Philippine Governance Digest Vol. 1 Issue 2 (April-June 2014), pp.
12-14
Administrative Values in the Philippines
and their Implications to the Efficiency of the
Bureaucracy and Governance (Part One)
By Maria Judy S. San Juan
st
This article is a revised paper that I read at the 1
National Social Science Conference organized by the
University of Santo Tomas (UST) Department of Social
Sciences and History held last April 2-4, 2014.
Here, I try to point out that although there are efforts
made in reforming both the bureaucracy and
governance these should not only address a
component or two of the aforementioned institutions
but in its entirety. Apparently, this is not often the case.
Governance and bureaucratic reform models abound
both western and local but much of which are focused
on leadership and structural aspects, and only a few
approaches these from a cultural perspective.
Personally, this is quite understandable since culture is
not a well taken up subject area in Public
Administration, especially here in the Philippines.
Is this an issue at all? To me it is. As a sociologist
venturing into Public Administration, I do admit my
biases towards the study of culture, but this is also not
to say that I look at culture as a monolith, nor am I
proposing for people to treat it as such. Like
Huntington, Harrison, Inglehart and many others who
took the cultural turn, I share the view that culture is
“influenced by numerous other factors like geography,
climate, politics, and the vagaries of history”
(Huntington and Harrison, 2000). What this paper
would simply like to point out is the importance of
culture in understanding politics and the government,
especially when we decry of reforms made in our
public organizations. The values that people live by
may not be as concrete and manifest as the laws or
institutions, but certainly they have implications to
many of the mechanisms that we have come to
integrate in our social, political, economic and
administrative systems.
Why culture? Culture encompasses almost everything
that is visible in the social world; its study necessarily
deals with the abstract and its nonmaterial components
particularly its system of meanings. As Raymond
Williams (1981) explained, it is in these “signifying
system [that] through which necessarily a social order
is communicated, reproduced, experienced, and
explored.” If we understand how culture works its way
into shaping our thoughts and behavior, then we would
have a head start to identifying problems, and
determining the best solutions to address them; for it is
in understanding the norms, the value and belief
systems underlying the behavior of people that we
begin to see how we can significantly reform the
system to make it work for the good of everyone.
The Filipinos: Their culture and values
In understanding Filipino cultural orientations, authors
have identified three main traits that highlight Filipino
behavior and decision-making: personalism, familism,
and particularism commonly referred to as popularism
(Jocano, 1981, Varela, 1996, Andres and Ilada-Andres,
1987). According to authors, “Personalism has to do
with the degree of emphasis Filipinos give to
interpersonal relations or to face-to-face encounters.
Familism emphasizes the welfare and interest of the
family over the welfare and interest of the community.
The pervasive influence of the family on individual and
group behavior, as reinforced by personalistic
orientation, gives rise to particularism or popularism.”
(Varela, 1996:298-299, Andres and Ilada-Andres,
1987:51-52)
What do these traits tell us about the Filipinos? At the
personal level, the Filipinos are visual, intimate and
prefer a textured relationship. They prefer things to be
done or attended to personally than mediated by
systems or structures. Communication, for one, has
difficulty flowing through the channels unless directly
attended to by the people concerned (Andres and
Ilada-Andres, 1987). It is not a wonder then that here
in the Philippines for a system to become efficient
entails a more personal touch among those involved in
the management of said system, even if it means a
regular checking and follow-up or frequent updating of
work progress. This is not of course to bash the
Filipinos and their work ethics; but one just needs to
realize that this is how Filipinos give premium to
interpersonal relationship; and that even in decision
making this trait is largely reflected. As noted by
Andres and Ilada-Andres, “Problem-solving is effective
if handled through good personal relations rather than
group deliberation, debate and collegial reasoning.”
(Andres and Ilada-Andres, 1987)
Familism on the other hand reflects the way Filipinos
relate to a bigger group as it places emphasis on the
tie that binds a Filipino to another individual. It is a
general knowledge that the “family runs the Filipino’s
life, [in that] the experience of the self is almost totally
linked with one’s relationship with people who are
important to him/her” (Andres and Ilada-Andres, 1987).
The term “familism” was coined to underscore that the
prime distinction between degrees of relationship is
construed on the basis of ties, that is, as family or non-
family. Thus, to a Filipino, a sponsor (godparent), a
friend, a neighbor may be regarded a family because
of an established tie between them. The phrase “hindi
ka na iba” (you’re not different) is very much
suggestive of this trait. It informs us that when a
Philippine Governance Digest Vol. 1 Issue 2 (April-June 2014), pp. 12-14
Filipino considers one as “not different,” it means that
the person is no longer a stranger but is considered
part of the family. It is interesting to note that on the
basis of the above, one can just see how the two traits
(personalism and familism) complement and reinforce
each other. Filipinos invest so much on their
relationship. They prefer an intimate relation, one that
demands face-to-face encounters typical of family
members. To be considered a family is like an honor
to a Filipino, so that one is compelled to do everything
to preserve this tie.
Popularism is another trait held with high esteem by
the Filipinos. According to Jocano (1981), “To be
popular is the highest compliment one can receive
from kinsmen, neighbor and friends.” This trait obliges
a Filipino not only to conform to the norms of a larger
group, but to do his/her best to please members of the
community. Like the two aforementioned traits,
popularism has its way of reinforcing both personalism
and familism. The notion of an extended family is
clearly evident in the way that a Filipino, especially
those occupying a privileged status in the community,
treats the members of that community. In preserving
these ties, a Filipino does everything to conform, to
compromise, to cheat even (Andres and Ilada-Andres,
1987) for the sake of gratifying community norms.
The three important traits are given emphasis in this
paper because they form the core of the Filipino
values, in that other cultural values that Filipinos hold
in high esteem such as “pakikisama, hiya, utang ng
loob, amor propio and delicadeza” (Varela, 1996) to
name a few, revolve around inasmuch as they are
derived from these traits. Noteworthy about these
traits is that despite the influences of colonization,
particularly of Spain and the US, anthropologist like
Jocano believed that the Filipino culture has managed
to retain and evolve its distinct Filipino flavor. This
means that whatever (foreign) values that the Filipinos
might have assimilated in their culture, were not
completely imbibed as is but were in fact assigned a
different meaning to them.
Administrative values in the Philippines
To speak of values, we actually refer to the “standards
people use for evaluating what is right or wrong, good
or bad, desirable or not” (Harrison, 2000, Schaefer,
2010, Hofstede, 1991, Andres and Ilada-Andres,
1987). Values are broad tendencies to prefer certain
states of affairs over others; and they form the core of
culture (Hofstede, 1991). Accordingly, administrative
values would refer to the shared ideas about desirable
goals in carrying out functions of an organization like
the government, particularly in terms of governance
and in the delivery of public service.
Thus, when we refer to administrative values in the
Philippines, we signify the values that have evolved out
of the traditions and practices of governance and
public administration in the country. These values, as
one author describes, are “a mixture of three major
sometimes compatible, sometimes conflicting
influences of societal culture, colonization, and the
norms of Weberian bureaucracy” (Reyes, 2011:349-
350).
Societal culture plays a vital role in shaping the values
that are brought into the bureaucracy, as it provides
the context (setting) where the Philippine bureaucracy
operates (Reyes, 2011). The origin of administrative
values in the Philippines goes back to the earliest
settlement long before the coming of Spanish
conquerors. History informs us that the “early
inhabitants in the Philippines did not possess a high
degree of civilization and social structure during pre-
conquest times as did their Southeast Asian brothers”
(Constantino, 1978). Even upon the arrival of the
Spanish conquerors, scribes had noted how
inhabitants were organized into small scattered
communities which they call barangays, a term derived
from the boats or vessels that brought them to their
area of settlement (Corpuz, 1957:107 in Reyes, 2011;
Constantino, 1978). A barangay consisted of 30 to 100
households based on kinship ties that relied largely for
sustenance on subsistence agriculture (Constantino,
1978, Garcia, 2010). The early inhabitants did not
have a centralized government at the time (Abueva
1988:23, Corpuz, 1957:2 in Reyes, 2011, Cariño,
1998); however, the barangays co-existed
harmoniously. To some extent, confederations of
barangays were also formed to ensure peace and
better protection against enemies (Garcia, 2010).
In the southernmost region of the archipelago—in
Mindanao, a more advanced social formation of
Muslim communities was established. Government
institutions called sultanates were formed. Sultanates,
like the early confederates, consisted of several
barangays but with a distinctly complex social and
political hierarchy (Garcia, 2010). Accordingly,
sultanates “laid down the foundations of an established
bureaucracy” even when governance was merely
guided by some internal rules and practices based on
long standing traditions and beliefs (Corpuz, 1957: 107
in Reyes, 2011, Constantino 1978).
Nearly everything in a barangay was communal.
Labor, production and even land ownership for
instance were shared by, and entrusted to individuals
and households. Division of labor only began with the
stratification of classes where the distinction of roles
was determined on the basis of one’s status. Pre-
conquest societies in the Philippines were
characterized by three distinct classes of people: The
Philippine Governance Digest Vol. 1 Issue 2 (April-June 2014), pp. 12-14
maharlika or the noble class, the timawa or the
freemen, and the alipin or the slaves.
The maharlika was comprised of the Datu (Chieftain)
and his household, the council of elders who acted as
the Datu’s advisers, and other privileged members of
the barangay who earned their status by virtue of
wealth, heredity or deeds (Garcia, 2010). Datus were
chosen not merely by virtue of inheritance, but also of
merit; that is, in terms of courage, (wisdom),
leadership, (strength) and heroism in tribal wars
(Reyes, 2011).
The timawa or the freemen on the other hand
comprised the bulk of community membership. They
assumed various roles in the barangay as artists and
artisans, traders, warriors and other roles required for
the survival of the community. The last group of
