Honesty also a governance issue

I FULLY concur with Neal Cruz: “Even if legal, GOCC bonuses are immoral” (Opinion, 1/17/14). This column of his brings to the fore an aspect of governance that has turned into an issue of concern among rightthinking citizens of this country—ethics in public service.

Morality, indeed, is an acknowledged ethical standard of official conduct in government. However, it is sad to note that government service’s ethical aspect appears to be put aside by the undue emphasis on its legal and technical aspects.

The ethical side of public service ought to be of primary concern. This means the morality and propriety of official behavior should be taken into account as much as the legality and regularity of official acts. In a real sense, the conduct of government affairs must be judged not only by its legality but also by its propriety or morality. In other words, government functionaries should be guided not only by what is legal but also by the demands of morality. It therefore behooves public officials not only to act legally but also to behave ethically. This is to say that morality should coincide with the law.

There can be no denying that an act may be legal but is not necessarily moral or proper. Any power, albeit granted by law, is susceptible to abuse or improvident exercise impelled by a vicious and distorted sense of morality or spiritual values on the part of the officials.

Significantly, among the constitutional and statutory powers of the Ombudsman is the man date to “investigate on its own any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient” (Sec. 13[1], Art. XI, 1987 Constitution). Under Republic Act No. 6770, the Ombudsman has the power to “prosecute on its own” any such act or omission. The Ombudsman has the additional power to “make recommendations for the observance of high standards of ethics” in the government (Sec. 13[7], Art. XI, 1987 Constitution; Sec. 15[7], RA 6770), in line with the policy of the state to promote a high standard of ethics in public service. (RA 6713)

Addressing the issue of morality and propriety of these extra pecuniary benefits is, thus, imperative

Interestingly, the Ombudsman has the standby power to act on complaints relating to acts or omissions which “are in the exercise of discretionary powers but for an improper purpose” or “are otherwise irregular, immoral or devoid of justification.” (Sec. 19[5] and [6], RA 6770)

The ethical implication of this prescription of powers for the Ombudsman is self-evident. Clearly, not only the legality but also the morality, justness or propriety of official conduct is a principal concern of the Ombudsman.

Now, the GOCC (governmentowned and -controlled corporation) executives concerned may vigorously insist that their collection of fabulously excessive bonuses and allowances has legal basis, but there is always the inevitably asked question of their morality. At the very least, the grant of these bonuses and allowances is of dubious propriety or questionable morality.

Additionally, it can be truly said that the payment to GOCC executives of scandalously excessive bonuses and allowances, as authorized by themselves, is easily traceable to and motivated by greed. Like I always say, greed is the root cause of most, if not all, of the ills of this world. I agree with Cruz that greed for money and more money motivates GOCC executives to award themselves excessive perks on top of their basic salaries in various forms and sorts of bonuses and allowances.

Addressing the issue of morality and propriety of these extra pecuniary benefits is, thus, imperative. Methinks that, under the circumstances, the Office of the Ombudsman can effectively discharge this responsibility as a constitutional mechanism for enforcement of public accountability. It is challenged to motu proprio perform its constitutional duty as “protector of the people” in a proactive manner by aggressively looking into the public clamor against such abusive and inordinate spending of public funds by GOCC executives. Fiscal discipline may yet be instilled in our government. —BARTOLOME C. FERNANDEZ JR.,

5431 Curie St., Palanan, Makati City