Bernie Anabo Jr.
Part II
ATTORNEY, THESE ARE NOT ORDINARY QUESTIONS ANYMORE.
If the allegations circulating inside the Bureau of Customs are false, then say so.
If they are baseless, expose them.
If they are fabricated, identify who fabricated them.
But if there is evidence behind them—
INVESTIGATE.
Because the Bureau of Customs cannot simply sweep explosive allegations under the carpet and hope they disappear.
They will not.
The public deserves answers.
And more importantly, Customs personnel who perform their duties honestly deserve answers.
Let us be absolutely clear from the beginning:
This column is not declaring A.E. guilty of any crime or administrative offense.
The allegations discussed here remain allegations that require verification, investigation and evidence.
A.E. is entitled to due process.
A.E. is also entitled to answer every allegation.
And this column is open to the side of Mr. A.E. If he wishes to deny the allegations, provide documents, identify inaccuracies, or present his explanation, that response deserves to be heard and published fairly.
But the right to answer does not mean the public has no right to ask questions.
And there are plenty of questions.
—
CMU: ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE OR PARKING AREA?
Why are officials facing questions about their conduct reportedly being moved to the Compliance Monitoring Unit (CMU)?
Is this a legitimate operational decision?
Is it part of a genuine compliance and monitoring mechanism?
Or is the CMU being perceived as a convenient parking area for officials whose conduct should instead be subjected to formal investigation?
These are not accusations. These are questions.
And questions become especially legitimate when personnel movements involve individuals whose previous assignments are allegedly connected to controversies.
Under the Customs Modernization and Tariff Act, the Commissioner has authority over the assignment and reassignment of customs officers, subject to the requirements of law. The law also gives the Bureau broad responsibilities in preventing smuggling and customs fraud.
But reassignment is not an acquittal.
A transfer is an administrative action—not a finding that nothing happened.
If there was an alleged irregularity before the transfer, the obvious question remains:
Was it investigated?
If not—
WHY NOT?
—
THE AUCTION QUESTION: WHO BENEFITED?
There are allegations involving A.E. and an incident connected with auction operations.
Again, this column does not declare that an irregularity occurred.
The question is whether one occurred.
If there was an anomaly, then:
Who authorized it?
Who benefited?
Who participated?
Who knew?
Who failed to act?
And if documentary evidence exists, why should a personnel movement become the end of the matter?
The Customs law gives the Bureau substantial authority and responsibility over forfeiture and disposition of imported goods.
Therefore, where there is a credible allegation involving government-controlled property or an official customs transaction, the appropriate response should be:
DOCUMENTS.
AUDIT.
INVESTIGATION.
DUE PROCESS.
ACCOUNTABILITY.
Not silence.
—
RA 6713: PUBLIC OFFICE IS NOT A PERSONAL ATM
Republic Act No. 6713 is brutally clear about the ethical obligations of public servants.
Public officials are required to uphold public interest over personal interest and act with responsibility, integrity, competence and justice.
More importantly, the law prohibits public officials from soliciting or accepting gifts, gratuities, favors, entertainment, loans or anything of monetary value in connection with their official duties or government-regulated transactions.
So here is the question:
If money was allegedly collected in exchange for official favors, who collected it?
Who received it?
Who authorized it?
Who benefited from it?
That is not a matter for office gossip.
That is a matter for evidence.
—
₱10 MILLION A MONTH?
Now we come to the allegation that should make every accountability officer sit up.
There are claims circulating that a person identified in these allegations as “Mon Ching” allegedly told others that his superior, A.E., was providing as much as ₱10 million every month to the Office of the Commissioner.
Let us stop right there.
₱10 MILLION. EVERY MONTH.
That is an extraordinarily serious allegation.
And because it is extraordinary, it requires extraordinary proof.
This column is not saying that the alleged ₱10-million monthly payment actually happened.
We are asking whether it happened.
If it did not—
DENY IT.
If it did—
EXPLAIN IT.
Where did the money allegedly come from?
Was there actually a payment?
Who allegedly delivered it?
Who allegedly received it?
Was it documented?
Was it deposited?
Was it government money?
Private money?
Money connected to customs transactions?
Money from brokers?
Money from
NO WITCH-HUNT. NO SACRED COWS.
Let us also make something absolutely clear.
This is not a call for a witch-hunt.
This is not a declaration of guilt.
This is not a trial by publicity.
And this is certainly not an attempt to convict anyone through newspaper headlines.
But accountability cannot be sacrificed in the name of protecting reputations.
There must be a fair balance.
NO WITCH-HUNT.
NO POLITICAL PERSECUTION.
NO TRIAL BY PUBLICITY.
But also—
NO COVER-UP.
NO SPECIAL TREATMENT.
NO SACRED COWS.
If the allegations are false—
CLEAR THE NAMES.
If the allegations are unsupported—
SHOW THE PUBLIC WHY.
If credible evidence exists—
INVESTIGATE.
If violations are proven after due process—
PROSECUTE AND HOLD THE RESPONSIBLE PERSONS ACCOUNTABLE.
That is how a professional institution should operate.
AND TO MR. A.E.: YOUR SIDE IS WELCOME
Mr. A.E., this column is open to you.
If these allegations are false, say so.
If the ₱10-million allegation is fabricated, deny it categorically.
If the CMU transfers have legitimate operational reasons, explain them.
If the auction allegations are inaccurate, present the records.
If there is no “tara system,” tell the public why.
If someone is using your name to spread false information, identify that person and take the appropriate legal action.
You have every right to defend your name.
And your response should be heard.
But the public also has the right to ask questions when serious allegations involving public office and public trust surface.
THE BOTTOM LINE
The Bureau of Customs is too important to become hostage to rumors, personalities, factions or whispered allegations.
It collects billions for the Filipino people.
It controls the country’s borders.
It fights smuggling.
It regulates international trade.
It exercises enormous governmental power.
With that power comes an equally enormous responsibility:
ACCOUNTABILITY.
So let the records speak.
Let the auditors examine.
Let investigators investigate.
Let witnesses testify.
Let respondents answer.
Let due process run its course.
And let the truth—whatever that truth may be—come out.
Because if A.E. is innocent, the truth should clear him.
If the allegations are fabricated, the truth should expose the fabricators.
And if wrongdoing is eventually established by competent authorities based on substantial evidence and due process—
then nobody should be untouchable.
Not A.E.
Not his alleged associates.
Not any collector.
Not any deputy.
Not any executive.
Not even the highest official in the Bureau.
THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS IS NOT A PRIVATE KINGDOM.
PUBLIC OFFICE IS A PUBLIC TRUST.
And when questions involving millions of pesos, alleged collections and the integrity of Customs operations arise—
THE PUBLIC DESERVES ANSWERS.
NOT EXCUSES.
NOT SILENCE.
ANSWERS.
