424 Public Administration in Southeast Asia

21.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the Philippine public administration system in terms of its evolution, structure, appointments, employment patterns, and distribution, and, to the extent possible, discusses its development effectiveness. This chapter is organized as follows: (1) country background, (2) beginnings and current state of the Philippine civil service system, (3) development performance of the civil service bureaucracy, (4) key development challenges, and (5) conclusion and future directions.

21.2 Country Development Context

For most of the last 30 years, the development performance of the Philippines has been less satisfactory than many of its Asian neighbors. In the 1950s and 1960s, the country had one of the highest per capita gross domestic products in the Asian region—higher than that of the People’s Republic of China, Indonesia, and Thailand. The Philippines is now lagging behind. The 2008–2009 Global Competitiveness Report ranked the Philippines 71st out of 134 countries. Placed 82nd out of 118 countries in the 2008 Global Enabling Trade Index, the Philippines trailed behind its Association of Southeast Asian counterparts, such as Singapore that ranked second in the survey, Malaysia at 29th, Indonesia at 47th, and Thailand in 52nd place. The economic performance of the Philippines has been slow and erratic—characterized by spurts of growth followed by bust and stagnation.

The ADB 2007 Critical Development Constraints Study on the Philippines identifies the following critical factors that constrain growth: (i) tight fiscal situation; (ii) inadequate infrastructure, particularly in electricity and transport; (iii) weak investor confidence due to governance concerns; and (iv) inability to address market failures leading to a small and narrow industrial base (ADB 2007). It is viewed that easing these critical constraints can trigger a growth process conducive to alleviating poverty and reducing inequality in the country. Improving the system of public administration and governance will significantly improve the country’s development effectiveness.

21.3Evolution and Current State of the Philippine Civil Service System

21.3.1 Beginnings of a Modern Civil Service

The Philippine civil service system is often associated as having been patterned on that of the American civil service system. During the American colonization of the Philippines, a merit system in the government was institutionalized. Civil service positions required passing the civil service examination as compared to the feudal, subjective, and politicized practices under the Spanish regime.

Public Law No. 5, also known as Act for the Establishment and Maintenance of Our Efficient and Honest Civil Service in the Philippine Island, established the Philippine civil service system in 1900 by the Second Philippine Commission. It created the three-man Civil Service Board (CSB)—headed by a chairman, assisted by a secretary and a chief examiner—to determine examinations, set age limits, and classify positions in the executive branch and the city government of Manila. Although CSB was reorganized as the Bureau in 1905, its function remained limited to examinations and appointments (CSC 1977: 4–6).

The 1935 Philippine Constitution established the merit system as the basis for employment in the government. Succeeding years witnessed the expansion of the Bureau’s jurisdiction to include

© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

Civil Service System in the Philippines 427

consists of three layers: provinces, component cities and municipalities, and villages or barangays. There are also independent or highly urbanized cities (HUCs) that are at the same level as provinces and are directly divided into barangays. Each level of LGU is headed by an elected official, i.e., provincial governor, city/municipal mayor, or barangay captain. Each level of LGU also has a legislative body consisting of an elected vice-governor or vice-mayor and council members (ADB 2005b: 5–10).

The enactment of RA 7160 or the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991 has been considered a landmark, far-reaching, and the most radical piece of legislation in the history of the Philippine politico-administrative system. It devolved significant functions, powers, and respon- sibilities—and personnel—to the thousands of local governments in the country that have long been operating under a highly centralized regime: the delivery of basic services, authorized responsibility to enforce certain regulatory powers, increased financial resources to LGUs, legitimized participation for civil society in local governance, and authorized entrepreneurial and development activities by LGUs (Brillantes 2003a, 2003b).

21.3.2 Inventory of Government Personnel

Table 21.1 and Figure 21.2 show the inventory of government personnel from 1964 to 2008. National government agencies (NGAs), including state universities and colleges (SUCs), constitute the bulk of government personnel comprising 74% in 1964, 65% in 1994, 65% in 2004, and 63% in 2008. This is followed by LGUs at 26% in 1964, 25% in 2004, and an increase to 29% in 2008. GOCCs comprise 7% in 2004 and 8% in 2008. Table 21.1 also shows that the number of government personnel in 2008 is smaller by 162,161 compared to 2004. Figure 21.3 shows the employment pattern of the NGAs, GOCCs, and the LGUs.

The LGC transferred some 70,283 personnel of devolved functions from NGAs to LGUs. The Department of Agriculture (17,673), Department of Health (DOH) (45,896), and the Department of Social Welfare and Development (4,144) were heavily affected (Manasan 2004) The local government system consists of 80 provinces, 121 cities, 1,509 municipalities, and 41,994 barangays (or villages). Local governments are tasked to promote the general welfare of the people and provide a broad range of services that are administrative, corporate, regulatory, and developmental in nature.

Geographically, the National Capital Region (NCR) has the most number of government employees with 506,103 in 2008, followed by Region 3 with 104,354, and Region 4 with 100,758 employees. CARAGA and Region 2 have the smallest workforce among the regions, with 23,186 and 23,258 employees, respectively (Figure 21.4).

In 2008, the Department of Education (DepEd), the DOH, and the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) had the most number of employees of NGAs with 519,954 (51.92%), 27,906 (2.79%), and 27,826 (2.78%), respectively (CSC 2008).

As the central government personnel agency, the CSC is mandated to establish a career service and adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness, and courtesy in the civil service. It shall strengthen the merit and rewards system, integrate all human resources development programs for all levels and ranks, and institutionalize a management climate conducive to public accountability (1987 Constitution, Article IX, Sections 2–3).

In 1987, the Administrative Code was adopted to elaborate on the key principles and policies for the Philippine administrative system. It reiterates that civil servants are appointed based on “pre-determined merit and a competitive technical examination.” It provides for the rights to selforganization and the benefits of government employees. It prohibits government employees from participating in partisan politics. It also mandates the CSC to uphold due process when investigating offenses by civil servants. The organizational structure of the CSC is shown in Figure 21.5.

© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

430 Public Administration in Southeast Asia

GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

600,000

500,000

400,000

2008

2004

300,000

200,000

100,000

0

Figure 21.4 Geographical distribution of government personnel, 2004 and 2008. Source: Adapted from (CSC 2004 and CSC, 2008 Inventory of Government Personnel, 2008.)

at the second level (professional and technical) stood at 67.3% or 776,182, while 30.4% or 350,824 were at the first level (clerical, trades and crafts group). The third level (executive) comprised 1.2% or 13,316 appointments. Non-executive career appointments were at 1.2% or 13,329.

Non-career service casual employees comprised 60.9%, while contractual, elective, and co-ter- minus positions were at 13.1%, 13%, and 12.1%, respectively (Table 21.4 and Figure 21.7). About

BOX 21.1 THE CAREER EXECUTIVE SERVICE

CES is the third level or the managerial class in the group of career positions in the Philippine civil service. It was created by Presidential Decree No. 1 to “form a continuing pool of wellselected and development-oriented career administrators who shall provide competent and faithful service.” The CES is also a public personnel system program, but separate from the program for the first two levels of positions in the Philippine civil service.

Career Executive Service Officers (CESOs) are appointed to ranks and only assigned to CES positions. As such, they can be re-assigned or transferred from one CES position to another and from one office to another, but not more often than once every two years. The CES is similar to the Armed Forces and the Foreign Service where the officers are also appointed to ranks and assigned to positions.

The Career Executive Service Board (CESB) is the governing body of the CES. CESB is mandated to promulgate rules, standards, and procedures on the selection, classification, compensation, and career development of members of the CES.

The positions in the CES are career positions above division chief level that exercise managerial functions. These are the positions of undersecretary, assistant secretary bureau director, bureau assistant director, regional director, assistant regional director, department service chief, and other executive positions of equivalent rank as may be identified by the CESB.

Source: CESB website at www.cesboard.gov.ph.

© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC