LAND GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK IN …siteresources.worldbank.org/INTLGA/Resources/Philippines1.pdf · LAND GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK IN THE PHILIPPINES ... opportunities

LAND GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT

FRAMEWORK IN THE PHILIPPINES

THEMATIC AREA 1. LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

June 2013

Theme 1: Legal and Institutional

Framework

LGI-1: Recognition of

rights

•Rural tenure rights

•Urban tenure rights

•Rural group rights

•Urban group rights

•Opportunities for individualism

LGI-2: Enforcement of

rights

•Communal land records

•Individual property registration in rural areas

•Individual property registration in urban areas

•Women’s rights formalized

•Condominium common property

•Compensation with use change

Dimensions

Indicators

•Non-documentary evidence

•Recognition of possession

•Formal registration fees affordable

•Registration without informal fees

•Urban formalization feasible

•Possession recognized

•Restriction in urban land

•Restrictions in rural land

•Institutional roles separated

•Overlap (horizontal)

•Overlap (vertical)

•Information sharing

LGI-5: Clarity of

institutional mandates

LGI-4: Restriction on

rights

LGI-3: Mechanism for

recognition of rights

LGI-6: Equity and non-

discrimination

•Clear land policy

•Policy includes equity goals

•Policy based on cost/benefit

•Policy implementation

monitored

LG1-1 Recognition of a continuum of

rights

This indicator assesses the extent to which the existing range

of rights is recognized by the law.

LGI 1, Dimension i - Rural land tenure rights are legally recognized

This dimension assess the extent of the legal recognition of the rights held by households in rural areas.

Assessment

A – Existing legal framework recognizes rights held by more than 90% of the rural population, either through customary or statutory tenure regimes.

B – Existing legal framework recognizes rights held by 70% - 90% of the rural population, either through customary or statutory tenure regimes.

C – Existing legal framework recognizes rights held by 50% -70% of the rural population, either through customary or statutory tenure regimes.

D – Existing legal framework recognizes rights held by less than 50% of the rural population, either through customary or statutory tenure regimes.

Findings

The country has sufficient policies and laws to recognize

rights of more than 90% of the population either through a

range of freehold, customary rights, forest and protected

area land tenure, and even tenants in agricultural lands.

Recommendations

There is an urgent need to codify the laws and simplify

the processes, not only to facilitate the issue of titles to

land and subsequent transactions with land, but also to

reduce the opportunities for “informal fees.”

LGI 1 (ii) - Urban land tenure rights are

legally recognized

Assesses the extent of the legal recognition of the rights held by households in urban areas.

Assessment

A – Existing legal framework recognizes rights held by more than 90% of the urban population, either through customary or statutory tenure regimes.

B – Existing legal framework recognizes rights held by 70% - 90% of the urban population, either through customary or statutory tenure regimes.

C – Existing legal framework recognizes rights held by 50% -70% of the urban population, either through customary or statutory tenure regimes.

D – Existing legal framework recognizes rights held by less than 50% of the urban population, either through customary or statutory tenure regimes.

Findings

In July 2011, the NHA estimated the magnitude of

informal settlers in urban areas at 15% of the urban

population.

No recognition of informal settlers right

The 1992 UDHA established the legal framework for

urban land reform and housing for informal settlers, slum

dwellers and other underprivileged.

Recommendations

Encourage LGUs to complete inventory of informal

settlers to determine magnitude

LGUs to integrate tenure improvement concerns for

informal settlers in the preparation of comprehensive

shelter plans.

NSO to fast-track implementation of census of informal

settlers and incorporation of these in the socio-economic

statistics to serve as bases for planning CMP and land

tenure improvements by LGUs.

LGI-1 (iii) - Rural group rights are

formally recognized

Assesses the extent to which regulations concerning group rights in rural areas define how user groups can organize themselves, impose internal rules, interact with the outside, and call on external agencies to enforce rules.

Assessment

A – The tenure of most groups in rural areas is formally recognized and clear regulations exist regarding groups’ internal organization and legal representation.

