|
THE
refusal of the National Economic and Development
Authority (Neda) to hand over to the Senate certain
documents related to the national broadband network (NBN)
controversy seems to confirm the view that Neda is part
of the problem. It signals how Neda as an institution
seem to have lost its way and drifted into the web of a
corrupt bureaucracy that is hampering our efforts as a
country to achieve progress.
Is Neda
trying to hide something fishy as regards the national
broadband network deal? Is it part of the huge sleazy
transaction? Thus far there isn’t anything that gives
reason to believe any one in Neda, from its top brass to
the hardworking technical staff below, has made money
from this or any other project—the integrity, or at
least belief in the integrity, of its individual
staffers represents the institution’s one noteworthy
quality—but at the rate things have been going, many
people understandably start to suspect that someone or
some people in the agency is covering up for something
stinky.
We used
to call Neda the National Economic Council (NEC), a
public agency funded by people’s taxes to coordinate
government plans, policies and programs. Since its
inception, the Filipino people always looked at Neda as
an institution free of the taint of corruption and
sleazy compromises that characterized Philippine
politics—until the NBN came.
It’s
unfortunate because prior to the NBN controversy, Neda
has always been looked up to by the general public as a
public agency that is above partisan and rent-seeking
politics. Since the time of Marcos, Neda has never been
linked to corrupt deals.
The
common perception then seems to be that Neda is staffed
by nonpolitical and geeky types whose judgments
vis-à-vis programs and projects brought to their
attention for evaluation and approval are guided by
objective and sound technical and financial assessments
and not by political considerations or instincts.
Neda’s
recent actions therefore seemed to indicate that, as an
institution, it has been dragged to the gutter of
survival politics of this administration. The claim of
“executive privilege” that its officers now keep
invoking has been a classic Malacañang ploy to prevent
Congress and the general public from unearthing the
truth about controversial deals recently entered into,
with questionable characters playing dubious roles.
Do Neda
officials really think they can fend off Congress from
seeking the truth? We think, however, that this question
is secondary. The primary issue is, to what extent would
Neda sacrifice its reputation and credibility to save a
very unpopular leader or a cause that has been
questioned and deserves a just closure?
For
giving its approval to a project that was tainted by
bribery and corruption (the offer having been exposed by
Neda’s former head no less), for its failure to perform
due diligence, it has destroyed its credibility as an
organization. The only way it can regain this
credibility is by coming clean and giving complete
access to all the pertinent documents to Congress and
the Filipino people. It could choose to tough it out
with Congress, but it can only do so at the risk of
completely losing the trust and confidence of the
general public.
Do Neda
officials really think they could ignore Congress’
subpoena powers forever? The doctrine of “executive
privilege” by itself is a tenuous ground to stand on.
There is no specific constitutional provision on that.
The lawyers simply assume that executive privilege is
embedded in the separation of powers between and among
the Executive, Legislative and the Judiciary. And given
the gravity of the issue—a multibillion-peso loan
allegedly marred by bribery and wholesale
corruption—it’s only a matter of time before they have
to cave in to the clamor, not only from Congress, but
the citizenry.
Section
5 of Executive Order 230, which reorganized the Neda,
says: “In the formulation of basic policies, plans,
programs and projects, there shall be maximum
participation by and consultation with concerned
private-sector groups, community organizations and
beneficiaries and local government units in order to
ensure that priority needs are incorporated into such
policies, plans, programs and projects…”
The
provision mandate Neda to ensure “maximum participation”
by the private sector and civil society in development
planning. Transparency and openness is assumed in the
said mandate.
As of
this writing, the news came in that Neda officials had
declared that only a court order will compel them to
open the NBN documents to the public. How they will
then, given the premise such a court order indeed comes,
make those fine distinctions between “official papers”
and “official deliberations” is another thing worth
watching. This is one game that won’t end that easily.
The teasing out for truth is a long, difficult struggle
in this country, as recent events have shown. The last
thing that exercise needs is a respected central
planning agency seen as having allowed professionalism
to become subservient to politics. Indeed, complete
transparency will be Neda’s atonement and redemption.
There is no other way. |
