AN ACT CREATING THE PROVINCE OF NUEVA

CAMARINES

1

THE CONGRESSMEN OF THE 1ST, 2ND,3RD AND 4TH

DISTRICTS OF CAMARINES SUR, NAMELY:

1. CONG. ARNULFO FUENTEBELLA (4TH Dist.)

2. CONG. LUIS R. VILLAFUERTE (3rd Dist.)

3. CONG. DATO ARROYO (2nd Dist.)

4. CONG. ROLANDO ANDAYA JR. (1stDist.)

House Bill 4820 passed in the House ofRepresentatives in Congress by a vote of 229 in favorand only one (1) opposed.

PRINCIPAL AUTHORS OF HB 4820

2

HB NO. 4820 SUPPORTED BY MANIFESTO OF:

1. 24 MAYORS

2. 24 VICE MAYORS

3. MAJORITY OF COUNCILORS

4. MAJORITY OF BARANGAY

CAPTAINS

5. MAJORITY OF KABATAAN

CHAIRMEN3

STATUS OF BILL

FILED ON - MAY 21, 2011

APPROVED ON 2ND READING BY - JUNE 7, 2011

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APPROVED ON 3RD READING BY - AUGUST 3, 2011

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FORWARDED TO SENATE ON - AUGUST 10, 2011

4

Camarines Sur (Remaining LGUs)

DISTRICT 1 - Cabusao, Del Gallego, Lupi, Sipocot,Ragay

DISTRICT 2 - Gainza, Libmanan, Milaor, Minalabac,Pamplona, Pasacao , San Fernando.

DISTRICT 3 - Camaligan, Bombon, Canaman, Calabanga, Magarao, Ocampo, Pili,

Naga City.5

NB* Naga City remains a component of the province of Camarines Sur but prohibited by its own charter from voting for provincial elective positions. This is the reason why Naga City is classified as Independent Component City.

THE PROPOSED TERRITORIAL DIVISION OR PARTITION 6

Nueva CamarinesDISTRICT 4 - Caramoan, Garchitorena, Goa,

Lagonoy,Presentacion, San Jose, Sagnay, Siruma, Tigaon , Tinambac.

DISTRICT 5 - Balatan, Bula, Baao, Bato, Buhi, Nabua, Iriga City.

NB* Iriga City is a component city of the new province and not independent, because its voters can run for provincial officials and its voters entitled to vote thereat.

THE PROPOSED TERRITORIAL DIVISION OR PARTITION 7

Article X, Section 10, The 1987 PhilippineConstitution –

No province x x x may be x x x DIVIDED x x x or itsboundary substantially altered, EXCEPT inaccordance with the CRITERIA established in theLOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE and subject to approvalby a majority of the votes cast in a PLEBISCITE in thepolitical units DIRECTLY AFFECTED.

8

1. INCOME REQUIREMENT

2. POPULATION REQUIREMENT

OR3. LAND AREA REQUIREMENT

9

1. As prescribed by law, there should be anaverage annual income (in two [2] precedingfiscal years) of NOT LESS THAN P20 millionbased on 1991 constant prices (Section 461,LGC). PROVIDED THAT, THE INCOMECLASSIFICATION OF THE ORIGINAL LOCALGOVERNMENT UNIT SHALL NOT FALL BELOWITS CURRENT INCOME CLASSIFICATION PRIORTO SUCH DIVISION. (Section 8, LGC)

10

CAMSUR is currently classified as FIRSTCLASS, because it has an income classification ofnot less than P450 million.

Upon its division, BOTH the remainingCamarines Sur and the Province of NuevaCamarines will have an income classification ofFIRST CLASS (at least P450 million incomeannually as determined by the DOF).

Hence, the income classificationrequirement is complied with.

APPLICATION OF INCOME REQUIREMENT11

2. As computed by the Department of Finance, theaverage annual income of NUEVA CAMARINES isP223,412,665.03 million or ELEVEN TIMES MORETHAN THE MINIMUM P20 million criterion. If P20million minimum benchmark is adjusted upwardsto the current CPI (Consumer Price Index) valueas of 2010, the income compliance is still 362.7%because the P223,412,665.03 million averageannual regular income based on 1991 constantprices is as of 2010 valued at P689,675,196.63,according to the Bureau of Local GovernmentFinance of the Department of Finance.

APPLICATION OF INCOME REQUIREMENT12

There should be a population of not lessthan 250,000 inhabitants as certified by theNational Statistics Office (NSO).

The population census as of 2007 of theProvince of Camarines Sur is 1,693,821(inclusive of Naga City) or P1,533,296(exclusive of Naga City).

13

As proposed to be divided, the population ofthe remaining Province of Camarines Sur and theNueva Camarines will be:

Camarines Sur – 892,203 (inclusive of Naga City)

- 731,678 (exclusive of Naga City)

Nueva Camarines - 801,618

It should be emphasized that NuevaCamarines will comply with the populationrequirement equivalent to 3.2 times more thanthe minimum 250,000 population or 320%compliance rate.

APPLICATION OF POPULATION REQUIREMENT 14

It should have at least 2,000 squarekilometers as certified by the LandManagement Bureau (LBM) of Departmentof Environment and Natural Resources(DENR).

The undivided Camarines Sur has atotal land area of 5,502 square kilometers.

15

As proposed to be divided, the respectiveresulting land areas are:

Camarines Sur - 2,531.60 sq. km.(inclusive of Naga City)

- 2,447.78 sq. km.(exclusive of Naga City)

Nueva Camarines - 2,933.00 sq. km.

APPLICATION OF LAND AREA REQUIREMENT 16

It is beyond dispute and even theoppositors to the division of the provinceagree that the proposed division ofCamarines Sur has met the legalrequirements.

And the legal requirements met aremore than the minimum requirements.

17

But compliance notwithstanding, theoppositors have still raised this question:

IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS A VALIDREASON TO DIVIDE CAMARINES SUR INTOTWO (2) PROVINCES?

18

19

20

In questioning the COLLECTIVEWISDOM OF CONGRESS that the income,population, and land area requirements arenot enough to extend validity to theproposal to create a new Province of NuevaCamarines, the House of Representatives inCongress rebuffed and resoundingly rejectedthe objectors by a vote of 229 in favor andonly one (1) opposed.

21

If we have to follow the rule of law, if we haveto follow the Constitution, anyone who believes thatthe criteria, or the requisites for creating a newprovince or for dividing a province are NOT ENOUGH,OR are wrong, they, the oppositors should not insultCongress for passing the Local Government Code asmandated by the Constitution, but should work forthe amendments of the criteria as provided in theLocal Government Code.

This is a lesson in political maturity that theoppositors must learn.

22

It should be repeatedly emphasized,that compliance of the legal requirementsby the proposed division of Camarines Surby the creation of Nueva Camarines ismuch much more than the minimumrequirements:

- It is eleven times more than the minimumincome requirement.

- It is more than three (3) times theminimum population requirement.

23

- It is more than 900 square kilometers (or more than 90,00 hectares) of land area than the minimum land area requirement of 2,000 square kilometers for a new province (Nueva Camarines).

24

As divided, the remainingProvince of Camarines Sur and thenew Province of Nueva Camarineswill respectively be still larger inland area than Albay, Sorsogon,Catanduanes and Camarines Norte.

25

Dividing the present Camarines Sur into two(2) provinces do not make the two (2) provincesSMALL.

Separately, and as divided, Camarines Sur andNueva Camarines will still be larger in land area thanTWENTY-TWO (22) other provinces in the Philippinesand larger in population than FIFTY (50) otherProvinces of the Philippines.

Income classification-wise, the two (2)provinces (as divided) will each maintain a FIRSTCLASS status, according to the criteria of theDepartment of Finance (at least P450 million annualincome, but in reality more than this).