B – The tenure of most groups in rural areas is formally recognized but ways for them to gain legal representation or organize themselves are not regulated.

C – The tenure of most groups in rural areas is not formally recognized but groups can gain legal representation under other laws (e.g. corporate law).

D – The tenure of most groups in rural areas is not formally recognized.

Findings

Many laws provides for recognition of most form of

group rights in the rural areas:

Collective CLOAs for agrarian reform beneficiaries

CADTs for indigenous peoples

CBMFA, PACBARMA, etc. for occupants in forest

lands and protected areas.

Recommendations

Review existing collective CLOAs with a view of

supporting individualization if the beneficiaries so desire.

LGI-1 (iv) - Urban group rights are

recognized in informal areas

This assesses the extent to which regulations concerning group rights in urban areas define how user groups can organize themselves, impose internal rules, interact with the outside, and call on external agencies to enforce rules.

Assessment

A – Group tenure in informal urban areas is formally recognized and clear regulations exist regarding the internal organization and legal representation of groups.

B – Group tenure in informal urban areas is formally recognized but ways for them to gain legal representation or organize themselves are not regulated.

C – Group tenure in informal urban areas is not formally recognized but groups can gain legal representation under other laws.

D – Group tenure in informal urban areas is not formally recognized.

Findings

The UDHA provides for a clear procedures for initiating a

community mortgage program through organization and

recognition of community/homeowners’ associations.

LGI 1, Dimension v- When desirable,

opportunities for tenure individualization exist

and are accessible

This assesses whether the law provides adequate mechanisms to accompany the transition of customary or collective tenure towards individualization if so desired by land users.

Assessment

A – When desirable, the law provides opportunities for those holding land under customary, group, or collective tenure to fully or partially individualize land ownership/use. Procedures for doing so are affordable, clearly specified, safeguarded, and followed in practice.

B –When desirable, the law provides opportunities for those holding land under customary, group, or collective tenures to fully or partially individualize land ownership/use. Procedures to do so are affordable and include basic safeguards against abuse but are not always followed in practice and are often applied in a discretionary manner.

C –When desirable, the law provides opportunities for those holding land under customary, group, or collective tenures to fully or partially individualize land ownership/use. Procedures are not affordable or clear, leading to widespread discretion or failure to apply even for cases where those affected desire to do so.

D – Although desirable, the law provides no opportunities for those holding land under customary, group, or collective tenures to fully or partially individualize land ownership/use.

Findings

There are three opportunities for individualization of

group tenure:

Subdivision of collective CLOAs

Issuance of individual titles (CALTs) within ancestral

domains of IPs

Individualization of titles under CMP upon full

payment of the loan

There are difficulties in individualization of collective

CLOAs, CADTs and CMPs. CBFMA and other group

tenure in the forest lands and protected areas cannot be

individualized under existing laws.

Recommendations

Review and revise existing policies and processes to

facilitate individualization of collective CLOAs, CADTs

and CMPs.

Review feasibility of providing individual tenures in

forest lands and protected areas and pursue changes in

policies and laws if desirable.


Framework


rights







rights







Dimensions

Indicators













LGI-5: Clarity of



rights




discrimination





monitored

LGI-2 Enforcement of Rights

Assesses whether the rights recognized by law are enforced

(including secondary rights as well as rights of minorities and

women).

LGI 2 Dimension I - Surveying/mapping and registration of rights to communal land

Assesses the extent to which Boundaries to communal land have been surveyed / mapped and the communal rights registered. ‘Communal land’ is land over which a rural group or community has rights or access to. Such land may be held under customary tenure and in some cases, occupants may belong to ‘indigenous communities’ or their equivalent (e.g. ‘scheduled tribes’ in India) as defined by law.

Assessment

A – More than 70% of the area under communal or indigenous land has boundaries demarcated and surveyed and associated claims registered.

B – 40-70% of the area under communal or indigenous land has boundaries demarcated and surveyed and associated claims registered.

C – 10-40% of the area under communal or indigenous land has boundaries demarcated and surveyed and associated claims registered.

D – Less than 10% of the area under communal or indigenous land has boundaries demarcated and surveyed and associated claims registered.

Findings

As of 2012 around 46% of estimated ancestral domain has

been mapped and issued with CADTs/CALTs.

In 2013 a Joint Administrative Order between DAR,

DENR, DOJ/LRA and NCIP was issued for cross-

checking and review prior to CADT registration to avoid

overlaps with existing registered tenurial instruments and

other private rights.

LGI 2 Dimension ii - Registration of

individually held properties in rural areas

Assesses the extent to which majority of individual properties in rural areas

are formally registered. Here ‘registered’ does not necessarily mean that the

final certificate or title has been issued. ‘Registered’ may mean that the

rights are recorded unambiguously in the land administration system and

there are generally few disputes over the recorded information.

Assessment

A – More than 90% of individual properties in rural areas are formally

registered.

B – Between 70% and 90% of individual properties in rural areas are

formally registered.

C – Between 50% and 70% of individual properties in rural areas are


D – Less than 50% of individual properties in rural areas are formally

registered.

Findings

At least 50% of individually held lands in the rural areas

are registered.

The 2004 LAMP 1 Land Tenure Study indicated that 34%

of total agricultural lands are titled.

Current LAMP statistics estimates 700,000 hectares of

agricultural lands remain untitled.

Recommendations

A deeper and more extensive review and inventory of

agency records is needed to clearly establish the extent of

remaining untitled lands.

The implementation of the LAMS by DENR and the

completion of data build-up of the LRA LARES may

provide good opportunity for cross-checking and a more

reliable estimates.

LGI 2 Dimension iii - Registration of

individually held properties in urban areas Assesses the extent to which majority of individual properties in

urban areas are formally registered.

Assessment

A – More than 90% of individual properties in urban areas are


B – Between 70% and 90% of individual properties in urban areas

are formally registered.

C – Between 50% and 70% of individual properties in urban

areas are formally registered.

D – Less than 50% of individual properties in urban areas are


Findings

The LAMP 1 Land Tenure Study estimates at least 50% of

urban lands are titled or around 9.1 million parcels titled.

Recommendations

A deeper and more extensive review and inventory of

agency records is needed to clearly establish the extent of

remaining untitled lands.

The implementation of the LAMS by DENR and the

completion of data build-up of the LRA LARES may

provide good opportunity for cross-checking and a more

reliable estimates.

LGI 2 Dimension iv- Women’s rights are

recognized in practice by the formal system

(rural/urban)

Assesses the extent to which the tenure rights of women are enforced through the

registration of land in their names or jointly. Women’s rights may be registered

individually or jointly, where jointly means that a woman is registered with others in the

records. These others may be a husband or other family members or may include

members of a wider group.

Assessment

A – More than 45% of land registered to physical persons is registered in the name of

women either individually or jointly.

B – Between 35% and 45% of land registered to physical persons is registered in the

name of women either individually or jointly.

C – Between 15% and 35% of land registered to physical persons is registered in

the name of women either individually or jointly.

D – Less than 15% of land registered to physical persons is registered in the name of

women either individually or jointly.

Findings

The registry does not disaggregate data according to

gender.

The title and even the patent applications does not contain

the gender of the owner.

On the bases of the laws, experiences of the agency and

some data, the panel estimated that between 15% - 35% of

titles are registered in the name of women individually or

jointly.

Recommendations

The processes and procedures of the LAM agencies need

to be reviewed and improved to ensure that gender data

are captured and that systems are able to generate gender

disaggregated data.

Titles, patents, tax declaration, applications forms and

other documents relating to land tenure should

require/reflect gender data.

LGI 2 Dimension v - Condominium regime

provides for appropriate management of

common property An essential element of good governance regarding condominiums is not only that the rights of the dwelling itself are recognized but that there is recognition of, and clear arrangements to manage the common property areas (driveways, parking, gardens, stairwells etc.) that are necessary for the occupants of the condominium to enjoy the full use of the property.

