IN
late July, during his “State of the Nation Address” – which is referred to as
the “SONA” here in the Philippines, because they can come up with an acronym or
abbreviation for anything – President Ferdinand R. “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. (Filipinos
have a thing with nicknames, too) devoted part of his time toward railing
against corrupt government officials and contractors who have rooked the country
out of billions of pesos while leaving the country with substandard or
completely imaginary flood-control infrastructure. It was a provocative
subject, because about two weeks prior, several large sections of the country
had suffered serious flooding, including in and around Metro Manila.
In
the weeks since, investigations by the House of Representatives (in conjunction
with hearings on the government’s annual budget for next year), the Senate, the
Department of Justice, and more recently, the new Secretary of the Department
of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) – the previous one being one of the first
heads to roll in the growing scandal – and a new investigative commission
created by the president, as well as other agencies, have uncovered a
breathtaking web of corruption involving hundreds, if not thousands, of
government officials and employees, including many members of the House and
Senate, about two dozen construction contractors, and the Philippine
Contractors’ Accreditation Board (PCAB). Every day brings new details in what
has become known as “Floodgate” here; just today (Sept. 17), the Speaker of the
House, a cousin of the president, was forced to resign after being implicated.
All
of this is happening, coincidentally, in the wake of public uprisings against
government corruption that almost brought down the government in Indonesia, and
did overthrow the government of Nepal. The similarities between the situations
in those countries, especially Indonesia, and the situation here are
disturbing. There are major rallies planned in Metro Manila and other parts of
the country for this coming Sunday, Sept. 21, and while I don’t think things
will go sideways – for one thing, Marcos has openly encouraged people to
demonstrate, so long as they do it peacefully – everything feels a little bit
on edge.
On
a personal note, my 20-year-old daughter asked me the other night if she could
attend one of the two big rallies planned in Manila with a group of her friends
and classmates. If I was a Filipino parent, I might scold her and tell her to
express her views in more productive ways. But I am not, I am an East Coast Gen
X-er and aging punk who knows what teargas tastes like, and is of the opinion
that if you don’t at least flip a car over you’re not trying hard enough, so I
told her to go and be heard.
I
did not recommend that she flip over any cars, however, and of course I gave
her all the usual “how to stay safe in a demonstration with 300,000 other people”
tips. Plus, although she doesn’t know it, the entire Manila Times photography
squad, our building security (The Manila Times’ offices are near the
park where the rally will be held), and several personnel from the Manila
Police District will be keeping an eye out for her and her group. Dad’s got
connections.
In
my day job-life, I have steered away from writing about the “Floodgate”
situation as much as possible, for reasons. However, it has been impossible to
avoid it entirely; in poking through my folders earlier this evening, I
realized that I’ve actually had a lot to say about the situation. So, as a
public service, in a sense, I’ve decided to repost my columns on the topic, as
well as The Manila Times editorials I wrote about it. I think it
provides some insights, and in reading through my work of the past couple of
weeks, it’s an interesting study in shifting thoughts on the matter. Links to
the originals are embedded in the titles.
***
Plenty of drama, but will there be real change? (Editorial, August 23)
IN
the weeks since President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. used his recent State of the
Nation Address to express his frustration with the “shameful” corruption
plaguing the country’s flood control projects, there has been a great volume of
sound and fury from both the Executive and Legislative branches of government,
duly reported in detail by the nation’s media, present company included.
Committees in both houses of Congress are investigating the scandal, new
committees are being formed to pursue the matter further, and almost every day
brings new, shocking revelations of the results of some lawmaker’s or another’s
personal “investigation.”
For
all the public drama that our collective leadership is working energetically to
create, it seems the public’s reaction, at least so far, is a collective
stifled yawn. We have been here before, over and over again, for almost four
decades. Corruption in public works projects of all kinds, not just those
intended for flood control, seems to be perceived as a fundamental part of
governance at all levels in the Philippines.
No
one condones it, of course, and it is a constant source of public mistrust and
frustration with government, but the most obvious public sentiment is
resignation. These occasional “anti-corruption” campaigns have never resulted
in lasting change; if any of them had, we would not now be filling our
headlines with breathless news of more examples of greed and fraud. What the
public wants to know, and has an absolute right to know, is how the outcomes
will be different this time.
We
understand this sounds quite cynical, but it is not our intention to downplay
the seriousness of the astonishing corruption that is being exposed. President
Marcos was right to condemn it is as shameful, and it is even more so when
flood control projects are involved, because the consequences of the rampant,
organized criminality being carried out by government officials and contractors
put the lives, livelihoods, and property of ordinary Filipinos in grave danger.