people in the barangay was called the alipin, who were
“basically the debt peons serving individuals and
families” (Garcia, 2010).
It would be interesting to note that while there was yet
a central government system that was established
during the pre-conquest era, a system of (communal)
governance and a bureaucracy in its rudimentary form
was already in place and was practiced by the
barangays. The Datu, as chieftain, was acknowledged
as paternal and political leader entrusted with almost
unlimited power in both rule-making and administration
(De la Torre, 1986 in Reyes, 2011); while the council of
elders assisted the Datu in the coordination and
promulgation of the laws. Subjects were expected to
obey and respect their leaders not merely because
they were the heads of their communities, but mainly
because leaders were seen as “fathers” or heads of
the family to whom they entrust completely with their
life, their welfare, and their survival.
Many of such values that predominated in pre-
conquest communities—mainly of kinship and
communal obligation types that are strongly related to
the value of sakop (in-group) and forming part of the
relational and moral imperatives of Filipino value
orientation—managed to endure through time. Traces
of these values are still to be found in present day
practice of governance and public administration. As
Reyes (2011) noted:
“Specifically, the nuclear family and its extended
kinship were the basic units of social organization that
continue today. The strong kinship and patrimonial
systems that were shaped in the pre-colonial times
persist in the Philippine bureaucracy today, and can be
understood in terms of the practice of officials and
politicians alike who are disposed to provide special
favors or preferential treatment to relative and friends.
The strong familial tradition of closely knit relationships
and kinship that tend to provide undue and sometimes
illegal favor for relatives persists in the present political
and administrative system in the Philippines.” (Reyes,
2011:337)
Important cultural values such as pakikisama
(friendship or familial ties), pakikiramay (sympathy),
bayanihan (heroism), paggalang (respect), hiya
(shame), amor proprio (self-respect or pride), utang ng
loob (debt of gratitude), delicadeza (propriety) that
underlie Filipino traits and value orientation (Andres
and Ilada-Andres, 1987, Varela, 1996, Garcia, 2010,
Reyes, 2011) are also reflected in the “bureaucratic
behavior and the exercise of official functions” (Varela,
1996, Reyes, 2011). Ostensibly, the results of these
values are not always positive; and their negative
consequences only lead to a more serious and grave
injury to people and the society at large. Corruption,
political dynasties and warlordism thrive at the expense
of human progress and development.
Like societal culture, colonization also exerts its
influence on administrative values and bureaucratic
behavior in the Philippines in both positive and
negative ways. Bureaucracy under the Spanish
colonial rule was characterized by subservience to two
masters: The Spanish Crown and the Catholic Church.
The once independent and autonomous barangays
were “stripped of their sovereignty” (Cariño, 1998), as
they were constrained to organize themselves into
towns or pueblos mainly for administrative purpose.
Appointments to public offices were, to some extent,
granted to Filipinos; and these were made on two
modes: one would be through grants or favors, called
merced, from the King; another would be on the basis
of the sale of public offices, which was a practice
common in Europe at the time (Raadshelders and
Rutgers, 1996 in Reyes, 2011). In either way, said
practices “resulted in a corrupt bureaucracy that was
based on patronage than merit" (Reyes, 2011).
Apparently, the experience of abuse from Spanish
colonizers facilitated the development of a
consciousness among Filipinos that would invoke
reform in the government system much later. Yet even
so, corruption brought about by a system of spoils and
patronage was already a commonplace in the
Philippine bureaucracy. If it were not to condone these
acts, patronage was pervasive. Like elsewhere in the
world, patronage also found favors among the
Filipinos. For one, it did not challenge much the values
of kinship and communal obligations; it even reinforced
these. Officials who assumed public offices were
compelled, as they did in the past, to gratify community
norms not only to please community members and be
accorded with compliment and approval but more so to
maintain their power.
Philippine Governance Digest Vol. 1 Issue 2 (April-June 2014), pp. 12-14

Following the Spanish colonial period is the American

occupation, which was also marked by a number of
significant moments in Philippine history. The granting
of Philippine independence in 1898, the adoption of the
Malolos Constitution in 1899, which was reckoned as
the very first Constitution promulgated in Asia, and the
establishment of a political system in the country that
was patterned after the American political and
government system, among others. Yet even with
these milestones, it was the professionalization of the
civil service that is said to have given the bureaucracy
a great boost. The reform allowed to some extent the
purging of the bureaucracy of corrupt practices by
implementing “a merit and fitness-based system
characterized by professionalism and careerism,
ensured security of tenure, and with appointments
determined by open competitiveness examinations, on
top of the adoption of political neutrality for career
members of the civil service” (Reyes, 2011).

Email: judysanjuan@ymail.com

Maria Judy See-San Juan is the Executive Director

of Partners for Human Progress and Social
Development. She is a sociologist and a faculty
member of the University of Santo Tomas. She is
currently completing her doctorate degree in Public
Administration at the UP-NCPAG.