Facebook Instagram Linkedin X Youtube
Home Blog Page 11736

PCC draft rules to offer immunity to 2 members of a cartel

THE Philippine Competition Commission (PCC) said it is considering granting immunity to two members of a given cartel, instead of one, to broaden the field of those providing evidence against anti-competitive activity.
“Immunity from suit includes immunity from administrative fines and criminal liability,” according to draft rules posted on the antitrust body’s website.
PCC Commissioner Johannes Benjamin R. Bernabe said the agency’s decision to offer immunity to two parties represents a liberal interpretation of the Philippine Competition Act of 2014, which allows only one such offer, to increase the agency’s leverage in prosecuting violators. — Janina C. Lim

RCEP negotiations seen finishing in 2019

THE Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) said negotiations on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) are expected to conclude next year.
“The RCEP negotiations and discussions have progressed substantially this year and have reached the final stage. The Ministers have resolved to conclude the RCEP in 2019. This is our sixth ministerial meeting for 2018, and is a very important one as we advance the negotiations towards its conclusion by next year,” Trade Secretary Ramon M. Lopez said in a statement on Tuesday.
Mr. Lopez was in Singapore for the RCEP Ministerial Meeting on Nov. 12-13.
“The Philippines, together with other RCEP parties, will greatly benefit from this partnership especially in harnessing the economic benefits from promoting trade, investment, employment, and economic growth,” he added.
Since RCEP negotiations commenced in 2012, seven out of 18 chapters of the agreement have been finalized.
These cover Customs Procedures and Trade Facilitation; Government Procurement; Institutional Provisions; Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary Measures; Standards, Trade Regulations, and Conformity Assessment Procedures; Small and Medium Enterprises; and Economic and Technical Cooperation.
“We have now entered the most critical stage of the negotiations, with a greater focus on Market Access for Goods, Investments, and Services,” Mr. Lopez added.
Since 2012, the 10 ASEAN member states — Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam — have been trying to conclude negotiations on RCEP. The pact involves free trade with Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand.
If concluded, the GDP of RCEP members will account for a third of the global economy and close to half of the world’s population. — Janina C. Lim

Senate panel to study sin tax funding of universal health care

SENATOR Juan Edgardo M. Angara said he will conduct a hearing this month to tackle bills raising sin taxes to determine whether the revenue generated could fund the proposed universal health care program.
“Sin taxes have been crucial in funding health programs of the government,” according to the senator, who chairs the Senate ways and means committee, in a statement on Tuesday.
“Our committee is set to conduct a hearing this month to see if raising sin taxes again is a viable means in funding the proposed UHC,” he added.
During the resumption of the Senate budget hearing of the Department of Health (DoH), Health Secretary Francisco T. Duque reiterated his concerns over the cuts of a portion in the proposed budget of the agency to fund improvements to health facilities.
He said the P16.7 billion budget cut may set the DoH back in implementing the universal health care program.
“There are many construction projects of health facilities that will not be completed if we are not given the P16.7 billion budget. We’re hoping this will be brought back to the DoH,” Mr. Duque told reporters after the hearing.
The Senate committee on finance, led by the vice chairman Senator Joseph Victor G. Ejercito, approved a P141.4 billion proposed DoH budget, but noted that the issue with budget cuts on the agency’s health facilities improvement program will be raised in the plenary debates.
“I had a budget approved in the committee level pending the health facilities enhancement program fund. Whatever amount we can return, we will review it. We will really fight for this,” he told reporters.
Mr. Ejercito also said the funding of the universal health care program will be sufficient in the first year of implementation. But he reiterated that collections from an increased sin taxes will address possible funding issues of the health program in the second or third year of its implementation.
Several measures have been filed in Congress seeking to raise sin taxes, especially the tobacco tax. Senate Bill No. 1599, introduced by Senator Emmanuel D. Pacquiao, proposes to increase the unitary cigarette tax to P60. Meanwhile Senate Bill No. 1605, written by Mr. Ejercito, sets the excise tax to P90. Both measures remain pending at the committee level. — Camille A. Aguinaldo

Senate Bill No. 1826: Redefining labor-only contracting

One of the most controversial issues on management rights today is the right to enter into contracting arrangements. Contracting is an arrangement where a business owner, also called a principal, agrees to farm out to another entity, called a contractor, the performance of a specific job within a definite period. In turn, the contractor hires its own employees to perform the job farmed out by the principal.
While the issue on contracting out has been present for years, the people’s clamor began to resurface when President Rodrigo Duterte undertook to address labor-only contracting, evident by his signing of Executive Order No. 51, Series of 2018. Noticeably, various companies, adjudged as engaged in labor-only contracting arrangements, have since then been ordered to regularize some of their contractual workers.
All these ultimately led our lawmakers to revisit the existing laws on contracting arrangements and security of tenure. The Senate is presently considering the passage of Senate Bill No. 1826 (“S.B. No. 1826”), or the Senate Bill on The Security of Tenure and End of Endo Act of 2018. S.B. No. 1826 proposes significant changes to the Labor Code provisions on contracting and security of tenure. One of the more contentious propositions is the amendment in defining labor-only contracting.
Under the Department of Labor and Employment’s Department Order No. 174, Series of 2017 (“D.O. 174-17”), the current regulation on contracting arrangements, there is labor-only contracting when either:

• The contractor does not have substantial capital or investment AND the contractor’s employees are performing activities which are directly related to the main business operation of the principal; or

• The contractor does not exercise control over the performance of the work of its employees.

contract

D.O. 174-17 thus merely prohibits insufficiently capitalized contractors that engage in supplying workers to perform activities which are directly related to the main business of the principal. Conversely, our current laws allow contracting arrangements where the contractor’s workers perform activities directly related to the main business of the principal, as long as the contractor possesses sufficient capital or investment and controls the means and manner by which its employees perform their work. Presently, therefore, our local business landscape abounds in legitimate contractors that are sufficiently capitalized, and are engaged in providing services relating to distribution, logistics, promotions, and other activities directly related to the principal’s business. Under our current laws, this is by all means legal and permissible.
S.B. No. 1826, however, may largely affect the current definition of labor-only contracting, through a seemingly simple change of the conjunction “AND” to “OR”:

• The contractor does not have substantial capital or investment OR the contractor’s employees recruited and placed are performing activities which are directly related to the main business operation of the principal; or

• The contractor does not exercise control over the performance of the work of the employee recruited and placed.

The proposed amendment implies that a supposed contractor can no longer engage in the business of providing workers who will perform activities which are directly related to the main business of the principal, even if such contractor has sufficient capital or investment.
Take, for example, presently, we have industries providing promotional, messengerial and logistics services. Several Supreme Court pronouncements have held that these businesses may be directly related to the main business of a specific principal. However, as long as the contractors providing these services are sufficiently capitalized, then these contracting arrangements are deemed legitimate. Following the proposed amendment under S.B. No. 1826, however, business owners would now be precluded from engaging the services of these legitimate contracting companies. The key point being that, as long as the service provided by the contractor is directly related to the main business of the principal, regardless of the other elements, then there is already labor-only contracting. This becomes all the more problematic considering that our laws have yet to clearly delineate activities which are directly related to the main business of the principal from those which are not.
While S.B. No. 1826 may in all likelihood guarantee that more workers do not find themselves without jobs after the end of a contractor’s agreement to perform services for a principal, this may go hand in hand with the closing down of legitimate contracting companies and the deterrence of foreign investors, which may find the limitation on contracting as unduly curbing their own rights to conduct a legitimate business.
It is anticipated that S.B. No. 1826 would be passed into a law within the next couple of months. Undoubtedly, the new law would change the landscape of our country’s work force. The question is: will this new law strike a balance between the clamor for a reduction of labor-only contracting arrangements versus the right of management to contract out some of its functions as part and parcel of its inherent right to determine the conduct of its own business? The answer remains to be seen.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author. This article is for general informational and educational purposes, and not offered as, and does not constitute, legal advice or legal opinion.
 
