Facebook Instagram Linkedin X Youtube
Home Blog Page 10611

Most power co-ops earn NEA’s top rating in 2018

THE National Electrification Administration (NEA) said Wednesday that 87 of the country’s 121 electric cooperatives (ECs) were classified as triple-A rated, the highest possible grade, in 2018.

“The ECs’ performance level for Calendar Year 2018 was impressive. Although there were lots of challenges the NEA and the ECs encountered during the year, most of the ECs sustained their exemplary performance,” NEA Administrator Edgardo R. Masongsong said in a statement Wednesday.

“Those ECs which need further improvements in overall performance should reassess existing programs and implement more aggressive strategies to address major problems and concerns,” he added.

NEA evaluates and determines the power distribution utilities’ overall performance using two criteria: key performance standards, which account for 80%; and EC classification, 20%.

These criteria were designed to measure the power cooperatives‘ full compliance on four parameters, namely financial, institutional, technical, and reportorial requirements. The ECs were rated from AAA as the highest to D as the lowest.

NEA said results of its “2018 Electric Cooperative Overall Performance Assessment and Size Classification” that 24 of the 87 power distribution utilities that received AAA ratings got a perfect 100 point score in all the performance parameters.

All power distribution utilities in Regions VI (Western Visayas), VII (Central Visayas) and Caraga attained AAA rating, it said. Regions I (Ilocos Region) and VIII (Eastern Visayas) emerged as the most improved regions after all of their ECs wee rated AAA, it added.

The agency said the assessment also showed that 83 ECs maintained their AAA rating, while nine improved their scores in all performance levels. It added that 83% or 100 out of the 121 ECs received a status of AAA, AA or A.

Of the remaining 21 ECs, four improved their operational performance either from C to B, or D to C. A total of 12 utilities retained their performance level while five were rated either B, C or D.

NEA said in 2018, the number of “mega large” ECs increased to 66 from 64 in 2017. The increase was after Sorsogon II Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Cebu III Electric Cooperative, Inc. improved to mega large from extra large, it said.

Quirino Electric Cooperative and Mountain Province Electric Cooperative, Inc. were elevated to extra large from large, while Busuanga Island Electric Cooperative, Inc. went to large from medium.

NEA previously proposed to amend the existing guidelines to include the energization level of the EC among the key parameters. Energization level is measured by the number of consumer connections a power co-op achieves under a given timeline based on the official reports or documents it submitted. — Victor V. Saulon

Tax amnesty for delinquency in document submission

Following the issuance of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the Tax Amnesty Act [i.e., Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 4-2019], the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 57-2019 to address frequently-asked questions concerning the Tax Amnesty Application on Tax Delinquencies.

Under the IRR, tax amnesty may be availed of by taxpayers with assessments that have become final and executory on or before April 24, 2019, due to the following instances:

1. Failure to pay the tax due on the prescribed due date provided in the Final Assessment Notice (FAN)/Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) and for which no valid protest, whether a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation, has been filed within 30 days from receipt of the FAN/FLD;

2. Failure to file an appeal to the Court of Tax Appeal (CTA) or an administrative appeal before the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) within 30 days from receipt of the decision denying the request for reinvestigation or reconsideration; or

3. Failure to file an appeal to the CTA within 30 days from receipt of the Decision of the CIR denying the taxpayer’s administrative appeal to the Final Decision on Disputed Assessment (FDDA).

Additionally, it was clarified in RMC No. 57-2019 that, among other scenarios, failure of the taxpayer to submit the necessary documents to the BIR within 60 days as directed by the BIR could not be considered as a valid protest. Hence, the assessment becomes final, executory, and demandable despite the absence of an issued FDDA. It is noteworthy, however, that the period of 60 days under the RMC is reckoned from the date of receipt of the FAN instead from the date of filing of the protest as provided under the Tax Code.

At any rate, the finality of the assessment for failure to submit the supporting documents is consistent with Section 228 of the Tax Code and the BIR’s regulations on assessments (RR No. 18-2013), provided that the assessment shall become final if the taxpayer fails to submit all relevant supporting documents within 60 days. According to RR No. 18-2013, the phrase “the assessment shall become final” means that the taxpayer is barred from disputing the correctness of the assessment by introducing newly-discovered or additional evidence, and, accordingly, the BIR shall issue the FDDA in due course.

Perhaps the clarification in the RMC needs further clarification. It is likely that the intention was to cover situations where the taxpayer’s protest is a request for reinvestigation which warrants the submission of relevant supporting documents within 60 days from the filing of the protest. It may not apply to cases where the taxpayer merely filed a request for reconsideration and therefore had no intention to submit additional documents within the 60-day period.

The taxpayer’s right to determine how it wants to protest, whether additional documents are necessary and what types of documents it deems necessary to present, should be preserved. Otherwise, we would have a scenario that goes against existing jurisprudence.

In G.R. Nos. 172045-46 dated June 16, 2009, the Supreme Court (SC) had occasion to rule in favor of a taxpayer on a tax assessment case, particularly on the required documentary support. The taxpayer initially submitted its protest letter with supporting documents but later failed to comply with the BIR’s request for additional documents. Consequently, the BIR claimed that the assessment had become final, executory, and demandable. The SC held that the term relevant supporting documents should be understood as those documents necessary to support the legal basis in disputing a tax assessment as determined by the taxpayer. The BIR can only require the submission of additional documents, but it cannot demand what type of supporting documents should be submitted. Otherwise, the taxpayer is at the mercy of the BIR, which may require the production of documents that a taxpayer cannot submit.

In any case, by clarifying that tax liabilities are considered delinquent for failure to submit the required documents and are thus eligible to avail of the tax amnesty program, both the government and taxpayers benefit from a win-win situation. For taxpayers, this means starting on a clean tax slate, and for the government, collecting more taxes without having to go through with the tedious process of a tax assessment case.

However, at this point, eligible taxpayers must waste no time since barely eight months are left (or until April 24, 2020) to avail of the amnesty program. Only upon full compliance with all the conditions laid down by the regulations within the effectivity period of one year will tax-delinquent accounts be considered settled. Thus, time is of the essence to those who seek clemency from their tax liability.

The views or opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Isla Lipana & Co. The content is for general information purposes only, and should not be used as a substitute for specific advice.

 

Rose Anne Abiera is a senior consultant at the Tax Services Department of Isla Lipana & Co., the Philippine member firm of the PwC network.

+63 (2) 845-2728

Rule of law and property rights, Hong Kong vs China

“… the rules must apply to those who lay them down and those who apply — that is, to the government as well as the governed — and that nobody has the power to grant exceptions.”

— Friedrich Hayek, Chapter 10, The Constitution of Liberty (1960)

This is the essence of the “rule of law” — that the law applies equally to unequal people, no one is exempted and no one can grant an exemption. Once exemptions are made, this automatically leads to the rule of men. The powerful and the mob are exempted from penalties for violating certain laws.

The nearly three months of protests and discontent in Hong Kong is centered over a subject related to the rule of law — the proposed Extradition bill, where suspected criminals and dissidents in Hong Kong can be extradited to China. And China, being a one-party communist government, is known for having little respect for the rule of law, little respect for the rights of suspects. It sends shivers down the spines of the people of Hong Kong to contemplate what would happen if some or many of them are extradited to China when Hong Kong has its own courts already.

There is proof behind the statement that China has little respect for the rule of law. In the World Justice Project’s annual “Rule of Law Index” (RoLI), countries and jurisdictions are scored and ranked based on their performance on eight factors and 44 sub-factors. The RoLI 2019 Report involved more than 120,000 household surveys and 3,800 expert surveys in 126 countries and jurisdictions.

China ranks low overall on RoLI, 82nd out of 126 countries; in contrast, Hong Kong ranked 16th. China scored particularly low on Factor 4: Fundamental Rights, like Freedom of opinion and expression, Freedom of belief and religion, Freedom of assembly and association, are effectively guaranteed. It is also low on Factor 8: Criminal Justice, like Criminal system is impartial, is free of improper government influence.

In property rights protection, both physical and intellectual property, again Hong Kong ranked high. We consider the annual study International Property Rights Index (IPRI) by the Property Rights Alliance (PRA), based in Washington, DC. The IPRI 2018 Report showed that Hong Kong ranked 17th while China ranked 52nd out of 126 countries and jurisdictions. In intellectual property rights (IPR) protection, the same pattern is observed (see Table).

The United Kingdom and its former colonies in Asia — Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia — rank high in both RoLI and IPRI. The great minds of British classical liberal thinking like John Locke, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill, successfully influenced the legal and economic philosophy and practice of these countries.

Communist China in contrast, is still reeling from the influence and heavy-handed dictatorship of its founder Mao Zedong. Its tolerance for citizens’ freedom of expression is very low. Extended in foreign relations, its tolerance for international rule of law like respect of international waters at the South China Sea/west Philippine Sea is also very low.

