BACKBENCHER
Rod Kapunan
7/30-31/2011
Actions to vindicate the Constitution should begin by punishing those who premeditatedly violated its sanctity. Along with it, all violations arising from the illegal exercise of power should be treated as residual offenses as when that particular power grabber is later accused of graft and corruption, plunder or human rights violation.
We are compelled to state this because that political postulate does not seem to have any relevance if the accused is the former President who came to power by the legitimate process of being elected, but by bad fortune was ousted. Often we tend to be much more vindictive all for that emotional fact that he was ousted.
Paradoxically, we adulate those who criminally engineered his removal such that we consider it most glorious to punish our former presidents for whatever crime we could heap on them, forgetting that those who assumed the presidency against our will commit a far more serious offense.
We even tend to deny the ousted presidents the privilege of immunity from suit extended to them under the Constitution and of their right as accused to be presumed innocent. For that we forget we are the ones in fact eroding the foundations of our democracy. Instead of punishing those who vandalized our democratic system of government, we reward them for that.
Such misplaced political value is now reflected in our inability to comprehend that the illegality of the acts of an illegal president is merely residual to her act of grabbing political power. The violations she and her coterie, who styled themselves as officials, could not happen had she not conspired to oust the sitting President. As one criminal lawyer would give his satirical analogy, the crimes of looting the funds of the government merely constitute an aggravating circumstance to the crimes of political vandalism and political swindling.
Besides, not much proof to convict them is necessary because history stands as our best evidence of what happened in January 2001 where Mrs. Arroyo in conspiracy with the elite, the clerics, the politicians, and supported by some ambitious military officers ousted the duly elected President. As some kind of recidivist, she did it again in 2004 in a desperate bid to extend her stay, and in 2007 to assure her that Congress would remain tightly under her thumb.
Now that the system is back on track, President Benigno Aquino III’s duty is to make sure it is never derailed again. His best assurance to that is to punish those responsible in derailing our political system. It may sound vindictive, but it is the only way he could rehabilitate the system from the severe shock caused by political vandalism. Failure to bring them to the bar of justice could create a much serious repercussion for then it would constitute a far greater injustice against the Filipino people.
Collaterally, forgiving them is to acquiesce to that deception now being added as chapter in our history. Nonetheless, history, having its own redeeming factor, continues to unravel the truth; that Mrs. Arroyo through her operatives cheated her rival candidate Fernando Poe, Jr. in 2004. Maybe the revelations made by former Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao governor Zaldy Ampatuan and Comelec Inspector Lintang Bedol could be brushed aside as mere political fireworks carried out by an administration in need of recognition. But that nonchalant reaction has in no time turned into a much distressing revelation by the unexpected surfacing of a vital witness, police Sr. Supt. Rafael Santiago.
It is not just a confession of identifying the mastermind, but a confession identifying his confederates who carried out that bold and brazen substitution of original election returns at the Batasang Pambansa with tampered and fake ones. Santiago specifically named former Comelec supervisor Roque Bello and his son, El Bello. In fact, his confession is now being corroborated by PO2 Rudy Gahar. Named were Senior Inspectors Raffy Lero, Samson Kimmayong, Warly Bitog; Inspector Ramon Garcia, SPO2 Rommel Pahang, and Paterno Gamba; PO2 Alan Laguyan, Rodel Tabangin and Trifon Laxamana; and PO1 Norman Duco.
No amount of disclaimer by now Zambales Gov. Hermogenes Ebdane could overturn the confession pointing to him as the one who ordered the operations coursed through then Special Action Force Director, Chief Supt. Marcelino Franco. Such is a self-serving denial because Santiago, Gahar, and possibly the rest have no reason to do that had it not for Mrs. Arroyo, she being the principal beneficiary of that criminal act with Governor Ebdane identified as one of her closest confidants.
Maybe the injustice committed by the past regime could have been forgiven had it not been repeated in 2004 and in 2007. Rather, the usurper became much addicted to her vice. The danger however is that the crimes she committed are fast developing into a crime against our own history as a people and as a nation. Such is the eventuality that could happen because chroniclers who were not privy to that infamy would ultimately be writing that Mrs. Arroyo was indeed elected president of this God-forsaken Republic.
From that false premise the next generation of Filipinos would be digesting that abominable lie. We accept political vandalism and political swindling as a rewarding enterprise. Worse, time will come when our people will see nothing wrong or anachronistic in overthrowing an elected government more so if the clappers of the political vandal would start reciting her so-called “achievements” as though they are synonymous to legalizing a criminal act.
To assert that Mrs. Arroyo’s submission to the process of stepping down in 2010 as her final act of contrition is pure rubbish. That misplaced atonement could not cure the damage caused by her trifling of our sacred right to elect our leader. So, unless and until President Aqiuno does something to erase these prevarications in our history, the gratuitous reward of calling the principal political vandal former President would persist.
President Aquino’s ability to rectify the criminal distortions presented as “glorious saga” in our history could become his greatest achievement. He would not only be restoring political stability and maturity, but that his brand of democracy would no longer revolve around the confines of vague idealistic rhetoric. Democracy under his era will be having a concrete mechanism to defend itself.
(rodkap@yahoo.com.ph)
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Friday, July 29, 2011
Shameless obfuscation
DIE HARD III
Herman Tiu Laurel
7/29/2011
What is P1 billion over nine years of graft to P800 billion in debt service corruption each year, totaling P7.2 trillion the past nine years? The former is just coffee money while the latter is a gargantuan scam by the financial institutions. Officially adopted as policy in past administrations, this national swindle has even worsened under PeNoy after a fresh new round of debts was incurred, beginning with P300 billion in December 2010. And that’s despite the fact that the foreign debt, which the country no longer needs, can even be reduced by paying off substantial portions while renegotiating the rest. But has PeNoy made a squeak, much less, thought about it?
Indeed, this problem has gone on for decades; but the present regime has now been handed the golden opportunity to end it by tapping the OFW remittances accumulated and idled in the Special Deposit Account (SDA), as well as the surplus Gross International Reserves (GIRs) regularly bragged about by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). So why does PeNoy keep mum on all this? Could it be ignorance, cowardice, or both?
Consumer woes brought about by inflation are one of the most serious crises ever to hit the Filipino people — from the astronomical rise in the price of National Food Authority (NFA) rice (P11/kilo during Erap’s time to today’s P23/kilo) to the high cost of public utilities (including our highest electricity rates in Asia and our highest cellphone interconnection rates in the Asia-Pacific).
In past annual assessments made by former presidents, inflation has always been a key emphasis, with the lowly galunggong as the standard. Nowadays, even galunggong is way beyond the reach of poor Filipinos and is no longer mentioned. Discussions on commodity prices are relevant only if the people have the jobs and the decent income to purchase such goods and services.
However, one of the centerpiece programs of PeNoy, the CCT (Conditional Cash Transfer) or his political doleout program, where pro-PeNoy rallyists are rewarded, and which doesn’t create jobs — confirms his government’s failure at jobs creation.
One of the commodities that define Filipino living standards today is electricity. PeNoy praised Congress for two laws extending the lifeline rate subsidy and the Joint Congressional Power Commission (JCPC) set-up to oversee electricity privatization.
Upon hearing this, power consumer advocate Butch Junia immediately texted us: “I do not know what to make of P-Noys’ claiming credit for the lifeline rate and extension of the JCPC. Did he endorse the lifeline rate knowing full well that those consuming 101 kWh or more per month are the ones paying that subsidy? That is P25 additional cost for a 150 kWh household. Did he know that the Epira administered by the JCPC increased our power rates to the highest in Asia? If he knew these, what kind of a president is he to lay the subsidy burden on unknowing customers?... If he did not know these fundamental realities… what kind of president is he?”
PeNoy boasted of reducing unemployment from 8 percent as of April 2010 to 7.2 percent. But Ibon Foundation contradicted this, citing the failure of 1.2 million new entrants to be absorbed into the job market. PeNoy, as expected, reacted acerbically, saying: “Kung ayaw n’yong makita, ‘di ba, sorry, ‘di ba, wala akong magagawa do’n.”
To settle the question, I checked on data banks culled from the International Labor Organization (ILO) figures placing RP’s 2010 unemployment rate at 7.2 percent — no different from what PeNoy is claiming today. Only, PeNoy and his speechwriters tried to distort the picture by presenting seasonal against annual trends — which is no different from Gloria Arroyo’s style in claiming better stats.
But as they all obfuscate, they have invariably classified tricycle drivers as among the employed when such is the recourse of those who lose their jobs, same with their tact of considering unpaid family workers as among the employed.
This jobs crisis should be seen against the backdrop of the economic environment — from Cory Aquino down to her son — characterized by liberalization, deregulation and privatization. Trade liberalization undercut Philippine industries that deregulation and privatization made uncompetitive with predatory rate fixing of privatized public utilities (electricity, water, irrigation, tollways, port services, telecoms). Add to this increasing tax burden on both industry and consumers and the humongous annual debt service and you have a recipe for disaster.
As the Philippines became uncompetitive, the middle class shrank and the underground economy expanded, thus narrowing our tax base and causing government capabilities to collapse with escalating graft and corruption. Kilusan para sa Makabansang Ekonomiya (KME) chairman Jimmie Regalario summed this all up in our Destiny Cable TV show entitled, “So-Ano Na?”: PeNoy has nothing on any of these.
A long decade after mainstream broadcast media stopped inviting me to their TV debates, I was invited again last Monday to a 1 p.m. GMA News show. Winnie Monsod sat across me. She gave PeNoy a passing mark based on the Movement for Good Government (MGG)’s rating of 10 indicators — this, despite the fact that the MGG actually rated PeNoy a failure, with a score of only 4.75 out of 10.
Furthermore, Monsod crowed about the anti-corruption drive of the “daang matuwid,” which I said was belied by PeNoy’s appointment of several corrupt personalities — from the DILG and DoTC undersecretaries, to the sweepstakes agency chief who was with the Arroyo and FVR boards where she consented to and undoubtedly partook of all the graft and corruption there. While I was at it, I also cited Joker Arroyo’s alleged use of that agency’s funds for his 2001 campaign which they choose to keep silent about.
Finally, PeNoy’s flagship Public-Private Partnership (PPP) program was not mentioned because it’s still an absolute zero; same with the bluster around the Spratlys and the boasted acquisition of vintage Hamilton cutters, which are laughable. These are why PeNoy’s cheering squad in mainstream papers such as the Inquirer can only praise his “greatness” in oratory (like an Amorsolo in speech) and the oversold “wang-wang” spiel… All in the spirit of shameful and shameless obfuscation.
(Tune in to Radyo OpinYon, Monday to Friday, 5 to 6 p.m., and Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; Talk News TV with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on GNN, Destiny Cable Channel 8; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com and http://hermantiulaurel.blogspot.com for our articles plus TV and radio archives)
Herman Tiu Laurel
7/29/2011
What is P1 billion over nine years of graft to P800 billion in debt service corruption each year, totaling P7.2 trillion the past nine years? The former is just coffee money while the latter is a gargantuan scam by the financial institutions. Officially adopted as policy in past administrations, this national swindle has even worsened under PeNoy after a fresh new round of debts was incurred, beginning with P300 billion in December 2010. And that’s despite the fact that the foreign debt, which the country no longer needs, can even be reduced by paying off substantial portions while renegotiating the rest. But has PeNoy made a squeak, much less, thought about it?
Indeed, this problem has gone on for decades; but the present regime has now been handed the golden opportunity to end it by tapping the OFW remittances accumulated and idled in the Special Deposit Account (SDA), as well as the surplus Gross International Reserves (GIRs) regularly bragged about by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). So why does PeNoy keep mum on all this? Could it be ignorance, cowardice, or both?
Consumer woes brought about by inflation are one of the most serious crises ever to hit the Filipino people — from the astronomical rise in the price of National Food Authority (NFA) rice (P11/kilo during Erap’s time to today’s P23/kilo) to the high cost of public utilities (including our highest electricity rates in Asia and our highest cellphone interconnection rates in the Asia-Pacific).
In past annual assessments made by former presidents, inflation has always been a key emphasis, with the lowly galunggong as the standard. Nowadays, even galunggong is way beyond the reach of poor Filipinos and is no longer mentioned. Discussions on commodity prices are relevant only if the people have the jobs and the decent income to purchase such goods and services.
However, one of the centerpiece programs of PeNoy, the CCT (Conditional Cash Transfer) or his political doleout program, where pro-PeNoy rallyists are rewarded, and which doesn’t create jobs — confirms his government’s failure at jobs creation.
One of the commodities that define Filipino living standards today is electricity. PeNoy praised Congress for two laws extending the lifeline rate subsidy and the Joint Congressional Power Commission (JCPC) set-up to oversee electricity privatization.
Upon hearing this, power consumer advocate Butch Junia immediately texted us: “I do not know what to make of P-Noys’ claiming credit for the lifeline rate and extension of the JCPC. Did he endorse the lifeline rate knowing full well that those consuming 101 kWh or more per month are the ones paying that subsidy? That is P25 additional cost for a 150 kWh household. Did he know that the Epira administered by the JCPC increased our power rates to the highest in Asia? If he knew these, what kind of a president is he to lay the subsidy burden on unknowing customers?... If he did not know these fundamental realities… what kind of president is he?”
PeNoy boasted of reducing unemployment from 8 percent as of April 2010 to 7.2 percent. But Ibon Foundation contradicted this, citing the failure of 1.2 million new entrants to be absorbed into the job market. PeNoy, as expected, reacted acerbically, saying: “Kung ayaw n’yong makita, ‘di ba, sorry, ‘di ba, wala akong magagawa do’n.”
To settle the question, I checked on data banks culled from the International Labor Organization (ILO) figures placing RP’s 2010 unemployment rate at 7.2 percent — no different from what PeNoy is claiming today. Only, PeNoy and his speechwriters tried to distort the picture by presenting seasonal against annual trends — which is no different from Gloria Arroyo’s style in claiming better stats.
But as they all obfuscate, they have invariably classified tricycle drivers as among the employed when such is the recourse of those who lose their jobs, same with their tact of considering unpaid family workers as among the employed.
This jobs crisis should be seen against the backdrop of the economic environment — from Cory Aquino down to her son — characterized by liberalization, deregulation and privatization. Trade liberalization undercut Philippine industries that deregulation and privatization made uncompetitive with predatory rate fixing of privatized public utilities (electricity, water, irrigation, tollways, port services, telecoms). Add to this increasing tax burden on both industry and consumers and the humongous annual debt service and you have a recipe for disaster.
As the Philippines became uncompetitive, the middle class shrank and the underground economy expanded, thus narrowing our tax base and causing government capabilities to collapse with escalating graft and corruption. Kilusan para sa Makabansang Ekonomiya (KME) chairman Jimmie Regalario summed this all up in our Destiny Cable TV show entitled, “So-Ano Na?”: PeNoy has nothing on any of these.
A long decade after mainstream broadcast media stopped inviting me to their TV debates, I was invited again last Monday to a 1 p.m. GMA News show. Winnie Monsod sat across me. She gave PeNoy a passing mark based on the Movement for Good Government (MGG)’s rating of 10 indicators — this, despite the fact that the MGG actually rated PeNoy a failure, with a score of only 4.75 out of 10.
Furthermore, Monsod crowed about the anti-corruption drive of the “daang matuwid,” which I said was belied by PeNoy’s appointment of several corrupt personalities — from the DILG and DoTC undersecretaries, to the sweepstakes agency chief who was with the Arroyo and FVR boards where she consented to and undoubtedly partook of all the graft and corruption there. While I was at it, I also cited Joker Arroyo’s alleged use of that agency’s funds for his 2001 campaign which they choose to keep silent about.
Finally, PeNoy’s flagship Public-Private Partnership (PPP) program was not mentioned because it’s still an absolute zero; same with the bluster around the Spratlys and the boasted acquisition of vintage Hamilton cutters, which are laughable. These are why PeNoy’s cheering squad in mainstream papers such as the Inquirer can only praise his “greatness” in oratory (like an Amorsolo in speech) and the oversold “wang-wang” spiel… All in the spirit of shameful and shameless obfuscation.
(Tune in to Radyo OpinYon, Monday to Friday, 5 to 6 p.m., and Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; Talk News TV with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on GNN, Destiny Cable Channel 8; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com and http://hermantiulaurel.blogspot.com for our articles plus TV and radio archives)
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Cooperativize the economy!
CONSUMERS DEMAND!
Herman Tiu Laurel
7/25-31/2011
The recent Supreme Court decision on PLDT’s capital structure defining only voting shares as the real ownership shares has upset the apple cart of many foreign-controlled companies. Many of these companies hide behind technicalities to evade the Constitutional provision requiring majority Filipino ownership in several basic and strategic industry sectors.
In my layman’s terms, the Supreme Court voted to define ownership as the voting shares, excluding the non-voting shares.
Actually Foreign ‘Owned’
The PLDT shareholder structure is dominated by non-voting shares overwhelming held by Filipinos, but the voting shares are mainly in foreign shareholders’ hands making the PLDT actually foreign dominated.
I agree with the Supreme Court decision because owning a company is about controlling a company, not just being a shareholder that has absolutely no say in its affairs.
I believe the Supreme Court was wise and judicious in its decision, reading the intent of the Constitutional provision on Filipino ownership correctly.
Article XII on the National Economy and Patrimony states:
“Section 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth… promote industrialization and full employment … through industries that make full and efficient use of human and natural resources… However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices….
“Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State…. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State.
“The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. …”
The False Premise
The argument invariably raised favoring, allowing, or even inviting or pleading foreign capital into Philippine economic development is that “the Philippines does not have enough capital”.
It is a false premise.
As I have shown in a running debate with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), the Philippines does have more than sufficient internal resources to capitalize the agro-industrial and general economic development of the country.
The sources today are: the Special Deposit Account (SDA) set up by the BSP in 1998 as a tool in its financial management and holds up to P 1.7-Trillion today; the Gross International Reserve (GIR) which now amounts to $ 69-B or 12-months cover for trade and imports (when the IMF requires only three months cover), and the Malampaya natural gas earnings now variously reported to be between P 100-B to P 200-B.
The BSP deputy governor retorted on the SDA: “…the BSP does not own (the Special Deposit Account or SDA) and, therefore, it is hardly a ‘disposable’ fund kept idle…”
Use Internal Funds
The following is a number of quotes from private sector financial managers who gives a supporting view against BSP’s claims that the SDA cannot be used, I quote from my columns on the matter: “Marvin Fausto, president of the Trust Officers Association of the Philippines contend otherwise.
“Fausto, in fact, said on Nov. 3, 2010, ‘(the money parked in SDA facilities) should instead be channeled to funding needs, like in infrastructure projects. We need investments. (The money in SDAs) is enough to spur (further) growth.’ Victor Abola, senior economist at the University of Asia and the Pacific, whom I seldom agree with but do in this case, has also said that SDAs are a ‘waste of resources’ and the ‘BSP should lower interest rates for SDAs to free up more funds, from the present 4 percent to 3 percent.’
“We do have internal funds accumulated over the past decade and a half to fully finance our needs, as the entire PPP program of Aquino III requires only half of what the SDA holds.”
Aside from the SDA is the GIR which is kept idle and given to foreign fund managers for placements, earning these fund managers huge commissions.
Controlling Power
The Malampaya fund have been sitting idle with the legislators and other authorities oblivious to it until recently when Senator Recto finally asked, “how much is in that fund?”
Why it has taken them so long to discover this?
Allowing or pleading for foreign capital to take advantage of the Philippine economic opportunities is not a financial or economic one, it is a political one.
The ruling class of this country is an appendage of the foreign power that has controlled this country’s politics for the past hundred years, and they are still the ones controlling the major utilities such as PLDT.
The basic utilities of this country, from communications (like PLDT) to power, water and other infrastructure (with PPP as the flagship today), are businesses that exploit public services extracting profits from consumers and commuters that provide all the capital.
The Wrong Solution
Our fellow columnist Rod Kapunan correctly says, “…all that foreign investors do after they are given a franchise to operate is to demand an increase in their rate on the basis that they need it for their expansion and improvement.
“But once their demand is given, that in effect makes the consumers the financiers of their business.”
This is how PLDT was built, as well as Meralco and many other private utility companies in the Philippines.
But local oligarchy capital is doing the same thing and often in partnership with the foreign capitalists, so the anti-local oligarchy activists are also correct in raising the issue of abuse and exploitation by local capitalist protected by the Constitution.
However, they turn to the wrong solution, which is to open the Philippines to more foreign capital, as the Enrile-Belmonte initiative to call a Constituent Assembly to remove the Constitutional protectionism and open Filipinos to the same exploitation.
What is the solution?
Collective Ownership
The Philippine Constitution, a legacy of centuries of evolution of democratic, republican and nation-state ideology, provides the basis for the correct and most beneficial option for the people.
Since “All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State…” i.e. the People, and since the People have the funds as well as really finance all these public utilities and other businesses related to the national patrimony, the People should take over these industries and run it themselves under consumers, commuters and national cooperatives.
We finance practically everything in the economy so why don’t we all work together and takeover these industries and businesses.
There was an old form of this collective ownership which was “nationalization”, but a new age may require a new concept: “Consumers Cooperativization” revolution!
Herman Tiu Laurel
7/25-31/2011
The recent Supreme Court decision on PLDT’s capital structure defining only voting shares as the real ownership shares has upset the apple cart of many foreign-controlled companies. Many of these companies hide behind technicalities to evade the Constitutional provision requiring majority Filipino ownership in several basic and strategic industry sectors.
In my layman’s terms, the Supreme Court voted to define ownership as the voting shares, excluding the non-voting shares.
Actually Foreign ‘Owned’
The PLDT shareholder structure is dominated by non-voting shares overwhelming held by Filipinos, but the voting shares are mainly in foreign shareholders’ hands making the PLDT actually foreign dominated.
I agree with the Supreme Court decision because owning a company is about controlling a company, not just being a shareholder that has absolutely no say in its affairs.
I believe the Supreme Court was wise and judicious in its decision, reading the intent of the Constitutional provision on Filipino ownership correctly.
Article XII on the National Economy and Patrimony states:
“Section 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth… promote industrialization and full employment … through industries that make full and efficient use of human and natural resources… However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices….
“Section 2. All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State…. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State.
“The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. …”
The False Premise
The argument invariably raised favoring, allowing, or even inviting or pleading foreign capital into Philippine economic development is that “the Philippines does not have enough capital”.
It is a false premise.
As I have shown in a running debate with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), the Philippines does have more than sufficient internal resources to capitalize the agro-industrial and general economic development of the country.
The sources today are: the Special Deposit Account (SDA) set up by the BSP in 1998 as a tool in its financial management and holds up to P 1.7-Trillion today; the Gross International Reserve (GIR) which now amounts to $ 69-B or 12-months cover for trade and imports (when the IMF requires only three months cover), and the Malampaya natural gas earnings now variously reported to be between P 100-B to P 200-B.
The BSP deputy governor retorted on the SDA: “…the BSP does not own (the Special Deposit Account or SDA) and, therefore, it is hardly a ‘disposable’ fund kept idle…”
Use Internal Funds
The following is a number of quotes from private sector financial managers who gives a supporting view against BSP’s claims that the SDA cannot be used, I quote from my columns on the matter: “Marvin Fausto, president of the Trust Officers Association of the Philippines contend otherwise.
“Fausto, in fact, said on Nov. 3, 2010, ‘(the money parked in SDA facilities) should instead be channeled to funding needs, like in infrastructure projects. We need investments. (The money in SDAs) is enough to spur (further) growth.’ Victor Abola, senior economist at the University of Asia and the Pacific, whom I seldom agree with but do in this case, has also said that SDAs are a ‘waste of resources’ and the ‘BSP should lower interest rates for SDAs to free up more funds, from the present 4 percent to 3 percent.’
“We do have internal funds accumulated over the past decade and a half to fully finance our needs, as the entire PPP program of Aquino III requires only half of what the SDA holds.”
Aside from the SDA is the GIR which is kept idle and given to foreign fund managers for placements, earning these fund managers huge commissions.
Controlling Power
The Malampaya fund have been sitting idle with the legislators and other authorities oblivious to it until recently when Senator Recto finally asked, “how much is in that fund?”
Why it has taken them so long to discover this?
Allowing or pleading for foreign capital to take advantage of the Philippine economic opportunities is not a financial or economic one, it is a political one.
The ruling class of this country is an appendage of the foreign power that has controlled this country’s politics for the past hundred years, and they are still the ones controlling the major utilities such as PLDT.
The basic utilities of this country, from communications (like PLDT) to power, water and other infrastructure (with PPP as the flagship today), are businesses that exploit public services extracting profits from consumers and commuters that provide all the capital.
The Wrong Solution
Our fellow columnist Rod Kapunan correctly says, “…all that foreign investors do after they are given a franchise to operate is to demand an increase in their rate on the basis that they need it for their expansion and improvement.
“But once their demand is given, that in effect makes the consumers the financiers of their business.”
This is how PLDT was built, as well as Meralco and many other private utility companies in the Philippines.
But local oligarchy capital is doing the same thing and often in partnership with the foreign capitalists, so the anti-local oligarchy activists are also correct in raising the issue of abuse and exploitation by local capitalist protected by the Constitution.
However, they turn to the wrong solution, which is to open the Philippines to more foreign capital, as the Enrile-Belmonte initiative to call a Constituent Assembly to remove the Constitutional protectionism and open Filipinos to the same exploitation.
What is the solution?
Collective Ownership
The Philippine Constitution, a legacy of centuries of evolution of democratic, republican and nation-state ideology, provides the basis for the correct and most beneficial option for the people.
Since “All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State…” i.e. the People, and since the People have the funds as well as really finance all these public utilities and other businesses related to the national patrimony, the People should take over these industries and run it themselves under consumers, commuters and national cooperatives.
We finance practically everything in the economy so why don’t we all work together and takeover these industries and businesses.
There was an old form of this collective ownership which was “nationalization”, but a new age may require a new concept: “Consumers Cooperativization” revolution!
Prestidigitation 2
CROSSINGS
Butch Junia
7/25-31/2011
The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) has pulled another fast one, a sleight of hand.
I never thought I could have this title again this soon. But ERC is simply obliging.
ERC dismissed the Commission on Audit (COA) Report that Meralco had overcharged us by as much P15 Billion in test years 2004 and 2007 by what consumer advocate Pete Ilagan calls a “sweeping statement that the COA applied the disallowances under Meralco’s PBR (Performance Based Rate) to its RORB (Return on Rate Base) application, hence a violation of the principle of retroactive ratemaking.”
In other words, without going into the merits and the weight of the COA findings, ERC decided that the Report “is not supported be established rules on rate making.”
But who made those rules, and what are those rules supposed to achieve?
Rules not Protecting
Consumers ERC makes and unmakes the rules in rate-setting, as the empowered regulator.
However, that rate-setting power is not absolute, as the law also requires that the rate resulting from any rate-setting methodology adopted by ERC must be such as to allow a reasonable return to the investor or utility, on the one hand, and a just rate to the consumer, on the other hand.
If ERC insists that the COA Report is not supported by its established rules, then those rules do not protect us.
To put it bluntly, the rules simply legitimize the overcharges discovered by COA.
Something must be Very Wrong
When we consider that Meralco’s distribution, supply and metering charges have gone up from P0.76 pkwh under RORB to P1.6464 pkwh under PBR, and Meralco’s profits increased fourfold in just three years under PBR, from P2.7B in 2008, to P6B in 2009, to P12B in 2010, something must be very wrong with those rules that ERC raises against the COA Report.
If applying the RORB rule will result in a reasonable return for the investor and a just rate for the consumer, then by all means, let us adopt those rules.
Not only would that be reasonable and logical, it would actually be consistent with what the Electric Power Industry Reform Act or EPIRA ordains ERC to do for us and for Meralco.
System for Abuse
Actually, RORB was also a system for abuse and excessive rates in the past. Before the Supreme Court decision in 2002 and 2003 in LAMP and Genaro Lualhati vs. Meralco, RORB was the utility’s weapon of choice for hitting us with high rates.
Without any caps on system loss, and with no criteria for recoverable asset and no objective measure for recovery of operating cost, RORB yielded very comfortable returns for utilities.
At that time, all costs, regardless of nature, intent or application, could be charged to captive customers.
Every asset, regardless, was likewise recoverable or chargeable to customers.
What Happened to the Refund?
The word among utilities at that time was that if you needed a new car go for the top of the line.
If you needed to redo the office, go high end. When you buy equipment, get the most expensive, because everything would simply be passed on to the captive customer, and it would also improve your RORB position.
But it all changed under a consumer-minded chairman of the Energy Regulatory Board, the Honorable Neptali Franco, and under then SC Associate Justice Reynato Puno, who penned the decision that led to the Meralco refund of over P30B.
Incidentally, many are still wondering what actually happened with that refund.
Did Meralco’s investors/owners actually return to us the overcharges? Or did we simply pay ourselves our refund from the monthly payments we were making to Meralco at the time the refund was supposedly being made?
I have always maintained that if the refunds came from Meralco’s cash flow, not from retained earnings or new capital put in by investors, then we simply were paying ourselves our refund.
But that will have to be for another Crossing.
Passing on Charges
That Supreme Court decision set the guidelines and criteria for cost recovery or the passing on of charges to the customers.
For assets, they should be used or useful, and the rate of return is capped at 12%.
For operating costs, they should be reasonable, prudent, necessary, and redounding to the benefit of the consumer or captive customer.
In other words, not only is the nature of the expense looked into, even its impact or benefit to the customer is taken into consideration.
Meralco’s corporate income tax, which we used to pay for, was disallowed by the Court and Meralco has supposedly complied with the Order.
As early as March 20, 2003, in ERC Cases Nos. 2001-646 and 2001-900, the Meralco rate unbundling decision, ERC under Acting Chairman Leticia V. Ibay said: “The Commission recognizes that if income tax is not allowed as a recoverable item, then the 12% cap on rate of return established in current jurisprudence may no longer be reasonable.”
Not Recoverable Cost
As if on cue, in September 2008, in its Regulatory Reset Issue Paper on PBR, ERC again said: “If corporate income tax was not considered a recoverable cost, an equivalent revenue outcome would be achieved by allowing a corresponding pre-tax Regulatory WACC (Weighted Average Cost of Capital) to be earned on the asset base.” At that time, the WACC was set at 15.5%.
I guess we now have reason to think that the dictum set by the Supreme Court that the one who enjoys the income – the investor – must pay the tax on that income, may not be honored by ERC, after all.
Timing is Relevant
Anyway, to go back to the COA report, the timing of the ERC decision, and the gaps, need some looking into.
The SC order for the COA audit was issued December 6, 2006.
But the formal request to COA was not made until sometime in 2008 and only after some prodding from Pete Ilagan and his group.
The COA Report was dated November 5, 2009, received by ERC in December, 2009, but acted upon by ERC only this month, again only after so much prodding, this time from Mang Naro Lualhati and Pete Ilagan.
Why do I think the timing is relevant? As COA itself said in its Report, the ERC could take its findings into account in the ratesetting actions of ERC.
Exclusions
Here’s a sampling of those findings on disallowed claimed assets and expenses:
• Baliwag substation not found at the site during inspection.
• Balintawak substation unaccounted
• Land and land rights the location of which could not be provided
• Materials and supplies already part of OPEX
• Funding allocation benefitted entire Lopez Group
• Expensive and unnecessary advertising expense
• PCIB Special Account
• Employee pension and other benefits.
These exclusions, though just my pick from the long lists, are very relevant and pertinent to the so-called Final Determination of ERC on the Annual Revenue Requirement application of Meralco under ERC Case no 2010-069RC.
This is the case of the P226B Meralco windfall. These exclusions are also relevant to ERCs Final Position on Meralco’s application for the so-called “rate translation” under the pseudo-science of rate-setting in PBR. This is now docketed as ERC Case No. 2011-088RC.
Have you kept track, so far, of the deft movements from case to case? Are the rules quite clear or simply opaque?
More on the cases, retroactive rate-setting and the COA Report in our next Crossing.
(Email crsng_47@hotmail.com)
Butch Junia
7/25-31/2011
The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) has pulled another fast one, a sleight of hand.
I never thought I could have this title again this soon. But ERC is simply obliging.
ERC dismissed the Commission on Audit (COA) Report that Meralco had overcharged us by as much P15 Billion in test years 2004 and 2007 by what consumer advocate Pete Ilagan calls a “sweeping statement that the COA applied the disallowances under Meralco’s PBR (Performance Based Rate) to its RORB (Return on Rate Base) application, hence a violation of the principle of retroactive ratemaking.”
In other words, without going into the merits and the weight of the COA findings, ERC decided that the Report “is not supported be established rules on rate making.”
But who made those rules, and what are those rules supposed to achieve?
Rules not Protecting
Consumers ERC makes and unmakes the rules in rate-setting, as the empowered regulator.
However, that rate-setting power is not absolute, as the law also requires that the rate resulting from any rate-setting methodology adopted by ERC must be such as to allow a reasonable return to the investor or utility, on the one hand, and a just rate to the consumer, on the other hand.
If ERC insists that the COA Report is not supported by its established rules, then those rules do not protect us.
To put it bluntly, the rules simply legitimize the overcharges discovered by COA.
Something must be Very Wrong
When we consider that Meralco’s distribution, supply and metering charges have gone up from P0.76 pkwh under RORB to P1.6464 pkwh under PBR, and Meralco’s profits increased fourfold in just three years under PBR, from P2.7B in 2008, to P6B in 2009, to P12B in 2010, something must be very wrong with those rules that ERC raises against the COA Report.
If applying the RORB rule will result in a reasonable return for the investor and a just rate for the consumer, then by all means, let us adopt those rules.
Not only would that be reasonable and logical, it would actually be consistent with what the Electric Power Industry Reform Act or EPIRA ordains ERC to do for us and for Meralco.
System for Abuse
Actually, RORB was also a system for abuse and excessive rates in the past. Before the Supreme Court decision in 2002 and 2003 in LAMP and Genaro Lualhati vs. Meralco, RORB was the utility’s weapon of choice for hitting us with high rates.
Without any caps on system loss, and with no criteria for recoverable asset and no objective measure for recovery of operating cost, RORB yielded very comfortable returns for utilities.
At that time, all costs, regardless of nature, intent or application, could be charged to captive customers.
Every asset, regardless, was likewise recoverable or chargeable to customers.
What Happened to the Refund?
The word among utilities at that time was that if you needed a new car go for the top of the line.
If you needed to redo the office, go high end. When you buy equipment, get the most expensive, because everything would simply be passed on to the captive customer, and it would also improve your RORB position.
But it all changed under a consumer-minded chairman of the Energy Regulatory Board, the Honorable Neptali Franco, and under then SC Associate Justice Reynato Puno, who penned the decision that led to the Meralco refund of over P30B.
Incidentally, many are still wondering what actually happened with that refund.
Did Meralco’s investors/owners actually return to us the overcharges? Or did we simply pay ourselves our refund from the monthly payments we were making to Meralco at the time the refund was supposedly being made?
I have always maintained that if the refunds came from Meralco’s cash flow, not from retained earnings or new capital put in by investors, then we simply were paying ourselves our refund.
But that will have to be for another Crossing.
Passing on Charges
That Supreme Court decision set the guidelines and criteria for cost recovery or the passing on of charges to the customers.
For assets, they should be used or useful, and the rate of return is capped at 12%.
For operating costs, they should be reasonable, prudent, necessary, and redounding to the benefit of the consumer or captive customer.
In other words, not only is the nature of the expense looked into, even its impact or benefit to the customer is taken into consideration.
Meralco’s corporate income tax, which we used to pay for, was disallowed by the Court and Meralco has supposedly complied with the Order.
As early as March 20, 2003, in ERC Cases Nos. 2001-646 and 2001-900, the Meralco rate unbundling decision, ERC under Acting Chairman Leticia V. Ibay said: “The Commission recognizes that if income tax is not allowed as a recoverable item, then the 12% cap on rate of return established in current jurisprudence may no longer be reasonable.”
Not Recoverable Cost
As if on cue, in September 2008, in its Regulatory Reset Issue Paper on PBR, ERC again said: “If corporate income tax was not considered a recoverable cost, an equivalent revenue outcome would be achieved by allowing a corresponding pre-tax Regulatory WACC (Weighted Average Cost of Capital) to be earned on the asset base.” At that time, the WACC was set at 15.5%.
I guess we now have reason to think that the dictum set by the Supreme Court that the one who enjoys the income – the investor – must pay the tax on that income, may not be honored by ERC, after all.
Timing is Relevant
Anyway, to go back to the COA report, the timing of the ERC decision, and the gaps, need some looking into.
The SC order for the COA audit was issued December 6, 2006.
But the formal request to COA was not made until sometime in 2008 and only after some prodding from Pete Ilagan and his group.
The COA Report was dated November 5, 2009, received by ERC in December, 2009, but acted upon by ERC only this month, again only after so much prodding, this time from Mang Naro Lualhati and Pete Ilagan.
Why do I think the timing is relevant? As COA itself said in its Report, the ERC could take its findings into account in the ratesetting actions of ERC.
Exclusions
Here’s a sampling of those findings on disallowed claimed assets and expenses:
• Baliwag substation not found at the site during inspection.
• Balintawak substation unaccounted
• Land and land rights the location of which could not be provided
• Materials and supplies already part of OPEX
• Funding allocation benefitted entire Lopez Group
• Expensive and unnecessary advertising expense
• PCIB Special Account
• Employee pension and other benefits.
These exclusions, though just my pick from the long lists, are very relevant and pertinent to the so-called Final Determination of ERC on the Annual Revenue Requirement application of Meralco under ERC Case no 2010-069RC.
This is the case of the P226B Meralco windfall. These exclusions are also relevant to ERCs Final Position on Meralco’s application for the so-called “rate translation” under the pseudo-science of rate-setting in PBR. This is now docketed as ERC Case No. 2011-088RC.
Have you kept track, so far, of the deft movements from case to case? Are the rules quite clear or simply opaque?
More on the cases, retroactive rate-setting and the COA Report in our next Crossing.
(Email crsng_47@hotmail.com)
Controversy overload on the eve of the SONA
YESTERDAY, TODAY & TOMORROW
Linggoy Alcuaz
7/25-31/2011
Today, Monday, July 25, we have arrived at: (1) our President Aquino’s Second SONA (State of the Nation Address) and (2) our Congress’ second out of three years.
Last June 30, P-Noy’s Ulat sa Bayan was a sort of soft anniversary or day of reckoning or occasion for grading and marking him. Today’s SONA is the hard and real thing.
On the Eve of the SONA, we developed a sort of controversy overload.
Since December, the Stradcom intra corporate struggle between Quiambao and Sumbilla and their respective allies and supporters had turned into the most expensive PR war.
Each side even managed to recruit a personality closely identified with former President Estrada.
With Quiambao, now is former Erap spokesperson, Margaux Salcedo. With Sumbilla is PMAP (People’s Movement Against Poverty) and EDSA III leader, Ronald Lumbao.
Infighting
The Stradcom fight drew in Aquino Admin heavyweights on opposite sides.
Former Cory Cabinet and later on DPWH and now resigned DOTC Secretary Jose “Ping” de Jesus wanted to pay the LTO’s more than a billion pesos in arrears to Stradcom.
DOTC Assistant Secretary for LTO (Land Transportation Office) Virginia Torres refused to pay. She had even taken sides in the internal affairs of Stradcom by siding with the Sumbilla group and assisting them physically in the takeover of Stradcom offices and facilities.
Ping and four of his USec’s and ASec’s ended up losing the fight and their jobs effective June30.
Virginia came back to work in the middle of June triumphant from her two months leave.
ARMM
During his First Anniversary last June 30, P-Noy also signed into law the bill postponing the August 8 ARMM election and synchronizing them with the May 2013, National and Local Elections.
Immediately, several interested parties filed cases before the Supreme Court.
The Aquino position is unconstitutional and illegal on two points. The Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao requires that amendments to it be passed by a two thirds vote in each house followed by a plebiscite.
None of these was complied with.
Sin to Spin
Then, the simmering tension between the old and new leaderships of the PCSO exploded into the limelight.
PCSO chairperson Margie Juico and PR consultant Dante Ang managed to capture the attention of mass media and the entire nation by turning seven Bishops into the ultimate devils or kontrabidas.
Their sin was accepting donations in the form of money from the PCSO to buy vehicles.
The media spin was to baptize them the seven “Pajero” Bishops.
However, there were no Pajeros.
The Accuser, the Accused
There was also not a single Senator who was prepared to condemn a leader of the Roman Catholic Church. The accuse ended up the accused.
The hearings continue.
The 1st was on Wednesday, July 6, followed by Thursday, July 7.
The seven Bishops (Bishop Salgado who was abroad was represented by his vicar.) accompanied by Cardinal Vidal and CBCP officials appeared on Wednesday, July 10. Manny Garcia (The former PCSO Advertising and Promotions Manager who is accused before the Ombudsman of demanding and receiving 40 % kickbacks by two advertising agencies.) came on Thursday, July 14, but was excused until Monday, July 18.
Tomorrow, Tuesday, the day after the SONA, the sixth hearing will unfold.
Zaldy and Lintang
As though we did not have enough controversy, two voices from the past suddenly started squawking.
They were former ARMM Governor Zaldy Ampatuan and Maguindanao Election Supervisor Lintang Bedol. They spilled the beans on the 2007 Senatorial Elections.
GMA had ordered three opposition senators to be zeroed.
Protested Senator Migz Zubiri got the votes to cheat Atty. Koko Pimentel, mainly from Maguindanao.
Mariano and Javier
In the midst of these heavyweights, some lightweights dared to vie for media and the public’s attention.
Marine Colonels Generoso Mariano and Javier attended a Pre SONA Summit at the Club Filipino from 9 am to 4 pm on Friday, June 24, at the basement of the Club Filipino.
During and after the summit, Colonel Mariano was recorded on audio and video.
This recording was uploaded on the YouTube a week after on July 3.
Another week passed before the mainstream mass media picked it up.
This time around, Malacañang, the AFP, the Navy, and the public reacted.
Sedition Charges
Although retiring on Sunday, July 17, Colonel Mariano was placed on “house arrest” and investigated.
The DOJ recommended the filing of sedition charges.
Why are they afraid of Colonel Mariano? Why are they not talking about Colonel Javier?
A friend and colleague of mine happened to talk with MMDA Chairman Francis Tolentino. The latter told him that I was with Colonel Mariano. Yes, I was with him after lunch of June 24 at the Club Filipino.
However, that was the first time I met him.
In fact, I thought that he and Colonel Javier were already retired officers. That is why I did not pay too much attention to what they were saying.
S4S as Organizer
The others who spoke and occupied the presidential table were PSBA owner and President Atty. Benjamin Paulino, former DECS USec. Butch Valdez, Caloocan Bishop Deogracias Yñiguez, Mon Pedrosa, an MNLF, and several members of the academe.
The one who called the shots was Linda “Inday” Olaguer Montayre who is the convenor of the Solidarity for Sovereignty (S4S).
Actually, this was the third time I was invited to an activity organized by the S4S. The first time was about a month after the May 10 elections. The agenda was election fraud and irregularities. It was held at the Kalayaan Hall of the Club Filipino.
We must have been more than 500 there at any given time.
It was a whole-day and in-to-the-night activity. We seemed to be waiting for something to happen and for reinforcements to arrive.
The second time was on Monday, June 6, at the Gabaldon Room of the Club Filipino. It was a Joint Christian Muslim Conference against the RH Bill.
I met Linda in March 2000 when Bert Pedrosa (husband of Star columnist Chit and father of Al Jazeerah’s Veronica) invited me to a series of Saturday morning meetings in a restaurant along Jupiter St. in Makati (It was closed on Saturdays.).
They were leaders of PIRMA for FVR in 1996-97.
In anticipation of Chavit Singson’s Juetengate Exposè, we helped former DBM Secretary Jun Enriquez organize the People’s Consultative Assembly for the resignation/ouster of Erap.
However, Kompil II and COPA overshadowed us when the credits for Erap’s ouster and GMA’s assumption of the Presidency were tallied.
To be continued
Linggoy Alcuaz
7/25-31/2011
Today, Monday, July 25, we have arrived at: (1) our President Aquino’s Second SONA (State of the Nation Address) and (2) our Congress’ second out of three years.
Last June 30, P-Noy’s Ulat sa Bayan was a sort of soft anniversary or day of reckoning or occasion for grading and marking him. Today’s SONA is the hard and real thing.
On the Eve of the SONA, we developed a sort of controversy overload.
Since December, the Stradcom intra corporate struggle between Quiambao and Sumbilla and their respective allies and supporters had turned into the most expensive PR war.
Each side even managed to recruit a personality closely identified with former President Estrada.
With Quiambao, now is former Erap spokesperson, Margaux Salcedo. With Sumbilla is PMAP (People’s Movement Against Poverty) and EDSA III leader, Ronald Lumbao.
Infighting
The Stradcom fight drew in Aquino Admin heavyweights on opposite sides.
Former Cory Cabinet and later on DPWH and now resigned DOTC Secretary Jose “Ping” de Jesus wanted to pay the LTO’s more than a billion pesos in arrears to Stradcom.
DOTC Assistant Secretary for LTO (Land Transportation Office) Virginia Torres refused to pay. She had even taken sides in the internal affairs of Stradcom by siding with the Sumbilla group and assisting them physically in the takeover of Stradcom offices and facilities.
Ping and four of his USec’s and ASec’s ended up losing the fight and their jobs effective June30.
Virginia came back to work in the middle of June triumphant from her two months leave.
ARMM
During his First Anniversary last June 30, P-Noy also signed into law the bill postponing the August 8 ARMM election and synchronizing them with the May 2013, National and Local Elections.
Immediately, several interested parties filed cases before the Supreme Court.
The Aquino position is unconstitutional and illegal on two points. The Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao requires that amendments to it be passed by a two thirds vote in each house followed by a plebiscite.
None of these was complied with.
Sin to Spin
Then, the simmering tension between the old and new leaderships of the PCSO exploded into the limelight.
PCSO chairperson Margie Juico and PR consultant Dante Ang managed to capture the attention of mass media and the entire nation by turning seven Bishops into the ultimate devils or kontrabidas.
Their sin was accepting donations in the form of money from the PCSO to buy vehicles.
The media spin was to baptize them the seven “Pajero” Bishops.
However, there were no Pajeros.
The Accuser, the Accused
There was also not a single Senator who was prepared to condemn a leader of the Roman Catholic Church. The accuse ended up the accused.
The hearings continue.
The 1st was on Wednesday, July 6, followed by Thursday, July 7.
The seven Bishops (Bishop Salgado who was abroad was represented by his vicar.) accompanied by Cardinal Vidal and CBCP officials appeared on Wednesday, July 10. Manny Garcia (The former PCSO Advertising and Promotions Manager who is accused before the Ombudsman of demanding and receiving 40 % kickbacks by two advertising agencies.) came on Thursday, July 14, but was excused until Monday, July 18.
Tomorrow, Tuesday, the day after the SONA, the sixth hearing will unfold.
Zaldy and Lintang
As though we did not have enough controversy, two voices from the past suddenly started squawking.
They were former ARMM Governor Zaldy Ampatuan and Maguindanao Election Supervisor Lintang Bedol. They spilled the beans on the 2007 Senatorial Elections.
GMA had ordered three opposition senators to be zeroed.
Protested Senator Migz Zubiri got the votes to cheat Atty. Koko Pimentel, mainly from Maguindanao.
Mariano and Javier
In the midst of these heavyweights, some lightweights dared to vie for media and the public’s attention.
Marine Colonels Generoso Mariano and Javier attended a Pre SONA Summit at the Club Filipino from 9 am to 4 pm on Friday, June 24, at the basement of the Club Filipino.
During and after the summit, Colonel Mariano was recorded on audio and video.
This recording was uploaded on the YouTube a week after on July 3.
Another week passed before the mainstream mass media picked it up.
This time around, Malacañang, the AFP, the Navy, and the public reacted.
Sedition Charges
Although retiring on Sunday, July 17, Colonel Mariano was placed on “house arrest” and investigated.
The DOJ recommended the filing of sedition charges.
Why are they afraid of Colonel Mariano? Why are they not talking about Colonel Javier?
A friend and colleague of mine happened to talk with MMDA Chairman Francis Tolentino. The latter told him that I was with Colonel Mariano. Yes, I was with him after lunch of June 24 at the Club Filipino.
However, that was the first time I met him.
In fact, I thought that he and Colonel Javier were already retired officers. That is why I did not pay too much attention to what they were saying.
S4S as Organizer
The others who spoke and occupied the presidential table were PSBA owner and President Atty. Benjamin Paulino, former DECS USec. Butch Valdez, Caloocan Bishop Deogracias Yñiguez, Mon Pedrosa, an MNLF, and several members of the academe.
The one who called the shots was Linda “Inday” Olaguer Montayre who is the convenor of the Solidarity for Sovereignty (S4S).
Actually, this was the third time I was invited to an activity organized by the S4S. The first time was about a month after the May 10 elections. The agenda was election fraud and irregularities. It was held at the Kalayaan Hall of the Club Filipino.
We must have been more than 500 there at any given time.
It was a whole-day and in-to-the-night activity. We seemed to be waiting for something to happen and for reinforcements to arrive.
The second time was on Monday, June 6, at the Gabaldon Room of the Club Filipino. It was a Joint Christian Muslim Conference against the RH Bill.
I met Linda in March 2000 when Bert Pedrosa (husband of Star columnist Chit and father of Al Jazeerah’s Veronica) invited me to a series of Saturday morning meetings in a restaurant along Jupiter St. in Makati (It was closed on Saturdays.).
They were leaders of PIRMA for FVR in 1996-97.
In anticipation of Chavit Singson’s Juetengate Exposè, we helped former DBM Secretary Jun Enriquez organize the People’s Consultative Assembly for the resignation/ouster of Erap.
However, Kompil II and COPA overshadowed us when the credits for Erap’s ouster and GMA’s assumption of the Presidency were tallied.
To be continued
The Patriotism of Marine Col. Generoso V. Mariano
Alan F. Paguia
Former Professor of Law
Ateneo Law School
University of Batangas
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila
alanpaguia@yahoo.com
July 24, 2011
May a soldier be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations?
It is respectfully submitted the answer is NO.
FACTS
1. Colonel Generoso V. Mariano is a bemedalled officer of the Philippine Marines who has rendered more than 33 continuous years of military service to the Republic.
2. Sometime in the first week of July 2011, Col. Mariano’s less than four-minute video clip was seen on YouTube, where he was shown to have made the following declaration of his apparent political beliefs and aspirations:
“We soldiers are human too. Nararamdaman din po naming mga sundalo ang kahirapan na idinudulot ng walang humpay na pagtaas ng mga bilihin, mga gamot at pagkain. Nakikita din po namin na ang ating pamahalaan ay walang kakayanang gumawa ng mga hakbang upang iiwas tayo sa kagutuman at kamatayan. Wala pong pinagkaiba ang nararamdaman naming mga sundalo, sa nakikita at nararamdaman ng ating mamamayan.
Ngunit may katungkulan po kami na hindi namin nakakaligtaan—ang katungkulan na ipagtanggol ang mamamayang Pilipino. At kung ang kasalukuyang pamahalaan ay walang intensyon o kaya walang naisasagawa upang isalba ang buhay ng mga nakararami, it is the duty—it is the right of every Filipino, including soldiers—to replace the government. Huwag na tayong magpaloko sa mga nangangakong sinungaling. Huwag na po tayong pagamit para labanan ang kapwa nating Pilipino sa Mindanao. Huwag na po tayong maniwala sa mga istatistikong gawagawa lamang na umuunlad ang ating bansa, habang parami nang parami ang nagugutom. Ipaglaban po natin ang karapatang mabuhay at ang maunlad na kinabukasan ng ating kabataan.
Ang hangad nating mabuhay ay base sa Katotohanan, sa Katarungan, sa Kapayapaan at sa Kaunlaran.
Let us, once and for all build a nation based on Truth, for without it, there can be no Justice, and without Justice, we shall have no Peace, and without Peace, there will be no Development.
In the end, may I quote our national hero, Dr. Jose Rizal, who said that, ‘If we have had bad leaders today and in the past, it is not the fault of the many who know less, but the fault of the few who know more but who do nothing or who do not do enough.”
3. On July 15, 2011, he was served a subpoena and an order which immediately placed him under effective ARREST and DETENTION. The order reads:
“From: Flag Officer In Command, PN
To: The Naval Provost Marshal
Subj: Restriction to Quarters of COL GENEROSO V MARIANO O-115573 PN(M)(GSC)
1. In connection with the reports received by this Headquarters on the alleged involvement of COL GENEROSO V MARIANO O-115573 PN(M)(GSC) in activities violating the provisions of the Articles of war, you are hereby directed to immediately place subject Officer under restriction to quarters pending investigation of said reported offenses to be conducted by a Special Investigation Committee created for this purpose.
2. Submit to Headquarters a report of actions taken thereon as soon as possible.
3. For strict compliance.
(Signed)
ALEXANDER P PAMA
Vice Admiral, AFP”
4. On July 17, 2011, he reached the compulsory retirement age of 56 years.
5. On July 20, 2011, Presidential Spokesman Edwin Lacierda made public statements in reference to Col. Mariano, which the Philippine Daily Inquirer reported as follows:
“‘He may not have specifically mentioned President Aquino, but in his statement you could see who he was referring to,’ Lacierda said.
Lacierda said Mariano should make his explanations to the Armed Forces of the Philippines and Department of National Defense.
‘It’s a matter of reviewing the tape and hearing the statement he made and that’s up to the DND and AFP to evaluate,’ he said.” (p. A2)
6. The same report further states:
“Justice Secretary Leila De Lima said she had recommended the filing of criminal charges against Mariano for violation of Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code when he made ‘seditious remarks’.
De Lima said Mariano, former Deputy Chief of the Naval Reserve Command, could also be charged with violating other military policies on mutinous and seditious acts. ‘On the face of those statements…He may be held liable for inciting to sedition… because of those seditious remarks which tend to incite others to act against duly constituted authorities of government,’ De Lima said.
In a legal opinion, she said Mariano may have breached Article 63 (Disrespect toward the President), Article 67 (Mutiny or sedition), Article 91 (Provoking speeches or gestures) and Article 96 (Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman) of the Articles of War.
The Justice Secretary said she issued the legal opinion on Monday (July 18) on the request of Brig. Gen. Gilberto Jose Roa, head of the Judge Advocate Generals’ Office.” (ibid.)
7. In sum, Col. Mariano is now DETAINED solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations. He is, therefore, a POLITICAL PRISONER.
The Law
8. IS HIS DETENTION CONSTITUTIONAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL? UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The libertarian 1987 Constitution expressly provides:
“NO PERSON SHALL BE DETAINED SOLELY BY REASON OF HIS POLITICAL BELIEFS AND ASPIRATIONS.” (Par. 1, Sec. 18, ART. III)
Since the Constitution is clear and does not provide for any qualification or exception, there is no room for any qualification or exception. Where the law does not qualify, we should not qualify. Where the law does not provide an exception, we should not provide any exception. And, where the law is clear, there is no room for construction. Hence, the provision may be properly restated as follows:
“NO SOLDIER SHALL BE DETAINED SOLELY BY REASON OF HIS POLITICAL BELIEFS AND ASPIRATIONS.”
The published pronouncements of the Executive Department show that, aside from the YouTube statement, there are no other grounds for his detention.
9. Assuming arguendo there is a conflict between such provision of the Constitution, on one hand, and the Articles of War and the Revised Penal Code, upon the other, it ought to follow that the latter, to that extent, would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
10. RETIRE means “to terminate employment or service upon reaching retirement age” (BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY). Hence, when Col. Mariano reached the retirement age on July 17, 2011, his military employment or service was TERMINATED. He was reverted to the status of a CIVILIAN by operation of law. While he may have residual benefits for services rendered, there is no more legal obligation to serve.
11. WAS COL. MARIANO DEPRIVED OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT? YES.
a. His right not to be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations was disrespected. His arrest and detention were based solely on his YouTube statement.
b. The Presidential Spokesman and Secretary of Justice are alter egos of the President. Under the doctrine of qualified political agency the action of the alter egos is the action of the President, unless the latter reprobates the same. Since the President did nothing with respect to the public pronouncements of his alter egos, it would follow that such pronouncements are effectively his own. The pronouncement to the effect that Col. Mariano’s statement constitutes “seditious remarks” is thus a prejudgement by the Commander-in-Chief. Col. Mariano’s statement has been PREJUDGED as SEDITIOUS even before any investigation has been completed. CAN THE MILITARY PANEL OF INVESTIGATORS OVERTURN SUCH PREJUDGEMENT BY THEIR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF? They obviously CANNOT. Consequently, it would appear that Col. Mariano is being deprived of a fair and impartial tribunal which is an indispensable element of DUE PROCESS.
c. WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF SUCH DEPRIVATION OF DUE PROCESS? The Special Investigation Committee is thereby OUSTED OF JURISDICTION over the case. “Indeed, it is well-settled that once a deprivation of a constitutional right is shown to exist, the tribunal that rendered the judgement in question is deemed ousted of jurisdiction” (Olaguer v Military Commission No. 34, 150 SCRA 144, at 161).
12. WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF COL. MARIANO’s COMPULSORY RETIREMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE MILITARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM?
Since the retirement is by operation of law, it follows that it automatically rendered the military-created investigation committee WITHOUT JURISDICTION over the person of the retired colonel who, since then, is now a CIVILIAN.
13. WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF AN ACCUSED CIVILIAN’s RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS? According to the Supreme Court: “Due process of law demands that in all criminal prosecutions (where the accused stands to lose either his life or his liberty, the accused shall be entitled to, among others, a trial. The trial contemplated by the due process clause of the Constitution, in relation to the Charter as a whole, is a trial by judicial process, not by executive or military process. Military commissions or tribunals, by whatever name they are called, are not courts within the Philippine judicial system” (Olaguer Case, ibid., p 158).
It ought to be observed that this pronouncement shows faithful adherence to the constitutional principle of civilian supremacy over the military.
“Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory.” (Sec 3, ART II)
14. Col. Mariano appears to have the quality our ancestor Katipuneros would have been proud of. WHAT IS THAT QUALITY? The patriotism to serve up to the end of his term as a soldier with unadulterated truthfullness, regardless of the consequences.
Consequently, it would not be a surprise at all if, in fact, the majority of the Philippine Marines and the sovereign Filipino people are proud of him.
Former Professor of Law
Ateneo Law School
University of Batangas
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila
alanpaguia@yahoo.com
July 24, 2011
May a soldier be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations?
It is respectfully submitted the answer is NO.
FACTS
1. Colonel Generoso V. Mariano is a bemedalled officer of the Philippine Marines who has rendered more than 33 continuous years of military service to the Republic.
2. Sometime in the first week of July 2011, Col. Mariano’s less than four-minute video clip was seen on YouTube, where he was shown to have made the following declaration of his apparent political beliefs and aspirations:
“We soldiers are human too. Nararamdaman din po naming mga sundalo ang kahirapan na idinudulot ng walang humpay na pagtaas ng mga bilihin, mga gamot at pagkain. Nakikita din po namin na ang ating pamahalaan ay walang kakayanang gumawa ng mga hakbang upang iiwas tayo sa kagutuman at kamatayan. Wala pong pinagkaiba ang nararamdaman naming mga sundalo, sa nakikita at nararamdaman ng ating mamamayan.
Ngunit may katungkulan po kami na hindi namin nakakaligtaan—ang katungkulan na ipagtanggol ang mamamayang Pilipino. At kung ang kasalukuyang pamahalaan ay walang intensyon o kaya walang naisasagawa upang isalba ang buhay ng mga nakararami, it is the duty—it is the right of every Filipino, including soldiers—to replace the government. Huwag na tayong magpaloko sa mga nangangakong sinungaling. Huwag na po tayong pagamit para labanan ang kapwa nating Pilipino sa Mindanao. Huwag na po tayong maniwala sa mga istatistikong gawagawa lamang na umuunlad ang ating bansa, habang parami nang parami ang nagugutom. Ipaglaban po natin ang karapatang mabuhay at ang maunlad na kinabukasan ng ating kabataan.
Ang hangad nating mabuhay ay base sa Katotohanan, sa Katarungan, sa Kapayapaan at sa Kaunlaran.
Let us, once and for all build a nation based on Truth, for without it, there can be no Justice, and without Justice, we shall have no Peace, and without Peace, there will be no Development.
In the end, may I quote our national hero, Dr. Jose Rizal, who said that, ‘If we have had bad leaders today and in the past, it is not the fault of the many who know less, but the fault of the few who know more but who do nothing or who do not do enough.”
3. On July 15, 2011, he was served a subpoena and an order which immediately placed him under effective ARREST and DETENTION. The order reads:
“From: Flag Officer In Command, PN
To: The Naval Provost Marshal
Subj: Restriction to Quarters of COL GENEROSO V MARIANO O-115573 PN(M)(GSC)
1. In connection with the reports received by this Headquarters on the alleged involvement of COL GENEROSO V MARIANO O-115573 PN(M)(GSC) in activities violating the provisions of the Articles of war, you are hereby directed to immediately place subject Officer under restriction to quarters pending investigation of said reported offenses to be conducted by a Special Investigation Committee created for this purpose.
2. Submit to Headquarters a report of actions taken thereon as soon as possible.
3. For strict compliance.
(Signed)
ALEXANDER P PAMA
Vice Admiral, AFP”
4. On July 17, 2011, he reached the compulsory retirement age of 56 years.
5. On July 20, 2011, Presidential Spokesman Edwin Lacierda made public statements in reference to Col. Mariano, which the Philippine Daily Inquirer reported as follows:
“‘He may not have specifically mentioned President Aquino, but in his statement you could see who he was referring to,’ Lacierda said.
Lacierda said Mariano should make his explanations to the Armed Forces of the Philippines and Department of National Defense.
‘It’s a matter of reviewing the tape and hearing the statement he made and that’s up to the DND and AFP to evaluate,’ he said.” (p. A2)
6. The same report further states:
“Justice Secretary Leila De Lima said she had recommended the filing of criminal charges against Mariano for violation of Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code when he made ‘seditious remarks’.
De Lima said Mariano, former Deputy Chief of the Naval Reserve Command, could also be charged with violating other military policies on mutinous and seditious acts. ‘On the face of those statements…He may be held liable for inciting to sedition… because of those seditious remarks which tend to incite others to act against duly constituted authorities of government,’ De Lima said.
In a legal opinion, she said Mariano may have breached Article 63 (Disrespect toward the President), Article 67 (Mutiny or sedition), Article 91 (Provoking speeches or gestures) and Article 96 (Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman) of the Articles of War.
The Justice Secretary said she issued the legal opinion on Monday (July 18) on the request of Brig. Gen. Gilberto Jose Roa, head of the Judge Advocate Generals’ Office.” (ibid.)
7. In sum, Col. Mariano is now DETAINED solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations. He is, therefore, a POLITICAL PRISONER.
The Law
8. IS HIS DETENTION CONSTITUTIONAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL? UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The libertarian 1987 Constitution expressly provides:
“NO PERSON SHALL BE DETAINED SOLELY BY REASON OF HIS POLITICAL BELIEFS AND ASPIRATIONS.” (Par. 1, Sec. 18, ART. III)
Since the Constitution is clear and does not provide for any qualification or exception, there is no room for any qualification or exception. Where the law does not qualify, we should not qualify. Where the law does not provide an exception, we should not provide any exception. And, where the law is clear, there is no room for construction. Hence, the provision may be properly restated as follows:
“NO SOLDIER SHALL BE DETAINED SOLELY BY REASON OF HIS POLITICAL BELIEFS AND ASPIRATIONS.”
The published pronouncements of the Executive Department show that, aside from the YouTube statement, there are no other grounds for his detention.
9. Assuming arguendo there is a conflict between such provision of the Constitution, on one hand, and the Articles of War and the Revised Penal Code, upon the other, it ought to follow that the latter, to that extent, would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
10. RETIRE means “to terminate employment or service upon reaching retirement age” (BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY). Hence, when Col. Mariano reached the retirement age on July 17, 2011, his military employment or service was TERMINATED. He was reverted to the status of a CIVILIAN by operation of law. While he may have residual benefits for services rendered, there is no more legal obligation to serve.
11. WAS COL. MARIANO DEPRIVED OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT? YES.
a. His right not to be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations was disrespected. His arrest and detention were based solely on his YouTube statement.
b. The Presidential Spokesman and Secretary of Justice are alter egos of the President. Under the doctrine of qualified political agency the action of the alter egos is the action of the President, unless the latter reprobates the same. Since the President did nothing with respect to the public pronouncements of his alter egos, it would follow that such pronouncements are effectively his own. The pronouncement to the effect that Col. Mariano’s statement constitutes “seditious remarks” is thus a prejudgement by the Commander-in-Chief. Col. Mariano’s statement has been PREJUDGED as SEDITIOUS even before any investigation has been completed. CAN THE MILITARY PANEL OF INVESTIGATORS OVERTURN SUCH PREJUDGEMENT BY THEIR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF? They obviously CANNOT. Consequently, it would appear that Col. Mariano is being deprived of a fair and impartial tribunal which is an indispensable element of DUE PROCESS.
c. WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF SUCH DEPRIVATION OF DUE PROCESS? The Special Investigation Committee is thereby OUSTED OF JURISDICTION over the case. “Indeed, it is well-settled that once a deprivation of a constitutional right is shown to exist, the tribunal that rendered the judgement in question is deemed ousted of jurisdiction” (Olaguer v Military Commission No. 34, 150 SCRA 144, at 161).
12. WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF COL. MARIANO’s COMPULSORY RETIREMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE MILITARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM?
Since the retirement is by operation of law, it follows that it automatically rendered the military-created investigation committee WITHOUT JURISDICTION over the person of the retired colonel who, since then, is now a CIVILIAN.
13. WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF AN ACCUSED CIVILIAN’s RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS? According to the Supreme Court: “Due process of law demands that in all criminal prosecutions (where the accused stands to lose either his life or his liberty, the accused shall be entitled to, among others, a trial. The trial contemplated by the due process clause of the Constitution, in relation to the Charter as a whole, is a trial by judicial process, not by executive or military process. Military commissions or tribunals, by whatever name they are called, are not courts within the Philippine judicial system” (Olaguer Case, ibid., p 158).
It ought to be observed that this pronouncement shows faithful adherence to the constitutional principle of civilian supremacy over the military.
“Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory.” (Sec 3, ART II)
14. Col. Mariano appears to have the quality our ancestor Katipuneros would have been proud of. WHAT IS THAT QUALITY? The patriotism to serve up to the end of his term as a soldier with unadulterated truthfullness, regardless of the consequences.
Consequently, it would not be a surprise at all if, in fact, the majority of the Philippine Marines and the sovereign Filipino people are proud of him.
Monday, July 25, 2011
More taxes - the real game
DIE HARD III
Herman Tiu Laurel
7/25/2011
While the country gets increasingly distracted by the “Hello Garci” and Lintang Bedol dramas, the many Gloria Arroyo plunder cases that seem to have a number of legal loopholes, as well as today’s worn-out “anti-corruption” State of the Nation Address (Sona), the real game in the system — the financial mafia’s blood-sucking of the people — continues to intensify.
The Supreme Court (SC)’s approval over the weekend of the 12-percent Value Added Tax (VAT) on toll fees by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), affecting among others, the North and South expressways, is just the latest in a string of backbreaking tax burdens and price hikes. What this SC decision also makes clear is that nothing can stop the toll operators from passing it on to commuters.
Perhaps to soften the impact of its decision, the SC ponente resorted to some semantic play. It claimed that while “the seller (of the toll service) remains directly and legally liable for payment of the VAT... the buyer bears the burden since the amount of VAT paid by the former is added to the selling price,” arguing that “Once shifted, the VAT ceases to be a tax and simply becomes part of the cost that the buyer must pay in order to purchase the good, property, or service,” thereby declaring that the “VAT on tollway operations cannot be a tax on tax even if toll is deemed as a ‘user’s tax’… since VAT is assessed against the tollway operator’s gross receipts and not necessarily on the toll fees.”
But is there really a difference if VAT were to be based on the operator’s receipts since all of it will be taken from commuters’ pockets anyway?
The problem with this new, additional expanded VAT (eVAT) in the life of Filipinos is the eVAT law itself — a law that has opened the floodgates to endless regressive taxes. A little history of the tax system in RP would thus be helpful.
Before Edsa I, the country had progressive taxation based on income tax where those who can afford paid more while those who earned less paid less. The VAT law that came with the Cory Aquino regime changed all that. It introduced the VAT system, which is based on taxing consumption, with the end-users shouldering much of the burden. It is regressive since it taxes the poor more than the rich.
A tax on toll fees, for example, would be the same for a brand new Mercedes Benz and a 20-year-old dilapidated Toyota Corolla whenever such vehicles pass through the toll booth.
Early on, when the VAT was made part of the Comprehensive Tax Reform Program (CTRP), it was touted as the last time any new tax would have to be raised. But, as we all know, the VAT was immediately expanded under Fidel Ramos. Of course, it was the IMF-WB that lobbied for all of it; but since it was our Congress that capitulated (as usual), it only exemplified the idiocy of our politicians for crafting such a law.
One such fellow, Nueva Ecija Rep. Renato V. Diaz, is now ironically one of two petitioners at the SC, challenging the Department of Finance (DoF) and the BIR’s imposition of the toll eVAT (the other being former Trade Assistant Secretary Aurora Timbol).
Since the high court in its decision was able to state, “The VAT on franchise grantees has been in the statute books since 1994 when Republic Act 7716 or the Expanded Value Added Tax law was passed. It is only now, however, that the executive has earnestly pursued the VAT imposition against toll way operators,” clearly, Diaz has been ignorant of the full meaning and impact of the law he co-authored all along.
That said, the imposition of the tax is still a political as well as an ideological issue. Even as Gloria Arroyo’s supporters say that she stalled on the VAT on toll ways throughout her nine years in office (as opposed to Aquino III, who only put the brakes because it was challenged before the SC), the truth is, she only withheld its implementation because of political expedience, whereas Aquino III, without a similar sense of the limits of his “political capital,” merely allowed his BIR appointee and Finance Secretary, both IMF assets, to get the better of him.
The case brought before the SC actually saved Aquino III for a while. Now that he has to face the music and decide on whether to impose or not, his campaign promise of “no new taxes” will surely be tested. Still, given his administration’s financial and economic thrust, there isn’t any hope for an ideological shift to progressive taxation, which is our only liberation from the continued tax exploitation and extraction.
But as bad as this recent development already is, the pressure to raise the eVAT from 12 to 15 percent is still on, as reflected in the official pronouncements of the DoF, Neda (National Economic Development Authority), BSP (Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas), and the BIR.
Consumers and commuters desiring to stop the VAT’s march to more perilous heights, though, do not have the law on their side. As in the VAT on toll ways, they are only limited to making appeals for the Chief Executive’s better sense (if that’s even possible at all).
However, since Malacañang is still in the mode of fending off pressure to hike the eVAT to 15 percent, it is more than likely to give in to the temptation of the green-lighted VAT on toll ways.
As such, Filipino consumers and commuters will never have a permanent respite from increasing regressive taxes unless the country returns to progressive taxation — which will only happen after a genuine popular revolution.
(Tune in to Radyo OpinYon, Monday to Friday, 5 to 6 p.m., and Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; Talk News TV with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on GNN, Destiny Cable Channel 8, on “DoST Expo 2011: IGNITE THE FILIPINO MIND”; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com and http://hermantiulaurel.blogspot.com for our articles plus TV and radio archives)
Herman Tiu Laurel
7/25/2011
While the country gets increasingly distracted by the “Hello Garci” and Lintang Bedol dramas, the many Gloria Arroyo plunder cases that seem to have a number of legal loopholes, as well as today’s worn-out “anti-corruption” State of the Nation Address (Sona), the real game in the system — the financial mafia’s blood-sucking of the people — continues to intensify.
The Supreme Court (SC)’s approval over the weekend of the 12-percent Value Added Tax (VAT) on toll fees by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), affecting among others, the North and South expressways, is just the latest in a string of backbreaking tax burdens and price hikes. What this SC decision also makes clear is that nothing can stop the toll operators from passing it on to commuters.
Perhaps to soften the impact of its decision, the SC ponente resorted to some semantic play. It claimed that while “the seller (of the toll service) remains directly and legally liable for payment of the VAT... the buyer bears the burden since the amount of VAT paid by the former is added to the selling price,” arguing that “Once shifted, the VAT ceases to be a tax and simply becomes part of the cost that the buyer must pay in order to purchase the good, property, or service,” thereby declaring that the “VAT on tollway operations cannot be a tax on tax even if toll is deemed as a ‘user’s tax’… since VAT is assessed against the tollway operator’s gross receipts and not necessarily on the toll fees.”
But is there really a difference if VAT were to be based on the operator’s receipts since all of it will be taken from commuters’ pockets anyway?
The problem with this new, additional expanded VAT (eVAT) in the life of Filipinos is the eVAT law itself — a law that has opened the floodgates to endless regressive taxes. A little history of the tax system in RP would thus be helpful.
Before Edsa I, the country had progressive taxation based on income tax where those who can afford paid more while those who earned less paid less. The VAT law that came with the Cory Aquino regime changed all that. It introduced the VAT system, which is based on taxing consumption, with the end-users shouldering much of the burden. It is regressive since it taxes the poor more than the rich.
A tax on toll fees, for example, would be the same for a brand new Mercedes Benz and a 20-year-old dilapidated Toyota Corolla whenever such vehicles pass through the toll booth.
Early on, when the VAT was made part of the Comprehensive Tax Reform Program (CTRP), it was touted as the last time any new tax would have to be raised. But, as we all know, the VAT was immediately expanded under Fidel Ramos. Of course, it was the IMF-WB that lobbied for all of it; but since it was our Congress that capitulated (as usual), it only exemplified the idiocy of our politicians for crafting such a law.
One such fellow, Nueva Ecija Rep. Renato V. Diaz, is now ironically one of two petitioners at the SC, challenging the Department of Finance (DoF) and the BIR’s imposition of the toll eVAT (the other being former Trade Assistant Secretary Aurora Timbol).
Since the high court in its decision was able to state, “The VAT on franchise grantees has been in the statute books since 1994 when Republic Act 7716 or the Expanded Value Added Tax law was passed. It is only now, however, that the executive has earnestly pursued the VAT imposition against toll way operators,” clearly, Diaz has been ignorant of the full meaning and impact of the law he co-authored all along.
That said, the imposition of the tax is still a political as well as an ideological issue. Even as Gloria Arroyo’s supporters say that she stalled on the VAT on toll ways throughout her nine years in office (as opposed to Aquino III, who only put the brakes because it was challenged before the SC), the truth is, she only withheld its implementation because of political expedience, whereas Aquino III, without a similar sense of the limits of his “political capital,” merely allowed his BIR appointee and Finance Secretary, both IMF assets, to get the better of him.
