The scholarly and popular commonsense about corruption in the Philippines is that the country has always been corrupt. Seventy-eight years of corruption as an independent state (1946-2024) may as well have been a thousand. Lay and scholarly accounts explain this continuity with respect to traditional values and premature democratization. In both accounts, corruption is all but genetic to Philippine culture or politics. To be sure, continuity is self-evident if we are looking only at corruption scandals—but scandals have been accompanied by anticorruption movements, broadly speaking. The two have gone hand-in-hand historically, suggesting that we need to understand them together. Taking them together, that is, focusing on their dialectic, produces, as I will show, a history of change. Specifically, how Filipinos relate to corruption has changed. They have become less tolerant of it in general and learned to embrace an anticorruption model of politics. How scholars and policymakers conceive of corruption has changed. They have come to adopt a view of corruption as a generic social problem, effectively disembedding it from society. These developments have enabled a more intolerant approach such that, today, the greater danger lies in an anticorruption “fundamentalism” leading to the rejection of politics altogether. Viewed as a whole, the history of corruption/anticorruption has been a popular struggle over what politics should look like, and thus we might read their dialectic as driving the progress of political modernization from below.

Marco Garrido is the author of The Patchwork City: Class, Space, and Politics in Metro Manila, which received multiple awards, including for best book in political and urban sociology. He is working on a second book, tentatively titled Bad Words, on the imbrication of corruption, politics, and the politics of knowledge in postcolonial Philippines.