Bill filed in Senate barring solid waste imports
SENATOR Aquilino Martin L. Pimentel III has filed a bill seeking to ban imports of solid waste.
Senate Bill No. 2144, filed on Jan. 14, provides a penalty of 12 to 20 years of imprisonment for importing any solid waste, as defined under the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act or Republic Act No. 9003, into Philippine territory, including special economic zones.
Under the law, solid waste refers to the “discarded household and commercial waste, non-hazardous institutional and industrial waste, street sweepings, construction debris, agricultural waste, and other non-hazardous/non-toxic solid waste.”
The person or the firm responsible for the importation will also be obligated to send back the solid waste to the port of origin. If the importer cannot be identified, the carrier will be responsible for returning the solid waste to the port of origin or pay P500,000 in exemplary damages.
Foreigners involved in the importation of solid waste will face deportation and will be barred from entry to the Philippines. If corporations, associations or other entities are involved, a penalty of P500,000 will be imposed on the managing partner, president or chief executive officer.
Automatic dismissal from office and permanent disqualification will be among the penalties of government officials or employees involved in the importation of solid waste.
In his explanatory note, Mr. Pimentel cited the imported garbage that was shipped from Canada in 2013 and from South Korea last year. He also raised concerns that more foreign waste may arrive in the Philippines after China, Thailand, and Vietnam enforced policies against the entry of solid waste into their countries.
In June 2013, a shipment of 50 container vans — 18 of which contained waste, including household garbage and plastic bags — began arriving in the Philippines from Canada.
Meanwhile, some 5,100 tons of garbage containing dextrose tubes, batteries, and electronic equipment arrived at a Misamis Oriental port in July 2018 from South Korea, which its government promised to take back.
“Pursuant to our Constitutional duty and intergenerational responsibility to protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology, and considering our own trash woes, this bill proposes to ban the importation of trash even by recyclers of trash located in Special Economic Zones,” Mr. Pimentel said.
“By banning the importation of imported solid waste, we prevent the country from being a dumping site of more advanced economies,” he added. — Camille A. Aguinaldo
Steel industry reports proliferation of substandard rebar
THE PHILIPPINE Iron and Steel Institute (PISI) said it found several hardware stores south of Metro Manila selling substandard reinforcing steel bars (rebar) during a recent market monitoring operation.
The group said it submitted to the Department of Trade and Industry’s Consumer Protection Group (DTI-CPG) the findings of the “test buy” operations it conducted particularly in Laguna, Cavite, Batangas, and Mindoro Occidental.
“We also recommended to the Bureau of Product Standards (BPS) to conduct an immediate audit and issue show-cause orders to the manufacturers that produced and sold the substandard rebar,” said PISI President Roberto M. Cola in a statement.
In the PISI report, Pampanga-based induction furnace steelmaker Wan Chiong Steel had the most number of infractions with six hardware stores selling its underweight rebar, among other faults. This was followed by CKU with five stores selling underweight rebars.
Other manufacturers found by PISI selling substandard rebar in the region Luzon were Capasco, Phil Koktai Metal, Continental, Metrodragon, and Real Steel.
Meanwhile, seven stores sold 8 millimeter rebar as 9 millimeter rebar, in violation of consumer protection laws.
“We are concerned that substandard rebars are being openly sold in the provinces of Mindoro, Batangas, Laguna, and Cavite. These steel products are used for the construction of homes in these provinces which are usually visited by typhoons, flash floods and sometimes earthquakes, and thus, they need to use quality construction materials. The proliferation of substandard steel in these provinces poses grave danger to families living in these provinces,” Mr. Cola said.
The steel bars bought by PISI were submitted to the Metals Industry Research and Development Center (MIRDC) where they were tested against the requirements of the prevailing Philippine National Standards (PNS) 49:2002 for Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement and PNS 211:2002 for Rerolled Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement. — Janina C. Lim
Malampaya Fund bills due before energy panel
THE House Committee on Energy will continue on Tuesday deliberations on the draft Substitute Bill proposing to use the Malampaya fund to pay for the National Power Corporation’s (NPC) Stranded Contract Costs (SCC) and Stranded Debt.
The draft Substitute Bill consolidated House Bills No. 8082, 8327 and 8352, which intends to minimize the universal charge, thereby reducing electricity rates. The universal charge is an imposition passed on to consumers to cover for NPC’s obligations.
The bills propose that the proceeds of the Net National Government share from the Malampaya fund will be remitted to a Special Trust Fund.
The fund will be managed by the Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corp. (PSALM), which assumed all obligations of the NPC.
HBs 8082 and 8327 provided that once the SCC and SD have been paid in full before the end of PSALM’s corporate life, the “Net National Government Share, shall accrue back to the Special Fund used to finance energy resource development and exploitation programs.”
The fund was created under Presidential Decree No. 910, which created the Energy Development Board.
House Bill No. 8352, written by Magdalo Rep. Gary C. Alejano, proposes instead that the funds accrue to the National Treasury.
Meanwhile, its counterpart measure, Senate Bill No. 924, written by Senator Sherwin T. Gatchalian, has been introduced to the plenary for second reading. — Charmaine A. Tadalan
Customs releases plan to improve efficiencies
THE Bureau of Customs (BoC) released a 10-point priority plan for 2019 to improve operational efficiency, building on a year when it surpassed its collection targets.
For 2019, the bureau said it will focus on streamlining the organization, adopting new technology and filling vacant positions.
“These priorities are anchored on improving organizational efficiency, upgrading individual proficiencies and strengthening institutional capabilities,” Customs Commissioner Rey Leonardo B. Guerrero was quoted as saying in a statement sent over the weekend.
It will seek to improve the performance of its information technology systems by automation and greater integration, fill vacancies in the organizational chart and issue more promotions and rewards to BoC employees will be given to boost morale.
The bureau also intends to establish new offices and positions and consolidate overlapping or redundant functions.
The BoC will likewise lobby for the passage of Customs-related legislation as the basis for the changes to be implemented.
“We are taking the lessons learned and putting them to work, for the development of the Bureau in the short-term and over the long haul,” Mr. Guerrero said during the BoC’s New Year Call.
He also commended the bureau’s personnel for closing 2018 “on a good note” by surpassing collection targets.
Based on preliminary data, the BoC collected P585.542 billion in revenue, slightly above the P584.881-billion target, as 14 of its 17 ports beat their revenue goals. The 2018 total was up 27.8%.
“We closed the year 2018 on a good note as we surpassed collection targets and worked on improving our output and our operations. I am grateful for the cooperation and enthusiasm that you have shown and look forward to even more milestones in 2019,” Mr. Guerrero added.
For this year, the bureau is expected to collect P662.2 billion in revenue as approved by the Development & Budget Coordination Committee in July 2018. The target suggests a 13% rise over 2018 collections. — Karl Angelo N. Vidal
Are you ready for a customs audit?
It has been more than a year since Executive Order (EO) No. 46 was issued which revived the post clearance audit (PCA) function of the Bureau of Customs (BoC). Finally, the implementing rules necessary for the BoC to resume audits have now been issued.
The BoC and the Department of Finance issued Customs Administrative Order (CAO) No. 01-2019. The CAO covers the conduct of the PCA and the implementation of the Prior Disclosure Program (PDP). News and details concerning the CAO were published on Jan. 16. The EO takes effect 30 days from the publication of the CAO which means it will start on Feb. 15.
The BoC Post Clearance Audit Group (PCAG) will be responsible for the PCA function.
It is important to note that the time given to respond to any demand letters, as well as to submit any additional documents, is very tight. There may not be sufficient time to completely and satisfactorily address significant audit findings. Having said that, importers are encouraged to closely monitor the receipt of the Audit Notification Letter (ANL) from the PCAG and ensure audit readiness.
The salient features of the CAO regarding the conduct of the PCA are as follows:
• Period to conduct PCA — In the absence of fraud, the BoC has three years from the date of final payment of duties and taxes or Customs Clearance to conduct a PCA and determine any deficiency duties, taxes, and other charges, including any fine or penalty, for which an importer may be liable.
• Selection criteria — Importers that will be subjected to a PCA will be selected based on any of, but not limited, to the following criteria:
– Relative magnitude of customs revenue to be generated from the firm;
– The rates of duties of the firm’s imports;
– The compliance track records of the firm;
– An assessment of the risk to revenue of the firm’s import activities;
– The compliance level of a trade sector; and
– Non-renewal of an Importer’s customs accreditation.
• PCA process — The PCA will be conducted through the following process:
• Profiling/Information Analysis — Risk profiling and analysis on the importers will be performed in order to identify importers who are to be subjected to a PCA;
• Issuance of the ANL — The letter containing the names of the authorized personnel to perform the audit will be issued by the BOC Commissioner. The ANL will be valid for 30 calendar days, subject to revalidation for another 30 days. This will be personally served to the importer via registered mail or through electronic notice.
• Preparation of the audit plan by PCAG
• Conduct of audit proper — The audit will start within 60 calendar days and should be completed within 120 days (per year of audit) from the date that the ANL is served. This may be deferred if the importer manifests an intention to avail of the PDP. Upon completion of the audit, the team will issue either a Final Audit Report (FAR) with a demand letter if there are findings of deficiency duties, taxes and other charges; or a Clean Report of Findings (CRF) if there are no findings, which shall be endorsed by the Assistant Commissioner, and approved and signed by the Commissioner;
• Service of demand letter for payment of deficiency — If the audit will result in findings of deficiency duties, taxes, and other charges, the demand letter will be served personally to the importer through registered mail or electronic notice. The importer will have to pay within 15 days from the receipt of the demand letter;
• The BoC will issue an acknowledgement letter stating that the audit is completed if the importer opts to pay the amount per the demand letter;
– The following remedies are available to importers who opt to contest the audit findings:
• Importer may file a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation with the Commissioner within 15 days from receipt of the demand letter. When requesting for reinvestigation, the importer has 30 days from the submission of the request to provide all relevant supporting documents.
• If the Commissioner denies a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation, the importer may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals within 30 days from the receipt of the denial.
• Applicable penalties for failure to pay correct duties and taxes on imported goods determined through the conduct of PCA — Importers shall be penalized according to two degrees of culpability, subject to any available mitigating, aggravating or other extraordinary factors:
– Negligence — 125% of the revenue loss
Additionally, in case of inadvertent error amounting to simple negligence, a penalty of 25% will be applicable.
– Fraud — 600% of the revenue loss and/or imprisonment of not less than two years, but not more than eight years.
• Interest on deficiency duties, taxes and other charges plus fine & penalty — An interest of 20% per annum, counted from the date of final assessment, will be imposed on:
– PDP availment;
– Deficiency duties, taxes and other charges;
– Fine or penalty, if any.
Because of the short periods of time involved (i.e., 15 days from receipt of the demand letter to contest the deficiency assessment and 30 days to submit all supporting documents from filing of request for reinvestigation), early preparation for an audit is crucial. An importer needs to be “audit ready.” This can be done through self-assessment, or by conducting an internal review or a customs compliance review.
At this moment, importers should evaluate their importation practices and procedures to determine compliance with customs laws, rules, and regulations. Additionally, importers should identify risk areas and potential exposures so that these may be legally corrected prior to and/or during the customs audit. More importantly, importers should consider PDP, if practicable, to reduce the stiff penalties.
PDP refers to the program that authorizes the BoC Commissioner to accept prior disclosure of errors and omissions in goods declaration resulting in payment of deficiency duties and taxes. The PDP will be discussed in more detail in next week’s column.
This article is for general information only and is not a substitute for professional advice where the facts and circumstances warrant. The views and opinion expressed above are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of SGV & Co.
Lucil Q. Vicerra is a Tax Principal for Indirect Tax Services — Global Trade & Customs at SGV & Co.
Henry Sy, a hero of Philippine capitalism
“Wealth is well known to be a great comforter.” — Plato
Until about the 1960s and 70s, Philippine business was dominated by the land-based and a few real estate wealthy families like the Zobel-Ayalas. Things changed in the 1980s in both politics and business and when the Marcos dictatorship collapsed along with its huge cronies.
Unlike the Ayalas who somehow started their wealth since the Spanish period, Henry Sy started his wealth only in the 1950s after the Pacific War. His first store (SM Carriedo) was built in 1958 and his first supermall (SM North Edsa) was built in 1985. From there, many huge malls along with “SM City” sprouted around Metro Manila and in big cities in the provinces.
As of a September 2018 count by Forbes, Mr. Sy and his family were the 52nd richest family in the whole world. They were also the richest family in the ASEAN countries (See Table 1).

Enrique Razon, Jr. was the world’s #404 richest businessman with $4.9 billion and Lucio Tan was #441 with $4.7 billion.
Forbes has another list, the richest people per country and for the Philippines, the numbers are a bit different from the above table. Nonetheless, 18 Filipino families were billionaires in 2018, the top 10 listed below (See Table 2).

Given the speed and size of the Sy family’s wealth, accumulating $20 billion in net worth in just seven decades, I would consider Mr. Sy as a hero of Philippine capitalism. He has expanded his wealth and in the process, tremendously expanded job creation, entrepreneurship of small and medium business partners, suppliers and mall locators across the country.
And all big capitalists do not really aspire to be the “richest man in the grave” so he gave away a big portion of his wealth to others in the education sector. He did not come from UP but he donated a building to UP’s BGC campus. All these can never be replicated even by the most famous political families in the country.
My hypothesis that he is a hero of Philippine capitalism is somehow confirmed by two of my friends and fellow alumni from UP School of Economics (UPSE).
From my batchmate, Leo Riingen: “Henry Sy is a great Filipino. He changed the retail landscape and shopping experience of Filipinos. I owe my entrepreneurial spirit to him as I started most of my businesses in SM.”
And from the current president of the UPSE Alumni Association, Jeffrey Ng: “Through his humility, hard work and grand vision, Mr. Sy has provided Filipinos with all the modern conveniences of shopping in the malls. He was also a great philanthropist who donated whole buildings to our top universities, numerous schoolhouses all over the country and gave scholarships to many Filipinos.”
Now there will be groups who will demonize Mr. Sy and his SM business for “labor exploitation” like “endo” practices as a means towards capitalist accumulation. This view would come from leftist and socialist groups.
Creating tens of thousands of jobs, direct or indirect, is not labor exploitation but labor optimization. Definitely there were cases of business abuses in treating workers and entrepreneur-suppliers. It happens in other businesses, big and small, and it happens in government. But such negatives would easily be surpassed by positives in the form of ever-expanding job creation and business expansion by partner entrepreneurs.
Have a good rest up there, Mr. Sy.
Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the president of Minimal Government Thinkers.
minimalgovernment@gmail.com
Small town blues
“Lotus” was the most successful retail outfit in the town of Jagna, Bohol, for as far back as memory goes. From a humble beginning as a stall holder in the public market, the Salas family grew the business by dint of punishing hard work into the first detached concrete two-story retail outlet catering mostly to sari-sari store owners of Jagna and nearby towns Duero and Garcia Hernandez. Jagna is a port town hosting ships to and from Camiguin and Mindanao. This gives it a strategic advantage as a crossroad for travelers and visitors. It is home to many marine OFWs and balikbayan families who build spacious concrete dwellings. Jagna also hosts the CVIF high school, run by physicists Christopher and Maria Victoria Bernido, which institution has become a must-visit for curious educators both here and abroad. Incidentally, CVIF now also hosts volunteers of the highly innovative science corps program which aims to bring frontier science to third-world high school students. Volunteers Dr. Hyunjin Shim and Dr. Victor Sojo taught applied research and rudiments of Big Data analysis to STEM students. That Jagna is a town looking up is clear to see.
Then came 2018. Outsiders who long noticed the potential of Jagna began to act on the temptation. McDonalds Philippines opened a spanking new air-conditioned two story outlet in one corner of the public market. From the popular wooded promontory called Ilihan Hill which hosts a Barangay sang Virgen shrine, the signature yellow “M” has taken over from the church spire as the principal landmark. That rattled the food stall owners in the Jagna public market where sikwati ug puto maya are the traditional morning fare. Another bombshell made landfall with the opening of the fully air-conditioned Bohol Quality (BQ) mall! Where electricity price is prohibitive, this seems a big gamble.
BQ is one of the two dominant retailers in Bohol, both owned by ethnic Chinese and based originally in the capital, Tagbilaran. The other giant, Alturas, owns the first and only full-fledged mall in Bohol called Island City Mall (ICM) in Tagbilaran City. The Alturas control much of the retail trade in the province through its mobile distribution assets and its network of retail partners. Its principal retail partner in Jagna is Lotus.