It is entirely proper, in fact absolutely necessary, that the full details of
the corrupted projects and everyone involved in them are exposed.
However,
it is far important that there are exemplary consequences for these criminal
acts and breaches of the public trust. Even more importantly, it is vital that
systemic changes be made to prevent the corruption from happening again.
Along
those lines, we have a few suggestions that, if our leaders are sincere about
meaningful reform, they should take to heart.
First,
the pearl-clutching expressions of shocked concern by members of Congress do
not distract us from the fact that most of the corruption being investigated
now originates with lawmaker’s arrogant and self-serving wielding of Congress’
“power of the purse.” On more than one occasion, President Marcos has issued a
stern warning that he will not tolerate unjustifiable budget insertions by
Congress, and will veto those when the budget reaches his desk. He should be diligent
in doing so; no public works project should originate from a Congressional
budget insertion or application of “pork barrel” funds.
Second,
a “zero-tolerance” policy toward potential conflicts of interest must be
adopted and rigorously enforced. We have lately heard stories of government
officials or their family members having a stake in businesses being awarded
project contracts. It is incredible that these firms are not immediately
disqualified and declared ineligible for any bidding. In managing this issue,
the government could consider seeking the advice of institutions such as the
Asian Development Bank or the World Bank, which have developed and efficiently
maintain robust safeguard policies in their own project work.
Third,
the application of administrative and judicial penalties must be swift, severe,
and comprehensive. Every instance of massive corruption in the past – familiar
examples are the infamous “pork barrel” scandal during the administrative of
late president Noynoy Aquino, or the so-called Pharmally scandal during the
term of former president Duterte – has, at best, resulted in one or two perpetrators
being sacrificed, with more significant public figures able to escape
accountability, usually after years of gaming the judicial system with clever
legal maneuvering.
Finally,
it is evident that there is something seriously dysfunctional about the system
by which projects are created, bid out, and monitored by the responsible
agencies, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) being the one on
the hot seat at present. This is another performance area where the assistance
of the multilateral institutions and international development agencies would
be most helpful; the government should swallow its pride and avail of it.
Corruption is the mistress of government
Rough Trade, August 31
FOR
nearly two months, the issue of corruption in public works projects,
specifically flood control projects, has dominated the headlines. It began with
widespread flooding problems associated with the passing of tropical storm
Crising on July 19-20, ramped up to a fever pitch with President Marcos’
inclusion of the topic in his State of the Nation Address the following week,
and has kept up its momentum as new cases of corruption are revealed. The
latest chapter in the drama, as of the end of the week, was the president’s
order for all government officials, starting with those working in the
Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) to be subjected to “lifestyle
checks,” which was followed by the predictable parade of government
personalities (including the President and officials of the Office of the Vice
President, though not the Vice President herself) gamely avowing their
willingness to submit to them.
It
was the “lifestyle checks” thing that convinced me this sudden crusade of
new-found morality had jumped the shark. The “lifestyle check” has been a go-to
solution for rooting out corruption for decades, along with the threat to
publicly disclose the “statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth” (SALN)
that all government officials are required to file (that has also been brought
up in the past couple of days), under the presumed premise that if one has a
bunch of wealth, it must have been obtained by illicit means. The apparent
crisis situation the country finds itself in with respect to corruption in
flood-control project construction contracts is a rather damning indicator of
how poorly the threat of “exposure” through either of those two means has
worked over the years.
So,
once President Marcos brought up the “lifestyle checks,” I realized, from my
experience of being here through four presidential administrations so far, that
the current drama is already near the end of the third act. Forget the dozens
of pieces of proposed legislation that have been filed, forget the salacious
hearings in the House and the Senate, forget the lifestyle checks or any
official’s SALN revealing much. One or two greedy contractors, along with a few
apparatchiks in the DPWH or other government offices, those too stupid or too
reckless to adequately cover their tracks, will be sacrificed to complete the
public relations exercise. Those who are good at what they do will lie low for
a while, maybe even until the inevitable chaos of the turnover to a new
administration in just under three years’ time, and the whole big corruption
machine will start rolling again.
And
yes, I realize that sounds terribly cynical, but tell me I’m wrong. Think about
the unsatisfying outcomes of the so-called “priority development assistance
funds” (PDAF) or “pork barrel” scandal of some years back, and how “pork
barrel” rather quickly crept back into use in the form of the “budget
insertion.” Or think about the near-constant incidences of corruption in
agencies such as the Bureau of Customs, or the Bureau of Immigration. Consider
these, and try to argue with a straight face that this time, things are going
to somehow be different.
