Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/98991701/Graft-and-Corruption-a-School-Report
Timestamp: 2020-08-08 22:27:45
Document Index: 403652784

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 203', 'Art. 213', 'Art. 215', 'Art. 216', 'Art. 217', 'Art. 218', 'Art. 219', 'Art. 220', 'Art. 221']

Graft and Corruption_a School Report | Political Corruption | Corruption
Graft and Corruption_a School Report
speichernGraft and Corruption_a School Report für später speichern
Lisa Manzella Corruption Posted on Line Sept 2011
UNGC_AntiCorruptionReporting
Gobenciong v CA Digest
Nej Mp 1613274
ppt - b&c
Chap004CH
A Report by : Engr. Lucas On the Subject Public Personnel Management Masters in Government Management Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila August 3, 2003
- is the acquisition of gain or advantage through abuse or misuse of one‘s position or influence, whether in politics, business or any other undertaking. It is an act performed by a civil servant or a group of civil servants, acting alone by himself or by themselves, without involving any person outside the bureaucracy or jeopardizing the performance of duties by another bureaucrat.
- It refers to the acquisition of gain in dishonest or questionable manner.
- has been defined as the misuse or abuse of public office for private gain both in government and the private sector. It comes in several illicit forms, including bribery, extortion, fraud, nepotism, graft, speed money, pilferage, theft, embezzlement, falsification of records, kickbacks, influence peddling and campaign contributions.
- is the perversion or destruction of integrity or fidelity in discharging public duties and responsibilities by bribery or favor. It entails the use of public power for private advantage in ways which transgresses some formal rule of law. It involves participants from within and outside of the bureaucracy.
- it ―refers to the use of public office for private gain or the betrayal of public trust
for private gain," (National Anti-Corruption Framework and Strategy, 2000).
- rottenness: putrid matter: impurity: bribery.Source- Chambers Dictionary
According to common usage of term ―Corruption‖ of officials, we call corrupt a public servant who accepts gifts bestowed by a private person with the object of inducing him to give special consideration to the interests of the donor. Sometimes also the act of the officials offering such gifts or other tempting favors is implied in the concept. Extortion, i.e. demanding such gifts or favors in the execution of public duties, too, may be regarded as ―Corruption.‖ Indeed, the term
is sometimes also applied to officials who use the public funds they administer for their own benefit; who, in other words, are guilty of embezzlement at the expense of a public body.
In most instances, reference to corruption is made in connection with other subjects, such as crime or public administration. Many works referring to corruption do not attempt a conceptual and actual analysis.
Innate in the human psyche, irrespective of race or religion, is a sense of morality, of what is right and wrong.
As innate as this sense of morality, is the desire to gain advantage over others. A conflict of good and evil. Thankfully most people display more of the good, and some display extraordinary feats of humility and selflessness.
Yet others sway to the easy path of seeking advantage, wherever they can get it. Self and self gratification are their main motives. These individuals it could be said are corrupt or corruptible.
Corruption weakens the fabric of societies and leads to the society becoming dysfunctional.
The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines provides the basis of ethical and accountable behavior in the public sector. Section 1 of Article XI states that:
Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.
This provision requires every public official and employee to exhibit and live certain values while in government service. In addition, the State has been mandated by the Constitution to ―maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption‖.
• Commitment to public interest
• Justness and sincerity
• Political neutrality
• Responsiveness to the public
• Commitment to democracy
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or
benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction
between the Government and any other part, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law.
(c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present or other pecuniary or
material benefit, for himself or for another, from any person for whom the public officer, in any manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any Government permit or license, in consideration for the help given or to be given, without prejudice to Section thirteen of this Act.
Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private
enterprise which has pending official business with him during the pendency thereof or within one year after its termination.
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any
private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
(f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, without sufficient justification, to
act within a reasonable time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in favor of or discriminating against any other interested party.
(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly
and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby.
(h) Directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract
or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any
(i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain, or having a material
interest in any transaction or act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of which he is a member, and which exercises discretion in such approval, even if he votes against the same or does not participate in the action of the board, committee, panel or group. Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against those public officers responsible for the approval of manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular transaction or acts by the board, panel or group to which they belong.
(j) Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favor of
any person not qualified for or not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or
advantage, or of a mere representative or dummy of one who is not so qualified or entitled.
(k) Divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or
by him on account of his official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such information in advance of its authorized release date.