Assessment

A – Common property under condominiums is recognized and there are clear provisions in the law to establish arrangements for the management and maintenance of this common property.

B – Common property under condominiums is recognized but the law does not have clear provisions to establish arrangements for the management and maintenance of this common property.

C – Common property under condominiums has some recognition but there are no provisions in the law to establish arrangements for the management and maintenance of this common property.

D – Common property under condominiums is not recognized.

Findings

Republic Act 4726 or the Philippine Condominium Act 0f

1966 provides for clear policies on the management of

common property in condominiums.

LGI 2, Dimension vi -There is compensation

for loss of rights due to land use changes

Assessment

A – Where people lose rights as a result of land use change outside the

expropriation process, compensation in cash or in kind is paid such that

these people have comparable assets and can continue to maintain prior

social and economic status.

B – Where people lose rights as a result of land use change outside the

expropriation process, compensation in cash or in kind is paid such that

these people have comparable assets but cannot continue to maintain

prior social and economic status.

C – Where people lose rights as a result of land use change outside the

expropriation process, compensation in cash or in kind is paid such that these

people do not have comparable assets and cannot continue to maintain prior

social and economic status.

D – Where people lose rights as a result of land use change outside the

expropriation process, compensation is not paid.

Findings

In cases of conversion of rural/agricultural lands to other

uses the law provides for disturbance compensation.

In the case of establishment of national parks or protected

areas, prior rights are recognized. However, economic

activity may be affected if the prior rights are

incompatible with conservation objectives.


Framework


rights







rights







Dimensions

Indicators













LGI-5: Clarity of



rights




discrimination





monitored

LGI-3 Mechanisms for recognition of

rights

Assesses the consistency and affordability of rights recognition

mechanisms (formalization) with existing tenure practices.

LGI 3, Dimension 1 - Use of non-documentary forms of evidence for recognition of property claims

Assessment

A – Non-documentary forms of evidence are used alone to obtain full recognition of claims to property when other forms of evidence are not available.

B – Non-documentary forms of evidence are used to obtain recognition of a claim to property along with other documents (e.g. tax receipts or informal purchase notes) when other forms of evidence are not available. They have about the same strength as the provided documents.

C – Non-documentary forms of evidence are used to obtain recognition of a claim to property along with other documents (e.g. tax receipts or informal purchase notes) when other forms of evidence are not available. They have less strength than the provided documents.

D – Non-documentary forms of evidence are almost never used to obtain recognition of claims to property.

Findings

In administrative titling of A&D lands by DENR, award

of CLOAs by DAR and processing and award of CADT

by NCIP non-documentary forms of evidences are also

used:

Testimonies by adjacent property owners

Key informants

Historical accounts by elders

Proof of cultural practices by IP groups

LGI 3 Dimension ii - Formal recognition of long-term, unchallenged possession

Assesses the presence of legal process to recognize long-term, unchallenged occupation of land.

Assessment

A – Legislation exists to formally recognize long-term, unchallenged possession and this applies to both public and private land although different rules may apply.

B – Legislation exists to formally recognize long-term, unchallenged possession but applies only to one specific type of land (e.g. either public land or private land).

C – Legislation exists to formally recognize long-term, unchallenged possession but due to the way this legislation is implemented, formal recognition is granted to very few or no applicants for recognition on either public or private land.

D – Legislation to formally recognize long-term, unchallenged possession does not exist.

Findings

There is strong recognition of long-term unchallenged

possession under Philippine laws:

CA 141 recognizes at least 30 years

RA 386 recognizes 10 years in good faith and 30 years

in bad faith

RA 10023 recognizes 1o years in residential lands

The Constitution and IPRA recognizes title since time

immemorial for ancestral domain of IPs

LGI 3 Dimension iii- First-time registration on

demand is not restricted by inability to pay the

formal fees

Assessment

A – The costs for first time sporadic registration for a typical

urban property does not exceed 0.5% of the property value. (FP)

B – The costs for first time sporadic registration for a typical

urban property does not exceed 2% of the property value.

(MSA)

C – The costs for first time sporadic registration for a typical urban

property does not exceed 5% of the property value.

D – The costs for first time sporadic registration for a typical

urban property exceeds 5% of the property value. (Judicial)

Findings

By Residential Free Patent – Total cost from formal fees

can range from Php 1,665 to 2,665 (0.27 to 0.44 % of

market value; or 1.85 to 2.96% of assessed value)

By Miscellaneous Sales Patent - Total Cost from formal

fees can range from PhP 9,965 – 10,665 (1.66 to 1.78% of

market value or 11.07 to 11.85% of assessed value)

By Judicial Titling – at least Php 150,000

Recommendations

Titling of residential lands through RA 10023 or

Residential Free Patent is the most preferred mode in

terms of cost and ease of the process.

However, for other types of urban lands (commercial,

industrial) the policies for appraisal and processes needs

to be reviewed to facilitate titling.

LGI 3 Dimension iv - First-time registration

does not entail significant informal fees

Assesses as to whether the demand for first time registration is not restricted by demands for unofficial or informal fees.

Assessment

A –There are no informal fees that need to be paid to effect first registration.

B –There are informal fees that need to be paid to effect first registration, but the level of informal fees is significantly less than the formal fees.

C –There are informal fees that need to be paid to effect first registration and the level of informal fees is about the same as the formal fees.

D – There are informal fees that need to be paid to effect first registration and the level of informal fees is significantly higher than the formal fees.

Findings

Payment of informal fees is a common practice in

securing first time titles, the significance level depend on

affordability on the part of the applicant.

The amount of informal fees is “not significantly less”

than formal fees but generally not equal to the formal

fees.

Recommendations

While the proportion of informal fees against formal fees

is a good measure of governance, how widespread the

practice is among title applicants is a serious concern.

More regional data needed to provide better assessment.

LGI-3 Dimension v - Formalization of urban

residential housing is feasible and affordable

Assessment

A – The requirements for formalizing housing in urban areas are clear, straight-forward, affordable and implemented consistently in a transparent manner.

B – The requirements for formalizing housing in urban areas are clear, straight-forward, and affordable but are not implemented consistently in a transparent manner.

C – The requirements for formalizing housing in urban areas are not clear, straight-forward, or affordable but many applicants from informal areas are managing to satisfy the requirements.

D – The requirements for formalizing housing in urban areas are such that formalization is deemed very difficult.

Findings

While there are four ways by which formalization can be

achieved, all of these are quite expensive on the part of

government, and take a long time to complete.

In the case of informal settlers formalization is done

through various methods of land delivery wherein the

end-view is to turn informal settlers into eventual owner

occupiers.

informal settlers are usually not well educated and are not

familiar with the land acquisition processes.

Recommendations

Strengthen and fast-track the Community Mortgage

Program

Encourage LGUs to develop comprehensive shelter plans

and to engage in urban housing for the poor and the

underprivileged

LGI 3 Dimension vi - Efficient and transparent process to formalize possession

Assesses if processes to regularize the informal occupation of land are clearly defined, transparently and efficiently implemented.

Assessment

A – There is a clear, practical process for the formal recognition of possession and this process is implemented effectively, consistently and transparently.

B – There is a clear, practical process for the formal recognition of possession but this process is not implemented effectively, consistently or transparently.

C – The process for the formal recognition of possession is not clear and is not implemented effectively, consistently or transparently.

D – There is no process for formal recognition of possession.

Findings

Existing laws provide for clear processes for formalizing

possessions by informal settlers but the implementation

has been cumbersome, thereby leading to growth in

informality.

The difficulty of accessing reliable records from agencies

has affected the pace of acquisition of private lands.

In the case of protected areas, the lack of capacity for

enforcement and management, and the incomplete

demarcation result in informal occupation of fringes.

Recommendations

Strengthen and improve processes for delivery

government’s urban poor housing initiative

Improve access to land records

Complete census of informal settlers, forest and protected

areas occupants to provide a good bases for planning and

management of land tenure improvement initiatives.


