Alex Brillantes

2008

245FOR WHOM IS PHILIPPINE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION?

* Professor and Dean, National College of Public Administration and Governance(NCPAG), University of the Philippines Diliman, and University Researcher (NCPAG)and former instructor of Saint Paul University Philippines, respectively.

The assistance of Kate Asilo in the preparation of this article and of PaulynBautista (with her insights and contribution in developing the section on GawadKalinga) is gratefully acknowledged.

Philippine Journal of Public Administration, Vol. LII Nos. 2-4 (April- October 2008)

Is There A Philippine PublicAdministration? Or Better Still,For Whom Is Philippine PublicAdministration?ALEX B. BRILLANTES, JR. AND MARICEL T. FERNANDEZ*

This article traces the evolution of public administration,suggesting that there are only two major phases: traditional andmodern. The fields of public administration are discussedtaking cognizance of the many other emerging fields goingbeyond its traditional fields, namely, voluntary sectormanagement and information technology. Selected majorongoing concerns of public administration which includereorganization, decentralization and corruption in thePhilippines are also considered. The article also brieflydiscusses an example of what is now taken as an emergingillustration of a home-grown governance paradigm, the "GawadKalinga" as illustrative of a successful partnership andcooperation between government, business and civil society inthe delivery of basic services, which after all is a core concern ofmodern public administration and good governance. The articleends by raising third order concerns and challenges as it tries toaddress the question, “For whom is Philippine publicadministration?”

Is there a Philippine public administration? A number of colleagueswonder why the same question is again asked when the National Collegeof Public Administration and Governance (NCPAG) is planning a publiccolloquium for the purpose of revisiting the same question. Indeed, thatquestion had been asked more than 20 years ago, and answers have beenprovided by eminent scholars of Public Administration such as Raul P. deGuzman (1986) and Onofre D. Corpuz (1986). After two decades, it isworthwhile to revisit the issue and ask once again, “Is there a PhilippinePublic Administration?” This time around, however, the question is takena little further by asking an equally important second question, “If there isa Philippine Public Administration, then for whom does Philippine PublicAdministration exist?”

245

April-October

PHILIPPINE JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION246

Among the basic references we use in the general introductorycourse in Public Administration at both the graduate (PA 201) andundergraduate (PA 11) levels are essays by the aforementioned eminentscholars of Philippine Public Administration (Dr. de Guzman and Dr.Corpuz). These essays were published in a special issue of the PhilippineJournal of Public Administration (PJPA) in 1986. While de Guzman andCorpuz both assert that there is a Philippine Public Administration (PPA),both also suggest that the question be properly contextualized.

There is a Philippine Public Administration as there is also anAmerican, French and Thai public administration. There is a Philippinepublic administration as there are institutions of public administrationaddressing specific sectoral concerns. There is a Philippine publicadministration as a field of study. There is a Philippine publicadministration considering the massive role of the bureaucracy inPhilippine public administration. There is a Philippine publicadministration as regards major institutions in education, politics andgovernment.

Yes, there are basic public administration structures and processes.There exists an executive branch with the bureaucracy at its core, aPhilippine legislature, and a Philippine judiciary. There are Philippineelectoral processes and procedures. There are Philippine subnationalinstitutions and local governments, together with decentralizationprocesses and procedures. Within this context, we can arguably affirm thatindeed, there is a Philippine public administration characterized by thepresence of administrative structures and processes operating within aunique Philippine context.

This article contextualizes the field of public administration bydiscussing the following: (a) the evolution of the field of publicadministration suggesting that there are only two major phases(traditional and modern phase); (b) the different fields of publicadministration; (c) selected major ongoing concerns of publicadministration in the Philippines (reorganization, decentralization andcorruption). The article also includes a brief discussion of an example ofwhat is now considered as an emerging illustration of a home growngovernance paradigm (Gawad Kalinga) as one that illustrates successfulcooperation between government, business and civil society in the deliveryof basic services, which after all is a core concern of modern publicadministration and good governance. The article then ends by raisingthird order concerns as it tries to address the question, “For whom ispublic administration?” 1

2008


One has to make an evaluation – and a judgment call – as to whetherthe discipline of Philippine public administration has indeed responded orfailed to respond – to the unique calls and demands of the times. This willeventually answer the question posed at the outset, “For whom is publicadministration?” This is a question ultimately addressed not only by thoseteaching public administration but also by practitioners of publicadministration as well. While this article will not even pretend to answerthat question, it will raise issues and concerns about the matter that maytrigger further questions and debate.

Evolution of the Field of Public Administration

In order to properly appreciate the context of Philippine publicadministration, it may be helpful to retrace the history and evolution ofthe broad discipline and examine the various strands and influences thathave influenced the theory and practice – the praxis – of publicadministration in the Philippines. The specific areas and fields ofspecialization of the field shall be examined, taking cognizance of themany other emerging fields going beyond the traditional fields of publicadministration.

The discipline of public administration can be divided into two majorphases: the traditional / classical phase from the late 1800s to the 1950s,and the modern phase from the 1950s to the present. The modern phasecan be further divided into the following subphases: developmentadministration (1950s to the 60s), new public administration (1960s to the70s), new public management and reinventing governance (1980s into the90s), and finally public administration as governance (1990s into thepresent). Table 1 is an indicative matrix that reflects the phases in theevolution of public administration.

Table 1. Phases in the Evolution of Public Administration

(1950 to the present)1950s to 1960s1970s1980s to 1990s1990s1990s to the present

Modern Public AdministrationDevelopment Administration New Public Administration New Public Management Reinventing Government PA as Governance

1800s to 1950sTraditional / Classical Public Administration

Indicative PeriodPhase

(1950 to the present)1950s to 1960s1970s1980s to 1990s1990s1990s to the present

Modern Public AdministrationDevelopment Administration New Public Administration New Public Management Reinventing Government PA as Governance

1800s to 1950sTraditional / Classical Public Administration

Indicative PeriodPhase

April-October


Traditional / Classical Public Administration

Public Administration can be traced back to human history. It hasbeen suggested that it is as old as the ancient empires of China, India,Egypt, Greece, Rome and Mesopotomia. The institutionalization ofadministrative capacity for collective purposes is the foundation of publicadministration. Such arrangement, according to Caiden (1982), hasexisted in all societies. All societies are devoted to advancing the generalwelfare or the public interest. The idea that “public administration shouldnot be considered administration of the public but administration for thepublic” was practiced and expressed in the Code of Hammurabi, inConfucianism and in the funeral oration of Pericles (Caiden 1982: 7). Inother words, the idea of client-oriented public administration has its rootsin ancient public administration.

Caiden (1982) also noted that the genesis of Public Administrationmust have originated from monarchical Europe where household officialswere divided into two groups: one in charge of public affairs, i.e. theadministration of justice, finance, training of armies, and the otherresponsible for personal services. Rutgers (1998) supports this claim thatroyal administration had already been manifested way back in the mid 17th

century and early 18th century in Prussia. F.K. Medikus (as cited inRutgers 1998) likewise argued about the study of public administration andits positions amidst the sciences in the 18th century. He advocated“cameralism” and claimed that it should be treated as an autonomous fieldof study of great importance to the state. 2 This practice flourished inEurope until the 21st century but it was, in the long run, replaced byadministrative law and legal studies.

Since this article tries to trace the roots of Philippine PublicAdministration, it shall dwell on American theories and principles whichadmittedly influenced the direction and development of the formal study ofthe field of public administration in the Philippines, both at the levels oftheory and practice. It will be recalled that public administration as anacademic field of study formally began with the establishment byAmerican academics of the Institute of Public Administration (IPA) in theUniversity of the Philippines (UP) in 1952; hence, the close affinity ofPhilippine PA theory to American PA theory and practice can not beignored.

1800s to 1950s

If the roots of Public Administration as a distinct field of study haveto be traced, the tendency is to draw on Woodrow Wilson’s 1887 classic

2008


essay, “The Study of Administration.” 3 In that essay there was a seriousclaim that public administration should be a self-conscious, professionalfield. Wilson suggested the distinction between politics andadministration, i.e., administration should be politics-free and that “thefield of administration is the field of business” (Wilson 1953: 71). Thus,establishing what became known as the “politics-administration”dichotomy.4 Although Wilson set a demarcation line between politics andadministration, Frank Goodnow (1900), the “Father of American PublicAdministration,” presented a more meticulous examination of politics-administration dichotomy in his book, Politics and Administration, that“supplanted the traditional concern with the separation of powers amongthe various branches of the government.” (Shafritz and Hyde 1997: 2)Politics-administration dichotomy has provoked long-running debateswhich persist until today. It may be argued though that, as far as thePhilippine experience is concerned, the dichotomy is artificial and that inpractice, power and partisan politics have had a disproportionate influenceupon the workings of public administration in the country.

Moreover, Max Weber (1946), a German sociologist who is known asthe “Father of Modern Sociology,” made a clear descriptive analysis ofbureaucratic organizations. He introduced some major variables orfeatures of bureaucracy, which include hierarchy, division of labor,formally written rules and procedures, impersonality and neutrality.(Weber 1946 as cited in Shafritz and Hyde 1997), or these features havebecome a reference point in evaluating both the good and bad effects ofbureaucratic structures In 1926, the first textbook in the field of publicadministration, which became one of the most influential textbooks inpublic administration to date, is the Introduction to the Study of PublicAdministration written by Leonard D. White.5 In the book, White (1926 ascited in Shafritz and Hyde 1997) assumes that administration is still an artalthough he recognized the ideal of transforming it into a science.Interestingly, his work avoided the potential pitfalls of the politics-administration dichotomy but rather concentrated on emphasizing themanagerial phase of administration.

From Classical, Neo-Classical toIntegrative/Modern Organization Theories

Frederick Taylor, the “Father of Scientific Management,” is bestknown for his “one best way approach” in accomplishing tasks (Taylor 1912as reprinted in Shafritz and Hyde 1997). Classical organization theoryevolved from this notion. Another popular manifestation of this approachwas that of Luther Gulick’s POSDCORB.6 Gulick and Urwick integrated

April-October


the ideas of earlier theorists like Henri Fayol7 into a comprehensivetheory of administration. They believed that a single science ofadministration that exceeds the boundaries of the private and the publicsector exists (Gulick and Urwick 1937 as reprinted in Shafrtiz and Hyde1997). The reasoning of the science of administration was largely borrowedfrom Fayol’s fourteen principles of organization. POSDCORB, however,was seen as less influential in postwar American government. Thereafter,Simon, Waldo and Appleby attacked the idea of POSDCORB (Shafritz andHyde 1997).

Simon (1947) in his book Administrative Behavior, made a distinctionbetween theoretical and practical science (Simon 1947). He introducedmore common principles in the literature of administration whichhighlighted administrative efficiency and specialization when he wrote thearticle, “The Proverbs of Administration” (Simon 1946 as reprinted inShafffritz and Hyde 1997; Stillman 1991). On the other hand, in 1945,Appleby led a postwar attack on the concept of politics-administrationdichotomy by drafting a convincing case that “public administration wasnot something apart from politics” but rather at the “center of politicallife” (Stillman 1991: 123).

In 1948, Dwight Waldo tried to establish the direction and thrust ofPublic Administration as a field of study in his book, The AdministrativeState, which hit the “gospel of efficiency” that dominated theadministrative thinking prior to Word War II.8 That same year, Sayreattacked public personnel administration as “the triumph over purpose”(Shafritz and Hyde 1997: 74). In 1949, Selznick introduced the so-called“cooptative mechanism” where he defined “cooptation” as “the process ofabsorbing new elements into the leadership or policy-determiningstructure of an organization as a means of averting threats to its stabilityor existence” (Shafritz and Hyde 1997: 147).

William Willoughby (1918), a contemporary of Goodnow, advocatedthe role of the trilogy (the three branches of government) but he was moreknown for his work on budgetary reforms. He discussed the movementsfor budgetary reforms in the US in view of the budget as an instrumentfor democracy, as an instrument for correlating legislative and executiveaction, and as an instrument for securing administrative efficiency andeconomy (Willoughby 1918 as reprinted in Shafritz and Hyde 1997). MaryParker Follet (1926) also made significant contributions to the discourse ofPublic Administration as one of the proponents of participatorymanagement and the “law of situation” which can be attributed to theconcept of contingency management. She illustrated the advantages ofparticipatory management in her article, “The Giving of Orders" (Follett1926 as reprinted in Shafritz and Hyde 1997).

2008


Between 1927 and 1932, Elton Mayo, together with FritzRoethlisberger, conducted the Hawthorne experiments on the theory ofindividuals within an organization which propelled the human relationsschool of management thought. Their studies show that human behaviorand interpersonal relations are important subjects for organizationalanalysis (Tompkins 2005). Chester Barnard (1938) presented a morecomprehensive theory of organizational behavior when he wrote on thefunctions of the executive. He argued that for the executive to becomemore effective, he should maintain an equilibrium between the needs ofthe employees and the organization. Maslow (1943), on the other hand,focused on the hierarchical needs of the individual. His “theory of humanmotivation” states that the human being has five sets of needs:physiological, safety, love or affiliation, esteem, and ultimately, self-actualization. These concepts were later explored and developed into morecomprehensive theories and principles as advocated by severalorganizational theorists and behaviorists such as, Herzberg’s “motivation-hygiene theory,” McGregor’s “Theory X and Y,”9 Argyris’ “personalityversus organization" and Likert’s Systems 1 to 4, among others (Shafritzand Hyde 1997).

Modern Public Administration

This part of the article suggests the indicative period of modernpublic administration in the 1950s. The subphases include: (a)development administration; (b) new public administration; (c) new publicmanagement and reinventing government; and (d) PA as governance.

The discipline of public administration has been characterized as onewith a continuing “identify crisis.” To a certain extent, it was that“identity crisis” that served as a theme that led to the emergence of theNew Public Administration movement in the 70s. Rutgers (1998) argued in“Paradigm Lost: Crisis as Identity of the Study of Public Administration,”that public administration lacked an “epistemological identity.” In thePhilippines, Reyes (1993) revisited in his various writings, the so-called“identity crisis” of public administration initially raised by various scholarsof the discipline. He contended that the crisis revolved around theimperative to define a public administration rooted in the developmentaspirations of the Philippines. The identity crisis, however, prevails untiltoday in the country.

Development Administration (1950s to 1960s)

Development Administration (DA) as a field of study emerged in the1950s and the 1960s with the Third World countries as the focal point. The

April-October


term “Third World” may be attributed to the French demographer andeconomic historian Alfred Sauvy, who at the height of the Cold War in1952, used the term to distinguish developing countries outside the twopower blocs: the capitalist and communist societies, namely, the FirstWorld and the Second World (Chilcote 1984). Nef and Dwivedi (1981) onthe other hand, attributed the concept of DA to Goswami in 1955, laterpopularized by Riggs (1970) and Weidner (1970). They coined the term“development administration” to refer to "developing countries which arelargely found in Asia, Latin America, and Africa." These developingcountries endeavored to make concerted efforts in order to be recognizedas “emerging nations” and to resurrect themselves after World War II. Inthe context of “emerging nation,” Landau (1970) described DA as theengineering of social change. Likewise, according to Ilchman, thesecountries were “concerned with increasing the capacity of the state toproduce goods and services to meet and induce changing demands”(Ilchman 1970: 136).

Gant (1979), on the other hand, defined DA as not merely addressingState functions, such as, public service delivery and enforcement of lawsbut the inducement and management of change to pursue developmentaspirations. Developing countries were in urgent need to implementfundamental reforms in their politico-administrative machinery.10

Khator, however, argued that DA was built upon several criticalassumptions: (1) development needs are the most important needs ofdeveloping countries, (2) the development needs of developing anddeveloped countries are inherently different, (3) development can beadministered, (4) developmental know-hows are transferable, and (5) thepolitical, social, and cultural context of development can be easily altered(Khator 1998: 1778). Likewise, Fred Riggs, in his “Frontiers ofDevelopment,” identified two foci of development administration:development of administration and the administration of development.Most development administration scholars focused more on the latter andit subsequently became synonymous to the administration of developmentin Third World countries (Khator 1998). Given the situations above, DAmay be considered as the “management of innovation” because it wasaimed at helping countries that are undergoing reconstruction and socialtransformation.

In the Philippines, the term “development administration” was usedto suggest that it may be an appropriate framework to examine the State’sexperience as it tries to rebuild its institutions within a democraticframework, as it struggles with new economic, political and socialchallenges, and as it adapts to the trends and demands of globalization.Additionally, DA principles have been among the major themes that ran

2008


through the various lectures and writings of de Guzman, who togetherwith OD Corpuz (1986) initially addressed the question: “Is there aPhilippine PA?”

Since the idea was to steer developing countries to economicdevelopment and social progress, the term "DA" became closely associatedwith foreign aid and western models of development.11 Western countriesprovide grants and aids to developing countries for nation-building,economic development, institutional strengthening, and peopleparticipation in development. As to administrative reform, which is one ofthe core values of DA, de Guzman (1986) described and analyzed thestructural and behavioral characteristics of the Philippine publicbureaucracy and argued that the implementation of administrative reformshould have two major dimensions: reforming the structures of thebureaucracy and reforming the behavior of those in the bureaucracy (deGuzman 1986 as cited in Brillantes 1995: 145).

Development administration has always been one of the centralfeatures of the various long-term and medium-term PhilippineDevelopment Plans since the seventies. The paradigm for bureaucraticreform continues to evolve in various intellectual and practical debatesbut government continues its work amidst all these. Until recently, allPhilippine development plans since the seventies had a specific chapterdevoted solely to development administration.12

New Public Administration (late 1960s to 1970s)

The term “New Public Administration” [or "New PA"] emerged fromthe Minnowbrook Conference in 1968 in Syracuse University. Theconference was the brainchild of Dwight Waldo who brought togetheryoung public administrators and scholars to discuss important issues andvarying perspectives on public administration. The conference stirredcontroversies like the issue on rejecting the classical theories of publicadministration and rather introducing new principles. For instance,Frederickson in his essay, “Towards a New Public Administration,” addssocial equity to the classic definition of public administration.Conventional or classic public administration sought only to answerinquiries on efficiency and effectiveness like: how can the governmentoffer better services with available resources (efficiency) or how can thegovernment offer better services while spending less money (economy)? Inintroducing the principles of New PA, he adds the question: “Does thisservice enhance social equity?” (Frederickson 1971) Moreover, theMinnowbrook conferees also questioned the relevance of traditional publicadministration to existing deprivation to an era of fast-paced technological

April-October


advancement in the backdrop. Frederickson (1971) argued that disparitiesexisted because public administration focused less on social purposes orvalues of government policies and programs and more on the economy andefficiency of execution. The value-free and neutral stance of traditionalPA has alienated the less privileged and deprived groups in the society.New PA’s proponents, likewise, advocated that public administratorsshould not be neutral; they should be committed to both goodmanagement and social equity as values to be achieved. New PA thencalled for a client-oriented administration, non-bureaucratic structures,participatory decisionmaking, decentralized administration and advocate-administrators (Frederickson 1971; Nigro and Nigro 1989). With the abovecontentions, it can be said that the theme of New PA is “change” and thechallenge is for the public administrators is their capacity to accept"change."

Now the question is: Is New PA relevant?

The same question was asked by Pilar (1993) in his paper, “Relevanceof New PA in Philippine Public Administration.”13 He argued that New PAis relevant while there exists no other indigenous model of publicadministration. “The relevance of New PA may be regarded... in terms oftheir compatibility with the context or the environment, as well as theconvergence between the content and intent of new PA with the goals,purposes, and aspirations of the country” (Pilar 1993: 145). The principle ofNew PA is compatible with the environment of Philippine PA, although itwas conceived during the time that the US was in chaotic andunpredictable environment amidst prosperity. Such situation is differentin the Philippines considering that it not only grappled with developmentbut it struggled to pull itself out of poverty which is a major concern of thegovernment up to this date. New PA created the need to stimulatechange: meeting the needs of the society through the government’sdevelopment programs and projects, and addressing social equity andjustice. It must be emphasized though, that the core questions raised byNew PA are also embedded in the second question, “for whom is PA?” It isindeed critical to define the ultimate targets and partners of publicadministration structures, institutions and processes. In other words, whois the “public” in public administration?

New Public Management andReinventing Government (1980s to 1990s)

This section introduces New Public Management (NPM), reinventinggovernment and reengineering government. When did these ideasemerge? What were their key features? And were these really more of thesame?

2008


The new public management (NPM) movement had long beenpracticed by the European countries in the late 1970s and 1980s but theterm NPM was essentially launched by several luminaries such asChristopher Hood (1991), Christopher Pollitt (1990), and Michael Barzeley(1992), among others in the early 1990s. Similar movements such asreinventing government and reengineering also emerged around the sametime.

In the UK, NPM movement started in the late 1970s under theThatcher government. NPM has also long been practiced by the membersof the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)like New Zealand, Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, and Canada inthe 1980s. However, the idea of NPM became more popular and stimulatedacademic and political interests worldwide when Hood (1991) coined theterm in his 1991 article entitled, “A Public Management for all Seasons.”

One of the best examples of the NPM praxis can be seen in NewZealand’s administrative reforms. Their government privatizedsubstantial public functions, redeveloped their personnel system tobecome more performance-oriented, instituted new processes ofproductivity measures, and reengineered departmental systems to reflectgovernment’s commitment (Denhardt 2004: 136-137 citing Boston 1996).In the US, during the administration of US President Bill Clinton and VicePresident Al Gore, this concept was reflected in their “NationalPerformance Review” which urged the federal government to improve itsperformance and led to the foundation of the praxis of reengineeringgovernment. Parenthetically, NPM was justified by Lynn (1996) in hisarticle, “Public Management as Art, Science, and Profession.”

Moreover, NPM according to Pollitt is a shift to a “managerialist”movement. He then identified five core beliefs of managerialism: (1) themain route to social progress lies in the achievement of continuingincreases in economically defined productivity; (2) such productivityincrease will mainly come from the application of ever more sophisticatedtechnologies; (3) the application of these technologies can only be achievedwith a labor force disciplined in accordance with the productivity ideal; (4)management is a separate and distinct organizational function and onethat plays the crucial role in planning, implementing and measuring thenecessary improvements in productivity; and (5) to perform this crucialrole, managers must be granted reasonable “room to maneuver” (i.e., rightto manage”) (Pollitt 1990: 2-3 as cited in Denhardt 2000: 148).

The ideas of “new public management” and “reinventing government”were essentially born out of the continuing search for solutions toeconomic problems in the 1970s and to produce a government that “works

April-October


better but costs less” (Denhardt 2004: 136). The idea of “reinventinggovernment” was advanced by Osborne and Gaebler in 1992. Theirconcept of NPM was sparked by the use of business model prescriptions forgovernment, i.e., using private sector innovation, resources, andorganizational ideas to improve the public sector. ReinventingGovernment provided ten principles through which public entrepreneursmight bring about massive governmental reform principles that haveremained at the core of the new public management. These are thefollowing: (1) catalytic government: steering rather than rowing;(2) community-owned government: empowering rather than serving;(3) competitive government: injecting competition into service delivery;(4) mission-driven government: transforming rule-driven organizations;(5) results-oriented government: funding outcomes, not input;(6) customer-driven government: meeting the needs of the customer nottheir bureaucracy; (7) enterprising government rather than spending;(8) anticipatory government: prevention rather than cure; (9) decentralizedgovernment: from hierarchy to participation and teamwork; and(10) market-oriented government: leveraging change through the market(Osborne and Gaebler 1992). 14

Among the criticisms of this model, however, was its emphasis onpeople as “customers” or “clients” rather than “citizens” and thatcustomers were placed as “end-product” users of government rather thanas “means” of the policymaking process. Denhardt and Denhardt (2003)likewise offer a synthesis of the ideas that are opposed to NPM presentedby Osborne and Gaebler (1992). Their model for governance expands thetraditional role of the public administrator as a lone arbiter of publicinterest, rather, “the public administrator is seen as a key actor withinthe larger system of governance” (Denhardt and Denhardt 2003: 81).Following "Reinventing Government," they divided their argument intoseven principles, namely, (1) serve citizens, not customers (2) seek thepublic interest, (3) value citizenship over entrepreneurship, (4) thinkstrategically, act democratically, (5) recognize that accountability is notsimple, (6) serve rather than steer, and (6) value people, not justproductivity (Denhardt and Denhardt 2003).

Another similar movement was “reengineering organizations.” Thisterm was coined by Michael Hammer (1990) in an article published by theHarvard Business Review. Reengineering offers an approach forimproving performance, effectiveness, and efficiency of organizationsregardless of the sector in which they operate. According to Hammer andChampy, “reengineering is the fundamental rethinking and radicalredesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements incritical contemporary measures of performance, such as cost, quality,

2008


service, and speed” (Hammer and Champy 1993 as cited in Halachmi 1995:330). The tenets of reengineering include the following:

• Searching for radical improvement in business processes enabledby exploiting the powers of information technology.

• Breaking away from the antiquated ways and processes of businessoperations and starting with a clean slate.

• Viewing (and reviewing) the fundamental business processes fromcross-functional perspective to ensure that each step in the processadds value.

• Questioning whether the process is necessary and what it isintended to achieve, given the overall mission of the organization.

• Systematic searching for radical changes for the purpose ofeffecting major improvements or breakthroughs in businessprocesses when an incremental approach will not work anymore.

• Reducing, if not eliminating, paper documentation that enters theprocess at different stages, with an attempt to capture the dataonce, at the source.

• Focusing on and developing around processes and outcomes, nottasks or organizational functions.

• Focusing on the customer or client, in a results-oriented and teambased approach (Halachmi 1995: 331).

Reengineering, or the so-called "business process reengineering"(BPR), was essentially an innovation that sought to refurbish theorganization’s operation, management system and structure, to improveits efficiency, effectiveness, and competitive ability and ultimately improveservice delivery. Reengineering seems to be an effective way to upgradethe services of governmental agencies; however, it continues to hurdleobstacles and challenges in applying the formula such as fiscal constraintsand the traditional thinking of political leaders.

PA as Governance (the 1990s into the 2000s)

The many failed development interventions in the 1950s into the1990s spurred the introduction of other development reforms and thereemerged the “governance” paradigm which was introduced and advocatedby multilateral organizations, like the United Nations (UN), the WorldBank (WB), and the Asian Development Bank (ADB). According toFrechette, the word “governance” suddenly “has become something of amantra uttered by donors, reformers and pundits alike” (Frechette 2000:25).

April-October


"Governance" entails a larger scope and has a wider meaning.Though the term “governance” has been used to refer mostly to“government,” when correctly used, “governance” really goes beyondgovernment. The Asian Development Bank defines it as the"institutionalization of a system through which citizens, institutions,organizations, and groups in a society articulate their interests, exercisetheir rights, and mediate their differences in pursuit of the collectivegood" (ADB 1995 as cited in ADB 2005: 1). On the other hand, the UnitedNations Development Programme (UNDP) describes "governance" as “theexercise of political, economic and administrative authority to manage anation’s affairs. It embraces all of the methods–good and bad–thatsocieties use to distribute power and manage public resources andproblems” (UNDP 1997: 9).

Cariño (2000), in her reflections on the term “governance,” identifiedseveral actors and factors that pushed for governance. She acknowledgesthat governance is not the sole responsibility of the government per se butthe role of the market and civil society are of equal importance and shouldbe recognized. She then identified the factors or processes that pushed forgovernance: the quest for growth and development, the environmentalmovement, globalization and consolidating peace (Cariño 2000). These arepractically the same values or virtues found in the UN Charter.Governance promotes the virtues of decentralization, participation,responsiveness and accountability among others.

From “governance,” the concept of “good governance” emerged andbecame prominent in international aid circles in the 1990s. This serves asa general guiding principle for donor agencies to demand that recipientgovernments adhere to proper administrative processes in the handling ofdevelopment assistance and put in place effective policy instrumentstowards that end (Doornbos 2003). They believe that when there is goodgovernance, there is sustainable development. Kofi Annan, in hisinaugural speech in the 1st International Conference on Governance forSustainable Growth and Equity in the United Nations, New York, on 28-30July 1997 affirmed this statement when he said:

Good governance and sustainable development are indivisible.That is the lesson of all our efforts and experiences, from Africato Asia to Latin America. Without good governance – without therule of law, predictable administration, legitimate power, andresponsive regulation — no amount of funding, no amount ofcharity will set us on the path to prosperity…We are fullyengaged in efforts to improve governance around theworld…good governance is indispensable for building peaceful,prosperous and democratic societies (Annan 1997).

2008


• Disclosure of InformationEnsuring access to accurate and timely information about the economy and government policies

4. Transparency refers to the availability of Information to the general public and clear government rules, regulations, and decisions

• Law and Development• Legal Frameworks for

Private Sector Development

Establishing and sustaining appropriate legal and institutional arrangements

Observing and upholding the rule of law

Maintaining consistency of public policies

3. Predictability refers to the existence of laws, regulations and policies to regulate society and the fair and consistent application of these

• Participation of beneficiaries and affected groups

• Interface between government and the private sector

• Decentralization of public and service delivery functions (empowerment of Local Governments)

• Cooperation with Non-Government Organizations

Undertaking development for and by the people

2. Participation refers to enhancing people’s access to and influence on public policy processes

• Public Sector Management• Public Enterprise

Management• Public Financial

Management• Civil Service Reform

Establishing criteria to measure performance of public officials

Institutionalizing mechanisms to ensure that standards are met

1. Accountability means making public officials answerable for government behavior and responsive to the entity from which they derive authority

Specific Areas of ActionKey DimensionsBasic Elements of Good Governance

• Disclosure of InformationEnsuring access to accurate and timely information about the economy and government policies

4. Transparency refers to the availability of Information to the general public and clear government rules, regulations, and decisions

• Law and Development• Legal Frameworks for

Private Sector Development

Establishing and sustaining appropriate legal and institutional arrangements

Observing and upholding the rule of law

Maintaining consistency of public policies

3. Predictability refers to the existence of laws, regulations and policies to regulate society and the fair and consistent application of these

• Participation of beneficiaries and affected groups

• Interface between government and the private sector

• Decentralization of public and service delivery functions (empowerment of Local Governments)

• Cooperation with Non-Government Organizations

Undertaking development for and by the people

2. Participation refers to enhancing people’s access to and influence on public policy processes

• Public Sector Management• Public Enterprise

Management• Public Financial

Management• Civil Service Reform

Establishing criteria to measure performance of public officials

Institutionalizing mechanisms to ensure that standards are met

1. Accountability means making public officials answerable for government behavior and responsive to the entity from which they derive authority

Specific Areas of ActionKey DimensionsBasic Elements of Good Governance

Annan concluded that “good governance is perhaps the single mostimportant factor in eradicating poverty and promoting development”(Annan 1997).

An ADB document (2005) also affirmed that good governance issynonymous with sound development management. It identified some keyprinciples of development which may be considered as elements of goodgovernance such as accountability, participation, predictability, andtransparency. Table 2 shows these basic elements of good governance andtheir key dimensions.

Table 2. Basic Elements of Good Governance

Source: ADB 2005 as cited in ADB 1995.

April-October


Fields of Specialization of Public Administration

This section discusses the various traditional subfields of publicadministration including the emerging fields in response to a rapidlychanging environment. However, even before going into the subfields ofpublic administration, it is imperative to recognize that publicadministration, itself, has been considered as a subfield of politicalscience.

Traditional Subfields of Political Science

The following have been considered as the traditional subfields ofpolitical science: political theory; international relations and politics;comparative politics; and public administration. These are brieflydiscussed below.

Political Theory

Political theory is the study and analysis of political ideas ofsignificant political thinkers. It is also a search for knowledge of politicalthoughts of various historical periods, namely, Ancient, Medieval/Christian, and Modern period. Among the major philosophers andtheorists explored in this field of political science are Plato, Aristotle,Cicero, Augustine, Aquinas, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, andmany other political thinkers. It is recognized that their political ideasshaped the political institutions, law, order, liberty, justice, and thequality of life into concrete historical circumstances.

International Relations and Politics

As a subfield of political science, international relations deals withthe relations between and among nation states and how such relations aredefined. Power has always been traditionally considered a factor in thedetermination of international relations and politics. The role ofinternational organizations such as the UN, including other multilateralbodies like the World Bank, the IMF, and closer to home, the ADB, inshaping the power relations is an aspect that is also addressed in the studyof international relations and politics.

Comparative Politics

Comparative politics is the study of contemporary politics andpolitical trends in the different countries around the world. It comparesand critically analyzes the variety of ways that these countries havechosen to shape their political institutions and processes, assess the costs

2008


and benefits of their choices and address common problems, including thechallenges of globalization. All these with an eye toward identifyingprocesses, practices, and policies which might be “exportable” ideas forcountries to borrow from one another.

Public Administration

Public Administration as a discipline emerged out of a broaderdiscipline which is Political Science. Reyes considers it as a “child ofpolitical science that is mature enough to be treated separately orindependently of its mother” (Reyes 1993: 22).

There is one school of thought that public administration has nogenerally accepted definition. The scope of the discipline is so great and sodebatable that it is easier to explain than define. Public administration isa field of study, or a discipline, or a field of practice, or an occupation.There is much disagreement about whether the study of publicadministration can properly be called a discipline, largely because it isoften viewed as a subfield of the two disciplines of Political Science andAdministrative Science (or Administration).15

In Canada, the study of public administration has evolved primarilyas a subfield of political science. Knowledge of the machinery ofgovernment and of the political and legal environment in which publicadministrators work is essential in understanding the political system.Also, public administrators play an important role by providing policyadvice to elected politicians and by active involvement in the making,enforcement and adjudication of laws and regulations. As a subfield ofadministrative science, public administration is part of the generic processof administration. The broad field of administration is divided into public,business, hospital, educational and other forms of administration. Thesimilarities between these forms of administration are considered to begreater than their differences. 16

In the Philippines, though, Public Administration did not evolve outof the discipline of political science. More specifically, publicadministration as an academic field of study was essentially the result ofthe establishment of the Institute of Public Administration (IPA) at theUniversity of the Philippines, and in one sense did not follow theconventional path in the emergence of public administration traditionallyevolving independently as a subfield of political science.17

April-October


Subfields of Public Administration

Traditionally, the discipline of public administration itself has thefollowing subfields: organization and management, public personneladministration, local government administration, and public fiscaladministration. The following discusses each of these subfields:

Organization and Management

Organization and Management is one of the oldest subfields of publicadministration. It basically focuses on sub-areas like organization theoryand practice, dynamics of organization, decisionmaking in administration,leadership and other sub-areas. It discusses the theories, processes andtechniques involved in the organization and management of the nationalgovernment and its agencies. It also explores modern managementtechniques such as reinventing, reengineering and other improvementmethods in organization and management like total quality management(TQM),18 which has largely contributed to public administration reforms.

Public Personnel Administration

Public administration consists of administrative processes. Itinvolves people, its most important element, therefore public personneladministration is an equally important field. In here, the definition ofpersonnel management as “the recruitment, selection, development,utilization of, and accommodation to human resources by organizations”(French 1978: 3) is explored. Specifically, it discusses the evolution ofpublic personnel administration, arrangements of the personnel system,general attributes of personnel functions in the public sector, anddevelopments and current trends in personnel administration.

In the traditional public administration, organization andmanagement and personnel administration were emphasized as salientfeatures of the study in public administration. Personnel administrationhas widened its scope and evolved into human resource management orhuman resource development. These two fields not only complement butsupplement each other and are now put together into what is now called“Organization Studies.”

Public Fiscal Administration

With the emergence of the field of public administration, muchinterest has been directed towards fiscal administration. Again, thissubfield of public administration covers a wide range of issues and topics

2008


affecting government operations like taxation, public expenditures andborrowing, resource allocation, revenue administration, auditing andintergovernmental relations (Briones 1996). Public fiscal administrationembraces "the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of policies anddecisions on taxation and revenue administration; resource allocation,budgeting, and public expenditure; public borrowing and debtmanagement; and accounting and auditing” (Briones 1996: 2). Throughthe years, many researches were devoted to these topics and issues; thegovernment has also introduced reforms such as in tax administration,value added tax (VAT), expanded value added tax (E-VAT), procurementreforms, the medium-term expenditure framework (MTEF), accountingreforms, reengineering the bureaucracy program (REBP), transforminglocal finance, and many others.

Local Government Administration

This is another distinct subfield of public administration. In studyinglocal government administration, the concept of "decentralization" istaken into account. Decentralization, as a process, is one of the widelyresearched topics in promoting development and democratic governance.Administrative organizations and operations of local governments, andthe structure and processes of regional administration are likewisediscussed. In particular, local government administration may includetopics on theoretical and empirical perspectives of local government andregional administration, community and institutional development, localgovernment systems/procedures, intergovernmental dynamics, local publicfinance or local fiscal administration, local economic promotion, local andregional development planning, local government innovations and manyothers.

New Subfields of Public Administration

As the field evolved, and in response to the changing demands of thetime, new subfields emerged. These include the following:

Policy Analysis and Program Administration

The postwar years saw the emergence of public policy as a subfield ofpublic administration. In the US, interest in policy studies started in the1950s. In the Philippines, however, it started in the 1970s in the thenCollege of Public Administration of the University of the Philippines.Generally, policy studies focus on the content of public policy, itsprocesses, models, theories and approaches, its impact on as well as

April-October


evaluation of public programs and projects. Other significant concepts,principles and techniques for systematic analysis and decision making inpublic policy and management are also considered in policy analysis. Dye(1995) said that certain theoretical approaches and models have beenintroduced in studying public policy which include institutional, process,group, elite, rational, incremental, game theory, public choice and systemsmodel.

Public Enterprise Management (PEM)

Privatization is one of the foci of this area of public administration.Other topics include the nature and processes of public enterprises; therelationship between the government and the public enterprise sector;issues on managerial autonomy, public accountability, corporate socialresponsibility and the role of the state in the economy. At the graduatelevel, courses include management of public enterprise and financialmanagement.

Voluntary Sector Management (VSM)

Voluntary Sector Management (VSM) is another emerging field ofPublic Administration. In recognition of the growing voluntary sector inthe Philippines, the UP NCPAG pioneered the offering of VSM as a field ofspecialization. This field has developed expertise through the yearsthrough its institutional linkage with the UP Pahinungod with Dr.Ledivina V. Cariño as its founding director. VSM can also be referred toas “voluntary sector," “third sector,” “non-profit organizations,” “non-governmental organizations,” and “civil society organizations.”

Spatial Information Management (SIM)

With the aid of support tools, all kinds of spatial data or informationare utilized in delivering public goods and services efficiently andeffectively. With the study and utilization of geographic informationsystem (GIS), data/information can be processed immediately andtransported easily. This technology is currently used by manygovernment agencies and corporations. Thus, the introduction andpopularization of some technology terms in government such as e-government, e-commerce, geo-visualization, e-finance, among others.Other systems are also introduced in SIM like global positioning systemsand remote sensing.

Public administration indeed has evolved both as a scholarlydiscipline and as a profession. It has reached wider dimensions of

2008


governance, from political, economic, social, cultural aspects of publicmanagement. In the executive branch, for instance, it has retainedtraditional functions such as O and M (management functions likeplanning, organizing) and personnel management and also exploredpossibilities in organizational development, fiscal administration(budgeting, accounting, auditing) and public policy and programadministration (processes and analysis of public policy).

Major Concerns in the Philippine Public Administration Praxis:Reorganization, Decentralization and Corruption

The praxis of Philippine public administration has always includedthree major areas of concerns. These are: reorganization, decentralizationand the ever present challenge of addressing corruption and promotingaccountability in government.19 This section discusses each of these areasand thrusts.

Reorganizing the Bureaucracy

The praxis of public administration in the Philippines has alwaysbeen rooted in the imperative for reform. The following discussionconsiders two major targets of reform over the years, the civil serviceand the local governments . More specifically, Philippine publicadministration has always seen reorganization as central to the entireinitiative in the continuing search and design for more responsivestructures and processes. Indeed, among the initial initiatives of anyPhilippine presidents – from Roxas in the 1940s to Arroyo in 2002, uponassumption to office – is the policy to reorganize the bureaucracy.

Presidential Decree No 1. enacted by Marcos upon the declaration ofmartial law was the Integrated Reorganization Plan (IRP). It promised"the most extensive and wrenching effort at administrative reform in thecountry’s history through decentralizing and reducing the bureaucracy,and standardizing departmental organization. The IRP also sought tointroduce structural changes and reforms to strengthen the merit systemas well as professionalize the civil service system" (ADB 2005: 11). Endriga(2001) described the bureaucracy under the Marcos administration asbeing more subservient than at any other time in Philippine history. Thegovernment then was restructured according to the will of Marcos and ithas been shielded from public scrutiny and criticism, in effect,perpetuating irresponsible acts.

April-October


To restore government integrity and public confidence,reorganization reforms were introduced by President Aquino, essentiallywith the creation of the Presidential Commission on Public Ethics andAccountability and the Presidential Commission on Good Governance(PCGG). Civil society organizations (CSOs) became more active indecisionmaking and program implementation of the government. Todownsize the bloated government, one of the steps undertaken by heradministration was the removal of thousands of civil servants from theirpositions. Although the said step was justified, ironically, the number ofcivil servants and political appointees in the government increased.Moreover, pubic agencies and offices grew which caused the extended andfragmented government structure (ADB 2005).

Reorganization efforts were minimal during the tenures of Ramosand Estrada. Ramos simply focused on the praxis of NPM with the endgoal of reengineering the bureaucracy. His flagship program, thePhilippines 2000, was envisioned to make the country globally competitiveby pursuing the thrusts of deregulation, market liberalization, andprivatization. He focused on setting the guiding principles in reorganizingand improving government operations, divesting government-owned andcontrolled corporations (GOCCs), promoting decentralization and localgovernance, and pushing the attrition law. 20 The reengineering plan,however, has remained a plan with the Congress not laying down the legalframework of streamlining the bureaucracy.

Under the Estrada administration, the Rationalization Program of2001 through Presidential Committee on Effective Governance (PCEG) wasintroduced. Executive Order No. 165, “Directing the Formulation of anInstitutional Strengthening and Streamlining Program for the ExecutiveBranch,” laid down the “Reengineering the Bureaucracy for BetterGovernance Program.” The program aimed to strengthen and streamlinethe bureaucracy particularly the executive branch, the GOCCs, and thestate universities and colleges (SUCs).

What prompted the government in pushing for the rationalizationprogram despite some criticisms and even cynicism particularly from theskeptics? Katrina David, former CSC Chair, in her talk in the DilimanGovernance Forum (DGF) held at UP NCPAG, offered four guidingprinciples of the rationalization program: first, to make the government dothe right things (efficiency); second, to do the things in the right or bestway (effectiveness); third, to be able to do the right things in the right waywithin affordable levels (affordability); and fourth, to be able to achievethese in the most accountable, transparent manner as possible(accountability). David further stressed that effectiveness means there isa need to focus on government efforts on its vital and core functions. This

2008


is indeed a good strategy in achieving medium-term goals and avoidingexpenditures and time use that the government should not enter into.Efficiency is sought with the question: “What do we want to do?” Throughthe methods of rationalization of service delivery support systems,organizational structure, and right staffing, the government then couldprovide individual agency performance. The principle of affordabilitystates that expenditures must be based on allowable existing resources.Therefore, the necessary rationalization will have to go together with thekind of economic situation the government agencies are in, withconsideration of how much they can afford. To assure accountability, themethod of reporting that should be practiced by the government must beclear, observable and verifiable (DGF 2005a).

On the part of the CSC, its mandate can only be fully realized oncethe elected officials learn to respect the bureaucracy and recognize that aprofessional core of public servants is a major partner in good governance.It must be noted that ordinary civil servants are still nation-builders.David adds that notwithstanding the fiscal crisis the country is now facing,the program still has to be pursued because there is really a need to“rationalize how the government funds itself, and how government gets itsjob done”(DGF 2005a: 11). After all, the budget used to supportgovernment’s operation comes from the taxpayers and this has to becomplemented by efficient, effective, affordable and accountable servicefrom the civil servants.

The Macapagal-Arroyo Administration continued the initiative tostreamline the bureaucracy, but as yet has no overall agenda for reform.In the Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP 2001-2004),the present administration has adopted the “Reengineering theBureaucracy for Better Governance Program” of the Estradaadministration. PCEG was likewise reactivated upon Arroyo’s assumptionto office. It serves as the ad hoc body that shall be the focal point ofadministrative reforms in the civil service. On 4 October 2004, theDepartment of Budget and Management (DBM) and the Civil ServiceCommission (CSC) pursued the Rationalization Program as mandated inEO 366.

According to DBM, EO 366 directs all departments/agencies of theexecutive branch to conduct a strategic review of their operations andorganizations for purposes of focusing government purposes on its vitalfunctions and channeling government resources to these core publicfunctions, and improving the efficiency of government services, withinaffordable levels, and in the most accountable manner. (See table 3 for thestatus of the rationalization program as of April 2008.) DBM’s task,according to David, is to look at a two-track approach in ensuring the

April-October


effective delivery of government service. The first track of reengineeringthe bureaucracy is through legislative measures and the second track isthe administrative rationalization of the government (DGF 2005a).

The Rationalization Program

Table 3 shows that four years after the implementation of EO 366 in2004, only 17 out of 26 department agencies of the government, 27 OEOS/other government agencies, and only 36 out of more than 100 GOCCs inthe country had submitted their rationalization plans. Out of the 80submitted rational plans, only two department-level and nine GOCCs planswere approved. Three department plans had been evaluated but not yetapproved. Out of the 44 plans (complete and partial submission) underevaluation, only those of eight departments and 19 GOCCs had completedtheir submission. Only those of three departments and four GOCCs hadmade partial submission. Some plans were returned for revision, onefrom a department and four from GOCCs. DBM is expecting submissionsfrom three departments and 24 GOCCs.

Table 3: Overall Status of the Implementation of theRationalization Program (Net of Entities Exempted)

As of 30 April 2008

*rationalization plan not counted individually; part of mother department's overall Plan.

100%108602820Total

26%282413A. Plans for Submission to DBM

75%

25%

3%34%7%5%

80

27

5∗

33776

36

9

-1944

27

16

-10-1

17

2

5∗

3831

A. Plans Submitted to DBM

1. Approved1.1 attached agencies

2. Evaluation Completed but not yet approved

3. Under evaluation 3.1 complete submission 3.2 partial submission

4. Plans returned for revision

%Total No.GOCCsOEOs/OtherAgencies

DeptsStatus

100%108602820Total

26%282413A. Plans for Submission to DBM

75%

25%

3%34%7%5%

80

27

5∗

33776

36

9

-1944

27

16

-10-1

17

2

5∗

3831

A. Plans Submitted to DBM

1. Approved1.1 attached agencies

2. Evaluation Completed but not yet approved

3. Under evaluation 3.1 complete submission 3.2 partial submission

4. Plans returned for revision

%Total No.GOCCsOEOs/OtherAgencies

DeptsStatus

Source: DBM 2008

2008


Options for Affected Personnel

In the process of reviewing agency operations and organizations,some functions/units may be found redundant, overlapping or duplicatingwith others. Employees are then given two options: (1) to remain ingovernment service and be placed in other government agencies needingpersonnel, or (2) avail themselves of retirement/separation benefits, ifqualified, plus the applicable incentive. As of April 2008, 2,170 regularpositions (87 percent or 1,888 funded and 13 percent or 282 unfundeditems) and 1,137 contractual/casual positions (86 percent of these or 978contractual items and 14 percent or 159 casual items) had been abolished,which in effect, generated P422M (P379M explicit and P43M implicit).These savings were plowed back to the concerned department agencies tobeef up their funds for maintenance and other operating expenses andcapital outlay.

On the other hand, 1,778 employees were affected by theRationalization Program. Ninety-four percent (94%) or 1,667 opted toretire while 6 percent or 111 employees opted to be transferred to otheragencies such as DOH-managed hospitals, DepEd-supervised schools,Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), Land TransportationOffice (LTO), National Statistics Office (NSO) and the Philippine NationalPolice (PNP). Benefits paid for those who retired amounted to P160M.(See Table 4 for the summary.)

Table 4. Options for Affected Personnel

Data provided by DBM.*DOH-managed hospitals, DepEd Supervised Schools, BJMP, LTO, NSO, and PNP.

1,778Tota l of ret ir ed and t r ansfer red personnel

111 (6%)No. of Per sonnel who opted to be placed in other agencies∗

P160 MBenefit s Pa id

1,667 (94%)No. of Per sonnel who opted to ret ir e

Implicit (un funded items): P43M

Explicit (funded items): P379 M

Casua l: 159 items (14%)

Con tractua l: 978 items (86%)

Tota l PS Savings Generated

1,137 posit ions

Unfunded: 282 (13%)Funded: 1, 888 ( 87%)No. of Con t ractua l/Casua l Posit ions abolished

2170 posit ionsNo of r egula r posit ions abolished

1,778Tota l of ret ir ed and t r ansfer red personnel

111 (6%)No. of Per sonnel who opted to be placed in other agencies∗

P160 MBenefit s Pa id

1,667 (94%)No. of Per sonnel who opted to ret ir e

Implicit (un funded items): P43M

Explicit (funded items): P379 M

Casua l: 159 items (14%)

Con tractua l: 978 items (86%)

Tota l PS Savings Generated

1,137 posit ions

Unfunded: 282 (13%)Funded: 1, 888 ( 87%)No. of Con t ractua l/Casua l Posit ions abolished

2170 posit ionsNo of r egula r posit ions abolished

April-October


The Growth of the Philippine Bureaucracy

Table 5 shows that as of 2004, a total of 1,475,699 personnel wereemployed in national government agencies (NGAs), government-ownedand controlled corporations (GOCCs), and local government units (LGUs).About 67.86 percent of the 1,475,699 total number of governmentemployees are assigned to NGAs and only 25.09 percent to the LGUs. TheGOCCs registered the lowest complement at 7.04 percent of the totalnumber of government workforce. As to the distribution of personnel byregions, the National Capital Region (NCR) comprises the biggest pie with29.63 percent of the total number of workforce from all subdivisionsfollowed by regions 4 and 6 with 10.64 percent and 7.48 percentrespectively. The Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) has the lowestcomplement with only 2.18 percent of the total number of employees.

As for the distribution of employees from NGAs, 32 percent of1,001,495 employees are concentrated in the NCR. Very few personnel arerecorded in the CAR with only 2.03 percent and CARAGA (2.47 percent).As to the distribution of GOCCs, the biggest slice is in the NCR with 67.61percent and the lowest number of personnel comes from the AutonomousRegion of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) with only 0.18 percent of the total of103,977 employees from GOCCs.

As for the distribution of employees in LGUs, Region 4 registered thehighest complement at about 14.95 percent of 370,227 total number ofemployees in LGUs. The NCR only has 12.56 percent; thus, showing thatRegion 4 exceeded the NCR with 2.39 percent employees. Again, theARMM listed the lowest number of local government personnel with only2.24 percent of the total number of LGU personnel in the country.

It must be pointed out that figures show that the bureaucracy isnow really bloated as it is maldistributed. Most numbers of employeescome from the national government agencies and are concentrated in theNCR. Areas which need the services more have only a small number ofpublic servants.

2008


Table 5. Number of Government Personnelby Major Subdivision and Region: 2004

2.2482790.181883.37337592.8642226ARMM

3.09114430.414312.03203632.1832237CAR

12.564651267.617030232.0032042929.63437243NCR

3.85142651.0510892.47247212.7240075CARAGA

3.60133321.8419103.18318933.194713512

3.82141331.1912383.41341323.354950311

5.29196031.8819533.83383484.065990410

3.60133421.0510933.38338583.27482939

5.71211471.7918564.57457634.66687668

7.31270772.8429545.12512835.51813147

9.07335682.5026047.41741977.481103696

5.20192511.3413975.46546505.10752985

14.95553374.7449319.669672510.641569934

9.14338227.2375165.6556,5996.6497,9373

4.3816,2202.542,6393.1431,4433.4150,3022

6.1822,8961.801,8765.3353,3325.2978,1041

25.09%370,2277.04 %103,97767.86%1,001,495100%1,475,699Philippines

%LGU%GOCC%NGA%TotalRegion

2.2482790.181883.37337592.8642226ARMM

3.09114430.414312.03203632.1832237CAR

12.564651267.617030232.0032042929.63437243NCR

3.85142651.0510892.47247212.7240075CARAGA

3.60133321.8419103.18318933.194713512

3.82141331.1912383.41341323.354950311

5.29196031.8819533.83383484.065990410

3.60133421.0510933.38338583.27482939

5.71211471.7918564.57457634.66687668

7.31270772.8429545.12512835.51813147

9.07335682.5026047.41741977.481103696

5.20192511.3413975.46546505.10752985

14.95553374.7449319.669672510.641569934

9.14338227.2375165.6556,5996.6497,9373

4.3816,2202.542,6393.1431,4433.4150,3022

6.1822,8961.801,8765.3353,3325.2978,1041

25.09%370,2277.04 %103,97767.86%1,001,495100%1,475,699Philippines

%LGU%GOCC%NGA%TotalRegion

Table 6 shows the distribution of government personnel according tobranch of service by ten years from 1964 to 2004. Additionally, thedistribution of government personnel shows that that most of them are innational government agencies (NGAs), followed by the LGUs and theGOCCs, respectively. There were no available data from GOCCs in 1964and 1974 since it was only in 1973 that the personnel in governmentcorporations were absorbed into the regular civil service (De Guzman,Brillantes, and Pacho 1988). As shown in the table, the number ofemployees from the NGAs and LGUs scales up every ten years while thenumber of workforce in GOCCs substantially decreases. (See figure 1) In1994, from 134, 453 employees in GOCCs, it dropped to 112,858, therebyeliminating 21,595 employees. In 2004, GOCC employees were furtherreduced to 104, 977; thus, losing another 8,881 employees. 20

Source: CSC 2004. The computation of percentages is provided by the authors.

