PNoy Resignation Call -- Lousy Movement

Politics and government is about power. Lust for power. That is why governments must shrink because the people who are most attracted to politics and government are most likely the ego-trippers, corrupt and extortionists. Not all of them of course, but most of them.

In the current political drama in the Philippines, some sectors, politicians professioals, NGO and media leaders call for President Noynoy (PNoy) Aquino to resign, mainly because of the Mamasapano incident last January 25 where 44 cops,18 MILF fighters and 5 civilians were killed.

The President indeed made a number of lousy, un-Presidential acts. Like trusting a suspended bureaucrat, former PNP Chief Alan Purisima, to call the shots in the PNP-SAF attack on terrorist Marwan. Disobeying the chain of command in his own government is very un-Presidential, true. The President should apologize for that act.

But to call for the resignation of the President -- and Vice President Jojo Binay should take over, according to the hierarchy of leadership in the Constitution -- is lousy. The President of the country has governance mandate in various sectors -- agriculture environment, energy, education, healthcare, public works and ports, transportation and telecom, tourism, finance, trade, investments, foreign affairs, etc. Police and security matters is only one aspect of his/her mandate. So a call for PNoy resignation is simply an emotional call, or naked power grab. 

And this group who call themselves "People's Council... for transition government", it is simply deception. I and my family, my friends, neighbors, etc. are also people of the PH, I seldom hear from this group calling for the resignation of the President. Dissatisfied, disappointed, yes, many of them, me included, but not to the point of calling for his resignation. So this "People's Council", sila lang yon. A more appropriate term for their group should be "Sectoral Council" because they involve only a few and small sectors of the PH population.

In a friend's fb wall, I made the above points. One pro-resign person asked me,

 "dissatisfied and disappointed...but still want to keep PNoy? Why?"

My answer to her, quoting other people who earlier responded to her:

(1) "the creation of a People's Council is not a constitutional move. And besides, how would you choose which persons will make up this council?" -- Nolet

(2) "Ousting Pnoy will create chaos. We don't want a puppet government." -- Tony

(3) "give Aquino the rest of his term if only to give him his LAST chance to redeem himself+ -- Reynaldo

(4) I am disappointed with PNoy, yes, but I am more disappointed with the leaders of this "People's Council". Kung si PNoy kapit sa pwesto, sila pro-resign leaders, gutom sa pwesto. They cannot respect the Constitution and follow the hierarchy of leadership. PNoy resigns, Binay in, no ifs, no buts. But the pro-resignation guys want themselves. Gutom nga, -- Nonoy Oplas

Then she asked again, 

"what made you say na those who want PNoy's resignation ay gutom sa pwesto?"

Simple. If people who want PNoy to resign are willing to respect the Consti and accept Binay as the next President, no ifs no buts, then they are not gutom sa pwesto. But since they want unconstitutional succession and want themselves -- unelected, self-styled -- as the new President, new Cabinet Secretaries and Under Secretaries, new heads of government corporations, etc., eh di gutom nga sa pwesto. Hayok pa, :-) Disappointingly distasteful salivating power hungry leaders.

A better option is to call for an impeachment of the President, it is along the Constitutional change of government. But it will take time, will take more resources, public and private. 

Better wait for the next Presidential elections. Only 14 months away, including three months official campaign period, or  12 months (or more) unofficial campaigns.

As for me, I remain political but non-partisan. I only believe in less or small government, not "BIG but good government" as it is an oxymoron.

------------

See also: 
Fat Free Econ 55: The President's 5th SONA and Market-Oriented Reforms, August 01, 2014
Citizen Watch 3: Political and Economic Reforms After SONA 2014, September 06, 2014

Assessing the Performance of an Administration, February 20, 2015 

MILF, Fallen 44 and Napenas, Part 5, February 21, 2015

MILF, Fallen 44 and Napenas, Part 5

I am reposting these three short but erudite essays by a friend, Raffy Aquino, in his fb wall.
Meanwhile, my unsolicited advice to the following:

PNP Director Getulio Napenas -- you apologize to the public and the families of the 44 dead cops, or you commit suicide. You bastard liar.

President Aquino -- you also apologize to the public and the families of the 44 dead cops. You tolerated a suspended bureaucrat to run the show for a highly risky but ego-tripping show.

Nonoy Oplas
---------------

Three short essays by Raffy Aquino

TEMPLATE

(February 19, 2015)

The intrusion was a catastrophic failure. The Board of Inquiry convened by government to look into it would conclude that the fiasco was due to the early inability to realize that success was impossible by covert means, insufficient ammunition, and the inadequacy of air cover brought about by attempts at plausible deniability.

An independent audit group within the agency that organised the mission would later report that the following factors significantly contributed to its tragic results: (a) the agency’s own failure to realistically assess risks and to adequately communicate information and decisions internally and with other government principals; (b) poor internal management of communications and staff; and (c) lack of stable policies and/or contingency plans. While the audit findings were contested by the agency’s top management, its head and other key officers were all forced to resign.

As a result of the fiasco, the President was compelled to publicly declare that "victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan ... Further statements, detailed discussions, are not to conceal responsibility because I'm the responsible officer of the Government ..."

I refer of course to the CIA, JFK, and the Bay of Pigs.

---------

* This news from PhilStar, February 20, 2015)

Medyo bastos na ang pangangatwiran ng pulis na 'to.

You plan a covert commando-style intrusion into MILF territory premised on your classification of the MILF as "enemy forces" and then conveniently substitute "time on target" for "prior coordination." Then you feign surprise that the MILF fired on the armed intruders you sent into their villages under cover of darkness.

You conveniently substitute "time on target" for "prior coordination" and then expect the army to provide artillery cover at a moment's notice. You had months to plan and train yet were unable to provide information adequate to guide artillery.

You conveniently substitute "time on target" for "prior coordination" and then expect the CCCH and IMT to order the insurgents to cease firing on your men at a moment's notice. "Prior coordination" through the CCCH was agreed upon precisely because it is not possible for it or the IMT to just walk into a firefight that had already started and miraculously stop the firing simply at the wave of a hand. You did not know this?

