THE ISSUES AND TRENDS IN PHILIPPINE BURUEAUCRACY

1. ISSUES

1. Graft and CorruptionA primordial concern and issue in the Philippine public service is graft and corruption. The Philippines for over a long period of time has been suffering from the ill-effects of graft and corruption. According to a World Bank study in 2008, corruption in the Philippines is considered to be the worst among East Asias leading economies and the country has sunk even lower among those seen to be lagging in governance reforms. The 2009Corruption Perceptions Indexpublished by global watchdogTransparency International, showed that the situation in the country had improved slightly but still remained serious. Corruption still exists in all levels of the government, especially among high civil servants.

The Philippine's national anticorruption framework and strategy defines corruption as the use of public office and the betrayal of public trust for private gain or the use of powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain, an illegal act by an officeholder that is directly related to their official duties or is done under color of lawor involvestrading in influence (Moralta, n.d.).Upon the other hand, it defines graft as the acquisition of gain in dishonest or questionable manner (Moralta, n.d.). (Brillantes & Fernandez, Restoring Trust and Building Integrity in the Government, 2011).

Corruption can come in various forms and a wide array of illicit behavior (Moralta, n.d.). (a) Nepotism, (b) extortion, (c) embezzlement, (d) kickbackson government contracts, (e) bribery, (f) protection money, and (g) ghost projects and payrolls are the forms of corruption that remains prevalent in the country.

1. Nepotism and CronyismFavoring relatives (nepotism) or personal friends (cronyism) of an official is a form of illegitimate private gain. Nepotism is one of the most common forms of corruption in the Philippines. It occurs when officials favor relatives or close friends for positions in which they hold some decision-making authority (Verhezen, n.d.). This type of favoritism is the natural human proclivity to give preferential treatment to friends and families, and occurs in both the public and private sectors. Conceptualize an elected official who comes to office and fills the posts in the executive branch with his under-qualified friends and family rather than qualified people who apply for the posts (de Leon, n.d.). The official is also guilty of nepotism. In the case of the political positions granted to under-qualified friends, the fate of the nation is hampered since unqualified people will be guiding policy and national decision-making process. Furthermore, there is less likely to be a balance of power since the political staff may follow the ideas of the person who gave them the position (Tillah, 2005). As a result, the quality of services provided to the people will be diminished.

1. ExtortionExtortion is another example of corrupt behavior in which one person coerces another to pay through money, goods, or favors for an action (Brillantes & Fernandez, Restoring Trust and Building Integrity in the Government, 2011). In government, extortion occurs when government agencies do not provide services quickly, and government officials demand money, valuable items, or services from ordinary citizens who transact business with them or their office. This is rampant in agencies issuing clearances, and other documents, those involved in the recruitment of personnel, or those performing services that directly favor ordinary citizens (Tillah, 2005).According to The Economist magazine, Rent seeking is cutting you a bigger slice of the cake rather than making the cake bigger, or trying to make more money without improved productivity. Technically speaking, that is just a part of the definition as it can manifest itself in many different ways. It is the process by which an individual, organization, or firm seeks to profit by manipulating the economic environment, rather than improving and expanding economic activity. Often times rent-seeking behavior is considered corrupt because it implies that money, or potential earnings, are reallocated in a manner that is not beneficial to or approved by all stakeholders. Rent seeking also occurs when monopoly privileges are sought, for example a major media company is engaged in rent-seeking behavior when it seeks to change the media ownership laws in its favor or against other companies because it benefits not by producing something that others want to pay for through the market, but by the force of law (Brillantes & Fernandez, Restoring Trust and Building Integrity in the Government, 2011). When there is a redistribution of wealth by shifting the government tax burden or government spending, it is also sometimes considered rent seeking. Whether legal or illegal, as they do not create any value, rent-seeking activities can impose large costs on an economy.

