THE GOVERNMENT on Thursday invited potential investors to participate in the May 21 pre-bid conference for the operations and maintenance (O&M) contract for Clark International Airport.
In a statement, the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) said that, along with the Department of Transportation, it will hold the pre-bid conference for the airport’s P5.61-billion O&M contract.
The concession involves the management, operations and maintenance of the airport including its existing terminal; and the completion, fit-out and management, operations, and maintenance of the proposed new terminal building.
On April 30, the government opened the prequalification phase for the hybrid public-private partnership project. The deal is structured to give the government responsibility for financing the construction of the new terminal in Clark, with the O&M contract to be auctioned to the private sector.
“Procurement of the O&M Concessionaire will follow a competitive bid in accordance with the build-operate-transfer law,” the BCDA said, adding that it intends to partner with “a world-class international airport operator.”
The International Finance Corp., a member of the World Bank Group, serves as BCDA’s technical advisor for the project.
Bid documents are available at the project’s Special Bids and Awards Committee Secretariat. The contract is expected to be awarded on Aug. 30.
The consortium of Megawide Construction Corp. and India’s GMR Infrastructure Ltd. has expressed its intent to join the auction.
The consortium late last year won the bid to build the new Clark terminal.
The government intends to develop and market the airport as a major gateway to Northern and Central Luzon.
The modernization program for the Clark Airport is expected to raise the air transport system’s overall capacity and ease congestion at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport. — Janina C. Lim
THE DEPARTMENT of Transportation (DoTr) and the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP) have officially opened to commercial flights San Vicente Airport (SVA) in northern Palawan Thursday.
In a statement, the DoTr said the P62.7-million airport’s passenger terminal building can accommodate up to 150 passengers at any given time, bigger than the typical capacity of a community airport, which is 50 persons.
Attractions in San Vicente, which is between Puerto Princesa and El Nido on the South China Sea coast, include a 14-kilometer white-sand beach said to be the longest in the Philippines.
“Then-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo announced the construction of a new airport in San Vicente (in 2006) to jump-start tourism development not only in San Vicente, but in other parts of Northern Palawan,” DoTr said in a statement.
In June 2017, the airport was opened to light aircraft. Chartered flights were eventually launched in August that year.
“Over the years, funding was allocated for the construction of the airport, along with enhancement of facilities and concreting of various areas in preparation for SVA’s commercial operations,” DoTr added.
The inauguration ceremony at SVA was led by Transportation Secretary Arthur P. Tugade, CAAP Director General Jim C. Sydiongco, Finance Undersecretary Garry V. de Guzman and Palawan Governor Jose C. Alvarez.
“There is nothing more basic at stake than the future of Palawan to play on a global stage of tourism. If the province can figure out how to invest in its future, all Palaweños will prosper through education, improved quality of life, and jobs. And, the generations to come will see and benefit from all of these beautiful things we’ve done in our lifetime,” Mr. Alvarez was quoted as saying. — Denise A. Valdez
THE Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) has approved applications by energy companies for capital expenditure (capex) projects amounting to around P1.15 billion as of April, the agency said on Thursday, citing its report to the President.
Agnes T. Devanadera, ERC chairperson and chief executive officer, said the past four months had been “truly challenging, but we were able to achieve significant accomplishments with the valuable contributions of the Commissioners.”
She described the accelerated disposition of cases and issues lodged before the agency in the past four months as “meaningful milestones” that had been achieved “with the continuing guidance and support from his (the President’s) office.”
In December, the Office of the Ombudsman ordered the suspension of four ERC commissioners, along with the previous ERC chairman, in connection with the revised implementation date of the rules governing competitive selection process (CSP), which it said favored a few power supply contracts.
In February, the Court of Appeals issued a 60-day temporary restraining order against the suspension. The same court granted in April a petition by the four commissioners for an injunction against the suspension, allowing them to continue working while the case against them is pending.
Aside from the P1,145,598,966.67 for seven capex approvals, which have corresponding permit fees of P8,591,992.25, the ERC said it had also approved 16 power supply agreements, 25 decisions and show cause orders.
The ERC said it has developed an online platform with the assistance of the World Bank to streamline and digitize work processes, including the filing of applications.
“The ERC issued policies that would reduce the retail rate of electricity at the distribution utility level, upgrade the standards for distribution management, and protect consumer welfare,” it said.
It cited the relevant issuances to include the rules on system loss cap for distribution utilities and the performance incentive scheme; a resolution adopting the amendments to the rules for the distribution for net settlement surplus; a resolution approving the Philippine distribution code’s 2017 edition; and rules supplementing the switching and billing process and adopting a disconnection policy for contestable customers.
It said the agency’s organizational structure and system had also been improved with the revamp of the department in charge of the hiring of personnel. — Victor V. Saulon
It’s interesting that the very people who keep screaming “protect the Supreme Court’s independence” can’t stand it when the Court decides to act independently from what they want.
