Stop the fertilizer fund inquiry? C’mon!

Some congressmen want the Senate to stop its inquiry into the fertilizer fund scam where the principal player, former Agriculture Undersecretary Jocelyn "Joc-Joc" Bolante, has gone MIA, or missing in action.

While Joc-Joc seems to be able to traipse all over the world attending Rotary International conferences as an International Director, he is evidently unable to devote even a little of his precious time to shedding light on the alleged scam by appearing before Senator Ramon Magsaysay Jr.’s Senate Agriculture Committee.

The congressmen’s reasons for demanding a halt to the hearings are, first, that the Senate should observe "inter-parliamentary courtesy" and finish its work on much-delayed legislation; and second, that the senators should also explain how their own pork barrel funds are used.

The first reflects manifestly warped logic. The second is a good idea, but has nothing to do with the fertilizer fund inquiry. In this case, inter-parliamentary courtesy seems to be code for turning a blind and benevolent eye to what the other House is doing.

Clearly, the ideals of transparency and full disclosure would be promoted if the Senate were to explain its usage of pork barrel. What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander. However, that process can go ahead without having to interrupt or totally shelve the inquiry into the fertilizer fund scam.

It just so happens that the Commission on Audit has reported that, in regard to the first fertilizer fund release of P728 million, Usec Bolante submitted a list of 110 congressmen, 53 provincial governors and 26 mayors to back up his fund request. The report also states that in one day, the P728 million was disbursed through a Special Allotment Release Order of the Department of Budget and Management. Naturally, the Senate inquiry should start with this release. It should then consider succeeding audit reports until the entire fertilizer fund allocation of P2.8 BILLION is reviewed. If senators are named as recipients, well, so be it. Maybe the congressmen can investigate that!

The COA findings so far disclosed paint a sordid picture of public funds fraudulently diverted to private pockets. Some, not necessarily incorrigible destabilizers, infer that the funds, given the timing and circumstances of their release, were intended to buy the support of certain local politicians in the last presidential elections. Not all congressmen and local officials were implicated, it is important to note. The names of certain political leaders may have been used without their knowledge.

The basic purpose of the fertilizer fund can’t be quarreled with, although one might quibble with the total amount authorized, as well as the priority accorded the fund, considering other pressing national needs such as education and health care.

Still, if the audit findings are accurate, what happened here was a massive raid of the National Treasury. There was gross overpricing. Money was given to fictitious non-government organizations and so-called foundations which later "evaporated without a trace" (Rep. Migs Zubiri’s phrase) like the liquid fertilizer some of them bought.

In addition, there were fictitious recipients of funds. Some congressmen and local officials identified as beneficiaries of the fund swore they didn’t receive a centavo. Blatant fund diversions were inexplicably justified as allowed under "regulations" governing the use of the fertilizer fund.

For example, the report shows that liquid fertilizer was bought for P800 per bottle when the same commodity could be purchased in the market for P58.50 to P90.54, an overpricing of up to 1,300 percent.

Funds were allegedly released to NGOs and foundations specifically designated by Department of Agriculture officials, or to particular suppliers chosen by the said officials. When contacted by the auditors, the addresses of many of these foundations and suppliers turned out to be fictitious. Many of these entities never existed, or disappeared soon after the funds were disbursed. How obvious can one get!

Congressmen and local government officials who were named as recipients of the funds subsequently denied ever receiving any amounts. Others claimed they received funds without having requested for any. A good number in the latter category were officials in urban areas where fertilizers were demonstrably useless. But many couldn’t look a gift horse in the mouth and used the money for other supposedly useful purposes.

Some funds didn’t go to fertilizers, liquid or otherwise, but were devoted to such claimed necessities as "garbage shredders" or "concrete roads." DA guidelines allegedly put fertilizers in roughly the same category as garbage shredders, although the logic of this classification is not immediately evident.

The more astute among the LGU officials managed to "realign" the largesse from the Department of Agriculture so as to build concrete and asphalt roads in their areas, projects normally within the purview of the Department of Public Works and Highways.

On the other hand, farmers’ groups have come out openly to assert that neither they nor any farms in their localities actually received the badly-needed fertilizers. The extent of this anomaly must be ascertained and responsible officials in the Agriculture Department identified and punished.

There are enough eyebrow raisers in the COA audit to warrant a thorough-going investigation. It may indeed be true that the DBM is responsible only for the timely release of the budgeted funds, while the recipients are responsible for accounting for their proper utilization. The government audit indicates that the beneficiaries may have failed to discharge that responsibility. Presumably, they were afforded fair opportunity to dispute the COA findings.

In any event, the way to get to the bottom of this mess is not to pretend it never existed or divert public attention to someone else’s dirty laundry. That’s what the demand for a halt to the Senate inquiry amounts to. It is unclear whether the ostensibly offended congressmen airing the demand were among those who received fertilizer funds.

The demand is suspicious and makes absolutely no sense. All right-thinking citizens and those who do not believe, like P.T. Barnum, that one (a sucker, that is) is born every minute, should forthwith consign this demand to the garbage heap, where we hope it will be dealt with by a shredder that wasn’t purchased with fertilizer funds.