Facebook Instagram Linkedin Twitter Youtube
Home Blog Page 8628

SEC issues warning against unlicensed investment firm

THE Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has warned the public against Technovanti Neteligence, Inc., saying the company has no license to solicit investments or other securities.

“In response to reports and inquiries received by the commission regarding the activities of Technovanti Neteligence, Inc. (Technovanti), the Commission wishes to inform the public that Technovanti is not authorized to solicit, accept or take investments/placements from the public nor to issue investment contracts and other forms of securities defined under Section 3 of the Securities Regulation Code (SRC),” SEC said in an advisory published on its website on Nov. 25.

SEC said the company has no secondary license from the commission “to solicit investments or other securities from the public for whatever purpose.”

It said Technovanti has claimed that it is “100% legitimate” and has “complied with all the legalities.”

“But it must be noted that acquiring a primary registration with the commission is not a license or authority to solicit investment from the public because it only grants juridical personality to the corporation but does not authorize it to issue, sell, or offer securities for sale nor to undertake investment activities without acquiring a prior registration and/or secondary license approved by the Commission,” SEC explained.

SEC said that individuals who act as salesmen, brokers, dealers or agents of Technovanti “in selling or convincing people to invest” in its investment scheme, including solicitations and recruitment through the internet may also be held criminally liable and penalized with a maximum fine of P5 million or penalty of 21 years of imprisonment or both.

“Also, those who invite or recruit others to join or invest in such venture or offer investment contracts or securities to the public may incur criminally liability, or otherwise be sanctioned or penalized accordingly,” it added.

SEC said the identities of individuals involved will be forwarded to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) “so that the appropriate penalties and/or taxes be correspondingly assessed.” — Arjay L. Balinbin

Journalists’ safety: The long road ahead

THE Asian Institute of Journalism and Communication (AIJC) launched on Nov. 22, on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the Nov. 23, 2009 Ampatuan Massacre, a document unique to the Philippines.

Drafted by the AIJC in consultation with the Center for Community Journalism and Development (CCJD), the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR), the National Union of Journalists (NUJP), and the Philippine Press Institute (PPI), the Philippine Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists (PPASJ) is the first of its kind on the planet to comprehensively address the need to protect journalists from the many perils they face from those who would silence them.

Being murdered is the worst of those perils. Since 1986, when press freedom and free expression were restored in the aftermath of the overthrow of the Marcos dictatorship, 165 journalists and media workers have been killed for their work in the Philippines. Only in 14 cases have the killers been convicted, and only in the Ampatuan Massacre trial, which ended last August, were the alleged masterminds tried. None of the brains behind the dozens of other killings have been brought to court.

The killings have continued in the six administrations after that of Marcos. The record high was 80 during the nine years of the problematic and scandal-ridden rule of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo when the Ampatuan Massacre happened. Fifty-eight men and women, of whom 32 were journalists and media workers, were killed. Mrs. Arroyo’s political allies were on trial for nine years as the accused masterminds. Fourteen other journalists so far have been murdered for doing their jobs during the first three years of the Duterte regime.

The reasons why the killings are continuing have been identified as, among others, the failure of the justice system to penalize most if not all of those responsible, particularly those who planned them and hired the killers. The way of doing things that has become the norm rather than the exception — the culture of impunity in which wrongdoers routinely escape punishment — is sustained by a number of other factors. Among them is the weakness of the justice system that is specially evident in the warlord-ruled communities of these isles of fear.

The primary indicator of that weakness is the collusion between local government officials, the police, and the military. It is amply demonstrated in the involvement of all three in the Ampatuan Massacre, in which over 70 police and military personnel and the paramilitaries they commanded, which constituted the private army of the political clan that masterminded the massacre, were the killers. But there is also a shortage of prosecutors, and the reluctance of many of them in the same warlord-dominated communities to prosecute the assassins and the masterminds behind them.

Almost every administration after that of Marcos has also either ignored the problem, dismissed the murders as isolated cases and of no consequence, or even contributed to it by victim-blaming the slain journalists themselves.

During his six years in office, former President Benigno Aquino III, for example, periodically criticized the press for its supposed inaccuracies and bias, and for focusing on his love life, while dismissing the killing of journalists as a minor issue.

Everyone is free to criticize the press, but those in power must be responsible enough to make sure that what they say do not cause harm. Absent any condemnation of the killings, and because coming from the highest official of the government, Aquino’s tirades against the press could conceivably have contributed to encouraging those who wanted to silence journalists, to harass, threaten or even have them killed. Thirty journalists, or an average of five each year, were in fact killed for their work during Aquino’s six-year watch.

The Duterte regime, however, has gone far beyond mere criticism of the press. Not only by insulting, cursing, and demonizing them and accusing those killed of corruption is it trying to silence journalists, but also by using libel and other laws against the online news site Rappler and others to intimidate the rest of the independent and critical press. Its hirelings are also taking down the websites of journalists’ groups and alternative media news sites, red-baiting individual journalists as well as entire organizations like the NUJP and even the College Editors Guild of the Philippines (CEGP), and systematically disparaging and calling for the suppression of media organizations it regards as critical of its policies and actions.

The regime campaign against the free press can only add to the perils journalists face on a daily basis. But mostly unremarked in the past is an equally critical factor why the killings are continuing. It is the indifference and lack of outrage in the communities and among most Filipinos when journalists are threatened, harassed, or even murdered.

Part of the reason is mass ignorance of the role of a free press in the democratization of Philippine society and governance. But it is also due to the failings of the press and journalists themselves, primarily in terms of their limited capacity to provide the information and analysis the country’s citizens need to make sense of what’s happening around them. As a result, many regard the press and journalists as of no value to their lives. And yet, citizen appreciation of the crucial role of a free press in this rumored democracy would be an important factor in defending press freedom and the journalists who are exercising that freedom for the sake of public information and enlightenment.

In recognition of the multidimensional factors behind the continuing killing of journalists, the PPASJ seeks to, among others, 1.) engage government and media owners in the effort to ensure the safety of journalists; 2.) encourage public media literacy and the institutionalization of safety courses in the schools; 3.) improve the working conditions of journalists; and 4.) encourage media practitioners’ rigorous adherence to the ethical and professional standards of journalism practice.

Although the PPASJ has identified what need to be done, the key issue is still how best the organizations mandated to do so can implement the plan. Illustrative of the problem was an issue that was lengthily discussed during the Nov. 22 launch: the need for the media organizations, media advocacy groups, the government, academia, and the public at large to agree on the need to defend press freedom despite their differences.

The differences among the various actors needed in making sure that the plan will succeed is not solely an obvious problem between media organizations and journalists’ and media advocacy groups on the one hand, and government on the other, given the latter’s hostility towards the independent press. It is also an issue in the journalism community itself.

Because of the conflicting political and economic interests behind media organizations, and many practitioners’ serving as the attack dogs and public relations advocates of government, the community is itself far from united. For example, an old boys’ “press club” that calls itself “national” periodically attacks independent journalists in support of the anti-press freedom agenda of its regime patrons. Addressing the disunity and corruption problem in the journalism community alone will take tremendous effort as well as a lot of time.

Although indeed unique to the Philippines, the PPASJ is only the first step in ensuring the safety of journalists for the sake of developing the informed public democratic discourse needs. There’s still a long road ahead of us, and much, much more that need to be done.

 

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

www.luisteodoro.com

A warning to struggling entrepreneurs

The contribution of countless Small- and Medium-Enterprises (SMEs) to the overall economic resilience of the Philippines goes beyond mere numbers. More than 66% of our GDP for example, has come from our SMEs starting 2011 based on the Department of Trade and Industry data. Of the more than 820,000 registered companies, 99.6% are SMEs. And at least 61% of our entire work force is employed in these enterprises. We cannot even account for the additional impact of micro-businesses, many of which are unregistered.

More than these figures, they help build dreams, innovations, uplift the competitive spirit of everyone who aspires to succeed away from the safe arena of working for other employers where their monthly salaries are assured. And lastly, their eventual commercial victory would catapult the entire nation to real progress where the majority will benefit at least materially.

However, in my years of dealing, mentoring, and helping many aspiring entrepreneurs, I have seen a common error when it comes to their need to access additional funds to support their operations, sometimes expansions, and courageous ventures. Their financial distress (though sometimes mere greed) blinds many of them to the traps and abuses of would-be financiers or agents of big funders. Surprisingly, some of these smart businessmen suddenly became prone to obviously too-good-to-be-true funding scams and criminal schemes.

For example, one of my new friends — he had accumulated his wealth through long arduous years of selling medical equipment — recently confided to me that he paid P5 million to a financial broker representing an investment company based in Singapore. He proudly claimed initially that very soon he would be awarded at least P80 million to support his market expansion. But when I asked when that would happen, he pathetically admitted that the funds were already delayed for more than three months from the supposed due date. That raised my concern.

What were the cues that, had my new friend been more objective, could have alerted him so he could have avoided losing his hard-earned capital? First, the office of the financial broker (who had presented himself as a successful financial advisor) is a virtual office in Taguig. I have no biases against firms using virtual offices — I also used one before while registering a joint venture company with a foreign partner. But for a supposedly big-time fund advisor acting as an agent of a huge Singaporean investment house for several years, having a virtual office as a corporate address must be a red flag. To help my friend, I asked a colleague in Singapore, a legitimate and respected investment banker, to check the track record and capability of the Singaporean company which was to have provided the P80 million to my trusting friend. I wasn’t surprised, but to the dismay of my friend, that company is also in a virtual office. And that company ironically claimed that it is only a branch office of the Taguig-based financial advisor!