The case brought before the SC actually saved Aquino III for a while. Now that he has to face the music and decide on whether to impose or not, his campaign promise of “no new taxes” will surely be tested. Still, given his administration’s financial and economic thrust, there isn’t any hope for an ideological shift to progressive taxation, which is our only liberation from the continued tax exploitation and extraction.
But as bad as this recent development already is, the pressure to raise the eVAT from 12 to 15 percent is still on, as reflected in the official pronouncements of the DoF, Neda (National Economic Development Authority), BSP (Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas), and the BIR.
Consumers and commuters desiring to stop the VAT’s march to more perilous heights, though, do not have the law on their side. As in the VAT on toll ways, they are only limited to making appeals for the Chief Executive’s better sense (if that’s even possible at all).
However, since Malacañang is still in the mode of fending off pressure to hike the eVAT to 15 percent, it is more than likely to give in to the temptation of the green-lighted VAT on toll ways.
As such, Filipino consumers and commuters will never have a permanent respite from increasing regressive taxes unless the country returns to progressive taxation — which will only happen after a genuine popular revolution.
(Tune in to Radyo OpinYon, Monday to Friday, 5 to 6 p.m., and Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; Talk News TV with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on GNN, Destiny Cable Channel 8, on “DoST Expo 2011: IGNITE THE FILIPINO MIND”; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com and http://hermantiulaurel.blogspot.com for our articles plus TV and radio archives)
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Crimes of political vandalism, swindling
BACKBENCHER
Rod Kapunan
7/23-24/2011
The threshold limit that could effectively destroy what the people say as their “cherished democracy” is when the leader would openly violate the fundamental processes of how that democracy is supposed to work in a given society. That process, enshrined in the constitution, is either drafted directly by the people or through their representatives. It is through that process where our idealism is concretized in what French political thinker Jean Jacques Rousseau would call “social contract.”
Observance of that contract is imperative that anybody who would transgress that agreement is in effect seeking to destroy the very process upon which the social order in civil society is anchored. It is for this reason why states, no matter how liberally they may try to stretch the limits of freedom, would not think twice to sternly deal with political vandals by charging them either of treason, coup d’ etat, rebellion, subversion or sedition. These classes of crimes are of the highest level for they rob the soul of our democracy that as such would often exact from the perpetrators the supreme penalty of death or life imprisonment.
This is why crimes that tend to weaken or destroy the political and social order of society are met with sharp reaction. Such is the case for often the defensive state is compelled to exercise counter violence just to curtail the provocative violence unleashed by political vandals disguising themselves as messiahs, but whose principal objective is to plainly capture political power. They are far more dangerous than those criminals accused of murder, robbery, rape or graft because the consequence of the crime they commit create a deep wedge in our society, or could even plunge the state into a civil war that would cost the lives of innocent civilians.
We are compelled to explain the nature of this crime because it seems we continue to treat and pamper a person on the misguided notion that she once served as this country’s President. She continues to waddle around with arrogance unmindful that she stands as the country’s most notorious political vandal. The feat of political ignominy she committed in 2001, 2004 and 2007 has seemingly made her confident as some suspect she is behind the current rumblings to destabilize the Aquino administration in a bid to pre-empt any investigation against her for graft and corruption and prevent the possibility of her being pointed to as the mastermind behind the massive electoral fraud committed in 2004 and 2007. Some of her former henchmen are now pointing at her as the brains behind those acts of political swindling resulting in her having to remain in power beyond the term provided for in the Constitution.
On this score any attempt to vindicate the Constitution should begin on that blatant act of political vandalism she committed in 2001 where she ousted an overwhelmingly elected President. Maybe power grab is an extraordinary political process that could make the de facto status of her regime ripen to one of de jure as soon as she succeeds in imposing political stability. But some political scientists and legal luminaries doubt that kind of fictionalized political transition because Mrs. Arroyo did not declare a revolutionary government to officially scrap the constitution she vandalized. Rather, as usurper she used the very constitution to legitimize her illegal acts, which reason why she could be held wholly accountable and liable for her acts under the very Constitution she mangled and threw into the waste basket.
Worse, Mrs. Arroyo acted not only with calibrated malice, but sought in no uncertain terms to oust the duly elected President. Not satisfied, she orchestrated the filing of criminal charges against the ousted President despite the failure by her henchmen in the Senate to get the necessary vote to convict him. The conviction of the ousted President by the Kangaroo Court was therefore forthcoming, and that ugly episode now stands as legacy of that most despicable act of political vandalism. In fact, the justification made by the Supreme Court reduced the magistrates to nothing more but a bunch of political bootlicking clowns haggling to please Mrs. Arroyo, unmindful that their decision caused many constitutionalists to lose their mind.
Despite that blatant political transgression, Mrs. Arroyo again dared to cross the threshold; this time by committing massive electoral fraud to premeditatedly deprive presidential candidate Fernando Poe, Jr. of his sweet victory. The factual truth of that political swindling committed by her is now being concretized by an avalanche of evidence - although evidence before that were more than enough to haul her to court had it not been for the fact that she was still in power. The revelations made by former ARMM governor Zaldy Ampatuan and by that wanted Comelec election supervisor Lintang Bedol pointing to Mrs. Arroyo as the mastermind both in the 2004 and 2007 elections fraud only supplemented rather than reinforced the “Hello Garci” tapes and of her subsequent public confession of having committed that criminal act.
The prosecution of Mrs. Arroyo and her operatives should be President Aquino’s top priority. PNoy’s success in bagging the perpetrators who made a mockery of our democracy is the only way by which the Constitution could be vindicated. This task is Pnoy’s greatest challenge because democracy is not without its own political redemption. At the bottom are the people who were deprived of their right to vote on who should govern them. Failure to do it could boomerang on his leadership as utterly inept.
Worse, such ineptitude could even develop into a suspicion of collaboration for as successor, President Aquino could be mistaken as coddler and protector of the country’s most incorrigible political vandal. Paradoxically, while PNoy mulls on how he would decide on his own historical fate, the unrepentant operators are seemingly up at their bad habit of steering public disenchantment. This President Aquino much act decisively as the outcome sine qua non could prove all those charges against her for graft and corruption and plunder as rooted on the illegality of her coming to power.
(rodkap@yahoo.com.ph)
Rod Kapunan
7/23-24/2011
The threshold limit that could effectively destroy what the people say as their “cherished democracy” is when the leader would openly violate the fundamental processes of how that democracy is supposed to work in a given society. That process, enshrined in the constitution, is either drafted directly by the people or through their representatives. It is through that process where our idealism is concretized in what French political thinker Jean Jacques Rousseau would call “social contract.”
Observance of that contract is imperative that anybody who would transgress that agreement is in effect seeking to destroy the very process upon which the social order in civil society is anchored. It is for this reason why states, no matter how liberally they may try to stretch the limits of freedom, would not think twice to sternly deal with political vandals by charging them either of treason, coup d’ etat, rebellion, subversion or sedition. These classes of crimes are of the highest level for they rob the soul of our democracy that as such would often exact from the perpetrators the supreme penalty of death or life imprisonment.
This is why crimes that tend to weaken or destroy the political and social order of society are met with sharp reaction. Such is the case for often the defensive state is compelled to exercise counter violence just to curtail the provocative violence unleashed by political vandals disguising themselves as messiahs, but whose principal objective is to plainly capture political power. They are far more dangerous than those criminals accused of murder, robbery, rape or graft because the consequence of the crime they commit create a deep wedge in our society, or could even plunge the state into a civil war that would cost the lives of innocent civilians.
We are compelled to explain the nature of this crime because it seems we continue to treat and pamper a person on the misguided notion that she once served as this country’s President. She continues to waddle around with arrogance unmindful that she stands as the country’s most notorious political vandal. The feat of political ignominy she committed in 2001, 2004 and 2007 has seemingly made her confident as some suspect she is behind the current rumblings to destabilize the Aquino administration in a bid to pre-empt any investigation against her for graft and corruption and prevent the possibility of her being pointed to as the mastermind behind the massive electoral fraud committed in 2004 and 2007. Some of her former henchmen are now pointing at her as the brains behind those acts of political swindling resulting in her having to remain in power beyond the term provided for in the Constitution.
On this score any attempt to vindicate the Constitution should begin on that blatant act of political vandalism she committed in 2001 where she ousted an overwhelmingly elected President. Maybe power grab is an extraordinary political process that could make the de facto status of her regime ripen to one of de jure as soon as she succeeds in imposing political stability. But some political scientists and legal luminaries doubt that kind of fictionalized political transition because Mrs. Arroyo did not declare a revolutionary government to officially scrap the constitution she vandalized. Rather, as usurper she used the very constitution to legitimize her illegal acts, which reason why she could be held wholly accountable and liable for her acts under the very Constitution she mangled and threw into the waste basket.
Worse, Mrs. Arroyo acted not only with calibrated malice, but sought in no uncertain terms to oust the duly elected President. Not satisfied, she orchestrated the filing of criminal charges against the ousted President despite the failure by her henchmen in the Senate to get the necessary vote to convict him. The conviction of the ousted President by the Kangaroo Court was therefore forthcoming, and that ugly episode now stands as legacy of that most despicable act of political vandalism. In fact, the justification made by the Supreme Court reduced the magistrates to nothing more but a bunch of political bootlicking clowns haggling to please Mrs. Arroyo, unmindful that their decision caused many constitutionalists to lose their mind.
Despite that blatant political transgression, Mrs. Arroyo again dared to cross the threshold; this time by committing massive electoral fraud to premeditatedly deprive presidential candidate Fernando Poe, Jr. of his sweet victory. The factual truth of that political swindling committed by her is now being concretized by an avalanche of evidence - although evidence before that were more than enough to haul her to court had it not been for the fact that she was still in power. The revelations made by former ARMM governor Zaldy Ampatuan and by that wanted Comelec election supervisor Lintang Bedol pointing to Mrs. Arroyo as the mastermind both in the 2004 and 2007 elections fraud only supplemented rather than reinforced the “Hello Garci” tapes and of her subsequent public confession of having committed that criminal act.
The prosecution of Mrs. Arroyo and her operatives should be President Aquino’s top priority. PNoy’s success in bagging the perpetrators who made a mockery of our democracy is the only way by which the Constitution could be vindicated. This task is Pnoy’s greatest challenge because democracy is not without its own political redemption. At the bottom are the people who were deprived of their right to vote on who should govern them. Failure to do it could boomerang on his leadership as utterly inept.
Worse, such ineptitude could even develop into a suspicion of collaboration for as successor, President Aquino could be mistaken as coddler and protector of the country’s most incorrigible political vandal. Paradoxically, while PNoy mulls on how he would decide on his own historical fate, the unrepentant operators are seemingly up at their bad habit of steering public disenchantment. This President Aquino much act decisively as the outcome sine qua non could prove all those charges against her for graft and corruption and plunder as rooted on the illegality of her coming to power.
(rodkap@yahoo.com.ph)
Friday, July 22, 2011
FPJ supporters' vindication
DIE HARD III
Herman Tiu Laurel
7/22/2011
“First they ignore it, then they laugh at it, then they say they knew it all along.” — Alexander Humbold
Such was what the Edsa III masa and their populist supporters witnessed when they said that cheating in the 2004 elections was massive and incontrovertible. They were ignored. They were taunted. Rival candidate Sen. Panfilo Lacson, in trying to paint FPJ and his supporters as sour-grapes, even said, “Those who can’t protect their votes don’t have the right to run,” while others such as Akbayan’s Etta Rosales stood idly by to acclaim Gloria Arroyo’s stealth congressional proclamation in the dark, wee hours before dawn of June 23, 2004, as the nation slumbered.
FPJ supporters rallied and demonstrated. A memorable one was at the Welcome Rotonda in Quezon City, where we were dispersed after being cornered at the nearby McDonald’s outlet. A long chase ensued through the evening, ending up at Sto. Domingo Church, without any of us having an inkling that the next time we would converge there was to attend FPJ’s wake and kick-off the longest funeral queue in Philippine history.
Where are the notorious names we exposed in 2004? Where are Generals Esperon, Kyamko, Quevedo, Tolentino, Villanueva, Allaga, Pajarito, Habacon, Garcia; Rear Admiral De Leon; Colonels Ortiz, Baclayon, Gapay, Ardo, Lucero, Lactao, Pangilinan, Segovia, Gupana, Sumaylo, Capuyan; Majors Musngi, Masa, Nicolas, Sison; Garci wiretappers Col. Sumalo and Capuyan; Maj. Teofilo; SG Sage; and, of course, former Defense Secretaries (and retired generals) Hermogenes Ebdane and Eduardo Ermita, who went around military camps while using the military’s resources in campaigning against FPJ, telling soldiers, “Of course you will not vote for an actor… we should vote for the candidate who has the experience, appropriate academic background… etc.” in support of their patron Gloria?
At the same time, we also remember those servicemen with conscience who kept their integrity whole, such as Gen. Frank Gudani who faced court martial for being a so-called “erring personnel” as well as Col. Alex Balutan.
We also remember with disdain those civilians and politicians who were involved directly or indirectly, overtly or tacitly, in that dark episode by their silence. People should be reminded of the complicity of both the Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting (PPCRV) and National Movement for Free Elections (Namfrel), which didn’t do anything but cover-up for the massive electoral fraud. Same goes for others such as “Mr. Noted” Kiko Pangilinan, Cory Aquino, Frank Drilon, “Hyatt 10,” and other participants.
The cheating in 2004 didn’t just include the so-called “Arroyo Generals” but the whole system that was established in Edsa II to ensure the continuity of what was started in 2001, which was to keep President Estrada in continued detention while averting the scuttling of a fast-tracked era of globalization, privatization and the corporatization of the Philippines, as well as the consolidation of Epira and the privatization of TransCo, etc., with an FPJ sitting in Malacañang.
After all, they must have known that FPJ’s first act in signaling his candidacy was to attend the anti-globalization conference of the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) in UP.
But even as things didn’t go the nation’s way, FPJ supporters, including the most prominent of them all, President Joseph Estrada, who was working behind the scenes despite his incarceration at Tanay, still did not rest in their campaign to expose the truth.
Then, “Hello Garci” emerged.
The link to the sources back then was not yet timely to reveal, as security implications outweighed other considerations; but Samuel Ong and Sgt. Vidal Doble finally surfaced the tapes that provided incontrovertible proof of Arroyo’s direct hand in cheating operations. Subsequently, cellphone videos of some of the military’s cheating operations also emerged.
Scrambling to control the damage, GMA spokesman Ignacio Bunye obfuscated by producing a fake version of the tapes, before the issue went to Congress where, most significantly, then Rep. Noynoy Aquino voted not to play the real tapes.
The involvement of the military led to the Mayuga Commission which, to this day, has not been allowed to release its full report to the public (perhaps to allow Garcillano a chance to still preempt the Mayuga report?).
The Comelec at that time was perceive to be among the most guilty; and that was the root of the megalomania of Ben Abalos who allegedly said to the Chinese ZTE officials, “I am the most powerful man in the Philippines,” knowing that he could expose everything Gloria anytime did if he didn’t get his way.
How correct Greek dramatist Euripides was when he said, “Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.” It was a mad era. The post-2001 Edsa II power grab and the 2004 election cheating age was one when those in power believed they could manipulate everything and get away with it forever. It was a time when black became white, good became bad, and the cheats ruled the law. But one-by-one, the Mad Hatters fell… (who next after Angie Reyes?)
A history of the Mad Era of the Arroyo government obviously can’t be chronicled here in full. We don’t even have enough space for the complicity of mainstream media, including the iconic columnists of some major newspapers.
But as this is only a gist, we will cap it off by acknowledging those who fought for FPJ’s vindication when certain quarters ignored and taunted them: The FPJ movements that are too many to mention; the FPJ voters; President Estrada; the Bagong Katipuneros (Magdalos) and the Para sa Bayan military groups; as well as those who still suffer injustice for standing up against Edsa II, such as lawyer Alan Paguia, still suspended by the Supreme Court when all that he stood up for are now being vindicated. While we are sad about FPJ’s daughter who apparently loves those who tormented her father more than those who supported him, we finally have to acknowledge the late FPJ’s courageous wife, Susan Roces, for continuing this fight, too.
(Tune in to Radyo OpinYon, Monday to Friday, 5 to 6 p.m., and Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; Talk News TV with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on GNN, Destiny Cable Channel 8, on “DoST Expo 2011: Ignite the Mind”; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com and http://hermantiulaurel.blogspot.com for our articles plus TV and radio)
Herman Tiu Laurel
7/22/2011
“First they ignore it, then they laugh at it, then they say they knew it all along.” — Alexander Humbold
Such was what the Edsa III masa and their populist supporters witnessed when they said that cheating in the 2004 elections was massive and incontrovertible. They were ignored. They were taunted. Rival candidate Sen. Panfilo Lacson, in trying to paint FPJ and his supporters as sour-grapes, even said, “Those who can’t protect their votes don’t have the right to run,” while others such as Akbayan’s Etta Rosales stood idly by to acclaim Gloria Arroyo’s stealth congressional proclamation in the dark, wee hours before dawn of June 23, 2004, as the nation slumbered.
FPJ supporters rallied and demonstrated. A memorable one was at the Welcome Rotonda in Quezon City, where we were dispersed after being cornered at the nearby McDonald’s outlet. A long chase ensued through the evening, ending up at Sto. Domingo Church, without any of us having an inkling that the next time we would converge there was to attend FPJ’s wake and kick-off the longest funeral queue in Philippine history.
Where are the notorious names we exposed in 2004? Where are Generals Esperon, Kyamko, Quevedo, Tolentino, Villanueva, Allaga, Pajarito, Habacon, Garcia; Rear Admiral De Leon; Colonels Ortiz, Baclayon, Gapay, Ardo, Lucero, Lactao, Pangilinan, Segovia, Gupana, Sumaylo, Capuyan; Majors Musngi, Masa, Nicolas, Sison; Garci wiretappers Col. Sumalo and Capuyan; Maj. Teofilo; SG Sage; and, of course, former Defense Secretaries (and retired generals) Hermogenes Ebdane and Eduardo Ermita, who went around military camps while using the military’s resources in campaigning against FPJ, telling soldiers, “Of course you will not vote for an actor… we should vote for the candidate who has the experience, appropriate academic background… etc.” in support of their patron Gloria?
At the same time, we also remember those servicemen with conscience who kept their integrity whole, such as Gen. Frank Gudani who faced court martial for being a so-called “erring personnel” as well as Col. Alex Balutan.
We also remember with disdain those civilians and politicians who were involved directly or indirectly, overtly or tacitly, in that dark episode by their silence. People should be reminded of the complicity of both the Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting (PPCRV) and National Movement for Free Elections (Namfrel), which didn’t do anything but cover-up for the massive electoral fraud. Same goes for others such as “Mr. Noted” Kiko Pangilinan, Cory Aquino, Frank Drilon, “Hyatt 10,” and other participants.
