Category: pork barrel

who is ma’am arlene? wanted: whistleblowers in the judiciary

on the eve of the first day of oral arguments in the supreme court re the TRO on what’s left of the PDAF, philippine star columnist jarius bondoc tossed in this bomb:

Just call her Ma’am Arlene – the Judiciary’s version of Janet Lim Napoles.

She throws birthday bashes for Appellate Court justices and trial court judges, and bankrolls their family junkets abroad. She is the magistrates’ go-to girl if they need to give an offspring an expensive graduation or wedding gift. She makes them dependent on her, for a reason.

Cases are won depending on which Ma’am Arlene’s rich client-litigant is. Her connections are not limited to the courts, but extend all the way to the Department of Justice and the Office of the Ombudsman. She is notorious as a fixer of cases, with investigators, prosecutors, and magistrates, mostly in Metro Manila. She has counterparts in other big cities.

Ma’am Arlene always gets what she wants. That’s because, sources say, court bigwigs and key personnel are in her secret payroll. The justices’ spouses are yearly recipients of luxurious birthday gifts. No one turns her down, lest she spill the beans on them.

Her criminal generosity knows no limits. But some magistrates avoid her. For, she has the funny habit of bragging about her connections. It’s no different from Napoles reportedly telling her employees that this senator or that congressman “is asking for money again.” Riding around town in as snazzy SUVs like Ma’am Janet does, she “owns the Judiciary” like the latter “own the Congress.” And, oh, like Napoles, Ma-am Arlene is no lawyer. Yet she “lawyers” inside chambers, for such “honorable clients” as a flour importer who allegedly also brings in banned substances.

a bomb that has yet to explode because this arlene woman has yet to be identified…

Bondoc did not provide the full name of Arlene, but court sources said she is married to a former judiciary official who is close to a prominent member of the prosecution service. She reportedly worked in the Arroyo administration. http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2013/10/10/1243487/napoles-judiciary  … court sources said she is known even to court employees, adding she is a native of Iloilo and related to a suspected Chinese smuggler of flour.  http://cefa.ph/sc-probes-maam-arlene/

… and evidence has yet to be presented.  googling ma’am arlene, i found posted on abs-cbn‘s facebook page a link to Sereno: Find judiciary’s own ‘Mrs. Napoles’ where the chief justice says there are many stories of hoodlums in robes but no evidence, and she doesn’t know if this arlene is involved.  and this comment:

Naku naman Madam Chief Justice, halos lahat ng nasa judiciary alam na kung sino si Madam Arlene, mukhang ikaw na lang ang di naka-kilala sa kanya?!

if true, and i have no reason to doubt jarius, then it would be interesting should the call for whistleblowers a la benhur luy to come forward prove futile.  this arlene woman must be doing something “right” that napoles didn’t?  no paper trails?  no records?  or maybe she’s just paying her staff really well and maybe treating them like family?  or, speaking of family, maybe it’s as simple as: she doesn’t have a daughter thoughtlessly flaunting her wealth on the internet?  puwede ring, all of the above.

It’s the system, stupid!

By  Calixto V. Chikiamco

WILL abolishing the pork barrel remove graft and corruption in government? Will it, in actuality, be even abolished?

The answer is no. We know that the “pork barrel” in the form of the Priority Development Funds (PDAF) already existed in a previous life as “Countrywide Development Funds.” Different name, same substance, same shameless greed. There’s also a new beast, which recently surfaced, called DAP or Disbursement Acceleration Program, ostensibly to accelerate economic growth but whose spending is at the discretion of certain favored legislators. Pork, by any other name. Then, there are the congressional insertions, which former Senator Panfilo Lacson says is bigger and more prone to abuse than the PDAF.

Just as banning politicians from running again beyond specific terms, or term limits, didn’t eliminate political dynasties, removing the pork barrel isn’t going to make it go away. The system is corrupt and demands it. The PDAF and its variants will be resurrected in some form, when the public’s anger has been mollified or some entertainment scandal diverts the public attention. And if there’s another outcry, the President can always say “So, impeach me.” What then?

The Freedom of Information (FOI) bill is no panacea, contrary to the claim of its adherents. If the FOI bill becomes law, will public officials suddenly become transparent and share information with the public? They can always conjure some excuse not to give or delay giving the information, especially if, as the Napoles scam revealed, significant parts of the bureaucracy are part of the conspiracy. It will end up like RA 9485 or the Anti-Red Tape Act, good on paper, but nobody follows it.

To address the roots of the pork barrel controversy, not only should the pork barrel and its variants be scrapped, but political reforms must also be undertaken by: a.) establishing a genuine political party system; b.) the state financing of political parties and electoral campaigns; and, c.) re-establishing Congress’s power of the purse through the Budget Impoundment and Control Bill. All of these — a genuine political party system, state financing of political parties and electoral campaigns, and clear separation of powers — are principal features of modern democracies. We don’t have any of that, and that’s why the system is so corrupt and the incentive is to keep on creating variants of the pork barrel.

A genuine political party system will help curb corruption and improve governance on several fronts: First, it will increase public accountability. How can voters punish the ones who supported the corrupt Arroyo government under KAMPI and Lakas when its members just switched to the Liberal Party and other pro-Aquino parties, helped along by the gravy that the incumbent president doles out?

Second, a genuine political party system can help raise funds legally through public contributions or through state funding, unlike in the present system where individual politicians have to rely on their own devices to fund increasingly expensive political campaigns.

Third, it can help train politicians to be “leaders in waiting” and helps solve the “collective action” problem of the political class. The lack of genuine political parties in which politicians can be trained and seasoned is one reason the President has to rely on a small coterie of kaklase, kabarkada, and kabarilan (classmates, friends and fellow gun-lovers) Genuine political parties can bring policy stability, especially in the economic area, unlike now where factional, family, and personal interests drive policy. Currently, lawmakers have to be “bribed” with incentives such as the DAP to support policies and this not only corrupts the system, but also intensifies policy instability because money, rather than merits, dictates the outcome.

As for state financing for political parties and electoral campaigns, we need it because modern political campaigns have become increasingly expensive, especially in a presidential system. What fool will spend, say P100 million from his own pocket for a congressional campaign, without any expectation of return?

Banning the pork barrel doesn’t mean that legislators will have no way to get their money back, The Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) has exposed, after analyzing the Statement of Election Contributions and Expenditures submitted by candidates and their parties to the Commission on Election, that some of the biggest donors to the May 2013 election campaign were public works contractors with pending government contracts and officials from regulated industries like public utilities, mining, ports, and gambling. They’re all covered by a list of prohibited donors under the law. This means that the people’s money can be stolen via overpriced contracts or decisions that favor these regulated industries at the public expense.

If legislative pork is to be abolished, presidential pork has to go as well, because if it doesn’t, it will only worsen the situation where Congress doesn’t really have the power of the purse, but the Office of the President does. This imbalance between the Executive and the Legislative over fiscal matters is at the root of all evils and a violation of the separate but equal principle in the Constitution. This is the why the Legislature couldn’t act as a check to the abuses of former President Arroyo and why congressmen switch willy-nilly to whoever is the party in power.

The Malampaya Fund, the Presidential Social Fund, the funds of Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation and Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office should all revert to the general fund and its releases subject to scrutiny by Congress. Moreover, the Budget Impoundment and Control bill, proposed by no less than President Aquino when he was senator, should be passed, to stop the president from exercising his unchecked powers to impound or “the refusal of the President, for whatever reason, to release funds appropriated by Congress.” In other words, all appropriations in the national budget should automatically be released in accordance with the purposes authorized by Congress, and if the President refuses to release it for whatever reason, he has to go back to Congress for review and approval.

It’s the Budget Impoundment and Control Bill, not the FOI, that’s key to bringing sanity back to the system and preventing the Executive branch from bribing Congressmen to do its bidding. Ideas and policies, not money and bribery, then will govern the President’s relations with Congress.

Scrap the pork barrel, but change the system.

