Even as the Supreme Court has finally spoken on the Hacienda Luisita case, the DAR is still certainly right in saying it would take from six months to one year for the farmers to reap up the full blessings of the Supreme Court's ruling. As a matter of fact, one year is even an understatement. To be able to identify the names of the farmers who are legitimately entitled to own lots out of more than 6,000 claimants -- no, some say there are actually close to 10,000 -- is surely bound to be a long and horrendous process. That, against the naked truth that the DAR will bow out and die a natural death by year 2014 -- that's the law, unless Congress re-extends its life.
The long process will surely exhaust many farmers of every wee patience still remaining in their lives after their long wait. It is not, then, a far-fetched speculation that the old ones, who have long ached to taste the fruits of their travail at least before they die, would sooner or later be tempted to sell their rights to the lot to many the unconscionable characters around them who, not unlike white sharks in the deep seas, are just waiting the opportune moment to seize their prey. And these characters include the owners of the Hacienda Luisita themselves, who are expected in the interim to leave no stone upturned rather that face bankruptcy in due course. It is of course illegal for any farmer to sell his right to the lot; but who can prevent one who may have been long wallowing in the quicksands of hunger, having lost his gainful source of living since their fight to own the land they till began?
Even the very noble wish of former Comelec Chair and pro bono lawyer of the farmers, Christian Monsod, for President Aquino to urge the DAR to help the farmers -- indeed, he can do that by the sheer sway of his hand as easily as Someone did at the dawn of time, saying "let there be light" and there was light -- is most likely to end up in vain. There can't be any gainsaying the fact that President Aquino has been most personally hurt by the court's final decision on the Hacianda Luisita case. Given the President's unquestionable honesty -- that's foremost among why I voted for him -- he will never contradict in words what lies deep in his heart. Let's then get real: why would he order the DAR to expedite the distribution of the titles? His honesty is absolute, he will never contract what he honestly feels. Lest he ends up, alas, a BIG HYPOCRITE! That, for me, is the supreme irony of our times.
Miyerkules, Abril 25, 2012
Martes, Abril 24, 2012
NO USE CRYING OVER SPILLED MILK
The escalating China-Philippines tension on the Scarborough Shoal is not only very unfortunate. It is also totally surprising and unprecedented. One recalls that before that much ballyhooed April 10 impasse between two Chinese vessels and the Philippine ship, BRP Gregorio del Pilar, with the latter vainly trying to accost Chinese poachers along the shoal's vicinities, China had not been known to be as hostile, bellicose or provocative as it has now suddenly become -- truth is, for many years it had been relatively cool and pragmatic in dealing with the Philippine authorities to a point even of apparent subservience -- to the Philippine claim on the disputed shoal. A rundown of old news reports lifted from the Internet archives will tend to give credence to this perception, as follows:
1) GMA-7 TV News (May 29, 1997): "Twenty-one Chinese fishermen were arrested for approaching the Scarborough Shoal. They were charged with illegal entry and poaching at the Zambales Regional Trial Court."
2) Manila Times (June 10, 1999): "The Philippine Navy arrests 27 Chinese for illegal fishing on June 7th. Perhaps mindful that even their laws were violated, Chinese authorities in Manila are seemingly taking their sweet time in acting on the Manila arrest of 27 Hongkong fishermen near the southern Philippine island of Palawan."
3) Phil Star Website (March 29, 2001): "The government will pursue plans to impose a ban on fishing in the disputed Scarborough Shoal, Vice President and foreign affairs Secretary Teofisto Guingona Jr disclosed on March 28. Meanwhile, the navy has sent a gunboat to Scarborough to ward off any attempt to erect strudtures on the shoal. According to national security adviser Roilo Golez, such gunboat's presence near the shoal would prevent the Chinese from landing to build structures."
4) Philippine |Daily Inquirer (May 24, 2001): "Philippine Navy vessels are tracking the activities of a number of foreign vessels 'encroaching' on waters claimed by Manila in the South China Sea. Philippine troops have in the past chased off or arrested Chinese fishing vessels and confiscated their catch. The Philippine Navy has boarded 14 Chinese-flagged fishing boats off the disputed shoal so far this year and confiscated their catch of giant clams and other endangered marine products. Last year, they shot dead a Chinese fisherman after he and his crew resisted arrest near the shoal situated 120 miles west of Luzon.".
