ENHANCING THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF
PHILIPPINE JUDGES, PROSECUTORS AND LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS AS A COUNTERMEASURE
AGAINST CORRUPTIONLyn Gaa Dimayuga *I. INTRODUCTION
Robert F. Kennedy once said, “Every time we turn our heads the other way when we
see the law flouted, when we tolerate what we know to be wrong, when we close our eyes
and ears to the corrupt because we are too busy or frightened, when we fail to speak up andspeak out, we strike a blow against freedom, decency and justice.” Corruption is an issue
that has plagued the Philippines since time immemorial. While not exclusive to our country,
it cannot be denied that corruption in the Philippines is at an all-time high. In the study
conducted by Transparency International, the Philippines dropped to the 113th rank out of
180 countries in their 2019 Corruption Perceptions Index, a 14-notch fall from its standingof 99th place in 2018. In the said study, the Philippines scored 34 points on a scale wherezero is “highly corrupt” and the perfect score of 100 is “very clean.” 1 Also, in the National
Household Survey on Experience with Corruption in the Philippines, a study released by
the Office of the Ombudsman in 2018, it was discovered that 1 out of every 20 households
had bribed a government official or employee. 2
The negative effects of corruption cannot be overemphasized. As billions of publicfunds are siphoned off by corrupt officials, delivery of basic services, such as food, housing
and medical benefits, and even water supply, are hampered. Investors are discouraged from
opening their businesses in this country, bearing in mind the millions of pesos they have toshell out to obtain the necessary permits and licenses for their business operations. People
dread law enforcement officers because of these officials’ rampant involvement in
kidnapping, sale of illegal drugs and other heinous crimes. The concept of justice becomes
distorted as cases are won based on who has the money to bribe the judge or the prosecutor,
and not on the evidence on record.

Assistant Special Prosecutor, II Office of the Ombudsman, Philippines.
Philippines Drops to 113th Rank in 2019 Corruption Index, by Julia Mari Ornedo, 23 January 2020, GMA
News Online.
2
Ombudsman insists on prioritizing corruption prevention | Inquirer News By: Gabriel Pabico Lalu;
INQUIRER.net, 9 December 2019.
*1- 109 - 109 -II.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASES OF CORRUPTION IN THE PHILIPPINEJUDICIARY, PROSECUTION AND LAW ENFORCEMENTAGENCIES

A. “Allegations Made Under Oath at the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Hearing
Held on September 26, 2013 Against Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong,
Sandiganbayan” 3
Sometime in 2001, two criminal cases were filed with the Sandiganbayan. The first
was for Falsification of Public Documents and the second was for Violation of Section 3(e)of the Anti-Graft Law. Charged were several members of the Philippine Marine Corps andcivilian employees, including Ms. Janet L. Napoles (Napoles), her relatives and three ofher employees. The cases were raffled to the Fourth Division where Associate JusticeGregory S. Ong sat as Chairperson.
These cases were referred to as the Kevlar case because it involved the questionablepurchase of 500 Kevlar helmets by the Philippine Marine Corps in the amount of₱3,865,310.00 from five suppliers or companies owned by Napoles. The purchase of the
Kevlar helmets was deemed anomalous because payment was made even prior to thedelivery of the goods; the suppliers appeared to be mere dummies of Napoles and thehelmets were made in Taiwan and not in the USA, as represented by the suppliers. After
trial, Napoles' mother, brother, and sister-in-law were convicted for Falsification of PublicDocuments but Napoles and six members of the Philippine Marine Corps were acquitted inboth cases.
Sometime in the middle of 2013, another controversy involving Napoles was unveiledby the Philippine media. The scandal, referred to as the Priority Development AssistanceFund (PDAF) scam, or pork barrel scam, involved the fraudulent use by certain membersof the Senate and House of Representatives of their PDAF, which have been allocated tothem to support their priority development projects either at the local or national level.
During the investigation conducted by the Senate Committee on Accountability of
Public Officers and Investigations (Blue Ribbon Committee), whistle-blowers Benhur Luy,
Marina Sula and Merlina Suñas, who were former employees of Napoles, named certain
government officials and personalities who allegedly transacted with or attended Mrs.
Napoles' parties and events. Among those identified by the whistle-blowers was thenincumbent Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong, who, as earlier mentioned,presided over the Kevlar case and eventually acquitted Napoles.
Following the whistle-blowers’ disclosure, an investigation into Justice Ong’s conduct
was ordered by the Supreme Court. After investigation, the Investigating Justice confirmed,
based on records, that Justice Ong performed the following acts: 1) he acted as the contact
of Napoles in connection with the Kevlar case while it was pending in the Sandiganbayan
Fourth Division where he was the Chairperson; 2) being Napoles' contact in the
Sandiganbayan, he fixed the Kevlar case resulting in her acquittal; 3) he received anundetermined amount of money from Napoles prior to the promulgation of the decision in
the Kevlar case; thus, Napoles was assured of her acquittal; 4) he visited Napoles in her
office where she handed to him eleven (11) checks, each amounting to ₱282,000.00 or a
total of ₱3,102,000.00, purportedly as advanced interest for his ₱25.5 million Banco de
3

A.M. No. SB-14-21-J (Formerly A.M. No. 13-10-06-SB), 23 September 2014.

- 110 - 110 -Oro check which she deposited in her personal account; and 5) he attended Napoles' parties
and was even photographed with Senator. Estrada and Napoles.
Based on the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Investigating Justice,
Justice Ong was dismissed from service, with a corresponding forfeiture of all retirement
benefits, except accrued leave credits. In arriving at said decision, the Supreme Court
explained:
Regrettably, the conduct of respondent gave cause for the public ingeneral to doubt the honesty and fairness of his participation in the
Kevlar case and the integrity of our courts of justice. Before this Court,
even prior to the commencement of administrative investigation,
respondent was less than candid. In his letter to the Chief Justice where
he vehemently denied having attended parties or social events hosted
by Napoles, he failed to mention that he had in fact visited Napoles at
her office. Far from being a plain omission, we find that respondentdeliberately did not disclose his social calls to Napoles. It was only
when Luy and Sula testified before the Senate and named him as the“contact” of Napoles in the Sandiganbayan, that respondent mentionedof only one instance he visited Napoles (“This is the single occasion
that Sula was talking about in her supplemental affidavit x x x. ”).
The Court finds that respondent, in not being truthful on crucial matterseven before the administrative complaint was filed against him motu
proprio, is guilty of Dishonesty, a violation of Canon 3 (Integrity) of the
New Code of Judicial Conduct.
Dishonesty is a “disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud;
untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity
in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to
defraud, deceive or betray.” Dishonesty, being a grave offense, carries
the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of
retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and with perpetual
disqualification from reemployment in government service. Indeed,dishonesty is a malevolent act that has no place in the Judiciary. 4
B. People of the Philippines vs. Joselito C. Barrozo 5
Jennie Valeriano (Valeriano) was the respondent in several cases for Estafa andViolation of Batas Pambasa Bilang 22, or the Bouncing Checks Law. Her cases wereassigned for the conduct of preliminary investigation to Atty. Joselito C. Barroza, AssistantPublic Prosecutor of Dagupan City, Pangasinan. On one occasion, Atty. Barroza told herthat he would resolve the cases in her favour in exchange for ₱20,000.00. Valeriano thenwent to the Office of Regional State Prosecutor to report the incident. Thereafter, theRegional State Prosecutor and Valeriano went to the National Bureau of Investigation(NBI), which immediately planned an entrapment operation. During the operation
conducted on February 15, 2005, Atty. Barrozo was caught red-handed by the NBI agentsreceiving the amount of ₱20,000.00 from Valeriano.
4
5

Ibid.
Administrative Case No. 10207, 21 July 2015.

- 111 - 111 -Following his arrest, Atty. Barrozo was charged with Direct Bribery under paragraph
2, Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code before the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City.
The case, however, was later indorsed to the Sandiganbayan since the accused wasconsidered a high-ranking public officer, occupying a position with a salary grade 27 orhigher.
In a Decision, dated 17 March 2011, the Sandiganbayan found Atty. Barrozo guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of Direct Bribery and sentenced him to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prison correctional maximum,
as minimum, to nine (9) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prison mayor medium,as maximum, and to pay a fine of ₱60,000.00. He was likewise imposed the penalty of
special temporary disqualification. On 16 August 2012, Atty. Barrozo’s conviction became
final and executory.
In 2013, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) received a report that Atty. Barrozo
was still engaged in the practice of law. Considering that his conviction is a ground for
disbarment from the practice of law under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, theSupreme Court issued a Resolution dated 11 December 2013, requiring him to comment
on why he should not be suspended/disbarred from the practice of law.
In his Comment, Atty. Barrozo denied that he was engaged in the practice of law as henever received any renumeration for his services. Subsequently, upon Order of the Court,
the OBC evaluated the case and came up with its 20 February 2015 Report andRecommendation recommending the disbarment of the respondent.
The Supreme Court adopted the above recommendation. Atty. Joselito C. Barrozo was
disbarred and his name ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. As held by the Court
in its Resolution:
It must be recalled that at the time of the commission of the crime
respondent was an assistant public prosecutor of the City of Dagupan.
His act therefore of extorting money from a party to a case handled byhim does not only violate the requirement that cases must be decided
based on the merits of the parties’ respective evidence but also lessens
the people’s confidence in the rule of law.
Indeed, Respondent’s conduct in office fell short of the integrity andgood moral character required of all lawyers, specially one occupying apublic office. Lawyers in public office are expected not only to refrainfrom any act or omission which tend to lessen the trust and confidenceof the citizenry in government but also uphold the dignity of the legal
profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty and fairdealing. A government lawyer is keeper of public faith and is burdenedwith a high degree of social responsibility, higher than his brethren in
private practice.
Hence, for committing a crime which does not only show his disregardof his oath as a government official but is likewise of such a nature as- 112 - 112 -to negatively affect his qualification as a lawyer, respondent must be
disbarred from his office as an attorney.
As a final note, it is well to state that:
The purpose of a proceeding for disbarment is to protect theadministration of justice by requiring that those who exercise thisimportant function be competent, honorable and reliable – lawyers inwhom courts and [the public at large] may repose confidence. Thus,
whenever a clear case of degenerate and vile behavior disturbs that vital
yet fragile confidence, [the Court] shall not hesitate to rid [the]profession of odious members. 6
C. The Kian de los Santos Story 7
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and the Field Investigation Bureau (FIB) of
the Office of the Ombudsman filed separate complaints before the Office of the
Ombudsman charging several police officers with criminal and administrative offences forthe death of 17-year-old Kian delos Santos during a purported drug buy-bust operation in
Caloocan City. Charged were Police Chief Superintendent Roberto Fajardo, Police Senior
Superintendent Chito G. Bersaluna, Police Chief Inspector Amor Cerillo, Police Officer 3
Arnel Oares, Police Officer 1 Jeremias Pereda, Police Officer 1 Jerwin Cruz and private
citizen Nono Lubiran.
The complaints are based on the affidavits executed by three witnesses Ma. Luisa
Walican, Princess Ann Alano and Sheen B. Concepcion, who all narrated that on theevening of 16 August 2017, Oares, Pereda, Cruz and Lubiran were standing outside a store.
When Kian passed by said store, Lubiran pointed to him as his drug runner. Oares, Pereda
and Cruz then accosted Kian and dragged him to a dimly lit cul-de-sac where Oares shot
him in the head. Two plastic sachets of shabu and a .45 calibre handgun were recoveredfrom the body of Kian. The cases are still pending review and evaluation.
III. RELEVANT LAWS ON CORRUPTION
To address the proliferation of corruption in our country, various laws have been enacted.
They include the following:
A. Article XI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
This specific Article of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides for the Accountabilityof Public Officers. Section 1 of the same declares, “Public office is a public trust. Public
officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them withutmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, andlead modest lives.” Sections 2 and 3 thereof further describe the process by which the
President, Vice-President, Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of theConstitutional Commissions and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on
impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery,
graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. The other sections
6
7

Ibid.
Records. Fajardo vs. Fajardo, et al., OMB-P-C-17-0344; OMB-P-A-17-0410.

