The past couple of days have been the best! Not because I was able to clear my schedule with the Holy Week as an excuse. Ever since I became a public official, I was that--- the public's official. For the past seven years, I have shared my life with the people I have sworn to serve. And for the past seven years, my family has shared me with the rest of my constituents.
The past couple of days have been great because I was able to spend my free time with my sons, the best things that have ever happened to me aside from having Trina as my lifetime partner.
Since last weekend, I've been hugging and smothering my sons (each of the four of them) and just enjoying them. Ranging from one and half years old to seventeen, each one has his own peculiarity and the different stages they are in make each unique from the other. It is difficult to have a favorite when each one has his qualities which endear him to me. My wife would contradict that, saying that she observes that one of my sons is the apple of my eye. Well, one is an apple, one is a mango, the other is an orange and another is a banana. It doesn't matter what fruit they are..I love them all!
The other day I spent time with the kids just hanging out at home, doing various things from goofing around to playing network games in our home LAN. One thing with having boys is that it is not difficult for me to get into activities that they like. After all, I'm still a boy deep inside.
The youngest, Enzo, has been melting my heart by pointing to me and saying, "Papa". Then he would wave and say "bye bye"! Sooo cute!
The second and the third, Anton and Ino, are the dynamic duo among our boys. They're the ones who often play together, and have a cycle of love-hate relationship. But no matter how many times they get into a fight, they more often show how brothers ought to love one another.
OF course, there's Carlo the eldest. he's growing up into an independent-minded and interesting young man. Reminds me of me when I was his age....then again, I hope he's not like me! He he! Anyway, he makes me proud, and I'm sure he has his own identity that he would like to carve out from his young life.
As I said, fatherhood is the best job in the world. What inspired me to write about this? Well, yesterday, I had a day out with Carlo. We went to Mall of Asia, went around a bit, bought some stuff and had lunch. It was time well spent and we had a very intimate time together. It is quite rare for teenagers to feel comfortable with their parents, and they would rather be with their friends. But yesterday was the best, and I had my first-born all to myself. Maybe to him, it was just a few hours to endure just so he could buy the shirt he wanted, but to me, it was heaven!
Today, it was the dynamic duo's turn. We went out on a threesome, to have their bicycle repaired. Then we passed by the bargain center to buy videos. After that, off to S&R to buy some groceries and a snack.
What really made my day was what we did when we got home. They were excited with their bicycles and wanted to ride them outside. I had a choice between lying down in bed and popping in a video and joining them outside while they played.
Thankfully, I decided on the latter. I went outside with the three boys--Enzo, Ino and Anton---and spent the late afternoon until early evening with them playing in the street. I placed Enzo on the red Radio FLyer wagon and pulled him on a joy ride around the cul de sac where our house is located. Anton and Enzo darted around like flies on their bikes.
After a while, Anton was asking how he could learn to ride a bike without training wheels.I said I could teach him if he wanted to. He said yes, most likely challenged upon seeing another kid biking on two wheels.
So just as I had done with Carlo, I took time patiently teaching and guiding Anton how to balance and ride his bike on two wheels. At first, we adjusted the training wheels little by little until he could do it without the training wheels touching the ground. Eventually, he decided to have it removed.
Within less than an hour, he was able to learn how to ride a bike without training wheels. I was so elated and proud of my son! I would never have traded this moment even for an opportunity to deliver an earth-shaking privilege speech in Congress!
The sense of accomplishment that a father has when he is able to teach his child something is one that can never be replaced by any material success in any career. Fatherhood is THE career that all men should excel in.
As I watched my son neervously but successfully balance his bike, I looked back to the day when I taught my eldest son how to ride a bike. At that moment, I made a silent commitment to myself and to my other two sons that I will do the same for them when the time comes. No matter what, I will make sure to set aside time for them to teach them. That's a legacy that a father can leave for his sons.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
The House of Representatives Must Make a Stand
Privilege Speech I Delivered during the Plenary Session of February 12, 2008
Mr. Speaker,
When a person seeks protection, human nature dictates that he will seek protection and refuge from those whom he trusts with his life, those who can guarantee him that he doesn’t have to keep looking behind him, fearful of an attack from behind, or he can go wherever he wants without anyone blocking his path and stopping him in his tracks. He seeks to distance himself from those who may have the desire to inflict bodily harm or, as somebody said, prematurely cause his respiratory system to cease functioning.
When in the company of strangers especially during a time when you feel you are under threat, fear is understandably your overwhelming emotion, to the point where you will do anything just to escape that dreaded feeling and physical condition.
This is what Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada experienced last week.
As he was coming home from a trip abroad, he felt there was a need to seek sanctuary and therefore arranged that he be met at the airport by the people he trusted most in his life---his family. It is but natural for people to put their family on the top of their most trusted list. After all, his siblings and his wife will undoubtedly be the people least likely to harm him. After a sudden, unplanned trip abroad, it would have been a welcome relief for him to be back home in the safe and loving arms of his family.
It is no wonder then that when he was met by unidentified men he initially refused to go with them and instead insisted that he first meet with his family who were waiting just beyond the immigration counters, along with a team of the Senate Sergeant at Arms. But in spite of his protestations, he was herded away from his family, even taking an evasive maneuver by going to the Departure Area then taking an elevator down to the tarmac.
The way Lozada was intercepted and picked up at the airport goes against regular procedures in the airport. It is a circumvention of security and administrative procedures, procedures that even members of the House of Representatives are not immune from. The breach of airport protocols and procedures that transpired was brazen enough to come after the
Mr. Lozada has already testified under oath that he did not arrange to be fetched from the airport in the said manner. He said he was surprised at the appearance of men meeting him just outside the door of the aircraft, since he was expecting that it will be his family who will pick him up.
Mr. Lozada said that he did not know the persons who fetched him. He further said that he did not know where he was being taken and thoughts of the Bubby Dacer abduction and killing entered his mind when, after going around parts of Metro Manila, they reached Cavite.
Although his cell phone was not taken away from him, he was instructed not to use it, along with a warning that his phone conversations were being intercepted.
To simplify it, Mr. Lozada did not feel comfortable in the company of the men who picked him up from the airport. First, his arrangement was for his family to pick him up. Second, unidentified men picked him up and brought him to places that he did not intend to go. Third,
his private communications was being monitored. He was forced into a situation which he did not desire to be in.
Those involved in this caper to take him out of the radar screen tried to explain the whole incident as simply a mission to place Mr. Lozada in their protection. But the testimony of the person who is supposed to be protected, Mr. Lozada, reveals that it was more than just a mission to protect. It was a mission to isolate Mr. Lozada even from members of his own family, which was contrary to his desire.
The circumstances makes it a forced disappearance, although temporary.
In a democracy the we love so much, there is no room for such practice, especially if perpetrated by agents of government. And this is not just limited to the act of physically isolating a person by means of force or aggressive persuasion, but tolerance of the practice makes one equally guilty as the one who forces another person to disappear.
It is in this light that I stand today to bring this matter to the attention of this House. We cannot simply stand in silence and be an observer as agents of government trample on another Filipino’s rights, violate established rules and procedures of government and try to get away with it with a conspiracy of stories riddled with inconsistencies.
As an institution that is supposed to be the People’s bastion of representation, it is incumbent upon this House to act on such incursions into the people’s rights, and the disregard for government’s own rules and procedures.
Do not get me wrong. I am not asking this House to conduct its own investigation into the revelations of Mr. Lozada about the ZTE Broadband Deal. The Senate’s investigation is already colorful and animated as it is, so I think there is no need for us to put up our own show.
But I do think that we cannot sit idly and be silent spectators to what is already obvious as blunders by government agencies. To do so would be a contradiction to the spoken desire of this House for change and reform. A new leadership was overwhelmingly put into place by the members of this House and the mandate given was for the reform of the House and the rehabilitation of its image.
The sagging image of the House was repeatedly cited as one of the reasons for change. Before us now is the golden opportunity for us to show the people that indeed, we have changed. It is the opportunity for us to show the people that we will not tolerate wrongdoing and that we stand for their interests, not ours.
The least we can do is to have a position on the matter as an institution, not as individuals. We must express outrage, at the most, or concern, at the least, about the way that Mr. Lozada was spirited away against his wishes and kept incommunicado from the world and his family.
If the people will see that their House of Representatives will stand up for the rights of Mr. Lozada, it will surely give them hope that if ever the strong arm of government comes crashing down on them, they have an institution that they can rely on. An institution that upholds the people’s interests far above its own, an institution that has a will, conviction and principles of its own, an institution that will not hesitate to defend what is right and condemn what is wrong.
The plight of the Filipino people is summed up in one of the exchanges between a senator and the Chief of the Philippine National Police during the hearing in the Senate. The senator asked, “Kanino ba magsusumbong ang isang tao na natatakot sa pulis?”. The Chief of the PNP said, “Sa pulis din.”
One could actually taste the sense of futility and desperation of the people who heard that.
Many times we have heard horror stories of agents of government abusing the rights of the people. Where will the people turn to? Is it any comfort for us to hear that the people might not even think of the House of Representatives as an institution that they can turn to? We all know and acknowledge that the House has a not so ideal image as far as the public is concerned.
But as I said, this is a golden opportunity for us to redeem our image. Let us stand and be heard by those concerned. Let it be known that the House of Representatives represents the interest of the people. Let it be known that we can cross the lines of partisan politics and stand together for what is right and stand against what is wrong.
Mr. Lozada and his family has emphatically said that what transpired was against their desire and will. Of course, the PNP Chief and some other government officials deny it. They have given many explanations although the doubt still lingers. But who is the best person to say whether an abduction was committed than the person who was abducted? Of course the PNP will say otherwise, because to agree to it would be to admit a wrong doing on their part. What it boils down to is that their explanations are but a defense to the accusations against them.
Again, I reiterate that I am not calling for an investigation by the House of Representatives. There is already an ongoing investigation in the Senate and we do not need to confuse the people with our own inquiry into the matter.
What this representation is seeking is a statement by the House as an institution expressing its concern over the matter of government agents going against established procedures and taking into their custody a person against his will.
I shall file a resolution expressing that sense of the House of Representatives and enjoin the members of this House to support the same. Let this not be a matter of administration or opposition, majority or minority, or first term, second term or third term. Let this be a matter that will unite us on what is for the people and what is against the people.
Thank you very much.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
The Vote for the Speaker of the House
Last night (up to the early hours of the following day), the House of Representatives voted to remove Speaker Jose De Venecia from the post he has held an unprecedented five times. His removal was a whirlwind affair, happening just four session days after the resumption of session following the Christmas break of Congress.
After De Venecia's son, Joey, exposed the alleged bribery in the ZTE Broadband Project, which, Joey alleged, involved the President's husband, there was talk about his removal late last year, although it did not happen. Rumors had it that the ouster would be effected upon the resumption after Christmas. Indeed, it was fueled when Presidential son Cong. Mikey Arroyo filed a leave of absence from the Lakas Party this January.
A few days before the session resumed, both sides, the pro- and anti-JDV camps, conducted meetings one after the other. Some congressmen gave commitments early while some attended meetings on both sides. Signatures on manifestos were gathered, and there are even reports of congressmen signing on manifestos from both sides.
Both sides claimed they had the numbers and for a time, it was seen as a bluffing game. But it became clearer after the majority caucus held in Malacanang. It was a make or break caucus for JDV, where he was expecting (probably more accurately, hoping) that the President would step in and advise everyone to uphold the status quo.
According to information I gathered, the President instead tried to craft a set of procedures on how the showdown would happen, which was seen by others as the final nail on the coffin of JDV's Speakership. On its face, it is a neutral act, but Congressmen saw it as a withdrawal of support from JDV and a blessing to the initiative of her sons to oust the Speaker.
