Friday, November 14, 2008 Editorial: Lending sanity to Gensan's park controversy
THE ongoing improvement of the General Paulino Santos Park is soaked in controversy not because it deserves to reel in the pit of venoms, but because it is not distilled through the logic of facts and law.
Councilor Vivencio Dinopol is lately subjected to "barbaric lashings". The only reason for this carnage is the fact that the project contractor happens to be his sister, Architect Ma. Cecilia Dellosa, a 10th placer in the board examination. What makes matter worse is that the hullabaloo did not end with them.
This issue of kinship burst into scandalous proportion after it was wrongly labeled publicly as a willful and flagrant transgression of the law by the administration of City Mayor Pedro B. Acharon Jr. This labeling, however, has no basis in law.
It is not within the contemplation of Section 47 of Republic Act (RA) 9184, a law governing business dealings with government, and Section 47 of its Implementing Rules and Regulation (IRR). The legal prohibition, under the aforesaid law, refers only to persons who are engaged in business transactions with the government, but are related, by consanguinity or affinity up the third civil degree, to the head of the procuring entity, and to any offices or employees, under the executive department.
Councilor Dinopol is not with the executive department. In fact, he is, as a councilor, prohibited by RA 9184 to take part in the proceedings of the Bids and Awards Committee to preserve the integrity of the system of check-and-balance between among congruent but independent branches of the government.
Moreover, Councilor Dinopol is not the head of the procuring agency, but Mayor Jun Acharon. Clearly, the kinship rule, under RA 9184, does not apply to him.
Clearly too, Architect Dellosa is not legally barred by RA 9184 from having any business transactions with the city government only by virtue of the office of, or by the degree of her relationship to, her bother who is an elected member of the city council.
Neither can the provisions of RA 3019 or the Anti Graft and Corrupt practices Act be invoked to cast aspersion on the legality of Architect Dellosa's business dealings with the city government. The prohibitions, under this law, are not by virtue of office or by degree of relationship; but by virtue of acts or omissions, which should be proved according to the standards of evidence required in criminal, civil and administrative proceedings.
It is, again, unequivocal that, under RA 3019, Dellosa's present transaction with the city government, even if she has a city councilor as a brother, is not legally barred.
The controversy involving this transaction deserves a clarification; lest, our complacency contributes to the success of a scheme to exploit the minds of those who have no access to legal information by reason of their economic deprivation.
Somehow, we need to exercise prudence in our dealing with issues that affect the integrity of persons who, like us, are working for a dream. Their reputation, like ours too, is like a plant of tender growth, and its bloom, once lost, cannot be easily restored.
Prudence is a better part of justice, as honor is a better part of valor.
