1

Republic of the Philippines

CITY COLLEGE OF EL SALVADOR
El Salvador City, Misamis Oriental
Email: elsalvador.citycollege@gmail.com

Bachelor of Public Administration

MODULE IN BPA 117

(Ethics and Accountability in the Public
Service)
Mohammad Hashim A. Sarip, CGM, MPA

Second Semester Yr. 2021-2022

 2

Bachelor of Public Administration

Course Number : PA 117

Course Title : Ethics and Accountability in Public Service
Credits : 3 units (3 hours lecture)
Module No. : 1-2
Duration : 1-2 weeks
Faculty in Charge : Mohammad Hashim A. Sarip, CGM, MPA

Course Descrption:
This Course deals with the understanding of the theories on ethics, responsibility, and
accountability focusing on the work place and the behavior in public official in the
government organizations with emphasis on the ethical and moral issues in the government
agencies.
Learning Outcomes Based on the Syllabus
Analyze the importance of ethics, public policy and control to public administration as well
as know present and the future of public administration through case study and situational
assessment.

Learning Objectives
At the end of this module, the following learning objectives will be attained by the students:
1. Explain the concept of ethics, control and accountability
2. State and explain the impact of control and accountability as applied to public
administration.
3. Analyze the functions of the different organs of the government in the present

4. Explain the relationship between ethics and morality

5. Identify the different ethics and organizational Behavior
 3

Introduction
Ethics is said to be “knowing or doing what is right or wrong”. It assumes that all people know
what are the right thing to do and what is not, based on their own principles and judgment. It gives
them the decision as to what must be or should be an acceptable act in the eyes of other people.
People may have different notion as to what is right and what is wrong because it depends on how he
was raised and how his/her environment influence his principles, judgment, conscience and decisions.

Establishing a proper ethical basis for public actions is in itself one of the most important challenges
facing the public service. If an individual is to makes a significant contribution in the public service, it
must be along the moral and ethical dimensions of one’s actions and to assert moral leadership.
Public service is increasingly becoming an ethical concern today. Everything, including the smallest
action or tasks an individual will take, carries an important value consideration. In the Philippines, it
has been a declared policy of the state “to promote a high standard of ethics in the public service.
Public officials and employees shall at all times be accountable to the people and shall discharge
their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence, and loyalty, act with patriotism and
justice, lead modest lives, and uphold public interest over personal interest”. In the pursuit of this
declared policy, all officials and employees in the government are expected to be responsible in all
their actuations. It is a common understanding that accountability comes before and after an act is
done in the government (Bihasa, 2015)

I – ETHICS AND MORALITY

The term ethics is a difficult term to define. The approaches to ethics and the meanings of
related concepts have varied over time among philosophers and ethicists. The meaning,
nature and scope of ethics have expanded in the course of time.

 Ethics is a branch of philosophy that used to study ideal human behavior and ideal
ways of being.
 As a philosophical discipline, ethics is a systematic approach to understanding,
analyzing, and distinguishing matters of right and wrong, good and bad, and
admirable and deplorable as they relate to the well-being of and the relationships
among sentient beings.
 When people are doing ethics, they need to support their beliefs and assertions with
sounds reasoning; they must be able to justify their positions through logical,
theoretically based arguments.
o Feelings and emotions are a normal part of everyday life and can play a
legitimate role in doing ethics. However, people sometimes allow their
emotions to overtake good reasoning, and when this happens; it does not
provide a good foundation for ethics-related decisions.
o Evaluations generated through the practice of ethics require a balance of
emotions and reason.
 4

Approaches to Ethics: Objectivist & Interpretivist

There are two main approaches to the teaching of ethics. The two approaches are the
objectivist, and the interpretivist or subjectivist. The objectivist approach is also known as
deontological theory. The interpretivist approach is often called teleological theory.

 The advocates of deontological theory look for objective, the ultimate or absolute
standards or criteria for assessing the morality (rightness and wrongness) of human
action.
o The objectivist theory maintains that there is a real, objective world external to
human consciousness.
 There are real laws and standards that govern everything, including
human behavior.
o Ethics from a deontological perspective provides only the principles – the
standards of morality that ought to be – and not how people actually act.
o Deontological ethics: A good action justifies whatever happens.
 Subscribers to the theological theory offer no absolute standards for assessing right
and wrong.
o The individual’s judgment in particular, unique cases constitutes the only
criterion for what is right and what is wrong.
o In reality. This is “situation ethics,” whereby the situation dictates what a
person should or should not do and the result is the right or ethical decision.
o The teleological approach considers only the consequences of human actions
and makes judgment on these consequences.
o There are no rules, laws or regulations to help in judging the consequences.
o Ethics from teleological perspectives provides the materials for more
sophisticated reflection on the meaning and consequences of human action.
o Teleological ethics: A good results justifies whatever is done.

In reality, the two theories come together to help apply general principles to concrete
situations, or to reflect broadly on this particular situation.

Ethics Defined
Scholars often call ethics “moral philosophy.” Ethics is a branch of classical philosophy
dealing with morality. It should not be surprising, then, to discover that there is no single
definition of ethics. These definitions have their roots in the two basic philosophies of
objectivism and interpretivism.

 Objectivist-based definition
o The objectivist-based definitions are all similar; they are all deontological
definitions (duty-based).
o One example of this definition is “ethics is the normative standards of
conduct derived from the philosophical and religious traditions of society.”
 5

 According to this definition, ethics is the science that relies on

human reason to discover standards of conduct or morality that
apply to all human beings.
 Indeed, human reason alone has limits, and therefore it should not be
surprising that these standards of morality also have limitations.
o The essential ingredient of the deontological definitions is that normative
standards of conduct can be discovered by human reason.
 Ethicists devote their energies to discovering such standards of conduct
or codes of moral behavior.
 Organizations that have developed codes of ethics for their members
like Society for Public Administration subscribe to a deontological
definition of ethics.

 Interpretivist-based definition:
o The interpretivist approach has a different definition of ethics.
o For the interpretivist, a real world may or may not exist, and real, objective
standard, laws or rules may or may not exist.
o So definitions from interpretivist perspective are strictly teleological.
o Example of Interpretivist-based definition is “Ethics introduces a radical
kind of doubt into the everyday world…Ethics looks at future; it is
concerned with the goodness and rightness of man’s doing and
making…it looks at the past for the sake of the future…”
o Teleological approach creates meaning reflexively, through looking backward
at actions and interpreting them so as to build and maintain shared categories
of common sense assumption about “what is going on, and what is the correct
way to behave.”
o Teleological definitions of ethics are not trying to discover or develop
standards of morality for people. They are attempting to interpret what
meaning can be found in human actions and, through reflection, how right or
wrong are these actions.
o Interpretivists do not derive their conclusion from objective rules, laws or
standards.
Besides the above two definitions is utilitarian definition: “Ethics at large may be defined as
the art of directing men’s actions to the greatest production of the greatest possible quantity
of happiness on the part of those whose interest is in view…ethics…may be styled as the art
of self-government.”

The common thread here is that ethics concentrates on human actions or on the consequences
of human actions.

 From a deontological perspective, ethics teaches that we ought to perform good

action, and it provides us with rules for doing so. Yet it does not tell us how to do
good. It is similar to the “twelve commandments” developed by the American society
of Public Administration for its memberships.
 6

 From a teological perspective, ethics also examine human actions and their
consequences – not so much by applying absolute standards or rules, but by reflecting
on their meaning and determining their rightness or wrongness depending on the
situation, circumstances and intention of the actor.

Ethics refers to well-based standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to
do, usually in terms of duties, principles, specific virtues, or benefits to society. This
definition identifies four dimensions or sources of ethics, namely: 1) Duties, 2) Virtues, 3)
Principles, and 4) Benefits to society.
 Duties: The behaviors expected of persons who occupy certain roles; that is, the
obligations taken on when assuming a role or profession;
 Virtues: Qualities that define what a good person is; moral excellence;
 Principles: Fundamental truths that form the basis for behavior; “kinds of action that
are right or obligatory”; and
 Benefits to society: Actions that produce the greatest good for the greatest

Definition of Morality
Ethics focuses not only on human action but also on its morality. Morality involves the
examination of human action to decide if it is good, bad or indifferent – to figure out if it is
right or wrong, good or bad. It is an important function of ethics to figure out whether
particular human actions are moral or not.

Human Actions
Ethics suggests that it focuses on human actions and their morality. It is concerned with the
morality of human behavior.

 The major focus of ethics is on actus humanus (deliberate human action) and not on
actus hominis (undeliberate action).
 Three requirements must be concurrently present for any action to be human: 1)
Knowledge involved, 2) Voluntariness present and 3) Freely done.
o Knowledge is an essential requirement for an action to be human. We cannot
will anything unless we first know it. So knowledge of some kind is an
absolute for an action to be human.
o Besides knowledge, the action must be voluntary – that is, it must proceed
from the will. The will is a faculty that enables us to incline or strive after an
object apprehended as good. The will is the cause of our actions. On the other
hand, if someone places a gun in my hand and pulls the trigger, it is obviously
that my will does not control or cause that action, and therefore the shooting is
not voluntary and not human.
o The third element in a human action is that it must be freely done. Human
beings have free will – that is, the capacity to act or not to act in one way as
opposed to another. Free will means that human beings have choices. Action is
freely done in the absence of force or fear.
 7

The purpose of human action

 Pleasure: eat, drink, and be merry.

 The cultivation of the mind or control over knowledge.
 Acquiring material goods.
 Achieving prosperity and progress for the human race.
 Association with the Supreme Being.

Impediments to human action

 Ignorance: the absence of knowledge in a subject capable of having knowledge, or

lack of knowledge in a subject who should have knowledge.
o Types: 1) Ignorance of law, 2) Ignorance of fact, 3) Invincible ignorance, and
4) Vincible ignorance.
 Fear: a mental trepidation or an emotional reaction arising from an impeding danger.
 Violence: an external physical force exerted on a person.
 Pathological states

Object, End, and Circumstance: the Determinants of Moral Action

Object of Human Action

The object of an action is the first part of any action in a morality assessment. The object of
any action is its essence. It is that which makes an action be what it is and not something else.

 For example, the object of murder is the taking of an innocent life. Murder is
objectively wrong, and thus the taking of an innocent life is never morally good. No
intention or circumstances can make it to be otherwise, and this is because of its basis
in reality itself. It is the eternal law, which we are created under, that establishes this
objective moral order, and we and our actions are, by our very creation, subject to this
eternal law https://bit.ly/2Bpq3gM).

Every action has an object. The object distinguishes the act from every other act. That object
can be neither something good, bad or indifferent – that is, neither good nor bad. Lying and
telling the truth are examples of two actions that are distinguished from each other according
to moral criteria. The following principle to the object of every action:

 An action whose object is bad by its very nature will remain bad and nothing can
improve it – neither circumstances, nor purpose, nor intention. A lie, defined as
speaking contrary to what is in the speaker’s mind, remains a lie despite the purpose
or circumstances involved. Purpose and circumstance do not make it anything
(another object) except a lie.
 An action that is good may become bad because of circumstances or purpose. For
example, telling the truth is a good act. By telling the truth, when silence would
 8

suffice, to destroy another person’s good name or character makes the good act or
telling the truth a morally bad act because of the speaker’s purpose or intention.
 An action that is indifferent (neither good nor bad) may become good or bad because
of circumstances or purpose. Walking may be an indifferent act. But walking into a
store to steal becomes a morally evil action because of the purpose.

Circumstances of a human action

Circumstances are those qualities that make an abstract concrete and individual.
Circumstances include such things as the act being done at a particular time, in a particular
place, by a particular agent, in a particular manner.

 The circumstances of an action are individual conditions of specific acts in time and
place that are not of themselves part of the nature of the action. They do, however,
modify the moral quality of the action (https://bit.ly/2Bpq3gM).
 The who, what, when, and where of actions are bearing on the goodness or otherwise
of specific actions. These circumstances cannot, of course, make an objectively evil
action to be good, but they can increase or decrease both moral culpability and the
degree of goodness or evil in the act (https://bit.ly/2Bpq3gM).

The end or purpose of a human action

The end of a human action is the purpose the person had in mind while doing act. It is the
intention. People can have only one purpose or have a variety of purposes in doing a
particular act. The following are principles based on the purpose in mind when performing
the act:

 An action that is indifferent because of its object may become good or bad because of
the purpose. For example, jogging in itself is an indifferent act. When done to
maintain good health, it becomes a good act. When done to arrive at a place where the
person commits theft or murder, it becomes an immoral action.
 An action that is good because of its object may become more good or less good or
even bad because of the purpose. For example, to give a donation to a homeless
person is a good action. If you give the donation just to get rid of the person, it is still
a good action, but not as good as in the first stage. If you give the donation to lure the
homeless person into doing something evil or immoral for you, the donation becomes
an immoral act.
 An action that is evil by its object may become more wrong or perhaps less wrong,
but never good by its purpose. For instance, telling a lie is morally wrong. But telling
a lie to defame another person is more wrong. Telling a lie “to get out of trouble” or
to protect the interests of another person is still lying and still wrong, but less wrong
because of the purpose. A good end does not justify a bad means.
 9

II – ETHICS IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

The relationship between “accountability” and “Ethics” has long been a concern among
students of public administration. Accountability has traditionally been regarded as the
means used to control and direct administrative behavior by requiring “answerability” to
some external authority. In public administration, ethics has most often been associated with
standards of responsible behavior and professional integrity in light of the growth of
administrative state and the expansion of discretionary powers to public sector bureaucracies.
The subject of ethics, governance, and accountability in public administration is complex.
Fair-minded people sometimes have significant differences of opinion regarding what
contributes ethical behavior and how ethical decisions should be made.
The current discipline of public administration accords primacy to the `values of equity,
justice, humanism, human rights, gender equality and compassion. The movement of Good
Governance stresses the ethical and moral conduct of administrators. The New Public
Management movement is more concerned with administrative effectiveness - focuses on
administrative ethics in its broader manifestation.
Bureaucracy, propounded by Max Weber, highlighted an ethical imperative of bureaucratic
behavior. Weber (1947) observed: It is a matter of principle that the members of the
administrative staff should be completely separated from ownership of the means of
production and administration.

 Officials, employees and workers attached to the administrative staff do not

themselves own the non-human means of production and administration.
 Most critics of real-world bureaucracies have criticized bureaucrats for violating the
prescribed norms of moral conduct; immoral behavior thus has become an integral
component of `bureaupathology’
An important question arises in connection with the moral obligation of an administrative
system:

 Is the administrative system confined to acting morally in its conduct or does it

also share the responsibility of protecting and promoting an ethical order in the
larger society?
 John Kennedy, during his Presidency (1961-1963) had averred: “No responsibility of
government is more fundamental than the responsibility of maintaining the
higher standards of ethical behavior.”
While most of the focus on administrative morality is on the aspect of correctness within the
administrative system, there is a need to consider the issue of the responsibility to create and
sustain an ethical ambience in the socio-economic system that would nurture and protect the
basic moral values.
 10

