Legislation: Corruption-specific legislation in the Philippines dates back to 1960, when the country passed its first anti-corruption law, although provisions for penalties for corrupt officials were originally established by the Act Revising the Penal Code 1930. The Philippines ratified the United Nations Convention against Corruption in 2006. Corrupt practices are addressed by the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001, which criminalise attempted corruption, active and passive bribery, extortion, bribing a foreign official, using confidential state information for private gain, money laundering, and organised crime. The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act requires that public officials file Statements of Assets and Liability and Networth (SALN) every second year. The Constitution 1987 also includes articles on accountability of public officials and SALN (Art. IX, sect. 1-18). An Act Establishing a Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees was passed in 1989 and formulated standards for personal integrity and accountability of civil servants. Rules on gifts are included in the code of conduct and explicitly forbid solicitations of gifts, favours, etc. The Revised Penal Code also defines gifts as bribes (Art. 210), and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act forbids officials from receiving gifts (sect. 3). The Constitution 1987 (Art. 6, sect. 20, Art. 2, sect. 28 and Art. 3, sect. 7) stipulates that transparency must be upheld by requiring all records of Congress to be preserved and made open to the public and the Commission on Audit (see below) to annually publish a list of amounts paid and expenses used by each Member of Congress. The Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, which will require a greater transparency from government officials, failed to pass in June 2010 due to lack of quorum, as reported in a 2010 news article by The Philippine Star. According to a 2011 news article by ABS-CBN News, President Aquino wants the FOI bill to be revised, and has stated that he is not comfortable with all ‘raw information’ on government affairs being made publicly available, according to ABS-CBN News. In February 2012, a substitute Freedom of Information Act 2012 was submitted to the House of Representatives. According to a February 2012 article by Freedominfo.org, the FOI Act is an integral element of President Aquino's Good Governance and Anti-Corruption Cluster (GGAC) plan for 2012-2016. Access the Lexadin World Law Guide for a collection of laws in the Philippines.

Government Strategies: The government's anti-corruption activities are viewed as an integral part of the overall development strategy, which has been developed in cooperation with international organisations, such as the Asian Development Bank, USAID, the World Bank and others. According to AFTA Sources, in March 2011, President Aquino approved the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) for 2011-2016, in which the overarching theme is good governance and anti-corruption while achieving inclusive growth, which would create substantial employment opportunities as well as reduce poverty. Furthermore, in January 2012, President Aquino approved the Good Governance and Anti-Corruption Cluster (GGAC) plan for 2012-2016, which includes measures aiming to promote transparency and accountability. According to a January 2012 article by Business Mirror, amongst the measures provided in the plan is the simplification and integration of various government databases and systems, to make them more publicly accessible. The low level of business confidence in the judicial system led to the implementation of the Action Programme for Judicial Reform, proposed and developed by a former Chief of Justice and supported by several international donors to rectify the deficiencies in the judicial system. However, many of the reforms in the programme were not implemented, and the programme did not generate the government's desired effect. The tax system was another area that was chosen to be a target of reforms. In order to improve governance, reduce corruption and increase tax revenues, the World Bank stepped in with a loan to support the Board of Internal Revenues' (BIR) programme to modernise the tax administration system in 2007. As an anti-corruption measure, the government has established a reward scheme where the tax agencies that meet their targets or surpass them are rewarded, while those that do not meet their quotas are punished. In July 2010, President Aquino signed Executive Order No. 1 (EO No.1), which established a Truth Commission to probe allegations of corruption and anomalies under the former President Arroyo. However, a 2010 news article in GMA News reports that the Supreme Court in December 2010 ruled EO No. 1 unconstitutional, because it violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Despite the ruling posing as a major setback to the Aquino administration’s effort to institute reforms, the Palace spokesman, as cited in the news article, states that the Supreme Court’s decision will not stop the Aquino administration’s efforts to reform.

Anti-Corruption Agencies: According to Global Integrity 2008, there were 17 governmental anti-graft agencies as of 2006, however, the Office of the Ombudsman (see below) serves as the main anti-corruption agency authorised to investigate and prosecute corruption cases involving public officials. It also takes care of corruption prevention measures, such as awareness-raising campaigns and analysing anti-corruption measures. The Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) was established in 2001 to investigate and to hear administrative cases and complaints against erring presidential appointees, as well as to assist the President in anti-corruption campaigns. However, in November 2010, President Aquino signed the Executive Order No.13 (EO No.13), which abolishes the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC). According to a November 2010 news article by ABS-CBN News, the abolition is part of the policy on streamlining the government bureaucracy, as the PAGC’s functions are already covered by the Ombudsman’s Office. In January 2012, House Bill 2903 seeking to create a new Independent Commission Against Corruption (NICAC) is pending with the House Committee, and according to a senior administration lawmaker, cited in a January 2012 article by The Philippine Star, members for the NICAC will be selected from non-political sectors with 'untainted integrity'. Global Integrity 2010 evaluates the overall effectiveness of the anti-corruption agencies in the Philippines as very weak, and states that these agencies are subject to political interference. Also, the agencies have not shown any independent initiative to probe allegations of corruption.

