Get Movement

PARTICIPATIVE LEADERSHIP

2010-12-14T21:18:00.000+08:00

Participative leadership that involves all members of a team in identifying essential goals and developing procedures or strategies for reach those goals. This style of leadership can be seen relies heavily on the leader functioning as a facilitator rather than simply issuing orders or making assignments.

One of the main benefits of participative leadership is that the process allows for the development of additional leaders who can serve the organization at a later date. Because leaders who favor this style encourage active involvement on the part of everyone on the team, people often are able to express their creativity and demonstrate abilities and talents that would not be made apparent otherwise. The discovery of these hidden assets help to benefit the work of the current team, but also alerts the organization to people within the team who should be provided with opportunities to further develop some skill or ability for future use. This also expands the range of possibilities for the team. When leadership styles that essentially leave all the direction and decision making in the hands of one individual, it is much more difficult to see a given approach from several different angles. When the leadership style encourages others to be involved in the decision making process, a given course of action can be approached from a variety of perceptions. This can often point out strengths or weaknesses to the approach that would have gone unobserved and thus unresolved without this type of participatory brainstorming and decision making.

One potential disadvantage of participate leadership is the time factor. This leadership style does often involve the need for more time before action is taken. This is only natural, since the very nature of participative leadership means allowing input from every member of the team. However, the extra time necessary for this process often leads to decisions that ultimately benefit everyone to a greater degree than faster decisions that are more limited in scope.

Extra bonus for govt workers

2010-12-09T21:37:00.001+08:00

NQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos

P10K bonus OK'd for government workers

2010-12-09T21:19:00.001+08:00

ABS-CBN News Latest Philippine Headlines

The Philippine Star

Posted at 11/28/2010

MANILA, Philippines – President Aquino has authorized the granting of a P10,000 Productivity Enhancement Incentive to state employees on top of their Christmas bonus and 13th month pay.

Under Administrative Order No. 3 signed on Nov. 25, Aquino said the government’s austerity measures have greatly contributed to keeping the fiscal deficit within target.
“The economy has stabilized; investors’ confidence, trust and faith in the Philippine government have been restored; plans for the effective implementation of government programs such as on education, health, poverty alleviation, and job generation are pursued under the platform of good governance,” Aquino said in the order.

“These accomplishments were achieved through the unwavering support, commitment, and collaborative efforts of all government employees from all sectors and levels of Philippine bureaucracy,” he added.

State employees in the executive branch, government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs), and government financial institutions (GIFs) hired on a permanent, temporary, casual or contractual status are entitled to the one-time productivity bonus if they have rendered at least four months of service as of Nov. 30.

Government employees who have rendered less than four months of service as of Nov. 30 will receive the bonus on a pro-rated basis: 40 percent for service rendered for three months but less than four months, 30 percent for service rendered for two months but less than three months, 20 percent for work rendered for a month but less than two months, and 10 percent for work rendered for less than a month.

The employees should also not have received any additional year-end benefit in the current fiscal year other than the P5,000 Christmas bonus.

The productivity bonus for employees of the executive branch will be sourced from the 2010 budget savings of the national government agencies (P7,000 for each employee) and from savings in the allotments of the respective agencies of state workers (P3,000 for each employee).

If the savings of the agencies are not enough to fund the balance of P3,000, it is advised that the bonus be given at a lower but uniform rate.

For employees of GOCCs and GIFs, the productivity bonus will be sourced from the savings of the corporate budgets for 2010.

If the corporate savings are not enough to fund the bonus, a partial but uniform rate can be disbursed.
Employees of the Senate, House of Representatives, the judiciary, the Office of the Ombudsman, and constitutional offices are also entitled to the bonus which may be charged to savings in allotments of their offices.

The granting of the bonus to employees of local government units (LGUs) will have to be determined by the local council.

The productivity bonus will likewise be sourced from the LGUs’ savings in 2010.

The payment of the bonus to state employees shall be made not earlier than Dec. 15.

LEGAL PROCEDURE

2010-11-27T14:00:00.002+08:00

Katarungang Pambarangay

The “Katarungang Pambarangay” or the barangay justice system is governed by Sections 399 to 422 of the Local Government Code. It has helped lessen the burden of our courts by settling at the barangay level conflicts and disputes between residents of the same barangay. Please take note of these issues regarding barangay justice:

[1] Lawyers are not allowed to appear in barangay hearings.

[2] Even if the parties in dispute are residents of the same barangay, they do not necessarily have to go through the Katarungang Pambarangay. Section 408 of the Local Government Code enumerates the exceptions where the parties can go straight to court or to the fiscal’s office.

[3] If there has been an arbitration award or amicable settlement, and one party does not comply, the other party can file with the Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Court a petition for the execution of such settlement or award (Section 417). Although the Lupon has the authority to execute such arbitration award or amicable settlement, some barangay officials refuse to do so. Their reason is politics; they do not want to antagonize people who might vote against them in the next barangay elections.

[4] Despite the use of the term “justice”, there really is no such thing as a barangay court. The barangay officials who compose the Lupong Tagapamayap or the Pangkat ng Tagakapagsundo are not judges. One of my former students told me that a barangay captain in Dasmarinas, Cavite obligates everyone to call him “Justice”. One of my friends who got involved in a dispute in a Taguig City barangay told me that the head of the Lupon threatened him that his complaint will be dismissed for lack of merit. The only instance that the Lupon or Pangkat acts like a court (weighing evidence, hearing testimonies, deciding on the merits, etc.) is when the parties in dispute agree to arbitration.

Differences among conciliation, mediation and arbitration

The article Arbitration, Mediation and Conciliation: differences and similarities from an International and Italian business perspective by Alessandra Sgubini, Mara Prieditis & Andrea Marighetto provides a clear discussion on the differences among conciliation, mediation and arbitration:

Conciliation and mediation both look to maintain an existing business relationship and to rekindle a lost balance of power between two parties. These concepts are sometimes used as synonyms, but they do indeed vary substantially in their procedures. In mediation, the mediator controls the process through different and specific stages: introduction, joint session, caucus, and agreement, while the parties control the outcome. By contrast, in conciliation the conciliator may not follow a structured process, instead administering the conciliation process as a traditional negotiation, which may take different forms depending on the case.

Arbitration is an ADR (alternative dispute resolution) method where the disputing parties involved present their disagreement to one arbitrator or a panel of private, independent and qualified third party “arbitrators.” The arbitrator(s) determine the outcome of the case. While it may be less expensive and more accessible than trial, the arbitration process has well-defined disadvantages. Some of disadvantages include the risk losing, formal or semi-formal rules of procedure and evidence, as well as the potential loss of control over the decision after transfer by the parties of decision-making authority to the arbitrator. By employing arbitration, the parties lose their ability to participate directly in the process. In addition, parties in arbitration are confined by traditional legal remedies that do not encompass creative, innovative, or forward-looking solutions to business disputes. (Read the complete article)

Katarungang Pambarangay Sections 399 to 422 of the Local Government Code

SEC. 399. Lupong Tagapamayapa. - (a) There is hereby created in each barangay a lupong tagapamayapa, hereinafter referred to as the lupon, composed of the punong barangay as chairman and ten (10) to twenty (20) members. The lupon shall be constituted every three (3) years in the manner provided herein.

(b) Any person actually residing or working in the barangay, not otherwise expressly disqualified by law, and possessing integrity, impartiality, independence of mind, sense of fairness, and reputation for probity, may be appointed a member of the lupon.

(c) A notice to constitute the lupon, which shall include the names of proposed members who have expressed their willingness to serve, shall be prepared by the punong barangay within the first fifteen (15) days from the start of his term of office. Such notice shall be posted in three (3) conspicuous places in the barangay continuously for a period of not less than three (3) weeks;

(d) The punong barangay, taking into consideration any opposition to the proposed appointment or any recommendations for appointments as may have been made within the period of posting, shall within ten (10) days thereafter, appoint as members those whom he determines to be suitable therefor. Appointments shall be in writing, signed by the punong barangay, and attested to by the barangay secretary.

(e) The list of appointed members shall be posted in three (3) conspicuous places in the barangay for the entire duration of their term of office; and

(f) In barangays where majority of the inhabitants are members of indigenous cultural communities, local systems of es through their councils of datus or elders shall be recognized without prejudice to the applicable provisions of this Code.

SEC. 400. Oath and Term of Office. - Upon appointment, each lupon member shall take an oath of office before the punong barangay. He shall hold office until a new lupon is constituted on the third year following his appointment unless sooner terminated by resignation, transfer of residence or place of work, or withdrawal of appointment by the punong barangay with the concurrence of the majority of all the members of the lupon.

SEC. 401. Vacancies. - Should a vacancy occur in the lupon for any cause, the punong barangay shall immediately appoint a qualified person who shall hold office only for the unexpired portion of the term.

SEC. 402. Functions of the Lupon. - The lupon shall: (a) Exercise administrative supervision over the conciliation panels provided herein;

(b) Meet regularly once a month to provide a forum for exchange of ideas among its members and the public on matters relevant to the amicable settlement of disputes, and to enable various conciliation panel members to share with one another their observations and experiences in effecting speedy resolution of disputes; and

(c) Exercise such other powers and perform such other duties and functions as may be prescribed by law or ordinance.

SEC. 403. Secretary of the Lupon. - The barangay secretary shall concurrently serve as the secretary of the lupon. He shall record the results of mediation proceedings before the punong barangay and shall submit a report thereon to the proper city or municipal courts. He shall also receive and keep the records of proceedings submitted to him by the various conciliation panels.

SEC. 404. Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo. - (a) There shall be constituted for each dispute brought before the lupon a conciliation panel to be known as the pangkat ng tagapagkasundo, hereinafter referred to as the pangkat, consisting of three (3) members who shall be chosen by the parties to the dispute from the list of members of the lupon. Should the parties fail to agree on the pangkat membership, the same shall be determined by lots drawn by the lupon chairman.

(b) The three (3) members constituting the pangkat shall elect from among themselves the chairman and the secretary. The secretary shall prepare the minutes of the pangkat proceedings and submit a copy duly attested to by the chairman to the lupon secretary and to the proper city or municipal court. He shall issue and cause to be served notices to the parties concerned. The lupon secretary shall issue certified true copies of any public record in his custody that is not by law otherwise declared confidential.

SEC. 405. Vacancies in the Pangkat. - Any vacancy in the pangkat shall be chosen by the parties to the dispute from among the other lupon members. Should the parties fail to agree on a common choice, the vacancy shall be filled by lot to be drawn by the lupon chairman.

SEC. 406. Character of Office and Service of Lupon Members. - (a) The lupon members, while in the performance of their official duties or on the occasion thereof, shall be deemed as persons in authority, as defined in the Revised Penal Code.

(b) The lupon or pangkat members shall serve without compensation, except as provided for in Section 393 and without prejudice to incentives as provided for in this Section and in Book IV of this Code. The Department of the Interior and Local Government shall provide for a system of granting economic or other incentives to the lupon or pangkat members who adequately demonstrate the ability to judiciously and expeditiously resolve cases referred to them. While in the performance of their duties, the lupon or pangkat members, whether in public or private employment, shall be deemed to be on official time, and shall not suffer from any diminution in compensation or allowance from said employment by reason thereof.

SEC. 407. Legal Advice on Matters Involving Questions of Law. - The provincial, city legal officer or prosecutor or the municipal legal officer shall render legal advice on matters involving questions of law to the punong barangay or any lupon or pangkat member whenever necessary in the exercise of his functions in the administration of the katarungang pambarangay.

SEC. 408. Subject Matter for Amicable Settlement; Exception Thereto. - The lupon of each barangay shall have authority to bring together the parties actually residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of all disputes except:

(a) Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof;

(b) Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of his official functions;

(c) Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine exceeding Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);

(d) Offenses where there is no private offended party;

(e) Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities or municipalities unless the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon;

(f) Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon;

(g) Such other classes of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice. The court in which non-criminal cases not falling within the authority of the lupon under this Code are filed may, at any time before trial, motu proprio refer the case to the lupon concerned for amicable settlement.

SEC. 409. Venue. - (a) Disputes between persons actually residing in the same barangay shall be brought for amicable settlement before the lupon of said barangay.

(b) Those involving actual residents of different barangays within the same city or municipality shall be brought in the barangay where the respondent or any of the respondents actually resides, at the election of the complainant.

(c) All disputes involving real property or any interest therein shall be brought in the barangay where the real property or the larger portion thereof is situated.

(d) Those arising at the workplace where the contending parties are employed or at the institution where such parties are enrolled for study, shall be brought in the barangay where such workplace or institution is located. Objections to venue shall be raised in the mediation proceedings before the punong barangay; otherwise, the same shall be deemed waived. Any legal question which may confront the punong barangay in resolving objections to venue herein referred to may be submitted to the Secretary of Justice, or his duly designated representative, whose ruling thereon shall be binding.

SEC. 410. Procedure for Amicable Settlement. - (a) Who may initiate proceeding - Upon payment of the appropriate filing fee, any individual who has a cause of action against another individual involving any matter within the authority of the lupon may complain, orally or in writing, to the lupon chairman of the barangay.

(b) Mediation by lupon chairman - Upon receipt of the complaint, the lupon chairman shall within the next working day summon the respondent(s), with notice to the complainant(s) for them and their witnesses to appear before him for a mediation of their conflicting interests. If he fails in his mediation effort within fifteen (15) days from the first meeting of the parties before him, he shall forthwith set a date for the constitution of the pangkat in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.

(c) Suspension of prescriptive period of offenses - While the dispute is under mediation, conciliation, or arbitration, the prescriptive periods for offenses and cause of action under existing laws shall be interrupted upon filing of the complaint with the punong barangay. The prescriptive periods shall resume upon receipt by the complainant of the complaint or the certificate of repudiation or of the certification to file action issued by the lupon or pangkat secretary: Provided, however, That such interruption shall not exceed sixty (60) days from the filing of the complaint with the punong barangay.

(d) Issuance of summons; hearing; grounds for disqualification - The pangkat shall convene not later than three (3) days from its constitution, on the day and hour set by the lupon chairman, to hear both parties and their witnesses, simplify issues, and explore all possibilities for amicable settlement. For this purpose, the pangkat may issue summons for the personal appearance of parties and witnesses before it. In the event that a party moves to disqualify any member of the pangkat by reason of relationship, bias, interest, or any other similar grounds discovered after the constitution of the pangkat, the matter shall be resolved by the affirmative vote of the majority of the pangkat whose decision shall be final. Should disqualification be decided upon, the resulting vacancy shall be filled as herein provided for.

(e) Period to arrive at a settlement - The pangkat shall arrive at a settlement or resolution of the dispute within fifteen (15) days from the day it convenes in accordance with this section. This period shall, at the discretion of the pangkat, be extendible for another period which shall not exceed fifteen (15) days, except in clearly meritorious cases.

SEC. 411. Form of Settlement. - All amicable settlements shall be in writing, in a language or dialect known to the parties, signed by them, and attested to by the lupon chairman or the pangkat chairman, as the case may be. When the parties to the dispute do not use the same language or dialect, the settlement shall be written in the language or dialect known to them.

SEC. 412. Conciliation. - (a) Pre-condition to Filing of Complaint in Court. - No complaint, petition, action, or proceeding involving any matter within the authority of the lupon shall be filed or instituted directly in court or any other government office for adjudication, unless there has been a confrontation between the parties before the lupon chairman or the pangkat, and that no conciliation or settlement has been reached as certified by the lupon secretary or pangkat secretary as attested to by the lupon or pangkat chairman or unless the settlement has been repudiated by the parties thereto.

(b) Where Parties May Go Directly to Court. - The parties may go directly to court in the following instances:

(1) Where the accused is under detention;

(2) Where a person has otherwise been deprived of personal liberty calling for habeas corpus proceedings;

(3) Where actions are coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property, and support pendente lite; and

(4) Where the action may otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations.

(c) Conciliation among members of indigenous cultural communities. - The customs and traditions of indigenous cultural communities shall be applied in settling disputes between members of the cultural communities.

SEC. 413. Arbitration. - (a) The parties may, at any stage of the proceedings, agree in writing that they shall abide by the arbitration award of the lupon chairman or the pangkat. Such agreement to arbitrate may be repudiated within five (5) days from the date thereof for the same grounds and in accordance with the procedure hereinafter prescribed. The arbitration award shall be made after the lapse of the period for repudiation and within ten (10) days thereafter.

(b) The arbitration award shall be in writing in a language or dialect known to the parties. When the parties to the dispute do not use the same language or dialect, the award shall be written in the language or dialect known to them.

SEC. 414. Proceedings Open to the Public; Exception. - All proceedings for settlement shall be public and informal: Provided, however, That the lupon chairman or the pangkat chairman, as the case may be, may motu proprio or upon request of a party, exclude the public from the proceedings in the interest of privacy, decency, or public morals. (Note: motu propio means simply of his own will or choice.)

SEC. 415. Appearance of Parties in Person. - In all katarungang pambarangay proceedings, the parties must appear in person without the assistance of counsel or representative, except for minors and incompetents who may be assisted by their next-of-kin who are not lawyers.

SEC. 416. Effect of Amicable Settlement and Arbitration Award. - The amicable settlement and arbitration award shall have the force and effect of a final judgment of a court upon the expiration of ten (10) days from the date thereof, unless repudiation of the settlement has been made or a petition to nullify the award has been filed before the proper city or municipal court. However, this provision shall not apply to court cases settled by the lupon under the last paragraph of Section 408 of this Code, in which case the compromise settlement agreed upon by the parties before the lupon chairman or the pangkat chairman shall be submitted to the court and upon approval thereof, have the force and effect of a judgment of said court.

SEC. 417. Execution. - The amicable settlement or arbitration award may be enforced by execution by the lupon within six (6) months from the date of the settlement. After the lapse of such time, the settlement may be enforced by action in the appropriate city or municipal court.

SEC. 418. Repudiation. - Any party to the dispute may, within ten (10) days from the date of the settlement, repudiate the same by filing with the lupon chairman a statement to that effect sworn to before him, where the consent is vitiated by fraud, violence, or intimidation. Such repudiation shall be sufficient basis for the issuance of the certification for filing a complaint as hereinabove provided.

SEC. 419. Transmittal of Settlement and Arbitration Award to the Court. - The secretary of the lupon shall transmit the settlement or the arbitration award to the appropriate city or municipal court within five (5) days from the date of the award or from the lapse of the ten-day period repudiating the settlement and shall furnish copies thereof to each of the parties to the settlement and the lupon chairman.

SEC. 420. Power to Administer Oaths. - The punong barangay, as chairman of the lupong tagapamayapa, and the members of the pangkat are hereby authorized to administer oaths in connection with any matter relating to all proceedings in the implementation of the katarungang pambarangay.

SEC. 421. Administration; Rules and Regulations. - The city or municipal mayor, as the case may be, shall see to the efficient and effective implementation and administration of the katarungang pambarangay. The Secretary of Justice shall promulgate the rules and regulations necessary to implement this Chapter.

SEC. 422. Appropriations. - Such amount as may be necessary for the effective implementation of the katarungang pambarangay shall be provided for in the annual budget of the city or municipality concerned.

Where is corruption most prevalent?

2010-11-20T23:56:00.002+08:00

At a first, indiscriminate glance, the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), published annually by TI, seems to confirm the stereotypical notion that corruption is predominantly a problem of the South. While the Scandinavian countries come out on top, most of sub-Saharan Africa ranks at the bottom. It would not only be wrong to conclude, however, that - according to the CPI 2008 - Somalia and Myanmar are the most corrupt countries in the world; it would also be counterproductive. The index is not intended to brand any one country or territory, or to pit the North against the South. Rather, it is a tool to raise public awareness of the problem and promote better governance. Corruption is as much a problem of the North as it is of the South. Recent scandals in Germany, France, Japan, the US or the UK attest to that. It is well-established checks and controls that make the difference in proportion. People are as corrupt as the system allows them to be. It is where temptation meets permissiveness that corruption takes root on a wide scale. Such an environment is more likely in the emerging democracies of the South and East. There, administration and political institutions are still weak and pay scales are generally very low, tempting officials to "supplement" their income. In dictatorial systems, meanwhile, administrative and political institutions are nothing but an extension of the usurper's corrupt practices.

The North also carries part of the responsibility for the situation in the South due to its role as the bribe-payer. After all, it is largely Northern corporate interests that supply the bribe payments. Until recently, governments of the North not only tolerated these corrupt practices, but they even rewarded them with tax deductibility. Fortunately, the 1999 OECD Anti-Bribery Convention has made the bribing of foreign officials a criminal offence. TI has addressed this aspect with its Bribe Payers Index (BPI), the logical complement to the CPI. In addition to the question of the regional pervasiveness of corruption, the issue of corruption by sector is often raised. The BPI provides statistical evidence as to which business sectors are most prone to corruption. According to these results, the problem of corruption is particularly prevalent in public works and construction, followed by the arms and defence industry. The sector with the least detected corruption was agriculture.

What are the costs of corruption?

2010-11-20T23:55:00.000+08:00

The cost of corruption is four-fold: political, economic, social, and environmental. On the political front, corruption constitutes a major obstacle to democracy and the rule of law. In a democratic system, offices and institutions lose their legitimacy when they are misused for private advantage. Though this is harmful in the established democracies, it is even more so in newly emerging ones. Accountable political leadership can not develop in a corrupt climate. Economically, corruption leads to the depletion of national wealth. It is often responsible for the funnelling of scarce public resources to uneconomic high-profile projects, such as dams, power plants, pipelines and refineries, at the expense of less spectacular but fundamental infrastructure projects such as schools, hospitals and roads, or the supply of power and water to rural areas. Furthermore, it hinders the development of fair market structures and distorts competition, thereby deterring investment. The effect of corruption on the social fabric of society is the most damaging of all. It undermines people's trust in the political system, in its institutions and its leadership. Frustration and general apathy among a disillusioned public result in a weak civil society. That in turn clears the way for despots as well as democratically elected yet unscrupulous leaders to turn national assets into personal wealth. Demanding and paying bribes become the norm. Those unwilling to comply often emigrate, leaving the country drained of its most able and most honest citizens. Environmental degradation is yet another consequence of corrupt systems. The lack of, or non-enforcement of, environmental regulations and legislation has historically allowed the North to export its polluting industry to the South. At the same time, careless exploitation of natural resources, from timber and minerals to elephants, by both domestic and international agents has led to ravaged natural environments. Environmentally devastating projects are given preference in funding, because they are easy targets for siphoning off public money into private pockets.

How do you define corruption?

2010-11-20T23:46:00.003+08:00

Transparency International (TI) has chosen a clear and focused definition of the term: Corruption is operationally defined as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. TI further differentiates between "according to rule" corruption and "against the rule" corruption. Facilitation payments, where a bribe is paid to receive preferential treatment for something that the bribe receiver is required to do by law, constitute the former. The latter, on the other hand, is a bribe paid to obtain services the bribe receiver is prohibited from providing.

What is "transparency"?

2010-11-20T23:45:00.003+08:00

"Transparency" can be defined as a principle that allows those affected by administrative decisions, business transactions or charitable work to know not only the basic facts and figures but also the mechanisms and processes. It is the duty of civil servants, managers and trustees to act visibly, predictably and understandably.

EDITORIAL

2010-11-19T17:49:00.002+08:00

Making monsters
Philippine Daily Inquirer
11/19/2010

It became clear in the traumatic aftermath of the gruesome massacre in Ampatuan, Maguindanao, a year ago: the rule of violence that was associated with the Ampatuan family in the province could not have been possible without sins of omission or commission of the Arroyo administration. A report prepared by the New York-based Human Rights Watch and issued this week is a useful and sobering reminder of that fundamental but often-fudged fact.

The report is based on more than 80 interviews, the group’s official news release said, “including with people having insider knowledge of the Ampatuan family security structure, victims of abuses and their family members, and witnesses to crimes.”

The report is careful about its marshalling of the facts, and keenly aware that the situation in Maguindanao, like the rule of violence that prevailed in it, was not limited to the province.

The group said: “The Ampatuans’ rise and expansion was aided by the President at the time of the massacre, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who relied on the family for crucial votes and for support in the protracted armed conflict with Moro armed groups in Mindanao. Under the Arroyo administration, militia forces, which have a long history of human rights violations in the Philippines, were greatly strengthened because of the increased sale of military weaponry to local officials and other support. The administration also failed to address impunity for serious rights abuses: in 2002 Arroyo was directly notified of 33 killings allegedly perpetrated by the Ampatuans, but she took no apparent action.”

To this damning indictment, the former president’s spokesperson, who had sassy and insensitive comments to make about the Aquino administration after the Aug. 23 hostage-taking incident at the Luneta, could only say, “No comment.”

We do not wish to dilute the liability of the people who masterminded the massacre (and it is clear from testimony from the ongoing trial that some real planning was involved) or of the people who manned the checkpoints or abducted the victims or pulled the triggers. They must all be brought to justice—a truly daunting task, considering that only 19 of the suspects are facing trial, and 115 suspects remain at large.

But the monsters who planned the savage reception for the Mangudadatu family and their bodyguard of journalists; the monsters who abducted the victims on the highway, including even those who merely happened to be passing through; the monsters who slaked their bloodlust in a killing spree, claiming 57 victims; the monsters who tried to erase evidence of their savagery by dumping bodies and even cars using a backhoe—these monsters would not have existed at all without the active help or the malign neglect of the Arroyo administration.

It was the Moro insurgency that recommended the Ampatuans to the attention of the Arroyo administration. But it was the Ampatuans’ control of the electoral process in Maguindanao that endeared them to the most powerful ruling family of all, the Arroyos. In the 2004 presidential election, the accommodating “voters” in the province helped ensure Arroyo’s winning margin. In the 2007 senatorial election, despite a national backlash against Arroyo and her candidates, the “voters” of Maguindanao once again trumped logic and arithmetic by allowing Arroyo’s candidate Juan Miguel Zubiri to steal into the Senate.

Given these services, both of which could be conceptualized and understood and sold in the light of “national security,” especially as understood by the family in Malacañang, the Ampatuans were given free rein in the province. The facts were clear a year ago, but the Human Rights Watch report confirms what we know and adds new information; it “details how the military and police provided the Ampatuan family with manpower, modern military weapons, and protection from prosecution. Most members of their private army were also members of the police, military, or state-sanctioned paramilitary forces, including Civilian Volunteer Organizations and the Citizen Armed Force Geographical Units.”

“Families like the Ampatuans have used officially sanctioned paramilitaries as private armies to spread terror and maintain power,” James Ross of Human Rights Watch said. Why was that official sanction granted by the Arroyo administration? Because it was in its own best interest.

The really chilling thing is, the Ampatuans were not alone.

THE STATE OF THE NATION (Part 1)

2010-11-18T22:58:00.007+08:00

A Situationer: Perfecto Yasay Jr.

Sometime last August, I found myself between two friends doing a post mortem of the results of the presidential elections over a cup of coffee. “What is wrong with our country?” asked the fellow on my left. Without batting an eyelash the friend on my right sarcastically replied: “Everything is terribly wrong with the Philippines today!”

I nodded my head expressing agreement with the spontaneous remark while I mentally sifted through historical facts and data stored in memory pointing out that not much seems to be going right for a country that has been derisively criticized as a basket case.

To begin with, the Filipinos were the first in Asia to win their independence at the time when the struggle for freedom against the waning tide of colonialism was sweeping the globe. And yet those nations that were liberated from their colonizers much later have already left us far behind in freeing their people from the bondage of poverty and underdevelopment; after World War II up to the late 60s, we were only second to Japan in terms of economic and industrial growth. Today, we are nearing second to the last in the Far East; we were the showcase of U.S. democracy in the region, and yet we produced a dictator under the auspices and patronage of the Americans. Together with his glitzy and flamboyant conjugal partner, he established a spurious and harsh martial regime that lasted almost 20 years. This further held back our course towards development.

We were already at the doorsteps of being a so-called Tiger Economy in 1997. But because of the incompetence of the subsequent leadership we chose, the enormous gains that we achieved especially as an attractive destination of foreign capital were ruined and supplanted by a lingering loss of investor trust. We only succeeded in restoring our image as “the sick man of Asia”. We were the least affected by the Asian financial debacle of 1997, and yet those severely hit, including Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia have fully recovered from the devastating effect of the crisis and have now surpassed us by leaps and bounds.

We proudly call ourselves the only Christian nation in Asia, and yet, we are also known to be one of the most corrupt.

We ousted a very popular president for abuse of power and corruption, and spent hundreds of millions for his prosecution for the capital offense of plunder. And yet, even before the uproar of his conviction had died out, he was granted absolute pardon by his successor, who feared meeting the same terrible fate should she be booted out of office for her own misdeeds. This former President ran again for the highest office in the last elections to vindicate his name and to allegedly serve the term which he claims was stolen from him. Paradoxically, he would have thrashed all his opponents had Noynoy chosen not to run. What is even more disheartening is that his successor who is perceived to be the most corrupt president we ever had, and who is responsible for giving the country the reputation of being one of the most corrupt in the world, remains free as a bird, and now comfortably sits as a Congresswoman. Many of her supporters believe she is plotting to get back to power.

We spent billions of pesos to install a computerized voting system to eliminate massive cheating that was common under the old system of canvassing ballots. And yet, our Comelec deliberately failed to provide a compliant and reliable verification feature informing the voter that his choice had been registered and counted. As a result, millions of ballots were automatically invalidated without anyone knowing the reason why. This made the mechanization of the election like jumping from the frying pan into the fire. Now we are back to the frying pan from the fire as shown in last Monday’s manually operated Barangay Election that appears to be tarnished with reported massive irregularities.

Today, the total number of our people stands at an alarming 94.3 million with poverty incidence rising even more, draining our resources, depriving our people of much needed basic services and further heightening the level of their sufferings. And yet, government has not been able to set up an effective program to arrest the rapid population growth, which remains an urgent and unmet need.

Last year, a national tragedy struck causing numerous deaths and damage to property as a consequence of the severe flooding of metro Manila. Since time immemorial, the Philippines has been in the way of catastrophic typhoons that hit us on an average of 20 each year. That would be more than enough to continually improve our preparedness for these calamities. And yet, we still keep on experiencing preventable, costly and tragic casualties and losses not so much for the severity of the natural forces that strike us but rather because of our failure to learn from past mistakes. Ondoy and Pepeng have exposed the continuing malpractices and corruption associated with relief efforts and the management of our waterways, esteros, dams and natural flood control systems, which resulted in unnecessary deaths and the massive destruction of properties.

Rice is our essential staple crop and as far as I could remember, every new administration of government always vowed to achieve rice sufficiency for our people. And yet we have not taken advantage of the technological advances in rice production provided by the International Rice Research Institute that is right in our doorsteps in Los Banos and our comprehensive land reform program - that was aimed at giving land to the landless in order to competitively maximize productivity of the soil - has been a dismal and unsettling failure. Now we are heavily dependent on rice imported from our Asian neighbors whose students acquired the technological knowhow from Philippine universities to become major rice suppliers and agricultural producers of the world.

Because of severe and permanent shortage of jobs at home, many of our people have been forced to seek employment opportunities overseas as OFWs where they brave and endure cruel conditions for the survival of their families at home. Their yearly remittances, which stood at $17 billion in 2009, have long rescued our country from financial collapse and have caused the stabilization of the value of our Peso. And yet, while we call these OFWs our new breed of heroes, government could not even provide them with adequate support when they are exploited or violated by their employers, or give them the assistance required to soften the impact of the resulting great social cost they have to bear. Ironically, they are also the victims of our own government’s neglect.

This litany of incontrovertible facts shows how dysfunctional and ineffective many of our government agencies have been, thereby making our situation even more distressed and urgent. I am sure that it is for this reason that our Church is impelled to review its existing programs for social witnessing and I am encouraged and hopeful that the purpose of this National Consultation is to plan out and strategize the Church’s response in helping out address and resolve our pressing problems.

In fulfilling its distinctive mission of improving the quality of life of human communities and in standing up against all appearances of wickedness and unrighteousness, it is important that our Church fully understands why it must be involved in helping seek out solutions to the nation’s woes and in championing the cause of the poor, the oppressed, and the disadvantaged the way Jesus did.

THE STATE OF THE NATION (Part 2)

2010-11-18T22:57:00.004+08:00

Purpose of the Separation of Church and State by: Perpecto Yasay

Before I share with you my views about the critical issues that beset the nation, let me briefly clarify the concept of the “separation of Church and State” so that we may have an idea of how we can carry out our prophetic mission, distinctly and separately from what government must do in the performance of its responsibilities, and also identify areas where mutual cooperation can be pursued towards the easing of our difficulties without one hampering, preventing or undermining the efforts of the other.

This time-honored principle of the separation of the Church and State was aimed at protecting the State from undue interference by ecclesiastical authority, and not the other way around, in order to forestall the establishment of a State religion that only served to weaken the free exercise of religious beliefs considered to involve a personal relationship between the individual and God. This led to a wall of separation that prevented the State from favoring any particular religion to the exclusion of others, thereby fostering religious freedom and tolerance for everyone.

But history has also shown the crippling effect on the State’s ability to do what it has guaranteed for all its citizens, regardless of their faith because of unwarranted religious meddling. Indeed, the swift and efficient delivery of indispensable services to the people in recognition of their basic human rights has been impeded because of intrusions by the Church on purely State matters. We saw this during the Spanish conquest of the Philippine Islands where the lines of governmental authority between the Church and State were so beclouded and confused. This led to the complete subjugation and hopelessness of the people and nurtured the roots of inequality, poverty and corruption exposed by Dr. Jose Rizal as the social cancer gnawing upon the lives and aspirations of the Filipino.

However, I believe that for the Church to assert its views on socio-political or other secular issues consistent with its teachings and prophetic ministry or for government officials to express their concerns against practices or obstacles put up by the Church, believed to be beyond the scope of priestly objectives or purpose, are dynamic interactions supportive of a check and balance important to our democratic traditions. Furthermore this keeps the Church alive, vibrant

and relevant and helps the State become effective, efficient and functional to the people. What would be dreadful is for the Church to encourage illegal activity or take and promote coercive action to impose its doctrines and dogmas to everyone regardless of their religious beliefs, or for duly constituted government to restrain and sanction the Church for expressing its views and exercise her rights within the framework of the law. This brings me to my assigned tasked today.

THE STATE OF THE NATION (Part 3)

2010-11-18T22:55:00.005+08:00

Poverty as a Fundamental Pressing Problem

by: Perpecto Yasay

I believe that the fundamental and critical problem that plagues the country is poverty. I say fundamental because once we have eradicated the principal causes of poverty we would have removed the formidable impediment to our development and progress, paving the way to improving the quality of life of our people, strengthening their hope and confidence in the future, and nurturing and unleashing their potentials for nation building. Critical because, unless we are able to eradicate the causes of our poverty, the continued sufferings and uneasiness of our people can further fan the flames of violence leading to the dismemberment and demise of our Republic as we know it.
The good news is that the elimination of poverty and the amelioration of the living conditions of people is an endeavor that the Church is familiar with because it is an inherent part of its secular responsibilities.

At the turn of the millennium, the Philippine Government committed to eradicate the causes of poverty in 15 years. Today, that herculean challenge rest on the shoulders of President Noynoy Aquino, which he must surpass in 5 years: a phenomenal responsibility indeed! Perhaps, to borrow from the lyrics of one of his father’s favorite song, it is like “dreaming an impossible dream or fighting an unbeatable foe”. And yet, if we are to survive as a nation, we must do it and P-Noy needs every help and support we can offer in order to succeed.

Poverty in its absolute form is the inability of a human being to afford the minimum food nutrients, clothing and shelter needed for survival, which has resulted in unacceptable deaths due to hunger and disease.

We have millions of poverty stricken families who survive by the day and do not see any hope for the future. In the Philippines, their number continues to rise as the population grows at a very high 2.36% per year. More than 5000 babies are born every day with the number of poor people also swelling. Statistics show that out of 1000 infants born 23 die before reaching 1 year old and 4900 mothers die each year due to pregnancy-related complications.

The largest mass of the country’s poor are concentrated in the countryside, and the poorest of our poor are the landless farmers and the fisher folks. Nevertheless, the incidence of urban poverty continues to grow, which now constitute more than one-half of the urban population.

THE STATE OF THE NATION (Part 4)

2010-11-18T22:54:00.003+08:00

by:Perpecto Yasay

The Causes of Poverty

We all know that our land is profuse with natural resources. A good number of our country’s tycoons and privileged families figure as among the wealthiest in the world, but we have not been able to harness this richness or curtail the growing poverty among our people mainly because of serious inequitable distribution or sharing of the nation’s income, wealth and resources; incessant conflicts, high population growth rate and systemic corruption.

1. Inequitable Distribution of Wealth and Resources

Since the time we were released from the shackles of our Spanish colonizers, our country’s resources remained in the hands of a select few. Roughly, less than 10% of the population controls 90% of the country’s wealth. While more than 90% of the population grapples with the remaining 10% of such wealth.

When the Americans arrived, they introduced their brand of political rights and freedom to the native inhabitants, but they deliberately ignored the democratization of capital assets and opportunities, which were vital to the welfare of the people and necessary for democracy to flourish. What was expedient then was controlling the entire archipelago by feeding on the avarice and excesses of the ruling elite class that wielded a gripping influence upon the masses.

Despite economic and agrarian reforms that were instituted, this inequitable condition was never dismantled. In fact, the monopolies and structures of privilege were aggravated under the Marcos regime. While President Cory Aquino restored our democratic institutions that were dormant during martial rule, she failed to break the monopolistic structure of the economy that had long existed in the hands of the business elite and which was given a much bigger boost under her administration.

The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program or CARP was one of the urgent measures that we adopted to ensure the fair and impartial distribution of land. It was our response to the growing agrarian unrest that was exploited by leftist elements.

The objective of land reform was to give land to our landless farmers to trigger their economic growth and promote agricultural productivity among the poorest sector of our population. However, after more than 20 years since the law was passed, it is clear that CARP has failed to work. Our land tillers are still struggling poor and they remain as subsistence farmers instead of becoming net exporters of food and other agricultural products. Now we are realizing that we cannot succeed in our land reform objectives if we merely subdivide landed estates into small components that work against the economies of scales without providing our farmers access to credits to purchase farm supplies, implements and equipments, technological know-how and new methods aimed at bountiful harvests from the soil.

Any land reform program will fail unless mutuality, cooperation and a hearty symbiosis between the farmers and the industrial and financial sectors including the government exist. This is what essentially marked the resounding successes of the land reform programs of China, Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan and Korea.

Sadly, much of the agrarian lands that were distributed to poor farmers who could not afford the rising cost of pursuing their trade without adequate access to credit and support from government are bought back by their former oligarch owners or by unscrupulous land developers and covetous speculators at a shamefully low price and converted into highly valuable commercial lands thereby, perpetuating the injustice sought to be rectified by CARP.

The Philippines also exhibits a highly unfair distribution of income. Data in 2003 show that the share of income accruing to the richest 10% of the population is more than 20 times the share of the poorest 20%. The combined income of the richest 1% of the population composed of about 150,000 families is equivalent to those of the bottom 38% comprising more than 6 million families and the growth of the economy only benefits a very limited few.

The harsh effects of economic injustice can however also be softened and addressed through equitable taxation.

Only a few days ago, an interesting article was circulated through the internet showing that not even the wealthiest of our people who rank amongst the richest of the world figure in the top 200 taxpayers of the country.

During the Ramos administration, we were able to increase the tax collection rate from 12% to 17%, and thereby balanced our budget. An increase of a percentage in our tax collection efforts translates into hundreds of billions of pesos.

Tax collection rate under the Arroyo administration fell back to a low of 12%, and with her national budget reaching PhP1.2 trillion. One can just imagine how much deficit her government incurred, which in November 2009 reached PhP272 billion – the highest ever incurred by the Philippine Government. This necessitated further borrowing from abroad, which will not be paid unless a surplus in our tax collection effort results or government spending is reduced to below budget.

The truth is that if we could only increase our tax collection rate to 20 or 25%, by minimizing corruption, which will still be below the norm for efficient tax collection, government will be awash with cash to meet its operational expenses, service our foreign debt with still enough remaining to adequately provide for the basic needs of our people towards eradicating poverty and investing in human capital. But instead of doing so, government chose to exacerbate the sufferings of the poor by burdening them with E-VAT and other taxes, which are passed on to consumers, instead of collecting the proper taxes from the rich and privileged.

2. Causality Between Conflict and Poverty

The causal relationship between conflict and poverty appears to be bi-directional. This means that conflict causes poverty and poverty stimulates conflict. This is especially true in war-torn Mindanao where poverty is directly related to violent conflicts and warlordism. The memory of the brutal massacre of 63 innocent lives in Maguindanao still lingers. What is clear is that this shameful incident was not isolated or random, but was the inevitable bloody outcome of the rivalry between powerful and well-armed kinfolks competing for power and authority and encouraged and tolerated by corrupt elements in the national leadership for political expediency and contingency.

Mindanao is the second largest island of the Philippines comprising 94,630 square kilometers with 20 million inhabitants or about 23% of the country’s population. It is blessed with diverse and rich mineral and forest reserves and its promise for agricultural and fishery resource and development is immense.

Years of governmental neglect and incompetence in handling the Muslim insurgency has contributed largely to the underdevelopment and poverty especially in the conflict affected areas of Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).

Indeed, Muslim Mindanao is a restive social volcano waiting to erupt with such tremendous and violent force that will result in the fragmentizing of the nation, unless sincerity, honesty and good faith supplants the deception, treachery and mistrust that have impeded the efforts towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict. We do not even need foreign elements interfering in this domestic problem. Their self- serving interests will only worsen an already complex situation and will make resolving the issues more intricate.

3. Unabated Population Growth

The increase in the number of poor families has been attributed to the high population growth rate. As concluded in a World Bank report and concurred by many economists familiar with the Philippine situation, the country’s population growth rate, which is one of the highest, is a major cause of poverty, particularly in rural areas. In turn, this alarming condition has been a serious drain to the limited resources of government which has been stymied in providing for the minimum basic needs of our people.

Our rapid population growth rate of 2.36% frustrates the country’s effort to improve the economy, create adequate employment opportunities and provide quality services. At our rate of population growth, which by 2015 will reach way over 100 million, it would be difficult to accommodate all new entrants to the labor force even if economic growth were accelerated. A rapid growing population makes it hard for government to keep up with delivery of what are already deficient public services in health, food, shelter, education, water supply sanitation, and so on.

In the area of primary and secondary education alone, which is given free to our children, only 2.5% of our GDP is budgeted for education, where the minimum standard set by UNESCO is 6%. And yet the Philippines committed meeting 100 percent primary education to all Filipino children by 2015 as part of its Millennium Development Goals.

Many of the children who enroll in primary or secondary education do not complete the school year, and about only 60 of every 100 who register in Grade 1 are able to graduate from elementary. For the Secondary level, only around 65 out of 100 who enter first year high school complete their studies. If all children that complete elementary education will proceed to the secondary level, less than 50% will end up graduating from high school. The reason for this very low cohort survival rate is that poor families could not afford the other essential expenses associated with schooling, which among other things, are food, clothing, transportation, and medical treatment whenever their kids get sick.

Experts agree that “the key to breaking out of inherited poverty is education, and yet we have shamefully neglected providing full support for universal basic education and tools for self-help and learning.”

Only last year, former President Fidel V. Ramos lamented that “despite that the population growth factor is so crucial to human development, the ambiguousness of PGMA’s government policies have put mother’s lives and health, together with their babies at risk for the sake of political expediency”.

He stressed that for every peso spent in family planning, about PhP100 is saved in maternal care costs for unintended pregnancies or a total of about PhP5.5 billion in health care management for unintended pregnancies and complications.

Sadly, the implementation of vital government-sponsored family planning programs has been prevented by stiff opposition from the Roman Catholic Church, without providing for any viable alternative solution. It rejects all forms of modern birth control methods and admonishes the faithful to utilize only natural family planning devices, which it considers sufficient in preventing unwanted pregnancies.

In 1999, when the first comprehensive version of the Reproductive Rights bill was filed in the 11th Congress, which the Roman Catholic Church vigorously fought, our population stood at 75 million. And yet, today we hold the dubious distinction of being the 12th most populous country in the world with 94.3 million people.

But more than just the cold increase in the number of our people, their quality of life has deteriorated. Opportunities have been lost, growth have stagnated, hopes have been shattered, sufferings heightened and lives have been lost.

How have we measured up with the problem and issues involving population growth? If our ecclesiastic mission is the saving of souls, could we as a Church in fulfilling our prophetic ministry ignore the imperative of saving human lives and alleviate the unbearable conditions under which people exist?

THE STATE OF THE NATION (Part 5)

2010-11-18T22:53:00.004+08:00

by: Perpecto Yasay

Unrestrained Corruption

Corruption, which should be defined as the use of public resources and/or public power for personal benefit is evidently one of the main governance issues that contribute to the growing poverty of our people.

Studies undertaken by the World Bank as well as by other international groups consistently point out that at least 40% of the national budget is wasted to corruption instead of being utilized to provide for much-needed basic services and other poverty reduction programs that would spur economic growth.

Ironically, no public work or infrastructure plan, like a farm to market road, no matter how essential to the community gets to be built unless arrangements are made for dishonest government officials to benefit from it. Corruption is the fuel that gets any development project done. Simply put: no corruption, no vital project.

With the national budget now reaching PhP1.3 trillion, one can reasonably expect that around 650 billion pesos will go to the pockets of unscrupulous public servants, even as corruption in the Philippines permeates the entire government bureaucracy, from the lowest to the highest officials. It is so pervasive that it is now a way of life and thinking and a part of our damaged culture. It has weakened all branches of government, including the judiciary.

In four centuries of Spanish colonial rule, the Filipinos were effectively subdued by a religion that subtly taught the masses to win divine favors through the intercession of patron saints. This practice evolved into the “padrino system” that has spread throughout the secular lives of the people, where any favor sought must be coursed to a patron or lord who is compensated for his benevolent intermediation. Political patronage is the popular term for this kind of graft today. This is the reason why everyone finds it so important to have a godfather or “ninong” in positions of power and influence.

A public office is now considered to be the quickest way to get filthy rich. It is no wonder many politicians do not hesitate to spend hundreds of millions of pesos to get elected. They expect a quick return on their investment once elected, through the abuse of power. As a result, the poverty of the people is worsened and perpetuated.

In my view, corruption is a moral crisis that is rooted on wickedness and unrighteousness. It was the compelling basis for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; it caused the wrath of Moses when he saw his people wallowing back in the muck of their old evil ways as he returned from Mt. Sinai bearing the tablets of stone on which God’s laws for His people were inscribed; it is the same moral degradation and depravity that led to the fall of the Roman Empire.

Corruption is the same form of despicability and vileness which the prophets and anointed leaders of God in biblical times zealously and relentlessly rebuked. Thus, it can only be effectively licked with abiding determination and spirited support from the Church, which is the final bastion and repository of all moral authority.

The fight against corruption can only be won by public servants with unquestionable integrity and ethical courage, nurtured according to the teachings of the Church. Public officials must constantly be reminded of the sacred truth that a public office is a public trust akin to Christian stewardship.

Now that my job for today is done, allow me to conclude that the response of the Church to the crucial problems that confront the nation must strike hard at their causes.

I remember during my younger days many years ago, when I was Vice President of the World Alliance of the YMCAs when I questioned the viability and effectiveness of our refugee program in what was then known as South Vietnam. I argued that more than just adopting palliative measures, the real task of the YMCA was to eliminate the refugee problem by addressing its cause. At the bottom of the problem was the war and it was indispensable that we took a firm stand against it.

The same is true with the war against poverty. The Church, if it wants to be involved must make a bold stand against its causes and help government eradicate it. Are we prepared to confront the real issues pertaining to the causes of poverty? Are we willing to revisit our antiquated ideas and doctrines in order to effectively address our national concerns? Would not our teachings and beliefs be formidable hindrances to such a demanding responsibility? Are we prepared to come out with workable solutions and not be part of the problems we want resolved?

The answers to these questions lie in your hands.

|Activism is not a crime!|

2010-11-16T12:23:00.003+08:00

Greenpeace Philippines
Activism is not a crime! - Unjust Sentence for Anti-whaling Activists Condemned by Greenpeace Feature story - September 7, 2010

Greenpeace has condemned as disproportionate and unjust a one year jail term, suspended for three years, imposed on two Greenpeace activists, who exposed widespread corruption in the Japanese government’s Southern Ocean whaling program.

Tuesday, September 07, 2010

Greenpeace activists hold black posters and banners with whale symbols outside the Japanese Embassy in Manila, Philippines. © Greenpeace / Luis Liwanag

Following the news of the verdict Greenpeace supporters hung black flags and banners outside Japanese embassies around the world, to signal that the judgement cast a dark shadow over democracy and civil rights. In Manila, Greenpeace activists went to the Japanese Embassy along Roxas Boulevard waving black flags saying “Justice?” and displayed a banner with the words “Activism is not a crime.”

Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki were yesterday convicted of theft and trespass after carrying out a public interest investigation into embezzlement, during which they intercepted as evidence one of numerous boxes of whale meat coming from the whaling factory ship the Nisshin Maru and destined for private use, which breaches the regulations of the taxpayer-funded program.

Responding to the verdict Sato said, "While the court acknowledged that there were questionable practices in the whaling industry, it did not recognise the right to expose these, as is guaranteed under international law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on which our defence was based, supersedes domestic criminal law, but the judgement did not properly take this into account." http://www.flickr.com/photos/gpsea/sets/72157624899352450/show/ Greenpeace has condemned as disproportionate and unjust a one year jail term, suspended for three years, imposed on two Greenpeace activists, who exposed widespread corruption in the Japanese government’s Southern Ocean whaling programe.

Following the news of the verdict Greenpeace supporters hung black flags and banners outside Japanese embassies around the world, to signal that the judgement cast a dark shadow over democracy and civil rights. In Manila, Greenpeace activists went to the Japanese Embassy along Roxas Boulevard waving black flags saying “Justice?” and displayed a banner with the words “Activism is not a crime.”

Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki were yesterday convicted of theft and trespass after carrying out a public interest investigation into embezzlement, during which they intercepted as evidence one of numerous boxes of whale meat coming from the whaling factory ship the Nisshin Maru and destined for private use, which breaches the regulations of the taxpayer-funded program.

Responding to the verdict Sato said, "While the court acknowledged that there were questionable practices in the whaling industry, it did not recognise the right to expose these, as is guaranteed under international law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on which our defence was based, supersedes domestic criminal law, but the judgement did not properly take this into account."

“This sentence is totally disproportionate and completely undeserved,” said Suzuki. “We set out to reveal the truth about the government’s whaling program, but instead have been punished, while those behind the misuse of public money walk free.”

Following their arrest in June 2008, Sato and Suzuki were subjected to a 26-day detention, that the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (1) considered a breach of their human rights and politically motivated, followed by a two-year prosecution. During the trial, whalers and whaling officials consistently contradicted their own and each others' evidence about the embezzlement.

Commenting on the case, international law expert and defence witness in the case, Professor Dirk Voorhoof of Ghent University, Belgium, stated “The Tokyo Two’s treatment was already a violation of international human rights law. While a suspended sentence is preferable to a jail term, it still constitutes a further failure to respect the rights of two activists who should never have been arrested and charged in the first place. It also discourages other organisations and journalists from investigating and reporting misconduct by the authorities.”

The case of Sato and Suzuki has generated significant international attention, from senior political figures, including Nobel Laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu, international human rights groups and legal experts (2). During a visit to Japan earlier this year, the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights, Navi Pillay, expressed concern about the case particularly with regard to freedom of expression and association. She emphasised the importance of investigations by NGOs to society in general and how their work should be respected.

“Activists are not criminals, and to treat them as such has a chilling effect in society, undermining the quality of democracy,” said Greenpeace International Executive Director Dr. Kumi Naidoo, who travelled to Japan to hear the verdict. “The freedom to peacefully expose wrongdoing is not only a crucial part of any democracy, it is a right that must be defended. Greenpeace will continue to make this case a global priority until this unjust conviction is overturned.”

Notes:
1) In March 2009, Amnesty International lodged a complaint about the treatment of Sato and Suzuki to the United Nations Human Rights Council’s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. The Working Group asked the Japanese government to explain its actions, however, the authorities limited their response to explaining Japan's criminal justice system and claiming, without substantive explanation, that the complaint was unfounded.

The Working Group did not concur, stating that the Japanese authorities have breached articles 18, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 18 and 19 of the ICCPR. It also expressed concern that articles 2, 10 and 14 of the ICCPR, relating to the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial, have not been respected.

The full opinion can be found here: http://www.greenpeace.org/tokyo-two/wgad-opinion

2) http://www.greenpeace.org/international/t2-statement-of-concern/

In January 2008, Greenpeace began an investigation into insider allegations that organised whale meat embezzlement was being conducted by crew inside Japan's so-called ’scientific‘ whaling programme, which is funded by Japanese taxpayers. The informer was previously involved in the whaling programme, and following his advice Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki began an investigation, eventually discovering firm proof that cardboard boxes containing whale meat were being secretly shipped to the homes of whaling fleet crew - and then sold for personal profit. Junichi delivered a box of this whale meat to the Tokyo Prosecutors' Office in May 2008, and filed a report of embezzlement. However, the embezzlement investigation was dropped on 20 June - the same day that both men were arrested and then held for 26 days, 23 of which were without charge.

2010-11-12T22:47:00.002+08:00

Former VP De Castro to face Senate probe on housing loan mess again

&lt;p&gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;This page requires a higher version browser&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&lt;/p&gt;

APEC is for America

2010-11-11T15:52:00.001+08:00

Why is APEC important for America?
Washington DC, United States, 29 March 2010 - APEC Senior Official, Kurt Tong discusses APEC and priorities for 2011, when APEC will be hosted by the United States:

QUESTION: What is the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and why is it important for America?

MR. TONG: Well, as you know, the Asia-Pacific region is the most dynamic economic region on the planet. It accounts for more than half of the global GDP, and more than 60 percent of our exports go to the Asia-Pacific. Now within the region, APEC is the most important economic organization. It has all the key members participating, and the most important initiatives in the region take place either through APEC or are created within APEC.

Now, our top priority in APEC is the removal of barriers to trade and investment, to create more opportunities for more jobs and more exports from the United States.

QUESTION: What is APEC doing to address the current economic concerns of the American people?

MR. TONG: 2009 clearly was not a good year for the US economy or for many of the economies of the Asia-Pacific region, so it's really important that APEC play an important role in promoting growth and recovery in the Asia-Pacific region. That's really our short-term focus. But taking a longer view, it's important to create a paradigm for growth in the Asia-Pacific region which will lead to long-term and sustainable growth and thus benefit the United States.

QUESTION: What are some themes APEC will address in 2010?

MR. TONG: I think we'll be putting particular emphasis here on small and medium enterprise development, worker retraining, and job creation - again, within small and medium enterprises. APEC has a real capability to have the economies of the region learning from each other and studying each other's best practices to figure out how they can do a better job of adjusting to economic change in ways that workers and small or medium enterprises keep up with that change.

Another really important area is in the area of the environment. I think that in 2010, we'll be working hard to continue the Peer Review on Energy Efficiency. This is a program to make sure that the APEC economies learn from each other and are basically convinced by each other to improve their energy efficiency through - by reviewing what they've done so far.

A final area which I'd like to mention is ease of doing business. APEC took a pledge last year to make doing business cheaper, faster, in the Asia-Pacific region and set specific targets for that improvement: a five percent within - by 2011 and 25 percent improvement in the speed and ease of doing business in the region by 2015, so we'll be working hard to implement those programs and make the policy changes in all the APEC economies to make that happen.

QUESTION: What priorities will the U.S. focus on when hosting in 2011?

MR. TONG: First of all, I should note that we'll be hosting the leaders meeting in Hawaii. There will be several meetings throughout the year taking place in different American cities leading up to that session in Hawaii. But throughout the year, we'll be, again, pushing themes of job creation and structural adjustment of the economies in the Asia-Pacific region. We'll also be pushing promotion of trade opportunities by reducing barriers to trade and investment around the region.

The real key there is to get the understanding of our Asia-Pacific partners and have them really understand why it's to their benefit as well as to ours to have those barriers removed. We have a good track record of this kind of work at APEC. We will work very, very hard on it in 2011. And really, hosting the event, where the United States has an opportunity to set the agenda for the year and describe what the outcome should be and bring everyone on board is a very historic opportunity for the United States, and we're very excited about the potential.

For more information, contact:

Trudy Harris at th@apec.org or at (65) 9898-3710
Michael Chapnick at mc@apec.org or at (65) 9647 4847

[QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS TO APEC]

2010-11-11T15:23:00.002+08:00

What is APEC?

APEC stands for Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. It is an organisation of economies in the Asia-Pacific region formed to foster economic cooperation and trade among them with a view of enhancing international trade. Its members work together to reduce trade barrier, open investment opportunities, ease the exchange of goods, services, resources and technical know-how, and strengthen economic and technical cooperation among them.

APEC member-economies include the major economies of the region and the most Dynamic and fastest-growing economies in the world. The 21 economies together constitute more than half of the world's annual output and almost half of the world's total merchandise trade.

APEC officially started in 1989 when trade and economic ministers of 12 countries in the Asia-Pacific region met in Canberra, Australia on 6-7 November to advance the process of economic cooperation among countries in the region. Former Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke suggested the creation of APEC following various attempts to create an economic cooperation group in the region.

The founding members of APEC are; Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Indonesia, Japan, Republic Of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, The Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and The United States.

APEC was formed because of the following factors: fear over the possibe collapse of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which could result in increased protectionism and the emergence of new restrictive trade blocs; and sweeping political and economic changes in the Soviet Union and Europe.

The following are the objectives of APEC, as outlined in the 1991 Seoul APEC Declaration:

to sustain the growth and development of the region for the common good of its people and, in this way, to contribute to the growth and development of the world economy;

>to enhance the positive gains, both for the region and the world economy, resulting from increasing economic interdependence, to include encouraging the flow of goods, services, capital and technology;

>to develop and strengthen the open multilateral trading system in the interest of Asia-Pacific and all other economies;and to reduce barriers to trade in goods and services and investment among participants in a manner consistent with GATT principles, where applicable, and without detriment to other economies.

Is APEC a trade bloc?

No, since the beginning, the APEC member-economies agreed not to make APEC a trade bloc. The reason behind this resolve is that trade blocs tend to be inward-looking and exclude non-members. "Every economy represented in Canberra relies heavily on a strong and open multilateral trading system, and none believes that Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation should be directed to the information of a trading bloc." the founders declared.

