Republic of the Philippines

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMANOFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR
th

5 Floor, Sandiganbayan Centennial Building
Commonwealth Avenue corner Batasan Road
Quezon CityAN ADVOCATE’S VIEW OF CORRUPTION(Individual Presentation Paper of Lalaine D. Benitez)

INTRODUCTION

Much has been said about the causes of corruption, the forms ofcorruption, the effects of corruption and the measures taken against corruption.
Corruption has been dissected and analyzed in so many ways. Yes, I agree tocorruption being one of the causes of deprivation, of poverty, of decreasing
trust and confidence to public officials and to the government in general. Yes, I
agree to criminalizing many facets, stages and acts that tend to create
opportunities and groundwork for corruption. But what have we achieved so
far? Why is corruption increasing in scale, in terms of impunity, profitability
and opportunity?
Does it take mere changing of leaderships, criminalizing various acts,
revising

laws,

modernizing

information-dissemination

andincreasing

watchdogs? In the point of view of a political and social analyst, corruption iscultural, behavioral, systemic, institutional. Indeed, what more is lacking in theanalysis of corruption?

Final IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 2 of 33

This paper aims to encourage a pro-active approach to corruption. An
approach that makes us take a stand, to speak up, to point out weaknesses inmeasures taken against corruption, to constructively criticize and give a
feedback. It aims to offer an alternative view to dissecting and preventing
corruption. It aims to remind us that institutions and mechanisms are made upof people. People who make choices, set their priorities, motivated by theirorientations, views and values. There is a corrupt system or institution because
people who make up that system are corrupt.
In a court of law, it is not the system or the institution that stands
charged. It is the accused person or persons. The accused cannot simply defend
himself by asserting that the system or procedure did not provide a check, or
was merely following orders. A corruption case goes into the very values of aperson. It goes into the choices and priorities he makes and sets for himself andfor his family. The case is not just cheating the government of its resources. A
corruption case is about the accused person’s propensity to cheat in order tomeet his personal goals and agenda.

Final IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 3 of 33

I. EXISTING MECHANISMS FOR COMBATTINGCORRUPTION IN THE PHILIPPINES
A. The Philippines has very comprehensive Laws on corruption andsupposedly very strong deterrents to corruption.
1. Republic Act 3019 –The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The Law Punishes the following acts:
i. Persuading, inducing or influencing another public
officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules andregulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense
in connection with the official duties of the latter, or allowing
himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such
violation or offense.
ii. Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift,present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any otherperson, in connection with any contract or transaction between the
Government and any other party, wherein the public officer in his
official capacity has to intervene under the law.
iii. Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift,present or other pecuniary or material benefit for himself or for
another, from any person from whom the public officer, in any
manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure or
obtain, any Government permit or license, in consideration for thehelp given or to be given without prejudice to Section thirteen of
this Act.
iv. Accepting or having any member of his family accept
employment in a private enterprise which has pending official
business with him during the pendency thereof or within one year
after its termination.
v. Causing any undue injury to any party, including

Final IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 4 of 33

the Government, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of
his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This
provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices orgovernment corporations charged with the grant of licenses or
permits or other concessions.
vi. Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request,
without sufficient justification, to act within a reasonable time on
any manner pending before him for the purpose of obtaining,
directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the mattersome pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or for the purposeof favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in favor of
or discriminating against any other interested party.
vii. Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any
contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to
the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit
thereby.
viii.
Directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary
interest in any business, contract or transaction in connection withwhich he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or inwhich he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law fromhaving any interest.
ix. Directly or indirectly becoming interested for personal
gain, or having a material interest in any transaction or act
requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of which he is amember, and which exercises discretion in such approval even if
he votes against the same or does not participate in the action of
the board, committee, panel or group.
Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against thosepublic officers responsible for the approval of manifestly unlawful,inequitable, or irregular transactions or acts by the board, panel orgroup to which they belong.

Final IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 5 of 33

x. Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit,
privilege or benefit in favor of any person not qualified for or notlegally entitled to such license, permit privilege or advantage, orof a mere representative or dummy of one who is not so qualified
or entitled.
xi. Divulging valuable information of a confidential
character, acquired by his office or by him on account of his
official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing suchinformation in advance of its authorized release date.
Of all the above provisions, in the point of view of a prosecutor, the most
preferred charge is under the fifth paragraph, the giving of unwarranted benefit
or causing undue injury either to the government or to any private party. It is acatch-all provision that gives leeway on the part of the prosecution in terms offacts to be proven and evidence to be gathered. It must be emphasized that theAnti-graft Law (Republic Act 3019) expressly provided that the charges
under the Anti-graft Law is in addition to acts and omissions for which theaccused may be penalized under existing laws like the Revised Penal Code of
the Philippines, which is the general Criminal law.
Most of the time, a charge under the 5thparagraph of Section 3 of theAnti-graft Law is met with the defense of good faith. Some would say, an
allegation of bad faith is a state of mind which may be difficult to prove. But

Final IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 6 of 33

the law also says “evident”. As such, bad faith can be proven by evidence,
documentary or testimonial without relying on the state of mind of accused,
whose defense of good faith is likewise a state of mind following their line ofargument.
The same 5thparagraph of the law also provides “gross inexcusable

negligence” as one of the means to commit the violation. Again, accused would
say, that such is contradictory to the allegation of bad faith. On further analysis,
when there is already proof of “gross inexcusable negligence”, can accused still
put up the defense of good faith? Following again the accused’s line ofargument, if the two are contradictory and evidence shows gross inexcusable
negligence, the defense of good faith should not be allowed to stand.
2. Crimes Committed by Public Officers under the Revised Penal Codeof the Philippines in Title VII Book 2. In Cases filed before the Sandiganbayan,
the Anti-graft Court of the Philippines, the crimes of Malversation andFalsification are predominant. Next are Cases of Estafa and Bribery. What dothese statistics indicate? They are indicative of the public servants’ view thatpublic office is a profitable trust.
3. Republic Act 6713- The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees has been in existence since 1989. Under thislaw, only the provisions under Prohibited Acts and Transactions, Statements

Final IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 7 of 33

and Disclosure and Divestment were criminalized.

The rest of the provisions are only administrative infractions.
The Act is comprehensive enough to have covered various offenses andinfractions but not strong enough to deter inefficiency and corruption. This may
be due to the fact that not every public official and employee are aware of theprovisions of the law. Neither is there a frequent reminder of what is in the law
considering that each official and employee are supposedly well versed of theideal conduct of a public servant. It provides among others:

i. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. – In addition to acts andomissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in theConstitution and existing laws, the following shall constituteprohibited acts and transactions of any public official andemployee and are hereby declared to be unlawful:(a) Financial and material interest. – Public officials andemployees shall not, directly or indirectly, have any financial ormaterial interest in any transaction requiring the approval of theiroffice.
(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto.
– Public official and employees during their incumbency shall not:(1) Own, control, manage or accept employment as
officer, employee, consultant, counsel, broker, agent, trustee
or nominee in any private enterprise regulated, supervised or
licensed by their office unless expressly allowed by law;
(2)

Engage in the private practice of theirFinal IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 8 of 33

profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law,provided that such practice shall not conflict or tend toconflict with their official functions; or(3) Recommend any person to any position in a
private enterprise which has a regular or pending officialtransaction with their office.
These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period ofone (1) year after resignation, retirement, or separation from public
office, except in the case of subparagraph (b)(2) above, but the
professional concerned cannot practice his profession inconnection with any matter before the office he used to be with, inwhich case the one-year prohibition shall likewise apply.
(c) Disclosure and/or misuse of confidential information. –Public officials and employees shall not use or divulge,
confidential or classified information officially known to them byreason of their office and not made available to the public, either:91) To further their private interests, or give undue advantage toanyone, or (2) To prejudice the public interest.
(d) Solicitation or acceptance of gifts. – Public officials andemployees shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any
gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary
value from any person in the course of their official duties or inconnection with any operation being regulated by, or any
transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office.
ii. Statements and Disclosure. – Public officials and employees
have an obligations to accomplish and submit declarations under oath of,and the public has the right to know, their assets, liabilities, net worth andfinancial and business interests including those of their spouses and ofunmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in theirhouseholds.
(A)

Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Financial
Disclosure. - All public officials and employees, except
those who serve in an honorary capacity, laborers andcasual or temporary workers, shall file under oath theirFinal IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 9 of 33

Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and a
Disclosure of Business Interest and Financial
Connection and those of their spouses and unmarried
children under eighteen (18) years of age living in theirhouseholds.
The two documents shall contain information on the following:(a)real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessedvalue and current fair market value;(b) personal property and acquisition cost;(c) all other assets such as investments, cash on hand or in banks,
stocks, bonds and the like;(d) liabilities; and(e) all business interests and financial connections;
The documents must be filed:(a) within thirty (30) days after assumption of office;(b) on or before April 30, of every year thereafter; and(c) within thirty (30) days after separation from the service.

iii. Divestment. – A public official or employee shall avoid
conflicts of interest at all times. When a conflict of interest arises, heshall resign from his position in any private business enterprise within
thirty (30) days from his assumption of office and or divest himself of his
shareholdings or interest within sixty (60) days from such assumption.