You blame the army for not mobilising to reinforce your men at a moment's notice but you yourself cannot account for the failure of the 300 plus cops you had in reserve very near the encounter sites to help their besieged comrades, other than saying they had to make way for the CCCH and IMT (who were not moving fast enough according to you) who were trying to diffuse the situation you created.

You stand with pride and accept responsibility yet you refuse to acknowledge the actual, specific mistakes you yourself -- not the MILF, not the AFP, not the CCCH-IMT -- made. You create this horrific mess that kills your people and then blame everyone else except yourself.

Yet you are no naive simpleton and scapegoat manipulated by cleverer and bigger men and then left twisting in the wind. The assumption is that there is a good head to accompany those two stars you have on your shoulders.

Matalino ka pero hindi ka marunong gumalang. Ano ba ang tingin mo sa mga kababayan mo? Tanga? As I said, nakakabastos na ang pulis na 'to.

----------- 

DINAGA

(February 21, 2015)

Parang yung mag-oovertake ka sa highway, palapit ng tulay o sa kurbada o sa paahon na hindi mo tanaw yung parating. Dahil nga alanganin, sa kalagitnaan, habang nasa oncoming lane ka na, pinanghinaan ka ng loob. Bigla mong naisip na medyo eng-eng yung desisyon mo. Isip -isip. Preno ka ng kaunti para makabalik sa likuran ng bus na uunahan mo sana. Pero bumagal din yung bus para paraanin ka. Aarangkada ka ngayon pero meron nang parating na nag-fla-flasher na. Papano na ngayon?

Ang patakaran mo, peace process, cease fire, at prior coordination. Official policy mo yan. Tapos dahil sa sulsol ng suspendidong pulls na kaibigan mo o ng Amerikano, tatalikuran mo young sarili mong policy. Magbibilin ka sa kaibigang pulis na siguraduhing matumba yung mga target at bilang afterthought, na siya na ang bahala sa coordinate-coordinate na yan.

Nang magkaipitan, biglang naalala mo yung policy ng gobyerno mo - peace process, cease fire, prior coordination. Shit, sabit. So taktika mo na lang, damage control - awatin na lang ang artillery, lalo na air cover, hinay-hinay na lang sa reinforcements. Pulis naman yang mga yan, handang mamatay para sa bayan. Plausible deniability na lang kahit hindi masyadong plausible.

So, dahil inconsistent ka, napasok ka sa alanganin. Head-on collision. At dahil kinapos ka ng tapang at dangal, deny-deny na lang, fudge-fudge na lang, spin-spin na lang.

Yun na nga - dinaga.

------------

See also:

MILF, BIFF, PNP and the Fallen 44, February 02, 2015

MILF, BIFF, and the Fallen 44, Part 3, February 03, 2015

MILF, PNP SAF and the Fallen 44, Part 4, February 16, 2015 

War War is Stupid, February 16, 2015

Fat Free Econ 55: The President's 5th SONA and Market-Oriented Reforms

* This is my article yesterday in interaksyon.com.
-----------

Overall, the President's State of the Nation Address (SONA) was good. More statesman-like, less combative. He mentioned several liberal and free market-leaning policies, which is good and consistent with his party affiliation. But there was also an overall hangover belief that government can do and will do almost everything for the people.

Some liberal and free market reforms that the President mentioned in his address are the following:

1. More airline competition as a result of ICAO, European Union (EU) and US Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) upgrade of Philippine aviation security. Thus, more flights between Manila on the one hand, and Europe and the US on the other can be expected

2. More labor conciliation via Department of Labor’s Single entry Approach (SEnA), resulting in less strikes and industrial conflict, which will help attract investors.

3. More competition and less monopolization in Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) project contracts after the removal of letter of intent in public works bidding.

4. More competition in PPP projects like the Mactan-Cebu International Airport (MCIA) and NAIA Expressway. Winning bidders paid government a premium amounting to P14 billion and P11 billion, respectively.

5. Various infrastructure projects that will be undertaken by private developers at little or no cost to the government, such as (a) Tarlac-Pangasinan-La Union Expressway (TPLEX), (b) Metro Manila Skyway 3, (c) Kaliwa Dam, (d)  Laguna Lakeshore Expressway Dike, (e) LRT South and East extensions, (f) Busuanga Airport, and so on.

The President though made this opening statement which set the tone for the rest of his address: "It is as if you are watching two hundred TV channels at the same time. You need to understand not just what is unfolding before you—you also need to know what happened before, and where it could all lead.… you must have a response for every question, suggestion, and criticism—and you must have all the answers even before the questions are asked."

This is not so comfortable to hear because the President or the government is implying that they are playing God who knows everything and can provide answers to everything. It can be an invitation to central planning. I have no intention of attacking the President but would rather that he mentioned in his SONA, or in future speeches, things like the following.

1. More jobs were created by the private sector as the government has reduced business taxes and bureaucracies and other difficult/complicated requirements.

2. The projected power crisis starting next year can be addressed by DOE and other agencies stepping back from too many requirements and allowing more private power developers to come in with minimum restrictions and permits to submit.

3. Rice prices can go down by (a) deregulating rice importation and allowing more competition among legitimate importers and (b) reducing or removing the rice import tax of around 40 percent (previously 50 percent). The President mentioned that even rice importation, which should have been left to the private sector in a competitive environment, must remain: "This February, the NFA Council approved the importation of an additional 800,000 metric tons, in fulfilment of our buffer stocking requirement… This July as well, we approved the immediate importation of 500,000 metric tons of rice through open bidding. The NFA also has the standby authority to import an additional 500,000 metric tons to prepare for the effects of calamities on harvests and rice prices."

Government monopoly or full control of rice importation is so 80s or even early 90s, before the World Trade Organization (WTO) was created in 1996. We are stuck in a Jurassic philosophy that government must continue its rice importation monopoly. The protected groups in the government, both at NFA-DA and their accredited private importers, are the beneficiaries of this faulty policy. Rice should be as cheap as possible. If cheap rice should come from Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia or India, so be it. Government should reduce or abolish the high import tax and abolish the NFA monopoly. The NFA can continue as a regulator but not as player and proprietor at the same time.