Guingona is right on Napoles

By Dean Tony La Viña

Should Janet Napoles be compelled to testify before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee on the PDAF scam? Or is this unwise, given the fact that she, with others, have now been charged for plunder and other crimes before the Ombudsman?

Senator TG Guingona has invoked the Senate’s prerogative to call any witness before it for investigations in aid of legislation. He has argued that the Senate investigation on the pork-barrel fund scam would not be complete without the testimony of Napoles, and that he would not allow anyone to obstruct the bid of his committee to ferret out the truth.

Senate President Franklin Drilon, on the other hand, refused to sign the subpoena for the so-called “Pork Barrel Queen” in deference to the opinion of the Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales who earlier said that it would not be advisable for Napoles to come to the Senate. The Ombudsman later modified this to say that calling Napoles to testify is up to the collective wisdom to the Senate.

My understanding is that this issue will now be brought to a vote before the plenary of the Senate.

Let us examine the jurisprudential and legal support both sides have invoked to support their positions.

The power of the Senate to conduct legislative instigations is enshrined in Section 21 of Article VI of the Constitution. Explaining the rationale behind this authority, the pre-eminent constitutionalist, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, citing the landmark case of Arnault vs. Nazareno, said that “The power of legislative inquiry is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change. Where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information—which is not infrequently true—recourse must be had to others who might possess it.”

On the other side, Justice Secretary De Lima took the cudgels for the Ombudsman by invoking the confidentiality rule under Rule 5 of the Ombudsman Rules of Procedure Rule 5 to the effect that “When circumstances so warrant and with due prudence, the Office of the Ombudsman may publicize in a fair and balanced manner the filing of a complaint, grievance or request for assistance, and the final resolution, decision or action taken thereon: Provided, however, that prior to such final action, no publicity shall be made of matters which may adversely affect national security or public interest, prejudice the safety of witnesses or the disposition of the case, x x x ” This supplements the Ombudsman Act (R.A. 6770) which allows the Ombudsman, under its rules and regulations, to determine what cases may not be made public.

In my view, the weight of authority seems to tilt heavily in favor of the power of the Senate to summon Janet Lim-Napoles to testify over and above the confidentiality rule being invoked by the Ombudsman and her supporters.

First. As pointed out by retired Chief Justice Reynato Puno, this constitutional right to investigate in aid of legislation cannot be defeated nor diminished by any confidentiality rule, which is only found in the rules of procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman. An administrative rule can never negate a constitutional grant of power. Indeed in the hierarchy of laws, the Constitution prevails over a mere rule of procedure of an administrative body.

Second. The weight of jurisprudence also veers decidedly in favor of the importance of Senate investigations over other kinds investigations, be it judicial or quasi-judicial. The case of Standard Chartered Bank vs. Senate Committee on Banks, Financial Institutions and Currencies is instructive. Here, the Court categorically stated that the mere filing of a criminal or an administrative complaint before a court or quasi-judicial body should not automatically bar the conduct of legislative investigation. Otherwise, it would be extremely easy to subvert any intended inquiry by Congress through the convenient ploy of instituting a criminal or an administrative complaint.

Third, as a consequence of the previous arguments, a Senate decision that emasculates its own authority will be precedent for other cases. If Napoles is not subpoenaed, others in the same category (those where charges have been filed but no probably cause yet determines) should be excused from a Senate investigation. Napoles cannot be treated as if she is an exception to the rule. If she is not compelled to testify, then the Senate would have adopted what would be become an infamous Napoles rule that would effectively decapacitate Senate power and independence.

Finally, there is an important political function that the Senate investigation fulfills. The truth is that the results of the criminal process will probably not be known for five, maybe even up to 10 years with appeals expected if there are convictions. The Senate investigation can however be completed once Napoles testifies even if she invokes her right to self-incrimination, which is speculative at this juncture. Without her testimony, the Senate cannot come up with conclusions and a final report, as that would be unfair to Napoles. Basic fairness dictates that she should be given a chance to give her side. It does not matter if she says nothing when she appears as long as she has been invited and asked the right questions. Then the committee can make findings about her and not be unfair. Without subpoenaing her and asking her questions, the Senate cannot make conclusions about her role and therefore about anybody else.

Simply put, compel Napoles to testify before the Senate. The transcendental importance of the subject of investigation and the very high public interest in her testimony and the resultant conclusion of the Senate investigation far outweighs the concerns about her appearance.

notes on makati the rally

i had not planned to go, thinking that katrina could move more freely, even help out backstage as she did in previous rallies, if she didn’t have her nanay to make alalay, pero ang bumungad sa akin sa facebook that morning were many statuses altogether warning of evil forces out to hijack the scrapPork movement, the alleged agenda being to shift public anger away from charged plunderers enrile, estrada, revilla over their thieving use of millions of PDAF bucks, and to redirect the fury toward the president and his budget sec abad for channeling billions in savings into a DAP for porkbarrel-like purposes, which (it is feared) could only lead to oust-aquino conspiracies fuelled and funded by the sinister forces embodied by enrile estrada revilla if not the binays and the marcoses, among other threatened oligarchs.

it reminded me that from the first luneta rally, the call was already for the abolition of ALL pork.  this was long before the DAP expose(y), when all we were going on was leonor briones’s and neri colmenares’s detailing of the 2014 budget’s trillion pesos in presidential pork that included billions in unspecified special purpose funds from which the PDAF is drawn.  even then, there were dissenters who carefully, deliberately, went on the record to say they were for reform, not abolition, but that they were going to luneta anyway.  this time, it would seem, they chose to stay away and just nag, kibitz, from the bleachers.

i wondered, even then, why they did not organize their own march instead, in support of the president’s promise to reform the pork barrel system.  and i ask now, why do they not organize their own rally instead, in support of DAP, i.e., in support of the president through thick and thin, through tuwidnadaan and likoliko, simply because there is no one better and an ouster would mean a dreaded binay presidency?  the pro-PNoy contingent should be a huge one, if we go by the trust ratings.  or maybe, not all might be willing to surface as they could be suspected of vested interests, e.g., kumikita, nakikinabang, directly or indirectly, somehow, somewhere, sometimes, sa pork barrel system?

because, seriously, if their disapproval of the abolish-all-pork movement is purely the major major fear of an underhanded hijack by the marcoses and enriles and estradas that would install binay and UNA, then they are only contributing to that very possibility by criticizing the movement from the outside, i.e., by being divisive rather than being part of the united front and helping keep the devils at bay from the inside.  nakakahinayang dahil karamihan sa mga negang ito sa social media ay kabilang sa kulturati’t literating tinatawag, napakarami nilang followers, ang daming bilib, naniniwala, sa kanila, and i’m not even counting the purely sipsip.

at tungkol naman sa puna na sa kababanat sa pangulo at sa kanyang pork, hindi na nababanggit sina enrile, revilla, at estrada, na tila daw pinapawalang-sala na ang mga ito…   on the contrary.  huling huli na ang mga ito, may nakalap nang mga ebidensiya, may kaso nang nakasampa sa ombudsman, and we are trusting that the justice system will finish the job.  meanwhile, puwede nang ibaling ang atensiyon sa iba pang legislators na hinihinala rin ng publiko na kumita rin ng limpaklimpak na kickback sa PDAF at DAP, pinagnakawan rin ang bayan, ngunit kung magsalita at umasta ay para bagang mga santo santito.

at totoo rin naman na sa pangulo, higit sa lahat, nakatuon nakadiin nakatutok ang pinakamatitindi at nanggagalaiting puna.  after all, it is the executive department that has the power to abolish all pork and investigate and take to court all plunderers.  also, it is the executive department that is called on to come up with an alternative strategy, clean and coherent and competent, for inclusive economic growth.  alas, he has instead, along with congress, asked the supreme court to lift the TRO on the remaining PDAF.  mapapatanong ka: sino kaya talaga ang boss niya?

as for the suspicion that the rallies are being funded by forces out to oust the prez… as far as i know, the groups comprising the broad scrapPork coalition, from left right and center, all contribute what they can to the cause.  and from what i saw of the makati rally, i’m convinced there’s no money going around to either mess up or disrupt or hijack the movement.  if anything, the makati rally was such a level-up from the luneta march-cum-picnic where people and groups were scattered and largely left to their own devices.

in fact it’s the best rally i’ve been to yet.  it didn’t feel like a small crowd that gathered around the stage, and it was quite a mixed crowd, seemed like a micro of the macro that went to luneta, including the guardians who went on stage briefly to express their support.  the messages from the different sectors were focused.  mini-lectures by liddy nakpil, ganni tapang, and leonor briones, complete with pie charts atbp., in simple tagalog that everyone could understand, were enlightening, reinforcing, affirming.  a brief but pointed speech from national artist for literature bien lumbera promised the president na hindi ito tatantanan at patuloy na uukilkilin hanggat di naa-abolish ang pork.  mae paner was a riot — oo nga, ninoy, tulungan mo naman kami… lol, laughter to kill the pain.  and the music, especially the songs of the tres marias (cooky chua, lolita carbon, and bayang barrios), songs of love for nation, touched deeply.  and coritha singing her anthems to freedom back in the bad old days of martial rule was an eloquent reminder of how little has changed since that freedom was won.

here’s a quickie kuwento from mae paner, swiped (with her permission) from a facebook thread that was an interesting — even upbeat, despite the fears and disagreements — postmortem on the ayala rally.

Mae Paner : sa MPM@Ayala kasama ko ang mga taong simbahan may mga militar na tahimik na sumusuporta, at ang mga kabataan na maalab ang damdamin di mawawala, tried and tested na mga manggagawa, magbubukid, at propesyunal. kasama rin ang mga netizens. meron pang kasamang mga nasa gobyerno- naks! ilang milyonaryong bonggang-bongga, ang cute ng mga matronang mayayaman na mga naka suot ng snout na bago magpakuha ng litrato ay nagsabing we are against pork but pro PNoy ha? nakakatuwa ang mga empleyado ng makati na di alintana ang ulan at talagang tinapos ang programa. at syempre touched ako sa mga kapwa ko artista. natuwa ako sa paglilinaw ni cookie chua kung oust PNoy daw ba ang ng rally. at nung magtiwalang HINDI ito oust PNoy ay nagpaunlak sya. at ang parte nya w bayang barrios at lolita carbon ay highlight ng gabi. mabuhay kayong tres marias. ang konek nila sa audience ay super bongga. pero may mga tao akong na-miss na rally na ito. ang ilang dati kong mga kasamang hindi ko na nakikita. na-miss ko na kayo. promise! malungkot dahil nung i-suggest ang inyong mga pangalan, may mga nagsabing huwag muna sila ngayon. sana sa future may dahilan ulit para magsama tayo. naalala ko ang isang line na isinulat ni Rodolfo sa pelikulang juana c. the movie, “HIndi lahat ng kakampi mo ay kakampi mo sa lahat ng bagay.”

true.  but, yes, good to keep lines of communication open.  dapat ay kayang pag-usapan nang mahinahon at bukas-loob ang bawat isyu na humahati sa kilusan kung ibig nating makamit ang pinakaasam na pagbabago.  pag-uusap na totoong level-up.  sabi nga ni junie kalaw the environmentalist in an essay on the new politics, post EDSA (1989) based on the concept of wholeness (the whole is more than the sum of its parts; ang sakit ng kalingkingan ay sakit ng buong katawan):

There are two ways of effecting change: revolution and transformation. In the new politics, transformation is the way to wholeness. Transformation involves the synthesis of opposing forces on a higher level of wholeness. For instance, the conflict between communism and capitalism can only be resolved at a higher level of consciousness. It is the task of politicians to take from each ideology its life-affirming features and to come up with a new ideology that will unify the divided whole. It is a design process, this synthesis and creation of alternatives. It will be the supreme political skill.

[Exploring Soul & Society: Essays on Sustainable Development. Anvil, 1997. 126-127]

*

Hijackers of the anti-pork movement 

The sum of our “fears”: Defending pork by attacking the Left

Eight concrete calls of the #SCRAPPORK Network

notes on luneta the rally