Final IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 10 of 33

The above provisions of Republic Act 6713 are comprehensive and clear
enough. The provisions on Prohibited Transactions, Disclosures in the SALN,
or the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth and on Divestment arepunishable by imprisonment of 5 years.
4. Obstruction of justice is penalized under a Special law which is
Presidential Decree 1829. However, experience shows that very seldom is there
conviction under this law. The law is not very frequently use against
government officials and employees.
5. Republic Act 7080- An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crimeof Plunder has been in existence since 1991. From 2001 up to 2012, recordsof the Office of the Special Prosecutor, the prosecutorial arm of the officeof the Ombudsman, show that there were only 6 cases of Plunder filed (Annex
A). So far the most prominent cases of plunder are:a.

People vs. former Philippine President Joseph Estrada

which ended in his conviction but was pardoned by the incumbent
President

Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. The pardon as claimed

by somesectors was for political expediency as Estrada

still has much support

from the masses.

Final IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 11 of 33b.

People vs. Belicena. Accused here is a former

Undersecretary of the Department of Finance. This was dismissed
before trial or on motion to quash. This is related to the issuance oftax credit certificates based on falsified supporting documents. The
Sandiganbayan dismissed the case on Motion to Quash based on
the Court’s assessment that the nature of the transaction benefited
only the private entities in whose favor the tax credit certificateswere issued and did not benefit the officials of the government
involved.
c.

People vs. Carlos Garcia- Accused in this case is a

General of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and involves anamount of more than PHP 300Million. The case was downgradedto Bribery only because of a Plea-bargaining agreement whichbecame subject of a senate investigation.
d.

People vs. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, the former

President of the Philippines. The case which was filed only last
July 2012 is undergoing bail hearing.

Final IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 12 of 33

Now, what do these indicate? Why are two former presidents of thePhilippines involve in Plunder? How do we make use of the people’s vote andconfidence? What does it mean to have power and position? Again, a reassessment of our personal priorities and choices should be in order. Not only
on the part of the person who seeks the mandate of the people but also eachindividual voter whose mandate is sought.
6. Republic Act 1379- Recovery of Unlawfully –Acquired Wealth has
been in existence since 1955. From 1993 to 2011, out of the 15 forfeiture cases
filed before the Sandiganbayan, 4 were already dismissed and 1 withdrawn
while the rest are still pending either still in trial or already submitted for
decision. The government agencies from which the respondents predominantly
came from are those from the Department of Public Works and Highways(DPWH) and the Armed Forces of the Philippines(AFP) (Annex B).
B. The Philippines has likewise a good number of Laws in Aid ofApprehension and Prosecution
1. Witness Protection- the present Witness Protection Program in
the Philippines is administered by the Department of Justice.

Final IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 13 of 33

2. Grant of Immunity. The Office of the Ombudsman in theexercise of its investigatory and prosecutorial powers can grant immunity
to its prospective witnesses. A case in point is the immunity granted to
two witnesses in separate cases filed against a former Undersecretary of
Finance for the anomalous issuance of Tax Credit Certificates tocompanies that are not entitled. One witness was the liaison officer of atextile company and the other is the owner of public utility buses who
submitted falsified supporting papers in his application for Tax Credit
Certificates.
3. Whistle Blowers Protection Act. The Act was approved on its
third and final reading in the House of Representatives. It provides fori.

Requisites of Admission into the Programii,

Grounds for termination of admission into the Programand penalties

Iii

Protection against other actions of the person admitted

iv.

Confidentiality of the informationv.

Protection against Disciplinary actions or reprisalsvi.

