Tag Archives: philippine politics

28
Mar

The circle is complete: on legislative power of investigation

Posted by | Categories Ink | Tagged , ,

ON DISCLOSURE AND SECRECY, SEPARATION OF POWERS, AND THE LEGISLATIVE POWER OF INQUIRY

After Justice Teresita de Castro’s decision, it is now time to summarize Chief Justice Reynato Puno’s whopping 100+ page dissenting opinion on Neri v. Ermita.

Justice Puno first discussed the doctrine of executive privilege as “tension between disclosure and secrecy in a democracy.” He quoted several provisions in the 1987 Philippine Constitution regarding disclosure.

On Secrecy and Disclosure

* Article III, Section 7: The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

* Article II, Section 24: The State recognizes the vital role of communication and information in nation-building.

* Article II, Section 28: Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.

* Article XI, Section 1: Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.

* Article XII, Section 21: Foreign loans may be incurred in accordance with law and the regulation of the monetary authority. Information on foreign laws obtained or guaranteed by the Government shall be made available to the public.

(In his dissenting opinion on the Web, there was a typo, as National Economy and Patrimony is Article XII, not Article XI as stated in the opinion:

A more specific provision on availability of information is found in Section 21 of Article XI, National Economy and Patrimony, which states, viz:

Sec. 21. Foreign loans may be incurred in accordance with law and the regulation of the monetary authority. Information on foreign laws obtained or guaranteed by the Government shall be made available to the public.

There is no Section 21 in Article XI. He must really be that disappointed with his colleagues to commit that typo.)

* Article XVI, Section 10: The State shall provide the policy environment for the full development of Filipino capability and the emergence of communication structures suitable to the needs and aspirations of the nation and the balanced flow of information into, out of, and across the country, in accordance with a policy that respects the freedom of speech and of the press.

Puno believes that disclosure and access to information allow the people to be involved in the political system, quoting Thomas Jefferson: “if a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and will never be.”

On Separation of Powers

After that, he begins outlining the principle of the separation of powers and how the government operates. He says that the powers are separated to avert tyranny, but this separation is not absolute or else government will not function. “It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, and autonomy but reciprocity,” Puno referring to our Constitution. The delineation between the three branches is fashioned on “common sense” and “necessities of governmental coordination.” He then quoted Angara v. Electoral Commission [63 Phil. 139 (1936)]:

Each department of the government has exclusive cognizance of the matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own sphere. But it does not follow from the fact that the three powers are to be kept separate and distinct that the Constitution intended them to be absolutely restrained and independent of each other. The Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to secure coordination in the workings of the various departments of the government.

The Power of the Legislative to Investigate

Next on his discussion is the power of the legislative branch to investigate and cite witnesses in contempt. According to Puno, the legislature has the power to look into administrative actions and decisions, the exercise of administrative actions under the acts of the Congress, and to look into compliance with the intent of the laws.

Also, this power is necessary so that the Congress can “enhance its understanding of and influence over implementation of legislation it has enacted.” It can exercise oversight through review or investigation of actions made by the executive department. One means to exercise oversight is legislation and power of investigation. Congress investigates so that it can craft new or amend laws.

Chief Justice Puno cited the applicable provisions for the legislature’s power to investigate in the 1973 and 1987 Charters (there was no explicit provision in the 1935 Constitution).

He outlined two requirements for the valid exercise of the power of investigation:

1. It must be in aid of legislation. The power to investigate covers everything that concerns the administration of existing laws, and to propose new ones. The “improper motives” of members of congressional committees does not invalidate an investigation, as long as it is in aid of legislation. The legislature can only investigate areas in which it may legislate or appropriate (ie, budget). The judiciary has no authority to intervene on the basis of motives alone, even if the exercise is purely for exposure (pa-pogi), as long as the Congress “acts in pursuance of its constitutional power of investigation.”

He cited Arnault v. Nazareno [87 Phil. 29 (1950)] to support his assertion. In that case, Jean Arnault was a witness to a Senate investigation of certain real estate deals, which was allegedly disadvantageous to the government (Php 5 million pesos, sounds familiar). Arnault refused to answer a question, so he was cited into contempt. He filed for a petition of habeas corpus, asserting that the Senate had no power to cite him in contempt, that the answer to the question was not pertinent to the investigation, that it would not serve any intended legislation, and it would be tantamount to self-incrimination.

The Supreme Court at that time upheld the Senate’s power to investigate the said deals (Buenavista and Tambobong Estates deal). The decision cited Senate Resolution 8 that created a special committee to investigate the deal: “It shall be the duty of the said Committee to determine whether the said purchase was honest, valid, and proper and whether the price involved in the deal was fair and just, the parties responsible therefor, and any other facts the Committee may deem proper in the premises…”

The Court contends that the Senate has the authority to investigate because:

a. The transaction involved public funds, and Congress is the guardian (it had the power of the purse, but not anymore under this regime-Arbet).
b. The deal involved agencies created by Congress and officers whose powers can be regulated and abolished by Congress.
c. Three bills were approved as a result of the investigation.

In conclusion, Justice Puno asserts that the power exercised by a legislative committee must be within the authority delegated to it and within the competence of Congress to bestow upon the committee.

2. The questions must be pertinent. The question itself is in the ultimate area of the investigation, “a usual and necessary stone in the arch of a bridge over which an investigation must go.” The Arnault case states the rule on pertinency.

a. The investigating committee has the power to require a witness to answer a question pertinent to that investigation.
b. Every question that is asked must be material or pertinent to the subject matter of the investigation.
c. The question’s materiality must be determined by its direct relation to the subject of the investigation, not by its indirect relation to any proposed or possible bills.
d. “The necessity or lack of necessity for legislative action and the form and character of the action itself are determined by the sum total of the information to be gathered as a result of the investigation, and not by a fraction of such information elicited from a single question.”

Arnault’s petition for habeas corpus was denied on the grounds that the question asked was material to the investigation, and is not self-incriminatory.

27
Mar

The circle is complete: on executive privilege

Posted by | Categories Ink | Tagged , , ,

ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE:

The decision and the dissenting opinions made an exposition on executive privilege, which sounds like a lecture on the topic.

US v. Nixon is the most celebrated case regarding executive privilege. Justice de Castro outlined what she called as presidential communications privilege. In US v. Nixon, it serves public interest if “the confidentiality of conversations that take place in the President’s performance of his official duties.” is maintained. The US Court deemed this privilege necessary as to provide “the President and those who assist him… with freedom to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately.”

In another case, In re: Sealed Case, executive privilege is further refined. According to the US Court of Appeals, there are two kinds:

(1) The presidential communications privilege, which pertains to “communications, documents or other materials that reflect presidential decision-making and deliberations and that the President believes should remain confidential.” This privilege, says de Castro, applies to the President’s decision making, rooted in the principle of separation of powers. It covers “documents in their entirety, and covers final and post-decisional materials as well as pre-deliberative ones.” Justice de Castro asserts that “congressional or judicial negation of the presidential communications privilege is always subject to greater scrutiny than denial of the deliberative process privilege.”

There are three elements that apply:

a. The protected communication must relate to a “quintessential and non-delegable presidential power.”

b. The communication must be authored or “solicited and received” by a close advisor of the President or the President himself. The judicial test is that an advisor must be in “operational proximity” with the President.

c. The presidential communications privilege remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing of adequate need, such that the information sought “likely contains important evidence” and by the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.

(2) Deliberative process privilege, which encompasses “advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.” This applies to deliberations and decisions made by executive officials, based on common law privilege.

Also, in the same case (In Re Sealed Case), the decision defines who are covered by this privilege:

In Re Sealed Case confines the privilege only to White House Staff that has “operational proximity” to direct presidential decision-making. Thus, the privilege is meant to encompass only those functions that form the core of presidential authority, involving what the court characterized as “quintessential and non-delegable Presidential power,” such as commander-in-chief power, appointment and removal power, the power to grant pardons and reprieves, the sole-authority to receive ambassadors and other public officers, the power to negotiate treaties etc.

To be specific, executive privilege applies to documents and/or communications that might reveal military or state secrets, identity of government informers, and information relating to pending investigations; it is also applied in the field of foreign relations. The applicable Philippine judicial decisions are Chavez v. PCGG [360 Phil. 133 (1998)], Chavez v. PEA [ 314 Phil. 150 (1995)], and Senate v. Ermita.

In the case at hand, Ermita claims executive privilege on the grounds of presidential communications privilege and foreign relations. Justice de Castro is convinced that the three questions are covered by executive privilege. She based her conclusion on the following:

* The communication refers to the President’s power to enter into an executive country with other states, which is a “quintessential and non-delegable” power of the President. This power does not require concurrence of the Congress.
* The communications are directed to a close advisor of the President, which is within the operational proximity of the President.
* There is no compelling need to limit the privilege, and that information is available elsewhere.

Justice de Castro expounded on her third assertion. In US v. Nixon, the Court said that a claim of executive privilege must be balanced against other interests; it is not absolute. It can only be overcome “by mere showing of public need by the branch seeking access to conversations.” She claims that the Senate committees have not categorically shown “a compelling or citical need for the answers to the three (3) questions in the enactment of a law.”

On the argument that executive privilege does not apply on cases where a possible crime or wrongdoing can be disclosed, she agrees and does not dispute the fact. However, she says that in US v. Nixon, the information was requested for a pending criminal investigation and not for a legislative inquiry. Here, her reasons get a bit iffy:

Unlike in Nixon, the information here is elicited, not in a criminal proceeding, but in a legislative inquiry. In this regard, Senate v. Ermita stressed that the validity of the claim of executive privilege depends not only on the ground invoked but, also, the procedural setting or the context in which the claim is made. Furthermore, in Nixon, the President did not interpose any claim of need to protect military, diplomatic or sensitive national security secrets. In the present case, Executive Secretary Ermita categorically claims executive privilege on the grounds of presidential communications privilege in relation to her executive and policy decision-making process and diplomatic secrets.

On the argument that the right of the people to information on matters of public concern outweighing executive privilege, she disagrees because Neri did appear, and that he expressed his willingness to answer more questions other than the three. Besides, she says, the right to information is subject to limitation, as stated in Article III, Section 7 of the Constitution. She then stated these limitations as stated in several laws. She also said:

These are in addition to what our body of jurisprudence classifies as confidential and what our Constitution considers as belonging to the larger concept of executive privilege. Clearly, there is a recognized public interest in the confidentiality of certain information. We find the information subject of this case belonging to such kind.

She also contends that the right of Congress to information in aid of legislation cannot be equated with the people’s right to know. She quotes Senate v. Ermita:

Thus, while Congress is composed of representatives elected by the people, it does not follow, except in a highly qualified sense, that in every exercise of its power of inquiry, the people are exercising their right to information.

On whether the claim of executive privilege was properly invoked, de Castro says Ermita’s letter satisfies the requirements:

a.) There must be a formal claim of privilege, lodged by the head of the department which has control over the matter. Justice de Castro says the letter by Ermita is enough: “There he expressly states that ‘this Office is constrained to invoke the settled doctrine of executive privilege as refined in Senate v. Ermita, and has advised Secretary Neri accordingly.’ Obviously, he is referring to the Office of the President. That is more than enough compliance.”

b.) A formal and proper claim of executive privilege requires a “precise and certain reason” for preserving their confidentiality. She finds the grounds given by Ermita enough for the Senate to understand why the information is privileged. This requirement is specified in Senate v. Ermita: an allegation be made “whether the information demanded involves military or diplomatic secrets, closed-door Cabinet meetings, etc.” She quoted Ermita’s letter, which she asserts satisfies the requirement:

The context in which executive privilege is being invoked is that the information sought to be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the People’s Republic of China. Given the confidential nature in which these information were conveyed to the President, he cannot provide the Committee any further details of these conversations, without disclosing the very thing the privilege is designed to protect.

She then concluded:

At any rate, as held further in Senate v. Ermita, the Congress must not require the executive to state the reasons for the claim with such particularity as to compel disclosure of the information which the privilege is meant to protect. This is a matter of respect to a coordinate and co-equal department.

That ends the discussion on executive privilege as elucidated by the majority of the justices through Justice de Castro’s decision. To sum up:

The answer to the three questions are covered by executive privilege on the following grounds:

1. The answers to the three questions refer to a conversation between the President and a close advisor. This satisfies the presidential communication privilege and the operational proximity test.
2. The answers refer to an exercise by the President of powers that is “quintessential and non-delegable,” and does not require concurrence of the Senate.
3. There is no compelling need to limit the privilege and disclose the information.

27
Mar

The circle is complete: background

Posted by | Categories Ink | Tagged , , ,

I believe that it is best that lawyers explain to us what Neri v. Ermita means. However, that doesn’t – and shouldn’t – deter us mere laymen from perusing the said decision, comprehending what the justices wanted to say (and hide, obfuscate, or justify), understanding what the decision meant, and analyzing its impact on our daily lives and on our country.

I will try to summarize the decision in several posts.

BACKGROUND:

Romulo Neri testified before the Senate Blue Ribbon, Trade, and Defense Committees about the aborted National Broadband Network. He was asked several questions, but refused to answer three questions:

a)Whether the President followed up the (NBN) project?

b)Were you dictated to prioritize the ZTE?

c)Whether the President said to go ahead and approve the project after being told about the alleged bribe?

He refused to answer these questions, citing executive privilege. He then refused to attend subsequent hearings. Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita instead sent a letter stating the claim of executive privilege:

Maintaining the confidentiality of conversations of the President is necessary in the exercise of her executive and policy decision making process. The expectation of a President to the confidentiality of her conversations and correspondences, like the value which we accord deference for the privacy of all citizens, is the necessity for protection of the public interest in candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions in Presidential decision-making. Disclosure of conversations of the President will have a chilling effect on the President, and will hamper her in the effective discharge of her duties and responsibilities, if she is not protected by the confidentiality of her conversations.

The context in which executive privilege is being invoked is that the information sought to be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the People’s Republic of China. Given the confidential nature in which these information were conveyed to the President, he cannot provide the Committee any further details of these conversations, without disclosing the very thing the privilege is designed to protect.

Because of his refusal to attend the committee hearings, an arrest order was issued against Neri. He then filed a petition to the Supreme Court to stop the Senate from compelling him to answer the three questions, and to revoke the arrest order.

—

I have converted the decision by Justice de Castro and the dissent by Chief Justice Puno into PDF. You can get them here:

* The decision by Justice Teresita de Castro on GR No, 180643, Neri v. Ermita
* Dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Reynato Puno on GR No. 180643, Neri v. Ermita

24
Mar

2010 Philippine Elections: Important issues, 4

Posted by | Categories Ink | Tagged , ,

Janette Toral posted a call for a discussion of issues relevant to the 2010 Philippine presidential elections, tagging a lot of bloggers in the process.

Instead of one post, I will make a series of post about this topic, and it will be an issue or two per post, hopefully. For every post, I will state an issue, explain why it should be an issue, and share my thoughts on the issue.

In this post, let me tackle something that is close to every Filipino’s heart (or stomach): rice.

In a previous post, I noted the Agriculture Secretary’s call to restaurants and fast food chain stores to reduce their serving of rice, yet the official stance of this regime is that there is no rice crisis nor shortage. However, Arthur Yap’s call, and the fact that Gloria Arroyo had to begask Vietnam for a guaranteed supply of rice speak otherwise.

Your grandparents (or maybe your parents) might have told you once or twice that the Philippines used to be a net exporter of rice. You might have heard an old citizen lament about the current situation. Now that we have become a net importer of rice, we are now dependent on the vagaries of the world rice market, and a contraction in rice supply worldwide affects this country greatly.

The Philippines remains an agricultural country. The fact that we are facing a shortage in the supply of rice is ironic. How have we come to this state?

The agrarian reform situation is a failure. The Sumilao case is a good example (though it seems a compromise has been reached). Also, some beneficiaries had sold their land due to debts incurred in tilling the land – of course, farmers had to buy seeds and fertilizers. The unabated land conversion is another problem – for local governments, conversion means more income via taxes.

Then we have the related infrastructure problems. For farming to be productive, good irrigation is a must. The same can be said for post-harvest facilities – including grain warehouses, modern farming equipment, and farm-to-market roads. It is said that our level of farming is stuck to the 1940s.

For our farmers to be self-sufficient, we must make farming productive. Without the right infrastructure, and pricing their produce very low, farming will remain a losing enterprise.

Why is this an issue? Food sufficiency is important for the country. It means we will no longer be dependent on imports. It means our food supply is not dependent on world price fluctuations. Food sufficiency should be addressed immediately. All sectors involved should have a master plan, preferably legislated so that it could withstand changes in leaders.

What do you think should be done to insure food sufficiency?

—

Previously:

* 2010 Philippine Elections: Important issues, 1
* 2010 Philippine Elections: Important issues, 2
* Eleksyon sa 2010: Mga mahalagang isyu, 3

17
Mar

The Half-Rice Club: Care to join?

Posted by | Categories Ink | Tagged , ,

The weekends saw me hearing the news on TV and radio (err.. Teleradyo) of the Secretary of Agriculture Arthur Yap calling on restaurants to serve half-rice instead of the usual fare. Heck, he even said that the State can use its police powers to enforce the half-rice directive, in case restaurants are recalcitrant.

For the first time, I am in support of a government initiative.

Yap’s idea is good. It is about time, actually. I am troubled by the increasing number of obese people nowadays, and I think serving half-rice will help in reducing obesity. We keep on hearing diatribes from dietricians and nutritionists calling on people to watch their diet, but only to see more obese people nowadays. So a government intervention might be part of the solution to the obesity problem. To be effective, not only should the serving of rice be halved, the price should be increased, too. Make it prohibitive, so that only those who can afford it can get it. This minimized the number of people who can get obese.

Second, it is about time to wean the Filipino people away from dependency on rice. We are a fast-industrializing country on the verge of attaining a first world status in 2010, and a dependency on rice is incoherent with that vision. It is about time we learn to eat Western-style. Let an overflow of imported food stuff flood the country. Seeing Toblerone, Taster’s Choice, and Frito Lays on sari-sari stores is a sign of a booming economy, a symbol of an industrializing country. Let us forget being an agricultural country; it is time to move on.

Besides, we are a net importer of rice, and it is not a good thing. That means we are dependent on rice imports to satisfy demand. It is a waste of foreign currencies, which can be invested into more important things, like a broadband project lead by a politician, or dole outs to rabid government supporters. Also, being a net importer means we are at the mercy of rice exporters, which is not good. Our mother state up north will not take such very lightly.

And so, I suggest that we establish a Half-Rice Club. The purpose of the club is two-fold: the short term goal is to reduce obesity to 10% of total population, to the upper A of the society. The medium term goal is to push forward to first world status by 2020 through veering away from being agricultural-based economy to a highly-industrialized one.

Anyone who wants to be a member, just raise their left foot. Naysayers shall be labeled as destabilizers.

15
Mar

Action speaks louder than words

Posted by | Categories Ink | Tagged , ,

The latest on Cris Mendez’s case.

Ariel Paolo Ante, said to be the one who recruited CA to Sigma Rho, files for certiorari and prohibition with urgent application for injunctive relief against the University of the Philippines’ Student Disciplinary Tribunal. He claims that the SDT is biased against him and has already prejudged the case.

Note that another student involved in CA’s case had filed for a TRO, but was turned down by the court. I hope that Ante suffers the same fate.

The problem with Ante is that he only has himself to blame if people has prejudged him. After all, immediately after CA’s death, he’s been goners. He’s been hiding from the SDT, from the NBI, from the PNP.

Speaking of Palpak na Police, how good are our policemen nowadays? (In the following sentences, I will be talking about the portion of the police force, not all of them.) Well, look at the story above. Ante’s lawyer can contact him, but the police cannot find him.

Another: Student falls prey to drive-by snatching modus. It was the second incident WITHIN A WEEK within Quezon City. With so many high profile crimes at QC (remember the bank robberies that happened within a week also?) you wonder what the PNP is doing.

Simple: it is busy manning checkpoints whenever a rally is scheduled to happen within Metro Manila. Remember the experience of Jhay Rocas last February 29? Well, Coy Caballes reported via Twitter of another PNP checkpoint at Molino in Bacoor, Cavite yesterday. There was a scheduled anti-Gloria Arroyo rally yesterday at Liwasang Bonifacio in Manila.

And speaking of which, Arroyo’s old men believe the worst is over. Yet when there is a rally, they activate Manila Shield. Action speaks louder than words.

11
Mar

Blogging as an action for a cause

Posted by | Categories Ink | Tagged , , ,

Siege Malvar asked me several questions about blogging in the context of social causes.

1. Can you tell me about the whole psychology of blogging as an “action” for a cause?

Every blogger has his own reason for blogging. For some, they just want to vent out their strong feelings, you know, ranting. For some, they blog to share information, like when a blogger finishes a PS2 game and shares his experience and tips. Some bloggers want to express their thoughts on matters that are important for them. And there are bloggers who blog to influence others. Some bloggers may be motivated by some or all of these reasons.

Your question fits nicely with the profile of a blogger whose aim is to influence. To influence in this case is to convince the reader that the blogger’s idea/opinion is correct, and to goad the reader into action. So there are two operative phrases: to convince, and to translate that into action. It’s like being a salesman or marketer.

