A challenge for the Senate

I have watched the Senate Blue Ribbon hearings and the announcements of Secretary Leila de Lima on the progress of the PDAF case as closely as possible. I am sure the overwhelming majority of the Filipino people have riveted their attention on this case because it is beginning to resemble a telenovela.

There is high drama. There is the magnitude of the crime involving billions of pesos. Then there are the names of the people concerned which are definitely household names since they include powerful politicians, and movie stars. Just look at the names involved — Honasan, Enrile, Revilla, Marcos, Estrada, Sotto. Marquee names, just like in show business.

I also noticed that in the testimony of Ruby Tuason, the drop off points for the “commissions” were addresses located in exclusive subdivisions normally reserved for the Philippine elite like Dasmarinas Village. She also mentioned restaurants familiar to our elite but way too expensive even for the middle class.

The PDAF scandals involve not only household names but also high society personalities. In addition, these investigations have made certain personalities household names overnight. These are names like Janet Lim Napoles, Ruby Tuason and Gigi Reyes. And when Benhur is mentioned, nobody confuses this name with the movie blockbuster Ben Hur.

Mass media is certainly a major beneficiary of these scandals. I am sure radio news audiences and TV news viewership must be up. Newspaper circulation must also be on the upswing.

But now I want to ask. In 28 years, or the year 2042, will we say that corruption has become negligible in the Philippines or are we going to be in the middle of another major PDAF-like scandal?

I use 28 years as a milestone because that was how long ago the nation ousted the Marcos dictatorship due to its widespread human rights violations and massive corruption. But after 28 years, the Marcos stolen loot is still not fully recovered and no one has gone to jail. The worst part is that is that we have another Marcosian looting being investigated. And the electoral sabotage trial of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has not even reached final judgment.

What is, therefore, the purpose of all these Senate hearings? Is it to ferret out the truth and assist in the conviction of the guilty parties? I have no objection if those are the purposes. But beyond that, is it not true that the purpose of Senate hearings is supposed to be “in aid of legislation”?

I believe that the Senate, once the hearings are finished, should then focus on the principal purpose. The senators should be judged on the basis of the legislation they will pass to ensure that Marcosian looting and PDAF scandals never happen again.

The goal of these legislations should be to institutionalize, through law, good governance. This is also the best way to ensure that even if the next president is not as fully committed to fighting corruption as PNoy, he or she will be prevented from abusing power.

One suggestion I can offer to the senators, for example, is to remove the power of the President to grant pardon to anyone convicted or being tried for a plunder case. Surely this is one way to ensure that future presidents can be prevented from undoing what the present administration is doing.

In institutionalizing good governance we also need to agree on its definition. I have asked several people and each one has come out either with motherhood statements or some vague generalization.

According to the Asian Development Bank, “governance is the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a country’s economic and social resources for development.” If we combine the best elements of the various definitions of good governance from various sources, we can come up with a better description of good governance that the senators can use as a starting point in their debate in aid of legislation.

Good governance refers to governing systems which are capable, responsive, inclusive and transparent. It is essentially the combination of transparent and accountable institutions, strong skills and competence, and a fundamental willingness to do the right thing. The key elements of good governance are accountability, transparency, participation, combating corruption the promotion of an enabling legal and judicial framework.

It has been suggested that the most important element in getting convictions is to hand them out while the attention of the public and the media is still focused on whatever scandal is in the spotlight for the moment.

But this reliance on public and media attention to get convictions shows that good governance has not been institutionalized in this country. Justice should prevail and the guilty should be convicted even if there is no public or media attention.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has focused on the principal elements of good governance as follows:

“Accountability which means government is able and willing to show the extent to which its actions and decisions are consistent with clearly defined and agreed upon objectives.

Transparency which means government actions, decisions and decision making processes are open to an appropriate level of scrutiny by other parts of government and civil society.

Effectiveness which means government strives to produce quality public outputs including services delivered to citizens at best cost and according to the intentions of the original policy makers.

Responsiveness which means government has the capacity to respond quickly to societal changes, expectations of the general public and re-examine role of government.

Rule of law which means government enforces equally transparent laws, regulations and codes.”

The challenge is to institutionalize good governance so that the war against corruption will continue no matter who the president is, and even if media coverage on hearings dwindles or wanes. It sounds like a tall order, but supposedly this is partly why we have the upper house.

Is the Senate up to the challenge?

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]