The courtesy of a reply

POLICY PEEK
By Ernesto F. Herrera

Manila Times

ONE of the pieces of unsolicited advice I offered to newly elected legislators in a column over a month ago (Senate Briefing I and II) is to read and respond to the letters sent to them. I said that in order to work for people and truly represent their interests, you have to keep listening to them. Hey, you won because people voted for you. It’s the least you can do, to read their letters and not rely on staff to answer them for you. People would always remember those politicians who took the time to personally answer letters. On the contrary, people hate getting pro forma letters that have a lot of verbiage but actually say nothing.

It seems such a simple advice, but it is hard to follow. And not only legislators but also the rest of those in government service have usually been remiss in this regard. Also, not all of them may be aware that they are violating the law when they don’t respond to letters from the public promptly, if at all.

Republic Act 6713, approved in February 20, 1989, established 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.

The Act prescribes the norms of conduct of public officials and employees, specifies their duties and responsibilities toward the public, and enumerates prohibited acts and transactions.

Section 5 of R.A. 6713 enjoins all public servants to respond to letters, telegrams or other means of communication (including email which wasn’t around at the time) sent by the public within 15 working days upon receipt, and at all times act promptly and expeditiously on the public’s personal transactions.

Despite R.A. 6713, the inaction or slow response of government officials and personnel to complaints, meritorious requests and requests for information, continues to be a major source of complaints from citizens and constitutes a blot on government credibility.

It is indeed unconscionable for public officials or employees to ignore a matter of great concern to a private citizen, especially nowadays when technology affords us so many ways to respond promptly to official correspondence. And yet this still happens. A lot. Ask anybody who’s had to follow up something from some government office or anybody who has had to research and get official government information. I myself have been a victim many times. Even when I was a senator I’ve been given the runaround when requesting official data that would be important in a public hearing, or in the drafting of a particular legislative measure.

This, of course, pissed me off, so much so that I sought to remedy this perennial lackadaisical and even intentional brush-offs and dilly-dallying from public servants through legislation. I filed a bill seeking to impose stiffer penalties on those members of the bureaucracy who remain indifferent and unmindful of their responsibilities to the people they are bound to serve.

I said stiffer penalties, yes, because under R.A. 6713 there are existing sanctions for those who violate its provisions, including that of not replying to citizens’ correspondence, complaints and requests within 15 days. The administrative sanction consists of a fine not exceeding the equivalent of six months’ salary, or suspension not exceeding one year, or removal depending upon the minimum gravity of the offense.

Note that the law has set only the maximum but not the minimum penalties. Thus, it is possible that an erring official or employee may be penalized for say, a fine equivalent to 10 to 15 days’ pay, or suspension for a similar number of days or less than a month.

One would think the prospect of being penalized with such alone would put the sense of urgency in any government bureaucrat, but such is not the case as we know from experience, perhaps because very few citizens have gone out of their way to file a case against erring public servants; or perhaps government officials don’t care enough to fully implement the Act’s provision on promptness on official correspondence. [Come to think of it, when was the last time we heard of any government employee who was suspended or fined for not answering a letter or for not acting promptly on a request from an ordinary citizen?]

Stiffer penalties or not, what we need is proper implementation of R.A. 6713. Proper implementation of the provisions on promptness in addressing official requests and correspondence will serve as a deterrent for those abusive and arrogant government personnel who neglect the duties imposed upon them by law to the detriment of the public, especially the common citizen, who oftentimes is the victim of pernicious bureaucratic red tape and indifference