Globe Telecom wants the Philippines’ local governments to move faster on the paperwork that sits between a telecom plan and a working cell tower. In its latest public appeal, Globe asked local government units (LGUs) to rationalize fees and expedite permits for telecommunications infrastructure. The message came from Globe President and CEO Ernest Cu, and it lands on a problem the company has described for years: building one tower takes too long.
Globe’s own estimate is blunt. One cellular tower needs an average of eight months and more than 25 permits before it can go live. National reforms have chipped away at that number, but Globe says the gains stop at the city and municipal level, where requirements, ordinances and fees still vary from one LGU to the next. Context.ph also published a report on October 25 headlined “Slow LGU permitting still holding back telco rollout, even as reforms show early progress,” a sign that the story is moving across Philippine outlets.
This matters beyond one carrier. Towers, small cells and the radio gear bolted onto them are physical hardware, and that hardware cannot ship to a site until a stack of approvals clears. Tower real estate is also a live market story in other countries, as our coverage of AT&T’s 5.6% drop on news of SpaceX eyeing 80,000 cell sites shows. Below, we break down what Globe is asking for, what the reforms have delivered, where the friction remains, and what the numbers do and do not prove.
Don't miss new tech stories on Google
Add Tech Insider once in the Google app and our stories appear in your news suggestions.
What Globe Is Asking Local Governments to Do
The request has two parts. First, Globe wants LGUs to rationalize the fees they charge for telecom infrastructure. Second, it wants them to expedite the permits that let a carrier build, install and switch on a tower. Both asks target the local layer of government, which issues the final approvals even after national agencies have signed off.
Cu framed the appeal around a presidential order. He said Globe hopes LGUs will honor the order to the letter and enable the enhancement and expansion of connectivity across the country, rather than hinder it. His exact words, as recorded by Globe: “We hope that LGUs will honor the President’s order to the letter and enable, instead of hinder, the enhancement and expansion of connectivity across the country.”
The order in question is Executive Order No. 32, which streamlined and expedited permitting for telecommunications infrastructure. Globe is not asking for a new law. It is asking local officials to apply the rules that already exist, uniformly, and without adding extra steps on top.
That distinction shapes the whole debate. A carrier lobbying for new national legislation faces a long fight in Congress. A carrier asking hundreds of LGUs to follow an executive order faces a different problem, one of enforcement, training and local politics. Globe’s public statement signals that it sees the second problem as the bigger obstacle right now.
The Eight-Month, 25-Permit Tower Problem
Globe estimates that building one cellular tower requires an average of eight months and more than 25 permits. Those two figures explain why carriers talk about permitting as a bottleneck rather than a formality. A tower is a small construction project with a fixed physical footprint, yet it can spend most of its lifecycle waiting in queues.
Consider what eight months means for a network planner. A site identified in January might not carry traffic until the following September. Any capacity forecast built on that site has to assume a long gap between decision and delivery. Equipment orders, crew scheduling and backhaul links all have to wait, or run on guesses about when approvals will land.
The 25-permit count adds a second layer of cost. Each permit carries its own paperwork, its own fee schedule and its own office, and a single missing document can send an application back to the start. Globe has said that additional fees and extended approval times remain barriers to tower construction. Those costs do not vanish. They show up in the price of building and running a network.
Globe’s General Counsel, Froilan M. Castelo, has described the timeline from the carrier’s side. He said the company needs more cell sites to keep up with demand, and that deployment is only the final step to a long permitting process. In his words: “We need more cell sites to keep up with the demand, but deployment is only the final step to a long permitting process.”
What Executive Order No. 32 Changed
Executive Order No. 32 is the national reform at the center of Globe’s appeal. According to the Presidential Communications Office issuance, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. signed it on July 4, 2023. It streamlines permits, licenses, clearances, certificates and authorizations for telecommunications and internet infrastructure, and it covers national agencies, government-owned or controlled corporations and LGUs.
Three features stand out in the order as described in public records. It calls for a one-stop-shop approach to construction permits. It sets a zero-backlog policy for covered applications. And it allows an application to be deemed approved when the prescribed period runs out, provided the applicant submitted all required documents and paid the fees. The order also applies beyond construction, reaching installation, repair, operation and maintenance work.
The deemed-approved clause is the sharpest tool in the package. In theory, an LGU that sits on a complete application loses the power to block it by inaction. In practice, carriers still have to prove that their filings were complete and their fees paid, and Globe’s continued complaints show the tool has not ended the delays.
