Sei sulla pagina 1di 33







October, 2011


Public management scholars over the past decade have shed signiIicant light on the
nature and consequences oI ineIIective rules or red tape.`` Red tape has been conceptually
deIined (Bozeman 1993), operationalized (Rainey, Pandey, and Bozeman 1995) and
distinguished Irom Iormalization (Pandey and Scott 2002). The assumption that public
organizations have more red tape than private organizations has been called into question
(Rainey and Bozeman 2000; Bretschneider and Bozeman 1995). Red tape has been correlated
with negative organizational impacts, such as reduced services to clients (Scott and Pandey
2000) and higher managerial alienation (DeHart-Davis and Pandey 2005). These and other
Iindings are no small achievement given that red tape was not a clear intellectual concept prior to
the 1990s, despite its place in common parlance to indicate the ineIIiciencies oI government
(Bozeman 2000).
Although red tape is an important topic Ior public administration scholars and
practitioners alike, some scholars suggest that additional attention be paid to craIting and
implementing eIIective rules (Goodsell 2000). Such an endeavor is timely given that one strategy
oI government reIorm is to reduce internal public sector rules, based on the assumption that rules
inhibit creativity and Ilexibility (Graham and Hays 1986) and that reducing rules will reduce red
tape, unleash entrepreneurial energy, and improve the perIormance oI government organizations.
These arguments view rules as a whole without considering individual rule attributes that
may lend themselves to more or less organizational beneIit. Thus, advice to cut internal rules
without theory or evidence as to the Iunctions oI rule attributes throws the proverbial baby out
with the bathwater and ignores evidence that rules have positive social psychological eIIects Ior
employees (Adler and Borys 1996; Michaels et al. 1988; Organ and Greene 1981; PodsakoII,
Williams, and Todor 1986).
Another limitation to government reIorm perspectives, as well as the red tape literature,
is the disproportionate Iocus on middle- and upper-level managers. This Iocus excludes the
majority oI organizational members who reside at lower organizational levels and experience
bureaucratic structure very diIIerently (Argryis 1964; Gouldner 1954).
Although upper management perspectives on rules and reIorm are valuable, they provide
an incomplete and biased portrait oI these critical public administration issues (Walker and
Enticott 2004).
However, government service has been constantly accused oI bureaucratic red tape, a
term Ior excessive regulation and time consuming process and procedures beIore oIIicial action
can be taken. These delays government transactions to clientele are most oIten dissatisIied and
disappointed when doing business with the government.
The enactment oI Republic Act # 9485 or Anti-Red Tape Act oI 2007 is one oI our
government`s measure to improve eIIiciency in public service and lessen iI not eradicate red tape
in the government. The Act aims to promote transparency in the government with regard to the
manners oI transacting with the public by requiring each agency to simpliIy Irontline service
procedures, Iormulate service standards to observe in every transaction and most oI all, to make
known these standards to the client.
The researcher is deemed challenged to know the assessment oI the implementation oI
the Anti-Red Tape Act oI 2007 as perceived by selected employees oI the Local Government oI
Maddela, Province oI Quirino.
Background of the Study
This action research study was undertaken in the Local Government Unit oI Maddela,
Quirino. This LGU has a work Iorce consisting oI 197 regular employees, among these are 12
chieI oI oIIices and 12 elective oIIicials, plus 200 Casual Employees more or less, serving in
diIIerent agencies/oIIices such as OIIice oI the Municipal Mayor, Sangguniang Bayan OIIice,
OIIice oI the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator, OIIice oI the Municipal Budget
OIIicer, Municipal Treasurer`s OIIice, OIIice oI the Municipal Accountant, Department oI
Agriculture OIIice, Municipal Health OIIice, Municipal Social WelIare and Development OIIice,
Community AIIairs OIIice, OIIice oI the Municipal Civil Registrar and National OIIices such as
DILG, COA, DAR, BIR, PNP, BFP, BJMP, MCTC, RTC. All oI them rendering various
services to cater the needs oI the constituents oI this Municipality.
Statement of the Problem
The present study is Iocused on the political system in the Local Government Unit in
Maddela, Quirino.
SpeciIically, the study sought to answer the Iollowing:
1. What is the perception oI the respondents on the role oI the Anti-Red
Tape Act oI 2007 as a process?
2. What is the perception oI the respondents on the role oI the Anti-Red Tape
Act oI 2007 as an evaluation method?
3. What is the perception oI the respondents on the role oI the Anti-Red Tape
Act oI 2007 as an innovation in public administration?

Significance of the Study
The present study is deemed signiIicant to the Iollowing:
Local Government OIIicials. The inputs as well as the outputs oI the study will provide
Local Government oIIicials a Iramework tp have a deeper look in the implementation oI the
Anti-Red Tape Act oI 2007.
Local Residents. The local residents will have deeper understanding and Iocus on the
contribution and signiIicance oI the Anti-Red Tape Act oI 2007 in their local community.
Scope and Delimitations of the Study
The present study Iocused on the assessment oI the implementation oI the Anti-
Red Tape Act oI 2007 as perceived by selected employees oI the Local Government oI Maddela,
Province oI Quirino.
The study is delimited to the respondents` perception oI Anti-Red Tape Act oI 2007 as a
process, as an evaluation method and as an innovation in public administration.
The study is Iurther delimited with the use oI a survey questionnaire and descriptive
method oI research

