Lower the MRT fares

DIE HARD III

Herman Tiu Laurel

10/29/2012

The O&M (Operation and Maintenance) cost of the MRT is now shown to be actually lower than MRT fares now charged, based on data obtained from the RILES Network, Ibon Foundation, Agham and Bayan Muna research. Using the "farebox method," i.e. the proportion of the fare revenues to the total operational costs of the trains, they found the MRT O&M per passenger costing only P9.11 compared to fares ranging from P10 to P15 per passenger. Agham's Giovanni Tapang writes: "…an MRT customer is already paying P0.89 to P5.89 more than what is necessary to maintain the MRT." Each MRT passenger today is paying more than enough for the O&M of the MRT, plus an excess that likely goes to the so-called "subsidy." The subsidy clearly does not go to commuters as the Aquino III government claims; rather, it has gone and continues to flow to a train of financial oligarchs that have scammed the country.

Data from the RILES Network research are reliable. Among their members and leadership are former employees and workers of the LRT and MRT who have the inside info. RILES lead convenor Sammy Malunes is a former worker and union leader of the LRT. With Malunes, we launched the anti-MRT fare hike signature campaign last week. The RILES Network and its allied groups have solid information on the O&M of the MRT. Their research used the "farebox ratios" for the LRT1 and LRT 2 showing an average of 1.39 and 1.01, respectively, meaning their respective revenues cover already the total O&M cost of running the trains, and more. So where goes the "P7-billion" annual subsidy the DoTC claims it provides? Certainly, not to the commuters! The MRT and LRT fares can and should actually be lowered now, given the figures presented by the RILES Network.

If the DoTC will dispute the figures put forth by the RILES Network, it should bring out its own O&M data to prove its claims that the MRT is losing money in its operations and the government annual subsidy of around 7-billion really goes to the commuters whom they constantly blame and fault for the losses. The fact is the DoTC has never presented the complete picture and/or convincing data to explain the MRT losses, preferring to engage the public with propaganda and sowing intrigue — repetition of the unsubstantiated claim of "subsidy" to commuters and trying to distract by sowing discord between "spoiled" Metro Manila MRT commuters who take away from rural folks who neither benefit from riding the "subsidized" MRT-LRT and deprived of similar benefit. Now it's clear the millions of MRT commuters are not subsidized.

Where then is the P 7-billion annual subsidy — plus the P0.89 to P5.89 MRT commuters are paying over the O&M cost — where is all these going to? By simple reckoning, the financial burden taxpayers and MRT commuters are paying can be calculated by deducting the "farebox ratios" from the guaranteed P60/pax fare. The balance of P50 is the subsidy the people are paying. That burden started with Fidel V. Ramos, Sobrepenas, Ayala, Agustines and Campos groups that contracted the P60 MRT fare, onerous passenger quota, 15 percent profit guarantees; with advertising, concession and real estate revenues were meted out. The "investors" have since sold and resold four times over the projected MRT profits — to MRTC3FC, MPIC (Pangilinan), Goldman Sachs, Bobby Ongpin, back to government with profits made at each turn.

In the last reselling of the MRT to the government it got 80 percent MRT ownership, but without demanding or obtaining a single voting right on the board controlling the MRT operations. How in heaven's name does any buyer accept such an arrangement, owning 80 percent and having no say in any of the operations of the entity? That transaction involving Ongpin and the GMA administration using DBP and LBP funds seem to be an incontrovertible case of graft and plunder, but the Aquino III administration is no without it shady deal in the MRT case. The current DoTC chief is proposing now a complete buyback supposedly to "refinance and lower the cost of the 15percent profit guarantee," but still pressing the MRT (and LRT) fare hike and committed to re-privatizing the entire operation under the PPP (Public-Private Partnership) with government footing 50 percent of the investment.

Far from being subsidized, MRT commuters are hit with a triple whammy: paying overpriced MRT fares of which 30 percent goes to subsidizing a series of financial scammers, paying as taxpayers to the yearly P7-billion subsidy to the financial scammers, and getting blamed by government for a the subsidy that as commuters they never enjoyed. The public must put an end to the government and oligarchs' pressure to raise the MRT fares, MRT fares must be reduced to what is just and productive for all, and the serial financial scammers starting with FVR, Gloria Arroyo and oligarchs must all be investigated and prosecuted.

(Watch GNN's HTL show, GNN Channel 8, Saturdays, 8:15 to 9 p.m., 11:15 p.m. and Sunday 8 a.m., and over www.gnntv-asia.com. Tune to 1098AM radio Tuesday to Friday 5 to 6 p.m. or visit http://newkatipunan.blogspot.com)

BAT-man and 'robins'

DIE HARD III

Herman Tiu Laurel

10/22/2012

Department of Finance Secretary Purisima is pushing to raise P40 billion by raising the excise tax on domestic, Filipino-made and produced tobacco and cigarette products by five times while leaving taxes on luxury and imported brands practically untouched. The real backer of the "Purisima Sin Tax" bill, is the British American Tobacco (BAT) Corp. Here's a headline from Philippine Star, Oct. 15 by Iris Gonzales: "Brit-Am Tobacco backs House version of sin tax bill… In a position paper, BAT asked lawmakers to pass a bill that would level the playing field in the industry…" Leveling can be read to mean "bulldozing" the Philippine tobacco industry. As a sales pitch, BAT promises to invest in a $200-million cigarette plant in the Philippines, but what need would BAT have of a plant if the taxes of tobacco products produced in the Philippines already increase by five times?

It is vital to take the warnings that tobacco smuggling will ensue massively if the "Purisima Sin Tax," the BAT-man, is approved. Here is a British House of Commons presentation in 2000, "Note of Evidence by Duncan Campbell in respect of Planning, Organization and Management of Cigarette Smuggling by British American Tobacco, PLC and related issues …. the activities of British American Tobacco PLC ('BAT') and its predecessor, subsidiary and group companies during the period from 1970 to date. It is based on enquiries made by the author and others as part of an international investigation conducted during 1999 by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, a project of the Center for Public Integrity ('CPI')… a Washington based public interest research group… The major issues … are: A) Smuggling … the deliberate smuggling of BAT products evolved from an ad hoc activity into an organized and centrally managed system of lawbreaking..."

The House of Commons report continues: "Support for criminal activity is endemic among BAT senior managers … in planning, organizing or managing criminal activity, and/or have knowingly consented to the deliberate smuggling of contraband BAT tobacco products around the world. A very substantial part of the company's revenues derives from this … BAT has provided support to narcotics traffickers and other organized crime… supported the smuggling of narcotics (cocaine, crack and heroin) by providing tobacco products with which value may be returned to producer countries. This is particularly so where international controls have been developed to restrict money-laundering of the proceeds of narcotics sales… A... consequence of the company's actions is and has been to remove billions of pounds annually from the income of governments … around the world…."

In 2005 Jamie Doward of The Observer reported, "'Smuggling claims hit tobacco giant'… Fresh allegations rock BAT as six-year investigation by the Mounties leads to publication of secret letters… it had colluded in a multimillion-pound smuggling operation. " Among its references is a research paper entitled 'Complicity in contraband: British American Tobacco and cigarette smuggling in Asia … Objectives': To examine the complicity of British American Tobacco (BAT) in cigarette smuggling in Asia, and … centrality of illicit trade to regional corporate strategy … Results: BAT documents demonstrate the strategic importance of smuggling across global, regional, national and local levels. Particularly important in Asia, contraband enabled access to closed markets, created pressure for market opening and was highly profitable…."

In the heat of the "Purisima Sin Tax" bill debate the head of the Presidential Legislative Liaison Office (PLLO) Manuel Mamba alleged that the "bribe" money had circulated in the Philippine Senate to water down the radical "Purisima Sin Tax." Sen. Ralph Recto felt alluded to and resigned his post as head of the ways and means committee handling the "sin tax" proposal. I don't think Recto is that thin skinned to resign over such simple allegations, most of these politicians are inured to such charges as lobby money is a regular mode of transaction among them as Recto knows from the VAT on fuel taxes which he allowed to be passed on. A threat more serious than mere allegations of "bribery" must have forced Recto's resignation, something like an Amla violation (as in Corona's case), paving the way for takeover by a pliant Drilon.

"Robin" in the urban dictionary means "nice person," BAT cultivates such "robins" or lobbyists. From Wikipedia for example, "British American Tobacco spent more than 700,000 euros lobbying the European Union in 2008, up to four times as much as the company declared on the EU's register of interest representatives, according to a report by Corporate Europe Observatory." There are other insidious lobbies, such as Bloomberg's Tobacco Control Grants masked under "smoke free" campaigns. On Scott.net on the Internet Mayor Bloomberg of New York City, leading the Bloomberg Foundations, is quoted saying "We want to get governments to raise taxes…" some Philippine recipients: $255,626 for Action for Economic Reforms, $300,960 for "HealthJustice" Foundation, $234,794 for UP College of Law, among a list of over 20 local NGOs and institutions.

(Watch Destiny Cable GNN's HTL edition Channel 8, Saturdays, 8:15 to 9 p.m., replay 11:15 p.m. and Sunday, and on www.gnntv-asia.com: this week "Bangsamoro ap-piece-ment" with lawyers Bono Adaza and Alan Paguia; tune to 1098AM radio Tuesday to Friday 5 to 6 p.m. http://newkatipunan.blogspot.com)

Meralco's 'bilk' deposit

DIE HARD III

Herman Tiu Laurel

10/19/2012

It took every Meralco watcher a day or two before the "bill deposit" the power distribution utility company wanted to raise, could be figured out. The "bill deposit" was Greek to most people and nobody recalled it existed until it was raised two weeks ago because Meralco wanted to raise it. The "bill deposit" is a "security deposit" listed among "customer protection" in a "Magna Carta for Residential Electricity Consumers, one-month estimated consumption of the Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) customer held by the company and forfeited in case of non-payment of bills. On its face the deposit seems simple and fair, but the devil for Meralco and the saving grace for consumers are in the details. We're glad Meralco opened this Pandora's box and a chest full of rectifications consumers must demand.

Power crusader Butch Junia set us a comprehensive paper on the Magna Carta based on , Section 31 of ... 9136 (Epira), adopted by the ERC on June 9, 2004: the "bill deposit" is defined as "the deposit required from customers by distribution utilities (DU) of new and/or additional service equivalent to the estimated billing for one month to guarantee the payment of the bills." Among the basic rights of consumers there are: "quality, reliable, affordable, safe and regular supply of power"; and a most notable provisions is Article 7 of chapter II, Consumer Rights which says, "A customer who has paid his electricity bill on or before its due date for three (3) consecutive years may, however, demand full refund of the deposit even prior to the termination of his service. An application for this purpose shall be filed with the concerned distribution utility which must refund the deposit within one month from receipt of such application."

Butch Junia cites a most vital provision: "Distribution utilities (DU) shall pay interest on bill deposits equivalent to the interest incorporated in the calculation of their Weighted Average Capital Cost (WACC), otherwise the deposit shall earn an interest per annum in accordance with the prevailing interest for savings deposit as approved by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). The interest shall be credited yearly to the bills of the registered customer." To sum up these three provisions mentioned here: 1) electricity customers have a right to "affordable" electricity; 2) a customer who pays his bill on time unerringly for three (3) years can demand a refund of the "bill deposit"; 3) the DUs should pay interest on the "bill deposit" equivalent to the DUs' interest on its WACC as approved by ERC in the current "regulatory period" of 14.75 percent or the prevailing savings deposit rates.

The amount of "bill deposits" Meralco accumulated based on its 2011 sales of P 256 billion is about P 25.6 billion. Junia's writes: "Meralco's 1st VP Ivanna de la Peña … confirmed that 90,000 of their customers were sent the notice of increase for the month of October, … other batches for every month will be receiving the same kind of notice. These were the disconnected customers or those who received three disconnection notices within the year, ... about 1.2 million customers in one year, or roughly 20 percent of its five (5) million customer base. By a straightforward analysis … of the P26.4 billion cash pile, about P5.2 billion would be adequate to answer for the problem accounts and the rest, the P21.12 billion should already be returned to the customers … The provision for bad debts (incorporated in our bills — htl) is almost P700 million; the Working Capital is P1.156 billion (consumers also provide — htl) … are substantial buffers … Why then, should the rest of Meralco's captive customers — 75 percent of its customer base — be penalized."

Now, the great swindle coverts the "bill deposit" to a "bilk deposit": "ERC has given Meralco a WACC of 14.75 percent, resulting in Meralco's return on capital of P19.77 billion for RY 2013. In arriving at the WACC, Meralco's cost of debt was benchmarked to a low of 10.8 percent, ... and high of 13.7percent. That is the cost of Meralco's borrowings and … recovered from us (consumers)… but in November, 2010, ERC un-coupled the interest from WACC and pegged it to the Land Bank rate at the start of the year which is 0.5 percent in 2011, 0.75 percent in 2010." So now, all the 5-million Meralco customers are losing at least 14 percent in interest earning from the "bill deposit" which Meralco is now keeping as part of its profits. This amendment happened in 2010 under the watch of ERC chairman Zenaida Ducut, with commissioners Rauf Tan, Alejandro Barin, Ma. Teresa Castañeda and Jose Reyes.

The millions of electricity consumers all over the country are victimized by ERC's gross failure to disseminate information needed by consumers; and manipulations of the Magna Carta and the Epira by elements in the ERC and Meralco. It is clear consumers are being bilked of billions more in this "bill deposit" hike. We will bring these to the Ombudsman, but the ultimate protection of consumers is awareness, vigilance and militancy. It's time all consumers act as one.

(Watch Destiny Cable GNN's HTL edition channel 8, Saturdays, 8:15 to 9 p.m., replay 11:15 p.m. and Sunday, and on www.gnntv-asia.com: this week "Meralco's 'Bilk' Deposit'"; tune to 1098AM radio Tuesday to Friday 5 to 6 p.m. http://newkatipunan.blogspot.com)

Moneymen awards

DIE HARD III

Herman Tiu Laurel

10/15/2012

Are readers more impressed now with the Department of Finance secretary with this headline last Sunday: "Purisima gets global award for 'unforgiving' campaign vs tax evasion" coming from Euromoney magazine, a publication for international bankers and money-men. Anything described as "global" should be impressive, with dramatic emphasis on "unforgiving campaign" against pernicious "tax evasion" even. If I hadn't an inkling of Euromoney's awards record I too would be very impressed with Purisima's accolades, but I remember Euromoney in 1995 awarding Bobby de Ocampo "Best Finance Minister" who was caught clueless during the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis which saw a 40 percent plunge in the peso. Today, Euromoney shows its checkered ratings, awarding Barclays Bank "Best Investment Bank" despite its central role in the "biggest banking scam ever" of the Libor scandal.

A few months ago we wrote in this column about "Lie-bor and our labors," on how the banks concentrated in the City of London (a one-square mile where the world's major banks are located) regularly manipulated global interest rates that invariably steal the value of the hard works of nations like our overseas Filipino workers. The Libor rate is used to set the price of around £223 trillion of lending and derivatives. Barclays was at the center of the Libor (London Inter-Bank Offered Rate) scandal and its chairman, CEO and COO were forced to resign because of the scandal. Yet Euromoney has just given not only one award as I mentioned above, but two more for Excellence 2012 including the "Best Global Debt" and "Best Global Flow House." Apparently, the Euromoney board sees the world, money and people differently from the rest of us ordinary folks, and fraudsters are heroes so long as they earn money for the banks.

The "prestigious magazine" Euromoney lauds Purisima for unleashing "an unforgiving strategy to combat tax evasion and maximize revenue from corporates without introducing any new taxes or reforms." Jus to show the ironies: the VAT on toll fees were deemed by the DoF as an "old tax" despite being imposed only now in the time of Purisima. Seventy percent of the economy is really the underground economy, which technically all consists of tax evaders. Euromoney adds, "Purisima has worked closely with President Aquino to champion the idea that 'good governance is good economics.' Bankers in the country say he has stuck to his guns, and the country is reaping the rewards." Like sticking to increasing Philippines debt despite the Philippines' GIR (gross international reserves) at $ 83 billion enjoys $20-billion surplus over the $ 63-billion foreign debt and P 1.7 trillion in SDA (special deposit account) lying idle costing taxpayers four-percent interest. The country's reward is annual $ 200-billion debt payments.

Special praise for Purisima was also heaped for his campaign to raise "sin" taxes on domestic tobacco and cigarette products to the same level as foreign and luxury brands. This campaign has been masked by appeals to "health" but the underlying objective is really to price local tobacco and cigarettes out of the market in favor of foreign and luxury brands, at the same time favoring foreign tobacco and cigarette companies again that would find an expanded market for the inevitably and massively cheaper smuggled tobacco products they can bring in. Purisima was informed of the award while in Tokyo for the International Monetary Fund-World Bank meetings, and put on a show of modesty saying "I'd like to especially recognize Internal Revenue Commissioner Kim Henares … as well as Budget Secretary Butch Abad," both of whom are key allies in the "sin tax" campaign to favor foreign tobacco producers.

Tax collector Purisima is the idol of the bankers and money men, but he's a bane on the taxpaying people. Mark Twain asks: "What is the difference between a taxidermist and a tax collector? The taxidermist takes only your skin." Of course, we recall that wonderful song from the Beatles: "Let me tell you how it will be; There's one for you, nineteen for me; 'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman/ Should five per cent appear too small; Be thankful I don't take it all; 'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman/ If you drive a car, I'll tax the street, If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat./ If you get too cold I'll tax the heat, If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet./Don't ask me what I want it for/ If you don't want to pay some more; 'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman/ Now my advice for those who die, Declare the pennies on your eyes, 'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman/ And you're working for no one but me."

(Watch Destiny Cable GNN's HTL edition channel 8, Saturdays, 8:15 to 9 p.m., replay 11:15 p.m. and Sunday, and on www.gnntv-asia.com: this week "People's Power Struggle"; tune to 1098AM radio Tuesday to Friday 5 to 6 p.m. http://newkatipunan.blogspot.com)

Democracy and Dynasties

PEOPLE'S STRUGGLE

Herman Tiu Laurel

10/15-21/2012

dy·nas·ty (dn-st) : n. pl. dy·nas·ties 1. A succession of rulers from the same family or line; 2. A family or group that maintains power for several generations: a political dynasty controlling the state. (FreeOnLine dictionary)

THE GOOD: The Lees form a political dynasty in Singapore, Hsien Loong the son took over from patriarch Lee Kwan Yew after a brief transition with Goh, while Mrs. Lee tended to the economic and financial affairs of the State. Despite the enviable success of the small country they managed to become a global powerhouse, there are Singapore critics of the Lee dynasty. Between the Good and the Bad are the controversial dynasties, such as Sukarnos in Indonesia, Tanakas in Japan, Kennedys in the U.S. Shinawatras in Thailand, Marcoses in the Philippines. The Bad and Ugly: a long list can be cited, from the controversial three generation rule of the Bush family in the U.S. marked by charges of war-for-profit to the most crude, retarded and oppressive Duvalier dynasty in Haiti.

Dynasties in electoral democracies are alternately called "democratic dynasties" to distinguish from the non-electoral dynasties. China has its modern form of the ancient dynasties, but instead of names like Shi, Tang or Qing dynasty there is the CPC dynasty (Communist Party of China) and its third generation inheritors today. "Princelings" of the revolutionary leadership led by Mao Tse Tung and the Five Immortals today rule China. A prime example of a democratic dynasty is the Gandhi-Nehru dynasty in India which controls the ruling party of India, the Congress Party which is now into its fourth generation. Democratic dynasties must also be distinguished from the outright feudal forms of dynasties as are prevalent in U.S.-British backed Middle Eastern states such as Saudi Arabia of the Saud Family, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, etc.

Antis, Pros and apathy
Democratic dynasty controversies abound in the world. Critics come mainly from the intelligentsia, the educated middle classes of the respective societies, agitating to contain such dynasties. Favoring undisturbed continuance of democratic dynasties are mainly the democratic dynasties themselves and/or the political parties they lead. Rural folks generally are apathetic to the issue. We can glean these impressions from observing Philippine society itself, but a statistical study is reported in an article Ronald U. Mendoza of the Asian Institute of Management, published in March of 2012 months before the current controversy over dynasties since the latest filing of certificates of candidacies in October that revealed a resurgence of political dynasties in Philippine politics.

Mendoza writes: "In varying degrees, political dynasties can exist in any democracy … Legislators and parliamentarians with dynastic links range from 6% in the United States to as high as 37–40% in the Philippines and Mexico. In the case of the Philippines, if we also consider familial links to local government units, the figure reaches an amazing 70%. Roughly 80% of the youngest legislators in the Philippines also hail from dynastic political families." Dynasty-ism is, based on this finding of Mendoza, actually the dominant mode of politics in the Philippines. It must be perceived as a real problem since the 1987 Constitutional Commission wrote into the basic law a ban on political dynasties.

Dynasties stonewall Constitution
Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution states: "The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.", but the legislature is dominated by members of political, democratic dynasties. Thus, for twenty-five years the political dynasty ban has languished as a mere principle. Backlash to the political dynasty trend grew as unprecedented two-member presence of families emerged in the Senate, with the Cayetanos, for example, and the 2013 senatorial saw prospects of two Enriles sitting in the Senate, two Estrada, while the scion of Angara also looms, the Aquinos field presidential nephew Bam Aquino, and the Singsons apportion provincial governorship and a congressional seat amongst its scions (including a convicted drug user). This trend is all over the country. The Constitutional anti-dynasty ban is doomed to oblivion as political dynasties in the legislature seem bound to grow in numbers and strength.

Democratic Ideals
The ideal of democracy is that of limiting concentration of political power and distribution of the exercise of such power to as many participating citizens as possible. The English Magna Carta of 1215 is seen as the root of modern democracy. The Magna Carta set out rules for rulers written by those to be governed, limiting the powers of rulers and guaranteeing liberties and rights to those governed. These rights later included the right to stand for election to office. Since that time, the modern democratic ideal has been to limit the powers of rulers and expand the powers of the citizenry and the right to be elected to participate in legislation and governance.

Does political dynasty-ism in the Philippines work against the democratic deals? It definitely does, here's one instance: as scions of political families monopolize the political party drafts at the expense, say of affirmative action to include Muslim senatorial candidates. The Philippine senate has not had a Muslim senator for several terms now. This in turn has destabilized our national government because of the absence of Muslim representation. If the ban on political dynasties is now enabled in law several seats would be left free that would allow political parties to consider other potential candidates and ensure more diversity in the composition of the Senate. The same can be true in the Lower House where dozens of seats would be freed for non-dynastic candidates to run for, and fill.

