Inside Philippine politics & beyond

Congress cannot repeal a People’s Initiative law, Bayan Muna congressman insists

Share:
LinkedIn0
Pinterest0

Things got even more interesting. Bayan Muna Congressman Neri Colmentares is standing his ground that Section 10 of the draft People’s Initiative law is constitutional.

Earlier, I wrote a piece asking – Is the draft law being pushed through a People’s Initiative unconstitutional?

Former Congressman Teddy Casiño posted the following on his blog:

“In the interest of clarifying concerns regarding the constitutionality of the proposed PI bill abolishing the pork barrel system, I’m posting Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares’ memo on the controversial Section 10 of the said bill.”

THE SOVEREIGN POWER OF THE PEOPLE TO PASS A LAW: Beyond Congressional Power of Repeal and Presidential Power of Veto

By Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares
August 25, 2014

Introduction

Section 10 of the proposed bill of the peoples initiative provides that:

SEC. 10. Amendment or repeal of this Act. This Act may only be repealed, modified or amended by a law that has been approved by the people under the system of initiative and referendum enshrined in the 1987 Constitution

Certain concerns were raised on whether Section 10 could withstand a constitutional challenge thereby endangering the peoples initiative. The concern is once the Comelec grants the petition and schedules a referendum, the constitutionality of the bill is ripe for adjudication by the Supreme Court who in turn, may strike down Section 10 and declare that the law abolishing the pork barrel system may be repealed by Congress in its ordinary exercise of legislative powers.

Section 10 is constitutional as explained below, and even if, in the unlikely event that it is declared unconstitutional, the law passed through people’s initiative remains valid, since the procedural provision on how the law can be repealed has no relation at all with the substantive provisions of the law prohibiting pork barrel.

The traditional concept in the Philippine Constitution, and in probably all Constitutions of representative governments throughout the world, is that the power to legislate belongs to the legislature, whether a Congress or a Parliament. The legal notion of a direct democracy type of legislation through a peoples initiative has not achieved widespread practice in many countries today. While there are initiative laws that allow for legislation at a state, provincial or cantonal level, such as the United States or Switzerland, there is probably no country other than the Philippines that allows for a peoples initiative to pass a national legislation. Many lawyers, therefore, find it difficult to automatically apply the traditional legal principles and jurisprudence they are familiar with on such a novel legal notion that possibly sprung from the direct democracy that was practiced in the early days of the Greek states but was abandoned a long time ago.

The power of the people to pass a national law is a new provision in the Philippine Constitution. None of the previous Constitutions, including the Malolos Constitution, provided for the power of initiative. There is no existing jurisprudence applicable on the conduct of a people’s initiative to pass a national legislation especially on whether Congress can repeal a law passed through a peoples initiative. The existing jurisprudence such as the Lambino and Santiago cases did not touch on the issue of congressional repeal of a law passed by the people’s initiative. While no one can certainly predict how this issue would be resolved by the Supreme Court, the proponents of the initiative are quite confident that the Court will rule in favor of the letter, purpose and intent of the constitutional provision, and therefore rule in favor of the peoples initiative.

Issue: Can a national legislation passed through a people’s initiative be vetoed by the President? No, it cannot be vetoed by the President.

The Constitution while allowing two kinds of legislation, a law passed by Congress and a law passed through a peoples initiative, only allows veto in cases of laws passed by Congress under Article VI, Section 27. Otherwise, the intent of the Constitution of granting the people the power of initiative will be defeated especially since there is no way for the people to override the veto. A presidential veto cannot be exercised in the case of a legislative power to amend or repeal a law directly passed by the people. It is not countenanced under the Constitution. Besides, the Constitution expressly vested in Congress the provision of the procedure for a people’s initiative. In the absence of a provision on presidential veto, none can be used to nullify the exercise of people’s initiative.

Issue: Can Congress repeal a national legislation passed through a peoples initiative ? No, Congress cannot repeal a national legislation passed through a people’s initiative as it will violate the letter and spirit of the constitutional provision on initiative.

Ordinary or Plain Meaning (Textual) Approach

Firstly, the Constitution took out from congressional power the right reserved for the people to pass national legislation as provided under Section 1, Article VI which defined and limited the powers of Congress:

Section 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum.

The legislative power of Congress includes the power to pass, amend or repeal laws and Section 1 practically carved out from this legislative power of Congress the power of the people through initiative. To legislate means to enact statutes; it includes by necessary implication the power to amend or repeal them. To except is to exclude. Hence, excluded from the power of congressional legislation, in all this power’s aspects, are the national statutes enacted through the people’s initiative. This express exception directly tells Congress that the power reserved for the people through initiative is outside the penumbra of its legislative powers. The Constitution is consistent with its constitutional intent of granting the people the power to directly enact laws deemed necessary by the people or repeal laws which the people consider unjust or against the interest of the people.

Purpose and Scheme Approach

In the broader constitutional scheme, the congressional power to legislate is a “delegated power”. The sovereign people have the sole power to craft the Constitution and the laws that will govern a political entity. The people, however, delegated such power to Congress so that Congress may protect the people’s interest through legislation. But the people did not delegate that power totally, as the Constitution shows. Once the people believe that Congress failed to live up to this mandate, the people have all the right to override this delegated legislative power of Congress. The delegate cannot be empowered to simply override the powers exercised by its principal. This is the reason why members of Congress are called representatives, and it is absurd if the “Representatives” are allowed to subvert the will of those it represents.

A perusal of the cases involving people power shows that the acts of the sovereign have been recognized by the Supreme Court even if the same is not expressly provided in the Constitution. With more reason, the Supreme Court should recognize this sovereign power which is expressly declared in the Constitution.

The basis of the constitutional framers for the novel and unique provision on initiative was the experience of the people during martial law when the “Batasang Pambansa” which was under the control of the dictator Pres. Ferdinand Marcos, passed anti people laws to prop up the martial law regime. This was and remains the “grand mischief” that the 1987 Constitution seeks to address. This constitutional imperative asserts that when the people want to repeal a law passed by Congress or want to pass a law which Congress refuses to pass, the people have the power to repeal or pass a law without any intervention from Legislature and the Executive.

The above-quoted Section 10 is thus in response to very serious concerns raised by the people themselves about congressional circumvention of the people’s power to pass laws. During the campaign for signatures, there will be people who will ask whether Congress can simply nullify a law passed by the people’s initiative after all the months of difficult campaign and the millions of signature gathered. The people certainly have the right to ask if their signatures will have an important impact in the struggle for reforms or will be just another act of futility. If Congress is allowed to repeal the law passed by a peoples initiative, then the entire exercise may already be deemed a failure by many of those who support it. After all, the very reason why the people resorted to an initiative to abolish the pork barrel system is because Congress refuses and cannot be expected to pass such a law and will surely repeal such a law if passed.

The fact that Pres. Benigno Aquino in an innocuous provision in the proposed 2015 Budget redefined “savings” practically transforming the entire budget into DAP, only highlights the antagonism of both the executive and the legislative to the bill that seeks to abolish pork barrel in the likes of DAP. The entire people’s initiative could be rendered useless by the mere insertion of provisions in the annual General Appropriations Law that repeal the law passed by the people. This is totally unacceptable and there is no way that the people will not put in Section 10 in its proposed law. There is no way for the people to accept congressional repeal of a law passed by the people through hard work and extreme sacrifice. We might as well take out the constitutional provision on people’s initiative if this is the case.

Presumption against Absurdity

If Congress passes an unjust law and the people decide to repeal it, it is absurd if Congress is granted the power to revive that law resoundingly repealed by the people. If Congress is allowed to subvert a law passed through initiative, then the constitutional intent is subverted by the very institution which passed a law deemed unjust by the people. This absurdity practically makes the constitutional provision on the initiative a useless surplusage because an anti-people law which the people repealed is simply reinstated by Congress through a subsequent law. The constitutional provision on initiative is a tool not only to empower the people to override congressional legislation but also to serve as a warning to Congress that the people will override the delegated power given by the people to Congress if it fails to carry the interest of the people in the exercise of its legislative function. A law passed by the people is not “irrepealable” but it can not be repealed by its representatives in Congress but by the the very power that promulgated it—the people.

