Researcher: Crisha Dane S.

Dalaquit
Reference: Corpuz, O. D. (1957). The bureaucracy in the Philippines.
Manila: Institute of Public Administration, University of the Philippines.

Book Summary: The Bureaucracy in the Philippines

In his study of The Bureaucracy in the Philippines, Onofre Corpuz attempts
to systematize a massive collection of data spanning the length of Philippine
colonial rule until the period of his writing. He defines the bureaucracy as the
"administrative instrument or organization which exists in modern political
community for the attainment of the communitys social objectives" (1957:
6), emphasizing its importance in modern government and governance.
Using historiography, Corpuz offers the study as a stepping stone to the
study of the Philippine bureaucracy, making it one of the most important
works in the field.
The Evolution of the Bureaucracy
The Bureaucracy begins with the assertion that the natives occupying the
archipelago were civilized prior to the period of Spanish colonization, a claim
echoing that of Rizal's earlier points in his annotations to Morga's Sucesos.
Corpuz describes the village communities formed in the pre-Spanish era as
"politically self-contained" and "economically self-sufficient" (1957), but he
also emphasizes that the nature of these communities, despite serving as
proof of civilization, hardly laid the basis for the establishment of a
bureaucracy. The lack of public finance, the informal and personal basis for
civil relations, the existence of a barter economy and the absence of
community-supported infrastructure were evidence enough of that.
Thus, Corpuz goes on to say, structural organization was necessary for
Spanish colonization of the islands. The earlier traces of self-sufficiency of
village communities transformed into a highly centralized form of
administration as the Spaniards conquered with the sword and the cross.
The need to centralize was also reinforced by the need for easier
administration, so much of the Spanish population in the islands was
concentrated in the urban center. The tendency to centralize made conflicts
among the Spaniards inevitable, whether it was an issue between the
Church and the state, a competition between rival businesses or feuds within
the family. These conflicts would also have repercussions on the
bureaucracy, whose members were often mired in controversies and lacked
security of tenure; what became the norm was for bureaucrats to use their

positions to amass wealth, to seek the protection of patrons, or to do

nothing.
For a bureaucracy that was theoretically dependent on its home government,
the actions of its members were not effectively checked. Problems such as
distance and lags in communication made scrutiny and oversight difficult,
giving the subordinate administration some autonomy. Countervailing
devices such as the visitadores generales or the residencia were present to
emphasize the colony's subordination, but the reality of its effectiveness left
much to be desired.
In his further examination of the bureaucracy, Corpuz also argues that the
bureaucracy became a social elite and a political aristocracy. Membership
during the Spanish period was highly selective as the administrative
positions were seen as the possessions of the monarch and, by extension,
the Spaniards. This produced the perception of the bureaucrats constituting
a social class in society, highlighting the marked differences between the
natives and the Spaniards not only in terms of culture and race, but also
with respect to the offices they could hold.
How did this kind of colonial administration endure for more than three
centuries? While there were some exceptions to the lot of bureaucrats
obtaining positions for their own gain, these individuals were few and far in
between. As much as bureaucrats such as Morga, Corcuera and the like tried
to reform the bureaucracy, it remained internally and morally corrupt.
Corpuz offers the explanation that its longevity rested on the restriction of
the colony's intellectual, social, and economic life, and as soon as the tides
of economic change and political discontent emerged with the opening of the
colony's ports, the colony could not depend on its bureaucracy to keep
things together.
The situation in the home government could not also be expected to
contribute to the stability and strength of the bureaucracy in the Philippines.
Party politics in Spain produced a seemingly never-ending turnover of
bureaucrats, leaving the fate of the administration to the spoils system.
Often, military officers were sent to fill positions despite having virtually no
knowledge or experience in administration, and the inability of these officers
to govern was aggravated by the incompetence of bureaucrats. The clergy,
then, were given more political power, and Corpuz stresses that in filling the
role of the bureaucracy, the clergy inherited the hatred associated with a
corrupt and inefficient civil service that exploited the colony.
The subsequent American colonization produced a bureaucracy unlike that of
its predecessor, with the administration affected by the individuals that

constituted the highest position: the governor-generalship. According to

Corpuz, Harrison's administration gave way to increased membership in the
bureaucracy by Filipinos. The eventual transfer of control to Filipinos was
halted only under Wood, who viewed the bureaucracy as too entrenched in
politics. However, the composition of the bureaucracy by then was made up
of a significant percentage of Filipinos, and any attempts to de-Filipinize the
civil service was impossible.
Corpuz argues that the civil service was not yet mature under the American
administration, but more progressive attempts at development were already
in place. The obtainment of positions in the bureaucracy was reformed, too,
through the establishment of the merit system and the observance of it. The
reform of the bureaucracy came hand in hand with modernization, and the
bureaucracy became a valuable apparatus in creating and innovating social
change.
The bureaucracy influence by American rule was not without its flaws. Its
brevity and its lack of established traditions contributed to a non-class
character which, though theoretically politically neutral, remained vulnerable
to parties and politicians interested in manipulating the actions of the
bureaucracy in their favor. The creation of a multiparty system seemed to
reduce this occurrence, but the bureaucracy could not wholly resist future
attempts to impinge on its integrity.
In sum, the differences between the Spanish and American periods of
colonization lay largely in terms of its administrative approach and its
membership. In the Spanish era, the administration of government was not
separate from the Church's influence in spite of the conflicts that could
emerge from such a structure. The American period, on the other hand,
sought to remove the checks made by its predecessor on the development of
the country; a more liberal approach was utilized in many aspects, to the
point that even membership in the bureaucracy became accessible to
Filipinos something that was unimaginable during the Spanish era except
in the lowest positions. Thus, Filipinos were finally given the ability and the
institutional apparatus to take over responsibilities of self-government.
Evaluating the Post-Colonial Bureaucracy
After emphasizing the capacity of Filipinos for self-government, Corpuz
admits that the bureaucracy in the '50s did not have its imperfections. What
are the weaknesses Corpuz highlights? First, nepotism and the spoils system
persist, sustained by what Corpuz views is the sociological condition of the

importance of kinship ties to Filipinos. Even under Quezon, there were

already measures to circumvent this practice, and Magsaysay adopted a firm
stance against this practice. Second, the corruption is endemic to the point
that it is seen as a norm by the public. Freedom of speech and the press
has, at least, exposed these incidences, giving more flexibility to the political
system.
Can we view these weaknesses as remnants of our past experience under
Spanish colonization? Corpuz argues otherwise. To him, the aforementioned
social conditions were independent of the bureaucracy, and the Spanish civil
service did not hold as much sway as the Church. Thus, the Spanish period
did not necessarily give rise to nepotism, the spoils system, and corruption.
After showing the evolution and the facets of the bureaucracy, Corpuz does
not claim that the picture he has painted is the final stage of its maturity. It
is not impossible to change these characteristics. Rather, Corpuz views the
future of the bureaucracy as dependent on national development. In his own
words, ending albeit in a hopeful note:
The bureaucracy will be as big as the tasks of society as
complex and fascinating as the nation afflicted with the
Filipinos weaknesses, but it will benefit from their virtues.