Legislature at work; What
about the Executive Branch?
By CHITO DELA TORRE
July 30, 2005
"...the SP stalwarts would not anymore be giving so much time to such
particulars of requests, if only the Executive Department will discharge
well its mandated functions and responsibilities."
Vice-Governor Jesus B.
Redaja may well be said to be achieving some great things in the name of
public service, both as a legislator - he, being the presiding officer of
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Western Samar - and as a public servant. The news is fast spreading about
his readiness to respond to cries for assistance, usually from the poor
barangays, and the poor Samareños, and his ability and capability to do what
they want him to do, or even give, even if it means spending his own salary
and allowance. Good. We salute you, Sir!
Such should actually be the
forefront service that the people of
Samar should get, receive and enjoy from the Executive Department
of the Provincial Government. Yet, probably there is hardly a palpable and
sensible public service that could be delivered by the executive branch, as
otherwise no demand for such service would ever reach the Capitol from the
people themselves so needing such service.
Recently, the SP calendared
treating, among others, the passage of budget appropriation ordinances -
P1.5 million for the Office of the Governor (P1M for donation and P500,000
for travel expenses), P21,604,000 for projects, P665,073 for the increase of
Representation Allowance and Travel Allowance (RATA) for provincial
officials, and P1,069,000 for Educational Assistance to government personnel
- all to be taken from the increase in Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) for
Fiscal Year 2005. Of the projects proposed, P5M would be for the
rehabilitation of the Capitol Park, Phase II (was there already a “Phase
I”?), P1M for the additional repair of WESAMAR building (why additional, has
it ever been repaired?), P1M for the rehabilitation of the PHO-Samar
Provincial Hospital (only?!), P1.5M for acquisition of medical equipments,
P2.5M for rehabilitation of Catbalogan Municipal Roads (cannot Catbalogan
shoulder the cost?), P1M for the rehabilitation of airport-Estaka Buri road,
and P1.5M for construction of Sunset Boulevard at Guinsorongan, Catbalogan.
Had not the provincial government thought of better priorities? We ask the
provincial government because we learned that these proposed ordinances
emanated from the Executive Department.
Meanwhile, requests for
assistance, in various forms, keep flooding the SP, notably the Office of
the Vice-Governor. Even some SP members are not spared, they, too become
departments of last appeal.
Perhaps Vice-Gov. Redaja and
the SP stalwarts would not anymore be giving so much time to such
particulars of requests, if only the Executive Department will discharge
well its mandated functions and responsibilities. Otherwise, let’s welcome
the status quo. At least, the essence of good, effective, and efficient
governance is significantly dispelled among the poor communities. Thanks for
the good work, Vice-Gov. Redaja and honorable SP members. They are
personally present in their offices, or when out, they are meeting with
their constituents to sensitize their basic needs; they are not in their
homes hiding from the public and they are not operating their offices by
communications machines or private representatives. (send
comments)
The propriety of Courtesy Calls
By CHITO DELA TORRE
July 6, 2005
"Government soldiers marching
into barangay territories are strangers. Members of the New People’s Army
walking into these territories are strangers. Members of medical and
spiritual missions trekking into these territories are strangers...
Therefore, they deserve to be killed."
Every stranger, every new
face, all new faces, all new “guests” should pay a courtesy call on the
governor, mayor, and village chief (punong barangay or what is unlawfully
and wrongly addressed as “barangay chairman”). Not done, the stranger is a
total alien. An alien could be “arrested”, “detained”, or even “immediately
shot or hacked to death”, or “killed or butchered later”, if not just
“stripped” or “robbed”. No law, divine or natural or man-crafted, protects
strangers. Instead, all laws protect humans and their environment against
strangers. Mark that as a perpetual warning, and remember, every warning is
a precautionary guide against every move.
The presence of a stranger
creates a minus effect, an unwanted change, in an environment.
