EDITORIAL: Enduring Corruption

In his hard-hitting column “Corruption is the mistress of government,” published in The Manila Times, columnist Ben Kritz presents a brutally honest, if disillusioning, analysis of the Philippine government’s perpetual battle with corruption.

At the heart of his argument is an uncomfortable truth: corruption is not an aberration in governance — it is a constant companion.

Kritz’s piece is sparked by recent headlines involving anomalous flood control projects and President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s public crusade to confront them, most notably through the reintroduction of lifestyle checks and renewed scrutiny of public officials’ SALNs.

Yet Kritz argues, persuasively, that these measures are neither novel nor effective. They have been used, time and again, not to uproot corruption but to stage manage it — public relations tools to appease an outraged citizenry until the outrage dies down.

What Kritz provides is not just critique but context — historical and institutional. He reminds us that every administration in recent memory has launched its own anti-corruption drive, only for it to fizzle out, unresolved and incomplete.

The cycle is as predictable as it is frustrating: scapegoats are paraded, investigations are televised, and then — silence. The bureaucracy swallows the scandal, the news cycle moves on, and the machinery of graft quietly resumes.

Perhaps the most profound point in Kritz’s commentary is his assertion that corruption, far from being an exception, is woven into the fabric of human governance. From democratic societies like Japan to authoritarian regimes like China, corruption persists, mutates, and resists extermination.

The implication is clear: no government, however well-meaning or repressive, has ever successfully eliminated corruption. The difference lies not in the absence of wrongdoing, but in the rigor and consistency of a country’s accountability systems.

This is where the Philippines, as Kritz laments, repeatedly fails. It is not the existence of corruption that brands us, but our systemic inability — or unwillingness — to confront it with genuine resolve. Enforcement is selective. Justice is sluggish. Institutional memory is short. And the public, jaded by decades of hollow reform, has learned to expect little and settle for less.

Still, Kritz does not advocate surrender. He does not suggest that we shrug off corruption as inevitable. Rather, he warns against the illusion that any single effort — a lifestyle check, a Senate hearing, a presidential directive — can solve what is essentially a structural and cultural challenge.

Corruption, like crime or poverty, must be managed constantly, relentlessly, and without the expectation of final victory. That requires real systems: stronger institutions, greater transparency, independent watchdogs, and above all, an empowered and vigilant public.

For all its cynicism, Kritz’s column is a call for maturity — for an evolved political consciousness that neither panics at scandal nor naively believes in silver-bullet solutions. The fight against corruption is not a sprint won by headlines; it is a marathon sustained by integrity, vigilance, and institutional resilience.

If we continue to treat corruption as a passing crisis instead of a permanent adversary, then Kritz’s bleak forecast will remain accurate: another scandal will erupt, another round of hearings will be held, and the mistress of government will once again return to her comfortable place — right at the heart of power.

— This editorial is based on Ben Kritz’s column “Corruption is the mistress of government” published in The Manila Times. Full credit is given to Mr. Kritz for his incisive analysis and continued contributions to public discourse.

He concluded his piece by saying that “fighting corruption is not an objective; it’s a process, and in the countries that have relatively low levels of corruption — the aforementioned Singapore and Japan, and some European countries, for example — anticorruption efforts are a permanent part of the framework of governance.”

The Philippines has all the tools to do that in terms of laws and regulations, but simply cannot find a way to use those tools fairly, consistently and efficiently. And until it does, these occasional public circuses of “exposing” corruption are going to continue to be regular occurrences, with no real change in the status quo.