August 29th, 12:20am August 28th, 10:58pm Salma Rasul

As students of political science and law, we would learn from James Madison Jr., “The aim of every political Constitution, is or ought to be first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.”

“Our fundamental law further commands that public officers must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency.

Treatises on governance and public officers would also refer to these precepts from Grover Cleveland, that “officeholders are the agents of the people, not their masters. Not only is their time and labor due to the government, but they should scrupulously avoid in their political action, as well as in the discharge of their official duty, offending by a display of obtrusive partisanship their neighbors who have relations with them as public officials.”

In our jurisdiction, we find at the core of our laws on public officers, the constitutional provision unequivocally asserting “public office is a public trust.” These six simple words embody the concepts propounded by both Madison and Cleveland. Our fundamental law further commands that public officers must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.

To set the norms of behavior that would satisfy the constitutional directive, our legislators enacted Republic Act 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. The statute specifies eight benchmarks, namely commitment to public interest, professionalism, justness and sincerity, political neutrality, responsiveness to the public, nationalism and patriotism, commitment to democracy, and simple living.

In a long line of cases — the number truly disheartening for good governance advocates — our judiciary has constantly directed our government rank and file to be true to their sworn commitment to the general public. Joining the public service calls for the highest standard of integrity, honesty and discipline. These ethical norms for public service should be embedded in the psyche of all government officials and employees as such is exacted by our Constitution.

Integrity infers an unfailingly staunch adherence to honesty and fairness. Our courts found “(D)ishonesty begins when an individual intentionally makes a false statement in any material fact, or practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in order to secure his examination, registration, appointment or promotion.” Thus, an inclination to lie, cheat, deceive would clearly manifest untrustworthiness, lack of integrity and probity, and can be deemed a culpable violation of public trust.

Such culpable violation implies “deliberate intent, perhaps even a certain degree of perversity for it is not easy to imagine that individuals in the category of these officials would go so far as to defy knowingly what the Constitution commands.” Only those who can comply will earn the privilege of entering public service.

Measured against such standards, will our public officials or wannabes like the disgraceful National Youth Commission chairman Ronald Cardema qualify?