With intense public
scrutiny brought to bear on government disbursements, the media have
been hopping and bopping to come up with content that will satisfy the
public thirst for information.
Various news items and columns have centered on the PDAF and the
Presidential Social Fund since both issues broke out, but at least one
statement being bandied about is untrue – that the Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes Office contributes to the PSF.
This misimpression has gained a tenacious hold, reinforced by
columnists and reporters who did not even reach out to the PCSO for
confirmation.
Even some congressmen were misled. At a hearing of the Lower House
Games and Amusements (G and A) Committee last Monday, Committee Chairman
Rep. Elpidio F. Barzaga Jr. and other congressmen present were
surprised to learn that not a centavo from PCSO has gone into the PSF.
“PCSO must reiterate to the public that they do not give any funds to the PSF,” said Marikina Rep. Miro Quimbo.
PCSO does contribute to certain government agencies through their
founding charters. These payments, termed “mandatory contributions,” are
made to diverse bodies responsible for a gamut of activities.
Among them are the Commission on Higher Education, National Museum,
National Book Development Board, Philippine Sports Commission,
Philippine Crop Insurance Corp., National Endowment Fund for Children’s
Television, and many others.
The Presidential Social Fund is not among them.
Mandatory contributions are taken from the PCSO’s Charity Fund,
which, as allocated by law, is 30 percent of the agency’s revenues. For
the rest, 55 percent goes to the Prize Fund for games, and 15 percent to
agency operations. (PCSO does not receive anything from the National
Treasury for salaries, compensations, or other operational
expenditures.)
In 2012, the Charity Fund totaled P9.86 billion. Of that amount,
41.46 percent – almost P4.1 billion- went to mandatory contributions.
From January to June 2013, from the P4.84 billion Charity Fund, 59
percent – P2.87 billion – has already been released to various agencies.
Several lawmakers at the G and A hearing last Monday were astounded
that nearly half of the PCSO’s fund for medical and healthcare
assistance and charities of national character, instead of going to
individual patients and institutional beneficiaries, instead supports
government agencies that have nothing to do with PCSO’s mandate.
PCSO runs several significant social programs. Foremost is the
Individual Medical Assistance Program (IMAP), that gives financial
assistance to patients for their medical bills. In the first half of
this year, P1.84 billion in approved requests is earmarked for
hospitalizations (37.1 percent), dialysis treatments (25.78 percent),
and chemotherapy sessions (12.62 percent), with the rest going to
medicines, laboratory and diagnostic procedures, hearing aids and
transplants, and other forms of treatment.
Through the Institutional Financial Assistance Program (IFAP),
hospitals, clinics, orphanages, homes for the aged, and the like are
given endowment funds for the medical care of their beneficiaries.
The Ambulance Donation Program gives ambulances to requesting municipalities and government hospitals nationwide.
Other special programs donate medicines and medical equipment such as
diagnostic machines, and hold medical missions, out-patient
consultations, and ambulance conductions of patients who otherwise
cannot afford the service.
Via PCSO’s Quick Response program, relief is sent to victims of
national calamities such as Typhoon Sendong, the landslide in Compostela
Valley, the earthquake in Bohol, the conflict in Zamboanga, and the
like. Victims of such events who are being treated in public hospitals
may have their hospitals bills shouldered by PCSO upon their request and
if qualified.
The public may also not be aware that a government GOCC such as PCSO
pays taxes. From 2009 to June 2013, PCSO has remitted P18.4 billion for
various kinds of taxes.
The public’s warm and generous support of Lotto and other PCSO games
enables PCSO to sustain all these social programs, none of which include
contributing to the PSF.
source: Manila Standard Column of Jenny Ortuoste
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
The barangay and nation-building
Over the weekend, I was in my hometown of Cagayan de Oro and was able
to witness the last two days of the barangay elections campaign. As a
student o f governance and politics, as I observed what was happening in
Barangay 31, where our ancestral home is located, I was fascinated by
the passion and seriousness of candidates, their supporters, and
ordinary citizens. I noticed a few excesses of course, including the
intrusion of partisan politics, but by and large I saw essentially
democracy in action.
This is a good thing – that people take the barangay and these
elections seriously. Because, the barangay is our basic political unit,
where participation by the people in governance is direct and
immediate, where, the “rubber hits the road” to reform governance in
this country. All the people I talked to in my hometown told me that the
barangay is far more important and real to them than any other local
government unit or national government agency. The latter is hardly
felt, the former from time to time, but the barangay is an every day
reality. However, in Metro Manila and other highly urbanized areas, for
most of the middle class at least, the reality is different.
According to the Local Government Code, “the barangay serves as the primary planning and implementing unit of government policies, plans, programs, projects, and activities in the community, and as a forum wherein the collective views of the pe ople may be expressed, crystallized and considered, and where disputes may be amicably settled”. This is consistent with the policy laid down by the Code as mandated by the 1987 Constitution: “It is hereby declared the policy of the State that the territorial and political subdivisions of the State shall enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the attainment of national goals. Toward this end, the State shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization whereby local government units shall be given more powers, authority, responsibilities, and resources. The process of decentralization shall proceed from the national government to the local government units.”
Consistent with devolution, the barangay is responsible for quite a number of basic services. These include: (i) Agricultural support services which inclu de planting materials distribution system and operation of farm produce collection and buying stations; (ii) Health and social welfare services which include maintenance of barangay health center and day-care center; (iii) Services and facilities related to general hygiene and sanitation, beautification, and solid waste collection; (iv) Maintenance of katarungang pambarangay; (v) Maintenance of barangay roads and bridges and water supply systems; (vi) Infrastructure facilities such as multi-purpose hall, multipurpose pavement, plaza, sports center, and other similar facilities; (vii) Information and reading center; and; (viii) Satellite or public market, where viable.
The Code also provides that “there shall be in each barangay a punong barangay, seven (7) sangguniang barangay members, the sangguniang kabataan chairman, a barangay secretary, and a barangay treasurer.” Each barangay also has a lupong tagapamayapa which is in charge of dispute resolution, so far a very effective means of mediation that has prevented thousands of cases from getting into an already congested judicial system. In addition, the sangguniang barangay may form community brigades and create such other positions or offices as may be deemed necessary to carry out the purposes of the barangay government in accordance with the needs of public service.
All these services, programs, and offices are paid from the share of the barangay of the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) in accordance with the criteria prescribed by law. As in the case of provinces, cities, and municipalities, some barangays have huge IRA funds while others have bare enough for their basic services. Like all local governments, barangays do have the power to create its own sources of revenue and to levy taxes, fees, and charges that are consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy.
Three years ago, my Ateneo colleague Prof. Joy Aceron and I wrote a paper entitled “Building on the Basics: Leadership, Local Governance and Nation-Building”. Yesterday’s elections reminded me of the core message of that paper where we argued that devolving power to local governments has been good for the Philippines. But as we pointed out then, the best-practice cases in local governance are only a start in reforming the Philippines and are inadequate when they remain confined with the limits of their respective local government units (LGUs). We said: “Unless these local successes are scaled up and connected, their impact will be limited and isolated.
Professor Aceron and I proposed a nation-building process, “to change the country from the base—place by place, island by island—wherein local reform leaders are conscious of the need to connect their efforts, share a common vision for the country, and eventually execute a coordinated strategy of capturing power at the national level.” This includes leaders from barangays all over the country, those which we elected yesterday.
Last Sunday, in Cagayan de Oro, I was happy to be in a Eucharist presided over by our Archbishop Tony Ledesma SJ, a Jesuit who has influenced me and generations of social development workers. In his homily, he explained why the barangay elections is supposed to be beyond partisan politics – because we know our neighbors well enough to be able to decide who can be the best leaders. He emphasized the four qualities – the 4 Cs – voters should consider in making their choices for the elections next day: conscience, competence, compassion, and commitment. I hope the voters of my city and the country voted on this basis. After all, nation-building is a formidable challenge and we must start with the basics.