5) Evening News (August 21, 2008): "Non-Filipino fishermen are tolerated in the area under the strict guidelines set and implemented by the Philippine Navy. A number of Chinese fishermen have been arrested in the area due to illegal methods of fishing, which destroy the marine habitat of the reef, and for the catching of endangered marine species."
In the interest of fairness and objectivity, I did also search for recent comparative news reports indicating that the present administration had continued to be as vigilant, strict, sustained and effective as the previous one in guarding and preserving the country's national interests and territorial claim on the Scarborough Shoal. Quite sadly, I did not find any -- well, up until that April 10 impasse. Alas, maybe -- just maybe -- the Aquino administration has kind of laid low (aka: "noynoyed" or "natulog sa pansitan") in that respect, in turn awakening China into re-asserting its claim to the shoal with relatively greater vigor and belligerent steadfastness. At any rate, there's no use crying over spilled milk!
1) GMA-7 TV News (May 29, 1997): "Twenty-one Chinese fishermen were arrested for approaching the Scarborough Shoal. They were charged with illegal entry and poaching at the Zambales Regional Trial Court."
2) Manila Times (June 10, 1999): "The Philippine Navy arrests 27 Chinese for illegal fishing on June 7th. Perhaps mindful that even their laws were violated, Chinese authorities in Manila are seemingly taking their sweet time in acting on the Manila arrest of 27 Hongkong fishermen near the southern Philippine island of Palawan."
3) Phil Star Website (March 29, 2001): "The government will pursue plans to impose a ban on fishing in the disputed Scarborough Shoal, Vice President and foreign affairs Secretary Teofisto Guingona Jr disclosed on March 28. Meanwhile, the navy has sent a gunboat to Scarborough to ward off any attempt to erect strudtures on the shoal. According to national security adviser Roilo Golez, such gunboat's presence near the shoal would prevent the Chinese from landing to build structures."
4) Philippine |Daily Inquirer (May 24, 2001): "Philippine Navy vessels are tracking the activities of a number of foreign vessels 'encroaching' on waters claimed by Manila in the South China Sea. Philippine troops have in the past chased off or arrested Chinese fishing vessels and confiscated their catch. The Philippine Navy has boarded 14 Chinese-flagged fishing boats off the disputed shoal so far this year and confiscated their catch of giant clams and other endangered marine products. Last year, they shot dead a Chinese fisherman after he and his crew resisted arrest near the shoal situated 120 miles west of Luzon.".
5) Evening News (August 21, 2008): "Non-Filipino fishermen are tolerated in the area under the strict guidelines set and implemented by the Philippine Navy. A number of Chinese fishermen have been arrested in the area due to illegal methods of fishing, which destroy the marine habitat of the reef, and for the catching of endangered marine species."
In the interest of fairness and objectivity, I did also search for recent comparative news reports indicating that the present administration had continued to be as vigilant, strict, sustained and effective as the previous one in guarding and preserving the country's national interests and territorial claim on the Scarborough Shoal. Quite sadly, I did not find any -- well, up until that April 10 impasse. Alas, maybe -- just maybe -- the Aquino administration has kind of laid low (aka: "noynoyed" or "natulog sa pansitan") in that respect, in turn awakening China into re-asserting its claim to the shoal with relatively greater vigor and belligerent steadfastness. At any rate, there's no use crying over spilled milk!
REASSESSING OUR TERRITORIAL CLAIMS
Even as the
Philippines is not to be cowed, according to the Palace, by China's
recent deployment of a large patrol ship at the Scarborough Shoal (PDI, 4/21/2012), such report cannot but also ring an alarm bell to our Department of Foreign Affairs. With
neither favoring China nor hurting my nationalistic sensibilities, allow me to discuss the basic reasons why.
Both
China and the Philippines appear to have reasonably valid historical
claims to the Shoal -- once upon a time called Huangyan Island by the
Chinese and
Bajo de Masinloc (now Panatag Shoal) by Filipinos. However, from the
standpoint of more recent documents, these disputed waters inside the
West Philippine Sea (a rather undue alteration of the "South China
Sea" that we learned from our grade school Geography) were not
included in the territorial lines defined in the Treaty of Paris (1898),
whereby Spain ceded the Philippines to the United States. Neither
were they part of our territorial boundaries as enunciated in the 1935
charter, nor in Republic Act No. 3046, passed in 1991 and otherwise
known as An Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Seas of the
Philippines. Of course, the disputed shoal is closer to the
Philippines than to China and must theoretically belong to us by virtue
of the UNCLOS (United Nations Conventions on the Laws of the Sea).
Unfortunately, since it appears that neither China nor the Philippines
was a signatory to that convention, China is not strictly bound by its
covenants.
As things are, two alternatives are open to us: to continue our bilateral negotiations with China (the DFA eagerly pursues it) -- ideally towards our two countries' joint peaceful exploration of the contested waters' marine resources (this was proposed by Sen. Ralph Recto recently) Or, that failing, to elevate the issue to the International Tribunal on the Laws of the Sea (ITLOS). Even so, no light seems to beckon to us at the end of the tunnel on either option. That is quite understandable, firstly, with China in fact now openly reinforcing its marine patrol base along the contested territories following the April 10 impasse; secondly, given that the jurisdiction of such international courts as ITLOS are essentially based on consent, meaning China must willingly go with us to the tribunal and submit to voluntary arbitration, which option China had once rejected. Methinks the latter constraint necessarily makes virtually self-deceiving a recent statement of Presidential spokesman, Ricky Carandang, that our legal team is actually already preparing to unilaterally go to the ITLOS. I likewise refuse to believe that our existing defense relationships and "balikatan" exercises with US troops could urge without ado Mother America to come to our succor based solely on our territorial dispute with China.
A curious question aches for an answer at this juncture! Is our claim to the Scarborough Shoal indeed so crucial to our national sovereignty and overall interest as to make as forget that very seldom does a David beats a Goliath? I mean, ours should be a foreign relations policy that is anchored on relative, not on absolute, terms, one amply tempered with flexibility and pragmatism and guided solely by an ultimate aspiration for our people's welfare and the lasting security of our Republic. Premised on the new realities and hostilities now clearly surrounding China's position on the Shoal, it is becoming compellingly logical that we write off our existing claim thereon, as prudent finance managers would their uncollectible accounts. Incidentally, it also behooves that we extend the same decisive thinking towards our long dormant claim to Sabah in North Borneo. while remaining relatively steadfast and vigilant in our claim to the Spratlys. The first is in sincere recognition of the fact that the Filipino-Sabahans had voted in already two referendums in the early sixties, expressing their preferred allegiance to Malaysia; the second is given the municipality of Kalayaan in our Palawan province that we have so far peacefully established there. Then, only then, may we perhaps pleasantly congratulate ourselves, saying: "what does it profit a nation to lust for extra territories if it fails to at least exercise its plain common sense?"
As things are, two alternatives are open to us: to continue our bilateral negotiations with China (the DFA eagerly pursues it) -- ideally towards our two countries' joint peaceful exploration of the contested waters' marine resources (this was proposed by Sen. Ralph Recto recently) Or, that failing, to elevate the issue to the International Tribunal on the Laws of the Sea (ITLOS). Even so, no light seems to beckon to us at the end of the tunnel on either option. That is quite understandable, firstly, with China in fact now openly reinforcing its marine patrol base along the contested territories following the April 10 impasse; secondly, given that the jurisdiction of such international courts as ITLOS are essentially based on consent, meaning China must willingly go with us to the tribunal and submit to voluntary arbitration, which option China had once rejected. Methinks the latter constraint necessarily makes virtually self-deceiving a recent statement of Presidential spokesman, Ricky Carandang, that our legal team is actually already preparing to unilaterally go to the ITLOS. I likewise refuse to believe that our existing defense relationships and "balikatan" exercises with US troops could urge without ado Mother America to come to our succor based solely on our territorial dispute with China.
