Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 21

Case study #1

AN ISLAND FIRESTORM

I. SITUATION

In the 70's, a beautiful island was discovered with fine beaches and crystal-clear waters.
The secluded beach and the rustic atmosphere made it popular among international tourists.

Soon development took place. Commercial tourism establishments were built to


accommodate tourists Houses, hotels, bars and restaurants mushroomed, all disposing solid
and liquid wastes. And soon the grounds water were contaminated Drinking water taken from
deep wells in the island were highly contaminated with coliform (bacteria found in human
wastes) and were dangerous to health The sea became unsafe too due to contamination from
sewerage system through seepage. In fact, chemists from the Agency for Environment and
Natural Resources reports that the October-December 1996 findings showed that the water
contained a high 85,397 most probable number of coliform microorganism per 100 milliters and
a low 3,170 mpn/100 ml. The standard is zero.

Alarmed by this development, and in the interest of the health of the people, it was
announced that the waters of the island are not safe for swimming. The announcement threw
the tourism industry into a crisis. An emergency meeting was held. The meeting produced a
cover-up that swept away the pollution. As a result of that meeting; a government official
apologized publicly and declared that it was safe once more to swim in waters. But another
official justified the warning. He gave more details about the environmental "disaster" in the
island (1) Exactly 201 of the 207 resorts on the island are facing closure for operating without
environmental clearance, (2) Of the 23 conditions on sanitation, garbage disposal that the
Agency for Environment and Natural Resources imposed for tourism projects 21 had been
violated, (3) The monitoring of the coliform count conducted from March to1996 was verified
from October to December 1996. Agency policy said the finding of a three-month monitoring is
conclusive.

On the other hand, some local officials say the December finding was no longer valid
because six months had passed, and the coliform could have been washed away by the tides,
the water and the wind. But, others say to consider the matter logically; the pollution could
have increased instead of decreased in the April June 1997 period because it was a time when
more foreign and domestic tourists visited the island. More people mean more pollution. And
bacteria and other organisms seem to thrive better in summer when the water is warm. Look at
the red tide phenomenon.

If you were the official concern, what would you do after knowing the findings of the
chemist? How would you show commitment to public interest in this case?
II. PROBLEM:
The grounds water were contaminated Drinking water taken from deep wells in
the island were highly contaminated.

III. ALTERNATIVES:
• Educate the people on the island about proper waste disposal.
• Conduct a cleaning operation to the island.
• Let them operate the island again.

IV. DECISION:

Conduct a cleaning operation to the island to refresh its beauty and cleanliness.

V. EXECUTION:

Filter the waste so that it will not go directly to the sea. Encourage the tourists and
inhabitants to maintain the cleanliness of the island and avoid causing waste production.

Question:

1. If you were the official concern, what would you do after knowing the findings of the
chemist? How would you show commitment to public interest in this case?

As a public official, I will investigate the waste disposal of houses, hotels, bars and
restaurants if they are doing the proper waste disposal. I will show commitment by informing
my underling to help in maintaining the purity of our tourist attraction because it is one of the
sources of income in our community.

According to Republic act no. 6713 – Section 4

Under Justness and sincerity public officials and employees shall remain true to the people at
all times. They must act with fairness and sincerity and shall not discriminate against anyone,
especially the poor and the unprivileged. They shall 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 dispense or extend 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 conterminous with theirs.
Case Study # 2

WANTED: DEAD HEROES

(Spade Analysis)

I. SITUATION

The Philippine Government through the Department of Environment and National


Resources (DENR) had pursued without let-up campaigns to curb illegal logging. Several years
ago, DENR issued directives banning the cutting of certain tree species classified as endangered
or facing extinction.

Narra ( Pterocarpus indicus), considered a national tree is one of the premium tree
species that is prohibited from cutting.

To stem the tide of wanton forest destructions, the government stations forest guards
in strategic places all over the country to serve as checkpoints. Loading vehicles are required to
stop for inspection. Invariably, the forest guards operating the checkpoints verify the
documents that are presented before the truck passes through the checkpoint

One early cold Sunday morning, in a far-flung area of south Cotabato, Rick and his five-
man team sighted three truckloads of freshly-cut flitches approaching their post. In the normal
course of his duty, he flagged-down the approaching trucks to signal it to stop for usual
inspection. To his amazement, it was an infantry truck commandeered by uniformed men in full
combat gears. A certain Alonzo, allegedly an Army Colonel alighted from the truck, executed a
crisp hand salute and introduced himself as the commanding officer. Rick was stunned when he
learned that the narra flitches are loaded inside the trucks.

He knew that the prohibited narra flitches were illegaly cut based on the prevailing
regulations. Sensing that his team was outnumbered, Rick courteously informed Alonzo that it
was unlawful to cut trees without the necessary permit, and asked the officer why they
resorted to illegal logging. Alonzo replied, “We need funds to bury our dead comrades and to
give for their bereaved families.” Fearing for his life and the lives of his men, Rick became
anxious.

If you were in Rick’s shoes, how will you respond to the situation? Will you allow Alonzo
to pass through or not? Why and why not?

PROBLEM:

Illegal logging of the trees which are classified as endangered species or facing the
possible extinction.
ALTERNATIVES:

 He can report it to his supervisor and let the army colonel shall be sanctioned for
violating “flagrante delicto”
 He can confiscate the cut narra tree
 He can tell Alonzo to get permit before getting the narra.

DECISION:

He can report it to his supervisor and let the army colonel shall be sanctioned for
violating “flagrante delicto”

EXECUTION:

He shouldn’t lose his courage and do the right thing to do which is report the incident to his
supervisor.

QUESTION:

If you were in Rick’s shoes, how will you respond to the situation? Will you allow Alonzo to
pass through or not? Why and why not?

No, because Alonzo, as an Army Colonel must know the law himself. And it is obvious
that he violated the law. Regardless of his position I will report him to the authority.
Case study #3

WHAT ELSE CAN I DO?

(Spade Analysis)

This conversation takes place between an employee of the Environmental Management


Bureau and a colleague.

Sol: You look upset, Glenda. Why?

Glenda: I’ve been ordered to prepare the paper work to justify allowing the ACME
mining company to start an open-pit mining in an area where we have no time to do a proper
environmental impact study. They gave me some quickie consultant report showing that the
environmental impact will be minimal. But I don’t agree with that study.

Sol: what are you exactly saying?

Glenda: I’m saying that we are not following the guidelines here. Under the existing
regulations, ACME cannot have a permit from this bureau without a proper Environmental
Impact assessment Clearance or EIA.

Sol: What is EIA?

Glenda: This document clears a particular project, certifying that the effects of the
proposed project do not pose hazard to the environment and/or to its surrounding community.
Normally it’s the environment engineers of the project proponent prepare the EIA’s or a
consultancy firm. It is our job to initiate consultations, dialogue, representations and surveys
before we give our final nod.

Sol: Have you mentioned this problem to your Division Chief?

Glenda: Yes, I went to see her and told her what had happened?

Sol: What did she say?

Glenda: She said to go ahead and do as I’ve been told. Then, I told her we can go to the
Director or even to the Department Secretary. She lets me know that it would be inadvisable to
raise the matter again. When I asked why, she just said, it’s an order from the powers that be.

Sol: What would you do? Are you going to leave it at that, Glenda?

Glenda: No! I am going to press or to Senator Enriquez. He’s the Chairman of the
Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. What would happen to the people in that
area if we allow ACME?
Sol: What! Are you sure this is the proper thing? The press would blow up your story. If
you go to the senator, he may take up cause because it would be just an opportunity for him to
grandstand.

Glenda: If it’s wrong to go to Senator Enriquez or to the Press about something like this;
who can I turn to? What alternatives do I have now?

Do you agree with Glenda? Why? Is whistle blowing to the media acceptable as whistle
blowing to an elected national official?

PROBLEM:

They did not follow the correct guidelines.

ALTERNATIVES:

 She can push her Director Chief to review again the problem.
 She can decline and do not let the project to go on.
 Go to press and let everyone know what is really happening.

DECISION:

Go to press and let everyone know what is really happening. Even if senator Enriquez
used it for his candidacy at least he has the authority to stop the operation.

EXECUTION:

She should not let the project continue for the benefits of the people that might be
affected with the hazard that the project might cause. Her decision to report this matter to
Senator Enriquez is her job.

Question:

1. Do you agree with Glenda? Why?


Yes, because she knows the effect and she stands for what is right not for her
but for other people that will affect the said project.

Republic Act 6713, Section 10. “Review and Compliance Procedure. —The designated
Committees of both Houses of the Congress shall establish procedures for the review of statements to
determine whether said statements which have been submitted on time, are complete, and are in
proper form. In the event a determination is made that a statement is not so filed, the appropriate
Committee shall so inform the reporting individual and direct him to take the necessary corrective
action.”
2. Is whistle blowing to the media acceptable as whistle blowing to an elected national
official?
Maybe yes, he can use this project so that he will be glorified by the people for
what he will do.
Case Study # 4

PICK ME UP

I. SITUATION

Ronnie de Guzman is a geodetic engineer assigned at the Bureau of Lands. His job is to
conduct survey of all land applications. The job includes actual ground verification, assessment
of land use and investigation of applicants and land claimants of the subject application before
the title is awarded Just like any other government employee, the salary he receives is just
enough to meet his daily needs. It is not even enough to support a family.

In the course of his duties, he meets clients directly One day, Ms. Santos came to the
Bureau to apply for land application. Ms. Santos is a person who wants to get things done at the
soonest possible time. As usual, Ronnie did his job and processed the application of Ms. Santos
promptly and expeditiously. Eventually, the title was awarded to Ms. Santos.

"Thank you very much," Ms. Santos said to Ronnie "I am very happy because there are
civil servants like you who do things promptly and effectively Take this (an envelope of crisp
money) as a token of my appreciation and debt of gratitude"

Ronnie was surprised. Before he could say something, Ms. Santos left the room, leaving
the envelope of money to be picked up . . . . . . To be opened . . . . . . . and the money . . . . . . . to
be kept

Ronnie is now in a quandary now, if you are in Ronnie's shoes what would you do?

PROBLEM
Mrs. Santos gave an envelope as token of my appreciation and debt of gratitude to
Ronnie.

ALTERNATIVES
 Accept the money since he didn’t ask for it.
 Demand for more money.
 Run to Mrs. Santos and say you can’t accept it because of your integrity.

DECISION
Run to Mrs. Santos and say you can’t accept it because of your integrity.

EXECUTION
Being a public or government employee you can accept gifts only that are nominal and
insignificant. Ronnie is in situation of accepting the money given by his client, Ms. Santos, for the prompt
and effective action of Ronnie to act on the transaction leading to the awarding of the property to. Ms.
Santos. For Ms. Santos, it is just a token of appreciation for Ronnie, but his integrity must suffice to this
and he shall refuse to accept it.
QUESTION: Ronnie is now in a quandary now, if you are in Ronnie's shoes what would you do?

If I were in Ronnie’s shoes, I will follow Mrs. Santos and return the envelope. But if I can’t find
her, I am left with no choice and just keep it and consider it also as token of appreciation. mind Republic
Act 6713, Section 7 Prohibited Acts and Transactions. There are two criterion mentioned that I think
suits this situation first thing is “Financial and material interest. — Public officials and employees shall
not, directly or indirectly, have any financial or material interest in any transaction requiring the
approval of their office.” And second is “Solicitation or acceptance of gifts. — Public officials and
employees shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan
or anything of monetary value from any person in the course of their official duties or in connection with
any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their
office.”
Case Study # 5
BRING HOME OFFICE GOODIES
I. SITUATION
Overhead from a conversation between Cynthia and Mely

Cynthia: Look at Emy there she goes again -bringing home, folders, ballpens, pencils, envelopes,
and bond papers.

Mely: Well, there is nothing wrong with it. Sometimes I do that, too I even bring plastic cover
and scotch tape to cover the books of my children.

Cynthia: Is that right?

Mely: Why not? We are only clerks. There are even second level employees and division chiefs
who can well afford to buy this stuff. Yet, they also bring home office supplies. They told
me this stuff don't cost the government so much as compared with other government
officials and employees who accept "kickbacks" that cost the government millions of
pesos.

Cynthia: But it is still stealing as long as you get what is not yours and even if they cost so little.
Besides, if the government computes the cost of every pencil all government employees
take home. This would add up to millions, too.

Mely: Come on, Ms. Right, Don't lose sleep over this. Our Director and even our Chairperson
don't mind these things. So taking home office supplies is not a big deal. Treat them as
part of our benefits.

Which side would you take? Cynthia's side or Mely's? Why?.

PROBLEM
Emy was bringing home folders, ballpens, pencils, envelopes, and bond papers.

ALTERNATIVES
 Ignore the wrong doings of her officemates.
 Report it to supervisor since it is an act of stealing.
 Convince Mely and Emy not to take it home.

DECISION
Convince her officemates to not take the government supplies because it is not the right thing to
do.
EXECUTION
Cynthia will talk to the personally to make things right since the act of Emy and Mely was a form
of stealing government property because it does not belong to them.

QUESTION: Which side would you take? Cynthia's side or Mely's? Why?
I would take on Cynthia’s side. She has a point that even it will cause little if you sum it all it will
cost millions. Taking things that do not belong to you is an act of stealing even if its value is not that
much. This act may provide wrong perceptions of all the employees in the government officials or
employees. According to Republic Act 6713, Section 4 Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and
Employees it is stated there that they should have “Commitment to public interest. — Public officials
and employees shall always uphold the public interest over and above personal interest. All government
resources and powers of their respective offices must be employed and used efficiently, effectively,
honestly and economically, particularly to avoid wastage in public funds and revenues.” Whether it is big
or small they should take in to consideration that they are not the owner of those thing and they are
liable to utilize things as utmost as they can in their office.
Case Study # 6
MORE THAN JUST CASINOS

I. SITUATION
A one-page advertisement states

"There is more to the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) than just
casinos, than just affording gaming and leisure activities. PAGCOR helps take care of street
children, to make life a little less harsh and a little more comfortable for them.

These street children are among the millions of people whose lives PAGCOR has touched.
Because in more ways than one, PAGCOR matters. And PAGCOR cares. "

Indeed, the PAGCOR, Lotto, the Sweepstakes have funded social projects. From its revenues
remitted to the President's Social Fund, the PAGCOR enabled the government to build schools, help
typhoon victims and engage in other social projects to help needy people.

On the other hand, the PAGCOR, like Lotto and sweepstakes, also symbolize gambling. And
gambling is a social ill. People's propensity to become productive citizens are destroyed by the lure of
instant money without doing hardwork. Because of gambling, some families are torn apart and lives are
broken.

What can you say about this?

Is something legal also automatically moral? What do you think?

PROBLEM

People see gambling in Philippine amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR)


negatively that it torn families apart.

ALTERNATIVES

 Let them spend all their money in gambling.


 Ignore the irregularities since it will not affect the corporation
 Raise certain awareness against too much gambling.

DECISION

Raise certain awareness against too much gambling for the gamblers for them to be
knowledgeable for every bid they make and time management.
EXECUTION

As a public corporation which is open to all and operated by the government of the Philippines,
they should also guide their gamblers towards their limits. We do get the point that their main objective
was to help those in need but then they should take into consideration their gamblers, they should not
only care for the one who is the main reason why they propose Philippine Amusement and Gaming
Corporation (PAGCOR) or the needy person but instead they should also take care the main reason why
Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) is running, their gamblers. They should raise
certain awareness all because when people are so amused especially here at Philippine Amusement and
Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) that involves money it is so hard for them to hold back and have a more
productive time. One of the awareness we are talking about was about setting a limit towards what they
gamble and limit times where they enter the institution for them to remove any temptation. . Republic
Act 6713, Section 4 Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees criterion which I think Philippine
Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) follows was “Nationalism and patriotism. — Public
officials and employees shall at all times be loyal to the Republic and to the Filipino people, promote the
use of locally produced goods, resources and technology and encourage appreciation and pride of
country and people. They shall endeavor to maintain and defend Philippine sovereignty against foreign
intrusion.” Since they serve every Filipino who needs some. Is something legal also automatically moral?
Yes, if it is legal in a place that will be considered as moral then it will be usual for everyone to do it as if
it was a normal course of their lives.
Case Study # 7

I CAN AFFORD ANYWAY

(Spade Analysis)

I. SITUATION

You are a typical government employee earning around P 8000 a month. You are
married and you have two children. Your husband is an overseas contract worker earning
around $500 a month. Some jewelry was given to you by your husband who even bought from
Saudi Arabia. Some were bought on installment basis. Having a penchant for wearing flashy
clothes and jewelries in the office you resented too much the dress code prescribed by the CSC.
You wear at least three bracelets, three gold rings, earrings and anklet every day. Because of
this, some of your officemates perceive that you look like a Christmas tree when reporting for
work.

“The CSC does not have the right to tell people what to wear,” you tell your officemates,
“I can afford anyway to wear expensive clothes and jewelries. I did not steal the money I spent
for all these gorgeous things. Inggit lamang sila”

The CSC Circular, meanwhile, states that a dress code was prescribed in line with the
provision of RA 6713 and in order to maintain modesty and proper decorum in the civil service.

If you were employee, would you agree with her opinion regarding the CSC’s dress code?
I will not agree, because CSC implement only what is the proper attire for employees especially
to the government employees. We should know the limitation for our luxury.

II. PROBLEM

Over decorated of dress code

III. ALTERNTIVES
1. Lessen the jewelries and wear simple clothes
2. Obey the rule
3. Find new job

IV. DECISION

She should obey the dress code prescribed by CSC because it is the right thing to do and
for her not to be the center of news.

V. EXECUTION
She can sell some of her jewelries and start to wear simple. Dressing attire is important
especially if you are a government employee. Your attire will define your dedication to your
position. Conservative dress is always better than trendy ones. As an official she should have
something based on Republic Act 6713, Section 4 Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees
and that is “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.” Though her accessories are gifts from his husband she should bear in mind that
she is an official that have only simple life. Republic Act 6713, Section 3 Definitions of Terms. "Receiving
any gift" includes the act of accepting directly or indirectly, a gift from a person other than a member of
his family or relative as defined in this Act, even on the occasion of a family celebration or national
festivity like Christmas, if the value of the gift is neither nominal nor insignificant, or the gift is given in
anticipation of, or in exchange for, a favor. Gifts from a family member or others is not an exception to
the rule that they should have simple living.
Case Study # 8
GIFTS GALORE
I. SITUATION
Suddenly, Adora finds herself being talked about in the office. She felt that her officemates are
just so envious of her duties and responsibilities. Being in-charge of appointments of PNP personnel, she
processes appointments submitted in the office, prepares opinions and rulings, and acts as adviser or
consultant on any problems of PNP regarding personnel administration. In the course of her job, most of
her clients give her token of appreciation for the services rendered to them. So it's not unusual for her
officemates to see her receiving gifts imported textile, native handwoven cloth, hand bags, handicrafts,
RTW blouses and skirts, ladies accessories, food stuff and other items that one can think about.

Josie, her close friend in the office said, "Baka ma-RA 6713 ka because of these gifts you have
been receiving ever since."

"Of course not," Adora answered. "I did not ask for the gifts. They were given to me as a token of
appreciation. And they are of nominal in value."

Josie said. "But some are not nominal. They cost a lot, too. Look at that expensive Igorot cloth
you received from a PNP Director. It cost P600 per yard at 36 inches width. And it's 4 yards of cloth,
costing around P2,400

Yet, Adora insisted, "Gift giving is part of our culture and refusing them is taken as an insult. So
why not accept the gifts. I'm just happy to accept them. Sayang, naman kung isosoli ko. Under RA 6713,
there is a rule that we government employees can accept gifts that are nominal or insignificant."

"But what is nominal and insignificant?" Josie replied. "It is not qualified. In your case, you have
been receiving gifts since you were assigned this responsibility. So tomorrow or next week you will get
another gift and the next. If we sum up them all, they are no longer nominal."

"Oh, let us not argue over this thing. As long as the law is not qualified. I am free to accept as
many gifts as I can." Adora concluded.

Josie just shrugged her shoulder in resignation.

Who do you think between Adora and Josie is right? Why?

PROBLEM
Adora receives the gifts that was given to her ever since she was assigned in her responsibility.

ALTERNATIVES
 Ignore the case since the employee didn’t ask for it and it was a token of appreciation;
 Tell the employee limits about RA 6713, for them to be knowledgeable when to accept or refuse
things
 Fire the employee since the image of the office is at stake since she seem like accepting gifts and
that is negative for their reputation.

DECISION:
Tell the employee limits about RA 6713, for them to be knowledgeable when to accept or refuse things.
EXECUTION:
It is always in consistent with all other aspects of the agency’s program in encouraging standards of
honesty and integrity in decision-making and behavior. Communicate your gifts and hospitality policy to
your client and remind him/her of that your service is in line with your daily transactions; set yourself as
a good example in giving and accepting gifts. Employees should also know that there will be
repercussions for their actions and disciplinary measures will always be taken, no matter what the
circumstances, on those guilty of unethical conduct. The entire process of implementing the rules of
norms and conduct should focus on the improvement and understanding of the employee’s role in the
organization. This will save both sides’ embarrassment and reputation, as well.

QUESTION: Who do you think between Adora and Josie is right? Why?
Josie is the right, because according to Article 6713 on the third section that receiving
any gifts including the act of accepting it directly or indirectly, a gift from a person other than a member
of his family or relative as defined on this act. Even on the occasion of the family celebration or national
festivity like Christmas, if the value of the gift is neither nominal nor insignificant, or the gift is given in
anticipation of, or in exchange for, a favor. So even though Adora is just receiving small gifts but if it is
added together the amount will no longer be insignificant. This case also falls for Republic Act 6713,
Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. Wherein there stated that “Solicitation or acceptance of
gifts. — Public officials and employees shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity,
favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value from any person in the course of their official
duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected
by the functions of their office. As to gifts or grants from foreign governments, the Congress consents
to: (i) The acceptance and retention by a public official or employee of a gift of nominal value tendered
and received as a souvenir or mark of courtesy; (ii) The acceptance by a public official or employee of a
gift in the nature of a scholarship or fellowship grant or medical treatment; or (iii) The acceptance by a
public official or employee of travel grants or expenses for travel taking place entirely outside the
Philippine (such as allowances, transportation, food, and lodging) of more than nominal value if such
acceptance is appropriate or consistent with the interests of the Philippines, and permitted by the head
of office, branch or agency to which he belongs.” That is why we are at Josie’s side.
Case Study # 9
"FOR OFFICIAL USE ALSO"
I. SITUATION
In the middle of a coffee break, Erna and Minda were arguing about a car they saw yesterday noon.

ERNA: "I am very sure it is the service vehicle car of Director Sison that we saw yesterday noon
parked at SM Megamall ground lot."

MINDA: "You are too suspicious. It only looks like her service vehicle. Have you observed that
the car is not marked with For Official Use Only. It is then not our agency car. Besides,
Director Sison is a very honest and just person whose integrity is beyond question. I
believe she will not resort to this misuse of government vehicle intended for official use.

ERNA: "Minda, I think you are not being observant. You are missing the point. A lot of public
officials are committing acts in defiance of our duty to serve public interest above our
personal interest."

MINDA: "At times, you are not being logical and rational, Erna. Assuming it is the service car of
Director Sison that we saw yesterday, it might be that she decided to take her lunch at SM
Foodcourt after transacting business at a nearby government bureau I don't think she's
there to buy groceries or to shop. What do you think?

ERNA: Anyway, whatever you say, this alarming practice is becoming rampant and unchecked.
Some officials, use their service vehicle as if it is their family car. These vehicles can be
seen everywhere in schools, churches, department stores markets and even picnic
grounds during weekends or weekdays."

MINDA: "On second thought, you have a point there, Erna. The gasoline consumed by our public
officials are charged to the government."

ERNA: "Precisely. Don't you think these officials altogether are robbing our taxpayers millions in
public funds because of this malpractice?"

ERNA: "There must be a way to curb this decadent habit of our public officials”

MINDA: "I agree with you but how?"

If happen to chance upon a government service vehicle parked in places where you least expect a
government official may transact business with, what will you do?

Will you make time to report the incident to the Ombudsman? If not, what will you do?
Why? Republic Act 6713, Section 9. Divestment. — “A public official or employee shall avoid conflicts of
interest at all times.” If I could witness seeing a government service vehicle parked in a place where I
least expect a government official may transact business with, the first thing that I will do is to think that
maybe the government official using the government vehicle just drop by from an official business
transaction near to that place. But if I happen to see it twice or more, then I will try to know the reasons
behind why the vehicle is parked on that area. Since the local government is implementing the Bilis
Aksyon Partner (BAP) wherein concerned citizens can drop by their comments, queries and suggestions
regarding the actions of government officials or employees, I will intentionally ask and drop it on. I will
ask why the government vehicle is visible on that place. If the local government didn’t respond on it, I
will ask to the Civil Service Commission if it is righteous for an official use only vehicle is been visible in
the particular establishment. So, they will conduct an observation and investigation on the incident
reported regarding of government official who is using the said vehicle. My purpose of reporting to the
Civil Service Commission is not to destroy the credibility and the reputation of the government official,
but to exercise my right of showing my concern to the public. Since I am aware that government vehicle
should be used for official business transactions only and not for personal business of course I have to
inform the proper authorities of it so that this wrong act of government officials will be stopped. Aside
from that, this may serve as warning also to the other government officials who are using the
government vehicles for personal interest. Government vehicles are government property which is
issued to government officials to make and perform their task and to serve the people in a fast manner
and not to be used in their personal matters. Always keep in mind that these things should be used for
public interest and not for personal interest.

