Report on VALUES AND ETHICS [Special Problems in Public Administration]

The discussion of values and ethics in public administration usually centers on the bureaucracy, “a type of organization designed to accomplish large-scale administration tasks by systematically coordinating the work of many individuals”. Such description quoted by Leveriza from Peter Blau’s “Bureaucracy in Modern Society”, while done in 1955, remains a good definition of bureaucracy. It implies that government has much to do – its tasks are multifarious, that systems are employed to deliver services efficiently, and effectively, and that the various tasks are performed by a large number of organized civil servants.

To analyze the bureaucracy, Leveriza made use of Coser and Rosenberg’s characteristics of an organization:

1. Positions and offices are clearly defined. In principle, all positions and offices exist independently of the incumbent. The incumbent perform their roles during official hours according to contract and are personally free to do as they wish after such hours.
2. The hierarchical arrangement of authority, rights, and obligations are specifically drawn. Levels of superordination and subordination with their corresponding salaries and other privileges and responsibilities are defined. Protocol and communication channels are observed.
3. The personnel are selected on the basis of technical or professional qualifications. Competitive entry-level exams and periodic performance evaluations are administered.
4. There are defined rules governing official behavior. Philippine civil servants, for instance, adhere to a Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees.
5. Security of tenure and the pursuit of a career with promotion in the hierarchy are assured. For the Philippines, the Civil Service Law is the relevant reference for this characteristic.

Through the years, various new concepts and know-hows have been employed in running our government but these innovations commonly adhere to the above-mentioned “characteristics”. For a time, there was “daylight saving hours and flexi-time” observed but the minimum number of working hours (40 hours per week) remains unchanged. In some government agencies, work rotation is employed but with no changes in positions and rank and rates of salaries.

At about the same time that Coser and Rosenberg had completed their book “Sociological Theory” where the abovementioned characteristics of an organization were derived, Dr. Onofre D. Corpuz, a past president of the University of the Philippines completed his study of the actual operations of Philippine bureaucracy. His findings are summarized as follows; along the way, this reporter will attempt to check if such findings remain relevant today:

1. Vulnerability to nepotism. Underlying Philippine bureaucracy are substructures of small kinship groups. Members of family groups by consanguinity, by affinity, and by ritual kinship (or compadrazgo) were found employed in government. Today there are still Kamaganak, Inc. even in the lowest echelons of government. In addition, there remain the regional varsities and brotherhoods. Brothers, sisters, and all forms of relatives are recruited or appointed to various positions within government agencies or within the bureaucracy, depending on the “expertise” of the recruit or appointee.

2. Perpetuation of the spoils system. The “unclassified and temporary positions” in the Civil Service Law became convenient instruments for nepotism, patronage and influence peddling. The more common positions today are “co-terminous”, and confidential and technical assistants, and “senior managing consultants”.
3. Apathetic public reaction to bureaucratic misconduct. Public interest published reports of official misconduct in the 50s waned and the phenomenon was interpreted by the public as a concomitant result of the increasing complexity of government, a method of political harassment, and a natural way of fulfilling political promises to the unemployed and underemployed segments of the population. There are now more and more organized NGOs that do the exposes, themselves, or who openly support “resign movements”. Also, there are organized watchdog groups that monitor, for instance, the implementation of public works projects and whose reports find their way in the mainstream of official acquisition/ purchasing and monitoring  efforts.
4. Availability of external peaceful means of correcting bureaucratic weaknesses. Devices, such as constitutional rights and privileges (freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, civic action), have been used for rectifying the defects and misdeeds of bureaucracy. The freedoms remain enshrined in the basic law of the land and some “collective action”,  as called for by some bishops and ladies groups, are evident some Fridays along  Ayala Avenue.
5. Survival of historical experience. The Philippine bureaucracy traces it beginnings to the Spanish civil law and the American models of organizational structures and operational procedures. For a time, the Spanish model was used as a scapegoat for all the weaknesses of the Philippine bureaucracy.
6. Nonspecial typing of bureaucrats.  Philippine civil servants are not a clear-cut social class. They have varied family backgrounds, aspirations, educational training, and work experiences. Nowadays, many civil servants are made to explain their newfound wealth, while some are found living below poverty levels. Nevertheless, this bunch of government employees of varied family backgrounds, aspirations, educational training, and work experiences find commonality in across-the-board pay increases or in certain not too honest endeavours where these differences in personal circumstances find some good use.
7. Lack of independence from politics. Because of the absence of “class consciousness” and of a feeling of unity on the part of the Filipino bureaucrats and the stigma of post-World War II ill-repute, the Philippine bureaucracy’s “merit system” was made vulnerable to attack and tampering by politicians.  This reporter is clueless about the “stigma of post-World War II ill-repute” but 1955 when Dr. Corpuz made this characterization of the Philippine bureaucracy was within a period called the Perlas ng Silangan Generation when the country was enjoying favored nation status with the U.S., “stateside goods” were largely available and war reparations funds and goods were flowing into the country.
8. Essential instruments of social change. In spite of its weaknesses, the Philippine bureaucracy’s function in nation building will be as big, as complicated, and as demanding as the function of the whole society itself. Primarily, it will have to be a tool for innovations. The Philippine civil service, while it is not the Philippine bureaucracy, remains a source of inspiration and pride for the country; the former chairman of the Civil Service Commission is recipient of a World Bank award for battling “formidable obstacles to defend meritocracy and improve civil service pay”. Cited together with an Indian activist and the chair of Nigeria’s Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, they were lauded as having clearly translated their ideals into innovative public sector reforms. The Philippines, incidentally, is a beneficiary of a huge World Bank loan for use in combating graft and corruption.

Meantime, so-called Filipino value and ethic patterns and bad habits and vices continue to pervade the Philippine bureaucracy, also with much thanks to the patronizing beneficiaries and clients of government services and programs.

Having been a government employee for close to 27 years, this reporter believes that there remain more good government employees than rotten ones and that many more government employees have remained honest, dedicated and industrious even if their superiors were not.

The compadrazgo and pakikisama  systems remain as positive values that allow co-employees to do their work better as scarce resources are shared, or when co-employees would pitch in to do someone else’s work when the assignee has to rush home for an emergency.

The sense of pity or awa is seen in the light of compassion and human behavior as in a superior’s understanding of the personal problems of low-peforming subordinates.

That the Filipino is authoritarian may be a good thing. Filipino bosses are said to act as The Boss: wanting to do things only his way, stifling initiative, self-reliance and the sharing of ideas especially with the lower ranks. This could however be a good stance for a superior when the staff is made up of not-so-young, not-so-idealistic, and not-so-new graduates but who continually view their government employment as mere training ground for greener pastures (wherever) and themselves, with their boss, as a debating society.

All told, there is, in the Philippine bureaucracy, the good, the bad and the ugly but there are much, much more who are good, much, much less who are bad, much, much more who are true and much, much more who are beautiful at heart. But many of the good and the true and the beautiful are getting older or are leaving government earlier than usual. We can only pray that civil service reforms continue, and that borrowed funds from the World Bank for anti-graft and corruption and integrity development are not messed up with. 

Reference: “Public Administration: The Business of Government” 2^nd Edition, Jose P. Leveriza, National Book Store, 2005