With the suspension of performance-based bonus (PBB) among government employees following the issuance of Executive Order No. 61 (s. 2024), some human resource practitioners in the private sector got curious about the performance management systems in government service. According to the issuance, these systems, known as the Results-Based Performance Management System (RBPMS) and Performance-Based Incentive System, have been “duplicative and redundant with the internal and external performance audit and evaluation systems of the government.”

The RBPMS, which authorizes the grant of performance-based bonus (PBB), was implemented through the now-suspended Administrative Order No. 25 (s. 2011) to “rationalize, harmonize, streamline, simplify, integrate, and unify all efforts” on performance management system in government. The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and the Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP) were tasked to manage the implementation of the RBPMS to reward exemplary employee performance, align individual and team-level efforts with agency-wide targets, and improve public service delivery in the executive department. 

The RBPMS framework was developed to ensure that performance results at the level of the agencies, teams, and individuals contribute to the attainment of the organizational up to sectoral or societal goals. It is to be noted, however, that only the agencies that met their performance targets as determined by the DBM were entitled to receive the PBB. The RBPMS framework does not cover the judiciary and the local government units (LGUs). 

Gaps and challenges

In a key informant interview conducted by this writer, a DAP official who was involved in the management and implementation of the RBPMS emphasized that what was being measured by the RBPMS framework was not the competence but the performance. It focused on what was achieved and what was not achieved vis-à-vis the targets set by the agency as approved by Congress. For this reason, some government employees were not able to receive performance-based bonuses because their agencies did not meet the requirements or did not achieve their target performance.   

During the interview, the official admitted that issues and challenges were encountered in the implementation of the RBPMS framework. One of these was the implication of declaring government agencies that are performing. With this design, an agency that is not eligible for PBB could be implicated as non-performing. This, however, is not necessarily the case. What made an agency ineligible could just be some lacking requirements discovered during validation by the DBM.

The system on determining the amount of performance bonus has also become questionable, if not unacceptable, to some employees. Under the PBB system, the amount that an employee may receive as a performance bonus is not across the board but a percentage only of his or her base pay. This means that employees with higher salaries receive higher bonuses while those with lower base pay receive lower bonuses even if both types of employees performed well and met their individual targets. Some employees expressed sentiments that this is not fair to those who are at the lower ranks.  

What needs to be done 

Providing services to the public is a continuing thrust of the government. It is therefore important to continue implementing a performance-based incentive scheme in the bureaucracy. This is in synch with the principle of motivation, which could be interpreted that giving performance bonus motivates government employees to become better public servants. Performance-based bonus could be a motivating factor for government workers to stay working in government and strengthen their capacity. 

This view is supported by a study on the effect of the performance-based bonus conducted by the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), which revealed that PBB is generally welcome across the bureaucracy and recommended that the government continue implementing the incentive scheme. Albert, Mendoza, et. al (2020) noted that PBB had contributed to improving public sector performance at the individual, team, and agency/department levels. In the survey, respondents argued that “PBB works in terms of strengthening staff members’ motivation to achieve strong results and enhance public services.”  

The PIDS study, however, categorically emphasized that “it is also extremely important to develop ways to improve on it.” Taking into consideration the issues and challenges mentioned, there is a greater need to evaluate the structure, processes, criteria, etc. of the PBB and introduce improvements on the same for fairness, transparency, and effectivity. The study recommended streamlining data collection for performance and enhancing e-government to lessen the reporting burden for staff members. It noted that it is “critical to simplify the PBB requirements, so that reform gains are more firmly established and to help prevent regression in accomplishments” (Albert, Mendoza, et. al, 2020).

In a process evaluation conducted by PIDS, it was recommended that the process of cascading information on PBB to government institutions be improved. Opiniano (2019) recommended that PBB focal point persons, along with their co-focal point persons, should be provided with a more intensive training program that discusses their specific responsibilities and how to carry these out effectively to enhance the process of cascading PBB information to all employees.

Lastly, it is important to emphasize the need to measure the feedback of the citizens who are recipients of the services of the government. Feedbacks are necessary to make important policies and decisions on how to improve motivations and boost productivity among government workers and institutions. These factors need to be considered in studying and reviewing the systems, “with the goal of streamlining, overhauling, improving, and simplifying government performance management and incentive systems,” as articulated in Executive Order No. 61. — Rappler.com

Jerome Yanson has been in government service for almost two decades, working on labor and employment policy development and program implementation. He is currently connected with the National Wages and Productivity Commission and a candidate in Master of Industrial Relations at the University of the Philippines School of Labor and Industrial Relations.