Analysis by Raïssa Robles
In the wake of President Benigno Aquino’s State of the Nation Address (SONA), various groups have made their voices heard about what they want from the president in his last two years in office. They’re all united in one thing: They want the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) passed.
Big business wants it, the moderate Left wants it. So does the extreme Left.
Maybe the only group that doesn’t want it is that composed of lawmakers and government officials who have a lot to hide from the public.
The biggest 18 local and foreign business groups in the country led by the Makati Business Club (MBC) , the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI) and the Management Association of the Philippines (MAP) recently voiced their support of the passage of an FOI law in a letter they sent to the President.
I noticed that even the Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry signed the open letter to Aquino spelling out big business’ legislative and governance wish list. The FOI tops their wish list, along with the passage of the Customs Modernization and Tariff Act.
There, however, the unity of purpose ends across the spectrum.
While the nation’s top businessmen have asked PNoy not to tinker with the current Philippine Mining Act and the Electric Power Industry Reform Act or EPIRA – the law which governs the power sector – the moderate and extreme left in our society want the President to do the exact opposite –
- Amend the mining law to favor government, small miners and affected communities and
- Repeal Epira and replace it with a law that would protect consumers better and lower electricity rates
The moderate left is represented by Akbayan Party and the extreme left by Bayan Muna and its sister parties such as Gabriela, Anak Bayan, Anakpawis and ACT Teachers.
The extreme left would like a more radical solution to the lack of power and high prices. It wants to nationalize the power sector and institute the following measures:
1. Prohibit the government from selling what is left of the government’s energy assets and infuse capital to rehabilitate and increase the capacity of these plants;
2. Order the Department of Energy (DOE) to use the P175 billion Malamapaya funds to construct power plants especially those that utilize renewable energy which should come into operation within 3 years from the passage of the law;
3. Abolish the Wholesale Electricity Spot Market (WESM) and order the distribution utilities should gradually contract 100 % of their requirements;
4. Buy back the power plants sold to the private sector under EPIRA;
5. Reform the electric cooperatives, eradicate corruption and inefficiency while increasing public participation in the distribution utilities’ (DU’s) decision making body;
6. Scrap the policy of deregulation and eliminate the automatic pass through provisions of generation, transmission and other charges;
7. Institute the policy of regulation of all charges, requiring public notification and hearing before any power rate increase.
Both Akbayan and Bayan Muna have been at loggerheads for decades. A year ago, however, the two set aside their differences and went to the Supreme Court to ask it to reverse its ruling declaring the 1995 Mining Law constitutional by asking it to declare Sections 80 and 81 of this law unconstitutional.
Hmmm. Bayan Muna did that? And I thought that just recently it lambasted PNoy for questioning The Supreme Court’s ruling declaring parts of his Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) unconstitutional. Wonders never cease.
In any case, I see the open letter of big business as a subtle endorsement of Aquino in the face of his sagging popularity over his insistence on the constitutionality of DAP; and in the face of current attempts to impeach him or unseat him in extra-constitutional ways.
The letter begins by saying:
Your Excellency:
The Philippine Business Groups and the Joint Foreign Chambers (PBG-JFC) recognize the vigorous efforts of your administration to introduce lasting social, political, and economic reforms that will pave the way for a progressive Philippines. We reiterate our common position that we stand with your administration in institutionalizing these much-needed and long-overdue reforms.
But it’s not all praises. The letter goes on to say [underlining theirs]:
It is imperative that public officials, both past and present, who are proven to have been involved in the misuse of public funds be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law at the soonest time and without fear or favor.
Despite your administration’s best efforts to safeguard the allocation and use of public funds, recent developments demonstrate that corruption still rears its ugly head in the hidden nooks and crannies of the bureaucracy and government transactions. We believe that this greatly highlights the need and value of an engaged citizenry serving as government’s partner in guarding against corruption. Thus, we take note of your commitment during the Daylight Dialogues to pass the Freedom of Information Act before the end of your termand are looking forward to its enactment.
One thing that struck me about this letter is the information that the businessmen shared about smuggling:
In a forum with business organizations, the Customs Commissioner stated that the value of smuggled merchandise in 2011 alone was estimated to be between P350 billion to P1.4 trillion. This hole must be plugged.
Jeez. If the value of smuggled goods in 2011 was estimated to be up to P1.4 trillion, that amount is more than half of the P2.6 trillion budget for next year 2015. That sizable amount of smuggled goods is tantamount to economic sabotage!
Can these big business groups honestly say that all their members do not engage in technical or outright smuggling?
While they say that:
we would like to encourage other government agencies to insist that companies wishing to bid for government contracts should sign the Integrity Pledge and submit themselves to doing clean and ethical business.
Can all these groups and their members also please sign Integrity Pledges with the Bureau of Customs? Recall that some months ago, the Bureau of Customs suspended several brokers and importers for misdeclaring goods. I recall that at least one name stuck out of that list because, well, it happens to be one of the blue chip corporations. Whose owners are active members of big business groups.
Another thing that big business can do to help combat corruption and at the same time increase tax take is to stop the practice of padding corporate expenses by charging their personal gas and entertainment expenses as well as those of their families. It’s the same practice that they frown at when a government official does it.
They might say that they’re not in government, they’re not using tax money and they are merely practicing tax avoidance. They’re technically correct. But it smacks of tax evasion because every centavo of personal and family expenses that they pad on to their corporate expenses means further deductions to the corporate taxes they have to pay.
Of course the tax bureau would probably not be able to go after them since they hire the best accountants in Asia. But this boils down to a matter of trust.
You see, big business trusts the government to deliver on the promise of inclusive growth. In turn, the government trusts businessmen to pay the correct amount of taxes, with a promise that these taxes will be redistributed for the benefit of the lower income sectors of society.
Two other things I’ve noticed about big business. Its groups talk a lot about CSR (Corporate Social Responsiblity) and praise each other about their CSRs. I’ve received mountains of press releases about their CSR and been asked to cover luncheons extolling CSRs.
I’ve always wondered why I can’t seem to find statistics that would show me how much of earnings before income taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) really go to CSR. What’s the percentage for each company and for the top 1000 corporations at least?
Or is CSR just for advertising purposes?
Finally, it’s interesting to note what is not in the legislative wish list of big business. The following are not on their wish list but are on the wish list of prominent former NEDA director General Cielito Habito:
- A competition law that would reduce unfair trade practices, regulate the growth of monopolies and over-concentration of businesses in the hands of a few
- A national land use act that would regulate the use of an increasingly scarce resource – land – for the benefit of the majority and future generations
In short, while big business is asking government to shape up, maybe it’s high time that big business also steps up and do its share in not contributing to the corruption, promoting equity and inclusive growth.
For instance, big business should see workers, not as operating costs, but as part of its present and future markets that needs to be cultivated and expanded.
The change in perception might do wonders for the economy and for their companies. I recall what columnist Wilson Lee-Flores recently told me about the late Jose Yao Campos. His company Unilab was never beset by strikes and he treated his workers really, really well. He gave them more than what the law provided and they worked well in return. Today, Unilab is growing shoulder-to-shoulder with foreign pharmaceutical firms.
Big business has a big part in charting the country’s future. But every Philippine President is forced to weigh what businessmen want against what other equally important sectors want.
