MC 21 reconfigured the CES. It brought such positions as schools division superintendents, assistant schools superintendents, provincial directors, PENROs and PAROs into the fold of CES, thus defining what used to be “in between” positions. The doubling of clientele also strained the resources of the CESB whose structure and appropriation remained at 1988 level. It also brought down the occupancy rate of CESOs and CES eligibles of CES position from a stable 40% to a tenuous18% with a bigger base of CES coverage.

     Occupancy rate means a lot to the institution. From the institutional standpoint, the greater the number of CESOs occupying CES positions against non-CESOs the greater the stability of the bureaucracy, stability being one of the main agenda of the CES. The occupancy rate indicates the number of career officials who have security of tenure and therefore are irreplaceable even with the change of political leadership.

     Almost a decade into the CES existence, the occupancy rate registered at its all-time highest, 57%. This meant that, in 1982, for every five CES positions, three were occupied by CESOs.

     On its second decade in 1989, there were only two CESOs or CES Eligibles in every five CES positions due largely to the reorganization in 1987. Prior to the issuance of MC 21 in 1994, there were four CESO in every ten CES positions. With MC 21, the number dropped to an all-time low of 18% occupancy rate.

     The institution recovered its losses over the last decade. Today, the occupancy rate has bounced back to 41%.

     Curiously, the history of the Career Executive Service seems to be woven into the political fabric of the times. The political mood tended to define its peaks and lows.

     In the first four years of the institution, presidential support was absolute. President Ferdinand E. Marcos would personally hand out certificates to and address the graduates during CESDP’s closing rites. Appointments to ranks were issued by him as a matter of course. The CESB was also appropriated Php 1.5 Million beginning 1974.

     This changed course when in 1977, the President suddenly stopped appointing to CES ranks graduates of Session XI onwards. Anecdotes and speculations at that time surmised that Marcos became disenchanted with some CESOs. Even the draft charter on the CES which the Board worked on for two years and submitted to Malacanang in 1982 gathered dust on the Presidential desk.

     When President Corazon C. Aquino took over in 1986, a widespread reorganization of the bureaucracy took place, purging a thousand civil servants including CESOs. There was a general distrust of CESOs at that time. This was largely because the CES was seen as a Marcos program. It did not help that Marcos, right before the EDSA 1 Revolution, appointed to CES ranks the CESDP graduates whose appointments he sat on for nine years. The mass appointments took on a political color with what looked like a last-ditch effort of Marcos to build up his eroded support base. The appointments that were long denied to around 500 deserving CESDP graduates was overlooked amidst the prevailing anti-Marcos sentiment during those times.

     If there was a period in the history of the CES that was considered by a lot of CESOs as the dark ages, it was from 1986 to 1988. For those two years, the institution was virtually moribund. Displaced CESOs had nowhere to run to for protection or redress. The Board members did not meet, and no new Board Members were appointed. During this period, the CESB did conduct the Managing the Bureaucracy for Results or MBR which was to give new entrants to executive positions in the bureaucracy a common frame of reference in governance. Also, no new CESOs were being appointed.

     In June 1988, during the closing ceremonies of an MBR session, President Aquino announced the reactivation of the CES. She subsequently issued Memorandum Order No. 206 to formalize the reactivation. The reactivation was made possible through the initiative of a former executive director and DAP president who was at that time serving as one of the President’s trusted advisers.

     A display of the Presidential influence struck again in 1993 until 1994 when then President Fidel V. Ramos did not appoint any new CESO for almost two years. This delayed the assumption to CES ranks of these CES eligibles.

     Fortunately, it was not always stormy for the institution.

     Two landmark Supreme Court decisions in the early 1990s bolstered the institution and provided beleaguered CES Eligibles legal solace. In the Pangilinan vs Maglaya case, the High Court ruled in 1993 that Teodoro Pangilinan, former executive director of LTO, having no CES eligibility, was not protected with security of tenure and therefore can be replaced by the appointing authority anytime. In the Achocoso vs Macaraig, et al case, the High Court again upheld the primacy of the CES eligibility when it ruled that Achacoso, former administrator of POEA, who was not a CES eligible and therefore had no right to a permanent status.

     The personalities that provided leadership, direction and focus for the CES naturally changed over the past thirty years. The Integrated Reorganization Plan (IRP) provides that the President shall appoint the members of the Board from the government and private sector who are familiar with principles and methods of personnel administration. There will be six appointive members who will have a term of six years. In 1988, the CSC chair and the DAP president became ex-officio members.

     The law is silent on the selection of the Board’s chairmanship. Since 1973, the members elected the Board chairperson from among themselves. The CES Board has had seven chairpersons in three decades: DAP president Onofre Corpuz (1973- June 1978); CSC chairman Jacobo Clave (1978-1981); Commission on Reorganization head Armand Fabella (1982-1986); CSC chair Patricia Sto Tomas (1988-February 1995); then PEA general manager Luis Lagdameo (1995); CSC chair Corazon Alma de Leon (1995-February 2001); and CSC chair Karina Constantino-David (2001-present).

     From 1973 to 1985, the following became members of the Board: executive secretary Alejandro Melchor, CSC commissioner Epi Rey Pangramuyen, and presidential assistant Guillermo de Vega, CSC chair Albina Manalo-Dans, presidential executive assistant Juan Tuvera, and Budget commissioner Jaime Laya.

     When it was reactivated, President Aquino named DBM secretary Guillermo Carague, DOH secretary Alfredo Bengzon, PMS head Aniceto Sobrepena and private sector representative Cesar Buenaventura as members, with then CSC chair Patricia Sto. Tomas and DAP president Jose de Jesus and later Carmencita Abella were ex-officio members.

     In May 1993 up to early 1995 when the CESO was integrated into the Civil Service Commission, the three-man Commission served as the governing Board for the CES.

     With the nullification of this integration in 1995, the new Board appointed by President Ramos was composed of Luis Lagdameo, National Security Council assistant director general Serafin Talisayon, private sector representative Jose Pardo, and later, retired CA Justice Jaime Lantin, senior deputy executive secretary Luis Liwanag, DOLE undersecretary Bienvenido Laguesma, PMS undersecretary Demetrio Ignacio and DAP president Carmencita Abella. This Board would be chaired by CSC chair de Leon until February 2001.

     In March 2001, chairperson David took over the helm. Today, she leads the Board composed of former NCCESO president Ramon Nieva, UP dean Ma. Concepcion Alfiler, Ateneo School of Government dean Henedina Abad, private sector representative Godofredo de Guzman, and DAP president Eduardo Gonzales.

     Over the thirty-year period, the CESB Secretariat was headed by the following: Jose de Jesus (1973-1981) who started out as program director of the CESDP in 1973, Marcial Salvatierra (1982-1987), Elmor Juridico (1988 to February 2000), and incumbent Normita L. Villanueva (August 2000 to date).

     For more than a decade until 1985, the route to getting a CES eligibility and CESO rank was via a training program. During the early years of the Aquino administration, the DAP conducted the Managing the Bureaucracy for Results or MBR for executives. It was able to conduct four sessions of MBR until the examination was set in place in 1990. When the CES was reactivated, the graduates who met the requirements set by the new Board were granted CES eligibility.

     The year 1989 was a banner year that defined the institution. It was the year that the CESB shifted from training-based to examination-based selection system. The new four-stage examination system, based on merit and open competition, enabled the institution to speed up the process in granting eligibility while ensuring that high standards for selection are met. In 1990, the CESB conducted a nationwide MATB to more than 1,000 applicants from both government and private sector. For the first two years after 1990, the MATB was conducted only once a year. By 1994, it was conducted twice a year. By 1995 onwards, it was conducted twice nationwide and as many times in specific departments within a year. By 2000, the MATB was conducted on a monthly basis, in addition to the two nationwide conduct in one year. Today, the MATB is conducted in the regions, in the CESB office on a monthly basis, and twice a year on a nationwide basis.

