Working for gov't irrational and unrealistic

MANILA, Philippines – Low and iniquitous – by all accounts that is how government pays its workers. It remains a mystery to David, the CSC’s former chairman, why a bounty of political allies and friends had signed up with Arroyo.

At the clerical level, the government pays 20 percent more than a medium-size Filipino firm, says David.

Those at the professional level including teachers, accountants and lawyers who make up 70 to 75 percent of the bureaucracy – receive 30 percent less.

Those at the managerial level that represent 1.5 percent of the civil service receive 70 percent less than they would in the private sector.

“It’s no joke to work for 25 years or 30 years and get a take-home pay of P23,000. And you’re already a director. So compensation is a major aspect,” David says. Queuing up to work as presidential adviser or assistant or consultant seems, to David, simply “irrational and unrealistic.”

By law, government positions from the rank of assistant secretary down are career service positions subject to eligibility requirements. The post of undersecretary in some instances could be occupied only by career service personnel, and in others, by political appointees.

Political appointments now cut wider and deeper in Philippine bureaucracy it has started to worry development agencies and investors.

A recent National Trade Estimate (NTE) report of the Office of the US Trade Representative cites concerns that some Arroyo appointees may have been chosen more for political considerations rather than their expertise.

“Investors also have raised concerns that regulators rarely have any background in economics, business or a competitive economic system, which enables entrenched interests to manipulate the legal system and regulatory process, whether by bribery or through exploiting the lack of expertise among regulators, to protect market positions,” the NTE report adds.

Pending bills

There is a bill called the Government Compensation and Justification Act pending in Congress which aims to review the salary of bureaucrats. Another pending bill, called the Career Executive System Bill, aims to reverse errors and the contradictions in law that create many gray areas.

The bill provides for the CSC to appoint people to rank, from which the President would choose whom to assign where. This means that disciplinary power is with the CSC, and that it will be able to check appointments. Cabinet secretaries would also be chosen by the directors of each agency, with the power to choose the undersecretary and assistant secretary left to the President.

In David’s view, the bill would be progress enough because it “reduces the appointing powers of the President.”

Career service personnel share the sentiment. When it comes to appointments, the CSC process and tests of “competence and fitness” must be followed, and not the will or whim of the President, they say.

“Working in government should compel people to establish their eligibilities,” says Gonzalez. “Having government recognition of your profession gives you good credibility and you have a sense of tenure and permanency.”

“Being part of the Career Executive Service should not be the prerogative of the President,” adds David.