Category: marcos

Ninoy & the Marcoses #40years

On this 40th death anniversary of Ninoy Aquino, it was good to wake up to these words from President Marcos Jr., even if only for the record.

I stand united with all Filipinos worldwide in commemorating the Ninoy Aquino Day. By standing for his beliefs and fighting for battles he deemed right, he became an example of being relentless and resolute for many Filipinos.

In our purposive quest for a more united and prosperous Philippines, let us transcend political barriers that hamper us from securing the comprehensive welfare and advancement of our beloved people.

What’s interesting is that the article ends with a video clip of a BBM interview by Anthony Taberna (date unknown) titled “Did your father order Ninoy killed? No, says Bongbong”.

Not surprising naman that Marcos Jr. said no, his father did not order the killing, not to his knowledge anyway. What surprises really is his pahabol.

BBM. … Nung nakuha namin yung balita we were having… Sunday yon, nagla-lunch kami, and habang kumakain kami, tinawag siya sa telepono. Pagbalik niya, sabi niya, pag-uwi ni Ninoy, binaril siya. … Siguradong magkakagulo.

For the record din lang, all documented accounts have it that Marcos was then very sick after a failed kidney transplant and was confined in the Palace Guest House that had been transformed into an “impromptu hospital.” Si Imelda naman was about to have lunch with Chitang Nakpil, JV Cruz, and others at the Gloria Maris @ the CCP complex when she got the call from Gen. Ver about the killing and forthwith they all rushed to the Palace.

In August 2004 it was Imee Marcos who reminded that it was “a known fact that my father was extremely ill that time” when Ninoy was assassinated.  Which was to insist that Marcos could not have ordered the killing because he was too sick, but which does not necessarily mean that he didn’t have anything to do with it, considering that it was members of Fabian Ver’s AFP that were found guilty of the double murder.

In any case, this could also be just another He-said-She-said drama that the sibs like to engage in, probably meant only to muddy the waters some more. So what else is new.

Notes on Lea Salonga and on “Here Lies Love”

No debate — Lea is right to be wary of strangers. Her fans should not take it personally.

What IS debatable is the charge that she is a “Marcos apologist”, first raised in 2016 when BBM was contesting Leni’s win as VP, apparently based on her replies (in social media) regarding her “stand on the Marcoses”.

LEA. They have always been kind to me and my family. … I will not disrespect them. … If not for that part of my life (I sang a lot in the palace for foreign guests since I was 10 until I was 14) I probably wouldn’t have ever dreamed I could make it as a performer abroad. I can’t ever look back upon it with regret. If nothing else, every presentation showed how beautiful our fashions were, and how talented our artists were.  https://i.redd.it/dkfitkzqs, f11.jpg https://i.redd.it/dkfitkzqslf11.jpg 

Lea was simply speaking the truth of her personal experience of the Marcoses back in the early 80s. By the time she started  performing in the palace at age 10, she was already singing and acting on stage (The King and I, Annie (title role), The Sound of Music, atbp. with Repertory Philippines) and guesting on TV shows. No doubt her exposure to and participation in Imelda’s high-end affairs that were always world-class went a long way in preparing her for the Ms. Saigon auditions and playing the title role, no less, sa West End UK and Broadway NY. But does it mean she is blind to the abuses of the Marcos regime?

LEA. In celebrating the good, I don’t ignore the bad. The good and bad are part of the whole truth. The abuses should not ever be forgotten. … When you’re 10 and sheltered, you know what you know. And then you discover more as you grow. … I only learned more the older I got. As with everyone else. … I do not doubt the truth about the Martial Law experience for many of our countrymen. That would be spitting on history.  https://www.gmanetwork.com/entertainment/showbiznews/news/23075/read-lea-salongas-opinion-about-the-marcoses-create-buzz-online/story

Fast forward to a July 6 2023 Playbill interview with Lea in the run-up to the re-staging of David Byrne’s Imelda musical “Here Lies Love” that she co-produces and where she plays Ninoy Aquino’s mother Doña Aurora.

PLAYBILL. Salonga vividly remembers Aquino’s death, the news coverage of it in the Philippines as well as his face on all the magazines afterwards. As part of her research for the role, Salonga spoke to Aquino’s brother-in-law Ken Kashiwahara. “[Aurora] was the one who had to make the decision to have his body on display,” says Salonga. “So that left such an indelible mark on so many people, and then just sparked an awakening in many folks from home.”

Salonga was 15 [during the People Power Revolution] … she remembers her parents making food at home and packing it into containers. “I remember my dad driving out to send it to whoever he could reach. Just to keep people on the street,” recalls Salonga.

To play such an important figure of recent Filipino history, it’s a task that Salonga describes with a deep intake of breath and a deepening of her voice, “Ohhh! It’s a lot.”
 https://playbill.com/article/lea-salonga-and-arielle-jacobs-know-that-here-lies-love-is-controversial-but-they-stand-by-it

Unfortunately, “Here Lies Love” is said to be too kind to Imelda.

RUBEN CARRANZA. David Byrne’s attempt to humanize Imelda Marcos insults the impoverished people she and her family stole from. And because it is playing at a time when the Marcoses have lied their way back to power, ‘Here Lies Love’ will only reinforce those lies and serve, intentionally or not, the larger Marcos agenda of denying truth and revising the history of their dictatorship.” https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/06/theater/here-lies-love-background.html

GINA APOSTOL. The effect of Here Lies Love is comic, benumbing, discordant, enthralling. The disco ballads, oozing Imelda’s rags to riches tale, underline the damaged psyche that held a country in its hair-sprayed grip for 20 years. They’re songs of a broken party girl whose megalomania leads to vicious, unforgivable murder — effects of dictatorship. But after the mayhem, as we know, and as the play notes, Imelda remains beautifully coiffed, unjailed. https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/dancing-dictators/

LUIS FRANCIA.  Imelda actively took part in governing the country, and had been named by Ferdinand as his successor in the event of his death. Wags always said that the country had His and Hers governments. It was this and her attendant notoriety that drew Bryne’s attention in the first place. Beyond superficial nods to political events such as the declaration of martial law (“Order 1081”) and the imprisonment of Senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino (“Seven Years”)–the Marcoses’ most celebrated political opponent, whose assassination in 1983 eventually led to the demise of the regime—there is no sense of the public and political context that shaped Imelda, a grievous omission that undercuts Here Lies Love’s attempt to investigate what as well as who made Imelda what she is.  https://web.archive.org/web/20220818071905/https://thefanzine.com/when-disco-was-the-soundtrack-to-martial-law-david-byrne-fatboy-slim-and-imelda-marcos/

ERIC GAMALINDA. One can only offer so much detail on the long and convoluted saga of the rise and fall of the Marcoses. But in a narrative of breakneck speed (90 minutes), Imelda becomes the true heroine: complex, flawed, and brought down by hubris — almost Grecian in her tragedy. During one number, when she sang, “It takes a woman to do a man’s job,” the audience actually exploded in applause.

In the end, as Imelda shrinks from the glare of helicopter lights overhead, you still see her as a victim of circumstance. Her final song, “Why Don’t You Love Me,” is the anguished bellow of a lost soul, unable to comprehend the fate handed to her, when all she wanted was to “spread love.” https://www.rappler.com/entertainment/theater/inventing-imelda-review-here-lies-love-broadway/

But all that’s on Byrne, not Lea.

That Lea plays not Imelda but Doña Aurora places her on the right side of history.

The next challenge is to bring “Here Lies Love” to Manila, where it all happened. To some extent, staging it in the U.S. is easy and safe: that audience will always see it from a certain distance. Staging it in Manila would open it, us, up to a different set of discussions, about our history and its telling, the personal and the political, and the role that culture plays in nation’s search for meaning.

Here lies the nation that gave birth to “Here Lies Love”. We are the audience it deserves. And with the Marcoses back in power, there is no better time than the present.

Maharlika — everything, everywhere, all at once

Pasting this in full before it gets paywalled.

By Stephen CuUnjieng

SIGNED, sealed, delivered — it’s yours. Now what do we have with Maharlika and what will they do with it? I have previously said I am supportive of a national development fund. Preferably one like Indonesia’s, but at least the Senate improved on the House version. Still, would it be the way I would do it? No, but I am not the president or a senator, so what should the managers and board do with what we have?

It is clear as can be seen from the rushed document that there are even sloppy typographical errors that could have been cured with a little proofreading. In the section on the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), the bill mentions “the monetary board” when it clearly should be “the Monetary Board.” Was that so hard to miss, and correct? What else might be there?