Tagbilaran itself has become attractive to even bigger retailers plying the Visayas and Mindanao — such as Puregold based in Cebu — and the country itself, such as the elephant of them all, Shoemart (SM) Corp. Bohol’s new classy international airport located in the world-renowned resort island of Panglao attests to its upward outlook. When the big national retailers take interest in and flock to a local regional market, local capitalists tremble and scramble for refuge in remoter small towns, pushing even smaller players to the wall. This is precisely what happened in the twin cities of Bacolod and Iloilo. SM is showing every sign of intent to enter the Tagbilaran market. BQ has now made the move to Jagna and put a squeeze on Lotus. So far, Alturas has refrained from following BQ’s move, preferring rather to work with Lotus in Jagna by matching the price-discounts of BQ mall. Meantime, Lotus, now with Gem Salas at the helm, is going through a painful re-molding of its business model, trimming down its work force to the bone and trying to sell off losing ventures such as its pharmacy unit which, in previous eras, it could afford to carry. The immediate beneficial effect is the lower price for consumers. I personally lean towards the Alturas strategy.

How this small town drama will play out is a challenge for market crystal ball gazers. The two strategies being parlayed, one by BQ’s direct presence and the other by Alturas’ indirect presence through strategic local partners, are in an apocalyptic clash. The Alturas strategy avoids heavy fixed cost but splits profits with local partners. The BQ strategy incurs sizeable fixed cost but keeps management control and all the profits. The Alturas strategy calls for spending on monitoring and encouraging greater efficiencies of its partners. BQ will just mandate efficiencies in-house. Meanwhile, as the grapevine goes, Alturas itself has struck a partnership alliance in its retail business with Cebu-based, regional giant and potential intruder, Gaisano, perhaps to withstand better the shock from the prospective entry of the mother of all giants, SM, into the Bohol market. Machiavelli’s advice in The Prince is alive and well: ally not with the strongest but with the second strongest so you can keep both at bay.
This dynamic is as old as Capitalism itself. In the dog-eat-dog world of Darwinian competition, “big” is a trait selected for survival; “small’ though romantic is a trait selected for extinction. The latter is the dark side of Capitalism’s “creative destruction,” a notion we owe to Joseph Schumpeter. Let me guess what some of you may be asking: Shouldn’t government move to protect the small against the big? Perhaps by making small towns off limits to big players? To inoculate small local players from incursions by the big in the name of “small is beautiful” is a wrong-headed romantic gobbledygook. It would freeze small towns in time and deprive their consumers from the benefits of price competition. Rural poverty is largely the result of wrong-headed government interventions in rural markets ostensibly to “help the poor.”
Is there a bright side? When in the early 19th century the power-loom empowered big boys of textile manufacturing in England invaded Scotland with its family-based hand loom-weaving concerns, the Scottish businessman, Carnegie pere’s legacy business went belly up and the children, among them Andrew Carnegie, emigrated to America to find their fortune. “Andy” Carnegie eventually built Carnegie Steel, the largest and most modern steel-making corporation of America of its time, and who bankrolled the Carnegie libraries throughout small town America. One wonders whether this world-beating mega-corporation would have become possible had the Carnegies not been put through the ringer by the big English textile interests. The squeeze being put on the likes of Lotus may eventually unchain battle-tested local talents like Gem Salas to explore and conquer beyond the narrow confines of small towns.
Raul V. Fabella is a retired professor of the UP School of Economics and a member of the National Academy of Science and Technology. He gets his dopamine fix from hitting tennis balls with wife Teena and bicycling.
The mysterious death of Hanjin
In January last year, Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Philippines (HHIC) delivered to the French Maritime Freighting Company, CMA CGM S.A., fourth-largest container company in the world, its flagship Antoine de Saint Exupery, its largest container ship (with a deck of three football fields combined) and the largest Europe-based ship in the world (World Maritime News, Jan. 5, 2018). Made in the Philippines, at the 326-hectare HHIC shipyard in Redondo peninsula, north of Subic Bay, Zambales.
This new vessel, the first of three ordered by CMA CGM S.A., represented a breakthrough in global shipbuilding, according to HHIC-Phil President Gwang Suk Chung. He said “the intensive support of the Philippine government gave the Korean shipbuilding company a robust head start in the shipbuilding industry” (portcalls.com, Jan. 27, 2018). Present at the completion ceremony and keynote speaker was former President and now Pampanga Representative, House Speaker Gloria Arroyo, in whose presidential term the Hanjin shipyard was inaugurated in 2007. In her speech, Arroyo cited the “$2.3-billion investment of HHIC in the Subic Bay Freeport” and thanked the Korean firm for the “massive training facility for workers” (Ibid.). Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) Chair Atty. Wilma T. Eisma read the message of President Rodrigo Duterte (who was then in India for the ASEAN meeting), thanking Hanjin for “its vital role in national economic growth, and “expect(ing) HHIC Phils. to remain a pillar and partner in the growth of the Philippine maritime industry” (Ibid.). Hanjin has delivered 123 ships from the shipyard in the past 11 years, or about 12 ships a year.
But just short of a fortnight a year after the launch of Antoine de Saint Exupery, the Korean shipbuilder HHIC Phils. filed for bankruptcy on Jan. 8, 2019, after it suffered liquidity problems to repay its debts. Hanjin is reported to have incurred around $400 million in outstanding loans from local banks and another $900 million owed to South Korea lenders (Sunstar, Jan. 14, 2019).
What happened? Why did not all see that HHIC Phils. was going to die?
In September 2016, Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) Chairman Roberto Garcia assured workers at the Subic shipyard that HHIC Phils. was not going to be affected, that Hanjin Shipping Co. Ltd., the world’s seventh-largest shipping line, had filed for bankruptcy protection in the United States. “HHIC Phils. is not related to Hanjin Shipping (it is a subsidiary of Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Co. Ltd.), so there is no need to worry,” he said, pointing out that the Subic shipbuilder has separated from the Hanjin Group in 2005 (sbma.com, Sept. 08, 2016). Management assured the workers that orders for container ships were still coming, and additional workers to the 35,000 direct and indirect employees already working on various operations will be needed for these (sbma.com, Sept. 8, 2016).
HHIC then confidently accepted big orders from Singapore and France, among other smaller orders from other countries who were coincidentally refreshing their fleets. But perhaps cash planning was not efficient enough to address the shipping industry practice of progress billing to the buyer starting late in the building process (called the “heavy-tail” contracts) — which ate up production cash flows that then had to be advanced by HHIC. And so the local Hanjin, 100% foreign-owned (Korean) as allowed for non-utility companies under Philippine laws, borrowed heavily: $412 million from Philippine banks and another $900 million from Korean banks — which it cannot now pay back. It has been reported by some sources that the Subic shipbuilder has incurred at least $100 million in losses because of stiff global competition, the lower prices of ships because of decreased demand from uncertainties in the world economy, and slow production at the local shipyard due to technical limitations and the lack of skilled manpower.
How did the financial mess happen, when there are the generous subsidies from the Philippine government to make sure HHIC Phils. stays at Subic and generates revenues for the economy and for itself? Support was provided by the Philippine government under R.A. No. 9295 and the Investments Priorities Plan (IPP).
HHIC Phils. and all manufacturing investors at special economic zones enjoy a wide array of tax holidays, including full exemption from paying corporate income tax for a minimum of its four years of operations; a five percent preferential tax rate on gross income earned in lieu of all national and local taxes, tax and duty-free importation of raw materials, capital equipment, machineries and spare parts; exemption from wharfage dues and export tax, impost or fees; VAT exempt on local purchases; exemption from payment of any and all local government imposts, fees, licenses or taxes; and an exemption from expanded withholding tax. Besides taxes, HHIC Phils. also received subsidized power rates from the Arroyo administration, amounting to more or less P4 billion over a 10-year period (Sunstar, Jan. 14, 2019). The last $30 million of this was payable this month (January 2019). Note that SBMA, who pays for HHIC power usage, has reflected losses in its own financial statements citing this heavy expense for the HHIC power subsidy (SBMA 2016 f/s).
“This is the biggest corporate bankruptcy to ever hit the Philippines,” economist Gerardo P. Sicat said (The Philippine Star, Jan 16, 2019). Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Deputy Governor Chuchi G. Fonacier immediately said that “[i]f the creditor-bank is proactive in monitoring the developments in Hanjin, then the bank should have already provided for an allowance for credit losses… the bank would be able to cushion the impact of this default on its profit” (BusinessWorld, Jan. 16, 2019). And the four leading lenders in the country who all lent to HHIC said, yes, they did provide for the losses, and their capital adequacy ratio would be far from compromised: Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. (RCBC) lent the most at $145 million; Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. (Metrobank), $70 million; BDO Unibank, Inc., $60 million; and Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), $52 million (BusinessWorld, Jan. 16, 2019). State-owned Land Bank of the Philippines (LANDBANK) is estimated to have lent $85 million to HHIC Phils., for which the government bank is now being questioned that loans should have been prioritized for the agricultural sector (The Philippine Star, Jan. 15, 2019).
Has HHIC Phils. “borrowed to complacency” and availed of government subsidies and incentives likewise “to complacency,” that so nonchalantly, it could up and file for the biggest corporate bankruptcy ever to hit the Philippines? The banks and other lenders can shrug off the bad loans, but the Filipino people cannot, because it is their money that pampered HHIC’s apparent opportunism for the exuberant offerings of subsidies and incentives by some hopefully-not personally motivated government leaders.
The Department of Finance’s Train Two program that proposes tighter time limits for subsidies and incentives to certain foreign business locators and the phase-out of the older subsidies is good, as in the negative example of abuse of welcome and favor, in the HHIC Phils. bankruptcy case.
P.S.: Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana broached the proposal for the government to take over Hanjin’s facility, so it could have access to a strategically located naval and maritime asset. Presidential spokesman Salvador Panelo said President Duterte said he will study this (The Philippine Star, Jan. 18, 2019). Indeed, this must be studied very well, and honestly, for conspiracy theories are rising that some beneficial partnerships might be formed with reportedly-favored individuals and government (Ibid.). But even disregarding such probably-unfounded anxieties, the more urgent focus should be that the government should not go into “reverse privatization,” a one-step-forward, two-steps-back action that will re-entrench government in private business, and deter goals of fair competition and free enterprise.
Amelia H. C. Ylagan is a Doctor of Business Administration from the University of the Philippines.
ahcylagan@yahoo.com
UHC at risk without new sin taxes
Last Jan. 18, leaders of 30 Philippine medical societies gathered to call for the Senate passage of a bill increasing the excise tax on cigarettes to at least P60 per pack. “The increase will provide crucial funding for the Universal Health Care (UHC) Act that will benefit the current and future generations of all Filipinos from womb to tomb,” went their manifesto.
Indeed, sin taxes have played a significant role in boosting the health budget since legislation of the Sin Tax Reform Act in 2012. Not only did the said law significantly raise the excise taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, but it also earmarks a substantial portion of the incremental revenues for health. As a result, the health budget has grown tremendously over the last six years, from P44 billion in 2012 to P171 billion in 2018. This is despite the law’s effectiveness in reducing the number of smokers in the country.
Recently, however, some senators seem to be confident that the soon-to-be signed Universal Health Care Act can be sufficiently funded even without an increase in sin taxes. In particular, Senate President Vicente Sotto III enumerates the following resources for UHC: existing sin tax incremental revenue for health, subsidy for PhilHealth premiums of sponsored members, existing budget of the Department of Health (DoH), 40% of the PCSO charity fund, 50% of the national government share of PAGCOR earnings, and PhilHealth premium contributions. The first three items in the list are actually overlapping; remove the intersections and they make up the national budget for health.
But are existing funds really enough to support an anticipated major reform in the health care system?
A closer look at the numbers reveals that the emerging 2019 proposed budget for health by the Senate is P25 billion less than the P171 billion health budget in 2018. Why are we cutting the health budget when UHC is expected to improve access to health care by growing the number of health care workers and expanding PhilHealth membership and health benefits of all Filipinos?
While there have been pronouncements that the Senate intends to augment the budget by P32 billion more so that the national budget increases to P178 billion, it has yet to happen. Even so, that will still be just an increment of P7 billion, a measly amount compared to the huge changes that UHC hopes to accomplish.
The amount that will be pooled from PCSO and PAGCOR is also not entirely “new money” for health. Bulk of the P17 billion that is expected from PCSO and PAGCOR are already being spent on health. This is not to belittle the importance of pooling of funds (which is a reform on its own as it helps our country move towards a single-payer health care system) but only to emphasize that it will not be enough in bridging the financing gap for UHC.
What about the P60 billion, which is the estimated total of PhilHealth premium contributions for 2019; will this not address UHC’s funding requirement? According to the Annual Report of PhilHealth, a total of P57 billion was collected from the premium contributions of non-sponsored members in 2017. This implies that only P3 billion will be added to the existing funds already being collected by PhilHealth.
In summary, we see a potential increment of P7 billion, subject to the Senate’s fulfillment of its promise to add P32 billion to the emerging national budget for health, and another P3 billion from premium contributions, or a total of P10 billion.
Meanwhile, six out of ten Filipinos die unattended by any medical personnel. Non-communicable diseases are on the rise even as infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis and pneumonia, continue to kill thousands of Filipinos each year. Maternal mortality in the country is still one of the highest in the region. The inequities in access to health care and health outcomes remain to be severe, despite increased PhilHealth coverage of the poor.
For sure, we still can and need to improve on how we are allocating and spending our current resources for health. This too is one of the main objectives of UHC. Nevertheless, the gaps in our health care system are so huge, complex, and intertwined that full implementation of a comprehensive reform, such as UHC, is necessary to effectively address them. In other words, piecemeal approaches will no longer work.
Now, how in the world could we make P10 billion enough for the big changes that UHC will introduce in its first year? Without a corresponding increase in the excise taxes, where can we expect to get substantial and sustainable additional funds for health, especially in the succeeding years of UHC implementation?
I fervently hope that, for the sake of the Filipino people, our senators will reconsider our doctors’ appeal for the immediate passage of the sin taxes. May this last part of the medical societies’ manifesto serve as an encouragement to our legislators, especially the reelectionists, to do the right thing: “In this coming election, we and our constituents commit to fully support legislators who champion this measure, and rally against those who delay or block its passage.”
Jo-Ann Latuja-Diosana is a trustee of Action for Economic Reforms.
Plebiscite today on BOL
THE COMMISSION on Elections (Comelec) warned of the possibility of violence as one of its leading concerns in today’s plebiscite on the Bangsamoro Organic Law (BOL) after a bombing incident occurred recently in Cotabato.
“The biggest concern is that there could be violence that could be happening,” Comelec Spokesperson James B. Jimenez said in a phone interview.
He added: “As you know we recently placed Cotabato under political control mainly because a bomb went off there (on New Year’s Eve) and people have been connecting that incident to the partisan positions in the Bangsamoro plebiscite. So the biggest concern really is that kind of violence could continue until the plebiscite day.”
An election-campaign area is placed under Comelec control when it is found to be high risk because of intense political activity that could lead to violence.
Around 20,000 members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and Philippine National Police (PNP) were deployed for the Monday’s plebiscite covering the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), Isabela City in Basilan, and Cotabato City, which all have a combined total of 2.1 million registered voters.
Voters in the core area, the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), make up the majority at 1,980,441.
Residents of the cities of Cotabato and Isabela will decide not just on the BOL’s ratification, but whether or not they will be part of the new Bangsamoro ARMM (BARMM) that will be formed under the law.
Another plebiscite scheduled Feb. 6, on the other hand, involves areas contiguous to the existing ARMM, including six municipalities in Lanao del Sur; 39 barangays in the towns of Aleosan, Carmen, Kabacan, Midsayap, Pigkawayan, and Pikit (11) that voted for inclusion in the ARMM during the 2001 plebiscite; and 28 local government units in Cotabato province whose petitions for inclusion were approved by the Comelec.
Comelec said canvassing will be done at its Intramuros headquarters.
During a livestreamed pre-plebiscite media forum held at Notre Dame University in Cotabato City on Sunday, Mr. Jimenez said that since the counting and canvassing of votes are manual, results of the plebiscite will be disclosed a few days yet after Monday.
“The expectation is that we will finish all these processes in four days. We expect the results to be announced in four days,” he told reporters there.
“If the result (for the Jan. 21 referendum) is a ‘no’ then that creates an interesting situation. It doesn’t make it (BOL) a failure. (It only) means ‘no’ is just the result. The weight of authority is that the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region isn’t created at all, in which case it becomes a question if the Feb. 6 is even necessary,” Mr. Jimenez said in an interview last week.
For his part, Communist Party of the Philippines founder Jose Maria C. Sison said in a statement on Sunday, “He (President Rodrigo R. Duterte) is setting the stage for a bigger armed conflict in the Bangsamoro and adjoining areas. The MNLF (Moro National Liberation Front) enjoys the support of the OIC [Organization of Islamic Cooperation) and is angry that previous agreements and arrangements it has made with the Manila government under OIC [Organization of Islamic Cooperation] auspices are being swept away so arbitrarily by Duterte.”
Leaders of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), which broke away from the MNLF in the 1980s, will lead the administration of a Bangsamoro region under the BOL, if ratified in the plebiscite.
Mr. Sison added, “Thousands of MNLF followers in red shirts and Cotabato city officials made it a point to demonstrate at city hall to counter Duterte’s presence and campaign for BOL in the vicinity. In Maguindanao, the BIFF [Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters] and other forces do not agree with MILF’s collaboration with Duterte on BOL.”
Sought for comment, Defense Secretary Delfin N. Lorenzana told reporters, “I am not going to dignify the comment of a person who has been away for close to three decades who has clearly lost touch of realities on the ground.”
Presidential Spokesperson and Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Salvador S. Panelo said in part that Mr. Sison “has issued yet another statement on a local issue he knows nothing about.”
For his part, Interior Secretary Eduardo M. Año said in a statement on Saturday, “As much as the BOL is our ticket to a peaceful Mindanao, the plebiscite also poses as an opportunity for communist terrorists, extremists, and anti-BOL factions to sow violence and prevent the voting from happening. Thus, all hands are now on deck to ensure the peaceful and orderly conduct of the plebiscite.” — Gillian M. Cortez and Vince Angelo C. Ferreras
What lies ahead for the Philippines on China’s Belt and Road Initiative?
By Camille A. Aguinaldo
Reporter
PRESIDENT Rodrigo R. Duterte sought warmer ties with China at the outset of his presidency, at a time when China was on its way with its ambitious global infrastructure program called the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

The Philippine government’s Build, Build, Build infrastructure program thus coincides with China’s BRI, which is seen by the Philippine government as among the available mechanisms in addressing the country’s infrastructure needs. To be sure, this funding support needs to be further activated beyond China’s earlier pledge of $24 million in investments and the memoranda of understanding (MoUs) with the Philippines that marked Chinese President Xi Jinping’s state visit to Manila last November.
Global think tank Nomura, in its April 2018 report, noted that the Philippines and Malaysia will have the most to gain among Southeast Asian economies from China’s BRI. With these in mind, how should the Philippines capitalize on the Belt and Road Initiative?
NO ‘IMMEDIATE IMPACT’
The BRI has two elements: the Silk Road Economic Belt, which is focused on linking China to Central Asia, Russia and Europe, through building land transportation routes; and the 21st Maritime Silk Road, which connects China to shipping routes starting from its coast, then passing through the contested South China Sea, the Indian Ocean, then leading up across the globe to Europe.
In a lecture in Beijing last August with Asian journalists, chief economist Chen Wenling of the China Center for International Economic Exchange (CCIEE) described the BRI as a “symbol of friendship, trade exchange and cultural exchanges” with other countries.
“We want to transfer our wealth. We want to transfer our great experience with our developments (with) these kinds of developments,” Ms. Chen said. “You as a host nation, if you want to develop, China is more than willing to help you to achieve that goal.”
But the gains have yet to be felt two years into Mr. Duterte’s presidency. George T. Barcelon, president of the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI) at the time of this interview, noted, in particular, that port development projects have yet to be undertaken, the same point underscored by Nomura.
“I don’t see (an) immediate impact to us,” Mr. Barcelon said. “I don’t see too much on (the) maritime silk road” — which Mr. Xi himself had glowingly remarked on — “that will benefit us soon,” the business leader also said.
Nevertheless, “(f)or us, it’s really the Maritime Silk Road that we would see the benefit of joining,” Mr. Barcelon said. “In other words, there are ports that have to be built, which really coincide with some of our Build, Build, Build. But again, maritime trading is important because China is globally (among) the biggest exporters. And we do export a lot also. We do import a lot (from) China.”
“All industries — manufacturing, agriculture, aqua — all of this, once you have all this efficiency in the maritime transport, the impact would be great on anything that requires maritime logistics.”
For his part, Employers Confederation of the Philippines (ECoP) acting president Sergio R. Ortiz-Luis, Jr. said he sees advantages in China’s BRI from the few conditions it offers in carrying out development projects, unlike foreign loans offered by other countries and financial institutions.
“Definitely the advantage of this one is unlike (other foreign assistance),…many of them have conditionalities which we cannot comply with. In here, there is none. And the market that will be opened for us is quite big. And therefore, it’s easier to be in this and profit from it,” he told BusinessWorld in a phone interview.
“This is a chance to really ensure our infrastructure projects will push through,” he added.
Asia-Pacific Pathway to Progress program convenor Aaron Jed Rabena pointed out in a phone interview that China’s BRI is more than the infrastructure projects. He said China’s interconnectivity goals under the BRI also covers policy coordination, trade and investments, financing, and people-to-people ties, which the Philippines could explore.
The Philippines and China have also gained ground on the other aspects of BRI, Mr. Rabena noted, such as the country’s joining China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), currency swap deals, and tourist exchanges. Partnerships and agreements were also secured by both the public and private sector with the Chinese government and companies, such as the Bilateral Consultation Mechanism of the two governments, the six-year development program for trade and economic cooperation, and the increasing direct air routes, among others.
On infrastructure developments, if observers have cited the slow pace of projects earlier pledged by China, Mr. Rabena believes this was not due to the Philippine government’s missteps.
“Some projects, not all, are taking some (time) to materialize because the government is being thorough and careful in studying their prospects,” he said in an e-mail.
Ateneo De Manila University Chinese studies lecturer Lucio B. Pitlo III said China could also invest in the Philippines in sectors where the Asian power has made tremendous achievements, such as renewable energy, shipping, e-commerce and financial technology.
“China just set up its own development cooperation agency this year and this adds to our pool of bilateral and multilateral development partners. This agency can help in our capacity building to conduct feasibility studies, project planning and other preparatory work for a wide range of public projects,” Mr. Pitlo said in an e-mail.
