Fiscal Performance

Republic of the Philippines
BULACAN STATE UNIVERSITY
City of Malolos, Bulacan

PHILIPPINE EXPENDITURE PATTERN

A Report

Submitted to

DR. LUIS M. LANSANG
Professor

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the course
Public Fiscal Administration

by:

Ronald Reagan T. Alonzo
MPA Student

July 27, 2013
1st Trimester, AY 2013-2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. | Introduction ……………………………………………………………………… | 3 | II. | Objective of the Study …………………………………………………………… | 4 | III. | Expenditure Policies ……………………………………………………………… | 4 | | | Developmental Problems of Developing Countries ……………………… | 4 | | | Philippine Expenditure Policies …………………………………………… | 5 | | | Classification of Philippine Public Expenditure …………………………… | 7 | | | Patterns of Philippine Government Expenditure ………………………… | 8 | | | | Ramos Administration (1992-1998) ………………………………… | 10 | | | | Estrada Administration (1999-2000) ……………………………… | 10 | | | | Arroyo Administration (2001-2009) ………………………………… | 11 | | | | P-Noy Administration (2010 – present) …………………………… | 11 | | | Analysis of Philippine Expenditure (2000-2012) ………………………… | 12 | IV. | Summary and Conclusion ……………………………………………………… | 13 | V. | Recommendation ……………………………………………………………….. | 13 | VI. | References ………………………………………………………………………… | 15 |

I. INTRODUCTION

The expenditure system is the government’s fiscal arm in producing, allocating and distributing social goods and services. Studies on the impact of government expenditures show a relatively strong influence on production , consumption, trade and prices, among others. That is, the expenditure activities of the government have certainly a potent influence on which track the economy should follow.

Properly managed public expenditures can contribute much to economic growth e.g. through increasing income levels and generating additional employment. In developing countries, expenditure policies are designed and executed according to the development objectives and strategies. A well-formulated set of expenditure policies, firmly implemented, could serve as a solution to so-called developmental problems which throttle the development process.

As in the case of developing countries, the Philippines features a social structure of extreme class disparity and poverty. The majority of the people belong to the lower income strata, a large segment of which or 27.9% of the population is below the poverty line. The elimination of poverty and the reduction of inequalities between these classes by a redistribution of wealth and income are therefore urgent considerations.

A major problem is the inadequacy of revenues due to low revenue performance and low tax capacity of the economy. The inadequacy of revenues severely limits the ability of the government to finance its expenditure programs. Public sector deficit is growing fast and reliance foreign borrowings is leading the country into a “debt trap”.

The rising level of public expenditure in the Philippines is indicative of an increase in the size of the public sector. This reflects the growing role the government is playing in the economy. The growth of expenditure levels from 1998 to 2012 could be considered dramatic in that its actual impact on the economy which it sought to promote is now the focus of attention. More interestingly, this expenditure growth, which was justified by the expanded functions of the government as a consequences of its development thrusts, has not been accompanied by a corresponding growth in revenues. The rapidly widening gap between available resources and expenditures has becoming alarming since it is difficult for the country to continuously rely on borrowing to finance its deficit. Debts will eventually have to be paid, the principal plus the interests.
The Philippine government’s main source of revenue are taxes, with some non-tax revenue also being collected. To finance fiscal deficit and debt, the Philippines relies on both domestic and external sources.
Fiscal policy during the Marcos administration was primarily focused on indirect tax collection and on government spending on economic services and infrastructure development. The first Aquino administration inherited a large fiscal deficit from the previous administration, but managed to reduce fiscal imbalance and improve tax collection through the introduction of the 1986 Tax Reform Program and the value added tax. The Ramos administration experienced budget surpluses due to substantial gains from the massive sale of government assets and strong foreign investment in its early years. However, the implementation of the 1997 Comprehensive Tax Reform Program and the onset of the Asian financial crisis resulted to a deteriorating fiscal position in the succeeding years and administrations. The Estrada administration faced a large fiscal deficit due to the decrease in tax effort and the repayment of the Ramos administration’s debt to contractors and suppliers. During the Arroyo administration, the Expanded Value Added Tax Law was enacted, national debt-to-GDP ratio peaked, and underspending on public infrastructure and other capital expenditures was observed.

II. OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

This study attempts to review and analyze the patterns of expenditures from 1998 to 2012 in terms of level and growth; the reasons and conditions behind the patterns; and the implications of such trends and patterns.

III. EXPENDITURES POLICY

DEVELOPMENTAL PROBLEMS OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

An expenditure policy could be better understood within the context of the development efforts and problems of a country.

It is believed that the formulation of developing fiscal policies, Western countries economic precept should not be readily copied or applied in Third World countries because of the differences in the economic, political and cultural characteristics between them and the Western countries. Because of such differences, a western fiscal policy as applied to industrialized countries may induce the desired economic effects, but if used by developing countries produces a different set of results, more often aggravating the problem it addresses. For one, Western compensatory principle and pump-priming of the economy by developing country governments have not produced the desired economic effects on their countries.

Unlike developed countries, the Third World nations are confronted by numerous, interrelated problems which obstruct the development process. These problems have to be addressed by any expenditure policy of a developing country.

As in the case of the Philippines, most developing countries feature a social structure of extreme class disparities and extreme poverty. The majority of the people belong to the lower income strata, a large segment of which is below the poverty line. The elimination of poverty and the reduction of inequalities between these classes by a redistribution of income and wealth are therefore urgent considerations of developing countries expenditure policies.

Capital accumulation, another developmental problem, is needed by developing countries to finance investment and development projects. But in these societies, per capital income is low and a greater part of it is used to cover basic necessities. Hence, the rate of savings is low. Worse, those who have the capacity to save utilize such savings in unproductive investments.

With low capital formation and investment, there are not enough economic activities to provide for the growing labor force. Because of unemployment, the labor force is unproductive. With the low level of productivity, the level of income is low. These interrelated problems which form a cycle require an expenditure policy for capital formation that takes into account the labor and income factors.

Another major problem of a developing country is the inadequacy of revenues due to low revenue performance and low tax capacity of the economy. The inadequacy of revenues in these countries severely limits the ability of the government to finance its expenditure programs. More often, it is forced to resort to foreign borrowings increasingly, thereby falling into a “debt trap”.

PHILIPPINE EXPENDITURE POLICIES

Government expenditure objectives were centered in three basic areas: stability, poverty alleviation and dynamic economic growth. The government was, however, careful not to indulge in excessive expenditures. The program for economic expansion relied more on increased private investments. Priority was given to projects which aimed at self sufficiency in food production and increased employment and income.

Top priority projects were on infrastructure and agriculture. Infrastructure, being the lifeblood of development got one of the highest budget appropriation among various sectors. It included projects like construction and maintenance of feeder roads, bridges and power plants. Which are considered vital to development. This was in line with the government’s objectives of countryside development and redistribution of income and wealth.

The fiscal objectives of the Philippines includes “ (a) to increase the flow of budgetary resources to activities supportive of employment generating rural-based activities and to social services; and (b) to improve the cost effectiveness of government operations”.

Philippine expenditure policies are pursuing the following basic strategies:

1. Redistribution of Income and Wealth and Balanced Development

One main policy of the Philippine government is income and wealth redistribution. Because of the gross disparities in the level of socio-economic-economic development in the country’s various regional areas and among social classes, the expenditure system should make available governmental services to areas or sectors where public goods and services are insufficient or not available. The expenditure system is theoretically geared for the minimization, if not eradication of poverty and the most effective and efficient distribution of basic social services.

2. Economic Development

Increased government spending is also a means of providing employment to the people. Jobs are created not only by those generated by government projects but also by those sectors providing goods and services to the government.

Allocation of funds would be given priority to economic services like expanded infrastructure program, investment and other outlays for capital formation.

The government would want to have sustained cash outlay for infrastructure to serve as a counter-cyclical policy measure to cushion the effect of recession and keep the buoyancy economy. Infrastructure as a component of capital outlays is considered an imperative prerequisite for economic development.

For the accomplishment of self sufficiency in food, it is a policy to further the intensity the nationwide production program to meet the needs of the growing population and to lessen the effects of inflation.

3. Stability

Like any other developing countries, the Philippine economy is heavily affected by market externalities, specially the movements in the developed economies. In view of this, the expenditure policy must have preparedness and sufficient flexibility in reacting to sudden economic changes both in local and international scenes.

It is the Philippine government’s policy to pursue expansionary measures as a means to combat the recessionary pressure spawned by world-wide economic events and to maintain whatever growth momentum is attained in previous periods. It also seeks to promote a desirable level and distribution of employment and income as well as of output and prices. The country’s expenditure policy, together with the revenue policy and in context with the overall fiscal policy, is aimed at determining the favorable levels of financial operations to have a sound impact of these factors on the major economic aggregates, e.g. total demand, productivity, employment, balance of payments, the level of prices and distribution of benefits.

4. Countryside Development

In terms of area development, high priority is given to projects that promote integrated regional development. This is to effect dispersal of industries in the regions. Such will make viable the full utilization of labor and the resource potentials of the rural areas. It is also intended to resolve regional disparities. In addition, the resulting availability of employment opportunities in the countryside will help curb the problems of migration into urban centers.
CLASSIFICATION OF PHILIPPINE PUBLIC EXPENDITURES

The Philippine public expenditures are classified in such a way as to permit the measurement of the costs and benefits of entire programs. National government expenditures are broadly classified into five (5) types which are:

1. Level of Government a. National Government b. Local Government

2. Nature of Expense a. Current operating expenditures i. Personal services ii. Maintenance and operating expenses b. Capital expenditures

3. Functional Categories a. Economic Development/Services b. Social Development/Services c. National Defense d. General Government/Public Services e. Debt Service

4. Type of Funds a. General Fund b. Special Account – General Fund c. Bond Fund

5. Organizational Units, ie. Departments and Governmental agencies

The items falling under the current operating expenditures are “the purchases of goods and services in current consumption within the fiscal year, including the acquisition of furniture and equipment normally used in the conduct of government operations, and for the temporary construction for promotional research and similar purposes”. Stated in another way, these are expenditures which must be used for the continuing activities of the government.

The Commission of Audit (COA), as indicated in the Government Standard Chart of Accounts, has two (2) broad groups under current expenditures which are for (a) personal services and those for (b) maintenance and operating expenditures which include the cost of servicing debts.

Capital expenditures are outlays which are used for the purchase of goods and services, the benefits of which extend beyond the Fiscal Year and which add to the assets of government including investments in the capital of government-owned and controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.

The functional categories are broad groupings of expenditures covering the main functions of the national government.

The general government/public services category includes all general administration expenses (inclusive of allotments to local governments), administration of justice, pension and gratuities, contribution to international organizations, public order and safety, general research and other general public services.

Economic development/services covers the agriculture and natural resources, industry, trade and tourism, utilities and infrastructures.

The scope of social development/services expenses covers those of education, public health and medicare, housing and community amenities, social service and welfare, and other social service expenditures not classified elsewhere.

National defense/security includes all military expenditures but excluding those for the police forces.

Public debt or debt service expenditures are inclusive of redemption, interest payments, loan repayments and sinking fund.

As regards to the classification of expenditures by nature of funds, the “ (a) general fund is that which is available for any purpose to which the legislative body may choose to apply it, and is composed of the receipts or revenue which are not by law or by contractual agreement applicable to a specific purpose or purposes. The (b) special fund refers to the fund created for a special purpose or object and is used to defray specified expenditures or classes of expenditures. All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose of object shall be treated as a special fund created for a special fund and paid out for such purposes only. The (c) bond refers to that fund arising from bonds floated by the government for specific purpose such as permanent public improvements.”

PATTERNS OF PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES

The pattern of Philippine expenditure for the period 1997 to 2012 is increasing with an average increase of 9.31%, while the revenue pattern posted an average increase of 8.40% annually. The discrepancy is the averages only reveals that revenues of the Philippine government cannot cover its expenditure programs thereby creating big deficits for the Philippines for the last years.

