Neri reported bribe to GMA, then what?

GOTCHA By Jarius Bondoc, The Philippine Star, Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Romy Neri told the President about Ben Abalos’s attempt to bribe him P200 million to sponsor the ZTE deal. Gloria Arroyo instructed him to turn it down. Then what? No answer, except invoking “executive privilege” in communications between the President and a Cabinet alter ego.

Arroyo confirmed that Neri early this year did report to her Abalos’s bribe offer. She said she told him to decline. Then what? Again no answer, except for a belated Malacañang claim that it conducted a “discreet probe”, in which not one of the principal players — Neri, Abalos, Secretaries Larry Mendoza, Peter Favila or Gary Teves, or whistleblower Joey de Venecia — were interrogated.

From the official silence springs the questions: what did the President do about the bribery report? Did she direct the proper authorities to move in? Is she not duty-bound to do so?

Answers lie in the President’s oath of office, as spelled out in the Constitution: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President of the Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to very man, and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation. So help me God.”

The nation knows, of course, that nothing happened to the briber.

The Penal Code treats a failed attempt at bribery as “corruption of a public official”, that can land an offender 20 years in jail. No such charge was filed against Abalos.

Not only that. The $330-million deal with ZTE Corp., that Abalos allegedly was brokering, was signed on Apr. 21, 2007. It came in the middle of the election period, although no exemption was ever issued by Abalos as Comelec chief.

And more. Abalos’s Comelec went on to oversee the congressional and local elections in May, highlighted by the province-wide sabotage of ballot results by his newly promoted Lintang Bedol.

* * *

Comes now another failed bribery attempt — another chance to enforce the law against corrupting public officials.

Opposition Rep. Crispin Beltran has exposed a P2-million offer from Malacañang operative Francis Ver to sign a sham impeachment rap against Arroyo. It is sham because the filer, one Roel Pulido, is knocking Arroyo for betrayal of public trust based on the affidavit of Joey, whom he elevates as witness for impeachment yet damns as his accused in an Ombudsman case. It is sham because it was endorsed by Arroyo ally Rep. Edgar San Luis, who admits he does not see probability of guilt but only wants to look how far the case would go. It is sham because it follows the pattern of past pre-emptive “impeach-me” raps that foil the filing of real ones as a loophole in the Constitution’s rule of one complaint per year. It is sham, finally, because it has to rely on payoffs for endorsers.

Minority Leader Ronnie Zamora said that Ver had acted in cahoots with two other officers of Arroyo’s Kampi Party. Not only Beltran but also five other minority members were approached: Rufus Rodriguez, Justin Chipeco, Dan Fernandez, Mujiv Hataman and Bem Noel. At least three of them also were offered P2 million each. Not one bit the bait. And so the endorser shamelessly had to come from among Arroyo’s pals.

Upon exposure as briber, Ver was sacked as Kampi deputy secretary general. Interior Sec. Ronaldo Puno, Kampi chairman, let go of him to avoid being implicated, since Ver once served as his chief of staff. Malacañang cleaners are now employing damage control.

Will the opposition follow the lead of the Chief Executive and let this pass? Or will it strive to make a difference by bringing up charges in court?

* * *

Elections for Sangguniang Kabataan are fast approaching on Oct. 29. Its critics are again shouting for abolition because the village youth councils allegedly introduce teenagers so early to corruption.

It is true that sleaze plagues all 41,995 SKs in as many barangays nationwide. A “contractor” chosen by the barangay chairman or treasurer controls all SK expenses — for supplies or services — from which he draws kickbacks for his patron and himself. The young idealists, aged 15-17, are told the sad reality that things simply won’t move without the watchful contractor, that he has been from the start, and that he will provide for their needs as well. In short, he is the briber and destroyer of morals.

Because there is a contractor in each of the SKs, the proposed solution is to abolish. It’s a copout — surrender to the rot. It follows the bad example from the top of not filing charges against the corruptors. That bad lesson is made possible because the SKs are supervised via a nationwide body under the Office of the President.

Is not the solution to fraud at the SKs the filing of charges against the ubiquitous contractors?

* * *

E-mail: jariusbondoc@workmail.com