|
INEFFECTIVE regulation of where political parties secure
money and inconsistency in monitoring government-owned
and -operated corporations kicked down the Philippines
among countries with weak governance.
The
Global Integrity Index released Wednesday cited the
country’s overall rating as “weak” (67 of 100) among 55
countries that the Washington-based nonprofit group
Center for Public Integrity (CPI) scored on governance.
“The
Philippines scored moderately in many important
governance areas, with a few exceptions earning very
weak performance ratings. Political financing is
effectively unregulated. Journalists and judges are
frequently threatened and killed [25 journalists have
been killed since 2004],” CPI said.
It
added: “Public access to information is guaranteed in
the Constitution, and the legal information framework is
well regarded. However, in practice, politically charged
documents have been withheld.”
CPI
scored the
Philippines
86 of 100 for having a legal framework but 50 of 100 for
actual implementation of the law. The implementation
gap, hence, was at 36—described by CPI as very wide.
“Oversight of state-owned enterprises is inconsistent
and poses little risk of investigation,” CPI added.
The
Global Integrity Index “assesses the existence,
effectiveness and citizen access to key anticorruption
mechanisms at the national level in a country.”
CPI
explained, “It does not measure corruption per se or
perceptions of corruption. Nor does it measure
governance ‘outputs’—statistics of service delivery,
crime, or socio-economic development.”
“Instead, the Index is an entry point for understanding
the anticorruption and good governance safeguards in
place in a country that should ideally prevent, deter,
or punish corruption.”
The
report, which could be downloaded from the Global
Integrity web site, scored the Philippines as very weak
in governance over political financing and state-owned
enterprises as compared with the median score.
The
median score, based on a diverse group of 53 countries,
also posted the Philippines as “weak” in three major
categories (civil society, public information and media;
oversight and regulation; and anticorruption and rule of
law), “moderate” in two categories (government
accountability, administration and civil service), and
“very weak” in the elections category.
The
latter, however, is not unique to the Philippines,
according to CPI. “Although elections are often touted
as the linchpin of governance reform efforts around the
world, [the] report finds long-term benefits offered by
elections are often undermined by a lack of government
accountability and the absence of strong anticorruption
mechanisms,” a CPI statement said.
The
Philippines is expected to hold presidential elections
in two years. Of 29 indicators grouped under these
categories, the Philippines scored “very weak” in six:
political financing (score of 14); state-owned
enterprises (28); whistle-blowing measures (52); rule of
law (52); public access to information (53); and law
enforcement (58).
It
scored “weak” in four indicators: taxes and customs
(50); judicial accountability (61); anticorruption
agency (66); and media (68).
The
Philippines, however, scored “moderate” in seven
indicators: election integrity (71); budget processes
(72); business licensing and regulation (72); civil
service regulations (73); national ombudsman (73);
executive accountability (75); and legislative
accountability (75).
The nine
indicators where the Philippines scored “strong” in
governance include procurement (81); civil society
organizations (84); privatization (84); voting and
citizen participation (87); and anticorruption law (89).
It was
only for the indicator “supreme audit institution” that
the Philippines was scored “very strong” in governance
at 93 of 100. The country garnered an overall “moderate”
rating in the 2006 index that studied 40 countries. A
“moderate” score was also given to the
Philippines
in the 2004 Public Integrity Index, which tracked
corruption, openness and accountability in 25 countries. |