An environment that notices
that change - the presence alone of a single stranger is one such change -
MUST naturally react to such change, to such presence of a stranger.
Every stranger, every alien,
will always be subjected to all forms of suspicion, watching, questioning,
tracking, documenting, and prohibition. Suspicion is the first natural
instinct that every human or animal is prompted to get onto as a reaction to
a strange change in an environment. To not react is abnormal.
Even a non-stranger - a
frequent house caller or guest - must make a courtesy call. This is done by
courteously (not harshly or savagely) knocking on one’s door (not just
anywhere) and identifying oneself. In the Philippines, Tagalogs say:
“Tao po!” or “Magandang araw (umaga, tanghali, hapon o gabi) po!” Waray-Warays
say: “Maupay!” or “Maupay nga oras (aga, udto, kulop o gab-i!)"
After this panhumalatag (greetings of introduction and RESPECT), the “guest” MAY or MAY
NOT be allowed entry. In fact and in point of custom, tradition and
practice, the house tenant, without yet opening a door, may ask the “guest”
who has just knocked, “Sino po sila?” and “Bakit po?” or “Ano’ng sadya (o
pakay) nila?” - Tagalog; “Hin-o ka?”, “Ano kuno?” or, “Hin-o (or ano) an
imo tuyo?” - Waray-Waray; or “Kinsa ka?”, “Ngano man?”, or “Kinsa’ng (or unsa’ng) imong gipangita?”
- Cebuano.
Before the Philippines
became a government, strangers were called invaders, threats to the security
of one’s territory. During the wars (against the Spaniards, against the
British, against the Chinese, against the Japanese, against the Americans,
against fellow Filipinos), and until today, every territory’s security was
always sacred. An invader, intruder, unwanted promenaders was always an
enemy.
In early times, it was
always peace of mind to prohibit entry of a stranger notwithstanding the
strangers’ good tidings or the gifts or presents that he brought with him
for a territory not his own. Every person who allowed entry of a stranger
was considered a traitor. Both the stranger and the traitor were killed.
Both were considered threats to the territory’s security.
Some tribes or indigenous
communities like the migrating Manobos abhor strangers, except that in
modern times since 1970, at least in
Samar, they
started developing a new culture, that of treating non-members of their
community as strangers and of treating them further as providers of sorts
for members of their tribe. They disliked inter-marriage and would never
allow non-members of their tribe to step into their homes even if every now
and then the home is deserted for long, long times.
Today, barangays are
territorial units still. Non-residents are strangers.
Government soldiers marching
into barangay territories are strangers. Members of the New People’s Army
walking into these territories are strangers. Members of medical and
spiritual missions trekking into these territories are strangers. Even in
provinces, cities and towns which are not their own or of which they are
non-residents, they are strangers. Therefore, they deserve to be killed. If
they desire to be treated well, they should observe the simple protocol of
panhumalatag. They should first knock on the doors of the local authorities,
identify themselves properly, make known their intentions, and answer
searching questions before they proceed with anything in their minds. That
is the call of courtesy required in every respectable, decent and orderly
society. Those who do not observe such courtesy are irreverent and do not
deserve to be honored.
This should enlighten all to
avoid unpleasant and untoward incidents today and every tomorrow hereafter. (send
comments)
Witness protection key to addressing
unrestrained killings in Philippines
A Statement by the
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
July 2, 2005
It is becoming increasingly
obvious that getting away with murder in the Philippines is made easy by the
absence of any functioning witness protection scheme. The lack of witnesses
also becomes a convenient excuse for investigators to say that they have
done their jobs but have no further avenues for action.
In a May 31 letter to the
Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) Police Director of the Directorate for
Investigation and Detective Management at the national police headquarters
Marcelo Ele Jr admits that the main obstacle to solving two recent killings
in Camarines Norte, Luzon is the lack of witnesses. In the case of Ernesto
Bang, an organizer in a peasant organisation who was shot dead at the door
of his house on May 10, "Relatives of the victim. are no longer interested
in filing the case due to the absence of a witness", Ele states. As for Joel
Reyes, a political party organiser who was shot dead by a gunman posing as a
passenger in his tricycle, "no witnesses had come out in the open for fear
of reprisal".
In a May 30 letter, Paquito
Nacino, regional director of the Commission on Human Rights in Tacloban
City, Visayas, revealed that it had set aside its investigations into three
murders there for the same reason. According to the Commission, a witness to
the March 14 killing of human rights lawyer Felidito Dacut "is nowhere to be
found". Meanwhile, the relatives of peasant movement leaders Fr. Edison
Lapuz and Alfredo Malinao, who were killed in a May 12 shooting in
Leyte have been "uncooperative and shown unwillingness to make any
written statements". The wife of Fr. Lapuz, who witnessed his killing,
"requested to give her more time to decide [about complaining] as the
assailants are still unknown to [the family]".
A wife hesitates to complain
about the killing of her husband in cold blood; a person runs for his life
after the murder of his colleague and friend; a man is shot dead in a public
street and no one can be found to identify the murderer. What is going on?
Although provisions exist for witness protection in the Philippines, clearly
they are not working. Republic Act 6981 guarantees that witnesses will be
given the necessary protection, security and benefits. The Department of
Justice is the agency responsible for arranging witness protection. So why
isn't it doing its job? Despite the numerous reports of victims' families
refusing to press complaints or witnesses going into hiding out of fear
after the unrestrained killings of human rights defenders, peasant leaders,
lawyers and others, there doesn't seem to be any serious effort by the
Philippine authorities to address this issue. Unrestrained vigilante
killings occurring in cities like Davao and Cebu suggest the same failure.
In these cases most victims have been ordinary poor civilians: however, as
in other targeted killings, no witnesses have come forward.
With the alarming incidence
of extrajudicial killings and unresolved murders in the Philippines it is
essential that a swift and effective programme for witness protection be
established. Where witnesses and family members of victims are left exposed
and unattended, they become easy targets for threats and coercion by the
perpetrators. This is particularly so in cases like the killing of Lapuz and
Malinao, where the military is suspected of having had involvement. Without
witness cooperation, cases are left unsolved and very often cannot even be
lodged in court. For their part, the investigators shelve their files and
have the easy excuses that "we couldn't find witnesses" or "the relatives
wouldn't cooperate" with which to absolve themselves of responsibility. In
so doing, the whole issue of why no witnesses are available or no relatives
would cooperate is avoided.
The government of the
Philippines has given assurances at the highest levels that the perpetrators
of these killings will not go unpunished, but without a proper scheme for
witness protection such assurances are meaningless. The government should
immediately review the management and handling of witness protection by the
Department of Justice with a view to greatly enhancing and expanding the
scheme so that security can be given immediately and for as long as
necessary to those who need it. This requires a sense of urgency: the
unrestrained killings occurring in the Philippines at present will be
neither solved nor abated until the government recognises that immediate and
effective witness protection is the missing element. Ironically, while
investigators place such strong emphasis on witness testimony to obtain
convictions, they have little interest in the wellbeing of the witnesses
themselves. Until witness protection is taken seriously, the prospects for
protection of human rights, criminal justice and the rule of law in the
Philippines remain dim.
***About
AHRC The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional non-governmental
organization monitoring and lobbying human rights issues in Asia. The Hong
Kong-based group was founded in 1984.
Passing the SINP Bill in the context of the government’s
promotion of responsible mining
A position
paper submitted to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives during the committee hearing on May 25, 2005 in congress
By JOSE A. MABULAY JR.,
President, Samar Island Biodiversity Foundation
First of all I would like to thank this Committee, and
especially you Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to this hearing and giving me
the opportunity to submit a Position Paper on the SINP Bill. The best way
of showing my gratitude, I think, is to go straight to the meat of the
matter. I will try to show that it is in the national interest to pass the
Bill as it stands, hence this Position Paper contains the following:
1. On Responsible Mining, and two of its indispensable
requirements
Last February 3, I had the privilege of being invited to a
national consultation on “Responsible Mining for Sustainable Development”.
