STATUS OF THE REVIEW OF THE 1991 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODEAn update for te Lea!ue of C"t"e# of te $"%"pp"ne#26 August 2014 REVIEW OF THE 1991 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODEImproving Lives Through Local Governance Reform: Transparency, Accountability and Better ServicesGoals of the ReviewWhy are we reviewing the Code? Why focus on its fscal provisions? 1. The law mandates a review of the Code every 5 years.2. Despite recent progress in local governance2. Despite recent progress in local governance reforms, various staeholders !elieve that after 2"reforms, various staeholders !elieve that after 2" years, changes to the Code areyears, changes to the Code are %on! o&erdue' %on! o&erdue'". #any $scal topics are on the priority list of staeholders.%. &t is important to conduct a review of the provisions using a holistic framewor. REVIEW OF THE 1991 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODEGoals of the Review 'cont(d)5. The ()11*()1+ $"%"pp"ne De&e%op,ent $%an asserts that *G+s mustcontri!ute to attaining inclusive growth and reducing poverty through, I,pro&ed de%"&er- of de.entra%"/ed #er&".e# Greater %o.a% re&enue autono,- Stron! %o.a% 0#.a% !o&ernan.eHence, the underlying theme of the review process:I,pro&"n! L"&e# Trou! Lo.a% Go&ernan.e Refor,1 Tran#paren.-2 A..ounta3"%"t- and 4etter Ser&".e#1INCLUSIVE 2GOV5T*LEDCa3"net C%u#ter for Good Go&ernan.e 6 Ant"*Corrupt"on 77Coord"nat"n! Co,,"ttee for De.entra%"/at"on 77O&er#"!t Co,,"ttee for De&o%ut"onTRANS$ARENTW"de pu3%". d"##e,"nat"on &"a ,a## ,ed"a and on%"ne .anne%# ope# to DEM8STIF8 and $O$ULARI9E te 0#.a% a#pe.t# of %o.a% !o&ernan.e4EVIDENCE*4ASED$o#"t"on paper#E:"#t"n! #tud"e#Ne; #tud"e# Sur&e-#5TIME*4OUNDCo,p%etere.o,,endat"on# for %e!"#%at"&e a,end,ent# 3efore end*()1< 3Con!re## Nat5% A!en."e#LGU Lea!ue# C"&"% So."et- 4u#"ne##Se.tor C"t"/en# At Lar!e Su3=e.t E:pert#-ow shall the review !e conducted.TA>ING STOC>Related laws passed since 1//10ills $led1re2$led in Congress3upreme Court rulingsFEELING THE STA>EHOLDERS5 $ULSE3ectoral and regional consultations3urveys" 4illars of the Review 4rocess$ROCESSING THE EVIDENCETechnical studies4osition papers

!"3cope of the Review 5 6 7iscal Topics1' E:pend"ture a##"!n,ent8verlapping and unclear assignment of functions among national agencies 9 *G+s particularly in health, agriculture and environment 9 natural resources+nfunded mandates result in insu:cient or even non2delivery of services to local communities(' Re&enue a##"!n,ent 6 ta:"n! po;er#*ac of productive source of local revenues ; -igh *G+ dependence on transfers ;