1. EmbezzlementEmbezzlement occurs when public officials steal money or other government property (Tillah, 2005). When embezzlement occurs in the public sector it affects the innocent citizens because public officials misappropriate resources meant for public services. Embezzlement is not limited to money, but includes all goods that were meant for the people. In the Philippines, public figures or officials, will participate in embezzlement in subtle or accidental ways. When, for example, they forge receipts, or use government property or personnel for personal, unofficial use. When public embezzlement occurs, it disturbs the balance of the national budget and cheats people of the goods and services to which they are entitled by virtue of their citizenship (Moralta, n.d.).

Embezzlement is a form of corruption and power abuse that can develop in more confined environments, secretly without the publics knowledge, or opportunities for public sanctions (Moralta, n.d.). Embezzlement presents a threat to the Philippines, given that corruption is rampant, as it is sometimes one of the quickest ways to gain wealth. For example, some power holders use their political office to build their private business interest. In some countries businesses and property are nationalized and given government officials or their families. The trend may be further expanded when a government aims to expand its privatization efforts and sells former state enterprises and parastatals under cost to friends and family members of parliamentarians, ministers or presidents.

1. KickbacksAkickbackis an official's share of misappropriated funds allocated from his or her organization to an organization involved in corruptbidding. For example, suppose that a politician is in charge of choosing how to spend some public funds. He can give acontractto acompanythat is not the best bidder, or allocate more than they deserve. In this case, the company benefits, and in exchange for betraying the public, the official receives a kickback payment, which is a portion of the sum the company received. This sum itself may be all or a portion of the difference between the actual (inflated) payment to the company and the (lower) market-based price that would have been paid had the bidding been competitive.

1. Lagay System or BriberyThe lagay system or the act of citizens to bribe government officials occupying sensitive positions in government is perpetuated due to bureaucratic red tape (Brillantes & Fernandez, Restoring Trust and Building Integrity in the Government, 2011). The most frequently employed method is offering a considerable amount of money (the bribe) to a government official who can facilitate the issuance of the desired documents in agencies issuing licenses, permits, clearances, and those agencies deputized to make decisions on particular issues. Bribery is the form of corruption that receives the greatest share of reference. It is the essence of corruption (Moralta, n.d.). Thus, bribery is an offer of money or favors to influence a public official and can come in the form of a fixed sum, a certain percentage of a contract, or any other favor in money in kind, usually paid to a state official or business person who can make contracts on behalf of the state or business or otherwise distribute benefits to companies or individuals, businessmen and clients (Moralta, n.d.).Bribery requires two participants: one to give the bribe, and one to take it. Either may initiate the corrupt offering; for example, a customs official may demand bribes to let through allowed (or disallowed) goods, or a smuggler might offer bribes to gain passage. In some countries the culture of corruption extends to every aspect of public life, making it extremely difficult for individuals to stay in business without resorting to bribes. Bribes may be demanded in order for an official to do something he is already paid to do. They may also be demanded in order to bypass laws and regulations. In addition to using bribery for private financial gain, they are also used to intentionally and maliciously cause harm to another (i.e. no financial incentive).

1. Tong System or Protection Money

This is form of bribery which is done by citizens performing illegal activities and operations. They deliver huge amount of money to government officials particularly those in- charge of enforcing the law in exchange for unhampered illegal operation (Brillantes & Fernandez, Restoring Trust and Building Integrity in the Government, 2011). The law enforcement officer who receives the money will be duty bound to protect the citizen concerned together with his illegal activities from other law enforcement authorities. This is practiced mostly by gambling lords and those engaged in business without the necessary permits.

1. Ghost Projects and Payrolls This is done by high officials of the government whereby non-existing projects are financed by the government while non-existing personnel or pensioners are being paid salaries & allowances (Tillah, 2005). This practice is rampant in government agencies involved in formulation and implementation of programs & projects particularly in infrastructure and in the granting of salaries, allowances and pension benefits.

1. Diversity and Glass-Ceiling

1. Diversity and Discrimination in the BureaucracyBureaucracy is home to diversity. It consists of people from different age, civil status, gender preference, ethnicity, religion or belief, abilities and disabilities. Although one of the essential functions of the bureaucracy is to promote diversity and pluralism in the government, and ensure equality despite differences, bureaucracy still is unable to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimization, and any other conduct which thwarts harmony within the organization (UNDP, 2010).

