Valuing senators
Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago estimates that senators legally get P1.4 million a month in compensation and allowances. What do we get? Lately, allegations that some senators get much, much more in criminal pork barrel scams and serious questions about the integrity of the institution.
Senators themselves have provoked the questions, as Sen. Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. recently did on the Senate floor. Coming six months after being implicated in the Napoles PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Fund) scam, the privilege speech did little to blunt the charges raised against him or to burnish the image of the Senate.
Less than 14 percent of the 4,500-word, 60-minute-speech dealt directly with the PDAF case and only whitewashed any involvement with a comprehensive denial: “I have nothing to do with this scam, those whistle-blowers, nor Janet Lim-Napoles. I have no dealings and transactions with them!”
In support of this assertion, he claimed that: 1) his signature on incriminating documents were forgeries; 2) the alleged recipient of funds, a Richard Cambe, identified by whistle-blower Benhur Luy as chief of staff or political chief officer, held no such office; and, 3) Cambe was abroad on the date Luy reported meeting with him.
Perhaps, Revilla Jr. did not sign the documents himself. Perhaps, someone else in his office, not Cambe, took money from Luy. These details are peripheral to the central issue of the senator’s innocence or culpability. The public needs a clear and credible accounting of: 1) who have been receiving his PDAF allocations; 2) the objectives or outcome expected from the grants; and, 3) the benefits actually delivered to the public.
The speech was silent on these critical points that bear on the senator’s management of PDAF grants. That he apparently had more than one transaction with Napoles dummy organizations further underlined the issue of his stewardship over public funds entrusted to his care. Luy’s claim, still to be verified, that Napoles counted then senator Ramon Revilla Sr. as a pork barrel source as early as 2003-2004 does not help Revilla Jr.’s situation.
Over 85 percent of the speech covered assorted issues not pertinent to the crime of which Revilla Jr. is accused. Wittingly or not, like a bull chasing the red cape that the toreador waves, media news coverage pursued the senator’s diversionary directions. In the case of the impeachment bribery red herring, Malacañang unfortunately lent support to the senator’s strategy.
It would be naïve to believe—and unconvincing for the administration to pretend—that P-Noy was a disinterested party in the case involving Renato Corona, the then chief justice. Even if he were, it would be an impossible, self-defeating task to try to prove that he had completely avoided any action or utterance that could have influenced the outcome of the trial.
The President cannot resort to force or bribery to secure the decisions he wants. But if he believed that the chief justice had abused his position and that the country’s interest required his removal from office, he would be duty-bound to work within the law to achieve the objective.
As it turned out, enough senator-judges agreed with the President that the chief justice had to go. This inconvenient truth makes it difficult for senators who voted against the chief justice (against whom graft charges have now been filed) to accuse the administration of intimidation or bribery: Any such accusation would be self-incriminating.
Sen. Jinggoy Estrada was the first to raise on the Senate floor the issue of the Disbursement Acceleration Program as a mechanism to buy the senators’ votes. But, while admitting he took the DAP funds, he insisted that he voted according to his conscience.
Notwithstanding his “weird” trip to Malacañang, Revilla Jr. did not appear to fear for his life or virtue during his meeting with the President. He said he resisted presidential pressure for a Corona conviction, telling P-Noy, “I will do what is right.”
Regarding the votes of their colleagues in the Senate, Estrada and Revilla Jr., like toreadors, must evade both horns of the bull. To affirm the integrity of their fellow senators would discredit the charge that the administration bought the ouster of Chief Justice Corona. To suggest that DAP funds did determine the outcome of the impeachment trial impales them on the horn that discredits the Senate itself.
Insinuations about a DAP-bought verdict erodes the credibility of an institution deeply tainted by the allegations of senatorial involvement in the Napoles scam. Are we now being told that we voted into power senators so craven and corrupt as to be so easily intimidated or bribed?
The question sharpens doubts about the costs, now being publicly disclosed and discussed, that we bear to maintain the Senate. The Senate has a legitimate governance role. But we need to focus more closely on that role and on what value, what benefits, individual senators have really delivered to the country and the people.
Edilberto C. de Jesus ([email protected]) is professor emeritus at the Asian Institute of Management.
