Does it take Transparency and Vigilance, for them to tango?

YELPED and whispered all over town are these recent interesting news about some/many administration people’s growing enthusiasm for the sudden bright idea of trying to quickly change the charter, better known in the media under the appellative of Charter Change (or Cha-Cha).

     The goal, unabashedly intimated, is to give the President a chance to run for a second term, currently an unconstitutional undertaking.

Photo borrowed from rappler.com

     Incidentally, there are also these two interlinked announced upcoming events. One is the August 23 multi-sector “people’s congress” in Cebu City backed by the Catholic Church that hopes to launch on the same day the People’s Initiative Against the Pork Barrel (or PIAP), an initiative that would criminalize pork barrel fund creation and spending (and render as suspect certain items in the current budget plan for 2015). Then there’s the August 25-scheduled rally against the continuing pork barrel system (this will likewise commemorate the Million People March, one year to this day, as well as formally bring the PIAP signature campaign to Luzon).

     The initiative is a product of the awakened awareness in the Filipino psyche of the people’s right and privilege to be participants in government care of that long-hidden direct democracy instrument lurking behind Article XVII, Section 2, of the Constitution, which instrument was enabled by Republic Act 6735 (The Initiative and Referendum Act of 1987-1989) that had likewise hitherto been a sleeping/unused law.

     By this awakened direct-democratic awareness, therefore, some quarters fear that the charter change being cooked by the Aquino government will also be used to totally overhaul the 1987 Constitution, which could possibly result in the removal of the direct-democracy clause that the political elite in Congress will presumably do anything to be rid of to consequently keep its grip on discretionary or confidential funds and keep the people and the Supreme Court (which recently rendered such funds as unconstitutional) out of the picture and the ball game.

     But, should that happen, … well, …  wouldn’t the Marxists triumph and feel vindicated in their belief that only armed struggle and subversion can truly wrest abuse away from the management of the political elite and place justice in the hands of the people? They’d say, “see? We told you so. Since the political elite will never ever allow the people to muster power for change, a change that the political elite in our fake democracy fears will tear their access to privileges upon the country’s coffers away from them, the only way to achieve change then is by subverting their respective existences. Direct democracy, or true democracy (demos people, kratos power), will never be allowed to happen by the sublime royal class that rules our, actually, plutocratic state.”

STILL and all, I remain armed (not with a gun, but) with the hope that there are still ruling-party elements today who, 1.) in their hearts, would want to be true to their Liberal tag as social liberals and, 2.) in spirit, would opt to be placed an ocean away from their neoliberal, corporate liberal, interest-group liberal and limousine liberal peers, and therefore might perhaps to remember that RA 6735 used to be not an anti-Noynoy Aquino administration vehicle but a Liberal Party cause (after all, it was co-authored by that late LP stalwart, Neptali Gonzales, wasn’t it?). In short, they just might rally for more social liberal influence in the process of governance at Malacañang as this governance develops in the ticking present. Leni Robredo, for one, is an advocate of participatory budgeting and participatory democracy, albeit her bill on this issue is absent the Porto Alegre model’s requirement of electing the municipal district delegates. (The Porto Alegre participatory budgeting model with elected, instead of merely appointed by someone or by some committee, delegates is crucial to avoiding participatory budgeting’s being used again as just another Janet Lim-Napoles-scam-like instrument for the corrupt among the political elite. A frown on the absence of that requirement was made manifest upon the curious program of DILG Secretary and presidential aspirant Mar Roxas, which was porkishly called Grassroots Participatory Budgeting Process, when the existence of that “process” of disbursing lump sums started to be known in the media). Robredo, however, is also an advocate of open government, and would thus be logically open to such amendments as we implied above to her participatory budgeting bill.

     Isn’t it ironic that one of the lawyers defending the impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona during his trial, Jose M. Roy III, is now one of the voices rallying—behind former Chief Justice Reynato Puno—for the necessity and timely triumph of the people’s empowerment through the People’s Initiative instrument? Ironic, in the sense that he was then defending a Justice believed by many to be a puppet of the former Macapagal-Arroyo royalist gang but now seems to have the people as his pro bono client, whilst the Liberal Party of President Aquino’s allegedly anti-corruption “Straight Path” governance is now being accused by the people of scattering an abundance of pork barrels (for his political elite base) as well as of rigging biddings and protecting tax evading companies that supported the party’s campaign.

     But let’s go back to the ruling-party social liberals (Neptali Gonzales’ ideological children) currently trying to maintain influence in the Liberal Party against the influence of their corporate-liberal mates. And I’d say, should charter change win the day anytime this year and any amount of Million People Marches gets frustrated and produces nothing, then perhaps all that the social liberal faction in that ruling party can do (with the people behind them) is offer the following title and articles for incorporation into the new charter to counter the corporate liberals’ likely wish to remove the people’s initiative clause in the presently-existing constitution. The title and articles below are adaptations of a title and articles from the Swiss Constitution, which some would protest against for being Swiss, but must everything in our Constitution be copied from the texts of American political elitism and plutocratic accommodation? The text are from admin.ch, with my adaptations for possible Philippine use:

Title 4: The People and the Regions

Chapter 1: General Provisions

Art. 136 Political rights

1 All Filipino citizens over the age of eighteen, unless they lack legal capacity due to mental illness or mental incapacity, have political rights in national matters. All citizens have the same political rights and duties.

2 They may participate in elections to the National Parliament and in national popular votes, and launch or sign popular initiatives and requests for referendums in national matters.

Art. 137 Political parties

The political parties shall contribute to forming the opinion and will of the People.

Chapter 2: Initiative and Referendum

Art. 138 Popular initiative requesting the complete revision of the Constitution

1 Any 1,250,000 persons eligible to vote may within 18 months of the official publication of their initiative propose a complete revision of the Constitution.

2 This proposal must be submitted to a vote of the People.

Art. 139 Popular initiative requesting a partial revision of the Constitution in specific terms

1 Any 1,250,000 persons eligible to vote may within 18 months of the official publication of their initiative request a partial revision of the Constitution.

2 A popular initiative for the partial revision of the Constitution may take the form of a general proposal or of a specific draft of the provisions proposed.

3 If the initiative fails to comply with the requirements of consistency of form, and of subject matter, or if it infringes mandatory provisions of international law, the National Parliament shall declare it to be invalid in whole or in part.

4 If the National Parliament is in agreement with an initiative in the form of a general proposal, it shall draft the partial revision on the basis of the initiative and submit it to the vote of the People and the Regions. If the National Parliament rejects the initiative, it shall submit it to a vote of the People; the People shall decide whether the initiative should be adopted. If they vote in favour, the National Parliament shall draft the corresponding bill.

5 An initiative in the form of a specific draft shall be submitted to the vote of the People and the Regions. The National Parliament shall recommend whether the initiative should be adopted or rejected. It may submit a counter-proposal to the initiative.

Art. 139a…

Art. 139b Procedure applicable to an initiative and counter-proposal

1 The People vote on the initiative and the counter-proposal at the same time.

2 The People may vote in favour of both proposals. In response to the third question, they may indicate the proposal that they prefer if both are accepted.

3 If in response to the third question one proposal to amend the Constitution receives more votes from the People and the other more votes from the Regions, the proposal that comes into force is that which achieves the higher sum if the percentage of votes of the People and the percentage of votes of the Regions in the third question are added together.

Art. 140 Mandatory referendum

1 The following must be put to the vote of the People and the Regions:

a. amendments to the Constitution;

b. accession to organisations for collective security or to supranational communities;

c. emergency national acts that are not based on a provision of the Constitution and whose term of validity exceeds one year; such national acts must be put to the vote within one year of being passed by the National Parliament.

2 The following are submitted to a vote of the People:

a. popular initiatives for a complete revision of the Constitution;

b. popular initiatives for a partial revision of the Constitution in the form of a general proposal that have been rejected by the National Parliament;

c. the question of whether a complete revision of the Constitution should be carried out, in the event that there is disagreement between the Parliamentarians.

Art. 141 Optional referendum

1 If within 100 days of the official publication of the enactment any 700,000 persons eligible to vote or any of the Regions request it, the following shall be submitted to a vote of the People:

a. national acts;

b. emergency national acts whose term of validity exceeds one year;

c. national decrees, provided the Constitution or an act so requires;

d. international treaties that:

1. are of unlimited duration and may not be terminated;

2. provide for accession to an international organisation;

3. contain important legislative provisions or whose implementation requires the enactment of national legislation.

2 ...

Art. 141 Implementation of international treaties

1 If the decision on ratification of an international treaty is subject to a mandatory referendum, the National Parliament may incorporate in the decision on ratification the amendments to the Constitution that provide for the implementation of the treaty.

2 If the decision on ratification of an international treaty is subject to an optional referendum, the National Parliament may incorporate in the decision on ratification the amendments to the law that provide for the implementation of the treaty.

Art. 142 Required majorities

1 Proposals that are submitted to the vote of the People are accepted if a majority of those who vote approve them.

2 Proposals that are submitted to the vote of the People and Regions are accepted if a majority of those who vote and a majority of the Regions approve them.

3 The result of a popular vote in a Region determines the vote of the Region.

NOW, certainly there are parts of the 1987 Philippine Constitution’s Article XVII, Section 2, that could be incorporated here, where they don’t conflict with what is here.

     Obviously, also, Republic Act 6735 will henceforth need some rewriting to adapt it to the above constitutional requirements and terms, and perhaps even partly incorporated here.

     But, there you go. That’s my piece. I’ve been transparent with my Cha-Cha dreams, and, now, how I wish the Aquino government will likewise publish somewhere its proposals for its Cha-Cha dreams in their transparent totality. . . .

     But, of course, I’d totally understand if this now-only-arguably-“liberal” Aquino administration faction opts to continue to be secretive about it. I would totally, totally understand if it does. Wouldn’t you? [END]

Ang walang-katapusang gyera ng artists kontra artists

NARITO na naman tayo. Nakakalimang blog na ako sa buwisit na temang ito, ngunit nandito na naman ako.

     Pa’no naman kasi, may listahan na namang inilabas para sa National Artist of the Philippines Award (na bibigyan ko rito ng acronym na NAOTPA) ang National Artist of the Philippines Award committee ng Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP) at National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) at tila may gulo na naman. Sa mga pangalan na isinumite ng kumite (na inatasang gumawa ng listahan para sa award na ito), may isang nilaglag ang taga-aprubang Opisina ng Pangulo ng Republika ng Pilipinas. Nilaglag daw si Nora Aunor sa listahang isinumite.

Nora Aunor
(photo borrowed from http://entertainment.inquirer.net/145396/protests-over-new-national-artist-awardees-should-finally-lead-to-reforms)

     May ibinigay raw na dahilan ang Malacañang sa paglaglag, subalit ayokong patulan ito (kahit pa man sumagi sa aking isipan na baka ayaw lang ng estado na mabigyan ng isang tax-funded na award ang isang minsan pa'y naging simbolo, ayon sa estado, ng tax evasion). May kumuwestiyon sa dahilan na ibinigay ng Malacañang, pero ayoko ring patulan ang pagkuwestiyong ito. May mga panukala rin sa ilang sektor na baguhin na ang rules sa pag-award, at isa na rito ang tungkol sa pagbawas ng kapangyarihan ng Pangulo sa mga listahang isusumite ng kumite. Kahit ang panukalang ito, di ko rin pinansin. Ano pa nga ba ang magagawa ng ordinaryong Pilipino na tulad ko kundi ang magbuntong-hininga na lamang.

     Ang pinansin at pinatulan ko ay ang survey na pi-nost ng kaibigan ko sa Facebook na si Simkin de Pio, gallery owner. Sa post ni Ka Simkin sa Facebook group o community na ArtPhilippines, nanghingi siya ng boto ng mga miyembro ng grupo—mga artists, critics, art lovers, atbp. At ang virtual title ng post niya ay ito: ArtPh asks – The National Artist Awards: To Scrap or Not to Scrap, and Why?

     May tatlong pagpipilian sa post na ito ni Ka Simkin: 1) NO, I don’t think the National Artist Award should be scrapped, because…; 2) YES, I believe the National Artist Award should be scrapped, because…; at 3) MAYBE, who cares? It’s all politics and I reserve my right to abstain, because… Sa comment box, maraming nagbigay ng kani-kaniyang dahilan o di kaya ay disclaimer.

     Halimbawa, ang Facebook friend kong si Jonathan Benitez, Palawan artist na bumoto ng YES to scrapping the award, ay nag-offer ng kanyang mungkahing ito: "We need more art education and promotion and art critics."

     Na-engganyo akong mag-comment sa post matapos kong bumoto rin ng “YES to scrapping the award,” hindi lamang dahil Facebook friend ko si Ka Simkin, ngunit dahil isa ako sa tatlong ti-nag ni Ka Jonathan sa tanong niyang ito: “Curious lang ako, sir Pandy Aviado, bay Simkin de Pio, at Jojo Soria de Veyra. Bakit bata pa na-declare si Arturo Luz as National Artist? (And some people) don’t have a clue about him.”

     Di ko sinagot ang tanong ni Ka Jonathan tungkol sa edad ng mga naparangalan sa mga nagdaang taon ng NAOTPA, at di rin ako nagbigay ng general backgrounder tungkol kay Luz na maaaring magsilbing depensa sa worthiness ng conferment dito. Si Ka Simkin na ang nagbigay sa mga kaibigan ni Ka Jonathan ng backgrounder na iyon. Ang sinagot ko kay Ka Jonathan ay ire lamang:

ANG NASYONAL SA NASYONG ITO

“Yun talaga ang point, pareng Jonathan. Marami sa mga kababayan natin sa ating nasyon (as in ‘nasyonal’) ay walang clue tungkol sa mga nananalo o napararangalan. Maaaring ako ay may clue at maaaring saludo ako sa artist na napaunlakan, subalit dahil hindi ako statist kundi populist, hindi ko sasaluduhan ang prosesong statist o maka-state at hindi naman totoong maka-nation. Hindi isyu ang kung deserving ng honors o hindi ang isang naparangalan, ang isyu ay kung dapat bang mag-impose sa isang nasyon ang isang state ng ituturing nila (ng nasyon) bilang kanilang ‘nasyonal’ na artist. At dapat bang buwisan ang nasyon (kasama ang mga artists dito) para masuportahan ang tinuring na artists ng estado? Mapapansin mong ang mga bansa (o di kaya gobyerno) lang na may statist na persuasion ang may mga national artist conferments, Turkey halimbawa.”

     Sabi naman ng well-recognized na artist na si sir Buds Convocar, “Kapag ganyan naman ang naging basehan, baka mas maraming maging NA awardee na comics illustrators kaysa sa mga painters at sculptors—di kaya?” At may mahalagang point ang rhetorical question na ito ni Ka Buds na seryosong concerned sa quirks ng populism. Totoo nga namang mas maraming tao ang nagagalingan sa drowing ng mga comics artists kaysa sa painting ng mga minimalists. Babalikan natin ang isyung yan.

     Ang sunod namang tanong ni Ka Jonathan ay, “Ang Presidential Medal of Merit awardee ng US ba, walang monthly stipend, Jojo Soria de Veyra, Buds Convocar?”

     Sagot ko, “Di ko alam na may presidential medal of merit ang US, pre. Ang alam ko lang yung dating Medal for Merit na hindi naman para sa arts. Wala na yata yun.”

     At sa rhetorical concern ni Ka Buds, ito ang inoffer kong take: “Ang punto ko lang naman kasi, ang nasyon ay mayroon nang national artists (na naging national ayon sa kaniyang kultura at hindi ayon sa kultura ng minority elite) na hindi na kailangan pang bigyan ng capital letters para maging National Artists. Bakit ba kailangan maglaan ng tax money ang mga taga-estado para magbigay ng capital letters sa iilang artists na ‘nasyonal’ daw, nasyonal ayon sa kanilang pananaw sa konseptong ‘nasyon’ o di kaya ayon sa kanilang utopia ng kung ano dapat ang hugis ng kultura ng ating nasyon. Bilang isang demokratikong mamamayan at advocate ng democracy, hahayaan ko na ang pagiging multicultural ng ating nasyon, kaysa naman ipagpilitan ko sa inyo—kung ako na ang poderoso—ang mga kinagigiliwan kong artists na siyang maging Artists ng nag-iisa ang kultura nating Nasyon. Unang-una, ang Pilipinong ‘nasyon’ ay isang mito, isang myth.”

     Mas mabuti bang tawagin na lang nating Artist of the State Award ang NAOTPA, para klaro at di na magkagulo?

ANG NASYON NG PRIBILEHIYO

Maraming naging comments galing sa ibang members sa posted survey na ito ni Ka Simkin, both pro-NAOTPA and anti-NAOTPA. Ilalagay ko na lang dito ang aking mga naging sagot sa ilang mga mungkahi.

     Halimbawa, sa mungkahing dapat alisin na ang pribilehiyo ng Pangulo na pumili ng awardees mula sa listahan na isinumite ng NAOTPA selection committee, gayunman ang pribilehiyo nitong gumawa ng sarili niyang listahan, ang masasabi ko ay ito: Kung dapat walang ganitong pribilehiyo ang Pangulo ng nasyon, sino dapat ang may ganitong pribilehiyo? Ang Unyon ng mga Artistang Pilipino sa People's Republic of the Philippines? isang konsehong binubuo ng mga matagumpay na artists na magdedesisyon din para sa milyun-milyong tastes at appreciation ng milyun-milyong elemento ng nasyon?

     Tuwing may mga pararangalan sa NAOTPA, nagkakagulo ang nasyon ng mga artists at art lovers at media dahil sa iisang katotohanan: ang nasyon natin ng milyun-milyong Pilipino ay may kaniya-kaniyang gustong magawaran ng NAOTPA, kung kaya’t madalas ay minumura na ng ilang bahagi ng ating multicultural na nasyon ang kumite na inatasang pumili dahil sa kaniyang mga pinili o hindi pinili, gayunman ang Pangulo na nag-apruba, di nag-apruba, o gumawa ng sarili niyang listahan. Ang point ay ito: ang bawat indibidwal sa ating nasyon ng milyun-milyon ay may peyborit artist. Ngunit sa nasyong ito, ng milyun-milyon, may kumite ng estado na may last sey at may hawak sa NAOTPA. Entonces, sa NAOTPA, ang kumite ang nasyon, hindi ang totoong nasyon ng milyun-milyon.

     Sa Soviet Union noon, may Union of Soviet Writers na nagdedesisyon sa kung sino—officially—ang ituturing na magaling at mahusay at sino ang ituturing na pangit o walang kuwenta ang mga sinulat. Kasama si Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn do'n sa mga itinuring na pangit. Ito ba ang union na gusto nating itayo, o hayaang nakatayo, sa ating nasyon ng mga artists at art lovers?

     Ngunit may paraan naman daw para di maging hawak sa ilong ng estado ang kumite na itatayo, o nakatayo na. Para hindi ito maging beholden sa Pangulo o ruling party, may isusulat na bagong rules. But the fact is that any state institution always finds itself beholden to the leader of the state! And whenever and wherever it isn’t, it is only able to do so because of the presence of something else it can alternatively be beholden to, something other than the President, an opposition Congress, halimbawa.

     Maaari ba tayong makapagtayo ng isang state arts council na walang “impure motives” na magpapatakbo ng NAOTPA? Again, impure motives, obvious or sublime, will always be present in state sponsorship of artists and art-making, for the simple reason that the use of state funds for state favouritism is already impure from the start.

ANG NASYONALISTANG NASYON

Sa isyu ng nasyonalismo naman na nasa likod daw ng NAOTPA at sa pagpapalakas daw ng mga simbolo sa adhikaing ito, isantabi na muna natin ang problema ng mismong ideyalismo ng nasyonalismo bilang adhikain ng puso sa kabuuan nito, ang problema nito halimbawa sa pagiging crude (kapag nasa ngalan ng local o indigenous) o pagiging threatening (kapag nangingibabaw ang isang ‘Filipino ang art ko, banyaga iyang sa iyo’ o ang isang ‘buy Filipino art only, down with imported art’ na tibok ng puso nito).

     Iwanan muna natin ang epekto ng nasyonalismo sa trade economics at magfocus na lang tayo sa isang kategorya sa arts, sa visual arts, halimbawa. Maraming art contests ang may hangarin na tulad ng sa NAOTPA, ang palawigin ang sense of national pride and identity sa pamamagitan ng recognition para sa mga visual artists na nakagawa na ng kanilang di-matatawarang mga kontribusyon sa arts ng bansa. Hindi ko nga lang alam ngayon kung paano ito makatutulong sa pagbibigay sa ating mga kababayan ng ambisyong isulong ang kanilang mga sarili tungo sa dakilang landas ng ingenuity, social significance, at economic progress. Dahil kung tayo ay talagang seryoso sa hangaring ito, doon na ako ke pareng Jonathan sa sinabi niyang solusyon sa kakulangan ng ambisyon: “We need more art education and promotion and art critics.”

     Not necessarily professional art critics kundi art criticism exchange between artists and art lovers. Yun! Art criticism exchange. Hindi pag-aagawan ng medalya at trophy na may malabo o pantastikong pahalaga! Baka sa art education pa nga natin makita ang mga kakitiran sa mismong ideya ng “nasyonalismo.”

PAGLABU-LABO NG NASYON

Isa pa, alam natin na ang estado ay hindi parati para sa nasyon, kaya minsan ninanais natin na ang nasyon ay maging ang estado.
     Pero, ganun talaga. Di natin maaalis ang katotohanang may mga artists na hinihingi ang presensiya ng estado sa larangan ng sining, habang may mga artists naman na mas hiling ang di pakikialam ng estado sa larangang ito.

     Ang ibang artists nag-i-struggle na hindi makialam ang estado sa artmaking nila o sa kanilang artform o genre. Ngunit may panig ng artists naman na nagdedemand ng pakikialam (o suporta) ng estado sa mga artists. Siguro nga hindi ganun ka-obvious ang lalim ng difference na ito dahil nakatira tayo sa isang democracy kuno. Siguro mas magiging obvious ang lalim ng difference na ito kung nakatira tayo sa isang diktadurya o komunistang bansa. O di kaya pag napakialaman na ng estado (o ng taxpaying nation, for that matter) ang art natin at di natin nagustuhan ang pakikialam.

     Naroon ang “bipolarity” na ito, ang duwalismong ito, sa kahit saang lugar na may state sponsorship sa art activity o di kaya artistic achievement. Ang National Endowment for the Arts ng Estados Unidos, halimbawa, ay nananatiling isang contentious na programa na pinaglalabanan ang control ng mga konserbatibo at ng mga liberal sa naturang bansa. At dahil kadalasa’y liberal ang arts sa Estados Unidos, di nakapagtataka na ang mga sigaw ng pagbuwag ng NEA ay nanggagaling sa mga konserbatibo.

     Ngunit sa bansa natin, may isa pang duwalismong nangingibabaw maliban doon sa pagitan ng mga artistang maka-estado at artistang libertaryano. Sabi ni Ka Jonathan, “correct me if Im wrong, pero maraming National Artists na di kilala ng ordinaryong tao. Mas kilala si Justine Bieber at Mommy Dionesia (Pacquiao). Bakit kaya, ano ang problema?”

     Nung sinabi ni Ka Jonathan na kailangan ng bansa ang pagpapalawig ng arts education sa mga eskuwelahan at sa exchange ng mga artists at art lovers, nasagot na niya mismo ang sarili niyang rhetorical question na ito na kahawig nung tanong ni Ka Buds. Ang isyung ito ay tumatalakay sa duwalismo, o polarity, na namamagitan hindi lamang sa gitna ng mga maka-estado at libertaryano kundi rin sa gitna ng mga may nalalaman at walang masyadong alam. Pinalawig ko ng kaunti ang argumentong ito ni Ka Jonathan, para sa tenga ng iba, ng ganire:

     “Oo, Ka Jonathan, ang national artists ng masa at national artists ng elite ay nagpapakita lamang na hindi iisa ang nation natin. Makikita mo na walang ganung pagkakaiba, sa gitna ng mayaman at mahirap, sa mga bansang iisa ang kultura, at ito’y dahil sa pantay-pantay na edukasyon o oportunidad sa edukasyon. Tulad ng Japan, halimbawa.”

ANG (DI-)PAGHUPA NG LABU-LABO

Bakit ba naisip ni Ka Simkin ang ganitong survey posting? Marahil dahil sa may naririnig na siya sa paligid na mga mungkahing i-abolish na nga ang NAOTPA.

     Abolish? Bakit? Pa’no pa tayo magkakaroon ng great names sa dingding at kisame ng ating mga maka-sining na isipan kung itatapon na ito sa basurahan?

     Subalit, teka. Ang daming great names sa arts na hinahangaan natin, maging dito sa ating bansa o sa ibang bansa. Marami sa mga banyagang great names na hinahangaan natin ay walang "National Artist Award" sa kanilang bansa, at tila hindi nila kinailangan.
     I say let us be men and women of artistic success, thanks to the national market, rather than men and women of artistic success, thanks to the State! Dahil hindi kaya na ang dahilan kung bakit nagbibigay ang state ng isang national award (actually isang state award) ay para mapag-isa niya ang isang nasyon na alam niya ay hindi nagkakaisa? Plastik, kung ganun.

     State awards are a State’s affirmation of value. To a nation, folk singer-songwriter Gary Granada's efforts to infuse his personal and aesthetic values into the culture of his people, for example, might be the more noble, the more nationalistic product, no, popularly noble and nationalistic product as against the exclusively noble and only quasi-nationalistic product. Unless, of course, we define “noble” from the royalist perspective or metanarrative, which would be the perfect rationalization for the elitism in our nation’s supposedly “national” arts.

     At kung babalikan ko lang ang tinalakay nating goals o objectives ng mga ganitong award na may adhikaing pang-lipunan kuno, tingnan na lang natin ang Palanca contest. Nagkaroon ba ng literary culture ang buong Pilipinas dahil dito? Hindi. Dahil plastic ang mga ganitong paraan. Hindi tayo magkakaroon ng national pasalubong kung hindi ka magtatayo ng real-life doughnut shops sa bawat kanto at magbibigay ka lamang ng Best Doughnut Award para sa produktong hindi pa nakikita kung kaya’t di maapreciate ng tao. Hindi national bookstore ang National Bookstore kung wala itong virtual monopoly sa pagtitinda ng notebooks at tech pens at Grumbacher oils at binigyan lamang ng award kahit wala ito sa mga paborito nating malls. Sa ngayon, may dibisyon sa pagitan ng elite na nakakikilala sa mga artistang naparangalan at ng nasyon na walang kaalam-alam.

     Magiging patuloy na huwad ang lahat ng bagay na itinuring nating “national” hanggat di natin natatanggap itong dibisyon at pagkakaiba.

     Wala naman kasing masama sa division at difference kung hindi ito itatago, at i-aacknowledge na nariyan, at hindi ituturing na negatibo kundi positibo. Ang problema natin ay pag may nagsasabi, sa ngalan ng pagkakaisa, na ang gusto niyang si Chick Corea ay dapat papalakpakan din ng mga mahilig sa death metal o fliptop. Pag ang ganitong attitude ay nasa national scope, mas sakit sa ulo, dahil siguradong may aangal sa pandidikta.

     Subalit, teka, sino ba ang nandidikta?

     May nagsasabi na kapag pribadong award body, ang mga desisyon nito tungkol sa award ay prerogatiba ng pribadong institusyon, hindi pandidikta. Matatawag mo lamang na pandidikta kung galing sa estado, sa simpleng dahilan na ang mga galaw at desisyon ng estado ay pinopondohan ng buwis ng tao at ang pagbayad ng buwis ay idinidikta sa tao bilang obligasyon nito.

     So, hayaan na lang ba dapat na private institutions na lang ang magbigay ng art awards tulad ng Carnegie Art Award, o ng architecture prizes tulad ng Pritzker Architecture Prize? Dahil, oo nga naman, hindi magandang tingnan na ginagamit ang public fund para sa state patronage ng mga arts people. Ang Sweden nga na isang constitutional monarchy ay pinauubaya ang mga ganitong awards sa mga private institutions tulad ng Nobel. Bakit ba napaka-government-obsessed o state-reliant nating mga Pinoy, e alam naman nating divided tayo at multicultural at di magkakaisa sa iisang taste dictum, lalo na kung taste dictum galing sa Estado?

     At bakit nga naman kasi kailangan pa ng garbo tulad ng free hospitalization para sa awardees, e may kaya na naman ang karamihan ng nanalo at naparangalan? Samantala, ang majority ng Pilipino (at Pilipinong artists) na nagbabayad ng cultural tax ay di kaya magpaduktor. Ironic. Tila mas royalista pa tayo kaysa sa mga Swedish. . . .

     There are actually presently two competing powerbrokers in the arts—the State, on the one hand, and the private art industry, on the other. Some artists get patronage from both, others sa isa lang. Ako, bilang ordinaryong miyembro ng audience, nagbabayad ng ticket para ma-entertain ng private art industry, at nagbabayad ng ticket at nagbabayad din ng buwis para ma-entertain ng State art industry. Nga pala, bilang makata, nagbabayad din ako ng buwis para suportahan ang mga kapwa ko makata na ini-sponsor ng State.

     Hindi kailangan ng NAOTPA para may tingalain tayong mga artista ng nasyon o bayan. Walang national artist award si Picasso o si Ezra Pound o si Sid Vicious. In fact, it has been a reliance on such plastic contrivances of national valuation that has led us to ignore what is really needed para tingalain ng nasyon o ng bayan ang mga kahanga-hangang gawa ng ating mga artista.

     In fact, mayroong ebidensya na walang nagreresultang totoong pagtingala ang nasyon sa mga National Artists dahil naituring silang National Artists. Halimbawa, marami akong kilalang nakakikilala sa pangalan ni Jose Garcia Villa at pumapalakpak sa pangalan niya (proud sila na may isang Pilipinong nagtagumpay sa larangan ng pagtula na tulad ni Villa) kahit wala ni isang tula mula kay Villa pa silang nababasa. Ganun ang kulturang nabubuo ng isang plastik na pagiging maka-nasyon, o sa plastik na pagturing sa isang artista bilang artista kuno ng nasyon.

     Maganda ang naidudulot ng NAOTPA sa mga naparangalan nito in terms of adulation. Ngunit ang tanong ko uli: maganda ba ang naidudulot nito sa “nasyon” na siyang salitang ginagamit sa titulong ito? Ang tanong ko uli: nauuwi ba ito sa pasilitasyon ng pagbabasa ng mga nobela ni F. Sionil Jose o hindi? Pumapalakpak ba ang nasyon sa pangalan ni Jose kahit wala pa itong nababasang nobela niya? Kung gayun, walang saysay ang investment na ito.

     In contrast, walang National Artist of the Philippines Award si Granada. Ngunit kanino ang gawang mas kilala ng nasyon, ang sa kanya o ang mga nobela ni Jose? Sa tingin ko mas laganap ang pagkakilala sa ilang mga awitin ni Granada, bagamat hindi gano'n kalaganap dahil indie ang production niya, hindi major-record label produced and marketed, major-label distributed lang kung minsan. Sa case ni Jose, mababaw ang appreciation ng nasyon sa art ng nobela, kahit pa sa akademismo ng mga estudyante ng mga akademya. . . .

Gary Granada

     So, mayroon kayang mas makahulugang investment ang estado kaysa sa mga gimmick tulad ng NAOTPA? Oo naman. Unang-una, nasa kaniya na ang kapangyarihan na humubog ng kurikulum sa edukasyon. Ituturo niya ba ang mga elemento ng arkitektura o ituturo lang niya ang mga pangalan ng mga dakilang arkitekto sa pamamagitan ng awards? Bilang taxpayer, doon na ako sa una.

     In contrast, “In Japan,” commented painter Marcel Antonio, “there's no confusion when someone is declared a Living National Treasure. The award carries with it a sense of protecting or preserving a techne that embodies what is essentially and quintessentially Japanese, in the same way nature is preserved from extinction. It is the technique of pottery, a way of doing things, an ethos that is glorified, not the individual artist himself/herself.”

     At sino ba itong mga pinarangalang mga National Artists sa taong ito? Ano ang techne na ginoglorify sa pamamagitan ng paghirang sa kanila? Ano ang value ng mga techne na ito sa nasyon?

     Si Gat Cirilo Bautista ang isa sa mga pinarangalan ngayong taon. Isa rin siya sa iilang Pilipinong makata na maituturing kong may malaking impluwensiya sa sarili kong pagsulat ng tula, whether he’d like reading that pronouncement or not when he reads it. Sa valuation ko, isa na siyang national artist sa Jojo Soria de Veyra Nation. Sige, bibigyan ko pa ng capital letters ang “national” at ang “artist” title niya sa republika ko. Subalit, ito ang isyu ngayon: nung magpunta ako kanina sa palengke at bumili ng kalahating kilong manok, at ibinalita ko sa suki ko na nagawaran na nga ng National Artist of the Philippines Award si Gat Bautista, tanong ng suki ko: “ha? sino? Sino yun? Ano ba yang national artist reward na yan?” So much for national artists of nations.

     Kung may hangad akong karangalan para sa mga idol ko sa poetry o sa painting o sa music o sa architecture, para sa akin ay mas malaki at makabuluhang karangalan ang makita ko ang mga pangalan nila na kasali sa mga kinover ng textbooks kaysa sa makita ko lang sila sa roster ng NAOTPA na di makikilala ng tao o di maiintindihan ng tao ang kanilang cultural at aesthetic value.

     “Dito sa atin,” comment ng artist at gallery owner na si Ka Alfredo Liongoren, “dahil na- Hollywoodized ang kukuti natin, ginawa nating STAR ang mga may katangiang EHEMPLO NG LAHI, deviating attention away from their virtues for emulation and focused instead on their persons. We’ve cultivated a personality cult which has endorsement value for consumer products.”

     Tumpak. Parang ganun din yata sa industriya ng pulitika natin.

ANG MANANALO SA LABU-LABO

Ngayon, sa kalagitnaan ng mga comments sa post ni Ka Simkin, napansin ni Ka Simkin mismo ang mahigpit na labanan ng YES at NO votes.

     Ang sabi ko, “Ka Simkin, I predict that the negative (NO to scrapping) vote will win. We have always been a socialist nation desirous of state interference. Until the day, of course, the state interferes with our art. Even then, baka hindi pa rin.”

     At doon naman sa mga bumoto ng MAYBE, di ako naniniwala na kulang sila sa pusong-pakikialam sa mga laban ng bayan. Di naman siguro. Paniniwala ko’y di lang nila na-re-realize na galing sa kanilang ipinagkait na buwis ang pinag-paparty ngayon ng isang winner na ipinambili nito ng Cristal. They must know that this is a major concern to them as far as their 20% income tax payment and movie-ticket cultural tax payment, not to mention 12% VAT payments, are concerned.

     Now, the reason why I predicted a win for the NO-to-scrapping-the-NAOTPA vote is because matagal ko nang nakikita ito sa kahit saang probinsiya man ako magpunta. Ayoko sanang maniwala na damaged ang culture natin pag banyaga ang nagsasabi, subalit may damage akong nakikita sa sarili kong mga mata sa pananaw pa lang natin sa konsepto ng demokrasya. Sa aking mga nakikita, ang demokrasya sa marami nating kababayan ay “ang kalayaan kong magsalita na dapat wala sila.” Ibig sabihin, “dapat ako lang ang may kalayaang magsalita at mapakinggan, wala akong responsibilidad na makinig sa ibang nagsasalita.” Marami sa ating mga kababayan ang may ganitong sakit.

     Ganito rin tila ang anatomya sa paniniwala ng maraming artists na galit na galit sa gobyerno pag walang suporta itong ibinibigay sa propesyon ng sining o ng artista o sa taga-sining o artista na idols nila. Maliban sa wala silang pakialam sa pagkawalang-suporta rin ng gobyerno sa ibang malayang propesyon, halimbawa sa propesyon ng panadero o ng karpintero o ng accountant o ng welder, marami sa kanila ang naniniwalang mayroong obligasyon ang gobyerno sa kanilang practice. Ito lang ang problema: kapag pinauunlakan sila, sila'y nagiging masaya; subalit kapag iba ang napauunlakan, ipinahihiwatig nila na di nila maintindihan kung bakit iba ang napaunlakan. Ito ang problema sa likod ng walang-katapusang gyera ng artists kontra artists sa ating bansa.

     Ito ang puno't dulo ng isyu kung bakit hindi dapat nakikialam ang estado/gobyerno (gamit ang buwis na pera galing sa lahat) sa propesyon ng ilang artista o sa pag-value o di pag-value sa kanila. Hindi ito dapat nakikialam sa propesyon nila, tulad ng hindi nito pakikialam sa propesyon ng mga nagluluto ng adobo sa carinderia ni Aling Nena at sa sabungan ni Mang Kepweng. . . .

     “Hay,” sabi ko, sa aking pagbuntong-hininga. Gayunpaman, ako'y susunod sa prinsipyo ng demokrasya na nagsasabing ang boto ng nakararami ang masusunod. Kung gusto ng nakararami na bumoto sa pagkain ng tae habang nagrereklamo sa amoy nito sa bibig, wala akong magagawa kundi respetuhin ang kanilang piniling buhay, kahit pa sikreto kong pagtatawanan ang damage sa lohika ng pinili nilang buhay-gyera. [JSV]

     

• photo kay Cirilo Bautista hiram galing sa http://culturalcenter.gov.ph/press-room/2012-gawad-ccp-para-sa-sining-awardees-named/
• photo kay Gary Granada hiram galing sa http://www.pep.ph/news/20768/gma-network-and-gary-granada-issue-new-statements-over-jingle-controversy 

The need for participatory democracy at ground zero

THE president of the Philippine Alliance of X-Seminarians (PAX), Ricardo “Ricky” Ribo, is a Quezon City-based lawyer (recently seen on TV in his capacity as counselor for actor Zoren Legaspi’s case with the Bureau of Internal Revenue) who hails from Jaro, Leyte. He tells me a story about Oliver Cam, the president of the Leyte chapter of PAX called Paisanos whose members once attended the Sacred Heart Seminary of Palo, Leyte. Cam now sits in the rehabilitation committee of the Tacloban City government, and the story about him and his mates was officially relayed to Ribo in an April 2014 letter by PAX’s Tacloban facilitator, Tony Cruzada, who wrote, “Our PAX unit in Tacloban is now fully engaged in livelihood recovery in the San Jose area” (this was in reference to the Tacloban area most devastated by Typhoon Yolanda on the fateful morning of November 8, 2013). The letter goes on to write that the focus of the program is “restoring household livelihood to the pre-Yolanda level.”

Atty. Ricardo "Ricky" Ribo (center in white t-shirt) at the Sto. Niño de Leyte Shrine collection of relief goods for Leyte.

San Jose, Tacloban City, after the Typhoon Yolanda devastation. Photo borrowed from http://www.inquirer.net/philippine-election-2013/articles/528931

     The rehabilitation strategy of the Tacloban group of Cam and Cruzada has been to work on capital build-up via people’s livelihood themselves. Livelihood, that is, in whatever form, although it had earlier been identified that the most common sources of income in the area included sari-sari stores, the retailing of fish and/or vegetables, meat or cooked-food vending, public transport pedicabs, sewing shops, barber shops/beauty salons, and small scrapyards.

     “The intervention that we wish to make is for seed money to be made available to a livelihood operator to ease and speed up his/her capital build-up,” Cruzada—whose brother, also an ex-seminarian, died from injuries caused by the devastation—explained. “The cooperator commits to a definite capital build-up target and to return the seed money on a weekly basis. The seed fund, therefore, will continuously flow to new batches of cooperators. The capital requirements of the greater number (of the villagers) ranges from P2,000 to P6,000. A smaller number would (have to) be limited to (outlays between) P7,000 and P15,000.”

     Cam and Cruzada’s group did not need to source the initial seed money from outside of PAX. Instead, they grew their fund internally through savings from the group’s purchase of unmilled rice (palay) already available in neighbouring towns and provinces. The palay were purchased in bulk, milled, delivered back to the community, and then sold through accredited sari-sari stores that also profited from commissions. The net savings and profit from this progression were then channeled to the seed fund.

     According to Ribo, this was just one among the many or few ways the people of devastated Leyte devised to rehabilitate their economy on their own, in the face of the shortness or failure of government economic rehabilitation efforts. . . .

ALTHOUGH Ribo and his national group had been one of the first relief responders to the post-Yolanda scene, operating with modest resources and collections from their headquarters in Sto. Niño de Leyte Shrine (a self-effacing chapel-cum-hideout along Commonwealth Avenue in Quezon City humbled by the maddeningly tall and blue Iglesia ni Cristo church beside it), Ribo himself was able to visit Leyte only in February and then in early June of this year. In contrast, Efren Delima, another PAX member who is an accounting consultant and intermittent project evaluator for the party-list-system party Aksyon Magsasaka-Partido ng Tinig ng Masa (AKMA-PTM), had traveled to Leyte several times since November 2013 as one of the men in charge of the PAX relief distribution at ground zero.

Accounting consultant and NGO worker Efren Delima

     Both Delima and Ribo posit their views of post-Yolanda reality as having gone beyond criticizing either the national government’s or the local governments’ handling of rehabilitation efforts, and having moved on towards a desire to offer their testimonies (for whatever they’re worth to whichever party) on what’s really happening at present on the ground and to come up with plans to confront these realities.

     Delima articulates his assessment this way: in many rehabilitation efforts, there is no coordination. There is no coordination, precisely because of the breakdown of a necessary bottom-up system that has been replaced by our culture’s long-traditional and long-proved-wrong sorry top-down approach. But it’s really not that simple, he says. Delima and Ribo both saw a vicious cycle continuously at play that they say has become both annoying and frustrating:

     Where the top acknowledges the necessity of hearing the knowledge of the bottom, it expects the usual bottom to function instead of recognizing the fact that the bottom has evolved or has in fact always been dynamic. In post-Yolanda Leyte, many small government units ceased to exist, sometimes refusing or seeing no reason to exist any longer other than for the purpose of accepting donations and selectively distributing them. Most efforts from the top have failed to recognize the fact that most in this bottom need reorganization, devoid of political affiliation, preferably people- or wholly community-based as against representative-based. On the other hand, where the bottom sees nobody from the top initiating the reorganization, it submits to its now ever-present “to each his own” or “everyone for himself” state (because government has ceased to exist) instead of owning up the opportunity to establish a new organization of the people and by the people.

     The much-touted Malacañang-appointed “Yolanda rehab czar” of the national government task force for Leyte-Samar, Panfilo Lacson, once admitted to the media that the money for the area has not wholly been released yet in the absence of a finished master plan. He also mentioned two departments that didn’t want to have anything to do with the program or the political area. He failed to mention that this sort of disinterest was also driven by the psychology wherein the top kept on waiting for the bottom to provide inputs for a comprehensive plan, while some from the top came up with top-down plans that the bottom refused to heed (the declared no-build zone and the transfer of residents to a safe zone, for one, a plan now recognized as nothing more than a great sound bite for television appearances for the simple reason that it is unenforceable).

     The Ecumenical Voice for Peace and Human Rights (EcuVoice) has already urged the United Nations Human Rights Council to investigate the Philippine government’s “slow, inefficient, and inadequate” response to the devastation. “Up until now,” the group's Irma Balaba told the Philippine Daily Inquirer, “the government does not have an alternative plan for the displaced communities that would ensure their long-term alternative livelihood, safe relocation areas, free housing and access to social services.”

     Ribo attests to this apparent non-release of rehab funds, having been witness to said absence of a comprehensive effort for the entire area, save those visible efforts for select spots. Delima, meanwhile, explains that where there is no master plan, there can definitely be no NEDA release, since NEDA only relies on the Procurement Law for the processing of funds. Both men insist that as of February there was no release of rehab funds, except to no more than 10% of each municipality. By June, they both insist, the efforts have remained select.

     Delima says what were released were the calamity funds for the provincial LGUs (local government units). Presently, there is yet a half year or more to wait for the next batch of calamity funds from the 2015 budget to come pouring in, should there be such an allocation. Many in Leyte’s LGUs, he says, complain that the calamity funds from the 2014 budget were already depleted by June. The immediate calamity funds from the 2013 budget, many local governments complained, appeared to have already been depleted as early as late January of 2014, Delima says. And this year’s November typhoon season is already looming on the horizon.

     But Delima agrees that government calamity funds are not enough and won’t ever be enough. The reason, both men say, why the focus should be in rehabilitating the economy first instead of in restoring government infrastructures, ideally simultaneously with equal emphasis on both. Schools, however, they say, are an understandable priority since they also stimulate the economy of urban areas and town centers. In short, what stimulates the people to move around within, with the promise of economic gain via their own little ways, has to constitute the rehab plan itself, not the top-down visions of a grandiose and monumental sound bite that can only go nowhere.

     Both men cite this instance: The immediate economic need is food; but, instead of coming up with ways of importing (from other provinces) and then retailing food, the government comes up with long-term plans for agriculture that end up with vegetables meant to be harvested in cycles harvested in toto, or with seeds meant for planting consumed as immediate food. In contrast, the more immediate economics of gambling has proliferated like crazy, with cockfighting cockpits offering an almost-daily circulation of money. Ground zero has become the cowboy movie version of Las Vegas, spurred forward by Las Vegas-esque economics.

     If there is something even Keynesians could learn from Milton Friedman’s shock therapy, it is that a people-deriving economy can sprout from an absence of physical “infrastructures”. What Keynesians can offer, in turn, is just a little bit of seed money for capital that can hasten trade in the communities and get money to move around, not seed money for big corporations to put up their projects, whatever they are, all over town. A pat on the back of the ordinary banana-cue vendor standing in front of his wok, instead of just the back of the friendly mining company executive eager to resume his community-contested venture in an island in southern Samar. Otherwise, we might as well divide the ruling Liberal Party into a Social Liberal Party intent on helping the grassroots and a Neoliberal Party intent on helping the opposite of the grassroots.

A PRIEST, Fr. Joeboy Buñales, of St. Francis of Assisi parish in barangay Jugaban, Carigara, Leyte, has thrown his savings on 1,000 pedicabs on loan to spread capital build-up around his town.

Fr. Joeboy Buñales of St. Francis of Assisi parish in Carigara, Leyte

     Such acts are much needed these days in Leyte, given that the smallest LGUs have literally been rendered revenue-less. The public marketplaces, now free-for-all areas for the enterprising, can do nothing but waive selling-spot fees. Meanwhile, residents who want to take care of their property tax are met with an absence of receipts.

     If only government had put its focus on stimulating and/or facilitating the influx of trade here, things might have recovered quicker. Again, we can take a lesson from some of our enterprising Mindanaoene brothers, who have found it worth their time to haul in fake Marlboros from Indonesia which they can affordably sell here at P30 a pack. If only government had put its focus on community organization instead of political party organizations, the atmosphere might have recovered quicker. Again, we can take a lesson from the criminal minds who have found organizing to be lucrative for group robberies, the impact of which can be seen in the transport operators’ re-scheduling of their last trips from 12 midnight to 4 pm.

     The much-ballyhooed restoration of electricity service is appreciated, of course, except for the ballyhoo. Though blackouts remain rampant and those who don’t have access to electricians’ fees continue to make do with makeshift secret connections, Friedmanian shock therapy, as well as history as a whole, would attest to the fact that humans will adapt to the reality of a situation and create an economy from inside that reality. In short, while electricity supply and service do have an immediate impact on a community’s re-emerging economy, a sheer focus on that service devoid of a seed money stimulus for the same economy puts more emphasis on the aider to the economy (electric power) than on the yet-to-exist-again economy itself needing capital help first in order to start the ball rolling. It doesn’t matter that the DPWH rehabilitation of its roads and bridges is slow-moving, as long as there is an already-strong trade there will be roads and bridges other than what the DPWH would expensively build for you and me and the contractor and the contractor’s politician friend.

     Also, a Fr. Buñales privy to what the people need would not supply chainsaws to a town that doesn’t know how to operate chainsaws, much less chainsaws from China that lose their blades after work on a couple of felled trees, says Ribo. Besides, in communities used to seeing every now and then drunk men disemboweling each other in a bolo-knife fight, a proliferation of useless chainsaws is the last thing you’d want to see in an oncoming future, Delima argues, not to mention the danger of seeing rampant small-scale illegal logging when the trees get tall enough again.

     Delima and Ribo say there was also no single effort from politicians, local and national, to rehabilitate the San Jose fisherman’s access to the sea, not even to meet with military officials on what to do with the bullets and grenades from the San Jose armory that were washed out to sea, bullets and grenades now there resting on the seafloor along with the pedicabs and wrought-iron beds aiming to be structures for a future underwater village of barnacles welcoming human scavengers as its tourists.

     No meeting over what to do with either the thousands of coconut lumber wallowing in the uplands, Ribo tells us, or those on someone’s coconut farm, which latter stagnation has driven away the tenants of that someone’s land in search of other sources of income (drove them away along with the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program certification that was dangled over the land and promised to the tenants).

THE failure to stimulate/support with seed capital the influx of trade supplies as well as outflow of potential products like coconut lumber has raised the price of meat, many of which have always come from the Davao region. Today, trucks come into the city and the towns with these meat supplies and go back to Davao without a “back load.” Naturally, the supplier would have to double the price of his meat due to the cost of this route for his economy of scale. Before Yolanda, the trucks would carry back-loads of copra, mussels, etc. Now they go back to the Compostela Valley with entirely empty vans and crates.

     With the failure to get a hold of the bottom-up requisite for a high satisfaction rate, government can only content itself with slow rehab projects and health projects slowed down by the people not “owning,” to use Delima’s preferred word, those projects. Even Guiuan, Eastern Samar, which displayed a readiness for typhoons when it built five evacuation centers for this town in the southeastern peninsular tip of Samar, evacuation centers that undoubtedly saved a lot of lives, the people—according to ex-seminarian Rolly Siguan—now capital-less, un-facilitated, and un-stimulated, also slowed down both physically and mentally. The same thing happened in Delima’s hometown, Capoocan, Leyte. Apart from the high-profile presence of Dinky Soliman's DSWD in the towns, a sporadic presence that nevertheless aided in nurturing a temporary culture of dependence, the Department of Agriculture-certified corn seedlings did not stimulate agriculture but only hunger for immediate consumption of corn millet made from the seeds. The politics behind the uneven distribution of these government dole outs further contributed to the communal depression.

     Another ex-seminarian, Osmundo Orlanes, who hails from Calbiga, Samar, says that municipal governments and governance have been tainted by political propaganda thrusts. He considers the Yolanda disaster as the ultimate demonstration of how elite politics operates in this country, where you see wealthy political families treating the situations in the landscape as playground for their little student-council contests where they can display their political party colors and logos and do their usual photo-op distributions and baby-raising as well as tirades, ignorant of the fact that the people are already disgusted by the shameless circus they are seeing.

     He looks at the way the elite political families treat each other even as they imprison each other in elite "custodial centers" or with fancy hospital or house arrests, while victims of a disaster who have no place in the roster of Tatler magazine-featured circles can make do with living in windowless plywood-walled square bunkhouses that could keep a morning pan de sal warm through to the afternoon.

A Facebook meme uploaded/posted by Facebook user "Steel Rain" at https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1467111083528224&set=gm.792990204068431&type=1. The bunkhouse featured in this Internet meme photo is actually of a design redone from a previous windowless design that was criticized in the media when photos of built houses with that previous design started coming out.

     Delima says this insensitivity to or ignorance of what the people want and need, a trademark of our representative democracy through the decades, explains the government’s lack of knowledge of the perennial immediate need-based situation that has yet to transition into a future need-based one. Thus the government’s surprise when it witnesses DA-certified rice meant for planting making its way to the mortar and pestles. As we mentioned above, DA-certified seeds are stolen for immediate food consumption, and the government can only police future supplies or otherwise halt or delay all deliveries.

     Delima says the office of the Leyte governor would deny it, but politics played a part in even the prioritization of areas for the government’s restoration of electricity and water supply. In fact, jokes have proliferated about why the planned relocation (from the Palo, Leyte beach area) of government regional and provincial offices to various municipalities is facing resistance—there is supposedly ruling-party fear of development in areas not within the party’s control.

DELIMA tells me the story about a livelihood support project in Capoocan for the cottage industry of anahaw and buri (corypha) handicrafts and wares that the people have long “owned.” The government later came up with a parallel project when it introduced a similar industry using nito vines (lygodium circinatum), possibly with the good intention of expanding. But, this time, it incorporated the industry into a cooperative system. Unfortunately, the cooperative system didn’t sit well with the people’s math, and the industry was soon considered by the townsfolk as the infamous sister to the much-preferred original anahaw/buri industry where the people remained as the respective owners of their own work and profit accounting. A similar industry was introduced in the province's municipality of Tanauan which did not impose a cooperative system, which democratic decision gained a positive reception that further resulted in progress for the venture.

     Delima, in his previous work with an NGO subcontracted by the government to implement an EU-funded project, says the feeling of “ownership” carried by a people towards any venture, no matter where the idea derives from, is crucial to those ventures and their success. A top-down approach that does not collect the people’s embrace of the aid will have to be labelled as nothing more than an elitist (condescending, if you will) imposition.

EVIDENTLY, Yolanda has become a case study for all sorts of plans and systems, both the corrupt and the idealistic, both the merely-obliged and the enthusiastic. It is up to us now to choose whether we shall heed the learning we have gained from it as a hellish experience or live through another Yolanda and post-Yolanda stint that would then repeat for us what seems to remain as a very elusive point. [JSV]

Of Someone Saying There's A Hole In BIR Commissioner Kim Henares' Bread

photo borrowed from http://kensanph.wordpress.com/2013/12/18/an-open-letter-to-bir-comm-kim-henares/comment-page-1/

I.

AT THE START of President Benigno Aquino III’s term, it was made clear through not a few media reports that the Aquino administration, supposedly social liberal and therefore likely intent on a flurry of social spending, would be serious about its tax collection and, through several charges soon filed in the courts (including a later famous lien against a world-renowned boxer-congressman), would be just as serious about its campaign against tax evasion, willful and not.

     Newly-appointed to the Bureau of Internal Revenue helm, Commissioner Kim Henares was portrayed in the media as that no-nonsense lady collector with both a hardened legal view and a Mona Lisa smile, concerned about equality in implementing the (equitable) tax laws of the land. Her image got so familiar that workers looking at their pay slips every fifteenth and thirtieth of the month would refer to her as “Sakim (Tagalog for greedy) Henares”, while professionals (most recently doctors) who were asked through a TV and newspaper campaign to file the right amount of taxes due society called her “Kim Henarrassment”. Meanwhile, those who understood the government’s wisdom about equality applauded her, according her almost-personal campaign the same height of appreciation they once gave the President’s “no to the elite’s wang-wangs on our roads” campaign. Social liberal, too, the BIR’s stance under the Aquino government has seemed, which Aquino stance also showed in the government’s earlier and ongoing series of investigations on fund embezzlement and/or inappropriate appropriations involving past or opposition government personalities.

     Social liberal and for equality? Perhaps.

     Well, not so fast, says a BIR examiner who recently filed a case with the Ombudsman against Henares and her deputy. In fact, the examiner says Henares’ and the government’s media image promoting equality in taxation has proved to be bogus from the git-go. He should know, he says, he’s looked the bogus tiger in the eye. The current government has been as selective in its hardened BIR stance, he says, in the same way it has been perceived as selective when it displayed a soft bearing towards the multi-million peso bonuses for SSS executives that irked SSS members dissatisfied with SSS service or when it defended the valid role of congress people in the allocation of executive DAP funds (as if, for a long hour there, it forgot social liberalism’s disdain for pork barrel politics).

     On May 5 of this year, Representative Magtanggol Gunigundo I (Lakas Kampi CMD-Valenzuela City) made a privilege speech treating of the examiner’s data. According to the examiner, the congressman’s speech “emphasized fair and reasonable enforcement and implementation of revenue laws” and stated that “taxation is in good exercise when it is equitable; i.e., if burden falls on those better able to pay and not on the poor.” The congressional record on this speech further shows that the congressman censured the present leadership of Commissioner Kim Henares for promulgating stiff tax rules on marginalized income earners (farmers, small retail store owners, and tricycle operators)—rules which he says fail to take note of MIEs’ tax exemption by the Barangay Micro-Business Enterprises Law—while appearing to have allowed a large taxpayer, Golden Donuts (licensee and sub-franchiser of Dunkin’ Donuts), to get away with non-payment of P1.56 billion in tax arrears for the year 2007 alone.

     In news reports (read this one here, for instance), Henares said she actually ordered a re-investigation that proved the examiner’s findings to be bloated. The examiner, Othello Dalanon (whose friend E- asked me to allow an interview with the man and accommodate a longer treatment of the case on the blogosphere), maintains that the re-assessment that Henares ordered actually still came up with a fat unpaid amount, the very same P1.56 billion he mentions as the amount that the social liberal government of President Aquino (and its social spending needs), and the people, have been grossly robbed of.

     Dalanon’s beef with Henares’ inaction towards the doughnut company, which was actually the beef the Lakas Kampi CMD representative from Valenzuela was citing in his privilege speech, is actually a tax case that goes back to 2007, concerning Golden Donuts, Inc. (GDI), the exclusive Philippine franchisee of the global brand “Dunkin’ Donuts”, which was “slapped with a tax assessment amounting to P1.56 billion, including increments, that arose from irregularities discovered and documented by me,” said the examiner. Dalanon only ran into this because he was assigned to the case in his official capacity as a former BIR examiner. It was only when an alleged inaction on the case by the current leadership became too obvious, way after the same (but more understandable?) inaction by the Arroyo-era leadership in the bureau, that Dalanon saw the need to promptly resign, purportedly to protect his person’s position from whatever action the bureau may now want to inflict on it. It must also be noted that Dalanon, as per his claim, first wrote to the Office of the President and then saw ruling-party members before he decided to show opposition figures like Rep. Gunigundo his data. It was only Gunigundo who showed interest in his case, while Senator Sonny Angara seemed more interested in Dalanon's views about a lowered VAT rate (Dalanon is also a campaigner for a lowered VAT).

     In his report to the government personalities he approached, Dalanon decried the commissioner’s “intentional failure” to either 1) enforce collection of the said assessment “despite the ensuing finality of the same,” or 2) sue the doughnut company for tax evasion (for under-declaring revenues in its tax return). Dalanon then filed a case against Henares and her deputy with the Office of the Ombudsman.

     Here is Dalanon’s story:

According to him, his assessment has remained undisturbed after rigid scrutiny by high-ranking tax experts in the district involved (RDO 41, Mandaluyong) and from various regional levels of the bureau. The assessment has been covered by a Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) and by Final Assessment Notices (FANs), all bearing Demand No. 41-B072-07 and all dated October 29, 2010, issued and approved by the Regional Director of Revenue Region No. 7, Quezon City. According to Dalanon, his assessment findings are merely the resultant of the following manifestations of irregularities:

1.    GDI has two (2) sets of books of accounts. One is the duly-registered hardbound computer-generated books of accounts which were the bases of his assessment. The other is the unregistered “manually-posted from original books of accounts” records which GDI claimed to be the bases of its Trial Balance for Financial Statements and Income Tax Return Purposes.

Dalanon notes that keeping two (2) or more sets of books of accounts is already a fraudulent act or criminal tax violation.

2.    GDI reflected false information in the company’s tax return. The CD and duly-registered books of accounts (hardbound computer-generated), as duly validated by Dalanon, showed a net taxable income amounting to P135.2 million while the Annual Income Tax Return (AITR) reflected a net loss of P44.9 million.

Again, Dalanon notes that reflecting false information on one’s tax return is already a fraudulent act or criminal tax violation.

3.    GDI’s CD and duly-registered books showed higher sales than those reflected in the company’s tax return. Sales per CD and duly-registered books was P1.928 billion while the amount reflected in the AITR was P1.031 billion, or a substantial under-declaration amounting to P897 million.

Dalanon points to the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 250 SCRA 434, which states that “where the books of accounts reflected a sales or receipts higher than that reflected in the return, the books of accounts should prevail. This is so, because the books of accounts are kept by the taxpayer and are prepared under its control and supervision; and they reflected what may be deemed to be admissions against interest.” The representations made by GDI in the duly-registered hardbound computer-generated books of accounts as presented by it to the BIR for audit and examination, says Dalanon, "amounted to admissions against interest which it cannot disown and change at its convenience or pleasure."

Again, Dalanon emphasizes that substantial under-declaration of sales or revenues in a company’s tax return is already a fraudulent act or criminal tax violation.

4.    Other independent relevant documents, such as, but not limited to, Franchise Agreement, Technical Service Agreement, Final Withholding Tax Remittance Returns, and VAT returns, submitted by GDI to the Bureau for audit, further revealed that GDI’s sales topped P2.366 billion while the amount recorded in its duly-registered books was just P1.928 billion; or a substantial unrecorded and undeclared sales amounting to P438 million.

Again, Dalanon emphasizes that the non-recording of sales in the duly-registered books and consequent non-declaration of the same in the AITR already constitute fraudulent acts or criminal tax violations.

     It was these irregularities, and other discrepancies enumerated in his memorandum and audit reports, that culminated in the company’s aforesaid tax deficit, says Dalanon.

     Dalanon claims that he personally reported the case to Commissioner Henares and recommended to her the criminal prosecution for tax evasion of the company under the much-vaunted RATE (Run After Tax Evaders) program of the bureau and the Aquino government. But “despite sufficient mathematical computations duly supported by pieces of physical evidence to demonstrate the omissions,” he says Henares “intentionally did not pursue a tax evasion case against the company,” because the said company’s stockholder-secretary, Ms. Marixi Prieto, who also happens to be the president of the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI), supposedly “talked to Henares and BIR Regional Director Nestor Valeroso on different occasions, both of whom then extended leniency to the taxpayer in view of Ms. Prieto’s closeness to President Benigno Aquino III,” this ostensibly according to Deputy Commissioner Estela Sales. [Prieto is also the mother of the wife of Benguet Corporation president and CEO Philip Romualdez, who is son to the former Ambassador to the US, China and Saudi Arabia and brother of Imelda Marcos, Benjamin "Kokoy" Romualdez; Philip is also brother to Rep. Ferdinand Martin Romualdez].

     In a broadcast interview with Henares by GMA 7′s news reporter Susan Enriquez on February 28, 2014, Henares publicly declared Dalanon’s assessment as faulty and told Enriquez that she had ordered two re-investigations that found this to be true (she claimed that the re-investigations arrived at identical results, and both had the same conclusion: Dalanon’s assessment was inaccurate). Dalanon, however, says he was not given the chance to rebut the commissioner’s testimony.

     Fortunately for him, the March 4, 2014 Manila Times column of Emeterio Sd. Perez titled “Why is Henares not pursuing a tax evasion case vs. donut seller?” did “take up the cudgel for Othello Dalanon.” The column opines that Henares was “entirely wrong” in publicly declaring Dalanon’s assessment incorrect, “instead of waiting for GDI to question Dalanon’s findings before the Court of Tax Appeals.”

     “'Pinaimbestigahan natin ng ilang beses, at sa mga imbestigasyon na yan, lumalabas na hindi naman tama yung assessment ni Mr. Othello [Dalanon]', Henares said.” – this was from the report written by Elizabeth Marcelo/JDS, GMA News

     Well, Dalanon himself has questions to ask:

     Why was his assessment not given a chance by the commissioner to stand in a judicial scrutiny before it was publicly announced as flawed?

     If his assessment was wrong, what was the correct assessment for Henares? Why did she not clearly disclose the same in public? Where are the reports of those re-investigations that showed identical results? And how much was collected for the government’s coffer? Less than P4 million?—he further asks.

     Is the commissioner’s act not an expression of “tendering” for GDI, a potential tax evader company?

     Dalanon wanted to know the answers then, he still would like to know the answers now.

     And while the BIR promulgates its tax rules on marginalized income earners (MIEs) and has been quite active in “hastily” prosecuting other alleged tax cheats (the case against Zoren Legaspi, for instance), she seems to fear or appears to be coddling Dunkin’ Donuts’ local seller, Dalanon says.

II.

Dalanon’s assessment against Golden Donuts, Inc. obtained finality.

     Commissioner Henares’s statement claiming that the authority to decide and declare finality of a certain assessment is a function vested by law upon the Commissioner of Internal Revenue is wrong, Dalanon says. Though not a lawyer, he says he knows that only the law can determine the finality of an assessment.

     He cites Section 228 of the 1997 National Internal Revenue Code (1997 NIRC), as amended, in relation to Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 12-99 as amended by RR No. 18-2013 and as clarified under Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 11-2014, which provides that assessment becomes final, executory and demandable in the following instances:

1.    If taxpayer failed to file a valid protest against the Formal Letter of Demand (FLD) and Final Assessment Notice (FAN) within thirty (30) days from date of receipt of the FLD/FAN.

The taxpayer may file a protest against the FLD/FAN through a request for reconsideration or re-investigation. He must state the facts, the applicable laws, rules and regulations or jurisprudence on which his protest is based; otherwise, the protest shall be considered void and without force and effect. If taxpayer failed to file a valid protest, assessment shall become final, executory and demandable.

On November 30, 2010, GDI filed its letter of protest vs. the FLD/FAN. However, Dalanon says it did not state the facts, the applicable laws, rules and regulations or jurisprudence on which its protest was based. The protest merely stated “adopt in toto the arguments, explanation and supporting documents as set forth in our letter protest to the PAN (Preliminary Assessment Notice) dated October 14, 2010.″ It also failed to specifically state whether the protest was a plea for reconsideration or re-investigation. It merely requested the cancellation and withdrawal of the assessment on the grounds that the same had no factual and legal bases.

Dalanon says that the Court of Tax Appeals, in the case of Security Bank Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CTA Case No. 6564, November 28, 2006), emphasized that “a protest to the preliminary assessment notice is not the same as the protest required to be filed as an answer to the final assessment notice. In fact, a preliminary assessment notice may or may not even be protested to by the taxpayer, and the fact of non-protest shall not in any way make the preliminary assessment notice final and un-appealable. What is clear from Section 319-A of the Tax Code of 1977, as amended, is that failure on the part of the taxpayer to protest or reply to a preliminary assessment notice paves the way for the issuance of a final assessment notice. However, evident under the said Section is that failure on the part of the taxpayer to file a valid administrative protest through a request for reconsideration or reinvestigation on the final assessment notice, shall result in the finality of the said FAN.” Underscoring supplied by Dalanon.

Again, what the law demands is a valid protest against the final assessment notice; otherwise, the assessment becomes final, executory and demandable.

2.    If the taxpayer failed to submit all relevant documents in support of his protest within sixty (60) days from date of filing of his letter of protest.

As mentioned above, it was on November 30, 2010 when GDI filed its letter of protest against the FLD/FAN. The 60-day period within which it could submit all relevant documents in support of its protest ended on January 29, 2011. It submitted the documents only on March 24, 2011. When it submitted the required documents in support of its protest, 114 days after the date of the filing of its protest had elapsed, not to mention the fact that said documents contained the same information as that already contained in its letter dated November 27, 2009 which were already taken up in the Adjusted Final Audit Findings sent to GDI covered by the Post-Reporting Notice dated July 19, 2010 which became the bases of the PAN and FLD/FANs.

     Furthermore, Dalanon says that notwithstanding the ensuing finality of his assessment, Commissioner Henares “intentionally failed” to enforce collection, and instead ordered two re-investigations.

     “…nang aming tanungin si Henares x x x nagreklamo daw kasi ang kinatawan ng GDI na mali ang assessment sa kanila ni Dalanon kaya pinareview niya ito ng dalawang beses. Ang resulta, mali nga raw ang ginawang assessment ni Dalanon” – that’s Susan Enriquez reporting for GMA News.

     Again, as per report of Elizabeth Marcelo/JDS, GMA News: “Pinaimbestigahan natin ng ilang beses, at sa mga imbestigasyon na yan, lumalabas na hindi naman tama yung assessment ni Mr. Othello [Dalanon], Henares said.”

     “Is there a law that authorizes the commissioner to order two re-investigations of a due and demandable assessment?”—Dalanon asks.

     Clearly, he says, “while the law grants the taxpayer the opportunity to protest the FLD/FAN, such must be a valid protest, otherwise the assessment becomes final, executory and demandable, and the right of the government to collect the deficiency tax becomes absolute and, thus, precludes the taxpayer from questioning the correctness of the assessment and from raising any justification or defense that would pave the way for a re-investigation.”

III.

Again, here are the arguments:

     To Dalanon this is Issue One—GDI’s CD and duly-registered books of accounts (hardbound computer-generated) showed sales amounting to P1.928 billion, while its AITR showed only P1.031 billion, or a substantial under-declaration amounting to P897 million.

     GDI’s contentions go thus—the CD and duly-registered books of accounts (hardbound computer-generated) contained more than 2,500 errors posted in 84 accounts and, thus, should not be the bases for Dalanon’s assessment. Furthermore, we have “manually-posted from original books of accounts” records which were the bases of our Trial Balance for Financial Statements and Income Tax Return Purposes.

     Dalanon’s points include the following:

1.    “GDI’s CD and duly-registered books of accounts (hardbound computer-generated) already contained GDI’s external auditors’ adjustments. It means that said financial records were already audited by GDI’s external auditors.”

2.    “The differences or discrepancies between the sales accounts reflected in the CD and duly-registered books of accounts on one hand and the AITR on the other were not reflected by GDI’s external auditors as adjusting or correcting entries in the said financial records.”

3.    “With the more than 2,500 errors posted in 84 accounts contained in the said financial records as GDI claimed, it is unfeasible and amazing that GDI—which belongs to the high-profile business in the Philippine industry, with its highly competent accounting and auditing workforce, and with the supervisors, the tax managers, the external auditors, and the reputable independent public auditors that GDI hired to conduct quarterly reviews of its financial records—would not notice such remarkable and significant errors.”

4.    “The 84 accounts reflected in financial records that allegedly contained errors are all nominal accounts (i.e., income and expense accounts). GDI did not claim that the real accounts (i.e., balance sheet) reflected in the said financial records contained errors. Thus, let us determine sales based on a real account that is associated with sales account.

“VAT Payable is a real account that is associated with sales account. Using this account, sales can be determined as follows:

VAT Payable account total credit per duly-registered books	P      227,263,254.33
Divide by VAT rate	12%
Sales per duly-registered books with VAT components	1,893,860,452.75
Add: Sales per General Journal without VAT components	34,511,326.03
Sales based on VAT Payable account	P   1,928,371,778.78

“It may be noted that even if sales is computed based on VAT Payable account, it would result in the amount of P1.928 billion. This proves that sales reflected per CD and duly-registered books do not contain errors, contrary to GDI’s claim.”

5.    “According to the Supreme Court, the books of accounts prevail over the return when they reflect higher sales, because they are kept and prepared under control and supervision by the taxpayer and, thus, are admissions against interest.”

Then here’s Issue Two—GDI’s sales topped P2.366 billion based on other independent relevant documents; but the amount recorded in the CD and duly-registered books was only P1.928 billion, or a substantial unrecorded and undeclared sales amounting to P438 million.

     Here are the facts supplied by Dalanon—GDI is the exclusive Philippine franchisee of Dunkin’ Donuts of America, Inc. (DDA). As such, it grants sub-franchise rights to various domestic entities nationwide. It has 642 outlets (shops) all over the country, 54 of which are directly-owned by GDI, with the remaining 588 owned by the 35 sub-franchisees under GDI’s supervision. GDI maintains a shop: central warehouse (commissary) from where all its sub-franchisees purchase on a COD basis all products, ingredients, supplies, commodity, and merchandise for their stores.

     According to Dalanon, the Franchise Agreement between GDI and DDA states, among other things, that the former shall remit to the latter a franchise fee equivalent to 1% of all sales of each shop, whether directly operated by GDI or sub-licensed to others. GDI shall be responsible for the remittance of all fees due DDA. Well, for year 2007, the franchise fee per GDI’s CD and duly-registered books (hardbound computer-generated) was P23.668 million. Said amount was claimed by GDI as its own expense.

     On the basis of these information, Dalanon computed the unrecorded and undeclared sales amounting to P438 million as follows:

Franchise fee per CD, duly-registered books and FS	P      23,668,908.00
Divide by franchise fee rate	1%
GDI’s grossed-up sales (or should be GDI’s total sales)	2,366,890,800.00
Less: Sales per CD and duly-registered books	1,928,770,398.68
Unrecorded and undeclared sales	P    438,120,401.32

     Now, take note, Dalanon says, that the method of validation he used in determining GDI’s sales was already upheld by the Court of Tax Appeals in the case of Asia Coal Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, CTA Case No. 6803, February 13, 2008, when it stated: “the commissioner may utilize any kind of documents x x x to determine the correct sales...”

     Dalanon says he presented several mathematical computations duly supported by documentary evidence to corroborate the above computed, unrecorded, and undeclared sales.

     But here are GDI’s contentions—the Franchise Fee amounting to P23,668,908.00 is equivalent to 1% of our “system-wide sales” which refers to sales generated by our directly-owned outlets and those of our sub-franchisees’, excluding central warehouse’s sales. Also, our central warehouse’s (commissary’s) sales of products to the sub-franchisees are not covered by the 1% franchise fee.

     But let us first determine the shops which GDI directly and indirectly operates, Dalanon says.

     As mentioned above, GDI has 642 outlets all over the country, 54 of which are directly-owned by the company, with the remaining 588 owned by the 35 sub-franchisees under GDI’s supervision. Again, GDI maintains a shop: a central warehouse or commissary from where all its sub-franchisees purchase all their products.

     So, GDI’s directly-owned shops would include: (1) the central warehouse or commissary; and (2) the 54 directly-owned outlets. Its indirectly-owned shops are the 588 outlets owned by the 35 sub-franchisees which are merely under GDI’s supervision.

     Now to Dalanon’s stand:

1.    “The franchise fee amounting to P23.668 million is equivalent to 1% of GDI’s sales alone, such as sales generated by the central warehouse and the 54 directly-owned outlets.”

2.    “There is no specific condition in the License Agreement between GDI and DDA that says sales of central warehouse to the sub-franchisees are not covered by the 1% franchise fee.”

3.    “Is not GDI’s central warehouse a shop which it also operates? Are not the purchases by the sub-franchisees from the central warehouse also sales of GDI?”

4.    “Why did GDI claim the entire amount of P23.668 million as its own expense? The fact that it claimed the entire amount as its expense indicates that the same is equivalent to 1% of GDI’s sales alone.”

5.    “Why did GDI claim the whole amount of P2,840,123.69 representing VAT (Input Tax) on Franchise Fee as tax credit against Output Tax? The fact that GDI claimed said amount as tax credit against its output tax indicates that the franchise fee amounting to P23.668 million pertains to 1% of GDI’s sales alone.”

6.    “GDI is only responsible for the remittance of the franchise fee supposed to be remitted by its sub-franchisees to DDA. Instead of the sub-franchisees remitting directly to DDA, the amount is coursed through GDI and would not, in all aspect, form part of GDI’s expense.”

     Again, according to Dalanon, there are several mathematical computations duly supported by pieces of documentary evidence that would prove his findings.

     “So, where did I err when my audit findings were based on facts taken from financial records which GDI itself submitted and presented to the bureau for audit and examination? Furthermore, I clearly cited the applicable laws, rules and regulations or jurisprudence on which my findings were based,” Dalanon asks.

     He adds: “Why is BIR Commissioner Kim S. Jacinto-Henares, whom I expected to support my audit findings, which remained undisturbed after stiff scrutiny by high-ranking tax experts of the bureau, lawyering for GDI? Is this the straight path policy, the “daang matuwid,” of the Commissioner?”

     To Dalanon, the 2007 deficiency tax assessment against GDI amounting to P1,564,426,808.08 is final, executory, and demandable and already legally belongs to the Filipino people.

     On March 17, 2014, Othello Dalanon filed a formal complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against Commissioner Henares and Deputy Commissioner Sales for grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, and violation of Section 3(e) and (f) of Republic Act No. 3019, Section 269 paragraphs “e” and “h” of the National Internal Revenue Code, and other special laws.

     On the same date, he sent a letter of appeal to His Excellency President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III, requesting the President’s office to enjoin their subordinates in the BIR to collect the subject of his (Dalanon’s) deficiency tax assessment as it already legally belongs to the Filipino people.

     Dalanon, an ex-seminarian, has also been reverently appealing to the Filipino people’s devotion to God and country to help bring that request to the President’s attention, which might then result in his directing BIR Commissioner Kim S. Jacinto-Henares to enforce the collection of the subject arrears. . . . [JSV]

(This blog column would welcome the Commissioner’s [or GDI's] side of the story.)

---------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT I: Here are additional figures –

Details of sales per CD and duly-registered books (hardbound computer-generated)—

Products	Shops/outlets	Central Warehouse	Total
Bakery	P       4,617,829.34	P                    0.00	P       4,617,829.34
Beverages	14,808,274.83	0.00	14,808,274.83
Donuts	399,306,130.23	0.00	399,306,130.23
Hot chocolates	12,124,500.69	0.00	12,124,500.69
Non-food	2,970,373.42	0.00	2,970,373.42
Others	23,214,373.10	0.00	23,214,373.10
Punch	1,079,941.12	0.00	1,079,941.12
Savory	20,259,716.75	0.00	20,259,716.75
Soft drinks	12,059,320.37	0.00	12,059,320.37
Coffee	31,239,473.89	0.00	31,239,473.89
Coffee beans	0.00	37,731,973.04	37,731,973.04
Drinks mixes	0.00	25,620,464.28	25,620,464.28
Flour mixes	0.00	1,040,179,534.53	1,040,179,534.53
Hot chocolate mix	0.00	24,467,817.55	24,467,817.55
Others	0.00	93,539,558.52	93,539,558.52
Packaging materials	0.00	179,439,948.13	179,439,948.13
Punch mixes	0.00	5,334,341.93	5,334,341.93
T-shirts	0.00	776,826.96	776,826.96
Totals	P    521,679,933.74	P 1,407,090,464.94	P1,928,770,398.68

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT II:

After reading the above blog, ePIRMA committee member Dexter Briñas Amoroso messaged me to write the following:

"Ka Jojo, Mr Dalanon's case against Kim Henares and Golden Donuts is similar to the late Atty. Mar Gen's case. Remember the issue against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo I told you before involving the owner of MegaWorld, Mr. Andrew Tan? That info actually came from Atty. Mar Gen. Ang natatandaan kong sinabi niya, ni Atty. Mar Gen, campaign financier ni Noynoy si Mr. Tan kaya hindi sinuportahan ng Noynoy administration ang kaso niya against GMA dahil sasabit daw si Mr. Tan. Hawak daw ni Atty. Mar Gen noon ang evidence (documents) na magpapatunay sa case niya against GMA and Tan, pero hindi na pinansin nung makita ang pangalan ni Tan.

"Si Atty. Mar Gen (Atty. Luis Mario General) was a former Napolcom Commissioner and Regional Director ng LTO sa Bicol.

"It was when I asked Atty. Mar Gen about campaign contributors that he messaged me about this confidential information. Below is the screen shot of that message where Atty. Mar Gen made the statement. Note that he writes 'Please do not share this info to anyone' and I promised to him not to share the info.

"But if this story is not put out there, nobody will know, and we who had access to that bit of information (albeit not the documents) would be party to the hiding. Wouldn't that put us in the same position as the Aquino government?

"I hope the family of Atty. Mar Gen would understand if they happen to read this comment of mine under your blog, if you'd care to place it as an addendum or postscript (since Blogger does not allow image upload in its comment box).

"Much thanks and keep it up, Dexter"