Against this backdrop of competing wishes, please read below the letter of big business to PNoy [all underlining is theirs], furnished to media :
21 July 2014
His Excellency Benigno S. Aquino III
President of the Republic of the Philippines
Manila, Philippines
Your Excellency:
The Philippine Business Groups and the Joint Foreign Chambers (PBG-JFC) recognize the vigorous efforts of your administration to introduce lasting social, political, and economic reforms that will pave the way for a progressive Philippines. We reiterate our common position that we stand with your administration in institutionalizing these much-needed and long-overdue reforms.
In 2013, the PBG-JFC conducted a series of dialogues to craft a list of key issues and proposed measures which we strongly believe will help achieve our shared vision of inclusive growth through job generation, poverty reduction, and global competitiveness. The product of these consultations was a letter that we sent to your office and was subsequently acknowledged by the Economic Development Cluster of your Cabinet.
Entering the latter half of your term, the PBG-JFC would like to take this opportunity to revisit some of our recommendations. With the Philippines hosting various international fora in the next three years, there is a golden opportunity for the country to cement its reform agenda and showcase its success story to the global community, as was done recently during the World Economic Forum on East Asia.
Institutionalizing Integrity and Good Governance
The PBG-JFC is cognizant that your administration’s drive to stamp out corruption has indeed borne fruit and contributed to the country’s better-than-expected economic performance and competitiveness rankings. We must continue to push the campaign for good governance. It is imperative that public officials, both past and present, who are proven to have been involved in the misuse of public funds be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law at the soonest time and without fear or favor.
Despite your administration’s best efforts to safeguard the allocation and use of public funds, recent developments demonstrate that corruption still rears its ugly head in the hidden nooks and crannies of the bureaucracy and government transactions. We believe that this greatly highlights the need and value of an engaged citizenry serving as government’s partner in guarding against corruption. Thus, we take note of your commitment during the Daylight Dialogues to pass the Freedom of Information Act before the end of your termand are looking forward to its enactment.
Connected to this, we also welcome your pronouncement during the same Dialogue regarding the issuance of an Executive Order seeking to institutionalize a mechanism for public-private cooperation in instilling integrity in governance. On this note, as what was done by the Department of Public Works and Highways, we would like to encourage other government agencies to insist that companies wishing to bid for government contracts should sign the Integrity Pledge and submit themselves to doing clean and ethical business. Finally, we encourage the Executive to closely coordinate with the Judiciary and the Legislative branch to address issues of competence, efficiency, and integrity in the justice system.
Achieving Inclusive Growth
While the economy has rapidly expanded during your term—bringing the Philippines into the ranks of Asia’s best economic performers—we note that a commensurate impact on reducing unemployment and underemployment has yet to be felt by our people. We believe that greater focus on sustainable agriculture and responsible mining will substantially assist in our shared aim of inclusive growth.
Despite our stellar economic growth, we note that the agriculture sector continues to underperform. Given that this sector employs close to a third of our population, particularly in the provinces, we urge your administration to immediately formulate and implement roadmaps for specific subsectors in agriculture, similar to what has been done for certain industries by the Department of Trade and Industry. Furthermore, these roadmaps must be supported by adequate investments to increase agricultural productivity and to improve the welfare of our farmers and fisherfolk.
We also reiterate our position that responsible mining holds the potential not only to bring in more foreign investments, but also to increase incomes in rural communities as well. Therefore, we call for the retention of the existing Philippine Mining Act, as we hold that this is an effective piece of legislation if properly implemented. As a complement, we should ensure that we have an internationally competitive fiscal regime for mining, which gives the government a fair share of net mining revenues, as well as ensures an equitable and reasonable return for investors. Furthermore, in deciding on the mapping of “no-go” zones, we reemphasize our position that the value of potential mineral projects should be balanced and weighed against agricultural, tourism, and other considerations.
Accelerating Infrastructure Development
Since 2010, we have seen the Public-Private Partnership initiative steadily gain steam, with close to 50 projects in the pipeline for implementation. We fully support government’s efforts to raise infrastructure spending to 5% of GDP by 2016. Nevertheless, the infrastructure gap continues to remain wide and must be bridged as soon as possible to support the economy.
First, we reiterate our position for a multi-airport system, particularly NAIA, Clark, and a future third airport, to serve the country’s current and prospective aviation requirements. On this note, we strongly believe that we should continue to enhance the advantages given by an international gateway in close proximity to the National Capital Region, while complementing this with further improvements in the capacity of Clark International Airport.
We also ask the government to expedite the construction of the NLEX-SLEX Connector, as well as to construct a feeder road that will connect it to the Port of Manila, which we believe will facilitate the movement of goods to and from production sites and our major ports. On a related matter, we once again emphasize our call to shift cargo traffic from the Port of Manila to the Ports of Subic and Batangas and support these with parallel initiatives to stimulate economic activities in these areas, and to reduce the cost of logistics.
Ensuring Energy Security and Price Competitiveness
The business community is united in the belief that opening up the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) to amendments will result in an unstable regulatory framework and thus may cause the deferment or cancellation of pending and much-needed investments in the power sector. It is our common position that what is needed is the full and proper implementation of EPIRA.
Also, we call on the government to ensure that growth targets will be supported by the needed energy investments. As such, a roadmaptowards energy security and electricity price competitiveness, which takes into account all the elements of the energy sector from generation to distribution, must be formulated at the soonest time and likewise made available to the public. Furthermore, moving forward, we call on the government to augment the Department of Energy and Energy Regulatory Commission with capable, proactive, and visionary staff, shifting the pertinent agencies away from a reactionary stance regarding energy issues.
Increasing Foreign Investments
We recognize that the amount of Foreign Direct Investments entering the Philippines has been steadily increasing under your administration. However, relative to our neighbors in Southeast Asia, and taking into account our need for as much job-generating investments as possible, the Philippines continues to lag behind comparable regional economies.
In this light, we strongly encourage the government to consider proposals to open certain areas of the economy to greater foreign participation. Today is an opportune time to pursue economic liberalization as a multitude of positive factors are converging towards making the country a preferred investment destination, among which include a young and dynamic citizenry, a robust economy, and great interest from the overseas investing community to participate in the Philippine market.
Pending any amendments to the Constitution, we suggest an initial and immediate course of action: to revise the Foreign Investment Negative List by reducing the list of industries where foreign participation is limited. Relevant legislation should be introduced in the near future for this purpose.
Addressing Smuggling
In a forum with business organizations, the Customs Commissioner stated that the value of smuggled merchandise in 2011 alone was estimated to be between P350 billion to P1.4 trillion. This hole must be plugged.
We are aware that the proposed Customs Modernization and Tariff Act and various measures on Anti-Smuggling are moving in both chambers of Congress. It is our fervent hope that, consistent with our goal to eliminate illicit trade and our commitment to the Revised Kyoto Convention on the Simplification and Harmonization of Customs Procedures, these necessary measures be immediately enacted and enforced.
Moreover, we reiterate our proposal to have high-level representatives from government to continuously engage with the private sector in a joint effort to address smuggling, similar to a Cabinet-level Oversight Committee with private sector participation as was done in previous administrations.
Mr. President, through these measures, the PBG-JFC is firmly convinced that the Philippines will continue to be among Asia’s trailblazers and, at the same time, ensure that the gains from good governance and a flourishing economy will benefit the majority of our people with the greatest of needs.
In relation to this and most significantly, the business community reiterates the appeal aired by some of our leaders in the Daylight Dialogues that the Supreme Court ruling on certain actions under the Disbursement Acceleration Program must not be allowed to weaken the determination of your administration to aggressively pursue its key reform programs in the next two years.
We thank you for this opportunity to be heard, and we look forward to working with your government towards these common goals.
Yours sincerely,
(SIGNED)
RAMON R. DEL ROSARIO JR.
Chairman
Makati Business Club
(SIGNED)
DAN C. LACHICA
President
Semiconductor and Electronics Industries in the Philippines, Inc.
(SIGNED)
EDGARDO G. LACSON
President
Employers Confederation of the Philippines
(SIGNED)
JOSE MARI P. MERCADO
President & CEO
IT and Business Process Association of the Philippines
(SIGNED)
GREGORIO S. NAVARRO
President
Management Association of the Philippines
(SIGNED)
ERNESTO M. ORDOÑEZ
President
Alyansa Agrikultura
(SIGNED)
SERGIO ORTIZ-LUIS JR.
President
Philippine Exporters Confederation
(SIGNED)
BENJAMIN PHILIP G. ROMUALDEZ
President
Chamber of Mines of the Philippines
(SIGNED)
ALFONSO G. SIY
President
Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Inc.
(SIGNED)
EDMUNDO S. SORIANO
President
Financial Executives Institute of the Philippines
(SIGNED)
ALFREDO M. YAO
President
Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry
(SIGNED)
RHICKE JENNINGS
President
American Chamber of Commerce
(SIGNED)
IAN PORTER
President
Australian-New Zealand Chamber of Commerce
(SIGNED)
JULIAN PAYNE
President
Canadian Chamber of Commerce
(SIGNED)
MICHAEL RAEUBER
President
European Chamber of Commerce
(SIGNED)
TETSUO TOMINO
President
Japanese Chamber
(SIGNED)
EUN GAP CHANG
President
Korean Chamber of Commerce
(SIGNED)
SHAMEEM QURASHI
President
Philippine Association of Multinational Companies Regional Headquarters, Inc.
CC:
Executive Secretary Paquino N. Ochoa Jr.
Cabinet Secretary Jose Rene D. Almendras
Sec. Cesar V. Purisima, Department of Finance
Sec. Florencio B. Abad, Department of Budget and Management
Sec. Julia R. Abad, Presidential Management Staff
baycas says
Continuation to Comment No. 20…
http://raissarobles.com/2014/07/30/pass-the-freedom-of-information-act-the-right-the-left-and-center-all-urge-president-aquino/comment-page-1/#comment-145958
THE MEANS.
August 5, 2001
baycas says
March 2, 2002
baycas says
August 17, 2002
Three days…as posted in separateopiniondotwordpressdotcom.
baycas says
December 7, 2010:
Justice Mendoza wrote this in G.R. No. 193036 (REP. EDCEL LAGMAN et al, Petitioners, vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR. and DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT SECRETARY FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Respondents.):
One day…as posted in lawphildotnet.
THE END.
(Kindly google the author. Thanks.)
baycas says
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4817865-philippine-political-law
leona says
Link of Ms. Valte’s news report http://philnews.com/headlines/2014/headline_news_0802ac.htm
leona says
On the definition issue of what is ‘savings,’ Palace spokesperson says –
“Deputy Presidential Spokesperson Abigail Valte shot down the proposal of Sen. Alan Cayetano that President Benigno Aquino 3rd ask the Supreme Court to define savings instead of tasking Congress to pass a Joint Resolution that will allow government to declare savings even before the end of the year to fund key government programs.
“It would be better if we have a law that defines savings because we have seen that when it comes to decided cases of the Supreme Court, the justices also change their minds. There is always a change in composition of the Supreme Court,” Valte said in a radio station.”
Does the SC have constitutional authority to ‘define’ what is ‘savings?’ If not, can the SC in interpreting what is ‘savings’ be a valid and enforceable interpretation?
SEC. 25 (5) of Art. VI says – “x x x (5) No law shall be passed x x x.” And referring to that clause says “x x x may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.”
So, ‘savings’ need to be defined ‘by LAW.’ Who has this power on the definition what is ‘SAVINGS?’ Congress has law-making power specially as to budget appropriations under Art. VI and specifically under SEC. 25 (5) of said Article VI.
Should the definition of ‘savings’ be one and inclusive to apply to all budget items in the appropriations? Or ‘savings’ need to be defined ‘according’ to how it should be reasonably and practicably applicable ‘IN OTHER ITEMS’ of respective appropriations?
What is ‘savings’ commonly understood under the Dictionary books? It says: ‘Money set aside for future use.”
So, to insert that Dictionary meaning of ‘savings’ it will look like under all GAAs like this:
“x x x for their respective offices from savings of money set aside for future use in other items of their respective appropriations.”
In all GAAs therefore must contain under ‘Definition of Terms’ the definition of ‘savings’ as “Money set aside for future use.”
What is wrong with the Dictionary book definition of ‘savings?’ Can this definition be clear enough for everybody, Congress, Executive and the Judiciary departments?
To leave the definition of ‘savings’ to judicial interpretation is and will be problematical besides the facts that SEC. 25(5) of Art. VI requires, as understood, that the definition be ‘by law.’
If ‘by law’ by Congress, is or will such a definition be permanent for all budgets issues on all items? Why not. Until Congress says otherwise depending on its wisdom as the lawmaking body.
If leaving it to judicial interpretation, potential clashes with the other branches is invitingly possible every future day.
Can anyone draft a good definition of ‘savings’ for Congress under this issue or topic for budgetary items purposes?
An award of P5, 000.00 is forthcoming for anyone with a good definition . . . from Sec. Abad’s personal savings! hehehe
leona says
Pres. Aquino’s idea of savings – “In his message to Congress, President Aquino sought a new definition of savings wherein funds intended for projects that have yet to start within the first six months of the year can already be declared as “savings” by the executive branch.”
Can such idea be already covered by the Dictionary book’s meaning of ‘savings’ . . . “x x x for future use?” A future ‘day,’ a future ‘week,’ a future ‘month,’ or a future ‘year’ is ‘for future use.”
leona says
link http://www.mb.com.ph/palace-hits-back-at-critic/ of PNoy’s news report on his ‘savings’ meaning.
Rene-Ipil says
Savings are any amount of money on hand (kuwarta na sumakamay) or expected revenue collection (kuwarta na inaasahang likumin) not appropriated (walang pinaglaanan), or not obligated (walang pagbabayaran) for expenditure (na gastusin). Savings also include money on hand or expected revenue collection already appropriated or obligated for expenditure but nevertheless unused in part or whole for the purpose appropriated or obligated. Savings likewise include such money appropriated but unobligated (inilaan ngunit hindi ipinambayad).
leona says
… Sec. Abad is still thinking about your definition or meaning…kasing haba ng SEC. 25(5) of Art. VI….hehehe
Salamat din…he says.
Edgar Lores says
Savings is disposable income. From whatever source.
leona says
…Sec. Abad thinking also . . . saying ‘very short’ compared to SEC. 25(5) of Art. VI’…no idea of ‘future use’ and ‘spend it or lose it’ theory of Sec. Abad…hehehe
‘Salamat’ says he.
Edgar Lores says
Here’s a longer definition. Savings is disposable income, real and projected, from whatever source.
Applied to the example of the 1M bridge in your discussion with Rene-Ipil:
1. Scenario 1 – Bridge has been built for only .9M although 1M has been allocated. Therefore, 0.1M is real savings. It can be used elsewhere.
2. Scenario 2 – Bridge has not been built yet and was initially estimated to cost 1M. But it is actually and eventually costed at 0.9M. Therefore, 0.1M is projected savings. It can be used elsewhere.
If I understand it correctly, the “future use” concept only applies to unallocated money. Money already allocated cannot be for “future use”. In Scenario 2, 1M has been allocated for future use for the construction of a bridge. Therefore, the 1M cannot be used for any other purpose. It is only when a correction is made in the estimates that the 0.1M becomes available for future use.
The “use it or lose it” concept only applies to already allocated items in the budget. If the agency uses the money fully, there are no savings. If the agency uses it partially, there is savings, which can be used within the agency or can be impounded by the Executive. If the agency doesn’t use it, the agency loses it as it will be impounded by the Executive.
Keep it simple. Why complicate matters? Abad should say “Salamat.”
leona says
MANILA (2ND UPDATE) – The Supreme Court on Friday stopped the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) and the Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) from moving the common train station to the Ayala-owned Trinoma mall in Quezon City.
The high court’s injunction follows a petition by mall giant SM Prime, which operates SM North EDSA mall, the original site of the common station.
“SM Prime is not seeking to delay the LRT1-Cavite Extension project. Rather, we are merely asking that the DOTC/LRTA and/or the winning bidder construct the Common Station component thereof in front of SM City North EDSA, in faithful compliance with the MOA,” SM Prime said in a statement.”
SM vs Ayala companies. Delay is factually happening on this issue. Is this in faithful compliance of what private businesses/companies said in their Letter on paragraph 6 dtd 21 July 2014 to the President –
“xxx Connected to this, we also welcome your pronouncement during the same Dialogue regarding the issuance of an Executive Order seeking to institutionalize a mechanism for public-private cooperation in instilling integrity in governance. On this note, as what was done by the Department of Public Works and Highways, we would like to encourage other government agencies to insist that companies wishing to bid for government contracts should sign the Integrity Pledge and submit themselves to doing clean and ethical business.” [Raissa’s article here.]
… “for public-private cooperation. Instilling integrity in governance. Integrity to submit themselves to do clean and ethical business.” If there was already a MOA [Memorandum of Agreement] why is there no compliance of such MOA? What happened?
Delay.
leona says
Link http://philnews.com/headlines/2014/headline_news_0801aa.htm
leona says
News – Sen. Escudero says “In a telephone interview, Escudero, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said that, since the Supreme Court did not declare unconstitutional the utilization of savings for DAP even during the middle of the year, he will allow it in by way of a provision in the 2015 national budget.”
And further said “that the high court alluded to “the existing definition of savings” in the law, and, so, therefore, “when we define [the term] savings, for example the difference between, say, bid price and contract price, which implies savings, so the differential can then be used.”
Is there ‘savings’ or ‘implied savings,’ when there is ‘a difference between a bid price and the contract price’?
The SC said on Pages 58-59 DAP decision – “And the fourth principle is that savings should be actual. “Actual” denotes something that is real or substantial, or something that exists presently in fact, as opposed to something that is merely theoretical, possible, potential or hypothetical.”
In short, what the SC has interpreted is that ‘savings’ must be something REAL or substantial; something that EXISTS presently in FACT; not merely THEORETICAL, POSSIBLE, POTENTIAL or HYPOTHETICAL.
Sen. Escudero’s statement will fall, most probably, on POTENTIAL and not REAL as exampled between a ‘bid price and contract price.’
leona says
link http://philnews.com/headlines/2014/headline_news_0801ab.htm
Rene-Ipil says
Is it not actual savings when you put a budget to build a bridge for 1M but completed it for only .9M due to more efficient management including an advantageous building contract? Having contracted at the onset the construction of the bridge for only .9M, the balance of .1M may be spent now for construction of 100 meters of road.
leona says
Agree…it’s savings. . . for me. Supposed there is only ‘an 80% unfinished bridge’? Or there is no bridge constructed as contracted? Or did away with the ‘contracted’ bridge for P1M?
One bidded for P1M but later agreed and contracted for P.9M but there is no bridge yet, is there a savings? [per Sen. Escudero’s reported statement. There is no further explanation on such statement’s example]
Rene-Ipil says
Since only .9M had been obligated for payment of the bridge, the remaining .1M – bridge or no bridge – is free of any encumbrance and may be spent for other projects. In any case the contractor is also obligated to complete the bridge. Otherwise, an action for breach of contract is in order, aside from other administrative sanctions.
leona says
[email protected] – So, there is already ‘a savings’ of P100, 000.00 that is free of any encumbrance ..with no bridge?
Ivlivs says
The fourth principle is the SC’s own definition because neither found in law nor in the constitution. Applying the principle can be impractical because there is the question of timing. In the bridge contract example, is there savings already at the time the contract is signed, when the bridge is completed, when partially complete, when all the bills are submitted, when paid, etc.?
As Bill Gates said “In a budget, how important is art versus music versus athletics versus computer programming? At the end of the day, some of those trade-offs will be made politically.” And then at budget execution, you find that what you needed at budget preparation was a crystal ball.
Rene-Ipil says
Bridge, no.
.9M, yes.
Bridge, yes.
.9M, no.
Victin Luz says
@Sir Leona ,,TAMA…the difference between bid price and contract price can never be said to be an outright saving’s……. If ALL the TERMs and CONDITIONs especially when a BIDDER/CONTRACTOR is complying of all the brands and specification’s as called for in a GOVERNMENT AGENCY ESTIMATEs and the BID PRICEs of the BIDDER are the same , and after signing/awarding of the contract NO CARDINAL CHANGES on the specifications will be allowed and the CONTRACT PRICE is lower than the BID PRICE ,, that will be the time that a SAVINGs can be had, but again until the project will be completed because their might be DELETION of plans and speccification or an EXTRA WORKs during construction such that it decreases/increases actually the Contract Price……REAL SAVINGs it can never be theoritical….
Nangangarap si ESCUDERO…hindi alam ang sinasabi …
Even the difference between the Agency Estimate and the Bid Price can never be said actually as a saving’s eventhough the Contract price will be the same with the Bid price ( usually it happens open ) after post qualification and post bidding..
Victin Luz says
maxima and minima ….if after the construction no changes of plans and specifications….as called for in the contract…NO EXTRA WORKs , NO COST PLUS……the project is 100% complete … The difference between the Agency Estimate ( budgetary fundings ) and the Contract Price ( open the same amount with the Bid price ) then that will be the time we have our SAVINGs…
leona says
Actually, based on that news report, I don’t really know what the senator meant. The statement looks incomplete. They better study so well the DAP decision for the next year’s budget to get away from embarrassment later from the SC’s decision.
Thanks Rene and Victin. . .
Rene-Ipil says
“The end does not justify the means.”
According to the SC the tremendous benefits provided by DAP to the people do not justify the “unconstitutional” means employed by PNoy.
Leon Trotsky said:
“A means can be justified only by its end. But the end in its turn needs to be justified.”
