Can LGUs succeed in managing their own population? They probably can, but they need strong national leadership in doing so. This Policy Notes asserts that population management is a national rather than a local issue. What is needed is to have a clear and fully-funded national population program, with LGUs participating vigorously and consistently.local government unit, population, population program, population management

Orbeta, Aniceto Jr. C.

English

Research Papers in Economics

Policy Notes
December 2004    No. 2004-12
PHILIPPINE INSTITUTE
FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Surian sa mga Pag-aaral
Pangkaunlaran ng Pilipinas
LGUs need strong
national leadership
in population
management
________________
* The author is Senior Research Fellow, Philippine Institute for
Development Studies (PIDS).
1 Philippine Daily Inquirer, October 26, 2004, p. A7.
2 Philippine Daily Inquirer, December 8, 2004, p. A13.
PIDS Policy Notes are observations/analyses written by PIDS research-
ers on certain policy issues. The treatise is holistic in approach and
aims to provide useful inputs for decisionmaking.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of PIDS or any of the study's sponsors.
Aniceto C. Orbeta Jr.*
I
ISSN 1656-5266
n a recent pronouncement made by President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo regarding the govern-
ment’s policy on population, she indicated that
the “family planning program was not the main
responsibility of the national government, but rather the
local government units which have been given the au-
thority to decide [on] the methods that they will push in
their communities.”1 In effect, this translates into an
expressed national policy of leaving the population con-
cern to local government units (LGUs). The question is:
Is this strategy generating the desired results as envi-
sioned in the Philippine Population Management Program
(PPMP) and the Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan
(MTPDP)? Are the LGUs even interested in managing their
own population?
This Policy Notes dissects the implications of this policy
stance at the conceptual and empirical levels. It notes
the varied responses that LGUs have to the population
problem as a result of this national policy stance and
offers some conceptual reasons on why many LGUs may
not be interested in managing their population. Finally,
the Notes identifies what need to be done.
LGUs’ varied responses
As a consequence of the expressed national policy of
having LGUs push for their own population management
programs, LGUs have responded in different ways that
are not consistent with one another. For instance, one
city (Tagum) is doing a frontier program in having male
involvement through the promotion of vasectomy (Box
1). Recently, two mayors in Pangasinan (San Miguel and
Asingan) have promoted ligation.2 Another city
(Muntinlupa) embarked on a serious effort at recording
and managing migration (Box 2). On the other hand, there
are some cities like Manila where artificial contraception
is banned and where only natural family planning method
is promoted. And in many other LGUs, the population
problem has apparently not even caught the attention of
their officials thereupon resulting in their doing nothing
significant.December 2004 2
Policy Notes
Box 1. Promoting male involvement
Between 1995-2000, Tagum City’s population grew at about 2.93 percent annually, higher than the national (2.34), regional
(2.62) and Davao del Norte’s (2.22) population growth rates. The city’s crude birth rate stands at 271 and its average rate of
natural increase is about 23 persons per 1000 population for the years 1995–1999. While migration played a significant role
in the city’s rapid urbanization in the early 1980s during the gold rush in the Davao region, the relatively high population
growth today is no doubt mainly attributable to the high birth rates. The relatively high rate of population increase presents an
overwhelming challenge for the city government in supplying adequate basic services to its constituents. Realizing that re-
sources can hardly keep up with the growing demand, the local government embarked on population management programs
to influence the tempo of population growth. Aside from pre-marriage counseling and making artificial family planning de-
vices available at the City Health Office (c/o a DOH-USAID project), the city government at one time (2001-2003) offered
financial incentives for males who would voluntarily undergo a vasectomy. The City Health Office was tasked to administer the
program while the surgical procedure was carried out by the Davao Provincial Hospital, charged against the city’s annual
contribution to the provincial hospital. Those who have successfully undergone vasectomy received P5,000 from the local
government. No information regarding the number of volunteers who availed of the incentives, however, is available due to the
improper turnover of files when the nurse-in-charge of the records resigned from the City Health Office.
Source: Gerochi, 2004. Tagum City: development at the crossroads. Case study prepared for the POPCOM-PIDS Population, Urbanization and
Local Governance Project.
The latter responses are hardly the kind that the PPMP
has envisioned to happen given the urgency of the popu-
lation problem and the effects it has on the poverty alle-
viation program, in particular, and on the development
efforts, in general, as explained in earlier PIDS Policy
Notes.3
What explains the general lack of interest?
The seeming lackluster pursuit of LGUs in managing their
population programs stem from inherent conceptual rea-
sons. Professors from the School of Economics at the
University of the Philippines, for instance, have argued
that leaving the adoption of population policy and imple-
mentation of family planning programs to LGUs is “ill con-
ceived and is doomed to fail.” They put forward several
arguments to support this conclusion. One, LGU leaders
typically wait for clear directions from the national gov-
________________
3 Orbeta (2003), Population and the fight against poverty, PIDS
PN 2003-04; Herrin (2003), Lack of consensus characterizes Phil-
ippine population policy, PIDS PN 2003-03; Pernia (2003), Popu-
lation: does it matter? Revisiting an old issue, PIDS PN 2003-02.
ernment on important policy objectives and instruments.
There is no reason why the population issue would be
any different. Two, the national policy on IRA allotments
says 50 percent weight should be given to population
size as seen in Box 3. Three, population constitutes the
political base of a politician. These two latter reasons
mean that the larger the population is, the better it is for
LGU executives. Finally, better population management
that would result in good performance in service deliv-
ery may lead to an influx of transients availing of locally-
funded services, in the process frustrating efforts at im-
proving local services delivery through better local popu-
...LGU leaders typically wait for clear
directions from the national government on
important policy objectives and instruments.
There is no reason why the population issue
would be any different.No. 2004-12 3
Policy Notes
Box 2. Migration Information Center (MIC)
The City of Muntinlupa Migration Information Center (MIC) project was conceptualized in 1997 through the conduct of a
series of advocacy activities until mid-1998 in the city of Muntinlupa that gained both executive and legislative supports. This
led to the passage by the City Development Council of Sangguniang Resolution No. 99-025 in the following year which
mandated for the establishment of the MIC in all nine barangays. The funding appropriation of the barangay MICs was also
provided in 1999.
Communication campaign was done to generate public awareness and support for the project. Relevant MIC information
materials were developed, produced and disseminated. From project advocacy in 1997 to MIC’s initial operation in 1999,
activities were planned and implemented jointly by POPCOM-National Capital Region, the University of the Philippines Popu-
lation Institute (UPPI) and the Muntinlupa City Planning and Development Office (CPDO). Subsequently, it was fully
operationalized in year 2000 under the supervision of the CPDO as the overall project coordinator. In year 2000, by virtue of
an Executive Order, the personnel composition of the MIC was formed and the responsibilities and compensation of the
Migration Information Officers (MIOs) were stated.
The general objective of the MIC project is to increase the awareness, understanding and appreciation of population move-
ment as a demographic event and its impact on the socioeconomic situation of the city. The specific objectives are: 1) to
generate information/data that will help policymakers, planners and program implementers in policy and program develop-
ment particularly on the number, characteristics, needs and origin of in-migrants; 2) to assist new residents in making initial
adjustments to their new environment and help them make their stay successful and meaningful by providing the in-migrants
with the available services and facilities; and 3) to provide the means to monitor and abate the influx of squatters in the city.
The MIC operates through a three-stage reporting system. The first stage involves a registration that covers all in-migrants to
the barangay. The second stage involves the regular reporting to the barangay council of the status of registration of in-
migrants. The third stage involves the submission of a regular monthly report by the CPDO. The CPDO, being the overall
coordinator of the MIC activities, is the repository of all the data generated from all barangays by their respective MIOs. The
CPDO then informs the office of the Local Chief Executive of the relevant findings and provide appropriate recommendations
for policy formulation, program planning and project development.
The MIC allows for the establishment of a population database for: 1) monitoring the magnitude as well as the demographic
and socioeconomic characteristics of in-migrants; 2) planning or setting up an early warning system on expected dysfunction(s)
due to population increases and structural changes on account of in-migration; and 3) responding to the information and
basic service requirements of these migrants through responsive policy formulation, program planning and project develop-
ment backed by relevant data.
Source: Philippine Country Report, Fifth Asian and Pacific Population Conference, December 2002, POPCOM.
lation management. This constitutes another negative in-
centive for managing population at the local level.
So what can be done to address these?
Some points to consider
Given the lack of clear motivations for better population
management among LGUs, resulting in their current var-
ied and inconsistent responses to the population issue,
there is a need to adopt a different strategy if the objec-
tives of the PPMP and the MTPDP are to be achieved.
What is needed is to have a clear and fully-funded na-
tional population program with LGUs participating vigor-
ously and consistently. The LGUs need to be rallied around
a strong national resolve to manage the population. Leav-
ing the management of the population problem to them
entirely will result, as already amply demonstrated, in a
fragmented or even much worse inconsistent program.
Managing population is clearly a national rather than a
local issue. Clear national policy objectives and direc-
tions are therefore needed before LGUs can be expected
to act in a concerted manner. These are also needed toDecember 2004 4
Policy Notes
arrest spillover effects from lack of local population man-
agement as well as minimize movement of transient popu-
lation that can frustrate whatever fruits a local good popu-
lation program generates. 
References
Orbeta et al. 2004. Population, urbanization and local gover-
nance. Technical Report prepared for the POPCOM.
Manasan. 2003. Decentralization and service delivery study: in-
tergovernmental finance. Report to ADB-WB.
UP School of Economics. 2004. Population and poverty: the real
score. Processed.
Box 3. Population size and IRA allocation of LGUs
Share of LGUs
z After the LGC (1991): 40 percent of internal revenue taxes
z Before LGC: a maximum of 20 percent of internal revenue taxes
Shares among different levels of LGUs
z After LGC (1991): 23 percent to provinces, 23 percent to cities, 34 percent to municipalities and 20 percent to barangays
z Before LGC: 27 percent to provinces, 23 percent to cities, 41 percent to municipalities, and 10 percent to barangays
Basis of allocation
z After LGC (1991): 50 percent population, 25 percent land area, 25 percent equal sharing
z Before LGC: 70 percent population, 20 percent land area, 10 percent equal sharing
Note for ARMM:
Sharing
z After the amendment to the organic act (2001): 30 percent central government, 35 percent regional government, 35
percent local government, distributed using the abovementioned formula
z Before the amendment to the organic act: 40 percent central government, 30 percent regional government, 30 percent
LGUs
Source: Manasan (2003). Decentralization and service delivery study: intergovernmental finance. Report to ADB-WB.
For further information, please contact
The Research Information Staff
Philippine Institute for Development Studies
NEDA sa Makati Building, 106 Amorsolo Street
Legaspi Village, 1229 Makati City
Telephone Nos: 892-4059 and 893-5705
Fax Nos: 893-9589 and 816-1091
E-mail: aorbeta@pidsnet.pids.gov.ph; jliguton@pidsnet.pids.gov.ph
The Policy Notes series is available online at http://www.pids.gov.ph.
Reentered as second class mail at the Business Mail Service Office
under Permit No. PS-570-04 NCR. Valid until December 31,
2004.

Decentralization and service delivery study: intergovernmental finance. Report to ADB-WB.

Population and poverty: the real score.

Population size and IRA allocation of LGUs Share of LGUs z After the LGC (1991): 40 percent of internal revenue taxes z Before LGC: a maximum of 20 percent of internal revenue taxes Shares among different levels of LGUs z After LGC

Population, urbanization and local governance.

LGUs Need Strong National Leadership in Population Management

http://dirp4.pids.gov.ph/ris/pn/pidspn0412.pdf

LGUs Need Strong National Leadership in Population Management

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics