Sacrificed at the altar of law and politics
Almost every day, I pass by the unfinished structure of what should have been the second building of Ospital ng Makati. This Malugay Street hospital building, had it been completed, would have served the citizens of the city’s 1st district. The first hospital is located in the 2nd district, on Sampaguita Street, just beyond Bonifacio Global City.
Sayang is the word that always comes to mind when I drive by. What a waste. And in this day and age of expensive medical care, and high medical insurance costs, having a second public hospital — and right in the city center — would have truly benefitted Makati City residents like me, as well as millions of day and night workers who go to jobs or businesses in the city daily.
But, I guess, it was just not meant to be. And, I dare say, because politics got in the way. This is not to brush aside the corruption allegations surrounding the entire deal — the reason it was stopped. But, the fact remains, had it not been for politics and political ambition, that second hospital may have been up by now and perhaps operating by end of this year.
All the other buildings that were going up alongside it are now mostly finished. New residences and commercial spaces that will soon be teeming with people. That hospital, had it been built, would have benefitted them. And, it would have been the only public hospital in the vicinity of the Makati Central Business District, which is the country’s premier financial district.
Questions for those directly and indirectly responsible for halting the construction: What happens now? What do we now do with the unfinished structure? What happens to the public money — from city residents — that has been spent so far on building the new hospital? And, more important, will the city still build a second hospital particularly within the city’s 1st district?
Not very many people can afford private hospitals and health care. If not for private medical insurance — which is not cheap — and PhilHealth, prolonged hospitalization can leave you devastated, financially. For many city residents, the public health system is the only recourse. And yet, they have been denied yet again this most basic public service. That’s politics.
To my thinking, if anybody is guilty of corrupting the deal and benefitting from it, then charge them and prosecute them immediately. And, if a verdict is rendered in favor of the government, collect from the guilty what they stole. But, this shouldn’t mean we should stop altogether what would have been a good project — like a hospital — that will truly benefit people.
Can we not resume the project, perhaps with a new budget and maybe a new contractor if the previous one is found complicit in the corruption charge? After all, if there was an original budget for the project, and not all of it has been released since the original project was not completed, then there should still be some money left to restart the project?
Cost estimates may have to be revised, and any overpricing adjusted back. Additional budget may have to come from the city government to complete construction. And any prohibitions in law against the continuation of the construction should be reviewed, with the aim of maximizing the use of government resources and promoting the interest of the public. I believe that hospital project should be allowed to continue. It is the moral thing to do.
Recall how imported license plates were seized by Customs because duties and taxes were not paid? Customs, instead of destroying them, opted to donate them to the Land Transportation Office so that motorists could make use of them. It is just that two lawmakers insisted on asking the Supreme Court to stop the donation. After 19 months, the Court ruled the donation was legal and could be done. After a long wait, the plates will go to motorists who paid for them.
In short, the government upholds the law not simply for the sake of upholding it, but upholding it primarily to ensure that the law protects and promotes the common good, public interest, and welfare. There should be ways around restrictions, legally, if they tend to impinge on public good. In the case of the Malugay hospital, why shouldn’t we find ways to continue to build it?
In January, the government ordered the destruction of over 1,000 vehicles illegally imported into the Cagayan freeport. And two days ago, a batch of 20 cars in Manila were likewise wrecked. The smuggled cars were considered “fruits of the poisonous tree,” and were destroyed because of the “principle in law that no benefit could be derived from anything obtained through unlawful means.”
In a speech, the President was quoted as explaining why the vehicles were not auctioned instead. “Don’t sell it, because the situation will remain the same,” he said. “They’ll [smugglers] still be the only ones who will benefit from it, and they’ll be the ones who will wait for the next auction. It’s legal and cheap, because it’s auctioned.”
This was the same argument used by my good friend when we talked about the issue, as he noted that the present “system” could not be trusted to ensure that the smugglers were prosecuted, and the cars would not be auctioned back to them or their representatives.
To my mind, however, there are no guarantees that the smugglers will actually be prosecuted. Even the destruction of the vehicles will not guarantee prosecution. Moreover, through an auction, some money can still go the government, which can be used to pay for public services. By destroying the vehicles, no money goes to the government at all.
As for the principle in law that no benefit could be derived from anything obtained through unlawful means, perhaps this should be seen in a more pragmatic way. Better yet, perhaps the law can be revised. Anybody can understand if we are talking about illegal drugs, then they should be destroyed. But a smuggled vehicle? A half-built public hospital? Should this be destroyed, too? And such destruction is for the public good?
Marvin A. Tort is a former managing editor of BusinessWorld, and a former chairman of the Philippines Press Council.
