Category: congress

An opportunity to ‘level up’

By Emmanuel S. de Dios

FUTURE HISTORIANS will ponder the curious chain of events that provoked profound political changes in the Philippines under Aquino III. The puzzle for them is to understand how formal rules came to be taken seriously and suddenly made to “stick.” From public outrage over the uncovered Napoles mafia, to the Supreme Court’s proscription of congressional pork barrel, down to its latest decision against the President’s power to reallocate funds — the rules of political behavior and engagement are being fundamentally changed.

On the surface, the effect is as if one was simply “restoring” order in the relations among the branches of government as intended under the Constitution. After all, Congress is supposed to have the “power over the purse,” and the President’s job is simply to implement legislative priorities. Hence, legislators should not select projects to implement ex post, and the President should not independently appropriate and allocate monies without explicit congressional approval. All neat and bundled, right?

Except, of course, the Philippine government has never functioned that way. Legislative pork has always existed under different names in all post-Marcos administrations and instituted in its current form under Cory Aquino’s budget ministry (a well-intended innovation by my colleague Ben Diokno). What’s more, until this year, this practice was twice rubber-stamped by the Supreme Court. On the other hand, all presidents, even under the present Constitution, have always effectively picked and chosen budgetary priorities. Especially when a fiscal crisis required deficits to be controlled, the President always decided which budget items should continue to be funded and which were to be abandoned, effectively performing the function of the legislature. Or then again through a re-enactment of the budget (which can be contrived by not passing a new one), the President disposed over all the funds artificially “saved” from already completed projects and was free to define new priorities. The Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) was nothing new, from this viewpoint.

All in all, therefore, Philippine democracy has functioned up to now with an “imperial presidency.”

Which brings us to the point: if the Supreme Court is right about what the spirit and letter of the law say, why has practice deviated from it?

It is rooted in the fact that there are no long-lived organizations (read: political parties) capable of formulating national agendas and defining national priorities. In practice, only the President, controlling the large bureaucracy, can do that. It is then natural for the strategic function to devolve on him.

In the meantime, with their re-election based on local-level patronage, the focus of legislators’ attention is primarily parochial. Their function is reduced to that of fiscal brokers seeking to ensure their share of the national pie. This makes them uninterested in their responsibility for their theoretical “power over the purse” (except for the odd occasion it can be used to extort concessions from the executive). In current practice, for example, Congress hardly even knows how much “the purse” contains: laws are enacted without the funding needed to implement them; budgets are passed without legislative regard for expected tax revenues, or the debt burden, or the resulting size of the budget deficit — all those things are passed on to the executive. (Let him worry about it; I just need my convention center.) This, of course, is a flawed, imperfect order; yet it is order nonetheless — serviceable in the case of a good president, though a free ticket to abuse by a bad one.

Which brings us to the current pass. If, as expected, the Court reaffirms its decision on the DAP, then — together with the abolition of “pork” as we knew it — how shall Congress and the Executive henceforth relate to each other? On the one hand, the institutional dissonance will seem to have been resolved: government is then constrained to function more closely to what the Constitution envisions. On the other hand, one must ask whether political actors (not ideally, but as they exist) can fulfill the tasks assigned them by such formal rules.

Is Congress, for example, prepared to fully internalize all the cost and effort involved in the minutiae of budget preparation? Will it be nimble enough to adjust spending plans quickly, say within a year, in case of revenue shortfalls and delays in the implementation of spending? Or can the Executive and the bureaucracy improve their effectiveness enough to work according to the sluggish clock that Congress is inevitably bound to follow?

Now that lawmakers’ “pork” is gone and real political parties are nowhere on the horizon, what are the means to induce Congress to deliver budgets in a timely way? Shall we return (oh no!) to prolonged spells of reenacted budgets? If fiscal uncertainty is the result, what would be the effect on long-term growth and the people’s welfare?