A blogger may not know if he has successfully influenced a reader, enough for the reader to take action.

2. Do you really think it works to “just blog” about stuff? Is it enough to blog?

We can never tell. Again, it depends on why you blog, on what you want to achieve from blogging. We Filipinos are inherently indolent. We also have a keen sense of conscience. The two don’t mix. We all know we have social responsibilities, but not all of us want to exercise that. So we have half-hearted activism. We have armchair analysts. For some, it is enough to just express their thoughts. If that is the case, with some many people wanting Arroyo impeached, how come it doesn’t happen?

No, I don’t think it is enough just to blog about it, but for some of us, that’s the least we could do.

3. Do you think blogging is an effective way to solve the country’s problems, and why?

Blogging is effective if (1) we can convince people that our solution to the country’s problems are correct and (2) we can convince people to act on our solution. Otherwise, blogging is just an academic exercise and not much else.

For example, what if you want to foment a revolution? You need strategists, tacticians, officers, soldiers, and propagandists. The strategist defines the goals of the revolution, the tactician designs missions to reach those goals, officers execute these missions, and soldiers implement them. However, as in any war, the support of non-combatants is necessary, for logistics and military buildup. Here comes the propagandist. His job is to convince the people that the war is a necessary evil, and that volunteers are needed.

Blogging as it is will never be a solution – that idea is simplistic. There should always be action after much deliberation. Blogging is a great tool for presenting information and analysis, and exchanging ideas and opinions. In any problem solving, this interaction, this exchange, is essential, since from this exchange, we can draft plans. The hardest part is always in execution.

10
Mar

For an anti-political narcissism law

Posted by | Categories Ink | Tagged

In a previous post, I talked about the anti-political dynasty provision of the Constitution and the pending bills for an enabling law. Yes, ten years later, our good lawmakers have yet to enact the law. Maybe those who chose to sit the current situation out may want to make this their advocacy – it may appeal to their “change in our own little way” philosophy.

Anyway, I would like to propose an anti-political narcissism law. Have you been to Caloocan? If you are going to Caloocan via EDSA, descending from the Cloverleaf bridge, you will see a large tarpaulin covering the pedestrian overpass. On the tarpaulin you will see the mayor’s mug shot and several texts. Further along EDSA approaching the Bonifacio monument, the entire pedestrian overpass near Manila Central University is covered by a tarpaulin, carrying words of congratulations to the son’s mayor, who won as national president of the barangay league. On the sidewalks, new lamp posts were installed, topped by the mayor’s pirated smiley.

And that’s just along EDSA. Along Biglang Awa Street (which terminates to EDSA), you can see several streamers of congratulations also. Near our house, the sidewalk has those smileys. On some waiting sheds, you can see tarpaulins carrying – what else? – the mayor’s face.

Go to the city/municipal hall, and you would see the pictures of the president, governor, and mayor in every offices. Imagine, if there are 100 offices in a city hall, that would amount to 300 8R pictures! And look at the goverment cars and ambulances. They carry the names of the incumbent, as if the funds for their acquisition came from the incumbent’s wallet. And don’t forget those billboards saying “Proyekto ni Mayor Kapalmuks” or “Project of Congressman Makapal.” And the canvass tents carrying the politician’s name. And coffee mugs (I am not kidding – I saw a notice of bidding at a certain city’s Web site for 500 coffee mugs).

Aside from the visual pollution that these idiocies bring, imagine the amount of public funds (coming from our taxes, withheld from our hard-earned salaries) being expended just to satisfy the narcissism of our public officials. These are unnecessary expenditures, spent in aid of the incumbent’s re-election bid. It could be spent somewhere else, like an honest-to-Heaven drainage that works, or public markets whose rentals small sidewalk vendors can afford, or for an efficient street lighting system.

This is the rationale for my proposed anti-political narcissism law. This law will disallow the use of public funds to have the name, face, signature, picture of the incumbent (in any form, analog, digital) plastered all over the place. While I know that public works need to be announced via billboards, they should not contain the face of the incumbent, only the name and position of the incumbentonly text like “Project of the City of Caloocan.” This law will cover all government officials (elected or appointed) and employees, including those from government owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs).

