Dear Folks,
Gloria Arroyo has asked for "divine help" to perform a miracle on Easter -- solve food shortage and high prices of basic commodities. Is this some kind of an Easter joke?
This is blasphemy and hypocrisy -- invoking "divine help" to solve all the problems that she created herself. It is now apparent that the "economic boom" that she proclaimed is turning out to be a dud, the result of her boo-boo economics. Now she's calling upon the Virgin Mary to feed the people. Whoa!!! After she stole P3 billion earmarked for the poor farmers' fertilizers to finance her presidential campaign in 2004, she has the nerve to ask the Virgin Mary to solve the rice shortage.
Perry
Arroyo seeks divine help to fight high oil, rice prices
Philippine Star
LUNA, La Union – The food shortage and high prices of basic commodities the country is experiencing today is a global problem that needs divine intervention, President Arroyo said.
During a visit here on Maundy Thursday, the President, speaking in Ilocano, told the crowd that a food and energy crisis of global proportions needs a miracle to be solved.
"Ket tatta adda problema, (At this time we have a problem), a global problem, prices of oil products and rice are now very high and so therefore food become more expensive. We need the help of Our Lady of Namacpacan," Arroyo said, referring to the Blessed Virgin Mary's shrine here known as the miracle lady feeding hungry people.
Mrs. Arroyo said our country and the whole world needs the Virgin Mary's blessing to overcome the crisis and hardships in life that affect our lives, particularly the poor.
"What is important is that the Blessed Mother is not only for our town, for our country but for the whole world, because she is our Lady of feeding the people," Arroyo said.
The President spoke of a miracle even as it was reported that the government will be spending at least P3.35 billion for emergency measures to mitigate the effects of the global tightening of rice and other food commodities.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Study: Average Filipino only has 9 weeks of savings
By MARIE ANTONETTE C. REYES
Special to BusinessMirror
Filipinos may say they are satisfied with the quality of their lives, but few feel they are financially secure, with the average Filipino having just nine weeks worth of savings to tide him through in the event of job loss or disability. Majority say they are not financially ready for retirement, and nearly half expect financial assistance from their adult children when they retire.
These are among the highlights of a study commissioned by Citibank on the financial intelligence of consumers across the Asia-Pacific region, including those from the Philippines.
The survey also scored respondents on 11 different questions closely related to financial well-being to come up with a country financial quotient, with a maximum possible score of 100. The Philippines had an average financial quotient of 47.8, with 62 percent of respondents having a score of less than 50.
This score is hardly surprising, considering that 53 percent of respondents said they have average or poor overall understanding of money management and personal finance. In fact, while Filipinos generally appreciate the value of saving, only a handful or 33 percent of respondents said they are able to save every payday as a habit. Another 51 percent reported saving money when they can, while 14 percent admitted to rarely saving.
Conducted by Australia-based CxC Consulting, the Citi Fin-Q survey covered 400 respondents across the country. Respondents were between 18 and 40 years old, owned either a bank account or a credit card, and had an average annual income of P376,000. The survey was administered online in the last quarter of 2007.
A troubling finding was that only 31 percent reported to having enough savings to last them through the next three months if they continued to pay their regular expenses, with the average Filipino having an average of just nine weeks worth of savings. In fact, 33 percent of respondents said their savings would only last from one week to four weeks. Another 14 percent admitted they did not know how long it would take before they ran out of money.
Alongside this was the finding that only 59 percent of respondents felt secure in their present jobs. “If they lost their jobs tomorrow, or suddenly fall ill and cannot work, there will be nothing to tide them over the hard times, said Agustin Davalos, Citibank Philippines retail bank director.
The study also showed that only a minority, or 33 percent of respondents, are able to stick to a budget. Majority, or 58 percent of respondents, revealed they made a budget but did not follow it, while 9 percent said they did not plan their budgets at all. Abby Limqueco-Chan, vice president for marketing, noted that those found to being regular savers are the same people who were able to stick to their budgets.
As a result, managing cash flows was shown to be an important concern, with 60 percent of respondents reporting to be revolvers of credit card debt. Of this number, 22 percent reported to paying the minimum amount on their outstanding credit card bills, while 38 percent said they paid more than the minimum amount due. The remaining 40 percent said they paid their card bills in full.
Long-term financial planning for retirement and emergencies was also shown to be lacking. Only 32 percent of respondents said they had enough insurance cover, even if another 36 percent said they had life insurance. Another 32 percent said they had no insurance coverage at all.
Retirement planning was also shown to be quite poor, with 17 percent having no idea how much they will need to retire and another 28 percent reporting they have not started planning for retirement at all. Only 13 percent said they have a retirement plan and are on track to cover their retirement needs. The remaining 42 percent said they were not too sure about what they needed but had some savings. Moreover, only 5 percent of the respondents had already prepared an updated will.
Still, Filipinos remained optimistic regarding their financial future and were generally satisfied with their quality of life. At least 77 percent had a positive outlook on their financial future, with 19 percent saying they were very optimistic and 58 percent claiming to be optimistic about the future. Only 23 percent admitted to being worried, and on cross tabulation, were shown to be the same individuals found to be financially ill-prepared and not regular savers. Chan noted that in general, younger respondents were more optimistic than older ones, which is natural because they have less financial pressures.
Moreover, only 36 percent of respondents reported they are not satisfied with the quality of their lives. These, noted Chan, were the people who had less income, were more worried about their financial future, and were not secure in their current jobs. At least 58 percent said they were satisfied, while another 6 percent reported they were very satisfied with their lives. These were the same respondents with a better approach to expense management and savings.
Special to BusinessMirror
Filipinos may say they are satisfied with the quality of their lives, but few feel they are financially secure, with the average Filipino having just nine weeks worth of savings to tide him through in the event of job loss or disability. Majority say they are not financially ready for retirement, and nearly half expect financial assistance from their adult children when they retire.
These are among the highlights of a study commissioned by Citibank on the financial intelligence of consumers across the Asia-Pacific region, including those from the Philippines.
The survey also scored respondents on 11 different questions closely related to financial well-being to come up with a country financial quotient, with a maximum possible score of 100. The Philippines had an average financial quotient of 47.8, with 62 percent of respondents having a score of less than 50.
This score is hardly surprising, considering that 53 percent of respondents said they have average or poor overall understanding of money management and personal finance. In fact, while Filipinos generally appreciate the value of saving, only a handful or 33 percent of respondents said they are able to save every payday as a habit. Another 51 percent reported saving money when they can, while 14 percent admitted to rarely saving.
Conducted by Australia-based CxC Consulting, the Citi Fin-Q survey covered 400 respondents across the country. Respondents were between 18 and 40 years old, owned either a bank account or a credit card, and had an average annual income of P376,000. The survey was administered online in the last quarter of 2007.
A troubling finding was that only 31 percent reported to having enough savings to last them through the next three months if they continued to pay their regular expenses, with the average Filipino having an average of just nine weeks worth of savings. In fact, 33 percent of respondents said their savings would only last from one week to four weeks. Another 14 percent admitted they did not know how long it would take before they ran out of money.
Alongside this was the finding that only 59 percent of respondents felt secure in their present jobs. “If they lost their jobs tomorrow, or suddenly fall ill and cannot work, there will be nothing to tide them over the hard times, said Agustin Davalos, Citibank Philippines retail bank director.
The study also showed that only a minority, or 33 percent of respondents, are able to stick to a budget. Majority, or 58 percent of respondents, revealed they made a budget but did not follow it, while 9 percent said they did not plan their budgets at all. Abby Limqueco-Chan, vice president for marketing, noted that those found to being regular savers are the same people who were able to stick to their budgets.
As a result, managing cash flows was shown to be an important concern, with 60 percent of respondents reporting to be revolvers of credit card debt. Of this number, 22 percent reported to paying the minimum amount on their outstanding credit card bills, while 38 percent said they paid more than the minimum amount due. The remaining 40 percent said they paid their card bills in full.
Long-term financial planning for retirement and emergencies was also shown to be lacking. Only 32 percent of respondents said they had enough insurance cover, even if another 36 percent said they had life insurance. Another 32 percent said they had no insurance coverage at all.
Retirement planning was also shown to be quite poor, with 17 percent having no idea how much they will need to retire and another 28 percent reporting they have not started planning for retirement at all. Only 13 percent said they have a retirement plan and are on track to cover their retirement needs. The remaining 42 percent said they were not too sure about what they needed but had some savings. Moreover, only 5 percent of the respondents had already prepared an updated will.
Still, Filipinos remained optimistic regarding their financial future and were generally satisfied with their quality of life. At least 77 percent had a positive outlook on their financial future, with 19 percent saying they were very optimistic and 58 percent claiming to be optimistic about the future. Only 23 percent admitted to being worried, and on cross tabulation, were shown to be the same individuals found to be financially ill-prepared and not regular savers. Chan noted that in general, younger respondents were more optimistic than older ones, which is natural because they have less financial pressures.
Moreover, only 36 percent of respondents reported they are not satisfied with the quality of their lives. These, noted Chan, were the people who had less income, were more worried about their financial future, and were not secure in their current jobs. At least 58 percent said they were satisfied, while another 6 percent reported they were very satisfied with their lives. These were the same respondents with a better approach to expense management and savings.
TAKE CHARGE OF YOUR MONEY
Coping with a strong peso
INQUIRER.net
First Posted 09:28am (Mla time) 01/15/2008
Question: My husband's $1,000 used to give us P55,000; now it only amounts to P41,000. I’m having difficulty making ends meet and paying all our bills. How can I wisely handle this remittance in spite of its dwindling value? – Catherine C.
Aswer: The peso is stronger than ever and remains on the upswing. While the US dollar continues to weaken due to developments in the US subprime mortgage market, the Philippine peso is riding the waves, doing much better than other Asian currencies.
Remittances from OFWs have been coming in strong, thus there is much supply of dollars in the Philippines. This makes the peso appreciate even more. While this is good news for importers (since goods they are importing from other countries are now cheaper), it is bad news for exporters, since they are paid in foreign currency for the goods they export.
OFW families are also greatly affected, as you have experienced. Whereas before, the US dollar fetched a higher peso value, now it’s much lower than before.
Analysts say the Philippine peso will remain strong this year. Given that scenario, it will be wise to take steps to cope with the effects of a strong peso.
Below are simple ways you can adopt to deal with this development:
1. Tighten your belts. That means cut costs whenever possible. Look at your lifestyle and see where you can minimize your expenses. If you have two phones, landline or mobile, try to live on one. If you use the air conditioner every night in all rooms, try sleeping in just one room to save on electricity. If you have two cars but can live on one, do so. Other ways to live simply: watch DVDs at home instead of going to the movie house, eat more at home than in restaurants, walk, carpool or take public transport rather than drive all the time.
It’s not really about depriving yourself, but maximizing the use of your resources to drive down expenses.
2. Budget wisely. You’ve probably heard it all before about how a budget can help one manage finances well. It really does. So make a list of your expected money inflow and money outflow (expenses) and exert all efforts not to go over your budget.
3. Prioritize what’s needed. Children’s tuition, for instance, is more important than taking a vacation abroad. Make sure you pay off important bills to meet your family’s needs. Remember: always put needs first before wants.
4. Do not go into debt. If you can, don’t borrow money just to maintain your previous lifestyle. You will just dig a deep hole for you as it may be difficult to pay off your debts in the long run. There are good debts for sure – a housing loan, for instance, or a credit facility to run your business – but make sure the debts will yield a better benefit for you in the future.
5. Find ways to increase your income. If you have been solely relying on your husband’s remittance all these time, then it may be time for you to do something. It doesn’t mean you have to go abroad to work too. You can start a business right in your home by offering a product you can do yourself (such as cakes made to order) or a service you can offer (such as tutoring or graphic design). Or you may want to apply for a part-time or full-time job nearby. The income you add to your family’s coffers will help you and your family greatly.
6. Save for a rainy day. If you haven’t been diligently saving over the years, start doing so now. Aim to have an emergency fund you can dip into when situations like job loss and illness happen. A good start is saving 10 percent of your husband’s remittance every month. Don’t touch this amount unless necessary.
7. Talk to your husband. Keep communication lines open and inform your husband of what’s happening. This will help him gauge if it’s time to increase his remittance or seek a better-paying job.
We hope these tips will help you stretch your budget and manage your cash flow better. Remember: Good financial planning is not about having enough money to spend on your needs (and a few wants) – it's about making do with what you have and the discipline to keep doing it. Good luck!
INQUIRER.net
First Posted 09:28am (Mla time) 01/15/2008
Question: My husband's $1,000 used to give us P55,000; now it only amounts to P41,000. I’m having difficulty making ends meet and paying all our bills. How can I wisely handle this remittance in spite of its dwindling value? – Catherine C.
Aswer: The peso is stronger than ever and remains on the upswing. While the US dollar continues to weaken due to developments in the US subprime mortgage market, the Philippine peso is riding the waves, doing much better than other Asian currencies.
Remittances from OFWs have been coming in strong, thus there is much supply of dollars in the Philippines. This makes the peso appreciate even more. While this is good news for importers (since goods they are importing from other countries are now cheaper), it is bad news for exporters, since they are paid in foreign currency for the goods they export.
