2nd Sem

Governance by Stalemate (related to the judiciary)

Disclaimer: This article came from the site http://pcij.org/dap2004.html


Governance by Stalemate
By Sheila S. Coronel

Based on a speech made at the graduation ceremonies of the Master in Public Management Program, Development Academy of the Philippines)
CRYING Ladies,” a movie that was shown at the recent Manila Film Festival had a scene that came straight out of real life. In it, the driver of a car makes the wrong turn on a one-way street and is promptly stopped by a waiting policeman. The cop’s voice is gruff, but not threatening. “Gusto mong isyuhan na kita ng tiket? — You want me to issue you a ticket now?” he asks the driver.
The meaning of that question was not lost on the motorist. He fumbles in his pockets and fishes out P100. The cop looks at the bill and laughs. “Panahon pa ni Marcos ‘yan — that was the going rate during the Marcos era,” he says disdainfully. The driver pleads: It’s all the cash he has. The cop puts his hand in his chin. He is thinking. He looks the guy over. He notices the swanky, designer sunglasses the driver is wearing and takes those instead.
“Crying Ladies” was such a hit, not so much because it starred Sharon Cuneta, but because it portrayed everyday incidents with a lot of humor but without judgment. The policeman was just trying to survive. So was the driver. In the quirky equation of this amoral universe, they were even.
The policeman’s passing reference to Ferdinand Marcos was a pointed one. After all, Marcos’s dictatorial regime was called a kleptocracy. Marcos ruled for 20 years and robbed the country blind. But 18 years after he was ousted in a “people power” uprising, corruption remains a fact of everyday life. Corruption charges have tainted nearly every level of government-from traffic policemen and low-level bureaucrats to presidents.
Filipinos are proud of the fact that we have mobilized people power-first in 1986 and again in 2001-both times, against corruption and the abuse of power. But the truth is that we have also shown great tolerance for malfeasance in day-to-day life. Citizens grease the palms of policemen to get out of paying a fine or that of government clerks to get past the red tape. Citizens also expect doleouts from officials, whether it is money to bury a relative, payment of medical bills, or a donation to a village fiesta. Politicians see themselves as some sort of Robin Hood, saying they dip their fingers in the public till only so they could meet their constituents’ demands.
Vote buying is rampant during elections, with many selling their votes to the highest bidder. Many officials use bribes or commissions from government projects to fund their campaigns. Other candidates sell themselves to campaign donors, whether these are vice lords, tobacco tycoons, or CEOs of beer companies. The result is a chain of perverse behaviors and even more perverse reasoning. Politicians say they steal because people expect to be bought, while voters demand doleouts because they think that is the only way they can get back tax money that has been stolen from them.
Corruption persists even if the Philippines has a free press that takes its watchdog role seriously. Corruption exposés are daily fare in newspapers and on television. We have one of the most liberal access-to-information regimes in Asia. The government here is more transparent and forthcoming with its citizens than elsewhere in the region. Yet, despite relative transparency, a free press, and popular mobilization, the Philippines remains stuck in a cesspool of corruption.
The contradictions that abound in Philippine political life stump reformers. The prescriptions against corruption that have worked elsewhere-transparency, civil-society participation, a watchdog press-often seem to have made little dent.
In 1997, the Office of the Ombudsman estimated that the Philippine government lost $48 billion to corruption in the previous 20 years, exceeding the country’s $40-billion foreign debt for that period.
Public-opinion polls have rated the internal revenue and customs collection agencies as among the most corrupt state agencies. One of the recent exposés published the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism was one on the inexplicably extravagant lifestyles of tax officials.
One regional director of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, we wrote, lives in a fabulous mansion in Ayala Alabang. When our journalists visited the house earlier this year, they found parked in his garage a Toyota Land Cruiser, a Ford Expedition, and a brand new BMW. The BMW alone costs at least P2.5 million. Not too long ago, the journalists found, the director’s entire family vacationed in Europe. Yet his annual salary was less than P300,000.
What is scandalous is that the fruits of corruption are displayed so openly and so wantonly. Indeed, anyone who wants to run a check on tax officials need only go to the parking lot of the BIR. This year, President Arroyo initiated what she called “lifestyle checks” on bureaucrats. In July and August, charges of unexplained wealth were filed against several tax and customs officials, including the regional director whose our journalists had visited.
But the resistance from the bureaucracy has been fierce. BIR officials took out full-page ads in newspapers threatening that collections would take a dive because the lifestyle checks have demoralized their ranks. Reacting to news reports that showed photographs of the houses and cars of their employees, officials in the topmost echelons of the Bureau of Customs resigned to protest what they said was trial by publicity. Their resignations were not accepted. But after the initial filing of cases, the investigations have seemed to reach a dead end.
The Philippine government is facing a record deficit. It cannot handle the resistance of those assigned to collect taxes. In the end, the President buckled down. She does not want to take tough action now that she is running for election.
In the past, bureaucratic resistance wore down similar efforts at reform. Bureaucrats think that politicians will not last beyond the next election, so they lie low when investigations are initiated and then return to business as usual when a new batch of officials is elected. The result is governance by stalemate. Nothing moves.
The courts, in theory, could help break this impasse. But the justice system is fraught with malfeasance as well. The joke among lawyers is that judges make impartial decisions because they take bribes from both sides. But in reality, the scales of justice are weighed against the poor and powerless. And the result is a cycle of impunity with corrupt officials eluding justice by bribing corrupt magistrates.
The current Supreme Court has initiated measures to curb wrongdoing, including making it easier for litigants to file charges against erring judges. Sting operations with marked bills and undercover operatives have caught judges in the act of accepting bribes. At the same time, higher salaries and benefits have provided positive incentives for good behavior.
The Supreme Court also issued decisions overturning government contracts marred by fraud and corruption. The Court’s efforts to right the wrongs, however, were seen as a case of too little, too late. In the mid-1990s, the contracts were examined by executive oversight bodies. They were also the subject of high-profile legislative inquiries, court cases, and media exposés. Yet in the end, they were implemented. By the time the Supreme Court decisions were released, the projects were in full swing. The airport terminal, for example, was nearly completed. The computers for the modernization program of the Commission on Elections, meanwhile, were all in place.
What businesspeople complain about in the Philippines is not so much that officials can be bought, it is the unpredictability of corruption. There is no assurance that the bribe-induced agreements made with one administration will be honored in the next. The courts, the anti-graft bodies, the police, and other investigative agencies are all seen as partisan. The prevailing notion is that the wheels of justice move only when they go in the direction of the political enemies of those currently in power.
All these have damaged the credibility of democratic institutions. The outbursts of people power can be seen as desperate actions by citizens whose patience has been tried by the failure of institutions to correct corruption and to provide redress for their grievances.
But there are pockets of hope. In the Department of Education, honest and competent leadership has made a difference. The procurements system at the department has undergone a radical overhaul since 1999. More stringent controls were put in place. Citizens groups were involved in monitoring biddings and deliveries of goods. As a result, egregious practices such as fat commissions and “ghost deliveries,” have been stopped. After four years of reform, each public school student now has one textbook for every subject. The previous ratio was one book for every six students.
The reforms were undertaken amid media exposés detailing scandalous corruption in the educational system and heightened donor interest in anti-graft programs. There was also widespread concern about the deteriorating quality of education in a country that once boasted of having the most advanced school system in Asia. Nongovernmental organizations were keen to monitor the procurement process and officials provided mechanisms for their participation.
The reforms, however, are fragile and depend a great deal on the shifting tides of political power. A lot hinges on whether the next president will appoint an education secretary who will support the reforms and guarantee that they are sustainable in the long term, even without donor support and citizen monitoring.
After the Oakwood mutiny last July, the government hopes to be able to implement similar reforms in military procurements. But the resistance in the armed forces may be even more pernicious. The military’s withdrawal of support for Marcos and Estrada tilted the balance in favor of people power. The army is a powerful institution accustomed to brokering political transitions.
The military brass is also used to skimming off commissions from contracts and purchases, never mind if these practices cause resentment in the ranks. The next president will face generals resistant to reforms. They will likely kick and scream if the new commander-in-chief removes their perks, but if he or she doesn’t, there will be even more restiveness in the barracks.
Fighting corruption in the Philippines is about breaking deadlocks. In the short term, it requires leaders to take risks, even if it means sacrificing short-term political gains for long-term reforms. But beyond that, it is also hard work. Reformers in government and outside have to rework systems, change personnel, and monitor procedures. Most of all, they have to get the support of a jaded public.
The problem is that corruption in the Philippines is so pervasive that it has engendered a sense of helplessness, even among those who have the power to do something about it. But the reforms now being undertaken at the DepEd shows us change is possible. The key is to build constituencies of support. Those who are engaged in bureaucratic reform will succeed if they have the backing of the public. Citizens are tired of corruption. They are only too willing to help. But those who initiate reform have to take the first step. They have to take risks
But they must also accept that reform does not happen every night. Change is incremental and it needs a bureaucracy that is not only renewed, but also conscious of its own power. The bureaucracy needs people who will rock the boat, shake up the system, and get things going. Bureaucrats need not be impediments to reform. It’s time they live up to what they really ought to be-true servants of the people.

posted by Graciella @ 5:37 AM