Chapter 2REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATUEThis 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 LITERATUREIn 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 STUDIESTraditionally, 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 FrameworkThe 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

Personal Profile FactorsAgeGenderReligionCivil StatusEducational AttainmentClass of MunicipalityLength of ServiceLevel of Adherence to Ethical Standards of local government employees along the following norms of conduct:Commitment to Public InterestProfessionalismJustness and SincerityPolitical NeutralityResponsiveness to the publicSimple LivingLevel of Adherence of Local Government EmployeesIndependent Variables Dependent Variables Outcome

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework