Press Release— Action for Economic Reforms

15 February 2012

If new sin taxes are not passed within 2012, the Philippines will soon suffer a severe health crisis, advocates from the medical profession and civil society warnedyesterday.

Non-communicable diseases (NCD’s) such as cancer and heart disease have already reached dire levels in the Philippines, claimed Dr. Antonio Dans and Dr. Antony Leachon from the medical sector.

“More than 200,000 Filipinos die annually from NCD’s. This is larger than any epidemic we have ever seen in the country,” said Dr. Dans, a clinical epidemiologist of the UP College of Medicine.

Contrary to popular belief, the young and the poor will be the worst afflicted by this “silent” crisis. In the past three years, smoking among the youth has escalated by an alarming 40%. In 2009, the lowest 30% of the population spent more than double the amount of the higher 70% on tobacco.

Cigarette smoking and tobacco use were pinpointed by the medical experts to be the single largest factor contributing to NCD’s in countries like the Philippines.

“We need to save the young and poor,” stressed Dr. Leachon, DOH consultant on NCD’s. “Right now, they are the backbone of the nation, its workforce. A sick workforce means a sick nation.”

To stem the rising tide of NCD’s, the advocates pin their hopes on the restructuring of present sin tax laws. “The most effective way to keep the young and the poor from smoking is through increasing the price of cigarettes,” said Dr. Maricar Limpin of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Alliance Philippines (FCAP).

“For this, our lawmakers must reform our tobacco tax system at the soonest possible time,” added FCAP’s executive director. “The president, in fact, has already endorsed this as an urgent measure.”

The Philippines’ last sin tax regime was signed into law in 2004, yet was riven by fatal flaws. According to the pro-reform groups, these flaws have ushered a grim reduction in government revenues, while even increasing the nation’s overall level of cigarette consumption by 2011.

Jo-ann Latuja of the Action for Economic Reforms indicated that future sin taxes would have to incorporate key changes to halt the chilling upsurge of NCD’s— abolishing the 1996 freeze on price brackets, imposing a unitary tax scheme, and adjusting tax rates to future increases in inflation.

“Combined with a high enough raise in tax rates, these reforms will save at least 300,000 lives,” Latuja said, “They will also help fund the government’s pro-poor Universal Health Care program and offer alternative livelihoods for tobacco farmers.”

The health advocates affirmed their support for the Sin Tax bill filed by Rep. Emilio Abaya of the Liberal Party, and sponsored by Malacañang. It is this version of the measure, they maintain, that will protect the country’s young and the poor, and avert the perils of a national health catastrophe.

(For more information about Action for Economic Reforms, please email aer@aer.ph)

Sylvia Estrada Claudio is a fellow of AER. She is a medical doctor and a PhD in Psychology. It would be her pleasure as an official of the University of the Philippines to show to Marites Danguilan Vitug the written rules and guidelines for attaining these degrees at the time these were conferred in order to remove any doubt that she earned them on her own merits.

This piece was published in the February 13, 2012 edition of the BusinessWorld, pages S1/4 to S1/5.

Sin number 1: My productivity is much diminished these days because I am addicted to watching the impeachment. Every boring detail. I seethe at every bone-headed move by the prosecution, at every legal victory of the defense. I think Juan Ponce Enrile is a vampire. He can’t be that good. Especially as I hated him during martial law. I think Serafin Cuevas is brilliant. But I don’t like his bombastic oratorical style. It reminds me of all those men thundering at us during the dictatorship, chief among them, macho Marcos himself.

And so, I am now in search of my ideal man, one with the soft rhetorical style of Niel Tupas and the competence of Cuevas. My ideal man would have argued that nothing prevents the Senate from conducting the impeachment more like a fact finding mission or a truth commission and less like a court.

Sin number 2: I am obsessed with the reproductive health (RH) bill and see connections between the impeachment efforts and the effort to pass the RH bill. I may have imbibed the conspiracy theory paranoia of the religious fanatics who keep claiming pro-RH people are drug company and imperialist lackeys.

I hope that Renato Corona is convicted. (Parenthetically, those who accuse me of not abiding by the rule, “innocent until proven guilty” are to be condemned to 20-minute tongue lashings by Miriam Defensor Santiago. That rule is meant to regulate the police power of the state. It was not meant to substitute for individual discernment and not meant to prevent the social disgrace of scoundrels. Taking that rule out of context would mean that citizens should not be concerned with graft and corruption since very few people get convicted anyway.) I believe Corona is an ally of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo who would uphold all her leanings including her refusal to pass an RH bill during her term. It was during GMA’s  term that the Supreme Court junked the petition of 20 affected women to invalidate Lito Atienza’s egregious order banning contraceptives in Manila. From the anti-RH camp, even from some of the legislators we hear it often: “if the bill passes we will take it to the Supreme Court”. They say it with confidence.

So, long before the impeachment, I knew something had to be done to uphold the independence of the Supreme Court. It must be freed not just from GMA’s influence, but also from the unholy alliance of the Catholic Church and GMA.

The GMA-Catholic Bishop’s Conference of the Philippines connection on the RH bill has bothered me endlessly. Ricky Carandang decided to resign from the Catholic Church when he was still a journalist. He had interviewed CBCP’s Melvin Castro who, in so many words, said it would not condemn a corrupt politician as much as it would condemn a pro- RH one.

Thus I was not surprised when the Bishops agreed to mediate the escalating war of Pres. Aquino against Chief Justice Corona. The rest of the nation was going, “go, go, go Pnoy!!!!” while the CBCP was admonishing towards dialogue.

And so, while the CBCP called rallies against the corruption of Pres. Estrada, the Pontifical University of Sto. Tomas gave Corona a PhD in a manner I would describe as “wala lang.”  Asked whether the CJ had earned his degree properly like the rest of us plodders, the public got less than satisfactory answers, and an argumentum ad hominem against Marites Vitug.

“To everything there is a season” according to Ecclesiastes. Except that while most of us are in the season of justice and retribution— the CBCP is in the winter of contradictory morality.

I am thinking, if the RH bill finally comes to a vote, all this tension between Pnoy and the CBCP would lessen. I am thinking, that for the sake of my Catholic friends, perhaps the Church no longer needs to go on its moral fugues once we can unstick the RH bill from its craw.

Sin number 3: I am guilty of extreme pettiness. I am upset at Corona’s cooptation of the color purple. Those who consider him innocent him are asked to wear purple.  He just made my wardrobe defunct. My cabinets are full of purple things because, dear Chief Justice, THAT HAS BEEN THE COLOR OF PRO-RH ADVOCATES. As my friend and colleague Jonas Bagas says, “kung dilaw ka, dapat purple ka rin.”

Buencamino is a fellow of Action for Economic Reforms. This piece was first published in Interaksyon.com on February 9, 2012.

Corona cannot accept discounted penthouses, discounted diplomas and free legal services. They are prohibited under Rule 504. –  Rene Saguisag

Last December, impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona said he would answer the charges against him point by point. Bring it on, right? But so far, instead of answering the charges, his lawyers have objected to practically every land title and mis-declared SALN (Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth) the prosecution has tried to present.

The defense strategy has been to prevent battled-tested private prosecutors from arguing points of law and limiting them to direct examination of witnesses; convincing senator-judges that the headings of the articles of impeachment are the substance of the charge; and that the bar of impeachment should be raised above and beyond anyone’s reach.

Free legal services are gifts prohibited under Rule 504 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Republic Act No. 6713, and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and so the man’s pro bono lawyers are crystal clear proof that he lacks the quality to sit even as a judge at the lowest levels of the judiciary.

Of course, pro bono lawyers are not included in the articles of impeachment. How could they be? The articles were written before Corona accepted free services from high-priced lawyers who, if they do not have any cases pending before his court now, will surely have one or more in the foreseeable future.

However, I hope the senator-judges take note of the pro bono lawyers because the real issue in this entire messy affair is the integrity of the Court and whether keeping Corona helps the institution and the country as well.

Corona can be convicted on the basis of his mis-declared SALNs but pro bono defense counsel Cuevas argues, “if there may have been discrepancies, inaccuracies, incompleteness…(in his SALNs) these can be remedied after a review of the SALN is made. If it’s not intentional your honor, no criminal liability nor administrative liability is incurred by the filing official. The law of the matter is very clear.”

Year after year after year? Any remedy after all those years of discrepancies, inaccuracies, incompleteness already qualifies as “doctoring” one’s SALN and as everybody knows correcting and doctoring do not mean the same thing. One is perfectly legal while the latter is reason enough to remove a justice from the Court.

Maybe that’s why stealth defense counsel Joker Arroyo wanted to know if mis-declared SALNs rise to the level of an impeachable complaint. However, I think the more honest question would be, is it okay for a Chief Justice to continue to hold office despite the fact that he lied about his assets and liabilities?

Once upon a time I thought rather naively that “Kung bad ka lagot ka (If you’re bad, you’re finished)” was Joker’s slogan. Now I know it is “Kung bad ka, sagot kita (If you’re bad, I’ve got you covered).”

Why are Corona’s pro bono lawyers opposing the subpoena for his bank accounts? Corona did say he can explain everything, didn’t he? There is no need to play hide and seek. Volunteer to open all bank accounts for examination.

And what’s this bugaboo about bank runs if the absolute secrecy of foreign currency deposits is breached? That spin is a confession that the Philippines has adopted a policy of selling the country as a haven for dirty money.

Then there is the supposed problem about the separation of powers if justices and other court employees are asked to testify on Corona’s role in certain decisions. How will the Senate judge the allegations about Corona’s partiality if Corona will prevent testimony and documentary evidence? There is no dangerous precedent being set with a subpoena other than that testimony in an impeachment trial should be permitted if such testimony is necessary for the truth to come out. Is that such a bad precedent? Since when did the search for truth undermine democracy?

There is one other defense line that I do not understand. Corona keeps citing the collegial nature of Supreme Court decisions. If that is the case then why did he boast about his role in the Hacienda Luisita decision?  “Malaki akong hadlang sa mga nagnanais na hindi maipamahagi ang lupain sa Hacienda Luisita (I am a big obstacle to those who desire to prevent the distribution of Hacienda Luisita).” How can one lonely inconsequential vote become a big obstacle? That boast about Hacienda Luisita contradicts the collegiality defense.

Corona’s entire defense, including the pro bono lawyers and saying one thing before the trial and doing the opposite at the trial, are proof enough that he is not fit to sit in the Supreme Court, more so as Chief Justice. What more does the Senate need to remove him?

This piece was published in the February 6, 2012 edition of the BusinessWorld, pages S1/4 to S1/5.

In a rushed, madcap meeting of the National Internal Revenue subcommittee held at the House of Representatives on 30 January 2012, a substitute version of the sin tax bill was signed and approved by 10 legislators, led by the subcommittee’s chair, Representative (Rep.)  Eric Singson Jr. of Ilocos Sur.

The substitute bill consolidates the salient facets of the bills previously filed by Rep. Hermilando Mandanas and Rep. Singson on the excise tax for alcohol and tobacco merchandise.  Sin tax reform advocates have criticized the Mandanas and Singson bills for their weak provisions such as the absence of inflation indexation and the retention of multi-tiered tax rates.

The substitute bill from Singson’s sub-committee contains a minuscule increase in tax rates across the same cumbersome multi-tiered classification system. Neither does it account for future inflationary adjustments.

The substitute bill thus merely resuscitates the tired features of the Mandanas and Singson bills. Moreover, it glaringly omits any tax rate increase for distilled spirits.

The ten signing congresspersons, including Rep. Singson, Rep. Mitos Magsaysay of Zambales, and Rep. Rufus Rodriguez of Cagayan de Oro City, are promoting a bill that contradicts the tobacco and alcohol tax reforms found  in the administration bill.

Rep. Singson’s substitute bill will not generate optimal revenues from price-inelastic goods because of the very small increases in the tax rates.  It will result in foregone revenues because the multi-tiered tax rates will induce shifting of consumption from higher-taxed brands of alcohol and tobacco to the low-priced ones.

Worse, it will erode revenues over time because of the absence of inflation indexation. The Singson-proposed tax rates, an increase of 8 percent every two years, are equivalent to an average yearly increase of 3.9 percent.  This is below the average annual inflation rate of 5 percent (from 2000-10).

Furthermore, the low rates, with the real value being diminished because of inflation, will not discourage consumption of alcohol and tobacco, thus failing to stem the rise of non-communicable diseases associated with smoking and drinking.

Contrary to the claim of Rep. Singson and his allies in the sub-committee that the administration bill is anti-poor for heavily taxing the poor who smoke and drink, it in fact protects the poor and the young. Reducing alcohol and smoking consumption by having high taxes is good for the poor’s health and productivity.  The young and the poor –and the tax-paying public at large—bear the staggering health-care costs as well as the productivity losses arising from consumption of alcohol and tobacco.

Increased revenues from price-inelastic goods mean more spending for health, education and other essential services that will benefit the poor and their children. Improving the macroeconomy through the increased tax effort stimulates investor confidence that translates into jobs.

The economic costs from tobacco and alcohol consumption far exceed the amount of excise taxes collected from these products.  For instance, the World Health Organization estimated that the economic costs of tobacco consumption ranged from USD2.86 billion (PHP 148.7 billion) to USD6.05 billion (PHP 314.38 billion) in 2003. From 2004-10, based on the data from the Department of Finance, the annual average  of excise taxes collected from tobacco products averaged PHP25.94 billion.  In other words, it takes close to five years for revenues collected from tobacco excise taxes to compensate for the economic costs (conservative estimate) in one year associated with smoking-related diseases.

On the other hand, Singson’s substitute bill will perpetuate smoking and drinking prevalence, contributing to the continued impoverishment of the young and the poor. Despite their low income, the poor spend more on smoking (2.6 percent) than on healthcare and education combined (2.5 percent), on average.

In sum, Rep. Singson’s substitute bill will thwart the administration’s health and revenue objectives.  The Singson bill is backward and anti-reform. It will aggravate the Philippine fiscal problem.  It will exacerbate the health problems related to tobacco and alcohol consumption.

What we need are real sin tax reforms—as expressed in the administration bill filed by Rep. Joseph Emilio Abaya.

No less than Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, Jr. has made public his position for the passage of a sin tax that is simple—not the present multi-tiered rates—and that is adjusted to inflation.  In a speech he delivered on 27 July 2011, he said: “It is high time that we restructure our tobacco and alcohol excise taxes. The prevailing multi-tax rate classification of cigarette and alcohol products and the pegging of sin taxes to 1996 price levels have convoluted the tax system and shrunk the tax base, dampening the government’s revenue efforts and essentially depriving the public of resources, which could have been used to fund the most basic of services.”

We expect the House of Representatives as a whole, led by the reformers, will resist any attempt to dilute the sin tax reforms.  We are confident that the reformers—whose integrity, reputation, and knowledge of the issues are unassailable—will defeat Singson’s substitute bill and secure the passage of the administration’s sin tax reforms.

For more information on sin tax reforms, contact Action for Economic Reforms at aer@aer.ph or go to the Projects, Campaigns tab above and click Sin Tax Reforms (http://aer.ph/?cat=48).

This piece was first published on http://globalnation.inquirer.net/24945/republican-gladiators on February 4, 2012.

If you haven’t been following the Republican presidential primaries, you’re missing a fascinating distraction from the sluggish impeachment of Ate Glo’s midnight-appointed corony in the Philippine Supreme Court.

What started out as a clumsy free-for-all among half-a-dozen GOP presidential aspirants has devolved into a bare-knuckle duel between two frontrunners, who are pounding each other with ever-increasing ferocity. There’s blood, and no one’s crying “No mas” (not even for the sake of Latino outreach).

They’re using tridents, maces, axes, halberds, the kitchen sink, and it makes 2008’s Obama vs. Clinton primary look like so much playground teasing.

Mitt Romney has called Newt Gingrich a “sad” influence peddler and a bumbling “Lucille Ball at the chocolate factory.” Gingrich called Romney “a liar” and, with an eye to Jewish retirees, accused him of denying kosher food to Holocaust survivors who are on Medicare. Wow. After his Florida defeat, Gingrich didn’t even bother making an obligatory concession phone call to Romney. Instead, he promised more scorched-earth warfare in “46 states.”

Republican royalty aren’t amused by the continued bloodletting. They worry that the GOP could be locked in a self-destructive mode, and they’re mostly blaming Gingrich. “He has a new idea every minute,” mocks Bob Dole. John McCain laments that the debates—19 so far and with more to come—are very damaging to the party as a whole.

Even Fox News host Chris Wallace called the primary debates “idiotic,” (unwittingly echoing Fidel Castro, who railed at the “idiocy and ignorance” of the contenders, presumably because the debaters even argued over whether Castro’s soul was going to go to Heaven or to Hell).

But if there’s so much “idiocy,” distortion, and jockeying for the applause of rightwing mobs it’s because the debates concentrate the vitriol and lack of civility that conservative extremists have brought into the U.S. political process. The biggest bomb-thrower thus far has been the humility-challenged and grandiose Gingrich.

And the GOP establishment only has itself to blame for the clout of a now-muscular rightwing base that’s currently shaping the party’s inner political culture. The party is experiencing blowback from its successful “Southern strategy” of the past 46 years. The gambit has come home to roost, and it’s pooping on the parlor floor.

With the Southern strategy, the GOP successfully split away conservative and racist whites from what was an uneasily multiracial Democratic base, thereby decisively ending the Democratic Party’s traditional dominance in the American South.

By excluding blacks’ concerns from the GOP platforms—and using racially coded political messaging, such as “celebrating the Confederacy,” “Willie Horton ads” featuring a furloughed black convict, “state’s rights,” etc.—GOP strategists like the late Lee Atwater turned conservative Southern whites into a solid pillar of the party. Alienated, blacks stuck it out with the Democrats but saw their political power in the region greatly diminished.

But as the downside of the Southern strategy’s success, the GOP now has two distinct wings battling for supremacy within.

On the one hand are college educated, middle-to-upper-class high earners who are fiscally conservative but socially right-of-center, represented by the likes of the Doles, the elder Bush, and the McCains.

Today’s crop of leading Republican “moderates” includes the likes of Chris Christie, Jon Huntsman–and Mitt Romney. This wing has long dominated the party, but accommodating, even blessing, conservative extremism is the quid it relinquished for the Southern strategy quo.

The result it the vociferous contending wing–the GOP strategy’s Frankenstein monster. It comprises lower- stratum, blue-collar whites united by rigid positions on social issues like abortion, school prayer, the teaching of evolution, and sexuality. Exemplifying the fascist strain in American politics, it includes Christian mullahs, implicit or explicit racists, isolationists, and Tea Party stalwarts.

Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Santorum are the stars of this wing. But Newt Gingrich, although not a true social conservative, has successfully drawn much support from it by capitalizing on its distaste for elites and suspicion of Romney as a “stealth liberal.”

If there’s so much vicious infighting now in the Republican Party it’s because the primaries are more than just about choosing the best candidate to run against President Obama. They’re part of the protracted fight for the soul of the GOP and the definition of American conservatism.

As for the leading contenders for the presidential nomination, if you’re not a conservative (or if you’re not a Filipino immigrant who believes that becoming a Republican is the height of assimilation and success) there’s little to like in either aspirant.

Romney is a fat cat who earned $42 million the last two years but paid lower taxes–13 percent in 2010–than the average working stiff who earns only $40,000 a year but paid up to 35 percent.

With an undisclosed income from a Swiss bank account and tax-sheltered holdings in the Cayman Islands, he’s not someone who’s asking what he can do for his country. He is, however, a perfect specimen of the rich adherents of the GOP’s foundational principle of caring very little for the have-nots.

Romney is wont to make statements that highlight his lack of the common touch. “I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there,” is his latest gaffe.

Gingrich is an egotistical demagogue, who had to leave Congress due to ethics violations. An ethics committee dominated by his fellow Republicans had to fine him $300,000 for fiddling with nonprofit fronts for political fundraising. Social conservatives are flocking to him now—and willing to ignore his “sinful” past–because he projects the shrillest voice against Romney.

A thrice-married ladies’ man, Gingrich famously denounced Bill Clinton for Monicavorting and undermining moral values, while he himself was doing bedroom Callisthenics with the mistress who’s now his wife. He even asked his second wife for an “open” marriage so he could sleep around without theoretically committing adultery.

Gingrich’s excuse for his hypocrisy? “There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.” Ask not what you can do for your country, but what women other than your wife can do for you.

Patriotism made him do it. It’s almost better than the Costa Concordia captain’s excuse for leaving his ship ahead of stricken passengers: “I tripped and fell into a lifeboat.”

Besides their doubts about the ability of either Romney or Gingrich to defeat Obama, Republican elders also worry that Gingrich and the social conservatives would fight all the way to the GOP convention and weaken the party strategically.

In fact, given the deep anti-Romney feelings in the Republican right wing, a breakaway third party looms as a possibility. If that should happen it would be a catastrophe for the GOP on November 6. More than a month ahead of the Mayan doomsday.

Okay, the floor is now open for furious comments and insults from the rightwing response network.

Buencamino is a fellow of Action for Economic Reforms. This piece was first published in Interaksyon.com on February 2, 2012.

Frustrated over having to keep up with Sen. Miriam Santiago’s rapid-fire tirades at the trial of impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona, the Sign Language Association of the Philippines (SLAP) decided that henceforth the interpreter on duty will simply point a finger to his temple and move it in a circular motion whenever Miriam speaks. Just kidding.

Over the weekend, Sen. Santiago told dzBB radio that she had a brain scan after her blood pressure shot up following her full Brenda on private prosecutor Atty. Arthur Lim.

“There’s nothing wrong with my brain, contrary to the impression of my enemies,” Brenda, I mean Miriam, claimed.

She disclosed her MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) results and the diagnosis of her doctors:  “No brain damage. Flapping noises and high-pitched beeps inside patient’s head are temporary. Patient is advised to rest on her right side for a few days so that the bats can fly out of her left ear.”

But seriously, at least Miriam had the courage to answer questions regarding her fitness for the job. She is not a coward like Ronald Llamas, the political adviser of President Aquino who ran for cover after he was busted buying dibidis in a downscale mall in Quezon City.

It’s not the purchase of dibidis that gets me. A lot of people do it and there is no social stigma or criminal penalty attached to it. What rankles, more than the utter stupidity of a cabinet official buying dibidis in public, is the cowardice of Llamas.

It doesn’t take too many brain cells to figure out that Daan Matuwid, cabinet secretary, and dibidis don’t go well together, does it?  But stupidity can be excused. Some people are born stupid and there’s not much anyone can do about it. Unfortunately. Cowardice, on the other hand, is inexcusable. No one is born a coward. Cowardice is learned behavior. Llamas must have a PhD in it because he ran and left the president and his spokespeople to face the flak for his misbehavior. He exposed the president to attacks because he did not have the courage to accept the consequences of his actions.

Llamas may not know it but the fight against corruption is not for the faint-hearted. As Gloria Arroyo’s late spokesman Cerge Remonde once said, “Anybody who is going to fight corruption in this country or anywhere else is really going to run into serious opposition.”  That means people who cut and run at the first sign of danger have no place in the Aquino administration.

Mr. Llamas, don’t use your friendship with the president to force him to find a reason why not to fire you. You are supposed to help the president, not the other way around. You are supposed to take a bullet for the president, not the other way around. Be a true friend to the president and tender your irrevocable resignation now. You are a liability. Give up your sinecure and go make a living in the private sector. Open a dibidi stall, open a chain of stalls and become a dibidi tycoon, do whatever makes you happy, but stay the hell out of an administration that is trying to change the way things are done in this country.

In a rushed, madcap meeting of the National Internal Revenue Subcommittee held at the House of Representatives on 30 January 2012, a consolidated version of the Sin Tax Bill was signed and approved by 10 members of the House, led by the Subcommittee’s chair Rep. Eric Singson Jr. of Ilocos Sur.

The ten signing Congresspersons including Rep. Singson, Rep. Mitos Magsaysay of Zambales and Rufus Rodriguez of Cagayan de Oro City want a bill that undermines the tobacco and alcohol tax reforms.

The consolidated Singson bill fuses the salient facets of the previous Mandanas and Singson proposals for excise tax reforms in alcohol and tobacco merchandise.

Sin tax reform advocates have criticized both the Mandanas and Singson bills for their weak and deceptive features. The consolidated  Singson bill  tax proposes a miniscule increase in tax rates across the same cumbersome multi-tiered classification system. Neither does it account for any future inflationary adjustments. The Singson consolidated bill merely resuscitates the tired features of the Mandanas and previous Singson bills.

To reiterate, the Singson bill lacks the essential features of adjusting tax rates to generate optimal revenues, indexing the sin taxes to inflation and simplifying the tax structure.  It does not contain either tax rate increases for distilled spirits.

In short, it defies the administration bill. The repackaged Singson bill will defeat the administration’s health and revenue objectives from being realized.

Also deplorable is the manner in which it was inked by the Singson group. In rushing its version of the sin tax bill, Rep. Singson called in the very late afternoon of January 26 for an early-morning meeting on the 30^th. It should be noted that congressional offices were closed on January 27, followed by the weekend, preventing other legislators from acquiring prior information about the said meeting.  Tellingly, the Singson subcommittee did not even bother to invite the champions of the administration bill.

The Singson group’s consolidated bill is backward and anti-reform. It will contribute to worsening the Philippine fiscal problem.  It will exacerbate the health problems related to tobacco and alcohol consumption.

Contrary to the claim of Rep. Singson and company that the administration bill is anti-poor for taxing the poor who smoke and drink, it in fact protects the poor and the young.  Reducing alcohol and smoking consumption of the poor is good for their health and productivity. Increased revenues mean more spending for health, education and other essential services that will benefit the poor and their children. Improving the macroeconomy through increased tax effort encourages investor confidence that translates into jobs.

What we need are real sin tax reforms—as expressed in the administration bill filed by Rep. Joseph Emilio Abaya.

No less than Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, Jr. has made public his position for the passage of a sin tax that is simple—not the present multi-tiered rates and that is adjusted to inflation.  In a speech he delivered on 27 July 2011, he said: “It is high time that we restructure our tobacco and alcohol excise taxes. The prevailing multi-tax rate classification of cigarette and alcohol products and the pegging of sin taxes to 1996 price levels have convoluted the tax system and shrunk the tax base, dampening the government’s revenue efforts and essentially depriving the public of resources, which could have been used to fund the most basic of services.”

We are confident that the reformers will block the reactionary Singson bill. We are likewise confident that the reformers—whose integrity, reputation, and knoweldge of the issues are unassailable—will secure the passage of the sin tax reforms.

Filomeno S. Sta. Ana III

Coordinator

Jerik Cruz

Media Officer

For more information, call Action for Economic Reforms at  02 4265626.

Mr. Sta. Ana coordinates Action for Economic Reforms. To get a copy of Jawidsawen nu Vatan!, contact Art Post Asia through telephone number 0916-6668605. This piece was published in the January 31, 2012 edition of the BusinessWorld, pages S1/4 to S1/5.

What language is that?  Esperanto?  Jejemon?  Bekimon?

Jawidsawen nu Vatan! is Ivatan. It means: How beautiful is Batanes!

Without a doubt, Batanes is beautiful.  Together with Palawan or Siargao, Batanes is the poster image of the natural beauty of the Philippines.  In my book, Batanes has one of the most scenic landscapes and among the friendliest people on earth. In Southeast Asia, it edges out Bali or Krabi.

So many adjectives with long and short syllables describe Batanes:  breathtaking, panoramic, picturesque, stunning and spectacular, beguiling, charming, unspoiled, quaint, cool and fresh, rugged and stormy but also serene, relaxing and dreamy.

Batanes, we must emphasize, is not just about beautiful sceneries and hospitable people.  Although rural and lacking in high-value economic activities, Batanes’s development is impressive.

It is one of the provinces that consistently ranks among the top provinces with a high quality of life, measured by the United Nations’ Human Development Index (HDI).  The HDI consists ofvariables on health, education, and income. Illiteracy and dropout for basic education are naught. If there’s something disturbing about health, the Ivatans are alcoholic, resulting in non-communicable diseases that could have been prevented.

Jawidsawen nu Vatan!is also the title of the book authored by Victoria Abad Kerblat.  Kerblat is not an Ivatan name; it’s French. Vicky is married to a French national. But Abad is a famous name.  Vicky happens to be the sister of Butch Abad, the progressive public official and close adviser of PNoy.  Some know Vicky as the younger sister of the late Pacita Abad, recognized as one of Asia’s outstandingmodern artists.

Vicky does not mind being in the shadow of her brother, the prominent politician,or of her older sister, the celebrated contemporary artist.  A natural comedian armed withself-deprecating humor, she boasts that she’s handsomer than Butch.  And she’d furtively but good-humoredly nod if someone suggests that she might be a better artist than Pacita.

It is hard to classify Vicky’s Jawidsawen nu Vatan! An art book?  Yes, for it features the paintings portrayingBatanes, done not only by Vicky but by other Ivatan artists.  A collaborating artist for the book is the London-based Pio Abad, Butch and Dina Abad’s son.

It can also be a tourist book, for it depicts through illustrations and words the attraction of the different towns and islands of Batanes.  The book can be used as a promotion material to entice foreign tourists, arguably more effective than shouting the slogan that “it is more fun in the Philippines.”

Some might describeJawidsawen nu Vatan! as a coffee-table book.  But I will disagree to that if a coffee-table book is only meant for display in the living room of a mansion in one of Makati’s gated villages.

The book is not for decoration. It is for reading, learning, and vicariously enjoying the way of life in Batanes.  It is refreshingly educational. It gives insights into the sturdiness and resilience of the Ivatans, their collective spirit, called payuwhan, their traditional homes that resemble the stone houses in bucolic France, their produce from the blue sea and the rolling hills, their food and kitchen, their clothing (the vacul, for example, which is the head and back covering for women made from the palm tree).  The book thus offers an anthropological and sociological perspective.

Yet, the book is not dense.  It is easy reading and is in fact appealing to children for its art and story-telling style.

Although Vicky is now gaining prominence as an artist, she is a biologist by training.  The biologist’s attributes of being curious and being meticulous define the quality of her paintings—for example, herexquisite strokes and her eye for detail.

These attributes influenced her writing —clear, specific, and colorful. As an example, take this lively phrase in which she describes Batanes:  “…the sturdy, weather-beaten Ivatans, our velvet hills, old stone houses, and the dark moody waters where the Pacific Ocean meets the West Philippine Sea. Every hint of green, stroke of blue, and touch of grey become translations of my memories of slow afternoon strolls, passing the century-old Balete trees at the plaza, smoky dinner presentations in our stone kitchen, and the welcoming old Ivatan folks.”

Simply beautiful.

Buencamino is a fellow of Action for Economic Reforms. This piece was first published in Interaksyon.com on January 25, 2012.

The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits - Albert Einstein

Before yesterday’s hearing, I thought I had the defense strategy figured out: Tie the hands of the prosecution; block the submission of evidence by raising legal technicalities; confuse the public with legal gobbledygook; and distract everybody with the hairdo of Justice Cuevas. I figured wrong. I didn’t see the secret weapon of the defense: a remote control device to activate the motor mouth of lead prosecutor Iloilo Representative Niel Tupas.

Less talk, less mistake! Hasn’t anybody told Tupas that?

His fellow Ilonggo Sen. Miriam Santiago lent him a hand when he was being pummeled by defense counsel Cuevas.  She reminded the court that they needed to be liberal with accepting evidence so that the ugly outcome of the Estrada impeachment which was caused by strict interpretation of the law would not be repeated. That should have been that. Tupas should have thanked Miriam for her unsolicited assistance. But no. He had to open his mouth and make a manifestation that implied Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was partial to the defense.

“Dugay man ka dinhi sa Maynila kay tonto ka pa man gihapon.” Niel cannot even spell Neil correctly. I don’t know what it is with the fifth congressional district of Iloilo but the man who preceded Niel as representative was a man named Rolex. But in fairness to Niel, he is not alone. There is an epidemic of stupidity.

Court spokesman Midas Marquez bragged that lawyers de campanilla were defending Corona for free, pro bono in legal parlance, and the defense lawyers proudly claimed that they were doing it out of principle. Stupid.

