PLAN IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATION

      Although the formulation of a plan is the first step towards addressing local concerns, unless a plan is implemented, goals, objectives and targets remain as nothing more than ideas to be hoped and aspired for. Contrary to common belief, however, the test of a good plan is not whether it is implemented or not but how well it addresses the need for which it was designed. With this in mind, it is necessary to be aware of the different dimensions of plan implementation to really have a grasp of the situation and insures success of the plan.

PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF PLAN IMPLEMENTATION:
      Implementation of the CLUP demands that it must first go through the legitimization process. As far as LGU’s are concerned, this means an official recognition of the legality of the document through legislative act of the Sangguniang Bayan (SB). This is normally achieved after extensive public hearings have been conducted to generate support for the plan, a resolution of adoption has been passed and a zoning ordinance has been approved. Upon adoption, the plan becomes the official vision for the development of the municipality concern. This, however, is only the first step.
      The documents (the plan, the zoning ordinance and the resolution of adoption) are then forwarded to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) for review. With the assistance of the Provincial Land Use Committee (PLUC) and the office of the Provincial and Development Coordinator (PPDC), the SP either ratifies or recommends improvements to the document. This review is mandated by the LGC is meant to assess the technical and legal aspects of the plan and to ensure vertical integration with the PPFP and other higher level plans. As with the previous process, this also requires the holding of public hearings.
      Only and after the SP has approved the plan, does the zoning ordinance, which legitimizes the land allocation and zonation scheme contain in the proposed land use plan, became a basis for deciding cases on the physical and spatial aspect of development.
      The rather lengthy process of having a plan legitimized while meant to ensure social acceptability and technical soundness, provide the safeguard of the plan continuity. Considering that Local Chief Executive only have three (3) years to serve, the long bureaucratic requirements can deter officials from totally disregarding previous plans particularly of these have been prepared by a previous administration.

PLAN MONITORING, EVALUATION AND UPGRADE
      Land use plans, by their very nature, are long term. However, as the planning period becomes longer, uncertainties become greater. There is a need; therefore to have a period in review of plans. The review process is meant to be the monitoring aspect: to help determine whether the objectives of the plan are being met; whether the plan is still attuned to the needs of the times. While it may be necessary to institute changes, as a general policy, these changes have to be consistent with the original objectives and intent of the plan, particularly with respect to the land use component.
      A pre-requisite to the periodic evaluation, say every three (3) years to coincide with the tenure of local officials, is the need to establish a municipal-wide database system. Changes in the prevailing physical and socio-economic environment can best be monitored by regularly updating the municipal profile. This can, therefore, provide the basis for any plan update or re-adjustment.
      Worth mentioning is a vital functions of the Municipal Development Council (MDC): the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator (MPDC) and his staff in the monitoring – evaluation process. Since both bodies are mandated to ensure compliance with the plan, the development system is a good mechanism for regulating development in the area. Although every local office is tasked to update the respective data needs, the MPDC can coordinate the compilation of these informations to make his job as chief technical evaluator of the plan easier.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
      The institutionalization of planning in the country has taken root since the creation of the Human Settlement Regulatory Commission (HSRC), now Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). Gradually, planning documents are being viewed not as it ends in themselves by as means to an end. The passage of the new LGC has ensured its growth and maturation.
      The three basic powers of the LGU, which is derived from the very essence of its existence, ensure the constitutionality of its action in its drive to implement plans. This refers to the LGU’s inherent powers of taxation, eminent domain and police power.

POLICE POWER
      The legality of government actions, which are sometimes construed as violative of individual rights, may be traced to the concept of “parens patriae”. It is from this concept that the right of the state to intervene, in the actions of the individuals or group individuals whenever such actions impinge on the well being of the majority, is derived. Regulatory or control measures such as zoning and enforcement of building and other planning standards, outright prohibition such as in the enforcement of anti-pollution laws, and the use of development permit system are specific tools which fall under this constitutional power.

EMINENT DOMAIN
      This power of the LGU which grants the right to acquire privately owned lands is a tool which is rarely used in the country but one which has tremendous potential if properly handled. For as long it can be shown that the land which is the subject of contention will used for public purposes, due process is allowed, and just compensation paid exercise of the power of eminent domain will have a direct impact on the use pattern of land resources.
      It may usefully be noted that alternatives to expropriation proceedings do exist. Other modes of land assembly or land banking which maybe employed to influence land use include negotiated purchase, land swaps, among others.

TAXATION
      Basically a revenue-generating activity, taxes are imposed to finance the operation of the government unit concerned and to ensure the delivery of basic social and other services to constituents of which all LGU’s are mandated to serve.
      The new LGC has consolidated various taxation laws and devolved certain powers to LGU’s, which enhances the sustainability of its autonomy. Aside from reformulating the wealth-sharing scheme between the local and national governments, the code has widened the corporate powers of the LGU and, thus ensured their self-sufficiency in fiscal matters.
      As it pertains to land use matter, taxation may be used as instrument of the inducement or instrument of development regulation. Land contingent activities may be promoted by providing incentives such as tax holidays/exemptions or they may be used as control mechanism through land evaluation and taxes on idle lands and non-conforming uses.

REVENUE MOBILIZATION PROGRAM
      Effective governance depends to a large extent on availability of financial resources to fund local projects, which address local needs. Although programs have already been implemented by the LGU to enhance revenue generation to ensure continued viability of adequate provision of services, following policy recommendations must be pursued regarding revenue generation and fiscal administration:
      a. Undertake a regular land re-evaluation program to reflect to existing market value of real properties. Real property taxes are a major source of income. Therefore, all legal that can maximize property tax collection must be enforced;
      b. Adopt tax ordinances that would allow the municipal government to collect taxes at revised rates. Assuming that the municipal government has not yet fully integrated the various provisions on the rates of collecting taxes as per the provision contained in the LGC, it is imperative that the SB pass the ordinances to legalize collection of taxes, fees and other charges generally authorize the Code;
      c. Punitive actions and legal sanctions for tax evasion should be adopted and strictly enforced;
      d. The municipal government should not be discouraged to implement projects that require huge amount of investments. The Local Government Code of 1991 has provided the opportunity of LGU’s to enhance their financial capability to undertake major infrastructure projects. These may be done through credit financing, entering into contract with the private sector through the build-operate-transfer scheme and its variations, direct loans from other LGU’s and foreign loans provided they are granted by the national government. Local Government Units may also issue bonds and securities to finance self-liquidating, income-producing development projects: and e. Imposition of special taxes such as the idle land taxes to discourage sub-optimal land infrastructure projects, which have benefited landowners through, enhance real property values.

INVESTMENT PROGRAMMING
      In the past, the synchronizations of the planning and budgeting systems were conceptualized through the Local Development Investment Programming (LDIP) model. While the LDIP was supposed to be a mechanism of optimizing the allocation of financial resources through the prioritization and systematic implementation of programmed projects, the loopholes in the local-level planning system reduced the LDIP to nothing more than “shopping list” of sectoral projects and programs.
      Concerned with the poor performance of the LDIP, the DILG/BLGC has evolved a capital investment planning programming model, which may be adopted to rationalize resources allocation in the municipality. Guidelines on how it works may be obtained from the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG).
      Furthermore, it is recommended that the use of the 20% allocation of the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) of the municipality be used for local infrastructure and socio-economic development programs and projects. With the investment programs based on the proposed development plan for the municipality, the local government can look forward to a rational financial resource allocation system.
      It is also imperative to prioritize programs and projects as contained in the CLUP of the municipality. However, because prioritization and programming of projects are best left to the people actually involved in and have a deeper knowledge of local needs/aspirations, this plan shall be limited to identification of priority programs and projects, which may be considered for implementation. It is hoped, however, that the prioritization and implementation of projects be done in an objective manner rather than as a political exercise.