0		2010 elections, campaign, promises

The presidential campaign officially starts today (February 9) and the debate organized yesterday morning (February 8) is supposed to give the Filipino electorate an idea of where the presidential candidates stand on pressing issues of the day.

Notwithstanding the usual rhetoric of good governance under their watch, it is good to know that the eight candidates have some specific goals if elected into the highest office of the land.

1. Sen. Noynoy Aquino, for example, is in favor of adding two more years in basic education to improve the quality of education in the country.
2. Olongapo City Councilor JC delos Reyes is generally against foreign ownership of land but wants to expore the possibility of "limited ownership" of land for foreigners.
3. Sen. Jamby Madrigal, for her part, wants to limit the advertising of junk food and milk products for babies 0 to 2 years old and impose a tax on softdrinks.
4. Sen. Richard Gordon is in favor of increasing the salary of teachers to PhP40,000 (US$857.26) monthly and he wants to raise the necessary funds by imposing a tax on texting (i.e., SMS or short message system).
5. Environmentalist Nick Perlas wants to set up an Office of Civil Society Affairs so that "civil society" would be integrated into the government.
6. Former Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro believes that opening up the economy is a guarantee that it will not be controlled by a few.
7. Evangelist Eddie Villanueva wants to study the possibility of repealing Presidential Decree No. 1177, an old law that provides for automatic appropriation for debt payment in the national budget.
8. Sen. Manny Villar, on the other hand, sees the need to confront deficit spending.

The ninth candidate, former President Joseph Estrada, did not attend the debate, claiming that the leading newspaper that organized the event is biased against him.

The dearth of specific courses of action, however, is very evident as the eight candidates ended up giving general statements when asked about what they would do to effect meaningful change in the country. The debate focused on their unified stand against corruption and the need to improve the economy. Not surprisingly, all of them made a promise not to steal from the government coffers and argued that eradicating corruption could help provide more funds to basic services like health and education.

The empty - and at times questionable - rhetoric proves to be the order of the day as all candidates tried to sell themselves to a broader electorate. Consciously or unconsciously, they made promises that are either impossible to fulfill or hard to define.

1. Villanueva, for example, promises "absolute press freedom" if elected President even if existing theories in communication in journalism clearly defy this point.
2. Teodoro is in favor of consulting with indigenous peoples for whatever "extraction activities" will be done in their ancestral domains, unmindful of the fact that indigenous peoples through the years have been against the wanton exploitation of their land.
3. Villar wants to "let the people decide" on the issue of foreign ownership of land, without giving any specific steps on how this could be done and whether or not a healthy debate would happen on the issue if he becomes President.
4. Gordon claims that Filipinos should "make themselves look good" to foreign investors to attain development, which leads one to ask the role of local industries in his concept of national development.
5. Perlas is not against mining per se, but he wants to change the mining law so that there would be "equitable distribution of income," a big departure from the stand of anti-mining activists and environmentalists like him who had called on government to repeal the Mining Act.

Debates are supposed to be venues to test the mettle of the candidates, but their arguments are still neither here nor there based on the quality of the answers they had provided. To be fair to the candidates, the limited time prevented them from fully explaining their stand on issues. In addition, the questions are, for the most part, both broad and person-specific, preventing candidates from giving answers to common questions for better comparison of where they stand.

If the recent debate were any indication, the candidates' arguments are currently neither here nor there. The presidential campaign in the coming weeks should help clarify their stand on issues. Is it possible for the campaign to be elevated to a higher level of discourse? Would presidential candidates be willing to stick to the issues in their political ads? Would it be possible for them to refrain from muckraking?

As the candidates prepare to answer yes to all of these questions (as they are expected to do so), the Filipino voters should then ask themselves what they would do to the candidates who break their promise to wage an intelligent campaign. Empty rhetoric, after all, should never be tolerated.

	0		vat, value-added tax, senior citizens, exemption, revenue

One finds it hard to debate with senior citizens when they called on President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to sign the proposed Expanded Senior Citizens Act which Congress passed on third and final reading last January 27.

The objectives of the bill (based on Sec. 2 of Senate Bill No. 3561) are very much pro-senior citizen and takes off from the constitutional provision that it is the duty of the family to take care of its elderly members while the State may design programs of social security for them. How can one find any problems with the following points in the bill?

1. "To recognize the rights of senior citizens to take their proper place in society and make it a concern of the family, community and government;
2. "To give full support to the improvement of the total well-being of the elderly and their full participation in society, considering that senior citizens are integral part of Philippine society;
3. "To motivate and encourage senior citizens to contribute to nation-building;
4. "To encourage their families and the communities they live with to reaffirm the valued Filipino tradition of caring for senior citizens;
5. "To provide a comprehensive health care and rehabilitation system for disabled senior citizens to foster their capacity to attain a more meaningful and productive aging; and
6. "To recognize the important role of the private sector in the improvement of the welfare of senior citizens and to actively seek their partnership."

Of course, one can always argue that these are general statements that can be misinterpreted, abused or ignored based on the whims of the powers-that-be. Nevertheless, the 13-page Senate bill truly provides additional benefits that can be enjoyed by senior citizens. One can safely conclude that it is an expansion of the Republic Act No. 9257 or the Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003.

For example, if President Macapagal-Arroyo signs the bill into law, senior citizens who are minimum wage earners will be exempted from paying income tax. Indigent senior citizen patients will be able to avail of free vaccination against the influenza virus and pneumococcal disease. In addition, indigent senior citizens will be entitled to a monthly allowance of PhP1,500 (US$32.11). The nearest surviving relative of a deceased senior citizen will get at least PhP2,000 (US$42.82) as death benefit assistance. The bill also mandates  government hospitals to have a Senior Citizens Ward so that the medical needs of the elderly are better taken care of.

What hogged the headlines, however, is a benefit of senior citizens in relation to the value-added tax (VAT). Sec. 4 of SBN 3561 clearly states that not only are senior citizens entitled to a 20% discount in the availment of goods and services; they will also be exempted from paying the 12% VAT as they avail of the following:

1. "Purchase of medicines, including the purchase of influenza and pneumococcal vaccines. The Department of Health shall establish guidelines in the sharing of burden of discount among retailers, manufacturers and distributors;
2. "Professional fees of attending physician/s in all private hospitals, medical facilities and outpatient clinic;
3. "Medical and dental services, diagnostic and laboratory fees in all private hospitals and medical facilities, and outpatient clinic, in accordance with the rules and regulations to be issued by DOH in coordination with the Philippine Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth);
4. "Actual fare for land transportation travel in public utility buses (PUB), public utility jeepneys (PUJ), taxis, Asian utility vehicles (AUV), shuttle services and public railways, including light rail transit (LRT), mass rail transit (MRT) and Philippine National Railways (PNR);
5. "Utilization of services in hotels and similar lodging establishments, restaurants and recreation centers; and
6. "Admission fees charged by theaters, cinema houses and concert halls, circuses, carnivals and other similar places of culture, leisure and amusement."

While this may be welcome news to senior citizens, it must be remembered that the VAT has been opposed by concerned individuals and cause-oriented groups since its imposition in 1988. Ironically, this unpopular measure was signed into law through an executive order by the late President Corazon Aquino two days before the opening of Congress. Right from the start, there had been criticisms about the Executive branch arrogating unto itself the power of taxation, a power which should belong to Congress. The latter, after all, is the one that deliberates on and approves the national budget.

In two articles I wrote in 2005 ("Understanding VAT leads one to oppose it" and "VAT spurs exportation at the expense of domestic needs"), I already raised the following arguments against the VAT:

1. As an indirect tax that covers almost all goods and services, the poor are affected most because they have lower purchasing power.
2. Even if the VAT is a tax on consumption and not on income, poor families still bear the brunt as basic necessities are covered by the VAT; the government unwittingly sends a message to the poor that they should eat less (or not at all) if they do not want to be affected by the VAT.
3. The VAT is primarily meant as a more convenient way to collect government revenues as it is easily reflected in business transactions.
4. When the government argued for the increase in the VAT rate for 10% to 12% (a measure that was eventually passed in 2005 through RA 9337), it was found out that it has not been efficient in collecting taxes, including the VAT, through the years, as evidenced by data from the National Tax Research Center. At that time, questions were raised as regards the capacity of government to reduce, if not eradicate the average leakage from VAT which resulted in losses of PhP352.1 billion (US$7.54 billion) from 1998 to 2003.
5. The VAT also seeks to encourage local investors to engage more in exports to avail of zero-rated VAT. Exporters are not only exempted from VAT; they can also avail of tax credits from the VAT they paid for various VAT-covered transactions. In other words, those engaged in export stand to earn more through the VAT.

These age-old arguments against the VAT need to be mentioned again in the light of the impending VAT exemption to senior citizens. In the struggle to change the regressive tax regime of the Philippines, the issue should have nothing to do with expanding exemptions but repealing the VAT altogether. It is hoped that senior citizens will also be involved in the campaign against this repressive tax measure, notwithstanding the benefits they stand to get once the new Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2010 becomes a law.

	3	1	blogging, responsibility, ethics, ella, dswd

A Philippine government official's decision to charge a blogger with libel only shows how the libel law is being used not to protect freedom of expression but to suppress it.

Upon the request of Secretary Esperanza Cabral, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) last week filed a libel case against the person behind "Blog ni Ella (Blog of Ella)" located at www.ellaganda.com (Language warning: The blog mainly uses Taglish, or a mix of English and Filipino phrases and sentences).

The libel case is in connection with the blog's October 21, 2009 entry titled "Aanhin pa ang damo kung patay na ang kabayo? (A special report from a volunteer) [The title is an old Filipino saying, the loose translation of which is: How can the grass be useful if the horse is already dead?]" where the blogger, Ella, claimed that the relief goods meant to be distributed to typhoon victims are "rotting" inside the warehouse of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD).

This is not the first time that the rich and powerful have used libel to harass and intimidate bloggers. For example, the Yuchengco Group of Companies, which runs a pre-need firm, charged the Parents Enabling Parents (PEP) Coalition with libel for publishing what the former perceived to be malicious remarks in the latter's blog. The case, however, was dismissed by the Court of Appeals in October 2009.

On the part of the government, libel has been used to get back at journalists who published or aired reports critical of the administration. The most glaring example is First Gentleman Mike Arroyo's libel suit against more than 40 journalists which he later withdrew. Since libel is a criminal offense in the Philippines, those convicted of the crime could end up like broadcaster Alexander Adonis who was jailed for almost two years. In 2001, Adonis reported on the alleged extra-marital affairs of a local politician in Davao (located south of the Philippines).

Joel Simon, executive director of the US-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), stressed in 2007 that the "authorities in the Philippines are using criminal libel as a battering ram against press freedom... Government officials should not rush to a prosecutor every time a journalist writes critically about those in power." The situation has also led a Filipino editor to say: "The message we’re getting is this: no matter how responsible journalists are, you can no longer seek protection in the law."

It is ironic to think that libel which is supposed to protect the reputation of an individual from irresponsible reportage is now a tool of media repression. Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code clearly states: "A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead." Anecdotal evidence as regards libel cases against journalists and bloggers, however, show otherwise.

In the past, journalists had taken the initiative to lobby Congress for the decriminalization of libel (i.e., reducing libel to a civil case, not a criminal one). Given the case filed against Ella, it is high time for bloggers to unite with journalists in the campaign to decriminalize libel as this also affects them. The same chilling effect, after all, could be felt by both journalists and bloggers as they write and produce media content. The powers-that-be should not be allowed to use laws like libel to suppress freedom of expression.

Much as I have issues with the way Ella had written her blog post as it manifests irresponsible writing (which became the subject of a two-part series written in Filipino on responsible blogging), the government cannot and should not assume malice whenever it faces criticism from journalists and bloggers. If the Philippine government is indeed transparent and accountable to its people, it should remain open to criticisms, mindful of the fact that it has enough resources to issue replies to answer any allegations.