The Constitution of 1987 provides six grounds as basis for initiating impeachment proceedings against high ranking government officials, among which are graft and corruption. (The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional 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). (Article XI Sec. 2, Phil. Constitution)
These are unethical conduct ubiquitously present in all systems of government. The problem is not so much the present but rather the extent of its use and the negative effects upon the bureaucracy. Philippine laws rarely distinguish graft from corruption; these may even be used inter-changeably to refer to dishonest means or questionable activity or taking advantage of one‘s authority or position. Ivan Hill, formerly the Ethics Center at Washington D.C., believes that honesty increases efficiency and productivity both in business and in government. The
inference is that where there is dishonesty, there is the corresponding decrease of efficiency and productivity. Applied to public management, there will therefore be inefficient and poor delivery
of service, and if the segment of the bureaucracy infested is a revenue collecting entity, like the
Bureau of Customs and the Bureau of Internal Revenue, this could only mean a much depreciated revenue collection.
A summary report by Elizabeth Medina of the conference proceedings of the Asociacion
Española de Estudios del Pacifica (November 1997) discusses the kinds and causes of corruption
in 19 th -century Philippines.
Medina's report said: "The most important practices were falsification of accounting documents. The evidence of embezzlement of funds was destroyed and the cabezas de barangay were obliged to sign blank financial statements. Corrupt governors hid monies from the administration in Manila. They also found ways to discourage the natives from working so they would be thus liable to fines. Taxes and fees were arbitrarily set and excessively high, and illegal fines were often collected. Governors could embezzle the salaries of public officials and often demanded gifts from their hosts when they made official visits. Gifts were also necessary so that false documents would not be issued. The reasons for corruption were many: the governors had
executive, legislative and judicial powers. No checks and balances were built into the system, and when they were, they were unenforceable. There was a vague limit between what were public goods and what were private ones… The salaries of public officials were low… There was monetary crisis in the 19 th century… The laws were so complex as to easily hide misappropriations and fraud… Finally, the common people had no idea of the law and submitted meekly to the injustices and abuses…"
Many Filipinos today believe that corruption was negligible during the American colonial era. However, as suggested in Medina's report, corruption in the provinces was not altogether eradicated.
According to Alfred McCoy (1994), the Americans even ''used the term cacique to describe the provincial elites who combined local office with landed wealth to gain extraordinary control over the countryside.''
American colonial rule also helped develop another building block for the national spread of corruption. It maintained and expanded a big and interventionist government within a democratic framework. At the start, the colonial administrators promoted an economy led by private enterprise, and big business in particular, following the trend in the United States at the time. However, beginning in 1913, the government took an active role in the promotion of economic growth. Then, in 1916, the colonial administrators increasingly interfered in business. The consequent ''growth of government", as leader, large-scale development promoter and employer, laid the ground for massive and systematic corruption later in the country's history. With this legacy came expanded opportunities for corruption. These included granting individuals and organizations of special favors, policy changes, licenses, business contracts, and even employment (which in a patron client system redound to personal gain). Such practices effectively destroyed the development of a merit system in the Philippines.
After political independence in 1946, writers like nationalist Renato Constantino bewailed the pervasiveness of corruption in Philippine society. "Daily, in the halls of Congress, through the
printed word and over the airwaves, our politicians and our civic leaders expose, denounce, or deplore this or that government's anomaly. During election time the principal issue is always graft and corruption. No wonder public concern is almost exclusively centered on malfeasance in government. But with every change of administration, the problem only becomes aggravated. The panaceas and the grandiose promises fizzle out. The accusers become the accused; the halo of righteousness changes heads. The list of dishonor is different but corruption remains the same. Graft and corruption persist, like a cancer gnawing at our entrails, showing no signs of abatement and consigning us to a state of helplessness and hopelessness."
The Marcos government has been often regarded as the most systematically corrupt of all government administrations in the Philippines. This was not surprising considering the concentration of state powers in the President at the time. Unlike in previous administrations that more or less observed the independence of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, Marcos effectively controlled these three branches. Eventually, crony capitalism reached its zenith with the centralization of political power and the realignment of concentrated economic power from the old elites to favored Marcos associates.
Although the Marcos government has been considered as the most corrupt of all, succeeding political administrations had their own share and have not effectively controlled the problem. In fact, with the return to democracy after the EDSA Revolution, the perception is that the floodgates of corruption have been opened for more people at various levels of government and society. The vacuum left by the Marcos regime has been filled and even widened; opportunities have simply become available to a broader population.
Corruption always involves more than one person. This is need not be the case with stealing, for instance, or embezzlement. The lone operator is corruption is virtually non- existent, and such cases usually fall under fraud. One instance is making a false declaration of traveling expenditure or hotel bills. But even here there is often a silent understanding between officials who practice such frauds to let the situation prevail.
Corruption on the whole involves secrecy, except where it has become so rampant and so deeply rooted that some powerful individuals or those under their protection would not bother to hide their activity. But nevertheless, even here the corrupt motive is kept secret.
Corruption involves an element of mutual obligation and mutual benefit. The obligation or benefit need not always be pecuniary.
Those who practice corrupt methods usually attempt to camouflage their activities by resorting to some form of lawful justification. They avoid any open clash with the law.
Those who are involved in corruption are those who want definite decisions and those who are able to influence those decisions.
Any act of corruption involves deception, usually of the public body or society at large.
Any form of corruption is a betrayal of trust.
Any form of corruption involves a contradictory dual function of those who are committing the act. When an official is bribed to issue a business license by the party who offers a ―gift‖, the act of issuing the license is a function of both his office and his self-interest. He acts in a dual contradictory function. The same may be said of the party offering the bribe. Applying and receiving of license is a function of his lawful business interest, but resorting to bribery is not.
A corrupt act violates the norms of duty and responsibility within the civic order. It is based on the deliberate intent of subordinating common interest to specific interest.
The above list of characteristics of corruption could be extended. For an act to be classified as corrupt it has to contain all the above characteristics. The only possible exception is where corruption is difficult to distinguish from criminal extortion, where the party who bribes was compelled to do so, grudgingly and resentfully, and where the bribery was not considered as a necessary outlay for future gain. In such cases the victims kept no secrecy.
Opportunities for corruption abound in the absence or lack of order, transparency and accountability.
1. individual — this results from low morality of both bureaucrats and clients
2. organizational — the weaknesses arising from the system may be due to unrealistic compensation, inadequate controls in areas not susceptible to corruption; lack of explicit standards of performance for individual employees and organizational units; poor recruitment and selection procedures and government red-tape. The inability of the organization to provide adequate services to cope with the volume of demand breeds black market operations for government subsidized services. Poor public relations could result to public ignorance of what the organization does. This whets employee appetite for corruption. Poor working conditions and office facilities, weak organizational leadership and bureaucratic politization are other contributory factors.
3. societal — these are causes which are primarily attributed to the culture of a society. The open tolerance of the public of undesirable and inefficient employees has bred an employee psychology of recalcitrance and lack of fear of being censured or criticized
because of the assurance given to them by their political ―backers‖, all because of the “padrino system” or political patronage. The negative role model played by superiors creates an atmosphere of incompetence and defiance rather than efficiency and discipline. The “pakikisama” system puts heavy pressure upon the new employee to join his peers in the workplace as to perpetuate the legacy of administrative ineffectiveness.
The Filipino is further beset by extreme familism and personalism which generate inefficient delivery of services. The expected behavior of the Filipino is arrayed against cultural norms most of which are anchored on personalism. In the Philippines, people who practice graft and corruption are often put on the pedestal; they attain respectability while those who do not engage in such practices are branded as “tanga" for not taking advantage of their position and power. Behavior that is legally unacceptable may be ideal and acceptable depending upon the political culture of a society. The bureaucrat is expected to deal equally with everyone, whether relatives or strangers. They are not supposed to receive gifts in any form. However, this expected behavior often clashes with the personal way Filipinos get on terms with one another. The practice of taking care of their kin is a deeply ingrained trait which could result in partiality and preferment in his official dealings. He gives priority to the transactions of his family however down the file these may be. Such personalism is not limited only to blood relations but extends to all those sanctified by ritualistic ties like the compadre system, including neighbors, friends and other persons with whom, one interacts. All these practices explain the persistence of the social evils in our society.
c. revenue raising and collecting entities like the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Bureau of Customs, Department of Transportation and Communications, and the treasury offices.
Two variants of corruption have been identified as negative bureaucratic behavior in the Philippines:
that which involves only civil servants like giving lucrative positions and promotions to the highest bidder and giving and accepting bribes (padulas) to get a preferred position or receive lenient treatment than what is deserved, especially in cases where the employee is under administrative investigation.
that which involves a person or persons outside the bureaucracy either of whom initiates the act.
2. misclassification
3. misdeclaration
4. outright smuggling
5. abuse of bonded warehouse permits
There is undervaluation when an importer depreciates his imported goods very much below the actual cost. For instance, a sardine importer brings in a million cans. He pays P2.00 per can before taxes. Sardines are subject to 20% customs duty, as of January, 1991, or 40 centavos per can. If the importer is dishonest, he undervalues the importation to P1.00 per can before taxes and therefore pays only 20 centavos instead of 40 centavos as customs duty. With millions of cans of sardines, and with the number of importers doing this, government is defrauded by the millions of pesos. Customs appraisers check the value of the imported goods against the official customs published values. When they are bribed, they will not bother to check, and if they check they deflate the value.
Outright smuggling occurs when the cargo is unloaded not in the designated place or port of entry. For example, when the vessel enters Philippine waters, it is met and the cargo is transferred to “kumpits" and brought to shore somewhere, other than the designated entry port and from there picked up by cargo trucks, sorted and delivered to contract-outlets, without paying customs duties. The culprits here are the coastguard and the military at the checkpoints who are paid off to let the cargo pass.
Abuse of bonded warehouse permits occurs when an importer brings in raw materials to be made into finished products. He does not pay taxes for the raw materials because he holds a permit to import. But in reality, he sells these raw materials to manufacturers at a price slightly lower than when the factories import by themselves. The culprits involved in this operation are
the customs guards of the warehouse, the accountant of the bonded warehouse and the legal division of the customs office.
If the causes of graft and corruption are individual, organizational and societal, said three sectors are also affected. To the individual there is loss of self-respect and ultimate dehumanization; to the organization it could result in subversion of authority structure and disillusionment within the bureaucracy. To society, it could mean increased administrative cost and revenue loss to government. There will be corresponding deterioration of public service and loss of confidence in government.‖ There will be goal displacement as employees pursue personal interests, rather than organizational and social objectives. The intent of policy and the procedures for their implementation become useless since target beneficiaries are substituted for. Unauthorized control mechanisms take precedence over legal rules and regulations. Authoritative allocation of values envisioned by legislation gives way to shady deals and the demands of personal expediency. It brings about frustration and cynicism which could undermine faith and confidence in the viability and effectiveness of the democratic system.
Graft and corruption are encouraged by public apathy which results from bad and ill-managed government. But its most important and potent medium is the individual official or employee. Let us take the Bureau of Customs as a case in point, since it is the number one collecting arm of government which account for four-fifths of the total governmental revenue generated. This entity administers control and police authority over all harbors, piers, airports, wharves, ports, bays, rivers and inland waters throughout the Philippines. Its general duties and powers include assessment and collection of lawful revenues from imported goods and other fees, charges, dues, fines and penalties. It is charged with preventing and suppressing smuggling; supervision and control over the entrance and clearance of vessels and aircraft engaged in foreign trade; enforcement of customs and tariff laws and other rules and regulations relating to tariff and customs administration; supervision over the handling of foreign mail to collect duties on articles smuggled through mails; control import and export cargoes landed and stored in piers, airports, terminal and depot facilities like container yards and flight stations, and exercises jurisdiction over seizure and forfeiture cases in accordance with tariff and customs laws. While the Bureau of Customs exercises extensive powers, these powers could be abused especially if these entail discretion. Newspaper reports of customs men charged of fraud, smuggling rings bared, and cargoes worth millions seized, are not uncommon.
―Cases of food flour smuggling proliferated when the government imposed a 30% import duty on food flour imports and only 10% for industrial flour. Unscrupulous traders declared their food flour imports as industrial flour to do away with paying higher taxes. Smuggled food flour posed unfair competition with the imported ones which were legally paid for.‖
―Graft charges were filed with the Tanodbayan against nine customs personnel and four others for allegedly conniving with smugglers in defrauding the government of millions of pesos in revenue.‖
any conduct of any person (whether or not a public official) that adversely affects, or that could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial exercise of official functions by any public official, any group or body of public officials or any public authority; or
any conduct of a public official that constitutes or involves the dishonest or partial exercise of any of his or her official functions; or
any conduct of a public official or former public official that constitutes or involves a breach of public trust; or
any conduct of a public official or former public official that involves the misuse of information or material that he or she has acquired in the course of his or her official functions, whether or not for his or her benefit or for the benefit of any other person.
official misconduct (including breach of trust, fraud in office, nonfeasance, misfeasance, malfeasance, oppression, extortion or imposition);
obtaining or offering secret commissions;
election bribery;
election funding offenses;
election fraud;
revenue evasion;
illegal drug dealings;
obtaining financial benefit by vice engaged in by others;
One catalyzing agent of graft and corruption is red tape. This is a bureaucratic procedure characterized by excessive and unnecessary - delay in transacting business with government which is intentionally committed. It is a practice that slows down or hampers the delivery of much-needed basic services. When there is undue delay in the processing of transactions, people resort to fixers who collude with corrupt employees and officials to expedite business transactions. This is a common phenomenon in government offices. Fixers with connections
inside the different offices facilitate the issuance of marriage license or certificate of birth or of death. After all, marriages are not made in heaven but at the city hail with the price set by the fixer.
