by Nicasio Angelo Agustin
Yesterday, I found myself contemplating on P-Noy’s state of the nation address (Sona). Less than two-thirds into the first 100 days of this new administration, it seemed to me that serious talks were going on to address the grave state of governance in the country.
This feeling of mine was triggered by news reports on the Senate inquiry into the ridiculous benefits accorded by certain officials of certain government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs) to themselves.
After hearing about the inquiry, I started believing that maybe, this new administration is indeed serious about getting down to the dirty but essential business of reform. After a few more moments of contemplation, I came up with what I would like to refer to as the four-way test for benefits of GOCC officials and employees. It goes somewhat like this:
Is it allowed?
Believe it or not, the bureaucracy has a set of standards that needs to be satisfied before a single centavo of public funds can be spent. The Commission on Audit (COA), as an oversight agency, has always followed strict protocols and procedures in reviewing how every peso is expended – whether that peso comes from GOCC operations revenues or the taxpayers. Over a year ago, COA protocols were reinforced by even more stringent pre-audit rules; this means that if, in the past, COA reviewed spending after the fact, pre-audit means that COA needs to clear transactions (including the payment of government payrolls!) before they happen. Given these facts, my question is: did COA allow the payment of a 25-month (or was it more?) bonus to all employees of a certain GOCC?
Are there resources?
GOCCs do not necessarily fund their operations with taxpayers’ money. More often than not, these corporations are dependent on the income they generate to sustain their very existence – income is usually used as basis for the payment of benefits to employees, as is the practice in the private sector.
I find it quite ironic that GOCCs are notorious for being non-profitable and unproductive. If income was used as justification for a 25-month bonus (more than two years’ salary paid in a day!), my question would be: was there income in the first place?
If, by some miracle, a GOCC does post hundreds of millions in profits in a year, does that warrant a 25-month payday? Even the largest private financial institutions in the country do not pay more than five months worth of bonuses to their most proficient officials or employees.
Is it ethical?
At the end of the day, a GOCC is not a private institution but is something that is owned by the people. Any profit generated by a public institution is more suited to be used to improve the quality and coverage of services being accorded to paying consumers instead of a bonus.
The payment of bonuses is not equated with something that “needs to be given” but should be equated with individual productivity and corporate efficiency. The bonus that any person receives should, therefore, be commensurate with the effort he has expedited, and is something that should not be given just because the Board says so.
The Boards of the GOCCs, as independent institutions, are given the mandate to issue directives regarding benefits. But, if members of a Board stand to benefit from these very same benefits they themselves declare, is it ethical?
Is it fair to all concerned?
Even if GOCCs are somehow independent and raise and spend their own revenues, they, at the end of the day, belong to the same bureaucracy as other government agencies. The benefits they accrue to themselves can be higher than other government instrumentalities, but one month (or even two) is a far cry from 25 months. Is it fair to the other civil servants in the bureaucracy?
But the biggest losers in this game of Board Resolution bonuses are the Filipino people. They are the consumers who pay for services that could have been provided at a lower price if not for these unspeakable bonuses.
Board members are usually appointed. Graft is defined as “the acquisition of gain or advantage by dishonest, unfair or sordid means, especially through the use of one’s position or influence in politics”. Now, connect the dots.
Feel free to send your comments to nic_agustin@yahoo.com.
