IMPLEMENTATION OF R.A. 9485 (ANTI-RED TAPE ACT OF 2007) IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OF MADDELA, QUIRINO: AN ASSESSMENT

AN ACTION RESEARCH

PRESENTED TO

THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY OF LA SALETTE

SANTIAGO CITY

IN PARTIAL FULFLLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

MICHAEL H. RAMOS

October, 2011

I. INTRODUCTION

Public management scholars over the past decade have shed significant light on the

nature and consequences of ineffective rules or ‘‘red tape.’’ Red tape has been conceptually

defined (Bozeman 1993), operationalized (Rainey, Pandey, and Bozeman 1995) and

distinguished from formalization (Pandey and Scott 2002). The assumption that public

organizations have more red tape than private organizations has been called into question

(Rainey and Bozeman 2000; Bretschneider and Bozeman 1995). Red tape has been correlated

with negative organizational impacts, such as reduced services to clients (Scott and Pandey

2000) and higher managerial alienation (DeHart-Davis and Pandey 2005). These and other

findings are no small achievement given that red tape was not a clear intellectual concept prior to

the 1990s, despite its place in common parlance to indicate the inefficiencies of government

(Bozeman 2000).

Although red tape is an important topic for public administration scholars and

practitioners alike, some scholars suggest that additional attention be paid to crafting and

implementing effective rules (Goodsell 2000). Such an endeavor is timely given that one strategy

of government reform is to reduce internal public sector rules, based on the assumption that rules

inhibit creativity and flexibility (Graham and Hays 1986) and that reducing rules will reduce red

tape, unleash entrepreneurial energy, and improve the performance of government organizations.

These arguments view rules as a whole without considering individual rule attributes that

may lend themselves to more or less organizational benefit. Thus, advice to cut internal rules

without theory or evidence as to the functions of rule attributes throws the proverbial baby out

with the bathwater and ignores evidence that rules have positive social psychological effects for

employees (Adler and Borys 1996; Michaels et al. 1988; Organ and Greene 1981; Podsakoff,

Williams, and Todor 1986).

Another limitation to government reform perspectives, as well as the red tape literature,

is the disproportionate focus on middle- and upper-level managers. This focus excludes the

majority of organizational members who reside at lower organizational levels and experience

bureaucratic structure very differently (Argryis 1964; Gouldner 1954).

Although upper management perspectives on rules and reform are valuable, they provide

an incomplete and biased portrait of these critical public administration issues (Walker and

Enticott 2004).

However, government service has been constantly accused of bureaucratic red tape, a

term for excessive regulation and time consuming process and procedures before official action

can be taken. These delays government transactions to clientele are most often dissatisfied and

disappointed when doing business with the government.

The enactment of Republic Act # 9485 or Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007 is one of our

government’s measure to improve efficiency in public service and lessen if not eradicate red tape

in the government. The Act aims to promote transparency in the government with regard to the

manners of transacting with the public by requiring each agency to simplify frontline service

procedures, formulate service standards to observe in every transaction and most of all, to make

known these standards to the client.

The researcher is deemed challenged to know the assessment of the implementation of

the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007 as perceived by selected employees of the Local Government of

Maddela, Province of Quirino.

Background of the Study

This action research study was undertaken in the Local Government Unit of Maddela,

Quirino. This LGU has a work force consisting of 197 regular employees, among these are 12

chief of offices and 12 elective officials, plus 200 Casual Employees more or less, serving in

different agencies/offices such as Office of the Municipal Mayor, Sangguniang Bayan Office,

Office of the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator, Office of the Municipal Budget

Officer, Municipal Treasurer’s Office, Office of the Municipal Accountant, Department of

Agriculture Office, Municipal Health Office, Municipal Social Welfare and Development Office,

Community Affairs Office, Office of the Municipal Civil Registrar and National Offices such as

DILG, COA, DAR, BIR, PNP, BFP, BJMP, MCTC, RTC. All of them rendering various

services to cater the needs of the constituents of this Municipality.

Statement of the Problem

The present study is focused on the political system in the Local Government Unit in

Maddela, Quirino.

Specifically, the study sought to answer the following:

1. What is the perception of the respondents on the role of the Anti-Red

Tape Act of 2007 as a process?

2. What is the perception of the respondents on the role of the Anti-Red Tape

Act of 2007 as an evaluation method?

3. What is the perception of the respondents on the role of the Anti-Red Tape

Act of 2007 as an innovation in public administration?

Significance of the Study

The present study is deemed significant to the following:

Local Government Officials. The inputs as well as the outputs of the study will provide

Local Government officials a framework tp have a deeper look in the implementation of the

Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007.

Local Residents. The local residents will have deeper understanding and focus on the

contribution and significance of the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007 in their local community.

Scope and Delimitations of the Study

The present study focused on the assessment of the implementation of the Anti-

Red Tape Act of 2007 as perceived by selected employees of the Local Government of Maddela,

Province of Quirino.

The study is delimited to the respondents’ perception of Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007 as a

process, as an evaluation method and as an innovation in public administration.

The study is further delimited with the use of a survey questionnaire and descriptive

method of research

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

As noted in other places (Bozeman & Feeney 2011; Feeney working paper; Pandey &

Scott 2002) there is an abundance of empirical red tape research investigating the ways in which

managers perceive red tape and how those perceptions are related to job satisfaction,

organizational commitment, public service motivation, and performance. As with other areas of

public administration research, there are a number of weaknesses with the empirical red tape

research including an overreliance on self-administered surveys (Houston & Delevan 1990;

Wright et al. 2004), a dearth of research testing the reliability and validity of measures

(exceptions are Pandey & Marlowe 2009; Coursey & Pandey 2007 ; Pandey & Scott 2002), and

simplistic research designs and methods (Gill & Meier 2000; Houston & Delevan 1990, 1991,

1994; McCurdy & Cleary 1984; Meier 2005). There have been numerous calls for

methodological improvement and more diverse research design in public management research

(Cozzetto 1994; Kettl & Milward 1996; Brudney, O’Toole, & Rainey 2000; Gill & Meier 2000).

While much of this criticism has been lodged against public administration research in general,

red tape researchers have also been assessing the state of their empirical work.

At a recent workshop aiming to advance red tape research, researchers agreed that,

although empirical red tape research has been quickly developing, there is room for

improvement. Participants at the 2010 Red Tape Workshop sought to review the red tape theory

and research and identify gaps in the field and avenues for future research. In particular, they

considered ways to improve measures, data, and methods and develop a list of central research

questions (Feeney, Moynihan, & Walker 2010). In their own self-assessment, red tape

researchers noted the need to:

(1) re-conceptualize the definition of red tape, enabling researchers and research subjects

to better understand when a rule is red tape and when it is not;

(2) understand the multi-dimensional nature of red tape;

(3) investigate stakeholder red tape;

(4) develop non-perceptual measures of red tape;

(5) develop studies to test the validity of red tape measures;

(6) develop measurement experiments;

(7) collect panel data;

(8) conduct rule histories and more detailed case studies of red tape; and

(9) use more advanced statistical methods such as regression discontinuity design,

structural equation modeling, hierarchical linear modeling, experiments (both laboratory

experiments and field experiments), and behavioral forecasting.

Red tape researchers have repeatedly noted that red tape is a multi-dimensional concept

that requires methods that account for these dimensions (Bozeman & Feeney 2011; Brewer &

Walkers 2010a; Feeney, Moynihan, & Walker 2010; Pandey & Scott 2002). Unfortunately, very

little empirical research has focused on responding to this demand. One of the emerging

criticisms of the red tape research is that, because it has relied on Bozeman’s (2000) original

definition of red tape and Rainey and colleagues (1995) original questionnaire item, it has over-

emphasized organizational effectiveness (and efficiency) as a negative outcome of red tape,

while failing to account for other important public administration values, such as accountability,

transparency, equity, and fairness.

Multiple public administration survey research projects have asked respondents to assess

the level of red tape in their organizations. Most of these projects use the following questionnaire

item: If red tape is defined as “burdensome rules and procedures that have negative effects on

the organization’s effectiveness,” how would you assess the level of red tape in your

organization? [Response categories are a scale from 0 (almost no red tape) to 10 (a great deal of

red tape)]. On one hand, because many researchers have used this item, the questionnaire item

has face validity. On the other hand, the problem with the common use of this item is that it may

limit our conceptualization of red tape as something that negatively affects effectiveness alone.

Unfortunately, no research has tested the validity of this measure or the ways in which

respondents may or may not be assessing red tape based on this definition or some other

preconceived notion of ―red tape. Moreover, no research has directly investigated the wording

of this common questionnaire item to understand how word usage might be related to perceived

red tape.

Organizational Red Tape

One of the first definitions of red tape offered by public administration scholars came in

1984, when Rosenfeld defined red tape as ―guidelines, procedures, forms, and government

interventions that are perceived as excessive, unwieldy, or pointless in relationship to decision

making or implementation of decisions (1984). Bozeman (1993) later criticized Rosenfeld’s

definition as failing to distinguish between good and bad rules and therefore failing to clearly

define red tape as a negative phenomenon. Bozeman offered a more specific definition of red

tape as ―rules, regulations, and procedures that remain in force and entail a compliance burden

for the organization but have no efficacy for the rules’ functional object (1993, 283). He later

revised that definition to the following more succinct definition, ―burdensome administrative

rules and procedures that have negative effects on the organization’s performance (Bozeman

2000). Note that the latter definition specifically links red tape to performance, whereas the 1993

definition links red tape to the rule’s functional object, or purpose. Because most, if not all, of

the empirical red tape research has been conducted subsequent to Bozeman’s work developing a

theory of red tape (1993, 2000) it overwhelmingly relies on the definitions provided in that work.

DeHart-Davis (2007), defines red tape as ―burdensome administrative policies and procedures

that have negative effects on the city’s performance. Others define red tape as ―burdensome

rules or procedures that have an adverse effect on organizational performance (DeHart-Davis &

Pandey 2005; Yang & Pandey 2009). Here too, we see red tape as a negative phenomenon and

something that affects performance.

The first empirical measure developed to assess red tape perceptions was developed for

the National Administrative Studies Project (NASP I), a survey administered to a sample of 566

top managers in 269 public organizations and 297 private organizations in Albany and Syracuse

New York (Rainey, Pandey, & Bozeman 1995). Rainey et al. (1995) called this measure General

Red Tape, but it is also labeled the General Administrative Red Tape Scale, General Red Tape

Scale, Global Scale, Global Measure of Red Tape, and Organizational Red Tape Scale in other

research. The measure has appeared in a number of public administration surveys including

NASP II (Pandey & Kingsley 2000), NASP III (Feeney 2008; Feeney & Rainey 2010), a survey

administered to the Georgia Department of Transportation managers and their contractors

(Feeney & Bozeman 2009), a survey of local managers (Feeney & DeHart-Davis 2009), and the

English Local Government Dataset study of Best Value (Brewer & Walker 2010).

The Organizational Red Tape Scale is a staple measure in the empirical red tape research

and has been used in more than 20 peer-reviewed journal articles (Bozeman & Feeney 2011).

Research using the Organizational Red Tape Scale has found that public sector managers

perceive significantly more organizational red tape than those in the private and nonprofit sectors

(Feeney & Bozeman 2009; Feeney & Rainey 2010; Rainey Pandey, & Bozeman 1995). Research

has also shown that Organizational Red Tape is related to work alienation, organizational size,

respondent education level, and time in current position (DeHart-Davis & Pandey 2005; Pandey

& Kingsley 2000). Variance in Organizational Red Tape is also related to public service

motivation (Moynihan & Pandey 2007; Scott & Pandey 2005), hierarchical position (Brewer,

Hicklin, & Walker 2006), risk-taking (Bozeman & Kingsley 1998) communication, intersector

collaboration, and work experience (Feeney & Bozeman 2009). Given these findings and the

common use of this scale in multiple surveys over the span of 20 years, it is surprising that

researchers have not sought to test the reliability and validity of the Organizational Red Tape

Scale.

In sum, although Bozeman and Feeney (2011) assert that research using the

Organizational Red Tape Scale has shown results that are ―relatively stable, providing a

considerable degree of convergent validity and that there is some face validity and instrumental

utility of this measure, there is no research aimed directly at testing the reliability and validity of

this common red tape measure. A number of questions about this measure remain. For example,

is the Organizational Red Tape Scale measuring what we think it is? Do respondents understand

the difference between red tape (a negative phenomenon) and rules? When thinking about red

tape are respondents concerned with efficiency and performance or simply inconvenience? Does

the definition provided in the questionnaire item influence the ways in which respondents rate

red tape in their organizations?

One of the primary criticisms of the commonly used Organizational Red Tape Scale is

that the definition of red tape focuses on describing rules that have negative effects on

organizational effectiveness. Many red tape researchers note that red tape has multiple

dimensions and that this focus on efficiency and effectiveness limits red tape to only one of those

dimensions (Brewer & Walker 2010a; Pandey, Coursey, & Moynihan 2007; Pandey & Scott

2002). Red tape researchers note that rules are relevant to other public administration values,

such as transparency, accountability, equity, representation, and fairness (Feeney, Moynihan, &

Walker 2010). Many of the 2010 Red Tape Workshop participants noted that developing a multi-

dimensional concept and definition of red tape would enable researchers to broaden the study of

red tape to consider these important public administration values. While there is some research in

public administration and policy that investigates how rules are related to values (Moynihan

study and others), this research is not described as red tape research. Moreover, red tape

researchers are not currently operationalizing measures or definitions that capture the multi-

dimensionality of red tape. While many researchers agree that red tape affects other values,

besides efficiency and effectiveness, there is no empirical red tape research or questionnaire

items that guide research subjects to conceptualize these multiple components of red tape.

Wright and colleagues (2004) argue that public administration researchers need to be much more

concerned with measurement issues and many red tape researchers are in agreement (Feeney,

Moynihan, & Walker 2010).

III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Design

The present study utilized the descriptive method of research. The descriptive method is a

process for learning pertinent or precise information about an existing situation or phenomena.

The characteristics of a descriptive method include all those that support to present facts

concerning the nature of status of anything, a group of people, a number of objects, and a set of

phenomena one way wish to study. Moreover, is used to organized interpret and report the

present status of the group. It deals with cross-section of the present situation sufficient for

examination.

Respondents of the Study

The respondents include selected employees of the Local Government Unit of Maddela ,

Quirino. The total number of respondents is equivalent to sixty (60).

Research Instruments

A questionnaire which was the primary data gathering instrument in this study was used

to gather descriptive information from the respondents.

Statistical Treatment of Data

The following statistical tool was used by the researcher to properly conduct a scientific

presentation, analysis and interpretation of data gathered.

a. Weighted Mean. It was utilized to measure the respondents’ perception of the

implementation of the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007.

The table below was used to interpret the weighted. The points, range and descriptive

interpretations that was used in this study are as follows:

Points Range Description

5 4.50-5.00 Strongly Agree

4 3.50-4.49 Agree

3 2.50- 3.49 Not Sure

2 1.50-2.49 Disagree

1 0.50-1.49 Strongly Disagree

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1 show that some of the community members of the Local Government Unit of

Maddela view the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007 as a process. Impressions of respondents fall

homogenously in one category in “agreement” that it is a process as indicated by weighted

means ranging from 3.897 to 4.107.

