IT IS our take that the suggestion of Davao City Police Office (DCPO) director P/Col Mannan Muarip to add prison time to the penalty for violating the liquor ban is worth considering by the Sangguniang Panlungsod.
Yes, for now violators are only slapped with fines that most of them can very well afford. Just think of this. Violators are mostly those who have the money to squander while enjoying the city’s nightlife. They are those who can afford to buy not just beer by the bottle but by the cases. They are also those who spend their time inside watering holes drinking imported wine and liquor that are priced exorbitantly.
In other words, if these people can afford to splurge money on an expensive vice like drinking, without doubt they, too, can afford to pay the fines. They are also the ones who are generous enough to offer bribes to law enforcers who catch them violating the liquor ban. And oftentimes, with a few hundreds, or maybe thousands of pesos surreptitiously slipped inside the arresting authorities’ pockets, suddenly, the violators go scot-free.
With prison time added to the penalty, there is certainty that liquor drinkers will have second thoughts doing their thing. That is, for wine and liquor merchants, or drinkers, to think not just twice but many more times if they have to pursue their desire to have bigger sales, or satisfy their craving for the intoxicating liquid.
We would be eagerly waiting who among our councilors will be the first to look into the viability of adopting Colonel Muarip’s recommendation.
*********************************
In some regions and local government units, this is how officials of government agencies and the contractors of infra-related projects, and the contractors themselves, are perpetuating corruption and giving supposedly “fairer” opportunities for contractors to get projects.
“We can only agree to claims that corruption in government, mostly through its many agencies and offices,
is indeed “systemic.” Meaning, it has adopted an elaborate system that allows its perpetuation.”
With the knowledge – perhaps the “blessing” of the agencies’ regional directors – the various accredited contractor firms craft some kind of an “agreement” every time a project is bidded out. They agree among themselves who will get to win in the bidding. The one scheduled to get the project will advise the others on the amount of its bid. The rest will submit higher bids than that of the one slated to win in the bidding.
But the catch is, the winning bidder commits to give certain amount of money to the supposed “losing” bidders. That is one scheme that earns easy money for the “losing” contractor. No sweat. No expense. Perhaps only the amount of the premium of the bidder’s bond and other documentary requirements in the submission of bids.
The concerned agency officials? Well, the rule has long been established as to the percentage after deducting the take of the project sponsor, whoever he or she may be. That gives the contractors assurance of having a continuing business relations with the concerned government agency or office.
And the winners in the succeeding projects to be bid out? Well, as per their “honorable” men’s agreement, they will be rotated.
And in some local governments where project costs are usually lower than those of the national government, contractors, mostly with lesser capital, have organized themselves into cooperatives. But, again, the members agree to give contractors their fair chance of undertaking locally funded projects. To make sure that no non-members will get the chance of barging into the co-op’s domain, the group gets the services of a “contactor,” one insider at the local government, to feed the cooperative information of projects in the pipeline for implementation.
Of course, to ensure getting hold of the project, the cooperative of contractors has already an existing unwritten agreement as to who gets how much and when, so contracts are facilitated.
Availability of cash resources of winning contractors? Well, there is not much need. The signed contract between the winning bidder and the concerned local government is more than enough guarantee that materials needed for the project can be acquired through credit from suppliers who also bloat the supplies’ prices.
How do we know this scheme, our readers may be quick to ask. Well, with the years that our previous work allowed us to deal with contractors doing business with government agencies, and with our agency insider sources established during the many years that we worked as a media person, getting this information is some kind of a “walk in the park.”
Meanwhile, we can only agree to claims that corruption in government, mostly through its many agencies and offices, is indeed “systemic.” Meaning, it has adopted an elaborate system that allows its perpetuation.
Two such systems are imbedded in the schemes we have mentioned early on in this column today.
