GRAFT and corruption have long been a thorn in the side of Philippine governance, creating a significant barrier to national development and eroding public trust in government institutions. Yet, we have a broad legal framework to address corrupt practices.
Section 1 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution provides that, “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.” Statutory laws have been legislated to prevent the erosion of this public trust spoken of herein.
At the heart of the Philippines’ anti-corruption legislative framework is Republic Act (RA) 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which has stood the test of time since its enactment in 1960. Section 3 of RA 3019 covers a wide range of punishable misconduct, outlining specific acts of graft, such as inducing another public officer to violate the law, soliciting or accepting bribes, causing undue injury to the government, and giving unwarranted benefits to private parties.
RA 10910 extended the prescription period for offenses punishable under RA 3019 from 15 years to 20 years. Supporting RA 3019 is RA 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, which was passed in 1989 to ensure ethical behavior in public service. Apart from norms of conduct and duties laid down by the law, Section 7(d) of RA 6713 prohibits public officials from soliciting or accepting any gifts, favors, or benefits in connection with their duties. A feature of the law that has received attention is the requirement for public officials to file their Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth under Section 7 thereof.
Meanwhile, RA 7080, the law on plunder, specifically targets large-scale corruption. The law defines plunder as the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth, amounting to at least P50 million, through a combination or series of criminal acts laid down in Section 1 thereof, and this may be committed in concert with family members, whether by consanguinity or affinity, business associates, subordinates, or other persons, as per Section 2 thereof.
How to address plunder is the rationale behind RA 1379, which deals with forfeiture of unlawfully acquired property. Under Section 2, if a public officer is found to have acquired property manifestly out of proportion to his or her salary as a public officer or employee and other lawful income, the presumption is that such property was unlawfully acquired, and it can be forfeited in favor of the state.
Apart from forfeiture of ill-gotten wealth, whistleblowers are an essential part of the fight against corruption. Thus, Presidential Decree 749 provides them with immunity from prosecution. Section 1 thereof provides that any person who voluntarily gives information on laws, rules, and regulations punishing acts of graft, corruption and other forms of official abuse and willingly testifies against any public official or employee for such violations, shall be exempt from prosecution or punishment for the offense with reference to which his information and testimony were given.
These violations that whistleblowers may voluntarily give information on include bribery, which is punishable under Articles 210 to 212 of the Revised Penal Code.
Article 210 penalizes direct bribery, where public officials receive gifts or promises in exchange for committing an illegal act in connection with their duties. Article 211 covers indirect bribery, and criminalizes the acceptance of gifts given simply because of the public officer’s position, even without an illegal act being involved. Article 212 punishes persons who shall have made offers or promises or given gifts or presents as described in these preceding articles on bribery.
Related to this is Presidential Decree 46, which lays down the “No Gift Policy” that prohibits public officers from receiving gifts given in any form and by reason of their official position, even during holidays or any occasion; this includes throwing parties or entertainment in honor of the official or employee or their immediate relatives. While gift-giving and celebrations are part of Filipino culture, especially on holidays, the law reminds that public servants must maintain impartiality at all times, ensuring that even cultural norms do not justify diminishing public trust.
Finally, RA 6770, or the Ombudsman Act of 1989, gives the Office of the Ombudsman the authority to investigate and prosecute any public official or employee for corrupt acts. Section 15 empowers the Ombudsman to act on complaints or to initiate investigations independently. This covers “any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency” so as to ensure that public officials, including those in the highest ranks, are held accountable for their actions.
Evidently, the Philippines has a robust set of laws to combat graft and corruption, from the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act to the Plunder Law and the Forfeiture Law. However, the real test lies in their consistent application and the public institutions’ commitment to transparency and accountability.
The fight against corruption is not just about having laws in place — it is about ensuring that those laws are upheld, no matter the rank or status of the official involved. The vigilance of institutions such as the Office of the Ombudsman, the determination of the courts, and the active participation of the public will ultimately determine the success of the Philippines’ anti-corruption efforts.
Joshua Rizlan A. Simbillo is a lawyer and an associate of Mata-Perez, Tamayo & Francisco (MTF Counsel). This article is for general information only and is not a substitute for professional advice where the facts and circumstances warrant. If you have any question or comment regarding this article, you may email the author at [email protected] or visit the MTF website at www.mtfcounsel.com.
Be the first to comment