CASE STUDY # 10: HE DOES, I DO

The aim of CSC to be Asia’s leading center for excellence for strategic resource and organization development, compelled them to develop policies, standards and programs that promote work-life balance, drive individual and organizational performance, and maintain high levels of employee satisfaction and engagement. 

One of the implementing rules of CSC is the work schedule of government officials and employees to render a total of forty (40) hours a week; thus giving the public assurance of core working hours from eight in the morning to five in the afternoon for the duration of five (5) days which excludes lunch time to give employees enough energy to work with enthusiasm in the afternoon.

The early morning buzzer of an alarm clock or a phone’s alarm app can be one of the worst sounds in the world to a sleepy employee; repeatedly muffling it on “snooze” is never a good idea. Showing up on time in the office everyday benefits the employee’s performance and professional habits. Consistent unexcused tardiness can mean short-term penalties and lifelong consequences.

Let us see the sides of Mr. Sanchez, the Director and Roy, the rank and file employee. Let us start with Mr. Sanchez. Being on top management, he is working more than 40 hours in a week because all of the things happening and will be happening in the office is under his responsibility and at times, he had to go to the extra mile of his work, he even emphasized that he sometimes work on weekends without pay; making it stressful for him; thus, leading to him to be late at the office at times.

He might have been late because of some important cases to be done which are work-related. He might had an important meet-up with a client early in the morning because we do not know why or what the reason is, but it must be reasonable enough for him to be walking in at the office around nine or ten, perhaps.

The car that he is using is not his but it was a privilege given to him because he had to attend some appointments to clients that require his time right away. And being in the middle of traffic can have some negative effects to him or to the agency he handles. The service vehicle is attached to his duties.

The number of minutes he is late in the office and not deducted to his leave credit is practical because any problem in the office will be reflected to him; these problems can be enough reasons for him to be terminated in his position. It is worst than deducting those late to his leave credits.

However, I do not agree when he said, “He should wait until he becomes a boss.” He has a point there, but he must also take into careful consideration that he started as a rank and file employee and he should know better than Roy of the experiences that he had to go through to be where he is. Instead of somehow putting it as an obstacle, he should have used his position to be an inspiration to Roy; not a distraction.

Rank and file employees like Roy, are responsible for the day-to-day operations of a business; without rank and file members in the fold, very few organizations would survive. True, executives or heads are responsible for developing strategy and implementing large-scale plans; however, rank and file employees actually perform the job functions that support the organizations strategic plans and processes. Therefore, Mr. Sanchez should not overlook the importance of rank and files because it is a mistake.

And lastly, he said, “I had to follow the rules too.” The use of had is inappropriate because had is indicative of the past, does it mean that right after being a director, he isn’t following rules anymore? Being on top management, he should pose himself as a good example to his subordinates.

He has enough expertise in his industry or niche and he should be showing to them or teaching them the proper things to do and how to apply it so they don’t make the same mistakes. He holds authority and is viewed as a credible source of integrity and passion; then he must also learn to take full responsibility of his actions; including his own tardiness.

Let us now take Roy’s side; a rank and file employee who gets notices because of arriving late at the office.  Management has the responsibility and right to actively manage flexible working arrangement in their organization. Roy, who keeps on complaining of being late, could have asked his superior for a flexible time, to arrive before 9 in the morning and leave the office at 6 in the evening – still constituting the 8 hour policy.

However, if he opts to have a flexible time and was allowed to do so, he must at all cost support and enhance the efficient operations of his department or office. It should also be taken into consideration that office should still be staffed during the working day, including lunch breaks; and his flexible time schedule will not disrupt the services offered by the agency.

Aside from that, if arrangements are made, Roy must always be available for a review of his tasks and responsibilities after a period of six months in operation. This is necessary to know if the impact of his new schedule is suited to his work-life balance and his tardiness issues, too. If everything is smooth-sailing then the agreement must be continued, however, any tardiness or lack of number of hours in service for the day – necessary sanctions should be imposed and the opt to follow the standard time of 8 in the morning until 5 in the afternoon will be remained.

The comparison of Roy to his Director is unethical at some point because his responsibilities are lesser compared to Mr. Sanchez’. Being a director is a busy and demanding position because he has to look after all aspects of customer service. That means recruitment; training and management are among his duties – along with developing contracts with clients. He needs to be good with almost everything plus an ability to lead and motivate a team.

Yes, rank and file employees are the lifeblood of organizational success but there would be no rank and file employees without the initiatives of the supervisor. Roy’s responsibility is to be the reason of fruition of the projects of the agency and to be the backbone of the achievement of the director. If he wants to be on top, he must know where he should place himself at the organization for now.

Traffic is not a new phenomenon in our lives. Since Roy knows the difficulty of getting on time at the office due to traffic then he could manage his time extremely well but calculating the amount of time he travels by traveling the round at least 15 extra minutes than usual. The traffic that he keeps on reasoning for being chronologically late should not control him, excuse him or make him late or hold him back. He should know how to plan around it because being stuck in “unavoidable” traffic is never an emergency.

Who is wrong and who is right? Notions of right and wring usually are attached to behavior or actions.  So for me, they both are right and wrong because they are judging each other with the use of their own yardstick. I have not perfect measure to who among them should I be supporting, I do not have a legit measure.

But as for me, none of them is right or wrong because the real issue here is being tardy and they are both guilty of the crime that they are raising to each other and yet none of them would like to humble themselves and try to talk things out.

Both of them, and us, have choices in all things in life. If we see someone arriving late, let’s not make it a big deal since what he does with his time doesn’t matter at all to us that much.

Roy cannot change his director’s tardiness, but he can always change his. Let this be a gentle reminder to him in a gentle tone and his director might get the message. If you change yourself and your perspective on things, it’s as if others have changed as well.

We are all responsible individuals, we will only take on as much as we can handle. If we are reliable, we will meet our commitments to others or break our commitment professionally if we cannot make it. If we are smart, we will prioritize our activities. If we are considerate, we will plan ahead, show up early and set ourselves as good example to others.

Being late is not in our DNA. It is not something that we inherit from our family. It is not a characteristic trait. It is just a habit, and like all other habits, it can be broken or preserved. It is just a matter of personal choice and priority.

We’re not afflicted with tardiness. Our mind has the power to train us and become the most punctual person we could ever know. Being late does not make you an important or special person. Whoever you are doesn’t deserve you the right to be late. Being late once or twice in life may be unavoidable but being late consistently makes you unreliable.

Being late clearly says that you do not respect other person’s time, only yours. Being late affects your boss’s impression of you and damages your upward mobility. And being late consistently implies that you are rude and lack all consideration and respect to the client as well as to the commitment you made.

Above all, learn to take responsibility of your actions, and use your failures and missteps as learning experiences. You cannot always blame someone for the things that is going on with your life; you can only blame yourself for that. If you continue to take full control of yourself, you’ll be amazed by the lessons you can carry with you for the years to come, and how those lessons can truly help others.

We must do what we think is good or better; something that will never compromise our ought in the government service; to serve the public at all cost possible and to set ourselves as persons willing to grow; and someone who the public can trust and view as authority figure.

Serenity prayer: “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.”

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. 

CASE STUDY # 8: GIFTS GALORE

In the Republic Act 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) and its Implementing Rules is “Receiving any gift includes the act or 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 or insignificant, or the gift is given in anticipation of, or in exchange for, a favor.”

There is no doubt that our agency, CSC, had set some strict policies regarding public employees accepting gifts to avoid creating a problem in the future. However, in the Philippines, giving gifts is a deeply rooted tradition and hospitality; it facilitates business relationships and practice. At times however, the line between what constitutes a gift or hospitality and what constitutes a bribe can be unclear and the acceptance of gifts, services and hospitality can leave accusations of unethical or unlawful conduct.

Adora was right when she said that RA 6713 ruled that employees can accept gifts that are nominal or insignificant. But when is a gift nominal or not? When is a gift not a gift? Is it to influence a relationship or induce improper conduct? Or a simple token of thanks?

What constitutes a “lavish” gift or hospitality can be difficult to judge. For example, Adora received an expensive Igorot cloth costing around P2,400 may seem minor to a PNP Director, who gave it to her, but can be significantly valued to a lower-level police. Sometimes, the exact value can also be hard to determine because she receives it one after another, in pieces, not in bulk, so we cannot tell if those are in low value but once summed up – it is no longer minimal.

Another note would be accepting gifts because of a job or transaction done. Each of the employees has their own specific tasks and requires their time and focus, so basically, it is their job and they are paid by the agency for doing so.  Why would you accept a gift for doing a routinely transaction? What is the whole point of giving or accepting gifts after tendering a process?

Gift giving or hospitality to certain persons, for example public officials, is often construed as a facilitation payment and can cause suspicions. The principle of reciprocity is applied in this scenario. If one accepts offer from applicants or suppliers or clients and asks a reciprocal favor, then it is advisable to not accept it. Gift-giving should never be done in exchange of personal benefit.

Adora and other public servants involved in unethical practices are most likely held accountable for their actions. They might not be found guilty or penalized by any court or law, yet the physiological impact of those acts can lead to mental and physical stress. It can also be a reason for mistrust by the public to the agency in general, which is a major setback. The workers might also go to series of investigations, and if proven, he/she may be blacklisted to other government agencies or her/his professional licenses may be revoked.