Pork Dynasties
A ban on political dynasties would also help in preventing the growing concentration of the "pork barrel" funds in many levels of governance, in the hands of fewer and fewer political families. A congressman gets P 70-million in pork annually or P 210-million in a three-year term, each senator is entitled to P 200-million in the same every year amounting to P 1.2-Billion in a six year term. Just imagine the amounts political families can accumulate if they have two or more scions in the Senate or the House, plus more in the national and local executive branches. Pork barrels are becoming standard privilege in local governments too, a Quezon City councilor gets P 42-Million annually in "pork". It must be noted that there was no "pork barrel" under Marcos, cory Aquino introduced that to Philippine politics.

The pork barrel of politicians is "rent-seeking", earned for producing no real goods or service, and only for holding a position. This is an important, if not more important, as the constitutional issue of political dynasties ban. The pork barrel is the stinking, rotten lure for the opportunistic to spend and win elections and control political positions; it distorts at the very onset the entire political and democratic electoral intention and process. Political dynasty-ism multiplies its ugly head if the pork barrel did not exist or were outlawed and corruption would be nipped in the bud. Jawant Singh, former Indian finance minister, on corruption: "The 'dynasticism' that has taken such a firm grip on much of Indian politics plays a large role in fostering corruption. … Preserving hereditary privileges invariably means that rules and governmental processes get bent, if not made wholly subservient to dynastic concerns…."

Dynasto-saurs and voters
India, grappling with the issue of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, is rich in studies of this issue. In "Dynasty and Democracy: Of Families, Modernization and Legitimacy" leading political columnist Karan Thapar writes: "First, political children have to win elections to get into the system…Second, for their party to survive dynastic leadership has to inspire voters or survive the long period of drought when the response is adverse…The advantage a dynasty confers on a political party could be substantial. Immediate recognition, mass appeal, a certain savoir-faire and a capacity to cement a party, bind its factions, resolve differences and provide a coherent central command-like control. Elected leaders, who can be challenged, often cannot deliver as much."

Contrarily, British writers Heather MacRobie write in "Dangers of 'dynastical democracy'… The negative effects of 'democratic dynasties' are obvious: a fossilisation of the elite decays democracy as well as social and economic mobility, fostering 'rent-seeking' behavior … But political discourse can deteriorate as names become more important than issues. …" My last word: voters choice are limited by Philippine political dynasties' monopolization of the party and political nominations. Voters are pre-empted from having a broader choice of candidates. Society has the right and the power to regulate the power wielders and the political process, the ban on political dynasties is an exercise of that but that constitutional provision, which is among this nation's democratic ideals, is doomed to sat upon until death by suffocation by the Dynasto-saurs in the Senate and Congress.

(Watch Destiny Cable GNN's HTL edition channel 8, Saturdays, 8:15 to 9 p.m., replay 11:15 p.m. and Sunday, and onwww.gnntv-asia.com: this week "People's Power Struggle"; tune to 1098AM radio Tues. To Fri. 5 to 6pmhttp://newkatipunan.blogspot.com)

The presidency or the republic (conclusion)

BACKBENCHER

Rod P. Kapunan

10/13-14/2012

Martial law cannot be judged on its face value because any extraordinary use of power by the State would always induce a negative reaction from the people. The Pareto Principle is at work because an increase in the power of the State always and residually would result in the diminution of individual rights. Individual rights and state power cannot go hand in hand or altogether expand on the assumption they compliment each other.

Those who opposed martial law could never comprehend that individual rights can only operate in a civil society where the rights of all are synchronized to blend in harmony, and not when they tend to override on the rights of others. It is in the overlapping of rights that result in their dysfunctional operability, thus forcing the State to enter the picture. The motive is not really to curtail individual freedom, but to regulate freedom so that the freedom of others could function. No individual has the power or the capacity to do this; only the State by the use of its omnipotent power.

Even the opposition could not deny that in the first five years of martial law, the country experienced tremendous economic progress. Most important, peace and order, and faith in government were restored. Marcos himself was overwhelmed by the sudden surge in his popularity.

While it would be self-serving to cite the statistical economic gains achieved during the martial law period, the best and undeniable proof to this is the continued longing by people who experienced the peace and serenity in their community and the strides in economic development. Time has given them the opportunity to compare history with the present, which now tends to validate that martial law slogan which says, "Sa ikauunlad ng bayan, disiplina ang kailangan."

Sixth, martial law was bound to affect people who premeditatedly sought to have it declared by their participation in that violent enterprise. This was evident by the re-establishment of the Communist Party of the Philippines under the leadership of a romanticist ideologue. Jose Ma. Sison exhibited himself as ruthlessly cunning. He and his young firebrands taunted Marcos to declare martial law by systematically orchestrating violence, often sacrificing the lives of innocent people.

As utterly ruthless, they refused to admit that it was their adventurism that blinded them into complete subjectivism. For that, they entertained the notion that by combining violence and propaganda, they could force Marcos to impose martial law. In fact, they believed it could lead to his political isolation, and in no time will be defeated by their concept of "people's war." But contrary to what they expected, martial law resulted in them being routed, and no sooner the people began to have faith in their government. The reckless revolution cooked up by an ideological megalomania duped many young and idealistic people to believe that victory was at hand. Many were incarcerated; some died or were killed fighting a lost cause.

Finally, when they realized their revolution was fading beyond redemption, they began to cannibalize their own followers accusing them of betrayal and methodically executing them. The genocide earned them the distinction as the only revolutionary movement in the world to wage war against their own people, instead waging a war against their sworn enemy.

While the opposition, disguised as civil libertarians, refused to agree with the decision of the Supreme Court affirming the validity of martial law, as decided in the Josue Javellana vs. the Executive Secretary, et al., G. R. No. L-36142, March 31, 1973, the fact remains that there were valid and factual bases for the declaration of martial law, which have been verified as true by objective history itself.

That interregnum necessitated that, in the absence of Congress to carry out the task of legislation, the President, by virtue of the powers vested in him as martial law administrator, could validly issue decrees that would have the same force and effect as legislated laws. Yet, when Mrs. Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 3 on March 25, 1986, scrapping the 1973 Constitution, not one from the opposition, the elite, the ultra conservative Church, and the radical Left questioned her act.

Looking at the "Whereas" clauses in Proclamation No. 3 issued by Mrs. Aquino, or Adopting A Provisional Constitution, the only factual basis stated therein was her unbridled hatred, contempt, and lust for vengeance. Other than its self-serving arrogance of having been installed with the support of renegades from the Armed Forces, the Cory Aquino government stated that her decision to declare a revolutionary government was "in defiance of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution."

There was much hubris in her that could only be matched by her unfathomable hypocrisy. It was an open declaration that she was above the law, equivocally telling the people she has the power to erase Marcos from all the pages in our history of which no civilized government is supposed to state in its own laws.

Maybe we cannot compare, but the truth remains painful that this nation accepted gracefully the rehabilitation of the President who served the Japanese occupation as they transform the country into a killing field. Yet, the man who saved the Republic and dedicated his entire life uplifting our people from the morass of poverty and exploitation continues to be maligned. This is telling of us as a people and as a nation.

If only we have learned to evolve beyond the pedestal of recrimination, the basic question should not be about martial law. It should be about the man who used that means that should be judged by history. Yes, he was ousted, but it does not detract us from the truth that he achieved much for the Republic he presided during those turbulent times.

rpkapunan@gmail.com

'Ap-piece-ment'

DIE HARD III

Herman Tiu Laurel

10/12/2012

The acknowledged territory of the Republic of the Philippines has since Edsa I been apportioned to foreign countries: a piece here, a piece there. Sabah, ARMM and now the expanded Bangsamoro and the Sulu Sea. This is "ap-piece-ment" of the Republic to the foreign powers and interests. Led by a scion of the Yellow ruling class, the country now submits again the Filipino people to humiliation and imperial victimization again in an onerous, destructive ceding of Cotabato City, Isabela City, and the municipalities of Baloi, Munai, Nunungan, Pantar, Tagoloan and Tangkal in Lanao del Norte province, barangays from Kabacan, Carmen, Aleosan, Pigkawayan, Pikit and Midsayap towns in Cotabato City, and the greatest prize of all — the Sulu Sea where Exxonmobile and others have has set its eyes on.

