7.3.1 Stakeholders' Awareness, Attitude and Concerns Regarding Whistleblowing

Dr. Romulo E.M. Miral, Jr., Ph.D.

Dr. Miral earned his Ph.D. in Economics degree from the Australian National University. His expertise includes public finance, revenue administration, public expenditure management, and intergovernmental fiscal relations.

Making corruption a high-risk activity is one of whistleblowing's main strengths as an anti-corruption measure. However, it is not easy to encourage whistleblowing. In the absence of a legal framework, the personal costs of whistleblowing are very high. There are also major impediments such as the weak protection and support accorded to whistleblowers. Policy and program initiatives designed to promote whistleblowing, thus, must consider the problems and issues attendant to its use as an anti-corruption measure. The results of the 50 interviews with policy stakeholders from government, the private sector, and civil society, elucidate on the following problems and issues in whistleblowing policy design:

• The rationale for state intervention to raise the supply of a public good like whistleblowing;

• The purposes, scope, and measures of success of a whistleblowing policy;

• Key approaches to encourage whistleblowing in the Philippines in the context of prevailing stakeholders' notions on 1) its benefits and costs, 2) positive and negative images of whistleblowers, 3) factors that facilitate or constrain whistleblowing, and 4) approaches for encouraging whistleblowing.

• Anonymity, confidentiality, legal and financial support, rewards, and other mechanisms of whistleblower's protection and support;

• Prescribed procedures that will govern whistleblowers and complaint recipients;

• Internal channels and procedures for whistleblowing;

• Media as a whistleblowing channel;

• Support structures and programs needed for successful whistleblowing;

• Evaluating motive as a screening procedures for protected whistleblowing.

What is whistleblowing? There are positive and negative notions of whistleblowing. On a positive note, whistleblowing is seen by some stakeholders as an act of disclosure about illegal, corrupt and unethical acts in the public and private sector. It is also considered as a citizen's obligation--connected with the idea exercising responsible citizenship.

On the other hand, some stakeholders viewed whistleblowing more negatively, associating it with "washing dirty linen in public".

Not all forms of reporting wrongdoing is whistleblowing. Some stakeholders said that raising one's concern to the supervisor is one's job and is not whistleblowing.

Benefits of whistleblowing. Some stakeholders interviewed have concrete notions of the benefits of whistleblowing for organizations and the society. Whistleblowing promotes transparency and prevents misconduct, graft, and corruption.

It generates strong and convincing evidence that help ensure successful prosecution of perpetrators of wrongdoing.

As an instrument of change, whistleblowing helps reform systems, procedures, and people. It contributes to the formation of positive values by raising standards in the organization and society. It promotes the value of responsible citizenship, improves morale in people, and empowers them with hope.

Costs of whistleblowing. The individual whistleblower absorbs many of the personal costs of whistleblowing. The personal costs include ostracism by colleagues, retaliatory actions in the workplace such as being "floated in the job" or being fired from one's job, and threats to security of the whistleblower and his or her family.

Whistleblowing may also affect the efficiency of organizations; it may create a work environment of distrust and fault-finding that may affect the efficiency of organizations. It also unduly damage reputations both of people and organizations.

Reputations and images of whistleblowers. Stakeholders revealed several positive and negative views about whistleblowers. The more positive views regard whistleblowers as courageous and righteous people who are anchored on truth, have a sense of responsibility, and reliable sources of information. They primarily regard whistleblowers as heroes, not villains.

On the other hand, the negative perceptions convey an image of whistleblowers as people who have crab mentality, are only out for revenge, are "all talk" (salita lang ng salita), and have limited understanding of the law.

Public policy rationale for encouraging whistleblowing. As a transaction between two or more individuals, corruption generates negative externalities that are primarily shouldered by organizations and other individuals who are not part of a corrupt transaction. By externalizing the costs of their nefarious activities to organizations and the society, corrupt individuals absorb substantial benefits from a corrupt transaction.