The APEC members have resolved to "purse free and open trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific in a manner that will encourage and strengthen trade and investment liberalization in the world as a whole. Thus, the outcome of trade and investment liberalization in the Asia-Pacific will not only be the actual reduction of barriers among

APEC economies but also between APEC economies and non-APEC economies.
What is the nature of APEC cooperation?

APEC is a consultation, not a negotiation forum. All commitments made by APEC member economies are voluntary; depends on what an economy is willing to give on the basis of its economic status. The association operates by consensus.

Who heads APEC? How often do the leaders meet?

The chairmanship of APEC rotates yearly among the leaders of its member economies, with the specific chair chosen in advance by consensus. Recognizing ASEAN's importance in APEC, there is a special provision that the chairmanship be held every other year by an ASEAN member country. As is the tradition, the APEC chair hosts the APEC leaders summit and the consultative meetings among senior trade and foreign affairs officials. The first leaders summit was held in Blake Island near Seattle in the United States in 1993.

Senior officials of the member-economies hold a series of consultative meetings in between the APEC leaders summit, which is usually held in November.

The APEC leaders' summit, which is attended by the heads of government of most member-economies, is the culminating activity in the yearly APEC meetings.

During the summit, the leaders discuss the different proposals by senior officials for pursuing economic cooperation and agree on a common stand.

The ultimate results of the year-long series of consultative activities are contained in the APEC leader's declaration.

APEC Leaders' Declarations

2010-11-11T15:21:00.003+08:00

APEC Economic Leaders Meetings are held once a year in the APEC host economy. Declarations from these meetings set the policy agenda for APEC.

[APEC Leaders' Declaration]

2010-11-11T15:17:00.001+08:00

APEC LEADERS ECONOMIC VISION STATEMENT

Blake Island, Seattle
20 November, 1993

We have held an unprecedented meeting of the economic leaders of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. In this post Cold War era, we have an opportunity to build a new economic foundation for the Asia Pacific that harnesses the energy of our diverse economies, strengthens cooperation and promotes prosperity.
Our meeting reflects the emergence of a new voice for the Asia Pacific in world affairs. As we prepare to enter the twenty-first century, we believe our dynamic region, representing forty percent of the world's population and fifty percent of its GNP, will play an important role in the global economy, leading the way in economic growth and trade expansion.

The foundation of our economic growth has been the open multilateral trading system. Therefore, we pledge our utmost efforts to bring the Uruguay Round to a successful conclusion by December 15. We are determined the Asia Pacific region will lead the way in taking concrete steps to produce the strongest possible outcome in Geneva. Increased participation by APEC economies in a strengthened GATT system also will facilitate greater regional cooperation.

Our success has been the result of the ability of our societies to adapt to changing circumstances. Our economies are moving toward interdependence and there is a growing sense of community among us. We are united in our commitment to create a stable and prosperous future for our people.
Recognizing our economic interdependence as well as our economic diversity, we envision a community of Asia Pacific economies in which:

The spirit of openness and partnership deepens, enabling us to find cooperative solutions to the challenges of our rapidly changing regional and global economy;

We are a vast Asia Pacific market of two billion people where dynamic economic growth continues, contributing to an expanding world economy and supporting an open international trading system;
We continue to reduce trade and investment barriers so that our trade expands within the region and with the world and goods, services, capital and investment flow freely among our economies;
Our people share the benefits of economic growth through higher incomes, high skilled and high paying jobs and increased mobility;

Improved education and training produce rising literacy rates, provide the skills for maintaining economic growth and encourage the sharing of ideas that contribute to the arts and sciences;
Advances in telecommunications and transportation shrink time and distance barriers in our region and link our economies so that goods and people move quickly and efficiently;
Our environment is improved as we protect the quality of our air, water and green spaces and manage our energy sources and renewable resources to ensure sustainable growth and provide a more secure future for our people.

We recognize this vision will become a reality only if we work together actively to secure it. We are convinced we can succeed. We intend to use our shared vision as a guide for developing the future of our region.
We reaffirm our support for the continued development of APEC as a forum dedicated to producing tangible economic benefits to the region. We urge APEC to expand its economic dialogue and advance its specific work projects. The entrepreneurial spirit and market-oriented policies that have driven our economic dynamism will continue to be fostered within APEC.

We welcome the challenge presented to us in the report of the APEC Eminent Persons Group to achieve free trade in the Asia Pacific, advance global trade liberalization and launch concrete programs to move us toward those long-term goals. We ask APEC to undertake work aimed at deepening and broadening the outcome of the Uruguay Round, strengthening trade and investment liberalization in the region, and facilitating regional cooperation, including in such areas as standards.

We agree to convene a meeting of APEC Finance Ministers to consult on broad economic issues including macroeconomic developments and capital flows. We believe such discussions will help us address some of the challenges facing the region, including ensuring non-inflationary regional growth, financing investment and infrastructure development, and promoting capital market development.

We ask business leaders to establish a Pacific Business Forum to identify issues APEC should address to facilitate regional trade and investment and encourage the further development of business networks throughout the region. We also ask APEC to strengthen its policy dialogue on small and medium size business enterprises.

We agree to make an investment in our future generations by establishing an APEC Education Program to develop regional cooperation in higher education, study key regional economic issues, improve worker skills, facilitate cultural and intellectual exchanges, enhance labor mobility and foster understanding of the diversity of our region. We agree to establish an APEC Business Volunteer Program to promote cooperation among us in the areas of human resource development and the exchange of management skills and techniques.
As members of APEC, we are committed to deepening our spirit of community based on our shared vision of achieving stability, security and prosperity for our peoples.

[What is ASIA PACIFIC ECONOMIC COOPERATION (APEC)?]

2010-11-11T15:14:00.001+08:00

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, or APEC, is the premier forum for facilitating economic growth, cooperation, trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific region .

APEC is the only inter governmental grouping in the world operating on the basis of non-binding commitments, open dialogue and equal respect for the views of all participants. Unlike the WTO or other multilateral trade bodies, APEC has no treaty obligations required of its participants. Decisions made within APEC are reached by consensus and commitments are undertaken on a voluntary basis.

APEC has 21 members - referred to as "Member Economies" - which account for approximately 40.5%¹ of the world's population, approximately 54.2%¹ of world GDP and about 43.7%² of world trade.

APEC's 21 Member Economies are Australia; Brunei Darussalam; Canada; Chile; People's Republic of China; Hong Kong, China; Indonesia; Japan; Republic of Korea; Malaysia; Mexico; New Zealand; Papua New Guinea; Peru; The Republic of the Philippines; The Russian Federation; Singapore; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; United States of America; Viet Nam.

Purpose and Goals
APEC was established in 1989 to further enhance economic growth and prosperity for the region and to strengthen the Asia-Pacific community.

Since its inception, APEC has worked to reduce tariffs and other trade barriers across the Asia-Pacific region, creating efficient domestic economies and dramatically increasing exports. Key to achieving APEC's vision are what are referred to as the 'Bogor Goals' of free and open trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific by 2010 for industrialised economies and 2020 for developing economies. These goals were adopted by Leaders at their 1994 meeting in Bogor, Indonesia.

Learn more about the Bogor Goals in the 1994 Leaders' Declaration.

Free and open trade and investment helps economies to grow, creates jobs and provides greater opportunities for international trade and investment. In contrast, protectionism keeps prices high and fosters inefficiencies in certain industries. Free and open trade helps to lower the costs of production and thus reduces the prices of goods and services - a direct benefit to all.

APEC also works to create an environment for the safe and efficient movement of goods, services and people across borders in the region through policy alignment and economic and technical cooperation.

^{1 Sources:

The APEC Region Trade and Investment 2008}

^{2 Sources:

The APEC Region Trade and Investment 2008

World Trade [Trade in goods and services (exports + imports)]}

[China’s next leaders]

2010-11-10T13:47:00.001+08:00

Sunday, 07 November 2010 00:00

China and the Philippines have become more tightly bound in commercial and investment relations than most Filipinos realize.
China is financing a lot of our infrastructure projects. Many Chinese companies—most if not all of them state-owned—are involved in many of our most important developmental activities.

China is the Philippines’ third largest trading partner. It is also our third largest donor partner and, despite the hostage-taking tragedy, continues to be a major—our fourth largest—source of visitors, tourists and businessmen, from abroad.

PH-PRC economic, political and cultural relations are growing, and bound to continue to deepen and expand, if only because of our nearness to each other. In a certain sense, though in very different forms, the same political, commercial and political imperatives that made the Philippines an important partner of China in dealing with the New World (the Americas) and Old Europe during the 250 years of the Manila-Acapulco galleon trade (1565 to 1815) are at work today. Geography and the resulting geopolitics tie China and us together.

This physical proximity, and the accidents of history, have imposed on the leaders of the Philippines and China—because millions of Filipinos and Chinese (especially those of Fujian, Guangdong and Hong Kong SAR) are blood relatives and in other ways sharers of a common personal history—a mission to take each other’s nation more sensitively, more caringly.

That goes for Philippine presidents and Cabinet members, as well as lawmakers in both chambers of our Congress, as well as for leaders in the different departments of life in the private sector.

That is the reason we have offered our readers today’s Special Report on the new generation of China’s leaders who will be coming in from 2012 onward.

The words of the former Secretary General of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), Ambassador Rod Severino, who is now head of the Asean Studies Center at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), in Singapore, bear repeating here. He was addressing an unsolicited advice to presidential-election winner Benigno Aquino 3rd in an article titled “A Foreign Policy Agenda for the New Philippine President” in Opinion Asia on May 14, 2010.

Ambassador Severino wrote this about China.

