NO AUDIT, NO TRANSPARENCY, NO ACCOUNTABILITY
WHAT
‘CONFIDENTIAL EXPENSES’?
Philippine
Daily Inquirer / 04:35 AM February 07, 2020
Whatever
the reason for Eliseo Rio Jr. to quit his post as undersecretary of operations
at the Department of Information and Communications Technology, whether it is
his now-strained relations with ICT Secretary Gregorio Honasan or his being
shut out of decision-making processes there, the matter of the use of hundreds of millions of pesos in DICT funds for surveillance
should be investigated thoroughly—and the public duly informed of the findings.
From there, the stringent requirements of accountability should be swiftly met,
or this nation is truly the basket case it is now alleged to be.
The
DICT has since issued a statement to defend itself, but as of this writing its
chief has yet to personally respond to Rio’s contention that confidential funds were disbursed for
surveillance activities that are beyond the department’s mandate. Nor was
any mention of the matter made at the Cabinet meeting last Wednesday even when
Honasan was present, as though nothing significant had occurred at the
department among whose functions are to improve public access, promote consumer
protection and industry development, and formulate the Philippines’
cybersecurity policy.
…Rio’s
message was clear in an interview with the Inquirer’s Miguel Camus early this
week, where he cited a confidential fund
that, he said, did not require auditing and
that Honasan had sought even while still serving as senator. Curious.
“My
original position has always been [that] the DICT cannot use a confidential
fund because it’s not in our mandate to do intelligence and surveillance work,”
Rio said.
In
its defense, the DICT said the confidential
expenses of P300 million were for the “lawful monitoring and surveillance
of systems and networks” given the cyberthreats faced by the Philippines. To
the COA finding of irregularity in
the confidential disbursements, the DICT said the commission’s recommendations
were merely “procedural.” The DICT did not address the COA finding that the
department underspent for other projects because the money allotted was used
for the confidential expenses. “All these noted deficiencies adversely affected
and are counter-beneficial to the [DICT’s] mandate of cybersecurity policy and
program coordination,” the COA said in its memorandum.
The
Senate is preparing to look into the matter,…
Rio described the DICT statement as
“deceptive”
but has stopped short of making direct accusations. …Rio formulates the bottom
line: “In the surveillance practice, what they look for is results. We have to
take care of the government’s money.” That’s taxpayer money, too.
No
audit, no transparency, no accountability = Guaranteed corruption
Public domain image
ReplyDeleteImage link:
https://pixabay.com/vectors/comic-face-fear-fright-horror-man-1296118/
Gonzalinho
WHY THE ATTACK ON TRANSPARENCY?
ReplyDeletePhilippine Daily Inquirer / 05:07 AM September 19, 2020
If utilized properly, the requirement for every government official or employee to fill out and submit a “Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth,” better known as a SALN, is a powerful tool for government and the public to check abuse of one’s office or theft of public funds.
Embedded in the 1987 Constitution, the requirement for a SALN covers all government employees who each must submit the notarized document upon assuming office and then every year thereafter. It has served as a useful tool for the Commission on Audit, the Civil Service Commission, the Office of the Ombudsman, other politicians, and members of the public, including (and especially) the media to monitor the growth (or diminishment) of an official’s personal wealth while in office.
Simple as it may sound, any increase in the net worth of a government official during his or her term of office is a potential red flag for investigators. Unexplained growth in assets and net worth from year to year could trigger probes into the source of such income, compared to one’s official salary and allowances, or assets gained before one joined government.
Their SALNs were used to oust the late former chief justice Renato Corona as well as his successor, Maria Lourdes Sereno. Impeachment proceedings against former president Joseph Estrada hinged, in part, on discrepancies between his SALN and his lifestyle and personal wealth. And to this day, calculations and comparisons between the official salaries of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos and his wife Imelda and their enormous wealth are used by historians, critics, and even the Supreme Court to demonstrate the enormity of the plunder that supported their conjugal rule.
To be continued
Gonzalinho
WHY THE ATTACK ON TRANSPARENCY?
ReplyDeletePhilippine Daily Inquirer / 05:07 AM September 19, 2020
Continued
Thanks but no thanks, however, to Ombudsman Samuel Martires, himself a former associate justice of the Supreme Court, the efficacy of the SALN as a check on official abuse is about to end.