Whistleblowing is actually the reverse of corruption in terms of cost-benefit incidence. Whistleblowers absorb the personal costs and other risks associated with whistleblowing when they expose and report corrupt practices. In the meantime, organizations and the society benefit from the whistleblower's act of reporting a wrongdoing that pose serious harm to the organizational or public interest.

Whistleblowers are in "short supply", primarily because of the personal costs. Policy interventions to raise the level of supply of supply of a public good like whistleblowing must be able to reduce the personal costs associated with it. Alternatively, they must enable individuals to internalize some of the benefits of whistleblowing. Without state intervention in creating a conducive environment for whistleblowing, whistleblowing will be under-supplied as a "public good" despite the increased societal demand for it in the context of worsening state of corruption.

Silence as an option. The stakeholders interviewed revealed several reasons for not blowing the whistle. One reason is their awareness of how some whistleblowers suffered bad treatment from the authorities in the past; some high-profile whistleblowers were treated as "suspects" in the wrongdoing that they exposed.

Another set of impediments to whistleblowing comprises the dominant Filipino values such as pakikisama, personal loyalty, and kinship. Being non-confrontational and very forgiving are also included as among the Filipino traits that constrain whistleblowing.

Passivity and indifference (wala paki) are also among the reasons cited for not blowing the whistle amidst an observed wrongdoing.

Exercising the option of silence can also be an outcome of the lack of procedures for whistleblowing. The cynicism that nothing will be done about a wrongdoing and the low trust in the leader of the organization are also major barriers to whistleblowing.

Lack of access to evidence to support the allegations of wrongdoing is also one impediment in whistleblowing.

The fear of retribution also emerges as the one of the most common reasons for not blowing the whistle. Associated with the fear of retribution is the risk of social ostracism if one threatens the stability of the organization or "rocks the boat". The fear of retaliation and of being ostracized is heightened especially if one belongs to the lower ranks of the organization or of the society.

Measures of a successful whistleblowing policy. Stakeholders interviewed also provided some criteria for assessing the success or failure of a whistleblowing policy. These notions of how to assess the performance of whistlebowing policy are important in establishing the purposes and objectives and specific provisions of a proposed policy or program to encourage whistleblowing. Among the criteria for assessing whistleblowing policy success or failure are the following:

• the whistleblower does not back out and is protected;

• whistleblowing does not promote vested interests;

• process is fair

• there is successful prosecution of wrongdoers;

• perpetrators of wrongdoing are punished;

• corrective measures are taken on the reported wrongdoing;

• reforms are made in public or organizational policies or procedures;

• there is an increase in the awareness of correct practices.

Encouraging whistleblowing. The stakeholders provided suggestions on how to encourage whistleblowing. Enhancing the trust of potential whistleblowers in the leadership of the organization is one crucial step. Another is the adoption of a written policy that is holistic and realistic. The policy must provide a well-defined and efficient process for whistleblowing as well as for receiving and responding to whistleblower's disclosures. Support structures for whistleblowing also need to be established. The support structures must be able to provide prompt corrective action on reported wrongdoing.

The policy and the structures that support its implementation must ensure adequate protection of whistleblowers, allowing them to blow the whistle anonymously or assuring them confidentiality of their identity. Whistleblowing can also be encouraged through Codes of Ethics that compels employees to disclose information about observed wrongdoings. To build awareness of the benefits of, and thus encourage, publicizing the results of successful whistleblowing cases is needed.

Protection of whistleblowers. The stakeholders interviewed suggested some criteria and mechanisms for whistleblower's protection. For some of these stakeholders, whistleblowers need state protection when they disclose information that is correct and beneficial to the public. Mechanisms must be established to protect whistleblowers from retaliation. One of these mechanisms is the assurance by complaint-recipients of the confidentiality of whistleblower's identity. Policies on whistleblower's protection should be holistic: they should protect the whistleblower and his/her family and his/her job. Compliance officers of private corporations must be also protected by law when they blow the whistle. Policies on whistleblower's protection, however, should not give whistleblowers a false sense of security.