Facebook: Dean Tony La Vina
Twitter: tonylavs
source: Manila Standard Column of Dean Tony La Vina
According to the Local Government Code, “the barangay serves as the primary planning and implementing unit of government policies, plans, programs, projects, and activities in the community, and as a forum wherein the collective views of the pe ople may be expressed, crystallized and considered, and where disputes may be amicably settled”. This is consistent with the policy laid down by the Code as mandated by the 1987 Constitution: “It is hereby declared the policy of the State that the territorial and political subdivisions of the State shall enjoy genuine and meaningful local autonomy to enable them to attain their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them more effective partners in the attainment of national goals. Toward this end, the State shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization whereby local government units shall be given more powers, authority, responsibilities, and resources. The process of decentralization shall proceed from the national government to the local government units.”
Consistent with devolution, the barangay is responsible for quite a number of basic services. These include: (i) Agricultural support services which inclu de planting materials distribution system and operation of farm produce collection and buying stations; (ii) Health and social welfare services which include maintenance of barangay health center and day-care center; (iii) Services and facilities related to general hygiene and sanitation, beautification, and solid waste collection; (iv) Maintenance of katarungang pambarangay; (v) Maintenance of barangay roads and bridges and water supply systems; (vi) Infrastructure facilities such as multi-purpose hall, multipurpose pavement, plaza, sports center, and other similar facilities; (vii) Information and reading center; and; (viii) Satellite or public market, where viable.
The Code also provides that “there shall be in each barangay a punong barangay, seven (7) sangguniang barangay members, the sangguniang kabataan chairman, a barangay secretary, and a barangay treasurer.” Each barangay also has a lupong tagapamayapa which is in charge of dispute resolution, so far a very effective means of mediation that has prevented thousands of cases from getting into an already congested judicial system. In addition, the sangguniang barangay may form community brigades and create such other positions or offices as may be deemed necessary to carry out the purposes of the barangay government in accordance with the needs of public service.
All these services, programs, and offices are paid from the share of the barangay of the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) in accordance with the criteria prescribed by law. As in the case of provinces, cities, and municipalities, some barangays have huge IRA funds while others have bare enough for their basic services. Like all local governments, barangays do have the power to create its own sources of revenue and to levy taxes, fees, and charges that are consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy.
Three years ago, my Ateneo colleague Prof. Joy Aceron and I wrote a paper entitled “Building on the Basics: Leadership, Local Governance and Nation-Building”. Yesterday’s elections reminded me of the core message of that paper where we argued that devolving power to local governments has been good for the Philippines. But as we pointed out then, the best-practice cases in local governance are only a start in reforming the Philippines and are inadequate when they remain confined with the limits of their respective local government units (LGUs). We said: “Unless these local successes are scaled up and connected, their impact will be limited and isolated.
Professor Aceron and I proposed a nation-building process, “to change the country from the base—place by place, island by island—wherein local reform leaders are conscious of the need to connect their efforts, share a common vision for the country, and eventually execute a coordinated strategy of capturing power at the national level.” This includes leaders from barangays all over the country, those which we elected yesterday.
Last Sunday, in Cagayan de Oro, I was happy to be in a Eucharist presided over by our Archbishop Tony Ledesma SJ, a Jesuit who has influenced me and generations of social development workers. In his homily, he explained why the barangay elections is supposed to be beyond partisan politics – because we know our neighbors well enough to be able to decide who can be the best leaders. He emphasized the four qualities – the 4 Cs – voters should consider in making their choices for the elections next day: conscience, competence, compassion, and commitment. I hope the voters of my city and the country voted on this basis. After all, nation-building is a formidable challenge and we must start with the basics.
Facebook: Dean Tony La Vina
Twitter: tonylavs
source: Manila Standard Column of Dean Tony La Vina
Monday, October 21, 2013
Restoring civility at the Sandiganbayan
It’s good that the Supreme Court has issued an order installing newly
appointed Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Amparo Cabotaje-Tang as
chairman of the anti-graft court’s third division.
This move of the High Tribunal will help restore civility in the Sandiganbayan and stop on its tracks the move by some Sandiganbayan officials to embarrass Tang whose appointment as presiding justice has been questioned—not so much because of her qualifications, but because of the fact that she is the most junior justice, the youngest and the most recent appointee to the court.
