Ecological Profile versus Socio-Economic Profile.

 An Ecological Profile (EP) is the more comprehensive replacement of the usual socioeconomic profile which gives equal coverage to the physical, biological, socioeconomic, cultural and built environments. This is the preferred form and LGUs are encouraged to shift from the SEP to the EP.

The Socio – Economic Profile (SEP) is a basic reference about all possible aspects of the locality. It is the most important information base for the comprehensive planning of a city or municipality.

The Ecological Profile, as mentioned above, is a merger of the socioeconomic and biophysical profiles of the study area and treats these subjects on equal footing.

Reference:

Guide to Ecological Profiling, DILG

LAND DEFINED

The common sense definition of land is “that solid potion of the earth’s surface” on which we stand, walk, build our homes, raise our gardens, or produce our crops (Serote, p.2).

The limitations of this definition are the following :

a.       It needs further elaboration as to will it include the water, air (gas) found on the earth’s surface or the water in solid form such as the polar ice caps;

b.      The freedom to do what we normally do like build our houses, raise our crops because of certain geophysical, environmental, social and economic factors that constrain us from making use of any piece of land, and:

c.       Good lands located between extreme environmental conditions are no longer freely available (Serote, 2004:2-3.)

From the legal standpoint land is defined as any ground, soil or earth that is regarded as the subject of ownership, and everything annexed to it whether by nature (e.g. trees, water) or by man (e.g. buildings, crops) extending indefinitely vertically upwards and downwards (Serote, 2004:3). For example, we can stop our neighbor from extending their sewerage that dumps kitchen wastes and sewage to our garden. Another example is, we can build our house up to our desired height. However, this is subject to certain restrictions and limits set by the zoning and land use regulations of the area which normally take into consideration the geology of the land where the building is to be constructed as well as the air space for air planes and the public view as in the case of DMCI Building near Rizal Park in Manila. It can be said, therefore, that the right of the owner to develop the land is not absolute. Public interest and the general welfare are of high importance.

Land is a natural resource but it can also be “man-made.” As such, it is often regarded as a good or a commodity that can be supplied to meet certain requirements for the satisfaction of human wants . Land is scarce simply because the human population keeps growing while the gross supply of land is fixed. Also, not all earth’s surface has immediate value for human use. There is also social dimension to land scarcity. Few powerful clans and rich families have appropriated too much land for themselves, especially the good productive lands, leaving the marginal ones to be divided up by the majority. Often many people end up not having any share at all (Serote, 2004:5)

As a factor of production, land is taken along with the capital, labor and management. The traditional understanding of land as a production factor is that it provides the physical base, the platform, site or location where the production process takes place. Example of a land used as a physical base are, the site for a manufacturing plant, a shopping mall, or an office tower. As a direct input, land maybe used for crop growing, livestock raising, dairying, fisheries, mining, and quarrying (Serote, 2004:6).

Land, from the ecological sense, means “the natural environment and its attributes… the surface of the earth and all its attributes.” The natural attributes of land include the macro-and micro-climate, hydrology and other climatic conditions; the geology, topography and soils; and the plant and animal communities that live in it (Serote, 2004:9) Hence, water is part of the land.

Land, in its primeval state and with its vegetative cover, it continues to provide some intrinsic environmental value. This intrinsic value could be destroyed if land were developed and put to some other use than that in which it came in nature. The introduction of human labor and capital on the land may bestow economic value on the land but this may completely destroy its intrinsic environmental value (e.g. logging of rainforest or draining of mangrove swamps.) (Serote, 2004:10).

Dynamics of Land Use and Land Cover Change

          The process and dynamics of land use and land cover change start with the rapid population growth in urban areas which was mainly resulted from migration of rural to urban areas. This increase in population had a plausible effect of increase in pressure on the limited resource-base, and significantly contributed to the expansion of urban land by deforestation and infilling of low-lying areas. (Hassan et. al, 2016). According to Lambin et. al., climate-driven land-cover modifications interact with land-use changes. Land-use change is driven by synergistic factor combinations of resource scarcity leading to an increase in the pressure of production on resources, changing opportunities created by markets, outside policy interventions, loss of adaptive capacity, and changes in social organization and attitudes (Lambin, et.al., 2003)

References:

Serote, Ernesto M.,Property, Patrimony and Territory, Foundations of Land Use Planning in the Philippines, UP-SURP and UP-Planades, Quezon City 2004

Hassan, Zahra, et. al, Dynamics of Land Use and Land Cover Change (LULCC) using geospatial Techniques: A Case Study of Islamabad Pakistan published in 2016 retrieved at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4916107/ on February 4, 2018

Lambin, Eric F., et al, Dynamics of Land-Use and Land-Cover Change in Tropical Regions, Department of Geography, University of Louvain, Belgium, 2003, retrieved at https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/959f/a2238675b85c4b797aba604bbde3356feefe.pdf on February 4, 2018

WHAT KIND OF LAND USE POLICY WOULD BE OPTIMAL FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT?

There are three sets of conditions for a land use plan to have a positive and significant impact. First, it must have technical merit such that we know what issues need to be addressed and how to address them; second, it must have the political mandate and organizational capability to allow implementation; and third, it must be backed up by sufficient financial and other material resources.

Technical merit

The overall objective of a land use plan is to identify the most appropriate locations and promote efficient and safe environments of social activities (land uses). This includes transportation linkages among the various activities as well as administrative and other associated governance requirements. Ideally, it should also support the national government’s goal of inclusive growth, complement other sectoral development plans, and provide detail to regional and provincial land use policies. Its most immediate role, however, is to serve as the core of the CLUP, which is intended to guide or lead the LGU in the attainment of its goals and objectives. Typically, these goals and objectives are defined and measured by employment, income/poverty, education, health, and other development indicators.

We need not go into the details of the structure and components of a land use plan. As far as technical merit is concerned, we have already noted major shortcomings of land use plans which need to be addressed, in particular: the lack of consideration for the demand side, the lack of inter-local or metropolitan integration and multi-level analyses, the need to update basic planning principles and standards, and the need to integrate more effective disaster risk reduction measures. Two additional points, however, are worth mentioning.

In general, consideration should be given such that land using activities take place in areas that, in order of priority: (1) do not pose direct threats to public safety (disaster risk reduction measures); 

(2) enhance and protect lifeline systems (transport routes, communication lines, water and power service delivery); and (3) promote the sustainability of productive resources and keysupport services.

Implementation mandate and organization capability

The mandate of cities and municipalities to prepare, implement and enforce land use plans resides in the constitution, various provisions of the 1991 Local Government Code, Executive Orders 72 and 648, and Republic Act 7279. A full list is provided in the CLUP Guidebook prepared by the HLURB. Meanwhile, formal approval of a specific plan is given by the local development council following a prescribed process.

As mentioned earlier, the CLUP and its implementation instrument, the zoning ordinance, are intended to directly regulate land use in the country, as part of a set of plans that covers the entire national-regional-provincial-local hierarchy. However, consistency and integration within this multi-level and multi-sectoral hierarchy of plans are not yet in place.

Given this scenario, the enactment of a National Land Use Act (NLUA) could provide the much needed mandate to consolidate and integrate land use policies even while retaining LGU jurisdiction over land use planning and enforcement. Because it is a legislative act, however, the NLUA should defer from prescribing specific design and planning standards. Instead, it should refer these to the National Physical Framework Plan (NPFP). In this manner, the basic policies are established in the NLUA while design and planning standards that are subject to regular adjustments (because of technological changes for example) can be done accordingly without having to go through Congress. This also provides the NPFP, which to date serves only as a reference document, with the required implementation mandate.

