Battle vs corruption a failure

Batas Mauricio

THE one single but most telling admission that President Aquino’s “righteous governance” glaringly failed despite his being the head of government for six years came not from his political enemies or detractors, but from his own personal choice to lead the battle against graft and corruption in 2010, his Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales.

In a press statement which appeared online on Feb. 1, 2016 (see http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/760389/ombudsman-so-many-in-govt-are-corrupt), Morales decried the existing “super number of corrupt government officials throughout the bureaucracy”. She said corruption remains prevalent in government, which is a flat admission that Aquino bungled his campaign to stamp out graft during his six years in office.

Well, if the truth be told, it was clear right from the start that Aquino had nothing but bravado and mere sloganeering in his supposed campaign against graft and corruption. While he popularized the slogan “walang mahirap kung walang korap” (there is no poverty if there is no corruption), he meant it only to win votes, which he sadly did, but there was no definite plan of action to achieve that dream, just like in every other election promise he made.

• •

I am sorry, and I am saying this with utmost due respect, but I really cannot understand how Morales can attempt to play the role of a moralist who wants to give the impression that she wants only people with integrity to be voted upon by Filipino voters in the 2016 elections.

The fact is, any attempt at squeezing integrity from any candidate in the 2016 elections must start with the Office of the Ombudsman itself, as it is the Constitutional body that is mandated to uphold morality, integrity, truth, and justice, not only in government, but in the entire Philippine society as well.

Consequently, Morales should have been in the forefront of screening those who are aspiring for public positions in the forthcoming electoral exercise in May. But, has she acted in anyway with the Supreme Court’s declaration that the criminal, civil,  administrative, and other liabilities of the authors, proponents, or implementors, of the discredited disbursement acceleration program (DAP) of the Aquino government should be probed?

Clearly, the Supreme Court, in the cases led by “Araullo, et. al. vs. Aquino, et. al.”, G. R. No. 209287, July 01, 2014, wanted the authors, proponents, and implementors, of the DAP to be investigated and then prosecuted. To refresh the memory of everyone, particularly that of Morales, we will quote a portion of the Court’s decision dealing with the investigation and prosecution of the bright boys who conceived and executed DAP.

The Court said: “In that context, as Justice Brion has clarified, the doctrine of operative fact can apply only to the PAPs (program, activity, or projects) that can no longer be undone, and whose beneficiaries relied in good faith on the validity of the DAP, but cannot apply to the authors, proponents, and implementors of the DAP, unless there are concrete findings of good faith in their favor by the proper tribunals determining their criminal, civil, and administrative and other liabilities…”

Without any doubt, there is here, in this decision of the highest court of the land, an express directive to investigate the authors, proponents, and implementors of the DAP and then to file the appropriate charges or cases against them, in accordance with its findings that the DAP, which involved billions of government funds, is illegal as it is unconstitutional.

Now, what office has the right to conduct this investigation as the Supreme Court has decreed? The Office of the Ombudsman, which is headed by Morales herself for the last five–or nearly six–years, that’s what. This can be seen under Section 13 (1), Art. XI, 1987 Constitution, which, among others, prescribes the principal duty of the Ombudsman.

This section says: “The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and duties… (1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient…”

Morales must answer this question: has she investigated the authors, proponents, and implementors of the DAP, as the Supreme Court mandated in 2014 yet? She has not, of course! Could this be because the “authors, proponents, and implementors of the DAP” that the Supreme Court referred to in its decision include President Aquino, her patron, and his allies in the Liberal Party? Where is morality and integrity here?

E-mail: batasmauricio@yahoo.com