EDITORIAL PLAYGROUND POLITICS: The Plight of Transparency in the Philippines

TheMarcos administration should refrain from displaying behavior reminiscent of a playful baby and should stop making the Philippines their playground and the Filipinos their toys.

In a news report published by the Philippine Information Agency, President Bongbong Marcos pointed out that ‘transparency and accountability are the cornerstone of governance’ which he assured are ‘axiomatic’ in ‘everything’ that they do. PBBM gave this remark after being asked about his ‘excessive’ trips abroad. However, claiming transparency and accountability requires credibility which can be attained not only through mere claims but, more importantly, through actions. Unfortunately and sadly, PBBM is only good with his words.

Despite the president’s assertions, the time frame in which he signed the 2023 General Appropriations Act (GAA) with a total of P5.268 trillion in national budget is by far the fastest in the PH government. Due to this unprecedented speed, it piqued the curiosity of many as to how the administration plans to allocate such an amount of funds. The president defined this budget as the ‘roadmap’ of his administration’s plans –claiming that it will primarily be used to support the country’s recovery plans from the aftermath of the pandemic.

Upon examining the approved budget, it is evident that education is prioritized with P852.8 billion, followed by infrastructure with P718.4 billion for Marcos’ ‘Build, Better, More Program’. However, despite a 10.4% increase to the P296.3 billion for health, it obviously falls short in addressing the lack of healthcare workers and resolving the health crisis. These numbers further highlight the disregard for public demands and the failure to prioritize people’s health and the well-being of healthcare workers.

Furthermore, another aspect of the administration’s budget that has sparked controversy is the allocation of the confidential and intelligence funds (CIF). The CIFs, according to five national government agencies (NGAs), are lump-sum allocations reserved within the national budget to cover costs associated with surveillance and intelligence information gathering activities. Due to its nature, the COA is unable to conduct an audit of the funds’ final reports because no liquidation is necessary. This lack of required oversight means that the details of the CIFs cannot be disclosed to the public. While this is alarming as it is, what truly evokes concern is the staggering CIFs under the Office of the President, a whopping P9.3 billion, and the Office of the Vice President, a significant P500 million.

Undeniably, the established guidelines of the CIFs for national security and law enforcement are ideal, however, it goes against the basic principle of transparency in the government while breeding an environment conducive for corruption. The absence of a requirement for a detailed reporting and auditing of these funds makes it challenging to detect any potential irregularities and abuses. Without stringent accountability measures and public scrutiny, manipulating the system to one’s advantage is easier. Moreover, the allure of handling significant amounts of money without proper checks and balances can create a culture of greed and corruption within national offices and agencies. The sheer magnitude of these funds can tempt individuals within these organizations to exploit the lack of oversight by engaging in fraudulent activities.

Amidst the contentious CIFs, another controversy emerged when the administration called for the immediate enactment of the Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF) Bill, which was later called into an act. Presented under the alternate name Maharlika Investment Fund, the government portrays it as an additional investment opportunity without thorough assessment of the potential risks and losses involved.

The SWF primarily focuses on generating returns, thus indicating a higher tolerance for risk. After facing public criticism for initially proposing the use of pension funds, the revised version now seeks to utilize central dividends and investible funds from LandBank and

Development Bank.

Given the PH’s rank (117 out of 180 countries) on the Corruption Perception Index, there is a heightened concern regarding the potential for malversation. In addition to the inherent risks of any public investment venture, the looming threat of global recession coupled with the history of corruption and unexplained wealth of the Marcoses further intensify these concerns. When questioned about accountability, it becomes apparent that those in power are hesitant to provide transparency to the public. Therefore, unless ordinary individuals are actively involved, it remains challenging to achieve a clear reflection of the situation.

