GenSantos City Foundation College, Inc

Bulaong Extension, General Santos City (Dadiangas),

South Cotabato 9500

___________________________

Possessing the Straight and Narrow Path: Eradicating Corruption

in the Philippines
In Partial Fulfillment of the Subject Requirement

For Purposive Communication

______________________________

Johainna Mae Akmad Tuga

English Instructor

_______________________________

Submitted by:

Cathy M. Villabeto

January 2024
Introduction
Corruption has been defined as the misuse or abuse of public office for
private gain (World Bank, 1997; Jayawickrama, 1998; UNDP, 1999). It
involves members of government and the private sector. It comes in several
form or as Klitgaard2 puts it, “a wide array of illicit behaviors including bribery,
extortion, fraud, nepotism, graft, speed money, pilferage, theft,
embezzlement, falsification of records, kickbacks, influence-peddling, and
campaign contributions”. Also, A report of the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) identifies two types of corruption which are petty and
grand. Petty Corruption is sometimes associated with "bureaucratic
corruption," a term that implies the involvement of non-elected and public
administration employees. Paying bribes to law enforcement officers, customs
officers, healthcare professionals, and other government officials are a few
instances of this kind of petty corruption. This includes facilitation payments,
commonly referred to as "grease" payments. In addition, Grand corruption
involves higher ranking government officials and elected officials who exploit
opportunities that are presented through government work. It is more often the
result of bribes offered or paid in connection with larger scale government
projects, such as infrastructure and construction projects. “Political corruption”
is considered a type of grand corruption due to its seriousness and the high-
ranking level of public officials involved. It exists where politicians and
government agents who are entrusted with enforcing laws are themselves
corrupt: it occurs at the top levels of government. Another type of grand
corruption is “State capture,” which is defined as a company or organization
that shapes and influences legislation or government policies in an entire
sector (e.g., the extractive and mining industry or taxation) through payments.
In the Philippines, there is a strong belief that corruption is prevalent. In a
1998 Social Weather Station (SWS) survey, over 70% of the respondents
think that, in government, corruption exists. Nearly 40% believe that there is
“a great deal” of corruption. Even the Office of the Ombudsman admits that
billions of pesos are being lost to corruption. Based on its Corruption
Perceptions Index (CPI) for 99 countries, Transparency International has also
rated the Philippines as the 54th most corrupt countries in 1999. According to
Vinay Bhargava (2000), World Bank country director for the Philippines, “Our
analysis so far reveals a broad consensus that corruption in the public and
private sectors in the Philippines is pervasive and deep-rooted, touching even
the judiciary and the media.” Indeed, in a society with a long history of state
and elite predation as well as mass powerlessness, the use of public office
has been identified with gaining and maintaining economic, political, and
social power. Both private citizens and public.

Causes of Corruption and Its Prevalence: The Philippine Case

Meanwhile, in a developing country like the Philippines, corruption

occurs due to a variety of reasons including (Obejas, n.d., pp.6-7):

“1. The quest for individual survival, brought about by poverty, lack of
basic needs, low salaries, etc.;

2. Wide disparity between the rich and the poor;

3. The Filipino cultural values of personalism, familism, pakikisama

(getting along), utang-na-loob (debt of gratitude) and damayan
(sympathy) for another’s misery or problem;

4. Greed or the insatiable desire to amass more wealth, assets or

property;

5. Comfort. As corruption provides easy money, the corrupted enjoy

the easy life;

6. Convenience and expediency.

These causes are particularly applicable to the corruptor who usually

desires to facilitate the approval, grant and/or release of request or proposal
and avoid the rigors of red tape in the bureaucracy.” It is worth mentioning
that poverty seems to be the prevalent reason for corruption in the country. It
is also interesting to note that, as previously discussed, the Philippines is
similar to Korea in terms of the socio-cultural values that breed such evil.
Moreover, In the Philippines, these oligarchs “have engaged in pervasive
corruption, inhibiting the growth of democratic forces while enriching
themselves in both the public and private sectors” (Johnston, 2008, p. 214).
Hence, to understand the context of corruption in the country requires an
overview of the role of oligarchs in its political system.

Questions:

1. What are those reasons of corruption that usually occurs in a developing

country like the Philippines?

2.

Conclusion

Corruption is itself a symptom of fundamental governance failure, the higher

the incidence of corruption, the less an anti corruption strategy should include
tactics that are narrowly targeted to corrupt behavior and the more it should
focus on the broad underlying features of the governance environment. For
example, support for anti-corruption agencies and public awareness
campaigns is likely to meet with limited success in environments where
corruption is rampant and the governance environment deeply flawed. In fact,
in environments where governance is weak, anti-corruption agencies are
prone to being misused as a tools of political victimization. These types of
interventions are more appropriate to a “low” corruption setting, where one
can take for granted (more or less) that the governance fundamentals are
reasonably sound and that corruption is a relatively marginal phenomenon.
Hence, when corruption is high (and the quality of governance is
correspondingly low), it makes more sense to focus on the underlying drivers
of malfeasance in the public sector—for example, by building the rule of law
and strengthening institutions of accountability. Indeed, a lack of democratic
institutions (a key component of accountability) has been shown to be one of
the most important determinants of corruption (Gurgur and Shah 2002).

In societies where the level of corruption lies somewhere in between

the high and low cases, it may be advisable to attempt reforms that assume a
modicum of governance capacity—such as trying to make civil servants more
accountable for results, bringing government decision-making closer to
citizens through decentralization, simplifying administrative procedures, and
reducing discretion for simple government tasks such as the distribution of
licenses and permits.