Bringing back career government officials
>> Monday, August 29, 2016
BANTAY GOBYERNO
Ike Señeres
As
it is supposed to be, all positions in the Executive Branch starting from the
position of Undersecretary all the way down to the Division Chiefs are supposed
to be occupied by career officials who are supposed to be protected by tenure.
That is how it is supposed to be, but that is
not what is happening now. As it is supposed to be, only the Secretaries are
considered as political appointees, meaning to say that they do not have
tenure, and their term is co-terminus with the term of the President.
In theory, the tenure given to career
executives in the government is meant to ensure continuity of governance, as
well as to ensure the strengthening of public institutions. These two are
actually support each other, because only tenured officials could ensure a
stable bureaucracy, and only the strong institutions could ensure a stable
state. Pardon the redundancy, but these are ordinary and obvious tenets that
have been ignored by previous Presidents, perhaps starting from the time of
President Ferdinand Marcos.
There are many causes of graft and
corruption in the bureaucracy, but perhaps it could be said that the dominant
numbers of political appointees in the supposed to be career positions would
tend to contribute to this problem.
I am not saying that all political appointees
are grafters, but as a matter of fact, many of them have been accused of being
so. Before moving on with this discussion, I would like to put this problem in
the right perspective. As it is supposed to be, there are two sides to graft
and corruption, and these two sides could best be understood in the context of
extortion and bribery. In this context, it is the government official who
extorts if and when he unilaterally asks for a bribe, on the presumption that
the private party does not offer a bribe first, also unilaterally. Conversely,
it is the private party who corrupts the government official if and when he
offers the bribe first. Graft is committed either way, if the government
official accepts a bribe, regardless of whether he extorts for it, or if it is
voluntarily offered to him as a bribe.
Over the years however, these two
terms have practically become synonymous to each other, such that a graft
ridden agency is now also regarded as a corrupt agency. Even if the difference
between the two has become moot and academic, we still have to know which is
which, so that we would really know the enemy and in the process, be able to
defeat it.
As I know it, grafters could easily be
prosecuted under existing laws, but it is more difficult to charge those who
corrupt the decisions of government employees by offering the bribes. In recent
cases however, we have seen it happen that private parties are now also charged
with plunder, along with their accomplices in the government who are also
charged with the same offense. In relation to this, perhaps new laws would need
to be passed so that we could charge private parties who would cause the
government to be deprived of amounts below 50 million.
Except the Philippines, all the other
countries in the Association of South East Nations (ASEAN) have parliamentary
forms of government, wherein only the Ministers are political appointees, and
everyone else below them are career officials, starting with the Permanent
Secretaries all the way down to the Deputy Ministers and further down below. Yes
they do have Permanent Secretaries who are really permanent and they stay in
office no matter who comes in and out as the Ministers.
And yes, their Ministers almost always have
ministerial duties only, because the career officials could actually run their
Ministries even if the Ministries would not do anything. In terms of rank, the
Deputy Ministers are equal to our Undersecretaries.
In theory, career officials in the
civil service could be expected to be loyal to their jobs because they have
made it their lifetime commitment, from the time they enter the service up to
the time that they retire. That much could not be said however about the
political appointees, because they would only stay in office for six years each
term, being co-terminus with however has appointed them.
Again I do not say that all political
appointees are grafters, but without a lifetime commitment to the agencies that
employ them, the temptations to make money within the short term could be too
much to resist, especially so that they are usually facing the uncertainties of
income generation after they leave the government service.
I do not mean to marginalize the rest
of the bureaucracy, but it could certainly be said that the institutions of the
Foreign Service and the military service are more stable, precisely because
their top positions are exclusively occupied by career officials. The same
thing could be said of the Philippine National Police (PNP), because the career
officials there are well protected by civil service laws. Just imagine what
good it would do to the rest of the civil service if only its career officials
are similarly protected by these laws.
As it is supposed to be, vacancies in the
third level civil service positions are supposed to be filled up first by
Career Executive Service (CES) eligible officials, before those who are not
eligible could be considered. Email bantaygobyerno-subscribe@yahoogroups.com or text
+639956441780
0 comments:
Post a Comment