This is another view on the C-5 controvery:
by Rene B. Azurin
BusinessWorld
More credibility, probably, would attach to the Senate committee report on its so-called “investigations” into the C-5 road project controversy if senators — most politicos, actually — were not widely perceived as being distinctly unshy, brazen even, about using their considerable power to influence government decisions on public works and procurement. That said, I would certainly give great weight to the C-5 allegations being leveled at Senator Villar if I were satisfied that they were true. I am not.
On an issue precisely of ethics, objective observers must wonder how senators — like presidential candidate Aquino’s Liberal Party partymate Mr. Pangilinan — can first affix their signatures to one resolution clearing Mr. Villar and then about-face 180 degrees to affix their signatures to another one censuring him, just because “it’s the party stand.” Well, that, at least, is an explicit admission of how “honorable” senators define ethics.
Although Mr. Villar has actually already made a point-by-point rebuttal in the Senate itself of the charges of “ethical misconduct” against him and has clearly taken pains to make available to the public — through media — documents supporting his answers to each allegation, he is, alas, simply not media’s darling. Thus, media outfits whose bias for his rivals is obvious to observers constantly detail the allegations against him in their stories on the controversy and formulaically just include his denials but not his specific answers to the allegations. Such is life in these politico- and elite-dominated islands.
In a small attempt then to introduce some semblance of fairness in the media handling of the whole C-5 hullabaloo, let me (a trying-to-be-objective observer) mention, in summary, some telling details that I have personally found significant in support of Mr. Villar’s defense.
One allegation is that Mr. Villar caused a budget “insertion” that provided “double funding” for one flyover in the C-5 road project. Significantly, the main author of the present Villar-censuring resolution, Senate President Enrile, himself said in a statement he himself released on this issue on Sept. 15, 2008 that “There is no attempt to fund the same project twice, or any attempt to defraud the government, as claimed by some quarters.” In his own point-by-point defense, Mr. Villar has made available engineering plans and public documents that show that the subject two P200-million items in the budget were appropriated for two different flyovers, one located at the Sucat Road intersection and one at the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road intersection. Conveniently ignored by Mr. Villar’s accusers is the fact that there is no plausible explanation as to how Mr. Villar might have been able to benefit from an alleged “double appropriation” since government disbursement procedures do not allow such a duplicate amount to be disbursed twice for the same project.
Another allegation is that Mr. Villar engineered a “realignment” of the C-5 road so that it would pass through his properties. On this point, Mr. Villar has given out copies of official documents and design drawings, both in the Senate and in press conferences, that reveal that the alleged “original” alignment referred to in the ethics complaint is actually the alignment of the Manila-Cavite Toll Expressway Project, a toll road awarded by the Toll Regulatory Board to a private concessionaire, UEM-Mara Philippines. This toll road is completely different from the C-5 Road Project that is being built by the Department of Public Works and Highways.
In an Oct. 15, 2008 clarificatory letter that responded to questions raised by then Liberal Party presidential candidate Roxas, DPWH Regional Director Robert Lala confirmed that the “original” alignment being referred to is the “alignment of the Toll Regulatory Board under concession with UEM-Mara Phils…. Said alignment is different from the (C-5) alignment being followed by the DPWH-NCR.” More significantly, Mr. Lala specifically affirmed that “The (C-5) project was not rerouted as it followed the original route or alignment prepared by DPWH-NCR except for the location of one bridge (Bridge No.2) whose centre line was slightly shifted in the upstream direction…in order not to create conflict with the proposed alignment of LRT Line I Extension Project…. Except for such shifting of Bridge No. 2, no more modification was made from the original alignment up to its construction phases from Sucat Road to Pres. Quirino Avenue.”
A third allegation is that the government purchased the properties from Mr. Villar’s companies at an inflated price. In his defense, Mr. Villar has insisted that all the properties acquired — for the required right-of-ways — were purchased for their respective zonal values at the time. In his presentations to the Senate and to the media, he made available copies of certifications issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue as to said zonal values. In fact, the acquisition price of properties expropriated by the government is fixed by law and no discretion is given to the executing agency.
A fourth allegation is that Mr. Villar did not disclose a “conflict of interest” issue in the government’s acquisition of his companies’ properties. Proof that this is untrue is a letter — dated Nov. 9, 1999 — from then Department of Justice Secretary Serafin Cuevas in response to a Villar company (Adelfa Properties Inc.) request for a DOJ opinion on the conflict-of-interest issue. In that letter, Secretary Cuevas stated, “…inasmuch as the proposed transaction was not sought by API or by any of its stockholders, but was initiated by the TRB in view of the importance and urgency on the part of the government to acquire the subject properties…this Department does not foresee…that a principal stockholder of a private corporation who happens to be a member of the House of Representatives would be cited as having violated Section 14, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which expressly prohibits legislators from being directly or indirectly interested financially in any contract with the government or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities.”
Finally, a fifth allegation is that Mr. Villar should have divested his business interests in the real estate companies involved. Well, that does not happen to be required under the 1987 Constitution. What’s required (Article VI) is that “All members of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall, upon assumption of office, make a full disclosure of their financial and business interests.” So, unlike in the case of members of the executive branch of government, members of the legislative branch are only required to disclose their interests but are not actually prohibited from having such interests.
Whether one is inclined to vote for Mr. Villar or not, an objective observer must be willing to at least consider the actual facts in the C-5 case and make up his mind on the basis of those facts and not on the basis of the rhetoric of political rivals. What should be obvious to any observer is that, as far as politicos are concerned, political ambition will trump ethical principles every time.
Wait, there’s more!: Earn money from your blog! Sell link ads and blog your way to the bank.
