Political science part vii

Part VII

Bureaucracy and the
Public Sector

Table of Contents
The Nature of Bureaucracy
Bureaucracy as Civil Service
Modern Concept of Bureaucracy
Goodnow and Wilson’s Public Administration
Public Administration as Weberian Bureaucracy
Theories of Bureaucracy
Liberal or Rational Administrative Model
Conservative or Power Bloc Model
New Right or Government Oversupply Model
Organization of Bureaucracy
Department
Divisions
Non- Department Public Body

..Table of Contents
The Case of QuaNGOs
Regulatory Agency
Representative Bureaucracy
Functions of Bureaucracy
Administration
Regulation and Licesing
Political Stability
Advisory Roles
The Issue of Accountability
Civil Service in the Philippines

..Table of Contents
Appointment in Civil Service Commission
Goals of the Civil Service
Prime Duty of Public Officers and Employees
Prohibitions on Double Compensation
Exemption on Dual Compensation
Category of Civil Service
The Rights of Civil Service Officials and Employees
Prohibitions Against Public Officer and Employee
Exception on Nepotism
Public Office a Public Trust

..Table of Contents
The Culture of Corruption
Bureaucracy in New Democracies
Ombudsman
Towards a New Public Management
Challenges in Public Sector
Government Facilitates Private Sector

The Nature of Bureaucracy
Bureaucracy would literally mean ‘rule by
officials’. The word bureau came from the old
French term, meaning a broad cloth used to
mantle a desk or an agency. Kiratos as
additional word to it is a Greek origin meaning
to rule. Nowadays, it is understood the
bureaucracy refers to the salaried officials who
conduct the business and intricates of
government (and the private sector) advising
on, and applying to, policy decisions.

Bureaucracy as Civil Service
Bureaucracy is also known as the civil service
working in operation or the “permanent
government”. It is also engaged in a moer
theoretical way as a model for organizing
public administration. It is one way to organize
public management in any political system of
this modern world. Byt the word bureaucracy is
often used with a negative or pejorative
connotation of a red tape or general distaste.

The civil service or bureaucracy is a major
institution in democratic governance. Its ideal
role in a democracy is described as follows:
The best bureaucracy is one whose expertise is utilized and
tamed for higher democratic purposes. The best imaginable
system is one where an executive with the will to
substantiate democracy is assisted by a bureaucracy that
believes in this goal and does all it can to achieve it. The
political leadership would hardly find a civil service ready-
made for its needs, the public interest not being something
out there just waiting to be picked from a tree. Therefore, it
must develop the democratic means that will enable the
bureaucracy to fulfill its mission, even as the latter from its
own view tries to modifty its policies-to align them with the
procedures and practices it is used to, to ensure that that it
will not be left out of benefits, and to proffer its own ideas of
where the society should be healed. (Carino, 1992 cited in
Abueva. 1998)

Modern Concept of Bureaucracy
In broad term, bureaucracy may also connote
public sector – the public service or public
administration. Public sector covers all
government employees whose salary and
compensation are paid directly or indirectly
from public funds. However, the public sector
includes several areas not normally regarded
as part of the civil service such as the armed
forces and the teachers. Civil servants are
those who worked inside the government and
are engaged in shaping or more commonly in
executing government policies.

Meanwhile, Albrow in Heywoods (2001)
identified seven modern concepts of
bureaucracy:

a. Bureaucracy as rational organization
b. Bureaucracy as organizational inefficiency
c. Bureaucracy as a rule by officials
d. Bureaucracy as public administration
e. Bureaucracy as administration by officials
f. Bureaucracy as organization
g. Bureaucracy as modern society

To some extent, these contrasting concepts and usages reflect the fact
that bureaucracy has been viewed differently by various academic
disciplines. Students of government for example would traditionally regard
bureaucracy in a literal sense to mean ‘rule by the bureau’ that is rules by
appointed officials. In the field of sociology, bureaucracy has typically
been understood as a particular type of organization, as a system of
administration rather than a system of government. In the social sciences,
in general, the concept of bureaucracy is used in a more specific and
neutral sense but refers to phenomena as different as rule by non-
elected officials, the administrative machinery of the government, and a
rational model of organization. Despite disagreements about its location
and character, it is generally accepted that abstract organization and rule-
governed professional organization are features of bureaucracy. There
are fewer difficulties with the use of the term bureaucracy in the field of
comparative government.

Bureaucracy therefore in this sense can be
found not only in democratic and authoritarian
states but also in trade unions, churches,
armed forces, business corporations and so
on. Still, yet the term bureaucracy, to many,
suggests a negative meaning that is
administrative inefficiency or in short, red tape.
It is a fact that the organization of bureaucracy
is one of the most pressing problems in
modern politics.

Goodnow and Wilson’s Public
Administration
The politics of ‘spoils became the precursor of
bureaucratic organization. Spoils system is a
term deriving from the phrase’ to the victor of the
spoils’. Spoils meant that successful candidates,
including newly elected presidents, were
expected to distribute government jobs who had
taken the trouble to support their campaigns. The
spoils system continued at least to employ and
control government employees. Recruitment is
based on merits and fitness and shuns
patronage politics.

Public Administration as
Weberian Bureaucracy
German sociologist, Max Weber (1864- 1920)
viewed bureaucracy as a unique form of
organization found not just in government but
also in all aspects of human organizations in a
society. Weber conceived of bureaucracy as a
structured hierarchy in which salaried officials
reached rational decisions by applying explicit
rules to the facts before them. For him,
bureaucracy is an ideal type.

He pointed out a set of principles that should
characterized bureaucratic organizations:
1. There is a firmly ordered hierarchy that ensures that lower
offices are supervised by specificed higher ones within a
chain of command;
2. Each office has its own area of expertise, specialization or
competence;
3. Authority is impersonal vested in the rules that govern official
business. Decisions are reached by methodically applying
rules to particular cases; where private motives are
impertinent;
4. People are recruited to serve in the bureaucracy on the basis
of metris and fitness;
5. Bureaucratic rules are strict enough to regulate personal
discretion;
6. The office in the bureaucracy is considered a public trust; and
7. Civil servants are salaried employees according to rank.

Weber central claim was the bureaucracy made
administration more efficient and rational; he
believed that it was the means by which modern
industrial efficiency could be brought to bear on civil
affairs.

For Weber, the ideal bureau was a fine piece of
administrative machinery. But like many modern
devises, bureaucracy brought the risks of dominating
its supposed masters. Weber’s contribution was
therefore to pose a question of relationship between
bureaucracy and democracy, an issue that agitated
much discussion about bureaucracy in the twentieth
century politics.

In Weber’s view the growth of bureaucratization
was further stimulated by the pressures of
democratization, which resulted in the weakening
of ideas of tradition and privilege, and replaced
them with a belief in an open competition and
meritocracy. He believed that the process of
rationalization would ensure that all industrial
societies whether nominally capitalist or
communist, would increasingly resemble each
other as they adopted bureaucratic form of
administration.

Theories of Bureaucracy
There are at least three treaties of bureaucracy
namely: rational-administrative model,
conservative power bloc model, and
bureaucratic oversupply or New Right model.
Liberal criticized bureaucracy for its want of
accountability and openness. Marxists
criticized it as an apparatus of class
subordination and the New Right theorists
regard bureaucracy as innately inefficient and
self-serving organization.

1. Liberal or Rational
Administrative Model
The inner characteristics of Weberian bureaucratic
framework is rationality in view of the fact that
bureaucratization manifests effective, efficient and
predictable social organization. Organizational
efficiency would be achieved through professional
civil service, once that is responsive and neutral in
dealing with its administrative functions.
Bureaucratization strengthens hierarchical authority
since directives and commands would be exercised
from top manager rather than from the masses. In
short, rational administrative model served a highly
stratified authoritarian society.

But Weberian model has also its potential
danger as cited by Heywoods (2001) in this
regard:
The domination of the bureaucratic ideal could
bring about a “pigeon-holding of the spirit” as
the social environment become increasingly
depersonalized and mechanical. Reason and
bureaucracy could therefore become “iron
cage” confining human passions and individual
freedoms.

Some political scientists argued that bureaucratic
agencies are fast becoming pressure groups
themselves. Far from being neutral and passive
administrators, bureaucrats are active participants in
the formation of laws and policies. Elected and
appointed executives are often entirely dependent on
the data and advise that career civil servants
provide, Leaders, in effect, become followers. Civil
servants frequently lobby legislators to get the
programs they want. It is a fact that it is too difficult to
control and manage bureaucracy ideally regardless
of where it is observed and practiced. That is the
reason why bureaucracy often connotes a negative
term.

2. Conservative or Power Bloc
Model
Power bloc model is a socialist discourse,
particularly Marxism. Karl Marx has not defined
his thesis on bureaucracy the way Weber
propagated his bureaucratic theory. To Marx.
Bureaucracy is somehow associated to the
specific requirement of capitalism. He sees
bureaucracy as an instrument through which
bourgeoisie interests are promoted on one
hand, and the capitalist system defended on
the other hand.

The view of bureaucracy is rather
conservative. As Ralp Miliband, a neo-
Marxist, puts it in this wise:
Top civil servants are conservative in the sense they are
within their elected sphere, the conscious and unconscious
allies of existing economic and social elites. This happens
for a number of reasons. Most obviously despite the formal
requirements of political neutrality, top civil servants share
the same educational and social background as
industrialists and business managers, and are therefore
likely to share their ideas, prejudices and general outlook.
The possibility that rising civil servants may harbor radical or
socialist sympathies is also encountered by recruitment and
promotion procedures designed to ensure their ideological
soundness (Heywoods, 2001)

The failure perhaps of Marxist conception about
bureaucracy is that it regards the problem of
bureaucratization in socialist states in a minimal
consideration. For Marx and Engels, “this problem was
effectively discounted by the assumption that the
bureaucracy, with the state, would wither away as a
classless, communist society came into existence. This
left Marxism open to criticism by social scientists such
as Weber and Michels who argues that bureaucracy is
a broader social phenomenon, and one that socialist
emphasizes on common ownership and planning could
only strengthen it. The experience of the twentieth
century communism made it impossible for Marxist
thinkers to continue ignoring this problem”.

3. New Right or Government
Oversupply Model
The emergence of rational choice and public choice theory
ushered in a new understanding and concept of bureaucracy
based on the sightings of the New Right theorists. They believed
that bureaucracy was simply inefficient and overly self-serving.

William Nickanen argued that senior bureaucrats regardless of
their image as public servants are primarily motivated by career
self-interest and thus seek an expansion of the agency in which
they work and an increase in its budget. This is because
bureaucratic growth guarantees job security, expands promotion
prospects, improves salaries and brings top officials greater
power, patronage and prestige. For New Right advocates, they
also believed that quite simply, “unless bureaucratic power can be
checked or circumvented, any attempt to pursue free market
policies is doomed to failure”.

Organization of Bureaucracy
The organization of a government bureaucracy
includes the department, the divisions or
bureaus, and the non- departmental public
body.

1.Department
The first important organizational units of bureaucracy
or big government is the department. A government
department or ministry refers to an administrative unit
over which a minister exercises direct management
control. It is usually structured as a formal hierarchy
and often established by a statue. In most countries,
many departments form part the stable core of central
government. They pursue the traditional tasks of
government; example, finance, defense, law and order,
foreign affairs, education, social welfare and so on.

2. Divisions
The second organizational unit comprises the
divisions, sections or bureaus into which
departments are divided. These are operating
units of the department or government which
are responsible to the ministers but often with
considerable autonomy in practice. They are
also known as the powerhouse of the
departments where expertise resides and in
which detailed policy is both formulated and
implemented.

3. Non- Department Public Body
The third unit is the non-departmental public
body that “operates at one or more entities that is
semi-independent from the government, in an
attempt to provide management flexibility and
political independence. Sometimes called
quangos or the quasi non- governmental
organizations. These some detached
organizations combine public funding with
operational autonomy. They are growing in
numbers and in significance in modern political
systems”.

The Case of QuaNGOs
Quangos over bodies with executive functions of varying
kinds, as well as advising committees and tribunals. The
quasi-autonomous status of quangos means that they are
part of arms-length government. Their non- governmental
character means that they are not part of non-elected state.
Quangos have positive advantages: they reduce the burden
of work of official government departments and agencies
and allow government to call on the experience, expertise
and specialist knowledge of outside advisers. However, they
are likewise criticize for they weaken democratic
accountability by reducing the ability of representative
institutions to oversee the working of government and they
expand the range of ministerial patronage and so contribute
to the centralization of power.

Advancing Weberian’s concept of bureaucracy, it
shows that departments are planned or
organized usually in a clear chain of command or
in hierarchical authority. A minister, other called it
a secretary, sits at the apex of government
organization but often assisted in large
departments by junior ministers or
undersecretaries with responsibilities for specific
divisions. A senior civil servant is responsible for
administration and for forming the crucial bridge
between political and bureaucratic levels.

Meanwhile in the Philippines, government
owned or controlled corporations or the
regulatory boards or agencies are non-
departmental public bodies. Such
corporations occupy an ambivalent position
created and funded by the government but
in contrast to divisions within a department
they are free from day to day ministerial
control. Once appointed by the government,
the members of such bodies are expected
to operate with considerable authority.

Therefore, for some reasons non-departmental
public bodies are established:

a. To operate with leverage or more flexibility
than would be acceptable for a division of a
ministry or department;
b. To provide protection or (semi) independence
from political influence;
c. To acknowledge the professional or
technical/skilled states of staff employed in
them; and
d. To become a mechanism of the government
as a response to a short term pressure to do
something about a problem.

Regulatory Agency
Regulatory agencies or bodies are the most important non-
departmental public bodies. They refer to organizations that
are charged (normally by statute) with regulating not just
newly privatized sectors but also any aspect of social life
where a public interest is held to be at sake such as natural
monopoly like electrical supply, water provision,
broadcasting and so forth. According to Harrop (2001)
newly privatized companies are subject to detailed
regulation especially when –as with telecommunication
companies- they inherit a dominant market share. The
hope, at least, partly reflected in reality, is that regulatory
agencies will act as a buffer between the government and
the regulated bodies reducing the excessive interventions
which held back many government corporations.

In organizational and administrative
setup, to some extent managerial help us
organize better public administration.

Therefore, we should organized our public
administration in a manner that would
maximize come desirable traits:
a. Honest, accurate translation of political leaders’ decisions into more
specifically designed policies. This addresses the problem of making
sure that political leaders control at least the broad outlines of policy.
b. Flexibility in dealing with special cases at the point of delivery. While
administrators should be obedient to top directions from above, but
they should not be slavishly obedient.
c. But this flexibility should not be used arbitrarily. Arbitrary action or
actions taken capriciously. Without regard to the truly important
circumstances of a case.
d. Feedback of expert advises active imagination and assertive inquiry
on the part of the administrators. It is hope that administrators will
know more about their areas of work than anyone else and that they
will not hang back from sharing their expertise with the public and
with their political leaders.
e. Efficiency. It is hoped that all of these can be done without costing
too much.

However, it is to be stressed that it
follows there is no one best way to
organize public administration. Various
modes of organization will emphasize
one or another of these good things.
Therefore, under varying circumstances,
varying mode may be preferred.

Representative Bureaucracy
It has been observed that the bureaucracy in most countries
is unrepresented, meaning the bureaucracy is not staffed by
the representation of all sectors of the society. In Western
world, the typical high-level civil servant is a male graduate,
form an urban background and from a middle or upper class
family that was itself active in public affairs (Aberlach,etal.,
1981).

In many European countries with a codifies law tradition, a
legal training is common among higher bureaucrats.
Therefore, a particular form of technical expertise in law. In
Germany alone, over 60% of top with only 20% lawyers in
the bureaucracy.

The theory of representative bureaucracy
claims that a civil service recruited from
all sectors of society will produce policies
that are responsive to the public and, in
that sense, democratic (Meier 1993).

Recruitment in the civil service has
evolved with the development of
Weberian Bureaucracy:
In a departmental specialist system, recruiters follow a different
philosophy from the generalist approach of, say, Britain. They look for
specialist experts for individual departments, with more movement in and
out of the civil service at a variety of levels. The Finance Ministry will
recruit economists and the Department of Health will employ staff with
medical training. Recruitment is tor particular posts, not to an elite groups
or corps. This model is common in countries with a weak state in which
the administration lacks the status produced by centuries of service to
pre-democratic rulers. The United State, Netherlands and New Zealand
are examples. In the Netherlands, each department sets each own
recruitment standards, normally requiring training or expertise in its own
area. Once appointed, mobility within the civil service is limited. Staffs
who remain in public service usually stay in one department for their
entire career (Andeweg and Irwin 1993 as quoted in Haque, 2001). The
notion of recruiting talented young graduates to an elite, unified civil
service is weak or non-existent (Haque, 2001)

The question of representative
bureaucracy is debatable as stressed in
the book of Martin Harrop in 2001.

