Using the search engine google to check the latest news regarding the issue of "double-entry" inserted in the Senate bill version of the General Appropriations Act of 2008, I came up with this article in the Manila-Shimbun.
It has been stated by Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, that as far as he and the Finance Committee are concerned, there has been no "wrongdoing" done on the part of Senate President Manuel Villar with regard to the "double-entry" of pork barrel spending allocated to a C-5 construction project.
Senator Enrile clearly stated that it was the Senate President who made the insertion but challenged Senator Villar's accuser to present their case against his embattled colleague during an interview and when a Senate Ethics Committee probe which Senator Enrile suggested be initiated to tackle the specific issue.
A motion to publish "insertions" made by Senators in appropriations bill was presented by Senator Manuel Roxas III, which was approved by the Senate Finance Committee.
The Two Sides of the Coin
From the perspective of those who side with the besieged Senate President, Senator Panfilo Lacson's use of his privelege speech was a moved the Senator Lacson has made to discredit, and thus dampen, Senator Villar's presidential aspiration in the 2010 election.
Senator Enrile argued that the act of inserting appropriations amendments (i.e., earmarks, "insertions,"or pork barrel spendings) had been a widespread and well-known practice* in the Upper House and that the "intent to profit" has not been established given the current evidence at hand.
He also stated that "human error"* emanating from the House version of the appropriations bill was to blame for the misreading and noted that it was in the Senate version did this problem surfaced.
The C-5 extension project "was not reflected as one road project in the final budget document," Senator Enrile said, and thus the issue of "double entry" is inaccurate, given that these are two separate projects.
One the other hand, Senator Lacson reiterated his call for the explanation of the double insertion made by Senator Villar and demanded an investigation whether Senator Villar's Brittany Corp. benefitted from the sale of its property, which the road project would have to publicly acquire in order to procede.
The issue of such earmarks attached to the general appropriations act for this year has raised the rancor on undetected and hurried public spending to the point that Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago warned of raising the issue to the Supreme Court.
Analysis
There is no doubt that Senator Villar's insertion of additional public funding to a project during the final stages of approving public spending, regardless of whether it is double entry, reflects the serious need for the complete reevaluation and perhaps overhaul of how our national legislature do business, especially with regard to how our legislators allocate taxpayer's money.
Senator Enrile himself said that such practice has been prevalent in the Senate and to accuse Senator Villar of wrongdoing meant to accuse the majority of Philippine Senators, past and present, guilty too.
Point well taken.
Nonetheless, tradition does not determine what is constitutional, legal and moral; to have the capacity to distinguish each separately, that is, to draw the line that separates those three distinctions enable each one of us to see with eyes unclouded the crucial point of the issue: having little or, worse, the lack of transparency and accountability in terms of spending taxpayer's money, whether be it in the Upper or Lower House.
The fact that the public is neither empowered with very accessible tools to scrutinize public spending (the Senate website is more accessible in terms of providing an electronic copy - pdf - of the proposed SB while the House have a website but the system is so outdated and rigid, it would take so much time just to peruse where those HB's are), even with the technological advances of the current age, nor is it interested in the dangers of pursuing the path of indifference towards how politicians spent public funds shows the immaturity which can threaten the stability of our republic and impede upon the quest for a careful balance among the branches of government.
Time and time again, history is a witness to a single solitary ruler being called upon by the people to fix a corrupt system only to be betrayed by such ruler by assuming and perpetuating his hold on absolute power. One of the classic examples that motivate such undertaking is the people's exhaustion in dealing with dysfunctional and corrupt ways in which a particular institution in the government handles its primary function; thus, in the end, as a last gesture of saving the republic, would turn to a virtuous man, who almost always turn into a tyrant.
The Senate, as a public institution that has control over the way public money is spent, must ensure that the way in which it does its public duty is pursued with full disclosure less be accused of being an oligarchial council bent on secrecy to benefit those who are privileged enough to be in it. The consequence of this possibility is too dire to be admitted: for it involves the shifting of the balance of power to another branch of government which the people percieve as reliable and trustworthy.
In the past, this meant a strong presidency, at the cost of having an irrelevant judiciary and a puppet legislature.
I pray we do not return to pay for the mistakes of the past; the price that must be paid for the lack of transparency and accountability may bring us back again to a period in which our civil liberties are in jeopardy, for secrecy begets nothing but more secrecy until the public is removed of its capacity to hold the government accountable for its actions.
* - "Villar named in P200m insertion," 2008.
http://www.malaya.com.ph/sep16/news1.htm
Monday, September 29, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
A Self-restricting Press is a Big Leap towards Tyranny
The first time I have heard of a self-restricting press was in a classic Japanese movie in which the police asked the press during a news conference to not only withhold the story of a kidnap-for-ransom case the police was trying to solve, but also print in the newspaper a convenient lie in order to catch the kidnappers once and for all.
No doubt, the cooperation between the press and the police, in the end, produced the arrest and the eventual detention of the culprits, and the eventual return of the kidnapped child. But there are two things that troubled my thought as I pondered on a scenario in which this situation is applied into a more serious intrusion on, or perhaps more appropriately - degradation of, press freedom by the press itself: what if the plan failed and the public was exposed to the fact that there were lied upon by press? Could the public again be able to trust the press?
And then another thought came up: suppose the press tried to cover up, in cooperation with the police, the mistake they both created, would it not lead to more cover ups and thus, a symbiosis between these two powerful institutions which have the means of projecting force and controlling information? What might this imply to the public that relies on the police to protect them from harm and the media to bring them news as it is? I suggest a big step towards tyranny.
It is said that information is power. If so, the one who holds information, that is, most information, is the most powerful. In a corrupt regime, if I know that a high official in the government has committed a crime, and I used such information to extort him, he will either get me killed or bribe me to keep my silence. In a regime that has some inkling towards the rule of law, information held by credible witnesses can bring down heads of states, even popular ones.
Through the dissemination of news, events around the globe are instantly provided to the public, which gives it a certain measure of becoming an informed collective entity that is to be reckoned with, even from the perspective of holding national governments accountable.
The "people," "public opinion," and "taxpayers" are some of the terms which one can use to portray this notion, the embodiment of which can only be projected from a platform of mass communication, that is, through newspapers, mobile phones, television, and the internet.
The press, as a medium upon which the notion of public sentiment can be brought to its fullest exposure, and thus act as the tamer extraordinaire of the Leviathan, has the great responsibility of being the most irreverent, if not the most critical voice in society; for there will always be fish to pry; more so, in the current state of our political maturity, big fish abounds to the point that we can invite a whole town without worrying whether there is enough fish meat to broil, chop, grill, or even put into a stake to show that we mean business.
In its duty to deliver factual news, it inevitably evolves into a galvanizing medium that provides forums for the discussion of issues that not only empower those whose voice cannot be heard but also act as the gathering point from which such small voices can direct the rudder of the republic, and indeed, cut the wings of any government branch going beyond its legitimate powers.
Once the press has decided to hold back on its primary function of disseminating information, it deserves the sought after title of "free" no more; indeed, the difference between an independent press and a PR company lies in the notion that news and facts are based upon unwanted and sour truths, not by sweet lies and savory but half-baked ear-pleasing niceties; if so, it would be better to dub the press as a bureau of propaganda within, as George Orwell puts it, the "Ministry of Truth."
Without a doubt, collision, not collusion, is the path which a free press is headed in terms of its relation with any institution in society, and in particular, the government.
The press needs to remind itself that it is the guardian of government-uncensored information and must protect such information even from "prudence" emanating within itself. For it is the price that must be paid in order to encourage the growth of diverse opinions and to prevent the suppression and decay of colliding ideas vital to a strong liberal democracy. Although the press acts as a keeper and presenter of facts, it must stay away, for the most part, from pruning too much what it ought to hold so dearly.
Exposing the truth has never been the most popular deed of all, but it certainly is the public duty of a free press to remain steadfast to its principles and stay in such path. For once it collaborates to curtail the free flow of information, it is high time for the public to find other sources of untainted information.