26

a. Bring government closer to the people anddeliver government services in a more effectiveand responsive manner.

b. Refocus on a well balanced development planaccording to priority imperatives.

27

APART FROM CONSTITUTIONAL & STATUTORYJUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE DIVISIONS OF CAMARINESSUR, THERE ARE LEADERSHIP QUALITIES,MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES AND ORGANIZATIONALDEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS THAT JUSTIFY THEPARTITION OF CAMARINES SUR INTO TWO(2)PROVINCES.

c. There are diseconomies of scale (thereverse of economies of scale) that occursby the sheer size of the land areas to bedeveloped or governed and the sheer costsof too many people to be attended tobegin to offset that bigness brings. Bignessbrings with it inefficiencies,unresponsiveness and the rigidities ofbureaucracy.

28

d. The negative consequences of “bigness” havebeen well documented. Foremost is the difficultyof establishing accountability. There are just toomany people involved in delivering publicservices. Residents are at a loss on who is doingwhat and how redress can be sought whenpublic service is badly delivered. Blurredresponsibilities are compounded by the lack ofindicators with which performance can bemeasured. The absence of accountability inducesunder-performance, abuse of powers, andinefficiencies, and corruption.

29

f. To established a more accountable dynamic and responsive organizational structure and operating mechanism for a more effective allocation of resources.

g. To encourage more active participation of the private sector in local governance as an alternative strategy for sustainable development.

h.The reduction of the land area of responsibility andthe number of people as constituents are consistentwith the management principle of effective span ofattention and control. It is easier to manage,monitor, and evaluate results of the delivery ofservices.

30

i. Since the present Camarines Sur is 85% dependent on Internal Revenue allotment (IRA) which are mainly based on land area and population there results in unequal and unjust allocation of funds to its component local government units because IRA obtained from the formula of land area and population when concentrated into one province only are not necessarily spent fairly and equitably throughout all the constituents of the province. The division of Camarines Sur ensures that the internal revenue allotment that pertain to Nueva Camarines will be spent there in the same manner that the allocation of what remains in the mother province will exclusively be spent in Camarines Sur.

31

ARGUMENT NO. 1:

“AN ASENSO KAN CAMSUR DARAKAN KAHIWASAN KAINI”.

32

This argument is FALSE, MISLEADING ANDFALLACIOUS.

Let us all be reminded that the presentCAMSUR has 5,502 square kilometers or 5billion 502 million square meters or 550,200hectares of land. This is TOO BIG TO MANAGEEFFICIENTLY, FAIRLY AND EQUITABLY.

The present CamSur has 1,036 barangaysand 35 municipalities plus two (2) cities of Irigaand Naga.

ARGUMENT NO. 1: 33

We have mountain side, seaside, islands,lakeside and riverside areas.

Within the 3-year term of the Governor,assuming that he visits one (1) barangay a day,5 days a week, he can only visit 240 barangays ayear or 720 out of 1,036 barangays. It wouldtherefore take four (4) years, three (3) months,three (3) weeks and one (1) day to visit 1,036barangays at the rate of five (5) a week –

which will never happen.

ARGUMENT NO. 1: 34

Besides, dividing the present CamSurinto two (2) provinces do not make thetwo (2) provinces SMALL.

More importantly, the progress of anyprovince should NOT primarily bedependent on its size but on theeconomic, social, cultural, andenvironmental development plans, theirrelated fields of endeavors, and theirimplementation.

ARGUMENT NO. 1: 35

ARGUMENT NO. 2:

The oppositors contend that BIGGER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE BETTER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

Misquoting and misrepresenting the Studyof the Local Government DevelopmentFoundation (LOGODEF) the oppositors falselyclaim that:

“Once provinces are broken into smallerunits, the end result is the new localgovernments cannot survive for lack of financialviability”.

36

Rebuttal:

In deliberately making this false claim, thiskaputikan, the oppositors cannot cite a singleprovince that went kaput, or went bankrupt or intheir own words “cannot survive for lack of financialviability”.

