No sense of ethics

SAN FRANCISCO – People have lost their sense of right and wrong. Just look at how President Duterte sees nothing wrong with the solicitor general owning a company earning hundreds of millions of pesos providing government offices with private security services.

Then there is this so-called Christian evangelist who wants his followers to buy him a $54 million private jet. CBS News reports that Jesse Duplantis has already paid cash for three other private planes …” In a video posted on his website last week, Duplantis said God told him he should have a jet – but not pay for it.

A sense of right and wrong should be basic. We lose it now and then, but hopefully realize how wrong we have been and change course. And when the persons involved are those God presumably put in authority in civil government or posing as pastors in care of His flock, one wonders what is going on.

It shouldn’t be too surprising if one is familiar with the Bible. In 2 Timothy 3: 1-5 it was written:

“But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.”

In dictionary.com, ethics is described as “The branch of philosophy that deals with morality. Ethics is concerned with distinguishing between good and evil in the world, between right and wrong human actions, and between virtuous and nonvirtuous characteristics of people.

In bbc.com, ethics is described as a system of moral principles. They affect how people make decisions and lead their lives. Ethics is concerned with what is good for individuals and society and is also described as moral philosophy.

In businessdictionary.com, ethics is simply defined as: The basic concepts and fundamental principles of decent human conduct.

Award-winning journalist Marites Vitug lays down the facts of the public uproar.

“The conflict of interest is as clear as day. But Solicitor General Jose Calida and his defenders in Malacañang want us to believe that there is none. Zero.

“Please don’t take us for fools.

“Here are the facts:

• Calida owns 60 percent of the shares in a family-owned company, Vigilant Investigative and Security Agency Incorporated.

• The security agency bagged contracts worth P261.39 million since Calida was appointed the government’s lawyer in July 2016.

• He did not divest his majority share in the family-owned company.

• He resigned his posts as chairman and president of Vigilant before he became solicitor general.

• His wife, Milagros Calida, and children Josef, Michelle, and Mark Jorel own the rest of the shares (10 percent for each).”

The solicitor general claims the anti-graft law does not prohibit his firm’s government contract, saying that, under the Constitution, only members of the Cabinet are prohibited from having financial interest in government transactions.

“Although he is conferred Cabinet rank by RA 9417 and is invited to Cabinet meetings by the President, he does not head an executive department and his appointment, unlike those of Cabinet members, did not require Commission on Appointments confirmation,” Calida’s statement said.

Ms. Vitug disagrees. She cites Rule IX of the implementing rules that give life to RA 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials. The IRR explicitly states that divestment is mandatory if the official is a substantial stockholder “even if (he has) resigned from his position.” Thus, resigning is not enough.

The rules also say divestment should be to a person or persons “other than his spouse or relatives.” Remember, the rest of the shareholders in Vigilant are the Calida wife and children.

Ms. Vitug cites a lawyer’s opinion that:  “By admitting that he (Calida) is owner of 60 percent of the shares, he already violated the IRR, which has the force and effect of law.”

Still, President Duterte said he saw nothing wrong being engaged in business while serving as government official for as long as it is legal. He defended Calida saying: “Bakit? Wala na ba tayong katuwiran mag-negosyo?” (Don’t we have the right to do business?) The President said he will not fire Calida.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the Calida contracts are legal as he claims, is it ethical? Put another way, is it the right thing to do for a top official in an administration that promised change from our old ways?

The optics is disturbing. It clearly presents an uneven playing field for all other security agencies who want an equal chance to bid on those government contracts.

Even if we assume further that the contracts were legally won, it is difficult to believe that an awarding government agency will not favor the bid of a company connected with someone as influential and high up in the administration as the solicitor general.

In the same way, how can the PNP properly supervise a security agency whose owner is the government’s lawyer and his family?

In the case of the evangelist, CBS News reports: Duplantis is not the first minister to preach the gospel of private flight. We have Filipino preachers who also have a taste for the life of opulence that spits on the message of Jesus Christ. Instead of winning souls, they cause believers to doubt, and non believers with better sense of right and wrong to sneer on Christianity itself.

Calida, and subsequently Duterte, threw mud on his anti-corruption claim with this very obvious case of conflict of interest. Being barely legal doesn’t make it moral, doesn’t make it ethical.

Having a sense of right or wrong should be universal. Those violating this basic sense know what they are doing. There will be hell to pay.

Boo Chanco’s e-mail address is [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @boochanco