- 113 - 113 -provide for the creation of the Ombudsman and the anti-graft court known as the
Sandiganbayan.
B. Republic Act No. 6770, Otherwise Known as “An Act Providing for the Functionaland Structural Organization of the Office of the Ombudsman, and For Other
Purposes”
Under this law, the Ombudsman is vested with the authority and responsibility for the
exercise of the mandate of the Office of the Ombudsman and for the discharge of its powers
and functions. It is the Ombudsman who has supervision and control of the office. It has
the authority to organize directorates for administration and allied services as may benecessary for the effective discharge of its functions.
C. Republic Act No. 3019, Otherwise Known as the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act”
This law was created pursuant to the constitutional principle that a public office is publictrust. It defines and penalizes the specific acts of public officers, and private individuals
acting in conspiracy with such public officers, which the law considers as graft or corrupt
practices. In addition, this Act also discusses prohibitions on private individuals,
government officials’ relatives and members of Congress as well as the procedure for filingof the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN).
D. Republic Act No. 6713, Otherwise Known as “An Act Establishing a Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, To Uphold
the Time-Honoured Principle of Public Office Being a Public Trust, Granting
Incentives and Rewards For Exemplary Service, Enumerating Prohibited Acts
and Transactions and Providing Penalties For Violations Thereof and for Other
Purposes”
This law enumerates the standards of personal conduct in the execution of public duties,
the duties of public officials and employees, prohibited acts and transactions and penalties
for transgression thereof.
E. Republic Act No. 7080, Otherwise Known as “An Act Defining and Penalizing the
Crime of Plunder”
This law defines the crime of plunder and how it is committed. Under the law, plunder isthe criminal act of amassing, accumulating or acquiring ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate
amount or total value of at least P50 million, through a combination or series of overt or
criminal acts.
F. Act 3815, or the Revised Penal Code
Title Seven of this Code specifically enumerates, defines and penalizes crimes committed
by public officers. Some of the more common crimes included in this Title are Direct Bribery,
Indirect Bribery, Malversation of Public Funds or Property, Illegal Use of Public Funds orProperty and Failure of Public Officer to Render Accounts.
G. Republic Act No. 1379, Otherwise Known as “An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favorof the State Any Property Found to Have Been Unlawfully Acquired by Any Public
Officer or Employee and Providing for the Proceedings Therefor”
This law governs the process by which the State may institute forfeiture proceedings
against a public officer who, during his incumbency, amasses property that is manifestlyout of proportion to his legitimate income.
- 114 - 114 -H. Republic Act No. 9160, Otherwise Known as “An Act Defining the Crime of Money
Laundering, Providing Penalties Therefor and For Other Purposes”
The law aims to protect our banks and other financial institutions from being used as
money laundering sites for the proceeds of any unlawful activity.
I. Republic Act No. 10660, Otherwise Known as “An Act Strengthening Further the
Functional and Structural Organization of the Sandiganbayan, Further
Amending Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended, and Appropriating Funds
Therefor.”This is the law creating the Sandiganbayan, or the Anti-Graft Court of the Philippines.
It has the sole jurisdiction to hear criminal cases filed against high-ranking officials of thegovernment, specifically, those occupying positions with Salary Grade 27 or higher.
J. Republic Act No. 9485 or the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007
This is the policy applicable to government agencies and offices which provide
frontline services to the public. A notable feature of this act is the creation of the Citizen’sCharter or the set of service standards of the particular office which should be posted in themain entrances of government buildings or other conspicuous places.
IV. MEASURES TO FIGHT CORRUPTION
Aside from the passage of the above-mentioned laws, our government also continuallyadopts measures to develop and enhance integrity of those serving its people.
A. In the JudiciaryOn 7 July 2020, the Supreme Court en banc, passed and approved Resolution A. M.
No. 18—01-05-SC, entitled “Establishment of the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) and the
Corruption Prevention and Investigation Office (CPIO).” Under said Resolution, the JIB
was vested with the power and authority to receive and act on all administrative complaints
or disciplinary actions against either the Presiding Justices and Associate Justices of theappellate courts and Judges of the lower courts, as well as act on complaints or referrals asprovided for in Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, the “Internal Rules” of the JIB as approvedby the Supreme Court en banc, as well as the Supreme Court Circulars, Administrative
Orders or other issuances. 8
Likewise, JIB was given exclusive jurisdiction over administrative complaints against(1) Court officials with Salary Grades 30 and 31, excluding those that are not within thejurisdiction of the JIB, regardless of the gravity of the offence; (2) First and Second Level
Court Judges, including Shari’a District and Circuit Court Judges, charged with serious
charges under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court; and (3) Court officials and or employees,with Salary Grades 27 to 29, regardless of the gravity of the violation of the “Code of
Conduct for Court Personnel” and of the Civil Service Law and Rules. 9
The CPIO, on the other hand, has the primary duty to conduct investigation and/or
intelligence, surveillance or entrapment operations, as well as lifestyle checks to detect and89Section 4, A. M. No. 18—01-05-SC.
Ibid.