Immoral dealings amongst individuals or in a company build a work atmosphere of malice and mistrust. Workers tend to go further down the drain when they are surrounded by people who practice the same. This will lead to lower productivity, promote conflict, and subsequently cripple the company.

Employees need guidance on the company’s protocol on giving or accepting gifts or hospitality.  That is why CSC had these standards to formally guide employees of code of ethics and set good practice for the employees. 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.

CASE STUDY # 7: I CAN AFFORD ANYWAY

In 1 Timothy 2:9-10, the apostle Paul writes, “I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds appropriate for women who profess to worship God.”

Modesty, in terms of decent attire, involves following guidelines. These allow us to wear clothes that express our personal style and taste but that still properly cover us, are gender appropriate and are respectful of those who see us on a daily basis.

I disagree with the typical government employee earning P8, 000 a month whose husband earning $500 a month who said that, “CSC does not have the right to tell people what to wear” because CSC, being the central personnel agency of the government, has all the right to prescribe the Dress Code for government officials and employees so that everyone shall be dressed in appropriate business attire.

If the office wants us to look professional, then why aren’t they setting aside fund for uniforms? Aside from the fact that it would be another expense to the fund; some companies prefer to allow employees to dress freely or casually for comfort and a dress that maintains a professional image.

Let’s say that the employee in the scenario is a dedicated employee, but as per description, it does not show in her attire; (1) wearing flashy clothes and jewelries; (2) wearing three bracelets, three gold rings, earrings and anklet; and (3) her dress are given by her husband or bought on installment. Where now is the norm of conduct-simple living? As stated, employees shall lead modest lives appropriate to their positions and income; they shall not indulge in extravagant or ostentatious display of wealthy in any form.

Dressing for a conservative dress is always better than trendy ones to avoid any mishaps about the dress code of CSC. A proper dress code ensures that when your customers look at the employees;, they see people who are dressed appropriately for the industry, which may boost their confidence in the business as a whole.

Dressing in proper business attire is important for every business professional because it gives the message that you are dedicated to your position. The way we dress forms an impression to the clients and overall judgment to the company or the business; it is important to dress that creates a positive impression. The way we dress carries certain messages to those we meet. Appropriate dresses, along with basic etiquette, are associated to professionalism.

Jewelry is indeed a great accessory to enhance any boring outfit ad to highlight what you really want to show. Jewelry at a formal working place should be about restraint. You want to garnish the outfit, embellish it. A great idea is to either pick a few small pieces like a ring, small earrings, a watch or a one big piece, a chunky or layered necklace or a statement ring but don’t overdo it. Keep it elegant and sleek.

Who really sells their clothes for more than they paid? Investment applies that you are stashing your money for safe keeping and growth. There is no such thing as an investment to clothes. Splurging yourself to expensive clothes that runs of out of style after months is irresponsible disposal of income. 

But is it socially irresponsible to continue feeding the minds of people that they need things they can’t afford? We should know better on how to handle our finances than to flaunt our fashion and later on wallow ourselves to self-pity for spending too much on something unimportant.

We must remember to take the company for which we are working for because we reflect our employer’s operation. As government employees, we must strongly support the dress code of CSC because its aim is to align our outfit with our daily activities at the office. With a clear dress code, CSC will be able to help the employees avoid making inappropriate choices in the dress that could cause a safety problem or a human resources issue.

While each of us have the right to express ourselves, so as businesses, and the way we dress definitely sends intended or unintended messages to the market. Although dressing professionally is important, it also important to dress relative to our co-workers because what is acceptable to one company could be looked down upon at another.

It is possible to remain stylish yet modest, and it usually just a matter of a few inches of fabric than yards of coverage. Modest attire is one of the easiest ways of showing love for fellow human beings and respect for one’s self. Take a good taste and style in God’s way of life – set a modest example!

CASE STUDY # 6: MORE THAN JUST CASINOS

“Who decides what we ought to do?” It is evident that both law and morality serve to channel our behavior. To permit something legally is not the same as acknowledging it as morally permissible. Legal toleration is not the same as moral approbation. A significant and fundamental distinction needs to be made concerning the relationship between legality and morality.

Anchoring its mission as a partner of the Philippine government in nation-building, PAGCOR, indeed is a state-owned gaming firm that help build the lives of the country’s future generation – the Filipino youth. It is also true that through this: thousands of classrooms for public schools were constructed; it helps in the development of Pinoy talents to be able to compete to international competitions and does feeding programs to provide nutritional needs of malnourished kids, and many others. Apart from projects for the youth, these institutions also engage in helping calamity victims through its disaster relief operations.

True, PAGCOR, charity sweepstakes and lotteries and all forms of gambling that have been legalized throughout the Philippines are owned and managed by the government and they all exist because of the government’s permission. It is the state that license and regulates casinos and the same state that maintain a monopoly on lotteries. And operating a private and unlicensed gambling is simply illegal.

Just because something is immoral doesn’t mean it’s unethical. And just because something is unethical doesn’t mean it’s illegal. But, there are consequences to each. Sometimes the consequences of an immoral action can be far worse than those of an illegal action. Sometimes an unethical action can lead to professional ruin, but leave your personal life unscathed.

Gambling for me is not really illegal but it could be considered as psychologically addictive, that it leads to financial ruin, that it leads to compulsive gambling, that it harms families, that it leads to criminal activities to support the habit, and that it increases crime in areas where gambling venues are located.

Religious people add that gambling is immoral, that it is a vice, or that it is a sin. Economists tells us how great the odds are against winning the lottery and that gambling is a type of regressive tax that hurts low-income people. Every time someone wins a substantial lottery jackpot, there is news about how bad it is to win such a large sum of money.

Those things may be true but none of them can legitimately be said to be a reason for gambling to be illegal. If it is illegal, why would the government allow it? Why would the government own PAGCOR? There are 29 cities with gambling facilities in the Philippines which have 61 legal gambling facilities in total. Manila has 10 gambling facilities, 261 table games, 2642 gaming, slot and video poker machines. The largest casino in the entire country is Manila Bay Resorts with 500 table games, 3000 gaming and video poker machines.

If gambling should be proscribed by government because it is harmful, ruinous, crime-fostering or immoral, the government should outlaw all forms of gambling and certainly not be running lotteries. In a genuinely free society, people have the freedom to make any bet they choose on; may it be horse race, casino, lotteries, poker and other gambling activity.

But that does not mean that gambling is good or that it has no negative consequences. There is a distinction between favoring a thing and favoring the legalization. It depends on the person to disdain some or all forms of gambling because it raises financial crisis and yet full support the legalization of such because at some point, it can help a lot of people.

Gambling industry can also provide people with jobs thus decreasing the unemployment rate in the republic or it can raise the revenue of the nation because it generates funds to aid the government in its role to continuously and consistently provide customer needs and satisfaction through its responsive presence.

The real issue is freedom, not preference. There should be no federal or state laws prohibiting any voluntary activity of consenting adults. Although gambling is under the title Crimes against Moral, the law on gambling does not take morality into consideration. It does not punish gambling per se but those gambling games which are not covered by a franchise or permit from the government. Again, the low on gambling exemplifies the adage that what is legal is not necessarily moral.

CASE STUDY #5: BRING HOME OFFICE GOODIES

One of the norms of conducts for government employees as stated in RA 6713, Sec. 4, Commitment to Public Interest is, “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.”

However, it isn’t true in this case. Taking office supply is a kind of thing that goes unnoticed; it is like an express shopping of envelopes, highlighter, glue, post-its, pen, markers and even toilet papers! But is the stealing of office stationery really stealing? The other question is this: what precisely constitutes stealing? A pen is only worth a few cents, it’s no big deal – but stealing a box of it is a crime. Likewise, a thin pad of post-it notes might be ok, but a thick pad is probably wrong. Is stealing ‘stealing’ no matter the quantity?

In most cases, stealing at work begins small and magnifies into a large quantity of theft. Let’s take a pen as an example; after an employee takes a single pen and gets away with it, they may take a box of pens. Unless caught, the employee may begin larger forms of theft until someone realizes missing products. This is becoming an increasingly significant problem that organizations or government agencies are facing.

Mely has a point when she said that even second level employees and division chiefs who can afford to buy these stuffs also bring home office supplies, and to take note that they still have some “kickbacks” from the higher government officials. Well, if a great employee puts in a lot of hours and delivers excellent results, surely the occasional pilfered stationery item is a small sacrifice. But if we sum up the amounts of all the office supplies taken by the employees for personal usage, it can add up to significant costs; in which Cynthia was right.

At this point, I take Cynthia’s side because I know that it is wrong; and why would I resort to something wrong? If I can afford to buy my own pen, I would, it will not hurt my budget. I even bought my own stapler so that I can call it my own; it’s not a big deal.  At the office, I use scratch papers when printing if it is for office filing so that I can minimize the expenses. Yes, we do have an annual budget but that doesn’t mean that I have all the right to get what I want because it’s in the budget; that is not fair for the government.

Not only that, when an employee is caught stealing, it sends a troubling message to the general public and this can cause trust issues which is now in contrary to the conduct that a civil service employee should be; to think of the welfare of the people above personal gain.

Company assets are meant for business, and not for personal use. Office employees all have a responsibility to protect and safeguard company assets from loss, theft, misuse and waste. Even the smallest supplies such as the staple wire or pen are authorized for business purposes and should never be used personally.

But why do employees still steal? Counterproductive work behavior now takes place because of low satisfaction, a lack of organizational commitment, or conflicts with supervisor. Aside from that, it is also tied up to an employee’s salary.  Individuals have a fairly good assessment of their self-worth and if they feel that they are being under-rewarded or unrecognized, they will undertake activities within an organization that redresses their inequity.

If I see a co-worker taking company property from our facilities without permission I will not keep it to myself because it would reflect poorly on my loyalty to the office or the organization. It seems like I do not care about the money wasted by the public because some employees are getting what they think they deserve to have.

Also, those who are in the top management, such as the second level employees, the head or the division chief should lead by example and set the tone for ethics and trust in the company by showing good values in all areas of the business and see to it that everyone is treated fairly.  In that way, subordinates would hesitate to do wrong because they can see that their head acts as good role model for them.

Also, it is really important that paid workers should not be underpaid so that they will not get their share of profit somewhere else; either by taking something from the company, or cutting their time. Showing appreciation and trust for the employees at the office can positively affect the company in both morale and productivity.

CASE STUDY #4: PICK ME UP

As public servants, PDIC Directors, officer and employees adhere to the principle that public office is a public trust and promote a high standard of ethics in public service. The Corporation requires that all Directors, officers and employees practice and demonstrate equal treatment, unbiased professionalism, and non-discriminatory actions in the performance of their duties and functions without any undue favor or reward. (http://www.pdic.gov.ph/files/CGO/NGP-Sept.pdf)

Anciently, gift giving is a way to express gratitude, appreciation and love. Is it based on a philosophy or reciprocity, relating to the phrase, “What goes around comes around” While gifts are actually just a gesture of goodwill for the things done, overly generous business gifts tend to put pressure on the recipient to extend or favor the giver. Thus, there is now a thin line between giving and bribery.

Gift giving, to public officials seems to be or related to bribery in which our moral views are changing because it can create the perception of undue influence. Ronnie is in a situation of accepting the money given by his client, Ms. Santos, for the prompt and speedy 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 gratitude for Ronnie.

Now let us try posing some questions which is now becoming an issue to professional ethics: What is the difference between a gift and a bribe? A gift is something of value given without asking anything in return; a bribe is the same with the hope to influence or benefit something in return.  

Does Ms. Santos gift-giving really is sincere or is she hoping to do transactions again with Ronnie and expect for fast results? Is her intentions purely an act of gratitude or is she drawing a line between permissible and impermissible actions?

If I were Ronnie, a geodetic engineer, in need of money because the salary I receive is not enough for the needs of my family or even my own need – I will not accept the gift. Why? Here are some reasons that I would like to give emphasis on:

(1) During our flag ceremony at the office, we recite the Panunumpa ng Kawani ng Gobyerno, stated there, “Hindi ako hihingi o tatanggap ng suhol” (I will not ask or receive any bribe), am I not breaching my own pledge to be a good public servant whose main concern is to serve the public promptly, courteously and adequately without accepting any gifts or solicit directly or indirectly? I will do the government agency a favor and the government itself by declining the envelope with money while saying, “Trabaho ko po ito, salamat po pero hindi ko yan matatanggap.” (This is my job, thank you but I cannot accept that.)

(2) Accepting the gift can be considered as a part of a business relationship but in this situation, accepting it can cause a serious defiance of business and professional ethics, and a violation of the law set by the Civil Service. Clearly, it is unethical and in some instances illegal especially when the main intent is to buy favor with the next transactions. Giving gifts or doing any favor to influence outcomes ultimately undermines trust – whether in the company or within myself.

(3) I worked hard to establish credibility and trust within my company and with my colleagues, to other clients that I might have business with in the future and most importantly, with my family. Credibility and trust are two most important things in my service which are built around accountability, professionalism, justness and sincerity. If accepting a gift or attending any event with the intention to undermine my credibility or creates the appearance of impropriety, then it is a big no!

But I will approach Ms. Santos and thank her for appreciating the efforts that I have exerted to finish her transaction at the soonest possible time. Also, I will really give emphasis on her words, “I am very happy that there are civil servants like you who do things promptly and effectively”, for me, those words are more than any gifts or money that anyone can have.

The feeling that someone was really very pleased with the amount of work that I have done is satisfying and heartwarming at the same time. The emotion of true happiness will always be treasured because I made a client joyous and she was with a light heart the moment that she leaves the office.

There are code of ethics for different professions, companies, organizations and the like. We can avoid embarrassment and unnecessary expense by knowing and acknowledging these codes so that we can be properly guided.

Bribery has a long history but we should not allow it to change our moral concepts. Yes, these are temptations that makes us think twice or can make us break, but we must really remember the main purpose which is to be good public servants. Anything that is increasingly viewed as a shameful act and something that we will never be proud of is never good. 

CASE STUDY #3: WHAT ELSE CAN I DO?