I have great respect and admiration for the brave people of Hong Kong, especially its youth. You are fighting the lackey of the biggest dictatorial government for a noble cause.

On a related note, the UK-based Geneva Network and Minimal Government Thinkers (MGT) will launch a report on the “Importance of IPR for ASEAN” in Manila on Sept. 24. This joint report will be co-signed by the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs in Kuala Lumpur, Paramadina Public Policy Institute in Jakarta, Siam Intelligence Unit in Bangkok, MGT in Manila, and the Viet Nam Economic Policy Research Centre in Hanoi. The Geneva Network is coordinating the study.

The keynote speaker for the event will be Trade and Industry Secretary Ramon Lopez. Mr. Lopez is very explicit in his support for IPR protection being among the cornerstones of technological innovation and economic competitiveness for any country.

IPRI 2019 will also be launched in Manila later this year. MGT and the Foundation for Economic Freedom will be the local partners of PRA in launching this big event.

 

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the president of Minimal Government Thinkers.

minimalgovernment@gmail.com

Government relocation to Central Luzon

Should we relocate the National Government and its agencies outside of Metro Manila to decongest the metropolis? Should we take note of the claim of the state-run Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) that its New Clark City in Tarlac — about 100 kilometers outside of Metro Manila — is ready to become the new government center by 2030?

Last week Senator Sherwin T. Gatchalian filed Senate Bill No. 876 on moving the “permanent seat of government” to New Clark City in Tarlac in about 10 years’ time, “to relieve Metro Manila of its traffic and population congestion problems.” Such relocation has been done, he claims, in the United States, South Korea, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Malaysia.

“[New Clark City] will be the country’s first smart, disaster-resilient and sustainable city that will have a mixed use of residential, commercial, agro-industrial, educational institutions, and information technology developments,” the senator says. Over 1,500 hectares of the 10,000-hectare development are being considered for a National Government Administrative Center (NGAC) that will co-locate government offices and attached agencies.

BCDA president and CEO Vince Dizon has said the proposed relocation “should be done in phases, but it needs to be started now.” It has been reported that among the first agencies to move to the area would the departments of Science and Technology, Justice, Environment and Natural Resources; the Office of Civil Defense; and, the Climate Change Commission.

To date, I believe the Department of Transportation is moving or has moved there. This is unsurprising considering that Transportation Secretary Arthur Tugade used to head Clark Development Corp. in the previous administration. Meanwhile, the Department of Public Works and Highways is expected to follow there by next year, 2020.

Senator Gatchalian proposes that New Clark City, by 2030, host the Office of the President, Office of the Vice-President, and all central offices of national government agencies and government-owned and -controlled corporations. Why not the Senate and the House and the Supreme Court as well? Wouldn’t it make more sense that everybody’s there? Incidentally, wouldn’t such “centralization” also make it easier for terrorist attacks to paralyze the government?

To back his proposal, Senator Gatchalian cites a Japanese study done in 2014 that notes the economic losses from Metro Manila’s traffic and congestion. My issue is that I personally have not seen nor encountered a comprehensive study or plan that details the economic, social, and environmental impact of the proposed relocation of the government center to Capas, Tarlac. Neither have I heard nor encountered any risks and benefits assessment regarding the proposed move. In this line, I wonder what Senator Gatchalian used as direct scientific and empirical basis for making such a proposal?

If the good senator or his staff or his consultants have updated and reliable data that resulted from comprehensive research and study of the proposed relocation, then these should be shared and made public. We all need to see and understand why such a move will be beneficial to the entire country in the long-term.

My fear is that relocation will not necessarily result in decongestion because satellite offices will still have to be maintained in the metropolis. Moreover, people who deal with these agencies will not necessarily relocate to New Clark City, especially if their places of work or business are in Metro Manila. Even if the bureaucracy transfers, government workers will not necessarily uproot members of their families — especially children — and move them way from their present residences, schools, and places of work.

And the need for more transportation for those dealing with government agencies may just see more cars and buses going to and from Metro Manila and New Clark City. Many government workers will also be commuting to and from, particularly during weekends and holidays so they could be with their families in the metropolis.

My other issue is that New Clark City is just about 25 kilometers from the crater of the infamous Mount Pinatubo, an active volcano. Pinatubo’s volcanic eruption in 1991 — about 28 years ago — spewed ash as far as Metro Manila, over 90 kilometers away. It also devastated parts of Pampanga, Tarlac, Zambales, Nueva Ecija, as well as Angeles City.

The 1991 event is deemed the second-largest terrestrial eruption of the 20th century after the 1912 eruption of Novarupta in Alaska. Extensive destruction to Central Luzon resulted from pyroclastic surges, ash falls, and flooding lahars. Pinatubo was said to have ejected roughly 10 billion tons or 10 cubic kilometers of magma. It reportedly injected more particulate into the stratosphere than any eruption since Krakatoa in 1883.

Now, who is to say that Pinatubo will not erupt again 10, 20, or 30 years from now? Assuming the country’s government center, the seat of power, is moved to New Clark City, what will be the implication of a major Pinatubo eruption, then? Are we not putting too much at risk by knowingly moving our government center nearer (about 25 kilometers) — rather than away — from an active volcano known for its violent and destructive eruption?

Mount Asama in Japan, an active volcano with a history of eruption, is over 100 kilometers away from Tokyo. Mount Fuji is about 100 kilometers away, but it is considered a dormant or inactive volcano. Mount Kelud is about 90 kilometers away from Surabaya, the second-biggest city in Indonesia. As things are, destructive Pinatubo is far enough from the seat of power, Manila. Obviously, the mountain will not move nearer the metropolis. Why, then, move the metropolis nearer to the mountain?

And what about the so-called “Big One”? How damage-prone is Central Luzon to a major earthquake compared to Metro Manila? Just recently, on April 22, a 6.1 magnitude earthquake struck Luzon, leaving at least 18 dead, three missing, and injuring at least 256 others. Despite the fact that the epicenter was in Zambales, where Pinatubo is, most of the damage to infrastructure occurred in the neighboring province of Pampanga, which suffered damage to 29 buildings and structures.

Central Luzon, where New Clark City is, is one of the most seismically active areas in the country due to the presence of the Philippine fault, the Iba fault, East Zambales fault, and the Manila Trench. The destructive 1990 earthquake in Luzon had its epicenter somewhere in Nueva Ecija, in Central Luzon, and damage reached all the way to Pangasinan in the west, and Baguio City in the north.

Am I being alarmist? Maybe. But like I said, I need to see recent scientific studies that can prove there are more benefits to relocating the government to New Clark City than just decongesting Metro Manila. One can always claim that Pinatubo will not erupt again, or that a major earthquake in the area is unlikely. One can also claim that New Clark City will be better built than any other development in the country and can thus better cope with such disasters. But, should we bet our entire government such assumptions?

 

Marvin Tort is a former managing editor of BusinessWorld, and a former chairman of the Philippines Press Council.

matort@yahoo.com

Towards inclusion

How do we understand and develop inclusive organizations?

This was the central question of the 79th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (www.aom.org). This yearly event gathers the brightest scholars and practitioners in management to tackle the most important issues facing businesses and other types of organizations. This year, the AOM meeting was set in Boston, from Aug. 9 to 13.

True to its theme of inclusiveness, I was able to join the prestigious gathering with the help of the Management, Spirituality, and Religion (MSR) division and the generosity of The Fetzer Institute (www.fetzer.org). It was an honor to be one of the 20 Fetzer Scholars around the world chosen among many applicants. Through these mechanisms, I was able to represent the Philippines together with my mentors. Thus, as a way of sharing what I learned and paying forward the generosity I have gratefully experienced, I write my thoughts and reflections on how we can journey towards inclusion.

BUILDING HUMANISTIC FOUNDATIONS FOR PRESERVING DIGNITY
An idea that continues to gain traction is the importance of preserving human dignity at the core of management. More scholars and practitioners around the world recognize that the status quo of an individualistic and materialistic orientation is inadequate in advancing the welfare of various segments of society. Thus, at the core of pursuing inclusion is humanistic management — prioritizing well-being, ethical management, and being sensitized to the various needs of multiple stakeholders. Apart from these principles, I discovered (or maybe rediscovered) some emerging insights that I would term as potential “building blocks” of humanistic foundations for preserving human dignity.

Building Block 1: Recognizing the importance of spirituality. Spirituality is usually associated with faith and religion, but generally, it could pertain to a belief that there is greater meaning and purpose beyond one’s self. Regardless of faith and religious orientation, a strong sense of spirituality can cultivate respect and harmonious relationships. I personally experienced this with my fellow Fetzer scholars who come from different countries and practice different beliefs. Despite our differences (or maybe, because of our differences), we are able to have a richer understanding of our world and the power of management to build a more inclusive organization. Our different practices and perspectives on spirituality, in my experience, help us navigate through each other’s blind spots. There may be different ways of practicing and manifesting spirituality, but if we converge on a common belief of greater meaning and purpose beyond one’s selfish desires, spirituality is powerful in preserving dignity and setting up the foundations for human flourishing.

Building Block 2: The war(mth) between mind and heart. One compelling insight for me is the importance of mindfulness (or maybe, “heartfulness”). I express this as the ability to consciously recognize one’s thoughts and emotions. A purely rational mind makes us no different from robots, while a purely emotional heart is acting only on intuition and mood swings. At times, there could be war between our hearts and minds, which is natural. But I realize that the key is transforming their war into warmth, finding ways to harmonize them towards a better and more creative solution. When the logic of the mind is coupled with the intuition of the heart, we can better think of holistic solutions for ourselves and for the people around us.

DESIGNING SOLUTIONS-ORIENTED ECOSYSTEMS FOR ENABLING HUMAN FLOURISHING
I propose that for us to build on humanistic foundations, the way forward is identifying specific inclusion issues. Then, multiple ecosystems can be specifically designed for each of the specific issues we aim to address. The key is being mindful and “heartful” of our own specific niche while being sensitized to how others can contribute to specific goals. Without identifying specific inclusion issues, it is hard to mobilize players towards an active ecosystem.

As a personal example, my specific inclusion issue is social entrepreneurship and incubation within the university setting — how do we design viable and inclusive social enterprise incubators that allow students (aspiring social entrepreneurs), teachers, and partner communities to start their own social enterprise initiatives? With this specific question in mind, I am more able to sense potential collaborators I can work with.

The journey towards inclusion puts humanistic management at the core, and it is important to build foundations that preserve dignity, as well as designing ecosystems to mobilize action towards human flourishing. When we recognize a higher purpose, harmonize our logic and intuition, and compel each other towards designing solutions to specific issues, we can develop truly inclusive organizations.

 

Patrick Adriel H. Aure is an Assistant Professor from the Management and Organization Department, Ramon V. del Rosario College of Business. He advocates for social entrepreneurship as the head of the Social Enterprise Research Network of the Center for Business Research and Development and as co-chair for strategic directions of the Lasallian Social Enterprise for Economic Development committee at De La Salle University.

patrick.aure@dlsu.edu.ph

The role of special economic zones in nationwide progress

If we are to become an economic tiger finally, we have to optimize the strategic contribution of the special economic zones to our nationwide progress. Metro Manila must not be the sole beneficiary of the economic improvements that we are now witnessing. In fact, it is imperative that the provinces and other cities outside the National Capital Region must compete in terms of investments and growth. President Rodrigo Duterte, on June 17, actually ordered a moratorium on eco-zone applications in Metro Manila.

The good news is there’s a conscious program in the government’s Medium Term Development Plan (MDTP) to spread the support for investors locating in as many cities and provinces as possible. And in particular, the special economic zones are given adequate incentives if they are in consonance with the said MDTP. After all, the much-debated initiative for federalism might encounter significant challenges that threaten its immediate realization. Hence, we must seriously take advantage of the low-lying fruit that are available to us now which could spur substantial and broad excitement in various business sectors.

BENEFITS FOR LOCATORS IN THE SPECIAL ECO-ZONES
There are 4,382 firms that are registered in the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) which is now under the leadership of Director General Charito Plaza. These firms avail of the support and incentives that are granted by the government by virtue of RA 7916, otherwise known as the “Economic Zone Act of 1995.” The list of support includes tax and duty free importation of raw materials, capital and equipment, fiscal incentives, and exemptions from local and national taxes except on real property taxes on the land owned by the developers.

In lieu of the usual national income tax is a 5% tax on their gross income, 3% of which is for the national government, 1% for the local government where the special economic zone is located, and another 1% for the development fund for the adjacent and contiguous municipalities outside the economic zone.

Outside of the law and a number of government circulars that guarantees the official incentives for them is the highly professional caliber of the leaders and managers of the PEZA and individual Economic Zone Authorities. I have, for example, recently personally experienced the impressive handling of our business applications at the Clark Freeport Zone under the management of Clark Development Corp. (CDC). Their Vice-President for Business Development, Eva Tejada, and her Assistant Vice-President Rodem Perez made our investors confident and impressed. If we have more of their kind, our bureaucracy will be an asset in strengthening our economy.

SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONES CONTRIBUTIONS
Notwithstanding some alleged abuses being committed in the special economic zones by unscrupulous smugglers or the questionable support programs such as the 20-year income tax holiday for some firms, the economy has benefitted from these zones in general. Such abuses, if true, will not be condoned nor tolerated by Director General Plaza. We hear good words about him.

To name a few contributions of these special economic zones, there are substantial foreign exchange earnings generated in these special zones especially because of their non-traditional exports. Thousands of jobs were created locally by the billions of investments in these areas. In particular, Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs) are attracted to these growth areas. And lastly, the transfer of technology, management systems, and backward linkages are handed over to our local talents and human capital.

MAGNET OF NATIONAL SUCCESS
The role of the special economic zones must be further enhanced alongside our desire to put an end to the massive poverty that has long plagued our society. We just have to address the objective improvements being suggested in order to clearly rationalize the incentives for the business enterprises that operate in these areas.

On a more ambitious scale, we can also more aggressively attract investors that would establish our strong light industry sector. In the future, we can move towards establishing a possible heavy industry such as an integrated steel-manufacturing backbone. Though in the news already, there will be one in PIVIDEC in Cagayan de Oro with a $2.4 billion investment.

We are on the right track because we have sufficient local manpower available for the economic zones. And continuous professional management and legislative support for the growth of these special economic zones will catapult the economy to success.

 

Ariel F. Nepomuceno is a management consultant on strategy and investment.

SEA Games stakeholders sign tripartite agreement

By Michael Angelo S. Murillo
Senior Reporter

SOUTHEAST ASIAN Games hosting stakeholders are ready to “win as one” after they finally formalized and strengthened their partnership with the signing of the tripartite agreement for the country’s hosting of the biennial sporting meet later this year.

Took place on Wednesday morning at the Philippine Sports Commission conference room, officials of the PSC, Philippine Olympic Committee (POC) and the Philippine Southeast Asian Games Organizing Committee (PHISGOC) gathered and signed the agreement of cooperation to ensure the success of the SEA Games hosting.

Signatories to the agreement were PSC Chairman William Ramirez, POC President Abraham Tolentino, and PHISGOC Chief Executive Officer Ramon Suzara.

Witnessing the signing of the agreement were officials of said organizations, including POC Chairman Steve Hontiveros.

The tripartite agreement, whose signing was delayed because of the many issues hounding the Philippines’ hosting of the Games, contains the duties of the different organizations involved as well as expectations from them.

The PSC, as per the agreement, primarily is in charge of the disbursement of funds, pursuant to the General Appropriations Act of 2019, to the PHISGOC and oversee the proper use of funds as well as assist in procurement.

For the POC, as the original franchisee of the SEA Games, it will be in charge of the monitoring of the performance and obligations of the PHISGOC and coordinate with and ensure the autonomy of the national sports associations regarding the competition requirements in their respective events, among other things.

The PHISGOC, for its part, will primarily be responsible for the actual preparations, organization, management and execution of the hosting of the 30th SEA Games while conducting itself in accordance with the Olympic charter and ASEAN federation.

Mr. Ramirez said the signing of the tripartite agreement was a welcome development, especially how the preparations have been made to hurdle various obstacles.

He said the agreement is not perfect, but it nonetheless shows the willingness of all parties to work together from here on, and something to build on moving forward.

“It’s always beautiful and positive to think of a strong collective activity among people (like this agreement). What happened in the past is part of the journey, making this signing historic. Despite the tight conditions we believe we can deliver. Though the agreement comes a little late I’m still happy that we are here working together and marching together,” said Mr. Ramirez, who is also the chef de mission of the Philippines to the SEA Games.

The preparations of the country’s hosting have been hit by various issues, including those involving the budget and the legality of PHISGOC as the organizing committee.

But breakthroughs in clearing the air have happened via talks among organizers, who have expressed confidence that the venues and facilities for the Games will be ready on time.

The 30th Southeast Asian Games happens from Nov. 30 to Dec. 11.

San Miguel a win away from Commissioner’s Cup title

By Michael Angelo S. Murillo
Senior Reporter

THE San Miguel Beermen are one win away from the Philippine Basketball Association Commissioner’s Cup title after taking a 3-2 lead over the TNT KaTropa in their best-of-seven finals series with a 99-94 victory in Game Five on Wednesday at the Smart Araneta Coliseum.

Showing much resilience, the Beermen fought hard to stay in the game amid a spirited showing from the KaTropa and gave themselves a shot to win in the end, which eventually paid off.

The win pushed San Miguel to a win away from winning its second PBA title this season.

The opening half of the contest was highlighted by the “Battle of the Terrences.”

Import Terrence Jones got it going in the first quarter, finding his shot from different directions to lead the KaTropa to a 28-22 lead at the end of the first 12 minutes.

TNT continued to dictate the pace of the game in the second frame, racing to an 11-point lead, 47-36, with 3:19 to go.

But the Beermen would charge back on the lead of guard Terrence Romeo.

They went on a 9-0 blast in the next two minutes to come within two points, 47-45.

TNT, however, survived the San Miguel onslaught and remained on top, 49-45, at the half.

San Miguel tried to build on the momentum it got from the second period and crowded TNT at the start of the third.

The KaTropa though kept their opponents at bay, staying ahead, 67-59, by the five-minute mark.

They maintained a safe distance the rest of the period as Mr. Jones continued to assert himself, holding an 80-69 lead heading into final canto.

Sensing the tide in their favor, the KaTropa opened the fourth quarter with a 5-0 blast to stretch their lead to 16 points, 85-69, with 10:39 to go.

San Miguel got some footing back, narrowing the gap to seven points, 85-78, by the 7:24 mark.

The Beermen kept the pressure on the KaTropa with import Chris McCullough leading the charge back, fighting their way to within 90-87 with 4:45 remaining.

Jayson Castro gave TNT more breathing space, 93-87, with a triple 30 seconds later.

The Beermen stayed within striking distance, down by just three points, 94-91, entering the last two minutes.

Two made free throws by Mr. McCullough with 1:46 left made it a one-point game, 94-93.

TNT had several chances to add on to its lead after but could not capitalize on them.

San Miguel got the ball back and called time out with 33 ticks left.

Off the ceasefire, the Beermen went to Mr. McCullough who scored on a lay-up with 26 seconds remaining to hand the lead to his team, 95-94.

TNT called timeout and set up a play for Mr. Jones.

But the TNT import missed his layup, forcing the KaTropa to foul Mr. McCullough with 13 seconds left.

The San Miguel import scored a deuce anew from the charity stripe to make it a three-point lead, 97-94, in their favor.

TNT tried to get back in the game but the three-point attempt of Troy Rosario failed to hit the mark.

Two made free throws by Chris Ross after put the game away for the Beermen.

Mr. McCullough had 35 points and 22 rebounds for San Miguel with Mr. Romeo adding 22 points.

June Mar Fajardo finished with 16 points and 11 boards.

For TNT it was Mr. Jones who led with 35 points, 17 rebounds and eight assists.

Messrs. Castro and Rosario followed with 18 and 16 points, respectively.

“Thank God for this win. I like to commend the players for accepting the roles they were given and played them well. Our import just did not give up and kept his composure to lead us to the win,” said San Miguel coach Leo Austria after their victory.

Game Six of the finals is on Friday also at the Big Dome.

Senators scold PhilHealth for lack of safeguards

SENATORS on Wednesday scolded officials of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth) for failing to enforce safeguards against fraud.

During a Senate investigation of fraudulent transactions at the state-owned company that takes care of universal health care coverage, lawmakers said PhilHealth is supposed to have a built-in system to prevent anomalies.

At the hearing, PhilHealth President Ricardo Morales said the state insurance company needs whistle-blowers.

“I find it ludicrous for you to say ‘We need a whistle-blower’ because the system is made to prevent such fraudulent transactions,” said Senator Richard Gordon, who heads the blue ribbon committee. He added that PhilHealth officials should monitor transactions daily.

Before Mr. Gordon’s questioning, Senator Franklin Drilon asked PhilHealth officials where anomalies within the organization usually take place. “At what stage do they happen?” he asked.

Mr. Morales, a retired Army general, claimed anomalies could “happen at any point in the process,” adding that it is impossible to stop all fraud because of the sheer number of insurance claims that they handle.

“PhilHealth is a very large and complicated organization. We handle 10 million claims a month,” he said, noting that some transactions have to be handled manually.

An irked Mr. Drilon said: “We can never stop these anomalies because the claims are overwhelming? I don’t think anybody would accept that.”

Mr. Morales said the fraud involving “ghost” dialysis treatments would not have been discovered without whistle-blowers. “The anti-fraud mechanisms in PhilHealth do not appear to be working,” he also said.

Former employees of WellMed Dialysis & Laboratory Center Corp. have accused the company of collecting payments from PhilHealth for the dialysis of patients who had either stopped treatments or died, according to a Philippine Daily Inquirer report in June.

Also yesterday, Senator Manuel “Lito” Lapid said he had filed a bill seeking to increase the penalty for fraudulent claims on mandatory employee contributions and benefits from PhilHealth, Social Security System (SSS) and Pag-IBIG Fund.