Take the quo warranto proceedings against Supreme Court Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.
Now, perhaps it’s the sign of the times that a disclaimer is necessary: this article will not dwell on the propriety of removing Sereno from office.
Instead, this article discusses whether or not a quo warranto proceeding is a proper mode of removal for a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court.
It is this column’s considered contention that the answer is yes.
Article XI.2 of the Constitution provides: “The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.”
One reason why some insist in interpreting Article XI.2 as an exclusive provision, i.e., that the officials enumerated above can only be removed by impeachment is — with all due respect — Fr. Joaquin Bernas, the noted constitutionalist and member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission. In his 2009 book on constitutional law, he declared that “members of the Supreme Court are removable only by impeachment.” His cited basis was the foregoing Article XI.2.
Yet, it can also be argued that said Art. XI.2 merely mentions one mode of removal, hence “may be removed from office, on impeachment.” Note the presence of “may” (in the 1935 and 1973 constitutions it was “shall”) but the absence of the word “only.” The language thereof doesn’t preclude other modes of removal.
A practical and textual reading of the Constitution, in its entirety, backs up this interpretation.
Art. VIII.11 states that a justice stays in office “during good behavior until they reached the age of 70 years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office.” That provision alone suggests three different and other causes and modes of separation from office.
Then there’s Art. VIII.7.3 (“A member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence”), which can be interpreted as a continuing requirement.
To insist in the impeachment only argument is to make the foregoing Art. VIII provisions inutile.
Even the President can be removed by modes other than impeachment: Art. VII is replete with alternative modes, including the Cabinet getting rid of the president by way of Art. VII.11:
“Whenever a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
If memory serves, certain provisions (or “variations”) of Art. VII.11 have been applied (or at least attempted) with then presidents Joseph Estrada and Gloria Arroyo.
The argument is made that removal of a justice by quo warranto is not in the Constitution. But also not in the Constitution is a justice’s resignation or death. Yet both are commonsensically proper grounds for separation from office.
Quo warranto can be arguably considered because it speaks to the manner of obtaining the office. If the president, to illustrate, does not follow proper process or qualifications in appointing a justice, impeachment cannot be the proper method of removal as the questionable acts were done not by the office holder but by the appointer.
Fr. Ranhilio Aquino, dean of the San Beda Graduate School of Law, in an article for another publication, give another example: “The Constitution requires that the Commission on Elections chair, an impeachable official, be a Member of the Bar. If the appointee faked his membership, or faked his credentials and was nevertheless appointed, is it not obvious that quo warranto would lie to declare that his appointment was wrongful and that therefore he would have no right to occupy office?”
Certain legal luminaries argue that quo warranto cannot be filed after one year from assumption of office. But what the relevant provision, Rule of Court No. 66, Section 11, actually says is that quo warranto is improper “unless the same be commenced within one (1) year after the cause of such ouster”. In the present case, the cause of ouster in this case was the discovery of missing SALNs, which happened less than a year ago.
Finally, note that the Constitution contains no express prohibition on quo warranto vis-à-vis Supreme Court justices.
Cynics have proffered the argument that allowing quo warranto proceedings on Article XI.2 officials would result in only paragons being appointed or elected to high office.
To that, I reply: I certainly hope so.
President Rodrigo Duterte’s statement that China has promised to protect the Philippines from external threats immediately raises two questions.
Who or what these external threats could be is the first. But the second is, Who will protect the Philippines from China?
Mr. Duterte could be thinking of the United States as one of those “external threats” against which he needs protection.
Not only has he accused the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of plotting to remove him from office; he has also repeatedly inveighed against the US. His most recent complaint is its Senate’s demanding a guarantee that any military aid to his regime will not be used against the civilian population.
Mr. Duterte apparently fears regime change via US auspices, for which the killing of an estimated 20,000 of his poorest countrymen in the course of his brutal and dubious “war” on drugs are likely to be the excuse. On the other hand, his complaint about the US’ being unreliable is not due to any US refusal to defend the Philippines from an external threat, but its making the protection of Filipinos from their own government its seeming priority.
The US nevertheless provided Mr. Duterte’s war in Marawi with arms and drones and manned aircraft surveillance.
But while grudgingly acknowledging US help last year, he has been all praises for China for providing his regime the guns it supposedly needed to defeat the Maute group during the war that devastated that city and its people — without, according to him, asking for anything in return.
But China need not have asked for anything in exchange.
Mr. Duterte has more than amply paid for its guns and its promise of protection by allowing it, without so much as a word of protest, to construct military bases on its man-made islands in the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ). He is continuing to pay for both by condoning China’s alarming deployment of anti-ship and surface-to-air missiles on Philippine EEZ reefs. China’s guns and its promise of “protection” come at an exorbitant price.
But is that promise of any value at all?