Jeunism, as defined as the discrimination against older people in favor of younger ones is still manifest in the Philippine civil service. This includes political candidacies, jobs, and cultural settings where the supposed greater vitality and/or youthfulness is more appreciated than the supposed greater moral and/orintellectual rigorof adulthood--thus putting aged applicants on a lesser chance of being employed or appointed or be favored (UNDP, 2010). Aside from aged public servants, Persons with disabilities are also often harassed and discriminated because of (Ableism - described as prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory behaviors toward persons with a disability) (Fernandez, 2003). Often, they are not offered with satisfying and reasonable jobs in the bureaucracy, as they are deemed to be abnormal and less effective, given that they are physically or mentally impaired. Also, sometimes the types and the extent of services, supports, and resources relative to personal needs are not well met. Many PWDs in the bureaucracy are not given special treatments and extended supports, like transport services, medical or health services, etc. In the same vein, gender stereotyping is also prevalent in the public service (Fernandez, 2003). There have been many instances when a person is being discriminated or victimized because of his or her gender orientation. An openly gay person for example, is not given equal opportunities with men, especially in jobs which require physical force, like a work in the BJMP as a jail guard, or as a traffic enforcer or in the military or defense for example.

1. Glass-CeilingThe story of womens advancement toward true equality of opportunity in modern business continues to be impressive and remains a source of hope for women around the world (Accenture, 2006). A no time in history have women been more visible in governmental policymaking and in corporate boardrooms. However, even in todays most progressive societies in this regard, the role of women is frequently unclear. Legitimate successes are frequently accompanied by ongoing struggles and painful backlash. The reality is that even the most enlightened countries have not achieved true equality in the boardroom. Every available statistical source, as well as anecdotal evidence, shows that women continue to be underrepresented in senior management in every country, whatever its cultural tradition and current legislation (Berrey, 2013). As reported in a recent study by Catalyst, the independent research and advisory organization on inclusiveness, the representation of women in leadership has stagnated for the past several years. The concept of the glass ceiling has been used as a metaphor for twenty years now to describe the apparently invisible barriers that prevent more than a few women from reaching the top levels of management in bureaucracy (Berrey, 2013). Compared to formal barriers to career advancement such as education, the glass ceiling refers to less tangible hindrances frequently anchored in culture, society and psychological factors that impede womens advancement to upper management or other senior positions.

1. TRENDS

1. Reinventing/ Reorganizing GovernmentThe most encompassing trend, the general theme of all trends, evident in the Philippine bureaucracy is the inclination towards reinventing or reorganizing the government. Because of the pressing issues which confronts the public bureaucracy of the Philippines, reorganization of the said organization, as a move towards good governance, has become a trend in the Philippines for several decades now. Basically, the reinvention or reorganization of the bureaucracy aims to address the issues parasitic to good government. Thus it gives priority to the eradication of unjust and oppressive structures, eradication of graft and corruption and the punishment of those who are guilty therefore, and the rehabilitation of the economy (Carlos, 2004),The reorganization or the reinvention of the government is guided by five (5) principles--promotion of private initiative--privatization f government corporations, self-regulation in business; decentralization--no monopolies in government corporations, deconcentration, delegation, regionalization among departments, local autonomy; cost effectiveness--no special privileges to corporations, no gaps/no overlaps; front-line service--no special privileges for GCs, institutionalized personnel and local government evaluation; and accountability--information systems, audit performance evaluations (Carlos, 2004). From these five guiding principles of reorganization lined the other trends which are the following:1. PrivatizationAnother major trend is privatization, which is defined as a transfer of ownership and control from thepublic to the private sector, with particular reference to asset sales (de Leon, n.d.). In the Philippine economy, there was a rapid expansion of the public enterprise sector in the Philippine economy from 1975 1985, which increased from 70 in 1973 to 303 in 1985. As a strategy for sustainable economic growth and seen as a quick solution to the persistent fiscal burden imposed about by inefficient public enterprises, privatization was undertaken in the Philippines. In December of 1986, Aquino issued Proclamation No. 50 creating the Asset Privatization Trust, mandated to dispose of government assets under the supervision of the Committee on Privatization. According to Reforma (2003), privatization had the following goals:

1. As a mechanism to get government out of the business of private sector 2. Disposition of non-performing assets were to fund the agrarian reform program; 3. Ease financial burden of government by reducing outlays for GOCCs and4. As part of the conditionalities of the IMF in their stabilization programs and the structural adjustment programs

Philippine privatization moves happened in three waves: the first being the initial stage in 1986 in which many surrendered and sequestered assets of Marcos cronies were disposed of (in line with the de-Marcosification strategy). The second wave started in 1990 in the power sector, and was replicated in other sectors such as infrastructure and water. The present stage is the third wave in which government is privatizing services such as the postal services, housing and health (Ortile, n.d.). The Philippine Privatization Programme has resulted to a trimming down of GOCCs from 301 in 1986 at the beginning of Aquinos term, to 79 in June of 1994 midway through the term of Ramos. Most of the privatized entities involved the largest GOCCs such as Petron, National Steel Corporation, Philippine National Bank, and the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System.The impact of privatization on the bureaucracy in GOCCs is clear. According to the Asset Privatization Trust 1995 annual report, revenues generated from the disposition of government assets from 1987 1995 amounted to more than Php33-billion (Patalinghug, 1996). UNPAN (1997) states that up to 1996, gross revenues from the sale of 91 GOCCs and other assets were at Php170-billion. Substantial improvement in the management of the government corporate sector was also made (with standard corporate planning models adopted by the remaining GOCCs), and the leakage from GOCCs was contained (UNPAN, 1997). In terms of employment, from 111,707 in 1996, the number of government personnel in GOCCs steadily decreased to 97,142 a year later, and down to 84,971 in 1999, (PSY: 2002) which was the natural consequence of privatization.

1. DecentralizationThe 1987 Constitution has established the foundation decentralization. The Aquino administration was responsible for the passage of Republic Act 7160, or the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991. The Code basically provided for the decentralization process in order to address the symptoms of the so called Imperial Manila syndrome over-concentration of administrative and political power inthe nations capital. Decentralization was undertaken with two major aims. The first was the achievement of administrative efficiency through faster decision-making, as local units are able to take control of their own fates. The second and more important reason was that decentralization encourages more peoples participation as government is brought down to the grassroots level. This promotes people empowerment, particularly in the Philippines which has a sub-city level in the baranggay which is seen as a mechanism for direct participation in community affairs.

Along with devolved political powers, several administrative functions were devolved to the local government units. Among these are: field health and hospital services; social services; community-based forestry projects; public works funded by local funds; the school building program; facilities development for tourism; telecommunications and housing projects (for provinces and cities only); enforcement of the national building code; reclassification of agricultural lands; and agricultural extension and on-site research (Brillantes, 1998).

