Accountability, as enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, is both a weapon against corruption and a shield for honest public servants – and this principle applies amid controversies such as the current flood control mess, Sen. Panfilo Lacson stressed Saturday.
Lacson, in his speech before the Philippine Constitution Association’s 65th anniversary in Makati City, said the Constitution’s provision that “Public office is a public trust” is a principle that cannot be compromised or negotiated.
In Filipino: Lacson: Pananagutan, Kaaway ng Mga Tiwali at Kalasag ng Tapat na Lingkod-Bayan
“If there is one thing that continues to ring true, especially in this whole flood control mess, it is this: accountability is the enemy of corrupt public officials, but a shield of honest public servants. If your decisions are proper, let the records speak; If your actions are lawful, let the evidence establish it; if your conscience is clear, scrutiny should not frighten you. In fact, the honest public servant should be able to say: ‘Go ahead. Audit me,'” he said.
“The person who fears accountability, however, may have a different reaction. He or she may say, ‘Why single me out?’ Someone would even cry, ‘This is political persecution and intimidation and pressure’ – which, by the way, sounds very familiar,” he added.
During an informal forum after his speech, Lacson added that accountability “is only one word but it is the most powerful word in the Constitution.”
Lacson noted that corruption has taken many forms and styles across multiple administrations, constantly mutating, adapting and exploiting public trust.
He said scandals involving public funds across several administrations —particularly the unprecedented pork barrel scam — showed how power can not only corrupt the insatiably greedy but also tempt even good people to believe that the rules should “bend just a little—for them.”
“That is why our Constitution does not ask us simply to trust the character of those in power. It creates institutions designed to check power itself — through every crisis, shift in leadership, and changing tide,” he said.
When he chaired the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee and led its investigation into the flood control mess after delivering two privilege speeches on the issue, Lacson upheld accountability by making a single, non-negotiable vow: “we go where the evidence takes us.”
As a result, the Blue Ribbon hearings he chaired did not just expose wrongdoing but also laid the foundation for the cascade of cases now facing the corrupt inside and outside government.
But Lacson said there can be no true accountability or justice if honesty is demanded only from subordinates, while those in authority are exempted.
“To my mind then and now, there can be no genuine accountability if honesty is demanded only from subordinates while those in authority excuse their own misconduct. There can be no justice if the law is enforced against the weak but negotiated with the powerful,” he said.
“At all times, we must be careful not to allow the language of public administration to become a convenient vocabulary for avoiding responsibility. Sometimes, when we say – ‘I exercised my discretion,’ what we really mean is – ‘I did what I wanted.’ Sometimes, when we argue – ‘It was a collective decision,’ we actually mean – ‘Nobody wants to take responsibility,’” he added.
Many even try to justify their actions by using the oldest excuse in the book: “I was only following orders,” he said.
‘Integrity, Accountability, Character’
Lacson said integrity, accountability and character – three must-have values for public servants – can be taught at home and at an early age, citing a childhood experience that inspired him to adhere to these values, especially integrity.
He recalled the story of his older brother Eli, who as a pupil in the 1950s found a one-centavo coin, which carried real weight and value at the time, while on his way home from school.
When he got home and told his mother Maxima, who worked as a market vendor, she sternly admonished him and told him to look for the owner of the coin the next day.
Lacson pointed out, however, that it is in the possession of power and authority that can truly test one’s character. For public servants, he said every day is a test of whether they are worthy of the trust that the Filipino people have placed in them.
He recalled his own experience of upholding accountability even when it led to conflicts with those in power – over allowing jueteng to continue during the Estrada administration, various corruption scandals during the Arroyo administration, the Disbursement Acceleration Program and the Napoles pork barrel scam during the Aquino administration, and the Pharmally scandal during the Duterte administration.
“Real accountability teaches us that one cannot be simply answerable to the person above him. Rather, it is about being responsible to your oath and ultimately, to the people… Holding someone accountable is not necessarily an act of revenge. It is an act of respect—for the law, for public institutions, and most of all, for the people who have entrusted us with authority,” he said.
“Accountability must follow responsibility; responsibility must follow authority. If you have the authority to decide, you must have the courage to answer for that decision, no matter your political color,” he added.
Lacson said public servants must remind themselves every day that the power they wield “was never ours to begin with,” and that it is only “borrowed, entrusted to us no less by the people we serve.”
“It demands that every public servant be prepared to explain, defend, and, when necessary, answer for every decision made and every action taken in the exercise of public authority,” he said.
“Corruption and those behind it will definitely find their way to exploit our trust. But as public servants, we are called to stand on the same ground – the Constitution, and our commitment to upholding it,” he added.
Lacson also pointed out that while many lawyers with different persuasions may have varying views in interpreting any legal fact, only the principle of accountability “stands absolute.”
“(W)hile the many lawyers with different persuasions in this room can surely find as many different ways to interpret any legal fact, there is one principle that stands absolute – one truth we cannot compromise or negotiate. Above all legal debates, we must remain bound by the foundational principle we are sworn to uphold for our people and our nation, that is, ‘Public office is a public trust,” he stressed.
*****
Lacson: Pananagutan, Kaaway ng Mga Tiwali at Kalasag ng Tapat na Lingkod-Bayan
Ang pananagutan o accountability, na nakasaad sa 1987 Constitution, ay kapwa sandata laban sa korapsyon at kalasag ng mga tapat na lingkod-bayan — at ang prinsipyong ito ay naaangkop sa mga kontrobersiya gaya ng flood control scandal, diin ni Sen. Panfilo “Ping” M. Lacson nitong Sabado.
Sa kanyang talumpati sa Philippine Constitution Association na nagdiwang ng ika-65 anibersaryo nito sa Makati City, sinabi ni Lacson na ang probisyon ng Saligang Batas na “Public office is a public trust” ay isang prinsipyong hindi maaaring ikompromiso o tawaran.
“If there is one thing that continues to ring true, especially in this whole flood control mess, it is this: accountability is the enemy of corrupt public officials, but a shield of honest public servants. If your decisions are proper, let the records speak; If your actions are lawful, let the evidence establish it; if your conscience is clear, scrutiny should not frighten you. In fact, the honest public servant should be able to say: ‘Go ahead. Audit me,'” aniya.
“The person who fears accountability, however, may have a different reaction. He or she may say, ‘Why single me out?’ Someone would even cry, ‘This is political persecution and intimidation and pressure’ – which, by the way, sounds very familiar,” dagdag ng mambabatas.
Sa informal forum matapos ang kanyang talumpati, idiniin ni Lacson na ang “accountability” ay “only one word but it is the most powerful word in the Constitution.”
Sinabi ni Lacson na maraming anyo at istilo ang korapsyon sa paglipas ng iba’t ibang administrasyon, na patuloy na nagbabago, umaangkop at sinasamantala ang tiwala ng publiko.
Aniya, ipinakita ng mga iskandalo na kinasasangkutan ng pondo ng bayan sa iba’t ibang administrasyon—partikular ang walang-katulad na pork barrel scam—kung paano hindi lamang nakapagpapasama sa mga taong gahaman sa kapangyarihan ang kapangyarihan kundi nakatutukso rin maging sa mabubuting tao na isipin na maaari namang bahagyang yumuko ang mga patakaran para sa kanila.
“That is why our Constitution does not ask us simply to trust the character of those in power. It creates institutions designed to check power itself — through every crisis, shift in leadership, and changing tide,” aniya.
Nang pamunuan niya ang Senate Blue Ribbon Committee at ang imbestigasyon nito sa gulo sa mga proyekto sa flood control matapos siyang maghain ng dalawang privilege speech tungkol dito, sinabi ni Lacson na itinaguyod niya ang accountability sa pamamagitan ng isang panata na hindi maaaring tawaran: “we go where the evidence takes us.”
Bunga nito, ang mga pagdinig ng Blue Ribbon na kanyang pinamunuan ay hindi lamang naglantad ng mga maling gawain kundi naglatag din ng pundasyon para sa sunod-sunod na mga kasong kinakaharap ngayon ng mga tiwali sa loob at labas ng pamahalaan.
Ngunit sinabi ni Lacson na walang tunay na pananagutan o katarungan kung ang katapatan ay hinihingi lamang sa mga nasa mababang posisyon habang hindi pinapanagot ang mga nasa kapangyarihan.
