The current water shortage in Metro Manila has in turn created incredible inconvenience, endless finger-pointing and even conspiracy theories as some sort of an election ploy. However, the underlying reason for situations such as this is a failure by the Philippine government.
Unfortunately, it is so easy for the politically motivated to blame a particular president and his or her administration. This happens every time there is a failure that can and should be traced back to the government. But if it were simply a matter of a problem ignored by the “current administration” regardless of when that administration took office or left office, then all we have to do is change the current administration. Except, that is done every six years by law.
The idea that an incoming administration gets to reexamine every project put in place by previous administrations might seem to have some merit. However, we have already had one example that cost the Philippine government P800 million.
The International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) ordered the Philippine government to pay P800 million to Baggerwerken Decloedt En Zoon (BDC) for scrapping the P18.7-billion Laguna Lake Rehabilitation Project (LLRP) in 2011.
ICSID issued the award on January 23, 2017, six years after former President Benigno S. Aquino III junked the deal that was twice declared by then-Justice Secretary Leila M. de Lima as “legal and binding.” Former President Aquino called the project as merely transferring the silt from one part of the lake to another. This was after BDC spent close to P400 million to undertake studies on the lake, including its water quality, its geology and geomorphology, the species still existing in the lake, and the social and economic impact of the LLRP.
Whether or not cancelling this individual project was sensible is not the issue. The issue pertains to the system of checks and balances in the government, which should have rejected a “bad” project before its implementation. And if it was a “good” project, why can an administration operating within specific term limits be allowed to interfere without offering new information and therefore a rationale for the cancellation?
The National Economic and Development Authority was designed to be that impartial body, operating only in the best interests of the nation. Neda’s mandate is clear: “Coordination of such activities as the formulation of policies, plans and programs to efficiently set the broad parameters for national and subnational (area-wide, regional and local development); Review, evaluation and monitoring of infrastructure projects identified under the Comprehensive and Integrated Infrastructure Program consistent with the government’s thrust of increasing investment spending for the growing demand on quality infrastructure facilities; and undertaking of short-term policy reviews to provide critical analyses of development issues and policy alternatives to decision-makers.”
Neda should be totally nonpolitical to function properly. Yet, the members of the Neda Board are all “political” appointees by the sitting President. Something has to change and it must be changed quickly.