2015 validation of the streamlining business permits and licensing … · 2016-10-25 · 2015...
TRANSCRIPT
2015 VALIDATION OF THE STREAMLINING BUSINESS PERMITS AND LICENSING SYSTEM PROGRAM
OF REGION 1, PHILIPPINES
KENETH G. BAYANI, MBA Business Administration
Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University (DMMMSU)
Mid-La Union Campus
City of San Fernando, La Union, Philippines
Email address: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
This study is a validation survey of the streamlining efforts of the
local government units (LGUs) of their business permits and licensing
systems (BPLS) as perceived by their clienteles. It involved ten (10)
renewals and ten (10) new registrants from each of the 15 identified
municipalities in Region 1 that included Calasiao, Laoac, Lingayen, and
Mapandan (Pangasinan); Bacnotan, Balaoan, Bangar, and Pugo (La
Union); Bantay, Caoayan, and Sinait (Ilocos Sur); and Bacarra, Burgos,
Paoay, and Vintar (Ilocos Norte). This survey depended on the revised
questionnaire developed by the National Competitiveness Council (NCC)
for data collection. The findings revealed that the LGUs have streamlined
their BPLS as prescribed in the Anti-Red Tape Act (ARTA) but failed to
meet some of the revised BPLS standards set by the National
Competitiveness Council (NCC); they have satisfactorily served their
registrants, but still have matters to address to achieve excellent
performance and to provide consistent registrant experience.
---------------- Keywords: Business Permits and Licensing System, Streamlining, and Validation Survey
1
Validation
of the Streamlining
Business Permits
and Licensing
System of Region 1
2015
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT 4
INTRODUCTION 4
Rationale 4
Objectives 6
Scope and Limitations 6
METHODOLOGY 7
Research Design 7
Data Sources 7
Instrumentation and Data Collection 8
Data Analysis 9
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 9
Business Profile 9
Product or Service Category 9
Registration 11
Ownership 11
Size 12
Length of Years in Operation 12
Business Permits Procedure 13
Type of Permit 13
Timing of Permit Application 13
Processing Time 14
Number of Steps 16
3
Steps in Permit Processing 17
Number of Signatories 17
Number of Forms 18
Amounts of Payment 19
Provision for a detailed listing of fees 20
Provision for an official receipt 21
Presence of fixers 21
Overall Performance 21
Comments and Suggestions of the Respondents 23
Permit Requirements 25
Problems in Securing Requirements
Survey Experience
25
26
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 27
Summary
Conclusions
27
28
Recommendations 29
REFERENCES 33
4
2015 VALIDATION OF THE STREAMLINING BUSINESS
PERMITS AND LICENSING SYSTEM PROGRAM
OF REGION 1, PHILIPPINES
Keneth G. Bayani
ABSTRACT
This study is a validation survey of the streamlining efforts of
the local government units (LGUs) of their business permits and
licensing systems (BPLS) as perceived by their clienteles. It involved
ten (10) renewals and ten (10) new registrants from each of the 15
identified municipalities in Region 1 that included Calasiao, Laoac,
Lingayen, and Mapandan (Pangasinan); Bacnotan, Balaoan, Bangar,
and Pugo (La Union); Bantay, Caoayan, and Sinait (Ilocos Sur); and
Bacarra, Burgos, Paoay, and Vintar (Ilocos Norte). This survey
depended on the revised questionnaire developed by the National
Competitiveness Council (NCC) for data collection. The findings
revealed that the LGUs have streamlined their BPLS as prescribed in
the Anti-Red Tape Act (ARTA) but failed to meet some of the revised
BPLS standards set by the National Competitiveness Council (NCC);
they have satisfactorily served their registrants, but still have matters
to address to achieve excellent performance and to provide consistent
registrant experience.
INTRODUCTION
Rationale
The streamlining of Business Permits and Licensing System (BPLS) in all
cities and municipalities that started in 2010 through a Joint Memorandum Circular
issued by DILG and DTI to all cities and municipalities nationwide has significantly
reduced bureaucratic costs through reduced number of processing steps, lesser
signatories and shorter processing time and the use of one form (unified form) in
securing a mayor’s permit.
One of the Aquino administration’s core thrusts is a focus on good
governance, transparency, and accountability as well as improved public services.
Among the various government transparency initiatives is the Nationwide
5
Streamlining of Business Permits and Licensing System (BPLS) with the Department
of Interior and Local Government (DILG) and the Department of Trade and Industry
(DTI) as lead implementing agencies. As of December 2012, a total of 823 local
government units (LGUs) are reported to have completed streamlining their BPLS.
For its part, the National Competitiveness Council (NCC) conducted the BPLS
Client Satisfaction Survey to determine the performance of the different LGUs
nationwide in terms of business registration from the viewpoint of the business
communities. The survey covered almost 3,000 micro, small, medium, and large
enterprises, mostly representing single proprietorship firms scattered around the
country. It is part of a series of client satisfaction surveys that will focus on specific
public services or agency-specific concerns, which the NCC will conduct as part of
the Administration’s thrust to focus on good governance, transparency, and
accountability towards improving delivery of public services. These surveys will form
part of NCC’s Monitoring and Evaluation Projects that will track the quality of
government services as well as actual customer experience.
It is for this purpose that this project is conducted to validate the
implementation of the Nationwide BPLS Streamlining Program.
