Frugality or folly?
Hold that judgment! It might be too early to ascribe malice to now-detained Sen. Jinggoy Estrada’s act of stripping bare the Senate office he had bequeathed Senate President Pro Tempore Vicente “Tito” Sotto III. There may be deeper reasons than plain greed, pettiness, or misplaced entitlement to leaving that space looking like “a construction site.”
One could say that Estrada—twice arrested on plunder charges—may only be rehearsing a post-political career as a lipat-bahay (house mover) employee. (See how quickly and efficiently he could do the job? Video attached to resume.)
The senator, too, might have subscribed to Marie Kondo’s decluttering principles, foremost of which is to commit oneself to tidying up completely (done!). The second principle is to tidy by category, such as books and personal items, rather than by room (oops!). And third, to keep only stuff that spark joy. (How attached the senator must have been to the tiles, toilet bowl, and light fixtures of his office that he’d taken them with him!)
The more charitable among us might allow that Estrada was already thinking of a leaner life post-politics, and has frugally kept items he could still use rather than replace them and unnecessarily stretch what could be a strained household budget.
‘Bare bones’ rule
The senator’s supporters meanwhile could stoutly maintain that Estrada is only following the letter of the law, i.e. the “bare bones” rule in government guidelines, which states that all state-purchased items remain the property of the Senate, but any items personally bought may be taken by the outgoing official. It adds that since structural fixtures, specialized lighting, custom wall panels, and built-in cabinets are often financed by the departing official, a completely stripped-down, “bare-bones” room is not unusual, and could be refurnished from scratch by the incoming team and the government’s property and procurement service.
This was exactly the sentiment expressed by Estrada’s official statement on the issue: “Most of these items … were acquired using personal funds, as the budget provided by the Senate was insufficient to cover all the expenses incurred,” the statement said. Not a single centavo of public funds was used to furnish the room, it added.
Estrada also recalled that the office was bare when it was turned over to him in 2022, and that “similar instances of dismantling fixtures and materials” from a vacated office have occurred in the past, and was “neither new nor unusual.” As this is “an established and accepted practice within the institution,” singling him out was “both unfair and misleading.”
Senate protocol
What the senator and his defenders might have overlooked however is that Senate protocol—which Estrada must be familiar with, having served three terms in the Senate—also bars departing officials from damaging the structure or removing structural fixtures belonging to the government. Tearing out bathroom tiles, the toilet bowl, the light fixtures, and electrical components destroys the functional integrity of the room and renders it useless.
In fact, under general property principles (such as accession in civil law), items permanently attached to an immovable structure—such as wall paneling, ceiling lighting, floor tiles, and plumbing fixtures (sinks and toilet bowls)—become part of the real property, and removing them can cause property defacement. It’s not even just Senate property to which Estrada might feel entitled, as the chamber is only renting a portion of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) building. As landlord, the GSIS should bill Estrada for the damage.
But more than just a matter of personal cost versus public funds, stripping down a room of its fixed installations creates major administrative, legal, and operational issues, foremost of which is unnecessary delay in pursuing Senate matters.
Sense of entitlement
There is the renovation downtime during which Sotto’s staff might have to work in temporary setups, and added administrative burden as the property and procurement service conducts unplanned structural repairs, electrical retrofitting, and plumbing restoration, among other unforeseen job orders.
Even granting that personal funds are used to furnish and customize Senate offices, they are maintained using public utilities and personnel. Destroyed facilities could mean additional work hours that entail a bigger budget and more government resources—at taxpayer expense.
Estrada may be correct in recovering property he personally paid for, but it also shows an inflated sense of entitlement over space temporarily given him, a lack of professional courtesy to his colleagues, and the sheer absence of ethical stewardship and accountability over public resources.
The senator’s literal demolition job on loaned space and his conceit of defending it using only the metrics of personal expense might yet cost him a political future that leans mainly on public image, one that’s already sullied by past and present plunder cases.
******
Get real-time news updates: inqnews.net/inqviber