If Mr. Duterte indeed fears a US-supported coup d’etat, he seems to be presuming that China would risk war with the US to prevent or frustrate it.
Despite its economic growth and the rapid modernization of its armed forces, China’s lone aircraft carrier and military bases in the Philippines’ EEZ, which permit the landing and take-off of fighter jets and bombers, are no match to the US’ 11 nuclear-powered and armed “super carriers” that are currently in service, with two more under construction and another two on order.
If a war does break out between the US and China, as the journalist John Pilger predicts, it will be driven by US concern over China’s militarization of the West Philippine Sea. By being China’s silent partner in that enterprise, the Duterte regime has involved the Philippines in a possible armed confrontation between these two behemoths.
US intervention and its being driven primarily by political and economic interests are long-established facts.
But like the US, capitalist China is as focused, no matter what the cost to other countries, on protecting and enhancing its own interests, against which it regards the US as a major obstacle in the same way that the US looks at China as a growing rival in its drive for “full spectrum dominance” over land, sea, air and space.
Ratified in 1951, the Philippines’ Mutual Defense Treaty with the United States has always been in anticipation of the need to contain any threat to US interests in the Philippines and Asia. Its main targets for containment today are China and Russia, both of which are challenging US economic and political dominance.
But while war could break out between China and its ally Russia on the one hand and the US on the other, China will certainly not risk everything by going to war to protect Mr. Duterte.
The MDT commits the Philippines and the US to each other’s defense if either is attacked by a third country. The third country was at the time the treaty came into effect assumed to be either the then Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), or the then “Red” China, where the Communist Party had come to power in 1949 after three decades of civil war.
The Mutual Defense Treaty has been in force for nearly seven decades. The US has been the only superpower on the planet since 1990. The Cold War has passed into history, and with it the supposed threat from the defunct USSR and “Red” China.
But upon US urging in 1999, the Philippine Senate, during the then Joseph Estrada administration, nevertheless ratified the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), under the terms of which US troops, and military air- and sea-craft, can enter the Philippines in support of the 67-year old MDT.
Among the activities that have since been carried out by US forces with the Philippine military are joint exercises which are held annually. This year’s “Balikatan” (shoulder to shoulder) in fact began on Monday, May 7, despite Mr. Duterte’s declaration that the exercises held in September 2016 would be the last.
Although the announced emphasis of the exercises this year is to strengthen the Philippine capacity to combat terrorism — the hyped-up bogey that has replaced the former USSR and the formerly socialist China in the US pantheon of villainy — the Aquino administration signed in 2014 the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) in response to China’s incursions into the West Philippine Sea, the Philippine claim on which had been submitted to the UN Arbitral Tribunal for resolution.
EDCA allows visiting US troops to access and use Philippine military bases, five of which were announced as available for that purpose in March, 2016. The US also began construction last April of a site in Basa Air Base, Pampanga which will include facilities for storing military materiel for “humanitarian assistance and disaster response.”
The Philippines has no agreements or treaties with China that even come close to the scope and depth of its military entanglements with the US. China’s “promise” to “protect” the Philippines from “external threats” is simply that: a promise, as well as a particularly blatant example of imperialist deception and double-talk. It is China, after all, that’s engaged in the most brazen, most sustained, and most recent assault on Philippine interests and sovereignty.
Mr. Duterte’s assumption that this new player in the imperialist game will risk war to protect the Philippines — by which he means himself — from “external threats” is at the very least naive and at worst delusional. It also comes at too high a price. That price is the country’s surrendering to China control over the vast resources of the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone in exchange for the promise of protection against external threats to the country’s current head of state, whose own policies and actions have exposed him to the possibility of prosecution for crimes against humanity and to the risk of a foreign-sponsored putsch.
Instead of calling on China for “protection,” Mr. Duterte could have upheld the country’s rights to its exclusive economic zone, protested Chinese incursions into it, and called on the Filipino people to support his government in the defense of Philippine sovereignty.
That he instead chose to play the dangerous game of committing the country to one of the protagonists in the contention between two sides of the same imperialist coin has imperiled not only himself but also the country and the people he so loudly and so often claims to love.
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
The medium that has a great impact on the public is television. Radio has a broader reach. Social media has become the most effective way of spreading news but it is a two-edged sword. Fake news is easily disseminated. Trolls attack personalities.
Since TV started in the ’50s, it has grown to the most powerful communications tool. It reaches all socioeconomic classes and ages — for the news, information opinions, issues and entertainment. In some families, activities revolve around shows. To the exclusion of mind enlightening activity such as reading books. In many ways, it is addictive.
What do we see or learn from TV?
On the plus side, we have the business news, traffic advisories, weather reports, Mass, livelihood and educational shows, sports and health, some good teleseryes. Cable TV has a broad menu and offers: business news, in-depth interviews; education, history and culture shows (i.e. Knowledge channel, National Geographic, History channel), foreign news, diverse sports, the Olympics, and movies.
