THE HOLIDAY THAT IS NOT.

Kelan ko lang nalaman -- I'm sure many other Filipinos do not know it yet also -- na last Monday pala, May 28th, was a red-lettered day..  It is called Philippine Flag Day.  Of course, it is not really printed in red in the calendar, as only legal non-working days are.  Sa totoo lang, ito lang namang mga non-working holidays ang inaabangan ng lahat, di ba? dahil walang pasok sa mga ganitong araw o kaya'y doble ang sahod kung ikaw ay pumasok.

At any rate, medyo nakalulungkot isipin na ang supposed holiday na ito, which is really not, ay hindi lamang covered by a Presidential Proclamation like all other holidays, kundi ipinag-uutos pang ipagdiwang ng umiiral na batas, and Republic Act 8491, passed in 1998.  At di basta ipagdiwang nang isang araw lamang, gaya ng every other holiday.  Ipinag-uutos ng RA 8491 na bilang pagdiriwang, ang bawa't gusaling pampubliko at maging mga tahanan at opisinang pribado ay mag-display ng ating watawad sa harap, at, mind you, araw-araw mula sa May 28 hanggang June 12.  Ang Philippine Flag Day na ang maliwanag na ipinag-uutos ng batas na alalahanin at ipagdiwang ng bawa't Filipino sa loob ng pinaka-mahabang araw.  But let's be honest!  May nasaksihan ba tayong katitinng na bahagi man lamang ng ipinag-uutos ng batas.  Huwag na 'yong sa mga tahanang pribado, meron ba kayong nakitang isang opisina ng gobyerno na nag-display ng Philippine Flag kahit iisang araw man lamang.  May nakatadhanang parusa ang RA 8491 sa sinumang lumabag.  Meron kayang isa man lang na maparusahan?  Siyempre wala!  Ganito naman tayong mga Pinoy, di ba: we pass so many laws only for people to openly violate them with manifest impunity. It's really no wonder this country is fast becoming the laughing stock of the whole world.  

Ang Philippine Flag Day lang siguro ang ipinag-uutos ng batas ang pagdiriwang, ang iba pa ay covered by Executive proclamations lamang.  Aba, teka, tila meron pa yatang isa, under Republic Act 4166, 'yong kung tawagin ay Republic Day.  Ewan ko kung narinig na ninyo ang tungkol dito.  Meron akong isa pang nakatatawang about this, which please read in my next blog.

THE DIE IS CAST, NO HARD FEELINGS!

I will be a hypocrite it I say I am not saddened by the guilty verdict on CJ Corona.  Truth is, I did pray for his acquittal.  It maybe because I have always been for the underdog.  Marahil, if I were a sabungero, ako ' yong tinatawag nilang "dehadista."  At any rate, I'm happy, meron din palang tatlong dehadista sa Senado, si Miriam, si Joker at si Bongbong. And I respect them for their steadfastness amid the telling views of their peers.   The die has been cast! No hard feelings, let's all respect the impeachment court's  final verdict.  I can only wish the best of health for the Chief Justice, I'm sure he's man enough to accept his fate.

As we all know, everything started from Pres. Aquino's unbridled trust to rid the government of corrupt public officials. I give him the benefit of the doubt in beginning with the Chief Justice.  I hope and pray to God that, with the CJ now out of his way, his drive against corruption in government  will indeed succeed.  I think no one and nothing else may now  prevent him to really put GMA behind bars, sana lang, under an atmosphere of genuine due process, in the same way that GMA was able to put ERAP in jail for plunder without ado. I hope in earnest  the President will not be selective in his fight against corruption, and should be able to look not only to the the sins of the past, but more importantly to those under  his very own watch. I wish him good luck!

TRUE MEASURE OF CHARACTER

It was unfortunate that so many people had outright criticized Corona for signing a waiver on his bank accounts on condition that all  the other 188 prosecutors who signed the impeachment case plus one senator should also sign the same waiver. In my humble opinion, hindi dapat karaka-rakang inismiran ng balana ang conditional waiver na ito ni Corona, without first analyzing the circumstances more deeply.  Consider this:

1) Corona main position was that bank accounts, especially dollar deposits, are declared absolutely confidential by RA 6426 and should not therefore be revealed in a generally-accepted public document called SALN.  This issue will continue to be a  debatable issue among lawyers, but vainly.  Under our justice system, it's only the Supreme Court, not the Impeachment Court, that may rule on this issue with finality.
2) In his testimony, Corona asserted that whatever moneys he has accumulated in his bank accounts all came from legitimate sources, for which he had paid appropriate income taxes to the government since the banks outright withhold and remit to BIR all interests earned from such bank deposits.
3) The true and underlying purpose of the SALN is not as much its clerical accuracy as to ensure that public officials do not enrich themselves in office.  Proof is, the Civil Service Commissions, the branch of government that provide rules for the filing of SALN,  allows the filer to correct certain errors in his SALN for as long as
the errors are not culpable.  In turn, an act is culpable if its commission has been dictated by an ulterior motive to gain something from committing the act.  Culpability must therefore first be proven because an act is considered impeachable.
4) There can be no gainsaying the plain truth that today, and especially years ago when the dollar-peso exchange rates were as volatile as the price of oil in the market place, money market has been  a popular form or mode of investment for people who can afford.  There is cogent reason to believe that most of our public officials do have their respective foreign currency accounts.  Meanwhile, a certain CPA-Lawyer says that in all her 32  years of working with the BIR, he does not recall of any public official who revealed his dollar account in his SALN.
5) Corona's conditional waiver was for a two fold purpose.  First, to test the integrity of his accusers by inviting them to prove to the whole word that they are not equally guilty of the offense they are charging him. Second, that is also an appeal to the conscience of the 23 senators who will judge him.  I mean, if you do also maintain a dollar account which you did not include in your SALN, would you have the conscience to convict Corona for exactly the same offense that you yourself is doing?  Of course, some such senators still migh still convict the CJ, perhaps saying to himself that anyway nobody knows or will find out that I also have dollar accounts that I didn't declare in my SALN.   Then, such senators would have been measured and found wanting.  I mean, I am suddenly reminded of the words of a writer whose name has already escape my memory: "The measure of a man's real character is what he would do if he knew he would never be found out."

Corona's detractors will readily say such conditional waiver is not acceptable in the rules of court since it is not the prosecutors who are charged. Fine! But why is their application of the rules of court selective?  One  recalls that whenever Corona's counsel invokes the need to give Corona due process as provided under the rules of court, his detractors would outright say, "Ah, this is an impeachment case, not an ordinary civil or criminal case in an ordinary court"  Now, if the defense cannot cite the same reason, i.e. relaxing certain rules of court that need not apply to  Corona's impeachment case, then, doesn't HYPOCRISY characterize all these proceedings?   

NEVER SAY SOMETHING YOU MAY EAT BACK LATER

Sa impeachment hearing ni CJ Corona kahapon, Martes, ay may isang palasak na kawikaan na biglang sumagi sa aking isipan kahapon: "Iwasan mo, anya,  ang magsalita ng patapos, at baka subukan ka ng tadhana at ang iyong sinabi ay ikaw rin ang humimod."

Alam kong may katuwirang magalit si Senate President Enrile sa ginawang alleged walkout ni Corona after his testimony. Truth is, I appreciate Enrile's liberality in giving Corona all the time to go on and finish his long testimony, even if tatlong beses rin niyang sinabi, "matagal pa po ba 'yan, Chief Justice?" 

Si Defense chief counsel Cuevas ay gayon na lang ang paghingi ng patawad kay Enrile sa ginawa ni Corona, which later turned out to be at least a bit reasonable because he was not feeling well, as indeed when he was brought back to the session hall he was already on a wheel chair, very obviously "tuliro" at ewan ko kung narinig ang pagpapalitan ng salita ni Cuevas at Enrile.

In spite of what happened, I knew Enrile's respect for the Chief Justice remained unchanged, as it was Cuevas, not the Chief Justice, that he reprimanded.  When Enrile insisted that Corona come back to the session hall the following day  (meaning today) for cross-examination, Cuevas promised that provided Corona is mentally and physically able, he will bring him to the court.  That rather conditional guarantee was in my opinion only to be expected, given the reason for Coronal's alleged walkout: suddenly failing health.   But when Enrile said something like:  "No, you should bring him back to court at two o'clock tomorrow without fail, otherwise I will rule that his testimony be totally stricken off from the record,"  methinks nagsalita si Enrile nang patapos, na sa bandang huli ay siya rin ang humimod.

Bakit, kanyo?  Aba'y hindi nga ba't hindi nga nakabalik si |Corona kanina dahil na sa ICU pala sa Medical City?  Pero hindi rin nakuhang ipatupad ni Enrile  'yong kanyang matigas at patapos na sabing he would rule to totally expunge Corona's testimony.  Para sa akin, ano ba naman 'yong tinanggap na lang sana niya ang sinabi ni Cuevas na ibabalik niya si Corona provided the CJ was physically well? Di ba tama lang naman 'yong sinabi ni Cuevas under the circumstances?  Of course, I can understand ba nadala lang si Enrile ng kanyang emosyon, alam kong deep within him, he knows (though he will not admit it) that he had learned a lesson from what he said.

Sa kabilang dako, whether Corona's testimony is expunged or not from the court records, the senator-judges have already heard it, and it will remain in their minds and each one has every right to believe it or not.   I mean, at the end of the day, no one may ask any one of them if he considered or not Corona's testimony in his final verdict.  That is his, and totally his alone, to answer to his conscience and the people..

SANA MATAUHAN SI CJ

What happened today inside the impeachment court after the testimony of the CJ was truly unfortunate.
The CJ may have been emotional, but I think on the overall his testimony was OK and quite convincing as part as the truth behind his bank deposits and other charges were concerned.  Sa tingin ko, ni hindi niya kailangang mag-execute ng waiver, but even if he did, hindi dapat naging coniditional 'yong kanyang waiver sa pagpirma rin noong 188 congressmen  plus Sen. Drilon to themselves sign the same waiver.  I think most of the senators were convinced of the truth of what he said.  Sayang, in  requiring the prosecutors to also sign a waiver, lumabas na parang hindi siya Chief Justice.  At lalo na,  when he appeared to have walked out of the court after his testimony, na para bang he refused to be cross-examined.  With that, I have personally also lost my trust on him

I hope the CJ will realize that what he did was wrong, and if not managed well by his defense, might adversely seal his faith.  At any rate, I appreciate Enrile's liberality in agreeing to kind of  forget  what happened providing the CJ comes back tomorrow to be cross-examined.  I think the CJ has satisfactorily explained that his mere failure to fill up his SALN accurately was not really impeachable.  At the end of the day, the ultimate objective of the SALN is not as much its clerical accuracy as the fact that one has not enriched himself in public office.  I don't think, based on his testimony, that he did, and I believe he has convinced at least eight of the senators that he was not impeachable. 

But given  what he did, unless he is able to satisfactorily make amends for it and, barring truly valid health reasons,. return to the court for cross-examination, no one may already be blamed if he were adjudged guilty.  At the very least, with what he did, I wont blame people to think that he already forfeits his sheer right to remain Chief Justice. Still, I pray to God, matauhan sana si CJ.  