Whistleblowing is a disclosure by a person, usually an employee in a government agency or private entity, to the public or to those in authority of mismanagement, corruption, illegality, or some other wrongdoing.

Some consider whistle blowers as noble characters willing to sacrifice themselves professionally and personally to expose wasteful, fraudulent practices that can harm the welfare of the republic. While others say that these whistleblowers are disgruntled employees who maliciously and recklessly accuse individuals they feel have wronged them in order to attain their own selfish goals.

In connection with Glenda’s solution to her accusation, I disagree. If Glenda pursues her decision, she will be a subject of retaliation by her employee. Typically, her employer will discharge her for being a whistle blower. To make it worst, let’s take Glenda to be a contractual employee or an employee-at will, meaning she does not have a specific term of employment. The employer can fire her anytime without having to cite a reason. Her action can disrupt a workplace, and may cause serious harm to individuals wrongly accused.

Let’s take these into consideration, Glenda has no substantial evidence to confirm the wrongdoing because; (1) she was just given some quickie consultant report showing that the environmental impact will be minimal; and (2) the words from her Division Chief to do what she has been told is not a strong proof of any falsified act.

First, consultant reports are provided by experts for organizations or groups that do not have the time and the expertise on how to treat the subject or the problem. Consultant reports present experimental work on the problem; these covers a series of findings or generalizations based on expert insights. Simply, it is an examination for a class of problems from an expert’s view addressed to the non-expert who stands to benefit from the information.

Second, the Division Chief asking her to do what she was being told and that the orders are from the powers does not constitute any fraud and even if it is by any means an illegal order, she does not hold any record of the event or documentation.

Any accuse that Glenda has for her Division Chief or the whole organization will not be recognized because there is no clear statutory basis and the case will be dismissed if the employer did not really violate any public policy. Glenda’s case will be refused and unrecognized because there really is not mandated legal wrongful act identified. In addition, her blowing the whistle can be used against her for reasons of seeking financial gain, fame or fortune.

Speaking directly to Senator Enriquez will do her harm; let’s say, Glenda doesn’t really want to be a whistle blower but talking to the Senator without any intentions of sharing it to the public made her one. Why? Because what she told to the Senator or any other national official could be a primary reason of self-interest and can be used by the official for their own sake, perhaps, to be more known to the public and to a gain loyalty from the people.

For me, Glenda should really raise the concern to the next higher position after her Division Chief. The problem should be communicated first internally thus giving the management an opportunity to investigate and take corrective measures if necessary. 

Second, the management must let their employees believe that their concerns will be taken seriously because being hostile to the concern can also cause unfortunate results to the company. If employees feel an unresponsive management, they would take the information externally or to another party. 

Lastly, when employees raise their concerns, they must have confidence that they will not suffer any personal reprisals foe reporting what he/she perceives to be a wrongdoing.

I believe that whistleblowing is a right to free speech. Individuals are just concerned about any possible wrongdoing within the organization, who honestly expresses their concerns and they should be treated fairly.

They do not have the right to disrupt the workplace because it seems fidelity to one’s agency, to one’s superior, and to colleagues stressed in countless ways. But at the same time, they are not expected to keep silent when they are aware of probable wrongdoing, or when they are asked to do something they feel violates the law or the welfare of the people.

I believe that whistleblowing policies should be implemented in an organization to ensure that the employee’s rights are respected. Whistleblowing policies should increase the chances both whistleblowers and those who are targeted by their accusations will be treated with equality.

CASE STUDY #2: WANTED: DEAD HEROES

Illegal logging has a significant environmental, economic and social cost because it degrades forest environments, reduces biodiversity, undermines government regimes and revenues, contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and deprives local communities of opportunities to improve their quality of life.

According to a scholar, Jessica Matthews, short-sighted policies by the Filipino government have also contributed to the high rate of deforestation. In the 20^th century, the forest cover of the Philippines dropped from 70 per cent to 20 per cent. In total, 46 species are endangered, and 4 were already eradicated completely. Only 3.2 percent of total rainforest has been left. Based on the analysis of land use pattern maps and road map, an estimated 9.8 million hectares of forest were lost in the Philippines from 1934 to 1988.

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) with the help of the Philippine government campaigned against illegal logging and its reforestation program. Indigenous species, like narra and Philippine mahogany are monitored in ports all over the archipelago despite the difficulty of such.

In 2011, the Executive Order No. 23, “Declaring a Moraturium on the Cutting and Harvesting of Timber in the Natural and Residual Forests and Creating the Anti-Illegal Logging Task Force” was signed by President Benigno S. Aquino III on February 1, 2011. However, some cases against illegal timber trade have led to convictions, some were abandoned and concessions continued.

As what this second case study is all about, Army Colonel Alonzo together with this infantry truck commandeered by men in full combat gears was flagged-down by a forest guard, Rick after noticing an unlawful act of cutting trees in South Cotabato. Ricky’s situation is difficult knowing that his team was outnumbered by Alonzo’s, he must consider that their lives are at stake at the moment.

However, let’s take some facts for a moment: (1) Alonzo is an Army Colonel, which means that he is a military, a public servant, and he should be aware of the directives made by the DENR about the cutting of certain tree species classified as endangered, then why does he seem unaware of it? Is he and his team exempted to the rule? (2) The three truckloads of freshly-cut timber was an infantry truck, it is also a government-owned vehicle, is this what they say that owners of some illegal concessions are able to use political or military connections in order to get away with crime?; (3) the truck was commandeered by uniformed men in full combat gears, are they not well informed of the RA 10593, Sec. 9, that is the offender is in the government service, he will be dismissed from office?

If I were in Rick’s shoes, as an assigned forest guard to help the government with its fight against illegal going, I will respond to the situation as follows:

(1) As stated in Art 10593, Sec. 7, I will execute my police powers to seize a vehicle with illegally cut trees; verify the documents supporting their actions, and if they cannot show me any legal documents in accordance to the law, I will have to courteously inform Alonzo and his team that I will not allow them to pass through with all of those freshly-cut flitches. We shall also confiscate and forfeit in favor of the government the illegally cut and gathered timber because it is very evident that they are actually committing a serious offense against the government.

(2) I will also politely ask Alonzo if it is there role to bury the armies killed during their operations and to give subsidy to the family of the dead. Does the government not offer help to the bereaved families that is why they resorted to illegal logging for the dead heroes?

(3) Knowing that we are outnumbered and if Alonzo insists on passing through, I would allow him. I must take into careful consideration that I am fighting for my life at this moment and the lives of my comrades. Hence, I will get as much information about him and his team in a friendly manner so that I can take note of the incident and will secretly get the infantry trucks plate number.

(4) After which, I will coordinate to the higher authorities or the DENR of the confrontation together with the facts that I’ve obtained and allow them to handle the situation efficiently and effectively since they are more knowledgeable of the proper negotiation with them. As a forest guard, I was just given the authority to aid the government with their regulations and that effective chastisement should be done by the authority figure of the implementing rules in our community; and

(5) And even if I was vested to exercise police powers (Art. 10593, Sec. 7), I would request assistance from the local government to deputize the PNP or other law enforcement agencies to help us monitor and ensure the compliance of the said law.  And in case the same situation will happen, we would have enough people who will pursue to decrease illegal deforestation and continue to uphold their aim of reforestation which can protect the whole area against typhoon, flood, landslides and other calamities.

CASE STUDY #1: AN ISLAND FIRESTORM

The case is all about the development of a beautiful island discovered way back 1970. In an approximately 26 years; development took place leading it to be a tourist spot. However, as time went by, problems were also noticed, such as (1) improper solid and liquid waste disposal, (2) ground water contamination, (3) the sea became unsafe and (4) presence of coliform bacteria.

Coliform are broad class of bacteria found in the environment, including feces of man and other warm-blooded animals. The presence of coliform bacteria may indicate a possible presence of harmful, disease-causing organisms.

These issues brought by the development were alarming to the local officials because the waters of the island are not safe anymore. It can also cause an economic downturn to the locals knowing that it is already an international tourist destination.

The cover-up of the local official about lifting up the ban for swimming was not a good move. Yes, as long as the level of fecal coliform bacteria is slow, swimming is relatively safe. However, coliform bacteria can multiply rapidly, especially when the temperature is warm, thus increasing the level of coliform. Once the coliform increases to a point where water is considered contaminated, swimming should be banned.

The officials also had some lapses on this environmental disaster because (1) 201 of 207 resorts do not have environmental clearance, (2) 21 of 23 imposed conditions on sanitation, garbage and water disposal were violated, and (3) monitoring of the coliform count on the water samples was not in time or late.

If I were the official concerned after knowing the findings of the chemist is a cause for action; to wit:

(1) Every resort shall apply or have an environmental clearance before operating. This is necessary to ensure that the ecology of the area is not disturbed. Each resort should have a proper detail of their projects like the usage of water and energy at the resort; their impact on the water and air, transportation, solid waste and its mitigation steps and most especially the health and well-being of the workers. If a certain resort continues to operate without the clearance, they will be sanctioned.

 (2) Proper information dissemination about health and sanitation and proper waste disposal will be realized to educate the locals. The presence of coliform bacteria will not necessarily make you ill but since these organisms are present, other disease-causing organism may be present, which causes the illness. This risk dictates that water must be boiled to kill the organisms before drinking or one option is to also obtain bottled water from a safe source which is separated from sources of contamination on a temporary basis. Bathing should pose no risk, although reasonable care should be taken to insure that children do not swallow water by sucking on washcloths or sponges.

