The Problem of Secrecy in Public Appropriations - Inimical to Good Accountability and Transparency

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