Conclusion

We seek to reiterate that a law passed through a peoples initiative is not an irrepealable law as it can be repealed by the another law also passed through a peoples initiative. What is prohibited is that Congress simply repeals a law passed by those it represents using its traditional powers of ordinary legislation. We have all been used to the traditional concept of a legislative power solely lodged in Congress, failing to recognize the significance of the unique power given by the Constitution to the people. Some will focus on the assertion that it is an attack on the traditional legislative power of Congress, if Congress is prohibited from amending or repealing a law passed through peoples initiative. Others will focus on the assertion that, on the contrary, it is an attack on the power of the people to pass a law if Congress is given the power to repeal it. The concern raised is legitimate, but the answer is clear—the people cannot put into the bill a provision that would surrender its rights and powers to Congress. It has to assert and defend its power to directly pass a law and the power to repeal it.
While tradition plays an important role in a legal system, it cannot be the recourse in the face of a novel legal notion that directly empowers the people to institute reforms. After all, as an esteemed criminal law professor once said, ‘There has got to be a better reason than tradition”.

Comments

  1. Hilmarc told the senate that the Batasan Annex was constructed at the cost of PHP38,000 per sqm in 1998-1999. That using the 2010 NSO price index the cost would have been PHP74,000 per sqm. How true is this?

    Instead of using DLS cost handbook, let’s engage HCC using its own argument regarding NSO data. According to NSO the average Construction Materials Wholesale Price Index (CMWPI) in Year 2000 was 100 using the 2000=100 price base. In year 2007, the year HCC bagged the MPB project, the CMWPI was an average of 167. Meaning that the price of construction materials in general increased by 67%. While the average daily wages in the construction industry increased by PHP47 from PHP209 in 2001 to PHP256 in 2007 or about 22% increase.

    So roughly the price of construction materials increased by 67% while labor wages increased by 22%. And the rule of thumb is that materials and labor comprise 60% and 40%, respectively, of construction cost,

    Dissecting the material and labor components of the Batasan building project, we come up with the material and labor cost of about PHP22.8 per sqm (38x.6) and PHP15.2 per sqm (38x.4), respectively, in 1999. In 2007 it would be PHP38,000 (22.8+ [22.8x..67]) per sqm plus PHP18.5 (15.2+[15.2x.22]) per sqm, respectively.

    Meaning that using NSO index the Batasan Annex building would have cost PHP56.500 (38,000+18.5) per sqm in 2007. NOT PHP74,000 as alleged by HCC.

    But HCC used the 2010 NSO index instead of 2007 when they “won” the bidding for MPB. Still, the figure would be about PHP64,000 per sqm only using the NSO 2010 index. More importantly it is a fact that the Batasan building is a Prestige Office or Grade A building while the 11-story MPB has six floors as car park, assuming that the five-floor office component is also Grade A.

    http://www.census.gov.ph/sites/default/files/attachments/itsd/specialrelease/CMWPI%20SERISES%20JAN2000-JUL2014.pdf

    • that’s what some european countries are doing, lorries and long haul trucks are only allowed to use city roads from 10pm to 5am. drivers are paid overtime rates.

    • The Port of Manila (POM) is congested due to the truck ban in the City of Manila. True. But it is also true that container vans in trucks congest Manila roads.

      Immediate solution:

      Reduce container vans in the POM without using Manila roads. And lift the truck ban after the pre-determined threshold of number of container vans in the POM at a given time, say 100,000 TEUs, has been reached, where port operations would not create traffic congestion in the city.

