WatchPNoy

The year of the fund

A fund here, a fund there; funds were everywhere in the news, this year.

Whether it was the Supreme Court’s final ruling on the disposition of the coco levy funds invested in United Coconut Planters Bank or the investigations into the abuse of Congress’ Priority Development Assistance Fund, the misappropriation of the Malampaya Fund or the president’s social fund, funds were all over the news this year.

There is one common thread that runs through all of them: funds set aside for some kind of social or economic development need were used for personal or political motives. It didn’t matter whether they were taxpayer-sourced as in the case of PDAF or revenues from government activity such as the lottery, gambling or mining operations. The fact remains that special purpose funds can be turned into slush funds quite readily.

Perhaps that is the reason Sec Cesar Purisima stated in May this year that the idea of a Sovereign Wealth Fund created out of our foreign reserves proposed by the Bangko Sentral had lost traction and would not be taken up by this administration. It is as if the president intuitively knows that such a fund might be raided by future governments.

Unfortunately, he is busy enough dealing with the mess created by the funds that are already in place, that the setting up of a new one might seem a bit too ambitious. And there has a palpable public backlash against the use of such special purpose funds in the wake of the pork barrel scams, anyway, that such a scheme might face stiff opposition.

At any rate, since these funds have dominated the news this year, then addressing them would probably be the order of the day in the coming year. Let us not forget that in the wake of typhoon Haiyan, a Php 100 billion reconstruction fund was created to speed up the recovery of the most affected regions in the central Philippines, or that following the passage of the sin taxes act, Php 63.6 billion in revenues were generated as of September this year, which should boost the trust fund of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation.

So let me offer some unsolicited advice (as I often do in this space) on how the government ought to manage these funds.

As a general principle, if we were to retain them (and not co-mingle them with the general government revenue pot as some have suggested), then we have to move away from putting such funds under the sole discretion of an individual and allow for better governance through a deliberating body to consult and provide advice on how these funds should be spent.

With respect to PDAF, this matter has already been settled by the Supreme Court. All forms of pork cannot be allotted to members of congress to dispose of after the general appropriations act has been passed. They would have to identify the need during budget deliberations, and leave it to line agencies to address their requirements through the usual open and competitive bidding process if their proposed budget items are adopted.

Secondly, with respect to the Malampaya fund, a professional board comprised of energy and development experts must be set up to advise the Department of Energy and the president on how to apportion funds available for investment. This board could undertake public consultation through stakeholder engagement.

The proposal of several legislators to use it as a stabilisation fund against power increases could be studied as well. A comprehensive plan publicly available and developed based on the best alternatives available should be put together by this board and recommended to the president. The president could then respond to these recommendations point by point and release an annual report on the status of the fund and its activity.

Thirdly, with respect to the president’s social and charity funds resulting from the revenues from the lottery and gambling corporations of the government, the National Anti-Poverty Commission should be given the role of screening the proposed uses of the funds and advising the president on whether to adopt them. This does not limit the president’s discretion to dispose of the funds as he pleases, but at least he would do so in a considered way, as part of an anti-poverty strategy, and creating an additional layer through the commission would provide a process through which his decisions could be better informed.

Finally, when it comes to the coco levy fund recovered from UCPB and San Miguel, the same process would apply. Only this time, members of the claimant community consisting of copra or coconut farmers and beneficiaries must be represented in whatever body is set up to oversee the fund. This would allow their voices to be heard in the governance of the board that manages their money.

In all these cases, the same basic principle applies, leaving decisions to the sole discretion of an individual, be that the president or local representative sets up opportunities for corruption and cronyism. Allowing a board comprised of major stakeholders to be in charge of filtering ideas, critically assessing options and making recommendations to the executive by releasing a periodic report, and making the government account in a transparent manner the disposition of the funds through an annual statement creates greater probity and integrity into the system.

Perhaps if we could begin to demonstrate better governance in managing these special purpose funds over the next two years, then by the time the president steps down, he would leave behind a legacy of instituting substantial reforms in the way we manage and account for such public funds. These reforms would not only ensure that the money is apportioned based on its intended use, but that such appropriations are part of an overall strategy and plan and not just made willy-nilly based on personal preference or transactional methods.

TAYO Foundation launches the TAYO Summer Youth Camp 2012

Want to learn a thing or two this summer? This season of the sun, enrich yourself by jamming with youth leaders from various organizations nationwide for a three days full of fun, exciting and educational activities.

In celebration of  Ten Accomplished Youth Organization Inc.‘s 10th Anniversary, TAYO Youth Camp will be selecting a total of 120 campers from Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao to discuss the country’s issues in an out of the box and fun way.

So if you are aged 15-25 and is looking for a different and productive way to spend you summer, dive into this one of a kind retreat to CamSur with TAYO!

Application is open until April 15, 2012.

Postscript: Expect for some good music so let your hair down and don’t forget to bring your dancing shoes.

********

The TAYO Foundation is calling for participants for the 1stTAYO Summer Youth Camp to be held at CamSur Watersports Complex on May 3-5, 2012.

For nine years, the TAYO Search saw the Filipino youth’s living examples of heroism breaking the walls of poverty, lack of resources, and lack of opportunity. As TAYO celebrates its 10th year this 2012, we would like to raise the bar higher and provide more opportunities for growth and improvement for deserving youth leaders and youth organizations not only through the search but also through other activities. Thus, TAYO is launching the TAYO Summer Youth Camp.

It is the first of its kind in the Philippines. The TAYO Camp aims to gather youth leaders from different organizations in the country for a three-day camp where issues of the day are discussed in fun, creative, and dynamic ways. The Camp aims to inspire the participants to cultivate the DOer culture, to spread positive living as a way of life, and to encourage their fellow youth to make use of their talents, skills, and interests in addressing their community’s problems.

Different fields of interests compose the TAYO Camp: (1) Music & Dance, (2) Visual Arts, (3) Performing Arts, (4) Videography & Photography, and (5) e-Literature. Applicants will have the liberty to select which workshop they would like to participate into. However, in every field, only 24 campers shall be accommodated. The Camp will be selecting a total of 120 campers from Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. Application is open until April 15, 2012.

The Ten Accomplished Youth Organizations (TAYO) Awards Foundation is hailed as one the country’s premier organizations which recognize outstanding groups of young Filipinos who are instrumental in the development of the country through simple, worthwhile, and innovative projects meant to solve problems in their local communities, school, or workplace.

This project is made possible through the help of the National Youth Commission, Coca-Cola Foundation Philippines, and Lenovo Philippines. To know more about TAYO and the camp, and to download the application form, visit their website at www.tayoawards.net.

 

DOWNLOAD APPLICATION FORM

CLICK HERE FOR FAQs

 

 

Why people power flourishes in the East and founders everywhere else

People Power in Tunisia (image credit: idiemedia.org.au)

The parliament of the streets which saw its culmination in the Philippines at EDSA-1 on February 1986 took root shortly thereafter in places like South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and even Burma. Were it not for the tanks on Tiananmen, it would have triumphed in China back in 1989. It has spread even to Eastern Europe and Russia and garnered support in the conservative countries of the Arab world more recently.

Today in the Philippines, there are still calls for people power. One is being launched by none other than the president of the Republic who has been hinting that if the impeachment trial of the Chief Justice Renato Corona results in his acquittal, people should take to the streets to overturn it. Another appeal is being aired by the Catholic Church, which calls on the faithful to march against the enactment of the reproductive health bill.

In the West, calls for people power more likely than not fall on deaf ears. One recent appeal was issued in the US by former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich whose insurgent campaign to win the Republican nomination for president had been dealt a deadly blow by the leading contender former governor Mitt Romney. An even more recent case is that of Kevin Rudd, a former Australian PM who resigned as Foreign Minister of his successor Julia Gillard, as he sought to challenge her for the leadership of the Australian Labor Party. As of this writing, he is expected to lose in an upcoming leadership spill within the parliamentary caucus despite his wide margin over her in opinion polls (update: Kevin Rudd eventually lost the contest in a decisive 71-31 vote).

