In the ongoing debate within the Baguio City Council regarding the anonymous complaint against the GO & LEAD program, we are confronted with a peculiar intersection of procedural concerns, political sensitivity, and, most importantly, the central issue of what truly serves the common good. This debate provides a perfect illustration of how technicalities, such as procedural protocols and the legitimacy of anonymous complaints, can overshadow the broader goal of promoting transparency, accountability, and the welfare of the city’s students, educators, and the general public.
The GO & LEAD program is a professional development initiative designed apparently to enhance the capabilities of school heads in Baguio City. This initiative, while widely praised for its potential to uplift educational standards, has now become embroiled in a debate that centers more on how the issue was raised than the substance of the accusations. The anonymous complaint alleges that the program is being misused to promote political agendas, disrupt school operations, and sideline other important educational priorities. While some of these allegations may hold merit, the emphasis placed on the technical aspects of the inquiry—such as the anonymity of the complainant and the procedural irregularities in addressing the complaint—distracts from the central issue: the program’s potential impact on the quality of education in Baguio City and transparency in public undertakings.
Councilors like Betty Lourdes Tabanda and Mylen Victoria Yaranon are understandably concerned with the procedural integrity of the inquiry, particularly with the question of whether or not to entertain anonymous complaints. They argue that to maintain order and credibility in the city council’s actions, all complaints should be properly sworn and signed. Yet, while their concerns are rooted in the importance of following established protocols, one cannot ignore the broader implications of setting aside the substance of the complaints in favor of technicalities. The common good, in this case, lies not in rigidly adhering to the rules, but in ensuring that the inquiry serves the purpose for which it is intended: to protect the interests of the people, particularly in the areas of transparency and allocation of resources.
The focus on the procedural irregularities also overlooks the crux of the complaint—the governance and transparency of DepEd-Baguio’s implementation of the GO & LEAD program. The anonymous complainant claims that school heads were coerced into participating in the program and that its organization lacked proper communication and transparency, undermining the integrity of the educational process. Rather than allowing these concerns to be swept under the rug because of technicalities, the council should be focusing on how these claims can be investigated in a way that prioritizes the well-being of the students and teachers involved. The debate over the anonymous nature of the letter risks sidelining critical discussions about the governance, potential conflicts of interest, and the long-term effects of such initiatives on the educational system.
The insistence on the anonymity of the complainants, while important in maintaining the integrity of public processes, should not overshadow the very real concerns about governance and accountability. It is not uncommon for whistleblowers or concerned individuals to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, particularly in cases involving powerful individuals or institutions. If we reject these concerns based solely on their anonymous nature, we risk stifling the very transparency and accountability that the city council is supposed to protect. Inquiries in aid of legislation are not merely about maintaining the letter of the law but about using the legislative platform to ensure that all actions taken by government institutions align with the public’s interest.
Moreover, the political undertones of the GO & LEAD program, with its association to Congressman Mark Go and the use of his name in the program’s title, have raised concerns about undue political influence. Councilors have rightly questioned whether the program is an example of politicization, particularly given its proximity to the upcoming election. These concerns, however, are best addressed by focusing on the merits of the program itself and its actual impact on education and the question on whether or not it is politically motivated only comes second.
The city council must ask itself: Does the potential benefit of the program, in terms of improving education for Baguio students, outweigh the possible political implications? In the end, the answer should lie in the substance of the program and whether it aligns with the needs of schools and students, and if it does, how can we improve its delivery and remove any political tone that has been attached to it.
The ongoing debate in the city council highlights the tension between technicalities and the broader public good. Inquiries in aid of legislation must prioritize the ultimate goal of serving the people, and this means looking beyond procedural formalities to address the real issues at hand. By focusing too heavily on the process and the anonymity of the complaint, we risk losing sight of the larger mission: improving the quality of education for the youth of Baguio City and ensuring that public programs are transparent, accountable, and genuinely in the public’s best interest.
