PAGC Sisi

“Sisi” is an appropriately onomatopoeic word that in Pilipino means reproach, recrimination or regret. That it resonates as a snake’s hiss or the sound of stink leaking from septic tanks attests to its fluency imparting insidious connotations. Appended to the initials P-A-G-C, the bilingual pun turns more apt, relating to recriminations unraveling at the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission.

The septic stink seeps from an agency that should have deodorized the office from which noxious odors waft. Like a cruel joke, PAGC, created by Gloria Arroyo to address cabal corruption, falls under the Office of the President,

It started with reports of nepotism. Now, more gaseous leaks infarct. Because the agency has less than a handful of commissioners, any illegality is quickly apparent and instantly prevalent. Left to fester, it is conspiratorial.

Its anomalies rankled for years and the public knows little was done to address its appointment anomalies. With its lame excuses, PAGC’s commissioners seem to think little of the public. Parrying accusations of questionable appointments – the hiring of a son, a nephew, the son’s girlfriend, plus the girlfriend’s friend – its chairman confirmed similar appointments were practiced by fellow officers.

Failing to correct internal wrongs, apparently nobody at PAGC checks the mirror save to fix disheveled coiffures. Now recent resignations and accusations of possible intelligence funds misuse belie worsening rot. How much injustice spawns from collegial dereliction, self-inflicted blindsiding and secret intelligence funds?

The most done was a courtesy resignation. Unfortunately, to cop out or resign in the face of criminality is to be derelict. That is the rationale behind PAGC’s motu propio charge. To be passively remiss and negligent is to actively conspire against checks and balances and effectively condone criminality.

Officials downplay shortcomings as simple questions of insensitivities. If those entrusted cannot differentiate right from wrong they have no business in an anti-corruption body.

PAGC shows an appalling and shameful lack of propriety. PAGC claims it is allowed nepotism akin to judicial agencies where prudence protects entities pending any determination. But PAGC is not a judicial body. The excuse is classic “Spookspeak” invoked by clandestine agencies that glorify secrecy over transparency and trust as foundations of democracy where suppression and concealment constitute the slime that nourishes corruption.

See where fundamental anomalies lie. Prior to statutory processes guided by legal tenet and procedure, PAGC applies an unsaid declaration of guilt. Those subjected to its methods need to prove innocence in subsequent courts. Outside legal processes, no matter how closely it mimics due process, it remains off-book and virtually institutionalizes the antithesis of the presumption of innocence recognized as a tenet of justice.

By nullifying the presumption of innocence and leaving to the accused belated remedies it foists inverse presumptions. There we might see perversity. Self-righteousness springs from double standards. Note how, in speaking of its investigation into controversial but yet unproven appointments in seven other agencies, its chairman preemptively declared, “I’d like to remind them that the shame and scandal that will be suffered by their families will be immeasurable”.

Where’s the integrity in that statement now? Where is credibility when, in previous high profile corruption cases PAGC hustled to announce investigations but was excruciatingly lethargic when reporting out findings?

What happened to its probe of the GSIS reinsurance controversy in 2004? What happened to PAGC investigations of fertilizer fund misuse in 2006, or the ZTE-NBN inquiry of 2007?

What happened to PAGC’s vaunted threat to subpoena 190 congressmen and 48 governors implicated in “cash gifts” distributed in Malacanang, and the “remembrance tokens” of as much as Php 500,000 and promises of Php 70,000 disbursed in an unscheduled breakfast meeting called by Arroyo.

Underscoring PAGC’s fundamental weakness, under E.O. no.12, only Arroyo determines if findings can actively be pursued. Given its commissioners are political appointees, we wonder who PAGC truly serves.

Had the Ombudsman and our justice system been more conscientious of its motu propio responsibilities then the PAGC might not have been concocted. It is not a constitutional commission. It should not enjoy privileges afforded those. It is not a quasi-judicial body. Legal background is not required of its commissioners save for one. It has no police powers and yet it has a secret intelligence fund.

At most it has recommendatory sway. It is not empowered to judge nor assume guilt. It is not empowered to abuse the public trust nor is it exempted from accountability. Unfortunately, practically all arrogated it, from self-righteousness, to secret funds, to exemptions on nepotism, flow from misconceptions of fundamental empowerment.

Popularity: 1% [?]