Facebook Instagram Linkedin Twitter Youtube
Home Blog Page 12598

Decline and fall

President Rodrigo Duterte described the civilian-military mutiny known as the “People Power Revolution” that overthrew the Marcos terror regime 32 years ago as among “the most crucial and trying (of) times” for the Philippines. But his communication people apparently don’t think so, and neither do their trolls, his followers, and his allies in the Marcos family.

Presidential Communication Operations Office (PCOO) Assistant Secretary Mocha Uson, for example, sneered at the nuns’ facing the guns and tanks of the Marcos military then as a “drama,” or just for show, and even suggested that the ouster of the Marcos dictatorship was driven by “fake news.”

PCOO itself issued no statement to commemorate the 32nd anniversary of that event. Instead its trolls belittled it as something that benefitted only the Aquino family and the “yellows” of the liberal party. Mr. Duterte’s followers echoed that view, with some even declaring that to develop and achieve real change, the country needs another dictatorship. The Marcoses have been saying essentially the same things for years, except the last. They insist that what their late patriarch imposed on this country and its people from 1972 to 1986 wasn’t a dictatorship but a benign form of what Ferdinand Marcos himself described as “constitutional authoritarianism.”

But Mr. Duterte was nevertheless right in saying that those days in February (from the 22nd to the 25th) were crucial. If the nuns and priests, the students, the labor and peasant leaders, as well as the professional and middle-class people and the anti-Marcos wing of the military had failed to oust Ferdinand Marcos from power, the repression that would have followed would have been far worse than what had been taking place since 1972.

Rather than the restoration of the rights and institutions of liberal democracy — free elections, a free press, free expression and freedom of organization and assembly, and an independent judiciary among others — what would have ensued would have been the strengthening of a reign of terror that could still be in power today.

Despite his seeming recognition of the significance of the February 1986 civilian-military mutiny, for the second time since 2017 the sitting president of the Philippines did not attend any of the gatherings officially commemorating that “crucial” time. His non-attendance sent a far louder message than his statements did, suggesting, among others, that he wasn’t really as appreciative of the meaning of that event as he tried to appear to be.

His message nevertheless expressed the hope for solidarity among the people, and urged Filipinos to “enrich our democracy by empowering our citizenry, defending their rights, and strengthening the institutions that safeguard their freedoms.”

“The People Power Revolution,” said Mr. Duterte, “has become the enduring symbol of our determination to fight for what is right and to defend and uphold our cherished democratic values.”

Right again. Despite its glittering generalities and motherhood statements with which no one would have disagreed, the message was issued during an equally crucial time for this country, its people, and even the Duterte regime itself.

The 32nd anniversary of the 1986 EDSA event was marked by protests against Mr. Duterte’s policy decisions, among them the passage of the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion law, or TRAIN; the extrajudicial killings that continue to accompany the anti-drug campaign; the rush to a federal form of government and Constitutional amendments; and the extension of martial law in Mindanao.

Equally condemned across the archipelago were his acquiescence with, and pandering to, China’s construction of military bases on the West Philippine Sea; his jeepney modernization scheme; his attacks on press freedom and the independent press; his demonization of, and threats against, groups critical of his regime; his declared antipathy to human rights; his cancellation of the peace talks, which he himself had initiated, with the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP); his minions’ orchestrated assault on the chief justice; his shockingly anti-women statements; etc., etc.

Not only the number of issues that have been raised against him is significant. Equally important is that the solidarity Mr. Duterte said was needed for the people to “enrich democracy” and to defend their rights was evident among the various groups, institutions and individuals that in other times would have been at odds with each other.

What unites the labor, peasant, and indigenous people’s groups; the Catholic and Protestant churches; journalists’ and artists’ organizations; human rights defenders; women’s groups; nongovernmental organizations; and academics and students from the country’s leading universities, is the common concern over the Duterte regime’s march to tyranny and abuse rather than the realization of its proclaimed commitment to empowering the people.

These are the very same formations, individuals, and institutions that had been so decisive in the dismantling of the Marcos dictatorship. The only sector missing among the current protesters’ ranks is the military. But its physical absence so far may not necessarily indicate its leadership’s sentiments.

Of even more interest is the growing international concern over what’s happening in the Philippines, as evident in, among others, foreign media’s relentless coverage of the extrajudicial killing of thousands of suspected drug users and pushers; the international human rights groups’ focus on the sorry state of those rights; corruption watchdog Transparency International’s finding that corruption in the Philippines is the worst it has ever been since 2012; and the International Criminal Court’s decision to look into the possibility that Mr. Duterte could be guilty of crimes against humanity.

In addition, the US intelligence community, which regards the regime’s supinely pro-China policy as contrary to US interests, has named Mr. Duterte a threat to democracy and human rights. It put him in the same company as Hun Sen of Cambodia and the military junta that continues to rule Thailand, despite US President Donald Trump’s expression of support for him because he’s the president of the “prime piece of real estate” that the Philippines is to the United States.

Both the unity of various local groups, sectors, and forces as well as international concern over what’s happening in this country of uncertainty are occurring a mere 20 months after Mr. Duterte came to power. The same thing happened to Marcos, but only after the assassination of the late senator Benigno Aquino, Jr. in 1983 — or 11 years after his declaration of nationwide martial rule.

The causes of this rapid decline in the Duterte regime’s standing before the sectors that really matter in Philippine affairs as well as the rest of the world are obvious. The reasons lie in the appalling impact of his policies on the people, among them the escalating cost of prime commodities, the rampant violations of human rights, the continuing poverty and hunger among millions of Filipinos, and the fear that now haunts poor communities because of the use of force rather than the rule of law in the “war” on drugs.

The growing protests against it both here and abroad and the attention being paid to it internationally are auguries of things to come. But the regime can still correct and preserve itself by, among other measures, being true to Mr. Duterte’s message on the strengthening of those institutions vital to democratization such as the free press — to start with, by just letting journalists do their job without being banned and harassed — and demonstrating that it is committed to empowering the people rather than itself, its allies, and its minions in the upper levels of the bureaucracy.

But whether it will have the insight and the determination to do so is far from likely. What is certain is that if it doesn’t change course now, it will meet the same fate that befell the Marcos dictatorship in 1986. That kleptocracy collapsed despite its millions, its seemingly stable military support, its unquestionably more capable and far more intelligent bureaucrats and allies, and Marcos’s own personal closeness to then US president Reagan, who, like Trump, was also fond of his man in Manila.

 

Luis V. Teodoro is on Facebook and Twitter (@luisteodoro). The views expressed in Vantage Point are his own and do not represent the views of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility.

www.luisteodoro.com

A warm embrace

Proper etiquette governs most corporate practices. As an example in the case of gift-giving — is it okay to give something with a five-year depreciation period and a key to a government functionary? Other questions include proper elevator behavior in a building with call center tenants — should you be shaking your head and noisily sucking in your breath when very young call center agents affect a Kansas accent loudly talking about their day in the office? (He hasn’t even heard of Shakespeare, Bes.)

We now cover a touchy subject: in this age of “me too” and suspicious father figures, is it OK to hug another person?

Usually the request, “can you give me a hug” is not asked directly as it requires a formal response which may indicate either a heretofore unexpressed sense of loathing (ewww…) or an unwarranted affection, except perhaps in the spontaneous team-building war-cry — group hug! But even here, there are those unwilling to join the bonding ritual that caps a motivational seminar.

“Hug” comes from the Norse word hugga, which means to soothe. (I am not making this up.) The social hug refers to a public (as opposed to a private) embrace — wrapping both arms around a living person to bring two bodies, either completely or some parts of them, pressed together, tightly or loosely, without the benefit of accompanying music, or having to discard any items of clothing. Modification of any parts of this definition drastically changes the context of a warm embrace. The complete wardrobe part, for example includes shoes and scarves, just for those who are wondering about the scope of garments.

Hugging as a form of greeting even between same-sex relative strangers is commonplace in, say Arab cultures and some Sicilian organizations, where whispering accompanies the gesture — your time is up. Opposite-sex embracing in public, however, is frowned upon if not considered a crime meriting stoning to death in some of these hugging cultures.

Hugging between spouses does not elicit much negative comment, since it happens rarely, except for newlyweds or the newly re-wedded. Close friends and acquaintances who have met at least two other times in the same week engage in “air kissing,” or touching of cheeks. This social greeting is limited to the region above the neck, allowing faces to connect briefly and tangentially. The head region does not include ear lobes, which need to be left alone and not nibbled.

Air kissing (or beso-beso) can include a brief body contact, but only above the waist. Social hugging does not allow too tight an embrace or the vertical swift movement of a hand at the other’s back, as if checking spine alignment, or any hint of rhythmic hip movement. These liberties alter the nature of a greeting and threatens (or promises, depending on mutual feelings) progression into situations that go beyond hugging. This may cross the line into litigation.

Certain events provide natural occasions for hugging. One is a ballgame where fans on one side in their ecstasy at a successful rally heading for an eventual victory over an arch rival are allowed some connecting moments. This is often limited to a slapping of palms in a noisy high-five, or a fist-bump followed by the simultaneous open palms. A full-nelson hug, especially with a pretty albeit emotionally engaged woman three rows behind (and wearing green) can invite suspicion if not outright physical assault by her seat mate. (Why is she seated in the wrong side?)

Announcements on one’s employment status, like its discontinuation, allow some Nordic soothing from the opposite gender. Acceptance of such displays of commiseration cannot discriminate. They do not allow screening of those offering sympathies. Too often, prolonged embraces, accompanied by stroking and patting, are offered with gusto by large menopausal women with short legs. These maternal figures are predictably on hand for tea and sympathy. They are usually addressed as “mother.”

As a social gesture, hugging exhibits a warmer intimacy than just saying hello. Still an unwelcome hug is certain to be considered a form of sexual assault which can provoke a sharp knee to the flashlight and its batteries that will result in an embarrassing bending over accompanied by an expletive or two.

Embracing another person in joy or grief expresses empathy with another. Hugging cannot be a solitary occupation, after all. It is a way of saying, “I feel your joy.” But, always consent is required. Otherwise, it’s safer to shake hands or simply raise one eyebrow in greeting.

 

A. R. Samson is chair and CEO of Touch DDB.

ar.samson@yahoo.com

Trump’s worst economic idea

By Bloomberg Editorial Board

DOES anyone, anywhere, support President Donald Trump’s plan to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports?

As Bloomberg News recently reported, Trump is considering broad duties of as much as 24% on imported steel and 10% on aluminum, with the aim of protecting national security and pressuring China to reform its trade practices.

This is a terrible way to achieve either ambition. The likely outcome would be to raise prices, hinder growth, jeopardize jobs, burden taxpayers, encourage retaliation, and heedlessly destabilize the system of global trade. Not to be alarmist, but it could even raise the cost of beer.

The idea is so comprehensively misguided that it has induced a rare consensus in Washington. Most of Trump’s Cabinet opposes the idea, as does nearly every mainstream economist. Farm groups call it a “short-sighted mistake.” Manufacturers call it “disastrous.” Trump’s own Economic Report of the President, which he has no doubt read carefully, warns that such barriers could “distort the free allocation of capital.”

bulb

Surely steelmakers, at the very least, would be grateful for this added protection? Not so fast: many producers are worried about the inflation, input shortages, and supplier disruptions that could result, just as the industry’s prospects are otherwise improving and a big infrastructure push is on the way. (Tariffs would only raise the cost of that worthy endeavor.)

Nor does the Pentagon think much of the national-security rationale. Total military demand for steel and aluminum amounts to only about 3% of domestic production, meaning that reliance on imports isn’t a notable danger. Imposing broad tariffs, however, could have a “negative impact on our key allies,” as Trump’s defense secretary delicately put it.

China, meanwhile, won’t be much affected by these measures. It’s already subject to more than two dozen antidumping and countervailing duties on basic steel products, and hence provides less than 3% of total US imports. About the only practical effect of broad new tariffs would be to invite retaliation on American exporters.

None of this is unfamiliar; none of it should be controversial. For decades, the US government has tried now and then to protect the steel industry — and those efforts have consistently harmed consumers, undermined manufacturers, inhibited growth and impeded innovation, all without obvious benefits. The most recent such initiative — the so-called safeguards imposed by the George W. Bush administration in 2002 — raised costs and destroyed roughly 200,000 jobs.

There’s a better way. A different trade dispute has caught Trump’s attention — concerning intellectual property, and China’s approach to transfers of corporate technology. On this issue, the administration is reportedly working with allies to jointly pressure China at the World Trade Organization. This is exactly the right approach: orderly, above board, and intended to minimize conflict. Given time, it may well work.

The same cannot be said for the president’s tariffs. If he proceeds with this idea, he’ll be harming the economy, not helping it.

Sereno leave indefinite; Carpio acting chief justice

SENIOR ASSOCIATE Justice Antonio T. Carpio has taken over Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes P.A. Sereno’s post in an acting capacity, following the full court’s clarification Thursday that Ms. Sereno’s leave is indefinite.

“After extended deliberations last Tuesday Feb. 27, 2018, thirteen (13) of the Justices present arrived at a consensus that the Chief Justice should take an indefinite leave,” Theodore O. Te of the Supreme Court’s (SC) Public Information Office (PIO) said on Thursday, reading a statement by the full court.

“Several reasons were mentioned by the various justices. After consulting with the two most senior justices, the Chief Justice herself announced that she was taking an indefinite leave, with the amendment that she start the leave on Thursday, March 1, 2018.”

Mr. Te said only Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa was unable to sign the statement as he was on leave.

The full court’s statement read further: “The Court En Banc regrets the confusion that the announcements and media releases of the spokespersons of the Chief Justice have caused, which seriously damaged the integrity of the Judiciary in general and the Supreme Court in particular.”

“In the ordinary course of events, the Court expected the Chief Justice to cause the announcement only of what was really agreed upon without any modification or embellishment,” the statement also read, adding:

“This matter shall be dealt with in a separate proceeding.”

“In view of the foregoing, the Court En Banc considers Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno to be on an indefinite leave starting March 1, 2018. Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio shall be the Acting Chief Justice.”

Ms. Sereno’s spokespersons held a press conference Tuesday afternoon, with lawyer Jojo A. Lacanilao saying in part: “In behalf of the spokespersons of the CJ, we would like to apologize to the Supreme Court and the House committee on justice for any confusion over the last few days on the issue of CJ Sereno’s leave.”

Mr. Lacanilao also read Ms. Sereno’s statement which explained in part, “I had agreed to go on an indefinite leave, but I am also bound by the appropriate administrative rules.”

“The rules do not contain any provision on ‘indefinite leave.’ I had to qualify my leave according to the provisions of Rule 7, Section 6(c) of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court which reads ‘(c) Members who are on wellness leave or who are on vacation or sick leave, for at least fifteen (15) continuous calendar days(,) shall be exempt from raffle…’ and the Resolution dated January 23, 2018 (A.M. No. 07-11-02-SC)…on the matter of my approved wellness leave.”

“It is unfortunate that my plan of making use of an already approved wellness leave in relation to an indefinite leave was inaccurately conveyed for which I apologize.”

Ms. Sereno’s statement concluded thus: “I have not resigned and I will not resign. This indefinite leave is not a resignation. I will devote my time to the preparation of my Senate defense and work on the cases in my docket.”

Sought for comment, University of the Philippines political science professor Aries A. Arugay said in part, “This time, the fissures are not between branches but within the SC itself.”

In his news conference on Thursday, Oriental Mindoro Representative Reynaldo V. Umali said the House committee on justice, which he heads, is set to vote March 8 on establishing probable cause in the impeachment complaint filed by lawyer Lorenzo G. Gadon.

The congressman added that his committee is drawing up a list of possible prosecutors in the impeachment trial in the Senate. — Dane Angelo M. Enerio with Mynde Nyl R. dela Cruz

South China Sea energy deal must be with Chinese firm­­ — PHL

ANY POTENTIAL DEALS between Manila and Beijing on energy exploration in the South China Sea should be agreed with a company and not the Chinese government, a senior Philippine official said on Thursday.

China claims most of the South China Sea, a key trade route and home to areas that are believed to hold large quantities of oil and natural gas. Along with China, parts of the South China Sea are subject to competing claims from Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan, Vietnam and the Philippines.

“We might enter into an agreement with a Chinese-owned corporation, not the Chinese state itself,” Herminio Harry L. Roque, Jr., the spokesman for President Rodrigo R. Duterte, told ANC news channel.

The two countries last month agreed to set up a special panel to work out how they can jointly explore offshore oil and gas in areas both sides claim, without needing to address the touchy issue of sovereignty.

Pursuing a joint project would be extremely complex and sensitive, as sharing oil and gas reserves could be seen as endorsing the other countries’ claims.

“We are not entering into a sovereign agreement for exploration. It will be an agreement, if we do, between two corporate entities,” Mr. Roque said.

Mr. Duterte said late Wednesday that China had proposed joint exploration that was “like co-ownership” and better than the two fighting over it.

Mr. Roque on Thursday stressed during a news briefing that the issue was about joint exploration and exploitation as a practical solution for the Philippines to access resources without conflicts over sovereignty.

He said Mr. Duterte was using co-ownership as an analogy to try to simplify the issue.

“The President just wanted to explain that joint exploration and exploitation will be undertaken by both Philippine and Chinese nationals. Now having said that, you know, ownership is not material here because…the areas that may be subjected to joint development is EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone), where we only exercise sovereign rights. So let’s not talk about ownership, because a sovereign right is different from title,” Mr. Roque said.

Yet he also said: “Ngayon, offer nila joint exploration ’di parang co-ownership. Parang dalawa tayong may-ari niyan. Eh ’di mas maganda ’yan kaysa away,” Mr. Duterte said. (Now, China offers to have a joint exploration, and that sounds like ‘co-ownership.’ It’s like both of us (China and the Philippines) own it. That is better than having a dispute with them.)

Mr. Roque likewise expressed confidence that China will give the Philippines its “fair share” once the two countries embark on joint exploitation in the disputed waters.

“I think so, and as to the applicable law, because this will be pursuant to an agreement between two nations. It will be governed by international law,” he said.

The spokesman clarified as well that the country’s joint ventures with China does not require the Philippine government to recognize the latter’s claim of sovereignty over the disputed area.

“Certainly not. Joint exploration is exactly what it is. It’s a practical solution for the Filipinos to utilize natural resources without having to deal with the contentious conflicting claims to territories,” he said.

In a social-media post, former solicitor-general Florin T. Hilbay said Mr. Duterte’s remarks on Wednesday are “a clear example of impeachable offenses involving culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust.”

“The West Philippine Sea is exclusively ours under the Constitution and the decision in Philippines v. China, he’s giving it away,” Mr. Hilbay added.

When asked to comment, Mr. Roque said Mr. Duterte’s latest remarks on the maritime dispute is “not” an act of betrayal of public trust, adding Mr. Hilbay “is free to file an impeachment complaint if he wants.”

The Philippines suspended exploration in the Reed Bank in 2014 to pursue a legal challenge to China’s territorial claims.

Included in a 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague was a clarification of Manila’s sovereign right to access offshore oil and gas fields, including the Reed Bank, within its 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone.

Negotiations are ongoing with a Chinese state-owned company, Mr. Roque said, declining to name the entity.

The Philippines, China’s CNOOC Ltd., and state-owned PetroVietnam jointly surveyed the Reed Bank in 2003 to 2008.

Mr. Roque said, however, there were some doubts that a joint agreement would work because China did not favor joint activities.

The Philippines’ ties with China have warmed under Mr. Duterte, who has put aside territorial disputes in exchange for trade opportunities and pledged financing for infrastructure projects. — Reuters with Arjay L. Balinbin

Senator files bill on Boracay

By Camille A. Aguinaldo

SENATOR Grace Poe-Llamanzares has filed a bill seeking the creation of a national body which would establish standards for effective coastal management and provide incentives to local government units that implement sustainable tourism models.

