Corona defends recall on PAL case

By Edu Punay 
The Philippine Star

MANILA, Philippines – Chief Justice Renato Corona yesterday challenged critics to make a comprehensive study of the case involving the retrenchment of thousands of employees of Philippine Airlines (PAL) before making any judgment.

“Before you attack the Supreme Court, you should study the case first. Some people say so many things against the court even if they don’t obviously understand the case,” Corona told reporters at the sidelines of the 37th Philippine Business Conference and Expo at the Manila Hotel yesterday.

Corona defended the high court in its move to recall the 1998 ruling that declared the retrenchment of over 1,400 flight attendants by PAL as illegal.

Corona revealed the petition of the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) was first assigned to him in 2008 but he inhibited from the case.

The chief magistrate refused to further discuss the recall order, saying it was already sufficiently explained and justified by SC spokesman Midas Marquez.

“Midas (Marquez) already explained it well,” he added.

Corona made the statement after President Aquino said in a forum that Malacañang could only appeal for the high court to hasten its process on the FASAP case following the recall order.

“We were not apprised that there would be a recall of the decision with regards to the FASAP union of PAL and we will, hopefully, not encounter more disruptions because of that. We will appeal to the Supreme Court perhaps to hasten the processes,” Aquino said.

He said the SC move to recall its decision on the FASAP case might have negative repercussions.

“So we will perhaps inquire as to when that will be resolved,” Aquino told the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines at Mandarin hotel in Makati City yesterday.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), on the other hand, rallied behind the SC.

In a statement yesterday, the IBP called for sobriety among the parties concerned, saying the recall order might be unprecedented but could be the proper action to correct the court’s error.

IBP general counsel Ramon Esguerra urged the FASAP to await resolution of their case. He

believes the SC just wanted to correct a procedural flaw in the case and did not actually rule against them.

“The court merely recalled the Sept. 7 ruling and did not resolve the case based on merit,” he explained.

Esguerra said the high court has already given assurance that the case is being prioritized.

“On the face of it, what we are concerned about is that the criticism (against the SC) is not yet ripe to be hurled. We are making a call for sobriety. We should remember the SC in its resolution is merely recalling and not reversing a decision,” Esguerra said.

Esguerra, who has been tasked to come up with an official IBP position on the issue, believes the protest of FASAP was premature.

“There is still no cause for apprehension. Until decided by the SC en banc we do not know yet and it would be premature for anyone to claim that there is flip-flopping on the part of the Supreme Court,” he stressed.

Esguerra also said the IBP as “officers of the court” would look deeply into the case.

Marquez, responding to the protest rally by some FASAP members on Tuesday at the SC, said the SC sympathizes with FASAP members who were frustrated by the recall order.

Some FASAP members could not hide their frustration and accused the high court of irregularity and succumbing to alleged undue pressure from PAL.

The FASAP branded the development as the “height of judicial insensitivity and arrogance.”

The SC first ruled on the case on July 22, 2008 and declared the retrenchment of 1,400 flight attendants illegal. PAL, for its part, filed a motion for reconsideration.

On Oct. 2, 2009, the SC ruled again in favor of the flight attendants and said the ruling was final and that no other pleadings will be entertained.

But on Jan. 2, 2011, PAL filed a second Motion for Reconsideration.

Last Sept. 7, the court resolved to deny PAL’s second Motion for Reconsideration and ruled with finality, in favor of FASAP.

But with the recall of the recent ruling, FASAP members expressed fears that it will pave the way for a possible reversal of the case.

Saving PAL

The recall of the ruling came weeks after PAL was besieged by wildcat strikes staged by its employees who would be retrenched due to the outsourcing program of the airline.

At the height of typhoon “Pedring” on Sept. 27, PAL’s workers staged a strike that resulted in the cancellation of flights. This involved the more than 2,000 workers who would be laid off by PAL due to outsourcing.

The Aquino administration upheld PAL’s decision but the union workers – the PAL Employees’ Association (PALEA) – were appealing Malacañang’s ruling.

