‘Tug-o’-war’
How will a “tug-o’-war” between three agencies over the troubled Judicial Reform Support Project turn out? All three seek to probe a leaked World Bank report on pilfering from a $21.9-million loan to the Supreme Court
Nagged by perception of corruption in courts, Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. secured, in October 2003, bank funding for a reform program JRSP sought (a) to speed up case adjudication, (b) enhance institutional integrity, (c) strengthen institutional capacity.
On the first whiff of scam, Senator Franklin Drilon filed Senate Resolution No. 674. It’d authorize the Senate Oversight Committee on Public Expenditures to check if JRSP funds were dissipated for out-of-town trips to lavish dinners. “Unchecked irregularity” could tar both Court and government.
Wait, interjected Reps. Teodoro Casiño and Neri Colmenares who submitted House Resolution 2049. This directs the House Committee on Good Government and Public Accountability to lead the charge instead.
“That press release (on JBRS) is now turning to be fake,” court spokesperson Midas Marquez fumed. Nonetheless, “the Court’s Project Management Office is drafting an answer … even after it was already disowned by the World Bank.”
Rebut a “fake” report? Or does it wish to uproot a fact?
The Bank did not issue a press release. “Given the deliberative nature of information, the aide-mémoire is usually not disclosed to the public … This is a monitoring and management tool that captures … implementation review findings and recommendations,” WB external relations Erika Leann Lacson-Esguerra stated.
The fact is, WB submitted on Dec. 28, 2011 this report to the Court. Copies were sent to relevant agencies, including Finance Department, National Economic Development Board and Budget Commission. The leaked document matched official copies, these offices confirmed.
WB seeks a refund of $199,900 in “ineligible expenditures,” Inquirer reports. Of 70 ineligible transactions, 16 were “attributed to Court Administrator Marquez and his office.” JRSP is a “high risk” project, the report found. Its financial statements “can no longer be relied upon.” Other flaws include self-serving internal audit, lack of segregation of duties to procurement irregularities. Commission on Audit skewers feet-dragging implementation that result in penalties.
The Bank’s aide-mémoire “notes gross irregularities happened in 2010 and 2011,” Budget Secretary Butch Abad pointed out. During this period, the Bank observed escalating use of funds … and procurements that violated the agreement.” Corona was appointed chief justice of the Supreme Court in 2010.
Court Administrator Marquez also headed the Bids and Awards Committee that held the JRSP checkbook. “In four contracts to one firm, ( Midas ) was requestor of services, approver of terms of reference, end user, authorizer of contract extensions, authorizer of payments.” This interlocking of functions resulted in “questionable decisions on how the fund was managed.”
The “leak” has a long history and valued role in journalism. Remember the late Celso Cabrera of the Manila Chronicle? His column “Inside Malacanang” needled the powerful with leaked items. Banned from the Palace, he retitled his column “Outside Malacanang.”
“What are we in power for?” the late Senate President Jose Avelino told a closed door meeting of the party in power on January 15, 1949, Cabrera wrote. “Para que estamos en poder?” haunted Avelino to his grave. Despite protests of misquotation, the blurb remains part of Filipino political lexicon today.
In Pasay City, Judge Emilio Rilloraza, on December 7, 1955, jailed five reporters for contempt. They published leaked information about a Cabinet secretary accused of murdering a witness and a judge blackmailed to acquit. The journalists spurned release offered if they “revealed” sources to the Court.
Held in the Pasay slammer were Evening News’ Jose Aspiras, Manila Chronicle’s Francisco de Leon, Philippines Herald’s Max . Edralin, Manila Times’ Manuel Salak andPhilippine News Service’s Gregorio Coronel. The Supreme Court swiftly issued a writ of habeas corpus. President Ramon Magsaysay , thereafter, signed a shield law.
A decade later, the late Philippine News Service Romeo Abundo and I invoked that legal buckler. The Lower House Civil Service Committee insisted we reveal sources for a report on leaked test questions for 300,000 examinees. We refused.
In 1973, New York Times and Washington Post published the “Pentagon Papers,” a secret analysis of the Vietnam War. White House “plumbers” were arrested for a Watergate break-in to ferret medical records of Daniel Ellsberg, a Rand Corporation analyst suspected of being the source.
Turn over 64 tapes on the break-in, the US Supreme Court unanimously ordered Nixon in July 1974. The Court rejected Nixon’s claim of “executive privilege.” This spurred the House Judiciary Committee to impeach Nixon for “obstruction of justice.” On August 8, Nixon became the first US president to resign.
Internet’s new tools spread information—or falsehood—at “warp speed.” Filipinos were the first to wage People Power through text messaging in 2001, Howard Rheingold writes in “Smart Mobs—The Next Social Revolution.”
As the “tug-o’-war” over the JRSP story shows, “verifying facts remains the central function of journalism.” The race to be the first to break the news can be self-defeating. The critical task is to become the best at sifting facts from chaff.
