There is more than meets the eyes in the controversial WB report reduced as it is now as the butt of contention in congressional hearings of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The media bureau of Malacanang has cast a lot of shadows on the issue as PR handlers took turns to view it in various lights. And one has even as much as doubt the very existence of a WB report and if that were not a rather strange idea, I don’t know what is.
Now, Malou Mangahas of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism and former editor of the Philippine Collegian of UP, has written a report in Manila Times, entitled “WB report mixes facts with rumors” which outlines the cause and effect of the bid-rigging report. It has become of no moment if Philippine courts can use the report to go after public officials who appear to be involved in graft and corruption on said WB-funded road projects. Suffice to say, that the WB report has the long and the short of it as to enable one to actually – separate the grain from the chaff – matter-of-factly.
Off-repeatedly interviewed, the First Gentleman cannot but just dismiss as hearsay all this hullabaloo. An implicated congressman first echoed the same rebuff now embraced as the official line by calling it all but tsismis (rumors). That gives them a little bit of a grip in the showbiz world but
what about their hands being seen in the cookie jar, in a manner of speaking?
Given its present composition, any average mind will not think that the WB staff in their Development of Institutional Integrity unit went through their investigation with neither competence nor integrity. Mr. Kramer is a special attorney in the Criminal Division, Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the US Department of Justice. Further, Mr. Hawkes is senior officer of the INT who is expert in anti-money laundering and forensic auditing of fraud and corruption in bank-funded projects. Mr. Dushenaliyev and others are financial specialists at the World Bank. In short, it is hard to debunk the report they had come up with as under the category of either – rumor or hearsay. Nor is it to be lacking in any evidentiary value as that runs away from the truth.
At bottom, we see that these alleged collusive practices and overpriced WB-funded projects have been a two-year work with interviews conducted to some 60 individuals. While it may be observed that the stories are invariably – first, second, or third-hand accounts – still, any well-meaning investigator can get the requirement of probative value in a 230-page document on the Notice of Sanctions proceedings alone. But fact is, from the outline, there exists a case of rigging and collusion between and among contractors, bureaucrats and politicians who conspire in order to draw fat commissions or kickbacks from contracts.
With a corpus of data, whether or not, they could be woven together as factual and scientific, the WB considers the nature of its investigative proceedings as merely administrative rather than criminal or judicial. And perhaps, due to the nature of how various accounts and stories may have been
gathered or collected, WB deems it proper to classify the report as ‘strictly confidential’. But long running interviews coupled with emails flowing in and out of a communication channel provided enough
‘body of truths’ in an otherwise mix of identified and anonymous email senders. But when one email sender has as much as predicted the outcome of the bidding – this in itself – provides a fairly reliable source of information that cannot just be swept in the dustbin.
It has also been said that there was actually a process as would allow bidders to refute the allegations within three months, that is, without having to confront the adverse witnesses against them. But since 54 out of 60 interviewed were in fact named, a marginal number opted to go anonymous and still, the end result does not change picture at all. Thus, there seems to be no further obstacle for the WB to issue sanctions as it did issue to four Chinese companies and three Filipino companies, one of which is owned by a congressman.
Perhaps, the WB report is best seen as a form of audit to check whether or not certain fraudulent practices attend the proceedings in bidding and awarding of WB-funded projects based on best available evidence as the infrastructure upon which it can build its proof. On whether such findings
contain sufficient enough evidence in any court of law ought to be a matter for the prosecution. In this light, Sen. Ping Lacson has been taken to task.
It is truly ironic to know that one bidder does not disclose his lawful taxable income so that he can accommodate the requests from some politicians and officials presumably from the DPWH. It may however be interesting to note that one former Prime Minister Virata had earlier conducted a review if investigation on bid-rigging as well as overpricing in foreign-assisted or funded national road projects. And the findings but confirm the WB report.
Such findings show that the lack of competition in biddings for road-building contracts opened an environment conducive for collusion among few bidders wherein the implementing agency, in this case, the DPWH will have to pay for higher costs for programs of works when it should not. The Virata 2007 study confirms the fact that some contractors are deliberately being precluded or pre-disqualified from bidding thus betraying the role of bidding to secure the most advantageous proposal in favor of the
government.
What the WB report wants us to see is that even those money being loaned by foreign-funding institutions such as the WB, among others, are not immune or free from every form of corruption that in the end, is advantageous only to a few – at the expense of the state whose interests ought to be served best.
The WB report may have to be viewed as one perceivable in our anti-corruption radar screen and therefore should be confronted promptly enough if the official campaign against corruption enjoys any kind of moral integrity. Absent such an urge, by either the Ombudsman or the finance department, then not much can result from it. The Senate remains to be the more independent watchdog against corruption for now and Sen. Ping Lacson seems committed to fill the void – despite the bureaucratic denial syndrome still very much in vogue today. It is hoped, new legislative measures will be proposed to curb corruption.
Contributing Writer: PRIMER C. PAGUNURAN
UP Diliman, Quezon City Email: nielsky_2003@yahoo.com
Popularity: 1% [?]
We must have heard over radio the proceedings of the committee chaired by Sen. Miriam Santiago where everyone invited came except that of the First Gentleman whose proxy did answer a lot of questions asked.
The joke now is that one can either find a lawyer or a doctor if he is compelled to appear before a congressional hearing – in both cases, a ‘comfort zone’ is legitimately provided.
Nonetheless, Atty. Rondain read the message of the First Gentleman except that it is more of a monologue – he cannot be interpellated.
Sen. Santiago appears to project her awesome powers beyond our national territory to the point she dares undermine the United States of America.
I don’t know but I think that perhaps, she went beyond the limits of propriety in projecting the WB as the culprit when it did us a favor by coming up with a report that will help government in its anti-corruption campaign. I don’t know but it is kind of strange to hear all these from our elected senators as though they were our voice, our worldview – no madam, no sir.
During the reign of the Dictator Idi Amin of
Uganda. He killed his political opponents and
ate them. Placed their heads inside his freezers
and talked to the heads at night.
If the World Court would had notified Idi Amin
about his murders and his insanity. Idi Amin
would had professed innocence. Invited people
from the World Court to come investigate and
attend hearings.
Would you as one of the World Court personnel go
to Uganda to investigate and testify against Idi
Amin ?
I dont think so, unless you wanted to be killed
and eaten also.
Same as the situation of our World Bank scandal.
These people who are hypocrites points to anybody
else, except themselves. Invited people from the
World Bank to testify on the kangaroo hearings.
Who in his right mind would testify and cooperate
with these perpetrators.
Mike Arroyo pretend to be ill, so he cannot
testify.
I am reminded by the Bosses of the Mafiosi.
They pretend they have depressions. Confine
themselves in psyciatric hospitals. So that they
will not be investigated and testify.
What a badly scripted show. Our hypocrite Senators
are again pandering to the TV Cameras to become
“sikat”. Oh, what a nonesense.
Hey, dummy Sen. Santiago. THE ONE WHO HAS THE
GOLD DICTATES THE RULE.
What a senseless positioning by the Senator…
“is the world bank report a corruption index?” no way, jose. it’s just another unfounded accusation that anyone can make, foreigner or otherwise. it’s so easy to make a report based on what djb calls “daily innuendos” reportage, an unauthenticated “diary”, and from some shadowy figures in the political and business fields with less than honorable motives.
not one of the names alluded to in the report appears to have been interviewed, let alone given the time of day, before unleashing a media feeding frenzy in the dubious american cowboy tradition of shoot first and ask questions later.
as pointed out by sen. pia cayetano, wb is just a foreign business entity for profit doing business in the philippines. it is by no means a paragon of morality, honesty, integrity and truth. it’s time filipinos wake up to the reality that not everything foreign, e.g., american or european, is automatically genuine or credible.
the gullible panfilo lacson got some rotten eggs on his face once again. fortunately, we have some senators who understand how the rules of fairness work in the real world.
What makes you say it is easy, as though, anyone can just come up with a report with all the details in it? Of course, the WB report is really not perfect by bencard’s assumption or standard.
Nor that of Pia an exactly applicable instance on the case. Any kind of investigative proceedings is attended with some errors but taken in the whole, it proves a single observation of corruption.
Did you not wonder why the Ombudsman did nothing for a long time? Did you not sense why they have to be trapped to the idea of confidentiality as a convenient alibi or scapegoat for anyone to have taken more responsible action over such a report?
i tell you, karlpops, i can get you at least one brilliant fiction writer who can write a “report” with details but without substantiation. they’re a dime a dozen, even in the philippines.
who is looking for “perfection”? don’t confuse perfection with substantiation. to give you a little introduction on the mechanics of prosecution, no prosecutor or ombudsman worth his/her salt would formally accuse or indict anyone without some assurance that he/she has a viable case, i.e., that there is ENOUGH evidence to convict. so. don’t expect an ombudsman to jump and start prosecuting every time an allegation of wrongdoing is made. you see, whatever you think of them, those people, i’m sure, know their responsibility, which is to try to do justice to every one.
Can you say what could the motive be for the World Bank as the institution to have to do a work in fiction writing – say point to a case of corruption in RP where there is none? If not that there are verifiable units of history, meaning facts, it could really have been fiction – perfect that is.
All that the Senate wants to know from the end of the Ombudsman is on what could have been the sense of that bureau when it was in receipt of the WB report – not necessarily to have to prosecute the case when it still lacks substance.
The problem with most agencies is that cases are being treated differently especially where they involve key public officials. Some congressional inquiries do not have to go by the rules on evidence or that of courts of law, the goal being in aid of legislation. At other times though, it cannot even proceed without strict adherence to the traditions of a court of a law. That should be surprising.
Again, I never pushed that the Ombudsman prosecute the case if evidence be not substantive or sufficient but at the very least to take responsible action over the report so that when a Senate inquiry is held, a position paper would have already filled the void in this report that both governments wanted to know.
Bencard, I don’t intend to quarrel with you each time but I just don’t believe that the WB report is lacking in credibility in the context of what Obama said in his inaugural speech.
why should we quarrel, karlpopper? let our ideas fight it out. nothing personal. may the truth, in its objective sense, prevail.