IRR of LG Code of 1991

• Article 62, Rule XIII | Roles of People's Organizations, Nongovernmental Organizations, or the Private Sector in Local Special Bodies

• Article 64, Rule XIII | Procedures and Guidelines for Selection of Representatives of People's Organizations, Nongovernmental Organizations, or the Private Sector in Local Special Bodies

Every organization seeking accreditation or renewal thereof shall submit one (1) copy of the following requirements to the sanggunian: 

1. Letter of Application; 

2. Duly accomplished Application Form for Accreditation; 

3. Duly approved Board Resolution signifying intention for accreditation for the purpose of representation in a local special body; 

4. Certificate of Registration or existing valid Certificate of Accreditation from any NGA (or in the case of IPOs, certification issued by NCIP); 

5. List of current Officers; 

6. For CSOs that have been in operation for at least one (1) year, Minutes of the Annual Meetings of the immediately preceding year as certified by the organization’s board secretary (sample format attached as Annex G) or Certification from the board secretary certifying the annual meeting’s conduct, including the date, location, attendees, and agenda, if applicable; 

7. For CSOs that have been in operation for at least one (1) year, Annual Accomplishment Report for the immediately preceding year, if applicable; and 

8. For CSOs that have been in operation for at least one (1) year, Financial Statement, at the minimum, signed by the executive officers of the organization, also of the immediately preceding year, and indicating therein other information such as revenue, expenses and the source(s) of funds, if applicable. 

Templates can be accessed through the link: https://bit.ly/AnnexesDILG-CSO-LSBs2025.

• Section 4.1.2 mentions a "30-day period for the accreditation process". When will the 30-day period start? If it will start on the assumption of newly elected officials, does this mean that they are already expected to take action before their orientation?

The whole provision states, "4.1.2. The thirty (30)-day period allotted for the accreditation process shall commence upon the issuance of the Notice of Call for Accreditation. The updated Directory of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), prepared pursuant to Section 4.1.1, shall serve as the official reference for identifying community-based people’s organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), business and professional groups, and other similar associations to be invited to apply for accreditation."

•  Section 4.4.2 states that the LPC shall facilitate the recognition of the representatives to the Local Special Bodies, in cases of LGUs with no LPC or network of CSOs, what will be the process for the selection of the representatives?  

Article 64(d) of the IRR of the Local Government Code provides guidance on the meeting to choose representatives of POs, NGOs, or the private sector to LSBs. It states: "Within fifteen (15) days after the accreditation process, the DILG field officer assigned in the LGU shall call all accredited people's organizations to a meeting where these organizations shall choose from among themselves representatives to the local special bodies."

In line with this provision, it is the responsibility of the DILG Field Officer assigned to the LGU to facilitate the meeting of all accredited organizations for the purpose of electing or selecting their representatives to the concerned LSB.

• In section 4.3.1 of the MC it says that the Sanggunian shall evaluate all applications on the basis of the 4 criteria (4.3.1.1-4.3.1.4), should all 4 criteria for accreditation be met? Some of the CSOs are not able to comply with at least 1 year experience.

Section 4.3.1 of DILG Memorandum Circular No. 2025-060 is anchored on Article 64(b) of the IRR of the Local Government Code. Accordingly, failure to evaluate applications for accreditation based on the prescribed criteria constitutes non-compliance with the law.

• Can a CSO already sitting in the Municipal Development Council be a member of the Provincial Development Council? Can they also be a member of the LDC of other municipalities within a Province?

The Department's guidelines discourage overlapping representation, particularly when it undermines inclusive participation by limiting opportunities for other eligible CSOs to be represented in LSBs.

However, Article 64(d) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the Local Government Code explicitly provides that: “In no case shall an organization or a representative thereof be a member of more than one local special body within a province, city, or municipality.”

Based on this provision, a CSO that is already a member of the MDC may still be a member of the PDC, provided that: 1) The CSO is separately accredited at both the municipal and provincial levels; 2) It is selected through the prescribed process for choosing CSO representatives to each respective LSB.

This is consistent with the principle that the restriction applies within the same LGU unit, but not across different LGU levels, so long as all legal requirements are fulfilled.

• What if there’s an existing ordinance (i.e., 2011) which requires other documents and fees other than what is required by 4.2.2., (e.g., Mayor’s Permit and Business License if doing business in San Juan, Annual Fee of PhP 500.00) what is the take of the Department especially recognizing local autonomy?

DILG MC 2025-060 explicitly provides:

"4.2.3. The sanggunian may promulgate an ordinance identifying alternatives or substitutes for the accreditation requirements or if such alternatives or substitutes are already stipulated in the Citizen’s Charter, such ordinance and/or Citizen’s Charter must ensure substantial compliance with Article 64 of the IRR of the Local Government Code. The requirements and evaluation criteria are enumerated under Section 4.2.2 and Section 4.3.1 of this Memorandum Circular. "

• In section 4.4.8, does the word “employee” of the the P/C/M Government limited to appointive officials? If so, can a local elective official represents his/her CSO in LSBs where he/she is elected? Also, can an elective official represent his/her organization in lower or higher LGU? (e.g. a sangguniang bayan member representing a CSO in B/PLGU)  

4.4.8 In no case shall the selected representative of an organization be an employee of the provincial, city, or municipal government, to avoid conflicts of interest pursuant to Section 1(1), Rule IX of the Rules Implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act No. 6713).

The term “public officials” includes both elective and appointive officials and employees, whether permanent or temporary, in the career or non-career service, including members of the military.

Elected and appointed officials already have the power to participate in and influence local governance processes. Therefore, to ensure balance and promote broader civic participation, priority is given to CSOs, so they can independently articulate community needs and interests.

• Delay in communicating meeting notices for LSB representatives. There are instances when calls for invitation are received a day or even during the day of the meeting. 

Recommendation: Notice of meeting and/or invitations to CSOs, particularly from rural/upland communities should be sent at least two (2) to one (1) week prior to the LSB meeting. 

•  During LSB meetings, Project budget and financial allocations were presented for their approval. There is no room for discussion or deliberation. The participants felt that they can't do nothing but to approve and they are just there for attendance. 

Recommendation: There should be active role of CSO representatives in the LSBs. All LSBs / Councils should have CSOs representatives (not limited to the four).

• Peoples’ Councils in certain LGUs (based on participants’ experience) were no longer active and calling for meeting after the election of officers. 

Recommendation: Active role of Peoples’ Council should be observed during the entire duration of the terms. 

• Peoples’ Councils were no longer active and calling for meeting after the election of officers. 

Recommendation: Active role of Peoples’ Council should be observed during the entire duration of the terms. 

• There are cases when Mayors and allies in the LGUs influence the selection of LSBs. 

Recommendation: Follow guidelines on accreditation and selection of LSBs. 

• Accredited CSOs, particularly indigenous women’s groups could not access programs (e.g., DSWD-SLP) if not related to the LSBs. 

Recommendation: CSO representatives in LSBs should consult fellow CSOs for allocation of projects — not just their own groups. Having a separate

representation of IP and women's group in the LSBs would ensure their inclusion rather than merely integrating them with general women’s groups.

• Difficulty of IP representation to participate in LSBs / Council meetings due to lack of budget for transportation. 

Recommendation: Ensure allocation of budget support to community representatives (e.g., transportation and meals if applicable). 

Reference: DILG Memorandum dated October 29, 2025, Endorsement of the Comments and Recommendations from the NTFP-EP Philippines on the Implementation of DILG 2025-060, Guidelines on the CSO Accreditation and Selection of Representatives to the LSBs