Performative Governance in the Philippines: Thoroughness, Rationalization, and the Illusion of Reform
By Karl Garcia
Philippine governance is marked by a persistent paradox: the state promises streamlining, rationalization, and efficiency while expanding procedures, agencies, and compliance rituals. This paradox is not accidental. It reflects a deeper pattern of performative governance—or thoroughness theatrics—where the appearance of rigor substitutes for real institutional effectiveness.
Even reforms explicitly designed to reduce bureaucracy, such as the Anti-Red Tape Act (ARTA) and the Government Procurement Reform Act (RA 9184), are often absorbed into this performative system, reinforcing shortcuts, excuses, and opportunities for greed rather than eliminating them.
1. Thoroughness as Performance, Not Substance
“Thoroughness theatrics” occurs when government equates process visibility with good governance. The bureaucracy becomes adept at producing:
- Lengthy reports and compliance matrices
- Multiple certifications and clearances
- Inter-agency endorsements and consultations
- Oversight bodies that monitor procedures, not outcomes
For ordinary citizens, this is most visible in the continued reliance on cedula, barangay clearance, police clearance, and NBI clearance—often required simultaneously for employment, business permits, licenses, or government transactions.
These documents are defended as proof of due diligence, yet they frequently duplicate the same information and do little to improve security, integrity, or efficiency. Their real function is symbolic: they signal seriousness, even when they slow down service delivery.
2. ARTA: A Law Against Red Tape That Became a New Layer of Tape
The Anti-Red Tape Act was intended to simplify procedures, shorten processing times, and penalize fixers and delay. On paper, it mandates:
- Citizen charters
- Defined processing timelines
- Simplified steps
- Accountability for delays
In practice, ARTA often becomes another compliance ritual:
- Agencies display citizen charters but quietly add “internal steps”
- Deadlines are reset through technicalities
- Digital portals coexist with manual submissions
- Complaints are redirected across offices until citizens give up
Instead of removing cedula, barangay clearance, or multiple background checks, ARTA compliance is layered on top of them. The result is a paradox: anti-red-tape compliance becomes red tape itself, providing agencies with documentation that they are “reforming” while preserving old practices.
ARTA thus functions less as a scalpel and more as bureaucratic makeup—covering inefficiency without curing it.
3. Procurement Law and the Theater of Clean Governance
The Government Procurement Reform Act (RA 9184) was designed to prevent corruption, ensure transparency, and standardize government purchasing. Its emphasis on bidding, documentation, and procedural safeguards reflects a genuine attempt at reform.
However, within a performative governance culture, RA 9184 often evolves into procedural absolutism:
- Winning bids are technically compliant but strategically rigged
- Specifications are tailored to preferred suppliers
- Disqualifications are justified through minor technical defects
- Delays are blamed on “procurement rules” rather than poor planning
The law becomes a shield: as long as paperwork is flawless, outcomes are rarely questioned. Failed projects, overpriced contracts, or underperforming suppliers are defended with the phrase:
“We followed the procurement process.”
Thus, process compliance replaces value-for-money, and procedural correctness substitutes for accountability.
4. Rationalization That Multiplies Agencies
Alongside procedural inflation is the streamlining–rationalization paradox. Governments announce efficiency reforms while creating:
- New authorities
- Task forces
- Councils
- Coordinating bodies
Each new entity is justified as “rationalization”—centralizing functions or improving coordination—while existing agencies retain their mandates. This produces:
- Overlapping authority
- Diffused responsibility
- Endless coordination meetings
- Zero clear ownership of outcomes
Rationalization, in this context, becomes a semantic maneuver: adding institutions is framed as simplification.
5. Excuses as Institutional Armor
When policies fail or services stall, performative governance supplies ready-made excuses:
- “ARTA compliance caused delays”
- “Procurement rules slowed implementation”
- “Inter-agency coordination is ongoing”
- “Due diligence requirements must be respected”
These excuses are institutionally sanctioned, making failure defensible and reform endlessly postponable.
