|
What is generally known—or is at least perceived to
be fact by most Filipinos—has become a big moral tempest. The
House of Representatives’ oldest and most respected member,
Congressman Herminio Teves, disclosed on Thursday, June 21, that
some members of the House contingent in the Commission on
Appointments extorted from nominees to Cabinet positions. He alleged
that his son, Finance Secretary Margarito Teves, was asked—through
him—to cough up P5 million to have his appointment to the Cabinet
confirmed.
Pressed by reporters to name
names, he demurred but naughtily gave hints broad enough to identify
who among the House CA members he was alluding to.
The day after Representative
Teves’ exposé, two other Cabinet members—Customs Commissioner
Napoleon Morales and Secretary Domingo Panganiban of the National
Antipoverty Commission—revealed they, too, had experienced
importunings for bribes during their confirmation hearings.
Secretary Panganiban said that in late 2006, as he was being
examined at the CA for confirmation as secretary of agriculture,
eight congressmen-members of the CA demanded P80-million worth of
projects from him. Secretary Panganiban said he refused to give the
bribe and lost his job as DA secretary.
His fellow congressmen have
excoriated Representative Teves for not specifying who the
bribe-seekers are. Rep. Prospero Pichay, who was most clearly
identifiable in Representative Teves’ innuendo—as “someone who
ran for the Senate and lost”—attacked both Representative Teves
and the finance secretary. The latter is only one among several
appointees of President Arroyo, who have not been confirmed by the
Commission on Appointments. Secretary Teves told the media that he
had never experienced being asked for a cash bribe but only for
projects. The cash demand was made to his father.
Some defenders of the House CA
contingent against the older Teves’ accusation have ranged from
the emotional to half-witted. One pretends not to know that
Filipinos are steeped in the compadrazco culture, in which it is bad
form to ask for favors and bribes face to face so that the agency of
a compadre or an “uncle” must be used.
Speaker Jose de Venecia has
rightly promised to initiate a probe into Representative Teves’
exposé and its verification by Secretary Teves, Secretary
Panganiban and Commissioner Morales. Most congressmen have welcomed
the Speaker’s promise.
This promise may end up in the
great dustbin of the cosmos, like many others made before by this
country’s top leaders. One must not tire of hoping that this time,
House members of the incoming Fourteenth Congress would surprise the
people with their higher ethical level.
In dealing with corruption, the
citizenry must not lose hope—and zeal.
Now that Congressman Teves has
opened the lid a bit, and three Cabinet secretaries have come out on
the side of transparency, we, in the media, must nag the congressmen
to do their probes and enlarge the Teves exposé so that the corrupt
members of the Commission on Appointments are identified.
Two-way street
Sen. Panfilo Lacson spoke out on
the issue to remind everybody that in 2006 he delivered a Senate
privileged speech exposing a bribe offer he had received from a
Cabinet appointee. The bribe offered was a ready-to-implement
project worth P5 million, Senator Lacson said. All the documents had
been accomplished, except for his signature on the pro-forma letter
requesting for the project to be launched and funded.
He identified the Cabinet member
who was giving him the P5-million project as the present DA
secretary, Mr. Arthur Yap, whom President Arroyo appointed in lieu
of Secretary Panganiban whom the Commission on Appointments did not
confirm. Secretary Yap, who has been proving to be among the most
proactive members of the Cabinet, has denied Senator Lacson’s
allegation of bribery. It must have been just a case of the DA
anticipating a project that is urgently necessary and matching it
with a senator who can most effectively help provide moral support
to the department in making it a success.
Mr. Lacson’s message about
Commission on Appointment bribery is that it is a two-way street.
The bribe-seeker’s corrupt intent must be matched by the
bribe-source’s own willingness to corrupt. The bribe-offerer’s
ignoble gift must have a willing vessel of corruption to accept it.
Corruption in the Commission on
Appointments is not only through bribery—in cash or in projects.
Any member of the CA who refuses
to confirm a presidential appointee because he has a grudge against
the person is corrupt. Refusing to vote for the confirmation of a
good and outstandingly qualified person’s appointment because
confirmation would somehow work against the CA member’s personal
agenda is vile, corrupt and unpatriotic.
The original reason for the
Commission on Appointments must be made to prevail. It is to have 12
senators and 12 congressmen provide the necessary check and balance
mechanism to the appointing power of the president of the Republic.
At the same time, it ensures that only competent and qualified
public candidates to high public office are appointed.
May the collective mind of the
members of both houses of the Fourteenth Congress be guided by the
common good.
|
