Monday, March 24, 2008

Graftwork (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)[1]

[1]
By Siesta-friendly


The fact that this law has been around since the 60’s and is only 1 of many statutes punishing graft and corruption underscores the reality that the problem is not the law but with law enforcement.

Anyway, with regular exposés of government irregularities (to say the least) it would be good to be reminded of what are punishable under this law:[2]


a) Persuading/inducing/influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations or an offense in connection with his official duties, or allowing oneself to be persuaded/ induced/influenced to commit such violation or offense.
Ex: Your friends asked you to endorse an over-priced commission-padded unnecessary telecommunications project and you do so (even as you advise your assistant to moderate their greed).

b) Directly/indirectly requesting/receiving any gift/share/percentage/benefit, for himself or for another, in connection with any contract/transaction between the Government and any other party, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law.
This probably occurs every other day in Philippine government offices everywhere so we don’t really need to cite an example do we?

c) Directly/indirectly requesting/receiving any gift or other pecuniary/material benefit, for himself or for another, from any person for whom the public officer, in any manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any Government permit or license, in consideration for the help given or to be given.
Alas, another every other day occurrence too common to require an example.

d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private enterprise which has pending official business with him during the pendency thereof or within 1 year after its termination.
Hypothetically, if GMA allowed her brother to be involved, say, as a consultant in the ZTE-NBN deal which will require the approval of NEDA which GMA chairs, then this provision will kick in. Only a hypothetical example, of course.

e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits/advantage/preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality / evident bad faith / gross inexcusable negligence. This applies to officers and employees of government corporations charged with the grant of licenses/permits/other concessions.
The Bureau of Customs, BIR, DepEd and DPWH provide too many samples to choose from. Just look at the dirt-cheap goods out there, the pothole-riddled frequently flooded roads, the grammatically- scientifically- and historically-incorrect text books, and maybe the well-accessorized and lavishly living public employees we have and you should know where the money really went.

f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, without sufficient justification, to act within a reasonable time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in favor of or discriminating against any other interested party.
This is where your “facilitation fees” normally fall under. You know, when you wonder what’s the hold-up on your documents and you feel prompted to ask what you can do to move them.

g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby.
Ex: Being a public officer, you receive information about an anomalous government deal on the eve of signing it and you proceed to sign it nonetheless. Or, signing a contract allowing a foreign country to explore natural resources within your territory.

h) Directly/indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any business/contract/transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest.
Ex: A mayor allows public work contracts to magically fall into the hands of corporations which he partly owns.

i) Directly/indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain, or having a material interest in any transaction/act requiring the approval of a board/panel/group of which he is a member, and which exercises discretion in such approval, even if he votes against the same or does not participate in the action of the board/committee/panel/group. Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against those public officers responsible for the approval of manifestly unlawful/inequitable/irregular transaction or acts by the board, panel or group to which they belong.
Ex: Say you’re the head of a government agency, say TESDA (again, hypothetical) and you write TESDA-related books and TESDA uses millions of public funds to print your books. The free promotion you get – with your name and photos placed all over the book pages and promotional materials, not to mention loads of self-flattery contained in the book - match any campaign propaganda you will need to spend for in an upcoming election.

j) Knowingly approving or granting any license/permit/privilege/benefit in favor of any person not qualified for or not legally entitled to such license/permit/privilege/ advantage, or of a mere representative or dummy of one who is not so qualified or entitled.
This should cover any LTO officer who grants every other Filipino a driver’s license. If you have ever applied for a Philippine driver’s license (or just drive on Philippine roads), you know this is true. Or haven’t you heard of the blind guy who was issued a Philippine driver’s license a few years back?

k) Divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by him on account of his official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such information in advance of its authorized release date.
Yet another crime that’s well-entrenched in the Filipino culture. You do like tsismis, yah?

Prohibition on private individuals[3]

And private individuals are definitely not exempt from this law as it is unlawful for any person -

a) having family/close personal relation with any public official to capitalize/exploit/take advantage of such family/close personal relation by directly/indirectly requesting/receiving any present/gift/ material/pecuniary advantage from any other person having some business/transaction/application/request/contract with the government, in which such public official has to intervene. Family relation shall include the spouse or relatives by consanguinity or affinity in the third civil degree. “Close personal relation” includes close personal friendship, social and fraternal connections, and professional employment all giving rise to intimacy which assures free access to such public officer.

b) to induce or cause any public official to commit any of the offenses defined as a corrupt practice of public officers.

So every time FG alleges he cannot be subject to an anti-graft/or bribery case because he is a private individual, well, you know the answer.

Prohibition on certain relatives[4]

It is unlawful for the spouse or for any relative, by consanguinity or affinity, within the 3rd civil degree, of the President, the Vice-President, the Senate President, or the House Speaker, to intervene, directly/indirectly, in any business/transaction/contract/application with the Government, provided, that this shall not apply to any person who, prior to the assumption of office of any of the above officials to whom he is related, has been already dealing with the Government along the same line of business, nor to any transaction/contract/application already existing/pending at the time of such assumption of public office, nor to any application filed by him the approval of which is not discretionary on the part of the official or officials concerned but depends upon compliance with requisites provided by law, or rules or regulations issued pursuant to law, nor to any act lawfully performed in an official capacity or in the exercise of a profession.
Unfortunately, this is not where JoeyDV’s Amsterdam Holdings’ broadband deal falls under because JDV as Speaker does not have any part in the approval of any government broadband deal. Perhaps any or all of the allegations regarding FG or brother Iggy might be apt.

Specific Prohibition on Members of Congress[5]

It is unlawful hereafter for any Member of Congress during his term, to acquire or receive any personal pecuniary interest in any specific business which will be directly and particularly favored or benefited by any law or resolution authored by him previously approved or adopted by the Congress during the same term. This shall apply to any other public officer who recommended the initiation in Congress of the enactment or adoption of any law or resolution, and acquires or receives any such interest during his incumbency. It also unlawful for such member of Congress or other public officer, who, having such interest prior to the approval of such law or resolution authored or recommended by him, continues for 30 days after such approval to retain such interest.
Hmmm, but how about the other way around – a representative preventing a law from being passed which would go against one’s business interest? Say, a legislator who’s in the real estate business and prevents or delays the passage of a law that would revolutionize the property registration system and would put an end to land grabbing? Hmmm.

Unexplained wealth[6]

If a public official has been found to have acquired during his incumbency, whether in his name or in the name of other persons, an amount of property and/or money manifestly out of proportion to his salary and to his other lawful income, that fact shall be a ground for dismissal or removal. Properties in the name of the spouse and unmarried children of such public official may be taken into consideration, when their acquisition through legitimate means cannot be satisfactorily shown. And, bank deposits are subject to this law too. Of course, following the Marcoses example, it’s a sure bet that a lot of funds subject to this provision are likely already safe and sound offshore.

By the way, unsolicited gifts or presents of small or insignificant value offered or given as a mere ordinary token of gratitude or friendship according to local customs or usage, are excepted from this law.[7]

If we could take a test and check which of the above we’ve witnessed, we’ll all probably pass with flying colors. Sad isn’t? Sadder still if we’ve been more than witnesses but have actually abetted these crimes, no matter how petty or small, such as that crumpled bill we pass on for a traffic violation. It all starts there when graft and corruption gets to wed with tolerance and acceptance.


[1] Republic Act No. 3019, August 17, 1960.

[2] Sec. 3, Ibid.

[3] Sec. 4, Ibid.

[4] Sec. 5, Ibid.

[5] Sec. 6, Ibid.

[6] Sec. 8, Ibid.

[7] Sec. 14, Ibid.


NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST

No comments: