More photos here

Beyond the call of official duty

… Ballsy Aquino Cruz, the oldest daughter, was overheard to have asked Noynoy over the phone, “Are you willing to give up six years of your life?”

It was a modest question, coming from someone who had served as her mother’s private secretary during her presidency. IN her humility she had forgotten to acknowledge that their lives had already been intertwined with that of our nation…suffering through their father’s imprisonment and assassination, their mother’s reluctant presidency and selfless dedication in service to the nation.

On September 9, 2009, the 40th day after the death of his mother Corazon Aquino, Noynoy Aquino announced his presidential bid. A text message that day suggested that if you multiplied the 9-9-9 by 3, you would get 27. His father Ninoy Aquino was born on November 27. Noynoy would run in 2010, 27 years after Ninoy’s assassination. Also, 9-9-9 was the 252nd day of the year. If you added the digits, it also yielded a 9. Is it his destiny?

In 1996, ten years after the historic EDSA Revolution, Cory Aquino may have been prophetic in her warning that:

Challenges to our freedoms continue to lurk in dark corners, some of them disguised as anti-crime legislation or as proposed constitutional reforms to streamline government.

They also come in the shape of recycled and unrepentant politicians, and discredited ideologues that would talk advantage of the democratic space, which the EDSA Revolution had created in our society.

But mostly, these challenges take the form of a general apathy among our people, a tendency to leave everything in the hands of the leaders, and just heap the blame on them if something goes wrong.

I believe that such apathy, which has allowed the return of discarded ideas and personalities in the highest levels of governance, goes against the spirit of EDSA. Our national situation demands nothing less than a return to, the revival of the Spirit that brought us all to the defense of the Republic, our people and the democratic way of life in the dark days of martial law, and into the dawning of a new day at EDSA.

I do not speak only of providing our warm bodies when needed to make a national statement, but a generosity of spirit, a sharing of our time, efforts, resources and our very lives if needed, to see to it that others might improve their lives.

I speak of living in the Spirit of EDSA in all our endeavors, whatever is our state and calling in life.

Beyond his father’s request to take care of his mother and sisters, armed with the courage of his parent’s, Noynoy’s SOCIAL CONTRACT WITH THE FILIPINO PEOPLE is a call to action. His platform is a commitment to change that Filipinos can depend on. With trust in their leaders, everyone can work and build a future together.

• He is committed to become the nation’s first and foremost fighter of corruption. Education is his central  strategy, prioritizing jobs, protection of public health and equal justice to the rich and the poor.

• For the economy, he sees farms and rural enterprise as vital to achieving food security. His is a leadership that will execute all the laws of the land, with impartiality and decisiveness.

• He will create conditions conducive to the growth and competitiveness of private business, big, medium and small. He wants to create more jobs at home, but will prioritize the welfare and protection of overseas workers.
• He wants professional, motivated and energized bureaucracies with adequate means to perform their public service missions in government service. Selection should be based on integrity, competence and performance in serving the public good.
• His Mindanao policy will seek a broadly supported just peace and will redress decades of neglect of the Moro and other peoples of Mindanao.
• His is a government that will encourage the sustainable use of natural resources to benefit present and future generations.

In his VISION FOR THE PHILIPPINES, Noynoy sees:

• A re-awakening sense of right and wrong, through the living examples of our highest leaders.
• An organized and widely-shared rapid expansion of our economy through a government dedicated to honing and mobilizing our people’s skills and energies as well as the responsible harnessing of our natural resources.
• A collective belief that doing the right thing does not only make sense morally, but translates into economic value as well.
• Public institutions rebuilt on the strong solidarity of our society and its communities.

The MISSION which he has chosen to accept is that:

We will start to make these changes first in ourselves by doing the right things, by giving value to excellence and integrity and rejecting mediocrity and dishonesty, and by giving priority to others over ourselves.

When Noynoy announced his decision to run, Fr Manny Domingo, former parish priest of Don Bosco Makati, expressed what many Filipinos now feel: “I HAVE BEEN GIVEN HOPE.”

~Marisse Reyes,
Asian Tigers magazine

In 1971, at a time that radical student activism was surging, the radicals lost the leadership of the University Student Council because of red-scare tactics that scared innocent freshmen voters.

