Patronage politics to the hilt

THE way the ranks of endorsers of the amended impeachment complaint against Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo are gaining signatures one moment and then losing some the next in an uncanny dagdag-bawas fashion makes one wonder whether the invisible hand of a Virgilio Garcillano might be at work here.

Only that the beleaguered former Comelec commissioner, the other half in the "Hello Garci" tapes scandal, has been reported missing since the second week of June. And besides, this is definitely no electoral exercise and therefore out of league of his skills to manipulate.

The impeachment, after all, is a Constitutional process that is exclusively the House of Representatives to initiate. Imbued with much political character, that is not supposed to mean though that the process should be hostaged to politics the way it is being reduced to now, particularly in the mad scramble for the last signatures in the countdown to Monday’s plenary vote at the House of Representatives. (Click on the links to download the list of House members who have endorsed the amended impeachment complaint and those who committed to sign or are still keeping their options open, and another list of anti-impeachment congressmen and those who have withdrawn their earlier endorsements.)

Like almost everything about government, the impeachment has deplorably turned into yet another showcase of the kind of politics that the President is supposedly abhorrent of — the usual politics of patronage, tradeoffs and spoils, the same wheeling-and-dealing kind that only lends even more credence to the House of Representatives being derisively regarded as the "Lower House," although many would argue that the appropriate adjective should be in the superlative.

Though how vehemently Malacañang may deny it, the Office of the President cannot evade suspicion of abetting the prostitution of the process, simply because it is the single largest dispenser of political patronage in the country.

For how else can the sordid tales of timely SARO (Special Allotment Release Orders) releases to congressmen, the string of appointments of members of their families and relatives to government positions, the promise of projects and other favors be interpreted? Certainly not mere innocent presidential tokens.   

How else can it be explained that congressmen will sign the amended complaint only to withdraw their endorsements at this crucial stage — and under the flimsiest of excuses as not being able to read its contents or because the justice committee decided not to consider it anyway?

How else can administration congressmen the likes of Surigao del Sur Rep. Prospero Pichay proclaim with arrogant certainty that more signatories will be withdrawing and will not show up for the all-important vote at the plenary session next week?

But the pro-impeachment side is not as innocent. While it is true as they say that they do not have SAROs and influence to dispense, there is reason to believe that some signatures were gained in exchange for favors though not necessarily monetary, but political nonetheless.

For all its proclaimed curing of the defects and infirmities of the Lozano complaint, the amended complaint is apparently a compromised document. At least a dozen congressmen committed to sign the complaint but whose signatures were very much absent when it was filed on July 25.

Some of the charges, of which the fertilizer funds scam is one example, impeachment insiders say, have been dropped or toned down as a concession to congressmen from the ruling coalition, who felt very much alluded to in the charge, so they can be enticed to sign.

Another appeal was to completely disregard the charge regarding Arroyo’s culpability in the killing of political dissenters. As a consequence, some paragraphs had to be edited from the final draft. Despite the changes made and entertained though, many have yet to endorse the complaint.

House Speaker Jose de Venecia is likewise said to have given his blessings to all the charges in the impeachment complaint except the case of the Northrail project — reportedly influenced by a feud between the Speaker and Senate President Franklin Drilon — for which he allegedly has a lot to answer to.
 
Yet the same goes with those who now have given their commitments to sign the amended complaint as soon as the required 79 signatures is reached, concerned more about their political future. Why the segurista stance if this is not politics as usual?

Will there be hope for a conscience vote among our congressmen come Monday’s plenary session? Judging by the way they voted at the justice committee, there is little to look for beyond what is going to be assuredly a vote along partisan lines.

Take these cases for example:

• In explaining his vote against the amended complaint last week, administration congressman Rep. Felix Alfelor Jr. (4th district, Camarines Sur) said that since this is a political contest, he defers to the collective decision of his colleagues as he "adheres to the interests of his party (Lakas-CMD)."

• Another administration congressman, Rep. Romualdo Vicencio (2nd district, Northern Samar, Lakas-CMD), who abstained in the vote to declare the Lozano complaint sufficient in form, said a yes vote, which he intended to cast, was "of no consequence because the results would have been the same have the pro-impeachment congressmen been here."

• Rep. Manuel Ortega (1st district, La Union, KNP), on the other hand, said his decision not to endorse the complaint was a result of the "unruly, ungentlemanly, unparliamentary behavior" of his colleagues in the pro-impeachment side who walked out of the committee hearing last Wednesday.

If there is one clear lesson learned for party-list representatives who have given the impeachment process a chance, it is that "patronage politics is destroying our democracy."

"We participated in the process and did so fair and square, well aware of the infirmities of the process itself," says Akbayan Rep. Mario Aguja, who however remains hopeful. "We know how patronage can be dispensed by the President through the giving out of lucrative government appointments and projects to prevent the opposition from gathering the 79 signatures needed to transmit the complaint to the Senate."

But whether or not the amended complaint gets enough signatures or votes for it to undergo a Senate trial, the impeachment process has already succeeded in showing us one thing fundamental — the limitations of the very institution mandated by the Constitution to hold the President accountable, its independence and credibility eroded by partisan interests and patronage politics.