Filed last Feb. 12, Senate Bill No. 1687 or the proposed Sustainable Coastal Tourism Act would create a Philippine Council for Sustainable Coastal Tourism, tasked to formulate policies and standards for sustainable waste management, protection of coastlines and wildlife as well as development and promotion of tourism models, among others.

In her explanatory note, Ms. Llamanzares highlighted the importance of coastal resources in achieving the tourism sector’s potential, citing the country’s coastlines as spanning some 36,000 kilometers and encompassing around 800 municipalities.

“For many foreigners and tourists, these coastlines are our country…Beach resorts and hotels have sprung up in beaches often visited by tourists. Obviously this has had a huge multiplier effect in terms of tourist arrivals and economic growth. However, the unmanaged growth has caused environmental experts to raise red flags on the negative effect of this model,” the bill stated in part, adding:

“Boracay Island is an instructive example….Hotels, lodging houses, second homes, and restaurants were constructed both along the beach and away from the coast to accommodate rising tourist arrivals.”

“Untreated sewage from these new buildings were — and still are — dumped into the sea due to the lack of a developed wastewater system. High levels of coliform bacteria in the island were noted as early as 1997. Groundwater shortages have been noted. Lack of a developed waste management system has led (to) mounting land pollution.”

In Ms. Llamanzares’ bill, the interagency council would be composed of the secretaries or representatives of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Department of Tourism (DoT), Department of Transportation (DoTr), Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Department of Health (DoH), Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) as well as two experts on sustainable coastal management and three nongovernment organizations (NGOs).

The council would be mandated to prevent and reverse coastal degradation, maintain cleanliness on coastlines, ensure wastewater treatment and supervise implementation of coastal tourism plans for the local government units (LGUs).

LGUs would also be required to formulate their respective Local Sustainable Coastal Tourism Plans to ensure the quality of coastal recreational areas within their jurisdiction.

Erring local officials shall be charged with the penalty of dereliction of duty under Republic Act No. 7160 under the Local Government Code of 1991.

On the other hand, complying LGUs shall be given an incentive through a fund that will be sourced from the 5% annual increase of revenues collected from the excise tax on manufactured oils and other fuels.

Ms. Llamanzares’ bill came amid the ongoing environmental issues hounding the country’s top tourist destination, Boracay Island in Aklan, as resorts face possible closures for not complying with environment laws.

The Senate committee on environment and natural resources, chaired by Senator Cynthia A. Villar, will open its inquiry on Friday on the alleged mismanagement of the island’s sewage treatment plants.

Dolphins swimming near Manila Bay coast guided out to sea

A SCHOOL of about 12 dolphins, identified as melon-headed whales, were “rescued” by authorities on the morning of Feb. 28 after they were seen swimming close to the coast of Manila Bay, in the area near the breakwater of Solaire Hotel. The Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) Calabarzon office, in a facebook post, said the dolphins were first seen swimming around the area by fishermen, who reported the sightings to police maritime officers. A combined team from BFAR and the police maritime group was organized to lead “the dolphins away from the breakwater into the deeper waters of Manila Bay.” BFAR-Calabarzon narrated: “After two and a half hours, the dolphins finally went offshore, past the ships and into the deep and safer waters of Manila Bay.” According to the response team, the dolphins looked active and healthy and showed no signs of sickness or wounds. BFAR-Calabarzon Information Officer Anna Merlinna Conant said the dolphins were probably attracted to the schools of fish present in the area, which is near a spawning ground of herring. Another possible reason is that the dolphins got lost because of the noises coming from the ships near the area.

More e-vehicle charging stations planned after launch of 1st at DENR office

THE Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) will be setting up electric vehicle (EV) quick-charging stations in its Cebu and Davao offices after inaugurating its pioneer station in Quezon City.

DENR Undersecretary for Policy, Planning and International Affairs Jonas R. Leones, in a statement released on Thursday, said the installation of the charging station is “timely,” being in line with DENR Secretary Roy A. Cimatu’s current campaign against air pollution in Metro Manila.

Last week, it was announced that the DENR has joined the Inter-Agency Council on Traffic to address smoke belching in Metro Manila.

Data from DENR’s Environmental Management Bureau showed that 80% of air pollution in the country’s capital comes from motor vehicles, while the remaining 20% are sourced from stationary sources.

“This EV charging station will definitely be of great help in promoting the use of electric as well hybrid cars that are more environment-friendly option than gas-powered vehicles,”   he said.

Mr. Leones said the initial charging station located inside the DENR main office compound is the first step towards forming a network of EV charging stations nationwide, starting in highly-urbanized cities.

Metro Cebu, composed of several cities and neighboring municipalities, is the most urbanized area in the Visayas islands, while Davao is the fastest-growing city in Mindanao.

Mitsubishi Motors Philippine Corp. (MMPC) donated the first electric charging station, which was built by Mserv, a Manila Electric Company subsidiary.

In June last year, MMPC donated 10 EVs to DENR. The company is also set to put up charging stations in the regional offices of the Department of Trade and Industry. — Anna Gabriela A. Mogato

Three oil firms to give discounts to PUVs to mitigate new tax impact

THE ENERGY department signed on Thursday, March 1, a memorandum of agreement with three oil companies to provide fuel discounts to public utility vehicles (PUVs). “These corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs of the oil companies are aimed to mitigate the impact of Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN) Law’s impact on transportation fares,” said Department of Energy (DoE) Secretary Alfonso G. Cusi. The companies are Petron Corp., Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. and Phoenix Petroleum Philippines, Inc. The agreement will expand the oil companies’ existing discount programs for public utility jeepneys, including an increase in the number of participating retail stations, higher discounts, and coverage of other PUVs. The highlights of the agreements between the DoE, Petron, Shell and Phoenix are:

• At least P1.00 per liter discount on liquid fuels to PUVs, which may include jeepneys and taxis;

• Oil companies to provide a designated lane for PUVs; and

• Additional privileges and other promotional offers for PUV drivers.

“With these fuel discount and other CSR programs, we are hopeful that operators of jeepneys and buses will also help lessen the impact of TRAIN to consumers by not increasing the transport fares,” Mr. Cusi said. — Victor V. Saulon

Senator says NAIA expansion is answer to airport congestion

By Camille A. Aguinaldo

EXPANDING the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) would be the main solution to address the congestion at the country’s main gateway, according to Senator Grace Poe-Llamanzares.

“The solution here is not moving the airlines to certain terminals but expanding NAIA,” Ms. Poe told reporters yesterday, March 1, after a Senate hearing on airport congestion.

Ms. Poe, chair of the Senate committee on public services, was responding to the Manila International Airport Authority’s (MIAA) rationalization program to decongest the Manila airport.

The MIAA plan seeks to move international flights to the NAIA Terminals 1 and 3, and domestic flights to Terminals 2 and 4. It also plans to transfer some domestic flights to the Clark International Airport in Pampanga.

At the hearing, MIAA General Manager Eddie V. Monreal said the rationalization plan would utilize the airport terminals based on their construction design.

He noted that Terminal 2, which is currently being used exclusively by Philippine Airlines for both domestic and international flights, was built to accommodate domestic flights only.

Terminal 3, on the other hand, was designed for international flights.

House Speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez has given MIAA and airline companies a six-month deadline to implement the decongestion program and to transfer some domestic flights to Clark.

CebGo President and Chief Executive Officer Alexander G. Lao, however, expressed the airlines’ reservations regarding MIAA’s terminal reassignment plan, pointing out that moving Cebu Pacific’s domestic flights would add up to 16.6 million passengers in Terminal 2, which is more than its nine million passenger capacity.

He also reiterated an earlier position that Cebu Pacific, which operates in Terminal 3, would need at least one year to transfer its operations and flights to other NAIA terminals and the Clark airport.

Ms. Poe said the MIAA’s rationalization program, which she described as a «band-aid fix”, should be carefully studied.

