PHILIPPINE COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNITED NATIONSCONVENTION AGAINST CORRUPTION (UNCAC) ON
CRIMINALIZATION AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
Samina S. Macabando-Usman, Ll.M*
The worst disease in the world today iscorruption. And there is a cure: transparency.
– BonoCorruption is not novel in this time. In fact, many great empires and superpower
governments have fallen because of corruption in their ranks. Corruption is akin to cancer thatis slowly creeping into the government’s system, stage by stage. When it reaches a certain stage,
everything will crumble, including the good men and women in public service as well as theinstitutions these men and women built. Most importantly, the general public whom thegovernment serves, will suffer the most. That is how deadly corruption is to our governments.
Corruption does not only destroy government, it disrespects and delegitimizes legal institutions
like democracy and rule of law, which men of law have been consciously protecting.
As a state, the Philippines is not immune from the disease of corruption. It has, indeed,a history of corruption cases and has taken various courses of action to fight the same. It is
continuously fighting corruption. Perhaps, the United Nations Convention against Corruption(UNCAC) is the antidote to the sick governments of our time. Governments should assessthemselves and allow transparency in order to diagnose corruption. As it is not immune, thePhilippines has taken a step further in fighting corruption by signing the UNCAC. Therefore,
it must comply with the UNCAC.
For the purpose of this paper, I will discuss the Philippines and its compliance with
UNCAC. To do this, I will first deal with the Philippine history of corruption and legal system.
To have a perspective of its standing within the framework of UNCAC, there will be a
discussion on the First Review Cycle, its results, and how the Philippine Government has
progressed with its UNCAC compliance since then. During the discourse, this paper shallidentify the challenges and best practices of the Philippine Government in combating
corruption.
It should be emphasized, however, that this paper focuses on UNCAC’s Chapter on
Criminalization and Law Enforcement.
I. PHILIPPINE LEGAL SYSTEM
The legal system in the Philippines has features both from civil and common law. The
Philippine public law is substantially patterned after common law doctrines, while its private
law follows the civil tradition of Spain. Public law, notably, constitutional law, administrative
law and the law of public offices, is based on American law. Private law refers to laws on
persons and family relations, obligations and contracts, and succession, which is patterned after*

Assistant State Prosecutor, National Prosecution Service, Department of Justice, Philippines.

－ 157 －

the Civil Code of Spain.1
The present 1987 Constitution is the fourth constitution of the Philippines after
proclaiming its independence in 1898. As enshrined in its 1987 Constitution, it is a democratic
and republican State. 2 It stresses that sovereignty resides in the people and all government
authority emanates from them.3 Governmental powers are distributed to the three branches:
Legislative Department, Executive Department and Judicial Department.
The Legislative Department, which holds the legislative power, is a bicameral body
called the Congress of the Philippines, which consists of the Senate (as the upper house) andthe House of the Representatives (as the lower house).4 The Legislative Department has thepower to make, frame and enact laws. Modification and repeal of said laws is also necessarily
included in the legislative power, while the President of the Philippines, who heads the
Executive Department, on the other hand, holds the executive power.5 As such, the President
is in charge of implementing and enforcing the laws enacted by the Legislative Department.
Lastly, the judicial power is vested with the Judiciary, which is composed of the Supreme Court
and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of thecourts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable
and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of theGovernment.6
Transparency and anti-corruption provisions are enshrined in the 1987 Constitution. As
part of its state policies, the Philippines adheres “to maintain honesty and integrity in the public
service and take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption”7 and “to adopt
and implement a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public
interest.” 8 An article, composed of eighteen (18) sections, is also dedicated for the“accountability of public officers” to address, among others, corruption in the government.
In the context of criminalization and law enforcement, the Office of the Ombudsman,
Office of the Special Prosecutor, Department of Justice, Supreme Court, Philippine National
Police, Anti-Money Laundering Council and Civil Service Commission are the government
instrumentalities concerned with anti-corruption. The Sandiganbayan, a specialized court,
under the Supreme Court is also an instrumentality against corruption.
As mentioned, the Philippines has its fair share of corruption cases. Historical accounts
show that the Philippine Government was plagued with corruption as early as theadministration of President Ferdinand Marcos and, unfortunately, up to this date. By statistics,
the Philippines ranked 101 of the 176 States in the 2016 Corruption Perceptions Index9 of
UNCAC Country Review Report of the Philippines, Item No. 75, Page 15.
1987 Constitution, Article II, Section 1.
3
Ibid.
4
Id., Article VI, Section 1.
5
Id., Article VII, Section 1.
6
Id., Article VIII, Section 1.
7
Id., Article II, Section 27.
8Id., Section 28.
9
The CPI scores and ranks countries/territories based on how corrupt a country’s public sector is perceived to be.
It is a composite index, a combination of surveys and assessments of corruption, collected by a variety of reputable
institutions. The CPI is the most widely used indicator of corruption worldwide, viewed fromhttps://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2016 on 10 September 2017.
1
2－ 158 －

Transparency International.10 With an average score11 of 35.6 12 (from years 2012 to 2016),
such score still falls short of the global average score of 43. Many corruption cases in thePhilippines hit the international media due to their magnitude and impact. These cases include:(1) the Government Service Insurance System–the MERALCO bribery case of 2008; (2) the
Philippine National Broadband Network controversy involving allegations of corruption in theawarding of a US$329 million construction contract to Chinese telecommunications firm ZTE
for the proposed government-managed National Broadband Network (NBN) in 2008; (3) theEuro Generals Scandal involving former PNP General Eliseo de la Paz and several Philippine
National Police officials who went to Russia in October 2008 to attend the Interpol conference
and were detained for carrying a large sum of undeclared money; (4) the Priority Development
Assistance Fund (PDAF) scam13 in 2013 involving businesswoman Janet Lim-Napoles andother several politicians from both houses of Congress; and (5) the Bangladesh Bank
Cyberheist14 in 2016 where US$101 million was stolen from the Bangladesh Central Bank,
US$81 million was traced to the Philippines. But this does not mean that the government
merely sat and watched as its system crumbles. Various anti-corruption measures and/or
courses of action were adopted particularly in the sphere of criminalization and law
enforcement. Among these measures was the Philippines’ ratification of UNCAC in 2006.
II. PHILIPPINES AS A UNCAC STATE SIGNATORYUNCAC is the only legally binding universal anti-corruption instrument,15 and its farreaching approach and the mandatory character of many of its provisions make it a unique toolfor developing a comprehensive response to a global problem. 16 UNCAC covers five mainareas: preventive measures, criminalization and law enforcement, international cooperation,asset recovery, and technical assistance and information exchange. UNCAC covers manydifferent forms of corruption, such as bribery, trading in influence, abuse of functions, andvarious acts of corruption in the private sector. A highlight of UNCAC is the inclusion of a
specific chapter on asset recovery, aimed at returning assets to their rightful owners, including
countries from which they had been taken illicitly. 17 UNCAC was adopted by the General
Assembly of the UN on 31 October 2003 at the UN Headquarters in New York and was open
for signature from 9 to 11 December 2003 in Merida, Mexico, and thereafter at the UN
Headquarters until 9 December 2005.18 It entered into force on 14 December 2004 with 140
Signatories and now has 183 State Parties.19
In sum, UNCAC provides for four (4) main Chapters, to wit:
www.transparency.org
A country/territory’s score indicates the perceived level of public sector corruption on a scale of 0-100, where
0 means that a country is perceived as highly corrupt and a 100 means that a country is perceived as very clean.
A country's rank indicates its position relative to the other countries/territories included in the index. Ranks canchange merely if the number of countries included in the index changes.
12
The writer averaged the sum of global score of Philippines from 2012 to 2016.
13
Presented by Atty. Rowena Del Rosario-Vidad of the Office of the Ombudsman (Philippines) during the 9 thRegional Seminar on Good Governance for the Southeast Asian Countries.
14
Presented by Director Dennis Garcia of the Office of the Ombudsman (Philippines) during the 10 th Regional
Seminar on Good Governance for the Southeast Asian Countries.
15
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/corruption/index.html
16
Ibid.
17
As
definedintheUnitedNations
Office
on
Drugs
and
Crime
website(https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/) on 10 September 2017.
18
https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/corruption/ratification-status.html, viewed on 11 October 2017.
19https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-14&chapter=18&clang=_en,viewed on 11 October 2017.
1011－ 159 －

1.
2.
3.
4.

Chapter II on Preventive Measures;
Chapter III on Criminalization and Law Enforcement;
Chapter IV on International Cooperation; andChapter V on Asset Recovery.

In ASEAN, all Member States are State Parties to UNCAC, as shown below:
State

Date of Signature

Brunei Darussalam
Cambodia

11 December 2003

Indonesia
Lao PDR
Malaysia
MyanmarPhilippines
Singapore
Thailand
Viet Nam

18 December 2003
10 December 2003
9 December 2003
2 December 2005
9 December 2003
11 November 2005
9 December 2003
10 December 2003

Date of Approval,
Acceptance, Accession,
Succession or Ratification
2 December 2008
5 September 2007
(Accession)
19 September 2006
25 September 200924 September 2008
20 December 2012
8 November 2006
6 November 2009
1 March 201119 August 2009*per checking in the United Nations Treaty Section website (www.treaties.un.org) on 10 September 2017.

The Philippines signed UNCAC on 9 December 2003 and ratified it on 8 November
2006. As a State Party to UNCAC, pursuant to pacta sunt servanda, the Philippines is obliged
to criminalize certain forms of private and public corruption; institute or strengthen corruptionprevention measures; establish procedures that improve international cooperation; and set up
systems for the recovery of forfeited assets.
UNCAC readily shows that it is not only an international legal basis for cooperation,
but also a political tool for dialogue between countries and between governments and theircitizens. While it shows universally agreed concepts of corruption and ways to fight it, themechanism for country review can foster international exchange of expertise, good practices
and lessons learned.
III. FIRST REVIEW CYCLE (2010-2015)
Pursuant to Article 63, Chapter VII of UNCAC, the Conference of the States Parties(CoSP) was established to improve the capacity of and cooperation between States Parties toachieve the objectives set forth in UNCAC and to promote and review its implementation.
The CoSP, as the main policymaking body of UNCAC, supports States Parties in theirimplementation of UNCAC, and gives policy guidance to the United Nations Office on Drugs
and Crime (UNODC) to develop and implement anti-corruption activities. The CoSP later
adopted resolution 3/1, or the Implementation Review Mechanism (IRM), aimed at reviewing
each State Party’s compliance with the UNCAC provisions. There are two (2) review cycles
envisioned in the IRM: the first review cycle (2010-2015) examines each State Party’s
compliance with the provisions of Chapters III and IV, and second review cycle (2016-2021)
examines compliance with Chapters II and V.

－ 160 －

On 8 February 2012, the Philippines completed a comprehensive self-assessment
checklist, which was reviewed by peer reviewers from Egypt and Bangladesh. After conducting
desk review along with phone conferences, electronic mail exchanges and country visits, peer
reviewers cited certain successes and good practices but noted a total of thirty-four (34)challenges in the Philippines’ implementation of UNCAC Chapters III and IV.
In the implementation of UNCAC’s Chapter III on Criminalization and Law
Enforcement, the first review cycle points to a number of successes and good practices by thePhilippines, to wit:
1. The Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Programme
is considered a good practice, both in law and in operation,and the extended inclusion of other witnesses andadditional benefits is welcomed;
2. The incentives and rewards system under the Rules
Implementing Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713 is considered
a good practice;
3. The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction to hear matters
involving high ranking public officials so as not to
overburden the judicial system; and4. Philippine authorities have fully cooperated and exchanged
information with other States, when it came to theirattention that similar proceedings were ongoing overseas.
As to challenges, the first review cycle yielded two categories for the challenges: (i)challenges in the implementation and (ii) technical assistance needed to improve
implementation. For the challenges in the implementation, the following are identified which
could further strengthen existing anti-corruption measures:
1. Consider adopting a unified definition of public officials inline with UNCAC article 2, as well as expanding thisdefinition to include foreign public officials and officialsof public international organizations, notwithstanding any
existing privileges;
2. Consider, in the context of ongoing legal reforms, a standalone corruption-related law, which would include an
offence of active bribery of national public officials, ensure
consistency in its application, and extend the bribery
offence to transactions other than those listed insubsections 3(b) and (c) of RA 3019;
3. Inter-agency coordination and limited resources werenoted as challenges in the pursuit of bribery andembezzlement cases;
4. Consider legislative or other measures to enact active andpassive trading in influence provisions in line with theConvention;
5. A reported challenge is that asset and income disclosures
are not reviewed unless a complaint is received;
6. Consider enacting the offence of bribery in the private
sector;－ 161 －

7. Enact amendments to AMLA to cover the requirements of
UNCAC article 23, in particular the conduct described insubparagraphs (1)(a) and (1)(b)(i), and to include all
UNCAC-related offences as predicate crimes;
8. Furnish copies of the anti-money laundering laws to theUnited Nations;
9. Consider whether the criminal or non-criminal sanctions
for legal persons are effective, proportionate anddissuasive;
10. Criminalize the preparation of corruption-related offences;
11. Ensure that grants of executive clemency do not create asituation of impunity;
12. Consider entering into agreements or arrangements withother States for the relocation of witnesses and experts whogive testimony;
13. Provide sufficient resources for the effective
implementation of Senate Bill 2860, once adopted into law;
14. Extend the mandate of OMB to enter and inspect private
property;
15. Limited capacity and resources for law enforcement
agencies (such as the absence of any OMB regional offices)were noted as a challenge, including to address theconsequences of corruption;
16. Authorize OMB to have access to all relevant data andinformation, including tax, customs, financial and bankrecords;
17. Adopt proposed amendments to RA 1379 eliminating the
restriction that a matter cannot be filed before court one
year prior to a general election;
18. Broadly define conflicts of interest for purposes of the rules
implementing RA 6713;
19. To overcome challenges of inter-agency coordination,
grant competent anti-corruption bodies the necessary law
enforcement and prosecutorial powers to carry out theirfunctions effectively and without undue influence in theprivate and public sectors, with a clear legislative mandate
and appropriate resources and training to carry out theirfunctions nationally;
20. Consider enhancing law enforcement cooperation, inparticular to ensure that public officials and authorities
cooperate sufficiently in criminal investigations andprosecutions; limited financial incentives were noted as achallenge in this context;
21. Consider extending the direct privilege to request a Court
order for access to bank/financial records to other anticorruption authorities where appropriate;
22. Provide for the active and passive jurisdictional personality
principles; the application of jurisdiction in extradition
cases abroad is a reported challenge.

