Добавил:
Upload Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Public-Administration-in-Southeast-Asia.pdf
Скачиваний:
188
Добавлен:
21.03.2016
Размер:
4.4 Mб
Скачать

Civil Service System in the Philippines 449

After her State of the Nation Address (SONA) in July 2001, President Arroyo tasked the PCGG, which was formed under the Aquino administration, with the primary function of recovering the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcos family, to undertake similar recovery efforts, this time, directed at the alleged ill-gotten assets of former President Estrada. The Medium Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP) under the Arroyo administration aims, in the same manner, to reorient government bureaucracy, minimize overlaps in public programs and projects, and check the expansion of government activities. Her second SONA in 2002 further called for building a strong republic capable of delivering a public service that is free from class and sectoral interests. She likewise stressed the importance of building strong institutions capable of implementing good policies and delivering responsive essential services. The MTPDP adopted the Re-engineering the Bureaucracy for Better Governance Program of the previous administration.

President Arroyo launched her administration’s Ten Point Agenda, which provides the overall policy framework in managing for development results in the country. Her new program carried the slogan “BEAT THE ODDS”—which stands for: Balanced budget; Electric power and water to all barangays; Automated elections; Transport and digital infrastructure to link the country; Terminate hostilities in Mindanao; Heal the wounds of EDSA; Education for all; Opportunities for employment; Decongest Metro Manila; and Develop Subic-Clark as a development hub. The Ten Point Agenda served as the basis for the MTPDP 2004–2010, which in turn spells out the government’s strategic framework for achieving economic and social development goals. The MTPDP’s has been oriented toward reducing poverty and meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

President Arroyo transformed the PCEG into an ad hoc body. She issued EO No. 366 instructing the DBM and the CSC to pursue a Rationalization Program for the executive branch. It also requires rationalizing functions to avoid duplication and overlaps in government agencies to ensure government efficiency. Special benefits and separation packages have been put forward for employees who would be affected. EO No. 444 was also issued directing the DILG “to conduct a strategic review on the continuing decentralization and devolution of the services and functions of the national Government to LGUs in support of the Rationalization Program of functions and agencies of the executive branch.”

Since its inception, the CSC has been chaired by persons with unquestionable probity, competence, and dedication. Each of them endeavored to introduce and manage change in the civil service system to the best of their abilities. Annex 4 summarizes the major reform initiatives of former chairpersons of the CSC since 1987. They have likewise pursued paradigm shifts in managing the civil service (see Annex 5). Notwithstanding the CSCs powerful mandate, it requires a firm and sustained commitment from the political leadership; otherwise, it would render the CSC powerless and irrelevant.

21.6 Conclusion

The Philippines has pursued policy and institutional frameworks to promote professionalism, meritocracy, efficiency, and accountability in the civil service system. Since the 1900s, the country has instituted enabling laws and mechanisms to put in place professionalization standards in the government. The promulgation of the 1987 Constitution, the Administrative Code, EO issuances, and other enabling laws hoped to develop and strengthen public sector management.

The overall government performance and development results tell us otherwise. Today, the Philippines is now lagging behind its Asian neighbors where, economically, it was second to Japan

© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

450 Public Administration in Southeast Asia

in the 1960s. Evidence suggests, “that after the momentous restoration of democracy in 1987 and the myriad of governance reforms as well as the pockets of successes in putting in place transparent and accountable administrative systems at different levels of government, the country as a whole remains to be in poor state of governance” (Mangahas 2008).

Largely, the quality of the Philippine bureaucracy reflects on the country’s development, competitiveness, and economic growth. Major issues pertain to uncoordinated planning mechanisms, lack of performance measures, need for continued government reorganization, poor bureaucratic behavior and performance culture, susceptibility to political influence on appointments, lack of competences and low incentive structure, and the uneven distribution of personnel.

Civil service reforms—through paradigm shifts, innovations, and building up of trust—pur- sued by the past chairs of the CSC were laudable. Indeed, significant strides have been made to professionalize the bureaucracy. The position classification, compensation structure, and entry requirements are not ill-structured. Entry to career positions of the civil service is highly competitive if we are to base it on the results of civil service examinations, and compensation packages are not as bad compared to medium-size firms, particularly at the first and second level civil service.

Despite the above, there remain key institutional reforms that need to be pursued. The highly politicized CES—where appointments of CES officials disregard CES eligibility rules and procedures of the Office of the President—has been seen as a key constraint in professionalizing the entire bureaucracy. The president has the ultimate power when it comes to appointments at the CES, where political favors are very apparent across high-level NGAs positions. Hence, a Civil Service Code remains wanting. It is specifically intended to professionalize the third level managers or the CES. There are high hopes that addressing the politicization of the CES would have a trickle-down effect to the entire bureaucracy.

Civil service reforms have to be coupled with efforts to improve accountability mechanisms, new systems and procedures, and development frameworks, including efforts to combat corruption in government; the public expenditure management (PEM) and the medium-term expenditure framework (MTEF); the OPIF, which is a results-based oriented approach to the delivery of government services and functions; the e-NGAS; and the harmonization for effectiveness and managing for development results framework.

Indeed, the public sector reforms offer opportunities toward government efficiency and effectiveness. The civil service or the bureaucracy remains the backbone of efforts to make the government work better. Still, improving the civil service as an institution—its basic systems and procedures, structures, administrative values and competences, including recruitment, entry, appointments, position classification, and compensation structure, human resource development, incentives, etc.—should not be overshadowed by encompassing public sector reforms advocated and supported by development organizations.

References

Asian Development Bank (ADB). Country Governance Assessment: Philippines. Manila: Asian Development,

2005a.

———.Country Strategy and Program: Philippines. Manila: Asian Development Bank, 2005b.

———.Philippines: Critical Development Constraints. Manila: Asian Development Bank, 2007.

Balisacan, A.M. “Why does poverty persist in the Philippines? Facts, Fancies, and Policies.” SEARCA Agriculture & Development Discussion Paper Series No. 2007-1, March 2007. Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture, 2007.

© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

Civil Service System in the Philippines 451

Boncodin, E. “Introducing Results-Based Approaches in Public Sector Management Process: The Philippine Experience.” 2nd Roundtable on Managing for Development Results, February 4, 2004. Disussion Paper.

Brillantes, A.B. “Public Sector Reform and Poverty Reduction.” Pernia, E.M. and Deolalikar, A.B. (eds). Poverty, Growth and Institutions in Asia. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003a, 97–136.

———. Innovations and Excellence in Local Governance: Understanding Local Governments in the Philippines.

Quezon City: UP National College of Public Administration and Governance, 2003b.

Brillantes, A. and Mangahas, J. “Philippines: Restructuring, Reorganization and Implementation.” Leong H.K. (ed.). Re-Thinking Administrative Reforms in Southeast Asia. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish, 2006, 54–105.

Civil Service Commission. Civil Service Information Division, “75 Years Contribution to Nation Building.” Civil Service Report, 75th Anniversary Issue. Quezon City: CSC, 1977, pp. 4–6.

———.Panibagong Sigla. Manila: CSC, 2000.

———.2004 Inventory of Government Personnel, 2004.

———.Compensation and Benefits Study from 2002–2006, 2006.

———.2007 Performance Management System. Available at: www.csc.gov.ph/OM2007/PMS_ Guidelines_2007.pdf, 2007.

———.2008 Inventory of Government Personnel, 2008.

———.b. 2008 Inventory of Government Personnel, 2008.

———.“Civil Service Commission Strategic Plan for 2002–2005.” Civil Service Commission. October 27, 2009. Available at: <www.csc.gov.ph/cscweb/CSCStratPlan.doc>, undated.

———.Mamamayan Muna Hindi Mamaya Na. Manila: CSC, undated.

———.Pssst.. Panibabong Sigla Ngayon at sa Susunod na mga Taon. Manila: CSC, undated.

———.Public Service Delivery Audit/Assistance (PASADA) Program. Manila: CSC, undated.

———.Personnel Information Database System (PIDS). Manila: CSC, undated.

———.The Civil Service: Building its own Integrity, The Civil Service Commission Strategic Platform 2002–2004. Manila: CSC, undated.

de Dios, E. “Local Politics and Local Economy.” Balisacan, A. and Hal Hill (eds). The Dynamics of Regional Development: The Philippines in East Asia. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2007, 157–203.

de Leon, C. “Reforms in the Philippine Civil Service.” September 5, 2009. Available at: <http://www.pia. gov.ph/philtoday/pt04/csc.htm>, 2000.

Department of Budget and Management. Reforming Philippine Public Expenditure Management and the Organizational Performance Indicator Framework: Performance Budgets of 20 Departments. Manila: Department of Budget and Management, 2007.

———. Manual on Position Classification and Compensation. Manila: Department of Budget and Management, 2005.

Dolan, R.E. Philippines: A Country Study. May 31, 2008. Available at: <http://countrystudies.us/philip- pines/>, 1991.

Endriga, J. “The National Civil Service System of the Philippines.” John Burns and Bidhya Borownwathana (eds). Civil Service System in Asia. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2001, 212–248.

Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A. and Mastrussi, M. Governance Matters VI: Governance Indicators for 1996–2008. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2009.

Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A. and Mastruzzi, M. Governance Matters VI: Governance Indicators for 1996-2006

(July 2007). World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4280. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn. com/abstract=999979. Last accessed on 1 June 2010.

Mangahas, J.V. “A Study of Size, Growth and Rationalization of the Bureaucracy.” Philippine Journal of Public Administration 1993: 201–38.

Monsod, T. “The Philippine Bureaucracy: Incentive Structures and Implications for Performance.” HDN Discussion Paper Series, PHDR Issue 2008/2009, No. 4, 2009.

Montiel, C. Philippine Political Culture: View from Inside the Halls of Power. Quezon City: Philippine Governance Forum, 2002.

National Economic Development Authority. Medium Term Philippine Development Plan 2004–2010. Manila: Government of the Philippines, 2004.

© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

452 Public Administration in Southeast Asia

Philippine Human Development Network. Philippine Human Development Report 2008/2009: Institutions, Politics and Human Development. Quezon: Human Development Network, 2009.

Republic Act No. 6758. An Act Prescribing a Revised Compensation and Position Classification System in the Government and for Other Purposes, 1989.

Republic of the Philippines. Executive Order 444. Executive Order. Manila: Office of the President, 2005.

———.Executive Order No. 366. Executive Order. Manila: Office of the President, 2001.

———.The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Manila: Congress of the Philippines, 1987.

———.The Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines. Quezon: Congress of the Philippines, 1992.

Sto. Tomas, P.A. “Civil Service Reform in the Philippines.” Administrative Reforms towards Promoting Productivity in Bureaucratic Performance. Quezon City: Eastern Regional Organization for Public Administration, 1992, 340–48.

Sto. Tomas, P. and Mangahas, J. Public Administration and Governance: How do they affect Government Efficiency and Effectiveness. A paper presented at the International Conference on Public Administration plus Governance. Manila: Eastern Regional Organization for Public Administration, 2002. Conference Paper.

Varela, A. Administrative Culture and Political Change. Quezon City: College of Public Administrative, University of the Philippines, 1996.

© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]