breaking the law with Uber

Harvard Business Review‘s Uber Can’t Be Fixed–It’s Time for Regulators to Shut It Down is a must read if you want to know why the LTRFB is right to suspend uber, and why it’s a little embarrassing how outraged many uber users are — it’s all about public service daw, and LTRFB is so palpak in public service and public transport, so let uber be.  besides the units and the drivers are so nice and mabango, not like the MRT and LRT stations and bagons that are so sikip and scary, and you have to make pila pa.

never mind that with uber, no one’s accountable in case of accident or other mishap.  never mind the horrible traffic, swollen by more than a hundred thousand uber units plying metromanila, and not enough roads.  and never mind that uber is about breaking the law.  ours is a culture of illegality anyway.  and we can rant and rave all we want about how corrupt government is, but then so are we who celebrate uber’s subversion of the law just  because it’s oh so convenient and comfortable, and oh so sosyal.

what if we were oh so outraged instead, along with the less moneyed classes, by the transportation department’s turtle pace in upgrading our decrepit mass transport systems?  imagine if we were as passionate about this as we are about supporting uber that’s really just another bunch of foreigners capitalizing, and counting, on a complicit elite, what a shame.

no documents, no proof

now that paolo duterte’s name has come up as, allegedly, a player of sorts in the illegal drugs market, the senate hearing on the huge shabu smuggling under faeldon’s watch seems to be going nowhere remarkable, except maybe to demonstrate how impossible it is to get names named and personalities shamed and charged, puro “hearsay” kasi, walang dokumento.  and so when the prez says about the pagkakadawit of his son: show me the evidence, give me an affidavit, and i will resign (cool na cool), eh wala na, tapos na ang boksing.

imagine if comelec chief andy bautista were as cool-na-cool re wife tish’s allegations. instead he looks, seems, gets hot under the collar, the same with his kuya martin.  i suppose because nga of all those documents that tish found and that are now under scrutiny by the authorities.  even if he were innocent, he has a lot of explaining to do, and really he has no one to blame but himself.  given the animosity pala between him and his wife, it’s hard to believe how careless he was with such important documents, atbp.  it tells me that he became too sure of himself (hubris) and of his power over his wife (money).

anyway manolo quezon raises a good point.

…it’s not as if the common-sense solution for anyone desiring to exonerate themselves isn’t clear. With so many officials, elected or not, weighing in, the obvious solution seems curiously absent so far: Bautista signing a waiver to all his bank accounts.

the yellow camp believes, hopes, prays that chief andy will be found innocent, of course.  unless he’s guilty beyond reasonable doubt.  then, next we pray that duterte finds and appoints a rare one who is relatively beyond reproach, both at home and at work, and who will get us out of the pocket of smartmatic.

on andy’s SALN

this is being shared around on facebook, first posted (as far as i can tell) on willie buyson villarama’s wall for public consumption.  the author bienvenido c. gonzalez is a SALN advocate who closely monitored the corona impeachment trial.

SALN EXPERT GIVES HIS ANALYSIS
Benny C. Gonzalez
MBA, CPA, BSC, BA, UN Fellow

Thank you for asking for my take on the Bautista versus Bautista case. I want to limit the scope of my discussion to the SALN aspects of the issue where I think I can contribute the most. Good SALN analysis demands three paradigm shifts:

1. Good SALN analysis should at the end of the day either exonerate or convict the filer under scrutiny.

2. Good SALN analysis is focused on HOW the Networth was accumulated rather than WHAT it is at the end of every year.

3. Good SALN analysis defines and limits as legitimate and legal entries only TAXED EVIDENCED TRANSACTIONS.

De-politicking this case:

• The COMELEC Chairman is not a first time SALN filer with only his December 2016 SALN to show but has filed several others in his current capacity and from other past government appointment(s). As such, his declared Assets, Liabilities and Networth as of December 2016 should not be a given (assumed the truth) nor should it be the only figures against which the wife/whistleblower’s allegations be compared with. This is where most people especially the media will miss out on.

• Rather than being a given, his 2016 SALN should be X, what SALN analysis MUST solve for that either gives him a clean bill of health as an honest and transparent public servant or condemned him as someone who may have gotten away with ill-gotten wealth in his previous or current appointment(s).

• If red flags have already been raised at this stage, he should be asked to explain in accounting terms how the specific transactions causing these alarm bells are actually legitimate and legal movements of his Networth.

• When the explanations are questionable themselves, then appropriate charges should be filed against him for impeachment. Again, this is where most people especially the media will miss out on. Please note that this impeachment case can and will stand alone even without the USE of the whistleblower’s allegations.

