Centrist Democracy Political Institute - Items filtered by date: February 2017
Duterte given patently false data

First of 2 Parts

PRESIDENT Duterte last week argued for the return of the death penalty by referring to the purported statistics reported by the Bureau of Corrections head Benjamin de los Santos in his recent testimony to the Senate.

The bureaucrat testified: “BuCor statistics show that before the abolition of the death penalty we had 189 inmates convicted for the commission of heinous crimes. After such abolition, a staggering 6,024 were sentenced for heinous crimes, an astonishing 3,280 percent increase.”

That’s a total lie, a patent fabrication: The Senate must cite the BuCor official for perjury, and for attempting to fool it to pass a law re-imposing the death penalty by presenting false information.

There is no such data: Neither the BuCor nor its mother agency, the justice department, has collated information on convictions on heinous crimes.

The only BuCor data that could approximate the number of “inmates convicted for heinous crimes” are the number of its yearly admissions of convicts. The number of those convicted of heinous crimes—such as murder, rape, and kidnapping— may be estimated based on its data that 48 percent of convicts in its prisons are “maximum security” inmates.

(To clarify, the BuCor under the justice department is charged with supervising six national prisons, including the biggest, the national penitentiary at the New Bilibid Prison, with its inmates consisting of those already convicted and with sentences of more than three years. On the other hand, the inmates in the jails of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, which is under the Philippine National Police, are those still on trial and with convictions of less than three years.)

As the data below show, after the June 2006 ban of the death penalty, there was very minimal increase in the number of those convicted for murders and rapes, the two most frequent crimes punishable by death, with very little deviation from the yearly average of 2,558 incidences.

The slight increases are due of course to the increases in our country’s population, which grew from 87 million in 2006 to 101 million in 2015. Indeed, for both 2016 when there was no death penalty, and 2005 when there was, the heinous crime rate per 100,000 population, was the same, at 2.8.

The data therefore indisputably shows that the abolition of the death penalty had not encouraged more heinous crimes, contrary to the claims of the BuCor official and proponents of the death penalty.

The Philippine data isn’t at all surprising: rigorous, scientific studies show that the death penalty has no impact on the incidence of heinous crimes. Two studies in the United States that claimed to prove that the abolition of the death penalty increased murder rates in certain US states, were later proven to be “fundamentally flawed” by that country’s National Research Council.

In fact, murder rates from 1900 to 2010 in American states in which there is no death penalty were even lower than in states with capital punishment. A 2009 survey of criminologists showed that over 88 percent believed that the death penalty was not a deterrent to murder.

The issue is really so commonsensical. As Amnesty International has pointed out: “The threat of execution at some future date is unlikely to enter the minds of those acting under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, those who are in the grip of fear or rage, those who are panicking while committing another crime (such as a robbery), or those who suffer from mental illness or mental retardation and do not fully understand the gravity of their crime.”

In essence, the death penalty has been a remnant from our civilization’s violent past, unenlightened by humanity’s higher values, mainly the recognition of the mystery and wonder of a human life, that took more than a thousand years to develop. We have only learned in the past 50 years that a human does not totally have free will, with his baser instincts capable at times of completely taking over his reason or values, even as we have to pretend we are captains of our souls.

From being a penalty imposed by all nations in the past, 140 nations have abolished it in law and in practice, and only 54 retain it in practice. Only the US (31 out of its 52 states) among the Western nations retain it, and not even “violent” Russia in practice.

It’s not a coincidence that many of the American states that do have the death penalty are those where Christians who take the Bible literally dominate.

Excluding in the discussion China and other nations whose cultures are still dominated by the primacy of the group — as in an ant colony — rather than the individual, the most important reason why there is still capital punishment in this day of enlightenment and age of reason will surprise you.

Religion

It is religion, particularly Christianity and its offshoot, Islam. Christianity and Islam have molded most of humanity’s values for at least a thousand years, and these two have always brainwashed people to believe that God himself sees vengeance as a value to be upheld, that an eye must be paid for an eye taken, a life for a life extinguished.

As late as 1952, Pope Pius XII even made the ridiculous argument that the “State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life.” Rather, he argued, “in expiation of his crime, [the criminal]has already disposed of his right to life.” Until 1969, the Vatican City’s statutes had capital punishment — for the crime of attempting to assassinate the Pope.

Pope Francis has stated that he is against the death penalty, but that it is his personal opinion and he is appealing for a consensus to end the death penalty on the ground that it is “cruel and unnecessary.” The Vatican had officially supported the 2015 United Nations campaign against the death penalty.

But believe it or not, Catholic dogma still doesn’t see anything wrong with capital punishment as a right of the state to defend itself. No wonder the support of many, if not most, Filipinos for the return of capital punishment in this unlucky, dominantly Catholic nation.

We will be the first country to re-impose the death penalty, and the second time around after the ex-general Fidel Ramos rammed a law through Congress in 1993 authorizing it. Gloria Arroyo abolished it in 2006. Duterte wants it back, after given false information.

What a country that keeps changing its mind on such a fundamental issue.

(On Friday, it was not the 2006 abolition of the death penalty that encouraged more crimes, rather it was the incompetence of the BS Aquino III regime and I will show that with facts, figures, and logic.)
Published in Commentaries
Tuesday, 14 February 2017 09:59

Manila is not Bogotá, Mr. Gaviria

CONTEXT and perspective are very important in analyzing a policy, program, plan and activities. These are important to reduce the impact of unintended consequences at the implementation level.

Last February 7, later updated online on February 8, the New York Times published an op-ed article from contributor, Cesar Gaviria, entitled “President Duterte is repeating my mistakes.” If you look at the full article, Gaviria singles out PRRD and uses key words such as “extra-judicial killings, vigilantism, killing of a South Korean businessman, rights and well-being of citizens, etc.” Gaviria, an official of Colombia’s Liberal Party, is apparently monitoring PRRD; he even knew the results of the survey on his popularity. Is he for real? A Latin American leader commenting on an Asian leader as if Manila is like Bogota?

Three takeaways were made: 1) “Throwing more soldiers and police at the drug users is not just a waste of money but also can actually make the problem worse. Locking up nonviolent offenders and drug users almost always backfires, instead strengthening organized crime. That is the message I would like to send to the world and, especially, to President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines. Trust me, I learned the hard way.” 2) “Taking a hard line against criminals is always popular for politicians. I was also seduced into taking a tough stance on drugs during my time as president. The polls suggest that Mr. Duterte’s war on drugs is equally popular. But he will find that it is unwinnable. I also discovered that the human costs were enormous. We could not win the war on drugs through killing petty criminals and addicts. We started making positive impacts only when we changed tack, designating drugs as a social problem and not a military one.” 3) “No matter what Mr. Duterte believes, there will always be drugs and drug users in the Philippines.”

What is Gaviria suggesting? “If we are going to get drugs under control, we need to have an honest conversation. The Global Commission on Drug Policy — of which I am a founding member — has supported an open, evidence-based debate on drugs since 2011.” Mr. Gaviria, that’s six years ago and what has your Global Commission done? What are the learnings? What honest conversation? Colombia exported cocaine to the United States and that is why the US intervened and launched or aided a domestic war in Colombia, right, Mr. Gaviria? You cannot hold the fort and you needed John Wayne because all institutions in Columbia were compromised, right?

Gaviria further said: “We do not believe that military hardware, repressive policing and bigger prisons are the answer. Real reductions in drug supply and demand will come through improving public health and safety, strengthening anticorruption measures — especially those that combat money laundering — and investing in sustainable development.” For your information, PRRD has launched a universal health care program and is not instituting “no Philhealth card” needed to avail of state assistance in health and hospital needs. Duterte has also banged his head on the inability of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) to do a money trail analyses of individuals linked to the drug trade.

Gaviria likewise suggested, “we also believe that the smartest pathway to tackling drugs is decriminalizing consumption and ensuring that governments regulate certain drugs, including for medical and recreational purposes.” Decriminalize consumption of shabu? Rugby? What else would you want decriminalized? Dictate on us, please. If the Philippines should heed an expert like Gaviria, can we charge Colombia for all the unintended consequences that will result from decriminalizing?

Will Colombia give the Philippines for 14 years, $9.3 billion? Yes, Vice President Robredo, Columbia received from the United States under Plan Colombia $9.3 billion for the past 14 years. The Plan’s initial official objective, to reduce by half the amount of cocaine produced in Colombia in the first five years. Cocaine, Madame Vice President! And it failed! And Plan Columbia was the biggest US military aid program outside the Middle East, the biggest in Latin America.

Please tell us, Vice President Robredo, why should we listen to Gaviria and what should we learn from them? You were already on speed by using Gaviria’s op-ed article on February 9, why can’t you be on speed with concrete plans? Gaviria talks, among other things, for “support alternative sentencing for low-level nonviolent offenders and provide a range of treatment options for drug abusers.” Have you actually studied these, Madame Vice President? Are you ready with your concrete plans or you just want to hit the punch bag daily?

Did you know that the Colombian drug trade is estimated at $10 billion and at present accounts for 43 percent of global coca supply (as well as smaller amounts of marijuana and heroin poppy)? And the Philippine drug trade is what? Do we produce like Colombia or are we a transshipment point? Would you want air fumigation in CAR, Madame Vice President, just like what Gaviria had in Colombia?

Well, Colombia is not the Philippines and the Philippines is not Colombia. Colombia has a total area of 1,141,748 sq km while the Philippines has 300,000 sq km, with 61 percent inland waters. Colombia has a population of 49,034,411 (2017 estimate) while the Philippines has 100,981,437 (2015). The Philippines is the eighth most populous country in Asia and 12th in the world. The Philippines’ population density is at 336.60/sq km and Colombia is at 40.74/sq km. The Philippines is an archipelago with 7,641 islands and Colombia is one contiguous area. Clearly, you see differences geographically.

Economically, the Philippines’ nominal GDP (2017 estimate) was $348.593 billion with per capita at $3,280 while Colombia stands at $300.988 billion and a per capita of $6,104. A Gini coefficient of the Philippines (2012) was at .43 percent while Colombia is at .52 percent. The Gini coefficient is a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income or wealth distribution of a nation’s residents, and is the most commonly used measure of inequality. A Gini coefficient of zero expresses perfect equality, where all values are the same (for example, where everyone has the same income). A Gini coefficient of 1 (or 100 percent) expresses maximal inequality among values. And the Human Development Index (2014) was .668 for the Philippines and .720 for Colombia.