Framework


rights







rights







Dimensions

Indicators













LGI-5: Clarity of



rights




discrimination





monitored

Restrictions on rights (LGI-4)

This indicator assesses the justifications of restrictions on land

rights.

LGI 4 Dimension i - Urban Land Use, Ownership and Transferability Restrictions Assess the potentially harmful impact of land rights restrictions in urban areas.

Assessment

A – There are a series of regulations that are for the most part justified on the basis of overall public interest and that are enforced. B – There are a series of regulations that are for the most part justified on the basis of overall public interest but that are not enforced. C – There are a series of regulations that are generally not justified on the basis of overall public interest but are not enforced. D – There are a series of regulations that are generally not justified on the basis of overall public interest and are enforced.

Findings

Restrictions on urban land use, ownership, transferability

and rent control were largely developed with the aim of

protecting the public interest, in practice, these have not

been enforced and/or do not achieve their objectives.

Rent control had the effect of pushing up rental rates due

to cut off mark

Land use is controlled by zoning regulations although

many LGUs have not updated their CLUPs

Size limits apply only to areas for low cost housing under

the UDHA

Recommendations

Need to revisit restrictions to determine whether they

achieve their objectives or are enforceable

LGI 4 Dimension ii - Restrictions on rural land use, ownership and transferability are justified

Assess the potentially harmful impact of land rights restrictions in rural areas.

Assessment

A – There are a series of regulations that are for the most part justified on the basis of overall public interest and that are enforced.

B – There are a series of regulations that are for the most part justified on the basis of overall public interest but that are not enforced.

C – There are a series of regulations that are generally not justified but are not enforced.

D – There are a series of regulations that are generally not justified and are enforced.

Findings

Restrictions on ownership exclusively by Filipino citizens

are enshrined in the Philippine constitution, and are

justified on the basis of ensuring lands remain in the

hands of Filipinos.

CLOA restrictions on the other hand, are justified on the

basis of social justice.

Restrictions on public forest and protected area ownership

are consistent with the Philippine Constitution that public

lands cannot be alienated.

Recommendations

The restrictions in transfers and conveyances of Free

Patents (Agricultural) should be repealed , since the FP

process mainly confirms long held rights through the

issuance of titles. Applicants have to qualify with

continuous unchallenged possession over a period of 30

years, so the restriction is unnecessary.


Framework


rights







rights







Dimensions

Indicators













LGI-5: Clarity of



rights




discrimination





monitored

LGI-5 Clarity of institutional mandates

Assesses the clarity of mandates of land institutions,

effectiveness of the land administration system in avoiding

horizontal and vertical overlaps, and the ability to share land-

related information.

LGI-5 Dimension i - There is an appropriate separation of policy formulation, implementation, and arbitration roles

Assessment

A – In situations that can entail conflicts of interest or abuse (e.g. transfers of land rights) there is a clear separation in roles of policy formulation, implementation of policy through land management and administration and the arbitration of any disputes that may arise as a result of implementation of policy.

B – In situations that can entail conflicts of interest or abuse (e.g. transfers of land rights) there is some separation in the roles of policy formulation, implementation of policy through land management and administration and the arbitration of any disputes that may arise as a result of implementation of policy, but there are overlapping and conflicting responsibilities that lead to occasional problems.

C – In situations that can entail conflicts of interest or abuse (e.g. transfers of land rights) there is some separation in the roles of policy formulation, implementation of policy through land management and administration and the arbitration of any disputes that may arise as a result of implementation of policy but there are overlapping and conflicting responsibilities that lead to frequent problems.

D –In situations that can entail conflicts of interest or abuse (e.g. transfers of land rights) there is no clear separation in the roles of policy formulation, implementation of policy through land management and administration and the arbitration of any disputes that may arise as a result of implementation of policy.

Findings

There are separation of roles and responsibilities of the agencies involved in the administration and management of lands based in respective mandates. However, there are apparent overlaps: First time titling, with parallel procedures by DENR

(administrative titling); and LRA/DOJ (judicial titling) involving the same types of lands;

Approval of simple subdivision plans for titled properties by both LRA and DENR;

Issuance of Free Patents by DENR and CLOAs by DAR on the same types of lands; and issuance by DAR of CLOAs on areas targeted by NCIP for the issuance of certificates of ancestral domain titles. This can even extend to forestlands where other forms of tenure instruments are issued by DENR.

LGI-5 Dimension ii - The responsibilities of the ministries and agencies dealing with land do not overlap Assesses if there is a clear delineation of institutional responsibilities with respect to the spectrum of land related issues.

Assessment

A – The mandated responsibilities exercised by the authorities dealing with land administration issues are clearly defined and non-overlapping with those of other land sector agencies.

B – The mandated responsibilities of the various authorities dealing with land administration issues are defined with a limited amount of overlap with those of other land sector agencies but there are few problems.

C – The mandated responsibilities of the various authorities dealing with land administration issues are defined but institutional overlap with those of other land sector agencies and inconsistency is a problem.

D – The mandated responsibilities of the various authorities dealing with land administration are defined poorly, if at all, and institutional overlap and inconsistency is a serious problem.

Findings

The overlaps in policy implementation and institutional

mandates have persisted for a long time and has resulted

in long standing disputes, and has led to many problems.

The overlaps and conflicts persists even with issuance of

joint memorandum circulars between the agencies since

field offices tends to have different interpretations.

Recommendations

The government should consider giving high priority to

the refilling of the LARA Bill in the next Congress. This

should address the institutional overlaps, and address the

systemic weaknesses that plague the delivery of services

in the LAM sector. Addressing this issue will impact on

titling, ease of registration, and facilitate the formalization

rights by informal settlers in the highly urbanized areas.

LGI-5 Dimension iii - Administrative

(vertical) overlap is avoided

Assesses level with which central, regional, and local institutions

dealing with land have clearly assigned functions and responsibilities.

Assessment

A – Assignment of land-related responsibilities between the different

levels of administration and government is clear and non-overlapping.

B – Division of land-related responsibilities between the different

levels of administration and government is clear with minor

overlaps.

C – Division of land-related responsibilities between the different levels

of administration and government is characterized by large overlaps.

D – Division of land-related responsibilities between the different levels

of administration and government is unclear.

Findings

Administrative overlaps within each agency is minimal,

or none at all.

The division of land related responsibilities between

different levels of administration and government is clear

with minor overlaps.

LGI 5, Dimension iv - Land information

is shared with interested institutions Assesses whether land-related information, both textual and spatial, is maintained in a uniform way that is accessible at reasonable cost by all the institutions that might have an interest in land issues and need this information. Such public institutions may include land use planning agencies, local authorities, courts, disaster management agency, etc.

Assessment

A – Information related to rights in land is available to other institutions that need this information at reasonable cost and is readily accessible, largely due to the fact that land information is maintained in a uniform way.

B – Information related to rights in land is available to interested institutions and although this information is available at reasonable cost, it is not readily accessible as the information is not maintained in a uniform way.

C – Information related to rights in land is available to interested institutions but this information is not readily accessible as the information is not available at a reasonable cost.

D – Information related to rights in land is not available to interested institutions as a matter of policy or practice.

Findings

Agencies have different land record systems that make

access difficult. DENR’s records are organized by

location and use cadastral lot numbers as reference; RoDs

records are organized sequentially using title numbers as

reference; while the LGU Assessor’s records are

organized by barangay and use Parcel Identification

Number or Tax Declaration Number as reference.

Recommendations

The agencies of the government responsible for

maintaining and managing land records should develop a

unified data standards so that land records management,

particularly storage and retrieval can be harmonized

across all agencies, including local government units.


Framework


rights







rights







Dimensions

Indicators













LGI-5: Clarity of



rights




discrimination





monitored

LGI-6 Participation and equity in land

policies This indicator assesses the equity and transparency of land

policy formulation and implementation.

