Family affair

No real change or reform is possible under the existing government set-up. It looks like PNoy may not truly succeed in his promised pagbabago if he will just continue working under the present policies and practices prevailing in government service. The fact that even in government, family ties still run deep for many of his Cabinet members or that the families and relatives of these Cabinet members have government connections or have businesses that may involve dealing with the government, is already an indication that we will just have more of the same kind of government we had before.

Of course these policies and practices look legitimate. It is not really the fault of Cabinet officials if their family members and relatives happen to be in government perhaps even ahead of them. But such practices certainly prey on human weaknesses that ultimately lead to graft, corruption and other wrongdoings in government; or they unavoidably create a public perception to that effect. Besides, it is contrary to the spirit of the Constitutional policy of giving “equal access to opportunities for public service”. This policy prohibits political dynasties not only in elective but also in appointive government positions.

The ideal set-up conducive to true reforms especially for Cabinet members would have been for their families and relatives to severe connections in, or to avoid holding other government positions particularly in the Executive Department. This is not impossible. It just entails a lot of sacrifice which is what public service is all about. There are in fact some Cabinet members whose family members are not in government service or who do not have family businesses that may lead to conflict of interest. They are the professionals who carved out a career either in the private sector like DPWH Secretary De Jesus and DOJ Secretary De Lima, or in public service like DOLE Secretary Baldoz and DILG Secretary Robredo.

Another flaw in our civil service system concerns the non-career positions below Cabinet rank which are nevertheless strictly confidential, highly technical and policy determining; and sometimes also very “juicy”. Their terms of office are likewise usually co-terminus with the appointing authority. Hence after every change of administration, thousands of vacancies occur and need filling up. This has become a vicious cycle at least every six years which, based on experience, has pernicious effects on government service.

First of all, it disrupts the continuity of government service. This is very evident especially after the last elections when the party in power has been replaced by a new one. The change of command even led to the issuance of a memorandum declaring all those offices vacant. The move may be legally defensible except that it has also affected career civil servants and the non- career ones appointed to fixed terms but whose appointments have been unilaterally determined as “midnight” because they were made so close to the prohibited period. What exacerbated the situation is that the positions were not immediately filled up because no replacements have been chosen yet.

Secondly, these practices have deteriorated the quality of public service in this country. It cannot be denied that the loyalty of most of these appointees is to the appointing power than to the country they have sworn to serve. Most of them were appointed because of connections to the appointing authority or because they were recommended by persons close or with connections to the appointing authority. While their credentials may qualify them for the positions, it is obvious that among other equally qualified aspirants for the position, they are chosen because they have padrinos. They may be competent but their independence and integrity are highly doubtful.

Lastly, the most pernicious effect on public service of the present system is the use of government positions as “political spoils” to be shared when victory is achieved. During every election, people who want to enter the government motivated mainly by selfish desire to enjoy the perks and privileges of public offices or by inordinate lust for power, usually join the campaign of candidates whom they believe have the biggest chance of winning the election. Most if not all of them do so not because they really believe in the qualifications of the candidate but because of his “winnability” expecting to be rewarded with a juicy position if he wins. And more often than not, they are indeed rewarded. This practice has been repeatedly done before and it seems that it has not been abandoned up to now. Appointments to government positions are apparently still being used as “paybacks” or rewards for political support even if appointees may really possess the necessary qualification. Undoubtedly, politics still play a big role in filling up not only elective but also appointive positions.

At this stage therefore, the promised changes still look like an “impossible dream”. No matter how sincere and well intentioned PNoy may be, the present practices abetted by the present system are formidable obstacles to realizing that change. Maybe as a first step, the civil service system should be strengthened. Appointments of non-career government officials should also be based mainly on merit and fitness with a security of tenure even beyond the term of office of the appointing authority. But a lot more depends on PNoy. He can still achieve the changes by just breaking away from the system.