SPECIAL FEATURES OF STAFFING IN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ANTI-CORRUPTION COURT IN THE PHILIPPINES

Abstract

This article discusses the peculiarities of staffing the activities of the anti-corruption court in the Philippines (Sandiganbayan), which is the world’s first anti-corruption court. It is determined that Sandiganbayan is overloaded with the handling of cases of “petty” corruption, which prevents judges from focusing on more influential cases. It should also be understood that Sandiganbayan can initiate cases of non-compliance with anti-corruption legislation and bribery, which necessitates the court’s constant monitoring of the compliance with anti-corruption laws by the addressees of the anti-corruption legal framework. This duty clearly requires significant expenditure of human resources by Sandiganbayan. Among the existing requirements for the appointment of judges in Sandiganbayan, there are no requirements for adherence to standards of integrity, which is obviously a problematic issue for the Philippines. The conclusion is drawn that the staffing of Sandiganbayan cannot serve as a positive example for improving the administrative-legal mechanism of staffing for the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine (HACC). Despite this, the deficiencies in the formation and implementation of personnel policies regarding Sandiganbayan give rise to the following reservations in the context of improving the staffing of HACC: A specialized anticorruption court cannot handle all corruption-related cases, at least when the court’s fulfillment of such a duty is not ensured by the establishment of adequate personnel norms for the court, as well as the adequate implementation of these norms. The selection of judges and other employees of the anti-corruption court cannot take place without developing and considering specific requirements for the candidates’ adherence to integrity standards, as well as certain objectively justified requirements for the professional qualification level of the candidates for positions in this court. Therefore, the selection of judges and other employees of the anticorruption court that does not consider anti-corruption requirements for candidates for positions poses the risk that “unsuitable officials” will occupy positions in the court, and their performance of official duties may pose risks both for them and for the full realization of the mission of the anti-corruption court (including the possibility of having individuals of questionable integrity among the court personnel).