1. E-GovernanceMany definitions exist for e-governance. Before presenting an overall definition of egovernance, the relation between governance, e-democracy and e-government is explained. E-democracy refers to the processes and structures that encompass all forms of electronic interaction between the Government (elected) and the citizen (electorate). E-government is a form of e-business in governance and refers to the processes and structures needed to deliver electronic services to the public (citizens and businesses), collaborate with business partners and to conduct electronic transactions within an organizational entity (Backus, n.d.).E-governance is defined as the application of electronic means in (1) the interaction between government and citizens and government and businesses, as well as (2) in internal government operations to simplify and improve democratic, government and business aspects of Governance (Backus, n.d.).The term interaction stands for the delivery of government products and services, exchange of information, communication, transactions and system integration (Legaspi, n.d.). Government consists of levels and branches. Government levels include central, national, regional, provincial, departmental and local government institutions. Examples of government branches are Administration, Civil Service, Parliament and Judiciary functions. Government operations are all back-office processes and inter-governmental interactions within the total government body. Examples of electronic means are Internet and other ICT applications.The strategic objective of e-governance is to support and simplify governance for all parties - government, citizens and businesses. The use of ICTs can connect all three parties and support processes and activities (Backus, n.d.). In other words, in e-governance uses electronic means to support and stimulate good governance. Therefore the objectives of e-governance are similar to the objectives of good governance. Good governance can be seen as an exercise of economic, political, and administrative authority to better manage affairs of a country at all levels, national and local.Regarding e-government, the distinction is made between the objectives for internally focused processes (operations) and objectives for externally focused services. External strategic objectives. The external objective of e-government is to satisfactorily fulfil the publics needs and expectations on the front-office side, by simplifying their interaction with various online services. The use of ICTs in government operations facilitates speedy, transparent, accountable, efficient and effective interaction with the public, citizens, business and other agencies (Backus, n.d.).

Internal strategic objectives. In the back-office, the objective of e-government in government operations is to facilitate a speedy, transparent, accountable, efficient and effective process for performing government administration activities. Significant cost savings (per transaction) in government operations can be the result. It can be concluded that e-governance is more than just a Government website on the Internet. Political, social, economic and technological aspects determine e-governance (Backus, n.d.).The Philippines ranked number four in South-East Asia in the E-government Readiness Survey conducted by the United Nations in 2008. And with that, the Philippine Government, is gearing for an E-government, as an initiative to create fast and effective links between the government, citizens and businesses. That being said, strategic programs and initiatives are being worked-on by the government, enshrined in a single plan, the Government Information Systems Plan. The formation of the Information Technology and Electronic Commerce Council (ITECC) in 2000 which is the countrys highest body overseeing IT policies and initiatives in the Philippines--is one of the manifestations of the said pursuit of the government (Legaspi, n.d.). The Council is responsible for E-Government Implementation, Information Infrastructure promotion, Human Resources Development, Legal and Regulatory Environment, and Business Development. The council consists of 10 cabinet Secretaries and 8 private sectors CEOs.

BibliographyAccenture. (2006). The Anatomy of Glass Ceiling. Accenture Publications.Angeles, L. C. (2000). Integrating Gender and Participatory Governance in the Phillipnes and Vietnam. DEVNET International Conference. Wellington: University of Victoria Press.Bank, A. D., & Bank, W. (n.d.). Decentralization in the Philippines. Manila: Asian Development Bank Publications.Berrey, E. (2013). Breaking Glass Ceilings, Ignoring Dirty Floors: the Culture and Class Bias in Diversity Management. SUNY-Buffalo.Brillantes, A. B., & Fernandez, M. T. (2011). Restoring Trust and Building Integrity in the Government. International Public Management Review .Brillantes, A. B., & Moscare, D. (2002). Decentralization and Federalism in the Philippines: Lessons from Global Community. International Conference of the EastWest Center. Kuala Lumpur: EWC.de Leon, C. G. (n.d.). Reforms in the Civil Service the Philippine Experience. De Walle, N. V. (1989). Privatization in Developing Countries: A Review of the Issues. World Development .Fernandez, M. A. (2003). Diversity Policies and Practices in the Civil Service: the Philippine Experience. IPMA-HR International Conference. Chicago: IPMA-HR.Krause, G. A., Lewis, D. E., & W, D. J. (2006). Political Appointments, Civil Service Systems, and Bureaucratic Competence. American Journal of Political Science .Legaspi, N. L. (n.d.). HRD And Globalization: Improving Competencies at the Local Level.Moralta, N. T. (n.d.). Graft and Corruption: the Philippine Experience. Tillah, M. (2005). Globalization, Redemocratization and the Philippine Bureaucracy. Philippine Institute of Development Studies .UNDP. (2010). Building BridgesS Between the State & the People. United Nations Development Programme.Verhezen, P. (n.d.). Networks or Nepotism?