N.B. – This was published in The Lobbyist (May 31) where I write a column (Subtext).

So a still unidentified administrator of President Benigno Aquino’s website was reprimanded “severely” for uploading last May 26 an inverted Philippine flag which inadvertently implied a state of war in the country.

What is supposed to be a harmless promotion of National Flag Day from May 28 to June 12 became a public relations disaster. This is definitely not the kind of attention the government wants, given the negative publicity some of its officials have been getting of late.

I think you already know the context: The inverted flag issue happens at a time when a high-profile detainee was caught outside his detention facility, prompting the Bureau of Corrections chief to resign out of embarrassment. Aside from that, government is currently getting the flak for its plan to postpone the special election in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). There is also the age-old problem about road accidents along and beyond the so-called killer highway in the nation’s capital. So many issues, so many problems, so why should an “honest mistake” contribute to the woes of a less-than-a-year-old administration that struggles to get its act together?

Frustration may have gotten the better of Secretary Herminio “Sonny” Coloma when he took responsibility for what happened the day after (May 27). According to a report of GMANews.TV last May 27, Coloma was quoted as saying, “Ako na lang ang magte-take ng responsibility kasi ayoko rin naman na maapektuhan masyado ‘yung employee concerned ‘di ba? Bata pa yung empleyado. Kailangan din naman ma-encourage pa rin.” (Loose translation: I will just be the one to take responsibility because I don’t want the employee concerned to be affected too much by it. The employee is still young and still needs encouragement.)

I use the word “frustration” to describe Coloma’s action to highlight the obvious and the not-so-obvious.

It’s obvious that blame has to lie somewhere, and the fact that the head of the Presidential Communications Operations Office (PCOO) owned up to it is worth noticing. But is it worth commending? This is where the not-so-obvious comes in. His reason for assuming responsibility is shallow to say the least: It fails to give a thorough accounting to the public as to WHY and HOW an allegedly honest mistake like this happened.

That’s not to say that the identity of the employee should be made known. But an explanation still is in order. Coloma’s decision not to identify him or her could be better understood by giving details about the circumstances behind the mistake. If the person concerned really needs encouragement, then Coloma owes it to the people to disclose information like the nationality of the erring employee (which could explain ignorance of something as basic as the proper display of the Philippine flag) or the technical aspects that went with designing and uploading the costly mistake.

It also doesn’t help any that Undersecretary Abigail Valte only went to the extent of saying that, according to Coloma, “the person in charge has already been reprimanded severely. And we are hoping that this incident won’t happen again.”

There should be a clear definition of what constitutes “severe reprimand” under the Aquino administration. As many of its allegedly officials and staff get embroiled in controversies, it is necessary that they be held accountable for their actions.

It is perhaps in this context that a supposed non-issue or “honest mistake” gets blown out of proportion by the media (at least from the vantage point of the powers-that-be). The state of war symbolized by an inverted flag serves as poetic justice for those who are deprived under the new administration, whether in the form of basic services or something as basic as information.

Until the new administration learns the concepts of transparency and accountability, it should always expect people to make an issue out of every action that is done out of the ordinary.

Policies and programs are wont to be “flagged” as potentially harmful, in the same way that so-called honest mistakes are likely to be seen as reflective of the government’s stumbles and fumbles.