The ‘SOP’ malady
The pork barrel scam that used nongovernment organizations to siphon off the people’s money is indeed quite brazen. There are many other operations with varying degrees of brazenness—such as “SOP” (standard operating procedure)—but they are all the same: scams.
The term “SOP” seems a routine prescription, except when used in relation to government projects where it becomes a euphemism for a bribe. The use of the term is an attempt to show that there is nothing wrong with a bribe, that it is simply part of the SOP. This is an aggravating element, when wrong is taken as right. Bribery has become a norm.
The malady apparently started decades ago, when it became customary for a government project contractor to get charged a 10-percent levy, which went to the pocket of a government official. The practice of paying a tithe, as in religion, eventually became part of the government project awarding process. I had an exposure to this reality in the early 1990s, when I was discussing a possible project involving a waste treatment system with a friend related to a high local official. The SOP was brought up. I was naive and did not know how to handle it, and the discussion ended.
The 10 percent reportedly goes to the head honcho. And “for the boys”—an accumulated share that can reach an additional 30-40 percent of the project budget—gets tucked in on top of the 10 percent, leaving only 50-60 percent for the contractor to get the job done. After the contractor’s profit of, say, 15 percent, the actual project will be built on the remaining 35-45 percent of the total project budget. It is thus no surprise that not too much infrastructure gets done, and the projects completed are substandard.
The numbers may be meaningless to the ordinary citizen. But these can be better appreciated with a hypothetical illustration of what can happen in real life.
Take the premier city run by Mayor Herbert Bautista. Quezon City’s expected revenue for 2014 is P14 billion. Some 30 percent (or P4.2 billion) is allocated for infrastructure. If the SOP system will be operative, the 10 percent can give the mayor a clean P420 million.
Under the SOP system, for a 3-year term a tax-free income of P1.26 billion can be stashed away by the mayor. And there can be additional income from the issuance of business permits, as well as from the processing of building and occupancy permits. There can be business in excavation contracts, too, which can be controlled through the city engineer’s office. The garbage collection service provider may likewise be more than willing to share some of his/her fees.
Remember, these numbers are for illustration purposes only, to allow for an appreciation of what bribes can amount to. The numbers are just in the realm of the imagination. But one can let the imagination go wild. In Quezon City, if the SOP scheme is at work, leakages of at least P1.5 billion a year may be possible given its huge tax take as the country’s premier city. Why run for mayor and spend more than P500 million in the campaign?
Perhaps the numbers involved can lead one to assume that the SOP is unreal because of the difficulty of stashing such huge amounts. Indeed, it would be very hard to hide these sums without other people helping in laundering the money. “Dirty money” needs a laundry. In short, there will always be potential whistle-blowers, not only from the immediate circles of the corrupt public official but also from the banks used for the deposit and withdrawal of the funds. The accounts may be layered, but the beneficial owner will sooner or later have to surface if he/she wants to enjoy the benefits of the bounty. Recall the deposit trail presented during the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona.
Following the trail of “dirty money” will not be impossible if there are willing witnesses. It is a long and tedious process but one that must be undergone if the people will have a chance to see a transformation in the government service they are getting.
But it must be clear that there are two sides to corruption. A corrupt government is brought about and sustained by a corrupt private business working with it. Janet Lim-Napoles allegedly siphoned off taxpayer money using fictitious projects in collusion with government officials. There must be other Benhur Luy types who can break the ice to expose the malady that is the SOP.
And the families of those involved in the corruption—the public side and the private side—must begin to discern what kind of wealth they are living on. Filipino families are getting separated and even broken because their members are forced to seek jobs away from home. The remittances of overseas Filipino workers are a big source of the taxes collected by the government. That one’s wealth is siphoned off the people’s money can be a haunting prospect. A crusade that will not let up in pursuing leads to this kind of wealth, in an effort to find a transforming possibility in Philippine society, will allow for the sustained haunting of the involved families.
At the moment, the spotlight is trained on the pursuit of those involved in the pork barrel scam. This investigation may still not be serving as a deterrent to scams that continue to defraud the people of their hard-earned money. We are presented a unique opportunity to reverse the acceptance of wrong as right. Let us seize the moment.
Danilo S. Venida holds undergraduate and postgraduate degrees from the University of the Philippines and the Center for Research and Communication/University of Asia and the Pacific. He is a former president of the Philippine Daily Inquirer and is now a business consultant.