As noted in other places (Bozeman & Feeney 2011; Feeney working paper; Pandey &
Scott 2002) there is an abundance oI empirical red tape research investigating the ways in which
managers perceive red tape and how those perceptions are related to job satisIaction,
organizational commitment, public service motivation, and perIormance. As with other areas oI
public administration research, there are a number oI weaknesses with the empirical red tape
research including an overreliance on selI-administered surveys (Houston & Delevan 1990;
Wright et al. 2004), a dearth oI research testing the reliability and validity oI measures
(exceptions are Pandey & Marlowe 2009; Coursey & Pandey 2007 ; Pandey & Scott 2002), and
simplistic research designs and methods (Gill & Meier 2000; Houston & Delevan 1990, 1991,
1994; McCurdy & Cleary 1984; Meier 2005). There have been numerous calls Ior
methodological improvement and more diverse research design in public management research
(Cozzetto 1994; Kettl & Milward 1996; Brudney, O`Toole, & Rainey 2000; Gill & Meier 2000).
While much oI this criticism has been lodged against public administration research in general,
red tape researchers have also been assessing the state oI their empirical work.
At a recent workshop aiming to advance red tape research, researchers agreed that,
although empirical red tape research has been quickly developing, there is room Ior
improvement. Participants at the 2010 Red Tape Workshop sought to review the red tape theory
and research and identiIy gaps in the Iield and avenues Ior Iuture research. In particular, they
considered ways to improve measures, data, and methods and develop a list oI central research
questions (Feeney, Moynihan, & Walker 2010). In their own selI-assessment, red tape
researchers noted the need to:
(1) re-conceptualize the deIinition oI red tape, enabling researchers and research subjects
to better understand when a rule is red tape and when it is not;
(2) understand the multi-dimensional nature oI red tape;
(3) investigate stakeholder red tape;
(4) develop non-perceptual measures oI red tape;
(5) develop studies to test the validity oI red tape measures;
(6) develop measurement experiments;
(7) collect panel data;
(8) conduct rule histories and more detailed case studies oI red tape; and
(9) use more advanced statistical methods such as regression discontinuity design,
structural equation modeling, hierarchical linear modeling, experiments (both laboratory
experiments and Iield experiments), and behavioral Iorecasting.
Red tape researchers have repeatedly noted that red tape is a multi-dimensional concept
that requires methods that account Ior these dimensions (Bozeman & Feeney 2011; Brewer &
Walkers 2010a; Feeney, Moynihan, & Walker 2010; Pandey & Scott 2002). UnIortunately, very
little empirical research has Iocused on responding to this demand. One oI the emerging
criticisms oI the red tape research is that, because it has relied on Bozeman`s (2000) original
deIinition oI red tape and Rainey and colleagues (1995) original questionnaire item, it has over-
emphasized organizational eIIectiveness (and eIIiciency) as a negative outcome oI red tape,
while Iailing to account Ior other important public administration values, such as accountability,
transparency, equity, and Iairness.
Multiple public administration survey research projects have asked respondents to assess
the level oI red tape in their organizations. Most oI these projects use the Iollowing questionnaire
item: 1 red tape is de1ined as 'burdensome rules and procedures that have negative e11ects on
the organi:ations e11ectiveness,` how would you assess the level o1 red tape in your
organi:ation? |Response categories are a scale Irom 0 (almost no red tape) to 10 (a great deal oI
red tape)|. On one hand, because many researchers have used this item, the questionnaire item
has Iace validity. On the other hand, the problem with the common use oI this item is that it may
limit our conceptualization oI red tape as something that negatively aIIects eIIectiveness alone.
UnIortunately, no research has tested the validity oI this measure or the ways in which
respondents may or may not be assessing red tape based on this deIinition or some other
preconceived notion oI red tape. Moreover, no research has directly investigated the wording
oI this common questionnaire item to understand how word usage might be related to perceived
red tape.
Organizational Red Tape
One oI the Iirst deIinitions oI red tape oIIered by public administration scholars came in
1984, when RosenIeld deIined red tape as guidelines, procedures, Iorms, and government
interventions that are perceived as excessive, unwieldy, or pointless in relationship to decision
making or implementation oI decisions (1984). Bozeman (1993) later criticized RosenIeld`s
deIinition as Iailing to distinguish between good and bad rules and thereIore Iailing to clearly
deIine red tape as a negative phenomenon. Bozeman oIIered a more speciIic deIinition oI red
tape as rules, regulations, and procedures that remain in Iorce and entail a compliance burden
Ior the organization but have no eIIicacy Ior the rules` Iunctional object (1993, 283). He later
revised that deIinition to the Iollowing more succinct deIinition, burdensome administrative
rules and procedures that have negative eIIects on the organization`s perIormance (Bozeman
2000). Note that the latter deIinition speciIically links red tape to perIormance, whereas the 1993
deIinition links red tape to the rule`s Iunctional object, or purpose. Because most, iI not all, oI
the empirical red tape research has been conducted subsequent to Bozeman`s work developing a
theory oI red tape (1993, 2000) it overwhelmingly relies on the deIinitions provided in that work.
DeHart-Davis (2007), deIines red tape as burdensome administrative policies and procedures
that have negative eIIects on the city`s perIormance. Others deIine red tape as burdensome
rules or procedures that have an adverse eIIect on organizational perIormance(DeHart-Davis &
Pandey 2005; Yang & Pandey 2009). Here too, we see red tape as a negative phenomenon and
something that aIIects perIormance.
The Iirst empirical measure developed to assess red tape perceptions was developed Ior
the National Administrative Studies Project (NASP I), a survey administered to a sample oI 566
top managers in 269 public organizations and 297 private organizations in Albany and Syracuse
New York (Rainey, Pandey, & Bozeman 1995). Rainey et al. (1995) called this measure eneral
Red Tape, but it is also labeled the General Administrative Red Tape Scale, General Red Tape
Scale, Global Scale, Global Measure oI Red Tape, and Organizational Red Tape Scale in other
research. The measure has appeared in a number oI public administration surveys including
NASP II (Pandey & Kingsley 2000), NASP III (Feeney 2008; Feeney & Rainey 2010), a survey
administered to the Georgia Department oI Transportation managers and their contractors
(Feeney & Bozeman 2009), a survey oI local managers (Feeney & DeHart-Davis 2009), and the
English Local Government Dataset study oI Best Value (Brewer & Walker 2010).
The Organizational Red Tape Scale is a staple measure in the empirical red tape research
and has been used in more than 20 peer-reviewed journal articles (Bozeman & Feeney 2011).
Research using the Organizational Red Tape Scale has Iound that public sector managers
perceive signiIicantly more organizational red tape than those in the private and nonproIit sectors
(Feeney & Bozeman 2009; Feeney & Rainey 2010; Rainey Pandey, & Bozeman 1995). Research
has also shown that Organizational Red Tape is related to work alienation, organizational size,
respondent education level, and time in current position (DeHart-Davis & Pandey 2005; Pandey
& Kingsley 2000). Variance in Organizational Red Tape is also related to public service
motivation (Moynihan & Pandey 2007; Scott & Pandey 2005), hierarchical position (Brewer,
Hicklin, & Walker 2006), risk-taking (Bozeman & Kingsley 1998) communication, intersector
collaboration, and work experience (Feeney & Bozeman 2009). Given these Iindings and the
common use oI this scale in multiple surveys over the span oI 20 years, it is surprising that
researchers have not sought to test the reliability and validity oI the Organizational Red Tape
In sum, although Bozeman and Feeney (2011) assert that research using the
Organizational Red Tape Scale has shown results that are relatively stable, providing a
considerable degree oI convergent validity and that there is some Iace validity and instrumental
utility oI this measure, there is no research aimed directly at testing the reliability and validity oI
this common red tape measure. A number oI questions about this measure remain. For example,
is the Organizational Red Tape Scale measuring what we think it is? Do respondents understand
the diIIerence between red tape (a negative phenomenon) and rules? When thinking about red
tape are respondents concerned with eIIiciency and perIormance or simply inconvenience? Does
the deIinition provided in the questionnaire item inIluence the ways in which respondents rate
red tape in their organizations?
One oI the primary criticisms oI the commonly used Organizational Red Tape Scale is
that the deIinition oI red tape Iocuses on describing rules that have negative eIIects on
organizational eIIectiveness. Many red tape researchers note that red tape has multiple
dimensions and that this Iocus on eIIiciency and eIIectiveness limits red tape to only one oI those
dimensions (Brewer & Walker 2010a; Pandey, Coursey, & Moynihan 2007; Pandey & Scott
2002). Red tape researchers note that rules are relevant to other public administration values,
such as transparency, accountability, equity, representation, and Iairness (Feeney, Moynihan, &
Walker 2010). Many oI the 2010 Red Tape Workshop participants noted that developing a multi-
dimensional concept and deIinition oI red tape would enable researchers to broaden the study oI
red tape to consider these important public administration values. While there is some research in
public administration and policy that investigates how rules are related to values (Moynihan
study and others), this research is not described as red tape research. Moreover, red tape
researchers are not currently operationalizing measures or deIinitions that capture the multi-
dimensionality oI red tape. While many researchers agree that red tape aIIects other values,
besides eIIiciency and eIIectiveness, there is no empirical red tape research or questionnaire
items that guide research subjects to conceptualize these multiple components oI red tape.
Wright and colleagues (2004) argue that public administration researchers need to be much more
concerned with measurement issues and many red tape researchers are in agreement (Feeney,
Moynihan, & Walker 2010).