Moreover, we have yet to hear of any provincecreated from existing provinces complain about theircreation. At the beginning of the last century in 1901there were only 20 provinces in the Philippines. In2008 this increased to 79 and now we have 81, theircreations having been resoundingly approved by thepeople in their respective plebiscites.

ARGUMENT NO. 2: 37

THE TREND FOR DIVISION CONTINUES

RELIGIOUS SECTOR DIVISIONS

I. Roman Catholic Church – the present province of Camarines Sur is now covered by 2 dioceses :

The Archdiocese of Caceres covers the areas in district 3, 4 & 5 of Camarines Sur while district 1 & 2 is under the jurisdiction of a Bishop based in Libmanan.

II. Iglesia ni Cristo

Has been divided into 2 jurisdictions

1. District 1, 2 & 3 are under the supervision of the minister based in Naga City

2. Districts 4 & 5 (Partido & Rinconada) are under the jurisdiction of a minister based in IrigaCity.

38ARGUMENT NO. 2:

EDUCATIONAL DIVISION

39

The office of the DivisionSuperintendent’s jurisdiction isproposed to be divided into theterritories proposed for the NuevaCamarines and the remainingprovince of Camarines Sur.

ARGUMENT NO. 2:

All of these divisions be it in politicalsector governance, religious governance,and educational governance are deemedessential because the present province ofCamarines Sur as single entity has too largea land area and too many people to serve,hence, the imperative necessity to adopt adivision in more manageable sizes andproportions.

The division of Camarines Sur into 2provinces is therefore not unique unto itself.

40ARGUMENT NO. 2:

-- In making this grossly erroneous argument, withoutany factual or legal basis, the oppositors twisted anddistorted the criteria for financial viability presented bythe Local Government Code.

- Worse, the oppositors maligned and destroyed thecredibility of the LOGODEF Study which they with maliceaforethought misquoted and misrepresented what theLOGODEF Study said. What the LOGODEF Study actuallypointed out was that the primordial concern of the LocalGovernment Code in establishing the minimumstandards for creating a new province is to establish alocal government system that is capable of localgovernance and local development.

ARGUMENT NO. 2: 41

Said minimum standards should not be ignoredaccording to the LOGODEF Study because that wouldbe anathema to the long-term foundation of robustcentral-local government relations for development.

- Contrary to the false claim of the oppositors, theLOGODEF STUDY categorically stated the provisions ofthe Local Government Code establishing criteria orrequisites for creation of a new province “CANNOT BEINTERPRETED TO MEAN THAT BIGGER LOCALGOVERNMENTS ARE BETTER AND MORE VIABLEMECHANISM FOR EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE”.

ARGUMENT NO. 2: 42

- The most classic example of a Province which wasbroken into smaller local government units and was notmerely fragmented into 2 or 3 separate andindependent LGUs, but 15 LGUs were taken away andsegregated from the original mother province i.e. thatof the PROVINCE OF RIZAL.

The Province of Rizal was divided, subdivided, andpartitioned such that the following LGUs with veryexpensive parcels of land and with actual andpotentially high local revenue generation capabilitieswere removed from the territorial jurisdiction of theProvince of Rizal, namely:

ARGUMENT NO. 2: 43

1. Las Pińas

2. Parańaque

3. Muntinglupa

4. Taguig

5. Pateros

6. Makati

7. Mandaluyong

8. San Juan

9. Malabon

10. Navotas

11. Pasig

12. Marikina

13. Caloocan

14. Pasay

15. Quezon City

ARGUMENT NO. 2: 44

The remaining Province ofRizal is still a robust, dynamicand progressive province in thePhilippines.

ARGUMENT NO. 2: 45

ARGUMENT NO. 3:

“AN MGA BINARANGANG PROVINCIA IYONGONIAN ANG PINAKA POBRE ASIN TIOS NAPROVINCIA – IYO MAN INI AN KAKAABTAN KANCAMARINES SUR KUNG TUTUGUTAN TANGMAPAGDUWA”.