4. No need for a supplemental budget for 2014 to evade the DAP controversy. Additional budget request looks questionable. The total budget in 2013 was P1.88 trillion. This year, it is P2.41 trillion (P 1.61 trillion new appropriations + P 0.80 trillion automatic appropriation), or P530 B higher than last year's budget. This is not enough? Half a trillion peso increase in just one year and not yet enough?

Table 1. Outstanding Debt, Interest Payment and Total Expenditures (in billion pesos)

Sources: (1) Bureau of Treasury (BTr), http://www.treasury.gov.ph/statdata/yearly/yr_outstandingdebt.pdf.  

(3) and (4) BTr, http://www.treasury.gov.ph/statdata/yearly/yr_cor_expenditures.pdf

* DBM, General Appropriations Act (GAA) 2014  http://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/GAA/GAA2014/Summary.pdf

** New appropriations P1,608.503 billion + automatic appropriations P796.029 billion.

It is true that the government’s interest payment burden has been declining. However, a P353-billion interest payment this year is no laughing matter. The public is angry at the reported P10 billion Janet Napoles plunder in over 10 years or so, but is indifferent to the P353 billion interest payment in just one year -- a big transfer of money from average taxpayers to rich institutions like private banks and bondholders, as well as huge government financial institutions like the SSS and GSIS.

5. Expanding the AFP’s pool of battle ships, navy cutters, jet fighters, combat choppers and other armaments, the huge resources to finance them should not come largely or entirely from additional taxes or huge borrowings, but from long-term lease or privatization of certain AFP/DND assets and properties.

6. Reforming the Bureau of Customs (BOC) and appointing officials who have more integrity is a good move. But as the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) comes closer (more than one year to go) plus various bilateral and regional free trade agreements, the power of BOC to collect high import taxes and impose non-tariff measures that effectively discourage more international trade should be limited and restricted.

7. Extension of the no-timetable Agrarian Reform (AR) program or forced redistribution of certain private lands does not encourage early and big investments in agri-business and corporate farming. A Congressional bill of extended notice of coverage -- effectively an extended AR program -- should not prosper.

The President is a Liberal, not a socialist like Bayan Muna or Akbayan, nor a populist like the other political parties. Let us expect more liberal and market-oriented policies from him and his team in his remaining year.

------------

See also: 

Fat-Free Econ 17: SONA, the Budget and Debt, July 22, 2012

Fat Free Econ 51: Ten Things About the Meralco Rate Hike, December 28, 2013 

Fat Free Econ 52: Optimism in 2014, January 02, 2014

Fat Free Econ 53: WESM, Myths and Realities, January 22, 2014

Fat Free Econ 54: WEF and East Asia Growth Story, May 20, 2014

The President's SONA, 2010, July 26, 2010
The President's SONA 2011, July 24, 2011
The President's SONA 2011, part 2, July 26, 2011

The President's SONA 2012, July 23, 2012

Rule of Law 16: On the New SC Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno

From so many lawyers in the Philippines, among them whom I highly respect is Atty. Theodore "Ted" Te. Not only that he was a friend way back in our undergrad days in UP Diliman in the mid-80s, I like the way he speaks frankly on many issues.

After the announcement of the new Supreme Court (SC) Chief Justice, UP Law Professor Ma. Lourdes Sereno, Ted posted these in his facebook wall. I like his opinions, so I am reposting them here.
---------

"For such a time as this": It is a landmark appointment in two ways--Chief Justice Sereno is the first female to sit as such and, unless sooner removed or resigned, she will also serve for the equivalent of the terms of three Presidents. It is also a nod to the past, specifically to the "deep selection" that the first President Aquino favored, with the Chief Justice bypassing all of her colleagues who were nominated for the same Office.

Chief Justice Sereno was my professor and colleague at the faculty of the University of the Philippines. A deeply prayerful person wont to quote scripture together with legal provisions, her biggest challenge right now is to transform--(a) herself from the Court's dissenter to the Court's leader and consensus builder by showing that she can do more than write courageous and stinging dissents, and (b) her image as the current President's favored one (being the first to be appointed as Associate and the first to be appointed as Chief Justice under his watch) by displaying, if necessary and where appropriate, an unexpected ingratitude to the appointing power. In doing so, she will thereby transform the Court that she now leads.

As I did when I learned of her appointment as Associate Justice (which was the last time I texted her), I offer her now my congratulations for the appointment and my prayers for courage, wisdom,strength and protection in the years ahead. Perhaps the call for her, as Chief Justice, is to not remain silent and hold her peace lest relief and deliverance rise from another place but to appreciate that she has been gifted with high office "for such a time as this." (Esther 4:14)

The President's SONA 2012

The President’s third State of the Nation Address (SONA) will start in about 1 1/2 hour from now. Seems to be a lucky day for the President, the sky has cooperated, cloudy but no rain, the Sun is showing up a bit, after four days. Usually SONA day is SONAbath as the rains, heavy or mild, would fall on that day. July to September are the three wettest months of the year always.

Meanwhile, thousands of anti-government protesters are out on the streets near Batasan, the venue of the annual SONA. People who complain against certain programs of the government and exclaim, “anak ng tokwa” or “SONAmatofu”.

Government climatism bureaucracies like the Climate Change Commission (CCC) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) keep pounding on “fight climate change” and “fight man-made warming”. How can they fight something that is naturally occurring? Climate change is purely natural, warming-cooling-warming-cooling, in endless, natural, multi-decadal cycles. And global warming should mean less rain and less flood, not more; less snow, not more. They just keep deceiving the public to justify their huge budget and junkets to various global climate meetings.

A SONA is a summary of the administration’s achievement of the past year or two, and a list of promises of what it intends to do the next year to improve the lives of the citizens. When promises are not met, people often exclaim, “anak ng tokwa” or other worse terms. From what I observed among the promises in the President’ SONA in 2010 and 2011, here are some of the SONAmatofu.

One, reduce business bureaucracies. He said in SONA 2010, “Ang walang-katapusang pabalik-balik sa proseso ng pagrehistro ng pangalan ng kumpanya, na kada dalaw ay umaabot ng apat hanggang walong oras, ibababa na natin sa labinlimang minuto. Ang dating listahan ng tatlumpu't anim na dokumento, ibababa natin sa anim. Ang dating walong pahinang application form, ibababa natin sa isang pahina.”

SONAmatofu, this did not happen in 2011, and did not happen this year. The volume of business bureaucracies, both at the local and national government levels, generally have remained the same or even got worse. A few cities though, like Quezon City I heard, were able to simplify their business registration and/or renewal procedure and hence, shorten the process. But many have remained bureaucratic. If the government has succeeded in that promise, it should have figured prominently in his SONA 2011 or in his speeches lately, but they did not.

Two, imprisonment for the corrupt, SONA 2011. Aside from former President Gloria Arroyo and the father-son Ampatuan clan, there seems to be no other high profile corrupt officials who went to prison. At least three high profile personalities accused of murder have remained at large – former Congressman Ruben Ecleo of Dinagat Island (murder of his wife), former Palawan Governor Joel Reyes (accused mastermind of the killing of media and environmentalist Gerry Ortega, and former AFP General and party list Cong. Jovito Palparan (accused mastermind in the abduction and murder of two UP students, Empeno and Cadapan).

Cases like these of powerful people committing serious crimes and not getting arrested while ordinary folks are being penalized for minor concerns like driving a motorcycle without helmet or driving a car with a busted headlight, make the citizens’ trust of the police and the government in general to remain low. But even if they distrust the police and the government in general, people simply have to pay lots of taxes and fees to sustain the various bureaucracies in government, from national down to local governments.

Three, lower unemployment rate, SONA 2011. The latest labor force survey of the National Statistics Office (NSO) showed that as of April 2012, the unemployed plus underemployed (those with jobs but are seeking additional work) constituted 26.2 percent of the total labor force. This is still high, more than one-fourth of Filipinos looking for jobs are either jobless or have jobs but are looking for extra work mainly to augment their low income.

Part of the explanation why this is so is in problem #1 above. To start a simple barber shop, bread shop, internet shop, carinderia, etc., one needs a barangay permit, electrical permit, health and sanitation permit, fire department permit, Mayor’s business permit, BIR-SSS-DTI permits, etc., with their corresponding taxes and fees, and penalties for delayed registration and payment. So the formal sector’s capacity to generate jobs is drastically limited. And that is how the informal sector, micro- and small entrepreneurs who go on with their wares, are subject to extortion by some local governments and the police for lack of necessary business permits. SONAmatofu.

Lest this article be accused of endless whining and complain, there were also promises in the past two Presidential SONA that were attained. Among them:

One, no more wang-wang, SONA 2010. People thought, me included, that it was just a short-term campaign, but so far it has been sustained, for two years now. Hats off to the President and his administration for such achievement, both symbolic and actual.

Two, bring the South China Sea (SCS) or West Philippine Sea (WPS) conflict to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), SONA 2010 and 2011. This is a significant action that must be sustained, to further internationalize the issue, non stop. Use various regional and international fora (UN, APEC, ASEAN, etc.) to engage China at the diplomatic level, never at the military and warships level.

Three, some governance-related measures like having the new Ombudsman, compensation for victims of Martial Law, children immunization law, etc.

The President will definitely have a long list of its own definition or perception of achievements over the past two years in office. But two important measures that it has failed to act are the enactment of a Freedom of Information (FOI) bill and controlling the rising public debt.

While it is true that FOI is already in the Constitution, there are no details how government agencies can be penalized for not being transparent to the citizens and taxpayers. And while the ratio of public debt to GDP has declined somewhat, from about 60 percent a few years ago to around 50 percent today, this ratio is still high. A high public is a big problem that requires big payment from taxpayers, not from politicians and legislators. At around P328 billion a year in interest payment alone, average for 2010 to 2012, this problem will continue to hound us as it is the single biggest problem in many European and North American economies now.

But more than waiting for what the government will promise, or over-discussing what it has not promised and not delivered, it is important that citizens’ action – more personal and parental/guardian responsibility in running our own lives, our households and communities, more civil society and voluntary organizations’ involvement – be put into action always.

Government is coercion. By expecting less from government, by demanding less from government, and demanding that government should confiscate less from our pockets and savings, slowly but surely, we should be able develop a more peaceful, more economically dynamic society.
--------

See also:
SONAnyms and Anthonames, July 25, 2009
The President's SONA, 2010, July 26, 2010
The President's SONA 2011, July 24, 2011
The President's SONA 2011, part 2, July 26, 2011
Fat-Free Econ 17: SONA, the Budget and Debt, July 22, 2012

Fat-Free Econ 17: SONA, the Budget and Debt

* This is my article yesterday in TV5's news portal,
http://www.interaksyon.com/business/38127/fat-free-economics-sona-the-national-budget-and-debt
---------

On his third State-of-the-Nation Address on July 23, President Benigno Aquino III will present a P2-plus trillion budget for next year. The budget is among the most important features of a SONA. It is a direct way of the President saying, “I want to achieve these goals next year and please authorize me this money.”

The P1 trillion budget mark was breached in 2006 and the P2 trillion mark will be set next year, or a span of just seven years. Here are the budget data from 2006 to 2012 taken from the Department of Budget and Management’s Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing on years indicated.

Interest payment has been the single biggest item in the annual budget. For the past seven years including 2012, an average of P22.60 out of every P100 went to interest payment alone.

The direct implication is that the old and endless argument that “government does not have enough money” is simply not true. Government does have plenty of money, but more than a fifth is used to pay its debt. So if government wants to reduce its interest payment and use more money for various services, all it has to do is to drastically cut its annual borrowings. Better yet, stop borrowing even for a year, learn to live within its means and surprise itself that it can survive even without new borrowings.

The second biggest item in the annual budget is subsidy to local government units– the provincial, city, municipal and barangay governments. Over the past seven years until 2012, this item constituted 16.6 percent of the annual budget. And the LGUs are not totally dependent on this transfer. They also have the power to create and collect local taxes, fees and fines, so that total government spending, national plus local, is huge.

One may wonder how the government has accumulated the debt. Below is the direct explanation: each year, expenditures were always larger than revenues, with or without economic turmoil, with or without elections. The culture of over-spending, of waste and fiscal irresponsibility, is present in all administrations until the current one.

The good news is that it is possible to have zero deficit and zero borrowing even for a year because this nearly happened in 2007, when the deficit was only P12.4 billion or 0.2 percent of gross domestic product.

We have seen the direct cause of rising public debt. The table below will show how the debt has stockpiled over recent years. The P2 trillion debt mark was reached in 2000 (the last year of the Estrada administration) with a P2.17 trillion debt. In just three years, the P3 trillion mark was broken with a P3.36 trillion debt in 2003. That should be one of the biggest “achievements” of the Arroyo administration.

But in fairness, the Arroyo administration also cut its borrowings in the succeeding years so that the P4 trillion barrier was reached five years after, with a P4.22 trillion debt in 2008.



The PNoy administration breached the P5-trillion debt mark in March this year. The latest data from the Bureau of Treasury shows a P5.15 trillion debt as of May 2012.

Some sectors always harp on their apology and justification that “more borrowing is fine so long as our capacity to pay is there, if not improved.” Really?

If our capacity to pay growing debt has indeed improved with rising economic activity and GDP size, then how come the government is biting on high interest, long-term loans? If one is not desperate for more borrowings because its capacity to pay debt is improving, then one should shun and avoid those high interest loans. But this did not happen. See the table below from DBM’s BESF 2012.

One loan account alone, $1.5 billion 9.5 percent GB 2030 charges us $142.5 million or P6 billion a year assuming a P42:$1 exchange rate. And we will keep paying at this rate, principal amortization not included, until 2030.

The second loan account charges a lower rate of 7.75 percent per year, but $116 million is almost P5 billion a year on interest alone. We are paying P11 billion a year on interest for these two loans alone. This is larger than the 2012 budget of P8.66 billion of the Department of Justice and its five attached agencies. Or a bit lower than the 2012 budget of P13.36 billion of the Supreme Court and the lower courts nationwide.

So if we are to make one wish in the President’s SONA, here is mine: Drastically cut, if not stop, borrowing even for a year, force the entire government bureaucracy, from Executive to Legislative to Judiciary, to live within their means. If not in 2013, perhaps in 2014.

Come on Mr. President, surprise us, surprise yourself and your political detractors. Mrs. Arroyo nearly did it in 2007. You can do it too. Just cut the fat and pork in many government bureaucracies, programs and projects.
--------

See also:
SONAnyms and Anthonames, July 25, 2009
The President's SONA, 2010, July 26, 2010
The President's SONA 2011, July 24, 2011
The President's SONA 2011, part 2, July 26, 2011

Fat-Free Econ 12: Privatizing PAGCOR, June 08, 2012

Fat-Free Econ 13: P2 Trillion of Election Spending and Taxes, June 15, 2012

Fat-Free Econ 14: Traffic, Car-pooling and LTFRB, June 21, 2012

Fat-Free Econ 15: IMF and Freedom From Debt, July 01, 2012

Fat-Free Econ 16: Coal, Climate and Government, July 17, 2012

Corona Trial 2: Impeachment for Beginners

(Note: the original title of this paper was "Rule of Law 14: Impeachment for Beginners")

Here is a good reading material for people who want to understand about impeachment -- removing a high official in the Executive or Judiciary branches of government via Constitutional and legal process, not by street demonstrations and "people power revolution." I got this from facebook and it has been forwarded and shared by several dozen people already via facebook Notes and other blogs.

The author is a friend in the university way back in the 80s. Atty. Theodore "Ted" Te is a small (he's probably less than 5 feet tall) and boyish looking lawyer with a huge brain; he's frank and articulate. In my post yesterday, Rule of Law 4: Impeaching the SC Chief Justice, Ted wrote,"betrayal of public trust is another question (betrayal of my trust? no, I never trusted him at all, nothing to betray)", and that's what I meant of Ted being frank.

The subject of impeachment is the Supreme Court (SC) Chief Justice Renato Corona; the one who instigated the impeachment -- through his partymates and political allies in the House of Representatives is the President of the country, Benigno "Noynoy" Aquino; and the ultimate judge will be the Senate, to be headed by the Senate President, Juan Ponce Enrile.

This is an interesting photo. From left: CJ Corona, Senate President Enrile, and President Aquino. In the hierarchy of political leadership in the country, they are ranked numbers 5, 3 and 1, respectively. Numbers 2 and 4 are the Vice President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Ted explains here the following:
1. the process of impeachment,
2. the options for the accused, in this case, CJ Corona,
3. implications for the accusers, in this case the House of Representatives and indirectly, President Aquino,
4. the eight (8) charges hurled against the accused,
5. the burdens (evidence and tactics) for the accusers, and
6. pursuing accountability and rule of law.

That is why I consider Ted's paper a brief but good reading material for non-lawyers like me and many other citizens.

On a side note, I checked wikipedia's definition of "rule of law" just a few minutes ago and I was disappointed. Wiki (or the last person who edited and defined the term) wrote,

Rule of law is a legal maxim that suggests that governmental decisions be made by applying known principles.

For me this is wrong. Rule of law applies not only to government but also to non-government contracts and decisions. An example: I borrowed XX thousand pesos from a friend with a promise that I will pay him the full amount within one month, with or without interest. A month has passed and I did not pay him, partially or fully, I broke the law or contract with my friend. I can talk to him and ask for an extension in payment timetable, or he can pressure me through various means (peer and friends' pressure, going to court, etc.) so that I will pay as stipulated in our contract.

Now to Ted's paper.
-----------

Hell to the Chief

By Theodore Te
December 14, 2011

In the movie “Gladiator,” Maximus, before leading the armies of Marcus Aurelius to battle, looks to Quintus, his adjutant and gives a simple order, “at my signal, unleash hell.”

On Monday, Dec. 5, 2011, the President gave the signal—when he publicly shamed the Chief Justice raising issues that went to the legality of his appointment as well as the nature of his character at a National Criminal Justice Summit—and his loyal army unleashed hell on the Chief Justice.

One week after, in a stunning demonstration of “all deliberate speed,” 188 members of the House of Representatives, summoned by the Speaker, literally lined up to sign an impeachment complaint which, for many of them, they had yet to read, let alone comprehend.

