Introduction

In the Philippine public sector, the regulation of overseas travel for government personnel is a critical aspect of administrative governance, aimed at ensuring accountability, fiscal responsibility, and compliance with national policies. Job Order (JO) and Contract of Service (COS) workers, often referred to collectively as contractual or non-permanent government employees, play essential roles in various agencies. However, their status differs significantly from regular or permanent employees, raising questions about the applicability of travel authority requirements for overseas trips. This article examines the legal framework governing such travels, with a focus on whether JO and COS employees are obligated to secure travel authority, distinguishing between official and personal trips. It draws on key executive orders, civil service regulations, and related issuances to provide a thorough understanding of the rules in the Philippine context.

Definitions and Status of JO and COS Employees

To address the core question, it is essential to first clarify the nature of JO and COS employment in the Philippine government.

Job Order (JO) Employees: These are individuals hired for a specific project or task, typically on a piecework or intermittent basis, without employer-employee relationships in the traditional sense. Their services are governed by a job order contract, and they are paid from lump-sum appropriations or maintenance and other operating expenses (MOOE). JO workers are not considered regular government employees and do not enjoy benefits such as security of tenure, leave credits, or retirement privileges under the Civil Service Law.
Contract of Service (COS) Employees: Similar to JO, COS personnel are engaged for professional or technical services where the agency lacks the necessary expertise. Their contracts are time-bound, often for a maximum of one year, and they are compensated based on deliverables rather than fixed salaries. Like JO, COS workers are not part of the career service and are exempt from many civil service rules applicable to permanent staff.

Both categories fall under the broader umbrella of "government personnel" but are distinguished from "government employees" in Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code) and Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 15, s. 2018, which classifies them as non-career service workers. This distinction is pivotal in determining their obligations regarding travel authority, as many regulations target "officials and employees" in the permanent or career service.

Legal Framework for Travel Authority in the Philippines

The rules on overseas travel for government personnel are primarily enshrined in executive orders and administrative issuances, emphasizing the need for prior approval to prevent abuse, ensure public funds are used judiciously, and maintain operational continuity.

Key Governing Laws and Issuances

Executive Order No. 459, series of 2005 (EO 459): This order, issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, prescribes the guidelines for authorizing travel abroad of government officials and employees. It mandates that all foreign travels, whether official or personal, require clearance or authority from designated approving officials. For national government agencies, the authority levels are:
- President: For heads of departments, agencies, and government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs), as well as their deputies.
- Department Secretary or Equivalent: For subordinate officials and employees. EO 459 emphasizes that travels must be necessary, funded appropriately, and not disrupt agency operations.
Executive Order No. 77, series of 2019 (EO 77): Issued by President Rodrigo Duterte, this updates the rules on official local and foreign travels, including rates for expenses and allowances. It reiterates the need for travel authority for official trips abroad, specifying that such authority must be secured at least 15 days prior to departure. EO 77 covers "government personnel," which broadly includes those performing governmental functions, but its application to contractual workers is nuanced.
Civil Service Commission (CSC) Rules: Under the 2017 Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Human Resource Actions (ORAOHRA), JO and COS are explicitly excluded from career service benefits. However, CSC Memorandum Circular No. 6, s. 2012, and related guidelines require all government personnel to adhere to ethical standards, including reporting requirements for travels that could conflict with duties.
Office of the Ombudsman Guidelines: Memorandum Circular No. 01, s. 2014, from the Ombudsman requires government officials and employees to secure a Travel Authority/Clearance for foreign travels to confirm the absence of pending administrative or criminal cases. This is rooted in Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees), which applies to all persons in government service, including contractual ones, to prevent graft and ensure accountability.
Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Circulars: DBM Budget Circular No. 563, s. 2016, and similar issuances regulate the funding for foreign travels, prohibiting the use of public funds for personal trips and requiring justification for official ones. For JO and COS, funding for travels is typically drawn from project budgets, subject to agency head approval.
Other Relevant Laws:
- Republic Act No. 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act): Indirectly affects travels if they involve procurement-related activities abroad.
- Presidential Decree No. 1177 (Revised Administrative Code): Provides general authority for executive regulations on travel.