In Region 1, a monitoring and evaluation of the streamlining of business
permits and licensing system was conducted in 2013 and 2014. In 2013, the survey
involved San Manuel, Urdaneta City, and Dagupan City (Pangasinan), Agoo and San
Fernando City (La Union), Tagudin, Candon City, and Vigan City (Ilocos Sur), and
San Nicolas and Laoag City (Ilocos Norte). In 2014, the same survey included
Bolinao, Calasiao, Mangaldan, and Villasis (Pangasinan), Aringay, Bauang, and
Naguilian (La Union), Cabugao, Narvacan, and Sta. Cruz (Ilocos Sur), and Bangui
and Batac City (Ilocos Norte). Both surveys found that the LGUs have streamlined
6
their BPLS as prescribed in the Anti-Red Tape Act (ARTA) but failed to meet some
of the revised BPLS standards set by the National Competitiveness Council (NCC);
they have satisfactorily served their registrants, but still have matters to address to
achieve excellent performance and to provide consistent registrant experience.
Hence, this study was undertaken to continuously monitor the progress of the
BPLS streamlining program in the Region involving other LGUs not previously
surveyed.
Objectives
This study aims to validate the streamlining efforts on the business permits
and licensing systems of the 15 municipalities in Region 1: this included Calasiao,
Laoac, Lingayen, and Mapandan (Pangasinan); Bacnotan, Balaoan, Bangar, and Pugo
(La Union); Bantay, Caoayan, and Sinait (Ilocos Sur); and Bacarra, Burgos, Paoay,
and Vintar (Ilocos Norte).
Scope and Limitations
The respondent enterprises – ten (10) new and ten (10) renewal – may not be
representative of the experience of business owners in the respective municipalities
and cities. Moreover, the data collection was done during weekdays to ensure
availability of most businesses unlike being conducted on weekends that limits the
variety of respondents since many establishments are closed. Also, only those
enterprises located in the downtown or business districts, particularly in malls and
public markets, were included, which limit the respondents taken from barangays far
from the town or city proper.
The study should have been conducted April and May, just after the renewal
period, so that respondents can clearly recall all the steps and the corresponding time
spent for each step.
7
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This validation is a survey that largely depended on the revised survey
questionnaire developed by NCC for data collection.
Data Sources
The primary sources of data are the 300 enterprises, 150 renewals and 150
new businesses; 10 renewals and 10 new businesses from the identified municipalities
in Region 1. These included Calasiao, Laoac, Lingayen, and Mapandan (Pangasinan);
Bacnotan, Balaoan, Bangar, and Pugo (La Union); Bantay, Caoayan, and Sinait
(Ilocos Sur); and Bacarra, Burgos, Paoay, and Vintar (Ilocos Norte).
As shown in Table 1, almost all (98% and 98.6%) of the respondent new and
renewal businesses have personally experienced the process of applying for mayor’s
permit, only very few (2% and 1.4%) have not personally experienced applying for
this permit but were knowledgeable since they were either parents, spouses, children
or close relatives of the respondent enterprises’ owners.
Table 1. Distribution of Respondents as to Application of Permits
Indicators New (n=150) Renewal(n=150)
f % f %
Personal 147 98.0 148 98.6
Non-Personal 3 2.0 2 1.4
As shown in Table 2, almost all (94.7% and 92.7%) of the respondent new and
renewal businesses are either owners or managers of the enterprises subjected for
issuance of business permits, very few (4.0% and 7.3%) of them are either an
employee or a staff; only two (2) among the respondent new businesses did not
indicate their designation of position in the business.
8
Table 2. Distribution of Respondents as to Designation or Position in the
Enterprises
Indicators New (n=150) Renewal (n=150)
f % f %
Owner/Manager 142 94.7 139 92.7
Employee/Staff 6 4.0 11 7.3
No Response 2 1.3 0 0
Instrumentation and Data Collection
The survey questionnaire developed by NCC is comprised of three (3) parts –
personal profile, business profile, and business permits procedures. The first part
contains six (6) items that include their personal knowledge on the process, name,
email address, business name, enterprise location, and their designation or position in
the company. The second part contains five (5) items that include the product or
service category, type of registration, type of ownership, size, and the length of years
in operation of the business. The third part contains 14 items that include the type of
permit, timing of application, processing time, number of steps, procedures and
duration, number of signatories, number of forms, areas of delay, payment, amount of
fees and provision for detailed statement of fees, provision for official receipts,
existence of fixers, assessment of overall performance (scaled from 1-10), and the
comments on and suggestions of the respondents for the improvement of the LGU’s
BPLS, permit requirements, and the corresponding problems experienced by the
respondents in securing these requirements.
The data were collected from the list of registrants provided by the Business
Permits and Licensing Offices of the LGUs. The respondents were randomly chosen
but were limited to those who were willing to be part of the study. The researchers
exhausted efforts to ensure representation from all corners of the LGUs’ business
centers and districts.
9
The schedule of data collection is shown below.
Date Visited LGUs
September 28, 2015 Bacnotan, La Union
September 29, 2015 Balaoan, La Union
October 1, 2015 Bangar, la Union
October 8 , 2015 Pugo, La Union
October 12, 2015 Bantay, Ilocos Sur
October 13, 2015 Caoayan, Ilocos Sur
October 14, 2015 Sinait, Ilocos Sur
September 25, 2015 Bacarra, Ilocos Norte
September 27, 2015 Burgos, Ilocos Norte
September 29, 2015 Paoay, Ilocos Norte
October 1 , 2015 Vintar, Ilocos Norte
October 3, 2015 Calasiao, Pangasinan
October 5, 2015 Laoac, Pangasinan
October 7, 2015 Lingayen, Pangasinan
October 9, 2015 Mapandan, Pangasinan
Data Analysis
The pre-coded data were analyzed using frequency counts and mean, while the
open-ended questions were subjected to post-coding and were analyzed using the
same statistical tools. The data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel and SPSS
version 22
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Business Profile
This part contains the product or service category, type of business
registration, type of ownership, business classification as to size, and the length of
years in operation of the business.
Product or Service Category
As shown in Table 3, many (37.3%) of the respondent new businesses are
engaged into wholesale and retail trade, some (21.3%) are food establishments or
restaurants, while very few (0.7%-7.3%) are into other identified business categories.
10
Moreover, almost half (44.0%) of the respondent renewal businesses are
engaged into wholesale and retail trade, a few (16% and 12%) are into food
establishments or restaurants and agribusiness, fisheries, forestry and agribusiness,
while very few (0.7%-7.3%) are into other identified business categories.
The other businesses not into the identified categories mentioned are
aluminum & glass works, metal craft, automotive shop, barber shop, beauty salon or
parlor, computer sales, works, and services, computer shops or internet cafe, funeral
parlor, gm, motor shop, photo print shop, repair shop, salon boutique, and vegetable
stall and vendor.
Table 3. Profile of the Respondent Businesses as to Product or Service Category
Line of Business New Renewal
f % f %
Wholesale and Retail Trade 56 37.3 66 44.0
Food/Restaurants 32 21.3 24 16.0
Agri, Fisheries, Forestry, Agribiz 11 7.3 18 12.0
Health 6 4.0 11 7.3
Rentals 5 3.3 6 4.0
Manufacturing, Construction, or Real Estate
Development
2 1.3 9 6.0
Gas 3 2.0 2 1.3
Water 3 2.0 2 1.3
Communications 2 1.3 3 2.0
Banking & Financial 1 0.7 3 2.0
Transportation 3 2.0 1 .7
Tourism & Tourism-related business 1 0.7 2 1.3
Education 1 0.7 1 .7
Storage 0 - 1 .7
Electricity 0 - 1 .7
Insurance 0 - 0 -
Social Work 0 - 0 -
Mining/Quarrying 0 - 0 -
Others (specify) 24 6.0 0 -
11
Form of Ownership
As shown in Table 4, almost all (95.3% and 91.3%) of the respondent new and
renewal businesses are single proprietorships, very few (0.7% to 5.3%) are
partnerships, corporations, and cooperatives; moreover, among the new businesses
only one (1) is a partnership and none is formed as a cooperative. This is aligned with
the business sizes in the country; since almost all are micro businesses, they are
usually owned by just one person.
Table 4. Profile of the Businesses as to Form of Ownership
Form of Ownership New Renewal
f % f %
Single Proprietorship 143 95.3 137 91.3
Corporation 6 4.0 8 5.3
Partnership 1 .7 2 1.3
Cooperative 0 0 3 2.0
Ownership
As shown in Figure 3, almost all (99.3%) of both the respondent new and
renewal businesses are owned by Filipinos, none is owned by Philippine-Foreign Joint
venture nor foreigners. However, one (1) from the respondents did not respond to this
item. This implies that Filipinos primarily own most businesses in the country,
particularly the micro, small, and medium enterprises.
Table 5. Profile of the Businesses as to Type of Ownership
Type of Ownership New Renewal
f % f %
Filipino 149 99.3 149 99.3
Philippine-Foreign Joint Venture 0 0 0 0
Foreign (State Nationality) 0 0 0 0
No Response 1 0.7 1 0.7
12
Size
As shown in Table 6, among the respondent new businesses, almost all
(92.7%) are micro, which has a capitalization of up to P3,000,000.00, while very few
are small (2.7%), medium (4.0%), and large (0.7%) which have capitalizations
ranging from P3,000,001.00 to over P100,000,000.00.
Further, among the renewal businesses, most (79.3%) are micro businesses,
which has a capitalization of up to P3,000,000.00, a few (11.3%) are small, which has
a capitalization of P3,000,001.00 to P15,000,000.00, and very few are medium (7.3%)
and large (2.0%), which have capitalizations ranging from P15,000,001.00 to over
P100,000,000.00. This is aligned with the statistical data from the department of
Trade and Industry showing that almost all of the businesses in the country are micro,
small, and medium in sizes; usually formed as single or sole proprietorships.
Table 6. Profile of the Businesses as to Size
Business Classification New Renewal
f % f %
Micro 139 92.7 119 79.3
Small 4 2.7 17 11.3
Medium 6 4.0 11 7.3
Large 1 .7 3 2.0
Length of Years in Operation
As shown in Table 7, all of the new businesses are only those who have
operated for 0-11 months during the conduct of the study, while all of the renewal
businesses are those who have operated for at least one (1) year.
Among the respondent renewals, almost half (44%) have operated for 1-5
years, some (24.7%) have operated for 6-10 years, and many (31.3%) have operated
for 11 years and longer. This implies that most of the respondent renewal businesses
13
have long years of experience primarily in renewing their business permits and
licenses.
Table 7. Profile of the Businesses as to Length of Years in Operation
Length of Business Operation New Renewal
f % f %
Less than twelve (12) months 150 100.0 0 .0
1-5 years 0 0.0 66 44.0
6-10 years 0 0 37 24.7
11 years and above 0 0 47 31.3
Business Permits Procedure
This part contains the type of permit, timing of application, processing time,
number of steps, steps and duration, number of signatories, number of forms,
payment, amount of fees, provision of official receipts, existence of fixers, assessment
of overall performance, permit requirements and the corresponding problems, and the
suggestions of the respondents to improve the LGUs BPLS.
Type of Permit
The respondents are equally distributed between new and renewal registrants;
there were ten (10) new registrants and ten (10) renewal registrants for all respondent
municipalities.
Timing of Permit Application
As shown in Table 8, the timing of permit application for the new businesses
was divided quarterly, while the timing of permit application for renewal businesses
was divided into four weeks of January, the month for renewing these business
permits.
