Questionable GCG standards
Stung by widespread criticism of the P1 million bonus it awarded to its directors, the Social Security System pointed to the Governance Commission for GOCCs (GCG) as the approving authority for the windfall.
Taking up the cudgels for SSS, GCG, through spokesperson Paolo Salvosa, said the directors deserved the extra pay because the SSS was able to meet its revenue targets last year.
Salvosa brushed aside questions linking the perk to the recent increase in the SSS premium contributions by saying “it is not the mandate of the GCG to tell Government Owned- or Controlled- Corporations (GOCCs) how to run their business.”
As if the dismissive statement was not bad enough, he said executives of 19 other government-owned or -controlled corporations were given similar rewards for hitting at least 90 percent of their self-imposed revenue targets in 2012.
According to reports, nine other GOCCs, including Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office and Local Water Utilities Administration, have pending requests to enjoy the same privilege.
Considering GCG’s hands-off policy on the operation of state firms, it is almost a cinch it will give its blessings to additional pleas for clearance to partake of the taxpayers’ money.
Public service
By making revenue targets a major factor (if not the clincher) in deciding on the entitlement by GOCC executives to financial rewards, GCG has depreciated or minimized the primary purpose for which they were created: public service.
GOCCs are organized to meet certain needs of our people that require special handling or cannot be otherwise be addressed by the traditional bureaucracy.
Depending on their assigned tasks, GOCCs are given legislative charters that define their organization, operation, funding sources and areas of responsibility and accountability.
Although authorized to engage in commercial or nongovernment activities, and accorded a juridical personality that sets them apart from ordinary government offices, GOCCs are, for all intents and purposes, part of the government structure.
They are covered by, and obliged to follow, the dictum that “public service is a public trust.” Their principal responsibility is to efficiently and effectively serve their constituencies.
Unless GCG has changed the rules of public governance while the public was not watching, that “trust” pertains to the public, not to the GOCC executives’ trust account in a bank.
Criteria
High revenue is not synonymous or can be equated to good public service. While GOCCs are required to share their income with the national government, profitability should not be earned at the expense of or in derogation of their obligations to the public.
That’s the same principle the government observes when it regulates the operation of public utility corporations. Profit making should be subordinate to public service.
Undoubtedly, the public will not raise a howl about giving bonuses to GOCC executives if they get their taxpayers’ money worth by way of prompt and competent services without having to shell something extra in return.
It’s no fun, for example, for a taxpayer to fall in line for hours to obtain certain permits or avail of benefits due him because the assigned staff is absent or the office’s records have not been updated.
This brings to the fore the question of whether reduction of the number of complaints received—which forms part of GCG’s performance criteria—is a credible measure of a GOCC’s entitlement to a bonus.
Sad, but true, most Filipinos would rather suffer in silence than complain if they encounter lazy, uncouth or corrupt government personnel.
The tolerant attitude is understandable because the government’s mechanism for redress of grievances is long, tedious and expensive. Worse, most government offices are protective of their own people. The “lesser complaints” performance criterion of GCG is clearly out of touch with reality.
Recognition
Also questionable is GCG’s use of attendance in at least 90 percent of board meetings as justification for giving GOCC directors a bonus.
Excuse me, but the SSS directors’ presence in board meetings is not without remuneration. They receive P40,000 every board meeting and another P30,000 for committee meetings.
In GCG’s book, the directors should be awarded an additional P1 million for doing their job for which they have already been compensated.
Following that logic, all SSS employees who regularly report for work deserve to be paid something extra on top of their salary.
GCG will probably argue that the directors are entitled to the extra moolah in appreciation for the time and efforts they spend in managing the affairs of SSS.
Oops, that’s not the reality on the ground. In commission- or board-type government offices, the real, nitty-gritty work is done at the lower or middle levels.
The specialized departments of these offices conduct the necessary research and evaluation, and recommend the course of action to be taken, of any matter that requires board or commission approval.
Unless the report or recommendation is a mess (which is rare because government employees take pride in their work), the members of the board or commission often approve the recommendation, or to give the impression of participative management, suggest cosmetic changes.
If the action, as recommended, fails to accomplish the desired results, the blame is conveniently passed on to the lower echelon. But if things turn out well, the top brass gets the credit.
In formulating the rules on good public governance, GCG should not lose sight of the rationale behind its creation—to ensure that GOCCs faithfully and sincerely perform their mandate. Also worth remembering is a Filipino jurist’s reminder that “not everything that is legal is moral.”
For comments, send your e-mail to [email protected].
