Chasing the innocents

(Part II, Conclusion)

This column and the previous deal with two recent events involving what many members of the academic and scientific community perceive as harassment and unjust, shabby, treatment of academics, scientists and professionals in government for alleged infractions in the performance of non-academic, non-scientific functions.

These developments have two serious implications: 1) our best and brightest would henceforth shy from assuming key leadership and administrative positions in public universities, research institutions and development agencies and 2) similarly it will be difficult to invite outstanding academics, scientists and professionals to sit in the governing boards of public entities where their expertise and experience are most badly needed. This is particularly true in university and research agency boards and councils where directors do not receive compensation, except for lunch, coffee and doughnuts during meetings. (Tongue in cheek, with these disincentives, only lawyers will dare!)

The first case was the dismissal from the service of Dr. Ester Ogena, President of Philippine Normal University (PNU), and her three fellow senior officials, for an editorial/advertisement contract worth US$25,000 with an influential international magazine, without benefit of public bidding.

In their defense, Dr. Ogena and her co-respondents contended that 1) they did not personally benefit from the contract, 2) that the contract in fact was on the behest and approval of the Chairperson and the entire Board of Regents of the university, 3) that the law on government procurement allows for exemptions under certain circumstances which were satisfied, and 4) the implementing rules and regulations of the procurement law specifically cites advertisement in media among the exemptions.

Unfortunately the Ombudsman somehow ignored/overlooked these facts and found them guilty of grave misconduct.

The PhilRice board of trustees and car rental plan The second case was the dismissal from the service of the members of the Board of Trustees (BOT) of the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice), an agency of the Department of Agriculture (DA) for an experimental car rental plan for 10 senior staff being allegedly grossly disadvantageous to the government.

The rationale as presented to the BOT by PhilRice management was as follows: The use of government-owned vehicles (with red plates) cost PhilRice R22 per kilometer. Since PhilRice did not have enough vehicles, they rent private vehicles at a net cost of R15 per kilometer.

The scheme allowed senior PhilRice employees to borrow money from the Philippine National Bank (PNB) to purchase vehicles which they can use for official purposes and rented from them by the Institute based on days of actual use and mileage travelled. The rental scheme should cost PhilRice the same as rented private vehicles (but less than government-owned red-plated vehicles) with the added benefit of hard-working, underpaid employees acquiring vehicles also for their private use.

It was on the basis of this reasonable cost-benefit analysis by management that the “PhilRice Board of Trustees approved in principle the car rental plan subject to necessary modifications that are most advantageous to the government… subject to availability of funds and to an Administrative Order that shall be issued for the purpose. [Board Resolution 208-08-52].

Did the government lose money on the car rental plan? There are really two substantive issues: 1) did the Administrative Order issued by the Executive Director and the way the same was implemented, lead to a loss to PhilRice, specifically were the actual rental costs under the Car Plan greater than the benchmark R15 per kilometer rent paid to privately-owned vehicles?, and 2) Did the hold-out of PhilRice deposits with PNB to cover the car loans cause any loss to government or diminished PhilRice operations?

The qualification of the Board resolution was crystal clear: “Approved in principle subject to necessary modifications that are most advantageous to the government.” The implementing rules and the way they are implemented are responsibilities of Management, not the Board. The Board has oversight but the day-to-day operations rest with the Executive Director. The BOT should therefore not be held accountable if indeed the car rental plan failed to meet the intent of being advantageous to government.

The car rental plan was an attempt of the organization to innovate, to improve the service while rewarding deserving employees. There was full transparency in the conduct of the trial. There was no evil intent nor subterfuge on the part of the Board and Management. None of the trustees (except the Executive Director) materially benefitted from the plan. If indeed the numbers show that there was a loss, the benefitting employees should be required to restitute those amounts which they undeservedly received under the Car Plan. And at most a penalty of reprimand or a brief suspension on the Executive Director for not doing his arithmetic well to get the calculations and implementation details right.

The second issue is easy to answer. Government did not incur any loss in the hold-out of PhilRice deposits with PNB in the amount of R15.78 million. PhilRice as a government corporation has trust funds in tens of millions of pesos at any one time. These trust funds are reserves and not are allocated for day-to-day operations. And therefore there were no institute activities that were disrupted for lack of funds.

Besides, the hold-out was only proforma because all the loans were fully secured by vehicle chattel mortgages the borrowers assigned to the bank. The hold-out deposits earned marketbased interest rates (2.85 percent) and therefore there was absolutely no loss to PhilRice.

The human cost of misadministration of justice

These two instances of misadministration of justice are particularly dismaying and appalling because the victims are individuals whom many of us in the academic community consider as paragons of expertise and virtue.

Most tragic is the case of the late National Scientist Gelia Tagumpay Castillo, emeritus professor of rural sociology at UP Los Baños, a magna cum laude graduate of education from UP Diliman, and with graduate degrees from Pennsylvania State University and Cornell University.

According to her daughter Nina, her mom suffered a stroke right after signing the 12 sheets of the motion for reconsideration brought to their house in Los Baños by the PhilRice board secretary. Moreover, months later Dr. Castillo died a day after their motion for reconsideration was denied by the Ombudsman. Whether these are merely painful coincidences we will never know. But they indeed are hurtful and bitter pills to swallow for her family, friends, students and admirers.

Gelia Castillo is a highly respected, internationally acclaimed rural sociologist. As proof of her international standing, she had served on more than 70 national and international Boards, Commissions, Councils and Review Teams on a wide array of subjects. In spite of her age (late 80s) she dutifully endured the arduous five-hour drive from Los Baños to Muñoz, Nueva Ecija for the PhilRice meetings for love of the institution which she knew was doing great service to small farmers. She had an almost maternal affinity with PhilRice because she was with the Institute Board since its inception 33 years ago and was mentor/tutor to the first director, Dr. Santiago Obien.

The case of Dr. William G. Padolina has a particular twist which inexplicably the Ombudsman cavalierly brushed aside. Dr. Padolina graduated magna cum laude from UP Los Baños and obtained a Ph.D. in phytochemistry from University of Texas. He was the founding deputy director (later Director) of the BIOTECH institute at UP Los Baños. He has the rare distinction of having served in the cabinets of two administrations i.e. as science secretary to President Ramos and to President Estrada. He is the incumbent President of the National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST).

William Padolina served in the PhilRice Board ex-officio in his capacity as Deputy Director General of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). As such he enjoyed diplomatic immunity as provided by the Headquarters Agreement between the Government of the Philippines (ratified by the Senate) and IRRI. Under Section 4.3.2 of the said Headquarters Agreement, IRRI officials including Dr. Padolina “enjoy immunity from legal processes, including arrest and detention, in respect of words spoken or written and acts performed in official capacity. . .” No less than Assistant Secretary Jerril Santos of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) placed on record that Dr. Padolina was in the official roster of IRRI officials enjoying diplomatic immunity.

The Ombudsman instead of ruling whether Dr. Padolina enjoyed diplomatic immunity or not absurdly noted that he failed to raise the defense at the earliest instance and thereby casting doubt on the relevance of the claim.

Congressman Arthur Yap of the 3rd district of Bohol who was then Chairman of the Board of Trustees in his capacity as Secretary of DA can defend himself. His defense among others, was he was not even present when the Board passed the resolution approving the car rental plan.

Senen Bacani, also former Secretary of DA and well-known agribusiness executive sacrificed time from his many other more financially rewarding pursuits for the long drives to Muñoz for the PhilRice board meetings for love of country and small farmers.

Dr. Rodolfo Undan, then President of Central Luzon State University (CLSU) is a recognized hydrologist and irrigation engineer with graduate degrees from the Asian Institute of Technology and Utah State University. Fe Laysa, a plant pathologist by training, rose through the ranks to become a regional director of DA. Both are highly regarded in their professions and have impeccable clean records of public service.

Space will not allow more details about the professional backgrounds of the other respondents who were summarily dismissed from the service. Suffice to say they are all upright, wellmeaning professionals with unblemished records of public service. No way can they be guilty of grave misconduct without the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule as specified under the law.

They deserve medals, not opprobrium.

*****

Dr. Emil Q. Javier is a Member of the National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST) and also Chair of the Coalition for Agriculture Modernization in the Philippines (CAMP).

For any feedback , email eqjavier@ yahoo.com.