No doubt, the cooperation between the press and the police, in the end, produced the arrest and the eventual detention of the culprits, and the eventual return of the kidnapped child. But there are two things that troubled my thought as I pondered on a scenario in which this situation is applied into a more serious intrusion on, or perhaps more appropriately - degradation of, press freedom by the press itself: what if the plan failed and the public was exposed to the fact that there were lied upon by press? Could the public again be able to trust the press?
And then another thought came up: suppose the press tried to cover up, in cooperation with the police, the mistake they both created, would it not lead to more cover ups and thus, a symbiosis between these two powerful institutions which have the means of projecting force and controlling information? What might this imply to the public that relies on the police to protect them from harm and the media to bring them news as it is? I suggest a big step towards tyranny.
It is said that information is power. If so, the one who holds information, that is, most information, is the most powerful. In a corrupt regime, if I know that a high official in the government has committed a crime, and I used such information to extort him, he will either get me killed or bribe me to keep my silence. In a regime that has some inkling towards the rule of law, information held by credible witnesses can bring down heads of states, even popular ones.
Through the dissemination of news, events around the globe are instantly provided to the public, which gives it a certain measure of becoming an informed collective entity that is to be reckoned with, even from the perspective of holding national governments accountable.
The "people," "public opinion," and "taxpayers" are some of the terms which one can use to portray this notion, the embodiment of which can only be projected from a platform of mass communication, that is, through newspapers, mobile phones, television, and the internet.
The press, as a medium upon which the notion of public sentiment can be brought to its fullest exposure, and thus act as the tamer extraordinaire of the Leviathan, has the great responsibility of being the most irreverent, if not the most critical voice in society; for there will always be fish to pry; more so, in the current state of our political maturity, big fish abounds to the point that we can invite a whole town without worrying whether there is enough fish meat to broil, chop, grill, or even put into a stake to show that we mean business.
In its duty to deliver factual news, it inevitably evolves into a galvanizing medium that provides forums for the discussion of issues that not only empower those whose voice cannot be heard but also act as the gathering point from which such small voices can direct the rudder of the republic, and indeed, cut the wings of any government branch going beyond its legitimate powers.
Once the press has decided to hold back on its primary function of disseminating information, it deserves the sought after title of "free" no more; indeed, the difference between an independent press and a PR company lies in the notion that news and facts are based upon unwanted and sour truths, not by sweet lies and savory but half-baked ear-pleasing niceties; if so, it would be better to dub the press as a bureau of propaganda within, as George Orwell puts it, the "Ministry of Truth."
Without a doubt, collision, not collusion, is the path which a free press is headed in terms of its relation with any institution in society, and in particular, the government.
The press needs to remind itself that it is the guardian of government-uncensored information and must protect such information even from "prudence" emanating within itself. For it is the price that must be paid in order to encourage the growth of diverse opinions and to prevent the suppression and decay of colliding ideas vital to a strong liberal democracy. Although the press acts as a keeper and presenter of facts, it must stay away, for the most part, from pruning too much what it ought to hold so dearly.
Exposing the truth has never been the most popular deed of all, but it certainly is the public duty of a free press to remain steadfast to its principles and stay in such path. For once it collaborates to curtail the free flow of information, it is high time for the public to find other sources of untainted information.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Public Finance of Elections May Enable Greater Public Accountability on Campaign Finance
I agree with Bayan Muna Rep. Teddy Casiño in the sense that the taxpayer's money being used as campaign funds is a burden to the Filipino people. I also agree that it may be possible that politicians may turn into thugs and use such money for their own good.
But in this case, common sense leads us to "see the other side of the coin," and assess the costs and benefits of enacting such legislation.
Hence, I ask Representative Casiño to lend his ear and to view the current legislative proposal from a different perspective.
First, campaign funds of Philippine politicians are primarily raised by the candidates themselves. What does this mean? It means that, by hook or crook, funds used in the election are obtained by the candidates themselves either through the public coffers (corruption), extortions (induced bribery, kidnappings, blackmailing, kick-backs from guaranteeing public contracts), contributions (special interests and thus, debts of gratitude to corporations), donation (by ordinary citizens), or their own money.