OFW families are also greatly affected, as you have experienced. Whereas before, the US dollar fetched a higher peso value, now it’s much lower than before.
Analysts say the Philippine peso will remain strong this year. Given that scenario, it will be wise to take steps to cope with the effects of a strong peso.
Below are simple ways you can adopt to deal with this development:
1. Tighten your belts. That means cut costs whenever possible. Look at your lifestyle and see where you can minimize your expenses. If you have two phones, landline or mobile, try to live on one. If you use the air conditioner every night in all rooms, try sleeping in just one room to save on electricity. If you have two cars but can live on one, do so. Other ways to live simply: watch DVDs at home instead of going to the movie house, eat more at home than in restaurants, walk, carpool or take public transport rather than drive all the time.
It’s not really about depriving yourself, but maximizing the use of your resources to drive down expenses.
2. Budget wisely. You’ve probably heard it all before about how a budget can help one manage finances well. It really does. So make a list of your expected money inflow and money outflow (expenses) and exert all efforts not to go over your budget.
3. Prioritize what’s needed. Children’s tuition, for instance, is more important than taking a vacation abroad. Make sure you pay off important bills to meet your family’s needs. Remember: always put needs first before wants.
4. Do not go into debt. If you can, don’t borrow money just to maintain your previous lifestyle. You will just dig a deep hole for you as it may be difficult to pay off your debts in the long run. There are good debts for sure – a housing loan, for instance, or a credit facility to run your business – but make sure the debts will yield a better benefit for you in the future.
5. Find ways to increase your income. If you have been solely relying on your husband’s remittance all these time, then it may be time for you to do something. It doesn’t mean you have to go abroad to work too. You can start a business right in your home by offering a product you can do yourself (such as cakes made to order) or a service you can offer (such as tutoring or graphic design). Or you may want to apply for a part-time or full-time job nearby. The income you add to your family’s coffers will help you and your family greatly.
6. Save for a rainy day. If you haven’t been diligently saving over the years, start doing so now. Aim to have an emergency fund you can dip into when situations like job loss and illness happen. A good start is saving 10 percent of your husband’s remittance every month. Don’t touch this amount unless necessary.
7. Talk to your husband. Keep communication lines open and inform your husband of what’s happening. This will help him gauge if it’s time to increase his remittance or seek a better-paying job.
We hope these tips will help you stretch your budget and manage your cash flow better. Remember: Good financial planning is not about having enough money to spend on your needs (and a few wants) – it's about making do with what you have and the discipline to keep doing it. Good luck!
Disconnecting the Wack Wack Connection
PerryScope
by Perry Diaz
With the recent brouhaha over the ZTE-NBE and other corruption scandals involving the First Family and their business cronies -- the "oligarchs," according to Romulo Neri -- the Wack Wack Golf and Country Club had been, or may still be, the place for the "players" to play a real life game of "Monopoly." Indeed, the place could be aptly called "Wack Wack Gold Counting Club." In the midst of all these scandals was former COMELEC Chairman Benjamin Abalos, a slick operator who was tagged as the man in middle -- the conduit -- of all these questionable multi-million dollar transactions.
Founded in 1930, Wack Wack Golf and Country Club has been the place to be for the rich and the famous. Named after the "uwak" (crow), Wack Wack has become synonymous with power and influence; that is, political power and influence peddling.
The ZTE-NBN scandal has brought Wack Wack to the limelight. It was the venue for a series of rendezvous involving Philippine government officials and businessmen from China. One of these projects -- the $329 million National Broadband Network (NBN) -- was allegedly brokered by Abalos and which implicated the First Gentleman, Mike Arroyo, as having exerted influence -- for a hefty commission -- on his wife, the President. The disclosure was made by Jose "Joey" de Venecia III, son of former Speaker Jose de Venecia, Jr., in his testimony before a Senate panel. De Venecia claimed that Abalos tried to bribe him for $10 million to withdraw his bid in favor of ZTE Corp., China's third largest telecommunication firm. De Venecia also accused Mike Arroyo of telling him to "back off" the project. And all of these alleged incidents happened at Wack Wack.
Why Wack Wack? It turned out that Abalos had been wearing too many hats and his fingers on too many pies. Abalos owns substantial shares of stock and is also the President of Wack Wack. It's sounds wacky but Wack Wack is Abalos' exclusive domain -- his little enchanted kingdom.
Wack Wack has been a dominant part of Abalos' life since his birth. He was born poor in Pangasinan on September 21, 1935. His father, Ciriaco Ruiz Abalos, worked as a locker room attendant at Wack Wack and his mother, Efroncina Santos Abalos, worked as locker room girl. He grew up in Madaluyong where Wack Wack is located and when he was old enough to work, he worked as a caddy. Golfing became his passion. And golfing also helped him connect with the rich and the powerful.
As president of Wack Wack, it was not uncommon for his VIP guests to pay him a visit at his office. In one interview with a newspaper reporter, Abalos said, "With so many VIPs I've spoken to and met at Wack Wack, I might be accused of brokering a lot more deals." Huh? Was that a Freudian slip?
At one time, by his own admission, Abalos hosted ZTE officials at Wack Wack. And at another time, he played golf with Romulo Neri, who was then the director general of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA). Neri claimed that Abalos offered him a bribe of "200" -- this figure was presumed to be "200 million pesos" -- to endorse the ZTE contract. Neri immediately reported the incident to President Arroyo. According to Neri, the President told him not to accept the bribe but to go ahead and endorse the contract with ZTE, which he did. Within a short period of time after that, President Arroyo abruptly terminated him as NEDA chief and appointed him as officer in charge of the Commission on Higher Education. Did Arroyo do that to insulate Neri from the heat that was about to ignite?
With the recent testimonies of NBN consultant Rodolfo "Jun" Lozada and ZTE consultant Dante Madriaga before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, details of the ZTE-NBN deal were exposed including the involvement of the shady "Greedy Group plus plus" which -- according to Madriaga -- was composed of Abalos, Leo San Miguel, Ruben Reyes, Quirino dela Torre, and the First Couple. Madriaga also alleged that the group received an advance of $41 million from the Chinese, $30 million of which went to the First Couple. Had the contract not been cancelled, the total "commission" would have amounted to $200 million.
Madriaga told the Senate panel that the "commission" from the ZTE-NBN deal would have amounted to 60% of $329 million which would have been divided as follows: the first 20% markup would go to ZTE; the second 20% markup would go to the "consortium" composed of ZTE and the "Greedy Group plus plus"; and the third 20% markup would go again to ZTE and the "Greedy Group plus plus."