I
believe that where the Philippines fails, and as a consequence has earned a
reputation for being a terribly corrupt country, is not necessarily because
corruption exists, but because the people who are rightly offended by being
ripped off by their officials in government, and those few in government who
are sincerely offended by it as well fundamentally do not understand that
corruption is part of the human condition. Every government since the dawn of
organized society, no matter what its form, has been afflicted by corruption.
And will continue to be so, because people are people.
The
big mistake the well-meaning people in the Philippines make is in believing
corruption is something that can be “stopped.” It cannot; even lily-white
societies like Singapore and Japan have to continually fight it, which is why
not a week goes by that the news from those places does not contain at least
one story about some miscreant official or another being caught and punished
for doing something out of line. China, as another example, literally shoots
corrupt officials if they are caught doing something particularly egregious,
and locks others away for very long prison terms for lesser offenses. And yet
China continues to be universally regarded as one of the most corrupt countries
in the world.
This
is not to suggest that anyone should resign themselves to the reality of
corruption, and just accept it as the cost of doing business, but thinking that
one grand effort can actually end the problem and prevent it from recurring is
equally unproductive, and as bound to fail. Fighting corruption is not an
objective, it’s a process, and in the countries that have relatively low levels
of corruption – the aforementioned Singapore and Japan, and some European
countries, for example – anti-corruption efforts are a permanent part of the
framework of governance. The Philippines has all the tools to do that in terms
of laws and regulations, but simply cannot find a way to use those tools
fairly, consistently, and efficiently. And until it does, these occasional
public circuses of “exposing” corruption are going to continue to be regular
occurrences, with no real change the status quo.
President’s independent commission will need support (Editorial, September 3)
THE
announcement by President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. of his intention to form an
independent commission to investigate the epidemic of corruption involving
flood control projects is welcome news, and perhaps encourages some cautious
optimism that meaningful reform can be achieved. The idea of an independent
commission, however, is just one piece of a potential solution to the chronic
problem of corruption in public works projects. Much will depend on how it is
put together, the manner it which it will exercise the authority it can be
given, and most importantly, how effectively other parts of the government,
especially those not necessarily under the control of the president, will
cooperate with the commission’s work. “The devil is in the details,” as the old
saying goes, and there are a daunting number of details that must be addressed
for there to be a chance that positive results can be achieved.
The
first issue, of course, is who would be selected to serve on the independent
commission. President Marcos said that he wants the members to have diverse
backgrounds and experience, and that the commission would obviously have to
include people with expertise in forensic investigation and legal matters.
Candidates being consider would undergo strict screening to ensure impartiality
and credibility, we have been told, with the president’s spokesperson adding, “[The
commission’s] members must be truly independent and not engage in politics.”
That
is reassuring, but on the other hand, those are minimal expectations. Besides
legal expertise and sterling reputations without any hint of past or present
conflicts of interest, the commission members will also have to include
reliable people with strong subject matter expertise. People who have
experience in public works project planning, execution, accounting, and
safeguards are needed. For this, the president might consider including one or
more people who have worked with one of the country’s development partners,
such as the Asian Development Bank, World Bank, the Japan International
Cooperation Agency (JICA), or the now-defunct US Agency for International
Development (USAID), even if only on an advisory basis.
The
second potential problem we see as a risk to the commission’s effectiveness is
the coordination with the judicial system. As described, the work of the
commission will involve investigating and then preparing applicable cases for
prosecution, with those involving government officials being sent to the Office
of the Ombudsman for further action, and those involving non-government
personalities going to the Department of Justice (DOJ). Both of those agencies
will need to act with more alacrity than they have typically demonstrated to
resolve these cases and make their prosecution an effective deterrent against
similar crimes. It will not do for cases to languish for months or even years
before action is taken, and one way that this could perhaps be prevented is for
the Ombudsman and the DOJ to establish dedicated teams to focus strictly on
cases sent by the investigatory commission.
Likewise,
the judiciary should consider establishing dedicated courts to handle cases
originating with the independent commission. It is fair to neither those
accused in cases nor the public expecting justice to be carried out for court
proceedings to be bogged down in endless delays, and slow justice undermines
the principle of accountability that the leadership is trying to establish.
Finally,
Congress will need to find it within itself to cooperate with the work of the
independent commission by curtailing its own “investigations” through its
endless appetite for conducting hearings of poorly designed scope and
questionable effectiveness. These exercises in public image management have rarely
resulted in significant and long-lasting positive reform. And while we expect
those lawmakers who are heavily invested in the ongoing hearings would
vehemently disagree with that observation, the fact that we are here now with a
national crisis of corruption on our hands in no sense inspires confidence in
the “investigation in aid of legislation” as a tool for change.