Again, context and perspective are needed in dissecting Thailand’s war on illegal drugs because it is inherently a border issue, “greater than any since the communist insurgency of the 1970s and early 1980s – lies along the northern border. It consists of a mass of highly addictive methamphetamine pills, (known locally as yaba, which translates to ‘crazy medicine’) produced in Myanmar for the Thai market by the United Wa State Army (UWSA).” What was good in Thailand is they had a baseline study done: “From an early user-base among sugarcane workers and long-distance truckdrivers, Myanmar-produced methamphetamine has spread to infiltrate homes, schools, offices and factories throughout the country. The pandemic of ‘yaba’ has left in its wake a widening swathe of organized crime, official corruption, street violence and broken families. The impact among youths and students has been most severe. A September 1999 survey of 32 of Thailand’s 76 provinces, including Bangkok, found that 12.4 percent of youth in secondary and tertiary education were either using or dealing drugs and nearly 55 percent of that group were using methamphetamines.”

Thailand’s war on drugs “victory” was temporary. PM Thaksin’s campaign decimated the drug market at the local drug trafficker and street-user level, but it did not reduce cross-border trafficking or attacked the drug trade’s higher elements. Additionally, his battle against “dark influences” had been ineffective, with few arrests of note. And we know what happened to Thaksin.

Gaviria also forgot to mention in his op-ed piece the phenomenon of “balloon” or “push down, pop up” effect in the war against illegal drugs. In fact, the nature of that adversary was daunting. “Bigger than both the Cali and Medellin cartels combined, more powerful than the infamous Pablo Escobar—this was a Colombian cocaine empire with a reach so vast, and profits so great, it became known as ‘the super cartel.” What was so striking about that development was that this “super cartel” was operating with great effectiveness years after the much-ballyhooed defeat of the infamous Cali and Medellin drug trafficking operations and their immediate successors. Is Colombia better off today?

Do we have “disposable people,” Madame Vice President? Colombians have the atrocious phrase of “disposable” people (desechables) to refer to “addicts, the homeless, and the extreme poor. Sad, shocking, yet not uncommon, addicts are often found unconscious on main streets in broad daylight, and people skirt around them as if they are not there.” Are we on that level, Madame Vice President? Should we not act today or wait for that before we act? Before PRRD, shabu was dirt cheap and was being smoked openly by shared hits. Rugby? You can buy by spread and that will last you 24 hours. They hit the poor, yes, the laylayan. And we are not Colombia!

All of us know that the war on drugs is being lost on a daily basis. We need to fight it at the community level where all hands are on deck. You don’t want to help? Then you don’t care about this nation. Simply put.
Published in Commentaries
Tuesday, 14 February 2017 09:46

Cha-cha roars back to life

The House constitutional amendments committee has approved a measure pushing ahead with Charter change, with Congress convening as a Constituent Assembly but with members of the House and the Senate voting separately.

Rep. Roger Mercado of Southern Leyte, Chairman of the House constitutional amendments panel, made the disclosure even as the 1987 Constitution is not clear on whether the House and the Senate should vote separately in amending the Constitution through a Constituent Assembly.

“We hope that the members of the majority will accept this proposed bill amending the Constitution via ConAss. During the period of amendments, the House version will be amended to provide that we will be voting separately,” Mercado told reporters.

“Once we pass the proposed bill on ConAss, then it will be taken up by the Senate. If the Senate approves it, then we will hold a bicameral conference before submitting it to the President for approval. Once it becomes the law, the convening of both Houses [to amend Charter]will commence,” Mercado explained.

President Rodrigo Duterte prefers Cha-cha through a Constituent Assembly instead of a Constitutional Convention, which could cost taxpayers at least P6 billion.

Under the 1987 Constitution, any amendment to, or revision of, the Constitution may be proposed by Congress acting as a Constituent Assembly upon a vote of three-fourths of its members.

Joint voting will effectively drown the senators’ votes as there are only 24 senators while the House has at least 293 members. Senate President Aquilino Pimentel 3rd has insisted that in the event Congress convenes as a Constituent Assembly, voting on constitutional amendments must be done by the two houses separately.

“We will be on break on March 18, and it is our hope that Congress will give priority on this once we open session once again in May. Exporters, businessmen, are vigorously recommending for the amending of our Constitution, especially its economic provisions. This is ripe for appropriate action,” Mercado said.

He added that lawmakers will mount an intensive information drive on Charter Change in major cities such as Davao and Bacolod to discuss the benefits of a shift to the federal form of government.

The Duterte administration envisions a federal system of government wherein the Philippines will have 11 independent states (regions): the National Capital Region, Southern Tagalog Region, Northern Luzon Region, Bicol Region, Cordillera Administrative Region, Easten Samar, Western Samar, Eastern Mindanao, Western Mindanao and Bangsamoro.

In December, Malacañang formed a 25-man consultative committee to review the 1987 Constitution and study the proposal to shift to a federal system of government.
Published in News
Decentralized- A federalist is not selfish, he shares what he has and allow his partner to grow personally. He doesn’t let all the powers to make decision concentrated in his hands. He knows that power must be shared. So you see, it’s no wonder that people who are too controlling had their relationships spiraled out of control.

Autonomy- Comes with decentralization is autonomy, a federalist understands that independence is part of growth. He would always be there to assist her, but he’ll never be a hindrance in the attainment of her dreams.

Promotes specialization- A federalist believes that her partner is special in every single way, every inch of her. A federalist love to see his partner make use of her core competencies and special abilities to develop herself even more.

Power to make decisions- A federalist would allow her partner to make decisions on her own provided that these will enhance her growth and sense of independence. A federalist divulges decision making responsibilities because he trust that her partner is capable of making right and informed decisions.

Power to take over resources- In matters of resources, a federalist would always encourage her partner to take charge over her own resources given that these are channeled towards the self-improvement. She can spend her money on things and projects she deemed fit and helpful to her development.

With all these qualifications, who cannot love a Federalist, or Federalism even?
Published in Commentaries
The Centrist Democracy Political Institute (CDPI) together with the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) – Task Team on Federalism under the Office of Undersecretary Emily O. Padilla spearheaded the first Executive Conference on Federalism in the Province of Bukidnon. The event is in collaboration with the Konrad-Adenauer- Stiftung (KAS) Philippines, the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) – Bukidnon Province, League of Municipalities of the Philippines (LMP), and the Local Government of Valencia City.

The conference,which was attended by 130 participants, was held last 7 February 2017 at The Hotel de Susana and Resort in Valencia City.

Hon. Azucena “Sunny” P. Huervas, Valencia City mayor opened the forum by thanking the collaborating organizations and speakers for coming and sharing their knowledge on Federalism. She recognized the mayors and participants as they hold the greater responsibility of applying such learning in the future Federal system being in the administrative offices.

Governor Jose Maria Zubiri, Jr. of Bukidnon in his solidarity message called for the shift to federalism said that “the decades old system has never been corrected, on the contrary, hunger is being suffered, it goes up and it goes down, but it has never been resolved. Why? Because of the system”.

Assistant Regional Director Nilo P. Castanares had been grateful for the event as he humbly admitted that he also needs to know more about federalism especially that they are responsible for advancing the movement in their region.

Professor Edmund Tayao, Local Government and Development Foundation (LOGODEF) executive director said that power and authority depends on capacity and capability, and that establishment of states must be organic rather than imposed.

“The system can change the character of people”, this is what Atty. Raul Lambino, Deputy Secretary General of the PDP-Laban, therefore, the need to change the current constitution.

Mr. Conrado Generoso, DILG Task Team on Federalism core team member and consultant highlighted important role of social media in building awareness on Federalism and coming up with the majority of the public in supporting the shift to Federalism.

Mr. Lito Monico C. Lorenzana, CDPI president and founder discussed the urgency of stipulating the 4 salient preconditions in the shift to federalism. Without it, there is no inclusive and genuine Federal system.

Congressman Rufus B. Rodriguez, president of the Centrist Democratic Party of the Philippines (CDP) made a comparison of the present judicial system, and what it would look like under a federal system with all the necessary reforms.

Mr. Bruce A. Colao capped off the conference by providing current statistics on the prevalence of poverty and corruption in the country, and how federalism can be a game-changer.

The executive forum was a success thanks to the collaboration of different groups supporting the call for federalism. As part of the set of initiatives of CDPI and DILG, there will be another round of forum on Federalism and Social Market Economy on March 2017.
Published in News
Monday, 13 February 2017 09:18

Cuisia speaks on Aquino, Duterte

Life should be easier after five years of serving as Philippine Ambassador to the United States and, simultaneously, an active director of several blue-chip Philippine companies.

But when you’re Jose L. Cuisia—who’s been Central Bank Governor, Social Security System Administrator, president and CEO of Philamlife, and Governor to the International Monetary Fund, among others—life is a continuous call to serve.

He’s currently a board member at SM Prime, Manila Water, Century Properties, Phinma, FWD Insurance, The Covenant Car Company (Chevy Philippines), AIG Shared Services, the Asia Breast Center, and the Asian Institute of Management’s Rizalino Navarro Competitiveness Center.

“Even when I was abroad, I would come home to attend annual shareholder meetings in person, and occasionally, some board meetings. Most of the board and committee meetings were held in the morning in Manila, so I could attend them from Washington in the evening via Skype or teleconference,” he says.

Aside from good time management, he relies on a solid foundation in accounting and the ability to sift through a lot of information quickly, which are musts for corporate directors.

How about the musts for good boards?

“First, you must have diversity. In Manila Water, we have two outstanding women directors and we have very enriching discussions because our directors come from different fields of expertise. Furthermore, there is mutual respect for each other’s views,” he shares. “Second, management provides us with a lot of information to help us make decisions. I’ve been privileged to sit on boards which have practiced good corporate governance by making sure that all directors are provided with complete materials. And most importantly, we have independent directors who are not afraid to speak out, even if they have views that are different from those of management. That’s what good governance is all about.”

“We’re making progress [in corporate governance] because of the work done by the Institute of Corporate Directors (ICD), and by the companies themselves; some have been given regional recognition for adopting best practices in corporate governance. There’s a real effort by Philippine corporations to adopt good practices prescribed by the Asean Corporate Governance Scorecard. But we need to develop more qualified directors to ensure that there is an adequate pool of independent directors who can be invited to various boards,” he notes.

“The reason why it’s the same people on the boards is because they’re tested, they have a good reputation … New directors should get more training and exposure—they can start with small companies,” Cuisia advises. “Demonstrate independent thinking, attend more of these professional development seminars and eventually you’ll be noticed.”

Has the quality of boards improved over the years?

“Yes, because the directors, particularly independent directors, have gone through more professional training and development with the help of ICD and other organizations providing governance training,” he notes. “The SEC exhorts independent directors to be better prepared to tackle their jobs. I think directors today are more prepared.”

Philippine-American relationship

Has his stint as Philippine Ambassador to the United States changed his perspectives?

“Of course. Because of my job, I was inevitably exposed to the US-Philippine relationship much, much more. It made me appreciate the kind of military, security, socio-economic and diplomatic relationship that we have developed over the past 70 years. Despite what other people say, it has been very beneficial to the Philippines. And of course to the US too—because they also need us as an ally here in Southeast Asia,” he says.

“I see the value of a strong economic relationship. Which is why I’m concerned when they say we’ve got to move away from Washington. It is fine to develop other relationships with China, Russia, and many other countries—but not at the expense of the US,” he insists. “Why? Because we have a very healthy, very friendly relationship that has been mutually beneficial. We have over 600 American companies operating here, roughly 350,000 Americans living here. On the other hand, we have 3.4 million Filipinos and Filipino-Americans living in the US. So why should we move away from the US? Are we going to cut off relationships with the US just because we want to please China? It doesn’t make sense,” he adds.

“There is a greater bond between American companies and Philippine companies. Mainly because of our long history of shared values and friendship, the many Filipinos who live, work or study in the US and the lack of a language barrier— which allows Filipino nurses, who are so much in demand in the US, to get good jobs,” he muses. “Because of this, there is a greater affinity between Filipinos and Americans.”

“In traveling around the US, what surprised me is that outside of the major cities, many Americans don’t know much about the Philippines,” Cuisia says. “We did a business presentation in Miami and we were asked, ‘Where is the Philippines? How come we don’t hear the good news regarding your rapidly growing economy? How come we don’t hear about it?’ When Americans talk about Asia, they think of China, Japan, South Korea. They don’t know much about Southeast Asia or the Philippines. There’s not much exposure to our country, but we’re trying to change that. That’s why we had a lot of these trade and investment fora around the US.”Economic policy of Aquino and Duterte

The Philippines is in the news much more often now, because of the President’s rhetoric. How does this affect business?

“First, let me say that the administration’s 10-point economic agenda is very good. They’re building on the gains of the Aquino administration, they’re not throwing those away. If the Duterte administration implements that 10-point program, we will continue to see sustained economic growth,” he promises.

His reasons?

“Infrastructure spending’s going to be increased—that’s very important. Five percent of GDP was the highest target under the Aquino administration—I know we hit 4 percent of GDP at the end of 2015. But remember, when Aquino took over, it was 1 percent of GDP. The Duterte administration intends to bring up infrastructure spending to 7 percent of GDP.

“Second, they’re putting more emphasis on agriculture, which I would say was one of the weaknesses of the Aquino administration. In the third quarter, we had 7 percent growth because agriculture was growing by 2.5 percent, the best in the past few years despite bad weather. Government should pay more attention to building irrigation systems, farm to market roads, and providing greater support and assistance to farmers which could definitely contribute to increased economic development.

“Third is the commitment to education sector and health —that’s very critical. While President Aquino and his education secretary should be credited for having implemented the K-12 program, much more attention has to be given to the education sector to provide the youth with more job opportunities. In the health sector, President Aquino and his health secretary ensured better healthcare for the population particularly the lower income groups. Much more needs to be done by government to provide adequate infrastructure for social services.

“Fourth is tourism. We’ve seen our tourist arrivals move up from 5.5 million in 2016; we should be able to hit the 10 million target by the end of Duterte administration. But even if we hit that, that’s still very low compared to Thailand’s 27 million. The tourism sector can provide a lot of job opportunities because our people have the facility of the English language.

“There are tax reforms being pushed—a more progressive system—but they need to plug the loopholes. They’re still many people who evade taxes. You have to widen the tax base —that’s going to be one of the challenges.”

Cuisia adds: “One of our biggest challenges is developing the skills of our work force to meet the higher level of skills required in the future. As you know, we have millions of Filipino workers all over the world. Our Filipino workers are very adaptable, very trainable, and this is why they’re very much in demand. But if we are able to provide jobs here, and bring back these people who were exposed to technology in developed countries, they can contribute a lot more to our economy.”

Cuisia is keen to see more capital injected into the economy.

“Foreign direct investment will increase if you have less taxes, less bureaucracy, less regulation: Just opening a business takes so long because of so many requirements and too much red tape! You’ve got to have policies that encourage companies—both foreign and local—to bring in more modern technology when they invest in the country. But they’ll only do that if they see a more conducive business environment which provides incentive to the private sector to create more jobs,” Cuisia says.
Published in News
Monday, 13 February 2017 09:12

Is the Church a hypocrite?

