The result of Transparency International’s most recent Corruption Perception Index (CPI), which measures the perceived levels of public sector corruption worldwide, gave the Philippines a score of 34 out of 100 and a ranking of 111th out of 180 countries. This indicates a significant decline from the country’s place in the CPI, where it already managed to climb up to its highest notch of 85th out of 175 economies in 2014.
In just a matter of three years, the country’s trajectory seems to be headed right back to where it was at the height of the financial crisis, when the same index put the country at its lowest ranking of 141 with a paltry score of 23. The international anticorruption watchdog has consistently put the Philippines in the CPI’s lower half, with scores of 36 in 2013, 38 in 2014 and 35 in both the 2015 and 2016 indices.
The Philippines’s 2017 CPI score also placed it in the same league as the Maldives, which had a score of 33 and Pakistan with 32. Vietnam and Mongolia had slightly better scores of 35 and 36, as well as Thailand and Indonesia, which both scored 37, although these only put everyone still under the global average score of 43. Even India and China only managed to score 40 and 41, respectively.
Overall, the Transparency International survey gives a dismal reading of the trend in the Asia Pacific, saying “only a few countries experienced small, incremental changes indicating signs of improvement” in the last six years, even noting the Philippines as “among the worst regional offenders for threatening journalists, activists, opposition leaders and even staff of law enforcement or watchdog agencies” and highlighted, along with countries like India and the Maldives, as countries that “score high for corruption and have fewer press freedoms and higher numbers of journalist deaths.”
Whatever gains it was able to muster in the past six years, the Philippines now looks to be bucking the trend that other comparable Asia Pacific economies are going as shown by the graph below:
While Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam and Sri Lanka are virtually improving in their standings and making efforts to not lag behind their neighbors, the Philippines seems to be heading in the opposite direction and going against the pack in its anticorruption efforts.
This does not bode well for the country’s ambitious plans to boost the economy by engaging in unprecedented amounts of public procurement through massive infrastructure projects, where it needs to earn the trust of other states and private-sector partners that will play key roles in its “Build, Build, Build” program, which the Department of Public Works and Highways is already linking to the larger “Belt and Road” Initiative of China. The government, in its zeal, must be careful not to compromise the integrity of the finances that will be poured into the public projects but must also put more effort into ensuring that the principles of transparency and accountability are very much in the core of every procurement activity that it will be getting into.
This will also be an opportune time for every sector to take part in strengthening the institutions and accountability mechanisms that are critical in safeguarding the basic rights and freedoms of the public. This trend in the CPI rankings should give pause to groups that work hard to make their governments more transparent and accountable, especially in countries here in Asia, and seriously rethink the way they are running their integrity programs, especially at the grassroots level. My work for the past seven years dealing mostly with the promotion of anti-bribery/corruption (AB/C) prevention measures in enterprises has made me realize this. We need new ways of looking at the problem of corruption so we can think of more effective and sustainable solutions. Although a lot has been done in raising awareness of global best practices in AB/C controls, the fact remains that organizations face a lot of challenges implementing them in the face of certain harsh realities. One of which is the fact that they have to operate in a very high-risk environment where “corruption and cronyism are pervasive…[and] the President’s strong-arm tactics reinforce a culture of impunity.”
It is important that we rethink the strategies that can effectively deal with the systemic causes of corruption, and not just the symptoms. As the recent Panama and Paradise papers exposes have revealed even more disturbing incidences of global corruption, we should “start by seeing corrupt actions as symptoms of deeper imbalances in power, weaknesses in institutions and gaps in accountability” before thinking of new, radical solutions and look at “how other countries made corruption low reward and high risk, and that means stolen assets returned and jail time served.”
While the government has an important role in spearheading anticorruption efforts, the private sector should also complement these initiatives by addressing corruption that is also happening within their own ranks. As the most recent Social Weather Stations (SWS) Enterprise Survey on Corruption in 2016 reveal that “most/almost all companies in their line of business give bribes to win private-sector contracts,” it is necessary for companies to also seriously commit and act on the problem in their own spheres of influence. The SWS survey also noted that most enterprises do not even allocate any amount for their own anticorruption programs, and only a few spend a meager P10,000 for their AB/C efforts. Moreover, 84 percent even said they “did not contribute to any private anticorruption program in the last two years.”
Nevertheless, the same survey respondents also share that the best ways for companies to fight corruption are: (a) to never pay bribes; (b) use honest business practices; and (c) know the laws/rules. These practices are also the basis for signing the Integrity Pledge, and the government can make a decisive step in granting incentives to companies only if they sign the Integrity Pledge and live up to its conditions. Holding companies accountable in implementing honest business practices that they themselves believe are doable and effective can further be institutionalized if government agencies, such the departments of Finance, Trade and Industry, Public Works and Highways, Transportation, Environment and Natural Resources and of the Interior and Local Government, and regulators, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, bureaus of Internal Revenue, Customs and of Investments/Philippine Economic Zone Authority, can make the anticorruption commitment a standard undertaking for companies that want to do business with integrity.
A draft executive order prepared by the Integrity Initiative was already endorsed to the Office of the Executive Secretary and the finance secretary, and it is now up to them to consider the issuance as a real practical and effective weapon in the continuing fight against corruption. Only by incentivizing integrity practices can the Philippines hope to bring its economic trajectory back into a more competitive and inclusive track.
****
Sources:
https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2017; https://www.heritage.org/index/country/philippines; https://www.dpwh.gov.ph/dpwh/news/12698; https://www.fcpablog.com/blog/2017/12/20/michael-johnston-relying-on-political-will-to-fight-corrupti.html; https://www.rappler.com/nation/105154-anti-corruption-lessons-philippines-iacc; https://www.sws.org.ph/swsmain/artcldisppage/?artcsyscode=ART-20161005151549
****
Jose Solomon B. Cortez is the former executive director of the Integrity Initiative Inc. and currently a Project Consultant at the RVR Center for Corporate Responsibility of the Asian Institute of Management. E-mail: jose.cortez.2017@mtsc.smu.edu.sg
Image credits: Sudowoodo | Dreamstime.com