UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
A CASE STUDY ON MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
In February 2000, the Vice President for Planning and Finance (the VP) was informed that the CY
2000 budget was cut by the Senate. Details of the budget show that there is a decrease for the
Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE) for both the academic programs and the UP system administration (UPSA), as well as for the six (6) autonomous campuses of UP, including UP
College of Baguio.

Academic Programs & UPSA
Autonomous Campuses

CY 2000
403,561,000.00
250,000,000.00
653,561,000.00

%
62%
38%

CY 1999
602,124,000.00
313,801,000.00
915,925,000.00

%
66%
34%

Decrease
(198,563,000.00)
(63,801,000.00)
(262,364,000.00)

% Decrease
-33%
-20%
-29%

While reviewing the CY 1999 MOOE allocation, she determined that allocating it based on the number of students alone is not an efficient way to do so. Hence, she called on the Chancellors of the different autonomous campuses and the Dean of UP Baguio to discuss with them the reduced budget and how will the reduced budget for autonomous campuses be allocated more effectively. Each
Chancellor gave his/her own allocation method, taking into consideration the specific needs of his/her campus. Moreover, the VP knows that aside from the Chancellors, other parties are also involved in the budget allocation, such as the Congress, which is politically-driven.
The VP also asked the officers from the Budget Office as to how the allocation was done in the previous years. She determined that the MOOE allocation was done using the following assumptions:
a. Campuses with laboratory requirements are given priority in the MOOE allocation;
b. While there may be an existing allocation plan, the President of the University can still influence the proposed budget based on his personal thrusts, and the units will have to integrate the President’s priorities in the budget;
c. Budget should be allocated effectively across the University’s three main functions namely teaching, research, and extension services.
Additionally, the VP obtained the following information that will guide her in preparing a MOOE allocation formula that will provide equitable distribution of the funds:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

Number of students per campus;
Number of students with laboratory subjects, per campus;
Number of faculty, and research and extension personnel staff (REPS);
Number of faculty, REPS, and admin personnel;
Number of buildings; and,
Number of campuses

ANG | DY | DE CASTRO | FRANCISCO | REVILLOZA | PETRANEK

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
A CASE STUDY ON MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING
MANAGEMENT’S DILEMMA
The VP has the following concerns regarding the preparation of the MOOE allocation formula:
a. The proposed MOOE allocation formula may not be able to exactly cater each and every need of each campus since allocating on per need basis will be tedious; and,
b. The President may not approve the allocation formula because his personal thrusts are not aligned with the VP’s computation;
Hence, the VP is at a crossroads on what MOOE allocation formula will best satisfy the needs and preferences of the parties involved in the budget setting process.
GUIDE QUESTIONS
The following guide questions will be addressed in the course of the study:
a. What is MOOE and what are the common items/cost classifications included therein?
b. What are the critical variables that should be considered in allocating the MOOE budget to each constituent university of UP?
c. How will the additional information be integrated into the proposed allocation plan?
d. Why proper MOOE allocation should be made and pursued despite the possible conflict of interest with the President’s personal thrusts?
ANALYSIS
a. What is MOOE and what are the common items/cost classifications included therein?
MOOE is one of the major classifications of government expenditures, the others being
Personal Services, Capital Outlays, and Financial Expenses. These are incurred in order to carry out the necessary day-to-day expenditures of government agencies, as well as, state universities and colleges (SUC). It includes the following expenses:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)

Travelling expenses;
Communication services;
Repairs and maintenance;
Transportation services;
Utilities such as water and electricity;
Supplies;
Trainings and Seminars;
Audit;
Non-cash expenses such as bad debts and depreciation; and,
Other MOOE