Angelo J. Logronio is an associate of the Labor and Employment Department of the Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices (ACCRALAW).
ajlogronio@accralaw.com
(632) 830-8000

Imelda Marcos’s bail forfeited

THE SANDIGANBAYAN has ordered Imelda R. Marcos’s bail forfeited, citing her “unjustified” absence in her conviction for graft last Friday.
“On motion of the prosecution and considering that the absence of the accused and her counsel appears to be unjustified, the bonds posted by the accused in the cases where she was convicted are ordered forfeited,” read the order last Friday by the graft court’s fifth division.
“On second call, accused Imelda R. Marcos and her counsel, Atty. Robert Sison were still not present in court,” the court order noted.
Mrs. Marcos, the widow of the dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos and incumbent congresswoman of Ilocos Norte’s 2nd district, was convicted for seven counts of graft in connection with the transfer of $200 million in public funds to Swiss foundations during the Marcoses’ rule.
Mrs. Marcos was sentenced to six to 11 years of imprisonment per count, with perpetual disqualification from public office.
On Friday night, photos of Mrs. Marcos were posted on social media showing her joining the birthday party of daughter Imee Marcos, the incumbent governor of Ilocos Norte.
Vice-President Maria Leonor G. Robredo, in a radio interview on Sunday, said of the octogenarian Mrs. Marcos, “(K)ung kaya pang mag-party, kaya pang lumagi sa kulungan.” (If she can party, she can also go to jail.)
On Monday, the camp of Ms. Marcos filed a motion for leave of court to avail of post conviction remedies.
‘IMELDA ONLY HAS A FEW YEARS LEFT’
PNP Spokesperson Chief Supt. Benigno B. Durana in a press briefing on Tuesday said “I think we’ve taken the statement of the chief PNP out of context. Kasi ang sinabi niya ay (What he said was) we have to consider the age and the health of the Rep. Marcos, in the manner we prepare and execute the arrest of the convicted person. Hindi ‘yung age at health are factors whether to arrest or not parang mali ata (It’s not the age and health that are the factors whether to arrest her or not. I think it’s wrong to say that), parang ini-slant ng iba (This was the slant by some [reports]).”
Mr. Durana added, “Ang ibig sabihin ni chief PNP (What the chief PNP meant was) na age and health of Rep. Marcos should be considered in the manner we assess her flight risk or we assess the manner we will prepare and execute the arrest, but not factors that will hinder us from arresting her the moment we received the warrant of arrest.”
For its part, Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) said, “Although we welcome the Sandiganbayan decision, (it) comes too late. At 89, Imelda has only a few years left to serve her 42- to 77-year jail term. She has evaded justice by more than 30 years. That is, if ever she is put behind bars. Imelda will surely carry out legal maneuvers to take advantage of the slow grind of the Philippine justice system to evade justice completely. There is widespread apprehension that she will ultimately be shielded by a Duterte presidential pardon.” — Charmaine A. Tadalan and Vince Angelo C. Ferreras

Vietnam fostering ties with the Philippines amid rapprochement with China

In August 2018, President Duterte conveyed to his countrymen that he expected China would be fair on the South China Sea dispute and that they should accept Beijing as a good neighbor. He told his fellow Filipinos: “I am sure that in the end, China will be fair and the equity will be distributed.” He predicted that “in the days to come, we would realize that China…is really a good neighbor.”
His (misplaced) good faith on China reflects his administration’s appeasement policy on the Asian power. President Duterte’s foreign policy pronouncements and actions are directed at undoing former president Benigno Aquino III’s agenda of balancing China’s extensive claim in the South China Sea. He distances the Philippines from its long-standing treaty ally and gravitates toward an emergent regional power bent on effecting a territorial reconfiguration in Asia. His foreign policy is aimed at appeasing China in sharp contrast to his predecessor’s balancing strategy. This stance is taken to earn China goodwill so that the Philippines could avail itself of the enormous Chinese resources under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to finance the country’s major infrastructure projects.
From his administration’s calculation, the Philippines will benefit from the BRI particularly in the revival of the maritime silk route, as it dovetails with its plan for a massive infrastructure buildup. Its present scheme of sustained and inclusive economic growth is predicated on an unprecedented infrastructure program that entails some P8.4 trillion ($17 billion) over the next five years. The Duterte administration is eyeing a reasonable portion of the estimated $1 trillion that China will invest in infrastructure projects in 60 countries to develop land and maritime routes following the old Silk Road network that once linked China to Central Asia and Europe. Given this prospective economic windfall, the current administration believes that its appeasement policy toward China is worth pursuing.
OFF-BALANCING VIETNAM
Vietnam has always maintained its traditional wariness of China and recently, it has been the most vocal among the Southeast Asian countries in expressing its apprehension over Chinese expansionist design on the South China Sea. This stemmed from its long experience of challenging China’s imperial foray into Southeast Asia for the last two thousand years. In 2010, the Philippines became Vietnam’s closest partner and supporter among the members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in opposing China’s maritime expansion in the South China Sea. This is because of two reasons: unlike Vietnam, the Philippines has the strategic advantage of being a formal treaty ally of the United States, and it observed that two allies signed the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) in 2014. The agreement provides for the temporary deployments of American forces in five Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) air bases all over the country. And second, the Philippines filed a claim against China in the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in the Hague challenging China’s “nine-dash line” claim in the South China Sea. Fortunately, for both the Philippines and Vietnam, the PCA ruled that China’s historic claim has no legal basis under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
The change in Philippine foreign policy under President Duterte was a major shock to Vietnam. First, President Duterte put aside the PCA ruling that invalidates China’s nine-dash line. Second, he distanced the Philippines away from the United States and in the process watered down the EDCA by shifting the alliance away from its focus on Chinese expansion in the South China Sea to counter-terrorism and Humanitarian Assistance and Risk Reduction (HADR). This was done with the expectation that the Philippines will be able to extract possible diplomatic concessions from China with regard to its territorial dispute and earn some economic largesse for its massive infrastructure projects.
President Duterte’s appeasement policy on China has off-balanced Vietnam’s efforts to challenge China’s expansion in the South China Sea. This became apparent during the 30th ASEAN Summit in Manila under the chairmanship of the Philippines. Vietnam fought tooth and nail to have the terms “concerns expressed by some ministers” on land reclamation and militarization in the South China Sea included in the chairman’s communique. Unfortunately, Vietnam failed to have the communique mention the need for a “legally binding” code of conduct in the disputed waters to put a stop to “unilateral actions.” Vietnam was also disappointed that there was no mention of the PCA ruling, and that the phase “serious concern” regarding the territorial dispute in the South China was conspicuously removed after it appeared in several ASEAN statements before 2017. Vietnam was suddenly confronted with the stark reality that the Philippines has joined Cambodia and Laos as China’s trusted and loyal lackeys in Southeast Asia.
FOSTERING VIETNAM-PHILIPPINE RELATIONS
Despite its disappointment with the Duterte administration’s appeasement policy on China, Vietnam has continued to foster closer relations with the Philippines. In October, on the sidelines of the ASEAN Leaders Gathering in Bali Indonesia, Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc met President Duterte to discuss the Vietnam-Philippines action plan for 2018-2023 in order to facilitate the two countries’ bilateral cooperation. The two ASEAN leaders also agreed to intensify their affiliation within ASEAN and affirmed the importance of maintaining regional peace, stability, freedom of aviation and navigation in the East Sea/West Philippines Sea. They also agreed to resolve territorial disputes peacefully according to international law including the 1982 UNCLOS and reiterated their support for the full and effective implementation of the Declaration on the Code of Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC), and the early completion of an effective, practical and legally binding Code of Conduct in the South China Sea (COC).
Vietnam also proposed to the Philippines the need to delineate their maritime boundaries in the disputed South China Sea. Efforts by the two countries to define their maritime boundaries will have a significant implication in the South China Sea dispute because this means that the smaller claimant states can settle their overlapping claims, while China has not clearly defined its expansive and sweeping claims in the disputed waters. Unfortunately, showing sensitivity to China’s interests, the Philippines turned down the Vietnamese proposal by stating that it will take a longer time to establish its own continental shelf limits. Nevertheless, the bilateral meeting between Prime Minister Phuc and President Duterte last October showed that Vietnam still considers the Philippines a close partner, and it is still willing to advance the strategic partnership between the two Southeast Asian countries despite the Philippine-China rapprochement.
 