Respondents reveal and show “agreement” to the view that Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007is

a process, for it has various steps and activities in determining quality in the operations of the

local government unit (x=4.103). To look for quality, it applies as well various methods of

strategic management (x=4.107), assessing the activities that need improvement, analyzing its

strength, weakness, threats, and opportunities for standardization and benchmarking.

Furthermore, it is a process, in the sense that the staff has to go through measuring quantitative

variables, evaluating and analyzing the results (x=4.103), and in giving education and training of

the staff in order to understand the construct of Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007. So that in this case,

positive attitudes may be developed and a better implementation of the Anti-Red Tape Act of

2007 would result(x=4.011).

As a process, it contains a series of steps, looking at methods and ways they do in the

organization, attempting to attain quality though standardization of activities and methods, and

looking for benchmarks in order to move on towards continuous improvement (x=4.100).

Table 1Impressions of Respondents on views of Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007 as a process

Items Weight Mean Verbal Interpretation1. Shows a sequence of activities for

transformation.4.104 A

2. It looks for activities that need improvement and standardization.

4.100A

3. Benchmarking is used in standardizing methods.

4.007A

4. Contains steps in identifying and resolving problems

4.090 A

5. Series of activities in requiring student achievement

4.107 A

6. Process of measuring, analyzing, evaluating the organization

4.103 A

7. It contains processes that work for satisfaction of students

4.107 A

8. It applies the different steps in strategic management

4.107 A

9. It involves a process of determining quality.

4.107 A

10. Its implementation involves a process of education, and development in order to understand its constructs

4.06 A

Overall Weighted Mean 4.083 A

Legend: SA – Strongly Agree A - Agree

1.2.2 As an Evaluation Method

Table 2 shows the impressions of respondents on Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007 as an

Evaluation Method.

There are descriptions of Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007 that it is a method of evaluation and

these are that: it seeks to innovate(x=4.221). If it serves to innovate, it must have empirical based

upon which evaluation is based before it goes to the process of innovation. Their belief that it is a

method of evaluation lies in the fact that it works for the continuous improvement (x=4.221) and

stresses the importance of satisfaction of clients. In undertaking such steps, the method

evaluation is an inherent part. Moreover, it has a construct for Measurement, Analysis and

Evaluation, which is reflexive on the property of evaluation (x=4.211) on itself. It is described as

involving the activities of standardization, improving activities, and such ventures necessitate

that knowledge of empirical data and evaluating them.

Table 2Impressions of Respondents on the Implementation of Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007 as an

evaluation Method

Items Weight Mean Verbal Interpretation1. It works for continuous

improvement4.211 A

2. Stresses the importance of satisfaction of clients

4.211A

3. Purpose is to:a. Developb. Standardizea. Improveb. Innovate

4.1264.2094.2094.221

AAAA

4. Helps measure the difference with observed and desired activities.

4.478 A

5. Performance is measured in terms of profit

4.874 A

6. In determines client satisfaction 4.199 AOverall Weighted Mean 4.304 ALegend: A – Agree

As a management innovation

Table 3 shows the summary of the responses of the group viewing Anti-Red Tape Act of

2007, as an innovation in public administration.

The best in the implementation of the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007 as an innovation in

public administration, is found in its ability to improve effectiveness of organization’s ability to

solve problems and make proper decisions (x=4.211), which is essence of Organizational

Development.

In the use of Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007 as an intervention, leadership takes the duty of

leading and directing organizational processes of organizing, decision making, evaluating and

other managerial functions, so that its success as an innovation is dependent on the leader’s

efforts. It emphasizes more democratic processes and that the loci of decision making, is not on

the leader alone, but on the group, resulting greater group collaborative activity.

Table 3Impressions of Respondents on Procedures of Implementation of Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007 as a

Innovation in Public Administration

ItemsWeight Mean

Verbal Interpretation

Rank

1. Requires participation of all people in the organization

4.211 A 2

2. Develops pleasant & warm relationships between people during focused group discussions.

4.109A

6.5

3. Involves management organization and management and leadership

4.211 A 3

4. Uses strategic management to attain organizational effectiveness

4.016 A 10

5. Necessitates management leadership in the process

4.199 A 4.5

6. It improves organization’s ability in solving problems and decision making

4.109 A 7

Overall Weighted Mean 4.142 ALegend: A – Agree

An overall weighted mean of 4.142 shows that as a whole, they “agree” that is a

management innovation.

Table 4 shows that summary of the views of the respondents of the study on their

impressions on Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007, as a process, an evaluation method and as an

innovation in public administration.

Table 4Summary of Impressions on Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007 constructs

Items Weight MeanVerbal

InterpretationRank

1. As a process 4.083 A 22. As an Evaluation Method 4.304 A 13. Management innovation 4.142 A 1Legend: SA – Strongly Agree A – Agree

The results moreover, reveal that in spite of the fact that Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007

manifests as a triple fold of a process, a method of evaluation and a management innovation, they

are more inclined to see it as an evaluation method.

On the conception of the people that government employees are corrupt, inefficient, un-

courteous and lack of tack the employees of the LGU of Maddela quite upset about it. Although it

is admissible that it is a fact and happening, there were also few good men and only small portion

of the entire organization were rotten.

These “few good men” in the government was disturbed by these misconceptions and

quite demoralized and the level of their performances tends to drop off.

The full implementation of RA 9485 is not the sole instrument to measure the

performance of local government offices. There were also a lot of factors to consider that

influences transactions in the government service, like lack of technology, capability of

employees (as a result of political appointments), sticking to obsolete procedural practices, lack of

fund that resulted to the absence in training programs for development and performance

advancement and upgrading of technology, overlapping of functions, too many signatories and

lack of political will among others.

The enactment of RA 9485 or Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007 had brought back the diligence

of the employees of Maddela, for the reason that, both, the few good men and “rotten eggs” were

now have a common basis in carrying out their respective functions.

The RA 9485 shall now serve as the source of force to oblige the “rotten eggs” to do their

tasks in the same level with the other employees and the “few good men” have now a clear cut-

policy in performing their mandated functions, thus settle the overlapping of functions, as well as

the superiors will now have a basis as to the need of their staff in trainings and development to

boost the level of their performance and become more productive.

The implementation of Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007will brings about benefits to both the

clientele and LGU employees. Among the benefits which the Local Government Unit hopes to

derive are: reduction of graft and corruption by preventing personnel’s procrastination and

removing the operation of red tape fixers; availability of feedback, complaints and redress

mechanism which could be used to further improve the delivery of services; existence of basis for

assessing the performance of the local government employees, and opening of opportunity for

people participation on service improvement. As for the clients, the simplified process of service

procedures will make their transactions faster, efficient and more reliable. Moreover, with the

inclusion of clear and transparent procedures, requirements and fees in the charter, they can

expect equal treatment from the LGU officials and/or employees providing the service.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baldwin, J.N. 1991. Public versus private employees: Debunking stereotypes. Review of Public Personnel Administration 11(2):1-27.

Bormuth, John R. 1968. ―Cloze Test Readability: Criterion Reference Scores.‖ Journal of Educational Measurement 5:189–196.

Bozeman, B. 1993. A theory of government ―red tape.‖ Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 3(3), 273–303.

———. 2000. Bureaucracy and Red Tape. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bozeman, B. & M.K. Feeney 2011. Rules and Red Tape: A Prism for Public Administration Theory and

Research. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. Bozeman, B., & G. Kingsley. 1998. Risk culture in public and private organizations. Public Administration

Review, 58(2), 109–118. Brewer, Gene, A., Hicklin, Alisa K. & Richard M. Walker. 2006. Multi-level Modeling Stakeholder Red

Tape, Environmental Constraints, Management and Public Service Performance. Determinants of Performance in Public Organizations II, University of Hong Kong, December 7-10.

Brewer, G.A., and R.M. Walker. 2010a. An empirical analysis of the impact of red tape on governmental performance: An empirical evaluation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(1), 233–257.

———.2010b. Explaining variations in perceptions of red tape: A professionalism-marketization model. Public Administration, 88, 2.

Brudney, Jeffrey L., Laurence J. O'Toole Jr., and Hal G. Rainey. 2000. Advancing public management: New developments in theory, methods, and practice. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

Coleman, Meri, and T. L. Liau. 1975. ―A Computer Readability Formula Designed for Machine Scoring.‖ Journal of Applied Psychology 60:283–284.

Coursey, D.H., and S.K. Pandey. 2007. Content domain, measurement, and validity of the red tape concept: A second-order confirmatory factor analysis. American Review of Public Administration, 37, 342.

Cozzetto, D.A. 1994. Quantitative research in public administration: A need to address some serious methodological problems. Administration and Society, 26(3), 337–343.

DeHart-Davis, L. 2007. The unbureaucratic personality. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 892–903. DeHart-Davis, L., and S.K. Pandey. 2005. Red tape and public employees: Does perceived rule dysfunction

alienate managers? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1), 133–148. Feeney, M.K. 2008. Public wars and private armies: Militaries, mercenaries, and public values. Paper

presented at the Public Values and Public Interest Research Workshop. Copenhagen, Denmark, May 28–30.

Feeney, M.K. working paper. Public Administration Empirical Research: The Case of Red Tape. Feeney, M.K., and B. Bozeman. 2009. Stakeholder red tape: Comparing perceptions of public managers and

their private consultants. Public Administration Review, 69(4), 710–726. Feeney, Mary K., Donald P. Moynihan, and Richard M. Walker. 2010. Rethinking and Expanding the Study

of Administrative Rules: Report of the 2010 Red Tape Research Workshop. Madison, Wisconsin. 30

Feeney, Mary K., and Leisha DeHart-Davis. 2009. Bureaucracy and Public Employee Behavior: A Case of Local Government. Review of Public Personnel Administration. Available advanced online: March 11, 2009, doi:10.1177/0734371X09333201 1

Feeney, M.K., and H.G. Rainey. 2010. Personnel flexibility in public and nonprofit organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.

Flesch, Rudolph. 1948. ―A New Readability Yardstick.‖ Journal of Applied Psychology 32:221– 233. Gill, J., and K.J. Meier. 2000. Public administration research and practice: A methodological manifesto.

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(1), 157–199. Greenfield, Gerald. 2003. ―The Mihazaki EFL Readability Index.‖ Comparative Culture 9:41–49. Holbrook, A.L., Krosnick, J.A., Moore, D. and R. Tourangeau. 2007. Response order effects in dichotomous

categorical questions presented orally: The impact of question and respondent attributes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(3):325–348.