ANG | DY | DE CASTRO | FRANCISCO | REVILLOZA | PETRANEK

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
A CASE STUDY ON MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING
b. What are the critical variables that should be considered in allocating the MOOE budget to each constituent university of UP?
To identify the critical variables needed in allocating the MOOE budget, it is important to know that the SUCs follow the so-called “Normative Funding” system (as detailed in DBMCHED Joint Circular No. 2, Series of 2004, dated 3 August 2004). Normative funding refers to “the application of a set of prescribed objective criteria and norms that are designed to promote and reward quality instruction, research and extension services, as well as financial prudence and responsibility.”
The concept of normative funding, therefore, provides a clear picture on how individual items in the budget are prioritized for allocation. As indicated at the start of the study, UP has three main functions: Teaching, Research, and Extension. Therefore, the relative weights of these functions, together with their respective cost drivers, will serve as the basis for the allocation formula to be prepared by the VP.
Also, administrative variables should also be taken into consideration in the allocation formula.
Depreciation, property taxes, rent, and other expenses related to capital expenditures should also be allocated based on a different cost driver (e.g. no. of buildings).
c. How will the additional information be integrated into the proposed allocation plan?
In accordance with the joint circular, the following are the prescribed weights for each function: Source: http://www.ched.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Normative-Funding.pdf

However, while the case does not present in detail the sub-components of each function, the
Group decided to classify the additional information obtained by the VP based on the categories as presented above.
Additional Information Obtained
No. of Students (in general)
No. of Students (with laboratory subjects)
No. of faculty (without REPS)
No. of REPS
No. of admin personnel
No. of buildings

Category
General Institutional Support
Quality Teaching
Research
Other services

ANG | DY | DE CASTRO | FRANCISCO | REVILLOZA | PETRANEK

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
A CASE STUDY ON MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING
Since extension services were not presented in detail, the 5% will be allocated for the other
MOOE expenses other than the primary classifications above.
The Group will use the factor-rating method in determining the overall percentage distribution for each campus based on the given weights above (please refer to Annexes A and B).
The Group’s analysis based on the factor-rating method provided a more equitable basis of allocating MOOE based on the actual data being presented by the University as regards to the different autonomous campuses. The grouping of actual data based on its proper category in the Normative Funding system provided a better picture on the actual performance of each campuses. Moreover, if the same factor rating was used in CY 1999 (assuming that the ratings are consistent from the previous year and normative funding system was consistently used during the previous years), it can be inferred that Diliman, Los Banos, and Baguio campuses were allocated less at the benefit of other campuses. This inefficiency will prove to be costly, especially since MOOE is being considered in the determination of fees (e.g. tuition, miscellaneous) to be charged to the students.
Other data not included in the case can also be used in determining a better MOOE allocation formula: (1) Actual MOOE spending of the autonomous units, however, inefficiencies in spending can be erroneously incorporated in the next year’s allocation plan;
(2) Each campus’ financial highlights obtained through their basic set of financial statements as well as from their internal management reports (e.g. ratio analysis). With this, MOOE will be allocated more on cost-efficient autonomous units and will encourage each unit to improve their operations
d. Why proper MOOE allocation should be made and pursued despite the possible conflict of interest with the President’s personal thrusts?
A budget prepared based on the allocation plan prepared above will have the following advantages: (1) A budget computed based on detailed data (e.g. factor rating) is beneficial because there is high probability that the units will meet the anticipated costs, thus, avoiding the risk of under or overspending. It is important to note that costs, especially MOOE, are incorporated in the determination of the fees to be charged to students, hence, any inefficiencies in the budget-setting process can be costly in terms of losing student market.
(2) Cost-sharing among autonomous units are encouraged. While they are autonomous, they have the same mandate and are under the same system, thus, it is justifiable to undertake a cost-sharing strategy. This will maximize the use of idle funds on other campuses.
However, this should be taken in a perspective that all units should be competitive enough,

ANG | DY | DE CASTRO | FRANCISCO | REVILLOZA | PETRANEK

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
A CASE STUDY ON MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING so as to avoid the well-off campuses be burdened by the inefficiencies of the others. (Apit and Mondragon, 2011)
(3) Equitable charging of fees to students as a result of an effective budget-setting and cost allocation process will help the University maintain its status as of the premier educational institutions in the country, and at the same time, will attract more students seeking quality education. - Nothing follows -

ANG | DY | DE CASTRO | FRANCISCO | REVILLOZA | PETRANEK