GRP peace panel negotiator Marvic Leonen says no foreign influence figured in the peace deal, but not so secret "dirty little secret" is that the USIP (United Institute for Peace) led by J. Robinson West of the largest energy consulting firm PFC Energy, has its dirty hand all over it. Leonen's prevarication shows that the peace talk panel representing the Philippines and its work deserves no respect from the Filipino people as the panel is devoid of integrity. The peace talks are an expensive sham. The UNDP stepped up to gift the major Philippine peace panel negotiator an N-Peace Network award, to reinforce the respectability of this ap-piece-ment and the negotiators who carved off more pieces of Filipino flesh to the Western oil interest. UN agencies are invariably used as tools of US and Western powers to legitimize imperial projects with such honorific blessings, such as in Kosovo which was wrest from Serbia.

The other title for this article is "Pipsqueak Leaders," highlighting how small or insignificant this country's leadership is before the subterfuges and pressures of the US and Britain (represented by client Malaysia) to negotiate away 75 percent of the economic wealth of the country. As the rebel MILF band's vice chief for Political Affairs Ghadzali Jaafar told the Philippines over a radio interview their 75 percent share is non-negotiable. Ninety percent of that 75 percent will go to the US and Britain while crumbs will be thrown to the likes of Jaafar empowering them to be little potentates like the US surrogates in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, etc. Can Bangsamoro ever become a developed state? Not in anyone's lifetime. It'll be just like feudal, archaic Middle Eastern kingdoms the US controls and ready when needed to be used to control US hegemony as the potentates do in the Middle East.

Pipsqueak Philippine media pushes "ap-piece-ment," too: from Inquirer: "The glowing praises are richly deserved. After a protracted internecine war, one that has brought untold suffering on Muslim Mindanao, there's real hope the war may finally end."  What about he "untold suffering" of Filipino soldiers who fought to defend all Filipinos' sovereignty and the Filipinos' continuing impoverishment with the looting of 75 percent of its economic wealth in the Sulu Sea? In the Philippine Star one writes, "Leonen has convinced me from a distance that it is providential the Bangsamoro will be born during the watch of President Aquino whose only concern is peace and prosperity for the people of Mindanao … Since I see no alternative, I am willing to take my chance with it." Providential my eye, curses instead: Cory Aquino gave Sabah away; BS Aquino III cedes even more territories.

No alternative? The alternative is clear — defend national sovereignty over all our territory undisputed in any international forum. President Marcos defended that sovereignty, won and laid the basis for a durable peace with the Tripoli Agreement; but after he was deposed in 1986 by the conspiracy of the US and local oligarchs, the US stooge who succeeded him, Corazon Aquino, returned to the country the leader of the defeated MNLF and reinvigorated the secession movement. Likewise, under President Estrada the MILF was demolished at Camp Abubakar and its leader Hashim Salamat fled to Malaysia and beseeched US President Bush to restore him in Mindanao. When Estrada was deposed by the same forces that deposed Marcos, the Edsa II successor Gloria Arroyo restored the MILF to its former glory. Forgetting is not an option.

Two years back I wrote "The Traitor Class," about the Yellows cabal in Philippine politics that serve as handmaiden of the foreign powers. While that class runs the show in the country the Philippines will never win any of its struggles against the imperial and neo-colonial powers. How I envy those countries in Latin America that are already in the process of successfully throwing off the yoke of colonialism by nationalizing foreign resource-extraction and public utilities corporations, striking independent foreign policies, respecting each other's sovereignty, opposing foreign interventionism. Venezuela just overwhelmed the US sponsored presidential candidate for Hugo Chavez. In the Philippines, time will come when we can revisit the Mindanao issues and recreate a truly just peace that keeps the national intact for all Filipinos benefit and welfare.

(Watch Destiny Cable GNN's HTL edition channel 8, Saturdays, 8:15 to 9 p.m., replay 11:15 p.m. and Sunday, and on www.gnntv-asia.com: this week "Filipino Homegrown Franchises Expo"; tune to 1098AM radio Tuesday to Friday 5 to 6 p.m. http://newkatipunan.blogspot.com)

Political dynasty-ism

DIE HARD III

Herman Tiu Laurel

10/8/2012

Objections to family political dynasties are based on the old democratic ideal of decentralization and distribution of political power to as many representations as possible. Enshrining that ideal in the Philippine Constitution in 1987 was a reflection of the national and popular sentiment of that time. It also reflected the belief in the Rule of Law; i.e. that once the ban on dynasties was made a constitutional principle then the ideal would prevail. The current backlash to the resurgence and proliferation of members of political families simultaneously occupying and running for high political offices, and/or transferring such offices to their succeeding generation reassure us that that ideal of distributive democracy is still alive; but the reality is that 25 years after the writing of the anti-dynasty provision these ideals are under mortal threatened from resurgent political dynasty-ism.

The anti-dynasty provision of the Constitution needs a law to be implementable and realizable. Unfortunately, that law has to be written by the Congress that has a long tradition of having ubiquitous old feudal, provincial-political, business oligarchy, sectarian religious families dominating it affairs. The enactment of a law to realize the anti-dynasty provision of the Constitution and the ideal of democratization of political power is put in the hands of the very same political families or dynasties that find the anti-dynasty idea anathema and wouldn't lift a finger to remove themselves from the Philippine power structure. It should be no surprise then that after 25 years, four administrations and congresses, no progress has been made in enacting any anti-dynasty law. Worse, dynasties have multiplied and consolidated.

One of the reasoning behind that anti-dynasty campaign is "power begets power," hence political power and its possession must be limited by political reform through legislation. For example, term limits for all levels of elective government officials: Hence we have three year terms of limited three term re-election for local and congressional officials, six year two term limit for senators and six-year one term, no re-election for president. Even these limits are being assailed by politicians today. The anti-dynasty provision of the Constitution is also besieged. The defense of the Rule of the Dynasties come ironically from the highest office of the land that is sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution, that is Malacañang; but again, we should not be surprised as its occupant is the epitome of the system — at least third generation heir of a political family, the Aquinos.

Malacañang's defense of the dynasties can be ridiculous. Here is one report from Madel Sabater, "Malacañang yesterday said there is nothing wrong with political dynasties, stressing that electing a public official should not be based on the name but on qualifications and track record. Deputy presidential spokesman Abigail Valte said it will be the voters who will decide if they are for government officials who have relatives in other elective government posts." But it is the dynasty principle that precisely puts the name of the candidate above all else, making political parties draft candidates solely on that basis to take advantage of "name recall," accumulated political family goodwill from the barangay captains to the Armed Forces of the Philippines or Philippine National Police members and Comelec, and the financial resources from years of legislative pork barrel accumulations.

Think of the qualifications of the candidates who inherit their candidacy from their incumbent parents, what can you find? Generally — nothing. There are a few good ones aided by their political parents in learning the craft of government, but the vast majority never had any background or inclination in public service. Some heirs have criminal past, like that drug user convicted in Hong Kong who will inherit his father's post this time around or another who has a rumored murder case that has not come to light due to a parent's political umbrage. Let's assume some of these dynastic political tykes may have potential, but their preemptive candidacies invariably deny opportunities to other aspirants who may be much more deserving, qualified and with glaring and proven public track records of advocacies and service.

