Page (56)

(Case Study # 2)

WANTED: DEAD HEROES

Question:
If you were in Rick’s shoes, how will you respond to the situation ?. Will
you allow Alonzo to pass through or not ? Why and why not?

Ans.
If I were Rick, I will not allow a certain Alonzo, an alleged
Army Colonel to pass through because he violated the law. Considering that we were
outnumbered, I will call immediately the nearest police stations in the area to ask for
police assistance. I will inform Alonzo, an alleged Army Colonel, of his constitutional
rights. An Army Colonel named “Alonzo”, was in “flagrante delicto” committing an act in
violation of anti-illegal logging act. Being a government official with a rank of Colonel, he
knew if what is right and wrong. He will be criminally and administratively liable for
violation of the law. The Philippine Army is not only the protector of the Filipino people
but also a partner in nation building, true to its slogan, “At your service, across the land”.
And if ever Colonel Alonzo insists to leave I will report him to his superior officer and I
will seek assistance from a police to conduct hot pursuit operation in order to
arrest Colonel Alonzo.
 Page (58)
(Case Study # 3)

WHAT ELSE CAN I DO ?

Question:
Do you agree with Glenda? Why?
Is whistle blowing to the media acceptable as whistle blowing to an elected
national official ?

Ans.
Yes, Glenda is right.
Being a government employee, you should uphold the public interest over and above
persona interest. In this case, Glenda’s decision that she will not prepare the
paperwork to justify allowing the ACME Mining Company to start an open-pit mining in
an area where they have no time to do a proper environmental impact study is correct.
As a public official concern, you should always adhere to the proper rules and
regulations for the welfare of the people. Furthermore, Glenda’s decision to report to
Senator Enriquez, being the Chairman of the Committee on Environment and Natural
Resources is tenable because she (Glenda) has no other choice but to report it to the
higher authorities. Glenda is just doing her job to uphold the public interest over and
above her personal interest. If she will grant the request of her Division Chief, what will
happen? Probably, the proposed project will pose hazard to the environment and/or to
its surrounding community.
If ever Senator Enriquez would not take any action regarding the complaint of
Glenda, she can go to the media or press to report the said issue.
 Page (59)
(Case Study # 4)
PICK ME UP

Question:
Ronie is now in quandary. Now , if you are in Ronnie ‘s shoes, what would
you do ?
Ans.
Gift-giving is a part of our culture. Being a public or government employee you
can accept gifts only that are nominal and insignificant. In this case, Ronnie de Guzman
did his job promptly and effectively, the reason why the title was awarded to Mrs.
Santos immediately. Ronnie de Guzman performs his duties and responsibilities and
he did not demand money or gifts from Mrs. Santos, hence he is not be held
administratively liable. The envelope (crisp of money) left by Mrs. Santos is a token of
appreciation. It cannot be considered as bribe since the gift is given after the service
without any hint of bribery and demand from Mrs. Santos. But if I were in Ronnie’s
shoes, I will follow Mrs. Santos and return the envelope. But if I can’t find her, I am left
with no choice and just keep it and consider it as a token of appreciation. Section 3 (c )
of RA 6713 otherwise known as “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees” provides that “gift” refers to a thing or a right to dispose of
gratuitously, or any act of liberality, in favor of another who accepts it, and shall include
a simulated sale or an ostensibly onerous disposition thereof. It shall not include an
unsolicited gift of nominal or insignificant value not given in anticipation of, or in
exchange for, a favor from a public official or employee.
 Page (60)
(Case Study # 5)

BRING HOME OFFICE GOODIES

Question:
Which side would you take ? Cynthia’s side of Mely ? Why ?
Ans.
At this point, I take Cynthia’s side because I know that it is wrong; and why would
I resort to something wrong? If I can afford to buy my own pen, I would, it will not hurt
my budget. I even bought my own stapler so that I can call it my own; it’s not a big deal.
At the office, I use scratch papers when printing if it is for office filing so that I can
minimize the expenses. Yes, we do have an annual budget but that doesn’t mean that I
have all the right to get what I want because it’s in the budget; that is not fair for the
government. Not only that, when an employee is caught stealing, it sends a troubling
message to the general public and this can cause trust issues which is now in contrary
to the conduct that a civil service employee should be; to think of the welfare of the
people above personal gain. Company assets are meant for business, and not for
personal use. Office employees all have a responsibility to protect and safeguard
company assets from loss, theft, misuse and waste. Even the smallest supplies such as
the staple wire or pen are authorized for business purposes and should never be used
personally.
 Page (61)
(Case study # 6 )