The cheating in 2004 didn’t just include the so-called “Arroyo Generals” but the whole system that was established in Edsa II to ensure the continuity of what was started in 2001, which was to keep President Estrada in continued detention while averting the scuttling of a fast-tracked era of globalization, privatization and the corporatization of the Philippines, as well as the consolidation of Epira and the privatization of TransCo, etc., with an FPJ sitting in Malacañang.
After all, they must have known that FPJ’s first act in signaling his candidacy was to attend the anti-globalization conference of the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) in UP.
But even as things didn’t go the nation’s way, FPJ supporters, including the most prominent of them all, President Joseph Estrada, who was working behind the scenes despite his incarceration at Tanay, still did not rest in their campaign to expose the truth.
Then, “Hello Garci” emerged.
The link to the sources back then was not yet timely to reveal, as security implications outweighed other considerations; but Samuel Ong and Sgt. Vidal Doble finally surfaced the tapes that provided incontrovertible proof of Arroyo’s direct hand in cheating operations. Subsequently, cellphone videos of some of the military’s cheating operations also emerged.
Scrambling to control the damage, GMA spokesman Ignacio Bunye obfuscated by producing a fake version of the tapes, before the issue went to Congress where, most significantly, then Rep. Noynoy Aquino voted not to play the real tapes.
The involvement of the military led to the Mayuga Commission which, to this day, has not been allowed to release its full report to the public (perhaps to allow Garcillano a chance to still preempt the Mayuga report?).
The Comelec at that time was perceive to be among the most guilty; and that was the root of the megalomania of Ben Abalos who allegedly said to the Chinese ZTE officials, “I am the most powerful man in the Philippines,” knowing that he could expose everything Gloria anytime did if he didn’t get his way.
How correct Greek dramatist Euripides was when he said, “Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.” It was a mad era. The post-2001 Edsa II power grab and the 2004 election cheating age was one when those in power believed they could manipulate everything and get away with it forever. It was a time when black became white, good became bad, and the cheats ruled the law. But one-by-one, the Mad Hatters fell… (who next after Angie Reyes?)
A history of the Mad Era of the Arroyo government obviously can’t be chronicled here in full. We don’t even have enough space for the complicity of mainstream media, including the iconic columnists of some major newspapers.
But as this is only a gist, we will cap it off by acknowledging those who fought for FPJ’s vindication when certain quarters ignored and taunted them: The FPJ movements that are too many to mention; the FPJ voters; President Estrada; the Bagong Katipuneros (Magdalos) and the Para sa Bayan military groups; as well as those who still suffer injustice for standing up against Edsa II, such as lawyer Alan Paguia, still suspended by the Supreme Court when all that he stood up for are now being vindicated. While we are sad about FPJ’s daughter who apparently loves those who tormented her father more than those who supported him, we finally have to acknowledge the late FPJ’s courageous wife, Susan Roces, for continuing this fight, too.
(Tune in to Radyo OpinYon, Monday to Friday, 5 to 6 p.m., and Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; Talk News TV with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on GNN, Destiny Cable Channel 8, on “DoST Expo 2011: Ignite the Mind”; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com and http://hermantiulaurel.blogspot.com for our articles plus TV and radio)
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
"Hello, Garci" - Revisited
Alan F. Paguia
Former Professor of Law
Ateneo Law School
University of Batangas
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila
alanpaguia@yahoo.com
July 20, 2011
In the presidential elections of 2004, did Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) cheat and win over Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ) by more than ONE MILLION (1,000,000) votes, with the connivance of then Commission on Elections (Comelec) Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano per the recorded or taped telephone conversation between GMA and Garcillano?
It is respectfully submitted the answer is YES.
MATERIAL FACTS
1. On June 8, 2005, Rep. Francis Escudero delivered a privilege speech before the House of Representatives citing recorded telephone conversations between respondent Garcillano and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, wherein the two (2) communicants talked about and agreed to ensure the electoral victory of Mrs. Arroyo by at least one million (1,000,000) votes over her closest rival, Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ).
2. On June 27, 2005, the recorded telephone conversations were publicly admitted and apologized for by Mrs. Arroyo in a speech aired over national radio and television. On the same date, a complaint for impeachment against Mrs. Arroyo was filed with the House of Representatives by Atty. Oliver O. Lozano.
3. On June 28, 2005, Atty. Lozano filed with the House of Representatives his Supplemental Complaint for Impeachment versus Mrs. Arroyo. Congressional records show Atty. Lozano’s complaint and supplemental complaint were endorsed by Rep. Rodante D. Marcoleta by way of an undated one-page Resolution of Endorsement, and another one-page verification of his endorsement subscribed and sworn to on June 29, 2005.
4. On June 30, 2005, the joint committee hearing of the House of Representatives (Committees on Public Information, on Public Order and Safety, on National Defense and Security, on Information Communications Technology, and on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms) officially played the compact disc (CD) of Alan F. Paguia which contained the recording of the aforementioned telephone conversations between Garcillano and Mrs. Arroyo.
5. On July 4, 2005, Paguia received a subpoena duces tecum, dated June 30, 2005, and a letter of invitation from the Committee on Public Information of the House of Representatives, dated July 4, 2004, which required him to testify and provide inputs to the joint committee hearings.
6. On July 18, 2005, Mrs. Arroyo duly filed her verified 13-page ANSWER EX ABUNDANTE AD CAUTELAM with the House of Representatives, with the following prayer for specific remedies:
“WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Complaint for Impeachment dated 27 June 2005 and the Supplemental Complaint for Impeachment dated 28 June 2005 filed by Atty. Oliver O. Lozano, and endorsed by Rep. Rodante D. Marcoleta of the Alagad Party List in his Resolution of Endorsement dated 29 June 2005, be dismissed.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.”
7. The recorded voice of respondent Garcillano was positively identified: (a) by Rep. Jun Macarambon during the official House proceedings where he admitted having had telephone conversations during the same material period with respondent Garcillano whom he referred to several times as “Commissioner Garci;” and (b) by respondent Mrs. Arroyo herself who referred to Commissioner Garcillano as “Garci” in the taped conversation.
8. The recorded voice of respondent Mrs. Arroyo and her recorded conversation with respondent Garcillano was subsequently admitted by her in certain public statements.
9. The voices of both GMA and Garcillano are matters of public knowledge.
10. The voice of Garcillano is personally known to his former co-Commissioners in the Comelec. It is within the mandatory quasi-judicial or judicial notice of the Commission.
Sole Issue
11. WHETHER THE COMELEC, ON THE BASES OF THE RECORDED CONVERSATIONS AND PUBLIC STATEMENTS, SHOULD INVESTIGATE MRS. ARROYO AND GARCILLANO FOR ELECTION FRAUDS, OFFENSES AND MALPRACTICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS DUTY UNDER SECTION 2, ARTICLE IX-C OF THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION?
It is respectfully submitted the answer is YES.
ARGUMENTS
12. When GMA and Garcillano came to an agreement and decided to ensure the electoral victory of Mrs. Arroyo by at least one million (1,000,000) votes over her closest rival presidential candidate, they conspired by misrepresenting the final result of the elections in her favor.
13. Mrs. Arroyo has publicly admitted the existence of the issue of the voice recordings.
14. She has officially admitted the public deserves an explanation from her.
15. She has admitted having telephone conversations during the election canvassing process with Garcillano whom she referred to in the recorded conversations as “Garci.”
16. Mrs. Arroyo has not denied it was her voice which was recorded conversing with Garcillano in the taped conversations in spite of so much opportunity to do so.
17. Her defense - to the effect that it was not her intent to influence the outcome of the election – is immaterial. Election offenses are covered by special laws which are mala prohibita. It is elementary in law that in mala prohibita offenses, intent is not an element.
18. Mrs. Arroyo has publicly admitted having committed the wrongful act of making a telephone call to Garcillano and discussing with him the protection of her votes and ensuring her margin by at least one million (1,000,000) votes over FPJ. She characterized her wrongful act as “a lapse in judgment” and publicly apologized as follows:
“Nagagambala ako. Maliwanag na may kakulangan sa wastong pagpapasya ang nangyaring pagtawag sa telepono. Pinagsisisihan ko ito ng lubos. Pinananagutan ko nang lubusan ang aking mga ginawa at humihingi ako ng tawad sa inyo, sa lahat ng mga butihing mamamayan na nabawasan ng tiwala dahil sa mga pangyayaring ito. …”
19. The verified Answer in the complaint for impeachment against her was signed jointly by Mrs. Arroyo and her legal counsel, Atty. Pedro Ferrer. In other words, she had:
(a) publicly joined issues with Atty. Lozano’s complaint/supplemental complaint; and
(b) voluntarily submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the House of Representatives.
She has thereby waived any legal immunity from investigation; and is further estopped from invoking any such immunity.
20. The playing of the recorded telephone conversation between GMA and Garcillano, in Congress constitutes an official act of the legislature, which is within the mandatory quasi-judicial notice of the Comelec.
21. The public interest over the subject recorded telephone conversations necessarily prevails over any private interest.
Complaint filed on March 6, 2007
22. On March 5, 2007, then Comelec Commissioner Resurreccion Borra stated in a nationally televised interview that the Comelec has taken no action on the “Hello, Garci” controversy for the simple reason that no one has filed a corresponding complaint before the Commission.
23. On March 6, 2007, Paguia filed with the Comelec/Law Department, his Complaint-Affidavit bearing the same date, versus Garcillano and Mrs. Arroyo, praying for the Comelec to investigate the respondents in accordance with its duty under Section 2, Article IX-C of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, and Rule 34, Comelec Rules of Procedure.
The original complaint was duly accompanied by supporting evidence, namely:
LIST OF EXHIBITS
A - Rep. Francis Escudero’s privilege speech, dated June 8, 2005
B - GMA’s "I am sorry" speech, dated June 27, 2005
C - Atty. Lozano’s complaint, dated June 27, 2005
D - Supplemental Complaint, dated June 28, 2005
E - Resolution of Endorsement, undated
F - Verification of Endorsement, dated June 29, 2005
G - "Hello, Garci" Compact Disc (CD), 36-minute recording
H - Subpoena duces tecum, dated June 30, 2005
I - Letter of Invitation, dated July 4, 2005
J - GMA's “Answer ex abundante ad cautelam”, dated July 18, 2005
Epilogue
24. From March 6, 2007 up to this writing, or a period of more than FOUR (4) YEARS, the Comelec and its commissioners appear to have chosen to SIT and TAKE NO ACTION on the Complaint-Affidavit. Since the complaint has not been dismissed, it follows the controversy remains LEGALLY ALIVE.
25. How much more time will the Comelec take until it performs its constitutional duty to investigate Garcillano and Mrs. Arroyo?
The sovereign Filipino people are waiting.
Former Professor of Law
Ateneo Law School
University of Batangas
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila
alanpaguia@yahoo.com
July 20, 2011
In the presidential elections of 2004, did Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) cheat and win over Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ) by more than ONE MILLION (1,000,000) votes, with the connivance of then Commission on Elections (Comelec) Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano per the recorded or taped telephone conversation between GMA and Garcillano?
It is respectfully submitted the answer is YES.
MATERIAL FACTS
1. On June 8, 2005, Rep. Francis Escudero delivered a privilege speech before the House of Representatives citing recorded telephone conversations between respondent Garcillano and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, wherein the two (2) communicants talked about and agreed to ensure the electoral victory of Mrs. Arroyo by at least one million (1,000,000) votes over her closest rival, Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ).
2. On June 27, 2005, the recorded telephone conversations were publicly admitted and apologized for by Mrs. Arroyo in a speech aired over national radio and television. On the same date, a complaint for impeachment against Mrs. Arroyo was filed with the House of Representatives by Atty. Oliver O. Lozano.
3. On June 28, 2005, Atty. Lozano filed with the House of Representatives his Supplemental Complaint for Impeachment versus Mrs. Arroyo. Congressional records show Atty. Lozano’s complaint and supplemental complaint were endorsed by Rep. Rodante D. Marcoleta by way of an undated one-page Resolution of Endorsement, and another one-page verification of his endorsement subscribed and sworn to on June 29, 2005.
4. On June 30, 2005, the joint committee hearing of the House of Representatives (Committees on Public Information, on Public Order and Safety, on National Defense and Security, on Information Communications Technology, and on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms) officially played the compact disc (CD) of Alan F. Paguia which contained the recording of the aforementioned telephone conversations between Garcillano and Mrs. Arroyo.
5. On July 4, 2005, Paguia received a subpoena duces tecum, dated June 30, 2005, and a letter of invitation from the Committee on Public Information of the House of Representatives, dated July 4, 2004, which required him to testify and provide inputs to the joint committee hearings.
6. On July 18, 2005, Mrs. Arroyo duly filed her verified 13-page ANSWER EX ABUNDANTE AD CAUTELAM with the House of Representatives, with the following prayer for specific remedies:
“WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Complaint for Impeachment dated 27 June 2005 and the Supplemental Complaint for Impeachment dated 28 June 2005 filed by Atty. Oliver O. Lozano, and endorsed by Rep. Rodante D. Marcoleta of the Alagad Party List in his Resolution of Endorsement dated 29 June 2005, be dismissed.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed for.”
7. The recorded voice of respondent Garcillano was positively identified: (a) by Rep. Jun Macarambon during the official House proceedings where he admitted having had telephone conversations during the same material period with respondent Garcillano whom he referred to several times as “Commissioner Garci;” and (b) by respondent Mrs. Arroyo herself who referred to Commissioner Garcillano as “Garci” in the taped conversation.
8. The recorded voice of respondent Mrs. Arroyo and her recorded conversation with respondent Garcillano was subsequently admitted by her in certain public statements.
9. The voices of both GMA and Garcillano are matters of public knowledge.
10. The voice of Garcillano is personally known to his former co-Commissioners in the Comelec. It is within the mandatory quasi-judicial or judicial notice of the Commission.
Sole Issue
11. WHETHER THE COMELEC, ON THE BASES OF THE RECORDED CONVERSATIONS AND PUBLIC STATEMENTS, SHOULD INVESTIGATE MRS. ARROYO AND GARCILLANO FOR ELECTION FRAUDS, OFFENSES AND MALPRACTICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS DUTY UNDER SECTION 2, ARTICLE IX-C OF THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION?
It is respectfully submitted the answer is YES.
ARGUMENTS
12. When GMA and Garcillano came to an agreement and decided to ensure the electoral victory of Mrs. Arroyo by at least one million (1,000,000) votes over her closest rival presidential candidate, they conspired by misrepresenting the final result of the elections in her favor.
13. Mrs. Arroyo has publicly admitted the existence of the issue of the voice recordings.
14. She has officially admitted the public deserves an explanation from her.
15. She has admitted having telephone conversations during the election canvassing process with Garcillano whom she referred to in the recorded conversations as “Garci.”
16. Mrs. Arroyo has not denied it was her voice which was recorded conversing with Garcillano in the taped conversations in spite of so much opportunity to do so.
17. Her defense - to the effect that it was not her intent to influence the outcome of the election – is immaterial. Election offenses are covered by special laws which are mala prohibita. It is elementary in law that in mala prohibita offenses, intent is not an element.
18. Mrs. Arroyo has publicly admitted having committed the wrongful act of making a telephone call to Garcillano and discussing with him the protection of her votes and ensuring her margin by at least one million (1,000,000) votes over FPJ. She characterized her wrongful act as “a lapse in judgment” and publicly apologized as follows:
“Nagagambala ako. Maliwanag na may kakulangan sa wastong pagpapasya ang nangyaring pagtawag sa telepono. Pinagsisisihan ko ito ng lubos. Pinananagutan ko nang lubusan ang aking mga ginawa at humihingi ako ng tawad sa inyo, sa lahat ng mga butihing mamamayan na nabawasan ng tiwala dahil sa mga pangyayaring ito. …”
19. The verified Answer in the complaint for impeachment against her was signed jointly by Mrs. Arroyo and her legal counsel, Atty. Pedro Ferrer. In other words, she had:
(a) publicly joined issues with Atty. Lozano’s complaint/supplemental complaint; and
(b) voluntarily submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the House of Representatives.
She has thereby waived any legal immunity from investigation; and is further estopped from invoking any such immunity.
20. The playing of the recorded telephone conversation between GMA and Garcillano, in Congress constitutes an official act of the legislature, which is within the mandatory quasi-judicial notice of the Comelec.
21. The public interest over the subject recorded telephone conversations necessarily prevails over any private interest.
Complaint filed on March 6, 2007
22. On March 5, 2007, then Comelec Commissioner Resurreccion Borra stated in a nationally televised interview that the Comelec has taken no action on the “Hello, Garci” controversy for the simple reason that no one has filed a corresponding complaint before the Commission.
23. On March 6, 2007, Paguia filed with the Comelec/Law Department, his Complaint-Affidavit bearing the same date, versus Garcillano and Mrs. Arroyo, praying for the Comelec to investigate the respondents in accordance with its duty under Section 2, Article IX-C of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, and Rule 34, Comelec Rules of Procedure.
The original complaint was duly accompanied by supporting evidence, namely:
LIST OF EXHIBITS
A - Rep. Francis Escudero’s privilege speech, dated June 8, 2005
B - GMA’s "I am sorry" speech, dated June 27, 2005
C - Atty. Lozano’s complaint, dated June 27, 2005
D - Supplemental Complaint, dated June 28, 2005
E - Resolution of Endorsement, undated
F - Verification of Endorsement, dated June 29, 2005
G - "Hello, Garci" Compact Disc (CD), 36-minute recording
H - Subpoena duces tecum, dated June 30, 2005
I - Letter of Invitation, dated July 4, 2005
J - GMA's “Answer ex abundante ad cautelam”, dated July 18, 2005
Epilogue
24. From March 6, 2007 up to this writing, or a period of more than FOUR (4) YEARS, the Comelec and its commissioners appear to have chosen to SIT and TAKE NO ACTION on the Complaint-Affidavit. Since the complaint has not been dismissed, it follows the controversy remains LEGALLY ALIVE.
25. How much more time will the Comelec take until it performs its constitutional duty to investigate Garcillano and Mrs. Arroyo?
The sovereign Filipino people are waiting.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Politics, PCSO & Zubiri: The Philippine Disease
YESTERDAY, TODAY & TOMORROW
Linggoy Alcuaz
7/18-24/2011
Walang pagbabago! Ganoon pa rin! Walang patutunguan!
When I was five years old, my mother, Rosa Zaragosa Araneta Alcuaz, brought me to Nacionalista and Landsdale presidential candidate, Ramon Magsaysay, in his Sta. Mesa home. He sat me on his lap and put on a campaign pin on my shirt.
I believed in him as the savior of the Philippines.
I believed the CIA propaganda.
I believed that President Elpidio Syquia Quirino from Vigan, Ilocos Sur was the Filipino devil-incarnate. He was guilty of a trilogy of sins. He had a Golden Urinola under his bed. The bed was big and expensive while he was already a widower. The third and last sin had something to do with the Tambobong Estate.
