Is recruiting the youth good enough? Rethinking anticorruption reforms
Last Dec. 18, 2025, Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Secretary Vince Dizon announced an urgent recruitment drive for engineers and accountants to fill approximately 2,000 vacant positions. The DPWH will initiate a “massive recruitment” program starting in January to engage the younger generation in reforming the department. “We need fresh blood. We need young, dynamic, and idealistic individuals to join the DPWH. And you will be the ones to really turn the page and reform this institution from within. Not just in the next two years, but in years to come,” Dizon said.
While this is a very laudable effort to reform a government agency for its systemic culture of corruption, it also speaks volumes about Dizon’s highly optimistic view of the young generation.
There was a time when a group of young politicians, the so-called “bright boys,” were expected to change the image of the Filipino politician. The last time I heard, some of them were alleged to be involved in graft and corruption. After them, I never trusted politicians promising much-needed reforms until proven otherwise.
An accounting student of mine, who had his first job at a government agency also notorious for corruption, told me that he was asked to resign after refusing to sign a document that his superiors claimed would bring him immediate cash and a brand-new car. He bravely resisted the powerful forces of compliance, conformity, and blind obedience.
These serve as cautionary tales about how the few good young men and women who choose to work in government can be vulnerable to situations that can erode whatever shared values or virtues their schools instilled. They will be tested, and their moral fibers may snap when exposed to situations that reward the powerful wrongdoers and punish the reluctant everyday heroes.
Two social-psychological theories help explain human behavior, showing the extent and limits of personal, situational, and systemic power. The first, the Lucifer effect—named after God’s favorite but fallen angel—highlights how good people can commit “grave sins” under situational forces beyond their control, or what its author, Philip Zimbardo, would call “creative evils.”
The second is the fundamental attribution error.
Zimbardo found that human character can commit bad things, even evil and devilish things, when continuously exposed to an evil system. In this light, young graduates who will answer Dizon’s call are forewarned that they may become either victims or perpetrators of corruption; some of them, who thought they were competent, compassionate, and committed enough to serving the common good, might end up like Lucifer. The lesson is clear: one cannot underestimate the impact of situational factors on human character or disposition.
The fundamental attribution error is the tendency to attribute fault to disposition—a result of a freely chosen decision to do wrong. Understanding the situational and systemic influences does not excuse or absolve individuals from responsibility for immoral, or illegal actions. While the evil system can weaken human agency, the individual is free to choose between right and wrong. When corruption is exposed, it is not the system on trial, but the individuals held accountable.
What can these young graduates do to resist creative evil? When most give in or give up, who among them would resist the temptation of instant wealth, albeit stolen from public funds? How many would choose to sacrifice personal comfort, as Joshua Abrina and Kyle Antatico did, by shedding their blood for daring to speak the truth to power?
Noel Asiones,
ngasiones@gmail.com
