NBN: Negotiated Truths?

They must find it difficult...

Those who have taken authority as the truth,

Rather than truth as the authority.

I find the quote above, attributed to Egyptologist G. Massey in Zeitgeist, appropriate as we ponder the difficulty confronting those seeking the truth on the National Broadband Network (NBN) scandal. I am often in heated debates with ‘post-modernist’ friends whose definition of truth is too relativistic for comfort. But even they, I hope, would agree that the truth we refer to here are more akin to facts and not some philosophically debated ‘scientific truths.’

In today’s Senate hearing, the resource persons will offer what to me is the most reasoned and sober appraisal on the need for the project itself. When the study of Emmanuel de Dios and Raul Fabella, dean and immediate past dean of the U.P. School of Economics respectively, first came out in the press, one of the immediate reactions from the spokesmen and other motley defenders of the project was, ‘how could they make any valid conclusions when they haven’t even read the contract?” And whose fault was that ? The thieves taunted the scholars: “how can you say we’ve stolen anything when you’ve never seen what we’ve stolen?” (Right after the publication, it was reported that the contracts had evaporated, but could be reconstituted, and perhaps even homogenized, lending credence to suspicions the project was really meant to be a milking cow). Elementary, there is/was something missing in the place it should be: plain and simple reason.

Executive secretary Eduardo Ermita insulted the scholars further as ‘never impartial.” He thus spoke as the authority with an unearned patent on the truth. Yesterday he was at pains explaining ‘executive privilege’ on how the truth could justifiably be withheld from us. who he must look down on as pious subjects, and just take his word for it. I can’t do that sir. Never.

Is the truth subject to negotiation?

In this case I hope not. The House Speaker and his son, and their president have been implicated, as are Comelec’s Abalos, DOTC’s Leandro Mendoza, and the gentle man. But from each their ability for candor and to each according to the degree of mitigation that candor justifies, to borrow loosely from my favorite philosopher.

How might the Speaker and his son twist the truth so as to explicate away the purported actions of the gentle man and his spouse? Simply, but in an incredible way. They can and might lead some to believe the portrait of the gentle man as the model of decency and propriety as painted by the gentle man’s lawyer. After all, JdVIII can always assert that he never attributed any motive to the FG’s words, so he has some room for maneuver there. He can as us to back off and many may unfortunately heed his admonition.

To the extent that their expectations of Romulo Neri were high in yesterday’s hearing, so did the frustrations of those who saw the controversy as just another chance to gain power have a potential to fall. Don’t misundertand me, I share the same passion for radiclal changes, but not the easy way.

They expected Neri to implicate the president and the gentle man unequivocably. As far as I’m concerned , if we activists for a better society had done our homework, that would have been enough to trigger large-scale demonstrations. Instead, the politically voyeuristic public has been and continues to be non-committal. Whose fault is that?

To be more blunt, I have observed that friends and acquaintances in the Left who are supposed to be guided by a more realistic theory of social change have been caught in a time warp of sorts, way back to the middle ages. They are prone to pin their hopes on heroes and have for the past decades, even portrayed social problems as a battle between good and evil. Where have they been these past few years?

If these friends find the time to dilligently read the paper by de Dios and Fabella, they would find that they could not pick the observations and conclusions just to support their own biases. The two scholars did provide the executive branch, leeway for a change of course and gave the president the benefit of the doubt. Granting that the facts will eventually support accusations of corruption? What then? That was the question posed by Neri on the eve of his Senate testimony.

I’ve met Neri only once, and that was last year, in a meeting of stakeholders in the power sector and in the presence of some foreign funders. (As I left the premises of a business organization based in Makati, the ambassador of a superpower came in). At the time I ‘challenged’ the view of Neri in regard to effecting immediate reforms in the power sector. While I agreed with his views on market power and more effective regulation, his ideas seemed to me to be hatched on another planet. Some other friends agree with me about his good intentions but question his technical competence, something he himself admits. Unfortunately for me, he saw me in that meeting as a minion instead of as an independent guest and resource person, and that is why I walked out and left with the impression of him as well-intentioned but not really competent.

We’re on Earth, aren’t we?

So what can and what should we reasonably expect from the Senate hearings?

From reading his columns and blogs and watching his TV program, I had the impression of Manolo Quezon as impartial and sober. But he was so incensed because of yesterday’s hearing, which, according to my scorecard, only one in four questions were relevant and helpful. Keep your cool Manolo, you’re doing us all a great service. But be cool.

At the very least, we expect the Senate to finally help resolve the question of executive privilege. If they can’t even resolve that question, they might as well just abandon the hearings for good.