BANK ACCOUNT NI DUTERTE - by Rep. Gary C. Alejano

See - Representative Gary C. Alejano

"x x x.

BANK ACCOUNT NI DUTERTE

By Representative Gary C. Alejano

Paano ba nagsimula ang issue ng bank account/s ni Duterte na umano ay bilyon ang laman? Ganito lang natin i-breakdown ang issue ng bank account niya sa pamagitan ng paglahad ng isang sequence:

1. Kampanya. NANGAKO si Duterte kasama ni Cayetano na dapat lahat na tumatakbo magsign ng bank waiver. Ibig sabihin i-waive mo ang rights mo sa ilalim ng Bank Secrecy Law. Diyan makikita ang lahat pati transaction history ng isang bank account.

2. Trillanes. Nilabas niya sa publiko na may BILYON si Duterte sa kanyang mga accounts taliwas sa kampanya ni Duterte na siya ay MAHIRAP na tao lang. In fact, sinabi pa niya na walang pang gamot ang nanay niya nang ito ay na ospital. Pinakita ni Trillanes ang photocopied bank records ni Duterte sa publiko.

3. DENIAL. Hindi raw totoo ang sinabi ni Trillanes. Non-existent daw ang bank account according sa spokesperson ni Duterte na si Peter La Viña.

4. UNANG HAMON. Pag hindi totoo ang sinasabi ni Trillanes siya ay magresign sa Senado at mag withdraw sa Vice Presidential race.

5. DEPOSIT. Some people deposited to the account presented by Trillanes and it was successful. So, that means totoo ang account.

6. ADMISSION. Napilitang umamin si Duterte na totoo nga na kanyang account yung pinakita ni Trillanes. Pero ang sabi niya na konti na lang ang laman dahil pinang-hapihapi niya.

7. PANGALAWANG HAMON. Si Duterte buksan ang bank account through a waiver at Trillanes sabihin kung saan niya nakuha ang impormasyon niya. Magkita sila sa BPI branch Ortigas.

8. RESULTA. Trillanes dumating dala ang affidavit niya. Duterte? Nada, awan, wala. Si Panelo ang sumipot. Ano ang dala? SPA o Special Power of Attorney at HINDI WAIVER. The SPA authorized Panelo by Duterte to ask two things from the bank; a) Balance of his account and b) certification from the bank that no point in time the account has contained P 211M (this means pag may piso lampas o kulang sa P 211M hindi mag certify ang bangko).

9. WHAT HAPPEND AFTER? Trillanes gave the affidavit to Panelo. Panelo gave the SPA to the bank. Trillanes requested for a copy, ayaw bigyan ni Panelo dahil di naman siya party to the SPA. Now, according to Panelo he could not give Trillanes the result of the request because he has to go back to his principal and it is up to his principal whether he would give Trillanes a copy or not. Again, nada, wala, awan ti copy. By the way, ang WAIVER ay hindi kapareha ng SPA.

10. CASE. Trillanes filed a plunder case against Duterte before the Ombudsman.

11. PANGATLONG HAMON. Presidente na si Duterte nang hinamon ulit ni Trillanes patungkol sa kanyang bank account. Ang sabi ni Trillanes na pag napatunayan na mali siya, siya ay agarang magresign sa Senado at mag walk-in sa piling kulungan ni Duterte.

12. ANG SAGOT? Denial lang si Duterte at yawyaw lang at iwas sa isyu ng waiver. Pagkakataon na sana ni Duterte na mawala si Trillanes sa landas niya bilang kritiko niya sa pamagitan ng pagpatunay na sinungaling si Trillanes. Waiver lang katapat. Awan pa rin si Duterte. Bakit kaya umiiwas? Nagtatago ba?

13. COUNTER MOVE. Ang ginawa na counter move ni Duterte ay nag imbento ng mga offshore bank accounts ni Trillanes para linlangin ang taumbayan na walang karapatan si Trillanes na magparatang na may bilyon siya at magdemand ng waiver sa kanya dahil si Trillanes ay meron ding mga tagong offshore bank accounts.

14. BOOMERANG. Bumalik kay Duterte ang kanyang taktika dahil agarang nag issue ng waivers si Trillanes sa lahat na accounts na kanyang nilabas. Si Trillanes ay pumunta pa sa Singapore kasama ang ilang media upang personal na i-verify ang nasabing account.

15. DBS ACCOUNT. Awan ti account! Halos di atupagin ng empleyado ng DBS si Trillanes dahil siya ay HINDI KLIYENTE. Ganun pa man, tinanong ni Trillanes ang teller ng bangko kung meron silang nakapangalan kay a) Antonio Trillanes o b) Antonio Trillanes IV whether SINGLE, JOINT, CLOSED OR CURRENT. Wala gyud ni isa nigawas sa computer ng teller.

16. NAPILITAN. Dahil dito napilitan si Duterte na aminin sa publiko na gawa gawa niya lang ang mga accounts ni Trillanes para hulihin niya ito. Tsk tsk. Di ko makita ano ang logic nito.

17. NAGSINUNGALING ULIT. Di na nadala sa pagkasunog dahil sa offshore bank accounts ni Trillanes, nagsinungaling ulit sa pagsabi na sinara ni Trillanes ang bank account niya bago pumunta Singapore. Yan daw ang dahilan bakit wala na siyang account sa DBS. Ang tanong, paano mo isara ang inimbento mo lang na account. Tsk tsk. Kahit isanlibo pa na accounts yan wala pa rin yan dahil hindi nga kliyente si Trillanes ng DBS.

18. FAKE NEWS PA MORE. By this time alam na ni Duterte na peke ang mga accounts mula sa impormante na kanilang binilhan ng impormasyon ngunit pilit pa ring sinabi sa publiko na totoo at nagpakita pa ng matrix ng deposits at withdrawals. Ano pa ba ang paniwalaan mo sa sinasabi ng pangulo kung ganito na ang estado ng kanyang pag-iisip?

19. MORE WAIVERS. Ang sabi ni Trillanes kahit ilang accounts pa ang ilabas ni Duterte ay isyuhan niya ito ng waivers para buksan ng AMLC para makalkal nila kung totoo o hindi. Si Duterte? Todo iwas sa sign pen. Ayaw humawak ng pen. Takot pumirma ng anumang waiver sa kanyang bank accounts.

20. OMBUDSMAN. Natanong ng media kamakailan lang ang Ombudsman patungkol sa kaso ni Duterte. Ang sabi ay ang hawak nilang bank transaction records ni Duterte ay "more or less" kapareha ang contents sa hawak ni Trillanes. The BANK TRANSACTION RECORDS were TRANSMITTED by AMLC to OMBUDSMAN.

21. AMLC. Ang sinabi nito ay hindi pa ito nagsumite ng REPORT sa Ombudsman. Tama naman ito dahil ang kanilang sinumite sa Ombudsman ay BANK TRANSACTION RECORDS at HINDI REPORT.

22. ANG TUGON NI DUTERTE? Nagwala!Tinakot ang ombudsman na paaresto kung di dadalo sa komisyon na kanyang itatayo. Fabricated daw ang hawak ng ombudsman. Sige pa Dong, magsinungaling ka pa sa publiko. Hinay hinay ka lang sa bulyaw mo sa publiko at nahahalata ka nang nasa angry panic mode ka na.

x x x."

Study finds U.S. marijuana arrests outpace those for violent crime, urges drug decriminalization

See - Study finds U.S. marijuana arrests outpace those for violent crime, urges drug decriminalization

"x x x.

Study finds U.S. marijuana arrests outpace those for violent crime, urges drug decriminalization

New report by prominent human-rights groups notes marijuana arrests outnumber those for violent crimes, highlights the human toll of America's arrest-first drug policy, urges decriminalization of drug use

PUBLISHED: OCT 12, 2016, 5:46 AM • UPDATED: 12 MONTHS AGOCOMMENTS (27)

By Alicia Wallace, The Cannabist Staff

Drug possession lands someone in handcuffs every 25 seconds in the United States, and despite the scales tipping in favor of marijuana legalization, pot arrests outnumber those for violent crimes, according to a new report by two human rights organizations.

Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday issued a report documenting the “human toll” of making drug possession and use criminal offenses in America. In conjunction with the release of “Every 25 Seconds: The Human toll of Criminalizing Drug Use in the United States,” the organizations made a heightened call for the decriminalization of the personal use and possession of small amounts of drugs.

“Each day, tens of thousands more are convicted, cycle through jails and prisons, and spend extended periods on probation and parole, often burdened with crippling debt from court-imposed fines and fees,” author Tess Borden wrote in the report. “Their criminal records lock them out of jobs, housing, education, welfare assistance, voting, and much more, and subject them to discrimination and stigma. 

The cost to them and to their families and communities, as well as to the taxpayer, is devastating. Those impacted are disproportionately communities of color and the poor.”

Human Rights Watch and the ACLU plan to hold a news conference to discuss the report at 9:30 a.m. EDT on Wednesday in Washington, D.C.

The release of the roughly 50,000-word report — a yearlong effort that included state- and federal-level data requests, research and hundreds of interviews — comes amid a time of transformation for U.S. drug policy.

Public opinion has shifted favorably toward cannabis legalization and the majority of U.S. states have seen loosening of their marijuana laws. Michael Botticelli, the U.S. drug czar, recently addressed topics of addiction and opioid and heroin abuse by stating that “we can’t arrest our way out of the problem.”

“I think that the momentum that states have created around decriminalization or even legalization shows the United States that there’s another way of doing things,” Maria McFarland Sanchez-Moreno, co-director of the Human Rights Watch’s U.S. Program, said in an interview.

One out of every nine arrests in the United States is for drug possession, making it the most common arrest offense, according to the report.

California, Maryland, Nebraska and Oregon had the highest rates, with illicit drug possession arrests accounting for one in seven arrests, while it represented one in every 20 arrests in states such as Colorado, Rhode Island, New Mexico, Vermont and Alaska, according to the report.

Drug use rates, however, remained fairly consistent across the United States, the report found, citing U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ substance abuse data.

In 2015, there were 1.25 million drug possession arrests and upward of 574,000 of those were for marijuana possession, according to the report, citing Federal Bureau of Investigation data.

“By comparison, there were 505,681 arrests for violent crimes (which the FBI defines as murder, non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault),” according to the report. “This means that police made more arrests for simple marijuana possession than for all violent crimes combined.”

Report author Borden, who is an Aryeh Neier Fellow with the Human Rights Watch and ACLU, said she was struck by the magnitude of arrests as well as how a significant number of the offenses were for minuscule amounts of drugs.

“Just the machinery of it was really surprising to me,” Borden told The Cannabist.

Borden’s interviews during the past year included people who had been prosecuted for their drug use, those still serving time and their family members, as well as government officials such as prosecutors and law enforcement officers. Among the common themes that emerged were stories from people who said they believed their arrests were inhumane or that, because of their race, they felt targeted; stories of aggressive prosecution and being bullied or tricked into accepting unfair sentences; the long-lasting consequences of an arrest, even if cleared; the disproportionately negative effect on minorities and lower-income populations; and a disregard for overall health. Among the examples in the report:

In Fort Worth, Texas, Hector Ruiz had a long record of drug possession convictions. He told us, “I’ve had an addiction since I was 23, but through all my incarcerations they have never offered help. They have never said they could give me drug rehab, any type of rehab at all…. It’s hard to just get out [of prison] with no job, no stability; you go right back to where you come from [and use again]. This place is a revolving door for people like me. Putting people in jail is not gonna help nobody. If anything, it makes them worse.”

In Covington, Louisiana, Allen Searle told us, “They never offered me a drug treatment… they never gave me a chance on anything…. Putting people in jail for drugs is not helping anybody. It’s not helping their families; it’s not helping anything around them.”

In Dallas, Nate Myers said he turned to drugs after his son died and that he wished he had been offered help rather than handcuffs: “At the time of my arrest, I wish they had asked more questions, like what’s going on in your life, why do you have these drugs, how can I help you? … I should be offered help but instead am shackled and treated like an animal, rather than [understanding] I’m using it to cope.”

Borden and her organizations said that decriminalization and modifications in existing drug policy are not untested ideas. She noted countries such as Portugal, which decriminalized drug use and possession in 2001:

Importantly, Portugal did not simply decriminalize personal use and possession; it invested substantial resources into treatment and harm reduction services as well. Under the Portuguese model, when police find people in possession of drugs, they give them an administrative violation ticket, akin to a traffic ticket in the US. The person is then required to meet with a commission, made up of a social worker, a medical professional, and a lawyer, that is designed to respond to any health needs. If the person is drug dependent, the commission makes a referral to a treatment program where attendance is voluntary. If the person is not drug dependent, usually nothing more than payment of the fine is required. Criminal sanctions are never imposed for personal use or low-level possession.

The results of Portugal’s decriminalization so far indicate that public safety is much better served by a public health rather than criminal justice response to problematic drug use. According to a 2010 evaluation, rates of overall use in the population have stayed low—below the European average, and far lower than rates in the United States—while use by adolescents and use by people deemed to be drug dependent or who inject has declined. More than 80 percent of cases before the commissions are deemed non-problematic and dismissed without sanction. The number of people receiving drug treatment jumped by more than 60 percent after decriminalization. Deaths caused by drug overdoses decreased from 80 deaths in 2001 to 16 deaths in 2012. Decriminalization has also not triggered so-called “drug tourism,” a 2009 UN study found. According to Fernando Negrão, a former police chief and then-head of Portugal’s Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction, “There were fears Portugal might become a drug paradise, but that simply didn’t happen.”

The United States’ strides in drug-policy changes have primarily been in the area of marijuana, said Sam Kamin, the Vicente Sederberg professor of marijuana law and policy at the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law.

“I think we’re a long way from that (decriminalization) place currently,” he said.

There has not been a huge groundswell of support for modifications in laws pertaining to other drugs, he added. That being said, there have been increased efforts on public health resources to minimize the harms associated with drug use.

“I think harm reduction really is something that could gain traction,” he said.

Beyond the primary call for decriminalization, Borden outlined dozens of recommendations for legislators, police, government officials, prosecutors, judges, and federal agencies. Among them:

Make drug possession a ticketable offense or, at the very least, a misdemeanor, regardless of the nature of the drug, drug quantity or weight, and number of prior convictions.

Support a public health approach to drug use to minimize the adverse consequences of drug use, to reduce drug dependence, and to support safe habits around drug use and increased access to emergency care, including syringe exchange programs, Good Samaritan legislation, standing orders for naloxone (used to reverse the effects of opioid overdose), and other harm reduction measures. Appropriate sufficient funds to provide access to voluntary, affordable drug treatment programs, in the community as well as in correctional facilities, for all who seek it.

Provide sufficient funding to courts to eliminate their reliance on user fees, which incentivizes the imposition of crippling fees, court costs, and assessments on poor people sentenced for drug offenses.

Do not measure officer or department performance based on stop or arrest numbers, and do not set quotas or provide incentives for numbers of stops, frisks, searches, or arrests.

