Whis­tleblow­ing and integ­rity in the GOCC sec­tor

WHISTLEBLOWING, or report­ing a wrong­do­ing or mis­con­duct, does not just make gov­ern­ment offi­cials account­able; it is the corner­stone to the pro­tec­tion of integ­rity. Without doubt, it is something that should be strongly pro­moted and encour­aged.

A pub­lic office is a pub­lic trust, and any abuse of that trust, espe­cially if it amounts to a wrong­do­ing, must be repor­ted and be sub­ject to appro­pri­ate action. Thus, it is import­ant to cre­ate an envir­on­ment that highly encour­ages the pub­lic and gov­ern­ment employ­ees to report any wrong­do­ing or mis­con­duct in gov­ern­ment. This can only hap­pen if whis­tleblowers are guar­an­teed spe­cific pro­tec­tions.

Toward this end and pur­su­ant to the powers ves­ted upon it, the Gov­ernance Com­mis­sion for GOCCs (gov­ern­ment-owned and con­trolled cor­por­a­tions), or the GCG, issued Memor­andum Cir­cu­lar 2025-01, dated Jan. 13, 2025, estab­lish­ing the Whis­tleblow­ing and Integ­rity Pro­gram (WHIP), and provid­ing a frame­work for report­ing acts or omis­sions that may viol­ate or erode integ­rity in the GOCC sec­tor. The cir­cu­lar, however, does not just apply to GOCCs; it also applies to gov­ern­ment fin­an­cial insti­tu­tions and gov­ern­ment instru­ment­al­it­ies with cor­por­ate powers, includ­ing their sub­si­di­ar­ies.

The offenses which may be repor­ted under WHIP are var­ied. They may include abuse of author­ity, mis­con­duct, inef­fi­ciency, neg­lect of duty and sexual har­ass­ment, as well as viol­a­tions of laws like the Repub­lic Act (RA) 6713, or the Code of Con­duct and Eth­ical Stand­ards for Pub­lic Offi­cials and Employ­ees, RA 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Cor­rupt Prac­tices Act, and RA 11032, or the Ease of Doing Busi­ness and Effi­cient Gov­ern­ment Ser­vice Deliv­ery Act.

A cent­ral and very import­ant fea­ture of the WHIP is the pro­tec­tion afforded to whis­tleblowers and the pro­vi­sion of neces­sary assist­ance, as war­ran­ted by the cir­cum­stances of each case. Thus, it allows for whis­tleblow­ing to be done anonym­ously. Reports sub­mit­ted through the GCG Whis­tleblow­ing Portal and des­ig­nated con­fid­en­tial chan­nels are handled with utmost con­fid­en­ti­al­ity and sens­it­iv­ity.

The cir­cu­lar also expressly pro­hib­its retali­ation against whis­tleblowers who report in good faith. Pro­hib­ited acts include dis­crim­in­a­tion, har­ass­ment and other acts or threats that adversely affect the whis­tleblower’s rights or interests. These safe­guards ensure that whis­tleblowers are not forced to choose between report­ing wrong­do­ing and pro­tect­ing their live­li­hood or rights.

Report­ing or whis­tleblow­ing can be done in sev­eral ways. A report may be made through the whis­tleblow­ing portals, which GOCCs are required to prom­in­ently dis­play on their web­sites. It may also be sub­mit­ted through the ded­ic­ated email address provided under the cir­cu­lar. A whis­tleblower may like­wise sub­mit writ­ten or recor­ded com­mu­nic­a­tions per­son­ally to the appro­pri­ate GCG offi­cials. Con­cerns may also be raised through face-to-face or online meet­ings with author­ized per­son­nel.

After receiv­ing a com­plaint, the GCG determ­ines the appro­pri­ate action based on its con­tents and cir­cum­stances. Vague, unin­tel­li­gible, repet­it­ive or pat­ently mali­cious reports may be dis­reg­arded while com­plaints lack­ing palp­able merit or involving forum shop­ping may be dis­missed. For com­plaints that war­rant fur­ther action, the GCG may require cla­ri­fic­a­tions, sworn state­ments and sup­port­ing doc­u­ments; obtain inform­a­tion from rel­ev­ant per­sons or entit­ies; con­duct inter­views, site vis­its and other fact-find­ing activ­it­ies; or refer the mat­ter to the con­cerned GOCC for appro­pri­ate action. It may also seek assist­ance from gov­ern­ment agen­cies such as the Ombuds­man and the National Bur­eau of Invest­ig­a­tion.

Where war­ran­ted, the GCG may recom­mend dis­cip­lin­ary action, insti­tute or recom­mend pro­ceed­ings before the appro­pri­ate gov­ern­ment agency or court, notify the appro­pri­ate GCG divi­sion regard­ing a respond­ent’s dis­qual­i­fic­a­tion from appoint­ment or reappoint­ment, or dir­ect a spe­cial audit. Any dis­cip­lin­ary action remains sub­ject to applic­able due pro­cess require­ments.

Sig­ni­fic­antly, the cir­cu­lar does not pre­scribe pen­al­ties for repor­ted viol­a­tions. Instead, it provides a frame­work for pur­su­ing appro­pri­ate admin­is­trat­ive, civil or crim­inal con­sequences under exist­ing laws and reg­u­la­tions. Sanc­tions may include sus­pen­sion, removal, dis­cip­lin­ary pro­ceed­ings, dis­qual­i­fic­a­tion from appoint­ment or reappoint­ment or refer­ral to the appro­pri­ate author­ity.

However, the pro­tec­tion under the WHIP does not extend to fab­ric­ated or mali­cious accus­a­tions. The GCG is empowered to take legal action against any­one who makes a false or mali­cious report.

The cir­cu­lar also makes com­pli­ance an insti­tu­tional respons­ib­il­ity. Covered GOCCs must des­ig­nate a com­pli­ance officer, register with the 8888 Cit­izens’ Com­plaint Cen­ter, estab­lish the required com­mit­tees and des­ig­nate appro­pri­ate focal per­sons for altern­at­ive dis­pute res­ol­u­tion.

The sub­mis­sion of a report through any of the modes iden­ti­fied under the WHIP does not pre­vent a whis­tleblower from report­ing the same con­cern through other gov­ern­ment chan­nels such as the Cit­izens’ Com­plaint Cen­ter of the Office of the Pres­id­ent, the Con­tact Cen­ter ng Bayan of the Civil Ser­vice Com­mis­sion or the eCo­m­plaint sys­tem of the Bur­eau of Internal Rev­enue. These mech­an­isms com­ple­ment the WHIP and form part of the broader gov­ern­ment effort to address mis­con­duct, improve the deliv­ery of pub­lic ser­vices, and pro­mote greater effi­ciency, trans­par­ency and account­ab­il­ity.

Ulti­mately, the WHIP provides a clear avenue for report­ing wrong­do­ing, affords pro­tec­tion to those who report in good faith, allows invest­ig­a­tions of cred­ible alleg­a­tions and ensures that appro­pri­ate action is taken against those found respons­ible. It cer­tainly pro­motes and strengthens not just account­ab­il­ity, but also integ­rity in the gov­ern­ment sec­tor.

This article first appeared on the Manila Times.