As Lenin once said, “a lie told often enough becomes the truth.” We therefore cannot dismiss black propaganda, even if we believe that the truth will eventually set us free.

In the campaign for the 2010 elections, black propaganda is widely circulating on radio and on the Internet. An example of this is the unrelenting attack that Noynoy Aquino lacks competence as shown by his bad legislative record. The spin used by his rivals is that Noynoy’s supposed incompetence in Congress does not qualify him to become a president.

The black propaganda describes Noynoy as a legislator who has not authored a single law; that a couple of dimwits in the Senate even fare better than Noynoy in terms of legislative record.

Judging how good a legislator is by the number of laws he authored is a fallacy. By itself, the number of laws sponsored by a senator or congressman does not make one a competent legislator. So many bad laws have been passed — laws that protect vested interests; laws that perpetuate injustice; laws that harm employment; laws that drain the public coffers; laws with good intentions but with adverse consequences; laws that are superfluous; and so on.

And the fact is Noynoy has co-authored in the Senate three bills that have become Philippine laws, including the self-explaining Climate Change Act.

Noynoy also deserves credit for authoring a number of substantive bills that address workers’ welfare, economic development, human rights, checks and balances, transparency, and checks and balances. He is the principal author of nine bills. It is worth citing these bills, namely:

1. Amendment of the government procurement law so that contracts based on international treaties or executive agreements will not be exempted from the coverage of procurement rules.

2. Reform in the appointment of Philippine National Police officers.

3. Budget impoundment control to check the executive’s abuse of power;

4. Increasing penalties for the violation of the minimum wage set by law.

5. Disallowing the reappointment of members of the Judicial Bar Council who have served a full term.

6. Preservation of public infrastructure by raising the infrastructure standards and penalizing the contractors who violated the standards.

7. Granting of bonuses as productivity incentives to employees, drawn from the net profits of the companies.

8. Limiting the power of the president to reappoint officials bypassed by the Commission on Appointments; and

9. Accountability of senior officers or superiors in relation to abuses of human rights.

The skeptical may ask why these bills, noteworthy as they are, have not been enacted. Two of the bills, namely, on the Philippine National Police and on the Judicial and Bar Council have been passed in the Senate and are pending in the House of Representatives. The other bills are still pending in different Senate committees.

The author of a good bill does not have full control over its enactment. A bill that the president does not certify as an urgent and priority measure will have a difficult time getting passed by a Congress that is often subservient to Malacañang. And within Congress, many politicians, especially those who chair sensitive committees, are captured by vested interests.

Reform advocates can empathize with Noynoy. I recall the advocacy way back in the late 1980s to have a law that would limit foreign debt servicing on the basis of the country’s ability to pay. It was a popular and technically sound bill, which was co-authored by a big number of legislators. Yet, the bill never became law. The failure to pass this bill authored by the likes of Alberto Romulo and Edcel Lagman does not mean that Mssrs. Romulo and Lagman are incompetent.

Today, we are so near yet so far from having a law on freedom of information (FOI). The struggle for this bill commenced in the late 1990s. In other words, it has been more than 10 years, and we still have to see the passage of the FOI. The House of Representatives and the Senate as well as the bicameral committee have passed the FOI. Yet, because Malacañang said so, the House of Representatives did not ratify the FOI on the last day of its regular session. The indefatigable sponsors of the bill both in the Senate and in the House of Representatives — the likes of Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano and Rep. Erin Tañada — cannot be called incomptetent, despite the temporary setback.

The moral of the story is that Noynoy cannot be judged incompetent just because his bills do not have the support of Malacañang and other politicians.

What is also interesting is the content of Noynoy’s bills — they all serve the public good. He may have fewer bills compared to the bills authored by Sen. Manny Villar. But in Villar’s case, the laws he sponsored include those that serve his private interests like banking and real estate.

As my friend puts it, what we want is not just competence, but competence with integrity.

And that is the plain truth.

———————————————————————————

Yellow Pad — By Filomeno S. Sta Ana III

Sta. Ana coordinates Action for Economic reforms (www.aer.ph).

Did he help his siblings with sufficient capital to uplift them into a status not so distant to yours?

Did he genuinely help uplift the economic status of his barkada when he was a lad in Tondo?

Did he uplift the lot of the family of his first gravel and sand truck driver/helpers?

Did he acquire all of his raw lands only through legitimate means without transgressing on the rights of the government or any private citizen?

Did he always treat all the sellers from whom he acquired his raw lands and all the parties involved in the transaction with utmost integrity, dignity, and fairness?

Did he not cheat his realty buyers with sub-standard land development and housing construction? (The buyer of a house in one of his projects refused to sign the acceptance of the unit they bought after he found out upon his inspection that the concrete wall vibrated each time that the door was closed. He threatened to report his discovery to the government regulators and the government financial institutions financing the project. During the weekend, the unit was bulldozed and with teeming laborers to re-construct the unit it was finished before the regulatory inspectors came. Hence, all the reported complaints could no longer be found on the new unit.)

Did he not cheat the Central Bank or any other government entity while he owned the Capitol Development Bank as his own originating bank for the Unified Lending Program?

Do the total remunerations paid to his employees reflect an equitable proportion to his net income in his financial statements? (A huge disparity shows innate avarice at the expense of his business’s constituents! )

Did any of his janitors ever rise to the economic level of self-sustenance that they did not have to borrow for their family expenses especially during the times of enrollment, sickness, or bereavement?

Did his janitors have the chance to acquire their own decent dwellings even in non-Villar affiliated pro-poor housing developments?

Did he ever help any OFW before 2006 (please check the year when he first came out in the news helping OFWs)?

Did he strive to know the plight of OFWs in jails abroad especially those who could not afford to pay-off the fines for their crimes and whom he should have helped instead of those who merely lacked the air fare to return to RP? (The people in jail have the least potential benefactors. )

Did he ever provide the same assistance (that he advertises now) to his relatives, former neighbors & fellow vendors in Tondo/classmates/ household helpers/gravel & sand personnel/construct ion workers/equipment operators/ employees/mendicant s at your malls/and to the greater majority more deserving but with no media mileage?

Didn’t he indulge in all the endeavors in his propaganda precisely only to enable such premeditated self-serving propaganda?

Did he/his wife not influence the zonal valuations in their properties when these were enacted into laws by congress?

If he allowed to be interpellated in his last privilege speech at the Senate, could he have defended himself against the evidences against him and the legal savvy of his opponents?

Is Manny Villar a real pro-poor guy since his first opportunity to be charitable at least 40 years ago?

Is he sincere and not merely creating media hype?

Therefore, can he face up to God and say he has been absolutely truthful in what he is saying and what he intends to do?
SOME QUOTES FOR THE LP:

PROV 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
PROV 3:6 In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths.
(KAW 3:5 Kay Yahweh ka magtiwala, buong puso at lubusan, at huwag kang mananangan sa sariling karunungan.
KAW 3:6 Siya ay sangguniin sa lahat mong mga balak; At Kanya kang itutumpak sa lahat ng iyong lakad.)

ROM 8:31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
(RO 8:31 Ano pa ang masasabi natin tungkol dito? Kung ang Diyos ay panig sa atin, sino ang laban sa atin?)
SOME QUOTES FOR THE OTHER CONTENDERS:

REV 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

(PAH 21:8 Subalit malagim ang kasasapitan ng mga duwag, mga taksil, mga nagpasasa sa kasuklam-suklam na kahalayan, mga mamamatay-tao, mga mapakiapid, mga kampon ng demonyo, mga sumasamba sa diyus-diyusan, at lahat ng sinungaling. Sila’y ibubulid sa lawa ng naglalagablab na asupre, na siyang pangalawang kamatayan.)

PROV 12:22 Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are His delight.
(KAW 12:22 Namumuhi si Yahweh sa taong sinungaling; Ngunit ang tapat ay ligaya Niya at aliw.)

JN 8:34 Jesus answered them, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin”.
(JN 8:34 Sumagot si Jesus. “Tandaan ninyo: alipin ng kasalanan ang lahat ng nagkakasala.”)

Question: What roadway projects are the subject matter of the Villar ethics controversy? Answer: 1. The Manila Cavite Toll Expressway Project (MCTEP), the original C-5 south extension project, linking SLEX with the Coastal Road; 2. the DPWH C-5 Extension project (CX-5), which together with 3. the Las Pi񡳭Para񡱵e Link Project (LPPLP), also links SLEX with the Coastal Road. Source: Senate Report (SR) 780.

