|
CAGAYAN
DE ORO CITY—“Do not blame your government. Do not say
the government is corrupt, but rather [let’s] ask
ourselves what we are doing to fight corruption and help
the government.”
This was
the challenge posed by a former government auditor to
more than 200 of her colleagues who attended the recent
60th Annual Convention of the Institute of Internal
Auditors of the Philippines (IIAP) here.
Heidi
Mendoza, a certified public accountant, underscored the
need for whistle blowers, especially in government, to
expose anomalous transactions—thus paving the way to a
more transparent governance and minimizing corruption in
the country.
She said
whistle-blowing is one of the ways to fight corruption,
and it takes place when an individual or a group of
individuals belonging to a private or public
organization provides information regarding wrongdoing
within their organization, to internal or external
authorities.
“As a
collusive act, corruption requires the participation of
two willing partners. For example, the briber and the
recipient of the bribe. The more corrupt individuals,
therefore, in the economy, the easier and the less
costly it is to find a corrupt partner,” Mendoza said.
Leonardo
Matignas Jr., IIAP president, said that auditors, be
they in government or in the private sector, are
watchdogs, being the contributors for the success of any
organization. An internal-audit team in every public
organization is a must aside from the external audit
being conducted by the Commission on Audit, he
stressed.
“We are
now being recognized as the primary source of the audit
committee in the oversight functions in corporate
governance. Internal audit is a very important component
for governance as an enabler,” Matignas said.
Mendoza
outlined how sources of information can be effective
deterrents to corruption by instituting whistle-blowing,
which could help the principal monitor the action of the
agent, thereby reducing the latter’s discretion over his
action.
She said
the downside of being a whistle blower is enormous when
not fully supported by those mandated to protect their
source of information, and which could lead to making
the search for corrupt partners riskier and costlier.
Mendoza
pointed out the risks: usually whistle blowers are the
ones blamed for the chaos created by the disclosure,
that they are in it as “payback,” a personal interest
caused by “sour-graping,” loss of opportunity for
advancement, harassment, disciplinary action or
dismissal, legal action and, worse, assault.
She
outlined the prerequisites for whistle-blowing and how
to meet them—such as that whistle blowers must feel
confident that they will be protected, especially the
low-profile whistle blowers, and that they must believe
it will serve some good purpose. They have to be made
aware that they could make such disclosure and be given
guidelines on how it is done.
It is
all the more important for the low- profile witness to
be accorded the protection he needs, she said, more than
the high-profile whistle blower who is already
guaranteed safety because of his relations to the powers
that be. The latter was seen as an allusion to the
ongoing controversy, where Jose “Joey” de Venecia III
served as a whistle blower in the ZTE broadband deal,
and is widely seen as being protected by his father, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Among
other laws, Section 17 of Republic Act (RA) 6770 reads
that “The Ombudsman may grant immunity from criminal
prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose
possession and production of documents or other evidence
may be necessary to determine the truth in any hearing,
inquiry or proceeding being conducted by the Ombudsman
or under its authority, in the performance or in the
furtherance of its constitutional functions and
statutory objectives.”
RA 6981,
the Witness Protection, Security And Benefit Act,
provides safety to the whistle blower.
Mendoza
said legislation on whistle-blowing should not be a mere
cold mechanism for reporting, but should be a result of
a consideration and understanding of the dynamics of the
person from whom information is sought.
She
compared the Philippines with New South Wales, South
Korea and the United Kingdom, where whistle-blowers are
accorded full protection under their respective justice
systems. She quoted Chris Wheeler, Deputy Ombudsman of
New South Wales, who said that in drafting
whistle-blowing legislation, “the aim should be to
encourage and facilitate the making of disclosures.”
She
lamented the nonenactment of Senate Bill 1761, which was
made by the Office of the Ombudsman during the term of
former Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo. It was a result of a
survey/study of various models of laws on
whistle-blowing.
The bill
allows for any person, public or private, to make a
protected disclosure on conduct, acts or omissions of
public officers or employees, solely or in conspiracy or
in cooperation with private persons, which are covered
by or amount to violations of Philippine antigraft laws.
Similarly, the bill intends to protect whistle blowers
from retaliatory actions or cases, exempts him from any
duty of confidentiality where it is the subject of the
disclosure, preserves the secrecy of his identity,
protects him from disciplinary action or reprisals in
the workplace, and allows for security and protection
of the informer.
The bill
penalizes as crimes the violation of the rights of a
whistle blower.
The
informer shall be entitled to a corresponding monetary
reward. For cases susceptible to pecuniary estimation,
such as plunder, forfeiture of ill-gotten wealth,
bribery, malversation, and damage or injury to
government, the informer shall be entitled to 10 percent
of the amount recovered by final judgment.
For
cases not susceptible of pecuniary estimation, the
informer shall receive an amount in accordance with a
proposed schedule.
Mendoza
stressed that citizens must realize that good governance
is equally their responsibility. Civic-mindedness must
be nurtured and supported by tangible measures—a system
of rewards and incentives, as well as an assurance of
protection for the informant—from the government.
She
noted that even if the legislature will later on succeed
in approving a law that provides for a system of rewards
and incentives to encourage whistle-blowing, it is only
through the development of a culture of graft
intolerance and whistle-blowing and the conscious and
deliberate resolve to fight graft and corruption that
the people can be truly emboldened to take advantage of
any whistle-blowing legislation.
“Reporting corruption is a public duty. In a society
where whistleblowing is common, whistleblowers can work
as collective deterrents to immoral or illegal
activities in the entire society, thereby increasing
transparency,” Mendoza said. |
