MAKATI CITY E-GOVERNMENT SURVEY

An Assessment on the Local Government Website of Makati City

by

AVENIDO, CAREN CLAIRE L.

AMANDO, JAYONA

Term Paper
Submitted to: Dr. Erwin Gaspar A. Alampay
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for PA 112: Information and Communication
Technologies & Knowledge Management in the Public Sector
January 2021
 2

Table of Contents

Introduction __________________________________________________________________ 6

E-government and Related Studies ________________________________________________ 6

Philippine National and Local E-Government _______________________________________ 8

Methodology ________________________________________________________________ 11

Makati Web Portal Survey Result________________________________________________ 12

Makati Web Portal vs. NCR and Big Cities in the Philippines _________________________ 16

Makati Web Portal vs. Benchmark Cities (UN Egov Survey 2020) ______________________ 21

Conclusion _________________________________________________________________ 23

References __________________________________________________________________ 24

Appendix A: Technology Indicators Met by Makati City Web Portal ____________________ 26

Figure A1. Portal Loading Time (Standard Version) _____________________________ 26

Figure A2. Portal Loading Time (Lite Version) _________________________________ 26

Figure A3. Portal Navigations _______________________________________________ 26

Figure A4. Internal Search Mechanisms _______________________________________ 27

Figure A5. Alignment with Markup Validation Standards _________________________ 27

Figure A6. Alignment with Accessibility Standards ______________________________ 27

Appendix B: Content Provision Indicators Met by Makati City Web Portal _______________ 28

Figure B1. Contact Details__________________________________________________ 28

Figure B2. Organization Structure ____________________________________________ 28

Figure B3. Names or Contacts of Department Heads _____________________________ 28

Figure B4a. Municipality Quick Information ___________________________________ 29

Figure B4b. Municipality Information - Basic Facts and Figures ____________________ 29

Figure B5. Budget Related Information _______________________________________ 29

Figure B6a. Procurement Announcement – Annual Procurement Plan or Procurement List 30

 3

Figure B6b. Procurement Announcement – Invitation to Apply for Eligibility and to Bid 30

Figure B7. Procurement Results _____________________________________________ 30

Figure B8. Information about Provided Services ________________________________ 31

Figure B9. Third Parties Partnership Information ________________________________ 31

Figure B10. Health Information______________________________________________ 31

Figure B11. Environmental Information _______________________________________ 32

Figure B12. Education Information ___________________________________________ 32

Figure B13. Social Welfare Information _______________________________________ 32

Figure B14a. Sports, Leisure and Culture Information – Museum Facilities ___________ 33

Figure B14b. Sports, Leisure and Culture Information –Sports and Recreational Facilities 33

Figure B15. Information relevant to vulnerable groups (e.g. elderly, PWDS) __________ 33

Figure B16. Information about justice issues ___________________________________ 34

Figure B17. Information about labor issues_____________________________________ 34

Figure B18. Privacy Policy _________________________________________________ 34

Figure B19. Smart City Initiatives ____________________________________________ 35

Figure B20. Emerging Technologies __________________________________________ 35

Figure B21. Online User Support ____________________________________________ 35

Figure B22. Information on Online Service Use _________________________________ 36

Figure B23. Links for Government Agencies ___________________________________ 36

Figure B24. Evidence of Portal Content Update (within 3 months) __________________ 36

Appendix C: Service Provision Indicators Met by Makati City Web Portal _______________ 37

Figure C1. Portal Authentication _____________________________________________ 37

Figure C2. Personal Data Accessibility ________________________________________ 37

Figure C3. Personal Data Updating ___________________________________________ 37

Figure C4. Online Environment Permit ________________________________________ 38

 4

Figure C5. Online Business License __________________________________________ 38

Figure C6. Online Birth Certificate Registration _________________________________ 38

Figure C7. Online Death Certificate Registration ________________________________ 38

Figure C8. Online Marriage Certificate Registration _____________________________ 39

Figure C9. Online Building Permit ___________________________________________ 39

Figure C10. Posting online of vacancies _______________________________________ 39

Figure C11. Report of any Discrimination _____________________________________ 40

Figure C12. Online Business Tax ____________________________________________ 40

Figure C13. E-payment ____________________________________________________ 40

Appendix D: Participation Indicators Met by Makati City Web Portal ___________________ 41

Figure D1. Real Time Communication & Social Networking Features/ Links__________ 41

Figure D2. Feedback/complaint submission ____________________________________ 41

Figure D3. Online Public Opinion Collection Figure D4. Reporting of occurrences in
public spaces ___________________________________________________________ 41

Figure D5. Participatory Budgeting ___________________________________________ 42

Figure D6. Announcement of Upcoming e-participation activities ___________________ 42

Figure D7. Feedback about e-consultation processes _____________________________ 42

Appendix E : Percentage of Assessed Cities (17) that Met the Local Online Service Index
Indicators _______________________________________________________________ 43

Figure E1. Technology Indicators ____________________________________________ 43

Figure E2. Content Provision Indicators _______________________________________ 43

Figure E3. Service Provision Indicators _______________________________________ 44

Figure E3. Participation Indicators ___________________________________________ 45

Tables

Table 1. Makati Web Portal LOSI Assessment for Technology Criterion _____________14
 5

Table 2. Makati Web Portal LOSI Assessment for Content Provision Criterion ________15

Table 3. Makati Web Portal LOSI Assessment for Service Provision Criterion_________16

Table 4. Makati Web Portal LOSI Assessment for Participation Criterion_____________17

Table 5. Top Five PH cities for each LOSI Criterion _____________________________21

Table 6. Local Service Online Index (LOSI) Level of 17 Cities in the Philippines______ 22

Figures

Figure 1. Implementation of technology indicators in assessed city portals __________18

Figure 2. Implementation of content provision indicators in assessed city portals ______19

Figure 3. Implementation of service provision indicators in assessed city portals ______20

Figure 4. Implementation of participation indicators in assessed city portals __________21

Figure 5. Distribution of the assessed cities based on LOSI Level __________________23

Figure 6. LOSI Level of Makati and Benchmark Cities __________________________24

 6

Introduction

E-government, also called Electronic Government or Digital Government, has been an

emerging concept around the globe since the late 1990s when the internet started to boom
(Grönlund & Horan, 2005). E-government is defined as “the use of information and
communication technologies, and particularly the Internet, as a tool to achieve better governance”
OECD (2003). It started as a practitioner field which then grew in size both in content and use. At
present, as high technology continues to shape our societies, so is the increase in the growing
development of e-government or digital government.

