By Ermin Garcia Jr.

 

IF one is not keenly watching events and activities of our provincial government and Dagupan City government, one will not know that there is a lack or absence of accountability among our elected officials periodically.

Take the absence of accountability in the Capitol last week.

Guv Mon-Mon Guico went on leave last June26. The following day, Vice Guv Mark Lambino went on official leave, too. The leaves of absences of the province’s top executives created a convoluted situation in accountability. Board Members were made to takeover functions of Messers. Guico and Lambino in an “acting” capacity one after the other.

The provincial officials played musical chairs oblivious of the accountabilities they swore to perform. I even seriously doubt if there were official communications designating officials in “acting” capacity with specific accountabilities.

VG Lambino was acting governor the day Guv Guico flew out of the country.  And since Mr. Lambino vacated his post as vice guv and presiding officer, Third District Board Member Shiela Baniqued became the acting vice governor and temporary presiding officer of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan during their Monday’s regular session. Logical?

But when Mr. Lambino took off,  he would have logically passed on the baton to Ms. Baniqued as “acting” governor, but that couldn’t happen because she, too, went on leave. Who were subsequently made to appear as accountable since the three were on leave? Fifth District Board Member Rosary Perez-Tababa became the “acting” governor until Saturday, while Sixth District Board Member Noel Bince took over as “acting “vice governor.

So the situation begs an answer: At which time and who could be made accountable for critical decisions made or not made in the middle of the switching of “acting” roles of governors and vice governors? Of course, both Messers. Guico and Lambino will conveniently beg off since they got permission from DILG to go on leave for overseas travel.

The board members who took on the “acting” assignments routinely can beg off as well since there was no official turnover of duties but were merely designated nominally with a declaration that he or she will be “acting”.

If something had gone very wrong while Mr. Guico was on official leave, who could have been accountable in the provincial government? Which of the “acting” should be called out?

*          *          *          *

IT’S ABOUT RIGHT TO INFORMATION. It was not the first time when the Guico government treated accountability in public service with indifference.

Remember the time when majority of the provincial board members went on mass leave to attend the induction of officers of the United Pangasinan in San Francisco? Guv Mon-mon was ostensibly in charge at the Capitol. Then he took off as well leaving VG Mark to take charge.

If that was not bad enough, department heads would not be left behind. They went on leave en masse and left as a group to Japan where they met up with Guv Guico who was on leave. 

The cavalier attitude of the Guico administration towards absences and delegation of authority, can be liken to that of high school class officers who think that being absent is nobody’s business. 

They forget that they are elected public servants whose services are paid for by public funds. In fact, PIO chief Dhobie de Guzman erred big time when he thought he could refuse to reveal to media the date when the Mr. Guico’s leave of absence ends.  Isn’t Mr. De Guzman aware of the people’s right to information about their government officials?

He and his bosses, being in government service, wherever they may be are accountable to their constituents.

*          *          *          *

CITY LEGAL OFFICER IS ACCOUNTABLE. In Dagupan City, the application of accountability is different and also seriously wanting.

City Legal Officer Aurora Valle should be the first to know that public officials must be made to account for their actions yet she has not made any move to recommend to make the 7 epaLiFes accountable for passing an annual budget that was “inoperative in its entirety” that caused the obstruction of programs of the city government.

She also did not see the urgency to file cases against appointed officials during Brian Lim’s term whose corruption activities were fully documented.

AS city legal officer, she is accountable in the performance of her duty to protect the city government against those who dare harm the public.  She should be charged for being negligent and refusing to perform her mandate.

But City Mayor Belen Fernandez also cannot escape culpability for agreeing with the city legal officer that no administrative and legal complaints can still be filed against Councilors Red Erfe-Mejia, Celia Lim, Irene Lim-Acosta, Dada Reyna-Macalanda, Alfie Fernandez, Alvin Coquia and Marilou Fernandez, after making the city residents suffer interminably from the deliberate efforts to sabotage government service.

Mayor Belen must know she is just as accountable to her constituents for refusing to make the enemies of the city suffer the consequences of their criminal actions right under her very nose.

If no responsible accountable public servant cares to invoke accountability on the part of those who violate the rights of the public, one wonders where all this cavalier attitude and arrogance end.

I’ll tell you where and how – more massive corruption in all places!

Share your Comments or Reactions

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments