FINANCE SECRETARY MARGARITO TEVES just does not get it.

The good secretary is still defending the questionable $300-million deal between the Bureau of Internal Revenue and Swiss firm Sicpa Product Security SA.

For the past two years, Teves has been pushing for Sicpa?s supposedly ?foolproof? system of cigarette tax monitoring.

The total cost of the contract, if the BIR decides to go into it, will be P13 billion over seven years.

Word persists that Teves had been egging three commissioners to sign the contract. They were former Revenue Commissioners Jose Mario Buñag, Lilian Hefti and Sixto Esquivas IV.

Those three BIR chiefs have resigned, partly because?according to BIR insiders?their bosses at the DOF were forcing the Sicpa contract upon the bureau.

To the resigned commissioners, it seemed that the contract was a clear invitation for corruption cases against them before the Ombudsman.

Because of the highly questionable terms of the contract, some congressmen are trying to block it. In fact, they are calling for a congressional investigation of the Department of Finance?s role in it.

For why is the DOF insisting that the BIR go into what congressmen believe to be a lopsided contract?

And how did Teves respond to the congressmen? Well, he said?no, really, he ?assured? (according to press statements attributed to the DOF) the congressmen?that the deal was not yet final.

In short, it is not a done deal. Well, at least, not yet! Almost! But not yet!

Down here in my barangay, we have a term for such a pathetic attempt of the good secretary to squirm his department out of the controversy?palusot.

* * *

SO IT is not yet a done deal. So what?

The fact remains that the DOF even tried to sell us down the river, by pushing for the deal?with all its infirmities and lopsided arrangements?with the BIR, even with the strong objections of the three commissioners.

The real question is this: How could such a bad deal even be under consideration of this cute administration in the first place?

As I have been saying, the contract smelled of carpetbaggers. The Swiss company had a capital of P54 million. Total revenue from the contract was estimated to reach P13 billion in seven years. Guess how much Sicpa would make out of the deal. Right?an untold fortune!

Not only that, this cute administration would be glad for Sicpa to use our money so that it could make that kind of fortune.

Under the scheme, you see, Sicpa would need P2 billion initially to implement its ?foolproof? system.

And where did Sicpa propose to get the money? Well, since it only has P54 million in capital, its only recourse would be to borrow money. And where on earth would it get funding of P2 billion, which is more than 37 times its capital? Nowhere in the world!

What would happen to the financiers, for instance, if the scheme failed?

To assure?this word again?its financiers, Sicpa proposed that the government would extend to Sicpa some sort of guarantee.

It would work this way. The government would deposit in escrow a lot of money?although the actual amount is still not known. Sicpa then would draw from the government deposit the equivalent cost of two million of Sicpa?s supposedly ?foolproof? security stamps.

In other words, whether or not Sicpa uses the stamps, this cute administration would make the future administrations committed to pay for them?and in advance, at that!

That was one of the main reasons why the Neda initially dumped the scheme, in the first place. Such an arrangement was against the law, particularly the BOT law.

But all of a sudden, Neda made a complete turnaround and gave its imprimatur to the BIR to start negotiations with Sicpa.

As the DOF?s alibi, Teves pointed out that the BIR and Sicpa were still negotiating the terms of the contract.

To the guys down here in my barangay, if somebody tries to take away their money, they simply slam the door on him. That is the way of ordinary taxpayers like us in my barangay. They do things differently up there in this cute administration.

* * *

BY THE way, if and when Congress conducts an investigation of the Sicpa affair, certain lawmakers are interested in just one thing: What were the real reasons why all those three revenue commissioners resigned?