| 10
November 2006
MS.
HUGETTE LABELLE
Chairperson
Transparency
International
Alt
Moabit 96
10559
Berlin, Germany
Dear Ms.
Labelle: Greetings!
Let
me first introduce you to the Commission which the undersigned
represents as its Chairman - the Presidential Anti-Graft
Commission (PAGC) - created by virtue of an Executive Order
issued on 16 April 2001 to serve as the President of the
Philippines’ arm in curbing corruption - a thrust that has
taken a center stage in the President’s agenda since 2001 upon
the assumption to the Presidency of Her Excellency, President
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. The fight against graft and corruption
has even intensified - specially starting in 2004, as evidenced
by the provision of one full chapter on anti-corruption in the
2004 - 2010 Medium Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP) -
which specified the adoption of the three prong approach,
referring to -1) an intensified investigation to ensure credible
case build up resulting to air tight cases; 2) prevention to
ensure corruption resistant systems; and, 3) education towards
zero tolerance for corruption. There is even an added strategy -
that is on strategic partnership, to highlight the roles of each
citizen in the fight against corruption. Another chapter of the
MTPDP, is on bureaucratic reforms - and both chapters, have
provided - the necessary guidelines for all offices of the
government as to how each agency has to factor in the
anti-corruption programs into their respective strategic plans,
the implementation and enforcement of which, are being ensured
and monitored. And, the country has for the first time, is now
offering - a Graduate Certificate Course on Corruption
Prevention attended by executives.
The
anti-corruption programs of the government are now making
headways. And some of the very clear evidences point to the
improving economy with an increasing Gross Domestic Product
(GDP), increasing exports and increasing investments. No less
than Mr Juan Daboub, Managing Director of World Bank said during
his visit to the country on 12 September 2006 - that "…there
is a very fertile ground for economic progress in the
Philippines". Prior to that event, the United States of
America, approved a US $ 21.0 million grant for the Philippines
- under the Millenium Challenge Account (MCA) - in view of the
consideration for the country as a threshold
candidate.
The
Philippines’ Threshold Program focuses on - addressing
improved revenue administration and anti-corruption efforts -
geared towards further accelerating the pace of sustainable and
continuous efforts to stamp out corruption, plug revenue leaks,
increase tax collection, and the like. The World Bank’s
Institutional Development Fund (IDF) likewise released a grant
of US$ 300,000.00 to help the government implement the first of
the 22 very specific and doable anti-corruption measures under
its Integrity Development Action Plan (IDAP) - which is the
National Anti-Corruption Framework for the Executive Branch.
This measure is about strengthening internal controls through
the setting up of the Internal Audit Units initially tilted
towards procurement governance. Further, the Philippine Senate
has recently ratified the United Nations Convention Against
Corruption (UNCAC) making ours the only South East Asian country
to have ratified the UNCAC so far.
There
are other equally important projects and assistance from various
donor community groups as well as local organizations which are
responsive to the government’s call for a concerted effort in
fighting graft and corruption. And we are more than willing to
explain these to you - for you, to fully understand, why this
type of letter is sent to you, and, what this communication
hopes to achieve.
The
entire Commission fully disagree with the result of your survey
- the one referring to the 2006 Corruption Perception Index
(CPI) - wherein, the Philippines was ranked 121st among the 163
countries rated for their degree of corruption. Based on the
said report, the Philippines got a score of 2.5 which was the
same obtained last year.
As
a Filipino, the undersigned openly expresses her sentiments -
about the way TI’s reports - are negatively affecting the
genuine efforts of the Macapagal - Arroyo Administration to
fight graft and corruption (some of the milestones already
presented at page one of this letter), and, how such impacts -
on the image of the country - portrayed by your recent report,
as one of the most corrupt in the world (even if you only
covered 163 countries representing probably less than 10 per
cent of the total number of countries worldwide).
As
the Chairman of PAGC - the undersigned, openly expresses - her
frustration - as regards the role that TI plays (directly or
indirectly) in the country’s thrust towards an enhanced
anti-corruption program. Probably, in the 1990s, your reports
played a crucial role in increasing awareness - as regards
corruption-related concerns, and thus - moved governments,
including our country, to revisit anti-corruption programs and
exert effort to join the race to the top and shed the label of
being one of the world’s most corrupt countries. But, at this
time, when there is a genuine effort to fight corruption -
backed up by an enhanced anti-corruption campaign - that is
being waged, the kind of information that your report provides -
becomes counter productive. Your work, per our understanding, do
not consider trends and the reforms being undertaken in a
covered country.
We
read about Mr Fredrik Galtung and Dr Michael Johnston’s
assessments of the TI survey and noted the Corruption Perception
Index (CPI)’s seven failings as these were fully discussed in
Mr Galtung’s paper.
Given
all these, we are requesting for an explanation as regards the
parameters and methodology that TI used, and how - the
Philippines got its 121st rating and the 2.5 score. We
understand that you definitely made use of a methodology - but
we are in effect questioning that methodology, because, such did
not highlight the limitations of your survey, and did not factor
in - in your report, anything at all - as regards repercussions
of those limitations on the covered countries’ standing.
We
are particularly referring to a case, where a covered country is
good at managing perception due to a controlled media as in the
case of communist countries - that TI surveyed which ranked
higher, in fact, much higher in your report - but that never
meant - that there are no corruption cases in those countries.
Because, as members of the international communities expressed
their views on this, per their perception, there are countries
in your report that got higher rankings, yet, worst cases of
corruption are likewise reported in the media. Closest to
reality is the fact - that corruption issues are not reported in
the media because of press censorship - unlike in the
Philippines, where our press enjoys total freedom. If your
report is based on this process - then, the way countries are
projected as regards levels or corruption is far from the real
situation - and we hope that you come into realization - of how
damaging your reports are - to those countries projected to have
the highest reports of perception on corruption.
Another
thing, it was explained in the TI report that the reason for the
Philippines’ slip to 121st is the addition of nine (9)
countries and omission of five (5) others. Somewhere in your
report, it was mentioned that getting a higher or lower ranking
- is dependent - on how the added countries score. If so, can
you also explain your basis for choosing additional
countries.
Are
you picking out countries with more corruption or lower cases of
corruption? Because, as it is, your choice could result to a
different spin that could have likewise change the picture that
your reports project.
We
believe that the TI’s role - as far as increasing awareness on
the anti-corruption concerns for the Philippines has long been
achieved. What we need now - is an honest to goodness assessment
of how our anti corruption programs are faring - and not the
kind that is based on perception. Because of this, we would like
to further inquire on the processes - that the country needs to
take - to be able to be de listed from your country coverage. We
do acknowledge the influence that your reporting commands, but,
we are of the belief that the process upon which such was
prepared was devoid of an acceptable manner and accurate
inputs.
We
cannot allow such work to tarnish our country’s image and
dampen the spirits of our citizenry - thus, it would be best for
the country to be delisted or omitted from your country
coverage.
Lastly,
may we take this opportunity to bring to your attention and
request for your position on the propriety of your TI
Chairperson for the Philippine Chapter, Retired Judge Dolores L.
Espanol, acting as counsel to one of the top officials of the
Philippines who was ordered dismissed by the Office of the
President, per PAGC’s recommendations, for malversation
charges. We would like to be clarified if there are standards
set by TI in Berlin - as regards how you could, in all honesty,
maintain objectivity, transparency and fairness - if your
country representatives are not given clear mandates - on what
they should or should not do. We do hope for your
preferential attention and immediate action on these
concerns.
Very
truly yours,
(Signed)
DR.
Constancia P. de Guzman, MNSA P.A.G.C.
Chairman
Cc:
Judge Dolores L. Español (Ret) Chairperson, Transparency Int’l
- Philippine Chapter |
Office
of the President of the Philippines
Presidential
Anti-Graft Commission
State
Accounting and Auditing Center Bldg.
Commonwealth
Avenue, U.P. Compound
Diliman,
Quezon City
Republic
of the Philippines
25
January 2007
Dear
Dr. de Guzman,
Thank
you very much for your letter of 10 November, and my sincerest
apologies at the delay in our reply.
I
am glad we had the opportunity to meet in Jordan, where you
expressed your government’s wholehearted commitment to its
anti-corruption work and to ratifying the UN Convention against
Corruption. The ongoing efforts of your Commission to strengthen
law enforcement and preventative measures to eradicate corruption
in the Philippines are an encouraging example of political will
and dedication. TI would be delighted to learn more about the
impact your 6 year anticorruption plan has had to date and its
prognosis until 2010.
