What now for 'traitor' and 'security leak'?

Two recent polls show better global and domestic opinions about the government’s anti-corruption drive. Transparency International’s latest Corruption Perceptions Index has the Philippines moving up five ranks, from 134 in 2010 to 129 in 2011, of cleanest to shadiest countries. Too, the Social Weather Stations has the Office of the Ombudsman’s sincerity ratings climbing 46 points, from -8 percent in 2009 to +38 in 2012.

Credit should go to Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales for the improved view of outsiders about her government and agency. She took office 14 months ago, when the public regarded the office as protector if not the instigator of graft. To regain public trust Carpio Morales focused on eight programs. She reported on these during the induction of new officers of the Philippine Bar Association, coinciding with Law Day, September 26:

(1) Action on “grand” cases, against high-ranking or supervisory government officials, involving grave offenses or large sums of money and property. Non-corruption or trivial cases were referred to other agencies. Overlaps were cleared with the Department of Justice and the National Police Commission in handling criminal and administrative cases.

(2) Acceleration of a zero-backlog in the investigation of criminal and adjudication of civil complaints, and meeting requests for assistance. Work systems and deadlines were imposed on Ombudsman officers, investigators and prosecutors.

(3) Improving the “survival rate” of fact-finding investigations. Evidence gathering was made to ensure criminal conviction, to avert dismissal on demurrer. Closer ties were forged with the Commission on Audit and the Anti-Money Laundering Council to strengthen case buildup. (One of the first targets was ousted Chief Justice Renato Corona.)

(4) Specialized training in fraud detection and prevention. Two development partners were asked to teach: the World Bank’s Integrity Vice Presidency, and the South Korea Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission. The US-Agency for International Development qualified seven Ombudsman personnel as Certified Fraud Examiners.

(5) Involving special prosecutors in fact-finding. In the past Ombudsman prosecutors were made to argue and expected to win cases that they knew to be shaky. Now, based on what they know the court will accept or reject, they are harnessed right at the case buildup.

(6) Improved responsiveness in public assistance. Requests for assistance or mediation were attended to faster than before.

(7) Improved corruption prevention. The Ombudsman tied up with NGOs and student organizations as Integrity Crusaders. Integrity Development Reviews were initiated in local government units. (Special focus was in the Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao.)

(8) The agency is spreading the APEC Anti-Corruption Code of Conduct for Business. As well, the UN Convention Against Corruption.

*      *      *

Three weeks ago the Senate quaked in the verbal tussle between its oldest and youngest members. Juan Ponce Enrile, 88, called Antonio Trillanes IV, 41, a “traitor” for taking China’s side against the foreign office in secretly back-channeling for Malacañang. In turn, Trillanes faulted Enrile for unauthorized public disclosure of secret diplomatic memos. Both are grave accusations of high crime. What will their next moves be, when Congress resumes session Monday after the break to file certificates of election candidacy?

Those words were uttered in anger. Trillanes provoked the rumble by alleging that Enrile was kowtowing to ex-President Gloria Arroyo’s gerrymandering of Camarines. Enrile retaliated by picturing Trillanes as an ingrate who has forgotten his exertions to get him out of the brig for mutinous Navy officers. Trillanes’ Senate associates took exception to Enrile’s describing him a “fraud.” Enrile’s allies opined that senators must never question each other’s motive in proposing or opposing a bill, but just abide by majority rule.

The Rules of the Senate (Rule XXXIV) deems un-parliamentary and so forbids any act or language by a senator that offends another senator or any public institution. Any senator with higher purpose than politics can call to order such erring senator. Cases can be made against either or both Enrile and Trillanes. By two-thirds vote, the Senate may punish an unruly member with expulsion or suspension for no more than 60 days.

Of course, Enrile and Trillanes and their colleagues can forget their barbs of “fraud” and “lackey” for the sake of intra-chamber harmony. No deep offense there, really, for politicos accustomed to shaking hands after brawling. But not in the case of such serious accusations of “treason” and “compromising security.”

Here, the mettle of Enrile and Trillanes would be tested. If the former, as Senate President, truly believes that Trillanes betrayed the country, then he would take the logical next steps of having him expelled and then imprisoned. Same with Trillanes, if he deems Enrile to have compromised state security in baring his confidential meetings with the Philippine ambassador to Beijing.

Questions beg for answers. For Trillanes: Who bankrolled his 15 or 16 trips to Beijing, as Enrile disclosed? Whom did he meet with? Which Chinese officials proposed to Malacañang in the first place that he be the backchannel? What did he commit to them? Did he peddle to Malacañang the Chinese diplomatic and political line about the West Philippine Sea and the Panatag Shoal?

For Enrile: By what authority did he out Trillanes as Malacañang’s secret backchannel? Also, by what authority did he declassify, a la WikiLeaks, Ambassador Sonia Brady’s notes on her meetings with Trillanes? What else does he know about Trillanes that Malacañang ought to be told about — and the public too but without breaking any law? And what does he mean when he says that he, a public official, is answerable to no one?

*      *      *

Catch Sapol radio show, Saturdays, 8-10 a.m., DWIZ (882-AM).

E-mail: [email protected]