With the ongoing investigation by the Senate, the "commissioners" -- a pejorative term for those who got "commissions" or kickbacks -- were expected to be summoned to testify. Reyes, whom Madriaga tagged as the "bagman" for the "Greedy Group plus plus," was subpoenaed by the Senate but left the country on a "business trip." Leo San Miguel appeared as a "surprise witness" only to surprise the senators that he has no knowledge of "tongpats" -- Filipino slang for kickbacks -- in the ZTE-NBN deal. Lozada immediately contradicted San Miguel by presenting an email from San Miguel to Lazada which contained an attachment detailing the "tongpats." San Miguel countered that the attachment was "doctored." Well, what else would he say, admit it? However, during a lunch break of his testimony, San Miguel was overheard talking to a person in a cell phone, saying: "Yes ma'am. Yes ma'am, I'll deny it, ma'am." Senator Panfilo Lacson believed that the person at the other end of the call was the "Ma'am" herself -- President Arroyo.
With the ZTE-NBN scandal and other controversial deals that have been "cooked" at Wack Wack, "High Commissioner" Abalos -- whose demand for a $130 million commission from the ZTE-NBN deal has opened a stinking can of worms -- has been trying to project an innocent image by challenging Lozada to a debate. However, he refused to appear before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. If he was innocent, why wouldn't he testify before the Senate? Recently, he "won" a raffle prize held at Wack Wack for a vacation trip abroad. He said that he'll use it in April. That means that he would not be able to testify in the Senate for probably an indefinite time should he choose to stay abroad for an extended time. This reminds me of Joc-joc Bolante who took off a few years when the P3-billion fertilizer scam was being investigated by the Senate. With "High Commissioner" Abalos out of the country soon and the alleged "bagman," Ruben Reyes, on a business trip to China -- hmmm -- the Senate would be dealt once again another "Houdini" vanishing act by persons involved in scandals in the Arroyo administration.
(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)
by Perry Diaz
With the recent brouhaha over the ZTE-NBE and other corruption scandals involving the First Family and their business cronies -- the "oligarchs," according to Romulo Neri -- the Wack Wack Golf and Country Club had been, or may still be, the place for the "players" to play a real life game of "Monopoly." Indeed, the place could be aptly called "Wack Wack Gold Counting Club." In the midst of all these scandals was former COMELEC Chairman Benjamin Abalos, a slick operator who was tagged as the man in middle -- the conduit -- of all these questionable multi-million dollar transactions.
Founded in 1930, Wack Wack Golf and Country Club has been the place to be for the rich and the famous. Named after the "uwak" (crow), Wack Wack has become synonymous with power and influence; that is, political power and influence peddling.
The ZTE-NBN scandal has brought Wack Wack to the limelight. It was the venue for a series of rendezvous involving Philippine government officials and businessmen from China. One of these projects -- the $329 million National Broadband Network (NBN) -- was allegedly brokered by Abalos and which implicated the First Gentleman, Mike Arroyo, as having exerted influence -- for a hefty commission -- on his wife, the President. The disclosure was made by Jose "Joey" de Venecia III, son of former Speaker Jose de Venecia, Jr., in his testimony before a Senate panel. De Venecia claimed that Abalos tried to bribe him for $10 million to withdraw his bid in favor of ZTE Corp., China's third largest telecommunication firm. De Venecia also accused Mike Arroyo of telling him to "back off" the project. And all of these alleged incidents happened at Wack Wack.
Why Wack Wack? It turned out that Abalos had been wearing too many hats and his fingers on too many pies. Abalos owns substantial shares of stock and is also the President of Wack Wack. It's sounds wacky but Wack Wack is Abalos' exclusive domain -- his little enchanted kingdom.
Wack Wack has been a dominant part of Abalos' life since his birth. He was born poor in Pangasinan on September 21, 1935. His father, Ciriaco Ruiz Abalos, worked as a locker room attendant at Wack Wack and his mother, Efroncina Santos Abalos, worked as locker room girl. He grew up in Madaluyong where Wack Wack is located and when he was old enough to work, he worked as a caddy. Golfing became his passion. And golfing also helped him connect with the rich and the powerful.
As president of Wack Wack, it was not uncommon for his VIP guests to pay him a visit at his office. In one interview with a newspaper reporter, Abalos said, "With so many VIPs I've spoken to and met at Wack Wack, I might be accused of brokering a lot more deals." Huh? Was that a Freudian slip?
At one time, by his own admission, Abalos hosted ZTE officials at Wack Wack. And at another time, he played golf with Romulo Neri, who was then the director general of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA). Neri claimed that Abalos offered him a bribe of "200" -- this figure was presumed to be "200 million pesos" -- to endorse the ZTE contract. Neri immediately reported the incident to President Arroyo. According to Neri, the President told him not to accept the bribe but to go ahead and endorse the contract with ZTE, which he did. Within a short period of time after that, President Arroyo abruptly terminated him as NEDA chief and appointed him as officer in charge of the Commission on Higher Education. Did Arroyo do that to insulate Neri from the heat that was about to ignite?
With the recent testimonies of NBN consultant Rodolfo "Jun" Lozada and ZTE consultant Dante Madriaga before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, details of the ZTE-NBN deal were exposed including the involvement of the shady "Greedy Group plus plus" which -- according to Madriaga -- was composed of Abalos, Leo San Miguel, Ruben Reyes, Quirino dela Torre, and the First Couple. Madriaga also alleged that the group received an advance of $41 million from the Chinese, $30 million of which went to the First Couple. Had the contract not been cancelled, the total "commission" would have amounted to $200 million.
Madriaga told the Senate panel that the "commission" from the ZTE-NBN deal would have amounted to 60% of $329 million which would have been divided as follows: the first 20% markup would go to ZTE; the second 20% markup would go to the "consortium" composed of ZTE and the "Greedy Group plus plus"; and the third 20% markup would go again to ZTE and the "Greedy Group plus plus."
With the ongoing investigation by the Senate, the "commissioners" -- a pejorative term for those who got "commissions" or kickbacks -- were expected to be summoned to testify. Reyes, whom Madriaga tagged as the "bagman" for the "Greedy Group plus plus," was subpoenaed by the Senate but left the country on a "business trip." Leo San Miguel appeared as a "surprise witness" only to surprise the senators that he has no knowledge of "tongpats" -- Filipino slang for kickbacks -- in the ZTE-NBN deal. Lozada immediately contradicted San Miguel by presenting an email from San Miguel to Lazada which contained an attachment detailing the "tongpats." San Miguel countered that the attachment was "doctored." Well, what else would he say, admit it? However, during a lunch break of his testimony, San Miguel was overheard talking to a person in a cell phone, saying: "Yes ma'am. Yes ma'am, I'll deny it, ma'am." Senator Panfilo Lacson believed that the person at the other end of the call was the "Ma'am" herself -- President Arroyo.
