René B. Azurin
JOSE “JINGGOY” ESTRADA, the senator, needn’t have worried that the Filipino people would consider only him -- and his “colleagues” Mr. Revilla and Mr. Enrile -- as “the worst thieves and scoundrels” for misusing (I am purposely using an emotionally neutral term here) public funds by directing their pork barrel allocations to bogus projects and non-existent NGOs organized by alleged fraud mastermind Janet Napoles. Indeed, the Filipino people fully understood the contentions he made in his Senate privilege speech last week that it is not just him but most of the members of both the Senate and the House who have been misusing their pork barrel allocations all these years. OK, to allay his fears that he is being “singled out,” we should assure him that we (the people) now consider ALL senators and congressmen (with a small handful of exceptions) not only as “thieves and scoundrels” but also as “hypocrites” (the term he branded them with).
Maybe that assurance will make someone who has (apparently) victimized the Filipino people for so long not feel like the victim he now feels he is. The irony in this should not be lost on anyone. In any event, it was moronic for Mr. Estrada to try and paint himself as a victim by pointing out the pork barrel sins of his fellow legislators while not bothering to deny his own sins. Well, unable to deny that it is black, the pot can always call the kettle blacker.
What is clear from Mr. Estrada’s speech is that the President colludes -- the word on the street would be nakikipagkontsaba -- with senators and congressmen to systematically steal the people’s money. Of course, observers of the political scene have always known this but Mr. Estrada may be the first lawmaker to publicly admit that bribes are regularly paid by the President -- in the form of pork barrel fund releases (out of which massive kickbacks to the lawmakers are hardly a secret) -- to selected members of Congress in order to obtain their votes on certain desired measures or actions. In his privilege speech, Mr. Estrada specifically mentioned such were paid for the approval of measures like the Reproductive Health Bill and the Sin Tax Bill and for actions like the impeachments of former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez and former Chief Justice Renato Corona. In the case of the latter, Mr. Estrada admitted that he himself received a P50 million “incentive” but, after a hastily called Senate recess, retracted and said that this was not a “suhol” or bribe.
One might ask, when is an “incentive” not a bribe? The answer, presumably, is, when an “honorable” senator says it is not, even after saying that it is. Actually, given how often politicos change their assertions and reverse themselves, no one can anyway tell which of their statements are lies and which are misrepresentations.
Expectedly, every politico mentioned by Mr. Estrada is now vehemently issuing denials of such dastardly deeds. The then chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Franklin Drilon, now Senate President, denies having offered senators such an “incentive” for voting to convict Mr. Corona. His offer of proof: the reversed statement of Mr. Estrada that the P50 million he received was not actually a bribe. (Mr. Drilon has been reported to have given himself an additional P100 million in pork barrel funds during that time period.)
The chairman of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee purportedly “investigating” the pork barrel scam, Teofisto Guingona III, also denies that the P50 million additional pork barrel he received was a bribe for his “guilty” vote on Mr. Corona. His claim: the fund release was received a few months after Mr. Corona’s impeachment and therefore could not have been a bribe. A reward then?
Budget Secretary Florencio Abad likewise issued a denial. He is quoted as saying, “We deny that there was a P50-million bribe to induce the senators to convict Corona.” He adds that the administration of President Aquino “does not and will not bribe any group or individuals -- whether these ‘bribes’ are offered officially or otherwise -- all for the sake of getting our way, or for the sake of gaining political leverage over parties that may oppose us.” According to Mr. Abad, Mr. Estrada’s charge of bribery “requires an incredible leap of logic that is ill-justified by fact.”
Well, here are the facts. One, the President passionately wanted Mr. Corona ousted (presumably for voting against the desired monetary compensation for his family’s Hacienda Luisita). Two, the impeachment of Corona was dependent on the votes of representatives in the House and his conviction on the votes of senators in the Senate. Three, the President had/has huge lump sum discretionary funds at his disposal. Four, Corona was impeached by the House then adjudged guilty by the Senate. Five, representatives and senators who voted for the Corona ouster got large additional pork barrel fund allocations. What to conclude? Perhaps the problem of Mr. Abad is being able to distinguish what is an “incredible leap of logic” from a modest hop.
Ah, are these politicos lying to the Filipino people or, uh, just misrepresenting the facts?
President Aquino did not himself deny the allegations of criminal deeds but, instead, left this to his hard-working spokesman, Edwin Lacierda. In his effort to shield his president from the flak, lawyer Lacierda tried to be truly creative by tossing the media a new acronym -- DAP, for Disbursement Acceleration Program -- which he said was where the funds disbursed to the incentivized lawmakers came from. Hence, he said, being DAP, it was not PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Fund, the formal name for pork barrel funds). Question: when is a discretionary lump sum fund allocation not pork barrel? Hmmm, when is a wolf in sheep’s clothing not a wolf?
After vigorously defending the pork barrel then reversing himself and supposedly agreeing to its abolition just before the “Million People March” against the institutionalized plunder of taxpayers’ money, President Aquino has reverted to his real sentiments by asking the Supreme Court to lift its Temporary Restraining Order on the disbursement of pork barrel funds for 2013 and to dismiss petitions seeking to “declare as unconstitutional” the whole pork barrel system. In his petition, the President disingenuously argues that abolishing the pork barrel system will “work to the damage of innocent citizens who rely on the operations of the PDAF for educational and medical assistance purposes.” The petition shamelessly goes to the extent of citing a particular indigent senior citizen who needs dialysis and a particular poor provincial student who needs a scholarship to go to college. Presumably, we ignorant citizens are supposed to be convinced by this that government cannot provide public services without large lump sum allocations to public officials.
Mr. Aquino also argues that “reforms are already underway.” Huh? What reforms are these? It’s been over three years. Surely, it cannot be that the President believes that his banning of “wang-wang” (sirens) and his buying new Glock pistols for policemen were reform measures?
Beneath the still relatively mild surface of protest marches and public demonstrations, there now seems, among citizens, to be far stronger undercurrents of resentment at the government for consciously supporting and perpetuating the systematic plundering of taxpayers’ hard-earned money to enrich public officials and perpetuate them in positions of power. Citizens legitimately ask, is the real reason the Bureau of Internal Revenue is intensifying its tax collection efforts so that public officials will have more funds to steal? What a logical question.
No comments:
Post a Comment