Answers needed

To the evident surprise of many professional politicians and political observers, the Senate inquiry into the allegedly overpriced Makati City Hall parking building has gained traction. The formidable reputation of Vice President Jejomar Binay, the mayor at the time the construction of the building started and the real object of the muckraking fervor of Senators Antonio Trillanes IV and Alan Peter Cayetano, had raised the odds against any substantial discovery or revelation at the hearings. Binay not only has the highest ratings of any incumbent government official; he is also known for his competence as chief executive of the city that hosts the country’s central business district.

But the admissions against self-interest made, first by his erstwhile local ally, ex-vice mayor Ernesto Mercado, and then by the former head of Makati’s general services department, Mario Hechanova, have punctured that very reputation. Mercado’s confession that he had personally benefited from the building project, and his conclusion that Binay as mayor must have benefited even more, was powerful testimony because he had put himself in harm’s way. It also created the space for Hechanova to make his own, more damning, public confession: that he had helped rig the bidding process in Makati regularly, to favor Binay’s preferred supplier, Hilmarc’s Construction Corp.

The one-two combination was enough to make Binay and his allies change strategy. While before they had vigorously denied any corruption, now they declare that in Binay’s last years as mayor the city government hosted what news reports called “a triumvirate of corruption”—meaning Mercado, Hechanova and city engineer Nelson Morales, now deceased—over which Binay had no control.

Binay’s new spokesperson, Cavite Gov. Juanito Vicente Remulla, issued a statement immediately after the hearing where Hechanova appeared, claiming something that he implied was common knowledge, at least in Binay’s city: “It is known in Makati that the ex-vice mayor, city engineer and Mario Hechanova were rigging the bidding, especially infrastructure.”

He later explained that Binay’s aides had filled him in on the details of what he described as a “conspiracy” led by Mercado, one that was supposedly active during

Binay’s last term. At that time, he said, the mayor was too distracted by harassing tactics employed by President Gloria Arroyo to run City Hall with his customary hands-on approach.

Perhaps Remulla should not have rushed out of the gate. His explanation only raises more questions. And it hits Binay’s reputation where it hurts the most—his record of administrative competence.

If it was well known that corruption in Makati City thrived under Vice Mayor Mercado and the two other officials, why did Binay’s supporters wait until Hechanova testified before publicly acknowledging the fact? If Hechanova had kept mum, would the Vice President’s previous statement attacking only Mercado (“all that Mr. Mercado said are lies”) stayed as talking point? What happens if, in future hearings, more city officials or even suppliers come out and attest to corruption in Makati? Will the circle of conspirators widen accordingly? The point is: Remulla’s naming of the three officials will look ridiculous if more so-called conspirators emerge.

And if it is true, as Remulla asserts, that there was corruption in Makati in Binay’s last term, but he was unable to stop it (or for some reason denounce it) because he was under severe pressure from Malacañang, then that raises the most consequential question of all: Why would Binay seek the presidency itself, if he cannot even fully meet the responsibilities of city mayor? (This is the competence question, which Remulla’s statement itself prompts.)

As president of the republic, Binay would be faced with much more pressure than Arroyo directed at him. Not only domestic politics but also foreign affairs would demand the utmost from Binay; the fate of the Bangsamoro would lie in his hands, as well as Philippine national dignity in the face of Chinese aggressiveness. Would Makati-scale corruption be an acceptable tradeoff?

One more question for Remulla: Now that he has admitted that corruption marred the construction of the parking building, would he still follow the Binays’ lead, deny any overpricing—and call it “world-class”?