IT appears that the underpinnings of an incipient Dutertenomics is coming into shape with the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) doing a first with an open consultation with the public on the Philippine Development Plan (2017-2022). The five planks opened for public review were creatively termed as: Malasakit (Enhancing the Social Fabric), Pagbabago (Reducing Inequality in Economic Development Opportunities) and Kaunlaran (Increasing Potential Growth). NEDA likewise asked for comments on two additional sections: macroeconomic and competition policies and infrastructure development and ecological integrity.

Dutertenomics at its core revolves around peace and order, geopolitical rebalancing, improvement of frontline service, simplicity and a lot of common sense in governance. One piece still evolving is the much-needed tax reform. Peace and order focuses on the police and the military and public order issues as well as the war against illegal drugs.

Geopolitical rebalancing is based on hopefully a soon-to-be-defined foreign policy and national security framework, the components of which are ASEAN- and Asian-focused, and the redefinition of our relationship with the United States, China and Russia. Frontline service has clearly been felt in the way government delivers services to the public but it will even take a bigger structural reform, that of the change into federalism and a parliamentary system. With federalism you bring government closer to the people. With a parliament, one forces the need to have real political parties in the country. These are parties that win because of ideology and programs and not by machinations of foreign and local operators paid by tremendous sums of money that makes winning a transactional deal than a democratic one.

Simplicity and common sense are values that this administration seems to embrace to its core. Protocols have been minimized. Pomp and pageantry scaled down and common sense injected in every problem-solving exercise and decision-making process. The leader deals in broad strokes, leaving the details to the Cabinet to thresh out. There are good and bad points in doing so but it seems the system now in place may not be the best in terms of responding to issues. That does not mean the system does not work. In fact, it seems to be moving well, adjusting as the Cabinet meets a hurdle and recalibrating when needed.

The simplicity was awe-inspiring during the state visit of Japan Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. As the first foreign leader to visit Duterte (as well as Davao), it signaled to all that Japan is the chosen one as the vital partner in international relations and diplomacy of PRRD. The formalities were toned down and it was a revelation to see stiff and protocol-centric Japanese politicians do away with what they have been used to in dealing with Filipino leaders. PRRD showed Abe who he is. He opened his home and had his favorites for breakfast and Abe gamely tasted the biko, suman, kutsinta and mongo soup. It was show and not tell to Duterte and Abe was rockstar in a carefully drilled itinerary executed masterfully by Ambassador Marciano Paynor, Jr., chief protocol officer.

For Japanese businessmen, it has been said that sealing deals are off the boardrooms, and the meeting at the kitchen table of the simple home of PRRD showed to all the mastery of PRRD and his team. It showed to the West what Asian values are and what can be discussed and agreed upon outside of the formalities of office. Leaders can be just their ordinary selves and yet still be able to agree on so much. The “kitchen diplomacy” resulted in Japan matching China’s pledge to PRRD (in business, rice cakes and mongo soup for a trillion yen package will now be the norm). Who will first deliver on their pledges will define Duterte’s foreign play in the region.

Interestingly, Abenomics, the economic policies advocated by PM Abe, is based on “three arrows of fiscal stimulus, monetary easing and structural reforms.” The ideological basis of Abenomics is also related to the rise of China as an economic and political power. There are explicit parallels between Abenomics and the Meiji- era program of fukuoku kyohei (enrich the country, strengthen the army). In addition to providing a “stronger counterweight to China in the Asia-Pacific region, strengthening the Japanese economy is also intended to make Japan less reliant on the United States for defense.”

We should also give it to PM Abe for being game and positively responding to every event laid out for his visit. As our top trading partner and per PRRD, “truly a brother,” Japan is the anchor that PRRD has chosen to throw to the Asian continent in the rebalancing that is taking shape in our foreign policy. But even Japan is countering the sudden influence of China with PRRD with Abe’s pledge of a “¥1 trillion aid package to the Philippines, including government aid and private investments, over the next five years to help its infrastructure development and strengthen strategic ties with the key Asia-Pacific nation.”

As the United States’ influence with PRRD is shaky, Japan is now the countervailing force to China in the region. Duterte’s sound byte is clear and precise: “We will continue to forge ahead with our efforts to advance the rule of law in order to secure the waters in our region.” Dutertenomics further stressed that “as maritime nations, the Philippines and Japan have a shared interest in keeping our waters safe and secure from threats of any kind.”

Duterte seems to have integrated the Golden Rule in foreign policy: “Don’t do to other nations what we don’t want them to do to us.” In seven months, Duterte’s voice, emanating from a small nation strategically located in the Pacific, is no longer in the wilderness. The “little brown brother” has roared and is now primus inter pares. And yes, Juana, the kitchen does wonders!

Cagayan de Oro city was declared under state of calamity by local officials early Tuesday after a massive flooding in the city spawned by two weather disturbances.

“City council declared a state of calamity in Cagayan de Oro City after holding an emergency session at 1 a.m. today, Jan. 17, 2017,” the local government of Cagayan de Oro posted on its Facebook page.

A low pressure area and the tail-end of a cold front caused heavy flooding on Monday in Cagayan de Oro City and other parts of Misamis Oriental.

Classes in preschool, elementary and high school were suspended in Cagayan de Oro City on Tuesday due to the rains and floods. Classes in the college level will depend on the discretion of the school heads.

Forced evacuation was also carried out in the villages of Tumpagon, Pigsag-an, Lumbia, Tuburan, Pagalungan, Sansimon, Iponan, Blua, Pagatpat and Canitoan.

Code Red was also raised over Iponan River by local officials, prompting forced evacuation.

A state of calamity will allow the local government to have access to funds for relief operations and related assistance.

 

The Chinese cyber attacks have been carried out extensively on regional states along with political influence operations designed to falsely convince the international community that the waters of the sea are and have been China’s sovereign maritime territory.

James Clapper, the US director of national intelligence, told a Senate hearing last week that aggressive Chinese cyber attacks were continuing. ” China continues to succeed in conducting cyber espionage against the US government, our allies, and US companies,” he said.

 

(First of the two-part series)

 

Metro Manila (CNN Philippines) — President Rodrigo Duterte is again meeting with a "special friend who's closer than a brother."

This was how he described Japan after his official visit there last October.

Now it's Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's turn to visit the Philippines.

 

”We all do better when we work together. Our differences do matter, but our common humanity matters more.”

– William Jefferson Clinton

BY tradition, an incoming United States President gets 100 days to adjust to his or her new surroundings. I never aspired to become POTUS myself, but have enjoyed success as a leader elsewhere. I’m an American, born in the great State of Minnesota. You betcha! I’ve been visiting the Philippines for nearly a decade, having dated and then married my Filipina wife whom I met in New York. I fell in love with the country, the people, the food. How could I stay away? After many years working on Wall Street honing my skills and business acumen, it was time to move to the Philippines to take advantage of the many opportunities here. I made my decision to move here in March of last year, in the midst of a fascinating election season in both the Philippines and the US.

I (permanently) arrived in Manila just around the time of the first SONA delivered by the then recently elected President Rodrigo Duterte. (Note: Personally, I identify as apolitical, I’m not about platforms or rigid agendas but rather rely on a fair political process to select capable leaders.) Highlights of the speech were replayed on ANC news which I regularly keep on in the background while I work. One of his quotes that kept replaying, even though I don’t think it was part of the SONA speech, was “I serve everyone and not only one.”

By my 50th day I had disappointingly only played four rounds of golf. I had set a goal of playing at least once per week while here, potentially more if I could find a way to conduct business dealings on the course. Fellow Wharton alumnus Peter Coyiuto had invited me for a round at Manila Golf, which I very much enjoyed, and I was especially impressed with the condition of the course and the quick pace of play. My tee shots were an injustice to such a beautiful course. I’ve also had the opportunity to play Wack-Wack and Navy, as well as Apo Golf in Davao. Even this amount of golf was an upgrade to my ability to play golf in New York. I did enjoy taking the Long Island Railroad to Bethpage for a weekday round when time permitted but overall my game just couldn’t progress while living in Manhattan. The golf courses here are wonderful, and I enjoy at least the possibility that I can play more than one round per week in the future.

As for business opportunities, the dominant reason for my excitement to find the Philippines such a nice place to live is that I have great enthusiasm for the economic potential of the country. The likelihood of 7 percent-plus growth rates for the foreseeable future, potentially higher if certain administration spending plans pan out, is a great starting point. The possibility that rules and regulations will evolve to make it even more attractive for foreign capital is the icing on the cake.

I’m here to invest and to help others invest. I spend a large portion of my days working to bring global pools of capital and technological expertise into the country. If I’m good at what I do, then the Philippines is the beneficiary, more value-added products (and services) should be produced/performed here, and for an intermediate period of time the country can continue the “BPO theme” of exporting a talented and educated workforce. This activity includes finding partnerships and investment capital for established companies, but also involves funding and development of small and medium enterprises (or SMEs).

The SME sector is the backbone of strong economies such as Germany and the US. It is entirely possible for the Philippines to grow this sector into an engine that can lead to continued outperformance of regional and global growth. Why not? Let’s do it! I like to solve puzzles, and being able to have an impact on the Philippines through my efforts to traffic in capital and business ideas furthers my excitement to finally have found my way home.

Which brings me back to leadership. I’ve been fortunate to interact with many business and government leaders in my short time here. These are good people with talent and ideas, and my own ideas have been well received. The environment here is quite conducive to partnerships, in whatever form they may take. I’ve felt no specific effect of my status as an American on the possibility of working together.

On my 100th day in Manila, the people of the United States elected Donald John Trump as their next President. He has promised change, primarily on an America-first platform, yet he does have an encouraging early rapport with President Duterte. Wait a minute…now I have some questions: Do I get another 100 days? Can I now express my incremental (and even random) thoughts via Twitter? Should I learn Mandarin? Should I learn Russian? Answer: No! I’m still Matt, I’m still working hard and having fun here in the Philippines. My motives are uninterrupted, my plans remain, I’m in this for the long haul. I’m far from being upset at the election of Mr. Trump, many of his ideas are good ones. We live with our elected leaders, let’s support them and continue to work together toward our personal and common goals.

* * *

Matthew Peter Kolling is managing director at Primeiro Partners in Manila. A Wharton-educated finance professional, he has spent his 17-year career working on Wall Street in private equity, venture capital, special situations hedge funds and investment banking. Before moving to Manila, he worked at Providence Equity Partners, Caxton Associates, Och-Ziff Capital, and Morgan Stanley, all in New York.

 

PRESIDENT Rodrigo Duterte has approved a P1,000 hike in the monthly pension of Social Security System (SSS) retirees, but there will be an increase in contributions from members.

In a news conference, presidential spokesman Ernesto Abella said Duterte was “not amenable” to funding the pension increase with taxpayers’ money. The SSS should finance it from contributions and investments, he said.

This is the first of a series of articles the authors (and other collaborators) will be writing on constitutional change. The intent of the series is to influence the process of amending or revising the Constitution that is about to be launched this January.

President Rodrigo Duterte has laid the foundations for this process with the issuance of Executive Order No. 10 last December 7, 2016. The order creates a 25-member Consultative Committee that is tasked to “study, conduct consultations, and review the provisions of the 1987 Constitution including but not limited to the provisions on the structure and powers of the government, local governance, and economic policies.” The President is expected to appoint the chairperson and members of the Committee that has a 6-month deadline to submit its recommendation to him. Eventually, their work will be submitted to Congress that is expected to convene as a constituent assembly.

This article is on the implications of federalism, as distinguished from a unitary system, on our legal and judicial systems. It will be followed by articles on the economic provisions, human rights, public accountability, social justice, and on the debate between a parliamentary versus a presidential system of government.

Legal consequences of federalism

Equitable development and genuine, lasting peace. These are among the positive outcomes envisioned and often cited by advocates of a shift from the country’s current unitary system to federalism. Advocates argue that these outcomes will be realized as a result of more power and discretion placed in the hands of the states or "federal regions" (according to one proposal by Congress, the 2008 Joint Resolution No. 10), rather than being concentrated in distant "imperial" Manila. Indeed, a key feature of a federalist set-up is the sharing of sovereignty and jurisdiction between a national/federal/central government and the governments of individual states or regions. Presumably, similar to other federalist jurisdictions, the national government will retain control and authority over defense and foreign affairs, including trade.

Beyond these areas specifically allocated to the central government, the state/regional governments are supposedly granted greater power, discretion, and resources to independently determine the fates of their own units and constituencies. Moreover, the people are theoretically enjoined to greater participation in political life as they are brought closer to their elected leaders, and in turn, the latter are made more accountable to the citizens.

One significant consequence of this sovereignty-sharing arrangement is the likelihood of having discrete legal and judicial systems within the Philippines. In other words, while still sharing the same citizenship and a common set of national or federal officials, Filipinos could be subjected to different laws (and, to a certain extent, moral codes), depending on which state/region they are residing or conducting their activities in. Hence, there is a myriad of questions that need to be asked – and eventually answered – in terms of the changes in the way that people would perceive and interact with the law and with the courts.

The more obvious and certain differences will be readily observed in the statutes relating to fiscal matters and regulatory concerns, since the shift to federalism is precisely rooted in the belief, among others, that the problems of unequal income and development, as well as of social unrest and armed violence, are best resolved by granting the various parts of the country (regions) broader autonomy in their decision-making and making them more "in-control" of their own resources. There is indeed much to be said about this proposition and the possible consequences of having tax rates differential and distinct regulatory policies across the states/regions. This article focuses, however, on the less expected, or at least less discussed, effect of a shift to federalism, namely, the emergence of multiple legal and judicial systems within the country.

Assuming, for purposes of this piece, that the Bill of Rights enshrined in Article III of the 1987 Constitution will subsist in the shift to federalism, there remain a number of possible variations in the civil, criminal, and administrative laws that each state/regional legislature can formulate on its own.

For instance, under a federalist system, the minimum ages (i) for criminal responsibility, (ii) for marriage, and (iii) for access to work may be altered, lowered, or set differently by each of the states/regions. It bears to ask in this regard whether or not the country is prepared to treat each Filipino child differently, and whether or not such resulting disparate treatment would be consistent with Philippine international obligations under relevant treaties, particularly the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

Relatedly, the requisites for marriage might vary across states/regions, such that same-sex marriage may become allowed in the more "liberal" jurisdictions. Restrictions might likewise be loosened in some states/regions, enabling the legalization of divorce. How these changes in laws/statutes governing persons and family relations would affect the provisions in the present Constitution – treating the family as ‘the foundation of the nation" and marriage as "an inviolable social institution… [to be] protected by the State" – is a question that Congress (acting as a constituent assembly) or members of a constitutional commission have to contend with.

As in other countries that have a federalist system like the United States of America, France, and India, certain activities may be legalized or decriminalized in various parts of the Philippines, but remain to be criminal acts in others. On the upside, in the light of the present lacuna in the law, online harassment can be properly defined and made punishable – perhaps at a faster pace – by some state/regional statutes. This would largely depend on the attitude of the population in a given state/region towards the balance between the exercise of the right to freedom of expression in cyberspace vis-à-vis the perceived governmental duty to protect victims of harassment in any form or medium. In connection to this, some states/regions may finally heed calls made in the past to decriminalize libel and to impose prohibitive monetary fines instead.

Conversely, there is also the possibility of declaring legal in particular states/regions the use of marijuana and other addictive drugs for medical purposes. Indeed, given the greater capacity of different sets of peoples, through their respective governments, to determine what activities are objectionable, and therefore punishable, the country would possibly have to deal as well with the reality that citizens of the Philippines have differing or conflicting opinions and moralities. A grave concern in this regard is whether such realization would affect the people’s sense of national unity, which is said to be a foundation of national security.

The judiciary in a federalist system

Concomitant to these foreseen changes in the statutes and the legal system as a whole, one also ought to ask how these would affect the way that courts work.

Critically, much thought has to be devoted to the reorganization of existing courts, the creation of new ones, and the determination of the hierarchy and relationship amongst them. Should judges in the state/regional courts become elected officials, or should they still be appointed like their peers in the federal/national courts? Can state/regional courts motu proprio refer cases to, or request opinions from, the federal courts, and vice-versa?

Additionally, although not a natural or necessary consequence of the shift to federalism, this might likewise be an opportune moment to deliberate on the pros and cons of establishing a constitutional court in the Philippines. This constitutional court would sit alongside the current Supreme Court, and would adjudicate only on cases involving constitutional questions. The existing Supreme Court may be replaced by or renamed as the Federal Supreme Court, and would continue to act as the court of last resort for all types of cases. The appellate jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court and of the Federal Supreme Court will thus have to be clearly delineated.

In connection to this, there exists a potential agency problem: why should a federal court, which presumably is not directly constituted by the people of a specific state/region, be granted authority to pass upon the proper application and construction of a law crafted by the state/regional legislature that the said people themselves have elected? Relatedly, should a federal court’s interpretation of a state/regional law prevail over the interpretation of a state/regional court? The problem might also be framed in a conflict-of-laws perspective: would it be proper for a federal supreme court, in its appellate jurisdiction, to apply state/regional law, instead of federal law, which is theoretically the only law that the federal court is authorized and competent to interpret?

Federalism and the legal profession

With the creation of distinct state/regional governments, including judiciaries, another critical aspect to consider is the impact of these changes on the legal profession, i.e., the lawyers. With the shift to federalism, will there then be separate bar associations to be formed per state/region? Will existing lawyers authorized to practice law in the entire Philippines be required or compelled to “re-take” the bar examinations in each state/region? To recall, the present Supreme Court has traditionally been the sole entity constitutionally mandated and authorized to regulate the practice of law in the country. With the shift to federalism and the creation of discrete state/regional courts, would it then become acceptable for the supreme courts in each state/region to independently determine the qualifications for admission to the bar, thereby opening up the possibility of having divergent or inconsistent bar admission and ethical rules? In turn, how would these affect legal education in the country? Are the existing law schools adequate in number (per state/region) and sufficiently prepared to train would-be lawyers and to teach the newly-enacted state/regional laws?

A related situation that needs to be addressed is the possibility of having a dearth of lawyers in one state/region and a surplus in another. This can potentially impact on the people’s constitutional right to competent and independent counsel. All of these clearly require careful deliberation, inasmuch as these are quite delicate matters riddled with important constitutional implications. The debates and discussions about whether or not to pursue the shift to federalism should therefore include these issues/questions.

A charter that unites us

As a final note, without refuting or discounting the advantages of adopting a federalist system, one should still ponder the potential harms of such a shift, including an increased divisiveness or a diminished sense of unity among Filipinos, as a result of having distinct/discrete legal and judicial systems to govern their everyday lives. This raises an imperative for crafting a fundamental law, i.e., a constitution, that would continue to highlight, and serve as reminder of, the subsistence of our shared and common experiences and characteristics as one Filipino people, in spite of the admitted existence of particular idiosyncrasies (cultural, religious, political) among the population and which idiosyncrasies are made manifest in the content of laws.

Law, being a potent instrument of social change, as well as a product or expression of human nature and creativity, has a critical role in steering a nation to the people’s desired destination. Accordingly, reforms in the law or laws, not to mention in entire legal and judicial systems, especially those as far-reaching as the ones mentioned in this piece, would most likely bear significant consequences not only on the manner by which government is organized, but more importantly, with respect to the very way that people live their daily lives, perceive their roles within a society and a country, and deal with political, economic, and social institutions that the law has shaped as well.

The policy choice to shift to federalism, if thoroughly studied and prudently executed, will probably bring about significantly positive results, including those that advocates are expecting and rooting for. Foremost of such results must be that many Filipinos would begin to reap benefits that they desire but could previously not enjoy due to, among others, the undue concentration of power and resources to the "center." However, the recognition and accommodation of differences and discretion that lie at the heart of a federalist system should not jeopardize more than a century’s worth of nation-building efforts, which were based on finding sufficient common and shared interests among a people of different views and backgrounds.

