Saturday, June 30, 2007 Nalzaro: Crisologo Saavedra’s actuation By Bobby Nalzaro Saksi
SINCE businessman Crisologo Saavedra was not the one who described himself as a “whistleblower,” I think it is time for the media to also stop calling him as such. In the first place, his acts in relation to the alleged overpricing in the construction of the Cebu International Convention Center (CICC) do not fall under the formal definition of whistleblower.
Wikepedia defines whistleblower as “an employee, former employee or member of an organization, especially a business or government agency, who reports misconduct to people or entities that have the power and presumed willingness to take corrective action.”
The most common type of whistleblower, the web site says, is the internal whistleblower who reports misconduct to another employee or superior within their company or agency. External whistleblowers, meanwhile, report misconduct to outside persons or entities.
The term whistleblower comes from the “practice of English bobbies who would blow their whistle when they notice the commission of a crime. The blowing of the whistle would alert both law enforcement officers and the general public of the danger.’
Saavedra was not among the group of Capitol officials that planned and implemented the multi-million peso CICC project. He is a Capitol outsider and a mere concerned citizen. What he did was only to request the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas to conduct an investigation on the construction of the CICC.
Saavedra has not even submitted any important document to the anti-graft office to support his allegations, except for WT Construction’s billing statement amounting to more than P200 million, which was on top of the more than P500 million spending Capitol earlier claimed for the project.
But even if Gov. Gwen Garcia has already admitted that total expenses for the construction of the CICC could reach to almost P800 million, I doubt if the anti-graft office can exactly determine overpricing. Was the budget for the project really bloated, with the excess amount going to the pocket of project initiators? Was graft or plunder committed in its construction?
Saavedra claimed there is. Well, it is the duty of the Ombudsman to determine it.
But unlike real whistleblowers that remain low profile, Saavedra is publicity conscious. He wants to be in the headlines. I was informed that aside from his being a regular guest in the daily commentary program of my friend Leo Lastimosa, he calls radio anchors and volunteers to be interviewed. I was also told that he dictates to reporters what to write in their stories about his crusade.
What is really Saavedra’s motive in continuously hyping the CICC issue in the media when the anti-graft office has started their investigation on the matter? Some people say he already sounds like a broken record.
Very intriguing, indeed. Note that Saavedra, a contractor and supplier, always sues government agencies every time he loses in the bidding.
Anyway, I think Saavedra still deserves a pat on the back no matter what his motives are. At least he is taking the cudgels for taxpayers who feel betrayed by our political leaders for spending people’s taxes for non-priority projects that only serve the interest of the elite, like the CICC.