Certainly, the client of city hall would be willing to shell out a few pesos as "fixer's fee" rather than queue the long line aggravated by the slow-paced processing process. This is the price paid for the inefficiency of the bureaucracy however unethical the practice is.
―Let no man who claims to be friend, relative or ally presume to seek license because of the relationship. If he offends the new society, he should be punished like the rest.‖
Unfortunately, however, his administration committed the most number of cases of nepotism. Critics maintain that it was during the Marcos era that nepotism was institutionalized. The Aquino administration also showcased nepotism. If the Marcoses and the Romualdezes had their day, the Aquinos and the Cojuangcos also have theirs. The Ramos administration and the Estrada administration have their respective shares too. So what else is new? After all unethical behavior and practices have always been with us. In our Muslim society, this problem is of more acute proportion. But why the insatiable desire of relatives of presidents to serve in government? Why do public officials appoint relatives to sensitive positions? Should personal loyalty and intimacy outweigh competence, seniority and the merit system? These are administrative dilemmas which have to be resolved.
In the Philippines, there is a strong belief that corruption is prevalent. In a 1998 Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey, more than 70 percent of the respondents thought that corruption existed in government. Nearly 40 percent believed that there was ''a great deal" of corruption.
Based on its Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) for 99 countries, Transparency International rated the Philippines as the 54th among the most corrupt countries in 1999. The Philippines scored 3.6 based on the CPI scale of 1 (high perception) to 10 (negligible perception).
Indeed, in a society with a long history of rapacity and plunder in the ranks of the state and the elite, and powerlessness among the masses, the use of public office has been identified with gaining and maintaining economic, political and social power. Both private citizens and government employees habitually use this office to further their self-interest at the expense of the common good. This custom has prevailed in the Philippines under a long and continuing regime
of rent capitalism, in contrast to production-oriented capitalism.
Here is the anatomy of some types of corruption, taken from the website of the Transparent Accountable Governance project.
He cited an engineer who supervised road pavement projects in an Eastern Visayas district. The engineer cut the cement used by 20 to 30 percent "to save on materials." To do this he would leave hollow the middle portion of the road. Only gravel now occupies that section, though covered by a thin covering of cement.
"A foreman of a construction company building a seawall in the same district, meanwhile, admits he is using `small stones' in the inner portion of the wall," wrote Parreño.
"That's not supposed to be done," says the foreman, "but no one can see it, anyway." This cuts down the cement used by 20 percent.
"Barangay officials act as the conduit for purchasing votes," writes Tirol. "They know who among their constituents can be bought and on election day itself, they ensure that these people actually go to the precinct and cast their vote for the preferred candidate."
THE FIGHT AGAINST GRAFT AND CORRUPTION
The legal infrastructure and political commitment are supported and complemented by the existence of oversight institutions. The creation of the oversight institutions that deal with issues of ethics, accountability, graft and corruption are mandated by the Constitution. The common feature of these institutions is they enjoy a substantive degree of fiscal autonomy in the sense that they are not subject to the fiscal controls of the executive. The budget is directly released to these institutions and the heads are authorized to realign savings from their budget. They also have quasi-judicial powers in that they can adjudicate and decide cases and enforce their own
decisions, including the imposition of sanctions which may include suspension from office or even dismissal from government service.
In the Philippines, the three constitutionally mandated oversight institutions are the Civil Service Commission, the Office of the Ombudsman and the Commission on Audit.