Citoyens et citoyennes! We are in the midst of a revolution whose outcome is yet unknown — instigated ironically by a conservative and literalist Supreme Court. In a world of institutional dissonance, an insistence on strict formal rules can be disruptive. Indeed, seasoned union organizers know how a “work-to-rule” strategy can totally subvert production.

In a good scenario, all will turn out for the best. There may be a growth hiccup or two in the near term, but ultimately members of Congress will up their game and find common ground with some presidential vision and each puts his shoulder to the wheel. The exigencies of the situation may yet provide the needed spark for the formation of genuine program-based political parties.

The media and the growing middle class may yet become more focused on the quotidian business of politics and representation, progressing beyond their currently sporadic, scandal-driven interest. In short, the insistence on rules may yet provide a bridge to the country becoming a mature representative democracy. Who knows? The political class may yet “level up.”

As for the bad scenario… well, let’s not think about that right now. Let PNoy and Butch Abad worry about it.

php 4.15 power rate hike – outrageous and obscene

and yet the palace’s first reaction was to defend it — not arbitrary, not unreasonable, it is based on the law.  ah, yes, the Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001, the infamous EPIRA that the senate of the eleventh congress passed in the last minutes of the gloria arroyo regime, with the promise that privatization of NAPOCOR would bring down the cost of power to the consumer.

yeah right.  according to a bill filed by senator gringo last year re mindanao’s power problems, when EPIRA became law in june 2001, the retail price per kilowatt hour was php 5.32. in march 2011 it was php 9.84. last month, says boo chanco, it was php 11.06.  the php 4.15 hike would make it php 15.21.  check your last meralco bill and weep.

i’m aghast that the palace made that mistake at all, defending that obscene price hike as though we were talking in centavos rather than pesos in today’s foreign exchange, and as though the department of energy were not remiss in its duties to the public.

mabuti at natauhan sila.  konting damage control, better late than never — coloma pleading that private power companies practice corporate social responsibility, voluntarily desist from passing on costs to consumers, esp in the wake of yolanda, and energy sec jericho petilla promising to investigate and to fearlessly call out the unscrupulous ones, if any, no matter how powerful or powerfully connected. (dec 7 teleradyo with henry omaga diaz)

petilla won many many pogi points when he promised to restore electricity to yolanda-ravaged regions by christmas eve, or he would resign.  on twitter he has been praised to high heavens and a rosy 2016 run-for-whatever-position predicted.  hmm, too soon to tell, even if he’s smooth and simpatiko and all that.  i heard him saying that he does not know how much the restoration will cost, but he will do it, whatever the cost, bahala na.  which is truly nakaka-tense for the visayas.

surely petilla knows that the problem,whether in luzon, visayas, or mindanao, is the EPIRA.  here’s what freedom from debt coalition’s leonor briones said in an open letter to the president in april 2012 when mindanao was gripped by brownouts and higher costs.

Mr. President, the highly flawed policy framework of EPIRA or Electric Power Industry Reform Act is the problem behind the Mindanao power supply issue. This law is designed for big business interests, not for public service. Before EPIRA was passed, the former National Power Corporation was responsible for generating electricity as well as developing power transmission lines. But EPIRA in effect removed this fundamental role of the State. What EPIRA did was to pave the way for private investors to come in and chart the course of generating electric power in our country. This law also gave the control and management of a major pillar of the industry – our national power transmission lines to a foreign State corporation – State Grid of China with Henry Sy’s SM Holdings Corporations as its partner.

In short, the matter of developing electric power supply and management has been left at the mercy of the private sector, an oligopoly of a few big, long-entrenched family/corporate interests.

kung talagang magaling si petilla, and his heart is in the right place, he would champion the repeal of the evil EPIRA and come up with an alternative reform program that would put the public interest on equal footing with business interests.  there has to be a way, an ethical way.  maybe a price ceiling, a profit ceiling, for this essential expense?  how naive of me?  meralco made a net profit of 17B in 2012, a third higher than the previous year, and surely it’s doing even better in 2013.  how about meralco shouldering the costs instead, for a change?  pay back, pay forward.

