Stewardship, Good Governance, and Ethics: Challenges and Opportunities

Stewardship, Good Governance, and Ethics: Challenges and Opportunities

Bernalyn B. Amparado

Mount Carmel College of Escalante Inc

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.909000285

Received: 22 September 2025; Accepted: 29 September 2025; Published: 08 October 2025

ABSTRACT

This research explores stewardship, good governance, and ethics practices among Local Government Unit (LGU) officials in Negros Occidental’s first district, intending to diagnose systemic challenges and identify strategic opportunities for governance enhancement. Grounded in New Public Management, Public Value Management, Principal-Agent, and Social Capital theories, the study employed an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design. A structured survey collected quantitative data from 879 respondents and a thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with five public officials. Results showed stewardship and ethical standards were consistently “often practiced,” with resource allocation perceived more positively than technology adoption and decentralization efforts. Significant differences were noted across demographic profiles, particularly concerning age, sex, and length of service. Qualitative findings emphasized persistent issues, including limited financial resources, inadequate technological infrastructure, and low levels of proactive citizen engagement, while highlighting opportunities through digital transformation and participatory policy development. The study contributes to public administration by affirming the necessity of integrated governance reforms that strengthen accountability, foster transparency, and leverage technology for improved service delivery. Recommendations include investment in digital infrastructure, development of inclusive governance frameworks, and continuous leadership capacity-building. Future research should consider longitudinal approaches and comparative studies across diverse LGU contexts to deepen the understanding of governance dynamics at the local level.

Keywords: Ethics, Good Governance, Resource Allocation, Stewardship, Technology Adoption

INTRODUCTION

Local Government Units (LGUs) are essential in implementing policies and delivering services at the local level. Their effectiveness directly influences public trust and development outcomes. However, many Philippine LGUs face challenges such as weak resource management, limited public participation, and poor ethical standards, which hinder good governance (Oreiro, 2022; Mudhofar, 2022). Strengthening stewardship, good governance, and ethics is crucial to addressing these issues (Pomeranz & Stedman, 2020).

Stewardship refers to how LGUs manage their resources, which include money, infrastructure, staff, and the environment. It also involves using technology to improve public services. Effective stewardship means ensuring resources are used wisely, fairly, and sustainably (Perlman et al., 2020). It requires LGUs to plan carefully, avoid waste, and make decisions that benefit the community in the long term.

Good governance is about how decisions are made and how services are delivered. It includes being transparent, listening to citizens, acting reasonably, and responding to people’s needs (Zaitul et al., 2023). Good governance helps LGUs build trust with the community. It requires strong leadership, clear policies, and public involvement in decision-making (George et al., 2021).

Ethics refers to the moral values and behavior of LGU officials and staff. It involves honesty, fairness, and a strong sense of responsibility. Ethics helps prevent corruption and abuse of power (Muliawaty & Framesthi, 2020). When officials act ethically, they make decisions based on what is right for the public, even when faced with personal or political pressure (Afrijal et al., 2022).

In the Philippines, LGUs face challenges balancing stewardship, good governance, and ethics. These include conflicts of interest, poor resource management, slow technology adoption, limited citizen participation, over-centralization, lack of accountability, and weak ethical enforcement—factors that hinder service delivery and erode public trust (Hajduk et al., 2022).

This study explores challenges and opportunities in LGU governance, aiming to offer insights for promoting sustainable development, efficient service delivery, and public trust through strengthened stewardship, good governance, and ethics.

Objectives of the Study

This study assesses the extent of stewardship, good governance, and ethical practices among LGU officials in local governance. Specifically, it evaluates stewardship regarding resource allocation and technology adoption, governance through citizen engagement and decentralization, and ethics based on accountability and code of conduct. It also examines differences across demographic groups and identifies challenges and opportunities to enhance these practices, with implications for policy and local economic development. The null hypothesis for this study is that there is no significant difference in the extent of stewardship, good governance, and ethical practices based on demographic variables such as sex, age, length of service, and educational attainment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Research Design

The study employed an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design that involves two phases: quantitative data collection and analysis followed by qualitative inquiry to explain or deepen understanding of the initial results. This approach is ideal for exploring what is happening and why it occurs, offering a comprehensive view of complex phenomena by integrating statistical trends with contextual insight. While stratified sampling was used, convenience sampling within strata introduces potential bias. This limitation restricts the generalizability of the findings and should be interpreted with caution.

Sampling Technique

For the quantitative phase, stratified random sampling was conducted across the four municipalities in the first district of Negros Occidental, targeting a population of 427,568. Using Cochran’s formula, a total sample of 879 respondents was determined, comprising 218 finance committee members, 278 LGU officials, and 383 constituents. Strata were defined by city or municipality and respondent category, with convenience sampling applied within each stratum for accessibility. Five key informants were purposively selected for the qualitative phase based on their governance roles, a minimum of five years of experience, and representation from different cities or municipalities to provide deeper insights into stewardship, governance, and ethics.

Table 1. Distribution of Respondents

Research Instrument

The primary instrument was an adapted and modified questionnaire from a published journal. It comprised four main sections: socio-demographic profile, stewardship, good governance, and ethics. Each section was measured using a 4-point Likert scale. A separate semi-structured interview guide was used in the qualitative phase.

Instrument Validation and Reliability

The questionnaire underwent content validation by nine experts using the Lawshe method, resulting in a Content Validity Index (CVI) of 0.85. Items with low validity were discarded. Reliability was confirmed through a pilot test with 30 non-participant respondents, yielding Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.874 (stewardship), 0.879 (governance), and 0.897 (ethics), with an overall reliability score of 0.956.

Data Collection Procedure

Quantitative data were collected via Google Forms, preceded by orientation sessions and informed consent. Incomplete responses were clarified for integrity. For the qualitative phase, interviews were conducted face-to-face or online with five selected officials, recorded with consent, and transcribed verbatim. Data collection continued until saturation was reached.

Data Analysis

Quantitative data were analyzed using mean and standard deviation for descriptive statistics, T-tests, and ANOVA for inferential comparisons based on demographic factors. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis, with coding validated by a second reviewer to ensure credibility. A key limitation of this study lies in its reliance on self-reported practices, particularly through surveys, which introduces the potential for social desirability bias, as respondents may overstate their adherence to stewardship and ethical standards. Officials may overstate stewardship or ethical compliance. Future studies should consider triangulating findings with audit reports, direct observation, or citizen-based assessments.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical protocols included informed consent, confidentiality, voluntary participation, secure data storage, and respect for cultural norms. Respondents were informed of their rights, and findings were reported transparently, with participants accessing study results upon request.

The observed demographic differences may also be shaped by deeper socio-political factors such as patronage systems, hierarchical power structures, and institutional resistance to reform. These dynamics could influence how stewardship, governance, and ethics are perceived and practiced within LGUs.

On technology adoption, the relatively low ratings can be attributed not only to infrastructure limitations but also to budget priorities and cultural resistance, particularly among older officials accustomed to traditional practices.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Quantitative Data

Table 2. Practices of Stewardship, when taken as a Whole

Table 2 shows that stewardship practices are “Often Practiced” across Public Officials, the Finance Committee, and Constituents, with all means falling between 2.50 and 3.24. Public Officials scored highest in Resource Allocation (M = 3.01, SD = 0.18), indicating strong and consistent practice. The Finance Committee scored lowest in Technology Adoption (M = 2.67, SD = 0.32), suggesting less frequent use. Low standard deviations (0.18–0.55) reflect high response consistency, with Public Officials showing the least variability.

The results indicate strong resource stewardship among Public Officials, reflecting effective governance. In contrast, the Finance Committee’s lower mean in Technology Adoption suggests a need for improvement. Strengthening digital literacy, investing in infrastructure, and fostering innovation are essential to enhance efficiency, transparency, and accountability. Prioritizing capacity-building and professional development can sustain and advance stewardship practices.

Recent studies offer both support and contrast to the findings on stewardship practices (David et al., 2023) Emphasize the importance of internal actors’ skills in digital adoption, aligning with Public Officials’ strong performance in resource allocation. Conversely, (Davies et al., 2022) reveal challenges in digital participatory budgeting due to power dynamics and lack of training, contrasting with higher technology adoption ratings by constituents. In the Philippine context, (Sicat et al., 2019) highlight systemic issues in local planning and budgeting, which may account for the Finance Committee’s lower scores in technology adoption.

Table 3. Practices of Stewardship in terms of Resource Allocation

Table 3 highlights the assessment of resource allocation stewardship among Public Officials, the Finance Committee, and Constituents. Public Officials reported the highest means, particularly for transparency and responsiveness (M = 3.35), indicating strong governance practices. However, low scores in funding for new technologies (M = 2.40) point to underinvestment in innovation. The Finance Committee showed moderate ratings, with strengths in transparency (M = 3.00) but weaknesses in equitable fund distribution (M = 2.41). Constituents recognized effective program delivery (M = 2.85) yet expressed concerns over fiscal sustainability (M = 2.47), reflecting mixed perceptions of long-term financial planning.

The results highlight strong transparency, responsiveness, and data-driven decision-making among Public Officials, reflecting a commitment to inclusive governance. However, the low prioritization of technology funding reveals a strategic gap. The Finance Committee’s uneven fund distribution indicates a need for more balanced budgeting, while Constituents’ concerns about fiscal sustainability underscore the importance of more transparent financial communication. While core stewardship practices are evident, targeted improvements in technology investment, equitable allocation, and long-term planning are essential to enhance local governance.

Recent studies support and contrast the findings on LGU stewardship in resource allocation. (L. Estrada & Bastida, 2019) emphasize transparency as key to public trust, aligning with LGU officials’ high ratings in this area. (Castillo & Gabriel, 2020) highlight disparities in procurement transparency, reflecting the current study’s observed gaps between officials and the Finance Committee on technology funding. In contrast, (Krah and Mertens, 2020) found that technology enhances transparency, suggesting LGUs must strengthen digital investments. (Shinohara, 2023) links poor performance to low public trust, reinforcing the need for more transparent communication on resource use to improve governance perception.

Table 4. Practices of Stewardship in terms of Technology Adoption

Table 4 shows that technology adoption is generally “Often Practiced” among Public Officials (M = 2.93), the Finance Committee (M = 2.67), and Constituents (M = 2.99). Public Officials rated digital transformation’s impact on service efficiency highest (M = 3.55), while remote work enablement scored lowest (M = 2.59). Similar patterns emerged among the Finance Committee and Constituents, with remote work consistently receiving the lowest ratings across all groups. These results suggest that while digital efforts are recognized, enabling remote work remains a key area for improvement in government technology adoption.

The results indicate that while technology adoption is generally “Often Practiced,” enabling remote work remains a key gap. High ratings for digital transformation reflect a positive outlook toward modernization, but lower scores on remote work suggest limited infrastructure and policy support. Strengthening remote work capabilities through investment, employee training, and clear policies is essential for operational continuity and effective digital governance.

Recent studies align with and expand on the findings regarding LGU technology adoption. (Yang et al., 2024) and (Kocaoğlu Hikmet Salahaddin Gezici, 2021) emphasize that digital transformation improves efficiency and engagement, supporting the study’s observation of enhanced service delivery through technology. In contrast, Shenkoya (2024) highlights how weak digital infrastructure hinders performance, reflecting the study’s noted gaps in remote work and system readiness. Pérez Chacón et al. (2024) link e-government adoption to environmental goals, reinforcing the need for LGUs to integrate technology with sustainability efforts better.

Table 5. Practices of Good Governance when taken as a Whole

Table 5 shows that good governance practices, particularly citizen engagement and decentralization, are “Often Practiced” across all groups. Constituents reported the highest mean for decentralization (M = 3.02, SD = 0.26), indicating strong perceptions of effective decentralization. The Finance Committee recorded the lowest mean for citizen engagement (M = 2.62, SD = 0.34), suggesting lower satisfaction or awareness. Decentralization is viewed more positively than citizen engagement, with Finance Committee members consistently reporting lower scores, highlighting potential governance gaps.

The results suggest that decentralization is well-received, reflecting effective devolution and local decision-making. However, lower scores on citizen engagement, particularly from Finance Committee members, indicate a need to strengthen participatory mechanisms. Enhancing inclusive and transparent engagement strategies can build trust, improve policy outcomes, and reinforce democratic governance, while better integrating committees may align perceptions and practices.

The United Nations Development Programme highlights the need for strong local systems to support decentralization and crisis management (Reyes, 2019), aligning with this study’s finding of persistent management gaps in local government units. (Juco et al., 2024) link performance shortfalls to financial and institutional constraints, mirroring observed weaknesses in engagement and decentralization. (Kurkela et al., 2024) report greater perceived participation gaps among internal stakeholders, consistent with Finance Committee views. The Department of the Interior and Local Government advocates capacity-building at the barangay level (Matildo, 2023), while (Bozkuş Kahyaoğlu et al., 2024) note that positive constituent ratings may conceal deeper engagement issues, echoing this study’s results.

Table 6. Practices of Good Governance in terms of Citizen Engagement

Table 6 shows that citizen engagement is “Often Practiced” across all groups, with composite means of 2.91 (Public Officials), 2.62 (Finance Committee), and 2.98 (Constituents). Public officials rated informing citizens and valuing feedback as the highest (M = 3.36) but noted weak proactive consultation (M = 2.18). The Finance Committee rated communication of feedback impacts and service improvements the highest (M = 3.00), yet recognized the lowest citizen feedback (M = 2.41). Constituents rated service improvement use as highest (M = 3.01) and transparency as lowest (M = 2.88). Despite overall engagement, gaps remain in soliciting citizen input and valuing feedback, particularly within the Finance Committee.

The results indicate strong efforts to inform citizens and use their suggestions, reflecting progress in participatory governance. However, lower scores in proactively seeking input highlight a reactive approach, limiting meaningful citizen influence and potentially undermining trust. Institutionalizing early and continuous engagement throughout the policy cycle and strengthening the Finance Committee’s incorporation of feedback are essential for more inclusive and accountable governance.

Discrepancies exist between officials’ perceptions and citizens’ experiences, as officials often overestimate the value placed on public input, reducing trust and participation. (Kim & Lee, 2019) emphasize that information alone is insufficient; genuine engagement requires a two-way dialogue (Macayan et al., 2023) show that transparency does not guarantee active citizen involvement while (A. Gabriel & Castillo, 2020) find consultations often exclude broad citizen input. These studies highlight that despite established frameworks, local government units face challenges in achieving inclusive, substantive participation.

Table 7. Practices of Good Governance in terms of Decentralization

Table 7 shows that decentralization is generally “Often Practiced,” with Constituents reporting the highest overall mean (M = 3.02), followed by the Finance Committee (M = 2.86) and Public Officials (M = 2.54). Public Officials rated accountability highest (M = 3.33) but inclusivity lowest (M = 2.18). The Finance Committee consistently rated several aspects as “Often Practiced” (M = 3.00) but noted weak citizen participation (M = 2.44). Constituents rated trust-building highest (M = 3.02), indicating more favorable perceptions overall, though variability existed in their views on participation.

The results indicate that decentralization strengthens accountability, particularly by enhancing decision-maker accessibility. However, low scores on inclusivity reveal that diverse voices remain underrepresented. This suggests that decentralization improves efficiency and accountability but does not guarantee broad participation. Policymakers must, therefore, pair decentralization with strategies that promote inclusive engagement to fully realize its democratic potential.

Studies align with the data, emphasizing the role of trust and transparency in shaping perceptions of decentralization. (Arkorful et al., 2021) highlight that citizen participation in decentralized governance hinges on local officials’ integrity and openness. (Lee & Suh, 2021) note that decentralization strengthens trust in local governments when responsiveness and accountability are evident. The Philippines (Almpay & Suarez, 2020) underscores that while decentralization policies promote participation and transparency, inconsistent implementation hampers governance outcomes.

Table 8. Practices of Ethics when taken as a Whole

Table 8 summarizes ethical practices across public officials, finance committee members, and constituents, as assessed through accountability and code of conduct. Public Officials and Finance Committee members rated the Code of Conduct higher (M = 2.93; M = 2.90) than Accountability (M = 2.85; M = 2.70), both interpreted as “Often Practiced.” Constituents rated the Code of Conduct significantly higher (M = 3.70, “Highly Practiced”) than Accountability (M = 2.68, “Often Practiced”). Overall means were 2.89 (Public Officials), 2.80 (Finance Committee), and 2.69 (Constituents), all falling within the “Often Practiced” range, with greater response variability noted among Constituents.

The results indicate stronger adherence to the Code of Conduct than accountability across all groups, suggesting a governance culture focused on formal ethical standards. However, lower accountability scores, especially among the Finance Committee and Constituents, highlight a gap between ethical codification and enforcement. Strengthening accountability mechanisms is essential to promote transparency, responsibility, and public trust.

Republic Act No. 6713 underscores ethical standards and accountability in public service (Mae & Monsale, 2024). However, studies reveal gaps between codified ethics and practical enforcement. (A. Gabriel & Castillo, 2020) found inconsistent adherence to transparency, especially in procurement. These align with current results showing stronger perceptions of code compliance than accountability, highlighting the need for stricter enforcement and deeper ethical integration in governance.

Table 9. Practices of Ethics in terms of Accountability

Table 9 shows that accountability practices were generally rated as “Often Practiced” across all groups. Public Officials gave the highest rating to performance accountability (M = 3.36) and the lowest to evidence-based decision-making (M = 2.53). The Finance Committee showed uniform agreement on select practices (M = 3.00) but rated checks and balances and responsibility for policy goals lowest (M = 2.17). Constituents rated accountability for actions highest (M = 2.86) and transparency lowest (M = 2.55). Overall mean scores were 2.85 (Public Officials), 2.70 (Finance Committee), and 2.68 (Constituents).

The results suggest that while Public Officials recognize strong performance accountability, lower ratings on evidence-based decisions highlight a governance gap. Similarly, low scores from the Finance Committee and Constituents on policy responsibility and transparency point to weaknesses in open, evidence-driven governance. Strengthening internal accountability, transparency, and checks and balances is essential to enhance ethical standards and public trust.

(Aguilar & Jr, 2024) found that transparency and accountability foster strong public trust in local police, highlighting the value of visible oversight. (Beshi & Kaur, 2020) noted that formal accountability in Philippine public finance is hindered by human error, resource limits, and management attitudes—echoing concerns from Finance Committee members. Similarly, (A. G. Gabriel et al., 2019) emphasized that transparency and accountability are key to public trust and effective local governance.

Table 10 shows that the Code of Conduct is generally perceived as “Often Practiced” across all groups: Public Officials (M = 2.93), Finance Committee (M = 2.90), and Constituents (M = 2.70). Public Officials rated fair enforcement highest (M = 3.34) and promotion of fairness lowest (M = 2.38). The Finance Committee shared similar concerns: ethical culture rated highest (M = 3.27) and fairness lowest (M = 2.44). Constituents rated ethical culture highest (M = 2.78), while multiple statements, particularly on preventing unethical behavior, received the lowest scores (M = 2.69), reflecting moderate perceptions of ethical enforcement.

The results indicate that while the Code of Conduct is often practiced, gaps remain in promoting fairness and equity, especially from the constituents’ perspective. Higher internal ratings suggest confidence among officials, but lower public perceptions reveal a disconnect. Enhancing transparency, inclusive engagement, and consistent enforcement is key to bridging this gap and strengthening ethical governance.

Rahman and Hossain (2021) highlight that democratic decentralization in Bangladesh improves accountability through citizen participation. In contrast, (Binh & Giai, 2021) note that Vietnam’s local governments dominate participatory processes, limiting genuine input. Hue and Sue (2021) find that while citizen participation boosts institutional and political performance, it may hinder administrative efficiency, reflecting a nuanced impact on governance.

Table 10. Practices of Ethics in terms of Code of Conduct

Table 11 presents a comparative analysis of the extent to which public officials observe stewardship, good governance, and ethics based on age, sex, length of service, and educational attainment. Resource Allocation had the highest mean (M = 3.01, SD = 0.18), indicating strong adherence, while Decentralization scored the lowest (M = 2.84, SD = 0.22), reflecting weaker implementation. Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were found across most socio-demographic variables, except for educational attainment in areas such as Citizen Engagement (p = 0.62) and Good Governance (p = 0.09). Grand means were Stewardship (M = 2.94), Good Governance (M = 2.87), and Ethics (M = 2.89), suggesting generally high but varied practice levels.

The results show public officials generally manage resources by following explicit rules and structures. However, they are less effective at decentralization, meaning they struggle to share decision-making power more widely within the government. Differences in how officials perceive these practices—primarily based on age, gender, and years of service—suggest the need for training that fits their diverse backgrounds. Since education level had little effect on their views, hands-on experience may matter more in shaping how they apply stewardship and ethics. Improving decentralization and making governance practices consistent across all groups could lead to a more inclusive and effective government.

Table 11. Public Officials Comparative Analysis of the Extent of Stewardship, Good Governance, and Ethics Based on the Demographic Profile of the Respondents

The high score for Resource Allocation (M = 3.01) supports (Kaushik, 2023), who emphasized its importance in governance and development. The low score for Decentralization (M = 2.84) reflects implementation challenges noted by (Haifa et al., 2023). (Obong’o, 2019) found that professional experience outweighs formal education in shaping ethical conduct, aligning with this study’s findings. Gendered views on corruption (Bauhr & Charron, 2020) and the influence of age and tenure on attitudes (Bajar & Peña, 2021) highlight the role of socio-demographic factors in public administration.

Table 12. Finance Committee Comparative Analysis of the Extent of Stewardship, Good Governance, and Ethics Based on the Demographic Profile of the Respondents

Table 12 presents a comparative analysis of stewardship, good governance, and ethics among Finance Committee members across age, sex, length of service, and educational attainment. The Code of Conduct scored highest (M = 2.90), indicating consistent adherence, while Citizen Engagement scored lowest (M = 2.62), reflecting limited emphasis. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were noted based on age, sex, and length of service, whereas educational attainment showed minimal influence. Grand means—Stewardship (M = 2.78), Good Governance (M = 2.74), and Ethics (M = 2.80)—suggest moderate practice levels with potential for improvement.

The results strongly emphasize the Code of Conduct among Finance Committee members, focusing on internal compliance. In contrast, the low score for Citizen Engagement highlights the need to improve public participation. Significant differences by age, sex, and length of service suggest the value of demographic-sensitive strategies. The limited impact of education supports the view that practical experience and organizational culture play a greater role in shaping governance behavior. Enhancing citizen engagement alongside strong ethical standards could promote more inclusive and responsive governance.

(Nalukui Simushi & Bupe Getrude Mutono Mwanza, 2022) strong internal controls and professional independence promote ethical adherence in Zambia, which aligns with the Finance Committee’s high Code of Conduct score. (Tsai et al., 2024) showed that civic leadership training enhances citizen engagement, addressing the low scores in this area. (Rajiah & Venaktaraman, 2019) noted that younger professionals are more ethically conscious about confidentiality, while experience improves ethical decision-making. (Shiju et al., 2023) identified gender-based differences in ethical perception, with men viewing the ethical climate more positively. (Dincă et al., 2022)emphasized that while education aids governance, experience, and institutional culture have a more substantial influence.

Table 13. Constituents Comparative Analysis of the Extent of Stewardship, Good Governance, and Ethics Based on the Demographic Profile of the Respondents

Table 13 shows that constituents rated Good Governance highest (M = 3.00), indicating strong perceived implementation, while Resource Allocation and Accountability scored lowest (both M = 2.68), highlighting areas needing improvement. Age significantly influenced perceptions in several areas (p < 0.05). At the same time, sex and educational attainment showed mostly non-significant effects, except for a significant relationship between sex and the Code of Conduct (p = 0.04). These results suggest that age and gender shape constituents’ views on governance practices, with organizational behavior perceived as more consistent than resource management or accountability.

The results suggest that while governance structures are perceived as strong, Resource Allocation and Accountability improvements are needed to enhance trust and transparency. Age significantly influences perceptions, indicating a need for age-sensitive policies and training. The limited impact of sex and education implies that experience and organizational culture play a larger role in shaping governance views. Strengthening capacity-building, ethics, and culture-driven reforms can improve stewardship effectiveness.

Recent studies support the results, emphasizing the importance of good governance and the influence of socio-demographic factors on constituent perceptions. (Ian & Necosia, 2019) reported weak implementation of transparency and accountability in Southern Philippines, aligning with low Resource Allocation and Accountability scores. (Ganason et al., 2025) found that transparency, accountability, and responsiveness are key to effective governance in Malaysia. (Victoria et al., 2022) observed high stakeholder satisfaction with inclusiveness at Bukidnon State University, explaining the high Good Governance scores. (Chanda et al., 2024) emphasized trust-building through transparency and accountability. (Laki & Badon, 2024) the review noted that while gender equity enhances inclusivity, sex, and education do not significantly affect governance perceptions, highlighting the greater role of organizational culture and professional experience.

Qualitative Data

Theme 1. Stewardship

Challenges

Sub-theme 1: Persistent Issue of Limited Financial and Material Resources

A core challenge in public stewardship is limited financial and material resources, compelling LGU leaders to make difficult prioritization decisions. Essential sectors such as health, education, and infrastructure compete for constrained budgets, especially in areas where decentralization lacks corresponding fiscal empowerment.

Mayor: “It’s about strategic prioritization and stakeholder engagement… Every peso must serve more than one purpose when possible.”

Punong Barangay: “Dili lalim ang pondo kay gamay ra… Tan-awon namo kung asa ang mas dako ug epekto sa katawhan.”

City Councilor added: “Budgeting is always a balancing act… we secure health and education first…”

These views reveal the need for strategic resource allocation and participatory budgeting, especially as fiscal uncertainty and political favoritism complicate planning (Alam, A & Alam, 2020). Transparency in explaining trade-offs builds trust and mitigates social tensions (Canare, 2020).

Sub-theme 2: Infrastructural Deficits

Infrastructural gaps hinder governance efficiency, particularly outdated technology, and limited digital access. Although the pandemic accelerated digital adoption, unequal access and training persist.

Mayor noted: “We adopted a digital permit and licensing system… With national funding support.”

Punong Barangay shared: “Naa mi gi-adopt nga text messaging… ang mga kabatan-onan nagtudlo namo.”

Vice Mayor mentioned: “Gisuportahan ang paggamit sang ‘Mobile Farmers’ Registry’…”

These testimonies reflect the shift toward adaptive governance through grassroots innovation and youth engagement. However, as (Cereneo S et al., 2021) and (Bondoc, 2019) show that infrastructure limitations and manual processes still constrain digital governance. Sustainable improvements require capacity-building and localized digital literacy initiatives.

Sub-theme 3: Struggle in Equitable Distribution, Especially in Underserved Areas

Equity in resource allocation remains elusive due to structural disparities and limited planning capacities. Officials emphasize data-informed and participatory approaches to ensure responsive distribution.

Mayor explained: “We rely on socioeconomic data and community feedback… especially for marginalized communities.”

Vice Mayor stated: “Amo ginahuna nga patas ang tagaan, base sa data nga gikan sa mga barangay ug CSO inputs.”

Barangay assemblies serve as vital platforms for inclusive planning, ensuring that decisions reflect lived realities. Literature supports that data-driven and community-led processes enhance targeting and reduce inequalities ((Torda, 2024). Achieving fairness requires institutionalized mechanisms for marginalized voices and evidence-aligned budgeting (Sacramento, 2024).

Opportunities

Sub-theme 4: Optimization of Available Resources through Digital Solutions

Local governments increasingly utilize digital tools to maximize limited resources, streamline workflows, and improve service delivery.

The mayor shared, “We adopted a digital permit and licensing system… Today, it’s one of our most praised reforms by local businesses.”

Vice Mayor noted: “Mobile Farmers’ Registry… nagalista sang mga legitimate nga mangunguma para sa ayuda.”

Punong Barangay: “Text messaging… karon, pwede na mag text. Nakasugod ni tungod sa kabatan-onan.”

Studies confirm these trends. (Alindajao et al., 2023) and (Maribao et al., 2024) systems like Barangay Automated Records System (BARS) and e-permitting significantly enhance speed, transparency, and disaster resilience. Nevertheless, success hinges on user readiness, training, and sustained institutional support.

Sub-theme 5: Technology for Better Tracking, Reporting, and Distribution

Digital tracking and evaluation systems improve performance monitoring, accountability, and trust.

Mayor said: “We set clear performance indicators… benchmark against previous data… involve external evaluators where appropriate.”

Punong Barangay echoed: “Kung lisod siya gamiton o wala epekto, dili ipadayon.”

These insights reflect adaptive governance and a shift to evidence-based management supported by academic collaboration. (Jagdon et al., 2024) and (Gallera & Salvador, 2023) demonstrate that digital governance boosts transparency and feedback mechanisms. Barangay-level feedback loops and usability checks ensure that tools are practical and responsive.

Sub-theme 6: Partnerships and Collaborations

Strategic partnerships with NGOs, private firms, and academia address capacity gaps and foster innovation.

The mayor stated, “We’ve built partnerships with local tech firms and universities… co-developed a disaster response app…”

Vice Mayor added: “Partnership sa mga agri-cooperatives, local business chambers, ug academic institutions… sa agrikultura nga automation ug climate-smart farming.”

These collaborations shift LGUs from implementers to facilitators within innovation ecosystems. As (Soriano & Mercado, 2023)(2023) argue that CSO and NGO engagement enhances service delivery but must be supported by enabling legal and funding frameworks.

Theme 2. Good Governance

Challenges

Sub-theme 7: Implementation Gaps in Policies

Policy design at the local level is often inclusive and forward-looking; however, implementation remains inconsistent due to vague mandates, weak coordination, and inadequate grassroots capacity.

The mayor shared, “Sometimes, compromise is necessary—phasing in policies or modifying them to better fit community needs.”

Vice Mayor echoed this, noting, “Indi kami dali magpasar sang ordinansa nga indi klaro… kung kinahanglan i-revise, ginahimo namon ini base sa feedback.”

Sangguniang Barangay said, “Kasagaran ang Kapitan ang magpasabot… kami mosuporta lang sa iya desisyon.”

This reflects Peters & Pierre’s (2020) emphasis on policy adaptability, which must be institutionalized through feedback loops and pilot testing to avoid ad hoc governance. (Juarez & Benson, 2025) and (Malong, 2022) note that implementation gaps in Philippine LGUs stem from limited resources and community disengagement, weakening participatory outcomes.

Sub-theme 8: Lack of Transparency in Decision-Making

While legal tools such as bulletin boards, livestreams, and FOI ordinances exist, transparency is often procedural rather than substantive.

Mayor stated, “We publish the City Budget and Annual Investment Plan… hold quarterly accountability sessions,”

Punong Barangay noted, “Ginasulat tanan sa logbook… naa mi bulletin board diin ibutang ang tanang proyekto ug gasto.”

However, barangay-level practices remain analog, inaccessible, and poorly institutionalized. As (Sitchon et al., 2024) observed, transparency mechanisms often meet formal requirements without enabling meaningful participation. Bridging this gap requires hybrid models that combine digital and analog tools, citizen education, and standardized guidelines.

Sub-theme 9: Low Community Engagement

Community engagement mechanisms such as assemblies and consultations are widely practiced but often yield passive participation.

Mayor noted, “We institutionalized Barangay assemblies… also use digital platforms,”

Sangguniang Barangay observed, “Ang kasagaran maminaw lang, gamay ra gyud ang mosulti.”

Structural platform access is insufficient—citizens must feel empowered to speak and influence decisions. Fox and Halloran (2021) argue that civic engagement must be procedural and psychological. Digital outreach can enhance inclusion, but persistent digital divides hamper this potential, especially in rural areas. (Sulasula, 2024) underscores that meaningful engagement requires stronger LGU capacity and inclusive strategies beyond mere compliance.

Opportunities

Sub-theme 10: Value of Participatory Governance

Participatory governance fosters inclusivity, trust, and legitimacy in policymaking. Local leaders recognize its value.

Mayor stated, “Every major decision… is preceded by at least one public hearing.” Similarly, the

Punong Barangay emphasized, “Barangay assembly… magtinambagay tanan,” and the

City Councilor highlighted tools to reach diverse groups, “Survey tools para maabot ang busy nga residente ug OFWs.”

These reflect efforts to embed citizen input in planning, aligning with the World Bank’s (2023) assertion that participatory approaches enhance service alignment and citizen trust. However, as (Tenorio, 2025) and (Malajos, 2025) found that participation remains shallow without deliberate engagement strategies and capacity-building. Younger constituents prefer digital avenues, while older ones favor face-to-face— “Mas maayo gyud kung mag-atubangay… mas klaro kaysa social media,” noted one Sangguniang Barangay. Hence, multi-channel strategies and embedded civic feedback loops are essential for sustaining meaningful participation.

Sub-theme 11: Implementation of Monitoring Systems with KPIs

The institutionalization of key performance indicators (KPIs) is becoming more evident across LGUs.

Mayor shared, “We set clear performance indicators… benchmark against previous data,”

Vice Mayor added, “Gina-assess namon… frontline worker ang among ginapangayoan una sang report.”

Punong Barangay said though informal— “Kung wala epekto, dili ipadayon,” still contribute to responsiveness.

These practices reflect ADB’s (2022) call for results-based governance and align with DILG’s Citizen Satisfaction Index System (CSIS), which promotes data-informed service delivery (Gavino-Gumba, 2021). Innovations like GovMark also enhance transparency by consolidating SGLGB scores (Araullo et al., 2024). Moreover, (Gooc, 2023) effective monitoring systems improve fiscal performance, reducing LGU dependency on national transfers.

Sub-theme 12: Leadership Development and Capacity-Building

Leadership capacity is central to effective governance.

The mayor noted, “We’ve invested heavily through training and institutional development,”

Vice Mayor added, “May orientation ang mga assigned staff… may dry-run anay antes ipatuman.”

Punong Barangay shared that officials rely on informal learning— “Magpatabang mi sa mga mas kabalo—mga estudyante, teachers, o NGO,”.

This reflects UN-Habitat’s (2021) view that leadership development enhances local performance. (Santander et al., 2024) reported moderate proficiency among LGU officials, recommending continuous training. (Aňar et al., 2024) further noted that English training improved communication with constituents, enhancing service delivery. (P. A. D. Estrada & Francisco, 2024) emphasized the need for targeted, systematic capacity-building to close competence gaps and professionalize local governance.

Theme 3. Ethics

Challenges

Sub-theme 13: Ethical Compromise Due to Political or Personal Gain

Ethical dilemmas in LGUs often arise from favoritism, patronage, and conflicting interests.

Mayor recounted, “A major contractor once offered an unsolicited donation… I declined and reported it… We instead opened the bid publicly.” Similarly, the

Punong Barangay admitted, “Naglisod ko pero ako siya giistoryahan nga kinahanglan patas ta,” when pressured to favor a friend.

Such narratives reveal a daily tension between political convenience and ethical commitment. While these acts affirm integrity, institutional support remains limited. As (Anastacio & Morandarte, 2023) and (Guth, 2024) observed, informal patronage norms dominate local politics, undermining trust. (Alcantara, 2023) also emphasized that public tolerance of such practices weakens democratic accountability. To counter this, officials must document and share ethical experiences as learning tools and ethical conduct must be structurally reinforced through transparent systems and role modeling.

Sub-theme 14: Minimal Awareness and Training on Ethical Practices

Ethical practices are inconsistently understood across LGU levels.

Mayor asserted, “Every employee undergoes annual ethics training… zero-tolerance policy on corruption,”

City Councilor added, “Regular ethics seminars… misbehavior is dealt with firmly.”

Sangguniang Barangay remain informal— “Kung makakita ko og sayop, mosulti ko sa Kapitan,”.

This gap in training impairs the consistent application of ethical norms—the Civil Service Commission (2022) advocates for a localized ethics orientation, especially for barangay front-liners. Ethical education should move beyond compliance to include values-based leadership and contextual learning. DILG seminars and trainings, such as those described by (Millares, 2025), which cover Republic Act 6713, offer foundations. Moreover, (Enriquez et al., 2023) found that perceived sincerity significantly influences public trust, underscoring the role of visible ethical behavior.

Sub-theme 15: Challenge in Sustaining Moral Integrity

Long-term moral integrity depends on leadership consistency and institutional reinforcement.

Mayor said, “Leadership by example is non-negotiable… we issue commendations,”

Vice Mayor echoed, “Ang akong mga tawo kabalo nga indi ako palusot,” reflecting strong ethical signaling.

Nevertheless, Sangguniang Barangay adopts self-protective ethics— “Naga-amping lang ko sa akong look,.”

This highlights a need to shift from individual morality to organizational culture. (Brown et al., 2021) argue that ethical climates stem from modeled behavior. Sustainability requires embedding integrity into everyday processes and fostering collective accountability. (Daguio et al., 2024) emphasize that integrity, emotional intelligence, and adaptability are critical traits of successful local leaders, suggesting that ethics must be nurtured through systems and leadership.

Opportunities

Sub-theme 16: Institutionalizing Ethics in Policies and Practices

Embedding ethics into LGU systems ensures that integrity is practiced consistently, not situationally.

The mayor shared, “We have a functioning Internal Audit Service, a Grievance Redress Mechanism, and Civil Society Monitoring Committees.”

Vice Mayor noted, “May internal audit, COA, ug SB monitoring committee… liquidation nga pwede makitaan sa opisina.” These mechanisms align with national integrity standards such as Philippine Integrity and Accountability Program (PIAP).

Punong Barangay stated, “Ginareport namo ang gasto ug proyekto kada assembly,” emphasizing grassroots transparency.

However, as (Valdez, 2024) these systems must be regularly evaluated to identify gaps and promote ethical alignment through performance reviews. (Barrios & Moreno, 2024) furthermore, integrating digital tools enhances efficiency and ethical compliance, especially at the barangay level.

Sub-theme 17: Strengthening Codes of Conduct and Ethical Reporting

Officials acknowledge the need to update and better enforce ethical codes.

City Councilor said, “Code of Conduct needs updating… clearer guidelines and stronger enforcement,”.

Vice Mayor suggested, “Mas maayo kung i-localize ang code para mas klaro sa mga empleyado sang munisipyo.” Moreover, Mayor admitted, “Enforcement can be inconsistent… strengthen by integrating case studies and anonymous reporting systems,”.

Anonymous channels and peer-to-peer mediation can help protect whistleblowers and increase reporting as (Respicio, 2024) supports. Ultimately, ethics codes must evolve into practical, everyday guides shaped by real experiences.

Sub-theme 18: Promoting Ethical Leadership Through Education

Ethical leadership must be cultivated through education and modeling. said the

Mayor said, “Leadership by example is non-negotiable,”,

while the City Councilor added, “Ethical leadership starts at the top… regular ethics seminars and public commendation.” Grounded mentoring, such as the

Punong Barangay’s, “Ginatambagan namo pirmi ang mga tanod ug secretary,” nurtures frontline integrity.

Brown, Treviño, & Harrison (2021) emphasize that modeled behavior and reinforcement shape ethical climate. Educational strategies should include peer learning, real-world scenarios, and collaboration with agencies like CSC and DILG. Studies by (Baguio et al., 2024) and (Tabanao, Grace et al., 2025) confirm that targeted training improves conflict resolution, impartiality, and service delivery among barangay leaders.

Mixed Method Data

Table 14. Meta-inference of the Quantitative and Qualitative Data

A comparative matrix of quantitative and qualitative findings (see Table X) further reinforces the integrated analysis. Quantitative results generally indicate moderate to high performance across stewardship, governance, and ethics dimensions. However, when juxtaposed with qualitative insights, implementation inconsistency emerges. For instance, while transparency in resource allocation scored highly among public officials, constituents expressed concerns over fiscal sustainability, revealing gaps in long-term planning. Similarly, technology adoption was rated favorably, yet qualitative narratives identified significant infrastructural and training limitations, especially in rural areas.

Citizen engagement appeared frequently practiced quantitatively, yet qualitative responses pointed to passive participation and socioeconomic barriers. Likewise, constituents viewed decentralization positively but rated lower by public officials, with qualitative evidence showing limited inclusivity and persistent top-down governance. Ethics, accountability, and adherence to codes of conduct were rated highly, but qualitative data highlighted discretionary enforcement and fairness concerns, especially at grassroots levels.

Meta-inference reveals that while governance mechanisms are institutionalized, a structural, capacity and contextual limitations often undermine their efficacy. These findings call for systemic reforms targeting participatory models, digital infrastructure, fiscal sustainability, and ethical enforcement to move from procedural compliance to genuinely transformative local governance.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

This study examined the extent of stewardship, good governance, and ethics among LGU officials, highlighting their impact on economic outcomes and the local business environment. Stewardship practices were generally “Often Practiced,” with strengths in resource allocation but limited technology adoption. Good governance showed stronger decentralization than citizen engagement, while ethics practices favored formal codes over accountability, hampered by political favoritism. Demographics such as age, sex, and service length influenced perceptions, while education had minimal effect.

Findings underscore the need for digital integration, participatory governance, and improved accountability mechanisms. Policy implications include capacity-building, equitable resource distribution, and robust monitoring. Limitations include reliance on self-reports, a localized scope, and a cross-sectional design. Future research should pursue longitudinal and comparative studies and explore digital literacy and grassroots innovation. The study advances public administration by linking theory to practice and offering targeted strategies for improved local governance.

This study offers targeted recommendations to strengthen stewardship, governance, and ethics in Local Government Units (LGUs). Enhancing digital literacy and adopting comprehensive digital strategies can improve service delivery, particularly in finance, for LGU officials. National policymakers should institutionalize participatory budgeting, strengthen whistleblower protections, and enforce accountability to address gaps in citizen engagement and ethical enforcement.

Civil society organizations (CSOs) and academic institutions are encouraged to support community training and co-design inclusive governance initiatives. The Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) should implement standardized capacity-building programs and establish performance monitoring systems tailored to demographic variations among officials. To address resource constraints, LGUs should pursue public-private partnerships focused on infrastructure and digital innovation.

To strengthen policy impact, this study recommends the establishment of monitoring frameworks for ethics compliance and technology adoption. Further, leadership and ethics training programs tailored to LGU contexts, and participatory citizen feedback mechanisms such as scorecards or CSO monitoring, should be institutionalized to ensure sustainability and accountability.

Finally, researchers should conduct comparative and longitudinal studies to explore contextual governance dynamics. These recommendations, grounded in the study’s findings, provide a strategic roadmap for enhancing local governance transparency, participation, and ethical integrity.

Table 15. Strategic Improvement and Sustainable Plan

REFERENCES 

1. Afrijal, A., Helmi, H., Latif, I. R., & Muliawati, M. (2022). Strengthening Government Ethics as an Effort to Improve the Performance of Government Apparatus. Journal of Government and Political Issues, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.53341/jgpi.v2i2.83
2. Aguilar, J. J. A., & Jr, E. R. G. (2024). European Journal of Political Science Studies TRANSPARENCY , ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRUST TOWARDS THE POLICE AS PERCEIVED BY RESIDENTS OF SELECTED BARANGAY IN DAVAO CITY , PHILIPPINES. 82–102. https://doi.org/10.46827/ejpss.v7i2.1788
3. Alam, A & Alam, M. (2020). Decentralization, resource splitting and budgetary process: an empirical study. 2507(February), 1–9.
4. Alcantara, E. (2023). The Tolerance of Barangay Pembo , Makati City Residents On Patronage Politics and How it Affects their Voting Preferences. July, 0–130. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29022.82245
5. Alindajao, I. D. U., Abbot, N. D., Mariňas, J. B., Malang, B. P., & Vigonte, F. G. (2023). Impacts of Digitization of Business Permits and Licenses in District 3 Quezon City. International Journal of Multidisciplinary: Applied Business and Education Research, 4(8), 2933–2942. https://doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.04.08.30
6. Almpay, E., & Suarez, G. M. (2020). Local Matters Experiences in Autonomy, Decentralization, and Beyond.
7. Aňar, L. E., Madelo, C. P., & Suganob, M. G. (2024). Unlocking Success: The Outcomes of Workplace English Training for Barangay Secretaries in a Local Government of Southern Philippines. 119–138.
8. Anastacio, A., & Morandarte, N. (2023). Political Patronage in Philippine Local Politics. Phys., 13(1), 104–116. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4362736
9. Araullo, E. E. A., Averia, M. L. G., Lim, M. S., Tuala, F. T. G., & Serrano, E. A. (2024). GovMark: A Local Government Benchmarking Webapp for the Philippine Department of the Interior and Local Government. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 2119 CCIS(May), 10–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61966-3_2
10. Arkorful, V. E., Lugu, B. K., Hammond, A., & Basiru, I. (2021). Decentralization and Citizens’ Participation in Local Governance: Does Trust and Transparency Matter?–An Empirical Study. Forum for Development Studies, 48(2), 199–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/08039410.2021.1872698
11. Baguio, J., Detalla, J. H., Fineza, D. M., Galindo, N. I., & Cuevas Jr, J. (2024). Exploring the Experiences of Barangay Officials in Handling Libelous Cases a Phenomenological Study. 2454, 1175–1189. https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS
12. Bajar, J. T. F., & Peña, R. F. Dela. (2021). Jayson Troy F. Bajar and Renia F. Dela Peña. 62(1), 99–120.
13. Barrios, N. A., & Moreno, F. (2024). Evaluating the Efficacy of e-Government Initiatives in Addressing Local Governance Challenges in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines. Economic Policy, 2116, 0–33.
14. Bauhr, M., & Charron, N. (2020). Do men and women perceive corruption differently? Gender differences in perception of need and greed corruption. Politics and Governance, 8(2), 92–102. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i2.2701
15. Beshi, T. D., & Kaur, R. (2020). Public Trust in Local Government: Explaining the Role of Good Governance Practices. Public Organization Review, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-019-00444-6
16. Binh, N. T., & Giai, N. Q. (2021). Study on Citizen Participation in Local Governance in Vietnam. NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 14(2), 87–109. https://doi.org/10.2478/nispa-2021-0016
17. Bondoc, B. C. (2019). Towards Digitization through e-Barangay “A Web-based Barangay Information System.” Journal of Humanities and Education Development, 1(2), 88–91. https://doi.org/10.22161/jhed.1.2.5
18. Bozkuş Kahyaoğlu, S., Abdieva, R., & Baigonushova, D. (2024). Citizen perception and participation in local government in post-Soviet countries: Case of Kyrgyzstan. Journal of Eurasian Studies, 0(0), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/18793665241283476
19. Brown, P. R., Cherney, L., & Warner, S. (2021). Understanding Public Value–Why Does It Matter? International Journal of Public Administration, 44(10), 803–807. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2021.1929558
20. Canare, T. (2020). Decentralization, local government fiscal independence, and poverty: Evidence from philippine provinces. Southeast Asian Journal of Economics, 8(2), 77–108.
21. Castillo, L., & Gabriel, A. G. (2020). Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance, January. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5
22. Cereneo S, S. J., Ma, L. P. U., Centeno, Z. J. R., & Bayla, M. C. D. (2021). Access, Skills and Constraints of Barangay Officials towards the Use of Information and Communications Technology (ICT). International Journal of Knowledge Content Development and Technology, 1–23.
23. Chanda, T. C., Madoda, D., Sain, Z. H., & Sylvester, C. (2024). Good Governance : A Pillar to National Development International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews Good Governance : A Pillar to National Development. June.
24. DAGUIO, M. E., Dimatatac, L., Edo, B., Estioco, M. C., Abante, M. V., & Vigonte, F. (2024). Leadership in local governance: a case study on qualifications, personality traits, behaviors, and style of a top-performing chief executive in metro manila. 4999069.
25. David, A., Yigitcanlar, T., Li, R. Y. M., Corchado, J. M., Cheong, P. H., Mossberger, K., & Mehmood, R. (2023). Understanding Local Government Digital Technology Adoption Strategies: A PRISMA Review. Sustainability (Switzerland), 15(12), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129645
26. Davies, J., Arana-Catania, M., & Procter, R. (2022). Embedding digital participatory budgeting within local government: motivations, strategies and barriers faced. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1145/3560107.3560124
27. Dincă, G., Bărbuță, M., Negri, C., Dincă, D., & Model, L. S. (2022). The impact of governance quality and educational level on environmental performance. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10(July), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.950683
28. Enriquez, F., Genuba, R., & Dura, A. (2023). Micropolitics and Credibility of Barangay Officials. International Journal of Scientific Research and Management (IJSRM), 11(07), 1419–1435. https://doi.org/10.18535/ijsrm/v11i07.sh01
29. Estrada, L., & Bastida, F. (2019). Effective Transparency and Institutional Trust in Honduran Municipal Governments.
30. Estrada, P. A. D., & Francisco, I. C. (2024). Assessment of the Competency of Barangay Officials in a Selected Municipality in Tarlac Province. Library Progress International, 44(3), 603–613.
31. Gabriel, A., & Castillo, L. (2020). Transparency and Accountability Practices of Local Government Units in the Philippines: a Measurement from the Ground. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2020.125798%0Ahttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2020.02.002%0Ahttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/810049%0Ahttp://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/anie.197505391%0Ahttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780857090409500205%0Ahttp:
32. Gabriel, A. G., Antonio, M. A. B., & Ramos, V. B. (2019). Transparency and Accountability in Local Governance: The Nexus Between Democracy and Public Service Delivery in the Philippines. Public Policy and Administration Research, 9(7), 30–36. https://doi.org/10.7176/ppar/9-7-04
33. Gallera, J. M., & Salvador, A. S. (2023). Assessment of Digital Information Systems for Local Barangays. International Research Journal of Advanced Engineering and Science, 8(2), 112–115. https://irjaes.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/IRJAES-V8N2P171Y23.pdf
34. Ganason, A., Piaralal, S. K., & Jaria, A. (2025). Influence of Good Governance Principles of Transparency , Accountability and Responsiveness in Enhancing the Performance of Federal Land Management in Malaysia. 15(2), 860–884. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v15-i2/24710
35. Gavino-Gumba, B. M. (2021). Citizen satisfaction survey in a small town in the philippines: An assessment of methodology. International Journal of Civic, Political, and Community Studies, 18(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-0047/CGP/V18I02/1-14
36. George, T. O., Onwumah, A. C., Ozoya, M. I., & Olonade, O. Y. (2021). Good governance, social order, and development in Nigeria: The critical role of gender inclusion. In African Journal of Reproductive Health (Vol. 25, Issue 5 Special Issue). https://doi.org/10.29063/ajrh2021/v25i5s.18
37. Gooc, M. J. (2023). For Better or For Worse ? Assessing the Impact of Monitoring and Benchmarking on the Fiscal Performance of Local Governments in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 67(September), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10369543
38. Guth, A. (2024). The Philippines: a social structure of corruption. 15(1), 37–48.
39. Haifa, A. A., Zineb, O. T., & Qannam Ziad. (2023). Good governance: Concept, basics, and relationship to sustainable development from a Palestinian perspective.
40. Hajduk, M., Jaššo, M., Husár, M., & Ondrejička, V. (2022). Citizen engagement within the process of realisation of the city energy transition projects. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2574(November). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0105174
41. Ian, R., & Necosia, M. T. (2019). Assessment of Good Governance Practices In Southern Philippines. October.
42. Jagdon, M. C. J., Estioco, M. C., Christoper, S., Abante, M. V., Vigonte, F., & Balidoy, E. (2024). The Impact of E-Governance on Transparency and Service Delivery in Quezon City: A Qualitative Investigation. 4997733. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4997733 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4997733
43. Juarez, N., & Benson, O. G. (2025). Grassroots Governance for Sustainable Development: Examining the Barangay As an Exception Case for Participatory Policy Implementation. 9, 356–363.
44. Juco, M. N., Maddawin, R. B., & Manasan, R. G. (2024). An Assessment of the Local Government Units ’ Functional Assignments under a Decentralized Regime An Assessment of the Local Government Units ’ Functional Assignments under a Decentralized Regime.
45. Kaushik, A. (2023). The role of good governance in achieving sustainable development: A study of India. International Journal of Political Science and Governance, 5(1), 101–106. https://doi.org/10.33545/26646021.2023.v5.i1b.209
46. Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2019). Citizen Participation, Process, and Transparency in Local Government: An Exploratory Study. Policy Studies Journal, 47(4), 1020–1041. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12236
47. Kocaoğlu Hikmet Salahaddin Gezici, M. (2021). Digital Transformation in Local Governments: A Comparative Study. Review of International Geographical Education (RIGEO), 11(8), 2021. www.rigeo.org
48. Krah, R. D. Y., & Mertens, G. (2020). Transparency in Local Governments: Patterns and Practices of Twenty-first Century. State and Local Government Review, 52(3), 200–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160323X20970245
49. Kurkela, K., Kork, A. A., Jäntti, A., & Paananen, H. (2024). Citizen participation as an organisational challenge in local government. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 37(1), 124–140. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-08-2022-0179
50. Laki, R. C., & Badon, B. O. (2024). Leadership. 4(7), 949–956.
51. Lee, J. H., & Suh, J. (2021). Decentralisation and government trust in South Korea: Distinguishing local government trust from national government trust. Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, 8(1), 68–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/app5.317
52. Macayan, L., Navarra, R., & Tenedero, C. (2023). Fiscal Transparency and Good Governance: Impact of Public Leadership Behaviors of the Pasay City Government. Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 7(9), 2–8. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7751225
53. Mae, R., & Monsale, M. (2024). Observance of Code of Conduct for Public Officials and Employees ( Republic Act 6713 ) a nd Personnel ’ s Performance. October, 8–30. https://doi.org/10.51386/25815946/ijsms-v7i5p102
54. Malajos, M. J. L. (2025). Enhancing Barangay Governance : A Systematic Literature Review of Best Practices , Challenges , and Community Perceptions of Barangay Captains in the Philippines. 6(4), 1780–1788.
55. Malong, R. G. (2022). Problems on the Implementation of Participatory Governance. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 2022(7), 515–520. http://journalppw.com
56. Maribao, M. L. R., Cos, M. K. S., & Monticalvo, E. V. B. (2024). Enhancement of barangay management system. 12(1), 482–497.
57. Matildo, E. L. (2023). The Service Delivery of Local Government Officials in a Philippine Rural Community The Service Delivery of Local Government Officials in a Philippine Rural Community. January 2022.
58. Millares, A. (2025). SLUC CGS strengthens Barangay Officials’ knowledge of Ethics, Safe Spaces, Mental Health. https://www.dmmmsu.edu.ph/2025/03/13/sluc-cgs-strengthens-barangay-officials-knowledge-of-ethics-safe-spaces-mental-health/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
59. Mudhofar, M. (2022). Analisis Implementasi Good Governance Pada Pengelolaan Keuangan Desa. Jurnal Riset Akuntansi Dan Keuangan, 10(1).
60. Muliawaty, L., & Framesthi, D. B. (2020). Ethics of Public Administration in the Era of Technology Disruption and Government Innovation. Otoritas : Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.26618/ojip.v10i2.3219
61. Nalukui Simushi, & Bupe Getrude Mutono Mwanza. (2022). Factors Influencing Adherence to Ethical Values: A Case Study of Accountants in the Zambian Public Sector. International Journal of Engineering and Management Research, 12(4), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.31033/ijemr.12.4.8
62. Obong’o, S. O. (2019). Ethics and Integrity in Public Service Leadership: A Case for Promoting Meritocratic, Professional and Neutral Service Context of Public Service Ethics and Integrity Reforms in Kenya. African Journal of Public Administration and Management, 1(1).
63. Oreiro, J. D. C. (2022). Does misallocation or inefficient allocation of resources explain uneven development? Some considerations from the literature of economic growth and development. Researchgate, April. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.22913.12646
64. Perlman, B. J., Reddick, C. G., & Zheng, Y. (2020). Agency vs. Stewardship theory in local government contracted mobile apps: Analysis of survey data on user satisfaction in China. In International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age (Vol. 7, Issue 4). https://doi.org/10.4018/IJPADA.20201001.oa2
65. Pomeranz, E. F., & Stedman, R. C. (2020). Measuring good governance: piloting an instrument for evaluating good governance principles. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 22(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2020.1753181
66. Rajiah, K., & Venaktaraman, R. (2019). The effect of demographic and social factors on the decision-making of community pharmacists in ethical dilemmas. Journal of Research in Pharmacy Practice, 8(3), 174. https://doi.org/10.4103/jrpp.jrpp_19_15
67. Respicio, A. (2024). Administrative Complaints in the Philippine Barangay System.
68. Reyes, D. (2019). Decentralized Urban Governance. Local Government Quarterly. November.
69. Sacramento, N. J. J. C. A. M. (2024). Foregrounding Marginalized Voices: Evaluating Deliberative Capacities in the Policy Process of the Agricultural Sector in Siquijor, Philippines. 15(1), 37–48. https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/socialresearchjournal/article/view/270380
70. Santander, R., Osma, S., & Balete, K. (2024). LEVEL OF COMPETENCIES OF BARANGAY OFFICIALS OF BARANGAY DINAGAAN, LEGAZPI CITY: AN ASSESSMENT FOR THE PERIOD 2018-2023 THE PROBLEM. 15(1), 37–48.
71. Shiju, R., Thankachan, S., Akhil, A., Sharma, P., & Bennakhi, A. (2023). A Survey Study on Knowledge and Attitude Toward the Ethics Committee and Research Ethical Practices Among Researchers From Kuwait. Science and Engineering Ethics, 29(6), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-023-00458-w
72. Shinohara, S. (2023). Bad government performance and citizens’ perceptions: A quasi-experimental study of local fiscal crisis. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 89(3), 722–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523211067085
73. Sicat, C. J. D., Mariano, M. A. P., Castillo, A. F. G., Adaro, C., & Maddawin, R. (2019). Assessment of the Philippine local government planning and budgeting framework. Philippine Institute for Development Studies, 2019(18). https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/240969
74. Sitchon, M. G., Ramos, V. B., & Alicuman, W. (2024). Implementation Of Transparency and Accountability in Barangay. 3(1), 1–10.
75. Soriano, J. S. J., & Mercado, R. D. (2023). Collaborative Practices of LGUs and NGOs in Healthcare Services : Basis for Formulation of Strategic Plan. 7(1), 79–92.
76. Sulasula, J. (2024). Best Practices in Barangay Governance: A Case Study of the Zamboanga Peninsula Region, Philippines. Economic Policy, 2116, 0–33. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/123107
77. Tabanao, Grace, E., Villafuerte, Salindo, Pantalita, P., Ubat, Salindo, J., & Keziah, J. (2025). Leadership and Resilience : Evaluating Rural Development Training for Barangay Leadership and Resilience : Evaluating Rural Development Training for Barangay Officials. February. https://doi.org/10.69569/jip.2024.0690
78. Tenorio, C. B. (2025). EXPLORING MEANINGFUL CHILD PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNANCE : INSIGHTS FROM BARANGAY LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS IN SOUTHERN EXPLORING MEANINGFUL CHILD PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNANCE : INSIGHTS. January.
79. Torda, G. (2024). Strengthening Local Governance : Overcoming Barriers to Equitable Development in the Philippines Strengthening Local Governance : Overcoming Barriers to Equitable Development in the Philippines. November. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.34831.39843
80. Tsai, L. L., McMurry, N., & Rajeswaran, S. (2024). The Effect of Civic Leadership Training on Citizen Engagement and Government Responsiveness: Experimental Evidence from the Philippines. Other, January. https://www.makingallvoicescount.org/publication/effect-civic-leadership-training-citizen-engagement-government-responsiveness-experimental-evidence-philippines/
81. Valdez, C. B. (2024). A Systematic Review of Leadership and Governance : Evaluating Barangay Officials ’ Performance in Sablan Municipality. 116–125.
82. Victoria, D. S., Sheila, A., Rosario, C. Del, Vilma, O., & Gregory, W. L. (2022). Good Governance Principles in Decision-making of a State Higher Education Institution’s Governing Body. 73–100.
83. Yang, C., Gu, M., & Albitar, K. (2024). Government in the digital age: Exploring the impact of digital transformation on governmental efficiency. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 208(August), 123722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123722
84. Zaitul, Z., Ilona, D., & Novianti, N. (2023). Good Governance in Rural Local Administration. Administrative Sciences, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13010019