If a journalist or a blogger is, in the eyes of aggrieved parties, irresponsible in the way he or she analyzes social issues, the best option is to expose to the public the factual inaccuracies or logical fallacies so that a wider audience would be made aware of them.

Any perceived irresponsibility from journalists and bloggers cannot be used as an excuse to legislate the workings of the media, of which the blogosphere is now a part. If there is something that government should do, it is to provide an atmosphere conducive to the practice of journalism and blogging. Instead of using laws against journalists and bloggers, the government should help protect the rights of both the pro-government and the anti-government forces to freely express their views.

Various forms of media repression, however, are tell-tale signs of a current administration that is hostile to freedom of expression. In this context, the decriminalization of libel is urgently needed, if only to ensure that journalists and bloggers will not be threatened with imprisonment as they go about their tasks.

	0	1	jason ivler, murder, road rage, impunity

Filipino-American Jason Ivler now stands trial for the November 18 murder of the son of an Undersecretary after his arrest this morning (January 18), exactly two months after the crime of which he is the suspect.

The presence of media during the raid on his house in Quezon City apparently helped in ensuring that everything is done by the book. Ivler reportedly engaged elements of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in a shootout, resulting in the wounding of two NBI agents and Ivler himself who had to be operated on at the Quirino Memorial Medical Center. While the two NBI agents are already out of danger, there were reports that Ivler was initially in critical condition but is now stable as of this writing.

No journalists were reportedly injured during the gunfight. TV camera people managed to get footage of the ensuing gunbattle and TV and radio journalists immediately reported the event as late breaking news. Concerned social media account users also posted the news about Ivler's arrest in social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

That public interest on the issue has not waned since November 18 may be attributed to the media's reportage of related events, particularly the detention in Qatar and deportation of first-time overseas Filipino worker (OFW) Jason Aguilar who was mistaken to be Ivler. Public opinion was on the side of Aguilar as he became an unwitting victim to Ivler's decision to go into hiding, as well as the slow response of the Philippine government to clear Aguilar's name and to give him the necessary support while incarcerated. It wasn't Aguilar's intention to be in the limelight but he indirectly helped in fueling public interest, not to mention public anger, on his fugitive namesake Jason Aguilar Ivler.

In the interest of objectivity, media organizations are expected to continue publishing or airing Ivler's side, in the same way that his mother Marlene Aguilar's much-quoted appeal for him to surrender if he is indeed guilty, as well as the claim that Ivler sent an email to her stating that he has already fled to the United States, were duly noted by the media.

Probing questions, however, must be asked not only of Ivler and his relatives but also to the concerned government agencies. The challenge also remains for media organizations to properly analyze the issue in the context not of the culture of impunity that prevails among the rich and powerful like the Aguilar-Ivler family.

1. How was Ivler able to evade arrest from 2004 to early 2010 when he was a suspect in a vehicular accident that killed presidential adviser on resettlement Nestor Ponce?
2. Why were the two police officers (one of them Ivler's relative) who escorted Ivler as he attempted to board a ship going to Malaysia in 2004 not charged criminally? Why is it that they were cleared for "failure to prosecute" when they were charged administratively? Why are they still on active duty?
3. Did Ivler have a valid driver's license when he was allegedly involved in a road rage incident that led to the November 18 murder of Renato Ebarle, Jr.? If so, how was he able to get a valid driver's license?
4. Given that Ivler reportedly does not have any firearms registered in his name, how was he able to get hold of high-powered firearms and armor-piercing bullets that he used against NBI agents? Who owns these firearms?

If media could provide answers to these questions, the public will greatly benefit from the information as they can better contextualize the crime as not an isolated incident done by a spoiled rich kid but a reflection of the kind of culture existing in the Philippine elite.

	0	1	radio, frequency, identification, espionage, surveillance, monitoring, fund-raising

Why is there resistance in the Philippines to a technology that is widely used in many countries like South Korea?

