"To bribe" is "to persuade someone to act in one's favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement."
In the news of late is the act of Malacanang of handing out monies inside paper bags ranging from Php20,000 to Php500,000 to local officials last Thursday. Although the release was suspiciously timed right after the Speaker of the House indorsed a new impeachment complaint against PGMA to the House Justice Committee (thus insulating PGMA to any new impeachment complaints for 1 year), those who admitted to having received the monies say that they were told that the same were for the upcoming barangay elections at the end of the month.
From the layman's definition of a bribe, it would appear that the recent dole-out from Malacanang would not appear to be criminally actionable. To say that the money was "for the barangay elections" does not clearly spell out any illegal purpose, since there is no instruction to interfere in the elections nor is there any apparent advantage to the bribe-giver (Malacanang) nor any instruction to the bribe-taker on how the money is to be used. In fact, it may be argued that the monies were in the form of supplements to aid the local officials in the proper conduct of the barangay elections.
The Revised Penal Code gives a more specific meaning to the word "bribery", however. Article 210 provides that Direct Bribery is committed when any public officer agrees to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer, personally or throught the mediation of another. On the other hand, Article 212 provides that the crime of Corruption of Public Officials is committed by any person who shall have made the offers or promises or given the gifts or presents as described above.
Electoral laws prohibit any local official from meddling in any election, barangay or otherwise.
Whether or not bribery (or corruption of public officials) was committed is the end-game in a court trial. However, the implications that Malacanang is engaged in rampant bribery or corruption must be addressed soonest. In the face of bribery charges hurled by Joey de Venecia and Romulo Neri (on the ZTE scam) and Reps. Crispin Beltran and Justin Chipeco (on the 'impeach me' complaint), this recent shenanigan is just too much to bear.
If i were a congressman or a senator investigating this matter, i would inquire on the following:
1) Where did the money come from? Is it public or private funds?
2) If it is public funds, why was it being disbursed without proper auditing procedures (e.g., preparation of vouchers, requiring the recipient to acknowledge receipt as well as issue an official receipt)?
3) Who was the disbursing officer/s, and what were they doing in Malacanang? Under whose authority or instruction were they disbursing the amounts?
4) If the money was private funds, what was the purpose for their release? Why were the releases being done in Malacanang? Who were the individuals disbursing, and under whose authority or instruction were they disbursing the amounts?
5) To what extent was PGMA's knowledge of these disbursement activities inside the Malacanang grounds? If she had no knowledge about it, and considering the public display of "disbursement" going on, was she informed of the same by the security personnel and (if so), what did she do about it? If she knew about it, what was she told, what was her reaction, and why did she allow such questionable acts to be done within Palace grounds?
Malacanang has been silent for the past five (5) days. I can just see the Palace crisis committee brainstorming on how to come up with a viable (a.k.a. least catastrophic) response to Gov. Panlilio's and Mendoza's revelations. Much like the silence before that "I Am Sorry" speech. Will she do an "I Am Really Really Sorry This Time" speech?
One thing going for PGMA is that she has the luxury of time (to clam up and think of a good excuse, that is). I did not have that luxury way back on 22nd December 2000. I was scheduled to appear in Tina Monzon-Palma's program right after the hearing in the Impeachment Trial of Pres. Joseph Estrada. That evening, Clarissa Ocampo shook the nation with her "I was one foot away" testimony. During Ms. Monzon-Palma's program, i tried to explain how Clarissa would find her way into the office of Atty. Estelito Mendoza. During the program, my sister-in-law Dolly texted me, "Arch, you are putting up a brave front. But i don't think you yourself are convinced by what you are saying."
She was right: I was never good at hiding the truth, and i was nauseated inside. Indeed, my one consolation (to this day) whenever i think about my defense of Pres. Estrada then is that it is quite clear to most that Erap had never touched public funds. He may have been an undesirable President to some because of his drinking, gambling and womanizing (something people knew ever BEFORE they voted him into office in 1998), but he did not treat the National Treasury as a personal bank account. Or, for that matter, use the Palace grounds as a venue for handing out bribes.
