LC Business Education

“Integrity must once again become an ordinary value practiced by many rather than an exception performed by a few.”

The Philippines woke up once again to a familiar nightmare. Another corruption scandal, this time involving flood-control projects that were either overpriced, substandard, or never completed at all. According to a Senate inquiry, engineers testified that many of these projects were padded by as much as 20 percent to accommodate kickbacks for local officials and contractors (Associated Press, 2025). Markets responded swiftly: the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas cut rates to calm investors worried about governance risks (Reuters, 2025), while thousands took to the streets demanding resignations and reforms (Time, 2025).

But the shock of this scandal is really the story of a long, unbroken chain. From the colonial bureaucracy of the 16th century to the family and workplace shortcuts of today, corruption in the Philippines is not merely an act of theft; it is a cultural inheritance.

Colonial Shadows: How Corruption Took Root

The Spanish Legacy: Public Office as Private Business

Corruption in the Philippines has deep colonial roots. During the Spanish era (1565–1898), many bureaucratic posts were literally for sale. Provincial alcaldes and gobernadorcillos collected “tributes” and “bandala” not only for the crown but also for their own pockets. Historian Onofre D. Corpuz (1957) noted that colonial administration was “bureaucratic but privatized,” where officials saw their posts as investments to be recouped through informal levies and monopolies.

Political scientist Remigio Agpalo (1979) described how the system institutionalized compadrazgo, personal connections that blurred the line between public service and private favor. The result was an early form of bureaucratic rent-seeking. As the Philippine Journal of Public Administration later summarized, graft during the Spanish period “was not aberration but routine” (PSSC Archives, 1979).

The American Period: Institutionalizing Patronage

When the Americans replaced Spain in 1898, they introduced merit-based systems, civil service exams, and elections. Yet, as sociologist Michael Pinches (1991) observed, the Americans “failed to dismantle the patrimonial bureaucracy.” Instead, political patronage simply took on new democratic clothing.

Local elites retained control of municipal governments, using electoral politics as new vehicles for old favors. Historian Paul Hutchcroft (1998) calls this the “booty capitalist” state where powerful families controlled access to state resources and offices. Hence, corruption became systemic: it flowed through institutions rather than around them.

The Post-Independence and Marcos Years: Kleptocracy and Cronyism

After independence in 1946, public service was still viewed as a route to wealth and influence. The system of “padrino politics” grew stronger. Ferdinand Marcos Sr.’s authoritarian rule (1972–1986) represented the pinnacle of institutional corruption. According to McCoy (2009), the Marcos regime perfected crony capitalism, centralizing wealth through monopolies and fake corporations while suppressing transparency and dissent.

During Martial Law, the “plunder of the nation” became not a metaphor but a measurable phenomenon: billions of pesos in kickbacks, overseas accounts, and sweetheart loans were documented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) after 1986. Scholars such as David Kang (2002) and Paul Hutchcroft (1998) describe this period as one where “personal rule replaced institutional governance.”

Despite democratization after the 1986 People Power Revolution, the remnants of that system persisted, opaque procurement, rent-seeking, and nepotism recycled across administrations. As Cambridge historian Vicente Rafael (2025) recently noted, corruption in the Philippines is “a thousand-year habit with a democratic accent.”

The Small Corruptions: From Family to Workplace

Corruption in the Philippines does not always begin with billion-peso projects or high-profile scandals. It often starts quietly in everyday situations where people choose convenience over integrity. From the home to the school, from the workplace to the community, small acts of dishonesty gradually become normalized. Over time, these seemingly harmless shortcuts evolve into habits that shape how society views morality, fairness, and public responsibility.

