Quantcast
Channel: Thinking Pinoy
Viewing all 226 articles
Browse latest View live

On Bulacan Int'l Aiport, Duterte Finance Secretary's personal interests against Common Good?

$
0
0
Massive congestion in NAIA during the August 2018 Xiamen Air Incident, where a plane skidded off the runway, causing the cancellations of numerous flights as NAIA effectively lone runway is blocked.
Instead of allowing a new world-class airport, why does Finance Sec. Sonny Dominguez insist on us using an ultra congested airport and another one that's a bajillion miles away? Are Sonny's personal interests getting in the way of his decision-making? Is Dominguez, like the terminated ICT Secretary Rodolfo Salalima, another poster boy for regulatory capture?

Let's talk about that in greater detail.

NAIA, the worst airport on Earth

You may not know that that Ninoy Aquino International Airport (MNL/NAIA) is the 32nd busiest airport on the planet, but you probably aren’t surprised. The airport handled over 45 million passengers in 2018, a six percent increase from the previous year.

This is a far cry from the United States’ Hartsfield-Jackson International in Atlanta and China’s Beijing Capital International Airport, each of which handled over 100 million passengers in the same period. However, the fact is that NAIA is already handling 10 million more than its designed capacity of just 35 million passengers annually.

Most airports in the world have two runways each, enabling them to handle two simultaneous landings or takeoffs. NAIA has two runways too. However, NAIA can handle only one landing or takeoff at any given time because the two runways run perpendicular to each other, making simultaneous landings or takeoffs too dangerous.
A Third Runway

Addressing this issue requires building a third runway.

There was a plan to build a third runway during the Aquino Administration but it was shelved in 2015 after it was found out that it requires building over part of Paranaque’s Merville Subdivision and the closing off of Moonwalk Access Road.

That is, building the third runway requires [1] evicting hundreds of residents that would pretty much take forever, and [2] removing a crucial artery of C-5 road that will certainly worsen the already apocalyptic traffic situation in the Metro.

Building a third NAIA runway requires bulldozing a sizeable chunk of the heavily populated Merville Subdivision and building over a major feeder road to C5.
In short, it’s basically infeasible to increase the number of flights that NAIA can handle. Regardless of how many terminals we build, the fact remains that the number of aircraft that land and take off from NAIA will remain pretty much the same, unless there’s a way to more efficiently use the existing runways.

The NAIA Consortium

The Department of Transportation on 02 May 2019 approved the Ayala-led NAIA Consortium’s offer to upgrade NAIA. The consortium promised to increase capacity to 65 million passengers yearly as it promises to expand NAIA’s terminal complexes and increase hourly takeoff and landing movements up to 52 from the current 40, among others.

While laudable, this airport upgrade is just a band-aid solution.

These are the yearly growth rates of NAIA’s passenger traffic according to Airport Council International:

NAIA exceeded its 35 million capacity in mid-2015.
As can be seen above, NAIA, currently designed to handle only 35 million passengers annually, has already been overcrowded since mid-2015.

Today, NAIA handles over 28% more passengers than it should.

With the modest assumption that NAIA’s ridership will uniformly increase by 5% annually from hereon out, we can expect over 65 million passengers per year 7 years after 2018. That is, the band-aid solution that is the NAIA upgrade will be good enough only up to 2025.

Now, here’s the tragically funny part.

NAIA Upgrade Timeline

The NAIA Upgrade will be done in two phases:
Phase One: improvements and expanding the terminals at the existing NAIA land area. This will increase capacity to 47 million passengers annually and will take two (2) years to build. 
Phase Two: construction of additional runway, taxiways, passenger terminals and associated support infrastructure. This will increase capacity to 65 million passengers annually and will take ten (10) years to build.
I honestly don’t know how the Ayala-led consortium will manage to find land for the extra runway, but let’s assume for now that they’ll somehow succeed expropriating land in Merville Subdivision within the intended timeframe.

Now, the NAIA Consortium hopes to start the Swiss Challenge by mid-2019, which is basically a prettier to way to say the bidding process is still ongoing.Assuming that the bidding process is magically completed by end of 2019 and construction starts immediately thereafter, it takes another twelve years to finish the the entire project.

That is, the entire NAIA Upgrade will end in 2031 at the earliest. That is passenger demand will exceed the 65 million target capacity midway through construction and by the time it’s completed in 2031 (at the earliest), NAIA would need to cater to around 85 million passengers.

That is, by the time upgrades are completed, NAIA will be handling 20 million passengers more than the new 65 million limit. That’s 31% over capacity.

The NAIA upgrade simply can't keep pace with demand. Yes, NAIA should be upgraded, but we also need a new airport to accommodate rising demand.
Yes, there may be times of economic recession in the future but I think I'd rather not entertain that thought for purposes of passenger traffic projections.

In short, the NAIA Upgrade is basically like using a flimsy band-aid to cover a stab wound.

Mathematics necessitates a second airport

No matter how we put it, the NAIA upgrade will not be enough to meet passenger demand as the “overcapacity rate” by the end of construction will be even worse than before (28% in 2018 vs 31% in 2031).

The math shown in the previous sections show that with the NAIA Upgrade and without a second airport, regular Filipinos can look forward to longer flight delays, more flight cancellations, higher ticket prices and worst, the revival of inter-island shipping a la SuperFerry.

There’ll be too many passengers for such a relatively small airport, ergo not “every Juan can fly”. Imagine queuing up for a bus ride to the province on a Holy Wednesday, except that you’ll have to do it in an airport and not just only on Holy Wednesdays, but pretty much EVERY DAMN DAY OF THE YEAR.

Clark (CRK) is also an international airport but it’s simply too far away from Manila.

Fortunately, San Miguel Corporation (SMC) has a proposal for a Bulacan International Airport a.k.a. New Manila International Airport (NMIA). Bulacan shares borders with Metro Manila and the proposed site is less than an hour away from Valenzuela, Metro Manila’s northernmost city.

The airport will also be built in phases but if construction starts this year, SMC said it can have an airport that can handle 35 million passengers up and running in just 3-4 years.

That’s an additional major international airport by 2024, seven years before the NAIA Consortium finishes its upgrade plan.

This is not to say that NAIA will close down. As a matter of fact, most major cities have at least two airports servicing them, such as:
  • New York: Newark (EWR), La Guardia (LGA), and John F. Kennedy (JFK)
  • Tokyo: Haneda (HND) and Narita (NRT)
  • Bangkok: Don Mueang (DMK) and Suvarnabhumi (BKK)
  • Jakarta: Halim Perdanakusuma (HLP) and Soekarno-Hatta (CGK)
  • Taipei: Songshan (TSA) and Taoyuan (TPE)
  • Kuala Lumpur: KL International (KUL) and Sultan Abdul Aziz (SZB)
  • London: Heathrow (LHR), Gatwick (LGW) and four (4) others
Metro Manila and surrounding provinces offer more than enough current and future traffic to justify two airports.

Unfortunately, it appears that the NMIA proposal is under threat as some government officials seem to oppose it.

Sonny Dominguez vs Bulacan Airport (NMIA)

The Transportation Department started reviewing the SMC-financed Php 700-billion NMIA proposal in February 2017 and it granted SMC “original proponent status” in October of the same year. Had the procurement process proceeded as expected, a new airport should have started construction in mid- to late-2018.

Unfortunately, Finance Secretary Carlos “Sonny” Dominguez appears to have been hindering this effort.

Finance Secretary Carlos “Sonny” Dominguez
In an August 2018 interview, Socioeconomic Planning Sec. Ernesto Pernia said “Whether [NMIA] will be approved within the year or early next year, the only one who can answer that in terms of certainty is the Department of Finance.”

A month later, Dominguez questioned the Bulacan Airport proposal.

Dominguez denied causing NMIA’s delay, but his actions suggest otherwise.

In particular, he raised the following issues:

  • NMIA may depress real estate values in New Clark City.
  • NMIA may cause traffic congestion in North Luzon Expressway (NLEX)
  • NMIA may require realignment of Manila-Clark Railway
  • NMIA’s proponent may have questionable financial capabilities

Dominguez is being really weird

FIRST, the government is NOT a real estate company, so I do not understand why Dominguez is worried about real estate values in Clark.

SECOND, the solution to potential traffic congestion in NLEX is road widening, not blocking NMIA which, as was shown in earlier sections, is a critical transportation infrastructure.

THIRD, I don’t know why railway realignment is an issue for Dominguez because NMIA can simply connect its airport rail link to the nearest railway station, which is what’s done in many major airports worldwide, such as:

  • New York JFK: JFK Airtrain connects to NYC Subway via Howard Beach and Jamaica Stations (see below)
Related image
  • Singapore Changi: A spur line connects to SMRT’s Tanah Merah Station (see below)

  • Bangkok Suvarnabhumi: Bangkok Airport Rail link, a short 6-station line, connects to Phayathai MRT Station in downtown Bangkok. (see below)



In fact, SMC even plans to create a 200-kilometer elevated rail system that will connect the NMIA to EDSA, Metro Manila’s main traffic artery, enabling travelers from EDSA to arrive at the airport in just 20 minutes.

Kinda like the Hong Kong Airport Express, but elevated and much longer.

FOURTH, SMC is third largest conglomerate in the Philippines according to the 2018 Forbes 2000 list, next only to SM Investments and BDO Unibank. Moreover, SMC will be in partnership with Incheon International Airport in developing and maintaining NMIA.

Assuming Dominguez is still doubtful of SMC’s financial solvency, then why doesn’t he allow the Swiss Challenge to proceed and see if the challenger has better financial capacity for a similar undertaking?

SMC has been given original proponent status in late 2017 so the Swiss Challenge should’ve been over by 2018… but it still isn’t because, well, DOMINGUEZ.

Why does Dominguez seem so hell-bent at preventing NMIA?

Dominguez: The New Salalima?

I rememberthose timesin early 2017when Iheavily criticizedthen Informationand CommunicationsTechnology SecretaryRodolfo Salalima, the chief legal counsel and senior adviser of Globe Telecom until his cabinet appointment on 30 June 2016, for being the poster boy for regulatory capture.

Former DICT Sec. Salalima, whom Duterte asked to resign
Regulatory capture, or where the regulated becomes the regulator, is a form of government failure which occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.

In Salalima’s case, what we saw was a telecoms regulator whose entire career prior to his appointment suggests deep loyalty to telecoms firm Globe.

President Duterte eventually fired him in late 2017 because, in the President’s own words, “many complained to me that he appeared to be partial because he's a former vice president of Globe.”

Dominguez’ situation may not be very different from Salalima’s.

Dominguez and the Zobel de Ayalas

Early in his career, Dominguez joined the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) until he became the President of BPI Agricultural Development Bank, known today as BPI Direct Savings Bank after a name change in 1990.

Finance Sec. Sonny Dominguez
BPI and its subsidiaries are majority-owned and -controlled by Jaime Augusto Zobel de Ayala, who currently sits as Chairman of the Board.

Dominguez left BPI and Zobel de Ayala when former President Corazon Aquino made him Enviroment Secretary in 1986, but the two still share strong a business relationship up until Dominguez’ 2016 appointment as PRRD’s Finance Secretary.

Dominguez’ family owns conglomerate Alcantara Group of Davao City. The Alcantara Group, in turn, owns Alsons Consolidated where Dominguez was a director, leaving just days before he took over the Department of Finance in 2016.

Alsons has an existing multi-billion peso joint venture (JV) real estate project with Jaime Augusto’s Ayala Land called Aviana Development Corp. Incorporated in 2013, Aviana is developing an approximately 27-hectare waterfront property in Lanang, Davao City.

An artist's depiction of Davao City's Azuela Cove, a joint venture between Dominguez's family corporation and Jaime Augusto Zobel de Ayala's Ayala Land. It is still under construction.
In short, Dominguez’s family has a multi-billion-peso business relationship with Jaime Augusto Zobel de Ayala.

Why is this relevant?

The NAIA Consortium is Ayala Corporation’s brainchild, the same Ayala who "coincidentally" happens to be the premier business partner of Dominguez’ Family and a sister company of the bank where Dominguez spent his young professional life.

New Manila International Airport in Bulacan, on the other hand, is by San Miguel Corporation and a Korean Company: Ayala has no stake in the project.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Since 2014, NMIA developer San Miguel Corporation’s largest shareholder is Iñigo Zobel, relative of Jaime Augusto Zobel de Ayala. These two Ayalas, says sources and to put it lightly, are not the same. Iñigo inherited his fortune from father Enrique Zobel who in 1983 was estranged from the Zobel de Ayalas “main branch” where Jaime Augusto belongs. That is, Iñigo’s businesses are separate and oftentimes in competition with Jaime Augusto’s Ayala Corp.
Now, some may see NMIA as a threat to the profitability of the Php 350-billion NAIA upgrade project, especially since NMIA, upon total completion, will be able to handle 100 million passengers yearly, potentially turning it into the country's premier aviation hub and NAIA into a secondary airport.

But from the point of view of an average Filipino, I do not care which is which, as long as we have aviation infrastructure than can meet the public demand, and that is what we can't have if we won't build a new airport.

What we have here is a Finance Secretary who has the final say on the NMIA proposal, despite his strong personal links to NMIA’s competitor. Instead of inhibiting from the issue out of delicadeza, Dominguez further complicated matters as he openly spoke against NMIA despite his family’s business interests with the Ayala Corporation.

And by the way, Dominguez’ efforts toward protecting real estate values in New Clark City may benefit not only the new metropolis, but also the suburbs surrounding it.

Ayala Land also has multiple suburban housing projects that can cater to prospective workes of New Clark City.
And guess what? Ayala Lands’s Avida Northdale, Montala Alviera, Marquee Residences, BellaVita, and Avida Settings Alviera, are all situated in New Clark’s surrounding cities and municipalities.

Are Dominguez’s clashing interests a mere coincidence or a case of regulatory capture?

By the way, the Dominguez-led Department of Finance recent attacks against NMIA's developer over power and energy contracts doesn't help Dominguez's cause, as the Alcantara Group owned by Dominguez's family, also has interests in the energy sector.

TP’s Lowdown

While I do not possess the power to read minds, I can’t help but suspect that Dominguez decisions, in light of his conflicts of interest, may not be in the best interest of the Filipino Public.

Dominguez and the Ayalas are billionaires who probably can afford flying in their own private jets at their most convenient time, but regular people like you and I fly commercial.

Only billionaires, Heads of State, and rappers and like Drake can afford private planes. All other humans fly commercial.
Like you, I have to suffer through the aviation hell that is the Ninoy Aquino International Airport every time I fly, the same NAIA that looks less like an airport and more like a can of sardines as each day goes by.

Unfortunately, it appears that our own Finance Secretary’s interests do not coincide with those of the General Public, who wants nothing but a more humane commuting experience.

I do not care who builds a new airport as long as one is built. But if Dominguez keeps on blocking the construction of the new airport and insists that everyone use a congested NAIA or the Clark Airport that’s light years away from the capital, then what we have in Dominguez is not a public servant, but a government official who, just like Secretary Salalima, must be fired. [ThinkingPinoy | RJ Nieto]

DON'T FORGET TO SHARE! 

Follow ThinkingPinoy on Facebook and Twitter!

RELATED POSTS:


RIGHT OF REPLY: DoTr's response to TP article on Bulacan Airport

$
0
0

In the spirit of fairness and because ThinkingPinoy acknowledges everyone's Right of Reply, reproduced verbatim et in toto below is the Department of Transportation's response to the 05 June 2019 ThinkingPinoy article "On Bulacan Int'l Aiport, Duterte Finance Secretary's personal interests against Common Good?"

Note that I also included in this article a response to this DoTr letter.


------- START OF LETTER -------



6 June 2019

MR. REY JOSEPH NIETO
Thinking Pinoy
tp@thinkingpinoy.net

Dear Mr. Nieto:

My warmest greetings.

I write in connection to your article entitled, “On Bulacan Int'l Airport, Duterte Finance Secretary's personal interests against Common Good?,” that was posted on your website yesterday, 05 June 2019.

I have read the subject article, and I must say that I deeply appreciate your concern for the welfare of Filipino air passengers.

In the spirit of transparency, allow me to update you on three airport development projects mentioned in the article, namely, the Clark International Airport (CRK), the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA), and the proposed New Manila International Airport (NMIA) in Bulacan.


1. Clark International Airport
Indeed, providing more gateways to Filipinos will enhance the connectivity and mobility across the country and throughout the world. This is why the DOTr and the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA), under the current administration, is working on the expansion of the CRK.

The construction of the CRK’s new Passenger Terminal Building (PTB) is among the first projects under the Duterte administration’s “Build, Build, Build” Program to be implemented through the hybrid public-private partnership (PPP) scheme, and the fastest to be accomplished by far by the government. 
CRK’s project has been planned by the government for 20 years, but under the Duterte administration, the project finally broke ground in 2017. At present, construction of the new PTB is 66.5% complete, and is on-track for completion by mid-2020. 
There is also a planned construction for a second runway, two kilometers away from the first one, making for an independent and simultaneous runway. 
In January 2019, the Duterte administration sealed the contract for the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) of the CRK with the North Luzon Airport Consortium, which includes the Changi Airport Group, the operator of the world’s best airport, the Singapore Changi Airport. 
2. Ninoy Aquino International Airport
Concrete efforts have been launched to improve the NAIA as the country’s premier gateway. 
We wish to apprise you that the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) has already started rehabilitation works for NAIA’s Terminal 2 on 19 September 2018. Upgrades include the expansion of the arrival baggage hall departure check-in area, power and lightings, fire protection, electronics, and communication system. Rehabilitation works are expected to be completed on 11 March 2020.
For the full rehabilitation of NAIA, the NAIA Consortium submitted its unsolicited proposal for the project in February 2018. It has been granted an Original Proponent Status (OPS) six months after. 
Now, the unsolicited proposal NAIA Rehabilitation Project is undergoing processing and evaluation by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) Investment Coordination Committee (ICC) Secretariat.

Once the unsolicited proposal is approved, the Competitive (Swiss) Challenge Process will immediately commence. 
3. New Manila International Airport

The proposed NMIA in Bulacan aspires to bring more connectivity to Filipinos.
DOTr's acceptance of the unsolicited proposal from San Miguel is precisely due to the increasing demand and constraints now experienced at the NAIA. In the processing and evaluation of the San Miguel proposal for a new international airport, DOTr adhered to all existing policies, laws, rules and regulations governing unsolicited proposals.

We believe that there is no conflict between New Manila / Bulacan International Airport (NMIA) and Clark International Airport (CIA) since the airports will have its own market and are, in fact, complementary. Thus, these two airports including the NAIA will be best beneficial to the passengers and users of the airports as they will have more options that would serve their needs. These airports are not mutually exclusive, are not contingent on each other, and, therefore, may co-exist. 
In the review and subsequent approval by the NEDA Board Investment Coordination Committee (ICC) of the NMIA (Bulacan Airport), due diligence was undertaken by the ICC to ensure, not only that NMIA is economically and financially feasible, but that it complies with the policies and requirements of law and its implementing rules and regulations governing unsolicited proposals, and, avoid any potential government contingent liabilities that may arise from the Project. In addition, ICC's due diligence will also ensure that the Project will be successfully implemented and its objectives realized as it is to best interests of the public and the economy. It may further be mentioned that ICC is a collegial body composed of several Cabinet Secretaries, and any decision they arrived at are done collegially-- not just by one member, but unanimously by all members. 
On the other hand, NMIA is now in its advance stage of processing having commenced the Competitive (Swiss) Challenge Process which will end in July 31, 2019. Thereafter, contract negotiations will commence and the subsequent signing of the Concession Agreement (CA) with the winning Proponent to start project implementation.

It is expected that the NMIA will be operational in four (4) to six (6) years from the start of construction in 2020.

One Government, One Team
The DOTr works hand in hand with other member-departments of the Build, Build, Build Inter-Agency Committee, including the Department of Finance (DOF), to ensure that needed infrastructure projects will be built and experienced soon by our countrymen.

Let me also note that I have faith in the astute judgment of DOF Secretary Carlos Dominguez. I have known him for so many years, even during my early days of doing business. This is the reason why I can vouch that he embodies the esteemed values of honesty, integrity, hard work, diligence, and patriotism. Secretary Dominguez is a true servant of the Filipino people.

The DOTr understands that the NEDA ICC is expediently dispensing its duty of completing the evaluation of the NMIA development project, so the Filipinos will finally experience the comfortable life that President Rodrigo Roa Duterte has promised through enhanced mobility and connectivity.

Once again, we extend our deepest gratitude for your support to the projects of the Duterte administration, and the DOTr.

Let us work together to raise the quality of life of the Filipino people.

Thank you very much.


Respectfully yours,


(Sgd) ARTHUR P. TUGADE
Secretary
Department of Transportation

------- END OF LETTER -------




------- START OF TP'S RESPONSE TO DOTR LETTER-------

TP's Response








06 June 2019

ARTHUR P. TUGADE
Secretary
Department of Transportation

Dear Sec. Tugade,

I sincerely appreciate your spending your valuable time in addressing most of the concerns I raised in the 05 June 2019 article. Truth be told, I have thus far been commending your many accomplishments in the Transportation Department. Let me say on a personal note that I actually like you a lot because you remind me of Tatang, my late grandfather who was very close to me

I will not ask anymore why you and not Sec. Dominguez wrote to me.

Going back to topic, I have never been and never will be adversarial to the government by default, though I reserve the option to be so if and when the need arises.

Nevertheless, I am happy to hear that efforts to address the aviation infrastructure backlog are now in full swing. With that said, I will still be taking the statements about Finance Sec. Dominguez' qualities with a grain of salt in light of his conflicts of interest as extensively discussed in the ThinkingPinoy article.

Based on your letter, I understand that the four core issues Sec. Dominguez raised against the NMIA have been addressed and that the government is proceeding with the Swiss Challenge phase.

I sincerely am very happy to hear that, though I shall still be on the lookout for any signs of another undue delay.

Mr. Secretary, I honestly dislike involving myself in squabbles between businessmen, as my core interest lies not on corporate warfare but on finding ways to get things done for the Filipino People. That is, even if businessmen end up financially hurting each other but the end product still furthers the Greater Good (or at least my best understanding of it), then I shall have no complaints.

I believe that we both acknowledge the reality that the Filipino People have been suffering for so long, and that it is our lifelong task as citizens to alleviate that suffering instead of adding to it. We may have different views on how accomplish that task but I guess that's just the way things are and I have no issue with it being so. 

Needless to say, I strongly support the Duterte Administration as it is a drastic departure from the Old Politics that has plagued our country for decades, but I support the administration's efforts only as long as it aligns with my best understanding of Public Interest. 

I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, Mr. Secretary, but I try to be as sharp as I can possibly be.

Maraming salamat po.

Respectfully,

REY JOSEPH NIETO
Publisher
ThinkingPinoy

P. S. Saan mo po ba nabili sir yung Mickey Mouse mo na medyas (see below) na sinuot mo doon sa interview with Boy Abunda? Gusto ko rin po kasing bumili.

Yung nagpainterview is Sec. Art Tugade while wearing Mickey Mouse Socks.

I like this guy.😂
Posted by Thinking Pinoy on Saturday, April 13, 2019


------- END OF TP'S RESPONSE TO DOTR LETTER-------

DON'T FORGET TO SHARE! 

Follow ThinkingPinoy on Facebook and Twitter!

RELATED POSTS:

Several pleasant surprises that kinda restored my Faith in Humanity

$
0
0

Here's a rare feel-good ThinkingPinoyarticle. 😂😂😂


I attended the 20th Anniversary of Children's Joy Foundation, Inc. (CJFI), a shelter for children whose parents, in one way or another, cannot take care of their kids.

It's the same children's shelter that's helping the kid who was latched onto my leg to show his gratitude for the time I shared with him when I visited CJFI in 2016. The kid's mom has a mental issue while the dad was a victim of 2012's Typhoon Pablo. Pablo's strong winds blew away a roof and part of it hit the dad's stomach. The father, while now stable, is still healing from his wounds.
So I dropped by a children's home yesterday.

This kid is the youngest of four siblings, all of whom were sent to the...
Posted by RJ Nieto on Tuesday, December 6, 2016
But I'm digressing.

I told one of the CJFI administrators that I am really happy that they are helping these kids. If left alone, these kids would only be dreaming to survive for another day.

With the shelter's help, however, they gain the freedom to dream bigger, to become professional adults who can compete with those who had way better opportunities than they had.

It was a very happy event, as I discovered that CJFI wards from years back , who were so poor and helpless when they were still kids, have now become lawyers, accountants, teachers... they have become competent professionals who actually have a pretty good fighting chance in life.

I know the foundation helped them get through childhood, but I didn't know that they turned into magna cum laude graduates and CPA-Lawyers and Litigation Lawyers and whatnot.

I even told one of the administrators, "Wow, these kids who had so much less than I had when I was a kid are now far more accomplished than I am! Maybe you should adopt me at CGFI too! 😂"

Pastor Apollo Quiboloy founded CJFI. You can say what you want about him, but he's helping so many helpless kids not only in Mindanao but also around the world. 

Did you know that they even built a school in Kenya that doubles as an amusement park? The pastor said he found kids from a Kenyan squatter colony who were using a shanty as a classroom, so he rented a building for them. 

I may write a separate piece about the oft-misunderstood man. Meanwhile, let's talk about someone I met in the event.

Bumping into former NorthRail board member Isko Moreno

One of the guests in the event was Department of Social Welfare and Development Undersecretary Francisco "Isko Moreno" Domagoso and I bumped into him while I was at the hotel lobby.

The ensuing conversation was fascinating, to say the least.

I asked him why he resigned from NorthRail just three months into his appointment.

I've heard rumors that the government-owned and -controlled corporation NorthRail is rife with corruption, so I can't help but give credence to the other rumor that he resigned from NorthRail because of what Pres.Rody Duterte calls "whiff of corruption".

His answer surprised me.

FIRST, he didn't disparage NorthRail. While I would've preferred that he dished out some juicy tidbits about the inner workings of this GOCC, I commend the undersecretary for his professionalism as he refrained from badmouthing what could be considered as his "former employer".

You see, HR professionals generally dislike applicants who openly lambast their former companies too much.
SECOND, he honestly said that he's not a very technical guy. He outrightly told me that he's no expert in finance and engineering. Afterwards and to my surprise, he said he resigned that early because he felt that the president should appoint someone who's more suited to the job than him because Filipinos deserve the best Public Service.

Well, I am talking to a relatively seasoned politician so I am not certain if he's just pulling my leg, but what he said is actually true and he speaks with an uncanny air of authenticity. I've spoken to a lot of politicians over the past couple of years, and I think I'm pretty good at judging when someone is lying.

I believe he wasn't. Moreover, the fact that the president appointed him to a higher position in a cabinet department is evidence enough for me to give him the benefit of the doubt.

DSWD Usec. Isko Moreno

And that leads us to the next question: I asked the undersecretary why he accepted the DSWD appointment.

He said helping the less fortunate has always been part of his advocacies. Well, there's nothing really surprising about that, as any politician would say the same.

What said next, however, suprised me again.

He said he lived in a squatter colony in Tondo, Manila for 18 years before he became an actor. He said he has experienced and endured similar, if not drastically worse, hardships that DSWD beneficiaries face.

He said an ideal DSWD official must have a deep understanding of the suffering of the poor, so that he can deliver the best service regardless of the challenges he'll face. He said understanding suffering cannot simply be taught in school: one has to experience it, feel it, see it.

And he experienced, felt, and seen suffering first hand, for 18 years, so he thinks that his appointment to DSWD is not just a responsibility, but a blessing.

Isko and his speech

So we went back to the conference hall to watch the ceremonies, where there was a series of speakers. I spoke first and he was scheduled to speak last.

During his turn to speak, he nonchalantly said he has a prepared English speech, but he's really bad in English so he'd rather deliver an impromptu speech in Tagalog.

That kind of self-deprecating honesty is rare in politicians, whose egos typically fill the Araneta Coliseum.

He pleasantly surprised me again.
He delivered an impromptu speech, in plain and fluent Tagalog, and I can confidently say that I can't speak Tagalog as well as he does, as effectively as he does.

There was a part where he said:
"Huwag kang umasang may mangyayaring kakaiba bukas kung ang ginawa mo ngayon ay katulad ng kahapon."
TRANSLATION: "Don't hope that something new will happen tomorrow if what you did today is the same as yesterday.".

I know that the idea is not exactly original, but his surprisingly poetic wording is. I tried to google that exact Tagalog sentence and I can't find anything.

Yeah, he came up with it himself.

Time to go home

Then it was time to go home, and I bumped into him again at the hotel lobby. This time, he was with his teenage son. He said his son tagged along and watched the CJFI Anniversary Ceremonies too.

I asked him why he brought his son there and how his son managed to evade death from boredom.He said he lived a tough life, but his son didn't. He said his son is very privileged. For that reason, he brings the kid to events like these so the child can learn about the lives of real Filipino kids who don't have a wealthy celebrity dad.

He said he doesn't want his son to suffer the same things he went through, but he also doesn't want him to be oblivious of the reality on the ground, and that's why the teen tagged along tonight.

And he said all these with a body language that does not, in any way, suggest deceit. Either he's a incredibly good liar, or he's just plain and brutally authentic.Judging from tonight's conversations, I feel that it's the latter.

I like this Isko guy a lot, so far.

And no, this not a paid post. I wrote this because I felt the need to tell it.

Oh! And that other guy is Jay Manalo. Yeah, I almost died.

That's freaking Jay Manalo!!! 🤭 [ThinkingPinoy]

DONT FORGET TO SHARE! 

 Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help! Just click the link below! :-)

RELATED POSTS:

After Statement on Bikoy: Caloocan Bishop David either a hypocrite or a liar?

$
0
0

Caloocan Bishop Pablo Virgilio David's statement denying complicity in the now-discredited Bikoy Videos show glaring inconsistencies, suggesting that the bishop is either a hypocrite or a liar... or is he something else?

Let's discuss.


In a statement dated 06 June 2019, Caloocan Bishop Fr. Virgilio David admitted that he met Peter Joemel "Bikoy" Advincula in early February of this year. David said Davao's Jesuit Fr. Albert Alejo, accompanied by Advincula, met with him briefly.

David wrote:
“I expected only him but he came accompanied by a man whom he did not even properly introduce to me. Since I could spare less than an hour and was rushing to another appointment at 9am, I met them only for a little while, over coffee."
David added:
"Perhaps conscious of the time constraint, Fr. Alejo told me very briefly that the man’s life was in danger, that he was being pursued by a drug syndicate he used to work with, and that he needed sanctuary. He was a chubby bespectacled young man; he struck me also as a glib-talker."
“Glib” means fluent but insincere.

David went on to explain that situations like those "are not new" to him, and that he the term "drug syndicate" raised a red flag. He then said he advised Alejo to "seek help from people who might be in a better position" to deal with Advincula's situation.

He said "it was not until months later" that David recognized the man in the videos as the Advincula that he met in February and went on to say:
"Perhaps if I had not been in such a rush, I would have followed my instincts and naïvely provided sanctuary to a SNAKE!"

A few things off about Bishop David’s statement

David said he felt insincerity on Advincula’s part so he didn’t take Alejo’s request seriously. But then, David also said the meeting was very brief, so is David saying that he can judge a person’s character in just a span of, say, a few minutes?

I doubt that a self-professed Man of God would judge people that quickly.

Moreover, Fr. Alejo is a very high-profile priest. He’s the same guy who helped Edgar Matobato and Arturo Lascañas, the witnesses presented during the Senate Hearings on the War against Drugs. David knows about Alejo, yet he dismissed Alejo’s request just like that?

Just how many times has Alejo approached David for help with a whistleblower?

There are two possibilities: [1] rarely and [2] a lot.

[1] Suppose Alejo rarely approaches David

Given Alejo’s very high profile and the rarity of Alejo’s requests, David could not simply dismiss Alejo’s actions as insignificant. Even if David considers Advincula as insincere, he must have at least inquired through Alejo or other sources about what’s going on. Surely, somebody of David’s education, experience, and stature must know how to deftly deal with such situations, especially if it could backfire on him, just like what’s happening right now.

[2] Suppose Alejo approaches David a lot

If Alejo made approaching David a habit every time Alejo finds an alleged whistleblower, then David must already have a pretty good idea about Alejo’s ability in vetting people. David is a staunch critic of President Duterte’s War on Drugs, so he must be familiar with Lascañas and Matobato, both of whom are generally believed to have enjoyed Alejo’s protection. 
Assuming that David believes finds Lascañas and Matobato credible (he never spoke against either), then what is the likelihood that David also found Advincula credible when Alejo introduced the latter? 
Now, even if David found Advincula’s story incredulous when they met in February, did Alejo’s credibility in David’s eyes account for nothing? Even if Advincula seemed insincere, why did David simply dismiss Advincula’s claims despite Alejo’s backing 
Surely, David must have at least exerted some effort in investigating the Alejo-Advincula situation, yet he himself said he didn't.
Both possibilities yield blatant contradictions, suggesting that David is lying.

Now, here’s the more interesting part

David himself said he found Advincula’s story incredulous, yet he did not speak about it when the Bikoy videos came out.

David in the same statement even wrote, “It was not until months later, when the man who had appeared as the hooded Bikoy on videos in the social media, removed his hoodie and identified himself as ‘Peter Joemel Advincula’, that I recognized the chubby bespectacled glib-talking young man I had briefly met on February 9, 2019.”

The first part of the “Ang Totoong Narco List” videos series came out during the first week of April 2019. David, given his tenacious opposition to Duterte’s Drug War, must have found about it on that same week.

Despite this, I never heard David speak about the video, despite his incessant tirades against the administration on the days that followed.

Let me illustrate:
05 April 2019: Ang Totoong Narco List Episodes 1 and 2 have been been published.
17 April 2019: In an apparent swipe against the government, David encouraged Catholics to “renounce evil” in the May 2019 elections 
19 April 2019: David attacked the administration’s senatorial slate as he asked Catholics if they’d vote for “Jesus or Barabbas” 
23 April 2019: David admonishes Catholics for allegedly blindly believing that Duterte’s Drug War is for Law and Order. 
23 April 2019: In a forum, David decried the supposed “age of disinformation”, a rebuke of the dominance pro-administration personalities in social media.
24 May 2019: Advincula flip-flops and implicates the political opposition instead.
I attempted to search for any online content dated 06 April 2019 (the day after the first two Bikoy videos were released) to 13 May 2019 (election day, or when Bikoy’s story was falling apart), online content where David directly referenced to the videos.

I also searched for any drug war-related statements from the Bishop after Advincula flip-flopped (24 May 2019) and BEFORE Advincula implicated him (01 June 2019), and I found none.
I found none.

Bishop knew Advincula was lying, he saw Advincula spread his lies for week, yet he said nothing about it, despite the bishop's uncanny interest in supposedly revealing the truth about President Duterte's Drug war.

Did David, through his recent statement, admit to being a hypocrite?

Bishop Pablo Virgilio David: a hypocrite or a liar?

Suffice it to say, despite Bishop’s David’ knowledge that Advincula was blatantly lying, he never bothered to call out the lies that he knew were spreading quickly.

With these said, it appears that the bishop didn’t mind the use of lies – of disinformation – to achieve a purpose. He didn’t mind that people used the same disinformation that he was whining about during the April forum where he was a speaker.

Despite his supposed advocacy for truthfulness, Bishop David allowed Advincula’s lies to spread like wildfire despite his full knowledge that he is in a prime position to stop it… or what if we just save some time analyzing his statement by saying that his denying his complicity in the Bikoy Videos is a lie in itself?

Given these, either Bishop David is a hypocrite or he’s just another barefaced liar like Advincula.

Bishop David, which of these two do you prefer? But if you prefer something else, please do let me know, because I really want to know. [ThinkingPinoy | RJ Nieto]

(For comments, suggestions, and reactions, please send an email to tp[at]thinkingpinoy.net)


Did you like this post? If yes, Click Here.

DON'T FORGET TO SHARE! 

Follow ThinkingPinoy on Facebook and Twitter!

RELATED POSTS:

ex-DFA Sec. del Rosario, China, the Fishermen, the Incident and Reed Bank's Oil

$
0
0
If I were in Albert del Rosario's shoes...


It’s public knowledge that President Duterte himself admitted that it’ll be difficult to exploit oil and gas resources in the South China Sea because of ongoing territorial disputes, especially one between China and the Philippines. This is the same reason why Philex Petroleum a.k.a. PXP Energy, which holds exploration and drilling rights over Reed Bank (SC 72), repeatedly failed in its moves to establish operations in the area.

PXP Energy’s 2018 Audited Financial Statement said Sampaguita gas field in Reed Bank is estimated to contain 2.6 trillion cu. ft. in discovered reserves and up to 5.4 trillion cu. ft. of undiscovered reserves.

The January 2019 US Natural Gas industrial price is USD 5.04 dollars per thousand cu. ft.. Using this figure, the Sampaguita Gas Field contains around US$13.1 billion in discovered reserves and around US$ 27.2 billion in undiscovered reserves. That’s about Php 674 billion and Php 1.4 trillion, respectively (PHP:USD = 51.44:1).

PH-CHINA OIL EXPLORATION MOU: A WAY FORWARD

On 21 November 2018, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and Chinese President Xi Jinping in a historic move signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on joint exploration in the South China Sea, providing both parties a diplomatic way to move forward with mutually taking economic advantage of South China Sea’s idle petroleum resources.

Through the MoU, each party will form a Working Group that “will negotiate and agree on… technical and commercial arrangements that will apply in the relevant working area.”

That is, each side will have teams that will set terms regarding who does what in the drilling and exploration process, who gets how much of the profits, and whom the end-products will be sold to.

China authorized its state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) as the Chinese enterprise for each China-side working group, while the Philippines will authorize firms with active services contracts for a given area or, if there’s none, the state-owned Philippine National Oil Company.

MoU’s are essentially just agreements to agree, i.e. it is a very preliminary phase of any prospective oil and gas project in the South China Sea. However, the MoU states that China and the Philippines will strive to finalize cooperation agreements within 12 months of the MoU, i.e. by November 2019.

PXP ENERGY AND DENNIS UY

On 04 December 2018 and given the MoU, Energy Secretary Alfonso Cusi told PXP Energy that it can start applying for the lifting of the ban on oil and gas exploration in Reed Bank, which DOE declared in 2014 amidst escalating tensions in the South China Sea.

On 21 December 2018, PXP Energy announced that it has formally requested the Energy Department to lift the said ban.

On 27 December 2018, PXP Energy and Dennis Uy’s Dennison Holdings Corporation disclosed that they will be sealing an oil and gas exploration deal over Reed Bank by March 2019. A separate news report said this is subject to CNOOC’s approval and consent, presumably in accordance with the November 2018 PH-China MoU.

The MoU really is very welcome news for PXP Energy, known to perennially post losses and whose continued existence, judging from its financial reports, lies heavily on the hope that it can finally tap Reed Bank.

Additionally, PXP Energy’s prospective partnership with Dennis Uy provides the financially struggling company with much-needed liquidity plus a possibly more favorable relationship with Malacanang given Dennis Uy’s perceived closeness to the President and his men.

For PXP Energy, so far, so good.


HOPE DIMS FOR PXP ENERGY

Is China willing to work with PXP Energy and Dennison in Reed Bank? Let’s see.

On 11 January 2019, Dennis Uy’s Phoenix Petroleum disclosed that DOE greenlighted its partnership with CNOOC to build a US$ 2 billion Liquefied Natural Gas import terminal in Batangas.

On 01 February 2019, Phoenix’s Board seconded DOE’s approval as it gave go-signal for the Phoenix-CNOOC Tanglawan joint venture.

China appears to be very much willing to work with Phoenix and by extension, Dennis Uy. Given that Uy is prospectively partnering with PXP over Reed Bank, it’s so far so good for PXP, until…

On 28 February 2019, PXP chairman Manuel V. Pangilinan said PXP reached out to the Chinese CNOOC but “it’s radio silence on their part.

China, while willing to work with Uy, is apparently unwilling to work with Pangilinan. It seems that Duterte’s good relations with Beijing isn’t enough to make China forget its experience with Pangilinan in 2012, when Beijing rejected Pangilinan’s 2012 oil and gas exploration proposal directed to CNOOC.

On 01 March 2019, Phoenix, CNOOC, and PNOC signed MoU for the Tanglawan LNG Plant.

On the same day, President Duterte threated to shut down Pangilinan’s PLDT for busy anti-graft hotline 8888. He also accused PLDT of owing the government Php 8 billion, along with a subtle threat when he said “no President has ever asked for payment”, an accusation that Pangilinan denied.

China seems to still dislike PXP Energy and to makes matters worse, Duterte seems to feel the same about its owner.

DENNIS UY DITCHES PXP ENERGY

Just when I thought PXP Energy’s relationship with China can’t get any worse…

On 13 March 2019, former Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert Del Rosario accused China President Xi Jinping of Crimes Against Humanity at the International Criminal Court.

Del Rosario is a director of Hong Kong-based First Pacific, PXP Energy's parent company.

I can’t imagine how China will take Del Rosario’s brash moves lightly, and true enough, it was all downhill from there.

On 29 March 2019,PXP Energy disclosed that is has terminated its deal with Dennison Holdings, i.e. Dennis Uy is now out of the Reed Bank exploration project.

Dennison effectively jettisoned PXP energy from its future plans: is this merely a coincidence or a result of how China and Duterte view Pangilinan?

On 01 April 2019, PXP Energy share prices nose-dived by nearly 19%. This is the business day immediately succeeding the 29 March 2019 announcement of the PXP-Dennison split.


On 10 April 2019, PXP Energy disclosed its latest list of Top 100 Stockholders, which includes former Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario.

On 15 April 2019, PXP’s stocks plunged to Php 6.84 a share, down 44% from 29 March 2019’s Php 12.28 [https://bloom.bg/2Lb1nLx].

Things are looking really bad for del Rosario's PXP energy.

IF CHINA LIKES DENNIS UY…

Beijing apparently sees PXP Energy and Dennis Uy on the opposite sides of the Likeability Spectrum.

On 16 April 2019, Phoenix and PNOC execs visited CNOOC’s LNG plant in China, which shall be used as a pattern for the Tanglawan LNG plant.

Phoenix Petroleum's Dennis Uy, CNOOC's Wu Zhengxing, and PNOC's Reuben Lista sign a Memorandum of Understanding for the Tanglawan LNG project.

As Pangilinan and PXP struggle, Uy appears to blossom.

On 08 May 2019, PXP Energy disclosed that it “will take guidance from the Philippine Government” in as far as its Reed Bank interests, and said it hopes that DoE lifts the ban on exploration soon.

Nothing new here, although PXP’s stock prices relatively stabilized after the announcement.

On 27 May 2019, Dennis Uy said PXP Energy and his Dennison Holdings agreed to ditch their deal because of “uncertainty of government-to-government” transactions. PXP Energy in a PSE disclosure welcomed Uy’s statement and said PXP energy is at the moment focused on lifting the DoE ban on SC 72 and 75 “to allow exploration activities to resume.”

I think this is very telling.

Judging from these, it appears that  China is open to jointly explore and exploit with the Philippines the South China Sea for oil, but that she doesn't wanna do it with PXP Energy. 

We know that China like Dennis Uy and China dislikes PXP Energy. If there’s uncertainty in government-to-government transactions, and the only major variables are China, PXP, and Uy, then which major variable is the likely cause of uncertainty?

The Cause of Uncertainty

Note that I have been using the phrase “dislikes PXP Energy” instead of “dislikes Pangilinan”. It is still unclear to me if China has beef with Pangilinan per se or with First Pacific in general, and I am inclined to believe it’s the latter given Del Rosario’s overtures.

But to solely blame the uncertainty to PXP is unfair, especially since no less than Foreign Secretary Teddy Boy Locsin insisted drafting the joint exploration agreement. This is the same Locsin that, a highly placed government source says, is an Amboy who spends more time in New York than in the DFA headquarters on Roxas Boulevard.

The same source, whose identity will remain concealed for his safety, told this writer:
“President Xi and Foreign Minister Wang Yi sent signals that we are moving towards joint exploration because it doesn’t make sense to place everything on hold. Our own DoE has been saying that we need alternatives to Malampaya (Gas Facility), but remember that Sec. Locsin demanded that he’ll be the author of any joint exploration agreement.”
Locsin has not been sufficiently subtle in his general dislike for China when he unilaterally revamped President Duterte’s independent foreign policy from “Friend to All, Enemy to None” to the more angsty (and less eloquent) “Friend to Friends, Enemy to Enemies, and Worse Enemies to False Friends.”, in an apparent swipe at China.

This is despite Malacañang repeated assertions that Duterte’s pre-Locsin foreign policy stays.


Suffice it to say, aside from China’s apparent dislike for PXP, the American-leaning Locsin seems to also be in the way.

THE JUNE 2019 REED BANK INCIDENT

The developments up to the end of May 2019 seem to imply that Reed Bank exploration is a no go for the foreseeable future as far as PXP Energy stockholder and First Pacific director Albert del Rosario is concerned.

Then suddenly…

On 12 June 2019, Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana announced a collision of two shipping vessels– one Chinese and another Filipino – in Reed Bank.

Then a day later…

On 13 June 2019, Del Rosario in response to Lorenzana said the Philippines must now consider a multilateral approach on the South China Sea Issue, citing that China has absolutely no respect for the Rule of Law.

The Philippines under Duterte adopted a bilateral approach over the SCS dispute, i.e. Manila dialogues directly with Beijing with no other state actors involved.

The multilateral approach that del Rosario insists on means the inclusion of other states in talks, other states like those within the ASEAN and most likely, the United States.

It is common knowledge in government circles that Del Rosario leans heavily towards the United States

The US-educated Del Rosario is very intimately linked with the pro-Washington US-Philippine Society where PXP’s Pangilinan also sits as co-chairman and where top US diplomat and George W. Bush-era State Secretary John Negroponte serves as president.

SOMETHING FISHY ABOUT DEL ROSARIO’S LATEST

Del Rosario immediately blamed Beijing for the collision despite the fact that investigations have yet to commence, which is the total opposite what happened just a few years prior, when he was still DFA Secretary.

Del Rosario’s reaction is in stark contrast with a similar incident in 2014, or when a Hong Kong-registered commercial ship collided with a Philippine fishing boat, killing a Filipino fisherman and leaving four others missing.

CULPRIT? The Hong Kong-registered, 195-meter MV Peach Mountain is suspected to have rammed a Philippine fishing boat on June 20 off the waters of Bolinao in Pangasinan. Survivors say their fishing boat is similar in size to the 13-meter vessel shown above. (via Inquirer)
Commenting on the incident, then President Benigno Aquino, whose Foreign Secretary at the time was del Rosario, said the government wasn’t accusing any country of involvement until all evidence is in.

Does del Rosario have something to do with the incident?

I cannot help but wonder as succeeding events revealed major plot holes in the anti-China narratives of the political opposition, where del Rosario belongs.

FIRST, the 12 June 2019 Lorenzana statement was immediately followed by a media blitz that is still running as of this article’s writing, with the general tone that share pretty much the same wavelength as Del Rosario’s 13 June 2019 statements.

SECOND, the media blitz shortly later included anti-China statements from the Filipino fishing vessel’s captain, despite the ship’s cook later admitting that the captain was asleep when the incident happened.

THIRD, up to this day, none of the 22 affected fishermen have executed sworn affidavits and continued to grant media interviews. Apparently, none of del Rosario’s allies, many of whom are lawyers, explained to the fishermen that the longer they wait to execute an affidavit, the easier it is to impeach their testimonies in court.

The list of inconsistencies in the Anti-china version of events goes on and on, suggesting that the prematurely anti-Beijing rhetoric, at the least, is staged.

DEL ROSARIO WITH HELP FROM LOCSIN

And apparently, with a bit of help from Locsin, whether Locsin is aware of it or not.

On 15 June 2019, the Chinese Embassy in Manila, in response to the incident, promised to “handle this issue with the Philippines in a serious and responsible manner”.

On 18 June 2019, the Chinese Foreign Ministry in a very mildly worded statement extended its sympathy to the Filipino fishermen and followed up with an offer to jointly investigate the incident with its Philippine counterparts, an offer that Malacañang seriously considered.

China's calm and reconciliatory tone in both statements is a total departure from the harsh rhetoric it used during the Aquino Era, suggesting, at least at first glance, that China was also surprised by the June incident.

Shortly after Malacañang showed some inclination towards a joint China-Philippine investigation, Foreign Secretary Locsin categorically rejected China’s offer.

On 18 June 2019, Locsin tweeted, “There cannot be a joint investigation. First principle of justice: no one can be judge of his own case...”.

Locsin’s grandstanding is odd, if not utterly stupid.

Malacañang, or where Locsin takes orders from, already said it’s inclined to accept the Chinese offer of a joint investigation, and last time I checked, Locsin is NOT the President.

Moreover, the clause “no one can be judge of his own case“ (Latin: Nemo judex in causa sua), is a legal principle which states that no person can judge a case in which he has an interest in.

While China indeed has an interest in the Reed Bank Incident, the Philippines does too. That principle applies to both China and Philippines so Locsin, wittingly or (more likely) unwittingly, suggested a third party should the investigate, which would turn a bilateral issue into a multilateral one.

Sounds familiar? Yes, because del Rosario used the same term a day after Lorenzana’s announcement.

Malacañang immediate corrected Locsin a day later when…

On 22 June 2019, Malacañang said it “welcomes and accepts the offer of the Chinese Government to conduct a joint investigation…

But seriously, what can we expect from a Foreign Secretary who conducts Foreign Policy over Twitter?

ANOTHER DEL ROSARIO PR STUNT

While Locsin was busy defying Duterte…

On 21 June 2019, del Rosario engaged in yet another PR stunt when he attempted to enter Hong Kong and told the immigration counter that his purpose for visit is to attend a First Pacific board meeting.

Yes, he told China in China that he will be reporting to First Pacific in China, the same First Pacific that controls PXP Energy that China seems to deeply detest.

Del Rosario even (mis)used his courtesy diplomatic passport, suggesting that his HK tête-à-tête is official business of the Philippine Government. He was denied entry, of course.

A day later, DFA said it’s cancelling all courtesy diplomatic passports issued to former Foreign Secretaries and retired ambassadors, halting del Rosario’s PR barrage.
Del Rosario on a final attempt at a Dick Cheney?

As Leiden University-educated International Relations scholar and Maastricht University lecturer Sass Sasot pointed out, it appears that former Foreign Sec. Albert del Rosario has been doing to the South China Sea what US VP Dick Cheney did to Iraq in 2003.

Former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney resigned from the oil giant shortly before he became the Vice-president of the United States. While keeping his business interests in Halliburton, he fiercely advocated for the US invasion of Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and armed personnel. Halliburton, as soon as the war ended, emerged the winner as it snagged billions of dollars’ worth of Iraqi reconstruction contracts, with the first US$489 million  for its subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root.

Del Rosario, meanwhile, resigned from First Pacific and because the Foreign Secretary. While keeping his interests in First Pacific subsidiary PXP Energy, del Rosario crafted the Aquino-era Philippine Foreign Policy, which heavily relies on the existence of the 1951 US-PH Mutually Defense Treaty

The only significant difference from that Cheney and this one is that Cheney has already succeeded in promoting a war, while del Rosario is apparently still trying his best: del Rosario seems to be desperately trying to start a war that will benefit his own business interests…

Oil and gas for his pockets, at the expense of the Filipino People?

No, thank you. [ThinkingPinoy | RJ Nieto]

(For comments, suggestions, and reactions, please send an email to tp[at]thinkingpinoy.net)
Did you like this post? If yes, Click Here.
DON'T FORGET TO SHARE! 

Follow ThinkingPinoy on Facebook and Twitter!

RELATED POSTS:

Speaker Cayetano's "Dolphy Situation": a super typhoon's brewing in the House?

$
0
0

The entire thing started with the bloody speakership race involving Marinduque’s Lord Allan Velasco, Leyte’s Martin Romualdez, and Taguig’s Alan Peter Cayetano. For two straight months, media bombarded the public ad nauseam with blow-by-blow reports, as if nothing else matters to the Common Tao.

Taguig 1st District Rep. Alan Peter Cayetano emerged victorious, but not without great cost.

How much political capital does he have left, and is it enough for him to survive for 15 months?

In the interest of full disclosure, I was briefly a consultant for the Department of Foreign Affairs from July to October 2017, then under Sec. Alan Peter Cayetano. I initially intended to be a 1-peso consultant but DFA officials said I should receive at least the P12,000 monthly minimum rate, which I decided not to collect after I amicably left the agency.

Despite this, I am convinced that Public Interest requires me to proceed with writing this article.

Besides, no less than President Duterte himself in his July 2019 State of the Nation Address encouraged every Filipino citizen to criticize the government when he said:
“You are free to investigate. I don't take offense. If there is anything wrong in my department, the Executive, you are free to open the investigation anytime."
And in line with the president's statement, let’s get it on.

Cayetano’s precarious hold on power

As far as I can see, Cayetano’s current situation is reminiscent of a line from the comedy legend Dolphy.

Asked about his reluctance to enter Politics, Dolphy said:
Doon nga ako natatakot, kasi baka manalo ako (That’s what I’m afraid of, because I might win).
The context within which Dolphy said these words is his fear of neglecting his duties as a public official: he really needs to serve the country if he enters into public office, and he’d rather not run at all if he can’t do that. The offer to run came at a time when it was starting to be fashionable for showbiz celebrities to venture into politics, an offer that Dolphy gracefully declined.

Fair enough.

Cayetano’s context, however, is a little different. That is, after winning the Speakership on 22 July 2019, will Cayetano be a House Speaker through and through or just a speaker only in name? And more importantly, for how long?

Unlike the Presidency where the winner becomes the de facto god of the Executive Branch, the Speaker of the House is generally considered as primus inter pares, meaning first among equals. Unlike the president who can be removed only through impeachment, the House Speaker may be removed through a much simpler process of nominal voting within the chamber.

House of Representatives Rule XV Sec.116 extensively defines the process of nominal voting but in a nutshell, the House Speakership may be declared vacant if 154 (that’s “50% + 1”) of all 306 congressmen vote in favor of such.

For how long will Cayetano be able to prevent 154 from being bold enough to defy him on this level?

That, I believe, is the most interesting question in Batasang Pambansa today.

Scratch that. Regardless of political color, it's the most interesting Philippine political power struggle question right now.

The Cayetano-Velasco Term-sharing Agreement

A term-sharing agreement between Cayetano and Velasco supposedly exists, where Cayetano is Speaker for the first 15 months then Velasco takes over the remaining 21.

In my best recollection, this arrangement is a first for the House. There may be similar setups in the past but none of them were publicized at all, suggesting that this compromise is so necessary that Cayetano had to publicly admit it in an apparent attempt to assuage disgruntled Velasco allies.

Cayetano, while undoubtedly the most popular politician in his native Taguig City, lacks the same degree of support from his peers in the House. In late June, four major House blocs – PDP-Laban, the Party-list Bloc, NPC, and the Northern Luzon Alliance (NLA) – issued a “Multi-party Manifesto of Support” for Velasco’s speakership bid.

PDP-Laban executive vice president and Pampanga 3rd District Rep. Aurelio Gonzales said without naming specific congressmen that partymate Velasco at the time enjoyed the backing of at least 60 from PDP-Laban, 45 from the Party-list Bloc, 20 from NLA, 15 from Nacionalista, 12 from the Liberal Party, and 25 Independents.

That is, at least 177 of the 306 House members want Velasco and not Cayetano, and that’s over 50% of the House today... at least according to the largest House bloc PDP-Laban.

Meanwhile, Romualdez-leaning representatives led by Anakalusugan Party-list Rep. Michael Defensor claimed 167 congressmen from various parties supported Romualdez’s bid.

Both numbers are likely bloated, but one thing is crystal clear:
Not a single congressman publicly came forward to claim that Cayetano enjoyed any significant support from any major congressional power bloc.
I scoured news reports from the day after the elections up to "SONA Day" on 22 July 19 and I also asked a large number of my contacts from both the Senate and House of Representatives and none suggested that any significant number House members wanted Cayetano to win.

And as we all know, a political bloodbath ensued.

Cayetano vs the Duterte Kids

In late May, Davao City mayor Inday Sara Duterte said Cayetano came to her “with a veiled threat, that if [she] endorses Rep. Velasco for Speaker, [Cayetano] would break up [the pro-Duterte Coalition] and this, he said, will affect the Presidential Elections of 2022.”

In June, Davao City representative Paolo “Pulong” Duterte threw shade at Cayetano as he said in Filipino:
“To my fellow lawmakers, I am just a newcomer but I think that what happened today should serve as a guide for our choice for the next House Speaker… Let’s choose a leader with respect for others, especially women, may they be the spouses of political rivals…”
Rep. Duterte’s statement after Cayetano accused rival Velasco’s wife as among those who machinated for a “term-sharing agreement” between the Cayetano and Velasco. Cayetano apparently wanted to be a speaker for a full three years but he was aware that the compromise agreement was necessary, in light of his lack of popular support in the House.

A Utilitarian Truce?

The two younger Dutertes met with the three speakership candidates in early July and successfully came out with what appears to be a truce.

But this is classic politics, as Balkanization within the pro-Duterte Coalition goes against the interests of any of the meeting’s attendees. The five had to strike a truce out of political necessity, even if it’s just for show.

Yes, the Duterte kids still seem to dislike Cayetano, a suspicion reinforced when Rep. Paolo Duterte threw not-so-subtle shade at Cayetano during the first session of Congress.

In his speakership nomination speech, Duterte said:
“I nominate a leader who understands local and national governance, one who can bridge the different branches of government, one who can ably and fearlessly represent the House of Representatives and the Philippines in the international arena. Mister Speaker, I nominate the distinguished gentleman from the district…”
A long pause followed as the younger Duterte pretended to double-check the paper he’s reading then winked at members on the floor, a cheeky gesture greeted by uncomfortable laughter within the session hall.

Eight-or-so awkward seconds later, he eventually nominated Cayetano, but not without clearly expressing through a brilliantly-timed silence his reluctance to do so.

See it for yourself by watching this video:


But Cayetano still made it, right?

Cayetano appear to have ruffled not only the feathers of the influential Duterte children, but also those of his peers in the house.

In an early July phone interview with ABS-CBN News, Buhay Party-list representative Lito Atienza said:
“That’s what Congressman Cayetano has been bandying around, that he is supported by the cabinet and that in fact, the cabinet would react negatively against the president if [Cayetano] doesn’t get his term-sharing idea.”
This is an extremely loaded statement coming from Atienza, as the phrase “the cabinet would react negatively against the president” may be construed as “the cabinet will do something against the president’s wishes” if Cayetano doesn’t become the speaker.

Atienza, according to the same report, also said Cayetano threatened the House with problems with the budget if he doesn't get his way.

Here's the video clip of that report:



It’s unfortunate that ABS-CBN didn’t ask follow up questions to clarify this loaded statement.

With that said, Atienza seems to have accused Cayetano and his alleged cohorts of blackmailing the House, with the term “cabinet” referring to a group composed of several cabinet members led by Finance Sec. Carlos “Sonny” Dominguez.

Dominguez has stringently denied Atienza’s accusations. He told ABS-CBN that the cabinet consults with the House only in relation to the preparation of the proposed National Budget.

ABS-CBN didn’t get Cayetano’s side but the solon will obviously deny Atienza’s claims, so let’s just assume that he did deny them.

Who backed Cayetano?

What’s clear, however, is that Atienza accused Cayetano of threatening the House with “the cabinet would react negatively against the president” if he doesn’t get his way, although it’s unclear whether the cabinet will actually go against the president or Cayetano’s simply bluffing his way through.

Whichever the case, Atienza clearly accused Cayetano of threatening the House with massive governmental disarray.

While Cayetano is known to enjoy the staunch support of a wealthy mining magnate, I doubt that the businessman has enough clout to persuade congressmen to switch to Cayetano’s side… and I know of no Big Business interests that is backing Cayetano’s bid.

Adding the fact that Cayetano enjoys negligible support from House members as explained in the previous section, logic dictates that Cayetano’s only significantly powerful backer would be some people in the Duterte Cabinet.A high-ranking opposition congressman, whose name shall be withheld after citing fear of retaliation, said President Duterte, just like his two politician-children Paolo and Inday Sara, really wanted Velasco. Some of his more influential secretaries, however, managed to override his wishes.

And it appears that the influence of Cayetano’s group of backers from outside of Congress, whoever they are, was enough to snag the speakership.
Cayetano’s first month in Batasan

House sources independently told this writer that Speaker Cayetano has so far made three major decisions in this first month as House Speaker, namely:
  1. That Congressional consultants will not be given consultancy fees for July 2019,
  2. That contracts of a large number of congressional employees will not be renewed, and,
  3. That there will be a significan reduction of maintenance staff.
At first glance, these sound like relatively innocous administrative decisions but a closer look reveals that these may cause a major migraine for the newly-installed Cayetano.

Let's each of them in greater detail.

First: no consultancy fee payments for July

I spoke with a content writer who handles a veteran Visayas congressman’s online assets (website, social media, etc.) for the past several years, for a measly sum of 16,000 monthly via a congressional consultancy contract.

It’s already the second week of August so she wondered why her consultancy fees haven’t been credited to her bank account, and she expressed immense frustration because she has nothing to pay her monthly bills with.

Just yesterday, she found out that the House Leadership decided against paying out consultancy fees for July 2019, a claim that was independently corroborated by another senior House official.

Regardless of the justification behind this alleged move, it is plenty obvious that all House consultants won’t be too happy about it.

Congressional consultants strongly influence the decisions of their congressman-principal. As explained in the previous sections, a large number of congressmen are already holding grudges against Cayetano’s speakership, grudges that they so far choose to hold at bay. But will these congressmen still be able to hold back if they’re continuously egged on by their consultants, the same consultants that the Cayetano Leadership didn’t pay in July?

That’s the 16,000-peso question.

Second: non-renewal of employment contracts

The House Leadership, sources say, will not be renewing the employment contracts of a large number of House employees and the first wave of non-renewals has already commenced.

Many of the affected House employees have continuously served the chamber for years, and the nature of congressmen being elective officials with term limits forces Congressmen to hire them only on a contractual basis, possible only with approval from the Speaker of the House.

2019 election results show there are at least 140 of the 306 congressmen are serving their second or third term, meaning at least 140 need congressmen need to renew their employees’ contracts.

How many of these 140-or-so solons were affected by this policy and how would those affected react to the reality that non-renewal means will lose their most experienced and most trusted workforce?

And yes, that’s a rhetorical question.

Third: reduction of maintenance staff

The House Leadership, sources say, also intend on reducing the maintenance staff of the Batasang Pambansa complex, or those tasked with ensuring clean, orderly safe, and functional House facilities.

I find this odd because there are only 2 or so janitors per floor so HoR Maintenance is already grossly understaffed as it is. Considering that there are over 660 restrooms in the entire Batasang Pambansa Complex, I cannot imagine how a small workforce will be able to handle all the work.

A Southern Luzon congressman told me that corruption is the knee-jerk theory to explain this move, as Speaker Cayetano’s opponents may argue that the Taguig congressman may be planning to replace retrenched maintenance staff with people from a friendly manpower agency… but the South Luzon congressman said it’s unlikely.

There aren’t a lot of janitors to justify such a theory, he said. Instead, he said it’s not unlikely that the janitors will be replaced by ones loyal to the new House Leadership.

He said I should remember that janitors are like a walking CCTV system: they know who visits which congressman and at times, they get to overhear confidential conversations between powerful people as they, say, mop the floor.

A living, breathing CCTV

The South Luzon congressman’s alternate theory makes quite some sense because publicly available evidence indicate that House employees are likely fond of Cayetano’s predecessor Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

Arroyo was known to be very generous with employee remuneration. In September last year for example, then Speaker Arroyo gave every House employee a 35,000-peso bonus to get through “taghirap months”. This is on top of the 5,000-peso grocery allowance they received a month before.

And while Arroyo has never publicly expressed her preference for the new speaker, all her allies backed the candidacy of Martin Romualdez, so pretty much everyone believes she supported the Leyte legislator.

Who will be more fond of if I were a janitor in the House, my former employer with a proven history of generosity, or someone whose track record so far involves allegedly Draconian austerity measures?

That’s a rhetorical question.

The congressman said Arroyo’s political rivals may see the current maintenance staff as Arroyo and her allies’ CCTV, and it’s in her rival’s interest to replace them with his own.

Who, again, was Arroyo’s staunchest critic not too long ago?

That, again, is a rhetorical question.

And how would congressmen who may have been benefitting from these janitorial eyes react to the decision to let these janitors go?

That, again, is a rhetorical question.

Let me summarize what was discussed so far

A vast majority of the members of the House of Representatives wanted either Marinduque Rep. Lord Allan Velasco or Leyte Rep. Martin Romualdez to become House Speaker and Cayetano never publicly received significant support from any significant Congressional bloc.

Cayetano still managed prevail, allegedly through the backing of some powerful Duterte cabinet members who, in turn, were supposedly able to dissuade the President from publicly backing Velasco.

Cayetano eventually became speaker, albeit through a very reluctant majority vote. Most of the House, including those who reluctantly voted for Cayetano, still hold a grudge against the new speaker up to now, although many of them choose to keep their feelings private for fear of retaliation.

But ill feelings are like a poorly constructed dam that can burst with enough rainfall… and some of the rainfall came in the form of heavy-handed policies that directly contradict the core political interests of these disenchanted lawmakers.

Exodus Chapter 1

Just last week, 12 PDP-Laban members moved to the National Unity Party (NUP) after citing “internal conflict” within the administration party, with Presidential son and Davao City Rep. Paolo Duterte leading the pack.

That’s a Statement with a capital “S”.

Inday Sara, the other presidential child, is a mayor and not a House member so she obviously can’t do the same even if she wanted to.

But had she been one, would she?

Did the three new policies help catalyze the mass exodus? After all, a person with 999,999 pesos in his bank account still needs an extra peso to be called a millionaire: without that seemingly insignificant peso, he cannot be part of “the club”.

Note that NUP is still largely supportive of the administration, but its composition strongly suggests that it is not as heavily influenced by Malacañang as the administration PDP-Laban.

That is, the younger Duterte and the PDP Laban solons choice to join NUP may be reasonably interpreted as "Hey Mr. President, we still support you but we don't like this speaker."

Will these three new policies, and possible other policies that I have yet to be aware of, catalyze even more defections? Only time will tell.

But more importantly, will members of the House of Representatives be fine with the introduction of even more of the same policies, or will they stop the bleeding while they can?

The next several weeks will be very interesting, my little birds said.

I agree with the Southern Luzon solon: it’s fun to have walking and breathing CCTVs, really.

Dolphy's line perfectly sums up Cayetano's current situation.
Doon nga ako natatakot, kasi baka manalo ako (That’s what I’m afraid of, because I might win).
Yes, Cayetano won the speakership, but given the circumstances under which he won, along with his alleged deeds so far, what being a "Speaker Cayetano" really mean?

I'm curious on whether the widespread social media ops will escalate further after this. *wink* [RJ Nieto / Thinking Pinoy]


DON'T FORGET TO SHARE! 

Follow ThinkingPinoy on Facebook and Twitter!

RELATED POSTS:

#TPonMB: What, exactly, is a ‘legitimate journalist’?

$
0
0


As I write my first column piece, I think it’s best to introduce myself first.

[NOTE: This piece was first published in the Manila Bulletin on 03 August 2019].


My name is Rey Joseph Nieto, best known as the publisher of the Facebook page “Thinking Pinoy (TP)” with over 1.4 million organic followers. I also a co-host the radio show Karambola, which airs weekdays 8 to 10 am on DWIZ 882 AM. And yes, I am that chubby controversial resource person in the October 2017 Senate hearing on fake news.

I am aware that social media is not the be-all and end-all of public discourse, hence my decision to start writing a column for one of the country’s most esteemed publications. And I am eternally grateful to Manila Bulletin’s senior editors for giving me this opportunity.

While we’re at it, I also wish to thank my mentors, the former SunStar Davao editor-in-chief Stella Estremera, Philippine News Agency director Gigie Agtay, and former Manila Standard editor-in-chief Jojo Robles (bless his soul): I would not have gone this far without you.

Now, let’s get it on.For the past three years, we’ve been witnesses to what appears to be a war for public recognition among media practitioners. On one side are new social media-based political personalities who enjoy massive online followings, and on the other are traditional journalists who benefit from massive distribution networks of their media outlets.

I now find this extremely ironic because I am a social media personality on one hand and with this first column piece, a traditional media man on the other. But just like what my late mentor Jojo Robles always told me, “A journalist should never be his own story.”

Let me cite a prime example, though I shall conceal her name because what matters here is the script and not the actor.

A few days ago, a traditional journalist publicly complained on social media about the Department of Transportation’s (DoTr) supposed preferential treatment, as the latter allegedly allowed a handful of media outlets, while preventing others, to cover the bidding on the New Manila International Airport. She also accused the agency of favoring social media personalities over, in her own words, “legitimate journalists.”

I called DoTr and they told me they don’t really invite media in such events because they’re livestreamed anyway, and that media who were present had asked for access days in advance. DoTr said they would’ve granted the complainant access had she done the same, but she didn’t. Thus, the issue seems to have stemmed not from inequitable treatment, but from a simple case of a bruised ego.

What I witnessed is a trait prevalent not only among traditional journalists, but also among social media players — the desperate need for validation.

Regardless of medium, legitimate journalists should let their work speak for itself. A legitimate journalist does not demand respect. Instead, he pours his heart, mind, and soul in every piece he writes, then silently wait for his audience to recognize and acknowledge his brilliance. Legitimate journalists don’t go around town with a megaphone screaming how legitimate they are.

As Harvey Specter from “Suits” once said, “Work until you no longer have to introduce yourself.”

Journalists, I admit, are humans too. But then, those who aspire to make it into the Big League should see to it that their public statements should be like, borrowing the words of Arthur Miller, “a nation talking to itself.”

And no, I am not God’s Gift to Journalism. I am nowhere near that and I myself am guilty of having committed more than a few glaring mistakes. After observing mass media for several years as a regular citizen, however, I cannot help but feel great frustration over the work of many Filipino journalists today.

Social media personalities entered the limelight because they filled the vacuum that many traditional journalists left behind, a vacuum that was created after years and years of churning out work that’s unresponsive to modern society’s needs and tastes.

With that said, I strongly encourage traditional media to reclaim its dominance over Public Discourse, but this should be done not by pulling down newcomers, but by producing content that makes the Filipinos realize, by themselves, that what they’re reading is worth every second spent.

I didn’t start this column to prolong the war between traditional media and social media. Instead, I started this to remind everyone out there, including myself, that journalism is about helping the Common Tao make the best possible decisions for his future. And that is possible only if we end this squabble and instead channel our energies towards building this nation that we all love.

Instead of making ourselves the story, let’s focus on issues that are truly of national significance, in a way that the Common Tao will more readily and more willingly understand.

For reactions, please email TP@ThinkingPinoy.net.

DON'T FORGET TO SHARE! 

Follow ThinkingPinoy on Facebook and Twitter!

RELATED POSTS:

#TPonMB: Health Sec. Duque, let’s respect FDA’s independence

$
0
0

Department of Health (DOH) Secretary Francisco Duque recently announced that he’ll consult with the UP-PGH Dengvaxia Task Force regarding the possible reintroduction of the controversial anti-dengue vaccine Dengvaxia, saying he wants a decision on Dengvaxia’s fate through a consensus among all sectors “because a lot of groups have varying positions about this.”

But before we go any further, here’s some context.
[NOTE: This piece was first published in the Manila Bulletin on 10 August 2019].

The 2017 Dengvaxia scandal stemmed from the haphazard DOH-led mass vaccination program affecting almost a million school-age children. Despite Sanofi’s own studies admitting that the drug may have serious adverse effects on recipients who have not had dengue, DOH still mass vaccinated in 2016 and 2017 4th graders in Central Luzon, Metro Manila, and Calabarzon.

The Scandal erupted in November, 2017, when Sanofi through a press release admitted that Dengvaxia worsens dengue symptoms in recipients who have no prior history of dengue, thereby confirming Sanofi’s earlier statement prior to the mass vaccination program, which Sanofi published in a peer-reviewed journal in 2015.

Hundreds of vaccine recipients have allegedly died so far, with Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) autopsy reports show that most of the kids exhibited swelling and bleeding in their internal organs, which eventually led to multi-organ failure. The affected families, with PAO’s help, have filed cases against DOH, manufacturer Sanofi, and local distributor Zuellig Pharma.

The cases are still pending in various courts and Sanofi has consistently denied liability over these deaths. After Sanofi failed to submit mandatory post-marketing surveillance reports, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) permanently revoked Dengvaxia’s Certificate of Product Registration (CPR) in February this year, making it illegal in the country.

Hence, I cannot understand why a health secretary is so actively involving himself over an illegal drug that is not even part of the Philippine National Formulary, the official list of drugs that the DOH is legally allowed to procure.

Criminal liability on the part of DOH, Sanofi, and Zuellig, in relation to the mass vaccination program, is a matter that the courts are already handling and let’s allow them to decide on it. The issue at, is the propriety of the reinstatement of Dengvaxia’s CPR and subsequently, the question of who are the right persons to be involved its reinstatement.

Manufacturer Sanofi by nature wants Dengvaxia’s CPR reinstated, but it’s also clear that Congress mandated the FDA and no one else to review such submissions… and Sec. Duque isn’t in FDA.

As a side note, this writer also finds it odd that Dengvaxia advocate and former Health Secretary Esperanza Cabral has been doing media rounds lately without disclosing in any of those interviews that she is a trustee of the Zuellig Family Foundation, the philanthropic arm of Dengvaxia local distributor Zuellig Pharmaceuticals.

Former Philippine College of Physicians president Dr. Tony Leachon is right when he recently asked whether Sanofi has already submitted the post-marketing surveillance reports, as those missing reports are what made the FDA revoke Dengvaxia’s CPR in the first place.

If it still hasn’t submitted these reports, then the debate is over. Otherwise, it’s up to the FDA and FDA alone to independently review these reports, check for compliance, and decide whether to reinstate Dengvaxia’s registration or not. With that said, this writer can’t help but feel sympathy for the UP-PGH professionals who are now under extreme and unnecessary pressure.

If Sec. Duque insists on dipping his hands into the issue, then he must at least make public Sanofi’s missing post-surveillance reports that it must have submitted recently. The secretary should let the public see what Sanofi has to say about the hundreds of thousands of kids that, as Senator Richard Gordon put it, “were treated like guinea pigs.”

Dengvaxia’s proponents argue that the drug may be sufficiently safe for those who have had dengue, and this writer agrees with them. However, if Dengvaxia must be reinstated, then it must be reinstated with clear guidelines on how it should administered, taking into account data collected over the past three years that it was available in the market, the same data that can be found only in Sanofi’s post-marketing surveillance reports, the same reports that are still missing, apparently.

Sec. Duque is strongly encouraged to let the FDA do its job without undue external interference. FDA officer-in-charge Usec. Eric Domingo is more than capable of accomplishing that, especially since he hails from Pampanga, one of the provinces covered by the botched 2017 Dengvaxia mass vaccination Program.

Sec. Duque must focus only on tasks that he is legally allowed to do, and that doesn’t include FDA’s job. Truth be told, Sec. Duque’s latest moves may even be construed as engaging in acts beyond his authority to perform, opening him up to possible lawsuits from the FDA and even from any citizen who feels that the secretary’s actions are endangering public safety.

For reactions, please email TP@ThinkingPinoy.net.

DON'T FORGET TO SHARE! 

Follow ThinkingPinoy on Facebook and Twitter!

RELATED POSTS:


#TPonMB: Policy suggestions to prevent the recruitment of Filipino youth into rebel groups

$
0
0


Several parents of senior high school students testified in a series of Senate hearings that leftist groups believed to fronts for the communist insurgent New People’s Army (NPA) are recruiting their children. And true enough, some of kids really went to the mountains and have become combatants for the rebel group.

I disagree with Leftist ideologies (I consider myself a Centrist) but I recognize every person’s right to have her own political views. Advocacy of leftist ideologies is not by itself illegal, but it should stop when it’s about to lead our youth, most especially our very impressionable minors, into a life of violence.

Whenever I point out a problem, I always try to propose a solution.

Thus, here are several policy recommendations in relation to the issue:

[NOTE: This piece was first published in the Manila Bulletin on 17 August 2019].


FIRST, the state can set additional limitations on minors’ right to freedom of association.

The state recognizes the reality young Filipinos are not yet fully capable of independently making marriage decisions, so the Family Code (EO 209 s. 1987) requires adults aged 18 to 21 to secure notarized parental consent before they are legally allowed to marry.

The decision to go to the mountains and take up arms against the Government is much more serious than deciding to settle down. Just like what the Family Code with respect to marriage, the state can exercise parens patriae jurisdiction over our youth, to prevent them from making decisions that may destroy their future.

SECOND, schools can dissolve campus organizations that are known to advocate sedition and violence.

Liberality of school administrations vary widely but I believe that we can all agree that advocacy of illegal acts like sedition and rebellion is out of the question. Schools must immediately dissolve campus orgs as soon as they call for, say, the downfall of the government (e.g. “Ibagsak!”). DepEd and CHED, meanwhile, can take appropriate action against schools that neglect to do so.

THIRD, revoke legal recognition for organizations that encourage illegal acts.

Similar to the suggestion to schools, let us enable the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to revoke the corporate registration of organizations that are known to call for the government’s downfall. Criticizing the government and its policies is one thing, but to call for its utter destruction is another. While we’re at it, it may be high time to amend the Party-list Act (RA 7941) to exclude organizations that are known to advocate violence, or known to vocally support and/or tolerate groups that do so.

FOURTH, inclusion of insurgency-related topics in primary and secondary education.

Being a native of rural Bulacan, I was aware of massive NPA presence in Doña Remedios Trinidad town in the early 1990s because elders talk about it all the time. But that’s about it. I didn’t know that they extorted revolutionary taxes from innocent small businessmen, that they burn farm machinery, etc. Our children should be made aware of these things so they can make better decisions when NPA recruiters approach them later in life.

The government should also use its mass media assets to disseminate such information. Sadly, the President’s own communications team (PCOO) does nothing significant in this regard. To this day, I have yet to see anything on TV, radio, print, or online that even remotely dissuades kids from joining the NPA. I strongly believe that it’s more important for PCOO to explain the scourge of violent resistance to Filipinos than to Bosnians.

FIFTH, amend the Human Security Act and the Anti-money Laundering Act (AMLA).

Section 18 of the Human Security Act (RA 9372) can be amended to extend the period of detention without Judicial Warrant of Arrest from just three days to at least a week for terrorism suspects.

Terrorism is best proven by retracing paper trails, and three days is simply too short for it. Imagine a terrorist that was arrested on a Friday night. Banks are closed during the weekends so law enforcement will have only one day (that’s a Monday) to do all the work. That’s impossible.

With that said, AMLA should also be amended to include an exception on the predicate crime requirement if the offense is terrorism, albeit with additional safeguards to prevent authorities from using this for politicking. To this end, we can set harsher penalties for authorities who use AMLA-sourced anti-terrorism information for purposes other than countering terrorism.

To this day, I have yet to learn of persons in their late 20s or 30s who somehow had an epiphany of sorts and decided to join the NPA. In my best knowledge, NPA’s new recruits are mostly those in their late teens and early twenties, i.e., young adults who are desperate to find meaning in their existence and to find their place in this world.

Let’s build a framework that allows these children to learn that there are far better choices than taking up arms and shooting fellow Filipinos, because I know for a fact that there are.

For comments and reactions, please email TP@ThinkingPinoy.net














DON'T FORGET TO SHARE! 

Follow ThinkingPinoy on Facebook and Twitter!

RELATED POSTS:

#TPonMB: Duterte Youth’s Cardema vs Comelec’s Guanzon

$
0
0
Over the past several weeks, we’ve been witness to the word war between former National Youth Commission and Duterte Youth party-list nominee Ronald Cardema and Comelec commissioner Rowena Guanzon, with the core issue being Cardema’s eligibility as Duterte Youth’s first nominee.

[NOTE: This piece was first published in the Manila Bulletin on 24 August 2019.]


Comelec on one hand sees Duterte Youth, as its name suggests, a youth sector party-list, so that the age limit on nominees (no older than 30 years by law) apply. The 34-year-old Cardema, meanwhile, argues that the party represents young professionals (yuppies), who are generally defined as professionals in their 20s or 30s.

Cardema has always been a controversial figure but the rift “formally” started in late May when Guanzon questioned Cardema’s eligibility. This is after Duterte Youth petitioned to replace the five original nominees with a new set where Cardema is on top. The Comelec in early June approved the substitution but Guanzon in her dissenting opinion raised the age issue.

A media war happened afterward, and it escalated to new levels when Guanzon in a mid-July tweet published an alleged text threat along with the comment “Who do you think sent this? Obviously.” The public felt Guanzon was alluding to Cardema, an allegation Cardema swiftly denied.

The Comelec in early August cancelled Cardema’s nomination on grounds of age.

A little later, Cardema accused Guanzon of extortion as he claimed she asked him for a large sum and the appointment of several officials. Guanzon shrugged off the allegations.

Cardema and Guanzon threatened to sue each other, with Cardema going the extra mile by blaming Guanzon’s tirades for making his relatives sick.

Cardema then publicly requested for the Palace’s help, a request that the Palace swiftly denied.

Cardema’s motion for reconsideration is still pending and he told this writer in a recent (and quite lengthy) phone conversation that he is still hopeful that it will be granted.

Guanzon, meanwhile, is on a roll. We have to give the commissioner some credit: she has a knack for zingers that Cardema sorely lacks.

All things considered, I cannot help but view the odds are stacked against Cardema while Guanzon has basically nothing to lose. That is, the current political landscape vis-à-vis the Guanzon-Cardema rift suggests that Cardema’s moves over the past several months may have been a series of gargantuan political miscalculations.

FIRST, Guanzon has little to lose. This is just one of the myriad electoral cases Guanzon handles and she will remain a commissioner no matter how this turns out.

Impeachment is a political exercise so that Cardema’s impeachment raps versus Guanzon are unlikely to prosper, as major blocs in both Houses are not exactly fond of Cardema. Moreover, will the Palace be willing to sideline its legislative agenda for the Senate to conduct months’ worth of impeachment trial? I highly doubt it.

SECOND, Cardema has limited political capital.

Guanzon’s July tweet may have been construed as alluding to Cardema but Guanzon didn’t specifically refer to him, offering her the option to exercise plausible deniability. Cardema, however, took the bait and publicly retaliated with little success.

Guanzon, in just one tweet, managed to expose the limitations of Cardema’s political capital.

In a world of rainbows, butterflies, unicorns, and teletubbies, everything boils to down to a question of morality. But reality dictates that most political agreements are quid pro quo, i.e., you scratch my back, I scratch yours. What exactly can Cardema offer that will overwhelm the overwhelming opportunity costs?

THIRD, Cardema’s evidence will likely backfire.

Days after he initially accused Guanzon of extortion, Cardema released a series of screenshots that purportedly showed his text conversations with Guanzon’s alleged bagman in Congress. Cardema redacted the names, phone numbers, and numerous other parts of the exchange, thus raising questions regarding authenticity.

If anything, the screenshots may likely backfire on Cardema because the screenshots are essentially declarations against interest. One of the screenshots show that Cardema agreed to the lobby for the appointments of several people in exchange for a favorable Comelec decision, which sounds like a budding corruption case against Cardema.

Cardema’s biggest mistake? Cardema didn’t wait, even if a few weeks is all the waiting he had to do. If he just allowed the original first nominee to sit as congressman first then told her to withdraw a day later, the issue would’ve been under the jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal instead of Comelec, and he has better chances there.

But he didn’t, so here we are.

For comments and reactions, email TP@ThinkingPinoy.net



DON'T FORGET TO SHARE! 

Follow ThinkingPinoy on Facebook and Twitter!

RELATED POSTS:

#TPonMB: Personal advocacies and the ABCD of politics

$
0
0

The relative political calm in the months after the May, 2019, elections has come to an end: sentence reductions for convicted felons, the SOGIE bill, South China Sea tensions, Death Penalty’s revival, the Communist insurgency…the list goes on and on.

[NOTE: This piece was first published in the Manila Bulletin on 31 August 2019].

I have my own take on each of these issues and I have been quite vocal on most of them through my Facebook page ThinkingPinoy. More than just promoting my own views through this column, however, I feel that it’s more important, at least for now, to help everyone get back on track by sharing with my readers the four principles I generally follow when I publicly speak my mind.

Don’t get me wrong: I admit that I oftentimes fail to adhere to them, but I try to stick to them as best as I can. I think I am already done with the days when I approached issues with unbridled anger. After years of being in the public scene, I learned that moderation is key.

I noticed, throughout the years, that my efforts yielded better results whenever I seriously take into consideration the principles that I’m about to list down.


First, Politics is Addition.
We live in a democracy where popular opinion is the primary determinant of political advocacies, i.e., advocates should be able to gain popular support. But just like what I tell my friends over and over, you can’t convince someone to switch to your side if the first thing you do is piss him off.

A balanced mix of passion, knowledge, and compassion is crucial in every advocacy, and too much of one thing – and too little of another – can sabotage the entire endeavor. Advocates are passionate and they’re usually knowledgeable about the subject, but a lot of them fail because they forget that compassion is just as important, compassion not only for the ones they’re fighting for, but also to those who they are fighting against.

Proving to yourself that you’re right is one thing, but making others see it the same way is an entirely different matter, and that leads us to…

Second, Politics is Belonging.
Political debates are usually a zero-sum game, where one side’s gain is the other side’s loss… and we all know that losses generate resentment, resentment that may rear its ugly head when the next political issue comes along.

We can avoid this by showing opponents that all of us are mostly on the same side. Advocates should appeal not to their opponent’s position, but to their interests. See how a policy proposal can benefit its opponents, and explain this to them. For policy proposal that seem to benefit a few, explain how benefitting a few will, even in the long run, benefit the majority.

Third, Politics is Compromise.
I know for a fact that I cannot get everything I want, and I believe the same holds true for everyone else. We all have differing political interests and the way to go forward is finding a way to set policies that optimally reconcile these clashing desires. No single law is perfect: law inherently is a compromise subscribed to by millions of citizens with different ways of viewing the world.

As Norman Vincent Peale once said, “Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you’ll land among the stars.” Advocates should learn that compromise is a core aspect of politics, and achieving a less-than-ideal outcome is so much better than maintaining the status quo.

Simply shocking the system into submission usually requires bloody revolutions, and I’m not really fond of those gory stuff.

Societal advancement is a process of iterative development where a society adopts less-than-ideal solution after less-than-ideal solution, in the hope that these successive incremental improvements will allow it to go nearer to its ideal state of affairs.

The world is imperfect and it always will be, but we can make it less so.

Fourth, Politics is Divisive.
Most importantly, I find it really odd that even some political analysts decry the divisiveness of Philippine politics, when the fact of the matter is that politics by nature is divisive. Has there ever been a time in Philippine History when ALL political factions united as one? Even when our forefathers fought against Spanish colonization, divisiveness existed among our own ranks: Emilio Aguinaldo himself readily confessed that he ordered Andres Bonifacio’s execution.

Instead viewing the divisiveness of politics like it’s some sort of temporal anomaly, we need to see it as a democratic political reality, and the primary task of every self-proclaimed advocate is to minimize it, or its ill effects at least. Nobody can eliminate divisiveness, but we can take the divisiveness down a notch. Case in point is the latest trust and approval ratings of the sitting President.

I know some may accuse me of hypocrisy after reading this article, but even Hitler saying the moon is round doesn’t make it flat.

For comments and reactions, please email TP@ThinkingPinoy.net






DON'T FORGET TO SHARE! 

Follow ThinkingPinoy on Facebook and Twitter!

RELATED POSTS:

#TPonMB: Perception in politics is as important as Reality

$
0
0

Politics is a game of Perception where what’s really taking place may be different from what the public thinks is happening, and anyone who enters the political arena should know this by heart. A public official, whether elective or appointive, should not only be qualified (Reality) but also look qualified (Perception).

[NOTE: This piece was first published in the Manila Bulletin on 07 September 2019].


To illustrate, US domestic support for the 2003 war in Iraq was possible after the Bush administration managed to make the public believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (Perception), even if it didn’t (Reality), something that the no less than the Bush administration admitted years later… but not before the US had taken over Iraq, killed Sadam, taken control of the country’s massive oil resources, and in the process left hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead.

Form (Perception) is more important than substance (Reality) in the game of political survival, at least in the short- to medium-term. The sad reality in politics is that Perception takes precedence over Reality, and it’s the job of every public official to minimize the gap between the two.


Case Study: PCOO Asec. Mocha Uson


Let’s consider the case of former Presidential Communications (PCOO) Assistant Secretary Margaux “Mocha” Uson.

With over five million followers, Uson was hands-down considered the most powerful politically inclined blogger. At an astronomically distant second was Thinking Pinoy of yours truly, which at the time had a measly 600,000 followers, or just about 12 percent of Uson’s.

Presumably in cognizance of her online supremacy, President Rodrigo Duterte made her PCOO assistant secretary for social media in May, 2017.

Even before her appointment, Uson was already a threat to mainstream media’s long-held supremacy over political discourse, and her appointment only managed to amplify the threat. Media outlets relentlessly attacked her, pressuring her Malacañang peers (who are scared stiff of mainstream media) to keep a disproportionately healthy distance from her.

To be fair, it’s not like media totally had no reason to do so — Uson did commit numerous gaffes that can be (and were) used as excellent fodder for mainstream media’s cannon, the cannon that was always aimed and ready to fire at her. For example, Uson’s “Mayon sa Naga,” “Pepe-dede-ralismo,” and sign language scandals did nothing but further alienate her from erstwhile staunch allies.

In fairness, Uson earnestly attempted to do her job well. Her uncanny ability to reach the masses (Reality), however, should’ve been supplemented by efforts to mitigate her negative image among her peers (Perception), especially those who have power over her. Her political success, after all, is contingent not only on her performance, but also on the cooperation she enjoys from other officials.

Uson eventually resigned from office to lodge a congressional bid, and it seems that her image as a political pariah in the Palace even spilled outside Malacañang’s walls.

For one, Uson’s staunchest allies – the Cayetanos of Taguig – didn’t even openly and actively support her unsuccessful congressional campaign in their home city, as evidenced by her AA Kasosyo snagging only 0.63 percent of the approximately 300,000 votes cast there. Did the Cayetanos exclude AA Kasosyo in their sample ballots because they see her inclusion as a net political liability?

Uson is undoubtedly very popular but AA Kasosyo was over 70,000 votes short of the cutoff after garnering only 120,000 votes nationwide, or less than 2% of her 5.8 million followers today.

The Case of Nicanor Faeldon and GCTA

Recently resigned Bureau of Corrections director Nicanor Faeldon is another example of the chasm between Perception and Reality.

The President recently fired Faeldon and said in a mix of English and Tagalog, “Faeldon has to go because Faeldon disobeyed my order… I was trying to provide the fire extinguisher to erase the people’s doubts. No releases. If he said that then, it should’ve been over. The problem is he came up the next day with his statement with his statement with his own computation.”

The President, an astute politician, was essentially trying to balance Reality with Perception.

The Reality is that the GCTA Law was enacted and implemented well before Duterte took office. In the absence of any amendment to the law or any court order, Faeldon had no choice but to help implement it in the same way Senator Leila de Lima did while still in DOJ.

The Duterte Administration is aware of this reality, as evidenced by Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra’s earlier statement that convicted murderer Mayor Antonio Sanchez may benefit from GCTA just like any other convict.

But the GCTA issue two faces: legal (Reality) and public opinion (Perception). Duterte as Chief Executive had to balance his responsibility to execute the law and as a politician had to keep the public satisfied, hence his decision to put GCTA on hold.

Faeldon, instead of recognizing this glaring political necessity, ignored the President’s orders and handled matters his own way… and his glaring lack of public relations skills made the situation even worse.

Faeldon focused too much Reality and failed to sufficiently address Perception… and that didn’t sit well with a President who recognizes, in this situation, that Perception is just as important as Reality.

Hence Faeldon’s termination.

For reactions, please email TP@ThinkingPinoy.net or leave a comment at Facebook.com/TheThinkingPinoy
DON'T FORGET TO SHARE! 

Follow ThinkingPinoy on Facebook and Twitter!

RELATED POSTS:

EXTRA P1.6-B HOUSE BUDGET: CAYETANO’S NEGATIVE PREGNANT DEFENSE VS "FAKE NEWS"

$
0
0

Let's thoroughly dissect the House budget issue and Speaker Alan Peter Cayetano's excruciatingly problematic defense. Nililihis ang istorya e. Akala siguro e makalulusot.

On 20 Sept 2019, House Accounts Committee chair and Cavite Rep. Bambol Tolentino told GMA News that that the House seeks P1.6-billion on top of its original proposed P14-billion budget for 2020. 

Tolentino said:
“We did not expect that there will be additional Deputy Speaker; we did not expect that there will be additional vice chairpersons on [House Committees] on Appropriations and Ways and Means; we did not expect either that there will be newly created committees… We are talking about all the employees, over 4,000, including those who are in a contractual status, permanents and other employees.”
I found this alarming on several grounds…

FIRST, WHY NEED FOR MORE EXPENSIVE DEPUTY SPEAKERSHIPS?

The sheer number of deputy speakers as the House had only:
  • ONE deputy speaker from 1946 to 1995
  • TWO deputy speakers from 1995 to 1998
  • FOUR to SIX deputy speakers from 1998 to 2016
  • FOURTEEN deputy speakers from 2016 to 2019
While there was a radical increase of deputy speakers during the 17th Congress under the leadership of Speaker Bebot Alvarez (and subsequently, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo), I was willing to tolerate it given that PRRD really had to curry the favor of the House.


The Liberal Party was the single biggest power bloc in the 300-member 2016 House. Given that the President had a lot on his legislative agenda that needed massive congressional support, I understood and recognized the political reality that he needs to bring them to his side, hence the jump from six deputy speakers in the 16th Congress to fourteen in the 17th.

Come 2019, however, the President’s own PDP-Laban (where PRRD belongs) and Nacionalista (where Speaker Cayetano belongs) dominated the elections with 94 and 37 congressional seats each. Adding the generally pro-administration NPC’s 33 seats and NUP’s 28 seats, the total number of administration-aligned congressmen is 192, a clear supermajority.

Alvarez in 2016 increased the number of deputies by 8 (from 6 to 14) because most of the solons are anti-administration. That I would understand because I recognize political realities.

And in fairness to the 17th Congress, their performance is far better than their predecessors, in as far as supporting the President’s legislative agenda.

But unlike 2016, a pro-administration supermajority already won in 2019, so what necessitated Cayetano’s decision to add eight more (from 14 to 22)?

It would’ve been understandable if Cayetano merely retained the 14 deputy speakership positions from the last Congress, but why did he need to create eight more?

While we’re at it, I would not have cared if Cayetano made deputy speakers out of all the 300 solons if not for the fact that each deputy speaker requires additional funds that come from guess what?

PUBLIC FUNDS. Public funds that could’ve been used for healthcare, agriculture, education, infrastructure and social services instead… or public funds that could’ve been saved to minimize the country’s ballooning budget deficit.
This is issue is quite similar to the Dengvaxia Scandal.Was P3.5 billion for an experimental vaccine the best use of public funds? Similarly, is P1.6 billion additional House budget the best use of public funds?

SECOND, 11-B WAS GOOD ENOUGH SO WHY 4.6-B MORE?

The 17th Congress under Speakers Alvarez and Arroyo were able to pass ALL of PRRD’s legislative measures with a 2018 budget of just Php 11 billion. If the that House can accomplish the task with that amount, why do we have to increase it?

As shown in a 03 June 2019 infographic posted in Thinking Pinoy, the House of Representatives under GMA (and predecessor Alvarez) passed ALL of PRRD's 28 priority bills... and they had only a P11-B budget in 2018.

Fine, there’s inflation, so let’s say we should increase the House budget by 10% annually to neutralize rising costs, but that means that the 2019 budget must be only Php 12.1 billion, and 2020 only Php 13.31 billion.

The House, according to Rep. Tolentino, initially asked for Php 14 billion and I think that I can tolerate the extra Php 690 million on top of Php 13.31 billion projection. However, what I do not understand is why the House had to increase the budget even further, to the tune of P1.6 billion pesos.

Again, if Alvarez and Gloria whose House was initially anti-PRRD were able to pass all needed laws with just Php 11 billion, why does Cayetano, whose House is overwhelmingly pro-PRRD, asking for Php 14 billion + Php 1.6 billion – Php 11 billion = Php 4.6 billion more?

Speaker Cayetano, the House today are already allies, so why did you feel the need for more political accommodations?

THIRD, BREAKING DOWN THE P1.6-B

Recall that Rep. Tolentino, who handles House finances, said the P1.6-B will be to fund the following:
  • new deputy speakerships
  • new committees
  • new vice-chairs, and
  • employee salaries.
Now, if there are X employee positions in 2019, then the House in preparing its 2020 budget must take into account salaries for those X number of employee positions, regardless of who’s occupying them. That is, the initial P14-B must already take into account the salary expenses of the current set of positions.

In short, we could only surmise that the employee salaries that Tolentino mentioned are for NEW regular and contractual positions. That is, logic dictates that the P1.6-B is intended for:
  • NEW deputy speakerships
  • NEW committees
  • NEW vice-chairs, and
  • NEW employees.
NEW. NEW. NEW. NEW. Yes, that’s four “NEW”s out of four.

This brings us back to the second point. The Arroyo-Alvarez House managed to pass ALL of PRRD’s legislative measures WITHOUT these NEW positions, and they passed the measures so fast the Philippine Star even accused the Arroyo-Alvarez House of being the rubber stamp of Malacañang.

If P11-B 2018 House budget can already buy what the Star calls a rubber stamp congress, what necessitated the extra 4.6?

I can smell only one thing: political accommodation.

Again, political accommodation, while ideally reprehensible, is in my opinion tolerable if done at the minimum… but where does Cayetano draw the line?
 

CAYETANO’S NEGATIVE PREGNANT REBUTTAL

The initial GMA News report was on 20 September 2019, and Cayetano encountered an avalance of criticisms shortly thereafter.

Responding to criticisms over the P1.6 billion issue, Speaker Cayetano said:
“For the past two days, may mga nangungulit about, actually fake news 'yung nasa isang blogger na sinabi niyang we added P1.6 billion for the 22 deputy speakers. We used to have 14 deputy speakers, we now have 22. If we're going to add P1.6 billion for additional 8 deputy speakers, that's P200 million for every deputy speaker… Ang problema sa blogger na 'to – aside from [having an] axe to grind sa akin – hindi man lang tiningnan 'yung actual records ng Congress or 'yung news.”
Let’s dissect Cayetano’s problematic response. Note that you must already know who that blogger is.

Despite the typically verbose speaking style, Speaker Cayetano said only two things:
  • That the blogger is criticizing him only because the former has an axe to grind.
  • It’s not true that each new deputy speaker will get Php 200 million.
The first statement is nothing but a personal attack that is unbecoming of a government official. The same issue is being raised by OTHER people, including his predecessor DFA Sec. Perfecto Yasay.

Speaker Cayetano, act with the dignity of someone in your position, and recognize your responsibility to the Filipino People, the same Filipino People who are funding your politics. If you can't be civil and professional when facing criticisms, you do not deserve to be there.


As for the second point, what we see here is a clear case of a negative pregnant statement, which is extremely disappointing because Cayetano’s a lawyer who should know better than a college dropout blogger he’s referring to.
The Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute defines a “negative pregnant” statement as a denial of wrongdoing done by denying only an aspect of the allegation, but not the allegation itself.
Cayetano issued an invalid denial. As explained in the previous sections:
  • The primary criticism against the extra P1.6-B budget is its apparent lack of necessity.
  • The secondary criticism is that it will be used to fund new positions, especially the 8 new deputy speakerships.
Hence, a valid denial must:
  • Decisively show that the P1.6-B is necessary to further PUBLIC AND NOT PERSONAL INTERESTS.
  • That the amounts allocated for the new positions are reasonable in light of the fact that other government spending priorities (education, healthcare, etc) could have gotten the funding instead.
But instead of addressing the issue head-on, Speaker Cayetano tried to weasel his way out by misrepresenting the criticism and rebutting the same misrepresentation.
Cayetano said P200-million-for-each-deputy is incorrect, but he didn’t say exactly how much will go to them. If each new deputy gets only 199 million, then 200 million is indeed incorrect, right?

But would that make everything fine? Hell no. 

CAYETANO’S MEDIA BLITZ

To be fair to Cayetano, he attempted to expound on the budget issue as seen in other news reports later that day. The problem, however, is he still dodged the core questions.

In an UNTV report, Cayetano said that of the P1.6-B additional budget, “the big chunk” is “for various projects” while “only a little portion” is for deputy speakers.


Cayetano didn’t define what “big” and “little” means. So how much, exactly?

Lawyers like Speaker Cayetano are trained to be instinctively precise with their wording, so his resorting to such ambiguous terms is surprising, to say the least.

This is P1.6-B of public money we’re talking about, and the best adjectives he can come up with is “big” and “little”?

How much, Speaker Cayetano, EXACTLY how much? You love quoting the Bible but you can't even quote official congressional records that are already at your fingertips?
In another report from the Inquirer, Cayetano said:
“So, what’s one-billion na idadagdag mo sa (that will be added to) Congress to make sure that the 4.1-trillion is spent very well?”
But this statement merely complicates Cayetano’s predicament. 


Cayetano has not even sufficiently explained the necessity behind the augmentation yet here he is weaseling his way out of the issue.

Speaker Cayetano, you spent an entire day yesterday just to talk, yet you didn’t even find time to publish the itemized breakdown of the extra P1.6 billion you’re asking for.

ITEMIZE them!
Legislators like you are so anal-retentive and obsessive-compulsive when scrutinizing the budget of the executive and judiciary, yet when it comes to defending your own budget,“big chunk” and “little portion” are good enough for you?
What’s one billion, you ask?
One billion... No... One-point-six billion pesos can save and improve a “big” number of “little” Filipino lives.
Classrooms. Public School Teachers. Government Doctors. Public Nurses. Reformation of Youth Offenders. Agricultural Subsidies. Drug Rehabilitation Centers. Supplies for the Police and Military. Public Information Systems. Airports. Roads. Bridges. Coast Guard Vesels to patrol the South China Sea. The list goes on and on.
Mr. Speaker, there are so many ways to spend the "big" Php 1.6 billion to directly benefit "little" Filipinos.
Seriously, Speaker Cayetano, what have the Filipino People done to deserve you? [ThinkingPinoy | RJ Nieto]


DON'T FORGET TO SHARE! 

Follow ThinkingPinoy on Facebook and Twitter!

RELATED POSTS:

I SAW "SPEAKER NA TAPAT" CAYETANO'S 2020 HOUSE BUDGET. HMM, MAY TERM SHARING PA BA?

$
0
0

Sabi ni Speaker Alan Peter Cayetano sa profile pic niya noong Marso, siya ay magiging isang "Speaker na Tapat".

Well, tingnan nga natin ang proposed 2020 budget niya.

Note: Sinulat ko 'to in conversational Taglish para mas madaling ma-gets ng mas nakararami.


Recall na noong 20 September 2019, sinabi ni House Committee on Accounts chairman and Cavite Rep. Abraham “Bambol” Tolentino sa GMA News na:
“We did not expect that there will be additional Deputy Speaker; we did not expect that there will be additional vice chairpersons on [House Committees] on Appropriations and Ways and Means; we did not expect either that there will be newly created committees… We are talking about all the employees, over 4,000, including those who are in a contractual status, permanents and other employees.”
Bilang reaksiyon, tinanong ko sa isang social media post kung ano ba yang extra P1.6 billion na House budget.

Sabi ko, aanhin pa ni Speaker Cayetano ng dagdag na pondo kung kinaya naman ng Alvarez-Arroyo House na suportahan ang LAHAT ng mga priority bills ni PRRD with a much lower budget?

As shown in a 03 June 2019 infographic posted in Thinking Pinoy, the House of Representatives under GMA (and predecessor Alvarez) passed ALL of PRRD's 28 priority bills... and they had only a P11-B budget in 2018.

Okey na sana yung 14 deputy speakers tulad noong huling kongreso kahit mahal, kako ipikit-mata ko na lang bilang isang Political Realist. 

Pero bakit dadagdagan pa ang gastusin ng bayan via more 8 additional deputy speakers ngayong House na 'to e pwede naman ilagay na lang ang pondo sa mga priority projects ni PRRD?

Health, education, social services, infra, disaster relief... ang daming pwedeng paglagyan ng pera pero bakit sa walang bagong deputy speaker ibibigay?

Yun ang problema ko.

Cayetano reacts

Nag-react si Speaker Cayetano via personal attacks, na kesyo fake news lang raw yung banat ng “a certain blogger” at may “axe to grind” o sama ng loob lang yon sa kanya.

Dahil diumano’y may sama ng loob sa kanya ‘yung blogger na ‘yon e wala na dapat tanong-tanong sa P1.6 billion, GANERN?

Maraming puwedeng mabili ang P1.6 billion: Gamot, classroom, sweldo ng nars at teacher, ang haba-haba ng listahan. Ang dami-daming priority project ni Pangulo ang kulang ng pondo kaya hindi biro ang P1.6 billion.

Pero in fairness, medyo nahimasmasan si Speaker Cayetano sa ibang mga interview.

Doon sa isa, sinabi niyang ang “big chunk” ng P1.6 billion e pupunta sa “various projects”, pero di niya sinabi kung magkano ang “big chunk” at kung ano mismo yung “various projects”. 



Doon naman sa isa pa, sinabi niyang gagamitin raw ang P1.6 billion para sa “research”, adding, “what’s one-billion that will be added to Congress to make sure that the P4.1-trillion is spent very well?”

Pero talaga, P1.6 billion para sa research? Ang total budget nga ng PAGASA, for 2019 e P1.6 billion lang, tapos tila may budget cut pa sa 2020 kasi 1.4 billion lang ang proposed. Tapos ang research budget ng House, P1.6 billion? 

P1.4 billion lang ang proposed total budget ng PAGASA for 2020.
So mas mahalaga na magpondo ng additional deputy speakers kaysa taasan ang sweldo ng mga meteorologist natin sa PAGASA na isa-isa nang lumalayas sa bansa dahil sa baba ng suweldo?                                                                                                                   
Tulad nang paliwanag sa huling Thinking Pinoy article, karapatan ng bawat taxpayer na manghingi ng accountability mula sa mga public servant, at kasama na roon ang kasapi ng House of Representatives.

Pero dahil ayaw nilang sumagot ng diretso sa request for an itemization, nagkusa na akong humanap ng paraan para mas malaman ang puno’t dulo ng issue.

Walang itemization? Walang itemization!

As explained in a previous Thinking Pinoy article, ang hinihingi ko e mas malinaw na itemization ng kung saan gagastusin ang dagdag na P1.6 billion, at so far e “maliit lang naman” ang description na kayang ibigay ni Speaker Cayetano tungkol sa kung magkano ang pupunta sa mga bagong imbento niyang walong deputy speakerships.

Kung sinagot lang niya ako ng diretso e di ok na, tapos na ang drama, pero hindi e. Simple lang naman na i-scan niya yung itemization at i-post online pero hindi magawa?

So sige, i-try nating hanapin ang itemization na yan. Pero heto muna ang basics.

Ang 2020 National Budget ay informal term para sa 2020 General Appropriations Act, na dahil hindi pa naisasabatas e tinatawag pang “General Appropriations Bill (GAB)”, filed as House Bill 4228.

Ipinasa ng House ang final nilang version ng GAB noon 20 September 2019 at dadalhin ito sa Senado para busisiin naman ng mga senador. Kasama sa GAB ang budget ng lahat ng government agencies pero karaniwang hindi pinakikialaman ng Senado ang proposed budget ng House bilang “parliamentary courtesy”.

In short, yung final proposed House Budget na nakapaloob sa GAB ang pinakamalamang na maging House Budget for 2020, aside from the fact na iyon mismo ang nais na budget ng House.

Ilang araw nang offline ang website ng House (congress.gov.ph) kaya hindi ko ma-download ang GAB, at coincidentally(?) e parang nag-offline siya simula nang pumutok ang butsi ng Speaker. Nag-up siya kani-kanina lang, pero hindi pa rin ma-download yung text ng HB 4228.

So bilang workaround, humingi ako ng hard copy mula sa mga little birds ko sa HoR. Napakahigpit raw ng pag-release ng kopya pero buti naman at naparaanan nila, at eto yong dokumentong pinakahanap-hanap ko, ang final version ng House Bill 4228, ang General Appropriations Bill for 2020.

Kalkalan na, mga friendships!

The Proposed House Budget for 2020

Makikita ang 2020 House Budget sa Volume I-A pages 9 to 11, na filed under “I. Congress of the Philippines; D. House of Representatives”.

Medyo simple lang para makita kung nasaan ang P1.6 billion: ikumpara ang mga line item amounts sa 2020 House Budget doon sa same na line item amount noong 2019 na budget.

Narito ang scan ng proposed 2020 House Budget na nakapaloob sa National Budget:


Para naman sa previous budgets, click here for the 2019 House Budget at click here for the 2018 House Budget.

Para mas madaling makita, gumawa ako ng side-by-side comparison ng mga line item amounts, at sa dulo e kinompyut ko ang difference. Kinulayan ko na rin ng red kung bumaba ang amount, green naman kung tumaas, at orange kung walang nagbago.

Unahin natin ang overview:


Makikita ritong tataas ng P1.32 billion ang total 2020 House budget kumpara sa 2019.

Malinaw na rito na may paglaki nga ng budget, pero bakit hindi P1.6 billion tulad nang sinabi ni Cong. Tolentino?

Tingnan pa natin ng mas maigi.

Three Basic Categories ng Line Items

May tatlong basic categories ng mga line items sa budget: [1] “Personnel Services”, [2] “Capital Outlays” at [3] Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE).

  • Pag sinabing “Personnel Services”, we mean yung mga pasweldo sa empleyado, allowances, bonuses, at pati na rin yung mga pambayad sa SSS, Pag-ibig, PhilHealth, etc.
  • Pag sinabi namang “Capital Outlay”, we mean yung pambili ng mga fixed assets tulad ng opisina, upuan, pang-construction, at iba pang property ng House.
  • Pag sinabi namang “MOOE”, e halo-halo na ‘yon. Lahat ng hindi kasama sa unang dalawang basic categories, shinu-shoot dito sa MOOE.

Tingnan ang susunod na table (note that figures in the succeeding tables are in ‘000s, so i-multiply niyo by 1000 lahat, e.g. 92,976 means 92,976,000):



As you can see, BUMABA ng P173.2 million ang personnel services o yung total na pondong pang-employee benefits. Note na WALANG capital outlay for 2020, so walang pondong panggawa o pangkumpuni ng bagong opisina o pambili ng bagong equipment.

Pero kung sabi ni Speaker Cayetano sa Rappler, the extra P1.6 billion will fund salary increases for House workers, bakit yung line item ng pasweldo para sa plantilla e bumaba tapos hindi naman nagbago ang total allotment for contractuals?

Parang may mali? I know, so tingnan natin ng mas mabuti.

Inamin mismo ni Speaker Cayetano sa Rappler na may pondo para sa mga bagong posisyon at ayon naman kay Rep. Tolentino e hindi biro ang halaga na gugugulin para pondohan ang mga bagong posisyong ito. Di ba nga’t sabi mismo ng the House Accounts Committeee chair in the same GMA News interview:
“There are a lot of increase(s) in the expenses for 2020 for equipment, new offices for additional deputy speakers, and a lot of expenses really.”
So kung may increase, nasaan? Yan ang tanong ngayon.

What are “Savings”?

May isang Special Provisions clause doon sa GAB Vol I-A page 13 that partly reads:
“Augmentation of any item in the appropriations of the Congress of the Philippines. xxx [T]he Speaker, with respect to the House of Representatives, are hereby authorized to augment any item… for their respective offices from any savings in other items…”


Tataglishin ko:
“Pagdaragdag sa kahit anong item sa budget ng Congress. xxx Ang Speaker, with respect sa House, ay maaaring magdagdag sa kahit anong item para sa kanilang ahensiya mula sa mga savings sa ibang items...”
Pag may walong bagong deputy speaker, may karagdagang staff rin ang mga ‘yon, di ba? Papayag ba ang isang karaniwang congressman na magsisante ng sariling tauhan para magkaroon ng financial space for the additional staffing needs ng mga bagong deputy speaker?

Kung popondohan ni Speaker ang mga bagong posisyon pero nagbawas pa siya ng pondo for personnel services and capital outlay, so tama bang sabihin na magre-realign ng budget?

There you go.

Saan kukuha ng “savings”?

Both yung 2019 National Budget (na batas na) at 2020 National Budget (na proposal pa) ay may clause regarding “Availability of Appropriations and Cash Allocations”, which reads:
“Availability of Appropriations and Cash Allocations. Unexpended quarterly and year-end balances of approved appropriations for xxx House of Representatives xxx shall remain valid appropriations and shall continue to be available until fully spend and shall remain under their control and accountability...”

I-taglish ko:
“Ang mga hindi nagastos na quarterly at year-end balance ng mga inaprubahang gastusin para sa House ay mananatiling valid at available hanggang maubos at mananatiling nasa kanilang control at pananagutan…”
Malaking issue yung sinasabing “absorptive capacity” ng isang agency dahil karaniwang mababalewala ang budget allocation nito na hindi magagamit within the fiscal year.
Halimbawa, kung may 100 pesos ang DPWH pero 80 pesos lang ang nagastos sa buong taon, balewala na ang natitirang 20 pesos at kailangan na nitong maghintay for the next national budget.
Hindi ganoon sa House.

Yung mga hindi nagastos sa House Budget from the previous year, nake-carry over to the current year. Ibig sabihin, kung may nilaan P1 billion for a certain project na hindi na itinuloy, puwedeng gastusin pa rin ang P1 billion na iyon bilang “savings” sa susunod na taon o hanggang maubos ito.

Okey lang sana kung lehitimong hindi natuloy ang proyekto pero hindi laging ganon e.

Parang DAP ni PNoy?

Tingnan niyo yung unconstitutional na Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) nina dating Pangulong Noynoy Aquino at dating DBM Sec. Butch Abad.

Ang ginawa nila e tahasang HINDI GINAGASTOS ang budget at dinedeclare na savings para mai-realign nila kung saan nila gusto. Yung Miscellaneous Personnel Benefits Fund (MPBF), hindi nila ginamit nina PNoy para sa benepisyo ng mga gov’t employees at sa halip e ni-realign ang MPBF para pambili ng Dengvaxia.

Remember what Senator Richard Gordon said in 2017 about Dengvaxia ?


In short, ang "DAP technique" e yung mangangako ka na gagamitin ang pondo para sa isang bagay, pero sa huli e gagastusin mo pala para sa iba.

Parang yung binigyan ka ng nanay mo ng baon para pambili ng lunch sa eskwela, pero di mo ginastos, tinawag mong savings, at pinanlaro mo sa ng DotA sa kompyuteran. Ganern na ganern.

Dineklara ng Supreme court na unconstitutional na ang DAP technique pero mukhang naiwasan ng Kongreso ang pagbabawal na ito dahil sa “Availability of Appropriations and Cash Allocations” clause ng National Budget, na parang ginagawang exempted sa SC DAP ruling ang Kongreso.

In short, kung may hindi nagastos (or sadyang hindi ginastos) na 2019 House budget, puwede pang gastusin ito ng House sa 2020, on top of the 2020 House Budget.

Medyo tumaas nga ang kilay ko diyan kasi ilang buwan nang hindi sumusuweldo ang maraming contractuals sa House at nagkasibakan na ng mga maintenance staff, tapos binawasan pa ang pasweldo House budget for 2020?
Kasama kaya ang 2019 pasweldo ng mga ito sa gagawing “savings” ng House na maaaring irealign?
With that said, may dalawa lang akong nakikitang puwedeng pagkuhanan ng “Savings” para pondohan ang mga karagdagang deputy speaker:

  • Allocations from 2019 House Budget na hindi nagamit, hindi ginamit, o planong hindi gamitin sa 2019, at,
  • Realignment ng items mula sa proposed 2020 budget.

Kung may pang ibang pagkukunan, please enlighten me, pero after several hours ng paghahanap ng paraan, iyang dalawa lang na ‘yan ang malinaw kong nakikitang source.

Here’s where it gets more interesting.

Deciphering the Accounts Chair

Yung savings from unspent items in 2019? Any self-respecting finance professional should have at least a ballpark idea kung magkano aabutin niyan dahil nakalantad na ang 2019 House Budget.

Dapat, alam na yan nina Speaker, di ba?

For one, may confidential-intelligence funds worth P1.07 billion si Speaker Cayetano under the 2019 House budget, or P392 million more than Speaker Arroyo’s 2018 intel funds worth P 615 million.
Malaking halaga ang diprensiya ng confidential funds nila pero Arroyo was able to survive with just P615 million, so assuming na the "Speaker na Tapat"Cayetano can, like Arroyo, get things done using the same amount, e di may P392 million na pwedeng laru-laruin si Speaker Cayetano, tama ba?
If the Cayetano-led House has a rough idea of how much savings will exist by end of 2019, and despite that knowledge e sinabi pa rin ng House Accounts na kulang ang pera kasi hindi expected ang deputy speakerships, so saan kukuha ng karagdagan?

E di sa 2020 budget, tama ba?

Pero... Pero... Pero...

Pero di ba nga’t ayon sa proposed 2020 House Budget, bumagsak ang pasweldo sa House plantilla and contractuals, at wala ring allocated for capital outlay, so saan balak kunin ng House leadership ang pampondo doon sa mga bagong deputy speaker, bagong vice-chairmanships, at bagong kumite?

Isa lang ang nakikita ko: MOOE.

Shown below ang breakdown ng Maintenance and Other Operating expenses (MOOE) under “New Appropriations by Object of Expenditures“:


Makikitang 17 out of the 19 line items sa MOOE e kapareho lang noong isang taon: walang dagdag, walang bawas... pero makikita ring may dalawang lumaki:

  • "Utility expenses” increased by P13 million (P254.6-M vs P245.5-M)
  • "Professional Services" increased by P1.64 billion (P4.13-B vs 2.49-B).

Mapapatawad na siguro yung increase sa utility expenses (bills for Meralco, Manila Water, etc.) dahil ayoko naman mapulutan ng kuryente ang batasan, pero kagulat-gulat na P1.64 billion ang increase para sa “Professional Services”.
Katunog ba siya noong P1.6 billion na binanggit sa balita?
Pwede bang i-lump sum na lang ang P1.64 billion nang ganun-ganun na lang? Kwestiyonable na nga ang P2.49 billion na lump sum for "Professional Services" sa 2019 pero talagang kailangan pang sagarin by adding P1.64 billion more (P4.13 billion na ang total) for 2020?

Kung oo, bakit hindi itemized ang mga gastusin at sa halip e lump sum lang? Kung itemized kasi yan, mas malinaw sa taumbayan at sa iba pang mga congressman kung ano ang maaasahang pondo.

Pero kung ganyang lump sum na ire-realign lang, malinaw sa GAB na largely e nasa kamay ng House Speaker ang desisyon kung paano ito gagastusin, tama ba?

The Dangers of Lump Sums

Ilatag ko muna ang analysis diyan at feel free to correct me if I’m wrong:

FIRST, ayon mismo sa House Accounts chair, maraming dagdag-gastos dahil sa pag-create ng walong bagong deputy speakerships, bagong commitees, at bagong vice-chairmanships, at hindi nila raw ito expected.

SECOND, may estimate naman ng magiging savings from 2019 at make-carry over ang savings sa 2020, pero sa kabila nito e nagpasya pa rin ang House na magdagdag ng P1.6 billion.

THIRD, sa kabila ng karagdagang gastos e nagbawas pa ang House ng budget para sa pasweldo ng tao at pambili ng equipment, so logic dictates na kailangan ng realignment ng funds from MOOE to personnel services and/or capital outlay.

Given these, heto ang critical na tanong:
Bakit hindi na lang inallocate agad under "Personnel Services" o "Capital Outlay" ang dagdag na pondo at sa halip e ginawang lump sum under “MOOE - Professional Services”?
Kung inallocate agad, e di alam na natin kung paano magagastos.

Pero hindi, ginawang lump sum e... lump sum na ang suma total e P4.13 billion na kung gusto ng speaker e pwedeng gamitin for something else na huhulaan na lang natin kung ano, tama ba?

Kahit nga si DepEd Sec. Briones, noong nagsusulat siya tungkol sa lump sums sa Aquino-era budget, na:
“All of us know that in the human physical system, presence of lumps is a danger signal.”
Let me rephrase the question.
If the "Speaker na Tapat" Cayetano intends to spend the P1.6 billion for research, new positions, new offices, and oversight, then why didn’t he split the P1.6 billion into four line items? Is it fair to ask why such a gigantic amount appears to be at the mercy of the House Speaker?

Just how much money is in Cayetano’s hands?

Judging from his many media interviews so far,  sobrang evasive ni Cayetano pag tinatanong about the budget, kaya wala tayong choice kundi tumingin na lang sa dokumento at mag-deduce mula sa mga iyon.
Hindi naman ako perfectionist. Okey na sa akin yung palusutin ang kaunting "leakages" pero wag naman sanang itodo nang bonggang-bongga dahil nakakahiya naman sa taumbayan dahil my gahd I heyt drahgs!
Going back to topic, tulad ng 2020 proposed House Budget ay may identical na DAP-like clauses ang 2018 at 2019 House Budget, i.e.  pwedeng may 2018 funds na carried over to 2019 at 2019 to 2020. Pero partidahan na natin ang 2019 House at sabihing zero savings from last year, i.e. sinimot ni Gloria ang 2018 House Budget.Actually, mukhang nasimot nga talaga ni Speaker Arroyo ang funds nila noong 2018, as suggested by screenshot ng Notes to Financial Statements sa 2018 CoA Report on the House:


So sige, sabihin na lang natin na walang na-carry over na funds from 2018.

Sa kabila ng assumption na ito, tumaas pa rin ang kilay ko nang makita ang 2019 House Budget dahil may P1.07 billion na confidential funds pala ang House Speaker for 2019.
Confidential funds yung pondong halos walang accounting, i.e. pork barrel ng Speaker, di ba?
Partida, hindi pa kasama diyan ang mga pwedeng i-realign ng Speaker from the 2019 House Budget basta at kung gugustuhin niya.

2019 GAA shows Speaker Cayetano got P1.07 billion in confidential funds, or about Php 392 million more than the P615 million his predecessor had in 2018.
Ganito kasi yan. Hindi naman kasalanan ni Cayetano na P1.07 billion ang confidential funds niya for 2019 dahil hindi naman siya kasama sa mga nagpasa niyan. In short, congratulations para kay Speaker Cayetano dahil nachambahan niya ang ganyang ka-bonggang 2019 slush fund.

Pero ngayong House "Speaker na Tapat" na siya, bakit siya humihingi ng P1.07 billion ulit for 2020, tulad ng natanggap niya ngayong 2019?

Yun pa nga lang P1.07 billion na pwedeng laruin ni Speaker Cayetano for 2019, nakapagtataka na kasi P615 million lang ang allocated sa previous na speaker. Pero imbes na babaan ni "Speaker na Tapat" Cayetano ang confidential funds niya for 2020, inulit lang niya ang P1.07 billion?

House Speaker Gloria Arroyo, who Cayetano accused as corrupt, had only P615 million in confidential funds for 2018.
Aanhin kaya ni Speaker Cayetano ang ganoong kalaking pera samantalang si Gloria, na pinaratangang kurakot ni Cayetano, e nakatiis sa P615 billion lang?
Mas marami pang magagastos na public funds si "Speaker na Tapat" Cayetano kaysa sa tinawag niyang kurakot?
Pero hindi pa nakuntento sa P1.07 billion kaya dinagdagan pa ng P1.64 billion na lump sum, ganon ba?

Kung may extra P1.64 billion na lump sum sa loob ng “Professional Services” ang 2020 House Budget, at idagdag pa natin ang reinstated na P1.07 billion na confidential funds ng House Speaker, e di may hindi bababa sa 1.07 + 1.6 = 2.67 billion na pwedeng laruin ang House Speaker sa 2020 at bukod pa yan sa at least P1.07 billion na nilalaro na niya ngayong 2019, tama ba?

Tama bang sabihing si Speaker Cayetano ay may 1.07 + 1.07 + 1.64 = 3.78 billion na combined outright and de facto na slush funds?

Aanhin niya ang lahat ng public funds na yun ng isang "Speaker na Tapat"?
Hindi ba't pag "Speaker na Tapat" e mas matipid dapat?
If he's an honest Speaker, at kurakot sabi niya ang last speaker, di ba dapat e mas matipid siya?

E bakit balde-balde ang inilaki ang hawak ni Speaker Cayetano na Pera ng Bayan samantalang kinaya naman ng isang “kurakot” na suportahan ang pangulo sa hamak na mas mababang halaga?

May dagdag-bayad ba pag "Speaker na Tapat"?

Matutupad ba ang term-sharing deal?

Recall na mayroong  gentleman’s agreement between Cayetano and Rep. Velasco na term-sharing, kung saan "Speaker na Tapat" daw si Cayetano for the 1st 15 months tapos si Velasco sa remaining 21 months.

Pero kung bubusisiin ang budget ng Kongreso, parang may hindi nagtutugma.

Heto't pasadahan natin ng isang mabilis-bilis.

Despite increased costs arising from the new positions created under Cayetano (8 deputy speakerships, new committees, new vice-chairmanships), bumaba ang nakalaang pondo para sa pasweldo ng tauhan at pambili ng property and equipment, pero hindi naman siguro papayag ang mga kongresista sa budget cut, di ba?

That means Cayetano will fund these new positions via realignment, right?

At kung realignment technique na gagamitin, ibig non e dapat sumipsip ang karaniwang kongresista kay Cayetano para tuparin niya ang realignment, tama?
Alam niyo naman ang "Speaker na Tapat" na si Cayetano pag nagtampo, parang batang inagawan ng kendi, as illustrated by his juvenile response (Boo-hoo! “Axe to grind”!) sa questions about the extra P1.6 billion budget, di ba?
Kung blogger pa lang ba bumira sa kanya tapos e nagkaganyan nam paano pa kung kongresista na hawak ng "Speaker na Tapat" sa leeg?
Kung kongresista ka at hawak ng "Speaker na Tapat"  sa leeg ang budget ng opisina mo, paano gagawin mo pag matatapos na ang 15 months at magbobotohan na for a new speaker, maging ang new speaker man e si Lord Alan Velasco o si Martin Romualdez o kahit pa yung mga baliw-baliwang pulang party-list?
Matatapos ang 15 months ni Speaker Cayetano sa umpisa ng October 2020, which is the year kung saan gagamitin ang budget na kinekwestiyon natin ngayon.

Kung ako'y isang gahaman na speaker at meron akong bilyon-bilyon na pwedeng paglaruan, sisiguraduhin kong mabibili ko ang loyalty ng kahit kalahati man lang ng House para sigurado akong hindi ako matatanggal bilang Speaker.

Kung mayroon akong 2 billion, at kailangan kong manligaw ng 150 na kongresista, e di alam ko na ang gagawin. #AlamNaThis

Sa palagay ko, hindi naman baliw si Cayetano na mag-asam pa ng presidency sa 2022 kasi ngayon pa nga lang e “President of the House” pa lang e hirap na hirap na siya.

If I were in Caytano’s shoes, I’d be more interested in keeping the House Speakership, dahil far more realistic at immediate yon kaysa presidente ng Pilipinas.

Correct me if I'm wrong but with a possible P2.74 billion na slush fund (at idagdag pa P1.07 intel funds for 2019), he has around P3.81 billion (or even more) at his disposal from now until the time na kailangan nang mag-botohan ng bagong speaker, tama?

What will Cayetano do with those billions?

If Speaker Cayetano wants to keep true to his promise na he’ll be an honest speaker, then why didn’t he itemize the budget and instead allowed a lump sum na P1.64 billion to be added, a lump sum that he, if he so wishes, can be realigned to pretty much wherever he wants?

Kung may 1.07 billion times two ako na confidential funds, ano ba naman yung maglaan ako ng kapiraso noon para sa social media counter-attack?

Will Cayetano suddenly mature, stop being a crybaby like when he threatened Inday Sara na sisirain niya ang Duterte Coalition kung susuportahan ni Inday si Velasco, and allow the next speaker to take over?

Will Cayetano suddenly mature, stop being a crybaby like when he didn’t mind attacking a woman to further his political goals (as exposed by Pulong Duterte), and allow the next speaker to take over?

Will Cayetano be so honest that he will NEVER use his bilions in intel funds (P1.07 billion times 2) and other de facto slush funds just to stay as speaker?

We, as taxpayers, deserve an answer.

Pero siyempre, hindi magagawa ni Cayetano na manloko ng taumbayan kasi nga, di ba, "Speaker na Tapat" siya? [RJ Nieto | Thinking Pinoy]


DON'T FORGET TO SHARE! 

Follow ThinkingPinoy on Facebook and Twitter!

RELATED POSTS:

#2019SEAGames: Fact-checking Marlon Ramos' Inquirer exposé vs BCDA

$
0
0

Inquirer reporter Marlon Ramos, on the 02 December 2019 article “Deal to construct P13-B gov’t complex, sports hub at New Clark City questioned”, said that based on “documents,” Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) and Malaysian MTD Capital Berhad (MTD) entered into an anomalous deal.

The deal in question is the New Government Administrative Center (NGAC) and Sports Complex project in New Clark City in Tarlac, i.e., the same sports complex used today for the 2019 SEA Games.

Let’s analyze.

BCDA-MTD Agreement OK’d despite OGCC objections

Ramos wrote, "“BCDA… signed a joint-venture agreement with MTD… despite getting an adverse legal opinion issued by the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) in early 2018, records showed.”

Ramos then quoted former OGCC head Rudolf Philip Jurado, who issued a 30 January 2018 legal opinion stating that the NGAC’s Sports Complex segment “as a rule” should both be subject to public bidding. 

former OGCC head Rudolf Jurado
Note that the entire writeup doesn’t contain any direct quote from the supposed records and documents, and the same documents weren’t embedded in the article either, so I cannot check if Ramos understood the document correctly, or if he based his article on flawed understanding.

I have written exposés since 2015, some of which were used as resource material for congressional hearings and police/NBI investigations. As a rule, I provide the source document, especially if it’s publicly available in the first place. That way, readers can verify for themselves the accuracy of my observations.

Ramos didn’t do this, even if the credibility of his entire article depends on what’s in this document.

I suspected that Ramos wasn’t telling the whole story, especially because Jurado used the term “as a rule,” meaning that government projects usually go through to public bidding, but not all the time.

In short, exceptions exist. Hence, Ramos should have checked first if the Sports Complex falls under any of the legal exceptions or not, but he didn’t. Ramos reinforced my suspicion when he wrote, “But [Jurado] said the construction of the NGAC had complied with government rules on joint-venture projects,” with Jurado saying that the sports complex should be a part of the Joint Venture.

Hence, Ramos contradicted his entire hypothesis when the article states that no other than his primary source Jurado said the project is legally compliant.

If Ramos wanted to poke holes on the project and based on Jurado’s statement, Ramos should’ve checked if BCDA made the sports complex part of the BCDA-MTD joint venture.

Ramos even quoted Jurado as saying, “It should be noted that the joint venture should cover the entire project and not only NGAC.”

Did BCDA include the Sports Complex in the joint venture?

That’s what Ramos should have explored, but he didn’t.

Ugh. Marlon.

Differing OGCC opinions

Ramos either misunderstood or worse, totally failed to understand the OGCC opinions.

As explained earlier, Jurado’s January 2018 opinion states that the sports complex project is compliant, with the caveat that it must be made part of the BCDA-MTD Joint Venture. Thus, the question is whether BCDA made it part of the Joint Venture or not.

BCDA President and CEO Vivencio "Vince" Dizon
In a 03 December 2019 press conference, Dizon said BCDA “believed that we already addressed the concerns of the OGCC in the final joint venture agreement that was signed in February 2018….In response to this, BCDA made the business decision, which… [it] is empowered to do under its charter… [to] give due course to this (project).”

In short, BCDA attempted to comply with the January 2018 OGCC opinion, and it believes it did. As to whether it complied, however, is another matter, so hold on to that thought for now.

“After the clarifications were made, GOCC said, ‘BCDA, tama ginawa niyo (you did right),” Dizon said.

In the same presser, Government Corporate Counsel Justice Elpidio Vega seconded Dizon’s statement, when he said OGCC issued an October 2018 opinion affirming that BCDA complied with the conditions set in the earlier January 2018 opinion.

current OGCC head Elpidio Vega
Vega said, “The contract review which was issued way back in January (2018) was indeed not a negative opinion, but in fact, it approved and gave the go signal to BCDA. The only problem then was more on the modality on the procurement, and that was, however, explained expertly well by BCDA in going into the joint venture. We studied it, and we found that the same is a joint venture and has passed the rules and regulations regarding it. That’s why in October (2018), we gave the affirmative opinion. I hereby confirm that the same is above-board, and we found no legal impediment to its execution.”

“The first opinion gave the go signal to BCDA, and in that instance, the BCDA is on the right track,” Vega added.

That is, the January 2018 opinion, on which Ramos’ entire article was anchored, actually allowed BCDA to proceed, but on the condition that the sports facilities be made part of the BCDA-MTD Joint Venture Agreement. BCDA complied with the condition, and months later, OGCC said what BCDA did is correct.

In short, Marlon Ramos completely misunderstood the January 2018 opinion and proceeded to write fake news based on this colossal misunderstanding. 

Time Constraints

Dizon said the government was in a rush to build facilities for the 2019 SEA Games, given that it agreed to host the event only two years before schedule.

Dizon said, “We were told that we needed to build facilities that we would need for the Southeast Asian Games. Remember that the proponent submitted a proposal without those sports facilities to be built.” 

The New Clark City Athletics Stadium
“It was BCDA who said, ‘We need those sports facilities to be part of this because we will be hosting the 2019 Southeast Asian Games and we need those facilities post-haste. This was 2017, then 2018. You know how long it takes to construct a 20,000-seater stadium?” Dizon added.

Dizon explained that BCDA had to start moving and building the facilities for the Philippines to avoid international embarrassment.

BCDA-MTD’s “Criminal Intent“

Ramos also quoted an anonymous source that alleges criminal intent and intention to defraud the government, which is a pretty loaded accusation for an article containing zero documentary evidence.

Ramos wrote, “The source said MTD used the ‘Filipino people’s money’ to finance the project that would provide profits from three different sources—the original project cost, the ‘reasonable costs and returns,’ and rental fees.”

Ramos quoted the anonymous source as saying that the deal is “certainly disadvantageous to the government.”

New Clark Aquatic Center
“MTD used the ‘Filipino people’s money’” implies unjustly used public funds to finance the project.

We all know that foreign investors who come to Philippine shores are legally allowed to borrow from local banks. That isn’t new.

MTD would have committed an injustice only if it ran away with the money, or if the loan got a sovereign guarantee, i.e., the government told the lender that it'd pay for the loan in case MTD fails to do so.

MTD is still here, and Ramos didn’t provide proof that the loan has a sovereign guarantee.

BCDA President and CEO Vivencio Dizon, in the same presser, said the government did not guarantee the loan.

So how, exactly, was the loan unjust? Ramos didn’t explain that.

That article is bad journalism, Marlon. That is bad journalism.

To make matters worse, the claim that BCDA and MTD are cheating the government is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Ramos’ evidence was just an anonymous source. Ramos took a gargantuan leap of logic, possibly out of the need to meet his article’s deadline. Yes, Ramos’ source said the deal is anomalous, but Marlon didn’t even bother to ask the anonymous source HOW EXACTLY it is so.

What does a responsible journalist do when his article is still half-baked and the deadline is at hand? 

A responsible journalist DOES NOT submit that half-baked article and submits something else instead. 

But I guess half-baked articles are good enough for the Inquirer. [ThinkingPinoy]
DON'T FORGET TO SHARE! 

Follow ThinkingPinoy on Facebook and Twitter!

RELATED POSTS:


ABS-CBN’s Franchise Renewal: Will Lopezes make ultimate sacrifice to save thousands of jobs?

$
0
0

Most of us are already familiar and have a working understanding of the ABS-CBN franchise renewal issue, but to give you a refresher, here’s the basic issue.

Every free-to-air TV or radio station is required to secure a congressional franchise in the form of a Republic Act, a franchise that usually lasts for 25 years[1]. A new franchise (READ: A New Republic Act) is needed to operate after those 25 years.

ABS-CBN received its franchise on 30 March 1995 via RA No. 7966[2], so it needs to get a new one before RA No. 7966 expires 25 years later on 30 March 2020.

And that’s the problem.


Why need a franchise?

The Constitution guarantees Press Freedom, but it doesn’t guarantee access to broadcast frequencies. While anyone has the right to engage in journalism, not everyone has the right to have sole use of any broadcast frequency, as Physics sets limitations on the latter.

In the case of TV, there are at most 12 available VHF channels (Channels 2, 3, to 13) and at most 38 in the UHF band (Channels 14 to 51)[3].
Reporters without Borders recognized this reality when it wrote (emphasis supplied):
“Licensing became necessary as broadcast frequencies constitute a scarce resource… In Metro Manila for example, the frequency is limited to 23 physical spots for TV channels, 32 spots for AM radio channels, and 25 FM spots – and they are all taken at the moment.”
The TV firm ABS-CBN, by virtue of Press Freedom, has the right to create and distribute content, but broadcasting through the Channel 2 Frequency is a privilege. ABS-CBN’s dominion over Channel 2 means some other TV operator failed to get it, and this privilege was granted to ABS-CBN only by an Act of Congress.

Imagine this:
If ABS-CBN as a Filipino entity has the inalienable right to broadcast via a frequency, then the equal protection clause of the constitution[4] means every other Filipino should enjoy the same right. Applying this to Metro Manila, how can 23 physical TV spots be distributed among Metro Manila’s over 10 million residents?
That’s clearly impossible, hence the need for the government to decide who among aspiring broadcasters are in the best position to serve Public Interest, i.e., who among them is most deserving of receiving a franchise, i.e., a privilege.

Suffice it to say, the ABS-CBN Franchise Renewal Issue arises not from Free Speech or Press Freedom as defined in the Constitution, but from Public Services as defined in the Public Services Law[5].

Will ABS-CBN’s Franchise be renewed?

Two bills were filed in September 2014: one by Baguio Rep. Nicasio Aliping, and another by Isabela Rep. Giorgidi Aggabao[6]. Inquirer reported that both failed to pass because then-President Aquino’s House allies “felt [ABS-CBN’s] criticisms against the President were too personal and offensive and went to the point of nitpicking[7].”

After failing to renew their franchise under the 16th Congress (2013-2016), ABS-CBN hoped to get it in the 17th Congress (2016-2019). Nueva Ecija Rep. Micaela Violago attempted this through her House Bill No. 4349 filed[8] in November 2016, but it failed to pass.

We’re at the 18th Congress (2019-2022) and it’s make-or-break for the Lopez-owned ABS-CBN, as its franchise expires in just a few months.

Unfortunately, an immensely popular president[9] is against it.

In as late as 30 December 2019, President Rodrigo Duterte told the Lopezes:
“Itong ABS, mag-expire ang contract ninyo. Mag-renew kayo, ewan ko lang kung may mangyari diyan. Kung ako sa inyo ipagbili niyo na ‘yan[10]. (ABS-CBN’s contract is about to expire. I don’t know if you’ll get renewed. I’d sell it off if I were you.)”
Duterte has vocally opposed ABS-CBN’s renewal citing, among others, its failure to run his paid political advertisements during the 2016 presidential race, even threatening to file estafa (swindling) charges against the company[11].

Oh, and do you remember what ABS-CBN aired on the night before election day?

This, and it was paid for by opposition Senator Antonio Trillanes:



A glimmer of hope?

Senator Ralph Recto’s August 2019 SB No. 981[12] , Nueva Ecija Rep. Micaela Violago’s refiled HB No. 676[13] and Laguna Rep. (and former ABS-CBN employee) Sol Aragones’ HB No. 3947[14] all aim to renew ABS-CBN’s expiring franchise. 

The three bills, however, are still pending as of 04 January 2020, or less than three months from the current franchise expiry on 30 March 2020.

Despite Duterte’s opposition, some of his allies, including Deputy Speakers Vilma Santos, Rose Marie Arenas, Aurelio Gonzales, and Johnny Pimentel, strongly backed ABS-CBN’s franchise renewal[15]. Meanwhile, House Speaker Alan Peter Cayetano departed from his historically Duterte Diehard Supporter (DDS) stance and instead said he would be “fair” on this issue[16].

Assuming that one of the house bills (or maybe a consolidated version) somehow passes on the third reading, ABS-CBN still won’t be out the woods because the counterpart Senate Bill (Recto’s SB No. 981) will still have to pass by a simple majority (13 votes).

What makes this problematic is the fact that the Senate is chock full of administration allies and senators who may hold grudges against the company.

ABS-CBN’s problem with 23 Senators

Let’s list down some senators who may find it difficult to OK the proposal.

[Sen. #1 to #6] Six senators are from the President’s PDP-Laban (Manny Pacquiao, Juan Miguel Zubiri, Bato dela Rosa, Bong Go, Koko Pimentel, and Francis Tolentino) and people generally expect them to vote along party lines.

[Sen. #7] Sen. Nancy Binay (UNA) may view ABS-CBN as among the media companies that helped destroy her father Jejomar Binay’s political prospects.

[Sen. #8] Sen. Bong Revilla (Lakas) may view ABS-CBN as among those who helped put him under detention.

[Sen. #9 to #12] Senators Dick Gordon (VNP), Ping Lacson (Ind), Joel Villanueva (CIBAC), and Win Gatchalian (NPC) are generally mum on the issue, but they’re up for re-election for a second term in 2022, so will they risk incurring the wrath of the heavily pro-Duterte electorate?

[Sen. #13] Sen. Imee Marcos may be unlikely to vote in favor of it, and the political reason is pretty obvious.

Note that Senator Leila de Lima is in detention for drug charges so she can’t vote on the bill, so only 23 senators will decide on it.

That is, at least 13 out of the 23 senators face significant political disincentives to vote for renewal. Assuming that ABS-CBN gets the vote of the remaining ten senators, it will have to convince three among the fourteen listed above.

What are the chances that SB No. 981 will pass? Well...

Duterte the Gatekeeper

Now, let’s assume that the bill hurdles Congress and arrives at Malacañang.

Earlier last year, Presidential Communications Sec. Martin Andanar opined[18] that the President is unlikely to veto the bill, but he based this solely on his observation that the president never categorically said “Hindi ko ie-extend ang franchise (I will not extend the franchise).”

But just because Duterte didn’t say so doesn’t mean he won’t, and the president’s statements in the past couple of weeks suggest that he may exercise veto power.

If that happens, Congress will have to override the veto by a two-thirds vote with each House voting separately[19]. That is, two-thirds (around 200 solons) of the House and another two-thirds (16 senators) of the Senate is needed to override the President’s veto.

That will be tough because six PDP-Laban senators are averse to openly humiliating the president, so it’s just a matter of getting two more senators to vote against a veto override (Marcos, Revilla, and Binay, are strong candidates).

ABS-CBN’s franchise renewal saga will be an excruciatingly steep climb for the Lopezes.

Options for the Lopezes

Faced with the imminent threat of closure on 30 March 2020, Duterte openly advised the Lopezes to sell ABS-CBN, but it appears that the Lopezes are averse to that prospect.

There are a few alternative options that I can think of: 

1: Acquire another company that has an existing broadcast franchise

PRO: Assuming there’s a willing seller, the problem will merely be a matter of adjusting the broadcast frequency and it will be business as usual.

CON: The VHF frequency (Channels 2 to 13) is already tightly packed, so ABS-CBN will likely broadcast on the UHF spectrum (Channels 14 to 51). Unfortunately, UHF may have poorer signal quality in far-flung areas, i.e., ABS-CBN may reach a smaller chunk of the population, which will likely hurt advertising revenues and aggregate influence on public opinion.

2: Syndicate content to other networks

PRO: ABS-CBN can just sell airing rights to its shows to other networks, or maybe buy block time[20] in, say, Manny Pangilinan’s TV5.

CON: ABS-CBN won’t be able to broadcast political content, which it has historically used to great effect. That’d be like pulling ABS-CBN’s widely-feared political fangs off.

3: Forget free-to-air TV and go fully online

PRO: Online means no franchise needed, and ABS-CBN already has the streaming platform iWant[21].

CON: Philippine Internet is slow and currently has lower coverage than TV. Meanwhile, iWant’s user interface is still very crude and superior competitors like Netflix, HBO Go, and Amazon Prime make iWant look like a high school project.

Arguably, all of these options will diminish ABS-CBN’s influence, and that’s a problem for the Lopezes.

Will people lose jobs?

Understandably, many ABS-CBN employees feel threatened as they face the prospect of losing their jobs if and when ABS-CBN shuts down, and some of its employees like singer Yeng Constantino have openly encouraged the President to reconsider his stance[22].

If Duterte agrees then good. If Duterte refuses then everything’s up to Gabby Lopez.

Regardless of the President’s justification for his aversion to franchise renewal, the reality is that Gabby Lopez is faced with two basic options that the President himself laid out: (1) hold on to ABS-CBN as it faces potential closure and hope for a last-minute miracle, or (2) sell it to somebody else.

Will Gabby Lopez consider Duterte’s stance as fait accompli[23] and sell his prized possession if only to save thousands of jobs, or will he bring thousands of his employees along with him as his company goes down?

Let’s see. [ThinkingPinoy/RJ Nieto]

For reactions, email tp(at)thinkingpinoy.net.

SOURCES:

[1] Media Ownership Monitor Philippines – Reporters without Borders. How to get a media license. http://bit.ly/2Qq7EFz

[2] Congress of the Philippines. An Act Granting the ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation a Franchise to Construct, Install, Operate and Maintain Television and Radio Broadcasting Stations in the Philippines, and for other purposes. RA No. 7966. 30 March 1995. http://bit.ly/2QKK1WX

[3] Government of the Philippines - Department of Information and Communication Technology. Framework of the Digital Terrestrial Television Broadcasting (DTTB) Migration Plan. October 2017. page iii. http://bit.ly/35m61N5

[4] 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 1: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.” http://bit.ly/2QNkXhU

[5] Commonwealth Act 146. Public Service Law (as amended, and as modified particularly by PD No. 1, Integrated Reorganization Plan and EO 546). http://bit.ly/2ZN1kL4

[6] Inquirer. ABS-CBN in a bind over franchise renewal. http://bit.ly/35lL05o

[7] Ibid.

[8] Eagle News. Bill on ABS-CBN franchise renewal fails to pass House committee before Congress adjournment. 13 June 2019. http://bit.ly/37tTLLY

[9] Pulse Asia. Performance and Trust Ratings of Top National officials. December 2019. http://bit.ly/37ypE61

[10] Philippine News Agency. Duterte tells ABS-CBN owners to sell network. 30 December 2019. http://bit.ly/2rT0tvT

[11] Philippine Star. Duterte to file multiple syndicated estafa vs ABS-CBN. 19 May 2017. http://bit.ly/35gF25G.

[12] Senator Ralph Recto. Renewing the Franchise granted to ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation. Senate Bill No. 981. http://bit.ly/2QIRDcC

[13] CNN Philippines. Bill renewing ABS-CBN franchise refiled in House. 24 July 2019. http://bit.ly/36nLOIj

[14] Laguna Rep. Sol Aragones. An Act Renewing the Franchise granted to ABS-CBN Corporation (formerly ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation) under Republic Act No. 7966. House Bill No. 3947. August 2019. http://bit.ly/2QLhu3G

[15] Philippine Star. Duterte allies, House leaders back ABS-CBN franchise renewal. 04 January 2020. http://bit.ly/39zVnFU

[16] Philippine Star. Cayetano: 'Congress will be fair' on ABS-CBN franchise renewal. 04 December 2019. http://bit.ly/39CgnvJ

[17] Thinking Pinoy. Dear Karen “Higher Intelligent (sic)” Davila. 24 July 2016. http://bit.ly/2FlLVIs

[18] People’s Journal. Duterte will not veto ABS-CBN franchise bill – Andanar. 22 July 2019. http://bit.ly/37EeBZ1

[19] 1987 Constitution Art. VI Sec. 27. http://bit.ly/2ZO2BBy

[20] Philippine Star. TV5 open to blocktime deal with ABS-CBN — MVP. 31 December 2019. http://bit.ly/2FvYjWt

[21] ABS-CBN. ABS-CBN to launch new streaming service iWant. 04 October 2018. http://bit.ly/35jx8IR

[22] Pep. Yeng Constantino appeals to President Duterte to reconsider his stand on ABS-CBN franchise renewal. 17 December 2019. http://bit.ly/2ZODIWB

[23] Merriam-Webster defines the French phrase “fait accompli” as a thing accomplished and presumably irreversible. http://bit.ly/2Fj74Tp

DON'T FORGET TO SHARE! 

Follow ThinkingPinoy on Facebook and Twitter!

RELATED POSTS:

UP Naming Binarat? UP gets only ₱22/sqm monthly from UP-Ayala Technohub

$
0
0

The University of the Philippines System’s 2018 Commission on Audit Report [1] states that UP has two Public-Private Partnership (PPP) projects with Ayala Land: the UP-Ayala Technohub along Commonwealth and the UP Town Center along Katipunan.

The two projects are business deals, so common sense dictates that the revenue sharing structure should be commensurate to how much each business partner invested in the venture.

Documents, however, show that it isn’t the case, as Ayala keeps the lion’s share of profits.
[Full Disclosure: I was a Math Major in the University of the Philippines - Diliman.]



The UP Ayala Technohub


The UP Ayala Technohub partnership basically works like this: UP contributes land, Ayala provides improvements, Ayala leases out property to various tenants, then lease revenues are split between UP and Ayala. 

Hence, the next logical question would be how much each one gets.

The UP Ayala Technohub has four components: office space, residential space, hotels, and retail space. Based on the same COA Annual Audit Report, the revenue sharing structure for each of these components, expressed as a ratio of UP’s share to Ayala’s, is as follows:
(1) Office Space – 10:90 for buildings, 15:85 for land 
(2) Residential – 5:95 
(3) Hotel – 5:95 
(4) Retail – 10:90 for buildings, 15:85 for land
Given this, why does UP get only 5- 15% of revenues while Ayala gets the lion’s share? 

A screenshot of COA's 2018 Annual Audit of the UP System, showing the revenue sharing structure for the UP Ayala Technohub Project.

The same COA report states that UP has collected a total of Php 1.094 billion [2] from the Technohub Project during the 11 years from 2008 to 2018.
The exact figure, Php 1,093,867,441.43, when divided by 11 years, translates to Php 99,442,494.66 annually or Php 8,286,874.55 monthly.
That sounds like a lot of money for UP, but given that the UP leased Ayala 380,630 sqm [3] of UP land, Ayala’s payments to UP amount to a monthly rent of just Php 21.77 per sqm.

A screenshot of COA's 2018 Annual Audit of the UP System, showing Ayala's payments to the UP System in relation to the Technohub Project.

In fairness to Ayala, it developed only 20 hectares during its first phase, and generously assuming that it didn’t expand at all since then, UP’s total collections is basically a monthly rental payment of Php 41.43 per sqm.

We're talking about prime real estate here: Only an idiot would lease out a prime lot in Quezon City for less than Php 50 per sqm.



What is “Fair”?

Recall that UP’s lease revenue share ranges from 5-15% depending on the type of real estate. For ease of computation, let’s give Ayala a headstart by assuming that UP gets the maximum 15% on everything, which makes the revenue sharing structure a uniform 15:85.

Recall that UP contributed 380,630 sqm to the venture. Modestly assuming that land along Commonwealth Avenue costs Php 20,000 per square meter in 2006 when the deal was signed, UP’s equity in the partnership would amount to Php 7.61 billion.

Ayala, meanwhile, earmarked for the UP Ayala Technohub “Php 6 billion over the next 5-10 years” [4].

Even if we assume that Ayala shelled out the entire Php 6 billion on the first year, that would still mean, based on the above figures, that the total equity in the entire venture is Php 13.61 billion, with UP providing 56% and Ayala 44%.

