It has been decades since Martial Law was lifted, yet, the debate as to whether Martial Law was declared by then Pres. Ferdinand E. Marcos on September 21, 1972 or September 23, 1972 stays. Likewise, the remnants of such regime, such as, Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile (then Defense Minister) and then Sen. Francisco Tatad (then, Information Minister) have somehow stayed and have either remained in public office or public view. Both of them were architects of the then dreaded Martial Law declaration. Who will ever forget the then well-concocted ambush of then Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile? To recall, this was used as the sole premise for its declaration. This is the same twisted premise that the then Information Minister Francisco Tatad harped as authentic. However, at a time when he (Sen. Enrile) was at the edge, he confessed that the ambush then was staged, not real. Then, in a book that chronicled his life’s triumphs and defeats, he flip-flopped and, then again, asserted, the ambush was real.
Whatever the truth maybe, the fact remains that there are lies in between. Undeniably, the gravity of these lies are exactly of the same extent today or even worst as these supposedly honorable men are either using props or fall guys to also promote or save themselves. On one hand, then Information Minister and Senator Francisco Tatad, whenever is in talk shows (and, recently castigating PNoy for allegedly cuddling Janet L. Napoles), is tagging along persons that are perceived to be clean. Knowing that he is an astute information minister during the Marcos era, it came as no surprise that, ubiquitous as they are, the immaculately clad nuns are serving him as his obedient props. On the other hand, Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, without any hint of hesitance, accused his Chief of Staff of misdeeds to save himself.
However, perceptions as these are, these scenarios are fleeting. Remaining to be factual are those what documents or evidences show. These are documents or evidences that are, more often, disclosed by the Commission on Audit (COA) but are set aside by authorities. Truth to tell, in the examination of the COA of the 2008 financial statements of the National Agribusiness Corporation (NABCOR), PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Fund) releases to bogus NGOs/POs were already noted. Reported on December 11, 2009, the COA stated that P814,334,400 of PDAF releases were made. Of these releases, P330,207,400 went into six (6) NGOs/POs (Kasangga sa Magandang Bukas Foundation, Inc., Kabuhayan at Kalusugang Alay Sa Masa Foundation, Inc., Uswag Guimaras Foundation, Inc., Aaron Foundation Phils., Inc. Gabaymasa Development Foundation, Inc. and Kapuso’t Kapamilya Foundation, Inc.) without supporting letters of recommendations from legislators.
Notably, the COA further stated, among others, that, likewise, there were no project proposals submitted for the livelihood projects implemented by these NGOs/POs. Ironically, these six (6) NGOs/POs did not submit SEC Certificates of Registration, therefore, their existence was highly questionable. Worst, the same report disclosed that checks issued to the aforementioned NGOs/POs were not crossed for deposit. Therefore, the checks issued to these NGOs/POs were, probably, directly encashed. This is an apparent scenario that confirms existence of collusion among NABCOR officers (probably, at the instance of some legislators) and PDAF beneficiaries.
To this, Section 2 (1), Article IX-D of the 1987 Philippine Constitution is very clear. It says that, “The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, and on a post-audit basis: (a) constitutional bodies, commissions and offices that have been granted fiscal autonomy under this Constitution; (b) autonomous state colleges and universities; (c) other government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; and (d) such non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from or through the Government, which are required by law or the granting institution to submit to such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity.†Clearly, the COA is authorized to examine NGOs that are recipient of government funds. Sadly, however, they limited their examinations on the line agencies and government owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs) only. Obviously, the audits on the recipient NGOs were set aside.
Indeed, while it is obvious that people (with formed opinions on personalities) and the media magnify situations where the politicians are perceived to be maliciously involved, it is a fact too that there are multitudes of lapses and violations committed by certain taxpayer-money-leeching NGOs. The audit of these recipient NGOs, should have been accorded with the same importance and magnitude.
For your comments and suggestions, please email foabalos@yahoo.com.