I
appreciate your have concerns about the score and ranking of the
Philippines in our Corruption Perceptions Index 2006. Please let
me remind you that the surveys that TI draws upon to develop the
Corruption Perceptions Index do not reflect TI opinion, but rather
expert opinion from the business and analyst communities. TI in no
way influences the findings of its CPI. We compile other
organisations’ survey data to create an index that has proved
robust in assessing perception of a country’s relative levels of
corruption.
In
your letter to us, it is suggested that press freedom impacts
considerably on how the expert community rank countries in terms
of perceived corruption. At the same time, academic research which
has investigated the link between different measures of press
freedom and the CPI, shows that a free press effectively deters
corruption. In view of indicators by Freedom House, for example,
countries with a free press tend to perform better in the CPI.
Freedom of opinion in the Philippine press is surely an asset to
the work of the government in this regard.
At
the same time, however, the findings of our Global Corruption
Barometer 2006 suggest that the general public in the Philippines
has not yet begun to feel the positive impact of the PAGC’s work
to curb corruption. As you may know, TI also produces a Global
Corruption Barometer each year. The Barometer is a general public
opinion poll on the nature and extent of corruption.
In 2006, one question asked: ‘How would you assess your
current government’s actions in the fight against corruption?’
In the Philippines, respondents answered: Very effective 8%,
Effective 13%, Not effective 31%, Does not fight it at all 23%,
the government does not fight but actually encourages corruption
25%. Further, 3 in 10 respondents who had contact with public
institutions said that they had to pay a bribe for services.
Regarding
the ranking of countries on the CPI, it is true that ranks change
more than scores, due to the inclusion/deletion of countries each
year. Information on trends should be deduced from a country's
score, not its rank. Since the Philippines obtained the same score
in 2006 as last year, there is currently no trend to be observed.
If reform measures are indeed effective, it may take more time to
convince the public and international investors on the quality of
these achievements.
We
always include a country if we have a minimum of three sources
surveys that rate and rank that country. This provides a minimum
of reliability to our own scoring. We do not add or remove
countries based on the wishes of a government or other
stakeholder. Indeed, as you have pointed out, a country’s score
is always tied to its relative rank in the individual survey
sources (all of which must include a rank to be incorporated
into the CPI).
In
reference to the follow-up note we received from the Ambassador to
Germany, Delia Domingo Albert, suggesting that we have plans to
change the CPI in the coming year, please note that this seems to
have been a misunderstanding and that we do not currently have
such plans. We do
have a number of other research and measurement tools that reflect
on the institutions and instruments to fight corruption in a
country. One of the most important is our National Integrity
System country study on the Philippines, which will be released
this month.
The
National Integrity System study examines all of the institutions,
both governmental and non-governmental, that contribute to
integrity and a sound system to combat corruption. As a narrative
report, it is more nuanced than the CPI, and highlights both the
strengths and weaknesses evident in a country. I would be pleased
to send you a copy of this study as soon as it is released.
I
would be equally delighted to share with you more information
about our forthcoming regional programme to Measure
Anti-Corruption Efforts and Progress, and Promote Stronger
National Integrity Systems. We would welcome the Philippine
government to take part in the work, which will include UNCAC gap
analysis.
Please
do let me take this opportunity to encourage you and the
Philippine government in its work to fight corruption. We
recognize that for those who are genuinely committed to this
struggle, a lack of improvement in the CPI can be difficult and
discouraging. Please appreciate that the CPI is just one means of
illustrating perceptions of corruption. Its strength lies in its
ability to provide comparative assessment of how corruption is
perceived in countries around the globe; other tools are much
better suited to assessing what is happening in a country, and
why. This kind of information has proven to be very useful for
policymakers who guide reform.
TI
hopes to continue to engage with the Government and play a
supportive function in anti-corruption work through the local
chapter, and our regional and global programmes. We are keen to
learn from your experiences in developing progress reports and
other systematic information on indicators that measure both
incidence and reduction of corruption.
As a positive form of contribution, we may be able to
suggest further actions that may complement or inform your current
anti-corruption plan.
Increasingly
over time, governments with strong political will to initiate and
implement corruption reforms, develop agreeable perceptions. This political will extends to handling corruption cases with
a renewed emphasis on equity and transparency. We agree that to
eradicate corruption, governments must strive to ensure an
independent and accountable judiciary and legislature, effective
law enforcement and unbiased application of the rule of law.