On the minus side, TV shows the hard, raw news clips of horror, crime stories, and disasters.
Watching live local TV can be an excruciating exercise. The viewer is subjected to the inane and exploitative antics, gross humor of popular “comedians.” The discerning viewer would consider a lot of stuff too foolish or vulgar to watch.
If the level of our entertainment industry has deteriorated so low, it only reveals a severe cultural drought in our country. Noontime shows, in general, make the viewer’s brain go numb.
TV is a source of distorted notions — commercialism, materialism, shallowness, gross humor, and gender discrimination. It conditions the mind to become passive, and one loses the spark of creativity.
Kids are like sponges that can absorb both the best ideas from educational material and the worst mental junk. There are too many commercials as well.
Medical surveys in the USA reveal that TV watching and obesity are inextricably linked. Thus there are too many couch potatoes who lack exercise. Metabolism slows down with the lack of physical activity. Kids and adults eat junk food with soda, instead of playing outdoor sports and burning calories.
Concerned citizens and parents, advertising agencies, and the TV station executives should closely monitor the “rated” shows particularly at noontime and prime time. For the sake of the viewing public, the networks and agencies should elevate the standards of the shows to the level of good taste for the broad mass audience.
Ratings are very important for the bottom line of the networks. However, ratings are not everything. The audience needs quality programming with more educational and cultural shows to educate our future citizens and the general public. We deserve it.
On a lighter vein, body language on TV can be amusing especially when you turn down the volume. The movements unwittingly reveal more than what the subject wants to project.
“How can you tell when a politician is lying?” An excited, inexperienced cub reporter asked a veteran newsman during her first coverage of an election.
“No problem, kid,” he grizzled vet said. “Just watch the body language. If he touches his ear or scratches his nose, he’s telling the truth. But if he opens his mouth and moves his lips…”
Many expressions do not match the words, the intent, and the topic.
Of course, there are the skilled actors and newscasters who excel in the medium. Then there are the poker-faced characters who can project illusions — emotions of sincerity, concern, and sadness.
On TV or in real life, there are a few hints and clues to the real message.
But watch the face — especially the eyes. Do they light up and do the pupils dilate? That means he/she is glad to see you. An example of a charismatic person is former president Bill Clinton. He makes eye contact for a few seconds, shakes your hand warmly, and mentions your name. In that moment, you would feel like you are the most important person in the room. That is the secret of his appeal.
Do the eyes shift from side to side? Does he/she or gaze beyond you or look over your shoulder? Is there direct eye contact? He/she could be talking to you but looking for someone more important to greet. This happens frequently in business and social events. The eyes roam for a VIP to arrive. In short, the message is, “You are not important. I’m waiting for someone better.”
Does he/she glance at the watch or constantly check the cell phone, or look up at the ceiling. He/she is impatient, worried or bored. If the eyes shut and the head nods, he/she is sleeping. Don’t believe the old tired line, “But I’m only resting my eyes!”
Do the lips twitch? The person is either allergic to you. Or it is a white lie.
The smile ranges from a genuine close up grin to a shy Mona Lisa mysterious smile, to a smirk, a one-sided sneer or a grimace. Some people can fake a smile — with a toothy grin but cold eyes. Others smile behind a fan. Bashfulness? Or a secret?
Crossed arms mean defensiveness. Crossed legs mean prim and proper form. Hands on the waist (his waist) — aggression. A yawn says it all. Time to quit.
All of these gestures would be magnified on TV — for public consumption and interpretation. Be aware and beware.
Maria Victoria Rufino is an artist, writer and businesswoman. She is president and executive producer of Maverick Productions. mavrufino@gmail.com
By Daniel Moss
IS the US better off trying to shape the world as party to an imperfect international accord, or as an outsider insisting on better terms?
One lesson from the Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998 ought to be: Rejecting ideas from allies merely opens the door to alternatives over which the US will have zero control. This wisdom is newly relevant, not only because President Donald Trump is chipping away at the Iran nuclear deal. Today the US frets about increasing Chinese influence in Asia and beyond — and halfheartedly toys with the idea of maybe, potentially, kinda sorta considering joining the revised Trans-Pacific Partnership.
With some emerging markets once again under pressure from a stronger dollar and rising US interest rates, there are echoes of two decades ago, when panic spread through Asian economies. Global powers responded, with mixed results. It’s worth reflecting on what worked and what didn’t, and what never got a chance to succeed.
The need for an Asian lender, independent of the Bretton Woods institutions of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, was apparent early in the Asian financial crisis.
When the US refused to participate in the rescue package for Thailand in 1997, beyond indirect aid through the IMF, America’s Asian allies were bitterly disappointed. The Clinton administration had just two years earlier backstopped the IMF rescue of Mexico. There was also chafing at strict conditions imposed with the IMF loans in Asia.
Japan began putting together an idea that came to be known as the Asian Monetary Fund, a fund to shore up Asian financial systems that wasn’t reliant on the approval of the US or the IMF.
Once the US got wind of Japan’s idea, President Bill Clinton’s Treasury worked overtime to kill the proposal. Faced with fierce US opposition and silence from China, Japan had to retreat, as chronicled by Stanford’s Phillip Lipscy in a 2003 review of the episode. The shattered Southeast Asian economies and South Korea were supportive, but it wasn’t enough. Japan, dependent on the US for defense and with its own economy weakening, was unable to pursue the AMF in the face of US opposition.
The US would have been better advised to let Japan run with its idea for a while. Given the close political and financial links between the two nations, Washington would have been able to exert influence on the Asian lender even though it wasn’t the Treasury department’s idea. Instead the idea of an Asian Monetary Fund died… only to be resurrected and revised by China in recent years, to suit Beijing’s agenda rather than Washington’s.
The China-led venture, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, is aimed at development of poor economies rather than stability, more of an Asia-focused World Bank than a rival to the IMF. The Obama administration opposed this institution and discouraged allies from supporting it.
The Asian Development Bank, the US-blessed established lender, held its annual meeting last weekend in Manila, and officials were peppered with questions about AIIB. How would the two work together? Would Japan, a strategic client of the US and the dominant player at the ADB, drop its resistance to joining the AIIB? And so on. It was the ADB’s meeting, but the AIIB was everywhere.
The idea that Asia needed its own fund, its own arrangement not dependent on overlords continents away, can be traced to the Asian financial crisis. Japan failed, but the idea lived on.
Something like the Asian Monetary Fund, some Asian pool of money, was bound to come along from somewhere. The need and pull of regionalism was always great, along with resentment at how IMF programs in the financial crisis were used to force political change. The idea just needed a sponsor unbeholden to the US.
The US is unlikely to become a party to AIIB anytime soon. That would require congressional approval.
As I wrote this week, in the era of America First, any new development aid commitment is a tough sell politically. It was tough enough to get the Treasury to sign off on more cash for the World Bank, an institution founded in the US.
That doesn’t mean the US had to oppose the AIIB so trenchantly. Just imagine if, back in the 1990s, the US had taken a constructive role when Japan proposed the Asian Monetary Fund.
Japan has again shown leadership in the past year by putting the pieces of the Trans-Pacific Partnership back together, after the Trump administration pulled out. (The new trade deal, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, is most easily known as TPP-11.)
Will Japanese efforts once again be spurned or unrewarded, to America’s long-term detriment? The omens aren’t great.
THE PESO strengthened against the dollar on Thursday in anticipation of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas’ (BSP) tightening move.
The peso ended the session at P51.80 versus the greenback, 21.5 centavos stronger than the P52.015 finish on Wednesday.
The peso opened the session slightly stronger at P52, which was also its worst showing for the day. Meanwhile, it soared to a high of P51.75-per-dollar intraday.
Dollars traded rose to $807.4 million yesterday from Wednesday’s $733.9 million.
Traders said the market was looking forward to an interest rate hike from BSP, which boosted the peso against the dollar.
The BSP’s policy-setting Monetary Board hiked key rates by 25 basis points amid accelerating inflation and robust economic growth.
The Monetary Board raised policy settings by 25 basis points during their third review for the year. Rates now stand at 3.75% for the overnight lending rate, 3.25% for the overnight reverse repurchase rate, and 2.75% for the overnight deposit rate.
“In deciding to raise the policy interest rate, the Monetary Board noted that latest forecasts have further shifted higher, indicating that inflation pressures could become more broad-based over the policy horizon,” BSP Governor Nestor A. Espenilla, Jr. said at yesterday’s briefing.
The BSP last hiked policy rates in September 2014 when inflation was trending above their 3-5% target that year.
The central bank’s decision fulfilled mounting calls for a rate hike. Last week’s BusinessWorld poll showed that nine of 11 economists have priced in higher rates during this week’s meeting.
The central bank also raised its inflation forecast to 4.6% in 2018 from 3.9% previously and 3.4% in 2019 from 3% before.
“The market was really anticipating for a hike, which brought the peso to end stronger,” a trader said.
The trader also noted that the rate increase, along with “other domestic factors,” will provide push for the peso to strengthen in the short-term.
“There’s a strong chance [that the peso will strengthen in the short-term], although there are other factors to consider as well. But if you look at the other domestic factors, there is a chance for the peso to continue to improve a bit for now.”
However, Ruben Carlo O. Asuncion, chief economist at UnionBank of the Philippines, said the rate hike will not have much effect on the exchange rate.
“Nothing really, it’s more of perception,” Mr. Asuncion said in a text message. “The peso is expected to weaken with the influx of imports due to mainly to the investment-led push by the current government.”
Meanwhile, the trader said market anticipation for a rate hike affected the currency more than the first-quarter economic growth print.