LGI 6 Dimension i - Land policy is developed in a participatory manner

The extent with which land policy statement draws on wide input from different sectors.

Assessment

A – A comprehensive policy exists or can be inferred by the existing legislation. Land policy decisions that affect sections of the community are based on consultation with those affected and their feedback on the resulting policy is sought and incorporated in the resulting policy.

B – A comprehensive land policy exists or can be inferred by the existing legislation. Land policy decisions that affect sections of the community are based on consultation with those affected but feedback is usually not sought or not used in making land policy decisions.

C – Policy exists or can be inferred by the existing legislation but it is incomplete (some key aspects are missing or only covers part of the country such as only urban or only rural areas) or land policy decisions that affect some sections of the community are made without consultation with those affected.

D – No clear land policy exists or can be inferred by the existing legislation and/or land policy decisions are generally taken without consultation of those affected.

Findings

The Philippines’ has comprehensive land policy and that

this results from feedback from those affected.

Existing processes also opened participation in policy

making, particularly through the formulation of

legislations which entails a long process of consultations,

public hearings, studies, and debates in both the House of

Representatives and Senate.

LGI 6 Dimension ii - Meaningful incorporation

and monitoring of equity goals in land policy

Measures impacts of land policies on equity issues and monitoring.

Assessment

A – Land policies incorporate equity objectives that are regularly and

meaningfully monitored and their impact on equity issues is compared

to that of other policy instruments.

B - Land policies incorporate equity objectives that are regularly and

meaningfully monitored but their impact on equity issues is not

compared to that of other policy instruments.

C - Land policies incorporate some equity objectives but these are

not regularly and meaningfully monitored.

D –Equity issues are not considered by land policies.

Findings

Existing policies consider equity goals, particularly

with respect to the rights and welfare of indigenous

peoples, upland dwellers, landless farmers and

tenants, and women.

However, the rights of fishermen and coastal

communities are not well pronounced.

There is no systematic monitoring of progress and

impacts of meeting equity goals in land policy.

Recommendations

Encourage government to regularly and meaningfully

monitor the progress and impact of land policies into

equity goals/objectives.

Review land policies with the view of integrating where

necessary right of other sectors such as the fisherfolks and

coastal communities.

LGI 6 Dimension iii - Policy implementation is costed, matched with benefits and adequately resourced

It measures efficiency and transparency by comparing expected benefits of land policies with corresponding costs and availability of adequate resources.

Assessment

A – Implementation of land policy is costed, expected benefits identified and compared to cost, and there are a sufficient budget, resources and institutional capacity for implementation.

B – The implementation of land policy is costed, though not necessarily based on a comparison of expected benefits and costs. There is an adequate budget, resources and institutional capacity.

C – The implementation of land policy is not fully costed and/or to implement the policy there are serious inadequacies in at least one area of budget, resources or institutional capacity.

D – The implementation of land policy is not costed and there is inadequate budget, resources and capacity to implement the land policy.

Findings

Except for CARP, there are inadequacies in budget,

human resources and institutional capacities to fully

implement existing land policies.

While costs were considered in crafting the laws, many

were passed without budget cover.

LGI 6 Dimension iv- Regular and public reports indicating progress in policy implementation

It measures progresses in policy implementation by looking at existence of publicly accessible reports.

Assessment

A – Formal land institutions report on land policy implementation in a regular, meaningful, and comprehensive way with reports being publicly accessible.

B – Formal land institutions report on land policy implementation in a regular and meaningful way but reports are not made public.

C – Formal land institutions report on land policy implementation but in a way that does not allow meaningful tracking of progress across different areas or in a sporadic way.

D – Formal land institutions report on policy implementation only in exceptional circumstances or not at all.

Findings

Agency reports are published and shared widely through

the websites.

the annual budget review process at the Congress during

budget hearings provide opportunities for agencies to

present more comprehensive statements of their

achievements and account for the use of funds.

End

Documents

LAND GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK IN …siteresources.worldbank.org/INTLGA/Resources/Philippines1.pdf · LAND GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK IN THE PHILIPPINES ... opportunities