EO 32 followed an earlier framework. Joint Memorandum Circular (JMC) No. 01-2020 was described as cutting permit processing time to a maximum of 20 days. The 2023 order built on that foundation and pulled more agencies under one streamlined process. Globe’s current appeal suggests the framework is sound on paper and uneven on the ground.
Globe’s 20% Improvement, Read Carefully
Globe reported a 20% improvement in permit processing and issuance from 2022 to mid-2024 following implementation of EO 32. InsiderPH covered the figure under a headline that pairs the gain with a caveat: some LGUs are lagging. That pairing is the honest reading of the data.
A 20% gain is real, and it is also modest next to an eight-month baseline. If the improvement applied evenly to an eight-month wait, it would still leave a tower waiting well over six months. That arithmetic is our illustration, not a Globe claim, because the supplied records do not say which metric the 20% applies to or how Globe measured it. Readers should treat it as a directional signal.
Michelle Ora, Vice President and Head of Strategic Partnerships and Programs at Globe, credited the national government for the progress. She said Globe is grateful for efforts to streamline the permitting process, and commended the President for issuing Executive Order No. 32. Her statement: “We are grateful for the government’s efforts to streamline the permitting process. In particular, we commend the President for issuing Executive Order No. 32, which has helped speed up the issuance of permits.”
The structure of Globe’s message is deliberate. It thanks the national level, then points at the local level. That framing keeps the carrier on good terms with the Palace while putting pressure on LGUs that have not caught up.
JMC 01-2020 and the 16-Day Claim
The strongest numbers in the record come from the permitting reforms taken together. Under those reforms, telco-tower permit processing was reported as reduced to approximately 16 days from an average of eight months, while documentary requirements fell from 86 to 35. JMC No. 01-2020 sets the ceiling at 20 days. The table below lines up the figures supplied to us.
| Metric | Figure | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Average time to build one tower | 8 months | Globe estimate |
| Permits needed per tower | More than 25 | Globe estimate |
| Maximum processing time under JMC 01-2020 | 20 days | Described as the reform ceiling |
| Reported processing time after reforms | About 16 days | Down from an average of eight months |
| Documentary requirements | 86 down to 35 | Reported under the same reforms |
| Permit processing and issuance gain | 20% | Globe, 2022 to mid-2024, after EO 32 |
Run the arithmetic on the headline claim and the gap looks huge. Eight months is roughly 240 days, so a move to 16 days would be a cut of about 93%. Documentary requirements falling from 86 to 35 is a drop of about 59%. Those are our calculations from the reported figures, and they sit awkwardly next to Globe’s 20% improvement.
The numbers can all be true at once because they measure different things. The 16-day figure describes processing time under the reformed process. The 20% figure describes Globe’s overall experience across all its permit applications from 2022 to mid-2024. The eight-month figure is an average that includes LGUs still running the old way. A carrier’s real-world wait is a blend, and Globe’s complaint is that the slowest LGUs drag the blend back toward the old baseline.
Why eBOSS and Local Ordinances Still Slow Towers
Globe names several barriers that survive the national reforms. The Electronic Business One Stop Shop (eBOSS) is a digital platform for business permitting, and its rollout is uneven across LGUs. Varying LGU requirements and ordinances add inconsistency. Extra fees and long approval times finish the job.
Uneven eBOSS adoption
Globe said implementation remains uneven because some LGUs have not adopted eBOSS. A carrier filing in an eBOSS-enabled city submits one set of documents through one portal. A carrier filing in a city without it may visit several offices and carry paper between them. Multiply that by hundreds of sites and the difference in labor and time becomes large.
Fees and approval time
Globe also points to additional fees and prolonged approval times as cost drivers. Fees matter for a simple reason. A tower’s economics depend on the revenue it can carry, and every fee added before switch-on raises the revenue threshold needed to justify the site. In lower-density areas, where margins are thinner, that threshold can decide whether a tower gets built at all.
| Barrier named by Globe | What it does | National reform aimed at it |
|---|---|---|
| eBOSS not adopted everywhere | Forces manual, multi-office filing | EO 32 one-stop-shop approach |
| Varying LGU requirements | Breaks standard application packages | JMC 01-2020 timelines |
| Local ordinances | Adds site-specific steps | EO 32 coverage of LGUs |
| Additional fees | Raises cost per site | No fee cap in the supplied records |
| Extended approval times | Delays switch-on | Zero-backlog policy, deemed approval |
Five LGUs Running One-Stop Shops
Not every local government is slow. Globe cited Antipolo City, Bacoor City, Calamba City, Marikina and Navotas as LGUs using a one-stop-shop (OSS) business permitting process. These five serve as the carrier’s examples of what the order is meant to produce.