Human rights lawyer Rene Saguisag pointed out that Corona is violating judicial ethics by accepting free legal assistance:

“Rule 5.04 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics says judges shall not accept a gift or favor from anyone. My humble submission is that wealthy and powerful CJ Rene may not accept free legal services from lawyers as these comprise a gift or favor.  Utang na loob to be repaid in the form of favorable or sympathetic rulings. No lawyer is helping Rene for free just because he is such a nice guy. He or his firm may have cases at every level and association with the CJ would not harm at this point.  Amor con amor se paga.“

Then there are those miron lawyers who are asking the Supreme Court to stop Corona’s trial because the House of Representatives committed “grave abuse of discretion.” They argue that the Supreme Court has the power and the duty to “determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government” under Art VIII sec 1 of the Constitution. Checks and balances to insure due process daw. But the same constitution also says “The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment” and “The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.”

Lawyers can argue those provisions until the end of the world or until Cuevas gets a new hairstylist whichever comes first but the question that matters to non-lawyers is, why is the Supreme Court being asked to decide on the constitutionality of a trial whose outcome has a direct bearing on the Chief Justice?

An earlier Congress was shortsighted enough to submit to the Supreme Court’s decision in the impeachment of Chief Justice Hilario Davide. It surrendered its exclusive power to initiate impeachment. Now we have to live with that Court’s tortured explanation of what initiating an impeachment complaint means. And all that Court wanted was to save Davide from a second and stronger impeachment complaint.

Now I’m not saying that those Arroyo-appointed justices will issue a TRO to protect their chief. They could dismiss the TRO petition. But that’s not the point. The thing is it’s stupid to even imagine that the rule of law and the system of checks and balances will somehow benefit from a lawsuit that asks justices to decide on a case involving their chief. The credibility of the institution rests on the perception that its decisions are impartial, objective, and fair. How, in this particular case, can the Court come up with a decision that will meet such criteria? Sentido comun por favor.

Everybody has a right to be stupid but that does not mean they have a right to abuse that right.

Malaluan is Trustee of Action for Economic Reforms and Co-Director of the Institute for Freedom of Information. This piece was published in the January 23, 2012 edition of the BusinessWorld, pages S1/4 to S1/5.

The public disclosure element plays a very vital cog in the system of accountability that the Constitution wanted to achieve on SALNs. It empowers the citizens to scrutinize and verify the two other main elements of truthful declaration and submission.

But the public disclosure component leaves much to be desired in practice. One mechanism to frustrate compliance is through administrative avoidance. Rather than facilitating the orderly implementation of Section 8 (C) of RA 6713, some government agencies apply instead the general duty, also under RA 6713, to act promptly on letters and requests within 15 days from a request. Any response, including acknowledgement, referral, or indication of future action, is regarded as substantive compliance.

Worse, some major custodians of SALNs have promulgated guidelines that go beyond reasonable regulation of the manner of access, and which appear intended more to subvert the plain, mandatory directive of the Constitution for disclosure of SALNs to the public.

Sadly, the Supreme Court has led in this regard. It first issued an en banc resolution in May 1989 requiring a requester to state the purpose of the request and outlined the conditions under which requests would be denied. In September 1992 it issued an even more restrictive guideline authorizing the Court Administrator to act on requests only upon a court subpoena signed by a presiding judge in a pending criminal case against a judge or court personnel, or upon an appropriate request personally signed by the Ombudsman.

Two other major custodians of SALNs have followed suit. In June 2009 then Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez issued Memorandum Circular No. 1 that limits the legitimate reasons for requests, requires requests to be subscribed and sworn to, and introduces a wide discretion for denying requests for SALNs. More recently, the Civil Service Commission adopted Resolution No. 100356 dated March 15, 2011, which also requires that requests for SALNs be sworn to, imposes additional documentation support from requesters, and charges a fee of P200 for a copy of each SALN.

The Impeachment Complaint by the House of Representatives, and the support for it by the Executive, has raised the bar of compliance to the mandate of the Constitution regarding SALNs. In addition to putting forward the violation of the duty to truthfully declare, submit, and publicly disclose SALNs as an impeachable offense, we hope that it will also facilitate the institutionalization of compliance.

More specifically, we hope that administrative avoidance of disclosure of SALNs stops, that the Supreme Court finally reconsiders its restrictive guidelines on access to SALNs in the judiciary, and that the incumbent Ombudsman as well as the Civil Service Commission also reconsider their similarly restrictive guidelines.

Finally, and most important, we hope that the long overdue passage of the Freedom of Information bill happens at the soonest. Its definite provisions on exceptions, proactive disclosure, procedure for access, and administrative and criminal penalties for violation of the right to information, plug loopholes not only with respect to access to SALNs but to all other government-held information. We also note that the proposed amendments by the Executive on the FOI bill that was submitted last year to the Senate included the requirement to publish SALNs.

In respect to the passage of the FOI bill, we acknowledge the commitment made much earlier by Senate Committee on Public Information Chairman Gregorio Honasan to push the bill. We very much welcome as well the endorsement recently given by President Aquino on the FOI bill. We now keenly await a similar commitment and action on the FOI bill from the House leadership and from House Committee on Public Information Chairman Ben Evardone.