Bernie Anabo Jr.
If the allegations now circulating inside the Bureau of Customs are true, then the question is no longer simply about personnel movements.
It is about accountability, integrity and the credibility of the entire Customs enforcement machinery.
Why are officials facing questions over their conduct being moved to the Compliance Monitoring Unit (CMU)?
Is CMU being used as a legitimate mechanism for monitoring and accountability—or is it becoming a parking area for officials who should instead be subjected to formal administrative or criminal investigation?
That is the question the Customs leadership must answer.
Under the Customs Modernization and Tariff Act (RA 10863), the Bureau of Customs is mandated to prevent and suppress smuggling and customs fraud, enforce customs laws and exercise control over customs operations. The law also gives the Commissioner authority over the assignment and reassignment of customs personnel, subject to the requirements of the law.
So if an officer is merely reassigned, that does not automatically erase accountability for an alleged irregularity committed in a previous post. Right Mr. A.E?
AUCTION ANOMALY—WHERE IS THE ACCOUNTABILITY?
There are allegations involving A.E. and an incident during his assignment connected with auction operations.
The question is simple:
Was there an irregularity?
If yes, who benefited? Who authorized it? Who participated? Who looked the other way?
And if evidence exists, why should reassignment be the end of the story?
The Customs Modernization and Tariff Act provides the Bureau with extensive powers and responsibilities over customs enforcement and forfeiture proceedings.
The proper response to a substantiated violation should therefore be investigation, due process and accountability—not institutional silence.
RA 6713: PUBLIC OFFICE IS A PUBLIC TRUST
Republic Act No. 6713 requires public officials to uphold public interest over personal interest and perform their duties with professionalism, justness, sincerity and integrity. It also prohibits certain conflicts of interest, misuse of confidential information, and the solicitation or acceptance of gifts connected with official duties.
So let us put the issue squarely on the table:
If the allegations of money collection, favoritism, protection or unauthorized benefits are proven, what administrative and criminal cases should follow?
That is for the proper investigative authorities to determine.
Not the rumor mill.
Not political connections.
Not personal friendships.
Evidence. Investigation. Due process. Accountability.
“₱10-MILLION MONTHLY GRACE MONEY?”
Now comes the explosive allegation.
There are claims circulating that “Mon Ching” allegedly tells people that his superior, A.E., provides as much as ₱10 million every month to the Office of the Commissioner.
₱10 MILLION A MONTH?
If this allegation is completely false, then it should be categorically denied.
But if there is even a shred of credible evidence, the question becomes:
WHERE DID THE MONEY COME FROM?
Was there such a payment?
Who allegedly received it?
Was it recorded?
Was it deposited?
Was it government money?
Was it private money?
Was it connected to customs transactions?
And most importantly:
WHO AUTHORIZED IT?
A claim this serious cannot simply be dismissed as “office gossip” if documentary evidence, financial records, witnesses or transaction trails exist.
If investigators find that money was demanded, solicited, received or distributed in connection with official transactions, several laws could potentially come into play depending on the evidence.
Section 3(b) of RA 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, prohibits a public officer from directly or indirectly requesting or receiving a gift, present, share, percentage or benefit in connection with a government transaction in which the officer has to intervene.
RA 6713 likewise prohibits the solicitation or acceptance of gifts, gratuities, favors, entertainment, loans or anything of monetary value in connection with official duties or government-regulated transactions.
And where government funds or property are involved, Presidential Decree No. 1445, the Government Auditing Code, imposes accountability for unlawful expenditures and improper use of government resources.
COCKFIGHTING, GAMBLING AND THE TARA SYSTEM?
Another allegation being circulated concerns A.E.’s supposed involvement in cockfighting and gambling.
Let us be clear:
Being fond of cockfighting is not, by itself, proof of corruption.
But if gambling debts, financial interests or alleged collections are being linked to the exercise of official authority, then investigators have every reason to examine the money trail.
And if there is an alleged “TARA SYSTEM” operating within a customs jurisdiction, the issue becomes much bigger than gambling.
It becomes a question of whether
money is allegedly being collected from brokers, importers or other stakeholders in exchange for favorable treatment.
THAT IS WHERE THE LAW MUST SPEAK.
RA 6713 requires public officials to put public interest above personal interest and prohibits conduct that compromises the integrity of public service.
If the alleged tara collections are real, identify the collectors.
Identify the beneficiaries.
Identify the amounts.
Identify the transactions.
FOLLOW THE MONEY.
OMBUDSMAN—TIME TO LOOK INTO IT?
If credible complaints and evidence exist, the Office of the Ombudsman has authority under RA 6770 to investigate acts or omissions of public officers that appear illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient, and may direct appropriate action or recommend removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure or prosecution where warranted.
That does not mean anyone is automatically guilty.
It means nobody in government should be afraid of an investigation if there is nothing to hide.
The Ombudsman itself provides mechanisms for investigating allegations of corruption, fraud, abuse and improper conduct, with due process for the respondent.
ATTORNEY, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!
So here are the questions that deserve straight answers:
Was there an anomaly during A.E.’s previous assignment?
Was it investigated?
Were findings issued?
Were administrative or criminal cases filed?
Why were certain officials transferred to CMU?
Is CMU being used for genuine compliance monitoring—or merely as a holding area?
Does a “tara system” exist?
Is there really a ₱10-million monthly payment allegedly reaching the Office of the Commissioner?
Who allegedly gives it?
Who allegedly receives it?
Where is the money trail?
And finally:
IF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE FALSE, WHY NOT OPEN THE BOOKS AND PROVE THEM FALSE?
The Bureau of Customs cannot demand public trust while allowing serious allegations to remain unanswered.
No witch-hunt. No political persecution. No trial by publicity.
But also—
NO SACRED COWS.
If the allegations are baseless, clear the names.
If the allegations have evidence, investigate.
If violations are proven, prosecute.
And if corruption is proven—
DISMISS THEM. CHARGE THEM. HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.
Because the Bureau of Customs is not a private kingdom.
IT IS A GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION.
And public office, as the law repeatedly reminds us, is a public trust.
So, Attorney—answer the questions.
The public is watching.