As
President Marcos said, the work to develop the independent commission and
codify its makeup and scope of work in an executive order is ongoing. We hope
that work is being carried out with care, and an appreciation of what good for
the nation it could accomplish if it is done right.
The circus the country deserves
Rough Trade, September 9
I
have a couple of useful topics for this week, but it hardly seems worthwhile to
put them out for discussion while the entire country is still treading water in
the tsunami of flood-control project corruption chatter, so I may as well ride
the wave and share a few impressions from news and conversations that took
place over the weekend.
The
Manila Times’ front-page story yesterday (Monday) morning was frankly
infuriating. The story covered statements by two senators, first the
second-hand disclosure by Sen. Ping Lacson that an “Undersecretary Cabral” had
called the office of Senate Minority Leader Vicente Sotto III to suggest that
the senator could “insert whatever he wanted to insert” in the 2026 national
budget for the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). The second
annoying statement came from Sen. Erwin Tulfo, who said that the requirement
that one must be a contractor to become a member of the Philippine Contractors
Accreditation Board (PCAB) was an obvious conflict of interest.
If
you want to know why large-scale, institutionalized corruption persists in the
Philippines, there are two of the many reasons right there. Lacson has styled
himself as an anti-corruption crusader for his entire career in the Senate, and
by all accounts he is personally upright; for example, he was always among the
few legislators to decline his “pork barrel” allocation in years past. However,
he has been marketing his “anti-corruption” personal brand for 18 years and
counting (at the end of the current term, he will have spent 24 years in the
Senate), with little to show for it; otherwise, we would not be where we are,
just now learning the government has been bleeding P100 billion or more per
year in taxpayer money due to just one specific category of corruption.
The
national constituency would perhaps have greater confidence that the corruption
scandal was being taken seriously if the likes of Sen. Lacson – and he is by no
means the only one – would actually demonstrate seriousness. As opposed to,
say, going on the radio over the weekend and floating innuendo about something
that happened in someone else’s office like an old woman gossiping across the
counter at the corner store.
For
one thing, if it was Sen. Sotto’s staff who was involved in the alleged
incident, then it should be Sen. Sotto who should comment on it. For another,
fingering “an Undersecretary Cabral” as if everyone doesn’t already know who
that is, or can find out with a click a two online, only makes the audience
wonder if Lacson is actually describing a real incident. And if so, why he, or
preferably his senate colleague who was targeted by an obvious ethical
violation if not a criminal one, has not already prepared and filed the
appropriate complaint before the Ombudsman. That is the proper, legally
prescribed way to handle such things, and this was a call that was allegedly
made more than three months ago.
If
the effort to punish corrupt practices and take steps to prevent its recurrence
is sincere, then perhaps a better approach would be to dial the
self-righteousness down a couple notches, and actually take those steps. Of
course, filing a case before the Ombudsman would mean making the story
off-limits for attention-grabbing idle commentary, so the senator would have to
find some different way to make a public display of looking busy.
Sen.
Tulfo’s comments about the PCAB were baffling, to put it nicely. The PCAB has
come under fire as part of the larger scandal for allegedly selling
accreditations to fraudulent contractors, and that is obviously a serious issue
that must be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted. But Tulfo wishes to review
the enabling law for the PCAB, RA 4566 or the Contractors’ License Law, for the
wrong reason, the fact that the law stipulates that only licensed contractors
may sit on the PCAB board.
“How
can they monitor, oversee, and regulate construction projects in the country,
whether these are done properly, are not substandard, or are not ghost projects
— if they themselves are also contractors? Clearly, there is a conflict of
interest here,” he was quoted in the news story as saying.
Two
things: First of all, that’s not what PCAB does. ‘Monitoring, overseeing, and
regulating’ construction projects are the responsibility of the implementing
agencies, the DPWH or whichever agency may be involved. PCAB is responsible for
ensuring that contractors are properly qualified to do construction work, and
conduct their business according to legal, ethical, and trade standards.
Second,
the best people to judge whether a contractor meets the requirements for
accreditation are, in fact, contractors. One would not, for example, assign
schoolteachers to the accreditation board for nurses, or give electrical
engineers the job of accrediting accountants. The Contractors’ License Law and
the PCAB is an example of a good, or at least acceptably adequate system
corrupted by bad people, or in other words, reasonable rules that were simply
being flouted. The part of the broader scandal involving PCAB should be
prosecuted on that basis.
