Critical Challenges in Implementing the Citizen's Charter Initiative

January-June

PHILIPPINE JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION30 Phi l i ppi ne Jour nal of Publ ic Admi ni str at ion, Vol . L VI I No. 1 (Januar y-June 2013)

30

* Pr oj ect Of f i cer , Pol i cy Resear ch Of f i ce, Cen t er for Gover nan ce, Devel opmentAcademy of t he Phi l ippi nes (DAP).

An ear l ier ver sion of t h is paper was submi t t ed as an out put of a per sonal r esear chpr oj ect under t he CAS i n Management of Devel opment pr ogr am funded by t he Sw issFeder al I nst i t ut e of Technology--L ausanne (EPFL ).

Cr i t i cal Chal l enges i n I m p lem en t i ngt h e Ci t i zen ’s Char t er I n i t i at i v e:I nsi gh t s f r om Select ed L ocalGover nm en t Un i t s

K I DJI E I AN SAGUI N*

Gl obal l y r ecogni zed as a best pr act i ce, the Ci t i zen’s Char t er swer e devel oped under the par ad i gm of New Publ i c Management(N PM ), w hi ch uses bu si ness-l i ke per spect i ve an d t ool s bybr i ngi ng the publ i c as a customer i n the cent er of publ i c ser vi cedel i ver y. Bui l di ng on these successes, the Phi l i ppi ne gover nmentl aunched an ant i -r ed t ape pr ogr am based l ar gel y on RA 9485that mandat es the cr eat i on of Ci t i zen’s Char ter s for al l fr ont l i neser vi ces of t h e gover nment i n cl ud i ng l ocal gover n men t s. T h i spaper eval uat es t he compl i ance of sel ect ed ch ar t er s t o t h epr ovi si on of t h e l aw and r eveal s t hat t h e Ci t i zen ’s Char t er sd evel oped sh ow absen ce of st akeh ol der i nvol vemen t i n t h ei rf or mu l at i on, var y i ng l evel s of compl i an ce w i t h t h e r equi r edi n for mat i on i n t he char t er , i nconsi st enci es i n t he i n for mat i onpr ovi ded, and l ack of customi zat i on and i nnovat i on on t he par tof t he L GU s w i t h r espect t o cont ent and for m of t h e char t er .T hese f i nd i n gs i n d i cat e t h at t h e Ci t i zen ’s Ch ar t er asi mpl ement ed does not consi st ent l y hol d t he basi c pr i nci pl es ofNPM and “char ter i sm.”

K eywor d s: Ci t i zen’s Char ter , New Publ i c M anagement, l ocal gover nment,char ter i sm

I n t r odu ct i on

Fr om t he l at e 1970s, t he r evi t al i zat i on of gover nmen t ser v i cedel i ver y has t ak en the di r ect ion of implement ing a set of r efor ms underthe label of New Publ i c M anagement (NPM ) (M anning, 2001). One of t hemain feat ur es of NPM is that i t br ings the customer or the publ ic i nto t hecent er of publ ic ser vice. A popular way of doing t hi s was the Ci t izen’s

2013

31CHAL L EN GES I N I M PL EMENTI N G THE CI TI ZEN 'S CH ARTER I N I TI ATI VE

Char ter (Taylor , 1999; Clar k , 2000; M anning, 2001; Tur ner , 2002; H ood,1991).

Pioneer ed in t he Uni t ed K ingdom, t he adopt i on of Ci t i zen’s Char ter sswept t he gl obal publ ic admin ist r at i on spher e in the ear ly 1990s. I n t hePhi l ippines, t he t enet s of NPM slowly and episodical ly cr ept i t s waythr ough t he admin ist r at i ve syst em (Tur ner , 2002). I t was onl y in 2007that Phi l ippines adopted t he char ter i ni t iat ive on a wider scale. Republ icAct No. 9485 other wise k nown as Ant i -Red Tape Act (ARTA) was si gnedinto l aw to r educe publ ic sect or inef ficiencies, and pr event gr aft andcor r upt ion. Since t hen, ARTA has become t he foundat ion of the ser vi cedel iver y impr ovement pr ogr am of the publ ic sect or .

The ARTA mandat ed al l agenci es and i nst r ument al i t i es of t hegover nment that pr ovide fr ont l i ne ser vices to develop a Ci t i zen’s Char ter .The Ci t i zen’s Char t er i s an of f i ci al documen t t hat ou t l i nes ser vi cest andar ds t o guide the ci t izens i n avai l ing t hemselves of fr ont l i ne ser vice.This ef for t t o i nst i t ut i onal i ze the Ci t izen’s Char t er bu i l ds on pr eviousexper i ence of l ocal gover nment un i t s (L GUs) such as N aga Ci t y i nat tempt ing to make local gover nment ser vices mor e r esponsive t o ci t izenneeds.

M or e than fi ve year s int o i t s enactment , signi ficant gains can beobser ved, par t i cu l ar l y wi t h t he i mpr ovemen t of t he Phi l i ppi nes i ncompet i t i veness r ank ings. I n 2012, the Phi l ippines jumped to 65th i n theWor ld Compet i t i veness I ndex f r om 71st i n 2008 (Wor l d Economic For um,2008; Wor ld Economic For um, 2012). H owever , t he qual i t y of i nst i t ut ionsr emains a per ennial pr oblem, wi th cor r upt ion and r ed tape at t he top oft he l i st of economi c const r ai n t s. Compar ed t o i t s Sou t heast Asianneighbor s, the Phi l ippines only out r anked Cambodia and Lao PDR in t heease of doing business r ank ings and r ank ed 158th out of 183 count r ies inthe index for st ar t ing a business in 2012 (WB & I FC, 2012). I n t he 2012Wor ld Gover nance I ndicat or s, t he count r y i s r anked 33rd i n the dimensionof cont r ol of cor r upt ion r ef lect i ng hi gh negat ive per cept ions about t hecount r y’s abi l i t y t o pr event cor r upt ion (Wor ld Bank , 2012). Gi ven t hei n i mi t abl e r ol e l ocal gover nmen t s pl ay i n br i ngi ng cl oser cr i t i calgover nment ser vices t o t he ci t i zenr y, i t becomes imper at ive t o moni t orclosely the extent and qual i t y of implementat i on of the Ci t izen’s Char ter .

I n t he fi r st sect ion of th is paper , char ter ism i s context ual ized in t hebr oader cont ext of NPM . The fol lowing sect ions di scuss t he di ffer entaspect s of Ci t i zen’s Char t er s pr esent i n i n t er nat i onal exper i ence ofCi t i zen’s Char ter implementat ion and t he di ffer ent appr oaches t o char t erdevelopment . Subsequent adaptat ion of the char t er concept have depar t edfr om t he cor e pr i nci pl es of UK ’s Ci t i zen’s Char t er . Char t er i sm now

January-June

PHILIPPINE JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION32

imbibes di f fer ent dimensions of empower ment , exclusion/inclusi on, andan t i -cor r upt i on . The Ph i l i ppi ne gover nmen t en j oys a l at ecomer ’sadvantage al lowing for mor e space for l ear ning fr om char ter di f fusion.However , the t op-down appr oach to developing and implement ing t hechar t er s adopt ed by t he gover nment may pr ove t o be chal l engingconsider i ng that i t has been i dent i f ied as one of the major r easons for t hefai l u r e of ot her coun t r i es t o sust ai n t he r efor m moment um of t hechar t er s. The next sect ion pr ovides a compr ehensive over vi ew of thedevelopment of t he Ci t izen’s Char ter i ni t iat ive and simi lar r efor m effor t sin t he Phi l ippine publ i c sector . The ARTA i nt r oduced innovat ions in t heor iginal conceptual izat i on of char ter ism such as the i nclusion of pr ocesssimpl i f icat i on and stakeholder i nvolvement . Af ter t his, the r esu l t of t her eview of char ter s fr om five LGUs is di scussed. Whi le on ly r epr esentat i veof business per mi ts l i censing in t he LGUs was studied, t he st udy f indingspoint to a lack of stakeholder consul t at i on dur ing development , absence ofany ser vice impr ovement or r eengineer i ng, and inconsistent or inadequatein for mat i on pr ovided i n the char ter s. These fi ndings imply that whi le t heemer gence of t he char t er r ein for ces t he i dea t hat NPM car r i es on, i t al someans t hat t he char t er s do not r adi cal l y r econf i gur e publ i c ser vi cedel i ver y t hat empow er s ci t i zens an d r educes t he oppor t u n i t y forcor r upt ion to happen.

New Pu bl i c M anagem en t an d Ch ar t er i sm

The bi r th of t he Ci t i zen’s Char ter i s par t of the r efor m movementthat pushed for a par adigm shi f t t owar d a business-l ik e manager ial modelof doing the business of t he gover nment wor ldwide. Wi th th is sh i f t comest he ack nowl edgemen t of t he si gn i f i cance of adopt i ng pr i vat e-sect ort echnologies and values as a r esponse t o gr owing pr essur es for t hegover nment t o per for m bet t er . The r eject i on of t he K eynesian vi ew of t hest at e have gener ated t hi s pr essur e for bet ter publ i c ser vices and br oughtabout t he i nt r oduct ion of a neo-l iber al fr amewor k in the lat e 1970s andear l y 1980s (H aque M . S., 2004; de Vr i es, 2010). The pr edominantper spect i ve of t he t ime is t hat gover nments have become so l ar ge thatst r eaml i n i ng, cost -cut t i ng and ef fi ci ency impr ovement s ar e necessar y(Ehsan & Naz, 2003).

NPM is a set of pr i ncipl es and pr act ices aimed to impr ove how t hegov er nmen t i s managed. N PM pu t f or war d sev er al i n t er -r el at edcomponent s t o impr ove publ i c management . Enumer at ed by Bor i ns (1995,p. 12 as ci t ed i n Ehsan and Naz 2003), t hese component s i ncl ude:“pr ovi di ng h i gh qual i t y ser vi ces t hat ci t i zens value, i ncr easi ng t heautonomy of publ i c manager s, r ewar ding or ganizat i on and individual s onthe basis of whet her t hey meet demanding per for mance t ar get s, mak ing

2013


avai lable t he human and technological r esour ces that manager s need toper for m wel l , and appr eci at i ve of t he v i r t ues of compet i t i on , andmaintai ni ng an open minded at t i t ude about which publ i c pur poses shouldbe per for med by t he pr ivat e sector , r at her t han a publ ic sector .”

From this definit ion, a set of refor ms, including set t ing up of servicechar ter s, swept thr ough advanced countr ies, par t icular ly commonweal thOrganisat ion for Economic Co-oper at ion and Development (OECD) memberdue to new publ ic expectat ions dr iven by bet ter del ivery of ser vices by thepr ivate sector (M anning, 2001). This set of r efor ms general ly include thepract ices of pr ivat izat ion, contr act ing and mar ket test ing, r est ructur ing ofthe civi l service, and per for mance management systems (Ehsan & Naz, 2003).