“This is in response to recent reported cases of ghost patients from PhilHealth, ghost borrowers of Pag-IBIG loans and bogus claimants of SSS benefits,” the lawmaker said in a statement.

Under Senate Bill 837, the penalty on a member, property developer and health care provider who causes the filing of a fraudulent claim for benefits will be reclusion temporal or a jail term of 12 to 20 years to reclusion perpetual or a jail term of 20 to 40 years.

Syndicates will be slapped a more serious penalty of life imprisonment. The bill also makes the offense non-bailable.

De Lima allowed to visit sick mother

JAILED Senator Leila M. de Lima has been allowed to visit her sick mother at the hospital, with conditions.

In separate orders, two trial courts said the lawmaker, who is on trial for drug trafficking, may leave on Aug. 14 and must come back two days later. She was barred from using communication gadgets and giving media interviews.

Police will escort Ms. de Lima, a critic of President Rodrigo R. Duterte’s deadly war on drugs, during her two-day furlough.

The senator earlier sought permission to visit her 86-year-old mother who is in critical condition. Doctors, she said, have advised the patient not to take more drugs because of her age.

Ms. De Lima has been detained since February 2017 after she was indicted for allowing the illegal drug trade inside the national jail in Muntinlupa City while serving as Justice secretary.

Mr. Duterte’s political opponents have accused him of attempting to quash dissent after Ms. de Lima’s arrest in 2017. The senator has been criticizing the president’s drug crackdowns since he was a local mayor. — Vann Marlo M. Villegas

SC orders palace to answer Rappler suit

THE SUPREME Court has ordered the government to comment on the petition of online news website Rappler, which was banned from covering President Rodrigo R. Duterte.

In a notice dated July 30, the court gave the Office of the President, Office of the Executive Secretary, Presidential Communications Operations Office, Media Accreditation Registration Office and Presidential Security Group 10 days to submit the pleading.

The ban stays in the absence of a court injunction.

Rappler and its reporters in April asked the tribunal to stop the illegal coverage ban, saying it violated press freedom.

Rappler also argued the ban violates the right of a free press to self-regulate, the right to due process and the equal protection clause because it had been singled out.

Rappler palace reporter Patricia Marie I. Ranada was first barred from entering Malacañang on Feb. 20, 2018. The ban was later expanded to all events of the president. The ban was then extended to all Rappler reporters including correspondents in the provinces.

Mr. Duterte in March last year ordered the ban against Rappler at any of his events, accusing it of misreporting.

The court also allowed 41 reporters and columnists from various media to intervene in the case.

Rappler welcomed the court order allowing the intervention. “We hope our case can be put to the test of oral arguments so we can finally get answers from Malacañang and see how sincere it is in respecting freedom of the press,” it said in a statement. — Vann Marlo M. Villegas

Duterte body probing 2 Cabinet officials

TWO CABINET officials are being investigated for corruption, an official of the Presidential Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC) said on Wednesday, without naming the officials.

The agency will also conduct lifestyle checks on top officials of the Customs and Internal Revenue bureaus, Public Works, Environment and Transportation departments and Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office, Commissioner and spokesman Greco B. Belgica told a briefing.

He said their probe won’t be made public until the reports are submitted to President Rodrigo R. Duterte.

Mr. Belgica said top PCSO officials have submitted copies of their statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth and promised to cooperate with the probe.

“We are encouraging the public to also help us by reporting any illegal activities being committed by government employees,” he said.

Mr. Belgica said the PACC, Anti-Red Tape Authority (ARTA) and Hotline 8888 have agreed to partner “to prevent, combat and eliminate corruption in all aspects of public administration.”

A committee called Project USIG has been formed to conduct lifestyle checks and file charges against corrupt government personnel. The PACC will work with the police, government investigators, intelligence agents and the Anti-Money Laundering Council, he said.

Mr. Duterte in his annual address to Congress last month decried persistent government corruption. He said the recent uncovering of massive fraud perpetrated against the public health insurance system proves that corruption is pervasive.

The president likewise vowed to pave the way for the removal of corrupt officials at the Bureau of Customs, where more than 60 people are under investigation for corruption.

Mr. Duterte later suspended lotto operations nationwide for alleged corruption, only to restore them four days after because the operations were found to be above board. — Arjay L. Balinbin

1...10,61010,61110,612...14,238Page 10,611 of 14,238
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
© 2024 BusinessWorld Publishing.
All rights reserved.
Read our privacy guidelines
Facebook Instagram Linkedin X Youtube