      The present critical situation requires the immediate transshipment of containers, empty or loaded, BOC cleared or NOT, to nearby ports. The government should allocate millions, or maybe billions, to secure sufficient number of feeder vessels to transship excess containers to Batangas and Subic, without additional expense to importers. The empty containers unloaded in these ports are then transferred to inland container depots (ICD) or yards for storage until picked up by truck for delivery to exporter’s warehouse or the port. In extreme cases loaded containers may be transferred also into ICD and the PNP and AFP would assist BOC and PPA in securing the cargoes in inland container yards against smuggling and pilferage.

      Please do not equivocate by saying that the cargoes need payment of customs duties and taxes first. This could be done in any Philippine port or government controlled container yards. All it needs is extra expenses by government. The present effort to transfer containers by ship is simply inadequate, if not minuscule.

      • good one, rene-ipil. we need the mayor of manila, mmda, and also local government units affected along the routes to get together and think of solutions. and cooperate for once. they’re so territorial sometimes and look after their own interest only.

      • The government is now effecting the massive transfer of container vans in Batangas, Subic and Inland container yard in Calauan Laguna. The Port of Manila aimed for 80% yard utilization and ERAP lifts the truck ban at 12 noon today. But that is for the immediate solution on port congestion.

        The short term solution is to ensure faster turnaround time of containers in Batangas and Subic ports to absorb the excess containers from Port of Manila.
        This could be done via:

        1. Unloading of high volume, low value cargoes at Batangas and Subic for less BOC intervention.
        2. Enhanced direct delivery unto trucks/vessel in Batangas and Subic to minimize use of limited port container yards.
        3. Speedy BOC processing in Batangas and Subic ports to maximize storage use.
        4. Imposition of much higher storage fee in Port of Manila to discourage importers and exporters from using ports as storage.
        5. Installment of more ship to shore cranes in Batangas and Subic ports to enhance faster unloading and loading of vessels and reduce port stay time and cost.
        6. Establishment of efficient ancillary service operation in Batangas and Subic.

        As medium-term solution:

        1. Moratorium or complete stoppage in expansion of Port of Manila terminals.
        2. Development of a new port in Kawit, Rosario or Tanza, Cavite simultaneous with construction of CALAX.
        3. Establishment of another port in Bulacan, if feasible, and expansion of Subic port.
        4. Intensify efforts to use MICT as a transshipment port which is the single most important reason in establishing MICT in early 80s and which does not need the use of Metro Manila roads.

  3. I must apologize to all of you guys, again.

    I’m just finishing something.

    I’ll be posting soon.

    Raissa

  4. In 2009 COA halted back a BPO Center project of CHED due to several irregularities. Hillmarc won the bidding on the civil works portion of the said project costing 300M. A 2007 CHED report said that the project did not undergo the proper bidding procedures, and that the civil works component or building was overpriced.

    “According to the investigation, the P40,646 per square meter cost of the new call center building to be put up in PUP to serve as the supposed “command center” of the project was high considering that government agency estimates of similar single-floor building with a medium-quality finish was only P20,000 per square meter.”

    http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/63734/news/nation/ched-report-cites-irregularities-in-p300-m-call-center-project

    It was about the same period that the Makati Parking Building project was bagged by Hillmarc. Talaga palang SOP ng Hillmarc ang mag-overprice.

    • The pattern of corruption can be inferred from this fact. This warrants succeeding (or simultaneous?) investigations to HCC’s past government contracts.

    • HCC also figured in this ongoing case…

      The charges against Mayor Evelio R. Leonardia et al docketed as Civil Case No. 07-12940 which were filed by Miguel M. Carriedo and his co-plaintiffs challenged the legality of the “Contract for the construction and site development of the Bacolod City Government Center,” dated December 27, 2006 as entered between the City of Bacolod and Hilmarcs Construction Corporation.

      http://www.ndb-online.com/august0114/sc-reverses-decisions-civil-cases-filed-vs-leonardia-et-al-ngc

      • Malakas din pala ang loob ng HCC at kayang mag-abono muna…

        May we also thank Hilmarc’s Construction Corporation, the contractor for the project. We were able to beat the deadline for the start of the construction work, literally by the skin of our teeth, only because Hilmarc’s came to the rescue. Even without yet receiving from the city government a single centavo for mobilization fund as stipulated in our contract with them, Hilmarc’s started construction on December 28, 2006 and sustained the project during the first few months using their own funds while the city had to look for a substitute lender as the original loan with Land Bank of the Philippines was scuttled by a case filed against the contract with Hilmarc’s by people whose political agenda was to sabotage the project at all costs.

        – Then mayor Leonardia, 2008

        http://www.bacolodcity.gov.ph/soca2008.pdf

        • in short, hcc muscled in and ensured bacolod city under mayor leonardia could not back down by starting on the construction even though no fund was available. pautang yata. and, maybe, interest was paid later and added to total price. kaya overpriced.

          as I see it, the contract that mayor leonardia must have signed with hcc did not carry clause that construction is subject to adequate finance being approved, and available. kaya, hcc got the upper hand, and mayor has no choice but go along, or face court case.

  5. According to Hillmarc Construction Corporation (HCC), it constructed the following government office buildings:

    Batasan Annex – 1998-2002 – PHP38,000 per sqm
    Batasan Main Expansion South 2011-2012 – PHP65,000 per sqm
    Batasan Main Expansion North June-October 2012 – PHP67,000 per sqm
    BSP Naga 2011-2012 PHP61,000 per sqm
    BSP Dumaguete 2010-2012 PHP62,000 per sqm
    Sandiganbayan building 1998-1999 PHP31,000 per sqm
    Calamba City Hall 2002-2005 PHP34,000 per sqm
    Makati City Hall Parking Building 2007-2013 PHP69,000 per sqm

    Why is it that the buildings HCC constructed early on sometime in 2000 or thereabout like the Batasan Annex, Sandiganbayan Centennial Building and Calamba City Hall cost about those listed in the DLS handbook of 2000 which hardcopy is with me? According to the 2000 DLS Handbook the construction cost of a prestige office building is about PHP34,000 per sqm. Thus, Batasan Annex, SB building, and Calamba CH cost PHP38,000 per sqm, PHP31,000 per sqm and PHP34,000 per sqm, respectively. Not much variation. In fact less in the case of SB building.

    On the other hand those buildings built by HCC in 2012 or thereabout are all overpriced using the same reference (DLS Handbook), assuming that the data presented by HCC are TRUE. It is because the DLS 2012 Handbook says the prestige office building costs about PHP49,000 per sqm. Indeed, two Batasan buildings built by HCC in 2012 cost PHP65,000 and PHP67,000 per sqm. Also the BSP buildings Naga and Dumaguete built in 2012 cost PHP61,000 per sqm and PHP62,000 per sqm, respectively. And of course the MPB (2007-2013) at PHP69,000 per sqm kuno and still the biggest spender.

    The HCC presentation shows that the DLS cost applies on or about 2000 but not anymore in 2012. WHAHHHH…… PWEHHHH….

    BTW HCC did not use OSMAK, Makati City Hall I, Makati Science High School, etc. as comparable buildings to MPB. Your guess is as good as mine.

    • there is only one conclusion based on what Hillmarc has presented. All those government buildings they built were overpriced. They just dug their own hole.

      • This excerpt of an article is part of the video…

        What’s world class?

        Cayetano, using the language of Vice President Jejomar Binay, asked Peig if the building “world class” or a certified green building.

        “We’re not saying it’s world class. We’re also not saying that it’s not world class.,” Peig answered.

        “The Vice President says it’s world class. So world class is a palusot (just an excuse)?” quizzed Cayetano. Peig did not answer.

        Peig also admitted the building is not a “certified green building” because it did not go through the certification process. He added, however, that some of the building’s features are “green.”

        Pressing even harder, Cayetano again asked Peig why the cost was so high even if the building wasn’t “world class” or certified green. Again, Peig did not give an answer.

        “Thank you for not dismissing this as politics,” Cayetano told Peig.

        http://www.rappler.com/nation/68187-makati-building-cayetano-binay

        • hindi pala green building, greed building.
          hindi pala world-class, wah-class,
          hindi pala bayad(n) muna, big(n)ay muna,
          hindi pala pulitika, putik-lintika,
          hindi pala overpriced, over-sliced,
          hindi lang pala bukol, bugbog pa,
          hindi pala sa makati lang, kundi sa ibang syudad rin,
          hindi pala sa mga syudad lang, kundi ibang munisipalidad rin,
          hindi pala sa Luzon lang, sa iba pang mga isla rin,
          spell SOP, bi-yu-kaye-ow-ell, mali, spell SOP, ell-aye-zji-aye-wye, mali,
          spell SOP, pee-aye-tee-ow-en-zji, mali
          spell SOP, tee-ow-en-zji-pee-aye-tee-ess, mali
          putik, ikaw na lang ang mag-ispel…
          suko na ako, dami pala niyan…

  7. If the MPB were to be sold as individual office condo units and individual parking slots priced at current market prices, will the sales revenue equal 2.28 B peso plus whatever the current market value of the land MPB sits on plus all other building development cost?

    If it were otherwise then the Binays are proved to be awful stewards of Makati’s financial resources.

    Sabi nga ni Nancy Binay mismo, “dapat ang pondo ginamit na lang pambili ng hospitable bed”.

  8. Just an observation.

    In the past few days I noticed that the Philippine Star seldom mentioned the senate hearing on the MPB. If ever, the articles were slanted in favor of Binay and Hillmarc Construction Corporation. Today, there is another article in its business section which, to my understanding, favors Binay and HCC. See for yourself.

    http://www.philstar.com/business/2014/09/06/1365790/hilmarcs-vouches-integrity-mkti-bldg

    I think I know the reason on such attitude of Philstar which is owned by the family of Speaker Belmonte. According to HCC, the firm built the following Batasan buildings under Belmonte’s stewardship:

    Batasan Main Expansion South 2011-2012 – PHP65,000 per sqm
    Batasan Main Expansion North June-October 2012 – PHP67,000 per sqm

    Birds of the same feather?

    • I’ve long switched to PDI when satur ocampo of the national democratic front started his weekly column at the Philstar, usually for the advancement of the maoist-leftists’ visions and goals

      • @kalahari me, too. the only credible columnists are jarius bondoc, and some like ana marie pamintuan who write fairly, targeting even the administration but praising when it’s needed to be praised. the others like carmen pedrosa, who obviously isn’t happy about herself. she should stop being spiteful and bitter (even if she won’t admit, it shows, nakaka walang-gana tuloy magbasa ng column niya) and instead enjoy her remaining life. her hatred against the aquino family from the very beginning is very obvious.

  9. The last senate blue ribbon committee hearing established a common thread among most, if not all, the government buildings bid and constructed during the Erap, Arroyo and Aquino administration. They are all overpriced to a varying extent.

    According to Hillmarc Construction Corporation (HCC), it constructed the following government office buildings:

    Batasan Annex – 1998-2002 – PHP38,000 per sqm
    Batasan Main Expansion South 2011-2012 – PHP65,000 per sqm
    Batasan Main Expansion North June-October 2012 – PHP67,000 per sqm
    BSP Naga 2011-2012 PHP61,000 per sqm
    BSP Dumaguete 2010-2012 PHP62,000 per sqm
    Sandiganbayan building 1998-1999 PHP31,000 per sqm
    Calamba City Hall 2002-2005 PHP65,000 per sqm
    Makati City Hall Parking Building 2007-2013 PHP69,000 per sqm

    http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/focus/09/05/14/makati-city-hall-building-2-vs-other-buildings

    On the other hand the world class Zuellig Building which was built from 2009-2013 costs only PHP42,000 per sqm.

    Take note that the above mentioned government buildings and more Makati buildings were built by only one contractor which is the HCC. If HCC’s data were correct, it appears that overpricing of government buildings had been the norm. And there are hundreds or more government buildings built by other contractors in the past. But maybe HCC fudged its data to cover up the MPB overpricing.

      • Usually the pile foundation is used for high rise building and is inputted always in construction costs. Please take note that all the government buildings mentioned by HCC are only up to 4 or 5 stories which do not need bored piles especially if the floor plate is spread over a wide base.

        Atty. Prig is taking us for a ride. Senator Cayetano did not say it. Atty. Peig’s presentation was BS. In the words of the late Billy Esposo – Bovine Ordure.

    • Clearly, a “Standard Operating Procedure” or “SOP” in the works.

      Tito Jojo, being a former City Administrator and Bids and Awards Committee head, must start investigating ALL cities. LOL…

        • Hmmm…

          The triumvirate Tito Jojo, Cayetano, and Trillanes against SOPs may be a promising crusade.

          Para mawala na ang “welder-weder lang” reality of Erap. That’s a reboot of the system!

      • PNoy should now pool its premier criminal investigative agencies to build up cases involving such edifices of corruption. He should ensure that plunderers and thieves of government funds in this monumental scam be placed in prison buildings. Customs, BIR, DPWH, AFP, PNP and PDAF SOPs have been exposed and remedial measures are now applied. But it is only now that the government building construction SOP has evolved out of the MPB anomaly. So, it us but fitting that the Aquino administration slays such monster that dwarfs the PDAF scam. It seems that in the City of Makati alone the 10B benchmark has been surpassed.

        Baycas is right. “Mag-aklas ang buong sambayanan ng Pilipinas upang iwaksi ang SOP.”

  10. Ito ay isang panawagan para sa mga mamamayan ng Makati.

    Mayaman ang Makati. Bilang sentro ng kalakal, ang pinakamalalaking negosyo sa bansa ay nagbabayad ng buwis dito. Ipinagmamalaki ninyo ang mga magagandang bulwagang barangay, ang Ospital ng Makati at mga health centers, ang mga gusaling pampaaralan, ang libreng cake para sa mga senior citizen, at uniform para sa mga mag-aaral. Ang lahat ng ito ay nararapat lamang sa inyong matamasa dahil may pondong nakalaan na nanggaling sa mga buwis. Wala kayong tinatamasa na nanggaling sa kagandahang loob lamang ng mayor. Hindi ninyo kailangan tumanaw ng utang na loob para sa mga serbisyong nararapat lamang na para sa inyo.

    Ang mga bagay na mistulang biyaya ng mga Binay para sa mga taga-Makati ay siya ring ginagamit upang maibulsa ang mas malaking bahagi ng kaban ng bayan. Ang Makati City Hall 2 ay isa lamang sa maraming mga project na ngayon ay alam na nating ma-anomalya. Sa bawat biyayang inyong natatanggap ay may katumbas na mas malaking gana ang napupunta sa inyong mahal na Mayor. Mas maraming project, mas maraming pakinabang para sa mga kawatan. Sa pamamagitan ng kanyang tagapag-salita na si Jonvic Remulla, inamin ni Bise-Presidente Binay na naging kalakaran nga sa Makati ang pandaraya at pangungupit sa mga project. Ang katibayang hinihingi nila dati ay sila na mismo ang naglantad ngayon.

    Unawain po ninyo na ang salaping winawaldas ng inyong mga pinuno ay galing sa lahat ng mga mangagawang nagbabanat ng buto, nagsisikap at nangangarap ng magandang bukas para sa kanilang mga mahal sa buhay. Sa kabila ng kakarampot na sahod, sila ay nag-aambag sa kaban ng bayan sa pamamagitan ng pagbabayad ng buwis. Ano mang biyaya ang ipinaambon sa inyo ay di galing sa sariling bulsa ng mga Binay. Ito ay galing sa dugo at pawis ng mga manggagawang tapat sa kanilang tungkulin sa bayan. Kung kayo ay hindi nagbabayad ng buwis, maipapakita ninyo ang pasasalamat at malasakit sa pagsisiguro na di magagamit ng inyong mga pinuno ang pinagpagurang buwis para sa kanilang sariling kapakanan lamang. Bilang mararangal na tao, ito ang tungkulin ng bawat isa sa atin.