The Philippine economy expanded by 6.8% in the first quarter, faster than the revised 6.5% growth posted in the same period last year, but below the 7-8% target band set by the government.
The first-quarter print also matched the 6.8% median estimate among 10 economists surveyed by BusinessWorld last week.
“The [gross domestic product] figure was just in line with what the market expected so that’s priced in already,” the trader said.
For today, the trader sees the peso moving between P51.70 and P52 against the dollar, while Mr. Asuncion gave a P51.90-P52.30 forecast range. — Karl Angelo N. Vidal
By Arra B. Francia, Reporter
LOCAL EQUITIES firmed up on Thursday, albeit with minimal gains, following the release of first-quarter economic growth figures that stayed within market expectations.
The 30-member Philippine Stock Exchange index (PSEi) climbed 0.20% or 15.73 points to close at 7,571, while the broader all-shares index added 0.20% or 9.42 points to 4,629.91.
“Overall the market just continued at the technical side, supported at the 7,500 level…Definitely GDP (gross domestic product) has already been inputted in the last few days. It was good news, ’cause if it wasn’t, the market would have ended lower,” Summit Securities, Inc. President Harry G. Liu said in a phone interview.
The Philippine Statistics Authority on Thursday reported that GDP growth for the first quarter came in at 6.8%, within market expectations but below the government’s 7-8% target for 2018.
“I guess this made the buying spree a bit weak today,” Timson Securities, Inc. trader Jervin S. de Celis said in a mobile phone message on Thursday.
Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Ernesto M. Pernia blamed higher inflation for hampering the country’s growth. If not for first-quarter inflation which stood at 4.5%, Mr. Pernia said that real GDP growth would have stayed within the government’s target.
On the other hand, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas also decided to hike interest rates by 25 basis points after the market’s close on Thursday. The central bank also raised its inflation forecast to 4.6% in 2018 from 3.9% previously and 3.4% in 2019 from 3% before.
“The rise in inflation forecast for 2018 to 4.6% may also keep sentiments subdued until our index finds a solid catalyst and a strong support to resume its uptrend… This one has been hinted by the central bank a few days ago as well so I think the rate hike is somewhat priced in too in the index,” Mr. de Celis said.
Sectoral indices were split between gainers and losers. Financials advanced 1.36% or 25.33 points to 1,885.85. Services went up 0.57% or 8.7 points to 1,519.42, while property added 0.39% or 14.04 points to 3,607.25.
Meanwhile, holding firms lost 0.49% or 37.51 points to 7,562.66; mining and oil dipped 0.19% or 19.84 points to 10,075.38, while industrials shed 0.13% or 15.45 points to 11,080.63.
Trading volume remained thin at P5.50 billion after some 880.85 million issues switched hands, although higher than Wednesday’s P4.96-billion turnover.
“Volume is very thin, so any good news will definitely set a rally to the market to the resistance which I think is now at 7,800. Whatever news that comes out will just give the market a consolidation period,” Mr. Liu said.
Advancers trumped losers, 104 to 85, while 55 issues remained flat.
Net foreign outflows ballooned to P1.11 billion on Thursday from the P638.33-million net sales seen in the previous session.
By Camille A. Aguinaldo andCharmaine A. Tadalan
SENATOR PAOLO Benigno A. Aquino IV on Thursday filed a bill amending Republic Act No. 10963 or the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN) law which would impose an automatic suspension of excise taxes on fuel when the inflation rate exceeds the target set by the government.
At the House of Representatives, the Makabayan bloc on Thursday said it has filed a bill seeking to repeal certain provisions of the TRAIN law.
Senate Bill No. 1798 states that excise taxes on fuel under TRAIN will automatically be suspended when the average inflation rate surpasses the annual inflation target set by the Development Budget Coordination Committee (DBCC) and the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) over a three-month period.
The bill also indicated that excise taxes on fuel prior to the effectivity of the tax reform law shall remain in force during the period of suspension.
If the inflation rate returns to the government’s target, the Department of Finance (DoF) may lift the suspension and reimpose the excise taxes based on its rate at the time of suspension.
Under the present tax reform law, excise taxes on fuel would be suspended if the average Dubai crude oil price for three months prior to the scheduled increase reaches or exceeds $80 per barrel.
TRAIN imposed an increase in tax on gasoline and diesel to P7 per liter and P2.50 per liter, respectively
In his explanatory note, Mr. Aquino said the bill seeks to protect “underprivileged Filipino families” from rising prices of fuel and their effect on the prices of goods and services.
“While we have little control over global fuel prices, the imposition of excise taxes is in our hands. It is our responsibility to be flexible and responsive when the weight of inflation becomes too heavy for the poor Filipino families to bear,” Mr. Aquino said.
House Bill (HB) 7653, on the other hand, aims to repeal “regressive taxes including the expansion of VAT coverage, additional excise taxes on petroleum products and the excise taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages,” as stated in the bill’s explanatory note.