“Let’s give it more time to study it carefully. Definitely, it cannot be done in 45 days. Six months is okay. But to ensure the safety and convenience of passengers, maybe we can extend it a little. Maybe not one year but definitely a little longer,” she said.

“Even if you transfer it to another terminal, it’s still congested,” she added.

The senator was also cautious on the transfer of some domestic flights to the Clark airport, saying that government still needs to address the connectivity issues between the Pampanga airport and Metro Manila.

“We still have to broaden the study and the plans for Clark. So it’s not yet ready because of the number of domestic flights and the connectivity from Clark to Metro Manila,” she said.

HANGAR RENTAL FEES
Meanwhile, Mr. Alvarez also warned MIAA against issuing identification cards (IDs) to employees of companies that have unpaid rentals for the hangars.

Mr. Monreal revealed during Wednesday’s hearing of the House committee on transportation that there are about P100 million in unpaid rental fees from various firms.

“’Wag ninyong bigyan ng (Don’t given them an) ID. Tapos file na ng kaso (Then file a case),” Mr. Alvarez said.

He also urged MIAA officials to seek the help of the Office of the Solicitor General in settling the ownership issue over the Philippine Village Hotel, which is currently being contested by the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) and a certain Panlilio. The land is owned by MIAA. — with a report from Minde Nyl R. dela Cruz

Go Mindanao bus tours to be promoted for BIMP-EAGA tourism

BUS TOURS around Mindanao will be promoted as part of the tourism campaign within the Brunei-Indonesia-Malaysia-Philippines East ASEAN Growth Area (BIMP-EAGA), according to an official of the Mindanao Development Authority (MinDA). The Go Mindanao bus tours, which was launched last year but has yet to start operations, would start with the initial route this year covering Davao, Bukidnon and Cagayan de Oro City. “The Go Tourism Mindanao bus tour will be used in the promotion of tourism destination to BIMP-EAGA,” said MinDA International Relations Division head Jonathan C. Miral during the Habi at Kape forum on Feb. 28. Mr. Miral noted the success of last year’s BIMP-EAGA Budayaw Festival that was held in General Santos City and Sarangani province as a tourism and cultural program within the sub-regional grouping. This year, he said, the BIMP-EAGA Friendship Games is being planned as another major event. At the same time, Mr. Miral said they continue to work on strengthening air and sea transport linkages between the Philippines and the three other EAGA members. “We are pushing for transport linkages as essential to develop trade activities and generate investment inflows in Mindanao,” he said. At present, the Davao-GenSan-Bitung sea route is being served by a 100-TEU (twenty-foot equivalent) vessel, and two new routes are planned for launching within the first half this year. These are between Tawi-Tawi and Sandakan, and Batara, Palawan and Kudat in Sabah. Mindanao and Palawan are the two focus areas in the Philippines for the BIMP-EAGA. “The positive aspect in being able to participate in the BIMP-EAGA is it strengthens partnership with these countries and we are now able to penetrate this market, and our local traders to be able to do business, and export, with these countries,” Mr. Miral said. — Maya M. Padillo

Southern Leyte ex-governor, 5 others face graft charges over P2-M fertilizer deal

THE Office of the Ombudsman has found probable cause for the filing of graft charges against former Southern Leyte governor Rosette Y. Lerias and five members of the Provincial Government Bids and Award Committee (PGBAC) over the purchase of more than P2-million worth of fertilizers in 2006. The PGBAC members are Virginia Cruz, Catalino Olayvar, Teopisto Rojas, Jr., Fernando Moralde and Joseph Duarte. The Ombudsman, in a statement released yesterday, said the case stems from a direct contracting deal with the Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Corp. (PhilPhos), which the respondents claim was covered by a memorandum of agreement (MoA). During the investigation, however, the Office of the Provincial Accountant certified that “there is no record of an existing MoA between the province and PhilPhos.” The Ombudsman investigators also found that “none of the conditions justified the Direct Contracting of fertilizers.”

1...12,59712,59812,599...13,872Page 12,598 of 13,872
© 2024 BusinessWorld Publishing.
All rights reserved.
Read our privacy guidelines
Facebook Instagram Linkedin Twitter Youtube