IT is sad how the recent turn of events effectively sidelined the Aquino administration’s campaign against crime and corruption, particularly at the Bureau of Customs. Just as a new commissioner and his deputy were named to clean up the agency, its anti-smuggling unit was, in turn, suspended because of an administrative complaint filed by a suspected smuggler.

Eight members of the Run After the Smugglers or RATS unit, which had been responsible for initiating 44 cases involving about P59 billion in dutiable value since August 2010, were ordered suspended by the Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs, or Odesla, after they were accused by a steel firm of grave misconduct.

The steel firm, Sanyo Seiki, was among those that the suspended RATS team had accused of big-time smuggling just in February. RATS had accused Sanyo Seiki and its president, Gregory Uy Chan, of importing steel products worth over P1.3 billion but declaring their dutiable value at only over P165 million, to the government’s detriment.

But for investigating the steel firm and in doing what they believed to be right, the RATS team reaped a whirlwind. Some team members were sued before the Office of the Ombudsman for graft in late June. An administrative complaint was, likewise, filed against eight team members, which merited them a preventive suspension order from Odesla.

Whether the RATS team or Sanyo Seiki is in the right is anybody’s guess. The matter is up to the Ombudsman, the Office of the President, and the courts to decide. Whatever will result from any ongoing investigation is presumed to be on the up and up and the product of good faith.

The greater concern in this exchange of charges is that the eight members of RATS accused administratively by Sanyo Seiki, and then placed under preventive suspension for 90 days by the deputy executive secretary, are also the main complainants in 35 out of 44 big smuggling cases initiated by RATS since the start of the Aquino administration in mid-2010.

One cannot help but worry whether the Odesla action, while temporary, also effectively jeopardized at least 35 smuggling cases investigated by the suspended RATS members, including the case against Sanyo Seiki. After all, how can the cases now stand during preliminary investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) if the complainants cannot attend hearings?

Moreover, why would the complainants continue to attend DOJ hearings if they are administratively suspended without pay? And while a new RATS team has been formed, they will still have to get up to speed on the cases initiated by the preceding team before they can contribute to the hearings.

At this point, the DOJ investigation of the RATS complaints already leaves much to be desired. Of the 44 smuggling cases initiated by the suspended RATS team since the middle of last year, only one has been resolved by the DOJ and filed in court. The rest are either ongoing preliminary investigation (seven), or are still to start preliminary investigation (15). Already submitted for DOJ resolution are 21 other cases, although it is unclear still if the resolutions are for prosecution or dismissal of the complaints.

Also, with the administrative action against RATS members responsible for initiating these 44 cases, including the Sanyo Seiki case still under preliminary investigation, one can only wonder about the sentiment now of other people in the government who have also been tasked to run after wrongdoers? These include the team at the BIR going after tax evaders. They, too, can suffer the same fate as their RATS counterparts.

One presumes that even in administrative cases, legal defense can be costly. Thus, in the case of investigators with low government pay, how can they expect to effectively defend themselves? And the government can provide them with legal assistance only in certain situations, but not in all. At this point, perhaps government agencies should already consider putting up a legal fund for the defense of their people haled to court as a result of their performance of their functions, or to buy some form of liability insurance that can help cover legal costs in case of errors and omissions or countersuits.

As the government goes strong against grafters and wrongdoers, unwitting mistakes can happen along the way. And, expect criminal syndicates to be more vigorous in their dilatory tactics, administrative complaints, and countersuits. For the sake of honest investigators and well-meaning whistle-blowers, the government should at least provide decent legal support for them—or maybe insurance to cover legal liabilities, errors, or omissions.

Comments to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it