These precautions should be taken if the water smells or tastes unusual. If test results confirm that there is still a problem, locals should continue with precautions until subsequent test results show absence of bacterial contamination. Banning tourist from swimming will also be implemented to avoid further complications.

(3) Have the officials, volunteers and the locals inspect the surrounding areas for sources of pollution such as garbage, animal pens, barns and agricultural areas (including home garden). The beach and other publicly used recreational areas should be tested at least once a week. Additional testing may be warranted after floods or periods of heavy rain when swimming areas are more vulnerable to runoff contamination. Locals with pond or swimming hole should test for water quality periodically throughout the summer months. Drinking water taken from well or springs should be tested for coliform once a year.

Yes, these actions can take a while and can cause a delay especially with the economy of the community but to take a strong consideration of the health and wellness of the people, these actions should be properly taken care of. Tourism versus health; health should always come first. If everything continues to be normal, then we can lift the ban and we can take this beautiful island back to where it is supposed to be, an international tourist spot.

Our environment is a place where we live as well as plants and animals live and keeping it clean and neat is our main responsibility. By implementing on it, we can reduce pollution, get fresh air, live peacefully and can continue our livelihood without posing any problems in the future.

SIMPLE LIVING

As what Confucius once said, “Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated.” Essentially, we are really free to choose on how to simplify our lives but at times, we still find other reasons to make it complicated. We should consider a work-life balance, embracing the good life we have, mindfully savoring each moment, spending quality time with family and slowing the pace of our life. Whatever we choose, the decisions should result to a life that we can afford and a life that will not further complicate our well-being and peace of mind.

There are people who live lavishly and who live a decadent lifestyle to think that there are many others who are living on the poverty and even below. We see on the television extravagant weddings of actors and actresses showing how much they can afford an ostentatious wedding and attended by well-known public officials while other couples live together without a formal union.

I feel saddened and sickened by such thoughts because as each day passes by, the rich becomes richer and the poor becomes poorer. Who wouldn’t? If almost all of the riches are already on the hands of corrupt officials and they are continuously committing the same choices over and over again.

The second-hand Porsche brought by the President became news and it would not make him very credible of the “modest life” that we are talking about. To take note of his sister Kris, bragging about her choice of brands makes him less credible as well. How about Binay’s properties? He said that he lived in poverty; and yet claimed that those he owned now are from his parents. Confusing?

During the SONA, we can see public officials with their expensive cars driving the way to the Batasan; where SONA is held before.  Then officials are dropped off wearing their expensive Barang Tagalog, suits and gowns for the ladies, shoes and jewelries matched to their attire. Is that living a simple life? They are in the government and they should lead the example of an austere live, but they are not.

I do realize that it is their choice to live a life like that to think that some of them were already born with a golden spoon on their mouth but that doesn’t mean that they should continue living a lifestyle appropriate to their positions and income.

If these are examples of living a modest life of the government officials, then there should be a Constitutional amendment to re-define Section 1, Article XI; a definition that would suit their own definition of a “simple living”.

I will deepen the difference of wants and needs so that I do not have to live a life to the extremes. I will not allow those advertisements and those personas showing off their riches on the television to be my standard of my own simple lifestyle; I will live in moderation.

I will not be climbing any mountains or do parachuting out of a plane. I will not be gambling all of my savings; instead, I will be investing these to grow. I will not be spending too much on unnecessary things such as drinks, bags, shoes, gadgets and other things since all of these will simply depreciate in the future. I will not be filling my plate with too much food and not eating all of those; thinking that there are many people who almost cannot eat once a day.

 I will not be using my credit card limits to the extent, so that I will not have to loan money just to pay it. Leaving a life of too much increase the risk of crisis and I am not willing to allow that crisis to make my life complicated; because once predicament comes in, hardship will follow.

I will always do and think of what is more important, instead of waiting for it to be finally become urgent thus leading to a stressed and complicated life and resulting further to health complications. There are countless situations that require our immediate effort before it’s too late.

Example, taking your car to the casa for its regular check-up before your auto conks out and leaves you helpless on a deserted road. Or have your regular dental check-up so that you will not experience an unbearable pain in the future. As what I always hear, “Prevention is better than cure.”

It is true that it is too difficult to live simply in a digitalized century. But when we choose to focus our lives on a simpler living, we will discover that our lives become less stressed and we can appreciate the plain things that we have. We make our life less complicated. We encounter less distractions, less responsibilities, less burdens, less commitment because we know how to stretch our time and exhaust our energy.

We should always have in mind of what is important and needed than giving more focus on our wants. We should live a life of meaning and purpose, a life full of happiness, contentment that improves our well-being making us more productive in our job as civil servants of the public and making us good role models of a simple yet satisfying life.