Let me continue writing about the important provisions of this law. The better the law is read and understood, the better it will be insofar as removing bureaucratic red tape (which engenders delay, which in turn engenders graft and corruption), reducing the cost of doing business in both the Subic and Clark Freeport Zones, and delivering efficient and effective services to the general public and the private sectors are concerned.
Republic Act No. 9485, or the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007, defines or categorizes services or transactions between the government offices and clients as (a) Simple Transaction, (b) Complex Transaction, and (c) Frontline Service.
“Simple Transactions” refer to requests or applications submitted by clients of a government office or agency which require ministerial actions on the part of the public officer or employee, or that which present only inconsequential issues for the resolution by an officer or employee of said government office.(Sec. 4, which shall be acted upon not longer than five (5) working days from receipt.
“Complex Transactions” refer to requests or applications submitted by clients of a government office which necessitate the use of discretion in the resolution of complicated issues by an officer or employee of said government office, such transaction to be determined by the office concerned, which shall be acted upon not longer than ten (10) working days from receipt.
“Frontline Service” refers to the process or transaction between clients and government office or agencies involving applications for any privilege, right, permit, reward, license, concession, or any modification, renewal or extension of the enumerated applications and/or requests which are acted upon in the ordinary course of business of the agency or office concerned.
“Action” refers to the written approval or disapproval made by a government office or agency on the application or request submitted by a client for processing.
“Actions on the client/s’ application/s or request/s. (i) No application or request shall be returned to the client without appropriate action. In case of disapproval, the officer or employee who rendered the decision shall send a formal notice to the client within five working days from receipt of the request and/or application, stating therein the reason for the disapproval including the list of requirement/s which the client failed to submit. (ii) Any denial of request for access to government service shall be fully explained in writing, stating the name of the person making the denial and the grounds upon which such denial is based. (iii) Any denial of request is deemed to have been made with the permission or clearance from the highest authority having jurisdiction over the government office or agency concerned. (Sec. 8(b) and (c), Id.) (iv) The number of signatories in any document shall be limited to a maximum of five signatures which shall represent officers directly supervising the office or agency concerned.
“Automatic Extension of Permits and Licenses. If a government office or agency fails to act on application and/or request for renewal of a license, permit or authority subject for renewal within the prescribed period, said permit, license or authority shall automatically be extended until a decision or resolution is rendered on the application for renewal; Provided, That the automatic extension shall not apply when the permit, license or authority covers activities which pose danger to public health, public safety, public morals or to public policy including, but not limited to, natural resource extraction activities.
“Accountability. The head of the office or agency (a) is primarily responsible for the implementation of RA 9485/IRR; (b) is accountable to the public in rendering fast, convenient, and reliable service; and (c) is deemed to have made or permitted or cleared all transactions and processes. IN CASE OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THESE RULES, APPROPRIATE CHARGES MAY BE FILED AGAINST THE HEAD OF OFFICE OR AGENCY UNDER EXISTING LAW AND RULES, BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE FORUM.”
NOTE:
(1) The significance of this provision of the law is that it pinpointed who is actually “primarily responsible and accountable” (i) for the implementation of the law; (ii) for any failure as regards its implementation; and (iii) for any complaint or charges that may be filed by reason of such failure. No longer can the head of any agency wash hands or evade responsibility; the law makes it plain that it is the head of the agency that is primarily responsible and accountable for the implementation of RA 9485 and for any failure in its non-implementation.
(2) The appropriate forum where charge/s may be filed is: (a) If the person to be charged is a Presidential appointee: the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC), or the OMBUDSMAN, or the Civil Service Commission (CSC); (b) If the person is not a Presidential appointee: the OMBUDSMAN or the CSC.
“Disciplinary action and/or penalties. Administrative disciplinary action ranging from SUSPENSION to DISMISSAL with perpetual disqualification from holding a public office may be imposed on the erring public official or employee. The finding of administrative liability under this Act shall not be a bar to the filing of CRIMINAL, or CIVIL, or OTHER CHARGES under existing laws arising from the same act or omission”, as enumerated in RA 9485.
The Subic-Clark Alliance for Development Council (SCADC), which I head as Chairman and CEO, exercises oversight powers, as you may know, over the following government agencies, among others: Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA), Clark Development Corporation (CDC), and Clark International Airport Corporation. (CIAC). Presently, my staff is finalizing a draft of memorandum of agreement (MOA) by and between the SCADC, SBMA, CDC, and CIAC that harmonizes, simplifies, and streamlines the rules, regulations, procedures and processes in the delivery of services to both the public and private sectors that do business in the Subic and Clark Freeport Zones. The MOA is precisely in accord with the provisions, objectives, and purposes of the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007.
