Two countries in Asia are confronting wiretapping scandals but both have dealt with it in widely contrasting ways. The Philippine case dramatizes the culture of impunity while South Korea shows its adherence to the rule of law.

In Seoul, the action was swift and decisive. In a matter of two weeks, an official whose conversation was bugged resigned his post, the head of the Korean National Intelligence Service admitted the illegal act, and prosecutors had almost completed their investigation. Some intelligence officials eventually face criminal charges.

In Manila, there has been no resignation, no admission of anything-not even the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines owning up to having a wiretapping device. The law enforcement agencies are not interested in finding Virgilio Garcillano, an election official whose telephone conversations were bugged.

The circumstances surrounding the wiretapping scandals may be different, but only slightly. They both involve national figures and the state intelligence agency.

In the Philippines, President Arroyo spoke to an election official after the elections in 2004 in an effort to "protect" her vote but which is seen more as a move to rig the elections. She has apologized for her "lapse in judgment" but has not ordered an investigation on the wiretapping operations. The Armed Forces Intelligence Service is widely suspected to be behind it.

In South Korea, a local TV station reported in late July that a Samsung top official and a then newspaper executive discussed, in a 1997 wiretapped conversation, giving away millions of dollars to politicians for the 1997 presidential elections. The former newspaper executive, who is now Seoul's ambassador to Washington D.C., resigned his post. The current head of the Korean National Intelligence Service admitted that his agency had been illegally bugging personalities (businessmen, government officials, and senior journalists) until 2002. The former head of the bugging group attempted suicide after admitting, in a written statement, their illegal operations. And the opposition has demanded a probe to find out if the current government still does wiretapping operations.

In Manila, we have had one terse apology from the President. Mr. Garcillano has left the country on a private jet, apparently allowed by the immigration bureau. Neither the police nor the National Bureau of Investigation are looking for him. And no one faces criminal charges.

Many Filipinos look at what's happening in Seoul with envy and admiration. "They have a very strong sense of responsibility and delicadeza," says Lt. Gen. Romeo Dominguez of the Philippine Army. "They respect the rule of law."

The Philippines had its first "people power" revolt before South Korea democratized in 1987, thanks to their brave pro-democracy movement. Manila established the Presidential Commission on Good Government before South Korea started to look into corrupt activities of its past leaders.

But they've moved faster and at a surer pace than the Philippines. Since then, South Korea has sent two of its past presidents to prison. In 1996, Chun Doo Hwan and Roh Tae Woo were jailed on charges of corruption. Chun was initially sentenced to death, which was later commuted to a life sentence. He and Roh were later pardoned in a reconciliation move of then President Kim Dae Jung.

In the Philippines, the three-year old plunder case against former President Estrada remains unresolved. The cases of ill-gotten wealth against former First Lady Imelda Marcos have not prospered. The Marcos children are active in politics: one is a member of the House of Representatives, and the other is governor of his province.

These two cases show how far apart Seoul and Manila are on the accountability pole, on the premium public officials put on law and the institutions.

In the Philippines, the opposition lawmakers filed an impeachment complaint against President Arroyo on grounds of election fraud and corruption. It is one way Filipinos can test their institutions and respond to the clamor for accountability. But the opposition lacked the numbers to push the complaint to the Senate which would act as an impeachment court.

President Arroyo has hurdled this crisis-but it appears that she may have difficulty finding respite from the opposition. They plan to continue public hearings in the Senate on her alleged cheating in the 2004 elections.

In 2001, then President Joseph Estrada was impeached but the hearings were cut short when the public protested, leading to the second "people power' revolt, after the administration senators refused to make public compelling evidence on Estrada's corruption. This time, there is no energy for street protests.

The Catholic bishops have proposed setting up a truth commission but this doesn't have the clout of an impeachment court. The idea has died down.

Meanwhile, South Korea will remain an object of study and fascination in a country which inspired them with "people power." Surely, there are vital lessons to learn.