If the “capital sharing” is 56:44, then why is the revenue sharing only 15:85 at best?

If you contributed over half of the capital in a business venture, would you be fine with receiving less than a fifth of revenues?


A Disturbing Business Arrangement?


The UP-Ayala revenue sharing structure is especially disturbing on the following grounds:

First, UP’s Real Estate Tax Exemption

UP is exempt from paying real estate taxes [5] based on the Supreme Court decision on UP v City Treasurer. In that case, the City Treasurer of Quezon City said UP was delinquent on Php 107 million in real estate taxes for the years 2009 to 2013 and the first quarter of 2014, or a period of 63 months.

This translates to Php 1.7 million worth of monthly real estate tax payments that Ayala could have paid the government if UP wasn’t tax-exempt. That is, Ayala saved Php 4.46 per sqm in tax payments because it partnered with UP.

Despite this, Ayala gives UP just Php 21.77 per sqm on the average, while Ayala’s revenue share ranges from roughly Php 123 to Php 414 per sqm [6], or anywhere from 566 to 1,900% more.

Second, Ayala charges tenants a lot

Some property listings for Ayala Technohub office spaces show Ayala charges tenants a lot of money.

For example, a Php 450,000 is the monthly rent for a 600 sqm office space listing [7], or Php 750 per sqm per month. And there’s even another 2,300 sqm office space for Php 1,495,000 a month [8], or Php 650 per sqm.

UP Ayala Technohub has a gross leasable area [9] of 156,708.75 sqm. Generously assuming a constant office space vacancy rate of 16% in Quezon City[10], and modestly assuming a monthly rent of Php 650 per sqm, then the UP Ayala Technohub must be collecting around Php 85.6 million in monthly rentals for office space alone, 10 percent of which (UP’s share) is Php 8.56 million.

This doesn’t look very different from the Php 8.29 million UP gets monthly per the COA report, but the gross leasable area Ayala provided is based only on Buildings A to O [11]. This doesn’t include revenues from (1) the four-storey Building P with 2,660 sqm per floor [12] and (2) the 120-guestroom in the six-storey Microtel [13].

Given this, is Ayala Land accurately reporting revenues or is it under-declaring revenues in order to pay UP less?

Remember that COA audits UP but COA doesn't audit Ayala.

Third, something fishy about the UP Board

It’s bad enough that UP apparently receives a pittance from the Ayala deal but to make it worse, Ayala’s payments even come late or not all. 

For example, COA in 2014 chided UP Diliman chancellor Michael Tan for the university’s “laxity” and “leniency” in enforcing the UP-Ayala Technohub Contract after Ayala had P76 million in unpaid rent and P3.06 million in penalties [14].

To make matters even worse, the UP Board is not even giving UP Diliman its rightful share of what little revenue UP receives from Technohub.

The UP Board of Regents in 2012 approved a 60-40 Income Sharing Scheme between the UP System and UP Diliman, but COA said the Board has so far failed to issue proper guidelines to turn this scheme into reality [15].

The UP System has so far failed to remit to UP Diliman over Php 287 million in revenues from the Technohub deal and COA said it “had no definite schedule or plan as to when they should remit the share of UP Diliman” [16].

Had the UP System given UP Diliman its rightful share, then UP Diliman would’ve been able to fund important projects like desperately needed building renovations and maintenance outlays.


The Bottom-line

Much like the notaries Ayala-owned Manila Water’s concession deal, it seems the government also got the shorter end of the stick in as far as the UP Ayala Technohub project.

The UP Ayala Technohub as an Ayala charity project: it is, instead, a full-fledged for-profit business venture.

While I agree that UP Diliman’s vast landowning on the far side of Commonwealth Avenue is largely grassland prior to the Ayala Project, it’s grassland in the middle of Quezon City where land is extremely scarce and infrastructure is far more available than most areas in the country.

Moreover, the single biggest challenge facing businesses, especially those that heavily rely on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), is finding quality talent for its workforce.

But that’s not really problem for those in Technohub because job applicants are literally situated JUST ACROSS THE ROAD, i.e. UP Diliman, one the country’s top universities.

With that said, why did UP enter a deal that just pays them peanuts?

And we haven't even mentioned the UP Town Center yet. [RJ Nieto | Thinking Pinoy]


SOURCES:

[1] Commission on Audit. Annual Audit Report – University of the Philippines System – Observations and Recommendations. 2018. pages 173 to 175.


[2] Based on the same COA Report, UP collected a total of Php 1,093,867,441.43 from 2008 to 2018, computed as the sum of Php 872,259,106.16 from Buildings A to J & Microtel and Php 221,608,335.27 from Buildings K to P.

[3] Supreme Court. UP v. City Treasurer of Quezon City. G.R. No. 214044. 19 June 2019.

[4] “… the P6-billion investment of Ayala over the next five to 10 years for the 38-hectare property of the University of the Philippines (UP) into a fully integrated information technology (IT) and IT-enabled services community.”. GMA News. Ayala Land to position Laguna as regional center. 26 December 2006.

[5] Supreme Court. UP v. City Treasurer of Quezon City. G.R. No. 214044. 19 June 2019.

[6] Computed based on (1) UP's revenue share ranging from 5 to 15% so Ayala’s share ranges from 85 to 95%, and (2) UP’s average collection of Php 21.77 per sqm per month.

[7] Lamudi. 200 - 2,000 sqm PEZA office for rent in UP Ayala Technohub, Quezon City. 05 January 2018.

[8] DotProperty. BPO Office Space in UP Technohub- FOR LEASE!. Retrieved 18 January 2020.

[9] Ayala Land. U.P. Ayala Land Technohub. Retrieved 18 January 2020. [Archived Copy: https://archive.is/wip/gpWRr ]

[10] Data shows Quezon City’s vacancy rate highest in 2018 at 16.4%, so rates in previous years are lower. BusinessWorld. Office vacancy rates to reach 7.1% this year. 04 March 2019.

[11] Ayala Land. U.P. Ayala Land Technohub. Retrieved 18 January 2020. [Archived Copy: https://archive.is/wip/gpWRr ].

[12] Colliers International. UP Ayala Technohub Building P. Retrieved 18 January 2020.

[13] Microtel by Windham. Microtel by Wyndham - UP Technohub, Diliman in Quezon City, Philippines. Retrieved 18 January 2020.

[14] Bilyonaryo. Freeloader? Ayala Land racks up over P212M in unpaid rent to UP. 02 February 2016.

[15] Commission on Audit. Annual Audit Report – University of the Philippines System – Observations and Recommendations. 2018. page 172.

[16] 2018 COA Annual Audit. p. 177.


DON'T FORGET TO SHARE! 

Follow ThinkingPinoy on Facebook and Twitter!

RELATED POSTS:

Rufino-Prieto firms cannibalizing the financially ailing Philippine Daily Inquirer?

$
0
0

Documents show Philippine Daily Inquirer’s majority owners, the Rufino-Prieto Clan, are using their other family-owned companies to cannibalize what little is left of the newspaper company’s assets, at the expense of minority stockholders who may be left with nothing if and when the media firm declares bankruptcy.

PDI sells land to Lexmedia

On 29 August 2018, Inquirer directors approved the sale of Inquirer-owned land near the Makati Central Business District. The board, at the time, is mostly made up of members of the Rufino-Prieto Clan, including:
  • Alexandra “Sandy” Prieto-Romualdez (President)
  • Carlos Rufino
  • Macario Rufino (Treasurer)
  • Paolo Prieto
  • Marixi Prieto
The sale involves six parcels of land totaling 1,990 sqm, where the Philippine Daily Inquirer’s head offices stand on [1]. The Deeds of Absolute Sale [2] of the PDI-owned [3] lots show they were sold to a certain Lexmedia Reality Inc. for a total of Php 156,000,000, broken down as follows:
  • TCT No. 182449 – 324 sqm – Php 21,700,000
  • TCT No. 182450 – 331 sqm – Php 29,600,000
  • TCT No. 182451 – 340 sqm – Php 30,400,000
  • TCT No. 182452 – 340 sqm – Php 30,400,000
  • TCT No. 182453 – 331 sqm – Php 22,200,000
  • TCT No. 182454 – 324 sqm – Php 21,700,000
That is, the Rufino-Prietos sold the lots for no more than Php 78,392 per sqm.


A suspiciously low price

The sale price raises suspicion because the Zonal Value of the six Barangay Tejeros lots along Chino Roces Avenue is Php 120,000 per sqm based on Department of Finance Department Order 24-2017 [4].

To illustrate the point even further, listings for lots within the same general area are for much higher prices, one listing for a 641-sqm lot [5] is for Php 300,000 per sqm, while another listing for a 511-sqm lot [6] is for Php 245,000 per sqm.

Why were the Rufino-Prietos sell PDI-owned land, caring little about the losses they incurred for selling it at so much lower than market rates, to the detriment of PDI shareholders?

The Rufino-Prietos, for example, could have listed the land for 25% more or around Php 100,000 per sqm, and somebody would’ve readily bought it.

Oh! I almost forgot to mention that the sale includes all improvements in the six lots, including the Inquirer Building itself.

Lexmedia bought PDI land at lower than market value, implying that the Rufino-Prietos gave away the Inquirer building and all other improvements to Lexmedia FOR FREE.

Why did the Rufino-Prietos do what they did?

I honestly do not care if the Rufino-Prietos throw money on the streets. Still, we must remember that we are talking about the Philippine Daily Inquirer, which has minority shareholders comprised of lowly journalists who dreamt of a better economic future for themselves.

The decision to sell PDI land at scandalously low prices affects not just the Rufino-Prieto Family but also the minority shareholders who are not part of the PDI board that approved the sale.

PDI’s owners as of 2018 [7] show at least thirteen minority shareholders, including the veteran journalist Vic Agustin, who in October 2019 sued the Rufino-Prietos for Syndicated Estafa precisely for these allegedly onerous transactions [8].
Syndicated estafa is swindling committed by a syndicate of five or more persons. In Agustin’s lawsuit, that syndicate is the Rufino-Prietos.
The preceding section showed that the Rufino-Prietos, sitting as PDI directors, sold PDI land below-market prices, resulting in financial injury to PDI as a corporation because they could’ve quickly sold the same land at a much higher price.

But then, an injury to PDI must also be an injury to the Rufino-Prietos, being that the latter are majority shareholders of PDI. That sounds contradictory, right?

Well, not if you check on who the Rufino-Prietos sold the PDI land to.

Who owns Lexmedia?

The Rufino-Prietos, acting as the agents of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, sold the six lots to Lexmedia, so that the next logical question would be who owns that company?

This is a tricky question because it appears that, based on documents from the Securities and Exchange Commission, Lexmedia’s ownership structure is buried in layers upon layers of corporations.

To illustrate, Lexmedia’s ownership structure [9] is as follows:
  • Pentap – 40.56%
  • Mediacom – 10.19%
  • Inquirer Holdings – 10.15%
  • Corinthian – 2.57%
  • Alexandra Prieto – 3.83%
  • Carlos Rufino – 0.83%
  • Paolo Prieto – 2.42%
  • Others
(Note that from hereon, all mentions of any of the five Rufino-Prieto PDI directors will be highlighted in red.)

There are three Rufino-Prietos in the list (Alexandra, Carlos, and Paolo) but a majority of the shares belong to corporations (Pentap, Mediacom, Inq Holdings, and Corinthian), so let’s check the ownership structures of each of these four owner-firms.


Pentap’s owners[10]:
  • Granprie – 20%
  • Paolo Prieto – 20%
  • Alexandra Prieto – 20%
  • Others
Mediacom’s owners [11]:
  • LRP – 68.92%
  • Others
Inquirer Holdings’ owners [12]:
  • Pinnacle – 68.89%
  • Others
Corinthian’s owners [13]:
  • Marilex – 31.85%
  • Ionian – 11.19%
  • Macario Rufino – 5.49%
  • Carlos Rufino – 5.8%
  • Alexandra Prieto – 1.82%
  • Marixi Prieto – 1.86%
  • Paolo Prieto – 1.82%
  • Others
At this point, you can see the names of the same Rufino-Prieto PDI directors are popping up. But we are not done yet, as we check the owners of the other corporations mentioned, namely Marilex, Ionian, LRP, Pinnacle, and GranPrie.

Marilex’s owners [14]:
  • Granprie – 11.43%
  • Marixi Prieto – 4.28%
  • Alexandra Prieto – 8.57%
  • Paolo Prieto – 8.58%
  • Others
Ionian’s owners [15]:
  • Marixi Prieto – 9.71%
  • Paolo Prieto – 12.23%
  • Alexandra Prieto – 12.23%
  • Marilex – 14.1%
  • Others
LRP’s owners [16]:
  • Pentap – 29.27%
  • Marilex – 31%
  • Corinthian – 4.24%
  • Carlos Rufino – 1.37%
  • Alexandra Prieto – 5.86%
Pinnacle’s owners [17]:
  • Pentap – 69.83%
  • Macario Rufino – 8.51%
  • Alexandra Prieto – 4.94%
  • Corinthian – 3.58%
  • Carlos Rufino – 0.99%
  • Paolo Prieto – 0.04%
  • Others
Granprie’s owners [18]:
  • Marixi Prieto – 39.99%
  • Alexandra Prieto – 31.98%
  • Paolo Prieto – 0.01%
  • Others
Using data from the General Information sheets of each of the corporations mentioned above, I took the liberty of creating a diagram that illustrates the ownership structure of Lexmedia. The chart takes into consideration the intricate web of corporate layers that ultimately end in one or more of the same five Rufino-Prieto PDI directors.

A diagram showing Lexmedia's corporate ownership. Each large rectangle is a predominantly Rufino-Prieto family firm. Each red rounded box is a Rufino-Prieto family member who also sits in the Philippine Daily Inquirer's board of directors.

Note that based on the same General Information Sheets, one or more of the six PDI directors are also on the board of each of the corporations mentioned above.

These data show that after peeling off a sufficient number of corporate layers, Lexmedia appears to be primarily owned and controlled by the same five Rufino-Prieto directors of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.


In short, the Rufino-Prietos basically sold Inquirer-owned land to themselves.

What’s the problem with this?

PDI’s Rufino-Prieto directors sold PDI-owned land to Lexmedia at a mind-bogglingly low price. The sale hurt the interests of PDI shareholders, and these are the Rufino-Prieto directors plus PDI’s minority shareholders. Hence, why would the Rufino-Prietos hurt not only PDI’s minority shareholders but also themselves?

As it turns out, the only ones hurt by the deal are PDI’s minority shareholders, as Lexmedia, who bought the property at an extremely low price, is also owned and controlled by the same Rufino-Prieto PDI directors who approved the sale.

We know that the Inquirer has been hemorrhaging in as early as 2017, when declared Php 320 million in losses after tax [19]. I personally doubt that the Inquirer can get out of the red and survive, especially since the Digital Age has brought the demise of newspapers all over the world. For example, more than 20% of all newspapers in the United States have closed down since 2014 [20].

Hence, I would understand why the Rufino-Prietos would try to hedge risk by evacuating assets from an ailing company. However, what I do not understand is how they can do it without taking into consideration the interests of other company owners who do not belong to their clan.

The Philippine Daily Inquirer was born in the late 80s as an earnest attempt to create a media company that is owned and controlled not by the moneyed elite, but by journalists themselves.

Initially intended to take the form of a journalist cooperative but registered as a corporation for expediency, the Inquirer started with the hope that “all those working for it could share the responsibility and hopefully, the rewards [21].”

Inquirer even had a very peculiar by-law in its original Articles of Incorporation: that only Inquirer permanent employees can own Inquirer stocks [22].

But this by-law didn’t last long as the Rufino-Prietos took over in 1990s and established a virtual monopoly on Inquirer’s corporate decision-making.

Despite my strong reservations on the quality of Inquirer’s current fleet of journalists, I cannot deny the fact that the Inquirer was borne with the noble hope of giving journalists better lives without asking them to sell their bodies and souls to the devil.


It’s bad enough that Inquirer failed to fulfill that promise, but what makes matters so much worse is that the same people who helped create their company – the minority shareholders – stand to lose whatever little they can get in the end.

As Lexmedia and the Rufino-Prieto companies, in apparent anticipation of Inquirer’s bankruptcy declaration, cannibalize what’s left of the Philippine Daily Inquirer’s assets, what will happen to the minority shareholders, some of whom are even journalists themselves, who weren’t lucky enough to have Rufino or Prieto as a last name? 


And how about the Philippine Daily Inquirer's creditors, if any? [ThinkingPinoy | RJ Nieto]

SOURCES:

[1] Corporate Secretary’s Certificates issued for sale of parcels of lands with Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 182449, 182450, 182451, 182452, 182453, and 182454, all in the Makati City Registry of Deeds.

[2] Deeds of Absolute Sale for lots with Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 182449, 182450, 182451, 182452, 182453, and 182454.

[3] Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 182449, 182450, 182451, 182452, 182453, and 182454 show they’re all registered under the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

[4] Deparment of Finance. Department Order No. 24-2017.

[5] Re/Max Regent Properties. 641 sq. m Commercial Lot for Sale in Chino Roces Avenue, Makati City. Lamudi.

[6] Re/Max Regent Properties. 511 Sq. m Commercial Lot for Sale in Makati City. Lamudi.

[7] Philippine Daily Inquirer. 2018 General Information Sheet.

[8] Tiglao, R. PDI in trouble with P400-M losses last year; plans to close print edition. Manila Times. 14 October 2019.

[9] Lexmedia Realty Inc. 2018 General Information Sheet.

[10] Pentap Equities and Holdings Corporation. 2018 General Information Sheet.

[11] Mediacom Equities Inc. 2016 General Information Sheet.

[12] Inquirer Holdings Inc. 2018 General Information Sheet.

[13] Corinthian Commercial Corporation. 2016 General Information Sheet.

[14] Marilex Realty Development Corporation. 2018 General Information Sheet.

[15] Ionian Realty and Development Corporation. 2016 General Information Sheet.

[16] LRP Incorporated. 2018 General Information Sheet.

[17] Pinnacle Printers Corporation. 2018 General Information Sheet.

[18] Granprie Realty Corporation. 2016 General Information Sheet.

[19] See #8.

[20] New York Times. More Than 1 in 5 U.S. Papers Has Closed. This Is the Result. 21 December 2019.

[21] Duran-Apostol, E. Present at creation: hysterical, historical. Philippine Daily Inquirer. 22 November 2010.

[22] Ibid.



DON'T FORGET TO SHARE! 

Follow ThinkingPinoy on Facebook and Twitter!

RELATED POSTS:

In the service of the Filipino? How ABS-CBN's Lopezes used mass media since World War II

$
0
0

Davao businessman Dennis Uy recently asked President Rodrigo Duterte for a sovereign guarantee[1] to cover a Php 700 million loan for Uy’s Chelsea Logistics[2]. Eyebrows rose, of course, including those of Bayan Muna chairperson Neri Colmenares[3].

A Sovereign Guarantee is a Government assurance that it will pay loans should the original debtor fail to pay them[4]. That is, a sovereign guarantee means taxpayers will pay Chelsea’s loans if Chelsea fails to, after all.

Yes, I do understand the uproar, but, but I believe it’s still premature. For one, Malacañang has not even considered Uy’s request yet. Uy asked for a sovereign guarantee, but the President has not yet given one.

Besides, I sincerely doubt that Uy is a Lopez.

Wait! What? ABS-CBN’s Lopezes again? Yes, those Lopezes again.


LOPEZ, BENPRES, AND NLEX

In an interview with DWIZ[5], former ABS-CBN journalist Jay Sonza accused the Lopezes of deliberately helping machinate the downfall of President Joseph “Erap” Estrada, after Erap declined the Lopezes’ request for a Sovereign Guarantee.

Sonza said:
“Noong nakuha ng Benpres ang NLEX, itong North Luzon Expressway, kailangan nila (Lopezes) ng foreign funding para sa expansion, saka maintenance, modernization. E hindi sila makakuha ng funding kung hindi magkakaroon ng Sovereign Guarantee.”
TRANSLATION: After Benpres acquired NLEX, the North Luzon Expressway, [The Lopezes] needed foreign funding for its expansion, maintenance, and modernization. But they can’t get funding without a Sovereign Guarantee.
Benpres Holdings Corporation, now known as Lopez Holdings Corporation, is the parent company of all Lopez-owned firms, including ABS-CBN Corporation[6].

The BenPres building in Ortigas Center
Sonza’s claim that the Lopez Group was in dire financial straits appears to be backed by a 2011 expose from veteran columnist Neal Cruz[7].

According to Cruz, the Lopez Group defaulted on Php 1.6 billion worth of behest loans from the government-owned Development of the Philippines, namely:
1. Maynilad, when it borrowed Php 710.86 million in 2000 then defaulted in 2003 after Maynilad’s balance sheets went Php 5.2 billion in the red. Maynilad, at the time, was 59.1% owned by the Lopez Family via Benpres Holdings.
2. BayanTel, when it borrowed Php 591.81 million in 1995 then started failing to amortize in 2001, when the outstanding balance was at US$ 11.2 million.
3. SkyCable, when it borrowed Php 207.10 million in 1997 and became past due in 2001.
4. Benpres Holdings, when it borrowed Php 157.95 million in 1996 and went past due in 2002 when Benpres stopped paying.
All these loans were written off. As to why, I’d rather reserve that discussion for another article because this one is already very lengthy as it is.

LOPEZ FIRMS ALMOST WENT BANKRUPT

As you can see, three of the four loans were secured on or before the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, which resulted in massive currency devaluations throughout the region[8]. The Philippine Peso traded at 30 to a dollar[9] in August 1997, then it exploded to Php 42 just five months later in January 1998[10]. The peso continued to nosedive and by October 2000, the exchange rate was at Php 50[11].

The Lopezes earned in pesos and not dollars, so the dismal exchange rate caused their dollar-denominated loans to balloon to levels that crippled Bayantel and Maynilad[12].
A firm that’s deep in the red in on a race against time: it has to start turning a profit before it goes totally bankrupt. Loans can give troubled companies more time to fix their act, but how can financial institutions lend to the broke?
The answer is simple: sovereign guarantees. If a loan is has government-backing, then there’s little risk of default because taxpayers will, by law, shoulder the loan if the company defaults.

And according to Sonza, that’s precisely what the Lopezes aimed for.

In the same DWIZ Interview, Sonza said:
“Pinipilit si Erap na pumirma ng Sovereign Guarantee. Inayawan ni Erap. O e di inumpisahan si Erap hanggang matanggal.”
TRANSLATION: They were egging Erap to sign the Sovereign Guarantee. Erap refused, so they ‘started’ on Erap until he was deposed.

SONZA: LOPEZ ASKED ERAP FOR SOVEREIGN GUARANTEE

Sonza added:
“Iniyawan niya yung Sovereign Guarantee diyan sa NLEx at sa Maynilad Water Services.”
TRANSLATION: Erap refused to give Sovereign Guarantee to NLEx and Maynila Water Services.
While he was still in power, lots of companies pestered Erap for sovereign guarantees.

For example, while being cross-examined in his plunder trial, Erap told the Sandiganbayan[13]:
“I rejected that P40 million offered by Mark Jimenez because I did not want that sovereign guarantee provision in the contract. I knew that if Impsa fails to pay its debts, the government would assume its payment and that would badly affect the people."
Erap was referring to the $470-million hydroelectric power contract between the Philippine government and Argentinian firm Industrias Metalurgica Pescarmona Sociedad Anonima (Impsa), where the prosecution alleged that businessman Mark Jimenez bribed the former president.

In a 2007 press statement about the plethora of sovereign guarantees issued by President Fidel Ramos to various power companies, Erap’s son Senator Jinggoy Estrada said[14]:
“Hindi nya tinanggap yon dahil may sovereign guarantee. Ibig sabihin ginagaratiyahan ng ating bansa ung kontrata, ayaw ni Pangulong Estrada.”
TRANSLATION: “He didn’t accept that because there’s a sovereign guarantee (requirement). That means the State is guaranteeing the contract, which President Estrada didn’t want.”
Erap is no saint, but I cannot find a single record showing that Erap granted sovereign guarantees to anybody.

Moreover, the Estrada bio for the 2015 Most Outstanding Mayor Award (MOMA)[15] states:
“Determined to bring his pro-poor platform to every facet of the government’s operations, he immediately ordered the removal of all sovereign guarantees on contracts for public projects xxx Reconds will show that until January 20, 2001, he did not sign a single government contract with a sovereign guarantee.”
Sans claims to the contrary, I think it’s safe to say that Erap really didn’t issue any sovereign guarantee. I’m not commenting on the wisdom of his governance (or the lack of it), but the hard fact is that he didn’t issue any sovereign guarantee.

ERAP VS THE LOPEZES ETC

Erap’s unaccommodating stance must have had a catastrophic effect on the Lopez Group, whose subsidiaries were slowly dying one by one.

But a friendlier replacement may not come in time: Erap was still in the first half of his Presidency.

The Constitution states that only the President has the power to issue sovereign guarantees[16], so if I were someone who badly needs a major financial lifeline that only a President can give, then I’d convince the President to give me one.

But he won’t, so the next best thing is to wait for him to step down then ask the next president, but this one just got elected this year. Will my companies survive for the next six years?

It’s not just Sonza’s sovereign guarantee issue.

Erap in a 2006 speech said just three months into his presidential term, the Ayalas and Lopezes asked him to raise water rates by 80 percent.

Erap said:
“I gained their ire when I turned down their request xxx my slogan is Erap para sa Mahirap xxx If I approve their request the poor Filipinos might rephrase my slogan into Erap Pampahirap."
A loan is a loan, but a water rate hike is basically free money from the People.

