Bad exemplars of good

 

 

History seems to repeat itself quite frequently. Such as a brain cramp I had recently, but unintentionally, which people in my present age would describe as a minor lapse in senior moments.

 

I’m talking about the Hyatt 10, and whether it left us with a noteworthy political legacy or that it was in the grand scheme of things simply an irrational, thoughtless and high-minded display of moral superiority, self-righteousness and arrogance. Perhaps, one might even call it an improbable shot or maybe a fart in the dark. 

 

Someone in an Internet forum I belong to reminded me of the courage of the members of the infamous Hyatt 10 in standing up to their boss, then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, when they demanded her to step down or else they resign. This happened in 2005 at the height of the “Hello Garci” scandal involving massive cheating and fraud during the 2004 elections that gave President Arroyo a full six-year term. The scandal precipitated attempts to impeach the President in Congress, and a public demonstration led by former President Cory Aquino asking Arroyo to resign.

 

Some members of the infamous Hyatt 10, left to right: Guillermo
Parayno, Cesar  Purisima, Florencio Abad, Imelda Nicolas, Teresita
Deles, and Corazon Soliman.  Photo courtesy of the Manila Times.



This member raised the ghosts of Hyatt 10, not just to remind me but also to re-educate me on the conditions in the Philippines, which I have left many years ago. Understandably, conditions have changed and I might not be familiar with them as she pointed out. But the emergence of wireless technology took care of that.

 

The Hyatt 10 came from a group of Cabinet secretaries responsible for the then Arroyo administration’s economic management and planning as well as those in-charge of social welfare ad peace negotiations with the country’s insurgents. The Hyatt 10 resignation was this forum member’s rebuttal to my post in the forum about the resignation of two high-ranking cabinet members of Japan’s Prime Minister Abe’s government that such similar resignations are unlikely to happen in the Philippines.

 

Of course, the comparison was off-tangent, without likeness. Prime Minister Abe’s cabinet ministers were elected in Parliament and resigned because of allegations of financial improprieties. The resignation was triggered by shame and the potential scandal to the government, a sacrifice or moral choice Japanese politicians are only too willing to take for the sake of a higher purpose.

 

The Hyatt 10 accomplices, however, were unelected and appointed to serve under the pleasure of the President whom they wanted to resign because they believed she had lost the trust and confidence of the people. It was unimaginable, for example, that an entire office staff would threaten to resign simply on the ground that their manager or supervisor has lost credibility. This was highly unprecedented and the Hyatt 10 never had any legal or moral ground to demand the President’s resignation, except for their arrogance and preconceived notions of moral superiority.

 

Yuko Obuchi, Japan's economy, trade and industry minister bows
during a news conference as she announces her resignation from
cabinet. Photo by Tomohiro Ohsumi/Bloomberg.

Whether Hyatt 10 was a resignation en masse or mass firing is not historically significant, save for the infamy it has engendered. President Arroyo served her full term of the presidency and left office with an improved economy. However, the allegations of fraud and plunder hounded her, which became the bane of her existence after stepping down from the presidency. She is now detained indefinitely pending trial, which is taking the Sandiganbayan an inordinate amount of time to set down.

 

In the meantime, some members of the Hyatt 10 were rehired by the current Aquino government. Florencio Abad, who was also Aquino’s campaign manager during the elections, has been appointed secretary of the Department of Budget and Management. Together with Janet Napoles, Abad has also been alleged as the true mastermind of the multimillion-peso pork barrel scam. He is also the author of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) which has been struck down by the Supreme Court as illegal and unconstitutional.

 

According to stories circulated in the news media, the steep decline in the popularity of President Aquino in poll surveys persuaded his sisters to prevail upon him to let go of Abad. But here came the Hyatt 10 again to the rescue, threatening the President with their resignation if Abad would be axed. Rumors kept swirling around that the President and some members of the Hyatt 10 were worried about detention in Crame after their term was over. It was the group’s instinct for survival that kept them to stick together. An article by a well-respected journalist has alleged that Abad threatened to expose the President about his involvement in the pork barrel scam and the illegal DAP if he were to be sacked, which suggested that the Hyatt 10 might be hijacking the President by putting a noose around his neck.

 

Dinky Soliman denied all the rumours about the Hyatt 10 ganging up on the President. One of the most outspoken members of the Hyatt 10 during their mass resignation in 2005, Soliman was rehired by President Aquino to her original cabinet post as Secretary of Social Welfare and Development, an appointment which took 4 years before it was confirmed by the Commission on Appointments.

 

Soliman expanded the Arroyo’s conditional cash transfer program, otherwise known as the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps), but which was disparaged by many as a dole-out instead of assisting the poor to get out of their dire straits. She was also criticized for mishandling the relief efforts after Super Typhoon Yolanda hit the country in 2013, even admitting that her agency did not monitor funds given by private donors. Soliman’s detractors, however, were not successful in forcing her resignation as President Aquino stood by her as he did for Abad.

 

Another prominent member of the Hyatt 10, Cesar Purisima who was Arroyo’s Secretary of Finance and was appointed to the same position by President Aquino. Purisima was alleged to have played a significant role in the pork-barrel scandal and the illegal Disbursement Acceleration Program hatched by Budget Secretary Abad.

 

The recycling of the Hyatt 10 conspirators by the Aquino government shows the fungible nature of Philippine politics. Yesterday’s enemies are today’s allies. That is how easily exchangeable Filipino politicians are; there is no ideological basis for their loyalty and trust. If there is anything we can learn from the Hyatt 10 is the politics of opportunism.

 

To consider, therefore, that Filipino politicians, as suggested by my Internet friend, are capable of summoning the better angels of their nature like the Japanese is a huge overstatement. That they would give up their high positions in government to preserve integrity and honesty in government has never happened that frequently in the country’s history and political development. Former Senator Juan Miguel Zubiri resigned from the Senate when the election protest of Aquilino Pimentel Jr. was about to be upheld, thus proclaiming the latter as winner of the election. The same can be said about Senator Juan Ponce Enrile who stepped down as Senate President amid allegations of distributing cash gifts to senators when it was already clear at the time that he was going to be deposed.

 

There were only two significant incidents in Philippine history where the resignation of elected officials really mattered and were triggered by political convictions rather than by a false claim of moral ascendancy akin to the Hyatt 10 political motivation. The first happened during the Tejeros Convention in March 1897 where the first-ever Philippine presidential election was held. Emilio Aguinaldo was elected president over Andres Bonifacio who was acclaimed as leader of the Philippine revolution. Bonifacio humbly accepted his election as Director of the Interior but later withdrew when Daniel Tirona demanded that another person believed to be more qualified should be elected instead of Bonifacio who had no formal education and a lawyer’s diploma. Shamed and insulted, Bonifacio, in his capacity as Supremo of the Katipunan, declared the election null and void. He would later be executed by Aguinaldo’s men.

 

A similar incident happened in 1946 when Luis Taruc, leader of the Hukbalahap, and seven other colleagues from the Democratic Alliance were elected to the House of Representatives but the government of Manuel Roxas did not allow them to take their seats in Congress. The Taruc faction opposed the parity rights amendment to the Philippine Constitution that the United States required as a condition for payment of reparation for the Second World War. Consequently, Taruc and his men would return to the hills to take up arms against the government.

 

The Hyatt 10 resignation in 2005 and the 2014 revival of another of threat of resignation by the same group did not alter the political map nor engender the development of a higher sense of morality in politics among Filipinos. If there ever was a political statement that could be ascribed to the group, it would be that opportunism and arrogance are the necessary building blocks to a successful career in politics and government.

 

To embrace the idea that the Hyatt 10 or the members of President Aquino’s inner sanctum are beyond reproach and possessed with incorruptible qualities is almost analogous to a lowering of the standards of morality and integrity in government. If being fundamentally good is to have other people’s interests in mind, especially by people in authority or in government, then in order to be good, one must exhibit some genuinely selfless motivations.

