With the onset of the rainy season, expect to deal with flooded streets in the metropolitan area. I mean, really expect to deal with flooded streets. Be on Ondoy mode.
The reason for this is that the MMDA, instead of developing a comprehensive infra plan to deal with the floods, chose to merely put up signs warning commuters that certain streets are prone to flooding. Those signs look like white flags of surrender. They seem to be telling us that the floods will come and nothing will be done about them.
So outraged are two congressmen about the MMDA’s inaction on the flooding that they proposed the flood-control program in the NCR be returned to the DPWH. If the MMDA feels they are not up to the task of protecting the capital region’s economy from floods, they might as well yield control over the program to another agency that might be more capable.
Valenzuela Rep. Magtanggol Gunigundo, whose city was once above water, is particularly agitated. He insists that “as far as flood control in concerned, DPWH has the engineering know-how and expertise.”
Perhaps the same can be said about the MMDA’s effort to keep smoke-belchers off the road. All studies show that the critical air pollution level in the metropolitan area is due to vehicular emissions. These are the findings of both a World Bank study and a UP College of Medicine report. Yet the MMDA’s emission enforcers are rarely visible on the streets, allowing the pollution to happen.
One need not be a rocket scientist to figure out that bad traffic management aggravates the problem with uncontrolled emissions. The longer vehicles are stalled in traffic, the more poison they emit.
Since the new MMDA crew took over, we have seen no improvement in traffic management. Like the signs warning of flood-prone streets, what has improved are the notices on Twitter about how traffic is moving (or, more accurately, not moving) on certain key avenues. Otherwise, commuters are just as exasperated about the amount of time and fuel required to get from one point to the next.
Much was said about installing speed scanners along Commonwealth Avenue, dubbed the Killer Highway. Yet fatal accidents continue to happen on this notorious road.
Much was said about installing CCTV cameras on major thoroughfares to enhance public safety. Apart from the cameras that show clogged traffic on the MMDA monitoring center, we have seen very little of the new technology deployed to effectively matter in curtailing crimes against persons and property.
With all the urgent problems regarding flooding, jammed traffic flow and unsafe thoroughfares, the MMDA has chosen to prioritize a campaign against smoking in the streets. Last week, the MMDA issued confusing orders expanding the coverage of the existing Tobacco Regulation Act to include smoking in the streets.
Granted that the measure, said to be encouraged by a multimillion-peso grant from the Bloomberg Initiative, may draw on medical and social concerns, it is not clear what is allowed and disallowed. There are issues raised of priority and enforceability.
For years, smokers have obediently stepped out of buildings to smoke in the streets. With the new order, should they step back into the enclosed spaces to indulge? The significant population of smokers want to know.
With its eternal personnel shortages, should the MMDA divert people from, say, managing traffic flow, checking emissions and clearing drains to run after possibly tens of thousands of smokers who step out of buildings for a puff? Are there designated areas for them to do this or should we force those who indulge in this concededly unhealthy habit to go underground?
Continuity
After the former Ombudsman and one of her deputies were forced from office by an administration-led campaign, the work of this constitutional agency has understandably been disrupted.
Today, the long process of certifying and screening nominees for the post has just begun. There is debate about whether the choice of the new Ombudsman should be one effectively made by mechanisms in the judicial branch or one defined by the political preference of the Chief Executive.
A list of 27 nominees is being considered and will now undergo a series of interviews. Time is of the essence here since the Ombudsman Act of 1989 requires the President of the Republic to appoint a replacement within three months after a vacancy. The vacancy was created last month after Merceditas Gutierrez resigned her post.
Among the nominees on dock to replace Gutierrez is Acting Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro himself. His nomination is endorsed, among others, by the 900-strong Ombudsman Employees Association (OMBEA).
The endorsement is understandable. Casimiro worked with the agency since 1991, when he started out as a Graft Investigation Officer. From the ranks, he was promoted to director, to assistant ombudsman to officer-in-charge of the Overall Deputy Ombudsman.
Since assuming in an acting capacity the post vacated by Gutierrez, Casimiro tried to speed up the pace of work in the agency. In a matter of weeks, he oversaw the filing of numerous cases before the Sandiganbayan.
All things being equal among the nominees to the vital constitutional post, Casimiro clearly represents the best bet for continuity. As a knowledgeable insider in the agency, he represents the shortest learning curve required to put this constitutional body into full harness. Being a career officer, he is not identified with the networks of partisanship that now dangerously impinge on the work of the anti-graft body.
There are enough reasons to take this particular nomination seriously.