Taking Responsibility for CICT Issuances

In a Computerworld article, Comm. Peña had this to say about the PH Domain Guidelines:
Taking a swipe at the DotPH head, Peña said Disini is barking up the wrong tree since he did not author the guidelines. The guidelines, he pointed out, were drafted by an advisory board that included representatives from the University of the Philippines, Philippine Electronics and Telecommunications Foundation (PETEF) and Philippine Internet Commerce Society (PICS).

“I just gave the directive to promulgate the guidelines,” Peña said. (emphasis supplied) At best, these statements are inaccurate; at worst, they’re patently misleading.

First, the language of the Guidelines are clear that the CICT is the body which promulgated them. It is significant that the Guidelines were signed only by Comm. Peña himself, to the exclusion of the other CICT commissioners. Note that the executive order creating the CICT designated two (2) ex-officio commissioners to the CICT. Their exclusion from the promulgation of the Guidelines perhaps indicates that the CICT is not a collegial body. Nevertheless, since the Guidelines contain only Mr. Peña’s signature, there can be no other conclusion but that he issued the same.

Second, that Mr. Peña issued the Guidelines by himself implies that he alone had the authority to add or remove any portion of the same. In other words, he had the opportunity to re-write the Advisory Board draft; to remove any provision or edit the same to suit whatever policy objective he sought to achieve. Therefore, Mr. Peña cannot avoid the monicker “author” of the Guidelines.

Third, if memory serves, Mr. Peña created the Advisory Board (or directed its creation), helped designate its members and even held meetings with them. In fact, one Advisory Board member informed me that certain provisions were crafted by Mr. Peña himself (in particular, the provision on allowing “market forces” determine the price for registration — seeming to reflect Mr. Peña’s pro-market bent). Therefore, even if Mr. Peña’s statements are correct, by participating in the Advisory Board’s creation, composition, and output, he bears some responsibility for the Guidelines.

Fourth, it’s troubling to have Mr. Peña make these statements about the Guidelines tending to disown them. Perhaps it can be attributed to the fact that this may have been his first stab at quasi-legislative work. Nonetheless, Mr. Peña might unwittingly be setting a bad precedent. If the drafting and promulgation of the Guidelines are any indication, it would seem that Mr. Peña’s template for governance involves empaneling an advisory or technical committee to do the spade work while CICT issues the rules and handles implementation. If Mr. Peña’s reaction to criticism is to deflect it towards the “advisory” body, then others would be wary in being named to such bodies. By failing to protect his advisers, Mr. Peña might lose them.

Finally, there is the issue of accountability. The remarks of Mr. Peña are worrisome because they may indicate that CICT is a body that has authority and responsibilty but resists accountability. Given that CICT will be managing the eGovernment fund estimated to be P4 billion, then this attitude may have far-reaching implications.