To continue with the story, the P5 million was supposed to be used for a performance bond that would guarantee the risk being undertaken by the fund provider of P80 million. But when asked, my friend told me that no due diligence was conducted by any insurance or bonding company on him or his company prior to his payment of the P5 million premium fee. Well, no insurance or bonding company would cover the risk of any applicant for a bond without undertaking a serious investigation and evaluation of the latter’s capability to perform. By the way, no credible business plan was required by this financial broker. Another glaring clue that was ignored.

My advice to our entrepreneurs: You are a rare breed, our country needs you, but be extremely careful in dealing with fund and investment advisors, brokers, or managers. Think and evaluate ten times before you release your funds. Remember, you are the one in need of additional capital for expansion or even survival — it doesn’t make any sense that you’re the one giving away money. Nominal fees are normal when you engage the services of a lawyer or an accountant. But beyond a few thousand pesos, better be smarter. Payment of a success fee, based on actual delivery of funds, is obviously a safer deal. In Europe, US, and Hong Kong, private equity firms can charge an acceptance fee in the vicinity of $2,000 to $5,000 — but this is only after they have initially made a professional appraisal of your application that includes your business plan. Besides, these are real financial firms.

Be wary, too, of financial fairy tales being peddled to you similar to many much publicized ponzi schemes. Many have not learned from the horror stories of victims of the famed Aman Futures Securities that duped billions of pesos from unsuspecting Filipinos in 2012. It’s founder, Manuel Amalilio, pointed to Okachi Malaysia as the final destination of his stash. We have seen too, but again not learned from, the earlier “double your money” scam of the Legacy Group of Companies in 2008 where at least P30 billion was amassed from the local victims. Many more scams have happened, such as the Performance Investment Products (PIPC) in 2007 wherein the Singaporean owner made off with at least P11 billion from his on-line forex trading that hoodwinked his Filipino victims. Royal Manchester Five made away with P2 billion in booty, FRANCSWISS, etc. The list is long. But then again, memory of many people is short. They failed to recall.

Remember these two pieces of most basic advice. As our oldies always tell us, when it sounds too good to be true, it’s probably is not true. So think twice. And, get the guidance of respected experts on such funding needs. The best is by referral from someone who has a good, successful, and verifiable story. I put emphasis on the word “verifiable.”

 

Ariel F. Nepomuceno is a management consultant on strategy and investment.

arielnepo.BW@gmail.com

Sexual violence and victim-centered approach: A transitional justice perspective

Let us understand something: sexual violence is not about sex alone — it is about power that one forces over another and uses sexual advances to achieve their goal. As argued by Susan Brownmiller, author of Against our Will (1975), “a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.” Thus, rape is about power through the use of sexual violence.

WAR TIME RAPE
Rape and pillage have historically been seen as a part of warfare. Women’s bodies served as a battlefield of men’s victory, on the one hand, and their enemy’s failure to protect their women and property, on the other. The inevitability of “spoils of war,” as commonly known — all done by perpetrators with impunity, all suffered in silence by the victims.

Horrific sexual and gender-based violence, atrocities, crimes — where various forms of sexual violence, including the use of rape as a weapon of war — have punctuated armed conflict as in the case of the Rape of Nanking; abduction, sexual slavery, and enforced prostitution of so called “comfort women” across East and Southeast Asia during World War II; rape and forced impregnation of women during the 1971 Bangladeshi independence war; sexual slavery and forced impregnation during the Yugoslav war; genocidal rape in Rwanda, and, most recently, claims of the same happening with the Rohingya. The list goes on.

But it is not only during war that women are atrociously violated. Even during protest movements, women are sexually assaulted, as in the case of the Arab Spring and, quite recently, committed against women protesters in South Sudan.

At the macro level, standards and commitments to prevent rape and sexual violence in war time and armed conflict situations have been institutionalised. This has been the discursive and practical agenda of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions on Women, Peace and Security (UNSCR WPS) — namely, 1325 and 1820 and the subsequent resolutions. But even more so is the guidance provided by the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women General Recommendation (CEDAW GR) 30. Furthermore, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) mandates that war-time rape and sexual violence are war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes constitutive of genocide.

GENDER AND TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE: SEXUAL AND MASS ATROCITY CRIMES AGAINST WOMEN
From the lens of transitional justice, a “victim-centered” approach simply means putting the interests, concerns, and aspirations of the victims as the focus of redress and interventions, be they reflective of the right to truth, right to justice, right to reparation, and guarantee of non-recurrence.

