MANILA, JANUARY 15, 2012
(BUSINESS WORLD ONLINE) Calling A Spade... By Solita
Collas-Monsod (photo) - We have to hand it to the PCIJ (Malou Mangahas
currently heads it) for its pertinacity in its crusade to obtain copies of the
SALNs from government officials themselves or the agencies with which they are
connected.
It started the project way back in 2006, and as a matter of fact, reported,
in the run-up to PNoy's 2011 SONA, that the Office of the President and the
Office of the Ombudsman were the most "barren fields for harvesting information"
and that the overall success or approval rate (proportion of requests for SALN
that were approved) was all of 57%.
At the time, the attempts to get SALNs from the House of Representatives were
still ongoing, but now the results are in. And if the members of Congress had
any sense of shame, their faces would be Cambridge Red with embarrassment.
Why? Because, as the PCIJ reports, a) only two out of 282 members of the
current -- 15th -- Congress disclosed copies of their SALN in response to PCIJ's
request (Hussein Pangandaman of Lanao Sur and Maximo Rodriguez, party list);
b)the PCIJ was able to obtain copies of the SALNs of only three out of the 188
signatories to the impeachment complaint -- and that only because of a fluke,
their SALNs having been mixed inadvertently with the records of the members of
the 14th Congress that PCIJ was allowed to photocopy this earlier this year.
It is noteworthy that the House's Secretary General's Office approved PCIJ's
request for the release of SALNs filed for 2008 and 2009 of the members of the
14th Congress ("dominated by allies of then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo,"
says PCIJ), but denied the request for the release of the 2010 SALNs of the 15th
Congress (the requests were made at the same time). Transparency, anyone?
If the PCIJ report is accurate, even Rep. Niel Tupas had not released his own
SALN, although he is reportedly willing to do so, and had expressed his dismay
at the state of non-disclosure: "I didn't know until recently that was how it's
done in the House. I didn't know it's that bad. I didn't know this issue with
SALNs is that complicated."
But misery loves company, and the congressmen, and their secretary-general,
would undoubtedly derive comfort from the fact that the Office of the Ombudsman
(Conchita Carpio Morales, that is) seems to have behaved in very much the same
manner, and, according to the PCIJ, in much the same fashion as her predecessor
Merceditas Gutierrez did -- i.e, stonewalling all requests for release of SALNs.
The PCIJ painstakingly details its efforts to get the copies, and the various
reasons given for the non-disclosure. So the Supreme Court and/or Chief Justice
Corona, is not the only non-discloser.
In any case, Corona's defense panel are surely going to go to town on this
one. The charge is that "II. RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND/OR BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST WHEN HE FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO THE
PUBLIC HIS STATEMENT OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES, AND NET WORTH AS REQUIRED UNDER
SEC. 17, ART. XI OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION."
As PCIJ pointed out, if Corona can be removed from office for this offense of
non-disclosure, so must a great many others be similarly removed. Unless, of
course, the exercise is a selective witch-hunt, along the lines of: the others
may be S.O.B's, but they are MY S.O.B.'s, so let's not touch them.
It is again noteworthy that, per the PCIJ, "The Senate is by far the most
exemplary agency in its compliance with the law. It has consistently disclosed
the asset records of all its members over the years, including those making up
the current Upper House." Which of course brings up the question: If the
senators do it, and seem not to be worried about threats to life and limb
because of the disclosure, why should anybody else be more special?
But there seems to be more unsettling news -- at least on the face of it --
for the impeachment prosecution panel, although Rep. Erin Tañada is reported to
have scoffed that the news is inaccurate.
This has to do with a reported CoA audit report for 2010 of the Judiciary
Development Fund, for which Corona is accused of " VIII. RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE
PUBLIC TRUST AND/OR COMMITTED GRAFT AND CORRUPTION WHEN HE FAILED AND REFUSED TO
ACCOUNT FOR THE JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND (JDF) AND SPECIAL ALLOWANCE FOR THE
JUDICIARY (SAJ) COLLECTIONS."
According to the news report I read, entitled "No fund mess in SC audit",
everything seemed to be all right and tight with the JDF, "nothing that would
indicate fund misuse in the Supreme Court."
I say "on the face of it" because I went to the CoA Web site to see for
myself, and the only JDF audit report available there was for the three-year
period from 2000, 2001, and 2002. In other words, I could not check the source,
and that makes me uncomfortable. The news report was obviously "friendly" to the
Corona camp, and tended to sweep a lot of things under the rug, such as some
accounting errors like misstatements of balances, unliquidated cash advances,
uncollected fees, as well as recording and classification errors." Excuse me. No
indication as to orders of magnitude. It also tended to treat very cavalierly
the reaction of Erin Tañada, by merely quoting him as saying that the reports
were "not true." Period. No further explanation by Tañada was quoted. I tried to
get in touch with Tañada in case he had made any elaboration that was excluded,
but was unsuccessful.
If indeed there is a CoA 2010 Audit Report of the JDF which essentially gives
its imprimatur to the use of the funds, the fact that it has not been uploaded
on the CoA Web site is disturbing -- it tends to give rise to the suspicion that
it is being kept secret because it may weaken the administration's desire to get
rid of Corona. On the other hand, if there is no CoA report, or a CoA report
that is less than glowing, then the prosecution can now go to town against the
Corona camp for either outright lying (which I doubt), or putting in a spin that
is favorable to itself (which is more like it).
The Senate has its work cut out for it. My only consolation is that Senate
President Enrile has a track record for doing his homework (remember the Villar
investigation) -- and for not responding meekly to threats or bribes.
God help the Philippines.
Chief News Editor: Sol Jose Vanzi
© Copyright, 2012 by PHILIPPINE
HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE
All rights reserved
PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS
ONLINE [PHNO] WEBSITE
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/phnotweet
This is the PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE (PHNO) Mailing List.
To stop receiving our news items, please send a blank e-mail addressed to: phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Please visit our homepage at: http://www.newsflash.org/
(c) Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
-------------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phno/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phno/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
phno-digest@yahoogroups.com
phno-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
