AFTER decades of struggle in the southernmost Philippine island group, there is a promising chance for peace in Muslim Mindanao. One essential component for enhancing the humanitarian and socio-economic situation of the conflict-affected population in Southern Philippines is open access to political decision-making for everybody. This is crucial in order to cope with the Bangsamoro aspiration for true self-determination but it requires a bottom-up empowerment of citizens involving themselves in membership-based political parties and movements.

So far, the governmental machinery in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) reflects traditional clan- and personality-based politics. The rulers of the ARMM which was created by Republic Act 6734 of 1989 do not deliver the kind of self-determination that the Bangsamoro people strived for so many years. In fact, the political structure of the ARMM reflects the overall presidential form of government in the Philippines. While the region’s executive branch is headed by the regional governor and vice governor, the Regional Legislative Assembly represents the legislative branch of the ARMM government. However, this distribution of power is not in accordance with all the agreements that had been contracted in the past Mindanao peace talks.

A key milestone in the peace talks between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) was the signing of the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro political region (FAB) at Malacañang Palace in October 2012. The FAB outlined the road map for replacing the ARMM by a new Bangsamoro political entity that establishes an electoral system suitable to a ministerial form of government. The Bangsamoro was supposed to be governed by a Basic Law (BBL) and maintain an asymmetric relationship with the central government.

However, it is evident that not much has changed since then. The challenges in passing the BBL in Congress still remain and a Bangsamoro parliament that consists of political party representatives cannot be established. Clans and personalities still play the major role in the politics of Muslim Mindanao as long as the foundations for a new style of politics are being undermined.

A parliamentary set-up could replace the system of patronage and poor governance. Political parties would take on greater significance to clan leaders and other influential personalities.

But this requires the formation of genuine political parties that the electorate can vote for at the regional level. Those political parties need to regard their members—the connecting link to the civil society—as the fundamental part and offer sufficient possibilities for intra-party discussions and formation of opinion. Otherwise, you create a situation that can be observed nationwide: a lack of credible political platforms that reflect a diversity of political ideologies but rather political parties as vehicles for political and business elites.

In order to develop a political identity, the members, who preferably originate from large portions of social groups, must have the capacities on how to organize their party as well as on how to cope with new issues and questions in view of current day-to-day developments and social change. This empowerment through political education needs to be done in order to avoid the domination of political parties by personalities.

Is this bottom-up empowerment of civil society and political parties in the poorest and least economically developed region in the country possible? The answer is yes.

For instance, the MILF has already formed the United Bangsamoro Justice Party (UBJP) and let its members and inner circle actively participate in existing political training activities. The Centrist Democratic Party (CDP) among with its youth wing Centrist Democratic Youth Association of the Philippines (CDYAP) is already active with a Bangsamoro chapter. Other marginalized civil society and indigenous people’s groups are also active in preparing their organizations for more active political involvement.

In the end, this development of a pluralistic political landscape concomitant with good governance would lead to a stronger and more unified Bangsamoro because of its inclusive approach: both genuine political parties and civil society organizations which are member-based and less personality-based can let people benefit from their programs through incorporating their ideas into politics.

But this news seems to be disregarded by the policymakers in Manila. Lessons from the past have shown that violations of the various peace arrangements have not been beneficial for the entire country. If this trend will just continue as before, social harmony in this part of Southern Philippines cannot be achieved.

The author is Project Manager of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS) Philippines Office. He is responsible for the implementation of the European Union-funded project “Democratic Party Development Bangsamoro (DEPAdev)”. Prior to joining KAS, Hendrik Mollenhauer was a consultant at the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) Country Office Thailand in Bangkok. He holds a master’s degree in economic sociology, having studied at the University of Trier (Germany).

MANILA, Philippines - Plunder is back in the list of offenses punishable by death, Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez said yesterday.

The decision came after House leaders were apprised of possible irregularities in a casino contract between the government and a private group, during a hearing by the committee on good government.

“This contract is highly disadvantageous to the government. The amount involved is P234 million in taxpayers’ money. That is plunder. In view of that, we will retain plunder in the death penalty bill,” Alvarez said.

He was referring to the November 2014 contract entered into by the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. (Pagcor) with Vanderwood Management Corp. for the opening of a casino at a hotel the latter is building at the old Army and Navy Club complex near Rizal Park in Manila. The city government, which owns the property, leased it to Oceanville Hotel and Spa Corp. for P300,000 a month.

Oceanville subleased it to Vanderwood, which in turn leased it to Pagcor for P13 million a month.

Alvarez directed the good government committee to recommend the filing of a plunder case with the Office of the Ombudsman against former Pagcor officials and private individuals involved in the deal, led by then chairman Cristino Naguiat Jr.

He said the anomalous deal has given him and his colleagues enough reason to keep the crime of plunder in the death penalty bill.

Last Wednesday, House members agreed in caucus to delist plunder from the measure. The crime involves the stealing or misuse of at least P50 million in public funds.

Alvarez said the total amount involved in the Pagcor-Vanderwood transaction was P3.2 billion, the amount of rent the state gaming agency had committed to pay Vanderwood for 15 years.

The Speaker said Pagcor already paid Vanderwood P234 million representing advance rentals for 12 months and security deposit for six months.

“You’ve already given them P234 million even if you’ve not occupied even a single square inch of space of the leased property. Is that not highly anomalous? What you are leasing in effect is just air. Meanwhile, Vanderwood already used your P234 million,” he told Naguiat and other former Pagcor officials.

He said if current Pagcor officers honor the Vanderwood contract, they too would be liable for plunder.

Alvarez asked Vanderwood representatives if the casino-hotel they were building was already finished.

Company president Manuel Sy and the firm’s lawyer Edgar Asuncion said the 6,500-square-meter space leased by Pagcor “is 90-percent complete.”

Naguiat claimed the transaction was aboveboard and was in fact cleared by the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC).

Transportation Undersecretary Raoul Creencia, who was OGCC head in 2014, said though he gave his blessing to the deal, “it was Pagcor that ultimately made the decision.”

Majority Leader Rodolfo Fariñas told Creencia that he should have checked the contract the Manila city government entered into with Oceanville.

“Under the contract, the property would be transformed into a lodging, dining and entertainment facility. There is no provision for a casino here. The city government could intervene and seek the invalidation of the deal between Oceanville and Vanderwood,” he said.

He said there was nothing in the documents that indicated Sy and a certain Mario Leabres were authorized to sign for Vanderwood and Oceanville, respectively.

Answering questions from Fariñas, Asuncion said it was he who introduced Leabres to Sy, adding the three were his friends.

But when requested to locate Leabres, who snubbed yesterday’s hearing, Asuncion declined.

Pampanga Rep. Juan Pablo Bondoc, author of the resolution seeking an inquiry into the Pagcor-Vanderwood deal, said the Commission on Audit has asked incumbent Pagcor officials to recover the P234 million the agency advanced to Vanderwood.

Deferment pushed

Anti-death penalty lawmakers, meanwhile, are pushing for the deferment of plenary debates on the revival of the death penalty bill while the Senate is still deliberating on the fate of the country’s treaty with an international human rights group.

Reps. Edcel Lagman and Raul Daza are urging Alvarez to hold off debates on House Bill 4727 while senators are preparing to vote on whether to uphold Manila’s commitment to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Second Optional Protocol.

“This is a bicameral legislature. No one acts solely without the consent of the other. We must suspend all proceedings in the House and avoid a clash. Otherwise, we will only be engaged in an exercise in futility,” Lagman of Albay pointed out.

Daza, who represents northern Samar, agrees. “I urge the House leadership to pause and rethink about the debates in the plenary, because all the time, energy and resources by the House on this bill will be laid to waste.”

Fourteen senators have signed a resolution expressing the sense that any treaty or international agreement should not be valid without Senate concurrence.

Duterte given patently false data

First of 2 Parts

PRESIDENT Duterte last week argued for the return of the death penalty by referring to the purported statistics reported by the Bureau of Corrections head Benjamin de los Santos in his recent testimony to the Senate.

The bureaucrat testified: “BuCor statistics show that before the abolition of the death penalty we had 189 inmates convicted for the commission of heinous crimes. After such abolition, a staggering 6,024 were sentenced for heinous crimes, an astonishing 3,280 percent increase.”

That’s a total lie, a patent fabrication: The Senate must cite the BuCor official for perjury, and for attempting to fool it to pass a law re-imposing the death penalty by presenting false information.

There is no such data: Neither the BuCor nor its mother agency, the justice department, has collated information on convictions on heinous crimes.

The only BuCor data that could approximate the number of “inmates convicted for heinous crimes” are the number of its yearly admissions of convicts. The number of those convicted of heinous crimes—such as murder, rape, and kidnapping— may be estimated based on its data that 48 percent of convicts in its prisons are “maximum security” inmates.

(To clarify, the BuCor under the justice department is charged with supervising six national prisons, including the biggest, the national penitentiary at the New Bilibid Prison, with its inmates consisting of those already convicted and with sentences of more than three years. On the other hand, the inmates in the jails of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, which is under the Philippine National Police, are those still on trial and with convictions of less than three years.)

As the data below show, after the June 2006 ban of the death penalty, there was very minimal increase in the number of those convicted for murders and rapes, the two most frequent crimes punishable by death, with very little deviation from the yearly average of 2,558 incidences.

The slight increases are due of course to the increases in our country’s population, which grew from 87 million in 2006 to 101 million in 2015. Indeed, for both 2016 when there was no death penalty, and 2005 when there was, the heinous crime rate per 100,000 population, was the same, at 2.8.

The data therefore indisputably shows that the abolition of the death penalty had not encouraged more heinous crimes, contrary to the claims of the BuCor official and proponents of the death penalty.