A curious question aches for an answer at this juncture! Is our claim to the Scarborough Shoal indeed so crucial to our national sovereignty and overall interest as to make as forget that very seldom does a David beats a Goliath? I mean, ours should be a foreign relations policy that is anchored on relative, not on absolute, terms, one amply tempered with flexibility and pragmatism and guided solely by an ultimate aspiration for our people's welfare and the lasting security of our Republic. Premised on the new realities and hostilities now clearly surrounding China's position on the Shoal, it is becoming compellingly logical that we write off our existing claim thereon, as prudent finance managers would their uncollectible accounts. Incidentally, it also behooves that we extend the same decisive thinking towards our long dormant claim to Sabah in North Borneo. while remaining relatively steadfast and vigilant in our claim to the Spratlys. The first is in sincere recognition of the fact that the Filipino-Sabahans had voted in already two referendums in the early sixties, expressing their preferred allegiance to Malaysia; the second is given the municipality of Kalayaan in our Palawan province that we have so far peacefully established there. Then, only then, may we perhaps pleasantly congratulate ourselves, saying: "what does it profit a nation to lust for extra territories if it fails to at least exercise its plain common sense?"
HYPOCRITICAL ENVIRONMENTALISTS
The Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) issued just today, 23rd April, by the Baguio Regional Trial Court Branch No. 6 against the balling of the much ballyhooed SM trees confuses me endlessly, indeed!
True, the cutting of trees is prohibited under Republic Act No. 3571. Nevertheless, even a very cursory look into the sheer title of this law, -- to wit: "An Act to Prohibit the Cutting, Destroying or Injuring of Planted or Growing Trees, Flowering Plants and Shrubs or Plants of Scenic Values Along Public Roads, in Plazas, Parks, School Premises or in any Other Public Ground -- will immediately tell one that the SM is totally within its right because, first, the trees in question are growing inside a private property owned by SM, not in a public ground, which is that which the law precisely forbids. Second, SM is not destroying the trees at all; they are to be transferred to another property also owned by SM. Third, SM has even committed itself to plant 50 new saplings for every tree to be balled and transferred. And fourth, the balling and replanting of the trees has had the prior formal permit of the DENR. What more do these Baguio City protesters want?
Alas, I find it rather strange and pathetic that even certain otherwise well respected opinion makers -- Neal Cruz (who is not an architect), for example, in his recent column in the Inquirer -- wish to meddle with the architectural design of the new mall that SM plans to put up in Baguio by suggesting that the trees be retained in the future mall's parking lot. I just wish to tell Mr. Cruz that his "where's Baguio without pine trees," or something to that effect is mere motherhood statement. Methinks DENR Secretary Paje knew his onions relatively better, when he recently asked the government to choose between trees and progress. That's like saying "there's no free lunch."
Who does not love green surroundings? But let's do so without losing our plain common sense. it seems to me these so-called "environmentalists" in our midst and times have grown incorrigibly hypocritical in their clearly misguided concern for the environment. Worse, the oftentimes ignorant public -- unfortunately even some courts of law, for that matter -- are swallowing the say-so of these self-proclaimed "Protectors of Nature" kuno hook, line and sinker.
True, the cutting of trees is prohibited under Republic Act No. 3571. Nevertheless, even a very cursory look into the sheer title of this law, -- to wit: "An Act to Prohibit the Cutting, Destroying or Injuring of Planted or Growing Trees, Flowering Plants and Shrubs or Plants of Scenic Values Along Public Roads, in Plazas, Parks, School Premises or in any Other Public Ground -- will immediately tell one that the SM is totally within its right because, first, the trees in question are growing inside a private property owned by SM, not in a public ground, which is that which the law precisely forbids. Second, SM is not destroying the trees at all; they are to be transferred to another property also owned by SM. Third, SM has even committed itself to plant 50 new saplings for every tree to be balled and transferred. And fourth, the balling and replanting of the trees has had the prior formal permit of the DENR. What more do these Baguio City protesters want?
Alas, I find it rather strange and pathetic that even certain otherwise well respected opinion makers -- Neal Cruz (who is not an architect), for example, in his recent column in the Inquirer -- wish to meddle with the architectural design of the new mall that SM plans to put up in Baguio by suggesting that the trees be retained in the future mall's parking lot. I just wish to tell Mr. Cruz that his "where's Baguio without pine trees," or something to that effect is mere motherhood statement. Methinks DENR Secretary Paje knew his onions relatively better, when he recently asked the government to choose between trees and progress. That's like saying "there's no free lunch."
Who does not love green surroundings? But let's do so without losing our plain common sense. it seems to me these so-called "environmentalists" in our midst and times have grown incorrigibly hypocritical in their clearly misguided concern for the environment. Worse, the oftentimes ignorant public -- unfortunately even some courts of law, for that matter -- are swallowing the say-so of these self-proclaimed "Protectors of Nature" kuno hook, line and sinker.
Lunes, Abril 23, 2012
THE LAUGHABLY INEPT DOTC
The government's plan to reinvent the passenger jeeps as well as to consider the lowering of the age limits of passenger vehicles from what appears to be 15 years for buses, 13 years for taxis and 10 years AUVs, multicabs and vans must have been the direct result of the P1.0B class suit that the Philippine Medical Association is poised to file against the DOTC for its continuing failure to clean the air in Metro Manila thoroughfares. I doubt very much if this plan will really materialize as envisioned.
In the first place, one recalls that it was several years ago when a few passenger jeepneys run by either electricity or LPG were first seen in Makati. We all know that up to now those few remains as few. I also refuse to believe that the above cited age limits for passenger vehicles are being followed. In the same token, it is odd that no age limit has been set for jeepneys to continue plying in our streets, even as, let's get real, they are the single highest source of pollution in our midst and times. As a matter of fact, it is not far-fetched to speculate that there are still jeepneys that have been over 20 years on the run, and none of them is ever known to fail the ignition emission tests required by LTO prior to renewal of their registration. Proof is, look at the information required by the LTFRB to be posed on all passenger vehicles, such as for example: LTFRB Case No. 90-0123. That simply means that the jeep's franchise dates as far back as 1990 -- meaning 22 years ago as of 2012. Worse, there are still not a few whose original registration appears to be before 1990. Baka nga meron pang vintage World War II. Is this the reason why there seems to be no age limit set for jeepneys?
Given these circumstances, methinks the DOTC's plan "to reinvent the jeepneys" are only better said than done. And so, I regret to say to Atty Nic Conti, DOTC spokesperson: HUAG NA TAYONG MAGBULAHAN, KABAYAN!
And by the way, the DOTC is not only inept in its obligation to clear the air we breathe in our thoroughfares. It also miserably fails to ensure full implementation of the Seat Belt Law. Consider this: Nowadays, most passenger jeepneys sport bucket-type front seats, cannibalized from old cars, which should now normally accommodate only one instead of two passengers. Even then, no passenger jeep leaves the terminal unless two people, excluding the driver, are in the front seat. Worse, only the driver wears a seat belt. And even worst, jeeps using the expressway, such as those plying the Manila-Alabang route are allowed inside the expressway notwithstanding the expressway's warning sign at the entry point saying: WE IMPLEMENT THE SEAT BELT LAW HERE. If this is not disgustingly laughable, I do not know what is.
Ala eh, mukhang minamalas si Mar Roxas in being assigned to the DOTC at a time when he is beginning to build blocks for his presidential ambition. I know he is a good man, pero siya ang pinag-abutan!
In the first place, one recalls that it was several years ago when a few passenger jeepneys run by either electricity or LPG were first seen in Makati. We all know that up to now those few remains as few. I also refuse to believe that the above cited age limits for passenger vehicles are being followed. In the same token, it is odd that no age limit has been set for jeepneys to continue plying in our streets, even as, let's get real, they are the single highest source of pollution in our midst and times. As a matter of fact, it is not far-fetched to speculate that there are still jeepneys that have been over 20 years on the run, and none of them is ever known to fail the ignition emission tests required by LTO prior to renewal of their registration. Proof is, look at the information required by the LTFRB to be posed on all passenger vehicles, such as for example: LTFRB Case No. 90-0123. That simply means that the jeep's franchise dates as far back as 1990 -- meaning 22 years ago as of 2012. Worse, there are still not a few whose original registration appears to be before 1990. Baka nga meron pang vintage World War II. Is this the reason why there seems to be no age limit set for jeepneys?
Given these circumstances, methinks the DOTC's plan "to reinvent the jeepneys" are only better said than done. And so, I regret to say to Atty Nic Conti, DOTC spokesperson: HUAG NA TAYONG MAGBULAHAN, KABAYAN!
And by the way, the DOTC is not only inept in its obligation to clear the air we breathe in our thoroughfares. It also miserably fails to ensure full implementation of the Seat Belt Law. Consider this: Nowadays, most passenger jeepneys sport bucket-type front seats, cannibalized from old cars, which should now normally accommodate only one instead of two passengers. Even then, no passenger jeep leaves the terminal unless two people, excluding the driver, are in the front seat. Worse, only the driver wears a seat belt. And even worst, jeeps using the expressway, such as those plying the Manila-Alabang route are allowed inside the expressway notwithstanding the expressway's warning sign at the entry point saying: WE IMPLEMENT THE SEAT BELT LAW HERE. If this is not disgustingly laughable, I do not know what is.
Ala eh, mukhang minamalas si Mar Roxas in being assigned to the DOTC at a time when he is beginning to build blocks for his presidential ambition. I know he is a good man, pero siya ang pinag-abutan!
Miyerkules, Abril 18, 2012
SOME RATHER "STUPID" IDEAS
I regret I had been unable to activate my blog for more than a week.
Anyway, there were a couple of political developments in the news that intrigued keeps intriguing me endlessly.
Firstly, I consider it rather odd that P-Noy's lawmaker-allies are racing to give the President emergency powers to deal with the Mindanao power crisis even if he has practically admitted not knowing what to do to successfully address it. As far as I know, any "emergency" power of the president must, nearly always, suspend the implementation of certain laws or regulations, such as prior public bidding in the purchase of materials and/or awarding of contracts for services or projects. After coming out of the Energy Summit conference in Mindanao -- Armando Doronila calls it a monologue because it was P-Noy's thoughts that overwhelmed the meeting, more than those of the stakeholders -- the President said the Mindanaons must learn to bite the bullet by paying exceptionally high bills for their electricity consumption. That was of course too elementary a solution that any child in the street knows any way. Of course the President assures the nation that his successor would inherit from him a stable power supply in Mindanao after all of the long-term solutions the administration has lined up shall have been implemented. Why then is Sen. Trillanes still filing a bill to give the President "emergency" power in that regard? And worse, why must Sen. Chiz Escudero still insist on granting the President "stand-by emergency powers" to do something that the President does not really know what, in the first place. Methinks, both senators should have applied plain common sense in this respect.
On the other hand, that the Philippine Medical Association is poised to file a P1-billion class suit against Mar Roxas and the DOTC for the latter's failure to implement the Clean Air Act with respect to motor vehicles may be good news. As a matter of fact, such class suit is specifically authorized under Rule 52 of this law. But only on the surface. The problem is, will the sheer filing of the class suit really improve the kind of air we breath in our thoroughfares. I mean, I seriously doubt that the court could immediately order the closure of the inept ignition emission testing centers scattered over the archipelago -- such, I think, is what the class suit asks -- without due process. At any rate, let the public wait and see.
Anyway, there were a couple of political developments in the news that intrigued keeps intriguing me endlessly.
Firstly, I consider it rather odd that P-Noy's lawmaker-allies are racing to give the President emergency powers to deal with the Mindanao power crisis even if he has practically admitted not knowing what to do to successfully address it. As far as I know, any "emergency" power of the president must, nearly always, suspend the implementation of certain laws or regulations, such as prior public bidding in the purchase of materials and/or awarding of contracts for services or projects. After coming out of the Energy Summit conference in Mindanao -- Armando Doronila calls it a monologue because it was P-Noy's thoughts that overwhelmed the meeting, more than those of the stakeholders -- the President said the Mindanaons must learn to bite the bullet by paying exceptionally high bills for their electricity consumption. That was of course too elementary a solution that any child in the street knows any way. Of course the President assures the nation that his successor would inherit from him a stable power supply in Mindanao after all of the long-term solutions the administration has lined up shall have been implemented. Why then is Sen. Trillanes still filing a bill to give the President "emergency" power in that regard? And worse, why must Sen. Chiz Escudero still insist on granting the President "stand-by emergency powers" to do something that the President does not really know what, in the first place. Methinks, both senators should have applied plain common sense in this respect.
On the other hand, that the Philippine Medical Association is poised to file a P1-billion class suit against Mar Roxas and the DOTC for the latter's failure to implement the Clean Air Act with respect to motor vehicles may be good news. As a matter of fact, such class suit is specifically authorized under Rule 52 of this law. But only on the surface. The problem is, will the sheer filing of the class suit really improve the kind of air we breath in our thoroughfares. I mean, I seriously doubt that the court could immediately order the closure of the inept ignition emission testing centers scattered over the archipelago -- such, I think, is what the class suit asks -- without due process. At any rate, let the public wait and see.
Martes, Abril 10, 2012
MANNY'S ILL-ADVISED ARROGANCE
The Bureau of Internal Revenue may have good reason to believe that Manny Pacquiao had paid considerably less income tax than that which he should for taxable year 2010. BIR records lifted from the Internet show that Pacquiao was the number one individual taxpayer in 2008. The following year, he was not even included in the top ten posts. Then, in 2010, he was 135th.
The 2010 records show he paid just slightly over P8.0 million in income tax, against a total or gross taxable income of more that half a billion pesos, or a measly 1.7% ratio of income tax to gross taxable income. Comparatively, the number one income tax payer for the same year paid P67.7 million in income tax against a gross taxable income of only P295.5 million, or a tax-to-income ratio of nearly 23%.
Given the foregoing comparative figures, any BIR examiner -- or an accountant, for that matter -- couldn't help but suspect, at least preliminarily, that something was irregular in Manny's 2010 income tax return. At any rate, in fairness to the tax bureau, he was not being assessed of any tax liability yet; he was just being asked to submit certain relevant documents. That is normal in all tax investigation.
Manny Pacquiiao is known to be a very humble person, so one wonders that he suddenly became arrogant in responding to the BIR;s letter, calling it a form of assessment. I may be wrong, but based on available media releases, it was Manny, or maybe his allies, who first brought this otherwise strictly confidential matter to the public. Chances are, Manny had been erroneously advised by his lawyer and accountant. There is reason to believe it was these latter two staff who should be blamed for the worsening of this otherwise very simple case. Now Manny has been reported in the media as asking President Aquino to sanction the BIR official who, he believes, has been harassing him. That is, once again, another serious blunder of Pacquiao. He should have realized, assuming he really wanted P-Noy to help him, that in this life there that are better left unsaid. Telling the public about it will not definitely do him any good.
It is unfortunate that this happens at a time when he is training for his next scheduled fight. He will be a hypocrite if he says he is unfazed by this problem.. No matter what he says, it will surely be a mental concern, if not necessary torture, for him. Under these trying circumstances, I am sure everybody is praying to God that Manny will be able to survive this predicament and emerge triumphant in his forthcoming bout with Bradley.
The 2010 records show he paid just slightly over P8.0 million in income tax, against a total or gross taxable income of more that half a billion pesos, or a measly 1.7% ratio of income tax to gross taxable income. Comparatively, the number one income tax payer for the same year paid P67.7 million in income tax against a gross taxable income of only P295.5 million, or a tax-to-income ratio of nearly 23%.
Given the foregoing comparative figures, any BIR examiner -- or an accountant, for that matter -- couldn't help but suspect, at least preliminarily, that something was irregular in Manny's 2010 income tax return. At any rate, in fairness to the tax bureau, he was not being assessed of any tax liability yet; he was just being asked to submit certain relevant documents. That is normal in all tax investigation.
Manny Pacquiiao is known to be a very humble person, so one wonders that he suddenly became arrogant in responding to the BIR;s letter, calling it a form of assessment. I may be wrong, but based on available media releases, it was Manny, or maybe his allies, who first brought this otherwise strictly confidential matter to the public. Chances are, Manny had been erroneously advised by his lawyer and accountant. There is reason to believe it was these latter two staff who should be blamed for the worsening of this otherwise very simple case. Now Manny has been reported in the media as asking President Aquino to sanction the BIR official who, he believes, has been harassing him. That is, once again, another serious blunder of Pacquiao. He should have realized, assuming he really wanted P-Noy to help him, that in this life there that are better left unsaid. Telling the public about it will not definitely do him any good.
It is unfortunate that this happens at a time when he is training for his next scheduled fight. He will be a hypocrite if he says he is unfazed by this problem.. No matter what he says, it will surely be a mental concern, if not necessary torture, for him. Under these trying circumstances, I am sure everybody is praying to God that Manny will be able to survive this predicament and emerge triumphant in his forthcoming bout with Bradley.
Mag-subscribe sa:
Mga Post (Atom)