Both men used the phrase ‘people power’ in defining their respective campaigns as a challenge to the established elites within their respective ranks. In these Western democracies, where institutions are deeply embedded, traditions observed, and the political maturity of the people is very high, such appeals are usually met with much scepticism if not outright cynicism.

It makes me wonder why people power flourishes in the East and founders everywhere else. It is a reverse twist on the book by the Peruvian economist Hernando De Soto, The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. The thesis of his book is that institutions in the East are not suited for the smooth functioning of markets. Among the urban and rural poor whose informal rights to land are not recognized or protected, for example, the proper incentives for investing in the productivity of such assets is lacking.

Similarly I would argue that the reason behind people power being such a viral phenomenon in the East is due to the lack of mature democratic institutions that would mediate or provide proper regulation of political activity. People in the West can rely on these institutions to guide behaviour even in the most difficult of circumstances. Parties accept the outcome of their processes. There is a greater level of faith or assurance in their integrity even when the hand of politics is glaringly obvious.

What happened in the 2000 US presidential elections is a shining example of this. This was the contest between Vice President Al Gore for the Democrats who won the popular vote and Texas Governor George W. Bush for the Republicans who won the electoral college vote. It all came down to who won in Florida, a state governed by George’s brother Jeb Bush. Gore mounted a challenge to the results which had Bush ahead by a mere 534 votes. The state Supreme Court of Florida ordered a recount. While that recount was under way the US Supreme Court intervened. In a 5-4 vote reflecting the political views of the justices, the recount was rendered unconstitutional.

Al Gore strongly disagreed with the decision but said  “for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.” When the canvassing of electoral college votes took place in the US Congress, Gore as presiding officer overruled many of his colleagues in the chamber on his side of the political fence who protested the decision of the Supreme Court. He in effect went against his own personal interests for the sake of the democratic institutions of his country.

If the Philippines was ever to emulate these democratic traits, it would require maturity from its leaders and people. It would require us to work within constitutionally mandated processes and institutions even when they result in outcomes that run counter to public expectations. It requires commitment by the polity to abide by the prescribed norms whether they are favourable or unfavourable to the interests of its dominant actors.

People power came about in 1986 to impose “the will of the people” following an election, the conduct of which was widely regarded as unclean and the outcome was deemed dishonest. Another episode erupted in 2001 when the Senate sitting as an impeachment court voted along political lines to go a certain way that was seen as injurious to the cause of those who massed in the streets. It led to the ouster of the man the masses deemed their legitimately elected leader and sparked a third coming of people power some months later.

In the ensuing years, people generally regarded the latter two versions of people power as an adulteration of the first. The problem however is that our present leadership does not seem to heed the lesson of that era. It still holds firm to what it claims is its legitimate right to call for a fourth episode if the current impeachment trial of the Chief Justice runs counter to its expectations.

That lesson is that people power should never be used to overturn a judicial decision or process. Imposing “the will of the people” on a court is a dubious thing because legal processes are distinct from electoral ones where the will of the people is clearly indicated. The executive cannot use its electoral mandate to impose its wishes on other co-equal branches of government claiming that “the people” are on its side.

Over-reaching or over-stepping one’s mandate is one of the reasons for building checks and balances in a democracy. If one branch of government refuses to recognize another branch’s decisions, it would be an open invitation for the military to intercede. When that happens, all bets are off.

So the only way out of our present predicament if we do not want to live under a dictatorship is to remain vigilant in the coming days but not allow our vigilance to turn into vigilantism. Otherwise, we might find ourselves stuck in the same old rut that we have found ourselves politically in the past. And being stuck in the past is exactly where we don’t want to be.

He who is without a false SALN, let him cast the first vote

image credit: truthbook.com

As we enter the season of Lent, I thought it befitting to highlight a biblical parable as it relates to the ongoing trial of Chief Justice Corona.

The story is found in the Gospel of St John (the Beloved). It talks of the need to temper justice with mercy. The Pharisees and scribes who were in those days keepers of the Jewish law much in the same way that imams and qadis are in charge of Sharia law presented a woman caught in the act of adultery to Jesus.