For example, in the case of massive conflict-related rape and sexual violence, it is a must that gender- and culture-sensitive strategies are applied in data collection and in dealing with women victims. The whole point of the matter is not to re-victimize these women who already are experiencing a “fate worse than death.” Strategies to draw out narratives as not meant for sensationalization (which is highly likely when sexual violence is politicized in partisan politics or in ideological advocacies) — rather, they are intended to address the violence and victimization of women. The imperative of a gender is applied to transitional justice.

As such, several truth commission reports — namely, South Africa, Peru, Timor Leste, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Morocco, Guatemala, and Haiti — have included sexual and gender-based violence in specific chapters. The Transitional Justice and Reconciliation Commission (TJRC) on the Bangsamoro in the Philippines also included a particular section on sexual violence against women. Narratives of violence against women with both gender and cultural underpinnings surfaced in the form of attacks by the Ilagas; state forces were also said to have committed sexual and gender-based crimes. In fact, the TJRC Consultation Process “suggest that violence against women was used systematically against the Moro and indigenous population” before, during, and after Martial Law. And it is in this regard that the TJRC called for investigations on sexual- and gender-based atrocities during this period.

FURTHER SILENCING THE SILENCED
And yet, there have been moves at historical revisionism — self-proclaimed robust research of decades hence in order to provide a self-written truth against community narratives. Why in the world would rape and sexual violence victims invent their stories? In communities where these issues are considered taboo, one would rarely find someone who will openly talk about violence committed against them. And when they do decide to speak, it is usually in secret spaces, far from stigmatization and ostracization. But here comes men who speak about hoaxes with no due regard for damaged and pained lives; who have no way of knowing what it means to be sexually violated, the kind of self-blame that one goes through in a lifetime, the trauma that further silences the silenced. These men are political operatives who know nothing about victimization.

As we move into the 18-Day Campaign on Violence against Women this year, there is a need to go beyond administrative political rhetoric and clearly map out actual actions and redress for women who have been victims of conflict-related sexual and gender-based violence. In the case of the Bangsamoro, the TJRC recommended that an investigation into emblematic cases such as that of sexual- and gender-based crimes must be undertaken as imperative action.

If we are not able to do this for past atrocities, then how can we meaningfully advance a gender-just society? Maybe we are just all talk after all…

 

Ma. Lourdes Veneracion-Rallonza, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor at the Department of Political Science, Ateneo de Manila University. She currently serves as the Program Director of the Gender and Atrocity Prevention, Asia Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect.

mrallonza@ateneo.edu

Remembering Manila Bay

By Joan Orendain

MAMA LOVED SOFTBALL. Sunday afternoons, whenever Papa was busy writing speeches for President Manuel Roxas (he was the Philippines’ first Press Secretary in 1946), Mama would drive us to Dewey Boulevard by the bay after lunch on Sunday. There, we would play catch (three girls and two boys — the third boy had not yet been born), eat popcorn, and watch the blazing sunset.

Then we would drive over to the Luneta to listen to Antonio Buenaventura’s Philippine Constabulary band play Sousa Marches and Philippine folk songs. Walter Loving had formed the band in 1902 and taken it to the 1904 St. Louis World Fair where during a blackout, he simply tied his handkerchief to his baton, and the band played on. (Jesus Cabarrus, briefly conscripted at the Manila Hotel, in 1945, witnessed Loving bayoneted to death by a Japanese soldier on the staircase leading to the second floor.)

As teenagers, my sister Jane and I together with Carmita Francisco, Josine Loinaz, Bibsy Carballo, Marica Aragon, and maybe two or three other young ladies, water-skied at Connie and Hank Pascal’s beach in Parañaque next to Jale Beach (Jale was notorious for naughty evening happenings.) The girls all had to wear two-piece bathing suits — a one-piece would have gotten waterlogged as we skied, causing one to sink.

On a sunny day when we were towing Bibsy on waterskis, we must have run over an armada of jellyfish which leapt up to Bibsy’s face to sting her. She screamed bloody murder. We loaded her into Rom Vildzius’s station wagon and rode to the Manila Doctor’s Hospital where we (five girls still in their two-piece bathing suits) were gawked at standing in the lobby in our almost naked state, with Bibsy crying loud enough to wake the dead.

All the beaches are now the Coastal Road.

