Ravago, Justin Nico

PIL Paper
Atty. Yamamoto
December 6, 2014
An analysis of the satire article on the UN expelling the Philippines due to graft and corruption

Inapplicable

Many Filipinos are what I call Sunday-religious, that is they go to church every Sunday,
take in confession and communion, but the rest of the week they bribe and do corrupt deeds. 1
It is the necessary consequence of a system where colonial and not nationalistic values
prevail.2 In the Philippines, corruption was ranked as the most problematic factor for doing
business in the 2012-2013 Global Competitiveness Report. 3 This is how both the domestic
and international communities perceive the Philippines. It has long been a problem, a fight,
which continues from generation to generation. Every six years, a new administration is
ushered in armed with the hope of the people for its eradication.

In a recent article posted on Philippine Pride, it is stated that: The United Nations warns
Philippines that it will remove the country from membership if Aquino or the next president
could not improve the countrys corruption level in the next five years. 4 Certainly, it is a bold
statement which could either serve as a warning or something that could backfire against the
international body. The report cited the recent Pork Barrel Scam which plagued the legislative
department of the country where hundreds of current and past representatives where
implicated for a billion peso misappropriation of public funds.

Likewise, the report gave

1 Dr. Pura Santillan-Castrence (1905-2007)

2 Indalecio P. Soliongco (Editor, Manila Chronicle, 1947-1971)
3 http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/ics/2013/204715.htm
4 http://thephilippinepride.com/un-warns-philippines-to-end-its-membership-if-corruption-is-notcurtailed/

unsolicited suggestions on the tightening of grip on the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the
Bureau of Customs. The aforementioned agencies are deemed two of the most coveted and
hence the most corrupt in the government.

While this concern from the international community is admirable, the issue every lawyer
posits is this: whether or not such a threat, by the United Nations, has legal basis. Will it have
the force of law to effect change?
The United Nations, being the principal international organization, came into being on
October 24, 1945. It presently includes almost all the worlds nations. Admission to it is
governed by Article 4, Chapter II of the United Nations Charter, which provides that:

Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept
the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the
Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations. 5

Furthermore, the Purposes of the United Nations, as indicated in Article 1, Chapter 1 of the
United Nations Charter, provide that the UN shall aim:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective
collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of
equal rights and self-determination of peoples
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an
economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character

5 Article 4, Chapter II, UN Charter

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these

common ends.6

By looking at the purposes, principles and admission criteria of the UN as an

international body, it can be seen that its main concerns are peace, harmony and securty
among nations and the especially its citizens. Nowhere in the provision does it indicate that
domestic affairs concerning politics and government admistration which the issue on
corruption springs from is an issue to be addressed by the international body.

Furthermore Article 2 (7) of Chapter I provides that the UN is enjoined against

intervening in affairs which are domestic in jurisdiction. Said provision provides that:

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene
in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall
require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter;
but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under
Chapter Vll.

Considering that the issue on the report dwells on the long-standing and pervasive
corruption in the Philippines which was brought about by history and the convergence of
cultures in the country, it is important to note that it is beyond the scope of the United Nations.
The threat to expel becomes hypothetical because there is a question on jurisdiction. While it
serves as popular message for the public, it is however, not actionable by the United Nations.

6 Article 1, Chapter I, UN Charter

Assuming arguendo, what would be a legal basis for the UN to expel a member-state
from the international organization? The answer would be based on Article 6 of Chapter II on
Membership provides that:

A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles
contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General
Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

Provided that issues on domestic affairs of the government and its citizens are
incorporated into the principles of the UN in its charter, this would be a sound basis. However,
such is not case in the situation at hand. Steven Grahams statement 7 should be treated as a
mere opinion. Peter Garfields expression8 should be treated with a grain of salt.

True, the Philippines has ratified the United Nations Convention against Corruption
(UNCAC) which was signed by member-states in 2003. It provides for the mechanisms and
creation of anti-corruption measures which may affect the laws, institutions and practices of
the signatory-states. The convention, however, is still in its early stages.

Ratification of UNCAC, while essential, is only the first step. Fully implementing its
provisions presents significant challenges for the international community as well as
individual States parties, particularly in relation to the innovative areas of UNCAC. For

7 The UN warning is more serious than China stealing the Spratly Islands. Philippines will be a total
useless country if UN decides to cut it ties with the lowly country, US economist and political analyst
Steve Graham told CNN regarding the report. Philippine Pride
8 Being removed from UN membership is like losing a war on terror. This could impact mostly on
Filipinos who are working abroad because they are one of the biggest sources of the countrys
income. Having a dysfunctional government is like having no country at all

this reason, countries have often needed policy guidance and technical assistance to
ensure the effective implementation of UNCAC. 9

In this light, the ratification of the UNCAC merely provides for the establishment of
preventive mechanisms against corruption in the future. It is still premature. Most importantly,
it does not serve as a ground for the United Nations to expel a member-State. While the
threat to expel sends a strong message to the public and to the government administration to
curb corruption, it remains baseless, inapplicable and not actionable by the United Nations.

9 http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/country-profile/index.html