Many commonly assume that when they see the word “church” with a capital C, the reference is to the Roman Catholic Church. In English usage (not just the Inquirer’s), the common noun “church” refers to a building, while the one spelled with the capital C refers to the institution.

Political leaders reacting against pronouncements of certain Church leaders on extrajudicial killings must take note of the same message from other denominations besides the Roman Catholic Church because the institutional Church is not a singular church.

One month into the Duterte presidency, in August 2016, a strongly worded declaration was issued by the Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches (PCEC) on the blood shed in the war against drugs. Without glancing at the signatory, one would have easily fallen into the trap of thinking it came from the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP):

“Where is the rule of law that ensures every Filipino accused of an offense must first be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt by a court of law before fair and just punishments are meted out? Where is justice in the killings of those who are accused when our law does not even permit as a punishment the killing of a person?”

It then graduates to a sterner tone: “How can we claim justice and peace in our land when murderers are allowed to kill with impunity and roam freely?” Then the tenor becomes even more demanding by calling out a response from its faithful: “We call on Evangelical Christians to denounce the unlawful and brutal killings of drug suspects, which demonstrate utter disregard for human life.”

Both PCEC and CBCP statements obviously proceed from the commonality of emanating from the same evangelical message, albeit they may differ in magisterium or teaching authority. Respect for human life is a universal value across many denominations and cultural societies.

House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez’s popish statement that bishops of the Catholic Church are “a bunch of shameless hypocrites” fails context for singling out only one particular messenger when in fact it is echoed by other denominations under similar circumstances.

Alvarez passed judgment by actually implying he is not a hypocrite. He places the onus of proving guilt of hypocrisy on the one being accused and not the accuser.

Freshly minted at that time in his new legislative role, Alvarez probably missed out on the PCEC statement. Seven months and much porcine lard later, not counting more false supporters at his beck and call because of pork enticements, he lashes out at the CBCP statement “Thou shalt not kill” and calls its signatories (the CBCP

president signs in behalf of all the other bishops for a statement agreed in plenary) hypocrites.

Refreshing our memories, Alvarez is currently embroiled in a plunder case now up for review in the Supreme Court. He is accused of having financially gained from the construction of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3 when he was transportation and communications secretary. He was technical committee head and member of the bidding committee that awarded the contract to the winning bidder.

The Ombudsman indicted Alvarez for violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act with a charge of plunder. In the construction company named Wintrack Builders that won the contract to remove subterranean structures from the terminal site, the name of Alvarez’s wife appeared as an incorporator, her share accounting for a third of the capital.

To piggyback on the Alvarez judgment on the Church statement: Are the Catholic bishops hypocrites? Yes. Are all Churches’ ordinary laity hypocrites? They are. Everyone is a hypocrite. All of us, save none, are hypocrites, at one time or the other in our lives, Alvarez included.

“Stop the killings, investigate the killings” is hardly any judgmental call at all. We are missing the message: Killing a human being without the benefit of protection from the law is in itself a form of exceedingly grave hypocrisy.
Published in Commentaries
Friday, 10 February 2017 10:10

Economic managers junk free tuition

The government’s economic managers have junked the proposed across-the-board free tuition for students in State Universities and Colleges (SUCs), saying it is unsustainable and will only benefit the rich.

They said the Unified Student Financial Assistance System for Tertiary Education (UniFAST) is a better alternative.

In a joint position paper submitted to Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea, Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Ernesto Pernia, Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez 3rd and Budget and Management Secretary Benjamin Diokno said UniFAST provides a more coherent and comprehensive framework to address the educational needs of students.

The economic managers said that while all citizens have the right to quality education, they do not agree that an across-the-board free tuition for all undergraduate students in SUCs is the best way for the government to achieve the mandate of providing education to all.

“The proposed free tuition policy is expected to have little impact on poor children’s enrolment in college,” they said, stressing that tuition does not comprise the biggest share of the cost of college education.

Based on the grant structure of the government’s Student Grants-In-Aid Program for Poverty Alleviation (SGP-PA), tuition constitutes merely one-third (P20,000) of the annual cost of P60,000 per student covered by the grant.

The officials said living expenses make up the biggest chunk of the cost of college education (P35,000 for 10 months). Instructional materials comes third at P5,000.

Since poor families will be unable to pay for the two-thirds cost of college education, they will still be unable to send their children to college.

“The proposed free tuition policy will benefit largely the non-poor students who predominate in SUCs. In 2014, only 12 percent of the students attending SUCs belong to the bottom 20 percent of the family income classification based on the Annual Poverty Indicators Survey,” the economic managers said.

They believe that an untargeted tuition subsidy to undergraduate students enrolled in SUCs will mostly benefit families who can afford to send their children to college while many deserving and qualified poor students unable to enrol in SUCs will be left out.

The economic managers also pointed out that an across-the-board free tuition policy will trigger an exodus of students to SUCs which would eventually affect the overall quality of graduates given that a number of private higher education institutions perform better than SUCs.

“Also, the budgetary support for free tuition will be difficult to sustain,” the Cabinet officials said.

They explained that if the tuition funding requirement is to be based on the national average tuition of SUCs under the SGP-PA – which is at P20,000 per annum – the estimated 1.4 million students currently enrolled in SUCs would require about P28 billion budgetary support from the government.

The economic managers recommended funding UniFAST instead, which they said is better designed to ensure a more efficient and effective use of government funds.

Established in 2014 through Republic Act 10687, UniFAST is designed to unify and harmonize all modalities of publicly-funded Student Financial Assistance Programs such as scholarships, grants-in-aid and student loans for tertiary education. The law provides full financing to deserving students, which generally favors the poor.

The officials argued that UniFAST is the better alternative because it has a clear delineation among its three modes of financial assistance in terms of objectives and target beneficiaries, applicability in SUCs and private educational institutions, a test-based eligibility requirement, and adherence to the acceptable standards of the Commission on Higher Education.

“The government should implement its mandate of promoting quality and accessible education within the limits of fiscal prudence, and with the use of appropriate tools and targeting mechanism. The UniFAST is better designed to ensure a more efficient and effective use of government funds,” they explained.
Published in News
Thursday, 09 February 2017 09:06

Deegong’s controversial alter egos



Part 3


CULTURE in the political management context, is the personality of the collective. The Deegong is very clear on this promise of “pagbabago,” or change. All incoming administrations have their slogans related to this much-prostituted word. But the Deegong has a proven track record encompassing two decades of local governance backing up this slogan. His administration is perceived to have one of the lowest incidences of corruption in government and he intends to introduce this culture of anti-corruption applying the same methods in the national level for the desired outcome.

The alter egos’ task is to help him shape this culture, from one where the practice of corruption is pervasive, legitimized and a matter of course; to one where corruption is perceived to be a perversion of positive values and ethically unacceptable. These Cabinet men and women must internalize the task to do what the Deegong did at the outset in his city—to overhaul their own respective departments also. They can’t go for cosmetic changes in techniques and tactics but must go all out to stamp out this sordid practice. Initiating management controls, reeducation and training are just some of the facets of the process. The more important aspects are the firing of corrupt personnel and instituting other sanctions, including cases in court. There is now a critical need to change this culture within the departments yet the pace of change will depend upon the political management skills of the principals—the Cabinet heads. And all these changes and initiatives need to be communicated to the public, clearly and unequivocally. And this is not simply a job for the presidential spokespersons – this requires the all-out efforts of PRRD’s alter egos, the Cabinet members. They need to be the “talking heads” of their own departments.

To understand better the political culture of the Deegong regime, we look back at where he comes from. A city mayor who ran his city successfully, boasting a good steady economic growth over two decades and imposing “law and order” on a city that was perceived to be the CPP/NPA laboratory during the martial law regime. Except for one term as a congressman, the mayor was really—as he himself admitted—“…just a local city mayor who did good by his constituency”. His no-nonsense approach to political governance was effective locally and he is applying the formula on a large scale for the whole country. This is perhaps where his critics may have some argument, on the type of people the President chooses.

Those within the periphery of power (not necessarily Cabinet posts) are from his intimate circle of friends and local boys and girls; some from his alma mater. The profile of his Cabinet are basically local personalities who made good in executive capacities as Cabinet members in past administrations (Finance Secretary Sonny Dominguez, heads the list with Secretaries Bello, Dureza and Diokno); some have extensive experience as local government executives (Secretaries Piñol and Sueño); and some have international exposure (Yasay of Foreign Affairs and Lorenzana of Defense).

Some chosen personally by the Deegong are those recommended by his allies in Congress, those he relied upon during the presidential campaign and the coalition he hammered to catapult him to the presidency. No doubt these choices are qualified and may have the complete trust of the President. We don’t exactly know who these people are but we do understand their entitlements in relation to the realities of this new government, the dictates of the coalition that support it and the decisions dominated by political imperatives. The President must now pay the price for the coalition’s support, by allocating as evenly as possible, appointive positions at all levels of government to the coalition members. This is of course a logical offshoot of the politics of patronage and spoils system practiced over several generations.

To date PRRD has reportedly over 3,000 positions in the bureaucracy and government corporations still left unfilled with the holdovers of the old regime still in place. This is understandable as the PDP-Laban, the nominal party of the President, does not have enough qualified people to take over the sinecures. The old office-holders may also be protected by the large influx of the Liberal Party members into the PDP-Laban who now practically dominate Congress.

But now, these people must perform their jobs based on their discernment of the new set of values which the PRRD has brought with him. And in turn those with specific Cabinet positions will have to reshape the missions and goals of their departmental turf. To do this, each Cabinet head and his own team must remold the organization and re-inject the concepts of ethics and creating public value. Those key persons in the “old organization” who are unable to give way and submerge their personal values to the collective (new political culture) must be done away with.

The job of these appointed presidential alter egos are not really cut out for them. But they need to follow the lead of their principal, the President. And here is where it becomes complicated. PRRD is a self-directed public manager always setting his own goals, pushing the boundaries of discretion. He is a proven political organizer and coalition builder. It was instinctive for PRRD to build consensus for whatever endeavor he is occupied with at the moment; but the Deegong is perceived also to be cavalier in anchoring his actions on the rule of law – and even seemingly has shown contempt for it.

