Killing us

DIE HARD III

Herman Tiu Laurel

7/2/2012

The Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) has again approved new rates for the Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) for the new regulatory year starting July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013 on the strength of only a provisional authority (PA) before pending issues are resolved. The latest PA was issued on top of several previous PAs for 2010, 2011, and 2012.

For one, our fellow crusader, Mang Naro Lualhati, has pending, unresolved petitions on Meralco's Maximum Average Price (MAP), insisting that it should only be P0.90 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) as against ERC-approved rates that used to be around P1.60/kWh but now even raised to P1.6303/kWh. Another colleague of ours, Iligan Light and Power's Jojo Borja, has produced evidence of up to 900-percent overpricing of Meralco's costs that served as the basis for its rate hike applications before the ERC. Both of these were already brought to the courts for resolution; yet the ERC continues to issue its PAs.

Just what is the urgency of issuing these rate increases via these PAs when Meralco has continued to reflect annual increases in profits since 2006 up to the current year?

Last Feb. 2012 it was announced in the headline, "Meralco profit surges 40 percent," that the power company's "core net income, which strips out currency and derivatives-related items, climbed 22 percent to P14.9 billion from a year ago… (exceeding) the profit guidance of P14.5 billion." But take note of this: The power firm, which is indirectly controlled by Hong Kong-based First Pacific Co. Ltd. and partly owned by San Miguel Corp., "had 5.3 million customers last year, up 3.7 percent from a year ago."

Meralco says that its profits rose due to an increased number of customers, but a 40-percent increase in profits cannot be due to a mere 3.7-percent increase in customer base as its own media statement claims. That profit rise is simply from the price gouging rates that the ERC has been giving "provisionally" to Meralco over at least the past three regulatory years.

From a recent letter of our colleague Butch Junia: "Meralco's net earnings have soared year on year: P3.1 billion in 2008; P6.3 billion in 2009; P10.1 billion in 2010; P14.8 billion in 2011. For the year 2010, customer base grew 3 percent; sales increased 11 percent, but earnings soared 67 percent--which obviously came from rate increases rather than market growth or operational efficiencies … Best for the utility, hardly good for the public."

Again, with such profits, what is the urgency of granting PAs for rate increases to Meralco?

Such profit surges are only possible with the massive overpricing of Meralco costs, such as 500 percent on the tens of thousands of power transformers, 900 percent on electric poles, and similarly overpriced substations, contractors, ad nausea.

At the heart of the abuse, however, is ERC's continued defiance of a 2004 Supreme Court (SC) decision under Chief Justice Reynato Puno upholding the old 12-percent Return-on-Rate Base (RoRB) formula as the legal and just basis for setting power rates.

As Junia recaps: "Shortly after that (SC) decision, the ERC started the shift from RoRB to Performance Based Regulation (PBR) with the adoption of rate unbundling in 2003, and full PBR in 2007. Under RoRB, the distribution, supply and metering charge of Meralco was P0.70/kWh; under rate unbundling it was P0.90/kWh. With PBR, it was P1.2227/kWh in 2009, P1.491 in 2010, P1.6464 in 2011, P1.60 in 2012, to go up to P1.633 in July 2012-June 2013."

The PBR effectively raises Meralco's rate of return to over 15 percent; but that is not all. The ERC also provided incentives that added on pushed distribution utility (DU) returns to as high as 17 percent. But these are not the only problems residential consumers have with the present electricity rate-setting system, but are rarely told.

As Junia writes in his letter, the ERC "is mandated by the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (Epira) to 'ensure (for consumers) a reasonable price of electricity… (where) the rates prescribed shall be non-discriminatory.'"

Still, we see in Meralco's petition "for distribution charges… an increase to P1.962/kWh from P1.078/kWh for residential consumers using up to 200 kWh, P1.5535/kWh from P1.3851/kWh for those consuming 201-300 kWh, P1.5535/kWh from P1.3851/kWh for consumers of 301-400 kWh, and P2.4780/kWh from P2.3096/kWh for those that use over 400 kWh per month. Industrial users, meanwhile, with a minimum demand of 40 kW to less than 200 kW would have their supply charges raised to P990 from the current P910 … Large industrial users that consume 200 kW to less than 750 kW will pay supply charges of P4,110 while industrial users of 750 kW to less than 10,000 kW have to pay P14,920…"

Note: Up to 10,000 kW industrial users pay P1.49/kW but residential consumers using 201 kWh to 400 kWh pay P1/55/kWh to P2.30/kWh, while industrial and commercial power consumers using even higher kWh, such as shopping malls which go into millions of kWh, can pay as low as P0.20/kWh in distribution charges.

Residential users consume roughly 35 percent of distributed power but provide around 65 percent of Meralco's revenues, which is inversely proportional to industrial/commercial customers. Thus, residential consumers subsidize everyone else.

Soon the "open access" policy will push even higher rates for residential users as Meralco and DUs court industrial/commercial consumers with lower rates to prevent them from setting up their own power plants.