“To my mind then and now, there can be no genuine accountability if honesty is demanded only from subordinates while those in authority excuse their own misconduct. There can be no justice if the law is enforced against the weak but negotiated with the powerful,” aniya.
“At all times, we must be careful not to allow the language of public administration to become a convenient vocabulary for avoiding responsibility. Sometimes, when we say – ‘I exercised my discretion,’ what we really mean is – ‘I did what I wanted.’ Sometimes, when we argue – ‘It was a collective decision,’ we actually mean – ‘Nobody wants to take responsibility,'” dagdag niya.
Marami rin ang nagtatangkang bigyang-katwiran ang kanilang mga ginawa gamit ang “excuse” na “I was only following orders,” aniya
‘Integrity, Accountability, Character’
Diin ni Lacson, ang integridad, pananagutan at karakter — tatlong kailangang taglayin ng mga lingkod-bayan — ay maaaring ituro sa tahanan at sa murang edad, at ibinahagi ang isang karanasan noong kanyang kabataan na nagbigay-inspirasyon sa kanya na panindigan ang mga pagpapahalagang ito, lalo na ang integridad.
Inalala niya ang kuwento ng kanyang nakatatandang kapatid na si Eli, na noong estudyante pa noong dekada 1950 ay nakapulot ng isang baryang isang sentimo, na may tunay na halaga at bigat noong panahong iyon, habang pauwi mula sa paaralan.
Pagdating niya sa bahay at sinabi ito sa kanilang ina na si Maxima, na isang tindera sa palengke, mahigpit siyang pinagsabihan nito at inutusan na hanapin kinabukasan ang may-ari ng baryang kanyang napulot.
Sa kabila nito, sinabi ni Lacson na ang pagkakaroon ng kapangyarihan at awtoridad ang tunay na sumusubok sa pagkatao ng isang tao. Para sa mga lingkod-bayan, aniya, araw-araw ay pagsubok kung karapat-dapat sila sa tiwalang ipinagkaloob sa kanila ng sambayanang Pilipino.
Inalala niya ang sarili niyang karanasan sa pagtataguyod ng pananagutan kahit nauwi ito sa hindi pagkakaunawaan sa mga nasa kapangyarihan – sa usapin ng pagpapahintulot sa jueteng noong administrasyong Estrada; sa iba’t ibang iskandalo noong administrasyong Arroyo; sa Disbursement Acceleration Program at Napoles pork barrel scam noong administrasyong Aquino; at sa Pharmally scandal noong administrasyong Duterte.
“Real accountability teaches us that one cannot be simply answerable to the person above him. Rather, it is about being responsible to your oath and ultimately, to the people… Holding someone accountable is not necessarily an act of revenge. It is an act of respect—for the law, for public institutions, and most of all, for the people who have entrusted us with authority,” aniya.
“Accountability must follow responsibility; responsibility must follow authority. If you have the authority to decide, you must have the courage to answer for that decision, no matter your political color,” dagdag niya.
Diin ni Lacson, dapat alalahanin ng mga lingkod-bayan na ang kapangyarihang hawak nila ay hindi kanila kundi hiram lamang, at ipinagkatiwala sa kanila ng mga taong kanilang pinaglilingkuran.
“It demands that every public servant be prepared to explain, defend, and, when necessary, answer for every decision made and every action taken in the exercise of public authority,” aniya.
“Corruption and those behind it will definitely find their way to exploit our trust. But as public servants, we are called to stand on the same ground – the Constitution, and our commitment to upholding it,” dagdag niya.
Binigyang-diin din ni Lacson na bagama’t maaaring magkakaiba ang pananaw ng maraming abogado na may iba’t ibang paniniwala sa pagbibigay-kahulugan sa isang legal na usapin, ang prinsipyo ng accountability ang “absolute.”
“(W)hile the many lawyers with different persuasions in this room can surely find as many different ways to interpret any legal fact, there is one principle that stands absolute – one truth we cannot compromise or negotiate. Above all legal debates, we must remain bound by the foundational principle we are sworn to uphold for our people and our nation, that is, ‘Public office is a public trust,” diin ni Lacson.
*****