These laws collectively aim to balance the need for international engagement (e.g., conferences, training) with fiscal prudence and ethical oversight.

Applicability to JO and COS Employees

The central inquiry—whether JO and COS employees need travel authority for overseas trips—depends on the nature of the trip (official vs. personal) and their employment status.

Official Overseas Trips

Requirement for Travel Authority: Yes, JO and COS employees generally require travel authority for official overseas trips. Although they are not regular employees, EO 77 defines "government personnel" to include those under contracts if their travel is funded by the government or related to official duties. For instance, if a JO worker is assigned to an international project or a COS consultant attends a foreign seminar on behalf of the agency, prior approval is mandatory. The authority is typically granted by the agency head or department secretary, as per EO 459.
Procedures:
1. Submission of a request letter detailing the purpose, itinerary, funding source, and expected benefits.
2. Endorsement by the immediate supervisor.
3. Approval from the authorizing official, with clearance from the DBM if funding exceeds thresholds.
4. Post-travel report submission within 30 days upon return, including liquidation of advances.
Funding and Allowances: Official travels may entitle JO/COS to per diems, transportation, and other allowances under EO 77, but only if stipulated in their contract. Rates include daily subsistence allowance (DSA) based on UN standards, adjusted for the destination country.
Exceptions: Short-term travels (e.g., less than 3 days) or those under international agreements may have streamlined processes, but authority is still required.

Personal Overseas Trips

Requirement for Travel Authority: The rules are less stringent for personal trips. Unlike permanent employees, who must secure clearance under Ombudsman rules to avoid issues with accountability (e.g., no pending cases), JO and COS employees are often not subject to the same mandatory clearance. Their contractual nature means they lack security of tenure, and personal travels do not typically require formal authority unless they impact contract deliverables.
However, Agency-Specific Rules May Apply: Some agencies, such as the Department of Education or Department of Health, impose internal policies requiring notification or leave approval for contractual workers to ensure continuity of services. Failure to inform could lead to contract termination for abandonment.
Ombudsman Clearance: While not strictly mandatory for JO/COS, obtaining it is advisable if there is any risk of administrative liability, as RA 6713's ethical standards apply broadly.
Immigration and Visa Considerations: Personal trips may involve Bureau of Immigration hold-departure orders if there are unresolved issues, but this is not directly tied to travel authority.

Penalties for Non-Compliance

Violations of travel authority rules can result in severe consequences:

Administrative Sanctions: Under EO 459 and RA 6713, unauthorized travels may lead to reprimand, suspension, or dismissal. For JO/COS, this could mean immediate contract termination.
Fiscal Accountability: Misuse of funds for unauthorized trips is punishable under RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), with fines or imprisonment.
Criminal Liabilities: In extreme cases, such as falsifying documents for travel, charges under the Revised Penal Code may apply.

Agencies are required to monitor compliance through annual reports to the Office of the President.

Special Considerations and Best Practices

COVID-19 and Post-Pandemic Adjustments: While not permanent, Department of Foreign Affairs and Department of Interior and Local Government advisories during health crises have added layers, such as health clearances, which apply equally to contractual workers.
GOCCs and Local Government Units (LGUs): Rules are similar, but LGU JO/COS fall under Sanggunian approval per RA 7160.
Best Practices for JO/COS Employees:
- Always consult the agency HR or legal department before planning overseas trips.
- Maintain records of approvals to avoid disputes.
- For official trips, ensure alignment with contract terms to claim entitlements.

Conclusion

In summary, JO and COS government employees in the Philippines do require travel authority for official overseas trips under EO 459 and EO 77, as these are tied to their performance of governmental functions. For personal trips, the requirement is generally not mandatory due to their non-permanent status, though notification and agency-specific rules may apply. This framework underscores the government's commitment to transparency and efficiency, while accommodating the flexible nature of contractual employment. Employees are encouraged to stay informed of updates to these regulations to ensure full compliance.