April-October


Table 6: Distribution of Personnel Accordingto Branch of Service 21

Source: De Guzman, Brillantes and Pacho 1988; CSC 2004.

As illustrated in Figure 1, over the years, it has become afashionable observation that the Philippine bureaucracy has been bloated.In 1964, there were only 272,845 civil servants. Its growth is attributedto the increased demands of public service delivery due to the increase inpopulation resulting in the expansion of government functions andresponsibilities.

Figure 1. Distribution of Personnel According to Branch of Service

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1964 1974 1984 1994 2004

TotalNGAGOCCLGU

370,227103,9771,001,4951,475,6992004

316,023112,858796,7951,225,6761994

189,878134,453667,114991,4451984

85,432---194,735280,1671974

71,444---201,401272,8451964

LGUGOCCNGATotalYear

370,227103,9771,001,4951,475,6992004

316,023112,858796,7951,225,6761994

189,878134,453667,114991,4451984

85,432---194,735280,1671974

71,444---201,401272,8451964

LGUGOCCNGATotalYear

2008


Table 7. Number of Civil Servants as a Percentage of the Population in Selected Countries22

Sources:Population of the countries: http://en.wikipedia.orgNumber of civil servants in the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand: http://www. unpan1.un.orgNumber of civil servants in France: http://web.worldbank.orgNumber of civil servants in the United States: http://www.federaljobs.net.

In 2004, the ratio of civil servants to the population of the Philippinesis relatively low compared to other countries; however, compared to Indiawith one employee to 141 persons, the Philippines had one civil servantfor 60 persons. France, on the other hand, had the lowest number withonly 13 persons to one government employee. As seen in Figure 2, with aconsiderably low population of 64,473,140, France had 7.63 percent, or4,925,100 civil servants; Thailand fairly did well with 1 is to 48.

Figure 2. Number of Civil Servants as a Percentage of Population

Civil Servants as % of Population

1.63% 1.28%2.05%

7.63%

0.88% 0.70%

0.00%

1.00%2.00%

3.00%

4.00%5.00%

6.00%

7.00%8.00%

9.00%

Philippines Singapore Thailand France US India

Note: The authors drew figure 2 based on the data presented in table 7..

1:1410.70%1,132,910,0008,000,000India

1:1120.88%304,095,0002,700,000United States

1:137.63%64,473,1404,925,100France

1:482.05%63,038,2471,296,688Thailand

1:781.28%4,681,00060,000Singapore

1:601.63%88,574,6141,475,699Philippines

Ratio of Civil Servants and Population

Number of Civil

Servants as a Percentage of

Population

PopulationNumber of

CivilServants

Country

1:1410.70%1,132,910,0008,000,000India

1:1120.88%304,095,0002,700,000United States

1:137.63%64,473,1404,925,100France

1:482.05%63,038,2471,296,688Thailand

1:781.28%4,681,00060,000Singapore

1:601.63%88,574,6141,475,699Philippines

Ratio of Civil Servants and Population

Number of Civil

Servants as a Percentage of

Population

PopulationNumber of

CivilServants

Country

April-October


The attempt to reorganize, reengineer, and restructure thebureaucracy is evident in the programs and projects of the differentadministrations; however, each administration is faced with tremendouschallenges of overlapping functions, lack of acceptance and commitment byaffected entities, red tape and corruption inherited from pastadministrations. It becomes a cycle and the great challenge for thepresent administration is how to surpass these problems and how to facetougher challenges, “given the pressures of the growing trend towardgreater civil society and private participation in the management of stateaffairs, the demands of globalization and the paradigm shift of thegovernment’s role from command and control into facilitation andflexibility" (ADB 2005: 12). The rationalization program has also stirredcontroversies. Some say it failed but at the end of the day, there has to besomeone who is going to provide solutions. The government is expected todo that. However, it cannot do the job in isolation. It has to consider thecomments and suggestions of others (DGF 2005a).

Indeed, the government, the civil society, and the business sectorshould work together to achieve the overall goal of the government.There is a need to strengthen institutions to capacitate the stakeholdersin mainstreaming good governance and in effecting public administrationreforms or civil service reforms. Mainstreaming good governance requiresbuilding capacity of individuals and institutions and creating theappropriate policy environment to institutionalize the principles ofparticipation, transparency, accountability and predictability in thedelivery of public goods and services that will promote better qualityservice, improved capacity and better quality of life in the long term. (SeeFigure 3 below)

Individuals

Organization

Policy and Institutional • Legal framework• Policies

• Legal framework• Policies

• Objectives & strategies• Structures• Processes & procedures• Resources• Communications• Information systems• Performance measures• Accountabilities• Linkages & networks• Coordination


• Knowledge• Skills• Attitudes


Improved Capacities

Better Quality of Services

Improved Living

Conditions

Individuals

Organization

Policy and Institutional • Legal framework• Policies

• Legal framework• Policies





Improved Capacities

Better Quality of Services

Improved Living

Conditions

Figure 3. Capacity-Development Framework

Source: Astillero and Mangahas 2002

2008


Decentralizing the Bureaucracy

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

Operationalizing the Notion of Decentralization

In any discussion of decentralization, it is critical that to haverelatively common terms of references in the usage of the term. This isto be able to have a more meaningful and useful analysis of the process.Decentralization in the Philippines could be operationalized through threemodalities: deconcentration, devolution and debureaucratization.

Deconcentration is a limited form of decentralization sincedecisionmaking remains at the center with lower levels of government –inthis case the field offices of the national government agencies -largelylimited to transmitting orders and implementing decisions of centrallybased authorities. Deconcentration is also referred to as administrativedecentralization.

Devolution is political decentralization which essentially involves thetransfer of powers and responsibilities from national government agenciesto local governments as provided for in the Local Government Code. InSection 16 of the Code or the General Welfare Clause, these include theresponsibility for the delivery of basic services; including health,agriculture, social services and environment. Together with the transferof responsibilities was the transfer of personnel to the local governments.Close to 70,000 national personnel were transferred to the localgovernments during the initial years of devolution.

The third type of decentralization is referred to as“debureaucratization” which harnesses the capacities of the private sectorand non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the delivery of servicesthrough various modalities including contracting out, private-publicpartnership, and joint ventures, among other things. This modality ofpartnership is also provided for in Section 17 of the Local GovernmentCode where partnerships with the private sector, NGOs and POs arerecognized and even encouraged for an improved delivery of services.

April-October


Historical Background of Decentralization

The Local Government in the Philippine Islands, written in 1926 byformer President Jose P. Laurel, recalled the idea that local autonomywas existent even before the arrival of the Spaniards. The local villages orthe barangays were then considered autonomous territorial and politicalunits headed by a datu, panginoo, or pangulo.

The Spanish colonizers enacted the “Maura Law” in 1893. The lawestablished tribunales municipales and juntas provinciales. However, thesystem of government remained centralized, characterized by the“retention of rights and prerogatives by the principal class, the straightlaced centralization of powers, the continued intervention of the church inState affairs, the limited franchise granted, the inadequate electiondevised and enforced, and the defective financial system instituted”(Brillantes 2003 citing Laurel 1986: 1).

Decentralization in the Malolos Constitution has been described as“the most ample decentralization” for local governments and for morepopular and direct election of local officials. However, local governmentswere still subject to regulation based on several principles, including the“determination of their powers in matter of taxes, in order that theprovincial and municipal taxation may never be antagonistic to the systemof taxation of the State” (Malolos Constitution Title XI, Art. II, Para. 5 ascited in Brillantes 1987: 134).

The trend during the time of the American military occupation wastowards centralization wherein all local governments were placed undermilitary control primarily for security purposes, inspite of the rhetoric infavor of local autonomy.

During the Commonwealth period, local governments were placedunder the general supervision of the President. Specifically, Art.VII,Section 11 of the 1935 Constitution provided that “the President shall …exercise general supervision over all local governments.” This is in starkcontrast to the preceding sentence which provided that the President shallexercise “control” over all executive departments, bureaus and offices.According to Ocampo and Panganiban (1987), the use of the term“supervision” instead of “control” was a “compromise concept substitutedfor a stronger guarantee of autonomy sought by some constitutionalconvention delegates" (Brillantes 1987: 134-135).

The first local autonomy act enacted in 1959 was Republic Act No.2264, “An Act Amending the Laws Governing Local Governments byIncreasing their Autonomy and Reorganizing Provincial Governments.”

2008


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

Another landmark legislation on local autonomy in the Philippines isRepublic Act No. 2370, entitled “An Act Granting Autonomy to the Barriosof the Philippines” or otherwise known as the Barrio Charter Act. This lawwas principally sponsored by Senator Raul Manglapus in 1959. The barriosthen became quasi-municipal corporations exercising autonomy, amongother things, through their taxing powers. Barrios were to be governed byan elective barrio council that exercised powers to enact barrioordinances.

Less than a decade later, the Decentralization Act of 1967 (RA 5185)was enacted. The Act increased the financial resources of localgovernments and broadened their decisionmaking powers overadministrative matters (Brillantes 2003).

During Martial Law from 1972, the lawmaking powers and theadministration and implementation of laws were concentrated in thehands of Ferdinand Marcos. The national and local elections weresuspended and Marcos arrogated unto himself the power to appoint localofficials who shall exercise functions under his authoritative control. Twoyears after the 1978 election of the national legislature, local electionswere held though never considered truly reflective of the people’s willbecause of the dictatorship. The Government then was characterized asbeing highly centralized still under the Marcos administration. Thesystem ran counter to the specific provision of the 1973 Constitutionadvocating the promotion of local autonomy.

The Local Government Code of 1983 (Batas Pambansa Bilang 337)was promulgated in early February. It reiterated the policy of the State inthe 1973 Constitution and to “guarantee and promote the localgovernment units to ensure their fullest development as self-reliantcommunities and make them effective partners in the pursuit of nationaldevelopment and progress.” Notwithstanding the Code, the measures todecentralize government remained as administrative formalisms. Powerscontinued to be concentrated in Manila with local units heavily dependentupon central government. Although the Marcos regime was unsuccessfulin effecting political decentralization and the devolution of powers tospecific political units covering a specific area, the administration can be

April-October


credited for its efforts at administrative decentralization of the regionalunits of the national line ministries to decongest the central governmentof many administrative functions.

In accordance with Article II Section 25 of the 1987 Constitutionwhich provides that “the State shall ensure the autonomy of localgovernments,” RA 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991 waspromulgated. The Code transferred the responsibility for the delivery ofbasic services to the local government units, including appropriatepersonnel, assets, equipment, programs and projects. Local autonomywould now mean less reliance on the national government, including“allotments” made by the national government, and increased reliance oninternally generated resources, or resources jointly generated with otherinstitutions, whether other local government units or private institutions.

Major Features of the Local Government Code

The Local Government Code of 1991 radically transformed the natureof power relationships between the central government and the thousandsof local governments in the countryside through the devolution process.Devolution to local government units as mentioned earlier involves theresponsibility for the delivery of various aspects of basic services thatearlier were the responsibility of the national government, such as:health, social services, environment, public works, education, tourism,telecommunications services, housing projects, and investment support. Italso covers the responsibility for the enforcement of certain regulatorypowers, such as the reclassification of agricultural lands; enforcement ofenvironmental laws; inspection of food products and quarantine;enforcement of national building code; operation of tricycles; processingand approval of subdivision plans; and establishment of cockpits andholding of cockfights.

With the implementation of the Code, financial resources are alsodecentralized. There are increased financial resources available to localgovernments by (1) broadening their taxing powers, (2) providing themwith a specific share from the national wealth exploited in their area, and(3) increasing their share of the national taxes. Moreover, the Codeprovides the foundation for the development and evolution of moreentrepreneurial-oriented local governments (e.g. build-operate-transfer(BOT) arrangements with the private sector, bond flotation, loans fromlocal private institutions).

2008


The Master Plan for the sustainable implementation of the LocalGovernment Code of 1991 involves three phases. Phase One or the Change-Over Phase (1992-1993) concerned the transfer to LGUs of devolvedfunctions, with the corresponding assets and personnel. In Phase Two orthe Transitional Phase (1994-1996), the national government agencies(NGAs) and the LGUs institutionalized their adjustments to thedecentralized schemes introduced by the Code. The last phase is theStabilization Phase (1997 onwards) wherein it is assumed that the LGUswould have built adequate capacities in managing local affairs, and theNGAs would provide constant support and technical assistance to LGUs.

Innovations in Decentralization andLocal Governance

The National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) recorded that, asof March 2008, there were 41,995 barangays, 136 cities, 1,495municipalities, and 81 provinces in the Philippines. Although the impactof decentralization was not readily apparent, many of these LGUs havedemonstrated good local governance practices. Table 8 presents asummary of these major breakthroughs culled from various localgovernment achievements brought about by decentralization in thePhilippines. (cf. annex 1 for the list of best practices according to sectoralareas.)

Decentralization as a framework of governance serves as a tool inbuilding the capacities of both government and non-government actors inengaging each other in managing societal affairs. Good and best practicesin local governance have proven this claim. The Local Government Codehas given impetus to, not only the local government itself, but the rest ofthe stakeholders in governance: the business sector and the civil society,to play vital roles in processes of local governance such as localdevelopment planning and implementation, local resource generation,local economic promotion, environmental management, thus, establishinga multi-stakeholders collaboration of local development efforts. With theCode providing them the legal and institutional infrastructure, theseexemplars of local governance have also demonstrated that an aggregationof different local government units is practicable. Inter-local cooperationand convergence make LGUs stronger and more productive and efficient.This synergy of the different actors of local governance, whether fromvertical and horizontal relationship, manifests the real essence of theprocess of democratization. Decentralization has, indeed, increased thedemocratic space of the civil society with the LGUs embracing them inparticipating in local governance.

April-October


Table 8. Cases of Best Practices in the Philippines

Decentralization has provided a democratized milieu where LGUs areable to transform themselves into self-reliant communities and be moreautonomous in managing their own affairs. The Local Government Codehas endowed an enabling environment that has allowed these LGUs toflourish, utilize, and maximize their taxing powers as well as corporate orentrepreneurial powers.

Decentralization has been fuelled by efforts to apply the principles ofself-government: efficiency, autonomy, subsidiarity and proximity.Sometimes given their supremacy, however, national governmentagencies instead of acting as a partner, tend to serve as an impediment toany local development efforts. There are also cases where nationalgovernment policies instead of promoting development, impinge on theterritorial jurisdiction of local governments and adversely impact on localcommunities. In the name of democratic governance, the nationalgovernment may guide local governments and provide policies andtechnical expertise but they must recognize that in the principle of

Quezon CityInnovating Tax Administration Measures

Santa Rosa, LagunaTax mapping, Computerization and GIS in Real Property Taxation

Gingoog CityImplementing a fiscal management system

Malalag, Davao del SurCharging user fees for health services

Caticlan, AklanBond Flotation for Tourism Development: the Boracay-Aklan Provincial Bond (Jetty Port and Passenger Terminal in Caticlan)

Concepcion, IloiloGPook (poverty reduction program, population, health and environment program) and LGLA

Iloilo and GuimarasInter-local cooperation: MIGEDZI – Metro-Iloilo Guimaras Economic Development Council (formerly MIDC)

Jones, IsabelaTalahib Handicraft

Puerto PrincesaCarabao and Tractor Pool

Guimaras ProvinceHealth Insurance Project

Baguio CityEco-Walk for the Environment

San Carlos CityLote Para sa Mahirap: Land Banking

Naga CityImproving the Productivity

Victorias, Negros OccidentalFloating Bonds for Low Cost Housing

Muñoz, Nueva EcijaAcquiring a Complete Equipment Pool

Mandaluyong CityDingras, Ilocos Norte

Build-Operate Transfer

Marikina CitySaving the Marikina River

Negros OrientalTaking Care of People and Environment

Local Government UnitSample Best Practice Cases

Quezon CityInnovating Tax Administration Measures

Santa Rosa, LagunaTax mapping, Computerization and GIS in Real Property Taxation

Gingoog CityImplementing a fiscal management system

Malalag, Davao del SurCharging user fees for health services

Caticlan, AklanBond Flotation for Tourism Development: the Boracay-Aklan Provincial Bond (Jetty Port and Passenger Terminal in Caticlan)

Concepcion, IloiloGPook (poverty reduction program, population, health and environment program) and LGLA

Iloilo and GuimarasInter-local cooperation: MIGEDZI – Metro-Iloilo Guimaras Economic Development Council (formerly MIDC)

Jones, IsabelaTalahib Handicraft

Puerto PrincesaCarabao and Tractor Pool

Guimaras ProvinceHealth Insurance Project

Baguio CityEco-Walk for the Environment

San Carlos CityLote Para sa Mahirap: Land Banking

Naga CityImproving the Productivity

Victorias, Negros OccidentalFloating Bonds for Low Cost Housing

Muñoz, Nueva EcijaAcquiring a Complete Equipment Pool

Mandaluyong CityDingras, Ilocos Norte

Build-Operate Transfer

Marikina CitySaving the Marikina River

Negros OrientalTaking Care of People and Environment

Local Government UnitSample Best Practice Cases

Source: Brillantes 2003; Galing Pook website

2008


subsidiarity, the decentralized entity - the LGU, is the nearest to thepeople; therefore, they should be left on their own. On the other hand,LGUs, in order to work smoothly with the national government, shouldalign their development plans with those of the national government’spolicies but ensure that local development needs are met. Thus, thecentral/national government and the LGUs should not regard each otheras competitors in service delivery but as active partners in governing.

Best practices in different areas of local governance should bereplicated and further "mainstreamed” in order to realize the full essenceof decentralization. Mainstreaming can only be achieved throughinnovativeness, ingenuity, and resources and most importantly throughthe leadership and the openness of the local chief executive to change.

