Facebook Instagram Linkedin Twitter Youtube
Home Blog Page 8236

USDA expects PHL alcohol sales to stay high

THE Philippines will continue to post strong sales of alcoholic beverages even with an increase in excise tax, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) said.

The USDA-Foreign Agricultural Service said in a report by its Global Agricultural Information Network (GAIN) that alcohol sales are expected to continue growing 5%-10% due to strong demand.

Alcoholic beverages were assessed higher excise taxes after the passage of Republic Act 11467, which adjusts the tax code to raise rates on such products.

The ad valorem tax on distilled spirits rose to 22% of net retail price, from 20% last year, with a specific tax of P42 per proof liter. The specific tax on distilled spirits will increase to P47.00 in 2021, P52.00 in 2022, P59.00 in 2023, P66.00 in 2024, and 6% every year thereafter, taking effect on Jan. 1 of each year.

Meanwhile, excise taxes on all types of wine have been set at P50.00 per liter, while the specific tax on other fermented liquor such as beer rose to P35.00 per liter, from P25.42 per liter in 2019.

The specific tax on beer and other fermented liquor is set to rise P2.00 every year until the total hits P43.00 in 2024, taking effect Jan. 1 of every year. The specific tax will increase by 6% from 2025 onwards.

According to the report, the Philippines is the largest market for US high-value food and beverage products in Southeast Asia.

The Philippines is viewed as a consumption “sweet spot” despite gross domestic product per capita levels of only $3,000.

The US is a top-three supplier and has a 9% market share in the Philippine market for alcoholic beverages.

RA 11467 was signed by President Rodrigo R. Duterte on Jan. 22, which increased the excise tax imposed on alcoholic beverages. It took effect at the start of the year. — Revin Mikhael D. Ochave

Quo Vadis, Quo Waranto?

A 17th-century English writ that challenged a person to prove by what authority he holds a public office, a power or a franchise, a quo warranto plea has been used in this country for the second time in two years in an attempt to silence and penalize another Duterte-perceived critic.

Although abolished in many jurisdictions, it is still available in the Philippines. Interpreted by some legal minds as a means of establishing and strengthening one’s right to public office or to a franchise, it has instead been used to question both in the two instances the present regime has used it.

Rather than take the Constitutional route of having her impeached, the regime removed Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno from office in 2018 by filing a quo warranto writ before the Supreme Court. This year it did the same thing against broadcasting network ABS-CBN, once again bypassing the lower House of Congress. That chamber has the Constitutional prerogative of impeaching the Chief Justice and is also tasked with granting and renewing broadcast franchises.

Not that it wasn’t then, and that it isn’t now, almost certain that the regime would succeed in getting enough votes in the House of Representatives to, in the first instance, impeach Chief Justice Sereno, and in the second, to get it to not renew the ABS-CBN franchise.

In 2018, the Duterte “supermajority” had the numbers but could not competently muster the credible bases for the impeachment of Chief Justice Sereno. Although several bills renewing the ABS-CBN franchise have been filed in the House, the majority there has simply refused to take them up before March 30 when the network’s 1995 franchise expires. The regime apparently thought then and still thinks now that like impeachment, an outright rejection of ABS-CBN’s franchise would raise too many questions. It would be too drawn-out a process, in the course of which the pros and cons could be so adequately discussed that it could challenge the regime’s claims and versions of events.

The quo warranto writ against ABS-CBN claims that it has been accepting foreign investments in alleged violation of the Constitution. This was one of the arguments of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) when it canceled the registration of online news site Rappler — another alleged regime critic and allegedly “biased” purveyor of information about it. The petition carefully steers clear of any argument based on how the network has been reporting the news by also claiming that it has been violating the conditions of its franchise and has not informed Congress of changes in its operations.

Try as regime spokespersons might to deny that (1.) the Solicitor General is seeking to shut down ABS-CBN in obedience to President Rodrigo Duterte’s expressed desire to do so, and (2.), that the same official’s act has anything to do with press freedom and free expression, the contexts in which the writ has been filed are indisputable. When the same Solicitor General first used the writ, it was preceded by a series of verbal attacks on Chief Justice Sereno by Mr. Duterte, who, in a number of open threats said he would ignore the then Supreme Court’s decisions related to due process and human rights as they were being violated by the police’s killing of suspected drug addicts and pushers during the regime’s brutal and sham “war” on drugs. It was used to rid the regime of a Chief Justice whose being true to the principle of judicial independence and respect for the fundamental human right to life was an obstacle to its drive to restore authoritarian rule. But it was at the same time also a warning to others, whether government official or private citizen, that it would penalize the critical and those who dare exercise their right to free expression.

Today as in 2018, the regime’s filing of a quo warranto writ against ABS-CBN was preceded by a series of threats by Mr. Duterte that he will prevent the renewal of the network’s franchise on the argument that it defrauded him and is “biased” in its reporting. ABS-CBN has denied the accusation of fraud, which, whether true or not, could have been decided by a competent court. But the claim that it is biased is just another way of saying that Mr. Duterte doesn’t like how the network has been reporting on his government, in response to which, therefore, he wants to punish it for being critical of his policies and not giving him the good press he thinks he deserves. In short, Mr. Duterte wants it “out” for exercising its right to press freedom.

Punishing a media organization for its reporting is a form of censorship known as subsequent punishment. At the same time, shutting the network down would also be a form of censorship known as prior restraint by threatening other media organizations with the same fate should they continue to observe the fundamental journalistic principle of truth-telling and the responsibility of holding government to account.

But Mr. Duterte has gone even farther than denying the independent press and media their constitutionally protected rights. So certain has he been that the ABS-CBN franchise would not be renewed that he even urged in December last year that the present owners sell it.

His confidence then seemed based solely on, again, his control over his accomplices in the House of Representatives. But it has since been obvious that he was also relying on his Solicitor General’s wily use of the quo warranto writ to get his wishes, which include his enabling the transfer of the network’s ownership from the Lopez family to one of his cronies. As his spokesperson has coyly declared, the network can reapply for a franchise before the lower House even if it loses the quo warranto case before the Supreme Court. What he didn’t say was that such a reapplication could flourish only if its ownership changed into a group the regime supports and approves of.

Such a change of ownership would transform a previously independent part of the media into, in the words of Ben Bagdikian, the late American media critic and former Dean of the Graduate School of Journalism of the University of California at Berkeley, just another branch of “a private Ministry of Information.”

The network would remain privately owned, and seemingly independent. But just like several other privately owned networks, tabloids, and broadsheets in which hacks pretending to be journalists pollute the public sphere daily with false, misleading, and malicious information, it would be just another regime voice in the discussion of such public issues as war and peace, national and social development, human rights, politics and governance, impunity and the rule of law, international relations, public health issues, and disaster response.

These issues involve the lives and fortunes of millions and, in the case of the need to monitor government responses to disasters and sustainable peace and development, many are issues that involve life or death. Without the reliable information that only a free press can provide, they cannot be adequately understood and addressed by the citizenry in this rumored democracy.

This is where the use of quo warranto as a weapon against regime critics and the independent press has brought us. But into what other realm of darkness will the regime’s continuing to wield it against critics and the independent press force this country and its people? Into that diseased provincial despotism that is slowly but surely poisoning these isles of woe? Or into an even worse contagion of brutality, madness, corruption, incompetence, want and fear?

 

Luis V. Teodoro is on Facebook and Twitter (@luisteodoro).

www.luisteodoro.com

Impact

“I don’t want to achieve immortality through my work… I want to achieve it by not dying.”

— Woody Allen, producer, actor, filmmaker

Every successful individual — in the fields of politics, education business, arts and sciences — desires recognition. The scientist and inventor work intensely for the breakthrough “Eureka” formula to cure a disease, the “aha” gadget or tool that would make a lasting impact on the world. The sportsman wants to break the world records in racing speed, tennis, golf, tennis, and basketball and make it to the legendary Hall of Fame. The actor, director, producer, singer want global recognition by winning the Oscar at the Academy Awards in film, the Tony Award in theater, the Grammy in music, or the Emmy in television. The musician composes a song or symphony; the choreographer would create a dance, and a poet would write a sonnet; an artist would paint a mural or make a sculpture. All these creations express feelings and ideas with energy that would uplift the spirit.

There are other versions of legacy. Politicians use public infrastructure — airports, bridges, highways dams, town halls, cities, and monuments. Their faces and names are emblazoned on billboards, streamers and posters at the site. Although public funds are used, they claim credit for the project. It is a not so subtle hint, a reminder to potential voters. Name and face recall.

Endowment grants from private corporations are given to universities, schools for the buildings. The generous gesture is a way of honoring the illustrious alumni and benefactors. In some case, ego gratification is a motive of some wealthy businessmen who are not necessarily alumni. The name remains for posterity as stipulated in the grant.

Sometimes, the funds given are not sufficient so the school is obliged to continue the project and fulfill the contract with naming rights.

Sponsors for specific disciplines and research donate professorial chairs. This is a practical way to help the institution and support the dedicated professors who need adequate compensation. Other sponsors donate funds to support the sports programs and the teams that compete in the leagues.

Skyscrapers, elite clubs, and churches have plaques engraved with the name of founders and charter members.

Just about every street, road, highway, and lane is named after a hero, a famous individual, or a pseudo-celebrity who has the right connections and has donated substantial amount for a cause. (People can get lost because of too many new street names and incorrect signage. Unless one is adept at using Waze.)

There are special exceptions that deserve credit such as those distinguished aristocratic families who dominated the Renaissance period during the 15th century.