Q: Is the CX-5/LPPLP project a realignment, as Sen. Jamby Madrigal describes it, or has there been no realignment, as Senator Villar’s allies insist?

A: Technically there has been no realignment, because these are two separate roads linking C-5 from SLEX to the Coastal Road. But they are very close together and, in some areas, overlap, as can be ascertained from a site map. Source: interactive map available at www.gmanews. tv

Q: Are there any differences between the MCTEP and the CX-5/LPPLP?

A: Yes. 1. The MCTEP is a joint-venture project between the government and a private Malaysian partner, with the government’s financial exposure limited to P2.68 billion for the purchase of the road right-of-way; the private partner is responsible for the construction of the project, for which tolls will be charged. The CX-5/LPPLP is a toll-free, wholly-financed government project costing P6.96 billion; 2. The CX-5/LPPLP is longer than the MCTEP, its extra length essentially covering the LPPLP portion; 3. The CX-5/LPPLP passes through more Villar properties than the MCTEP. Source: DPWH project documents cited as Exhibits A, B and TTTT in SR 780; site map from www.gmanews. tv.

Q: How large are the Villar company landholdings in the immediate vicinity of the questioned road projects?

A: At least 50-52 hectares: 40 hectares in the vicinity of the LPPLP; 10-12 hectares in the area between Sucat Road and Multinational Avenue. Source: testimony of Anastacio Adriano Jr., senior vice president and general manager, chief operating officer of Adelfa Properties Inc. and other Villar-owned companies up to 2008; self-styled consultant and political officer of Senator Villar since August 2008. Nota bene: Senate employment records do not include his name. Nota bene: it is not clear whether the 50-52 hectares mentioned above include properties cited in SR 780—roughly 10 hectares in area—to be developed by Villar companies in joint venture with their owners.

Q: What is the involvement of Villar in CX-5 and LPPLP?

A: 1. The Project Feasibility Study of the DPWH for CX-5 states: “The conceptualization of and the initial release of funds for the CX-5 Project was initiated by Sen. Manuel Villar whose same efforts also paved the way for the funding of the Las Pi񡳭Para񡱵e Link Road [LPPLP]”; 2. Various insertions and amendments (Priority Development Assistance Fund, read pork barrel) in the national government budget over the years 2002-2008 for CX-5 and LPPLP; 3. Adriano (cited above), in the office of and presence of Villar, dictating to the director general of the Senate’s Legislative Budget Research and Monitoring Office (LBRMO) Villar’s proposed amendments to the 2008 budget, including a P400-million appropriation for the CX-5. Source: documents submitted by DPWH, lawyer Yolanda Doblon of the LBRMO, testimony of both Doblon and Adriano, cited in SR 780.

Q: Were the Villar properties bought for road right-of-way overpriced?

A: SR 780 argues for the affirmative; PSR 1472 (the resolution signed by Villar and his allies exonerating him from all charges) argues for the negative. This calls for a conclusion of the reader. And to help that along, I have—based on the documented prices and acreage of the lands purchased in connection with the LPPLP—computed the weighted average prices that were paid for the Villar and related properties, and those paid for the non-Villar properties. The results: The Villar/related properties, comprising 23,455 square meters, were bought for P168.1 million. The non-Villar properties, comprising 11,685 square meters, were bought for P22 million. That comes to a weighted average of P7,168 per square meter for Villar’s properties, and P1,880 per square meter for the non-Villar properties. That has to be a statistically significant difference.

Given the above facts—which no one can contest, since they are based on official documents, and not on a he-says-she- says set of assertions—it has to be reasonable to conclude:

1. Since there was already an ongoing project (the MCTEP) linking C-5 to the Coastal Road, it was totally unnecessary to build a second one.

2. Which means that there was a waste of scarce resources. Instead of using only P2.6 billion of government funds for the first project, the government had to spend an additional P6.9 billion for the second, which practically duplicated the first, except for the additional length which happily for Senator Villar, traversed his properties.

3. This unnecessary, wasteful project was certainly Villar’s idea. It is specious to argue that it is a DPWH project. As the DPWH feasibility study states (in black and white), both the CX-5 and the LPPLP were conceived and initially funded by Villar.