Addressing Corruption

Finally, continuing and ongoing initiatives to come up with moreresponsive public administration structures and processes are the ongoingefforts to address the ever pervasive problem of corruption. Corruption orthe “misuse of public power for private profit” inhibits growth anddevelopment, distorts access to services for poor communities, underminespublic confidence in the government’s will and capacity to serve the public,deters trade and investments, reduces revenues, increases costs, andpropagates wasteful allocation and use of scarce resources. Various sectorsof the society are doing their best to come up with an antidote to combatcorruption and to enhance government efficiency, effectiveness andaccountability. It is noteworthy that many institutions have been set upand several laws enacted to fight graft and corruption in the country.

Negative consequences of corruption to institutions are prevalentthrough favoring vested or selfish interests of a person or entity. Officialsand employees of the government tend to neglect the very purpose of civilservants which is to serve the public interest with utmost fidelity.Tolerating corruption encourages negative and poor bureaucratic behaviorin the service. In effect, it ruins public trust and confidence ingovernment. With regard to public personnel, corruption undermines themerit and fitness system and inhibits civil servant from upholdingintegrity. Moreover, corruption leads to poor quality of programs, projectsand services, and ineffective, inefficient and unaccountable administration.

Corruption benefits only a few and deprives the rest of the citizenry.Among the social costs of corruption are undermining the rule of law andviolating political legitimacy. Disadvantaged people are deprived of fairtreatment which increases poverty because corrupt practices jeopardizethe welfare of the people.

April-October


Opportunities that exist to tackle corruption include (1) ensuring thepresence of a legislative framework to check corruption, (2) supportingactive and vigilant civil society groups, (3) protecting free media(4) forming nationally accredited citizens’ watch groups, (5) stepping uppublic demands for more accountability in government, (6) promotingongoing initiatives to involve people in the fight against corruption, and(7) accepting support from international development agencies (ADB 2005).Martinez disclosed that present hindrances to such measures include(1) dispersed population and unfavorable geographical composition, (2) lackof government credibility, (3) uninformed and apathetic population,(4) strong corrupt element, and (5) institutional weaknesses (Martinez1999).

The Republic of the Philippines-United Nations DevelopmentProgramme of 2002 presented initiatives and desired strategic directionsin an anticorruption framework. The agenda involves strengthening andsustaining institutional capacities of government agencies for sounddevelopment management and oversight of the public sector byresponsible citizens and civil society groups. Also, the framework stressesenhancing civil society’s capacity to effectively engage the public sector instrengthening institutional integrity, transparency, and accountability.The methods may include prevention of corruption practices, prosecutionof corruption cases and imposition of stricter penalties, and promotion of aculture with corruption-intolerant sensitivity.

The Philippines has numerous laws addressing graft and corruption,defining the prohibited and punishable acts, laying down specific penaltiesimposed for every breach thereof, and identifying the agencies responsiblein the implementation of the said laws. The promulgated laws date backto 1955. Article XI of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of thePhilippines, Republic Act 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft andCorrupt Practices Act, and the Section on Bribery which includesCorruption of Public Officials (Art. 212) of the Revised Penal Code are thethree main laws defining and penalizing corruption in the country. (SeeAnnex 2 for the summary list of related laws, presidential decrees andproclamations, and other regulations on corruption prevention).

Government efforts to promote corporate governance and preventprivate sector corruption are further strengthened by the joint initiativesof the Securities and Exchange Commission, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas(Central Bank), and Anti-Money Laundering Council. Annex 3 presents thedifferent government agencies involved in the fight against corruption.(Refer to Annex 3 for the list of Philippine Anti-Corruption Agencies.)

2008


Gawad Kalinga (GK): Model of Philippine Public Administration and Governance

"Less for self, more for others, enough for all." This is the mottothat a GK volunteer tries to enliven as he envisions a slum-free, squatter-free nation through a simple strategy of providing land for the landless,homes for the homeless, food for the hungry and ultimately providingdignity and peace for every Filipino. But what is Gawad Kalinga? "GawadKalinga" which means "to give care" is a revolutionary program initiatedby the Couples for Christ (CFC) in 1995 with the end goal of rehabilitatingjuvenile gang members and out-of-school youth in Bagong Silang, CaloocanCity, then the biggest squatters’ relocation area in the Philippines. Fromthen on, the GK community metamorphosed into a model community andhas been replicated in 900 communities all over the country. Suchinitiative has now evolved into a movement for nation-building and is nowtransforming other poverty stricken areas into progressive communitieswith the end goal of building 700,000 homes in 7,000 communities in 7years (2003-2010). 23

Seen through the lens of public administration, GK may be describedas a distinctly Filipino invention that effectively delivers basic services toFilipinos living in poverty by engaging cooperation between government,business and civil society.

This description highlights three important characteristics of GK thatembody key concepts in New Public Administration, Reinventinggovernment, and Governance: enhancement of social equity as a keyquestion (Frederickson 1971), effective delivery of services as a coreconcept (Osborne and Gaebler 1992), and cooperation betweengovernment, business and civil society as a key principle (Cariño 2000).

These three characteristics may further be explored towardsestablishing GK as a model of Philippine Public Administration andgovernance in view of three key dimensions presented in Table 9.

GK as a Template for Good GovernanceEnhancement of social equity as a key question

GK as a Converging Point for Partnership

Cooperation between government, business and civil society

GK as an Emerging Model for Development

Effective delivery of services as a core concept

Key Dimensions of GK as Model of Philippine PA

Characteristics of GK vis-à-vis New Public Administration, Reinventing Public

Administration, and Governance

GK as a Template for Good GovernanceEnhancement of social equity as a key question

GK as a Converging Point for Partnership

Cooperation between government, business and civil society

GK as an Emerging Model for Development

Effective delivery of services as a core concept

Key Dimensions of GK as Model of Philippine PA

Characteristics of GK vis-à-vis New Public Administration, Reinventing Public

Administration, and Governance

Table 9. GK as Model of Philippine PA

April-October


Figure 4 illustrates the GK Governance Paradigm in view of theseker dimensions

P u blic ad min is tra tio n a n d go v ern an ce

BUS INES SS ECTOR

S TATE/P UBLIC S ECTOR

CIVILS OCIETY

Th e Millen n iu m Developmen t Goa ls

E ra dica te extreme poverty an d hu ngerAchieve u n iversa l primary edu ca tion

P romote gen der equ a lity an d empower women

Redu ce ch ild morta lityImprove ma tern a l hea lth

E radica t ion of HIV, mala r ia a nd other diseases

E n su re en viron men ta l su sta in abilityDevelop a globa l pa r tn ersh ip for

developmentGK P rog ramsGK a s a n Em erg in g Mod el of Developm en t GK a s a Con verg in g P oin t for P a r t n ersh ipGK a s a T em p la t e for Good Governa n c e

Figure 4. GK Governance Paradigm

GK as an Emerging Model of Development:GK’s Program and the MDGs

GK has brought together complementary resources of government,business and civil society towards its ultimate objective to addresspoverty. GK engages in seven component programs: shelter and sitedevelopment (GK tatag), community health (gawad kalusugan), education/child and youth development (sibol, sagip at siga), productivity/ livelihood(gawad kabuhayan), community organizing and empowerment(kapitbahayan), culture and tourism (mabuhay) and environment (greenkalinga). Through these programs, GK is actually undertakingmagnanimous efforts and accomplishing great milestones in the globalpartnership for development that aims to eradicate extreme poverty andhunger, reduce child mortality, improve maternal health, combat AIDS,HIV, malaria, ensure environment sustainability, achieve universalprimary education, and promote gender equality. Collectively referred toas the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)24, these eight goals havebecome a central concern of public administration and governanceworldwide. Table 10 shows a clear correspondence between the MDGs andthe programs of GK and succinctly presents GK as a model of sustainablehuman development.

2008


Table 10. Programs of Gawad Kalinga and the MDGs

• Mabuhay (Culture and Tourism)• GK Tatag (Community Infrastructure / Shelter and Site

Development) • Kapitbahayan (Community Organizing and

Empowerment)

• develop a global partnership for development

Sibol, Sagip at Siga (Education / Child and Youth Development

• achieve universal primary education• promote gender equality

Green Kalinga (Environment)• ensure environment sustainability

Gawad Kalusugan (Community Health)• reduce child mortality • improve maternal health• combat AIDS, HIV, malaria

Bayan-anihan/ Gawad Kabuhayan (Productivity / Livelihood)• eradicate extreme poverty and hunger

Gawad Kalinga ProgramsMillennium Development Goals

• Mabuhay (Culture and Tourism)• GK Tatag (Community Infrastructure / Shelter and Site

Development) • Kapitbahayan (Community Organizing and

Empowerment)

• develop a global partnership for development

Sibol, Sagip at Siga (Education / Child and Youth Development

• achieve universal primary education• promote gender equality

Green Kalinga (Environment)• ensure environment sustainability

Gawad Kalusugan (Community Health)• reduce child mortality • improve maternal health• combat AIDS, HIV, malaria

Bayan-anihan/ Gawad Kabuhayan (Productivity / Livelihood)• eradicate extreme poverty and hunger

Gawad Kalinga ProgramsMillennium Development Goals

The Child and Youth Development Program can be aligned to theMDG goal to achieve universal primary education as well as to promotegender equality, a goal likewise addressed by the values-formationfoundation of all GK communities. GK's “sibol” program, which means “togrow,” provides value based education for pre-school children, aged threeto six years old. A support program for children of elementary age, fromseven to 13 years old through academic tutorials, sports and creativeworkshops and values formation is called sagip which means “to save alife.” The formative needs of teenagers from 13 to 18 years are covered bythe siga program which means “to light,” grants scholarships to deservingstudents. Furthermore, a strong youth rehabilitation program for juveniledelinquents provides various activities and counseling sessions to helpthem transform their lives without institutional rehabilitation. They arethen integrated into the social mainstream and are gainfully employed.

The Health Program (Gawad Kalusugan) responds to goals three andfour of the MDG, the promotion of gender equality and reducing childmortality. In GK, the health profile of every family in a GK community iscarefully monitored by a volunteer team of doctors and paramedicalpractitioners. Most GK areas now have a clinic. Malnutrition especiallyamong children is addressed and arrested not just through feedingprograms but also through parent education, especially for the women, onproper nutrition and hygiene.

April-October


GK is pro-poor. Its productivity program (Bayanihan and GawadKabuhayan) or “to give livelihood” is a response to MDG goal 1– toeradicate extreme poverty. Through this program, beneficiaries areprovided start-up capital and materials for microfinance andmicroenterprise, and then given assistance in the marketing of products.Food self sufficiency is highly encouraged by teaching technology forbackyard farming, urban agriculture and poultry-raising.

GK is pro-environment. It addresses MDG goal seven- to ensureenvironmental sustainability. It empowers the poor to become caretakersof the environment instead of being exploiters. GK teams, in partnershipwith environment groups and government agencies, which provideexpertise and resources in these projects, have been conducting activitieslike tree-planting and seedlings production and educating the poor in solidwaste management.

GK fosters partnership with various stakeholders. This is alignedwith MDG goal eight – to develop global partnerships. GK has mobilizedpartners from government, socio-civic groups, churches and parishes,media, the academe and others to provide volunteer services for itsvarious programs, giving individuals and groups an opportunity to live outthe spirit of bayanihan or camaraderie. Also, in a GK community/village,values formation and community empowerment are conducted. Every GKcommunity is organized into a kapitbahayan or neighborhood association,to inculcate stewardship and ensure accountability, and cooperation andunity. Guidelines for community living are decided upon by the members,and new leaders who espouse the values of the association emerge. Peaceis achieved not by force but by mutual adherence to an agreed set ofvalues. This new culture is the key to the community’s sustainability, andsets the community on the road to self reliance.

GK Programs as a Convergence Point for Partnership

GK has become a vehicle for convergence for all sectors and itsmodel of governance is now being replicated in all levels of Philippinesociety. GK exemplifies a governance paradigm based on cooperation andpartnership among business (corporate foundations), government (LGUs,national government agencies, legislators) and civil society (non-government organizations and academic institutions). The initiative is notmerely an act of philanthropy, but an investment (business), not merelyhumanitarian, but developmental-oriented (civil society), and not simplyan act of dole-out but of empowerment (civil society).

2008


Exemplified by multistakeholdership, GK is consistent with Article62 of the Local Government Code of 1991, laying down the directinvolvement of POs, NGOs and the private sector in the plans, programs,projects or activities of LGUs. This approach promotes the pooling ofresources and talents, an opportunity that LGUs, hard pressed to meet themany competing priorities of their constituents should explore. On theother hand, mobilizing LGU commitment and resources in order to housethe poor will generate considerable impact and empower marginalizedcommunities to meaningfully transform themselves (Local GovernmentSupport Program [LGSP] 2005). GK partners with the Home DevelopmentMutual Fund (HDMF), popularly known as PAG-IBIG, a major fundingsource that the LGU, as well as other GK partners can tap. HDMF“extends housing finance to formally employed community members whohave no capacity to build their own homes without external assistance”(LGSP 2005: 26).

GK’s partnership with various academic institutions is congruentwith the “town and gown” approach to development, where academia isenriched by praxis which benefits the community. The NCPAG as one ofthe hubs of GK activities may take the lead role in networking and instrengthening social capital. Members of the Association of Schools ofPublic Administration in the Philippines (ASPAP) may also be utilized forcapacity development and local empowerment through various modes ofinterventions such as development of a curriculum and preparation ofmodules on good governance which incorporate the GK developmentmodel, conduct of joint training programs and workshops with variousstakeholders, collaborative research among different institutions, anddocumentation of good and best practices of governance.

Furthermore, GK has established an organized network of supportfrom international organizations, such as the ANCOP which is composedof a growing roster of international organizations covering countries likethe US, Canada, Denmark, Spain, Switzerland, Australia. ANCOP officeshave been set up in 20 donor areas abroad as the official internationalrepresentatives of GK.

The “Kalinga Luzon” and “Kalinga Pilipinas” concepts have stirredthe imagination of other sectors. "Kawal Kalinga" is being proposed by theDepartment of National Defense (DND) as well. Kawal Kalinga seeks toimplement GK programs in several military areas and camps to providedecent homes for enlisted men. Provincial governments and multisectoralpartners in Cebu and Malabon will likewise launch Kalinga Cebu andKalinga Malabon. A trend is born and the poor and marginalized inPhilippine society have found a powerful opportunity for growth and realchange through the GK movement.”25

April-October


GK’s partnership with its stakeholders is grounded on trust. Thismodel has been described as indigenous and fundamental. While GK is afaith-based initiative, it is nonetheless a working model of developmentthat can be complemented with research, training, and extension work.The initiative has gone beyond providing roof for the homeless. Researchby various student groups, such as that by the Civic Welfare TrainingService (CWTS) students of the UP School of Economics presents how GKis transforming people’s lifestyles, arousing hope and aspirations,resulting in greater self-reliance (lower, if not eradicated, incidence ofscavenging and mendicancy among GK residents), disciplined habits (lowerspending on vices, such as, alcohol and gambling and greater spending onfood) and improved health (less incidence of disease, less spending onmedicines).

GK shuns politics while working with politicians. It successfullydraws out Filipino ingenuity and generosity. Perhaps as pointed outearlier, the secret formula of GK success is genuine leadership founded ontrust. As GK founder Tony Meloto enthused in an interview with thePhilippine Daily Inquirer:

The leadership here enjoys public trust. We are nonpartisan butwe always like to work with national and local leaders whobelieve in the vision of Gawad Kalinga which is simple: To bringthe Philippines out of the Third World; to make it a First Worldnation (Philippine Daily Inquirer 2008).

GK as a Template for Good Governance

GK can be considered an excellent paradigm of good governance.Good governance revolves around the values of transparency,accountability, participation, rule of law, equity and social justice,sustainability and continuity while GK revolves around the values of“Bayanihan” (becoming a hero to one another and addressing the rootcause of poverty – not simply the absence of money but an absence ofshared values, sense of community and higher purpose). Massivemobilization of GK partners and volunteers beginning with ‘padugo’ or ‘tobleed for a cause’ which means devoting one’s own time and resources toinitiate work within the community without expecting outside funding orsupport) and “patriotism in action” not just a work with the poor but moreimportantly a work of nation building that began as a simple but a daringinitiative of the Couples for Christ (CFC) that has grown into a multi-sectoral, and interfaith partnership driven by the same faith-based spiritand vision.

2008


GK practices are now being adopted by various sectors and as suchcan be described as having become a template for good governance. Thenew initiative being developed by the leadership of the House ofRepresentatives, aptly called Kalinga Pilipinas, will call on all members ofthe House to each give P10 million of their annual Priority DevelopmentAssistance Fund (PDAF) to building communities via the GK approach(Philippine Daily Inquirer 2008). While voluntary in nature, the proposedHouse resolution is being matched with an Executive Order from thePresident so that the transfer of funds from the DBM to GK will be smoothand unhampered by red tape (www.balita.com).

GK as a Global Model for Development

GK has become a global model for development, building 100,000homes all over Philippines and reaching as far as Papua New Guinea,Indonesia and Cambodia, and will soon extend to East Timor, India,Nigeria and Nicaragua.

The President of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines(CBCP), Archbishop Angel Lagdameo, describes GK as the new kind of“people power” the country needs. According to Tony Meloto, Filipinosabroad are coming home to help rebuild their motherland.

Many Filipino doctors and other health professionals in NorthAmerica are supporting us by adopting GK communities.Corporate executives who have retired are volunteering theirexpertise; some even give up their promising careers to workwith GK full time. Ateneo University and the University of thePhilippines are putting up the GK Institute for the training ofvolunteers, caretaker teams and the local government unit(LGU) partners for township development (Philippine DailyInquirer 2007a).

These communities are in various stages of development of whichthere are three: start up, build up and showcase.

These three stages of Gawad Kalinga Community Development maybe seen and evaluated through two global lenses: first, in view of MahbubUl Haq’s Core Pillars of Sustainable Human Development, and second, inview of the innovative, entrepreneurial principles of Osborne andGaebler’s Reinventing Public Administration. This congruence concretelyillustrates the possibilities of objectively studying and establishing theeffectiveness of the GK model through the lens of Public Adminsitration.Table 11 (next page) presents confluences between GK’s Stages ofCommunity Development, Haq’s Pillars of Sustainable HumanDevelopment (1995) and Osborne and Gaebler’s Innovative,Entrepreneurial Principle of Public Administration (1992).

April-October


The possibilities for creating an objective public administrationtemplate by which to evaluate how GK flourishes as a model forgovernance may be anchored on its capacity to engage strategiccooperation between government, business and civil society (through itssocial network), effective delivery of services, and enhancing social equitythrough its culture.

Stage 3• Formed KB Governance Team• Showcase at least 1 of the 7 Programs1. Community infrastructure2. Child and Youth Development3. Gawad Kalusugan (Community Health)4. Bayan-anihan (Productivity)5. Mabuhay (Culture and Tourism)6. Kapitbahayan (Community Empowerment)7. Green Kalinga (Environment)

• Mabuhay Program running (Tourism/ Culture)

• measure the performance of agencies focusing on outcomes rather than inputs

• prevent problems before they emerge

Sustainability

• put energies into earning money, not just spending

Productivity

Stage 2• Partnerships in place• Start-up / Build-up of at least 1 of the 5 Basic

Programs1. Community Infrastructures (formerly

“Shelter”)2. CYD – Child and Youth Development3. Health4. Productivity5. Environment incoroporated in the 4

programs• “KB Build-up” (Ongoing and Formation of KB

– Kapitbahayan)

• driven by goals, missions rather than rules and regulations

• empower citizens by pushing control out of the bureaucracy into the community

• decentralize authority, embraceparticipatory management

Empowerment

Stage 1• Secured Land• A caretaker Person/ Team• Beneficiaries agreed to start (“KB

Enrollment”)

• promote competition between service providers

• redefine clients as customers and offer choices

• prefer market mechanisms to bureaucratic mechanisms

• focus not only on providing public service but in catalyzing all sectors

Equity

Stages Of Gawad Kalinga Community Development

Innovative, Entrepreneurial Principles Of New Public Administration(Gaebler And Osborne)

Sustainable Human Development(UNDP)

Stage 3• Formed KB Governance Team• Showcase at least 1 of the 7 Programs1. Community infrastructure2. Child and Youth Development3. Gawad Kalusugan (Community Health)4. Bayan-anihan (Productivity)5. Mabuhay (Culture and Tourism)6. Kapitbahayan (Community Empowerment)7. Green Kalinga (Environment)

• Mabuhay Program running (Tourism/ Culture)

• measure the performance of agencies focusing on outcomes rather than inputs

• prevent problems before they emerge

Sustainability

• put energies into earning money, not just spending

Productivity

Stage 2• Partnerships in place• Start-up / Build-up of at least 1 of the 5 Basic

Programs1. Community Infrastructures (formerly

“Shelter”)2. CYD – Child and Youth Development3. Health4. Productivity5. Environment incoroporated in the 4

programs• “KB Build-up” (Ongoing and Formation of KB

– Kapitbahayan)

• driven by goals, missions rather than rules and regulations

• empower citizens by pushing control out of the bureaucracy into the community

• decentralize authority, embraceparticipatory management

Empowerment

Stage 1• Secured Land• A caretaker Person/ Team• Beneficiaries agreed to start (“KB

Enrollment”)

• promote competition between service providers

• redefine clients as customers and offer choices

• prefer market mechanisms to bureaucratic mechanisms

• focus not only on providing public service but in catalyzing all sectors

Equity

Stages Of Gawad Kalinga Community Development

Innovative, Entrepreneurial Principles Of New Public Administration(Gaebler And Osborne)

Sustainable Human Development(UNDP)

Table 11. The Pillars of Sustainable Human Development and theInnovative, Entrepreneurial Principles of Reinventing Public

Administration vis-à-vis the Stages of GK Community Development

2008


GK has by far succeeded in collapsing the social divide by beingnon-discriminatory and thus serving as a converging point for all sectorsof society. It has achieved unprecedented milestones in providing land forthe landless, homes for the homeless and food for the hungry. Itconcretely animates the indigenous principle in the “sweat equity” conceptwhich has brought out the productive and creative side of people whilepromoting a sense of belonging and unity. Furthermore, it has revivedthe indigenous practice of “bayanihan” or volunteerism.

The presentations of selected local and national governmentleaders, as well as workshop outputs from mayors, vice-mayors and citygovernment representatives in the GK Township Development Summitcollaboratively convened by UP NCPAG and Ateneo de Manila on August26 and 27, 2007, concretely describe the effectiveness of GK as agovernance model. They illustrated how GK has effectively responded tothe problems and concerns of the small communities in the LGUs andenhanced the capacity of national government to deliver what the poorestFilipinos need. Furthermore, GK is reaching the poor and theunderprivileged in other parts of the world. Seen in this light, andthrough the lens of the New Public Administration, Reinventing PublicAdministration and Governance, GK is indeed a Filipino ingenuity that isslowly progressing into a global template of good governance anddevelopment.

Having examined GK through the lenses of the new publicadministration, reinventing public administration and governance, doesGK respond to the following questions? Does GK enhance social equity?Does it effectively deliver services? Does is it engage cooperation betweengovernment, business and civil society? Is Gawad Kalinga an exemplar ofPhilippine Public Administration?

Given that GK facilitates the effectiveness of government indelivering service; enhances the investment of business; and engages thecreativity, capacity and values of civil society; who benefits from theGawad Kalinga Public Administration?

Indeed, Gawad Kalinga as a model of good governance and publicadministration needs to be seriousy considered and continuously studied.

April-October


Challenges: Indeed for Whom is Public Administration?

The discipline of public administration in the Philippines has beena rapidly changing and growing one. Given the history and evolution of thefield of public administration, a number of challenges have to beaddressed:

First and foremost, for whom has the field of public administrationbeen developed? Has Philippine public administration been simply reactingand following the lead of the international public administrationcommunity? Or do we need to develop and design local and Philippine-based fields, or could these be incorporated into existing fields? A goodexample would be another emerging field, perhaps, an indigenous form ofgovernance?

Additionally, how have public administration structures, systemsand institutions in the Philippines responded to the broader questions ofpromoting accountability, transparency and participation?

What has been the role of information, communication andtechnology in making public administration more responsive to thestakeholders who really matter?

How have public administrative structures, processes andinstitutions responded to the ever pressing problem of poverty?

What has been the impact of globalization and the response of PAstructures, institutions and processes in the development and evolution ofPhilippine public administration?

How can we address the problem of maldistribution where thosewho have less in life should have more in governance and publicadministration?

And how can we develop indigenous PA practices – like GK? Howcan we replicate and further mainstream good practices of governance anddevelopment in a venue of cooperation, trust, and partnership withvarious stakeholders?

And how has the teaching, research and publication of publicadministration responded to the above?

The above are only some of the emerging issues and challengespertaining to the evolution of the discipline of public administration in thePhilippines. These questions may serve as guide questions in our

2008


continuing quest not only to answer the question, “Is there a PhilippinePublic Administration?” but more importantly, “For Whom is PublicAdministration?” The article provided a discussion of the evolution of thefield of public administration, in general, and zeroed in on the Philippinesin particular. It also included a discussion of what may be considered asemerging illustration of an indigenous governance paradigm in thePhilippines – Gawad Kalinga - that combines partnership betweengovernment, business and civil society upon which, after all, publicadministration and good governance are founded.

Endnotes

1This article may also serve as a basic introduction to the theory and practice ofpublic administration, zeroing in on selected and basic Philippine public administrationissues and concerns.

2 Cameral science is designed to prepare potential public officials for governmentservice.

3 See Woodrow Wilson. 1953. “The Study of Administration” in Dwight Waldo, ed.Ideas and Issues in Public Administration. New York: Mc Graw Hill Book, Co., Inc., 64-75.

4Reyes (2003) emphasized however that aside from the Americans with the likesof Wilson, a Frenchman named de Tocqueville, who traveled the length and breadth ofthe US in the 1830s to observe America’s penal system, was one of the earliest voices tocall for a more serious consideration of Public Administration as a “science ofadministration.”

5 See Leonard D. White. 1997. “Introduction to the Study of PublicAdministration,” in Jay M. Shafritz and Albert C. Hyde. Classics of PublicAdministration. 4th ed. US: Hardcourt Brace College Publishers. 44-50. (first printed in1926)

6POSDCORB was coined by Gulick with Urwick. It stands for the functions ofmanagement - planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting &budgeting.

7Fayol was one of the most influential contributors of modern management. Heproposed five primary functions of management: (1) planning, (2) organizing, (3)commanding, (4) coordinating, and (5) controlling (Fayol 1949).

8See Waldo’s conclusion in Jay M. Shafritz and Albert C. Hyde. 1997. Classics ofPublic Administration. 4th ed. US: Hardcourt Brace College Publishers: 142-153

9At one point in the history of the evolution of management theories, thereemerged what was referred to as “Theory Z” that was largely derived from and based onthe highly effective and efficient Japanese approach to management.

10 See Brillantes 1995. “Development Administration in the Philippines” for anin-depth discussion of development administration in the Philippines, in Ledevina V.Cariño. Conquering Politico-Administrative Frontiers, Essays in Honor of Raul P. deGuzman.

April-October


11Note that Development Administration is popularized in developing countrieslike the Philippines although the conceptual foundations of the term were Western innature influenced largely by scientific management and administrative reform.

12 In the Philippines, the formal introduction of Public Administration as a field ofstudy essentially began when the Institute of Public Administration (IPA) wasestablished in the University of the Philippines in 1952 through an agreement betweenUP and University of Michigan as an offshoot of Bell Mission’s recommendation toimprove the Philippine Government. The Institute served as a training ground for civilservants and as a research arm. Later, it offered degree programs for PublicAdministration. From College of Public Administration, it was renamed in 1998 asNational College of Public Administration and Governance (NCPAG). Schools of PublicAdministration (SPA) were then established throughout the country. Propelled byNCPAG, these academic institutions have grouped themselves into an Association ofSchools of Public Administration in the Philippines, ASPAP, Inc. The PhilippineJournal of Public Administration (PJPA), a quarterly publication of internationalstature, which was established in 1957, documents rich literatures of PublicAdministration in the Philippines.

13 See Nestor N. Pilar. 1993. “Relevance of New PA in Philippine PublicAdministration.” In Philippine Journal of Public Administration for an in-depthdiscussion of New PA in the Philippines.

14 Cf Robert Denhardt. 2004. Theories of Public Organization. 4th Ed. Australia:Thomson/Wadsworth: 137-138 for an in-depth discussion of each principle.

15Drawn from the Canadian Encyclopedia, available at http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com

16 Ibid.

17 Cariño (2007) in her paper, “From Traditional Public Administration to theGovernance Tradition: Research in NCPAG, 1995-2002," in Public Administration PlusGovernance Assessing the Past, Addressing the Future, talked about the researchinterests of Filipino scholars in different fields of public administration: (1) traditionalpublic administration; personnel administration, organization and management, fiscaladministration, agency studies and the Philippine administrative system; (2) new publicadministration, which includes ethics and accountability, public service values,alternative delivery systems, public policy and program administration, were alsooffered, as also (3) research in the governance tradition like democracy andbureaucracy, citizen participation, decentralization, etc.

18 TQM was adopted by Japan and US to improve their production in a competitivemarket vis-a-vis cost effective strategies with the ultimate goal of improving customersatisfaction. See Mangahas and Leyesa 2003 and Mariano 2003. “ImprovingGovernment Administration through TQM” and Mariano “TQM and Philippine LocalGovernment Units.” in Introduction to Public Administration: A Reader.

19There are of course other targets of reform as far as the overall goal to promotebetter and more responsive structures of government is concerned. These include thejudiciary and the Congress.

20 "Attrition" means the "reduction of personnel as a result of resignation,retirement, dismissal in accordance with existing laws, death or transfer to anotheroffice." The attrition law or RA 7430 was issued by President Ramos on 15 April 1992which mandates the Civil Service Commission to audit all government agencies to

2008


determine optimum utilization of personnel. The audit reports shall determine whetheran agency is overstaffed or understaffed and recomment its minimum and maximumpersonnel requirements.

21Data for the year 1964, 1974 and 1984 are derived from de Guzman, Brillantesand Pacho 1988 while data for 2004 are derived from the Civil Service Commission. Thedata exclude employees from state colleges and universities.

22Population of the countries are derived from the data presented in http://en.wikipedia.org; number of civil servants as a percentage of the population as computedby the authors; number of Civil Servants in the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand arefrom www. unpan1.un.org “Figures on the Number of Civil Servants: Compendium ofInformation on Selected ASEAN Civil Service Systems. (2004)”; data of civil servants inFrance from http://web.worldbank.org; United States number of civil servants fromhttp://www.federaljobs.net.

23 Drawn from www.gawadkalinga.org. To date, GK is in over 900 communitiesall over the Philippines and in other developing countries. GK, indeed, can be consideredas an alternative solution to the blatant problem of poverty not just in the Philippinesbut in the world.

24 MDG stands for Millennium Development Goals - a set of time-bound andmeasurable goals and targets for combating poverty, hunger, diseases, illiteracy,environmental degradation and discrimination against women. It consists of 8 goals, 18targets and 48 indicators, covering the period 1990 to 2015. These goals were set inSeptember 2000, Member states of the United Nations (UN) gathered at the MillenniumSummit to affirm commitments toward reducing poverty and the worst forms of humandeprivation. The Summit adopted the UN Millennium Declaration, which embodiesspecific targets and milestones in eliminating extreme poverty worldwide. A total of 189countries, including the Philippines committed themselves to making the right todevelopment a reality for everyone (www.nscb.gov.ph).

25 This part is drawn from www.balita.org.

References

Annan, Kofi1997 Inaugural Speech. First International Conference on Governance for

Sustainable Growth and Equity in United Nations. New York. July 28-30.

Appleby, Paul1945 Government is Different. in Big Democracy. New York: Alfred A.

Knopf Inc. Reprinted in Jay M. Shafritz and Albert C. Hyde, eds. 1997.Classics of. Public Administration.

Asian Development Bank2005 Country Governance Assessment. Manila, Philippines: ADB.

1995 Governance : Sound Development Management. Manila, Philippines:ADB.

April-October


Astillero, Noel and Joel V. Mangahas2002 Assessment of Capacity Building Needs of Biodiversity Areas

Management Board in the Philippines. Department of Environmentand Natural Resources and United Nations Development Programme.

Barnard, Chester I.1938 The Functions of the Executives. Cambridge, Ma : Harvard University

Press.

Barzelay, Michael and Babak J Armajani1992 Breaking through Bureaucracy: A New Vision for Managing in

Government. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Batas Pambansa Blg. 3371983 An Act Enacting A Local Government Code. February 10.

Bissessar, Ann Marie, ed.2007 Rethinking the Reform Question. UK: Cambridge Scholar Publishing.

Brillantes, Alex B. Jr.2007 Public Governance: Whose Responsibility? Innovations and Excellence

in Local Governance: The Critical Role of Partnerships.

2004 Decentralization Imperatives: Lessons from some Asian Countries.Public Policy VIII (1) (January-June): 1-27.

2003 Innovations and Excellence: Understanding Local Governments in thePhilippines. Quezon City: Center for Local and Regional Governance,National College of Public Administration and Governance, Universityof the Philippines.

1995 Development Administration in the Philippines. In Ledivina V. Cariño,ed. Conquering Politico-Administrative Frontiers, Essays in Honor ofRaul P. de Guzman. Quezon City: UP College of Public Administration.

1987 Decentralization in the Philippines.. Philippine Journal of PublicAdministration Vol. 31 (2). Quezon City: UP College of PublicAdministration.

Briones, Leonor M.1996 Philippine Public Fiscal Administration. Vol.1. Mandaluyong City:

Fiscal Administration Foundation, Inc.

Caiden, Gerald E.1982 Public Administration. 2nd Ed. CA: University of Southern California,

School of Public Administration.

Cariño, Ledevina V.2007 From Traditional Public Administration to the Governance Tradition:

Research in NCPAG, 1995-2002. In Public Administration PlusGovernance Assessing the Past, Addressing the Future. Quezon City:UP National College of Public Administration and Governance.

2000 The Concept of Governance. From Government to Governance .Quezon City: Eastern Regional Organization for Public Administration(EROPA): 1-16.

2008


1995 Conquering Politico-Administrative Frontiers, Essays in Honor ofRaul P. De Guzman, ed. Quezon City: UP College of PublicAdministration.

Chilcote, Ronald H.1984 Theories of Development and Underdevelopment . Boulder, CO:

Westview Press, Inc.

Civil Service Commission2004 Inventory of Government Personnel. Available online at http://

www.csc.gov.ph/cscweb/2004IGP_stat.pdf. (Retrieved 08 May 2008)

De Guzman, Raul P.1986 Is There a Philippine Public Administration? In the Philippine Journal

of Public Administration 30 (4) October.

De Guzman, Raul P., Alex B. Brillantes and Arturo Pacho1988 The Bureaucracy. Government and Politics of the Philippines. Oxford.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Denhardt, Janet V. and Robert B. Denhardt2003 The New Public Service: Serving, not Steering. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk.

Translated from the French ed. (Dunod) by Constance Stors. With aforeword by L. Urwick.

Denhardt, Robert B.2004 Theories of Public Organization. 4th Ed. Australia: Thomson/

Wadsworth.

2000 The Policy Emphasis and the New Public Management. In Theories ofPublic Organization. 3rd ed. Fort Worth: Hardcourt Brace CollegePublishers.

Department of Budget and Management2008 A Report on the Overall Status of the Rationalization Program. Manila,

Philippines.

Diliman Governance Forum2005a Reinventing, Reengineering and Reorganizing the Bureaucracy in the

Philippines: Why We Should be More Hopeful. Working Paper SeriesNo. 1. Quezon City: UP-NCPAG. March.

