WHAT IS THE STATE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN THE PHILIPPINES?

The praxis or the practice of Philippine public administration has always included three
major areas of concerns. These are: reorganization, decentralization and the ever
present challenge of addressing corruption and promoting accountability in government.

Let us discuss first REORGANIZING THE BUREAUCRACY

The keyword is: REFORM. Philippine public administration has always been rooted in
the imperative for reform: 2 Major reforms: CIVIL SERVICE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS

Philippine public administration has always seen reorganization as central to the entire
initiative in the continuing search and design for more responsive structures and
process. Indeed, among the initial initiatives of any president from Roxas in the 40s to
Arroyo in 2002, upon assumption to office, is the declaration to reorganize the
bureaucracy.

In the field of Civil Service, these were the programs for reforms that former Presidents
introduced:

1. Integrated Reorganization Plan (IRP). Introduced during the Martial Law. It

promised the most extensive and wrenching effort at administrative reform in the
countrys history through decentralizing and reducing the bureaucracy, and
standardizing departmental organization. The IRP also sought to introduce
structural changes and reforms to strengthen the merit system as well as
professionalize the civil service system.
2. To restore government integrity and public confidence, reorganization reforms
were introduced by President Aquino, essentially with the creation of Presidential
Commission on Public Ethics and Accountability and the Presidential
Commission on Good Governance (PCGG). Civil society organizations (CSOs)
became more active in participating in decision-making and program
implementation of the government. To downsize the bloated government, one of
the steps undertaken by her administration was the removal of thousands of civil
servants from their positions. Although the said step was justified, ironically, the
number of civil servants and political appointees in the government increased;
thus, blurring the principles of merit and fitness of the civil service. Moreover,
public agencies and offices grew which caused the extended and fragmented
government structures.
3. Ramos simply focused on the praxis of NPM with the end goal of reengineering
the bureaucracy. His flagship program, the Philippines 2000, was envisioned to
make the country globally competitive by pursuing the thrusts of deregulation,
market liberalization, and privatization. He focused on setting the guiding
principles in reorganizing and improving government operations, divesting
government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs), promoting
decentralization and local governance, and pushing on the attrition law.
 4. Under Estrada administration, the Rationalization Program of 2001 through
Presidential Committee on Effective Governance (PCEG) was introduced.
Executive Order No. 165 or Directing the Formulation of an Institutional
Strengthening and Streamlining Program for the Executive Branch, laid down
the Re-Engineering the Bureaucracy for Better Governance Program. The
program aims to strengthen and streamline the bureaucracy particularly the
executive branch, the GOCCs, and the state universities and colleges (SUCs).
5. The Macapagal-Arroyo administration continued the program to streamline the
bureaucracy, but as yet has no overall agenda for reform. In the Medium-Term
Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP) 2001-2004, the present administration
had adopted the Reengineering the Bureaucracy for Better Governance
Program of the Estrada administration. PCEG was likewise reactivated upon the
Arroyos assumption to office. It serves as the ad-hoc body that shall be the focal
point of administrative reforms in the civil service. In October 4, 2004, the
Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and the Civil Service
Commission (CSC) pursued the Rationalization Program as mandated in EO
366.
6. According to DBM, EO 366 directs all departments/agencies of the executive
branch to conduct a strategic review of their operations and organizations for
purposes of focusing government purposes on its vital functions and channeling
government resources to these core public functions, and improving the
efficiency of government services, within affordable levels, and in the most
accountable manner. DBMs task, is to look at a two-track approach in ensuring
the effective delivery of government service. The first track of reengineering the
bureaucracy is through legislative measures and the second track is the
administrative rationalization of the government.
7. Four years after the implementation of EO 366, only 17 out of 26 department
agencies of the government, 27 OEOS/other government agencies, and only 36
out of more than 100 GOCCs in the country have submitted their rationalization
plans. Out of the 80 submitted rational plans, only two department-level offices
and nine GOCCs were approved; three departments have been evaluated but
were not yet approved. Out of the 44 plans, (complete and partial submission)
that are under evaluation, eight departments and 19 GOCCs have completed
their submission while three departments and four from the GOCCs have made
partial submission. Moreover, there were plans returned for revision; one from
the department and four from the GOCCs. DBM is expecting submissions from
three departments and 24 GOCCs.

The attempt to reorganize, reorganize, reengineer, and restructure the bureaucracy is

evident in the programs and projects of the different administrations. However, each
administration is faced with tremendous challenges of overlapping functions, lack of
acceptance and commitment by affected entities, red-tape and corruption inherited from
past administrations. It becomes a cycle and the great challenge for the present
administration is how to surpass these problems and how to face tougher challenges,
given the pressures of the growing trend toward greater civil society and private
participation in the management of state affairs, the demands of globalization and the
paradigm shift of the governments role from command and control into facilitation and
flexibility.

In the field of local government, with the enactment of RA 7160, the concept of LOCAL
AUTONOMY came into play. There is NOW less reliance in national government,
including allotments made by the national government, and increased reliance on
internally generated resources, or resources jointly generated with other institutions, be
they other local government units or private institutions.

We shall discuss Decentralizing the Bureaucracy

A second major initiative that can be observed in the continuing attempt to design and
develop a more responsive Philippine public administration is the effort to continuously
decentralize the bureaucracy, culminating of with the enactment of the Local
Government Code of 1991.

Decentralization in the Philippines could be operationalized through three modalities:

deconcentration, devolution and debureaucratization.

Deconcentration is a limited form of decentralization since decision-making remains at

the center with lower levels of government in this case the filed offices of the national
government agencies -largely limited to transmitting orders and implementing decisions
of centrally based authorities. Deconcentration is also referred to as administrative
decentralization.

