A national integrity system

published 03 August 2007

Is there such a thing? Do these words, strung together, even make sense?

Actually, there is. They do. NIS has a specific definition: It encompasses key institutions, sectors, laws, practices or specific activities that contribute to integrity, transparency and accountability in a society.

The concept of NIS was developed and is being promoted by Transparency International, the most far-reaching anti-corruption organization. Definitely, there is more to TI than the Corruption Perception Index it is famous (and, at least here in the Philippines, eternally-challenged) for.

Each country has a national integrity system; TI undertakes a country study— essentially qualitative, but comprehensive anyway—to review how each individual system fares in theory (laws and regulatory provisions) and practice (how well it works). The study helps that country determine which areas require priority action. It identifies which pillars have been more, or less, successful. It provides basis to guide specific programs.

Studies likewise achieve much in the regional or international level. Results from countries with similar economic or political structures are put together. Knowing how a peer country fares creates a sense of pressure for reform. There is vast opportunity for learning.

Transparency International-Asia- Pacific has been able to put together the individual reports of its member-chapters. Essentially, 1) political will to curb corruption should be combined with a single independent anti-corruption agency (with the examples of Singapore and Hong Kong); 2) civil society should mobilize other sectors to fight corruption through coalition building; and 3) since corruption could not be solved overnight, it is best to undertake a sectoral approach in the implementation of reform programs.

In the Philippines, the NIS is made up of the following: the executive department, the legislative department, political parties, the Commission on Elections, the Commission on Audit, the judiciary/Sandiganbayan, the Civil Service Commission, the Office of the Ombudsman, the police, procurement bodies, anti-corruption agencies, media, civil society, the business sector and the Securities and Exchange Commission, regional and local governments and international institutions.

Our country report, released last February, says that anti-corruption efforts here pay attention to the punitive and preventive aspects and “may be described in superlative terms.”

And yet, in spite of this, corruption is seen to be prevalent. The country is still perceived to be “highly corrupt.” There is a huge gap between rhetoric and reality, promise and performance.

The Philippine country study says integrity pillars here are in themselves tainted, “compromised by systemic corruption compounded with difficulties to operate efficiently and effectively.” There is also under- and over-regulation—the former because of the absence of key legislation, specifically that which would protect so-called whistleblowers, and the latter because of rent-seeking, as politicians are allowed to be involved in the appointment system (think horse-trading at the Commission on Appointments).

The study recommends regulatory reform, rationalization of the bureaucracy (to pave the way for the implementation of wage adjustments; low income of civil servants is a main cause of corruption), prosecution of “big fish” (undersecretary level and above, big business tax evaders and military generals) rather than “small fry” and the institutionalization of anti-corruption training so the resolve does not dissipate.

There are numerous reports in the TI Web site. Those who wish to read on or see yet other studies may simply go to www.transparency.org.

***

This week, there was a disagreement between two anti-corruption groups on the level and nature of corruption in our country.

The executive director of Transparency and Accountability Network said that there now exist “grander and more lucrative corrupt practices” even as red tape, petty corruption and bribery have decreased. Vicente Lazatin also said there was “decrease in transparency and good governance” and that it has become “more difficult for watchdogs to gain information and access to documents.”

The Presidential Anti-Graft Commission immediately refuted this. Commissioner James Jacob said, in a radio interview: “Overall, big-time graft is not on the rise.” Sadly, however, Jacob stopped there. He did not say anything else to support his rebuttal.

Again, denial. Again, trumpeting of miniscule gains and eerie silence on issues that have remained unresolved for long and run the risk of being conveniently forgotten.

We are dealing with perceptions here, since a strictly empirical measure for corruption does not exist. (It is, after all, a hush topic—people in the know do not readily speak out, and even when they do, their motives are also put in question.) The only way to change perception is to be skewed towards prosecution, even as existing programs claim to address both prevention and prosecution. That we are seen as highly corrupt can only change drastically if examples are set. If prominent people are hauled to court and off to jail, shamed.

Prevention is good, since it discourages the actual commission of corrupt practices. But this is a forward-looking approach. Sometimes, fixation on the past is healthy—if only to deliver a strong statement that past misdeeds, just because they have already been committed, should not just be swept under the rug. Or else there would be a mountain underneath