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.