Meanwhile, "Shares of Meralco closed at P253.40 on Friday, up 0.96 percent from its previous close of P251 apiece"--this as the national economy suffers, as exemplified by the recent statement of businessman Robert Go, director of the Philippine Retailers Association and chairman of the Economic Development Committee of the Regional Development Council (RDC) saying "Because of these big power expenses, most of the profits of businessmen in the past year were wiped out and if this will continue, the workers will be affected because their employers can hardly adjust wages."

Stated simply, the power oligarchs are killing every one of us. Time to fight back.

(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., this week with senatorial candidate Joey de Venecia; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com for our articles plus TV and radio archives)

Manning, Assange and Suu Kyi

DIE HARD III

Herman Tiu Laurel

6/29/2012

On April 5, 2010 WikiLeaks released a classified US military video of three air strikes from a US Apache helicopter last July 12, 2007 in New Baghdad, Iraq. Eighteen people were killed, including two journalists working for Reuters, Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen, while two children were wounded in an incoming private van that was going to rescue one of the reporters before it was fired upon. We know of the children because the video that showed US ground troops arriving at the area--recorded by the gunsight camera on the Apache helicopter, Crazyhorse 18--had a soldier "running as he (carried) one of the children wounded in the attack on the van."

Thanks to YouTube, millions of global citizens laid witness to those gruesome events. But had it not been for Private Bradley Manning, the 22-year-old intelligence analyst with the US Army in Baghdad who allegedly passed on the material to WikiLeaks, the world might still have not had any inkling of the atrocities that transpired on that fateful day.

Manning was arrested in May 2010 in Iraq on suspicion of passing classified materials to the whistleblower Web site, then charged with communicating national defense information to an unauthorized source and aiding the enemy--all of which could result in lifetime imprisonment.

Meanwhile, the other figure in this controversy, Julian Paul Assange (aged 42 today), is an Australian computer programmer, Internet political activist, publisher, and journalist, best known as the founder and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, a Web site that publishes information from whistleblowers everywhere.

A hacker-activist in his youth, Assange has garnered numerous awards and nominations, including the 2009 Amnesty International Media Award, the 2010 Readers' Choice for Time's Person of the Year, the 2011 Sydney Peace Foundation gold medal, the 2011 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism, and a nod for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize. Fearing the accolades were a build-up for another "useful idiot," I kept quiet about him; now, I'm convinced he is genuine.

In 2010, a European arrest warrant was issued for Assange on what appeared to be trumped-up charges of rape and sexual assault. He was later arrested in the UK and freed on bail after 10 days. On May 30 of this year, Assange lost his Supreme Court appeal to prevent extradition to Sweden. Then on June 19, Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he sought political asylum on the basis of political persecution. Ecuador granted him temporary protection pending deliberations by the Ecuadorean parliament.

Just before his asylum bid and while serving house arrest in the UK, Assange had around half a dozen episodes of his own talk show beamed over Russia Today (seen here on Destiny Cable Channel 86). Every episode and interview I had the chance to follow was always interesting and in-depth; the last one with Imran Khan of Pakistan was no exception as it exposed the US as well as the Pakistani ruling class' corrupt politics.

The work and sacrifice of these two heroes, at a time when US imperialism is at its apogee, highlights the power of truth and modern information or--to borrow from another Internet dissident Alex Jones--the "Information War." This "Infowar" is one that will rouse the world against the US war industry and its controlled war-coddling mainstream media all over the world.

Indeed, these are the people who deserve all the international peace and democracy awards (except for the debased Nobel Peace Prize after it was bestowed to a mother-and-child killer in the White House, now infamous for his unmanned drone terrorism all over the world).

Sadly, there is no clamor yet in the Philippines for the kind of heroism of these two whistleblower-warriors for truth and global transparency. This is perhaps because a lot of column inches are being devoted to certain darlings of Western "human rights" advocates such as Aung San Suu Kyi.

Our Tribune colleague, Ken Fuller, wrote in "A rendezvous with disappointment" a good assessment of Suu Kyi and with apologies I summarize: "US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton flew in and… met Aung Sang Suu Kyi for talks … Then, on April 13, following the NLD (Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy) by-election victories, in came UK Prime Minister David Cameron … What is happening here… is that Western leaders… are now hurrying to secure a place at the head of the line … Surely Aung San Suu Kyi would not allow them to pillage her country? … (But as) we get to socio-economic questions… what will the economy look like? Will Myanmar attempt to industrialize? What will be the balance between public and private, local and foreign enterprise? … voters were told that the NLD would 'focus on seeking necessary international assistance for development of the nation,' and that 'it is required to make a shift to market economy with a right balance between freedom, stability and social justice, based on the rule of law.' So, there will be a market economy. But that is not all. 'It is required to closely cooperate with the International Monetary Fund…'"

Last week in Oslo, Suu Kyi personally received the Nobel Peace honor bestowed on her 21 years ago, getting "two standing ovations as she gave her long-delayed acceptance speech." Before the Norwegian Nobel Committee, the King and Queen of Norway, and about 600 dignitaries, "The 66-year-old champion of political freedom praised the power of her 1991 Nobel honor both for saving her from the depths of personal despair and shining an enduring spotlight on injustices in distant Burma."

But I wonder, notwithstanding the fact that Myanmar has never invaded other lands, what has Suu Kyi really said and done about Western imperialism and its heinous cruelties all over the world? Hasn't she merely epitomized the hypocrisy of the West by serving as "human rights" leverage against struggling Asian and African nations?

Indeed, placing her side-by-side with the heroic Manning and Assange only reveals who the real glove-puppet of the West is.

(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., this week on "The Oust PiNoy Movement" with Mon Pedrosa; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com for our articles plus TV and radio archives)

Debasing the CJ post

DIE HARD III

Herman Tiu Laurel

6/25/2012

From the noisy media circus atmospherics the past two weeks surrounding the scramble of Cabinet-member wannabes and outsiders for the Judiciary's top post, to the buzz on whether or not these nominees' Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) interviews should be televised, down to the paparazzi fervor with which these prospective candidates are being introduced to the public, all efforts in finding a replacement for ousted Chief Justice (CJ) Renato Corona ultimately bring up one question: Isn't this a debasement, a trivialization, of what in the past was considered a rarefied post, along with the essential attributes of detachment and transcendence that the candidates — not just for the Supreme Court (SC) but for the Judiciary as a whole — are supposed to possess?

Thus, it was with a sense of disbelief that I witnessed the likes of the country's chief tax collector showing off her wares in a cable news interview and of law deans and professors parading themselves to catch media attention, like in a burlesque show. It really is a sad spectacle; and sadder still when you think of how low it speaks of the ruling powers' regard for the Judiciary.

One CJ qualification raised by Malacañang spokesman Edwin Lacierda, in obvious support of 51-year-old Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Chief Kim Henares, was on the matter of age. He told Palace reporters that since "age is not a factor," a CJ candidate does not have to be old. What did he mean by that?
First of all, being 40 is not necessarily "young" to the younger set. Despite that, 50 can now be the "new 40" and 60 the "new 50." Moreover, someone who is 60 can even conceivably be 40 in many respects since it is now widely believed that the mind determines the age. Therefore, someone at age 51 who is crabby, myopic, tyrannical and oppressive can really be an 81-year-old Mubarak in mental state. Got that, Lacierda?

Well, perhaps to buttress his argument, Lacierda also cited the case of US Federal Supreme Court CJ John Roberts, who, upon assuming his post at age 50, serves as an example of a young person appointed to the zenith of the Judiciary. What he failed to note, however, was whether or not this young appointee indeed had a sterling record of public service to begin with.

Objections were already raised about Roberts' pro-right, anti-abortion leanings that allegedly triggered some violence by extremist groups prior to his appointment. Then, in his five years at the helm, a number of major, yet unsettling, changes came about under his leadership, which led retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to lament, among other things, Roberts' reversal of her major contribution to US jurisprudence of imposing spending limits on political campaigns.
So besides the 40-year-old age requirement for Philippine CJs, should there be any room for petty ageism? Moreover, given the importance of the CJ's position, have we ever had any in-depth, ideological, or jurisprudential discussion on issues relating to the CJ's appointment?

Sadly, it has always been the case of the Chief Executive and his spokesmen, the Legislature, and the media being at the forefront of providing leading, albeit shallow and mediocre, questions in whatever discussions, with politicians, media, relatives, friends of JBC members, or law fraternities holding sway on a personal or parochial basis.

Such a debased (or debasing) process of naming, vetting and appointing the next CJ clearly creates worse conditions for any nominee, as he will no longer be unaffected; will likely feel obliged to respond to private and public parties to which he may feel indebted; or will fear chastisement if he displeases one or the other source of support for his appointment.

We must therefore take a second look at the serendipitous findings of lawyers Alan Paguia and Homobono Adaza in reviewing Article VIII Section 9 on the Judiciary: That there is no constitutional basis for the nomination by the JBC and the President's appointment of the CJ.

Given the fundamental principles upon which our nation's democratic system is supposedly founded (namely, the separation-of-powers, checks-and-balances, the independence of the Judiciary) and taking heed of the caveat from an old adage that says "Absolute power corrupts absolutely," we must end the practice of appointing a CJ from outside the SC once and for all in order to enhance the high court's independence and detachment and for it to focus purely on the interpretation and execution of the Constitution and all its laws.

It is for this reason that Paguia, Adaza, Jojo Borja, myself, and several others will be filing a petition before the SC this Thursday on the issue.
Our thanks thus go to citizens Ric Palompon of Manila, Editha of Batangas, Bonifacio from the South, Romeo Lopez, Olive of Bulacan, Mrs. Villanueva of Mandaluyong, Mrs. Borja of Iligan, and Glen of QC for sending in donations for the filing fee and photocopying. To the few donors who have not sent in their names, we wish to thank them as well. Because of your generosity, I believe we will have enough by the date of filing. Mabuhay to all the conscientious and pro-active citizens who are continuing to support our cause!

(Tune in to 1098AM, dwAD, Sulo ng Pilipino/Radyo OpinYon, Monday-Wednesday-Friday, 5 to 6 p.m.; 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.; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com for our articles plus TV and radio archives)