This is also quoted as “The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end.”
leona says
[email protected] . . yea, in the end, the manner things are being done nothing justifies either of it.
baycas says
1/2
THE STORY OF JUSIP
FOI: For Our Information
The Manila Hall of Justice (HOJ) construction was planned since year 2000 but due to the unavailability of budget it was shelved several times despite many groundbreakings. It was either lack of land or lack of money that caused the delay of the project.
The site of the Manila HOJ was moved a number of times from the former Jai-Alai Building along Taft Avenue to the old GSIS Building. But in 2005, gloria transferred the 10,818.10-square-meter GSIS property to the Supreme Court.
In 2010, the DBM turned down a P3-billion Manila HOJ allocation request from the high court.
In 2012, Justice Carpio (then Acting CJ) presided over the eighth (8th) groundbreaking ceremony of the construction of the Manila HOJ vowing that it will rise in the former GSIS land, located at the corner of Gat. Antonio Villegas and Concepcion Aguila streets in Manila. No DOJ key personnel were present during the occasion. “Breaktime” writer Banal wrote:
The Supreme Court had P1.865 billion worth of savings that will be allotted for the construction. The Manila HOJ will house 120 regional and metropolitan trial courts.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/files/2012/08/carpio1.jpg
baycas says
2/2
In the same year, DOJ Sec. de Lima (also Acting) emphatically told Rep. Abaya (1st District, Cavite) during the Budget Briefings that the construction and repair of halls of justice nationwide under the Justice System Infrastructure Program (JUSIP) was among those projects NOT considered in the recommended budget.
The almost-2-billion-pesos truth in the Supreme Court funding of the Manila HOJ construction was later on inked in the 2012 Annual Report of the DOJ:
(Emphasis mine.)
It is worth noting, however, that the present CJ Sereno had initially planned to avail of the P100-million allocation in the GAA for its intended utilization. Well, as the appropriation was DAPped as ‘savings,’ the high court (already deluged with DAP cases at the time) declined DBM Sec. Abad’s offer to transfer the fund early this year.
—–
Note: Please google for web links of the PDI (Tech Torres’ and Conrado Banal’s ‘ponencias’), Congress, and DOJ resources. If unable to search, please holler.
baycas says
The groundbreaking for the Manila HOJ construction and the budget briefings for GAA FY2013 were in August 2012.
baycas says
Forgot the quotes here…
“that the construction and repair of halls of justice nationwide under the Justice System Infrastructure Program (JUSIP) was among those projects not considered in the recommended budget.”
—–
Incidentally, Manong Jusip is the new barber in town.
baycas says
Does the Judiciary savings have a Judiciary appropriation cover?
…
baycas says
With SC’s premise in the original DAP ruling,
Let PNoy impeach the magistrates…
baycas says
But wait…
Covered?
baycas says
Now that’s tripartite COORDINATION sans ‘X-border.’
Wait again…
How did SC ‘saved’ almost P2B?
Timely that Cayetano asked Aquino to ask the SC to define ‘savings’ again…
baycas says
Isa pang paghihintay…
Hindi ba “paglilipat ng (mga) laang-gugulin”* ang paglagay ng “construction” para sa Judiciary sa GAA FY2013?
“Dapat ma-klaro,” ‘ika ni Manong Jusip.
—–
*1987 Saligang Batas
Art. VI
Sek. 25(5)
baycas says
Ito ang pinanggalingan ng P1M para sa “construction” ng halls of justice item sa Judiciary sa GAA FY2013.
(Note that P1 million lang at hindi P1.8 billion ang inilagay. Ito’y para i-augment lang ang line item na “construction” mula sa JDF savings na P1.8 billion na naka-earmark na para sa Manila HOJ noon pang Hulyo 2012. Dahil sa Constitutional prohibition of not reducing the yearly Judiciary budget kaya napakaliit lang ng halaga na inilagay as line item on “construction.”)
Nagkaroon ng Judiciary appropriation cover ang naplanong paglilipat ng pondo from Judiciary savings kaya’t walang ‘X-border.’
Ang napakaliwanag lang dito ay may mga internal arrangement ang bawa’t sangay ng gobiyerno para maging legal…at Constitutional…ang kanilang mga paggalaw ng pondo. Ang tawag dito’y koordinasyon.
rejtatel says
Your comments numbered 24 thru 24.3.2.2 Mr. Chief Justice @Baycas should be made into an entirely separate piece addressing the issue about that Manila HOJ vis-à-vis the funds allocated/appropriated/saved for it.
Very clearly explained Indeed. Thank you.
Rene-Ipil says
Yung 1.8B ay nag-cross border papunta sa DOJ dahil ang executive ang may poder na gumawa ng MHOJ na gagamitin ng judges, prosecutors, public defenders, probation office at Registry of Deeds. All these government offices are in the executive except the MTCs and RTCs. Maliwanag na may cross border transfer of funds ngunit dapat lang para sa kapakanan ng mga tao.
In other words this is a necessary cross border transfer of funds for an effective COORDINATION of the pillars of our justice system which includes the court, prosecution, public defense, law enforcement, etc. Thus, JUSIF becomes the responsibility of both the executive and the judiciary. The executive builds MHOJ and the judiciary maintains it. Ganun din ang treatment ng executive sa mga ahensya nito. For example, DPWH builds schools and DEPED maintains them.
Sabi nga ni Taurisius, kapag SC ang nag-cross border ang tawag coordination. Kapag executive ang nag-cross border, ito ay unconstitutional kahit pa anong buti ang nagawa nito sa sambayanan. Halimbawa ay ang pagbili ng PCOS machines ng COMELEC at pag-hirang ng experts sa COA.
baycas says
@rejtatel,
Maraming salamat sa iyong paniniwala. Higit sa lahat, maraming salamat sa iyong pagtitiwala.
Hindi naman po tayo nagkamali…
Nguni’t, datapuwa’t, subali’t…ay may tanong pa rin ako dito:
http://raissarobles.com/2014/07/30/pass-the-freedom-of-information-act-the-right-the-left-and-center-all-urge-president-aquino/comment-page-1/#comment-146569
Paano nakalikom ng ganoong kalaking savings ang Supreme Court?
baycas says
‘Yan daw ay dahil sa “fiscal autonomy” na kanilang tinatamasa…
Maganda at sisiyasatin na rin nila ang maaaring mali nilang gawi:
http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/65146-dap-constitutional-bodies-savings
baycas says
Na-explain na rin pala ng isang DBM official dito ang ukol sa hindi pag-e-‘X-border’ ng SC…
baycas says
This was proven here:
http://raissarobles.com/2014/07/30/pass-the-freedom-of-information-act-the-right-the-left-and-center-all-urge-president-aquino/comment-page-1/#comment-146443
baycas says
The relevant links for “The Story of Jusip:”
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/253892/sc-asks-help-from-dpwh-for-building-new-courts-in-visayas
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/255736/carpio-presides-over-8th-groundbreaking-for-manila-hall-of-justice
http://business.inquirer.net/175499/robbing-the-wrong-way
http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/commdaily/CDB%20Vol.%203%20No.%208%20(08.09.2012).pdf
http://www.doj.gov.ph/files/Annual_Reports/2012%20DOJ%20Annual%20Report.pdf
leona says
To scare the wits out of every one . . . CNN TV news today –
“Americans coming home with EBOLA”
…then some days after –
“Filipinos coming home with EBOLA” … either from Africa or from America or elsewhere.
We don’t need to worry now as it is not yet happening. Let us worry when EBOLA is here.
Parekoy says
As our mga Bagong Bayani, those 7 OFWs should fulfill their last act of heroism to our country.
I strongly recommend to them to visit Batasang Pambansa, The Senate, PNP Jail and Hospital at Camp Crame, Bicutan Jail, Customs, DAR, and DBM, before being confined and share a room with Gloria at St. Lukes.
Surely, their names will be etched in our hearts and their names will be shouted repeatedly by our future generations. National Heroes Day will be replaced with the Magnificent Seven Heroes Day!
macspeed says
@Leona,
Why are the business sectors seems to dictate the Government of what they wanted…
and Why the Leftist and extreme Leftist does the same as dictating the government.
If these dictation is some sort of quality assurance to benefit the people, then that is fair,
however, if the dictation is to provide protection for businesses and the people will suffer
that should not be approved…
Too much democracy, can the leftist and extreme leftist agreed with the business men?
I guess you are right, EBOLA like should come in between these gangster…whip them hard
so they may open up their heart and fill it with love, expel greed and propagate care…
leona says
[email protected] . . . yea. EVD is contacted by body fluids. Once ‘air-borne’ bring one or two to places where corrupts are havened! Infections will dismissed all investigations and prosecutions of corrupts’ cases. hehehe not a laughing matter.
leona says
News
“The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) has raised Alert Level 2, advising voluntary repatriation, for Filipinos in Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia – West African countries where there has been an outbreak of the deadly Ebola virus disease (EVD).”
“For its part, the Department of Health (DOH) has been closely monitoring – through phone calls- the 15 Filipinos who have so far been repatriated from Sierra Leone since June.
Three of them had fever, Dr. Lyndon Lee Suy, DOH spokesman, said on Friday, August 1. But none of 15 have shown any symptoms associated with EVD.”
“The incubation period from the moment of contact with an infected person is from two to 21 days.”
“He added that there is no need to restrict travel for countries with reported EVD – noting there are no recommendations yet from the World Health Organization (WHO).”
We have so many millions in the poor sector of society where sanitary health conditions are level poor also. Are we capable to deal with this once there is EVD here?
Who are the Magna 7 OFWs coming home [email protected] is referring to? Any tour guide for them as suggested by commenter? Two to 21 Days incubation period! Faster way than election removal remedy indeed.
netty says
The eyes of FEAR (NURSES and other HEALTHCARE WORKERS),,,, just a link for those who have the good mind to treat this as National Emergency, oh dear, what good is the trillion if populace would become sickly death.
http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/jMSpwS5jYFgzcrj71qVtMQ–/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTYxMztweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz05NjA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/afp.com/Part-PAR-Par7940286-1-1-0.jpg
netty says
http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2014/08/01/report-at-least-one-ebola-patient-is-headed-to-an-atlanta-hospital-american-infected-with-virus-condition-worsening/
netty says
You need to be careful,, ,,it is now with different strain and mutating and also can be spread by airborne transmission.Three already are allegedly feverish,I hope it is not too late for some strains are said to be spread by airborne transmission. The DOH shouldn’t be too complacent knowing that it is only transmitted by direct contact…… and when it happens people should be told. TC ALL.
Rene-Ipil says
Why is the budget for the construction of Manila HOJ parked under the DOJ instead of the SC? Thus, forcing the SC to do cross border transfer of funds.
“Court insiders said that given the continuing need for renovation of the courts, the Judiciary should be given full powers over funds intended for the construction of halls of justice. Lodging these with the DOJ grants the executive control over the judiciary, the insiders said.
“But the Budget official however said this is purely for budgetary reasons. Being part of a constitutionally fiscally autonomous group, the budget of the judiciary cannot be decreased. And because “capital outlay” or building construction is not seen to be a recurring item in the budget, it would be a waste of funds to lodge these funds with the judiciary itself.”
This means that by placing 1B, for example, under the judiciary for the construction of MHOJ, the said amount would be retained in the current judiciary budget even after the completion of the building in the previous fiscal year. Simply because the budget of the judiciary could not be decreased as provided in the constitution. One HOJ for each province would mean an aggregate of 80B over time. Sounds absurd because the budget for the judiciary in 2014 is only 17.7B.
Rene-Ipil says
The link.
http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/64920-did-sc-flout-budget-procedures
leona says
“Section 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly released.” ART. VIII Const.
In the RAPPLER news link it says “it is not a recurring item in the budget’ [ of the Judiciary]. So what if it is not? The Judiciary needs also to build and construct Halls of Justice etc.
About SEC. 3 above, what’s the problem about ‘the appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year”? Increase it by P1 peso or P1B pesos!
Why put building or constructions of halls of justice with the Executive Dept thru DOJ? Why not put it with the Judiciary Dept.? Simple misplacement of the item is not simply correctable?
Why put ‘a square’ inside ‘a circle’? Or vice versa?
Quae horribili stylus! [What a horrible thought!]
yvonne says
@Rene-Ipi & @leona
I solicited the opinion of a Level 5 COA auditor, and the auditor believes that under the special circumstances by which the project is being undertaken, the budget arrangement mentioned above is the best way to handle the funding of this project.
The MHOJ is a one time, non-recurring, extra-ordinary expense that is rightfully separated from the Judiciary budget because of the constitutional prohibition on reducing a next year Judiciary budget below its current level. If the funding for the MHOJ is added to the Judiciary budget, it will make the budget artificially high that the government has no choice but to maintain, or increase but not decrease, year after year, thereafter.
While it may be argued that the Judiciary needs to build more halls of justice, none of those will be in the same magnitude as the MHOJ which is being promoted as the biggest, most modern, and best-equipped hall of justice. Just how many 30-storey halls of justice buildings do we need in the provinces?
The other part of the equation is that the Supreme Court is in the business of interpreting the laws and protecting the Constitution – it is not in the business of building physical infrastructure, or managing such projects, especially of this magnitude. That said, the SC is coordinating with the DPWH for the undertaking of this project because the DPWH, rightfully, has the technical expertise and proper logistical support to ensure the successful implementation of the project.
The principle of separation of powers and independece of the three branches is not meant to make the three branches isolated from each other and cause grindlock in the government. On the contrary, they should work together towards securing and promoting the welfare of the Filipino people.
yvonne says
@ Rene-Ipil, I apologize for the misspelling. Sometimes, I tend to be “trigger-happy” on the submit button before I get a chance to edit my post.
leona says
“MALACAñANG on Thursday admitted that President Benigno Aquino 3rd will have full control of the P501-billion special purpose funds (SPF) contained in the P2.26 trillion proposed national budget for next year, a stranglehold that could spark fresh criticism of the Aquino government.”
P501-billion SPF . . . special purpose funds.
Why not just include this fund into the GAA for 2015 by allotments to provinces facing the eastern seaboard of the Pacific Ocean where typhoons and other natural calamities are frequent subject to approval by the president when needed? If unused then it is ‘savings.’
But not all of the fund. Spread it out to other provinces also for other calamities like earthquakes, fires, floods, bandits’ attacks with extensive damage to property and livelihood, and other destructions, man-made or natural.
Make this FUND. . .SPF. . . a stand-by allotment for that. And cannot be used for any other purposes. Local chiefs executive will not need from central gov’t to ask anymore for funds as needed as it is already allotted and pres’l approval is just required.
But to grant this FUND as pres’l FUND subject to ‘DISCRETION’ is still evil potential. No one can question a ‘discretion,’ if indeed one questions it’s use, a very difficult task to prove that it was used for ‘other purposes’ in violation of the law etc.
Fine tune in using this SPF money. And not by use that can be plucked out of the blue sky. If this kind of practice will be done, what will stop other administrations after PNoy’s term using this evil potential to be continued?
Fine Tune It. The tones will be much clearer to hear and in harmony at that. Now as reported for the next Budget, it is bungo! No harmony. Out of tune. Dy-SIN-to-Nada…
leona says
The link of that quoted news is http://www.manilatimes.net/pnoy-stranglehold-p500b-special-funds/115614/
leona says
We can say that Congress and the Executive departments should start being MUSICAL.
Many if not majority of good hearing people loves musical pieces even when it comes to SPENDING the FUNDS as musical notes.
SPF as pres’l discretionary funds is pure and simply a NOISE.
baycas says
FYI…
The originals (Filipino and English) go to Court:
Rene-Ipil says
Eminent author and constitutionalist former SC Justice Isagani Cruz wrote:
“the Constitution must be firm and immovable, like a mountain amidst the strife of storms or a rock in the ocean amidst the raging of the waves.” But “the inn that shelters for the night is not the journey’s end.
“But the very virtue of permanence may at other times be a disadvantage where the written Constitution is unable to adjust to urgent changes brought about by new developments.”
“In such a situation, the Constitution will become an impediment rather than a spur to progress, a treadmill to the nation seeking to liberate itself from the shackles of obsolete rules no longer responsive to its present aspirations. If this happens, the people will have to amend or revise the provisions of the outdated document, and if they cannot make a new Constitution, they will have to make a revolution.”
“The Constitution, like the traveler, must be ready for the morrow.”
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20070429-63095/Re-examining-the-1987-Constitution
Rene-Ipil says
Correction: should read,
Eminent author and constitutionalist former SC Justice Isagani Cruz wrote:
“the Constitution must be firm and immovable, like a mountain amidst the strife of storms or a rock in the ocean amidst the raging of the waves.”
“But the very virtue of permanence may at other times be a disadvantage where the written Constitution is unable to adjust to urgent changes brought about by new developments.”
“In such a situation, the Constitution will become an impediment rather than a spur to progress, a treadmill to the nation seeking to liberate itself from the shackles of obsolete rules no longer responsive to its present aspirations. If this happens, the people will have to amend or revise the provisions of the outdated document, and if they cannot make a new Constitution, they will have to make a revolution.”
“the inn that shelters for the night is not the journey’s end. The Constitution, like the traveler, must be ready for the morrow.”
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20070429-63095/Re-examining-the-1987-Constitution
Cha says
Florin Hilbay, who teaches Constitutional Law at UP College of Law, echoes the former SC Justice’s sentiments in an Inquirer commentary the other day (Constitutionalism, Statesmanshio and the Good)
“The Court sees as a valuable good the narrow, civilist interpretation of rules involving the use of public funds and would like to constrain discretion in their allocation. It therefore wants to precommit all presidents to its ideal standard of constraint and, in the process, is willing to risk the ire of a President unblemished by corruption so it may (it is hoped) tie the hands of potentially plunderous ones. This brand of legalism jibes with the Filipino’s sense of bar-oriented constitutionalism—we’re bound by the Constitution, though the heavens fall. We are governed by rules, not by people. We must apply the law looking not only at the “here and now,” but also at the days ahead.”
“The President sees himself as a statesman with a near-impossible mission of steering the ship of state from a decade of corruption that destroyed institutions, consigned the citizens to continued poverty, and further entrenched our country’s reputation as the “sick man of Asia.” He has produced results, and can give us a list of verifiable accomplishments—the improved numbers of the economy, the reform of the budget, and the aggressive pursuit of the corrupt. He believes his politics is transformative, and therefore must be given the freedom to begin such transformation, at the very least.”
“This freedom to reform society requires an environment of rules that will not shackle his discretion. These are difficult times, and the Constitution’s commands must be given practical breathing space so the President may straighten the nation’s path. The Constitution is here, not so that its rules may be imposed on the people regardless of consequence, but so that it may be an instrument for their welfare.”
Cha says
http://opinion.inquirer.net/77007/constitutionalism-statesmanship-and-the-good
yvonne says
@Rene-Ipil
Nice words from an eminent author, constitutionalist, and former SC Justice.
And here is my personal opinion:
Some things become constitutional, or unconstitutional, not because the Constitution says so, but because the people who are tasked to interpret the Constitution say so, rightly, or wrongly.
For instance, here in the U.S., the rights of women to make reproductive decisions, and the rights of gays and lesbians to enter into marriage, have flip-flopped between being constitutional or unconstitutional, and vice-versa, depending on the composition of the Supreme Court at the time a constitutional challenge is brought before the Court. It depends largely on whether the liberals, or the conservatives, control the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court. In essence, the Constitution is only as good as the people who interpret it.
Sadly, the integrity and reputation of the Philippine Supreme Court are badly damaged. Hence, its decision on the constitutionality of DAP is becomes controversial.
tristanism says
Thanks for digging that up. Very enlightening.
Also I didn’t realize the former SC justice writes so beautifully–ang ganda ng prose. Baka di ko lang napansin dati. haha
Rene-Ipil says
I think the books written by Justice Cruz on constitutional and political law are used as textbook in ALL law schools in the Philippines. Please correct me if I am wrong.
sykes says
same banana. and you have to wait at the end of the year to declare unused funds as savings since some are crying foul with the move to change the meaning of savings in next year’s GAA. and unless the gov’t hire really powerful psychics who will predict exactly what calamity will befall in what province and what the damage will be, mas mabuti na yung SPF because it allows flexibility. malay mo storms might originate in the west. and as for earthquakes and other disasters, unknown variables yan. kailangan lang talaga bantayan where and how the SPF will be spent.
let’s face it. when it comes to calamities, mahirap ilagay yan sa bottom up and itemized budgeting.
sykes says
@leona on SPF yung above post…lol
netty says
There is a big threat that is now being reopened from a certain Mark Cojuangco for his active advocacy and campaign to reinvest in the Bataan Nuclear Plant. I understand the need for additional cheap, steady and sufficient supply of energy. At what costs? It seems that businessmen and investors are just interested in the building and recovering of costs but disregarding the environmental study and risks that it poses on the life of people around the area and the country itself. This is one big issue that the people must be consulted with and be vigilant about aside from other laws that just suddenly surprisingly come out without the knowledge and consent of the people. I think many environment studies have been submitted as to the safety and or risks of the location in Bataan and other possible sites. It is a big mistake if this would ever be built. Reality of the present time is the earth and climate changes, earthquakes, fault lines old and new which are still unidentified and not located and the man-made and natural accidents resulting to CATASTROPHIC RADIATION NUCLEAR EFFECT that carry on for years with the people , future children , animals , plants and terrible climate condition if the country isn’t completely nuke.This is the kind of FOI I would be very interested to know if PNOY would ever make it alive and resurrected. I am very blessed to be in a wonderful responsible country but for simple minded Pinoys that only desire to have their nights brighter and warm days to be cool, and make a bit of income using cheap electricity who would refused the plan. SERIOUSLY THINK ABOUT IT. Sabi nga ni PNOY, BAHALA NA KAYO.. IT IS YOUR CHOICE.
leona says
Seriously, I think no nuclear power plant should ever be established in this country!
‘Pinas is situated in the RING OF FIRE. . . earthquake BELT in the Pacific Asia region. We cannot even solve right away natural calamities’ effects. Can we on nuclear RADIATIONS?
To build a nuc here is inviting DISASTER. We prohibited foreign forces from bringing in NUCLEAR bombs and now we want to plan a NUC power plant? It is Crazy. It is tangi. It is stupidity. It is BOBOnuc!
Parekoy says
Parekoy’s Trivia, Part XXX
What do you call the practice of godlike worshipping of a president?
Idolatry
What do you call the practice of the lawmakers stalling FOI Bill in the House of Representathieves?
Idlelatry
What do you call the approval of FOI Bill in the House of Representathieves?
Harakiri
What do you call the practice of abolishing PDAF and DAP and bloating the Special Purpose Fund in the 2015 budget?
Morphology(sic)
Creativity
Palusotry
What do you call the act of a Vice President supporting the President publicly while undermining him in the background?
Duplicity
Treachery
Parekoy says
FOI Bills: Lenny Robredo’s Sponsored Bill HB3237; Senate Approved Bill (S.No. 1733); Proposed 2013 FOI Bill
So many exotic dishes were served to us by Raissa!
Let us examine this particular potent dish: FOI Act. Most of us would just like to tell the present administration to approve it and give it to us, pronto! But be careful, the chef and his assistants may die when they try to taste it themselves. There are different recipes, from Lenny Robredo, the Senate, and the Proposed 2013, so I suggest we read them first and know the ingredients of this succulent but potent dish. Afterwards, we can give our unsolicited criticisms, recommendations, and prescriptions.
Please find the link here:
http://www.gov.ph/foi/
I repeat from my post #1:
FOI Act is a very potent act. For us it will be a parasite killer. The potency is so strong that it will not discriminate whether the parasite is from the opposition or from allies. That is the dilemma of the lawmakers because it is like taking cyanide. Bottom line: This is good for the country while bad news to the parasites!
The uphill challenges :
1. How will PNoy acquire Jim Jones’ deadly messianic charisma to turn the House and Malacanyang into another Jonestown?
2. Do you think the lawmakers and the members of cabinet will suddenly be so brainwashed that they are willing to drink the Kool-Aid laced with cyanide they helped PNoy to concoct?
3. Is there another way to pass the FOI bill without killing the chef and his assistants who prepared the toxic broth?
4. Is this just another Sisyphean labor or an Odysseus-almost-impossible-but-successful journey to Ithaca?
–
–
Refences:
Jim Jones – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones
–
Parekoyisms:
A great recipe will not guarantee a great dish, it needs a great chef to make it happen.
–
–
Parekoy
07/31/2014
Posting after tasting a Stinky Tofu
Rene-Ipil says
Antibiotics kill both bad and good bacteria. Maybe we should go herbal.
Parekoy says
Albularyo!
:)
leona says
No. 17 sub. (3) …another way to pass the FOI bill into a law . . . could have been by ‘Initiative’ but may not yet be exercised as R.A. No. 6735 Initiative law by Congress was declared ‘insufficient’ by the SC in G.R. No. 127325 Santiago vs Comelec March 17, 1997.
G.R. No. 174153 the Lambino case in point.
Is there at present an effective law for INITIATIVE? I do not know from my attempts to find it.
Initiative could prompt the people to pass many bills into law. . . FOI, Anti-Dynasty law, Criminal law, laws and laws.
leona says
Although ‘Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative’ refers to ‘amendments’ ONLY, why not provide that initiative clause allows people to ‘enact’ laws other than ‘amendments’ ONLY when the lawmaking body refuses or does not want to enact a law which people wants?
greenpea says
Information is not absolutely objective. It is subject to interpretation by those who wield it and even those who perceive it.
For every freedom too, there is a corresponding responsibility. There can not be genuine freedom where there is no genuine responsibility.
But have the people who clamor for information freedom like it is a panacea addressed the responsibility side of what they ask for?
Freedom of information without ensuring media responsibility will only entrench media elitism and slaves of the media owners agenda.
What has media done for example with the limited freedom that they enjoy now? Will freedom of information make members of media more intelligent, responsible and more respectful of citizens’ rights?
Freedom of information is important. But I don’t believe that we should rush it.
Kung di tayo kikilos, sino ang kikilos?
Kung hindi ngayon, baka mas maganda bukas.
greenpea says
correction:
Freedom of information without ensuring media responsibiity will only entrench media elitism and make people slaves of media owners agenda.
tristanism says
True. Para bang ito ang kasagutan sa problema na pag naipasa na ito, e andaming malulutas o maiiwasan na masama, It’s weird. I read somewhere, I think it was Grace Poe who said it, na DAP wouldnt have happened kung me FOI. Wag naman ganun. Labo naman nun.
Right now, kung hindi kasya sa tweeter nila ang impormasyon, hindi na ito babasahin ng mga tao.
There needs to be a shift in how people process and pursue information. Tama sinabi mo, kung passive ang trato natin sa FOI, media elitism na nga ito. People don’t even bother reading the actual news. sa headline lang me conclusion na kagad sila. Kulang lagi ang reaksyon ng tao sa issue. Pag narinig sa TV patrol, yun na yun. E umiismid pa naman si kabayang noli sa mga news na hindi niya nagugustuhan.
Incidentally, we already have a FOI-ish law. Republic Act No. 6713 (section 5a) compels government employees to provide public documents to whoever requests them. Also, this administration has been fairly transparent naman and yet wala namang nagpupunta masyado sa site ng DBM or sa Gazette para magverify ng propaganda.
Aynako.
I’m not saying we don’t need the FOI. All I’m saying is pag andito na yan, baka hindi din natin alam gamitin.
or baka walang gumamit at maghahanap na naman ng ibang issue para me masabi lang si Toby.
end of rant.
greenpea says
@ tristanism
Thanks for commenting on my post. Hi five!
Rene-Ipil says
Kung may FOI wala sana ang DAP.
Paano naman kung walang DAP? Nasa kangkungan tayo ngayon. “Sick man of Asia” pa rin ang Pinas.
greenpea says
@ tristanism
Ang example na binigay mo galing kapamilya channel, ang example ko naman sa kapuso – yong imbestigador.
Dati pa nga may pagkalaki laking tarpaulin ito sa dinadaanan ng mrt na ang asta ay akala mo kung sinong matapang na bigatin.
Pero sa buong panahon na nagaganap ang PDAF scam, ni hindi man lang niya ito naungkat.. Sa halip, ang hindi niya tinatantanan ay ang mga raid sa mga sinehan at bahay aliwan.
Ang media pwedeng kumita sa pag-iingay o pananahimik. Anyare? Excuse me po, nagtatanong lang po.
Tapos may radio program pa ito na pa hula hula pa kung sino ang pinatatamaan o gusto niya ibalita.
Kahit ang kapita pitagang entertainment commentator na si Nestor Torre Jr nagreklamo na sa ganitong pagsasayang ng air time pero walang epekto ito sa kanya at kanyang kapartner..
Pag nagka FOI, ano ang gagawin niya at ng mga taong katulad niya sa impormasyon na kanilang makukuha ?