After the adjournment of that caucus, word already spread out among congressmen about the position of the president and as expected, tides began to turn in favor of Cong. Prospero Nograles. The two camps held meetings after the caucus, the JDV camp in Rembrandt Hotel and the Nograles camp in Luk Foo, a Chinese restaturant near Congress.
There, the numbers and warm bodies were finally seen. At around 3:30 PM, thirty minutes before session was to begin, there were 47 congressmen in Rembrandt and 123 in Luk Foo. 121 votes were needed to oust De Venecia.
Jose De Venecia's fate was sealed.
Where did I stand in all this?
When the initiative to oust JDV and the counter-moves against it began to heat up, I began to carefully and thorughly review the position I would have to take. I would have to consider my personal conviction and conscience, the position of my party, the effect of all this on the House of Representatives as an institution, the views of my constituents and the impact on my district.
But instead of attending the meetings that were called by both sides, I decided to isolate myself from those meetings. There were talks of financial consideration being offered to congressmen to take sides. I didn't want my decision to be tainted by that, whether it was true or not. The fact is, talk was going around, and it is enough to stain the integrity of one's decision if one is linked to it.
I consulted with my partymates as to what position the party will take. I believe that political parties should be strenghthened and one way to do that is to uphold party principles and discipline.
But in the end, I did not follow the party stand. My party decided to support the ouster of Speaker De Venecia.
President Manuel L. Quezon in the past said, "my loyalty to my party ends where my loyalty to my country begins". It is an admired often-quoted statement, seen as the height of patriotism and idealism. But with all due respect to the late President and his admirers, I have a contrary view. The statement connotes that the political party comes first, before the country. It is my firm belief that the country should come first before the political party. That the first consideration is the interest of the country before the interest of the party.
So for me, my loyalty to the country goes above my loyalty to the party. That before considering the interests of the party, it take full consideration of the interests of the country.
It is my belief that the stand my party took was against what my convictions told me was for the good of the country.
I believed that the ouster move was not motivated by a desire for change and reform in the House. It was never a secret that the primary movers of this move were the two sons of the President, who were hurt by the testimony of JDV's son Joey against their father regarding the ZTE scandal.
In the House, congressmen complain about JDV's tendency to make promises and not make good on them, but there wasn't any drive to remove him from office because of this. Issues about transparency in the House expenses were raised, but nobody ever really made a move to scrutinize them. During the budget deliberations, where the golden opportunity to ask questions about the House budget is there for everyone to take, no one grabbed it. The Commission on Audit annual report on House expenses is always ready for anyone interested to go over and review.
Some have said that the Speaker was responsible for the plummeting ratings and deplorable image of the House. But the House of Representatives is a collective body. The Speaker is said to be only the First Among Equals. The image of the House is the responsibility not only of the SPeaker but by all congressmen as individuals and the entire House as an institution. Even if we have a Speaker with impeccable character, if a majority of congressmen still abuse their power, act arrogantly in their distrcits, involve themselves in questionable deals and transactions and perform their duties poorly, the House will remain a house of ill repute. It can be redeemed through extra spending in publicity and public relations, but those will never reform the House.
I have due respect and admiration for him as a colleague, but Cong. Nograles couldn't have made it on his own. As the current head of the House contingent on the Commission on Appointments during this Congress, he is often not in the House, understandably because of his duties as head of the contingent. For the past months of the 14th Congress, he was concentrated on his duty instead of campaigning for change and reform in the House. Besides, going for the Speakership involves the mobilizing resources which I don't think he has on his own. It had to take someone else with more clout and resources to organize and convince the congressmen to support him.
For me to be inspired to follow a particular leader, I must first see what prospects he has to offer in terms of service, advocacy, and in this case, the program for reform and change. As I said, there was never a campaign for reform and change. When I say campaign, it is not enough to say "I want reform" or "I want change". To advocate for reform and change, one must specify what specifically you want to reform and change, how you are going to go about that change, the exact change you are going to do and the expected results of that change. In that way, your progress or success is measurable and quantifiable. That is accountability.
But there was no such presentation. While meetings were held with the different parties and groups, for me, it is not transparent and accountable. For example, they may have met with the Liberal Party and presented their plans, but who knows what commitments were made? Who knows if what was committed to the Liberal Party was different from what was committed to the Nacionalista Party? Or the NPC?
Most of all, how will the Filipino people know what commitments were made? The Speakership is not just about who will preside over the sessions of the House or who adminsters the affairs of the House. It is about the fourth highest leader of the land, the person who will steer the policy-making body of this country and ensure that the right and necessasry laws are passed. The Filipino people have the right to know how that person intends to perform his duty as Speaker fo the House. Ask yourself--have you heard what Congressman Nograles plans to do to reform the House?
In my explanation of vote I said I wished there was more time for the contenders to present their platforms. Not just to us congressmen but also to the people. After all, after I vote, I would have to let my constituents understand why i voted that way. It would have been better if they heard directly from those vying for the position to make their commitments public so that if a time comes that we have to remove him, people will understand why.
This is one reason why people think that this leadership issue in the house is all about a power grab, political vendetta or maneuvering. Because when Speaker De Venecia was elected, the people did not know what commitments he made in order to win the seat. So when congressmen claim that they want change and reform, the people do not know what they mean. To make the same mistake with a new Speaker is not change and reform. It is more of the same.
It turns out that the primary motivation is for JDV to be "punished" for the "sins" of his son. But the Bible says "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin." (Deuteronomy 24:16). It is true in the matters of faith. It is also applicable in the world of politics. In the case of JDV, he had been a faithful and loyal ally of the President, rushing to her rescue during her most troubled times. He was instrumental in her rise to power and crucial in retaining it. When his son started to speak against his ally, JDV tried to control the situation.
But Joey is a man of his own and appears to be a man of conviction. Just as I would stand up for my convictions even against the advice of my father. That's how convictions are supposed to be---solid as a rock (just make sure that your convictions are in the right place). Even the Arroyo brothers exhibited that. They claim that their actions are their own not affected by their mother's position on the matter.
I don't think the Speakership is the appropriate arena for the meting out of this "punishment" of Cong. De Venecia. The House should be an independent institution, whose affairs are determined by the members themselves, in the interest of the performance of their duties. Joey De Venecia's behavior has nothing to do with the House so the House members should not be dragged into the fray.
Some congressmen say that their decision is their own and not on the influence or say-so of anyone else. But the explanations of their votes reveal the what's behind the decision. Several times explanations tell of their decisions being "to protect the interests of my district" or "to ensure the continuance of projects in my district". Why the seeming fear of projects in their district being affected? The Speaker has nothing to do with projects in their district. The Speaker's role is to be the administrator of the House of Representatives and not the implementation or release of funds in the congressional districts. That's the role of the Executive Department headed by the President. Why do they fear? Is there a threat to their projects?
Some congressmen voted to remove JDV "with a heavy heart". That means that their decision does not conform to their desires and conscience. Becuase if a decision you make is in accordance to your convictions and conscience, you would be at peace. That's the effect of making the right decision...it will not bother you. So if it's not their own decision, whose is it?
I voted against the motion to remove JDV because I felt that the one contending his post did not have enough time to present his program of reform and change. He was not able to present make a commitment to the public, something that is essential to accountability. The House was rushed into a vote.
In addition to that, I believed that we were doing it for the wrong motivation. It wasn't a compelling drive for reform in the House of Representatives (although I must admit we need to reform the House). It so happened that this particular initiative was driven by a desire to get back at JDV for his son's decisions.
I went against my party stand because I felt that it's decision to support the move was against the convictions I had. There are other reasons which are best reserved for meetings within the Liberal Party.
In this realm of politics, it is sometimes difficult to say who is right or who is wrong. Everyone can come up with their own justifications for their actions. All it takes is a creative mind and skillful writing. But in the end, the benchmark for a right or wrong decision is a clear conscience. If you can live with your decision without feeling a "heavy heart" or fear of reprisal or contrary comment, then you must have made the right decision. Your next accountability will be to God, if your decision conforms to His Will. After all, "everyone shall be put to death for their own sin".
After De Venecia's son, Joey, exposed the alleged bribery in the ZTE Broadband Project, which, Joey alleged, involved the President's husband, there was talk about his removal late last year, although it did not happen. Rumors had it that the ouster would be effected upon the resumption after Christmas. Indeed, it was fueled when Presidential son Cong. Mikey Arroyo filed a leave of absence from the Lakas Party this January.
A few days before the session resumed, both sides, the pro- and anti-JDV camps, conducted meetings one after the other. Some congressmen gave commitments early while some attended meetings on both sides. Signatures on manifestos were gathered, and there are even reports of congressmen signing on manifestos from both sides.
Both sides claimed they had the numbers and for a time, it was seen as a bluffing game. But it became clearer after the majority caucus held in Malacanang. It was a make or break caucus for JDV, where he was expecting (probably more accurately, hoping) that the President would step in and advise everyone to uphold the status quo.
According to information I gathered, the President instead tried to craft a set of procedures on how the showdown would happen, which was seen by others as the final nail on the coffin of JDV's Speakership. On its face, it is a neutral act, but Congressmen saw it as a withdrawal of support from JDV and a blessing to the initiative of her sons to oust the Speaker.
After the adjournment of that caucus, word already spread out among congressmen about the position of the president and as expected, tides began to turn in favor of Cong. Prospero Nograles. The two camps held meetings after the caucus, the JDV camp in Rembrandt Hotel and the Nograles camp in Luk Foo, a Chinese restaturant near Congress.
There, the numbers and warm bodies were finally seen. At around 3:30 PM, thirty minutes before session was to begin, there were 47 congressmen in Rembrandt and 123 in Luk Foo. 121 votes were needed to oust De Venecia.
Jose De Venecia's fate was sealed.
Where did I stand in all this?
When the initiative to oust JDV and the counter-moves against it began to heat up, I began to carefully and thorughly review the position I would have to take. I would have to consider my personal conviction and conscience, the position of my party, the effect of all this on the House of Representatives as an institution, the views of my constituents and the impact on my district.
But instead of attending the meetings that were called by both sides, I decided to isolate myself from those meetings. There were talks of financial consideration being offered to congressmen to take sides. I didn't want my decision to be tainted by that, whether it was true or not. The fact is, talk was going around, and it is enough to stain the integrity of one's decision if one is linked to it.
I consulted with my partymates as to what position the party will take. I believe that political parties should be strenghthened and one way to do that is to uphold party principles and discipline.
But in the end, I did not follow the party stand. My party decided to support the ouster of Speaker De Venecia.
President Manuel L. Quezon in the past said, "my loyalty to my party ends where my loyalty to my country begins". It is an admired often-quoted statement, seen as the height of patriotism and idealism. But with all due respect to the late President and his admirers, I have a contrary view. The statement connotes that the political party comes first, before the country. It is my firm belief that the country should come first before the political party. That the first consideration is the interest of the country before the interest of the party.
So for me, my loyalty to the country goes above my loyalty to the party. That before considering the interests of the party, it take full consideration of the interests of the country.
It is my belief that the stand my party took was against what my convictions told me was for the good of the country.
I believed that the ouster move was not motivated by a desire for change and reform in the House. It was never a secret that the primary movers of this move were the two sons of the President, who were hurt by the testimony of JDV's son Joey against their father regarding the ZTE scandal.
In the House, congressmen complain about JDV's tendency to make promises and not make good on them, but there wasn't any drive to remove him from office because of this. Issues about transparency in the House expenses were raised, but nobody ever really made a move to scrutinize them. During the budget deliberations, where the golden opportunity to ask questions about the House budget is there for everyone to take, no one grabbed it. The Commission on Audit annual report on House expenses is always ready for anyone interested to go over and review.
Some have said that the Speaker was responsible for the plummeting ratings and deplorable image of the House. But the House of Representatives is a collective body. The Speaker is said to be only the First Among Equals. The image of the House is the responsibility not only of the SPeaker but by all congressmen as individuals and the entire House as an institution. Even if we have a Speaker with impeccable character, if a majority of congressmen still abuse their power, act arrogantly in their distrcits, involve themselves in questionable deals and transactions and perform their duties poorly, the House will remain a house of ill repute. It can be redeemed through extra spending in publicity and public relations, but those will never reform the House.
I have due respect and admiration for him as a colleague, but Cong. Nograles couldn't have made it on his own. As the current head of the House contingent on the Commission on Appointments during this Congress, he is often not in the House, understandably because of his duties as head of the contingent. For the past months of the 14th Congress, he was concentrated on his duty instead of campaigning for change and reform in the House. Besides, going for the Speakership involves the mobilizing resources which I don't think he has on his own. It had to take someone else with more clout and resources to organize and convince the congressmen to support him.
For me to be inspired to follow a particular leader, I must first see what prospects he has to offer in terms of service, advocacy, and in this case, the program for reform and change. As I said, there was never a campaign for reform and change. When I say campaign, it is not enough to say "I want reform" or "I want change". To advocate for reform and change, one must specify what specifically you want to reform and change, how you are going to go about that change, the exact change you are going to do and the expected results of that change. In that way, your progress or success is measurable and quantifiable. That is accountability.
But there was no such presentation. While meetings were held with the different parties and groups, for me, it is not transparent and accountable. For example, they may have met with the Liberal Party and presented their plans, but who knows what commitments were made? Who knows if what was committed to the Liberal Party was different from what was committed to the Nacionalista Party? Or the NPC?
Most of all, how will the Filipino people know what commitments were made? The Speakership is not just about who will preside over the sessions of the House or who adminsters the affairs of the House. It is about the fourth highest leader of the land, the person who will steer the policy-making body of this country and ensure that the right and necessasry laws are passed. The Filipino people have the right to know how that person intends to perform his duty as Speaker fo the House. Ask yourself--have you heard what Congressman Nograles plans to do to reform the House?
In my explanation of vote I said I wished there was more time for the contenders to present their platforms. Not just to us congressmen but also to the people. After all, after I vote, I would have to let my constituents understand why i voted that way. It would have been better if they heard directly from those vying for the position to make their commitments public so that if a time comes that we have to remove him, people will understand why.
This is one reason why people think that this leadership issue in the house is all about a power grab, political vendetta or maneuvering. Because when Speaker De Venecia was elected, the people did not know what commitments he made in order to win the seat. So when congressmen claim that they want change and reform, the people do not know what they mean. To make the same mistake with a new Speaker is not change and reform. It is more of the same.
It turns out that the primary motivation is for JDV to be "punished" for the "sins" of his son. But the Bible says "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin." (Deuteronomy 24:16). It is true in the matters of faith. It is also applicable in the world of politics. In the case of JDV, he had been a faithful and loyal ally of the President, rushing to her rescue during her most troubled times. He was instrumental in her rise to power and crucial in retaining it. When his son started to speak against his ally, JDV tried to control the situation.
But Joey is a man of his own and appears to be a man of conviction. Just as I would stand up for my convictions even against the advice of my father. That's how convictions are supposed to be---solid as a rock (just make sure that your convictions are in the right place). Even the Arroyo brothers exhibited that. They claim that their actions are their own not affected by their mother's position on the matter.
I don't think the Speakership is the appropriate arena for the meting out of this "punishment" of Cong. De Venecia. The House should be an independent institution, whose affairs are determined by the members themselves, in the interest of the performance of their duties. Joey De Venecia's behavior has nothing to do with the House so the House members should not be dragged into the fray.
Some congressmen say that their decision is their own and not on the influence or say-so of anyone else. But the explanations of their votes reveal the what's behind the decision. Several times explanations tell of their decisions being "to protect the interests of my district" or "to ensure the continuance of projects in my district". Why the seeming fear of projects in their district being affected? The Speaker has nothing to do with projects in their district. The Speaker's role is to be the administrator of the House of Representatives and not the implementation or release of funds in the congressional districts. That's the role of the Executive Department headed by the President. Why do they fear? Is there a threat to their projects?
Some congressmen voted to remove JDV "with a heavy heart". That means that their decision does not conform to their desires and conscience. Becuase if a decision you make is in accordance to your convictions and conscience, you would be at peace. That's the effect of making the right decision...it will not bother you. So if it's not their own decision, whose is it?
I voted against the motion to remove JDV because I felt that the one contending his post did not have enough time to present his program of reform and change. He was not able to present make a commitment to the public, something that is essential to accountability. The House was rushed into a vote.
In addition to that, I believed that we were doing it for the wrong motivation. It wasn't a compelling drive for reform in the House of Representatives (although I must admit we need to reform the House). It so happened that this particular initiative was driven by a desire to get back at JDV for his son's decisions.
I went against my party stand because I felt that it's decision to support the move was against the convictions I had. There are other reasons which are best reserved for meetings within the Liberal Party.
In this realm of politics, it is sometimes difficult to say who is right or who is wrong. Everyone can come up with their own justifications for their actions. All it takes is a creative mind and skillful writing. But in the end, the benchmark for a right or wrong decision is a clear conscience. If you can live with your decision without feeling a "heavy heart" or fear of reprisal or contrary comment, then you must have made the right decision. Your next accountability will be to God, if your decision conforms to His Will. After all, "everyone shall be put to death for their own sin".
Friday, January 25, 2008
GENERAL ESPERON’S EXTENSION CONFIRMS THAT IT’S ALL PERSONAL, NOT PROFESSIONAL
While there is no doubt that the President can exercise her prerogative in selecting who the Chief of Staff of the AFP is, such a prerogative is not always infallible. The extension of General Hermogenes Esperon is an example of such a prerogative.
This is my view in the wake of the announcement of Malacanang Palace that the term of AFP Chief of Staff Gen. Esperon will be extended “until further notice”, citing the need to “maintain the momentum of the anti-insurgency campaign of the AFP’s Bantay Laya”.
Being the Vice-Chairman of the House Committee on National Defense, I see the explanation given by the Palace as proof that the consideration was personal, not professional.
In the past, the Palace and the AFP leadership repeatedly emphasized that the military has never been more professionalized than the recent years. But being professional means that not only does it fulfill its duties and responsibilities without political color, it should also mean that the success of its performance relies not on individual personalities but rather on the collective acts of the officers and men of the AFP.
To prove the claim of professionalism, the momentum of the success of AFP’s Bantay Laya should rely on the institution, not on an individual officer or soldier. To say that the momentum depends on the continued occupation by Gen. Esperon of the post of Chief of Staff is to say that the AFP is a one-man team, which it is not.
The essence of an effective military organization is that the individual members are able to operate together to form a single force. It does not rely on the individual to achieve success. If success relied only on an individual, then that individual becomes the weakest link in the whole chain. If they see Gen. Esperon as the only means of maintaining the momentum of Bantay Laya, then he is the weakest link. Gen. Esperon is not exactly the epitome of non-controversy. He would only be infecting the whole institution with his being controversial.
The AFP should be able to prove that the institution is also capable of maintaining the momentum of its success even if there is leadership change. The retirement of generals is inevitable, so the institution should always be ready with a steady flow of capable and competent officers who can take over the role of AFP Chief of Staff when the incumbent retires. It is fatal for an armed force not to have a ready pool of officers to take the mantle of leadership upon the retirement of an incumbent Chief of Staff and carry on whatever momentum the organization has in fulfilling its mandate.
For me, the extension of Gen. Esperon on the grounds of maintining the AFP’s momentum reveals that the Palace does not have confidence in the generals who are qualified to succeed the retiring general. It is equivalent to saying that the generals who may succeed the retiring Chief of Staff will only bungle the supposedly good job that Gen. Esperon has done.
While I respect the President’s prerogative, I appeal to her, for the sake of the AFP as a professional institution, to heed wisdom and reconsider her extension of General Esperon. Huwag personalan. Trabaho lang.
Monday, December 17, 2007
The Cheaper Medicines Bill...Will it do what we want it to do?
n the 13th Congress, the Cheaper Medicines Bill failed to be passed into a law because before congressmen could vote on it for the Third and final Reading, the sessions of the 13th Congress drew to a close and both the Senate and the House of Representatives adjourned. People were disappointed because after the long wait and the series of public hearings and debates, the bill did not make the deadline in order for it to become a law of the land.
In the present 14th Congress, there is reason to rejoice because we are only in the first six months of its three year life span and yet the Cheaper Medicines Bill is already passed in the Senate and ready for Second Reading votation in the House of Representatives. TO be more specific, the congressmen are now in the period of Individual Amendments, after having gone through First Reading, public hearings, Sponsorship on the plenary floor, period of Debates and Interpellation, and period of Committee Amendments.
After the period COmmittee Amendments, where the authors and sponsors incorporate changes to the bill brought about by the interpellation and debates after spnsorship on the floor, the proposed amendments by individual legislators are taken up and considered. There are some debates conducted, with the proponent of individual amendments justifying their proposals.
This is the period where we are in now. After the Period of Individual Amendments, there will be voting on Second Reading, which is a reading of the bill with all the amendments incorporated. After that, then the final version will be voted on by the members of the House for the final Third Reading.
After all the hype and waiting, everyone is eager to have a Cheaper Medicines Law (the final name of the law, however, will most likely be changed since the name "Cheaper Medicines Law sounds..well, cheap. It gives a connotation that the quality is low). But as the cliche goes, it's so close but so far away.
The period of Individual Amendments is turning out to be a stumbling block to the bill's immediate passage. It is a period where one particular congressman's individual amendments, which he seems to have at almost every page, eat up the time since a congressman with an individual amendment is given the time to propose his amendment and explain his proposal. With congress having only three days left before it goes on Christmas break, the next time it can be taken up will be after January 21 when Congress resumes its sessions. The previous two weeks were already spent taking up his numerous proposed amendments and at this time, he is still not yet done.
There is already talk among congressmen that the bill should be railroaded and the congressman with the numerous proposed amendments should just be overwhelmed by the majority through a legislative steamroller.
I understand the concern of the congressmen about the delays. The 13th Congress was plagued by it and got blamed for the suffering that our people endured for each day that they had to swallow the bitter pill of overpriced medicines.
Imagine this...There are about 7.76 million Filipinos who suffer from hypertension (high blood pressure). That is one out of every five adults. High blood pressure is the fifth leading cause of death in the Philippines. Every year, an average of 300,000 Filipnos are lost to this disease. It strikes in all social classes, whether rich or poor.
The proposed Cheaper Medicines bill attempts to provide the legal environment similar to what India or Pakistan have which enables them to lower the price of medicines. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives versions do this approach, except that the House version incorporates the creation of a Drug Price Regulation Board, which, the authors and the sponsors say, will play an active role in making medicines cheaper since it will be given the powers to fix a maximum retail price for the medication people take.
But before we run out and join the rallies calling for the immediate passage of the bill without further amendments, or support the move to railroad it in the face of the questions being raised, let me ask this question...if passed in its present form, will the bill result in the immediate lowering of prices? This has been what the public is expecting all this time. That once passed into law, prices will immediately go down.
Each day that the bill is delayed in its passage into law, is a day that we add to the suffering of our people. It goes to follow then, that once passed into law, each day that the law is delayed in its implementation, it is a day added to the suffering of our countrymen. Right?
So why is it then, that the bill proposes to suspend the powers of the Drug Price Regulatory Board for a period of one year from the time the law is passed before it can exercise its powers to regulate prices?
Why not let the Board exercise its powers immediately after the law is passed so that the people can immediately enjoy the benefits of the law? This provision is found in the bill:
"SECTION 46. Exercise of the Power of the Board - The power of the Board under Section 17 (a) 1 to regulate the retail prices of drugs or medicines listed under Section 18 shall be exercised after a period of twelve months from the effectivity of this Act."