Research Design
The present study utilized the descriptive method oI research. The descriptive method is a
process Ior learning pertinent or precise inIormation about an existing situation or phenomena.
The characteristics oI a descriptive method include all those that support to present Iacts
concerning the nature oI status oI anything, a group oI people, a number oI objects, and a set oI
phenomena one way wish to study. Moreover, is used to organized interpret and report the
present status oI the group. It deals with cross-section oI the present situation suIIicient Ior
Respondents of the Study
The respondents include selected employees oI the Local Government Unit oI Maddela ,
Quirino. The total number oI respondents is equivalent to sixty (60).
Research Instruments
A questionnaire which was the primary data gathering instrument in this study was used
to gather descriptive inIormation Irom the respondents.
Statistical Treatment of Data
The Iollowing statistical tool was used by the researcher to properly conduct a scientiIic
presentation, analysis and interpretation oI data gathered.
a. Weighted Mean. It was utilized to measure the respondents` perception oI the
implementation oI the Anti-Red Tape Act oI 2007.
The table below was used to interpret the weighted. The points, range and descriptive
interpretations that was used in this study are as Iollows:

Points Range Description
5 4.50-5.00 Strongly Agree
4 3.50-4.49 Agree
3 2.50- 3.49 Not Sure
2 1.50-2.49 Disagree
1 0.50-1.49 Strongly Disagree

Table 1 show that some oI the community members oI the Local Government Unit oI
Maddela view the Anti-Red Tape Act oI 2007 as a process. Impressions oI respondents Iall
homogenously in one category in 'agreement that it is a process as indicated by weighted
means ranging Irom 3.897 to 4.107.
Respondents reveal and show 'agreement to the view that Anti-Red Tape Act oI 2007is
a process, Ior it has various steps and activities in determining quality in the operations oI the
local government unit (x4.103). To look Ior quality, it applies as well various methods oI
strategic management (x4.107), assessing the activities that need improvement, analyzing its
strength, weakness, threats, and opportunities Ior standardization and benchmarking.
Furthermore, it is a process, in the sense that the staII has to go through measuring quantitative
variables, evaluating and analyzing the results (x4.103), and in giving education and training oI
the staII in order to understand the construct oI Anti-Red Tape Act oI 2007. So that in this case,
positive attitudes may be developed and a better implementation oI the Anti-Red Tape Act oI
2007 would result(x4.011).
As a process, it contains a series oI steps, looking at methods and ways they do in the
organization, attempting to attain quality though standardization oI activities and methods, and
looking Ior benchmarks in order to move on towards continuous improvement (x4.100).