Which puts the alter egos in a quandary as to how their own personal values and those of the President are analogous. A case in point is the concession given by PRRD to the CPP-NDF where three Cabinet posts were assigned to the openly avowed leftists. In the light of the failure of the peace talks between the government and the CPP/NPA/NDF, and the indictment by PRRD of these groups as terrorists; how will these alter egos now align their beliefs with that of their principal?

Another consideration for the managers recruited to populate the bureaucracy is a common belief that it is easy to transition from the private sector, where many of the Cabinet members and heads of GOCCs were recruited from. This is not exactly correct. Central to their careers as public entrepreneurs are their non-aversion to risk taking. While in the private sector, the gauge of the success or failure of entrepreneurship is in the pesos earned or lost, the bottom line for alter egos is the public good and value they create. Success of the alter egos’ work in government is reflected therefore in the eventual emancipation of the Filipino from the shackles of poverty and injustice – even perhaps at a great personal risk. This is the essence of public service.

Published in LML Polettiques
Friday, 03 February 2017 10:28

Brighter futures Mindanao

KNOWN as the “Land of Promise,” Mindanao is characterized by long coastlines and mountains that are filled with unique flora and fauna. A third of its land is devoted to agriculture and supplies 40 percent of food to the entire Philippines. Its land area is three times the size of Taiwan, 88 times bigger than Hong Kong, and 136 times larger than Singapore.

For a long time, it seemed that Mindanao was perceived as the backdoor to the Philippines. A closer look at the world map would show that Mindanao has a great opportunity to be the country’s frontdoor to Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, and even Australia and New Zealand.

Mindanao is part of the East ASEAN Growth Area, a sub-regional cooperation initiative bringing together the neighboring areas of the ASEAN countries of Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines in the BIMP-EAGA, which was formally launched in 1994 in Davao City. The sub-regional cooperation initiative aims to utilize the strategic proximity of the cities and enhance key target areas such as agro-industries, trade and tourism. Aside from the benefits to be from cooperation, cities like Cagayan de Oro, General Santos, and Davao are experiencing significant economic growth, and are visibly becoming a destination of business investment and local tourism because of their emergence as the commercial and business centers of the south.

The Muslim provinces of Basilan, Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu and Tawi-tawi also have great potential being in the center of trade for East Asia. But they would need more infrastructure development, especially in education, health and road infrastructure. Improvement in societal stability should also be addressed to attract more investors.

Prioritizing development projects in Mindanao

Under the Duterte administration, the allocated budget for both the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and the Mindanao Development Authority increased significantly. Infrastructure projects are also already in the pipeline like the Mindanao Railway System that will total 2,000 kilometers in length. The proposed railway system will interconnect Butuan, Cagayan de Oro, Davao, General Santos, Surigao and Iligan. Other infrastructure projects in Mindanao will include upgrading and modernization of airports and seaports, as well as road networks that will improve access to tourism destinations and farm-to-market.

Last January 13, Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visited President Rodrigo Duterte in Davao and pledged a trillion yen for infrastructure projects. The visit is seen to usher in more foreign investments, especially in Mindanao.

Zamboanga City

Just recently, Palafox Associates and Palafox Architecture had the opportunity to help Zamboanga City in the preparation of its Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance.It consists of plans for transportation, tourism, disaster preparedness, and security by design, among others. The plan also advocates an “agropolitan” development for the City of Zamboanga, integrating agriculture and aquaculture production with the necessary urban amenities that will spur growth for the city.

In addition, the Philippines, through the City of Zamboanga can play a crucial role in strengthening trade links with BIMP-EAGA, the Muslim countries in Asia and the Middle East. Along with the cities of General Santos, Cotabato and Davao, Zamboanga is identified to be among the selected urban centers in Mindanao for the BIMP-EAGA region. The Zamboanga Peninsula plays a critical role in realizing the medium and long-term goals of Mindanao and BIMP-EAGA which is to become a major location in ASEAN for high value-added agro-industry, natural resource-based manufacturing and high-end tourism that will eventually shift towards ensuring socio-economic, physical development, and a southern gateway to and from the Philippines.

Learning from Metro Manila

Indeed, Mindanao has a great opportunity for development, given the support from the Duterte administration. It would be important to prepare the island for the influx of investments through proper planning and development guidelines, so as not to repeat the mistakes of Metro Manila. At present, Davao City is already experiencing traffic congestion and is feeling the pressure to make necessary improvements to its mobility and transportation given the attention it is gaining from investors.

Comprehensive and collaborative planning is urgently needed as it is estimated that with the rapidly growing population and urbanization, there will be 35 million more Filipinos by 2050. Seventy to eighty percent of them will migrate to the cities. I estimate that with 150 million total population by 2050, the Philippines will need 100 more new cities. Moving forward, planning should not only be short-term and opportunistic, but also long-term and visionary.

I believe that the next six years give our country an opportunity for genuine reform and change. Mindanao is taking a major step in the right direction by prioritizing projects that will improve connectivity, convergence, context, corridors, and networks. Instead of putting up walls, the Philippines is building more bridges. Improving peace and order as well as promoting unity in diversity would also be crucial for growth to be inclusive. With this, bringing the Philippines well into the 21st century – a globally competitive country – will soon be in the horizon.
Published in Commentaries
Page 3 of 4