Other benefits under the program like security and financial
rewardC. The Courts which has jurisdiction over corruption cases are:

Final IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 14 of 33

1. Regional Trial Courts (RTC)- Corruption cases against lowranking officials are filed with Regional trial Courts. The decisions of
RTCs are appealable to the Sandiganbayan then to the Supreme Court.
2. Sandiganbayan is a special collegiate court that hears anddecides only corruption cases. There are three justices hearing a case in
one Division. It has jurisdiction over corruption cases against highranking government officials with salary grade 27 and higher including:i.

Provincial governors and other provincial officials

ii.

City Mayor and other city officials

iii.

Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of
consul and higher

iv.

Philippine Army and Air Force Colonels, Naval captains andall officers of higher rankv.

Officers of the Philippine national Police with the rank ofprovincial director and senior superintendent

vi.

City and provincial prosecutors and prosecutors of the
Office of the Ombudsmanvii.

Presidents, Directors, trustees or managers of Government
owned and controlled corporations

viii. Members of Congress and judiciary without prejudice to theprovisions of the Constitution

Final IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 15 of 33

ix. Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions
without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution

3. Supreme Court- Decisions of the Sandiganbayan are directly
appealable to the Supreme Court. However, judgments of acquittal are elevatedto the Supreme Court only when there is a showing of Grave abuse of discretiontantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction. So far there has never been an
instance where a judgment of acquittal was reversed by the Supreme Court.
D. Office of the Ombudsman – This is a Constitutional Body which ismandated to perform the following:
1.To investigate corruption cases
2. It files the Informations before the Sandiganbayan
3. To prosecute corruption cases either before the Regional trial
courts or before the Sandiganbayan
4. It can issue subpoena in the course of its investigation
5. It has the power to extend immunity to prospective
witnesses

Final IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 16 of 33

6.It has concurrent jurisdiction with the Civil service Commission
to try and decide administrative cases against government officials andemployees. However, to prevent conflict in decisions, the Ombudsman willterminate its investigation when the Civil Service Commission already tookcognizance of the case.

E. Other Agencies
1. Presidential Anti-Graft Commission under the Office of the
President. This agency however can only investigate and recommend but
not to prosecute.
2. Integrity Protection and Enhancement Programs in each
Government Agency like the one existing in the Bureau of Customs.
However this is of very recent implementation and its effectivity to deter
corruption is yet to be felt. Moreover, the initiative of putting up thisbodies within an agency depends on the head of office. As such not all
government agencies have this body.
3. Presidential Commission on Good Government created under

the administration of former President Corazon Aquino. The agency was
tasked to investigate and file cases for the recovery of former President
Marcos’s ill-gotten wealth. However, it has no prosecutorial powers. It

Final IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 17 of 33

can only investigate and recommend. It is the Office of the Solicitor
General which acts as the lawyer for the government. Recently, however,the past officials of the Commission also face charges of corruption.

F.

Inter-Agency

Dialogues

andAgreements

with

other

Government Agencies in the Verification of Complaints, Investigation of
Subject Persons, Offices or Transactions and Gathering of Documents
and Evidence are likewise relied upon in combating corruption. These
agencies are the Commission on Audit, the Department of Justice, theNational Bureau of Investigation and the Philippine National Police.

II. CURRENT ISSUES, PROBLEMS AND EXPERIENCES OFCORRUPTION IN THE PHILIPPINESThe problem of lack of transparency and lack of sense of accountability
has been pervading the Philippine government in so many years. Dating back in
the Marcos years, and the very recently concluded impeachment trial of thePhilippine Chief Justice is reflective of problems in corruption and in thesystem of implementation of laws in the Philippines. One of the grounds raised
against accused was betrayal of public trust(1987 Philippine Constitution,
Article XI, Section 2). There has been perceptions of lack of sense ofaccountability when the Chief Justice failed to report a complete and true

Final IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 18 of 33

Statement of his Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALN) as required underRepublic Act 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees.
For several years now, the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth(SALN) of Supreme Court Justices were not made available to the public. The
same is true with other agencies of the government. Asserting the principle ofseparation of powers and the independence and co-equality of each branch of
the government, the Philippine Supreme Court issued its own guidelines for the
release of their SALNs to the public. And for these guidelines, who will darequestion the justices of the Supreme Court? In the same course, who will darequestion the Office of the President, or say the Office of the Ombudsman if it
issues guidelines for the release of the Statement of Assets. Guidelines, whichto the public can be incomprehensible, taxing and time-consuming.
The issue on making the SALN available to the public would not havebeen given such attention if not for the fact that it was no less than the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court who is being impeached. This is a first in thehistory of the Philippines. The impeachment case, sad to say, had proceededwith much difficulty for the Senate had to face certain restrictions in theForeign Currency Deposits Act of the Philippines. One of the restrictions isthat, the accounts cannot be inquired into unless it is with the written
permission of the depositor (Foreign Currency Deposits Act, Republic Act