6. How Greed Thrives in Performative Systems
Performative thoroughness creates fertile ground for both petty and grand corruption:
- Clearances become toll booths
- Procurement becomes a paperwork game
- New agencies create new budgets and appointments
- Complexity favors insiders over citizens
Those who understand how to navigate the theater—connections, fixers, political allies—move quickly. Everyone else waits.
7. Structural and Cultural Roots
This system persists because of:
- Weak enforcement of accountability
- Patronage-driven politics
- Public tolerance for procedural formalism
- A culture that equates paperwork with integrity
The bureaucracy learns that looking clean matters more than being effective.
8. Toward Real Reform: Substance Over Performance
True reform requires breaking the performance loop:
- Eliminate redundant clearances (cedula, barangay, police, NBI) unless clearly justified
- Shift ARTA enforcement toward outcomes, not charters and posters
- Evaluate procurement by results, not just compliance
- Sunset or merge agencies, not just rename them
- Attach consequences to failure, regardless of procedural compliance
Conclusion
In the Philippines, thoroughness, rationalization, and reform laws like ARTA and RA 9184 are often transformed into bureaucratic theater. Streamlining is promised while processes multiply. Anti-red-tape laws generate new tape. Procurement rules ensure clean paperwork, not clean outcomes.
Until governance shifts from performative compliance to substantive results, shortcuts, excuses, and greed will remain rational—because the system quietly rewards them.
The Society of Honor by Joe America 
Thank you, Karl. A comprehensive and thorough explanation of what is wrong with governance in the Philippines!
My pleaaure abd thanks.
Insofar as a bureaucracy is a a governing instrument, a professional bureaucracy (as opposed to a patronage-based bureaucracy) accepts that some process inefficiencies exist to serve as protections against corruption. Regulations may be viewed as a form of constructed process to bring order, guidance, and ultimately accountability. However when a bureaucracy is overwhelmed with layered regulations (in which red tape may be a form) opaque spaces are created through implementation confusion and difficulty of oversight that serve as areas where corruption may thrive.
How a person, group, or society approaches solving problems is also important. Generally there are two ways humans address a problem, each with its own strengths and weaknesses:
1.) Results-oriented (Outcome-driven)
and
2.) Process-oriented (Action-driven)
When results are emphasized, only the final outcome matters. There is a high motivation for immediate results which may be effective in snap decision making. However there is risk of poor implementation due to lack of a thorough thought-out plan, an encouragement of rule-bending and “bypassing” which may create its own set of problems, and most dangerously burnout when one cannot reach the desired goal at the expected speed.
When process is emphasized, careful systems study must occur to develop procedures and implementation steps (“The Plan”). Executed well a process sequentially goes through pre-planned actions by consistent application and improvement, adhering to developed procedures that provide an execution framework. However there is a risk of losing sight of the goal through process creep that adds unplanned requirements which delays implementation or in extreme scenarios can change the original goal altogether.
In the Philippines I’ve found there is a prevalence of another type of “problem solving” that is a subset of process-based problem solving: “ritual-oriented” (symbol-driven).
When ritual is emphasized, the structure and sequencing of actions remains but the *why* behind each process is replaced by symbology rather than empirical thinking. Instead the process itself is imbued with symbolic meaning that touches on emotional anchors (the need to attach personalized meaning), social inflexibility (“we’re used to doing it this way,” and psychological desires (“I want to have what he has”). Humans that experience emotional and psychological uncertainty are especially attracted to ritual action in an attempt to create a sense of order out of perceived chaos. A structure is built around rigidity, formality, and symbolic action in order to alleviate anxiety towards an uncertain goal that may seem too big to accomplish, but the end result is one repeats ritualized behavior rather than moving closer to the goal.
It must have been the 1980s where I observed an obsession with process flowcharts in the Filipino office world – in offices that were all but efficient.
——
Now should I talk about this or not? OK no NDA, 1989 was way back when, and nobody is harmed in the process: I assisted the Philippine Embassy in Bonn during the momentous state visit of Cory to (West) Germany in July 1989, good money, enough for the student of then to travel to the Bavarian forest afterwards.