We hope our relationship will help bring concrete
anticorruption results that are visible to experts and business
community whose perceptions are reflected in the CPI.
We
look forward to carrying on these discussions with Her Excellency
Domingo-Albert in Berlin who we expect to meet in early February.
We hope also that you would be able to meet with Mr. Pascal
Fabie, the TI Regional Director for Asia Pacific on the occasion
of his country visit to the Philippines in 2007.
Again
thank you for your letter and for raising concerns. Please do not
hesitate to contact me if I or TI can be of further assistance.
Yours
sincerely,
(Signed)
Huguette
Labelle
Chair
of the Board of Directors
|
|
Letter
(e-mail) of TI-Philippines Chairman, Judge Dolores L. Español (Ret.),
to Mr. CHito Lozada of the Tribune |
|
Transparency
International - Philippine Chapter
From: Transparency International <transparencyinternational_ph@yahoo.com>
To: "Mr. Chito L. Lozada" <clozada@tribune.net.ph>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 23:07:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Comments to article entitled “Gov’t wants out from TI annual corruption survey”
Dear Mr. Lozada:
In the Business Section of February 8, 2007 issue of your newspaper, appeared an article entitled "Gov’t wants out from TI annual corruption survey", arising from the letter of PAGC chairman Constancia de Guzman to Ms. Hugette Labelle, chairman, Transparency International (TI).
Of interest to note is the highlight given to the issue raised by Ms. De Guzman questioning the integrity of the local chapter chairman Dolores Español, followed by two (2) paragraphs explaining why my integrity is questionable for acting as counsel to one of the top officials of the Philippines who was ordered dismissed by the Office of the President, per PAGC’s recommendations, for malversation charges, with reference to the first paragraph.
The second paragraph refers to Ms. De Guzman’s inquiry as to whether or not there are standards set by TI in Berlin, as regards how you could, in all honesty maintain objectivity, transparency and fairness, if your country representatives are not given clear mandates on what they should nor should not do,
With all candor, it is sad to state that I lament arguing with non-members of the Philippine Bar, yet on record, the majority of the Commissioners in PAGC while tasked to conduct investigations of alleged irregularities of Presidential appointees in the government and rule on matters pertaining to law, are non-lawyers. However, this is not a unique situation under the current dispensation.
In the case of my client, he was summarily dismissed for not submitting his counter-affidavit as directed by PAGC’s non-lawyer commissioners, even as he was denied being furnished with the complaints against him. Earlier, the same client together with his co-respondents was cleared in both administrative and criminal charges lodged by the same complainant before the Office of the Ombudsman who was likewise engaged in forum shopping. Such being the case, common sense dictates that my client cannot submit a counter-affidavit without knowing the charge/s against him and the evidence that the complainant/s have submitted to PAGC in support of their complaints, a situation that openly violates his constitutional right to due process.
Moreover, with regard to the clarification being sought by Ms. De Guzman concerning the standards set by TI Berlin in addressing the issue of my law practice, let it be on record that TI requires all its accredited national chapters to adopt a Code of Ethics and a policy of non-conflict of interests and TI-Philippines has complied with these requirements. Similarly, PAGC should be the last entity to invoke the tenets of objectivity, transparency and fairness, considering its blatant disregard of the rule of law and due process provisions of the Constitution.
A closer look at Chairperson Labelle’s letter-reply, it would be in keeping with PAGC’s objective to change the tarnished image of the country due to corruption, if Ms. De Guzman will consider Ms. Labelle’s suggestion that:
"Increasingly over time, governments with strong political will to initiate and implement corruption reforms, develop agreeable perceptions. This political will extends to handling corruption cases with a renewed emphasis on equity and transparency. We agree that to eradicate corruption, governments must strive to ensure an independent and accountable judiciary and legislature, effective law enforcement and unbiased application of the rule of law. We hope our relationship will help bring concrete anti-corruption results that are visible to experts and business community whose perceptions are reflected in the CPI."
With the foregoing, may I respectfully request that an appropriate space be given this reasonable explanation.
Very truly yours,
Judge Dolores L. Español (Ret.)
Chairperson
Attachment: Official Copy of Judge Español's Letter to Mr. Lozada
|
|