There is a precise term to describe an inconsequential event like this one: a flap.
That is such a nice onomatopoeic word, calling to mind agitated chickens making sounds with their wings, achieving nothing really except, well, flapping. So much sound, and maybe fury, signifying nothing.
Our senators have no wings. That minor detail does not discourage them from indulging in what seems to be the favorite senatorial sport: flapping.
The latest flap involves reallocation of Senate savings to beef up the maintenance and other operating expenses (MOOE) of the senators. It happens every year, we now know. No wonder this chamber loves a vacancy. A vacancy among the 24 seats in this chamber increases the likelihood, and the amount, of savings that might be reallocated to the others.
When Benigno Simeon Aquino won the presidency in 2010, a vacancy was created in the Senate. The money intended for the operations of one senator’s office transformed into savings. That money may be realigned at the instance of the Senate President who is, effectively, head of this particular public agency.
COA chairperson Grace Pulido Tan confirms the legality of Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile’s discretionary release of additional MOOEs to his colleagues. This seems to have been the practice of all Senate Presidents (and, for that matter, House Speakers) since anyone bothers to remember.
The problem that caused the latest flap, it seems, is that the release of various amounts was reported in the media as “Christmas gifts†to the senators, particularly those on the good side of Enrile. Labeled as such, the “gifts†do raise concerns about propriety. The other option about what to do with agency savings is, of course, to return this to the national treasury. The entire breadth of the bureaucracy, we know, hates doing that. Bureaucrats always find ways to hold on to the realized savings.
Enrile maintains these were not “gifts†at all. They were additional MOOE allocations whose use will be subject to the usual auditing procedures. It is therefore the responsibility of each recipient of the additional allocation to use the money prudently and legally. Each senator (and congressman) operates an office with a budget the legislator must keep and account for.
The flap, it appears, was provoked by the uneven reallocation of the chamber’s savings. Four senators, two of whom are not in particularly good terms with the Senate President, received much less than their colleagues. That, understandably, made the four unhappy.
Senator Miriam Santiago, the most articulate of the four, called the gifts “unconscionable and unconstitutional.†She threatened to make a case of this. That was before the COA clearly declared the practice absolutely legal. Unconscionable maybe, but thoroughly legal.
Enrile, for his part, justified the uneven distribution of the savings by saying that the four — Santiago, Trillanes, Alan Cayetano and Pia Cayetano — have been overspending the whole year (and probably did not deserve additional funds to burn). Trillanes, we recall, spent the most for travel and other expenses even as he was under detention.
That justification is likely tongue-in-cheek. There is politics in this disproportional allocation — but of course!
At any rate, Santiago returned her additional MOOE to the Office of the Senate President (but not after her staff had hurriedly deposited the check, according to news reports). She said she was returning the allocation because Enrile returned her gift of Iloilo pastry.
If Santiago returned her share of the money, the other senators who received much larger reallocations might come under public opinion pressure to return theirs as well. Not all of them will be happy to do so.
Sen. Panfilo Lacson, clearly happy with his additional MOOE and unhappy with the noise Santiago was making about it, asked a pointed question. Why, he asks Santiago, did she not denounce as “unconscionable†exactly the same yearend allocation in all the past years?
What is unconscionable today ought to have been unconscionable in the past. Year after year, until last month, Santiago happily took in her additional funds without complaining about the ethical sufficiency of this practice of farming out agency savings.
Santiago did not respond to that, even as this question implies a certain elasticity in ethical standards. Instead, she challenged Enrile to a debate (possibly in place of a suit). Enrile demurred, claiming (possibly tongue-in-cheek) intellectual inferiority to the feisty senator.
With the COA having taken the position that the realignment of agency savings is perfectly legal, there will likely be no case to build against what Enrile did. The majority of senators are, obviously, uncomfortable talking about money.
That means all we will have on this matter is a lot of flapping.
Uncontested
The LTO should not blame Stradcom Corporation for the delay in putting a new information system in place to manage the millions of transactions the frontline agency needs to make every year.
Stradcom makes it clear the company is no longer interested in another contract with government, since LTO has decided to alter the business model for the provision of such services. The company appears to be exploring business opportunities elsewhere. Nevertheless, Stradcom makes it clear it will help the agency in anyway it can to enable the transition to the new system LTO wants.
Having served four Presidents, seven DOTC secretaries and nine LTO chiefs the past 15 years, Stradcom is now looking for other business. Its contract ends very soon and the DOTC does not seem ready with its transition plan. That is a matter of grave concern to all of us who transact with the LTO and hope the efficiency continues.