Along t he l ines of impr oving gover nment per for mance, the Ci t izen’sChar ter was inst i t u ted t o ensur e t hat gover nment ser vices ar e r esponsi veto t he publ i c’s needs. I t was meant t o pr ovide in for mat i on about what t heci t i zens can expect fr om a par t i cu lar gover nment ser vi ce (Cabinet Off ice,1991). The char ter s al so ser ve as a cont r act between t he publ ic and stateon how to pr ovide ser vices (Haque M . S., 2007). Th is emphasi s made onper for mance r elat es to t he pr inciple of publ ic account abi l i t y. NPM cal l edfor a gr eater r ole of publ ic manager s on r esour ces. Wi th gr eater cont r olover r esour ces comes gr eater demand t o del i ver r esu l t s and gr eat eraccountabi l i t y for these r esu l t s (Stewar t & Walsh, 1992).

As or igi nal l y conceived by t he UK Pr ime M ini st er John M ajor ’sConser vat i ve gover nment , t he pr i nci pl es of publ i c ser vice i nclude t heexpl ici t statement of ser vi ce st andar ds; openness on how the ser vi ces canbe del i ver ed; post i ng of r el evan t fees and accoun t abl e f r on t l i ner ;avai labi l i t y of accur ate in for mat i on; avai labi l i t y of choice in accessingser vices to r espond t o di f fer ent needs and demands of t he publ ic; equalt r eatment of cl ient s r egar dless of r ace and sex; convenience in accessingthe ser vi ce; and, pr ovision of feedback t o t he ci t i zens for any deviat i onfr om the standar ds (H ouse of Commons, 2008). Fr om t hese pr inciples, i tcan be said t hat Ci t i zen’s Char t er fundament al l y aims t o br ing t hecust omer to the cor e of gover nment ser vices and that value for ci t izen’smon ey i s t he mai n dr i ver of per f or man ce (D r ewr y , 2005). M or ei mpor t ant l y , t he ci t i zens pr evi ousl y deemed as end-user s ar e nowempower ed to i nfl uence t he del iver y of gover nment ser vice. The abi l i t y toi nf l uence comes as a r esu l t of al lowing t he ci t i zens as customer s t opr ovide feedback and even complain for poor ser vi ce. The concept of“char ter i sm” or the use of uni for m standar ds i n publ i c ser vi ce del i ver y isthus pr edicated on giving “ci t izens” voice i n the ser vices that mat ter tot hem (Pol l i t t , 1994) and has moved t owar ds r econst r uct i ng “r elat i onsbetween the st at e and the ci t izen on the basis of new or r evi t al izedpr inciples of publ ic ser vice” (Clar k , 2000, p. 152).

January-June


A Cr i t i cal Rev i ew of Ch ar t er Dev el opm en t

Al though the adopt i on of the NPM model di d not fol l ow a uni for mpubl i c m anagemen t model (Pol i dano, 1999), t he wor l d, i ncl ud i ngdeveloping count r ies1 soon fol lowed the UK example. These count r iesadopted simi l ar char ter i n i t i at i ves but w i t h var ying mot i vat i ons andspeci fi cat ions. As Dr ewr y (2005) point ed out , gover nment s launched t hei rown r efor ms to impr ove per for mance t hr ough the char ter s and somet imesto “just i fy per for mance” and comply wi th aid condi t ional i t ies.

The pr ocess of char ter development appear s t o di f fer f r om count r y tocount r y . The var i ances st em f r om how t he char t er i n i t i at i ve wasconcept ual ized. Simi lar to the UK , count r ies l ike Belgium and Fr ancecent r al ly i ni t iated t he development of char ter s. Thi s t op-down appr oachemphasi zes t he adopt i on of simi l ar st andar ds for al l publ i c ser vi ces(Tor r es, 2003). On the other hand, t he bot t om-up appr oach of Aust r al i a,I t al y, Spain , and U SA h inges on t he impor t ance of capt u r i ng andincor por at ing ci t izen’s expectat ions in the standar ds (Haque M . S., 2007).

Given the diversi ty in mot ivat ion and appr oach to development, theCi t izen’s Char ters’ pur pose have been framed qui te di ffer ent ly fr om i t sor iginal object ive of ser vice deliver y impr ovement in UK. Fi rst , t he Ci t izen’sChar t er was being r el at ed t o t he r adi cal al t er at i on of st at e-ci t i zenr elat ionship through a r econceptualizat ion of the not ion of “cit izens” and“ci t izenship” (Cooper , 1993). Char ter s empower ci t izens by pr oviding themwi t h consumer r ights, bet t er i nfor mat ion and guar ant eeing r emedies.However , as Cooper (1993, p. 153) pointed out based on a review of UKchar ter s, the degr ee to which these empower ment tools di ffer betweenchar ters reveal the “unevenness of state-legi t imized cit izenship expectat ions.”I n ot her wor ds, the r elat ionship between the ci t izens and gover nmentchanges only up to the extent to which the government per ceives i t isnecessar y and appr opr iat e. M or eover , empower ment only comes whenci t izen’s r ights ar e pr otected as consumer r ights as guar anteed by law(Taylor , 1999).

Second, t he r econst r uct i on of ci t i zen-st ate r el at i on also br oughtabout t he r edef ini t ion of ci t izenship in r elat ion t o exclusion and inclusion.Put t ing t he consumer ’s r ight at the center of publ i c ser vi ces seems tohave r econst r uct ed ci t i zenship wher eby one can onl y become a ci t izen i fhe or she avai ls of such ser vices (Clar k , 2000). I n shor t , char ter i sm doesnot gu ar an t ee “soci al en t i t l emen t s f r om mer e m ember sh i p of t hecommun i t y” (Bel l amy & Gr eenaway, 1995, p. 478). Si mi l ar l y , t heimplement at i on of Ci t i zen’s Char ter has fai l ed to consider socio-cul t ur alcont ext s that inher ent l y mak es exclusion of mar ginal ized gr oups happen.I n t he I ndian context , H aque M . S. (2007) ar gues that the development of

2013


ser vice standar ds i nvest ed in impr oving qual i t y of ser vi ces but ignor ed theneed to expand ser vices to social l y excluded gr oups such as the poor . I nth is sense, char t er ism r epr oduces social inequal i t i es by pr ovidi ng bet t erser vices to those al r eady included as “cl ients” and excluding t hose thatcould not avai l of the ser vices. A mor e nuanced view in addr essing t heexclusion pr oblem is to move beyond t r eat i ng ci t i zens as a r ecipient of t heser vices and to i nvolve the ci t izens and al l t hose that would benef i t or losefr om the ser vi ces i n the planning and del iver y of that ser vi ce (Taylor ,1999). Ci t izen par t i ci pat ion i n char ter development i s thus a pr e-r equi si tefor usher ing in a mor e inclusive for m of ci t izen empower ment .

Th i r d, the concept of ci t izen empower ment and diminished opaci t y ofpubl i c ser v i ce made t he char t er an at t r act i ve t ool for cor r upt i onpr event ion. The use of t he char ter t o pr event cor r upt ion was pr oposed byShah and Shah (2006) in the context of a ci t izen-center ed local gover nance.The i dea i s char t er s cr eat e a m echan i sm for ci t i zens t o ex actaccountabi l i t y fr om local pol i t ical leader s apar t f r om elect i ons. H aving t her i ghts to complain for any deviat ions fr om the standar ds and demand forr edr ess can change the incent ive st r uctur e of publ ic of fi cials to do cor r uptacts (Shah, 2007). Char ter s ar e par t icu lar ly power fu l i n cases wher e ther ecor r upt ion at hi gh level and weak gover nance systems because i t can“r eor ient t he publ i c sector towar d ser vice del iver y and t r ansfor m t hecul tur e of gover nance” (Shah & Schacter , 2004, p. 42; Shah, 2006).

Twent y year s since the in t r oduct ion of char ter ism, t he di ffer entmodel s have yiel ded di f fer ent r esul t s. M ost of t he cent r al l y i ni t iatedchar ter s incr easingly r eveal a si gn of neglect over the year s. As a r esul t ,t he char t er s suf fer f r om being r elegat ed as mer e compl i ance to nat i onalgover nment r equi r ements. Thi s exper i ence holds t r ue i n the UK but canal so be obser ved in other count r i es that adopted a hi gh ly cent r al izedappr oach to char ter development such as I ndia and Nepal .

Al though the L abour Par t y-led gover nment of Tony Blai r i n UKsust ained the r efor m moment um and cr eat ed the Ser vi ce Fi r st i n 1998,the whole i dea of char ter s has been di scont inued al together si nce t hepr ogr am i s seen to be “too confused in i t s object ives” r esu l t ing i n l oss ofpubl ic r espect for the cause (House of Commons, 2008). The on ly gainsustained fr om t he ent i r e r efor m is the ent r enchment of ser vice st andar dsin t he publ i c’s expect at ion (Humphr eys, 1998). I n 1997 alone, over 10,000local char t er s had been cr eated i n UK (H ouse of Commons, 2008). Despi tethis, sur veys of ci t izens have shown a “publ i c indi f fer ence” to the impact ofthe char ter s in impr oving standar ds (Wi lson, 1996).

A simi l ar case can be seen in I ndia. Ther e wer e 767 char ter s of t heCent r al Gover nment , Stat e Gover nment and Union t er r i t or i es i n 2006,

January-June


288 of which ar e fr om St at e Gover nments (Publ i c Affai r s Cent r e, 2007).However , an in i t ial evaluat i on in 2003 of Ci t izen’s Char t er developmentshowed lack of stakeholder consul tat ion, whi ch could have r esu l ted in l ackof impr ovement in cl i ent sat i sfact ion and qual i t y of ser vi ces pr ovided(Publ ic Af fai r s Cent r e, 2007). Aft er ten year s of implement at i on, thePubl ic Af fai r s Cent r e (2007) car r i ed out a compr ehensive nat ional r evi ewof char ter s in I ndia mainl y to evaluat e the qual i t y of the char t er s and i t simpact in i ncr easing t r anspar ency i n t he publ i c ser vi ce. The r eviewshowed that no char ter i n I ndia cont ained t he essent i al component s of anint er nat i onal l y accept ed char t er . Only hal f of the char ter s evaluatedcont ained ser vice standar ds and a for m of r edr ess mechani sm. Gener al l y,end-user s and ci v i l societ y or gani zat i ons wer e not consul t ed i n t hedevelopment of t he char t er s. However , as obser ved by Paul (2008), t hechar ter s wher ever displayed appear ed to have cr eated a posi t ive impact byi n for ming the publ ic of t hei r ent i t l ements t her eby al l owing t hem t odemand for gr eater accountabi l i t y.