The Civil Service Commission is the central personnel agency of the government. Under Section 3, Article IX-B of the Constitution, the CSC is mandated to ―establish career service and adopt measures to promote morale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness, and courtesy in the civil service.‖ It is also tasked to ―institutionalize a management climate conducive to public accountability.‖ CSC‘s effort involves in enforcing ethics and accountability of line agencies basically involves three approaches. One approach is regulatory, the other, corrective, and the last one, developmental. The first approach addresses compliance of- agencies with policies and standards on HRD systems set by the CSC. For instance, CSC prescribes qualification standards for each and every position in the Philippine government. Non-compliance with the QS by agencies in the processing of appointments of their staff results in the disapproval by the CSC of such appointments. But, apart from the substantive requirements for practically all kinds of personnel actions such as the publication requirement and the promotion and selection board processes. Non-compliance with the procedural requirements constitutes ground for corrective or even punitive action. The second approach deals with disciplinary actions against official or employee for infractions committed in relation to the performance of his/her official functions. The Administrative Code of 1987 or Executive Order No. 292 outlines the various acts that are subject to administrative disciplinary proceedings. However, administrative discipline is not a function within the exclusive jurisdiction of CSC. Agency heads as well as the Office of the Ombudsman also have the authority to proceed against erring government officials and employees. The third approach is developmental and will be discussed later in the succeeding paragraph.
The Office of the Ombudsman acts as a prosecutor against those charged with the violation of RA 3019, RA 6713 and the law against ill-gotten wealth, among others. It is mandated to investigate and prosecute the criminal liability of public officials and employees involved in graft and corruption.
The Commission on Audit is the fiscal watchdog of the government. COA is responsible for ensuring legal and proper disbursement of public funds and preventing irregular, unnecessary, or extravagant expenditures or usage of public funds. It also has quasi-judicial powers.
All these oversight institutions enforce accountability ethic in government.
B. Traditional approaches
Since independence, numerous mechanisms have been designed to counteract corruption in the Philippines. The traditional approaches include setting the legal framework and establishing anti-
graft and corruption bodies like presidential committees, commissions, task forces and other units.
The council received presidential recognition only in August 1999 through President Estrada's Administrative Order Number 79 which allotted P5 million for antigraft activities.
At present, the Ombudsman and the PCAGC are the principal actors in government to act on complaints and cases of graft. Some of the cases are resolved by the Ombudsman while the others are elevated to the Sandiganbayan. Cases where the accused have been found guilty are sent to the Supreme Court or to the Court of Appeals. Currently, administrative cases are automatically sent to the Court of Appeals while criminal cases like the violation of the Anti- Graft and Corruption Practices Act go directly to the Supreme Court.
The issues of ethics and accountability pose a continuing challenge to the Philippine government. The mechanisms and infrastructure that have been put in place, as outlined in this paper, may not yet be the best or ideal in the sense that ethical and accountable behavior in the public sector is still much to be desired in the Philippines. But, there is so much hope to hold and believe that there will be many opportunities to lead and change for the best
a. ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT (Republic Act No. 3019 as amended by Presidential Decree No. 677)
b. CODE OF CONDUCT & ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES (Republic Act No. 6713)
c. AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING THE CRIME OF PLUNDER (Republic Act No. 7080 as Amended by Republic Act No. 7659 (The Death Penalty Law)]
d. THE OMBUDMAN ACT OF 1989 (Republic Act No. 6770)
e. MAKING IT PUNISHABLE FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES TO RECEIVE, AND FOR PRIVATE PERSONS TO GIVE GIFTS ON ANY OCCASION, INCLUDING CHRISTMAS (Presidential Decree No. 46)
Article XI of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines (Accountability of Public Officers)
Section 5. There is hereby created the independent Office of the Ombudsman, composed of the Ombudsman to be known as Tanodbayan, one overall Deputy and at least one Deputy each for
Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. A separate Deputy for the military establishment may likewise be appointed.
(1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. (2) Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public official or employee of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well as of any government-owned or controlled corporation with original charter, to perform and expedite any act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties. (3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official or employee at fault, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith. (4) Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate case, and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law, to furnish it with copies of documents relating to contracts or transactions entered into by his office involving the disbursement or use of public funds or properties, and report any irregularity to the Commission on Audit for appropriate action. (5) Request any government agency for assistance and information necessary in the discharge of its responsibilities, and to examine, if necessary, pertinent records and documents. (6) Publicize matters covered by its investigation when circumstances so warrant and with due prudence. (7) Determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape, mismanagement, fraud, and corruption in the Government and make recommendations for their elimination and the observance of high standards of ethics and efficiency. (8) Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or perform such functions or duties as may be provided by law.
