(This Counter-SONA should have been delivered by tradition by Rep. Edcel C. Lagman on 24 July 2018, a day after President Rodrigo Duterte delivered his SONA. The upheaval and intramurals in the House prevented its delivery. Rep. Lagman, on Monday, 30 July 2018, requested that his Counter-SONA be included in the records of the House.)

The sovereign people have the right to know the true state of the nation, even as they have the right to be heard on their sentiments and opinions on crucial issues affecting the country.

The enduring tradition of the authentic opposition’s counter SONA has the following beneficent objectives, among others:

1. To dismantle the President’s embellishments in his SONA disguising unflattering facts and figures, and expose the naked truth of the state of affairs;

2. Represent and ventilate the people’s articulated and collective voices on major problems besetting the country;

3. Bare to the people the import of issues and policies which the President failed to address in his SONA; and

4. Cite and criticize the administration’s failures and broken promises as well as appreciate any of the government’s measures of success.

ON THE ECONOMY

President Duterte may have adopted as gospel truth the assertion of his spokesperson that the Philippines is currently enjoying a “darling economy” to which, the latter bragged, all economists will agree.

It is unfortunate that the President’s spokesperson wants to be a pseudo economist, even as he has earlier disrobed himself of his pretense of being a human rights advocate.

The Philippines faces an inordinately high inflation rate, the highest in five years. While the President and his spokesperson may lie, cold statistics do not.

While the 5.2% inflation rate in June 2018 is alarming, it is still an understatement of the severity of the Philippine inflation. The most essential items on food and non-alcoholic beverages registered an even higher inflation rate of 6.1%.

The rule of thumb is that inflation rate over 2.0% is always problematic because it stifles the economy even as the already low purchasing power of the poor is further eroded as prices of goods and services, particularly the basic items, continue to skyrocket.

Higher inflation is one of the prime barometers of the economy as it negates growth, devalues the people’s savings both in banks and private vaults, weakens investments, depresses the peso’s exchange rate, increases debt service, and reduces the real value of wages.

The Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN) law shares the blame for the current inflation problem because its imposition of higher excise taxes on petroleum products, among others, has cascaded into the shallow pockets of ordinary Filipinos who are now confronted with higher costs of fuel, transport, electricity, and commodities and services.

The assertion that people have more money to spend from additional income tax exemptions under the TRAIN law is misleading because the masses who constitute the overwhelming majority of consumers have not benefitted from the new round of income tax exemptions because lowly-paid workers have long been income tax-exempt. For those who are beneficiaries of tax exemptions, their reliefs have been negated by high prices of goods and services.

Moreover, the P200 unconditional cash transfer to poor families monthly under the TRAIN law is too minuscule to offset the burden of spiraling prices of goods and services. The policy of first taxing and then subsidizing appears to be ill conceived.

The assertion that people have more money to spend because of the free tuition fee in public colleges and universities is also a deception.

Free tuition fee for college education is only a percentage of the total expenses for college students who have to spend for board and lodging, transportation, meal allowance, and books and instructional materials, among other expenditures, which are additional burdens on parents.

Moreover, since students from well-off families enjoy the same free tuition in SUCs, they crowd out the ones coming from poor families who are less prepared to pass qualifying entrance examinations.

Data also show that there are more students enrolled in private universities and colleges, which are not tuition-free, who are not accommodated in SUCs or prefer private education.

Duterte’s economic managers must study a rigorous quantification of the effects of the TRAIN law, instead of nonchalantly pointing to other factors like global oil prices and peso depreciation, including the purported buying propensity of Filipinos, as culprits.

Deputy Governor Diwa Guinigundo of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) admitted that the inflation rate will remain elevated for the rest of the year and will still spike later in 2018.

The BSP’s plan to again increase interest rates to counter high inflation may constrict investments and subsequently depress employment even as the consumers will have to earn more to buy the same quantity of goods and services.

Government must seriously consider increasing wages so that workers and employees can recoup the lost real value of their salaries and re-examine the full implementation of TRAIN.

Profiteers and hoarders must likewise be apprehended, prosecuted and convicted.

At the heels of the inordinately high inflation rate is the nationwide increase in the number of Filipinos who consider themselves poorer, particularly in Mindanao, the Visayas and Metro Manila, based on the recent survey of SWS on self-rated poverty. Food poverty has also escalated.

FEDERALISM AND THE ECONOMY

The undue haste in shifting from the unitary to the federal system of government will further deteriorate the economy. Alacrity could spell disaster.

The President’s chief economist, National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) Director-General Ernesto Pernia, has scored the country’s lack of preparedness for a shift to federalism.

1. He said majority of our regions are fiscally ill prepared for federalism. He also said that only the National Capital Region, Central Luzon, Southern Tagalog (Calabarzon), and lately Cebu or only four out of the proposed 18 federated regions have the political and economic infrastructure that would allow them to adopt federalism.

2. Secretary Pernia also observed that implementing federalism before we are ready would be detrimental to economic growth.

3. Another concern ventilated by Secretary Pernia was that federalism might shred the country’s balance sheet. He underscored that “[t]he expenditure will be immense” and estimates that fiscal deficit may balloon to “6% or more.” This, he said, is “really going to wreak havoc in terms of our fiscal situation and we will certainly experience a downgrading in our ratings”. The possibility of a credit rating downgrade was confirmed by debt watcher Moody’s Investors Service.

President Duterte’s principal economic manager is worried that the administration’s alacrity in implementing federalism may derail any economic progress already achieved and trigger a wider gap between rich and poor regions by causing the poorest regions to lag even further behind economically.

Obviously, President Duterte’s Consultative Committee did not consult with Secretary Pernia on the economic feasibility of federalism before it approved and submitted to President Duterte the draft of the Federal Constitution recommending federalism.

Only the President’s spokesperson made a lame rebuttal of Secretary Pernia’s analysis. The other economic advisers were ominously silent.

In its March 2018 survey, the SWS documented that only 25% of Filipinos are aware of the proposed adoption of the federal system. This confirms the earlier survey of Pulse Asia that 70% of Filipinos have no knowledge or awareness of the federal form.

If the overwhelming majority of Filipinos are not aware of federalism, do not care to know what federalism is or do not understand federalism, it is foolhardy for the Duterte administration to embrace federalism with inordinate alacrity.

The newest group to vocally oppose the instant shift to federalism is composed of respected professionals and members of the academe, including officials of the country’s top universities.

They said that “the process must be much more participatory—including not just those who are for this reform, but also those who oppose it. International policy experience and evidence suggests that constitutional reforms are more effective if deliberations are front-loaded at the crafting stage, rather than belatedly appended once these reforms are already ratified.”

They further assert that, “[a] constitution is supposed to bind our nation in common values and a shared vision. It is the very glue that should unite us all in common purpose. If we are to amend the constitution, we must invest not just in the outcome, but in the very process.”

FEDERAL TRANSITION COMMISSION

The creation of a Federal Transition Commission could be a devious innovation by President Duterte’s Consultative Committee to assure his transition as the first Federal President since he is not prohibited from running in the first elections set on the 2nd Monday of May 2022.

He did not categorically say that he was not going to run for Federal President in 2022. This is what the President said: “I have no illusions of occupying this office one day longer than what the Constitution under which I was elected permit; or under whatever Constitution there might be.” The proposed Federal Constitution allows him to be elected Federal President in the first elections. While this is not extending one’s term under the 1987 Constitution, it is securing a continuation of a term under a new charter.

Unlike in the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions where the transitory provisions were self-implementing and the mode of transition categorically spelled out, the proposed Federal Constitution empowers the President to chair a transition commission whose members are to be appointed by him.

The inordinately vast powers of the transition commission, including legislative and adjudicatory jurisdictions, are cunning innovations that can spawn a host of excesses and more impunity. They include the following:

1. Promulgate and adopt a “transition plan”. This could have been easily provided for in the proposed Federal Constitution’s transitory provisions like in the previous Constitutions;

2. Exercise rule-making power to implement the transition plan and assume adjudicatory functions to “resolve all issues and disputes that may arise therefrom”. This would empower the President to arrogate legislative and judicial jurisdiction; and

3. Organize, reorganize and fully establish the Federal Government and the governments of the Federated Regions “in accordance with the Constitution”. This is redundant and extraneous because the Federal Government and the federated regions are already organized under the proposed Federal Charter. With respect to reorganization, this is a legislative function which is not germane to the authority of a transition commission.

If the proposed Federal Constitution is ratified in 2019, President Duterte’s transition commission would hold unbridled sway for almost three years until June 20, 2022 when the new set of federal, regional and local officials elected in May 2022 assume office.

DEROGATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FOMENTING A CULTURE OF DEATH AND IMPUNITY

The unmitigated extrajudicial killings of alleged suspects consequent to President Duterte’s brutal war against illegal drugs has resulted to the derogation of human rights, particularly the right to due process, liberty and life itself.

The President got it all wrong when he belittled human rights defenders by asserting that “Your concern is human rights, mine is human lives.” It is precisely the safeguarding of lives which is among the priority concerns of human rights advocacy.

We do not urge government to sideline its campaign against illegal drugs. But the Duterte administration must avoid, mitigate and eliminate violence and summary executions that pervert the anti-drug campaign.

Crime prevention and apprehension must be pursued without state agents committing crimes with impunity in the process.

These numerous summary executions have been encouraged and/or condoned by no less than the President himself through his utterances and pronouncements.

President Duterte continues to vilify human rights defenders, both Filipinos and those coming from the international human rights community like officials from the United Nations and the European Union.

These extrajudicial killings have fomented a culture of violence, death and impunity. Assassins have been emboldened in murdering local politicians, priests, journalists and ordinary citizens.

Taking the law into one’s own hands has become the rule of the day.

President Duterte’s repeated invocation of “non-interference” in domestic affairs to avoid foreign investigations is self-serving. Violation of human rights is a global concern and global remedy can afford redress.

Withdrawal of Philippine ratification of the Rome Statute to avoid jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over pending complaints filed against President Duterte cannot sweep under the rug derogation of human rights.

THE PRESIDENT’S PATHETIC AND UNPATRIOTIC RESPONSE TO CHINA’S MILITARIZATION OF THE WPS

The ruling of the United Nations Permanent Court of Arbitration on July 12, 2016 categorically overthrew China’s false claim to almost all of the West Philippine Sea and recognized the sovereign right of the Philippines to fish and explore for minerals in these resource-rich waters which lie within the country’s exclusive economic zone.

Two years after our victory over China, President Duterte:

1. Refused to even discuss the award with the Chinese government;

2. Was stalled to submission when the Chinese President Xi Jinping allegedly threatened that China would go to war against the Philippines if the country insists on implementing the award, which threat is uncorroborated and unconfirmed;

3. Proclaimed that China, as a “new found friend”, has promised to protect the Philippines despite its installation of missiles in three reefs in the Spratly Islands; and

4. Said that a diplomatic protest against the aforesaid missile installation and the landing of long-range bombers in the Paracel Group of Islands will spell trouble for the Philippines, which does not have the military muscle to buttress its protest.

With an expansionist aggressor at our very doorstep, Duterte portrays a picture of pathetic and unpatriotic surrender as if indeed the Philippines has already been annexed as a province of China.

The Duterte government cannot adopt a posture of helplessness even as viable remedies are available like a strong diplomatic protest, invocation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and enforcement of United Nations sanctions.

A country, like the Philippines, does not have to go to war to protect and preserve its sovereignty as these options and remedies are available.

In a survey conducted last month, the SWS said 81% of respondents rejected the do-nothing stance of the government against China’s brazen incursions and think it is "not right" for the Philippine government "to do nothing about China’s intrusion in claimed territories." In fact, the same survey documented that 9 of 10 Filipinos want the Philippines to retake what China seized in the WPS.

CHINESE LOANS: DEBT-TRAP DIPLOMACY

President Duterte’s ominous inaction to China’s overt incursions in the West Philippine Sea lends credence to the suspicion that the country’s sovereignty over these resource-rich and strategic vast areas has been collateralized in anticipation of Chinese loans.

If this is so, the Philippines has become the latest victim of China’s debt-trap diplomacy or creditor’s colonialism. The Philippine situation is worse because China forecloses the collateral even before a single cent of the loan has been released.

Victims of China’s debt-trap diplomacy are numerous like:

• Sri Lanka was forced to give China a 99-year lease on its strategic Hambantota port in December 2017 after failing to pay its debts to China.

• In 2017, the Republic of Djibouti allowed China to construct its first overseas military base, on top of paying China $20 million per year for its outstanding debt. It must be underscored that Djibouti is strategically located near some of the world's busiest shipping lanes, controlling access to the Red Sea and Indian Ocean. Apart from this, it also serves as a key refuelling and transshipment center and principal maritime port for imports from and exports to its neighbor Ethiopia.

• Cash-strapped Venezuela which is currently in economic turmoil, borrowed $63 billion from China between 2007 and 2014. China insists that Venezuela repay it with oil. Venezuela is being fleeced by China of its blood and oil.

• Similarly, Turkmenistan, after failing to pay off Chinese loans, has also given China access to its natural gas supplies.

Do Chinese loans offer competitive interest rates? Obviously, they do not.

A serious objection to the acquisition of loans from China to fund Philippine infrastructure development is that they are definitely more expensive. While Japan’s loan interest rate typically ranges from 0.25 to 0.75 per cent per annum, China imposes interest rates of 2 to 3 per cent, or three to twelve times higher.

The Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) loan for the Metro Manila Subway carried an interest rate of only 0.1%. The first tranche of the loan amounted to P51.3 B. At a 0.1% interest rate, the annual interest on the loan will be P51.3 M. If the loan is instead from China, at 2% per annum the required annual interest payment will be P1.026 B, or P974.7 M more. The excess amount is not small and is better rechanneled to the prompt provision of adequate social and economic services.

If loans from Japan are not enough to fund the country’s infrastructure program we may explore other countries like South Korea for possibly cheaper loan sources. We may even turn to local sources for the funding. Philippine financial institutions are willing and able to help.

Moreover, the infrastructure projects will be undertaken by Chinese companies and contractors, crowding out Filipino companies, contractors, and perhaps even construction workers. How much domestic employment can be generated? Will Filipinos have to fight for crumbs?

The President has not disclosed whether any of the projected Chinese loans have been documented in loan agreements or any amount has been released to support the government’s grand infrastructure program. Apparently, none has been signed or any loan component released.

MARAWI CITY STILL IN RUINS

Months after the cessation of hostilities where Marawi City was reduced to rubble principally from land and air offensives of the Philippine military at the behest of President Duterte to annihilate terror groups, the promised rehabilitation of the once lovely and bustling city has barely commenced despite the existing appropriation of billions of pesos.

In a survey conducted in April 2018 by the SWS in collaboration with the Philippine Center for Islam and Democracy (PCID), it is reported that eight in 10 residents of Marawi City feel that their lives are “worse now” than before the armed conflict began in May 2017.

The armed conflict all but leveled Marawi City, displaced a quarter of a million people and damaged P20 billion worth of properties.

The inordinate delay in the rehabilitation of Marawi City compounds the misery of our Muslim compatriots. It also provides the fertile ground for the revival of extremism and radicalization.

AFTER A CO-OPTED CONGRESS, THE SUPREME COURT HAS BEEN INTRUDED UPON

There is truism in the maxim that when the political departments – the Executive and the Legislative – falter, it is the Judiciary (the Supreme Court) which weaves the tender thread that binds the nation.

That ultimate savior of our democratic institutions, which is the Supreme Court, has been intruded upon, if not emasculated, by President Duterte when he appeared to have orchestrated the removal of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno through an errant and unprecedented quo warranto petition filed by no less than his Solicitor General.

President Duterte publicly called the Chief Magistrate his enemy even as he also publicly ordered his Solicitor General to exert all efforts to remove Chief Justice Sereno.

A majority of eight (8) Justices succumbed to the pressure and used the High Court as the venue to unconstitutionally oust the Chief Justice, and utterly disregarded the mandated constitutional process of impeachment vested in the Congress.

The tender thread has been severed. Now, we have an all powerful President, a co-opted Congress and a damaged Supreme Court.

BARMM IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The reconciled Organic Law for the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM), which the President will sign into law soonest, suffers a congenital constitutional infirmity.

Abolishing the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and installing the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM) by ordinary legislation is a flawed and unconstitutional process.

The pertinent provisions of the 1987 Constitution under Art. X elevated the ARMM to a constitutional entity similar to the COMELEC, COA, Civil Service Commission, Office of the Ombudsman, and the Commission on Human Rights.

Verily, the ARMM cannot be dismantled to give way to BARMM without first amending the Constitution by abolishing ARMM and authorizing the Congress to enact the BARMM in its place. We cannot place the cart before the horse.

Moreover, it was the 8th Congress, not the 17th Congress, which was mandated by the 1987 Constitution under Section 19 of Article X to enact the Organic Act for an autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao, which it did by enacting R.A. 6734 on August 1, 1989.

THE PUZZLE OF DUTERTE’S POPULARITY

It is a puzzle that despite the failure of President Rodrigo Duterte to deliver most of his campaign promises, his irreverence to established institutions, including the Catholic Church, his unpatriotic surrender to China’s expansionism in the West Philippine Sea, his policy equivocation, and his anti-human rights record, he still enjoys a high popularity rating across classes in his second year in office.

The following reasons could be advanced to decipher the puzzle:

1. The electorate simply want to justify their choice, however errant it may have been;

2. The people like a leader who is authoritative even in his blunders and blabbering;

3. Duterte’s behavior appeals to the people’s notion of a "malaking tao” and speaking his mind is seen as a sign of being a “totoong tao”;

4. Duterte utilizes emotional appeal and taps into the collective frustrations of ordinary people by attacking institutions and groups that the general public feel have failed them, like the Catholic Church, the bureaucracy and the elite;

5. On his attacks on women, the popular support is a sad reflection of how stubbornly sexist our society is;

6. The worldwide “populist” movement has influenced Filipinos as Duterte projects a man-of-the-people messianic image to which the people latch on despite the President’s failure to fulfill his campaign promises and post-election commitments to arrest poverty, solve the traffic mess and end contractualization, among others;

7. Patronizing sectors of social media fiercely and irrationally supporting Duterte adversely influence public opinion; and

8. The surveys may have failed to accurately document the respondents’ sentiments or the questions asked are not properly framed.

We appreciate President Duterte’s immediate or eventual removal of corrupt and inept high officials, including members of his cabinet, however we disagree to the accommodation of these errant officials in other government positions.

We laud President Dueterte’s steadfast vocal advocacy for the Reproductive Health Law but regret the lack of adequate funding for its full implementation.

We also welcome the President’s push for environmental protection and integrity in the tourism and mining industries, among others; final constitution of the Coconut Farmer’s Trust Fund; and enactment of the “National Land Use Act” which is pending in the Senate.

But overall, the presidential ledger is manifestly skewed against President Rodrigo Duterte and his administration.