - Please answer the following questions on the space provided
and use answers as bases for scoring.
Critical 4. Predictability Score Criteria
Dimension and Control in
Budget Execution
Indicator 10. Effectiveness 4 RPT collection strategies contributed to at least 20%
of
tax enhancement increase in percentage of delinquent RPT collected in the
measures last two years.
Sub- 10.2 Effectiveness
Indicator of implementing 3 RPT collection strategies contributed to a 15%-19% increase
tax collection
strategies for in percentage of delinquent RPT collected in the last two
delinquent RPT years
Data Table 14
2 RPT collection strategies contributed to a 10%-14% increase
Source RPT Account
Documents Register; in percentage of delinquent RPT collected in the last two
Certified List of all years
RPT
Delinquencies
1 RPT collection strategies contributed to a 1%-9% increase in
percentage of delinquent RPT collected in the last two years
0 RPT collection strategies did not contribute to any increase
in percentage of delinquent RPT collected in the last two
years
Data Table 14: Instruction - Using the Real Property Tax Account Register, fill-in the
amounts of delinquent accounts for the next preceding and immediately preceding years.
Based on the Certified List of All RPT Delinquencies, fill-in the amounts of delinquent
accounts settled for the next preceding and immediately preceding years:
Critical 4. Predictability Score Criteria
Dimension and Control in
Budget Execution
Indicator 10. Effectiveness 4 Institution of civil remedies resulted in settlement of 100%
of
tax enhancement of total accounts in the Certified List of Delinquency
measures (CLD).
Sub- 10.3 Effectiveness
Indicator of civil remedies 3 Institution of civil remedies resulted in settlement of 90%-
on tax payment
(For provinces 99% of total accounts in the CLD.
and cities only) 2 Institution of civil remedies resulted in settlement of 80%-
Data Table 15
89% of total accounts in the CLD.
Source Treasurer’s
Documents Records /Reports; 1 Institution of civil remedies resulted in settlement of 70%-
Certified List of
Delinquencies 79% of total accounts in the CLD.
0 Institution of civil remedies resulted in settlement of less
than 70% of total accounts in the CLD.
Data Table 15: Instruction - From the Treasurer’s CLD, fill-in the number of delinquent
account listed and settled in the immediately preceding year.
Critical 4. Predictability Score Criteria
Dimension and Control in
Budget Execution
Indicator 10. Effectiveness
of 4 A tax map exists and is updated every time there is
tax enhancement a subdivision or consolidation of lots.
measures
Sub- 10.4 Planning and 3 A tax map exists and is updated at least every three
Indicator monitoring of tax
mapping years.
Data Table 16
2 A tax map exists and is updated at least every five
Source Local Tax Mapping
Documents System/ Database years.
1 A tax map exists but has never been updated.

0 There is no tax map in the LGU.

Data Table 16: Instruction – Answer the questions below as bases for determining the
minimum requirements which your LGU has satisfied.
 CD 4 Predictability and Control in Budget Execution

Responsible Unit Indicator(s) Sub-indicator(s)