Also sometime in the early 1960s, six of us — the brothers Dado and Pete Roa, Ben Cervantes (before he added the “h” to Ben), Lino Brocka, Jane, and I would listen to jazz at Pete Alfonso’s Café Indonesia on Dewey Boulevard. We ordered two beers, three to a beer, and nursed them for the next two or three hours. We then clambered up to the open upper deck of a Matorco bus flying the Boulevard route from end to end. By the time we approached Baclaran church, we all had to get off to pee. But where to pee? Dado said, “Simple. Let’s jump into Manila Bay.” The boys jumped in in their skivvies, and Jane and I jumped in in our dresses.

Dripping wet, we trudged onward to Ben’s yellow house in the Chinese Compound on Harrison St. (it is now Henry’s Hotel and in the same compound are the Avellana Art Gallery and Joji Lloren’s boutique where he designs high-fashion gowns). Ben and Lino scrambled all the eggs they could find in the cupboard, which at 3 a.m. tasted awfully good.

In 1990, long after Dewey had been renamed Roxas Boulevard, the engineering giant F.F. Cruz planned to reclaim Manila Bay. Toni Serrano Parsons, Bambi Harper, Doris Ho and other women demonstrated by the bay day after day.

Odette Alcantara, always brimming with far-out ideas, brought a rocking chair, wrapped a shawl around her shoulders, and sat on the rocking chair feigning old age infirmity.

Gabriel Besa was a toddler then; his mother Olga would push him in his stroller bearing the sign “Manila Bay is mine. Leave it alone.”

On one of those days, four green trucks parked along the Baywalk had begun to work on the reclamation project. The drivers had taken off on their lunch break, giving creative boys from a nearby Catholic high school the chance to purloin the keys and pitch them into the bay.

In the end, Cruz gave up in 1992.

However, sometime in the same year, Ping De Jesus, public works secretary, threatened to practically take away the Baywalk to widen the boulevard. He listened to our objection, and gamely walked with Doris and this writer to take away here a meter, there a half meter, all jotted down in a notebook. The Secretary was as good as his word — the Baywalk stayed.

But again, in 2010 or 2011, another proponent threatened to start a reclamation project in Manila Bay. Anti-reclamation folk organized a huge demonstration at Plaza Rajah Sulayman and along the bay. Paolo Alcazaren commissioned a drone to photograph the demonstration from the air, and the famous artist Betsy Westendorp carried her easel to the Baywalk and began painting.

Betsy had long been enamored of Manila Bay. She had moved into the Excelsior Building on Roxas Boulevard in 1982, painting fiery sunsets, houses on stilts over the water just across from her penthouse apartment, and now and again would take boat rides with her daughters, Isabel, Sylvia, and Carmen among the barong-barongs on stilts. She had long been widowed by then. She had been married to Antonio Brias, a vice-president at San Miguel, when they lived in their Forbes Park home. There, she had an atelier where she painted portraits, before moving on to other subjects.

A famous Spanish writer, Elena Flores, called her paintings of blazing sunsets, dark skies, and ominous clouds, “Atmosferografias.” In these, she said, “The firmament turns into a scenario of insurmountable beauty. Here, creation has given to art its most gorgeous miracle of aesthetic spontaneity.”

No one could have felt more robbed of Manila Bay then when it was reclaimed. Doña Conchita Ortol, when taken for a paseo on the boulevard in 2014 at age 101, was happy to recognize the San Juan De Dios Hospital on her right-hand side. A cry of alarm rose from her when she turned to her left.

“What happened to the bay? What are all those ugly buildings doing there?”

House of Representative Deputy Speaker Rosemarie Arenas recently filed House Bill 3169: “An Act Declaring Manila Bay a Heritage Asset Free From Any and All Forms of Further Reclamation and Providing Penalties Therefor.”

At an Oceana symposium sponsored by the Bloomberg Foundation and the Manila Yacht Club held on Sept. 17, Ms. Arenas was the guest speaker. She, together with a UP scientist, Mike Lu of the Wild Bird Club of the Philippines, a representative of the Philippine Ports Authority, gave presentations. Also present were the attorney Armi Corpus representing Senator Cynthia Villar who is striving to protect the Las Piñas-Parañaque Critical Habitat and Ecotourism Area, and members of Save Our Shores (SOS); Emily Abrera, ex-officio Chairperson of the Cultural Center of the Philippines; representing the Sofitel Hotel, Esteban Peña-Sy; and this writer as SOS Convenor among other presenters, offered reasons why the Manila Bay should not be reclaimed.

Dr. Kelvin Rodolfo, Professor Emeritus of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois, had previously presented the strongest scientific reasons why “reclaiming Manila Bay is a very bad idea”

• Subsidence: from so much groundwater being extracted by the city’s dwellers, Manila has sunk two to four inches in recent years and threatens to sink at an even more rapid rate as the population increases.

• Storm surges: Manileños certainly remember Super Typhoon Pedring, a Category 4 typhoon that inundated the US Embassy, flooding it for a week. Floodwater also totally ruined the ground floor of the Sofitel Hotel, which cost over a hundred million pesos in repairs which took over a year to do. Other establishments along the boulevard were similarly affected.

• Liquefaction: during the minute that an earthquake lasts, it violently shakes the sediments and the water that soaks it, mixing them together into a slurry, causing structures above it to sink into it or to tilt or even fall over. Graphic examples are the collapse of the six-storey Ruby Tower in Binondo on Aug. 2, 1968, causing 268 deaths; and the 1990 earthquake in Nueva Ecija that liquefied the ground beneath of Dagupan City 100 kilometers away, causing great damage to many buildings.

Apart from these hazards brought about by reclamation, there will be urban problems to contend with: water shortages, power shortages, and traffic even more horrendous than at present. The Philippine Ports Authority also faces the problem of where to relocate the South Harbor (ocean-going vessels), and the North Harbor (inter-island ships).

Reclamation will also destroy the habitats of dozens of varieties of fish, shrimp, shellfish, and crabs that spawn in and abound in Manila Bay.

Thousands of hectares of nearshore Manila Bay from all along Bulacan through the city of Manila, Parañaque, Las Piñas, Bacoor, and Sangley Point in Cavite are all proposed for reclamation.

Shame on money-grubbing corporations, and shame on the Philippine Reclamation Authority. Wasn’t PRA, once PEA-Amari, notorious for being “The mother of all scams”?

Peso climbs versus dollar

THE PESO strengthened on Thursday amid risk-on sentiment following the passage of a US legislation supportive of Hong Kong’s autonomy.

The local unit closed at P50.705 versus the greenback on Thursday, climbing by 9.5 centavos from the P50.80-a-dollar finish on Wednesday, based on data from the Bankers Association of the Philippines.

The peso opened at P50.82 against the dollar. Its weakest point for the day was at P50.87, while its strongest was at P50.70.

Dollars traded grew to $1.045 billion from the $858.25 million posted on Wednesday.

A trader said there was risk-on sentiment in the market which boosted the peso.

“The peso closed stronger on the back of positive risk sentiment despite the news of US supporting Hong Kong. The market took it as a good news in the absence of a strong statement from the side of China,” the trader said in a phone call.

The said development is a proof of the “resilience” of the peso, according to UnionBank of the Philippines, Inc. Chief Economist Ruben Carlo O. Asuncion. He added that the absence of fresh leads due to the US holiday supported the peso.

“There was not much going on due to the Thanksgiving break, but the news that [US President Donald J.] Trump has signed the Hong Kong bill increasing the US’ scrutiny of the city-state’s trade status with the biggest economy in the world. This was essentially negative to the market, but the peso was resilient..,” Mr. Asuncion said in a text message.

Reuters reported that the legislation backing Hong Kong by requiring the State department to certify at least annually that the special administrative region keeps “enough” autonomy to justify favorable trading terms with the US which aided it in maintaining its position as a financial hub.

Aside from this, the law, which was unanimously approved in the US Senate and by all except one in the House of Representatives, also provides sanctions for human rights violations in Hong Kong which has been in the midst of political unrest for the past four months.

“I signed these bills out of respect for President Xi [Jinping], China, and the people of Hong Kong. They are being enacted in the hope that Leaders and Representatives of China and Hong Kong will be able to amicably settle their differences leading to a long term peace and prosperity for all,” Mr. Trump said in a statement, according to the Reuters report.

Before this, Mr. Trump had been vague on whether he would sign or veto the law, while trying to strike a trade deal with China.

For today, the trader gave forecast range of P50.65-50.85, while Mr. Asuncion sees the peso playing around the P50.70-50.90 band. — L.W.T. Noble with Reuters

Stocks drop as Trump signs bills supporting HK

By Vincent Mariel P. Galang, Reporter

PHILIPPINE SHARES failed to sustain its recovery on Thursday, reflecting the downward performance of Asian markets after the US decided to sign a bill supporting protesters in Hong Kong, which could negatively impact developments in the US-China trade war.

The 30-member Philippine Stock Exchange index (PSEi) fell 68.23 points or 0.87% to close at 7,768.66, while the broader all shares index was down 34.05 points or 0.72% to reach 4,650.95.

“With regional markets downed, local market corrected today as China replied that they will retaliate on US passage of the Hong Kong Bill that tend to side on the protesters. This may negatively affect the on-going passage of the phase 1 agreement in the US-China trade negotiations,” Diversified Securities, Inc. Equity Trader Aniceto K. Pangan said in a text message on Thursday.

On Thursday, US President Donald Trump signed two bills, the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019, which reaffirms and amends the US-Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992. These show support to pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong. This is seen to complicate the US-China negotiations.

Asian markets were sluggish following the recent action of the US government.

AAA Southeast Equities, Inc. Research Head Christopher John Mangun noted the same sentiment and said, “China’s foreign Ministry promptly warned of unspecified “firm counter measures” in response and summoned the US ambassador in Beijing. On the other hand, Western equities markets hit fresh highs ahead of the Thanksgiving holiday.”

Mr. Mangun also noted that “things are back to normal after two days of excitement” as foreign investors continue to leave the market.

“Most investors are still on the sidelines as the general sentiment remains dull. Investors may gain confidence if the main index can end the week above the 7,750-support level,” he said in an e-mail.

Back home, most sectoral counters ended in the red, except from the services sub-sector, which gained 4.31 points or 0.28% to end at 1,545.24.

Losers were led by mining and oil, which fell 242.73 points or 2.87% to end at 8,209.38. Holding firms fell 88.91 points or 1.14% to 7,662.06; financials fell 19.63 points or 1.03% to 1,871.54; industrials went down 98.60 points or 0.99% to 9,785.40; and property fell 22.95 points or 0.56% to 4,026.21.

Some 668.52 million issues valued at P5.44 billion switched hands on Thursday, lower than previous session’s 1.82 billion shares worth P7.68 billion.

Foreigners were sellers for the eighth straight session, with net outflows at P744.16 million, down from previous session’s P1.05 billion.

Losers edged out advancers, 116 to 64, while 52 issues were unchanged.

Duterte says there will be ‘no sacred cow’ in SEA Games ruckus

PRESIDENT Rodrigo R. Duterte will not spare organizers of the Southeast Asian (SEA) Games from punishment if allegations of corruption against officials including his ally Speaker Alan Peter S. Cayetano are proven.

“There is no sacred cow in this government,” presidential spokesman Salvador S. Panelo said at a briefing earlier. “Those who transgress the law will be accountable.” he added, noting that the Mr. Duterte has been known to fire friends and allies for corruption.

Mr. Cayetano heads the Philippine Southeast Asian Games Organizing Committee.

The palace said Mr. Duterte would investigate the mishaps reported about the SEA Games. The president earlier said during his recent trip to South Korea he wanted to investigate alleged corruption by the organizers.

“The Office of the President will also be conducting a separate probe on the aberrations and irregularities in the administration of our country’s hosting of the SEA Games immediately after the games,” Mr. Panelo said in a statement on Thursday.

The Senate will investigate the alleged irregularities separately.

Meanwhile, Tourism Secretary Bernadette Romulo-Puyat on Wednesday met with officials of Metro Manila’s hotel industry to improve the services to SEA Games delegates after reports of logistical problems from foreign athletes.

“It is in situations like this that we are faced with the challenge of making our visitors’ stay in the country one of fun and fulfilling experience,” she said in a statement.

Also on Thursday Mr. Cayetano said he was ready to face a probe by the Senate.

He brushed off criticisms against the event, adding that he was ready to send a letter to the Commission on Audit (CoA) for “an independent special audit of all government funds used for the SEA Games.”

Mr. Cayetano also denied any conflict of interest about his position as Speaker and chairman of the organizing committee. Some congressmen in the past had associated themselves in sports, he said.

Senator Panfilo M. Lacson earlier said the transfer of P1.5 billion in public funds for the games from the Philippine Sports Commission to a private group headed by Mr. Cayetano was cast in the same mold as the P10-billion pork barrel scam.

The lawmaker said taxpayer money was “questionably” lodged in the Philippine SEA Games Organizing Committee, a private foundation created to oversee the country’s preparations and hosting of the biennial sports meet.

Meanwhile Foreign Affairs Secretary Teodoro Locsin Jr. said he had nothing to do with the P7.5-billion budget for the games that had been inserted in the budget of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA).

On Tuesday, he tweeted that someone had asked him to keep the P7.5 billion in the DFA’s 2019 budget. Mr. Locsin said he ordered the funds returned to the Treasury bureau when he became Foreign Affairs chief in October last year. The SEA Games budget was inserted in the DFA budget for this year because Mr. Locsin’s predecessor, Mr. Cayetano, took on the role of lead organizer. — Gillian M. Cortez and Genshen L. Espedido

Panelo says VP report on illegal drugs made up

PRESIDENTIAL Spokesperson Salvador S. Panelo doubts any of the revelations that Vice President Maria Leonor G. Robredo will make on the government’s deadly war on drugs are real.

Mr. Panelo slammed the vice president because she had yet to divulge her so-called findings during her short stint as President Rodrigo R. Duterte’s drug czar.

He said Ms. Robredo was likely to make up her report, adding she should have come out with it by now.

The vice president also should have also acted against people she knew were involved in anomalies, Mr. Panelo said.

“It was her duty at the time she discovered that irregularity to reveal that to the public and prosecute the people behind it,” he said.

Mr. Duterte fired the opposition leader whom he put in charge of his deadly war on drugs late Sunday, days after her appointment. Mr. Panelo earlier said Ms. Robredo “had it coming,” citing her missteps including meeting with officials of the United States Embassy and United Nations.

Philippine police have said they have killed about 6,000 people in illegal drug raids, many of them resisting arrest. Some local nongovernmental organizations and the national Commission on Human Rights have placed the death toll at more than 27,000.

Ms. Robredo this month said she had agreed to head the Duterte administration’s anti-illegal drug campaign, which majority of Filipinos support despite international criticism, if only to stop the killings. She accepted the post against the advice of many of her party mates, who said the appointment might be a trap.

The opposition leader has vowed to enforce the state’s anti-illegal drug campaign within the bounds of the law. She said she would treat the drug problem not only as a crime, but also as a health issue.

Police have said Ms. Robredo had not committed “missteps” while she was the drug czar, contradicting the presidential palace.

Ms. Robredo had said she would reveal what she had uncovered while head of the Interagency Committee on Anti-Illegal Drugs.

Human Rights Watch on Monday criticized Mr. Duterte for firing the vice president “on ludicrous grounds.” It said the president was never even remotely sincere, and that his appointment of Ms. Robredo was a “total sham.” — Gillian M. Cortez

Duterte defends drug war against critics

PRESIDENT Rodrigo R. Duterte yesterday defended his deadly war on drugs against critics, saying the country needs an iron fist to destroy drug lords.

In a speech, the president said he is serious about his campaign, having dealt with drug lords even before he became president by throwing them in various areas to instill fear.

“You don’t know how many I have thrown in Manila Bay,” Mr. Duterte said. “I threw this one drug lord in Laguna de Bay while the other one I threw in the Mountain Province, in a ravine,” he said, without naming them.

Mr. Duterte won the presidency in 2016 based on a platform to rid the country of illegal drugs. He had promised to eradicate the menace in six months.

Philippine police have said they have killed about 6,000 people in illegal drug raids, many of them resisting arrest. Some local nongovernmental organizations and the national Commission on Human Rights have placed the death toll at more than 27,000.

He put Vice President Maria Leonor G. Robredo, an opposition leader, in charge of his anti-illegal drug campaign this month, only to fire her less than three weeks later. He said he didn’t trust her. — Gillian M. Cortez

Duterte orders drive vs illegal recruiters

PRESIDENT Rodrigo R. Duterte yesterday ordered Labor and Social Welfare officials to combat illegal recruitment of Filipinos to other countries.

“I order you to come up with a structure, a bigger one, to go after [illegal recruiters],” he said in a speech.

Last year, Labor Secretary Silvestre H. Bello III signed an order that set up a task force against llegal recruitment especially of minors, and human trafficking.

Mr. Duterte is also pushing the creation of a Department of Overseas Filipinos that will better address issues affecting overseas workers. — Gillian M. Cortez

China rejects alleged control of Philippine grid

THE Chinese government said it has no control over the National Grid Corp. of the Philippines, belying claims made by an opposition Senator.

“To my knowledge, the State Grid Corp. of China took part in the Transco (National Transmission Corporation) project as a cooperation partner, providing safe, efficient and high-quality electricity services,” Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuan said at a Nov. 27 briefing of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, according to a transcript emailed to media.

“The project is now operated, managed and maintained by the Philippine side, with the Chinese partner offering necessary technical support upon request.”

Senator Risa N. Hontiveros-Baraquel earlier filed a resolution seeking a national security audit over concerns that China might be accessing the country’s power grid system.

The State Grid Corp. of China was part of the group that was awarded the 25-year concession agreement to operate Transco’s power transmission facilities.

Ms. Baraquel earlier recalled that during a Nov. 21 hearing on the Energy department’s budget, TransCo President Melvin Matibag said a third party, in this case, China, could disable the power grid.

Mr. Geng dismissed the concern, citing the closeness and friendship of the two countries.

“The allegation of China’s control over the Philippines’ power grid or threat to the country’s national security is completely groundless,” he said.

“The Philippines is China’s close and friendly neighbor as well as an important partner.”

He also noted that China fulfills its social responsibilities through the “Brighten Up” project, which seeks to provide electricity to far-flung areas. — Charmaine A. Tadalan

1...8,6278,6288,629...12,695Page 8,628 of 12,695
© 2024 BusinessWorld Publishing.
All rights reserved.
Read our privacy guidelines
Facebook Instagram Linkedin Twitter Youtube