• If red flags are detected during his earlier tenure(s), then it would be a strong case (in aid of legislation) for appointees to be asked to bare their past SALNs to public scrutiny before they can be eligible for reappointment in another capacity. In fact, I have a NO SALN, NO COC/APPOINTMENT advocacy.

• If he gets a clean bill of health after the analyses of ALL his past SALN filings, it will also be time to compare his December 2016 SALN with the whistleblower allegations.

• When his explanations are found unreasonable or unbelievable (because he consistently beats Gorge Soros in currency trading, for example), AMLAC should be asked to assist in the case build-up. A case for seizure and garnishment should then be filed with the Ombudsman.

Some observations:

• Knowing their husbands, NO wife should agree on any settlement with her husband based on his SALN. SALNs are based on historical costs while settlements should always be based on current fair market values.

• Forex gains, especially from offshore accounts are normally untaxed thus exposing the family involved to further BIR audits and assessments.

• The co-mingling of family funds in a filer’s SALN must be traceable to a PRIOR DISTINGUISHABLE investment fund carried as an asset with a contra-liability set up for that purpose. It is highly questionable if it had never been set up before the accusations. In fact, from an accounting stand point, this is what every SALN filer should do if s/he has a similar situation. Ab initio, the ownership of the capital and fruits are transparent and identifiable.

• The absence of these entries and accounts in his SALN would reveal at the very least the lack of good accounting and financial advice which may turn out to be very costly for him.

‘piso para kay leni’ nixed by supremes

suspicious daw the timing of the supreme court decision denying the petition of vp leni robredo’s supporters that they be allowed to pay some 6 to 7M of the 15M total in electoral protest fees owed the presidential electoral tribunal (PET).  read rina jimenez-david sa inquirer:

At this point in time almost all “eyeballs” are on the dispute between Commission on Elections Chair Andy Bautista and his estranged wife Patricia. In the heated exchange of accusations and counterclaims, including imputations of hidden wealth, an extramarital affair and the existence of a “third eye,” the name of Bongbong Marcos has cropped up, mainly because Ms Bautista’s lawyer is a good friend of the defeated vice-presidential candidate. Is the marital spat just a conflict between husband and wife? Or are Robredo, the Comelec and the conduct of the 2016 elections the ultimate targets? The timing is suspicious indeed.

i have family and friends who voted for leni, and who are indeed passionate about that win, and they wanted to send money, pero paano ba, tanong sa akin.  kaninong bank account puwede magpadeposito, kilala mo ba ang mga iyan?  so katrina asked a friend in the vp’s camp, and he referred us to the facebook page kung saan nakapost ang essential info. 

but as it turns out, the law is quite clear about it, a public official may not cannot accept goodies of any kind:

Presidential Decree No. 46 prohibits public officials from receiving gifts or any other valuable thing on any occasion when the gift is given because of an official’s position, regardless of whether or not the gift is given for past favors, or if the giver is expecting to receive a favor or better treatment in the future.

The same prohibition against receiving gifts can also be found in Republic Act No. 6713, which specifies that prohibited gifts include those with a value that “is neither nominal nor insignificant.”

and yet and yet bongbong marcos was allowed to accept donations, in fact admitted that friends helped him raise 36M of the 60M total.  napaka-unfair.  bongbong is not a public official, kasi nga natalo siya ni leni, so he lodges a protest and forces leni to engage, tapos siya lang ang puwedeng humingi ng donations?  but should PET rule in bongbong’s favor, what is to prevent those generous donors from exacting favors from the new veep?  such interesting names, presumably donating in the millions, presumably with vested interests in a marcos vice presidency.  next stop, malacañang?  

in contrast, leni’s donors are anonymous citizens, across classes, who won’t be asking the vp any favors except precisely to fight this good fight.  and in fairness, my sib and friends weren’t naive.  alam nila na baka hindi pumayag ang PET, in which case okey lang sa kanila, let the money then go to the veep’s  anti-poverty program, was the attitude.

i’m not sure what they’re thinking now, now that the incredible tish bautista has raised serious questions about the credibility of the 2016 elections.  i’d be thinking, what if leni loses, bongbong as vp will get to use the money?  umm, baka dapat iderecho na ang milyones sa home for the aged or somewhere like that.  but wait, may motion for reconsideration pa daw.  baka naman matauhan pa ang supremes.

if not, LP spokesman barry gutierrez says the robredo camp will be raising the money instead.  the liberal party to the rescue?  bakit ngayon lang.