Three arguments support the thesis that a
bureaucracy should reflect the social
profile of the population thus:
1. Civil servants whose work involves direct contact with
specific groups will be better at the job if they also
belong to that category. A shared language is the most
obvious example but the point can perhaps be extended
to ethnicity and gender.
2. A civil service balanced between particular groups, such
as religions or regions may encourage stability in
divided societies, such as Northern Ireland.
3. Democracy is said to involve government by and not
just for, the people. A representative civil service,
involving participation by all major groups in society, will
enhance the acceptability of decisions.

However, the principle of recruitment on merit
is fundamental to public administration and
should not be abandoned in favor of social
engineering. The public interest is best served
by selecting the best people for the job,
irrespective of their background. The correct
solution to under-representation is not possible
discrimination but improving the qualifications
of the excluded minorities.

Functions of Bureaucracy
The primary function of modern government
bureaucracy is the execution and enforcement of
laws made by the legislative department and the
policies promulgated by the executive agency. It
specifically includes administering. Advisory
roles, providing for political stability, regulating
and licensing, among others. Old government
bureaucracies perform at least two of these basic
functions, with some bureaus specializing and
some carrying out multiple functions.

1. Administration
Administration is the task of coordinating of executing
policy. It is the main function of government
bureaucracy that is the execution of laws and policies
enacted by the state. Administration is the
implementation of public policy and because it involves
policy decisions, it also entails rule-making power. It
should be distinguished that the responsibilities of
politicians is toward policy making and for bureaucrats
administrative responsibilities that range from
implementation of the delivery of basic services to the
regulation of economy, the granting of licenses and the
provision of information gathering and dissemination.

In relation to the responsibilities of civil servants,
they also initiate campaign to publicize their work
and educate the public on the benefits and
objectives of a program. However, the style of
administration changes from one country to another.
In Britain, both the executives and administrators
supervise officials help formulate legislation as well
as help their ministers respond to questions pose by
members of Congress. In China, the Communist
Party acts as a watchdog over the works of the
bureaucrats. All administrative leaders are party
members who are engaged in decision-making, and
all offices have party people on them.

2. Regulation and Licensing
A bureaucracy also pursues the function of regulating
services to protect and promote the interest of the general
public by establishing guidelines and keeping standards on
the run. Specific statutes or laws usually organize regulatory
agencies. However, government agencies or departments
may also set up non-statutory organizations to offer advise
or provide an executive function in specialized areas of
activity. Haque (2001) noted, “whether a particular function
is handled by a statutory or non-statutory body varies by
country but non-statutory examples might include specific
advisory panels, research funding committees, arts councils
and training boards.

Although much of their work is routine, non-statutory
bodies still attract recurring if sometimes longest
criticism. In contrast to bodies established under the
laws they usually report to the sponsoring minister,
not to assembly. Membership tends to be seen as
political patronage and accountability is regarded as
opaque and intermittent”. Licensing is directly
connected to regulation for it enables the
government to improve minimum standards or
qualifications and administer the test in certain areas
like telecommunications, broadcasting, and
transportation and so forth.

3.Political Stability
Government bureaucracy provides focus for
continuity and stability within the political system.
This function is necessarily important among
developing states, “where the existence of a
body of trained career officials may provide the
only guarantee that government is conducted in
an orderly and reliable fashion”. This guarantee
is precipitated by the fact that while
administrators do come and go, bureaucrats or
the civil servants are rather permanent and they
are always there.

Professional career bureaucrats believed firmly
that they are in better positions to defining the
common goal or the public interest closely
through elected or appointed administrators.
Thus, they have bigger propensity in resisting
any radical change introduced by politicians
since they regard themselves as the protector
and promoter of the people’s general welfare.

4. Advisory Roles
The bureaucracy is the source of policy information
and the provider of advice to the government.
Decisions are made on the basis of information.
Information is crucial since it creates policy decisions
that are factual and rational, and it determines
whether a law has been violated. There is a clear
distinction between politicians and civil servants in
terms of policy organizing, the politicians designed
and made policies while the bureaucrats simply offer
advise. Therefore, the civil servants perform two
functions: determine the policy options available, and
review policy proposals in term s of benefits and
disadvantages.

Heywoods (2002) argued on the
significance of the policy roles of civil
servants in this respect:
Decisions are made from information gathered,
and this means that the content of decisions is
invariably structured by the advice offered.
Moreover, as the principal source of the advice
available to politicians, bureaucrats effectively
control the flow of information. Politicians know
what civil servants tell them. Information can thus
be concealed or at least ‘shaped’ to reflect the
preferences of the civil service. The principle
source of bureaucratic power is nevertheless the
expertise and specialized knowledge that
accumulates with the bureaucracy.

The Issue of Accountability
Unlike politicians who are elected, civil servants
belong to the world of unelected government
personnel who in contrast with the elected
politicians cannot be accounted for their actions
in the same manner as the elected ones. While
there exits administrative law governing their
conduct with sanctions defined for erring civil
servants that is from suspension to dismissal to
disqualification from public office, it is still
carefully carried out in the interest of protecting
their security of tenure.

The issue still rests on accountability.
Among elected officials public office is a
public trust. In government bureaucracy,
how should civil servants be accountable
to their actions? In Weberian
bureaucracy, it is noteworthy to consider
the problem of controlling bureaucratic
power in a democracy.

Weber himself identified the danger of
public servants coming to dominate their
elected masters:
Under normal conditions, the power position of
a fully developed bureaucracy is always
overwhelming. That political master finds
himself in the position of the dillentante who
stands opposite the expert, facing the trained
official who stands with the management of
administration.

Accordingly, there are two forms of
accountability: internal controls and external
control. Internal control in the bureaucratic
accountability may take the form of ministerial
direction, formal regulation, competition between
departments and professional standards. In the
other hand, external form of bureaucratic
accountability may be in the form of criticisms
from the mass media, judicial branch or
legislative department and/ or the pressures from
the ombudsman.

