Centrist Democracy Political Institute - Items filtered by date: September 2017
MANILA, Philippines —  President Duterte should remain head of state if ever the country shifts to a federal form of government.

At a Malacañang briefing on federalism yesterday, Lito Monico Lorenzana, president of the Centrist Democracy Political Institute (CDPI), said Duterte should stay in office during the transition period.

“President Duterte…should continue his dual  role as head of state...and head of government, leading and presiding over the new unicameral parliament. We need him up to 2022,” Lorenzana said.

Former Senate president Aquilino Pimentel Jr. expressed the same view in an earlier Palace-initiated briefing on federalism.

Lorenzana said they would present their proposal to the 25-member commission to be appointed by the President.

He said the CDPI’s proposal adopted and updated the 2005 consultative commission documents.

“In our proposal…the legislative and the executive are fused…The head of government is the prime minister, with his Cabinet recruited among members of the parliament,” Lorenzana said.

He said Congress should start its discussions on the shift to a federal form of government next month.

Lorenzana said the first parliamentary elections should be held not later than May 2020.
Published in News
President Duterte could extend his term until 2025 under the proposed federal parliamentary government, according to head of a Centrist Democratic Party (CDP) of the Philippines.

 

Lito Lorenzana, chair of the CDP and president of the Centrist Democracy Political Institute, proposed the term extension for Duterte during the transition period from the unitary presidential system, citing his ”political will” to implement federalism.

 

Under the CDP proposal, Lorenzana said changes to the Constitution, particularly the shift to federal-parliamentary government, must be introduced next month, followed by a plebiscite by February 2019.
He said the parliamentary elections will then be conducted not later than May 2020 “to organize the first unicameral parliament under the newly ratified Constitution with a term of five years up to 2025.”

 

“Then the incumbent President Duterte, now in a parliamentary form of government in 2022, shall continue – this is very important – shall continue his dual presidential role as head of state and at the same time as head of government leading and presiding over the new unicameral parliament,” he said.

 

Lorenzana said President Duterte may also step down by May 2022 to pave the way for his successor elected by the parliament. “Or if the people want or then you put that – you provide that in the transitory provisions of the new Constitution that he will still serve up to that year, okay. This is a choice of the people,” he said.

 

Duterte, who scored a landslide victory in the 2016 presidential polls, has a six-year term until 2022. Under the Constitution, the President may only serve for one term and is ineligible for reelection.

 

Lorenzana defended the possible term extension of Duterte to ensure the smooth transition.

 

“The point is that 40 years we have only one President who says that, ‘We need to shift to federal system of government,” he said.

 

He said the federalism proposal was proposed during the terms of former President Joseph Estrada and Gloria Arroyo but “we all failed.”

 

“That’s why we said, we suggest it so that can be put in the transitory provision. Sabagay, it’s only ilang years lang ‘yan (It’s only a few yars” from 2022 man lang eh when he is supposed to step down to 2022 to 2025,” he said.

 

Federal model

 

Lorenzana previously served as secretary general of the 2005 consultative commission assigned by then President Arroyo to study and draft changes to the Charter.

 

In the proposed federalism model, Lorenzana said executive and legislative branches would be fused into a unicameral parliament.

 

The head of the government will be a Prime Minister with his Cabinet recruited as members of parliament. “The Prime Minister or the head of government can be booted out of office through a vote of no confidence, not the process of impeachment,” Lorenzana said.

 

The President, on the other hand, will be the head of state and commander-in-chief of all armed forces. He will be elected from the parliament members.

 

4 preconditions

 

Lorenzana, meantime, proposed four preconditions to federalism, including reforms in the political party system as well as ban on political dynasty.
He pushed for the passage of the political party development bill, that will penalize turncoatism and enforce transparent mechanism on campaign financing.

 

“We need real parties, not the type we have today or have had in the past several decades,” he said.

 

“Political parties are primarily formed not only to contest elections and to grab and hold power in government, but they must possess an ideological core aggregating the needs and aspirations of diverse segment of our society, differentiating each from the other to give the people a chance to choose what they want,” he said.

 

Lorenzana also said the law banning political dynasties must also be passed as mandated by the Constitution.

 

“If Congress will not again pass an enabling law, because 80 to 90 percent of Congress are members of dynasty, then what should be written in the revised Constitution should be banning the dynasty – should be self-executory,” he said.
Another condition is the passage of a “real all-encompassing” Freedom of Information law to enforce transparency in government transactions. “This law will allow public access to information pertaining to official acts, transactions or decisions and compel transparency and accountability in public service,” Lorenzana said.

 

The fourth and last condition is the implementation of electoral reforms “that will not pervert the will of the populace,” according to Lorenzana.

 

“The Comelec (Commission on Elections) must be reformed to remove all quasi-judicial work and transfer electoral contests and protests to the judiciary,’ he said.

 

Lorenzana said the CDP proposals on federalism will be transmitted to the Palace-formed consultative commission that will study and recommended amendments to the Charter.
Published in News
Friday, 15 September 2017 06:49

Under federalism, Duterte may stay till 2025

A federalism advocate on Thursday raised the possibility of extending President Duterte’s term to 2025 while the country adjusts to the shift to a federal parliamentary government.

Lito Lorenzana, president of the Centrist Democracy Political Institute, also said that in the process of revising the Constitution and shifting to a federal system, there are four “critical conditions” that must be met.

These are: the reform of political parties including the penalizing of turncoats; the abolition of political dynasties; the passage of a freedom of information law; and electoral reforms.

Lorenzana, speaking at a Malacañang press briefing, said he believes the country is on the verge of shifting from a unitary to a federal government because Mr. Duterte himself is championing the idea.
Published in News
Thursday, 14 September 2017 08:35

Doing business in a federal government

WILL it be easier, especially for the micro, small and medium (less than P100 million assets) enterprises to do business under a federal set-up? Since Federalism essentially means a smaller sovereign state (the region) within a larger sovereign state (the federal government) wouldn’t it make it harder for this economic sector, a sector that accounts for over 60 percent of our employment and makes up 99.5 percent of total enterprises, to do business? (These figures are a dead giveaway that MSMEs suffer from low productivity and that economic opportunities are concentrated in a few regions and a few (.5 percent) of the total number of enterprises.

 

Last week, the Center for Philippine Futuristics Studies and Management, Inc. held a conference with this theme where the keynote address was given by retired Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno. Speakers from Germany and Canada gave excellent inputs on their respective countries’ experience with federalism and business operations. Both have robust MSME sectors.
For the Philippines, since I too am an entrepreneur within this category and a strong advocate for federalism to equalize development opportunities to spread benefits and reduce poverty where it is raging (areas further from Metro Manila), I certainly desire that doing business be made simpler. Because the reality now, under a unitary government set-up is, it is clearly disadvantageous to the MSMEs, particularly those that are in the regions further from Manila. Why?

 

The first thing to note is that because NCR, Calabarzon and Central Luzon regions, just three regions out of 17 (PRRD nixed Negros Island Region last month), captured almost one-half of total government expenditure in 2016 and having the remaining 14 regions share in the remaining 50 percent, it is but a certainty that MSMEs in those 14 regions will struggle. For government itself is an important market for this sector and having smaller regional budgets deprives them of a more vigorous market for products and services that they can offer. Well, even in the NCR and its two neighboring regions in the north and south, because of the overly large expenditures, it makes it also difficult for MSMEs to muscle in on the big boys who are obviously well-connected and have easy access to government officials and natural resources.
Federalism assures a much better distribution of government expenditures and that alone will encourage MSMEs in other regions to sprout up and meet new demand for goods and services.

 

But what about business permits? Wouldn’t it be more difficult since now you would have local, regional and national offices to register with? Mr. Julian H. Payne, the president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, said that in Canada a business registers with the appropriate set of government offices that is matched with its scope of operations. Meaning, if an enterprise will do business all over Canada, then it gets a federal registration and permits, while if it’s business is limited to one province (their term for a region) then the permits are only applied in that province.

 

If the Philippines had a federal government structure, then the bulk of the MSMEs would only need to register and be permitted mostly at the municipal and probably regional levels but not anymore at the national level. Even businesses that were only limited, say, to a barangay would only need to register and be permitted at that level. Can you imagine the explosion of new and creative enterprises when both expenditures are increased in faraway regions and it is much easier to register and get permits? Maybe this alone will be a big boost to stop our country’s shameful slide in its economic standing among comparable members of Asean where we are at the bottom of similar countries that did not have a wrenching war and its impacts to overcome. Not only do we have a low per capita GDP but according to the ADB, in 2016 only Myanmar and Laos had slightly higher poverty rates than the Philippines. So, we have low GDP and on top of that, it’s concentrated, leaving behind mostly crumbs or trickles for the majority, thus high poverty rates.

 

In Canada as in the US, states can make up their own sales tax and other income tax rates and a federal Philippines would be no different. A regional government, say, Region 8 which had a poverty rate of 37 percent in 2014, could determine a more attractive mix of taxes for the business sector and provide incentives for particular industries that make use of the local skills and resources in the area. They will be free to do that at the regional level which gives a sizable enough population (about 6 million people, or 1.2 million households) and combined with a heftier government budget will be an attractive enough market for regional and local enterprises to go after.

 

When surveyed, MSMEs in developed federal countries spend their energy dealing with the internal dynamics of the enterprises like labor productivity, R&D and innovation, making it more efficient and good enough to go global. Witness the great products from Thailand, etc. Here, because of a very centralized government, MSMEs report that most of their time is spent with external factors like business permits, corruption and taxes. Many transactions are handled by “facilitators and fixers” as red tape and delays can be legendary. This sucks away energy that could have been used to run a better MSME.
Yes, federalism bodes well for the MSME sector. Much more than our present unitary system where the data on their economic performance is very disappointing. Since we encourage our returning OFWs to venture into this sector, we must prepare for the ground to be more fertile that what it presently is.

 

A co-convenor of Subsidiarity Movement International, and Federalist Forum of the Philippines, the advocates for the bottom-up development model as well as proper decentralization; and the strengthening of regional governance. He served for 12 years in the Regional Development Council of Central Luzon as chair of the economic committee. He is a member of the board of advisors of CDPI.
Published in Commentaries
Thursday, 14 September 2017 08:13

Duterte has his share of incompetent officials

The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) has joined local and international human rights groups in decrying the extrajudicial killings.
 
Police and vigilantes have killed thousands of people involved in the drug trade — users, pushers and traffickers — since President Digong launched a relentless crackdown when he assumed office in June last year.
 
As in any war, some innocent people or civilians are killed in the crossfire or mistaken for the enemy as in the case of 17-year-old Kian Loyd delos Santos who was killed by eager beaver Caloocan City cops.
 
Years from now as the country looks back objectively at these critical times, people will profusely thank Digong for his resolve in ending the drug menace.
 
When we feel safe in our homes and in the streets because the government has gotten rid of drug-crazed criminals, we will appreciate how this President is standing up to criticisms over his unconventional way of handling the drug menace.
 
Despite all the flak he’s getting from bleeding hearts, President Digong’s popularity and trust ratings are high.
 
Why? Because the majority of the population thinks Digong is doing it for the common good.
 
 * * *
 
Like all good leaders, Digong is not without flaws.
 
He has placed the wrong people in key positions: Nicanor Faeldon as Bureau of Customs chief, Caesar Dulay as Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) commissioner, Ronald dela Rosa as the Philippine National Police director general, Martin Diño as chair of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA), Salvador Medialdea as executive secretary and Vit Aguirre as justice secretary.
 
Diño, a former barangay chair, has defied Medialdea’s order for him to be transferred to the Department of Interior and Local Governments as undersecretary for local governments.
 
Diño claims only the President—and not Medialdea—can remove him as SBMA chair because he stood in for Digong when the latter hesitated to file his certificate of candidacy for president.
 
Medialdea slinks into a corner whenever Diño invokes the President’s supposed debt of gratitude toward him.
 
Faeldon, who was forced to resign after the President’s allies in Congress asked for his head, was “natutulog sa pansitan (sleeping on the job)” when a shipment of P6.4 billion worth of “shabu” (crystal meth) passed through customs.
 
Dulay, who was the President’s dormmate in law school, thinks that having a tax compromise with a big multinational company meant reducing its tax payment from P30 billion to just P65.4 million.
 
Dela Rosa, whose moniker is “Bato” or Rock, is a crybaby and doesn’t inspire respect from his subordinates and the citizenry.
 
Aguirre, who graduated at the top of his law class, is a bit inarticulate and sometimes talks out of line.
 
The officials I just mentioned are not the only inept ones in Digong’s government; it would fill up this small space if I mentioned all of them.
 
Published in Commentaries
Thursday, 07 September 2017 20:23

Marcoses not thieves! They borrow to safekeep!

THE Marcos regional political clout, buttressed by ill-gotten wealth, has been a specter hovering over every administration these past 30 years, threatening havoc on the electoral process, extracting political concessions from each major national candidate every sexennial on one hand, and applying carrot and stick tactics to advance family agenda on the other. All in the overarching drive to rehabilitate their name. They obviously have succeeded as they now have the audacity to offer through the Deegong, no less, to return a portion of this wealth.