but wait, meralco says it’s not to blame, it’s only a distributor (really? no power plants?).  what’s gone up in the Wholesale Electricity Spot Market, meralco says, is the generation charge of the power plants producing the electricity.  hmm.  but WESM was devised to encourage competition and keep prices down.  so what is going on?  speculation by the big players?  capitalist greed as usual?  who runs WESM?  who owns the power plants making hay while malampaya is away?  mga tao ba ito?  mga pilipino ba ito?  sino-sino ba itong mga ito na ang titindi kumabig, in billions upon bllions of pesos, wringing hard-earned thousands upon thousands from consumers.  sila mismo, along with meralco, and the rest of the power industry that have been enriching themselves at our expense, ang may kaya at nararapat na magbayad niyang 4.15 na yan.  hindi naman puwede, hindi naman tama, na pass-on na lang sila nang pass-on, lahat na lang ay sa atin sinisingil, to protect, nay, enhance, their profits.

now senator serge is saying that the malampaya fund should be used to subsidize the rate hike.  WHAT? that’s like saying the rate hike is okay, we just need to find the money to pay the power oligarchs.  senator serge should explain instead why they voted yes to the EPIRA in the first place.  he was part of the senate of the 11th congress that gave the final seal of approval in june 2001, along with robert barbers, rodolfo biazon, rene cayetano, anna dominique coseteng, franklin drilon, juan flavier, gregorio honasan, robert jaworski, loren legarda, ramon magsaysay jr., blas ople, tessie aquino oreta, sonny osmena, aquilino pimentel, ramon revilla, miriam santiago, vicente sotto iii, and francisco tatad.  oh and let’s not forget former president gma who pushed for the EPIRA, complete with bribery, it is said.  you wonder what was in it for arroyo.  is she or her family a power industry player too?

ironically, given how unpopular he is these days, enrile was the only senator who said no to the EPIRA in 2001.  and in june 2008 – power rates had risen to php 8.3/kwh in april from php 7.43/kwh in dec 2007 – upon his initiative the senate (14th congress 2007-2010) introduced amendments to the EPIRA to address the perceived weaknesses and clarify the ambiguous provisions in the law.

Juan Ponce Enrile: Seven (7) years ago, Congress passed Republic Act No. 9136 or the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) with the end goal of providing affordable and reliable electricity to consumers in the Philippines. To achieve this goal, the law provided for the restructuring and deregulation of the power industry, however, there were not enough safeguards to prevent power industry players from manipulating the rates and the unabated transfer of the burden of what are properly costs of doing business on to the consumers. [bold mine]

It is in this light that I pushed for the amendments of the EPIRA in order to correct the flaws of the law and to set additional safeguards that will allow the end-users of electricity to enjoy an efficient, reliable, and inexpensive electric power system. (Posted on Facebook)

read More Senators join Enrile in pushing for EPIRA amendmentsMiriam to foreign traders: Explain pro-EPIRA lobbyEpira amendment bill might not pass – VillarSenators scold foreign traders at Epira hearing.  yes, there was, is, a foreign lobby to stop amendments to the EPIRA.  obviously the lobby was successful.

here’s calling out the senators of the 14th congress: villar the husband, enrile, estrada the son, kiko pangilinan, migs zubiri, pimentel the father, angara the father, joker arroyo, rodolfo biazon, the cayetano kids, miriam santiago, chiz escudero, dick gordon, gringo honasan, ping lacson, lito lapid, loren legarda, jamby madrigal, revilla the son, mar roxas, sonny trillanes, and last but certainly not the least, benigno aquino the son, now the president.  you all owe us an explanation for buckling to foreign pressure.  and you all owe us big time for abandoning us to the mercies of a merciless oligarchy.

it’s not as if life is good, the living easy, for the low- and middle-income masses of luzon that depend on meralco for electricity.  if anything, living conditions have gone from bad to worse, with wages remaining low while prices of essential commodities are forever spiralling.  except for the rich and relatively rich, life is harsh, the living a struggle to make ends meet for millions, esp the ones with families, children, to feed, clothe, shelter, and send to school.

