PHILIPPINE ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM

Module 3 THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE

PHILIPPINE ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM
Competencies At the end of this module, the students shall be able to:
1. Trace the evolution of the Philippine bureaucracy
through the different periods of Philippine
history;
2. Discuss the implications of the historical
development of the Philippine bureaucracy on its
institutional capacity to respond to the changing
and increasingly complex demands of national
development.
Discussion In this module, the evolution and development of the
Philippine Administrative System or the public
bureaucracy shall be discussed. How the political
context and the development of the Filipino nation has
influenced the character and the operations of the
Philippine bureaucracy will be studied. For those who
have been in the government service for some time, this
may be a chance to reflect on why certain practices
endure not only in our offices but also in other agencies
under the jurisdiction of the Philippine Civil Service
system.

The PAS During the Spanish Colonial Period

Any description or assessment of the Philippine

Administrative System during the Spanish period must
be seen in the context of Spain's colonial objectives, the
administrative regulations and methods utilized then,
the dissensions in the early colonial community, the
political conditions in Spain, the role of the Church, the
legal impotence of the natives, and the 19th century
changes in the intellectual, social and economic
conditions in the colony (Corpuz, 1957: 128).

The Spanish colonial government introduced the

bureaucracy as a social institution. Consisting mainly
of Spaniards, this bureaucracy was distinct from the
masses of the people by their race, their special calling.
and their class. Although it was instituted principally to
administer the colony and to achieve the colonial
objectives of the Spanish government, this colonial
bureaucracy had a fatal flaw: the private and personal
interests of the members led them to subvert the
declared colonial administration. The moral corruption
of its members was the fundamental weakness of the
colonial bureaucracy (Corpuz, 1957: 129). The colonial
administration was "bankrupt in constructive policy, as
the bureaucrats were corrupt in their motivations and
either incompetent or oppressive in their actions.

The flaws in the colonial bureaucracy may be attributed

to:

 Spain's colonial objectives which left much room for

the bureaucrats to exercise discretion on how they
would interpret or implement policies enunciated in
Spain;
 the philosophy regarding public office of the Spanish
regime;
 the dependence of the colonial office in Manila on
Spain;
 its highly centralized organization; and
 the negativism of the regime against the Filipinos

The colonial bureaucracy is characterized as an

institution that:

1. Implemented contradictory colonial objectives in

terms of what was expedient to the bureaucracy.

2. Was guided by a philosophy of public office which

gave the king the right to dispose of public office as he
would his personal property, i.e. through any means he
desired. This thinking led to the practice of disposing
public office through appointment or by purchase. It
may be concluded that "the whole philosophy
underlying public office, as well as the practices
designed to implement such a philosophy, made
corruption not only a natural consequence but also
raised the level of tolerance for it." (Endriga, 1985:134).

3. Was dependent on Spain. The distance between

Manila and Spain gave the colonial officials ample
powers and discretion. Moreover, it could prompt ideas
of separation or secession. The need to counteract this
possibility led to practices such as: conferring colonial
positions only on individuals with approved ancestry,
religion and connections; the use of the Church as a
way of checking on the government; constant transfers
of officials after short terms in office, and encouraging
bureaucrats to write to the king about the private lives
and official conduct of their colleagues.

4. Had a highly centralized character. The Spanish

colonial bureaucracy was centralized on the formal
institutional level as well as in the physical sense.
Centralism at the formal institutional level was
represented in the powerful position of the Governor
General. In the physical sense, the concentration of the
Spanish population in Manila made it easier for them
to
use this as the center of the colonial government.

5. Was characterized by a negativism of Spaniards

toward Filipinos that sprung from their view that the
Indios were morally and politically inferior. For this
reason, the Indios could not be given any responsible
position in the bureaucracy. If at all, they can occupy
only at the lowest levels of bureaucracy, the town and
the village.

The description and assessment of the Spanish colonial

bureaucracy only proves that colonial masters can only
share with their colonies what they know, based on
their own experience.

The PAS During the American Colonial Period

American expansion was described to be one

undertaken "in the absence of a constant purpose" or a
specific colonial objective. There were explicit interests
as indicated by business, church groups, and even
military strategists. Yet there was no consensus on how
the colonial venture was to be undertaken.

The American colonial bureaucracy is characterized as

follows:

1. No individual person's will or influence was

dominant, unlike in the Spanish colonial period
where the governor-general, the archbishops and
the parish priests occupied powerful positions. This
 was because administration was regulated by laws
and not by any personal decisions and actions of
specific officials.

2. The new civil service was to develop independent of

clerical intervention.

3. In its early years, the civil government inherited

civilians and discharged soldiers who were employed
by the previous American military government.
When caught doing petty corruption, they were
subjected to prompt disciplinary proceedings and
penalties were imposed on every case. This was to
convey to the Filipinos that there was a big
difference between the American and the Spanish
colonial administration.

4. Political interference and the spoils system were

excluded from the new civil service during the
American colonial period. This was manifested in
the procedures for the appointments and removals
from office as well as in bureaucratic conduct.

5. Government officials and employees were prohibited

from engaging in private business unless permission
was obtained by the governor-general. In 1913,
Governor Harrison discovered that permission for
bureaucrats to invest in private enterprises was
given freely. He issued an executive order that
virtually denied future permission for the duration of
his administration. He argued that "the practice of
bureaucrats in private business tends to detract
from administrative efficiency, and sometimes leads
to maladministration and often to the suppression of
facts as to the true state of public affairs."

6. The relationship between the Civil Service bureau,

which introduced reforms in the colonial
bureaucracy and other bureaus, particularly the
heads of executive bureaus and offices, was
somehow strained. This was due to the Civil Service
bureau's strong push for civil service reforms, which
were not immediately acceptable. (Corpuz, 1957:
169-172.)

For the first time, the principle that public office was a
public trust was actually used to govern the
transactions between the public officials and the
public. Civil servants were made accountable to the
public. One of the first pieces of legislation was the Civil
Service Act, which provided for the "establishment and
maintenance of an efficient and honest civil service in
all the executive branches of the Philippine Islands,
central, departmental and provincial and of the city of
Manila, by appointments and promotions according to
merit and by competitive examinations where the same
are practicable" (Endriga, 1985:140). This law was
enacted on September 19, 1900.

The civil service during the American colonial period

was a non-political organization. It had a broader
coverage, as it applied to all positions in the civil
administration, insular and provincial, as well as the
municipal government of Manila. It was centralized in
organization. The Civil Service Board, which exercised
administrative control of the system, was an
independent office under the immediate supervision of
the Governor General. The Civil Service Board had
substantial powers. On the whole, civil servants
enjoyed security of tenure, attractive hours of work,
generous leave privileges, and a prestige (Endriga,
1985:140-141).

Filipino participation in the civil service was

undertaken systematically. This was largely due to the
policy of Filipinization of the Democratic
administration. Rapid Filipinization was done through:
forced resignations, reduction in pay of the higher
positions, and the abolition of certain positions. By
1919, Americans constituted only six percent of the
total bureaucratic force of 803.

The Early Republic

From the American colonial period, we move on to the

experiences of the early republic after the United States
granted the Philippines its independence in 1946. The
country had just gone through the Second World War
which caused severe physical destruction and economic
decline. While these factors would pose demanding
challenges to the public bureaucracy, it was the
emergence of the two-party system soon after
independence that would significantly affect the
character and nature of the civil service.

The characteristics of the bureaucracy as it existed in

1955 is summarized as follows:

1. It was vulnerable to nepotism. Despite an order that

prohibited the appointment of relatives, this was
unenforceable during this period. This was
attributed to the closeness of Filipino families and
the expectations that successful members of the
family are under obligation to extend aid to less
successful relatives.

2. The spoils system in the civil service was another

serious defect. With the constitutional provisions
that the civil service shall embrace "all branches and
subdivisions of the government," it was expected
that the merit system would prevail in most of the
public bureaucracy. The civil service law was
enacted. However, it divided positions in the service
into two: classified and unclassified service.
Laborers, whether emergency, seasonal, or
permanent, regardless of their salaries, were
considered part of the unclassified service. These
unclassified and temporary positions therefore were
the stronghold of nepotism and patronage in the
bureaucracy in 1955. Nepotism and the spoils
system tended to reinforce each other.

3. The bureaucracy seemed to have entered a period of

"normalcy" in that public charges of corruption
committed by government officials seemed to be part
of the regular fare of newspapers, The public
appeared to have accepted the accusations of
corruption raised against bureaucrats as being part
of the "normal" scheme of things.

4. An element of the environment that affected all

government officials (whether elective or appointed)
was the role of the media in the peaceful correction
of governmental defects in general. The American
colonial administration brought with it the rule and
practice that the conduct of government employees
and officers could be the legitimate subject of public
inquiry and comment. Thus, freedom of the press
 and the availability of other means for organized and
peaceful self-expression and civic action gave to the
political system as a whole a much-needed organic
flexibility as these are means for self-criticism and
self-correction within the political system.

5. Two features of the bureaucracy in 1955 attributed

to Spanish influence: its centralized organization
and the administration of laws which were based on
the civil law system enforced by the Spanish
bureaucracy.

6. The strong influence of the American colonial

system was also very apparent in the Philippine
bureaucracy of the mid-1950's. For one thing, most
of the laws of the bureaucracy then were still those
laid down during the American colonial period. Also,
Filipinos were still looking to the American civil
service system for new ideas on innovations and
changes that they can adopt to improve or
modernize their civil service system. The
bureaucracy during the American period also
provided the Filipinos the training in new
techniques, methods and institutions of
government.

7. During this period, the bureaucracy served as an

instrument of social change and innovations when it
was placed under Filipino control. It was charged
with the implementation of national economic and
community development programs, which would
establish its role as the nation's instrument of
controlled and deliberate social change.

8. Unlike the Spanish bureaucracy, the Philippine

bureaucracy did not constitute a distinct social class
or have class attributes:

The merit basis of entry into the bureaucracy,

administered through a system of open
competitive examination, militated against the
organization of the civil service on a class basis.
The competitive examination system was based
on the educational system, which did not cater to
a specific segment of the population and which
was actually serving all elements of the
 population. The rules governing entry therefore
precluded membership in the bureaucracy as the
exclusive prerogative of certain persons or of
distinct groups or persons or families. The
extensive coverage of the service, in fact made the
bureaucracy a motley aggregate of individuals
representing diverse families, interests, ambitions
and occupation groups. In other words, instead
of constituting a specific and restricted social
class, the bureaucracy more or less represented
the various social and economic elements in the
population as a whole.

9. Although the bureaucracy in 1955 was important, it

was not an independent power in Filipino politics.
Instead, it was highly vulnerable to attacks from
politicians from the executive and legislative
branches of government who meddled with the merit
system.

In all these, we see the bureaucracy as being

essentially a creation of its times, shaped by its history
and the legacies it inherited from our colonial era. As it
responded to the demands of nation-building after our
independence in 1946, it had to rely on the systems
and the principles that it worked with during the
American colonial period. However, the political party
system and its operations adversely affected the
enforcement of the merit system.

The Authoritarian Regime

On September 21, 1972, Ferdinand Marcos, invoking

powers vested in him by the Constitution, declared and
placed the entire nation under martial law. He
abolished Congress and apprehended political leaders
who opposed or were potential oppositionists to his
political plans for the country. He proclaimed his
strategy to create a "New Society" through a revolution
from the center, with his government leading this
revolution.

What changes in the Philippine bureaucracy were

introduced during the martial law regime?

The first Presidential Decree issued right after he

declared martial law was PD 1, which mandated the
most extensive reorganization of the executive branch
of the Philippine government. Among the major
structural changes implemented were:

1. It decentralized national government functions to

the extent necessary for improved administration by
reducing the agencies under the office of the
President and creating 11 uniform administrative
regions.

2. It standardized the organization and common

operational activities of departments. Four staff
services were formed in each department for
planning, finance and management, administration
and technical services.

3. It facilitated the preparation and execution of

national development plans by creating the National
Economic and Development Authority (NEDA).

4. It converted the single-headed Civil Service

Commission into a three-person Commission.

5. It decentralized personnel functions to line

departments, bureaus and regional offices.

6. It created the Career Executive Service as the

highest level of government service.

These structural changes were accompanied by the

summary dismissal of a large number of personnel at
least twice: in 1973 and in 1975. The basis for this
purge was not clearly established and the term
"notoriously undesirable struck fear in the hearts of
many civil servants. Instead of promoting excellence
and productivity, the purges caused employee behavior
to deteriorate (Cariño, 1992:83).

A more significant change was the politicization of what

was otherwise a neutral civil service. Civil servants
were forced to "volunteer" to become members of the
Kilusang Bagong Lipunan Marcos political party which
was to be his main instrument for the creation of his
new society. The civil service neutrality was a casualty
of the martial law regime. (Carino, 1992: 83).
Aside from being politicized, the bureaucracy served as
a major instrument of Marcos' authoritarian regime
and continued to be a highly centralized structure
despite efforts to decentralize. While Marcos
deconcentrated administrative power, he centralized
political control in his office.

On the other hand, American concepts of development

and development administration which sought to bring
about economic growth, became the vision and ideology
of the bureaucracy, which was taught modern
techniques of planning, implementation and the
evaluation of development programs. Thus, the public
bureaucracy under Marcos' martial law regime was
fraught with ambivalence. It was authoritarian, yet it
was supposed to be doing this in the name of
democracy. It was committed to the vision of
development but it was also politicized as it identified
itself with the leadership of the government of the day.

When the Marcos government fell, the bureaucracy was

described as: (a) interventionist in that government
competed with the private sector; (b) a bloated
bureaucracy; (c) corrupt and committed to serve only
the interest of one family: (d) highly centralized; and (e)
inefficient.

The Aquino Regime

Corazon C Aquino was sworn into office as the

President of the Republic of the Philippines after
Marcos left the country as a result of the EDSA
Revolution in 1986. With redemocratization as her
main agenda, her administration proceeded to reform
political institutions, including the civil service. She
created a Presidential Commission on Government
Reorganization, which saw the need to "de-Marcosify”
the bureaucracy. This was to be achieved through 1)
the promotion of private initiative; 2) decentralization:
3) accountability: 4) efficiency of front-line services and
5) cost-effectiveness of operations. In short, the
bureaucracy was to be an instrument for democratic
ends.

What happened to the bureaucracy during the Aquino

administration? It was observed that the "Aquino
government” has had to contend with a bureaucracy
that has become militant about guarding its own
interests and is slowly venturing out to make the
executive more responsible. Its more articulate and
critical elements have allied against unequal treatment,
the lack of political neutrality and irresponsible
performance. (Carino, 1992:135)

Aquino controlled the civil service through personnel

and organizational changes as well as the policies
affecting employee conduct and behavior. Using the
revolutionary character of her initial days in power,
Aquino followed the Marcos model of summary
dismissals. This was accompanied by a general
reorganization that was more tumultuous than any
other undertaken before (Cariño, 1992:128). The
Aquino government's initiative to transform the
bureaucracy was seen as ambivalent. While the
government pledged to uphold due process and
transparency, it carried out summary dismissals,
questionable reorganizations and showed weaknesses
in enforcing ethical and performance norms. This
brought about conflict between the executive and the
civil service.

The bureaucracy under the Aquino government was

one that was dominated and controlled by the
Executive, like its predecessors. The persistence of this
domination of the bureaucracy by the Executive
remains true since the colonial period up to this time,
thus:

1. Executive control of the bureaucracy is fostered by

the authoritarian culture which is reinforced by the
hierarchical nature of the bureaucratic organization.
Civil servants are accepting of the orders of power-
holders and they tend not to question these orders.

2. The civil service is divided. Member organizations

tend to fend for themselves rather than act in a united
manner when dealing with policies such as the salary
standardization law or those affecting the
reorganization of their offices. There is the thinking that
offices are more likely to succeed in their request to be
exempted from certain restrictive policies if they make
such a request only for their office and not for the
entire bureaucracy.

3. The slow economy and the accompanying scarcity of

work opportunities exacerbate the factors listed above.
Not wanting to antagonize their heads for fear of losing
their jobs, civil servants tend to be less critical and
more acquiescent to their leaders.

4.The struggle of the civil service against executive

domination occurs within the context of an economic
and social structure where the political and economic
elite still wields significant influence. Civil servants are
socially mobile individuals and they are unlikely to
work against the interests of the class to which they
aspire to belong.

5. The trappings of executive power also favor the

executive in its struggle with the civil service. Philippine
presidents were given ample powers by the
constitution. Although the nation's experience with the
dictatorship led to the clipping of presidential powers in
the 1987 Constitution, Aquino enjoyed popular
support. This enabled her to insist on her decisions
even if they were not popular with the bureaucracy.

6. The bureaucracy is further weakened by its

inefficiency and its reputation for being corrupt. Its
lack of attention to improving its performance and
productivity kept it from gaining allies from other social
forces. The latter's support was forthcoming only when
the Executive branch appeared to have treated the
bureaucracy unjustly. (Cariño, 1992:135-138).

The Regimes Thereafter

Civil service reform efforts were minimal during the

presidential tenures of Fidel Ramos (1992-1998) and
Joseph Estrada (1998-2001). President Ramos simply
focused on giving life to the concept of new public
management (NPM) with the end goal of reengineering
the civil service. His flagship program was the
“Philippines 2000” which was envisioned to make the
country globally competitive by pursuing the thrusts of
deregulation, market liberalization and privatization.
The reengineering plan, however, remain just that with
the Congress not laying down the legal framework for
streamlining the bureaucracy.

Under the Estrada Administration, Executive Order

No.165 or “Directing the Formulation of an Institutional
Strengthening and Streamlining Program for the
Executive Branch” laid down the “Re-Engineering the
Bureaucracy for Better Governance Program” which
eventually prompted the creation of the Presidential
Committee on Effective Governance (PCEG). The PCEG
was also tasked with creating an Integrated
Administrative Reform Plan. President Estrada’s term
however, was plagued with charges of corruption and
incompetence, and the reengineering initiatives had the
same fate as that of the Ramos Administration’s plan.
The so-called “Edsa Dos” or another “people power”,
mobilization unseat President Estrada from January 16
to 20, 2001, abruptly ending Estrada’s 2.5 years rule
and Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) was
immediately sworn in as President of the Republic of
the Philippines.

Upon her ascendance to office, President Gloria

Macapagal-Arroyo (2001-2010) continued the initiatives
to streamline the bureaucracy, but as yet no overall
agenda for reform in the bureaucracy. In the Medium
Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPD) 2001-2004,
the administration had adopted the “ Reengineering the
Bureaucracy for Better Governance Program” inherited
from the Estrada’s administration. The PCEG was
likewise reactivated as the ad-hoc body that shall be
the focal point of administrative reforms in the civil
service. In October 4, 2004, the Department of Budget
and Management (DBM) and the CSC pursued the
Rationalization Program as mandated in the executive
order from the President.

The Implications of the Evolution of the Philippine

Bureaucracy on Its Capacity

Understanding the history of the public bureaucracy

gives us a glimpse of what transpired in this institution
in the past and how these experiences contributed to or
diminished the institutional capability of the
bureaucracy. In short, what the bureaucracy is today is
a product of how it has been regarded and actually
utilized by the government in power. Like most public
institutions, how it functions is determined largely by:

 the goals they are set to achieve;

 the processes which society expect them to
utilize;
 the amount of power and resources that they are
vested with;
 the level of accountability that they exercise; and
 the outputs and the outcomes they are expected
to deliver.

The readings and discussion so far have shown that

while the bureaucracy is judged in terms of how it is
able to respond efficiently and effectively to the
challenges that society poses, it must be understood in
terms of how it functions within a political context. The
dynamics of its relationship with the Executive and the
Legislative branches of government, and with other
stakeholders, such as its clients and other vested
interests in society, shape its role in the tasks of
nation-building. To a large extent, the bureaucracy' s
share of power and authority, resources and
information, is decided by the President and members
of Congress, who determine the direction, content, and
distribution of public resources.

How would we characterize the bureaucracy at this

time?

 First, ours is an executive dominated bureaucracy

that is highly centralized.
 While recruitment and appointment to this
bureaucracy is expected to be based on merit,
interventions of politicians have prompted doubts
about these claims.
 On the whole, however, there is a career service,
entry to which has been regulated and guarded by
the Civil Service Commission.
 There is security of tenure but government service
may not be as prestigious as it was during the
American colonial period.
 The bureaucracy has to improve its image in terms
of its accountability and integrity, efficiency,
productivity and innovativeness in dealing with
 complex social problems.

Enrichment 1. Comment on this: "The bureaucracy will be as big

Activities as the tasks of society; it will be as complex and
fascinating as the nation itself; it will be afflicted
with the Filipinos' weaknesses, but it will benefit
from their virtues” (Corpuz, 1957: 248).

2. Describe and discuss the nature of Philippine

bureaucracy.

Reference Alfiler, Ma. Concepcion P. (1999) Philippine

Administrative System

Briones, Leonor Magtolis (July 18, 2018) “The Political

Economy of Governance Reforms in the Civil Service”

Carino, Ledivina V. (1992) “Bureaucracy for a

Democracy: The Dynamics of Executive-Bureaucracy
Interaction During Governmental Transitions”

Corpuz, O.D. (1957) “ Bureaucracy in the Philippines”

Endriga, Jose N. (1985) “Stability and Change: The

Civil Service in the Philippines.

Prijono Tjiptoherijanto (2012) “Civil Service Reform in

The Philippines: Building Strong Governance”