- 115 - 115 -identify justices, judges and officials of the judiciary who commit, appear to be involvedin or are liable for any of the offences enumerated under Section 9 of said Resolution. 10
B. Internal Cleansing of the Philippine National Police (PNP)
In the PNP, an Enhanced Revitalized Internal Cleansing Strategy (ERICS) was
implemented to instil values formation, spiritual development and strengthening of familiesof its personnel. The programme aims to build a God-centred, service-oriented and familybased organization. Under the punitive aspect of the PNP ERICS, a total of 3,537 personnel
were penalized, of which 1,121 were meted the penalty of dismissal from the service, while
9,513 personnel were neither exonerated nor their cases dismissed. 11
The PNP has likewise created the Integrity Monitoring and Enforcement Group(IMEG) tasked to conduct intelligence build-up and law enforcement operations against
PNP personnel involved in illegal activities, institutionalizes efforts against rogue cops andcleansing police ranks to ensure that the PNP will be able to fulfil its duty with honesty,
honour and integrity. 12
C. Integrity Measures in the Office of the Ombudsman
Not to be outdone, the Office of the Ombudsman, in partnership with international
agencies such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and theInternational Development Law Organization (IDLO), regularly organize and conduct
trainings for its prosecutors. These trainings are geared towards developing and enhancing
the capacity of its prosecutors to ensure the successful prosecution of graft cases filed incourt against erring public officials. It has likewise introduced measures focused on
developing and improving integrity in public service. Some of these measures are:
1. The Campus Integrity Crusaders ProgramThis programme is the platform through which the Office of Ombudsman realizes the
pro-active and preventive approach of its anti-corruption drive. In 2019, a total of 3,842
elementary, secondary and tertiary student-leaders were capacitated on anti-corruption andintegrity development by the Office of the Ombudsman resulting in the involvement of
1,287 high school and college organizations in 1,250 activities cascading the values ofintegrity, honesty, transparency and accountability in schools and communities. 13
2. Integrity Management Program (IMP)This programme aims to establish a systematic approach in building, improving,
reinforcing and sustaining a culture of integrity in public sector institutions that is rooted
in acceptable values, principles and standards of good governance. In 2018, the IMP wasrolled out to five (5) agencies in the Executive Branch, namely, the Department of Health(DOH), the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), the Department of
Public Works and Highways (DPWH), the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Bureau ofInternal Revenue (BIR). 14 The IMP proved to be effective in identifying vulnerable areasin agency processes and helping them draw up corrective measures that will build anddevelop a culture of integrity in the agency. 15
Section 9, A. M. No. 18—01-05-SC.
PNP 2019 Annual Accomplishment Report, p. 23.
12
Ibid., p. 28.
132018 Ombudsman Annual Report, p. 17.
14
Ibid., p. 19.
15
Ibid.
10
11