The bill proposes to repeal Section 47 on the said beverages and Section 82 on appropriations to the government’s infrastructure and social programs.
Also included in the bill are provisions restoring personal tax exemption worth P50,000 for individual taxpayers and an additional exemption of P25,000 for dependents not exceeding four.
Value Added Tax (VAT) exemptions on electricity will also be restored, as well as the 3% tax exemption for cooperatives, self-employed, and professionals with gross receipts of P2 million and below.
“This bill should not be seen as a hindrance by the administration and taken as a means to assuage the suffering of our poor countrymen. We hope that this bill will be fast-tracked by Congress because the economic suffering being endured by our countrymen (caused by) the TRAIN law is very real and should be addressed (at) the soonest time possible,” Bayan Muna Rep. Carlos Isagani T. Zarate said.
By Charmaine A. Tadalan
LAWYER FERDINAND S. Topacio on Thursday filed before the Office of the Ombudsman plunder and malversation complaints against former president Benigno S.C. Aquino III and 21 others over alleged irregularities in the procurement of the Dengvaxia vaccine.
Meanwhile, current Health Secretary Francisco T. Duque III and 36 others were slapped with new complaints over the dengue vaccination program.
Mr. Topacio said he filed the complaint against Mr. Aquino and the others precisely after the Senate investigation, with the aim of having its testimonies submitted as supporting documents.
“This is a conspiracy,” he said. “P3.5 billion was approved in ten days… Can you imagine how efficient they were in trying to plunder the national treasury?”
Mr. Topacio said he filed the complaint as a private individual. He is also the legal counsel of the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC).
For his part, co-complainant and Citizen Crime Watch president Diego L. Magpantay accused the previous administration of procuring the vaccines to use the funds for the 2016 election campaign. “Ito’y minadali. Sa tingin namin hindi talaga nangangailangan ng Dengvaxia, kundi kailangan nila ng pera dahil mag-eeleksyon,” Mr. Magpantay said. (This was rushed. We think there was no need for a Dengvaxia vaccine, but they needed the money for the election.)
Mr. Topacio, for his part, said further: “The entire immunization program of DoH (Department of Health) for that year, 2015, was only P3.2 billion. Buong taon na ‘yun, lahat na ng sakit ‘yun. (that’s for the whole year, covering all kinds of illness).”
He added: “Itong Dengvaxia, isang sakit lamang….Ilang buwan lang ang programa, P3.5 billion.” (Dengvaxia, is just for one disease. The program only covered a few months, P3.5 billion.)
Also charged were Mr. Aquino’s former officials in his Cabinet, former budget secretary Florencio B. Abad, former health secretary Janette L. Garin, and former executive secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr.
Also included among the respondents are: Ma. Carolina Vidal-Taiño, Gerardo V. Bayugo, Lilibeth C. David, Mario C. Villaverde, Lyndon L. Lee Suy, Nestor F. Santiago Jr., Laureano C. Cruz, Dr. Irma L. Asuncion, Maria Joyce U. Ducusin, Mar Wynn C. Bello, Leonita P. Gorgolon, Rio L. Magpantay, Ariel I. Valencia, Dr. Julius A. Lecciones, Nemesio T. Gako, Vicente Y. Belizario, Jr., Kenneth Y. Hartigan-Go, and Yolanda E. Oliveros.
This is the third case on Dengvaxia against Mr. Aquino following complaints of plunder and mass murder by former lawmaker Augusto Syjuco and graft charges by Gabriela Women’s Party.
On the charges against Mr. Duque and company, Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) chief Persida V. Rueda-Acosta said the three complaints were similar to the six previously filed accusing Mr. Duque, Ms. Garin, and officials of Sanofi Pasteur, Inc. and Zuellig Pharma of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code and violation of Republic Act (RA) No. 9745 or the Anti-Torture Act of 2009.
Mr. Duque was included as the DoH incumbent.
Two of the complaints had the additional charge of obstruction of justice against the respondents.
Sought for comment, Mr. Duque said: “The cases filed are malicious, vexatious, libelous, meant to harass me! Again she did not implead former secretary (Paulyn Jean B. Rosell) Ubial who actually signed the documents to continue and even expand the Dengvaxia immunization program initiated by Garin.”
He added: “Acosta also did not implead Aquino and Abad! Bakit kaya? (How come?) I will file my counter affidavits and answer their complaints point by point once I receive copy of complaints.” — withDane Angelo M. Enerio
BW FILE PHOTO
By Dane Angelo M. Enerio
THE Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) in separate statements on Thursday said it has filed with the Department of Justice (DoJ) tax evasion complaints against 10 companies and proprietors.
Computer products trader Arthur Agustin Villalba was charged in connection with his tax liability in 2016 amounting to P596.4 million.
