PA 202 – ETHICS AND ACCOUNTABILITY However, Bivins (2006) explicitly notes that

Reporter: MELDGYRIE MAE M. ANDALES although this is commonly and largely believed by
theorists and practitioners of Public Administration
and governance it is not and cannot be used as
NATURE OF RESPONSIBILITY one single meaning such that can be used
interchangeably.
With great power comes great responsibility - Bivins (2006) mentioned Geoff Huff in
Spiderman defining accountability and says accountability is,
RESPONSIBILITY “… the readiness or
Responsibility is an overarching concept of preparedness to give an
governance and public administration. More so, explanation or justification to
responsibility is an archaic notion that makes relevant others (stakeholders) for
governance and public administration a crucial one’s judgments, intentions, acts
state as it is one of the determining factors in the and omissions when
effective and efficient delivery of goods and appropriately called upon to do
services to the public. Furthermore, responsibility is so.
an intertwined concept of governance and public It is [also] a readiness to have
administration as without it, governance and public one’s actions judged by others
administration lose its importance. and, where appropriate, accept
Responsibility, according to Abdulrachman responsibility for errors,
(2006), comes from the root word “response” which misjudgments and negligence
accordingly means “answer” or “compliance” thus, and recognition for competence,
responsibility means “being able to respond to the conscientiousness, excellence
requirements of something or being responsible to and wisdom. It is a preparedness
something else”. In the article of Thomas Bivins to change in the light of improved
(2006) entitled Responsibility and Accountability, he understanding gained from
mentioned Vincent E. Barry which defined others.”
responsibility as “referring to a sphere of duty or Thus, it could say that if responsibility is defined as
obligation assigned to a person by the nature of a bundle of obligations, functions, and moral,
that person’s position, function, or work”. Meaning associated with role, then accountability might be
to say, responsibility is a bundle of obligations that defined as blaming or crediting someone for an
is assigned to a person which is according to its job action – normally associated with responsibility
description. Responsibility resides in a person (Bivins, 2006).
when an obligation or duty or function is given to
that person. He has the responsibility of fulfilling the DIFFERENT MEANINGS OF PUBLIC
duties and functions of his or her position in an RESPONSIBILITY
effective and efficient way.
Responsibility, in the context of public
However, Bivins (2006) points out that administration, has no single definition and can be
although exertion of the duties and functions of the understood in myriad ways. According to Cedon
person which is attached to his/her position makes (1999), in his article entitled Accountability and
him a responsible employee or official, it does not Public Administration: Concepts, Dimensions,
necessarily mean that it is a sufficient act. Development, responsibility can be viewed in three
Accordingly, one should also be, as scholars and (3) dimensions and these are: (1) responsibility as
practitioners perceives, morally responsible in its capacity, (2) responsibility as accountability, and (3)
exertion of its functions and duties. Australian responsibility as liability.
ethicist Will Barret, as mentioned by Thomas Bivins
a) Responsibility as “capacity” refers to the
(2006), distinguished moral responsibility as “…a
ability of the authority of the public servant
capacity for making rational decisions, which in turn
to act (Cedon, 1999). The responsibility in
justifies holding moral agents accountable for their
this contextual flatform, implies the ability or
actions...” Thus, responsibility then is composed of
the act of a public official or employee in the
a duty to discharge functional obligations of an
execution of its functions and duties. This
individual role and its attached moral obligations.
kind of responsibility is drawn basically on
RESPONSIBILITY VERSUS ACCOUNTABILITY the attached positional functions and
obligation of public official and employees.
Responsibility and accountability are said to More so, since these public officials and
be interrelated. Academicians and authors employees are basically given authority to
perceived that both terms are conflated and can be act on to address issues and/or needs, they
used interchangeably as it presumes that when one are as well given the capacity to think and
is responsible, it should also be accountable; more act on the situational issue that is within the
so, if one is accountable, one has the responsibility. scope of its duties and functions.
 b) Responsibility as “accountability” refers to wrongdoing as judged internally or
the obligation that public officials have of externally (responsibility as liability).”
providing information, explanation, and/or
Thus, public responsibility then, as
justifications to a superior authority –
instigated by Abdulrachman (2006), is
internal or external – for their performance
in the execution of their functions (Cedon, “…a responsibility of both
1999). Responsibility as seen in the political officials and
perspective of accountability has its bureaucrats to perform their
attached obligation to be accountable of the duties and functions in
acts which an employee or official did within accordance with legally
its scope of function and duties. In this prescribed norms of conduct
sense, the public officials and employees and to be responsive to the
are responsible to do their jobs and tasks in needs of the disadvantaged
an effective and efficient way and if one act and less fortunate segments
of performance goes wrong, the public of the society.”
official or employee is accountable of the
act. ELEMENTS OF PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY
c) Responsibility as “liability” refers to the In the book of Abdulrachman (2006), public
assumption of the consequences of one’s responsibility has four (4) complementary elements
own acts and sometimes, also of acts which are evident in the performance of the
carried out by others, when these acts take functions and duties of public officials and
place within the field of authority of the employees and these are: (1) moral commitment to
ultimate responsible administrator (Cedon, provide service, (2) observance of ethical behavior
1999). Since responsible actors – officials or as prescribed in the organizational and societal
employees – have their own functions and norms, (3) efficiency in performance, and (4)
duties in the administration and that they responsiveness to public needs.
are accountable for the performance of their
actions - whether positive or negative, they Moral commitment to provide service is seen by
are as well in a sense liable to a law, rules Abdulrachman (2006) as the founding element of
and regulations, and orders as their activity all the elements of public responsibility.
in the execution of their duties and function Accordingly, a public official and employee should
should be in accordance with that of the have a moral commitment to provide service to the
laws governing it such as the RA 6713. public for without moral commitment, public officials
and employees tend not to observe ethical behavior
In addition to these, Cedon (1999) mentions or norms in the organization. More so, they tend not
that Bovens added one definition of responsibility to perform efficiently and effectively as they are not
and that is responsibility as a virtue. Accordingly, committed in performing their duties and functions,
responsible actors tend to be conscious and to and they are likely do not respond on the needs of
have correct attitudes towards performing their the public as they do not have the energy and
tasks which Cedon (1999) emphasized that in this commitment to serve them. Thus, to be a public
spectrum, responsible actors takes into account all servant, and to qualify to be one, one has to
the possible circumstances and consequences of embody the element of moral commitment to
its action, and is also abiding by the law. provide service to the public.
Specifically emphasized, an official is considered
responsible when he/she acts in a conscious Moreover, if an employee or official has already
manner and performs its duties in the correct and embodied the element of moral commitment to
legal means. provide service to the public, everything else will
follow. An employee or official in performing his
Moreover, Caiden, as mentioned by Cedon duties and functions that are attached to its
(1999), contends that although there are different acquired position, has to observe the ethical
ways on how to perceive responsibility, it is still behaviors present in the organization. Accordingly,
necessary that an official should conjoined all of these behaviors are aligned with the policies and/or
these meanings that according to him, the rules and regulations set within the organization
“Public officials, who should take and to other laws such as the RA 6713 which
responsibility for all that is done in the explicitly emphasized that public officials and
name of the public (responsibility as employees should be: (1) nationalistic and patriotic,
capacity), should also be accountable to (2) committed to public interest, (3) committed to
external bodies for what they have done or democracy, (4) just and sincere, (5) responsive, (6)
failed to do while in the public office politically neutral, (7) professional, and (8) living
(responsibility as accountability) and simply.
should be liable, legally and morally, for When an employee or official already
correcting or compensating for their possess the being of moral commitment and ethical
behavior needed to perform its functions and duties
in the organization, it is thus perceived that it will welfare. This type of responsibility entails
perform its duties and functions effectively and that even those governmental
since according to Abdulrachman (2006), behavior instrumentalities has their own attached
is one of the contributing factors of why an responsibility of the public in the
employee performs its tasks and jobs in an performance of their agency’s or institution’s
effective and efficient manner. Additionally, as objectives – to serve the public.
employees and officials embodied these d. Professional Responsibility emanates to
characteristics, it can lead to them being able to those professionals who have practiced
respond to the needs of the public and be able to their profession – may it be in government
rationally think on what are the means to meet the or in private. Professionals such as
needs of the public within their scope of work and engineers, lawyers, doctors, and nurses
function. With that, it is then considered that those have their own ethics and code of conduct
possessing these elements, one is therefore to mandate them on the necessary behavior
considered as publicly responsible. they have to portray in performing their
profession. These professionals have its
KINDS OF PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY
attached responsibility which is anchored
In the article entitled Concept of individually to their conscience of
Organization, it stipulates that there are two kinds administrative personnel about what
of public responsibility and these are: (1) operating constitutes ethically acceptable behavior
responsibility and (2) ultimate responsibility. and conduct based on their profession.
Operating responsibility are those responsibilities
SECURING PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY
that can be delegated by an authority or a superior
official or executive to its subordinates while those Since public responsibility has created its
ultimate responsibilities are those which cannot be own spotlight in the field of public administration
delegated as this functions or duties can only be because of the rampant illegal activities that exists
performed by political officials or executives only. in the government offices, governments have
created strategies to secure the concept of public
TYPES OF PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY
responsibility and to further inculcate the
Public Responsibility can be seen in importance of it. In the book of Abdulrachman
different forms and that in the book authored by (2006), there are three (3) categories of the
Abdulrachman (2006), there are two (2) dimensions different strategies of securing public responsibility,
and these are: Political Responsibility and to wit: (1) external system control, (2) internal
Administrative Responsibility. Additionally, in the system control, and (3) internal individual control.
article entitled Concepts of Organization, it added 2
The external system control is a strategy
dimensions of public responsibility and these are:
used to secure the responsibility of the employees
Institutional Responsibility and Professional
and officials and evaluate on whether these
Responsibility.
employees and officials are being publicly
a. Political Responsibility resides to those responsible. There are offices and/or agencies
having authority such as Presidents, Prime created for this such as the Civil Service
Ministers, Kings, Queens, and all other Commission and the Ombudsman which are
elected and appointed officials who have considered watchdogs to ensure that these public
acquired their duties and functions through servants have really serve the public or just merely
the relation of politics. In this type of serving few. However, in this time of the
responsibility, those having governmental Philippines, the Duterte administration have created
responsibility is responsible to meet the another avenue to secure the public responsibility
needs of the public and as such, they are of the officials and employees and to further
accountable to the public since they have inculcate to be publicly responsible such as the
acquired it by virtue of their positions and 8888 and the Anti-Red Tape Unit (ARTU) which is
that they are elected or chosen by the under the direct control and supervision of the
public. president.
b. Administrative Responsibility exist on those
In the internal system control, it is used by
subordinate employees of the superior or
an agency or an organization to secure the
executive officials. They do not in ways
responsibility of all its employees and thereby
responsible to meet the needs of the public
creating internal control system such as grievance
and that are not accountable to the public
committee or investigation committee in order to
but they are responsible to perform their
address the issues arising within the organization
duties and functions in an effective and
before looking for a remedy of the external control.
efficient way as they are accountable to
Furthermore, in the internal individual control is the
their superior or executive officials.
somewhat not merely used by the organization as it
c. Institutional Responsibility reflects to those
is within the individual or employee. Clearly, this
administrative agencies or institutions to be
securing of responsibility does not need an external
responsible and responsive to the public
factor to contribute in securing it but rather an
internal factor of a person. Every person has its
own sense of responsibility over its actions or
decision and these are considered by
Abdulrachman (2006) as internal individual control
since the control starts within.

CONCLUSION
Public responsibility has been a crucial concept of
today’s generation since government scandals
have been rampant and tends to be part of the
normality of the government. Because of it,
government have created ample solutions to
address these overarching issues within its system
in order to remember these public officials and
employees their responsibility to the public.
Solutions such as creating the 8888 and the
Presidential Complaint desk becomes a trend as
the public become the watchdogs of the officials
and employees in their acts. Others would use
social media in reminding their public officials and
employees about public responsibility. Moreover,
because of the new trend of this generation, the
public becomes more and more participative in the
conduct of securing public responsibility to public
officials and employees.
REFERENCES
S.Abdulrachman. (2006). Public Ethics and
Responsibility: Western and Islamic
Perspective. University Book Center:
Marawi City
AB. Cedon. (1999). Accountability and Public
Administration: Concepts, Dimensions,
Development. Retrieved from:
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/
documents/nispacee/unpan006506.pdf
Civil Service Commission. (n.d.). Ethics and
Accountability: The Philippine Experience.
Retrieved from:
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/
documents/apcity/unpan003218.pdf
Valente, Mike & Crane, Andrew. (2010). Public
Responsibility and Private Enterprise in
Developing Countries. California
Management Review. 52. 52-78.
10.1525/cmr.2010.52.3.52.
Bivins, T.H. (2006). Responsibility and
Accountability. Retrieved from:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0f68/1c22a
a5e54c1f78d9c6de0f6948f4690e1c9.pdf?
_ga=2.95020895.2189064.1570109764-
222072975.1570109764