Towards a National Integrity and Transparency System in Peru

3. Summary of Recommendations

Abstract

This chapter provides a summary of the key recommendations in this report.

3.1. Addressing contextual elements

• Achieving results in the fight against corruption requires a systemic approach. While this is not sufficient to bring about change, consider strengthening the institutional framework to ensure it enables leadership, reassurance and continuity in the effective implementation of integrity and transparency policies as a necessary condition to have an impact, reflecting real political will.

• Continue working to create adequate conditions that allow for a possible integrity and transparency system to function correctly. This includes, above all, strengthening complementary elements in terms of meritocracy and internal control and audit.

• Continue advancing in the implementation of civil service reform in Peru to promote greater job stability and strengthen continuity in the public service. Law 31298 of 2021 could be regulated to be effective, and the implementation of Legislative Decree 1602 could allow public entities to contract under the regime regulated by Law 30057.

• To strengthen public management, consider transferring the competencies for internal control to the SGP in co-ordination with the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República, CGR) to promote a good co-ordination of external and internal control, maintaining their respective independence within the framework of a revised national control system.

3.2. Creating a National System of Integrity and Transparency (SNIT)

• Consider centralising transparency functions covering the issues of proactive and reactive transparency, data protection, and integrity under a single National Integrity and Transparency System (Sistema Nacional de Integridad y Transparencia, SNIT) to facilitate the adoption of a holistic and co-ordinated approach to these intertwined and mutually reinforcing areas for corruption prevention.

• Consider configuring the SNIT as an administrative system, but with a new governing entity with stewardship over a national public policy (which is characteristic of functional systems) applicable to the entire public administration:

  • This hybrid solution may adapt most effectively to the characteristics of the integrity and transparency policies, which require:

    • On the one hand, transversality, the obligation of compliance by all public entities, and the ability to establish clear and uniform standards facilitating monitoring and evaluating the policies implemented (administrative system).

    • On the other hand, to co-ordinate the various key and complementary actors in addition to involving actors outside the government, such as civil society, thus allowing for greater co-ordination and effectiveness in implementing a national policy of integrity and transparency (functional system).

  • The advantages of this hybrid configuration could be, among others: a better co-ordination between government levels and public entities; the standardisation of objectives and tools aligned with good practices through an integrated system; increased flexibility to tackle specific challenges; and a clear distribution of responsibilities.

• The creation of the system could be achieved through an amendment to the Law that creates the High-Level Anti-Corruption Commission (Comisión de Alto Nivel Anticorrupción, CAN).

3.3. Creating the National Integrity, Transparency and Personal Data Protection Authority (ANITAP) as governing body of the SNIT

• Consider creating a National Integrity, Transparency and Personal Data Protection Authority (ANITAP) as a specialised technical body (organismo técnico especializado, OTE) attached to the Presidency of the Council of Ministers (Presidencia del Consejo de Ministros, PCM), uniting the existing governing entities for integrity (the current SIP), transparency and access to information (the current ANTAIP), and data protection (the current ANPD). The structure of an OTE would grant the new ANITAP an adequate level of budgetary and functional autonomy and could provide greater stability and resilience during political ups and downs.

• Provide the governing entity, possibly the new ANITAP if created, with the mandate to promote, co-ordinate, and supervise the policies of integrity, transparency, access to public information, and personal data protection throughout the Peruvian public sector.

• Ensure the ANITAP is staffed by a team of highly trained professionals in public governance, law, auditing, and information technologies and an adequate infrastructure, including equipped offices and advanced technological systems.

• Consider establishing an Executive Council, an Executive President, a General Management and four General Directorates that would respond to the issues of ANITAP’s competence: (1) Integrity, (2) Access to Information and Transparency, (3) Personal Data Protection, and (4) Monitoring, Control and Investigation. The directorates would rely on people with specialised profiles in their respective area, while the fourth one could supervise and investigate breaches of the Laws on Transparency and Data Protection.

• Consider transferring the existing Tribunal of Transparency, Access to Public Information and Protection of Personal Data (TTAIP) to the new governing entity. This resolution body could have jurisdiction, in addition to its current competencies, over disputes and administrative appeals related to: (1) access to public information −currently assigned to the SERVIR Tribunal−; (2) personal data protection through the creation of new, specialised division; and (3) sanctions and appeals of public officials for breaches of access to information regulations. This would enable the leveraging and strengthening of the experience and technical knowledge of this court in matters of transparency and the right to information.

• Establish clear and transparent mechanisms for appointing and removing its directors and executive director to ensure the effectiveness and credibility of ANITAP and guarantee its administrative and financial independence:

  • Consider selecting the head of the ANITAP through a public merit contest and with a defined mandate duration.

  • Establish specific and severe removal causes by law and ensure the creation of a transparent process that guarantees that the removal is not used as a mechanism of political retaliation or undue control.

3.4. Promoting co-ordination

• Consider reforming the CAN to promote co-ordination at the strategic level within the SNIT, as a more effective, reduced, and preventive body. This CAN, under the guidance of the ANITAP as technical secretary, could bring together the CGR, the National Civil Service Authority (Autoridad Nacional del Setivicio Civil, SERVIR), the Secretariat of Public Management (Secretaría de Gestión Pública, SGP), the National General Archive (Archivo General de la Nación, AGN), the State Attorney General’s Office (Procuraduría General del Estado, PGE), and the Ombudsperson's Office. The CGR and the Ombudsperson's Office could participate with a voice but without a vote to maintain their independence as supervisory bodies.

• Ensure effective integration and co-ordination between the various State institutions through the PCM and the ANITAP, ensuring that integrity and transparency policies are applied consistently and efficiently throughout the country.

• Ensure the new SNIT maintains an effective dialogue and co-ordination with the other relevant and complementary systems and actors for integrity and transparency, such as:

  • Actors of the legislative and judicial branch, other relevant OCAs (constitutional autonomous bodies such as the National Board of Justice and Public Prosecutor's Office), the National Assembly of Regional Governments and the Association of Municipalities, and the private sector and civil society.

  • Other relevant systems: The National Archives System, the National Control System, the Justice System, the Electoral System and the Contracting System.

• Consider inviting representatives of these key actors regularly to some sessions of the CAN and establishing regular mechanisms for consultation and interaction, such as working groups, discussion forums, and joint committees, to ensure such co-ordination.

3.5. Promoting the implementation of integrity and transparency policies

• Leverage the opportunity of the creation of the SNIT to strengthen the role of OIIs and FRAIPs and revise and refine the Integrity Model to reflect lessons learned from its implementation to date, by considering the following measures:

  • Establish direct reporting from OIIs to their entity’s head and the new ANITAP.

  • Ensure the professionalisation of OIIs and FRAIPs.

  • Incorporate FRAIPs as part of the OIIs, which could be renamed “Integrity and Transparency Offices” (Oficinas de Integridad y Transparencia, OIT), to co-ordinate both functions internally.

  • Add accountability functions to the OIT.

  • Eliminate the function of receiving corruption complaints by the OITs, accompanying this measure with a deeper reform to avoid creating a vacuum and clarifying complaint pathways and remedies for whistleblowers.

• Consolidate and improve the Unique Digital Platform for Citizen Complaints as an effective co-ordination mechanism between the different responsible entities to follow up on complaints.

• Foster strengthened co-operation among OITs across the administration to promote sharing of good practices and provision of mutual support when faced with similar cases.

• Consider adapting the mandatory criteria for implementing integrity and transparency policies to respond to the realities of local governments, to reflect their challenges and particularities. In this regard, to address capacity limitations, consider establishing and piloting “shared” OIIs (or new OITs) that provide their services to several small municipalities. These shared OIIs (OITs) could, for example, be located at the regional government level or in larger municipalities.