Position Paper

Name: Stephanie A. Demata

GRAFT AND CORRUPTION IN THE GOVERNMENT

Generally speaking, the phrases "graft" and "corruption" are not clearly defined
by courts or legislation. “Graft” denotes the “acquisition of gain or advantage by
dishonest, unfair or sordid means, especially through the abuse of his position or
influence in politics, business, etc. According to J.J. Senturia, Encyclopedia of Social
Sciences, Vol. VI (1993), "corruption" is commonly defined as "the misuse of entrusted
power for private benefit." In a broader sense, however, the terms are interchangeable
and equivalent. The most widely used definition of corruption is the abuse or
exploitation of public office for one's own benefit (UNDP, 1999; World Bank, 1997). It
can take many different forms and involve a wide range of illegal activities, including
influence peddling, bribery, extortion, fraud, nepotism, graft, fast money, theft, pilfering,
and embezzlement. Although the public sector is frequently blamed for corruption, it
also affects political parties, the private business sector, and non-governmental
organizations (USAID, Anti-Corruption Strategy, 2005). Corruption has evolved into a
purpose, a way of life, and a perspective on holding public office in these countries.
Within the government, corruption takes three main forms. The first is corruption in the
political system as a whole. This covers the requirements of election politics, the
widespread usage of political appointments made through patronage, and the
availability of "pork barrel" funding. The second issue is corruption in the public sector,
which is typically concentrated on three main issues: government procurement,
compensation and employment concerns, and the inconsistent operation of systems for
detecting and punishing employees involved in corrupt and illegal activity. The third
category is corruption inside certain agencies, which includes both petty and big
corruption (which involves millions of pesos and extensive syndicates). It involves lesser
sums of money, such as grease money to facilitate the delivery of products and
services. (Primer on Corruption: 2005).
 In the Philippine setting, it is thought to have the worst corruption of all the major
economies in East Asia, and its ranking has dropped even more among those that are
thought to be trailing behind in governance changes, according to a 2008 World Bank
research.Transparency International, a global watchdog, revealed in its 2009 Corruption
Perceptions Index that although the situation had somewhat improved, it was still grave.
The Philippines moved up from its 2008 rating of 141st to 3rd place among the 180
countries in the survey. The country's TI index score was 2.4 in 2008, down from 2.3 in
2008, placing it on level with Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Belarus, a Baltic state.
Politicians who indulge their friends and followers, who then put pressure on them to
commit corruption in order to disseminate the advantages of a corrupt system, are the
ones who foster corruption. A vicious circle brought up by corruption ensures that the
advantages go to a very tiny portion of the population. The agents (in this case, the
politicians and bureaucrats) are able to misuse the advantages provided by such
discretionary power. This incoherence in the Philippines is partially caused by social
divisions (such as the disparity between urban and rural areas, religion, and
ethnolinguistic elements) and economic divisions.

With these rampant cases of graft and corruption in the Philippines, which
government agency can assist in resolving the issue? Well basically, independent
organizations were established by the 1987 Constitution with the goal of advancing the
accountability and integrity of public office. These organizations are the Commission on
Audit, Sandigandabayan (RA 7975), Civil Service Commission, and Office of the
Ombudsman (RA 6770). Similar missions have been assigned to other government
entities to support the anti-corruption initiative and create accountability mechanisms
through clearly defined functions. Although the Philippines has established these
agencies with its special task in tackling certain corruption issues and a suitable legal
framework for addressing the issue, it appears that these laws have not been
adequately implemented. The attempts to combat corruption are in jeopardy because
there is a lack of political will and a committed leadership. Corrupt public servants and
politicians appeared to have no trouble coming up with creative ways to get around the
regulations that were in place. Therefore, the emphasis of reform must be on policies
that work to stop corrupt behaviors and decrease possibilities for corrupt activity. That is
why we can draw three conclusions or takeaways from here. First, there needs to be a
significant improvement made to the institutional system of oversight of public servants
and politicians. To put this into action, political will is required. Second, public pressure
has the power to create this will. It is unrealistic to expect politicians and bureaucrats
who profit from the political system to change on their own. Third, the general people
need to be given the necessary political and moral leverage to make corruption illegal. A
broader knowledge of the social costs and political hazards associated with corruption,
as well as a deeper comprehension of contemporary notions of public office and public
service, are prerequisites for the mobilization of such public pressure.