INTRODUCTION

Naveen and his friend are both public officials. They have a duty to uphold the law and
serve the Filipino citizens. As a social worker, Naveen assists people and communities to
improve their lives. He help meet their basic and complex needs. Meanwhile, as policeman the
superintendent is responsible for maintaining public order and safety, enforcing the law, and
preventing, detecting, or investigating criminal activities. There are people who greatly
appreciate the service they provide. Some of Naveen's clients offered him gifts as a token of
appreciation. At first he refused, but eventually accepted the money because they insisted. His
friend was presented with an ethical dilemma because he knows that the law prohibits them
from accepting anything for their service. By the books, Naveen accepted bribery, which is a
serious offense. As an on duty police, Naveen's friend is torn between his duty to uphold the
law and his accountability as a friend. Is there a way for him to fulfill both responsibilities?
What ethical principles should he consider in making his decision?

Any public official may experience this concern. The case of Naveen exemplifies the
problem concerning professional ethics and personal relation. This case study will discuss,
analyzed, and attempt to resolve the issue.

1. Facts of the case

1.1 Personae (persons involved in the case)

Naveen

 Assistant Director in the Social Welfare Department.

 Longtime friend of Police Deputy Superintendent.
 Accepted clients’ token of appreciation.
 Unintentionally made a confessed of accepting bribes to the Police Deputy
Superintendent.
 Unaware of the ethical dilemma his friend experiences.

Naveen’s Friend

 On duty cop.
 Police Deputy Superintendent.
 Longtime friend of Naveen.
 Listened to Naveen’s story of receiving money from clients.
  He is about to make a decision regarding the ethical dilemma presented to him.

1.2 Setting (location/place where the case happen)

 Naveen accepted bribes in his office at the Social Welfare Department.
 The friends had lunch in a restaurant.

Summary

Longtime friends, Naveen and the Police Superintendent had lunch together. Naveen
was happy for his promotion as Assistant Director in Social Welfare Department. He expressed
how much he enjoys his work because it gives him opportunity to help the poor. Without
thinking, Naveen told the superintendent that he was accepting money from clients who were
satisfied with his speedy service. The superintendent knows that it is prohibited. However, he
considers Naveen as family. He experiences an ethical dilemma.

Definition of Terms

 Bribe is anything given or promised that will influence the judgment or action of a
person (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, n.d.).
 Bribery is the act of offering, giving, or receiving any item with value that will influence
the actions of a person with a public or legal duty [ CITATION Cor \l 1033 ].
 Deputy Superintendent of Police is a rank in the police force that is above the assistant
superintendent and below the superintendent (“Deputy Superintendent of Police”,
n.d.).
 Social Welfare Assistant is an employee that assist social workers within in a particular
area were social and community welfare services are provided (Law Insider Dictionary,
n.d.).

Ethical Dilemma

Should the Police Superintendent fulfill his duty to uphold the law or protect his friend?

2. Analysis In analyzing the alternatives kindly discuss the pros And cons
Option A: I will not report Naveen’s misconduct. Although I have a different conception of
bribery, I respect Naveen’s autonomy. Naveen accepted the money as a token of appreciation.
For him, it was a gift and not a bribe.
  Following the principle of Nonmaleficence, I will not report Naveen because it will harm
him.
 Based on Utilitarianism, I will not report Naveen because many people will become
unhappy. Naveen and his clients will likely face charges of bribery. They will have to
spend a lot of money for a legal representative. More importantly, they will end up in
jail if found guilty.
 I will not report Naveen under one condition, he will not infringe the rights of other
people including his clients. He has to treat all his clients similarly. Money should not
affect his judgment and actions. This follows Libertarianism.
Advantage

 I will not become an interference to Naveen’s happiness. During lunch, Naveen

expressed how much he loves his work. He reasoned that it gives him the opportunity to
help the poor.
 Naveen’s clients will no longer feel indebted to him because they were able to pay him.
 Naveen will be able to keep his job.
 Naveen will not face criminal charges.
Disadvantage

 Naveen will likely assume that it is okay to accept more money from his clients because
they insist.
 Naveen will likely expect money from his future clients. He may treat others
indifferently for not rewarding his service.
 I will violate the law and fail to fulfill my duty.
 Naveen and his clients’ happiness is temporary. There is a possibility that they will face
the law in the near future.
 If Naveen continues to accept more money, he will likely face more criminal charges in
the future.
Option B: I will confront Naveen about his wrongdoings and advise him to surrender to the
police.

 I will tell Naveen the possible consequences of his action. Hopefully, it will stop him
from breaking the law. This follows the principle of Beneficence because I am trying to
prevent further damage to his career.
 I will advise him to surrender to the police. If he do so, hopefully he will be charged with
a lesser offence.
Advantages

 By surrendering to the police, Naveen will help rid the department of corruption.
 Naveen will serve as a role model for his colleagues.
  Clients of the department will learn to simply thank public officials.
Disadvantages

 Naveen my not heed my advice and force me to file a complaint.

 Naveen may disagree with me and end our friendship.
Option C: I will file a complaint against Naveen.

 I will report Naveen because it is my duty to uphold the law. The Philippine Constitution
clearly prohibits public officials from accepting anything for their service.
Advantage

 I will be able to perform my duty as a policeman and a law abiding citizen.

 Naveen will become aware of his misconduct.
 Reporting Naveen will prevent him from indulging in corruption and have a twisted
sense of duty.
Disadvantage

 Naveen will likely detest me for reporting him, which may break our friendship.
 Naveen will likely lose his job and end up in jail.
 The public will no longer trust Naveen.

3. Resolution why is it that you are using I whereas this is a group activity?
I have decided to warn Naveen of the potential consequences of his action and advise
him to surrender to the police. I believe that it is best to follow the principle of Beneficence. As
the Deputy Superintendent, it is my duty to uphold the law but I also have a moral obligation to
act towards the benefit of others regardless of personal relations. If Naveen surrender to the
police, the charges against him will likely be reduced. The Rules of Court allow plea bargaining.
He will likely plead guilty to a lesser offence. This is more probable to happen because it is his
first offense. I have to make Naveen realize that he is wrong. Following the right procedure is
the only way to prevent further harm. More importantly, I will not be able to charge or arrest
my friend because all I have is circumstantial evidence. If he continue to accept money he will
likely become indulge with corruption. My beloved friend who loves to help the poor will gain a
twisted sense of duty. He will always expect to be rewarded for his service and will end up
doing his job purely for money.
If Naveen do not heed my advice, I will be force to file a complaint against him. After all,
it is my duty to uphold the law. I cannot allow anyone, even a friend to break the law. In
accordance with the law, the PNP, NBI, and the Office of the Ombudsman can investigate public
officials upon receiving a complaint. The PNP and NBI may arrest Naveen without a warrant
because he is suspected of committing corruption. Since I am the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, I will file a complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman. By doing so, officials can properly
investigate the case without my influence or interference. Although Naveen may detest me, I
will still advise him to file for a plea bargain. If he does not comply, he will face more penalties
and further charges of contempt and administrative disciplinary action.

4. Substantiation
Autonomy is the belief that the capacity of humans for self-governance must be respected.
The criteria for self-governance is the ability to understand the issue, to deliberate the
alternative solutions, and to make an independent choice. Since Naveen fits the criteria
mentioned, the Police Deputy Superintendent should respect his decision even though he do
not agree with his friend’s conception of bribery.
Nonmaleficence obliges humans not to do anything that will cause harm to other people.
With that being sad, the Police Deputy Superintendent should not report his friend. Naveen and
the clients who gave him money will all face criminal charges. If found guilty, they will likely end
in jail.
Utilitarianism determines the morality of an action base on the usefulness of its
consequence. According to Jeremy Bentham, the greatest happiness of the greatest number is
the measurement of right or wrong. The Police Deputy Superintendent should understand that
it will not be beneficial for Naveen and his clients if he files a complaint.
Libertarianism is an approach to justice that allows free expression of rights as long as there
is no infringement on the rights of others. The Police Deputy Superintendent may tolerate
Naveen under the condition that he will not coerce his clients to give him money. He should
only accept money that his clients voluntarily gave him. Both public officials may not agree with
the law’s conception of bribery. They may view it as token of appreciations instead of payment
for a favor.
The Principle of Beneficence promote actions done for the good of others. We can refer to
this principle as a moral obligation to act towards the benefit of others. This includes helping
others to further their important and legitimate interests, prevent or remove possible harms, or
rescue them from danger. By advising Naveen to surrender to the authorities, the Police Deputy
Superintendent prevented further harm. Naveen will likely be indulge with corruption and treat
some of his clients indifferently.
The Deontological theory is a duty-based ethics that is concerned with conformity to certain
rules, duties, or obligations. It focuses on the act and not its consequence. The law prohibits
Naveen and all public officials from accepting anything with monetary value for their service.
His actions were clearly wrong. If the Police Deputy Superintendent report him, he should not
be angry and accept the fact that it is his friend’s duty to uphold the law.
REFERENCES

Bribe. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/bribe

Cornell Law School. (n.d.). Bribery . Retrieved from Cornell University :

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bribery

Deputy Superintendent of Police. (2020). Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia.

Social Welfare Assistant. (n.d.). Law Insider Dictionary. Retrieved from

https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/social-welfare-assistant

APPENDIX