Political dynasties flourish in many societies of diverse and contradictory political philosophies and systems. The Bush or Kennedy families in the US are dynasties, the "princelings" in China today are third generation heirs of the Communist Party of China from the time of Mao, Kim Jung Un is third generation in North Korea; in all these societies too there are currents and undercurrents of anti-dynasty sentiment and actual initiatives. The dialectics between the democratic principle and dynastic concentration of power will continue alongside the evolution of political and economic power based on the social and intellectual developments in the nation. If our ideals for modern and progressive distributive democracy and economics are to survive and overcome the trend toward the institutionalization of political and economic neo-feudalism, we must say no to political dynasty-ism.

(Watch Destiny Cable GNN's HTL edition of Talk News TV, Saturdays, 8:15 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11:15 p.m. and Sunday, and on www.gnntv-asia.com: this week "Filipino Franchises On a Roll"; tune to 1098AM radio Tuesday to Friday 5 to 6 p.m. http://newkatipunan.blogspot.com)

The presidency or the republic (Part III)

BACKBENCHER

Rod P. Kapunan

10/6-7/2012

Third, we ought to recall that when President Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law, the nation was already teetering towards chaos. Both the Left and the Right were collaborating in a systematic campaign to topple the government. Given that situation, the declaration of martial law was not the result of any personal motivation, but a duty reposed upon him as commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces. No President could abnegate from that responsibility without committing treason.

As some political observers would put it, martial law was a big political gamble for Marcos. It was political suicide because his chances of being redeemed were slim. Yet, for that act of trying to save the Republic, he was condemned. There could be truth to that if he used martial law to consolidate power, in lieu of not having accomplished anything. On the contrary, he was the only president to be reelected in a clean, honest and fair election on the basis of his achievements in the 1969 election against Sergio Osmeña, Jr. He even obtained more votes in his reelection bid than when he first ran against President Diosdado Macapagal in 1965.

Besides, when Marcos declared martial law, his term had yet to expire up to January 1973. However, the ratification of the 1973 Constitution by the people automatically made him the interim President, and the process of ratification was upheld by the Supreme Court in the cases of Javellana vs. Executive Secretary and Sanidad vs. Comelec.

It follows that those who were affected should never interpret their experience as a personal injury inflicted by the State or by Marcos, but the price for their participation to ripen their brand of revolution. Invariably, the charge that Marcos suspended the writ and later imposed martial law just to hold on to power is an attempt to distort historical facts. In the first place, martial law could have been avoided had it not for the Maoists' virulent agitation and attacks against the government.

Fourth, martial law is constitutionally provided, and the president is mandated to exercise it when necessary. The present constitution, as well as the 1935 Constitution which Marcos invoked, provides for that kind of defensive political mechanism.

Some constitutionalists and political writers would even go as far as saying that the survival of the State remains paramount; that in its defense, power could be exercised by the president even if not provided in the constitution. Classic to this was when US Chief Justice Roger B. Taney questioned the authority of President Abraham Lincoln to declare martial law, saying there was no provision in the US Constitution giving him that power.

That question cropped up in that famous incident where an arrest order was issued without a warrant to a secessionist leader in Maryland by the name of John Merryman. Justice Taney ordered the release of Merryman, but President Lincoln ignored it. Justice Taney then raised the point about the authority of President Lincoln to declare martial law. For that, Lincoln wryly asked: "Are we going to save the Constitution or the Union?"

That famous comment made by Lincoln thus carved out a political and constitutional theory that the survival of the State remains paramount; that it could act in its defense even if not so provided in the Constitution.

In the case of President Marcos, the issues about the constitutionality and validity in the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and subsequent declaration of martial law are provided in the 1935 Constitution, specifically Section 10(2), Article VII. The leeway given to the petitioners who questioned his exercise of the emergency power was indicative that the liberties of the people remain primordial to him. It cannot be less than that, for he only had on his side the truth; that as President, his duty is to protect the people, their government, and their sacred institutions.

For that matter, even the Cory Aquino-commissioned 1987 Constitution provided for the same emergency political mechanism in Section 18, Article VII although imposing stringent conditions to validate its imposition.

If there were murky issues that were not clearly resolved by the Supreme Court, the validity in the imposition of martial law nonetheless should have been laid to rest. It is not that we want the petitioners to acquiesce to those errors, assuming there were errors, but on the basis that the high court has already spoken. As a rule, the opposition-petitioners are duty-bound to accept the decision, except when there is a palpable denial of due process or that it was arrived at with grave abuse of discretion. Nobody has the right to reject the decision on the basis that he disagrees with it.

The decision arrived at by the majority of the members of the Supreme Court did not only uphold the legality and constitutionality of martial law, but most important affirmed the factual basis that warranted its imposition. Maybe Marcos benefited from that valid and legal exercise of power, but fate of circumstance was clear that whoever was the President during those tense and unsettling hours in the life of the Republic would nonetheless have done the same. If General MacArthur was quoted saying "there is no substitute for victory", there is also that equal truism that nobody would readily part away his own survival.

Fifth, often we fail to weigh between the positive and negative effects of martial law. Those who were harping in defense of people's rights should have taken that first step to balance the temporary curtailment of their freedom from the higher goals martial law sought to accomplish.

(rpkapunan@gmail.com)

The presidency or the republic (Part II)

BACKBENCHER

Rod P. Kapunan

9/29-30/2012

Former President Ferdinand Marcos was categorical in citing the Plaza Miranda bombing as the reason that impelled him to issue Proclamation 889 as amended by Proclamation No. 889-A, suspending the writ of habeas corpus.

One must observe that when Marcos placed the country under martial law, the government was still groping in knowing the identity of those behind the bombing of the Liberal Party's miting de avanse at Plaza Miranda.

Despite the admission made by a leading communist cadre, Ariel Almendral, that the bombing was the handiwork of the New People's Army identified as a certain Danny Cordero. Jose Ma. Sison and his ilk in the Communist Party of the Philippines not only refused to admit having masterminded the dastardly crime, but continued to point to Marcos to purposely discredit him from the ranks of the opposition. To this day, the Maoists and their mulching front organizations insist their liberties were curtailed while consistently denying that it was their crime that impelled Marcos to suspend the writ.

As an overtly ambitious politician, Jovito Salonga already had his eyes focused on the presidency. He had every reason to believe he would be the next president, for the fact that he consistently landed number one in the senatorial slate. Even after he came to know it was Sison and his gang that carried out the bombing, Salonga sought to delay the release of that information by the media for fear it would affect his presidential candidacy, which in fact happened—with Mrs. Imelda Marcos obtaining more votes than him in the 1992 presidential elections.

Second, judging the effects of martial law on a personal basis, and not from a collective point of view, would certainly elicit negative reaction. The conduct of the opposition to prejudge martial law on a personal basis exposed the truth that somehow many of them endorsed the criminal activities of the Maoist communists. Their campaign to resist martial law was revealing of their involvement. Not one from the opposition opened his mouth about the aborted arms landings at Digoyo Point in Palanan, Isabela, by MV Karragatan and by MV Andrea from May to July 1972 headed by Ibarra Tubianosa. One must bear in mind that martial law is a situation where the State has to take a defensive action to preserve the majesty of its authority. This part of the "Whereas" clause stated by Marcos in Proclamation 1081, and was confirmed by Gregg Jones in his book: Red Revolution: Inside the Philippine Guerrilla Movement.

Unfortunately, instead of the communists being brought to justice to face the consequence of their criminal acts, it was the government that was placed on the defensive with its hands tied to answering charges of human rights violation filed by the same group now claiming compensation—often with the help of the opposition.

Besides, even if we take it that isolated cases of human rights violations were committed, they happened not as a policy of the government, but an aberration committed by some zealot law-enforcing authorities. The government tried as much as possible to investigate all complaints, and if there was prima facie evidence, filed charges against those erring government officials. Marcos, no less, cited those complaints against military personnel tasked in enforcing martial law.

Marcos' decision to reduce the number, area, demand for rental and eventual termination of the US military bases on September 16, 1990; not to renew the Laurel-Langley Agreement beyond July 3, 1974; to open diplomatic relations with China, and the USSR; to actively participate in the Non-Aligned Movement or Group of 77; to embark on industrialization by his announcement of the eleven industrial projects; and to incorporate nationalistic provisions in the 1973 Constitution all contributed to cause the ire of the US. That could have bridged the ideological gap that separated the Maoists from Marcos. Alas, Sison would rather be credited alone in achieving them.

In retaliation, Washington then worked to isolate Marcos politically and economically, and human rights violation was its best instrument to discredit his administration. The Maoists, instead of maintaining a safe distance to avoid being manipulated, allowed themselves to be used when they could have stayed neutral. After all, US imperialism is a much bigger problem than in dealing with a "local tyrant." It was their opportunism that prevailed. They took advantage of the changing political wind that the US is now committed to removing its one-time ally, and daydreaming that his ouster would result in them being on top of the political saddle.

This explains why the Maoists could not escape from their clichés of calling every President a "dictator" without having second thoughts that they are tacitly endorsing another US-sponsored politician who would not give them an inch of political accommodation. The result is pathetic. Every time the government in power is ousted, it is always the so-called "progressive left" that ends up being politically marginalized, while the enemies they denounce gain further political and economic influence.

Their favorite strategy of "united front alliance" no sooner breaks up after the objective of ousting the one in power is accomplished. This was evident in what happened in the two Edsa "People Power" events. The net result is that American influence over the Aquino and Arroyo governments became more prominent. People had to blame them because they could only understand that they suffered more for failing to make good their promise of deliverance from poverty. This explains why after Marcos, the fad that brought the student activism to glory soon evaporated. Nothing in fact has changed. Adventurism only pushed them deeper into the pit of hopelessness.

Since, the US was committed in destroying the legacy of the only nationalist President this country ever had, it has to support the radical left on the issue of human rights violation. Unfortunately, the Maoists failed to read between the lines that the reason why the US courts admitted the list of claimants is that they too were interested in getting hold of those Marcos assets, and not for purposes of distributing them.

(rpkapunan@gmail.com)

SOPA, ACTA and A-Claw

DIE HARD III

Herman Tiu Laurel

10/5/2012

The Philippines hit the international cyber news with a big bang, typified by the headline of RT (Russia Today) "Philippines gags Internet with 'draconian' cyber crime law."
I describe the Philippine anti-internet freedom law as "A-Claw," Anti-Cyber freedom Law, to depict the claws of a monstrous bird-of-prey that crept stealthily through the Philippine legislature and then pounced on the nation. The dark shadows of the monster birds wings cover the continents of America and Europe under the names of SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) in Europe, and now in the Philippines as A-Claw. The US has another bill, the "PIPA" or Protect IP Act and they all purport to protect intellectual property (IP) but curtail Internet and cyber freedoms in their coverage.

The Philippine version passed like a thief in the night, and with the "draconian" feature of opening up the criminalization of anything linked, posted and referred by a cyber surfer that may be construed as "libelous." That is why A-Claw is aptly described by the wider world, looking at the Philippines and its ongoing struggle over the cyber freedom suppression law as "draconian." As usual, the Philippine legislature become more popish than the Pope and outdoes (as it did in GATT-WTO) the proponents of cyber security and IP protection in the major countries. Let's hope the Philippine netizens outdo the anti-cyber restrictions opposition in Europe and the US like "Anonymous," with its guy Fawkes mask, in raising hell against the draconian A-Claw, shut down more government websites in protest and raise more signatures than the 4.5-million registered in one campaign in the US.

I recall the other law that has become one of the banes of our society and economy, similarly smuggled through the legislature, passed posthaste without serious public hearings and scrutiny, and suddenly foisted on the public. This is the Epira or Electric Power Industry Reform Act. Unfortunately for all Filipinos then there was no social network community focused and intimately interested in the issue and an entire nation complacently allowed its implementation. A-Claw faced netizens that had already been alerted by the struggles of "Anonymous" and many global netizens in the US and Europe, and with the speed-of-light they achieved fission and exploded rage of millions of Filipino on-line activist on the most visible faces of the A-Claw menace — Angara, Sotto, BS Aquino III, Lacson, Honasan and Pangilinan.

The Epira and A-Claw share one thing that may have allowed them to pass the Senate so smoothly: both are lobbied for by foreign and globalist interests. The world Bank lobbied for Epira. The SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and now the A-Claw are a part of the US corporate-government campaign of monopoly of Intellectual Property rights (patenting, copyrighting and controlling everything from genetic materials to Internet content) working through multilateral (UN, GATT-WTO, etc.) and national governments. Our legislators swallow advice from US and international experts as gospel truth. We have not yet identified lobbyists for the A-Claw (in GATT-WTO's it was USAid that funded AGILE) but they are certainly there, most likely hovering over the cyber-crime law sponsor Angara. Hence, the Senate didn't' question the A-Claw or even study it first, and as in SOPA and ACTA secrecy kept the public in the dark.

A-Claw is part of a global campaign to curtail economic and information liberties, as Eric Kain in Forbes magazine wrote on efforts to fight this up to the level of the US sponsored trade agreement TPP, entitled "'If You Thought SOPA Was Bad, Just Wait Until You Meet ACTA'… According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, there are 'other plurilateral agreements, such as the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), which contains a chapter on IP enforcement that would have state signatories adopt even more restrictive copyright measures than ACTA. Similarly, negotiations over TPP are also held in secret and with little oversight by the public or civil society. These initiatives, negotiated without participation from civil society or the public, are an affront to a democratic world order. EFF will remain vigilant against these international initiatives that threaten to choke off creativity, innovation, and free speech."

With the Philippine anti-Cyber crime law's threatening content against basic freedoms so obvious, and so many petitions against it and appeals for temporary restraining order or TRO to momentarily stop its implementation (nine petitions by the last count), we wonder why the Sereno Supreme Court has thumbed down four appeals for TRO.

This brings me back to our contention several months back when we predicted that Sereno would be appointed Chief Justice on the basis of her allegiance to the Foreign power and its corporate agents in the Philippines. The A-Claw is a core interest of these vested interests, and nothing will be allowed to stop it — except maybe the nation's outrage and Cyper insurrection.

(Watch Destiny Cable GNN's HTL edition of Talk News TV, Saturdays, 8:15 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11:15 p.m. and Sunday, and on www.gnntv-asia.com; tune to 1098AM radio Tuesday to Friday 5 to 6p.m. http://newkatipunan.blogspot.com) 

Good riddance

DIE HARD III

Herman Tiu Laurel

9/28/2012

For what one party in the China back channeling controversy says is the "gulo" (Pilipino for mess) and another party considered his "shabby treatment", one threatened to leave the country for his business home Hong Kong and the other leaks a threat of resigning his cabinet post. These are Manny Pangilinan (MVP) and Ambassador Albert del Rosario, embroiled in what Sen. Antonio F. Trillanes charged as Del Rosario's escalation of tensions with China to benefit his long time business associate MVP in oil deals negotiations with China. MVP is reported to say in reaction "Kung ako lang… I'd pack up and go back to Hong Kong. Ang gulo-gulo n'yo." Del Rosario's rsignation threat circulated by way of a "leak" from the DFA.

Pangilinan flatters himself. He, MVP would have remained the pudgy, dumpy little underling of Indonesian tycoon Sudono Salim, a.k.a. Liem Sioe Liong, if he didn't have the Philippines to bring the outdated Hong Kong cellphone equipment to transplant to and built his telecoms empire, parlaying that success with incognito international financiers into ventures in real estate, public infrastructure and transportation, broadcast and print media, sports entertainment; taking off massively after entering into the premier power distribution utility company Meralco which began the onset of the highest power rate increases of almost yearly 100% hikes from 2006 to the present and into the next "regulatory periods" until 2015. Filipinos have been footing the bill for MVP's spectacular economic clout today, so who owes whom and who needs whom?

My (and many other Filipinos') response to MVP's self-flattery and threat of packing off to Hong Kong, is: "Layas ka na" or "Scram". The country will surely be better off without the likes of International Finance Mafia (IFM) backed MVP who possess the guiles of the Snake in Paradise, Shylock and Blackbeard the Pirate to cause an entire economy to turning its wallet over. It can be argued that MVP's projects, particularly Meralco (almost highest rates in the World), Maynilad Water, MNTC (Manila North Tollways Corp.), and other privatized utilities firms charging exorbitant rates, constitutes the biggest factor in the continuing debacle of the National Economy, the decline in middle class living standards and impoverishment of the already poor tantamount to a major cause for the widening gap between rich and poor, corporate bonanzas and people's incomes.

MVP's charm bewitches some like Mandaluyong Congressman Neptali "Boyet" Gonzales who is appealing to MVP to "…. pause and rethink this repatriation to Hong Kong. The steady performance of our economy today is the result of a confluence of factors that a daring investor int eh like of him has greatly contributed to." That may take care of Boyet's campaign funds for 2013, but that certainly will cost the Filipino public utility consumers again. By the way, the Ateneo University and the Jesuits have saved their own souls for now with MVP bolting from their bosom in protest of some Jesuits' opposition to MVP corporate mining greed and the RH "condoms profits" bill. It's redemption for the Ateneo and the Jesuits who may be a little poorer now but still far from impoverished. However, MVP will no longer have the religious halo to sanctify his pillaging of the economy.

The latest on Secretary Albert del Rosario is he is not resigning to "… remain true to his commitment to serving the country." A day later, Del Rosario is in Washington making a speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and headlined as "Del Rosario: Philippines will respond to China ships". Back home BS Aquino III's special envoy to Chinese Vice-President Xi Jinping, Mar Roxas is taking pains reporting on "easing of tensions" and renegotiation and/or payment of the $ 500-M North Rail project fiasco. Was Del Rosario, as green card holder (when are they going to investigate this) and foreign affairs secretary reporting to his real bosses? A retired veteran Filipino diplomat, writing his regular Malaya column, comments on Del Rosario, entitled "'Resign' …If Del Rosario is wondering why it was only spokesman Lacierda who said Noynoy still has confidence in him, I think it is Noynoy's way of giving him an opportunity to exit gracefully by resigning."

  Speaking to support Del Rosario's continuance at the DFA were Philippine Ambassador to Washington Jose Cuisia and former AIG (British agent C.V. Starr and fraud-indicted mogul Hank Greenberg's American International Group) Philippine manager, and wife of the late Reginald Lewis of the P 1.5-Billion company TLC Beatrice, Loida Nicolas-Lewis "boycott China goods crusader" who made a ton of dollars in China selling its chain to food stores to Chinese interests. All of them: MVP, Del Rosario, Cuisia, Nicolas-Lewis are in the U.S. and international corporate networks with ambiguous loyalties and hands in Philippine policy and government. Should we wait for them to volunteer to go?

(Watch Destiny Cable GNN's HTL edition of Talk News TV, Saturdays, 8:15 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11:15 p.m. and Sunday, and on www.gnntv-asia.com; tune to 1098AM radio Tues. To Fri. 5 to 6pm http://newkatipunan.blogspot.com)

Amboys at work?

DIE HARD III

Herman Tiu Laurel

10/1/2012

Watching Malacañang and the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) pronouncements on relations with China it is clear there is a huge divergence between the two. The Palace statements are conciliatory as reflected in headlines by the media, such as "Palace: Mar Roxas' talks with China's Xi Jinping 'constructive, cordial,' or 'Palace hopes RP-China ties will move forward'" and many other projecting positive tones and rosy prospects. The DFA is projecting a different outlook on the relations, such as the statement emanating from Secretary Albert del Rosario a few days after his reported threat to resign and speaking in Washington to the CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies) which was headlined in the Philippine newspapers with an ominous "Philippines will respond to China ships" and threatening to send RP ships back to the shoals.

Del Rosario's visible deviation from Malacañang on the country's attitude to China may mean a few things, all of them bad for the administration and the country: first, Malacañang doesn't really have an official line with regard to relations and the issues with China; second, Malacañang is not coordinating its various branches of government relative to a most critical foreign policy question; third, the DFA secretary has gone "rogue" and is going on his own with regard to China related policy positions; fourth, the DFA secretary is taking instructions from other than the official chain-of-command leading to the president; and the worse, the DFA secretary is following the chain-of-command from across the seas in Washington and disregarding Malacañang completely. Is Del Rosario an Amboy?
Del Rosario qualifies for the title of Amboy due to the alleged "green card" status that the DFA ranks insists he maintains, plus the fact that there has been strong speculation about the Malacañang doubts about him. Retired diplomat Ambassasor Rey Arcilla's writes in his columns in Malaya, such as Sept. 24 in the aftermath of Tillanes' exposé of Del Rosario's alleged conspiracy with Manny Pangilinan, "'If Del Rosario is wondering why it was only spokesman Lacierda who said Noynoy still has confidence in him, I think it is Noynoy's way of giving him an opportunity to exit gracefully by resigning… He is dense. He does not know the meaning of loss of confidence or delicadeza or amor propio."'

Amboy means American Boy, and in political terms it means more than just loving things American but one who does the bidding of the US. One historical example of the Amboy is former Philippine diplomatic icon, the late Carlos P. Romulo who is venerated as the little man who walked up the shores of Leyte Gulf with Gen. Douglas Macarthur fulfilling his vow "I shall return." One of Romulo's progenies followed in his footsteps to become the DFA secretary, Roberto (Bobby) Romulo who keenly supported the assignment of Sonia Brady to China recently despite her ill health and very advanced age. Some say Brady was supported heartily by Amboys for the post to China as she herself is very pliant to the US. Just a last week Romulo commented on whom he believes should not be assigned to China to replace Sonia Brady.

In his newspaper column "Diplomacy 101" Bobby Romulo wrote last week, "I have received reports that a prominent member of the local Filipino-Chinese community as well as a long time Filipino refugee or exile in China are being considered to replace Ambassador Brady… I was shocked that the two are candidates for the most sensitive and important post in our Foreign Service … A member of the Filipino-Chinese community… does not fit the bill because of ethnic ties … these work against the detachment and objectivity (needed) … Neither does a political exile who has spent something like the last 40 or his to odd years in this world in China pass all the test of objectivity. That candidate has been fed, sheltered and cared for by the Chinese for four decades during which he must have accumulated a long list of IOU's …"

The present US ambassador to China, Gary Locke's is ethnic Chinese whose forebears hale from Taishan, China. Ethnicity doesn't bother the non-discriminatory Americans. But what about Brady who, if my DFA source is correct, is married to an American; couldn't that becloud her loyalty? Obviously referring to ex-exile Chito Sta. Romana, Romulo must understand that patriotism and idealism that led to Sta. Romana's exile. He led a student delegation to China when Martial Law was imposed in Manila Sept. 21, 1972. He was advised to stay put there to escape arrest while the Romulo clan enjoyed the privileged life in the US backed Martial Rule life in the Philippines. True patriots, like Sen. Antonio Trillanes or Chito Sta. Romana, are helping the country breakaway from mendicancy to the US to chart a free, independent and peaceful course of the Philippines with Asia.

(Watch Destiny Cable GNN's HTL edition of Talk News TV, Saturdays, 8:15 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11:15 p.m. and Sunday, and on www.gnntv-asia.com; tune to 1098AM radio Tues. To Fri. 5 to 6p.m. http://newkatipunan.blogspot.com)