In several Senate inquiries into deals in the previous administration, one of the remarkable aspects was the expression on the faces of some of the former officials implicated in questionable activities.
It was a genuinely puzzled look that said: You mean I did something wrong?
People are used to seeing shame and guilt, humiliation, anger, indignation and measured indifference on the faces of those who are subjected to a Senate grilling.
But that look of puzzlement can be the scariest for those watching the proceedings. It makes the audience wonder how prevalent this attitude is among government officials, particularly those in positions of control over billions in public funds. Is that the normal way of doing business in government?
I’m not the only one who noticed that look and found it remarkable. Several other people have mentioned it to me, and they have a common question about those former officials who were placed in the dock: What were they thinking? Did they actually believe they could get away with it?
Obviously, they did. And in fact they still might, if the cases being filed against them are handled sloppily.
We always have to bear in mind that we cannot send people to prison based merely on perceptions formed in the court of public opinion after a congressional grilling. Guilt must be based on solid evidence presented in a court of law.
And lawyers will be the first to tell you that justice and the law do not always go hand in hand.
* * *
In the case of the helicopters for the police, for example, the camp of the principal accused gave an indication of his defense even before the formal indictments. Former first gentleman Mike Arroyo might own two of the used helicopters that were sold at brand-new prices to the Philippine National Police. But his lawyer, reacting to the accusations, pointed out that the man formerly called “FG” did not force the PNP to make the purchase. Isn’t the buyer supposed to beware, caveat emptor? Go hang the PNP officials who approved the purchase.
There have been many congressional investigations, several of which amounted to nothing, not even a single amendment to any law. It might have to do with the fact that many of the scandals were heavily dependent on the statements of witnesses, some of whom have a tendency to sell different versions of the truth to the highest bidder.
But this time, it seems witnesses’ statements are backed by official documents plus damning findings of the Commission on Audit (COA).
It might just be a lucky stroke that incriminating documents, including helicopter flight logs and election returns, have been preserved. But it looks more like this is due to a deliberate effort to preserve evidence of what people believed was a serious crime, for presentation at the right place and the right time, under the right administration.
We’re seeing incriminating evidence preserved not just by the underlings of ranking officials – comptrollers, bagmen who insist they were just following orders – but also by those in the private sector who went along with a corrupt system to win government deals.
Seeing the formerly all-powerful now being made to account for past misdeeds should make the current batch of influential individuals think twice before engaging in corrupt acts.
* * *
They should think not just twice but three, four, 10 times, especially because technology is making it increasingly easier to pursue leads on wrongdoing and to gather evidence. Phones and email can be hacked, electronic conversations tapped, and incriminating high-resolution photos and video taken using miniature cameras and mobile phones. Those photos and video footage can then be uploaded on the Internet and spread worldwide.
Apart from technology, the campaign against corruption has become an international effort that is linked to the battle against poverty. The United Nations Convention Against Corruption, the first legally binding global instrument against this crime, took effect in December 2005. Among other things, it compels signatories that have ratified the treaty to extradite individuals wanted for corrupt acts in their home states and to facilitate the recovery of ill-gotten assets. Multilateral institutions such as the World Bank are supporting programs to fight corruption. The world keeps getting smaller for the corrupt.
Even if corrupt individuals manage to take their money and run, there is no guarantee that they will be able to enjoy it. Anti-money laundering laws are becoming more stringent worldwide, although the Philippines is among the most resistant to the trend.
* * *
The current anti-corruption thrust of P-Noy’s government tracks similar developments in other parts of the globe.
Major aid donors have started linking their assistance to anti-corruption efforts.
Countries are intensifying efforts to fight corruption not just in government but also in the private sector. More countries are passing laws similar to the United States’ Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which penalizes private companies that resort to bribery to win contracts overseas.
In our country, ongoing investigations should make private businessmen see the consequences of bypassing government procurement laws and using connections to bag major contracts.
The Arab Spring, like the Philippine protest movement that culminated in people power in 1986, is fueled in part by disgust over large-scale corruption by long-entrenched rulers. This is a common problem when people stay too long in power; they start believing that the national treasury is their private piggybank.
Corruption is found even in the most advanced economies. But some countries deal with the problem better than others, and it is no coincidence that these countries are among the most prosperous and competitive.
In our country, the ongoing investigations into anomalous deals should be pursued to their conclusion, to bring home the message that corruption is a crime, and perpetrators will be brought to justice.
We may finally be able to say goodbye to business as usual in government.