INVESTIGATING OFFICIALS: WHERE TO START

Look for assets
The first step when checking the assets of those in government is to get their statements of assets and liabilities. Officials often lie in their asset statements, tending to understate what they own; nonetheless, these records are among the most valuable public documents available when one is investigating corrupt officials. While the data these documents contain are often incomplete, inaccurate, or otherwise unreliable, they still offer baseline information for pursuing a more thorough investigation.

Government officials and employees are required to make annual declarations of their assets and liabilities. The idea is that such declarations make it easier to keep track of the accumulation of wealth by public officials, so that the public can check on, among other things, potential conflicts of interest or illicit gain from public office. Making inaccurate declarations is a violation of the law and has caused the downfall of high officials.

Examine conflicts of interest
The law recognizes that the tremendous powers given to officials have to be tamed in various ways, including ensuring that they do not use these powers to protect and promote their own interest rather than the public's. Conflicts of interest arise when those entrusted with power or authority have pecuniary interests that may either benefit from, or be damaged by, the exercise of such power.

The Constitution has measures to guard against conflicts of interest in the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. Any official who violates these measures can be charged with violating the Constitution. Thus, in investigating officials, it may not be necessary to prove that they received bribes or otherwise benefited from an anomalous action, policy, or decision. Showing that they were in a conflict-of-interest situation often suffices.

In addition to the Constitution, the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act prohibits officials from directly or indirectly benefiting from transactions requiring the approval of government bodies of which they are part. The Act explicitly says that officials cannot be members of such bodies even if they do not participate in the deliberations on transactions in which they may benefit.

Apart from these laws, institutional or professional codes of ethics guard against conflicts of interests. For example, the Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to inhibit or recuse themselves from cases in which their relatives or former clients are involved.

One can document conflicts of interest by doing an asset check of officials and examining how they make decisions on transactions involving companies, property, or economic sectors (e.g., power, manufacturing, agriculture) in which they or their relatives have an interest.

Look for patterns
Many of the investigations that the PCIJ has done involved examining not just a single corrupt act but a series of acts or anomalies. Investigating wrongdoing often entails looking for a pattern in the actions of corrupt officials or bodies. A single suspicious act can be explained as being due to something plausible, say, carelessness, inefficiency, or ignorance. But a pattern of suspicious actions is harder to account for. When gathering evidence of wrongdoing by officials, therefore, one often has to establish that a pattern of wrongful acts has been committed and to find out who is responsible for them.

READ ON

• Official biodata
• Newspapers, magazines, and newsletters
• Biographies, family histories, genealogies, and Who's Who Directories and yearbooks
• Listings of trade and professional organizations
• Statements of assets
• Land records
• Corporate records
• Vehicle registration records
• Licenses and permits (for firearms, business, etc.)
• School records
• Civil registry records (birth, marriage, etc.)
• Voter registration records
• Record of campaign expenditures
• Speeches and papers
• Immigration (arrival and departure) records