Final IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 19 of 33

6426, Section 8).
The Philippines has not been very strict regarding the implementation of
the law on the filing of SALNs of government employees and officials. Only
recently, has there been serious attention and scrutiny of the assets and networthof government employees. Very few would espouse the view that if we enter
the government why fear exposing your SALN if you have nothing to hide.
Why fear divesting your connections to various corporations or businesses if
one truly wants to serve the people. The problem with people entering thegovernment is that they are no longer motivated by the desire to serve thepublic. It is of course understandable that they need employment and need tofeed their families. However, totally ignoring the basic norms of simple living,of commitment to public interest, of responsiveness to the public, justness andsincerity goes to the core of being a public servant and a responsible citizen.
Cases filed with the Sandiganbayan, the Philippine Anti-graft court of thePhilippines, relating to lack of transparency in contracts and transactions
entered into by the Government of the Philippines are likewise reflective of therecent trends of corruption in the country.

Final IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 20 of 33i.

NBN-ZTE Deal with China involving as accused the

Chairman of the Commission on Elections and the Director
General of the National Economic and Development Authority.
The Contract in this case was never released to the public.

ii. There is lack of transparency in the management anddisbursement of the funds of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
This is reflected in the several cases of corruption that has recently
plagued the military. Recently, cases and news regarding
involvement of military officials in the misuse of public funds areon the rise.

Final IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 21 of 33

Political Patronage and Alliances, Filipino cultural traits like debt ofgratitude, acts done for political expediency and alleged corruption ofCommission on Audit personnel are reflective in the following cases:
1. There was diversion of Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office(PCSO) funds to finance fictitious expenditures. This was the caseagainst aformer Philippine President filed last July 2012. The co-accused in this case are officials of PCSO and the Chairman of theCommission on Audit (COA) and the Head of the Fraud Audit Unit of
the COA. This involves an amount of more than PHP 365 Million.
2.Another diversion of funds involved the Fertilizer Scam
involving officials of the Department of Agriculture. Charged for Plunder
are the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, the Assistant
Secretary in conspiracy with private individuals.

Final IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 22 of 33

Employment of relatives in companies or establishments with pendingtransactions in the office of the public officer is left unguarded. In one case, a
Bureau of Customs Official was charged for employing his brother-in-law to a
Customs Brokerage Firm which frequently transacts with the official. This
practice is rampant in the Philippines. However, very few are brought to Court,
unless there is an actual injured party who is damaged or prejudiced. The caseof the Customs official was brought to Court because he was also charged withother corruption cases.
The employment of not so qualified persons in the government leads toinefficient performance in rendering government services. Screening process isrelaxed to accommodate recommendations of influential persons like politiciansin exchange of future or past favors.

Cases delayed in their investigation, prosecution and execution stage
takes its toll on government time, resources and the viability of the case.
In the Investigation Phase, cases may be delayed for five to more than ten
years depending on the complexity of the issues involve, the position andinfluence of the accused and the nature and sources of the evidence to begathered. This may be so when the investigation involves several documents
coming from abroad which consist

Final IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 23 of 33

of various fund transfers overseas. Add to it the position which accused holds as
official of the government. Under the Mutual Legal Assistance provisions of the
UNCAC, the Central Authority of a State Party is their Justice Department. As
such the Office of the Ombudsman as requesting party had to exercise utmost
discretion in gathering evidence. For this, a review of Mutual Legal Assistance
Treaties particularly in the designation of Central Authority/ies should be inorder.