Starting this year, the Land Transportation Office (LTO) requires the installation of radio frequency identification (RFID) tags in vehicles. Various transport and cause-oriented groups have called on the government to stop its implementation, arguing that the technology is being used to raise funds for the coming elections and to "spy on organizations perceived as left-leaning."

Just like other countries, the Philippines requires an annual registration of vehicles. In the past, the LTO's only requirements for vehicle registration are payment of the registration fee, a passing mark in emission testing and an insurance for the vehicle.

According to the LTO, vehicle owners will be charged an additional PhP350 (US$7.65) for RFID stickers which must be prominently displayed in the vehicle's windshield. Through the introduction of the RFID technology, the LTO expects to generate an additional PhP2 billion ($43.74 million) in revenues.

How did the LTO arrive at this figure? Official data show that in 2008, there were 5,891,272 motor vehicles (MVs) registered with the LTO. Multiplying the number of MVs by 350, one gets 2,061,945,200. Considering an annual increase of 3.72% and 6.53% in 2007 and 2008, respectively, it is likely that the number of registered MVs in 2009 will reach six million so the income from RFID could be more than what is projected.

Interestingly, the fees collected by LTO for the registration of MVs in 2008 amounted to PhP785,492,574 (US$17.18 million), a mere 7.11% of the total revenue collections amounting to PhP11,048,015,054 (US$241.59 million).

In analyzing the argument of the Pinagkaisang Samahan ng mga Tsuper at Operator Nationwide (PISTON; Unified Association of Drivers and Operators Nationwide) and other groups that the funds from the RFID technology might be used in the May 2010 elections, it must be remembered that they are not referring to the total estimated PhP2 billion but mainly the collections from January to April.

As regards allegations that the Philippine government might use the RFID for surveillance, one only needs to be aware that the Soviet Union has used radio waves as early as 1945 to spy on its perceived enemies. For its part, the Allies during World War II used a similar technology like the transponder during World War II to identify friendly or hostile aircraft.

But what cannot be denied is that other countries are using RFID to facilitate cashless transactions. In South Korea, for example, the T-money (described as "pre-paid RF smartcard embedded with CPU to enable self-calculation") is being used in public transportation like trains, buses and taxis. The T-money basic card can be bought by anybody over-the-counter so it cannot be used by the Korean government to monitor the movement of a specific person.

The RFID has helped South Korea manage its transportation system. For example, it is able to allocate bus routes and control bus intervals. The discounts provided by T-money (e.g., a subway fare of KRW1,000 amounts to only KRW950 when using T-money) also reportedly help motivate Koreans to take public transportation.

Then again, the situation in South Korea greatly differs in the Philippines. The concern of cause-oriented groups as regards the RFID can hardly be called subjective paranoia.

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo who is currently running for a seat in the House of Representatives is deeply unpopular and not trusted by majority of Filipinos. Aside from being widely regarded to be pushing for charter change to perpetuate herself in power, she is being held responsible for the increasing number of extrajudicial killings, abductions and other forms of human rights violations.

Under her watch, the  Human Security Act (HSA) was passed in 2007 which is widely perceived to be repressive as it allows, among others, the wiretapping of conversations and the freezing of bank accounts of people suspected to be involved in terrorism, a term so nebulous that legitimate protests may be construed as such.

It is in this context that a supposedly beneficial technology becomes a bane to human rights, particularly a person's right to privacy. No wonder the RFID is being met with opposition in the Philippines as other countries embrace it to improve the people's lives and livelihood.

Note: US$1.00 = PhP45.68 (based on OANDA's Currency Converter as of January 11, 2010)

	1	1	journalism, education, repression, impunity

How should journalism be taught at a time when journalists are killed with impunity and the government remains hostile to press freedom?

The following questions need to be answered:

1. Should aspiring journalists be taught to practice "cold neutrality" in handling issues?
2. Is it right for a professor to encourage students to consistently follow the law?
3. Can professors and students just simply dismiss the media situation and just limit the classroom discussions to the theories related to journalistic writing, with special emphasis on grammar, syntax and diction?

The Philippines is said to be the freest press in Asia given the consitutional guarantees of press freedom and various laws that seek to protect freedom of speech and other basic freedoms. There is, of course, a difference between freedom of speech and freedom after speech as journalists and activists face dire consequences for exercising what is supposed to be their constitutional rights.

The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), in a yearend statement last December 30, stresses that 2009 "will forever be remembered as a year of unprecedented tribulation for the Philippine Press, with the November 23 massacre in Ampatuan town in Maguindanao making its grisly mark in history as the worst ever attack on the media."

For its part, the US-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) says, "This has been a year of unprecedented devastation for the world’s media, but the violence also confirms long-term trends... Most of the victims were local reporters covering news in their own communities. The perpetrators assumed, based on precedent, that they would never be punished. Whether the killings are in Iraq or the Philippines, in Russia or Mexico, changing this assumption is the key to reducing the death toll."

NUJP statistics show that 99 journalists have been killed since Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo became President in 2001, the latest being Zamboanga del Norte-based radio commentator Ismael Pasigma who was gunned down at around 6.30am last December 24. According to NUJP's Alert (December 31), he "was on his way to work when shot at close range. The motive for the killing is still unknown as of this writing."

CPJ data, on the other hand, show that at least "68 journalists worldwide were killed for their work in 2009, the highest yearly tally ever documented...The record toll was driven in large part by the election-related slaughter of more than 30 media workers in the Philippine province of Maguindanao, the deadliest event for the press in CPJ history."

Journalists in the Philippines have been killed with impunity since 1986 despite the end of Martial Law (with the ouster of the late President Ferdinand Marcos) and the supposed restoration of democracy. The NUJP counts 136 journalists killed for the past 23 years, or an average of one killing every two months. The killings have worsened under the Macapagal-Arroyo administration as an average of one journalist got murdered every month from 2001 to 2009.

Going back to the previous series of questions, the answers become clear as one deepens his or her understanding of the media situation in the Philippines.

1. "Cold neutrality" cannot be observed in a situation where the killings of journalists become the highest form of censorship. The stakes are too high for journalists to practice indifference to the culture of impunity that gives rise to media repression. Neutrality actually becomes counterproductive to the shaping of public opinion if one considers that a journalist is expected to analyze and not just present the data. One can even argue that the mere presentation of data -- which source to put in the lead, for example - is already an analysis by itself which, to a certain extent, reflects the slant of the article. Suffice it to say that there is a difference between neutrality and objectivity, the latter being the value that responsible journalists should aspire for.
2. While laws are necessary to maintain order in society, there are laws that end up muzzling the media instead of protecting them. It is in this context that various media organizations, for example, had opposed the imposition of Martial Law in Maguindanao and took police and government officials to court for being enemies of the press. The NUJP notes that the December 9 rally at Mendiola was "historic" because it was led by the media organizations themselves and joined in by various non-government organizations. Observing the unity between the media and their audiences in the wake of Ampatuan Massacre, one cannot help but conclude that media killings prompt journalists to become "activists" in their own right.
3. In journalism, there should be no dichotomy between form and content because both of them are important. While effective journalistic writing requires a respectable command of the language, the shaping of public opinion which is the journalist's primary responsibility cannot happen if a journalistic output is bereft of analysis. The challenge for journalism students is to acquire the necessary skills and knowledge of articulating their analysis in a manner that can be understood by their audiences. And once they venture into their chosen field, this will serve as their everyday challenge as they report on pressing social issues.

In order to be effective, the teaching of journalism should therefore remain critical of the forces that perpetuate media repression. But in the event that professors fail to deliver, it is incumbent upon journalism students to acquire not just the nose for news but also a critical eye. To assuage their hunger for information, they should not only read but also observe the reality around them. They should also consider taking part in mass actions especially when it comes to media-related issues.

Just as improvement of one's grammar greatly depends on the actual practice of writing, journalism students should not expect to be taught the nuances of critical analysis inside the classroom. Their line of thinking, after all, can only be sharpened by the consistency and longevity of their social involvement.