Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATUE

This chapter is a retrospective presentation of previously written materials which
include research and conceptual literature and studies that have relevance and
significance to the research under consideration.
RELATED LITERATURE
In a large organization like the government, ethics and discipline serve as a
mechanism for control of the temperament, interest and action of people within the
organization. Ethical standards help coordinate government goals and public interests.
Government officers and employees owe their station to the people. The peoples taxes
sustain their salaries and other benefits. They are expected to live by rules, regulations
and norms of conduct and discipline that are at all times expected of public servants.
(CSC Guidelines 92, 2001)
The power to discipline, investigate and decide matters involving disciplinary
action against officers and employees rests on the heads of departments, agencies and
instrumentalities, provinces, cities and municipalities. However, the power to discipline
officers and employees does not exempt the heads of offices from any accountability to
the public. Even the President, the Vice President, Members of the Supreme Court, the
members of the Constitutional commissions and ombudsman may be removed from
office by impeachment for the following offenses: culpable violation of the constitution,

treason, bribery, graft and corruption, and other high crimes and betrayal of public trust
(Gonzales, 1998).
In such cases, the House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to
initiate all cases of impeachment. The principle of check and balance within the three
branches of government amplifies the accountability of public officials and employees to
the public (Gonzales 1998).
There are laws relevant to employee conduct and discipline. Republic Act 3019,
also known as Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act as amended by Parliamentary Bill No.
453 is only the latest in a long list of laws which define and embraces all sets of acts
committed by a public officer which are dishonestly, preferential to himself and others
close to him or appealing to be such. This act was enacted to deal with the problem of
graft and corruption, considered as a perennial political problem in the Philippines, in its
legal context (Cario and De Guzman, 1999).
According to Heidenheirmer (2000), Public Office must be defined hand in hand
with all the norms binding on its incumbent. That is a definitional variant of public
office. In his performance then, a civil servant is expected to follow a set of norms
required by a bureaucratic organization. Bureaucrats are supposed to follow priority and
scheduling rules, manifest efficiency, guard their jurisdiction and not encroach upon
anothers territory, and keep official secrets secret. In addition, it is not enough that these
norms are followed in letter and in spirit. R.A. 3019 also requires that the essence of
fairness and incorruptibility should be made visible by manifest cleanness and obedience

to the norms of propriety (Iglesias, 2003). The very idealism of the legal definition may
wake compliance difficult to attain R.A. 3019 is a very difficult law to obey.
The Sandiganbayan, a special anti-graft court was created by virtue of Presidential
Decree No. 1606 amending P.D. 1484. This Anti-Graft Court was set up to try graft and
corruption cases involving public officials and employees (Paras, 2001). A related law is
Presidential Decree No. 1607 which created the Tanodbayan. The 1987 Constitution,
however, changed the title of Tanodbayan to office of the special Prosecutor. The
Tanodbayan is now the Office of the Ombudsman which confers special function to the
office of the Special Prosecutor (Regalado, 2002).
The Ombudsman and his deputies act as protectors of the people. They act on
complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the
government or any of its subdivision, agency or instrumentality including government
owned and controlled corporations. They shall act on these complaints promptly and in
appropriate cases notify compliants of the action taken and its results (Regalado, 2002).
Similarly, and also as a policy on Employee Conduct and Discipline, the
Constitution and the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order 292
provide that No Officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended
except for cause as provided by laws and after due process (CSC guidelines 94,2001 p.
2).
One cannot be removed or suspended without having a chance to defend himself,
officers and employees can invoke security of tenure as long as they are competent,

honest and productive (Paras, 2001). If an officer or employee violates the norms of
acceptable behavior befitting a government officer or employee, he may be separated
from the service.
The government has a developmental policy of emphasizing the positive rather
than the punitive aspect of personnel discipline (CSC Omnibus Rules, 2000). This means
that if an officer or employee is administratively disciplined, the object is not primarily to
punish such officer or employee but to improve public service and to preserve the
peoples faith and confidence in their government. The positive aspect of personnel
discipline supports the development of values, skills and attitudes, giving due recognition
and rewards to officers and employees who contribute significantly to public service
goals and objectives reinforces this brand of discipline.
Positive or preventive discipline educates and instills in employees the value of
exemplary performance, quality outputs and high standards of behavior. Negative or
punitive discipline breeds fear and threat of punishment and often forces employees to
obey orders. This kind of disciplines lapses into autocracy and makes individual
employees act only to avoid penalty. In this way, employees lack motivation and
fulfillment in their work (David, 2001).
Public officials and employees shall be guided by rules, regulations, norms of
conduct and ethical standards. It is imperative on their part to observe norms of conduct
and ethical standards in the discharge of their duties, thus: (CSC Omnibus Rules, 2000).