－ 162 －

For the technical assistance needed to improve implementation, the following forms oftechnical assistance could assist the Philippines in more fully implementing the Convention:
1. With respect to proposed revisions to the RPC, a summaryof international best practices, norms and expertise;
2. Article 15: Good practices/lessons learned; legislative
drafting; legal advice; on-site assistance by an anticorruption expert; development of an implementation
action plan; inter-agency coordination and investigative
training;
3. Article 16: Good practices/lessons learned; model
legislation; legislative drafting; legal advice;
4. Articles 21 and 41: Legislative drafting;
5. Article 23: Good practices/lessons learned; legal advice;
6. Article 25: Good practices/lessons learned; on-site
assistance by an anti-corruption;
7. Article 30: Capacity-building;
8. Article 31: Good practices/lessons learned;
9. Article 33: Legal advice; capacity-building; financial
resource;
10. Article 34: Good practices/lessons learned; development of
an implementation action plan; and
11. Article 36: Good practices/lessons learned; training on
investigative techniques; development of a central casemanagement system, data collection and training.
To ensure compliance with the above-cited challenges, the Philippines developed the21-Point UNCAC Agenda.
IV. 21-POINT UNCAC AGENDA
The 21-Point UNCAC Agenda was framed in December 2012. It is a multi-sectoral“Declaration of Commitments” for full institutional cooperation to ensure that the Philippines
adequately addresses these challenges, thus:
1. Enactment of a law or the amendment of existing law/s
defining “public officer” to conform to the UNCAC
definition;
2. Criminalization, through legislation, of active and passive
bribery of foreign public officials and officials of public
international organizations;
3. Imposition of stiffer and higher penalties and fines to an
offending corporation whose directors, officers, employees
or other officials or persons are adjudged criminally liableof an offense committed in relation to their duties,
responsibilities and functions, and incorporation ofcorruption-related offenses as a ground for dissolution of acorporation;－ 163 －

4. Passage of a law or amendment of any existing law/s toestablish as a criminal offense active and passive trading in
influence;
5. Amendment of Republic Act (RA) No. 6713 known as the“Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees;”
6. Amendment of Act No. 3815, otherwise known as the “The
Revised Penal Code” (RPC), in order to harmonize thedefinition of “person‟ found in Articles 315(Swindling/Estafa) and 316 (Other forms of swindling)
thereof, and Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1689, otherwise
known as the Decree “Increasing the Penalty for Certain
Forms of Swindling or Estafa” to conform with Article 22of the UNCAC;
7. Amendment of PD No. 1069, otherwise known as the“Philippine Extradition Law” to grant extradition on thebasis of reciprocity;
8. Amendment of Section 9 (a) and Section 11 of RA No.
3019, otherwise known as the “Anti-Graft And Corrupt
Practices Act” to increase the period of prescription forgraft and corrupt practices to thirty (30) years;
9. Passage of a law on Freedom of Information;
10. Passage of a law requiring public officials and employees
to submit written permission or a waiver of their rights to
privacy in favour of the Ombudsman to look into all
deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking
institutions both within and outside the Philippines,
including investment bonds issued by the Government of
the Philippines, its political subdivisions andinstrumentalities, and providing penalties for failure tocomply herewith;
11. Passage of amendment to RA No. 3019, otherwise known
as the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,” tocriminalize graft and corrupt practices in the private sector;
12. Passage of further amendments to RA No. 9160, otherwise
known as the “Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001,” toinclude the following:a. concealment or disguise as an unlawful activity; andb. expansion of the definition of money laundering andinclusion of designated non-financial businesses andprofessions among the list of covered institutions;13. Passage of the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act;
14. Passage of amendment to RA No. 6770, otherwise known
as “The Ombudsman Act of 1989,” to expand the authorityof the Ombudsman to inquire into bank deposits evenduring the investigation stage;
15. Promulgation of Rules of Procedure governing extradition
cases;－ 164 －

16. Submission to the United Nations of a revised declaration
allowing the Philippines to extradite persons on the basisof UNCAC;
17. Creation of fora among concerned agencies, as well as
Dialogues among legislators, the Department of Foreign
Affairs and their foreign counterparts, to identify countries
where extradition treaties may be needed;
18. Enactment of a law on mutual legal assistance in criminal
matters, as well as a law on transfer of detained persons
from the requested State to the requesting State;
19. Definition of terms of the Mutual Legal Assistance
Treaties;
20. Conduct of regular inter-agency consultations and increasein participation of the House of Representatives in theratification of treaties and the negotiation of effective
Transfer of Sentenced Persons Agreement; and21. Conduct massive information and localization campaign
on UNCAC and to ensure the integration of the UNCAC
framework and objectives in the Bangsamoro organic law
drafting.
V. PHILIPPINES’ BEST PRACTICESAs reported in the first review cycle, Philippines has a number of best practices in termsof implementation of UNCAC provisions related to criminalization and law enforcement, towit:A.

Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Programme
The programme is created under RA No. 6981, otherwise known as "The Witness
Protection, Security and Benefit Act." It is designed to encourage a person who has witnessedor has knowledge of the commission of a crime to testify before a court or quasi-judicial body,or before an investigating authority, by protecting him from reprisals and from economic
dislocation.
Any person who has witnessed or has knowledge or information on the commission ofa crime and has testified or is testifying or about to testify before any judicial or quasi-judicial
body, or before any investigating authority, may be admitted into the Program provided that:
a)
b)
c)

the offense in which his testimony will be used is a grave
felony as defined under the Revised Penal Code, or its
equivalent under special laws;
his testimony can be substantially corroborated in its
material points;
he or any member of his family within the second civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity is subjected to threats
to his life or bodily injury or there is a likelihood that hewill be killed, forced, intimidated, harassed or corrupted toprevent him from testifying, or to testify falsely, or
evasively, because or on account of his testimony; and－ 165 －

d)he is not a law enforcement officer, even if he would betestifying against the other law enforcement officers. In
such a case, only the immediate members of his family may
avail themselves of the protection provided for under said
programme.20

The benefits include the following: (i) security protection and escort services; (ii)immunity from criminal prosecution and not to being subjected to any penalty or forfeiture forany transaction, matter or thing concerning his compelled testimony or books, documents orwritings produced; (iii) secure housing facility; (iv) assistance in obtaining a means of
livelihood; (v) reasonable travelling expenses and subsistence allowance while acting as awitness; (vi) free medical treatment, hospitalization and medicine for any injury or illness
incurred or suffered while acting as a witness; (vii) burial benefits of not less than Ten
Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) if the witness is killed because of his participation in the
Program; (viii) free primary to college education for the minor or dependent children of awitness who dies or is permanently incapacitated; and (ix) non-removal or demotion at work
because of absences due to his being a witness and payment of full salary or wage while acting
as a witness.21
B.

Incentives and Rewards System under the Rules Implementing (IRR) of R.A. No.
6713
Under Rule V of the IRR of RA No. 6713, incentives and rewards shall be granted to
officials and employees who have demonstrated exemplary service and conduct on the basis of
their observance of the norms of conduct laid down in Section 4 of the law such as but notlimited to commitment to public interest, professionalism and simple living. 22 Incentives andrewards to government officials and employees of the year may take the form of any of thefollowing: (i) Bonuses; (ii) Citations; (iii) Directorships in government-owned or controlled
corporations; (iv) Local and foreign scholarship grants; (v) Paid vacations; and/or (vi)Automatic promotion to the next higher positions suitable to his qualifications and withcommensurate salary.23
C.

The Sandiganbayan
The Sandigabayan is a special anti-graft court created under PD No. 1486 pursuant to
the mandate of Section 5,24 Article XIII of the 1973 Constitution of the Philippines. The 1987
Constitution mandated the continuation of the Sandiganbayan. Several amendments have been
introduced to the original law creating it, such as RA Nos. 7975 and 8249, with the objectiveof strengthening both its organizational and functional structures. Under these new laws, thejurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan now includes cases involving public officials occupying
positions classified as salary grade (SG) 27 and higher. As provided under Section 4 of RA No.
8249, the Sandiganbayan shall have original exclusive jurisdiction over:
1. Violations of RA No. 3019 (Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Law);

RA No. 6981, Section 3.
Ibid, Section 8.
22
IRR of RA No. 6713, Rule V, Section 1.
23
Id., Rule V, Section 3.
24
SECTION. 5. The Batasang Pambansa shall create a special court, to be known as Sandiganbayan, which shallhave jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses
committed by public officers and employees, including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, in
relation to their office as may be determined by law.
20
21

－ 166 －

2. RA No. 1379 (Forfeiture of Illegally Acquired Wealth);
3. Crimes by public officers or employees embraced in Chapter II, Section 2, Title
VII, Book II of the RPC (Crimes committed by Public Officers), namely:
A. Direct Bribery under Article 210, as amended;
B. Indirect Bribery under Article 211, as amended;
C. Qualified Bribery under Article 211-A, as amended;
D. Corruption of public officials under Article 212 where one or more of theaccused are officials occupying the following positions in the government
whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of thecommission of the offense:a. Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional
director and higher, otherwise classified as SG 27 and higher, of theCompensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (RA No. 6758)
specifically including:a.1. Provincial governors, vice-governors, members of thesangguniang panlalawigan, provincial treasurers, assessors,
engineers and other provincial department heads;
a.2. City mayors, vice-mayors, members of the sangguniang
panglungsod, city treasurers, assessors, engineers and otherdepartment heads;
a.3. Officials of the diplomatic service occupying the position of
consul and higher;
a.4. Philippine Army and Air force colonels, naval captains and all
officers of higher rank;
a.5. Officers of the PNP while occupying the position of Provincial
Director and those holding the rank of Senior Superintendent or
higher;a.6. City and provincial prosecutors and their assistants; officials andthe prosecutors in the Office of the Ombudsman and special
prosecutor;
a.7. President, directors or trustees or managers of government
owned or controlled corporations, state universities or educational
institutions or foundations;b. Members of Congress and Officials thereof classified as SG 27
and up under the Compensation and Classification Act of 1989;
c. Members of the Judiciary without prejudice to the provision of theConstitution;
d. Chairmen and members of Constitutional Commissions, without
prejudice to the provision of the Constitution; ande. All other national and local officials classified as SG 27 and higher
under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.
4. Other offenses or felonies, whether simple or complicated by the commissionof other crimes, in relation to their office by the public officials and employees
mentioned above;
5. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive
Order (EO) Nos. 1, 2, 14 & 14-A issued in 1986;
6. Petitions for issuance of Writ of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas
corpus, injunction and other ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate
jurisdiction; Provided, jurisdiction is not exclusive of the Supreme Court;－ 167 －

7. Petitions Quo Warranto arising or that may arise in cases filed or that may be
filed under EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 & 14- A;
8. OTHERS provided the accused belongs to SG 27 or higher:
A. Violation of RA No. 6713 – Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards;
B. Violation of RA No. 7080 – The Plunder Law;
C. Violation of RA No. 7659 – The Heinous Crime Law;
D. RA No. 9160 – Violation of The Anti-Money Laundering Law when committed
by a public officer;
E. PD No. 46, referred to as the gift-giving decree, makes it punishable for any
official or employee to receive directly or indirectly and for a private person to
give or offer to give any gift, present or other valuable thing on any occasion
including Christmas, when such gift, present or valuable thing is given byreason of his official position, regardless of whether or not the same is for pastfavours or the giver hopes or expects to receive a favour or better treatment in
the future from the public official or employee concerned in the discharge of his
official functions. Included within the prohibition is the throwing of parties orentertainment in honour of the official or employee or his immediate relatives;
F. PD No. 749 grants immunity from prosecution to any person who voluntarily
gives information about any violation of Articles 210, 211 or 212 of the RPC,
RA No. 3019, Section 345 of the National Internal Revenue Code, Section 3604
of the Customs and Tariff Code and other provisions of the said Codes
penalizing abuse or dishonesty on the part of the public officials concerned andother laws, rules and regulations penalizing graft, corruption and other forms ofofficial abuse and who willingly testifies against the public official or employee
subject to certain conditions.
While the above apparently encompass public officers only, private individuals can besued in cases before the Sandiganbayan if they are alleged to be in conspiracy with the public
officer.
Presently, there are a total 35,368 cases filed as of 31 July 2017, with 33,306 cases
disposed of.25 Thus, only 5,232 cases are pending as of 31 July 2017. For years 2007 to 2017,
the breakdown of cases is as follows:
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017

25

Filed
93
433
211
297
482
395
969
452
357
1311
1535

Disposed
308
641
357
247
430
363
480
277
276
371
532

www.sb.judiciary.gov.ph－ 168 －

Pending
2319
2164
2062
2158
2228
2299
2862
3093
3206
4214
5232

D.

