Manila Bulletin

Opinion

Corruption: A Corrosive Catalyst

Opinion

Corruption: A Corrosive Catalyst

By Atty. Arturo D. Brion, LL.B., LL.M.

The Legal Front (Part I)

Justice Arturo D. Brion Corruption is a corrosive act of malice that erodes relationships and ruptures the trust between the government and their governed. It is a catalyst as it hastens the decay of trust and, unless halted in time, spreads its malignancy in relationships and in the institutions and personalities involved. While not solely confined to government (as it also has significant presence in the private sector), its presence is most telling in government whose integrity and effectiveness it poisons. It spreads its most pernicious effects on the economic lives of the governed and the nation. To quote one study, corruption “discourages investments, limits economic growth, alters the composition of government spending, undercuts a nation’s mission to reduce poverty, and hinders improvement in the quality of life for the rural and poor segments of the developing countries.” Front and center of the malignancy in government are our public officials to whom the governed entrust their lives, liberty and property. From literature on the subject, the biggest incidents of corruption are those involving our highest officials, no less, and their cronies. Among the biggest scandals that our present generation may easily recall are:

The Bataan Nuclear Plant construction scandal during the Marcos years, which took government years to resolve.
The PEA-Amari transaction scandal during the time of President Ramos.
The BW Resources stock, Juetengate and other scandals that precipitated the departure of President Estrada from the presidency.
The Fertilizer Fund scam and NBN/ZTE controversies that plagued President Macapagal-Arroyo’s administration.
The Comelec-Smartmatic election scandal where COMELEC Chairman Andy Bautista simply disappeared with no significant government reaction;
The DAP and PDAF controversies under President Aquino II, whose tail ends are still pending.

Presently pending under President Duterte are potential scandals, among them, the current pandemic-related Pharmally affair and several others yet to be fully ventilated. These are mentioned, not to accuse Presidents of wrongdoings but simply to highlight two things. First, all office holders should particularly be sensitive about their reputation for rectitude to ensure that the trust reposed in them is never placed at risk. This should be true not only for presidents but for all office holders whose concern should heighten as the powers of their offices widen. Second, to every extent possible, they should guard against their cronies and relatives who may place self-interest above everything else. In fact, future preventive or remedial measures on corruption should particularly consider relatives and cronies as potential weak spots to be guarded against. Graft and corruption incidents – particularly those involving higher level personalities - invariably erode the moral fiber of officialdom and even of the nation. These may carry not only ripple effects but lasting tsunamis of loathing and disgust – consequences that are hard to erase. Lest people forget, corruption has not always been a distinct feature of our society. Our pre-Spanish forefathers, based on published history, were not prone to corruption; corrupt practices and tendencies only began to seep in under Spanish colonial rule due to administrative policies the colonizers brought with them. Our early barangay leadership and governance were essentially based on traits of community leadership and the community’s recognition of the deserving: the strong and the respected became leaders and earned the community’s respect, trust and “hiya” (the community members’ sense of shame for betraying the community through their individual acts). The chosen leaders reciprocated, based on their sense of honor, the selfless desire to serve, and again on their sense of “hiya” (this time, the shame that could come if they fail to deliver security, protection and traditional community assistance). Under these conditions of mutual trust and “hiya,” breaches of community norms were exceptional; when breaches did occur, the consequences were quite harsh – erosion of respect and withdrawal of the community recognition of leadership, or the move by the estranged community members to other communities. Our local affairs, according to historians, were that simple. Things began to change under the Spanish colonial administration. The Spaniards acted as the higher level administrators and utilized chosen local leaders for lower level roles under conditions that encouraged deviation from the trust and respect that used to prevail. Local leadership positions were sold or appointments were made without due consideration for merit. Some positions did not even carry salaries although they entailed social obligations for the office holder. Still others allowed the office holders to charge fees on their own, in lieu of salaries, for services rendered; local positions thus assumed a profit aspect and investments that had to be recouped. In time, when departure from the straight and narrow gained acceptance, payment for the delivery of services, though uncalled for, became the norm. As these initial openings widened and as moral values plunged and greed heightened in an increasingly complicated society, otherwise harmless acts of facilitation metamorphosed into monstrous acts of graft and corruption. Significantly, the tendencies towards corruption under the Spanish were corrected and moral values changed when the Americans came. The main trigger was enhanced leadership values that brought with it a new civil service system characterized by examination and merit-based appointments to civil service positions that guaranteed job security and provided commensurate compensation. Honor, trust and performance became the distinguishing hallmarks of public service and the sense of “hiya” within the community was reinforced. While scandals rooted in corruption still took place (and even involved some American officials), these were few and far between and were the exceptions rather than the rule. This broad and brief recital should remind everyone that corruption is not irremediable. We came from a relatively corruption-free starting point and can always work towards a return to this ideal if the leadership and the people would only commonly will it and work for it. This happened under the Americans and we can do it again on our own. This time, we should perhaps give appropriate emphasis to the moral component and to our native values particularly to the sense of “hiya” that is still there but may now lie dormant in the hearts of many. Legal solutions are and never will be enough. For lack of space, Part II of this topic shall continue in my next column. [email protected]

Related Tags

A Corrosive Catalyst corruption THE LEGAL FRONT

Opinion

Corruption: A Corrosive Catalyst

By Atty. Arturo D. Brion, LL.B., LL.M.

Related Tags

{{ articles_filter_1561_widget.title }}

{{ item.title }}

{{ articles_filter_1562_widget.title }}

{{ item.title }}

{{ articles_filter_1563_widget.title }}

{{ item.title }}

{{ articles_filter_1564_widget.title }}

{{ item.title }}

{{ item.section_name }}

{{ item.title }}

By {{ item.author_name }}

At A Glance

Join Our Newsletters

Opinion

Corruption: A Corrosive Catalyst

By Atty. Arturo D. Brion, LL.B., LL.M.

Related Tags

{{ articles_filter_1561_widget.title }}

{{ item.title }}

{{ articles_filter_1562_widget.title }}

{{ item.title }}

{{ articles_filter_1563_widget.title }}

{{ item.title }}

{{ articles_filter_1564_widget.title }}

{{ item.title }}

{{ item.section_name }} | {{ item.sub_section_name }}

{{ item.title }}

By {{ item.author_name }}

Sponsored By

At A Glance

Join Our Newsletters

{{ item.section_name }}