More important, there are contradictions or at least ambiguities, which should have been worked out, unless they were intentional. If the latter, then I would be worried. Sec. 2 on the “Declaration of Policy” seems to imply without being explicit that this is a national development fund from what the aims are. Yet there is no provision delineating this or limiting the breadth of what the Fund can invest in or where. Then in Section 14 on what the Fund can invest in, it reads to me like “Everything, Everywhere, All at Once.” Literally any type of equity, debt, or hybrid debt or equity plus joint ventures anywhere is allowed. That was carried over from the bill passed by the House. This does not seem in line with the “Declaration of Policy” in Sec. 2. If I was charitable, I could argue that this is where to park the money, starting with the initial P75 billion until they make the long-term investments but that is something the board and management may choose to follow, impose or ignore. If the latter, then it is no longer a national development fund but a regular fund with unlimited scope.

Short-term, long-term

Let us even argue that this broader scope of permissible investments is just “short-term” until the long-term investments are made. What if they lose value in the meantime or are so illiquid that they can’t be liquefied to fund the long-term investments? Why do I worry that Sec. 14 was not meant for just short-term investments, i.e. for the money on hand until the long-term investments are made? If it was just short-term, why would that section allow joint ventures and unlisted securities which are not liquid, short-term, or easily sold? If for the long term as well, then why is there no limitation on where and what the Fund can invest in? Again, it seems to be the old provision from the bill passed by the House and just carried over without clarifying what it meant, unless they really plan for it to be open-ended. Unless that was the intent and the Declaration of Policy was just principle that the Fund’s board and managers could comply with in whatever way they want to. So, in reality, full discretion. If so, then it really is the old House bill version with some statements of principle but no implementing or limiting provisions, which is an all-encompassing fund and not a national development fund. If that happens, then I worry and I don’t think that is a very good use of proceeds or worth the trouble and use of funds from the various government sources as Sen. Imee Marcos pointed out. Frankly, the government through existing entities can do that already, so why create something new and use profits of the Bangko Sentral (BSP) which are better used building up its own balance sheet? More on that later, but as Senator Marcos pointed out this is not coming from a windfall. The funds are being allocated away from other potential uses of funds by the DBP, LandBank, BSP and the national government.

Open-ended

On June 3, Sen. Mark Villar, the principal author of the bill which has become law, basically said it is both a general fund that can invest in anything and a national development fund. That means it is open-ended and really can be anything, unless the board and management choose to limit the Fund’s scope voluntarily. The board and management have the discretion to allocate what percent to a general fund and to the development side. Should they decide, that scope can also be changed by subsequent boards and managements.

Then there is the way the Fund is being funded. Most mutual funds that invest in public debt and equity are fully funded from the start and fully invest their funds in a short period of time. Unless they are open-end funds and raise new capital, they sell some of their holdings to buy other stocks or bonds. Most private equity firms that invest in unlisted securities (as at least what should be the national development fund side is targeted to do), usually get commitments but only call the funds when needed. What does that mean? Let us for example say XYZ Fund raises $1 billion in commitments from 100 investors who for simplicity commit $10 million each. At that start, there is no money in the fund, except perhaps an initial call of 5 percent or less for organizational purposes. So, in this case all that is put is $50 million. Then they decide to make a $100 million investment in a company or project, the Fund will receive 10 percent, or $100 billion, from the investors who will each send $1 million, or 10 percent of their commitment. This continues until the Fund is fully invested or the Fund reaches the end of its investment period. That way there is no worry about what to do with the money until the Fund makes the investments.

Here we are starting with zero targeted investments but P75 billion in funds. What will the Fund do with this pending use of proceeds? It also reads that this Fund will continue to be funded until it gets to P500 billion regardless of whether the Fund is making the envisioned long-term investments or not. Or is it profitable or not. Not the normal way it is done. For example, GIC manages the reserves of Singapore. Their private equity fund and investments in global private equity funds don’t send the money ahead except for calls for management fees and the like. They usually send the funds when investments are made. It is different if you are a windfall fund like Norway where revenues from their sale of oil is managed but this is not the case here. While sovereign funds are not limited to those with windfalls it is unusual when there is no windfall or revenue stream to fund ahead of commitments. Even more odd if what is envisioned is a national development fund and not a sovereign wealth fund, then as I put it, why can Maharlika invest in everything, everywhere, all at once? I suppose because it is a two-in-one fund, but those two are at cross-purposes.