Houston, D.J., and S.M. Delevan. 1990. Public administration research: An assessment of journal publications. Public Administration Review, 50(6), 674–681.

———.1991. The state of public personnel research. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 11(2), 97–111.

———.1994. A comparative assessment of public administration journal publications. Administration and Society, 26(2), 252–271.

Kettl & Milward 1996; May, Thor. 1987. Evaluating Linguistic Difficulty. TESOL News Vol. 8 No. 3. Downloaded January 11,

2011 from http://thormay.net/lxesl/tech4.html McCurdy, H.E., and R.E. Cleary. 1984. Why can’t we resolve the research issue in public administration?

Public Administration Review, 44(1), 49–55. Meier, K.J. 2005. Public administration and the myth of positivism: The Antichrist’s view. Administrative

Theory and Praxis, 27(4), 650–668. Moynihan, D.P., and S.K. Pandey. 2007. Comparing job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational

commitment. Administration and Society, 39(7), 803–832. Pandey, S.K., and G.A. Kingsley. 2000. Examining red tape in public and private organizations: Alternative

explanations from a social psychological model. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(4), 779–799.

Pandey, S.K., and J. Marlowe. 2009. Taking stock of survey-based measures of bureaucratic red tape: Mere perceptions or more than meets the eye? Paper presented at the 10th Public Management Research Conference.

Pandey, S.K., and P.G. Scott. 2002. Red tape: A review and assessment of concepts and measures. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(4), 553–580.

Perry, J.L. 1996. Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(1), 5–24.

Rainey, H.G., S.K. Pandey, and B. Bozeman. 1995. Research note: Public and private managers’ perceptions of red tape. Public Administration Review, 55(6), 567–574.

Rosenfeld, R.A. 1984. An expansion and application of Kaufman’s model of red tape: The case of community development block grants. Western Political Quarterly, 37, 603–620. 31

———. 2005. Red tape and public service motivation: Findings from a national survey of managers in state health and human services agencies. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 25(2), 155–180.

Smith, E. A. and Peter Kincaid. 1970. ―Derivation and Validation of the Automated Readability Index for Use with Technical Materials.‖ Human Factors 12:457–464.

Welch, E.W., and S.K. Pandey. 2007. E-government and bureaucracy: Toward a better understanding of intranet implementation and its effect on red tape. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 379–404.

Wright, B., L. Manigault, and T. Black. 2004. Quantitative research measurement in public administration: An assessment of journal publications. Administration and Society, 35(6), 747–764.

Yang, K., and S.K. Pandey. 2009. How do perceived political environment and administrative reform affect employee commitment? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(2), 335–360.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Dear Respondents,

The undersigned is undertaking an action research that will assess the implementation of

the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007.

There is no right or wrong answer, but it is best that you answer the questionnaires

objectively, so that proper decisions and directions may be made.

You are assured that every assertion made in these questionnaires shall be held

confidential, and will not be taken against you, rather as a helpful assessment of a cause.

Your cooperation is very much desired and without your help this paper will not be

successful.

Thank you for making this part of your day.

Thank you again.

Michael Ramos

Researcher

APPENDIX B

RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE

. Impressions on the Implementation of the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007

Direction: Please encircle the number which you think is the best answer, coming from the following options:

Strongly Agree (5)Agree (4)Not Sure (3)Disagree (2)Strongly Disagree (1)

1. Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007 as a Process.

It is a series of activities for transformation …………………………………It is a process of looking for activities that need

improvement and standardization ..………………………………………It uses Benchmarking in standardizing method ..…………………………….It contain steps in identifying and resolving problems ...…………………….It is a process of measuring, analyzing, evaluating the

activities in the organization .…………………………………..………...It applies the different steps in strategic planning ….……….…………….…It involves a process of determining quality ……………………..…………..Its implementation involves a process of education

and development in order to understand its constructs ……....………….It works for process for customer satisfaction ………….………....……….…..

5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 15 4 3 2 15 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 15 4 3 2 15 4 3 2 15 4 3 2 15 4 3 2 15 4 3 2 1

2. Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007 As an Evaluation Method

It works for continuous improvement ………..………………………………Stresses the importance of satisfaction of clients ……………………Purpose is to:

a. Develop ..……………………………………………………………...b. Standardize ..…………………………………………………………..c. Improve ..……………………………………………………………...d. Innovate ..……………………………………………………………..

Helps measure the difference between observedand what is desired .……………………………………..……..………...

Performance is measured in terms of profit ……..….……….…………….…

5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 15 4 3 2 15 4 3 2 15 4 3 2 15 4 3 2 15 4 3 2 15 4 3 2 1

It measures client satisfaction ……………..……………………..………….. 5 4 3 2 1

3. Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007 as an Innovation in Public Administration

Requires participation of all people in the organization ….……………….…

Develops pleasant and warm relationship between………………………….People during focused group discussion

Involves management organization, managementand leadership ...………………………………………………………….

Uses Strategic Management to attain organizational Effectiveness …………………………………………….……..………...