 

NEW TAX LAWS WILL NOT CURE OUR BUDGET DEFICITS

"BIR posts P197.8-billion budget surplus in April" -- news!  Ala eh, para sa akin, that is not news.  Hindi ba, such surpluses do happen come April every year, and for the very simple reason that we all pay our annual income taxes on April 15 each year.  This is no reason for the BIR to boast off.

As a matter of fact, even with that surplus, the government still had recorded a cumulative collection deficit of P2.9 billion for the period Jan to April.  So, that P2.9 budget will be added to the total budget for the year, and the sum will be what the government must collect for the period May to December. 

Again, sa isang bagong tax measure na naman nakatutok ang paningin ng BIR.  I mean, the new Sin Tax measure now in Congress.  But at best the proceeds from this new tax legislation will yet be collected next year, assuming it is passed this year.  Then, that Sin Tax proceeds will be added to the new tax budget na kailangang bunuin in 2013.  Aba, eh, paano na tayo makaka-ahon sa ating annual collection deficit.

Ergo, my thesis is:  New tax measures have never, and will never, retrieve us from annual budget deficit. Lagi na lang bagong buwis ang solusyon natin dito, pero taon-taon budget deficit pa rin tayo.  Ah, it's high time the gov't had learned of other cures to this problem.

LET THE TRUTH SET THE CJ FREE

Mamayang hapon, at two o'clock, the CJ will testify in his impeachment case.  Kagabi, before I slept, I prayed for him.

I know deep within me that Corona is innocent of the charges against him.  Sa tingin ko, si Corona ay parang isang tao na binato at sinabuyan ng putik ng kanyang mga kalaban, at pagkatapos ay biglang sinigawan: "Marumi ka, alis d'yan!"

Kailan nga ba nagsimula ang lahat ng ito.  Aba, eh, pag-upong-pag-upo ni :PNoy, na galit na galit at hindi naging kanya ang tsansa na mag-appoint ng bagong Chief Justice na kapalit ng nagretirong si former CJ Reynato Puno.  Midnight appointment daw.  Aba'y di nga ba napatunayan na hindi sakop ng midnight appointment ban ang Supreme Court, given the constitutional provision that the President must fill up any vacancy in the Supreme Court within 90 days after its occurence.  As a matter of fact, hindi nga ba't iniatras na ng prosecution ang kanilang charge on "midnight appointment" because they themselves realized that charge would not prosper?  At saka, D'yos ko naman, kung sakali ba'y sino ang nag-violate ng Constitution on the midnight appointment prohibition?  Di ba si Gloria, di naman si Corona.  Bakit kay Corona tayo galit?  Dahil ba hindi na natin puwedeng ipa-impeach si |Gloria?

At any rate, I believe the real truth will come out after Corona's testimony.  In the beginning, the government shouted its voices hoarse into the four winds that Corona had 45 properties not declared in his SALN.  Corona then countered he had only five.  O, di ba napatunatyan nang the prosecutions numbers were a big lie.  Now, the Ombudsman says the CJ had more than $10-million US dollars in the bank, consisting of 82 accounts.  The CJ says that's a "lantern of lies".  I am sure the CJ's testimony will once again reveal the real truth. That truth will set not only the CJ free; but also PNoy's government free from their false accusations from the very outset.

A MAGNIFICENT STRATEGY OF THE CJ'S LAWYERS

Not a few of CJ Corona's detractors are saying his defense team should have not presented the Ombudsman and Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel, et al, because, after all, the prosecutors had rested their case, and that it was incorrect strategy for the defense to have done what they did.  I disagree!  On the contrary, that was a truly spectacular game plan on the defense side.

 It's true that before the Ombudsman's testimony the prosecutors had rested their case, and indeed, at that point in time, there was reason to believe   the prosecution could have yet mustered the 16 votes required to convict Corona.  In my view, PNoy's drum beaters fully realized this grim fact, although they will never admit it.  They had therefore to devise a new way to create some doubts in the public's and the senators' minds on the CJ's guilt or innocence.  And the Ombudsman was the one chosen to do that.  I will bet my three balls -- yes, I have three -- that even the prosecutors would not want to put the Ombudsman on the witness stand, otherwise they would have not allowed the defense to out-race them in that regard. It was enough for the CJ's detractors that the Ombudsman had shouted her unverified charges to the four winds, and thus confuse the public and the judges.  Alam na naman natin ang PNoy, he tends to swallow hook, line and sinker everything that is sensational. It is a matter of plain common sense that if the Ombudsman had not been presented and was allowed to articulate his "lantern of lies" only to the public and the media, the most that Corona's camp could do was to try to refute those charges also before the public and the media.  And that would be not as convincing as to refute those charges before the senator-judges themselves.   

And so, the defense decided to put the Ombudsman under oath, and to let her enumerate her charges one by one.  Those charges, said inside a court of law and not in the arena of public opinion, would then serve the basis for the defense to prove the Ombudsman's unverified charges downright wrong, as the CJ also testifies under oath. .  Actually, the defense's real game plan was to present first Hontiveros-Baraquel et al, and make them admit that none of them had personal knowledge of the bases of their charges, when they filed their respective complaints with the Ombudsman.  With that, the Ombudsman would have been hard-pressed to explain why he outright took those charges hook line and sinker.  A bit unfortunately, however, that original game plan -- meaning Baraquel et al first, then the Ombudsman --did not exactly push  through because Enrile was "atat na atat" to hear the Ombudsman and, thus, ruled that the Ombudsman be presented first.  At any rate, I think it only took some minor adjustments on the line of questioning of the defense lawyers for them to still achieve their original objective.  As things are, the CJ would be in the best position to refute the Ombudsman's charges one by one before a court of law, not of public opinion, and never would she have any chance for a rebuttal.  Indeed, I must congratulate Corona's lawyers for such a very magnificent strategy.