4. Villar benefited tremendously from the second project. Certainly, his companies were paid significantly more per square meter for the road right of way (which were mostly bought from him). But that pales into insignificance compared with the tremendous increase in the values of his real estate holdings in the area—at least 50-52 hectares.

Is he blameless? Is the Pope protestant?

Senator Benigno S. Aquino III

Officers and members of the Makati Business Club, Your Excellencies of the diplomatic corps, ladies and gentlemen, my friends and countrymen.

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to address you.  I trust your asking me first is not based on alphabetical order, or based on age, but perhaps, based on who you think will most likely win the coming election.

As managers, you recognize that one of the necessary skills of an effective manager is time management. Is it possible that you have invited me to determine if there is still a necessity to spend time with the others?

Baka naman inuna niyo ako upang malaman kung sapat na ako at hindi na kailangang pansinin yung iba?

I think we are all aware of the problems facing our country. We share the same statistics. We probably even share the same conclusions about the need for better governance. To rehash all of these problems at this forum would be a waste of your time. But what we have now is an opportunity for you to get to know me, to find out the advocacies that I champion, the perspective and philosophies I bring to the equation and some of my proposed solutions to give an insight into my inner persona.

Levity aside, the political exercise that we will engage in this May is a crucial one.  It will be, as it is for every fledgling democracy, a test of the strength of our political institutions.  The peaceful transition of power has become a symbol of political maturity across the world, with many still failing to achieve the credibility that is the cornerstone of a genuine political mandate.  With the electoral scandals that have stalled our democratic progress as of late, it is not a test that we can afford to fail.

We have an administration whose mandate is clouded in doubt and overshadowed by allegations of fraud because it refused every opportunity to clear the air and be held to account. Its choices have limited its decision-making to seeking ways to ensure day-to-day political survival and self-interest. We must now become a government committed to accountability. A government that works with the people in achieving long-term change.

We must make the shift from bare economic survival to robust economic growth. We must make the change from treading water to keep afloat, to reaching that promised shore where we can all stand tall as healthy, happy, educated and responsible fellow citizens.

But why does transformation seem like such an impossible dream?

Isa sa mga tema ng ating kalaban, yung “ang pagbabago, madaling sabihin yan pero mahirap gawin,” is probably echoed by a lot of Filipinos. The oft-repeated question is, why can’t we advance? Why can’t we progress? What is it in us that limits or prohibits our growth as a people and as a country?

All of you are aware that most of the contenders have had years, possibly even decades, of preparation for this electoral exercise. I had no such ambitions to run in the 2010 elections but I responded to the people’s clamor. I am but the face of what we believe is the overwhelming demand of our people to repudiate everything wrong in the current administration.

Given that I only announced my decision to seek the presidency on September 9, and I only came to that decision the day before, I have not had material time comparable to our opponents. What is perplexing is that viewing the same problems, and having access to the same data for the most part, we believe the solutions have been there all along, and necessitate only clear political will to execute. But most of our opponents seem to indicate the contrary opinion that there is very little that we can do to change the situation. One has to wonder: did they overstudy the problem, or are they committed to preserving the status quo?

If the leader is not convinced that change is not only necessary, but extremely possible, how does he lead us to the promised land?

What is it that we want to change?

We want to repair the damage that has been wrought on our democratic institutions by those who have sought to manipulate them for their own selfish ends.

We want to improve the situation of our people, who have suffered years of neglect because of a self-absorbed leadership obsessed with political survival. 

They are poor.  Many of them are homeless. Each year, we add some 2.5 million mouths to feed to our already hungry population. Of these new additions, one third were the result of unplanned pregnancies. We have a growing underclass that statistics tell us have given up looking for work. A permanent underclass that includes the five million of our countrymen that are illiterate, which means their opportunities in life will always be limited to living hand-to-mouth.

We want to give our young the opportunity and means to improve their lot in life. It can only begin if our children and their parents are assured that money spent on education is money well spent. Unfortunately, students are at the mercy of our decrepit education system that allows double shifting, erroneous textbooks and substandard nursing schools to exist. No less than DepEd officials admitted that students in Grade 1 take three subjects in one class period. We have a procurement program so heedless of the need for excellence that it doesn’t care if it produces a textbook series riddled with 500 factual errors. For every hundred kids that start grade school with the hope of achieving their dreams, only fourteen will graduate from college and possess a tangible means to materially improve their lives.

To my mind, the crucial, lacking element in all these is a government committed to a transformation: from a society overwhelmingly poor to one overwhelmingly middle class. In every developed, progressive, prosperous democracy, it is the middle class that is the biggest class. Government, for one, has failed to make the conceptual leap from patronage to development. Efforts at feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, providing basic care to the sick, and offering a quality education aren’t only the people’s rights; they are the essential tools for individual self-improvement

In 1998, when I first campaigned for office, one lady bluntly told me that regardless of who is elected, things would remain the same for her.

What did she mean?

That she was poor to begin with; that she would remain poor, and in fact, she would be lucky if she didn’t end up poorer, after the candidates leave office.

This brings up the question at the forefront of the minds of our countrymen still undecided on whom to vote for, and pursued by my critics. If this is a time that calls for national transformation, am I qualified to be that transformative leader? Having answered the call of duty, can I ask you or anyone to entrust me with your vote, on faith alone? Never having sought the presidency, I preferred to do my duty and not seek the limelight. Now that I have been thrust in the limelight, it is only fair to answer the question: before you tell us what we can do, what have you done?

I have always believed that the job of an effective legislator goes beyond merely proposing laws, for what are laws but written agreements entered into by members of society on how to harmonize their mutual relations? In fact, I do not believe that we suffer from the problem of too few laws. One of my proposed measures was the recodification of laws, in response to an appeal from the legal community to put some order into our laws, their amendments and those that have been repealed, because even our lawyers are at times confused.

Consider the recent controversy over who gets to appoint the next Chief Justice. We maintain that there are no ifs and buts in Article 7 Section 15 of the Constitution where it states that the current President cannot appoint anybody within two months prior to a presidential election up to the end of her term. An exemption exists, but it applies only for positions in the Executive Department. Yet you have two retired justices arguing exactly the opposite. How can former justices of the Supreme Court be so seemingly confused, when the fact is that the provision regarding presidential appointments is stated clearly in the law?

Our problem is the lack of political will to faithfully implement the many world-class laws that our legislature has passed. A preference for ambiguity even when times call for clarity, leads to artificial controversies. Insecure or overly ambitious leaders need to create a climate of doubt, because it’s in the grey areas that its ambitions thrive.

It is in addressing this problem that I focused on the fiscalizing aspect of a legislator’s job – on Congress’ oversight and investigative functions.

Consider intelligence funds. In the proposed 2010 budget, a total of 1.4 billion was allocated to confidential and intelligence funds.

Woodrow Wilson once wrote that oversight is always preferable to investigation, which is like putting out a fire instead of preventing one. We proposed that if the Executive wants orderly transactions, at least a few members of Congress should be privy to all of the details to determine if they were spent properly. However, this proposal was dismissed out of hand without even a single hearing for the reason that they undermined the Executive’s privileges.

And yes, the investigations were a vital part of my functions, too. I don’t think anyone will begrudge me my efforts in this regard. From Hello Garci and the impeachments, to NBN-ZTE and the fertilizer scam, I did my duty at the forefront of these issues.

The original design of the NBN-ZTE project required a BOT agreement between government and the supplier, not a government loan. But during the NBN-ZTE hearings, we learned that the project was entered into through a government loan despite instructions to the contrary from no less than the President herself. The cost of the intended government loan was P40 billion, (in which P16 billion was for the backbone and P24 billion was for the CyberEd project.) Jun Lozada belied this when he cited P5 billion as the actual cost of the entire project. Ito yung sinasabi niyang kalakaran ng gobyerno, kung saan sa sobrang laki ng patong, bubukol na.

SCTEx took around 8 years to construct before it finally opened. Projects of this scale normally require two years to complete. Furthermore, when SCTEx finally became operational, it was found that the central hub, which was Clark, did not have an exit, excluding Clark from the Subic Clark Tarlac expressway itself. How can one justify these kinds of delays where opportunities are lost, costs have escalated and the people’s burdens, instead of being reduced, end up being compounded? 

My active role in these congressional hearings has put me at odds with the administration. In 2005, it cost me my post as Deputy Speaker.  It continues to put me at odds with the coalition of self-interest that currently holds power. It puts me at odds with other candidates for the presidency.

To lead transformation, you cannot be part of the problem. As I said when I accepted the people’s draft, the job of chief executive is about the efficient allocation of resources. If you have hogged those resources for yourself, if you have lied, cheated, and stolen to gain power, how can you be trusted to lead the transformation our country needs?

Going back on the issue of appointing a Chief Justice prior to the forthcoming elections. If we are to transform the country, it begins with doing what we can, now, to limit the damage and give our people a fighting chance to rebuild our damaged institutions. The Constitution imposes a blanket prohibition with few exceptions concerning midnight appointments. A candidate cannot ask for the people’s mandate, pledging to improve the situation tomorrow, if he becomes complicit in worsening the situation today.

Hindi naman mahirap gawin ang tama. Alam naman ng lahat yan eh. Wala namang magic, wala namang sikreto. Pero bakit pilit pa ring ginagawa ang mali?

There is a widespread perception that success in the business milieu can almost be directly correlated to your closeness to the powers-that-be.  Because of this, some players in the industry are forced to focus their activities on maintaining relationships in order to retain the favors that they receive in exchange for cultivating that relationship.  This has fostered the wrong kind of competitiveness. While it may work, locally, for now, it has not enabled these players to become competitive in the world market, where the rules of the game do not take special relationships into consideration.

We will encourage free and fair competition in a level playing field.  One not need be a crony in order to succeed in the field of business.  More importantly, government will not compete with business. Nor will government use its regulatory powers to extort, intimidate and harass.

We will transform our systems to foster service to the public instead of making citizens jump through hoops. We will streamline the approval process, not only for setting up new businesses but also in the regular day-to-day transactions with government, such as the payment of taxes. We will do this on a national as well as the local level.

In 2010, our next President will inherit a continually bloating deficit. As of November 2009, the deficit of the national government already reached P272.5 billion, or 4.1% of GDP.

In addressing the looming fiscal crisis, good governance and the drive against corruption are critical components in our strategy.  We will refrain from imposing new taxes or increasing tax rates.

I strongly believe that we can collect more taxes at the BIR and higher duties at Customs if we become more serious in curbing and punishing tax evasion and smuggling. The BIR’s collection dropped by 5.5%, while that of Customs declined by 16.6%. This is the first time in recent history that absolute revenues have actually declined.

Our initial focus then will be to capture a good part of the revenue leaks caused by smuggling and evasion. In this effort, we will not be starting from zero. Be assured that those smugglers and evaders are not faceless and unknown entities.  The ideas to improve tax administration and to control smuggling have been there for some time and some programs have been initiated in the past. One of these successful programs was the RATE or Run After Tax Evaders. In fact, some of the people at the Department of Finance and the BIR who have tried to implement reforms before are with us now, and together with reform-minded career executives, we intend to put their commitment and talents to good use under my administration.

My vision is to transform our country into one where we have lower tax rates enjoyed by all, rather than have some enjoy absolute tax exemptions while we burden the rest of the economy with very high tax rates. I believe that markets are better than government in spotting where the growth opportunities are, and, with universal low tax rates, we will encourage entrepreneurs and enterprises to invest and create jobs in any industry. We will, therefore, pursue the rationalization of fiscal incentives early in my administration.

There is a lot of room for our revenue base to grow. Our tax effort has gone down from 17% at its peak to a worrisome 13% today. If we can only bring this back even to just the 15% level, that will translate to P150 billion in additional revenues, which would make a significant dent in cutting our deficit.

My budget team estimates that for 2009 alone, around P280 billion of our national budget was lost to corruption. If we take the years 2002 to 2009 the total estimates exceed one trillion. Estimates vary, but everyone agrees that the numbers are huge.

If we agree that change is necessary, how can a Presidential aspirant, whose own financial and political ethics are questionable, be effective in leading transformation as the head of the bureaucracy?  How can a leader, who is benefiting from the status quo, be able to restore a civic sense and pride in our citizenry? The leader, who has used public office for private gain, will always be the most committed enemy of change.

Rich or poor alike, we have a tangible experience of the sorry state of public infrastructure at present: traffic, which eats up time, which as the saying goes, is money. Railways are built at bloated cost; urban transport is constructed, but not enough trains are on track.  Our people are the first to experience the effect of something that works and conversely, something that is badly done because bad intentions handicapped the project from the start.

It is time that our infrastructure agencies and LGUs transform into cooperative ventures with the private sector by bringing forth an agreed public infrastructure program, based on a cohesive plan that optimizes the value of the entire network.  In our conversations with members of the private sector, there has been a lot of positive feedback about possibly working with government on this endeavor.

To transform infrastructure projects from sources of waste and scandal into examples of cooperation and efficiency, we will set objective criteria for different types of projects and develop a scorecard that will assess various projects against benchmarks transparent to the public.

Initially we want our infrastructure program to transform from being the means to enrich a few, to being labor-intensive and biased for employment as a means to pump-prime the economy. 

When I read about countries that have invested in their agriculture sectors and succeeded, it always pains me to find that these countries – Vietnam and Thailand, to name just a couple – had started by sending their experts to be educated in the Philippines.  It seems that we cannot implement among ourselves the lessons we successfully imparted to experts from elsewhere.  This will have to change.  We must be able to harness our homegrown talent in order to further our local industries.

When we change administrations, there must be a complete review of all the programs in the Department of Agriculture. We can do a lot for our farmers given the present budget of the Department if we eliminate the leaks and focus on the efficient use of resources. For example, we must stop eating up millions in mere administrative costs as in the case of NABCOR, which charged our government P60 million because it served as a useless conduit to regional offices. We will also support efforts such as supply chain management that minimizes losses, creates jobs, consults with stakeholders, and capitalizes on our competitive advantage.

Our core belief is that the current approach to governance and power must change.  That is why our terms of reference always begin with the present government, what it has done, and how different our institutions and our nation must be six years from June 30, 2010.

In a small-scale operation it is easy for everyone involved to visualize that entity as the combination of their collective efforts. As opposed to, say, when you are a bigger firm, and there is the management side and there is the labor side. In Tagalog, it’s even more dramatic. Kayo at kami, sa halip na tayo.

We must find a unity that transcends the divisions of today, based on a shared commitment to transforming our country into one that works: One where traffic flows well, garbage is collected efficiently, crimes are solved, justice is served, and our kids are educated properly. It works in the sense that you do not have to flee the country to move up in the world, improve your lot in life, and rise to the highest level your personal merits can achieve.

We are a nation of sacrifice, of diligence, dedication and, idealism, because we are a people imbued with compassion even when we have officials who lie, cheat, and steal. Our faith teaches us that we are our brother’s keeper.  Our logic should tell us that in taking care of others, their growth equals our own.

In the movie “Invictus,” Nelson Mandela says, “In order to rebuild our nation, we must exceed our own expectations.” It requires us to insist, always, that we are not a nation of crooks, of thieves, of murderers who get off scot-free and where justice is won by the highest bidder.

In May, you will be asked to make a choice. Will you choose transformation and change or will you choose to uphold the status quo?

We have already made our choice. Ours is a journey towards transformation. I ask you today to join us in this journey now.

Thank you.

His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.

“Welcome to heaven,” says St. Peter. “Before you settle in, it seems
there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these
parts, you see, so we’re not sure what to do with you.”

“No problem, just let me in,” says the senator.

“Well, I’d like to, but I have orders from the higher ups. What we’ll
do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can
choose where to spend eternity.”

“Really, I’ve made up my mind. I want to be in heaven,” says the senator.

“I’m sorry, but we have our rules.”

And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes
down, down, down to hell.

The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf
course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it
are all his friends nd other politicians who had worked with him.

Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him,
shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while
getting rich at the expense of the people.

They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar
and champagne.

Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who is
having a good time dancing and telling jokes.

They are all having such a good time that before the senator realizes
it, it is time to go.

Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises…

The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens in heaven where
St. Peter is waiting for him, “Now it’s time to visit
heaven.”

So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls
moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and
singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24
hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.

“Well, then, you’ve spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now
choose your eternity.”

The senator reflects for a minute, then he answers: “Well, I would
never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I
think I would be better off in hell.”

So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to
hell.

Now the doors of the elevator open and he’s in the middle of a barren
land covered with waste and garbage. He sees all his friends, dressed
in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more
trash falls from above.

The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulders.

“I don’t understand,” stammers the senator. “Yesterday I was here
and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and
caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now
there’s just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look
miserable. What happened?”

The devil smiles at him and says, “Yesterday we were campaigning
…Today, you voted.”