One can argue that this is unconstitutional under the Bill of Rights (free speech, anyone), and I will leave that to the courts. I don’t think it is a violation of the Bill of Rights – the law would only prohibit the use of public funds for such narcissistic acts. Politicians can plaster their faces anywhere using their own money – as long as the money is legitimately earned; donations are not allowed.

These forms shall not be allowed:

* Billboards (analog or digital), streamers, tarpaulins, posters, stickers, and the likes
* Web sites
* Publication materials (books, pamphlets, etc)
* Pictures
* Collaterals (coffee mugs, canvas tents, etc)
* TV/radio/print/online ads

Did I miss anything?

5
Mar

More Filipinos poor in 2006 – Enchanted Kingdom under siege (updated)

Posted by | Categories Ink | Tagged , ,

This is another blow to the Arroyo regime’s dream of this country having a first-world status by 2010.

The National Statistical Coordination Board (NCSB) has reported that the number of poor families have increased from the period between 2003 and 2006, from 24.4% in 2003 to 26.9%, but lower than that recorded in 2000, at 27.5%. That means 27 out of 100 families are poor, or an increase of 3.8 million poor Filipinos from 2003.

National Economic and Development Authority’s Director General, Augusto Santos (and Romulo Neri’s successor) attributed this increase to “increasing prices and/or insufficient rise in personal income.” Other contributors included the expanded Value-Added Tax (eVAT) imposed in 2005, higher oil prices, typhoons, and a population growth rate of 2%.

(NB: I think this is a good indication of eVAT’s immediate impact on Filipinos.)

Santos also believes that the 7.3% GDP recorded for last year will help alleviate poverty. Uhm. Since 2001, our GDP is increasing (so the Fortress claims), and so thus poverty incidence. It doesn’t add up. My math must be failing me (not that I am good at it).

Lorelei Fajardo, what’s your take on this one? Blame the opposition and destabilizers? Lozada? The Senate?

I remember that series of commercials with the icky tagline “ramdam mo na ba ang pag-asenso?” I wonder what 27.6 million poor Filipinos ha d felt when they saw/heard that commercial (pilosopo: syempre wala kasi di nila napanood/narinig, poor nga eh, di ba?). No wonder they are no longer airing it. (Is it in YouTube?)

—

For the past few days, my mother is complaining that prices of some goods have increased. Have you experienced this? Can you itemize?

And don’t forget to vote at the poll (at the sidebar), in case you haven’t yet.

—

UPDATE:

And add more blows to Gloria Arroyo’s Enchanted Kingdom:

* Peter Wallace tells everyone it is time to face the facts. And this is a strong indictment:

We have an economy today that is skewed to favor a few. The growth is not widespread and is not reaching the bulk of the people. It is an economy that is losing its middle class (it shrank in 2007). One could say that it takes time to reduce the huge inequality that exists, or that the momentum toward that is there. But after six and a half years, surely there should have been some improvement, not a worsening.

* RP poverty up due to weak tax take, corruption – ADB study Despite the eVAT, “corruption undermines tax collection, reduced resources for and quality of infrastructure development.”

3
Mar

Fortress bothered by OFW remittance boycott

Posted by | Categories Ink | Tagged , ,

The threatened remittance boycott by OFWs has the Fortress and Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas bothered, reports GMA News.

Let’s give way to Lorelei Fajardo, Fortress loudspeaker and one reasons why I don’t like Fortress propaganda:

Such a call is irresponsible and tantamount to economic sabotage. Their action will not benefit anybody. It could cause a serious setback to our economic gains, bringing greater damage to their loved ones and the nation as a whole.

Huh? But you told us that the economy is on its way up? What’s US$30 million delayed a day against that ginormous 7.3% GDP rate that you are harping about? Well, what the Fortress doesn’t want every Juan to know is that our economy is being driven by OFW remittances.

Ms. Fajardo, here’s a tip: tell your Raul Gonzalez to charge each and every OFW who doesn’t send remittance with economic sabotage. Wag natin daanin sa daldal, idaan natin sa proseso, ilabas ang ebidensya. Mmmk?

OFWs, show the Fortress who’s the boss.

(LOYALISTS: If the economy is that robust as your idol claims, how come she and her people are afraid of one-day-only boycott? Surely it should not affect the economy, right? Besides, the day after the boycott OFWs will remit the money naman eh. Masyado lang paranoid ang idol nyo. So just sit back, relax, and see the lies crumble. Enjoy!)