Office of the Ombudsman: The Office of the Ombudsman has existed for several decades and it was strengthened in 2003 by a doubling of its budget that increased its investigative and prosecutorial capacities. According to a 2009 news archive from the United Nations Development Programme, the government announced the Office of the Ombudsman as the country's leading anti-corruption agency in 2006. Corruption cases are brought before the Sandiganbayan, a special court for handling such cases. Criticism of the Office of the Ombudsman has focused mainly on it targeting petty corruption instead of targeting the 'big fish'. This is further supported by the Bertelsmann Foundation 2010, which reports that the Ombudsman has been accused by CSOs for turning a blind eye to a series of corruption complaints against individuals who are closely tied to the former President. In April 2011, the Ombudsman, Merceditas Gutierrez, resigned after politicians voted to impeach her. Ms Gutierrez was accused of failing to probe corruption allegations against former President Arroyo and her administration, as reported in an April 2011 article by BBC News. In July 2011, President Aquino appointed former Supreme Court Associate Justice, Conchita Carpio-Morales, as the new Ombudsman.

Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC): Congress established the AMLC financial intelligence unit in 2001. The AMLC's task is to carry out investigations into money laundering activities and analyse data from banks and financial institutions regulated by the Central Bank of the Republic of the Philippines, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Insurance Commission (IC). According to the House of Representatives, the AMLC can file complaints with the Ombudsman as well as the Department of Justice (DOJ) in order to get money laundering offenders prosecuted or start civil forfeiture proceedings in cooperation with the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). According to the US Department of State 2010, observers such as the Asia Pacific Group has expressed some concerns over the current Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA), in particular that some businesses such as casinos are currently excluded from the Act, as well as a 2008 court ruling that made it more difficult for the AMLC to get information about suspicious bank accounts. However, the AMLC itself is pushing for increased authority in these areas. According to a February 2012 article by Business Inquirer, Malacañang (the official office of the President of the Philippines) has labelled as urgent a bill amending the AMLA. Amongst the proposed amendments, is the requirement of more entities, such as casinos, to report suspicious transactions to the AMLC. 

Commission on Audit (COA): The COA was established in accordance with the Constitution 1987. It not only monitors government financial operations, but also has the authority to examine and audit all public financial transactions. Furthermore, it plays an important role in promoting transparency and accountability in public financial transactions. In this capacity, the COA is currently engaged in implementing an electronic New Government Accounting System. In the pursuit of greater transparency, the COA has launched an interactive portal that has a Fraud Alert Form with which whistleblowers can easily report fraud, mismanagement and waste of public funds. However, the portal cannot guarantee anonymity. According to Global Integrity 2010, although some COA reports offer very useful guidelines for checking corruption in specific government agencies, the COA does not have the authority to prosecute and impose reform measures on faltering agencies. Furthermore, the government does not always follow up on COA recommendations.

Lifestyle Check Coalition (LCC): The LCC was established in March 2003. It comprised of 16 government agencies and NGOs, in order to investigate the ethics, nightlife and lifestyles of government officials. According to The Philippine Information Agency's Rising to the Challenge of Good Governance 2009, over 200 lifestyle checks were conducted since it came into force. The President Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with ten of the most corruption prone public agencies to mandate them to submit at least one ‘big fish’ case and/or lifestyle check to either the PAGC or the Ombudsman Office every three months. However, according to Global Integrity 2008, this measure has not yet proven effective in exposing high-level corruption, as only low-level officials have been investigated. Moreover, there have not been any updates on the progress of the LCC since 2005.

Commission on Elections (COMELEC): The COMELEC dates back to 1940, when it was established as an independent body to conduct and supervise elections in the Philippines. It represents an attempt to rid elections of irregularities, such as election-rigging, vote-buying and corruption. However, the COMELEC's reputation has been tarnished by several scandals. One of the most famous scandals involves a taped conversation between former President Arroyo and the COMELEC commissioner during the presidential election vote-counting in 2004. It is unclear whether the conversation was a serious attempt to rig the votes or whether the conversation was 'merely' an example of conflict of interest. In order to combat electoral malpractices, a new e-election system overseen by the COMELEC was utilised in the May 2010 presidential elections. According to Freedom House 2011, although there were still some cases of fraud, the problems were far less common than in previous elections. The new system, however, did not stop vote buying, which was even more widespread and flagrant than before, according to the same source.

Centre for Asian Integrity (CAI): The CAI has been set up by the Office of the Ombudsman, the University of the Philippines, Australian universities and international donors in 2008. It is funded by the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) - Philippine Threshold Program through the Asia Foundation. The CAI is a virtual academy that offers training courses on anti-corruption and governance. The main objective of the project is to enhance integrity of Philippine government agencies, companies as well as NGOs. Click here for more information about the CAI.

E-Governance: Development of e-governance has been slow in the Philippines, primarily because so few people have Internet access. The Bureau of Internal Revenues (BIR) has become more transparent with the use of electronic information exchange to connect to the One-Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center. The Bureau of Customs has also set up web-enabled clearance and payment service. The Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System (PhilGEPS) was launched by the Department of Budget and Management. According to a January 2012 article by Business Mirror, the government is planning to expand the operations of PhilGEPS to include e-bidding and electronic bidding functions. The same article also reports that the Official Gazette will be transformed into a one-stop shop to provide government information to be piloted in the first quarter of 2012.

Public Procurement: The Government Procurement Reform Act 2003 stipulates that preference in purchasing be given to companies with at least a 60% Filipino ownership, thus favouring local suppliers. A government e-procurement system has been implemented in most government departments as well as government-controlled companies and organisations in order to help reduce graft and corruption in procurement. Procurements are mandated by the Act to be published to the general public, and Global Integrity 2010 has evaluated that major public procurements are effectively advertised through the agency website or newspaper. The Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System (PhilGEPS) is the central online portal where all public procurement activities are posted. This is meant to be a vehicle to increase transparency within government procurement procedures. If bidders are found to be providing false information, or otherwise violating bidding regulations, they may be blacklisted. The list of debarred bidders can be found on the Government Procurement Policy Board website. Procurement manuals and documents are also available on the website. However, Global Integrity 2010 reports that the system of blacklisting is not always effectively enforced, as there have been cases where companies found guilty of bribery were able to change their names, and continue to participate in future bids. As a means of inhibiting opportunities for conflicts of interest within public procurement, decisions regarding procurement are made by a panel consisting of 5-7 officials; these officials are regularly rotated. Another initiative the government took to improve the procurement transparency is the creation of Procurement Transparency Group under the Executive Order 662-A. The group is led by the Government Procurement Policy Board, and its main tasks include evaluating and monitoring government procurements, as reported in Transparency International's Global Corruption Report 2009.

Whistle-Blowing: In 2007, Congress drafted legislation to protect public and private sector whistleblowers. The hope is that this legislation will help to reduce corruption across all sectors. According to the Whistleblower Bill, it will be the Ombudsman who will be responsible for setting up the whistleblower programme. A 2011 news article by The Philippine Star reports that the House committee on justice has passed the proposed Whistleblowers’ Act in May 2011. Under the bill, a whistleblower will be protected from all forms of retaliatory actions, and anyone who prevents a whistleblower from testifying can face between six months to six years in prison. On the other hand, the bill also imposes six to twelve year prison terms on whistleblowers that report false and misleading testimonies. As of January 2012, the Whistleblower Protection bill is still not passed, according to a January 2012 article by Business Mirror. Until a specific law is passed, whistleblower protection is, according to Global Integrity 2010, covered in Republic Act No. 6981. Whistleblowers are frequently subject to harassment and intimidation. In the beginning of 2008, a high-profile case of a whistleblower feeling threatened and harassed broke in the media. According to several 2009 news sources including The Philippine Star, police officers sent by the government kidnapped Jun Lozada, a government official, in order to prevent him from testifying in the Senate on the overpricing of a government contract for national broadband. This case directly implicated former President Arroyo's husband and the chairman of the COMELEC. The government allegedly sent the police to protect Lozada against death threats. In 2009, Lozada was arrested on charges of perjury filed by one of former President Arroyo's close associates. In sum, whistleblower protections in the Philippines are still very weak.

General Comments on the Public Anti-Corruption Initiatives: In December 2010, the Supreme Court declared that the Executive Order No.1 creating the Truth Commission was unconstitutional, impeding President Aquino’s campaign to probe corruption allegations against former President Arroyo and her administration. It remains to be seen how President Aquino can tackle the country's corruption problem. Although the government declares that anti-corruption measures are of the highest priority, public sentiments on corruption issues in the country suggest that there is a mismatch between the proclaimed commitment to counter corruption and the actual effects of these measures. The government has shown commitment to e-governance as an attempt to increase transparency and to stamp out much of the corruption caused by face-to-face interactions with public officials, but one of the obstacles is that many Filipinos have no Internet access. Many anti-corruption initiatives are conducted in cooperation with international donor organisations. However, even though there are a large number of anti-corruption measures and initiatives, implementation of and compliance with such measures still lags behind. Lastly, the Philippine government should put more focus on rooting out high level corruption in order to shatter the culture of impunity and make corruption a 'high risk, low-reward activity', as suggested in Freedom House 2011.