Time for a whistleblower protection policy for the judiciary?
Published Feb 6, 2019 12:27 am
THE LEGAL FRONT
By J. ART D. BRION (RET)
J. Art D. Brion (RET.)
A whistleblower is one who exposes information or activities deemed to be illegal, unethical, or improper within a public or private organization. He provides the damning details that enable the authorities and the public to know that an illegality or illegalities had taken place; how they were perpetrated; and the potentially responsible parties.
The Philippines is not a stranger to whistleblowing as we have witnessed a number of high-profile cases triggered by whistleblowers in our country.
The most notable in recent memory perhaps was the disclosure by Benhur Luy of the details of how pork barrel funds were siphoned off into the pockets of legislators through pliant national agencies and the intermediaries established or controlled by Janet Lim Napoles. The exposure of what became popularly known as the PDAF and the DAP fund scams, triggered investigations that led to the indictment before the Sandiganbayan of legislators, among them, three senators and several congressmen.
In PDAF, the whistleblowing trigger was the testimony of Benhur Luy (the second cousin and former personal assistant of Napoles) who had been detained for four months in a luxury condominium after a disagreement with Napoles over their professional relationship. The government investigation of Luy’s testimony eventually uncovered a wider scam involving the misuse of PDAF funds in the past.
When he was implicated in the PDAF scam, Senator Jinggoy Estrada gave a privilege speech in the Senate about the use and re-direction of budgeted allocations, in violation of the Constitution and our budgetary laws, by the Aquino government in impeaching former Chief Justice Renato Corona. This became the DAP fund scam for which former President Aquino and others now stand charged.
The actual exposure is only the tip of the whistleblowing iceberg. Hidden from view is the plight of the whistleblower who faces the risks of retaliation, reprisal, and even bodily harm from the affected parties. At times, the law itself becomes the vehicle for retaliation through suits for damages caused to those exposed, to their office, or even to national security in certain cases. The Wikileak whistleblowing and its consequences for its participants serve as a good example of these retaliatory responses.
In the employment environment, the whistleblower may be dismissed from work or may see his job and professional growth stunted by discrimination in pay, promotion, and workplace opportunities. Some ultimately simply resign but thereafter still bear the taint of being a “whistleblower.” At the very least, he may suffer psychological stress or disability resulting from the pressures suffered.
Not to be forgotten are the follow-through that the initial exposure requires in terms of investigation, prosecution, and adjudication. Many times, these complicated efforts render the initiative and risks the whistleblower took useless.
These realities have encouraged the passage of whistleblower protection laws in many countries; these laws seek to shield whistleblowers – deemed to be serving public interests – against the reprisals and adverse consequences of whistleblowing. Even private companies and individual public offices and agencies have established their own whistleblowing protection policies. In the Philippines, among these offices and agencies are the Ayala Corp., Phinma, and some government-owned and controlled corporations like the Landbank, the Philippine Reclamation Authority, and the Philippine Ports Authority.
The Philippines, so far, does not have a national whistleblower protection law, although a Senate bill for such protection has been filed, authored by Senator Dick Gordon.
The proposed law is envisioned to be the “tool that will increase investigative and prosecutorial effectiveness that will maintain honest and high standards of integrity in the public service and safeguard the national interest.” It is intended to be a companion to the Witness Protection Program that the government now has in place. It provides for measures and procedures that will protect whistleblowers before, during, and after the whistleblowing, as well for their entitlements to security protection and benefits once admitted into a whistleblower protection program.
Congressman Mark A. Villar filed his own bill before the House of Representatives. No less than President Duterte – with the fight against corruption as one of his administration’s thrusts and aware perhaps of the country’s ranking in international corruption surveys – has publicly expressed support for these legislative measures.
The judiciary has not lagged behind in its awareness of the need to cleanse its own ranks and the country of corruption, and to protect whistleblowers in the process. As early as 2011, under the initiative and leadership of former Chief Justice Renato Corona, it created a committee to draft a program outlining the protective procedures to enhance whistleblowing and protect whistleblowers.
The committee worked with the support and guidance of the American Bar Association – Rule of Law Initiative (ABA-ROLI) in preparing its draft program. Work on the project tapered off, however, as the impeachment of the former chief justice progressed; it fully ceased when a new chief justice came in.
With new Chief Justice Lucas Bersamin now in place, the time has come perhaps to take a another look at this stalled past effort in order to resurrect it and make it the starting point of a new one under new perspectives.
This move will be in step with the current policy efforts of Congress and the executive’s investigative and prosecutory thrusts, through the prompt, speedy, and efficient handling and disposition of corruption cases. It can provide protective procedures to whistleblowers and to those participating in weeding out governmental corruption. Defined protective means and methods, even if they are procedural, can definitively be a big help.
The court had undertaken similar initiatives in other areas in the past through its writs of amparo and kalikasan. It can always replicate these efforts in the fight against corruption and thereby send clear signals that the chain in the government’s battle against corruption is now complete.
[email protected]
J. Art D. Brion (RET.)
A whistleblower is one who exposes information or activities deemed to be illegal, unethical, or improper within a public or private organization. He provides the damning details that enable the authorities and the public to know that an illegality or illegalities had taken place; how they were perpetrated; and the potentially responsible parties.
The Philippines is not a stranger to whistleblowing as we have witnessed a number of high-profile cases triggered by whistleblowers in our country.
The most notable in recent memory perhaps was the disclosure by Benhur Luy of the details of how pork barrel funds were siphoned off into the pockets of legislators through pliant national agencies and the intermediaries established or controlled by Janet Lim Napoles. The exposure of what became popularly known as the PDAF and the DAP fund scams, triggered investigations that led to the indictment before the Sandiganbayan of legislators, among them, three senators and several congressmen.
In PDAF, the whistleblowing trigger was the testimony of Benhur Luy (the second cousin and former personal assistant of Napoles) who had been detained for four months in a luxury condominium after a disagreement with Napoles over their professional relationship. The government investigation of Luy’s testimony eventually uncovered a wider scam involving the misuse of PDAF funds in the past.
When he was implicated in the PDAF scam, Senator Jinggoy Estrada gave a privilege speech in the Senate about the use and re-direction of budgeted allocations, in violation of the Constitution and our budgetary laws, by the Aquino government in impeaching former Chief Justice Renato Corona. This became the DAP fund scam for which former President Aquino and others now stand charged.
The actual exposure is only the tip of the whistleblowing iceberg. Hidden from view is the plight of the whistleblower who faces the risks of retaliation, reprisal, and even bodily harm from the affected parties. At times, the law itself becomes the vehicle for retaliation through suits for damages caused to those exposed, to their office, or even to national security in certain cases. The Wikileak whistleblowing and its consequences for its participants serve as a good example of these retaliatory responses.
In the employment environment, the whistleblower may be dismissed from work or may see his job and professional growth stunted by discrimination in pay, promotion, and workplace opportunities. Some ultimately simply resign but thereafter still bear the taint of being a “whistleblower.” At the very least, he may suffer psychological stress or disability resulting from the pressures suffered.
Not to be forgotten are the follow-through that the initial exposure requires in terms of investigation, prosecution, and adjudication. Many times, these complicated efforts render the initiative and risks the whistleblower took useless.
These realities have encouraged the passage of whistleblower protection laws in many countries; these laws seek to shield whistleblowers – deemed to be serving public interests – against the reprisals and adverse consequences of whistleblowing. Even private companies and individual public offices and agencies have established their own whistleblowing protection policies. In the Philippines, among these offices and agencies are the Ayala Corp., Phinma, and some government-owned and controlled corporations like the Landbank, the Philippine Reclamation Authority, and the Philippine Ports Authority.
The Philippines, so far, does not have a national whistleblower protection law, although a Senate bill for such protection has been filed, authored by Senator Dick Gordon.
The proposed law is envisioned to be the “tool that will increase investigative and prosecutorial effectiveness that will maintain honest and high standards of integrity in the public service and safeguard the national interest.” It is intended to be a companion to the Witness Protection Program that the government now has in place. It provides for measures and procedures that will protect whistleblowers before, during, and after the whistleblowing, as well for their entitlements to security protection and benefits once admitted into a whistleblower protection program.
Congressman Mark A. Villar filed his own bill before the House of Representatives. No less than President Duterte – with the fight against corruption as one of his administration’s thrusts and aware perhaps of the country’s ranking in international corruption surveys – has publicly expressed support for these legislative measures.
The judiciary has not lagged behind in its awareness of the need to cleanse its own ranks and the country of corruption, and to protect whistleblowers in the process. As early as 2011, under the initiative and leadership of former Chief Justice Renato Corona, it created a committee to draft a program outlining the protective procedures to enhance whistleblowing and protect whistleblowers.
The committee worked with the support and guidance of the American Bar Association – Rule of Law Initiative (ABA-ROLI) in preparing its draft program. Work on the project tapered off, however, as the impeachment of the former chief justice progressed; it fully ceased when a new chief justice came in.
With new Chief Justice Lucas Bersamin now in place, the time has come perhaps to take a another look at this stalled past effort in order to resurrect it and make it the starting point of a new one under new perspectives.
This move will be in step with the current policy efforts of Congress and the executive’s investigative and prosecutory thrusts, through the prompt, speedy, and efficient handling and disposition of corruption cases. It can provide protective procedures to whistleblowers and to those participating in weeding out governmental corruption. Defined protective means and methods, even if they are procedural, can definitively be a big help.
The court had undertaken similar initiatives in other areas in the past through its writs of amparo and kalikasan. It can always replicate these efforts in the fight against corruption and thereby send clear signals that the chain in the government’s battle against corruption is now complete.
[email protected]