Header Ads

Tanauan City Ranked Excellent in the 2016 Anti-Red Tape Survey

Image credit:  Google Street View on Google Earth.

Three municipalities, one barangay and four municipal water districts were rated “Failed” in the 2016 results of an anti-red tape survey released by the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The CSC is the lead agency in the implementation of the 2007 Republic Act No. 9485, also known as “An Act to Improve Efficiency in the Delivery of Government Service to the Public by Reducing Bureaucratic Red Tape, Preventing Graft and Corruption, and Providing Penalties Thereof.1

According to the CSC, from 2010-2016, several government agencies were subjected to the so-called Report Card Survey (RCS). The RCS is a client-feedback instrument that measures how government service agencies comply with the provisions of the Anti-Red Tape Act.

These include, among others, the posting of the Citizens’ Charter; the wearing of ID cards or the use of nameplates by government service providers or front-liners; the presence of an attended Public Assistance and Complaints Desk; and the observance of a No Noon Break Policy.

The selection of agencies to be surveyed was based on high density or volume of transactions and the number of complaints and feedback received, with focus made on local government units and agencies which are considered providers of social services.2

Surveyed agencies were subsequently rated as Failed, Acceptable, Good, Outstanding and Excellent.

In the Province of Batangas, the Municipality of Sto. Tomas, with a numeric rating of 75.16; San Pascual, with a numberic rating of 79.34; and Nasugbu, with a numeric rating of 79.79, were considered “Failed.” Also considered Failed were Barangay Darasa II of Tanauan City and the Water Districts of Agoncillo (76.01), Rosario (75.63), Balayan (79.71) and San Juan (69.45).

The highest ranked agency was the City of Tanauan with a numeric rating of 93.09, making it the only surveyed agency in the province given a descriptive rating of Excellent.

Below in tabular form are the survey results for the Province of Batangas3:

Legend:  NR - Numerical Rating; DR - Descriptive Rating


Service Office NR DR
Alangilan, Batangas City 89.68 Good
Pallocan West, Batangas City 87.56 Good
Marawoy, Lipa City 84.3 Good
Darasa II, Tanauan City 79.73 Failed


Service Office NR DR
Tanauan City 93.09 Excellent
Batangas City 89.08 Good
Mabini 88.98 Good
Calaca 87.04 Good
Padre Garcia 86.30 Good
Lipa City 86.20 Good
Taysan 85.98 Good
San Jose 85.43 Good
Bauan 84.96 Good
Lemery 84.91 Good
San Juan 83.90 Good
Rosario 83.58 Good
Calatagan 82.58 Good
Balayan 82.16 Good
Malvar 81.86 Good
Nasugbu 79.79 Failed
San Pascual 79.34 Failed
Ibaan 79.17 Acceptable*
Santo Tomas 75.16 Failed
* I am unable to find an explanation why the municipalities of Nasugbu and San Pascual, which have higher numerical ratings than Ibaan, are descriptively ranked "Failed" while Ibaan is "Acceptable."

Land Bank of the Philippines Branches

Service Office NR DR
Batangas City PPA EO 88.8 Good
Lipa Branch 83.91 Good

Local Water Districts

Service Office NR DR
Batangas City Water District 88.32 Good
Tanauan Water District 88.15 Good
Taal Water District 84.37 Good
Nasugbu Water District 83.43 Good
Metro Lipa City Water District 83.32 Good
Mabini Water District 80.03 Good
Balayan Water District 79.71 Failed
Agoncillo Water District 76.01 Failed
Rosario Water District 75.63 Failed
San Juan Water District 69.45 Failed

State Universities

Service Office NR DR
Batangas State University 78.7 Acceptable

To view the complete Anti-Red Tape Survey results, click here.

Notes and references:
1 “Republic Act No. 9485 and Its Implementing Rules and Regulations,” Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 12 s. 2008, online at contactcenterngbayan.gov.ph.
2 “Result of 2016 Report Card Survey,” online at the Civil Service Commission.
3 “2016 ARTA-RCS Result,” online at the Civil Service Commission.

If you enjoyed this article, please click the Like button or share it freely on social media. It helps to pay this site's domain name and maintenance costs.

Share |