Corona Trial 1: Impeaching the SC Chief Justice

(Note: original title of this paper was "Rule of Law 13: Impeaching the SC Chief Justice")

I am not a lawyer but being an advocate of the rule of law (the law applies to all, no exception; the law applies equally to unequal people) and highly detesting the rule of men (the law and prohibitions exempt the rulers, apply only to ordinary mortals and enemies of the rulers), I got interested in following the conflict between the heads of two big institutions in the Philippine government. They are the President of the country and head of the Executive Branch, President Noynoy Aquino, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and head of the Judiciary Branch, CJ Renato Corona.

While there was a conflict between the two personalities before, things erupted when the SC granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the travel ban imposed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) against former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (GMA) who wanted to go abroad for "medical treatment" even if she was properly and efficiently treated at St. Luke's Hospital here in Manila. The main issue or fear of the DOJ and the PNoy Aquino government, is that GMA will not come back once they go out of the country knowing the multiple political and electoral scandals that they got involved, all unresolved.

There are many other recent SC decisions that the PNoy government said were mainly favorable to GMA or were hurtful to the current administration.

Also, the issue of "midnight appointment" of CJ Renato Corona, appointed only about 1 or 2 weeks before the term of GMA expired by end-June 2010, when the rules -- I think it's stated in the Constitution, or in certain laws -- say that such and similar appointments should be done within two months (or more) before the end of term of the departing President. This is one of the political baggages that CJ Corona has to contend with while he is sitting at the SC.

I have several friends in facebook, friends while I was still at the University of the Philippines (UP) way back in the 80s, who are bright minds in the legal profession now. I turn to them to get bright legal opinions on issues like this. Such free legal opinions, interactive, thanks to facebook (and twitter too) :-)

1. Marvic Leonen, Dean, UP College of Law:

A. Tweets:

the power of finality given to the SC justices is different from the idea of infallibility. Impeachment is a consti process proving this.

there is a difference between an institution and its incumbent. incumbents must account: do their acts benefit their institution?

B. Facebook:

Imoeachment is a process that allows accountability. When it is used against an incumbent, it should never be mistaken as an affront against the institution where he belongs. Rather, it should be viewed as a way of strengthening that institution. We weaken public institutions whenever we suffer in silence, keep our genuine criticisms private and non-threatening to those in power. Inaction against abuse by incumbents of their power as judges or justices reconstitutes wrongs as rights.

The ability of our courts to determine what is law does not certainly make it the weakest branch of government. Because it has the capacity to officially declare what is legal, determine which hierarchies survive, and suggest what modes of reasoning can be privileged by our legal order; it may well be our most dangerous branch of government.

The legitimacy of a court is usually fostered by the idea that it is a collective body, i.e. that wise men and women check each other's idiosyncrasies. However, when the process of selection of justices become flawed or imbued with too much politics, this assumption fails. Hence the need for external processes to come in, like impeachment.

I like Marvic's opinion here. What was impeached by the House of Representatives (HOR) yesterday where 188 of 284 members signed the impeachment complaint was the head of the SC, not the SC itself. It was the person, not the institution. Besides, HOR impeachment is only part 1 of the 2-steps process. The next battleground will be the decision of the Senate whether they will uphold the decision of the HOR or not.

This is indeed a very divisive act but I think it's worth the effort. The impeachment proceeding vs the SC CJ, perhaps the first in the Philippines, would be a good lesson for those wanting to change the Constitution and correct the current practice that ALL members of the SC including the Chief Justice, are appointed by the President. To me, this already defeats the "Judiciary independece from the Executive" principle.

2. Atty. Theodore "Ted" Te:, faculty member, UP College of Law:

Don't get me wrong. I agree that the CJ can only be removed by impeachment and not by "parinig." He's not the resigning type, if he were, he'd have done it before at the height of the "name and shame" before and after his midnight appointment. I have read the complaint and many of the issues raised in the impeachment complaint are real and are serious wrongs. I seriously believe that the CJ failed to exercise leadership and seriously damaged the Court during the plagiarism investigation--whether that constitutes betrayal of public trust is another question (betrayal of my trust? no, I never trusted him at all, nothing to betray) and one that is addressed to the Senators, 3/4 of them.

My questions go to process, timing and agenda. An impeachment trial should bring enough evidence to convince enough senators to remove not just any public officer but the Chief Justice, head of a separate branch of government; while not proof beyond reasonable doubt, it should be substantial enough to convince presumably independent-minded senators to convict on at least one count. I hope that this complaint is not based on the premise that the CJ will resign to avoid the embarrassment of a trial, like Gutierrez. There's too much riding on this to be working on that premise. Because ultimately, if the complaint is not proven and the CJ is not removed, then the admin will have further weakened an already diluted impeachment mechanism (cf. Oliver Lozano and the mad rush to file preclusive impeachment complaints v. Gloria).

Why now? Before the last session dates of SC? So that no appeal can be made? Doing exactly what it is accusing the SC of doing in the Gloria TRO? If the cases are strong enough to convict, they should be strong enough to withstand parliamentary debate. Its like watching kids quarrel--you sucker punched me, so I'll sucker punch you back. And what's the ultimate agenda? Transform an antagonistic SC into a pliable and "friendly" SC? So, Mr. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot. If that is so, then there's really no difference. Ultimately, this goes back to the "original sin of omission or failure"--they did not prepare the cases against Gloria well ahead of time and so they now need to scramble to prevent what appears to be a junking of the charges hastily filed by the COMELEC-DOJ panel. If this is what the admin is trying to head off, then it will be no better than what Marcos did to the SC.

Dang, I like Ted's opinion too. The PNoy government simply made a big mistake of not filing a single case against GMA since it assumed power in June 30, 2010, until the SC TRO on GMA travel ban was issued, then the current administration scrambled on various political and legal measures.

Back to the rule of law. The law applies to all, no one is exempted and no one can grant exemption. Impeachment is in the Philippine Constitution. The impeachment trial in the Senate next year will be more transparent and more accountable, compared to press releases or acerbic political sound bites issued by the Executive, and sometimes by the Judiciary. The HOR will present evidences and proof to their impeachment case, the SC'S CJ will provide evidences and proof negating the complaints filed by the House, and the Senate must be as objective as possible, not 100 percent of course as legislators belong to political parties and those parties have taken a stand already, explicit or implicit, on the impeachment case.

Supporters of GMA, like two of her sons who are Congressmen, can equally file an impeachment complaint against President Aquino. That is possible but not viable since the ruling political party and its allied parties are affiliated with the President.