 

This is not however the underlying motivation of the Hyatt 10, nor of the men or women in President Aquino’s cabinet, or perhaps of the whole body of the current Congress. Goodness and greatness are never the exceptional qualities of our elected leaders. In confronting our moral progress as a society, this cabal called the Hyatt 10 has failed us miserably, and by those who blindly follow their twisted path.

State witness or accomplice

 

 

Janet Napoles, the “pork-barrel queen,” has been the most hated Filipino woman in recent days, perhaps rivaling the public’s revulsion of former president Gloria Arroyo or even the first lady Imelda Marcos. For her notoriety, Napoles has been elevated to celebrity status and now the most popular butt of jokes in social media. Even her photo while being pushed around in a Louis Vuitton-designed wheelchair has been flashed on YouTube and other media along with the photograph of Lady Gaga’s similar wheelchair ride.

 

After several weeks of inept manhunt by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to apprehend Napoles on allegations of being the principal in a P10-billion pork barrel scam, and the growing suspicion of her scripted surrender to President Noynoy Aquino, Napoles has become a comical sideshow to the people’s outrage against pork barrel.

Mugshots of Janet Napoles. Photo courtesy of the Philippine National Police (PNP).

It is a misdirected public indignation. In this respect, the social media is equally to blame in turning Napoles into a clown instead of seriously focusing on the larger issue of corruption in government. The social media is turning Napoles to a hapless and miserable caricature. Whether Napoles is the scam’s mastermind or just an accomplice should not be the only focus of this ongoing sideshow, but the information she could disclose which is important in the pursuit of truth. There are people in the high echelons of government who could be possibly implicated -- this pork barrel scam is merely the surface of an almost bottomless pit of government corruption.

 

Right now, no charges have been laid against Napoles, except for alleged illegal detention or kidnapping of Benhur Luy, the principal whistleblower of the pork barrel scam. The Department of Justice and the NBI have not completed their investigation while the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee plans to conduct a separate inquiry. The stunning surrender of Napoles to President Aquino also raises the speculation that the government is planning to use Napoles as a state witness in prosecuting some senators and members of the opposition in Congress for their involvement in the pork barrel scam. In exchange for turning as a state witness, Napoles obviously could ask for immunity from prosecution or bargain for a lighter penalty for the role she played in the scam.

 

The current administration’s plan to make Napoles a state witness could easily be seen as a ploy to divert the issue away from President Aquino’s allies who were named in the Commission on Audit report. This would turn the investigation of the misuse and abuse of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) into a witch hunt that could target certain political enemies of the Aquino administration.

 

Whether Napoles can be turned into a state witness is debatable. Doubters argue that Napoles could be the most guilty, therefore, not qualified to become a state witness. But in the grand scheme of government theft, how can someone of Napoles’s stature as a mere commoner be the most guilty? Shouldn’t the usual suspects be those in power who have control of the purse and its disbursement? Or those who have the final authority to decide, which in this case happens to be our legislators and high-ranking members of the executive department?

 

Perhaps, it’s the entire system of government we have that is most guilty. But a government could only be as good or as bad as the people who run it.

 

Turning Napoles into a state witness will pervert the system of justice. Napoles will become a tool for the miscarriage of justice, especially if she is used to expose the corruption of some members of Congress on the pretext of cleaning the government. If not the scam’s principal which seems doubtful, at the very least, Napoles is an accomplice in the scam. Under the law, an accomplice has the same degree of culpability as the principal or primary offender, and faces the same criminal penalties.

 

Our most serious concern however, should be whether the investigation and the consequent trial of those culpably involved in the PDAF pork barrel scam would be tried under the full force of the law. There is no assurance that the testimony of Napoles could bring down the corrupt senators and congressmen who were allegedly involved in the PDAF scandal. And there is reason to be skeptical.