In the Family

The Filipino family, the core of moral and cultural values, can also serve as the first site where corruption is learned and justified. Sociologist Mary Racelis (2006) observed that familial loyalty often overrides ethical judgment, especially when utang na loob (debt of gratitude) and pakikisama (smooth interpersonal relations) are invoked to excuse questionable actions. Parents who offer “padulas” to speed up documents or who use influence to secure jobs for their children might see these acts as parental care, not moral failure. However, as political scientist Remigio Agpalo (1979) noted, such behavior cultivates the belief that bending rules for kinship or convenience is normal. This early exposure conditions individuals to view corruption not as wrongdoing, but as a necessary act of survival or affection, an echo of the patron–client relationships that defined colonial governance.

In the School

Academic institutions often reflect the society they inhabit. In the Philippines, schools become the training ground for ethical flexibility. Cheating during exams, giving teachers gifts in exchange for favorable grades, and unliquidated organization funds are treated as part of student life. A study by Talisayon (2012) found that moral education among Filipino students tends to emphasize obedience and conformity rather than ethical reasoning, leading to a passive acceptance of misconduct. When plagiarism or bribery is rationalized as “normal,” students internalize the idea that success can be achieved through manipulation. These practices form the early moral rehearsal for workplace or political corruption later in life (David, 2015).

In the Workplace

The professional environment becomes the next arena where “small sins” accumulate. As the Civil Service Commission (2023) reported, everyday infractions such as padding receipts, taking home office supplies, or accepting “tokens of gratitude” from suppliers remain common across agencies. Many employees justify these acts by appealing to low pay or tradition. Sociologist Randy David (2015) calls this the “culture of accommodation,” where workers adjust their moral compass to fit systemic dysfunction. Nepotism, manipulation of attendance logs, and leniency toward subordinates’ violations further reinforce the cycle. What begins as tolerance for small wrongs gradually erodes institutional trust and professionalism (Hutchcroft, 1998).

In the Community

At the barangay and local government levels, corruption often mirrors the larger political structure but in more familiar forms. Vote-buying, favoritism in distributing relief goods, and the misuse of public funds are frequent and often excused as “acts of generosity” (La Viña, 2020). Ghost beneficiaries, falsified project reports, and the palakasan system in scholarships or housing programs are seen as part of the political exchange. The Commission on Audit (COA, 2022) repeatedly documents such irregularities in local governance reports, yet public outrage rarely follows. For many citizens, these practices have become routine, summed up in the weary phrase, “normal na yan.”

Cultural Rationalizations

The persistence of petty corruption is sustained by deeply rooted Filipino cultural values that, when distorted, legitimize unethical conduct. Pakikisama encourages silence to preserve social harmony; utang na loob binds people to repay favors even when immoral; and hiya (shame) discourages whistle-blowing or confrontation (Rocamora, 2008). While these values once strengthened community cohesion, they have been weaponized to justify wrongdoing. Thus, honesty becomes inconvenient, and integrity, idealistic. As political historian Alfred McCoy (2009) argued, corruption endures not merely because of weak institutions but because of strong social bonds that prioritize relationships over rules. The result is a moral paradox: a people rich in values yet tolerant of moral decay.

In the end, the country’s billion-peso scandals are only magnified versions of the small acts tolerated at home and work. The same mentality that excuses a bribe to a traffic enforcer, or a falsified report also sustains grand corruption in government. Reform, therefore, must begin not only with new laws but with moral reconstruction in the spaces closest to home: the family, the classroom, the office, and the community.

Conclusion

The corruption scandal that has again captured public attention goes beyond a single controversy. It exposes a pattern that has long defined how power operates in the country. Each story of missing funds, ghost projects, or substandard infrastructure points to a moral crisis that has been part of our national life for generations.

History shows that corruption in the Philippines is not simply the work of greedy individuals but the outcome of habits passed down through time. The Spanish friars who traded favors and the colonial officials who sold positions taught the early Filipinos that power could be negotiated. Under the Americans, political patronage became part of governance, and after independence, it evolved into a system where influence mattered more than integrity. These lessons were absorbed so deeply that even today, people find it difficult to separate survival from compromise.