Erap added:
“Business is a gamble. If you lose in business, you cannot pass your losses to the people. If they win in their business, will they share it to the people?"
Well, if I were in the Lopezes’ shoes at a time like that, I may have wished for his deposal. And obviously, I’d use ABS-CBN, which had a virtual monopoly on public opinion, to realize that goal.

Erap was deposed[17] a little over two years later in January 2001.

I guess even the 1999 wedding of scion Beaver Lopez and Erap daughter Jackie Ejercito did nothing to change Erap's mind.

It's still a problem up to this day.

Yes, Erap made a lot of mistakes. But in as far as the possible motives for removing a president, I think money is most likely on the top of the list.

Sonza’s claim that Lopezes use media assets to attack competing interests is not really new, as a 2000 peer-reviewed paper published by Cambridge University Press shows that the Lopezes have a long history of using media assets to attack their political opponents.

In “Kinship Politics in Post-War Philippines: The Lopez Family, 1945-1989” [18], Mina Roces of the University of New South Wales narrated the Lopez Family’s ascent from a regional economic power in Ilo-ilo to the wealthiest clan in the country.

The story is quite long, so I’ll just focus on the parts that are immediately relevant to this discussion. Note that unless otherwise stated, all contents of the following sections are based on Roces’ paper.

THE MEDIA-POWERED RISE OF THE LOPEZES 

The massive Lopez fortune started with two Lopez brothers: Fernando, who was involved in Politics, and Eugenio Sr., who focused on business.

Fernando Lopez
Fernando’s meteoric rise in Politics started in 1945 when President Sergio Osmena appointed mayor of Iloilo, and President Manuel Roxas reappointed him a year later. He eventually became the vice-president, then the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources for three terms.


Roces wrote:
“Thus began a symbiotic relationship between politics and business that thrived on the closeness of the two brothers. With one brother in politics, the Lopez family had the passkey to the realm of special privileges that gave them access to the credit and franchises sealed of to families deprived of political power. While one brother made political connections, the other was the shrewd and ruthless businessman who utilized these special privileges for the family business corporations.”
The Lopezes bought the leading broadsheet The Manila Chronicle in September 1947, a critical juncture of Fernando’s budding political career.

Roces noted that The Manila Chronicle never turned a profit, so she wondered why a business-savvy Eugenio Sr. kept it running for 24 years.

The Lopezes used the newspaper to all political and business enemies, including the President of the Philippines. Using the newspaper’s power to shape public opinion, the Lopezes forced political and business enemies to yield to the Lopez Family’s demands.

Referring to The Manila Chronicle, Roces even said:
“The paper was notorious for biased reporting.”
Sounds familiar? Mhm, I know.

Fernando Lopez became a senator just two years into his mayoralty and just three months after acquiring The Manila Chronicle, which praised him all the time.


At a time when taxes from the sugar industry made up 43% of government revenue, the very powerful Lopez-led sugar barons in 1949 convinced presidentiable Elpidio Quirino to pick Fernando as his running mate.

Quirino didn’t regret his decision, as The Manila Chronicle ran full-page ads for the Quirino-Lopez ticket while not placing any for rivals Laurel-Briones and Avelino-Francisco.


Backed by a major mass media company and the money of the all-powerful sugar bloc, Fernando became vice-president in 1949.

Fernando was Vice-president and Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources from 1949 to 1953 and from 1965 to 1971, and a senator in between.

While Fernando headed Agriculture and Natural Resources, Eugenio bought the following:
1: Binalbagan-Isabela Sugar Company (BISCOM), the largest sugar company in Southeast Asia that helped Sugar Bloc members expand their businesses 
2: Pampanga Sugar Mill (PASUMIL), which became the Lopezes’ second sugar central 
3: Philippine Portland Cement 
4: Industrial Company, which made the jute packaging for sugar 
5: ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation 
6: Manila Electric Company (MERALCO)
ABS-CBN is neither Agriculture nor Natural Resources, but I think it’s safe to say that the Lopezes learned from their ownership and control of The Manila Chronicle that mass media could do wonders.

BISCOM, PASUMIL, and Industrial Company fall under agriculture, while Philippine Portland Cement and MERALCO fall under Natural Resources.

And Fernando, at the time of their acquisition, was the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

What a coincidence!

MACAPAGAL VS THE LOPEZ SUGAR BLOC

In the 1960s, President Diosdado Macapagal attacked the Lopez and what he called the “Lopez Sugar Bloc” when he argued that the Lopez and friends used their political connections to get loans from the government-owned DBP, Philippine National Bank (PNB), and Government Service Insurance System (GSIS).

Diosdado Macapagal with daughter Gloria
Included in the loans Macapagal listed are (“M” denotes “million”, “K” denotes “thousand”):
BISCOM– Php 32.49 M from DBP, Php 3.5 M from PNB 
PASUMIL– Php 4.788 M from DBP, Php 1.2 M from PNB 
Philippine Portland Cement– Php 2.355 M from DBP 
Industrial Company– P1.45 M from DBP 
ABS-CBN– Php 2.875 M from DBP, Php 485 K from PNB, Php 500K from GSIS 
Manila Chronicle– Php 2 M from PNB 
MERALCO– Php 35 M from PNB
Adding DBP and PNB loans of other Lopez companies, that’s Php 88.373 million as of 1962.

Just “how much” is Php 88.373 million?
A peso in 1962 is equal to USD 0.27[19] so that Php 88.373 million equals USD 23.96 million. Using an inflation calculator[20], USD 23.96 million in 1962 is equal to USD 204.67 million in 2020. With the 2020 USD:PHP exchange rate hovering at around 1:50, then that’s roughly Php 10.2335 billion pesos today.
That is, Php 88.373 million in 1962 can buy as many things as Php 10.233 billion in 2020.

Needless to say, the Lopezes again used their TV, Radio, and Print assets to prevent Macapagal’s reelection in 1965, or the year Ferdinand Marcos ran for president with Fernando Lopez as running mate.

And they did, as Roces wrote:
“The Marcos-Lopez campaign was launched on January 6, 1965. During the entire year of 1965 The Manila Chronicle had almost daily reports on the activities and the speeches of both candidates, while the Macapagal Administration was continuously and ruthless attacked.”
Macapagal and Pelaez stepped out, Marcos and Lopez stepped in.

Several years later, Marcos also tried to do what Macapagal did, i.e., wage war against the Lopezes. But this article is already running long, so let’s talk about that on another day.

Regardless, what’s clear is that based on this discussion, the Lopezes historically exploited their media assets to further their personal interests.

Amidst ABS-CBN’s franchise renewal issue, I encourage everyone to “keep it real”: Let us stop deluding ourselves into thinking that ABS-CBN did nothing but be “In the Service of the Filipino.”

Just like you, I sometimes get shocked about what other people say, especially when their words go against what I have believed for the longest time.

But then, our political consciousness is shaped mostly by what we see on TV. But then, who ultimately decides on most of what we get to see on TV?

The Lopezes.

[RJ Nieto / ThinkingPinoy]

SOURCES:

[1] Chelsea Logistics and Infrastructure Corporation. Information Statement. Corporate Disclosure. 10 February 2020. http://bit.ly/39DCReW

[2] Chelsea Logistics and Infrastructure Corporation. Current Report under Section 17 of the Securities Regulation Code and SRC Rule 17.2(C) thereunder. Public Disclosure. 14 February 2020. http://bit.ly/2HxJLXb

[3] Inquirer. Colmenares asks PhilGuarantee to prioritize SMEs amid reports of Dennis Uy’s loan bid. 17 February 2020. http://bit.ly/3bX7FJM

[4] FindLaw. Sovereign Guarantees in Project Finance. http://bit.ly/37B4ROO

[5] DWIZ 882 AM. Tambayan sa DWIZ. 17 February 2020. https://youtu.be/ONQhTkP9Usk?t=822

[6] Lopez Holdings Corporation website (lopez-holdings.ph). About the Company. Retrieved 17 February 2020. http://bit.ly/3206Yuw

[7] Inquirer. DBP wrote off P1.6B in loans to Lopez group. 07 November 2011. http://bit.ly/325aAeI

[8] Chapelow, J. Asian Financial Crisis. Investopedia. 25 July 2019. http://bit.ly/2P5106g

[9] TradingEconomics. Philippine Peso: 1997-2020 Data. http://bit.ly/2HBnzeU

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] ABS-CBN News. Lopez Holdings debt down to $7.5-M after buyback. 03 September 2011. http://bit.ly/37yA993

[13] GMA News. Lead prosecutor scolded for 'delaying' Estrada trial. 21 June 2006. http://bit.ly/2SASVbM

[14] Senate of the Philippines. Transcript of interview with Sen. Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada. Press Release. 06 November 2007. http://bit.ly/39Oym15
[15] Superbrand Marketing International. 2015 Most Outstanding Mayor Award. Page 36. http://bit.ly/2P49cUt

[16] Section 20, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. http://bit.ly/324r7zC

[17] Philippine Star. There was already a coup in place against Erap, so the anti-GMA coup plot fizzled out. 24 January 2001. http://bit.ly/2V45DBo

[18] Roces, M. (2000). Kinship Politics in Post-War Philippines: The Lopez Family, 1945-1989. Modern Asian Studies, 34(1), 181-221. Retrieved February 18, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/313115

[19] FXTop.com. Historical Currency Converter – Php to Usd on 01 January 1962. http://bit.ly/2SCMFA7

[20] USinflationcalculator.com


DON'T FORGET TO SHARE! 

Follow ThinkingPinoy on Facebook and Twitter!

RELATED POSTS:

#DrilonOnCNN: A case for firing “fact-checker” Vera Files

$
0
0


Vera Files' latest fact-checking stunt on the issue of Senator Franklin Drilon's CNN interview should be a ground for its expulsion from its "fact-checker"-ship.
Vera Files is among Facebook’s fact-checkers in the Philippines, and I checked how it became so.

Facebook in its official help page [1] said it “work(s) with third-party fact-checkers who are certified through the non-partisan International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) to help identify and review false news,” a claim seconded by Poynter Institute with a related announcement[2].

Given these, I can only deduce that some Facebook chose fact-checkers from the roster of IFCN members.

But what are the requirements for IFCN membership?

Quoting IFCN’s Code of Principles[3], each member needs to commit to several things, including (a) Transparency of Sources, (b) Nonpartisanship and fairness, and (c) Transparency of Funding.

Vera Files is an IFCN member[4], and this article, without prejudice to possible legal action against Vera Files, will discuss why it shouldn’t remain so.

VERA FILES AND DRILON'S CNN INTERVIEW

Vera Files’ 07 March 2020 article “VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Jay Sonza, RJ Nieto help propagate wrong claim that Drilon snoozed in CNN PH interview”[5] starts with:
“Former broadcaster Jay Sonza and blogger RJ Nieto, both known for their pro-administration stance, amplified a false claim that Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon snoozed in the middle of a television interview.”
Vera Files used “blogger” to describe this article’s writer, RJ Nieto, conveniently omitting that he’s also a journalist through his daily political commentary radio show “Karambola sa DWIZ” and the weekly column “Thinking Pinoy” at the major broadsheet Manila Bulletin. Moreover, Vera Files described both as “pro-administration,” which is irrelevant to the question of whether Senator Franklin Drilon snoozed or not.

Vera Files must be aware of these omissions because (a) Vera Files in the same article fact-checked a video posted on the Thinking Pinoy Facebook page, whose logo[6] since September 2019 includes superimposed miniaturized logos of DWIZ 882 AM and Manila Bulletin; and (b) Vera Files in its fact-checks supposedly adheres[7] to the Philippine Press Institute’s Code of Ethics[8], part of which states:
“I shall scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential facts nor to distort the truth by omission or improper emphasis.”
This is a blatant attempt of Vera Files to poison the well as they consciously offer irrelevant adverse information and, at the same time, omit material facts about the person they’re fact-checking.

Here's Thinking Pinoy's logo that it has been using since September 2019:

Posted by Thinking Pinoy on Friday, September 6, 2019

Here’s a question:
If a rabid opposition supporter shoots me in the head after reading this Vera Files article, will my being a newspaper columnist and radio broadcaster make my death count as a journalist killing?
The same assailed article then went on to claim that:
“Sonza and Nieto both have a history of purveying misleading information on social media.”
In the fact check article, Vera Files hyperlinked the phrase “purveying misleading information” to another Vera Files article [21], strongly suggesting that the claim against Nieto is supported by the said link.

A look at the link’s target, however, shows that it’s a 14 November 2018 fact check about Sonza and Sonza alone. That is, Vera Files’ claim that Nieto has “a history of purveying misleading information on social media” is not just an extraordinarily heavy allegation, but also an allegation that is failed to be supported by facts.

Fact-checking Nieto

Vera Files, in the assailed article, directed the reader’s attention to the 02 March 2020 Thinking Pinoy Facebook Live Video entitled “FACT CHECK: DID SENATOR DRILON FALL ASLEEP IN A CNN PHILIPPINES INTERVIEW?”, where it quoted:
“Nakatulog siya momentarily, mga a span of five, ten seconds. Ngayon, medyo nakakahiya nga ‘yon. Pero feeling ko, ano ‘yan, may sakit si Drilon. Baka, ano, narcoleptic, ewan ko. Medyo hindi normal ‘yon eh, kasi, immediately before atsaka immediately after nung pagtulog niya, dilat na dilat naman siya. Pero kahit na, nakakahiya pa rin.”
(He fell asleep momentarily, for a span of five, ten seconds. Now, that’s indeed kind of embarrassing. But I feel like, Drilon is sick. Maybe narcoleptic, I don’t know. What happened is not normal, because immediately before and after he dozed off, his eyes were wide open. Nevertheless, that is still embarrassing.)
Nieto uttered these words at the 2:55 mark, as shown in the link below:

https://www.facebook.com/TheThinkingPinoy/videos/3401184933231084/?t=175

Vera Files, however, conveniently omitted what Nieto said at the 4:18 mark, which was:
“So ang tanong, ‘Nakatulog ba si Drilon o hindi? Well, judging from the video… ng CNN mismo, mukha ngang nakatulog.”
(So the question “Did Drilon fall asleep or not? Well, judging from the CNN video itself, he really looks like he fell asleep.”)
Check this via the link below:

https://www.facebook.com/TheThinkingPinoy/videos/3401184933231084/?t=258

Nieto was referring to timestamp 11:55 of Drilon’s CNN interview, as shown below:


Now, does that look like he’s fully awake the entire time? How would an average reasonable person interpret what he saw? Is it false to say that Drilon looked like he was sleeping when his head was bowed down for an inordinate amount of time?

Additionally, Vera Files all-too-conveniently omitted the readily observable fact that CNN host Pinky Webb laughed momentarily during those moments and even decided to repeat the question to Drilon.

Quoting what Webb said, verbatim, during the same time Drilon supposedly fell asleep:
“(Webb, staring at the void) There is a joint resolution, aside from the letter that was signed by Congressman Alvarez and House Speaker Alan Peter Cayetano… (Webb shifts gaze to Drilon, momentarily giggles and smiles, then raises her voice) Joint Resolution, which I already asked your chief of staff, sir… (giggles, squirms) There’s a joint resolution, there’s a concurrent resolution… you’ve sub… you’ve authored both…”
Webb, who rarely stutters, had to stutteringly repeat the question to Drilon, especially the parts said while Drilon was bowing down. Drilon is one of the most intelligent senators out there, so why would Webb feel the need to repeat the question if Drilon was fully lucid?

In this interview, Webb maintained a congenial tone, but she never definitively smiled. That is, until the 11:55 mark when she saw Drilon bowing down.

A VERY CONVENIENT OMISSION

Vera Files then went on to say:
“Drilon did not fall asleep at any time during the interview.
VERA Files obtained from CNN Philippines a screen grab of the clip without the character generator (chargen) -- the graphics placed on the bottom portion of videos -- that shows Drilon not sleeping, but looking at the documents on the table in front of him.”
Vera Files included this graphic that includes a snapshot from raw footage, which is not publicly available until Vera Files published it.

Vera Files' logic is problematic on at least two grounds:

[a] Vera Files expects Nieto to see the invisible, as CNN Philippines’ live broadcasts contain character generator graphics overlays, and there’s no way to see what’s behind them.

[b] Vera Files basis for claiming Nieto propagated a falsehood relies on a false premise, as Nieto clearly qualified the limitation of his observation. Specifically, Nieto said he based it on what he saw in the live video (which has overlays), and not the raw video used as a basis by Vera Files.

Vera Files then attempted to buttress its observation by quoting Webb as having tweeted:
“Here’s what happened. As I was laying the premise for my question, I saw Sen Drilon look down at the documents he had on the table. I did not see him fall asleep.”
If all Webb saw was Drilon looking at documents, then why would she have to (1) giggle, (2) raise her voice, (3) repeat the question, (4) giggle again, and (5) squirm?

Moreover, does the presence of documents in front of Drilon make it impossible for him to fall asleep?

IFCN MEMBERSHIP STANDARDS

Recall that IFCN’s Code of Principles requires Vera Files to commit to (a) Transparency of Sources, (b) Nonpartisanship and fairness, and (c) Transparency of Funding.

To ensure compliance, IFCN requires Vera Files to re-apply for membership yearly by answering a questionnaire, so let’s fact-check Vera Files’ answers in its 2019 IFCN application form[9].

Let’s fact-check the parts relevant to the Drilon Issue.

IFCN CRITERION 3A: SOURCES POLICY

The question under “Criterion 3a: Sources Policy” reads:
“Please share a brief and public explanation (500 words max) of how sources are provided in enough detail that readers could replicate the fact check. If you have a public policy on how you find and use sources for your fact-checking, it should be shared here.”
Vera Files answer includes, among other things:

FIRST, Vera Files said, “Hyperlinks to resources used its fact checks are provided within the text,” and that, “VERA Files follows a three-source policy for news reports and clearly states that at least three media networks used the same quote, or reported the event or incident.”

This claim is false, as the sentence “Sonza and Nieto both have a history of purveying misleading information on social media,” does not have a reference to support Nieto’s alleged “history of purveying misleading information.”

SECOND, Vera files said its “policy on sources is found in ‘What you want to know about VERA Files Fact Check,’” and that article[10] states:

[a] “In the spirit of transparency, we provide the links to the sources of the statement and the evidence that are presented in the article.”
Vera Files failed to do this, as explained earlier.
[b] “As a news media organization, we strictly adhere to the professional and ethical standards set for journalists such as those found in the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and the Philippine Journalists Code of Ethics (PPI)”

The SPJ Code of Ethics[11] includes the following:

[i] “Provide context. Take special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing, or summarizing a story.”
It has been shown in the previous sections that the assailed fact-check article oversimplified and misrepresented the story when it willfully omitted crucial details in the CNN interview and Nieto’s Thinking Pinoy video, while including unsupported, irrelevant, and libelous claims about Nieto’s character.
[ii] “Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.”
Vera Files never contacted yours truly.
[iii] “Provide access to source material when it is relevant and appropriate.”
See [a].
[iv] “Avoid stereotyping. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting.”
Vera Files stereotyped Nieto as pro-Administration, despite the fact that Nieto very frequently and quite harshly criticizes Administration-aligned figures, including Information Technology Secretary Rodolfo Salalima[12], Communications Secretary Martin Andanar[13], Health Secretary Francisco Duque[14], Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez[15], and Communications Undersecretary Lorraine Badoy, [16] to name a few.

IFCN CRITERION 2B: NONPARTISANSHIP POLICY

The question under “Criterion 2b: Nonpartisanship policy” reads:
“Evidence required: Please share evidence of your policy preventing staff from direct involvement in political parties and advocacy organizations. Please also indicate the policy your organization has as a whole regarding advocacy and supporting political candidates.”
The response? “VERA Files’ nonpartisan policy is stated in ‘What you want to know about VERA Files Fact Check,’” which, in turn, states that Vera Files doesn’t “take money from politicians, political parties or partisan groups.”

This claim is false because Vera Files has been getting funding[17] from the US Department of State-funded CIA offshoot National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Annual funding since 2016 totals US$ 272,600 so far, US$ 75,000 of which was granted in 2019.

A screengrab of NED's grants to Vera Files per NED website.

NED itself describes its origins with this statement[18]:
“When it was revealed in the late 1960’s that some American PVO’s were receiving covert funding from the CIA to wage the battle of ideas at international forums, the Johnson Administration concluded that such funding should cease, recommending establishment of ‘a public-private mechanism’ to fund overseas activities openly.”
Given this, I believe that I need not explain further how NED qualifies as a partisan group.

This funding source may be an even bigger cause for concern in as far as Vera Files’ claims of nonpartisanship because the Duterte Administration is at loggerheads with the United States, which is best exemplified by the recent cancellation of the Visiting Forces Agreement[19].

How can Vera Files be expected to write anything against the United States when it sources its funding from US-funded NED whose job is to “wage the battle of ideas at international forums”?

Note that a vast majority of Vera Files fact-checks are about Administration-aligned figures, as evidenced by its answers in “Criterion 2a: Body of work sample”, which asks for a list of “ten fact checks that better represent the scope and consistency of Vera Files’ fact-checking.

Seven of the ten listed are against administration-aligned figures (2: Angara, 3: Chong, 5: Ong, 7: Enrile, 8: Duterte, 9: Locsin, 10: Andanar), and the only opposition-aligned figure in that list is a blogger and not even an opposition official.

Case in point, Vera Files has yet to fact-check anything about opposition stalwart and Magdalo Senator Antonio Trillanes, and the Public can't help but wonder if Vera Files head Ellen Tordesillas' close personal and professional relationship with a Magdalo party member has something to do with it [20].

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE

FIRST, Vera Files should practice what it preaches, something that it sorely failed to do in the assailed Sonza-Nieto article.

SECOND, Vera Files should issue an erratum to acknowledge the false and libelous statements it propounded in the same.

THIRD, Poynter-IFCN should review Vera Files’ compliance with membership requirements, as the above discussion clearly demonstrates that the latter forwarded false claims in its application.

I would like to believe that many of Poynter-IFCN’s administrators believe that the organization’s true goal is to help combat the proliferation of fake news. Unfortunately, it appears that no less than one of its supposedly esteemed members, Vera Files, is guilty of it.

SOURCES:

[1] Facebook. “How is Facebook addressing false news through third-party fact-checkers?”. Help Article. Retrieved 09 March 2020. http://bit.ly/3cIohVW

[2] Poynter Institute. IFCN and the Facebook Journalism Project announce Fact-Checking Innovation Initiative. 05 November 2019. Retrieved 09 March 2020. http://bit.ly/3cHg0kW

[3] IFCN. Code of Principles. Retrieved 09 March 2020. http://bit.ly/3cHMr2Y

[4] IFCN. Member Profile: Verafiles Incorporated. Retrieved 09 March 2020. http://bit.ly/3cHecsj

[5] Vera Files. VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Jay Sonza, RJ Nieto help propagate wrong claim that Drilon snoozed in CNN PH interview. 07 March 2020. http://bit.ly/2TMUL8W (Archived copy: https://archive.is/yVwnN)

[6] Thinking Pinoy. Facebook Page Logo. http://bit.ly/2IwovBz

[7] Vera Files. What you want to know about ‘VERA FILES FACT CHECK’. 26 February 2017. http://bit.ly/2TwWIHA

[8] Philippine Press Institute. Code of Ethics. http://bit.ly/2W0oT3d

[9] IFCN. Member Profile: Verafiles Incorporated. Retrieved 09 March 2020. http://bit.ly/3cHecsj

[10] Vera Files. What you want to know about ‘VERA FILES FACT CHECK’. 26 February 2017. http://bit.ly/2TwWIHA

[11] Society of Professional Journalists. SPJ Code of Ethics. 06 September 2014. http://bit.ly/2PYpVJg

[12] Thinking Pinoy. “Department of Information and Communications Technology - DICT Secretary Rudy Salalima, RUN FOR YOUR LIFE! Timer starts in 5... 4... 3...”. Facebook Post. 28 August 2017. http://bit.ly/39A5mL9

[13] Thinking Pinoy. “Martin Andanar has not improved quick enough. I think he must be fired.”. Facebook Live Video. 01 February 2018. http://bit.ly/2TBGlcN

[14] Thinking Pinoy. Is Health Sec. Duque doing an Ombudsman Carpio-Morales?. 25 June 2018. http://bit.ly/2TyzsJ4

[15] Thinking Pinoy. On Bulacan Int'l Aiport, Duterte Finance Secretary's personal interests against Common Good?. 05 June 2019. http://bit.ly/2WIBsB3

[16] Thinking Pinoy. “DOH DATA CONSISTENTLY SHOWS OVER 85% OF UNVACCINATED MEASLES CASES UNRELATED TO FEAR OF VACCINES”. Facebook Post. 06 February 2019. http://bit.ly/2v6wSRp

[17] National Endowment for Democracy. Grants Database. Retrieved 09 March 2020. http://bit.ly/38xUdsL

[18] National Endowment for Democracy. History. Retrieved 09 March 2020. http://bit.ly/38yQGul

[19] Presidential Communications. Press Briefing of Presidential Spokesperson and Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Secretary Salvador S. Panelo. 10 February 2020. http://bit.ly/2TADHUL

[20] Thinking Pinoy. #BangkoSerye: How close is Tordesillas to Magdalo Hacker Bem Pontejos?. 01 May 2016. http://bit.ly/330zpJg

[21] Vera Files. VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Jay Sonza misleads in saying Trump to copy Duterte’s drug war. 22 November 2019. http://bit.ly/2PWZaFa


DON'T FORGET TO SHARE! 

Follow ThinkingPinoy on Facebook and Twitter!

RELATED POSTS:

Viewing all 226 articles
Browse latest View live