The failing fight against corruption
Credit to Author: MA. ISABEL ONGPIN| Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2019 16:40:17 +0000
IF corruption can be prevented, particularly in public office, more than half the battle will be won. But so far, preventive measures against corruption like the Anti-Red Tape Law, the law against plunder, the Procurement Law, government oversight agencies, etc. have not worked.
When corruption is present, the conventional and effective way to fight it, particularly among public officials, is to gather incontrovertible evidence and present them in a fair and timely trial that will terminate in a guilty verdict and the appropriate sanctions. Today’s fight against corruption seems to be more rhetoric and ends there, no evidence or a fair trial. It seems it is not being done right. Besides the rhetoric of vile threats and accusations, there has been no transparency, enough to show clear evidence to initiate a fair trial and go on to end in legal sanctions. And even if the cases continue on to trial and conviction, punishment may still be evaded, mitigated or abolished, as happened in the current scandal of criminals being let loose against the society they have wronged. In other words, impunity.
Take the case of government officials accused of corruption and fired. It is just an announcement, however initially shocking, from the appointing office, but no further details. Removal from office at this point is incomplete in terms of evidence and a fair trial. Some of these accused officials seemed to be clueless or in shock over what happened to them. No further clarification of what brought them to be so accused is forthcoming, no charges filed, no court case initiated to settle the matter. These mysteries seed clouds of doubt in the public mind. And they become poster cases of unfairness and draconian punishment without conclusive proof. They seem utterly whimsical. Our Constitution provides for persons accused to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise in a fair trial.
Worse, when some official with special connections to the appointing powers demonstrates big-time singular corruption, such as letting drugs slip through the office that he supervises, with no rational explanation for his defense given, he is merely recycled to some other office. Yes, to some other position where he can demonstrate his incompetence all over again. And that is putting it kindly. So, what about the crime or shall we say the criminal incompetence demonstrated? It is left hanging. There have been too many examples of these recyclings without sanctions to convince the public that there is a serious pushback against corruption by the administration. In fact, it denotes the opposite.
In other words, some accused are treated with kid gloves, while others get the bludgeoning hammer. No one is brought to trial. If this is to be regarded as a serious war against corruption, it fails to convince. There is no proper battle against miscreants or an intelligent approach to fight corruption.
The only ones who seem qualified for trial are small fry — the small-town mayor, the barangay captain, the court clerk, the political opposition.
Meanwhile, bluster, threats and apocalyptic pronouncements about what the Executive will do to the corrupt are plentiful, colorful even, but not followed up in a convincing manner. Which is a blessing, because the whole menacing talk if brought to reality in the absence of incontrovertible proof and a fair trial, would be a gross violation of human rights. People should be allowed to defend themselves before being pronounced guilty. They should not be vilified publicly but charged in a judicial process.
This obvious need for a fair trial is not met. First, there are few cases filed in the welter of accusations, evidence and apparent malfeasances. And if they are filed, they take forever. The wheels of justice grind slowly but not accurately, with the possibility of being hijacked by suborning witnesses, etc.
There are many reasons for these developments, some of them quite obvious, like bribery, pulling rank, influence-peddling, the prevalence of inequality. One of the less obvious is incompetent prosecutors or poorly trained litigators, who are supposed to be proving guilt but succeed only in presenting such badly conjured charges that the accused are let off because of the poor quality of the prosecution. Unless, there are other nefarious reasons.
It is indeed a mystery considering this country’s obsession with every Tom, Dick and Harry, or rather Tomas, Ricardo and Enrique wanting to be lawyers, with numerous law schools and with the word “Attorney” in front of so many names, that we have a paucity of good lawyers, particularly on the government side, the public side that is mandated to confront corruption. Or, is it something worse than ignorance and incompetence?
So, corruption is not stopped by idle threats no matter how vile, nor is it erased with the kid-glove treatment given to suspects which in turn give the bad example to would-be grafters that they will get away with their misdeeds by repetition of their examples. Neither will corruption be halted by incompetent lawyers filing cases they cannot win for the sloppy work, the ignorance of the law and the general mediocrity of law education. And let us not forget the justice system here is so lethargic and slow, so prone to blandishments from the accused, and the public indifference to it all.
Do not forget the really clever people on the side of corruption, the ones that have drugs smuggled in those lifters, that manage to supply shabu to prisoners and manipulate the law to return to society criminals of heinous deeds. There are innumerable ways of being corrupt. Fighting and winning against these elements take intelligence, principle, courage and integrity, and the application of the rule of law.
Idle threats, no matter how passionately given, become tinny noises when they are not followed through conclusively, fairly and consistently. Worse, recycling suspects is the giveaway that this is not a serious fight against corruption.
Again, if this fight is not intelligently managed, with all the conditions of fairness and swiftness, evidence and the knowledge of the law, and ultimately, the sanctions necessary for the guilty, corruption will be here to stay big-time.