RES GESTAE
They should have known better
Global Business Power Corp. (GBPC) Assistant Vice President, Engr. Adrian Moncada, was right in saying that his company’s giving of assistance and maintenance fees to police officers and traffic aides is not illegal.
But, is it necessary?
Well, I will let you answer that. And I give you only a clue. On the one hand, basic to the mandate of police officers is to serve and protect lives and properties. In more popular terms, police officers exist to maintain peace and order. In return, they receive salaries with the tax payers’ money.
On the other hand, basic function of traffic aides is to direct traffic and ensure convenience of motorists and pedestrians alike. They too are compensated for these services with people’s money.
Moncada’s contention is anchored on Executive Order No. 655 which mandates the PNP to protect vital installations and projects such as power plants; while Engr. Henry Alcalde, project manager of the widely opposed (by environmental advocates) 164-megawatt coal-fired power plant in Brgy. Ingore, La Paz, Iloilo City, made it sound more ‘business’ by referring to the assistance and maintenance fees given to the police and traffic aides as simply part of their corporate social responsibility program.
Commendable? Certainly!
But, I think the GBPC officials missed some important points in their defenses.
I agree. Nothing is illegal in the assistance and maintenance fees. Other private entities do the same. In fact, I can name few corporations which do or have done the same. But this is beside of the point.
There could have been no issue in this exercise of the so-called corporate social responsibility should GBPC make their support to the PNP and TMEU known before hand. And the support should not have been given only and directly to individual police officer or traffic aide but to an office or unit.
The rationale is simple. The assistance and maintenance provided by police officers and traffic aides are not rendered in their private capacities. They are designated by their offices or units to do so.
While serving the GBPC’s interest, these police officers and traffic aides in effect transfer their regular functions or assignments to other fellow police officers and traffic aides adding load to the burden of the latter.
With that premise, they must not enjoy exclusively the gratuities given by GBPC but must share the blessing to the rest of the members of their office or unit.
Well, I don’t think the ‘unlucky’ police officers and ‘unprivileged’ traffic aides have something to do with the making of these assistance and maintenance fees as an “issue”.
But, pondering on the “issue”, I could not really help but think of a great possibility that they might have pulled the trigger or blown the whistle.
Alcade maybe is right. GBPC has no malice in giving the said support to the ‘lucky’ police officers and ‘privileged’ traffic aides. But now, see what is happening?
This is why, the rest I can say is that the GBPC officials should have known better.