Individual Corruption

According to Global Integrity 2008, corruption often starts with lawyers, rather than judges and magistrates, and several lawyers (at least 94 lawyers between 1947 and 2007) have been disbarred by the Supreme Court due to corruption. 

Judges have been known to take bribes in order to grant bail to litigants, even in cases where the law prohibits granting bail. This fact is further supported by the US Department of State 2010, reporting that some wealthy or influential offenders received impunity due to personal connections and bribery. Yet, only a relatively small percentage of the surveyed households who had contact with the judiciary in 2009 report to have paid a bribe, as illustrated in Transparency International’s Global Corruption Barometer 2010.

Business Corruption

According to Transparency International’s Bribe Payers Index 2008, companies' confidence in the judicial system is low in the Philippines because of allegations of graft and corruption, as well as incompetence within the judiciary. The same view is also shared in the US Department of State 2011, where many foreign investors cite the judicial system in the Philippines as insufficient and uncertain, due to corruption and understaffing, which significantly hinder investment. Nevertheless, nearly half of the responding companies from the World Bank & IFC Enterprise Surveys 2009 believe that the court system in the Philippines is fair, impartial and uncorrupted.

Political Corruption

According to US Department of State 2010, the judicial system in the Philippines is constitutionally independent from both the legislative and the executive branches. However, Global Integrity 2008 states that the process of choosing nominees for national-level judges is reportedly being influenced by the executive. Furthermore, Freedom House 2010 reports that low salaries are leading to rampant corruption amongst judges and lawyers, and local powers have influence over the judiciary because judges and lawyers’ salaries and basic resources often rely on these local powers.

One prominent example of judicial corruption, according to a 2009 news article from The Manila Times, is the 'Alabang Boys' drug scandal in 2008, which involved PHP 50 million in bribes allegedly paid to prosecutors and officials in the Department of Justice, in return for the release of 3 drug suspects.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2011:
- It takes 37 procedures and 842 days at a cost of 26% of the claim to enforce a commercial contract through the courts.

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011:
- Business executives give the judiciary's level of independence from influences of members of government, citizens, or companies a score of 2.8 on a 7-point scale (1 'heavily influenced' and 7 'entirely independent').

- Business executives give both the efficiency of the legal framework for private companies to settle disputes and to challenge the legality of government actions and/or regulations a score of 2.8 on a 7-point scale (1 'extremely inefficient' and 7 'highly efficient').

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010:
- 13.7% of households surveyed consider the judiciary to be 'extremely corrupt'.

- 8.8% of households who had contact with the judiciary in 2009 report to have paid a bribe.

- Citizens give the judiciary a score of 3.1 on a 5-point scale (1 being 'not at all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt').

The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2009:
- Nearly 48% of the companies surveyed believe that the court system is fair, impartial and uncorrupted.

Transparency International: Bribe Payers Index 2008:
- Business executives give the judiciary a score of 3.5 on a 5-point scale (1 'not at all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt').

Social Weather Stations: Surveys of Enterprises on Corruption 2008:
- Business executives give the Supreme Court's sincerity in fighting corruption a net score of +37 (above +50 'very good' and below -50 'very bad').