TITLE VII REVISED PENAL CODE CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
Who Are Public Officers? - any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election or appointment by competent authority, shall take part of the performance of public functions in the Government of the Philippine Islands, or shall perform in said Government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class, shall be deemed to be a public officer. (Art. 203)
Art. 213. Frauds against the public treasury and similar offenses. - The penalty of prison correccional in its medium period to prison mayor in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from 200 to 10,000 pesos, or both shall be imposed upon any public officer who:
2. Being entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts, shall be guilty of any of the following acts or omissions;
(c) Collecting
otherwise, things or objects of a nature different from that provided by law.
When the culprit is an officer or employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue or Bureau of Customs, the provisions of the Administrative Code shall be applied.
Art. 215. Prohibited transactions. - The penalty of prison correctional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any appointive public officer who, during his incumbency, shall directly or indirectly become interested in any transaction of exchange or speculation within the territory subject to his jurisdiction.
Art. 216. Possession of prohibited interest by a public officer. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period, or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon a public officer who directly or indirectly, shall become interested in any contract or business in which it is his official duty to intervene.
Art. 217. Malversation of public funds or property; Presumption of malversation. - Any public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same, or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, or through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property, shall suffer:
Art. 218. Failure of accountable officer to render accounts. - Any public officer, whether in the service or separated there from by resignation or any other cause, who is required by law or regulation to render account to the Insulator Auditor, or to a provincial auditor and who fails to do so for a period of two months after such accounts should be rendered, shall be punished by prison correctional in its minimum period, or by a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos or both.
Art. 219. Failure of a responsible public officer to render accounts before leaving the country. - Any public officer who unlawfully leaves or attempts to leave the Philippine Islands without securing a certificate from the Insular Auditor showing that his accounts have been finally settled, shall be punished by arresto mayor, or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos or both.
Art. 220. Illegal use of public funds or property. - Any public officer who shall apply any public fund or property under his administration to any public use other than that for which such fund or property were appropriated by law or ordinance shall suffer the penalty of prison correctional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from one-half to the total of the sum misapplied, if by reason of such misapplication, any damage or embarrassment shall have
Art. 221. Failure to make delivery of public funds or property. - Any public officer under obligation to make payment from Government funds in his possession, who shall fail to make such payment, shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine of from 5 to 25 per cent of the sum which he failed to pay.
Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and any other part, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law.
Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit, for himself or for another, from any person for whom the public officer, in any manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any Government permit or license, in consideration for the help given or to be given, without prejudice to Section thirteen of this Act.
Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private enterprise which has pending official business with him during the pendency thereof or within one year after its termination.
Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, without sufficient justification, to act within a reasonable time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in favor of or discriminating against any other interested party.
Directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest.
Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain, or having a material interest in any transaction or act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of which he is a member, and which exercises discretion in such approval, even if he votes against the same or does not participate in the action of the board, committee, panel or group. Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against those public officers responsible for the approval of manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular transaction or acts by the board, panel or group to which they belong.
Divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by him on account of his official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such information in advance of its authorized release date.
Sec. 4. Prohibition on private individuals. - (a) It shall be unlawful for any person having family or close personal relation with any public official to capitalize or exploit or take advantage of such family or close personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any present, gift or material or pecuniary advantage from any other person having some business, transaction, application, request or contract with the government, in which such public official has to intervene. Family relation shall include the spouse or relatives by consanguinity or affinity in the third civil degree. The word "close personal relation" shall include close personal friendship, social and fraternal connections, and professional employments all giving rise to intimacy which assures free access to such public officer.
Sec. 13. Suspension and loss of benefits. - Any public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery is pending in court, shall be suspended from office. Should he be convicted by final judgment, he shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any law, but if he is acquitted, he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the meantime administrative proceedings have been filed against him.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 46 (November 10, 1972)
MAKING IT PUNISHABLE FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES TO RECEIVE, AND FOR PRIVATE PERSONS TO GIVE GIFTS ON ANY OCCASION, INCLUDING CHRISTMAS.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7080 [As Amended by Republic Act No. 7659 (The Death Penalty Law)] (July 12, 1991)
Section 1. d. "Ill-gotten wealth" means any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession of any person within the purview of Section two (2) hereof, acquired by him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or series of the following means or similar schemes:
1. Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation
of public funds or raids on the public treasury;
belonging to the National government or any of its subdivisions,
agencies or instrumentalities or government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;
Sec. 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder; Penalties. - Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d) hereof in the aggregate amount or total value of at least Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any person who participated with the said public officer in the commission of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such offense. In the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances, as provided by the Revised Penal Code, shall be considered by the court. The court shall declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets including the properties and shares of stocks derived from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in favor of the State. [As Amended by Section
12, Republic Act No. 7659 (The Death Penalty Law)]
Sec. 3. Competent Court. - Until otherwise provided by law, all prosecutions under this Act shall be within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
Sec. 4. Rule of Evidence. - For purposes of establishing the crime of plunder, it shall not be necessary to prove each and every criminal act done by the accused in furtherance of the scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth, it being sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy.
