Malacañang says the drop in the Philippines’ corruption perception ranking was expected — because President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. supposedly opened up issues involving anomalous flood control projects.

According to Palace Press Officer Claire Castro, the decline in the country’s Corruption Perception Index score (32/100, ranked 120) is connected to the administration’s effort to “clean up the mess” left by previous governments.

Let’s pause there.

If the ranking dropped because corruption issues were exposed, does that mean we are more transparent now — or that confidence in our institutions has weakened?

The Corruption Perception Index does not measure press releases.
It measures how experts and business leaders perceive the integrity of a country’s public sector — right now.

Perception is built on patterns.

It is influenced by:

• Investigations that lead to convictions

• Institutional reforms

• Strong procurement safeguards

• Transparent spending mechanisms

• Accountability at high levels

Checkout the Comments

Not just announcements.

Blaming the past is politically convenient. But governance has a timeline. After several years in office, the “past administration” explanation starts to sound less like context — and more like insulation.

Leadership inherits problems. That is true.
But leadership also inherits responsibility.

If flood control anomalies existed before, who continued funding them?
Who approved recent budget releases?
Who monitored project implementation?

These are not accusations.
They are structural questions.

If the goal is real reform, the public should see:

• Names charged

• Cases filed

• Court decisions

• Systems overhauled

Because credibility grows when action replaces narrative.

Here is the uncomfortable reality:
You do not improve global trust by explaining why trust dropped.
You improve it by strengthening institutions.

If the decline is proof of cleaning, then logically, the lower the score, the cleaner the country must be.

That reasoning collapses quickly.

Markets, investors, and global watchdog groups are not swayed by slogans. They assess institutional consistency.

The issue is not about defending one administration or attacking another.
It is about continuity of governance.

A country cannot operate on a permanent comparison to yesterday.

Eventually, the present must stand on its own record.

If corruption is being addressed, the results will speak.
If systems are being reformed, confidence will return.
If accountability is real, rankings will follow.

Until then, explanations will always feel incomplete.

And in governance, perception is not cosmetic.
It affects investment, credit ratings, business confidence, and economic stability.

Cleaning requires transparency.
Transparency requires consequences.
Consequences build trust.

Anything less feels like political maintenance — not structural repair.