Most problematic

Then there is the matter of using the profits of the BSP. Central banks, especially if you are not fortunate to be from a reserve currency like the US or European Community, are never big enough. Most prudent governments want to build the asset base of their central banks as fast and as much as they can to have the wherewithal to act in a financial crisis whether homegrown (like we had in 1983-1985) or regional (1997) or global (2008 and Covid and this year after the Ukraine invasion), which happen with regularity and more so recently. Under the BSP law, 100 percent of the profits of the BSP are returned as additional capital. Well, not anymore. The Senate version adds that “the monetary board (sic) can recommend to the president” that the investment of their profits to Maharlika be deferred if needed. Note, it is the president who decides, not the independent central bank and Monetary Board. Also, the nature of emergencies and crises is they are usually unforeseen, hence the need to prepare for their possibility ahead of time and not post its occurrence. When it happens, the central bank will have to use what resources it has and not be able to recall prior profits given to Maharlika or wait for the forthcoming profits and defer sending that if the president agrees. Frankly, this is the most problematic provision of Maharlika for me.

That analogously, is also the issue with using DBP and LandBank as funders. It lessens what is available to lend and by about 10 times the amount they invest in Maharlika. Why 10 times? Regardless of how they find it, what the LBP and DBP invest in Maharlika is charged to their equity. In their respective cases, initially P50 billion and P25 billion. Now a bank needs about 10 percent Tier 1 capital. So P1 in capital supports about P10 in loans and other debt instruments. As the Maharlika investment is charged to their equity, that means up to P750 billion less lending for both. Can the Bankers Association of the Philippines and BSP confirm if I am correct? I hope I am wrong but if I am right this is something to carefully assess and suggest the administration consider.

Especially given the clashing goal of merging LBP and DBP to make them bigger so they can be more efficient and lend more. How is that accomplished by taking away P750 billion in lending capacity up front, even while Maharlika has yet to find investments, and this will continue if the capital investments continue for these two banks.

Let me put it analogously. If it was too imprudent to let the pension funds like SSS and GSIS invest in Maharlika and are permanently barred, wouldn’t the same logic apply to the BSP given their need to constantly build up their balance sheet and resources to defend the peso and stabilize the economy as needed? Same with DBP and LBP if they are to fund infrastructure, development and agriculture. Why take away equity which will result in 10 times reduction in lending capacity?

Let me leave discussion of management, organizational structure and funding to another column. If we had to have a government-funded investment fund, I wish it was a national development fund, similar to the one Indonesia is trying out. That is not what Maharlika is. It could be implemented as a national development fund, but what is provided by the law is open-ended. It seems to be some hybrid fund whose direction is open to the board and managers but whose funding is set.

In the week since its passage, I have been listening to all the arguments of the government officials on how this will help Philippine infrastructure and so on. I agree if the Fund dedicated its resources to be a national development fund, it could. If that was the intent, then why did they set up a Fund that could invest in everything, everywhere, all at once? And why is that part not being explained?

 

Maharlika moromoro

moromoro  Sp. n. stage play depicting struggle between Moros and Christians. Syn. komedya. [Panganiban 1972]

“Magmoro-moro na lang kayo,” President Marcos the Senior is said to have instructed the Tanodbayan and a Sandiganbayan justice, once upon a time. As in, just put on a show. His parting words: “Thank you for your cooperation. I know how to reciprocate.” [G.R. 72670]

Iyan mismo ang datíng sa akin ng final deliberations on, amendments to, and passage of the Senate version of the controversial Php 500 billion Maharlika Fund bill na madaliang naganap Monday and Tuesday sa Senado. Madalian din ang bicameral conference na naganap Wednesday kung saan agad-agad inaprub ng Lower House ang Upper House version “in principle — subject to style.”

Para bagang nagpalabas lang ang mga senador, a show of resistance, with pahabol “safeguards” that may or may not work, may or may not be applied, but at least they tried? What’s for certain is that the 19 didn’t have the heart to say no to the president’s “urgent” request, bahala na si Batman, ehe, si BBM. Super galing naman kasi ang timing ni presidente: he certified Maharlika as “urgent” May 25, giving the senators exactly a week to get it passed and bicammed before the senate adjourned June 2 for a 50-day break.