The Philippine data isn’t at all surprising: rigorous, scientific studies show that the death penalty has no impact on the incidence of heinous crimes. Two studies in the United States that claimed to prove that the abolition of the death penalty increased murder rates in certain US states, were later proven to be “fundamentally flawed” by that country’s National Research Council.

In fact, murder rates from 1900 to 2010 in American states in which there is no death penalty were even lower than in states with capital punishment. A 2009 survey of criminologists showed that over 88 percent believed that the death penalty was not a deterrent to murder.

The issue is really so commonsensical. As Amnesty International has pointed out: “The threat of execution at some future date is unlikely to enter the minds of those acting under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, those who are in the grip of fear or rage, those who are panicking while committing another crime (such as a robbery), or those who suffer from mental illness or mental retardation and do not fully understand the gravity of their crime.”

In essence, the death penalty has been a remnant from our civilization’s violent past, unenlightened by humanity’s higher values, mainly the recognition of the mystery and wonder of a human life, that took more than a thousand years to develop. We have only learned in the past 50 years that a human does not totally have free will, with his baser instincts capable at times of completely taking over his reason or values, even as we have to pretend we are captains of our souls.

From being a penalty imposed by all nations in the past, 140 nations have abolished it in law and in practice, and only 54 retain it in practice. Only the US (31 out of its 52 states) among the Western nations retain it, and not even “violent” Russia in practice.

It’s not a coincidence that many of the American states that do have the death penalty are those where Christians who take the Bible literally dominate.

Excluding in the discussion China and other nations whose cultures are still dominated by the primacy of the group — as in an ant colony — rather than the individual, the most important reason why there is still capital punishment in this day of enlightenment and age of reason will surprise you.

Religion

It is religion, particularly Christianity and its offshoot, Islam. Christianity and Islam have molded most of humanity’s values for at least a thousand years, and these two have always brainwashed people to believe that God himself sees vengeance as a value to be upheld, that an eye must be paid for an eye taken, a life for a life extinguished.

As late as 1952, Pope Pius XII even made the ridiculous argument that the “State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life.” Rather, he argued, “in expiation of his crime, [the criminal]has already disposed of his right to life.” Until 1969, the Vatican City’s statutes had capital punishment — for the crime of attempting to assassinate the Pope.

Pope Francis has stated that he is against the death penalty, but that it is his personal opinion and he is appealing for a consensus to end the death penalty on the ground that it is “cruel and unnecessary.” The Vatican had officially supported the 2015 United Nations campaign against the death penalty.

But believe it or not, Catholic dogma still doesn’t see anything wrong with capital punishment as a right of the state to defend itself. No wonder the support of many, if not most, Filipinos for the return of capital punishment in this unlucky, dominantly Catholic nation.

We will be the first country to re-impose the death penalty, and the second time around after the ex-general Fidel Ramos rammed a law through Congress in 1993 authorizing it. Gloria Arroyo abolished it in 2006. Duterte wants it back, after given false information.

What a country that keeps changing its mind on such a fundamental issue.

(On Friday, it was not the 2006 abolition of the death penalty that encouraged more crimes, rather it was the incompetence of the BS Aquino III regime and I will show that with facts, figures, and logic.)

CONTEXT and perspective are very important in analyzing a policy, program, plan and activities. These are important to reduce the impact of unintended consequences at the implementation level.

Last February 7, later updated online on February 8, the New York Times published an op-ed article from contributor, Cesar Gaviria, entitled “President Duterte is repeating my mistakes.” If you look at the full article, Gaviria singles out PRRD and uses key words such as “extra-judicial killings, vigilantism, killing of a South Korean businessman, rights and well-being of citizens, etc.” Gaviria, an official of Colombia’s Liberal Party, is apparently monitoring PRRD; he even knew the results of the survey on his popularity. Is he for real? A Latin American leader commenting on an Asian leader as if Manila is like Bogota?

Three takeaways were made: 1) “Throwing more soldiers and police at the drug users is not just a waste of money but also can actually make the problem worse. Locking up nonviolent offenders and drug users almost always backfires, instead strengthening organized crime. That is the message I would like to send to the world and, especially, to President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines. Trust me, I learned the hard way.” 2) “Taking a hard line against criminals is always popular for politicians. I was also seduced into taking a tough stance on drugs during my time as president. The polls suggest that Mr. Duterte’s war on drugs is equally popular. But he will find that it is unwinnable. I also discovered that the human costs were enormous. We could not win the war on drugs through killing petty criminals and addicts. We started making positive impacts only when we changed tack, designating drugs as a social problem and not a military one.” 3) “No matter what Mr. Duterte believes, there will always be drugs and drug users in the Philippines.”

What is Gaviria suggesting? “If we are going to get drugs under control, we need to have an honest conversation. The Global Commission on Drug Policy — of which I am a founding member — has supported an open, evidence-based debate on drugs since 2011.” Mr. Gaviria, that’s six years ago and what has your Global Commission done? What are the learnings? What honest conversation? Colombia exported cocaine to the United States and that is why the US intervened and launched or aided a domestic war in Colombia, right, Mr. Gaviria? You cannot hold the fort and you needed John Wayne because all institutions in Columbia were compromised, right?

Gaviria further said: “We do not believe that military hardware, repressive policing and bigger prisons are the answer. Real reductions in drug supply and demand will come through improving public health and safety, strengthening anticorruption measures — especially those that combat money laundering — and investing in sustainable development.” For your information, PRRD has launched a universal health care program and is not instituting “no Philhealth card” needed to avail of state assistance in health and hospital needs. Duterte has also banged his head on the inability of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) to do a money trail analyses of individuals linked to the drug trade.

Gaviria likewise suggested, “we also believe that the smartest pathway to tackling drugs is decriminalizing consumption and ensuring that governments regulate certain drugs, including for medical and recreational purposes.” Decriminalize consumption of shabu? Rugby? What else would you want decriminalized? Dictate on us, please. If the Philippines should heed an expert like Gaviria, can we charge Colombia for all the unintended consequences that will result from decriminalizing?

Will Colombia give the Philippines for 14 years, $9.3 billion? Yes, Vice President Robredo, Columbia received from the United States under Plan Colombia $9.3 billion for the past 14 years. The Plan’s initial official objective, to reduce by half the amount of cocaine produced in Colombia in the first five years. Cocaine, Madame Vice President! And it failed! And Plan Columbia was the biggest US military aid program outside the Middle East, the biggest in Latin America.

Please tell us, Vice President Robredo, why should we listen to Gaviria and what should we learn from them? You were already on speed by using Gaviria’s op-ed article on February 9, why can’t you be on speed with concrete plans? Gaviria talks, among other things, for “support alternative sentencing for low-level nonviolent offenders and provide a range of treatment options for drug abusers.” Have you actually studied these, Madame Vice President? Are you ready with your concrete plans or you just want to hit the punch bag daily?

Did you know that the Colombian drug trade is estimated at $10 billion and at present accounts for 43 percent of global coca supply (as well as smaller amounts of marijuana and heroin poppy)? And the Philippine drug trade is what? Do we produce like Colombia or are we a transshipment point? Would you want air fumigation in CAR, Madame Vice President, just like what Gaviria had in Colombia?

Well, Colombia is not the Philippines and the Philippines is not Colombia. Colombia has a total area of 1,141,748 sq km while the Philippines has 300,000 sq km, with 61 percent inland waters. Colombia has a population of 49,034,411 (2017 estimate) while the Philippines has 100,981,437 (2015). The Philippines is the eighth most populous country in Asia and 12th in the world. The Philippines’ population density is at 336.60/sq km and Colombia is at 40.74/sq km. The Philippines is an archipelago with 7,641 islands and Colombia is one contiguous area. Clearly, you see differences geographically.

Economically, the Philippines’ nominal GDP (2017 estimate) was $348.593 billion with per capita at $3,280 while Colombia stands at $300.988 billion and a per capita of $6,104. A Gini coefficient of the Philippines (2012) was at .43 percent while Colombia is at .52 percent. The Gini coefficient is a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income or wealth distribution of a nation’s residents, and is the most commonly used measure of inequality. A Gini coefficient of zero expresses perfect equality, where all values are the same (for example, where everyone has the same income). A Gini coefficient of 1 (or 100 percent) expresses maximal inequality among values. And the Human Development Index (2014) was .668 for the Philippines and .720 for Colombia.

Again, context and perspective are needed in dissecting Thailand’s war on illegal drugs because it is inherently a border issue, “greater than any since the communist insurgency of the 1970s and early 1980s – lies along the northern border. It consists of a mass of highly addictive methamphetamine pills, (known locally as yaba, which translates to ‘crazy medicine’) produced in Myanmar for the Thai market by the United Wa State Army (UWSA).” What was good in Thailand is they had a baseline study done: “From an early user-base among sugarcane workers and long-distance truckdrivers, Myanmar-produced methamphetamine has spread to infiltrate homes, schools, offices and factories throughout the country. The pandemic of ‘yaba’ has left in its wake a widening swathe of organized crime, official corruption, street violence and broken families. The impact among youths and students has been most severe. A September 1999 survey of 32 of Thailand’s 76 provinces, including Bangkok, found that 12.4 percent of youth in secondary and tertiary education were either using or dealing drugs and nearly 55 percent of that group were using methamphetamines.”

Thailand’s war on drugs “victory” was temporary. PM Thaksin’s campaign decimated the drug market at the local drug trafficker and street-user level, but it did not reduce cross-border trafficking or attacked the drug trade’s higher elements. Additionally, his battle against “dark influences” had been ineffective, with few arrests of note. And we know what happened to Thaksin.

Gaviria also forgot to mention in his op-ed piece the phenomenon of “balloon” or “push down, pop up” effect in the war against illegal drugs. In fact, the nature of that adversary was daunting. “Bigger than both the Cali and Medellin cartels combined, more powerful than the infamous Pablo Escobar—this was a Colombian cocaine empire with a reach so vast, and profits so great, it became known as ‘the super cartel.” What was so striking about that development was that this “super cartel” was operating with great effectiveness years after the much-ballyhooed defeat of the infamous Cali and Medellin drug trafficking operations and their immediate successors. Is Colombia better off today?

Do we have “disposable people,” Madame Vice President? Colombians have the atrocious phrase of “disposable” people (desechables) to refer to “addicts, the homeless, and the extreme poor. Sad, shocking, yet not uncommon, addicts are often found unconscious on main streets in broad daylight, and people skirt around them as if they are not there.” Are we on that level, Madame Vice President? Should we not act today or wait for that before we act? Before PRRD, shabu was dirt cheap and was being smoked openly by shared hits. Rugby? You can buy by spread and that will last you 24 hours. They hit the poor, yes, the laylayan. And we are not Colombia!

All of us know that the war on drugs is being lost on a daily basis. We need to fight it at the community level where all hands are on deck. You don’t want to help? Then you don’t care about this nation. Simply put.

The House constitutional amendments committee has approved a measure pushing ahead with Charter change, with Congress convening as a Constituent Assembly but with members of the House and the Senate voting separately.

Rep. Roger Mercado of Southern Leyte, Chairman of the House constitutional amendments panel, made the disclosure even as the 1987 Constitution is not clear on whether the House and the Senate should vote separately in amending the Constitution through a Constituent Assembly.

“We hope that the members of the majority will accept this proposed bill amending the Constitution via ConAss. During the period of amendments, the House version will be amended to provide that we will be voting separately,” Mercado told reporters.

“Once we pass the proposed bill on ConAss, then it will be taken up by the Senate. If the Senate approves it, then we will hold a bicameral conference before submitting it to the President for approval. Once it becomes the law, the convening of both Houses [to amend Charter]will commence,” Mercado explained.

President Rodrigo Duterte prefers Cha-cha through a Constituent Assembly instead of a Constitutional Convention, which could cost taxpayers at least P6 billion.

Under the 1987 Constitution, any amendment to, or revision of, the Constitution may be proposed by Congress acting as a Constituent Assembly upon a vote of three-fourths of its members.

Joint voting will effectively drown the senators’ votes as there are only 24 senators while the House has at least 293 members. Senate President Aquilino Pimentel 3rd has insisted that in the event Congress convenes as a Constituent Assembly, voting on constitutional amendments must be done by the two houses separately.

“We will be on break on March 18, and it is our hope that Congress will give priority on this once we open session once again in May. Exporters, businessmen, are vigorously recommending for the amending of our Constitution, especially its economic provisions. This is ripe for appropriate action,” Mercado said.

He added that lawmakers will mount an intensive information drive on Charter Change in major cities such as Davao and Bacolod to discuss the benefits of a shift to the federal form of government.

The Duterte administration envisions a federal system of government wherein the Philippines will have 11 independent states (regions): the National Capital Region, Southern Tagalog Region, Northern Luzon Region, Bicol Region, Cordillera Administrative Region, Easten Samar, Western Samar, Eastern Mindanao, Western Mindanao and Bangsamoro.

In December, Malacañang formed a 25-man consultative committee to review the 1987 Constitution and study the proposal to shift to a federal system of government.

Decentralized- A federalist is not selfish, he shares what he has and allow his partner to grow personally. He doesn’t let all the powers to make decision concentrated in his hands. He knows that power must be shared. So you see, it’s no wonder that people who are too controlling had their relationships spiraled out of control.

Autonomy- Comes with decentralization is autonomy, a federalist understands that independence is part of growth. He would always be there to assist her, but he’ll never be a hindrance in the attainment of her dreams.

Promotes specialization- A federalist believes that her partner is special in every single way, every inch of her. A federalist love to see his partner make use of her core competencies and special abilities to develop herself even more.

Power to make decisions- A federalist would allow her partner to make decisions on her own provided that these will enhance her growth and sense of independence. A federalist divulges decision making responsibilities because he trust that her partner is capable of making right and informed decisions.

Power to take over resources- In matters of resources, a federalist would always encourage her partner to take charge over her own resources given that these are channeled towards the self-improvement. She can spend her money on things and projects she deemed fit and helpful to her development.

With all these qualifications, who cannot love a Federalist, or Federalism even?

The Centrist Democracy Political Institute (CDPI) together with the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) – Task Team on Federalism under the Office of Undersecretary Emily O. Padilla spearheaded the first Executive Conference on Federalism in the Province of Bukidnon. The event is in collaboration with the Konrad-Adenauer- Stiftung (KAS) Philippines, the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) – Bukidnon Province, League of Municipalities of the Philippines (LMP), and the Local Government of Valencia City.

The conference,which was attended by 130 participants, was held last 7 February 2017 at The Hotel de Susana and Resort in Valencia City.

