|
EARLIER
this week, Leo San Miguel gave Malacañang reason to
believe it could survive the crisis brought on by
allegations of multibillion-dollar kickbacks in the
national broadband network (NBN) contract. Summoned to
the Senate blue-ribbon inquiry, the telecoms
entrepreneur declined to deliver further proof of
skullduggery in the abortive deal, causing not a few
senators to lose their cool and bare their fangs—to the
discomfort, not of the much-awaited resource person, but
of viewers who have been following the nationally
televised marathon proceedings.
Even
some of the senators felt obliged to concede that the
last episode in the NBN telenovela belonged to the
Arroyo administration, whose minions could not conceal
their glee over their political foes’ embarrassment.
But, as has been said often enough, one skirmish does
not win a war. The fight is far from over simply because
the arena is not limited to the smaller chamber of
Congress.
This
week, too, the Hong Kong-based Political and Economic
Risk Consultancy Ltd. (PERC) released the results of its
annual survey, which show the Philippines as the most
corrupt of 13 Asian economies. The
Philippines
scored 9.0 on a zero-to-10 scale, trailed by
Thailand
at 8.0 and China and Indonesia at 7.98.
“The
Philippines is a sad case when it comes to corruption,”
PERC said in its summary.
In what
sounded like a left-handed compliment, the consultancy
added that the situation in the
Philippines
is “probably no worse than in places like
Indonesia
and Thailand.” However, PERC added, corruption has
become politicized and is openly discussed in Philippine
media—unlike in authoritarian countries like China and
Vietnam.
The PERC
survey had as respondents 1,400 expatriate businessmen
in Asia whose perceptions of business conditions were
solicited by the pollster. It could be argued that those
foreigners’ perceptions may not always correspond to the
objective reality in the economies they were asked to
evaluate. Still, there is no denying that when they gave
Singapore
a rating of 1.13, Hong Kong 1.8, Japan 2.5 and Macau
3.3, they reflected the generally accepted notion that
conditions in those economies are highly conducive to
doing business.
There is
no disputing, too, the gains the Philippine economy has
made in recent years due largely to policies adopted by
President Arroyo. It is precisely those solid advances
that have given a new lease on life to her embattled
presidency notwithstanding the mounting evidence of
corruption and rising clamor for her ouster.
Interestingly, the administration prefers to attribute
the country’s abysmal PERC rating to the unpopular
economic reforms the President has adopted. At a press
conference Tuesday, Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita
was quoted as saying, “Leaders who make difficult and
unpopular decisions would normally draw criticisms.”
The
“Little President” did not say so, but we can safely
assume he was referring to such policies as the expanded
value-added tax (E-VAT), which has helped drive up the
prices of prime commodities, notably fuel. But while the
opposition and consumer advocates continue to press
loudly for the abolition of the E-VAT, it is the reports
on the alleged plunder of the nation’s coffers that have
given rise to widespread agitation and unrest.
Apart
from Ermita’s facile—and faulty—rationalization,
Malacañang has responded with yet further promises of
reform. At a Palace ceremony, where she signed into law
the General Appropriations Act of 2008, Mrs. Arroyo said
she would ask Congress to pass an Anticorruption Reform
Act this year.
“On our
part, we will hold officials accountable, if they are
found to be corrupt after due process,” the President
added. “Let the chips fall where they may as
investigations are concluded and friend and foe alike
are brought to account for their actions in the proper
courts.”
Critics
immediately suspected that the Chief Executive was again
passing the buck by requiring the Legislature to work on
yet another law. More generous observers, however,
interpreted it as the President’s acknowledgement that
existing laws are not enough to slay the monster called
corruption.
The law
creating the Office of the Ombudsman, for instance,
seems tailor-fit to shield the appointing authority from
graft investigations. The current Ombudsman—who was
installed by the President and is widely known to be
close to her husband—is a case in point.
Merceditas Gutierrez has officially inhibited herself
from the investigation of the NBN contract that her own
office launched—apart from the ones initiated by the
Senate and the Department of Justice (DOJ). However,
despite her laudable gesture, there are few takers for
the bet that the Ombudsman would allow its probe to take
its logical course.
The DOJ,
meanwhile, is presided over by Mrs. Arroyo’s most
ferocious defender—and the best that may be expected
from its own probe is an exoneration of the so-called
Greedy Group Plus Plus.
Instead
of an Ombudsman who owes her appointment to Malacañang
and the DOJ that unabashedly sounds like an extension
office of the Palace, the gravity of the corruption
problem requires the establishment of a special
prosecutor reminiscent of Leon Jaworski of Watergate
fame.
So
thoroughly insulated was Jaworski from political
pressure and partisan influence that he was able to
compel the White House to hand over incriminating tapes
of Richard Nixon’s conversations with his senior staff
that was involved in the attempt to conceal the break-in
of the Democratic National Committee headquarters by
Republican Party operatives. Confronted with
indisputable, “smoking gun” evidence of wrongdoing,
Nixon was forced to resign—and his factotums imprisoned.
If a
new, improved law to combat corruption needs to be
passed by Congress and enacted by the President, let it
feature an Office of the Special Prosecutor as its
centerpiece. Let the bill undergo the scrutiny not just
of both legislative chambers, but also of legal experts,
respected magistrates and the people at large. Let it be
premised on actual experience—not on some quaint
Scandinavian model like the Ombudsman. Let it contain
safeguards to avoid the failure encountered by past and
present probes. Let the Office of the Special Prosecutor
be equipped with the wherewithal to conduct impartial
and thoroughgoing investigations, to build solid cases
against wrongdoers that will stand up in court.
Above
all, let the appointment of the Special Prosecutor come
neither from the Executive nor Legislative branch, but
from the Supreme Court as the font of the nation’s
judicial wisdom.
The NBN
scandal may or may not lead to the ouster of a third
sitting president. It may, given a thorough
investigation not marred by suspicion of partisan
interests either way, truly assign blame where it lies.
At this stage, it has already generated the political
momentum that, if harnessed properly, could formulate
the policies, erect the institutions and adopt the
processes for turning the corruption situation around.
This is
one opportunity we can allow to pass only at our
collective peril. |