E-government and Related Studies

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2003) assessed 12
countries, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico
and Netherlands on issues and impacts of e-government in its OECD E-government Project. Based
on this study, countries embrace e-government with the aim to 1) improve efficiency in
government, 2) enhance quality of service, 3) use ICT to support more effective outcomes, 4)
obtain better governance arrangements that promotes economic growth, 5) forward reform agenda
and 6) improve the overall trust relationship between government and the citizens. This can be
made through improving the information flow which encourages citizen participation, a central
element of good governance.

Several studies were also made to identify the e-government development of countries and
conduct benchmarking studies. The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
conducts annual E-government Surveys on its 193 Member States and this year marked the 20th
year of this initiative. Each year, the United Nations improves their assessment procedure, criteria
and indicators to effectively determine the trend of the development of e-government globally,
regionally, nationally and even in lower government tiers such as local government units. In this
year’s survey (UN, 2020), it has been found that there is a rising trend in countries and
municipalities that pursue digital governance and more new approaches are being conducted by
these government institutions. Some of these approaches include:
 7

the delivery of e-government as a platform, the integration of online and offline multi-
channel delivery, the agile development of digital services (supported by whole-of-
government and whole-of-society engagement and integration), the expansion of e-
participation and partnerships, the adoption of data-centric approaches, the strengthening
of digital capacities to deliver people-centric services, and the innovative use of new
technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain, especially in the
development of smart cities (UN, 2020).

These innovations can help provide service to even those who are far from the capital or
those in underprivileged communities for may not need to go to the physical office and undergo
long, tedious, and expensive travel but rather they may now access services at home or in digital
kiosks. In addition, E-governance or digital governance also promotes sustainable development
goals on digital literacy, digital inclusion, digital connectivity, and digital identity. Although there
are still a lot of challenges and limitations such as digital divide, the use of electronic platforms is
crucial in providing government services especially during situations where physical interaction is
limited such as the Covid-19 pandemic.

According to the same survey (UN, 2020), globally, “e-government development continues
to advance, with the global average of E-Governance Digital Index (EGDI) value increasing from
0.55 in 2018 to 0.60 in 2020.” There is also a 57 percent increase on the number of lower-income
countries with high levels of e-development. Denmark, Korea, Estonia, Finland, Australia,
Sweden, United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, New Zealand, the United States of America, the
Netherlands, Singapore, Iceland, Norway and Japan are the leading countries in terms of EGDI.
All regions also exhibited an increase in their average EGDI values in 2020. This indicates
improvement on e-government for the regions.

The survey also evaluated e-government development at local levels. Local government
units possess a lot of potential in e-government aside from national Egov especially because cities
and municipalities are closer to the citizens and directly addresses concerns through direct
interaction with them. Among the “86 of the 100 cities selected for review—a marked increase
from the 40 cities evaluated as part of the pilot study first conducted in 2018, 14 have very high
Local Online Services Index (LOSI)” (UN, 2020). This may be attributed to the creation of “smart
 8

cities” wherein LGUs use different strategies like AI chatbots, big data, analytics, smart
applications and even websites. Some of the model cities that have very high LOSI levels are
Madrid, Tokyo, Talinn, London, Seoul, Bogota, and New York.

Philippine National and Local E-Government

The Philippines is showing development in terms of digital governance. Efforts to develop

Egov started around two decades ago (Magno, 2018). It started with the formulation of the National
Information Technology Plan with a vision of an ICT-enabled future (National IT Council 1997).
This is followed by the Government Information Systems Plan (GISP) in 2000 that aimed to
establish an online government where public information and services are accessible to the public
in their homes, communities, public libraries, kiosk and government offices which is strengthened
by Republic Act No. 8792, or the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000 (Magno, 2018). After which,
GISP was improved in the Philippine Strategic ICT Roadmap 2006‒2010 wherein the role of ICT
in E-Governance, Cyber-Services, Infrastructure Investment, and Human Capital Development are
emphasized (ICTO 2013). In 2011, the Commission on Information and Communications
Technology (CICT) explored ICT and its role in development in the Philippine Digital Strategy
2011‒2016 with the goal of a connected and networked ICT-empowered society (CICT 2011).
And in 2016, the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) was
created which is a huge milestone. This department is mandated to plan and prompt national ICT
developmental agenda and “provide an integrated framework to optimize all government ICT
resources and networks for the prioritization of E-Government systems and applications” (Magno,
2018).

At present, the Philippines has a National Portal (https://www.gov.ph/) that provides the
public access to government information. It also has an official journal, the Official Gazette
(https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/) which “provides a platform for publishing government
documents, statements and announcements (Magno, 2018). In the 2020 Survey, the Philippines,
despite being a lower-middle-income country, is classified as High EGDI with an H3 rating (level
three in the High EGDI category. EGDI shows the status of a country in terms of Online Services
Index (OSI), Telecommunication Infrastructure Index, and Human Capital Index. The Philippines
is also categorized in the Very High E-Participation (EPI) level (UN, 2020).
 9

This is a good indication of e-development at the national level. However, the 2020 survey
found that “levels of local e-government development are not necessarily consistent with national
e-government development levels'' (UN, 2020). The local government is the “doorstep
government” responsible to ensure local service provision, people’s participation, and
improvement of the lives of the local citizens (Thapa, I 2020). With this, the conduct of separate
assessments in the local level is highly encouraged.