With the ZTE-NBN scandal and other controversial deals that have been "cooked" at Wack Wack, "High Commissioner" Abalos -- whose demand for a $130 million commission from the ZTE-NBN deal has opened a stinking can of worms -- has been trying to project an innocent image by challenging Lozada to a debate. However, he refused to appear before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. If he was innocent, why wouldn't he testify before the Senate? Recently, he "won" a raffle prize held at Wack Wack for a vacation trip abroad. He said that he'll use it in April. That means that he would not be able to testify in the Senate for probably an indefinite time should he choose to stay abroad for an extended time. This reminds me of Joc-joc Bolante who took off a few years when the P3-billion fertilizer scam was being investigated by the Senate. With "High Commissioner" Abalos out of the country soon and the alleged "bagman," Ruben Reyes, on a business trip to China -- hmmm -- the Senate would be dealt once again another "Houdini" vanishing act by persons involved in scandals in the Arroyo administration.
(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)
Saturday, March 15, 2008
The Spread of Corruption
By Teodoro Bacani Jr.
Manila Standard Today
Once again, the Philippines has received the unflattering distinction of being rated as the most corrupt country of the 13 biggest economies in Asia. Corruption, from the top to the bottom of our social and political order, is indeed our biggest shame as a nation. As a result of this corruption, more and more of our people are experiencing degrading poverty.
Just these past few days, I got some insight into the spread of corruption throughout the social fabric. Visiting my hometown in Bataan, recently, I was talking to a relative of mine who owned a sizeable business. She was asked by the BIR agents to pay P475,000. She paid the amount and was given a receipt stating that she had paid P75,000. In this single transaction, these agents stole P400,000!
Her daughter asked the BIR agents how they could stomach doing such a thing and feeding their children with stolen money. The answer she received was striking: "Ah, those who are on top are doing the same thing. Why should we not do it also?"
There you have it clearly from the mouth of the thieves themselves. They are emboldened by the bad example they get from those who are above them. What happens then, if people believe that the President and her husband are corrupt, and that she and her people are able to evade responsibility or indictment for alleged corrupt acts? What happens when the people believe that those who possess the highest authority in the land are using that authority to cover up corruption, instead of going after corrupt people with all their power?
This is what is called "scandal" in the Bible, being the cause for the stumbling of others into sin. The Lord Jesus told his followers to cut off the scandalizing member, even if it is as precious as our own eye or hand. What should the people do when the scandalizing member of the body politic is no less than the President? It is a question worth asking and discussing, with a view to common decision and communal action.
Last Thursday evening, a priest who knows many people with first-hand knowledge of corruption in the government, shed some light on how corruption had spread all over our society. He said that people who perpetrate corrupt acts developed a vocabulary which was able to mask the evil of their deeds. Thus, illicit exactions for the approval of a project are simply called SOP. Now we hear about tongpats in connection with the NBN-ZTE broadband deal. Others use "commitment" or kalakaran. In that way the moral sting is taken out of the corrupt act, and people are able to think that what they are doing is "permissible" or really not that bad at all.
The most potent weapon against corruption is the light of truth. A thief in the act of stealing flees when the lights are put on. No one can keep on stealing with the lights glaring at him. That is why those who steal from our people are most afraid of the truth. On the other hand, that is also the reason why our search for truth should be "determined and relentless" (to borrow the words of the CBCP).
Thieves who cannot bear to be exposed to the light of truth try different methods to evade the exposure of the truth. We are now familiar with the use of the defunct Executive Order 464, and the resort to executive privilege as a way of preventing the truth from coming out. But there are other ways as well. People can be bought or threatened. We have by now seen a demonstration of this in the case of Jun Lozada who was at first given the ride of his life, and then handed P50,000 as pamalengke (market money), and, previous to that, given P500,000 when he said he needed money without him specifying the amount. Administration people seem to become very generous when they want to prevent the truth from coming out.
Or else they may throw dirt at the one making the exposé, in the belief that they will damage his credibility or at least distract attention from the truth of his exposé. We have seen that also in the case of Lozada. I know that some anonymous texters have been doing that to me also, even though I can only use slingshots against the doers of venal acts.
But such tactics belong to the father of lies, the devil, and to his minions. In this protracted battle between good and evil, it is easy to discern who belong to the camp of evil. Those who lie and cover up the truth are the offspring of you know who. . . May the Lord overcome their darkness.
Manila Standard Today
Once again, the Philippines has received the unflattering distinction of being rated as the most corrupt country of the 13 biggest economies in Asia. Corruption, from the top to the bottom of our social and political order, is indeed our biggest shame as a nation. As a result of this corruption, more and more of our people are experiencing degrading poverty.
Just these past few days, I got some insight into the spread of corruption throughout the social fabric. Visiting my hometown in Bataan, recently, I was talking to a relative of mine who owned a sizeable business. She was asked by the BIR agents to pay P475,000. She paid the amount and was given a receipt stating that she had paid P75,000. In this single transaction, these agents stole P400,000!
Her daughter asked the BIR agents how they could stomach doing such a thing and feeding their children with stolen money. The answer she received was striking: "Ah, those who are on top are doing the same thing. Why should we not do it also?"
There you have it clearly from the mouth of the thieves themselves. They are emboldened by the bad example they get from those who are above them. What happens then, if people believe that the President and her husband are corrupt, and that she and her people are able to evade responsibility or indictment for alleged corrupt acts? What happens when the people believe that those who possess the highest authority in the land are using that authority to cover up corruption, instead of going after corrupt people with all their power?
This is what is called "scandal" in the Bible, being the cause for the stumbling of others into sin. The Lord Jesus told his followers to cut off the scandalizing member, even if it is as precious as our own eye or hand. What should the people do when the scandalizing member of the body politic is no less than the President? It is a question worth asking and discussing, with a view to common decision and communal action.
Last Thursday evening, a priest who knows many people with first-hand knowledge of corruption in the government, shed some light on how corruption had spread all over our society. He said that people who perpetrate corrupt acts developed a vocabulary which was able to mask the evil of their deeds. Thus, illicit exactions for the approval of a project are simply called SOP. Now we hear about tongpats in connection with the NBN-ZTE broadband deal. Others use "commitment" or kalakaran. In that way the moral sting is taken out of the corrupt act, and people are able to think that what they are doing is "permissible" or really not that bad at all.
The most potent weapon against corruption is the light of truth. A thief in the act of stealing flees when the lights are put on. No one can keep on stealing with the lights glaring at him. That is why those who steal from our people are most afraid of the truth. On the other hand, that is also the reason why our search for truth should be "determined and relentless" (to borrow the words of the CBCP).