Anonymity and Confidentiality. Whistleblowing is sometimes a "matter of life and death". Thus, anonymous whistleblowing should be allowed and encouraged. In addition, those who receive disclosures of wrongdoing must be mandated to maintain confidentiality of the whistleblower's identity. To protect whistleblowers, government agencies must be mandated to act on anonymous tips and complaints.

Anonymity and confidentiality of identity are feasible only during preliminary investigations, according to some stakeholders. Once a case is filed in court, the whistleblower has no choice but to come out and testify as a witness.

Whistleblowing procedures. Prescribed procedures are needed to govern the actions of whistleblowers, the complaint recipients, and the investigating persons or offices. According to some stakeholders, whistleblowers should respect the proper channels and procedures for whistleblowing; they must disclose to internal channels first before "going out" publicly about a wrongdoing.

There is also a need for clear procedures that will enable complaint-recipients and investigators to efficiently determine the value and authenticity of disclosed information. Official documentation procedures for whistleblowing cases are also needed. In addition, procedures must also be in place to ensure that authorities monitor progress of investigations on whistleblowing cases and update whistleblowers on the progress and results of investigation on whistleblowing cases.

Internal whistleblowing. Internal whistlebowing is considered to be an easier route to disclose information. However, some stakeholders suggested that, for anti-corruption purposes, internal whistleblowing will be ineffective as it heightens the chances of whitewash or cover-up. Internal whistleblowing is also seen as incompatible to the dominant Filipino culture that emphasizes the importance of relationships.

If a wrongdoing is not addressed internally, whistleblowers should be given the option of reporting to the relevant regulatory agency.

Views on media as a whistleblowing channel. According to some respondents, information about wrongdoing can be sensationalized by the media, leading to "trial by publicity". Wrongdoers can also flee when information about wrongdoing is publicized. Nonetheless, there are indications of wide agreement of stakeholders interviewed that whistleblowing to the media is desirable, but, only as a resort. It is justifiable only when

• there is cover-up;

• whistleblower is not given protection by his/her organization;

• internal channels have been exhausted;

• a case is already in court and it is not being acted upon swiftly;

• public and national interests are at stake.

Motive as requirement for whistleblower protection. There are mixed views on the evaluation of motive to determine whether a whistleblower should get state protection. For stakeholders, assessing motive is critical in distinguishing between a whistleblower who has noble intentions and one who is self-serving or out to destroy somebody's credibility. On the other hand, some stakeholders said that the whistleblower's motive is not vital in determining whether he or she deserves state protection: what is more important is the value (accuracy) of information being disclosed.

Rewards/support for whistleblowers.

Some stakeholders said that giving financial rewards to whistleblowers will make whistleblowing as a controversial tool for fighting corruption. There is a danger that people will the blow the whistle for the wrong reasons; rather than fighting corruption, the reward may become the primary motivation for whistleblowing. According to some stakeholders, rewards are not necessary because the reporting of wrongdoing is an inherent part of one's job or a citizen's responsibility. In addition, rewards may not be effective at all in encouraging actual whistleblowing.

Nonetheless, some stakeholders expressed openness to the idea of giving financial support, if not rewards, to whistleblowers. The money should not really be reward, according to them, but a financial assistance for the whistleblower's daily sustenance. This idea strengthens the call for a more "holistic" support system for whistleblowers and their families. Support for whistleblowers should cover moral and spiritual support, psychological advice, and financial and legal assistance.

In high-profile cases, whistleblowers may need to be given certain rewards. Although rewards and incentives can be provided to whistleblowers, people should not make a living out of whistleblowing.

Support structures and programs. Effective organizational and societal structures are needed to ensure successful implementation of a whistleblowing policy. Among these structures are 1) disciplinary action committees; 2) grievance committees; 3) specific personnel or department authorized to handle whistleblowing cases; and, 4) "welcome line" or open phone lines direct to the head of the Human Resource department. Church and civil society leaders with good reputations are among the major foundations of a societal support system needed to ensure a positive whistleblowing culture against corruption. The training of lawyers on how to handle whistleblowing cases is one of the concrete programs to support whistleblowing policy implementation.