This 12-month period only gives the pharmaceutical companies one full year to impose overpricing on the people. This provision does not benefit the people, but instead it provides a shelter for the pharmaceutical companies to extend life to their current huge profit margins.
If the bill is passed without this provision being amendmended, we cannot expect prices to immediately go down after the passage of the law. We will still have to wait AT LEAST one year before prices are fixed by the Board.
Yes, AT LEAST one year. I said AT LEAST because there is another provision in the bill which gives a loophole for prices to continue in their elevated state. This provision, found in Section 17 (a) 3, reads:
"3. No retailer shall sell drugs or medicines at a retail price exceeding the maximum retail price fixed by the Board: Provided, That, until the maximum retail price of drugs or medicines subject to price regulation is fixed by the Board, no manufacturer, importer, trader, distributor, wholesaler, or retailer of such drug or medicine shall sell the same at a retail price exceeding the price prevailing immediately before the effectivity of this Act."
At first glance, it might be said that there's nothing wrong with the provision, that in fact, it is beneficial to the consumers since it specifically provides for the maximum retail price. But a closer look will show that this provides a mechanism where the prices of medicines can remain at the current high levels for an indefinite period of time.
First, the provision states that the current prevailing price, which we all know is already overpriced, shall be the maximum retail price after the effectivity of the law. This means a status quo, or a no-change policy. In other words, the law does not mandate that prices be lowered.
Second, the provision does not give a specific time frame for the Board to fix a new maximum retail price for medicines. It says, "until the maximum retail price of drugs or medicines subject to price regulation is fixed by the Board". The time that the Board fixes the maximum retail price may come in one month, one year, or one decade.
The Board is composed of only seven individuals. If the pharmaceutical companies attempted to influence congresssmen from passing the bill, which was not even passed by the 13th congress, what more the members of a 7-man board which would be granted absolute power to fix the prices of medicines?
Why not let the law state a specific time frame to set the maximum retail price for medicines? This provision, taken in tandem with the provision on the effectivity of the powers of the Board, will give so much leeway for the pharmaceutical companies to keep imposing on us the high prices of their medicines.
I believe that these provisions negate the expectations of the people with regard to the Cheaper Medicines bill. We try to rush the passage of the bill, claiming that our people need it now, and yet the bill, when passed into law, suddenly steps on the brake and gives the pharmaceutical companies additional time to continue their overpricing ways.
These issues are the subject of my individual amendments to the bill. I have been waiting in line for the Individual Amendments for two weeks now.
My first amendment seeks to amend the provision in Section 17 (a) 3. I propose that the section be amended to provide a specific time frame, anywhere from three to six months, for the board to set the maximum retail prices for medicines. I further propose to amend the same provision by adding a mandate to set the maximum retail price to a level LOWER than the prevailing price at the time of the effectivity of the law, not to simply allow the current price levels to continue.
My second amendment seeks to delete the entire Section 46, or the provision that suspends the powers of the board for a period of one year after the passage of the law. I propose that the powers be exercised immediately after the passage of the law.
Unfortunately, I am not sure if my amendments will see the light of day. The delays caused by the numerous proposed amendments by the other congressman, who has been tagged by some as working for the benefit of the pharma companies, is providing a reason for the House of Representatives to railroad the bill. Since I am lined up to propose my amendments after that congressman, a railroading of the bill will not only run over that congressman's amendments but also mine.
It is also unfortunate that the public perception now is that anyone rising to question the bill is working in behalf of the pharma companies. In everyone's desire to rush passage of the bill, some finer points are being overlooked.
Today we start the last three session days of the year. This could mean the passage of the bill in its present form or the further delay which will definitely add to the people's frustration in Congress. Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place.
In the present 14th Congress, there is reason to rejoice because we are only in the first six months of its three year life span and yet the Cheaper Medicines Bill is already passed in the Senate and ready for Second Reading votation in the House of Representatives. TO be more specific, the congressmen are now in the period of Individual Amendments, after having gone through First Reading, public hearings, Sponsorship on the plenary floor, period of Debates and Interpellation, and period of Committee Amendments.
After the period COmmittee Amendments, where the authors and sponsors incorporate changes to the bill brought about by the interpellation and debates after spnsorship on the floor, the proposed amendments by individual legislators are taken up and considered. There are some debates conducted, with the proponent of individual amendments justifying their proposals.
This is the period where we are in now. After the Period of Individual Amendments, there will be voting on Second Reading, which is a reading of the bill with all the amendments incorporated. After that, then the final version will be voted on by the members of the House for the final Third Reading.
After all the hype and waiting, everyone is eager to have a Cheaper Medicines Law (the final name of the law, however, will most likely be changed since the name "Cheaper Medicines Law sounds..well, cheap. It gives a connotation that the quality is low). But as the cliche goes, it's so close but so far away.
The period of Individual Amendments is turning out to be a stumbling block to the bill's immediate passage. It is a period where one particular congressman's individual amendments, which he seems to have at almost every page, eat up the time since a congressman with an individual amendment is given the time to propose his amendment and explain his proposal. With congress having only three days left before it goes on Christmas break, the next time it can be taken up will be after January 21 when Congress resumes its sessions. The previous two weeks were already spent taking up his numerous proposed amendments and at this time, he is still not yet done.
There is already talk among congressmen that the bill should be railroaded and the congressman with the numerous proposed amendments should just be overwhelmed by the majority through a legislative steamroller.
I understand the concern of the congressmen about the delays. The 13th Congress was plagued by it and got blamed for the suffering that our people endured for each day that they had to swallow the bitter pill of overpriced medicines.
Imagine this...There are about 7.76 million Filipinos who suffer from hypertension (high blood pressure). That is one out of every five adults. High blood pressure is the fifth leading cause of death in the Philippines. Every year, an average of 300,000 Filipnos are lost to this disease. It strikes in all social classes, whether rich or poor.
Norvasc, a medicine for hypertension, is sold in the Philippines by a multinational pharmaceutical company for P41.41 per 5-mg tablet. In India and Pakistan, the same drug, manufactured by the same company, is priced at around P5.77 per 5-mg tablet. Plendil,also for hypertension, is priced in the Philippines at P21.82 per tablet while it costs only P2.69 in India.
