Clarifications are needed, to prevent the spread of reckless driving. More so, in light of alibis of the bus driver who rear-ended a taxi and so killed journalist Chit Estella weeks ago.
The driver blames it all on the cabbie and another bus driver who sideswiped the taxi moments before. Supposedly that grazing caused the taxi to brake suddenly, so he couldn’t avoid rear-ending it. That’s wrong. As a rule, a good driver doesn’t tailgate, for he never knows if and when the vehicle in front would make a sudden stop. Anyone who rear-ends is likely at fault.
There are international motoring rules on keeping safe distance between two cruising vehicles. They’re based on the average human perception and reaction time to recognize potential hazard and step on the brake, and vehicle braking capability based on speed, weight, and condition of brake, tires and road (sloping or wet). Experts, like Johnny Angeles, Automobile Association Philippines, say it’s one car-length, about three meters, for every 10 kph of speed. This allows ample time and space for a responsible driver to brake when the vehicle in front slows down. There’s a 60-kph speed limit on Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City, where Chit’s fatal collision occurred. The bus driver should’ve maintained a gap of at least six car-lengths behind the taxi, better if six bus-lengths given the size and heavy passenger load. He obviously didn’t, and so crumpled the taxi’s trunk and rear cabin from his impact.
Further, a law-abiding driver should not leave the crash scene. Exceptions are only to summon the police or a doctor, or to avoid real, not imagined, imminent danger, like if the vehicle catches fire or people may hurt him. This is stated in the Land Transportation and Traffic Code of 1964 (R.A. 4136), Section 55. The bus driver fled the scene with the conductor, and turned himself in to the cops only a week later.
* * *
A survey was run of how Americans would react in this situation: “You’re in a deserted basement parking, past 10 p.m., and notice on the floor a wad of ten $100-bills. What would you do?”
Thirty percent of respondents said they would report and return the money to the owner. Twenty percent said they’d pocket the $1,000 for themselves. Fifty percent didn’t know what to do. Yup, in America’s supposedly straight society, half of the citizens don’t know what’s right.
Another set of respondents were asked to react to a modified situation: “You are in a basement parking at high noon, people are walking in and out, there are conspicuous rows of security cameras, and you notice on the floor a wad of ten $100-bills. What would you do?”
The researchers calculated a 30-percent chance of discovery in the second scenario, compared to zero in the first. The result this time was very different. Those who would report and return the money more than doubled from 30 to 75 percent. Those who’d pocket the $1,000 dwindled from 20 to only five. And only 20 percent didn’t know what to do.
Lesson: the vast majority would do right if they know they’d be detected, possibly even penalized, for doing wrong.
Atty. Gerard Mosquera usually opens his graft-fighting lectures with the graphic survey. The Presidential Commissioner on Good Government does so to point up two basics. One, corruption is a multifaceted human behavior requiring a multidisciplinary solution. Two, the certainty of exposure and punishment is the best deterrrent.
The Office of the Ombudsman, as lead anti-corruption agency, seems unaware of the two points. It views the menace as mostly legal in nature and so employs mostly legal answers. Unlike the anti-corruption units of Hong Kong and Singapore, the Ombudsman doesn’t see much use for crime investigators, money-laundering analysts, computer forensic specialists, psychologists, medical professionals, or media experts. Non-lawyers are treated as second-class citizens. Even in harnessing legal skills the agency is crass. Reportedly before resigning May 6 Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez promoted 30 lawyers, mostly from loyalty. Bypassed were four attorneys who refused to suck up, yet have master’s degrees in national security or management. Eighty percent of Ombudsman resources are concentrated on its least concern of adjudicating little fights in little barangays. Gutierrez bragged of having been busy educating regional bureaucrats and local politicians on the evils of graft. While such program is important, its message did not sink in because her tenure also sat on celebrated cases, making it look like stealing pays.
Mosquera, one of several aspirants for Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, was a sub in 2003-2005 of then-Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo. He laments that the Philippines is always cited among the sleaziest states by international surveys and studies. The Ombudsman ranks among the least credible agencies. What the office needs at this point, Mosquera says, are quick successes in investigations, prosecutions and convictions. Plus, preventions like computerizing or instant victims’ reporting of bribery. No official would steal if he’s sure to be caught, exposed in public, taken to court, dismissed from office, fined and jailed.
* * *
Atty. Gloria A. Fortun of Imus, Cavite, writes: “We support the opening of a bank account for Col. George Rabusa, where citizens can contribute to his efforts to make those military officers account for public funds. A Rabusa Fund Drive against Corruption is timely. Its outcome might even surprise us.”
Ernie del Rosario: “In listing the officials whom the Ombudsman has reinstated, you failed to mention the Comelec managers involved in the overpriced ballot-secrecy folders. Executive Director Jose Tolentino and all the members of the bids-awards committee were suspended for six month pending investigation. No charges were filed.”
* * *
Catch Sapol radio show, Saturdays, 8-10 a.m., DWIZ, (882-AM).
E-mail: jariusbondoc@workmail.com