1. Commitment shall always uphold public interest, over and above personal interest.
All government resources and powers in their perspective offices must be employed
and used efficiently, effectively, honestly and economically, particularly to avoid
wastage in public funds and revenues.
2. Professionalism Public officials and employees shall perform and discharge their
duties and responsibilities with the highest degree of excellence, intelligence and
skill. They shall enter public service with utmost devotion and dedication to duty.
They shall endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or
peddlers of undue patronage.
3. Justness and Sincerity. All public officials and employees shall remain true to the
people at all times. They must act with justness and sincerity and shall not
discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the underprivileged. They shall
at all times respect the rights of others and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to
law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public
interest. They shall not extend or dispense undue favors on account of their office to
their relatives whether by consanguinity or affinity, except with respect to
appointments of such relatives to positions considered strictly confidential or as
members of their personal staff whose terms are coterminous with theirs.
4. Political Neutrality. They shall provide service to everyone regardless of party
affiliation or preference without discrimination.
5. Responsiveness to the Public. All officials and employees shall extend prompt,
courteous and adequate service to the public. Unless otherwise provided by law or
when required by the public interest, public officials and employees shall provide
information on their policies and procedures in clear and understandable language,

ensure openness of information, public consultations and hearings whenever

appropriate, encourage suggestions, simplify and systematic policy, rules and
procedures, avoid red tape and develop an appreciation and understanding of the
socioeconomic conditions prevailing in the country, especially in depressed rural and
urban areas.
6. Nationalism and Patriotism. They shall be loyal at all times to the Republic and to the
Filipino people. Promote the use of locally produced goods, resources and technology
and encourage the appreciation and pride of country and people. They shall endeavor
to maintain and defend Philippines sovereignty against foreign intrusion.
7. Commitment and Democracy. Government officials and employees shall commit
themselves to the democratic way of life and values, maintain and/or observe the
principles of public accountability and manifest by deeds the supremacy of civilian
authority over the military. They shall at all times uphold the constitution and put
loyalty to country above loyalty to persons or party.
8. Simple Living. Public officials and employees and their families shall lead modest
lives appropriate to their positions and income. They shall not indulge in extravagant
or ostentatious display of wealth in any form.
Presidential Decree No. 807 as amended, Republic Act 3019 as amended and
Republic Act6713 enumerate the causes or offenses or Prohibited Acts that call for
disciplinary action. Lately, Section 22 Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing
Book V of EO 292 and other pertinent Civil Service Laws provided by classes of
administrative offenses and their corresponding penalties. Among the most recent
policies and issuances on administrative offenses and application of penalties that

have wider application and relevance to various agencies of the government are the
following:
1. Policy on Absenteeism and Tardiness (MC No. 4, 1991). This has reclassified
habitual absenteeism and tardiness from light to grave offense which is punishable by
suspension of six months and one day to one year for the first offense to a maximum
of dismissal for the second offense.
An officer or employee shall be considered habitually absent if he or she incurs
unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credit under
the leave law for at least 3 months in a semester or at least 3 consecutive months
during the year. He or she shall be considered habitually tardy if he incurs tardiness
regardless of the number of minutes, ten (10) times a month for at least two (2)
months in a semester or at least two (2) consecutive months during the year.
2. Reclassifying Nepotism as a grave offense punishable by dismissal (M.C. No.
53, 1990). Nepotism is defined as appointing relatives and members of the family
within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity of the appointing or
recommending authority or of the chief of bureau or office or other persons exercising
immediate supervision over appointees. Promotional appointments also amount to
nepotism. Exempted from the rules on nepotism are persons employed in a
confidential capacity, teachers, physicians and members of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines.
3. Appreciation of mitigating and aggravating circumstances (M.C. No. 6, 1991).
In deciding administrative cases, mitigating circumstances and aggravating
circumstances must be considered. Mitigating circumstances include physical illness,
good faith, length of service and analogous circumstances. Aggravating

circumstances include taking advantage of official position , taking undue advantage

of subordinate, undue disclosure of confidential information, use of government
property in the commission of offenses, habitually, offenses committed during office
hour and within the premises of the working office or building, and employment of
fraudulent means to commit or conceal the offense.
4. Policy on Preventive Suspension (Sec. 24-Rules on Discipline, 1990).
Preventive suspension is not a punishment or penalty for misconduct in office but a
preventive measure. A subordinate officer or employee may be placed under
preventive suspension while an investigation is going on if the offense committee
involves dishonesty, oppression, grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of
duty. This may likewise be improved if there is a strong reason to believe that the
respondent is guilty of the charge which warrants removal from the service.
Administrative offenses are classified into grave, less grand light offenses. A
grave offense is usually punishable by dismissal for the first offenses. Less grave
offense carries a penalty of suspension for one month and one day to six months. The
second offense warrants dismissal. Light offenses is needed the penalty reprimand.
Light penalties shall be imposed in each case. If a respondent is found guilty on
two or more charges or on two or more counts, the penalty imposed should be the one
corresponding to the most serious charge. Aggravating and mitigating circumstances
must be considered. Dismissal entails cancellation of eligibility and forfeiture of
benefits as well as disqualification for reemployment in government service. It does
not, however, preclude criminal or civil liability. A penalty of five may be imposed
instead of suspension. Finally, in meritorious cases, and upon recommendation by the
Civil Service Commission, the President may commute or remove administrative