I saw some of the attaches printing out a “Matrix of Considerations” pertaining to Filipino-German relations in preparation for the state visit, probably because someone had instructed them to do so. But the reality is that except for one senior diplomat and probably the Ambassador, the staff barely interacted with their German counterparts, some preferring to hang out at the American Embassy club. So that matrix it seems was more ritual than reality.
From what I have heard, the younger Filipino diplomats in Berlin today are better trained and more engaged in actually building the relationship.
——
Rituals are something for instance a lot of football (no, not what is played at the Super Bowl, what the rest of the world calls football and the USA calls soccer) players especially from Latin America are known for before games. A lot of Filipino pop groups and performers pray before video shoots and concerts.
I wonder how many Filipino Catholics think praying the required number of Our Fathers, Hail Marys etc is the main point of confession and penance?
The somewhat sarcastic article about the Philippines and Vietnam I posted here that mentions BIR making sure one has the right shade of blue reminds me of the pettiness of some Filipino offices when it comes to black or blue ink, seriously. I wonder how it would be if Saint Peter was Filipino, would he demand that people have notarized copies of their birth and death certificates before letting them into heaven? Not to forget the waxed seal and documentary paper.
AI Overview
The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) in the Philippines requires black or dark blue ink for signatures and document filling to ensure high-contrast, reliable scanning, photocopying, and long-term document preservation.
These colors ensure signatures are clearly distinguishable from printed text and that originals are easily identified over copies.
Reasons for Requiring Specific Ink Colors:
Using the correct, dark, and permanent ink is crucial to avoid document rejection during processing.
and from me, I say, pls dont use pencil when signing your name on official documents as they are easy to erase.
OK, I checked how it is here in Germany, well there is no official standard, but black and blue are a de facto norm. Legibility is what matters, and for longer lasting documents that must be notarized or similar, “dokumentenechtheit” (ISO 12757-2) meaning that the ink won’t smudge, fade, or be erased easily over time.
Interesting thing from the historical land documents I have from family records: the old ink from Spanish-era fountain pens is practically unfaded (and the penmanship of the village escribantes aka scribes of Tiwi, Albay is beautiful and one can see when a new scribe came on duty due to different penmanship) – while the ballpoint ink from American colonial era documents, yes especially the light blue one, tends to fade much faster.
This reminds me of how Joe described the Philippine building code as very rigid, defining even the kind of nails to be used IIRC. Alright maybe defining a rule based on what one wants to achieve like in Germany doesn’t work because a lot of Filipinos are PILOSOPO and will argue uselessly.
Ministries of Education in German states HAVE rules on ink color. Blue and black is for students, red for teachers, green for the Ministry in official exams.
Journalist Raissa Robles around 10 years ago wrote an article about how she had to notarize I think a CD with her electronic tax filing. That is ridiculous. Fortunately according to ChatGPT one can now file online via “eFPS, eBIRForms, or accredited Tax Software Providers”. There, the ink color doesn’t matter. ChatGPT says that nowadays “90% of filings are done online” which I suspect is more than in very conservative Germany. And a lot of ink is saved.
This stuff about documents just tickled me so I decided to scan and upload it.. a bit OT:
(as cedulas were then issued according to wealth, my great-great-grandfather Marcelino Saenz was a middle class landowner as per my research on cedula classes. Most probably the other person from whom he bought land from – that is in the rest of the document – was 9th class cedula holder as he barely could sign with the letters of his name, and 9th class was laborers who might have a bit of land. Re dynasties, there was another Mayor Cruel of Tiwi in the 1920s or so)
yeah, we are also particular about the margin in official docus, where we usually punch holes for binders.
as for pilosopong filipinos, they usually shut up once the rational of why things are done certain way have been explained to them.
thanks by the way, in those days gone by cursive style in writing legal docus was done in double line spacing. and yes, they are particular about the ink too. sometimes the poor clerks end up with smudges of color (ink) on their hands which are harder to wash off. I dont know if olden days clerks ever complained of having been made sick (or poisoned!) by the very ink they used.
Btw “la casa tribunal” means “courthouse.”
This is my opinion only, but it seems to me that these processes in the Philippines are actually just rituals. No one can reliably explain “why” X is necessary for Y. Like *really* necessary. One is just compelled to *accept* the necessity.
Yes, it is important to have identity documents, but should there be a multitude?
Yes, it is important for certain documents to be notarized to ensure authenticity by a notary witness who risks forfeiting their license if they engage in fraudulent activity, but should so many things be notarized just because it bears a stamp or receives an embossment?
There appears to me that there is more emphasis placed on the appearance of official-ness rather than an emphasis on the “why.”
For example the cedula originated in a way for the Spanish government to collect taxes from Spanish subjects in the Peninsula and was expanded to the Spanish colonies. A cedula was an early form of identification in the Hispanosphere. In Spain and other former Spanish colonies the cedula eventually became a national ID. For example in Spain the cedula became the DNI (Documento Nacional de Identidad, i.e. National Identity Document, or National ID), and in Mexico the cedula became the CURP (Clave Única de Registro de Población, i.e. Unique Population Registry Code, which is akin to a combination between National ID, TIN, barangay clearance and SSS).
Dont know if going through the motions is the same as ritual if so as long aa it is not voodoo or cannibalistic. It may be acceptable, but e governance international recognition is good. I will take that unlike before I questioned our manageable debt to gdp praise. Come to think of it, I will also take that. Am I being ritualistic?
Hmm going through the motions leans towards wasted energy if it does not have a purpose beyond the motions.
I think things can be simplified, like in my example of how Spain and Mexico reimagined the purpose of their own cedula to keep up with modern times. What Spain and most Latin countries did is analogous what exists in the US (a National ID + SSS are the only necessary documents in most cases, with birth certificate as fallback primary identity document). Of course e-Government can help with that, so it’s not to say efforts in that area are wasted.
Going back to my previous point a few articles ago though, by default the authority that is able to issue or process a document is in essence an authority with power over the requester. I think the Philippines can simplify a lot of these mini power centers and consolidate. It is easier to exercise oversight over fewer power centers rather than more. Btw there is no need to throw away tradition; only a need to reimagine tradition to suit the present and go into the future.
Got it. Thanks
AI Overview as regards Filipinos ID cards:
Filipinos use a variety of government-issued identification cards, with the Philippine Identification System ID (PhilID) (National ID) acting as the primary, official document for citizens. Other commonly accepted, valid IDs include the passport, driver’s license, Social Security System (SSS) card, Unified Multi-Purpose ID (UMID), voter’s ID, and PhilHealth card.
These documents are used for banking, employment, travel, and government transactions.
Adherence to process is not inherently bad.
Processes are tools that help with: 1) Consistency (Raising end-product quality)
2.) Efficiency (A step-by-step plan allows one to correctly complete the task more quickly)
3.) Time saving (Less time wasted on guess work)
4.) Replication (Different people are able to be trained to produce the same results)
5.) Knowledge retention (Creating procedure is an act of writing down lessons learned)
In non-profit, for-profit, and public organizations these processes are standardized into “SOP” (Standard Operating Procedure).
Where focusing too much on “process” can go wrong is when one forgets the “why” of the process exists in the first place. For what purpose does a process exist to solve? When one forgets the “why” but recognizes some significance in the action, over time the behavior becomes attached to symbolic gestures (i.e. ritual) rather than actual action. Over-emphasis on process for process’ sake rather than addressing what is to be solved is a form on risk-adverse behavior. This over-emphasis of process can then become an impediment to solving the original problem in the first place.
When there are too many impediments built-up, the natural behavior of the one being impeded is to “bypass” if they can “find a way,” two phrases that are commonly uttered in the Philippines.
I would note that often innovation requires the breaking of established process. However there is a BIG difference between YOLO’ing and hoping faith alone will work out, and doing it the right way by open discussion. And if need be demonstrating with acts of proof to those who are resistant why the old process should be replaced by the innovation.
Efficient government processes are widely recognized as a critical driver of economic growth. In the Philippines, Executive Secretary Ralph Recto has consistently emphasized the importance of streamlining government procedures, particularly through digitalization, as a means to improve tax collection, reduce compliance costs for businesses, and attract investment. Streamlining is not merely a procedural reform; it is a strategic economic tool. According to Recto, every day of delay in processing permits, licenses, or transactions represents both lost revenue and foregone economic activity. ARTA: Enforcement, Not a Processing Layer
The Anti-Red Tape Authority (ARTA) was created to implement the Ease of Doing Business Law (RA 11032). Its primary role is oversight and enforcement, ensuring that government agencies adhere to mandated processing timelines—the famous 3-7-20 rule: 3 days for simple transactions, 7 days for complex transactions, and 20 days for highly technical cases. ARTA also champions process restructuring and digitalization through eBOSS (Electronic Business One-Stop Shops).
Importantly, ARTA was designed to reduce bureaucracy, not to become a parallel processing agency. By enforcing deadlines, standardizing requirements, and pushing agencies to adopt electronic systems, ARTA aims to eliminate unnecessary steps that previously bogged down transactions. Critics, however, sometimes perceive ARTA as another bureaucratic hurdle, mainly because its oversight functions introduce additional reporting and compliance expectations for government units. The Proposal for DART
There is a legislative push to elevate ARTA into a full-fledged Department of Anti-Red Tape (DART). The proposed department would have expanded powers, including:
The creation of DART represents an effort to strengthen enforcement mechanisms and make streamlining reforms more effective. From an institutional perspective, DART is intended as a structural upgrade rather than a new, parallel agency—it is ARTA on steroids, not a separate bureaucracy. Is DART Another Layer?
Whether DART becomes “another layer” depends largely on implementation and perception:
Balancing Enforcement and Efficiency
The ARTA-to-DART transition reflects a broader tension in governance: the need to enforce rules without creating new hurdles. Recto’s emphasis on digitalization underscores this principle: automation must follow process simplification, not precede it. DART has the potential to streamline government if it is used strategically as an enforcer, but it could also become a perceived “layer” if agencies view its authority as punitive rather than enabling. Conclusion
In essence, DART is designed to be an enforcer, not a processor. Its effectiveness will depend on whether it can reduce procedural bottlenecks while enforcing compliance across agencies. Critics who see it as another bureaucratic layer are responding to the natural friction of oversight, not to structural redundancy. If implemented correctly—with process reform preceding enforcement—DART can be a powerful tool for economic growth, ensuring that government bureaucracy becomes a facilitator rather than a barrier.
✅ Bottom line: DART is a potential “layer” only in perception, not in function. Its success hinges on maintaining its role as a simplifier and enforcer rather than a processor.
Thanks Karl this was helpful.
Important to point out that the purpose of IRRs is to facilitate the execution of the laws of Congress in both letter and spirit. As such IRR authority is delegated by the president to the secretaries, who then delegate the authority to agency heads.
A problem I guess, from my observation of other types of Filipino management (not governmental, which I don’t have insight on aside from the effects), is a general lack of interest by a seemingly insignificant number of leaders to provide direction. In the absence of direction well-intentioned underlings might try to “cover all the bases” and create excessively complicated procedures (an IRR is akin to a procedure), which then get signed off without sufficient review by the leader. Having leaders who care about the weight of their signature upon a document by demanding accountability helps (why did you sign this?).
Under PNoy’s administration developed regulations were very clear, though the PNoy administration seemed to have some trouble getting recalcitrant non-political appointees who were used to doing things a certain way to update.
So far Marcos Jr.’s administration does appear to put focus on better IRRs, but maybe not as well as PNoy’s effort. Hopefully the residual institutional change from PNoy’s time would be of some help in avoiding situations where agencies are basically “making their own laws” rather than having well-thought out IRRs that help to carry out the actual laws.
Thanks so much
the senyorito mindset. At worst, that mindset is even going to shoot the messenger who brings helpful but not so positive feedback.
That coupled by the yes sir mindset of those who have to get stuff done – which means don’t report any negatives – makes stuff SEEM clean.
I have often compared the Philippine condition to the clean and dirty kitchens upper class Filipinos have – one for show and one for real cooking.
The clean kitchen is performative governance while the dirty kitchen is what Karl describes in his landmark article “Architecture of Disorder”.
Now every country has some degree of dirty kitchen (for instance slum areas and prison systems) but the theory-reality gap is huge in the Philippines.
One of the first things even poor Filipinos want if they come into money is to build a tiled kusina which won’t be used regularly aside from parties and to show off to guests. Normally cooking is done on a portable butane stove (or outside with kahoy for more poor people).
An entitled mindset gathers privileges for the privilege’s sake rather than seeing public service as the act of serving. A lot of this behavior seems to go back to datu-ism where the powerful take what they can and the weak accept what they must. Stealing from the public coffers is another form of raiding. Ayuda is the modern gift giving.
I don’t think this condition is terminal though. Once enough Filipinos organically “upgrade” their thinking due to modern information exchange outside of the closed-off Philippine system, it’s hard to think how a small minority can oppose the will of an “evolved” majority. It’s just a shame that this process may take decades yet to happen organically rather than the elites catalyzing faster change. But then that would threaten their privilege.
Re the LinkedIn article on Vietnam
I recall about 10 years ago younger Millennials and older Gen Z were reacting on socmed to trending memes comparing the difference between job requirements in the Philippines and Japan. The reactions captured a sense of hopelessness about the Philippine system where excessive “requirements” are demanded for relatively simple jobs compared to more well-paying and well-skilled jobs in Japan which had less requirements. The only ones that cling to the rigid system yet cannot explain “why” are those who exercise power however minor through that system, or are benefited by the system (ABs and some Cs). I have seldomly met a DE whose personal opinion was all these requirements, clearances, notaries, etc. “made sense.” Okay, perhaps a haughty upper social class Filipino could say “well they just don’t understand why we need it!” Well, do THEY understand as well? Then everyone just continues through the motions because changing is terrifying in itself.
In Vietnam much of the economic growth is being driven and pushed by returning diaspora, both (mostly) former South Vietnamese who learned new skills in the West and (to a smaller degree) post-1975 Vietnamese who were educated in the Soviet/Russian system (e.g. the Vinfast founder). There is a general recognizance that innovation requires rules to be more loosely interpreted, modified, or altogether changed. Private ownership is still technically “illegal” but transferable, 50-year “people’s leases” effectively get around that. Foreign companies are able to pour in massive FDI because Vietnam built up infrastructure for industrial and export sites as well as allowed 100% foreign ownership of the business including the associated facilities (though not the land or resources which are granted through concessionary licenses).
Vietnam’s rise, like South Korea’s rise in decades before, seem to be a triggering reality for Filipino elites who arrogantly (and amusingly ironic) look down on cultures who have had thousands of years of organized statehood before their more recent national slumps. Well, perhaps those elites won’t be so triggered if they model a “new Philippines” on Malaysia and Indonesia instead. Malaysia reformed foreign investment in the 1970s which attracted huge FDI and as a result Malaysia is an upper middle-income country now with an advanced technological base. Malaysia being a federal system of sultanates which descend from Srivijaya and Majapahit is also quite stable. Indonesia seemed more stable during the post-colonial period but is behind Malaysia, but is catching up fast. Indonesia progressively liberalized foreign ownership of business starting in the 1990s, and in 2021 opened up nearly all industries to FDI.
Yes sometimes I call them signals instead of symbols. As in smoke signals.
it’s probly part of specialised lingo like in medicine, when doctors write symbols like an arrow pointing upward to mean elevation, arrow pointing down to mean opposite of elevation. so if a doctor writes bp with arrow pointing up, it could mean blood pressure is elevated. professionals often have their own shorthand way of writing understandable by people of the same profession. but to lay person like many of us, they are all meaningless squiggles!
korek
speaking of signals, our traffic cops or traffic enforcers use lots of hand signals and expect all motorists to understand them. sadly, not all motorists have good eyesight! they can see the cops, but can barely see the hand signaling, and can no longer judge with accuracy the distance of incoming traffic, and cause accidents!
some motorists are summat silly and dont want to upgrade their eyeglasses, thinking the old pair cost them a lot and still too good to cast aside. a new pair means another expenses and new eye check.
Good observation