Of course, only God really knows if the CJ had, enough aces under his sleeves. Given his obviously very high spirits, I believe he has,  and will be able to prove, with flying colors, that all of the Ombudsman's charges wrong.  Indeed,  my hopes run high that PNoy and his anti-Corona lapdogs is on for the biggest, and most disappointing, surprise in their lives. 

WHAT MY CRYSTAL BALL TELLS ME

There's no question the Ombudsman's testimony on CJ Corona's dollar account transactions was damning -- although,  methinks, eventually, not as much to Corona as to the integrity of the "conductor" of that well-orchestrated "symphony of lies": PNoy Aquino.  No matter how PNoy denies it, the public has not been born only yesterday not to know that it was upon the President's behest that the House had filed the impeachment case,  which from the very outset was so defective, it started with 8 complaints and ended up in only 3, of which 3, only 1, that on failure to correctly disclose his SALN, has managed to survive, yet inside the ICU at this point in time.  The public also knew from the beginning that the impeachment case was intended not really to impeach the CJ per se,  but merely to force him, by character-assassinating him in the eyes of the public, to voluntarily resign.  This impression should draw clear credence from the alleged 45 properties the prosecutors had originally kept shouting to the four winds the CJ owned but did not declare in his SALN.  What happened next were pure history: - those 45 properties did not really exist, having finally collapsed to just 5 or 6, which in turn were precisely what the CJ had kept saying from day-one as all he owned. The impeachment case, the public also knew from the start, was truly so defective, it started with 8 complaints, eventually reduced to just 3, but of which 3, only one, that on the alleged failure to correctly file his SALN, had managed to survive -- yet clearly in a moribund stage at this point in time.  Alas, if the public essentially realizes all these, the 23 senator-judges are certainly not Marines to be told otherwise about the real score behind the CJ's impeachment.  Of course there are about 3 to 5 amongst them (I need not mention their names, the readers surely know them) who -- pitpitin mo man ang bayag, ika nga -- will vote for conviction on PNoy's behest.  But even these known lapdogs of Pnoy know that their number is miles too far from the 16 votes constitutionally needed to convict the CJ.

The sudden appearance of the Ombudsman to testify on the CJ's alleged money laundering activities is to my mind  the PNoy government's desperate and last-ditch attempt to force the CJ to step down, or alternatively towards the last stretch of the trial,  to create doubts in the minds of the senator-judges regarding his innocence or guilt.  But I am sure not a few bankers had almost died laughing at the Ombudsman's power-point presentation.  It's a pity COA commissioner Heidi Mendoza allowed herself to be a party to the Ombudsman's downright incredible numbers.  It's  equally pathetic that Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, who said, "No one may intimidate me!" when he was sworn in to that office, and whom I thought to be belonging to a different breed of public officials, had now shed off her true colors.  I was wrong.  For me, Carptio-Morales is to Pinoy Aquino as Mercedita Gutierrez had been to Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.  At any rate, my hopes run high the CJ will be able to shed the true lights on this and, thus, finally eclipse the Ombudsman's "lantern of lies."

Having said the above, I suddenly recalled the P35.0 million money of the Basa-Guidote Enterprise, Inc. held in trust for a decade by the CJ's wife.  The Coronas did not own that money, of course, and hence need not declare it in  the CJ's SALN.  But if I were in the CJ's shoes, I would not allow that money to simply remain in the bank just like that, earning very minimal interests.  I would have converted those P35.0 million into dollars, open a number of dollar accounts and, through the assistance of a financial investment or banking expert, let that money earn considerably more interest incomes in dollars.  Hence, the continuous deposits and withdrawals that were highlighted by the Lady Ombudsman in her testimony.  Such banking transactions are definitely not classifiable as "money laundering".  Neither might the CJ be faulted for not including the annual balances of those dollar deposits in his SALN for the simple reason that that money did not belong to him, but was only held in trust by his wife for the account of the Basa-Guidote Enterprises.    

I am not saying this was what really happened. Whatsoever had happened, no one, not even the CJ, may ever change.  Neither, certainly, do I profess to be a "manghuhula" in this regard.  The above are simply my, let me call it, intelligent guess.  Suffice it to say that, at the end of the day, I have always believed that the Chief Justice had not been appointed such -- virtually, admit it or not, the best lawyer of the land --  if he did not know what is right or wrong, moral or immoral, before the eyes of the law and of God.   

WILL HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF?

It was, and is, clear enough that the one and only consuming mission of the prosecution and the administration has always been not as much to impeach the Chief Justice per se as to merely make him resign his post.  That's why all of the character assassinations against  Coronal were, and still are, being done not before the senate impeachment court but before the media and the public.  The thing is the CJ did  not resign, and apparently never will.

One recalls that in the beginning, the prosecutors called a press conference to announce before all and sundry that the Chief Justice had 45 properties he did not declare his SALN.  The CJ countered those were all baseless, saying he had only 6 properties, and all were recorded in his SALN.   It turned out that he had indeed only six, all the rest being more imagined than real.  Even so, the prosecutors are still questioning the one located in the Bonifacio Ridge, which the CJ had bought in 2003 but which appeared only 2010.  It turned out, as admitted by the developers themselves that the formal acceptance by the Coronas of that property did happen only in 2009, owing to several defects the Coronas found in the property which, in turn, prevented them taking formal possession thereof.