Legislation
Being an international obligation to align national/domestic laws with UNCAC and in
response to the challenges during the first review cycle, the following have been enacted by
the Legislative Department:
1. RA No. 10589, otherwise known as the "Anti-Corruption Month Act,” declaring
December of every year as "Anti-Corruption Month" throughout the entire country.
2. RA No. 10660, or an act strengthening further the functional and structuralorganization of the Sandiganbayan, further amending PD No. 1606.
3. RA No. 10910, an Act Increasing the Prescriptive Period for Violations of RA No.
3019, otherwise known as the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act” from fifteen(15) years to twenty (20) years.
4. RA No. 10365,26 an Act Further Strengthening the Anti-Money Laundering Law,
amending for the purpose RA No. 9160, otherwise known as the "Anti-Money
Laundering Act of 2001.”
E.

Executive Issuances and Practices
As for executive issuances, the following are presidential acts in order to comply with
UNCAC, to wit:
1. Presidential Proclamation No. 506, series of 2012
Recognizing that corruption poses serious problems and threats to thestability and security of societies, undermining the institutions and valuesof democracy, ethical values and justice, and jeopardizing sustainable
development and the rule of law, the President declares December 9 as
National Anti-Corruption Day, which coincides with the designation of
December 9 as international Anti-Corruption Day of the General Assemblyof the UNCAC.
2. EO No. 171, series of 2014
On 5 September 2014, the President issued EO No. 171 creating thePresidential UNCAC Inter-Agency Committee (Committee) to oversee theimplementation, coordination, monitoring and review of Philippine
compliance with the UNCAC. It is composed27 of the Executive Secretary,
who shall serve as the Chairperson of the Committee with the following
members:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

The Secretary of Justice as Vice-Chairperson;
The Secretary of Foreign Affairs as Co-Vice-Chairperson;
The Secretary of Budget and Management;
The Secretary of Socioeconomic Planning; andThe Secretary of Interior and Local Government.

Presented by Director Dennis Garcia of the Office of the Ombudsman (Philippines) during the 10 th Regional
Seminar on Good Governance for the Southeast Asian Countries.
27
EO No. 171, Section 2.
26－ 169 －

The Committee shall have the following functions:28
a. Assess, evaluate and review all the provisions of the UNCAC anddetermine its applicability and its compatibility with the existing legal
framework and laws;b. Formulate and develop plans, policies and response strategies related tothe implementation, monitoring and review of compliance with theState’s treaty obligations under UNCAC;
c. Undertake and coordinate the implementation of integrity development
and anti-corruption measures with appropriate branches of governmentthat will ensure its adoption and implementation;
d. Assess and monitor good governance and anti-corruption initiatives in
the country, collating all necessary data and information on corruptionrelated offenses for the comprehensive review of the implementation of
the UNCAC;
e. Set up and implement a communication plan to ensure transparency andaccountability in the assessment of the good governance and anticorruption initiatives in the country and conduct of awareness-raisingand advocacy, particularly those contributing to the non-tolerance ofcorruption;
f. Ensure compliance by the government with all its obligations under the
UNCAC, including the timely submission of treaty implementation
reports, replies and comments on cases filed with the United Nations
Office on Drugs and Crime;
g. Direct and ensure the creation of internal working groups (IWGs) fromamong the concerned government entities as well as the designation of
focal points, and institution of an effective system for multi-sector
arrangements in the implementation, coordination and monitoring of all
related endeavours under UNCAC;
h. Create technical working groups (TWGs) to conduct relevant studies andresearch on relevant legal instruments, administrative measures andeffective practices aimed at preventing corruption with a view todetermining their adequacy to prevent and reduce corruption;i. Ensure adherence to the objectives of UNCAC of all anti-corruption
programmes and good governance initiatives in the territorial andpolitical subdivisions of the country; andj. Report to the President every semester and recommend policy advice
and/or measures to ensure compliance with UNCAC;
k. Perform such other functions as may be directed by the President or as
may be necessary, consistent with the basic functions of the Committee.
3. EO No. 176, series of 2015
On 01 December 2014, the President issued EO No. 176, entitled,“Institutionalizing the Integrity Management Program as the National
Corruption Prevention Program in all Government Departments, Bureaus,
Offices, Agencies, including Government-owned and Controlled
Corporations, Government Financial Institutions, State Universities andColleges, and Local Government Units through the Establishment ofIntegrity Management Systems (IMS),” which institutionalizes the Integrity
28

Id., Section 3.

－ 170 －

Management Program (IMP) as the National Corruption Prevention
Program, through the establishment of the Integrity Management Systems(IMS).
The IMP covers dimensions or management systems linked to enhance bothindividual and systems integrity. Its objectives consist of reducing the levelof corruption vulnerabilities at the level of the public-sector institution toensure the attainment of its mandate and to improve the public’s trust andconfidence in the government.
The said Executive Order created a Program Management Committee(PMC) as the programme overseer of the IMP. The PMC is chaired and cochaired by the Office of the President and the Office of the Ombudsman.
Memorandum Circular No. 76 dated 15 April 2015 was issued urging all
public-sector institutions to initiate the establishment of IMS in theirrespective offices and adopt the IMP Handbook as the guide in
implementing the IMP.
Institutions implementing the IMP shall create an Integrity Management
Committee (IMC) to manage and guide the development and enforcementof integrity measures, as well as to encourage participation in IMP
implementation at the institution level. The IMP adopts as its framework theinternational standards and practices on anti-corruption measures under
UNCAC.
The IMP was initially piloted in five agencies, namely: the Department ofSocial Welfare and Development, the Department of Justice, the Bureau ofInternal Revenue, the Department of Public Works and Highways and theDepartment of Health. After the successful run of the pilot agencies, theIMP PMC extended the IMP implementation to another batch of agencies,
specifically, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, theDepartment of Transportation and Communications, the Department of theInterior and Local Government, the Department of National Defense, andthe Department of Education. A number of agencies then officiallycommunicated their requests and volunteered to undergo the IMP
implementation process. To date, thirty (30) public sector institutions haveundergone the initial stages of IMP implementation.
4. 2016 IRR of RA No. 9184 (Government Procurement Reform Act)
The provisions of IRR are in line with the commitment of the Philippines
to promote good governance and its effort to adhere to the principles oftransparency, accountability, equity, efficiency, and economy in its
procurement process. It is the policy of the government that procurement ofgoods, infrastructure projects and consulting services shall be competitive
and transparent, and therefore shall undergo competitive bidding. The
governing principles on government procurement are transparency ingovernment procurement, competitiveness, streamlined procurement
process, system of accountability and public monitoring process.