“Relations with China.
“President Aquino may have to make an early visit to Beijing, if only to focus his mind on this all-important relationship, to take the measure of China’s decision-makers, and to have a first-hand look at Chinese realities. Some of the issues to deal with are the conflicting claims of the Philippines and China to land features in the South China Sea and the uncertain nature of the maritime regimes there, the competition with China for markets and investments, the opportunities that a rapidly rising China presents to the Philippines, and the links between Chinese firms and powerful Filipinos. For the Philippines, China is both an opportunity and a challenge; it is both a rising power with which the Philippines has a territorial dispute and a surging market that can be an engine of growth for the region of which the country is a part. In any case, China is a looming force in East Asia while being held down by a number of internal constraints.
The Philippines ought to approach its relations with China with utmost seriousness and sophistication, taking these tensions and seeming contradictions into account. http://manilatimes.net/index.php/component/content/article/83-opinion-columnist/31646-chinas-next-leaders

[Filipinos less happy in 2010]

2010-11-10T13:11:00.000+08:00

The level of happiness among poor Filipinos fell “dramatically” over the last three years, according to the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB).
In its Statistically Speaking, NSCB Secretary General Romulo Virola on Tuesday said that the level of happiness did not change much between 2007 and 2008, but dramatically went down in 2010.
He added that the level of the perception-based (using a single question) happiness went down to 47.40 percent from 70.89 percent in 2008 and 69.44 percent in 2007.

Virola said that among the low-income group this year, women are happiest with their family, love life and food, while men are happiest with their sex life, love life and food.

“The men are not very happy with their family, however, a great mismatch with the women and a cause for concern,” he noted.
Other important sources of happiness for women are work, food, and peace and security.

But while peace and security and work are also important to men, food is only ninth most important to men compared to fifth among women.

“This might mean one of the following: that husbands have to take their wives to dinner every now and then; or that unless they can be more convincing in describing their dinner as “ang sarap, [that’s delicious] darling!,” they should learn to cook the dinner themselves. Of course it is understood that husbands should never dare compare the wife’s adobo sa embutido ni nanay [of mother]!,” Virola said.

Adobo and embutido are meat dishes and seen as all-time favorites among Filipinos.
The NSCB chief said that the biggest disparity in the rankings is on sex life.

Virola added that men find it 10th most important with a rating of 8.2 but women find it 18th most important with a rating of 6.8 on a scale of 1 to 10.
Women find love life only 10th most important with a rating of 8.2, but men find it 6th most important with a rating of 8.7.

“This is easy to trivialize, but the unmet expectations for love and sex by either partner can surely lead to problems, and must be managed properly and professionally. In fact, this is probably one explanation for the finding that 8 percent of sexual violence against ever-married women were perpetrated by the husband,” Virola said.

He added that the most important for men and women is family followed by health, religion, work, peace and security and food.
The NSCB chief said that importance of friends as a source of happiness has gone down from No. 4 in 2007 to No. 12 this year.

By Darwin G. Amojelar, Senior Reporter
ManilaTimes.net

Fount of intelligence and wisdom

2010-11-10T12:51:00.003+08:00

President Benigno Aquino 3rd deserves to be praised for slashing his P650-million intelligence fund by P250 million. It shows him to be a man of integrity and self-abnegation. One might say that in this matter, President PNoy is a fount of intelligence and wisdom. He no doubt wishes his act to be taken as an example by other heads of government agencies, each of whom also has an intelligence fund.

His intelligence fund as President of the Philippines is P650 million. By giving up P250 million, his intelligence fund has shrunk to only P400 million.

That is still a large amount. And it takes integrity and a generous spirit of frugality to give up P250 million that he could actually use in any way he pleases—as long as he wrote in a piece of paper that it was for gathering intelligence and placed the piece of paper in a sealed envelop and gave this to the government auditors. The auditors then take the President’s word that the money was properly used for intelligence gathering.

Liquidation by certification
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Franklin Drilon wants the entire concept of the intelligence fund for non-police and military agencies reviewed and the money placed in the regular budget. He described how the money is accounted for to meet legal requirements—without proper and detailed examination by the Commission on Audit.

Malacañang agrees to the review of the intelligence fund system.

Drilon told media this manner of accounting for the intelligence fund is called “liquidation by certification.” Among government people it is also called the “envelope system of liquidation,” he added.

“You write in a piece of paper the use of intelligence fund to purchase intelligence information from a certain Juan de la Cruz. You put the piece of paper in an envelope, then you seal it, and you give it to the Commission on Audit [COA[, and you have liquidated the amount,” the senator (and former senate president) said. He added that the COA auditors have the power to open the sealed envelop and read what it says. But they cannot question the President (or any official who has intelligence funds has submitted a certificate of liquidation).

Senator Drilon and everybody else agrees that security officers of the government—especially those in the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Philippine National Police, the National Bureau of Investigation, the Immigration Department, and perhaps even the specially designated units of the Bureaus of Customs and Internal Revenue—should have an intelligence fund. That budget is necessary.

Intelligence funds have been abused
But for other government offices, it does seem ridiculous to have department secretaries and bureau chiefs given intelligence funds exempt from the rules of transparency and COA scrutiny.

Senator Drilon says the use of the intel fund has been abused so much by previous administrations.
So he wants to place the intelligence fund under regular budget items rather than being included as a lump sum under the label “intelligence fund” which is not subject to proper auditing procedures.

The Ilongo senator wants intelligence funds to be reprogrammed “to line functions” and therefore no longer be treated as confidential. These should then be subject to regular auditing by COA.
The 2010 budget allocates P1.380 billion for intelligence funds.

The total 2011 budget allocation for intelligence funds for the various offices in the PNoy administration is P1.425 billion. This lump sum intelligence fund does not cover the intelligence funds for military and police use. And this P1.425 billion neither includes intelligence funds allocated by local government units for their own use nor funds allocated by the directors of government corporations and other state enterprises for their own use.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile agrees—even if he says the P1.425 billion for the intelligence fund in the current budget is a small part of the 2011 P1.6-trillion budget—that intelligence funds for non-security agencies and offices should be made part of the regular budgets and be subject to normal auditing.

Mr. Enrile said the President’s office is not an intelligence gathering agency. It is in fact a user of intelligence obtained by all the intelligence-gathering units.

Legacy of the Cold War and Martial Law regime
Every government office was given an intelligence budget during the Cold War years. The purpose of the fund is for the chief of the agency or office to be able to unearth useful and vital information for the national interest, often related to national security, that would otherwise never be obtained.

It reflects the anti-communist paranoia that pervaded the Martial Law regime.

It veritably made each head of agency, and his or her close assistants, an extension of the police and military intelligence service. Its use is supposed to be totally sub rosa. That is why the intelligence fund is not audited in detail by the Commission on Audit. That system must be abolished. Fount of intelligence and wisdom

KAALAMAN SA GLOBAL WARMING

2010-11-05T19:55:00.005+08:00

Global Warming Artikulo mula sa WekipediA

Ang Pag-init ng Daigdig (o Global Warming sa Ingles) ay tumutukoy sa naranasang pagtaas ng katamtamang temperatura ng himpapawid at mga karagatan sa mundo nitong mga nakaraang dekada. Tumaas ng 0.6 ± 0.2 °Celsius (1.1 ± 0.4 °Fahrenheit) ang temperatura sa loob ng ika-20 siglo ang katamtamang pandaidigang temperatura. Ayon sa siyentipikong opinyon, “ang naranasang pag-init nitong huling 50 taon ay gawa ng tao”. Ang pagtaas ng antas ng carbon dioxide at iba pang mga greenhouse gases na resulta ng pagsunog ng produkto mula sa petrolyong langis, pagpapanot ng kagubatan, pagsasaka, at iba pang kagagawan ng tao ang mga pangunahing sanhi ng pag-init ng mundo.

Nagpapakita sa mga pagmamatyag na pag-aaral at ng mga modelong pangklima na ang pagka-sensitibo ng klima upang madoble ang antas ng CO₂ ay mangyayari kapag tumaas ng 1.5-4.5 °C ang katamtamang temperatura. Ang mga modelong basihan ng Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ay humuhula na ang pandaigdigang temperatura ay tataas sa pagitan ng 1.4 at 5.8 °C (2.5 hanggang 10.5 °F) mula taong 1990 hanggang 2100.

Sinasabing ang pagtaas sa pandaigdigang temperatura ay magdudulot ng malaking pagbabago kasama rito ang pagtaas ng karaniwang taas ng dagat at pagbabago sa dami ng mga pag-ulan. Ang mga pagbabagong ito ay sinasabing magpaparami sa dalas at lakas ng mga mapanirang kalagayan ng panahon tulad ng baha, tag-tuyot, bugso ng init (heat waves), bagyo at buhawi. Sinasabing ang pag-init ay makaaapekto sa bilang at tindi ng mga ito, Mahirap na iakibat ito sa partikular na kalagayan ng panahon sa pag-init ng mundo. Gayunman, ang mga pag-aaral ay nakatuon sa panahon hanggang taong 2100 na ang pag-init (at pagtaas ng pantay laot mula sa pag-aalsang dulot ng init) ay patuloy na mangyayari dahil sa ang CO2 ay may mahabang buhay sa himpapawid.

May maliit na bilang na mga siyentipiko ang laban sa pananaw na ang gawa ng tao ang nagdudulot ng malaki sa pagtaas sa temperatura nitong nakaraang panahon. Gayundin, walang katiyakan ang nakapalibot rito kung gaanong kalaking pagbabago sa panahon ang makikita sa darating na araw. May mainit na debateng politikal at publiko kung paano mapabababa o mababaliktad ang pag-init sa darating na panahon at kung paano haharapin ang mga bunga nito.

Ang katagang “global warming” (pag-init ng mundo) ay isang tiyak na dulot ng mas malawak na katagang “climate change’ (pagbabago sa klima) (na tumutukoy din sa paglamig tulad ng nangyari noong Edad Yelo). Sa prinsipyo nito, nyutral ang global warming sa dahilan nito ngunit sa karaniwang gamit, kalimitang pinahihiwatig na may papel ang tao sa pag-init ng mundo. Gayunman, ginagamit ang ‘climate change’ ng UNFCCC sa pagbabagong gawa ng tao, at ‘climate variability’ (pabago-bago ng klima) na dulot ng ibang kadahilanan. Ang ilang organisasyon ay gumagamit ng katagang 'anthropogenic climate change' sa pagbabagong dulot ng tao. read more...