- This argument of the oppositors is agrossly misleading generalization thatdenigrates the intelligence of thepeople of Camarines Sur who willevaluate the division of our province. 46

- This argument is also a grossmisrepresentation of WHAT is “pobre” or“tios”? WHO is “pobre” or “tios”, the newprovince created or the high percentage ofincidence of poverty even in the so-called“rich province”?

- Maguindanao which was carved out ofCotabato in 1973 (before the LocalGovernment Code) has a population of1,273,715 and a land area of 9,729 squarekilometers.

ARGUMENT NO. 3:47

It has an Internal Revenue Allotment(IRA) share of P1,078,630,935 making itclassified as a FIRST CLASS province.

But inspite of its large population, largeland area, a large share in Internal RevenueAllotment (IRA), it is in the lowest rung ofprovinces with very bad governance indexrating (NO. 79). The poverty incidence is53.4% (NSCB 2009 Rating).

ARGUMENT NO. 3:48

Compared to the present province ofCamarines Sur (undivided) with a population of1,693,821 and a land area of 5,502 squarekilometers, and an IRA share ofP1,139,991,220, and classified as FIRST CLASSprovince. Camarines Sur also has a povertyincidence of 47% (NSCB 2009 rating).

Maguindanao has a very poor governancerating index – Number 79 of the 79 provinces in2009, Camarines Sur is ranked 78 in governanceindex, second lowest in the country.

ARGUMENT NO. 3:49

Both so-called “rich provinces” arebadly governed with high poverty incidence.The obvious conclusion is that it is notdivision, not the “hati” that is the cause kankadakul na pobreng tao but baddevelopment planning and badimplementation and bad management ofresources with hardly any povertyalleviation impact. In essence, wrongemphasis, wrong prioritization ofdevelopment needs.

ARGUMENT NO. 3:50

There are in fact many outstandingexamples of provinces that were divided thatbecame progressive local government units,among many others:

Poverty Incidence GGI

ILOCOS – was divided into Ilocos Norte (1st CLASS) 22.4% 14Ilocos Sur (1st CLASS) 27% 12

DAVAO – has been subdivided into:Davao del Sur (1st CLASS) 24.6% 16Davao del Norte (1st CLASS) 33.9% 32Compostela Valley (1st CLASS) 36.7% 10

ARGUMENT NO. 3:51

52

The 2009 NSCB (published February 2011), Official

Poverty Statistics PROVINCIAL: Cebu, Negros Occidental,

Camarines Sur & Nueva Ecija continue to have the biggest

share in the total number of poor families!

PROVINCE Magnitude of Poor Families % Share to Total

Poor Families

2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009

PHILIPPINES 3,293,096 3,670,791 3,855,730 100 100 100

Cebu 185,624 211,406 213,162 5.6 5.8 5.5

Negros Accidental 112,512 130,077 144,828 3.4 3.5 3.8

Camarines Sur 116,460 119,747 126,280 3.5 3.3 3.3

Pangasinan 92,191 128,396 114,400 2.8 3.5 3.0

Nueva Ecija 64,808 94,026 112,367 2.0 2.6 2.9

All of the preceeding charts clearly demonstrate the oppositors grossly erroneous and misleading contention na ang binarangang probinsiya iyoang may pinakahalangkaw na poverty incidence. On the contrary, provinces with large land area and population including those that there were NOT divided like Cebu, Pangasinan and Nueva Ecija have very large magnitude of poor families and biggest share to total poor families, even if their revenues are in billions.

53

It is therefore a grave error, a grosslymisleading allegation, a false claim of theoppositors that “ang mga binarangangprovincia iyo ngunian ang mgapinakapobre asin tios na provincia”.

Putik ining argumentong ini. Daekita madara sa balu-bagui na sarala asinsaralto.

ARGUMENT NO. 3:54

But provinces being FIRST CLASS doesnot mean that they are being effectively andefficiently governed or managed. Being FIRSTCLASS does not also necessarily mean thatunemployment and underemployment arelow.