－ 171 －

5. EO No. 1, series of 2016
EO No. 1, entitled, “Reengineering the Office of the President towards
Greater Responsiveness to the Attainment of Development Goals,” aims toattain national development goals, which requires the efficient, responsive,
and just allocation of resources by eliminating duplication or overlappingof common functions, maximizing research utilization with minimum
disruption to operations, coordinating efforts more closely, sharing
information, and consistently working in a collaborative manner to advancedevelopment goals and uplift the quality of life of all Filipinos through aholistic, convergent, and participatory approach to leadership andgovernance.
6. EO No. 2, series of 2016
Consistent with Article 28, Article II of the 1987 Constitution, the State
adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its
transactions involving public interest, subject to reasonable conditionsprescribed by law, and Section 7, Article III of the Constitution guarantees
the right of the people to information on matters of public concern, thePresident issued EO No. 2 operationalizing in the Executive Branch thePeople’s constitutional right to information and the state policies to full
public disclosure and transparency in the public service.
7. EO No. 6, series of 2016
The President issued EO No. 6 institutionalizing 8888 Citizen’s Complaint
Hotline and establishing 8888 Citizen’s Complaint Center. The 8888
Citizen’s Complaint Hotline shall serve as a mechanism where citizens mayreport their complaints and grievances on acts of red tape and/or corruptionof any national government agency, government-owned-and-controlled
corporations, government financial institutions and other instrumentalities
in the government.
8. Administrative Order (AO) No. 79, series of 1999
Initially established by a Memorandum of Agreement executed on 11 June 1997,
AO No. 79 officially recognized the Inter-Agency Anti-Graft Coordinating
Council (IAAGCC), which is a voluntary alliance of government agencies
engaged in enforcing integrity and public accountability, namely, the Office of
the Ombudsman, Office of the President, Commission on Audit, Civil Service
Commission, Department of Justice, and National Bureau of Investigation.
These agencies formulate and develop concerted techniques and strategies in
the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of graft cases.
The IAAGCC developed the Guidelines of Cooperation that will strengthen
working relationships among themselves and establish the criteria and operatingprocedures in: (a) creating Inter-Agency task forces that will investigate
collective cases; (b) providing training programmes for their personnel; and (c)establishing a communication and coordination center to facilitate informationexchange and monitoring of relevant cases.
The IAAGCC has recently adopted a Strategic Plan for 2015-2018. A few ofthe major plans are the roll-out of Revised Guidelines on Cooperation;－ 172 －

publication of an Integrated Anti-Graft Investigation and Prosecution Manual;and development of an Integrated Case Management System for Graft and
Corruption Cases.
9. Memorandum Circular No. 03 enjoining all government official and employees
to strictly observe and comply with the required work hours.
10. Memorandum Circular No. 06 enjoining all official and employees to comply
with the prohibition against going to casinos.
As for practices adopted in the Executive Department, the following are practices
adopted by the President, to wit:
1. Annual UNCAC State Conference
The Philippines holds the UNCAC State Conference annually every
December, which started 2013. It is convened to gather all stakeholders in
the Philippines’ anti-corruption efforts. The UNCAC State Conference isattended by heads of all branches of the government, constitutional
commissions, officials from other government agencies, development
partners and the private sector, who come together to share information on
the initiatives and reform measures of their respective offices andorganizations, as part of its efforts to validate compliance with UNCAC. It is
the only event pertaining to anti-corruption that is attended by the highest
political level of the Philippine Government. Cited by the UNODC as one of
the UNCAC best practices, this annual Philippine State Conference has
gained international acclaim.
2. Advance Preparation for the second review cycle
In 2014, while awaiting the results of the drawing of lots for the Second
Review Cycle, the Office of the President and the Office of the Ombudsman
initiated a preliminary assessment of the Philippines’ implementation of theprovisions of UNCAC Chapters II (Preventive measures) and V (Assetrecovery). This is also consistent with the “going beyond the minimum”
approach espoused by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
The Philippines commenced its preparations by organizing a number of interagency cluster meetings composed of internal working groups from thepublic and private sector. Through joint efforts, the Philippines accomplisheda preliminary assessment report that will serve as basis for the UNCAC
Comprehensive Self-Assessment Checklist in the Second Review Cycle. The
Philippines also aims to enact legislative reforms even before undergoing
review, which shall commence in 2018.
3. International and national conventions
In view of the Philippines’ multi-sectoral approach in fighting corruption, theGovernment encourages the involvement of various stakeholders such as thecivil society and the private sector to reinforce the conviction that we are allpartners for change. Pursuant to this thrust, the Philippines regularlyorganizes multi-sector dialogues and conferences involving the public sector,
the private sector, and development partners like the World Bank and UNDP

－ 173 －

to enhance cooperation with respect to anti-corruption initiatives of theGovernment, under the auspices of UNCAC. These events pave the way forknowledge sharing, give an opportunity for capacity building, and assist in
the prioritization of technical assistance needs of the Philippines. The
Philippines also regularly sends delegates to international conferences inorder to share experiences and good practices with other States.
The major activities of the Philippines relative to the UNCAC IRM include
the following:
1. Capacity assessment of the Philippines’ anti-corruption
infrastructure led by the UNODC and the United Nations
Development Programme Bangkok Regional Hub held from 24
November to 1 December 2014 in Manila, Philippines;
2. Country visit of officials from the Government Inspectorate ofVietnam in July 2015, and representatives from the Governmentof Zambia in August 2015 in Manila, Philippines;
3. 6th Session of the CoSP held from 2-6 November 2015 in St.
Petersburg, Russian Federation. The Philippine delegation washeaded by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales and co-headed
by Commission on Audit Chairperson Michael G. Aguinaldo.
The Philippine Ambassador to the Russian Federation, and highranking officials of the Department of Justice, Anti-Money
Laundering Council Executive Director and Presidential
Commission on Good Governance also formed part of thePhilippine delegation;
4. 7th session of the UNCAC Implementation Review Group (IRG)
held from 20-24 June 2016 in Vienna, Austria;
5. 10th session of the Intergovernmental Working Group (IWG) on
Asset Recovery held from 25-26 August 2016 in Vienna, Austria;
6. 7th session of the IWG on Prevention held from 22-24 August
2016 in Vienna, Austria;
7. 5th session of the open-ended Intergovernmental Expert Meetingon International Cooperation held from 17-18 November 2016 in
Vienna, Austria;
8. Resumed 7th session of the IRG held from 14-16 November 2016
in Vienna, Austria;
9. Synchronized Consultation Meeting on UNCAC Implementation
and Review held on 18 November 2016 in Mabini Hall,
Malacañang, Manila;
10. Training for focal points or governmental experts participating in
the Second Review Cycle of the UNCAC IRM held from 14-16
June 2017 in Vienna, Austria;
11. 8th session of the IRG held from 19-23 June 2017 in Vienna,
Austria;
12. 8th Meeting of the IWG on the Prevention of Corruption heldfrom 21-23 August 2017 in Vienna, Austria; and13. 11th Meeting of the IWG on Asset Recovery held from 24-25
August 2017 in Vienna, Austria.

－ 174 －

VI. PHILIPPINE RESPONSE TO THE CHALLENGESIt should be emphasized that per the first review cycle, the results note that Philippines
is fifty-four percent (54%) compliant, twenty-nine percent (29%) partially compliant andseventeen percent (17%) non-compliant with the UNCAC provisions on criminalization andlaw enforcement.29
Based on data from the Good Governance Cluster of the Philippines, the followingshows the Philippines’ response to the Generalized System of Preference Plus (GSP+)
Monitoring Scorecard relative to its compliance with the challenges identified during the First
Review Cycle:
Issues –Description• Consider•
adoptingaunifieddefinition of
publicofficials, as
wellasexpandingthis definition
toincludeforeign public
officials.

