HON. LORENZO R. TAÑADA III
Joint Session of the Congress of the Philippines
For the Purpose of Reviewing PP 1959
14 December 2009

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.

Office of Rep. Lorenzo R. Tañada III
Chairperson: Committee on Human Rights
Northwing 409, House of Representatives, Quezon City
telefax: 9316478 or 9315001 loc. 7368 email:erin_tanada@yahoo.com
News Release- December 14, 2009 References: Erin Tanada-09193688555 Media officer: Laurice Ramos- 09228433311

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.

Officials’ absence in trade
talks in Geneva assailed

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.

Office of Rep. Lorenzo R. Tañada III
Chairperson: Committee on Human Rights
Northwing 409, House of Representatives, Quezon City
telefax: 9316478 or 9315001 loc. 7368 email:erin_tanada@yahoo.com
News Release- December 1, 2009 References: Erin Tanada-09193688555 Media officer: Laurice Ramos- 09228433311

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.

HON. LORENZO R. TAÑADA III

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.

Office of Rep. Lorenzo R. Tañada III
Chairperson: Committee on Human Rights
Northwing 409, House of Representatives, Quezon City
telefax: 9316478 or 9315001 loc. 7368 email:erin_tanada@yahoo.com
News Release- November 17, 2009 References: Erin Tanada-09193688555 Media officer: Laurice Ramos- 09228433311
TAÑADA TO CJ PUNO:
“LEAD THE COUNTRY’S MORAL RECOVERY BY REVERSING THE SC DECISION ALLOWING THE CONVERSION OF THE SMC SHARES THAT BENEFIT DANDING COJUANGCO”

Representative Lorenzo ‘Erin’ R. Tañada III (LP, 4th District, Quezon Province) challenged Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno to “walk the talk” in his call for moral recovery in the country by taking a good second look at the Supreme Court’s September 17 decision which granted the urgent motion by COCOFED to allow the conversion of 27%  CIIF-San Miguel shares,  from common to preferred shares.

“Yes, there is a risk of sub judice here when I make this statement as Congress cannot actually discuss matters that are already with the courts.  Yet, I am willing to risk it if that’s what it takes for the Supreme Court to at least take a serious look at the motion for reconsideration that was filed by groups representing the interest of coconut farmers as well as the dissenting opinion of Justice Carpio Morales.”

Further appealing to the Chief Justice’s call for the State to respect and uphold human rights, Tañada, who is  Chair of the Committee on Human Rights in the House of Representatives said, “there is nothing more downright violative of the rights of the coconut farmers than what the PCGG has done and has kept on doing with regard to the coco levy funds.  PCGG is mandated to keep in trust and preserve its value until its final turn-over to their rightful owners – the coconut farmers,  With the supreme court’s concurrence to the PCGG and even the Solicitor General’s recommendation that the conversion of SMC shares be allowed to take place, there is no assurance that the value of such shares will be preserved.  Worse, PCGG loses its voting rights and control over those shares.”

“Furthermore, the decision of the SC did not only allow the conversion to take place, it also caused companies and the government to effect the conversion. Thus, shielding all public officials from accountability and responsibility. The decision practically committed the act for the national government, and this is a very rare occurrence because they should have acted “after the fact”, he stressed.

The case of the coco levy funds have been pending before the courts for decades now but has made significant strides in so far as establishing that they are prima facie public funds.  In the case of the 27% CIIF-SMC shares, the Sandiganbayan is more forthcoming when it said that the CIIF Block of San Miguel Corporation, the CIIF companies, and the14 Holding companies are “OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN TRUST FOR ALL THE COCONUT FARMERS…” 

 “How then can the PCGG protect the interest of the small coconut farmers within San Miguel Corporation if it has relinquished its voting rights and voluntarily gave control to   Mr. Danding Cojuangco? He who has been benefiting all these years from the coco levy funds while coconut farmers still languish in poverty,” Tanada emphatically said.

“The Supreme Court seemed to have been dazzled by the windfall gains that the supposed conversion can deliver and add on to the government coffers, while relegating to the sidelines the moral issues that have always plagued the coco levy,” he ended.

Office of Rep. Lorenzo R. Tañada III
Chairperson: Committee on Human Rights
Northwing 409, House of Representatives, Quezon City
telefax: 9316478 or 9315001 loc. 7368 email:erin_tanada@yahoo.com
News Release- October 15, 2009 References: Erin Tanada-09193688555 Media officer: Laurice Ramos- 09228433311

SSS CONDONATION BILL OF 2009 RATIFIED BY CONGRESS

The SSS Condonation Bill of 2009 was ratified by the House of Representatives last October 14 following almost two years of hearings and discussion by the Committee on Government Enterprises and Privatization. Rep. Lorenzo “Erin” R. Tañada III (Liberal Party, 4th District, Quezon) hailed the approval of the bill and congratulated his fellow co-authors Reps. Raul Del Mar and Amelita Villarosa for a job well done. “I would also like to thank the good chairman of the committee, Rep. Felix Alfelor for ensuring the passage of this very important piece of legislation especially in the midst of very trying times. This bill will 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 over a period of 48 months,” said Tañada.
The bill has been called a triple mini-stimulus package which will help not just employers, but also SSS and most importantly workers as it does the following: (1) provide companies which for the most part, have been hard-up, a mechanism to pay their delinquent principal payments minus the staggering penalties slapped on them and which have accumulated through the years, (2) help the SSS immediately collect an estimated more than P50 billion from the P95 billion collectible principal 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 SSS members in good standing.
“In the light of Ondoy and Pepeng which brought devastation to a lot of areas in the country, it is important that the benefits of SSS members such as calamity, housing and other loan packages, be made available. That can only happen if payments are now considered up–to-date. This bill hopes to do that.The President should sign this into law at the soonest possible time,” he added.
Those who will opt to settle by installment basis will still have to shell out at least 5% of its total contribution delinquency, the balance of which, the employer can pay on installment of up to 48 months bearing a 3% per annum interest. Employers with pending cases because of their delinquency status can avail of the condonation program upon approval and payment in full or in installments of contributions due and payable to SSS, can have these cases withdrawn. However, this is without prejudice to the refilling of the case in the event that the employer fails to remit in full the required delinquent contributions or defaults in the payment of any installment under the approved proposal.

CHR charter amendments passed on second reading

By Lira Dalangin-Fernandez
INQUIRER.net
First Posted 10:59:00 10/09/2009

Filed Under: Human Rights, Legislation

MANILA, Philippines – (UPDATE) The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) will soon have the power to prosecute human rights violators under its amended charter.

Under House Bill 6822 (An Act Strengthening the Commission on Human Rights and for other purposes), passed on second reading in the House of Representatives, the CHR is being given prosecutorial powers in case of inaction by concerned agencies.

“Recent events revealed our country’s worsening human rights situation — from arbitrary and unlawful arrests to enforced disappearances and from torture to extra judicial killings, from harassments of media outfits to outright killing of journalists. All these lead and point to the CHR as one institution that needs to be strengthened,” said Quezon Representative Lorenzo “Erin” Tanada III, chairman of the committee on human rights.

The bill also removes the prescriptive period on the investigation of cases of human rights violations.

It also expands the power of the CHR to investigate, giving them unhampered and unrestricted visitorial rights over all detention facilities of the government including those under the Armed Forces of the Philippines, according to Tanada.

Under the measure, the CHR will be known as the National Human Rights Institution (NHRI).

“This is significant because international bodies, chief of them the United Nations, have given importance to the designation of a National Human Rights Institution in every country,” Tanada added.

The CHR charter now embodies the concepts and guidelines of the “Paris Principles” among which are independence and pluralism, he said.

The “Paris Principles” are the guidelines and recommendations passed by the UN Commission on Human Rights in 1993 for National Human Rights Institutions all over the world.

Office of Rep. Lorenzo R. Tañada III
Chairperson: Committee on Human Rights
Northwing 409, House of Representatives, Quezon City
telefax: 9316478 or 9315001 loc. 7368 email:erin_tanada@yahoo.com
News Release- October 7, 2009 References: Erin Tanada-09193688555 Media officer: Laurice Ramos- 09228433311

CHARTER OF COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS GETS CONGRESS NOD
Charter change took place yesterday in the House of Representatives. But this time, no protests were made, nor were there fiery speeches and no grandstanding.
On October 7, 2009, the House of Representatives passed the charter of the Commission on Human Rights on second reading, HB 6822 “An Act Strengthening the Commission on Human Rights and for other purposes.”
Rep. Lorenzo ‘Erin’ Tañada III, Chair of the Committee on Human Rights and sponsor of the bill said that “Recent events revealed our country’s worsening human rights situation: from arbitrary and unlawful arrests to enforced disappearances and from torture to extra judicial killings, from harassments of media outfits to outright killing of journalists. All these lead and point to the CHR as one institution that needs to be strengthened.”
He said that the bill will give the CHR additional powers including the power to prosecute human rights violators in case of inaction by appropriate agencies.
The bill also provides that the investigation of human rights violations shall not be subject to any statute of limitations or prescriptive period. It also expands the power of the Commission to investigate, giving them unhampered and unrestricted visitorial rights over all detention facilities of the government including those under the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
According to Tañada, another feature of the bill is its identification of the CHR as the National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) of the country. He said, “this is significant because International bodies, chief of them, the United Nations, have given importance to the designation of a National Human Rights Institution in every country”. The CHR charter now embodies the concepts and guidelines of the “Paris Principles” among which are independence and pluralism.
The “Paris Principles” are the guidelines and recommendations passed by the UN Commission on Human Rights in 1993 for National Human Rights Institutions all over the world.
The independence of the CHR is emphasized in Section 13 of the Bill which provides “The Commission on Human Rights is an independent constitutional office. It shall not be subject to instruction or order from the President, Congress or the Judiciary, except in cases provided in the Constitution.”
Other features of the Charter are the strengthening of the fiscal autonomy of the CHR, a separate witness protection program and the structural redefinition of the CHR’s organization.
Rep. Tañada however emphasized that “the bill does not guarantee that it’s enactment into law will stop human rights violations.”
“But the approval of the bill is a testament of Congress’ efforts and will to promote and protect the rights of the people, and address human rights violations in the country. Let’s hope this will help put a stop to the perceived culture of impunity that has prevailed in our country,” he ended.