On a regular basis, analyze and publish data on all consensual or non-consensual stops, frisks, searches, observations, and interviews. The published data should be broken down by race, gender, age, and the officer’s basis for the encounter or action.

Cease to prosecute trace or residue cases and cases concerning fractions of a gram.

Cease the practice of seeking habitual offender enhancements for drug possession charges. Do not allow drug possession priors to serve as predicates for enhancement of other charges. Ensure that defendants are aware of this in plea negotiations.

Eliminate the use of bond schedules for all offenses related to drug use, including possession and paraphernalia.

Do not revoke probation or parole for drug use or for technical violations related to drug dependence or poverty.

Ensure no fees for appointed counsel or other court fees are imposed on people who are adjudged indigent. Ensure no person is incarcerated for inability to pay court fines or fees.

Appropriate sufficient funds to support evidence-based voluntary treatment options and harm reduction services in the community. Fund and encourage programs, including pilot programs, emphasizing public health approaches to drug use.

x x x."

Southeast Asia's war on drugs doesn’t work – here's what does

See - Southeast Asia's war on drugs doesn’t work – here's what does

"x x x.

Southeast Asia's war on drugs doesn’t work – here's what does
Gideon Lasco, University of Amsterdam
The Conversation
| Thu, December 22, 2016 | 03:58 pm

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s bloody war on drugs is just the latest in a region where drug use has usually been met with draconian measures. Thailand embarked 13 years ago on a drug war that strikes eerie parallels with the Philippine situation.

Today, lawmakers in the Philippines are plotting the restoration of the death penalty to bolster the anti-drug campaign. But this, too, is par for the course in the region.

In July 2016, Indonesia executed four convicted drug offenders. On November 17, Singapore executed two men – one Nigerian and one Malaysian – for similar offences.

Reflecting the position of its member states, ASEAN has also adopted a hardline stance, reaffirming the region’s “zero-tolerance approach” to drugs in its annual summit in September.

But there’s broad consensus among researchers that the war on drugs, which typically consists of punitive measures and forced rehabilitation, doesn’t work. And that it’s marked by human rights violations as well as huge social, moral and medical costs.

In one of the most forceful arguments against the drug war, Columbia University neuroscientist Carl Hart stresses that harsh punishments do nothing but prevent young drug users from integrating back into society. And such measures ultimately end up being more harmful than the drugs themselves.

What’s worse is that the drug war disproportionately affects the poor and other socially excluded groups, including ethnic minorities. But if the war on drugs doesn’t work, what does?

Successes with harm reduction

At the country level, Portugal’s success story is illustrative. In 2001, the European nation, while not changing the legal status of drugs, changed the way it dealt with drug users.

Instead of putting people in jail, a new law called for their referral to three-person local committees. These committees were given the freedom to consider a range of interventions depending on the user in question.

Those who demonstrate drug dependence are encouraged to seek treatment. Others are discouraged from using drugs through fines and penalties, such as driver’s license suspensions.

Ten years on, drug use rates have not increased, while drug-related deaths, as well as problematic and adolescent drug use, have decreased.

Portugal’s success, although mirrored by countries such as the the Netherlands, is far from the norm. But even in countries that continue to implement tough approaches, localized interventions are producing promising results. These include nations in Southeast Asia.

In Malaysia, for instance, the implementation of a needle-exchange program has led to a sharp drop in HIV infections among injecting drug users – from a peak of 5,176 in 2002 to 680 in 2014.

In Vietnam, a 2009 methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) programinvolving 965 opiate users at two sites led to 85.4% and 77.1% reductions in heroin use two years later. This successful pilot led to a scaling-up of the project. By 2014, Vietnam was offering its MMT program in 162 clinics to 32,000 patients.

What these programs have in common is a harm-reduction framework – the idea that the government’s role is to reduce the negative effects of drugs rather than try to eliminate their use entirely. Critics allege that harm reduction actually encourages drug use, but the Portuguese experience, among many others, belies this claim.

(Read also: Ushering the dawn of ochlocracy)

A different paradigm

Inez Feria, director of NoBox Philippines, an NGO committed to drug policy reform, has stressed that drug users “have different lives with different stories, and it’s tremendously important to understand, without judgement, each one’s”.

Underpinning successful efforts to deal with drugs, then, must be a paradigm that is open to multiple approaches. This is especially applicable to amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) such as methamphetamine. As a policy brief drawing from the Thai and Burmese experience states:


Since the pattern of ATS use extends from occasional and recreational use to heavy and dependent use, and only a minority of ATS users fall into the problematic category, the response should vary in accordance with the nature and severity of a person’s involvement with ATS. Different interventions are required to address the complexity of ATS use.

In my research among young methamphetamine users in the Philippines, I met youths who stopped using the drug when they managed to get jobs. Sadly, many were unable to do so, lacking education or the social connections through which to seek assistance.

What’s more, the very stigma associated with drug-use prevents them from being offered opportunities. These findings point strongly to the need to look at “risk environments” – that is, the social and economic contexts in which drug use occurs. They also make the case for considering community-based interventions.

Finding common ground

Harm-reduction approaches can only work if governments and policymakers alike recognise the complexity of the “drug problem”. No single solution exists for all kinds of drug users, or all kinds of drug use.

In what we can see as a silver lining, politicians are beginning to pay more attention to drug issues in their countries. Even in the Philippines, government officials are opening up to alternative approaches. Philippine Secretary of Health Paulyn Ubial, for instance, recently spoke of drugs as a “public health emergency” and a “mental health problem”, in a welcome departure from her president’s rhetoric.

Drug policy advocates can use this common ground as a starting point for engaging with governments. While the evidence is overwhelming that a zero tolerance approach to drugs doesn’t work, it’s also important to steer the conversation towards what does, and nudge leaders in that direction – even if the road is paved with incremental, localised changes.

The example from Vietnam – of a pilot study leading to a scaled-up response – is a promising sign of how research and evidence can change public perception and policies.

The stakes can’t be higher: suspected drug users are being extra-judicially killed and legally executed in the region, even as drug use continues to rise.

What little success harm-reduction advocates can achieve could form the wedge that may finally crack the iron-fisted approach toward drug users. And it may ultimately solve Southeast Asia’s long-standing drug problem.



Gideon Lasco, PhD candidate in Medical Anthropology, Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research (AISSR), University of Amsterdam

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
x x x."

CJ Sereno's lead counsel statement on impeachment response

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's 'War on Drugs' | Harvard International Review

See - Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's 'War on Drugs' | Harvard International Review

"x x x.

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's 'War on Drugs'

BY PHELIM KINE

August 26, 2017

At about 4 p.m. on August 18, 2016, a police anti-drug raid swept through the neighborhood in Manila’s metropolitan Navotas district where Angelo Lafuente, a 23-year-old small appliances repairman, lived and worked. Two uniformed policemen accompanied by four armed men in civilian clothes detained Lafuente and took him away in a marked white police van. Twelve hours later, police at the Navotas police station presented Lafuente’s panic-stricken family members with photos of Lafuente, dead of gunshot wounds. The police report attributes his death to “unknown” gunmen and ignores the fact that he was last seen alive in police custody.

On September 27th, local government ofcials in the Manila slum where Virgilio Mirano lived with his wife and two children accused him of being a drug user and ordered him to appear at a ‘mass surrender’ ceremony three days later. Mirano never made it. Instead, just hours later, four armed men in civilian clothes and face masks burst into his home, dragged him into the street, and shot him six times execution-style while his family looked on. Police allowed the gunmen to leave the scene unimpeded through a nearby checkpoint. A police report attributes Mirano’s death to a shoot-out with anti-drug police that ended with Mirano dying in an “exchange of gunfre.” Witnesses dispute that account.