Asked whether the government was not taking any more steps to help PAL operations normalize sooner or prevent any further complications, Aquino said the government had done its part to avoid service interruptions.

“The airline is in distress, they need a reformatting of their corporation to survive,” Aquino said.

The Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI) apparently took the cue from Aquino’s statement and said government financial institutions (GFIs) and government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs) can invest in PAL in order to help with flag carrier’s financial problems.

PCCI president Francis Chua said the Social Security System (SSS) and the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) could invest in PAL to help solve its capitalization problems.

Chua said that in Taiwan, the government has indirect stake in their local airlines.

“We don’t want PAL to close because it is the flag carrier,” Chua said. “We shouldn’t allow it to close, no matter what.”

Aside from investing in the airline directly, Chua said another option is for the government to lend to PAL through the GFIs.

Chua said the issue should be evaluated carefully and the interest of the employees and the management must be balanced.

He noted PAL has been hit by competition, specifically the influx of budget carriers like Cebu Pacific.

Chua said it is up to PAL to evaluate their strategy. “They may want to insist in their legacy but most people prefer cheaper fares. If they want to continue with their strategy it is okay but they must do something.”

Chua also noted the Employers’ Confederation of the Philippines (ECOP) is willing to sit down with the employees to discuss the issue.

ECOP earlier slammed the wildcat strike staged by PALEA resulting in the cancellation of flights that they described as “anarchy at its worst.”

The strike has forced PAL to cancel 172 domestic and international flights and in the process stranding 14,000 passengers. – With Aurea Calica, Elisa Osorio

http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=736840&publicationSubCategoryId=63

Brouhaha over sex tourism

PerryScope
By Perry Diaz

Little did United States Ambassador Harry Thomas realize that his comments on sex tourism and child trafficking during a roundtable discussion with a group of appellate court justices would ignite a maelstrom of controversy.  “I estimate that maybe up to 40 percent of foreign men who come here come for sexual tourism and that is unacceptable,” he said.  “That is not something I’m proud of. That’s not something you should be proud of.”

Thomas said that some karaoke bars and clubs along Roxas Boulevard near the US Embassy were reported to be “hot spots” for alleged sex trade. “Corruption allows these notorious establishments to continue to operate. Local officials will look the other way or accept favors. These officials are doubly guilty,” he said.  He then challenged the legal profession to eliminate the “scourge.”

Nobody questioned his remarks except for him saying that about 40% of foreign men who come here come for sexual tourism.  That caused uproar among the media, government officials, and private citizens who bombarded him with criticism.  Many want him expelled as persona non grata.  Thomas was probably scratching his head wondering what did he do wrong to create the brouhaha over his “sex tourism” remarks?

I’ll tell you why, Ambassador Thomas.  You’re talking to Filipinos where “hiya” – or shame — is niched in their psyche.  There are certain things that Filipinos would not publicly talk about.  But you were absolutely right about it, “sex tourism” – or on a larger scale, “human trafficking” — is a major, major problem in our country.  It has been for decades.  Sad to say, the government turns a blind eye to the problem because it’s part of a bigger and more complex problem. So it did not come as a surprise that government officials zeroed in on your “40%” statement, which put you in a “no-win” situation.  Had you merely said, “a large number of foreign men” instead of “40% of foreign men,” nobody would have reacted furiously. That was your mistake, Ambassador Thomas.

State of denial

But what I find appallingly strange was how government officials reacted to Thomas’s comments.  In particular, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima seems to be in denial of the existence of sex tourism in the country.  The other day, a news report said: “De Lima said she sent a letter to Thomas on Monday asking him to clarify the statement he made in a judicial conference on human smuggling two weeks ago that 40 percent of male foreign tourists come to country for its flesh trade.” And naively, she told the media: “I think almost all countries have (citizens) engaged in (the sex) trade. But to say that our problem is that big, I really don’t know.”