Allow me to present my personal views on this.   The prosecution, and even some senator-judges, said that the failure to declare that property in 2004 through 2009 constituted an impeachable offense.  They said that at the very least, the CJ should have reported an Accounts Receivable in his SALN, in accordance with standard accounting procedures. That maybe right, under the so-called double-entry system of accounting.  For, indeed, what the CJ did was to follow the so-called single-entry system, otherwise known as "kuwenta beho,"  most commonly seen in a sari-sari store's records.  To illustrate, when a store owner sells something on account, he only records the name of the person and the amount he owed, not as much the kind of article sold.  What only matters here is to remember the buyer's name and the amount due from him..  In the CJ's case, methinks the Deed of Sale covering the Bonifacio Ridge property was sufficient record for a single-entry transaction.  There was neither any ulterior intent on his part to conceal the property, as it did appear in his SALN, only lately, because of the property's defects which the developer was able to fix only in 2009.  It would  have been different had the impeachment trial begun without the property being yet in his SALN.  Now, we can perhaps charge the CJ, a lawyer and not an account,  for his ignorance of double entry bookeeping (even as, if we ask any CPA he will readily agree that single-entry accounting is also acceptable).  But may that ignorance be called "culpable" as to be "impeachable?"   Definitely not.  And so, what more may the prosecutors charge the CJ of with respect to property ownership?  Nothing more!

When the impeachment trial took its Holy Week break, there was every reason to believe the prosecution's case had reached the moribund stage.  With the prosecution having then rested its case, and the defense continuing to present its own witnesses and arguments, it was loud and clear that the impeachment case against Corona was gradually but surely collapsing, and that for the prosecutors to get a 16 out of 23 votes to convict Corona would certainly be an "impossible dream."

Now suddenly comes the Ombudsman testifying that according to the AMLC, Corona had millions of dollars in the bank.  It need not pass unnoticed that of the twenty three senator-judges, there were only three (Drilon, Pangilinan and Guingona, all Aquino lapdogs) who swallowed the Ombudsman's numbers hook, line and sinker.    The questions of most other senators dwelt on whether or not the Ombudsman, the AMLAC and the COA were being used by the Administration in its last-ditch effort to pin down the Chief Justice.
Likewise, whether or not the Ombudsman's testimony, which was clearly not part of the original Articles of Impeachment filed by the House could be admissible for this impeachment trial.(or  for another impeachment case one year from now) was what the senator-judges agreed to resolve in their next caucus.

To be objective, it is certainly premature now to pass judgment on the Ombudsman's testimony and its impact on the CJ's fate.  In the interim, let it suffice for me to say that the CJ has called the Ombudsman's testimony a "lantern of lies" in the same way he did call the 45 properties he allegedly owned totally baseless.  And so, at this point in time, one cannot help but ask: "Will history repeat itself or not?  Well, as comics writers tend to say in the last frame: Abangan!

AN UNCONVINCING SUPREME COURT RULING

With all due respect to the highest tribunal of the land, methinks it erred in its recent decision rejecting Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation's claim for a refund of more than P95 million in excise taxes it had paid to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (Philippine Daily Inquirer, May 12, 2012).

According to the report, the tribunal's First Division granted the petition of the BIR for the reversal of the June 24, 2009 decision of the Court of Tax Appeals en banc which ordered the government to return the excise taxes paid by Shell on petroleum products it had sold to international carriers of foreign registry for their use or consumption outside the country. Shell based its claim on Section 135(a) of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 which expressly grants excise tax exemption to international carriers for their purchases of locally manufactured petroleum products.   However, the high court sided with the BIR's stand that Section 148 of the NIRC expressly subjects such products to an excise tax before they are removed from the place of manufacture. 

The BIR had argued that the obvious intention of the tax code was to grant excise tax exemption to international carriers and exempt entities as buyers of petroleum products, and not the manufacturers or producers of said goods.  And so, considering that the excise tax attaches to petroleum products as soon as they are in existence, the high court ruled that there can be no outright exemption from the payment of excise tax on petroleum products sold to international carriers.  In the ruling penned by Associate Justice Martin Villarama, Jr., the First Division pointed out that under the law, the excise, also called specific, tax on petroleum products manufactured in the Philippines shall be paid by the producer or person having possession thereof within 15 days from the date of removal from the place of product. 

On the other hand, I submit that one need not be a lawyer -- he needs only plain common sense -- to realize that taxes paid by the manufacturer on products it offers in the market place, whether domestic or foreign, always form part of the selling price it bills to the buyer.  How then, for heaven's sake, may an international carrier avail of the tax exemption benefit provided by Section 135(a) of the tax code under a situation where the excise tax in question already forms part of the invoice value it will pay to Shell.   Or, worded slightly differently, does the court ruling mean that it should be the international carrier as buyer, not Shell as seller, that should claim for tax refund.  Assuming it does and succeeds in the process, doesn't the transaction end up like the same banana?  That is, the BIR just the same shoulders the refund.

Methinks the court should have somehow broadened its horizon in this case; rather than conveniently limited its thinking on the  "procedural" rather than on the "doctrinal" intention of the law on excise tax.  In my view, the requirement for the manufacturer of the product subject to excise tax to pay such tax within 15 days before its removal from the place of manufacture is merely procedural.  As a matter of  fact, the payment used to be required immediately before the removal, and so oil refineries were then maintaining advance deposits for specific or excise tax, otherwise removals could only be possible during normal office hours,  unlike now when such removals can be facilitated even in the wee hours of the night.  The more doctrinal provision of the law is provided under Chapter 1, Title VI of the NIRC.  It says,  "excise taxes apply to goods manufactured or produced in the Philippines for domestic sale or consumption. . ."   This is like saying it does not apply to export sales.  Sales  of petroleum products to international carriers with foreign registry are clearly neither a domestic sale transaction nor for domestic consumption, and therefore excise-tax exempt.   The law also provides that "when goods (and they include petroleum products) locally produced or manufactured are removed and actually exported without returning to the Philippines . . . . any excise tax paid thereon shall be credited or refunded upon submission of proof  of actual exportation and upon receipt of the foreign exchange payment."  Now, may I respectfully ask: Who in this case is required to submit proof of actual exportation and receipt of the corresponding foreign exchange payment, is it the buyer, or the seller-exporter or Shell?   To whom then must the refund rightly , isn't it to Shell which, in turn, for fairness sake, should eventually give it to the international carrier?

As things are, the claimed refund not being granted,  Shell in effect practically suffers nothing, since as I earlier stated, the subject excise tax had already formed part of Shell's invoice to the international carriers.  But then, it's the international carriers that ultimately suffer the brunt, in turn unduly deprived of its right to be exempted from excise tax.  Worse, the BIR has unduly collected what it is not supposed to legally collect..

At any rate, I still feel confident the Supreme Court will sooner or later reverse the recent decision of its First Division, following a relatively fairer evaluation of Shell's surely forthcoming motion for consideration.

HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY!

Please let me post, on this very special day, a poem I wrote once upon a Mother's Day.

APO, INA, LOLA: MUNTING ANEKDOTA

Sa isang tahanang malayo sa bayan,
Tatlong mag-iina ang naninirahan:
Apo, Ina, Lola -- kanilang kubabaw
Ang hirap at alwan sa mundong ibabaw.

Bagama't maagang sila'y naulila
Sa tingi't kalinga ng ama't asawa,
Ang tatlo'y may munting bukiring namana
Na napagkukunan ng sapat na kita.

Panaho'y nagdaa't ang lolang butihin,
Sa pagtanda'y naging ulyani't bugnutin;
Walang ano-ano'y magbabasag mandin
Ng mangkok o baso.  Ay naku, pasanin!

Sa gayon, ang ina'y nagsugo sa anak:
"Iha, umuwi ka't si Lola'y  ihanap
Ng pinggang di yari sa kristal o luwad,
'Yong plastik o latang hindi mababasag."

Nalungkot ang anak sa utos ng ina,
At pusang alaga'y biglang naalala.
"O, Inay, si Muning ay hindi po baga
Kung ating pakani'y sa mangkok na lata?"

Kung gayon po, Inay, bakit tila yata
Kay Lola ang turing mo na'y isang pusa?
Iilang taon na't siya'y mawawala,
Lubusin na sana ang ating kalinga!"

Subali't anuman ang gawing pamanhik
Ng anak, ang ina'y hindi rin naantig.
Lumisan ang bunso't naghanap na pilit
Ng mangkok na yari sa lata o plastik.

Nang ito'y magbalik, ang ina'y nagulat
At dalwang piraso ang uwi ng anak.
"Aba, bakit dalwa 'yang iyong akibat,
Isa lang, hindi ba, ang bilin ko't hangad?"

"Yon pong isa'y aking itatabi, Inay,
Laan ko sa iyo pagdating ng araw;
Tulad ng kay Lola'y akin ding papaltan
Ng plastik na plato ang iyong kainan..."


Happy Mother's Day to one and all!

CELEBRITIES IN THE NEWS

It is odd but amusing that several local celebrities are now in the big news, fighting not as much in "intrigue shows," like Boy Abunda's "The Buzz" (no ad or promotion intended), as inside our courts of law.  The cases between Nadia Montenegro and Annabel Rama, Amalia Fuentes and (again!) Annabel Rama, Amalia Fuentes (again!) and Ruffa Gutierrez, estranged  sweethearts Andi Eigenman and Albie Casinos and, very recently, journalist Ramon Tulfo against Claudine Barreto and Raymart Santiago -- ah, the real litany is longer -- are just examples.  It's a good thing that the public won't ever give a damn at whatever may happen at the end of these disputes, except probably to say, "ah, to hell with their lies, egos and arrogance."  But it would certainly be not necessarily so with respect to another showbiz personality, Roderick Paulate, who along with a co-councilor in Quezon City,  is now under investigation by the Ombudsman for making money out of "ghost employees" (Yahoo!News, 5/10/2012).

According to the news report, Paulate and Councilor Francisco Calalay Jr. made payments to 59 "job order personnel" from July to November 2010, with a combined total of P3.3 million in wages,  based on allegedly spurious personnel data sheets and payroll.  While it is yet too early to conclude any truth to the charges, I always believe that whenever and  wherever  there is smoke there is always fire.  To be honest, the interim findings of the Ombudsman -- to wit: the fictitious personnel do not have birth certificate records in the National Statistics Office, are not registered voters of Quezon City, have not secured clearances from the National Bureau of Investigation, are not known in the respective barangays where they allegedly reside and that the indicated addresses where they purportedly reside do not exist  (indeed, basic information accompanying all legitimate employee records) -- should be enough smoke coming from a true fire.  At any rate, I still do give Paulate the fullest benefit of the doubt, at least by virtue of the fact, incidentally, that it was from his name that I had christened my eldest son, Roderick,  many, many years ago.

As things are, I take pride in saying that, except for Fernando Poe Jr., I have never voted for any movie personality aspiring for public office.  Even as I did mourn FPJ's passing, I'm happy this personal stand of mine will never be proven wrong any more.  I have always asked myself what farther popularity a celebrity would still wish in life;  I have always believed that his gross earnings may never be matched by his legitimate compensation as a public official.   Well, that is of course barring any ulterior motive to dip his hands into government coffers.

A PATHETIC AND RIDICULOUS DECISION

Methinks the MTRCB quite seriously erred in imposing a "20-day preventive suspension" on the Tulfo brothers' T3 news program at TV Channel 5.  I strongly doubt that the MTRCB has consulted their lawyers before they arrive at that decision; or if they did, then there is reason to believe their lawyers should rather go back to law school. The MTRCB has clearly acted unconstitutionally.

True, a preventive suspension is not necessarily a punishment; it is merely imposed to prevent "something" that the person accused may do while the case is being studied and evaluated.  But what "something" is the MTRCB trying to prevent?  That the Tulfos may again repeat their threats to the Baretto-Santiago couple?  Then, why prevent them for only 20 days?  Or does the MTRCB believe that after 20 days the T3 will never repeat what they did?  I believe "preventive suspension" is out of place in this case.

That 20-day suspension may be either shortened or made permanent, depending on the MTRCB's final decision on the TR case, but subject to a very big IF.  That is, if it has the legal right or mandate to regulate news and public affairs program.  The thing is, the MTRCB has no jurisdiction to suspend a News and Public Service program, such as the T3; it does have jurisdiction only on entertainment programs. In this particular case, its was the Tulfo brothers who, urged by natural emotions -- who would not be seeing a brother being mangled by too many hands -- had erred in their personal capacities. Channel 5 had already lost no time suspending for five days the appearance of the three not only in their particular T3 program but also in all other Channel 5 programs they usually appear.  Shouldn't that be enough penalty.  The Tulfos have also already apologized to the Bareto-Santiagos in public.  What more does the MTRCB wants. 

Still, the Santiago-Bareto couple  may not be prevented to proceed with charging the Tulfo brothers in the proper courts of law, maybe for grave threats or what not.  No one may prevent them from doing so.  But as journalists, the Tulfo brothers do have the inviolable constitutional  right to continue broadcasting news especially in a public service program. 

In summing up, the MTRCB's 20-day suspension of the Tulfo brothers' TR program has no basis either in sheer logic or in the laws of the land.  That decision is not only pathetic; it is also ridiculous and laughable! I am sure a TRO is forthcoming against it.          

I WISH ERAP GOOD LUCK

The sudden decision of former President Erap to run for Mayor of Manila was indeed surprising.  Of course, such rather odd political decision is not anything new.  Former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's decision to run for her congressional district was also not anticipated.  Of course, now talking from hindsight, GMA had rightly anticipated her successor would leave no stone upturned in his one consuming obsession to put him in jail.  Kahit papaano, GMA's being still a member of the Lower House would somehow insulate or galvanize her from PNoy's personal vendetta.

On the other hand, Erap says his decision to run for Mayor of  Manila has been essentially triggered by his apparent frustration over the failure of Manila to the level of Makati City as a great city.  Very well said.  Maybe, just maybe,  Manila, as the capital city of the Philippines, should indeed be entitled to a measure of greatness that is at least at par with a comparatively smaller city as Makati.   And so, Erap said he would only want to be Mayor of Manila for one term.  In other words he commits himself to convert Manila into the greater city he wants it to be within only a span of three years.

I am not belittling Erap's capacity to do that.  But I doubt very much if he could really do that.  Kailan pa nga ba naging Mayor si Erap ng San Juan?  Aba, eh, hindi ko na nga matandaan dahil sa katagalan.  At mula noon, pinagtulung-tulungan na nilang buong mag-anak ang paghawak, at siyempre pagpapaunlad sa kanilang bayan ng San Juan.  Naging Senador, Vice Mayor at Presidente pa nga siya, at kung gayo'y nasa kanya at sa kanilang buong mag-anak ang lahat ng espesyal na kapangyarihan para mapaunlad ang San Juan.  Pero, ano ba naman ang San Juan ngayon kumpara nuong bago naging Mayor nito si Erap?  Aba'y city na nga ngayon kung sabagay.  Pero ang pagiging city ay bunga, una sa lahat, ng pagdami ng mga tao.

I wish the former President all the good luck.  

THE CJ NEED NOT TESTIFY (AT LEAST FOR NOW)

I honestly believe SC Corona's defense team, and no one else, are in the best position to say if it is good strategy for Corona to testify in his impeachment trial.  Why, for heaven's sake, would his lawyers not put him on the witness stand if that will be his life-saver, so to speak?

True, the Chief Justice has been quoted saying he will come out in the open, if he needs to, when the right and opportune moment comes.  It is obvious that the Chief Justice and his defense lawyers sincerely believe that opportune moment has not come, at least as of now.  Ergo, former Chief Justice Serafin Cuevas, the CJ's lead counsel, was right in saying the Senators need not bulldoze them into putting their client on the witness stand.  After all, the Constitution provides that no one shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.  Let's respect the CJ's right against self-incrimination.

They will never admit it, but the plain truth is unassailable that the senators, the prosecution, PNoy's allies, maybe even the public, have long been salivating to insult and further demonize the Chief Justice, to the extent that they would never believe whatever he says.  As Chief Justice, Corona has his own personal reputation to preserve, and it's just right for his defense counsel to protect his prestige.

As a matter of fact, what more do they want.  The defense has reduced to pure lies the 45 properties that the prosecution says Corona owns but did not declare in his SALN.  As far as I know, only one remains in dispute, the one the Coronas bought from the Bonifactio Ridge in 2003 which the CJ reported only in 2010 in his SALN, even if there had already been full payment thereof.  I think several witnesses had been presented by the defense to explain that the Corona's refuse to formally accept the property because of several complaints, some consisting of structural defects, that the developer was able to correct only towards 2010.  In my  view, if the CJ did not report it in his 2010, then he would be liable for concealment of a property, and that would be impeachable.  The fact that he did report that in 2010, or before he was impeached, may never be regarded as a form of dishonesty, which is the one impeachable if committed by a Chief Justice.    Senators Enrile and Osmena said that the proper thing to do is to report the amount paid for the property as Accounts Receivable in the asset side of the SALN.  That is perfectly fine under the double-entry system of Accounting, that is, a debit to Accounts Receivable and a credit to Cash, to record an "advance payment."   But there is also another system called "single-entry" accounting or "kuwenta beho" as the Chinese calls it.  Ask accountants and they will surely confirm that neither system is necessary wrong, although it is double-entry that is generally the more acceptable one in customary business practice.  So,  the CJ, a lawyer, apparently not aided by an accountant in preparing his SALN, may have been guilty of ignorance of generally accepted accounting principles.  But was that a culpable violation of the Constitution, or are impeachable offense?  Definitely not.  Isn't it that the solution is merely to correct an error, if indeed an impeachable error it is.

At  the end of the day,  the only important thing to consider is whether the charges against the CJ are impeachable or not.  Methinks his lawyers have successfully proven they are not.  Why then should there be a need for the CJ to testify?        

BETTER LUCK NEXT TIME!

The letter of Ombudsman Carpio-Morales to the CJ asking the latter to explain his alleged $10-million bank deposit has only brought to the fore two unassailable truths.  One, as of now there are as yet not enough senator-judges' votes to convict Corona; and two, Carpio-Morales is no different from her predecessor, Merceditas Gutierrez.  That is, Gutierrez is to GMA as Morales is to PNoy.  They are both rabid lapdogs, ready to bite anyone their masters would ask them to.  I though Carpio-Morales was a different breed;  she is not.

Indeed, it has been a well-known fact from the very outset that PNoy knew he could not successfully impeach Corona in the Senate.  And so, he and his allies demonized Corona with the media and before the bar of public opinion, with the one-consuming obsession to force the CJ to resign his post.  The thing is, he did not.

Now that the prosecution's case in the Senate has been fast collapsing -- it had already reached the moribund stage when the trial took its Holy Week break -- there is clear reason to believe the  Ombudsman knows she must now apply her last-ditch, desperate effort to demonize the CJ even more.  Quite unfortunately, that effort is bound to end up as a futile exercise as far as improving the prosecution's chance in the impeachment trial is concerned.  Why?  Simply because the $10-million charge is rather too late the hero,  being, firstly, not part of the original complaints, and secondly, the prosecution has now rested its case.  More importantly, even granting, yet without accepting, that the  Ombudsman has really the legal jurisdiction to investigate the CJ on allegedly anomalous money matters, Article 2.4 (which relate to unexplained wealth) has been scrapped by the impeachment court.  It is only the Senate that has the right to try an impeachment case.  At best, the Ombudsman's letter may only form some basis for a new impeachment case, but that may only happen one year from now.  Better luck next time, folks! 

Sweeping Dung Under The Rug

I am not surprised at all reading in the news that the Philippine government had built a fence with tarpaulins promoting tourism on the bridge along the highway that runs from the NAIA to the PICC where the ADB held its 45th annual meeting of board governors.  This country has always been famous, or notorious, for "sweeping ugly things under the rugs"  That's practically what PNoy's government has since been doing,  but with a slight difference: -  PNoy hides with impunity every wee bit of corruption that continues unabated under his watch, while he exposes everything that is not worthwhile under the previous administration.

It is ironic that while the ADB's principal objective is to wipe out poverty across the globe, we tend to conceal every semblance of poverty that surrounds us.  By blocking struggling families behind the fence, the government is clearly sending the message that dire poverty can be ignored.  It's then not surprising if the ADB continues to ignore us. 
\
Presidential spokesman Ricky Carandang depends his boss by saying any country will do a little fixing up before a guest arrives, while MMDA chair Tolentino says there is nothing wrong with beautifying our surroundings.  To these two lapdogs of PNoy I say:  "There is always something wrong behind a snow-fake, stupid!"

TELL IT TO THE MARINES, MR. PRESIDENT

I think the President has grossly overstated the effect of the P125/day increase in minimum wage that the labor sector is asking, when he computed it as follows: P125 x 22 days per month x 13 months per year times 40 million workers, and thus arrived at P1.4 trillion additional business cost per year.,  That computation simply defies plane logic.  The workers are asking for an increase in minimum wage.  Therefore, plain common sense suggests that that increase, if granted, applies only to workers on minimum wage, not necessarily to the total 40 million employees that we have, and most specifically to unorganized labor only, or those who have no union, and ergo, whose only chance to improve their working terms and conditions is the government.  This unorganized sector, receiving only the legal minimum wage, is undeniably only a very miniscule portion of the 40 million workers the President has used in his computation -- quite conveniently at that.

Of course, I realize the fact that in our related experiences in the past, the government had also allowed certain increases to other employees (whose prevailing daily wage is just slightly above minimum) to take care of possible pay distortions that the new minimum wage increase might entail.  But even if their said wage may in the interim suffer from some distortion, only very few, certainly not all the 40 million employees, are entitled to such pay-distortion adjustment.  At the very worst, those that have unions, could easily ask for even much higher adjustment in their next CBA.  Moreover,  the 40 million workers refer to all members of the labor force, including supervisors, professionals and perhaps even managerial staff whose salaries are way above the prevailing minimum wage and therefore need not be pay-adjusted.  At the very best, the only employees who really stand to benefit from the legislated minimum wage adjustments are those who, being unorganized, can not negotiate for higher pay and to whom, very much less, their respective employers do provide any merit rating pay adjustment system.  Government employees, also part of the 40 million workers the President was talking about, need not likewise be benefited by any legislated minimum wage adjustment because they do receive their annual pay increase under the government's Salary Standardization system.  In short, the President's computations are downright self-serving and grossly exaggerated: clearly at the expense of the poorest of the poor in our midst and times.

Chances are it was the business and industry sector of Philippine society that may have fed this pathetically wrong arithmetic to the President, who in turn had outright swallowed it hook, line and sinker. This sector has always told all past Presidents that they might be forced to lay off employees, or they would raise their commodity prices, every time the poorest workers of our society asks for a minimum wage adjustment.  The government has long been virtually held hostage by this sector in this fashion.  I thought PNoy was of a different breed when I voted for him.  I was wrong!  And so, to him I now shout all my voices horse:  Mr. President, you tell your very poor arithmetic to the Marines!