Prior to this, several assessments have already been conducted on local government
websites. Ilago (2001) evaluated the online presence of provinces, cities and municipalities and
found that 11 out of 79 (14%) of provinces), 28 out of 113 (25%) of cities), and 14 out of 1,496
(1%) of municipalities had an online presence. After three years, in 2004, online presence in the
form of websites was already observed in almost all local governments; 97.5 percent of provinces
(77 out of 79), 99 percent of cities (114 out of 115), and 99.7 percent of municipalities (1,496 out
of 1500) which may be attributed to the E-commerce Act of 2001 (Siar, 2005). Siar also conducted
a research that categorized Philippine government websites based on the United Nations-American
Society for Public Administration’s (UN-ASPA) five stages of e-government: emerging,
enhanced, interactive, transactional, and fully integrated. This has the same indicators in the eLGU
Project which monitors the quarterly progress of the LGU websites. The study, however,
investigated more on the content and information of each website. With a scope of 102 websites,
Siar found out that most of the city governments only has minimal adoption of e-governance and
underutilized their website. Most information only promotes citizens’ awareness and
understanding on communities’ characteristics with only few websites containing efficiency-
enhancing contents (procedures of government services and downloadable forms), linkage and
interaction-enhancing contents (contact information and discussion forums and transparency-
promoting content (financial information, bids and procurement (Siar, 2005).

In 2019, another study by Khalid & Lavilles examined the maturity of 150 local e-
government websites and identified the issues associated with egov development. They evaluated
the websites’ online service component using the United Nation (UN) e-government maturity
model. Based on income classifications and city types, the LGUs were divided into sub-groups
and results showed that several local governments are still on basic (emerging) stage while the
highly urbanized cities are found to be in stage two (enhanced) stage - a stage where one-way
 10

communication services are already possible. Furthermore, the study has identified the lack of
technological and infrastructure skills, organizational issues, and lack of government regulations
as some of the reasons for the lag on the maturity of the websites (Khalid & Lavilles, 2019). The
2020 UN E-government Survey also evaluated the e-government status of Manila City, being the
capital of the Philippines. In the survey, Manila is found to be categorized as Low LOSI (Local
Online Service Index) when the city portal was assessed (UN, 2020). However, the conditions of
Manila may be different to other cities in the country.

This term paper aims to assess the status of e-government development of Makati City.
Makati City is one of the 17 local government units in the National Capital Region (NCR) of the
Philippines. The city has shown expanding improvement of digital technology and e-governance
including “the installation of mobile signal boosters to strengthen cellular and Internet
connectivity, public Wi-fi system, Makatizen Card which promote e-currency and online payment
which also provides better access to city government services (stipend, allowances) and of course
the city web portal that provides city information and assistance to residents and visitors on city-
related activities and services (www.makati.gov.ph).

In 2002, Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay introduced the city’s e-government program which
aimed to computerize the entire system of the City Hall as well as the digitalization of police
response (Sy, 2002). This appears to be effective for Makati was considered as the country’s leader
in e-governance being the only LGU recipient of the 2002 Philippine e-Government Award
conferred by the Philippine Internet Commerce Society (Binay, 2006). In 2014, Makati, together
with 8 other cities including Taguig, Cagayan de Oro City, Cebu, Mandaluyong, San Fernando,
Balanga, Angeles, Batangas City and Valenzuela we recognized by Department of Science and
Technology (DOST), the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) and the
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and were awarded the 2014- E-readiness Leadership
Award where e-readiness reflects how inclined an LGU is to adapt e-government. (Frialde, 2014).
Last October 12, 2018, Makati also received the Best in eGOV Digital Finance Empowerment
(G2P) category award by the Department of Information and Communications Technology and
the National ICT Confederation of the Philippines at the First Digital Cities Awards. This is
because of their successful Computerized Barangay Real Property Tax Payment [RPT] . In the
same year, the city web portal also recorded around 38 million hits, and 14 million page views
 11

with a total of 7 million visitors recorded for the year (www.makati.gov.ph). The city also won as
Best in eGOV Customer Empowerment” (G2C) category in the Digital Governance Awards
(DGA) 2019 for its Makatizen Card- a unified, multipurpose government-issued citizen ID that
consolidates financial and social benefits for over 500,000 Makati residents (Dela Cruz, 2019). It
is also the only finalist at the World Smart Cities Awards from the Philippines and was also the
only local government unit from the country to present its projects in Barcelona, Spain last 2019.
(Lucas, 2020). And just recently, Makati was again the lone Philippine city awarded by the World
Smart Sustainable Cities Organization (WeGO) as one of the most innovative cities (bronze
medalist) in the world next to Goyang City, South Korea (gold medalist) and Moscow, Russia
(silver medalist) in the use of technology to mitigate and manage crises” (Lucas, 2020).

The development of e-governance in Makati is truly evident. As the city has many aspects
of e-governance, this paper only focuses on examining the e-government condition of Makati
through its official Web portal (www.makati.gov.ph) using the same indicators used on the United
Nations E-Government Survey 2020. This also aims to compare the status of Makati City e-
governance with other cities in the Philippines and with the benchmark cities in the 2020 E-Gov
Survey.

Methodology

This study utilizes Local Online Service Index (LOSI). According to the United Nations
(2020), LOSI is an index made of multiple criteria made to evaluate development at the local level
through local web portal assessments. LOSI aligns with Online Service Index (OSI) which is one
of the components of EGDI. (UN, 2020). LOSI utilizes 78 out of the 80 indicators from the 2020
Egov UN Survey excluding 1) mobile device accessibility (technology) and 2) egoverment/digital
government strategy (content provision). The indicators are grouped into four criteria namely, i)
technology which evaluates the technical features of the portal, ii) Content Provision which
identifies whether the essential information and resources are available online, iii) Service
Provision which assess the services that are available and attainable online and lastly, iv)
Participation which determines if there are avenues for interaction and citizen participation in the
website. Each LOSI indicator is identified with a value of 1 if available in the portal and 0 if not.
The overall LOSI value is computed and the LOSI level is identified based on the total number of
 12

indicators met with respect to the total number of indicators. Those with 0.75- 1.00 are in the Very
High LOSI level, 0.50-0.74 are in High LOSI level, 0.25- 0.49 in Middle LOSI and 0.00-0.24 in
Low LOSI.

Makati Web Portal Survey Result

Upon evaluation of the city portal, the study found that Makati City has a calculated LOSI
value of 0.6794871795 which classifies it as High LOSI local government unit. A total of 53 out
of 78 indicators are met and this constitutes 81.82 percent of the Technology Indicators, 77.42
percent of the Content Provision Indicators, 52.00 percent of the Service Provision Indicators, and
72.73 percent of the Participation Indicators. The following shows the indicators met for each
criterion.
Table 1. Makati Web Portal LOSI Assessment for Technology Criterion
Technology Indicators 81.82%
1. Compatibility with multiple browsers 1
2. Ease of finding portal 1
3. Portal loading speed 1
4. Mobile device accessibility 1
5. Navigability 1
6. Internal Search Mechanism available 1
7. Alignment with mark-up validation standards 1
8. Alignment with display standards 1
9. Alignment with accessibility standards 0
10. Customization of display (e.g., Size can be adjusted) 1
11. Foreign/dialect Language support 0

Table 1 shows that Makati Web Portal met 9 out of 11 technology indicators. It is
compatible with several browsers including Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Microsoft Edge,
Safari, Ecosia, Chrome Mobile App, and Samsung Mobile Internet Browser. It is also easy to
locate and is the top result when “makati” is used as the search keyword. It has 2.08s loading time
which is under 3 seconds- the best practice site speed by Google (Chaffey, 2017). A lite version is
also available and has a 1.80s load time. The portal is also navigable and has internal search
mechanisms– one with drop down menu and another without. Both are also functional. It also
aligned with the markup validation standards having 0 errors and 6 warnings using Nu Html
Checker and with the display standards using multi-screen test. Displays are clear and not
pixelated, and the portal uses Responsive Website Design which changes its layout based on
 13

browser window size, regardless of device used (Meunier, 2017). Displays can also be customized;
size are adjustable, and a lite version may be used. For this criterion, the web portal did not meet
the accessibility standards with 6 known problems and 24 potential problems as checked by
Achecker.ca and it also has no foreign language support. (For details on the technology criterion
results, See Appendix A)

Table 2. Makati Web Portal LOSI Assessment for Content Provision Criterion

Content Provision 77.42 %

1. Contact details provided (phone, email, address etc.) 1
2. Organizational structure of LGU 1
3. Has names of contacts of heads of departments 1
4. Municipality information (e.g., economic, socio, population) 1
5. Notification of weather and natural disaster alerts 0
6. Budget Related Information 1
7. Procurement announcements 1
8. Procurement/bidding results 1
9. Information about services LGU provides 1
10. Third party partnerships information 1
11. Information on right to access government information 0
12. Information on facilitation to internet access 0
13. Health Information 1
14. Environmental Information 1
15. Education/School Information. 1
16. Social Welfare Information 1
17. Sports, leisure, and culture information 1
18. Information relevant to vulnerable groups (e.g., elderly, PWDs) 1
19. Information about justice issues 1
20. Information about labor issues 1
21. Privacy policy 1
22. Open Data policy 0
23. Open data provision (open data is already available) 0
24. Open data meta data (description of each open data file available) 0
25. Smart city initiatives 1
26. Evidence of emerging technology use (big data, AI, IOTs) 1
27. Online user support 1
28. Information on online service use 1
29. Links to other government agencies provided 1
30. Statistical data and studies provided 0
31. Evidence of portal content update (within 3 months) 1
 14

In terms of content, the web portal met 24 out of 31 content provision indicators. Most of
the necessary information can be found in the web portal. However, content regarding weather and
natural disaster alerts, right to access government information, facilitation to internet access, open
data policy, provision and metadata, and statistical data and studies can be contents to be added to
improve the portal. (For further details on the content provision criterion results, See Appendix B)

Table 3. Makati Web Portal LOSI Assessment for Service Provision Criterion
Service Provision 52.00 %
1. Portal authentication 1
2. Personal data accessibility 1
3. Personal Data updating 1
4. Businesses data accessibility 0
5. Businesses data updating (for businesses registered) 0
6. Responsiveness to emails 0
7. Delay of email response 0
8. Quality of email response 0
9. Police online declaration 0
10. Online driver’s license 0
11. Online environment permit 1
12. Online business license 1
13. Online residentship/resident certificate/cedula 0
14. Online birth certificate (verification only) 1
15. Online death certificate 1
16. Online marriage certificate 1
17. Address change notification 0
18. Online land title registration 0
19. Online vehicle registration 0
20. Online building permit 1
21. E-Procurement service 0
22. Posting online of vacancies 1
23. Report of any discrimination 1
24. Online business tax 1
25. E-payment (online fees payment) 1

However, in terms of service provision, only 13 out of 25 indicators are met by the web
portal. This includes portal authentication, personal data accessibility and updating. Forms and
services are also semi-online wherein some parts of the process can be done online, and the rest
are to be accomplish to their respective office in charge. For example, the application forms for
 15

environment permit, business license, birth, death and marriage certificate registration, and
building permit can be downloaded from the portal which can be printed and filled out by the
applicant before going to the office to complete the process. This reduces the time spent in the
office and can also lessen the queue. Job vacancies are also available in the porta. It also provides
a customer care section wherein people can report cases of discrimination. The Makati Web Portal
also redirects to an e-payment website that caters payments for business and property taxes and
other fees to the city government. The portal can be greatly improved by adding the elements or
indicators that are not met during this assessment. (For further details on the service provision
criterion results, See Appendix C)

Table 4. Makati Web Portal LOSI Assessment for Participation Criterion

Participation 72.73%
1. Real time communication 1
2. Feedback/complaint submission 1
3. Online public opinion collection 1
4. Social networking features/links 1
5. Reporting of occurrences in public spaces 1
6. Participatory budgeting 1
7. Participation in revision of territorial organizational processes 0
8. Announcement of upcoming e-participation activities 1
9. Feedback about e-consultation processes 1
10. E-Voting 0
11. Information on the public meeting of the local council 0

Lastly, 8 out of 11 participation indicators were met by the portal. These includes real time
communication in the form of news section and social media sites. There is also a feedback and
complaint submission, and public opinion are also visible through tagboards and comments
sections. The public can also participate in budgeting by accessing the financial statements and
statement of cash flows of the city and contacting the office in charge. Reports on occurrences in
public can also be viewed on the website such as Makati traffic updates and upcoming events.
(For further details on the participation criterion results, See Appendix D).
 16

Makati Web Portal vs. NCR and Big Cities in the Philippines

If we compare the results of Makati with the cities in the National Capital Region and other
big cities in the Philippines, evaluated by other students in the class, we can observe that there are
differences in results with respect to the different criteria. However, Makati consistently belongs
to the top 5 rank for all for criteria.
Figure 1. Implementation of technology indicators in assessed city portals

Mandaluyong is leading among the 17 assessed cities in the Technology Criterion with
81.82%, followed by Muntinlupa and Manila with 77.78% and then by Makati (3rd) with 72.73%
of technological indicators met. The other cities also comply with at least 50% of the technology
indicators. Taguig, on the other hand, is the lowest among all the assessed cities and falls short
with only 36.36% of technological indicators being present on their web portal. Some indicators
are complied by all cities (100%) and these are compatibility with multiple browsers, ease of
finding portal and mobile device accessibility while no city have met the alignment with
accessibility standards. (See Appendix E1). This indicates that although there are still a lot of
developments to be made, the assessed cities are improving in the technological aspect.
For the content provision criterion, Mandaluyong, Caloocan and Valenzuela ties at Rank 1
with 83.87% of indicators met. This is followed by Makati and Naga with 77.42% in second rank
and Muntinlupa and Taguig with 67.47% in the third rank. Although most cities had 50% of the
indicators, five cities need more improvement. This includes Las Pinas (48.39%), Pasig and Pasay
(45.16%), Paranaque (35.48%) and San Juan (29.03%).
 17

Figure 2. Implementation of content provision indicators in assessed city portals

All cities have provided contact details, health information, and social welfare information
while only 11.76% have content regarding the open data policy (See Appendix E2). Content plays
a big role in governance for information is an important resource necessary for processes and
services to be effectively and efficiently provided. The cities assessed can make better use of ICT
and their web portals in channeling the information from the administrators towards the citizen
especially on information that requires full disclosure for public accountability.

Figure 3. Implementation of service provision indicators in assessed city portals

 18

Valenzuela ranks first in terms of service provision with 72.00%. This is followed by
Makati and Mandaluyong with 52.00%. These three are the only cities among the 17 assessed
cities from NCR and other big cities in the Philippines to comply with 50% of the service provision
indicators. Cebu and Las Pinas have the lowest rank with only 8% of the service provision met.
There is no single indicator that is complied by all the assessed cities and among these indicators,
no city has provided online driver’s license and online vehicle registration (See Appendix E3).
This signifies that most of the web portals in the Philippines are substantially lower and lacking in
providing online services as compared to technology and content provision. Some cities like
Makati are slowly transitioning and having semi-online transactions where forms are
downloadable in the web portal which will then be submitted to offices. With this, it is evident that
there are still a lot of improvements to be made in Philippine city web portals especially because
in e-government, we envision services that are provided remotely, without the need to travel and
physically go to city halls, online services and city web portals can be a good avenue for this.

Figure 4. Implementation of participation indicators in assessed city portals

Lastly, for the participation indicators, Makati and Valenzuela ranks first with 72.73% of
indicators met. This supports the recent award received by Makati as “Best in eGOV Customer
Empowerment last 2019.” Custumer empowerment roots from citizen participation in government
affairs and processes. The rank is followed by Mandaluyong with 63.64% (2nd) and Muntinlupa
with 50.00% (3rd). Again, only three cities have at least 50% of the indicators for citizen
participation which is a necessary element in good governance. The lowest among the assessed
 19

cities is San Juan with only 9.09% of the indicators met. Again, like the service provision, there is
no single participation indicator that is complied by all the assessed cities and among the indicators,
no city has yet offered e-voting in their web portals (See Appendix E4). It signifies that city portals
must be enhanced especially the participation factor for more effective governance. The inputs and
participation of the citizens are necessary in the improvement of the technological aspects, content
provision and service provision not only of the website but also of the city itself.

Table 5 shows the top 5 cities for each LOSI criterion. Makati is ranked 3 rd in Technology,
2nd in Content Provision and Service Provision and 1st in Participation.

Table 5. Top Five PH cities for each LOSI Criterion

Technology Content Provision Service Provision Participation
City Rank City Rank City Rank City Rank
Mandaluyong 1 Caloocan 1 Valenzuela 1 Makati 1
Muntinlupa 2 Mandaluyong 1 Makati 2 Valenzuela 1
Manila 2 Valenzuela 1 Mandaluyong 2 Mandaluyong 2
Makati 3 Makati 2 Taguig 3 Muntinlupa 3
San Juan 4 Naga 2 Manila 4 Pasig 4

Other cities like Mandaluyong, and Valenzuela are also among the consistent cities for
NCR and other big cities in the Philippines. Mandaluyong ranks 1 in Technology, and Content
Provision while 2nd in Service Provision and 3rd for Participation. Valenzuela also is 1st for Content
Provision and Service Provision, and 2nd for Participation.

Table 6. Local Service Online Index (LOSI) Level of 17 Cities in the Philippines
City LOSI LOSI Rank LOSI Level Region
Valenzuela 0.7435897436 1 High LOSI NCR
Mandaluyong 0.7051282051 2 High LOSI NCR
Makati 0.6794871795 3 High LOSI NCR
Caloocan 0.5512820513 4 High LOSI NCR
Naga 0.5256410256 5 High LOSI Region V
Muntinlupa 0.4871794872 6 Middle LOSI NCR
Taguig 0.4743589744 7 Middle LOSI NCR
Manila 0.4615384615 8 Middle LOSI NCR
Quezon City 0.4230769231 9 Middle LOSI NCR
Davao 0.4230769231 9 Middle LOSI Region XI
Pasay 0.3846153846 11 Middle LOSI NCR
 20

Pasig 0.3846153846 11 Middle LOSI NCR

Navotas 0.3717948718 13 Middle LOSI NCR
Cebu 0.358974359 14 Middle LOSI Region VII
Las Pinas 0.3076923077 15 Middle LOSI NCR
Paranaque 0.2692307692 16 Middle LOSI NCR
San Juan 0.2435897436 17 Low LOSI NCR

Combining all the criterion, we can get the Local Service Online Index value for a city web
portal and its level. Makati City is ranked 3 rd among the 17 assessed cities. Valenzuela came as
rank 1 followed by Mandaluyong (2nd), Caloocan (4th) and Naga (5th). These are the cities with
High LOSI level (0.75-1.00) with four coming from the National Capital Region and one from
Region V – Bicol Region. San Juan is the last city on the list, and it is also the only city with a
Low LOSI (0.00-0.24). The ranking may be attributed by the income of the city which is heavily
influenced by geographical location/region, good leadership, and openness of the city
administration to embracing ICT and e-governance in the local government unit.

Figure 5. Distribution of the assessed cities based on LOSI Level

LOSI Levels of Assessed Cities

Low, 5.88% Very High, 0

High, 29.41%

Middle, 64.71%

Very High High Middle Low

Figure 5 shows the distribution of the cities in terms of their LOSI level. All in all, most of
the cities assessed are in the Middle Level with 64.71%. Only 29.41% are with High Level
including Makati City, 5.88% are Low and 0% of the cities are Very High based on the assessment
 21

of the city web portals. This indicates that most cities in NCR and other big cities are not so behind
in terms of local online service index but compared to benchmark cities, more work is still to be
done in order to achieve optimum efficiency in developing e-governance through web portals.

Makati Web Portal vs. Benchmark Cities (UN Egov Survey 2020)

In the 2020 UN Egov Survery, the top five cities with the highest LOSI values are Madrid
with 0.9625 (ranked 1st ), New York with 0.9125 (2nd), Tallinn with 0.8625 (3rd), and Paris and
Stockholm with 0.85(4th). Four of these are in Europe and one in America an all are with Very
High LOSI Level above the world average which is 0.43125.
Makati City has a LOSI level of 0.67948718. This value is also greater than the world
average. However, there is still a big difference from the LOSI value of Makati and the LOSI
values of the benchmark cities like Madrid.

Figure 6. LOSI Level of Makati and Benchmark Cities

Among the 100 municipalities assessed in the 2020 UN Egov Survey, Madrid leads three
LOSI subgroups – Content Provision, Service Provision and Participation. It also ranked second
in the Technology subgroup (UN, 2020). Being a top-tier LGU, Madrid is a very good model for
other cities like Makati to learn from most especially its web portal Decide Madrid – a web
platform aimed to promote direct citizen participation launched last 2015 and had won a United
 22

Nations Public Service Award in 2018. With all the efforts it exerted for citizen participation, no
wonder the city tops the LOSI criterion.
The platform facilitates participatory processes such as ideation forum wherein residents
can present proposals for city improvement, this is voted and with sufficient support, approved
and proceeds to be implemented. Another is consultations – which the City Council have before
carrying out actions or projects. The platform also facilitates participatory budgeting wherein a
specific amount of the budget is reserved for projects proposed and voted by the residents
themselves (UN, 2020).
With the problem of digital divide or other constraints for the less abled, alternative
channels are also created along with the platform. Madrid created a committee in the city council
- Inclusion, Neutrality and Privacy Service of the General Directorate of Citizen Participation.
They make sure all voices are heard. They meet with social organization and institutions to identify
barriers to citizen participation and formulates solution to improve the accessibility, dissemination,
and usability of the platform. Here, we can infer that Madrid values every voice of their citizen
and exerts effort in reaching and providing them a voice.
Another noteworthy feature of Decide Madrid is that it is supported by people from
different disciplines e.g., public employees, legal and economic professionals, and those in social
and computer science along with others from related fields. They handle and manage inclusive
participatory processes and also aides in transferring customers to the appropriate institution. There
is a collaborative effort from various municipal entities to develop the platform.
Aside from this, the project is also supported financially. The municipal service managing
the platform is supported financially with an annual budget of almost 2 million. This is what they
use to improve their content and service provision from production and dissemination of materials
such as posters, information brochures, and press and social media content, conference attendance;
processes relating to participation and election and the evaluation of all participatory project – a
crucial step for the improvement of the projects and the platform.
Effective and ICT-embracing administration, multidisciplinary citizen support and
financial funding as well as some other initiatives are good practices that other cities like Makati
can reflect and follow from benchmark cities like Madrid specially to gather more citizen
participation, a central indicator for good governance.
 23

Conclusion

E-governance or the use of Information and Communication Technology in government is

an emerging field not only for national governments but for local government units too. This brings
about efforts in evaluating and assessing existing web portals and e-government initiatives for
improvement not only on the technological aspect of the portal but also on content provision,
service provision and most importantly, the participation of the citizens. Makati, one of the cities
in the National Capital Region ranks third in the assessment among 17 Philippine cities. It has a
High LOSI level and is among the top performing cities in terms of e-governance. However,
Makati still has a long way to go for its web portal to be at par with the world benchmarking cities
such as Madrid. A lot of innovation and lessons can be obtained by studying these benchmarking
cities wherein citizen participation is aced by Madrid. It would require more efforts and reasonable
budget allocation to improve and develop the E-Government system of Makati City but moreso of
the other assessed cities which are mostly Middle Level in the Local Online Service Index.
Assessments of the other cities in other regions are also recommended.

It may take a long time but with dedication, initiative and financial support, Makati and
Philippine cities may improve the administration of the country through web portals, ICTs, and
effective and efficient e-governance both locally and nationally and we all have a part to play. As
Rohini Nilekani said,

“We cannot be mere consumers of good governance; we must be participants; we must be

co-creators.”
 24

References

Binay, J. (2006). World Mayor. http://www.worldmayor.com/essays06/makati_essay.html

Chaffey, D. (30 Octover 2017). Google site speed benchmarks. Smart Insights.
https://www.smartinsights.com/user-experience/website-performance-availability/google-
site-speed-benchmarks/

CICT. (2011). Philippine Digital Strategy 2011‒2016: Transformation 2.0 Digitally Empowered
Nation. Quezon City: Commission on Information and Communications Technology.

Dela Cruz, R. (29, November 2019). 6 winning LGUs in Digital Governance Awards 2019 get
China trip. Philippine News Agency. https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1087200

Frialde, M. (21 July 2014). Makati, Taguig, cited for use of IT in gov't services. Philstar Global.
https://www.philstar.com/nation/2014/07/21/1348704/makati-taguig-cited-use-it-govt-
services

Grönlund, Å., & Horan, T. (2005). Introducing e-Gov: History, Definitions, and Issues.
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 15, pp-pp.
https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.01539.

ICTO. (2013). E-Government Master Plan 2013‒2016. Taguig City: Information and
Communications Technology Office, Department of Science and Technology

Ilago, S. (2001). Participation, the internet, and local governance: a review of Philippine local
government websites. Asian Review of Public Administration 8(2):1-17.
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/eropa/unpan008231.pdf

Khalid, S. & Lavilles, R. (2019). Maturity Assessment of Local E-government Websites in the
Philippines. Procedia Computer Science, 161, pp. 99-106.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.11.104.
 25

Lucas, D. (06 October 2020). Makati gets most efficient gov’t award from global smart cities
group. Philippine Daily Inquirer. Makati gets most efficient gov’t award from global smart
cities group

Magno, F. (2018). E-Governance and Philippine Development. Journal of Asia-Pacific Studies.

Waseda University, 32. pp 1-15. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/159504666.pdf

Makati City Web Portal. Accessed: December 2020. www.makati.gov.ph.

Meunier, B.(27 July 2017). How to tell whether a site is adaptive or responsive.
https://searchengineland.com/tell-whether-site-adaptive-responsive-278882

National IT Council. (1997). IT21 Philippines: Asiaʼs Knowledge Center.

OECD (2003), "The Case for e-government: Excerpts from the OECD Report “the e-government
Imperative”", OECD Journal on Budgeting, vol. 3/1, https://doi.org/10.1787/budget-v3-
art5-en.

Siar, S. (2005). E-governance at the local government level in the Philippines: An assessment of
city government websites. Philippine Journal of Development. 32. 135-168.

Sy, M. (20 February 2002). Makati to implement e-governance plan. Philstar

Global.https://www.philstar.com/metro/2002/02/20/151257/makati-implement-e-
governance-plan

Thapa, I (2020). Local Government: Concept, Roles and Importance for Contemporary Society..
10.13140/RG.2.2.23009.33123.

UN. (2020). E-government Survey 2020. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. New York.
https://doi.org/10.18356/8bdf045f-en.
 26

Appendix A: Technology Indicators Met by Makati City Web Portal

Figure A1. Portal Loading Time (Standard Version)

Source: https://tools.pingdom.com/#5d9a929151000000

Figure A2. Portal Loading Time (Lite Version)

Source: https://tools.pingdom.com/#5d9a99dc3d000000

Figure A3. Portal Navigations

Source: https://www.makati.gov.ph
 27

Figure A4. Internal Search Mechanisms

Source: https://www.makati.gov.ph

Figure A5. Alignment with Markup Validation Standards

Source: https://validator.w3.org/nu/?doc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.makati.gov.ph%2F

Figure A6. Alignment with Accessibility Standards

Source: https://achecker.ca/checker/index.php#output_div
 28

Appendix B: Content Provision Indicators Met by Makati City Web Portal

Figure B1. Contact Details

Source: https://www.makati.gov.ph
Figure B2. Organization Structure

Source: https://www.makati.gov.ph/content/organizational-chart

Figure B3. Names or Contacts of Department Heads

Source: https://www.makati.gov.ph/cms/the-city/city-government/78?content=3706
 29

Figure B4a. Municipality Quick Information

Figure B4b. Municipality Information - Basic Facts and Figures

Source: https://www.makati.gov.ph/cms/the-city/quick-information/75?content=2721
Figure B5. Budget Related Information

Source: https://www.makati.gov.ph/cms/full-disclosure/full-disclosure/70?content=767
 30

Figure B6a. Procurement Announcement – Annual Procurement Plan or Procurement List

Source: https://www.makati.gov.ph/cms/content/annual%20procurement%20plan%20or%20procurement%20list/771
Figure B6b. Procurement Announcement – Invitation to Apply for Eligibility and to Bid

Source: https://www.makati.gov.ph/content/bids-and-awards/invitation

Figure B7. Procurement Results

Source: https://www.makati.gov.ph/content/bids-and-awards/results
 31

Figure B8. Information about Provided Services

Source: https://www.makati.gov.ph
Figure B9. Third Parties Partnership Information

Source: https://www.makati.gov.ph/cms/content/gawad-kalinga/73
Figure B10. Health Information
 32

Figure B11. Environmental Information

Figure B12. Education Information

Figure B13. Social Welfare Information

 33

Figure B14a. Sports, Leisure and Culture Information – Museum Facilities

Source: https://www.makati.gov.ph/cms/residents/facilities/52?content=2143

Figure B14b. Sports, Leisure and Culture Information –Sports and Recreational Facilities

