LISTEN TO ARTICLESynthesized Narration • 0:00 / 0:00

Lately, I’ve been wondering a lot about where corruption truly begins. Does it start in the small temptations — when someone chooses to take two instead of one? Does it surface when someone pays off a witness just to keep the truth behind? Or is it born much earlier; at the moment the leader himself becomes corrupted and consumed with greed — unsteady and unworthy of the power he holds? According to an article online, published on April 19, 2015 titled “Why the fight against corruption starts at the top”, states that successful campaigns against corruption have to come from the very top — a genuine commitment from leadership is vital if bad practices are to be prevented from creeping in. Leading with moral authority is a prerequisite to attaining sustainable success in the battle of corruption. In social science, the top-down approach describes a system where the highest authorities make the decisions, and everyone else simply follows; it tells us that everything begins at the highest tier and spills downward. When the top leads, the rest follow — so when corruption starts above, it infects everything below; leadership, direction, and even failure begin at the top. In simple words, a top-down approach means leadership begins at the top — and so do the problems. Lately, I’ve been asking myself where all of this really begins. Does it start at home — in the subtle behaviors we grow up imitating, the small lessons we absorb without noticing, and the unspoken habits we inherit? Does it grow in offices — when bending rules becomes a routine, and where shortcuts are rewarded and silence is safer than honesty? Or does it hide just around the corner and whisper in the four-walled halls — quietly nurtured in school? Where we learn not only academics, but also the patterns of power, silence, and survival — taught, normalized, and repeated the same flawed lessons carried by those who came before us? Just recently, the nation was shaken by a viral confession video from former Ako Bicol Partylist Rep. Zaldy Co, who claimed and publicly confessed to inserting enormous budget roughly around ₱100 billion into the 2025 national budget. In his statement, he emphasized that he did not do this on his own initiative, but rather — it was allegedly done under the direct orders of President Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos Jr. and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez. According to Co, these are not fringe programs — most of these were allegedly infrastructure and flood-control projects. Co’s allegations are explosive. He says that Budget Secretary Amenah Pangandaman phoned him during a key bicameral negotiation, relaying that the money should be built into the budget because “it comes from the president.” He even claims that when he resisted or questioned the scheme, he was told to comply because “what the president wants, gets.” If true, this is not just another case of pork-barrel politics. This is institutionalized corruption — corruption that’s allegedly sanctioned from the very top. Co says he has documents, names, and evidence to back his claims. But, of course, the Palace has denied his version. Conflicting statements followed, investigations were promised, and denials were swiftly released. But one truth remained clear: when leaders at the top are accused of corruption, the entire system trembles. Therefore, if corruption truly begins at the top, then should we really be surprised when its shadows reach even the smallest corners of our society? If the highest offices of the land — the very institutions meant to protect public trust — are tainted by allegations of budget insertions, ghost projects, and quietly delivered suitcases of cash, how can we expect the culture below to remain untouched? And without intending to, our schools begin to mirror the same cracks. Because if corruption is normalized nationally, then corruption becomes acceptable locally. If it is tolerated by those in power, then those below learn to tolerate it too. This is the silent but powerful effect of the top-down approach: whatever flows from the top eventually trickles down — shaping behavior, culture, and even the definition of what is “normal.” This made me ask myself a more uncomfortable question: what happens when this “top” isn’t in the government, but right inside our own school? How many times have students been asked for “donations” by the student body or SSLG “for a cause” — yet a portion quietly slips into private pockets — used not for service, but for snacks, for convenience, for personal benefit and quietly disappear into unrecorded expenses? What begins as a simple collection “for the school,” or “for the students,” often ends up partly funding snacks, personal purchases, or unapproved activities without transparency, without receipts, without documents — and everyone simply shrugs it off because “it’s just small money” that no one dares to question? Receipts become optional. Accountability becomes flexible. Transparency becomes a suggestion, not a rule. And it doesn’t stop with the SSLG. The SPTA conducts collections and fundraisers without clear documentation or proper approval, insisting that everything is “for the betterment of students,” yet failing to provide any audit or tangible proof — without proper approval, without clear accounting, without any proof that the money ever reached its intended purpose, and without official documents… all while claiming it is “for the students”? Projects rarely materialize. Questions rarely receive answers. And when they do — the explanations are vague, circular, and conveniently incomplete. Even more troubling, alarming, and worse is when teachers — the faculty, the very role models entrusted with shaping student values and model integrity, the teachers who are supposed to teach us accountability and prevent us from corruption are the very people who do it? The very people who collect payments from learners only for those funds to never reach the office, never get recorded, never appear in any report, and somehow… vanish without any trace into thin air? These are not mere mistakes. They are decisions. They are patterns. They are choices made because somewhere along the chain of authority, someone learned that corruption is easy, acceptable, and sometimes even rewarded. Maybe corruption isn’t always about millions, scandals, or towering government officials. Sometimes it begins with the simple act of taking what is not yours — justified as “pangmerienda lang naman,” “wala namang makakahalata,” or worse… “ganito na kasi lagi talaga.” Maybe corruption begins exactly where we least expect it — in the classrooms, in the student body, in the offices of the teachers, in the parents, and in the people who should have known better. Because if the top — even within a small system like a school — chooses silence, shortcuts, or personal gain, how can the rest learn anything else? This is the cultural echo of national leadership. When those at the bottom see those at the top accused of inserting billions, channeling funds into ghost flood control projects, or receiving alleged suitcases of cash — how can we expect small leaders in small spaces to resist small temptations? When a president is accused by a lawmaker of benefiting from questionable budget practices, how can we expect an SSLG officer to resist using a few hundred pesos for their own convenience? When national institutions lack transparency, why expect a campus organization to practice it? All faults lead to the President not because he alone commits every wrongdoing, but because the tone of governance, honesty, and accountability is set by him. The leader creates the culture. The leader shapes the norm. The leader establishes the boundaries of what is acceptable. And when the top normalizes corruption — intentionally or not — the bottom absorbs it. From Malacañang to the faculty room. From Congress to the SPTA board. From national budgets to SSLG collections. The pattern is the same: Where leadership is corrupt, corruption becomes culture. Where leadership is silent, silence becomes survival. Where leadership bends the rules, lower ranks break them. Corruption does not begin with the student who pockets ₱20. It begins with the leader who pockets ₱20 billion. And when that becomes the model, the rest simply follow. Because… All faults lead to the president; either the president of the Philippines, the president of the SSLG, the president of the SPTA, or the president of the faculty of teachers in the school. All faults lead to the president…