If venue and attendance is an indication of how important to the Government
this affair was, then this must be important because this was held at the
Heroes Hall of Malacanang Palace and was attended by Sec. Mike Defensor,
Sec. Dinky Soliman, and Sec. Bobi Tiglao. Most significantly, it was
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who gave the Keynote Address. This was
also attended by representatives from the Government, the Mining Industry,
the Religious Sector, and Civil Society. At one point in his talk, Sec.
Mike Defensor asked who among the audience was in favor of a “really
responsible mining”. Like me, most, if not all, raised their hands. There
was no definition given on what a “really Responsible Mining” is, but I
remember Sec. Dinky Soliman, saying to the effect that this affair was the
start of the second round of consultations on Responsible Mining for
Sustainable Development. So, it can be assumed that the consultation
process will come up with this definition.
While the full definition may not be available yet, this
early we can already say that any definition will have two indispensable
components to wit -
| ● |
Responsible mining companies. Everything boils down to who does
the mining, hence the mining companies must have a strong sense of
responsibility towards its host communities and the environment, and
operate in a responsible manner. |
| ● |
Effective government regulatory mechanisms. The Government must put in place the necessary mechanisms
that are effective enough to keep the companies in line, and credible enough
to assure the local people that their interests and the environment will be
protected and advanced. |
I have dared to call these indispensable requirements,
because without any of these two, Responsible Mining is simply impossible.
2.
How the Chamber of Mines is projecting itself in recommending
the exclusion of 54,000 has. from the SINP
This intervention of the Chamber of Mines in this Bill should
be viewed with the Samarnon’s endeavors and advocacy to conserve their
forests, as backdrop. These endeavors have been there for sometime already.
In the early 90s there was an islandwide outcry against logging operations,
and the Aquino Administration responded by declaring a logging moratorium
throughout the island. Incidentally, this outcry was in the wake of the
flashfloods that ravaged
Samar in 1989. This
happened because the Marcos-Romualdez Conjugal Dictatorship cut up Samar’s
forests into logging concessions and distributed these to its cronies.
Later, an islandwide appeal to Pres. Fidel V. Ramos led to his promulgation
of Presidential Proclamation 744 declaring Samar’s forests as a Forest
Reserve. In 2003 the people clamored again for stronger protection of their
forests. This culminated in an islandwide caravan shouting “Yes to SINP, No
to Mining”. Let us be clear about this. It was not just “Yes to SINP” ---
it was “Yes to SINP, No to Mining”. Pres. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo responded
by establishing the SINP.
With this backdrop, what do we make of the Chamber of Mines,
incidentally now led by another Romualdez, if it continues --- let me
repeat, if it continues --- in its efforts to acquire the right to mine
the middle of the SINP? Is this a good sign that these are the guys we can
trust to do their mining responsibly? Here are a few observations.
| ● |
If it continues in this unilateral intervention, this Chamber
is clearly trying to muscle its way into
Samar, using Congress as its
instrument, even against the expressed wishes of its would-be host
communities. That cannot be an action of a responsible company or Chamber.
If the mining industry has the means and the mindset to get in even against
our will --- once inside, what else will it have the means and the mindset
to do even against our will? This question can and will be a specter in
the minds of the communities wherever there are mining operations.
|
| ● |
It now says, that mining is good for
Samar and its people ---
and it is already saying this even if it is not yet operating in our midst.
Well then --- again, if it so continues --- is it the Chamber’s policy to
force-feed people with what it thinks is good for them, despite their
expressed sentiment to the contrary? Parenthetically, here it beats the
Marcos-Romualdez Conjugal Dictatorship in presumptuousness, because
while it also force-fed us that logging was good for us, at least
during its time there was no opposition to logging, that is as
strongly expressed today against mining. |
| |
If it persists on this path, what else will it be
force-feeding Samarnons with, as good for them --- especially if or when
it is already operating in our island? After the Samarnons, who will it
force-feed next, about what is good for them? By presuming to know better
than the people of three provinces about what is good for them, and using
its resources to force its will on them --- the Chamber would be showing
nothing less than gross irresponsibility. |
| ● |
If it continues projecting this image of gross
irresponsibility, is it not sabotaging the government’s promotion of
Responsible Mining? Who would be doing the greater damage, the most
virulent critics of mining or the Chamber of Mines? |
3. How the Government would be projecting itself, if Congress
follows the recommendations of the Mining Industry.
Presently, the fears and concerns about the safety of mining
operations are answered with the mantra that the new law, the Philippine
Mining Act provides adequate safeguards. Somehow, that can be reassuring to
many. But if Congress acts favorably on the recommendation of the Chamber
of Mines, then it will fundamentally change the picture.
It would be bad enough to have a mining industry showing
itself to be grossly irresponsible --- that is, if it continues in its
present course. It would be far worse, if it can be shown that this
irresponsible industry has the power and resources to unilaterally influence
no less than Congress, despite clear environmental considerations and the
demonstrated wide and strong opposition of the people directly concerned.
Once that point is reached, any notion of the government
regulating the mining industry to safeguard the people and the environment
will vanish. For starters, who can then say that the safeguards contained in
the Philippine Mining Act cannot be amended by Congress, again at the
bidding of the mining industry. How many regulatory body or procedures can
one believe to be beyond the power and influence of the mining industry?
Under such conditions, where goes Responsible Mining?
The long and short of all these is that if Congress favorably
acts on the recommendations of the Chamber of Mines, then this becomes a
clear case in point of the power and irresponsibility of the mining
industry, and the insincerity or inadequacy of the government, to undertake
a “really Responsible Mining”. “Responsible Mining” will thus be just an
empty slogan, instead of a vehicle or framework for forging a national
consensus on mining.
4.
Our appeal to the Chamber of Mines and to this Committee.
So much has been said about national interest and the
importance of mining to the national economy. If both the Chamber of Mines
and Congress really believe this, then both should work in ensuring that
mining operations are done the right way. In these days of people power
and rising environmental awareness, mining the wrong way will inevitably
breed a hostile business environment for the mining industry, in its areas
of operation and eventually the whole country. The people power here need
not be of the magnitude that can stop mining operations in a day or week,
but it could also be also be just doing a thousand and one ways in months
and years, to increase operating costs, reduce profits, and dishearten
investors. This is what the people of
Manicani Island in Eastern
Samar, were forced to do, and has started to do.
The “right way” however cannot be defined nor determined by
just the industry and the government but together with other stakeholders.
This may take a longer time, but the benefits will also be long term. That
is why we believe that the government effort to forge a national unity on
“Responsible Mining for Sustainable Development” is a step in the right
direction.
We therefore believe that the next step for the Chamber of
Mines in support of this government effort is to stop its effort to exclude
54,000 hectares from the SINP. This effort of the Chamber of Mines is sure
to create a public perception of gross and arrogant irresponsibility by not
just one mining company but by the whole mining industry. With that
perception, only the naïve can seriously believe that “Responsible Mining”
is possible. We therefore suggest, not force-feed, that its best interest
lies in supporting Responsible Mining through action, and not through
actions that send the worst signals. That will be its real and long-term
contribution to national interest.
We respectfully submit to this Committee that the next step
for Congress is to pass the SINP Bill without excluding the 54,000 hectares
as proposed by the Chamber of Mines. Now and in this case, more than ever
is the time to assure the country, that the Government is capable of
regulating the mining industry, and not the other way around.
Thank you.