Sec. 5. Suspension and Loss of Benefits. - Any public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation, is pending in court, shall be suspended from office. Should he be convicted by final judgment, he shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any law, but if he is acquitted he shall be entitled to reinstated and to the salaries and other benefits which he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the meantime, administrative proceedings have been filed against him.
Sec. 6. Prescription of Crime. - The crime punishable under this Act shall prescribe in twenty (20) years. However, the right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officers from them or from their nominees or transferees shall not be barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel.
Sec. 7. Separability of Provisions. - If any provisions of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance are held invalid, the remaining provisions of this Act and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
A Final Word (Toward New Beginnings, as stated in the SONA of former Pres. Estrada, July 24, 2000)
“Graft and corruption is the worst form of rottenness in our society. It erodes the moral fabric of our people, robs the poor, increases the costs of doing business, erodes tax collection efforts, and drives away investments. The World Bank estimates that at least 20 percent of government project funds ends up as kickbacks.
We can no longer fight corruption piecemeal. We need a comprehensive approach that would reduce opportunities for corruption; remove needless regulations and simplify procedures; eradicate the end to recover electoral expenses by corrupt means; increase public vigilance both to deter and to detect commissions of graft; reform budget processes; improve meritocracy in the civil service; target selected departments and agencies for cleansing; increase the efficiency and speed in catching offenders and their prosecution; stiffen sanctions against corruption partnerships with the private sector; and support judicial reform to make the courts part of the solution rather than part of the problem. The courts should not allow themselves to be used as a refuge for scoundrels.”
3. PDI Article: Corruption as a Way of Life By: Dr. Eric Vincent C. Batalla August 27, 2000
4. Republic Act No. 3019 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act as Amended by P.D. No. 677
5. Republic Act No. 3815 The Revised Penal Code December 8, 1930
7. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7080 [As Amended by Republic Act No. 7659 (The Death Penalty Law)] (July 12, 1991)
8. Toward New Beginnings SONA of former Pres. Joseph E. Estrada July 24, 2000
9. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6713 Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
10. EXECUTIVE NO. 292 Instituting the ―Administrative Code of 1987‖ (July 25, 1987)
Dokumente ähnlich wie Graft and Corruption_a School Report
Ronjay Galletes
krishna_kalyan_1
Daniels Ib14inppt 05
aadiadarsh
Week 4 S2 2016
!Anti-corruption Policy in Croatia
DHR Quid Pro Quo with Pharr PD, PSJA ISD, and Juan Guerra
Lupe Chavez Jr
ImprovingEfficiencyEffectivenessAndAnti-CorruptionOutcomes
chapter one william 29
Mehr von napema.educ4790
IPCR Form
Iiee Mid-year Convention 2018
Concepts Procurement
Patrol 117 Neighborhood Watch - A Primer
Human Resource Management System Framework
Resources for Human Health
Impact of Ideology on Public Policy
09Amended Guidelines CPES
Basic Elec 1GR9
maria nia feruelo
Into the Future... Ready to Be a Global Skilled Professional
Article Book- Decisive
Joe Ellie
Hrms Mission
Cultural Fair for Workers by Workers
January Newsletter of PWWSD in English
Jerome Thomas Complaint
List of Florida Code Statutes
East Riding News October 2009
Units 1-4 300 Word Essay
G.R. No. 168662 February 19, 2008
Yohan Gruloic3
Dallas Police Murder Report
Research paper on youth crimes
GR No. 155258 - Cano vs. People
G.R. No. 130372 July 20, 1999
201805__eSummon_EN_125941
01 Introduction Civil Personality-Marriage
Delhi-Judicial-Services-Main-2008-Criminal-Law-_-Delhi-Law-Academy.pdf
Estipona Case RA 9165
People v Balmores Digest (1)
Peoria County booking sheet 04/13/14
United States v. Pasquale Panza, Seymour Ringle, Charles Fruscione, Gregory Cappello, Gregory Boutelle, Christopher Merlino, 750 F.2d 1141, 2d Cir. (1984)
Ortiz-Casanova v. United States, 1st Cir. (1995)