Hon. Azucena “Sunny” P. Huervas, Valencia City mayor opened the forum by thanking the collaborating organizations and speakers for coming and sharing their knowledge on Federalism. She recognized the mayors and participants as they hold the greater responsibility of applying such learning in the future Federal system being in the administrative offices.

Governor Jose Maria Zubiri, Jr. of Bukidnon in his solidarity message called for the shift to federalism said that “the decades old system has never been corrected, on the contrary, hunger is being suffered, it goes up and it goes down, but it has never been resolved. Why? Because of the system”.

Assistant Regional Director Nilo P. Castanares had been grateful for the event as he humbly admitted that he also needs to know more about federalism especially that they are responsible for advancing the movement in their region.

Professor Edmund Tayao, Local Government and Development Foundation (LOGODEF) executive director said that power and authority depends on capacity and capability, and that establishment of states must be organic rather than imposed.

“The system can change the character of people”, this is what Atty. Raul Lambino, Deputy Secretary General of the PDP-Laban, therefore, the need to change the current constitution.

Mr. Conrado Generoso, DILG Task Team on Federalism core team member and consultant highlighted important role of social media in building awareness on Federalism and coming up with the majority of the public in supporting the shift to Federalism.

Mr. Lito Monico C. Lorenzana, CDPI president and founder discussed the urgency of stipulating the 4 salient preconditions in the shift to federalism. Without it, there is no inclusive and genuine Federal system.

Congressman Rufus B. Rodriguez, president of the Centrist Democratic Party of the Philippines (CDP) made a comparison of the present judicial system, and what it would look like under a federal system with all the necessary reforms.

Mr. Bruce A. Colao capped off the conference by providing current statistics on the prevalence of poverty and corruption in the country, and how federalism can be a game-changer.

The executive forum was a success thanks to the collaboration of different groups supporting the call for federalism. As part of the set of initiatives of CDPI and DILG, there will be another round of forum on Federalism and Social Market Economy on March 2017.

Life should be easier after five years of serving as Philippine Ambassador to the United States and, simultaneously, an active director of several blue-chip Philippine companies.

But when you’re Jose L. Cuisia—who’s been Central Bank Governor, Social Security System Administrator, president and CEO of Philamlife, and Governor to the International Monetary Fund, among others—life is a continuous call to serve.

He’s currently a board member at SM Prime, Manila Water, Century Properties, Phinma, FWD Insurance, The Covenant Car Company (Chevy Philippines), AIG Shared Services, the Asia Breast Center, and the Asian Institute of Management’s Rizalino Navarro Competitiveness Center.

“Even when I was abroad, I would come home to attend annual shareholder meetings in person, and occasionally, some board meetings. Most of the board and committee meetings were held in the morning in Manila, so I could attend them from Washington in the evening via Skype or teleconference,” he says.

Aside from good time management, he relies on a solid foundation in accounting and the ability to sift through a lot of information quickly, which are musts for corporate directors.

How about the musts for good boards?

“First, you must have diversity. In Manila Water, we have two outstanding women directors and we have very enriching discussions because our directors come from different fields of expertise. Furthermore, there is mutual respect for each other’s views,” he shares. “Second, management provides us with a lot of information to help us make decisions. I’ve been privileged to sit on boards which have practiced good corporate governance by making sure that all directors are provided with complete materials. And most importantly, we have independent directors who are not afraid to speak out, even if they have views that are different from those of management. That’s what good governance is all about.”

“We’re making progress [in corporate governance] because of the work done by the Institute of Corporate Directors (ICD), and by the companies themselves; some have been given regional recognition for adopting best practices in corporate governance. There’s a real effort by Philippine corporations to adopt good practices prescribed by the Asean Corporate Governance Scorecard. But we need to develop more qualified directors to ensure that there is an adequate pool of independent directors who can be invited to various boards,” he notes.

“The reason why it’s the same people on the boards is because they’re tested, they have a good reputation … New directors should get more training and exposure—they can start with small companies,” Cuisia advises. “Demonstrate independent thinking, attend more of these professional development seminars and eventually you’ll be noticed.”

Has the quality of boards improved over the years?

“Yes, because the directors, particularly independent directors, have gone through more professional training and development with the help of ICD and other organizations providing governance training,” he notes. “The SEC exhorts independent directors to be better prepared to tackle their jobs. I think directors today are more prepared.”

Philippine-American relationship

Has his stint as Philippine Ambassador to the United States changed his perspectives?

“Of course. Because of my job, I was inevitably exposed to the US-Philippine relationship much, much more. It made me appreciate the kind of military, security, socio-economic and diplomatic relationship that we have developed over the past 70 years. Despite what other people say, it has been very beneficial to the Philippines. And of course to the US too—because they also need us as an ally here in Southeast Asia,” he says.