CHINA’S INFLUENCE
From China’s view, Ms. Chen cited the planned joint development of the two countries in the South China Sea but noted bigger opportunities for business cooperation, as analysts have also pointed out.
“The bilateral relations between governments are many projects and agreements, including the development in (the) South China Sea, which will bring great economic benefit for the Philippines,” she said. “I believe that in the future, there’s still great potential not only in the government side, but the bigger opportunity lies in the business cooperation.”
Heilongjiang Department of Commerce division director Li Leyu also said in an August press briefing with Asian journalists that they are seeking as well to reestablish ties with the Philippines to explore business opportunities.
In turn, Ms. Chen raised concerns among Chinese businessmen about the political situation in the Philippines.
“I think we should give a better sense of security for investors who (are) doing business in the Philippines and…reassure that their investment is safe and there will not be major setbacks and political risks,” she said.
Austin Ong, an analyst in the Integrated Development Studies Institute (IDSI), said the Philippines stands to benefit from China’s BRI, citing the real estate boom and the increasing number of Chinese tourists in the country which helped provide additional income to the private sector and Filipinos workers.
But despite the promising benefits of the initiative, Mr. Ong said the Philippines should also do its part in order to make the most of the global developments.
“The Belt and Road Initiative is a vehicle that the Philippines can ride on to fast-track its development. But the homework, the hard work, the studies, we have to do it ourselves,” he said in a phone interview.
Mr. Ong said skills need to be improved among Filipino workers in order for them to keep up with the influx of investments coming into the Philippines and to address the shortage in skilled labor.
Domestic issues that have also hounded the Build, Build, Build infrastructure program, such as the bureaucratic red tape and right-of-way problems, should also be addressed so the Philippines can take advantage of the BRI, Mr. Ong added.
However, International studies professor Renato C. De Castro of De La Salle University warned that China’s influence on the Philippines through the BRI may eventually lead to giving China the reins in Philippine foreign policy.
“Beware of the Chinese giving gifts because those gifts, of course, they have a cost….Those projects will be undertaken by Chinese corporations bringing in Chinese workers and Chinese workers and Chinese materials, so not a single cent would leave China. This is how the Chinese operate. That’s why they’re being criticized by other developed countries,” he said in a phone interview.
“Second, of course, will be the impact of the debt trap….Then it’s what you call economics statecraft. Eventually you will be beholden to China. China will have influence in your foreign policy,” Mr. De Castro added.
Economic managers have allayed concerns that the Philippines will fall into the much feared debt trap. Budget Secretary Benjamin E. Diokno has said the Philippines has a “very low debt-to-GDP (gross domestic product) ratio,” which places the country at an advantage to pay off its debt.
The United States itself has repeatedly criticized China over its financing support to other countries as having “hidden strings attached.” In fact, the Western power has initiated its own investment program in the Asia-Pacific with the passage of the BUILD Act and with infrastructure agreement with Japan and Australia, as if to counter China’s influence through the BRI.
DUE DILIGENCE
Ms. Chen dismissed US criticisms as a “strategic fear and strategic anxiety.”
“This kind of financing investment is by no means a debt trap, but a golden development opportunity for these countries. This so-called debt is a choice of the host nation, instead of something that is forced upon on these countries by any investment, organization,” she said in Chinese.
“This is only our initiative and we are doing what we can do to help this endeavor move forward,” she added. “So our goodwill and our contribution should be more appreciated and recognized by the international community.”
“We are not seeking praise but we hope that our effort will be respected.”
But Mr. Rabena believes a debt trap will not be among the country’s problems. He and Mr. Pitlo said the government should watch out for “white elephants” when it comes to China-funded projects.
“White (elephant) projects, meaning projects made but not operational — a waste of money,” Mr. Rabena said.
Both business leaders and analysts maintain that the Philippine government should observe due diligence in carrying out projects with China to ensure a win-win situation.
For Mr. Barcelon, due diligence must be done on the financing terms, the practicality of the projects. This has, indeed, been the prevalent advice, in the light of the much discussed fears of a debt trap with China, with Sri Lanka often cited as an example.
“The bidding process should ensure that the private sector is (financially) capable, so that if they…partner, especially with China, there wouldn’t be inconveniences,” Mr. Ortiz-Luis said for his part.
“Meticulous conduct of feasibility studies, multi-stakeholder consultations and engagement,” Mr. Rabena said.
Mr. Pitlo said the Philippine government should also field in competent negotiators “to ensure terms and conditions are not disadvantageous to us and that risks are mitigated.”
“Each foreign partner or donor has their own respective advantages and disadvantages that we should be aware of. Our fast growing economy, sound fundamentals, promising economic outlook and presence of more partners and investors give us leverage in negotiating with China or other development partners,” he said.
Chinese companies in partnership with the Philippines should also be asked “to employ Filipinos in the non-technical aspects of projects,” Mr. Rabena also suggested.
Mr. De Castro stressed the importance for civil society organizations to ensure that the Philippines will not be left burdened with Chinese debt and for the Filipinos to scrutinize every aspect of the China-funded projects that might affect communities.
Another move that the Philippines as a soft power should do is to “balance big powers with other big powers,” like maintaining relationships with the US and Japan, to prevent the country from being economically tied with China, he added.
“We should not allow our government to sell future generations of Filipinos to China because the government, especially this government, is always thinking in terms of short-term,” Mr. De Castro said.
For Mr. Ong, the Philippine government should not be alone in ensuring the success of projects the country needs for development. He said the private sector and the rest of Filipinos should be involved in the process as well.
“The government has to be vigilant, do its homework, and work with the private sector,” he said.
“The rest is up to us. The people have to do their part,” he added.

