Kontra-SONA 2011

OF SYMBOLIC GOVERNANCE

AND ZERO SCORECARD

(Counter-SONA delivered by

Minority Leader Edcel C. Lagman on 01 August 2011)

With her great nobility and tolerant accommodation of differing views, I am certain that the late President Corazon C. Aquino will not mind my delivering the Minority’s Counter SONA today, on the occasion of her 2^nd death anniversary.

The Minority was ready with its counter-SONA last Tuesday, the very day after the President’s second State of the Nation Address. However, on Tuesday and Wednesday last week session was suspended due to inclement weather.

Now, a week after the President delivered his SONA, almost everybody has made his assessment either for, against or ambivalent.

Consequently, this counter-SONA may appear anti-climactic, repetitious or just for the record.

It is not. Considering the constitutional import and national significance of the SONA and what it ought to encompass, any serious assessment is never stale and will always be seasonable.

The Minority complements the President for elevating the banning of the irritating wang-wang to a national symbol of good governance and probity in public office. But a symbol is a mere cosmetic trapping if commitment and performance are wanting.

It took the President one year to extrapolate the meaning of wang-wang to include errant entitlements and corrupt practices. It is a way of justifying an inordinately simplistic approach to overridingly serious problems. It is a play on words and symbols which attract popular attention but detract from a patriotic vision.

The President embarked on an electoral campaign of symbols like “matuwid na daan” at “kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap”. He then pursues symbolic governance by using wang-wang as his shibboleth in the same manner that a Porsche is a symbol of flaunting wealth and power, and KKK is symbolic of bad and abusive governance.

Of course there is completely nothing wrong with banning the use of wang-wangs, but the Presidency must be above symbols. It should pursue concrete plans and viable visions. It should be an exemplar of competence and industry. It should be the compass for national direction. It should be the propeller for growth and development. The people deserve no less.

I do not speak solely for the “noisy” Minority, as we were categorized earlier by the President, who also said we are expected to differ from and oppose him.

I articulate and echo the sentiments, despairs and criticisms of ordinary people in the margins of society, of corporate magnates in the sanctuary of their boardrooms, of mentors and students in the independence of the academe, of Overseas Filipino Workers in the modern salt mines of alien masters, of landless tillers aspiring for parcels of earth to call their own, of human rights victims and desaparecidos in unmarked graves waiting for elusive justice and end to impunity, of political prisoners wrongly incarcerated to stifle dissent, and of the masses of our people whom the President patronizingly calls his “bosses”.

In last year’s SONA, the President had a triple agenda on (1) legislative priorities requiring the enactment of seven urgent measures; (2) what appeared to be an economic program exemplified by the three-Ps on Public-Private Partnership and (3) governance centerpiece on anti-corruption campaign.

Unfortunately, the President scored zero as in zeroin his triple agenda.

Not one of the seven priority legislative measures has been enacted into law. The ill-fated seven are still languishing in congressional committees. They are the bills on: (1) Fiscal Responsibility; (2) Anti-Trust; (3) National Land Use; (4) Amendments to the Procurement Law; (5) Amendments to the National Defense Act of 1935; (6) Whistle-Blowers; and (7) Strengthening the Witness Protection Program.

The 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions have uniform provisions wherein the President is mandated to deliver his State of the Nation Address (SONA) before the Legislature, not from Malacañang Palace or Plaza Miranda. The import and implications of these common provisions are:

       1)   The SONA must contain the President’s legislative agenda and priority policy pronouncements for enactment by the Congress; and

       2)   The President must follow-through the concretization of his administration’s priority measures and policies in appropriate legislation by the Congress.

The President failed to follow-through the enactment of not even one of his priority bills despite the overwhelming number of Aquino allies and partisans in the Congress, particularly in this Chamber, who are ready to fast-track urgent or priority measures of the administration at the President’s behest, like in the speedy enactment of Republic Act No. 10153 postponing the ARMM elections and Republic Act No. 10149 on the GOCC Governance Act, both of which are pending adjudication before the Supreme Court for having been challenged as unconstitutional. These two enactments cannot yet be used to improve the President’s scorecard.

This lack of follow-through reflects the President’s sluggish work habits. After the applause has subsided, he conveniently forgets that he has to roll up his sleeves and get actual work done.

The President added in his second SONA more priority bills. We hope he can revisit the status of these measures before they become candidates for the archives.

       Although the President did not spell out in last year’s SONA his administration’s economic road map, in the same manner that he did not elaborate on the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) in this year’s SONA as it has neither been approved nor submitted to the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council (LEDAC), he nonetheless gave us a glimpse last year of what may be his economic vision by extolling the beneficial prospects of his Public-Private Partnerships (PPP).

       In his 2010 SONA, the President announced: “No matter how massive the deficit is that may keep us from paying for these list of needs, I am heartened because many have already expressed renewed interest and confidence in the Philippines. Our solution: public-private partnerships. Although no contract has been signed yet, I can say that on-going talks with interested investors will yield fruitful outcomes. There are some who have already shown interest and want to build an expressway from Manila that will pass through Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, Nueva Vizcaya, until the end of the Cagayan Valley without the government having to spend a single peso.”

       He then continued: “Some had this proposition: they will rent the Navy Headquarters in Roxas Boulevard and the Naval Station in Fort Bonifacio. They will take care of the funding necessary to transfer the Navy Headquarters to Camp Aguinaldo. Immediately, we will be given 100 million dollars.  Furthermore, they will give us a portion of their profits from their businesses that would occupy the land they will rent. In short, we will meet our needs without spending, and we will also earn.”

       And then he concluded: “There have already been many proposals from local to foreign investors to provide for our various needs. From these public-private partnerships, our economy will grow and every Filipino will be the beneficiary. There are so many sectors that could benefit from these.”

       The foregoing glowing scenario has dissipated. What has ensued instead is the foreign businessmen’s dismal disinterest in investing in the country because of the Aquino administration’s foot-dragging and inefficient preparation of blueprints and implementing regulations. One year later, not a single PPP project has been bid out.

       The recent ASEAN business survey showed that majority of foreign investors would refuse to invest in the Philippines. They have been dismayed by the current administration’s lethargic leadership, not to mention the abrogation of international consummated contracts which have passed government standards and scrutiny, for which the Philippines is now sued by foreign contractors before tribunals abroad for enormous amounts of damages.

       Volumes of verbiage and sound bites have been wasted in propagandizing the Aquino administration’s centerpiece agenda against corruption. Until now, the light at the end of the tunnel flickers like a distant beacon. After one year, not a single complaint has been filed at the instance of vociferous Presidential graft busters. Of course, no conviction has been secured.

       The President and his lawyers wasted one year in vainly convincing the public and the Supreme Court on the contrived validity of the “Philippine Truth Commission” which was created by the President’s first Executive Order and was afflicted with congenital constitutional infirmities.

       A day after the President’s SONA, the Supreme Court junked with finality the Truth Commission as a patent violation of the constitutionally enshrined equal protection clause because its creation was a venture in partisan vendetta and a vehicle for selective retribution since its consuming motivation was solely the persecution and prosecution of officials of the immediate past administration.

       The President’s centerpiece agenda has likewise floundered. In fact, the Philippine corruption rating worsened to 8.9 from 8.25 in a scale of one to 10 in a survey covering the period from November 2010 to February 2011 which was conducted by the Hong Kong-based Political Economic Risk Consultancy, Ltd. (PERC).

       The anti-corruption campaign of the President concentrates on high profile cases involving billions of pesos and national figures. Mind-boggling scandals are singled out for media to highlight as headline material. But these exposés are peripheral to the lives of the multitude.

       The corruption drive need not always be spectacular. What the common people would surely appreciate is a balanced campaign which must also combat and eradicate those petty acts of corruption and abuse that bedevil their everyday lives. This may not project the President as an indefatigable crusader against venalities, but it will immensely benefit his unheralded “bosses”.

       Incidentally, it is a record that the first three Executive Orders of President Aquino and several of his subsequent issuances had been contested before the Supreme Court. It is also on record that two of the early measures certified as priority by President Aquino are being questioned before the Supreme Court.

       The first is R.A. 10153 postponing the ARMM elections and authorizing the President to appoint officers-in-charge. Four petitions are pending before the Supreme Court seeking the nullity of this law for being offensive to the Constitution. The petitions assailing the constitutionality of this law have been set for oral argument on August 9, 2011. The second is R.A. No. 10149 or the “GOCC Governance Act of 2011” which is also in the furnace of judicial scrutiny.

       It is valid to ask why there are numerous challenges to the Executive Orders and Republic Acts under the Aquino administration. Are these controverted issuances and Malacañang-sponsored statutes crafted in the vacuum of inexperience or incompetence? Is there a cavalier treatment of the rule of law? Are improvident shortcuts thefavored path?