•

Concrete Developments/Achievements on Implementation
In the 16th Congress, bills were filed in both Houses of Congress(House Bill No. 04783 and Senate Bill No. 2311) both entitled“An Act Strengthening the Code of Conduct and EthicalStandards for Public Servants” which define "Public Servant" as
including “any person holding or performing a public function in
the legislative, executive, administrative or judicial office in thegovernment, regardless of status of employment or engagement,
and whether or not they receive compensation . . .” The proposed
definition is in line with Article 2 of UNCAC.
Said bills (Enhanced Code of Conduct for Public Servants) havebeen refiled in the 17th Congress as SBN 870 and as HBN 418.
A proposed bill entitled “An Act Penalizing Bribery of Foreign
Public Officials and for Other Purposes” to expand the definitionof public officials to include foreign public officials has beendrafted but not yet filed in Congress.

On bribery:
Improvelegislation on• The provisions of the Revised Penal Code, particularly on Direct
bribery,
trading
inBribery (Article 201), Indirect Bribery (Article 211), Corruption
influence,of Public Officers (Article 212) and Qualified Bribery (Article
211-A) comply with the requirements of UNCAC.
money
launderingandconcealment.
Considerastand-alone
corruption
related law.
On trading in influence:•In the 16th Congress, the following bills were filed:29
From the Monitoring Report of the OP-OMB Joint Technical Working Group, which was done after the CRR,
after conducting a series of inter-agency meetings pursuant to the 21-Point Agenda.

－ 175 －

HBN 04821 (An Act Penalizing Influence Peddling) defines“influence peddling” as the “act of representing oneself, either
orally or in writing, as being able, whether real or imagined, toinfluence, facilitate or assist another person having somebusiness, transaction, application, request or contract with thegovernment in which the public official or employee has tointervene, in consideration of any present, gift or material or
pecuniary advantage.”
SBN 118 (An Act Penalizing Influence Peddling and for Other
Purposes) defines “influence peddling” as the “act of representing
oneself, either orally or in writing, as being able, whether real or
imagined, to influence, facilitate or assist another person havingsome business, transaction, application, request or contract withthe government in which a public official or employee has tointervene.”
However, said bills were not enacted into law because while theHouse version has passed third reading and has been transmitted
to the Senate for its concurrence, the Senate version remained at
the Committee level.
The Office of the Ombudsman and/or the Presidential UNCAC
Implementation Committee actively endeavours to urge Congress
to consider adopting the definition of active and passive trading
influence as contained in Article 18 of UNCAC.
On having a stand-alone corruption-related law:••

RA No. 10910, “An Act Increasing the Prescriptive Period for
Violations of RA 3019, Otherwise known as the “Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, from 15 years to 20 years, amending
Section 11 thereof,” lapsed into law on July 31, 2016 without thesignature of the President in accordance with Article VI, Section
27(1) of the Constitution. The law amended Section 11 of RA No.
3019, so that “all offenses punishable under the Act shallprescribe in 20 years.” The new prescriptive period would ensurethat those who violate the existing Graft Law can still be held
accountable for up to 20 years after the discovery of their act. The
new law is in compliance with the provisions of UNCAC.
In the 16th Congress, HBN 2300, which covers Book 1 on General
Provisions of the new Criminal Code, was approved at theCommittee level. However, no counterpart bill of the Criminal
Code was filed in the Senate. The draft Criminal Code,particularly Sections 39-42 of Chapter 2 (b), defines crimes
involving graft and corruption.The draft bill is being considered
to be refiled this 17th Congress.

－ 176 －

•Considerwhethercriminal andnon-criminal
sanctions forlegal persons
are effective,
proportionate
anddissuasive.

Amendments to BP Blg. 68 (Corporation Code of thePhilippines):
•
•

•

•

•

•

In the 16th Congress, the following bills were filed:
HBN 4409/SBN 2194 both entitled “An Act Amending Batas
Pambansa Blg. 68, ‘The Corporation Code of the Philippines’”.
The Corporation Code Amendments include several provisions
recognizing corporate criminal liability for graft and corrupt
practices and have provided for the imposition of stiff fines not
only for acting as intermediaries for graft and corrupt practices
but for engaging intermediaries for said purposes. In bothinstances, the failure of a corporation to show that is has installed
company policies and procedures against graft and corruption
shall be prima facie evidence of its liability.
The creation of a corporation for graft and corruption as well as
the commission by a corporation of graft and corrupt practices
have been made grounds for the dissolution of the said corporate
entity.
The fight against graft and corruption has also been brought to anindividual level by the amendments as directors, trustees orofficers of a corporation who tolerate graft and corrupt practices
committed by other individuals involved in the corporate
operations are punished for their failure to report said incidents.
To greatly ensure that corporate graft and corrupt practices arereported and may be substantiated by those who have first-handknowledge of the violations, one of the proposed amendments
provides for the protection of whistleblowers and the impositionof a hefty penalty on any person who shall retaliate against awhistleblower.
As to all other offenses or violations of the Corporation Code, thefine has been increased from One Thousand Pesos (Php1,000.00)
but not more than Ten Thousand Pesos (Php10,000.00) or byimprisonment for not less than thirty (30) days but not more than
five (5) years, or both, at the discretion of the court, to a fine of
not less than fifty thousand (Php50,000.00) pesos but not morethan One Million Pesos (Php1,000,000.00) and/or byimprisonment [for] OF not less than thirty (30) days but not morethan five (5) years, or both, at the discretion of the court. Further,
the corporation may also be dissolved in appropriate proceedings.
However, said bills were not enacted into law because while there
was already a Senate Committee Report, the counterpart bill in
the Lower House was not passed in the Committee Level. The
draft bills are being considered to be refiled in this 17th Congress.

Amendments to RA No. 8799 (Securities Regulation Code):•

Amendments to the Securities Regulation Code (SRC) have beendrafted and are being finalized in preparation for the filing of abill in the Congress. The administrative, civil and criminal－ 177 －

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Ensure that
grantsofexecutive
clemency do
not create asituationofimpunity.

sanctions for securities violations under the SRC have been
updated and expanded.
Not only has the administrative penalty cap been increased from
One Million Pesos (Php1,000,000.00) to Five Million Pesos(Php5,000,000.00) to serve as a deterrent to violations but
disgorgement, thus far a novel concept in Philippine securities
regulation, has been introduced to ensure that the offending
corporation will not unjustly profit from unlawful securities
schemes.
The amount of damages to be awarded in relation to civil
enforcement actions instituted by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) has been raised to not less than One Hundred
Thousand Pesos and shall be double the amount of the transaction
plus damage and a daily fine until full payment of the penalty ismade. The amount of the penalty may be treble or even quadruple
the transaction amount if the violation involved fraud, deceit andother aggravating circumstances.
A provision on the award to be granted whistleblowers as well as
the parameters for such an award has also been introduced toencourage transparency in corporate dealings as well as to provide
an incentive to those who shall report violations of the SRC.
As to the criminal penalty imposable against violators of the SRC
and the rules and regulations promulgated by the SEC, the same
have been raised from not less than Fifty Thousand Pesos(Php50,000.00) nor more than Five Million Pesos(Php5,000,000.00) to not less than Two Hundred Thousand Pesos(Php200,000.00) not more than Ten Million Pesos(Php10,000,000.00).
The SEC has already made available an updated scale of fines andpenalties to be imposed on violations of particular rules,
regulations and other issuances of the SEC for comment ofinterested parties through the submission of position papers andhas held a public consultation on the same. The updated scale istargeted to be issued within 2015.
In the 16th Congress, HBN 4407 and its counterpart bill, SBN 2465
were filed which bat for strong anti-graft and corrupt practicemeasures within a corporation and its dealings with government.
The draft bills are being considered to be refiled in this 17th
Congress.