Table 1
Impressions oI Respondents on views oI Anti-Red Tape Act oI 2007 as a process

Items Weight Mean Verbal Interpretation
1. Shows a sequence oI activities Ior
4.104 A
2.It looks Ior activities that need
improvement and standardization.
3.Benchmarking is used in standardizing
4.Contains steps in identiIying and
resolving problems
4.090 A
5.Series oI activities in requiring student
4.107 A
6.Process oI measuring, analyzing,
evaluating the organization
4.103 A
7.It contains processes that work Ior
satisIaction oI students
4.107 A
8.It applies the diIIerent steps in strategic
4.107 A
9.It involves a process oI determining
4.107 A
10. Its implementation involves a
process oI education, and development
in order to understand its constructs
4.06 A
Overall Weighted Mean 4.083 A
Legend: SA Strongly Agree
A - Agree

1.2.2 As an Evaluation Method

Table 2 shows the impressions oI respondents on Anti-Red Tape Act oI 2007 as an
Evaluation Method.
There are descriptions oI Anti-Red Tape Act oI 2007 that it is a method oI evaluation and
these are that: it seeks to innovate(x4.221). II it serves to innovate, it must have empirical based
upon which evaluation is based beIore it goes to the process oI innovation. Their belieI that it is a
method oI evaluation lies in the Iact that it works Ior the continuous improvement (x4.221) and
stresses the importance oI satisIaction oI clients. In undertaking such steps, the method
evaluation is an inherent part. Moreover, it has a construct Ior Measurement, Analysis and
Evaluation, which is reIlexive on the property oI evaluation (x4.211) on itselI. It is described as
involving the activities oI standardization, improving activities, and such ventures necessitate
that knowledge oI empirical data and evaluating them.

Table 2
Impressions oI Respondents on the Implementation oI Anti-Red Tape Act oI 2007 as an
evaluation Method

Items Weight Mean Verbal Interpretation
1. It works Ior continuous
4.211 A
2. Stresses the importance oI
satisIaction oI clients
3. Purpose is to:
a. Develop
b. Standardize
a. Improve
b. Innovate


4. Helps measure the diIIerence with
observed and desired activities.
4.478 A
5. PerIormance is measured in terms
oI proIit
4.874 A
6. In determines client satisIaction 4.199 A
Overall Weighted Mean 4.304 A
Legend: A Agree

As a management innovation

Table 3 shows the summary oI the responses oI the group viewing Anti-Red Tape Act oI
2007, as an innovation in public administration.
The best in the implementation oI the Anti-Red Tape Act oI 2007 as an innovation in
public administration, is Iound in its ability to improve eIIectiveness oI organization`s ability to
solve problems and make proper decisions (x4.211), which is essence oI Organizational
In the use oI Anti-Red Tape Act oI 2007 as an intervention, leadership takes the duty oI
leading and directing organizational processes oI organizing, decision making, evaluating and
other managerial Iunctions, so that its success as an innovation is dependent on the leader`s
eIIorts. It emphasizes more democratic processes and that the loci oI decision making, is not on
the leader alone, but on the group, resulting greater group collaborative activity.

Table 3
Impressions oI Respondents on Procedures oI Implementation oI Anti-Red Tape Act oI 2007 as a
Innovation in Public Administration

1. Requires participation oI all people
in the organization
4.211 A 2
2. Develops pleasant & warm
relationships between people
during Iocused group discussions.
3. Involves management organization
and management and leadership
4.211 A 3
4. Uses strategic management to
attain organizational eIIectiveness
4.016 A 10
5. Necessitates management
leadership in the process
4.199 A 4.5
6. It improves organization`s ability
in solving problems and decision
4.109 A 7
Overall Weighted Mean 4.142 A
Legend: A Agree

An overall weighted mean oI 4.142 shows that as a whole, they 'agree that is a
management innovation.

Table 4 shows that summary oI the views oI the respondents oI the study on their
impressions on Anti-Red Tape Act oI 2007, as a process, an evaluation method and as an
innovation in public administration.

Table 4
Summary oI Impressions on Anti-Red Tape Act oI 2007 constructs

Items Weight Mean
1.As a process 4.083 A 2
2.As an Evaluation Method 4.304 A 1
3.Management innovation 4.142 A 1
Legend: SA Strongly Agree
A Agree

The results moreover, reveal that in spite oI the Iact that Anti-Red Tape Act oI 2007
maniIests as a triple Iold oI a process, a method oI evaluation and a management innovation, they
are more inclined to see it as an evaluation method.

On the conception oI the people that government employees are corrupt, ineIIicient, un-
courteous and lack oI tack the employees oI the LGU oI Maddela quite upset about it. Although it
is admissible that it is a Iact and happening, there were also Iew good men and only small portion
oI the entire organization were rotten.
These 'Iew good men in the government was disturbed by these misconceptions and
quite demoralized and the level oI their perIormances tends to drop oII.
The Iull implementation oI RA 9485 is not the sole instrument to measure the
perIormance oI local government oIIices. There were also a lot oI Iactors to consider that
inIluences transactions in the government service, like lack oI technology, capability oI
employees (as a result oI political appointments), sticking to obsolete procedural practices, lack oI
Iund that resulted to the absence in training programs Ior development and perIormance
advancement and upgrading oI technology, overlapping oI Iunctions, too many signatories and
lack oI political will among others.
The enactment oI RA 9485 or Anti-Red Tape Act oI 2007 had brought back the diligence
oI the employees oI Maddela, Ior the reason that, both, the Iew good men and 'rotten eggs were
now have a common basis in carrying out their respective Iunctions.
The RA 9485 shall now serve as the source oI Iorce to oblige the 'rotten eggs to do their
tasks in the same level with the other employees and the 'Iew good men have now a clear cut-
policy in perIorming their mandated Iunctions, thus settle the overlapping oI Iunctions, as well as
the superiors will now have a basis as to the need oI their staII in trainings and development to
boost the level oI their perIormance and become more productive.
The implementation oI Anti-Red Tape Act oI 2007will brings about beneIits to both the
clientele and LGU employees. Among the beneIits which the Local Government Unit hopes to
derive are: reduction oI graIt and corruption by preventing personnel`s procrastination and
removing the operation oI red tape Iixers; availability oI Ieedback, complaints and redress
mechanism which could be used to Iurther improve the delivery oI services; existence oI basis Ior
assessing the perIormance oI the local government employees, and opening oI opportunity Ior
people participation on service improvement. As Ior the clients, the simpliIied process oI service
procedures will make their transactions Iaster, eIIicient and more reliable. Moreover, with the
inclusion oI clear and transparent procedures, requirements and Iees in the charter, they can
expect equal treatment Irom the LGU oIIicials and/or employees providing the service.


Baldwin, J.N. 1991. Public versus private employees: Debunking stereotypes. Review o1 Public Personnel
Administration 11(2):1-27.
Bormuth, John R. 1968. Cloze Test Readability: Criterion ReIerence Scores. ournal o1 Educational
Measurement 5:189196.
Bozeman, B. 1993. A theory oI government red tape. ournal o1 Public Administration Research and
Theory, 3(3), 273303.
. 2000. Bureaucracy and Red Tape. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bozeman, B. & M.K. Feeney 2011. Rules and Red Tape. A Prism 1or Public Administration Theory and
Research. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Bozeman, B., & G. Kingsley. 1998. Risk culture in public and private organizations. Public Administration
Review, 58(2), 109118.
Brewer, Gene, A., Hicklin, Alisa K. & Richard M. Walker. 2006. Multi-level Modeling Stakeholder Red
Tape, Environmental Constraints, Management and Public Service PerIormance. Determinants o1
Per1ormance in Public Organi:ations , University oI Hong Kong, December 7-10.
Brewer, G.A., and R.M. Walker. 2010a. An empirical analysis oI the impact oI red tape on governmental
perIormance: An empirical evaluation. ournal o1 Public Administration Research and Theory,
20(1), 233257.
.2010b. Explaining variations in perceptions oI red tape: A proIessionalism-marketization model.
Public Administration, 88, 2.
Brudney, JeIIrey L., Laurence J. O'Toole Jr., and Hal G. Rainey. 2000. Advancing public management. New
developments in theory, methods, and practice. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Coleman, Meri, and T. L. Liau. 1975. A Computer Readability Formula Designed Ior Machine Scoring.
ournal o1 Applied Psychology 60:283284.
Coursey, D.H., and S.K. Pandey. 2007. Content domain, measurement, and validity oI the red tape concept:
A second-order conIirmatory Iactor analysis. American Review o1 Public Administration, 37, 342.
Cozzetto, D.A. 1994. Quantitative research in public administration: A need to address some serious
methodological problems. Administration and Society, 26(3), 337343.
DeHart-Davis, L. 2007. The unbureaucratic personality. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 892903.
DeHart-Davis, L., and S.K. Pandey. 2005. Red tape and public employees: Does perceived rule dysIunction
alienate managers? ournal o1 Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1), 133148.
Feeney, M.K. 2008. Public wars and private armies: Militaries, mercenaries, and public values. Paper
presented at the Public Values and Public Interest Research Workshop. Copenhagen, Denmark, May
Feeney, M.K. working paper. Public Administration Empirical Research: The Case oI Red Tape.
Feeney, M.K., and B. Bozeman. 2009. Stakeholder red tape: Comparing perceptions oI public managers and
their private consultants. Public Administration Review, 69(4), 710726.
Feeney, Mary K., Donald P. Moynihan, and Richard M. Walker. 2010. Rethinking and Expanding the Study
o1 Administrative Rules. Report o1 the 2010 Red Tape Research Workshop. Madison, Wisconsin. 30
Feeney, Mary K., and Leisha DeHart-Davis. 2009. Bureaucracy and Public Employee Behavior: A Case oI
Local Government. Review o1 Public Personnel Administration. Available advanced online: March
11, 2009, doi:10.1177/0734371X09333201 1
Feeney, M.K., and H.G. Rainey. 2010. Personnel Ilexibility in public and nonproIit organizations. ournal o1
Public Administration Research and Theory.
Flesch, Rudolph. 1948. A New Readability Yardstick. ournal o1 Applied Psychology 32:221 233.
Gill, J., and K.J. Meier. 2000. Public administration research and practice: A methodological maniIesto.
ournal o1 Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(1), 157199.
GreenIield, Gerald. 2003. The Mihazaki EFL Readability Index. omparative ulture 9:4149.
Holbrook, A.L., Krosnick, J.A., Moore, D. and R. Tourangeau. 2007. Response order eIIects in dichotomous
categorical questions presented orally: The impact oI question and respondent attributes. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 71(3):325348.
Houston, D.J., and S.M. Delevan. 1990. Public administration research: An assessment oI journal
publications. Public Administration Review, 50(6), 674681.
.1991. The state oI public personnel research. Review o1 Public Personnel Administration, 11(2), 97
.1994. A comparative assessment oI public administration journal publications. Administration and
Society, 26(2), 252271.
Kettl & Milward 1996;
May, Thor. 1987. Evaluating Linguistic DiIIiculty. TESOL News Vol. 8 No. 3. Downloaded January 11,
2011 Irom
McCurdy, H.E., and R.E. Cleary. 1984. Why can`t we resolve the research issue in public administration?
Public Administration Review, 44(1), 4955.
Meier, K.J. 2005. Public administration and the myth oI positivism: The Antichrist`s view. Administrative
Theory and Praxis, 27(4), 650668.
Moynihan, D.P., and S.K. Pandey. 2007. Comparing job satisIaction, job involvement, and organizational
commitment. Administration and Society, 39(7), 803832.
Pandey, S.K., and G.A. Kingsley. 2000. Examining red tape in public and private organizations: Alternative
explanations Irom a social psychological model. ournal o1 Public Administration Research and
Theory, 10(4), 779799.
Pandey, S.K., and J. Marlowe. 2009. Taking stock oI survey-based measures oI bureaucratic red tape: Mere
perceptions or more than meets the eye? Paper presented at the 10th Public Management Research
Pandey, S.K., and P.G. Scott. 2002. Red tape: A review and assessment oI concepts and measures. ournal o1
Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(4), 553580.
Perry, J.L. 1996. Measuring public service motivation: An assessment oI construct reliability and validity.
ournal o1 Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(1), 524.
Rainey, H.G., S.K. Pandey, and B. Bozeman. 1995. Research note: Public and private managers` perceptions
oI red tape. Public Administration Review, 55(6), 567574.
RosenIeld, R.A. 1984. An expansion and application oI KauIman`s model oI red tape: The case oI
community development block grants. Western Political Quarterly, 37, 603620. 31
. 2005. Red tape and public service motivation: Findings Irom a national survey oI managers in state
health and human services agencies. Review o1 Public Personnel Administration, 25(2), 155180.
Smith, E. A. and Peter Kincaid. 1970. Derivation and Validation oI the Automated Readability Index Ior
Use with Technical Materials. uman Factors 12:457464.
Welch, E.W., and S.K. Pandey. 2007. E-government and bureaucracy: Toward a better understanding oI
intranet implementation and its eIIect on red tape. ournal o1 Public Administration Research and
Theory, 17, 379404.
Wright, B., L. Manigault, and T. Black. 2004. Quantitative research measurement in public administration:
An assessment oI journal publications. Administration and Society, 35(6), 747764.
?ang k and Sk andey 2009 Pow do percelved pollLlcal envlronmenL and admlnlsLraLlve reform affecL
employee commlLmenL? Iootool of lobllc AJmlolsttotloo keseotcb ooJ 1beoty 19(2) 333360



Dear Respondents,

The undersigned is undertaking an action research that will assess the implementation oI
the Anti-Red Tape Act oI 2007.
There is no right or wrong answer, but it is best that you answer the questionnaires
objectively, so that proper decisions and directions may be made.
You are assured that every assertion made in these questionnaires shall be held
conIidential, and will not be taken against you, rather as a helpIul assessment oI a cause.
Your cooperation is very much desired and without your help this paper will not be
Thank you Ior making this part oI your day.

Thank you again.
Michael Ramos




. Impressions on the Implementation oI the Anti-Red Tape Act oI 2007

Direction: Please encircle the number which you think is the best answer, coming Irom the
Iollowing options:

Strongly Agree (5)
Agree (4)
Not Sure (3)
Disagree (2)
Strongly Disagree (1)

1. Anti-Red Tape Act oI 2007 as a Process.

It is a series oI activities Ior transIormation .............
It is a process oI looking Ior activities that need
improvement and standardization .................
It uses Benchmarking in standardizing method ..............
It contain steps in identiIying and resolving problems ............
It is a process oI measuring, analyzing, evaluating the
activities in the organization ......................
It applies the diIIerent steps in strategic planning .............
It involves a process oI determining quality ................
Its implementation involves a process oI education
and development in order to understand its constructs ...........
It works Ior process Ior customer satisIaction
5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2 1

2. Anti-Red Tape Act oI 2007 As an Evaluation Method

It works Ior continuous improvement .................
Stresses the importance oI satisIaction oI clients ........
Purpose is to:
a. Develop ............................
b. Standardize ..........................
c. Improve ............................
d. Innovate ...........................
Helps measure the diIIerence between observed
and what is desired ...........................
PerIormance is measured in terms oI proIit .................
5 4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2 1
It measures client satisIaction ....................... 5 4 3 2 1

3. Anti-Red Tape Act oI 2007 as an Innovation in Public Administration

Requires participation oI all people in the organization ..........

Develops pleasant and warm relationship between...........
People during Iocused group discussion
Involves management organization, management
and leadership ..........................
Uses Strategic Management to attain organizational
EIIectiveness ............................
Necessities management leadership in the process ...........
Improves organization`s ability to solve problems and
decision-making .........................
5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1
5 4 3 2 1

5 4 3 2 1



Republic oI the Philippines
Congress oI the Philippines
Metro Manila

Thirteenth Congress
Third Special Session

Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the nineteenth day oI February, two
thousand seven.

June 02, 2007


Be it enacted by the Senate and the House oI Representatives oI the Philippines in
Congress assembled:

Section 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Anti-Red Tape Act oI 2007".

Sec. 2. Declaration oI Policy. - It is hereby declared the policy oI the State to promote integrity,
accountability, proper management oI public aIIairs and public property as well as to establish
eIIective practices aimed at the prevention oI graIt and corruption in government. Towards this
end, the State shall maintain honesty and responsibility among its public oIIicials and employees,
and shall take appropriate measures to promote transparency in each agency with regard to the
manner oI transacting with the public, which shall encompass a program Ior the adoption oI
simpliIied procedures that will reduce red tape and expedite transactions in government.

Sec. 3. Coverage. - This Act shall apply to all government oIIices and agencies including local
government units and government-owned or -controlled corporations that provide Irontline
services as deIined in this Act. Those perIorming judicial, quasi-judicial and legislative Iunctions
are excluded Irom the coverage oI this Act.

Sec. 4. DeIinition oI Terms. - As used in this Act, the Iollowing terms are deIined as Iollows:

(a) "Simple Transactions" reIer to requests or applications submitted by clients oI a government
oIIice or agency which only require ministerial actions on the part oI the public oIIicer or
employee, or that which present only inconsequential issues Ior the resolution by an oIIicer or
employee oI said government oIIice.

(b) "Complex Transactions" reIer to requests or applications submitted by clients oI a
government oIIice which necessitate the use oI discretion in the resolution oI complicated issues
by an oIIicer or employee oI said government oIIice, such transaction to be determined by the
oIIice concerned.

(c) "Frontline Service" reIers to the process or transaction between clients and government
oIIices or agencies involving applications Ior any privilege, right, permit, reward, license,
concession, or Ior any modiIication, renewal or extension oI the enumerated applications and/or
requests which are acted upon in the ordinary course oI business oI the agency or oIIice

(d) "Action" reIers to the written approval or disapproval made by a government oIIice or agency
on the application or request submitted by a client Ior processing.

(e) "OIIicer or Employee" reIers to a person employed in a government oIIice or agency required
to perIorm speciIic duties and responsibilities related to the application or request submitted by a
client Ior processing.

(I) "Irrevelant requirement" reIer to any document or perIormance oI an act not directly material
to the resolution oI the issues raised in the request or needed in the application submitted by the

(g) "Fixer" reIers to any individual whether or not oIIicially involved in the operation oI a
government oIIice or agency who has access to people working therein, and whether or not in
collusion with them, Iacilitates speedy completion oI transactions Ior pecuniary gain or any other
advantage or consideration.

Sec. 5 Reengineering oI Systems and Procedures. - All oIIices and agencies which provide
Irontline services are hereby mandated to regularly undertake time and motion studies, undergo
evaluation and improvement oI their transaction systems and procedures and re-engineer the
same iI deemed necessary to reduce bureaucratic red tape and processing time.

Sec. 6. Citizen's Charter. - All government agencies including departments, bureaus, oIIices,
instrumentalities, or government-owned and/or controlled corporations, or local government or
district units shall set up their respective service standards to be known as the Citizen's Charter in
the Iorm oI inIormation billboards which should be posted at the main entrance oI oIIices or at
the most conspicuous place, and in the Iorm oI published materials written either in English,
Filipino, or in the local dialect, that detail:

(a) The procedure to obtain a particular service;

(b) The person/s responsible Ior each step;

(c) The maximum time to conclude the process;

(d) The document/s to be presented by the customer, iI necessary;

(e) The amount oI Iees, iI necessary; and

(I) The procedure Ior Iiling complaints.

Sec. 7. Accountability oI the Heads oI OIIices and Agencies. - The head oI the oIIice or agency
shall be primarily responsible Ior the implementation oI this Act and shall be held accountable to
the public in rendering Iast, eIIicient, convenient and reliable service. All transactions and
processes are deemed to have been made with the permission or clearance Irom the highest
authority having jurisdiction over the government oIIice or agency concerned.

Sec. 8. Accessing Frontline Services. - The Iollowing shall be adopted by all government oIIices
and agencies:

(a) Acceptance oI Applications and Request - (1) All oIIicers or employees shall accept written
applications, requests, and/or documents being submitted by clients oI the oIIice or agencies.

(2) The responsible oIIicer or employee shall acknowledge receipt oI such application and/or
request by writing or printing clearly thereon his/her name, the unit where he/she is connected
with, and the time and date oI receipt.

(3) The receiving oIIicer or employee shall perIorm a preliminary assessment oI the request so as
to promote a more expeditious action on requests.

(b) Action oI OIIices - (1) All applications and/or requests submitted shall be acted upon by the
assigned oIIicer or employee during the period stated in the Citizen's Charter which shall not be
longer than Iive working days in the case oI simple transactions and ten (10) working days in the
case oI complex transactions Irom the date the request or application was received. Depending
on the nature oI the Irontline services requested or the mandate oI the oIIice or agency under
unusual circumstances, the maximum time prescribed above may be extended. For the extension
due to nature oI Irontline services or the mandate oI the oIIice or agency concerned the period
Ior the delivery oI Irontline services shall be indicated in the Citizen's Charter. The oIIice or
agency concerned shall notiIy the requesting party in writing oI the reason Ior the extension and
the Iinal date oI release Ior the extension and the Iinal date oI release oI the Irontline service/s

(2) No application or request shall be returned to the client without appropriate action. In case an
application or request is disapproved, the oIIicer or employee who rendered the decision shall
send a Iormal notice to the client within Iive working days Irom the receipt oI the request and/or
application, stating therein the reason Ior the disapproval including a list oI speciIic
requirement/s which the client Iailed to submit.

(c) Denial oI Request Ior Access to Government Service - Any denial oI request Ior access to
government service shall be Iully explained in writing, stating the name oI the person making the
denial and the grounds upon which such denial is based. Any denial oI request is deemed to have
been made with the permission or clearance Irom the highest authority having jurisdiction over
the government oIIice or agency concerned.

(d) Limitation oI Signatories - The number oI signatories in any document shall be limited to a
maximum oI Iive signatures which shall represent oIIicers directly supervising the oIIice or
agency concerned.

(e) Adoption oI Working Schedules to Serve Clients - Heads oI oIIices and agencies which
render Irontline services shall adopt appropriate working schedules to ensure that all clients who
are within their premises prior to the end oI oIIicial working hours are attended to and served
even during lunch break and aIter regular working hours.

(I) IdentiIication Card - All employees transacting with the public shall be provided with an
oIIicial identiIication card which should be visibly worn during oIIice hours.

(g) Establishment oI Public Assistance/Complaints Desk - Each oIIice or agency shall establish a
public assistance/complaints desk in all their oIIices.

Sec. 9. Automatic Extension oI Permits and Licenses. - - II a government oIIice or agency Iails
to act on an application and/or request Ior renewal oI a license, permit or authority subject Ior
renewal within the prescribed period, said permit, license or authority shall automatically be
extended until a decision or resolution is rendered on the application Ior renewal: Provided, That
the automatic extension shall not apply when the permit, license, or authority covers activities
which pose danger to public health, public saIety, public morals or to public policy including, but
not limited to, natural resource extraction activities.

Sec. 10. Report Card Survey. - All oIIices and agencies providing Irontline services shall be
subjected to a Report Card Survey to be initiated by the Civil Service Commission, in
coordination with the Development Academy oI the Philippines, which shall be used to obtain
Ieedback on how provisions in the Citizen's Charter are being Iollowed and how the agency is

The Report Card Survey shall also be used to obtain inIormation and/or estimates oI hidden costs
incurred by clients to access Irontline services which may include, but is not limited to, bribes
and payment to Iixers.

A Ieedback mechanism shall be established in all agencies covered by this Act and the results
thereoI shall be incorporated in their annual report.

Sec. 11. Violations. - AIter compliance with the substantive and procedural due process, the
Iollowing shall constitute violations oI this Act together with their corresponding penalties:

(a) Light OIIense - (1) ReIusal to accept application and/or request within the prescribed period
or any document being submitted by a client;

(2) Failure to act on an application and/or request or Iailure to reIer back to the client a request
which cannot be acted upon due to lack oI requirement/s within the prescribed period;

(3) Failure to attend to clients who are within the premises oI the oIIice or agency concerned
prior to the end oI oIIicial working hours and during lunch

(4) Failure to render Irontline services within the prescribed period on any application and/or
request without due cause;

(5) Failure to give the client a written notice on the disapproval oI an application or request; and

(6) Imposition oI additional irrelevant requirements other than those listed in the Iirst notice.

Penalties Ior light oIIense shall be as Iollows:

First OIIense - Thirty (30) days suspension without pay and mandatory attendance in Values
Orientation Program;

Second OIIense - Three (3) months suspension without pay; and

Third OIIense - Dismissal and perpetual disqualiIication Irom public service.

(b) Grave OIIense - Fixing and/or collusion with Iixers in consideration oI economic and/or other
gain or advantage.

Penalty - Dismissal and perpetual disqualiIication Irom public service.

Sec. 12. Criminal Liability Ior Fixers. - In addition to Sec. 11 (b), Iixers, as deIined in this Act,
shall suIIer the penalty oI imprisonment not exceeding six years or a Iine not less than Twenty
Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) but not more than Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) or
both Iine and imprisonment at the discretion oI the court.

Sec. 13. Civil and Criminal Liability, Not Barred. - The Iinding oI administrative liability under
this Act shall not be a bar to the Iiling oI criminal, civil or other related charges under existing
laws arising Irom the same act or omission as herein enumerated.

Sec. 14. Administrative Jurisdiction. - The administrative jurisdiction on any violation oI the
provisions oI this Act shall be vested in either the Civil Service Commission (CSC), the
Presidential Anti-GraIt Commission (PAGC) or the OIIice oI the Ombudsman as determined by
appropriate laws and issuances.

Sec. 15. Immunity; Discharge oI Co-Respondent/Accused to be a Witness. - Any public oIIicial
or employee or any person having been charged with another under this Act and who voluntarily
gives inIormation pertaining to an investigation or who willingly testiIies thereIore, shall be
exempt Irom prosecution in the case/s where his/her inIormation and testimony are given. The
discharge may be granted and directed by the investigating body or court upon the application or
petition oI any oI the respondent/accused-inIormant and beIore the termination oI the
investigation: Provided, That:

(a) There is absolute necessity Ior the testimony oI the respondent/accused-inIormant whose
discharge is requested;

(b) There is no other direct evidence available Ior the proper prosecution oI the oIIense
committed, except the testimony oI said respondent/accused-inIormant;

(c) The testimony oI said respondent/accused-inIormant can be substantially corroborated in its
material points;

(d) The responden/accused-inIormant has not been previously convicted oI a crime involving
moral turpitude; and

(e) Said responden/accused-inIormant does not appear to be the most guilty.

Evidence adduced in support oI the discharge shall automatically Iorm part oI the records oI the
investigation. Should the investigating body or court deny the motion or request Ior discharge as
a witness, his/her sworn statement shall be inadmissible as evidence.

Sec. 16. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The Civil Service Commission in coordination
with the Development Academy oI the Philippines (DAP), the OIIice oI the Ombudsman and the
Presidential Anti-GraIt Commission (PAGC), shall promulgate the necessary rules and
regulations within ninety (90) days Irom the eIIectivity oI this Act.

Sec. 17. Separability Clause. - II any provision oI this Act shall be declared invalid or
unconstitutional, such declaration shall not aIIect the validity oI the remaining provisions oI this

Sec. 18. Repealing Clause. - All provisions oI laws, presidential decrees, letters oI instruction
and other presidential issuances which are incompatible or inconsistent with the provisions oI
this Act are hereby deemed amended or repealed.

Sec. 19. EIIectivity. - This Act shall take eIIect within IiIteen (15) days Iollowing its publication
in the OIIicial Gazette or in two (2) national newspapers oI general circulation.


Speaker oI the House oI Representatives

President oI the Senate

This Act which is a consolidation oI Senate Bill No. 2589 and House Bill No. 3776 was
Iinally passed by the Senate and the House oI Representatives on February 8, 2007 and February
20, 2007 respectively.

Secretary General
House oI Representatives

Secretary oI Senate

Approved: JUN 02, 2007

President oI the Philippines