Republic Act No. 9485, or the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007, defines or categorizes services or transactions between the government offices and clients as (a) Simple Transaction, (b) Complex Transaction, and (c) Frontline Service.
“Simple Transactions” refer to requests or applications submitted by clients of a government office or agency which require ministerial actions on the part of the public officer or employee, or that which present only inconsequential issues for the resolution by an officer or employee of said government office.(Sec. 4, which shall be acted upon not longer than five (5) working days from receipt.
“Complex Transactions” refer to requests or applications submitted by clients of a government office which necessitate the use of discretion in the resolution of complicated issues by an officer or employee of said government office, such transaction to be determined by the office concerned, which shall be acted upon not longer than ten (10) working days from receipt.
“Frontline Service” refers to the process or transaction between clients and government office or agencies involving applications for any privilege, right, permit, reward, license, concession, or any modification, renewal or extension of the enumerated applications and/or requests which are acted upon in the ordinary course of business of the agency or office concerned.
“Action” refers to the written approval or disapproval made by a government office or agency on the application or request submitted by a client for processing.
“Actions on the client/s’ application/s or request/s. (i) No application or request shall be returned to the client without appropriate action. In case of disapproval, the officer or employee who rendered the decision shall send a formal notice to the client within five working days from receipt of the request and/or application, stating therein the reason for the disapproval including the list of requirement/s which the client failed to submit. (ii) Any denial of request for access to government service shall be fully explained in writing, stating the name of the person making the denial and the grounds upon which such denial is based. (iii) Any denial of request is deemed to have been made with the permission or clearance from the highest authority having jurisdiction over the government office or agency concerned. (Sec. 8(b) and (c), Id.) (iv) The number of signatories in any document shall be limited to a maximum of five signatures which shall represent officers directly supervising the office or agency concerned.
“Automatic Extension of Permits and Licenses. If a government office or agency fails to act on application and/or request for renewal of a license, permit or authority subject for renewal within the prescribed period, said permit, license or authority shall automatically be extended until a decision or resolution is rendered on the application for renewal; Provided, That the automatic extension shall not apply when the permit, license or authority covers activities which pose danger to public health, public safety, public morals or to public policy including, but not limited to, natural resource extraction activities.
“Accountability. The head of the office or agency (a) is primarily responsible for the implementation of RA 9485/IRR; (b) is accountable to the public in rendering fast, convenient, and reliable service; and (c) is deemed to have made or permitted or cleared all transactions and processes. IN CASE OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THESE RULES, APPROPRIATE CHARGES MAY BE FILED AGAINST THE HEAD OF OFFICE OR AGENCY UNDER EXISTING LAW AND RULES, BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE FORUM.”
NOTE:
(1) The significance of this provision of the law is that it pinpointed who is actually “primarily responsible and accountable” (i) for the implementation of the law; (ii) for any failure as regards its implementation; and (iii) for any complaint or charges that may be filed by reason of such failure. No longer can the head of any agency wash hands or evade responsibility; the law makes it plain that it is the head of the agency that is primarily responsible and accountable for the implementation of RA 9485 and for any failure in its non-implementation.
(2) The appropriate forum where charge/s may be filed is: (a) If the person to be charged is a Presidential appointee: the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC), or the OMBUDSMAN, or the Civil Service Commission (CSC); (b) If the person is not a Presidential appointee: the OMBUDSMAN or the CSC.
“Disciplinary action and/or penalties. Administrative disciplinary action ranging from SUSPENSION to DISMISSAL with perpetual disqualification from holding a public office may be imposed on the erring public official or employee. The finding of administrative liability under this Act shall not be a bar to the filing of CRIMINAL, or CIVIL, or OTHER CHARGES under existing laws arising from the same act or omission”, as enumerated in RA 9485.
The Subic-Clark Alliance for Development Council (SCADC), which I head as Chairman and CEO, exercises oversight powers, as you may know, over the following government agencies, among others: Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA), Clark Development Corporation (CDC), and Clark International Airport Corporation. (CIAC). Presently, my staff is finalizing a draft of memorandum of agreement (MOA) by and between the SCADC, SBMA, CDC, and CIAC that harmonizes, simplifies, and streamlines the rules, regulations, procedures and processes in the delivery of services to both the public and private sectors that do business in the Subic and Clark Freeport Zones. The MOA is precisely in accord with the provisions, objectives, and purposes of the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007.