     After 1990, the Board also adopted other modes for officials to acquire CES eligibility and rank. This included the testimonial eligibility route and accreditation of the Executive Leadership Management Program (ELM), Masters of National Security Administration (MNSA) and the Masters of Public Safety Administration (MPSA) courses as equivalent to passing some stages of the four–stage screening process. The route via testimonial eligibility has since been suspended. The ELM, MNSA and MPSA graduates were set to meet the requirements set by the Board to qualify.

     In keeping with its mandate to form not only well-selected but also development-oriented officials, the CESB designed a shorter, three-pronged core training program called the Executive Leadership Program (ELP) for its CESOs and Eligibles. Shorter in duration compared to earlier training programs in the CES and comprising three separate modules, namely Salamin, Diwa, and Gabay, the ELP was launched in 1993. From the time it was piloted in 1993 to date, the ELP has produced 1,257 graduates.

     Part of any HR system is performance evaluation. In the CES, a performance evaluation system was already in place as early as 1978. The CESPES then was designed to measure the CESO’s significant contributions to national development. When the CES was reactivated in 1988, a new instrument was developed and adopted to measure not only the accomplishments but managerial competence as well, along five major dimensions. This instrument would be used from 1990 to 2001 to evaluate the performance of all officials in the CES, whether CESO/Eligible or non-CESO/Eligible. In 2002, the present Board suspended the administration of the CESPES and moved to design a new one to measure not only subordinate and superior’s evaluation but also peer and client assessment.

     For so many years, a CES eligible was appointed to rank to the level of his position. As early as 1990, there have been efforts to adopt a ranking system that is not based on position but rather on personal qualifications, demonstrated competence, level of responsibility and other performance-related criteria, as originally envisioned in the IRP where “Members of the CES shall be classified according to rank based on broad levels of responsibility and on personal qualifications and demonstrated competence.”

     In a bold and radical move in September 2002, the present Board adopted a revised policy (CESB Resolution No. 453) on original and promotional appointment to CES ranks which provides the appointment of a CES eligible to the initial rank of Rank VI, regardless of his position and for the CESO to work his way up to higher ranks, even without being promoted to a higher position, through demonstrated competence, sustained performance level, completion of prescribed training programs in the CES, and passing a screening process for promotion to Rank III and higher.

     To ensure rigorous selection, the present Board also restored the Assessment Center to be hurdled by all MATB passers, as was the standard in the early 90s.

     Unfortunately, some major policy reforms that would have strengthened the institution never gained ground. Policy proposals have been formulated, designed, packaged, proposed, lobbied, advocated over the past decade and half since the reactivation in 1988, but most of them were shelved due to lack of political support. In 1993, the National Council of CES Organizations (NCESSO) began the arduous task of lobbying for the passage of a proposed bill strengthening the CES. Even the Association of ELP Alumni consolidated its forces to push for the same bill. However, it never went further than Committee hearing level in both Chambers. The same fate was suffered by the proposal for premium on the rank designed to grant a significant premium to CESOs which would set a material difference between a CESO and non-CESO. The proposal was shot down early on for lack of funding. The initiative to develop a mechanism for a performance-based tenure started in 1989 but never went beyond the proposal stage because it was considered too unfeasible. Ambitious plans to establish a CES Training Center or a CES College never got further than the drawing board.

     Thirty, they say, is a defining number. In the calendar, it marks an end as well as a beginning of a new month. For many adults, it is an age of transition. In journalism, it means a completion.

     When the CES turns thirty this month, it is a time for its stakeholders to sum up the enduring gains, account for the defaults, and take stock of its strengths and weaknesses. It is also a time to re-examine policy directions and standards, program values and priorities, even strategies. It is also the best time to celebrate institutional successes as well as to acknowledge failures.

     Such that, grounded but renewed, the institution can move forward with more confidence, more purpose and more urgency.