penalties or disabilities imposed in disciplinary cases subjects to terms and conditions

as he or she may impose in the interest of the service (Cabato, 1997).
RELATED STUDIES
Traditionally, the majority of positions in government have been held by individuals
between 25-64. Today, they have become younger with government employees as young
as 18 years old. A study, however have shown that older employees have fewer absences,
they are always ahead of time, they are less likely to be reprimanded or need counseling
and they are more satisfied with their jobs. Only 7% of the respondent government
employees (34-65 years old) in Quezon City claim they no longer have the motivation to
be of service to the public. Older employees also have higher performance ratings
(Carbonell, 1994).
Since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 workplace discrimination on the
basis of sex have become illegal, however, it took the involvement of the Supreme Court
to define and outlaw the practice of sexual harassment. The Supreme Court ruled that
sexual harassment occurs whenever an unwanted sexually oriented behavior changes an
employees working conditions and creates a hostile or abusive work environment (Cruz,
2000). Although statistics vary between government and private institutions reported
sexual harassment cases is quite high at 36% in government and 41% in private
companies. Unreported cases are excluded from these statistics (Mendez, 1999).
Researches which involved different sectors of the Philippine populace confirm
that: 76% of peasants and 79% of elites of 4 municipalities revealed that they though
government employees are corrupt and unethical without manners and conduct
(Clemente, Fernandez, 1999). Another study made in 2001 which involved 1550
respondents from 10 language groups of the Philippines disclosed that the poor

implementation or ethical standards in government offices is a national problem which is

the root cause of graft and corruption and ranks second to general economic issues like
rising taxes (Averch, Kochler and Denton, 2001). In the same study, bureaucrats in line
agencies and government corporations stated their belief that citizens had a low regard
for their government because of insufficient government employees (Averch, et. Al,
2001).
Cultural encourage should also be manifested at the very least in the lack of
condemnation of deviant bureaucratic behavior. However, such behavior is condemned,
publicly, strongly and continuously. Surveys after survey have shown that poor ethical
standards is seen by many sectors of society as a major problem whose existence
contribute to their low regard for the government. Specially, Filipino administrators, who
may be assumed not to consider the issue as simply as theoritical one see the poor ethical
standards as the foremost object of national shame.
Cultural encouragement should also be manifested in the lack of acceptance of the
legal precept at the levels of knowledge and behavior. At the level of knowledge,
acceptance of what the norm is appears to be clear.
For instance Alfiller and Stone (2000) in separate studies have shown that
different kinds of bureaucrats and employees are aware of what are correct behavior
should be in dealing with the bureaucracy. Acceptance at the level of behavior maybe
more problematic. It is imperative upon government employees that knowledge of all
norms of conduct and ethical principles be translated into behavior.
Conceptual Framework

The Philippine Constitution of 1987 and three other laws such as Presidential
Decree No. 807 as amended by Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and Republic Act
No. 6773 emphasize the ideal concept of modern public office. Government employees
are obliged to prove that they are equal to be peoples trust. Trust forms the basis of their
employment and tenure in public service. Once this trust is broken, government
employees shall be held liable. Suspension or termination of ones services may restore
public trust. The peoples taxes sustain their salaries and other benefits. They are mere
custodians or stewards of public office. They cannot hold on to their positions as they
please. They shall live by the rules, regulations, norms, conduct and discipline that are at
all times expected of public servants. Public interest comes first and foremost, rising well
above personal goals. (CSC Guidelines 94, 2000).
Good discipline is a process of education in which punishment is resorted to only
when no other resource is open. At the same time, it defers others from committing an
unwanted conduct and behavior. This is the very same reason behind the developmental
policy of the government to emphasize the positive rather than the punitive or negative
aspect of personnel discipline (CSC Omnibus Rules, 2000). This further means that if an
employee is administratively disciplined, the object is not primarily to punish such offices
or employee but to improve public service and to preserve the peoples faith and
confidence in their government.
Figure 1 which is the paradigm of the study shows the diagrammatic presentation
of the conceptual framework. It shows the relationship of the variables were professional

judgment may be based. The input of the study was focused on the level of adherence to
Ethical standards of the local government employees in Western Pangasinan. Its
observance will be based on the perception of the local government employees
themselves. The expected outcome was an improved implementation of the law and
increase level of employees improved conduct and ethics.

Paradigm of the Study

Independent Variables

Personal Profile
Factors
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Age
Gender
Religion
Civil Status
Educational
Attainment
6. Class of
Municipality
7. Length of
Service

Dependent Variables

Level of Adherence to
Ethical Standards of
local government
employees along the
following norms of
conduct:
a. Commitment to
Public Interest
b. Professionalism
c. Justness and
Sincerity
d. Political Neutrality
e. Responsiveness to
the public
f. Simple Living

Figure 1: Conceptual
Framework

Outcome

Level of Adherence of
Local Government
Employees