By Robert B. Roque, Jr.
If you caught the recent episode of “Storycon” on One News TV, you’d appreciate the candor of Navotas Rep. Toby Tiangco, and for that I’ll say this much: I’m more inclined to believe him.
I won’t say Tiangco’s perfect, but compare him to Batangas Rep. Leandro Leviste, who lit the match by calling out a ₱2-million “Christmas bonus” and then some to draw attention to himself… well, I’ll go with the more seasoned legislator.
Tiangco has been in Congress since 2010, long enough to speak without ambition clouding the truth, and so he says not out of rebellious outrage, but institutional memory.
He didn’t romanticize his recollections either; he only stated clearly that what he termed “break allowances” existed. For as long as he’s been a lawmaker, he remembers these bonuses released during Undas, Christmas, and Holy Week precisely because sessions pause and lawmakers are expected to spend more time — and money — in their districts.
He acknowledged receiving ₱1.5 million for the Undas break, without making attempts to wash his hands like Pilate or displaying defiance against authority. He simply made a disclosure and prompted the House leadership toward greater transparency and perhaps lesser controversy.
But let’s not be blind. There is a problem here that these bonus checks require only a signed voucher and no liquidation. There’s also a problem in some congressmen folding these bonuses within the MOOE to make it appear above board.
This brings us to what former COA commissioner Heidi Mendoza said should be the practice: publish the itemized lists. She says transparency in spending these bonuses should be routine, not revolutionary. Today, more than ever, that duty is what congressmen owe to their constituents and the general public.
Frasco’s face
In the middle of the Christmas season, a photographer courted much scrutiny of Tourism Secretary Christina Frasco — airing his frustration online over a magazine cover that featured her prominently instead of the destinations he claimed to have documented for the Department of Tourism.
The post went viral and then vanished after drawing snide remarks against Frasco. The public easily rode on the accusation that government resources were wantonly used to promote a personality rather than Philippine tourism.
All the harsh criticisms prompted the DOT to respond, and quite straightforwardly, it clarified that the magazine in question — Philippine Topics — is, in fact, a private publication. The DOT neither supplied the photo nor influenced or much less approved the cover featuring Frasco.
In these times when taxpayers’ money is treated by some government departments as something more like a raffle prize at Christmas parties, it was easy to conclude the DOT made the same indiscretion.
Apparently, it did not, and there’s more reason to believe its claim. Let’s put it plainly that magazine editors are in the business of selling a product, and their biggest draw is what they decide to put on the cover. Before crying, “Corruption!” – have bashers actually stopped to appreciate the face and figure of the DOT chief? She’s absolutely beautiful!
So, there’s no surprise if choosing Frasco to grace the magazine’s cover was not actually propaganda, but commerce. Tourism thrives on image, appeal, and attention. As a cabinet secretary and member of a political family, she surely understands that independent publishers will use what draws eyes, so long as it passes ethical and aesthetic taste.
I’m not crushing on her, but it’s not her fault she looks that good for the cover.
* * *
SHORT BURSTS. For comments or reactions, email firingline@ymail.com or tweet @Side_View via X app (formerly Twitter). Read current and past issues of this column at https://www.thephilbiznews.com