2005b Combating Corruption in the Philippines: Are we Plundering OurChances or Doing it Better? Diliman Governance Forum WorkingPaper Series No. 2. Quezon City: UP-NCPAG. July.

Doornbos, Martin R.2003 Good Governance: The Metamorphosis of a Policy Metaphor. Journal

of International Affairs, 57 (1). New York: Trustees of ColumbiaUniversity.

Dye, Thomas R.1995 Understanding Public Policy. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice

Hall.

April-October


Endriga, Jose N.2001 The National Civil Service System of the Philippines. In John P. Burns

and Bidhya Bowornwathana, eds. Civil Service Systems in Asia.United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Executive Order No. 1121986 Placing All Budget Officers of Provinces, Cities and Municipalities

Under the Administrative Control and Technical Supervision of TheMinistry of Budget and Management. 4 December. Manila, Philippines.

Executive Order No. 3662004 Directing A Strategic Review of the Operations and Organizations of

the Executive Branch and Providing Options and Incentives forGovernment Employees Who May Be Affected by the Rationalization ofthe Functions and Agencies of the Executive Branch. 4 October.Manila, Philippines.

Executive Order No. 4442005 Directing The Department Of Interior And Local Government To

Conduct A Strategic Review On The Continuing Decentralization AndDevolution Of Services And Functions Of National Government ToLocal Government Units In Support Of The Rationalization Program OfThe Functions And Agencies Of The Executive Branch. 5 July. Manila,Philippines.

Executive Order No. 1652001 Directing the Formulation of an Institutional Strengthening and

Streamlining Program for the Executive Branch.

Fayol, Henri1949 General and Industrial Management. London. Pitman Publishing

Company. Reprinted in Shafritz and Hyde 1997.

Follett, Mary Parker1926 Scientific Foundations of Business Administration. In HC Metcalf, ed.

The Williams and Wilkins Co. Reprinted in Shafritz and Hyde 1997.

Fréchette, Louise2000 Good Governance at National and Global Levels. From Government to

Governance: Reflections on the 1999 World Conference on Governance.Quezon City: Eastern Regional Organization for Public Administration.

Frederickson, George H.1996 Comparing the Reinventing Government Movement with the New

Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 56 (3) (May-June): 263-270. American Society for Public Administration: BlackwellPublishing.

1971 Toward a New Public Administration. In Frank Marini, ed. Toward aNew Public Administration: The Minnowbrook Perspective. Scranton,PA: Chandler Publishing Co.

French, Wendell L.1978 The Personnel Management Process. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.

2008


Galing Pook Foundation2001 Kaban Galing: The Philippine Case Bank on Innovation and Exemplary

Practics in Local Governance.

Gant, George F.1979 Development Administration, Concepts, Goals, Methods. Wisconsin:

University of Wisconsin Press.

Goodnow, Frank J.1900 Politics and Administration: A Study in Government. New York:

Russell and Rusell. 17-26. Reprinted in Jay M. Shafritz and Albert C.Hyde, eds. 1997. Classics of Public Administration.

Gulick, Luther L.1937 Notes on the Theory of Organization. In L. Gulick and L. Urwick, eds.

Papers on the Science of Administration. New York: Institute of PublicAdministration. 3-13.

Halachmi, Arie1995 Reengineering and Public Management: Some Issues and

Considerations. In Christopher Pollitt and Geert Bouckaert, eds.Quality Improvement in European Public Services: Concepts, Cases andCommentary. London, England and Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications Ltd.

Hammer, Michael A.1990 Reengineering Work: Don't Automate, Obliterate. Harvard Business

Review. July-August. Harvard Business Publishing. available at http://harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/hbrol/en/. Accessed on 02June 2008)

Hammer, Michael A. and James A. Champy1993 Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution.

New York: Harper Business.

Haq, Mahbub Ul1995 Reflections on Human Development. New York: Oxford University

Pres

Hood, Christopher C.1991 A Public Management for All Seasons. Public Administration 69 (1):

3-20.

Ilchman, Warren F.1970 New Time in Old Clocks: Productivity, Development and Comparative

Public Administration. In Dwight Waldo, ed. Temporal Dimensions ofDevelopment Administration. Kingsport: Duke University Press.

Khator, Renu1998 The New Paradigm: From Development Administration to Sustainable

Development Administration. International Journal of PublicAdministration, 21 (12).

Landau, Martin1970 Development Administration and Administration Theory. In Edward D.

Weldner, ed. Development Administration in Asia. Tenesssee: DukeUniversity Press.

April-October


Laurel, Jose P.1926 Local Government in the Philippine Islands. Manila: La Pilarica Press.

Lijphart, Arend1971 Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method. American Political

Science Review, 65( 3): 682. Accessed in http://www.jstor.org on 20 May2008.

Local Government Support Program (LGSP)2005 Transformation Partnerships: A Replication Guide for Building LGU-

Initiated Gawad Kalinga Communities. Manila: Local GovernmentResource Center (LGRC) Philippines-Canada Local GovernmentSupport Program.

Lynn, Laurence E.1996 Public Management as Art, Science, and Profession. Chatham, NJ:

Chatham House.

Malolos Constitution1898 Malos Constitution Political Constitution. Barasoain, Malolos, Bulacan.

20 January.

Mangahas, Joel V. and Ma. Daryl L. Leyesa2003 Improving Government Administration through TQM. In Bautista et

al., eds. Introduction to Public Administration in the Philippines: AReader. Second Ed. Quezon City: National College of PublicAdministration and Governance.

Mariano, Vicente D.2003 Total Quality Management and Philippine Local Government Units. In

Bautista et al., eds. Introduction to Public Administration in thePhilippines: A Reader. Second Ed. Quezon City: National College ofPublic Administration and Governance.

Martinez, Rommel L.1999 Strategies of Corruption Prevention in the Philippines: Mobilizing Civil

Society. Working Papers . Asia Pacific School of Economics andManagement and Australian National University.

Maslow, Abraham H.1943 A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50 (July): 373-

396.

Montelibano, Jose Ma.2008 Glimpses: Of Heroism. Philippine Daily Inquirer . http://

o p i n i o n . i n q u i r e r . n e t / v i e w p o i n t s / c o l u m n sview_article.php?article_id=134012. 2 May.

Nef, Jorge and O.P. Dwivedi1981 Development Theory and Administration: A Fence Around an Empty

Lot? Indian Journal of Public Administration, 27 (1) (January-March).

Nigro, Felix A. and Lloyd G. Nigro1989 Modern Public Administration. New York: Harper and Row Publishers,

Inc.

2008


Ocampo, Romeo B. and Elena M. Panganiban1998 The Philippine Local Government System. History, Politics, and

Finance. Manila: Local Government Center.

1987 The Philippines. In Chung Si-Ahn, ed. The Local Political System inAsia. Seoul: National University Press.

Ortiz, Juanito S.1996 The Barangays of the Philippines. Quezon City: Hiyas Press.

Osborne, David E.1992 Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is

Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.

Osborne, David E. and Ted A. Gaebler1992 Reinventing Government. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing

Co., Inc.Pilar, Nestor N.

1993 Relevance of the New PA in Philippine Public Administration.” InBautista et al., eds. Introduction to Public Administration in thePhilippines: A Reader. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Pressand the College of Public Administration, University of the Philippines.

Philippine Daily Inquirer2008 Gawad Kalinga takes Panlilio as Partner in Lifting the Poor. 6

January. Also available at: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/regions/view_article.php?article_id=110740. Retrieved on 20 May 2008.

2007a Gawad Kalinga Goes Worldwide. Accessible on http:archive.inquirer.net/view.php?db=1&story_id=51429. Retrieved on 08June 2008.

2007b Filipino of the Year: Antonio Meloto. Also available at worldhttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view_article.ph). 18January. Retrieved on 20 May 2008.

Philippines, Republic of1987 The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Manila,

Philippines.

1973 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Manila, Philippines.

1935 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Manila, Philippines.

1930 The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines. Act No. 3815

Pollitt, Christopher1990 Managerialism and the Public Service. Oxford. Blackwell.

Presidential Decree No. 1.1972 Reorganizing the Executive Branch of the National Government.

24 September. Manila, Philippines.

Republic Act 22641959 An Act Amending the Laws Governing Local Government by Increasing

their Autonomy and Reorganizing Provincial Governments. 19 June.

April-October


Republic Act 23701959 An Act Granting Autonomy to the Barrios of the Philippines. Barrio

Charter Act.

Republic Act 30191960 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. 17 August.

Republic Act 71601991 The Local Government Code of 1991. October 10.

Republic Act 74301992 An Act Providing For Optimum Utilization Of Personnel In

Government Service Through A System Of Attrition, ProvidingPenalties For Violation Thereof, And For Other Purposes. Manila,Philippines. 15 April.

Reyes, Danilo R.2003 The Study of Public Administration in Perspective: A Passing Review of

the Development of the Discipline. In Bautista et al., eds. Introductionto Public Administration: A Reader. 2nd edition. Quezon City: UPNational College of Public Administration and Governance.

1993 The Identity Crisis in Public Administration Revisited: SomeDefinitional Issues and the Philippine Setting. In Bautista et al., eds.Introduction to Public Administration: A Reader. 1st Edition. QuezonCity: UP College of Public Administration.

Riggs, Fred W.1970 Frontiers of Development Administration. Durham, NC: Duke

University Press.

Rutgers, Mark R.1998 Paradigm Lost: Crisis as Identity of the Study of Public Administration.

The International Review of Administrative Sciences. London,Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi, Vol. 64.

Shafritz Jay M. and Albert C. Hyde1997 The Classics of Public Administration . 4th ed. Fort Worth, TX:

Hardcourt Brace College Publishers.

Simon, Herbert A.1947 Administrative Behavior; A Study of Decisionmaking Processes in

Administrative Organization. New York: Macmillan Co.

1946 The Proverbs of Administration . Public Administration Review.Washington D.C.: American Society for Public Administration (ASPA).

Stillman II, Richard J.1992 Preface to Public Administration: A Search for Themes and Direction.

New York: St. Martin’s Press, Inc.

Taylor, Frederick F.1912 Scientific Management. Excerpt from: Testimony before the U.S.

House of Representatives. 25 January.

2008


Tillah, Mirshariff C.2005 Globalization, Redemocratization and the Philippine Democracy.

Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Discussion Paper No.2005-09.

Tompkins, Jonathan R.2005 Organization Theory and Public Management. Belmont, CA.: Thomson

Learning Inc.

United Nations Development Programme1997 Reconceptualizing Governance. Discussion Paper Series No. 2. New

York.

United Nations Development Programme and Republic of the Philippines2002 Portfolio on Enabling Environment: Poverty Reduction through Good

Governance. Manila, Philippines.

Waldo, Dwight1948 The Administrative State: Conclusion. The Administrative State: A

Study of the Political Theory of American Public Administration. 2nd

Ed. New York: Holmes and Meier.

Weber, Max1946 Essay in Sociology edited and translated by H.H. Gerth and C. Wright

Mills. Oxford University Press.

Weidner, Edward W., ed. 1970 Development Administration in Asia. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

White, Leonard D.1997 Introduction to the Study of Administration. In Jay M Shaffritz and

Albert C. Hyde. Classics of Public Administration . 4th ed. US:Hardcourt Brace College. 44-50. (first printed in 1926).

Willoughby, William F.1918 The Movement for Budgetary Reform in the States. New York: D

Appleton and Co. for the Institute for Government Research.

Wilson, Woodrow1953 The Study of Public Administration. In Waldo, Dwight, ed. Ideas and

Issues in Public Administration. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co.,Inc.

World Bank2001 Combating Corruption in the Philippines. An Update. 30 September.

Philippine Country Management Office, East-Asia and the PacificRegional Office.

April-October


Internet Sites

http://www.balita.comhttp://www.gawadkalinga.org/http://www.tag.org.phhttp://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.http://www.csc.gov.ph/cscweb/2004IGP_stat.pdf.http://www.nscb.gov.phhttp://www.cfc-de.org/news.phphttp://en.wikipedia.orghttp://web.worldbank.orghttp://www.federaljobs.net.http://unpan1.un.orghttp://opinion.inquirer.net/viewpoints/columns/view_article.php?article_id=134012http://www.csc.gov.ph/cscweb/2004IGP_stat.pdf.http://www.jstor.org.

2008


Annex 1. List of Best Practices According to Sectoral Areas

Source: Brillantes 2003

Pasay CityBayanihan Bankin g Program

Guagua, PampangaLivelih ood gener a t ion th rough sampaguita

Mar ikina CityBar angay Talyer (Shop in Every Village) ProgramLivelihood Genera t ion

Goa, Camar in es Sur"Reorganiza t ion Pr ogram”

Mandaue City, Cebu"Tr ipar t ite Indust r ia l Peace Coun cil (TIPC)”Managemen t Innovat ions

Naga CityLocal Government Product ivity th r ough IT

Product ivity Improvemen t

Provin ce of Nueva ViscayaEmpowermen t of Per sons with Disability

Naga City"People Empowerment Program”

Malolos, BulacanCon st itu ent Responsive Gover nance

Dumarao, Capiz"People's Congress"and Empowerment

Olongapo CityVolunteer ism ProgramPeople's Par t icipat ion

Illana Bay Regiona l Alliance 9

Capiz and AklanCen tra l Pan ay Econom ic Union

Naga CityIn tegra ted Planning (Metro NagaCou ncil)

In ter -Loca l Coopera t ion and Par tnersh ip

Legaspi City and Victor iasHou sing th rough bond flot a t ion

Puer to Pr in cesaLow cost housingHousin g

Provin ce of DavaoMBN Approach to Developmen t

Dumarao, CapizCommunity Health Volunteer program

Community Pr imary Hospita l

Provin ce of Negr os Or ien ta lCou nter Insurgency St ra t egy

(Pr imary Health Car e Program)

Sur igao CityPr imary Health Care (PHC)Socia l Welfa re and Health Services

Linamon, Davao del Nor teSolid Waste Managemen t Program “Basu ra-At r as, Linamon Aban te sa Kalamboan (BALAK)”

Provin ce of Nueva Viscaya”Tree Resou rces for Educa t ion , Enterpr ise and for Legacy”

”Ba lik Kalikasab, Ba lik Amang Pabr ika” (BIKBAB)

Car mona, CaviteSolid Waste Management System

Provin ce of Ba taanCoasta l Man agement (Kontra Kala t sa Dagat )

Baguio CityEnvir onmenta l awareness program for ch ildren (Eco-walk)

Met r o Iloilo Water Dist r ictReforesta t ion P lan

Maasin , IloiloWater sh ed Protect ion

Bais CityEnvir onmenta l Managemen t ProjectEnvironmenta l Managemen t

Magsaysay, Davao“Paglilingkod Abot-Kamay”

Provin ce of Nueva EcijaReformin g the Rea l P roper ty Tax System

Mun oz, Nueva EcijaInfrast r u ctu re

Mandaluyong City

Dingras, Ilocos Nor teBuilt -Opera te Tran sfer

Victor ia , Negr os Occiden ta lBon dsLocal Resour ce Genera t ion

Local Gove rn m e n t Un itBe st P rac ticeSec tora l Are as

Pasay CityBayanihan Bankin g Program

Guagua, PampangaLivelih ood gener a t ion th rough sampaguita

Mar ikina CityBar angay Talyer (Shop in Every Village) ProgramLivelihood Genera t ion

Goa, Camar in es Sur"Reorganiza t ion Pr ogram”

Mandaue City, Cebu"Tr ipar t ite Indust r ia l Peace Coun cil (TIPC)”Managemen t Innovat ions

Naga CityLocal Government Product ivity th r ough IT

Product ivity Improvemen t

Provin ce of Nueva ViscayaEmpowermen t of Per sons with Disability

Naga City"People Empowerment Program”

Malolos, BulacanCon st itu ent Responsive Gover nance

Dumarao, Capiz"People's Congress"and Empowerment

Olongapo CityVolunteer ism ProgramPeople's Par t icipat ion

Illana Bay Regiona l Alliance 9

Capiz and AklanCen tra l Pan ay Econom ic Union

Naga CityIn tegra ted Planning (Metro NagaCou ncil)

In ter -Loca l Coopera t ion and Par tnersh ip

Legaspi City and Victor iasHou sing th rough bond flot a t ion

Puer to Pr in cesaLow cost housingHousin g

Provin ce of DavaoMBN Approach to Developmen t

Dumarao, CapizCommunity Health Volunteer program

Community Pr imary Hospita l

Provin ce of Negr os Or ien ta lCou nter Insurgency St ra t egy

(Pr imary Health Car e Program)

Sur igao CityPr imary Health Care (PHC)Socia l Welfa re and Health Services

Linamon, Davao del Nor teSolid Waste Managemen t Program “Basu ra-At r as, Linamon Aban te sa Kalamboan (BALAK)”

Provin ce of Nueva Viscaya”Tree Resou rces for Educa t ion , Enterpr ise and for Legacy”

”Ba lik Kalikasab, Ba lik Amang Pabr ika” (BIKBAB)

Car mona, CaviteSolid Waste Management System

Provin ce of Ba taanCoasta l Man agement (Kontra Kala t sa Dagat )

Baguio CityEnvir onmenta l awareness program for ch ildren (Eco-walk)

Met r o Iloilo Water Dist r ictReforesta t ion P lan

Maasin , IloiloWater sh ed Protect ion

Bais CityEnvir onmenta l Managemen t ProjectEnvironmenta l Managemen t

Magsaysay, Davao“Paglilingkod Abot-Kamay”

Provin ce of Nueva EcijaReformin g the Rea l P roper ty Tax System

Mun oz, Nueva EcijaInfrast r u ctu re

Mandaluyong City

Dingras, Ilocos Nor teBuilt -Opera te Tran sfer

Victor ia , Negr os Occiden ta lBon dsLocal Resour ce Genera t ion

Local Gove rn m e n t Un itBe st P rac ticeSec tora l Are as

April-October


Annex 2. List of Laws Related to Graft and Corruption

1946-1971

•Republic Act (RA) 1379 (1955). This act declared forfeiture in favor of the state any property found to have been unlawfully acquired by any public officer or employee, and provided for the proceedings.•RA 3019 (1960). This act provided for the repression of certain acts of public officers and private persons alike, which constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead thereto, also known as Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act.•RA 6028 (1969). This act provided for the promotion of higher standards of efficiency and justice in the administration of laws as well as to better secure the right of the people to petition the government for redress of grievances, creating the office of the citizen’s counselor.