The griping officials find it hard to accept Tang’s appointment to the Sandiganbayan’s top position because in the process she bypassed more senior magistrates. Since she is only 58 years old, none of the sitting Sandiganbayan associate justices will have a chance to become Presiding Justice. They will all reach the mandatory retirement age of 70 before Tang.
Sandiganbayan officials who opposed the appointment of Tang have been mocking her as a “queen without a throne” since, until the SC order, she did not even preside over any of the five divisions of the anti-graft court.
Without the intervention of the Supreme Court, there would be the strange situation of the Presiding Justice continuing as a junior member of the fifth division. It is unlikely that one among the five senior Sandiganbayan justices chairing a division would give way.
Tang wanted to assume the chairmanship of the third division since this was the division headed by former Presiding Justice Francisco Villaruz when he retired last June 8.
But Associate Justice Jose Hernandez who replaced Villaruz as chairman refused to relinquish the post.
Hernandez insisted that he had become the permanent chairman of the third division under the proposed Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan.
He cites Section 5(a), Rule II of the proposed Revised Internal Rules which says: “In the position of Division Chairman—if a permanent vacancy occurs in the position of a Division, the most senior Associate Justice in the Sandiganbayan who is not yet a Chairman shall become Chairman of that Division.”
Hernandez is the most senior among the 15 Associate Justices of the Sandiganbayan although he will not be retiring until 2016.
However, with her appointment as Presiding Justice she became first in the ranking among the Sandiganbayan justices as what would have happened if Justices Efren de la Cruz or Gregory Ong, who were also nominated for the post, been selected.
The case of Tang is similar to that of Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno who was the most junior among the Supreme Court Associate Justices when she was appointed to head the SC. Her appointment made her the highest ranking official of the High Tribunal and even if some SC justices were initially reluctant, they had to accept this fact.
If you consider the Sereno precedent, it is not surprising that the Supreme Court has ordered Hernandez to vacate the post of chairman of the third division and allowed Tang to assume the post.
The SC decision is in response to the five-page letter Tang sent to Chief Justice Sereno last Oct. 10, seeking guidance on the confusion of who will chair the third division in view of the adamance of Hernandez to give it up.
Actually Tang had already addressed the issue of her qualifications to be the Sandiganbayan presiding justice in the deliberation of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). “I may be a junior in judicial experience but I am not a junior in legal and administrative experience,” Tang said when she was grilled by members of the JBC.
Indeed, Tang is not a junior in terms of experience.
It was Tang as assistant solicitor general who filed the pleading to oppose the plea bargaining agreement between the Sandiganbayan and former military comptroller Gen. Carlos Garcia.
She is also responsible for the government’s success in recovering over P60 billion of the so-called coconut levy fund.
She had an excellent performance in the first 10 months as associate justice of the Sandiganbayan where according to news reports she resolved 31 incidents in 31 cases of an average of three incidents resolved per month.
This record must have helped convince members of the JBC that she is serious in her commitment to speed up the resolution of pending cases before the anti-graft court.
Tang has an impressive career record. Before her appointment as associate justice, she worked at the Office of the Solicitor General rising from Solicitor 1 in 1984 to Assistant Solicitor General from 1994 to 2012.
She was a litigation lawyer from 1982 to 1984 and she was legal assistant at the SC from 1980 to 1982.
She has been a law professor at the University of Sto. Tomas since 2010 and at the San Beda Law School since 2006. She graduated in the top 10 of her class at the San Beda College of Law in 1979 and she passed the bar in the same year with a rating of 84.95 percent.
source: Manila Standard Column of Alvin Capino
This move of the High Tribunal will help restore civility in the Sandiganbayan and stop on its tracks the move by some Sandiganbayan officials to embarrass Tang whose appointment as presiding justice has been questioned—not so much because of her qualifications, but because of the fact that she is the most junior justice, the youngest and the most recent appointee to the court.
The griping officials find it hard to accept Tang’s appointment to the Sandiganbayan’s top position because in the process she bypassed more senior magistrates. Since she is only 58 years old, none of the sitting Sandiganbayan associate justices will have a chance to become Presiding Justice. They will all reach the mandatory retirement age of 70 before Tang.