Treasurer’s 11. Predictability in 11.1 Cash availability to support
Office the availability of budgeted programs,
cash for projects and activities, and
commitment of Liabilities
expenditures 11.2 Preparation and updating
of cash flow forecasts and
cash flow analysis
Critical 4. Predictability Score Criteria
Dimension and Control in
Budget Execution
Indicator 11. Predictability
in the availability 4 In ALL the last three years, 100% of allotments
of cash for including liabilities have available cash.
commitment of
expenditures 3 TWICE in the last three years, 100% of allotments
Sub- 11.1 Cash
Indicator availability to including liabilities have available cash.
support budgeted
programs, 2 ONCE in the last three years, 100% of allotments
projects and
activities, and including liabilities have available cash.
Liabilities
Data Table 17
1 In ANY of the last three years, 70% - 99% of
Source LBM; Cash Program; allotments including liabilities have available cash.
Documents Cash Flow Forecast;
Trial 0 In ALL of the last three years, less than 70% of
Balance; SAOB
allotments including liabilities have available cash.
Data Table 17: Instruction - From the last three years’ Statement of Allotments,
Obligations and Balances (SAOBs), fill-in the allotments (current year and continuing
appropriations). Based on the Trial Balances for the year immediately preceding the given
year, indicate the prior year’s ending balance for accounts payable. Based on the
Statement of Cash Flows for the given year, indicate the amount of available cash for
PPAs and liabilities.
Critical 4. Predictability Score Criteria
Dimension and Control in
Budget Execution
Indicator 11. Predictability
in the availability 4 A cash flow forecast is updated at least quarterly
of cash for based on the cash flow analysis (Yes to Q1, Q2 &
commitment of
expenditures Q3)
Sub- 11.2 Preparation
Indicator and updating 3 A cash flow forecast is updated semi-annually based
of cash flow
forecasts and on the cash flow analysis. (Yes to Q1 & Q2 only)
cash flow analysis
2 A cash flow forecast is updated once a year based
Data Table 18
Source Cash Flow Forecast; on the cash flow analysis. (Yes to Q1 & Q2 only)
Documents Cash
Flow Analysis 1 A cash flow forecast is prepared but is not updated
at all. (Yes to Q1 only).
0 No cash flow forecast is prepared. (No to Q1)
Data Table 18: Instruction - Answer the following questions with Yes or No. Indicate the
evidences supporting the answers.
 CD 4 Predictability and Control in Budget Execution

Responsible Unit Indicator(s) Sub-indicator(s)

General Services 12. Value for 12.1 Use of public bidding for
Office money the procurement of goods
and controls in 12.2 Procurement of Common
Use Supplies and Equipment from
Engineering procurement
DBM–Procurement Service
Office 12.3 Effectiveness of Procurement
12.4 Publication of procurement-
BAC related activities
12.5 Timeliness of completed
procurement activities
Critical 4. Predictability Score Criteria
Dimension and Control in
Budget Execution
Indicator 12. Value for money
and controls in 4 100% of total number of contracts is awarded
Procurement
Sub-Indicator 12.1 Use of public through public bidding.
bidding for
the procurement of
goods, civil works and
3 90% - 99% of total number of contracts is awarded
consulting services in
accordance with R.A. through public bidding.
No. 9184 and its IRR
Data Table 19 2 80% - 89% of total number of contracts is awarded
Source
Documents
Annual/ Supplemental
Procurement Plan and
through public bidding.
Procurement Monitoring
Reports; PhilGEPS
Abstract; Notices of
1 70% - 79% of total number of contracts is awarded
Award; BAC Resolutions
recommending: (1) through public bidding.
Resort to Alternative
Mode of Procurement,
(2) Award of Contract, 0 Less than 70% of total number of contracts is
(3) Failure of Bidding, (4)
Others; awarded through public bidding.
Data Table 19: Instruction - Please fill up the data table below using immediately
preceding year’s data and use answers in scoring.
Critical 4. Predictability Score Criteria
Dimension and Control in
Budget Execution
Indicator 12. Value for money 4 100% of total purchases of common-use supplies and
and controls in
Procurement equipment were covered by APRs submitted to DBM-PS.
Sub-Indicator 12.2 Procurement
of Common Use 3 90% - 99% of total purchases of common-use supplies and
Supplies and equipment were covered by APRs submitted to DBM-PS.
Equipment from
DBM–Procurement
Service 2 80% - 89% of total purchases of common-use supplies and
Data Table 20 were covered by APRs submitted to DBM-PS.
Source APP-CSE Monitoring 1 70% -79% of total purchases of common-use supplies and
Documents Report; Subsidiary
Ledgers for Supplies were covered by APRs submitted to DBM-PS.
and Equipment;
Agency 0 Less than 70% of total purchases of common-use supplies and
Purchase Requests
equipment were covered by APRs submitted to DBMPS.
Data Table 20: Instruction – Based on the LGU’s Annual Procurement Plan – Common-
Use Supplies and Equipment (APP-CSE) Monitoring Report and Agency Purchase
Requests (APRs), please fill up the data table below using immediately preceding year’s
data and use answers in scoring.
Critical 4. Predictability Score Criteria
Dimension and Control in
Budget Execution
Indicator 12. Value for money 4 100% of LGU procurement is in accordance with the approved
and controls in
Procurement Annual / Supplemental Procurement Plan (A/S PP).
Sub-Indicator 12.3 Effectiveness
of Procurement 3 90% - 99% of LGU procurement is in accordance with the
Data Table 21 approved A/S PP.
Source A/S Procurement 2 80% - 89% of LGU procurement is in accordance with the
Documents Plans;
Delivery and approved A/S PP.
Acceptance
Reports 1 70% - 79% of LGU procurement is in accordance with the
approved A/S PP.
0 Less than 70% of LGU procurement is in accordance with the
approved A/S PP.
Data Table 21: Instruction - Please fill up the data table below using immediately
preceding year’s data and use answers in scoring
Critical 4. Predictability Score Criteria
Dimension and Control in
Budget Execution
Indicator 12. Value for money 4 ALL procurement-related notices and documents are published /
and controls in
Procurement posted in the mandatory places / sites for posting / publication AND
Sub-Indicator 12.4 Publication of within the prescribed period under R.A. No. 9184 and its IRR.
procurement-
related activities 3 ALL procurement-related notices and documents are published /
Data Table 22 posted in the mandatory places/sites for posting / publication BUT
Source PhilGEPs Abstract; not within the prescribed period under R.A. No. 9184 and its IRR.
Documents Delivery and 2 NOT all procurement-related notices and documents are published /
Acceptance
Reports; posted in the mandatory places/sites for posting / publication within
Procurement- the prescribed period under R.A. No. 9184 and its IRR.
related
Notices/ Documents 1 ALL procurement-related notices and documents are published /
posted BUT not in all the mandatory places/ sites for posting /
publication within the prescribed period under R.A. No. 9184 and its
IRR
0 ALL procurement-related notices and documents are NOT
published / posted in the mandatory places/sites for posting /
publication within the prescribed period under R.A. No. 9184 and its
IRR.
Data Table 22 : Instruction - Indicate under the appropriate column if the document is
posted / published within the prescribed period.
Critical 4. Predictability Score Criteria
Dimension and Control in
Budget Execution
Indicator 12. Value for money 4 100% of requested goods and services, civil works and consulting
and controls in
Procurement services are delivered / completed on time.
Sub-Indicator 12.5 Timeliness of
completed 3 90% - 99% of requested goods and services, civil works and
procurement consulting services are delivered / completed on time
activities
Data Table 23 2 80% - 89% of requested goods and services, civil works and
Source A/S Procurement
consulting services are delivered / completed on time
Documents Plans;
Delivery and 1 70% - 79% of requested goods and services, civil works and
Acceptance consulting services are delivered / completed on time.
Reports
0 Less than 70% of requested goods and services, civil works and
consulting services are delivered / completed on time
Data Table 23: Instruction - Using the Approved Annual / Supplemental Procurement
Plan and Procurement Monitoring Reports as bases, fill up the data below using the
immediately preceding year’s data.
 CD 4 Predictability and Control in Budget Execution