In late March 1957, when the news broke that the presidential plane, Mt. Pinatubo, had crashed soon after taking off from Cebu’s Lapu-Lapu Airport, that moment was forever engraved in my memory.
I was in the same part of our dining room where I usually type both my English and Pilipino columns. It was early evening. We did not have a TV yet. We got the news from a table top AM/FM radio.
In a flash, our hopes were extinguished.
Do Gooders!
The reformist Magsaysay boys split from the Nacionalista Party and organized their own party.
And so, for the next decade, my mother’s family supported the PPP (1957 & 1965), Grand Alliance (1959), and the United Opposition Party (1961). We lost three of the four elections. We only won in 1961 because we were coalesced with 1957-1961 Vice President Diosdado Macapagal.
However, our unity with him did not last long. He was suspected and accused of graft and corruption. However, he lost his hidden wealth when his Secretary of Finance and suspected moneybags, Feny Hechanova, died from gas suffocation in Europe.
In 1965, then Senate President Ferdinand Edralin Marcos jumped from the Liberal Party to the Nacionalista Party. He beat the native aspirants as well as another import, 1961-1965 Vice President Emmanuel Pelaez, in the party convention.
Marcos won the November 1965 elections partly because of the backlash to Macapagal caused by the suppression of the movie version of FM’s biography, “For Every Tear a Victory!”
Full-time Activist
In November 1965, when I assumed command of the Ateneo de Manila High School Pre-Military Training Corps of Cadets, I quoted Marcos’s favorite slogan, ”This Nation can be Great Again”.
When Marcos and Vice President Fernando Lopez were re-elected and defeated Serging Osmeňa, Jr. and Genaro Magsaysay in November 1969, I dropped out of my last semester in college in order to become a full-time activist.
I had been recruited in my first year by Jesuit Fr. Jose Blanco and Ateneo History Professor Rolando Quintos to be a cadre in the moderate, as opposed to radical, wing of student and youth activism.
We were very successful in our politicalizing, organizing, mobilizing, and protesting.
Martial Law
When Marcos, Enrile, et al. implemented Proclamation 1081 declaring Martial Law, on a Friday evening, September 1972, we were meeting overnight. We were planning our strategy for the November 1973 national elections.
A pragmatic group among the reformists was pushing to coalesce again with the Liberal Party.
This time around, we were negotiating with LP President and Senator Gerardo Roxas.
With just one stroke of the pen, Marcos dashed all our dreams, hopes and visions for our country and people.
He stole thirteen and a half years from all those who were into activism and politics.
Hope and Expectations
There were occasions that gave us back our faith, our hopes, and our love of country and people.
There was the night of April 6, 1978.
On the eve of the 1978 region-wide Interim Batasan Pambansa elections, a whisper and word-of-mouth campaign brought the greater part of Metro Manila’s residents out in the streets to show their real feelings about the Marcos regime by making noise.
What was planned to be a few minutes of defiance turned into an overnight overflow of suppressed emotions.
Then again, there were the four nights and three days of EDSA Uno (February 22-25, 1986).
For those who hate Trapos and traditional campaigns and elections, the May 1992 elections gave two options to hope and work for victory.
One was Lakas’ FVR, who won. The other was PRP’s MDS (Miriam Defensor Santiago), who believed she won but was cheated out of her victory.
In 1998, the masses had their chance to hope and win a short-lived victory.
A Sorry History
Then, depending on which side you were, there was EDSA Dos (January 16-20) or Tres (April 25-May 1).
In 2004, the masses again dared to aspire, expect and hope in a FPJ.
However, GMA grabbed that hope from the masses a second time, a second time around in 2004.
In 2001, she tried to plant hope among the elite.
All of these turned sour, all these past hopes were dashed in one way or other.
Then, on August 1, 2009, Fate or God Himself set us up both for the biggest expectation and disappointment of our lives – Noynoy/P-Noy.
What is it in Philippine politics that condemns us to a never-ending cycle of false hope and real despair?
It is the Philippine disease.
Today, we see variations of it.
One is the sorry history of the PCSO.
The other is the electoral protest of Koko Pimentel against Juan Miguel Zubiri before the Senate Electoral Tribunal.
Bad Spending Habits Die Hard!
The PCSO is perceived by both the rich and the poor as one big milking cow.
Its charter mandates fixed percentages of the income to go to prizes (55 %), charity (30 %), and administrative and operational expenses (15 %).
However, both the PCSO Board and its management have been lax in preserving the 30 % share for charity.
When I was appointed as a director in March 2001, Admin & Operations had already borrowed a billion from Charity. By the time I exposed this in January 2003, the deficit had doubled.
Eight years later, Bayan Party List Rep. Neri Colmenares exposed this in a privilege speech as having reached P6.9 billion.
Oh! If only they listened to me then.
Another recurring controversy is the monstrous advertising budget of the PCSO.
When I was a director from March 2001 to January 2004, it ranged from P300 to P350 million. In 2006, it was almost a billion pesos.
Been There, Heard That
After the Robert Rivero controversy in 2001, GMA publicly instructed us to economize and reduce the advertising budget.
Instead, we managed to increase it.
In October 2001, we were investigated by the Senate Committee on Constitutional Reform and Revision of Laws chaired by Senator Edgardo Angara.
The Majority/Administration side tried to prevent the hearing. The Minority/Opposition pushed through and nine Minority Senators attended. Nothing came out of it.
These last two weeks, the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee has held four hearings on several aspects, anomalies, charges and controversies.
I have been religiously attending them and will attend today’s (Monday, July 18) fifth hearing.
At the end of each day, I have an uneasy feeling of “been there, heard that”.
Could this be another whitewash?
Not Once but Twice
Certainly, the thing that really takes the cake is the Koko Pimentel vs. Migs Zubiri electoral protest before the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET).
Koko has been cheated not once but twice.
First of all, Koko was leading Zubiri by about 110,000 votes in the COMELEC’s national canvass.
Then, the Maguindanao votes came in. Zubiri had 195,823 against Koko’s 67,111. The difference of 128,712 votes made Zubiri the 12th and Koko the 13th in the Senatorial seats.
Koko’s protest was focused on Maguindanao and a few more mainly Muslim areas. Based on the SET’s normal procedures, Koko should already be sitting as the last and twelfth senator.
However, Zubiri employed delaying tactics that can take until 2013 to resolve.
Claiming massive fraud, he filed a counter protest covering many precincts in Metro Manila and neighboring provinces.
However, the SET’s procedures are designed so that a counter-protest based on imaginary fraud will not be allowed.
The protested as well as the counter-protested precincts are divided into the first 25 % and the subsequent 75 %. Each side chooses the 25 % that will give it the best advantage. Based on the revision of the ballots in the first 25 %, the SET will decide whether to proceed with the balance of 75 %.
Starting with protestant Koko’s 25 %, the SET found reason to continue with his 75 %. These, together with Migs’ first 25 %, were already finished before the May 10, 2010 elections.
Based on the minimal effects of Zubiri’s first 25 %, the SET should have declared Koko the winner.
This was where Koko was cheated a second time.
The SET by a vote of 9 – 3, allowed the opening and revision of the balance of 75 % of the counter protested precincts. Thus, Koko is condemned to wait it out till beyond the 2013 elections. Only in the Philippines!
Linggoy Alcuaz
7/18-24/2011
Walang pagbabago! Ganoon pa rin! Walang patutunguan!
When I was five years old, my mother, Rosa Zaragosa Araneta Alcuaz, brought me to Nacionalista and Landsdale presidential candidate, Ramon Magsaysay, in his Sta. Mesa home. He sat me on his lap and put on a campaign pin on my shirt.
I believed in him as the savior of the Philippines.
I believed the CIA propaganda.
I believed that President Elpidio Syquia Quirino from Vigan, Ilocos Sur was the Filipino devil-incarnate. He was guilty of a trilogy of sins. He had a Golden Urinola under his bed. The bed was big and expensive while he was already a widower. The third and last sin had something to do with the Tambobong Estate.
In late March 1957, when the news broke that the presidential plane, Mt. Pinatubo, had crashed soon after taking off from Cebu’s Lapu-Lapu Airport, that moment was forever engraved in my memory.
I was in the same part of our dining room where I usually type both my English and Pilipino columns. It was early evening. We did not have a TV yet. We got the news from a table top AM/FM radio.
In a flash, our hopes were extinguished.
Do Gooders!
The reformist Magsaysay boys split from the Nacionalista Party and organized their own party.
And so, for the next decade, my mother’s family supported the PPP (1957 & 1965), Grand Alliance (1959), and the United Opposition Party (1961). We lost three of the four elections. We only won in 1961 because we were coalesced with 1957-1961 Vice President Diosdado Macapagal.
However, our unity with him did not last long. He was suspected and accused of graft and corruption. However, he lost his hidden wealth when his Secretary of Finance and suspected moneybags, Feny Hechanova, died from gas suffocation in Europe.
In 1965, then Senate President Ferdinand Edralin Marcos jumped from the Liberal Party to the Nacionalista Party. He beat the native aspirants as well as another import, 1961-1965 Vice President Emmanuel Pelaez, in the party convention.
Marcos won the November 1965 elections partly because of the backlash to Macapagal caused by the suppression of the movie version of FM’s biography, “For Every Tear a Victory!”
Full-time Activist
In November 1965, when I assumed command of the Ateneo de Manila High School Pre-Military Training Corps of Cadets, I quoted Marcos’s favorite slogan, ”This Nation can be Great Again”.
When Marcos and Vice President Fernando Lopez were re-elected and defeated Serging Osmeňa, Jr. and Genaro Magsaysay in November 1969, I dropped out of my last semester in college in order to become a full-time activist.
I had been recruited in my first year by Jesuit Fr. Jose Blanco and Ateneo History Professor Rolando Quintos to be a cadre in the moderate, as opposed to radical, wing of student and youth activism.
We were very successful in our politicalizing, organizing, mobilizing, and protesting.
Martial Law
When Marcos, Enrile, et al. implemented Proclamation 1081 declaring Martial Law, on a Friday evening, September 1972, we were meeting overnight. We were planning our strategy for the November 1973 national elections.
A pragmatic group among the reformists was pushing to coalesce again with the Liberal Party.
This time around, we were negotiating with LP President and Senator Gerardo Roxas.
With just one stroke of the pen, Marcos dashed all our dreams, hopes and visions for our country and people.
He stole thirteen and a half years from all those who were into activism and politics.
Hope and Expectations
There were occasions that gave us back our faith, our hopes, and our love of country and people.
There was the night of April 6, 1978.
On the eve of the 1978 region-wide Interim Batasan Pambansa elections, a whisper and word-of-mouth campaign brought the greater part of Metro Manila’s residents out in the streets to show their real feelings about the Marcos regime by making noise.
What was planned to be a few minutes of defiance turned into an overnight overflow of suppressed emotions.
Then again, there were the four nights and three days of EDSA Uno (February 22-25, 1986).
For those who hate Trapos and traditional campaigns and elections, the May 1992 elections gave two options to hope and work for victory.
One was Lakas’ FVR, who won. The other was PRP’s MDS (Miriam Defensor Santiago), who believed she won but was cheated out of her victory.
In 1998, the masses had their chance to hope and win a short-lived victory.
A Sorry History
Then, depending on which side you were, there was EDSA Dos (January 16-20) or Tres (April 25-May 1).
In 2004, the masses again dared to aspire, expect and hope in a FPJ.
However, GMA grabbed that hope from the masses a second time, a second time around in 2004.
In 2001, she tried to plant hope among the elite.
All of these turned sour, all these past hopes were dashed in one way or other.
Then, on August 1, 2009, Fate or God Himself set us up both for the biggest expectation and disappointment of our lives – Noynoy/P-Noy.
What is it in Philippine politics that condemns us to a never-ending cycle of false hope and real despair?
It is the Philippine disease.
Today, we see variations of it.
One is the sorry history of the PCSO.
The other is the electoral protest of Koko Pimentel against Juan Miguel Zubiri before the Senate Electoral Tribunal.
Bad Spending Habits Die Hard!
The PCSO is perceived by both the rich and the poor as one big milking cow.
Its charter mandates fixed percentages of the income to go to prizes (55 %), charity (30 %), and administrative and operational expenses (15 %).
However, both the PCSO Board and its management have been lax in preserving the 30 % share for charity.
When I was appointed as a director in March 2001, Admin & Operations had already borrowed a billion from Charity. By the time I exposed this in January 2003, the deficit had doubled.
Eight years later, Bayan Party List Rep. Neri Colmenares exposed this in a privilege speech as having reached P6.9 billion.
Oh! If only they listened to me then.
Another recurring controversy is the monstrous advertising budget of the PCSO.
When I was a director from March 2001 to January 2004, it ranged from P300 to P350 million. In 2006, it was almost a billion pesos.
Been There, Heard That
After the Robert Rivero controversy in 2001, GMA publicly instructed us to economize and reduce the advertising budget.
Instead, we managed to increase it.
In October 2001, we were investigated by the Senate Committee on Constitutional Reform and Revision of Laws chaired by Senator Edgardo Angara.
The Majority/Administration side tried to prevent the hearing. The Minority/Opposition pushed through and nine Minority Senators attended. Nothing came out of it.
These last two weeks, the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee has held four hearings on several aspects, anomalies, charges and controversies.
I have been religiously attending them and will attend today’s (Monday, July 18) fifth hearing.
At the end of each day, I have an uneasy feeling of “been there, heard that”.
Could this be another whitewash?
Not Once but Twice
Certainly, the thing that really takes the cake is the Koko Pimentel vs. Migs Zubiri electoral protest before the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET).
Koko has been cheated not once but twice.
First of all, Koko was leading Zubiri by about 110,000 votes in the COMELEC’s national canvass.
Then, the Maguindanao votes came in. Zubiri had 195,823 against Koko’s 67,111. The difference of 128,712 votes made Zubiri the 12th and Koko the 13th in the Senatorial seats.
Koko’s protest was focused on Maguindanao and a few more mainly Muslim areas. Based on the SET’s normal procedures, Koko should already be sitting as the last and twelfth senator.
However, Zubiri employed delaying tactics that can take until 2013 to resolve.
Claiming massive fraud, he filed a counter protest covering many precincts in Metro Manila and neighboring provinces.
However, the SET’s procedures are designed so that a counter-protest based on imaginary fraud will not be allowed.
The protested as well as the counter-protested precincts are divided into the first 25 % and the subsequent 75 %. Each side chooses the 25 % that will give it the best advantage. Based on the revision of the ballots in the first 25 %, the SET will decide whether to proceed with the balance of 75 %.
Starting with protestant Koko’s 25 %, the SET found reason to continue with his 75 %. These, together with Migs’ first 25 %, were already finished before the May 10, 2010 elections.
Based on the minimal effects of Zubiri’s first 25 %, the SET should have declared Koko the winner.
This was where Koko was cheated a second time.
The SET by a vote of 9 – 3, allowed the opening and revision of the balance of 75 % of the counter protested precincts. Thus, Koko is condemned to wait it out till beyond the 2013 elections. Only in the Philippines!
Meralco unstoppable, ERC infallible
CROSSINGS
Butch Junia
7/18-24/2011
The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) last month granted or approved Meralco’s Maximum Average Price (MAP) of P1.5828 per kilowatt hour for distribution, supply and metering (DSM) charges, to take effect July 2011.
Meralco’s DSM rate today is P1.6464 pkwh, granted by ERC for Regulatory Year (RY) 2011 (June 2010-July 2011).
It is a rate that consumers led by Mang Naro Lualhati say should only be P0.90 pkwh.
Meralco’s application in June 2010, approved exactly a year later, was for a rate increase to P1.7056 pkwh for RY 2012. This was ERC Case No. 2010-069RC.
Still, consumers led by Mang Naro say that rate should only be P0.90 pkwh.
P20-B Overcharge
When ERC announced last month its order granting Meralco’s latest overstated rate, ERC made much of the point that the rate they approved at P1.5828 pkwh was lower than the current rate of P1.6464 pkwh.
Mang Naro was not impressed – P1.5828 pkwh is still P0.6828 pkwh over the true rate, which he said was P0.90 pkwh. With Meralco’s annual sales of 30 Billion kwh, that would be an overcharge of over P20 Billion.
The ERC’s latest rate award to Meralco is also being challenged by other consumers like Pete Ilagan of the National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms or Nasecore.
They insist that ERC’s approval of Meralco’s Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR) was hasty, irregular, arbitrary and contrary to law and jurisprudence.
The ARR is the projected expense budget of Meralco that is now the basis for the rate that Meralco will charge us for the next four years, from July 2011 to June 2015.
ERC on Other Side
Last June 28, Meralco filed its application for approval of its MAP for RY 2012 and the translation of that MAP into a distribution rate structure for its various customer classes. This was docketed as ERC Case No. 2011-088RC, a new case.
As expected this drew loud protests from those who insist that there are many unresolved issues in the ARR application, ERC Case No. 2010-069RC.
Arguments and objections ranged from the legal, technical, policy, mathematical, etc.
Being familiar with the issues, I know the oppositors have the law, jurisprudence, logic, equity, fairness on their side.
Unfortunately, ERC is on the other side.
Reviewing the whole process that has been laid out by ERC under its so-called internationally-accepted rate-setting methodology – the PBR or Performance Based Regulation – consumers do not stand a chance, at all.
Draft Determination
I will just cite a few choice quotes from some of the PBR documents, and leave the rest to your curious minds.
On December 15, 2010, in the “Review of Operating and Maintenance Expenditure (OPEX) Forecast: Third Regulatory Period” prepared by ERC’s Regulatory Operations Service, the ROS said: “In this review, the ROS has relied on the accuracy of the information provided to the ERC by MERALCO.
“While during the clarificatory meeting process, ROS queried on information provided in the revenue application that appeared to be inconsistent or inaccurate, ROS did not undertake an audit or attempt to verify the information on which it based itsrecommendations. ROS, therefore, cannot be held responsible for any conclusions based on misleading or inaccurate information provided.”
Also on December 15, 2010, in the “DRAFT DETERMINATION” on ERC Case No. 2010-069RC, signed by Chairman Zenaida Cruz-Ducut, Commissioners Alejandro Barin, Jose Reyes and Maria Teresa Castaneda, the ERC said in Item 1.3.2: “The Draft Determination is not a final resolution of MERALCO’s applications. Xxx Moreover, the Draft Determination does not have any impact or bearing on MERALCO’s current distribution wheeling charges or will not be used to set future distribution wheeling charges.”
Final Determination
On June 6, 2011, in Page 6 of the FINAL DETERMINATION signed by Chairman Cruz-Ducut and Commissioners Barin, Reyes, Castaneda and Rauf Tan, the ERC said: “The Final Determination is the final resolution of MERALCO’s application. It presents the ERC’s final decision on the price control arrangements that will apply to MERALCO for the Third Regulatory Period and will form the basis on which MERALCO will prepare and submit its distribution rate applications for the Third Regulatory Period. Xxx These rate structures are to be filed with the ERC by June 13, 2011. Xxx The implementation of the new rate structures for the July 2011 billing period is the scheduled start of the Third Regulatory Period (July 1, 2011)…..”
On December 8, 2008, Res. No. 20, S. 2008 was adopted unanimously by Chairman Cruz-Ducut and Commissioners Barin, Reyes, Castaneda and Tan, Modifying the “Rules for Setting Distribution Wheeling Rates for Privately Owned Distribution Utilities Entering Performance Based Regulation (RDWR), with Article VII on the Regulatory Reset Process, providing in Item 7.2.4, as follows: “At these hearings the ERC will have the opportunity to question the Regulated Entity on its proposed distribution tariffs and parties of record to the rate case will have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses put forward by the Regulated Entity to defend its application.”
There is, however, a limitation to this cross-examination stated in Footnote 21 to this rule, to wit: “Note that the questions and cross-examination will only be allowed on aspects relevant to the rate application and not on earlier regulatory decisions or the basis on which these were made. For example, cross-examination on aspects decided by the ERC in its final determination on the price control arrangements for the relevant Regulatory Period will not be accepted at the hearings.”
Beyond Challenge
A Commission that started the rate process disavowing responsibility for its conclusions, virtually railroads the filing of the rate translation, eventually ends up elevating itself to an absurd level of infallibility, placing its determinations, no matter how infirm, beyond challenge on cross-examination.
Incredibly, ERC in PBR wants us to dissociate the so-called rate translation from ERC’s Rate Determinations which are the bases of that translation, especially when ERC has yet to resolve questions and issues raised by consumers on many major aspects of those Determinations.
This ERC PBR boggles the mind and beggars the poor.
If we did not have Mang Naro and Pete, we would already have drowned in all the oxymorons and non-sequiturs ERC has been spewing out lately.
And, we would have lost our shirts in the bargain, too.
Time we did something about our power rates, which is among the highest in the world.
Together with Dave Diwa, who has made his mark in consumer advocacies, we will organize – walk the talk – for Meralco customers.
Butch Junia
7/18-24/2011
The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) last month granted or approved Meralco’s Maximum Average Price (MAP) of P1.5828 per kilowatt hour for distribution, supply and metering (DSM) charges, to take effect July 2011.
Meralco’s DSM rate today is P1.6464 pkwh, granted by ERC for Regulatory Year (RY) 2011 (June 2010-July 2011).
It is a rate that consumers led by Mang Naro Lualhati say should only be P0.90 pkwh.
Meralco’s application in June 2010, approved exactly a year later, was for a rate increase to P1.7056 pkwh for RY 2012. This was ERC Case No. 2010-069RC.
Still, consumers led by Mang Naro say that rate should only be P0.90 pkwh.
P20-B Overcharge
When ERC announced last month its order granting Meralco’s latest overstated rate, ERC made much of the point that the rate they approved at P1.5828 pkwh was lower than the current rate of P1.6464 pkwh.
Mang Naro was not impressed – P1.5828 pkwh is still P0.6828 pkwh over the true rate, which he said was P0.90 pkwh. With Meralco’s annual sales of 30 Billion kwh, that would be an overcharge of over P20 Billion.
The ERC’s latest rate award to Meralco is also being challenged by other consumers like Pete Ilagan of the National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms or Nasecore.
They insist that ERC’s approval of Meralco’s Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR) was hasty, irregular, arbitrary and contrary to law and jurisprudence.
The ARR is the projected expense budget of Meralco that is now the basis for the rate that Meralco will charge us for the next four years, from July 2011 to June 2015.
ERC on Other Side
Last June 28, Meralco filed its application for approval of its MAP for RY 2012 and the translation of that MAP into a distribution rate structure for its various customer classes. This was docketed as ERC Case No. 2011-088RC, a new case.
As expected this drew loud protests from those who insist that there are many unresolved issues in the ARR application, ERC Case No. 2010-069RC.
Arguments and objections ranged from the legal, technical, policy, mathematical, etc.
Being familiar with the issues, I know the oppositors have the law, jurisprudence, logic, equity, fairness on their side.
Unfortunately, ERC is on the other side.
Reviewing the whole process that has been laid out by ERC under its so-called internationally-accepted rate-setting methodology – the PBR or Performance Based Regulation – consumers do not stand a chance, at all.
Draft Determination
I will just cite a few choice quotes from some of the PBR documents, and leave the rest to your curious minds.
On December 15, 2010, in the “Review of Operating and Maintenance Expenditure (OPEX) Forecast: Third Regulatory Period” prepared by ERC’s Regulatory Operations Service, the ROS said: “In this review, the ROS has relied on the accuracy of the information provided to the ERC by MERALCO.
“While during the clarificatory meeting process, ROS queried on information provided in the revenue application that appeared to be inconsistent or inaccurate, ROS did not undertake an audit or attempt to verify the information on which it based itsrecommendations. ROS, therefore, cannot be held responsible for any conclusions based on misleading or inaccurate information provided.”
Also on December 15, 2010, in the “DRAFT DETERMINATION” on ERC Case No. 2010-069RC, signed by Chairman Zenaida Cruz-Ducut, Commissioners Alejandro Barin, Jose Reyes and Maria Teresa Castaneda, the ERC said in Item 1.3.2: “The Draft Determination is not a final resolution of MERALCO’s applications. Xxx Moreover, the Draft Determination does not have any impact or bearing on MERALCO’s current distribution wheeling charges or will not be used to set future distribution wheeling charges.”
Final Determination
On June 6, 2011, in Page 6 of the FINAL DETERMINATION signed by Chairman Cruz-Ducut and Commissioners Barin, Reyes, Castaneda and Rauf Tan, the ERC said: “The Final Determination is the final resolution of MERALCO’s application. It presents the ERC’s final decision on the price control arrangements that will apply to MERALCO for the Third Regulatory Period and will form the basis on which MERALCO will prepare and submit its distribution rate applications for the Third Regulatory Period. Xxx These rate structures are to be filed with the ERC by June 13, 2011. Xxx The implementation of the new rate structures for the July 2011 billing period is the scheduled start of the Third Regulatory Period (July 1, 2011)…..”
On December 8, 2008, Res. No. 20, S. 2008 was adopted unanimously by Chairman Cruz-Ducut and Commissioners Barin, Reyes, Castaneda and Tan, Modifying the “Rules for Setting Distribution Wheeling Rates for Privately Owned Distribution Utilities Entering Performance Based Regulation (RDWR), with Article VII on the Regulatory Reset Process, providing in Item 7.2.4, as follows: “At these hearings the ERC will have the opportunity to question the Regulated Entity on its proposed distribution tariffs and parties of record to the rate case will have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses put forward by the Regulated Entity to defend its application.”
There is, however, a limitation to this cross-examination stated in Footnote 21 to this rule, to wit: “Note that the questions and cross-examination will only be allowed on aspects relevant to the rate application and not on earlier regulatory decisions or the basis on which these were made. For example, cross-examination on aspects decided by the ERC in its final determination on the price control arrangements for the relevant Regulatory Period will not be accepted at the hearings.”
Beyond Challenge
A Commission that started the rate process disavowing responsibility for its conclusions, virtually railroads the filing of the rate translation, eventually ends up elevating itself to an absurd level of infallibility, placing its determinations, no matter how infirm, beyond challenge on cross-examination.
Incredibly, ERC in PBR wants us to dissociate the so-called rate translation from ERC’s Rate Determinations which are the bases of that translation, especially when ERC has yet to resolve questions and issues raised by consumers on many major aspects of those Determinations.
This ERC PBR boggles the mind and beggars the poor.
If we did not have Mang Naro and Pete, we would already have drowned in all the oxymorons and non-sequiturs ERC has been spewing out lately.
And, we would have lost our shirts in the bargain, too.
Time we did something about our power rates, which is among the highest in the world.
Together with Dave Diwa, who has made his mark in consumer advocacies, we will organize – walk the talk – for Meralco customers.
Monday, July 18, 2011
The parasitic elite's victims
CONSUMERS DEMAND!
Herman Tiu Laurel
7/18-24/2011
Even though the thought of it isn’t new, reports such as the one filed last July 13 by Emmie Abadilla of the Manila Bulletin entitled, “Local telecom interconnection rates highest in the Asia-Pacific region,” only serve to remind us all of the extent of the abuse that we as consumers suffer on a regular basis. That story provided us with data on how Philippine cellphone rates are at the top in the region, “averaging at $0.10, versus its neighbors who charge from $0.03 to $0.05.” Translated, it means we’re paying around P4.30 for every interconnection from competing telecoms providers compared to, say, our neighboring Malaysia or Thailand, which only charge P1.34 to P2.20 for the same service. And that means ours is double or even triple their cost!
Unfortunately, this pattern is the same in many other privatized utility services in the Philippines--be it in electricity, water, port handling, or even toll ways. Of course, many Filipinos are by now aware that the price or rate-gouging in public utilities is not only limited to electricity ever since the era of privatization began.
Many of the owners of such privatized utilities are, in fact, interconnected or interlocked at the level of the Board of Directors and stockholders. Meralco is the prime example of this: Practically all the major oligarchs-slash-corporations today are feasting on the company’s highest power rates in Asia. These are so high that even congressional data showing us having the second highest industrial/commercial rates next to Singapore simply fall short of the truth as the greater bulk of Meralco’s revenues comes from residential consumers, who pay for rates that are up to 20 times higher than that of the industrial/commercial sector--and yes, higher still than Singapore’s.
It is indeed a feeding frenzy for this pod of killer whales gorging on everything the public vitally needs for a decent, modern, and productive life. Increasing the cost of these basic utilities has undoubtedly begun to shrink the Filipino middle class and consign much of 65 percent of our urban poor to a life reminiscent of the “Stone Age.”
Government institutions, I would like to believe, do try to restrain the greed of these oligarchs and mega-corporations, as the evidence shows with regard to the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC)’s attempt to bring down Philippine interconnection rates from P4.20 to P1 and text messaging charges from the current P0.35 to a more reasonable P0.15. This has forced some telecom companies to make their own proposals for a graduated decrease in their rates. Still, the NTC should force an immediate cut as these firms have long been feasting on the highest telecom rates in the Asia-Pacific for the past two decades.
Globe, for one, proposed a one-year grace period before reducing its text interconnection charges. But doesn’t that just translate to more needless billions, which texting consumers would have to pay for?
With the many rate increases the BSA III government is waiting to spring on the public--from MRT/LRT fares, to the Performance Based Regulation (PBR) rates in electricity, plus the Universal Charge that PSALM is itching to add to the mix--the burden on consumers will become even more unbearable.
When one observes how the privatization of utilities evolved in the Philippines, the pattern of consolidation of elite control of such assets--through political and financial chicanery; deception by trickery or sophistry; or both--was all brought down upon the consuming public after Edsa I, or the so-called Yellow “democratization” of the country.
Instead, what we had was the unending vilification of the State, where government institutions, as well as nationally-owned assets, were vigorously demonized and associated with the alleged excesses of former President Marcos and his cronies, despite the fact that the privatization frenzy that came after his fall had actually expanded the base of Edsa I cronies, chief of which are the old oligarchy--the Ayalas and Lopezes--as well as new globalist partners such as the Salim and Suharto groups of Indonesia and the transnational energy firm, Mirant.
All told, these oligarchs only gained new power over the State by capturing it and, with bribery of the corrupt political class, consisting of such well-entrenched families as the Cojuangcos, Lopezes, Macapagals, Roxases et al., through “elected” puppets such as FVR, Gloria, and now BSA III, drew up anti-people programs and policies such as the IPPs, EPIRA, and now BSA III’s Public-Private Partnerships.
The ongoing political, including judicial and financial, trickery and sophistry permeate the whole of our system today not just in privatized public utilities. In one of the largest economic sectors of our society, the ruling elite has just pulled off one of the greatest swindles in our history--the transfer of P70 billion of one portion of the Coconut Levy shares in San Miguel Corp. to Eduardo “Danding” Cojuangco. Imagine: Twenty-five million coconut industry dependents were sacrificed to satisfy just one man!
The whole system, from the legal practitioners, such as ACCRALaw, to the politicians it sprang like Enrile, Angara, Drilon, the late Raul Roco et al., to the entire judicial system, as well as the mainstream media, all collaborated to consummate this giant scam.
Another example is the Hacienda Luisita case, where the same ruling elite, with its politicians and lawyers, and the judicial system subverted the original stipulations of the government loans to the other Cojuangco clan for obtaining the said property, which involved the eventual transfer of the actual land to the farmers--not so-called “shares” of stocks.
This leads me to a quote I have repeatedly paraphrased for readers to instill this lesson of history: Arnold J. Toynbee in A Study of History wrote that “the cause of the fall of a civilization occurred when a cultural elite became a parasitic elite, leading to the rise of internal… proletariats” or the people alienated from the fruits of the economy.
The earlier the Filipino people and consumers, particularly the middle class, learn that they can no longer trust the ruling elite, the earlier they will be ready for meaningful change. All our present rulers are simply parasites; we need a new “savior” to gather our growing popular rage into an organized movement.
We, the non-elite and non-oligarchs, are all victims of the parasitic elite. It is time that we launch the final campaigns to pull down these parasites from their perches of power so that they will be finally crushed beneath our feet.
(Tune in to Radyo OpinYon, Monday to Friday, 5 to 6 p.m., and Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; Talk News TV with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on GNN, Destiny Cable Channel 8, on “Franchising: Hope for Economic Recovery”; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com for our articles plus select radio and GNN shows)
Herman Tiu Laurel
7/18-24/2011
Even though the thought of it isn’t new, reports such as the one filed last July 13 by Emmie Abadilla of the Manila Bulletin entitled, “Local telecom interconnection rates highest in the Asia-Pacific region,” only serve to remind us all of the extent of the abuse that we as consumers suffer on a regular basis. That story provided us with data on how Philippine cellphone rates are at the top in the region, “averaging at $0.10, versus its neighbors who charge from $0.03 to $0.05.” Translated, it means we’re paying around P4.30 for every interconnection from competing telecoms providers compared to, say, our neighboring Malaysia or Thailand, which only charge P1.34 to P2.20 for the same service. And that means ours is double or even triple their cost!
Unfortunately, this pattern is the same in many other privatized utility services in the Philippines--be it in electricity, water, port handling, or even toll ways. Of course, many Filipinos are by now aware that the price or rate-gouging in public utilities is not only limited to electricity ever since the era of privatization began.
Many of the owners of such privatized utilities are, in fact, interconnected or interlocked at the level of the Board of Directors and stockholders. Meralco is the prime example of this: Practically all the major oligarchs-slash-corporations today are feasting on the company’s highest power rates in Asia. These are so high that even congressional data showing us having the second highest industrial/commercial rates next to Singapore simply fall short of the truth as the greater bulk of Meralco’s revenues comes from residential consumers, who pay for rates that are up to 20 times higher than that of the industrial/commercial sector--and yes, higher still than Singapore’s.
It is indeed a feeding frenzy for this pod of killer whales gorging on everything the public vitally needs for a decent, modern, and productive life. Increasing the cost of these basic utilities has undoubtedly begun to shrink the Filipino middle class and consign much of 65 percent of our urban poor to a life reminiscent of the “Stone Age.”
Government institutions, I would like to believe, do try to restrain the greed of these oligarchs and mega-corporations, as the evidence shows with regard to the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC)’s attempt to bring down Philippine interconnection rates from P4.20 to P1 and text messaging charges from the current P0.35 to a more reasonable P0.15. This has forced some telecom companies to make their own proposals for a graduated decrease in their rates. Still, the NTC should force an immediate cut as these firms have long been feasting on the highest telecom rates in the Asia-Pacific for the past two decades.
Globe, for one, proposed a one-year grace period before reducing its text interconnection charges. But doesn’t that just translate to more needless billions, which texting consumers would have to pay for?
With the many rate increases the BSA III government is waiting to spring on the public--from MRT/LRT fares, to the Performance Based Regulation (PBR) rates in electricity, plus the Universal Charge that PSALM is itching to add to the mix--the burden on consumers will become even more unbearable.
When one observes how the privatization of utilities evolved in the Philippines, the pattern of consolidation of elite control of such assets--through political and financial chicanery; deception by trickery or sophistry; or both--was all brought down upon the consuming public after Edsa I, or the so-called Yellow “democratization” of the country.
Instead, what we had was the unending vilification of the State, where government institutions, as well as nationally-owned assets, were vigorously demonized and associated with the alleged excesses of former President Marcos and his cronies, despite the fact that the privatization frenzy that came after his fall had actually expanded the base of Edsa I cronies, chief of which are the old oligarchy--the Ayalas and Lopezes--as well as new globalist partners such as the Salim and Suharto groups of Indonesia and the transnational energy firm, Mirant.
All told, these oligarchs only gained new power over the State by capturing it and, with bribery of the corrupt political class, consisting of such well-entrenched families as the Cojuangcos, Lopezes, Macapagals, Roxases et al., through “elected” puppets such as FVR, Gloria, and now BSA III, drew up anti-people programs and policies such as the IPPs, EPIRA, and now BSA III’s Public-Private Partnerships.
The ongoing political, including judicial and financial, trickery and sophistry permeate the whole of our system today not just in privatized public utilities. In one of the largest economic sectors of our society, the ruling elite has just pulled off one of the greatest swindles in our history--the transfer of P70 billion of one portion of the Coconut Levy shares in San Miguel Corp. to Eduardo “Danding” Cojuangco. Imagine: Twenty-five million coconut industry dependents were sacrificed to satisfy just one man!
The whole system, from the legal practitioners, such as ACCRALaw, to the politicians it sprang like Enrile, Angara, Drilon, the late Raul Roco et al., to the entire judicial system, as well as the mainstream media, all collaborated to consummate this giant scam.
Another example is the Hacienda Luisita case, where the same ruling elite, with its politicians and lawyers, and the judicial system subverted the original stipulations of the government loans to the other Cojuangco clan for obtaining the said property, which involved the eventual transfer of the actual land to the farmers--not so-called “shares” of stocks.
This leads me to a quote I have repeatedly paraphrased for readers to instill this lesson of history: Arnold J. Toynbee in A Study of History wrote that “the cause of the fall of a civilization occurred when a cultural elite became a parasitic elite, leading to the rise of internal… proletariats” or the people alienated from the fruits of the economy.
The earlier the Filipino people and consumers, particularly the middle class, learn that they can no longer trust the ruling elite, the earlier they will be ready for meaningful change. All our present rulers are simply parasites; we need a new “savior” to gather our growing popular rage into an organized movement.
We, the non-elite and non-oligarchs, are all victims of the parasitic elite. It is time that we launch the final campaigns to pull down these parasites from their perches of power so that they will be finally crushed beneath our feet.
(Tune in to Radyo OpinYon, Monday to Friday, 5 to 6 p.m., and Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; Talk News TV with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on GNN, Destiny Cable Channel 8, on “Franchising: Hope for Economic Recovery”; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com for our articles plus select radio and GNN shows)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
