Of fall guys and scapegoats

Liability-wise, an uncertain future awaits Gina Acosta, the former special disbursing officer (SDO) of the Office of Vice President Sara Duterte, with regard to her handling of the P125 million in confidential funds given to that office.

In reply to a question by a senator-judge in the impeachment trial of the Vice President, Acosta admitted that, as SDO, she is, under existing audit regulations, accountable for those funds.

But in the same breath, she said she trusted that the Vice President knew what she was doing when the latter instructed her to turn them over to Army Col. Raymond Lachica, who, as the head then of the Vice Presidential Security and Protection Group, she stated knew more about the activities that were supposed to be the funded by that money.

In giving the money to Lachica, who was not a bonded SDO (meaning, he had not put up the bond required by government audit rules to cover possible violations in the handling of public funds), which is contrary to existing regulations, Acosta may have made herself liable for malversation of public funds.

Regardless of how things evolve in the future, which includes the possible election of VP Sara to the presidency in 2028, Acosta faces the prospect of prosecution by the Office of the Ombudsman for the acts earlier mentioned.

Although Acosta can claim that she simply acted upon the orders of VP Sara, that defense may not meet the requirements of the justifying circumstance of “obedience to a lawful order,” which could absolve her from possible criminal liability.

Note carefully the word “lawful.”

The premise of that defense is, a subordinate is not obliged to obey an illegal order of his or her superior, and if the subordinate does, the latter would have to answer for the consequences of his or her obedience.

In this scenario, to avoid being included in the charge sheet, the superior can deny having given that order and further say the subordinate committed the act in question at his or her own volition.

It would then be a case of “he said, she said” that, in the absence of any contravening evidence, and with the assistance of highly paid lawyers and public relations staff, the superior can be presented as the victim rather than the mastermind. Money can do wonders in situations like this.

In the end, the subordinate winds up becoming the fall guy or scapegoat for an illegal act that was done upon the orders or bidding of his or her superior. So much for loyalty the big boss.

The situation that Acosta has found herself in resonates with employees in government offices and private companies who work under superiors who make their subordinates front for them in actions or decisions they do not want to be seen as theirs or done under their instructions.

If, for example, a certain procurement is susceptible of being questioned for its onerous terms and conditions, or the award of a lucrative contract could raise eyebrows, and the final signing authority finds a plausible reason to excuse him or her from signing, the subordinate who has apparent authority would be ordered to sign or approve it instead.

A similar approach would be taken if the act or decision involved is politically sensitive or may not sit well with the powers-that-be in the government or corporate boardroom.

In the business community, that scheme is fondly described as PYA (or “protect your ass”) which means that any adverse consequences or blame that may result or arise from a bad decision should be capable of being attributed to somebody other than the boss.

So when shit hits the ceiling, those whose signature or initials appear in the document or whose names appear in the minutes of the meeting that discussed the matter gets the flak.

In theory, a subordinate who believes he or she could be in legal or ethical trouble if he or she follows his or her superior’s order can refuse to do so and justify that action with all the reasons possible.

But if he or she does that, the retribution can come very fast. The “uncooperative” employee would find himself or herself sliding to the bottom of the promotion list or branded as a non-team player.

Worse, he or she may be given the pink slip when the opportunity, no matter how flimsy, presents itself.

Deathly scared to lose his or her job and with no alternative employment or source of livelihood, the under pressure subordinate has no choice but follow the instructions from above regardless of possible adverse consequences to him or her in the future.

In the event the feared aftermath happens, the “loyal” subordinate can only hope and pray that the person whose reputation and position he or she protected at the expense of his or her own interest and welfare would be generous enough to provide the necessary funds for legal assistance and, in way or the other, help provide for the financial needs of his or her family.

There is still a long way to go in the Vice President’s impeachment trial. It cannot be discounted that some former or incumbent members of her staff may find themselves in the same unpleasant and stressful position as that of Acosta.

—————————

raul.palabrica@inquirer.net

******

Get real-time news updates: inqnews.net/inqviber