IT may all be sheer coincidence, or a confluence of events that gives the unfortunate impression that in this administration, politics will always trump good sense, the law and tradition, or simple human compassion.

The past few days have surfaced at least three developments that mirror a seeming tendency to either be vengeful, or manipulative or arbitrary—qualities that certainly do not fit leaders who have pledged on Day One that the people will be the “boss.”

We refer to these: First, the allegations that the administration canceled vital infrastructure projects meant to prevent a repeat of the 2009 Ondoy and Pepeng damage in Central Luzon—a move now being partly blamed for the misery of hundreds of thousands in the region.

Second, the insistence of the Palace and its partymates in Congress to put under Executive control the controversial new Miscellaneous Personnel and Benefits Fund (MPBF), ostensibly to avoid P101 billion for unfilled positions from being “converted” in several agencies.

And last, the scuttling of subsidies from the sweepstakes office for a wide range of private charities, supposedly, again to prevent abuse or misuse of funds.

These are separate developments, but taken together, they project an image of an unreasonable, arbitrary government. And the sooner those in charge sort these out, the better for public confidence in a government that claims the straight and narrow path as its template. Unless this is done, people will say this is just the narrow path, period, a road with no room for the great majority of Filipinos, and with only enough space for the “KKK.”

First, the most recent of the developments: The allegations that the government canceled several infrastructure projects deemed crucial to preventing a repeat of the damage by monster typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng. Lawmakers seeking an inquiry into the cancellation worry that precisely because of these, there was no way to prevent floods that until now plague huge parts of Central Luzon, in the aftermath of last week’s Pedring and Quiel.

On Thursday Deputy Minority Leader Danilo Suarez filed House Resolution 1793, seeking to inquire into the “effects of the cancellation of the post-Ondoy and Pepeng short-term infrastructure-rehabilitation projects on the flood-control program of the government.”

“One cannot help but think that if these projects were not capriciously canceled on the sole fact that they were initiated by the previous administration, then the recent floodings could have been prevented or mitigated,” said the Suarez resolution.

The canceled projects involved 19 approved negotiated contracts, worth P934.1 million, all of which were begun after Ondoy and Pepeng flooded Metro Manila and large parts of Luzon, just about this time in 2009.

These projects were part of a batch of 139 projects funded with a P1.9-billion loan from the Japan International Cooperation Agency to rehabilitate flood-control facilities.

According to Suarez, no less than Public Works Secretary Rogelio Singson confirmed the cancellations in a DPWH press release on July 28, 2010.

The suspicion raised in the House inquiry merits urgent attention from the Executive branch because, unlike that exhausting debate over whether President Aquino should be seen in flood-stricken areas, and how sooner should he have gone or how long he should have stayed, this matter concerns a concrete (no double meaning intended) issue—were vital infrastructure projects jettisoned for sheer partisan reasons, pettiness or overzealousness by those charged with reviewing previous projects for fiscal integrity?

A second bothersome development is the continued insistence of the Executive branch and some allies in Congress to ram through the MPBF, a new creation in the 2012 budget which puts under Executive control over P100 billion in funds from unfilled positions, in order to, supposedly, prevent their “conversion” into bonuses and other benefits of employees in the agencies in question. Ostensibly, the ones behind these “budget reform” want to prevent a repeat of the rampant abuse of billions in the military funds, where “conversion” has been the name of the game for years.

Now, two things are wrong with this one. First, the agencies victimized by this de facto impounding of their funds are coequal bodies (Judiciary, Congress) and constitutional agencies that by law enjoy fiscal autonomy, such as the Commission on Audit, Office of the Ombudsman and the Commission on Elections. No need to overstress how sensitive their mandates are and why they should not, in any way, be seen as being held hostage to possible partisan interests.

The second problem with the premise of the MPBF advocates is that they want to prevent the scandalous “conversion” racket practiced for years in the Armed Forces. The military, it was learned in Senate hearings, had routinely put up a fund from savings sourced from many positions that were never filled up for years, and the suspicion was that this was done on purpose, precisely to afford the unscrupulous officials a honeycomb from which to suck—as in fact they did for years, until the tongpats bulged beyond concealment, i.e., the infamous condo units of generals starting with ex-Comptroller Carlos Garcia.

Now, why should the other agencies—coequal bodies and constitutional agencies as such—suffer the hijacking of their funds just because certain generals and their families lived it up in New York for years while the undershod, underpaid foot soldiers died in the campaigns against insurgents and bandits in Mindanao?

The third development, about the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) review of its list of beneficiaries and the scuttling of funding for many of those it had assisted for decades, is as dismaying. As the reports have shown, many of those denied further funding have developed a solid track record in helping the deprived, the underserved, people with special needs. Did it come as a coincidence that some of them were identified with the Catholic Church, which has tangled with the government on the RH bill?  The law is clear about drawing the line on providing taxpayer funds to church-associated groups. If a church-linked charity or private group is involved, not in proselytizing or expanding, but in a task that normally is a government responsibility, i.e., giving shelter to orphans or providing assistance to unwed mothers, or reforming juvenile delinquents, then the grant of a subsidy does not fall under the prohibition on the use of state funds for a certain religion or sect.

Still, PCSO chief Margie Juico insists the newspaper reports were twisted and they did not mean to cast aspersions on the private groups whose subsidies were cut. Whatever it is, the damage has been done, and many of these groups are now looking to a dark future, uncertain about how they can continue their worthy missions.

One hopes these are all unrelated developments—not a reflection of a bothersome thread in a government that once said, “it is possible to dream again.” They still dream, you know, they still hope, but sometimes the nightmares get in the way.