 Moral political philosophy assumes that the rulers will not only be moral
themselves, but would also be the guardians of morality in a society. Being moral
is a prerequisite to being a guardian of wider morality.
The overall objective of ethics in public administration is to ensure ‘Good Governance’ with
a prime concern for ethical principles, practices, orientations and behavior. The ethics in
public administration are enumerated here:
1. Maxim of Legality and Rationality: An administrator will follow the law and rules
that are framed to govern and guide various categories of policies and decisions.
2. Maxim of Responsibility and Accountability: An administrator would not hesitate
to accept responsibility for his decision and actions. He would hold himself morally
responsible for his actions and for the use of his discretion while making decisions.
Moreover, he would be willing to be held accountable to higher authorities of
governance and even to the people who are the ultimate beneficiaries of his decisions
and actions.
3. Maxim of Work Commitment: An administrator would be committed to his duties
and perform his work with involvement, intelligence and dexterity. As Swami
Vivekananda observed: “Every duty is holy and devotion to duty is the highest form
of worship.” This would also entail a respect for time, punctuality and fulfillment of
promises made. Work is considered not as a burden but as an opportunity to serve and
constructively contribute to society.
4. Maxim of Excellence: An administrator would ensure the highest standards of quality
in administrative decisions and action and would not compromise with standards
because of convenience or complacency. In a competitive international environment,
an administrative system should faithfully adhere to the requisites of Total Quality
Management.
5. Maxim of Fusion: An administrator would rationally bring about a fusion of
individual, organizational and social goals to help evolve unison of ideals and imbibe
in his behavior a commitment to such a fusion. In situation of conflicting goals, a
concern for ethics should govern the choices made.
6. Maxim of Responsiveness and Resilience: An administrator would respond
effectively to the demands and challenges from the external as well as internal
environment. He would adapt to environmental transformation and yet sustain the
ethical norms of conduct. In situations of deviation from the prescribed ethical norms,
the administrative system would show resilience and bounce back into the accepted
ethical mould at the earliest opportunity.
7. Maxim of Utilitarianism: While making and implementing policies and decisions, an
administrator will ensure that these lead to the greatest good (happiness, benefits) of
the greatest number.
8. Maxim of Compassion: An administrator, without violating the prescribed laws and
rules, would demonstrate compassion for the poor, the disabled and the weak while
using his discretion in making decisions. At least, he would not grant any benefits to
the stronger section of society only because they are strong and would not deny the
due consideration to the weak, despite their weakness.
 11

9. Maxim of National Interest: Though universalistic in orientation and liberal in

outlook, a civil servant, while performing his duties, would keep in view the impact of
his action on his nation’s strength and prestige. The Japanese, the Koreans, the
Germans and the Chinese citizens (including civil servants), while performing their
official roles, have at the back of their mind a concern and respect for their nation.
This automatically raises the level of service rendered and the products delivered.
10. Maxim of Justice: Those responsible for formulation and execution of policies and
decisions of governance would ensure that respect is shown to the principles of
equality, equity, fairness, impartiality and objectivity and no special favors are doled
out on the criteria of status, position, power, gender, class, caste or wealth.
11. Maxim of Transparency: An administrator will make decisions and implement them
in a transparent manner so that those affected by the decisions and those who wish to
evaluate their rationale, will be able to understand the reasons behind such decisions
and the sources of information on which these decisions were made.
12. Maxim of Integrity: An administrator would undertake an administrative action on
the basis of honesty and not use his power, position and discretion to serve his
personal interest and the illegitimate interests of other individuals or groups.
 12

III - WORK ETHICS

An important dimension of ethics in public administration is work ethics. It represents
commitment, dedication, involvement, sincerity, love, productivity, punctuality, and
efficiency. Can we treat efficiency as `ethics’? Truly yes, an `efficient person is also an
ethical person. He or she possesses administrative morality that is essentially rooted in a
conviction in the desirability of ethical conduct.
Work ethics is a value based on hard work and diligence. Workers exhibiting a good work
ethics in theory should be selected for better positions, more responsibility and ultimately
promotion. Workers who fail to exhibit a good work ethics may be regarded as failing to
provide fair value for the wage the employer is paying them and should not be promoted or
placed in positions of greater responsibility. Hence, Work ethics is basically the belief that
work is a good moral.
Characteristics of having good work ethics

 Honest
 Values diversity
 Respect others
 Cooperative

Unethical conduct as displayed by some of the public servants:

1. Indulging in Corruption in high places by colluding with politicians, contractors,
corporate groups etc.
2. Committing Petty bribery
3. Misuse of power for personal benefits
4. Biased decisions to favor influential persons
5. Pilferage of public funds from government schemes and projects
6. Manipulation/withholding of information
7. Deliberate delays in service delivery
8. Non-application of mind, negligence and dereliction of duty
9. Collusion with tax payers to cheat the public exchequer
10. Intellectual dishonesty
11. Not speaking truth/hiding truth to please bosses out of fear of reprisal
12. Misuse of government facilities
13. Nepotism
14. Cover-up of-crime, frauds and financial irregularities
15. Being a party to electoral malpractices etc.
16. Abdication of responsibility and passing the buck
Why is that the quality of services and goods produced by the government organizations
relatively poorer than normally observed in non-governmental sector?
The answer might lie in systemic flaws – poor infrastructure, sloppy monitoring, lackluster
control and evaluation and almost an absence of reward and punishment system. Yet, the
 13

major factor behind the poor quality of output of public systems is the carelessness and
heartlessness on the part of government functionaries. Most of them do not have a feeling of
`one-ness’ with their organization and their job. They do not put in their best in their work
and are half-heartedly involved in their duties.
Strategies for improving work ethics:

1. There should be prescribed specific norms of productivity and work performance for
organizational units and even individuals.
2. A comprehensive and inclusive performance appraisal system should be adopted. This
would be feasible only if job is descriptive and role and responsibilities of each
position are specified.
3. There should be maximum delegation of powers at every level with a concurrent
system of effective monitoring and work audit.
4. Punctuality and promptness in administrative affairs must be valued and along with
the quality of work performed; these should become the criteria for reward and
punishment in organizations.
5. The seniors should lead by setting an ethical example. They should motivate their
juniors to take initiative, and responsibility, and also be enterprising and efficient.

Public administration is designed to serve `public’. It ought to be people-oriented and even

people-centered. Public administrative organizations are human organizations and they ought
to be humane in their policies, decisions, orientation and behavior. Being responsive to
people’s needs enjoins upon civil servants to be responsive to their psychological needs of
being cared for, nurtured, and helped.
 14

IV - ETHICAL LEADERSHIP
There is dual pillar approach to ethical leadership, namely: 1) Moral Person and 2) Moral
Manager.

Moral Person + Moral Manager = A Reputation for Ethical Leadership

Pillar one: Moral Person
Being ethical person is substantive basis of ethical leadership. An ethical person means that
people think of you as having traits, engaging in certain kinds of behavior, and making
decisions based upon ethical principles. Thus, ethical leadership is associated with traits,
behavior and decision.

 Traits: Traits are stable personal characteristics, meaning that individuals behave in
fairly predictable ways across time and situations and observes come to describe the
individual in those terms, e.g., integrity. Integrity is holistic attribute that encompasses
honesty and trustworthiness. Trustworthiness has to do with consistency, credibility,
and predictability in relationship. Honesty, sincerity, and forthrightness
(outspokenness) are also important.
 Behavior: ethical leaders “Do the right thing”, ethical leaders have “Concern for the
people”, ethical leaders are “being open”, and ethical leaders have “Personal
Morality”
 Decision-Making: Ethical leaders “hold to a solid set of ethical values and
principles.” They aim to be “objective and fair.” They also have a perspective that
goes beyond the bottom line to include “concern about the broader society and
community.”

Pillar two: Moral Manager

Moral manager, primarily, has three dimensions, namely:

 Role modeling through visible action simply means “You are demonstrating by
your example on and off the job, in other words, 24 hours a day, seven days a week;
you’re a model for what you believe in and the values.”
 Communicating about ethics and values: moral mangers need to talk about ethics
and values…in a way that explain the values that guide important decision and
actions. If people do not hear about ethics and values from the top, it is not clear to
employees that ethics and values are important.
 The Reward System: using rewards and discipline effectively may be the most
powerful way to send signals about desirable and undesirable conduct. That means
rewarding those who accomplish their goals by behaving in ways that are consistent
with stated values. It also means clearly disciplining employees at all levels when they
break the rules.
 15

Managerial Ethics
Ethics is difficult to define in a precise way. In general sense, ethics is the code of moral
principles and values that governs the behaviors of a person or group with respect to what is
right or wrong. Ethics sets standards as to what is good or bad in conduct and decision
making.

 Managers often face situations in which it is difficult to determine what is right.

 Managers might be torn between their misgivings and their sense of duty to their
bosses and the organization.
 Sometimes, managers want to take a stand but don’t have the backbone to go against
others, bring unfavorable attention to themselves, or risk their job.
When someone behaves ethically or unethically when faced with an ethical dilemma is
influenced by several things:

 Moral development,
 Individual characteristics (values and personality),
 The organization’s structural design (formal rules and regulations),
 The organization’s culture (shared organizational values), and
 The intensity of the ethical issue
o Greatness of harm,
o Consensus of wrong,
o Probability of harm,
o Immediacy of consequences,
o Proximity to victim(s), and
o Concentration of effect.
Research divides moral development into three levels, each having two stages, viz.: 1) The
preconventional level, 2) The conventional level, and 3) the principled level.
 16

What can we conclude about moral development?

 First, people proceed through the six stages sequentially.

 Second, there is no guarantee of continued moral development.
 Third, the majority of adults are at Stage 4: They’re limited to obeying the rules and
will be inclined to behave ethically, although for different reasons.
o A manager at stage 3 is likely to make decisions based on peer approval;
o A manager at stage 4 will try to be a “good corporate citizen” by making
decisions that respect the organization’s rules and procedures; and
o A stage 5 manager is likely to challenge organizational practices that he or she
believes to be wrong.
 17

V - RISING ABOVE THE MORAL MINIMUM: THE FOUR FAILINGS

There are four (4) obstacles that must be overcome by government at all levels to ensure that
the workforce can rise above the moral minimum, viz.: 1) leadership myopia, 2) lack of top
management awareness of misconduct, 3) history and culture, and 4) ethical illiteracy
(Menzel D.C., 2010).

Leadership myopia: that is, failing to recognize the importance of ethics in getting
the work of government done. It is not surprising that many government leaders do
not place a high priority on ethics and typically recognize its importance only after
there has been a serious ethical lapse. “Ethics may be only instrumental, it may be
only a means to an end, but it is a necessary means to an end.” The challenge is to
ensure that one understands the importance of ethics in carrying out the work of
government and then act on that understanding.
Lack of top management awareness of misconduct: As unimaginable as this may
be, many high level officials do not know what is happening in their organizations.
Organizational leaders must find the ways and means to be informed of misconduct
before a culture of ethical failure takes hold.
History and culture: Organizational scholars are quick to point out the enormous
influence of the past on the present. Indeed, historical tentacles and norms can be
deeply rooted in a culture that resists change and fosters benign neglect or, worse,
permits outright unethical behavior. The phrase “this is how we do things around
here” means just that—keep doing things the same way. The challenge is to find
leaders who are able and willing to break with the culture of the past.
Ethical illiteracy; Leaders and followers who are unable “to grasp fully the details
of complex ethical issues and to see all of the consequences of one’s actions”
suffer from ethical illiteracy. And it commonly surfaces when issues are seen from a
fatally narrow and limited legal perspective. The challenge in overcoming this
obstacle is to think and act outside the box of what the law requires. Sound ethical
judgment calls for more than meeting the moral minimum of the law.
There are two approaches that can be adopted to encourage behavior and prevent misconduct:
a compliance approach or an integrity approach, with the former the far more dominant.

 A compliance approach depends heavily on rules and practices that, if followed, are
designed to keep members of the organization out of trouble. Rules are typically
placed in personnel manuals, codes of conduct, and new employee orientation
sessions. Those who break the rules are presumed to do so out of ignorance or willful
intention…and can result in penalties ranging from a reprimand to suspension with or
without pay to getting fired. Those who commit misconduct out of ignorance are
treated less harshly but are expected to reform themselves. Ignorance is not an
excuse for misconduct as it is correctable.

Detection is the key to a successful compliance approach. Rules and penalties can be
drafted and put into place with ease in most instances. However, implementing an
 18

effective detection system can be challenging as it can turn into a negative influence if
it encourages “tattle-tale” culture.

 An integrity approach, in contrast to a compliance approach, empowers the

individual to make value judgments about right and wrong. It is value driven rather
than rule driven. It presumes that there are not always, maybe even seldom, bright
lines to help one choose the right thing to do. One must learn how to deal with ethical
challenges. The essential components of the integrity model are awareness,
leadership, aspirational value, and culture.

Values in an Integrity Approach:

 Productive
 Responsible
 Innovative
 Dedicated
 Ethical
 Honesty/integrity
 Respect/civility
 Accountability/responsibility
 Fairness/justice
 Transparency
 Quality
 Stewardship
 Equity
 19

VI - RESPONSIBILITY
Vincent E. Barry defined the term responsibility as “a sphere of duty or obligation assigned to
a person by the nature of that person’s position, function, or work.” The term responsibility is
viewed as a bundle of obligations associated with a job or function. Responsibility refers to
more than just the primary function of a role; it refers to the multiple facets of that function –
both processes and outcomes (and consequences of the acts performed as part of that bundler
of obligations). Role here refers to a job description, which, in turn, encompasses, but is not
limited to, function. For instance, a practitioner’s role may be that of media relation. Function
would refer to the specifics of the job, including press release, writing and dissemination, as
well as the maintenance of good media relations.

Responsibility has two types, namely: 1) functional responsibility and 2) moral responsibility.
The former refers to the functional obligations of the role. The latter refers to the moral
obligations of the role. For instance, the functional obligation of a teacher is as stated in
section 16 of the education act of 1982 is to perform his duties to the school by discharging
his responsibilities in accordance with the philosophy, goals, and objectives of the school.
Whereas, the moral obligation of a teacher as stated in the section 6, article 8 of the code of
ethics for professional teachers is he/she shall base the evaluation of the learners’ work only
in merit and quality of academic performance.

In many cases the functional obligations may be sufficient, but responsibility can also include
moral obligations that are in addition and usually related to the functional obligations of the
role. Moral responsibility for Aristotle was viewed as originating with the moral agent
(decision maker), and grew out of an ability to reason (an awareness of action and
consequences) and a willingness to act free from external compulsion.

RESPONSIBILITY OF A PUBLIC OFFICIAL

FUNTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY MORAL RESPONSIBILITY
Serve the public Display honesty
Promote public interest Show integrity
Be responsible and accountable Be respectful
Be transparent Avoid impropriety
Report wrong doings Fairness

From the point of view of Public Administration, the term responsibility has four different
meanings:

1. Responsibility as “capacity”: it refers to the ability or the authority of the public

servant to act. The existence of a set of law and regulations define the capacity of the
authority of the public office to perform his or her duties. For instance, Sec 17 of the
article VII of the 1987 Philippines constitution averred that “The President shall have
 20

control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the
laws be faithfully executed.”
2. Responsibility as “accountability”: it refers to the obligation that public officials have
of providing information, explanations and/or justifications to a superior authority –
internal and external – for their performance in the execution of their functions. There
is always the duty for the public officials to give account for their activity of a
superior authority. Sec 1 of the article XI of the 1987 Philippines constitution averred
that “Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be
accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty,
and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.”
3. Responsibility as “liability”: it refers to the assumption of the consequences of one’s
own acts, and sometimes, also of acts carried out by others, when these acts take place
within take place within the field of authority of the ultimate responsible
administrator. These consequences may imply the imposition of a sanction –
resignation, dismissal, disciplinary, penalty, etc. – and the compensation for the
damage caused, but they may also have positive implications for the official that acted
correctly or in an exemplary manner. Sec 2 of the article XI of the 1987 Philippines
constitution averred that “The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the
Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the
Ombudsman may be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of,
culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other
high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may
be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.
4. Responsibility as “virtue”: it refers the conscious and correct attitude or performance
of the public officials. In this sense, one can say that an official is responsible when
he/she acts in a conscious manner and performs his/her duties in the correct and legal
way. . Sec 1 of the article XI of the 1987 Philippines constitution averred that “Public
office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable
to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency,
act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.”
 21

VII - GOVERNANCE
The term “governance” means different things to different people according to Asian
Development Bank (1999).