Among the respondent new businesses, almost half (49.3%) process their
permits from January to March, some process their permits from April to June
(24.7%) and July to September (21.3%), and very few process their permits from
14
October to December (4.7%). This shows that almost all of the new registrants
usually apply after renewal period to avoid the inconvenience of queuing during the
peak period for renewing permits, while least are applying during the last quarter
because it is not beneficial on their part anymore since they will already be renewing
that permit in January of the succeeding year.
Among the respondent renewal businesses, many renew their permits in the
first week of January (31.3%), second week of January (28.0%), and third week of
January(30%), very few in the last day of renewal period (6.0%) and after the renewal
period (4.0%). Thus, almost all of the renewal businesses process their permits in
January; most between the first to third weeks, which is aligned with the schedule.
Usually, the renewals process their permits in early January to avoid penalties.
However, there are still renewals who process their permits after the renewal period,
which implies a problem to the BPLO and to the attitude of the business owners in
following schedules.
Table 8. Timing of Permit Application of Respondent Businesses
Application Period New
Application Period Renewal
f % f %
January to March 74 49.3 First week of January 47 31.3
April to June 37 24.7 Second week of January 42 28.0
July to September 32 21.3 Third week of January 45 30.0
October to December 7 4.7 Last day of renewal period 9 6.0
Others 6 4.0
No Response 1 0.7
Processing Time
As prescribed in the ARTA, the processing times are 1-5 days and 6-10 days
for renewals and new registrants, respectively; however, the NCC’s revised BPLS
standard is one (1) day processing time.
15
As shown in Table 9, among the respondent new registrants, very few have
experienced processing their business permits for 10 to 30 min. (2.7%), 31 to 60 min
(5.3%), 1 to 2 hours (4.7%), and 4 to 5 days (4%), a few have experienced 6 to 10
days (16.7%) and beyond 10 days (12%), some (25%) have experienced within the
day processing, while many (29.3%) have experienced and 2 to 3 days.
In general, this means that most of the respondent new registrants (88%) have
experienced ten (10) days or less in processing their business permits, most (71.3%)
have experienced five (5) days or less, and many (38%) have experienced one (1) day
or less.
Among the respondent renewal registrants, very few have experienced
processing their business permits for 10 to 30 min. (0.7%), 31 to 60 min. (8%), 1 to 2
hours (10%), 4 to 5 days (4.7%), and beyond 10 days (6%), a few (12.7%) have
experienced 2 to 3 days, some (23.3%) have experienced 6 to 10 days, and many
(34.7%) have experienced within the day processing.
In general, this means that almost all of the respondent renewal registrants
(94%) have experienced ten (10) days or less in processing their business permits,
most (70.7%) have experienced five (5) days or less, and a great majority (66%) have
experienced one (1) day or less.
This implies that the subject LGUs have streamlined already their processing
time, meeting both standard processing time set in ARTA for both new registrants and
renewals; having most of the respondent new and renewal businesses spent 10 days or
less and 5 days or less, respectively in processing their permits. Although a great
majority of the renewal businesses has experienced the NCC’s target of one (1) day
processing time, this is not achieved in new businesses. Hence, efforts have to be
exerted to have all of their registrants experience the same processing time.
16
Moreover, the total processing time experienced by the respondents were
affected by some LGUs allowing the registrants, whether new or renewals, to proceed
with the process even with incomplete requirements. Often, they are allowed to
secure requirements upon payment pending the release of the permits. Thus, delays
can not be solely attributed to the LGUs but to the registrants as well.
Table 9. Processing Time Spent by the Respondent Businesses
Processing Time New Renewal
f % f %
less than 10 minutes 0 0 0 0
10 to 30 minutes 4 2.7 1 .7
31 to 60 minutes 8 5.3 12 8.0
1 to 2 hours 7 4.7 15 10.0
within the day 38 25.3 52 34.7
2 to 3 days 44 29.3 19 12.7
4 to 5 days 6 4.0 7 4.7
6 to 10 days 25 16.7 35 23.3
Others 18 12.0 9 6.0
Number of Steps
As shown in Table 10 almost all (99.3%) except those who did not respond, of
the respondent new and renewal registrants recalled five (5) steps or less in processing
permits, which meets the number of steps prescribed in the ARTA. These steps
include are submission of requirements, registration, assessment, payment, and
release. Moreover, a few (13.3%) of both new and renewal registrants have recalled
three (3) steps, which meets the revised NCC’s standard number of steps in
processing permits.
This implies that the subject LGUs have streamlined the steps in permit
processing as prescribed in the ARTA, but will still have to meet the revised NCC
standards.
17
Table 10. Number of Steps in Permit Processing
Number of Steps New Renewal
f % f %
1 step 0 0 0 0
2 steps 0 0 0 0
3 steps 20 13.3 20 13.3
4 steps 119 79.3 118 78.7
5 steps 10 6.7 11 7.3
6 or more steps 0 0 0 0
No Response 1 0.7 1 0.7
Steps in Permit Processing
The respondent new and renewal registrants mentioned a variety of steps in
processing their permits, but almost all (at least 90%) of the registrants mentioned
registration, assessment, payment, and release. Noticeably, securing requirements is
already not considered as part of the process. This implies greater awareness on the
part of the registrants that they have to complete the requirements prior to processing
their business permits.
Number of Signatories
As shown in Table 12, a great majority (60%) of the respondent new and
renewal registrants showed their permits bearing only the one (1) signatory, while a
many (40%) of them have permits bearing two (2) signatories. As per inspection of
their permits, those with one (1) signatory have the Mayor’s signature, while those
with two (2) signatories have the signatures of the Mayor and of either the treasurer or
the administrator.
Nonetheless, all of the subject LGUs comply with what is prescribed in the
ARTA and a great majority of them meet the one-signatory Mayor’s permit standard
set by NCC.
18
Table 12. Number of Signatories in the Permit
Number of Signatories New Renewal
f % f %
1 signatory 90 60.0 90 60.0
2 signatories 60 40.0 60 40.0
3 to 5 signatories 0 0 0 0
6 or more signatories 0 0 0 0
Number of Forms
As shown in Table 13, all of the respondent new and renewal registrants recall
filling out just one (1) form in processing their permits, which meet the ARTA and
NCC standard of having a unified form for BPLS.
Table 13. Number of Forms Used in Processing the Permit
Number of Forms New Renewal
f % f %
1 form 150 100.0 150 100.0
2 forms 0 0 0 0
3 forms 0 0 0 0
No Response 0 0 0 0
Factors Contributing to Delay
As shown in Table 14, many of the respondent new registrants perceived that
long transaction time (38.7%) and long line numbers/queues (26.7%) have contributed
to the delay, a few perceived that lack of facility for senior citizens and PWDs
(15.3%), too many/absent signatories (15.3%), lack of information about the process
(13.3%), too many procedures/requirements (13.3%), and absent signatories (11.3%)
have contributed to the delay, and very few perceived that being understaffed (4.7%),
limited payment options (4.0%), and the BFP requirements have contributed to the
delay in processing their permits.
Among the respondent renewal registrants, many (31.3%) perceived that the
lack of facility for senior citizens and PWDs contributed to the delay, a few perceived
19
that too many procedures/requirements (16.7%), absent signatories (13.3%), being
understaffed (12.7%), and too many/absent signatories (10.7%) contributed to the
delay, and very few perceived that limited payment options (7.3%), BIR requirements
(7.3%), long transaction time (6.0%), long line number/queues (5.3%), lack of
information about the process (3.3%), and the BFP requirements (0.7%) contributed
to the delay in processing their permits.
From these identified factors contributing to the delay, the long transaction
time, long numbers/queues, and the inadequacy of facilities for senior citizens and
PWDs should be prioritized. Although most of these problems are seldom
experienced, the LGUs have to address them to provide inclusive and consistent
registrant experiences.
Table 14. Factors Affecting the Business Application in Processing the Permit
Factors Affecting the Business Application New Renewal
f % f %
lack of facility for Senior Citizens and PWDs 23 15.3 47 31.3
long transaction time 58 38.7 9 6.0
long line number/queues 40 26.7 8 5.3
too many procedures/requirements 20 13.3 25 16.7
too many/absent signatories 23 15.3 16 10.7
absent signatories 17 11.3 20 13.3
understaffed 7 4.7 19 12.7
lack of information about the process 20 13.3 5 3.3
limited payment options (i.e. online payment) 6 4.0 11 7.3
lack of information about the requirements :
too many requirements 0 0
15 10.0
BIR requirements 0 0 11 7.3
BFP requirements 5 3.3 1 .7
Amounts of Payment
As shown in Table 15, among the respondent new registrants, most (72.0%)
paid P1,001.00-5,000.00, a few (13.3%) paid P5,001.00 to P10,000.00, and very few
paid less than P500 (0.7%), P501.00 to P1,000.00 (8.7%), and above P10,000.00
20
(4.0%). In general, most (81.4%) of them paid P5,000.00 or less and almost all
(94.7%) of them paid P10,000.00 or less for their permits.
Among the respondent renewal registrants, half (50.0%) paid P1,000.00 to
P5,000.00, many (27.3%) paid P5,001.00 to P10,000.00, a few (16.0%) paid above
P10,000.00, very few (4.7%) paid P501.00 to P1,000.00, and none paid less than
P500. In general, majority (54.7%) paid P5,000.00 or less and most (82%) paid
P10,000.00 or less for their permits.
Moreover, among those who paid P5,001.00 or more, only a few (17.7%) are
from the respondent new registrants while almost half (43.3%) are from the
respondent renewal registrants. This implies that the subject LGUs collect more from
renewals than from new registrants. The difference is due to the fact that the renewals
are already paying taxes for income derived from the business undertaking in the
municipality or city. Moreover, the amount payments are based on income for
renewal registrants and on capitalization for new registrants.
Table 15. Amounts of Payment for the Permit
Amount of Fees New Renewal
f % f %
less than P500 1 .7 0 0
P501 to P1,000 13 8.7 7 4.7
P1,001 to P5,000 108 72.0 75 50.0
P5,001 to P10,000 20 13.3 41 27.3
above P10,000 6 4.0 24 16.0
No Response 2 1.3 3 2.0
Provision for a detailed listing of fees
All of the respondent new registrants and renewals were given a detailed
listing or statement of fees to be paid. The respondents mentioned that this process is
part of assessment, which means that the subject LGUs are complying to this
provision in the ARTA.
21
Provision for an official receipt
All the payments of the respondent new and renewal registrants were
acknowledged with an official receipt stating all the fees the same as those listed in
the assessment reflecting the total amount of fees paid. Significantly, no fees were
collected that are not reflected in the official receipt. This implies that all the subject
LGUs are complying to this provision in the ARTA.
Presence of fixers
All of the respondent new and renewal registrants were not approached by a
fixer, which means that the fight against fixers as provided in the ARTA by the
subject LGUs is successful.
Positive Reforms
As shown in Table 17, very few of the respondent new (10%) and renewal
(8.7%) registrants have stated positive reforms in their LGUs. Among these reforms
are computerization, faster processing, and having a unified form, a one-signatory
permit, and a one-stop shop for processing permits.
Table 17. Positive Reforms in Permit Processing
Was there any positive reform/s made in
your locality?
New Renewal
f % f %
Yes 15 10.0 13 8.7
No 132 88.0 134 89.3
No Response 3 2.0 3 2.0
Overall Performance
As shown in Table 18, the respondent new and renewal registrants rated the
respective LGUs with a Likert scale of 1-10.
The respondent new registrants, considering all their expectations, are
moderately satisfied (8.0) with the services of their respective LGUs, they perceived
that there are moderately few (8.0) steps involved and signatories to the business
22
permits, and that the BPLO frontliners are moderately (8.0) efficient in their delivery
of services.
The respondent renewal registrants have moderately high (8.0) expectations of
the overall quality of renewal process; considering all their expectations, they are
moderately satisfied (8.0) with the services of their respective LGUs. Further, they
perceived that the renewal process is moderately fast (8.0) with fairly few (7.0) steps,
moderately few (8.0) signatories affixed to the business permits and forms issued to
facilitate the renewal process. Furthermore, they think that their respective BPLO
frontliners are moderately efficient (8.0) in delivering services and that the amount of
fees they paid to renew their business permits are moderately reasonable (8.0).
Moreover, they are highly satisfied with the over-all quality of the renewal process of
their LGUs this year (2015) and the previous year (2014).
Clearly, the respondent new and renewal businesses are more satisfied than
dissatisfied with the performance of the LGUs, however, there are opportunities for
all of them to be extremely satisfied.
Table 18. Overall Customer Satisfaction Index
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION INDEX New Renewal
Md DE Md DE
Q.14 How would you rate your expectations of the
overall quality of renewal process? (1-low, 10-
high)
NA 8 MH
Q.15 Considering all your expectations, how satisfied
are you with the services of your LGU? (1-
dissatisfied, 10-satisfied)
8 MS 8 MS
Q.16 How would you rate the speed of renewal
process? (1-slow, 10-fast) NA 8 MF
Q.17 How would you rate the number of steps
involved? (1-many, 10-few) 8 MF 7 FF
Q.18 How would you rate the number of signatories
affixed to the business permit? (1-many, 10-few) 8 MF 8 MF
Q.19 How would you rate the number of forms issued
by the LGU to facilitate the renewal process? (1-
many, 10-few)
NA 8 MF
23
Q.20 How would you rate the delivery of services
rendered by the BPLO Frontliners (i.e., assessor,
cahier)? (1-inefficient, 10-efficient)
8 MF 8 ME
Q.21 How did you find the cost of fees you paid to
renew your business permit? (1-unreasonable,
10-reasonable)
NA 8 MR
Q.22 How satisfied are you with the over-all quality of
the renewal process of your LGU this year
(2015)? (1-dissatisfied, 10-satisifed)
NA 9 HS
Q.23 How about the over-all quality of renewal process
last year (2014)? (1-dissatisfied, 10-satisifed) NA 9 HS
Comments and Suggestions
Only very few of the respondent new and renewal businesses have negative
comments regarding the LGUs’ BPLS.
The respondent new businesses commented that absent signatories in securing
of documentary requirements causes so much delay, as these are needed in filing
business application. Getting barangay clearance and other requirements takes long
because signatories are not available especially when there are more than six (6)
signatories needed.
Another registrant applied through an authorized representative. The delay
was with the BIR as the registrant needs to go there personally, applicants will still go
to BIR Alaminos City to register. Sometimes processing in BIR is too long, it takes
3-5 days; they should be friendlier to the registrants.
There is delayed fire inspection of building, which sometimes takes more than
two (2) days.
Getting permits from other agencies are not a problem at all except from BIR
and BFP.
Decentralized DTI office; satellite offices would be most appreciated, to have
a DTI office in Laoac.
24
Lack of information about process and document requirements on building
permits, the visibility of citizens charter to every department must be ensured; they
should give the complete list of requirements.
Another registrant, insinuated that in getting business permit they should
complete all requirements and comply with all the policies so that no problems will be
encountered.
The respondent renewal registrants cited that absent signatories causes so
much delay.
The BFP involves too many signatories and too may requirements.
The BIR is too slow and has too many requirements. Registrants are required
to pay in the bank in securing BIR clearance, but why do they need to present their
official receipts, when it could be retrieved in the BIR's database. BIR officers should
stay everyday in their office.
The city health office do not have an organized system.
The SSS is too strict; there is a long transaction time due to many applicants.
The garbage fee should not be collected since nobody is collecting garbage,
garbage disposal is the responsibility of the businesses. Another registrant suggested
that monthly payment of garbage fee of PHP100.00 should be added in the
assessment.
The Mayor’s permit should be computed on the net income and not on the
gross income.
The MSMEs should be exempted for the first three (3) years for them to be
stable first and competitive.
The yearly increase of fee… can it be possible to increase it every 3 years?
25
Permit Requirements
As shown in Table 19, almost all of the respondent new and renewal
businesses stated that Fire Safety Inspection Certificate (96.0% and 98.7%), BIR
(96.0% and 98.0%), Barangay Clearance (96.0% and 98.0%), City Health Office
Clearance (95.3% and 97.3%), PHIC (92.7% and 98.7%), SSS (93.3% and 98.0%),
and Pag-IBIG Fund (92.0% and 98.7%) are required in securing a Mayor’s permit.
Further, almost all only of the respondent new registrants stated DTI (96%)
and City Engineer's Office Clearance (93.3%) as requirements to securing their
Mayor’s permit, while most (85.3%) of them stated that building and occupancy
permits are required, very few mentioned SEC and CTC as requirements.
Although many of these requirements are common among businesses, these
are usually dependent on the type and nature of business registration that explains the
responses of the respondents. For example, a DTI permit is effective for five (5)
years, hence will be renewed only after it expiry date and not for every year.
Table 19. Permits and Clearances Required in Business Permit Processing
Other Permit Requirements
New Renewal
f % f %
Fire Safety Inspection Certificate 144 96.0 148 98.7
BIR 144 96.0 147 98.0
Barangay Clearance 144 96.0 147 98.0
City Health Office Clearance 143 95.3 146 97.3
PHIC 139 92.7 148 98.7
SSS 140 93.3 147 98.0
Pag-IBIG Fund 138 92.0 148 98.7
DTI 144 96.0 14 9.3
City Engineer's Office Clearance 140 93.3 0 0
Building Permit 128 85.3 0 0
Occupancy Permit 128 85.3 0 0
SEC 7 4.7 7 4.7
Others (CTC) 3 2 0 0
26
Problems in Securing Requirements
Almost all (93%) of the respondent business have not experienced problems in
securing requirements, while very few (7%) of them have experienced problems, such
as laboratory test scheduling for health certificate, expensive fire extinguisher and
refill, one complained about the presence of fixer in the Bureau of Fire Protection, and
the difficulty of looking for the barangay captain and treasurer.
Survey Experience
The respondent new and renewal registrants perceived that this survey should
be conducted to all enterprises annually to constantly monitor and evaluate the
performance of their respective LGUs.
Moreover, in the scale of 1-difficult and 10 easy, they feel that the survey is
very easy (9.0) to answer and would like to be involved again in the next surveys.
Table 20. Survey Experience Rate
How would you rate your experience in
answering this survey?
New Renewal
f % f %
1 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0
3 1 .7 0 0
4 2 1.3 1 .7
5 6 4.0 6 4.0
6 1 .7 3 2.0
7 7 4.7 8 5.3
8 34 22.7 17 11.3
9 51 34.0 57 38.0
10 43 28.7 53 35.3
No Response 5 3.3 4 2.7
Median 9 9
27
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
In the 2015 Field Monitoring and Evaluation Survey on the Business Permit
and Licensing System (BPLS) Program (Application of Mayor’s Permit), the
following information were garnered during the course of the conduct of the survey.
The project involved the validation of the Nationwide Streamlining of BPLS Program
implementation in fifteen (15) LGUs in the Region: Bacarra, Burgos, Paoay, and
Vintar, Ilocos Norte; Bantay, Caoyan, and Sinait, Ilocos Sur; Bacnotan, Baloan,
Bangar, and Pugo, La Union; Laoac, Calasiao, Lingayen, and Mapandan, Pangasinan
Significant changes have been noted as a result of BPLS streamlining from
these 15 LGUS. From as many as 16 steps before the BPLS reform was introduced, it
has gone down to a maximum of five (5) steps. LGUs like Paoay, Ilocos Norte and
Mapandan, Pangasinan have even made it lesser with only 3 steps. Processing time
for new registrants takes a month before the streamlining roll out but now it only take
3 to 5 days in most LGUs. Delay in the release of the mayor’s permit however is
sometimes attributed to the registrants’ failure to pick up the said mayor’s permit or
the signatory is not available. In this instance, timings for this procedure should end
when the mayors permit is now ready for pick up and not when the said permit is
release to the registrants. In like manner, registrants should be informed on when
their permit is available to avoid unnecessary time and effort in the registrants part..
With the introduction of the unified application form, signatories have been limited to
a maximum of two and most of the LGUs have only the mayor as signatory like the
LGUs of Laoac and Mapanda in Pangasinan, the LGUs of Bacarra, Burgos and Paoay
in Ilocos Norte. All of these have greatly contributed in the easing of doing business
in the region’s cities and municipalities. It is worthy to note that lower income class
28
municipalities have taken streamlining more seriously than some higher income
municipalities. One low-income municipality (Laoac, Pangasinan) does not even
require the signature of the mayor in renewal applications.
While a few LGUs have not perfected the art of the streamlining process
particularly on the correct usage of the Unified (Application) Form, these are being
addressed through coaching during the survey. It is also noted that other registrants
were not mindful on the different processes, what they just wanted was to have their
businesses to be registered so that in the course of interview you have to explain to
them and help them to look back and analyze the different procedures they undertook
in getting their permits and licenses.
Another observation was that, in some LGUs, they still need to travel in the
next city to deal with the BIR and this cause them additional time and effort. It is
noted that the bottleneck of the registration process was in securing other permits that
the LGU is requiring specifically the SSS, BFP, BIR, Health/Sanitary Permit and even
the City Engineer’s Office Clearance.
Conclusions
The subject LGUs have streamlined their BPLS for new and renewal
registration as provided by ARTA but failed to meet some of the NCC’s revised
BPLS standard.
The bulk of the registrants’ permit processing time is spent on waiting for the
release of their Mayor’s permit after payment.
The LGUs have a faster processing for new registrations than for renewal
registrations to process permits composed of 3 to 5 steps, 1 to 2 signatories, and a
unified form.
29
The LGUs collect higher payments from renewal registrants due to fees and
taxes. However, the collected particulars and amounts from registrants still vary
among the LGUs.
The LGUs have eliminated the presence of fixers, ensuring that all fees are
acknowledged through an official receipt.
The LGUs require at least seven (7) common requirements to all business
registrants regardless of registration type and nature.
The LGUs have satisfactorily served their registrants, but still have matters to
address to achieve Excellent Performance.
Although the LGUs have streamlined their BPLS, they have failed to provide
consistent experience to all registrants.
Recommendations
System
The BPLO should be a one-stop shop office, which means locating all offices
processing requirements for the Mayor’s permit in one office or in one floor of the
building. This will ensure that all renewals and new registrants will have similar
experience when they pass through the system. If the one-stop shop will be
implemented the whole year, representation of all offices must be ensured. Moreover,
for large number of registrants especially for the cities, they may consider building an
extension or satellite offices in the public market or business centers, where the bulk
of registrants are situated.
The LGUs may consider reducing the requirements for both renewals and new
registrants. Specifically, a meeting with all the concerned offices should be done to
arrive at agreements as to what requirements should be maintained or removed since
much of these offices have their own mandates to implement. Nonetheless, the size
30
and nature of the business may be used to evaluate the necessary requirements. For
example, a sari-sari store may not be required to secure SSS, PhilHealth, PAG-IBIG
and the like.
To expedite the process of securing signatures, since being absent is
inevitable, an alternate signatory should be deputized for every office. Computer
generated signatures and/or pre-signed forms can be explored. However, caution
should be taken so as not to compromise some of the processes and the integrity of the
issued permit.
A comprehensive information dissemination campaign should be designed.
Posting the citizen’s charter may not be enough; a comprehensive flowchart should be
included with all pertinent information to facilitate location of offices and inform the
registrants of the complete process to follow.
The LGUs should consider the use of billboards and streamers to be
strategically located in major thoroughfares and other strategic places to provide
information on the start and deadline of renewal of applications, and other
information relative to business process. A roving public address system should be
considered, a month before the start of renewal period.
While it is important for the LGU to simplify the process, it is equally
important that the registrants are well informed of the steps and requirements in
processing their permits.
A clear understanding of the application process could minimize confusion
and queries in the part of the registrants, and as a result they would have a more
pleasant experience. On the other hand, the service staff would have less concern and
queries to attend allowing them to focus more on their work.
31
The LGU should highly consider the creation of a team that would conduct
advance and simultaneous inspections. The team is composed of members of the
following offices, Business Permits and Licensing Office, City Engineering Office,
City Health Office, Bureau of Fire, City Planning and Development Office.
The LGUs should consider tapping the services of barangay officials in
information drive particularly during the peak season. It has been observed that the
practice of barangay scheduling eased the process.
The LGUs should expedite the release of business stickers and/or business
plates so as to avoid inconvenience to registrants, especially during on-the-spot
inspection. Moreover, the maker or provider of these business stickers or plates
should be carefully selected to avoid delays.
Technology
Although some of the LGUs reported of using an e-bpls, all LGUs should have
a fully- automated system to improve their efficiency. Specifically, a uniform e-bpls
among LGUs is highly recommended, this system shall automate the filling out of
application forms, assessment, payment and all other document-based processes in the
system.
Further, coding of businesses based on comprehensive categorization can be
explored to facilitate data updating and retrieval and to expedite other processes such
as assessment and payment since there will be an automatic requirements and values
to be paid based on corresponding codes.
Facilities/Venue
The LGUs should consider relocation or renovation of BPLOs to
accommodate more registrants particularly during renewal period. If not possible,
choose a more spacious location for a one-stop shop during the renewal period. Also,
32
provide additional chairs and if possible provide air conditioning in the office and at
the waiting area; if not possible, locate the one-stop shop in a place with good
ventilation.
The LGUs should provide an information desk or booth in front of their
municipal or city halls to facilitate information dissemination to new registrants
before going inside the different offices.
Instead of going inside every office, limit transactions within the windows so
as not to promote avenues for uncompromising situations and to save time. For this
purpose, office windows should be restructured, a bit of ergonomics should be
applied. Office gadgets (speakers and microphone) should be installed to refrain from
shouting just to call the next person to be served who may be sitting or standing in a
farther part of the venue or building.
Human (including department head and personnel /staff)
The LGUs should provide additional manpower especially during renewal
period, if possible, office hours may be extended to accommodate owners or
employee-in-charge of applying or renewing the Mayor’s permit who were busy from
8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
On-the-spot inspection of offices may be done to ensure that personnel are
available from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. including noon break as mandated in ARTA.
Customer relationship and other trainings must be conducted regularly to
maintain and/or improve their sense of professionalism, fairness, honesty and
accountability in dealing with all clients, especially those who are not residents in the
locality and in carrying out their mandates as public servants.
33
Financial
The LGUs should review their scheme on fees and taxes collected because
such are sources of discouragement to both renewals and new registrants. They may
consider implementing progressive system to attract new registrants and devising a
scheme to facilitate tax computation, since some municipal and city treasurers impose
20% increase in taxes and do not believe the tax declarations of these registrants; tax
is solely based on income.
The LGUs may also consider the same particulars and amounts to be paid by
new registrants; this may be done throughout the country.
Specific Offices
The Health Centers should review their cut off time in submitting stools for
analysis to help those employees securing sanitary permits.
The National Government Agencies and other Local Offices involved directly
or indirectly in securing permits or clearances should also streamline their processes
to eliminate multiplying effect that delays the services of the BPLOs.
Others
This study should be replicated with an improved instrumentation and better
sampling including all municipalities and cities of the Region.
REFERENCES
Bureau of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise, Development (BMSMED) in
cooperation with the German Technical Cooperation (GTZ), the International
Finance Corporation (IFC), The Asia Foundation (TAF), and the Center for
Local and Regional Governance (CLRG). 2008. Simplifying business permit
and licensing process of local governments: a toolkit
National Business Permits and Licensing Standards (BPLS) based on the Department
and Trade and Industry and Department of Interior and Local Government
(DTI-DILG) Joint Memorandum Circular (JMC) No. 1, series of 2010.
34
Philippine Development Forum, Department of Interior and Local Government and
Department and Trade and Industry. 2010. Towards business-friendly
permitting system in the Philippines.
Republic Act No. 9485 (Anti Red Tape Act of 2007) and its Implementing Rules and
Regulations
United States Agency for International Development (USAID). 2011. BPLS reform
program guide, promoting local business permit and licensing system reform
in the Philippines