‘Courtesy’ means complicity

Those who oppose the proposal to abolish the Senate in favor of a unicameral parliament have found support for their stance in the call of majority coalition congressmen to stop the Senate inquiry into the fertilizer fund scam.

Since several congressmen and local officials have been named as beneficiaries of the controversial program, the call is seen as a blatant attempt to paper over possible anomalies in connection with the 2004 presidential elections. This supposedly proves that an "institutional cover-up" by a dominant party is much easier in a unicameral setup, shorn of the checks and balances a co-equal body can provide.

This call also comes on the heels of the latest Pastoral Statement of the Catholic bishops which urged a relentless pursuit of the truth. Bishop Ted Bacani made clear on Viewpoint last Wednesday night that the search for truth encompasses the alleged cheating by GMA in the last elections, as well as such alleged scandals as the fertilizer fund scam and the diversion of billions in Marcos Deposits forfeited to the government.

I can understand the congressmen explaining that the funds they received were legitimate expenditures under the Ginintuang Masaganang Ani program, or that the fertilizer was not in fact overpriced. They can also argue that members of the opposition, not only administration allies, were allocated funds, if that was really the case.

But the argument that "inter-parliamentary courtesy" or the "co-equal status" of the two Houses of Congress prohibits the Senate from prying into the alleged fertilizer mess is simply asinine. You can insist on your innocence, Your Honors. But don’t feed us the cow dung that the inquiry is "politically-motivated," or another attempt of determined destabilizers to unseat GMA. Even if it was, you provided the opening for it.

Your lachrymose posturing is unconvincing, as is your branding the Senate "a venue to smear administration congressmen." If your obstructionism indicates that you’ve been caught with dirty hands in the cookie jar, as many believe, you deserve not only to be thoroughly smeared but to be tarred and feathered in the nearest public plaza.

The Senate has long had a list of congressmen and local officials who received allocations from the fertilizer fund. Some were from urban, non-agricultural areas where fertilizers were totally useless. The latter claim they used the funds for other purposes allowed by Department of Agriculture guidelines. They also claim they had nothing to do with the procurement of fertilizer and that former Undersecretary Jocelyn "Joc-Joc" Bolante took care of everything.

I too have had access to that list, as have practically all the major newspapers in the country. None of us was born yesterday. So, if the congressmen and certain DA officials wish to venture any clarifications, they are entitled to that opportunity. The House can even launch its own investigation, as long as it doesn’t bog down again in mind-numbing technicalities, protracted debate on procedural rules, or a recurring lack of quorum. The House majority must realize that people are skeptical about its ability to rise above its old-boy network, clubby, mutual-protection-society mindset.

But to scuttle all inquiry into the matter creates the perception that, yet again, this administration is complicit in, not to say has masterminded, this anomaly and is moving heaven and earth to prevent the discovery of the truth.

The evidence so far submitted to the Senate on certain questionable beneficiaries of the fund, the shameless overpricing of watered-down fertilizer, and the suspicious "suppliers" of bogus merchandise, among others, has not been contradicted. The continuing absence of the principal actor, former Undersecretary Joc-Joc Bolante, defies rational explanation. The reasonable inference is that his testimony may be incriminating.

Joc-Joc’s resort to non-existent "obligations" to Rotary International is embarrassing the entire Rotary movement. There is no known precedent of a Rotary official, whether Philippine or International, citing Club responsibilities to evade legal accountability. Even those who are inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, for old times’ sake, are dismayed by his apparent refusal to come forward.

So what if he’s no longer a government official. Joc-Joc is under fire for his actions as a government official. I am glad my old club, the Rotary Club of Makati West, passed a resolution calling on him to testify at the Senate. While the Club "neither condemns nor acquits Director Bolante of any accusation," his continuing absence due to alleged Rotary International duties "simply exacerbates the situation, damaging himself and unduly impugning the good name of Rotary as well." To which I say "Amen."

The inquiry into fertilizer fund scam is just beginning. The focus thus far has only been on releases totaling P728 million. The total funds made available to the Agriculture Department for the fertilizer program reportedly reached P2.8 billion. But even this may just be the tip of the iceberg.

Last Monday, former Senate President and first Presidential Commission on Good Government chair Jovito Salonga wrote GMA in regard to the Marcos Swiss Deposits of about P35 billion, which were forfeited to the government in 2003. Salonga claims that transcripts of Senate hearings on the 2006 budget reveal that nothing, zero, zilch, was left for agrarian reform beneficiaries, as mandated by law.

Budget Secretary Romy Neri explained that P8 billion was earmarked for human rights victims, as ordered by the Supreme Court, while over P17 billion and almost P10 billion were spent in 2004 and 2005, respectively, "to cover the budgetary requirements." Neri insisted that P5 billion is still available for agrarian reform. Salonga is urging that the details of those expenditures be disclosed. The Senate is pressing the inquiry.

The House hasn’t asked the Senate to stop investigating the disposition of the Marcos deposits. So far! Maybe it’s because the onus seems to be fully on the Executive department which disbursed the deposits. Nothing indicates yet that any congressmen dipped their hands in that fund. So far!

But if the honorable majority congressmen try to block that too, we’ll know that they are merely paying lip service to the ideals of transparency, full disclosure and truth. Then again, many claim they’ve known that for a long time.