The bureaucracy’s role of adviser is not peculiar to
the United State; rather it is an inevitable feature of
the modern industrial state. In France, for example,
laws and presidential decrees are drawn up and
promulgated with the active assistance of the
bureaucracy (particularly the Council of State) and
career executives this have the opportunity to shape
policy. Bureaucrats play a large role in the framing of
legislation in Germany. Since federal bureaucrats do
not have to supervise field or branch offices, they
can devote their energies to policy matters. In fact,
they are often successful in convincing their political
superiors to accept their way of thinking on issues.

The doctrine of ministerial responsibility
or individual responsibility defines the
relationship between ministers and their
departments, and ostensibly guaranteed
that the civil service is publicly
accountable.

This doctrine is observed in most
parliamentary systems, mostly clearly in
the UK, and has two key features:
a. Ministers are responsible for the acts and
omissions of their departments, maintaining the
fiction that minister themselves make all the
decisions taken in their name;
b. Ministers are accountable to the assembly, in the
send that they are answerable for anything that
goes on in their departments, and are removable in
the event of wrongdoing or incompetence by their
civil servants.

In theory, ministerial responsibility
establishes a chain of accountability that
links civil servants to the public via
ministers and assemblies. In practice, it
is often bent to the will of the government
of the day.

But the ability of ministerial responsibility
to deliver political control also has some
setbacks:
a. It is impossible for ministerial oversight body to
effectively look into the civil servants because of
the huge size of bureaucrats, given the complexity
of modern bureaucracy;
b. Many ministers are unwilling to sacrifice their
political careers by resigning as a result of blunders
made by their officials, employees if not by
themselves.

Civil servants should be made
responsible to the people by
administering basic and social services
with utmost effectiveness, efficiency and
economy. Accountability calls also for
punishing erring servants who are
convicted with administrative, civil and
criminal offenses.

Civil Service in the Philippines
The Civil Service refers to the body of
employee in any government agency including
all employees of the government in general. It
covers the Congress, the Judiciary, the
Executive Department, employees of local
government units and all other employees in
the government service. It is basically the work
force of the state.

“The Civil Service shall be administered by
the Civil Service Commission composed of
the Chairman and two Commissioners who
shall be a natural born citizen of the
Philippines and, at the time of their
appointment, at least 35 years of age, with
proven capacity for public administration,
and must not have been candidate for any
elective position in the elections
immediately preceding their appointment”.
(Art. IX B Sec. 1, 1987 Phil. Constitution)

The Civil Service Commission was originally a
statutory body under the 1935 Constitution. With the
need to professionalize the Civil Service and
maintain an effective, efficient and accountable civil
bureaucracy, the Civil Service Commission is
forthwith constitutionally established. Art. IX- B
institutionalized the framework and the system of a
working bureaucracy providing for the creation,
powers and functions and the limitations of this
constitutional body as a mechanism that will secure
merits and fitness in the government service and to
prevent the so called “spoils system”.

Appointment in Civil Service
Commission
Appointment in the Civil Service is based on the
merit system determined by the competitive career
examination, which is categorized into sub-
professional examination and professional
examination for higher administrative positions. More
qualified persons who are exempt from the
requirement by the Civil Service Exam are staff
technical and highly skilled positions in the service.
They are called technocrats who specialized in their
chosen field or expertise and those devoid of
partisan politics to assume relatively sensitive and
technical offices (Art IX-B Sec. 1).

The scope of civil service bureaucracy is far
and wide covering entirely the whole gamut of
government force. Article IXB Sec. 2
“appointments in the civil service shall be made
only according to merit and fitness to be
determined, as far as practicable, and except
to positions which are policy determining,
primarily confidential, or highly technical, by
competitive examination”.

Likewise, the Constitution declares some
prohibitions in the Civil Service agency which
include, among others:

a. No officer or employee of the civil service shall be
removed or suspended expect for cause provided
by law;
b. No officer or employee in the civil service shall
engage, directly, in any electioneering or partisan
political campaign; and
c. The right to self-organization shall not be denied to
government employees.

Exempted in the civil service examination are
positions that are policy determining, highly
technical, primarily confidential.
1. By policy determining, we mean that a position is
reserved to someone who exudes competence in
decision- making process and public policy system.
2. By highly technical office, we mean that one should
possess the technical and necessary skills and trainings
in a related field. Professional and competent person
fits this particular degree or office.
3. By confidential position, we mean that the position
requires not only confidence in the aptitude of the
appointee for the duties of the officials, but close
intimacy which ensures freedom of intercourse without
embarrassment or freedom rom misgiving betrayals of
personal trust or confidential matters of the state.

Goals of the Civil Service
The Civil Service Commission is the central
personnel agency of the Government (Article
IX B Sec. 3).

It performs the following
constitutional functions:
1. To establish a career service;
2. To adopt measures to promote morale,
efficiency, integrity, responsiveness,
progressiveness and courtesy in the civil service;
3. To strengthen the merit and reward system;
4. To integrate all human resource development
programs for all level and ranks;
5. To institutionalize a management climate
conducive to public accountability; and
6. To submit to the President and the Congress an
annual report on its annual personnel programs.

Prime Duty of Public Officers and
Employees
All public officers and employees shall take an oath or
affirmation to uphold and defend this Constitution
(Article IX-B Sec. 4). The civil service agency is the
extended authority of the President. As such, the Civil
Service is duty bound to enforce the law and
implement the same accordingly. The commissioned
body aims to instill the values of transparency,
accountability and continuity in the provision of social
services. In order to boost the morale of the civil
servants, the Congress maintains salary
standardization among the government employees.

Sec. 5 declares that Congress shall provide
for the standardization of compensation of
government officials and employees, including
those in government owned or controlled
corporation with original charters, taken into
account the nature of the responsibilities
pertaining to, and the qualifications required for
their positions.

Prohibitions on Double
Compensation
However, there are certain prohibitions of
double compensation among the government
employees like Sec, 8 (1) which states: no
elective or appointed public officer or employee
shall receive additional, double, or indirect
compensation, unless specifically authorized
by law, nor accept without the consent of the
Congress, any present, emolument, office, or
title of any kind from any foreign government.

Exemption on Dual
Compensation
Any public official or employee is prevented to receive double or
additional compensation expect in the following cases:

1. Officers serving as chairman or as member of entities or
enterprises organized, operated, owned or controlled by the
government may be paid per diems for each meeting actually
attended or when on official travel;
2. Auditors and accountants;
3. Provincial and municipal treasurers and their employees;
4. Employees serving as observes of the PAG-ASA; and
5. Those authorized to receive extra or additional compensation
by virtue of the provision of the Act. (Act. No. 4187)

Category of Civil Service
a. Career Service. The career by entrance based on merit
and fitness to be determined as far as practicable by
competitive examinations based on highly technical
qualifications, opportunity for advancement to higher
career positions and security of tenure.

b. Non-career Service. This is characterized by entrance
on bases other than those of the usual tests of merits
and fitness utilized for the Career Service and tenure
which is limited to a period specified by law; or which is
co-terminous with that of the appointing authority or
subject to his pleasure, or which is limited to the
duration of a particular subject for which purpose
employment was made.

The Rights of Civil Service
Officials and Employees
The following are the rights of officials and employees of the Civil Service:

1. They have the right to be protected from their conditions of work and
are assure of living wages;
2. They have the right to make organizations or associations among
themselves but are prohibited to conduct strikes or rallies;
3. No officer or employee of the civil service shall be dismissed expect
through impeachment;
4. They have the right to be paid regularly when they retired from
service and to receive pensions and gratuities as provided by the
law; and
5. They have the right to overtime and holiday pays, including sick
leave/ vacation leave with pay, maternity benefit allowances and
other benefits.

Prohibitions Against Public
Officer and Employee
1. No civil servant, officer or employee shall be interested to work either directly or
indirectly in any partisan political campaign;
2. Law prohibits participation in any political activity. Public officials and employees
should always be neutral in any parties or activities they are involved or engaged
in;
3. Public officials and employees alike are forbid to strike against the government
regardless of any cause or reason;
4. Under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law, R.A. No. 3019, as amended
states the prohibition of graft and corruption practices in relation to the conduct of
government affairs;
5. Prohibition against buying of any public auctioned at public sale;
6. The forbidding of the law to appoint relatives/blood relations in the office;
7. Unless justified by law, no elective/ appointive officer shall receive additional
compensation without the consent of the Congress;
8. No candidate who lost in any election shall, within one (1) year after such election,
be appointed to any office in the government or any government-owned or
controlled corporations, or in any of their subsidiaries. (Art IX Sec. 6); and
9. No elective official shall be eligible, during his tenure, to be appointed or
designated in any other either in an acting capacity or in permanent one.

Exception on Nepotism
The restriction of appointing or recommending a
relative up to the third civil degree either of affinity or
consanguinity in the national, provincial city and
municipal governments or in any branch of government
including government owned or controlled corporations
are prohibited except teachers, physicians, persons
employed in a confidential items and members of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines provided that the full
report of such appointment shall be made to the
commission concerned.

Public Office a Public Trust
Art. XI Sec, I of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution:

Public office is a public trust. Public officers
and employees must at all times be
accountable to the people, serve them with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and
efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and
lead modest lives.

A public office is the right, authority, and duty
created and conferred by law; by which, for a
given period, either fixed by law or enduring at
the pleasure of the creating power, an
individual is invested with some portions of the
sovereign functions of the government, to be
exercised by him for the benefit of the public.
Thus, a public office, in this respect, is
exercised either by a public officer or an
employee.

“Public office is a public trust. No public officer
shall be beholden to his office. The office itself
connotes service and accountability and in no
way would he treat the office as an opportunity
to enrich oneself and perpetuate his vested
interest. Public office is not a property on which
one can claim jurisdiction but it is a position to
render service upon which one shall display
integrity, efficiency and patriotism”.

A public office has the following
characteristics:
a. It is a public trust;
b. It is not a vested right;
c. It is not a property; and
d. It cannot be inherited

Officers and employees constitute the core of public
service. In this respect, an officer is regarded the
head of a public office, one who has the authority
and command to exercise the powers and functions
of the office he represents. It involves the exercise of
one’s discretion in the discharge of the functions
entrusted to him by the government and its people.

A public officer shall not be liable by way of moral
and exemplary damages for acts done in the
performance of official duties, unless there is a clear
evidence of bad faith, malice or gross negligence.

An employee refers to any person in the service of the
government of its instrumentalities. He is ordinarily a
servant who acts on the basis of order, directives and
perform roles to which he is assigned in the bureaucracy.

As expressed by Justice Malcolm, the basic idea of
government in the Philippines is that of a representative
government, the officers being mere agents and not rulers
of the people, one where no one man or set of men has a
proprietary or contractual right to an office, but where every
officer accepts office pursuant to the provisions of law and
holds the office as a trust for the people whom he
represents.

Public officers and employees must be
accountable to the people at all times. Thus, in
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan, the Supreme
Court said: “(Public officials), justices and
judges (in particular) must ever realize that
they have no consistency, serve no majority
nor minority but serve only the public interest
as they see fit in accordance with their oath of
office, guided only by the Constitution and their
own conscience and honor”.

The Culture of Corruption
The culture of graft and corruption is an
administrative issue since time immemorial,
particularly in undeveloped yet democratic
societies. Corruption is also regarded as quasi-
legal term meaning a failure to carry out proper
or public responsibilities because of the pursuit
of personal gain. In most cases, corruption has
a material or narrowly financial character, its
most common political manifestation being
bribery or sleaze.