    Hindi ninyo kailangan tumanaw ng utang na loob sa mga Binay. Anu man ang kanilang nagawa ay sya ring nararapat na gawin ng sino mang maluklok na pinuno ng inyong bayan. Dangan lamang na simula ng si Jejomar Binay ay naging alkalde nuong 1986 ay wala ng naging pinuno ang Makati na ang apelyido ay hindi Binay. Paano nyo malalaman kung mas mainam na pinuno ang iba kung di sila nabibigyan ng pagkakataon? Unti-unti nang nalalantad ang mga anomalyang pikit-mata ninyong pinalampas sa mahabang panahon. Panahon na po upang isipin ang bayan sa halip na ang sarili lamang.

    Gising na po, at baka maiwan kayo ng byahe ng matuwid na pagbabago.

      • Ito po bang post na ito ay makakarating kahit man lang sa kalahati ng populasyon ng Makati residents. Can we repost this to our friends, friends of our friends, friends of the members of our family and relatives whom they / we know are Makati residents?

        If a few of us do a little, then every little helps. Words are easy but it’s actions that count..

        • Ang laban sa katiwalian ng mga Binay ay hindi lamang dapat dito sa internet. Ang laban ay dapat lalo sa Makati at sa iba pang mga bayan at lalawigan kung saan ang mga botante ay naniniwala pa rin na si Jojo Binay ay pinagtutulungan ng mga mayayaman at ng mga madudunong dahil sa kanyang pag-aaruga sa mga mahihirap at api sa lipunan. Naging bise si Binay dahil ginapang nya ng tahimik ang mga bayang ito. Ginamit nya ang pondo ng makati upang magtanim ng utang na loob sa mga lugar na ito. Hindi bobo si Binay, pinagplanuhan nya ang lahat. Ngunit matalino man daw ang matsing ay napaglilinglangan din. Ang senate hearing na ito ang magsisiwalat kung paano ginatasan ng mga Binay ang Makati at kung paano ginamit ang pagtulong kuno sa mga tao para maitago ang kanilang kinukulimbat. Kung paano nila ginawa sa Makati, ganun din nila gagawin sa buong Pilipinas. Inumpisahan na nila noong bago mag halalan ng 2010, huwag natin payagan na umabot pa sa 2016.

    • Mag-aklas ang buong sambayanan ng Pilipinas upang iwaksi ang SOP.

      SOP…iwaksi…

      SOP…iwaksi…

    • Who was that woman of monarchy in France who answered about someone saying “the people are hungry” and GIVE THEM CAKES! On birthdays! Not when hungry.

      Like there is that message…give ’em cakes! Why not ROASTED CHICKEN? Crispy Pata? Cake?

      Arrogance is it kaya?

  11. Triumvirate of Corruption

    Jonvic,

    In this case the trinity is not a mystery at all.

    The corrupt is actually of one person masquerading as trinity:

    Jesus, Mary, and Joseph…

    JeJoMar !

    Parekoy
    Posting after making the sign of the cross
    09/05/2014

  12. physical situation of the structure speaks for itself.
    if the structure is justly priced, it will show.
    if the foundation is soft or firm, soil tests will show it.
    soft foundation requires more materials to make it
    stable to hold dead and live loads,
    not to mention attributable factors such as seismic,
    wind and other special loads.
    plans(as-built and approved) will manifest the specifications and minute details.
    bid documents and evaluated costs will not lie.
    agency estimate will show the cost of the original plans.
    we may or may not hire experts from abroad to assess a structure in our locality.
    blue-prints are our best medium and the actual building itself wont lie of its make.
    anyways, for purposes of fair play, experts will give better and trustworthy estimate.