Thieves who cannot bear to be exposed to the light of truth try different methods to evade the exposure of the truth. We are now familiar with the use of the defunct Executive Order 464, and the resort to executive privilege as a way of preventing the truth from coming out. But there are other ways as well. People can be bought or threatened. We have by now seen a demonstration of this in the case of Jun Lozada who was at first given the ride of his life, and then handed P50,000 as pamalengke (market money), and, previous to that, given P500,000 when he said he needed money without him specifying the amount. Administration people seem to become very generous when they want to prevent the truth from coming out.
Or else they may throw dirt at the one making the exposé, in the belief that they will damage his credibility or at least distract attention from the truth of his exposé. We have seen that also in the case of Lozada. I know that some anonymous texters have been doing that to me also, even though I can only use slingshots against the doers of venal acts.
But such tactics belong to the father of lies, the devil, and to his minions. In this protracted battle between good and evil, it is easy to discern who belong to the camp of evil. Those who lie and cover up the truth are the offspring of you know who. . . May the Lord overcome their darkness.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Troops 'seal Tibet monasteries'
Read on to see what China is doing to Tibet. Beijing claims sovereignty over Tibet, but Tibetans think otherwise. Who's next? The Spratly's? The Philippines?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7295753.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7295753.stm
Commentary on the CBCP Statement: Seeking the Truth, Restoring Integrity.
+Orlando B. Quevedo, O.M.I.
Archbishop of Cotabato
February 29, 2008
May I provide some personal thoughts toward a better and more accurate understanding of the CBCP statement of February 26, 2008. These are my personal thoughts and do not necessarily reflect the thought of CBCP.
1. Emergency meeting? Special Meeting?
The background of the meeting: The CBCP Permanent Council was going to meet in order to decide on the present situation. Wisely the CBCP President wanted to consult the Bishops so that the Permanent Council decision would reflect the mind of the “college of bishops.” When the Bishops finally met, they discussed the nature of the meeting. Would it be a consultation or would it be a regular CBCP meeting? At the end the Bishops decided: Let the assembly be a meeting of the CBCP rather than simply a consultative meeting.
2. Is it true that it was the Mindanao Bishops who “saved” GMA?
Absolutely false. There were 55 Bishops present at the meeting of February 26, 2008. Four of the 55 were non-voting. Of the voting Bishops, 29 were from Luzon, 17 from Mindanao (among those absent from Mindanao was Bishop Pueblos), 6 from Visayas. From the numbers alone one can readily see how evidently false it would be for anyone to claim that the Mindanao Bishops “saved” GMA. In fact, the Bishops’ statement was approved unanimously. Even the handful known to favour Gloria’s resignation approved the statement.
3. It is often said that the Bishops are divided. Is this true?
The oft-mentioned “divided hierarchy” is false. The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines is made up of 115 Bishops. Of these, 100 are active voting members. Less than 10 of the Bishops are “pro-resign.” Such numbers do not make a “divided” CBCP. The unity of the Bishops has always been there even when they issued their statement on July 10, 2005 that they were not demanding the resignation of the President.
The image of a divided hierarchy could be a media creation. Four or five Bishops with a contrary opinion receive a lot of disproportionate media exposure and mileage. If one studies newspaper reports and interviews, their names appear again and again. Yet Bishops with this contrary opinion constitute less than 10% of the whole hierarchy.
4. This time why did not the Bishops demand GMA to resign?
Choose from the following:
1. They are blind and cannot see reality;
2. They do not listen to the people and specially to the poor;
3. Many of them have received money from the President.
4. They have no spine.
5. All of the above.
Are these charges true? No they are not. Bishops do visit people in the barrios and listen to them. They know what the poor are saying. In the provinces people have problems quite different from those in Manila and are not as much affected by issues that the national media and various groups in Metro Manila project. Mindanao-based groups, for instance, try to project these issues unto the public but for various reasons, particularly ideological, the public does not favourably respond. Some groups in Manila might speak of massive rallies nation-wide, but the Bishops do not see this happening in their own dioceses. And so the Bishops see the difference between Manila and their own provincial dioceses. Their people generally see things differently. Maybe, just maybe, it also takes a bit of courage for Bishops to go against the current “popular” political opinion and public clamor?
How about gifts and money from the President? My answer is quite simple. For how much could a Bishop sell his soul or conscience to someone else? 10,000 pesos? 20,000 pesos? 100,000 pesos? 500,000 pesos? One million pesos? Five or 10 million pesos? That gifts or money would blind the eyes of Bishops and seal their lips to gross corruption when solidly proven would be a tragic contradiction to their experience as pastors at EDSA I and EDSA II.
5. If the claims are only hearsay passed on from one to another, why then did the Bishops not go along with the “growing clamor for resignation”?
What I sense from the Bishops is this. Very many believe that the present process of arriving at the truth is seriously flawed for several reasons, some of which are the following:
1. The Senate has become a partisan venue for the opposition to pile up charges upon charges, proven or not, for their own political interests;
2. Although many developments have taken place since the Garci tapes, these developments beg for proof, the truth, closure.
3. Senate work on the ZTE-NBN issue is “in aid of legislation.” By its very nature the process – which is sometimes without the benefit of the other side being heard or witnesses being interpellated by “defense” - is not ultimately meant to determine responsibility and guilt. In fact some of the Senators are saying, “Enough. We already have enough facts to aid us in legislation.” Hence, the Senate may not really the proper venue for seeking the truth;
4. All of the above.
6. But does not the Lozano testimony in the Senate establish once and for all that GMA is guilty of the highest type of corruption? Isn’t the testimony of Lozada similar to the testimonies against former President Erap leading to EDSA II?
On these issues many Bishops would believe the following: In the case of EDSA II, there were Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearings. But the final stage of investigation was a formal impeachment process, with lawyers presenting and rebutting, etc. and with the Supreme Court Chief Justice presiding. Both sides were heard fairly. We saw on TV Governor Singson’s ledger, a money trail right up to Clarissa Ocampo’s riveting story of signature-writing by the former President – all irrefutable testimonies despite efforts by defense lawyers. The stage for EDSA II was set. The verdict of guilty was a foregone conclusion based on real evidences and not simply on stories. The non-opening of an infamous envelope was simply the trigger. There is, therefore, a great difference between the Lozano testimony and the testimonies leading to EDSA II. Today, lawyers would most likely dispute the truth of the Lozano testimony. Some people who are for the resignation of Gloria in fact have some reservations about it.