Devolution is political decentralization which essentially involves the transfer of powers

and responsibilities from national government agencies to local governments as
provided for in the Local Government Code.

As provided for in Section 16 of the Code or the General Welfare Clause, these include
the responsibility for the delivery of basic services; including health, agriculture, social
services and environment. Together with the transfer of responsibilities was the transfer
of personnel to the local governments. It will be recalled that close to 70,000 national
personnel were transferred (devolved) to the local governments during the initial years
of devolution.

The third type of decentralization has been referred to as debureaucratization that

involves the harnessing of the private sector and non-governmental organizations in the
delivery of services through various modalities including contracting out, private-public
partnership, and joint ventures, among other things. This modality of partnership is also
provided for in Section 17 of the Local Government Code where partnerships with the
private sector, NGOs and POs are recognized and even encouraged for the improved
delivery of services.

JUST A LITTLE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF DECENTRALIZATION

During the Commonwealth, local governments were placed under the general
supervision of the President. Specifically, Art.VII, Section 11 of the 1945 Constitution
provided that The President shall exercise general supervision over all local
governments.

The first local autonomy act was Republic Act No. 2264, entitled An Act Amending
the Laws Governing Local Governments by Increasing their Autonomy and
Reorganizing Provincial Governments.

The Act vested in the city and municipal governments greater fiscal, planning and
regulatory powers. It likewise gave the cities and municipalities powers to adopt zoning
and planning ordinances. Moreover, it granted the authority to provincial, city and
municipal governments the authority to undertake and carry out any public works
projects which the local government itself finances.

Another landmark legislation with regard to local autonomy in the Philippines is

Republic Act No. 2370, entitled An Act Granting Autonomy to the Barrios of the
Philippines or otherwise known as the Barrio Charter Act.

This law was passed in 1959 which was principally sponsored by Senator Raul
Manglapus. The barrios then became quasi-municipal corporations exercising
autonomy, among other things, through their taxing powers. Barrios were to be
governed by an elective barrio council that included powers to enact barrio ordinances

The Local Government Code of 1983 which reiterates the policy of the State in
the 1973 Constitution and that is to guarantee and promote the local government units
to ensure their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them effective
partners in the pursuit of national development and progress.

In accordance with Article II, Section 25 of the 1987 Constitution which provides that
The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments, RA 7160 or the Local
Government Code of 1991 was promulgated. The Code transferred the responsibility
for the delivery of basic services to the local government units, including appropriate
personnel, assets, equipment, programs and projects.

Major Features of the Local Government Code

1. Transferred the responsibility for the delivery of basic services to the local
government units, including appropriate personnel, assets, equipment, programs
and projects
2. Radically transformed the nature of power relationships between the central
government and the thousands of local governments in the countryside, through
the devolution process.
3. financial resources are also decentralized
The Local Government Code has given impetus to, not only the local government itself,
but the rest of the stakeholders in governance: the business sector and the civil society,
to play vital roles in processes of local governance such as; local development planning
and implementation, local resource generation, local economic promotion,
environmental management; thus, establishing a multi-stakeholders collaboration of
local development efforts.

Decentralization has been fuelled by efforts to apply the principles of self-government:

efficiency, autonomy, subsidiarity and proximity.

Finally, we shall be discussing the topic ADDRESSING CORRUPTION

There is a continuing and ongoing initiatives to come up with more responsive public
administration structures and processes are ongoing efforts to address the ever
pervasive problem of corruption.

What do we mean by CORRUPTION? It is the misuse of public power for private

profit inhibits growth and development, distorts access to services for poor
communities, undermines public confidence in the governments will and capacity to
serve the public, deters trade and investments, reduces revenues, increases costs, and
propagates wasteful allocation and use of scarce resources.

NOW, we take a look at the graph. The graph shows what agency is the most sincere in
fighting corruption. We can see that according to the survey, the most sincere to fight
corruption is the Securities and Exchange Commission and the very least sincere in the
Bureau of Customs.

Negative consequences of corruption to institutions are prevalent through favoring

vested or selfish interests of a person or entity. Officials and employees of the
government tend to neglect the very purpose of civil servants and that is to serve the
public interest with utmost fidelity. Tolerating corruption encourages negative and poor
bureaucratic behavior of anyone in the service. In effect, it ruins public trust and
confidence in the government.

Various sectors of the society are doing their best to combat corruption, enhance
government efficiency, effectiveness and accountability. It is noteworthy to state that
institutions have been set up and several laws were enacted to fight against graft and
corruption.

The Philippines has numerous laws addressing graft and corruption, defining the
prohibited and punishable acts, laying down specific penalties imposed for every breach
thereof, and identifying the agencies responsible in the implementation of the said laws.
The promulgated laws date back to 1955. Article XI of the 1987 Constitution of the
Republic of the Philippines, Republic Act 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, and the Section on Bribery which includes Corruption of Public
Officials (Art. 212) of the Revised Penal Code are the three main laws defining and
penalizing corruption in the country. The Table in my slide presents a summary list of
related laws, presidential decrees and proclamations, and other regulations on
corruption prevention.

Corruption benefits only few and deprives the rest of the people. Among the social costs
of corruption include undermining the rule of law and violating political legitimacy.
Disadvantaged people are deprived of fair treatment which increases poverty and that
corrupt practices jeopardize the welfare of the people.

Philippines is the 101 least corrupt nation out of 175 countries, according to the 2016
Corruption Perceptions Index reported by Transparency International. Corruption Rank
in Philippines averaged 92.09 from 1995 until 2016, reaching an all time high of 141 in
2008 and a record low of 36 in 1995.