       With respect to the autonomy of the ARMM, the Constitution mandates two safeguards: (1) regional executive and legislative officials of ARMM ‘‘shall beelective and representative of the constituent political units’’ (Sec. 18 of Article X of the 1987 Constitution), not appointive as in officers-in-charge; and (2) the “President shall exercise general supervision over autonomous regions to ensure that laws are faithfully executed’’ (Sec. 16 of the same Article X), not control like voiding the actions of OICs who are accountable to the appointing power.

       The legislated safeguards are: (1) periodic regular and popular elections; (2) holdover of elected incumbents until their successors are elected and qualified; (3) any amendment to the Organic Act should be approved by 2/3 vote of the House and the Senate voting separately in order to be valid; and (4) the amendment to the Organic Act becomes effective only after it is ratified in a plebiscite.

       Indeed, all safeguards for ARMM autonomy have been derogated. All guaranties have been sacrificed at the altar of partisanship and expediency. The Aquino administration is hell-bent in slaying ARMM autonomy. Only the Supreme Court can avert a requiem for ARMM.

       The scandalous grants of huge salaries, allowances and perks to officials and personnel of some GOCCs cannot be tolerated and must be rectified. Nonetheless, the offending GOCCs constitute only a small percentage of the total GOCCs which could reach several hundreds.

       Indeed, culpability must be determined after due process, and the guilty dismissed or disciplined and ordered to return the excessive benefits. However, it is axiomatic that a wrong cannot be righted by another wrong.

       The “GOCC Governance Act of 2011” is a compendium of sweeping, wayward, illegal and unconstitutional solutions to a problem which is grave but not widespread. It is indiscriminate wrath against the entire GOCC sector.

       This infirm statute is a shortcut and ill-conceived remedy which punishes both the guilty and innocent without due process; violates the constitutionally guaranteed security of tenure of GOCC officials; constitutes undue delegation and abdication of legislative powers; and supplants the jurisdiction of the constitutionally created independent Civil Service Commission. Perforce, this Malacañang-inspired law has to be exorcised and cleansed of its multiple aberrations.

       Moreover, the timing of the fast-tracked enactment is suspect. The provision which pre-terminates the terms of office of CEOs and trustees/directors of GOCCs as of June 30, 2011 coincides with or is proximate to the expiration just last May of the one-year employment ban on candidates who lost during the 2010 elections. Now, there will be a surfeit of vacancies in the GOCCs to accommodate the avalanche of jobless partisans of the Aquino administration.

       The Aquino administration must not defy settled jurisprudence and show contempt for the rule of law because these wayward actions are roadblocks to thematuwid na daan.

       The President complimented the Congress for passing on time the General Appropriations Act of 2011. The President said: “nagpakitang-gilas ang Kongreso sa pagpasa ng budget bago matapos ang taon. Dahil dito, nasimulan agad ang mga proyekto at hindi na inabot ng tag-ulan.”

       Again, the President is less than candid in his report. While it is true that Congress passed the 2011 budget before the end of 2010, Malacañang releases came in trickles, if at all, so much so that the rainy season has arrived but funding allocations for various infrastructure projects are pending release.

       Even the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) for congressional districts, which constitutes a small portion of the budget, has not been fully released seven months after the enactment of the GAA. The victims are the constituents of the members of the Minority and some vocal and independent-minded legislators belonging to the Majority coalition. Meanwhile, thousands of deserving scholars may be unable to pursue college and vocational education and thousands of indigent patients are deprived of free medical care, the funds for which are sourced from the PDAF.

       The uneven treatment is not limited to the disparity in releases between the Majority and Minority. The discrimination extends to the Minority membership where some get releases and others do not. This smacks of a “divide-and-rule” strategy reminiscent of the colonial masters by driving a wedge within the ranks of the opposition.

       And was it not he President, when he was a Senator, who authored Senate Bill No. 3121 against the unbridled power of the President to impound approved budgetary allocations?

       It is no wonder that our economic growth slowed to 4.9% in the first quarter of this year from 8.4% last year, which the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) has attributed to lackluster government spending. If GNP – instead of GDP – figures are used, economic growth was slower at 3.6% compared to 11.5% last year.

       Other standard economic indicators are far from encouraging. While the unemployment rate fell from 8% in April 2010 to 7.2% in April 2011, the underemployment rate rose from 17.8% to 19.4%. The trade deficit, which measures the excess of imports over exports, increased from $957 million in April 2010 to $1.2 billion in April 2011. The inflation rate was 5.2% in June 2011; in June 2010, the inflation rate was only 3.6%. Consequently, the purchasing power of the peso fell from 83% in June 2010 to 79% in June 2011. This means that compared to 2006, the base year, the peso was worth only P.83 in June 2010 and was worth even less at P.79 in June 2011.

       Even more worrisome are the figures for the Leading Economic Indicator (LEI), a quarterly composite economic index jointly developed by the NSCB and the NEDA “to provide advance information on the direction of the country’s economic activity/performance in the short run.” In six consecutive quarters from the fourth quarter of 2009, the LEI grew steadily. It was only in the last quarter, from April to June this year that the LEI slid, strongly suggesting a slowdown in economic activity/performance. It is hoped that the slide is worrisome but not ominous.

       An estimated P30 billion has been lying in the government’s coffers waiting to be used for meaningful and urgent projects. Some private banks have downscaled their growth projections because of the administration’s anemic performance in pump-priming the economy.

       What is the budget for if it will not be used for the purposes requested by the Executive and appropriated by Congress? It does not exist to generate a cosmetic fiscal surplus and contrived savings to contain artificially the deficit at the expense of growth and development. Perforce, appropriations must be released with reasonable alacrity and utilized judiciously.

       The fact remains that the country needs to invest in physical and social infrastructure if we are to move forward or simply sustain our growth. Unfortunately, what this administration has achieved is an underspent budget – a knee-jerk reaction to fiscal challenges.

       Forced savings are like drugs locked up in a medicine cabinet while an epidemic rages.

       The President also neglected to address the pressing concerns of two of his largest constituencies, the laborers, both domestic and overseas, and the farmers, including agrarian reform beneficiaries.

       Even if the 7.4% unemployment rate in the first quarter this year slipped to 7.2% in the 2^nd quarter, such meager improvement did not liberate a sizeable number of unemployed which is still close to a staggering 11.3 million jobless.

       What is crucial is that (1) those who are unemployed be given the opportunity to secure jobs; (2) those who are already employed are assured of security of tenure and a living wage; (3) those who are underemployed are fully employed; and (4) those employed overseas must be fully protected and once they return or are repatriated jobs and livelihood are available to them.

       Although these labor targets cannot be achieved with alacrity, the President must have a labor agenda to expeditiously and eventually attain these objectives. Unfortunately, the President has no labor plan or has failed to disclose one.

       The test of the President’s fealty to his bosses in Hacienda Luisita is for his kin to distribute the landholding to qualified farmworkers, and not allocate parchments of diluted shares of stocks.

       This is the matuwid na daan in agrarian reform because (1) the only constitutional mandated mode is actual land distribution; (2) the stock distribution option (SDO) under Section 31 of R.A. 6657, the original Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) had already expired more than two decades ago; and 3) SDO has been repealed and rejected by the CARPER (R.A 9700) as ruled by the Supreme Court in the latest Hacienda Luisita Case.

       The President and his economic team find no end in drumbeating the latest credit upgrades of the Philippines. They conveniently overlook the truism that upgrades are not achieved overnight. They are the cumulated results of positive economic reforms and solid fundamentals put in place by the previous administration to which the present regime has little contribution absent a viable economic road map and pending the approval of the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) which is yet to be submitted to the Executive-Legislative Development Advisory Council (LEDAC).

       Rating agencies admit that they only give upgrades after years of fiscal improvement, and not a few months of gains like savings which are mostly contrived. Even the President admits that our upgrade is limited to a “non-investment grade”.

       The President claimed in his SONA that because of the CCT, “mahigit isandaang libong pamilya, uulitin ko mahigit isandaang libong pamilya, ang naiaahon natin mula sa kahirapan kada buwan.”

       How on earth can a maximum of P1,400 a month per family-beneficiary liberate more than a hundred thousand families from poverty every month? The CCT is supposed to be only one component of the government’s poverty alleviation program precisely because it is not a comprehensive approach to solving mass poverty. It is a mere analgesic, and painkillers are purely palliative. Moreover, whichever way you look at it, the CCT is not sustainable because it is a dole-out.

       I am certain that the cash dole-outs from the CCT help lessen the economic strain on so many poor families but to give CCT is something akin to the powers of a magic potion by attributing to it the liberation of more than 100,000 families monthly from the quagmire of poverty is not only simplistic. It borders on brazen hyperbole.

       Instead of increasing the appropriations for the CCT program from P21,194,117,000 this year to P39,444,651,000 in 2012, it should be realistically reduced and the beneficiaries pruned down to the “poorest of the poor” as originally intended when it was first implemented in 1997 consistent with the original program in Mexico.

       The additional and excess funding should be realigned to viable livelihood support programs to generate rural family incomes and to increase the budgets of the education and health departments which are the allied agencies in the implementation of CCT.

       The conditions for schooling and health care of the children of beneficiary-families cannot be adequately complied with without the necessary classrooms and medical facilities.

       Moreover, since the 2012 General Appropriations Act is virtually the 2013 election budget, the 86.11% increase in the CCT funding can easily be transformed into a partisan kitty, nay barrel, for the administration’s electoral campaign.

       An encouraging speck in the bleak scenario of deteriorating economic and social indicators, which deter growth and development, is the reported reduction of the number of Filipino families who suffered involuntary hunger in the last three months.

       The 20.5% or estimated 4.1 million families who experienced self-rated moderate and severe hunger in March 2011 dropped to 15.1% or leaving a balance of about three million hunger-stricken families and thereby some one million families have been reportedly liberated from episodes of hunger.

       The President should not be extremely ecstatic about this decline. The stark reality is that three million families still suffer the pangs of hunger. With an average of six persons per family in the depressed and marginalized communities, this means that there are 18 million individuals or almost 20 percent of 94 million Filipinos who are exposed to incidents of hunger.

       The Aquino administration must realize that there is another kind of hunger it has to address because “man does not live by bread alone”, as Jesus Christ exhorted millenniums ago.

       While the body needs food, the human spirit demands justice. The dearth of food and the denial of justice have historically fomented revolutions.

       Speaking about the quest for justice, there are in particular six bills in the House of Representatives seeking to end impunity for enforced disappearance by criminalizing the act as a separate offense, distinct from kidnapping, murder, physical injuries and arbitrary detention, among other common crimes. The precursors of these bills have been filed and refilled since 1990 or 21 years ago.

       The principal reasons for this proposed legislation of long gestation are (1) enforced disappearance is committed by the State or government authorities through its officials or agents singly or in conspiracy with civilian cohorts; and (2) the motive is generally political and the victim is invariably an activist, dissenter, crusader or a suspected rebel.

 

       Despite repeated claims of the revival of civil liberties and the resurgence of democratic space, from the Cory administration to subsequent administrations, including the current one, no President has prioritized the enactment of an Anti-Enforced Disappearance law.

       Less than four months after President Aquino assumed office, a delegation of human rights advocates had a one-hour audience with him in October 2010 purposely to request that the Anti-Enforced Disappearance bill be prioritized as an administration measure and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance be signed and endorsed by the President to the Senate for ratification.

       Up to the second SONA, no concrete and positive response has been made by the President on the two measures, despite the personal support of Secretary of Justice Leila De Lima and Commission on Human Rights (CHR) Chairperson Loretta Ann Rosales. And not withstanding that the protection and promotion of human rights was an avowed campaign promise of the President and the Philippines is a three-term member of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

       Meanwhile, the commission of enforced disappearance remains unabated. The list ofdesaparecidos appears to be endless and open-ended. Within one year of the President’s term, a number of enforced disappearances had been reported, not to mention politically-related killings which have remained unsolved.

       While we are on the topic of hunger for justice, the day the SONA was delivered was the first day of the hunger strike of political prisoners in the country for freedom and human rights. It is reminiscent of the same protest by the President’s father, Ninoy, when he was incarcerated during martial law. It was gravely disappointing that except for his endorsement of compensation to the martial law human rights violations victims, there was no mention of any human rights agenda in the President’s SONA,  notwithstanding his being the son of a former political prisoner and his mother former President Cory Aquino’s releasing of political prisoners with dispatch.

       It may be understandable, although regrettable, why the President did not endorse or say something positive about the RH bill despite his steadfast advocacy of responsible parenthood which is virtually identical with reproductive health. He perhaps wanted to prevent a further widening of the chasm between his administration and the Catholic hierarchy. But he should not have heaped undeserved praises on the prelates, particularly a Bishop who had labelled the RH advocates as “terrorists”.

       It is not terrorism to liberate women’s wombs from unremitting pregnancies.

       It is not terrorism to reduce maternal and infant mortality by preventing high-risk pregnancies.

       It is not terrorism to reduce the incidence of abortion by 85% by avoiding unwanted pregnancies which are the ones aborted by young, married and Catholic women who could not afford another child.

       It is not terrorism to help alleviate poverty.

       At the end of the day, what may only remain is the Presidential wang-wang of 3-Ps of promises,propaganda and palliatives as the President bellows out promises, drumbeats propaganda and hollers palliatives. The patience of the Filipinos can be proverbially enduring, but their eardrums are fragile and their sensibilities cannot be repeatedly demeaned.

       Thank you.