Camarines Sur’s unemployment rateranked 44th of the 79 provinces (DOLE Rating)and the underemployment rate is 63rd of 79provinces (DOLE Rating). WE NEED TOREFOCUS OUR ATTENTION TO PRIORITYCONCERNS that have a wider impact on thewelfare of our people.

ARGUMENT NO. 3:55

ARGUMENT NO. 4:

IYO AN PEHERAK-HERAK ARGUMENT

Sabi kan oppositors “AN KAPALARAN KANMATATADANG CAMARINES SUR KAHERAK-HERAKASIN TODO NANGMENOS”.

The oppositors claim that Camarines Surundivided has an Internal Revenue Allotment(IRA) of P1,139,991,220.00 billion. If divided intotwo (2) provinces, the IRA allocation will be:

56

Camarines Sur P 632,472,348.01

Nueva Camarines P 687,062,880.48

______________

TOTAL: P1,319,535,230.49

Camarines Sur divided P1,319,535,230.49

Camarines Sur undivided P1,139,991,220.00

______________

INCREASE IN IRA AS

PRESENTED BY OPPOSITORS P 179,544,010.49

ARGUMENT NO. 4:57

Without explaining it the oppositorsprovided data and statistics that theCOMBINED IRA of the two (2) provinces ofCamarines will in fact INCREASE byP179,544,010.49 million, according to theoppositors themselves. This INCREASE is theresult of the effect of the division which underthe law both the divided provinces of CamSurand Nueva Camarines will be entitled, asdivided, to the “equal sharing formula” amongall provinces (existing and newly created) andthe cost of devolved functions.

ARGUMENT NO. 4:58

Before we dispute the paherak-herakargument of the oppositors as nothing butan appeal to emotion and not logic and notreason, sa BU-A-YANG ARGUMENTO ta anggusto nindang paluwason iyo na angInternal Revenue Allotment (IRA) namununungod or pertaining to NuevaCamarines should not be removed from theremaining Camarines Sur ta kaherak-herakman ang matatadang Camarines Sur. Bakoning totoo.

ARGUMENT NO. 4:59

In order that we should not be misleadby the paherak-herak argument, let usremember the following principles:

1. That Internal Revenue Taxes are nationaltaxes and not local taxes.

2. That 40% of Internal Revenue Taxes shallbe the share of local government units(LGUs) i.e. provinces, cities, municipalitiesand barangays.

ARGUMENT NO. 4:60

3. The share of local government units(LGUs) in the Internal Revenue Allotment(IRA) shall be allocated in the followingmanner:

Provinces 23%

Cities 23%

Municipalities 34%

Barangays 20%

ARGUMENT NO. 4:61

4. The 23% share of all provinces shall beshared by all provinces according to thefollowing formula:

Population factor 50%

Land Area factor 25%

Equal sharing, 25%

irrespective of

population and land area

ARGUMENT NO. 4:62

5. By way of illustration: The IRAdistributed in 2010 is based on InternalRevenue Allotment (IRA) Collections ofthe national government in the thirdfiscal year preceding (2007) the currentyear of distribution (2010) in thisexample.

ARGUMENT NO. 4:63

6. As applied to the present CamarinesSur (UNIDIVIDED) the IRA share isP1,139,991,220 billion. If DIVIDED, withreduced population and land area, butadding “equal share” formula and thecost of devolved functions, thedistribution of the IRA as provided bythe Bureau of Local Government Finance(BLGF) of the Department of Finance areas follows:

ARGUMENT NO. 4:64

The estimated IRA allocation for CY 2010 asan example for the divided provinces ofCamarines Sur will be:

The IRA of the COMBINED provinces ofCamarines Sur (CamSur and Nueva Camarines)will total to P1,375,043,771.88 billion for anincrease of P235,052,551.88 million from theundivided IRA of Camarines Sur ofP1,139,991,220.00 billion. The oppositors claimthat the increased IRA of the combinedprovinces is only P179,544,010.49.

ARGUMENT NO. 4:65

Even if we accept this figure, there willstill be an increase in IRA recognizedby the oppositors through theapplication of the equal sharingformula and guaranteed cost of thedevolved function (i.e. hospitals).

66

DISTORTION OF FIGURES BY OPPOSITORS

In order to avoid confusion in thepresentation and comparison offigures, presented by the oppositors asdistinguished from those of theproponents, the followingclarifications are emphasized:

67

1. The term “IRA” when used refers only to InternalRevenue Allocations, while the phrase “regularincome” includes IRA and local taxes and fees. Tocompare, therefore, “regular income” with IRA onlyas oppositors are doing is like comparing apples andoranges.

2. The share of provinces should be distinguishedand be held apart from the IRA share of cities,municipalities and barangays because theirrespective sharing from IRA is separate fromprovinces, hence, the combined IRA of the provinceof Camarines Sur, the cities of Naga and Iriga, the 35municipalities and the 1,036 barangays constitute acombined total of the tremendous amounts inbillions (P3,836,805,675), not a paltry amount. 68

3. The financial allocation of the districtCongressmen from their Priority DevelopmentAssistance Fund (PDAF) in Congress, thecongressional initiatives and from the lump sumappropriations from the executive branch of thegovernment constitute amounts that are higherthan the regular income of the Province ofCamarines Sur, divided or undivided. Thecoordinated planning and disbursement offinancial resources will therefore provide a moreeffective utilization of resources if the electedleaders are united in their pursuit of theirmission and vision. 69

4. The oppositors argued that the division ofCamarines Sur into two (2) provinces is a highlydivisive political issue.

“Ironically, it is this division of Camarines Surthat has UNITED all the squabbling political leaders,the big-wigs of Camarines Sur – the Fuentebellas,the Alfelors, the Andayas, Dato Arroyo, Cho Rocoand their groups and I, the father of L-Ray are infavor of the division of Camarines Sur.”

70

We predict that L-Ray and his band ofoppositors will eventually be isolated andabandoned by many of those who earlierwere supportive of him.

71

5. L-Ray’s resistance on the partition of CamarinesSur is also anchored on his fear that his tourismdevelopment scheme will be derailed. This is afalse, grossly misleading and misplaced contentionbecause:

a. The wakeboarding site is in the Municipality ofPili which will remain in the Province of CamarinesSur.

b. The Gota Caramoan Project which is located atthe proposed Nueva Camarines will still be retainedby the province of Camarines Sur even if thelocation is already outside of it because it isexpressly so provided in Sec. 54 (c) of HB 4820.

72

c. But what will cause the loss of the competitiveedge of wakeboarding in Camarines Sur, is that L-Ray using his two (2) sons as nominees to invest inthe Republic Wakeboard Nuvali Park in Laguna,thereby creating a competing conflict of interestbetween a public enterprise and a private interest.

d. Besides, tourism development in Camarines Surcannot be tied primarily to wakeboarding – which isnot sustainable for a prolonged period of years.Sport tourism should be enlarged to other sportssuch as rock climbing, mountain climbing,windsurfing, scuba diving, surf-biking, dolphinwatching, whale watching, etc.

73

e. Other forms of tourism should beintensely promoted such as pilgrimagetourism, heritage tourism, culinary tourism,shopping tourism, health and medicaltourism.

f. Primary reliance on wakeboarding whilemay be a good starting point cannot be thebe-all and end-all of tourism development.That would be a very narrow and restrictivebase for promoting tourism.

74

We should stop quibbling about SIZE OF LAND AREAS (or the kahiwasan kan daga na babangaonsince there are more than enough lands remaining and awaiting to be developed) but we should put more emphasis on the areas of development priorities that can be undertaken:

1. By the local government units (LGUs)2. By the LGU’s in collaboration- with national government and its agencies3. By the LGU’s in partnership w/ the private sectors

75

I. AGRICULTURAL & NATURAL RESOURCESDEVELOPMENT

1. CROPS

2. LIVESTOCK

3. FISHERIES

4. FORESTRY

5. MINERALS

76

II. PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

6. TRANSPORTATION (water, land, air)

7. POWER & ENERGY

8. COMMUNICATION

9. WATER SUPPLY

10. IRRIGATION & FLOOD CONTROL

III. SOCIAL SECTOR DEVELOPMENT

11. EDUCATION

12. HEALTH, NUTRITION &SANITATION

13. HOUSING

14. SOCIAL SERVICES77

IV. TRADE, INDUSTRY &TOURISM DEVELOPMENT

15. TRADE & INDUSTRY

16. TOURISM

V. OTHER PRIORITIES

17. ARTS &CULTURE

18. SPORTS DEVELOPMENT

19. SPECIAL CONCERNS (Youth, Women,Elderly, Disabled/handicapped, UrbanPoor, Cultural Minority/IndigenousPeople)

20. PEACE & ORDER78

VI. ENVIRONMENT

21. CONSERVATION/ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION

22. SUSTAINABILITY

VII. LOCAL GOVERNEMENT ADMINISTRATION

23. HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT WITH IT-ORIENTED MANAGEMENT

24. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

25. ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT

79

GOVERNANCE INDEX RATING

OUT OF 79 PROVINCES SURVEYED IN 2008

NATIONAL STATISTICAL AND

COORDINATION BOARD (NSCB)

- CAMARINES SUR ranked 78, the second

to the lowest. Maguindanao ranked 79.

- Masbate ranked 76

- Camarines Norte ranked 70

- Sorsogon ranked 63

- Albay ranked 61

- Catanduanes 2580

The smallest Province of the BicolRegion – Catanduanes, with the lesserland area and lesser population has thebest governance index rating in the BicolRegion.

81

Rank: 1 – POOR

Rank: 2,3,4 – BETTER

Rank: 5 – BEST

In the Bicol Region:

Camarines Sur – 1 = POOR

Masbate – 1 =POOR

Albay – 2 = BETTER

Sorsogon – 2 =BETTER

Catanduanes – 2 = BETTER

Camarines Norte – 2 = BETTER

None qualifies as BEST82

POVERTY INCIDENCE

83

a. Bring government closer to the people anddeliver government services in a moreeffective and responsive manner.

b. Refocus on a well balanced development planaccording to priority imperatives.

84

c. There are diseconomies of scale (thereverse of economies of scale) thatoccurs by the sheer size of the land areasto be developed or governed and thesheer costs of too many people to beattended to begin to offset that bignessbrings. Bigness brings with itinefficiencies, unresponsiveness and therigidities of bureaucracy.

85

d. The negative consequences of “bigness” havebeen well documented. Foremost is thedifficulty of establishing accountability. Thereare just too many people involved in deliveringpublic services. Residents are at a loss on who isdoing what and how redress can be soughtwhen public service is badly delivered. Blurredresponsibilities are compounded by the lack ofindicators with which performance can bemeasured. The absence of accountabilityinduces under-performance, abuse of powers,and inefficiencies, and corruption.

86

f. To established a more accountable dynamic and responsive organizational structure and operating mechanism for a more effective allocation of resources.

g. To encourage more active participation of the private sector in local governance as an alternative strategy for sustainable development.

h.The reduction of the land area of responsibility andthe number of people as constituents are consistentwith the management principle of effective span ofattention and control. It is easier to manage,monitor, and evaluate results of the delivery ofservices.

87

i. Since the present Camarines Sur is 85% dependent on Internal Revenue allotment (IRA) which are mainly based on land area and population there results in unequal and unjust allocation of funds to its component local government units because IRA obtained from the formula of land area and population when concentrated into one province only are not necessarily spend fairly and equitably throughout all the constituents of the province. The division of Camarines Sur ensures that the internal revenue allotment that pertain to Nueva Camarineswill be spent there in the same manner that the allocation of what remains in the mother province will exclusively be spent in Camarines Sur.

OUR VISION FOR THE FUTURE

88