Renato Cruz De Castro is a professor of International Studies at DLSU and trustee of Stratbase-ADR Institute.

The press — enemy of the people or of politicians?

The spectacle of President Donald Trump berating and insulting members of media at a press conference he held after the US mid-term elections was so reminiscent of a similar emasculation of a journalist by President Rodrigo Duterte several months ago.
More than any other leader of the “free” world, Trump has treated the press the way dictators and heads of authoritarian regimes regard it — as the enemy, to be roughed up, insulted and thrown in jail. Doubtless, Trump salivates at the thought, the way he must be obsessed with getting rid of Special Counsel Bob Mueller, if only he could get away with it.
Duterte must feel the same way about journalists, as do many Philippine politicians and public officials. On the other hand, they also regard the media as assets that can be harnessed for punitive or image-building purposes.
In this regard, the concept of a “free press” is turned upside down. Thus have been coined such terms as, envelopmental journalism, ATM journalism, AC-DC or attack-collect-defend-collect, and suppress relations. And, oh yes, a downright vulgar term but one that predates the others: masturbating the news.
But such are the dynamics of power. Those who wield it, use it or allow themselves to be used. And yet, as Melinda Quintos de Jesus wrote in an article entitled, “Philippines: How media corruption nourishes old systems of bias and control”:
“…journalism continues to yield some quality, retaining the power to expose corruption. Reports contributed to the firing of corrupt officials, forced government agencies to investigate cases, and even brought about the impeachment of a President (2000) and a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (2011).”
In this regard, I take special pride in being associated with BusinessWorld, having written a column for the paper for 30 years — nearly as long as it has been in print. Its founders and editors, Raul Locsin and Letty Martillo Locsin, were paragons of journalistic integrity.
During the incumbency of President Joseph “Erap” Estrada, someone leaked a white paper listing members of the media who were in the payroll of Malacañang. Virtually every prominent editor, columnist, publisher and broadcast commentator in the country was in that list — but not one single individual associated with BusinessWorld.
This is not to say that the Malacañang list was accurate. It could have been intended to besmirch the reputation of the incorruptibles in media (by including them among the corruptibles). But the fact that such a roster existed says something about the vulnerability of those who are supposed to be pillars of press freedom, of balanced reporting, and of the truth.
In an online piece entitled, “The problems that Filipino journalists face,” Edson Tandoc, Jr. reported the findings in a survey that “journalists in the Philippines are most concerned about low pay, media violence, information access, and professionalism. Younger journalists tend to identify low pay as the most important problem, while the problem of violence against journalists was more salient for reporters than for editors and managers.”
Considering the high cost of living, the pressures of upward lifestyle strivings, and the temptations on every side, is it any surprise that so many otherwise idealistic young journalists succumb?
In the US, under the administration of Trump, the plague of media men on the take is not the main problem that has to be dealt with. It is the direct accusation being hurled by Trump at anyone who criticizes him as purveyors of “fake news” and as “enemies of the people.”
The irony is that Trump IS the main source of fake news in both mainstream and social media. According to pundits, Trump is the personification of The Lying King. But that doesn’t stop his ardent supporters from taking his accusations to heart and, in some cases, going out of their way to fight the perceived enemies.
