Last
Thursday, the Senate Economic Affairs Committee held the long
awaited hearing on the blacklisting of three Filipino contracting
firms in the World Bank-financed National Road Improvement Program
(NRIMP).The public expected fireworks and they got it. But it
was firepower directed at the World Bank, ending with a decision
to issue a sub poena duces tecum to the director, Bert Hoffman.
While
shocked radio listeners and appalled TV viewers watched and
listened, they waited for answers to questions that have long
perplexed and enraged citizens: what is in the bidding process
and procedures of the government which gives rise to collusion
among bidders and corruption of public officials? What legislative
and other remedial measures can be undertaken to strengthen
the procurement system? What has the Ombudsman done about
the reports which were submitted by the World Bank (popularly
known as the Bank), through the Department of Finance?
The
Bank was roundly excoriated for initially refusing to give
the Senate a copy of the referral report which was forwarded
to the Ombudsman. As far as the Bank was concerned, it had
already done its duty to inform the Philippine government
through the Department of Finance. The latter represents the
county in its official dealings with the World Bank.
People
understand reluctance of the Bank It is concerned about the
safety of witnesses, especially since prominent personalities
were cited. Further, it is careful not to be accused of interference
in domestic affairs of the country. As far as the Bank is
concerned, it made a decision on a project which was funded
from their funds. It is the responsibility of the government
to determine whether Philippine laws were breached. The expectation
was that the report would be used as a basis of internal investigation
by the appropriate authority; in this case the Ombudsman.
In
a bizarre twist of events, the burden of proof was laid squarely
on the Bank. The latter was exhorted in absentia to submit
proofs of collusion and corruption. Other issues were raked
up, including the matter of the setting up of the Philippine
office on Philippine soil. The assumption was that Hoffman
is promoting U.S. interests, which is odd because he is a
Dutch citizen.
A
lengthy conversation was held with the doctor of the First
Gentlemen and the personalities mentioned in the Bank report
swore that they were innocent. These included leading officials
of the Department of Public Works and Highways, and the contractors.
The referral report was submitted to the Department of Finance
in November 2007 and transmitted to the Ombudsman. The Finance
Secretary disclosed that earlier he was consulted by the Bank
about the best way to handle it. According to him, he informed
the Bank that the Ombudsman was the appropriate agency to
act on it. The report was sent through him because he is the
official Philippine representative to the Bank.
The
Ombudsman complained that she had “difficulty”
using the report because of the restrictions attached to it.
That is no excuse. Her office could have conducted its own
investigation and generated its own data separate from that
of the World Bank. Where there is smoke there is fire. The
question is very simple. Was there collusion or not? Many
Filipinos believe that when there is smoke in DPWH, there
is a conflagration.
It
has been 15 months since the referral report was submitted.
The Ombudsman admitted that two days before the hearing it
received a much more detailed report from the Bank which it
still has to examine. Will the country wait 15 more months?
The
Rules of Court were used as the framework for the hearing.
All issues taken up had to conform to court requirements.
Thus the Senate hearing was managed like a trial, especially
on the matter of evidence. Doesn’t the Senate have its
own rules for the conduct of hearings which are purportedly
in the interest of legislation? Surely, a hearing is not a
trial. Ironically, it was the Bank which was placed on trial.
Another
curious kind of logic was the statement by the Budget secretary
which he also made in 2007: the collusion occurred because
the Bank insisted on its own rules and not on the Philippine
procurement law.
Does
this imply that all contracts conducted under Philippine laws
are free from collusion among contractors, government officials,
and politicians? Har! Har! How then does one explain the fertilizer
scam, the overpriced lamp posts controversy, and so on ad
nauseaum?
One
can have the best procurement law in the world, the most stringent
anti-graft law, the perfect budget law. Everyone knows that
the negotiations, the sharing system and the delivery (of
cash) mechanism are all agreed on and ironed out before the
perfect law is applied. The NRIMP case is a perfect example
of the convergence of political and bureaucratic corruption.
In
the meantime, the Bank is on trial.