Considering today’s political polarization it is unfortunate that the veracity of witnesses would also depend to some extent on the mind set of the observer. If I am anti-Gloria I would be very inclined to say that Lozada is truthful. But even in the anti-Gloria group we find many who would rather go through a legal process of finding the truth. The pro-Gloria camp would say that no solid evidence has been presented. As a result of these divergent perspectives many Bishops believe that the truth is far from settled and that we must continue to seek the truth.
7. Why do the Bishops say that the President and all the branches of government should lead in combating corruption from top to bottom?
The Bishops’ suggestion may not be as bizarre or as weird as it seems. Even today people, including some of our present senators, keep telling the President to do something about corruption in the different branches of government. The President should do this or do that, they say. In other words, she should take the lead. And yet many of these would say that the President is Ali Baba herself.
But should we not also wonder who should clean up corruption regarding the use of Pork Barrel given to the Senators and Congressmen. Should it be the Senate? The House? Strangely, it seems that the Senate Ethics Committee has made some inquiries into allegations regarding certain alleged corrupt practices within their ranks but we have not seen any reports on these inquiries. So who should take the lead? Or maybe there is no corruption regarding the Pork Barrel?
In their statement the Bishops go on official record that the President and all the branches of government must take the lead. If nothing is done, there would really be no one else to blame.
Perhaps when all is said and done, despite the weirdness of the suggestion, the Bishops and ordinary people could be right. The President does have some role - other than herself being investigated, and every government official should be when charged - in rooting out corruption (if at all possible) in government. If not she, then who? Civil society? The Church? A junta? The military? The people? All of us together?
8. Is the Bishops’ statement political or moral?
From the very beginning, we all knew that we had to take a stand from the moral point of view. The reasoning for our stand must be on moral grounds. That is why we insisted on the Gospel moral values of truth and integrity. But we also knew that from one united moral stand, varying political options could flow.
Let me present, for instance, a rhetorical moral argument. Corruption at the highest level is to be unequivocally morally condemned. But there is, indeed, corruption at the highest level. Therefore, it is to be unequivocally morally condemned. Let us also presume that the second premise is solidly supported.
The conclusion is a moral statement that is dependent on the usual circumstances (who, what, when, where, why, how, etc). It has political implications. Some will demand resignation. Others will demand impeachment. Still others will require the legal processes to proceed. Some will wait for 2010 to give their political response. Etc., etc. It is quite clear that one moral statement does not peremptorily demand only one political option. This reality flows both from the nature of the given moral statement and from the contingent, relative nature of political decisions. This is why continuing discernment is necessary to arrive at the truth. From a dialogue both of thought and action one united political stand might prudentially emerge.
9. Why did the Bishops “strongly recommend” the abolition of EO 464?
The abolition of EO 464 will greatly help the process of seeking the truth. Many questions can be answered by Cabinet Secretaries and they can provide a lot of information related to the present controversies. Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., informed the Bishops that even if EO 464 were to be abolished, “Executive Privilege” would still remain. To a Bishop’s question Fr. Bernas answered that the President cannot waive Executive Privilege since it is not given to her personally but is granted to the Office itself. (Many people think that “the President can waive this privilege if she has nothing to hide. If she does not waive it, she must be hiding something.”). But there are specific parameters, he said, to Executive Privilege. Therefore, without EO 464 a Cabinet Secretary can answer many questions and provide many kinds of information about alleged corruption cases as long as the questions are not about specific areas covered by executive privilege.
Hence despite its obvious limitations the recommendation to abolish EO 464 is a priority recommendation of the Bishops to help seek the truth.
10. What is the most important recommendation in the Bishops statement?
I believe it is a recommendation that unfortunately has been hardly mentioned by the media, although it was emphasized at the press conference. The Bishops recommend the formation of circles of prayer, discernment and action in parishes, religious organizations and movements, colleges and universities, and Basic Ecclesial Communities. This communal process/action focuses on the issues of truth and integrity facing us today, including their causes and remedies. The Bishops believe that from such circles of prayer, discernment and action at the grassroots a culture of truth and integrity will emerge and spread. It is people power at and from the grassroots. Concretely it would require of each diocese a pastoral program of moral conscientization. From reports in the media, it seems that the prayer rally in Zamboanga calls for action along this line.
Archbishop of Cotabato
February 29, 2008
May I provide some personal thoughts toward a better and more accurate understanding of the CBCP statement of February 26, 2008. These are my personal thoughts and do not necessarily reflect the thought of CBCP.
1. Emergency meeting? Special Meeting?
The background of the meeting: The CBCP Permanent Council was going to meet in order to decide on the present situation. Wisely the CBCP President wanted to consult the Bishops so that the Permanent Council decision would reflect the mind of the “college of bishops.” When the Bishops finally met, they discussed the nature of the meeting. Would it be a consultation or would it be a regular CBCP meeting? At the end the Bishops decided: Let the assembly be a meeting of the CBCP rather than simply a consultative meeting.
2. Is it true that it was the Mindanao Bishops who “saved” GMA?
Absolutely false. There were 55 Bishops present at the meeting of February 26, 2008. Four of the 55 were non-voting. Of the voting Bishops, 29 were from Luzon, 17 from Mindanao (among those absent from Mindanao was Bishop Pueblos), 6 from Visayas. From the numbers alone one can readily see how evidently false it would be for anyone to claim that the Mindanao Bishops “saved” GMA. In fact, the Bishops’ statement was approved unanimously. Even the handful known to favour Gloria’s resignation approved the statement.
3. It is often said that the Bishops are divided. Is this true?
The oft-mentioned “divided hierarchy” is false. The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines is made up of 115 Bishops. Of these, 100 are active voting members. Less than 10 of the Bishops are “pro-resign.” Such numbers do not make a “divided” CBCP. The unity of the Bishops has always been there even when they issued their statement on July 10, 2005 that they were not demanding the resignation of the President.
The image of a divided hierarchy could be a media creation. Four or five Bishops with a contrary opinion receive a lot of disproportionate media exposure and mileage. If one studies newspaper reports and interviews, their names appear again and again. Yet Bishops with this contrary opinion constitute less than 10% of the whole hierarchy.
4. This time why did not the Bishops demand GMA to resign?
Choose from the following:
1. They are blind and cannot see reality;
2. They do not listen to the people and specially to the poor;
3. Many of them have received money from the President.
4. They have no spine.
5. All of the above.
Are these charges true? No they are not. Bishops do visit people in the barrios and listen to them. They know what the poor are saying. In the provinces people have problems quite different from those in Manila and are not as much affected by issues that the national media and various groups in Metro Manila project. Mindanao-based groups, for instance, try to project these issues unto the public but for various reasons, particularly ideological, the public does not favourably respond. Some groups in Manila might speak of massive rallies nation-wide, but the Bishops do not see this happening in their own dioceses. And so the Bishops see the difference between Manila and their own provincial dioceses. Their people generally see things differently. Maybe, just maybe, it also takes a bit of courage for Bishops to go against the current “popular” political opinion and public clamor?