Table 1. | An Evaluation of the Income and Expenditures | For the Year 1997 - 2012 | (In Milion Pesos) | | | | | | Year | Total Revenues | Total Expenditures | Surplus (Deficit) | Philippine President | 1997 | 471,843 | 470,279 | 1,564 | Fidel Ramos | 1998 | 462,515 | 512,496 | -49,981 | Joseph Estrada | 1999 | 478,502 | 590,160 | -111,658 | Joseph Estrada | 2000 | 514,762 | 648,974 | -134,212 | Joseph Estrada | 2001 | 567,481 | 714,504 | -147,023 | Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo | 2002 | 578,406 | 789,147 | -210,741 | Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo | 2003 | 639,737 | 839,605 | -199,868 | Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo | 2004 | 706,718 | 893,775 | -187,057 | Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo | 2005 | 816,159 | 962,937 | -146,778 | Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo | 2006 | 979,638 | 1,044,429 | -64,791 | Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo | 2007 | 1,136,560 | 1,149,001 | -12,441 | Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo | 2008 | 1,202,905 | 1,271,022 | -68,117 | Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo | 2009 | 1,123,211 | 1,421,743 | -298,532 | Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo | 2010 | 1,207,926 | 1,522,384 | -314,458 | Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo | 2011 | 1,359,942 | 1,557,696 | -197,754 | Benigno Aquino III | 2012 | 1,534,932 | 1,777,759 | -242,827 | Benigno Aquino III |
Source. Bureau of Treasury, Department of Finance

Figure 1. Patterns of Philippine Revenue and Expenditures (1997-2012)
Source. Bureau of Treasury, Department of Finance

Ramos Administration (1992-1998)

The Ramos administration had budget surpluses for four of its six years in power. The government benefited from the massive sale of government assets (totaling to about ₱70 billion, the biggest among the administrations) and continued to benefit from the 1986 Tax Reform Program (TRP). The administration invested heavily on the power sector as the country was beset by power outages. The government utilized its emergency powers to fast-track the construction of power projects and established contracts with independent power plants. This period also experienced a real estate boom and strong foreign direct investment to the country during the early years of the administration, in effect overvaluing the peso. However, with the onset of the Asian financial crisis, the peso depreciated by almost 40%. The Ramos administration relied heavily on external borrowing to finance its fiscal deficit but quickly switched to domestic dependence on the onset of the Asian financial crisis. The administration has been accused of resorting to “budget trickery” during the crisis: balancing assets through the sales of assets, building up accounts payable and delaying payment of government premium to social security holders. In 1997, the Comprehensive Tax Reform Program (CTRP) was enacted. Republic Act (RA) 8184 and RA 8240, which were implemented under the program, were estimated to yield additional taxes of around ₱7.4 billion; however, a decline in tax effort during the succeeding periods was observed after the CTRP was implemented. This was attributed to the unfavorable economic climate created by the Asian fiscal crisis and the poor implementation of the provisions of the reform. A sharp decrease in international trade tax contribution to GDP was also observed as a consequence of the trade liberalization and globalization efforts in the 1990s, more prominently, the establishment of the ASEAN Free Trade Agreement (AFTA) and membership to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). The Ramos administration also provided additional incentives to export-oriented firms, the most prominent among these being RA 7227 which was instrumental to the success of the Subic Bay Freeport Zone.
Estrada Administration (1999-2000)
The year 1999 posted the highest increase in the Philippine expenditure with 15.15% increase from the previous year. This is the time where, then President Joseph Estrada launch an all out war against the Abu Sayyaf. President Estrada, who assumed office at the height of the Asian financial crisis, faced a large fiscal deficit, which was mainly attributed to the sharp deterioration in the tax effort (as a result of the 1997 CTRP: increased tax incentives, narrowing of VAT base and lowering of tariff walls) and higher interest payments given the sharp depreciation of the peso during the crisis. The administration also had to pay P60 billion worth of accounts payables left unpaid by the Ramos administration to contractors and suppliers. Public spending focused on social services, with spending on basic education reaching its peak. To finance the fiscal deficit, Estrada created a balance between domestic and foreign borrowing.
Arroyo Administration (2001-2009)
The Arroyo administration’s poor fiscal position was attributed to weakening tax effort (still resulting from the 1997 CTRP) and rising debt servicing costs (due to peso depreciation). Large fiscal deficits and heavy losses for monitored government corporations were observed during this period. National debt-to-GDP ratio reached an all-time high during the Arroyo administration, averaging at 69.2%. Investment in public infrastructure (at only 1.9% of GDP), expenditure for economic services, health spending and education spending all hit an historic-low during the Arroyo administration. The government responded to its poor fiscal position by under-spending in public infrastructure and social overhead capital (education and health care), thus sacrificing the economy’s long-term growth. In 2005, RA 9337 was enacted, the most significant amendments of which were the removal of electricity and petroleum VAT exemptions and the increase in the VAT rate from 10% to 12%.
Average increase of expenditure during GMA administration is P85.86 million or 9.12% per annum. Budget deficit posted also increases with an average of P18.26 million with the biggest increase in 2009 of P298.53 million.
PNoy Administration (2010 – present)