This is a big fight between two leaders of two branches of a BIG government. There is danger that both or all three branches will suffer more credibility problems with the people, us ordinary mortals. But by making the process as transparent as possible, any or all of the three branches can gain credibility.

There is too much political and economic power in the hands of the government and its three branches -- the power to regulate and impose various prohibitions and taxation in the lives of the people. It is that big power to regulate and impose prohibitions and restrictions, that attract many of the most shrewd, most clever among us to be in government, in any or all of the three branches.

I believe that a society that really promulgates the rule of law will ultimately have a very lean, minimal and limited government. A government that expands, not restricts, individual freedom. Like strictly imposing the laws against killing, murder, robbery, rape, extortion, land grabbing, kidnapping, and other crimes against persons and their private properties. This way, the government rewards the industrious and hard working (by removing many or all restrictions to entrepreneurship) while it penalizes the lazy, the envious and the criminals.
-----

See also: 
Rule of Law 8: Purpose and Supremacy of the Law, June 15, 2010
Rule of Law 9: Laws, Prohibitions and Corruption, June 30, 2010
Rule of Law 10: On Wang-wang and Government Laws, July 04, 2010
Rule of Law 11: RoL Index, October 15, 2010
Rule of Law 12: Gloria Arroyo, Travel Abroad and the SC, November 16, 2011

Pol. Ideology 20: Liberalism and the Squatters

(This is my article today in thelobbyist.biz with original title, Squatters, land reform and liberalism)

Squatting or settling illegally on land that people do not own or lease, is violation of private property rights. Land reform and forced land redistribution without timetable, is another violation of private property rights. Liberalism is the philosophy that focuses on individual liberty, rule of law and private property rights.

Early last week, there was a news report, Aquino plans massive relocation of squatters. It reported that:

President Beigno Aquino III said late Saturday more than half a million squatter families in Metro Manila will be relocated and receive two hectares of farm land each under his administration’s program on illegal settlers.

He said the government had identified some 1.5 million hectares of farm land that could be distributed to an initial 560,000 squatter families in Metro Manila in a bid to decongest the capital and improve agricultural production nationwide.



 “The Department of Agriculture and the Department of Environment inventory shows we can lend, lease or give two hectares of land per indigent family provided they cultivate agricultural crops, develop, and earn from the land they will live on.

“If they fail to stick to these conditions, the land will be taken from them.”

If this plan will push through, there are several negative implications.

One, it pays to become an illegal settler. By living on other people’s private land, you will be rewarded with land up to two hectares that can become yours. Even ordinary employees cannot afford to buy such huge area of land.

Two, for agribusinessmen and women, the threat of forced land redistribution with no timetable will remain. From former President Cory Aquino’s CARP law of 1998 that was supposed to end in 1998, it was extended to 2008, and further extended to 2013. Looks like it will be re-extended to 2018, or longer. The number of squatters nationwide is rising, not declining. So more private lands will be subjected to forced land redistribution in the next few years to be given to the squatters.

Three, not all squatters are former farmers or have the heart in farming. What can happen is that upon getting the land title or similar proof of ownership or lease, some squatter beneficiaries can sell or transfer the right to use such land to other people, get the money and squat again in other cities, then hope that the existing and the next administrations will give them new subsidies and entitlements.

Four, the spend and spend, borrow and borrow and later, tax and tax policy will continue. Giving away land for free or at highly subsidized price, then provision of various farm and marketing support to land beneficiaries, is a costly and expensive program.

And five, liberalism and (classic) liberal philosophy that are supposed to be implemented by the President and his team who come from the Liberty Party, will be sidelined further, if not forgotten.

One of the big burdens and baggage of the Philippine economy and society is the lack of strict promulgation of the rule of law, of securing private property rights like land. Many people and businessmen will be hesitant to develop certain lands into long-term agribusiness projects because the “land reform with no timetable” will be haunting them for several years more to come.

Liberalism is supposed to be the main philosophy and guiding principle by the current administration that will help shape public policy. But as things unfold, real liberalism is being pushed to the margins while statism and near-socialist policies take center stage.

Let us hope that there will be awakening in the minds of key LP leaders. That LP stands for liberalism and individual liberty, not statism or socialism.
-------

On "No taxes, No Government"


This is among the common misconception, honest or deliberate. that some people, academics and consultants, NGO leaders included, would portray someone who advocates minimal and limited government. Personally, I have NEVER advocated that, and I do not believe in anarchy or zero government.

Government is necessary, I wrote several times, on certain functions. I believe in BIG government -- to run after killers, murderers, thieves, rapists, terrorists, bombers, kidnappers, carnappers, land-grabbers, other criminals, especially the organized and well-armed gangs.

Thus, we need taxes to finance government to perform such function, to promulgate the rule of law, to protect private property rights, and citizens' right to life against aggression. 


But we need no taxes for government to over-regulate entrepreneurship and job creation. We need no taxes to create and expand various bureaucracies that do nothing but make the life of job creators more difficult and more miserable.

"No taxes, no government, no subsidies" is a classic paranoid reply by many people who do not understand or appreciate the philosophy of more personal responsibility, more individual freedom, limited government and free markets.

Someone redefined the excise tax as a tax on goods where "the source is scarce or expensive". This is wrong. If this is correct, then the government should also slap medicines, medical equipment, construction and housing materials, others with excise tax. These are "necessary product/s, but we do not produce it out of thin air."
-----------

See also
Pol. Ideology 14: Liberalism, Democratism and Coercion, January 18, 2010
Pol. Ideology 15: Socialism, Conservatism and Liberalism, March 08, 2010

Pol. Ideology 16: Liberalism and Social Opportunity, July 29, 2010

Pol. Ideology 17: The LP and the Philippine President, November 03, 2010

Pol. Ideology 18: John Lennon and Liberty, Purpose of the Law, December 15, 2010

Pol. Ideology 19: What is the Role of Government?, March 08, 2011

Pol. Ideology 17: The LP and the Philippine President

In a facebook status by one of my friends, she observed how a number of top officials of the current administration under President Benigno S. Aquino III (BSA3) seem too juvenile and arrogant in their work.