This wealth, “…the riches (gold bars and part of their alleged hidden wealth) were taken only to secure the Philippine economy at that time”(Arianne Merez, ABS-CBN News, August 31, 2017).With this return, the Marcos family can help erase the country’s deficits, and fund the social programs of the country. How nice of the Marcoses! Now, Ferdinand can truly be regarded as a Philippine Hero – one whose “tadhana ay naiguhit din”.

The insinuation is that this wealth was not plundered from the Filipino people. The family simply “borrowed” the country’s wealth for safekeeping. As PRRD intimated, “I will accept the explanation whether or not it is true, kasi wala na, e”

There is something wrong with this picture. Especially for those millennials who aren’t familiar with how Ferdinand Marcos plundered the country’s coffers during his two-decade rule. Perhaps a cursory description of the magnitude will help illuminate the fruits of this perversion ending in 1986.

According to the Supreme Court estimate, Marcos had accumulated $10 billion while in office (The Guardian, Nick Davies, May 7, 2016),while his annual pay during those years averaged $13,500. Now, do the math!

Imelda Marcos boasted in 1990, taunting the Filipino, that “…there is more money the government is not yet aware of…we own practically everything in the Philippines”.

In the past 30 years, since the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) was created by the Cory Aquino government, it has retrieved money from five Swiss accounts, half a dozen crony companies, most of the coconut levy funds and proceeds from auctioned paintings, jewelry and real estate properties totaling $3.7 billion. Still far short of the estimated $10 billion loot.

I will not review the extent and methods of the plunder but would direct the reader to several links one of which was written on May 7, 2016 by Nick Davies of The Guardian, who was allowed by the PCGG to do research in its archives.

The focus of this piece is the implication of PRRD’s pronouncements. The President is as much frustrated as the citizenry who have been played by the Marcos family. But more importantly the people need to understand the anomalies and corruption underlining the hunt for the Marcos wealth. The 30-year saga could generate reams and books on the bungling on the part of the government and the dissipation of those sequestered Marcos assets placed under the incompetent hands and thieves in the PCGG, our government trustees. They have reduced the search-for-the-wealth narrative into “thieves stealing from thieves”.

Our culture of government service today is largely influenced by the legacy of the Martial Law years that we have yet to purge ourselves of. This innovative type of impunity can only be described as kleptocracy– the mass thievery by a cabal of political and economic leaders that sucked dry the marrow of the governed. This centralized corruption through “crony capitalism”, was a Marcos attempt to create his brand of oligarchy replacing that of the old. Marcos put in place his cronies not only in individual businesses but in control of whole industries: banking and financial services, coco-oil production refining and exports, sugar and banana plantations, state finance projects, infrastructure construction, etc. The Marcos wealth was dispersed among these few chosen few dummies, who after his exile and demise, compromised with a naïve Cory government to surrender portions and legitimize the rest of the ill-gotten assets still in their possession. Crony capitalism and its effects were so successful that the practice still resonates up to the present. “Businesses thrive not as a result of risk taken for them, but as a return on money amassed through a nexus between a business class and the political class”(Wikipedia). The residue can be glimpsed in the current oligarchy in control of political parties and elected officials thereby capturing key regulatory agencies.

But the Deegong’s pronouncements of late to accept a return of a “portion of the Marcos ill-gotten wealth” will have bigger reverberations on the body politic and especially for our millennials for generations to come. These are very disturbing.

This ill-gotten wealth was never acknowledged publicly by the Marcos family as stolen. A convenient euphemism is substituted. These assets instead were “borrowed for safekeeping” for the Filipino with presumably the intention of returning them at some future date. And this date has arrived. The family has been restored and thriving; Imelda, an elected representative of Ilocos Norte; Imee, provincial governor and Bongbong, who might just win an election protest and the vice presidency and could then move on to become the country’s President.

How about accountability and justice? And what of those who suffered human rights violations, torture and summary executions through those dark years. Should we just leave this to karma – that nebulous justice of the universe at some future date for retribution?

The question at bar is, how will the Deegong finally handle this? Is he as powerless and feeble as to accept this ridiculous euphemism of “borrowed assets for safekeeping” and play along with this mockery?

Mr. President, if you scour through social media, their message is clear, and simple. “Can you not apply your vaunted ‘tokhang’ solution to these high and mighty and just make samples of them too? Get the wealth back to your people and punish the plunderers the way you know how. We have given you 80 percent support despite the daily dead bodies of the dregs of society strewn in the streets nightly. What’s a few more?”

God forbid, that I may have to re-teach my grandchildren – crime does indeed pay! But don’t steal…just borrow for safekeeping, and return the same when able!

Published in LML Polettiques
Page 2 of 2