The fiscal deficit of the National Government for 2010 to 2012 under the PNoy Administration stood at an average of P251.6 billion or about 3% per year. The year 2012 posted the biggest increase in revenue for PNoy administration of 12.87% increase from the previous year of P1,359.9 billion. This increase was due to the tax reforms initiated by the PNOy administration. Level of expenditure on the PNoy government also increases by an average of P118.6 million or 7.84% yearly. The revenues generated for 2010 to 2012 which averages P1,367.6 billion was still short to cover the government expenditures for the same period (2010-2012) that averages P1,619.2 billion. Part of the increase of the expenditures is due to the heavy expenditure for social services of the Aquino government including education.

Pnoy Administration continue to adopt measures to further bring down the expenditure as well as the deficit level. i. tighter allocations for government-owned and controlled corporations; ii. limits in the increases for utility, communications and supply expenditures; iii. a ban on the construction of new office buildings except classrooms and public health centers; iv. a ban on the acquisition of motor vehicles; v. a ban on new positions except those for teachers and uniformed and medical personnel; vi. and keeping contractual and casual employee levels.

ANALYSIS OF PHILIPPINE EXPENDITURE (2000-2012) Table 2. National Government Expenditures | | CY 2000 to CY 2012 | | | | | | | | (In Million Pesos) | | | | | | | | | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | Expenditures of which | 648,974 | 714,504 | 789,147 | 839,605 | 893,775 | 962,937 | 1,044,429 | Allotment to LGUS | 99,816 | 118,179 | 140,540 | 145,502 | 147,524 | 160,550 | 174,713 | Tax Expenditures | 140,895 | 174,834 | 185,861 | 226,408 | 260,901 | 299,807 | 310,108 | Interest Payments | 3,586 | 3,749 | 3,072 | 11,109 | 4,798 | 13,319 | 15,577 | Subsidy | 9,064 | 9,365 | 7,584 | 14,977 | 14,242 | 12,237 | 13,810 | Equity | 536 | 484 | 1,486 | 2,623 | 44 | 190 | 3,561 | Net Lending | 2,634 | 3,944 | 2,626 | 5,620 | 5,676 | 1,707 | 131 |

Table 2. National Government Expenditures (cont) | CY 2000 to CY 2012 | (In Million Pesos) | | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | TOTAL | Expenditures of which | 1,149,001 | 1,271,022 | 1,421,743 | 1,522,384 | 1,557,696 | 1,777,759 | 14,592,976 | Allotment to LGUS | 193,712 | 222,995 | 264,645 | 279,552 | 315,114 | 298,322 | 2,561,164 | Tax Expenditures | 267,800 | 49,717 | 45,231 | 294,244 | 278,996 | 312,799 | 2,847,601 | Interest Payments | 24,984 | 272,218 | 278,866 | 39,693 | 25,831 | 32,281 | 729,083 | Subsidy | 27,336 | 21,109 | 17,439 | 21,005 | 53,705 | 42,637 | 264,510 | Equity | 3,729 | 1,691 | 1,359 | 2,149 | 12,889 | 21,340 | 52,081 | Net Lending | 9,750 | 14,393 | 5,064 | 9,258 | 18,055 | 27,421 | 106,279 |

Figure 2. Total Aggregate Allocation of Government Expenditure (2000-2012)
Source: Bureau of Treasury
Based from the data sourced out from the Bureau of Treasury tax expenditures comprises the biggest bulk of the Philippine expenditures totaling to P2,847.6 billion with an average increase of P14.33 million. The year 2012 posted the highest tax expenditure of P312.80 million followed by P299.81 million in 2005 at the time of GMA.