The hate-mongering of Trump has been fanning the embers of racism and political divisiveness in the country. This is what appears to have motivated the mass mailing of pipe bombs to Trump critics and CNN by a Trump loyalist, a fellow named Cesar Sayoc (who turned out to be half Pinoy).
While the Philippines has been routinely described as the second most dangerous country for journalists (next only to Iran), the US may have become as perilous for members of media, such as those working for CNN, in Republican-dominated states.
Being a journalist is not easy. Even in such non-controversial countries as Singapore and Malaysia, journalists are not always free to write about the unflattering truth. My first cousin, Leah Makabenta, was ejected from Malaysia by the government after she wrote an expose about “the slave conditions” of migrant workers in the country.
Prominent members of the press were among the very first to be arrested and incarcerated following the declaration of martial law by President Ferdinand Marcos in September 1972. Many of those who managed to avoid arrest sought asylum in the United States. In order to make a living, they turned to what they could do best, thus initiating the resurgence of community journalism in Filipino enclaves like California and New York.
But the long arm of the Marcos regime easily reached across the ocean and made propaganda assets out of many who had reestablished themselves as editors or publishers. For them, it was so much easier to succumb to financial enticements than to risk life and limb in the practice of their profession. As one former Manila media man put it, “I had to survive in America and others were on the take…so, what the hell. I decided to join the crowd.”
But there were those who prized their integrity more than the money. The late Alex Esclamado was one of them.
Esclamado was editor and publisher of Philippine News, a weekly newspaper based in the San Francisco Bay Area. The paper was a thorn in the butt of the Marcos regime, relentlessly exposing human rights abuses to American readers. This was particularly irritating for Marcos who wanted to build up the image of his government with the administration of President Ronald Reagan.
When threats failed to stop Esclamado’s attacks, an offer of $12 million was made to buy him out. Esclamado rejected the fortune. To bring him down to his knees, the Marcos government threatened the advertisers of the publication. They pulled out.
Starved of his main source of revenues, Esclamado was forced to sell his building and to borrow from every available source, while sustaining his blistering criticism of the dictatorship.
Remarkably, Esclamado never missed a single issue of his newspaper. He also outlasted martial law and Marcos. For his efforts, he was conferred the Legion of Honor by President Corazon Aquino.
But Esclamado never recovered financially and was eventually forced to sell his beloved publication some years after the political hostilities had subsided.
Indeed, as some worldly-wise media folks will attest, it is so much safer and more profitable to be on the good side of the people in power.
But, both in America and in the Philippines, there are still many idealistic and dedicated media professionals who prefer to trudge on, despite low pay and threats of physical harm, reporting the news as they actually happen. And there are still many self-respecting columnists who express their opinions based on their principled perception of right and wrong.
For them, the prospect of violence and the economic disadvantages are just among the hazards of the trade, like covering a war zone or a super typhoon.
Contrary to what Trump says, they are not the enemy of the people. But they are the enemy, all right. They are the enemy of sleazy, barefaced lying presidents and vulgar, corrupt and murderous politicians.
 
