Regularity

There is a distinct element of the Keystone Cops in this case involving what the media has taken to calling the “Euro generals.”

By their account, the police officers caught in this scandal took out a lot of pesos from the PNP’s intelligence fund, converted the money into a whole lot of Euros and then lugged the cash halfway across the globe. Why they did that — if indeed that was what happened — is mind-boggling.

The US dollar, even as it might have fallen into some disrepute lately, remains a thoroughly negotiable instrument in Europe. The “Euro generals” would have had an easier time buying dollars from our local money changers. They would, of course, have benefited from a better rate if they bought their dollars from any of our banks.

As policemen, they would have known that it is not illegal to purchase foreign currency in this country. Millions of dollars are bought and sold in the local money market everyday.

But that still begs the question: why carry cash? As policemen, they ought to have known that customs authorities at every port require travelers to formally declare large amounts of cash they carry.

As men of this modern world, they should have known that credit cards work as well in every country except Iran, Cuba and North Korea. If it is any consolation, there is nothing much to buy in these three countries anyway, unless one is in the market for antique Persian rugs, tons of good cigars or a bucket of plutonium.

At any rate, the PNP leadership and the National Police Commission have acted quickly. A 100-page report, the result of exhaustive investigation into the Moscow incident, has been prepared and furnished the appropriate agencies including the Senate foreign relations committee chaired by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago.

PNP chief Jesus Verzosa and DILG Secretary Ronaldo Puno, who jointly supervised the investigation, ordered the filing of a slew of cases against freshly retired police director Eliseo de la Paz and several other senior officers responsible for the unauthorized release of money. They will be charged with malversation of public funds, violation of the graft and corrupt practices act as well as breach of Bangko Sentral regulations. In addition, they will be administratively charged for failing to observe customs regulations regarding the declaration of currency carried across borders.

The boom has been lowered on the erring officers and the penalties will be unremitting.

More important, Verzosa ordered the responsible PNP offices to review and update procedures covering official travel abroad as well as the rules covering the practice of drawing cash advances. The Moscow incident did reveal a lot of loopholes in institutional control and supervision in the PNP. The reforms that should soon be undertaken will help avert possible abuse in the future.

The prompt and comprehensive response of the PNP chief and the DILG secretary reassures the public that due process, which protects the interest of the public as well as the rights of the accused, remains not only a viable option but also a reliable method.

There are inherent dangers in failing to presume regularity in the operation of our public institutions and preempting the duly-designated process with a politically-driven “inquiry in aid of legislation.” We saw that in the recent Senate hearing on the Moscow incident. While that hearing was, no doubt, high in entertainment value it was low in administrative probity.

When the principal culprit in this case, retired police general Eliseo de la Paz, decided to seek Supreme Court clarification regarding the foreign relations committee’s jurisdiction over the matter, the committee chair dramatically ordered his arrest. It turns out the Senate’s own rules requires a quorum for the committee (which was not met) and a specified number of concurring members to decide on an arrest warrant.

If the Senate keeps up this thing of arresting all who might be persons of interest in its highly inquisitorial proceedings, this chamber will be in danger of becoming an odd concentration camp. Already there is that self-designated “ZTE whistleblower” inhabiting the Senate like an unwanted ghost from some inconclusive controversy. Then, in addition, the ailing Jocjoc Bolante, a person of interest from a long concluded inquiry. Then maybe the eight police officers who traveled to St. Petersburg who, more properly, should be facing the administrative charges recommended by the National Police Commission.

Since the Senate hearings tend to be both politically- and publicity-driven, the temptation to excess will be constantly overpowering.

For instance, in the last hearing, committee chair Santiago, who had no love lost for the DILG secretary, bore down hard on the latter and prematurely concluded that Puno, in allowing the PNP delegation to attend the Interpol conference in Russia, violated Administrative Order 103 that calls for frugality in government and restricts official travel. She overlooked the fact that the unreasonably restrictive provisions covering official travel in AO 103 have been superseded by the more rational provisions of EO 459.

EO 459 assigns to heads of agencies the authority to permit reasonable official travel. In the light of our many international obligations, EO 459 is immensely more reasonable. Puno permitted the attendance of the PNP delegation to the Interpol meeting entirely within the provisions of this executive order.

True, congressional oversight is very often required when our regular institutional procedures fail. But until these procedures have demonstrably failed, congressional oversight should stay as the option of last recourse. The regularity of our normal investigative and supervisory procedures must be presumed. Otherwise, every incident will degenerate into a political circus and the rights of our public officials will be regularly trampled upon.