Interest payments also grew especially during the time of GMA. Year 2008 and 2009 posted the highest interest payments worth P272.22 million and P278.87 million, respectively. In fact in 2008 more than 900% increase was posted from 2007’s P24.98 million interest payments. It can also be noted that during the PNoy administration dramatic decrease in interest payments were experienced. This decrease can be attributed to less borrowings, lower interest rates and a stronger peso during the period and the enhance liability management strategies that were implemented by PNoy.

Allotment to LGUs also posted an annual average increase of P16.54 million or roughly 10% increase yearly. 2011 posted the highest allotment to LGU’s worth P315 million. Meanwhile, in 2013 there is a 5% decrease in allotment to LGU.
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Increasing public expenditure is primarily due to the expanded functions as dictated by the socioeconomic needs of the people, increasing urbanization, growing population and the resulting need for increases in existing services.
The shift in sectoral priorities is evident in the historical data. These differences in the distribution of public spending reveals the priorities of the respective administration. Fiscal policy objectives were manifested in the government’s efforts to enhance economic activity through massive capital expenditures.
The rise in social services primarily went mostly to education and health.
V. RECOMMENDATION
Many governments in the developing world like the Philippines are faced with limited public resources and competing uses for those resources. Therefore, it is important to set the right priorities and use public resources efficiently. The following may be adopted by the Philippine Government:
PROPOSED SOLUTIONS:
A. PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP
P-Noy elaborated the advantages of encouraging PUBLIC-PRIVATE partnerships wherein the government and the private sector will work hand-in-hand to prosper the economic status of the country, at the same time, render the necessary goods and services to the Filipino people.
This is to cover the shortages in the funding of several sectors like: education; defense; health; transportation and communication; food, trade and industry; and energy to be able to ensure the quality and maximum coverage of goods and services provided for the people.
Advantages of this program will be to complement the strengths and weaknesses of both government and market-controlled economy; check and balance in the profit-orientation and the social responsibility of business per se. While disadvantage of this is that it might become a source of further corruption to those who are not service-oriented since it will unbolt numerous economic opportunities for the country. That is why evaluation and control mechanisms must be put into place to prevent corruption on this program.
B. CONDITIONAL CASH TRANSFERS (CCT)
Conditional Cash Transfers (CCT) is currently perceived as an effective tool in alleviating poverty. The idea is to transfer cash to the poor on the condition that the poor will commit to empower themselves and help future generations of poor families out of poverty. But as effective this CCT is to other countries like Mexico, Brazil and Bangladesh, the Philippines will definitely face a lot of challenges in formulating a design plan for the program, given that the initial implementation of the CCT is costly. Much of it will be spent primarily on the undertakings of targeting of transfers and monitoring recipients. And it must be noted that if targeting will only be weak, the very aim of enabling the poor will be defeated.
C. ENACTMENT OF LAWS
One way to respond to the issue of efficient utilization of the state’s resources is to push for the enactment of the FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY BILL, which is supposed to limit spending bills only for the appropriations that have identified a source of funding.
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY BILL “AN ACT INSTILLING FISCAL DISCIPLINE IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR BY ESTABLISHING PRINCIPLES OF RESPONSIBLE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND PROMOTING FULL TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN GOVERNMENT REVENUE, EXPENDITURE AND BORROWING PROGRAMS”

VI. REFERENCES Book

Briones, Leonor M., Philippine Public Fiscal Administration, Volume 1, 2nd Ed., (Mandaluyong) City: Fiscal Administration Foundation, Inc., 1996).

Website

National Government Financing. Retrieved July 4, 2013 from http://www.treasury.gov.ph/statdata/yearly/yr_cor_financing.pdf

National Government Cash Operation Report. Retrieved July 4, 2013 from http://www.treasury.gov.ph/statdata/yearly/yr_corsum.pdf

National Government Expenditures. Retrieved July 4, 2013 from http://www.treasury.gov.ph/statdata/yearly/yr_cor_expenditures.pdf

National Government Revenues. Retrieved July 4, 2013 from http://www.treasury.gov.ph/statdata/yearly/yr_cor_revenues.pdf