REVIEW and CRITIQUE PAPER on REPUBLIC ACT 6731

Before anything else, this review and critique paper is only based on a few days
of research and a reading of few materials and as I am came from a business
management background some of the insights on this paper are only from a simple
layman’s point of view. Nevertheless, Republic Act 6731 or as known as the “Code of
Conduct and Standards from public Officials and Employees was an eye opener and
brought a lot new insightful knowledge to my understanding of ethics, management and
how the state promotes its policy of high standards of ethics in public service.

It is good to know that there is an existing law that endorses and support the
integrity of the officials and all the government agencies being a public trust by the
people. This act help enhanced the behaviour of our public officials and employees
because there are norms of behaviour that shall strictly observed by them to the
discharge and execution of their official function and duties. On the other hand, I noticed
that RA 6713 was only approved on February 1989 and this act is only at its 32 years of
its implementation. This makes me curious as how our government mandated the public
officials’ conduct before this act was approved and implemented.

As an Act, RA 6713, has a great scope of coverage from the Duties of Public
officials and duties to the how this act will be reviewed and complied (Section 10) and
finally to penalties of any public officials who are found guilty of violating this act
(Section 11). In my point of view, some sections are quite general in its points and
provisions like those found on Section 4 (Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and
Employees), Section 7 (Prohibited Acts and Transactions) and Section 11 (Penalties).
Then again from what I have learned from reading up on law formulation, a good law
needs to be encompassing and must be reasonable, it should not be too harsh or rigid
and open for just interpretation.

If there are some points in the act that I could critique it will be on those sections
mentioned above. Take for example in the Section 4 (Norms of Conduct of Public
Officials and Employees) in d. Political Neutrality, - Public officials and employees shall
provide service to everyone without unfair discrimination and regardless of party
affiliation or preferences. This point in Section 4 personally feels a too broad in its
coverage and a little vague thus being exposed to bad practices. When I say bad
practices it happen when, as I have observed, that some government projects are open
and accessible to all but those who are not within the leading part affiliation are either
delayed in getting it or none at all. This instance does not exactly portray ethical
practices. I think this section can be more specific in its cases.

I could say the same critiques on Section 4 (Norms of Conduct of Public Officials
and Employees) in h. Simple Living – Public officials and employees and their families
shall lead modest lives appropriate to their positions and income. They shall not indulge
in extravagant or ostentatious display of wealth in any from. What does “modest lives
appropriate to their positions and income” exactly mean? Does that mean that if you are
a mayor or a department head there is specific range of lifestyle and properties that you
can only have? Like a mayor should only have 1 house and a car? Again for me as a
layman thinks it’s to general and as per observation its usually comes that as you go
higher up in the government ladder you are more likely to gain more assets. Whether
these assets are “appropriate” for your position is the question.

And speaking of assets, Section 7 (Prohibited Acts and Transactions) is where it

stated all things that constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public officials
and employees that are declared to be unlawful. There is a point in b. Outside
employment and other actions activities related thereto—that say that public officials
and employees during their Incumbency shall not: {1} Own, control, manage or accept
employment as officer, employee, consultant, counsel, broker, agent, trustee, or
nominee in any private enterprise regulated, supervised or license by their office unless
expressly allowed by law. This provision is not really practiced in reality and I can say
generally acceptable by the mass as I fell it’s like part of the norm.

In all I could say it’s quite reassuring that RA 6713 exist even though some of its
provisions and sections are not strictly mandated and practice and that Section 13
(Provisions for more Stringent Standards) till Section 16 (Repealing Clause) open the
Act for revisions. All the same it’s good to have a Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards then nothing at all.

Joelle Venisse Alvarez

DM 400 Student