Another comparison is the asthma medicine Ventolin. An inhalor costs P315.00 here while in India, it costs only P126.78. Other emdicines also show the same disparity. Ponstan, a common painkiller, costs only P3.22 in India but costs P24.92 per pill in the Philippines. Bactrim 400, priced at P17.75 per tablet in the Philippines, can be bought for only P1 in Pakistan and P0.69 in India.
The government, through the Philippine INternational Trading COrporation, is trying to help make medicines affordable by doing direct importation of medicines from other countries and injecting them into the market. But this approach cannot be done for all medicines.
What makes the prices of other medicines high, specially the medicines from the multinational companies, are the patents that they have on the formula of these medicines. Because how our Intellectual Property Law is worded, the companies holding the patents of these medicines have exclusive rights to the use of the formula and therefore, can dictate the when other companies can produce the same medicine or how much it is going to be sold.The proposed Cheaper Medicines bill attempts to provide the legal environment similar to what India or Pakistan have which enables them to lower the price of medicines. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives versions do this approach, except that the House version incorporates the creation of a Drug Price Regulation Board, which, the authors and the sponsors say, will play an active role in making medicines cheaper since it will be given the powers to fix a maximum retail price for the medication people take.
But before we run out and join the rallies calling for the immediate passage of the bill without further amendments, or support the move to railroad it in the face of the questions being raised, let me ask this question...if passed in its present form, will the bill result in the immediate lowering of prices? This has been what the public is expecting all this time. That once passed into law, prices will immediately go down.
Each day that the bill is delayed in its passage into law, is a day that we add to the suffering of our people. It goes to follow then, that once passed into law, each day that the law is delayed in its implementation, it is a day added to the suffering of our countrymen. Right?
So why is it then, that the bill proposes to suspend the powers of the Drug Price Regulatory Board for a period of one year from the time the law is passed before it can exercise its powers to regulate prices?
Why not let the Board exercise its powers immediately after the law is passed so that the people can immediately enjoy the benefits of the law? This provision is found in the bill:
"SECTION 46. Exercise of the Power of the Board - The power of the Board under Section 17 (a) 1 to regulate the retail prices of drugs or medicines listed under Section 18 shall be exercised after a period of twelve months from the effectivity of this Act."
This 12-month period only gives the pharmaceutical companies one full year to impose overpricing on the people. This provision does not benefit the people, but instead it provides a shelter for the pharmaceutical companies to extend life to their current huge profit margins.
If the bill is passed without this provision being amendmended, we cannot expect prices to immediately go down after the passage of the law. We will still have to wait AT LEAST one year before prices are fixed by the Board.
Yes, AT LEAST one year. I said AT LEAST because there is another provision in the bill which gives a loophole for prices to continue in their elevated state. This provision, found in Section 17 (a) 3, reads:
"3. No retailer shall sell drugs or medicines at a retail price exceeding the maximum retail price fixed by the Board: Provided, That, until the maximum retail price of drugs or medicines subject to price regulation is fixed by the Board, no manufacturer, importer, trader, distributor, wholesaler, or retailer of such drug or medicine shall sell the same at a retail price exceeding the price prevailing immediately before the effectivity of this Act."
At first glance, it might be said that there's nothing wrong with the provision, that in fact, it is beneficial to the consumers since it specifically provides for the maximum retail price. But a closer look will show that this provides a mechanism where the prices of medicines can remain at the current high levels for an indefinite period of time.
First, the provision states that the current prevailing price, which we all know is already overpriced, shall be the maximum retail price after the effectivity of the law. This means a status quo, or a no-change policy. In other words, the law does not mandate that prices be lowered.
Second, the provision does not give a specific time frame for the Board to fix a new maximum retail price for medicines. It says, "until the maximum retail price of drugs or medicines subject to price regulation is fixed by the Board". The time that the Board fixes the maximum retail price may come in one month, one year, or one decade.
The Board is composed of only seven individuals. If the pharmaceutical companies attempted to influence congresssmen from passing the bill, which was not even passed by the 13th congress, what more the members of a 7-man board which would be granted absolute power to fix the prices of medicines?
Why not let the law state a specific time frame to set the maximum retail price for medicines? This provision, taken in tandem with the provision on the effectivity of the powers of the Board, will give so much leeway for the pharmaceutical companies to keep imposing on us the high prices of their medicines.
I believe that these provisions negate the expectations of the people with regard to the Cheaper Medicines bill. We try to rush the passage of the bill, claiming that our people need it now, and yet the bill, when passed into law, suddenly steps on the brake and gives the pharmaceutical companies additional time to continue their overpricing ways.
These issues are the subject of my individual amendments to the bill. I have been waiting in line for the Individual Amendments for two weeks now.
My first amendment seeks to amend the provision in Section 17 (a) 3. I propose that the section be amended to provide a specific time frame, anywhere from three to six months, for the board to set the maximum retail prices for medicines. I further propose to amend the same provision by adding a mandate to set the maximum retail price to a level LOWER than the prevailing price at the time of the effectivity of the law, not to simply allow the current price levels to continue.
My second amendment seeks to delete the entire Section 46, or the provision that suspends the powers of the board for a period of one year after the passage of the law. I propose that the powers be exercised immediately after the passage of the law.
Unfortunately, I am not sure if my amendments will see the light of day. The delays caused by the numerous proposed amendments by the other congressman, who has been tagged by some as working for the benefit of the pharma companies, is providing a reason for the House of Representatives to railroad the bill. Since I am lined up to propose my amendments after that congressman, a railroading of the bill will not only run over that congressman's amendments but also mine.
It is also unfortunate that the public perception now is that anyone rising to question the bill is working in behalf of the pharma companies. In everyone's desire to rush passage of the bill, some finer points are being overlooked.
Today we start the last three session days of the year. This could mean the passage of the bill in its present form or the further delay which will definitely add to the people's frustration in Congress. Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
