Corruption 28

The Holy Week Aftermath

Last Holy Thursday, the Al Jazeera international cable network ran a short commentary on Noel Lozada Jr. Billed by the cable network as a star witness against the government of Gloria Arroyo on the ZTE-NBN transaction, he was shown on TV with his family in a “safehouse,” reportedly fearing for his life. And yet, during the TV interview he was once again displaying that famous “Lozada grin” that has become his trademark in the Senate hearings, in street rallies and campus sorties. What is wrong with this portrayal of Lozada? Was Lozada getting death threats? If so, that grin certainly belies what he probably feels inside  him: he was putting up a brave front, and I sympathize with him. Al Jazeera didn’t say it outright, but it is clear that the people behind Lozada (including many of Metro Manila’s media commentators) wanted him pictured him as a martyr – someone who was willing to sacrifice everything in order to see that the people behind this transaction are punished. In Lozada’s own words: “And sometimes, it’s worth taking a risk for this country”(http://philmade.blogspot.com/2008/02/jun-lozada-its-worth-taking-risk-for.html).

At the onset of the Holy Week, Fr. Anton  Pineda, the president of Radio Veritas, said over NBN-8 TV: “Lozada has come up with some evidence. This is already sufficient [to charge those involved]. Let the rule of law prevail.” As a matter of fact, this has already been done. In a surprise move that was virtually ignored by most major newspapers, with the exception of Businessworld and The Manila Times,  former Senate President Jovito Salonga last February 27, 2008 filed plunder charges against Pres. Gloria Arroyo “for her alleged involvement in a scrapped multimillion-dollar telecommunications project.. “She admitted in a radio interview that she was aware of the anomalies and irregularities of the project before she went to China to witness the signing of the contract,” Mr. Salonga said. But the President ignored everything, even with the admission from then Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Romulo L. Neri that he was offered a P200-million commission to hasten the approval of the contract, he noted. Mr. Salonga said these acts are punishable under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees and the Anti-Plunder Law. He claimed the people could not rely on the impeachment process in Congress to pin down the President due to the sheer number of administration allies in the House of Representatives, “thus the move to bring the case instead to the Ombudsman.” (http://www.bworldonline.com/BW022808/content.php?id=071).

Salonga has been criticized for “reckless judicial action.” Deputy residential spokesman Lorelei C. Fajardo was quoted as saying that “The filing of [the] complaint is a sad development. Former Senator Salonga, a staunch constitutionalist, could have waited for the Senate to end its investigation before filing any complaint. We feel that everyone is just simply jumping on the bandwagon of reckless judicial actions against the president.” At present, there are pending cases filed before the Ombudsman stemming from the broadband deal. Among these are: Nueva Vizcaya Rep. Carlos Padilla v. former Commission on Elections Chairman Benjamin Abalos Sr. and Transportation and Communications Secretary Leandro Mendoza; and Lawyer Ernesto Francisco v. Abalos and Jose Miguel Arroyo, the husband of Mrs. Arroyo. There is also a graft case filed by Lawyer Roberto Pulido against former Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. and his son Joey de Venecia 3^rd (http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2008/feb/28/yehey/metro/20080228met1.html).

Despite what Malacanang says, I believe this is the right direction towards discovering the truth. The Senate has already spent an inordinate amount of legislative time hearing the ZTE-NBN deal since August 2007, and it is about time it turns over the records to the appropriate investigating body, which is the Ombudsman. The 90-year old Salonga heads the Kilosbayan, “ a non-profit, non-partisan, independent, ethics-oriented, and ecumenical people’s organization committed to pursue and protect people’s legitimate and collective aspirations” (http://kilosbayan.org/page3.htm). Atty. Romeo Macalintal,  Pres. Arroyo’s legal adviser, has opined that the President is immune from legal suit while in office, but former senator Salonga, a Bar topnotcher and with a doctorate of laws degree from Yale University, U.S.A.,  argues that the charges he filed may be deferred until the President’s term ends in 2010, “then the new president may pursue the case” against Arroyo.

Supreme Court Ruling on Executive Privilege

Last  March 25, 2008, the Supreme Court voted to uphold the constitutional right of the President for “executive privilege.” Executive privilege is the right of the President and high-level executive branch officials to withhold information from Congress, the courts and the public. In his letter to the Senate, Executive Secretary Ermita said the information sought to be disclosed “might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the People’s Republic of China.” In his 11-hour testimony before the Senate last September 2007, Neri answered lengthily all questions propounded by the senators on the cancelled contract except these three questions – a) Whether the President followed up the (NBN) project?; b) ‘Were you dictated to prioritize the ZTE?’; and c) Whether the President said ‘go ahead and approve the project’ after being told about the alleged bribe? Assistant Court Administrator and Spokesperson lawyer Jose Midas Marquez said the Court, in a decision penned by Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro ruled that these questions are covered by executive privilege which was invoked by Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita “by order of the President”. (http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:OOwiJSOZq5wJ:www.tempo.com.ph/news.php%3Faid%3D37188+SC+upholds+executive+privilege&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a). Marquez said the Court, voting 10-5, also ruled that the Senate gravely abused its discretion when it ordered Neri’s arrest two months ago for his failure to attend the Senate hearings. He said the Court ruled that since the Senate has yet to publish its Rules, “any order to cite Neri in contempt or order his arrest is void”. In December last year, Neri filed a petition for certiorari before the SC after the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee issued a show cause order threatening him with contempt for his failure to attend the November 20, 2007 hearing of the Senate on the ZTE project. The Senate Committees wanted Neri to testify what he discussed with the President in connection with the NBN deal. Neri refused invoking executive privilege. Even before the High Court could act on Neri’s petition for certiorari, the Blue Ribbon Committee issued an arrest order against Neri.

A “certiorari” is a legal term  which means a “Procedure for removing a case from a lower court or administrative agency to a higher court for review”

(http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=1ZW&defl=en&q=define:Certiorari&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title). The significance of this term to us is that the Supreme Court is superior to any court or investigating body such as the Senate committees, and can review their ruling and even overturn the same. While it is true that the Legislature and the Judiciary are co-equal branches of government (together with the Executive), our Constitution nevertheless allows the Judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, the sole authority to review questions of law.

The Supreme Court ruling has not been welcomed by at least one senator, Aquilino “Nene” Pimentel. He was quoted yesterday, March 27^th, on GMA-TV that the high court’s decision was “terrible” and “unprecedented” and could lead to “a constitutional crisis.”  Fr. Ranhillo Aquino, the dean of the San Beda college of law, whom we earlier cited as having said that the evidence presented by witness Lozada in the Senate constituted only “hearsay” (or, second-hand evidence) also wrote an open letter stating that the Senate lacks prosecutorial powers and that investigations on the NBN-ZTE issue should just be left to the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to ensure that those found guilty could be meted with criminal or administrative liability. “The CBCP erodes its own credibility when it takes precipitous political postures that are not grounded in uncontestable evidence. I still have to listen to evidence that points to the culpability of the President in processes that have been established precisely to establish this – and what has gone on at the Senate thus far is not such a process,” Fr. Aquino said (http://www.uniffors.com/?p=1349).

We will continue this next time as my time is almost up.

Corruption 23 – The Biggest Scam of All

The Biggest Scam of Them All

We are once again back to our main topic: corruption in government. Much has been written about the multi-billion peso scams for the last 30 years: huge kickbacks in government projects like the Bataan Nuclear Plant which was completed in 1984 at a gargantuan cost of 2.3 billion dollars (106 billion pesos) but never put into operation because it was deemed unsafe by international experts. Even today, the Philippines is paying USD155,000 a day for the loan (6.3 million pesos DAILY), making it, in the words of  Thelmo Cunanan, former chief executive of state-run Philippine National Oil Co.  “the country’s most outstanding white elephant. “(http://www.energybulletin.net/866.html). The Ramos government sued US company Westinghouse for overpricing and bribery but was ultimately rejected by a United States court in 1993. Marcos-crony Herminio Disini (who is rumored to be a Count now and owns a European castle) engineered the deal with Marcos through his Herdis Corporation. Corazon Aquino mothballed the nuclear plant in 1986 ( a move many believe to be ill-advised because of the energy crisis that occurred after her term). There have been studies to convert it into oil- , coal- or gas-fired, but – aside from the cost – the 1989 Cory Constitution has effectively banned the use of nuclear energy in the Philippines. So it’s a stalemate situation: unless the present leadership makes the bold, but, potentially-dangerous, political gamble to amend the Philippine Constitution first.

Corruption in  Low Places, as Well

By this time, the media has already bombarded us with big-ticket corruption scandals, like the multi-billion peso NBN-ZTE deal. And yet, is it possible that we are closing our collective eyes to the small-scale corruption that is happening at the local level?

Bernardo V. Lopez, Businesssworld columnist, in his column “Upshot” today (March 6, 2008), declared that “corruption has filtered down to the lowest level of local government.” For instance, his sources report that in Nueva Ecija, a barangay captain was demanding an Isuzu van for a barangay construction permit for a big mall. This local official got his idea from the governor who earlier demanded P100,000. Even the Sanggunian Kabataan is learning to be corrupt at an early age, Lopez wrote. His sources inside the Fertilizer Pesticide Authority (FPA) allege that one can purchase a fertilizer license worth P150,000 only for P100,000 “if without official receipt.” This malpractice  has been going on for years. A seaweed farmer told him that at the Bu. of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), the cost of a seaweed farm is bloated from P20,000 to P100,000 by officials. Over at the Phil. Coconut Authority (PCA), an insider claims that officials are asking P5million bribe for approval of a P15 million project for the eradication of coconut pests. Lopez writes that it “is a meager 30%[kickback]  and will pass [Senate witness] Lozada’s standards of good governance”- in obvious reference to Lozada’s assertion before the Senate that a 20% kickback  or bribe in government deals is deemed acceptable.  Another source at the Dept. of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) revealed that a director of the Light Railway Transit Authority (LRTA) once demanded P1 million(25,000 dollars) from a Japanese supplier before he would release checks worth millions of dollars. Again, Mr. Lopez argues, this kickback “will again pass Lozada’s standards.” After all, what’s  a  measly 25,000-dollar bribe compared to millions of dollars payment? But the story does not end there: the director’s messenger who received the bribe money disappeared with the loot!  Moreover, this was SOP in that office, so one time even the agency security guards threatened to strike due to delayed payments of their salaries “because the bribes had to be paid before the salaries.” The case of the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) is unique, because – while it may not be technically corruption – it certainly smacks of gross official negligence that leads to corruption. The LLDA exacts an “environmental fee” from hundreds of companies around the lake for pollution, adding up to millions of pesos yearly. The sad thing is, nobody cares whether you pollute or not, as long as you pay – “everybody’s happy.” These are just the “tip of the iceberg,” according to columnist Lopez. There are many more corruption stories “but many of those who know keep silent because they do not want to get involved.”

We are to Blame

Dear friends: when we soundly condemn big, headline-grabbing scandals in the national government, but ignore petty graft and corruption in many other small government offices and agencies, are we not acting like hypocrites?  In the concluding words of Mr. Lopez: “We are one of the most corrupt nations in the world. It is institutionalized, and at times…legalized. Jun Lozada’s ‘acceptable’ level of corruption or ‘moderated greed’ of 20% is a scary statement not just because it is happening, but it is starting to be accepted. There are not acceptable levels of corruption, Jun. Corruption is corruption.”

In his 20-minute homily last 02 March 2008 – as reported by the Philippine Daily Inquirer – Univ. of Sto. Tomas (UST) Rector  Father De la Rosa said people power should be used “not just before and after elections but during elections.” He said this before a jampacked church that included NBN-ZTE star witness Rodolfo Lozada, Jr. and supporters led by former president Cory Aquino. Fr. De la Rosa continued: “Let’s face it, we delude ourselves that by removing the President from Malacañang, just as we did with Marcos and Erap, integrity and honesty will be restored. We must stop looking for scapegoats to ease our burden, our guilt. We seem to have a penchant for putting the blame on just one person or a group of persons in order to take the heat off ourselves.”

The UST rector pointed out that it would be a “dangerous misunderstanding” to single out moral bankruptcy in the government while not looking at one’s own. “It would be simplistic and hypocritical to say that the problem of our country is only the President and the men and women behind her. The integrity crisis involves not just the President and the men and women behind her. It involves us all,” Fr. De la Rosa stressed

Following the Sunday Mass, both Lozada and Aquino slammed the bishops for their “indifference,” as reported by PDI (http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/news/view/20080303-122478/Aquino-Lozada-slam-bishops-indifference). Aquino was quoted as saying, in Tagalog: “I don’t want to discourage you but I think our efforts will take some time to bear fruit because we have yet to wake up those who feign sleep. Still, I am not losing hope. If we were able to remove a dictator, I think it would be easier for us (to remove President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo) now because there’s no martial law and I hope we will not have martial law.” The ex-president obviously did not believe the UST Rector who in his sermon emphasized that the problems of the Philippines did not emanate from Malacanang alone, and that the removal of Pres. Arroyo was a simplistic and hypocritical solution to these problems.