According to the Torah (the Law of Moses), she was to be stoned to death, so they were hoping to test Jesus by asking him what was to be done to her. His reply to the stone wielding lynch mob assembled awaiting his judgement was “him who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone.” The message of the parable is for us not to be quick to condemn others when one is not blameless too.

To those seeking to crucify the chief justice based on his failure to file accurately his SALN (statement of assets, liabilities and net worth), we can perhaps paraphrase the bible by saying, “he who is without a falsified SALN (or an undervalued tax declaration), let him cast the first vote”.

One wonders using the same “if you’ve got nothing to hide, then bear it” argument how many congressmen and senators would be able to bear the same level of scrutiny that CJ Corona has had to bear. It appears that even the president had to revalue his assets upwards several times over in his latest SALN because what he declared previously was incredibly small.

As the prosecution team sought to present evidence that Corona had accepted gifts from a litigant in a case before the high court, a similar allegation was being laid at the feet of an official close to the president involved in the government’s gaming corporation. By the way, the palace justified the acceptance of these gifts as “standard practice” in the industry or as “cost-saving” measures. By that they hopefully didn’t mean the government intended to charge the trips made by wives, children and nannies in the first instance. Meanwhile an ex-senator and cabinet secretary noted they too received the same perks from the firm involved in the chief justice’s case.

On top of all this, it seems that in acquiring evidence to convict Corona for unexplained liquid assets that several laws may have been violated or that branches of the government were illegally used to undertake a hatchet job on the president’s political foe since 2010. This follows from the testimonies of bank officials who were audited by the same public agencies. It appears then that those who present such evidence to convict the Chief Justice for disregarding the rule of law may have been guilty of doing the same themselves.

“That may be so,” supporters of the impeachment case may say, “but it shouldn’t detract from the fact that Corona is guilty.” They who plead with the jurors to go beyond the letter of the law and convict him based on some higher principle of justice should in their haste to pass judgement reflect on whether they too would be able to pass the standards they have set for their enemies.

They can’t have it both ways. They can’t justify similar offenses committed by people on their side of the fence while throwing the book at those on the opposite side. They need to straighten their crooked halos a bit and think of the implications of their statements. Otherwise the public may grow weary of their double-speak.

“Judge not, that you may not be judged,” goes another biblical passage.

A few years down the track it may be their turn to suffer the same intrusion of privacy and scrutiny. So in the interests of justice and fairness, it would be best to either apply the same standard and level of scrutiny to all or none at all. That is what the term ‘equal treatment under the law’ means. Either that or we show mercy in this instance and charge everyone involved to “go and sin no more”.

The Ends Justify the Means

Has the fight against corruption become like the war on terror?

Remember the ‘war on terror’? It seems ‘so last decade’ right? Do you remember how it ended? When ‘dubya’ launched it, he framed it in high moralistic terms: fighting for ‘the cause of freedom’, bringing justice to ‘those evil-doers’, ‘preserving our way of life’. Yet, in their pursuit of the perpetrators of 911, the Americans and their ‘coalition of the willing’ ended up dispensing with the very ideals they sought to uphold.

In their desire to ‘even the score’, the agents of this war trampled upon the basic freedoms and human rights that their sacred document considered ‘to be self-evident’. To bring the outlaws to justice, they may have violated international law. They tortured suspected individuals, detained them indefinitely without charge, denied them the right to a fair trial, and did this all at the expense of the taxpayer. The total bill for this war was largely responsible for the ballooning deficit of the US Federal Government.

We now turn our attention to the Philippines and its fight against corruption. The same sort of high-minded rhetorical flourishes accompany it. The same sort of idealistic pursuit of justice, freedom and preservation of democracy motivate it. The fear was that the Evil One deemed responsible for the ‘ground zero’ of corruption was ‘heading for the hills’ in the same way that the Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden did and was not to be found until many years later.

The same way that evidence of mass destruction was presented before the UN to justify a ‘pre-emptive strike’ on a sovereign country ‘a smoking gun’ has been dug up from questionable sources to convict an ‘enemy of the state’ in the minds of the public, which upon closer examination appears to be a mere fabrication (just as the evidence against Saddam apparently was).