MORE THAN CASINOS

Question:
What can you say about this?
Is something legal also automatically moral ? What do you think ?
Ans.
The viewpoint in this case is subjective as it depends highly on the ideology that
the person holds. If a person is more of a Christian virtues’ follower, he might simply say
that gambling is a wrong and it should never be implemented for any cause. However,
another viewpoint may come from a Machiavellian philosophy, he might say that “the
end justified the mean”. In my case, I am a Machiavellian therefore I believe that it’s
alright to conduct gambling for the sake of its beneficiaries. But when only a small
portion of the income from gambling is given to its beneficiaries, then it’s another
conversation. I saw how the government worked through the PAGCOR in helping street
children changes their current status, in given them a chance to have a comfortable life.
For me, it’s one of the government’s ways to distribute the unequal wealth throughout
our country. I like the concept since it’s a social responsibility through irresponsibility.
However, this agency does not exploit those who can afford to spend thousands to
millions in casinos for the sake of those in the lower economic sector of the country.
They are enjoying as they are entertained by the games that the casinos had offered
them. Plus, these gamblers are not forced to play at the casinos ran by PAGCOR. They
willfully enter and spend on the casino’s premises. In fact, I applaud this agency more
than hundreds of religious organizations which collect money from their members in
threat of burning the rest of their eternal lives in hell or the promise of going to heaven.
There are several religious organizations which didn’t care about the social welfare.
 Page (62)
(Case Study # 7)

I CAN AFFORD ANYWAY

Question:
If you were this employee, would you agree with her opinion re-garding the
CSC’s dress code
Ans.
I disagree with the typical government employee earning P8, 000 a month whose
husband earning $500 a month who said that, “CSC does not have the right to tell
people what to wear” because CSC, being the central personnel agency of the
government, has all the right to prescribe the Dress Code for government officials and
employees so that everyone shall be dressed in appropriate business attire. If the office
wants us to look professional, then why aren’t they setting aside fund for uniforms?
Aside from the fact that it would be another expense to the fund; some companies
prefer to allow employees to dress freely or casually for comfort and a dress that
maintains a professional image. Let’s say that the employee in the scenario is a
dedicated employee, but as per description, it does not show in her attire; (1) wearing
flashy clothes and jewelries; (2) wearing three bracelets, three gold rings, earrings and
anklet; and (3) her dress are given by her husband or bought on installment. Where now
is the norm of conduct-simple living? As stated, employees shall lead modest lives
appropriate to their positions and income; they shall not indulge in extravagant or
ostentatious display of wealthy in any form.
 Page (63)
(Case Study # 8 )

GIFT GALORE
Question:
Josie just shrugged her shoulder in resignation.
Who do you think between Adora and josie is right ? Why?
Ans.
Adora was right when she said that RA 6713 ruled that employees can accept
gifts that are nominal or insignificant. But when is a gift nominal or not? When is a gift
not a gift? Is it to influence a relationship or induce improper conduct? Or a simple token
of thanks? What constitutes a “lavish” gift or hospitality can be difficult to judge. For
example, Adora received an expensive Ignorant cloth costing around P2,400 may seem
minor to a PNP Director, who gave it to her, but can be significantly valued to a lower-
level police. Sometimes, the exact value can also be hard to determine because she
receives it one after another, in pieces, not in bulk, so we cannot tell if those are in low
value but once summed up – it is no longer minimal. Another note would be accepting
gifts because of a job or transaction done. Each of the employees has their own specific
tasks and requires their time and focus, so basically, it is their job and they are paid by
the agency for doing so. Why would you accept a gift for doing a routinely transaction?
What is the whole point of giving or accepting gifts after tendering a process? Gift giving
or hospitality to certain persons, for example public officials, is often construed as a
facilitation payment and can cause suspicions. The principle of reciprocity is applied in
this scenario. If one accepts offer from applicants suppliers or clients and asks a
reciprocal favor, then it is advisable to not accept it. Gift-giving should never be done in
exchange of personal benefit.
 Page (64)
(Case Study # 9)

“FOR OFFICIAL USE ALSO”

