Belmonte: We’re not easy on SMC
Speaker Feliciano Belmonte. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines—Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. on Thursday acknowledged that the House version of the sin tax bill might be construed as favorable to liquor firms, but reminded critics that the measure was still up for scrutiny by the Senate.
“They say that we were easy on the liquor industry, yah, but they can compensate for it there,” he told reporters. “They could increase (the tax rate) there if they wanted to. It’s not that this is the final word.”
Belmonte was reacting to Senator Ralph Recto’s criticism that the House version might have reflected the positions embraced by Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima and San Miguel Corp., maker of the popular San Miguel beer.
“If (finance officials) claim that they had a compromise in the House, that’s why they came at P30 billion, that means they gave in to alcohol,” Recto told the Inquirer on Wednesday. “That’s how it went and then they’ll blame me? Is that a Purisima-San Miguel alliance? … What does that mean? I don’t know.”
Recto resigned as chairman of the Senate ways and means committee on Monday after drawing criticisms that the committee report, which sought to generate an additional P15 billion a year from taxes on cigarettes and alcohol products, was influenced by lobby money from tobacco firms.
Malacañang favored a bill that could generate an additional P60 billion a year from sin taxes.
Belmonte said the lower chamber was open to reconciling its version of the bill with the measure that would be produced by the Senate.
“It’s entirely reasonable to expect that they would have a bill. Then ours would not be exactly the same. That’s why there is a bicameral committee in order to reconcile them,” he said.
Belmonte said the House was not necessarily insisting on its version. That “we will stand by this to the very last” is “not the way the process in the Philippines works,” he said.
Malacañang steered clear of Recto’s insinuation of a “Purisima-San Miguel” alliance and hoped the name-calling would stop.
“Let me be clear, Secretary Purisima never resorted or [Internal Revenue Commissioner] Kim Henares never resorted to name-calling. So, the name-calling did not start from government officials,” said presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda.—Christian V. Esguerra
