First of all, I would like to thank the Inquirer for keeping the public aware of news events that matter. The Inquirer always hits the “bullseye” not only with the news but also with its opinion pieces.
Randy David’s insights in “Watching Janet” (Opinion, 8/15/13) stunned and impressed me. I completely agree with him: “If it is true that the bulk of her wealth came from the conversion of pork barrel allocations, then the bigger crime must lie with the legislators who knowingly used her services. It is they who should be the primary target of public anger.”
1. The senators and congressmen ought to exercise caution when they course their Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or pork barrel funds through a “third party”—whether through government or a private or nongovernment organization (NGO). Were they not surprised when neither the “third party” nor the ultimate beneficiaries of their PDAF gave them certificates of appreciation or invited them to a fiesta celebration as honored guests, as an act of gratitude for their help? We all know that politicians love public adulation. The absence of these “indicators” should have triggered alarm bells in their minds.
2. Legislators tend to brag about the thousands of beneficiaries they have assisted and about the infrastructure their PDAF has built, as monuments of achievement. Isn’t it uncharacteristic of them not to trumpet these? So why don’t they have the pictures of these achievements—e.g., school buildings, hospitals, housing projects, roads, bridges, scholars, poor patients being assisted—displayed, for all and sundry to know that their PDAF was spent wisely and actually reached the intended beneficiaries?
3. And why didn’t these legislators not ask for reports and pictures of the “projects,” and an accounting of the funds—if only so they could have records to show the public how and where their PDAF had been spent?
4. And common sense: Where are the press releases about these accomplishments?
5. No person in his right mind will release millions of pesos to a dubious entity, more so if the funds are public money. So lawmakers are expected like a good father of a family to exercise due diligence to vet the entity through which they plan to release their PDAF. After all, the crime of plunder is punishable with life imprisonment and is not bailable.
If these legislators do not have these proofs of “good faith” to show that their pork barrel was well-spent, there is only one inescapable conclusion and that is—quoting from Professor David’s column—“the bigger crime must lie with the legislators who knowingly used her services; it is they who should be the primary target of public anger.”
—CRISTINE ROJAS, cristine.rojas@gmail.com