Necessities management leadership in the process ………………………….Improves organization’s ability to solve problems and

decision-making ……....…………………………………………………

5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 15 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1

APPENDIX C

THE ANTI-RED TAPE ACT OF 2007

Republic of the PhilippinesCongress of the Philippines

Metro Manila

Thirteenth CongressThird Special Session

Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the nineteenth day of February, two thousand seven.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9485June 02, 2007

AN ACT TO IMPROVE EFFICIENCY IN THE DELIVERY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC BY REDUCING BUREAUCRATIC RED TAPE, PREVENTING GRAFT

AND CORRUPTION, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES THEREFOR

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

Section 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007".

Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby declared the policy of the State to promote integrity, accountability, proper management of public affairs and public property as well as to establish effective practices aimed at the prevention of graft and corruption in government. Towards this end, the State shall maintain honesty and responsibility among its public officials and employees, and shall take appropriate measures to promote transparency in each agency with regard to the manner of transacting with the public, which shall encompass a program for the adoption of simplified procedures that will reduce red tape and expedite transactions in government.

Sec. 3. Coverage. - This Act shall apply to all government offices and agencies including local government units and government-owned or -controlled corporations that provide frontline services as defined in this Act. Those performing judicial, quasi-judicial and legislative functions are excluded from the coverage of this Act.

Sec. 4. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act, the following terms are defined as follows:

(a) "Simple Transactions" refer to requests or applications submitted by clients of a government office or agency which only require ministerial actions on the part of the public officer or employee, or that which present only inconsequential issues for the resolution by an officer or employee of said government office.

(b) "Complex Transactions" refer to requests or applications submitted by clients of a government office which necessitate the use of discretion in the resolution of complicated issues by an officer or employee of said government office, such transaction to be determined by the office concerned.

(c) "Frontline Service" refers to the process or transaction between clients and government offices or agencies involving applications for any privilege, right, permit, reward, license, concession, or for any modification, renewal or extension of the enumerated applications and/or requests which are acted upon in the ordinary course of business of the agency or office concerned.

(d) "Action" refers to the written approval or disapproval made by a government office or agency on the application or request submitted by a client for processing.

(e) "Officer or Employee" refers to a person employed in a government office or agency required to perform specific duties and responsibilities related to the application or request submitted by a client for processing.

(f) "Irrevelant requirement" refer to any document or performance of an act not directly material to the resolution of the issues raised in the request or needed in the application submitted by the client.

(g) "Fixer" refers to any individual whether or not officially involved in the operation of a government office or agency who has access to people working therein, and whether or not in collusion with them, facilitates speedy completion of transactions for pecuniary gain or any other advantage or consideration.

Sec. 5 Reengineering of Systems and Procedures. - All offices and agencies which provide frontline services are hereby mandated to regularly undertake time and motion studies, undergo evaluation and improvement of their transaction systems and procedures and re-engineer the same if deemed necessary to reduce bureaucratic red tape and processing time.

Sec. 6. Citizen's Charter. - All government agencies including departments, bureaus, offices, instrumentalities, or government-owned and/or controlled corporations, or local government or district units shall set up their respective service standards to be known as the Citizen's Charter in the form of information billboards which should be posted at the main entrance of offices or at the most conspicuous place, and in the form of published materials written either in English, Filipino, or in the local dialect, that detail:

(a) The procedure to obtain a particular service;

(b) The person/s responsible for each step;

(c) The maximum time to conclude the process;

(d) The document/s to be presented by the customer, if necessary;

(e) The amount of fees, if necessary; and

(f) The procedure for filing complaints.

Sec. 7. Accountability of the Heads of Offices and Agencies. - The head of the office or agency shall be primarily responsible for the implementation of this Act and shall be held accountable to the public in rendering fast, efficient, convenient and reliable service. All transactions and processes are deemed to have been made with the permission or clearance from the highest authority having jurisdiction over the government office or agency concerned.

Sec. 8. Accessing Frontline Services. - The following shall be adopted by all government offices and agencies:

(a) Acceptance of Applications and Request - (1) All officers or employees shall accept written applications, requests, and/or documents being submitted by clients of the office or agencies.

(2) The responsible officer or employee shall acknowledge receipt of such application and/or request by writing or printing clearly thereon his/her name, the unit where he/she is connected with, and the time and date of receipt.

(3) The receiving officer or employee shall perform a preliminary assessment of the request so as to promote a more expeditious action on requests.

(b) Action of Offices - (1) All applications and/or requests submitted shall be acted upon by the assigned officer or employee during the period stated in the Citizen's Charter which shall not be longer than five working days in the case of simple transactions and ten (10) working days in the case of complex transactions from the date the request or application was received. Depending on the nature of the frontline services requested or the mandate of the office or agency under unusual circumstances, the maximum time prescribed above may be extended. For the extension due to nature of frontline services or the mandate of the office or agency concerned the period for the delivery of frontline services shall be indicated in the Citizen's Charter. The office or agency concerned shall notify the requesting party in writing of the reason for the extension and the final date of release for the extension and the final date of release of the frontline service/s requested.

(2) No application or request shall be returned to the client without appropriate action. In case an application or request is disapproved, the officer or employee who rendered the decision shall send a formal notice to the client within five working days from the receipt of the request and/or application, stating therein the reason for the disapproval including a list of specific requirement/s which the client failed to submit.

(c) Denial of Request for Access to Government Service - Any denial of request for access to government service shall be fully explained in writing, stating the name of the person making the denial and the grounds upon which such denial is based. Any denial of request is deemed to have

been made with the permission or clearance from the highest authority having jurisdiction over the government office or agency concerned.