”The instant case (against Mr. Villalba) stemmed from news accounts of alleged smuggling of high profile vehicles…using his Gamma Gray Marketing,” BIR said, adding:
”In the course of investigation, it was discovered that respondent VILLALBA did not file his Income Tax Return for the second (2nd) Quarter of taxable year 2016 and Annual Income Tax Return for taxable 2016. Although he filed his Income Tax Return for the first (1st) Quarter of taxable year 2016, he did not declare any sales.”
”Also, although he filed his Income Tax Return for the third (3rd) Quarter of 2016, he only declared a meager amount of sales in the amount of P965,938.81. Likewise, he did not file his Quarterly VAT Returns for the first (1st) and second (2nd) Quarters of taxable year 2016. Although he filed his Quarterly VAT Returns for the third (3rd) and fourth (4th) Quarters of taxable year 2016, he declared no sales,” BIR also said.
”Further, based on the records of the Bureau of Customs, respondent VILLALBA made importations in 2016 in the total amount of PhP913,347,386.00 which were not disclosed in his Income Tax Returns and VAT Returns for the said period.”
Also charged were Manila-based enterprises A-Mark Trading & General Merchandise (A-Mark) and its owner Isabelita Osorio Mauricio; Joteo Hardware & Construction Supply Inc. (Joteo) and its president Antonio V. Mercado and treasurer Elizabeth E. Mercado; and Microlifters International Corp. (Microlifters) and its president Lourdes J. Gonzales and treasurer Dennis U. Gonzales.
According to a statement by BIR, Ms. Mauricio “is being sued for a total deficiency tax liability for taxable year 2011 amounting to P23,833,169.21, inclusive of increments, broken down into: (IT) — P16,861,480.82; and (VAT) — P6,971,688.39.”
Joteo and its officers were “ sued for a total deficiency tax liability for taxable year 2010 amounting to P7,142,121.12, inclusive of increments, broken down into: (IT) — P3,931,381.30; (VAT) — P3,144,042.30; and Improperly Accumulated Earnings Tax (IAET) — P66,697.52.”
Microfilters and its officers were “sued for a total deficiency tax liability for taxable year 2010 amounting to P8,006,291.74, inclusive of increments, broken down into: (IT) — P4,907,530.60; and (VAT) — P3,098,761.14.”
Charged too were Quezon City-based companies Dopilpatru, Inc. (Dopilpatru) and its president Dolores P. Palispis; New Culion Builders Corporation (New Culion) and its president Adoracion Marietta B. Iting; and Systems Energizer Corporation and its president Felipe S. Diaz, Jr. and treasurer Ma. Vivian M. Diaz.
Dopilpatru “is being sued for a total deficiency tax liability for taxable year 2011 amounting to P13,020,554.52, inclusive of increments, broken down into: (IT) — P6,939,472.90; (VAT) — P4,781,369.62; Expanded Withholding Tax (EWT) — P110,651.12; and (IAET) — P1,189,105.88.”
New Culion “is being sued for a total deficiency tax liability for taxable year 2010 amounting to P14,516,149.69, inclusive of increments, broken down into: (IT) — P7,433,534.95; and (VAT) — P7,082,614.74.”
Systems Energizer “is being sued for a total deficiency tax liability for taxable year 2011 amounting to P28,164,474.32, inclusive of increments, broken down into: (IT) — P6,590,174.03; (VAT) — P21,026,897.08; (EWT) — P27,115.92; (IAET) — P462,007.97; and Documentary Stamp Tax (DST) — P58,279.32.”
Charged as well were Pasig City-based company Huile Corporation (Huile) and its president Arnold P. Duay and treasurer Emilie DC. Duay, Makati City-based company Lifedata Systems, Inc. (Lifedata) and its president Maria Lorena S. Florendo and treasurer James L. Tiu, and Cavite-based company Drillcorp Philippines, Inc. (Drillcorps) and its responsible corporate officers Kenneth Wilkes, Maricris Saniel, Ip Swee Bin, and Edward Bacus.
Huile “is being sued for a total deficiency tax liability for taxable year 2009 amounting to P8,727,118.20, inclusive of increments, broken down into: (IT) — P6,454,436.30; (VAT) — P2,254,133.35; and (EWT) — P18,548.55.”
Lifedata “is being sued for a total deficiency tax liability for taxable year 2012 amounting to P30,573,097.52, inclusive of increments, broken down into: (IT) — P17,902,822.79; (VAT) — P11,530,303.60; (EWT) — P29,092.32; and (WTC) — P1,110,878.81.”
Drillcorp was found to have “consistently filed tax returns through the Electronic Filing and Payment System (eFPS) without paying the corresponding taxes due on various dates from 2013 to 2018” and “is liable for the aggregate amount of P12,812,123.96 for the period 2013-2018, inclusive of surcharges and interest.”
Respondents were sought for comment but some did not have publicly listed contact numbers and others did not respond to calls.
