| International reports show progress in fight vs corruption |
|
|
|
| Opinion | |||
| Written by The Essential Thing / Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez | |||
| Thursday, 09 July 2009 23:24 | |||
|
Transparency International (TI) has recently published its findings on the 2009 Global Corruption Barometer. The barometer is a tool that this international nongovernment organization has developed to assess public perception of corruption in countries around the world. It is based on a public-opinion survey of over 63,000 people in 60 countries and offers a broad spectrum on common experiences of corruption. The barometer is bold and straightforward in identifying institutions where bribes are often demanded or where citizens see the greatest degree of corruption. And while the barometer also measures public perception on future trends in corruption, it seeks to balance the same by reporting as well on government efforts to eradicate it. The following are some of the key findings of TI’s report: 1. About one in 10 people around the world had to pay a bribe in the past year. However, for the Philippines, a notable improvement has occurred in the number of Filipinos reported to have paid bribes in any form in the past 12 months. Only 11 percent of Filipinos said, yes, they paid bribes, compared with 32 percent who responded similarly in 2007. 2. Bribery is particularly widespread in citizen interactions with the police, the Judiciary, and the registry and permit services. However, for the Philippines, there is again reason for hope. Only between 7 percent and 12 percent reported being affected by bribery, compared with other countries like Indonesia and Russia, where their respective citizens paid bribes to public officials and agencies in the range of 49 percent.
3. The general public believes that political parties, the legislature, the police and the judicial system are the most corrupt institutions in their societies. However, for the Philippines, while public officials, in general, are perceived to be most affected by corruption, the TI’s own National Integrity System Study rates the local bureaucracy as strong, with firm institutional reforms in place. This is actually complemented by other international corruption reports, such as the 2008 Global Integrity Report, which rated the Philippine civil service as “very strong.” 4. Half of those interviewed expect corruption in their respective countries to increase in the next three years. But it is good to know that the 2009 barometer actually found state capture in Asia-Pacific, in general, as lower than even in North America, the European Union and Latin America, where the private sector actively seeks to influence legislation and government policies. While the exact figures for the Philippines have not been disaggregated, it is reported that the country’s score in the area of petty bribery has improved by 21 percent. The Ombudsman has initiated cutting-edge anticorruption initiatives, like the dreaded lifestyle checks for individuals and the Integrity Development Review for institutions. The first seek to determine whether a public official’s lifestyle is actually supported by his income from legitimate sources; the second inquires into what a public agency’s vulnerabilities to corruption are and in what ways they can be addressed. These initiatives have upped the ante in the fight against corruption, and as they slowly bear fruit, international observers see encouraging signs. At least four major international anticorruption reports so far this year have reported substantial progress in the battle against corruption in the Philippines. And in at least two international business reports—the US Sound Financial Systems Standards and the Global Competitiveness Report—the country is reported to have moved ahead in indicators that include transparency, corporate governance, auditing, money laundering and institution building. **** I welcome feedback at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . The above is meant only as a general guide, and is not a prediction of what the Ombudsman will do in actual cases. The assistance of counsel must be sought for specific advice as to rights and obligations also in actual cases.
|