1972-1986

•Presidential Decree (P.D.) 6 (1972). This decree amended certain rules on discipline of government officials and employees.•PD 46 (1972). This decree made it punishable for public officials and employees to receive and for private persons to give gifts on any occasion including Christmas.•PD 677 (1975). This decree amended Section 7 of RA 3019 (as amended).•PD 749 (1975). This decree granted immunity from prosecution to givers of bribes and other gifts and to their accomplices in bribery and other graft cases against public officers.•PD 807 (1975). This decree provided for the organization of the Civil Service commission, in accordance with provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines (repealed under President Aquino’s administration).•PD 1606 (1978). This decree revised PD 1486 (creating a special court to be known as Sandiganbayan – the main antigraft court that adjudicates criminal cases filed against high-ranking government officials.

1987-present

•1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Article XI, Accountability of Public Officers; Article II, Section 27 andSection 28 policy of the State to maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption; and Article III, Section 7, provides for the right of people to have access to public information.•1987 Administrative Code (Executive Order (EO) No. 292). This code instituted the administrative code of the Philippines.•EO 243 (1987). This order created OMB and restated its composition, powers, functions, and other salient features in the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.•RA 6713 (1989). This act provided for the functional and structural organization of OMB and delineated its powers and functions.•RA 7055 (1991). This act strengthened civilian supremacy over the military by returning to the civil courts the jurisdiction over certain offenses involving members of the armed forces, other persons subject to military law, and members of the Philippine National Police.•RA 7080 (1991). This act defined and penalized the crime of plunder.•RA 8249 (1997). This act further defined the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, amending PD 1606 (as amended).•Proclamation 189 (1999). This proclamation declared war against graft and corruption and authorized the Philippine Jaycee Senate, through the Graft Free Philippines Foundations, Inc., to institutionalize public awareness of clean, efficient, and honest governance.•EO 12 (2001). This order created the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission and provided for its powers, duties, and functions and for other purposes to investigate complaints or hear administrative cases filed against presidential appointees.•EO 25 (2001). This order established the Governance Advisory Council to encourage more active involvement of the business sector in curbing graft and corruption.•Code of Corporate Governance (2002). This code further provided to actively promote corporate governance reforms aimed to raise investor confidence, develop capital market, and help achieve high sustained growth for the corporate sector and the economy.•Code of Judicial Conduct (1989). This code provided for the appropriate conduct of judges in performing their duties; otherwise known as the Code of Judicial Conduct.•RA 9160 (2001). This act defined the crime of money laundering and provided for the penalties of such act.•RA 9184 (2002). This act provided for the modernization, standardization, and regulation of procurement activities of the Government, also known as the Government Procurement Reform Act.•EO 38 (2001). This order recognized and extended the life of the Special Task Force created under EO 156 dated 7 October 1999 entitled “Creating a Special Task Force to Review, Investigate and Gather Evidence Necessary to Successfully Prosecute Irregularities Committed at the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Bureau of Customs and Other Government Offices or Agencies, government-owned and controlled corporations, and government financial institutions, and required the use of the Government electronic procurement system.•EO 72 (2002). This order rationalized the agencies under or attached to the Office of the President.•EO 109 (2002). This order streamlined the rules and procedures on the review and approval of all contracts of departments, bureaus, offices, and agencies of the Government including government-owned and controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.•EO No. 114 (2002). This order restructured the Bureau of Internal Revenue toward a Taxpayers’ Focused Organization.•EO No. 251 (2003). This order required the Bureau of Internal Revenue to furnish OMB with income tax return filed.•RA 9184 (2003) This act amended RA 9160 (Anti-Money Laundering Act).Source: http://www.tag,org.ph/phillaw

1946-1971

•Republic Act (RA) 1379 (1955). This act declared forfeiture in favor of the state any property found to have been unlawfully acquired by any public officer or employee, and provided for the proceedings.•RA 3019 (1960). This act provided for the repression of certain acts of public officers and private persons alike, which constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead thereto, also known as Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act.•RA 6028 (1969). This act provided for the promotion of higher standards of efficiency and justice in the administration of laws as well as to better secure the right of the people to petition the government for redress of grievances, creating the office of the citizen’s counselor.

1972-1986

•Presidential Decree (P.D.) 6 (1972). This decree amended certain rules on discipline of government officials and employees.•PD 46 (1972). This decree made it punishable for public officials and employees to receive and for private persons to give gifts on any occasion including Christmas.•PD 677 (1975). This decree amended Section 7 of RA 3019 (as amended).•PD 749 (1975). This decree granted immunity from prosecution to givers of bribes and other gifts and to their accomplices in bribery and other graft cases against public officers.•PD 807 (1975). This decree provided for the organization of the Civil Service commission, in accordance with provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines (repealed under President Aquino’s administration).•PD 1606 (1978). This decree revised PD 1486 (creating a special court to be known as Sandiganbayan – the main antigraft court that adjudicates criminal cases filed against high-ranking government officials.

1987-present

•1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Article XI, Accountability of Public Officers; Article II, Section 27 andSection 28 policy of the State to maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption; and Article III, Section 7, provides for the right of people to have access to public information.•1987 Administrative Code (Executive Order (EO) No. 292). This code instituted the administrative code of the Philippines.•EO 243 (1987). This order created OMB and restated its composition, powers, functions, and other salient features in the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.•RA 6713 (1989). This act provided for the functional and structural organization of OMB and delineated its powers and functions.•RA 7055 (1991). This act strengthened civilian supremacy over the military by returning to the civil courts the jurisdiction over certain offenses involving members of the armed forces, other persons subject to military law, and members of the Philippine National Police.•RA 7080 (1991). This act defined and penalized the crime of plunder.•RA 8249 (1997). This act further defined the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, amending PD 1606 (as amended).•Proclamation 189 (1999). This proclamation declared war against graft and corruption and authorized the Philippine Jaycee Senate, through the Graft Free Philippines Foundations, Inc., to institutionalize public awareness of clean, efficient, and honest governance.•EO 12 (2001). This order created the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission and provided for its powers, duties, and functions and for other purposes to investigate complaints or hear administrative cases filed against presidential appointees.•EO 25 (2001). This order established the Governance Advisory Council to encourage more active involvement of the business sector in curbing graft and corruption.•Code of Corporate Governance (2002). This code further provided to actively promote corporate governance reforms aimed to raise investor confidence, develop capital market, and help achieve high sustained growth for the corporate sector and the economy.•Code of Judicial Conduct (1989). This code provided for the appropriate conduct of judges in performing their duties; otherwise known as the Code of Judicial Conduct.•RA 9160 (2001). This act defined the crime of money laundering and provided for the penalties of such act.•RA 9184 (2002). This act provided for the modernization, standardization, and regulation of procurement activities of the Government, also known as the Government Procurement Reform Act.•EO 38 (2001). This order recognized and extended the life of the Special Task Force created under EO 156 dated 7 October 1999 entitled “Creating a Special Task Force to Review, Investigate and Gather Evidence Necessary to Successfully Prosecute Irregularities Committed at the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Bureau of Customs and Other Government Offices or Agencies, government-owned and controlled corporations, and government financial institutions, and required the use of the Government electronic procurement system.•EO 72 (2002). This order rationalized the agencies under or attached to the Office of the President.•EO 109 (2002). This order streamlined the rules and procedures on the review and approval of all contracts of departments, bureaus, offices, and agencies of the Government including government-owned and controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.•EO No. 114 (2002). This order restructured the Bureau of Internal Revenue toward a Taxpayers’ Focused Organization.•EO No. 251 (2003). This order required the Bureau of Internal Revenue to furnish OMB with income tax return filed.•RA 9184 (2003) This act amended RA 9160 (Anti-Money Laundering Act).Source: http://www.tag,org.ph/phillaw

2008


Source: World Bank 2001 as cited in ADB 2005

Advises presiden ts in formula t ion governan ce reform agendas. Consist s of pr iva t e sector appoin tees.

Govern ance Advisory CouncilLegal Sta tus: Execut ive Order No. 25Est ablished: Apr il 2001

Consist s of governor of Bangko Sentra l ng Pilipinas, commissioner of Insu ran ce Commission , and chairman of Secur it ies an d Exchan ge Commission . Receives repor ts on covered t ransa ct ion s and can fr eeze suspiciou s accoun ts 15 days withou t r esource to cour ts.

An t i-Mon ey Launder ing Coun cilLegal Sta tus: Republic Act No. 9160Established: September 2001

Formula tes pu blic sector inst itu t ional st r engthenin g an d st reamlin ing agenda . Ch aired by execut ive secretary, vice-chaired by DBM, Members in clude h eads of CSC, COA, DOF, NEDA, an d President ia l Man agement Staff.

Pr esiden t ia l Commission on Effect ive GovernanceLegal Sta tus: Execut ive Order No. 165Established: October 1999

Invest iga t es viola t ion of an t i-gr aft laws by presiden t ia l su bappoin t iesand can recommend suspension of individu al to pr esiden ts. (Same man date as the Ramos administ ra t ion’s Presiden t ia l Commission against Graft and Corrupt ion , which it super seded.) Also super seded the Est rada administ ra t ion’s Nat ional Ant icor rupt ion Commission .

Presiden t ia l Commission on Effect ive GovernanceLegal Sta tus: Execut ive Order No. 12Est ablished: Apr il 2001

Gathers evidence for probable cause, condu cts hea r ings and filesappropr ia t e charges.

Nat ional Bureau of Invest iga t ionLegal Sta tus: Execut ive Order No. 94Est ablished: October 1947

Sh ares informat ion and r esou rces to enhan ce coordina t ion of it s member s’ act ivit ies: Civil Service Commission (CSC), Commission on Audit (COA), Depa r tmen t of J ust ice (DOJ ), Nat ional Bureau of Invest iga t ion (NBI), Office of the Ombudsman (OMB), and President ia l Commission Against Gra ft and Cor rupt ion . (PAGC)

Inter-Agency Ant i-Graft Coordina t ing Cou ncilLegal Sta tus: Exectu ive Order No. 79Est ablished: August 1999

Oversees regist ra t ion of secu r it ies, eva lua t ion of finan cia l con dit ion and opera t ions of applican ts for secur ity issues, and supervision of stock an d bond brokers a nd stock exchanges. Tasked with st rengthen ing corpora t e governan ce.

Secur it ies and Exch ange CommissionLegal Sta tus: Common wea lth Act No. 83(Secur it ies Act)Est ablished: October 1936

Performs centr a l bankin g fun ct ions. Replaced old centr a l bank crea ted in 1946.

Ban gko Sen tra l n g Pilipina sLegal Sta tus: Const itu t ion al (New Cen tra l Ban king Act )Est ablished: 1993

Assigned a t it s incept ion with recover ing ill-got ten wealth from the Marcos family. Now a lso t asked with similar recovery from President Est rada .

Presiden t ia l Commission on Good GovernanceLegal Sta tus: Execut ive Order No. 1Est ablished February 1986

Tasked with promotin g fr ee, order ly, honest , peacefu l, an d credible elect ions an d handling expedit iously every act ion brou ght before it .

Commission on Elect ion s

Oversees reforms in procu remen t systems, t ax and expenditure man agement , bureaucracy st r eamlin ing, an d civil service.

Depar tmen t of BudgetLegal Sta tus: Execut ive Bran ch

Act s as Governmen t’s pr imary cr imin al prosecu t ion arm.Depar tmen t of J ust iceLegal Sta tus: Execut ive Bran ch

Adjudica tes law in a ll a r eas.J u diciary (h eaded by the Supreme Cou r t )Legal Sta tus: Const itu t ion a lEst ablished: 1901

As main an t i-gr aft cour t , adjudica tes cr iminal cases brou ght to it by OMB. Deals only with cases brough t a ga in st h igh-r a nking officia ls.

San diganbayanLegal Sta tus: Const itu t ion a lEst ablished: 1986

Plays pr event ive role in set t in g standards an d n orms for civil service appoin tments and pu nit ive role for met ing out penalt ies an d punishmen ts for viola t ions.

Civil Service CommissionLegal Sta tus: Const itu t ion a lEst ablished: 1986

Conducts in depen den t au dit s of government agencies and refer s financia l ir regular it ies discovered in au dit s to Office of t he Ombu dsman (OMB)

Commission on AuditLegal Sta tus: Const itu t ion a lEst ablished: 1986

Invest iga t es and prosecu tes. Adju dica tes administ r a t ive cases and takes cr imina l cases to cour t or Sandiganbayan, depending on a governmen t officia ls’ r ank

Office of t he OmbudsmanLegal Sta tus: Const itu t ion a lEst ablished: 1986

MandateAgency

Advises presiden ts in formula t ion governan ce reform agendas. Consist s of pr iva t e sector appoin tees.

Govern ance Advisory CouncilLegal Sta tus: Execut ive Order No. 25Est ablished: Apr il 2001

Consist s of governor of Bangko Sentra l ng Pilipinas, commissioner of Insu ran ce Commission , and chairman of Secur it ies an d Exchan ge Commission . Receives repor ts on covered t ransa ct ion s and can fr eeze suspiciou s accoun ts 15 days withou t r esource to cour ts.

An t i-Mon ey Launder ing Coun cilLegal Sta tus: Republic Act No. 9160Established: September 2001

Formula tes pu blic sector inst itu t ional st r engthenin g an d st reamlin ing agenda . Ch aired by execut ive secretary, vice-chaired by DBM, Members in clude h eads of CSC, COA, DOF, NEDA, an d President ia l Man agement Staff.

Pr esiden t ia l Commission on Effect ive GovernanceLegal Sta tus: Execut ive Order No. 165Established: October 1999

Invest iga t es viola t ion of an t i-gr aft laws by presiden t ia l su bappoin t iesand can recommend suspension of individu al to pr esiden ts. (Same man date as the Ramos administ ra t ion’s Presiden t ia l Commission against Graft and Corrupt ion , which it super seded.) Also super seded the Est rada administ ra t ion’s Nat ional Ant icor rupt ion Commission .

Presiden t ia l Commission on Effect ive GovernanceLegal Sta tus: Execut ive Order No. 12Est ablished: Apr il 2001

Gathers evidence for probable cause, condu cts hea r ings and filesappropr ia t e charges.

Nat ional Bureau of Invest iga t ionLegal Sta tus: Execut ive Order No. 94Est ablished: October 1947

Sh ares informat ion and r esou rces to enhan ce coordina t ion of it s member s’ act ivit ies: Civil Service Commission (CSC), Commission on Audit (COA), Depa r tmen t of J ust ice (DOJ ), Nat ional Bureau of Invest iga t ion (NBI), Office of the Ombudsman (OMB), and President ia l Commission Against Gra ft and Cor rupt ion . (PAGC)

Inter-Agency Ant i-Graft Coordina t ing Cou ncilLegal Sta tus: Exectu ive Order No. 79Est ablished: August 1999

Oversees regist ra t ion of secu r it ies, eva lua t ion of finan cia l con dit ion and opera t ions of applican ts for secur ity issues, and supervision of stock an d bond brokers a nd stock exchanges. Tasked with st rengthen ing corpora t e governan ce.

Secur it ies and Exch ange CommissionLegal Sta tus: Common wea lth Act No. 83(Secur it ies Act)Est ablished: October 1936

Performs centr a l bankin g fun ct ions. Replaced old centr a l bank crea ted in 1946.

Ban gko Sen tra l n g Pilipina sLegal Sta tus: Const itu t ion al (New Cen tra l Ban king Act )Est ablished: 1993

Assigned a t it s incept ion with recover ing ill-got ten wealth from the Marcos family. Now a lso t asked with similar recovery from President Est rada .

Presiden t ia l Commission on Good GovernanceLegal Sta tus: Execut ive Order No. 1Est ablished February 1986

Tasked with promotin g fr ee, order ly, honest , peacefu l, an d credible elect ions an d handling expedit iously every act ion brou ght before it .

Commission on Elect ion s

Oversees reforms in procu remen t systems, t ax and expenditure man agement , bureaucracy st r eamlin ing, an d civil service.

Depar tmen t of BudgetLegal Sta tus: Execut ive Bran ch

Act s as Governmen t’s pr imary cr imin al prosecu t ion arm.Depar tmen t of J ust iceLegal Sta tus: Execut ive Bran ch

Adjudica tes law in a ll a r eas.J u diciary (h eaded by the Supreme Cou r t )Legal Sta tus: Const itu t ion a lEst ablished: 1901

As main an t i-gr aft cour t , adjudica tes cr iminal cases brou ght to it by OMB. Deals only with cases brough t a ga in st h igh-r a nking officia ls.

San diganbayanLegal Sta tus: Const itu t ion a lEst ablished: 1986

Plays pr event ive role in set t in g standards an d n orms for civil service appoin tments and pu nit ive role for met ing out penalt ies an d punishmen ts for viola t ions.

Civil Service CommissionLegal Sta tus: Const itu t ion a lEst ablished: 1986

Conducts in depen den t au dit s of government agencies and refer s financia l ir regular it ies discovered in au dit s to Office of t he Ombu dsman (OMB)

Commission on AuditLegal Sta tus: Const itu t ion a lEst ablished: 1986

Invest iga t es and prosecu tes. Adju dica tes administ r a t ive cases and takes cr imina l cases to cour t or Sandiganbayan, depending on a governmen t officia ls’ r ank

Office of t he OmbudsmanLegal Sta tus: Const itu t ion a lEst ablished: 1986

MandateAgency

Annex 3. Philippine Government Anti-Corruption Agencies

Documents

Alex Brillantes