Problems:
The problem is the service vehicle of Director Sison at SM Megamall, gasoline consumed is
charge to the government.

Alternatives:

 Provide a monitoring paper where in the vehicles destination and purpose are to be written to
be monitored;
 Allow employee to use the vehicle once in a while; or
 Fire the employee who uses the vehicle for personal use.

Decision:
Provide a monitoring paper where in the vehicles destination and purpose are to be written to
be monitored.

Execution:
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.
Case Study # 10
HE DOES, I Do*
I. SITUATION
The Civil Service Commission could not have picked a worse time to strictly implement its rule
on tardiness. Besieged by constant complaints of clients that they have to wait a long while for tardy
employees before they can transact business, the CSC ruled out that ten late for at least two months in a
semester or at least two consecutive months during the year, renders one liable for habitual tardiness and
faces dismissal for third offense. The CSC also announced modified flexible schedules for government
personnel outside of the regular schedule for everybody (8:00 am to 5:00 pm). In this scheme, one may
choose a schedule that begins between 7:00 and 9:00 in the morning and ends between 4:00 to 6 00 in the
afternoon. Recently, however, the Commission also authorized agency heads to promulgate their own
internal rules and regulations on attendance and punctuality which will require their employees to incur
less absences and tardiness than the frequency allow by Commission.

Pursuant to this latest policy, the agency where Roy works prescribes that employees who come
to the office by 8:15 am shall not be considered tardy However, the number of minutes they are late will
be deducted from their leave credits.

Despite this, Roy thought this was still unfair for rank-and-file employees like him. He goes
home to San Pedro, Laguna and holds office near the Batasan Building in Quezon City. He had a
reputation for being chronically late due to traffic and some other factors. His boss, who heads the
administrative office comes late to office also. Unlike Roy, he is provided a car, gasoline and a driver by
the office. However, Mr. Sanchez, Roy's boss, felt there was no comparison when he first heard that Roy
was complaining about his own lateness. Roy, of course, gets notices for his late arrivals. While Mr.
Sanchez, as a Director was not getting any notices for being late. Being an official, Mr. Sanchez does not
register the time of his arrival and departure. For Roy, there are many Directors who earn many leave
credits because the number of minutes or hours they are late are not deducted from their leave credits.
Hardly do they file leave of absences too.

"He should wait until he becomes a boss," said Mr. Sanchez "I labored long and hard to be where
I am now and when I was where he is now, I had to follow the rules too. Besides, I am sometimes asked
to work on Saturdays or even Sundays and holidays, without getting overtime so it should all even up in
the end. "

What do you think? Who is right, Roy or his boss?


They are both wrong. As a boss of a company he should be the role model to his
subordinates. Having a car provided by the office is already a big help but he is still coming late.
And as for Roy instead of complaining about his boss’s tardiness he needs to improve himself
and start coming to the office on time. . According to Republic Act 6713, Section 4 Norms of Conduct
of Public Officials and Employees “Professionalism. — Public officials and employees shall perform and
discharge their duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, 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”. as the boss
he should be professional and he is not an exception to the rules, instead he should practice this more
than his employee. To avoid complaints like Roy’s complaints, he also should come to office on time it’s
because for the law excuses no one.
PROBLEM:
Irresponsible employees

ALTERNATIVES:
 Put a sanction to those will come late regardless of the position.
 Report the late comers to the officials concerned
 Put up a talk about RA 6713 for them to know the things which are prohibited and not, then
later on, have sanction for those who don’t follow rules.

DECISION:
Put up a talk about RA 6713 for them to know the things which are prohibited and not, then
later on, have sanction for those who don’t follow rules.

EXECUTION:
It is important for them to be equipped with information about RA 6713 for them to replenish
their knowledge about it and to remind them their responsibility as a public official. The sanctions are to
be implemented after they know everything to avoid any misunderstanding also for them to have
clarification on why they should be punished for their actions.