Corruption, although a worldwide phenomenon, is considered to occur more extensively in developing countries because of a marked discrepancy between legal norms which call for rationality and universalistic principles of action, and cultural norms which emphasize reliance and obligation toward kinship, friendship and primary groups (Bautista 1982:241). However, within countries, corruption is not equally spread in all sectors of the polity. Even in the bureaucracy, there are agencies considered to be more corrupt than others and sectors more corruption prone (Tapales, Enriquez, Trinidad 1995:407). According to Briones (1979:261) corruption “tends to be concentrated only in areas where boundary exchange processes take place and in positions where a bureaucrat can exercise power and discretion.”

The exercise of power and discretion is greatly manifested in the judiciary. The discretion of the major players makes them highly susceptible to corruption. The Filipino administrative culture depicts “the conflict between culture, values, and norms of western bureaucracy, and the culture, values, and norms of the Filipino people” (Varela 1995: 176).

The Philippine government has enacted several laws to fight graft and corruption. With the 1987 Philippine Constitution providing the legal framework against corruption, the anti-graft court, Sandiganbayan and an Ombudsman called Tanodbayan, are created. The other more important legal provisions are RA 3019 passed in 1960, the 1987 Constitution particularly Article XI; Accountability of Public Officers, EO 292, RA 6713 passed in 1989, and RA 6670, among others.