For his part, Lozada told his audience of a thousand-strong that a certain priest “close to the cardinals” sympathized with him and told him that he would have had “no problem” had Jaime Cardinal Sin, a moving force in the two People Power revolutions, been alive at this moment. “He told me, you know Jun, the cardinals and bishops are now careful of political activism because some Asian countries are afraid that the Catholic Church in their nations will become like ours,” Lozada told his audience.  “I replied, Father, if you’re telling me now that the Church where I seek refuge is being indifferent to the truth and justice just because of your own geopolitical considerations, Father, you have to teach me to unlearn all the homilies, all the liturgical sharing, all these doctrines that you have [taught] me before, because I have to renounce my faith if that is how you will answer me,” to the loud applause of his listeners.

I don’t know about you, my esteemed listeners, but my sense is that Mr. Lozada does not trust the collective wisdom of the Catholic bishops either! Far from displaying the humility and maturity that an idolizing public had heaped on  him earlier at a La Salle Greenhills rally in February, Jun Lozada now behaves in a rather haughty manner that could well strain his public credibility. He did very well when, last March 1, 2008 he admitted  to being unfaithful to his wife and family after a deluge of text messages about  his (in his own words) “other woman and children were sent en masse to malign me,” allegedly by pro-administration people.  He admits to being a sinner, but claims his wife Violeta has already forgiven him. (http://www.philstar.com/index.php?Headlines&p=49&type=2&sec=24&aid=20080229166). The Prodigal Son said to himself, in Lk 15:18: I will go home to my father and say, “Father, I have sinned against both heaven and you.” Note that he did not assume that he would be forgiven, unlike Lozada.

More on this next time since my time is almost up.

Corruption 18

A Case Study in Corruption – Part 2

To continue the case study of corruption in government, we now go to Part 2 of the three-part series written by Roel R. Landingin, Manila senior correspondent of The Financial Times of London, which covered a six-month review by the PCIJ of project and official documents covering 71 ODA projects funded by the Philippines’ biggest ODA lenders.

Part 2 delves into how: (a) the absence of caps or limits on bids, (b) tied loans and (c) conditionalities of lenders have favored foreign contractors and triggered cost overruns and project delays.

Rigging of Bids by the Same Firms

Mr. Landingin’s report records the experiences of Antonio Molano Jr. and his fellow-engineers at the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).Over a span of four years, Mr. Molano and his colleagues at the DPWH bids and awards committee (BAC) held three rounds of bidding for two World Bank-funded road projects in Mindanao and the Visayas. The road projects were part of Phase 1 of the $305-million National Road Improvement and Management Project (NRIMP) that the World Bank was supporting with a $150-million loan. Each time, all the bids grossly exceeded estimated costs. Each time, virtually the same set of construction companies won the first and second rounds. Unhappy with the high bids, the World Bank rejected the bid outcomes — not once or twice, but three times.

The DPWH tried to invite other competitors in the bidding for the road-building projects. At one point, “an independent call line outside the DPWH was established for any party to report any deviation from the process,” Mr. Molano said. “We invited civil society groups such as Procurement Watch and the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption as observers.”

But these and other measures proved to be no match to the persistence and power of some suppliers to dictate their terms on bids for government infrastructure contracts, often in defiance of government rules and policies.

Some of the construction firms that took part in the controversial projects were also among the most successful bidders for government public-works contracts per a report prepared by the Construction Industry Authority of the Philippines and Philippine Domestic Construction Board (CIAP-PDCB) . There were nine Chinese and local construction firms that joined the failed bids for the road projects. But they were also the big players in many other projects funded by foreign money. These nine firms accounted for almost one-half of the total value of civil-works contracts of ongoing or completed foreign-assisted projects between 2004 and 2006, based on the CIAP-PDCB’s Constructors Performance Evaluation System report.

However, bid-rigging and corruption were suspected by the World Bank after it conducted a one-year investigation into the matter. Finally, last November 2007, the Bank suspended approval of a $232-million loan for the national roads project’s second phase. According to the Asian Wall Street Journal, World Bank officials have been sent to Manila to brief Malacañang about the development, which “is likely to be an embarrassment to Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who has pushed for the project and who has been under fire over alleged government corruption.”  (http://GMANews.TV.  2006 © GMA Network Inc.).

Who to Blame: No Limit on Bids

On the other hand, contractors and government officials alike say foreign lenders like the World Bank are also share the blame for the apparent corruption plaguing ODA-funded projects.

The government earlier proposed to  the international financial institutions to impose a cap on bids for these projects. Instead, the lenders insisted on exempting foreign-assisted projects from new Philippine procurement rules that disallow bids above the so-called approved budget contract (ABC) – the estimated cost that is calculated by third-party consultants hired by the government at considerable expense.

Manolito Madrasto, executive director of the Philippine Contractors Association, says the industry supports the government’s efforts to convince ODA donors to adopt Philippine procurement rules. He says the absence of caps on bids for these projects is a virtual invitation to collusion among the bidders, a crime of graft. “Anybody who bids beyond the approved budget contract in the Philippine setting is automatically out of the running,” he points out. But, “under World Bank (rules), there is no limit. You can even put in 10 times if you want. If the bidders talk to each other, is there a way to stop it?”

Cipriano Ravanes Jr., an independent procurement expert, agrees that putting a cap or upper limit on bidding is necessary, given the rampant collusion and overpricing in the local contracting industry. “If the approved budget contract reflects market price, it will protect the government,” he says. “But even if the ABC is overpriced, it can still help because it imposes a limit.”

In June 2002, the DPWH issued a department order, stating that bids for civil works and supply contracts above 15% of the approved budget contract would be rejected automatically. Former DPWH Secretary Simeon Datumanong (now Cotbato Congressman) noticed that awarded contracts for foreign-assisted projects were higher than approved costs by an average of 15%, with some going as high as 30%.

Country managers of the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC), Asian Development Bank (ADB), and World Bank promptly wrote a joint letter opposing the order, reminding Mr. Datumanong that the imposition of contract price ceilings violates their procurement guidelines. So, the order was not implemented due to the lenders’ objections.

After the World Bank rejected the results of the first bidding on the road-building project, the bids committee of Mr. Molano modified the procedures for the second bidding. Among these were the disqualification of one of the bidders and the removal of the pre-qualification requirement.

This opened up the bidding to more contractors —  but to no avail. The winner in the second bidding, China Road and Bridge Corp., a Chinese state-owned firm, also won the first bidding for a portion of the Surigao-Davao coastal road project in Mindanao. The other project component, the Kabankalan-Basay section in Negros Island, was won by a joint venture of China Road, and, local contractor EC Luna – which also won in the first bidding although its partner then was China State Construction Corp.

When the World Bank rejected the bids the second time,  the DPWH made further changes for the third bidding. The Negros island project was divided into two smaller packages. Instead of just one, two complaint hotlines were established — at the World Bank country office and the Government Procurement Policy Board. “We were very strict,” says Mr. Molano. “If a bidder lacks a document, we disqualify it.” The 2006 results were a little different for the third bidding. China Road, which previously won the Surigao-Davao section, bagged one of the two components of the Negros road project. But two new bidders – China Wu Yi Corp. and China Geo Engineering Corp. – won the two other projects. Yet, the World Bank rejected the results because of what it called “strong signs of collusion and excessive pricing.”  Bank officials did not explain what that meant, but a person familiar with the investigation said a disgruntled supplier had reportedly written the Bank a “poison letter” outlining plans by bidders for manipulating the auction.  Not only that, but, all the bids in the third round were higher than the DPWH’s estimated cost. Also, all the bids, save for the lowest, clustered around a high number – a possible but not conclusive sign that the bidders were helping one of them win the contract. In other words: collusion.

When the PCIJ wrote letters and made calls to all the companies involved, most did not respond to. Only one, Hanjin, emailed that the company’s officials “are not aware of any allegations of collusion and excessive pricing.”

Next time we shall explain how lenders tie the bid to their favored contractors. For now, our time is up.

Corruption 17

In the last segment, we discussed about Jesus and some New Testament personages like John the Baptist, Peter and Paul as models of integrity. Today we go back to the latest events and happenings that are in the national news.

A Case Study in Corruption

We will initially take up a three-part series written by Roel R. Landingin, Manila senior correspondent of The Financial Times of London, for the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) which appeared in Businessworld in the second week of February 2008.  It caps a six-month review by the PCIJ of project and official documents covering 71 Official Development Assistance (ODA)  projects funded by the Philippines’ biggest ODA lenders. The three-part series is a classic study of how corruption in government starts,  is abetted, and eventually defeats the entire government machinery even with the presence of some honest bureaucrats valiantly opposing it.