An assessment commissioned by t he I ndian gover nment r evealedsi mi l ar r esu l t s. Char t er s con t ai n out dat ed and poor -qual i t y ser vi cestandar ds (I ndian I nst i t ute of Publ ic Administ r at ion, 2008). The evaluat ionconcluded that :

… t he Ci t i zen’s Char t er pr ogr amme of most or ganizat ions suffer sf r om pover t y of par t i ci pat ion and fai l ur e of communi cat i on, i smar k ed by poor , undef i ned, ambiguous st andar ds andcommitment s, car r ies low visibi l i t y and negl igible pr esence not onlyi n publ ic domai n but also w i t h i n t he or gani sat i on, possessesi nadequat e mechanism for fu l f i l l ment of commit ment s, howeveri nsi gn i f i cant , l ack s a st r at egy and r esour ce suppor t for i t sr eal i sat ion, i s shor n of t he i nst r ument s of measur ement , r evi ewand eval uat i on of i mpl ement at i on and out comes, and has nost r at egy t owar ds di st i ngu i sh i ng t he per for mer s f r om non-per for mers. (Indian Inst i tut e of Publ ic Administ rat ion, 2008, p. 25)

The Nepalese pr ogr am on Ci t izen’s Char t er appear s t o suf fer t hesame fate. Whi le the char t er s st r engthened the r el at ionship between t hemunicipal gover nment and the publ ic, lack of awar eness among the cl ientsand lack of capaci t y on the side of the gover nment ser ved as inst i t ut i onalconst r ai n t s t o ach ievi ng t he fu l l pot ent i al of t he Ci t i zen’s Char t er(Achar ya, 2010). A sur vey of bot h t he ci t i zens and ser vi ce-pr oviderr evealed that whi le ci t i zens per ceive an incr ease i n t r anspar ency, t het r anspar ency does not t r anslate t o bet ter and incr eased access of t he poordue to fai l ur e t o change t he ‘t r adi t ional’ mindset of ser vice pr ovider s(Dhakal & Ghimir e, 2009).

These i nt er nat ional exper i ences br ing t o the for e how developmentand implementat i on of t he char t er ’s pr inciple in fl uence i t s success not

2013


only as a way to impr ove ser vice del iver y but al so to r ecal i br ate ci t i zen-st at e r el at ionship. The inabi l i t y t o engage ci t izens as stakeholder s in t heear l y stages of char t er development quest i ons t he abi l i t y of the char ter toempower ci t i zens and t hus, casts doubt on how the char ter can ef fect i velycont r ol cor r upt i on.

Ci t i zen ’s Ch ar t er i n t h e Ph i l i pp i n es

The Phi l ippines adopt ed char t er i sm on a lar ge scale onl y fai r l yr ecent l y. As a r esul t , i t enjoyed a late-comer ’s advant age by l ear ning fr omt he shor t comi ngs of ot her coun t r i es and r el at ed Ci t i zen’s Char t erin i t iat ives implement ed by t he Phi l i ppine gover nment and selected l ocalgover nments. When t he Ant i -Red Tape Act of 2007 was enacted, i t ser vedas a cu lminat i on of cont ingent event s since 2001 t hat aim not onl y toi ncor por at e t he or iginal pr i ncipl es of t he char t er but al so to i ncl udelessons lear ned f r om other count r ies.

Pr e-RA 9485 Ci ti zen’s Char ter I ni t i at i ves i n the Phi l i ppines

I n t he Phi l i ppines, t he local gover nments wer e the ones who f i r stpi ck ed up t he t r end of cr eat ing Ci t i zen’s Char ter s. Pr i or to the enact mentof t he ARTA, t he Naga Ci t y Gover nment (2009) publ i shed a guidebook onkey gover nment ser vices in 2001, which l aid the gr ound for the i ssuance ofi t s Ci t i zen’s Char t er . The i n i t i at i v e was one of t he majorr ecommendat ions of a USAI D-funded pr oject t hat began in 1997. M or ethan four edi t ions of the char ter s have been publ ished since t hen.

The Ci t y Gover nment of M ar ik ina al so cr aft ed simi l ar char t er s cal l edthe Fact book in 2004 and 2007. The M akat i Ci t y Gover nment l aunched i t sown Ci t i zen’s Guidebook i n 2006 t o mak e t r ansact i ons bet ween t hegover nment and the publ ic easier .

Recogni zi ng t he posi t i ve gains der i ved f r om t he char t er s, t heDevelopment Academy of t he Phi l i ppines or DAP (2007) l aunched apr ogr am dubbed as “I mpr oving Publ ic Ser vice Del iver y, Tr anspar ency andAccount abi l i t y i n L ocal Gover nance t hr ough Ci t izen’s Char ter .” I t was apr ogr am, funded by t he Br i t i sh Embassy, that assisted six LGUs in comingup wi th t hei r own Ci t izen’s Char ter in 2006. These ci t ies wer e I l i gan,Sor sogon, Laoag, Dumaguete, Bacolod, and Digos.

At t he nat i onal fr ont , t he Civi l Ser vi ce Commission (CSC) pr omot edthe cr eat ion of ser vi ce pl edges thr ough t he issuance of CSC M emor andumCi r cular 25 s. 2001. M emor andum Ci r cular (M C) 35 issued by the Off ice ofPr esident i n 2003 also mandated al l depar tments and agencies t o develop

January-June


and publ ish “ser vice guides” in the for m of br ochur es or handbooks as wel las wor k flow char ts (Gover nment of the Phi l ippines, 2003).

Under M C 35, t he ser vi ce gu ides shal l i nclude: a) br i ef in for mat i onabout t he agency, i t s mandat e and funct ions incl uding al l t he ser vi ces t heagency pr ovides t o the publ ic; b) pr ocedur e or sequence of st eps t o befol l owed; c) document s r equi r ed r elat i ve to the ser vi ce; d) amount of feesto be paid and cor r esponding legal bases; e) ser vi ce st andar d such asmaximum pr ocessing t ime; f ) ser vi ce pl edge of the agency; g) r ights andr esponsibi l i t i es of per sons avai l ing of the ser vice; h) pr ocedur e for f i l i ngcomplaint s and pr ovidi ng suggest ions and feedback ; and i ) other suchin for mat i on as t he head of t he agency may deem necessar y to impr ove t hedel iver y of ser vices.

Simi lar ly, as a r esponse to gr owing demands to boost compet i t ivenessof t he coun t r y , E xecu t i ve Or der N o. 605 was i ssued i n 2006 t oi nst i t u t i onal i ze t he gover nment ’s qual i t y management pr ogr am. Thepol i cy issuance mandated al l execut i ve agencies t o adopt I SO 9001:2000standar ds. An i ntegr al component of the pr ogr am is the establ ishment of a“ci t izens’ char t er of key gover nment offi ces t hat shal l be pr ovided to t het r ansact i ng publ i c as gover nment’s mani festat i on of ser vice guar antee”(Gover nment of the Phi l ippines, 2006).

Anti -Red Tape Act of 2007 (Republ i c Act No. 9485)

I n or der t o pr omote i ntegr i t y, accountabi l i t y and pr oper managementof publ ic af fai r s, Republ i c Act No. 9485 ot her wi se known as the Ant i -RedTape Act of 2007 was signed i nt o l aw by t he for mer Pr esident Glor iaM acapagal -Ar r oyo on 2 June 2007. ARTA is a cor r upt ion-pr event i on toolthat incr eases t r anspar ency and pr omotes honesty and r esponsibi l i t y inser vice del i ver y. Since then, ARTA ser ved as t he foundat ion for the ant i -r ed tape pr ogr am of the gover nment .

ARTA, whi ch cover s al l gover nment of fi ces and agencies includinglocal gover nment uni t s and gover nment -owned or -cont r ol l ed cor por at ions,r equ i r es r eengi neer i ng of syst ems and pr ocedu r es (Sect i on 5) andestabl i shment of a Ci t izen’s Char t er (Sect ion 6). I t also set s t he agencyheads as pr imar i l y r esponsibl e for i t s implementat i on and accountable forthe del i ver y of fast , ef ficient , convenient , and r el iable ser vice (Sect ion 7).

As def i ned by t he l aw, Ci t i zen’s Char t er r efer s t o an of f i ci aldocument , a ser vice standar d, or a pledge, that communicates, in simpleter ms, in for mat ion on the ser vices pr ovided by the gover nment to i t sci t izens. I t descr ibes the step-by-st ep pr ocedur e for avai l ing of a par t icu lar

2013


ser vice, and the guar anteed per for mance level that ci t izens may expect forthat ser vice (Gover nment of t he Phi l i ppines, 2008). The Ci t izen’s Char t ershal l be in a for m of an i nfor mat ion bi l lboar d and publ ished or pr i nt edmater ial . ARTA pr ovided that char ter s be made avai lable ei ther in Engl ishor i n the local language.

In 2008, the implement ing rules and regulat ion (IRR) of RA 9485 fur therdefined the requi red infor mat ion to be publ ished in the Cit izen’s Char ter ,which ar e as fol lows: a) vision and mission of the gover nment office oragency; b) ident i ficat ion of the front l ine ser vices offer ed, and the cl ientele;c) the step-by-step pr ocedure to obtain a par t icular service; d) the officer oremployee r esponsible for each step; e) the maximum t ime to conclude theprocess; f) document /s to be pr esented by the cl ient , with a clear indicat ion ofthe r elevancy of said document /s; g) the amount of fees, i f necessary; h) theprocedur e for fi l ing complaints in r elat ion to requests and applicat ions,including the names and contact detai ls of the officials/channels to approachfor r edr ess; i ) al lowable per iod for extension due to unusual ci rcumstances,i .e., unforeseen events beyond the cont r ol of the concer ned gover nment officeor agency; and j) feedback mechanisms, contact number s to cal l , and/orper sons to appr oach for recommendat ions, inquir ies, suggest ions, as well ascomplaints. I t also cal led for the moni tor ing and per iodic review of thechar ter to be led by the head of the agency.

One of the best featur es of ARTA i s the cr iminal i zat ion of f i xing. Afi xer i s defi ned as “any i ndi vidual whet her or not of ficial ly invol ved i n t heoper at i on of a gover nment off ice or agency who has access to peoplewor k ing t her ein, and whether or not in col l usion wi t h t hem, faci l i t at esspeedy complet i on of t r ansact i ons for pecun iar y gain or any ot heradvantage or consider at i on” (Gover nment of t he Phi l ippines, 2007). Thecr iminal l i abi l i t y of a fi xer shal l be impr isonment not exceeding six year sor a maximum fine of Php200,000 (or almost US$ 4,800).

The main cr i t i ci sm of ot her char ter s i s t he fai l ur e t o al l ocate a set ofr i ghts for t he ci t izens (Dr ewr y, 2005). What ARTA does is to set min imumst andar ds in accessing fr ont l i ne ser vi ces. These standar ds i ncl ude amaximum pr ocessing per iod of f i ve days for simple t r ansact ions and t endays for complex t r ansact i ons, which has ef fect i vel y r eplaced the 15wor k ing days standar d for act ion on l et ter s and r equests for ser vi ces setby Republ i c Act No. 6713. Signat or ies ar e also mandat ed to be l imi t ed to amaximum of f i ve.

Whi l e most of the pr ovisions of the ARTA fol low t he gener al feat ur esof char ter ism, the law also included a di ffer ent and mor e innovat ive way ofdeveloping the char ter . ARTA r equi r es pr ocess simpl i f icat i on wi th t hevi si on of r educing r ed t ape and expedi t ing t r ansact ions. I n tu i t i vely, t he

January-June


st andar ds publ ished i n the char ter s should ideal ly be void of r edundantand unnecessar y steps t o mak e t he ser vice mor e eff icient . Rat i onal i zi ngeach st ep and r equi r ement s can r educe vu lner abi l i t i es t o cor r upt i on(M endoza, 2011a). I t has a pr event ive ef fect against cor r upt ion since mostof t hese r edundant st eps ar e incl uded to make gi vi ng ‘gr ease money’ amor e at t r act ive opt ion to faci l i t at e t he t r ansact ion. M or e impor tant l y, t heI RR pr ovided for the i nvolvement of st akeholder s, user s, and benef ici ar i esof the fr ont l i ne ser vices in the for mulat ion and r efinement of the char ter s.

The Ant i -Red Tape Pr ogr am and Ci ti zen’s Char ter I ni t i at i vei n the Phi l i ppines

Using t he ARTA as spr ingboar d, the Civi l Ser vi ce Commission (CSC)l aunched a pr ogr am t o ensu r e t he i mmedi at e, sw i f t , and ef fect i veimplement at i on of t he law. An over si ght commit tee headed by CSC wascr eated by vi r tue of the I RR of ARTA wi th the Off ice of the Ombudsman,the Pr esident i al Ant i -Gr aft Commission, and t he Development Academy ofthe Phi l ippines as member s.

The Development Academy of the Phi l ippines headed the capaci t ybui lding component of the pr ogr am. By 2009, sever al nat ional l ine agencies,LGUs, and state universit ies and col leges went through a seminar by DAP infor mulat ing and implement ing the Ci t izen’s Char ter . The t r aining pr ogramfocused on sk i l l s and k nowledge t o jumpst ar t t he Ci t i zen’s Char t erfor mulat ion. DAP also pr ovided technical assistance to nat ional l ine agenciesand LGUs in developing their own Ci t izen’s Char ter .

The CSC i s pr imar i l y r esponsibl e for ensur i ng the compl i ance of al lagencies cover ed as wel l as evaluat i ng the effect iveness of t he ent i r epr ogr am. As of Sept ember 2012, 79.16 per cent compl i ance is r epor t ed(Per ante-Cal i na, 2012), a jump f r om a 66 per cent compl iance r at e inOctober 2009 (M endoza, 2011b). L GUs have t he hi ghest compl i ance r ateat 87.86 per cent .

As pr ovided in the ARTA, the CSC also i ni t iated t he Repor t Car dSur vey (RCS). The sur vey aims t o “obtain feedback on existence andef fect iveness of , as wel l as compl iance wi th the Ci t izen’s Char ter , and howt he of f i ce or agency i s per for ming i nsofar as f r ont l i ne ser vi ces ar econcer ned” (Gover nment of the Phi l ippines, 2007). Simi l ar ly, t he sur veywi l l be used t o look in to the exper ience of t he ci t i zens as t o h idden costsin accessing fr ont l ine ser vices, such as br ibes and payment to fixer s.

The sur vey met hodology adopted by CSC cover s i ndi vi dual cl i entswho have r ecent l y avai led of any fr ont l ine ser vi ce of t he agency. The

2013


sur vey is conducted thr ough face-to-face i nt er views immediat ely aft eravai l ing of the ser vi ce. The st udy i ncluded quest i ons t o get per cept ion onagency compl iance wi t h ARTA r equi r ement s, fr ont l i ne ser vice pr ovider s,qual i t y of ser vi ce pr ovided, physi cal wor k i ng condi t i ons, and over al lsat isfact ion level of t he cl ient (CSC, 2011).

I n 2010, the CSC conduct ed the RCS i n 50 gover nment agenciesincluding local gover nment agencies nat ionwide (CSC, 2010). Using a pointsystem based on the RCS r esul t s, CSC awar ded n ine gover nment agencies2

t hat r ecei ved the highest scor es wi t h the Seal of Excel lence.

I n 2011, CSC conducted once again the RCS wi th most ly encour agingr esul t s for nat i onal l i ne agencies. Respondents wer e able t o tak e not ice ofmost of t he pr ovisi ons of the Ci t izen’s Char ter as posted in the pr emises ofthe nat ional agencies. I t ems most not i ced by the r espondents wer e t hestep-by-step pr ocedur e, r esponsible officer , and documentar y r equi r ements(CSC, 2011).

An addi t i onal component to the ARTA ini t i at i ve is t he ARTA Watch.The ARTA Wat ch ser ves as a spot check ing mechanism to deter mineagency compl iance wi th ARTA pr ovisions. Conducted by t he CSC, i t wasbr ought about by complaints to the Commission about al leged viol at i ons ofARTA and incidents of f i xi ng. I t aims to emphasi ze the “no noon br eakpol i cy” and ser ves as an i nfor mat ion and advocacy dr i ve for the otherpr ogr ams of the CSC. As of Apr i l 2011, CSC visi t ed 13 agencies under t heARTA Watch (CSC, 2011).

M or e r ecent l y, t he CSC establ i shed t he Contact Center ng Bayan 1-6565 (CCB), whi ch can be r oughl y t r anslat ed as Contact Cent er of t hePeople. Accor ding t o CSC (2012), t he CCB was br ought about by t he needto i nst al l a helpdesk t o addr ess publ i c concer n on gover nment agencies.Relatedl y, the CCB can also accept complaint s in r elat i on to ARTA and theCi t izen’s Char ter s. For i t s i ni t ial implementat i on, the CCB cover s onl y sixagencies namely, CSC, Nat i onal Computer Center , Bur eau of I nter nalRevenue, Phi l ippine Heal th I nsur ance Cor por at ion, Depar tment of Heal th,and Depar tment of Tr ade and I ndust r y.

Obj ect i v es of t h e St u dy an d M et h odol ogy

M any scholar s may ar gue that the pr i ncipl es of NPM have becomeoutdated. H owever , the emer gence of char t er ism i ncluding other publ icsect or r efor ms such as t he per for mance-based i ncent ive syst em in t hePhi l ippines may offer a counter -ar gument to t his view. Look ing at t heexper ience of the count r y in implement ing t he Ci t izen’s Char ter poin t to

January-June


how NPM has evolved. Thi s study aims to assess how the Ant i -Red TapeAct of 2007 was implemented. I n par t icu lar , t he study asks: what has beenthe appr oach of t he L GUs i n for mulat ing and implement ing t he char t er s?How consi st ent and complet e ar e t he char t er s as r egar ds ARTA-mandat edin for mat i on? The evaluat i on findings t hen dr aw conclusions as t o whetherbasi c t enets of NPM and char t er ism as ini t i al l y conceived in UK andposi ted by Shah (2006) ar e pr esent in the Phi l ippine Ci t izen’s Char ter s.

I t examines t he for mulat i on and implement at i on of t he char t erpar t icu lar l y usi ng sever al pr ocess and cont ent elements. These elementscombine the publ ic ser vi ce del iver y impr ovement mot ivat ion of the char teras conceived in NPM , lessons lear ned fr om i nter nat i onal exper i ences, howto develop legal pr ovi sions, and t he infor mat i on to be contained and meansof implement at ion of t he char ter . Fi r st , t he for ms of Ci t i zen’ Char ter s (i nboth how i t was pr esented and language used) r ef l ect t he ext ent ofcompl iance wi t h ARTA as wel l as the customizat ion of the char ter s in tothei r local context . Customizat ion is indicat i ve of t he ext ent to whi ch localgover nment uni t s adapt i t t o local envi r onment consider ing t he needs ofdi f fer en t cl i en t el e. Second, ci t i zen empower men t i s pr edi cat ed onstakeholder i nvol vement i n the development of the standar ds. Not on lywas t his element r equi r ed i n ARTA but ci t izen par t ici pat ion al so ser ves asan i nput to adapt ing the ser vices to the publ i c’s expect at ions. Th i r d,ARTA’s main object i ve is t o r educe r ed tape, whi ch can onl y be madepossible wi th pr ocess si mpl i f i cat i on . I f face-t o-face i nt er face wi t h cl i entsand r edundant steps incl uding number of signat or i es ar e st r eaml i ned,combined, or r emoved, oppor tuni t ies for cor r upt ion such as monopol y ofpower and h igh discr et ion should be r educed (M endoza, 2011a). Four t h,ARTA al so mandat es t he act i ve di ssemi nat i on of t he char t er s andmoni tor i ng of compl iance wi th t he st andar ds. Disseminat ion i s l inked tomak ing the ci t izens awar e of the char ter , i t s standar ds, and r i ght s i tgr ants to t hem. M oni t or i ng on t he ot her hand per tains t o t he i nter nalmechani sm t o i ncr ease t he l i k el i hood of det ect i ng vi ol at i ons t o t hechar ter s. Last ly, t he i n for mat i on contai ned wi t hin t he char t er is not on lya measur e of t he extent to which NPM pr i nci pl es ar e incor por at ed in t hechar ter s but i s also a r efl ect ion of the char t er ’s abi l i t y to empower t heci t i zens to exact accountabi l i t y. I n par t icul ar , t he publ icat i on of step-by-st ep pr ocedu r es of avai l i ng a ser v i ce w i l l r educe t he monopol y ofinfor mat i on by the gover nment .

I n or der to car r y out the evaluat i on, a compar at ive anal ysis of t heCi t izen’s Char t er s and k ey i nfor mant in ter views wer e employed. TheCi t i zen’s Char ter s wer e anal yzed to deter mine the level of compl i ancewi th the law wi t h r egar d t o i nfor mat ion t o be contained, and to i dent i fyinnovat ions made by the L GUs. Fol lowing simi l ar met hodology adopt ed byI nd i a’s Publ i c A f fai r s Cen t r e, compl i ance w i t h t he t en r equ i r ed

2013


in for mat i on wer e coded accor ding to whether t hese wer e ful l y, par t ial ly ornot compl ied wi th at al l .

St r uctur ed int er views wer e made t o clar i fy f i ndings of the contentanal ysis and get a closer under st anding of t he appr oach adopt ed i npr ogr am implementat ion. Seven k ey in for mant s fr om four LGUs wer eint er vi ewed, four of wer e fr om Business Per mi ts and L icensing Offi ce. Ther est of t he key i nfor mants wer e ei ther member s or heads of the Ci t izenChar ter Team (CCT) tasked to for mulate the char t er s. As implement er s,the LGUs wer e in ter vi ewed to pr ovide i nfor mat i on on t he a) over -al lpr ocess adopt ed i n for mu lat i on and i mplemen t at i on of t he char t eri ncl udi n g faci l i t at i ng and h i nder i ng fact or s; b) ex t en t of publ i cpar t ici pat i on and consul tat i on in the pr ocess incl uding mechanism forin for mat i on di sseminat ion; and c) extent of r eengineer i ng and systemsimpr ovement done i n t er ms of r educed pr ocessing t ime and r equi r ements

The study was conducted fr om 23 Apr i l t o 6 M ay 2012. I t i nvolved theassessment of t he Ci t i zen’s Char t er of f i ve L GUs i n M et r o M ani l a:M andaluyong Ci t y, Pasig Ci t y, M ar ik i na Ci t y, Ci t y of M ani la, and M akat iCi t y. L GUs wer e chosen t o pr ovide compar able var i ables i n ter ms of t heexper ience in confor ming t o the r equi r ement s of the l aw. M et r o M ani laLGUs al so cont r ol for fact or s t hat would af fect var i at i ons accor ding togeogr aphi c l ocat i on and exper ience i n char ter i sm. Two LGUs (M ar i k i naand M ak at i ) had pr evious exper i ence in pr epar i ng a document simi lar tothe Ci t izen’s Char ter . The r est had l i t t le or no simi l ar exper ience.

Due t o unavai l abi l i t y of t he k ey i n for man t , no i n t er v i ew wasconduct ed for M andaluyong LGU but an offi ci al copy of the Ci t izen’sChar ter fr om the Publ ic I nfor mat ion Office was pr ovided.

For i t s act ual assessment , t he st udy entai l ed an examinat i on ofbusiness per mits and l icensing in order to contextual ize the assessment vis-à-vis the role of per mit and l icense acquisit ion in pr omot ing local economicgrowth and investment . L imited t ime and resources constr ained a mor eextensive analysis that would involve al l front l ine services of an LGU.

The r esul t s ar e l imi t ed to t he exper iences of each of t he L GUs andar e not r epr esentat i ve of the ent i r e gover nment . H owever , the st udyin tends t o pr ovide an insight on t he di ffer ences and commonal i t i es in t heexper ience of implement i ng the Ant i -Red Tape pr ogr am bet ween LGUsthat have Ci t izen’s Char ter and those who do not .

The study does not cover the actual assessment of t he businessper mi ts and l i censing systems of t he LGUs. I t wi l l not assess the qual i t yand t imel iness of t he ser vi ces pr ovided but r ather how t he system r elat eswi th i t s char ter , whether i t is t r anslated effect ively as ser vice standar ds.

January-June


F i n d i ngs

I ni t i al Gains

The post i ng of t he char t er s appear t o have r esul ted i n a bet ter -in for med ci t izenr y. Accor ding t o the f r ont l iner s i nter viewed, ci t izens askfewer quest i ons and L GUs r eceive l ess complain ts. Gains can also beobser ved fr om the r esul t s of the RCS of CSC. Resul t s of thi s st udy ar econsist ent w i t h t he RCS findings of h igher ci t izen sat isfact i on. Based onLGU-led cl i ent sat i sfact ion sur veys, h igh sat isfact i on level s wer e al sor epor t ed by M akat i at 89 per cent . The RCS r epor t ed t hat 90 per cent of t her espondents wer e ei ther ver y sat i sfi ed or sat i sf ied. Respondent s wer e al somost sat i sfi ed wi th equal t r eatment by the ser vice pr ovider s or pr ovi si onof ser vices accor ding to ‘fi r st -come, fi r st -ser ved’ basis (CSC, 2010).

I n ter ms of the exper ience of the ci t izen wi th fixing, the RCS for 2010r eveal encour aging r esul t s. Onl y 0.3 per cent of the r espondents r epor t edat tempt s of f i xing for t he fi r st phase RCS cover i ng LGUs. Ther e wer e al soexper iences of paying mor e than what was r epor ted i n the char ter s (4.2per cent of r esponden t s). H owever , f i x i ng act i v i t i es may have beensigni f icant ly r educed dur ing the t ime of enumer at ion si nce the sur vey wasconducted near the ser vice ar eas (CSC, 2010).

For ms of the Ci t i zen’s Char ter s

Bui l t on the concept of impr oving t r anspar ency, ARTA r equi r ed al lagencies that pr ovide f r ont l ine ser vice to publ i sh t hei r char t er s as anin for mat i on bi l l boar d and pr i nted mater ials. The f ive LGUs have compl i edwi th th is r equi r ement and even made char ter s avai l able in ot her for matssuch as t he websi te and sheets of paper s.

M ak at i uploaded a ci t i zen’s guidebook in i t s websi t e as wel l asdi st r ibut ed Ci t i zen’s Char ter t o al l bar angays in 2008. The char ter wasused as basis for t he bi l l boar d and leaf let s/br ochur es that out l ine t her equi r ements and pr ocedur es.

Apar t f r om the Ci t i zen’s Factbook , t he M ar i k i na Business Per mi tsand L icensing Off ice (BPLO) has a br ochur e t hat descr ibes the steps ofacqui r i ng business per mi ts and l icenses. For ms and pr ocedur es ar e al sopost ed in the ci t y gover nment websi t e. Summar y of t he r equi r ements andpr ocedur es ar e post ed outsi de t he office.

M andaluyong has a char ter post ed in fr ont of the ci t y hal l . Br ochur esof t he gu idel i nes ar e also avai lable via the Publ i c I nfor mat ion Off ice.

2013


Whi le ther e is a pr ocedur e post ed on l ine, i t appear s t hat i t is outdated andis not consist ent w i t h t he guidel ines as descr ibed in t he char t er s. M ani lapost ed the pr ocedur es in fr ont of the Bur eau of Per mi t s off ice. Pieces ofpaper containi ng the r equi r ements ar e al so handed out t o those whoinqui r e about the pr ocedur e.

Pasig has guidel ines in secur ing mayor ’s per mi ts. A pr ocess fl owchar t displayed pr ominent ly in the wai t i ng ar ea descr i bes the step-by-st eppr ocedur es i n avai l ing of the ser vice. Sheets of paper t hat descr ibe t hepr ocess and r equi r ements ar e also avai lable.

A cl oser assessment of t he for mat used for the Ci t izen’s Char t err eveals t hat most of the L GUs fol low t he ‘pr escr ibed’ t emplate of t heCi t izen’s Char t er . Apar t f r om the i nclusi on of pr ocess f low char ts i nM ar ik ina and Pasig as wel l as a zoning map in M andaluyong, no adapt ionswer e made in t he templat e Ci t izen’s Char t er , which is main ly in mat r ixfor m. No LGU pr esented t he char t er s in Fi l ipino, the l ocal language.I nstead, the sampled Ci t izen’s Char ter s wer e pr esented in Engl ish.

Stakeholder I nvol vement

Except for M ar i k i na and M ak at i , L GUs cr eat ed t hei r Ci t i zen’sChar ter chiefl y due t o t he enactment of t he law, the succeeding pol i cyi ssuances, act i ve advocacy, and t he moni t or i ng of CSC. Simi l ar l y ,M ar i k i na is cur r ent ly i n t he pr ocess of developing a r evi sed ver si on of i t sCi t i zen’s Char ter cal led M ar ik i na Fact book due t o CSC audi t f i ndings ofnon-compl iance wi th pr ovisions of ARTA.

However , for al l LGUs, no st akeholder was consul ted or involved inthe pr ocess of developing or r ef in ing t hei r r espect ive Ci t i zen’s Char ter .Whi l e t her e ar e exi st ing oppor t un i t i es for ci t izen consul tat ion such asbusi ness associ at i ons/counci l s, t hese mechan i sms t end t o focus onfeedback on issues concer n ing t he ser vice r ather t han act i ve par t icipat i onin agr eeing wi th t he ser vice standar ds of the LGU.

The absence of stakeholder involvement i ndi cat es low r esponsivenessto ci t izen needs. This poses a si gni f icant const r ain t in ach ieving maximumcust omer sat isfact i on and gener at ing owner ship among st akeholder s. Asar t i cul at ed by the Publ i c Affai r s Cent r e (2007), the gover nment mustcompr ehensi vel y analyze the act ual needs and expectat ions of t he end-user s in for mulat i ng the ser vice standar ds i n t he char t er s since thechar t er s aim t o ensur e t hat gover nment ser vi ces r espond t o ci t i zen’sneeds.

January-June


Pr ocess Simpl i f i cat ion and Reengineer i ng

I n t he pr ocess of set t ing up the char t er , L GUs simply t r anslat edin t er nal pr ocess st andar ds i n t o ser vi ce commi t ment s. I n par t i cu l ar ,M akat i had an easier t ime in mak ing the ser vice standar ds due t o the on-going i nst al lment of a qual i t y management syst em for t he businessper mi ts ser vices dur i ng that t ime. Simi lar l y, gi ven t he fact that businessper mi ts and l i censes have been one of the most studied and r eengineer edfr ont l i ne ser vice, the avai labi l i t y of documented good pr act i ces combinedwi th pol i cy di r ect i ons by t he nat i onal gover nment faci l i t at ed the char t erdevelopment pr ocess.

I n r elat i on to th is, t her e is l i t t le indi cat ion t hat t he sample LGUsper for med r eengineer ing and simpl i f icat ion of wor k pr ocedur es. M akat i wasable to show sign i f icant r educt i ons i n pr ocessing t ime f r om 8 days dur i ngpeak per i ods i n 2008 to 2-3 days in 2011. H owever , r educt i on in pr ocessingt ime is chiefl y at t r i buted t o t he I SO 9001:2000 cer t i f i ed pr ocessing system,wh i ch al l owed for r egu l ar mon i t or i ng of wor k per for m ance andcor r esponding cor r ect ive act i ons for non-confor mance wi t h standar ds.M ar ik ina also noted the r ecent issuance of an inter nal manual of oper at i onsto guide staff on how to per for m pr oper ly task s assigned t o t hem.

Disseminat i on

Di f fer ent met hods for di sseminat i ng t he Ci t i zen’s Char t er wer eemployed by the LGUs. M akat i pr int ed copies of t he char t er and sentthem to al l of the ci t y’s bar angays. The char t er s of M ar ik i na, Pasig, andM andaluyong wer e made avai lable thr ough br ochur es onl y wi t hin t hepr emises of t he ci t y hal l .

Ther e ar e also st r i ps of paper that cont ain t he basi c r equi r ementsand steps handed out by some of t he L GUs. I n for mat ion on get t ingbusiness per mi ts ar e also avai l able on each of t he LGU’s websi t es exceptfor Pasig, which was under const r uct ion when this evaluat ion was made.

Al l of the L GUs have char ter s posted in conspicuous ar eas of t he ci t yhal l and i n ar eas wher e t he ser vi ces ar e pr ovided. The wai t ing ar eas wer egener al ly spacious, ai r -condi t ioned, and equipped wi th television sets.

M oni tor ing

Since the law pr ovides sanct ions for non-compl iance wi t h the ser vi cest andar ds in t he char t er , i t is cr i t i cal to deter mine whether the ser vi ce

2013


st andar ds i ndi cat ed ar e fol l owed. H owever , on l y one L GU (M ak at i )moni tor s the t ime i t t ak es for the business per mi t s t o be issued. A syst emgener at es t he t ot al pr ocessing t i me, wh i ch i s r epor t ed t o t he t opmanagement of the L GU. Causes of deviat ion f r om t he standar ds ar esyst emat i cal ly anal yzed and addr essed. For al l L GUs, moni tor ing is madeby the CSC, which conducts the RCS and ARTA Watch.

I nfor mat i on Stated i n the Char ter s

The infor mat ion r equi r ed by ARTA per tai ns to t he what’s, how’s,wher e’s, and why’s of t he fr ont l i ne ser vice. Thi s infor mat ion is cr ucial foranyone who wants to avai l of a ser vi ce and for someone who want s tor eceive i t expedi t iously.

Al l LGUs stated t he documentar y r equi r ements t o avai l of businessper mi t s and l i censi ng. Addi t i onal r equi r ement s set by t he nat i onalgover nment wer e also i ncluded in t hr ee of the five char t er s sampled.H owever , t wo impor t ant f i ndings should be not ed. F i r st , t her e wer einconsi st encies found on t he r equi r ement s and st eps to be under t aken indi ffer ent ver sions of the Ci t izen’s Char t er s such as t he smal l f lyer s andbr ochur es handed out and websi t e for some of the L GUs. Upon ver i f i cat ion,some of t he r equi r ement s, such as the Fi r e Safet y I nspect ion Clear ance,wer e not r ef lect ed because the r equi r ement does not apply to al l appl i cant s.The documentar y r equi r ements wer e di ffer ent iated accor ding t o whetherthe appl icant is high or low r isk . Only M akat i and M andaluyong wer e able toexpr ess th is di ffer ent iat i on in thei r char ter s.

As t o f r ont l ine ser vi ces offer ed, M akat i and M ar i k i na can fur therenumer ate the ser vi ces offer ed by the business per mi ts and l i censingof fi ce. M ani la and Pasig also need t o ident i fy clear l y the per sons who ar eel igible t o avai l of the ser vices.

M ost of t he LGUs wer e able to pr ovide a clear sequencing of steps int hei r char t er s, even incl uding a pr ocess fl ow char t . The st ep-by-steppr ocedu r e appear s t o be di f f i cu l t t o compl y w i t h i n t he case ofM andaluyong. Off ices and t hei r r espect ive guidel ines wer e di scussed butthe pr ocess of avai l i ng of t he speci fi c ser vi ce wer e not . M ani la i dent i f i edonly one st ep in i t s char t er , whi ch was to submi t appl i cat ion for m, butfai l ed to i ncor por ate mak ing payment and r equest ing for t he issuance ofthe business plate.

Only thr ee LGUs wer e able to show t he r esponsible of ficer for eachst ep. M ar i k ina wi l l be able t o comply wi th th is r equi r ement as soon as t her evised edi t i on of i t s char ter is publ i shed.

January-June


Contact infor mat ion was pr esent in al l char ter s. M ar ik ina and M akat ial so pr ovided for t he speci fi c cont act per sons. H owever , no pr ocedur es andser vice standar ds for mak ing complaint s wer e found among t he char ter sexcept for M ar ik i na, whi ch st at ed that ci t izens could talk di r ect l y todepar tment heads for any complaint . Posi t ive feedback wer e given thr oughthe suggest i on boxes and i nfor mat i on desk s but some L GUs r epor t ed thatcomplaints ar e somet imes di r ect ly channeled to the M ayor .

Sur pr i si ngl y, t wo of t he l east compl i ed wi t h ar e t he maximumpr ocessing t ime and t he amount of fees t o be paid. Th i s f i nding i s

Required Inform a tion Maka ti Marik ina Mand aluyong Manila Pas ig

Vision and mission of the government office or agency

Frontline services offered and clientele

Step-by-step procedure to obta in a particula r service

The officer or employee responsible for each step

The ma x imum time to conclude the process;

Documents to be presented by the client, with a clea r indication of the releva ncy of sa id document(s)

The amount of fees, if necessa ry

The procedure for filing compla ints including the names and contact deta ils of the officia ls to approach

Allowa ble period of ex tension due to unusua l circumsta nces

Feedba ck mecha nisms, contact numbers to call, and/or persons to approach

Legend: - Fully Complied - Partially Complied - Not Complied

Tabl e 1. Com p l i an ce w i t h I n for m at i on Requ i r em en t s of t h e ARTA

2013


consist ent w i t h t he Repor t Car d Sur vey r esul t s that i ndi cate these ar esome of t he in for mat i on least not iced by the r espondent s (CSC, 2010).Al though pr ocessing t ime per st ep was shown by M akat i and M ani l a,maximum pr ocessing t ime was not . I f one has to add i t al l up, pr ocessingt ime for those wi th complet e documents and l ow pr of i le appl icant s inM ani la is 19 minutes and 1 day, and 6 minut es for M ak at i . These ar eactual l y di f fer ent fr om the act ual pr ocessing t ime of 30 minutes and t wodays, r espect i vely. Pasig was t he on ly one that commi t ted a maximumpr ocessing t ime of 4-6 hour s or one wor k i ng day. For al l of t he LGUs, t hecr i t i cal assumpt i on t hat t he pr ocessing t ime on l y appl i es when anappl icant holds complete documentar y r equi r ement s and that al l goes wel lwas not ar t iculated in the char ter .

On a simi lar note, the amount of fees i s also not r epor t ed in al lchar ter s. Each of t he LGUs sampled employ di f fer ent ways of comput i ngt he bu si ness per mi t fee and ot her r egu l at or y fees. Basi s f or t hecomputat i on may be avai l able on-l i ne for some, but i t is not incl uded inthe char t er s. Pasig was the only one that incl uded a statement t hat “costvar ies depending on t ype of business.”

This in for mat i on r equi r ement is i ncluded for the pr otect i on of t heser vice pr ovider that in t he event of unusual ci r cumstances, the ser vi cepr ovider can ext end t he t ime st andar d set i n the char ter . However , noneof t he LGUs r efer r ed to an al lowable per iod of ext ension due t o unusualci r cumstances.

Over -al l compl iance wi t h i nfor mat ion r equi r ements as set in t heARTA appear s t o be pr omisi ng. I t is, however , modest ly successfu l sinceonly 2 out of the 10 i nfor mat ion r equi r ement s wer e ful ly compl ied wi t h byal l LGUs and 50% of the infor mat i on r equi r ements wer e not compl ied wi thor only par t ial ly compl ied.

Fur t her mor e, whi l e the char ter s cont ain r elevant in for mat ion onaccessing the ser vi ce, t he LGUs noted that the ci t i zens tend to have t heneed to ver i fy t he posted in for mat ion wi t h the f r ont l iner s. I n most cases,LGUs hand out smal l f lyer s t hat cont ain the steps and pr ocedur es once aci t i zen r equests for ver i f icat i on Fol lowing the per spect ive of a ci t izen, t heact of gi ving the i nfor mat ion per sonal ly is pr obabl y seen as a mor e r el iableexchange of in for mat i on. Get t ing a document f r om a r esponsible per songi ves you t he power to mak e t hem account able i f t he infor mat i on pr ovidedis incomplet e.

January-June


An al y si s

The Ci t izen’s Char t er exper ience of the L GUs r eveal s the focus oncomplyi ng wi th the pr ocess, which compr omises the abi l i t y of the char ter sto empower the ci t izens, be inclusives and event ual ly, r educe cor r upt i on.

The evaluat ion findings show that the char ter s do not necessar i lyr econceptual ize state-ci t izen r elat ions. I t is evident fr om the inter views thatthe LGU sees business permits as a for m of r egulat ion rather than a servicethat the gover nment pr ovides. Cooper (1993) al luded to ideally per ceivinggover nment ser vices as a r elat ionship of exchange rather than a relat ionshipof welfar e. The fi r st k ind of relat ionship involves payment , thus, i t providesthe customer the r ight to exact standar ds for good service whi le the lat ter isan avai lment of ent i t lement wher e cust omer s cannot easi l y complain.Business l icensing, however , can be viewed as a r elat ionship of powerwhereby the gover nment exercises i t s discr et ion to give the ‘r ights’ of thebusiness to oper ate. Thi s way of conceiving the r elat ionship may r uncont rary to the idea of empower ing the cit izens.

Gi ven t he fact that non-compl iance i s most obser ved r egar ding t hein for mat i on on maximum al l owable per iod of ext ension, the pr i ncipl e ofpr ovidi ng feedback for any deviat ion f r om t he publ ished st andar ds andconsequent l y empower i ng t he ci t i zens may be di f f i cu l t . Account ablefr ont l iner s wer e not r eadi l y i dent i f ied but t he char t er s descr ibed t her elevant “windows” or places t o go to for speci fi c steps in t he appl i cat i onpr ocess. Not al l t he infor mat ion r equi r ed by t he law can be found in t hechar ter s. M or eover , accur acy of the i nfor mat i on is also quest i onable giventhe inconsistencies found in the di ffer ent for ms of the char t er .

M or eover , many have chal lenged the UK char t er for i t s i nabi l i t y topr ot ect ‘consumer ’ r i ght s because of i t s unambiguous st atus of not being alaw, local or dinance or expl ici t cont r act (Cooper , 1993). Empower menthowever i s not guar anteed by mer e legislat ive r ecogni t ion of r i ght s tocour teous and pr oper ser vi ce, par t icul ar l y when those that would benef i tfr om the st andar ds establ i shed and r ight s al l ocated to ci t izens ar e notawar e of such r i ght s. Whi l e t he RCS r esul t s show that ci t i zens haveincr easingly become awar e of the char t er s, the gener al publ i c appear s tobe lar gely unawar e of t he r ights inscr ibed i n t he ARTA. Bantay.ph, a non-gover nmen t or gan i zat i on , has t ak en t he r ol e of i ncr easi ng ARTAawar eness thr ough advocacy wor k (Fr iedr ich Naumann Foundat ion, 2013).

Empower ment al so comes i n the for m of i nfor ming t he ci t i zens wi thchoi ce (Taylor , Rai sing the Expect at ion I nter est : New Labour and t heCi t i zen’s Char ter , 1999). However , choice as to t he how t he appl icant s wi l laccess the ser vi ces does not exist . Ther e i s onl y one way of appl ying for t he

2013


business per mi t , which i s thr ough per sonal appear ance in t he pr emises ofthe Ci t y Hal l ei ther by the pr opr ietor or a dul y r ecognized r epr esent at ive.Whi l e i t can be ar gued t hat i ssuance of business per mi ts is r egulator y innatur e, cer t ain aspects of the pr ocedur e can be r efined to al low customer s tochoose del iver y of the ser vice. For example, t he appl icant can choose tosubmi t appl icat i ons onl ine or have t he business per mi t del iver ed wi th aser vice char ge. ARTA pr ovides for equal t r eatment of cl ients but i t may bedi ff icu l t t o val idate how i t has been oper at i onal i zed by the L GUs. As can beseen f r om the char ter s of t he LGUs, cer tai n gr oups may be favor edpar t icu lar ly in ter ms of document ar y r equi r ements and t ime standar ds.

The concept of the Ci t izen’s Char t er as a cor r upt ion-pr event i on toolhi nges on t he idea that i t pr omot es ci t izen empower ment (Shah, 2006).Wi th the r ight in for mat i on, ci t izens can exact accountabi l i t y f r om t hegover nment ther eby r educing oppor t uni t i es for cor r upt i on. Under theex i st i ng si t u at i on how ever , i ncompl et e and i nconsi st en t char t er sexacer bat e i n for m at i on asy mmet r y , cr eat i ng r oom f or abuse andcor r upt i on on the side of t he gover nment .

Fur t her , the Ci t izen’s Char t er can decr ease r ed tape and pr eventcor r upt ion by “r educing monopol y power over i nfor mat i on and appr ovingauthor i t y, clar i fyi ng and l imi t ing discr et i on in evaluat ing appl i cat ionsthr ough clear and pr edi ctable r ul es, and r aising accountabi l i t y thr ought r anspar ency, set ser vice standar ds, per for mance moni tor ing, sanct i ons andincent i ves” (M endoza, 2011a, p. 14). H owever , the char t er ’s pot ent i al as acor r upt i on-pr event ion tool is ser i ously under mined by the pr ocess by whi chi t was developed and implement ed. I nconsist encies in in for mat i on pr ovidedand non-inclusi on of cr i t ical i n for mat i on such as fees and maximumpr ocessing t ime do not addr ess and, i n fact , exacer bat e i nfor mat i onasymmet r y. D iscr et ion i s h igh dur i ng assessment of fees and dur inginspect ion of the business pr emises, whi ch ar e not cover ed by the Ci t izen’sChar ter . M ost of the LGUs deem these ar eas most vu lner able to cor r upt ion.Whi l e t r anspar ency i ncr eased by post i ng t he ser vi ce st andar ds andpr ocedur es, ver y l i t t le per for mance moni t or ing and pr ovisi on of i ncent ivesand sanct ions wer e found. Th is means t hat t he char ter s have done l i t t lepr ogr ess in changing the incent ive system that al lows cor r upt i on to happen.

Whi l e NPM is pr act i cal ly “dead” in developed count r ies because ofthe r ever sals of the thr ee k ey component s (compet i t i on, disaggr egat ion,and i ncent iv izat ion) in thei r publ ic sector (Dunleavy, M ar get t s, Bast ow, &Tink ler , 2005) and because t her e is al so l i t t le evidence that i t has wor k edand pr evai led in developing count r ies (M anning, 2001), t he basic pr inciplesof NPM thr ough t he ARTA ar e wel l and al ive in the Phi l ippines. ARTAinst i t u t i onal i zed per for mance cont r act i ng of the gover nment wi t h thepubl ic. I t manages gover nment per for mance not only by gi ving ci t izens the

January-June


power to exact accountabi l i t y but also by standar dizing what the publ ic canexpect in accessing fr ont l ine ser vices.

H ow ever , eval uat i on r esu l t s i ndi cat e t hat t he N PM -st y l eimplementat ion of ARTA may act as cr i t ical chal lenges in the achievementof t he object i ves of ARTA. The t op-down appr oach i n st andar di zi nggover nment ser vices appear s t o l imi t t he LGUs f r om moving beyondcompl iance mental i t y. I n I ndia and UK , i nher ent ly top-down appr oaches ofdeveloping and implement ing t he char ter s have led t o t hei r char t er s’downfal l (H aque M . S., 2007). The low degr ee of cust omizat ion point s tot he compl i ance ment al i t y of L GUs wi t h nat i onal di r ect i ves. L imi t edst ak eholder i nvol vement i ndi cat es l ow r esponsi veness t o st ak eholderneeds and demands. I f l eft unaddr essed, the Phi l ippine gover nment r isksachieving changes t hat ar e mer ely “symbol ic, t act i cal and mechani cal”(Abdul l ah & K al ianan, 2008, p. 89) pr inci ples of ci t i zen engagement inpubl ic ser vi ce simi lar t o that of M alaysia’s Cl i ent Char ter s. Developingser vi ce st andar ds should t hen move away fr om pr ovider ’s viewpoint of t hesystem to cl i ent per spect ive.

As a per for mance-management measur e, t he Ci t izen’s Char ter ismeant to be the ser vice cont r act between the gover nment and i t s publ ic. I ti n t ends t o manage expect at i ons of t he ci t i zens and ensur e t hat t hegover nment is f i t t o fu l f i l l i t s own standar ds. The qual i t y of t he char ter showever l imi t s the achievement of th is object i ve. Expect at ions bet weenthe ci t izen and the gover nment r emain dispr opor t ionat e. I n or der for t hechar ter t o impr ove per for mance of the L GU, i nt er nal suppor t mechanismsshould al so be st r engthened. M akat i’s pr ogr am of qual i t y managementsyst em j i ved wel l wi t h the i dea of Ci t izen’s Char ter because i t establ i sheda per for mance and compl i ance moni tor i ng system.

Con clu si on an d Recom m en dat i on s

The f i r st few year s of ARTA implemen t at i on show modest butlaudable gains. Compl iance wi th the law i s high compar ed t o simi l ar pastnat i onal and l ocal in i t i at ives in the count r y owing t o the t op-down natur eof t he pr ogr am w i t h st r ong l egal foundat i ons. The i mpor t ance oft r anspar ency and account abi l i t y is once again emphasi zed by publ ishingst andar ds that the publ i c can expect fr om gover nment ser vi ces. Ci t izensat i sfact ion has been consider ed i n the design of t he ser vices and t hepubl i c has r esponded posi t ively. H owever , the i nconsi st ency of compl i ancew i t h t he l et t er of t he l aw , par t i cu l ar l y i n t er ms of t he r equ i r edin for mat i on to be contained i n the char ter and stak eholder consul tat ion,pr oves that ther e i s so much mor e to be done t o ensur e t hat ARTA ful f i l l si t s pol icy object ive.

2013


The evaluat ion findings show that the aspects and character ist ics of theCit izen’s Char ter s of the selected LGUs ar e only par t ial ly consistent with thepr inciples of publ ic ser vice as conceived by John M ajor ’s Conser vat ivegover nment (House of Commons, 2008). I t can be said that the Ci t izen’sChar ters as adopted in the Phil ippines lack the quintessent ial elements of thechar ter ism as defined by the basic pr inciples of NPM . The Phil ippine Cit izen’sChar ter init iat ive is gr ounded on a hybr id of ideas and pr inciples that aimsnot only to improve government per formance but to pr event cor rupt ion aswel l. To some degree, this has been consistent with how the Phi l ippinegovernment has approached NPM. Compar ed to Singapor e and M alaysia whohave enthusiast ical ly embr aced NPM, the Phi l ippines adopted cer tain NPMini t iat ives but systemat ic publ ic sector reform l inked to NPM has been “slowand sporadic” (Turner , 2002, p. 1505). The ARTA pushed for compliance fromall layers of the gover nment . However , the empowerment of Fi l ipinos as aconsumer st i l l fal ls shor t of what has been ident if ied as a key defining featureof char ter ism. What makes the Phi l ippine effor t unique, however , is theemphasis on the char ter ’s cor r upt ion prevent ion potent ial and al locat ion ofci t izen’s r ight to demand for greater accountabi l i t y.

The Cit izen’s Char ter ini t iat ive and the ant i-red tape pr ogr am holdpr omise in impr oving stakeholder engagement and systems integr i ty ofgover nment ser vices. Based on the insights fr om the LGUs sampled, thefol l owi ng act i ons ar e r ecommended t o impr ove t he pr ogr am’simplementat ion: (a) ensure that agencies consul t stakeholder s (whethergroups or individuals) in the revision of their Cit izen’s Char ters to determinethei r needs and expectat ions of the ser vice; (b) look into enforcing theprovision on reengineer ing of pr ocesses and mandate the development ofstandards using the perspect ive of the cit izen; (c) increase public awareness ofthe Cit izen’s Char ter and ARTA’s pr ovisions; (d) re-al ign the r epor t car dsur vey beyond just measur ing compliance, and improve i ts val idi ty andr el iabi l i t y in terms of measur ing exper ience of cor r upt ion; (e) r eward LGUsthr ough a separ ate r ecogni t ion that shows innovat ion in implement ing thei rCit izen’s Char ter , such as t r anslat ing i t into the local language, etc.; and, (f)encour age the instal lat ion of quali t y management systems for businessper mi ts and l icensing, and other compl imentar y management systems.Fur ther , LGUs have done a good job at post ing banner s in the pr emises butfai led to take advantage of the inter net . The gover nment can explor e theut i l izat ion of new technologies as being done by Bantay.ph thr ough i ts onl ineadvocacy.

En dnot es

1 The fol l owi ng ar e some of t he count r i es t hat i mpl ement ed simi l ar in i t i at ives:B el gi u m (1992), H ong K ong (1992), F r ance (1993), M al aysi a (1993), Spai n (1993),Por t ugal (1993), Jamai ca (1994), Canada (1995), I ndi a (1997), Aust r al ia (1997), Sout h

January-June


Af r i ca (1997), N ami bi a (1999), A r gent i n a (2000), Sweden (2001) an d Samoa (2002).Sour ce: Cent r e for Good Gover nance 2003

2 Seven of t he n ine agencies wer e local gover nment un i t s, which include: Pr ovi nceof Compost ela Val ley; M at i Ci t y; Tacur ong Ci t y ; Bor ongan Ci t y ; Pr ov ince of Camar inesSur ; Bar uen; L eyt e; and Pr ovince of Zambales.

Refer ences

Abdul lah, H ., & K al i anan, M . (2008). Fr om Cust omer Sat i sfact ion t o Ci t izen Sat isfact i on:Ret h i n k i ng L ocal Gover nment Ser v i ce D el i ver y i n M al aysi a. Asi an Soci a lSci ence, 4(11), 87-92.

A ch ar ya, S. (2010). I mpl emen t at i on of Ci t i zen ’s Ch ar t er and I mpr ovi ng M un i ci pa lSer vi ces i n Nepal : M yth or Real i t y? U niver si t y of Ber gen, N or way.

Bel lamy, R., & Gr eenaway, J. (1995). The N ew Right Concept i on of Ci t izenship and t heCi t izen’s Char t er . Gover nment and Opposi t i on, 469-491.

Bhar gava, V. (3 M ay, 2000). Combat i ng Cor r upt i on i n t he Phi l i ppi nes. Ret r i eved f r omThe Wor l d Bank : h t t p://www1.wor l dbank .or g/pu bl i csect or /ant i cor r upt /F l agshi pCour se2003/Phi l i Combat Cor r upt .pdf

Cabi net Of f i ce. (1991). T he Ci t i zen’s Char ter : Rai si ng t he St andar d. L ondon: Cabi netOf f i ce.

Cen t r e f or Good Gover n an ce. (2003). A Gui d e t o D evel op i n g and I mpl emen t i n g aCi t i zen’s Char ter . Hyder abad: Cent r e for Good Gover nance.

Ci t y Gover nment of Naga. (2009). The Naga Ci ty Ci t i zens Char ter (3r d ed.). Naga: Ci t yGover nment of N aga.

Cl ar k , D . (2000). Ci t i zens, Char t er s and Publ i c Ser v ice Refor m i n Fr ance and Br i t ain .Gover nment and Opposi t i on , 152–169.

Cooper , D . (1993). The Ci t i zen’s Char t er and Radi cal Democr acy: Empower ment andExclusi on wi t hin Ci t i zenship Discour se. Soci al & L egal Studi es, 149-171.

CSC. (2010). ART A Repor t Car d Sur vey Repor t of Fi nd i ngs (Phase 1). Quezon Ci t y: Civ i lSer v ice Commi ssi on.

CSC. (2011). Summar y on I n i t i at i ves and Good Pr act i ces i n t he Ar ea of Pr event i on ofCor r upt i on . Ret r i eved 2 M ay , 2012, f r om Ci v i l Ser v i ce Commi ssi on: h t t p://w w w .u n od c.or g/docu men t s/t r eat i es/U N CA C/Wor k i n gGr ou ps/w or k i n ggr ou p4/2011-August -22-24/Repl i es_t o_CU _2011_45/20110523_Phi l i ppi nes_1_E ngl i sh.pdf

CSC. (2012). Contact Center ng Bayan Pr i mer : A step towar ds bet ter gover nance. QuezonCi t y: Civi l Ser v ice Commissi on.

de Vr ies, J. (2010). Is New Public Management Real ly Dead? OECD Journal on Budgeti ng,1-5.

Devel opment Academy of t he Phi l ippi nes. (2007). M aki ng a Ci t i zen’s Char t er : Qual i t ySer vi ce, T r anspar en cy an d Accou nt abi l i t y i n L ocal Gover nance. Pasi g:Development Academy of t he Phi l i ppines.

2013


Development Academy of t he Phi l ippines. (2007). M aki ng A Ci t i zen’s Char t er : Qual i t ySer vi ce, Tr anspar ency, and Accountabi l i t y i n L ocal Gover nance (1st ed.). Pasi g:Development Academy of t he Phi l i ppines.

Dhak al , T ., & Ghi mi r e, C. (2009). Ar e Ci t i zens Sat i sf i ed w i t h M uni ci pal Ser v i ces i nN epal ? D ecen t r al i zat i on and I mpl ement at i on of Ci t i zen Ch ar t er . XXI I PSAWor l d Congr ess. Sant i ago: I PSA.

Dr ewr y, G. (2005). Ci t i zen s as Cust omer s – Ch ar t er s and t he Cont r act u al i sat i on ofQual i t y in Publ ic Ser vi ces. Ber n.

Dunleavy, P., M ar get t s, H ., Bast ow, S., & Tink ler , J. (2005). New Publ i c Management isD ead-L on g L i ve D i gi t al -E r a Gover n an ce. J ou r n al of Pu bl i c Ad mi n i st r at i onResear ch and Theor y.

Ehsan, M ., & N az, F . (2003). Or i gi n , I deas and Pr act i ce of N ew Publ i c M anagement :L essons for Developing Count r ies. Asi an Affai r s, 30-48.

Fr iedr i ch Naumann Foundat i on. (Sept ember , 2013). Pr oject Name: Bant ay.ph. Ret r i evedf r om Th e F r eedom Pr oj ect : h t t p://w ww .fn f .or g.ph/event s/t hef r eedompr oj ect /i mages/Ban t ay.ph.pdf

Gover nment of t he Ph i l i ppi n es. (2003). M emor andu m Ci r cu l ar N o. 35. M ani l a:Gover nment of t he Phi l i ppines.

Gover nment of t he Phi l i ppi nes. (2006). Execut i ve Or der N o. 65 I nst i t u t i onal i zi ng t heSt r uct ur e, M echani sms and St andar ds t o I mpl ement t he Gover nment Qual i t yM anagement Pr ogr am, Amendi n g for t h e Pu r pose of AO N o. 161, S. 2006.Mani la: Gover nment of t he Phi l i ppines.

Gover nment of t he Phi l i ppi nes. (2007). Ant i -Red Tape Act of 2007 (RA 9485). M ani la:Gover nment of t he Phi l i ppines.

Gover nment of t he Phi l ippines. (2008). I mplement i ng Rules and Regulat i ons of RA 8485.Mani la: Gover nment of t he Phi l i ppines.

H aque, M . S. (2004). N ew Pu bl i c M anagemen t : Or i gi n s, D i men si on s, an d Cr i t i calI mpl i cat ions. Publ i c Admi ni st r at i on and Publ i c Pol i cy.

Haque, M . S. (2007). L imi t s of t he Ci t izen’s Char t er in I ndia. Publ i c Management Revi ew,7(3), 391-416.

Hood, C. (1991). A Publ ic Management for A l l Seasons? Publ i c Admi ni st r at i on Vol . 69,3-19.

H ou se of Common s. (2008). F r om Ci t i zen’s Char t er t o Pu bl i c Ser vi ce Guar an t ees:Ent i t l ements to Publ i c Ser vi ces. L ondon: The St at i oner y Off ice L i mi t ed.

Humphr eys, P. C. (1998). I mpr ovi ng Publ i c Ser vi ce Del i ver y. Dubl in: I nst i t ut e of Publ icAdmi n i st r at i on.

I nd i an I nst i t u t e of Pu bl i c Adm i n i st r at i on. (2008). Ci t i zen’s Char t er i n I nd i a :F or mu l at i on, I mpl ement at i on and Eval u at i on. I n di an I nst i t u t e of Publ i cAdmi n i st r at i on.

Manning, N . (2001). The l egacy of t he New Publ ic Management in devel oping count r i es.I n ter nat i onal Revi ew of Admi ni st r at i ve Sci ences, 297-312.

January-June


M endoza, M . L . (2011a). L egi sl at i ng Ci t i zen’s Char t er s. Devel opment Academy of t hePhi l i ppi nes.

Mendoza, M . L . (2011b). L egislat i ng Ci t izen’s Char t er s t o Pr omot e Ci t izen-Cent r ic Publ icSer v i ces. M oscow : Associ at i on f or Publ i c Pol i cy An al ysi s and M an agemen t ,N at i onal Resear ch U n i ver si t y-H i gher Sch ool of Econ omi cs, U ni ver si t y ofMar yland School of Publ ic Pol icy.

Paul , S. (2008). I ndi a’s Ci t i zen’s Char t er s: I n Sear ch of a Champi on. Economi c andPol i t i cal Weekl y, 67-73.

Per ant e-Cal ina, L . (2012). I ssues and I mpl i cat ions of t he Ant i -Red Tape Act on Publ i cSect or Refor m: A Mechani sm Towar d Devel opment . A paper pr esent ed dur i ngt he Phi l ippine Societ y of Publ ic Admi nist r at ion (PSPA) I nt er nat ional Confer enceon “Expl or i ng t he Gover n ance Agenda: D i men si on s an d D ynam i cs of Publ i cSect or Refor m”. Cebu.

Pol i dano, C. (1999). T he new publ i c management i n devel opi ng count r i es. Manchest er :I nst i t u t e for Development Pol icy and Management .

Pol l i t t , C. (1994). T he ci t i zen ’s char t er : A pr el i m i n ar y anal ysi s. Publ i c M oney &Management , 14(2), 9-14.

Publ i c A f f ai r s Cent r e. (2007). I nd i a’s Ci t i zen ’s Ch ar t er s: A D ecad e of E xper i en ce.Bangalor e: Publ ic A ffai r s Cent r e.

Shah, A . (2006). Cor r upt i on and Decent r al i zed Publ i c Gover nance. Wor l d Bank Pol i cyResear ch Wor ki ng Paper 3824.

Shah, A. (2007). Tai lor ing t he f ight agai nst cor r upt i on t o count r y ci r cumst ances. I n A.Sh ah , Per for mance accoun t abi l i t y an d combat i n g cor r u pt i on (pp. 233-254).Washingt on DC: Wor l d Bank .

Shah, A., & Schact er , M . (2004). Combat ing Cor r upt i on: L ook Befor e You L eap. Fi nanceand Devel opment , 40-43.

Shah, A ., & Shah, S. (2006). The New Vision of L ocal Gover nance and t he Evolvi ng Roleof L ocal Gover nment s. I n A . Shah, L ocal Gover nance i n Devel opi ng Count r i es(pp. 1-46). Washi ngt on DC: Wor l d Bank .

St ewar t , J., & Walsh, K . (1992). Change i n t he Management of Publ ic Ser vices. Publ i cAdmi n i st r at i on , 499-518.

T ay l or , I . (1999). Rai si ng t h e Expect at i on I n t er est : N ew L abou r an d t he Ci t i zen’sChar t er . Publ i c Pol i cy and Admi n i st r at i on, 14(4), 29-38.

Tor r es, D. L . (2003). Ser vi ce Char t er s: Reshaping t he Gover nment -Ci t izen Relat ionshi p.The Case of Spai n. L isbon: Eur opean Gr oup of Publ ic Admi nist r at i on.

T ur ner , M . (2002). Choosi ng I t ems f r om t h e M en u: N ew Pu bl i c M an agement i nSout heast Asi a. I n ter nat i onal Jour nal of Publ i c Admi ni st r at i on, 1493-1512.

WB & I F C. (2012). D oi ng Bu si n ess: Doi n g busi ness i n a mor e t r anspar en t w or l d .Washingt on DC: The Wor ld Bank and t he I nt er nat i onal Finance Cor por at i on.

2013


Wi l son, J . (1996). Ci t i zen Maj or ? The Rat ionale and I mpact of The Ci t i zen’s Char t er .Publ i c Pol i cy and Admi ni st r at i on, 11-45.

Wor l d Bank . (2012). Wor l d Gover nance I ndi cat or s. Ret r i eved f r om Wor l d Bank : h t t p://i n fo.w or l dban k .or g/gover nance/wgi /i ndex.aspx#home

Wor l d Economic For um. (2008). T he Gl obal Compet i t i veness Repor t 2008-2009. Geneva:Wor l d Economic For um.

Wor l d Economic For um. (2012). T he Gl obal Compet i t i veness Repor t 2012-2013. Geneva:Wor l d Economic For um.

Critical Challenges in Implementing the Citizen's Charter Initiative

Documents

Transcript of Critical Challenges in Implementing the Citizen's Charter Initiative