 “The manner in which power is exercised in the management of a country’s

economic and social resources for development.” – Asian Development Bank
 “The process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are
implemented (or not implemented). – United Nations Economic and Social
Commission for Asia and the Pacific
 The sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private,
manage their common affairs. It is a continuing process through which conflicting or
diverse interests may be accommodated and co-operative action may be taken. It
includes formal institutions and regimes empowered to enforce compliance, as well
as informal arrangements that people and institutions either have agreed to or
perceive to be in their interest. - Commission on Global Governance
 “Governance” signifies a transformation from a type of relationship where one side
governs the other to a set of relationships where mutual interaction takes place in
order to make desirable choices for the citizens. Thus, governance forms the political,
economic and administrative power that societies use to administer their activities. It
involves the mechanisms, processes, and institutions that citizens, groups and
societies utilize in joint decision-making and implementation, in expressing their
interest and in fulfilling their obligations as well as solving conflicts. In this context,
governance points out to the nature of mutual interaction among social actors as well
as between social actors and public administration, and it contains the meaning of
“joint government”.
 Governance means governing together. - Fikret Toksöz

Governance in public administration indicates that the decision-making process is carried out
in cooperation with the participation of all stakeholders and that managers act in
conciliatory, transparent, accountable, effective and responsible manner (Good Governance:
Improving Quality of Life, Fikret Toksöz).

 In other words, government is run not only by a group of elected but also with the
involvement of other types of groups such as civil society organizations, professional
chambers, private sector organizations, universities, etc. (Good Governance:
Improving Quality of Life, Fikret Toksöz).
 Within the concept of governance, it is expected that the managers take decisions in
ways open to the public and that they involve all stakeholders into the process while
demonstrating a government model based on information and consensus (Good
Governance: Improving Quality of Life, Fikret Toksöz).
What does Governance Do?

 Brings public administration closer to the citizen.

 Makes public administration more effective.
 22

 Ensures combating corruption.

 Ensures the participation of different stakeholders to government by voicing their
opinion, which enriches the content of the decisions and improves the effectiveness of
their implementation.
 Strengthens democracy.
 Improves the legitimacy of institutions
 Ensures that decisions and processes are open and understandable (Good Governance:
Improving Quality of Life, Fikret Toksöz).
“Good governance” is a normative conception of the values according to which the act of
governance is realized, and the method by which groups of social actors interact in a certain
social context (Good Governance in Multiethnic Communities).

Expectations from the Public Servants in Governance

 Humanism and positive thinking in government servants.

 To imbue purity in thought, speech and action.
 Realizing the dignity of being a government servant.
 Appreciating his/her placement in government as an opportunity to serve the society
rather than a lucrative position to amass wealth.
 Understanding the sanctity of Public Funds so that they utilize them without leakages
thereby providing maximum benefit to the citizens.
 Ability to satisfy himself/herself with the government salary and benefits and to
imbue the philosophy of ‘Simple living and high thinking’.
 Display of ‘Sense of justice and impartiality’ during decision making.
 Ability to stand up to truth despite adversity, fears and threats.
 Develop self-confidence & faith in oneself and in one’s ideas even if everyone
condemns them as wrong.
 Motivate them to be the change they want to see in the society.
 Fresh thinking, renewed energy and rejuvenation to do something extra-ordinary and
useful to the society.
 Empathy for citizens, especially for vulnerable sections of society such as women,
children, elderly and differently abled persons.
 Inculcate ‘Rational thinking’, ‘Self-accountability’ and ‘Self transparency’ which are
benchmarks of ethical conduct.
 Finally, to motivate the employees to adhere to higher ideals in life and to walk on the
path of truth and righteousness, come what may, and become a role model for others
in the society.

VIII – ACCOUNTABILITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Accountability is one of the elements of good governance along with participation,

predictability, and transparency. Good governance, as we know, is a normative conception of
the values according to which the act of governance is realized, and the method by which
groups of social actors interact in a certain social context.
 23

It is very important that we accept the notion and of course we practice the notion that
accountability is imperative to make public officials answerable for government behavior and
responsive to the entity from which they derive their authority.

For this reason, I encourage everyone that one of the requirements should be considered for
this upcoming national and local election is the commitment to strengthen and execute public
accountability.

Geoff Hunt defined accountability as “the readiness or preparedness to give an

explanation or justification to relevant others (stakeholders) for one’s judgement,
intentions, acts and omissions when appropriately called upon to do so…” This definition
implies that we have this obligation to give an explanation or justification to relevant
stakeholders related to how we disposed our affairs.

The concept of accountability involves two distinct stages: answerability and enforcement.

 Answerability refers to the obligation of government and other power holders to

provide information on, and explanations of, their decisions and actions.
 Enforcement is the process of individual citizens, mass media or civil society
imposing sanctions on power holders who violate their public duties or fail to provide
a satisfactory account of their decisions and actions.

The simplest formula is that a person can be held accountable if (1) the person is functionally
and/or morally responsible for an action, (2) some harm occurred due to that action, and (3)
the responsible person had no legitimate excuse for the action.

WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE?
Politicians and politically  Elected officials
appointed leaders  Appointed officials
 Bureaucrats
Public officials and agencies
 Departments and Agencies
The reasons for this are varied: the rise in contracting out
Non-governmental actors:
for public service delivery, increased numbers of public-
NGOs, CSOs, private sector,
private partnerships, and NGO/CSO participation in policy
citizens
networks.
ACCOUNTABLE TO WHOM?
Among these entities are, for example: anticorruption
agencies, supreme audit institutions, electoral
State entities
commissions, constitutional courts, and ombudsman
offices.
Citizens and civil society
Special publics and
marginalized/excluded
groups
International stakeholders
 24

Public accountability, therefore, is the responsibility of public officials (object of

accountability) to justify their conduct and performance to citizens, media and CSOs
(agents of accountability) using accountability mechanisms (policies or institutions) through
which public officials can be held accountable. It is also the responsibility of citizens to
extract accountability from public officials.

MECHANISMS OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY could be internal to the government or

external.
1. Internal accountability imposed upon the government within (executive,
legislative and judicial). We have intradepartmental (a government body
monitoring the performance of its staff internally, e.g. executive) and
interdepartmental accountability (a government body scrutinizing the activities of
another government department, e.g. executive to legislative and vice versa).
2. External accountability imposed upon the government from outside, by citizens,
civil society organizations and media.

THERE ARE FOUR SOLID FOUNDATIONS OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY:

1. Appropriate representation: representation of citizens by capable and reliable
officials for policy making process. Electing/appointing officials through an objective
and transparent process.
2. Citizen’s participation: participation of stakeholders like citizens in policy making
process.
3. Legitimate conduct: Transparent, fair and equitable functioning of the government to
ensure healthy governance.
4. Liability Enforcement: application of sanctions based on conduct and performance of
the government.

BUT, these four foundations of public accountability have been severely weakened by
constraints:
1. Lack defined criteria and transparency
2. Low involvement in policy making process
3. Loopholes in implementation of policies
4. Corrupt and lengthy prosecution of officials

To strengthen the foundations of public accountability, initiatives are needed in six areas:
1. Information: enhance transparency in government functioning by improving
information disclosure and accessibility (e.g. provide information about expenses
incurred by the public officials)
2. Impartiality: increase transparency and objectivity in appointment, transfer and
performance assessment of public officials (e.g. provide public access to
information on reasons and criteria for transfer of public officials, especially in
senior posts).
 25

3. Implementation: strengthen implementation of polices by monitoring their

progress and penalizing poor conduct of officials responsible for these policies
(e.g. attach incentives and penalties to the performance of officers, to encourage
better performance and achieve higher compliance).
4. Infrastructure: provide adequate infrastructure support in the form of personnel,
technology and funds (e.g. provide adequate training to officials implementing
schemes/policies, provide platforms to encourage citizen’s interaction with
government)
5. Independence: empower monitoring agencies and decentralize authority, to enable
them to function effectively (e.g. empower local government authorities through
administrative and fiscal decentralization).
6. Involvement: increase involvement and participation of citizens in seeking
accountability for non-performance (e.g. Citizens and CSO’s should participate in
policy and budget formulation, by providing their views or opinions )

Accountability in Public Enterprises

Public enterprises were created in most countries to accelerate economic and social
development. Yet, increasing evidence indicates that most public enterprises either do not
contribute strongly to development or perform their public service functions ineffectively or
inefficiently.
There is a widespread perception around the world that public enterprises have not delivered
what was expected from them – instead of pursuing public interests they are increasingly seen
as pursuing private interests. Most public enterprise argue that they are not for profit. Yet,
they have not given a satisfactory answer to the question: “if not for profit then for what?”
At the core, accountability is a simple concept. It means holding public enterprise to account
– i.e. asking Pes to present their accounts in terms of “expectations” and “achievements.” A
review of literature reveals two main reasons for a lack of accountability in PEs, namely: 1)
Unclear expectations – multiple principal with multiple goals and 2) the “not me” Syndrome.
Accountability has two dimensions (1) vertical dimensions and (2) horizontal dimensions.
Vertical accountability, where the citizen or civil society is the principal, is demanded from
below by citizens, mass media or civil society. Horizontal accountability where the
institutions of the state check abuses by other public agencies and branches of government,
and impose a requirement to report sideways.

There are four forms of accountability, namely: 1) political accountability, 2) administrative

accountability, 3) professional accountability, and 4) democratic accountability.

1. Political accountability: acting following the political and pragmatic provisions adopted by
the government.
2. Administrative accountability: acting in full compliance with legally established rules and
procedures.
3. Professional accountability: acting in full compliance with the technical rules and practices of
the profession.
4. Democratic accountability: acting according with the needs and interests of social groups or
society as a whole.
 26

Reading materials/References:
 27

 Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics by Ruth W. Grant and Robert
O. Keohane
 Accountability and Ethics: Reconsidering the Relationships by Melvin J. Dubnick
 Accountability And Ethics: Reconsidering the Relationships by Melvin J. Dubnick
 Accountability and Public Administration: Concepts, Dimensions, Development by
Antonio Bar Cendon
 Accountability Conceptual Framework by Massimo Felici
 Chapter 1 & 2 of the book entitled “Ethics Moments in Government: Cases and
Controversies” by Donald C. Menzel
 Chapter 1 of the book entitled “Ethics Moments in Government: Cases and
Controversies” by Donald C. Menzel
 Chapter 1, 4, and 5 of the book entitled “Ethics in Public Administration: A
Philosophical Approach” by Patrick J. Sheeran
 Chapter 5 of the book entitled Management (11th ed.) by Robbins and Coulter (2012).
 Conceptualizing accountability: An approach to measurement by BBC Media Action
 Good Governance: Improving Quality of Life by Fikret Toksöz
 Governance: Sound Development Management by Asian Development Bank
 Moral Person and Moral Manager: How Executive Develop A Reputation for Ethical
Leadership by Linda Klebe Trevino, Laura Pincus Hartman & Michael Brown
 The Power of Public Accountability by Jay P. Desai
 Training Program on “Work Ethics for Development Professionals” by National
Institute of Agricultural Extension Management
 What is Good Governance? By United Nations Economic and Social Commission for
Asia and the Pacific