What are we in power for?

“What are we in power for?” The statement was attributed to late Senator Jose Avelino who was reported to have said this in a caucus of the Liberal Party in 1949 after President Elpidio Quirino ordered his investigation for graft and corruption. His statement had become the banner story of several dailies and hence, Avelino suffered from its unintended consequences. The rhetorical question that he had asked had become the destructive spell that led to the downfall of his political career.

What are we in power for? This question provides the answer which we have been dying to hear but which no right thinking government officials would ever give.

Just recently, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) admitted to have used the savings of certain government agencies to augment the shortfall in the pork barrel allocations of some legislators, an action which the DBM dubbed as the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP). A senator’s disclosure had linked the DAP to the “procured” conviction of the former Chief Justice by the Senate Impeachment Court in 2012. The legality of the DAP is now before the Supreme Court. Soon, we will know whether the DBM is correct that the DAP has constitutional bearing.

Meanwhile, officials of the Social Security System (SSS) had appropriated more than a million hundred pesos for their bonuses. According to the Executive Officer of the SSS, the grant is justifiable since the SSS needs to compensate its officials well if it is to compete with the private sector in the hiring of qualified professionals. The justification finds support in the statement of a Malacanang official that the grant of such huge bonuses is legally permissible.

   

In similar fashion, the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (Philhealth) was reported to have paid its officials and employees P1.45 billion in various bonuses in 2012 and P1.245 billion in 2011. Philhealth officials claimed that there was nothing wrong with these since everyone in the quasi-public corporation received a bonus.

While it may be admitted that these disbursements are all above board, their propriety remains highly questionable. Indeed, there might be no legal impediment for such disbursements. Law could not have set a ceiling as to how much could be given as incentives for exemplary performance of duties. Seldom does the law deal in details. Oftentimes, the law sets the parameter but not the millimetre of one’s permissible conduct.   

            The issue therefore is not one of legality but of moral propriety. The formulation that a legally permissible course of action is not necessarily morally justifiable is still the acceptable norm today. No amount of semantics may change it. No person, however genius, can twist it.

            Let us put the situations mentioned above to the test of propriety. Could the officials concerned allocate such huge amount of money for purposes other than what seem to be for the public good? Yes, they certainly could do so. The next question of course is a question of judgement: Given that they could do it legally, should they actually do it? The records are unmistakeable. They decided in favour of the proposition. Nobody registered any objection to such decision; it must have been unanimously agreed upon.

            The most difficult part of this test of propriety is finding an explanation which is more plausible that the ones advanced by the said officials. This is extreme difficult. Even if we should disregard the consequences of their action, we would still fail in finding justification for them. Their action is unjustifiable. No right thinking person can accept what these officials have been saying.

             All told, it would be preferable if those officials have been true to themselves by admitting the spirit that had animated them during their deliberation. It would be more acceptable to hear that they did so because they believed that they have the power to make such a decision than to cater to the argument that they decided to do so for the good of the agency that they are managing. An honest crook seems more preferable than a dishonest one. After all, they say that honesty is a virtue.