‘Had we rushed to war?’ was the burning question in their minds after the US occupation of Iraq was in full swing. America had gotten itself mired in a decade long conflict all because in the heat of the moment, its president used the heroism of those who suffered from terror attacks to force his views on Congress to authorize a war that later proved to be misguided. His trigger-happy administration learned to rue the day that it did this.

Similarly has the prosecution of the war on graft led to some dead ends in the case of the Aquino administration? The articles of impeachment against Chief Justice Corona which were rushed through the lower house now seem to suffer incurable infirmities. Many of the charges seem baseless. The charges that do matter don’t seem to match the evidence presented. The prosecution’s appeal to the jury to look beyond legal formalities is an admission that their case is inherently weak.

A much deeper worry is the implication that a vendetta mission had been afoot as early as November of last year. If one follows the paper trail of leaked documents, the logical conclusion would be that instruments of government were used inappropriately and illegally to gather evidence against targeted officials. The conclusion would be that the very same ideals that the fight against corruption seeks to uphold have had to be compromised to achieve its goals in an ‘ends justifies the means’ sort of way. How then should we describe it? The word ‘Kafkaesque’ comes to mind.

Dreaming of EDSA

Two images may be evoked when considering the event called EDSA-1 in today’s context.

The first has to do with past atrocities committed prior to the event that led to local mobilization and international pressure for the autocrat President Marcos to step down just as many in the Arab people have witnessed take place in their own countries. The second has to do with accusations of present day corruption, impunity and dictatorship by stealth that either camp on the Aquino-Arroyo divide have been hurling at each other.

As far as the image of the past is concerned, many victims still await closure to the dark episode in their lives and the nation’s history. There can be no more appropriate response to their plight but a recognition and apology from the perpetrators of the suffering they have caused. Barring that, the billions of pesos in escrow or in the form of stocks held by those deemed to have illegally acquired it awaiting legislation for their proper distribution to the victims would be a nice token.

The Palace has demonstrated that it can muster a third of the House behind a petition which those signing weren’t even given the opportunity to read to impeach one of the highest officials of the land. If it can use its moral authority to muster support for prosecuting someone in this way, it can perhaps devote a similar amount of effort towards enabling a final judgement to be carried out through legislation. After all its Righteous Path seeks to right the injustices of the past.

In keeping with the memory of EDSA, what better way to honor the lives of those who sacrificed so much to restore our freedoms?

As far as the image of the present is concerned, the picture is more muddled. They say that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Care however must be taken that our sense of vigilance does not turn into vigilantism. The strategy and tactics employed by the present government to browbeat the appointees of its predecessor into either submission or expulsion seem a bit heavy handed. This is true particularly when statements are construed towards the overthrow of decisions made by legal institutions through the “will of the people” in order to produce “the rule of law”. If Mr Marcos used the threat of force to intimidate the judiciary into submission and legitimating his “constitutional dictatorship”, the threat of a people power revolt is being held over the heads of the senator-judges of the impeachment court to tow the administration’s line.

The pursuit of anti-corruption measures is an honourable past-time, but restraint must be shown so that it does not degenerate into a vendetta mission that weakens political and legal institutions in the process. We must remember that EDSA-1 occurred because the Marcos regime was either unwilling or unable to entertain or accept the leader of the opposition’s offer of national reconciliation and an orderly transition process through a power sharing deal. EDSA-1 culminated in the overthrow of Mr Marcos and the formation of a revolutionary interim government to lay the groundwork for a democratic transition. In the wake of their overthrow, its loyalists sought to marshal forces to stage a counter-revolution to restore the old order.

The present situation is quite different. After handing over power in an orderly fashion, the previous dispensation in appointing its proxies to constitutional bodies sought to stage a defensive rather than offensive move against those in the present one. In other words, it is not seeking to overthrow the current government, nor destabilize it. It merely seeks a kind of immunity from prosecution. The last line of defence it has, the twelve justices out of fifteen appointed by Mrs Arroyo, has been rattled by the current proceedings in and outside of the Senate. Ironically, the fate of the country’s young legal and institutional traditions rests on the shoulders of a man that was once the architect of their subversion under martial law.