The table below shows the number of executive clemencies granted
by past and present Presidents of the Philippines. This is based on thedata (as of 17 August 2015) provided by the Malacañang Records
Office.
Executive
Clemency

PCCA(198292)

PFVR(19921998)－ 178 －PJPEE
(19982001)

PGMA(20012010)

PBSA
III
(20102015)

Absolute
PardonCommutationof Sentence
Conditional
PardonConditional
Pardon with
Voluntary
Deportation
Conditional
Pardon with
ParoleCondition
Reprieve
Total
•

•

293

158

24

20

2

8399

10998

2497

1158

22

4272

3271

880

985

7

0

0

0

47

15

0

0

0

44

10

0
12964

0
14427

0
3401

478
2732

0
56

The decrease in the number of executive clemencies grantedshows that while the grant of executive clemency is discretionary
on the part of the President of the Philippines, the same has notbeen exercised indiscriminately.

Grant• In the 16th Congress, HBN 3739 and its counterpart bill, SBN 184
competent
were filed to require all public officials and employees, except thoseantiwho serve in an honorary capacity, to submit a written permission
corruption
or waiver in favour of the Ombudsman to look into all deposits ofbodieswhatever nature with banks or banking institutions, both within andnecessary law
outside the Philippines, including investment bonds issued by theenforcement
government of the Philippines, its political subdivisions andandinstrumentalities.
prosecutorial
powerstocarry out theirfunctionseffectively.
• More than a dozen bills were also filed to strengthen theinstitutional capacity of the Office of the Ombudsman, such as
HBN 5044 and SBN 605.
• HBN 5044 and SBN 1148 would allow the Office of the
Ombudsman to deputize private lawyers to act as investigators orprosecutors to act under the direct control and supervision of the
Ombudsman in certain special and meritorious circumstances.
• On the other hand, SBN 605 intends to augment the financial
resources of the Ombudsman by giving it a share in any property
forfeited in favour of the State under R.A. No. 1379, otherwise
known as the Forfeiture Law and thus increase its funding. The
bill provides a mechanism wherein 30% of the value of forfeitedassets shall be used as funding for the Ombudsman which willassist the continued progress of cases. The method therefore－ 179 －

•

•

•

•

•

Consider•enhancing law •enforcement
cooperation inensures additional funding to the Ombudsman, and eliminates theneed to reallocate funding from a stretched national budget.
HBN 5046 and SBN 1162 both seek to strengthen the forfeiture
powers of the State by amending R.A. No. 1379, otherwise known
as “An Act Declaring Forfeiture in favor of the State any Property
Found to have been Unlawfully Acquired by any Public Officer
or Employee and Providing for the Proceeding Therefor”.
SBN 2485 intends to grant additional investigative andprosecutorial powers to the Office of the Ombudsman, which
includes the leeway to employ wiretapping in especially
meritorious cases, the power to issue subpoenas and subpoenas
duces tecum to compel the compulsory attendance of any witness
or the production of evidence, the authority to inquire into bankand non-bank accounts, records and transactions, and the power
to punish for contempt. This bill is pending with the Senate
Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
HBN 4783 and SBN 2311 both contain a provision that empowers
the Ombudsman, Civil Service Commission, and the Commission
on Audit to obtain, at any time, all documents that may show apublic officer’s assets, liabilities, net worth, and business interestsand financial connections, commencing from the time thedeclarant was employed or engaged by the government, from allagencies, banks, and financial institutions, whether private or
public. If passed, this will be an exception to the Bank Secrecy
Law.
HBN 145, according to its sponsor, "seeks to support the effortsof the Government to rid itself of corruption by setting up a systemof rewards and protection for informants and their families. (The)bill will set up such a (system) specifically by (1) establishing amonetary-based rewards system for the benefit of the informers,(2) protecting informants against reprisals and against civil or
criminal liability when they make public interest disclosures, (3)ensuring that public disclosures are made to the proper public
entity and not the media, (4) ensuring that the inappropriate
publication of unsubstantiated disclosures does not damage thereputation of those accused, and (5) ensuring that proper records
on disclosures are kept.” On the other hand, SBN 1614 provides
for immunity in favour of the informant or whistleblower against
any action or proceedings taken against him by any person subjectof a disclosure; protection against disciplinary action or reprisals;
and financial rewards for whistleblowers. The latter bill also seeks
the establishment of a Whistleblower Benefits and Protection
Council, which will be composed of the Overall Deputy
Ombudsman, as Chairperson, and eight members. Said draft bills
are being considered to be refiled this 17th Congress.
AO No. 79, s. 1999 established the IAAGCC.
Last 01-03 June 2016, the IAAGCC conducted the Cross-Agency
Training for IAAGCC Specialists to enable the participants to－ 180 －

criminal
investigations
andprosecutions.

•demonstrate the technical and professional competencies on factfinding investigation and preliminary investigation.
The IAAGCC is presently chaired by the Chairman of theCommission on Audit (COA). On 2 May 2016, the COA
Chairman and the Ombudsman entered into a Memorandum of
Agreement.
VII.

CONCLUSION

While compliance comes as a natural consequence, in fact an obligation, of the consent
given by a state upon signing an international agreement, giving full effect and/or fullcompliance does not. Any compliance with international obligations will not come easy to any
state, especially if the same would entail heavy legislative enactments and executive structure
realignment. The same is true with signing UNCAC.
Based on the foregoing, UNCAC is not a blueprint for anti-corruption reform, but rather
a tool for a country, through the help of country and peer review and other mechanisms, todetect and identify the flaws and weaknesses in its institutional arrangements and procedures.
As a state party to UNCAC, it can be gainsaid that the Philippines is aggressive in complying
with its international obligations under UNCAC. Being fifty-four (54%) percent UNCACcompliant and twenty-nine percent (29%) partially compliant after the first review cycle,
Philippines, through its Executive Department, shows many indications of transparency andgood governance. The remaining seventeen percent (17%) non-compliant mainly points toenactment, amendment and/or repeal of laws in the country, which power obviously belongs
to the Legislative Department. Obviously, responses to these challenges would entail concerted
efforts from the different branches of government and agencies. It is a daunting task but it isdoable.

－ 181 －