The famed Florentine Medici family of bankers and aristocrats were among the most distinguished art patrons and benefactors. Many centuries later Florence is still a center of arts. Every piazza, church and open space is filed with precious artworks, public monuments and private sculptures, frescoes and paintings. The Uffizi Gallery holds a vast treasure of paintings by the masters — Leonardo, Michelangelo, and Raffaello — of the era. Tourists and cultural buffs can study and appreciate the wonders of the Duomo Cathedral, David by Michelangelo, and the bronze Basptistry doors of Bernini.

Every Italian city state — Venice, Milan, and the center of the world, Rome — has artworks so grand and impressive. The Vatican has the Sistine Chapel with Michelangelo’s breathtaking murals — Genesis and The Last Judgment. The Basilica di San Pietro is magnificent with the colonnade of Bernini

The emperors, kings, and rulers such as the Sforza and Borgia families (including the Pope), and the Church financed all the best monuments and sculptures — La Pieta and Moses are immortal.

It was the collective vision of the patrons to reserve the artistic spirit of the era for the future generations. Behind every grand gesture was the egotistic desire to perpetuate themselves as great cultural and historical icons.

Ask any artist in the various disciplines what would be his/her legacy. The reply would be his/her painting, sculpture, composition, book, play, poem, public art, museum, garden, park, and building.

The spirit of creative genius is in every work. It could be a brief, ephemeral, one-day art installation of floating flag banners and leaves in Central Park, a timeless Japanese bridge and Zen garden or temple in Kyoto, a quaint wisteria trellis in the forest, a lifelike bronze sculpture on a park bench in Marbella, or a colorful mobile fountain, or the Eiffel Tower in Paris, the bamboo organ in Las Piñas, or a film documentary with an amazing art installation (at the Art Fair).

An artwork is a child of the spirit. The artist is mortal but art is immortal.

February is National Arts Month. It is a joyful celebration with vibrant cultural events — the annual Art Fair, the group shows and exhibitions, solo retrospectives, auctions, concerts, ballet and theater performances, book launches — for all artists and art lovers.

 

Maria Victoria Rufino is an artist, writer and businesswoman. She is president and executive producer of Maverick Productions.

mavrufino@gmail.com

Of treaties, the VFA, and presidential power

The Visiting Forces Agreement is one issue apparently that won’t go away quietly. News is that the Senate may file a Supreme Court case questioning President Duterte’s unilateral termination of it. In any event, certain interesting issues have cropped up, which readers may want clarification.

First is the distinction between treaties and executive agreements: What’s the difference? Under international law, none. They’re both international agreements equally binding on the parties. Under domestic law, practically also none; any differences, if ever, are on the procedural aspect.

For Philippine law, the primary provision is Article VII.21 of the Constitution, requiring treaties be “concurred in” by at least 2/3 of the Senate. Executive agreements do not require this concurrence.

Our Supreme Court in USAFFE Veterans held that executive agreements generally fall into two classes: 1.) agreements made purely as executive acts affecting external relations with or without legislative authorization, called presidential agreements, and 2.) agreements entered into in pursuance of acts of congress, designated as congressional executive agreements.

Who makes the call if an agreement is a treaty or executive agreement? Under EO 459/s.1997, the Department of Foreign Affairs.

The US approach is a bit similar to ours. For them, executive agreements come in three forms: 1.) Agreements concluded on the basis of the president’s constitutional authority (executive agreements); 2.) Agreements concluded pursuant to Congressional legislation (congressional-executive agreements); and 3.) Agreements concluded pursuant to a duly ratified previous treaty.

Executive agreements under the US are governed by the 2005 amendment to the Case-Zablocki Act (1 U.S.C. §112b), as implemented by 22 CFR Part 181. The decision on whether to call it an executive agreement is with the Office of Legal Adviser of the US State Department, under a procedure outlined in Circular 175 Procedure (Volume 11 of the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual, 11 FAM 720).

Some sectors have made a big deal about the US treating the VFA an executive agreement rather than a treaty. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter as international law considers both equally binding and this was confirmed by the Supreme Court.

Frankly, the Philippines itself should have treated the VFA as an executive agreement. The reason why it was classified a treaty (thus needing Senate concurrence) is a bit of a puzzle. Possibly a cautious reading of our Constitution’s Article XVIII.25, which says that “foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate.”

That somewhat opaque provision was unfortunately interpreted by the Supreme Court in Bayan vs. Zamora as making no distinction between foreign troops stationed transiently or for longer periods.

But the problem with the Supreme Court’s Bayan ruling is disregarding that the VFA proceeded from the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty; one sees that in the latter’s preambulatory statement inferring acknowledgment of the latter’s Article II. In fairness, though, the Supreme Court was acting on then President Estrada’s volunteering the VFA a treaty in need of Senate concurrence.

