BRT loan: A breakthrough but…
Finally, the World Bank approved the US$141 million loan for the Bus Rapid Transit. Thus, the long and anxiety-filled wait is over. However, it should be emphasized that the long wait is over (in only) as far as the approval of the loan for the BRT is concerned. Whether its implementation will result to a timely completion remains to be unknown. Remember, as has always been the norm, when big projects are on the table, even if it earned the nod or has obtained sufficient funding, other supposedly “concerned citizens” (who can be the losing bidders or the so called “environmentalists” and their political backers or the mere attention-seekers) or the alleged aggrieved parties (like the landowners whose properties maybe affected by the road expansion and construction of the “busways” and jeepney operators/drivers) may drag everyone and the project to the court and render it and the timetable real messes. Devoid of biases, however, easily, we will be able to see its advantages along line convenience, safety, efficiency, prudent use of energy and environment protection.
Despite these advantages, however, some sectors are just so apprehensive, not on its future commercial operation but during construction. We can’t blame them. The fact was, in May, 2011, after years of countless debates and months of sleepless nights evaluating the pros and cons of the project, the World Bank-funded team released the result of its feasibility study for the BRT. Unfortunately, they emphasized four (4) risks. Out of these, however, the perceived corruption concerns seemed to be the most serious and imminent. Despite a consultant’s insinuation that the public’s attention and the participation of the National Economic and Development Authority and the Department of Transportation and Communication might mitigate the risk, history tells us that the probability that corruption will take much of the pie is still as clear as daylight.
To recall, in COA’s 2006 audit report on the official development assistance funded projects, it highlighted that some infrastructure projects funded through these funds were suspended due to non-compliance with Republic Act No. 9184, otherwise known as, the Government Procurement Reform Act. Furthermore, the COA audit report stressed that double recording of various transactions and understatement/overstatement of several accounts resulted in the net overstatement of P2.609 billion. Blatantly, said report revealed that there were unliquidated cash advances/fund transfers of P1.563 billion.
These projects (which could have propelled us economically), where lapses cost us billions, were scattered in several districts all over the country. Districts that were under the influence of our lawmakers who could have helped keep these projects above board. With these lawmakers and other line agencies coordinating, compliance could have been assured. Ironically, however, these were conspicuously happening despite theirs and NEDA’s presence, an agency that is tasked to regularly monitor and review all ODA funded projects. It is surprising too, that despite the regular meetings among the project implementing agencies (IAs), Department of Finance, Department of Budget and Management and NEDA (as required by law) to address bottlenecks and issues on project implementation, these were left uncorrected.
Knowing fully well that the same IAs will be largely involved in the project, the BRT may suffer the same fate. Lest we forget, there are at least two parties to a transaction. Therefore, there are two players in an anomalous deal. Either the unscrupulous customer demands a sum to give his nod to the project or the supplier offers a bribe to get it. When one refuses, a deal isn’t made. Obviously, therefore, every anomalous deal is not a marriage of two strange bedfellows but a union of human beings of the same breed and immoral upbringing. Undeniably, with the possibility of both parties agreeing to steal and conceal, WB’s perceived corruption risk is imminent.
Moreover, history has also reminded us that when more government agencies or personalities are involved the messier the project shall be. This is so since when more hands are dipped into the project’s funds, allocations for construction per se diminishes. Needless to say, there is no budget for corruption. Therefore, when someone’s hand is dipped into a pool of money intended for the project, such hand gets what it doesn’t own.
So that, we (Cebuanos) should continue to be vigilant and make sure that the BRT is not only implemented but should be completed on time, at the right specifications and, most of all, at the desired cost.
- Latest