In
talking to ordinary people over the weekend, it is clear there is frustration
with what is going on, but there is also a sense of resignation. The
“investigations” and stream of shocking revelations, and the strident
anti-corruption rhetoric coming from lawmakers and even the president and his
officials is seen as being all for show; trivialized by those who should be
doing something to fix it, probably because they all have at least a finger in
the same honeypot. The people who are most frustrated by what is happening
wonder why the Filipino people cannot stand up for themselves like their
Indonesian neighbors. Maybe things don’t need to go as far as rioting and
burning down officials’ houses, they say, but isn’t there even a little bit of
that outrage here?
And
they are exactly right. There is an old saying that people in democracies get
the government they deserve; I get it, because I’ve watched that adage be
proven true in the most horrifying way for the past eight months in my own
country. With the current “flood control scandal” it is, not for the first
time, being proven true here, too.
Flood control scandal: What’s happening, and what should happen next? (Editorial,
September 13)
DEVELOPMENTS
in the ongoing flood-control corruption scandal, which is quickly becoming the
biggest political scandal in this nation’s history, are happening at such a
rapid pace that it may be difficult to keep up with the news. We think it may
be helpful to pause and take a look at where things stand at present, and what
can be expected to happen in the coming days and weeks.
As
of the end of the week, Friday, September 12, the scandal is being addressed in
at least seven different bodies or departments. As noted in our front-page
stories yesterday, the two most substantial developments of the past few days
were the issuance of an Executive Order (EO 94) by the Office of the President
creating the Independent Commission on Infrastructure (ICI) that will
investigate anomalous government projects, and the filing of formal charges
against two dozen Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) officials and
private contractors by new DPWH Secretary Vince Dizon. This was announced
earlier by President Marcos, but it took several days to develop the actual
enabling order. The new commission will have three members, who are yet to be
named, and will be given broad powers to investigate anomalies and forward
cases for further prosecution to the appropriate offices, such as the Office of
the President, the Department of Justice, the Ombudsman, or the Civil Service
Commission.
In
the absence of a Special Prosecutor or Inspector General’s office, the creation
of the ICI is a good alternative, and can fill the gaps in the oversight of the
Commission on Audit and the Office of the Ombudsman. The success or failure of
the system being created, however, is entirely dependent on the competence and
credibility of the people the president will name to the commission; that is
not a criticism of the idea, it is just an acknowledgement of the unavoidable
reality. If handled properly, the ICI has the potential to crush the culture of
corruption in government and profoundly improve government reliability and
efficiency. Therefore, the president must expect that his nominees to the panel
and the work they will do will be subjected to extreme scrutiny.
The
swift filing of criminal complaints by DPWH Sec. Dizon is encouraging as well,
and indications are that he intends to continue doing so as sufficient evidence
is collected against other conspirators. As with the creation of the ICI, this
action is regarded as a good first step, but only one of many that must follow.
One
concern that should be addressed as soon as possible, however, is that the
Office of the Ombudsman is currently in a state of flux, under temporary
leadership after the retirement of former Ombudsman Samuel Martires. The
Ombudsman’s office has frankly never been a model of rapid action, and while we
are certain that everyone there is diligently carrying out their duties, the
unsettled appointment of a new Ombudsman is inevitably disruptive. This comes
at a particularly inopportune moment, just as the number of cases that will
have to be handled are likely to grow very quickly, and it leads to worries
that resolutions of cases may be delayed.
Solving
this problem falls squarely in the lap of President Marcos, who has yet to name
Martires’ replacement, and has evidently been bothered a bit by the rather
unseemly lobbying for the post by a few personalities. We realize that
nominating a new Ombudsman is a difficult decision because of how critical the
post is, but it is a decision that the president must make quickly.
Elsewhere,
hearings on the flood control scandal are continuing in both the House
Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Blue Ribbon committee, and based on
some of the evidence and testimony that has emerged in those two proceedings,
separate inquiries into officials or businesses that have been connected to the
scandal have been initiated by the Bureau of Customs, Bureau of Internal
Revenue, Department of Transportation, Department of Migrant Workers, and
Commission on Elections. While the proactive approach being taken by the
government in trying to bring the scope and scale of the corruption to light is
certainly welcome, care should be taken to ensure that efforts are coordinated
and vital information is properly shared.
***
I
invite everyone to read the news and commentaries in The Manila Times, as there is a
vast amount of additional information; some of our columnists, in particular, live
and breathe this stuff. I don’t know if I will comment on it again – probably,
although I am still trying to steer away from the topic, because, as I said,
reasons. Though it may be the biggest story of the year, or of the decade, or
ever here, there are still other things going on, especially in the energy and
climate action lane I’m best at and most comfortable in. But, I’ll share
updates when necessary.