23-year-old Aljon Mesa and his brother, 34-year-old Danilo Mesa, were casual laborers in a fishing port in metro Manila’s Navotas district until their deaths in September. On the afternoon of September 20, 2016, six masked, armed men in civilian clothes detained Aljon and took him away on a motorcycle. About 30 minutes later, a uniformed policeman notified Aljon Mesa’s relatives that he was “breathing his last breath” under a nearby bridge. When family members arrived on the scene, they found him dead from gunshot wounds while the masked armed men who detained him stood nearby. Those men remained on the scene when uniformed police investigators arrived, indicating they were coordinating with the police.

Six days later, uniformed and plainclothes police detained Danilo Mesa and took him into custody at the local municipal government office. His family could not afford the required bribe to free him, but assumed he would be safe in the custody of municipal authorities. At about 6 p.m., a group of masked, armed men in civilian clothes dragged him from the office. Shortly afterward, passersby found his body. His entire head had been wrapped in packing tape and he had been shot execution-style through the mouth. There are no police records of his killing.

Welcome to Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s ‘war on drugs.’ The details of the killings of those four people provide grisly context for the hard data of the more than 7,000 suspected drug users and drug dealers killed by police and “unidentified gunmen” since Duterte took office on June 30, 2016. They also challenge the Duterte government’s persistent denial that police are committing extrajudicial killings. That death toll also doesn’t include the victims that Duterte calls “collateral damage”— children shot dead in anti-drug operations. The extraordinary brutality of the Duterte drug war is undeniable. Many of the victims are found in back alleys or street corners wrapped in packing tape, their bodies bullet-ridden or bearing stab wounds and other signs of torture. Duterte justifies his anti-drug campaign as a life-or-death struggle against a “drug menace” that he claims threatens to transform the Philippines into a “narco state.” He is untroubled by the fact that the statistics he brandishes to back up this hyperbole are flawed, exaggerated, or fabricated.

The Philippine National Police have claimed responsibility for 2,615 of those killings, an astronomical rise from the 68 killings by police in anti-drug operations between January 1 and June 15, 2016. Police justify that surge in killings on the basis that the victims uniformly “fought back.” Police attribute another 3,603 killings to “vigilantes” or “unidentified gunmen.” An additional 922 killings are classified by police as “cases where investigation has concluded,” despite a lack of any publicly-disclosed evidence of the results of those investigations and whether they resulted in any arrests or prosecution.

Human Rights Watch research into the deaths of Lafuente, Mirano, the Mesa brothers, and 28 other people killed since Duterte took office exposes the narrative of the Duterte drug war as a blatant falsehood. Interviews with witnesses and victims’ family members and scrutiny of police records indicate an alarming pattern of unlawful police conduct to cover up extrajudicial executions. Despite the Philippine National Police’s efforts to differentiate between killings by “unidentified gunmen,” or “vigilantes,” and those shot dead while resisting arrest, Human Rights Watch determined there were no meaningful differences in the cases investigated. In several incidents, suspects last seen alive in police custody who were shortly after found dead were categorized by police as “found bodies” or “deaths under investigation.” These discrepancies undermine government assertions that rival drug gangs or “vigilantes” are responsible for most killings.

The incidents analyzed by Human Rights Watch demonstrated police coordination and planning, in some cases with the assistance of local government officials. Those elements of active police and government complicity undermine official assertions that the killings are the work of “rogue” officers or “vigilantes.” Research suggests that police involvement in the killings of drug suspects extends far beyond the officially acknowledged cases of police killings in “buy-bust” drug operations. That research paints a chilling portrait of Filipino victims, the majority of whom are impoverished urban slum dwellers, who have been gunned down in state-sanctioned death squad operations that demolish rule of law protections.

Duterte has defied the highest profile international criticism of the drug war killings. In August, he threatened to withdraw the Philippines from the United Nations in response to criticism from UN ofcials, including Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, the UN high commissioner for human rights. In October, comments by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) criticizing “high officials” of the Philippine government for public statements that “seem to condone such killings and further seem to encourage State forces and civilians alike to continue targeting these individuals with lethal force” prompted Duterte to threaten to pull the Philippines out of the ICC.

Duterte has also effectively eviscerated meaningful domestic opposition to his drug war. Duterte and pro-Duterte lawmakers have politically attacked his most vocal domestic critic, Senator Leila de Lima, a former justice secretary and chairwoman of the official Commission on Human Rights. Duterte’s Senate loyalists ousted de Lima from the chair of the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights in September 2016 in an apparent reprisal for de Lima’s move to convene Senate hearings into the drug war killings.

The hearings prompted a torrent of hateful, misogynist invective from Duterte and other government officials. In August, Duterte went so far as to tell a crowd of supporters that de Lima should “hang herself.” Duterte’s political vendetta against de Lima climaxed in February with her arrest and detention on politically-motivated charges of violating the country’s Dangerous Drugs Act, which prohibits the “sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution, and transportation of illegal drugs.” De Lima is in prison awaiting trial, but is fearful that her safety is at risk while behind bars.

Despite the thousands of often gruesome killings linked to Duterte’s drug war, his often profane defiance of international criticism, and his steamrolling of domestic critics, he maintains high public popularity ratings. In January, the Pulse Asia polling firm released data that indicated his “trust and approval” ratings were at 83 percent, considerably higher than those of other senior elected officials.

However, surveys on Philippine public assessments of Duterte’s drug war express concern about its death toll, with 94 percent of those polled in December 2016 expressing support for the arrest, rather than the killing, of drug suspects. These apparent statistical contradictions reflect how conceptions of the sanctity of life among a relatively pious Catholic-majority nation coexist with the persistent public appeal of Duterte’s plain speaking populist style. Those popularity polls also fail to take into account the influence of a pro-Duterte online ‘keyboard army,’ who harass, intimidate, and try to silence any public expressions of opposition or dismay to the drug war killing campaign on social media.

Duterte’s pursuit of his drug war despite international opprobrium and its skyrocketing death toll is dismaying, but not surprising. Duterte’s presidential electoral platform included lurid pledges of near-biblical scale extrajudicial violence and promises of mass killings of tens of thousands of “criminals,” whose bodies he would dump in Manila Bay. And Duterte had a specific model for that approach to ‘crime control,’ which he honed during his two decades as mayor of Davao City on the southern island of Mindanao.

Davao City is synonymous for many Filipinos with the Davao Death Squad, a shadowy group of gunmen linked to the killings of hundreds of alleged drug dealers, petty criminals, and street children as young as 14. During the 2016 presidential election campaign, Duterte marketed his links to Davao and the existence of the Davao Death Squad as a vote-grabbing branding opportunity rather than a career-derailing political handicap. On the eve of the May 9 presidential elections, which Duterte won against four other candidates with nearly 40 percent of the vote, Duterte told a crowd of more than 300,000 people exactly what to expect if elected. “If I make it to the presidential palace,” he said, “I will do just what I did as mayor. You drug pushers, holdup men, and do-nothings, you better get out because I’ll kill you.”

Human Rights Watch did not uncover any direct evidence of Duterte’s participation in any of the Davao Death Squad killings in a 2009 investigation. But that probe did uncover involvement of Davao City officials and police. Duterte himself has done little to distance himself from allegations of involvement in the death squads. In May 2015, he publicly admitted having a role. “Am I the death squad? True. That is true,” he said.