Greg B. Macabenta is an advertising and communications man shuttling between San Francisco and Manila and providing unique insights on issues from both perspectives.
gregmacabenta@hotmail.com

Accelerating the uptake of renewable energy through the Green Energy Option Program

By Marlon Apanada
AFFORDABLE ENERGY is a precursor to economic growth, which is of particular importance given our country’s current situation: we are facing energy supply challenges while paying for high electricity prices.
Unfortunately, as it stands today, the country is still planning to heavily rely on coal power plants to fill the gap in power supply. According to the Department of Energy (DoE), a whopping 70% of the 5,000 megawatts (MW) of new power plants being built between now and 2020 are coal-based.
Locking our country into coal-based electricity will create heavy baggage for the Philippines, chiefly the price of imported fuel and negative environmental impacts. Earlier this year, a local company offered solar power to Meralco at P2.99 per kilowatt hour (kWh), lower than any fossil-based power, while a geothermal generation bid stood at P3.91 per kWh. In comparison, coal-fired generation costs upwards of P3.80 to 6.53 per kWh, and the true cost of imported diesel-fired power ranges from P15 to P28 per kWh. Why opt for imported fossil fuels that are expensive, and will become even more so?
Facing the situation of fossil fuel dominance in the country’s power mix, how can we instead increase the uptake of renewable energy (RE), a key ingredient to the Philippines having a financially stable, climate-friendly and indigenously fueled power system?
The answer is to empower electricity users — us, the general public, along with larger commercial and industrial users of electricity — to demand the type of electricity that we want: affordable and homegrown, which happens to also be renewable and clean. This is where the national Green Energy Option Program (GEOP) comes in. After a decade of remaining unimplemented, the DoE finally released the GEOP rules in mid-July this year.
The GEOP aims to encourage electricity customers to choose renewables-based electricity sources, whether from solar, wind, hydro, biomass or geothermal, effectively empowering consumers to exercise their right to demand and use green energy.
Thanks to this program, electricity customers are no longer held captive by their local distribution utilities or electric cooperatives. Instead, many electricity end-users, even if they aren’t large “contestable customers,” are now allowed to directly purchase their electricity from a supplier that sells green power. In addition, the GEOP now enables green power generators and suppliers to have a wider set of customers, not only the very large “contestable customers” as was the case without the GEOP. This should in turn stimulate demand and investment of renewable power sources.
However, the GEOP in its current form has a number of gaping holes that the DoE, government regulators, and industry stakeholders should find solutions to.
First, the program does have a strong focus on wheeling green power across the grid, but it provides little direction of how onsite generation of green power can also play a role. It is also rather silent on the role of third-party investors in onsite RE generation.
Rooftop solar systems, localized biogas electricity plants, and other forms of onsite RE generation are an important component of well-built and well-operated electricity systems. They can help to alleviate electricity demand from the main distribution network and increase a grid’s reliability and resilience, all while generating cost-effective green electricity at the site of consumption. The GEOP should facilitate in unlocking their potential, but only if rules in onsite generation are made clearer.
Second, the GEOP lacks important details regarding the participation of smaller electricity customers with a demand below 100 kilowatts. While the program currently provides clear details for the participation of larger commercial and industrial electricity users, much is left to the imagination for small businesses and households. The language of the GEOP needs to be clear enough to ensure that intention can become reality without being mired in bureaucracy resulting from a lack of clarity at the beginning.
Third, the GEOP dictates that renewable energy certificates (RECs) generated from green power projects are kept by the distribution utilities, rather than assigning them to the owners of the green power generation assets — which would have further incentivized investors to structure deals and explore innovative business sub-models. This is of interest to the general public, who may want to invest into green power generation assets themselves. RECs are a new tradeable instrument, essentially a certificate issued by the government to recognize the generation of energy from RE sources; one REC is equivalent to one megawatt-hour.
Lastly, other important details of GEOP continue to be undefined, including clear structures for green power wheeling charges and other add-on costs. Without such details clearly delineated from the beginning, the uncertainty of these extra costs may make green energy more expensive in the future — which is not in the interest of electricity consumers nor the green power suppliers and generators.
The GEOP’s vision of truly empowering electricity consumers to choose and use green power can only be delivered if these outstanding questions are adequately and comprehensively addressed.
Much is at stake: if implemented well, the GEOP could usher in a new business-as-usual scenario — one that no longer leans on fossil fuels, but instead makes renewable, green power the default choice because it is the option that makes economic, environmental, and practical sense.
 
Marlon Apanada is managing director for the Philippines of Allotrope Partners, a California-headquartered clean energy investment and advisory firm. He completed a course on Sustainable Finance at the University of Oxford’s Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment and is a Green Finance Specialist certified by the Renewables Academy Berlin.

Balangiga bells to ‘begin journey home’

By Arjay L. Balinbin, Reporter
THE BALANGIGA BELLS, taken as war booty in 1901 by members of the US Army during the Philippine-American War, are set to begin their journey home.
In a Facebook post on Monday, historian Rolando O. Borrinaga of the Committee on Historical Research of National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) said: “Update on the Balangiga from a campaigner: The Balangiga Bells team in the U.S. are going to Cheyenne, Wyoming to join up with Secretary of Defense James Mattis for a ceremony at the F.E. Warren AFB on Wednesday, the 14th (Nov. 15 in the Philippines).”
He added that “[t]his will mark the beginning of the journey of the two Wyoming bells back to the church from which they were taken (in Balangiga, Eastern Samar).”
The Balangiga bells, he said, “will now be able to begin their journey home.”
“The third Balangiga bell at a U.S. Army museum in South Korea had been crated weeks ago and is also ready for shipment home. The latest successful campaign for the return of the Bells of Balangiga was largely a veterans-to-veterans effort. So many in the U.S. veterans community have let their voices be known and lent their support — including National Resolutions of support from both the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and the American Legion. The bells will first be refurbished and then shipped, so the precise date for their arrival and details of the subsequent ceremonies in the Philippines are still to be ascertained,” Mr. Borrinaga said.
For his part, Presidential Spokesperson Salvador S. Panelo said: “We welcome any movement towards the return of the Bells of Balangiga to the Philippines.”
“Given that the possession of the bells has not yet been turned over to the Philippine government, we are withholding any further comment on the matter until the last bell has been properly delivered to the country,” he added.
Mr. Panelo also stressed that in the words of President Rodrigo R. Duterte himself: “It ain’t here until it’s here.”
Sought for comment, University of the Philippines (UP)-Diliman law professor Antonio G.M. La Viña said in a phone interview that the return of these bells is a “symbolic” assertion of the country’s sovereignty.
“He has always been asking for those bells back. I think it’s good that Mr. Duterte repeated that demand, and it’s good that it’s happening during his time,” he also said.
To recall, it was during his SONA last year when Mr. Duterte first demanded that the US government should return the Balangiga Bells to the Philippines. “Give us back those Balangiga bells. They are ours. They belong to the Philippines. They are part of our national heritage. Isauli naman ninyo (Return them to us). Masakit iyon sa amin (This is painful for us),” the President said.

DoJ to ‘go by evidence’ on Sagay probe

JUSTICE Secretary Menardo I. Guevarra said the prosecution will go by the evidence that will be found by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in its investigation into the Oct. 20 Sagay massacre of nine sugar farm workers and the killing of a lawyer in Nov 6. “The NBI investigation is still ongoing and we’ll go by what the evidence will show,” he told reporters in a text message, when sought for comment on a statement by the National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW) questioning the NBI probe. “Would the DoJ then include the NFSW in the proscription list if the NBI tags the NPA as the perpetrators of the Sagay massacre or even Atty. Ben Ramos, who was red tagged April this year when his picture together with others were put in a tarpaulin together with NPA rebels in the Municipality of Moises Padilla,” NFSW asked. — Vann Marlo M. Villegas

DENR to act on garbage shipped from South Korea

THE Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) said on Tuesday that appropriate action will be taken once a report on garbage shipped from South Korea to the Philippines is released, possibly this week. Some 5,100 tons of garbage containing used dextrose tubes, diapers, batteries, bulbs and electronic equipment arrived at the Mindanao Container Terminal (MCT) in Misamis Oriental on July 21, carried by MV Affluent Ocean. According to Environment Undersecretary Benny D. Antiporda, the agency will recommend the return of the garbage and the filing of administrative and criminal charges against those involved in the shipment are found to contain hazardous materials. The DENR’s Environmental Management Bureau (EMB) verified that the shipment was not covered by any importation clearance as issued by the DENR. The DENR also said the consignee, Verde Soko II Industrial Corp, is not a registered importer of recyclable materials. Verde Soko is a South Korean company which operates a 4.5 hectare waste recycling facility at Phividec Industrial Estate in Tagoloan town. — Reicelene Joy N. Ignacio

US Army Pacific Commander in Manila

GENERAL Robert Brown, Commander of the US Army Pacific, visited the Philippines from November 10 to 13. His activities while in Manila included speaking at the National Defense College of the Philippines and meeting with Armed Forces of the Philippines Chief of Staff Gen. Carlito Galvez, Commanding General of the Philippine Army Lt. Gen. Macairog Alberto, and Defense Undersecretary Cardozo Luna.

1...11,73511,73611,737...14,257Page 11,736 of 14,257
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
© 2024 BusinessWorld Publishing.
All rights reserved.
Read our privacy guidelines
Facebook Instagram Linkedin X Youtube