 

Just look at the history of cases of graft and corruption and other crimes brought by the government against our politicians. The Marcos family had been chased out of the country after the EDSA People Power Revolution in 1984, but several decades have already passed and yet Imelda Marcos still has to stand trial for her involvement in one of the greatest cases of plunder in Philippine history. Worse, some of the cases against Marcos have been dismissed. Where are the members of the Marcos family now? Imelda Marcos sits as representative of Ilocos Norte in Congress and her son Bongbong is a senator who may have ambitions of running for president in 2016. Daughter Imee is governor of Ilocos Norte and was once a member of Congress, too. Most likely, they have also collected their share of the pork barrel.

 

After almost four years since the mass killing, the cases against the Ampatuans and their co-accused in the Maguindanao massacre remain at a standstill. To date, the court is still hearing their petition for bail. Meanwhile, some witnesses have died or been killed or recanted their testimonies.  



Nearly four years after the Maguindanao massacre, the perpetrators of this
gruesome crime have not been found guilty by the courts.



Former president Joseph Estrada was impeached in the Senate and was ousted from the presidency in 2001 by EDSA People Power 2. Local newspapers reported as early as 1999 about a plot to embarrass Estrada by attributing to his administration all sorts of perceived faults and scams in order to cover up anomalies and scams committed by his predecessor, Fidel Ramos. Estrada was sentenced by the Sandiganbayan to life imprisonment for plunder but was later pardoned by his successor, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. He ran for president again in the 2010 presidential election and finished runner-up to President Noynoy Aquino. During the recent local elections last June, Estrada ran and won as mayor of Manila.

 

Whatever is happening to the cases of corruption and plunder against former president Gloria Arroyo?

 

Last May 25, 2013, the Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the charges of bribery and corruption against Arroyo for lack of sufficient evidence. Recall that on November 18, 2011, Arroyo was arrested following the filing of criminal charges for electoral fraud. She was incarcerated at the Veterans Memorial Medical Center in Quezon City as a form of house arrest for health reasons. Arroyo, despite winning back her congressional seat in Pampanga in the last elections, continues to be under hospital arrest in connection with a plunder case involving alleged misuse of Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office funds.

 

Arroyo’s detention is nearing two years already, yet she has not been tried for her crimes. Every citizen, whether she is the most hated or most evil person, is entitled to her day in court as guaranteed by the right to a speedy trial under the Constitution and the Speedy Trial Act of 1998, or Republic Act No. 8493.

 

The concept of reasonable time in which to have a trial seems to attract little value in the Philippine justice system. Although what is reasonable is left to the court to decide in the circumstances of individual cases, lengthy and unnecessary delays in trying the accused could violate his or her constitutional right. It is not just the infringement of a constitutional right which is important but delays may outweigh the strong societal interest in having serious charges, such as corruption and plunder, be tried on their merits.

 

The very slow wheels of justice in the Philippines will work to the advantage of Janet Napoles. Her lawyers could use every legal trick in the book to delay the trial of her case, if this ever reaches the courts. Certainly, those senators and congressmen who might be implicated in the scam can likewise employ the same tricks, in addition to parliamentary immunity. Thanks to pork barrel, they have the luxury of money and time to delay and delay their cases until the public has forgotten their rage.

 

The current pork barrel scandal, more than beyond exposing the corruption of Napoles and Congress, has also effectively disclosed the glaring contradiction between the current government’s pronouncements and what it actually does in practice. That the present government is not as spotless as it purports to be. For one thing, the Aquino administration justifies the morality of the pork barrel system by making it an important instrument for the government to carry out its mandate, despite programs which are not in the best interests of the people.

 

How can the people trust a government that doesn’t follow the words it says?

 

We should not vacillate in our protests against corruption in government. The current Aquino administration, being the staunchest defender of the pork barrel system, should not be spared of our collective outrage simply because the yellow media and the President’s spinmeisters have painted Noynoy Aquino as morally upright and incorruptible.