Finally, is the president authorized to unilaterally withdraw the country from any international agreement? Some senators think not. Senator Drilon proposed a resolution declaring that “termination of, or withdrawal from, treaties and international agreements concurred in by the Senate shall be valid and effective only upon concurrence by the Senate.”

Now, whether or not President Duterte exercised such power prudently in the case of the VFA is another matter. Nevertheless, this column has consistently argued that the president is empowered, generally but perhaps with certain arguable exceptions, to unilaterally withdraw the country from any international agreement. The reasons, summarily, are:

• the president traditionally takes the lead in treaty matters;

• Philippine (and US) historical practice has devolved into presidential authority to unilaterally terminate treaties;

• the president has the authority to open or close diplomatic relationships with other countries;

• the president has the discretion not to submit a treaty for Senate concurrence;

• concomitantly, the “greater includes lesser” doctrine: the discretion not to include us in a treaty comes with the discretion to undo it;

• analogically: the president’s nominated top officials need confirmation by Congress and yet the president can afterward terminate such appointment without Congress’ leave;

• structure of the Constitution;

• The president’s executive power means enforcing (executing) provisions of laws, including treaties. However, unlike laws, treaties have built-in termination clauses. Thus, the president’s power to “execute” a treaty also logically includes the power to apply, if need be, that termination clause;

• relatedly, most treaties require merely notice from the government; and,

• the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 18, states that a treaty starts to apply rights upon signing, in our case by the Executive Branch.

This issue is pending before the Supreme Court. Interestingly, however, recent Senate treaty concurrences come with the condition that future terminations need Senate approval as well. Such conditionality is a distinct and separate constitutional question, which inevitably will demand resolution.

 

Jemy Gatdula is a Senior Fellow of the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations and a Philippine Judicial Academy law lecturer for constitutional philosophy and jurisprudence.

https://www.facebook.com/jigatdula/

Twitter @jemygatdula

The economic hit from coronavirus is all in your mind

HINDSIGHT can be an asset during an epidemic: Lessons from the past help steer public decision-making and avoid repeating mistakes. Unfortunately, rearview mirrors appear to be in short supply these days.

For all the stimulus measures that officials are rolling out to combat the economic impact of the coronavirus, lower interest rates and bigger budgets are unlikely to make people feel immune. And it’s consumer behavior that will influence the magnitude of any hit. The gap between how people perceive the risk of becoming ill and the likelihood of actually contracting the virus can be vast, driven wider by feelings from past experiences, vivid images, or simply fright.

A study by the Asian Development Bank, published in October, pins a lot of the economic damage from severe acute respiratory syndrome on psychology. At the height of the 2003 outbreak, 23% of respondents to a public-opinion survey in Hong Kong thought they were either very likely or somewhat likely to be infected. The number of cases wound up at 1,755, according to the World Health Organization, which would have been roughly 0.026% of the population. In Taipei, 74% rated the likelihood of death following contraction of SARS at four or five on a five-point scale compared with an actual mortality rate of 11%.

“Individuals, under prevailing circumstances of poor information and stress, can arrive at biased subjective assessments concerning the risk of disease contraction,” Ilan Noy and Sharlan Shields of Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand wrote in the ADB paper. “This leads to panic and suboptimal decisions, which in turn result in an excessively high cost.”

You may consider the risks of proceeding with an overseas vacation just aren’t worth it, for example. Wise to skip dinner and that show, even if you think the chances of catching something are small. Just ask Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd., which warned Monday its first half of the year will be “extremely challenging financially.” Singapore Airlines Ltd. also said it faces “significant challenges.”

The setback from SARS was acute: China’s gross domestic product growth slipped to 9.1% from 11.1% in the second quarter of 2003 while Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore all took a hit. The impact went beyond metrics such as lost working hours, mortality rates, treatment costs, consumer spending and aborted travel; there’s the unquantifiable toll of generally avoiding social contact, too.

Individual psychology also trickles up to affect companies. Investment and supply-chain decisions are governed by projections about demand during an epidemic and the recovery from it. Apple Inc. said Tuesday that revenue will disappoint because component manufacturers are seeking to contain the virus, in addition to the effect on sales of store closures and reticent shoppers. A day earlier, Nintendo Co. said it will struggle to get Switch consoles to U.S. and European markets because of a production bottleneck stemming from the virus.

China’s economy is more consequential than in 2003. Its citizens travel more widely and its companies are more intertwined in global capitalism. That restaurant visit forgone in Hong Kong may cost jobs in Hamburg. To limit the impact on growth, then, leaders need to think carefully about how to minimize our natural impulse to be afraid.

In Singapore, the government is urging citizens to carry on with life, taking extra precautions to stay healthy, and avoid panic-buying. Officials have asked for public trust and, in return, have pledged to keep people informed. That’s a far cry from Hong Kong, where businesses are on lockdown, schools are closed, basic amenities have been stripped from the shelves, and public transportation is empty. We’re a long way from knowing what the economic and psychological costs of the current epidemic will be, not to mention the number of lives lost. But if Singapore strikes the right tone, it may well become the model for crisis management.

 

BLOOMBERG OPINION

From Japan to Britain, the world loves hosting US troops

By Hal Brands

THE US has a global military footprint that is second to none, and one of the most visible aspects of that footprint is a worldwide network of bases. From Japan to the UK, America’s overseas installations allow it to shape events thousands of miles from US shores.

Critics have long argued that basing troops abroad also creates anti-American sentiment, making Washington’s worldwide presence toxic and self-defeating. A recent study turns this critique on its head, showing that foreigners’ contact with American service members leads to more positive views of the US and its military. Overseas bases, it turns out, are not only symbols of American hard power, but tools of American soft power as well.

Overseas bases play a central role in America’s ambitious grand strategy. The US can bring decisive military power to bear in hotspots such as the South China Sea, Eastern Europe and the Persian Gulf because it has sprawling bases and logistical facilities that are either in or on the way to those regions. Air bases in Qatar and Turkey, for instance, were critical to the Pentagon’s war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Moreover, bases enable the “forward presence” — the stationing of personnel, combat aircraft, naval vessels and other military assets close to the front lines of geopolitical conflicts — that reassures allies and keeps adversaries in check.

The exact number of US overseas bases is disputed. Some observers put the total around 800, although many of these are small, relatively insignificant facilities. But the major bases are a prominent feature of America’s global presence in countries such as Japan, South Korea, Bahrain, Germany, and the UK.

For some critics, these bases are a symbol of a quasi-imperial foreign policy that is overly militarized and, to local populations, overbearing. It’s true that the US military presence has often been controversial. Status-of-forces agreements that give US personnel a degree of immunity from local prosecution are rarely popular. Rapes, murders, and assaults perpetrated by US service members or contractors have set off anti-American protests in South Korea, Japan, and other countries. In one notorious incident, three service members kidnapped and raped a 12-year-old Okinawan girl in 1995, creating a crisis in US-Japan relations. The journalist Chalmers Johnson had such events in mind when he argued two decades ago that America’s overseas military presence was a powerful driver of anti-American “blowback” around the world and called for a more restrained foreign policy.

Yet focusing on these episodes tells only part of the story, as revealed by a new study by four scholars in the American Political Science Review. Based on surveys of 14,000 respondents across 14 countries, the study is systematic rather than impressionistic. The core finding will strike many as counterintuitive: Basing has a net positive impact on foreign perceptions of the US In fact, of the 14 countries included in the survey, in only one — Turkey — was there an overall negative sentiment toward American troops.

The reason for this is relatively simple: Familiarity breeds understanding and acceptance, not contempt. Personal contact between foreign nationals and US personnel humanizes America’s overseas presence and erodes negative stereotypes about the American military — such as the idea, as one interviewee from Peru put it, that US service members are all “muscular men with tattoos waving around the flag and yelling about liberty and democracy.” More tangibly, US bases boost area economies by employing local residents and infusing cash into local businesses. The result is that contact with US personnel tends to foster not just more positive attitudes toward the American military, but toward the American people as a whole.

This finding is significant for two reasons pertaining to the broader debate about the future of US foreign policy. First, it cautions us against sweeping critiques of America’s global presence backed only by anecdotal evidence. Yes, there are plenty of instances in which America’s military footprint has become a flashpoint in relations with a host country. But we tend to pay attention to these instances precisely because they are rare exceptions.

Second, the issue of basing bears on a question animating the 2020 presidential campaign: Should the US be less assertive in its dealings with the world? Matt Duss, the top foreign policy adviser to Democratic front-runner Bernie Sanders, has argued that the US military presence in South Korea, Japan, and Germany — the core of America’s posture in Europe and the Indo-Pacific — is unsustainable. But that’s just not the case economically, because these (and other) countries make payments to offset the cost of stationing American troops on their soil, and because we know that US forward presence and military alliances translate into greater trade and other economic benefits for Washington. And it’s just not the case politically, either, because the evidence suggests that overseas basing helps America’s standing abroad.

The debate about whether to pull back significantly from the world will — and should — continue. But the idea that America’s overseas presence creates more enemies than friends is one idea that ought to be retired.

 

BLOOMBERG OPINION

Filipino Casimero enhances resumé with big Inoue fight

By Michael Angelo S. Murillo
Senior Reporter

FILIPINO world boxing champion John Riel “Quadro Alas” Casimero is no stranger to high-stakes fights but undoubtedly his unification bantamweight title clash with Japanese star “Monster” Naoya Inoue enhances his resumé further.

This was the take of local boxing analyst Nissi Icasiano when asked by BusinessWorld for his thoughts on the much-eyed clash of three-division champions Casimero and Inoue in April.

Set to happen at the Mandalay Bay Events Center in Las Vegas on April 25, the fight will see the two fighters stake the titles they currently hold — Mr. Casimero the WBO world bantamweight championship and Mr. Inoue the WBA and IBF titles.

When the clash was made official earlier this month, 31-year-old Mr. Casimero expressed his excitement over finally landing a showdown with Mr. Inoue, 27, and vowed to come out triumphant.

It was a reaction not at all surprising from Mr. Casimero’s end, said analyst Mr. Icasiano.

“Becoming a world champion is just one of the few things on a boxer’s bucket list. For Casimero, he did it in three divisions. The only thing that is missing on his curriculum vitae is sharing the ring with a high-profile name in the sport that could define his career as a boxer, raise his stock and marketability as an athlete, and create a new fan base. This is what awaits John Riel Casimero on April 25. Not only that, he will get the opportunity to unify and take home three titles. He has everything to gain,” said Mr. Icasiano in underscoring the significance of the Inoue fight for Mr. Casimero.

But while the potential windfall for the Filipino is huge in his next fight, Mr. Icasiano said Mr. Casimero (29-4) has his work cut out against a fighter with the quality of Mr. Inoue (19-0).

“Inoue is a complete boxer. He packs power in both hands. The Japanese knockout artist is the clear favorite on paper. To me, he is a Swiss knife with a pair of eight-ounce gloves,” said the analyst.

Mr. Icasiano, however, was quick to say that Mr. Casimero has what it takes to beat the Monster and would be better served taking cue from what another Filipino champion, Nonito Donaire, Jr., did against Mr. Inoue in their last fight in November 2019.

“Casimero is not a flashy fighter or a technically sound boxer, but his awkwardness and unconventional approach could play a factor or could at the very least pose problems on the part of Inoue,” he said.

“Casimero has the power to get the job done. But he has to hit the target and avoid wasting his punches. As seen in the fight between Inoue and Donaire, Casimero should know by now that with the right precision and timing, he can hurt the Japanese powerhouse… Donaire showed the world that even if Inoue may seem to be invincible, he can get hurt,” Mr. Icasiano added.

In his last fight, despite winning by unanimous decision, Mr. Inoue was pushed to the limit by Mr. Donaire and broke the former’s long string of dominant knockout victories.

Mr. Icasiano said that if Mr. Casimero is to come out with a victory, he must set the tempo of the fight, and go for every opening he has while also limiting any slippage in his attack.

“If Casimero wants to walk away with the upset, he has to force Inoue to play within his pace. In that manner, he can pick his shots, land the cleaner blows, and keep himself checked from committing recklessness that will entice the Japanese. The longer the fight goes, the better for Casimero,” Mr. Icasiano said.

The Casimero-Inoue title fight is Promoted by Top Rank, in association with Ohashi Promotions, MP Promotions, TGB Promotions and SGG Sports Promotions.

ONE Championship ‘King of Jungle’ event in Singapore now a closed-door affair

By Michael Angelo S. Murillo
Senior Reporter

LIKE most sporting events in Asia hit by concerns over the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), ONE Championship’s “King of the Jungle” event in Singapore on Feb. 28 was made to adjust, with the affair now a closed-door affair.

Set to happen at the Singapore Indoor Stadium, King of the Jungle will now be closed off to fans and media upon the advisory of the city-state’s Ministry of Health to prevent the further spread of the respiratory disease that is now affecting different parts of the world.

Singapore raised its Disease Outbreak Response System Condition level from yellow to orange after having confirmed 75 cases of infection to date and is discouraging people to attend large gatherings like sporting events.

“In light of the coronavirus situation in Singapore, I have made the decision to convert ONE: King of the Jungle on Feb. 28 into a closed event for broadcast only. The Singapore Indoor Stadium will not be open to the general public, but the event will proceed behind closed doors as scheduled live on all TV and digital platforms across 150+ countries around the world,” ONE chairman and founder Chatri Sityodtong said in a Facebook post earlier this week.

Mr. Sityodtong, however, assured that despite such a setup, fans can still expect quality combat sports action at King of the Jungle even as he advised that those who purchased tickets for the event would be given a refund.

Bannering the event is the atomweight kickboxing world championship fight between two-sport ONE world champion Stamp Fairtex of Thailand and Janet “J.T.” Todd of the United States.

Co-main event is the strawweight muay thai world championship clash of Thai champion Sam-A Gaiyanghadao against Australian Rocky Ogden.

Honorio “The Rock” Banario of Team Lakay will also be part of the event as he goes up against Shannon Wiratchai of Thailand in a featherweight battle.

Other Filipinos in action at King of the Jungle are women atomweight Denice Zamboanga and bantamweight Mark Fairtex Abelardo.