In general sense, corruption means that
something has been charged so that it no
longer meets its proper purpose. Regarding
politics, corruption is understood with officials
performing their public tasks improperly in
order to receive personal benefits. But
corruption may also be present in private
companies since the question of corruption
often involves bureaucrats.

Corruption and politics wreak havoc on any
government bureaucracy. The merit and fitness
principle on recruitment in any civil service
bureaucracy is supposed to weed out the incompetent
and the corrupt. However in most underdeveloped
societies, the failure to institutionalize an honest to
goodness performance appraisal system made more
the government and its officials corrupt. Performance
appraisal system is an objective and fully operative
mechanism by which to gauge the work performance of
people. The evaluation system will be the key to
making continued service in government dependent on
how well one does his or her jobs.

Corruption in the public sector has deep
roots and is therefore difficult to reduce or
eradicate. The rising cost of elections and
political leadership abets corruption in a big
way. Less power and discretion of officials
in the interpretation of laws and rules can
help to minimize it. Higher pay and higher
standards of public ethic with effective legal
and media sanctions will help.

The countervailing powers of affected citizens
and groups backed by the media will act as
deterrents. To some extent the incidence of
corruption is a function of the level of economic
development and of the citizens’ attitudes
toward the public good and the meaning of
public service. The public and the media are
waiting for personal examples that corruption
at the higher levels of government does not
pay will be severely punished.

Sto. Tomas noted the issue of management performance and
accountability. If we are to strictly improve performance
standards on the lower echelons then we should also do so
for the bosses. In the Philippines, she stressed:

At present only the second level, and the first level
execute performance control with their superior. These
contracts set forth in quantitative and qualitative detail
what a particular employee will accomplish in a given
period. However, the third level of the career service,
the governmental executives and managers, do not
execute such contracts.

We propose that senior managers be required
to also enter into performance contracts. These
contracts will then be filed with their respective
heads of offices and became public documents
available to anybody. Thus, an ordinary citizen
dissatisfied with a particular agency’s
performance can exert pressure on the agency
head to improve his office’s performance by
invoking the performance contract by which the
government executive is bound.

The effects of corruption are indeed terrible
bankruptcy of government operation and
this is something society should not allow.
Some politicians serve not the public but
rather cater for their vested ends. Political
corruption contributes to broader political
instability: poor social service provisions,
very inefficient and ineffective civil service,
greater economic disparity between the rich
and the poor.

They disregard the rule of law. The level
of corruption in an institution or political
system varies from one state to another
and is conditioned by factors including
the general level of economic
development, the level of administrative
discipline, and the effectiveness of
external checks.

Bureaucracy in New
Democracies
Bureaucracy in authoritarian states is usually
criticized as unaccountable, over powerful and
corrupt. Like the military, bureaucracy is a
powerful force in non-democratic societies than it
is in democracies. The institutions of democracy
like political parties, elections and interest groups
are generally weaker in authoritarian
governments. Hurdling this difficult inheritance is
to establish the supremacy of elected officials
over bureaucratic authority forms part the
democratization.

Specifically, in democratic regimes, the
job is to move the civil service out of
highly political mode of operation toward
a more professionalize bureaucracy. To a
given extent, a more professionalized
bureaucracy can be seen in Weberian
model, where appointment to such
service is based on merits and fitness,
somehow corruption is contained.

Among the developing economic bureaucracy economics
bureaucracy remains to be somehow problematic. But the civil
service in general can be transformed to a potent institution
for governance only if:
1. It is not concerned so much with total size as with the appropriate and
rational deployment of more of its members to areas providing direct services
whether in national or local government units;
2. Its size is no longer an issue since it is a major cost center, but government
personnel are perceived as indispensable to government’s efforts to respond
to specific public requirements;
3. Its productivity is assured because it can attract and retain personnel whose
performance is regularly evaluated and used as a basis for decisions on
promotion and other rewards;
4. It revises its internal systems and procedures in order to be oriented to
achieving purposes and goals and not to imposing controls that do not
accomplish their objectives but instead stifle creativity and innovativeness;
5. It is able to maintain a level of honesty and accountability that is acceptable
to its transacting public; and
6. It earns the respect and attention of elected political leaders and public
administrators who recognize its technical expertise and seek its advise,
assistance and support on policy formulation and revision.

Ombudsman

It is argued that in democracies, bureaucratic
organization can be made accountable, either
formally or informally. One method is through
ombudsman system. An ombudsman is a
public official who investigates allegations of
misadministration in the public sector. This
government watchdog originated in
Scandinavia but it has been emulated
elsewhere though often with more restricted
jurisdiction and resources.

In the Philippines, the office of the
Ombudsman is an independent and a
constitutional office, which cannot be
abolished by the legislature. The
appointment of the Ombudsman and his
deputies need no confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments.

The composition of the
Ombudsman shall be:
1. The Ombudsman;
2. One overall deputy;
3. One deputy for Luzon;
4. One deputy for Visayas;
5. One deputy for Mindanao; and
6. A separate deputy for the Military Service.

Towards a New Public
Management
New Public Management (NPM) is a political
creed that redefines the role of the public
sector toward a more effective and cooperative
responsibility with the business or the public
sector in a state. This refers then to the new
management technique of the government
through transferring of government functions to
private bodies.

This philosophy of new public management is
“that government should steer (decide policy)
while private bodies should row (deliver service),
and that public bodies should be imbued with the
entrepreneurial spirit”. The government now then
assumes a regularly functions to oversee the
private sector work or deliver services according
to certain standards, qualifications and
limitations, while effectively leaving the
(regulated) provision of services to the business
entrepreneurs.