Responsible Unit Indicator(s) Sub-indicator(s)

Accounting 13. Effectiveness of
Office payroll controls

14. Effectiveness of
internal controls
for non-Personal
Services (PS)
expenditures
Critical 4. Predictability Score Criteria
Dimension and Control in
Budget
Execution 4 100% of Personal Services (PS) expenditures have
Indicator 13.
Effectiveness of no adverse COA audit findings.
payroll controls
3 90% - 99% of PS expenditures have no adverse
Sub-
Indicator COA audit findings.
Data Table 27 2 80% - 89% of PS expenditures have no adverse
Source SAOB; COA
Documents Audit COA audit findings
Observation
Memoranda 1 70% - 79% of PS expenditures have no adverse
(AOMs); COA COA audit findings.
Annual Audit
Report (AAR) 0 Less than 70% of PS expenditures have no adverse
COA audit findings
Data Table 27: Instruction - Using the immediately preceding year’s SAOB, indicate the
total amount of PS expenditures. Based on the Annual Audit Report (AAR) for the
immediately preceding year, indicate how much of PS expenditures have no adverse COA
audit findings. Compute the percentage of PS expenditures that have no adverse COA
findings
Critical 4. Predictability Score Criteria
Dimension and Control in
Budget
Execution 4 100% of Non-PS (MOOE & Capital Outlays)
Indicator 14.
Effectiveness of expenditures have no adverse findings.
internal
controls 3 90% - 99% of Non-PS (MOOE & Capital Outlays)
for non- expenditures have no adverse findings.
Personal
Services (PS) 2 80% - 89% of Non-PS (MOOE & Capital Outlays)
expenditures
Sub-
expenditures have no adverse findings.
Indicator 1 70% - 79% of Non-PS (MOOE & Capital Outlays)
Data Table 28
expenditures have no adverse findings.
Source SAOB; COA
Documents AOMs; COA 0 Less than 70% of Non-PS (MOOE & Capital Outlays)
AAR
expenditures have no adverse findings.
Data Table 28: Instruction - Using the immediately preceding year’s SAOB, indicate the
total amount of Non-PS Expenditures (MOOE and Capital Outlays). Based on the Audit
Observation Memoranda (AOMs) or Annual Audit Report (AAR) for the immediately
preceding year, indicate how much of Non-PS expenditures have been disallowed in
audit. Compute the percentage of Non-PS expenditures allowed in audit.
 Critical Dimension 5

Accounting, Recording
and Reporting
CD 5 Accounting, Recording and Reporting

The indicators measure whether or not adequate

records and information are produced, maintained,
and disseminated for purposes of decision-making,
control, management, and reporting on operations.
 CD 5 Accounting, Recording and Reporting

Responsible Unit Indicator(s) Sub-indicator(s)

Accounting 15. Timeliness and 15.1 Regularity of bank
Office regularity of reconciliation
accounts 15.2 Timeliness of reconciliation
and liquidation of cash advances
reconciliation
Critical 5. Accounting, Score Criteria
Dimension Recording and
Reporting
Indicator 15. Timeliness 4 100% of bank reconciliation for the General Fund bank
and regularity accounts takes place monthly, and within 5 working days from
of accounts
reconciliation receipt of bank statements.
Sub- 15.1 Regularity 3 90% - 99% of bank reconciliation for the General Fund bank
Indicator of bank accounts takes place monthly, and within 5 working days from
reconciliation
receipt of bank statements.
Data Table 29
2 80% - 89% of bank reconciliation for the General Fund bank
Source Bank
Documents Reconciliation accounts takes place monthly, and within 5 working days from
Statements; receipt of bank statements.
COA AOMs;
1 70% - 79% of bank reconciliation for the General Fund bank
accounts takes place monthly, and within 5 working days from
receipt of bank statements.
0 Less than 70% of bank reconciliation for the General Fund
bank accounts takes place monthly, and within 5 working days
from receipt of bank statements.
Data Table 29: Instruction - Using the immediately preceding year’s Bank Reconciliation
Statements, indicate the number of monthly bank reconciliations undertaken within five
working days from receipt of the bank statements.
Critical 5. Accounting, Score Criteria
Dimension Recording and
Reporting
Indicator 15. Timeliness 4 100% of cash advances are reconciled and liquidated
and regularity within the prescribed deadline for liquidation.
of accounts
reconciliation 3 90% - 99% of cash advances are reconciled and
Sub- 15.2 Timeliness liquidated within the prescribed deadline for liquidation.
Indicator of reconciliation
and liquidation 2 80% - 89% of cash advances are reconciled and
of cash
advances liquidated within the prescribed deadline for liquidation.
Data Table 30 1 70% - 79% of cash advances are reconciled and
Source Statement of liquidated within the prescribed deadline for liquidation.
Documents Cash
Advances; 0 Less than 70% of cash advances are reconciled and
Liquidation liquidated within the prescribed deadline for liquidation.
Reports
Data Table 30: Instruction - Using the immediately preceding year’s Monthly Status of
Cash Advances and Reports of Liquidation, determine the number of cash advances
liquidated within the prescribed period.
 CD 5 Accounting, Recording and Reporting

Responsible Unit Indicator(s) Sub-indicator(s)

