Livestreaming of the entire budget deliberations, including those in the Chamber of Secrets where all the hocus-pocus takes place, the bicameral conference.
Civil society representatives, particularly those with budgeting expertise, sitting in as observers in the House budget deliberations.
Are these sincere reforms in Congress, or mere token gestures?
Cut the lawmakers some slack, o ye of little faith; these are laudable moves for transparency.
The proof of the pudding, however, would be how the 20th Congress handles the National Expenditure Program for 2026. Many of the lawmakers are the same folks responsible for mangling beyond recognition the NEP for this year, institutionalizing thievery and producing the most corrupt budget ever.
At this point, all the newfound commitment to transparency and accountability is still in the realm of OPM – oh promise me – as cringeworthy as lawmakers’ lusty applause for President Marcos when he told them to their face, “mahiya naman kayo!”
BBM, stressing that he’s not (yet) accusing anybody, nevertheless released a list of the top 15 contractors who have been blessed with the lion’s share of flood control projects since 2022. This was juxtaposed with a list of the places that have suffered the worst flooding in the past three years.
Since jumping to conclusions is a national pastime, of course the malicious-minded among us computed one plus one equals two, and inferred the message in BBM’s non-accusatory lists.
We eagerly await the privilege speech next week of Sen. Panfilo Lacson, who says he has been inundated with tips about anomalies since the launch of BBM’s “sumbongsapangulo” website.
What the tipsters want, Lacson says, is some assurance that blowing the whistle will be worth it and this campaign will be pursued to the end, with lawbreakers punished.
In a preview of his privilege speech, Lacson told us yesterday on One News’ “Storycon” that so many crooked schemes have been devised, with the MO terms enough to produce a “corruptionary.” He would be focusing on anomalous projects instead of lawmakers or other public officials suspected of involvement, he said, to avoid accusations of political bias.
BBM has said he wants evidence that will stand in court. Or, as the Department of Justice ordered its prosecutors in a circular in 2023, there must be prima facie proof and a “reasonable certainty of conviction” when putting together a case.
* * *
Already, the Department of Public Works and Highways, tasked to draw up the incriminating lists, has issued an early reality check: it’s complicated to pin lawmakers directly to questionable contracts and guni-guni or imaginary projects, a DPWH official said.
The reason, as in most cases of corruption in this country, is that no signatures or even thumbprints are affixed to rotten deals, kickbacks and payoffs.
Lawmakers may be called out for earmarking projects for funding with their “pork”-type allocations. But they are not signatories to the contracts.
While difficult, however, it’s not impossible to pin down lawmakers. They can be linked if the companies undertaking contracts for the government are owned by their relatives up to the fourth civil degree (there are laws specifying this). Or if the state-funded projects benefit mainly their family-owned resorts, businesses and properties.
Investigation and prosecution would be easier if we have a law against racketeering. But any proposal for such a law is certain to be as DOA, dead on arrival in both chambers of Congress, as proposals to curb dynasty building and regulate campaign finance.
We can’t even break down the impregnable wall built by the former ombudsman, Samuel Martires, to protect the statements of assets, liabilities and net worth of public officials in all three branches of government.
Nothing actually stopped public officials from ignoring Martires’ prohibition and releasing their SALNs, as was the practice in the past. But now that they have experienced the benefits of keeping their SALNs top-secret, there’s no turning back.
* * *
As for donations to campaign kitties, the law offers a loophole: companies undertaking government projects cannot donate to election campaigns, but their owners and executives can do so in a personal capacity.
It does make sense, in a society where corruption is not endemic. If you want to contribute to the campaign of your close friend or someone you truly believe in, for example, why should you be prevented from doing so, in a personal capacity?
But election lawyer Romulo Macalintal points out that the sky’s not the limit here. The amount of such personal donations, he reminds everyone, must be within “reasonable” limits set by law. In this case, that’s Commission on Elections (Comelec) Resolution No. 10772 dated March 2022, which caps a “reasonable donation” at five percent of the donor’s taxable income in the year before the elections.
Determining compliance with the Comelec resolution will require peeking into the taxes paid by the donor. And there must be an authoritative valuation of contributions in kind, such as food and the use of private jets and motor vehicles.
The Comelec has admitted the difficulty of verifying the accuracy of the amounts declared in the statements of contributions and expenditures filed by candidates. The poll body is hoping that the public can help by scrutinizing the SOCEs posted on its website.
Still, the Comelec said yesterday that it would be investigating reports that certain elective officials received contributions from contractors.
BBM has raised hopes of making a dent in endemic corruption, starting with one of the most graft-prone areas, flood control. He has told his allies, in so many words, to moderate their greed.
The government must show that this campaign is no flash in the pan, that it is determined to see this through.