The question that I know put forth is, what if the people shoulder the financial burden of election campaigns from politicians? We already know the cost of this potential public burden. But are there benefits?
If it wouldn't eliminate corruption by directly handing the people's money to corrupt politicians, wouldn't it be true that those politicians would now feel they owe the public (yes, for the first time politicians would be beholden to the public for paying for their candidacy). Instead of these politicians cleverly and undetectedly stealing from the National Treasuary, the people and the media would in turn gain powerful tools to control their corrupt ways by being able to account for and thus limit, to a certain extent, how much they spend i.e., how much is being spent on elections. After all, some politicians, regardless of whether public funds are provided, would steal from the public coffers anyway.
So, why not make it legal and thus, instead of billions of pesos being lost to undetected graft and corruption, allow politicians to grab a piece of the pie and tie them to public scrutiny? If policymakers are shrewd enough, they would incorporate certain provisions i.e., conditions, that would turn this public burden into public accountability and transparency, that is, if only they know what conditions to include in the proposed electoral campaign legislation.
After all, I would rather choose that public money being loss to unexplained disappearances be spent with public knowledge and scrutiny which a properly scrutinized electoral campaign law can shed and expose.
In the United States, such thing is called Campaign Finance Reform.
Through legislative mandate, it can be mandated that as a consequence of using public money for the elections, politicians should be prohibited from accepting other forms of election contribution, primarily from the traditionally influential BIG CORPORATIONS. In this case, politicians would not feel they owe private corporations utang na loob anymore; rather, they would now feel they owe the Filipino public utang na loob. This is a debt of gratitude which I whole heartedly agree upon and encourage for this is how it is supposed to be: accountability and responsibility to the people.
I also disagree with Representative Casiño's assessment in the sense that such campaign finance reform "will be riddled by graft and corruption."
It can be riddled with graft and corruption; but if proper legislation is enacted, consistency with the law will certainly provide such reform with a certain amount of legitimacy. Also, thieves are smart enough to know their fellow thieves; no good thief would allow his fellow thief to steal that which they have legally acquired and thus, is rightfully their own.
As to the manner of spending public money during the campaign, perhaps provisions such as sticking to issues and not allowing ad hominem arguments can be mandated as prohibited uses of public money. As for the rest, I see no reason as to why politicians should not be given full discretion to spend public election funds, except for the conditions above or others that might be agreed upon in pursuit of a fair, free, orderly, and peaceful election.
I appeal to Representative Casiño, his allies, and other concerned legislators to use their wits in tweaking this potential legislation for the common good than use their tongues in opposition to what is obviously a financial burden, and turn this legislation into an opportunity to make his fellow politicians more accountable in terms of election campaign financing.
There is nothing free in this world. Even public accountability and transparency cost money. It would do you well to remember this.
But in this case, common sense leads us to "see the other side of the coin," and assess the costs and benefits of enacting such legislation.
Hence, I ask Representative Casiño to lend his ear and to view the current legislative proposal from a different perspective.
First, campaign funds of Philippine politicians are primarily raised by the candidates themselves. What does this mean? It means that, by hook or crook, funds used in the election are obtained by the candidates themselves either through the public coffers (corruption), extortions (induced bribery, kidnappings, blackmailing, kick-backs from guaranteeing public contracts), contributions (special interests and thus, debts of gratitude to corporations), donation (by ordinary citizens), or their own money.
The question that I know put forth is, what if the people shoulder the financial burden of election campaigns from politicians? We already know the cost of this potential public burden. But are there benefits?
If it wouldn't eliminate corruption by directly handing the people's money to corrupt politicians, wouldn't it be true that those politicians would now feel they owe the public (yes, for the first time politicians would be beholden to the public for paying for their candidacy). Instead of these politicians cleverly and undetectedly stealing from the National Treasuary, the people and the media would in turn gain powerful tools to control their corrupt ways by being able to account for and thus limit, to a certain extent, how much they spend i.e., how much is being spent on elections. After all, some politicians, regardless of whether public funds are provided, would steal from the public coffers anyway.
So, why not make it legal and thus, instead of billions of pesos being lost to undetected graft and corruption, allow politicians to grab a piece of the pie and tie them to public scrutiny? If policymakers are shrewd enough, they would incorporate certain provisions i.e., conditions, that would turn this public burden into public accountability and transparency, that is, if only they know what conditions to include in the proposed electoral campaign legislation.
After all, I would rather choose that public money being loss to unexplained disappearances be spent with public knowledge and scrutiny which a properly scrutinized electoral campaign law can shed and expose.
In the United States, such thing is called Campaign Finance Reform.
Through legislative mandate, it can be mandated that as a consequence of using public money for the elections, politicians should be prohibited from accepting other forms of election contribution, primarily from the traditionally influential BIG CORPORATIONS. In this case, politicians would not feel they owe private corporations utang na loob anymore; rather, they would now feel they owe the Filipino public utang na loob. This is a debt of gratitude which I whole heartedly agree upon and encourage for this is how it is supposed to be: accountability and responsibility to the people.
I also disagree with Representative Casiño's assessment in the sense that such campaign finance reform "will be riddled by graft and corruption."
It can be riddled with graft and corruption; but if proper legislation is enacted, consistency with the law will certainly provide such reform with a certain amount of legitimacy. Also, thieves are smart enough to know their fellow thieves; no good thief would allow his fellow thief to steal that which they have legally acquired and thus, is rightfully their own.
As to the manner of spending public money during the campaign, perhaps provisions such as sticking to issues and not allowing ad hominem arguments can be mandated as prohibited uses of public money. As for the rest, I see no reason as to why politicians should not be given full discretion to spend public election funds, except for the conditions above or others that might be agreed upon in pursuit of a fair, free, orderly, and peaceful election.
I appeal to Representative Casiño, his allies, and other concerned legislators to use their wits in tweaking this potential legislation for the common good than use their tongues in opposition to what is obviously a financial burden, and turn this legislation into an opportunity to make his fellow politicians more accountable in terms of election campaign financing.
There is nothing free in this world. Even public accountability and transparency cost money. It would do you well to remember this.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Christian Good Work, Debt of Gratitude, and Public Duty
Apostle Paul, in his letter to the Romans, stated that the only debt that Christians should have for each other is the debt of love (i.e., to love one another).*
But if Filipino customs, such as the debt of gratitude (i.e., utang na loob), contradict this apostolic dictum, which one shall overrule the other? Christ himself stated that in pursuit of spreading the Good News, he or she should not expect anything in return,** but simply take joy in that he or she did good, as all Christians ought to do. Nonetheless, Christ also stated that if one is demanded to repay a debt, then one must repay it in full, not sparing a single penny until it is fully paid.***
When such things happen, a good deed becomes a debt and our Father in heaven will not consider it good work anymore. If the Lord allows me to remember the fundamentals of the Inspired Word during Bible study, I would say that good works are deeds that are done (1) in secret, (2) not as something in return, (3) out of the abundance of our hearts, and (4) with the purpose of pleasing Him alone, not for our own gain.
Hence, if someone has done a good deed for a Christian, the Christian ought to be thankful; if the one who had done a good deed asks something in return, then it must be repaid, no questions asked, at the cost of such good deed unfortunately becoming a debt, and in Filipino terms, may turn into a debt of gratitude.
But what about all kinds of money-lenders that ask not for monetary payment but demand political favors or ask in repayment to commit illegal acts? No doubt, it is not only in our capacity as law-abiding citizens but it is also our Christian duty to resist such acts of craftiness and immorality. I suggest going public and shame those that practice such despicableness.
If I may suggest in the name of shrewdness+ which Christ clearly encouraged, hide a listening device, perhaps a cell phone voice recorder, in order to obtain credible evidence of such act being committed (which is especially useful if such person decides to employ a lying tongue). It must be pointed out that we ought not to be scared of people not approaching us because of such listening devices; only persons who desire and actually employ despicable acts should be afraid and stay away from you, which is all the better.
After all, there is no need to prove that persons of integrity will deny that which they have said. In fact, they will blanlantly expose themselves to the dreaded consequences, if only to remain humanly truthful. I deny anyone that claims they have integrity if they do not have the courage to admit that they make mistakes, and more so, to actually make a specific confession of being wrong in the aftermath of taking a particular action.
