Polytechnic University of the Philippines

Lopez, Quezon Branch

Department of Public Administration

PUAD 20183
Ethics and Accountability in Public Service

BPA-PFM-3
Friday, 2:00 PM – 5:00 PM – R-116
1st semester, SY 2023-24

Session 15 & 16. February 2 & 7, 2024

Guide to Oral Final Examinations

February 2 & 7 - Sessions 15 & 16

Final Examinations
 Schedule
February 2 - 1st Batch
Groups 1, 7, 4, 2, 6

February 7 - 2nd Batch

Groups 5, 8, 3, 9
 GROUPING – PUAD 20183 – BPA-PFM-3

G-2 - 5
G-8 - 6 G-5 - 6 G-4 - 4 BOJADOR, Elaine O.
ACOT, Rachelle AQUINO, Maricris B. ARIDA, Michael Rey DIZON, RicabernilIa G.
CAMBA, Shannia B. CERILLA, Mariel I. DECLARO, Mary Ann C. JEMENEZ, Merry Joy N.
ESPENIDA, Rocelyn V. FLAVIER, Mica Angela P. IGLESIA, Ma. Lois Lane O. LLAMAZARES, Joseph A.
LORICA, Sherryl MABILANGAN, John Paolo T. MARAÑO, Jumar D. ROCAS, Janamasthmi C.
NIEVA, Aprilyn Novero PUMARIGA, Clarisse Ann REYNANTE, Nove Anne Mantes
TAN, John Angelo R. URIARTE, Kyla May S.
G-3 - 5
BORROMEO, Monica Mae V.
DOSTO, Borris Angelo P.
G-9 - 5 LAFUENTE, Ana May Ramos
G-6 - 6 G-7 - 5 BAWICA, Leonardo V. MORENO, Henry Chavit M.
ALEGRE, Rona Mae S. ARADOR, Rose Mariee C. DE LOS SANTOS, Princess H. SEGUNIAL, Irish May A.
CARAEL, Marjorie DE VILLA, Jedidiah G. JAROMAMAY, Gina A.
FLAVIER, Angelika V. FORBES, Christian V. MARJES, Terrence V. G-1 - 5
LUMIARES, Alicia M. MALIGAYA, Avegail C. ROCA, Nicole Dela Cruz BURNES, John Andrew M.
ORIGENES, Princess M. REFORMA, Nelgen Cay
ENDRENAL, Kimberly A.
ZITA, John Patrick M.
MOJICO, Shanaiah E.
NACION, April
SILDORA, Jhoana Rose M.
 SCHEDULE OF ORAL FINAL EXAMINATIONS
Room 116, Yumul Bldg.
FEBRUARY 2 - Friday, 2-5 PM FEBRUARY 7 - Wednesday, 9AM-12NN
Group Members Sequence Time Group Members Sequence Time
1 5 1 2:00 - 2:25 5 6 6 9:00 - 9:30
7 5 2 2:26 - 2:50 8 6 7 9:31 - 10:00
4 4 3 2:51 - 3:10 3 5 8 10:01 - 10:25
2 5 4 3:11 - 3:35 9 5 9 10:26 - 10:50
6 6 5 3:36 - 4:05
Format: Oral Examination

Coverage: Ethics; Accountability; & Corruption

Focus:
• Ethical standards and norms of conduct of government
officials and employees
• Accountability (concepts and framework; etc.)
• Corruption (corrupt behaviors; institutions; etc.)
• Learnings from the course/subject, particularly those
you have learned from the topic/s assigned to your
study group
 Mechanics and Protocols of the Oral Examination

1) Individual examinee will be given a maximum of five (5) minutes to answer 2-3
main and probing questions. Questions may vary among the examinees.

2) Only the group scheduled to take the oral exam shall be allowed in the
examination room. However, each group is given the discretion to decide
whether they want to be in the examination room at the same time, or they
prefer to take the oral exam individually. Each group should inform the examiner
of their decision on or before the actual examination day.

3) The other groups scheduled on the same day (either Feb. 2 or 7) shall wait for
their turn; they will be called to the examination room as soon as their
predecessor group is done with their examination.

4) During the examination, only the examinee and the examiner will be allowed to
speak. The former can seek clarification from the latter on the question/s being
asked. However, such clarification shall be within the 5-minute allocation.
 Grading Rubric for Oral Final Examinations
DIMENSIONS AND RATING POINTS
Overall Understanding Argument Structure TOTAL
40% 30% 30% 100%
Exemplary (34% - 40%) Exemplary (26% - 30%) Exemplary (26% - 30%)
Shows a deep/robust understanding of Clearly articulates a position or There is logic in the progression of
the topic with a fully developed argument argument ideas

Competent (26% - 33%) Competent (21% - 25%) Competent (21% - 25%)

Shows a limited understanding of the Articulates a position or argument There are a few areas of
topic, not quite a fully developed that is incomplete or limited in scope disjointedness or intermittent lack
argument of logical progression of ideas

Developing (20% - 25%) Developing (15% - 20%) Developing (15% - 20%)

Shows a superficial understanding of the Articulates a position or argument Ideas are somewhat disjointed
topic, argument not developed enough that is unfocused or ambiguous and/or do not always flow logically,
making it a bit difficult to follow

Shows no understanding of the topic and Does not articulate a position or Ideas are disjointed and/or do not
no argument argument flow logically, hence argument is
very difficult to follow

Adapted from: Grading Rubric for Oral Exams (Midterm and Final) in Upper Division History Course. Susan Ambrose, Carnegie Mellon University
https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cmu.edu%2Fteaching%2Fresources%2FTeaching%2FCourseDesign%2FAssessment-Grading%2FRubrics%2FOralExamRubric.doc&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK
SOME REVIEW IDEAS AND POINTERS
 Principles of the Statement of Ethical Behavior

REPUBLIC ACT No. 6713

AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS
AND EMPLOYEES, TO UPHOLD THE TIME-HONORED PRINCIPLE OF PUBLIC OFFICE BEING A
PUBLIC TRUST, GRANTING INCENTIVES AND REWARDS FOR EXEMPLARY SERVICE, ENUMERATING
PROHIBITED ACTS AND TRANSACTIONS AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Section 1. Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees."

Section 2. Declaration of Policies. - It is the policy of the State to promote a high standard of
ethics in public service. Public officials and employees shall at all times be accountable to the
people and shall discharge their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence, and
loyalty, act with patriotism and justice, lead modest lives, and uphold public interest over
personal interest.
 Section 4(A). Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees

Every public official and employee shall observe the following as standards of
personal conduct in the discharge and execution of official duties:

1. Commitment to public interest. - Public officials and employees shall always

uphold the public interest over and above personal interest. All government
resources and powers of their respective offices must be employed and used
efficiently, effectively, honestly and economically, particularly to avoid wastage in
public funds and revenues.

2. Professionalism. - Public officials and employees shall perform and discharge

their duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence
and skill. They shall enter public service with utmost devotion and dedication to
duty. They shall endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of their roles as
dispensers or peddlers of undue patronage.
 Section 4(A). Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees

3. Justness and sincerity. - Public officials and employees shall remain true to the
people at all times. They must act with justness and sincerity and shall not
discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the underprivileged. They
shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts
contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public
safety and public interest. They shall not dispense or extend undue favors on
account of their office to their relatives whether by consanguinity or affinity
except with respect to appointments of such relatives to positions considered
strictly confidential or as members of their personal staff whose terms are
coterminous with theirs.

4. Political neutrality. - Public officials and employees shall provide service to

everyone without unfair discrimination and regardless of party affiliation or
preference.
 Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees
5. Responsiveness to the public. - Public officials and employees shall extend
prompt, courteous, and adequate service to the public. Unless otherwise
provided by law or when required by the public interest, public officials and
employees shall provide information of their policies and procedures in clear and
understandable language, ensure openness of information, public consultations
and hearings whenever appropriate, encourage suggestions, simplify and
systematize policy, rules and procedures, avoid red tape and develop an
understanding and appreciation of the socio-economic conditions prevailing in
the country, especially in the depressed rural and urban areas.

6. Nationalism and patriotism. - Public officials and employees shall at all times be
loyal to the Republic and to the Filipino people, promote the use of locally
produced goods, resources and technology and encourage appreciation and pride
of country and people. They shall endeavor to maintain and defend Philippine
sovereignty against foreign intrusion.
 Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees

7. Commitment to democracy. - Public officials and employees shall commit

themselves to the democratic way of life and values, maintain the principle
of public accountability, and manifest by deeds the supremacy of civilian
authority over the military. They shall at all times uphold the Constitution
and put loyalty to country above loyalty to persons or party.

8. 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 form.
 Public Service Core Values and Action Principles
Value 1 - Accountability Value 3 - Justice and fairness
Action principles: Action principles:
• Reject incompetence • Comply with law
• Seek efficiency • Seek procedural and substantive justice
• Seek effectiveness • Seek fair distribution of public benefits
• Take responsibility for what is done and how
• Facilitate transparency
• Listen and be responsive

Value 2 - Impartiality Value 4 - Avoiding doing harm

Action principles: Action principles:
• Avoid conflict of interest Provide remedy or relief
• Seek inclusion Use moral imagination
• Be objective
• Pursue the public interest

Value 5 - Do good
Action principles:
Source: Lewis and Gilman, 2012, pp. 28-30 • Employ empathy
• Give affirmative help
 VRP Training - Course Content
Core Values Identification

• Love of God
• Respect for Authority
• Integrity with emphasis on Stewardship, Truthfulness and Sanctity of
Marriage (from PAVES Module 2)
• Accountability (from PAVES Module 3)
• Power of Influence
• Selfless love and service to people in connection with R.A. 6713 or the
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for government officials and
employees

Source: https://www.crfv-cpu.org/vrp.html. accessed on 11/04/23.

 Accountability
Accountability, in terms of ethics and governance, is equated with answerability,
blameworthiness, liability, and the expectation of account-giving.

• In leadership roles, accountability is the acknowledgment and assumption of

responsibility for actions, products, decisions, and policies including the
administration, governance, and implementation within the scope of the role or
employment position and encompassing the obligation to report, justify and be
answerable for resulting consequences.

• In governance, accountability has expanded beyond the basic definition of "being

called to account for one's actions".

• The concept of accountability was developed in the context of analysing national

governance. It refers to the oversight over fulfilment of responsibilities of public sector
officials and the checks and balances on the exercise of political power.
 Dimensions of Accountability
Answerability
is the obligation of public officials to inform, explain and justify their decisions and actions. This
assumes a relation between accountable and accounting actors and the public debates in which
they engage. It is closely tied to transparency and may involve formal mechanisms of monitoring
and oversight.

Enforceability
is the capacity of accounting agencies to impose sanctions on public sector officials who violate
their duties. This implies that officials are subject to the rule of law and the threat of sanctions if
they violate it. It is exercised both through classical means of mutual control among the branches
of power, but also by independent agencies specialized in overseeing the public sector.

A clear delimitation of responsibility

is the requirement that all positions of authority should have clearly defined duties and
performance standards, which would enable their behaviour to be assessed transparently and
objectively. This can be seen as a prerequisite for the other two dimensions.
 Forms of Accountability
Vertical accountability
can be understood as a principal-agent relationship. e.g. elections, where the voters (principals) hold the
governments (agents) to account.

Horizontal accountability
is exercised through a network of institutions, including both traditional mutual control among different
branches of power and independent institutions (Supreme Audit Institutions, ombudsmen, attorney generals,
and comptrollers). Forms of horizontal accountability at the international level are peer reviews, peer pressure
and advice and pressure by independent Secretariats of international organizations. Mutual accountability
also belongs to the family of mechanisms of horizontal, cross-border accountability, underpinning the
relationship between providers and beneficiaries of development cooperation. To function effectively, these
forms of accountability depend on symmetry and balance in the relationship of all involved actors.

Social accountability
refers to the control exercised by multiple civil society organizations and independent media on public sector
officials. This type has the capacity to “name and shame”, creating public pressure and social stigma. It can
be important in itself; however it also depends on its capacity to influence the other two forms of
accountability.

Source: “Accountability for Development Cooperation” by José Antonio Ocampo and Natalie Gómez Arteaga
 The Types of Accountability
Four standard questions are central to accountability:

1) Who is considered accountable?

2) To whom is he accountable?

3) To what standards or values is he accountable?

4) By what means is he made accountable?

The type of accountability differes depending on the answers to these queries.

Source: Carino, Ledivina. 1983. “Administrative Accountability: A Review of the Evolution, Meaning and Operationalization of a Key Concept in Public
Administration.” Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 27 (1983/2), 118-148.
 Comparison of Different Kinds of Administrative Accountability
Traditional Managerial Program Process
Accountability Accountability Accountability Accountability
Who is Employees and officials Administrator Administrator Administrator
accountable?
To whom is he People through Same as Col. 1 Same as Col. 1 Same as Col. 1
accountable? legislature, President, Others: Others as in Col. 3
Constitutional bodies, professional standards Direct accountability to
hierarchy and individual people thru their
conscience participation in negotiation

To what standards Regularity, legality, and Economy and Economy, efficiency 3Es plus decentralization
or values is he compliance efficiency and effectiveness (3Es) and participation
accountable?
By what means is Line-item budgeting, Management audit, Comprehensive audit, Negotiations
he made traditional accounting, systems program evaluation,
accountable? standard operating improvement productivity
procedures measurement

Source: Carino, Ledivina. 1983. “Administrative Accountability: A Review of the Evolution, Meaning and Operationalization of a Key Concept in Public
Administration.” Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 27 (1983/2), 118-148, citing McKinney, 1981, p. 144.
 Examples of Corrupt Behaviour
Corruption is defined as the use of public office for private gain, or in other words, use
of official position, rank or status by an office bearer for his own personal benefit.

Following from this definition, examples of corrupt behaviour would include:

1) bribery,
2) extortion,
3) fraud,
4) embezzlement,
5) nepotism,
6) cronyism,
7) appropriation of public assets and property for private use, and
8) influence peddling.

In this list of corrupt behaviour, activities such as fraud and embezzlement can be undertaken by an official
alone and without involvement of a second party. While others such as bribery, extortion and influence
peddling involve two parties – the giver and taker in a corrupt deal.
United Nations / World Bank
Corruption is a form of dishonesty or a criminal offense which is
undertaken by a person or an organization which is entrusted in a
position of authority, in order to acquire illicit benefits or abuse power
for one's personal gain. Corruption may involve many activities which
include bribery, influence peddling and the embezzlement and it may
also involve practices which are legal in many countries.

The UN's Global Programme against Corruption (GPAC)

Corruption as the "abuse of power for private gain" and includes
thereby both the public and private sector.

Political corruption occurs when an office-holder or other

governmental employee acts with an official capacity for personal
gain.
Stephen D. Morris (1991 - Corruption and Politics in Contemporary Mexico)
Political corruption is the illegitimate use of public power
to benefit a private interest.
Ian Senior - (2006 - Corruption – The World's Big C., Institute of Economic Affairs, London)
Corruption as an action to secretly provide a good or a service to
a third party to influence certain actions which benefit the corrupt,
a third party, or both in which the corrupt agent has authority.

Daniel Kauffman
Extended the concept to include "legal corruption" in which power
is abused within the confines of the law—as those with power
often have the ability to make laws for their protection.
National Anti-Corruption Strategy, 2000
Corruption is the perversion of integrity or fidelity in discharging public
duties and responsibilities by bribery or favor.

It entails the use of public power for private advantage in wyas which
trangress some formal rule of law.

It refers to the use of public office for private gain or the betrayal of public
trust for private gain.

The effect of corruption in infrastructure is to increase costs and

construction time, lower the quality and decrease the benefit. -.
"Corruption in public projects and megaprojects: There is an elephant in the room!". -
Locatelli, Giorgio; Mariani, Giacomo; Sainati, Tristano; Greco, Marco (1 April 2017).
International Journal of Project Management. 35 (3): 252–268.