Question:
If you happen to chance upon a government vehicle pared in places where
you least ecpect a government official may transact business with, what will you
take time to report the incident to the Ombudsman? If not , what will you do?
Why ?
Ans.
But if I happen to have the necessary proof such as the type of vehicle, the plate
number, and the place where I found the vehicle and pictures then I have all the right to
report it. But first, I will kindly approach the person involved; and if I get reprimanded,
threatened or provided with a non-satisfactory explanation then I shall raise it to the
Ombudsman so that formal investigation will be conducted and to determine the
appropriate sanctions to be imposed.
I will not be afraid to report such anomaly or unofficial use of government vehicles
because I am also paying my taxes. Misuse of these government vehicles means
robbing us, taxpayers, millions of funds. They derive such powers because of the public
and our taxes sustain their salaries and other benefits; therefore, they should serving as
well than serving their selves well. They must recall that public officials are expected
with due diligence to effectively, efficiently, honestly and economically use government
resources and powers to avoid wastage in public funds and revenues with high
standards of ethics.
 Page (66)
(Case Study # 10 )

HE DOES, I DO

Question:
What do you think? Who is right , Roy or his boss?
Ans.
Both of them, and us, have choices in all things in life. If we see someone
arriving late, let’s not make it a big deal since what he does with his time doesn’t matter
at all to us that much. Roy cannot change his director’s tardiness, but he can always
change his. Let this be a gentle reminder to him in a gentle tone and his director might
get the message. If you change yourself and your perspective on things, it’s as if others
have changed as well. We are all responsible individuals, we will only take on as much
as we can handle. If we are reliable, we will meet our commitments to others or break
our commitment professionally if we cannot make it. If we are smart, we will prioritize
our activities. If we are considerate, we will plan ahead, show up early and set ourselves
as good example to others. Being late is not in our DNA. It is not something that we
inherit from our family. It is not a characteristic trait. It is just a habit, and like all other
habits, it can be broken or preserved. It is just a matter of personal choice and priority.
 Page (54)
Case study # 1

AN ISLAND STORM
Question:
If you were the official concerned. what would you do after knowing the
findings of the chemist ? How would you show commitment to public in-terest in
this case ?
Ans.
If I were the official concerned after knowing the findings of the chemist is a
cause for action; to wit:
(1) Every resort shall apply or have an environmental clearance before operating. This
is necessary to ensure that the ecology of the area is not disturbed. Each resort should
have a proper detail of their projects like the usage of water and energy at the resort;
their impact on the water and air, transportation, solid waste and its mitigation steps and
most especially the health and well-being of the workers. If a certain resort continues to
operate without the clearance, they will be sanctioned.

(2) Proper information dissemination about health and sanitation and proper waste
disposal will be realized to educate the locals. The presence of coliform bacteria will not
necessarily make you ill but since these organisms are present, other disease-causing
organism may be present, which causes the illness. This risk dictates that water must
be boiled to kill the organisms before drinking or one option is to also obtain bottled
water from a safe source which is separated from sources of contamination on a
temporary basis. Bathing should pose no risk, although reasonable care should be
taken to insure that children do not swallow water by sucking on washcloths or sponges.

These precautions should be taken if the water smells or tastes unusual. If test results
confirm that there is still a problem, locals should continue with precautions until
subsequent test results show absence of bacterial contamination. Banning tourist from
swimming will also be implemented to avoid further complications.

(3) Have the officials, volunteers and the locals inspect the surrounding areas for
sources of pollution such as garbage, animal pens, barns and agricultural areas
(including home garden). The beach and other publicly used recreational areas should
be tested at least once a week. Additional testing may be warranted after floods or
periods of heavy rain when swimming areas are more vulnerable to runoff
contamination. Locals with pond or swimming hole should test for water quality
periodically throughout the summer months. Drinking water taken from well or springs
should be tested for coliform once a year.
Yes, these actions can take a while and can cause a delay especially with the economy
of the community but to take a strong consideration of the health and wellness of the
people, these actions should be properly taken care of. Tourism versus health; health
should always come first. If everything continues to be normal, then we can lift the ban
and we can take this beautiful island back to where it is supposed to be, an international
tourist spot.
LESSON III
THE
CASES
4

LESSON II
OTHER PERTINIENT PROVISIONS OF
THE CODE
 LESSON 1
THE NORMS OF CONDUCT FOR PUBLIC
OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES
 DISTANCE LEARNING PROGRAM
ON THE RULES OF CONDUCT AND
ETHICAL BEHAVIOR IN THE CIVIL
SERVICE

Dan Gil V. Añonuevo