Hoods (1996) in Harrop (2001) thus
enumerated some components of new
public management as follow:
a. Managers are given more discretion but are held responsible
for results
b. Explicit targets are set and used to asses results
c. Resources are allocated according to results
d. Departments are “unbridled” into more independent operating
units
e. More work is contracted out to the private sector
f. More flexibility is allowed in recruiting and retaining staff
g. Costs are cut in an effort to achieve with less

Perhaps, the best way to approach new
public management is to consider
Osborne and Gaebler “How the
Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the
Public Sector”.

This book outlined ten principles that
government agencies should adopt to
enhance their effectiveness:
1. Promote competition between service providers
2. Empower citizens by pushing control out of the bureaucracy into the
community
3. Measure performance, focusing not on inputs but on outcomes
4. Be driven by goals, not rules and regulations
5. Redefine clients as customers and offer them choices between
schools, between training programs, between housing opportunities
6. Prevent problems before they emerge, rather than offering services
afterwards
7. Earn money rather than simply spend it
8. Decentralize authority and embrace participatory management
9. Catalyze all sectors – public, private and voluntary – into solving
community problems

Challenges in Public Sector
Public sector is now faced with the pressure of internal and
external forces that are fast growing. The tradition of being
providers of socio-economic services is no longer adequate
to satisfy the people’s growing concerns for a better life.
Aspirations of the governments, both the national and local
units may be frustrated as there are aspects of provisional
areas unattended to. This alarming issue demands that our
local governments today be more rational and functional
given their broad spectrum of powers and resources. It is in
this line that governments on both levels should adopt
innovative strategies and should not only act as providers of
services but be ‘facilitating or enabling’ mechanisms for
private sector, NGOs and people’s organization.

This term ‘enabling’ according to Hollin (citied in
Lazo, 1996), means non-adherence to any political
orthodoxy, but adherence to the development of
different and more flexible ways of operations which
are suited to meet the many and varied demands
now placed on the public sector or the government.
The ‘enabling authority’ is a term used to summarize
one vision of local government. Such an authority is
concerned with coordinating the provision of services
and representing the community both within and
beyond its territory. Its role is strategic, with specific
services contracted out to private agencies, whether
voluntary or profit making.

A uniform prescription of social services among the localities
is unlikely to provide solutions to the problems that each
local authority has to face. Each local government unit
should develop and design its own strategy geared at
advancing the welfare of the constituency. This is where
partnership with NGOs and business sectors can be
trapped. According to Peterson, a noted British scholar, “the
public sector does not necessarily have to provide the
capital to finance productive investments in the local areas”.
Likewise, the government does not have to own or build
industrial parks, own or operate business industries or take
responsibility for organizing informal sector. These are tasks
best left to the private sector.

Government Facilitates Private
Sector
Government can best support local and urban
economic growth by facilitating private sector
investment, not by acting as direct producers. Thus,
they should facilitate a constructive private sector
role. The country, especially the local units should
realize that both national and local governments
have their hands full in financing and performing their
basic service responsibilities. Urban development
proceeds faster when governments concentrate their
resources on these core tasks rather than in trying to
supplant the private sector as direct investor and
operator of income- producing projects.

Significant policy issues raised by
demographic and social changes,
economic trends in international trade
and growing environmental pressures,
confront governments at all levels.

For local government to become ‘enablers’ they
must adopt appropriate policies and must consider
them with the context of their capabilities such as;

1. A strategic rule sense of key policy issues facing
local communities and their changing needs.
Local policy makers must be willing and be able
to initiate policy in a more comprehensive course
of action to be undertaken by the private sector.
2. Determining the most effective response to
changes and more pressing needs. Provisions
for local needs and services require deliberation
in selecting the ways by which the local
authorities can achieve their objectives.

3. Setting standards and monitoring performance of
the private sector in providing services to the people.
For example, privatization of electric supply in a
locality must conform to standards of continuity and
accessibility: To achieve this, local authorities must
provide guidelines for a discipline management. In
the same way, monitoring of contract compliance is
essential in ensuring the delivery of the promised
service. Thus, both public and private sector
organizations must realize that it is essential to build
effective cooperation so that they can satisfy their
customer’ requirements.

4. Developing partnership. Local public
organizations can collaborate in tandem with
the private sector by offering competitive
advantages such as lower cost of doing
business, better access to markets, and a
skilled labor force. In providing public services,
Local Government Units (LGUs) can
encourage public-private networking.

An illustration of this is the Build Operate
Transfer (BOT) scheme which was entered into
by the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines and the
Macro Founders and Developers (MFD). The
MFD builds a six-storey public market building
and then transfers it ot the city. The city then
constructs the stalls inside the market, 50% of
the stall construction to be financed by the city.
Local entities must also exhaust other means to
meet the needs of the people with less burden
on the latter’s part.

5. Influencing, interpreting and implementing the
regulatory framework. The establishment of
commercial centers by the private sector is an
aspect of ‘enabling and facilitating’ in order to
generate manpower force, increase household
income and ensure that there is adequate
opportunity for business and private individuals. The
local governments must provide for prevention of
pollution problems and ensure that the
corresponding taxes are paid. They must guarantee
that regulatory standards are consistently applied
and enforcement activities like inspection and
performance commitments are maintained.

The economic dictum that states that
growth stimulates further growth is
applicable in the local government setup
as far as economic motivation is
concerned. The new decentralization
program implies growth through local
governance. This is effected by directly
provision of social services to local
communities.

To stimulate further local economic
developments, local authorities must do
away with the traditional ethos of being
providers. This spirit of changing the style
of LGUs is necessary since a local
government by itself can hardly provide
efficient service. It needs other entities to
ensure efficiency.

Next:

Part VIII
Local Government

Political science part vii

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to Political science part vii (20)

More from Alona Salva (18)

Recently uploaded (20)

Political science part vii