Accounting 16. Quality and
Office timeliness of regular
financial reports
and annual financial
statements
Critical 5. Accounting, Score Criteria
Dimension Recording and
Reporting
Indicator 16. Quality and 4 In ALL the past three years, there were no adverse COA audit findings on
timeliness of both the quality and timeliness of the regular financial reports and annual
regular financial statements. (Yes to Q1; and No to Q2 AND Q3 for ALL THREE
financial reports
and annual Years).
financial 3 TWICE in the past three years, there were no adverse COA audit findings
statements on both the quality and timeliness of the regular financial reports and
Sub- annual financial statements. (Yes to Q1; and No Q2 AND Q3 for TWO of
Indicator
THREE Years).
Data Table 31
2 ONCE in the past three years, there were no adverse COA audit findings
Source Financial Reports on both the quality and timeliness of the regular financial reports and
Documents and
Statements; COA annual financial statements. (Yes to Q1; and No to Q2 AND Q3 for ONE
AOMs; of THREE Years).
COA AAR
1 In ANY of the past three years, there were adverse COA audit findings on
EITHER the quality or timeliness of the regular financial reports and/or
annual financial statements. (Yes to Q1; and Yes to Q2 OR Q3 for ANY of
THREE Years).
0 In ALL of the past three years, there were adverse COA audit findings on
BOTH the quality and timeliness of the regular financial reports and/or
Data Table 31: Instruction - Based on the COA Audit Observation Memoranda and
Annual Audit Reports for the past three years, answer the following questions with Yes or
No
 Critical Dimension 6

Internal and External Audit

CD 6 Internal and External Audit
The indicators examine the arrangements for scrutiny
of public finances and follow-up by the LCE and/ or
the Local Sanggunian.
 CD 6 Internal and External Audit

Responsible Unit Indicator(s) Sub-indicator(s)

Office of the 17. Effectiveness of 17.1 Existence of an operational
LCE internal audit Internal Audit Service (IAS)
17.2 Frequency and distribution of
internal audit reports
17.3 Extent of management action
on internal audit findings
Critical 6. Internal and Score Criteria
Dimension External Audit
Indicator 17. Effectiveness
of 4 There is a fully operational Internal Audit Service
internal audit
Sub- 17.1 Existence of (IAS). (Yes to Q1, Q3, Q4, Q5 and Q6)
Indicator an operational
Internal Audit 3 There is a partially operational IAS. (Yes to Q1 and
Service (IAS)
to any of Q3, Q4, Q5 and Q6)
Data Table 25
Source Local Sanggunian 2 There is an existing but NOT operational IAS. (Yes to
Documents Resolution
establishing Q1 and No to all of Q3, Q4, Q5 and Q6)
IAS; Internal
Audit 1 There are initial efforts to establish IAS but the same
Manuals; Internal are not yet completed. (No to Q1 and Yes to Q2)
Audit
Reports;
0 There is no effort to establish IAS. (No to Q1 and
Q2)
Data Table 25: Instruction - Identify whether internal audit is operational by answering the
questions below.
Critical 6. Internal and Score Criteria
Dimension External Audit
Indicator 17. Effectiveness
of 4 Internal Audit Reports are regularly prepared AND
internal audit
Sub- 17.2 Frequency submitted to the LCE.
Indicator and distribution
of internal audit 3 Internal Audit Reports are not regularly prepared
reports
BUT submitted to the LCE
Data Table 26
Source Internal Audit 2 Internal Audit Reports are regularly prepared BUT
Documents Reports;
Proof of the not submitted to the LCE
Report’s
Receipt by 1 Internal Audit Reports are not regularly prepared
Management AND not submitted to the LCE
0 Internal Audit Reports are not actually prepared
Critical 6. Internal and Score Criteria
Dimension External Audit
Indicator 17. Effectiveness
of 4 Action by management on internal audit findings
internal audit
Sub- 17.3 Extent of
completed within 5 working days from receipt of audit
Indicator management report.
action on internal
audit findings 3 Action by management on internal audit findings
Data Table 26 completed within 6-10 working days from receipt of audit
Source Documentation report.
Documents of
Management’s 2 Action by management on internal audit findings
Action on
Findings; completed within 11-20 working days from receipt of
audit report.
1 Action by management on internal audit findings
completed within 21-30 working days from receipt of
audit report.
0 Action by management on internal audit findings
completed after 30 working days from receipt of audit
Data Table 26: Instruction - Using the preceding year’s internal audit reports, fill in the
data table below.
 CD 6 Internal and External Audit

Responsible Unit Indicator(s) Sub-indicator(s)

Accounting 18. Follow up on 18.1 Compliance with audit
external audit recommendations
18.2 Extent of COA disallowances
18.3 Magnitude of COA
disallowances settled
Critical 6. Internal and Score Criteria
Dimension External Audit
Indicator 18. Follow up on
external audit 4 100% of COA recommendations were implemented.
Sub- 18.1 Compliance
Indicator with audit
recommendation 3 90% - 99% of COA recommendations were
s
Data Table 32 implemented.
Source Management 2 80% - 89% of COA recommendations were
Documents response to
COA AOMs; COA implemented.
Annual
Audit Report 1 70% - 79% of COA recommendations were
implemented.
0 Less than 70% of COA recommendations were
implemented.
Data Table 32: Instruction - Using the next preceding year’s1 COA Annual Audit Report
(AAR), fill in the data table below.
Critical 6. Internal and Score Criteria
Dimension External Audit
Indicator 18. Follow up on
external audit 4 No disallowances in the COA Annual Audit (Zero
Sub- 18.2 Extent of
Indicator COA answer to Question C).
disallowances
Data Table 33
3 1% - 10% of total expenditures was disallowed in
Source COA Annual Audit the COA Annual Audit.
Documents Report
2 11% - 20% of total expenditures was disallowed in
the COA Annual Audit.
1 21% - 30% of total expenditures was disallowed in
the COA Annual Audit.
0 More than 30% of total expenditures was disallowed
in the COA Annual Audit.
Critical 6. Internal and Score Criteria
Dimension External Audit
Indicator 18. Follow up on
external audit 4 100% of COA disallowances were settled.
Sub- 18.3 Magnitude
Indicator of COA
disallowances 3 90% - 99% of COA disallowances were settled.
settled
Data Table 33
Source COA Annual Audit
2 80% - 89% of COA disallowances were settled.
Documents Report
1 70% - 79% of COA disallowances were settled.

0 Less than 70% of COA disallowances were settled.

Data Table 33: Instruction - Using the next preceding year’s COA Annual Audit Report,
please fill in the required data on disallowances. Using the next preceding year’s
accounting data on disallowances, please fill in the rest of the information needed.
 Critical Dimension 7

Citizens’ Participation
CD 7 Citizens’ Participation
The indicators measure the extent by which the LGU
encourages concerned citizens organized as CSOs to
become partners of the LGU in the formulation,
monitoring, evaluation and improvement of the local
budget.
 CD 7 Citizens’ Participation

Responsible Unit Indicator(s) Sub-indicator(s)

Planning and 19. Civil Society
Development Organization (CSO)
Office accreditation by the
Local Sanggunian

20. Degree of
citizens’
participation in the
budget process
Critical 7. Citizens’ Score Criteria
Dimension Participation
Indicator 18. Follow up on
external audit 4 At least three (3) CSOs have been accredited by the
Sub- 19. Civil Society
Indicator Organization Local Sanggunian.
(CSO)
accreditation by 3 Two CSOs have been accredited by the Local
the
Local Sanggunian Sanggunian.
Data Table 2 One CSO has been accredited by the Local
Source Transcript /
Documents Minutes Sanggunian.
of Local
Sanggunian 1 There is an existing CSO accreditation system but no
Proceedings; CSO has been accredited.
Local
Sanggunian
Resolution(s) 0 There is no CSO accreditation system in the LGU.
on CSO
Accreditation
Critical 7. Citizens’ Score Criteria
Dimension Participation
Indicator 18. Follow up on
external audit 4 Partner Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) have
Sub- 20. Degree of participated in budget preparation, budget execution
Indicator citizens’
participation in and budget accountability phases of the budget cycle.
the
budget process 3 Partner Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) have
Data Table participated in two out of the three budget phases
Source Transcript / enumerated above.
Documents
Minutes
2 Partner Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) have
of Budget
Process participated in one of the three budget phases
Proceedings; enumerated above.
Attendance
1 Partner Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) have been
Sheets during
Budget
invited to participate but did not participate in all of the
Hearings / Fora three budget phases enumerated above.
0 Partner Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) have not been
invited to participate in any of the three budget phases
Thank You!