Blowing the whistle

The person who alerted the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas about the existence of ghost employees in the offices of two Monetary Board members deserves a medal.

Of course the medal cannot be awarded because the tip was given anonymously. The tip, however, must have been accompanied by documentation or other items that made the information actionable, prompting an internal investigation.

This kind of citizen vigilance can be encouraged. Despite Filipinos’ hand-wringing over how corruption has become endemic in government, I’m sure the civil service isn’t lacking in people who can spot wrongdoing when they see it, and are willing to report it.

At the Bangko Sentral, employees are reportedly appalled by the “ghosts” in their midst, but also glad that the anomaly was exposed and is being acted upon, with one Monetary Board member tendering his resignation. Some employees joke about sending packing boxes to the other MB member implicated in the scandal who has yet to resign.

Even if the motive in blowing the whistle is not noble – envy, rivalry, revenge – as long as the law is being broken and public trust betrayed, the alert is most welcome.

Whistle-blowers typically want two things. One is protection from retaliation and the hassle of participating in investigations, whether administrative, congressional or judicial.

Whistle-blowing can pose a threat to the life not only of the whistle-blower but even of those close to him or her. As we have often seen, being placed under the government’s Witness Protection Program can be extremely inconvenient and is not a foolproof guarantee of the whistle-blower’s safety.

Personal protection is better achieved through anonymity.

*      *      *

An anonymous tip, however, has a higher requirement for substantiation to be taken seriously. Otherwise, it may be dismissed as mere gossip or a smear job, especially in this age of disinformation, misinformation and artificial intelligence-enhanced black propaganda.

The other thing that any self-respecting whistle-blower wants, obviously, is to see authorities acting on the tip and the wrongdoer punished.

Again, this will depend on the strength of the initial case presented. The tip must be meaty enough for competent authorities to pursue the issue. When I was a reporter, some government workers told me they considered it useless to report wrongdoing in their office because authorities wouldn’t act on it anyway.

Government workers must be provided a mechanism and knowledge of the process for safe whistle-blowing, including information on the materials that can merit an investigation by proper authorities.

Whistle-blower protection bills have been filed in both the Senate and the House of Representatives in previous Congresses. The proposed measures invoke the constitutional provision under Article 2, Section 27, declaring that “the State shall maintain honesty and integrity in public service and take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption.” Also invoked are the laws against graft and corruption plus the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.

Too many of our lawmakers, however, don’t support any proposal that endangers their personal interests, such as curbs on dynasty building, easing of bank secrecy laws, campaign finance regulation and stricter measures against money laundering.

Instead of waiting for Congress to assist potential whistle-blowers in government, civil society can step in. Lawyers, for example, can set up a website providing guidelines for safe and effective whistle-blowing, for gathering evidence that can stand in court, and what to watch out for in the misuse of public funds and abuse of power.

*      *      *

As one whistle-blower said in an administration rocked by a series of corruption scandals, with the huge amount involved, it would become obvious: “bubukol yan.”

That was Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada, who blew the whistle on the scuttled $329-million national broadband deal between the administration of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and China’s ZTE Corp.

Lozada claimed then Commission on Elections chairman Benjamin Abalos, allegedly with the backing of GMA’s husband Mike Arroyo, had lobbied for the deal with ZTE in exchange for a whopping $130-million commission.

At the time, Lozada was the technical adviser to Romulo Neri, who chaired the National Economic and Development Authority. Neri reportedly told Lozada to live with the reality in a dirty government, but to do what he could to “moderate their greed.”

Any potential whistle-blower in this country will remember what happened to Lozada: after trying to cool his heels in Hong Kong, he was met at the NAIA upon his return by airport and police officials, turned over to armed men who claimed to be police, and driven around for several hours until they were forced to release him because of appeals aired on media by his relatives that he might have been kidnapped.

Worse, none of the persons Lozada implicated in the deal went to prison. Abalos was cleared by the Sandiganbayan in 2016. Months later, it was Lozada who was convicted of graft and sentenced to up to 10 years in prison over a land deal favoring his brother when he headed the state-owned Philippine Forest Corp. from 2007 to 2008.

GMA remains a Pampanga congresswoman; her husband has not been convicted in any graft case. Abalos is back as mayor of Mandaluyong; his son is now secretary of the interior and local government.

Other whistle-blowers, however, have fared better, and are seeing justice take its course.

If we want to excise corruption in our society, we should enable more people to blow the whistle, safely and properly, and expose the rot.