- 116 - 116 -3. Integrity, Transparency, Accountability in Public Service (ITAPS) Program
One of the notable initiatives of the Office is the Integrity, Transparency,
Accountability in Public Service Program or the ITAPS Program. It is a programme offeredby the National Integrity Center, the training arm of the Office of the Ombudsman.
Designed using interactive adult learning methods, it is offered to government officials andemployees, whereby modules have been designed to provide a good understanding ofcorruption (Module 1), accountability of public officers (Module 2), penalizing corruption(Module 3) and integrity in public service (Module 4). Explanations on specific violations
such as Bribery, Malversation, Failure to Render Accounts, Illegal Use of Fund or Property
and specific laws such as Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officers andEmployees, Plunder, Anti-Graft Law and the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act are also being
offered by the programme. 16
4. Red Tape Assessment
Another anti-corruption initiative is the conduct of the Red Tape Assessments (RTA)
in government institutions, including law enforcement agencies. Patterned after theOrganization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Red Tape Assessment
tool, the Ombudsman initiated RTA aims to simplify administrative procedures with theend in view of reducing administrative burdens on businesses. As a methodology, the RTA
evaluates the adequacy and functionality of the internal controls in place and determines
whether they are proportionate to the risk of fraud, corruption, abuse, and mismanagement
through listing down in two separate matrices all the documentary and other requirements
for availing a service, the various steps required for such, and the rationale behind them inorder to assess whether there is a relative impact in an agency’s mandate in case arequirement or procedure is dispensed with. 17
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
Despite the progress our government has achieved in pursuing its anti-corruption drive,the following are suggested as further steps for improvement:
A. Intensifying the internal cleansing within the PNP ranks;
B. Implementing a more rigorous selection process for applicants or appointees topublic positions to ensure that these positions are given or offered only to personsof unquestionable integrity and competence;
C. Improving the fact-finding/intelligence-gathering capacity of the Department ofJustice, Ombudsman and the PNP by conducting continuous trainings;
D. Procuring technologically advanced equipment that will facilitate fact-finding andscientific investigation for case build up;

Integrity, Transparency, Accountability in Public Service (ITAPS) Program Primer.
Red Tape Assessment Report for Supervisory Office for Security and Investigation Agencies of thePhilippine National Police. Public Assistance and Corruption Prevention Bureau, Military and Other Law
Enforcement Offices, Office of the Ombudsman.

16
17- 117 - 117 -E. Review and amend the Bank Secrecy Law 18 to enable the Anti-Money Laundering
Council to conduct speedier bank inquiry and investigation on the accounts ofpublic officers involved in corruption and other illegal activities.
VI. CONCLUSION
The issue of corruption is an issue that is felt by all Filipinos in their daily lives. To
this end, adopting measures to develop and enhance the integrity of our public officials is
imperative to ensure that public funds are spent not for their own benefit but for the needsof the people they have sworn to serve. When public funds are used and devoted to meetthe people’s needs, we take a step closer towards achieving economic stability, security anddevelopment for our country.
The war against corruption is far from over but our government’s resolve to win thiswar remains steadfast and unbending. However, this responsibility does not rest on ourgovernment alone. All citizens must likewise do their part by remaining vigilant andadopting the attitude of non-tolerance against corruption. For it is only through the joint
effort of the government and its citizens that we can make any headway in staving off thefurther spread of this malaise.

18

Republic Act No. 1405.

- 118 - 118 -