To further exacerbate the situation, the Marcos administration has also been seen in an excessive amount of international trips. Although these are efforts towards improving economic and diplomatic relations, these trips come with significant expenses funded by taxpayers. For instance, during a five-day visit to Switzerland for the World Economic Forum, the administration was accused of concealing the delegation’s size. The VERA files reported that at least 70 people accompanied the president, indicating a lack of transparency. The delegation, after facing difficulties finding accommodations in Davos, even resorted to Zurich City, the 7th most expensive place to live in in Europe. This extravagant behavior raises concerns about cost-effectiveness and resource management. While allies of Marcos defended the trip as “multi-purpose” and essential for fostering personal relationships, the opposition emphasized the need for cost-benefit analysis and efficient resource utilization.

The Marcos administration’s deliberate lack of transparency, as exemplified by the utilization of CIFs, Maharlika fund, and excessive foreign trips, has contributed to the development of a detrimental culture within the government. This culture perpetuates a false sense of entitlement and immunity among certain national and local government agencies, leading to a disregard for the principles of transparency and accountability. Moreover, it also allows government officials to operate without proper accountability, as their actions and use of funds remain hidden from public view. Such an environment breeds a sense of impunity, where officials may feel they can act without consequences.

This can be observed in cases like that of Senator Bato Dela Rosa and his involvement with the International Criminal Court (ICC), where he displays arrogance by dismissing and questioning the ICC’s efforts to investigate his involvement as ‘implementer’ in the extrajudicial killings during the last administration’s war on drugs. Sen. Bato even goes so far as to claim that the ICC is “insisting on meddling” with the country’s drug war, stating that he will confront the international court if they continue to monitor PH’s justice system. He stays on this high horse due to the backing of the Marcos administration, which is known for being tolerant and supportive of such dubious actions and choices.

On the other hand, to rationalize PBBM’s stance on transparency, the president declares that the concerns raised by critics demanding transparency hold minimal sway over international investors. Instead, he assures that investors primarily assess pivotal aspects like the ease of doing business and the costs associated with establishing operations in the country. Significantly, he asserts that as the “new kid in town”, his main objective lies in forging alliances with global partners, subtly implying that fostering a culture of transparency and accountability within the nation he governs should be relegated to a secondary position.

With all that has been said, all falls to this notion: if the majority uphold and place unwavering trust to the votes they casted in the recent national elections, they must assume the role of vigilant watchdogs over an administration as if led by a clueless baby – demanding transparency and raising questions as a force to be reckoned with.

In short, would you sit down and let yourself be played?

Lieis the enemy of truth.

Hate is the enemy of love.

When lies are coupled with hate and anger, only a journalist who is passionate to speak for the truth will remain unbeatable. But how long will that man survive, when the meaning of his words is used as a gun pointed at the back of his head?

Just in 2021, one of the most-talked-about journalists, Maria Ressa, was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace for showing critical truth and for leading her courageous newsroom in persecuting lies and campaigning for truth. Together with Rappler’s cofounder, the Russian journalist and the editor-in-chief of the independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta, Dmitry Muratov, also received the prestigious award. However, despite being first in the country to receive such an award, Ressa’s digital company is now persecuted, not because they are telling lies, but for telling the truth.

Rappler became known for presenting evidential facts and exposing analytical information of the government’s corruption and human rights violation. As many know how democracy works, in the context of the fanatic era, these truthful facts are tagged as defamation claims - now being targeted to a legal appeals when 10 warrants of arrests were filed during the Duterte’s administration against Rappler in the span of one year.

Ressa and Rappler were just two of the many media practitioners and groups that were being spotted. There were a lot of small journalists who fought another battle after battling with the truth. They have to face the legal charges against them that were definitely caused by the hurt egos. Filing cyber libel or defamation claims were the refuge of the wounded, corrupt and abusers trying to clean up their spilled mess.

But more than the legal battles, a much more horrible fate awaits journalists when they head back home - the physical violence which turned into the call of the angry politicians to target the truth deliverers and justice seekers making them the enemies of the public.

During the Duterte administration, according to the NUJP, we have lost 23 journalists and media workers. The truth delivered was silenced and so are the justice seekers - 427 activists, human rights defenders, and grassroot organizers were killed. In the Marcos-led Philippines, to date, we have lost 3 journalists - the last was the 198th journalist killed in the country since 1986.

Last Novermber 2022, a news report from Inquirer.net