CASE STUDY # 9: FOR OFFICIAL USE ALSO

One of the privileges in working in a government agency is a company car which we can use for

business travels. Vehicle usage shouldn’t be arbitrary, and it should be in line with the

company’s best interest. Vehicles are provided for number of purposes including site visits,

attending to meetings, presentations to clients, entertaining customers or delivering or servicing

the company’s product. All government vehicles should be clearly marked with the name and

location of the office, corporation or agency.

As per Administrative Order No. 239 signed by Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on September 15

year 2008, Sec. 1, “All government agencies and offices are prohibited from using government

vehicles for purposes other than official business.” Also, under COA rules, the use of government
vehicles should be authorized by a trip ticket. The ticket contains the destination, purpose and

duration of the travel. Also, trip ticket should be displayed on a conspicuous place on the

vehicle.

Employees who use the vehicle other than government business are considered liable to various

laws, including Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), R.A. 6713 (Code of

Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), Revised Administrative Code

of the Philippines, Commission on Audit (COA) circulars, Government Accounting and Auditing

Manual, and other executive issuances; or worst termination from office.

However, some erring public servants use these service vehicles for personal reasons including

bringing their spouse or children to school, eating at a restaurant, going for shopping at the

mall and even on Sundays, legal holidays or outside the route of the officials authorized to

them.

For Erna’s case; she is being skeptical. It is a good attitude at some point because it makes

people be alert to conditions which may indicate possible misstatement or fraud. It could

stimulate discussions and focus; it can also be an effective in-depth study to understand a
certain situation. But at some point, being too skeptical allows a nuanced view and tends to

push subjects into black and white leading to another belief system. Sometimes, we put

ourselves in some kind of danger.

Even if Erna is right about her seeing the service vehicle of Director Sison at SM Megamall, she

does not have enough evidence to prove her point; which now leads to Minda’s point that

perhaps Director Sison brought a client at SM after transacting business with him/her. Either of

them can be right or wrong yet they do not have facts to corroborate their statements.

If I were in their shoes, I will not directly or personally file a case to the Ombudsman considering

that I am filing a complaint to one of my co-worker in the top management without a

substantial data; in effect, instead of I, filing a case against them; the public official concerned

can file libel to me because of disseminating false accusation that can ruin his/her reputation

and of the agency as well.

But if I happen to have the necessary proof such as the type of vehicle, the plate number, and

the place where I found the vehicle and pictures then I have all the right to report it. But first, I

will kindly approach the person involved; and if I get reprimanded, threatened or provided with

a non-satisfactory explanation then I shall raise it to the Ombudsman so that formal

investigation will be conducted and to determine the appropriate sanctions to be imposed.

I will not be afraid to report such anomaly or unofficial use of government vehicles because I am

also paying my taxes. Misuse of these government vehicles means robbing us, taxpayers,

millions of funds. They derive such powers because of the public and our taxes sustain their

salaries and other benefits; therefore, they should serving as well than serving their selves well.

They must recall that public officials are expected with due diligence to effectively, efficiently,

honestly and economically use government resources and powers to avoid wastage in public

funds and revenues with high standards of ethics.

They are government officials and they should know the dos and don’ts of their actions and its

effect to their personal lives. The public office should be a source of public trust and they must

prove it to the people because all of the things that they have now are because of the public

who unwaveringly supported them in the first place. If they continue doing this malpractice, it

could bring a bad image to the public, questioning the integrity not only of the official but the

republic’s government as a whole.