OUR experiences are that acquiring and renewing Philippine passports are more efficient and less time-consuming than many of the less productive encounters we undergo at the hands of government offices.
So, it was disappointing to read that there had been an unpleasant incident between Proceso Flordeliza Jr., a Canadian-based Filipino, seeking to renew his Filipino passport, and Jose Ampeso, Philippine Consul General to Vancouver.
Details of the incident are sketchy but Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario, not quick to jump to conclusions and normally mild-mannered, has reminded diplomats that cajoling Filipinos abroad to contribute money, even for a good cause, is improper.
Technological advances are not on the side of those who hitherto would issue flat denials. Many of the facts of the case cannot be disputed, since Flordeliza videoed the conduct of Ampeso, which was then posted on YouTube. The consensus described on Filipino forums was that Ampeso was rude, drunk, and arrogant.
My reflex is to enquire about the system of passport renewal for Canadian-based Filipinos. As with many government systems, it is more personal than systems used by less corrupt countries than the Philippines.
There seems to be a “moment of truth” when the consular official gives his approval for passport renewal by signing the relevant document. This can be done without ceremony or the consul can hesitate so as to lead the applicant/supplicant to infer that the official has the gift to approve or disapprove the application. A corruption opportunity has thus been engendered. We may think that this is all too Machiavellian but corruption is nearly always implied and only rarely is explicit.
I have held a UK passport for the past 60 years. Not once have I met an official. Everything has been taken care of by mail including my last two renewals in 1996 and 2006 from an extremely efficient (for Brits) British Embassy in Manila.
It would be timely for the Department of Foreign Affairs to review its systems so that Filipinos are not subjected to the unpleasantness from Ampeso and his ilk. Ampeso, as everyone knows, is not unique.
PNoy’s place in history would be assured if he were able to reduce corruption. This may be done by reviewing current systems and seeing how they may be depersonalized.
There is always resistance to changes, particularly systems changes. Reasons, relevant or not-so-relevant can be put forward to preserve the current procedures. But we need more pragmatism and less red tape. The Ombudsman is constitutionally empowered to examine how government systems can be improved. We would very much like to see this happen.
There is also the question of management which, in the government sector, is often poor. There is a culture that more senior people should focus entirely on strategic issues (“the vision thing” ironically described by George H.W. Bush) and to neglect nitty gritty activities.
We do not believe that DFA is well-managed, since we gain an impression of Ampeso’s activities not being monitored or properly controlled. Everybody needs a boss. Even after the Ampeso/Flordeliz encounter, which happened, I believe, during the week beginning 15 April, all the DFA did was to ask Flordeliz for an affidavit. Then, when the affidavit did not appear immediately, the DFA trumpeted to the media that it was slow in coming.
What impertinence! We are not seeing any value-added coming from DFA. Why not meet Flordeliz and interview him about the event? DFA would obtain much more information than it would from an arid affidavit. This all fits in with government officials being lazy and seeking to maximize their authority whilst minimizing their responsibility.
Democracy is a long way off when governance is so relentlessly high-handed.