The emergence of separate and distinct legal and judicial systems within the country need not necessarily divide Filipinos, but it bears to recognize that such a threat does exist, and it should at least cause one to think though the consequences of shifting to a federalist system, or urge one to explore all possible means to avoid the potential dangers accompanying such shift and to design a federal system that unites and not dviides. – Rappler.com

* * *

Tony La Viña is former dean of the Ateneo School of Government.

* * *

Johanna Aleria P. Lorenzo is a doctoral candidate in Yale Law School, where she also obtained her Master of Laws (LL.M.) degree. She currently works on the subjects of international development and global administrative law, and previously served as Legal Specialist for an anti-corruption and good governance project with the Ateneo School of Government and the Department of Finance (DOF).

 

MANILA, Philippines – First Metro Investment Corp., the investment banking arm of the Metrobank Group, expects the Philippine economy to remain strong in 2017.

The country’s gross domestic product (GDP) is expected to grow by 7 to 7.5 percent, driven by higher capital investments as the Duterte administration continues to ramp up infrastructure spending coupled with sound foreign direct investments, strong consumer expenditure, stable OFW remittances and sturdy BPO sector.

It is in the interest of human society to respect not only the dignity but also the equal dignity of persons. The first is an ascription as to what makes us truly human, and the second is an assertion as to the equality of all humans. The greatest threat to human freedom is not violence but the misrecognition of what it really means to be a person. Persons are not things. But in the absence of love for justice, people no longer see one another as human beings, but as useful instruments in the pursuit of mutual advantage. It is a reality that is not borne by any trace of reasonableness. It is rooted in human selfishness and pride.

A society that is no longer founded on respect for the humanity of each is an affirmation of the fundamental fear once expressed by Thomas Paine: “Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in the best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.”

For a long time, we Filipinos have provided the unmistakable means for our own destruction. This is obvious in the kind of democracy that we practice. We always have two sets of rules: one for the powerful, and another for the ordinary. The irony of it all is that those who are in power derive their strength from the cumulative ignorance of the masses, whom they subdue by sheer manipulation. Those who are in the periphery of our society, on the other hand, are trampled and demeaned, shoved away from a life of decency, even pushed like a rag by those to whom they entrust their hopes and dreams.

The design of our state of affairs is based on false expectations. People enjoin themselves in everything that their government does, hoping for favorable consequences. The poor often seek equality in terms of outcomes, confounding the very basis of social cooperation. For such form of equality cannot be attained unless some soul out there is sacrificed. Even then, selfish people like many among us are more than willing to subjugate the freedom of others if it is the most efficient means by which we can achieve our ends.

Ignorance cannot be the root of all evil in the world. But we need to determine why good people cease to be critical. We have to put reason to task in inquiring as to why it is no longer in use. Equal rights mean equality in terms of treatment. Every human being is entitled to the same rights as others, not because it is something that one can demand from his/her government, but because the contrary of such irreverently defeats the essential purpose of democracy: All power must emanate from the people!

We have in this country every reason to doubt the pursuit of the happiness of every poor mortal. Paine, writing in opposition to the British monarchy, said it well, insisting that “for all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever…” We are no longer a colony of any imperial power. But precisely, the malady of times past still afflicts the country. Anyone can count by his/her own fingers the number of individuals who control the economy, and in the process, plunder the Filipino people’s future.

Andres Bonifacio’s greatest question comes to mind: “Could there be a love greater than the love for one’s country?” Bonifacio’s challenge does not only serve to provoke thought, it also compels each one of us to respond with our conscience. We do not have a king, but many of our politicians are no different from the oppressors of old. And yet, the pursuit of equal dignity in this country cannot be a lost cause. Nelson Mandela says it all: “Your choices must reflect your hopes, not your fears.”

* * *

Christopher Ryan Maboloc is assistant professor of philosophy at Ateneo de Davao University and the author of “Ethics and Human Dignity.”