Duterte retracted that admission days later, but has made numerous statements over the past few decades that seek to justify the extrajudicial killings of criminal suspects. In 2001-2002, Duterte frequently took to local radio or television in Davao to announce the names of “criminals.” The Davao Death Squad would subsequently hunt down and kill some of those same people. In December, Duterte told an international business gathering that he had personally killed criminal suspects while mayor of Davao City and that he would cruise the city on a motorcycle “looking for a confrontation so I could kill.” There have yet to be any successful prosecutions for the killings linked to the Davao Death Squad. Meanwhile, the killings in Davao City continue, and in other Philippine cities the Davao Death Squad has apparently inspired copycat death squad operations. Since September, two self-confessed former members of the Davao Death Squad have come forward and testifed to the Philippine Senate that Duterte was the mastermind behind the killings. Duterte has dismissed their allegations and insists that all killings in Davao during his time as mayor were the result of “legitimate police operations.”

Duterte’s pursuit of his drug war has not been diplomatically cost-free. The US Embassy in Manila announced on December 14 that a US government foreign aid agency, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), would deny the Philippine government new funding due to “significant concerns around rule of law and civil liberties in the Philippines.” The statement justified that decision on the basis that criteria for MCC aid recipients “[include] not just a passing scorecard but also a demonstrated commitment to the rule of law, due process and respect for human rights.” That funding denial by MCC, which disbursed US$434 million to the Philippines from 2011 to 2016, will most likely lead to the cancellation of a second five year funding grant for a large-scale infrastructure development project agreed to by the MCC in December 2015.

Duterte got more bad news. In March 2017, visiting EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström warned the Philippine government that human rights-abusing policies, including the drug war, pose a threat to exports to the European Union. She specified that unless the government took action to address the EU’s concerns, the Philippines risks losing tariff-free export of up to 6,000 products under the EU’s human rights benchmarks linked to the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP+) trade program. A Philippine presidential spokesman, Ernesto Abella, dismissed those concerns as evidence of EU ignorance about the Philippines.

But Duterte also has enthusiastic foreign supporters who are untroubled by the human rights implications of the Duterte government’s signature policy. The Chinese Embassy in Manila issued a statement in July 2016 vowing unconditional support for the drug war. A China Foreign Ministry spokesman, Geng Shuang, echoed that position ahead of Duterte’s state visit to China in mid-October by stating, “We understand and support the Philippines’ policies to combat drugs under the leadership of President Duterte.”

On November 30, the Russian ambassador to the Philippines expressed unconditional support for Duterte’s war on drugs, saying he was “deeply impressed” with the president’s efforts to build a relationship with Russia and stating that, “We sincerely wish you every success on your campaign [against drugs]. We understand well your legitimate concerns. As for the methods, we refrain from any comments,” explaining that as a Russian diplomat, he had no right to comment on “domestic developments” in the Philippines.

Duterte has also benefited from the reticence of close bilateral allies to publicly criticize his drug war. Exhibit A for that approach has been Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe, who during his January state visit to the Philippines announced a five-year, US$800 million Japanese government Official Development Assistance package to “promote economic and infrastructure development.” He also promised unspecified financial support for drug rehabilitation projects in the Philippines. In Manila, Abe stated that, “On countering illegal drugs, we want to work together with the Philippines through relevant measures of support,” without elaborating. But during his visit and afterward, Abe made no public reference to the war on drugs and its skyrocketing death toll.

The support of Russia, Japan, and China may help the Duterte government offset the impact of aid and trade curbs imposed the United States and the European Union. But they will not negate the lingering threat to his longer-term legitimacy posed by the threat of eventual domestic or international prosecution for killings linked to his anti-drug campaign. No evidence thus far shows that Duterte planned or ordered specific extrajudicial killings. But his repeated calls for killings as part of his drug campaign could constitute acts instigating the crime of murder. In addition, Duterte’s statements that seek to encourage vigilantes among the general population to commit violence against suspected drug users would constitute incitement to violence. Duterte and senior officials in his government may also face possible charges of crimes against humanity for their repeated calls encouraging the killing of alleged drug dealers and users, indicative of a government policy to attack a specific civilian population.

In January, Duterte vowed to extend his drug war, opening his statement with a promise that it “will solve drugs, criminality, and corruption in three to six months,” until the end of his term in 2022. Duterte may well fnd that domestic or international efforts for justice for the drug war killings may derail that goal.

x x x."

Gordon’s unethical complaint

See - Gordon’s unethical complaint

"x x x.

Senator Richard Gordon is a man of many accomplishments, and it is no secret that he has an outsized ego. Many politicians are just like him.

The ambition that propels a man or a woman to make politics a lifetime career is fueled not only by notions of public service or considerations of family or party or class interests but also by healthy, indeed robust, egos.

Gordon is no different. His self-image is that of a person of intelligence and importance; he wants the public to take him seriously; he craves appreciation for the hard work that he puts into his dual responsibilities as senator of the Republic and chairman of the Red Cross.

But his skin is as thin as his pride is high. In his first term as senator, he once showed up at the Senate in his uniform as a newly promoted rear admiral of the (civilian) Coast Guard — and his colleagues ribbed him for it. He didn’t take it well, and speechified against what was certainly, obviously, an ordinary case of teasing.

Among his colleagues, in both his terms at the Senate, he is known for being a trigger-happy committee chair, always ready to cite a recalcitrant witness or resource person with contempt. Indeed, in his first term he was instrumental in convincing the Senate to draft new rules that allowed the more liberal use of the contempt power.

In his second turn, emboldened by his political alliance with President Duterte, he has taken to threatening even opposition senators with the self-same power.

Last year, he had the temerity to accuse Sen. Leila de Lima of “material misrepresentation” when he had only forgotten the relevant testimony of confessed killer Edgar Matobato, made twice in two committee hearings. When De Lima demanded that he apologize, he made a gender-demeaning quip: “Don’t melt down, you’re melting down.”

As we had written then: “In his view, it was perfectly all right for him to perorate endlessly on his views on peace and order, and become emotional at the recollection of his father’s assassination, but it was unseemly of De Lima to express spluttering outrage at an unfair accusation.

This is sexism, in all its rawness. He reacted to the rise in De Lima’s voice, perfectly oblivious of the times that, in the two hearings he has himself chaired, his own voice becomes shrill when he becomes impassioned. This is sexism, in all its unthinking male privilege.”

Now, after an exchange of heated words with Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV, in which he chastised the former coup plotter for plotting coups and Trillanes in turn mocked him for barricading himself in Subic Bay when the Estrada administration removed him from office, Gordon has decided to file an elaborate complaint against Trillanes with the Senate’s ethics committee.

In his complaint, which ran a remarkable 23 pages, Gordon accused Trillanes of engaging in “unparliamentary acts and uttered unparliamentary language and exhibited disorderly behavior” during the Aug. 31 hearing of the Blue Ribbon committee, misconduct which, in Gordon’s view, has caused “damage to the Senate and to the people and, therefore, is of primordial importance.”

This is nonsense. We’ve heard much more terrible insults exchanged in legislative debate before, and President Duterte is certainly no choir boy when it comes to the use of language that may be called unparliamentary. If anything, Gordon’s transparent lawyering for the President’s son and son-in-law was what damaged the Senate’s reputation. After all, it is supposed to be independent of the incumbent Malacañang occupant, is it not?

What happened on Aug. 31 was that Trillanes stood up to Gordon. Having lost that particular skirmish, Gordon has now resorted to an institution-damaging remedy.

He himself showed that his ethics complaint was actually unethical when he trumpeted to reporters that he had “the support of more than 10, more than 12, more than 14 senators.”

This peculiar phrasing means that he does not in fact have more than 14 senators supporting his complaint. (And a senator supporting his right to file a complaint is different from a senator supporting the complaint itself.)

Worse, it also means that he misunderstands the nature of an ethical complaint. It is not numbers that define what is or is not ethical.

x x x."

Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/106921/gordons-unethical-complaint#ixzz4uNIo40Ou

Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Committee on Public Order and Dangerous Drugs (September 25, 2017)

Rules on employee cash bond

See - Rules on employee cash bond

"x x x.

Rules on employee cash bond

10 August 2016 

Work Conditions

“Articles 113 and 114 of the Labor Code are clear as to what are the exceptions to the general prohibition against requiring deposits and effecting deductions from the employees’ salaries. Hence, a statutory construction of the aforecited provisions is not called for. Even if we were however called upon to interpret the provisions, our inclination would still be to strictly construe the same against the employer because evidently, the posting of cash bonds and the making of deductions from the wages would inarguably impose an additional burden upon the employees.

“While the petitioners are not absolutely precluded from imposing the new policy, they can only do so upon compliance with the requirements of the law. In other words, the petitioners should first establish that the making of deductions from the salaries is authorized by law, or regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor. Further, the posting of cash bonds should be proven as a recognized practice in the jewelry manufacturing business, or alternatively, the petitioners should seek for the determination by the Secretary of Labor through the issuance of appropriate rules and regulations that the policy the former seeks to implement is necessary or desirable in the conduct of business… It bears stressing that without proofs that requiring deposits and effecting deductions are recognized practices, or without securing the Secretary of Labor’s determination of the necessity or desirability of the same, the imposition of new policies relative to deductions and deposits can be made subject to abuse by the employers. This is not what the law intends.”

– NIA Jewelry Manufacturing of Metal Arts, Inc. v. Montecillo, G.R. No. 188169, 28 November 2011

*For comments or feedback: info@jdpconsulting.ph

xxx."

Investors’ Shifting Sentiments

See - Investors’ Shifting Sentiments - bworldonline.com

"x x x.

Without exception, every CEO I spoke with had ruled out the Philippines from their expansion plans. Most are involved in the manufacturing, BPO, trading, and hospitality industries. The sentiment of pessimism is confirmed by NEDA itself when it reported a massive 62% drop in foreign direct investments (30% drop if the P37-billion investment of Bank of Tokyo in Security Bank is factored out) in the second quarter of the year. In the BPO sector, the country’s greatest employer and source of foreign exchange, PEZA reported a 35% drop in new BPO investments in the first five months of 2017.

Even worse is that those who have an existing business in the Philippines are now planning their exit strategies including a large BPO company which employs more than three thousand call center agents. The exodus is not confined to American and European companies either. Last month, the Korean Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines announced that several of its member companies involved in manufacturing are moving to Vietnam. They cited peace and order issues, rising costs and difficulty in doing business in the Philippines as the reasons.

All these will manifest itself in lower manufacturing activities, a deceleration in capital formation, and weakening export earnings in the years to come. Its going to hurt the economy and derail the economic miracle we were all hoping for. To think, just a year ago, we were touted “Asia’s Brightest Star.” Its sad how the reputation of the nation plummeted so quickly, so uselessly.

The war on drugs is doing us more damage than good. The travesty is that the killings will not even save the next generation from drug dependency nor solve the drug menace. Even Malacañang admits it. Instead, it will confine the next generation to a life of poverty since the killings are starving the country of the investments it badly needs to propel the economy forward. The social and economic costs of this war is more than its worth.

THE CONSOLATION WE WERE COUNTING ON

Amid the violence and an economy losing its luster, we put our hopes on the promise that this administration will bridge the infrastructure gap. Fast tracking infrastructure projects would have been its saving grace as it would capacitate businesses, provide a pump priming effect to the economy and provide relief for the riding public. Unfortunately, government’s much trumpeted Build! Build! Build! campaign is failing to deliver too.

In a conversation I had with Transportation Secretary Arthur Tugade last March, he disclosed that the following projects were set to break ground this year: The 100-kilometer Clark-Subic railway; the 93-kilometer Tutuban-Clark (via Malolos) railway; Phase 1 of the Mindanao railway; the Tutuban-Bicol line (via Calamba); and the LRT-MRT Common Station in North Edsa, among others.

By early next year, a monorail to connect BGC and NAIA and a Bus Rapid Transit to traverse EDSA were set to break ground as well.

As we approach the fourth quarter, it looks like none of these projects will make the deadline. In fact, records show that the DoTr only spent 18% of its budget so far. In other words, it accomplished less than 20% of its planned programs. We know Secretary Tugade is trying his best but legal impediments, a slow-footed bureaucracy, and the lack of qualified engineers are standing in his way. Regardless, for whatever good intentions the Secretary may have, the bottom line is that the DoTr is failing to deliver.

If only Malacañang shows the same interest in infrastructure as it does its war on drugs, perhaps things would move faster.

CULTURE OF (IN)DECENCY

Another festering issue among investors is the increasing sense of entitlement among politicians. This is succinctly displayed in Congressman Rudy Fariñas’s shameless proposal to exempt members of the legislature from minor traffic violations when Congress is in session.

Why is this a cause for concern? It is worrying because it sends the signal that Congressmen and Senators who kiss the ass of the President feel they are above the law. They are the new generation of cronies who operate according to different rules. It is a confirmation that favoritism, entitlement, and special privileges exists for those cozy with Malacañang.

Adding to the discomfort is the fact that the very legislators who write our laws seek to be exempt from it. It is a case of double standards and a manifestation that the playing field is by no means a leveled one.

The mere fact that Fariñas was bold enough to propose this statue is an indication that he, and others like him, have lost their sense of decency. They look at themselves not as public servants but as children of god. Where this sense of entitlement stems from is unclear. But one thing is for sure, a government lead by entitled politicians will only weaken our institutions.

Decency is the foundation of a civilized, fair, and responsible government. Take away decency from the equation and you have an inequitable government where the rich, powerful and well-connected rule and the poor and unimportant perish. The entitled lawmakers of today will be the oligarchs of tomorrow.

Let’s be honest, the business climate today is deteriorating quickly. The numbers show it. It’s a shame because business optimism was on an all-time high when the administration announced its 10-point economic plan just 12 months ago. It is not too late to recoup lost ground. If only Malacañang re-aligns its priorities and makes its 10-point economic plan the center of its agenda, sentiments can shift for the better just as quickly as it was eroded.

* Author Andrew J. Masigan is an economist.

x x x."

MEL STA. MARIA | Why HoR should throw out Sereno impeachment case

See - MEL STA. MARIA | Why HoR should throw out Sereno impeachment case

"x x x.

MEL STA. MARIA | Why HoR should throw out Sereno impeachment case

By Atty. Mel Sta. Maria

| September 29, 2017, 12:35 PM

Philstar file photograph

Atty. Mel Sta. Maria is the Dean of the Far Eastern University Institute of Law.

I have written previously that the impeachment case against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno is just a waste of taxpayers’ money. Essentially, I think the charges against her are either based on hearsay, exaggerations, or downright ridiculous. They do not rise to the level of constitutional impeachable offenses. I can only foresee that the coming proceeding might just be an occasion for grandstanding by media-craving legislators.

And so, prescinding from the merits, or, more appropriately, the flimsiness of the case, I say again why the House of Representatives should dismiss this impeachment case immediately.

And the reason is, for the members to redeem the House’s prestige and honor for the sake of the nation.

This can be easily explained.

First. This is the opportune time for the House to debunk its “unthinking-image”. Remember the defunding to P1,000 for the Commission on Human Rights? It was so outrageous that many people seriously wondered whether those who voted for it really had the interest of the country in mind. The budget’s restoration to a respectable level did not help change such obnoxious image. Instead, it even highlighted the impression that they are as ambivalent and as senseless as ever.

Second. Dismissing the impeachment will prove that the members of the House of Representatives are not lackeys of Malacañang. Like it or not, true or not, many believe that, while President Duterte has verbally declared his hands-off policy in the impeachment, he still is the conductor orchestrating the whole process. And the House of Representatives is just a rubber stamp of his whims and caprice. This may be an unjustified perception, but the way many of the lawmakers treated the case against Senator De Lima or “persecuted” her, whom the President loathed, the kind of enthusiasm they exhibited in trying to fulfill the President’s desire to reimpose the death penalty, and the manner its leadership defended the President’s rants, betray their submissiveness. In fact, the photograph of their Duterte fist-bump pose, made after voting on the P1,000 CHR budget, reminded many netizens of the picture of the legislators in Hitler’s Reichstag making the “Heil Hitler” pose manifesting their complete subservience and idolatrous love for the dictator.

Third. They can prove that those people who ridicule them as “clowns” are wrong. Remember when the House of Representative investigated the million-peso-illegal-drug-dealing inside the National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa? They invited as resource persons imprisoned drug-lords and asked them for recommendations and proposals on how to operate the Bilibid prison free from drugs. It was so off-the-wall seeing on national television public officials, who are supposed to know the law, seeking advice from convicted law-breakers. The sight was embarrassingly demeaning to what ought to be an august body. The spectacle was unbelievable – and, to some, even laughable. Many called it a circus, full of clowns from both sides.

Fourth. That perception that the House is just filled with so many “dirty-old-men” with twisted “macho-mentality” can be corrected. Let us look at the track record. The impeachment case against President Duterte was dismissed. That of Comelec Chairman Andres Bautista was also dismissed. But the case of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, the first woman top-magistrate of the land, prospered to the present investigation for the determination of probable cause. Meanwhile the impeachment case filed against Vice President Leni Robredo is still pending and waiting for endorsers. Also, the investigation of Senator Leila De Lima ended with her eventually landing in jail. And so the score is: two (2) cases involving men – dropped with speed, while three (3) involving women not meeting the same fate. “Ang kaya lang ng kongreso mga babae”, many observed. This smacks of gender bias and insensitivity. And one more impeachment case against a lady, Ombudswoman Conchita Carpio Morales, is reported to be forthcoming. It is not surprising anymore if we consider that, recently, President Duterte declared his intention to create a body to investigate the Office of the Ombudsman as a result of the latter’s amenability to entertain the plunder case against him. The outcome? Your guess is as good as mine. And from the House’s track record, it seems badly portentous for the Ombudswoman.

Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno had been a dissenter in a number of decisions involving positions which the executive-department espoused or where it showed great interest and bias. For example, she disagreed in placing the whole Mindanao under Martial Law and strongly opposed the Marcos burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Reading her dissents, they were not motivated by capricious and emotional bias. They were anchored on principled arguments underpinned by the spirit of nationalism and the tenets of the Constitution. She did it scholarly, with grace and civility. This is her asset that the Republic needs: A calm demeanor, deliberative, honest and a level of intelligence and understanding elevating the national discourse of important issues beyond rants, blustering, and bad-mouthing.

More than preserving her position as a highly qualified Chief Justice, she, more than any public-official in leadership position, such as the Senate President or the Speaker of the House, symbolizes the heart of this democracy – check-and-balance.

Ironically, this impeachment case of the Chief Justice may be the classic “shining moment” for the members of the House of Representatives to redeem themselves. Their dismissal of the case will transcendently benefit two great institutions: the Judiciary and the Congress. The legislators’ reputation as “clowns”, lackeys, and an unthinking bunch of media-cravers will be replaced by what the House of Representative ought to be: a national body of deliberative, wise, and fair solons whose true objective is the paramount interest of the nation.

And that paramount interest points to no other direction but the sparing of the Chief Justice of the Republic, representing the other great branch of government – the Judiciary – from depthless accusations.

x x x.

IBP head hits Duterte threat to probe Ombudsman

See - IBP head hits Duterte threat to probe Ombudsman

"x x x.

Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) President Abdiel Dan Elijah Fajardo on Friday said President Rodrigo Duterte’s threat to create a body to investigate the Office of the Ombudsman is “at best constitutionally suspect.”

Duterte earlier threatened to create a body to investigate the alleged corruption at the Office of the Ombudsman. His move was seen as retaliation to the office’s investigation into his and his family’s wealth.

“The creation of another body either by executive issuance or by an act of Congress that effectively defeats the independence and flexibility needed by the Ombudsman in the discharge of her duties is, at best, constitutionally suspect,” Fajardo said in a statement.

He said public officials must not be sensitive because the Office of the Ombudsman is only doing its mandate – which is investigating and prosecuting possible erring government officials.

“Public officials must not be onion-skinned. Public office is a public trust. Upon assumption of public office, a government official holds his life open to public scrutiny,” Fajardo said.

Fajardo reminded government officials that the Office of the Ombudsman is a body created by the 1987 Constitution itself.

“It is judicially established that the Office of the Ombudsman does not owe its existence to any act of Congress…As an independent body, it must be insulated from political pressure – most especially from the highest political office in the land,” Fajardo said.

“To allow such pressure would result in the prostitution or impairment of its core functions,” he said.

x x x."

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/934316/philippine-news-updates-ombudsman-integrated-bar-of-the-philippines-president-duterte-abdiel-dan-elijah-fajardo#ixzz4uNC3GKz9
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Foreign investors jittery on the Philippines

See - Foreign investors jittery on the Philippines

"x x x.

"A different picture is emerging in the Philippines. International investors looking into prospects in Southeast Asia are expressing preference for locating operations in Vietnam or Cambodia over the Philippines, according to a Standard Chartered Bank survey. Only 3 percent of the survey respondents are said to be keen on the Philippines.

Business executives of South Korean corporations here, noting what they called “higher cost of doing business and lack of incentives” in the Philippines, revealed recently that a number of Korean operations were pulling out and relocating to Vietnam.

Reports quoted officers of the South Korean Chamber of Commerce in the Philippines as describing the cost of doing business here to be around three times that in Vietnam. Labor intensive manufacturing industries, the Korean executives say, no longer find local costs attractive.

The cost of labor is also now a major challenge to businesses, according to Australian executives. Around 78 percent of Australian business leaders in the Philippines cite labor as a key concern, along with corruption, traffic congestion, government bureaucracy and the tax system.

There are other reasons for investor hesitancy toward the Philippines. Peace and order concerns are being raised, particularly due to the prolonged battle with extremists in the southern Philippines. The business process outsourcing business, a linchpin of recent years’ robust economic growth along with overseas Filipinos’ remittances, is starting to feel the negative impact of the months-long clashes, with potential new business and investments now taking a wait-and-see posture.

The unexplained deaths that have accompanied the government’s campaign against illegal drugs are also causing jitters among investors and tourists, according to leaders of foreign businesses in the Arangkada network. European business leaders were disappointed with the recent move in Congress to slash to a pittance the budget of the Commission on Human Rights, a critical watchdog on human rights issues in the country.

More recently, the impeachment case filed in the House of Representatives against Supreme Court Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno is making both foreign and local investors jittery owing to its implications on political stability in the country. It will be remembered that a similar impeachment case initiative against then chief justice Hilario Davide in 2003 triggered the specter of a constitutional crisis that sent investors to scale down or cancel business plans.

Early this year, results of a survey conducted by the Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO) showed Japanese investors to be lukewarm to their prime minister’s signal to invest in the Philippines. Despite the high profitability record of Japanese firms already operating in the Philippines, their counterparts in Japan looking for locations in the region expressed preference for China and other Southeast Asian countries.

Executives of the Japanese companies already operating in the Philippines cited “complicated customs procedures” as the top problem affecting their activities. Apparently, although Japan has remained to be a leading source of investments, the problem at customs has not been addressed, given the recent scandals in the agency.

The Japanese executives also cited as other problems the volatility of the Philippine peso’s exchange rate against the Japanese currency, difficulty in developing new clients in the local market, and requests for lower prices from their major clients. There is no more room for cost-cutting in their Philippine operations, the executives noted.

In the latest Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas report on foreign investment flows into the country, net foreign equity capital that went into Philippine businesses in the January-June period totaled just $141 million, a steep fall from $1.4 billion a year ago. There were more capital withdrawals than new placements in recent months.

Total FDI during the period (including earnings reinvestments and debts from companies under the same owners) reached $3.6 billion, down from the year-before $4.2 billion. The leading sources of these investments are the United States, Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan.

How does this performance compare with our Southeast Asian neighbors? In Thailand, total FDI flows as of June amounted to $4.56 billion, up by 23 percent from a year earlier. Indonesia reported $15.5 billion inflows in the first half.

Vietnam, which has overtaken the Philippines in the WEF 

competitiveness rankings, recorded $25.48 billion worth of FDI in the first nine months of this year, a significant rise of 34.3 percent from the year-ago mark. More than 2,700 business enterprises are funded by these investments.

Myanmar, despite the reports of violence in some parts of the country, attracted $3.7 billion of FDI in the first four months of its current fiscal year that started April 1. More than 11,000 new jobs are estimated to be created by these investments.

Clearly, the economic managers of the Duterte administration have a lot of work to do to keep the economy attractive to new investments and sustain the economic growth—seeing to it that it will not be overtaken by more of its neighbors in key economic and social performance ratings."

x x x."

Angara’s TRAIN of deception - Sen. Sonny Angara’s version of the Tax Reform for Acceleration (TRAIN) committee report in the Senate.

See - Angara’s TRAIN of deception

"x x x.

Angara’s TRAIN of deception

October 2, 2017

By Karla Michelle Yu

File photo of Senator Sonny Angara, chair of the Senate Committee on Ways and Means, taken on September 4, 2017. -- SENATE PRIB/Cesar Tomambo

Nakakaloko.

This is how I would choose to describe Sen. Sonny Angara’s version of the Tax Reform for Acceleration (TRAIN) committee report in the Senate.

The bill of the 2019 reelectionist Senator masquerades as being biased towards the poor. Senate Bill 1592 (SB 1592) lowered the first-year tax rates for diesel and gasoline, reduced the final tax rate for LPG, and retained the zero rate for kerosene. At the same time, it increases from P2,400 to P3,600 per year the amount of the cash transfers that will be unconditionally given to the poorest households. Senator Angara also retains the exemption for many VAT (value-added tax) transactions.

But we should not only look at particular items and forget the bigger picture. The bad news is that the bigger picture — which should be about generating enough revenues for pro-poor spending and correcting the tax structure — portrays a sharp fall in revenues.

The diluted excise tax rates on fuel mean that the expected revenue take for the first year will be cut from P70 billion to P40 billion. Moreover, Senator Angara’s bill has only lifted the VAT exemption on 36 lines, mainly transactions of government entities, but has retained the exemption for private interests, numbering more than 90 items. Worse, Angara’s bill has even inserted a provision on a zero rate for VAT for “services rendered to entities registered with the special economic zones and free port zones authority.” This will abet the tax leakage in the VAT system and will create opportunities for tax avoidance if not tax evasion.

It must be pointed out that this is a conflict of interest, for it is well known that Angara’s province is the location of the controversial Aurora Pacific Economic Zone and Freeport or APECO. Anti-APECO activists say that APECO stands for Angara’s private economic zone and free port.

Another unfair provision is his design for the unconditional cash transfer that excludes around two million poor households (in the 5th decile) from receiving social protection through the cash transfers, leaving them vulnerable to the modest inflationary impact of the fuel tax.

Further, by lowering the non-taxable income from the Finance department’s (DoF) proposal of P250,000 per annum to P150,000, Angara’s bill diminishes the income tax relief for the minimum wage and marginal income earners. On the other hand, Angara has chosen to reduce the proposed 35% top marginal tax rate down to the current rate of 32%. In addition, he allows all self-employed professionals, even those earning millions, to have an option for an 8% flat tax!

Senator Angara tries to cover up the mangled TRAIN by introducing other measures that are either cosmetic (like the tax on cosmetic surgery!) or that do not really provide additional revenue (such as the taxes on interest income and dividends) because they are already part of the DoF’s later package and the amount that they can generate is small.

And even as he has inserted such measures that cannot compensate for his accommodation of the rich and vested interests, Senator Angara has ignored the popular and tried-and-tested sin taxes on tobacco and alcohol. True, a weak version of the tobacco tax has been submitted to the Senate upon its approval by the House of Representatives. It is nevertheless an opportunity for the Senate to amend and strengthen it by having a higher unitary tax.

To summarize, Senator Angara’s bill deceives.

The bill that he packages as pro-poor is in truth anti-poor. It curtails the spending for education, health, social protection and cash transfer, and infrastructure. Moreover, it is pro-rich because of the generous package he has given to high-income earners and vested interests, including the many VAT exemptions.

We cannot allow Senator Angara to get away with his deception.

Karla Michelle Yu is the coalition networker of Action for Economic Reforms (AER) on tax reform.

xxx."

Abuse of the Impeachment Process; Effects of.

See - Business, foreign chambers umbrella group cautions Congress on impeachment powers

"x x x.

Business, foreign chambers umbrella group cautions Congress on impeachment powers

By BusinessMirror

-September 27, 2017

One of the biggest umbrella groups advocating much-needed reforms in the Philippine justice system, particularly those that impact the business sector, has urged Congress to exercise its impeachment powers under the Constitution “with great prudence, probity and transparency”.

In a statement, the private-sector umbrella group Judicial Reform Initiative (JRI) raised its grave concerns against “the growing use—or threat—of impeachment proceedings in Congress against a number of the Philippines’s highest ranking and prominent government leaders, including the President, the Vice President, the Chief Justice, the Ombudsman and the Commission on Elections [Comelec] Chairman” who are protected under the Constitution “because of the significance of their roles and the implications on our legal and justice system.”

Not only will the “indiscriminate or ill-considered filings of impeachment proceedings against government officials distract those accused from the performance of their duties as public servants, as well as our Congress from its priority legislative agenda,” but will also be construed “as any serious indictment of our justice system could weaken the constitutionally protected independence of the Judiciary.”

“Investors would risk capital only in countries where they have full confidence in the rule of law. Thus, any initiative which may be perceived as weakening the check and balance among the branches of government might shatter this confidence and negate our hard-won economic gains,” it added. JRI, thus, urged Congress to ensure that: “impeachments are undertaken only for patently substantive and culpable violations of the Constitution; and the process is transparent and reflects the highest standards of fairness and justice.”

Comprised of leading business organizations, judicial advocacy groups and several foreign chambers, JRI was established in 2012 by the Financial Executives Institute of the Philippines, the Institute of Corporate Directors, the Management Association of the Philippines, the Makati Business Club, the American Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, the European Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, the Australia-New Zealand Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines and the Movement for Restoration of Peace & Order, among others.

Other groups that have earlier aired similar statements include the Former Senior Government Officials (FSGO); the International Center for Innovation, Transformation and Excellence in Government; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines; the Philippine Bar Association; the Philippine Association of Law Schools; the Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches; and the UP Women’s Lawyers Circle Inc.

x x x."