(d) Limitation of Signatories - The number of signatories in any document shall be limited to a maximum of five signatures which shall represent officers directly supervising the office or agency concerned.

(e) Adoption of Working Schedules to Serve Clients - Heads of offices and agencies which render frontline services shall adopt appropriate working schedules to ensure that all clients who are within their premises prior to the end of official working hours are attended to and served even during lunch break and after regular working hours.

(f) Identification Card - All employees transacting with the public shall be provided with an official identification card which should be visibly worn during office hours.

(g) Establishment of Public Assistance/Complaints Desk - Each office or agency shall establish a public assistance/complaints desk in all their offices.

Sec. 9. Automatic Extension of Permits and Licenses. - - If a government office or agency fails to act on an application and/or request for renewal of a license, permit or authority subject for renewal within the prescribed period, said permit, license or authority shall automatically be extended until a decision or resolution is rendered on the application for renewal: Provided, That the automatic extension shall not apply when the permit, license, or authority covers activities which pose danger to public health, public safety, public morals or to public policy including, but not limited to, natural resource extraction activities.

Sec. 10. Report Card Survey. - All offices and agencies providing frontline services shall be subjected to a Report Card Survey to be initiated by the Civil Service Commission, in coordination with the Development Academy of the Philippines, which shall be used to obtain feedback on how provisions in the Citizen's Charter are being followed and how the agency is performing.

The Report Card Survey shall also be used to obtain information and/or estimates of hidden costs incurred by clients to access frontline services which may include, but is not limited to, bribes and payment to fixers.

A feedback mechanism shall be established in all agencies covered by this Act and the results thereof shall be incorporated in their annual report.

Sec. 11. Violations. - After compliance with the substantive and procedural due process, the following shall constitute violations of this Act together with their corresponding penalties:

(a) Light Offense - (1) Refusal to accept application and/or request within the prescribed period or any document being submitted by a client;

(2) Failure to act on an application and/or request or failure to refer back to the client a request which cannot be acted upon due to lack of requirement/s within the prescribed period;

(3) Failure to attend to clients who are within the premises of the office or agency concerned prior to the end of official working hours and during lunch

(4) Failure to render frontline services within the prescribed period on any application and/or request without due cause;

(5) Failure to give the client a written notice on the disapproval of an application or request; and

(6) Imposition of additional irrelevant requirements other than those listed in the first notice.

Penalties for light offense shall be as follows:

First Offense - Thirty (30) days suspension without pay and mandatory attendance in Values Orientation Program;

Second Offense - Three (3) months suspension without pay; and

Third Offense - Dismissal and perpetual disqualification from public service.

(b) Grave Offense - Fixing and/or collusion with fixers in consideration of economic and/or other gain or advantage.

Penalty - Dismissal and perpetual disqualification from public service.

Sec. 12. Criminal Liability for Fixers. - In addition to Sec. 11 (b), fixers, as defined in this Act, shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment not exceeding six years or a fine not less than Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) but not more than Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) or both fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.

Sec. 13. Civil and Criminal Liability, Not Barred. - The finding of administrative liability under this Act shall not be a bar to the filing of criminal, civil or other related charges under existing laws arising from the same act or omission as herein enumerated.

Sec. 14. Administrative Jurisdiction. - The administrative jurisdiction on any violation of the provisions of this Act shall be vested in either the Civil Service Commission (CSC), the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) or the Office of the Ombudsman as determined by appropriate laws and issuances.

Sec. 15. Immunity; Discharge of Co-Respondent/Accused to be a Witness. - Any public official or employee or any person having been charged with another under this Act and who voluntarily gives information pertaining to an investigation or who willingly testifies therefore, shall be exempt from prosecution in the case/s where his/her information and testimony are given. The discharge may be granted and directed by the investigating body or court upon the application or

petition of any of the respondent/accused-informant and before the termination of the investigation: Provided, That:

(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the respondent/accused-informant whose discharge is requested;

(b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said respondent/accused-informant;

(c) The testimony of said respondent/accused-informant can be substantially corroborated in its material points;

(d) The responden/accused-informant has not been previously convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude; and

(e) Said responden/accused-informant does not appear to be the most guilty.

Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of the records of the investigation. Should the investigating body or court deny the motion or request for discharge as a witness, his/her sworn statement shall be inadmissible as evidence.

Sec. 16. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The Civil Service Commission in coordination with the Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP), the Office of the Ombudsman and the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC), shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations within ninety (90) days from the effectivity of this Act.

Sec. 17. Separability Clause. - If any provision of this Act shall be declared invalid or unconstitutional, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Act.

Sec. 18. Repealing Clause. - All provisions of laws, presidential decrees, letters of instruction and other presidential issuances which are incompatible or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby deemed amended or repealed.

Sec. 19. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect within fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.

Approved:

JOSE DE VENECIA JR.Speaker of the House of Representatives

MANNY VILLARPresident of the Senate

This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2589 and House Bill No. 3776 was finally passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on February 8, 2007 and February 20, 2007 respectively.

ROBERTO P. NAZARENOSecretary GeneralHouse of Representatives

OSCAR G. YABESSecretary of Senate

Approved: JUN 02, 2007

GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYOPresident of the Philippines