Wednesday, May 30, 2018
Republic Act No. 11032 or the Ease of Doing Business and Efficient Government Service Delivery Act
See - https://www.rappler.com//nation/203536-duterte-signs-ease-doing-business-act-philippines
"x x x.
MANILA, Philippines – President Rodrigo Duterte, in the presence of Congress leaders, signed into law Republic Act No. 11032 or the Ease of Doing Business and Efficient Government Service Delivery Act on Monday, May 28.
The new law, an amendment of the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007, seeks to make the process of putting up and running a business in the Philippines easier and more efficient.
Duterte hopes the law will "solve the perennial problem of bureaucratic red tape" in government and "spare people of intolerable waiting time."
Lawmakers have said RA 11032 was crafted in order to attract more foreign investments to the Philippines. The passage of the law comes after the Philippines slipped 9 notches in the 2018 World Competitiveness Yearbook – the worst decline among countries in the Asia-Pacific.
Malacañang has yet to release a copy of the signed law.
The salient features of the law, based on the consolidated versions of the House and Senate bills and Duterte's speech are:
Standardized deadline for government transactions - Simple transactions of business entities with government should be processed within 3 days, 7 days for more substantial transactions, and 20 days for highly technical transactions.
Single unified business application form - The new law does away with entrepreneurs having to fill up multiple forms for various government agencies just to put up their business. The law mandates the use of a single form that incorporates past separate forms on local taxes, sanitary permit, zoning clearance, building clearance, fire clearance, and other usual local government unit (LGU) requirements. There will be a unified form for business permits and business renewals.
Environmental and agricultural clearances, sanitary permits, and other local permits will be issued along with the business permit which shall be valid for one year.
Business one-stop shop - To put up a business, one need only visit one facility. The law orders local governments to put up a "one-stop shop" or a facility that puts zoning offices, business permit and licensing offices, the Bureau of Fire Protection, and treasury offices in one location.
Automated, electronic system - Local government units are required to automate their systems for processing business permits. They should also put up an electronic business one-stop shop within 3 years of the law's enactment.
Zero-contact policy - A new feature is a provision in the law that states that, save for the "preliminary assessment" of the business application and submitted requirements, "no government officer or employee shall have any contact, in any manner, unless strictly necessary with any applicant or requesting party concerning an application or request." The provision is designed to eliminate corruption in agencies that process business applications.
Central business portal and Philippine Business Databank- The Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) will establish a central business portal that will receive all business applications. A Philippine Business Databank, meanwhile, will serve as a repository of information on all registered businesses in the country which government agencies and LGUs may use as a resource for verification purposes.
– Rappler.com
x x x."
Corruption - "Yes, Solicitor General Calida IS violating the Constitution."
See - https://www.raissarobles.com/2018/05/29/yes-solicitor-general-calida-is-violating-the-constitution/
"x x x.
Yes, Solicitor General Calida IS violating the Constitution
By RAISSA
[Raissa Robles]
www.raissarobles.com
May 29, 2018
in any contract with,
or in any franchise,
or special privilege granted by
the Government
or any subdivision,
agency,
or instrumentality thereof,
including government-owned or controlled corporations,
or their subsidiaries.
And THAT I believe, is what SolGen Calida, who happens to be THE CHIEF GOVERNMENT LAWYER violated.
Section 13 quite clearly defines what conflict of interest means for the President, the Vice President and the President’s Cabinet officials down to Cabinet deputies or assistants.
This clause clearly bans Calida’s stock ownership in VISAI. And even if he divests but his wife and children remain in the company, that still gives him an “indirect” financial interest.
This clause clearly bans VISAI, which continues to be owned by Calida, from entering into a contract with ANY government entity.
I had often wondered why this particular conflict of interest ban is only for top officials of the executive branch.
I guess it is because the President and his Cabinet have the power to sign multi-billion peso government contracts since they are supposed to execute the Program of Government.
It is precisely meant to prevent them from cornering such contracts for themselves and their families.
♦ ♦ ♦
Roque has connected the surfacing of such contracts to the quo warranto case of Supreme Court chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.
All I can say is that if such contracts had surfaced earlier, they would still be wrong, with or without the quo warranto case.
And the fact that it is the SolGen involved makes the case doubly sad.
♦ ♦ ♦
The 1987 Constitution did not give any penalty to top Cabinet officials who violate the conflict of interest clause.
The case of Trade Secretary Concepcion showed that divestment was the method to cure any “conflict of interest”. Note how, when confronted with the question whether or not he had divested properly from his companies, Concepcion did the honorable thing and resigned.
Contrast that to Calida, who not only chose NOT to divest but has been somewhat belligerent in asserting there’s no problem even if his company bags multi-million peso government contracts. And the presidential palace says he does not need to divest. Resigning from the company board was enough.
I guess they don’t make public officials like they used to? With a sense of ethics? Or shame?
Anyway, whether or not Calida should have divested could become a constitutional question.
Under Republic Act 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, non-divestment is punishable by not more than P5,000, not more than five years in jail and “disqualification to hold public office.”
x x x.."
I felt infinitely sad and could not believe my ears when I heard presidential spokesman Harry Roque defend the fact that the security agency owned by Solicitor General Jose Calida had cornered over P150 million worth of contracts in six government agencies.
Roque, a former constitutional law professor, said: “I don’t think mere ownership of stock certificates is prohibited by the Constitution.”
Yes it is.
It is prohibited by Article VII, Section 13. This is a special section on “conflict of interest” which covers only the top members of the Executive Department. This is what it says [underscore in red mine]:
Sec. 13. The President, Vice-President, the Member of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business,or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.”
Roque, a former constitutional law professor, said: “I don’t think mere ownership of stock certificates is prohibited by the Constitution.”
Yes it is.
It is prohibited by Article VII, Section 13. This is a special section on “conflict of interest” which covers only the top members of the Executive Department. This is what it says [underscore in red mine]:
Sec. 13. The President, Vice-President, the Member of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business,or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.”
UPDATE as of May 30, 2018:
Apparently, SolGen Calida is aware of Section 13. Because in Philippine Daily Inquirer’s Marlon Ramos’ report today, Marlon Ramos had this sentence attributed to Calida as saying that “the limits imposed on Cabinet members as stipulated in Article VII, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution should not be applied to him ‘for the simple reason that he is not a member of the Cabinet, although he is conferred Cabinet rank‘ under the law.
Calida misinterprets Section 13. It covers not only Members of the Cabinet but also “their deputies or assistants“. Let’s see how Calida, the presidential palace and the Department of Justice explains what the phrase “their deputies or assistants” means.
I know I am not a lawyer and I do not wish to be one.
But I am a journalist who happened to have covered the first “conflict of interest” investigation by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee involving Jose Concepcion, Jr., then the Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry of President Corazon Aquino.
I recall that Concepcion was minutely questioned over whether he truly divested from his business holdings and had really placed his assets in a “blind trust”. In the end, Concepcion decided to resign while protesting he did.
Let’s go back to the case at hand.
Roque is perhaps engaged in misdirection when he says Calida is not violating the Constitution. You see, Roque cites Article XI on the Accountability of Public Officers– which does contain nothing about divestment.
I also heard Roque say during his press briefing that SolGen Calida did not hide but disclosed his shares in Vigilant Investigative Security Agency Inc. in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN).
In fact Calida had resigned as chairman and president of Vigilant, Roque said. Roque also pointed out that no contract was ever struck between Calida’s firm and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
Calida continued to own 60% of the company as of September 2016, according to Rappler based on Securities and Exchange Records.
But, Roque said, “I don’t think mere ownership of stock certificates is prohibited by the Constitution.”
Roque is right. Article XI of the Constitution does not ban what Calida is doing.
But Roque totally ignores Article VII which does.
Let’s look at Section 13 of Article VII again:
Sec. 13. The President, Vice-President, the Member of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business. or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.
The Constitution was written not just for lawyers but also for ordinary people like you and me. Because it is supposed to be the contract between We the People and the leaders we choose to govern us.
I remember my dad telling me to first look for the main subject and verb in trying to discern what a sentence in the Constitution could mean.
The pertinent section, in the case of SolGen Calida, is the second sentence which states:
They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly…be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, or their subsidiaries.
Let’s break it down:
The subject here is “They” – meaning, “The President, Vice-President, the Member of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants.”
Clearly, Calida being a member of the Cabinet is included in the subject “They”.
The sentence is a complex one which can be broken down further into this:
They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly,
practice any other profession,
participate in any business,
or be financially interested…
Now let us see what “they” are not supposed to be “financially interested” in. A long enumeration follows on what the top government officials in the Executive Branch of government SHOULD NOT BE FINANCIALLY INTERESTED IN:
Apparently, SolGen Calida is aware of Section 13. Because in Philippine Daily Inquirer’s Marlon Ramos’ report today, Marlon Ramos had this sentence attributed to Calida as saying that “the limits imposed on Cabinet members as stipulated in Article VII, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution should not be applied to him ‘for the simple reason that he is not a member of the Cabinet, although he is conferred Cabinet rank‘ under the law.
Calida misinterprets Section 13. It covers not only Members of the Cabinet but also “their deputies or assistants“. Let’s see how Calida, the presidential palace and the Department of Justice explains what the phrase “their deputies or assistants” means.
I know I am not a lawyer and I do not wish to be one.
But I am a journalist who happened to have covered the first “conflict of interest” investigation by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee involving Jose Concepcion, Jr., then the Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry of President Corazon Aquino.
I recall that Concepcion was minutely questioned over whether he truly divested from his business holdings and had really placed his assets in a “blind trust”. In the end, Concepcion decided to resign while protesting he did.
Let’s go back to the case at hand.
Roque is perhaps engaged in misdirection when he says Calida is not violating the Constitution. You see, Roque cites Article XI on the Accountability of Public Officers– which does contain nothing about divestment.
I also heard Roque say during his press briefing that SolGen Calida did not hide but disclosed his shares in Vigilant Investigative Security Agency Inc. in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN).
In fact Calida had resigned as chairman and president of Vigilant, Roque said. Roque also pointed out that no contract was ever struck between Calida’s firm and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
Calida continued to own 60% of the company as of September 2016, according to Rappler based on Securities and Exchange Records.
But, Roque said, “I don’t think mere ownership of stock certificates is prohibited by the Constitution.”
Roque is right. Article XI of the Constitution does not ban what Calida is doing.
But Roque totally ignores Article VII which does.
Let’s look at Section 13 of Article VII again:
Sec. 13. The President, Vice-President, the Member of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business. or be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.
The Constitution was written not just for lawyers but also for ordinary people like you and me. Because it is supposed to be the contract between We the People and the leaders we choose to govern us.
I remember my dad telling me to first look for the main subject and verb in trying to discern what a sentence in the Constitution could mean.
The pertinent section, in the case of SolGen Calida, is the second sentence which states:
They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly…be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, or their subsidiaries.
Let’s break it down:
The subject here is “They” – meaning, “The President, Vice-President, the Member of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants.”
Clearly, Calida being a member of the Cabinet is included in the subject “They”.
The sentence is a complex one which can be broken down further into this:
They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly,
practice any other profession,
participate in any business,
or be financially interested…
Now let us see what “they” are not supposed to be “financially interested” in. A long enumeration follows on what the top government officials in the Executive Branch of government SHOULD NOT BE FINANCIALLY INTERESTED IN:
in any contract with,
or in any franchise,
or special privilege granted by
the Government
or any subdivision,
agency,
or instrumentality thereof,
including government-owned or controlled corporations,
or their subsidiaries.
And THAT I believe, is what SolGen Calida, who happens to be THE CHIEF GOVERNMENT LAWYER violated.
Section 13 quite clearly defines what conflict of interest means for the President, the Vice President and the President’s Cabinet officials down to Cabinet deputies or assistants.
This clause clearly bans Calida’s stock ownership in VISAI. And even if he divests but his wife and children remain in the company, that still gives him an “indirect” financial interest.
This clause clearly bans VISAI, which continues to be owned by Calida, from entering into a contract with ANY government entity.
I had often wondered why this particular conflict of interest ban is only for top officials of the executive branch.
I guess it is because the President and his Cabinet have the power to sign multi-billion peso government contracts since they are supposed to execute the Program of Government.
It is precisely meant to prevent them from cornering such contracts for themselves and their families.
♦ ♦ ♦
Roque has connected the surfacing of such contracts to the quo warranto case of Supreme Court chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.
All I can say is that if such contracts had surfaced earlier, they would still be wrong, with or without the quo warranto case.
And the fact that it is the SolGen involved makes the case doubly sad.
♦ ♦ ♦
The 1987 Constitution did not give any penalty to top Cabinet officials who violate the conflict of interest clause.
The case of Trade Secretary Concepcion showed that divestment was the method to cure any “conflict of interest”. Note how, when confronted with the question whether or not he had divested properly from his companies, Concepcion did the honorable thing and resigned.
Contrast that to Calida, who not only chose NOT to divest but has been somewhat belligerent in asserting there’s no problem even if his company bags multi-million peso government contracts. And the presidential palace says he does not need to divest. Resigning from the company board was enough.
I guess they don’t make public officials like they used to? With a sense of ethics? Or shame?
Anyway, whether or not Calida should have divested could become a constitutional question.
Under Republic Act 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, non-divestment is punishable by not more than P5,000, not more than five years in jail and “disqualification to hold public office.”
x x x.."
Wednesday, May 23, 2018
Friday, May 11, 2018
Supreme Court ousted Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno on Friday, May 11.
See - https://www.rappler.com/nation/202236-sereno-ousted-supreme-court-quo-warranto-decision?utm_source=The+Daily+wRap&utm_campaign=f3bb8456d8-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_05_11&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b3868977d4-f3bb8456d8-95993977&mc_cid=f3bb8456d8&mc_eid=b8a759c323
"x x x.
MANILA, Philippines – In an unprecedented and historic move, the Supreme Court (SC) ousted Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno on Friday, May 11.
Voting 8-6, the SC en banc granted the quo warranto petition to remove Sereno from office on the basis of an invalid appointment.
Sereno attended the en banc session where 8 justices voted for the quo warranto. The 6 dissenters, according to Court insiders, were as follows: Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr, Mariano del Castillo, Estela Perlas Bernabe, Marvic Leonen, and Benjamin Caguioa.
9 of the justices said she violated requirements on the Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN).
Details of the main decision are still being awaited as of posting.
The decision was expected from the en banc, whose members had made their negative sentiments towards Sereno known.
This is the first time that the SC removed its own chief, in a petition widely slammed for violating Sereno's constitutional right to an impeachment process.
What happens now?
Sereno will have a chance to file a motion for reconsideration.
During the appeal period, the focus shifts to the House of Representatives which is yet to vote on Sereno's impeachment. Senate President Aquilino "Koko" Pimentel III has raised the possibility of the Upper House questioning the validity of the quo warranto ouster.
Constitutional Law professor Dan Gatmaytan said that the Senate can already assert its jurisdiction even without the articles of impeachment from the House. Gatmaytan said they can just invoke their constitutional mandate as an impeachment court.
If the Senate chooses to assert jurisdiction, it will result in a constitutional crisis, he said.
Gatmaytan likened the situation to the Marcos period when the Supreme Court was accused of enabling a dictatorship.
"When they started doing that, ignoring what the law says for a political outcome, it diminishes itself, and I think that's what the Court is walking into right now," Gatmaytan said. – Rappler.com
x x x."
Thursday, May 10, 2018
Thursday, May 3, 2018
Philippine bishops drum up support for chief justice - by Inday Espina-Varona
See - Philippine bishops drum up support for chief justice
"x x x.
Catholic and Protestant bishops in the Philippines have rallied church and civil society leaders to call on the Supreme Court to scrap a petition seeking to nullify the appointment of the country's chief justice.
The prelates said the Supreme Court has abandoned its judicial independence after it accepted a quo warranto petition filed by the government against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.
Sereno was facing impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives, but members of the House refused to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate. This forced President Rodrigo Duterte to come with an alternative way of removing Sereno.
A quo warranto is a special legal action to resolve a dispute over whether a person has the right to hold a public office that he or she occupies.
Sereno's supposed failure to submit a statement of assets and liabilities before she was named head of the judiciary in 2012 was cited as the reason for initiating quo warranto proceedings.
Duterte earlier declared himself Sereno's "enemy" and vowed to throw her out of the Supreme Court.
Sereno accused Duterte's administration of trying to orchestrate her ouster from the Supreme Court without having to resort to an impeachment trial.
She said the government is persecuting her for trying to protect the judiciary from Duterte who wanted to pursue a crackdown on alleged drug addicts, dealers, and their protectors without due process.
The chief justice called on Filipinos and leaders of Christian churches to assume "prophetic roles" in society.
The prelates and Duterte critics say an impeachment trial in Congress could embarrass Duterte if the allegations against Sereno are proved baseless.
The bishops, who formed a group called Coalition for Justice, allege that justices of the Supreme Court colluded with the Duterte administration to avert an impeachment trial.
In the Lower House, five Supreme Court justices earlier testified in impeachment proceedings against Sereno.
"The Supreme Court abandoned its chief mandate to ensure an independent judiciary by accepting a bankrupt quo warranto petition and refusing to inhibit five openly biased Justices," said a statement signed by 300 church leaders and representatives of major political groups.
The petitioners said the people "will not accept any decision tainted by gross injustice and justices who cannot act with justice."
"The state derives its power from the people. When the key instruments of the state conspire to subvert the constitution and democracy, the people must rise as the last bastion of our rights and freedoms," the statement added.
Benedictine nun Mary John Mananzan said that by taking the quo warranto route in removing the chief justice, "the Supreme Court has effectively demolished the checks and balances system as well as judicial independence."
Among the coalition petition signatories were Catholic Archbishop Antonio Ledesma of Cagayan de Oro, Manila Auxiliary Bishop Broderick Pabillo, and Bishop Gerardo Alminaza of San Carlos.
Bishop Deogracias Iniguez of the Ecumenical Bishops Forum, Bishop Noel Pantoja of the Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches, Father Rex Reyes Jr. of the National Council of Churches in the Philippines, Bishop Daniel Balais of the Intercessors for the Philippines, and Bishop Leo Alconga of the Philippines for Jesus Movement also signed the petition.
x x x."
Wednesday, May 2, 2018
Tuesday, May 1, 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)