The findings of the House of Representatives’ Technical Working Group (TWG) are contrary to the evidence presented during the series of hearings that tackled the franchise renewal of television network ABS-CBN, a lawmaker from Northern Mindanao said.
Petitions vs anti-terror law grow in number
Petitions against the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 have grown in numbers and now totals seven since it was approved into law.
MisOr wants final version of IATF guidelines on backriding policy
The provincial government of Misamis Oriental wants to make sure it has received a copy of the final version of the national Inter-Agency Task Force (IATF)’s guidelines on backride policy before implementing it.
Against Independence
PRESIDENT RODRIGO DUTERTE’S repeated threats against ABS-CBN are wrong for its pettiness and narrow, self-serving, and vindictive partisanship. But it is equally wrong for its pro-people and anti-oligarchy pretensions.
Mr. Duterte did not only shut down the country’s biggest radio and television network, which employs over 11,000 men and women all over the country, on no other basis than his claim that it did not air his propaganda materials during the 2016 campaign for the Presidency. He would also enable his cronies—one of whom is only too eager to add the network to his vast range of recent acquisitions—into taking control of it in a reprise of the crony capitalism of the Marcos dictatorship.
Once that happens, one of the most influential media organizations in the Philippines will become no more than a regime mouthpiece and the platform from which its purveyors of false information will dominate public discourse.
His arrogant certainty that the House of Representatives will do as he wants also underscores once more the demise of that body’s supposedly co-equal status and independence, and its lethal impact on the tattered remains of Philippine democracy.
But Mr. Duterte’s threat is even more fundamentally wrong for being an attack on a media organization for airing reports on the thousands of killings in his so-called “war on drugs” and for some of its anchors’ and reporters’ being critical of his China and West Philippine Sea Policy.
Mr. Duterte wrongly presumes that he is lord and master of all he surveys and has the prerogative to allow only those media organizations that pander to him and his regime to exist and to continue to function despite Article III Section 4 of the Constitution.
This latest threat against the media is so obviously meant to intimidate not only the independent press but also every truth-teller, whether human rights defender or rural missionary. It is an assault on media freedom and the right to free expression and information from the multiplicity of sources citizens need to exercise their sovereign power to decide on matters that concern them.
The shutdown of any media organization whether big or small and whatever its views reduces the number of contending voices on which citizens depend to get at the truth. All media and journalists’ organizations, media advocacy groups, civil society, and everyone else who still believes in media freedom, free expression, and democracy must expose the Duterte threat for the brazenly tyrannical scheme to intimidate the media that it is.
As in the case of regime attempts to silence the online news site Rappler, a threat against one is a threat against all. On the say-so of a president who despises criticism and truth-telling, every other media organization can be similarly silenced by denying or withdrawing its franchise, or through some other nefarious means.
Not only for the possible loss of employment of thousands of men and women should the threat to shut down the country’s biggest broadcasting network have made the six o’clock news and aroused citizen concern. It would also send to the rest of the media and everyone else the unmistakeable message that the Duterte regime will not relent in its campaign to silence its perceived critics, including any entity that dares show some semblance of independence.
And yet, despite Mr. Duterte’s threats and his subaltern Alan Peter Cayetano’s repeatedly echoing them, the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) found that much of the media, including ABS-CBN itself, have chosen to keep silent about it, apparently because of the cutthroat rivalry in the broadcasting industry, and ABS-CBN’s hesitation in reporting on something in which its self-interest is involved. But there is also the mistaken belief that despite Mr. Duterte’s attacks on press freedom and free expression, it is still possible to negotiate and reason with him.
Among the broadcast organizations, only CNN Philippines and TV 5’s Aksyon have so far aired any report on ABS-CBN’s problem with Mr. Duterte. Print was more forthright. The three Manila newspapers of general circulation did report on it in addition to Mr. Duterte’s rant, and so did some columnists. Some reports also pointed out that despite Cayetano’s assurance of “due process,” he himself has been criticizing ABS-CBN for being allegedly anti-regime.
It was on social media—on Twitter and Facebook— where there was more attention paid to it, and where most netizens expressed their opposition to the shutting down of ABS-CBN.
Mr. Duterte has used the powers of his office as well as his control over the other two supposedly independent and co-equal branches of government to harass and silence his critics in and out of the media. Not only has he threatened online news site Rappler and the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper; he has also made good on those threats. Rappler has had to defend itself from 11 complaints and court cases meant to intimidate and silence it even as its reporters are prevented from covering public events in which Mr. Duterte is present. The regime’s keyboard army of trolls and its print media hacks also demonize the Inquirer at every opportunity.
The shutdown of ABS-CBN is part of the same assault aimed at intimidating not only the critical press but also anyone and anything else that takes seriously the democratic need to monitor and hold government to account.
But because he has not placed the entire Philippines under martial law as Ferdinand Marcos did in 1972, there is the mistaken belief that Mr. Duterte’s rule is not as oppressive as that of his idol and mentor. His implementation of what amounts to de facto martial rule without the benefit of a declaration has lulled the citizenry into the mistaken belief that he won’t go as far.
It explains why much of the news media including ABS-CBN seem unable to understand the urgency of bringing the issue to the public’s attention as a threat not only to the entire press but also to free expression and the plurality of voices democracy needs to survive. Make no mistake about it: Mr. Duterte and his accomplices are as focused on silencing anyone and anything with any glimmer of independent thought as the Marcos terror regime was.
Prof. Luis V. Teodoro is the national chairperson of the Altermidya Network. This updated post first appeared in Vantage Point published by BusinessWorld.
The post Against Independence appeared first on AlterMidya.
IN PHOTOS: Teach-in on the anti-terrorism law as calls to junk law continues
Groups gathered at the Commission on Human Rights grounds on July 11 to discuss the Anti-Terrorism Law that President Rodrigo Duterte signed on July 3. The law would be effective 15 days after publishing, which would be by July 18. Petitioners and would-be petitioners against the law who would challenge […]
The post IN PHOTOS: Teach-in on the anti-terrorism law as calls to junk law continues appeared first on Manila Today.
‘Advocacy, protests could be declared terrorist’ — lawyers
“It is clear that the law will be used against critics and dissenters.”
By RONALYN V. OLEA
Bulatlat.com
MANILA – Human rights lawyers are one in saying that the newly-enacted Anti-Terror Law or Republic Act 11479 violates the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
While Section 4 of RA 11479 states “that terrorism shall not include advocacy, protest, dissent, stoppage of work, industrial or mass action, and other similar exercises of civil and political rights, Bayan Muna Chairperson Neri Javier Colmenares said the main problem is that the law penalizes intention.
“…[I]t is so easy for Duterte to say that your rallies endanger other people’s lives because there is a pandemic,” Colmenares said in his speech at Diokno Park inside the Commission on Human Rights compound, July 11.
Antonio La Viña, former dean of the Ateneo School of Government and member of Concerned Lawyers for Civil Liberties, also said that under the new law, protests could be labeled as “terrorist” if authorities would declare that such protests “intimidate the public, seriously undermine public safety or create an atmosphere of fear.”
Colmenares said the law will not be used against terrorists. “It is clear that the law will be used against critics and dissenters,” he said.
He said that Duterte’s track record proves he is intolerant of dissent, citing how Sen. Leila de Lima ended up in jail, how Supreme Court Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno was removed from her post and how Catholic bishops were charged with inciting to sedition, all because of their being vocal critics.
WATCH Bayan Muna Chair Neri Colmenares calls on the people to intensify protests against the Anti-Terror Law. https://t.co/Qfraug2C1x
— Bulatlat (@bulatlat) July 11, 2020
Colmenares also debunked Sen. Panfilo Lacson’s claim that Duterte has no authority to tag anyone as terrorist.
“That is very naive and very deceptive,” Colmenares said, pointing out that the Anti-Terrorism Council is composed of Duterte’s Cabinet members and “yes” men including the military, police, and intelligence agencies.
While authors of the law claimed that authorities will respect human rights, Colmenares retorted that drug suspects are being killed in the Philippines and suspected terrorists stand to suffer the same fate.
Lawyer Howard Calleja, whose group was first to file a petition questioning the constitutionality of the Anti-Terror Law, also maintained that the law violates human rights.
“We are against terrorism but the law [against terrorism] should not violate human rights and the Philippine Constitution,” Calleja said.
Calleja lamented that the law allows detention without warrant for up to 24 days, surveillance, interrogation, among others “that violate right to due process.”
For his part, Ephraim Cortez, secretary general of the National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers (NUPL), said that the new law does not protect citizens from possible abuse.
Cortez said that NUPL’s clients from Karapatan, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan and Movement Against Tyranny (MAT) have been subjected to vicious red-tagging even before the passage of the law. He said they have a reason to believe that attacks on human rights defenders would escalate, with the new law as another weapon by the state.
Former Sanlakas Rep. JV Bautista also underscored that the under the new law, police and other state agents would not be held liable if suspected terrorists are proven innocent.
