You are on page 1of 6

Adao, Princess Loirenne L.

In Onofre Corpuz's esssay on "Is there a Philippine Public Administration", he

negatively stated that there is a Philippine public administration by repeatedly stating,

"It's all very Filipino". He even stated that "...the existing public administration is

faithfully Filipino.". I must agree with his statement because indeed, a Philippine public

administration exists, I believe in terms of structure. I would like to quote Alex

Brillantes, Jr. and Maricel Fernandez on their statement. "Yes we have basic public

administration structures and processes. We have an executive branch with the

bureaucracy at its core. We have a Philippine legislature. We have a Philippine judiciary.

We have Philippine electoral processes and procedures. We have Philippine sub-national

institutions and local governments, together with decentralization processes and

procedures. It is within this context that we argue that indeed, we have a Philippine

public administration characterized by the presence of administrative structures and

processes operating within a unique Philippine context." But the funny thing is, and I

would like to stress out this statement by Corpuz that "The government had been run

independently for just the last four decades, managing most of public affairs in a

language that is not native to its citizens.". Considering more than three centuries of

Spanish rule and decades of American occupation, the period that was ruled by foreigners

surpassed the period ruled by our own native people. I agree with Corpuz with this.

Although they had spread many of the fundamental values of the West through the

proselytizing of the Catholic religion, the Spanish had nevertheless done little to advance
the development of science or the spread of economic growth in the Philippines (partly

reflecting the scientific and economic backwardness of Spain itself in the nineteenth

century).

On the author's statement on "The old (colonial) and the new political ethics have

become one, a syncresis or a combination of often contradictory elements, since the

beginning of the century. The victorious elites affirm the triumph of democracy, the

victory of the people; and the latter listen to finely crafted speeches on nationalism,

social justice, and the popular welfare." This is very reflective of the famous platform

speeches of candidates during elections, with their vague but "for masses promises" to

their almost impossible action plans - which in the end, always fail to be implemented.

This is reality in Phlippine politics. Though it is very hard on my part, I have to agree

with Corpuz on his statement that "But the archetypal lider (leader)in Filipino politics is

still he who gets the most jobs for his followers, increases his income when his faction is

in power (while paying less in income taxes), and gives the most help in various forms to

his followers’ families. This is the relationship between a Mafia don and his soldiers.

What is Filipino in this is: that the rewards distributed by politicians are public

resources; the politicians who are out of power regard their counterparts in power with

envy and admiration; and no practitioner of this highly developed Filipino art has ever

been accused of anything but success.” This reflects the bureaupathology deeply

embedded in Philippine politics. That's why politicians only do what the Filipino wants,

doing things that is deemed "popular" in the Filipino context.

A country's culture is indeed a reflection of its political and economic situation.

Religion also plays a major role in shaping the mindset of the people, thus affecting the
cultural dimension as well. In the case of the Philippines according to Corpuz, Philippine

politics is greatly influenced by more than three decades of Spanish colonization and

decades of American occupation. In that very long period of time, our Western colonizers

have instigated certain norms, beliefs and practices that were adopted by the Filipino

people. One testament to this was his statement that The Spanish regime made

Christians, not citizens...". True though, for one of the lasting contributions of the

Spanish regime is Christianity whose values are clearly evident and deeply embedded in

our Filipino culture. In terms of politics, it was only the pueblo elites, as what Corpuz

calls them, who had the opportunity to grab hold of positions such as gobernadorcillos.

This reflected the traditional public administration that was present during the Spanish

era. But they were just mere symbols of the friars during that time, leading them to

another kind of politics in fiesta. Local principlias contested each other for personal

glory by being the hermano mayor. Such post was only limited to the pueblo elites and

only cared for their personal gains and not for the general welfare of the people. Corpuz

stated that this "pueblo elites became the basis of Philippine politcs into the American

colonial period." I must disagree with him in that in some parts. Why? Because such

system was not only adapted during the American period because such practices are

translated into the Philippine public administration itself. It may be seen that majority of

the people who actually participate every election are those who belong to the upper

strata of the society. Their economic wealth gives them a political leverage. There's

nothing wrong with this, unless they use their money and "connections" to advance their

self interest in ways deemed unfair for the other parties. University of the Philippines

economist Raul Fabella, commenting on the weaknesses of the Estrada presidency from
1999 to 2002, notes that a failure to address them would add to a long and “dubious list

of national records of ignominy and incompetence” in government administration and

economic management. As Fabella notes, “in the Philippines, the institutions, even the

courts of law, are so weak and so compromised by corruption that the rule-of-law, or its

figment, clings for dear life on the inaugural oath of the sitting president to uphold the

law” – and this has often proved a fragile basis. In the Philippines the democratic

process has often resulted in poorly qualified individuals being elected president, the

office upon whom so much depends. One of the many pathlogies presented in the paper

was Civil Service's Commission which was compared to the Pasig River: once a source

of life but now a reflection of government's inefficiencies and "dirty ways".If the

government could not properly address environmental situations such as in Pasig river,

and even maintain the cleanliness of their workplace, (please do forgive my term) how on

earth could they fix and improve the public administration system per se? To prove

Merton's theory of bureaupathology, I would like to share an excerpt that says, Philippine

politics is also exceptionally “particularistic,” regional, and fragmented, thus creating a

multiple set of independently operating corruption seekers whose collective actions may

be damaging not only to the whole national economy but even to the corrupt actors

themselves (reducing the total money pools to be tapped). As de Dios and Esfahani

comment, the Philippine political system has been particularly notable for its “apparent

inability of the government as a whole to make credible or binding commitments.”

Rallies, protests and been part of every presidency. It had been an "annoying

trend" indeed. And this why Corpuz had arrived to such statement that “...it will take the

space of at least two generations to discipline and wisen people, in order to have a
public administration that will not be an unforgiving mirror of frailties, but an image of

higher ideals and virtues". Because in the first place, who elected those people in power?

It is nobody else but the Filipinos themselves. We cannot always put all the blame to the

government. Corruption may be rampant and expensive in the Philippines but it's not the

only factor that "feeds" the pathologies of Philippine bureaucracy. Corruption does not

only happen in the Philippine government, it cannot be denied that it is also practiced in

real life, in businesses, in schools. Well basically, in our everyday living. It just differs on

the degree or extent of this corruption. In the end, we just get what we deserve from the

government. I strongly believe that the Filipino citizens have to power, either to stop or

contribute to the growing pathologies in the Philippine bureaucracy. That's why, I can say

that the moment Filipinos aspire and act for the "right things",then there's still hope for

the Filipino people. But the most important thing here is the changing of mindset and

culture that had locked us in our dire situation. This best describes the challenge that must

be met. "The country was poorly integrated linguistically and socially.” After

independence in 1946, the Philippine government “disintegrated because [Western]

democracy did not work” there, which then led Filipinos in desperation to the “political

disaster” of the Marcos dictatorship. Overall, since 1946, “the Philippine evolution is

characterized by a decay of a modern democratic government implanted by idealist

Americans who came to the country on a mission of ‘manifest destiny.” Philippines are

archipelagic in nature. And due to large differences in culture, it had contributed to the

incompetence and incoherence of the Philippine Public Administration. It may be a long

term process, but it's all worth it in the end.


Sources:

Brillantes, Alex and Fernandez, Maricel. IS THERE A PHILIPPINE PUBLIC


ADMINISTRATION? OR BETTER STILL, FOR WHOM IS PHILIPPINE PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION?

Nelson, Robert. 2007. THE PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC MYSTERY.

You might also like