And so I ask again. Which one do you hold most precious? Corrupted Filipino traditions or the Living Word? Should I remind Christians who practice "debt of gratitude" of Christ's exhortation about the "clean and unclean?" i.e., that traditions should not infringe upon the commandments of God? ++ By what right do you stand upright as a Christian after committing such despicable acts?
Nonetheless, debt of gratitude is not a custom that needs to be totally abolished. For I admit in some instances, tumanaw ng utang na loob has an element of reciprocity i.e., justice.
What needs to be abolished is the abuse of its use and its spilling over in areas of life which it ought not to be in or to exist, and in particular, where public duty is concerned.
* - Romans 13:8-14 (NIV)
"Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law."
** - Matthew 10:8 (CEV)
"You received without paying, now give without being paid."
*** - Matthew 5:26 (NIV)
"I promise you that you will not get out until you have paid the last cent you owe."
+ - Matthew 10:16 (NIV)
"I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves."
++ - Matthew 15 (NIV)
"Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?"
But if Filipino customs, such as the debt of gratitude (i.e., utang na loob), contradict this apostolic dictum, which one shall overrule the other? Christ himself stated that in pursuit of spreading the Good News, he or she should not expect anything in return,** but simply take joy in that he or she did good, as all Christians ought to do. Nonetheless, Christ also stated that if one is demanded to repay a debt, then one must repay it in full, not sparing a single penny until it is fully paid.***
When such things happen, a good deed becomes a debt and our Father in heaven will not consider it good work anymore. If the Lord allows me to remember the fundamentals of the Inspired Word during Bible study, I would say that good works are deeds that are done (1) in secret, (2) not as something in return, (3) out of the abundance of our hearts, and (4) with the purpose of pleasing Him alone, not for our own gain.
Hence, if someone has done a good deed for a Christian, the Christian ought to be thankful; if the one who had done a good deed asks something in return, then it must be repaid, no questions asked, at the cost of such good deed unfortunately becoming a debt, and in Filipino terms, may turn into a debt of gratitude.
But what about all kinds of money-lenders that ask not for monetary payment but demand political favors or ask in repayment to commit illegal acts? No doubt, it is not only in our capacity as law-abiding citizens but it is also our Christian duty to resist such acts of craftiness and immorality. I suggest going public and shame those that practice such despicableness.
If I may suggest in the name of shrewdness+ which Christ clearly encouraged, hide a listening device, perhaps a cell phone voice recorder, in order to obtain credible evidence of such act being committed (which is especially useful if such person decides to employ a lying tongue). It must be pointed out that we ought not to be scared of people not approaching us because of such listening devices; only persons who desire and actually employ despicable acts should be afraid and stay away from you, which is all the better.
After all, there is no need to prove that persons of integrity will deny that which they have said. In fact, they will blanlantly expose themselves to the dreaded consequences, if only to remain humanly truthful. I deny anyone that claims they have integrity if they do not have the courage to admit that they make mistakes, and more so, to actually make a specific confession of being wrong in the aftermath of taking a particular action.
And so I ask again. Which one do you hold most precious? Corrupted Filipino traditions or the Living Word? Should I remind Christians who practice "debt of gratitude" of Christ's exhortation about the "clean and unclean?" i.e., that traditions should not infringe upon the commandments of God? ++ By what right do you stand upright as a Christian after committing such despicable acts?
Nonetheless, debt of gratitude is not a custom that needs to be totally abolished. For I admit in some instances, tumanaw ng utang na loob has an element of reciprocity i.e., justice.
What needs to be abolished is the abuse of its use and its spilling over in areas of life which it ought not to be in or to exist, and in particular, where public duty is concerned.
* - Romans 13:8-14 (NIV)
"Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law."
** - Matthew 10:8 (CEV)
"You received without paying, now give without being paid."
*** - Matthew 5:26 (NIV)
"I promise you that you will not get out until you have paid the last cent you owe."
+ - Matthew 10:16 (NIV)
"I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves."
++ - Matthew 15 (NIV)
"Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.png)