As far as manpower is concerned, many LGUs do not have the sufficient number to conduct required planning activities. This is part of the reason for the low percentage of cities and

municipalities (35% of 1,610 cities and municipalities in 2008, according to the HLURB) that, in recent years, do not have any CLUP or do not have an updated CLUP. Most LGUs are likely to continue to encounter this problem because of the lack of qualified personnel, especially trained planners, in the country. 

As of 2008, there were only 609 registered Environmental Planners (authorized to sign subdivision and other urban/regional plans) in the Philippines; this number includes inactive and international-based planners. With only an average of 21 planners being added to the professional roster every year (during 2000-2008, according to the Philippine Institute of Environmental Planners), and assuming every registered Planner works for cities and municipalities, it will take 47 years for the number of planners to match the total number of cities and municipalities. Further aggravating the situation is the apparent large amount of planning tasks required of local planning offices such that, according to one estimate, one office is typically required to prepare 28 plans within three years. And this does not include non-planning responsibilities assigned to local planning officials. (Corpuz 2008) LGUs with larger operating budgets will have less difficulty but for the majority, and without external assistance, the lack of qualified personnel will continue to be a problem.

The other serious obstacles to the performance of the planning and implementation bureaucracy are the weak linkages within the planning-investment programming-budgeting-implementation process. Ideally, the PPAs proposed in the CLUP/CDP are prioritized as part of an investment programming exercise and incorporated into the annual budget for implementation. 

In the real world, however, few projects identified in the plan are actually implemented. (There is no actual data available for cities and municipalities but this is consistent with a recent study of provincial plans which found that only 15%-30% of the PPAs identified and listed in the plan are provided a budget.) (Carino, Corpuz and Manasan 2004) Further, some PPAs not identified in the plan are inserted into the budget for implementation. This suggests that political considerations dominate the budgeting and implementation end of the process. It is also in line with the reported “divide by n” resource allocation practice where LGU capital investment resources, however limited, are distributed among allies of the local political leadership.

It can be argued that if the quality of the plan and its PPAs is poor, because of the lack of available professional planners, for example, then the low implementation performance is not

necessarily bad or inconsequential, i.e. not implementing bad projects is good. Or conversely, quality is not important to begin with because of the low implementation performance, i.e. why waste time and resources to come up with a good plan if it is not likely to be implemented anyway. Further, the three-year tenure of the local leadership does not encourage or even makes it impractical to initiate a plan that looks seriously beyond the short term. This does not mean that bolder, longer term or more innovative land use plans and policies cannot be conceived and approved. Rather, it means that regardless of the plan, it is likely that actual development will be incremental. Having the right technical land use policies is good to have but not having them is not important or even relevant if the CLUP itself is not expected to play an important or catalytic role in the first place.

Ultimately, it is not enough to have good quality plans and projects; the entire planning investment programming-budgeting-implementation process and bureaucracy must also work efficiently in order to get desired developments in place.

The politicized nature of the budgeting and implementation stages contrasts with the more technical orientation of the planning stage of the process. To be sure, the local leadership may assert its vested interests and influence certain features of the plan but, as a whole, the planning stage is recognized as an exercise better left to technical experts. In the absence of such experts, the resulting plan may be compromised but, nonetheless, the prevailing view is that planning should be a technical exercise. This perception is reinforced by professional planners who consider the ideal plan as one devoid of or insulated from politics. Although there are exceptions, even public consultations intended to draw planning inputs and support from stakeholders are usually compliance-driven and marginally participative.

In summary, the weakness in the linkages among planning, investment programming, budgeting and implementation coincides with the gap between the technical orientation of planning on the one hand and the political nature of budgeting and implementation on the other. In the end, it is the latter that matters because regardless of the plan, other projects can be inserted into the budget and implemented.

