THE ongoing impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, graft cases lodged against several current and former lawmakers, the continuing investigations and filing of cases related to the massive flood-control scandal, and the announcement this week of the reopening of an investigation into the still-unanswered disappearance of several billion pesos in budget funds for the 2019 Asean Games — headed at the time by current Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano — have intensified public awareness of the issue of government corruption here in the Philippines.
With all of this happening at the same, it is certainly understandable if people form the impression that the Philippines is suffering from a uniquely out-of-control epidemic of corruption. Some recent news from neighboring Indonesia, however, shows that our experience here is neither unique nor as bad as could be. Depending on one’s point of view, the Indonesian situation is either a cautionary tale, or an example of how the broad problem of corruption could be addressed.
Earlier this year, Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto, frustrated with the ineffectiveness of anti-corruption measures in Indonesia’s Directorate General of Customs and Excise, declared that he would dissolve the agency and hand over management of customs enforcement to a private company, specifically the Swiss testing, inspection and certification company SGS (Société Générale de Surveillance). There is precedent for the move in Indonesia; former president Suharto did the same thing in the mid-1980s, engaging SGS to run the country’s customs for a period of about 12 years until those functions were gradually returned to the government.
However, Finance Minister Purbaya Yudhi Sadewa early this month prevailed on the president to postpone his plan for one year to allow the Customs department to implement some more reforms. This was reported in the Indonesian media on or about July 3, but on July 5, the Customs and Excise director general, Djaka Budhi Utama, was named in a bribery case stemming from a large-scale technical smuggling operation first discovered by anti-corruption investigators back in February. Charges against Djaka have not yet been filed, and there is some question whether there will be, and what form they may take because he is a close associate of Prabowo; the latter was Djaka’s superior officer in the Army Special Forces for a time.
Part of what complicates Indonesia’s anti-corruption drive, and something that has clearly soured public opinion on the effectiveness of the Prabowo administration’s efforts, is the unfortunate fact that officials responsible for investigating and prosecuting corruption cases seem to keep getting caught in their own corruption cases. In April, chief Ombudsman Hery Susanto was arrested on bribery charges just five days after being sworn into office. On July 11, Febrie Adriansyah, the head prosecutor of special crimes in the Indonesian Attorney General’s office, resigned after police raids in several properties connected to him turned up stacks of gold bars and nearly $20 million in assorted currencies. He has not been charged yet, but most observers in Jakarta assume that will probably come within days.
There are a few takeaways for us here in the Philippines from the ongoing Indonesian drama. First, the focus on cleaning up Customs operations is critical, because trade-related corruption has effects that stretch through the entire economy. Reports about the Indonesian situation almost always note that currently, the European Union, one of the biggest trading partners for any country in this region, is working through a package of sweeping reforms in its customs management and regulation. Any other country wanting to trade with the EU is going to have to do so cleanly. This is not to say that our own Bureau of Customs is corrupt, or is not making efforts to combat fraud and smuggling, but it remains handicapped by the non-implementation of key programs to boost security and efficiency; namely, the pre-border technical verification and cross-border electronic invoicing programs.
Second, and more broadly, it is absolutely vital that the officials and systems put in place to combat corruption, no matter what part of the government is involved, be above reproach. Public confidence that progress is being made disappears instantly when the appointed watchdogs are perceived, or, as in the case of some officials in Indonesia, discovered in fact to have skeletons in their own closets. Many in the Philippines are not entirely confident that those investigating and prosecuting corruption cases here are acting entirely “without fear or favor,” and that is something that should be a source of great concern for the current leadership.