Sandiganbayan officials who opposed the appointment of Tang have been mocking her as a “queen without a throne” since, until the SC order, she did not even preside over any of the five divisions of the anti-graft court.
Without the intervention of the Supreme Court, there would be the strange situation of the Presiding Justice continuing as a junior member of the fifth division. It is unlikely that one among the five senior Sandiganbayan justices chairing a division would give way.
Tang wanted to assume the chairmanship of the third division since this was the division headed by former Presiding Justice Francisco Villaruz when he retired last June 8.
But Associate Justice Jose Hernandez who replaced Villaruz as chairman refused to relinquish the post.
Hernandez insisted that he had become the permanent chairman of the third division under the proposed Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan.
He cites Section 5(a), Rule II of the proposed Revised Internal Rules which says: “In the position of Division Chairman—if a permanent vacancy occurs in the position of a Division, the most senior Associate Justice in the Sandiganbayan who is not yet a Chairman shall become Chairman of that Division.”
Hernandez is the most senior among the 15 Associate Justices of the Sandiganbayan although he will not be retiring until 2016.
However, with her appointment as Presiding Justice she became first in the ranking among the Sandiganbayan justices as what would have happened if Justices Efren de la Cruz or Gregory Ong, who were also nominated for the post, been selected.
The case of Tang is similar to that of Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno who was the most junior among the Supreme Court Associate Justices when she was appointed to head the SC. Her appointment made her the highest ranking official of the High Tribunal and even if some SC justices were initially reluctant, they had to accept this fact.
If you consider the Sereno precedent, it is not surprising that the Supreme Court has ordered Hernandez to vacate the post of chairman of the third division and allowed Tang to assume the post.
The SC decision is in response to the five-page letter Tang sent to Chief Justice Sereno last Oct. 10, seeking guidance on the confusion of who will chair the third division in view of the adamance of Hernandez to give it up.
Actually Tang had already addressed the issue of her qualifications to be the Sandiganbayan presiding justice in the deliberation of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). “I may be a junior in judicial experience but I am not a junior in legal and administrative experience,” Tang said when she was grilled by members of the JBC.
Indeed, Tang is not a junior in terms of experience.
It was Tang as assistant solicitor general who filed the pleading to oppose the plea bargaining agreement between the Sandiganbayan and former military comptroller Gen. Carlos Garcia.
She is also responsible for the government’s success in recovering over P60 billion of the so-called coconut levy fund.
She had an excellent performance in the first 10 months as associate justice of the Sandiganbayan where according to news reports she resolved 31 incidents in 31 cases of an average of three incidents resolved per month.
This record must have helped convince members of the JBC that she is serious in her commitment to speed up the resolution of pending cases before the anti-graft court.
Tang has an impressive career record. Before her appointment as associate justice, she worked at the Office of the Solicitor General rising from Solicitor 1 in 1984 to Assistant Solicitor General from 1994 to 2012.
She was a litigation lawyer from 1982 to 1984 and she was legal assistant at the SC from 1980 to 1982.
She has been a law professor at the University of Sto. Tomas since 2010 and at the San Beda Law School since 2006. She graduated in the top 10 of her class at the San Beda College of Law in 1979 and she passed the bar in the same year with a rating of 84.95 percent.
source: Manila Standard Column of Alvin Capino
Saturday, October 19, 2013
BID chief’s permission needed for alien’s extension of stay
Dear PAO,
I am a British who fell in love with a wonderful Filipina. We are living together in Pampanga with her daughter. Upon extension of my tourist visa at the main office of the Bureau of Immigration, I was informed that I have to exit the Philippines because I have reached the maximum allowable period of extensions. I don’t want to leave the Philippines because I consider this my home. What should I do to stay longer in the Philippines? I could not apply for a spouse visa because my partner is still married to the father of her child. Is it possible that I apply for a fiancé visa?
K. Williams
Dear K. Williams,
Foreigners holding temporary visitor’s visa pursuant to Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 and aliens admitted under Executive Order (E.O.) No. 408 may extend their stay in the Philippines for a total stay of 16 months. A foreigner who seeks to extend his tourist visa beyond the 16-month limit should first seek the approval of the Commissioner (Memoran–dum Order No. RADJR-2013-007 or the “Implementation of the Long-Stay Visitor Visa Extension [LSVVE]”). Based from the fore–going, you should abide with the order of the officer of the Bureau of Immigration since, as stated, you have already reached the maximum allowable period for tourist visa extension. However, you may ask the Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration for reconsideration to extend your visa. The approval of the Com-missioner is necessary before extensions can be made.
Since your intention is to stay permanently in the Philippines, which you consider your home, it is better if your secure a permanent visa. One of the permanent visas available to foreign national is that given to foreign nationals who are married to a Filipino under Section 13(a) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940. Unfortunately, this kind of permanent visa cannot be applied by your fiancée for you because you are not yet married and the said marriage is not possible as of the moment because, according to you, she is still married.
Our country has no fiancé visa but there are other permanent visas which you may apply, to wit: quota immigrant visa; Special Visa Employment Generation (SVEG); and Special Resident Retiree’s Visa (SRRV). However, this kind of visas requires from you a certain amount of investment in the Philippines before it may be granted, such as the required bank certification of inward remittance amounting to at least US $50,000.00 or its equivalent in foreign currency for applicants of quota visa. On the other hand, if it is really your desire to marry your Filipina partner, you may suggest for the filing of annulment or declaration of nullity of her marriage with the father of her child. When annulled or their marriage is declared as null and void, you may now marry her and she may petition you to have a permanent visa in the Philippines.
Please be reminded that the above legal opinion is solely based on our appreciation of the problem that you have stated. The opinion may vary when other facts are stated.
source: Manila Times Column of Atty Persida Acosta
I am a British who fell in love with a wonderful Filipina. We are living together in Pampanga with her daughter. Upon extension of my tourist visa at the main office of the Bureau of Immigration, I was informed that I have to exit the Philippines because I have reached the maximum allowable period of extensions. I don’t want to leave the Philippines because I consider this my home. What should I do to stay longer in the Philippines? I could not apply for a spouse visa because my partner is still married to the father of her child. Is it possible that I apply for a fiancé visa?
K. Williams
Dear K. Williams,
Foreigners holding temporary visitor’s visa pursuant to Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 and aliens admitted under Executive Order (E.O.) No. 408 may extend their stay in the Philippines for a total stay of 16 months. A foreigner who seeks to extend his tourist visa beyond the 16-month limit should first seek the approval of the Commissioner (Memoran–dum Order No. RADJR-2013-007 or the “Implementation of the Long-Stay Visitor Visa Extension [LSVVE]”). Based from the fore–going, you should abide with the order of the officer of the Bureau of Immigration since, as stated, you have already reached the maximum allowable period for tourist visa extension. However, you may ask the Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration for reconsideration to extend your visa. The approval of the Com-missioner is necessary before extensions can be made.
Since your intention is to stay permanently in the Philippines, which you consider your home, it is better if your secure a permanent visa. One of the permanent visas available to foreign national is that given to foreign nationals who are married to a Filipino under Section 13(a) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940. Unfortunately, this kind of permanent visa cannot be applied by your fiancée for you because you are not yet married and the said marriage is not possible as of the moment because, according to you, she is still married.
Our country has no fiancé visa but there are other permanent visas which you may apply, to wit: quota immigrant visa; Special Visa Employment Generation (SVEG); and Special Resident Retiree’s Visa (SRRV). However, this kind of visas requires from you a certain amount of investment in the Philippines before it may be granted, such as the required bank certification of inward remittance amounting to at least US $50,000.00 or its equivalent in foreign currency for applicants of quota visa. On the other hand, if it is really your desire to marry your Filipina partner, you may suggest for the filing of annulment or declaration of nullity of her marriage with the father of her child. When annulled or their marriage is declared as null and void, you may now marry her and she may petition you to have a permanent visa in the Philippines.
Please be reminded that the above legal opinion is solely based on our appreciation of the problem that you have stated. The opinion may vary when other facts are stated.
source: Manila Times Column of Atty Persida Acosta
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)