Source: https://www.makati.gov.ph/cms/residents/facilities/52?content=2180

Figure B15. Information relevant to vulnerable groups (e.g. elderly, PWDS)

Source: https://www.makati.gov.ph/cms/residents/citizens-guidebook/2833?content=2850
 34

Figure B16. Information about justice issues

Source: https://www.makati.gov.ph/cms/business/citizens-guidebook/2781?content=2845

Figure B17. Information about labor issues

Source: https://www.makati.gov.ph/cms/residents/citizens-guidebook/2833?content=2838

Figure B18. Privacy Policy

Source: https://www.makati.gov.ph/terms-of-use/privacy-policy
 35

Figure B19. Smart City Initiatives

Source: https://www.makati.gov.ph/cms/the-city/quick-information/75?content=2721

Figure B20. Emerging Technologies

Source: https://www.makati.gov.ph

Figure B21. Online User Support

Source: https://www.makati.gov.ph/content/support
 36

Figure B22. Information on Online Service Use

Figure B23. Links for Government Agencies

Figure B24. Evidence of Portal Content Update (within 3 months)

 37

Appendix C: Service Provision Indicators Met by Makati City Web Portal

Figure C1. Portal Authentication

Figure C2. Personal Data Accessibility

Figure C3. Personal Data Updating

 38

Figure C4. Online Environment Permit

Figure C5. Online Business License

Figure C6. Online Birth Certificate Registration

Figure C7. Online Death Certificate Registration

 39

Figure C8. Online Marriage Certificate Registration

Figure C9. Online Building Permit

Figure C10. Posting online of vacancies

 40

Figure C11. Report of any Discrimination

Figure C12. Online Business Tax

Figure C13. E-payment

 41

Appendix D: Participation Indicators Met by Makati City Web Portal

Figure D1. Real Time Communication & Social Networking Features/ Links

Figure D2. Feedback/complaint submission

Figure D3. Online Public Opinion Collection Figure D4. Reporting of occurrences in public
spaces
 42

Figure D5. Participatory Budgeting

Figure D6. Announcement of Upcoming e-participation activities

Figure D7. Feedback about e-consultation processes

 43

Appendix E: Percentage of Assessed Cities (17) that Met the Local Online Service Index
Indicators
Figure E1. Technology Indicators
Technology Indicators
1. Compatibility with multiple browsers 100

2. Ease of finding portal 100

3. Portal loading speed 76.47058824

4. Mobile device accessibility 100

5. Navigability 94.11764706

6. Internal Search Mechanism available 64.70588235

7. Alignment with mark-up validation standards 23.52941176

8. Alignment with display standards 17.64705882

9. Alignment with accessibility standards 0

10. Customization of display (e.g., Size can be adjusted) 52.94117647

11. Foreign/dialect Language support 11.76470588

Figure E2. Content Provision Indicators

Content Provision
1. Contact details provided (phone, email, address etc.) 100
2. Organizational structure of LGU 52.94117647
3. Has names of contacts of heads of departments 70.58823529
4. Municipality information (e.g., economic, socio, population) 94.11764706
5. Notification of weather and natural disaster alerts 41.17647059
6. Budget Related Information 82.35294118
7. Procurement announcements 82.35294118
8. Procurement/bidding results 88.23529412
9. Information about services LGU provides 94.11764706
10. Third party partnerships information 47.05882353
11. Information on right to access government information 23.52941176
12. Information on facilitation to internet access 29.41176471
13. Health Information 100
14. Environmental Information 76.47058824
15. Education/School Information. 88.23529412
16. Social Welfare Information 100
17. Sports, leisure, and culture information 82.35294118
18. Information relevant to vulnerable groups (e.g., elderly, PWDs) 76.47058824
19. Information about justice issues 47.05882353
20. Information about labor issues 41.17647059
21. Privacy policy 23.52941176
22. Open Data policy 11.76470588
23. Open data provision (open data is already available) 35.29411765
 44

24. Open data meta data (description of each open data file available) 23.52941176
25. Smart city initiatives 47.05882353
26. Evidence of emerging technology use (big data, AI, IOTs) 47.05882353
27. Online user support 35.29411765
28. Information on online service use 64.70588235
29. Links to other government agencies provided 58.82352941
30. Statistical data and studies provided 47.05882353
31. Evidence of portal content update (within 3 months) 64.70588235

Figure E3. Service Provision Indicators

Service Provision
1. Portal authentication 47.05882353

2. Personal data accessibility 23.52941176

3. Personal Data updating 23.52941176

4. Businesses data accessibility 29.41176471

5. Businesses data updating (for businesses registered) 23.52941176

6. Responsiveness to emails 23.52941176

7. Delay of email response 5.882352941

8. Quality of email response 17.64705882

9. Police online declaration 11.76470588

10. Online driver’s license 0

11. Online environment permit 17.64705882

12. Online business license 70.58823529

13. Online residentship/resident certificate/cedula 11.76470588

14. Online birth certificate (verification only) 29.41176471

15. Online death certificate 29.41176471

16. Online marriage certificate 35.29411765

17. Address change notification 5.882352941

18. Online land title registration 5.882352941

19. Online vehicle registration 0

20. Online building permit 41.17647059

21. E-Procurement service 35.29411765

22. Posting online of vacancies 88.23529412

23. Report of any discrimination 11.76470588

24. Online business tax 52.94117647

25. E-payment (online fees payment) 52.94117647

 45

Figure E3. Participation Indicators

Participation
1. Real time communication 23.52941176

2. Feedback/complaint submission 58.82352941

3. Online public opinion collection 29.41176471

4. Social networking features/links 88.23529412

5. Reporting of occurrences in public spaces 52.94117647

6. Participatory budgeting 11.76470588

7. Participation in revision of territorial organizational processes 5.882352941

8. Announcement of upcoming e-participation activities 29.41176471

9. Feedback about e-consultation processes 23.52941176

10. E-Voting 0

11. Information on the public meeting of the local council 41.17647059