If EDSA-1 was the result of our political leadership failing to come together to form a power-sharing government of national reconciliation, today our democratic institutions are being stressed to the point of breaking once again with the ratcheting up of rhetoric by both sides of the political divide. So much has been invested by the administration in going after the Arroyos and their proxies to the point that the outcome of the impeachment trial has become an all-or-nothing proposition.

There is a tendency to romanticize the people power revolution of 1986, to appropriate the imagery, the language and the memory of this event for political purposes today. We need to recall however that the assassination of the president’s father in 1983 and subsequent events caused the country to plunge into an abyss that led to a lost decade economically. This came about because those in power failed to recognize how tenuous their grip on power was and see their interests better served by accommodating their opponents.

The extreme polarization that characterized that period has returned. It is a reminder to all of how contentious politics is in this country. People power is resurfacing to break the stalemate. This is putting a heavy burden on the institutions charged with arbitrating the situation and the humans that preside over them. Ironically, the deciding votes could be cast by an Enrile, a Cayetano, a Marcos, and an Estrada. Will they be intimidated by the threat of people power?

While the president claims to represent the will of the people and the chief justice represents the judiciary whose authority is legitimated by the constitution ratified by the people. The senator-judges whose mandate comes from the people, the same national electorate that voted in the president, are torn between their sympathies for public opinion and their obligation to the constitutional and legal processes. Despite all the coverage surrounding their chamber, their position is increasingly becoming unenviable.

So returning to the commemoration of EDSA, there are two ways to think about it. We can view it as the victory of people over tyranny, a victory which could be made complete by compensating those stripped of their human and property rights under the Marcos regime using the amassed hidden wealth of the dictator and his cronies, retrieving any of that wealth that got plundered on the way to its intended beneficiaries, and punishing those who did the plundering.

Another way of viewing it is as the result of a failure by our political elite to come to an amicable settlement that would serve the interests of the country and provide an orderly transfer of power. In this vein, the current rupture in our politics may be viewed as another failure by our leaders to work out their differences within the confines of our institutional processes, the very same processes that the people in EDSA-1 fought to restore.

Spokes in the Wheels of Justice

Towards a Genuine Agenda for a Just Society

As the world of the blogosphere, twitterverse and mainstream media soak up as much as it can from the Corona impeachment trial, delving into the subtle elements of the rules of court, rules of evidence and so, on, one wonders about the long-standing issues related to injustice and impunity that slip below the radar as far as the public policy agenda is concerned.

The wheels of justice revved up so expeditiously in the lead up to the impeachment of Corona, but they grind ever so slowly in the case of so many others. To wit, I now turn the spotlight on them in the form of a Top 5 ranking. I ask the question, what is happening to these “five spokes” in the “wheels of justice” given the fact that P-Noy’s administration has placed “judicial reform” at the top of its agenda. I highlight the status of the issues involved, some history, current developments and provide some justification for including them in the top five list. Well, without further ado, here they are:

5. Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill.

The president sent to Congress his version of the bill on Thursday, February 2, 2012. It took at least eighteen months for his government to come up with its own version of the proposed law. At first, the Palace was rather reticent about endorsing any version of the FOI bill as urgent when it hammered out its legislative agenda. Finally, it relented after several months of mounting public pressure from concerned citizens on the issue.

Many elements of the law remain contentious which means that you can expect the debate in Congress to be fierce. The House of Representatives will need to reconcile the different versions of the bill. The question is whether the Senate will have time to deliberate on it given the proceedings currently underway there.

I include this in the Top 5 Spokes of the Wheels of Justice because an FOI law would allow for greater transparency. Greater transparency would be required in ensuring that government disclose to the public what it knows about certain issues that impact on people’s lives, safety and well-being.

This is just an extension of the freedom of the press, something that was uppermost in the mind of P-Noy’s father when he languished in prison and in exile and struggled to let the world know about his story. The FOI Bill needs to have safeguards, but the risks of greater accountability should not detract from the overall vision of having a more accountable, transparent, and just society.

4. Reproductive Health (RH) Bill.

After vacillating over whether to certify as urgent any of the reproductive health bills in Congress, the president finally gave his seal of approval by proposing his own version of the RH bill. The clock ran out last year though as Congress went into recess. The problem will be enacting the bill so close to an election year when the anti-RH adherents will be fired-up to go against legislators who vote in favour of it.

The longer the impeachment trial drags on, the greater the likelihood that the RH bill will not pass, considering where we are in our political/electoral cycle.

The reason why reproductive health comprises a spoke on the wheel of justice is that it directly affects the future health and well-being of at least half the population, and it indirectly affects every newborn child. Those who study women’s issues will tell you that the way women’s rights are treated in society is a proxy for how just and tolerant society is more broadly.

The question is will we have to wait until after the 2013 elections before this bill get passed?

3. Coco levy funds

If the FOI Bill is a carryover issue from Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s presidency, and the RH Bill goes all the way back to Fidel Valdez Ramos’, the disposition of the coco levy funds goes all the way back to Ferdinand Edralin Marcos’. The coco levy fund was administered by P-Noy’s uncle, Danding Cojuangco. The current Senate president had a hand in it too.

The Supreme Court recently ruled and affirmed the Sandiganbayan antigraft court’s decision which awarded to the government close to a quarter of the shares of San Miguel Corporation that Mr Cojuangco controls. It said that the funds should be used only to benefit the farmers who had contributed to the levy after it was mandated by Mr Marcos.

This prompted a farmer’s party-list organization to press for the president’s endorsement to the house of a bill that would facilitate the return of the fund to the farmers. The said shares in San Miguel are estimated to be as high as one hundred and fifty billion pesos (Php150 Billion) presently. If spread over five years, the annual disbursement could exceed the budget for the conditional cash transfers.

This is definitely a spoke in the wheel of justice since coconut farmers occupy the lowest rung in the ladder (sorry for getting my metaphors mixed up) in the agricultural sector. They constitute the poorest of the poor. While rice farmers continue to receive billions in subsidy from the grains program each year, no such assistance is extended to coconut farmers. Yet, the biggest growth in agricultural productivity can be had if this fund were used to assist them in making their fields more productive by introducing other crops.

With the appointment of a former aide of Mr Cojuangco to the cabinet, one can be certain that the views of the old man will be represented at the table when Cabinet decides on the issue. The longer it takes for such an anomaly to be corrected (the farmers have already waited a quarter of a century), the bigger the insult suffered by those who deserve just compensation. It is their money after all.

2. Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program with Extensions (CARPER)

This problem goes back so long, I will not even bother to try to “date” it. The Huk rebellion in the 1950s following the war led to the election of President Ramon Magsaysay who promised to institute social reforms. What was applied though were band aid solutions. His popularity among the people which improved social cohesion and public trust in government and the availability of land in Mindanao made it possible to skirt the issue of land reform.

CARPER is just the last in a long succession of policies aimed at solving the land issue. Its immediate predecessor CARP was enacted by the late-Corazon Cojuangco Aquino’s presidency. The program was given a new lease on life at the end of GMA’s term. The current president promised to complete its implementation including resolving the Hacienda Luisita issue before stepping down in 2106. The Hacienda Luisita issue dates back to the time of Ramon Magsaysay when the government bankrolled its acquisition by the Cojuangcos by guaranteeing loans to P-Noy’s grandfather Jose Cojuangco.

Aside from the vexed issue of land distribution under CARPER, there is currently the issue of land grabbing allegedly taking place. An international fact-finding team recently investigated reports involving land covering three towns of San Mariano, Ilagan and Benito Soliven. At the heart of the problem lies Green Future Innovations, Inc which plans to put up a bio-ethanol plant that will cost $120 million. It was alleged that more than a thousand farmers and indigenous people were displaced by the project. The area involved is 2,200 hectares. The infusion of capital by a Japanese partner into the project was hailed as one of the positive developments coming out of the president’s trip to Japan last year.

Again, these are mere allegations at this point, but they are disconcerting given the context. They raise the question of whether the government has a land use policy in mind and how it plans to handle the question of foreign ownership of land. This is a sleeper issue. The same thing could conceivably be duplicated by China in its search for energy resources. At the root of this problem is the question of property rights. How are they defined and protected? What measures will the government take to ensure that land is used productively to benefit our national interests.

1. Compensation for Martial Law victims

I place this on top of the agenda. Why? Because in the others (save perhaps for the RH Bill and the case of Hacienda Luisita), people were deprived of either their property or right to information. Here, they were deprived of their lives and their liberty. The arbitrary use of police powers by the state to abuse its people, the very citizens whose rights they are meant to protect, well, no graver injustice can be said to occur.

Yet,  a quarter of a century has passed, and we are still awaiting some final closure to this issue. Even after the case was won securing money from the Marcoses to compensate the 7,500 victims, the orderly distribution of ten billion pesos worth of those funds is yet to be framed by Congress. A bill in the House has already made its way through the appropriations committee as of February 7, 2012. This paves the way for deliberations on the floor. Whether or not there will be enough time to hammer out the bill and enact it this year is another question. In March last year, victims started to receive compensation in the form of a $7.5 million award from a US court.

After waiting so long, the end is finally in sight. Each year, a few of the original surviving victims pass away without seeing their claims recognized. Honoring them and their loved ones through compensation would be the best way to bring closure to this dark chapter in our nation’s history.

Conclusion

In pursuing justice, the Palace has chosen to focus on the injustices that occurred during the last five years of the Arroyo presidency by going after her henchmen  whom she had left behind entrenched in certain sensitive positions. Last year saw a growing body count of individuals tied to the former regime. The latest target, the chief justice, is currently occupying the nation’s attention with live coverage of his courtroom drama unfolding daily.

Meanwhile, there are decades’ old injustices perpetrated by past regimes that remain unresolved. Indeed, if the Palace had pursued these cases with as much vigour and swiftness that it demonstrated when it filed the impeachment complaint against the chief justice, then perhaps its victims would be able to heave a heavy collective sigh of relief. The wheels of justice they say grind slowly. Justice delayed is justice denied. Let it not be said that this government turned its back on “the least of our brethren” whom it claims to be fighting for.

Pseudo-trial

What happens when social media takesover the justice system?

As per the Julian Assange case in Britain where the WikiLeaks founder may find out about his fate through the social networking site, could the same thing be envisaged here? Could the use of social media be the same as serving notice to the parties to a trial?

Imagine what would have happened in the case involving Gloria Arroyo’s hold departure order if that had happened? The government’s excuse that it had not received a copy of the decision would not have been available if the decision had been uploaded immediately and tweeted to the court’s “followers” within minutes.

The trial of Chief Justice Corona too could be determined by the media (including Facebook and Twitter). Once cannot discount the possibility of an Arab Spring-like uprising taking place in the aftermath of the trial. Since the prosecution seems to be facing strong headwinds, the conduct of a separate trial by citizen’s groups and netizens in the public arena including the blogosphere seems to be suffering no setbacks.

Forget about establishing the “facts” of the case in the formal court, this is all about shaping the minds of the jurors in the court of public opinion. Call it forum shopping if you like, but parties to this impeachment trial do not feel compelled to abide by the “rules of the game”… so much for strengthening the “rule of law” and “institution-building”.

All this wouldn’t sit too well with senator-judges who are hoping to make an impartial decision based on evidence. What we are witnessing is the mirroring of the justice system in the trial by the senate, where poor evidence gathering, poor homework lays a poor foundation for the prosecution, which inevitably leads to a poor conviction rate.

Except that in this case it is a trial by jury, and the jurors, unlike a proper court, are not restricted from reading (and discussing) the news related to their case. As such, their decision will ultimately reflect the biases formed in the gallery. In a proper court, this would be grounds for a mistrial, but in this pseudo version of Law and Order, the rabble run the show.