life is harsh, the living a struggle, and electricity is the one essential commodity that makes life, the daily grind, bearable.  imagine what life would be like for the masses without electricity.  walang ilaw, walang electric fan, radyo, tv, walang pang-charge ng celfone, (and for the middle class) walang fridge, computer, internet, oven, toaster, plancha, washing machine.  ang dilim.  ang lungkot.  ang bigat.

we won’t die without electricity the way we would die without food and water, but it would be a kind of death, it would be the pits, and many already beg, steal, or borrow, ‘wag lang maputulan ng koryente.  no wonder at all that the news of a php 4.15 (!) price hike, no matter if temporary (malaking IF), no matter if utay-utay ang singil, is driving the masses to tearful, and fearful, desperation.  paano na.  tipid na tipid na nga.  wala nang ihihigpit ang sinturon.

unless the president and the lawmakers get their act together on the EPIRA and bring down the power rate to truly reasonable levels, millions of poor pinoys in the very near future would have to do with even less food and less utilities, maybe no radio, no tv – no entertainment, no escape! – just to keep up payments for a little light, shore up what little dignity they have left, as they struggle, kahig-tuka, to keep body and soul together.

beware the social volcano.
http://getrealphilippines.com/legacy/agr-disagr/8-2-volcano.html
http://business.inquirer.net/8377/philippines-leads-in-income-inequality-in-asean-says-study
http://www.tribune.net.ph/nation/most-pinoys-have-trouble-buying-basic-needs-ibon

 *

10 years of EPIRA: what went wrong?
The curious case of NAPOCOR debts
Power lords
ADB : Anti-Development Bank

 

mini pork barrel fund

since 1998, there seems to be a mini pork barrel fund that the senators (and apparently members of the House of Representatives as well) have been feeding off, courtesy of some provision inserted in the General Appropriations Act at the time. In effect, the maintenance and other operating expenses (MOOE) budgets of the legislators have been and are being treated like “confidential and intelligence funds” (CIFs), in the sense that when liquidating these expenses, the legislators do not need to produce receipts or other documentary evidence to justify them. All that is needed is a “certification,” signed by them, that they had spent the money on MOOE items.

hopes rise for RH

it was quite close: 113 yes, 104 no, 3 abstentions.  so the NAYS may have sounded as loud as the AYES in the viva voce, therefore valid naman the anti-RH call for nominal voting.  also, the hope may have been that, with the church watching from the gallery, the undecided / ambivalent / wishywashy reps who believe in a catholic vote might be intimidated enough to vote against the bill.  which may explain the slim margin, clearly not representative of the 7 out of 10 filipinos who favor RH.

there’s talk, of course, as usual, of rewards from either the palace or the church in exchange for a yes or a no.  no one’s offered any proof, of course, and i wouldn’t even have mentioned it except that on ANC i just heard a report that the president denies he dangled pork barrel funds for the passage of the RH bill. makes you wonder what kind of rewards the church, for its part, mayhap dangles for the defeat of the RH bill.  the anti-RH catholic vote?  but that’s only 3 out of 10 filipinos at best?

which, again, makes you wonder why, over in the senate, a minority is calling the shots on the RH bill. sotto has managed to delay delay delay his final interpellation, kung kailan he promises to demand amendments that will allegedly seal all alleged windows, cracks, holes through which a pro-abortion law might allegedly steal through in some alleged future.  fortunately, senators pia and miriam are no pushovers.

samantala, the church has not conceded defeat on the RH fight, umaasa malamang na some reps will change their votes and swing the tide in their favor on third and final reading.  sana naman hindi.  sana, kabaligtaran ang maganap — NO votes going YES on third reading, alang-alang sa kababaihan.

here’s a list of the 104 NAY-sayers and 3 abstainers: kalampagin to vote YES, if s/he’s your representative!

here’s a list of the 113 AYES-who-have-it: palakpakan at iboto muli!

read, too, RH Bill Voting: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly