I was drafting the Health and Sanitation Code of the City of Bogo, Cebu, the other night when, as part of a virtual multi-tasking, I kept changing television channels in search of updated news more on the South East Asian games than on typhoon Tisoy. The government-owned national television, whose programming I do not prefer to watch over the other networks, showed President Rodrigo Duterte delivering a speech before a captive crowd. In the president’s speech, he gave an order to the Office of the Solicitor General to craft an agreement apparently with two giant corporations servicing Metro Manila’s water needs, namely Maynilad Water Services Inc., and Manila Water.
It seemed to me that President Duterte was reacting to two arbitration rulings promulgated by international tribunals (the president mentioned one in Singapore) ordering the Philippine government to pay to these two giant water providers billions of pesos. Honestly, I have not read the documents myself and so I am in no position to know how prejudiced we, as a nation, are but the president must have been grossly incensed by such decisions. For all we know, the president felt that the arbitrators conclusion were anchored on flawed basis. And he could be so correct in his posture that he deserved our collective national applause. Even then, his voice was obviously toned down but I could sense that he was seething deep inside him. Wanting to be as accurate as possible, I hoped to get the exact words of the president but I was unprepared that moment such that I could not quote his order verbatim.
President Duterte, as much as I can recall, directed the Office of the Solicitor General, to prepare a contract “favorable to the government” and for Sol Gen Calida to ask the water providers to sign it. There was a tinge of a warning of some kind against the would-be other parties to the supposed contract namely Maynilad and Manila Water, should they refuse to agree with what may be written in the document. The president did not say in specific terms and unequivocal language what repercussions may come against those who might figuratively rebuke him. But his vocal expression said it all. It was not different when he warned Sen Leila De Lima of what was coming to her shortly before she got incarcerated. The tone of the president’s voice was of the same timber when he hinted on the impeachment of then Chief Justice Ma Lourdes Sereno.
There was something in the substance of his directive that was more perplexing to me than just the voice of the president. To be sure, I was disturbed by the words he used. When he directed the Solicitor General to prepare a contract “FAVORABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT,” I could not help but notice a red flag indelibly imbedded in his message. The president minced no words. His message was clear. Make a document to favor the government, meaning, the people. I am using the word disturbed because I could not understand my feelings. My ordinary man’s mind should welcome and be happy with the essence of the contract. If the document should indeed be favorable to government, it should consequently favor us, the citizens.
There was absence of parity in the president’s directive. The president is the proverbial father of the nation. He must espouse the ideal that a contract is supposed to be a meeting of the minds of the parties. Fairness is the rule. Seemingly, this was not what the president wanted specially if we consider the veiled threat he made. Why not ask the Solicitor General to prepare a document that is fair both the government and the water providers? If the previous (or current) contract is not favorable to the government, is it necessarily unfavorable to the republic? If so, the president should direct that it be made fair to the contracting parties. In this context, the president is unfair.