How then, should the weakness be addressed? A logical approach is, first, (a) politicize the planning process by increasing or introducing genuine participation among stakeholders, thereby encouraging broader public ownership of the plan and enhancing the possibility that proposed projects are shepherded and implemented. Second, (b) increase the technical basis for budgeting and implementation in order to reduce the influence of a “dividing the spoils” approach to resource allocation. (Corpuz 2007)

Excerpts from: Arturo Corpuz, Land Use Policy Impacts on Human Development in the Philippines 2012/2013, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1ef4/7eead851d4eb561868fb46f491eb4d7dd02b.pdf

Contemporary Issues and Concerns in Land Use Planning

Arturo Corpus in his paper titled Land Use Policy Impact in Human Development in the Philippines (2012/2013) mentioned the following issues and concerns in land use planning:

1.    Supply-bias and lack of consideration for demand.

Following tradition, land use planning has been heavily-biased towards land suitability rather than land use demand. This contributes to land market distortions because prescribed land uses tend to be based on what is physically suitable rather than on what the city or municipality needs. It is also flawed in the sense that, for example, the protection of the natural environment is meaningless if not related to what it is being protected from (social demand). Impact-wise, it has also encouraged land use conflicts, e.g. the occurrence of commercial activities in residential zones or land conversion at the urban periphery due to unanticipated demand.

The lack of consideration for demand is also demonstrated by the weak or even absence of integration between demographic analysis and subsequent land use recommendations in the CLUP. (This weak link applies to the situation analysis in general and the proposed land use plan and PPAs.) By underemphasizing demand, especially in the extended future, big ideas and the identification of major strategies and directions to accommodate growth are overlooked in favor of short term incremental responses. Consequently, infrastructure and other support services to address primary demand requirements tend to be ignored. This is often the path of least resistance in urban expansion but it also leads to inefficient sprawl in the longer term.

2.    Lack of inter-local/metro integration.

The lack of planning integration among LGUs is most glaring in metropolitan areas. This has compromised land use compatibility across local boundaries (often complicated by boundary disputes) as well as the efficiency of basic services such as transportation and traffic management, security, and flood control and drainage.

3.    Use of outdated or inappropriate planning principles and design parameters.

Many land use plans do not reflect current planning principles and approaches. In some cases, western planning concepts are haphazardly applied even if these are inappropriate or impractical to local conditions.

4.    Spatial equity vs social equity.

This is especially evident at the regional and national levels, where social equity is often deemed congruent with spatial equity. Thus for example, each province or region is compelled to have the same number of state universities, an international airport, or a provincial/regional industrial center, regardless of market or competitive considerations.

5.    Lack of disaster risk reduction provisions.

This is increasingly obvious with recent floods and other disasters. And it has spurred

unprecedented attention on the application of disaster risk reduction on local land use and development planning. The technical aspects of disaster risk reduction such as the preparation and use of geohazard maps, for example, are better understood today more than ever before. Greater clarity and advocacy, however, are required. In particular, the concepts of risk, vulnerability, probability and tradeoffs as part of disaster risk reduction have yet to be fully understood and accepted. Further, there is still a need for more science in policy advocacy (e.g. rain intensity and not logging is more often the primary cause of landslides, or distance from a fault line does not necessarily mean less risk, or tall buildings are not inherently more dangerous than short buildings during an earthquake). Meanwhile, the quality and availability of disaster risk reduction planning tools such as geohazard maps need to be continuously improved.

 6. Weak planning-implementation linkages and corruption.

Even assuming the technical merits of land use plans and policies, their development impacts are not realized because of weak linkages to the rest of the planning-implementation process. There is evidence, for example, that only a minority of projects identified by land use plans is budgeted and implemented. Further, opportunities for corruption take place at both ends of the planning implementation process. Spot zoning occurs at the planning stage when a specific parcel is rezoned in response to incentives and pressures from vested interests and LGU officials. In some cases, for example, the CLUP and zoning ordinance prescribe low densities for existing high density areas in order to force developers to negotiate with city officials. During periodic reviews of the CLUP and the zoning ordinance, usually every five years, changes in zoning classifications are likewise the subjects of political tradeoffs, compromise, and corrupt practices. At the budgeting and implementation end of the process, favored projects (some funded through pork barrel funds) may be inserted or prioritized, regardless of their relevance (or lack of it) to the overall CLUP.

TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES, a logical approach is, first, (a) politicize the planning process by increasing or introducing genuine participation among stakeholders, thereby encouraging broader public ownership of the plan and enhancing the possibility that proposed projects are shepherded and implemented. Second, (b) increase the technical basis for budgeting and implementation in order to reduce the influence of a “dividing the spoils” approach to resource allocation (Corpuz 2007, p.16). LGUs should also hire licensed Environmental Planners in compliance to R10587. The CLUP Planning Team should also be capacitated to effectively carry out the demands of the land use planning process.

Ensure that their zoning ordinance and the comprehensive land use plan of which the zoning ordinance is an implementing instrument are formulated through a broad participatory an consultative process so that the plan and the zoning ordinance are the product of social consensus (Serote, RPS, 153)

<script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-4267074632853356"

     crossorigin="anonymous"></script>

Essential Land Use Planning Principles

As a planner, I adhere to the following guiding principles in land use planning as also mentioned in the book titled Northern Lands, Northern Leadership, The GNWT Land Use and Sustainability Framework: (http://www.lands.gov.nt.casiteslandsfilesresourcesland_use_and_sustainability_framework_updated_email.pdf)

BALANCED AND SUSTAINABLE

Land-management decisions consider ecological, social, cultural and economic values to ensure maximum benefits to current and future generations.

RESPONSIBLE AND RESPONSIVE

Land-management decisions are made in the context of sound environmental stewardship, where all of society takes responsibility to maintain a healthy environment and ecological integrity. Precautionary decision-making and best management practices are implemented to protect and conserve the condition, quality, diversity and abundance of land values. Land-management policies and decisions are adaptable to new information and changing environmental, economic and social conditions.

RESPECTFUL

Land-management decision-making recognizes and respects legal rights of the people.

RELEVANT AND INFORMED

Decisions about land and resources should be made primarily by the residents. Communities and residents in all regions have the opportunity for meaningful engagement and input into land use decisions. Traditional, local and scientific knowledge are used in the decision-making process.

COORDINATED AND COLLABORATIVE

Land use, planning and management are shared responsibilities. Decisions about land use are made in coordination with relevant departments and external organizations and agencies that have responsibilities for land use planning and management decisions.

FAIR AND EQUITABLE

Responsibilities for environmental stewardship and creation of revenue opportunities are shared equitably across all regions.

TRANSPARENT AND ACCOUNTABLE

Land-management decision-making processes are clear, transparent, consistent and communicated. These principles speak to our commitment to approach land use decision-making from a perspective that considers the environment, the economy and the way of life of the people.

In the guidebook titled Land Use Planning: Concepts, Tools and Applications published by the GIZ (2012), the following principles of land use planning were enumerated and discussed as follows:

1.    Land use planning aims at sustainability balancing social, economic and environmental needs;

2.    Land use planning results in a legally binding land use plan and/or legally binding land use rules. Formal recognition of the land use plan or land use rules is crucial for its implementation. Otherwise, key players such as sector ministries or private investors do not respect them;

3.    Land use planning is integrated into state institutions having the official mandate for inter-sector planning. This can be realized in different ways. The planning can be initiated and facilitated by a local administrative body. The planning can also be done by local or traditional chiefs and later formalized through the signing by a regional or national officer. In the later case, these higher level officers need, however, be involved from an early stage on;

4.    Land use planning is a dialogue. A central part of any land use planning is the initialization of a communication process that allows all stakeholders to express their interests and enables them to agree on future land uses that respect all positions in a fair and adequate way;

5.    Land use planning is an all inclusive process. This requires that all stakeholder groups are represented: local direct and indirect users, public authorities, private investors, NGOs and CBOs. Depending on the level on which land use planning is done, stakeholders’ participation can be direct or indirect;

6.    Land use planning is based on stakeholder differentiation and gender sensitivity. To identify all relevant stakeholders, a gender differentiated analysis of all actors should be done in advance;

7.    Land use planning promotes civic engagement. The population should actively participate in the land use planning. The results of planning and the implementation of measures can only be sustainable if plans are made with and by the people, not behind or even against them. Planning is, therefore, not just a matter for experts, but should be carried out together with those affected by it;

8.    Land use planning is realistic and oriented to local conditions. Not only has the content of a land use planning to be adapted to local conditions. The methods too have to fit the technical, economic and organizational capacities of the local population as well as administration;

9.    Land use planning is based on a “light” methodology avoiding unnecessary data collection resulting in “data graveyards”;

10. Land use planning in terms of methodology and content differs e.g. in scale, specificity, form of participation (direct vs. indirect), and technology at village, municipal and regional level;

11. Land use planning considers and various local knowledge. Rural societies or groups often possess a complex autochthonous knowledge of their natural environment. They can contribute valuable information and should, therefore, be mobilized during the land use planning;

12. Land use planning takes into account traditional strategies for solving problems and conflicts. Traditional rural societies have their own way of approaching problems and settling conflicts concerning land use. In the process of land use planning, such mechanisms have to be recognized, understood and taken into account;

13. Land use planning follows the idea of subsidiarity, i.e. all functions from planning to decision-making, implementation and monitoring are assigned to the lowest appropriate level of government in order to be responsive to the needs of citizens and to ensure effective control from below;

14. Land use planning integrates bottom-up aspects with top-down aspects (“vertical integration”). Land use planning needs to combine local needs and interests with provisions made by higher levels. This can only be achieved in a sustainable way if stakeholders from all levels participate in the process and directly talk and listen to each other;

15. Land use planning is based on inter-disciplinary cooperation and requires sector coordination (“horizontal integration”). The diverse functions and (potential) uses of land make it necessary to apply an interdisciplinary approach involving all sectors that have a stake in that area. This generally requires a longer support in institution building and improving cooperation between different sector ministries/ agencies;

16. Land use planning is a process leading to an improvement in the capacity of stakeholders. The participatory methods used in all steps of land use planning promote the technical and organizational capabilities of all participants, thereby improving their capacity to plan and act. In the medium term, this leads to an improvement in the capacity of local groups or administrative entities (such as municipalities, districts and provinces) for self-determination;

17. Land use planning requires transparency. If there is no transparency on decisions about future land uses, risks are high that some people will be deprived of their rights and/or that future land use will not be sustainable;

18. Land use planning is future-oriented (“visionary”). Land use planning is not only about mapping the current land uses or land covers. Land use planning determines how the land will be used in the future. This may differ more or less from today’s utilization of the land;

19. Land use planning is an iterative process. Land use planning is more than the preparation of a planning document; it is an iterative process. Iteration is both the principle and the method. New developments and findings are specifically observed and incorporated into the planning process. It may lead to the revision of decisions and the repetition of steps already taken;

20. Land use planning is implementation oriented. Land use planning has to consider how the negotiated decisions and the solutions identified are to be implemented. It does not end with the land use plan. The implementation of limited measures right at the beginning of the process or parallel to it plays an important role in establishing  villagers’ confidence in the planning process;

21. Land use planning is linked to financial planning. This is crucial for implementation. Land use planning needs to be aware of the designated uses of sector budgets as well as of the financial planning cycles of the relevant sector ministries (including their deadlines). At the same time, land use planning should influence the composition and intended purposes of budgets and funds;

22. Land use planning relates to spaces and places (“spatial orientation”). In most countries many forms of planning and quite a number of plans exist. What most of them are lacking is the relation to space. Many development plans, for instance, state what has to be developed (mainly in terms of infrastructure) but don’t indicate where. Land use planning puts the focus on spatial relations and differences. The spatial orientation of planning ensures the optimum distribution of investments and the most adequate use of any place and avoids (land use) conflicts.

For these abovementioned themes and principles to be realized in the local land use planning process, the following should be considered as pointed out by Prof. Hubert N. van Lier in his paper Land Use Planning: A Key to Sustainable Development (2002):

   - the adoption of a comprehensive approach that views land and water use and management and environment in an integrated manner;

  - the promotion of regional cooperation to ensure that the concerns of all parties are factored into decisions;

  - the recognition of the linkages among the  different land uses;

  
   -the encouragement of broad-based participation, including governments, professional and research institutions and non-government organizations;

  -the endorsement of a phased program of action at the national and local levels.

This regional approach makes up and outlines the body of a Strategic Action Program, which is a critical measure for implementing priority actions at both national and local levels. The objectives of the Strategic Action Plan are to:

       - evaluate trends;

       - assess causes and implications;
       - provide a cost estimate for investments;

       - establish a framework for monitoring and evaluating;

       - identify priority actions to address key issues.

Priority selection has to follow the criteria listed below:

      - ensure selectivity, in order to concentrate resources on       significant problems;

      - avoid duplication and overlap;

      -emphasize adaptive and cost effective solutions through     adaptation and/or improvement of existing technology to     specific tasks;

     -select topics for investigation and research that are likely    to realize the greater benefit, considering return on              investment, response time, probability of success and        impact on agricultural production.

This integrated approach is expected to bring forth clear benefits in environmental and economic terms, a more sustainable use of land resources in agriculture and higher yields and incomes.

<script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-4267074632853356"

     crossorigin="anonymous"></script>

Finally, Wore my Sablay for the Diploma in Land Use Planning at UP Open University

In the early part of 2017, I applied both for the EnP Board Exam  at the PRC and for admission at the University of the Philippines Open University for the 21-unit Graduate Diploma in Land Use Planning. 

My intention to enroll in the DLUP course is to prepare myself should I fail the EnP Board. RA 10537 clearly provides that by the following year which is 2018, only those with appropriate degree in planning will be allowed to take the exam.

By June 13, 2017, I got the result that I passed the EnP Board Exam. After a few days, I was also informed that my application at UPOU was approved.

By August 2017, I decided to enroll in the DLUP as I think I would be more confident of my EnP license if I have an academic degree to back it up.

The first semester was really a grueling struggle for me. I was really feeling anxious and unsure of myself. For one thing, it has been seventeen years ago that I have been away from a university. I was filled with self-doubt over the thought that I may no longer possess the skill and the drive in studying. And, this is UP. 

The lessons are delivered to us via “myportal.upou” Modules and learnings materials are given by our professors based on their time frames. Class discussions are done on a forum. Assignments and quizzes have to be submitted on time or else,  points will be deducted.

I would claim that constant motivation, persistence and discipline helped me survive this mode of learning. It was all self-learning as there are no professors who explains and no classmates whom you can freely discuss lessons with any time of the day.

The last semester was intended for Urban Planning Workshop. Our class was fielded in the Municipality of Pasacao, Camarines Sur, the summer capital of the province. For two scheduled activities in March and April, our team which was composed of six students was able to facilitate and prepare the Sustainable Urban Development Plan of Pasacao. The MPDC of the town who was our classmate and the mayor were very supportive of us. These were the only instances where our class had the chance to meet face-to-face. While doing our class project, we have grown closer as if we have been together for the last couple of years. We have also grown closer to our professor, Ma’am Carmi Liwag from UP Diliman (SURP) who filled us with loads of inputs being a professional planner herself for several decades.

On October 12, 2019, I finally wore the sablay, got my diploma and was pleasantly surprised to receive a special citation for exemplary academic achievement.