Obstructionism

Experience in public governance always has one basic element in its corruption – obstructionism. People complaint about undue delays in the administration of justice, in processing of their claims, in the release of their money, in the reluctance of public officers like the police to enforce the law, the negligence of officials in government to implement what they ought to do – make a list and you will find that the solution to all these is money, not money given legally but grease money.

We call that grease money because like grease this kind of money smoothen the movement of the transaction.

So many good contractors shy away from entering into business with government because even after the work has been done and all the pertinent papers have been submitted and accepted, payment takes a long time and they have to bear the cost of money.

I know of a transaction in the Bacolod City government over 15 years ago where payment has not been received until today. The amount is miniscule – a mere P5,000. The payee was asked to sign a receipt allegedly to facilitate the release of the money, but no money came. Someone fed himself or his family with stolen money.

Another had to shell out some amount before the payment was received but he waited for a year. One obstruction was raised after another until the exasperated guy finally asked, “how much?” When the grease money was given, the check came just a day after.

I am reminded of this and many other forms of obstructionism when the Bacolod Chamber of Commerce and Industry accused the Department of Energy of obstruction by the long delayed action on the service contract for the development of Negros’ hydroelectric power.

Why is there a delay? The DOE gives no reason only silence. What is DOE waiting for? Is it waiting for financial consideration in these contracts or perhaps their own investor? If not, why the silence, the delay?

Obstructing progress is a crime against the people but I wonder whether the DOE understands the need of this projects that are essential to our development.

I also wonder if the DOE is concerned about people’s welfare because even in the matter of the uncontrolled increases in the price of oil, DOE does nothing except to justify the increase as if the DOE is working for the interest of the oil companies rather than the interest of the people that DOE Secretary Rene Almendras is mandated and for which he took an oath to serve.

Or is he under the pay of oil companies? If not how can he justify his silence and inaction on the complaints of the people, many times over? He is silent while the people clamor for answers.

Another obstructionist that the MBCCI has cited is the national office of the Commission on Audit. How come that while the regional office has submitted to the commissioners their recommendation about the sale of the Capitol lot to Ayala Land since last year, they have not acted on this recommendation?

If the sale is illegal, should not the COA say so and explain why that is so, and then corrective measures can be taken? But no, COA wants to remain silent and prevent the province from implementing its programs. COA thereby becomes a despot.

When this government came to power, what were its promises? Did not the government of President Aquino promise the “straight path”? Is this the straight path – the COA taking the long winding road? Who was that woman who was given a high post in the new government because she is supposed to be of the model of the straight and narrow path?

People of this province know the controversy that attended this sale and we also know that a powerful, wealthy and aggressive private interest is aggrieved because it lost the bidding, refused to admit it lost and tried to block the project.

Is not COA playing into the hands in this controversy and opens itself to suspicions that its obstructionism in this case is a conscious act to exert certain pressures for obnoxious reasons?

We have seen in the past that COA is not above any taint of corruption. The failure of COA to act with dispatch opens public suspicion that this obstructionism is not without a reason but that reason is not in the best interest of the people.

We need a credible explanation from COA. It cleared the transaction even before the bidding (the price for the land and the lease were set by COA), the provincial COA endorsed it favorably within days and so did the regional COA.

But it is now months as this is written and nothing was heard from the national COA. The commission opens the suspicion that either it wants grease money or it is pressured (for whatever reason) by the losing bidder.*

back to top