Human trafficking

Perhaps, De Lima should read the U.S. State Department’s “2006 Trafficking in Persons Report.” According to the report, “the Philippines is a source, transit, and destination country for men, women, and children trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation and forced labor.”

In my article, “Human Trafficking in the Philippines” (PerryScope, June 23, 2006), I wrote: “Sex tourism is one of the most lucrative ‘human trafficking’ businesses in the Philippines.  Sex tourists from Asian countries outnumber the non-Asians.  Child prostitution is in high demand from pedophiles, many of who are rumored to be from Europe. Another aspect of child trafficking is pornography.  Children are made to pose naked for pornographic materials including videos and web sites.  In most cases, the parents were willing accomplices, thinking that their children posing nude is not going to do them any harm.  According to a UNICEF report, ‘child trafficking was one of the three biggest problems affecting Filipino children.’

“ ‘Human trafficking’ has become a national stigma that Filipinos don’t want to talk about.  People — particularly the family members of the victims — are too embarrassed to talk about it.  When the victims vanished from their towns or barrios, nobody would ask the parents where their children went. They knew where they went.”

Apology

During a media interview at his Forbes Park residence last October 6, Thomas was adamant amidst calls for him to apologize over his “40%” statement. “I’m not going to apologize. I will never apologize for trying to combat child sex. I will never apologize for trying to combat children being forced to labor. I will never apologize for trying to help children in Smokey Mountain,” he said.

But the following day, he relented and sent a text message to Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario: “I am sending you a response expressing regret for my comments. I should not have used the 40 percent statistic without the ability to back it up. I regret any harm that I may have caused.” The day after, Malacañang accepted Thomas’s apology and declared the issue “closed.”

But is it really?  My take is that Thomas was merely withdrawing the “40%” statistic since he couldn’t back it up.  It was an inconsequential issue that only distracted attention from the real issue, which is human trafficking.  Human trafficking should remain “open” and the government should – nay, must! — address it.

And this is where the government seems unprepared to do.  It’s a much more complex problem and it intertwines with other problems we’re having in the country.  Human trafficking is the symptom of a disease that’s gnawing at the moral fabric of our society.  It’s destroying our culture and us.

Sex tourism paradise

In an article posted in the Internet titled, “Philippines, sex tourism paradise,” Zara Majidpour of Shahrzad News interviewed Ninotchka Rosca – a well-known Filipino author, journalist, feminist and human rights activist.  Rosca was asked: “Although prostitution is illegal in the Philippines, it has become a popular destination for sex tourism. What caused this?”

After giving a brief primer on how prostitution started in the Philippines, Rosca said: “With the IMF-World Bank supporting the Philippine government’s policy of tourism development and the need to pay for massive loans to build the infrastructure for tourism, it was an easy government decision to sell the women of the Philippines. The Catholic Church has said nothing/little about this, by the way.”

Could that be the reason why the government seems to treat the problem of sex tourism with benign neglect?

Poverty

But going only after the traffickers and predators will not solve the problem.  The government has to get to the root cause of the problem, which is poverty.  It is not a coincidence that the victims of human trafficking are poor.  They exist day to day and would consider themselves lucky if they survived each day. And as long as poverty exists, there are predators who would prey on the poor particularly the young and under-aged children.

That is the biggest challenge the government is faced with — the eradication of poverty.  Indeed, poverty is the real “scourge.”

(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)

The Constitution is not the problem

ON DISTANT SHORE

By Val G. Abelgas

In the past few weeks, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and House Speaker Sonny Belmonte have been pushing for Congress to convene itself into a constituent assembly to introduce amendments to the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Less than 10 months ago, Belmonte would have none of it. He said then that the cha-cha was not among the priorities of the House and that there were more urgent bills that needed to be attended to by the body. He said that the cha-cha issue was “time-consuming and divisive.”

Why the sudden turn-around escapes me, but listening to Belmonte now, one would think he had been a cha-cha proponent all along. But, of course, he was… during the time of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. But six months into the presidency of his new ally, President Noynoy Aquino, he was echoing Aquino’s opposition to it. And now, another flip-flop. That’s the kind of leaders we have in our country.

At least, Enrile has been very consistent in his desire to amend the constitution. Even during the time of Arroyo, he was in favor of charter change, but he said it was not the proper time to do it, knowing that any move to amend the charter at that time would be construed as politically motivated amid speculations that Arroyo would do anything to keep herself in power.

With the heads of both chambers of Congress openly calling for charter change, particularly on the constitution’s economic provisions, and with Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona chiming in for cha-cha, we should all be thankful that the President remains steadfast in his position against cha-cha.

Aquino was quoted by Belmonte himself as saying that he feared that efforts to amend the constitution would be divisive and could paralyze the economy.

As I said in my column on January 1 this year:

“Divisive is actually the key word to why the cha-cha should be repulsed again, cast in cement and dropped in the Philippine Deep where it should lay for a long, long time.

“The Aquino administration needs the cha-cha like a hole in the head. Having just emerged from a highly divisive presidential election and from nine years of abusive and corrupt leadership, the country cannot afford to plunge again into what would certainly be a highly combustible and divisive debate over issues that are not important at this time.

“The Aquino administration must steer clear of dangerous depths and currents in its efforts to bring back the country on the right course. Once the cha-cha debates are reignited, the national attention would be focused again on highly political and divisive issues, instead of being concentrated on the two biggest problems at hand – the worsening poverty and corruption.

“It doesn’t matter if new economic policies are put in place, or a new form of government installed as long as the whole political system remains corrupt, the country will still not move forward. I fully agree with Vice President Jojo Binay that it is not the constitution that is the problem, but a lack of fair and lawful enforcement of its provisions.

“Even if some of the proponents have good intentions, such as former Chief Justice Reynato Puno, there is always the danger that some ill-intentioned individuals and groups would take the opportunity to amend the constitution to suit their ends. Arroyo and her allies, for example, would certainly use all their resources (and they are definitely close to unlimited) to push a shift to parliamentary form of government or removal of term limits on the president and other elective officials, in both cases allowing Arroyo to take a second chance at power.

“The US will also definitely grab at a chance to bring back its bases in the country, and foreign interests can lobby for removing limitations to foreign investments and land ownership. Powerful families can remove restrictions on political dynasties or the provisions on agrarian reform.

“In other words, reviving the cha-cha would open a can of worms, the Pandora’s box, so to speak. The vultures would again be lurking while the people continue to suffer from the pangs of poverty.”

Distracting is the other word that tells us to steer clear of cha-cha. Once Congress opens the debate for constitutional amendments, Aquino’s efforts to go after those who squeezed the government coffers dry in the previous administration would be scuttled and forgotten. The momentum that Aquino’s war against corruption would be lost, and all the dirt and shenanigans of the Arroyo administration that whistleblowers have courageously exposed would be swept again under the rug.

Is there an urgent need to amend the 1987 Constitution’s economic provisions? I don’t think so.

Cha-cha proponents insist that two major provisions of the 1987 Constitution are hampering the country’s ability to attract foreign investors. They want to open ownership of Philippine lands to foreigners and to remove the 40-percent ownership limit of foreigners in Philippine corporations.

Columnist Bill Esposo, in saying that cha-cha is the wrong solution to the wrong problem, was correct in pointing out that China and Vietnam, two of the biggest recipients of foreign investments in Asia, do not allow foreign land ownership.

Many foreign investors have expressed their desire to invest in the Philippines, but are kept from doing so not because of the charter provisions on land ownership and limited foreign equity, but because of other problems that can be corrected without resorting to cha-cha, such as bureaucratic red tape, graft and corruption, extremely high power rates, peace and order problems, inadequate infrastructure, failure to honor contracts, labor unrest, etc.

The constitution is a sacred document that should not be tampered on the whims and caprices of politicians. Unless it is ascertained beyond reasonable doubt that a particular provision is hurting the country and the people, it should not be touched. Laws should be made to enforce the charter provision, and not the other way around.

(valabelgas@aol.com)