ANA MARIE PAMINTUAN: Do lawmakers know the exact nature of the Maharlika fund that they have approved with impressive speed?

Investors will want to know where their money will be placed. International investment banker Stephen CuUnjieng says the measure was so hastily passed that provisions allow Maharlika to function both as a national development fund and a sovereign fund that can be invested in “everything everywhere all at once.”

It clearly didn’t matter to lawmakers. Proving (again) that it’s not only the House of Representatives that is a Malacañang rubber stamp, the Senate dutifully passed the bill creating the Maharlika fund in record time. The House, no surprise there, immediately adopted the Senate version. Truly, the two chambers are as thick as thieves. [https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2023/06/02/2270795/everything-everywhere]

Salamat kay Senator Koko Pimentel for doing the research and taking the time to explain his objections in very practical terms sa turno en contra (indeed, the road to hell is paved with good intentions). His pointed questions, many left unanswered, in the interpellation of the bill’s sponsor, were also most enlightening. 

Salamat din kay Senator Chiz Escudero for the amicus curiae moment, warning his colleagues that certain requirements of the Constitution re the creation of a Government-Owned and Controlled Corporation (GOCC) such as the Maharlika Investment Fund were not fulfilled. For the public good nga ba?  Economiically viable and sustainable nga ba?

Salamat na rin kay Senator Risa Hontiveros for her lone categorical NO vote, even if largely symbolic.

As for Senate Prez Migs Zubiri, I would very much like to hear him defend the MIF in Plaza Miranda, warts and safeguards and all.

DIWA GUINIGUNDO:  [T]he MIF is many things. One, it is untimely; two, its method of sourcing funds could destabilize public finance and ultimately raise our national debt; three, the BSP could be compromised as an autonomous and independent monetary authority; and four, it could further worsen governance and patronage. In other words, there is a great likelihood of market failure. [https://mb.com.ph/2023/02/17/maharlika-fund-some-fundamental-issues/ ]

Under the one single fund concept, whatever public money is earmarked for the Maharlika Investment Fund and away from the national budget, the national government will have to compensate for that. And to be able to do that, the national government will have to borrow or to impose higher taxes or more taxes. There is no other way [https://www.cnnphilippines.com/news/2023/5/31/Guinigundo-diverting-public-funds-to-Maharlika.html]

ALEX MAGNO: Through all the debate, supporters of the MIF never arrived at a clear statement of purpose for setting this up. If it is to grow capital for future generations for Filipinos, then it should be primed with enough nimbleness to outwit and outmaneuver the giant institutional investors out there. It should be enabled to roam all the world’s markets scouring for the biggest returns. It must be super profitable to make it worthwhile. Then the money it accumulates from its smart operation as an institutional investor should be locked in for future generations to enjoy. In which case, it contributes nothing to our near-term development goals.

If the purpose is to serve as a source of project funding for development projects, then it must be able to offer cheaper loans than other alternatives such as official development assistance (ODA) granted by friendly entities. Remember that most ODA earn nothing but goodwill for the countries and multilateral institutions lending them out. To provide a better option for ODA borrowing, the MIF must earn nothing. [https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2023/06/01/2270657/useless]

MARENG WINNIE MONSOD.  What projects are this fund going to finance? If they want to finance what’s in the Philippine Development Plan, fine. … but this fund, what are they doing? They’re going to invest in blue chip stocks? What will that contribute to development? … What they’re trying to do, in investing in bluechip stocks, is supposedly to make a profit higher than government agencies can make…. I don’t understand it. Medyo confused sila eh. Martin Romualdez is confused, talking about the stock exchange etc.

Where are we going?  From one confused person to another confused person to a confused public. I mean, is that a way to pass a law? Why didn’t they make it transparent to everybody so that everybody could find out what is going on? You know. Now it’s such a well-guarded secret because they just want to pass it. Isn’t that terrible?  [“Winnie Monsod: Passage of MIF strictly a political move, not an economic move” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzz68LDtT9Y]

And then, again, the 19 senators may know something the rest of us don’t know, maybe some inside info that’s particularly reassuring for their vested interests?  Maybe it was as much a moromoro as it was an exercise in realpoliitik, moved by practical rather than moral considerations — a matter of political survival in this heavily toxic times? eyes on 2025 and 2028?  Perhaps that’s why the whole affair smacked of suck-up politics. No doubt the prez would know to reciprocate.