Blue Ribbon Report: Government or NGOs?

THE BLUE Ribbon Committee’s press conference which highlighted the body’s findings may still be in draft form, but it was good to hear that it has moved clearly to submit three of its members of the Senate to the investigative authority of the Ombudsman.

Unfortunately, these processes take time, sometimes more time than necessary; but these are generally acknowledged to be lengthy rather than brief.

It certainly helps to see and to hear evidence of the Senate’s political will to move this forward. The devastation of Yolanda and other developments had taken over the news for sometime now. A seeming slowdown of what is a tedious process had suggested paralysis of action on all fronts. One could not help wonder, even with all the current fuss over the health of Janet Napoles, whether impunity will once again win out, courtesy of forgetfulness and lost memory.

In pre-Martial Law days, the Blue Ribbon Committee was a bright spot in the legislature, the fearless watchdog of those in power. It was usually manned by someone who had “clean hands,” whose name was free of scandal and suspicion, who could fulfill the mandate to go after official malfeasance without fear for his or her name.

Many things were wrong even then. I don’t really think of any past golden era that was free of vice and greed in high office. But there were models, an awareness of standards and a sense of shame over failure of these. At some point, I would guess during the Martial Law period when elections were assured in their favor, the two houses of Congress evolved the culture of an elite club; acting as though they had bought into a most exclusive country or sports club where they could further benefit from mutual arrangements.

We all know now the depths to which official corruptions has descended.

So the Blue Ribbon report is a milestone as it examines the conduct of peers. Even in its draft form, the report deserves attention.

Watching the press conference on TV, I missed any mention of how to deal with these Senators in the meantime. Santiago claims that once the case is filed, which has been done, the Sandiganbayan should release a suspension order. She did not say what the Senate should do in case a motion for reconsideration is filed on behalf of the senators. Knowing how highly paid lawyers work, this will delay the official start of the hearing. Is this something that the Scrap Pork Network will take sitting down or will this move them to march again in protest?

The Ethics Committee could have called for the suspension even pending the Blue Ribbon findings. Plunder is a grievous charge. But what’s an Ethics Committee to do when eight months into the 16th Congress it has not been able to form itself for lack of willing members to undertake the difficult task of confronting one’s peers.

Without Senate consensus about how to deal with colleagues in question, the Report may be regarded only as so much noise that comes to nothing in terms of setting standards. One can always rely on “due process” to delay.

The Blue Ribbon Committee was clearly focused on action to check NGOs. The role of the beneficiary NGOs in PDAF cases is quite simple to understand. The NGOs in this case were created specifically for the purpose of diverting development funds to private pockets, including lining legislator’s pockets with kickbacks.

The report calls for an accreditation process for NGOs; suggesting the need for legislation. But there is the Philippine Council for NGO Certification (PCNC) process that assures donors that the NGOs have a track record of performance and submit to checks for good governance. It is not a perfect or ideal system, but I cannot imagine that a law crafted by Congress can do better. It will just make more work for all NGOs, whether or not they work with public funds.

This emphasis on the role of NGOS in the PDAF scandal should shift to the more appropriate object for blame. NGOs who have been used to funnel pork barrel funds are formed by public officials or their private partners in crime. It is the public officials that name them as partner recipients. The NGO field shows all kinds. There are Gonggos which are formed by government and Bonggos which are formed by business corporations, among others.

The Blue Ribbon Committee needs to focus on how government officials or agencies, elected or appointed, engage NGOs for malfeasance. It would have its hands full also to check on the money that is wasted when government chooses NGO partners for reasons other than a performance record for quality service or expertise.

NGOs can do damage or waste public money. But often, it is through the official fault or default.