How about gifts and money from the President? My answer is quite simple. For how much could a Bishop sell his soul or conscience to someone else? 10,000 pesos? 20,000 pesos? 100,000 pesos? 500,000 pesos? One million pesos? Five or 10 million pesos? That gifts or money would blind the eyes of Bishops and seal their lips to gross corruption when solidly proven would be a tragic contradiction to their experience as pastors at EDSA I and EDSA II.
5. If the claims are only hearsay passed on from one to another, why then did the Bishops not go along with the “growing clamor for resignation”?
What I sense from the Bishops is this. Very many believe that the present process of arriving at the truth is seriously flawed for several reasons, some of which are the following:
1. The Senate has become a partisan venue for the opposition to pile up charges upon charges, proven or not, for their own political interests;
2. Although many developments have taken place since the Garci tapes, these developments beg for proof, the truth, closure.
3. Senate work on the ZTE-NBN issue is “in aid of legislation.” By its very nature the process – which is sometimes without the benefit of the other side being heard or witnesses being interpellated by “defense” - is not ultimately meant to determine responsibility and guilt. In fact some of the Senators are saying, “Enough. We already have enough facts to aid us in legislation.” Hence, the Senate may not really the proper venue for seeking the truth;
4. All of the above.
6. But does not the Lozano testimony in the Senate establish once and for all that GMA is guilty of the highest type of corruption? Isn’t the testimony of Lozada similar to the testimonies against former President Erap leading to EDSA II?
On these issues many Bishops would believe the following: In the case of EDSA II, there were Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearings. But the final stage of investigation was a formal impeachment process, with lawyers presenting and rebutting, etc. and with the Supreme Court Chief Justice presiding. Both sides were heard fairly. We saw on TV Governor Singson’s ledger, a money trail right up to Clarissa Ocampo’s riveting story of signature-writing by the former President – all irrefutable testimonies despite efforts by defense lawyers. The stage for EDSA II was set. The verdict of guilty was a foregone conclusion based on real evidences and not simply on stories. The non-opening of an infamous envelope was simply the trigger. There is, therefore, a great difference between the Lozano testimony and the testimonies leading to EDSA II. Today, lawyers would most likely dispute the truth of the Lozano testimony. Some people who are for the resignation of Gloria in fact have some reservations about it.
Considering today’s political polarization it is unfortunate that the veracity of witnesses would also depend to some extent on the mind set of the observer. If I am anti-Gloria I would be very inclined to say that Lozada is truthful. But even in the anti-Gloria group we find many who would rather go through a legal process of finding the truth. The pro-Gloria camp would say that no solid evidence has been presented. As a result of these divergent perspectives many Bishops believe that the truth is far from settled and that we must continue to seek the truth.
7. Why do the Bishops say that the President and all the branches of government should lead in combating corruption from top to bottom?
The Bishops’ suggestion may not be as bizarre or as weird as it seems. Even today people, including some of our present senators, keep telling the President to do something about corruption in the different branches of government. The President should do this or do that, they say. In other words, she should take the lead. And yet many of these would say that the President is Ali Baba herself.
But should we not also wonder who should clean up corruption regarding the use of Pork Barrel given to the Senators and Congressmen. Should it be the Senate? The House? Strangely, it seems that the Senate Ethics Committee has made some inquiries into allegations regarding certain alleged corrupt practices within their ranks but we have not seen any reports on these inquiries. So who should take the lead? Or maybe there is no corruption regarding the Pork Barrel?
In their statement the Bishops go on official record that the President and all the branches of government must take the lead. If nothing is done, there would really be no one else to blame.
Perhaps when all is said and done, despite the weirdness of the suggestion, the Bishops and ordinary people could be right. The President does have some role - other than herself being investigated, and every government official should be when charged - in rooting out corruption (if at all possible) in government. If not she, then who? Civil society? The Church? A junta? The military? The people? All of us together?
8. Is the Bishops’ statement political or moral?
From the very beginning, we all knew that we had to take a stand from the moral point of view. The reasoning for our stand must be on moral grounds. That is why we insisted on the Gospel moral values of truth and integrity. But we also knew that from one united moral stand, varying political options could flow.
Let me present, for instance, a rhetorical moral argument. Corruption at the highest level is to be unequivocally morally condemned. But there is, indeed, corruption at the highest level. Therefore, it is to be unequivocally morally condemned. Let us also presume that the second premise is solidly supported.
The conclusion is a moral statement that is dependent on the usual circumstances (who, what, when, where, why, how, etc). It has political implications. Some will demand resignation. Others will demand impeachment. Still others will require the legal processes to proceed. Some will wait for 2010 to give their political response. Etc., etc. It is quite clear that one moral statement does not peremptorily demand only one political option. This reality flows both from the nature of the given moral statement and from the contingent, relative nature of political decisions. This is why continuing discernment is necessary to arrive at the truth. From a dialogue both of thought and action one united political stand might prudentially emerge.
9. Why did the Bishops “strongly recommend” the abolition of EO 464?
The abolition of EO 464 will greatly help the process of seeking the truth. Many questions can be answered by Cabinet Secretaries and they can provide a lot of information related to the present controversies. Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., informed the Bishops that even if EO 464 were to be abolished, “Executive Privilege” would still remain. To a Bishop’s question Fr. Bernas answered that the President cannot waive Executive Privilege since it is not given to her personally but is granted to the Office itself. (Many people think that “the President can waive this privilege if she has nothing to hide. If she does not waive it, she must be hiding something.”). But there are specific parameters, he said, to Executive Privilege. Therefore, without EO 464 a Cabinet Secretary can answer many questions and provide many kinds of information about alleged corruption cases as long as the questions are not about specific areas covered by executive privilege.
Hence despite its obvious limitations the recommendation to abolish EO 464 is a priority recommendation of the Bishops to help seek the truth.
10. What is the most important recommendation in the Bishops statement?
I believe it is a recommendation that unfortunately has been hardly mentioned by the media, although it was emphasized at the press conference. The Bishops recommend the formation of circles of prayer, discernment and action in parishes, religious organizations and movements, colleges and universities, and Basic Ecclesial Communities. This communal process/action focuses on the issues of truth and integrity facing us today, including their causes and remedies. The Bishops believe that from such circles of prayer, discernment and action at the grassroots a culture of truth and integrity will emerge and spread. It is people power at and from the grassroots. Concretely it would require of each diocese a pastoral program of moral conscientization. From reports in the media, it seems that the prayer rally in Zamboanga calls for action along this line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
