News Release- February 11, 2010
References: Erin Tanada-09193688555
Media officer: Laurice Ramos- 09228433311

Tañada encourages detained health workers to file torture case against military
Rep. Lorenzo ‘ Erin’ Tañada III, chair of the committee on human rights in Congress, warned the commander of the 202nd infantry brigade of the Philippine Army, Col Aurelio Balabad, against subjecting the 43 detained health workers to any kind of torture.
According to Tañada, “Republic Act No. 9745 or the Anti-Torture Act of 2009 which was signed into law last 10 November 2009, defined the crime of torture as an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for the purpose of obtaining a confession, among other things,”
It has been reported that on the morning of Feb 6, at least 300 heavily armed elements of the combined forces of the 202nd Infantry Brigade of the Philippine Army (202IBPA) and the Rizal Provincial Philippine National Police (PNP) forced their way into the farmhouse of Dr. Melecia Velmonte in Morong, Rizal where a week-long training of community health workers sponsored by Community Medicine Foundation, Inc. (COMMED) and Council for Health and Development (CHD) at Dr. Velmonte’s Farm was being held.
“I believe that the 43 health workers and media practitioners were arrested without a valid warrant and the reports coming in that they were subjected to torture during the 36 hours in Camp Pinpin wherein they were held incommunicado and were not allowed to talk to their families or lawyers, is very disturbing. Any kind of torture must stop immediately because they (the perpetrators) will be held accountable under RA 9745,” he added.
“I am encouraging the detained health workers to file cases of torture or violations of RA 9745 against the pertinent persons. According to accounts by the relatives, the detainees were subjected to hours of interrogation despite their demands for legal counsel. They were also forced to listen to sounds of gunfire and to admit that they were members of the New People’s Army. They were not allowed to speak to each other and were slapped several times.”
He likewise called on the Commission on Human Rights and the Department of Justice to hasten the drafting and approval of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Anti-Torture Law as torture cases seems to be piling up. Earlier, he also encouraged the Dumagats of Aurora who were subjected to torture by elements of 48th IB in Aurora, to use the law against their military abductors.

News Release- February 4, 2010
References: Erin Tanada-09193688555
Media officer: Laurice Ramos- 09228433311

TAÑADA: “THE FIGHT FOR CITIZEN’S RIGHT TO KNOW WILL CONTINUE”

After falling by the wayside due to supposed quorum problems, among other things, Representative Lorenzo “Erin” R. Tañada III (4th District, Quezon), one of the principal proponents of the Freedom of Information bill said the bill is not yet lost as far as the 14th Congress is concerned.

“After the May elections, Congress goes back to conduct business May 31 and will formally close on June 4. There is that window, albeit a very narrow one, that we can use. With proper information and education campaign coupled with strategizing with the electorate, we will make this window wider,” Tañada said.

After 1987, there was one particular instance where Congress reconvened after an election and passed a major law – the Electricity Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) in 2001.

As quorum will be a major factor, Tañada urged networks and advocates working on the issue to center their campaign in making sure that congressmen will report back to work, whether they win or lose, sit inside the session hall to vote and ratify the Bicameral Conference Committee Report on the measure.

“Our people must own the issue and make their so-called “representatives” in Congress shape up and deliver one of their fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution – their right to be informed on matters of public concern,” He ended.

News Release- 3 January 2010
References: Erin – 09193688555
Media officer: Laurice Ramos- 09228433311

TAÑADA ENCOURAGES TRIBESMEN’S TEST ANTI-TORTURE LAW

House of Representatives Committee on Human Rights Chair Lorenzo “Erin” R. Tañada III (LP, 4th District, Quezon) strongly encouraged the four members of the Dumagat tribe in Aurora province as they expressed their intent to file a torture case against the soldiers of the 48th Infantry Battalion based in Dingalan, Aurora.

“Indeed, this will be a test case for Republic Act No. 9745 or the Anti-Torture Act of 2009 which was signed into law last 10 November 2009. I thank Fr. Pete Montallana OFM, of the Diocese of Infanta and the Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates for being there for the four Dumagats. I likewise call on the Commission on Human Rights to assist them with regard to the case that they will be filing,” Tañada said.

He further added that his Committee will exercise its oversight functions to closely monitor the effectiveness of the Anti-Torture Law.

“Though
late, the bill is still a very welcome christmas present particularly
to small and medium businesses,” he said.
The law is set to grant the
Social Security System a one-time authority to condone 100% of the
penalties slapped on unpaid employers’ remittances, while providing
installment options for those who would like to settle through
staggered payment in a period of 48 months.
In
previous statements, the bill has been called a triple mini-stimulus
package which will: (1) provide a venue for companies to pay
their delinquent principal payments, (2) help the SSS immediately
collect an estimated more than P50 billion from the P95 billion
collectible 0principal amounts due, instantly putting money into the
coffers of the SSS and (3) ensure that ordinary and privately
employed individuals can avail of the full benefits of the SSS
members in good standing.
“ Especially in the light of
the calamities of 2009 and the ongoing economic recession, it is
important that the benefits of SSS members such as the loan packages,
be made available. “ he added.
Tañada
also clarified that “The law will help the SSS, the employers and
workers. We were quite conscious that we do not unduly reward
those who have been remiss with their obligations in making timely
payments to the SSS. The 100% condonation of penalties applies
only to cash payments of all delinquent accounts. Those who will opt
to pay thru installment basis will still have to pay a 5% downpayment
on principal amount amount and a 3% per annum interest through a
period of 48 months. More importantly, employers which have pending
cases because of their delinquency status would also be allowed to
avail of the condonation but those who will not avail and will still
not pay are legally accountable to the SSS.”

MANIFESTATION

Distinguished colleagues, notwithstanding the lifting of the declaration of Martial Law in the province of Maguindanao, I wish to manifest my utter disgust with PP 1959, for the reason that I believe it to have been a surreptitious curtailment of our civil rights and the most profligate testament yet to our government’s propensity for war-mongering.

The president’s report had done its best to paint a grim picture, yet not even the utterly inappropriate inclusion of photos of the Maguindanao Massacre could hide the fact that no rebellion ever took place, or that the monstrosity was largely a by-product of the mismanagement by both the Executive and the Armed Forces of their respective agents. Instead, what became abundantly clear from the interpellations was that the declaration of Martial Law was an injudicious application of a quick fix. The Massacre had demonstrated how the Executive had created a monstrosity in the clan of the Ampatuans, and how the military had functioned as the catalyst by allowing the CAFGUs and CVOs to act as a private army of hoodlums and louts. Like Scylla in Greek mythology, this aberration had grown many heads—as they are wont to do in a culture of impunity—and the declaration of Martial Law was obviously an attempt to cut off all its heads at once and hide the carcass.

Unfortunately, the divisive ills that beleaguer Maguindanao are not susceptible to being cured by just super glue. Neither is it sound policy to do such a thing. Those in government who want quick fixes would do better to find employment with the company that makes Mighty Bond, because they will not find satisfaction here. I, for one, would like to think that in this country, when the excrement hits the fan, we do not escape from the embassy roof; we stay, clean up the mess, and determine the source of the problem.

I am aware that there are some quarters in Maguindanao that favor the imposition of Martial Law, but this, to me, is more an indication of the urgency with which their situation must be addressed, rather than a testament to the appropriateness of the measure. History stands witness to how Martial Law slides so easily into the realm of abuse, and it is precisely for this reason that the Constitution expressly and explicitly, mincing no words, provides such stringent safeguards for its imposition. Given its volatile nature and the dangers inherent in toeing the fine line between restoring order and imposing the same by force, Martial Law is reserved only for those extreme instances when the government is facing such a formidable challenge to its authority that it must resort to force in order to protect itself. This is a power meant to be exercised only in the direst of circumstances, and in every case, with the utmost caution. If we consent to use it as a remedy for every emergency, we might as well put any pretense of policy-making aside and walk out of these halls right now. Martial Law was never meant to solve every crisis—that’s what policy is for, that is what legislation is for, that is what the rule of law is for.

It is the duty of government to come up with rational measures. We cannot resort to extremes every time something goes wrong; for not only does that speak of a debilitating weakness on the part of government, but an overzealous paranoia as well.

It is evident, then, that what the situation really called for was assisting the civil authorities in the restoration of order, and not the giving over of the whole area to the military. When the local government flounders because its officials are suspected of criminal activity, the remedy is to apprehend and prosecute the individual offenders, remove them from office, and replace them with lawful authority, not to subject the innocent public to military rule because their leaders are given to lawlessness.

As a last point, the manner in which Martial Law was declared and then subsequently withdrawn—in the dead of night, and without a word from our Chief Executive—points to the dubious intentions behind the measure. Its imposition on a Friday night, and its withdrawal on a Saturday night, was clearly designed to skirt accountability. If nothing else, all that sly stealth should make us ever more wary, ever vigilant on our guard, lest we wake up one morning to find ourselves once again under fascist rule.

Thank you.

CITIZENS’ RIGHT TO INFO BILL HURDLES SENATE 3rd READING

Ecstatic author of the Freedom of Information Act in the House of Representatives, Rep. Lorenzo R. Tañada III (Liberal Party, 4th District, Quezon Province) happily reported its passage on 3rd Reading in the Senate after so many Congresses of grueling lobby work by various interest groups led by the Access to Information Network (ATIN).

“In the past, the bill was only able to get the nod of the House of Representatives but then gets stuck in the Senate. It is only now that significant strides were achieved with regard to pushing this bill,” Tañada said.

The solon emphasized the importance of getting the bill passed by the Bicameral Conference Committee, ratified by both Houses and signed by the President as soon as possible.

“Access to information by ordinary citizens is a key to a thriving and living democracy. It is a critical ingredient in ensuring informed participation of people on matters that shape public policy. Likewise, it is a good anti-corruption measure as it provides transparency on matters of public concern,” he further elaborated.

Tañada joined the ATIN in their gathering in the Senate today to give his moral support to the advocacy that he deeply shares with the network. He likewise acknowledged the important role that Senators Allan Peter Cayetano and Miguel Zubiri played in the Senate and Reps. Joel Villanueva and Del de Guzman in the House of Representatives in seeing the bill thru.

Max V. de Leon and Jennifer A. Ng
Reporters

QUEZON Rep. Lorenzo Tañada III assailed the absence of Trade Secretary Peter Favila and Agriculture Secretary Arthur Yap from the World Trade Organization (WTO) mini-ministerial talks that start in Geneva on Monday, saying they should attend then use the country’s veto power should new modalities disadvantageous to the Philippines emerge.

Tañada, in a statement released by Fair Trade Alliance (FTA), said he was surprised and saddened upon hearing that Favila, who is supposed to be the country’s chief negotiator, and Yap will not be attending the mini-ministerial meeting that is primarily meant to set new multilaterals in the agricultural trade and nonagriculture market access.

“While I do not doubt the negotiating capacities of most government bureaucrats we have sent to the miniministerial, still, the privilege to take the floor and make a point during the talks is given first and foremost to ministers. Undersecretaries are second priority there,” said Tañada, the vice chairman of Congress’s special committee on WTO and Globalization.

He said Favila and Yap should capitalize on the claims that the Doha Round of Talks in the WTO is a “Development Round” and new modalities should move the interests of developing countries more than the rich nations.

He said while there are opportunities in the offing at the WTO Doha Round, there are also “real threats to our economy.” See related story on civil-society’s views, “Economy”

This, as the country’s chief negotiator for agriculture gave assurances Sunday that the Philippines will not give up on the inclusion of safeguards for farm products.

Interviewed by phone from Geneva, Agriculture Undersecretary Segfredo Serrano said the Philippines has not changed its stance, especially on the issue of safeguards. “The Philippines cannot flip-flop on its stance [especially with regard to safeguards].”

Agriculture Secretary Yap, for his part, said that he has already given instructions to the Philippine delegation; however, he refused to give details, especially on the draft modalities on the Agreement on
Agriculture.

Sources simply said Yap instructed Philippine negotiators for farm trade to stand firm on the issue of safeguards.

The Philippines is part of the so-called Group of 33 (G-33) pushing for the inclusion of special products (SP) and the special safeguard mechanism (SSM) in a new global trade accord.

Earlier, the G-33 countries proposed that the SP should comprise 20 percent of total agricultural tariff lines, and that 50 percent of SPs should be exempted from tariff reduction; while the remaining 50 percent should be subjected to minimal tariff cuts of 5 percent and 10 percent.

The group had also pushed for self-designation on the identification of SPs.

The G-33 countries have also proposed that the SSM be made available to all farm products and that countries be allowed to use price or volume trigger. The group had also proposed that countries be allowed to use remedies that will enable countries to apply tariffs beyond the Uruguay Round bound rate.

In lamenting the personal participation of the Cabinet secretaries in the Geneva talks this week, Tañada said Yap should be fighting it out with the agriculture ministers of other countries to ensure the outcome of the talks advances the Philippines’ food and livelihood security, as well as rural development.

With this, he said, the tariff-cutting schemes that will be worked out in Geneva should not result in untrammeled trade liberalization that hurts local industries.

The Philippine ministers, he added, should also see to it that significant reductions are made in the domestic agriculture subsidies given by developed countries—the US, EU, Australia and Japan.

Tañada worries as well that the Philippines would lose its own services sectors to foreign firms right in the country’s own backyard if the negotiators do not watch out for the new modalities in the trade in services.

“As they go via ‘request-offer’ modality where the US and EU are most aggressive, side deals can be made to open up critical sectors in the economy like water and energy distribution, operation of public utilities, etc., which might go into a full-blown negotiations if there are enough requests and offers,” Tañada said.

TAÑADA ON THE WTO TALKS: “STRENGTHEN ALLIANCES WITH DEVELOPING COUNTRIES FOR FOOD AND LIVELIHOOD SECURITY”

(Geneva, Switzerland) The vice-chair of Congress’ Special Committee on Globalization and the World Trade Organization (WTO), Lorenzo ‘Erin’ R. Tañada III today called on Philippine Head of Delegation and Ambassador to the WTO, Manuel Teehankee to negotiate from the vantage point of ensuring food and livelihood security and to use that as a basis of unity to strengthen alliances with other developing countries.
The solon also drew caution on the watering down of key provisions that were clinched in the 2005 WTO Ministerial Meeting in Hongkong – the provision of Special Products and Special Safeguards Mechanism (SSM). In particular, he pointed out to the diminution of the percentage of agricultural tariff lines that will not be subject to huge tariff cuts from the original G33 position of 20 percent to now just 12 percent. Furthermore, the SSM which is of vital importance to the Philippines as our tariff rates are low to begin with, and is supposed to provide automatic tariff adjustments should there be import surges and price drops of imported commodities, is now littered with all sorts of conditions that will render it ineffective and inutile. It might even turn out to be worse than the WTO Uruguay Round proviso for tariff adjustments called Special Safeguard Provision (SSG). For instance, a developing country that has experienced import surge of an agricultural commodity will not be able to use SSM and raise tariff beyond the pre-Doha bound rate unless domestic prices are actually declining. This is known as “cross-check”.
“The Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) negotiations should likewise be carefully watched as similar to the Agriculture negotiations. If it pushes through, what is on the table would de-industrialize our country and leave our fisheries sector vulnerable. For one, the formula, coefficient and flexibilities that are being negotiated will bind developing countries to a tariff reduction program incongruent with their level of development. This should be consistent with the principle of ‘less than full reciprocity’ and substantially lower than the cuts undertaken by developed countries. Second, NAMA negotiations disallow the exclusion of whole chapters of tariff lines which means that our fishery sector cannot be exempted from tariff reductions. This leaves our fishery sector vulnerable to the influx of imports,” the solon said.
Tañada emphasized that while we had a food price and supply crisis in 2008 and our agricultural output this year is substantially constrained by the series of typhoons that hit the country, it should never be used as an excuse to liberalize the entry of imports and bind our tariffs to low levels such that we no longer have the flexibility to raise them if needed.
“The government is actually in a fiscal bind and would not have the funds to provide support both for our agriculture and industrial sectors. Tariffs are the first and last resort of these vulnerable sectors to have protection from unfair competition from highly subsidized imports. Let us not lose this defensive mechanism in the WTO negotiations. Let us strengthen our alliance with the G33 and NAMA 11,” he ended.

EXPLANATION OF VOTE
ON THE MATTER OF THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST OMBUDSMAN GUTIERREZ

I vote against the Committee’s determination of the insufficiency in substance of the impeachment complaint against Ombudsman Gutierrez. I believe the facts as set forth in the complaint clearly point to her having violated her constitutional duties and betrayed the public’s trust.
The peculiar position occupied by the office of the Ombudsman in our government serves to make its effectiveness dependent upon the trust and confidence reposed upon it by the people. Given the delicate nature of its authority, to allow even a hint of doubt as to its integrity casts a shadow over the entire government. The Ombudsman is supposed to watch public officials in behalf of the Filipino people; this is the reason why it was given constitutional independence. Once the Ombudsman’s integrity is called into question, however, our entire system of accountability is compromised. As the sole constitutional body with the power to hold the Ombudsman accountable, Congress would thus be remiss if it does not allow the impeachment proceeding to continue—if only to dispel these allegations, if ever they are indeed baseless. The haste with which the hearings were conducted at the committee level precluded a conscientious investigation into the substance of the complaint, leaving much unturned and unanswered. To abandon the process now would be detrimental not just to the people, for leaving their Ombudsman with a besmirched reputation, but to the accountability exacted by the impeachment process itself.
The charges against the Ombudsman are no mere trifles; at the very least we should inquire more assiduously after the facts and allow the officer to account for questions relating to her performance of duty. A cloud has been cast over this most sacred of offices, and in exercising our vote today, we either choose to let it fester in the muddied depths of disrepute or usher it back into the public’s confidence.
We must be reminded that each impeachment proceeding sets a precedent for the standard of accountability that we demand of our public officers. “Trust”, “duty”, “fidelity”: these are abstract concepts; but we make them real and bring them into operation each time we rule upon a complaint. More than just political exercises, impeachment proceedings are really progressive attempts to answer the question, ‘how trustworthy must our public officers be, how faithful, how true?’
I myself choose to exact from the Ombudsman’s office a standard of utmost trustworthiness and absolute fidelity, and for this reason, my vote is a NO against the recommendations of the Committee on Justice.

Thank you.