Creating a culture of vetting candidates
AS ELECTION time draws near, one hears rumors galore about national candidates. While some rumors give candidates the aura of being larger than life, still the question must be asked how the ordinary voter can factor in this phenomenon so inherent in Filipino culture.
In the Philippines, the easiest way to choose a candidate, next to vote-buying, is to listen to campaign speeches and ruminate on the campaign ads one sees or hears in mass media. Not the best method of choosing, though, however name recall power there may be in the latter. As Philippine elections are based on personality more than platform, a way out of being enticed by superficial rhetoric must be found if we are to reach a respectable level of political maturity.
The cultural trait of gossip can be a device. It goes without saying that it is a path not without effort, but it is effective because it relies on the truth.
That gossip is part of Filipino culture is more than skin deep. It is a sign of disenfranchisement. Each time public clamor is not heard in national governance, public participation is effectively diminished. Each time politicians lie, public trust and confidence are severely eroded. Rumors become ingrained in the culture not because there is nothing else to do in a country largely mired in poverty. It has more to do with the curtailment of freedom to use truth for the common good.
The public knows there are risks and hazards attendant to exposing the truth. When a private citizen exposes a politician’s skeletons in the closet, expect all forms of harassment thrown at the former, not to mention threats to his life. There is an unwritten law of omerta in Philippine society that in turn is a powerful stimulus for gossip.
Politicians can exact the most cutting revenge, to say the least. It has something to do with the way power is exercised and abused by those in power. One does not also discount personalism. Exposing the dirty linen of a politician-relative is almost taboo. These are ethical wrongs because the equation of public office as a public trust always stands supreme.
For many years, gossip mills have been churning out tales of the alleged ill-gotten wealth of the Binays of Makati. Few had the audacity to expose the truth. It would be in the least interest of a business entity, say a Makati condominium developer, to publicly admit that bribes were exacted from it when it applied for a business permit. The filing of cases for alleged anomalies against the Binays is a step that is truly in the right direction. If hard evidence is produced, a criterion for informed and sound choice is afforded the voting public.
The problem with evidence is its deliberate scarcity. Hardly any paper trail exists in local governments against incumbents when they have a tight grip on political power.
Sometimes only a cursory act of unraveling the truth is needed. A city mayor began a public works project involving the renovation of a national historical landmark, an undertaking for which local governments must secure permission from the national cultural agencies, as the law prescribes. Rumors flew around that the project did not undergo public bidding.
To counteract the rumors, the mayor instructed his city administrator to announce in a press conference the identity of the contractor, a company named Vennex. Public scrutiny then kicked in. Because of Philgeps—Philippine Government Electronic Procurement System—those interested could check online if the mayor was lying or not. Philgeps is a creation of the Government Procurement Reform Act or Republic Act No. 9184, which makes transparent all government procurement of goods and services.
Checking Philgeps yielded no such accredited contractor by the name of Vennex. To verify the rumors, one only needed to visit the construction site. True enough workers there mentioned another contractor, a relative of the mayor, the perennial contractor in all the mayor’s projects. Knowing that was certainly better than Philgeps—no further verification was needed if a real bidding was truly performed. That money had possibly changed hands was not next to impossible. That mayor must not be voted again into public office.
One can use this method to vet the candidacy of Rodrigo Duterte. Many say to just look at Davao City today. But that is skirting the ethical question of the means used to achieve the end and all the talk of Duterte’s complicity in media killings. Critics claim the city’s image is just all media hype. The evidence to prove that should be considered helpful to the Filipino electorate who must be led to real democracy.
There has to be reliable verification of widespread talk in hushed circles about the connection of Vice Mayor Paolo Duterte with smuggling in Davao. It has been said that smugglers are indeed being eliminated there, but only to ensure the son’s grip on the smuggling operations. Why is the son also in power and what interests is he protecting and why? If hard evidence that this is untrue is produced, voters should seriously consider the father for president. Bragging rights rhetoric is not the way.
Then there is the talk on Sara Duterte-Carpio’s husband. How is he related to Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales? The father-in-law is said to be the Ombudsman’s brother, thus, supposedly explaining why the Ombudsman’s office has no cases against Duterte. Has this been verified? Choice is not made on mere impulse.
The next president we deserve is the one who can best outline his/her commitment to a freedom of information act.