I commented in her fb status my personal observation: where is the Liberal Party (LP)? BSA3 ran on a liberal platform, not socialist or nationalist or pure populist platform. Thus, the liberal agenda as defined in their campaign program and promises should prevail in this administration's agenda. Not the specific agenda and personal interests of people that BSA3 employed outside the party.

Many of the officials appointed by the President, I observe, are non-party members. They are not part of (LP) party ideology and party discipline. Although I also observe that LP's practice of what is "liberal economics, liberal politics" is also not so distinctive. Their liberalism is focused too much on promises of "good governance/anti-corruption" platform.

When I voted last May, I held on the party philosophy. I don't believe in socialism, I dont believe in nationalism and anti-globalization, I don't believe in pure populism. I believe in liberalism, especially the classic liberal (not american liberal or neo-neo-liberal label) philosopy, emphasizing individual liberty, more personal responsibility.

All political parties in the last elections campaigned hard on anti-corruption platform, so it is difficult to differentiate one from the other, except the personalities and standard bearers of the party. The LP and BSA3 should go back to their liberal agenda during the campaign.

I just checked the LP website, I like their "Liberal Vision":

The freedom of every individual is at the core of our beliefs. Liberals aims to build a society in which individual men and women are entitled to pursue their aims, develop their talents and fulfill their potential free from arbitrary interference, and are able to exercise real power over the institutions that govern their lives. The necessary condition for the creation of an environment in which individuals can genuinely prosper and to maximize their potential is by enabling them to take and use political power.

We believe that the power of the individual is best expressed and secured within communities. Communities help people not just to realize their rights, but to recognize their responsibilities to others and to broaden the common good. This is the necessary social framework without which individuals cannot truly flourish. The empowerment of individuals therefore also requires empowering the communities to which they belong.

source: http://www.liberalparty.ph/platform/vision.htm

Definition like this makes me a fan of liberalism as an ideology. It is a beautiful ideology. Focus on individual freedom. Individual rights, personal responsibility. As opposed to forced and collective freedom, collective rights, that tend to step or disregard individual freedom.

Go liberal, LP and BSA3.

It is your promise. It is your commitment. You are duty-bound to stick to it.

* Six months ago, I wrote this related paper,

Party-building vs. Personality-building

April 26, 2010

(This is my article for the "People's Brigada News", April 21, 2010)

A friend articulately wrote an article, "Why _____ is the Best for Philippine Democracy and Development?" Among his main arguments are:

1. Candidate’s program is the "politics for God and country".
2. His promise of "Walang Korapsyon"
3. His ability to mobilize the spirit of volunteerism.
4. His 7E's platform for democracy and development (Eradicate bad governance, Energize the economy, Empower the people, other motherhood calls).

In the upcoming Presidential elections, there are at least 4 candidates from small political parties. While they all have something useful to contribute to Philippine politics as they expand the choices for the voters, there is something problematic with their insistence to run for President.

The purpose of elections is to allow the most organized political party or coalition to capture political power, nothing less than that. So some politicians sell their souls (and their family members' souls) to the devil, just to capture political power. Other politicians use charisma, emotions, political pedigree, etc., to achieve the same objective.

My main critique of politicians from small political parties running for President, is that they are weak, if not lousy, in political party building. They focused on personality-building, highlighting the personal achievements, beliefs and advocacies of their “standard-bearer.”

The main vehicle to capture political power is through a political party. The party offers a particular political and social philosophy or ideology to the voters and the public. Another party offers a different, if not opposing, political and social philosophy. A winning or victorious party or coalition should implement what it promised to the voters. Its victory can be seen as a reflection of the dominant political philosophy embraced by the voters.

If the political party is not strong and big enough, it should build an alliance or coalition with other smaller political parties that share the same political philosophy on major concerns, so that the coalition will win and capture political power.

The politicians from small parties did little to develop a broad-based political party from the grassroots between 2004 and 2010. They just shot up from somewhere a few months before the elections and offer themselves as the "best" leader with no sufficient leadership to show in actual political party-building or coalition-building. They cannot even coalesce and unite among themselves, none of them would give way to support the other principled-but- small groups. They all want to be proclaimed the "best", or the "most honest" or what have you, presidential candidate.

The process of party-building, rather than personality-building, is also a good measurement of how transparent and how accountable the politicians of a particular party are. Those with dictatorial tendencies or those who do not stick to the party philosophy and ideology would see their political party thinning out and breaking apart soon.

My personal bias is to vote for a presidential candidate or political party who will promise or plan to have a smaller government, smaller and fewer taxes, allow bigger role for personal responsibility, individual liberty and market competition. Since I cannot find such political party now, and I am lazy to put up my own political party or work with other individuals to push such advocacies at the political party level, then I will go for candidates and a political party that approximates my personal bias and philosophy. I will vote for candidates who have the least record of heavy state intervention, those who enacted the fewest laws, regulations and prohibitions. This option is a hundred times better than offering myself or some friends to the public as the "best" or "most honest" or "savior" or what have you adjectives.

A citizens’ movement for bigger personal responsibility, lesser government responsibility in exchange for fewer and smaller taxes, regulations and prohibitions, should start now and the coming months. The pressure to politicians during campaign period would push them to become more welfarists and subsidy-giving, with the implicit and inevitable consequence of retaining the existing high and multiple taxes, fees and charges. Or raising taxes later on.

Such citizens’ movement need not be centralized. In fact, it is better that such movement will be decentralized to allow greater leeway and dynamism for individuals and groups that advocate the philosophy for greater personal responsibility and greater individual freedom. Party-building can start from such initiatives. Personality-building should be minimized. The idea should prevail over the personality. Ideas can last for years and centuries while personalities can last for only a few years or decades.

---------

See also:

Pol. Ideology 11: Liberalism, Democratism & Authoritarianism, January 04, 2009

Pol. Ideology 12: Lao Tzu, Cooperative Individualism, February 07, 2009

Pol. Ideology 13: Liberty and Liberty Forum, the LP, March 19, 2009
Pol. Ideology 14: Liberalism and Democratism, January 18, 2010
Pol. Ideology 15: Socialism, Conservatism and Liberalism, March 08, 2010

Pol. Ideology 16: Liberalism and Social Opportunity, July 29, 2010