In the Prosecution Phase, a case in point is that involving multiple
issuances of tax credit certificates to entities or business establishments which
are allegedly not qualified to avail of tax credit. The cases are multiple countsof violation of the Anti-graft Law involving numerous documents and also forfalsification. There are several accused with several lawyers to contend with.
The 40 informations involving just one company, a textile company, was filedin August 1999 and the trial is still on going. There are other tax scam cases
against other companies engaged in the textile manufacturing businessFinal IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 24 of 33

and public transportation business. Out of the same transactions, two officialsof the Department of finance were charged for plunder. The plunder case wasdismissed even before trial commenced.
Delay in the Execution of Judgment can be seen in the case of People vs.
Pacifico Velasco. The judgment of conviction was promulgated in December
2008. Accused went up to the Supreme Court on appeal and Supreme Court
denied the appeal in 2010 for having been filed beyond the period to appeal. On
Motion for Reconsideration by the Accused, the appeal was referred to theSupreme Court en banc and the Prosecution was required to comment. In theSupreme Court’s Minute Resolution, no reason was stated for the referral to the
Court en banc. Again, in a Minute Resolution the supreme Court once again
denied the appeal and the judgement was finally executed on May 10, 2012.
What cause delays? Accused most of the time wanted to delay trial of
their case. The filing of several motions like dismissal, quashal, determinationof probabable cause, reconsideration, reinvestigation, judicial notice, etc.
swamped the court with so many interlocutory pleadings tending to confuse
issues and facts. In the guise of due process, accuse can abuse and misuse theRules of Court.

Final IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 25 of 33

We in the prosecution cannot be passive about this. It taxes our time, oureffort and the government’s resources.
During the preliminary investigation stage, respondents are directed tofile their counter-affidavits through a written order. Most of the time
respondents will claim their failure to receive the order. Only when the case isalready filed in court will they appear and bother to answer the charges.
The penalty of suspension is not being strictly implemented by theconcerned head of the agencies of the penalized official or employee. The
Department Of Interior and Local Government which is tasked to implement
preventive suspensions and suspension of local government officials does noteffectively carry out the orders of suspension owing also to the fact that local
executives in the Philippines have their private armies.

The concerned officials has not been so keen on regulating unhealthy
Business Practices or implementing laws to promote good commercial
practices.
Recently, Rice Smuggling and Pork Smuggling has been discovered byauthorities. The quality and value of the commodity has been understated so as
to evade payment of the correct customs duties and taxes.

Final IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 26 of 33

The anomalous issuance of tax credit certificates as pointed out earlier
also gave rise to their transfer to other entities like oil companies for aconsideration and the oil companies would succeed in claiming discounts onimport duties. Running after the oil companies for benefitting out offraudulently- issued tax credit certificates will again entail another proceeding,further prolonging chances of stopping the practice and chances of convicting
conspirators.
Still related to the Lack of transparency in government transactions,disbursements of government funds and corruption of Commission on Audit
personnel, are the payment of salaries to ghost employees and disbursement ofgovernment funds to inexistent projects or unfinished projects. Most of thetime,these unlawful disbursements to ghost projects and ghost employees
involve large amounts of money and high-ranking officials.
II. RECENT MEASURES IN RESPONSE TO THE CURRENTISSUES

A. Conduct of Pre-Trial Conferences to Expedite Trial of Cases.

During the pre-trial conferences, parties are to agree or stipulate on theFinal IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 27 of 33

fats that are in dispute, the evidence to be presented, the issues to be resolved,
the witnesses to be presented and the number of days needed by each party topresent its evidence. The Court will limit the trial of the case based on the facts,
issues, and evidence stipulated on or agreed upon during the pre trial
conferences.

B. In the performance of its mandate the then newly appointed
Ombudsman, Conchita Carpio Morales launched her 8-point Agenda to wit:i.

Disposition of High-Profile Casesii.

Zero Backlog

iii.

Improved “Survival “ Rate of Fact-Findingiv.

Enforced Monitoring of Referred Casesv.

Improved Responsiveness of Public Assistancevi.

Improved Anti-Corruption Policy
Coordination Among Sectorsvii.

Rationalization of the Functional Structureviii.

Enhanced Transparency and Accountability

andProgramFinal IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 28 of 33

2. The Ombudsman is aided by Graftwatch and Junior Graftwatch bodies
in the reporting of anomalous transactions or erring government employees.
3. The Office also employs Resident Ombudsman assigned in different
government agencies. These employees are lawyers with their support staff.
4. The Office also has a Community Coordination Bureau, a Special Studies
Bureau and a Public Assistance Bureau that conducts, research studies, training
and coordination with the people at the grassroots level for awareness of theexistence and functions of the Ombudsman.

