Commentary: Can Filipinos transcend polarised politics to reject corruption?

QUEZON CITY: The upheavals in Indonesia and Nepal in the last few weeks were precipitated by frustrations over corruption, inequality, and injustice perceived and experienced in these countries.

Led largely by Generation Z (under-30), the protests swelled quickly through social media, reflecting the swift effect of youthful mobilisation amidst general political disillusionment.

A corruption scandal has also emerged in the Philippines, exposed by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr himself during his July State of the Nation Address (SONA), regarding misappropriation of funds designated for flood control projects. Despite the staggering US$17.5 billion allegedly plundered, public indignation so far has mostly manifested on social media, not on the streets.

Why has the Filipino public reaction been seemingly slow and mild? These scandals are not new in the country’s history. This flood control projects controversy, like previous corruption scandals, has implicated elected politicians in cahoots with government bureaucrats and private business contractors.

The public cannot be blamed for being apathetic for the past two months. The Philippines is known for mobilising grand protests against past instances of corruption and abuse of power; the country has even inspired similar popular revolts around the world. However, international repute exceeds domestic reality; the Philippines’ famous “people power” episodes, largely personality driven, have failed to catalyse genuine sociopolitical transformation.

PEOPLE PRIORITISE SURVIVAL

Rather than participate in protests, people prioritise survival – earning daily income, keeping jobs, feeding families. An aggravating factor is the highly polarised political environment in the Philippines arising from the Marcos-Duterte dynastic feud.

The public is being courted by competing groups, some aligned with President Marcos Jr’s family and others with Vice-President Sara Duterte (Rodrigo’s daughter), creating divergences in information and sentiment. Presently, several groups are rallying their own mass protests at different times and in different places.

The political and business elites implicated in the scandal are not clearly aligned with a specific political faction. Further investigations will likely reveal the extent of the corruption involving officials from the previous Duterte administration.

Apart from groups loyal to either the Marcoses or the Dutertes, civil society organisations and progressive politicians critical of both clans are also attempting to channel the public’s outrage into collective mobilisation in the streets.

Demanding political accountability and curbing corruption should be rallying cries for unified action even among disparate groups, but there is also no clear sign of alignment. For example, rather than one large demonstration, several protests have been planned for Sep 21. It remains to be seen whether they will produce the groundswell to put pressure on the government.

Other sectoral groups have joined the chorus with public statements of outrage, but stop short of coordinated, meaningful action. The business sector has condemned corruption and called for reform, without taking concrete actions beyond the statements. The middle class has either joined with the apathetic or retreated to their lifestyle of consumer comfort.

Religious groups are nominally large but have not delivered huge numbers in previous public protests. University students, represented mostly by Gen Z youth, have recently started to mobilise, but their initiatives lack coordination and are limited to specific universities.

RISKS OF PUBLIC APATHY

The absence of a national consensus against the current corruption scandal creates vulnerabilities that the current government cannot afford. Moreover, public apathy risks trapping the country economically. Just as low savings and high population growth can keep nations at low-income levels, tolerance of corruption will weigh on the country’s struggles to escape its lower-middle-income trap.

The Marcos Jr administration should feel compelled to take decisive action and punish guilty officials and private entities. If not, trust in the country’s political institutions will further erode, deterring both domestic reforms and foreign investments.

Filipinos have demanded a more decisive, convincing, and clear programme to deal with corruption, to recover embezzled funds and prosecute culprits regardless of position – for a systemic overhaul so that scandals like the one currently unfolding will not happen again.

Public pressure has also yielded changes in the leadership of the Senate and the House of Representatives in light of the alleged involvement of legislators from both chambers in this corruption scandal. These must be seen as first, not last, steps in this accountability crusade. Anything short of such standards will be perceived as political adjustments rather than genuine reform.

One test of true resolve is whether the mere launch of investigations, such as the creation of the Independent Commission on Infrastructure (ICI), will appease the public, or whether the President will face pressure to pursue corrupt public officials and potentially seize ill-gotten gains.

The President can call on the Ombudsman to lift the Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Net Worth access ban and file cases against public officials using the existing forfeiture laws, which put the burden of unexplained wealth on the accused. Marcos Jr could direct all offices within the executive branch of government to address corruption, with greater transparency and without fear or favour.

The Philippines’ fractured society has an opportunity to cohere around the fight against corruption, delivering a strong message that transcends its polarised politics. A successful anti-corruption drive could be the unifying moment that this bitterly divided country has been yearning for.

Dr Alvin Ang is Professor at the Department of Economics, Ateneo de Manila University. Dr Aries A Arugay is Visiting Senior Fellow and Coordinator of the Philippine Studies Programme at ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute. This commentary first appeared on ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute's site, Fulcrum.