Killer buses

The past week was not a good one for buses (or to be more accurate, for passengers and motorists). First, there was the mishap in Benguet which resulted in 42 fatalities. What made the situation worse was that the crash site had borne witness to a similar accident more than 10 years ago. Second, there was the tragedy in Camarines Sur where a bus, which was trying to overtake a tricycle, hit the vehicle carrying 2009 Binibining Pilipinas International winner Melody Gersbach. This led to the instant death of Melody and two companions. Senseless, preventable deaths if you ask me. The immediate reaction of our authorities was to prescribe stricter drug testing requirements on drivers. Maybe a start but not sure if that is the correct medicine (excuse the pun). My four centavos is that the greater issue lies in the regulation of franchises by the LTFRB and supervision of drivers by the franchise holders. The former should be more selective and discriminating in issuing licenses. The latter should exercise greater responsibility in ensuring that their buses are roadworthy and that their drivers are disciplined and well trained. In this regard, it would seem that the quasi-delict provisions under articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code are no longer sufficient to protect the riding and motoring public. Perhaps our lawmakers should consider imposing a criminal penalty on franchise holders so that they will take their supervisory work over their equipment and personnel more seriously.

And speaking of personnel and equipment, there was of course the incident involving the hijacked Hong-Thai tourist bus. Enough belated backseat driving has happened but the conclusions are fairly clear: our police personnel are poorly trained to handle such situations (a friend remarked that what the police should have done was to disguise one of their snipers as a pizza delivery boy) and that their equipment for dealing with emergencies are substandard (e.g., one jackhammer (or axe) to break down the bus door?). And to think this force is called “Manila’s finest.” This will certainly not encourage tourists to come and visit.

Add to that the proper role of media in covering these real, life and death situations. One needs to balance the public’s right to know on the one hand with the safety of hostages on the other hand. Indeed, the proper protocol and rules of engagement between the government authorities and the media establishments need to be agreed upon now before another emergency occurs.

Bottom line though is that we (as in the Philippines) dropped the ball on this one. No ifs, no buts. After profusely apologizing to the victims and their families, what do we do next? Reader Francis Fuellas suggests that the government engage a reputable, internationally recognized company to train our police authorities on crisis management and handling emergency situations. This will convey the message that we are not only accepting responsibility for the carnage but also doing something about our shortcomings. He adds that “government should stop talking, move on, work and just show results.”

* * *

CoA response: STAR editor-in-chief Isaac Belmonte received a thoughtful letter from Director Rolando Macale of the Commission on Audit’s public information office, reacting to our July 17 column entitled “The Allure of Pagcor”. Director Macale raised two issues: First, he disputed the continuing validity of a provision in PAGCOR’s charter, Presidential Decree 1869, which limited CoA’s audit to the 5% franchise tax and the 50% pertaining to the government’s share in gross earnings. He argues that since this provision was in direct conflict with section 2, article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution, the CoA promulgated Resolution 86-13 signed by then Chairman Teofisto Guingona declaring such provision to be no longer without force and effect. 

I agree. In fact the column stated that: “The legal status of this partial exemption is doubtful given the passage of the 1987 Constitution.” It further validated that “CoA Director Divina Alagon confirmed that it has been conducting not only financial and compliance audit but also value of money audit or a comprehensive audit of all the accounts and operations of PAGCOR.”

Second, Director Macale took exception to the assertion that “CoA may be compromised in its duties as the salaries of the resident CoA auditor and his staff shall be fixed by the CoA Chairman with the advice of the PAGCOR board and said salary and other expenses shall be paid by the Corporation.” We posited a potential conflict of interest situation as the CoA personnel who stand guard in PAGCOR “are getting their bread buttered from the same can of butter.”

 Director Macale pointed out section 22 of PD 1445 or the State Auditing Code, the pertinent sections of which provide:

“(2) The salaries and other forms of compensation of the personnel of the Commission shall follow a common classification and compensation plan regardless of agency assignment;

(3) All officials and employees of the Commission, including its representatives and support personnel shall be paid their salaries, emoluments and allowances directly by the Commission out of its appropriations and contributions.”

So there is an apparent conflict between PD 1869 and PD 1445. I note however that the former is not only a special law but was enacted at a later date as well. So which prevails?

The foregoing said, I trust that CoA is doing its job in respect of PAGCOR which, in 2009, was the third largest revenue contributor to government coffers. I am curious though that in the recent expose regarding the compensation of officers and directors of GOCCs, no one from PAGCOR made it to the list. I find that hard to believe! They have not appeared during the Senate hearings on GOCC compensation as well. Perhaps CoA can let the public know what the PAGCOR salaries were for the past three years.

* * *

 “There is no use talking about the problem unless you talk about the solution.”— Betty Williams

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]