Junk the law
Colmenares urged the public to exhaust all measures and avenues to junk the Anti-Terror Law. He called on the people to push legislators to withdraw their support to the law and to repeal the law.
Colmenares welcomed the filing of petitions against the law by several groups. “We should also urge the Supreme Court to side with the people, to stand for human rights,” he said.
The veteran activist called on the people, especially the youth, to continue the protests online and in the streets. “Our biggest victories were gained through protests. We should not stop protesting,” he said.
The post ‘Advocacy, protests could be declared terrorist’ — lawyers appeared first on Bulatlat.
On the BBB fix: Why do you build me up?
In its recent pre-SONA forum, the economic team spent
the most time talking about four years of infrastructure accomplishments. On
the other hand, there was next to nothing about the government’s plans for
economic recovery from the serious crisis brought on by the pandemic. The
misplaced emphasis on infrastructure during the pre-SONA forum only reflects
the misplaced emphasis on infrastructure as some kind of magic bullet for the
country’s development.
The Philippine economy has a basic problem – it is
dependent on external and temporary drivers of growth. These include overseas
remittances and foreign investments especially for business process outsourcing
(BPOs) and manufacturing. Yet COVID-19 wreaked havoc on these. Overseas
remittances fell by 5% in March as thousands of OFWs were repatriated back to
the Philippines. BPO investments are slowing down more than ever and export
demand is weakening from a sluggish global economy.
The economy lacks substantial and sustainable internal
drivers of growth such as from developing the core productive sectors of
agriculture and manufacturing. Yet, instead of developing these, the government
is looking to infrastructure spending to spur growth even if this is
superficial and short- term.
More than any other government since the Marcos era,
the Duterte administration is extremely dependent on public infrastructure spending
to boost growth. It has been relying on infrastructure as a major economic
stimulus long before COVID-19. The longest lockdown in the world delayed implementation
of various infrastructure projects around the country.
Yet the government is still hell-bent on pursuing a
grand infrastructure program amid the pandemic and despite its actually bleak
accomplishments so far. The government says it will revise its list of
infrastructure projects to adapt to COVID-19. But does it really have the will
to shift the focus of its infrastructure program, or even the capacity to fully
implement this?
2 out of 75
The Philippines was said to lag behind its neighboring
Asian countries in terms of infrastructure. The Duterte government dreamed of
building high-impact infrastructure projects through the Build, Build, Build
(BBB) program. BBB aims to build more
railways, urban mass transport, airports and seaports, more bridges and roads,
and new and better cities. The program is estimated to cost Php8 to 9 trillion
from 2017-2022.
The BBB program originally had 75 infrastructure
flagship projects (IFPs) composed of transportation (53), water resources (15),
power/energy (4), and social infrastructure (3). The government said these
projects would facilitate efficient movement of goods and help bring down
production costs in the country. They would also improve the income of rural
families, encourage countryside development, and create 1.7 million jobs by
2022. These are grand claims considering
that the 75 IFPs were mainly concentrated in the National Capital Region (NCR),
Region III, and Region IV-A and IV-B which are the trading centers of the
country.
Altogether, the 75 IFPs were estimated to cost around
Php2.1 trillion. The government planned to tap official development assistance
(ODA) and the private sector to fund these. Of the 75 IFPs, ODA would fund 57
worth Php2 trillion, public private partnerships or PPP would fund 6 worth
Php23.3 billion, and government budget would be allocated for 12 IFPs worth
Php138.5 billion. This means that most of the 75 IFPs would be funded with loans
from various countries.
The status of the projects was telling of its
progress. Data from the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA)
shows that only two out of the 75 IFPs were completed in November 2018. These were improvements along the Pasig River
from Delpan Bridge to Napindan Channel (Phase IV) and the selective dredging of
the Pulangi River. It is also worth noting that the Pasig-Marikina River
Channel Improvement Project has three other phases that started as early as
2009. Only Phase IV was constructed during the Duterte administration. NEDA’s
last update on the status of the 75 IFPs on July 2019 reported the same two
projects as being completed.
38 out of 100 before Duterte steps down?
In November 2019, the Duterte government announced that it revised
the list of IFPs from 75 to 100 in order to ‘streamline’ the list and make it
‘more feasible’. This was due to the slow rate at which projects were going.
With their new list, the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA)
expects only 38 of the 100 IFPs to be completed by the time Pres. Duterte steps
down.
The 100 IFPs are composed of projects for transport and mobility
(73), water resources (10), urban development (9), information and
communication technology or ICT (6), and power and energy (2). The list is
primarily composed of economic infrastructure to make the country more
palatable to investors, which has basically been the basis of infrastructure
planning for a long time. Noticeably, the current infrastructure program lacks
social infrastructure, which is much needed by Filipinos to live humanely and decently.
The 100 IFPs are worth around Php4.3 trillion and ODA is the
biggest funding source. There will be Php2.4 trillion funded with ODA, followed
by Php1.2 trillion through PPP, and Php172 billion funded solely from the
General Appropriations Act (GAA). The glaring over-reliance on loans and
private sector funding reflects the sore absence of government capacity for
these.
Leading the ODA funders for the 100 IFPs is Japan with a total of
around Php1.3 trillion in loans, China with Php700 billion, and the Asian
Development Bank (ADB) with Php273 billion. Data from NEDA as of June 2019 show
that the Philippines has already received US$8.1 billion worth of ODA loans
from Japan, US$2.8 billion from ADB, and US$273 million from China.
The short-sightedness of the government’s infrastructure program
was really highlighted during the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The
government had to scramble to convert evacuation centers into quarantine
facilities to absorb the rising number of COVID-19 cases. More alarming is how
just recently 11 hospitals in Metro Manila have reached full capacity for their
COVID-19 dedicated beds.
The government announced a few weeks ago that construction of some
road projects under the 100 IFPs will resume. Still, COVID-19 has to a certain
extent compelled government to announce that it will come up with a revised
list of the 100 IFPs to cater to the country’s health needs.
In line with reviewing the current list of 100 IFPs, the
government could reconsider large projects such as the Metro Manila Subway
Projects Phase 1 and the Safe Philippines Project Phase 1. Instead of spending on
these import- and capital-intensive projects, the budget could instead be used
for subsidizing jeepney modernization. This would benefit more Filipino
commuters as well as support the employment of thousands of jeepney drivers.
The controversial Kaliwa Dam should also be reconsidered for the
environmental and community impacts combined with the nature of the onerous
loan agreement. Another project that
could be shelved is the Bataan-Cavite Interlink Bridge. The huge amount spent
to shorten travel time may not deliver commensurate returns, and the money is
likely spent better on more urgent pandemic-related needs. Additionally, the
Safe Philippines Project Phase 1, a CCTV surveillance system project, may just
make Filipinos more unsafe especially in the current repressive political
environment.
The ODA loans are specifically for these projects but the
government can negotiate with Japan, China and the ADB to realign these towards
the country’s more urgent needs. These lenders say they are focused on
promoting development so the Philippine government should not be afraid to hold
them up to that intent.
The government has not yet released its supposedly revised list of
projects because of the pandemic. The public is waiting to see how much of the
revised list includes health, housing, and education-related infrastructure. COVID-19 may also have pushed the
implementation of some projects back, and the public deserves to know about delays
and how many would be completed before President Duterte steps down.
Complementing the New Normal
The BBB program gives the impression that building
more infrastructure per se is the key to sustained long-term economic growth.
This notion is reinforced by the visible short-term stimulus that large-scale construction
provides. New bridges, roads, airports, and railways also seem to give palpable
gains. The real economic question however is not just whether there are
benefits but if these benefits are worth the costs.
Improving mobility around the country, which comprises
majority of BBB projects, is not in itself enough to improve the country’s
economy. Without active promotion of agriculture and manufacturing, the improved
infrastructure will mainly benefit just the service- and trading-oriented
sectors that dominate our shallow economy.
Infrastructure can contribute to long-term economic
growth if it helps push the country’s agricultural and manufacturing potential.
Policy changes are needed for this to happen. The government has to protect and
support agriculture which unfortunately has been backsliding especially with
rice liberalization. Additionally, the Filipino manufacturing sector is waning
due to investment liberalization that favors foreign investors at the expense
of nurturing domestic capital. The country’s policies are even more misguided amid
increasing protectionism and departures from liberalization globally.
The government should release the revised infrastructure list immediately. As healthcare has become the priority, the government should add more social infrastructure like hospitals to help deal with congested health facilities. More socialized housing units could also help decongest urban settlements in the country and help prevent the spread of the coronavirus.
Moreover, policy reforms such as protecting agriculture and the manufacturing sector to complement the country’s revised infrastructure plan can result in long-term economic growth to benefit Filipinos. Dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic in a way that prioritizes the people’s well-being should be the present challenge and government should realign its infrastructure program to complement this.