Corruption survives not only in government halls but also in ordinary spaces. It begins in the home where people pay to speed up transactions, in classrooms where cheating is brushed aside as teamwork, and in workplaces where small wrongs are tolerated to keep the peace. These daily choices form the invisible foundation of a culture that quietly approves what it condemns in public. When wrongdoing becomes familiar, outrage fades, and people learn to live with what they once swore to reject.

Yet transformation remains possible. The Filipino has always shown resilience in times of crisis, and that same strength can rebuild moral integrity. Real reform starts with personal conviction rather than legislation. It begins when citizens refuse to buy favor, when parents choose honesty over advantage, when teachers reward effort rather than gifts, and when officials remember that public office is a form of trust. Integrity must once again become an ordinary value practiced by many rather than an exception performed by a few.

Conscience and collective can only stop the flood of corruption that has soaked our institutions will. If every Filipino chooses to act with fairness in small things, larger reforms will naturally follow. The rebuilding of this nation depends on this quiet courage; the decision to do what is right even when no one is watching. When that day comes, the Philippines will not only recover from scandal but rediscover its soul.

Bibliography

Agpalo, R. (1979). Historical notes on graft and corruption in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 23(3–4), 289–309.

Associated Press. (2025, October 9). Philippine flood-control projects made substandard to allow huge kickbacks, Senate inquiry told. https://apnews.com/article/6ec985cb21d1c14ba617a57b9f223974

Cambridge University Press. (2025). A thousand years of corruption: A history of corruption and anticorruption in the Philippines since 1946. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 67(3), 401–423.

Commission on Audit (COA). (2022). Annual audit reports on local government units. Quezon City, Philippines: COA.

Civil Service Commission. (2023). Integrity development and ethical standards survey. Quezon City, Philippines: CSC.

Corpuz, O. D. (1957). The Bureaucracy in the Philippines. University of the Philippines Press.

David, R. (2015). Public lives: Essays on politics and social change in the Philippines. University of the Philippines Press.

De Guzman, R., & Reforma, M. (1993). Ethics in public administration in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 37(2), 131–145.

Hutchcroft, P. D. (1998). Booty capitalism: The politics of banking in the Philippines. Cornell University Press.

Kang, D. (2002). Crony capitalism: Corruption and development in South Korea and the Philippines. Cambridge University Press.

La Viña, A. (2020, August 3). Vote buying and the culture of corruption. Rappler. https://www.rappler.com

McCoy, A. W. (2009). An anarchy of families: State and family in the Philippines. University of Wisconsin Press.

Pacific Island Times. (2024, April 12). The colonial legacy: Political corruption dates back to the Spanish period. https://www.pacificislandtimes.com

Philippine Social Science Council (PSSC). (1979). Historical notes on graft and corruption in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 23(3–4), 289–309.

Pinches, M. (1991). The working class experience of corruption and the limits of popular resistance in the Philippines. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 21(2), 208–226.

Racelis, M. (2006). Being Filipino: Social and cultural values. Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Rafael, V. (2025). A thousand years of corruption: A history of corruption and anticorruption in the Philippines since 1946. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 67(3), 401–423.

Rappler. (2025, September 22). Public fury rises over flood corruption scandal. https://www.rappler.com

Reuters. (2025, October 9). Philippine central bank unexpectedly cuts rates by 25 bps amid corruption fallout. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/philippine-central-bank-unexpectedly-cuts-rates-by-25-bps-475-2025-10-09

Rocamora, J. (2008). Patronage politics and corruption in the Philippines. Transparency International Working Paper.

Talisayon, S. (2012). Values education and moral reasoning among Filipino youth. Philippine Social Science Review, 64(1), 45–67.

The Diplomat. (2025, October 1). An overview of the raging corruption scandals in the Philippines. https://thediplomat.com/2025/10/an-overview-of-the-raging-corruption-scandals-in-the-philippines

Time Magazine. (2025, September 21). Filipinos call for “radical change” in mass protests over flood-money corruption. https://time.com/7319164/philippines-flood-control-projects-corruption