Just this week, the Office of the Ombudsman made public new guidelines on access to and use of the SALNs of public officials. Under the new rules, access to SALNs may only be availed by the following personalities: the official involved or a duly authorized representative, bearers of court orders in relation to pending cases, and the Office of the Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Office for the purpose of conducting a fact-finding investigation.
Of note is the absence of the media, as representative of the general public, from the list of those entitled to request for copies of SALNs. The Ombudsman’s order effectively shuts the door to public scrutiny of the finances of public officials. Such a terrible irony given that the Office of the Ombudsman was created precisely to ferret out secret or unexplained wealth among government officials in preparation for submission of cases before the Sandiganbayan.
The designation of a SALN as a public document is precisely to make it available for public scrutiny. To shroud it in unprecedented secrecy (courtesy of the principal anti-corruption office no less) is to undermine its very purpose and thwart the Constitution’s mandate for a government of transparency and accountability.
People are aware, too, of the generally obsequious attitude of the courts toward high-ranking officials, as well as the wariness of the Ombudsman’s field officers to be linked in any way to the leak of official documents.
What is the root of the Ombudsman’s recent order? It appears to have stemmed from the refusal of President Duterte and officials around him to release his SALNs for the past two years.
…in yet another instance of defying the principles of transparency, even such a simple act as the disclosure of the appointment of a government official is now left to the discretion of the appointee. According to a Rappler report, Malacañang has for months now refused to release announcements of the names of new appointees.
…What is the motive for keeping the Filipino people in the dark about what this government is doing, and how honest its people are? What is the Duterte administration so determined to hide from the public’s eyes?
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/133709/why-the-attack-on-transparency#ixzz6wij0NXdB
No transparency, no accountability. Presumption of corruption.
Gonzalinho
MORALES: LIMITING ACCESS TO SALN GOES AGAINST TRANSPARENCY
ReplyDeleteBy: Nikka G. Valenzuela - Reporter / @NikkaINQ
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:32 AM September 25, 2020
The decision of Ombudsman Samuel Martires to limit public access to government officials’ financial statements conflicts with the constitutional principle of accountability and transparency for public officials, his predecessor said on Thursday.
“It goes against the constitutional principle that public office is a public trust,” former Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales said in an interview on television. “There is this law [that] mandates the filing of SALNs (statements of assets, liabilities and net worth) and also mandates that the public shall be entitled to even a photocopy of the SALN of public officials or employees for as long as they don’t cross the prohibited acts.”
Morales was asked to comment on the guidelines issued by Martires on Sept. 1 limiting the release of copies of financial statements to representatives of the officials who had made the declarations, compliance with court orders for pending cases, or Ombudsman investigators for fact-finding probes.
Spirit of the law
“It does not carry out the spirit of the law, which [says] that public office is a public trust and therefore you are supposed to be transparent,” Morales said.
She was referring to Republic Act No. 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, which requires people in the government to declare their finances and disclose their business interests and financial connections.
The law requires that all documents filed in compliance with it “be made available for inspection at reasonable hours.”
It is unlawful, however, to use the documents for any purpose that goes against morals or public policy and for commercial reasons.
During a congressional hearing on the proposed budget of his office for 2021 on Tuesday, Martires defended his decision, saying financial disclosures were being “weaponized” against politicians.
Morales, however, said the weaponization of the financial disclosure should be the “concern of the politician.”
“If he (Martires) believes that a request for SALNs is being weaponized by enemies of the politician whose SALN is being requested, then that is the concern of the politician. But no one can refuse the request of anyone to use or to copy a SALN for as long as it is not against morals or public policy,” Morales said.
Public officials’ remedy
“Now, if it turns out that the person who requested [the SALN] uses it against morals or public policy, the [official] whose SALN was requested has a remedy,” she added.
The official, she said, can bring charges against the requester.
“The request[e]r, if he is faulted … can be fined … not more than P25,000. So it’s the concern of the politician to fault the requester if the requested SALN is [used] against morals or public policy,” Morales said. …
—WITH A REPORT FROM CHRISTIA MARIE RAMOS
Read more: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1339978/morales-limiting-access-to-saln-goes-against-transparency#ixzz6wilBr7tD
Downhill…lower and lower…
Gonzalinho