“I see the value of a strong economic relationship. Which is why I’m concerned when they say we’ve got to move away from Washington. It is fine to develop other relationships with China, Russia, and many other countries—but not at the expense of the US,” he insists. “Why? Because we have a very healthy, very friendly relationship that has been mutually beneficial. We have over 600 American companies operating here, roughly 350,000 Americans living here. On the other hand, we have 3.4 million Filipinos and Filipino-Americans living in the US. So why should we move away from the US? Are we going to cut off relationships with the US just because we want to please China? It doesn’t make sense,” he adds.

“There is a greater bond between American companies and Philippine companies. Mainly because of our long history of shared values and friendship, the many Filipinos who live, work or study in the US and the lack of a language barrier— which allows Filipino nurses, who are so much in demand in the US, to get good jobs,” he muses. “Because of this, there is a greater affinity between Filipinos and Americans.”

“In traveling around the US, what surprised me is that outside of the major cities, many Americans don’t know much about the Philippines,” Cuisia says. “We did a business presentation in Miami and we were asked, ‘Where is the Philippines? How come we don’t hear the good news regarding your rapidly growing economy? How come we don’t hear about it?’ When Americans talk about Asia, they think of China, Japan, South Korea. They don’t know much about Southeast Asia or the Philippines. There’s not much exposure to our country, but we’re trying to change that. That’s why we had a lot of these trade and investment fora around the US.”Economic policy of Aquino and Duterte

The Philippines is in the news much more often now, because of the President’s rhetoric. How does this affect business?

“First, let me say that the administration’s 10-point economic agenda is very good. They’re building on the gains of the Aquino administration, they’re not throwing those away. If the Duterte administration implements that 10-point program, we will continue to see sustained economic growth,” he promises.

His reasons?

“Infrastructure spending’s going to be increased—that’s very important. Five percent of GDP was the highest target under the Aquino administration—I know we hit 4 percent of GDP at the end of 2015. But remember, when Aquino took over, it was 1 percent of GDP. The Duterte administration intends to bring up infrastructure spending to 7 percent of GDP.

“Second, they’re putting more emphasis on agriculture, which I would say was one of the weaknesses of the Aquino administration. In the third quarter, we had 7 percent growth because agriculture was growing by 2.5 percent, the best in the past few years despite bad weather. Government should pay more attention to building irrigation systems, farm to market roads, and providing greater support and assistance to farmers which could definitely contribute to increased economic development.

“Third is the commitment to education sector and health —that’s very critical. While President Aquino and his education secretary should be credited for having implemented the K-12 program, much more attention has to be given to the education sector to provide the youth with more job opportunities. In the health sector, President Aquino and his health secretary ensured better healthcare for the population particularly the lower income groups. Much more needs to be done by government to provide adequate infrastructure for social services.

“Fourth is tourism. We’ve seen our tourist arrivals move up from 5.5 million in 2016; we should be able to hit the 10 million target by the end of Duterte administration. But even if we hit that, that’s still very low compared to Thailand’s 27 million. The tourism sector can provide a lot of job opportunities because our people have the facility of the English language.

“There are tax reforms being pushed—a more progressive system—but they need to plug the loopholes. They’re still many people who evade taxes. You have to widen the tax base —that’s going to be one of the challenges.”

Cuisia adds: “One of our biggest challenges is developing the skills of our work force to meet the higher level of skills required in the future. As you know, we have millions of Filipino workers all over the world. Our Filipino workers are very adaptable, very trainable, and this is why they’re very much in demand. But if we are able to provide jobs here, and bring back these people who were exposed to technology in developed countries, they can contribute a lot more to our economy.”

Cuisia is keen to see more capital injected into the economy.

“Foreign direct investment will increase if you have less taxes, less bureaucracy, less regulation: Just opening a business takes so long because of so many requirements and too much red tape! You’ve got to have policies that encourage companies—both foreign and local—to bring in more modern technology when they invest in the country. But they’ll only do that if they see a more conducive business environment which provides incentive to the private sector to create more jobs,” Cuisia says.

Many commonly assume that when they see the word “church” with a capital C, the reference is to the Roman Catholic Church. In English usage (not just the Inquirer’s), the common noun “church” refers to a building, while the one spelled with the capital C refers to the institution.

Political leaders reacting against pronouncements of certain Church leaders on extrajudicial killings must take note of the same message from other denominations besides the Roman Catholic Church because the institutional Church is not a singular church.

One month into the Duterte presidency, in August 2016, a strongly worded declaration was issued by the Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches (PCEC) on the blood shed in the war against drugs. Without glancing at the signatory, one would have easily fallen into the trap of thinking it came from the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP):

“Where is the rule of law that ensures every Filipino accused of an offense must first be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt by a court of law before fair and just punishments are meted out? Where is justice in the killings of those who are accused when our law does not even permit as a punishment the killing of a person?”

It then graduates to a sterner tone: “How can we claim justice and peace in our land when murderers are allowed to kill with impunity and roam freely?” Then the tenor becomes even more demanding by calling out a response from its faithful: “We call on Evangelical Christians to denounce the unlawful and brutal killings of drug suspects, which demonstrate utter disregard for human life.”

Both PCEC and CBCP statements obviously proceed from the commonality of emanating from the same evangelical message, albeit they may differ in magisterium or teaching authority. Respect for human life is a universal value across many denominations and cultural societies.

House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez’s popish statement that bishops of the Catholic Church are “a bunch of shameless hypocrites” fails context for singling out only one particular messenger when in fact it is echoed by other denominations under similar circumstances.

Alvarez passed judgment by actually implying he is not a hypocrite. He places the onus of proving guilt of hypocrisy on the one being accused and not the accuser.

Freshly minted at that time in his new legislative role, Alvarez probably missed out on the PCEC statement. Seven months and much porcine lard later, not counting more false supporters at his beck and call because of pork enticements, he lashes out at the CBCP statement “Thou shalt not kill” and calls its signatories (the CBCP

president signs in behalf of all the other bishops for a statement agreed in plenary) hypocrites.

Refreshing our memories, Alvarez is currently embroiled in a plunder case now up for review in the Supreme Court. He is accused of having financially gained from the construction of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3 when he was transportation and communications secretary. He was technical committee head and member of the bidding committee that awarded the contract to the winning bidder.

The Ombudsman indicted Alvarez for violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act with a charge of plunder. In the construction company named Wintrack Builders that won the contract to remove subterranean structures from the terminal site, the name of Alvarez’s wife appeared as an incorporator, her share accounting for a third of the capital.

To piggyback on the Alvarez judgment on the Church statement: Are the Catholic bishops hypocrites? Yes. Are all Churches’ ordinary laity hypocrites? They are. Everyone is a hypocrite. All of us, save none, are hypocrites, at one time or the other in our lives, Alvarez included.

“Stop the killings, investigate the killings” is hardly any judgmental call at all. We are missing the message: Killing a human being without the benefit of protection from the law is in itself a form of exceedingly grave hypocrisy.

The government’s economic managers have junked the proposed across-the-board free tuition for students in State Universities and Colleges (SUCs), saying it is unsustainable and will only benefit the rich.

They said the Unified Student Financial Assistance System for Tertiary Education (UniFAST) is a better alternative.

In a joint position paper submitted to Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea, Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Ernesto Pernia, Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez 3rd and Budget and Management Secretary Benjamin Diokno said UniFAST provides a more coherent and comprehensive framework to address the educational needs of students.

The economic managers said that while all citizens have the right to quality education, they do not agree that an across-the-board free tuition for all undergraduate students in SUCs is the best way for the government to achieve the mandate of providing education to all.

“The proposed free tuition policy is expected to have little impact on poor children’s enrolment in college,” they said, stressing that tuition does not comprise the biggest share of the cost of college education.

Based on the grant structure of the government’s Student Grants-In-Aid Program for Poverty Alleviation (SGP-PA), tuition constitutes merely one-third (P20,000) of the annual cost of P60,000 per student covered by the grant.

The officials said living expenses make up the biggest chunk of the cost of college education (P35,000 for 10 months). Instructional materials comes third at P5,000.

Since poor families will be unable to pay for the two-thirds cost of college education, they will still be unable to send their children to college.

“The proposed free tuition policy will benefit largely the non-poor students who predominate in SUCs. In 2014, only 12 percent of the students attending SUCs belong to the bottom 20 percent of the family income classification based on the Annual Poverty Indicators Survey,” the economic managers said.

They believe that an untargeted tuition subsidy to undergraduate students enrolled in SUCs will mostly benefit families who can afford to send their children to college while many deserving and qualified poor students unable to enrol in SUCs will be left out.

The economic managers also pointed out that an across-the-board free tuition policy will trigger an exodus of students to SUCs which would eventually affect the overall quality of graduates given that a number of private higher education institutions perform better than SUCs.

“Also, the budgetary support for free tuition will be difficult to sustain,” the Cabinet officials said.

They explained that if the tuition funding requirement is to be based on the national average tuition of SUCs under the SGP-PA – which is at P20,000 per annum – the estimated 1.4 million students currently enrolled in SUCs would require about P28 billion budgetary support from the government.

The economic managers recommended funding UniFAST instead, which they said is better designed to ensure a more efficient and effective use of government funds.

Established in 2014 through Republic Act 10687, UniFAST is designed to unify and harmonize all modalities of publicly-funded Student Financial Assistance Programs such as scholarships, grants-in-aid and student loans for tertiary education. The law provides full financing to deserving students, which generally favors the poor.

The officials argued that UniFAST is the better alternative because it has a clear delineation among its three modes of financial assistance in terms of objectives and target beneficiaries, applicability in SUCs and private educational institutions, a test-based eligibility requirement, and adherence to the acceptable standards of the Commission on Higher Education.

“The government should implement its mandate of promoting quality and accessible education within the limits of fiscal prudence, and with the use of appropriate tools and targeting mechanism. The UniFAST is better designed to ensure a more efficient and effective use of government funds,” they explained.