What reforms?

STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVERené B. Azurin

What reforms?

Doubtless, it was not a coincidence that five Catholic bishops chose to publicly call for “radical reforms” on the day the alleged architect of the fertilizer funds anomaly, Jocelyn Bolante, was to arrive from the US after he had failed to obtain asylum there. The bishops’ call for “liberators” who would “reform the country” and rescue the Filipino people from the excessive corruption of the current government was intriguing because of what it implied. “The time to prepare a new government,” they declared, “is now.”

Responding to a question from reporters as to whether President Arroyo – who he said was corrupt – should be removed from office, Archishop Angel Lagdameo, president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, said, “The answer should come from the people who see what’s happening in our country.” Responding to questions as to who should be these “liberators”, Archbishop Oscar Cruz said (in a rather painful attempt at humor), “Walang ganyanan”, when the names of Vice President Noli de Castro, Senate President Manuel Villar, and House Speaker Prospero Nograles were mentioned. He then said, “OK yan”, when the names of Chief Justice Reynato Puno and Armed Forces Chief Alexander Yano were brought up.

The question must be asked, “What’s afoot?” Is the timing of the bishops’ call to coincide with former Agriculture Undersecretary Bolante’s arrival and his long awaited testimony on the alleged diversion of some P2.8 billion in Department of Agriculture funds (supposedly to bankroll Mrs. Arroyo’s 2004 election campaign) significant? Can the public expect subjects that were buried – this is not an allusion to Ms. Marlene Esperat, a former member of the Agriculture Department resident ombudsman’s office who had filed graft charges in late 2003 against Agriculture Secretary Arthur Yap, Mr. Bolante, and others in connection with irregular fertilizer deals, and who was shot dead in her home in Sultan Kudarat in March 2005 – to now come to light?

Presumably, the independent action of the five bishops stem from their inability to get the rest of their colleagues in the CBCP to support what is essentially a demand for Mrs. Arroyo to step down from office. It will be recalled that the CBCP as a body has consistently refused to support public calls for Mrs. Arroyo’s resignation or lobby for her impeachment, arguing basically that it was not their province to meddle in political matters. Apparently, some bishops are not willing to see public corruption as a moral issue (which makes it their province), while others simply do not wish to bite the hand that feeds them hefty chunks of gambling money from casino operator Pagcor.

The question must also be asked, “What reforms do the bishops want and how will these be realized?” Clearly, the bishops want public corruption to be eradicated but rhetoric and good intentions are not enough to do this.


Purely coincidentally, on the day of the bishops’ press conference and Mr. Bolante’s subsequent arrival, I happened to be guest speaker at the monthly meeting of the Philippine Constitution Association (Philconsa) and part of my message to the distinguished members of that 47-year old institution revolved around the kind of reforms I thought we needed.

What I tried to emphasize was that we citizens needed to be aware that, even in a democracy with a constitution spelling out our fundamental rights, we do not, as individuals, have the weight nor the force to prevent government officials wielding the concerted power of the state from doing anything they are bent on doing. In theory, the extent of their power is specified by the role “the people” assign to government. In practice, that role is actually determined by the latitude the political class is given to arrogate powers unto themselves. Unfortunately, we the people – being a dispersed, diffuse mass – have no real ability to limit that latitude. It is therefore left to other organized institutions of society – such as civic groups, advocacy movements, religious institutions, academic institutions, professional associations, business groups, and the media – to try to place boundaries on the role of government and on the powers of government officials. Further, the structure of government as defined in a constitution must provide for dispersed power – I explained that this is why I had opposed the proposed shift to a parliamentary system – if citizens are to have effective means for controlling the abuses of those who wield government power.

Because it is not reasonable to expect that our public officials will always be moral or ethical, I said that their powers should be strictly limited, constantly monitored, and held always in check. Discretionary allocations in the national budget – like the huge presidential discretionary funds and legislative pork barrel – should be eliminated altogether. The decisions to award public projects should always be minutely scrutinized, publicly justified, and never cloaked in “executive privilege”. The discretion to regulate economic activities should always be seriously questioned and severely constrained. Finally, a system for ferreting out, censuring, and punishing erring public officials should be in place and operating effectively. This implies an equitable rule of law and a working justice system.

To the bishops, I would suggest that the reforms our society needs doesn’t have to be so “radical” and can really be quite simple. I would suggest that, for starters, they might want to place their collective weight behind two specific reform proposals: the removal of discretionary allocations in the national budget, and the introduction of legal mechanisms so that erring public officials (even at the highest levels of government) can be removed from office quickly and easily (even before their criminal and civil liabilities have been determined). I believe these reforms alone would go a very long way toward reducing corruption and improving the way our society is governed.

The historian Barbara Tuchman – in her 1984 book The March of Folly – says that three developments invariably signal the downfall of rulers: “obliviousness to the growing disaffection of constituents, primacy of self-aggrandizement , and illusion of invulnerable status.” In a book that chronicles misgovernment, Tuchman finds that rulers bring down ruin on themselves and their institutions when they turn deaf to discontent, become fixated on personal gain, and believe in their own permanence. I wonder whether the impetus for the bishops’ call “to prepare a new government” came from their “discernment” of these telltale signs.