MUCH hope accompanied the creation of the Independent Commission on Infrastructure on Sept. 11. At that time, revelations on the flood control projects of the govzaernment were just surfacing, and the call of the President for complicit officials to have some shame (“Mahiya naman kayo!”) resonated with the people. It was, after all, the season for storms in the Philippines, and the ultimate failure of flood control projects were much seen – and felt — by families and communities.
A month hence, and after several hearings at both the House and Representatives and the Senate, after an indignation rally on Sept. 21 and several university walkouts, the people are angrier than ever.
We realized that this is far more scandalous than the Priority Development Assistance Fund from 12 years ago, in terms of the amount of taxpayers’ money involved. Through the hearings, streamed online, we became aware of just how deeply corruption is entrenched in our society, across geographic areas, bureaucratic levels, and project types.
The question, it appears, is no longer who among our officials are corrupt, but who are not.
But there will be no more congressional hearings, after numerous accusations, hurt reactions, counter accusations, dubious claims, and protestation. The House wrapped up its own probe, turning over whatever it had to the ICI. Over at the Upper House, the first senator who presided over the Blue Ribbon Committee was ousted, and the one who replaced him – widely regarded to be doing a good job, perhaps too good – quit over the weekend in exasperation. Some of Senator Panfilo Lacson’s fellow senators have reportedly expressed “disappointment” at his handling of the probe.
Which now leaves this sordid mess on the sole hands of the ICI.
The commission, not without any controversies of its own regarding its composition and its malleability, has been conducting its own hearings, inviting most of the same personalities that have been present in the congressional probe.
The people cannot help feeling as though they have been left in the dark. The congressional hearings may have been a circus, but at least we were able to follow where the probe was leading, what areas were being looked into, which names were being dragged. We were able to hear not only what the personalities were saying, but observe how they were conducting themselves. We gleaned much from the answers, yes, but also the questions that were asked and the manner in which these questions were raised. We were able to gauge the soundness of the questions and the bias or impartiality of the investigators.
The ICI says it will keep its probe behind closed doors because it does not want a trial by publicity. We ask: why refuse to shed light altogether? Those insisting on their innocence must be afforded the opportunity to establish the truth of their claims. A public investigation will also eliminate whatever doubts there may be on the objectiveness of the supposedly independent body.
We cannot find answers and establish trust without transparency.
