Keep the focus
Large as the amount involved in the so-called pork barrel scam, it is true that bigger corruption scandals have pockmarked Philippine history. The scale of systematic corruption during the Marcos years is one for the world’s record books; it was truly Imeldific. But it is also true that the sophisticated diversion of congressional pork barrel allocations through fake projects or to fraudulent organizations, as allegedly masterminded by controversial businesswoman Janet Lim-Napoles, represents the apex of corruption as a criminal enterprise: Unlike most of the corrupt deals we as a people are unfortunately all too familiar with, where a certain percentage of the budgeted allocation is reserved as illegal commission, in the pork barrel scam the entire allocation IS the commission.
As we have argued in this space before: In the pork barrel scam, nothing gets built, no service is ever rendered, and yet the money is released. It is (almost) the perfect crime. Understanding exactly how this scam evolved over time, pinpointing accountability, and then bringing the accountable to the bar of justice should help the nation grow stronger, more mature in the ways of governance.
Inquirer columnist Randy David offered a similar argument last month: “The Janet Lim-Napoles scam could emerge as the most crucial episode in the nation’s struggle to modernize its political system. We might then realize that the effort we exert today to expose, document and successfully prosecute those behind this scam has made all the difference in our political life.”
Today, the complications in that effort have become even more complex; the latest disclosures about the use of the National Agribusiness Corp. (Nabcor) to divert Priority Development Assistance Fund allocations to questionable organizations or despite unmet requirements add considerably more detail to the scam. These disclosures are necessary, but we understand that the details can be misused by political operators to confuse rather than to clarify the situation.
The objective of such deliberate misuse is clear: to undermine public confidence in the legal process, and to mute public outrage.
To accusations from the allies of the former president Gloria Arroyo, during whose term much of the pork barrel scam took place, and to similar charges from the allies of the three senators deeply implicated in the scam, that the Aquino administration is biased against its political enemies and is not committed to the truth, a concerned citizen can sift through the available information on Nabcor’s role in the elaborate scheme and find, for instance, this:
Two of Napoles’ dubious nongovernment organizations received a total of P392 million between 2007 and 2009 from the pork barrel allocations of Senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada and Bong Revilla.
Or this: On July 14, 2008, a P25-million allocation from Estrada was transferred from the Department of Agriculture to Nabcor, and “downloaded” to the Napoles NGO (in this case, Masaganang Ani para sa Magsasaka Foundation Inc.) on the same day.
Or this, another expedited release: A P20-million allocation from then Sen. Edgardo Angara was moved from the DA to Nabcor on Jan. 7, 2008, and then to Kagandahan ng Kapaligiran Foundation (an NGO not associated with Napoles) the following day.
These details, supported by documents, are also backed by the testimony of two former Nabcor officials. Rhodora Mendoza, once its vice president for finance, and Vic Cacal, formerly head of general services, are among the 38 persons under investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman; they are applying for the privilege of turning state’s witness.
In the continuing din over the scam, even their application can add to the confusion. Some ordinary citizen might wonder whether the queue for state’s witnesses will ever have an end. We should not yield to the easy temptation of cynicism.
In his column, David described the ideal outcome of victory in the pork barrel case: “It will have made public office less lucrative, and elections less costly. It will have gradually weaned citizens away from personal patronage, and paved the way for the entry onto the stage of a new breed of politicians. It will have given to governance reform a clear and urgent focus.”
Eyes on the prize.