Part 1 looks at how the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) and its project evaluation process was weakened and violated by pressure from lobbyists and political sponsors of some projects.

ODA Surge Only Increased Corruption

FOREIGN AID inflows to the Philippines have surged to their highest levels  from 2001 to the present, but the availability of more money for government projects has not made life any easier for Filipino taxpayers.

From an average of only $741 million between 2003 and 2005, new ODA loan commitments to the Philippine almost doubled to $1.3 billion in 2006. For 2007, new loan approvals reached at least $1.26 billion, according to data compiled by PCIJ from the government and the foreign lenders.

(http://www.pcij.org/stories/2008/oda.html).

Official Development Assistance Loans are supposed to be the best source of development funding for the infrastructure projects of the Philippine government because of its very low interest rates(example, 1.34% for ODA –Japan; http://www.ph.emb-japan.go.jp/bilateral/oda/qa.htm ) that is spread over a long periods of time – say, 15 or more years (http://www.devbankphil.com.ph/dbp_unsecured_subordinated_debt.pdf). Some ODA loans have an interest of only 0.3% with a maturity of 20 years and a grace period of 10 years, such as the electricity-generating  windmill project in North Luzon (http://www.risoe.dk/rispubl/reports/ris-r-1608_150-159.pdf), being funded by European Union-Denmark. Only 80% of the total project cost is shouldered by ODA however, since the remaining 20% is usually guaranteed by our government banks, such as the DBP. Regardless, such concessional loans are considered very advantageous to the Filipino people – provided they are not abused!

The latest controversy to rock Arroyo’s seven-year administration is traceable  from the increasing official development assistance (ODA) loans from China – an emerging economic giant – and the Philippines’s growing inability to impose its procurement policies and procedures on ODA projects. Serious flaws in the identification, design, evaluation, and implementation of government projects have resulted in failed or bad projects. Too often, lenders tie up ODA outlays to contractors of their choice. Worst of all, kickbacks exacted by political sponsors in some resulted in overpriced projects. This is covered by Part 2 of the PCIJ Report.

The six-month study of project documents by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) also showed that seven of 10 projects reviewed fall short of economic benefits promised, even after completion and implementation. This is the topic for Part 3 of this series.

Now to continue Part 1, the role of the National Economic Development Authority, or NEDA, in ODA projects, particularly in the NBN project.

The $329-million National Broadband Network (NBN) project, which was to be funded by the Export-Import Bank of China, was cancelled by President Arroyo after reports of alleged commissions demanded by a close political ally of the president, Commission on Elections (Comelec) Chairman Benjamin Abalos Sr. The President’s husband was accused of meddling in favor of ZTE Corp., the Chinese telecommunications supplier. Abalos was also forced to resign last September despite his and the First Gentleman’s denials of irregular participation in the deal.

But revelations of alleged anomalies in the project continue, even as the scandal sparked the ouster of Speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. — father of whistleblower Jose de Venecia III — in a Congress coup last week.

Perhaps the most serious casualty in the NBN scandal, however, is the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), the economic planning agency tasked to weed out the bad from the good among proposed large-scale government projects funded by foreign loans and private investors. Last August 2007 at the Senate, Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Romulo Neri, who heads the NEDA,  was at a loss to explain how he and NEDA’s staff failed to exercise due diligence in evaluating the NBN project. From Neri’s account, it seemed like the NEDA staff just limited themselves to validating the cost-benefit analysis submitted by the project proponent, the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), and its supplier, ZTE Corp. Little effort was made to verify the project’s costs. Worse, NEDA did not examine alternative financing methods, such as build-operate-transfer (BOT) or other schemes.

Felipe Medalla, former dean of the UP School of Economics who also served as NEDA head, commented later: “What he (Neri) said about the NEDA process was very disappointing. His statement that NEDA was not looking at the financing side was a total distortion of what it should be doing. Although I admired him for testifying against Abalos, he did present NEDA as a rubber stamp.”

The transformation in NEDA’s role was not sudden. Malacanang is being faulted in its attempt to scale down NEDA’s central role and authority to evaluate major government projects. Long before the NBN project, the Arroyo administration granted implementing agencies – such as departments, state-owned firms, and local government units –  more power to approve big state projects, without going through the strict but often time-consuming evaluation process of NEDA and the Investment Coordinating Committee (ICC).

