Gift-giving tradition
By this time, many businesses have already firmed up their list of the people to whom they will give Christmas gifts.
It includes the customers or clients they transacted lucratively with this year and whose patronage they want to maintain and expand. The cost of the gift is considered an investment rather than an expense.
If the business is engaged in activities that are closely regulated by the government, the incentive to play Santa Claus to key staff of the regulatory body is strong.
In fact, that’s considered standard operating procedure if the business wants to remain in the good graces of that supervising authority in the coming years.
Since that annual ritual is considered critical to good governmental relations, its costs are included in the budget as part of allowable representation expenses, subject to compliance with documentary requirements.
This practice persists despite civil service rules that prohibit government officials and employees from accepting or soliciting gifts from persons or parties that do business with their office.
In theory, the underlying objective of the ban is to minimize graft and corruption in government, a problem that continues to plague the country up to the present and worse (read: flood control projects scandal).
The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees states that “public officials and employees shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift … or anything of monetary value from any person in the course of their official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office.”
But the word “gift” does not include “an unsolicited gift of nominal or insignificant value not given in anticipation of, or in exchange for, a favor from a public official or employee.”
Note the words “unsolicited, nominal, insignificant value.” They have not been defined, nor are any parameters spelled out to aid in their interpretation and application.
Thus, if a regulated business gives an unsolicited gift to an official or employee of the regulatory office on the occasion of the holiday season, that action may not be considered a violation of the gift-giving ban.
The gift giver can claim it was not given in anticipation of or in exchange for a favor, but simply in keeping with the gift-giving tradition that accompanies what is often described as “the happiest time of the year.”
Anybody who argues against that may be looked at as a Scrooge. Whether the value of a gift is nominal or insignificant is in the beholder’s eye. Its interpretation is left to whoever wants to read something into it, taking into consideration the gift’s utility value, the position of its recipient and the transactions of the giver, all of which are subjective in character.
Thus, for example, a food basket worth P5,000 would have minimal value to a multimillion-peso business, but would be considered extravagant if it were given by a medium-scale business.
And bear in mind that once the gift is delivered, it is foolhardy to assume that its recipient would turn it down and order it returned because of the “no gift” policy.
That would be like rejecting a blessing from heaven that no true-blooded Filipino, regardless of his or her status in life, would do. Besides, the gift may be considered an unofficial part of the perks and privileges that accompany some positions in government.
For government employees with lower salary grades, the gifts are most welcome as they add to the holiday joy they can get from their meager salary.
No doubt, graft and corruption are rife in many government offices. But thinking that malady can be minimized by banning government employees from accepting Christmas gifts from the people they do business with is simply unrealistic.
For comments, please send your email to raul.palabrica@inquirer.net