Gilas Pilipinas assembles for Indonesia at Asia Cup qualifiers first window

THE Gilas Pilipinas team seeing action in the first window of the FIBA Asia Cup qualifiers is now set after the final roster was named.

Following team practice on Wednesday night at the Meralco Gym, the Gilas coaching staff, led by interim coach Mark Dickel, announced the names of players who will be at their disposal as they play Indonesia in a Group A match on Feb. 23 in Jakarta.

Describing it as a mix of young veterans and up-and-comers, Gilas hopes the team gets the Philippines’ campaign to a good start and put it in a position to go deeper in the tournament.

Making up the FIBA Asia Cup team for the country are Philippine Basketball Association campaigners Kiefer Ravena (NLEX), captain; Troy Rosario and Roger Pogoy (TNT), Poy Erram (NLEX), Justin Chua (Phoenix), Abu Tratter (Alaska) and CJ Perez (Columbian).

They are joined by Gilas draftees Isaac Go (Columbian) and Matt Nieto (NLEX) and collegiate standouts Thirdy Ravena and Dwight Ramos (Ateneo) and Juan Gomez de Liano (University of the Philippines).

Reserve players are Javee Mocon of Rain or Shine, Gilas cadet Rey Suerte (Blackwater) and Jaydee Tungcab (UP).

First off for the team is a showdown with the Indonesians on Sunday at the latter’s home turf of Britama Arena, Sportmall Kelapa Gading in Jakarta.

“It was not an easy team to pick. We had numerous combinations that we could have gone with. And in a few positions we felt we got covered with some young players. They had an advantage looking to the future,” said Mr. Dickel as he described the selection process that they had.

“The PBA players that we got gave us a good base to work with while the young players can complement them. We are confident that this team gives us a good chance in our first game,” he added.

On the part of the Samahang Basketbol ng Pilipinas (SBP), the country’s basketball federation, it said it supports the team seeing action against Indonesia while also wishing the nationals the best as they battle for flag and country.

“Our unit is one that features balance between youth and experience as we have seven PBA players [with international experience]. Joining them is a group of hungry young players who are raring to represent the country and introduce themselves to the international basketball scene,” said the SBP in a statement.

Apart from Indonesia, the Philippines will go up against Thailand and South Korea.

The team’s goal is to emerge in the top two of the grouping to advance outright to the FIBA Asia Cup happening next year. — Michael Angelo S. Murillo

Houston Astros cheating scandal may be good news for Major League Baseball, experts say

LOS ANGELES — The Houston Astros’ cheating scandal may be hanging over Major League Baseball (MLB) like a dark cloud but the sign-stealing scheme could actually boost interest in the game rather than turn fans away, experts said on Wednesday.

With the 2020 regular season just around the corner, the sense of optimism that usually surrounds Spring Training has been missing as disgruntled players add their voices to the daily chorus of Astros condemnation.

Houston, who begin their regular season at home on March 26, may be the team baseball fans love to hate this year and that could mean higher TV ratings and ticket sales as supporters of other clubs seek a way to voice their displeasure with the Astros when they come to town.

Both Houston and the MLB have been a large focus of the daily conversation in the sporting world for the last month with no end in sight.

Neal Pilson, the former president of CBS Sports who now runs his own sports television consulting company, feels there will be a curiosity factor both from fans and media that will result in more people tuning into games.

“There are going to be certain unintended consequences from all of this winter activity,” Pilson told Reuters.

“It will increase the amount of attention, focus and promotion for baseball and that isn’t a headache, that’s good news for sponsors and team owners and television networks and everybody associated with the game.”

MLB in January doled out one of the most severe punishments in baseball history against the Astros over the team’s illegal use of electronic equipment to steal pitch signs during their World Series-winning 2017 season.

The Astros received a maximum $5-million fine, forfeited first and second-round draft picks in 2020 and 2021, and their manager and general manager were each suspended one year before swiftly being fired by Astros owner Jim Crane.

PROMISED IMMUNITY
But no Astros players were punished as MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred promised them immunity as part of the investigation and that is not sitting well with opposing players, including some who feel the team should vacate their 2017 World Series title.

Even NBA great LeBron James weighed in on the scandal, calling on Manfred to listen to the players and “fix this for the sake of sports”.

The scandal also prompted an Astros season-ticket holder to sue the team, alleging the scandal diminished the value of his seats, while a former Toronto pitcher filed a lawsuit against the club claiming the sign stealing system ended his MLB career.

Manfred himself apologized this week for referring to the World Series trophy as “a piece of metal” during an interview with ESPN in which he was trying to make “a rhetorical point” about the possibility of stripping the Astros of their title.

Andrew Zimbalist, an economics professor at Smith College, said the sign-stealing plot, even if it is scandalous, can be a boost for baseball as it means more people are paying attention to the upcoming season.

But Zimbalist, who felt the Astros’ scheme was almost at the level of baseball’s 1990s steroids era but not quite at the level of the 1919 Chicago “Black Sox” match-fixing scandal, said there is also a negative force at play.

“When the integrity of the game is challenged it can have a very severe impact, particularly in a period of time when all of the professional sports leagues are struggling to keep their traditional fanbases in an era where the number of entertainment options has multiplied manifold times,” said Zimbalist.

“I am not predicting doom for baseball but I think there is a real challenge now and it’s hard to say exactly how it’s going to play out.” — Reuters

Major League Baseball Players Association says it didn’t obstruct Astros probe

LOS ANGELES — The Major League Baseball (MLB)Players Association disputed commissioner Rob Manfred on Tuesday evening, saying it did not resist the league’s efforts during the MLB’s investigation of the Houston Astros’ 2017 electronic sign-stealing.

“Any suggestion that the Association failed to cooperate with the Commissioner’s investigation, obstructed the investigation, or otherwise took positions which led to a stalemate in the investigation is completely untrue,” the union said in a statement.

In a press conference earlier Tuesday, Manfred shed light on his interaction with the union during the investigation — which began in November — specifically how players were granted immunity in exchange for speaking.

According to Manfred, when the league asked to interview players, the MLBPA asked if there was “disciplinary intention,” and after such a possibility was not ruled out, indicated that any punishment “would be a problem.” Manfred said MLB suggested an initial list of players who could be granted immunity, but the union demanded “blanket immunity.”

“Because we were at a bit of a stalemate — we knew we needed player witnesses — we agreed to that immunity agreement,” Manfred said. “And let me be clear: We would not have gotten where we got in terms of understanding the facts … if we hadn’t reached that agreement.

“So I’m not being critical of anyone. But the fact of the matter is the union wanted an immunity agreement to protect their members. That’s how we got here.”

The union’s statement clashed with Manfred’s recollection.

“MLB said from the outset that it was not its intention to discipline players,” the statement said.

It added that such a message was “not surprising” because “applicable rules did not allow for player discipline.” According to the MLBPA, players could not be punished because they weren’t notified of the rules, and because precedent with electronic sign-stealing placed the onus on team personnel, not the players, to comply with rules.

Manfred and the league have drawn heavy criticism for not punishing players involved in the cheating scandal and for not vacating the Astros’ 2017 World Series title.

While players have not been punished, several in leadership positions were. Houston manager A.J. Hinch and general manager Jeff Luhnow were each suspended one year by MLB and soon after fired by the Astros. The team was fined $5 million and stripped of first- and second-round draft picks over the next two seasons.

The Boston Red Sox parted ways with manager Alex Cora (Houston’s former bench coach), and the New York Mets moved on from recently hired manager Carlos Beltran (a Houston player in 2017).

Also in its statement Tuesday, the union stated it has discussed potential rule changes surrounding sign-stealing and technology with the league over the last two weeks, adding that “no issue is off the table, including player discipline.” — Reuters

Manchester City sees off West Ham United as fans take aim at UEFA

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND — Manchester City manager Pep Guardiola has urged his players to focus on their jobs but while they delivered on that in Wednesday’s 2-0 Premier League win over West Ham United, the team’s supporters vented their anger over the club’s two-year ban from European football.

Goals from Rodri and Kevin De Bruyne secured a comfortable win at the Etihad against an unadventurous West Ham side who are deep in relegation trouble.

City fans chanted their opposition to UEFA and sang “We will see you in court” while some held up banners, such as “UEFA Mafia” and “UEFA Cartel.”

Those slogans reflect the widely-held view among the City fans that the Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations that their club are accused of breaching are aimed at blocking challengers to Europe’s established elite.

Guardiola says he has told his players that while the club will handle the appeal against the UEFA ban, the players need to do their part on the field.

“We have a deal, we are professional on the pitch, what happened off the pitch we cannot say, we cannot do much,” Guardiola told reporters.

“We talked about what we were going to do until the end of the season what we have to do, especially for the people who love this club, there are many, and that is going to happen. So play our games as best as possible,” he said.

City took the lead on the half hour from a well-worked corner routine, Rodri rising to meet Kevin De Bruyne delivery with a superbly angled header at the near post.

De Bruyne doubled the lead in the 62nd minute, squeezing in a right-foot shot at Lukasz Fabianski’s near post after a swift exchange with Bernardo Silva.

“The way we played shows we are there. We score two goals we conceded little,” Guardiola said.

“We create clear chances and I am satisfied how aggressive we were the transitions and how we defend in the box. The team is incredible,” the Spaniard added. — Reuters

1...8,2358,2368,237...12,623Page 8,236 of 12,623
© 2024 BusinessWorld Publishing.
All rights reserved.
Read our privacy guidelines
Facebook Instagram Linkedin Twitter Youtube