| LGU | Type | Status cited by Globe |
|---|---|---|
| Antipolo City | City | Uses OSS business permitting |
| Bacoor City | City | Uses OSS business permitting |
| Calamba City | City | Uses OSS business permitting |
| Marikina | City | Uses OSS business permitting |
| Navotas | City | Uses OSS business permitting |
The supplied records do not give per-LGU turnaround times, so we cannot rank these cities against each other or against slower ones. What the list does show is that a working model exists inside the Philippines. A carrier that can point to five LGUs with an OSS process has a stronger case when it asks the rest to follow.
That is also the strategic logic of Globe’s appeal. Peer pressure between neighboring cities can move faster than a national mandate, since mayors watch what nearby jurisdictions offer investors. By naming cities that cooperate, Globe quietly marks the ones that have not.
Why Permits Are a Hardware Problem
Permitting reads like a legal topic, yet its effects land on hardware. A tower site carries antennas, radios, power systems, batteries and backhaul links. Every one of those items is ordered, shipped and installed against a site schedule. When the permit slips, the equipment sits in a warehouse or gets reassigned, and the network that depended on it stays congested.
The industry is also pushing more intelligence into the radio layer. Our report on the NVIDIA and Nokia AI-RAN push, which signed up nearly 20 telcos, shows operators betting on new radio hardware. That bet pays off only at sites that exist. A faster radio is useless at a tower that has not cleared its approvals.
Hardware readers tracking network buildouts can find the wider picture in our hardware coverage hub. In our reading, Globe’s case is that approvals, not equipment, are the limiting step for new sites.
For Globe, that translates into a plain trade-off. In general, tower budgets run on a yearly cycle, and money earmarked for new sites can only be spent when permits arrive. Faster approvals let the same budget build more sites per year, while slow approvals push spending into later quarters and delay revenue.
What Globe Executives Have Said About Permits
Globe’s complaint is not new. Executives have repeated a version of it across several years, and the older statements show how much has and has not changed. The quotes below come from Globe’s own newsroom.
During the pandemic-era debate over the extended Bayanihan Act, Castelo said: “For years, our network expansion plans have been hampered by bureaucracy among LGUs and homeowners associations. This has been the main reason why building cell sites even before the COVID-19 crisis has been very difficult and slow. Hopefully, under the extended Bayanihan Act, things will change for the better.”
In a 2021 statement, Gil Genio, Globe’s Chief Technology and Information Officer, linked easier permits to a build target. He said: “We would like to thank the government for all its support, specifically in downsizing the requirements or permits we needed especially in the second half of this year. With more and more LGUs following the lead of the national government in easing and streamlining the needed requirements, we are targeting to install at least 2,000 new sites.”
Castelo has also stressed the shared role of local governments. He said LGUs play a vital role in building the necessary ICT infrastructure to improve the internet and mobile experience of customers, in these words: “LGUs play a vital role in building the necessary ICT infrastructure to improve the internet and mobile experience of our customers.”
Read together, the statements trace a pattern. In 2021, Genio tied a 2,000-site target to LGUs following the national lead. In 2026, Cu is still asking LGUs to follow the national lead. The goal has stayed the same, and the follow-through has stayed incomplete. The decision to put the request in the CEO’s voice this time adds weight, though it does not change the legal tools available.
How the Philippines Compares With Other Markets
Permitting friction is a global theme, but each market shows it differently. In the UK, O2 has been pushing its network outward, and our piece on O2 5G+ reaching 219,000 people in Cumbria shows what a coverage rollout looks like once sites are live. In Ireland, the National Broadband Plan fibre rollout reached 3,890 premises in Kanturk, Cork, a public-subsidy model where the state itself carries part of the build risk.
The Philippine case differs in one respect. The decision-making is spread across a large number of local governments, each with its own ordinances, and a national order has to be applied by every one of them. That structure makes uniformity the central challenge, which is exactly the word Globe keeps returning to.
The comparison also shows what progress tends to look like. Three features help any market scale coverage: standard application packages, firm decision deadlines, and a single digital filing point. EO 32 points at all three. The open question is whether LGUs will deliver them, and whether the national government will enforce the deadlines against those that do not.
Market Impact: Who Gains if Permits Speed Up
The first beneficiary is any operator building towers, and Globe is the one asking. Shorter permit cycles let a carrier build more sites per budget year and cut the carrying cost of equipment waiting on approval. Rivals benefit from the same reforms, so a faster permit regime raises the floor for the whole industry rather than handing Globe an exclusive edge.
Tower companies and equipment suppliers sit next in line. Their order books depend on carriers’ site schedules, and permit delays push revenue to later quarters. Faster approvals smooth that flow. Consumers benefit last, but most visibly, through better signal in areas where congestion and coverage gaps persist.
Regulatory friction on telecom is a pattern we see elsewhere too. Our report on Starlink cutting off South Africa users under a 30% licensing rule shows how local rules can reshape network access overnight. And our look at Vodacom’s 5G reaching 260Mbps in South Africa shows the payoff when a carrier gets its sites and spectrum in place.
A caution applies. The supplied records do not establish that faster LGU permits will produce a specific amount or percentage of network expansion. Globe’s argument is directional: less friction should mean more sites, sooner. Nobody has published a number that converts permit days into new towers, and any such figure would depend on carrier budgets, land access and power availability as much as on paperwork.
Five Predictions for Telecom Permitting
The forecasts below are our analysis. They are not claims from Globe or the government.
- More public naming of LGUs. Globe already lists cities that run one-stop shops. Expect carriers to publish clearer lists of slow jurisdictions, since public comparison is cheap and effective.
- eBOSS adoption becomes the headline metric. Because Globe ties delays to LGUs that have not adopted eBOSS, the share of LGUs on the platform is the simplest number for regulators to track.
- Fee disputes outlast timing disputes. Timelines can be fixed by process. Fees are revenue for local governments, so they are harder to give up. Expect the fee argument to run longer.
- Rivals join the appeal. The reforms help every carrier. Other operators have little reason to stay quiet when a competitor makes the case.
- The 16-day claim gets tested. Journalists and industry groups will ask for LGU-level data. If the 16-day average hides wide variation, that variation becomes the next story.
None of these predictions depends on a single number. They follow from the structure of the dispute: a national order, many local implementers, and one carrier with a strong incentive to publicize the gap.
What We Still Do Not Know
Several details remain open. The supplied records do not confirm the exact publication date of Globe’s latest appeal. They do not give LGU-by-LGU processing times. They do not say how Globe measured its 20% improvement. And they do not tie the reforms to a specific number of new towers or a specific coverage gain.
GMA News Online has also carried a report headlined “Globe secures permits to build more cell sites,” which suggests permit wins are part of an ongoing pattern rather than a single event. We have not used that report for any figure here. Readers who want the full local detail should check the original Globe statement and the Context.ph report directly.
The safest summary is this. Reforms at the national level have cut processing time and paperwork, and Globe credits EO 32 with a 20% improvement. Gaps remain at the local level, and Globe wants LGUs to close them. Whether they do is the variable that will decide how fast the next wave of towers goes up.
FAQ: Globe, LGU Permits and Telecom Towers
What is Globe asking LGUs to do?
Globe is asking local government units to rationalize fees and expedite permits for telecommunications infrastructure. The call came from Globe President and CEO Ernest Cu.
How long does it take to build a cell tower in the Philippines?
Globe estimates that building one cellular tower requires an average of eight months and more than 25 permits. Under reforms reported by Philippine outlets, processing time was cut to approximately 16 days from that eight-month average.
What is Executive Order No. 32?
Executive Order No. 32 streamlined and expedited permitting for telecommunications infrastructure. According to the Presidential Communications Office issuance, it was signed on July 4, 2023, and it calls for one-stop-shop processing and a zero-backlog policy.
What is JMC No. 01-2020?
Joint Memorandum Circular No. 01-2020 was described as reducing permit processing time to a maximum of 20 days.
Did the reforms work?
Partly. Globe reported a 20% improvement in permit processing and issuance from 2022 to mid-2024 after EO 32. It also said implementation is uneven, with some LGUs lagging and barriers such as eBOSS adoption, varying requirements, extra fees and long approval times still in place.
Which LGUs use a one-stop-shop process?
Globe cited Antipolo City, Bacoor City, Calamba City, Marikina and Navotas as LGUs using a one-stop-shop business permitting process.
Will faster permits guarantee more towers?
No. The supplied records do not establish a specific amount or percentage of network expansion from faster LGU permits. Carrier budgets, land access and power supply also shape how many towers get built.
