An attack on democracy

Seems like opponents of democracy, or at least those who’ll stop at nothing to derail the peaceful and orderly holding of the May elections, are at it again.

The targets this time are six officials of the National Printing Office (NPO), whose authority to oversee the printing of ballots for the elections is being questioned because they have been allegedly dismissed from office.

The NPO is the only government body authorized to print the ballots, and given the many delays in commencing the procedure, the dismissal of its six top officials, including NPO Director Emmanuel C. Andaya and printing operations chief Josefina Samson, cannot but have an impact on the office’s meeting its deadlines. In the 81 days remaining, the NPO must carry out the urgent and important work of making sure the ballots to be used on May 9 are not only correct and contain no flaws, but will also be checked, collected and delivered to the right precincts in time for voting.

In the six years of the P-Noy administration, the NPO and its officials have been subjected to a string of lawsuits, numbering 60, filed by a single individual, the owner of a private printing facility by the name of Guillermo Sylianteng. He has been known to describe himself as a “concerned citizen” who oddly has been “concerned” only about NPO officials.

Strangely enough, all of Sylianteng’s complaints were given due notice by authorities, specifically investigators of the Office of the Ombudsman, who most frequently dismissed the suits against the NPO, but at great personal expense to its officials.

That is, until earlier this month when the Office of the Ombudsman issued a dismissal order, signed by no less than Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, against six NPO officials for a case involving the printing of travel forms for the National Bureau of Investigation.

The printing job, which involved some P1.9 million—not a paltry sum, to be sure, but which pales in comparison to other cases of corruption lodged against government officials, including some cases filed by Sylianteng against the NPO—covered an “urgent” request by the NBI which was running low on its supply of travel clearance certificates which are needed by Filipinos traveling for work abroad.

* * *

Many things look “off” on this case, the most prominent being the personality of the individual who filed it in the first place.

Sylianteng may be a private person, and as such has every right to file a complaint against erring government officials. But he is not a disinterested party. He is the president and general manager of Ready Forms Inc. (RFI), a firm which, in a 12-year period from 1996 to 2008, was the biggest private supplier of the NPO, cornering no less than 25 percent of printing contracts that the NPO farmed out to the private sector. Why the need to resort to side contracts with private printers? Because the government printer is not always capable of delivering bulk orders, so it is authorized by law to farm out printing jobs, especially in locations far from its printing press in Quezon City.

In 2009, however, RFI was blacklisted for five years by the NPO after it was discovered that the firm had been submitting falsified financial statements. (Local treasurers and government offices reportedly belatedly discovered that they had been routinely overcharged for their forms ordered from RFI.)

Other printers dealing with the NPO have reported that, incensed at the blacklisting and vowing revenge against the NPO, Sylianteng declared he would not rest until he got the NPO officials dismissed, and the two government printing offices—the NPO and APO Production Unit—dissolved. This, it is speculated, would then open the door wide for private printers to take over the printing of sensitive official government forms, with of course RFI leading the pack.

* * *

Sylianteng is clearly miffed not just at the “personal” hurt he may have felt after the blacklisting, but also at the loss of millions (maybe even hundreds of millions) of pesos in revenue which RFI used to earn when it was still a favored NPO partner.

But should his private agenda find recourse in the courts and within the Office of the Ombudsman? And should his own selfish and personal motives be allowed to endanger the orderly and timely conduct of the elections?

While the six NPO officials have indeed been ordered dismissed by the Ombudsman, the order is not immediately executory because the officials have filed a motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals. There have been previous such cases where dismissal orders were reversed after new evidence was presented or when the complete picture was revealed.

The dismissal of the six officials is thus being held after the filing of the MOR, so they are within their rights and authority to continue to function as NPO officials and oversee the proper printing of ballots for May—a task that, with the deadline closing in, is urgent and crucial not just for the holding of elections but also for the survival of democracy itself.

* * *

Before I close, just a comment on the perversion of the processes provided by law to prosecute erring government officials. “Perversion” because, while the intent was noteworthy, the system is instead being used by the disgruntled and corrupt, with the connivance of cunning personnel, to go after and “punish” even honest government officials who have somehow crossed them. The system provides for proper investigation and hearing, but the processes could be short-circuited for personal gain.

NPO Director Andaya tells of one of his coaccused who has since retired but who cannot collect even a single centavo of his retirement pay, which he needs to settle his health bills. Is this any way to “reward” faithful civil servants?