Saturday, May 21, 2016

Energy 66, What companies receive FIT and by how much?

May 19, 2016.

This is the subject of my letter to the National Transmission Corporation (TransCo) last Monday. TransCo is a government corporation that owns all the transmission assets of the government. Among its five key responsibilities is to administer the Feed-in-Tariff Allowance (FIT-All) Fund for renewable energy (RE) generators. Its website clearly and proudly discusses the FIT system and why it is "good" for electricity consumers because of its "merit order effect".

I wrote to their customerservice@transco.ph early morning of May 16, 2016:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to request for data on (a) list of RE companies that have received FIT, 2015-2016, (b) how much each company received, (c) total FIT payment, (d) related data that you may want to share.

I will use the data for a research paper that I am writing for our think tank, Minimal Government Thinkers, which I hope to send you and the DOE a copy, and a short version for my column in BusinessWorld. I assume these are public data as the money collected is taken from electricity consumers nationwide.

Thank you very much and I hope to  hear from you.


Sincerely,

Bienvenido "Nonoy" Oplas, Jr.
President, Minimal Government Thinkers, Inc.
Fellow, South East Asia Network for Development
Fellow, Stratbase-Albert del Rosario Institute (ADRi)
Columnist, BusinessWorld, My Cup of Liberty

I did not get any reply. I followed it up with another email  yesterday morning,

Hi,

I would like to ask if you can share this data with me.
Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Bienvenido Oplas, Jr.

Still no reply. Ahh, this must be among their "top secret" data perhaps? One problem with the absence of a Freedom of Information (FOI) law or Exec. Order is that certain government offices can only collect-charge-bill-fine us ordinary people and when we ask where the money went to, they can only give one standard reply, the Sound of silence.

Anyway, I saw this report in Business Mirror the other day, among the numbers reported there: 

"FiT subscriptions for RE resources have significantly increased to 806.82 megawatts (mW) from 646.65 mW installations since the start of 2016. The following are the FiT subscriptions to date: Biomass has 11 power plants with a total capacity of 94.25 mW; hydro has four accounting for 26.6 mW; wind has six accounting for 393.9 mW.

Meanwhile, as of March 15, 2016, the DOE issued Certificates of Endorsement for FiT Eligibility (COE-FiT) to 11 solar-power plants accounting for 292.07 mW to the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC). More solar-power projects may be issued COE-FiT at the completion of the ongoing validation and assessment of the submissions received by the DOE in relation to the March 15 deadline for the expanded FiT for solar-power projects."

So, as of March 15, 2016, DOE issued COE-FiT for the following installations:

* Wind with six power plants, 393.9 MW,
* Solar with 11 plants, 292.07 MW, 
* Biomass with 11 plants, 94.25 MW,
* Hydro with four plants, 26.6 MW,
Total  806.82 MW.

I just want to know who are those 6 wind plants, 11 solar plants, etc. and how much did they get from the 4.06 centavos/kWh that we consumers paid to them from February 2015 to March 2016. The FIT has been raised to 12.40 centavos/kWh starting April 2016. 

Expensive electricity is lousy. Making it even more expensive with extra charges like FIT-All is lousier. And when we ask who are these companies that receive the extra charges, the answer is a Sound of silence. 

Hi TransCo, I still hope to receive a reply from you. I hope to write another paper about you soon, whether you give a reply (and some data) or not. You will receive this blog post via email, fb, twitter, etc. Three of your Board Members are Cabinet Secretaries -- DOF, DOE, DENR. They all have twitter accounts. Thank you.

May 21, 2016.

Today, I received a reply from Transco, they sent me two tables, the FIT-All cash flow and fund payables as of end-December 2015. They also gave me the name of the person I should talk to, the office local tel. no.



Thank you Transco. I still need the list of companies that received and about to receive the FIT-All. I will call next week.
-----------------

Thursday, May 19, 2016

UP Libertad to be launched on May 20

The first and only free market student organization at the University of the Philippines, UP Libertad, will be launched this Friday, May 20, at UP NCPAG, Diliman, QC. There will be two lectures, one by Mr. Thomas Laughlin, an alumni of the Students for Liberty (SFL), an international organization, and about Friedrich Hayek and “The Constitution of Liberty”. I will give the 2nd talk.

These guys discovered the philosophy of individual liberty, then set up the group on their own, no external assistance or intervention. Although the convenor was communicating with me while they are in the process of formation, and I met them about 3 weeks ago in UP.

They have a facebook page and twitter accounts.


Being a firm believer of spontaneity, diversity and inequality, I am happy to see the spontaneous formation of this group. I am sure these guys will dream big and aim high, at least in university politics and battle for ideas.

Friends and readers, I hope you will consider supporting this new organization via donation, other forms of support. Thank you.

Saturday, May 14, 2016

BWorld 58, INDCs and PH energy realities

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last Thursday.


Energy poverty can kill today, not 30 or 100 years from now because of “man-made” warming or climate change. Dark streets at night because of expensive electricity and unstable energy mean more road accidents, more crimes. Or households using candles are courting more fires, more destruction to private property. And households using traditional biomass for cooking endure indoor pollution and invite various respiratory diseases.

Thus, it is unwise for governments to institute measures that will make electricity even more expensive and make the construction of power plants become more costly and bureaucratic. Depriving the people of more access to cheaper electricity and stable energy sources is violation of their human rights, the right to live in safe communities, and road travel at night, the right to productive work and studies, the right to entertainment with families and friends, anytime they like.

Consider the following data on energy poverty in the ASEAN from the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA). We exclude Brunei and Singapore in this list because they have 100% provision of energy for their people (see table).


In 2013, some 21 million Filipinos were still using candles or noisy gensets at night, consuming more diesel, another fossil fuel. And some 53 million Filipinos were still using firewood and charcoal (meaning more illegal cutting of trees) for cooking, or cow dung, causing more indoor pollution and respiratory/health problems later.

Is this a good situation for the country and our people? Maybe if one advocates de-industrialization and low standard of living as much as possible, the answer is yes.

The Philippine government through the Climate Change Commission (CCC) submitted to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in Paris last year this Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG):

“The Philippines intends to undertake GHG (CO2e) emissions reduction of about 70% by 2030 relative to its BAU scenario of 2000-2030. Reduction of CO2e emissions will come from energy, transport, waste, forestry and industry sectors.”

This means that we should cut our carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 70% compared to a business as usual (BAU) scenario.

How will several industries be adversely affected? Mainly through more expensive electricity as more expensive, subsidy-dependent renewables like wind and solar will be forced-fed into the grid and distribution utilities. Even if cheaper electricity from coal and natural gas plants are available, they will be second priority when power from intermittent but expensive sources are available. So our monthly electricity bills will keep rising.

Also, more electric tricycles and jeeps will be fielded via tax-funded programs, like the ADB loan of $300 million (around P17.2 billion) for 100,000 new e-trikes in the country. Purchase of e-trikes is borne by taxpayers, their daily electricity charging is also borne by taxpayers via charging stations in municipal/city halls.

And firms will be forced to procure more capital-intensive processes, meaning higher operational costs to be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices of goods and services.

The Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI) early this month wrote to the CCC questioning that commitment of a high target, 70% GHG emissions by 2030 as this will put undue pressure on local industries and strain the growth of the economy. The PCCI said, it supports GHG emission reduction but that “high target” is impractical. Their proposal was 40% reduction.

Good call by the PCCI. Expensive energy, costly prices of commodities and services, should be among the last things that we should aspire for our people.

Those alarmist scenario of “more severe weather”, “unprecedented, unequivocal global warming” and catastrophic “man-made” climate change remain questionable. Climate changes from warming to cooling to warming to cooling, in natural and endless cycles, since the planet was created some 4.6 billion years ago. Consider this data for instance (see chart).



The big or very strong El Niño of 2015-2016 has a precedent, the big El Niño of 1997-1998. And almost always, big El Niño is followed by big La Niña, see the early ’70s cooling and the prolonged La Niña from 1998-2000.

Continued demonization of CO2 -- a useful gas that we humans and our animals exhale, the gas that our plants, trees, and crops use to produce their own food via photosynthesis -- is creating more distortions in energy and economic policies.

We should not aspire to rival Myanmar and Cambodia, much less North Korea, in energy poverty. Government -- through the CCC and DENR especially -- should get out of overly ambitious alarmism in energy rationing.

This subject was not highlighted in the recent Presidential elections but President-elect Rodrigo Duterte was quoted in one forum during the campaign period that he supports more coal power plants to sustain the country’s rising energy needs. Let us hope that he will stick to this policy.


Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the head of Minimal Government Thinkers, a Fellow of SEANET and Stratbase-ADRi. minimalgovernment@gmail.com 
--------------

See also: 

Friday, May 13, 2016

Whisky and Liberty, Jules Maaten's farewell party

Last night, Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF) Philippines Country Director Jules Maaten conducted and hosted a "whisky workshop". My first time to attend such kind of activity as I am a barbarian when it comes to some high end drinks, European whisky brands. It also served as Jules' farewell party to some friends. To my right here will be his successor, incoming Country Director Wolfgang BL Heinze. 


I talked to Eva, Jules' wife, she said she wished they won't leave the Philippines because of so many friends they have developed the past 6 years (though it seemed like 3-4 years ago when Jules came here to replace Siggi Herzog who became a Regional Director of FNF). But she's looking forward to a new adventure, new friends in S. Africa, Jules will be overseeing FNF's work in several countries south of that continent, many of which are really economically undeveloped and politically repressed. Injecting the philosophy of economic freedom and individual liberty in the  minds of the people and politicians there will be a tough job.

Another pose. L for Leni Robredo and the Liberal Party (LP).


The other guests that night, mostly Europeans, have already left when this group photo was taken. The workshop consisted of Jules discussing each bottle, their  properties and taste, where they are produced, then people taste it, fellowship. After about 10 minutes, Jules calls the crowd again  to discuss the next bottle.


I think this is the "amoy sapatos" whisky that Jules discussed.


I tasted almost all of them, in small quantities + water. Being a non-whisky drinker, I found their taste and smell ranging from strong to exotic to weird. Especially the "amoy riot" or smelling like burned tires on the road. :-) 


Later I shifted back to beer. Good that Jules has a stock of San Miguel pilse at the fridge. Below, Mikael de Lara and Samuel's daughter leading the guitars and songs. U2's "with or without you", others.


Before leaving the place, almost 12 midnight, I gave an unsolicited, impromptu speech discussing the role of FNF in general, and Jules in particular, in my field -- the free market think tanks and NGOs in Asia through the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia. FNF is known more for helping liberal and democratic political parties like the LP via the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats (CALD).

Nice food, including different types of cheese, drinks, singing, impromptu concert by Noel Cabangon, etc. Thanks again Jules.

Photos mostly from Bing Salvador. Thanks Mikael for the ride.
---------------

See also:
FNF Philippines and Liberal Challenges 2013-2016, June 14, 2013Jules Maaten's Lecture on Liberalism, May 11, 2014

Thursday, May 12, 2016

Lion Rock 19, Not enough capitalism in Hong Kong

A good article by Bill Stacey, former Chairman of Lion Rock Institute (LRI) in Hong Kong. Reposting here.



(Next Magazine, 2016/5/5, A002, Second Opinion, Bill Stacey)

Hong Kong has many contentious public issues, but the underlying source of our discontent is fifteen years of stagnant real wages. For many in Hong Kong we are simply not progressing and the upward mobility from a dynamic economy seems absent. After decades of some of the strongest growth in the world, why has this stagnation happened

It is all too easy to blame China and the emergence of labor competition, but this would be wrong. Low cost wages were a factor in China well before our stagnation. Wages have been rising rapidly in China recently. China has enhanced our productivity and allowed our higher value added industries to take root. It would be fashionable, but equally wrong, to blame inequality.The real cause of stagnant wages is insufficient capitalism. Capital is the life blood of the economy. When entrepreneurs figure out new products and better ways of delivering goods and services that customers want, they must invest in machinery, equipment, and intellectual property development. Those investments allow workers to be more productive. In the jargon of economists, as the “marginal productivity of labor” increases, the wages that can be paid go up.

Highly productive labor can strike a better bargain with better terms and conditions. Very valuable labor negotiates better pensions and working hours or more money as they wish. It is important to understand that it is not just the skills and education of working people that determine their productivity; it is the interaction between their efforts and the capital that their efforts command. If capital is inadequate, business models archaic, or entrepreneurial innovation insufficient, the talents and education of the population will not be enough to deliver rising incomes.Let us take for granted that our people are at least as talented, skilled, and well educated today as they were 30 years ago. What hampered wage growth is our capitalism that is increasingly tied in regulatory knots as compared to the past. Last year our private capital investment shrank by 8%, whilst public capital investment grew by 7%.As the accompanying chart shows, periods of wage growth were preceded by periods when our private capital investment was much higher than our public capital investment. It can take years for private investments to lead to the advanced businesses that allow wages to rise. Our wealth today is built on the entrepreneurial investment of the past. However, when public capital investment is high compared to private investment, then wages tend to stagnate.

This is the opposite of the story that we are told by officials. They will say that when the private sector is weak, the public sector needs to step in to make up for the slack so as to keep the economy on track. Many will even argue that massive public investment in infrastructure is a vital precondition for the private sector to grow.The trouble is that public investment does not deliver on its promise. It needs to be funded by taxes, so higher public investment leads to higher expected future taxes and less private investment. Public investment is more wasteful as it crowds out cost-effective private sector investment. Public projects are prioritized by political decisions, not markets, so they are often chosen to gain votes rather than profits. More importantly, periods of high public investment are often times when there is enthusiasm for more regulation and government interventions, which are inimical to entrepreneurial investment.Why is private capital investment so weak that it is not supporting the same productivity and wages growth that we generated in the past? Regulation is part of the picture. Long term investments require you to know the rules of the game. Stable rule of law is a precondition for strong private investment. Incentives are vital. If bidding for a government privilege or subsidy is more profitable than investing in better capital, investments will not be made. Too many of our entrepreneurs are on an Ayn Randesque strike, so wages will not rise and our discontent will not pass until we rebuild our capitalist foundations.
------------

See also: 
Lion Rock 16: 10th Anniversary of LRI, November 07, 2014 
Lion Rock 17: Photos and Discussions in Reading Club Salon 2014, November 25, 2014 

Lion Rock 18, Nick Smith as new Chairman of LRI, April 05, 2016

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Election 24, Generally peaceful and credible 2016 polls

Congratulations, COMELEC, for a generally peaceful, credible, and fast results elections 2016.

Congratulations, unofficial President-Elect Rodrigo Duterte. The people have spoken, you got nearly 40% of the national votes based on the SWS exit poll.

Bongbong Marcos is leading by 0.12 million votes as of this writing, no congrats yet. I still hope that my candidate Leni Robredo will beat you in the coming hours or days of official counting.

As of 1:20 am:


Reflecting on  this general elections, I think there are more good news than bad ones. Consider the following good news:

1. VP Jojo Binay finally loses in an election. He and his family were the alternating Mayors of Makati City (he, his wife, he again, then his son) for almost 30 years, then he won the VP race in 2010.

2. Securing the people's right to life (against murderers, rapists, kidnappers), right  to private property (against thieves, land grabbers) has trumped the politics of welfarism and rabid environmentalism. Duterte's single issue on fighting criminals proved to be more important to many voters than the promises of endless welfarism by the other Presidential candidates.

3. Among Senatorial candidates, populist lefties like Colmenares of Bayaan Mo Na and Walden Bello of Akbayan are losing. These two are rabid advocates of socialism, explicit or implicit. Risa Hontiveros finally made it after losing consecutively in 2010 and 2013 Senatorial elections. She's speaking mostly populist and socialist-leaning but her pronouncements are tempered by her direct association with the LP machinery which is definitely non-leftist.

The bad news, however:

1. Leni might lose?...

2. Manny Pacquiao will become Senator while Serge Osmena and TG Guingona are losing. Manny is a great man as a boxer and ring fighter. But later he has evolved into sort of a megalomaniac person, jumping into many activities outside of his core competence. Very good in boxing, but lousy as a professional basketball player, lousy singer, lousy Congressman. So he will soon be a lousy Senator? Sen. Serge has a good sense on energy policies, sayang kung matalo sya.

Nonetheless, the important thing is that the elections was held generally peacefully and orderly, it looks credible mainly because of fast turn out of electronic results.

We can move on. Work with the next President with a big mandate and support from the voters. Pero please lang, next President Duterte -- learn to respect the rule of law, let there be due process before penalizing criminals. Some may have stolen just a few chickens but short-cut investigations  and  penalties would say they stole cows and tractors and hence, the penalty is outright execution or "salvaging".

Learn to respect human rights. Kawatan man yan, may existing system of penalties na dyan, like X number of months or years of imprisonment, not outright execution and government-sponsored murders.

Lastly, President-Elect, while you said you were a fan of socialism and BIG government, at one time you also said you want a "minimal government." I hope you will lean more towards the latter and not the former. Thank you.

Update, as of 10:45 pm.

With 94.3% of national votes counted.
Graphics from gmanetwork.com, thanks.


Additional good news:

4. Grace Poe, Mar Roxas and Jojo Binay already conceded to Rody Duterte. He retains the 6+ M lead votes over Mar Roxas. VP candidates Chiz Escudero and Alan Cayetano also conceded defeat. Good move guys. No more hassle and complaints of irregularities or cheating. First time in Philippine elections that all major rivals have conceded defeat to a leading Presidential candidate less than 24 hours after the polls have closed.

5. Leni is winning, she has overtaken Bongbong by 0.25 M votes.

6. Soon we will not see the faces of "no car plate, no sticker available" DOTC Sec. Jun Abaya and MIAA Administrator Honrado, known for his so-called ignorance of "tanim bala" or "laglag bala" extortion racket at the NAIA. Among the "downers" of the PNoy government.

More bad news though...

3. Climate alarmism and renewables cronyism in the Senate will have additional voice through Migs Zubiri, strengthening Sen. Loren Legarda.


4. Francis Tolentino, currently #13, might edge out Leila de Lima now in #12... Tolentino is generally lousy as MMDA Chair, he used the position mainly for his Senatorial ambition and not to reduce high traffic congestion. Leila stood up against the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) Edsa occupation dictatorship last year. These INCs closed down a busy part of EDSA for 3N/2D (from Friday night to Sun afternoon).


Meanwhile, the PNoy bashers of "massive cheating to make Mar Roxas win  at all cost", learn to have humility and own up to your irresponsible statements. The same goes for COMELEC bashers. I hope to hear your apologies guys. Not to me of course, but to the Comelec and the admin.
---------------

See also:

Pol. Ideology 66, On institutions, constitutional monarchy and liberal parliamentary democracy

Reposting another bright article from a friend, Wan Saiful, CEO of IDEAS in KL, Malaysia's first and only free market think tank. It is published today in The Star.
---------------

Defend our institutions

By Wan Saiful Wan Jan
"Thinking Liberally", The Star, 10 May 2016

The existence and functioning of institutions are important for any democracy to flourish. The concept of ‘institutions’ is an important one to understand.

In the academic circle, the definition of institutions has been debated by many scholars. One of the most commonly cited opinion belongs to Douglass North, a Nobel Laureate who published a seminal paper in the early 1990s defining institutions as “the formal and informal rules that organise social, political and economic relations”.

Since then several other scholars have examined North’s work and provided further clarifications of the meaning of institutions. For example, Geoffrey Hodgson of the University of Hertfordshire builds on North’s definition by suggesting that institutions are “the systems of established and prevalent social rules that structure social interactions”.

Without going too much into the scholarly debates, it can be understood that when we talk about institutions, we are not necessarily just talking about physical entities. Instead we are referring rules and systems that may or may not be physical in nature.

For example, in a functioning democracy the institutions can include things like the constitution, the executive, parliament as the legislative body, a free press, independent judiciary, consistent application of the laws, presence of check and balance mechanisms, respect for fundamental liberties, and more.

The institutions can be an organisation, or it can be a concept. But regardless of its form, it structures how we deal with one another, how we deal with power, and how power deals with us.

When our country was formed, our founding fathers had the wisdom to choose a system that respects individual liberty. They chose liberal parliamentary democracy over illiberal autocracy.

A liberal parliamentary democracy is a system where the people can choose. In its simplest sense, democracy is rule by the people through elected representatives.

An illiberal autocracy is a system where people cannot choose. In its simplest sense, autocracy is dictatorship by one person or one group who holds a grip over the population.

Acknowledging that this nation has a history of autocracy in the form of absolute monarchies, when the Constitution was drafted, our Rulers had the wisdom to go for a constitutional monarchy. Our Rulers approved the vision of having a country founded upon the principles of liberty and justice, and their Royal Highnesses did not call for the return of rule by monarchs.

It is that wisdom that enabled us to gradually evolve into a modern society that we have today.

Britain has what is perhaps the most famous constitutional monarchy that exists today. It is amazing to see how the Queen functions in modern United Kingdom. She never make comments that can be construed as partisan in nature, yet she does not in any way contradict the elected government.

Throughout her reign the Queen has successfully adapted to the changing time, while always respecting the separation of roles between the monarch and the elected government.

More importantly, the British people too do not take steps that could destroy the separation of powers that is so important in a constitutional monarchy. They do not go to Buckingham Palace appealing for the Queen to intervene in matters that should be resolved in the parliamentary chambers.

They know that inviting the monarchy to intervene in day to day politics is not just a step back towards the medieval age, but it is also a dangerous slippery slope. Democracy might be messy when compared to the seemingly smooth autocracy. But once democracy is eroded, getting it back is not going to be easy.

They also know that if the British monarch does take side in a political bout, the country will be divided on how to react to the monarch’s partisanship and that may make the Queen lose the universal affection that she enjoys today.

This is why I am very worried about the calls made by some groups for our Rulers to intervene in our daily politics. Thankfully our Rulers are wise enough to not respond to these calls. Neither do they claim powers that can deny the right of our elected representatives to do their job. It is such wisdom, allowing the elected legislators to legislate as they are mandated, that will ensure the sustainability of the institution.

The institution of constitutional monarchy that we have today is precious. It helps keep the balance of power and prevents the executive from being overly powerful, while at the same time guaranteeing that we do not slip back into an autocratic absolute monarchy.

We must resolve political and legislative issues within the institutional frameworks of parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy. To ensure the respective institutions are defended, every one should honour the meaning of these concepts and keep to the drawn limits.
----------

See also:

Winners and losers in the 2016 elections, by Dr. Jop Yap

A friend, Josef "Jop" Yap, former faculty member of the UP School of Economics (UPSE), then President of the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) and now back at UPSE, sent this to me. I like it, I asked for permission to post in this blog, he said Yes. So here it is.


Winners and Losers in the 2016 National Election
by  Dr. Josef “Jop” Yap
May 10, 2016, 1pm

Winner: Leni Robredo
The epitome of a reluctant candidate. The sincerity and candor she displayed during the campaign is refreshing and admirable. Her path to the 2022 Presidential elections has suddenly opened up.

Loser: Jojo Binay
He campaigned for the Presidency as soon as he upset Mar Roxas for the position of Vice-President. Personally, I am more relieved that we avoided such an obnoxious first family.

Winner: Mar Roxas
From the beginning his campaign was beleaguered by an image of non-winnability. This caused a division in the Aquino camp, with some openly supporting Grace Poe. His second place finish demonstrates that the Aquino camp should have put more faith and trust in Roxas.

Loser: Chiz Escudero
His ambition for the Presidency has been oozing from his body language. He convinced Grace Poe to run for President in order for her not to be a threat in 2022. At least we won’t have Heart as first lady.

Winner: Survey firms
The results of the election surveys reflected the actual outcomes fairly accurately. This has become a deterrent against massive cheating operations. Congratulations to Filipino statisticians!

Loser: Liberal Party Campaign Strategy
The last-minute attempt to unite the candidacies of Roxas and Poe was so pathetic. In particular, Mar Roxas looked so presumptuous and arrogant when he called on Grace Poe to meet with him to discuss the possibility of one of them dropping out.

Winner (TBD): Rodrigo Duterte
The candidate who came in from the cold. But it remains to be seen if he emerges a true winner. The Presidency may be way over his head. And with Robredo as VP, the threat of another people power “revolution” will always hound him.

Loser (TBD): Bong Bong Marcos
His strong run for VP shows that the Marcos mystique is still alive. Will Marcos’ loss derail his bid for the Presidency? Will there be Leni-BBM 2? Abangan.

Big Winner: The Filipino People
Voter turnout remains strong in national elections. Filipinos want their voices to be heard.

Big Loser: 1986 EDSA Coalition
For 30 years the Aquino-RAM-Church alliance held power behind the veneer of having instigated a revolution. The victory of Duterte and the strong showing of Bong Bong Marcos have wrecked this fantasy.

Biggest Loser: The Filipino People

When will we ever learn?
---------

I made this small matrix summarizing Jop’s arguments. Then my comments below.

Winners
Losers
1. Leni Robredo.
Path to the 2022 Presidential elections opened up.
1. Jojo Binay.
Relief that we avoided an obnoxious first family.
2. Mar Roxas.
Aquino camp should have put more faith in him.
2. Chiz Escudero.
Chance as President in 2022 is drained.
3. Survey firms. Surveys reflected actual outcomes accurately, a deterrent against major cheating.
3. LP Campaign. Attempt to unite Roxas - Poe was  pathetic, Mar looked presumptuous and arrogant.
4. Rodrigo Duterte. Came in from the cold, Presidency may be way over his head.
4. Bong Bong Marcos. Loss can derail his bid for Presidency. Or a Leni-BBM 2 in 2022?
5. Filipino People. Voter turnout strong, Filipinos want to have their voices heard.
5. 1986 EDSA Coalition. Duterte victory and strong showing of BBM  wrecked a fantasy.

6. Filipino People. When will we ever learn?

Overall, good analysis by Jop. In particular, I agree with his list of winners, except #2. Mar Roxas simply lost. In elections, there are no silver medalists, it’s a winner take all situation. I will add that Jop failed to mention the COMELEC as a big winner here, public trust and respect for the institution is very high now for its conduct of peaceful, credible, and quick-results elections.

For Jop’s list of losers, I agree with all, except #6. The Filipino people overall is a winner here. Generally peaceful elections, except for a few isolated violence and murders. If we have to add a 6th loser, it is the philosophy of welfarism as a paramount concern for Filipino voters. No, Duterte has shown that the paramount concern for many Filipinos is the fight against criminality, the protection of their lives and private property against murderers, thieves, rapists, drug pushers, etc.