The new rules “authorize agencies to approve contracts worth less than P500 million, except BOT (Build-Operate-Transfer) …as long as the DBM (Department of Budget and Management) can certify the availability of funds,” according to a March 2005 ICC policy directive. The new rules were postponed only after foreign lenders and their chambers of commerce objected to clipping the powers of the NEDA-ICC.

But the erosion of NEDA’s powers and independence continued: Arroyo’s order creating the NEDA Cabinet Group that makes major economic decisions, including the approval of proposed projects; and the setting up of the Pro-Performance System Steering Committee that would monitor and evaluate “all increases in project cost, whether local or foreign funded.” Until then, it was the NEDA-ICC that approved cost increases in foreign-assisted projects, in order for the Department of Budget and Management to release additional funding. Tough standards for project approval were also being relaxed – such as  the October memorandum to NEDA to review and reduce the 15-percent minimum “economic internal rate of return” (EIRR) required for approval of proposed projects, plus other informal “suggestions”  to  “fudge” or manipulate the numbers so border-line or favored projects could be approved.  For example, there was a questionable dam project where its backers wanted NEDA to input the “solution to the insurgency problem” as a cost benefit. Fortunately, NEDA resisted the pressure because there was no existing economic model to measure insurgency.

We will take up Parts 2 and 3 in the next segments. For now, we no longer have time, so I shall stop here.

Corruption 15

We will continue with the prophets warnings to the people in ancient times. From the prophets of the Old Testament, we move to the New Testament’s men and women of integrity.

1. Jesus – Jesus Christ is of course our model of integrity for all time, for He was without sin.  Hebrews 4:15 said of Him: “This High Priest of ours understands our weaknesses, for he faced all of the same testings we do, yet he did not sin.” Even His enemies acknowledged Jesus’ integrity, even in a negative way, as in Matthew 22: 15-16 – “Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. ‘Teacher,’ they said, ‘we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are.’”

His enemies failed to trap Jesus because His reply clearly enunciated two separate worlds, the secular and the spiritual (v. 21 – “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give to God what is God’s”) – establishing permanently for all of us the Principle of Twin Accountabilities, namely: (a) our accountability to the secular world to which we now belong; and, (b) our accountability to the spiritual realm of God.

Many people do not seem to mind, or, choose to ignore, their moral reputations. They continue to pursue their corrupt ways as if nothing will happen to them.  In the Parable of the Rich Fool found in Luke 12: 16-21, Jesus presaged His story with this comment: “Then he said to them, ‘Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.’” (v.15). And, of course, the man’s wealth came to nothing because: “But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’   This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God” (vv. 20-21).

But our story does not end there. Did Jesus finally pay his taxes? Or, was he – like the rest – a tax evader? This may come as a surprise to some – particularly to certain civil society groups who advocate a “tax holiday” against a corrupt administration – but, yes,  Jesus was obedient to pay his taxes, even to a  corrupt regime He had already condemned! He instructed Peter: “However, we don’t want to offend them [the tax collectors of the temple], so go down to the lake and throw in a line. Open the mouth of the first fish you catch, and you will find a large silver coin. Take it and pay the tax for both of us.” (Matthew 17:27). However one may interpret the unorthodox way by which Jesus paid his taxes, one must remember that He considered Himself the Son of a King/Son of God and therefore exempt from paying the earthly tax (v. 26).  But as a good Jewish citizen, he observed the laws of the land. How many of us can claim to do the same?

2. Nathanael – Nathanael (or Bartholomew, as he is called elsewhere in the Bible), was one of the first disciples of Jesus. He holds the singular distinction of being publicly hailed by Jesus as “a man of complete integrity” in John 1:47 – “As they approached, Jesus said, ‘Now here is a genuine son of Israel—a man of complete integrity.’”

3. Joseph – Joseph was Jesus’ step-father to whom Mary had been betrothed. Betrothal in Jewish custom meant a couple pledged to be married  could already live together. Therefore it was relatively easy for Joseph to discover that Mary was already pregnant (by the power of God the Holy Spirit, but he did not know this). Matthew 1:19 illustrates to us why Joseph was a man of integrity, to wit: “Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.” Under Jewish law, Joseph had every right to disgrace Mary publicly, but being a man of integrity,  he did not jump to conclusions  and continued to treat her with dignity. As it turned out, his action was right and pleased God.

4. Simeon and Anna – Simeon was a righteous and devout man who was promised by the Holy Spirit that he would not die until he had seen the Messiah, the salvation of Israel. Anna was an 84-year widow and prophetess who worshipped day and night at the temple, fasting and praying. Both of them saw the baby Jesus when his parents  brought him to the temple to be circumsized on the eighth day, as was the custom. Immediately, Simeon and Anna recognized the baby as the promised Messiah and forthwith gave their blessings to the baby.  In the Bible, righteous men and women appear to be granted special revelation from God.  That is why it is important for the public to elect or appoint rulers and officials who have integrity.

5. The Good Samaritan – The Bible does not even mention the man’s name except that he was a Samaritan, ancient enemy of the Jews. What made him a person of integrity was that he helped a Jew – a considered enemy, no less – who had been attacked  and wounded by robbers along a lonely road. Two fellow-Jews  – a priest and a Levite, both supposedly icons of Jewish purity – had passed by the wounded man earlier but refused to help him.  This Samaritan could have done what was expected of him – ignore the man. Instead, he took pity on him and drove home Jesus’ point about who one’s “neighbor” is: “He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day, he took out two silver coins [the equivalent of two days’ wages]and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’” (Luke 10:33-35).

6. John the Baptist – This cousin of Jesus who was born six months ahead of him, became a hermit and lived in  the wilderness, dressed in camel’s hair and ate only locusts and  wild honey. He preached a message of repentance that appealed to a broad cross-section of Jewish society. When the crowds who came to him in the desert asked what they had to do, this is how John the Baptist answered them: “The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same.” (John 3:11).

To the tax collectors: Don’t collect any more than you are required to.”(v.12).

To the soldiers: “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely – be content with your pay.” (v.14).

But to the corrupt Seducees and Pharisees who came to be baptized by him, his words were harsh: “You brood of snakes!” he exclaimed. “Who warned you to flee God’s coming wrath?  Prove by the way you live that you have repented of your sins and turned to God. Don’t just say to each other, ‘We’re safe, for we are descendants of Abraham.’ That means nothing, for I tell you, God can create children of Abraham from these very stones. Even now the ax of God’s judgment is poised, ready to sever the roots of the trees. Yes, every tree that does not produce good fruit will be chopped down and thrown into the fire.”(Matthew 3:7-10).

7. Peter –  Peter, together with his brother Andrew, was one of the earliest disciples called by Jesus.Originally called Simon, Jesus rechristened him Peter (which meant a small rock, or, stone) probably because of his steady – if, impetous – character. He rose to become the natural leader of the apostles, and when Jesus died, resurrected and ascended to heaven, he became the leader of the Jerusalem church. For defending Paul and his ministry among the Gentiles before the Jerusalem elders(Acts 15), Peter showed his true colors as a man of principles: truly a person of integrity. He was later martyred in Rome.

8. Paul – Paul, the writer of at least 13 New Testament Epistles, was a former Pharisee who zealously persecuted the early Christians until he met the Risen Lord on Damascus road. This experience completely transformed him and he began three epochal missionary journeys and church planting that saw the Christianization of  Rome, Italy, the Near-East provinces, the Midetteranean countries, Greece, Egypt and North Africa in just 200 years after the birth of Christ. A doctor in Scriptural Studies (he studied under the great teacher, Gamaliel), he combined his prodigious intellectual talents with seemingly-tireless energy to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the known world then. Gainfully employed as a tentmaker (Acts 18:3), he hobnobbed with the rich and poor alike, and boldly preached his message in the streets and in the synagogues, where –more often than not – he met with strong rebuke and opposition to his strange message of salvation by faith in Jesus who claimed to be the Son of God. Just before his martyrdom at Rome, he wrote to his young confidant, Timothy, a ringing declaration that summed up his life: “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, and I have remained faithful. And now the prize awaits me—the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give me on the day of his return. And the prize is not just for me but for all who eagerly look forward to his appearing.” (2 Timothy 4:7-8). Paul was originally named Saul, the first monarch of Israel and also a Benjamite. When he had his Damascus experience and underwent a three-year period of purification in Arabia (Galatians 1:17-18), he emerged as Paul (lit. “little,” or “small”), perhaps because he considered himself “the least of the apostles and do not deserve even to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God.” (1 Corinthians 15:9). Truly, if there is anyone who deserves to be called “humble yet great,” it would be Paul: extraordinary man of integrity.

We will discuss the latest events and happenings that are in the national news next time. For now my time is up.

Next Page »