Laquian's contributions - My Viewpoint

Former Presidential Chief of Staff Prod Laquian has flown back to Vancouver, Canada and, by now, should be back in the bosom of a sympathetic family awaiting the birth of a second grandchild. He has admitted shooting himself in the mouth, acknowledged the inde-liberate but nevertheless real damage he dealt the Estrada administration, and essentially said "Amen!" to all the critical observations about his runaway mouth and his tendency to make yabang and pasikat. He admitted he never saw President Estrada drunk, rarely stayed at the Palace beyond 9 p.m., and never witnessed any midnight to 4 a.m. drinking at the Palace.

I am also happy he made clear in his farewell missive that he was not "plied with drinks by the press people," he being allergic to alcohol. Commentators who said as much were patently careless and inattentive to the fact that one of the principal reasons Prod fell into that hole he dug for himself was the way he answered Cip Roxas's now historic question which was premised on Prod's being a "teetotaler." I also confirm my riposte to his statement that he preferred to be a "fly on the wall" (as an "anonymous technocrat", said he) rather than a snake charmer: I reminded him that flies get swatted. Yes, Prod, I had no clue my words would be prophetic. But I must confess that as the post-luncheon forum pressed energetically on until almost 3 p.m., with the questions flowing and none of the gathered press people moving an inch to leave, I began to get this ominous feeling that history was being made in that MOPC press function.

Prod Laquian said in a pre-departure airport interview that he was leaving "in disgrace." Maybe so, but I think that he left with his dignity intact. I will even say his unhedged apologies to the President he hurt, his expression of continuing belief in Estrada's leadership, his appeals for national unity and for a tempering of obvious efforts to diminish the Presidency (because it diminishes us all) was a class act. Hey, maybe you can teach an old dog new tricks. He turned 65 on the very day he was fired. But he gave every indication that he had learned valuable lessons in his "Philippine venture." And most of those lessons were about himself -- character, humility, human nature.

But enough of dwelling on self-flagellation. Is there anything we have learned about this incident? Other, that is, than the folly of hubris and a bad case of the motor mouth?

I certainly think so.

Take away those evidently gratuitous references (such as "chop suey") which Laquian acknowledged and apologized for. What remains are clinical, objective observations which are largely valid. Those who are left to continue managing the Palace paper mill and decision mechanism would do well to heed them. Given President Estrada's penchant for quick decision-making, consistent with his desire to be seen as a man of action, there really ought to be an effective and rational system to give him the information that will serve as solid basis for his decisions. There is nothing necessarily negative about describing the Malacañang environment as the epitome of "transactional management." It simply recognizes reality, that decisions must take into account a multitude of pressures and interests that arise in any political system, particularly democracies. Nor is President Estrada unique in his disdain for "process." Leaders usually want to get things done, ASAP! Some Presidents eventually learn to live with plodding bureaucracies, others never adjust. The point is -- does the system generate enough meaningful, timely and accurate information to support important decisions which, more often than not, change people's lives and set directions for a nation?

But wasn't that the job of the Executive Secretary and the Presidential Management Staff? Well, yes, under the law that's what they're supposed to do. The problem is, both offices became mired in turf wars and personality clashes. It's futile to speculate on whose fault that was, or who's won -- for now! Prod's efforts were directed not at eliminating one or the other (in fact, not in law), but at harnessing the strengths of both to serve the incumbent. Hence, his perceptive dichotomy where the Executive Secretary serves the presidency, while the Chief of Staff serves the President. That always made a lot of sense to me.

The challenge remains, even as Prod has flown to Canada. His departure doesn't change that situation one whit. While Laquian has left open the possibility of a second chance, that seems unlikely, at least in the near future. For now, it is the Executive Secretary's office at centerstage. In a way, this arrangement tracks Prod's ideas, but puts both responsibilities, that of serving the President and the presidency, in the hands of one man.

Ricardo V. Puno, Jr.'s e-mail address: [email protected]