5. In the investigation of cases, the Ombudsman has lawyers and nonlawyers alike trained for the fact-finding and preliminary investigation stage ofthe case.
6. In the prosecution of cases, the Ombudsman has a separate Office of
the Special Prosecutor consist of lawyers trained specifically to prosecutecorruption cases in court.
C. Proposed Legislations in combating corruption are:
1. The Freedom of Information Bill which Provides Among
Others:Final IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 29 of 33

a. Mandatory Disclosure of Information by National Officials of
the Statement of Assets Liabilities and Networth or SALN on an Annual
Basis. These National Officials Include
i.
ii.
ii.
iii.
iv.
vi.
vii.

the President
the Vice President
the Members of the Cabinet
the Congress
the Supreme Court
the Constitutional Commissions and otherConstitutional Offices andOfficers of the Armed Forces with General or Flag
Rank

b. The bill also provides for the mandatory disclosure of thecontracts and transactions entered into by a government agency.
c. The disclosure of the budget appropriations and projects tobe undertaken by a government agency.
d. The disclosure of a government agency’s disbursement offunds, procedures adopted in public bidding, award of contracts

and disbursement of funds.
2. Strengthening the Anti-Money Laundering Law. The
Proposed Amendments Include:

i. That All Types of Transactions Involving Five
Hundred Thousand or More will be automatically reported

Final IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 30 of 33

to the Anti-Money Laundering Council of the Philippines or
AMLC;

i. That Aside From Banks, Institutions and Persons Who
Will Be Covered By the Anti-Money Laundering Act Or AMLA
will include Money Changers, Foreign Exchange Companies, PreNeed Firms and Real Estate Agents;

ii. That the List of Predicate Crimes shall include Bribery
and Corruption of Public Officers, Fraud Malversation of Public
Funds and Property, Forgery and Counterfeiting and Trafficking inpersons.
4. Whistle Blowers Protection Act- Mandates that Every Person
Defined as Whistleblower Under the Law and Admitted Under The
Law’s Protection Would not be Subject to any Liability Whether
Criminal, Civil or Administrative.
5.There is the proposal to amend the existing form of the Statementof Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALN). There is already a newformat of SALN revised by the Civil Service

Final IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 31 of 33

Commission but the use of the new SALN form has been suspended in
the meantime due to questions on some very technical features that may
not be understood by an ordinary government employee. The existingand proposed format of the SALN are presented in Annex C.

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS

By way of Legislation, the following are recommended:
1. Reducing the Amount Involved in Plunder cases. The Existing
Amount under Philippine Law is Fifty Million Pesos

2. Making the Charge for Several Counts of Anti-Graft Law NonBailable

Likewise, less reliance by Courts on Technical Rules of Procedure in the
Dismissal of Cases should be looked into. For example, the formal amendmentof Informations or charge sheets filed in Court may cause the dismissal ofcases even before the case goes to trial.
Non-legal Strategies like conduct of Values Orientation Workshops inGovernment Offices and Professional Training of Investigators andFinal IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 32 of 33

Prosecutors in Data Gathering, Build-up of cases and Prosecution of Cases is
encouraged.
CONCLUSION
What is wrong with the laws, with the institutions, with theleadership, with the system, necessarily boil down to—What is wrong with us?
The priority of a public officer is to serve the public. Power does not corrupt if
we know how to use it. If we use it with our conscience and with our hearts,
then it can be an instrument of change and development.
If we are to take a pro-active role in our fight against corruption,
we have to start in ourselves. Parents have to start their children early. Leaders
have to lead by example. We have to take a reassessment of our priorities andour values We have to strengthen our virtues. Let us go back to the basicsteaching and imbibing honesty, continuous learning and strengthening our ageold virtues. What is at stake is the future of our children, peace in our country
and peace of our minds. Indeed, not until we truly realized this, can we truly
implement the constitionally- enshrined principle that “public office is a publictrust and all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable tothe people”.
In brief, there is much to be desired in the individual attitudes,
orientations and values of each and every employee or person who seeks

Final IP Paper of Atty. Lalaine D. Benitez
Page 33 of 33

to be employed in the government and those already in the government.
Existence of Laws punishing corruption is not enough. Existence of Institutions
to fight corruption is not enough. Total individual reorientation anddetermination is called for.
If every Filipino can think in terms of giving back, of paying back, of
putting up with the corrupt system, of staying and fighting on and not giving up,
corruption can in many ways, be shut up.