‘PCSO, DAR balked at Magna Carta’

A+
A
A-

In their rush to approve the Magna Carta of the Poor, lawmakers put in funding provisions that raised questions from the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) and the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), President Benigno Aquino III said on Tuesday.

But what mainly cost its enactment was their failure to reflect in the magna carta a key principle, “progressive realization,” in their model, the International Covenant on Economic Culture and Social Philippines, officials said.

While the President has come under fire for vetoing it, this won’t result in a backlash against his handpicked Team PNoy senatorial candidates, they said.

Talking to reporters on the vetoed measure for a second day, Mr. Aquino said that even the PCSO and DAR had balked at the provisions identifying their earnings as major sources of funding for the magna carta’s implementation.

Funding will come from 50 percent of the national government’s share in all lotteries conducted by the PCSO; 50 percent of the national government’s share in proceeds from the sale of sequestered assets; 50 percent from the proceeds of sale of goods forfeited by the Bureau of Customs, and 20 percent of the share of the national government in the earnings of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp.

“The PCSO has said that 55 percent of what it takes in it pays out as prizes. How can it give 50 percent to this fund?” Mr. Aquino told reporters at the Victory Liner bus terminal in Pasay City, the final stop of his Holy Week inspection of sea ports, airports and bus depots.

The DAR, for its part, pointed out that there was an existing law specifically stating that it would be funded from the proceeds of the sale of sequestered assets, Mr. Aquino said.

“Now lawyers—and I’m not a lawyer—are saying that you can’t amend without making a reference to the law that is being amended,” he said.

P300-B administrative fee

The President vetoed the measure because the government couldn’t come up with at least P3.044 trillion to provide food, homes, jobs, quality education and health services to the country’s 25 million poor immediately. Failure to comply with this requirement could prompt suits against the government.

He said that five million social housing units alone would cost P2.320 trillion, way more than this year’s P2.006-trillion national budget.

Had the lawmakers put in the phrase “progressive realization,” it would have been a different matter, he said.

On Tuesday, Mr. Aquino said that the P3 trillion also came with a 10-percent “administrative fee” or some P300 billion to administer the projects, making the proposed law’s implementation more costly.

Then speaking on the measure’s proposed administrative sanctions on officials, Mr. Aquino said: “We should pity the government employees. You’re giving them mission impossible, then you file charges against them if they fail to do the impossible. That’s why I was obliged to veto it.”

Mr. Aquino also bristled at Alagad Rep. Rodante Marcoleta’s claim that he could have vetoed certain provisions, not the legislation in its entirety.

Holding up a copy of the Constitution, he cited provisions that state that the President could “line veto” revenue, tariff or appropriation measure, but not other types of legislation.

Poor Pangilinan staff work

“That’s nice if that’s allowed by law. But under the Constitution, which Congressman Marcoleta should know if indeed he said what he had said being a member of legislature and a third-termer, [that’s not allowed],” he said.

Marcoleta, one of the main proponents of the bill, blamed Sen. Francis Pangilinan for the veto, saying the senator had insisted on his version of the measure that he said lacked pertinent details.

A Cabinet official, who asked not to be named, also blamed poor work by the senator’s staff for the veto.

The official said Pangilinan came up with a consolidated version of the Senate bills and managed to convince his House counterparts to adopt his version.

His staff, however, forgot to insert the phrase “progressive realization” and included provisions that were questioned by funding agencies.

“Had they included the phrase ‘progressive realization,’ the President would not have found anything objectionable,” the official said.

Congress approved the measure in early February before it adjourned for the official start of the campaign period for senatorial elections.

The President directed Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Arsenio Balisacan and Social Welfare Secretary Corazon Soliman to draft a substitute measure in the hope that it would be approved by the 16th Congress.

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.

  • http://www.yellowmythbusters.gov.ph/ Weder-Weder Lang

    Senators Pangilinan and Estrada deem the Magna Carta adequately funded based on their assumptions. The palace thinks otherwise. At the end of the day, it’s all about money. The palace wants P3 trillion but the senators think that’s too much. Why PNoy wants P3 trillion to spend from possibly 2013 to 2016 looks suspicious to people like Senator Pangilinan who has his own ambitions for 2016. Senator Drilon is not exactly thrilled that PNoy is building such a huge war chest for Mar Roxas in 2016. It appears that the cracks within LP are widening even before the May 2013 elections. In LP or in UNA, it’s always been every man for himself. No one said it better than the mestizo Manuel Quezon when he once proclaimed several decades ago, and I paraphrase, “My loyalty to my party ends where my loyalty to myself begins.”

    • koolkid_inthehouse

      Manure spreader post. What’s the number?

      • http://www.yellowmythbusters.gov.ph/ Weder-Weder Lang

        P1.2 trillion according to Jinggoy in DZMM’s interview last Monday.

        P1.8 trillion according to Kiko during the same interview.

      • Winzum Daoas

        which the current budget cant fund because for example, if we take a P1.2 trilliion for housing and it is given to 3 agencies, that would be 400 billiion pesos each for the three. And under the Constitution, the DepEd should have the highest budget so that means the DepED budget would have to be at least 400,000,000,000.01 which means that the program and the DepEd would already have a share of 1.6 trillion pesos of the 2 trillion peso budget which doesn’t really leave much for the other government agencies, offices and programs.

      • koolkid_inthehouse

        These donkeys don’t know their math. Can’t teach math to donkeys. Ask them how many zeroes in a trillion, they’ll give you full crap answer.

      • http://www.yellowmythbusters.gov.ph/ Weder-Weder Lang

        Donkey in donkey out. Kaya kawawa ang Pinas dahil kay Pnoy the donkey.

  • maxbeep1

    mga oligarko o mayayaman lang talaga ang nakikinabang sa paglago ng ekonomya, pagdating sa mga mahihirap na tao, ay marami ng dahilang ang pnoy administration para hindi mapaluwagan o matulungan ang mga mahihirap na mabigyan ng kahit man lang na mga basic na pangangailangan ng mga mahihirap na pilipino.

    • GustoKoHappyKa

      madaming mahirap na tao dahil tamad magtrabaho… gusto puro bigay…

      • JOHNCeneza

        Mga tambay at lasingero. Ang Perang ibibili sana ng bigas, binibili ng yosi, alak at pulutan. At 11 pa yung anak.

  • Simplify1

    The senators should seriously consider tweaking the tax rates of individuals and corporations. For starters, all individuals making less than 30,000 net taxable income per year should end up not paying any taxes at all. Tax rates for individuals earning more than 1,000,000 taxable net annual income should be taxed a little bit more

    • Simplify1

      It is quite absurd that an individual who earns 2,000,000 pays 30.25% effective tax rate or 605,000….. while someone who earns 10,000,000 pays 31.65% or 3,165,000….. One does not have to be a scientist to note that while the income in this example increased by 400%, the tax rate only increased by 1.4 points or 5% only!!

      Simply increasing the marginal tax rate by 2% earns an additional 200,000 for the country’s coffers…Someone who earns 10M per year will not feel the effect of 2% reduction in take home pay

      On the other hand, an individual who earns 30,000 will have a windfall of 2,500 pesos which he will no longer pay! The kicker is the fact that a single individual who pays an additional 2% tax that he can very well afford covers for 80 individuals who will benefit from not having to pay taxes….

      • zeroko

        Where did you get those figures of 30% and 31%?

      • Simplify1

        Income taxes in the Philippines are based on a graduating scale ranging from 5% for taxable income of 10,000 and below to a maximum of 125,000 + 32% of taxable income in excess of 500,000….

        As you can see, the poor pinoy who makes 10,000 per year is still taxed 5%. On the other hand, our rich neighbors’ tax rates are pegged at 32% of taxable income in excess of 500,000. Regardless whether these rich pinoys make 500,000 or 50,000,000 per year, their marginal tax rate is only 32%!! Is this fair?

      • koolkid_inthehouse

        You don’t have to do this math if Filipinos can work on full time permanent jobs with benefits and feel secure to get a mortgage from the bank to buy a house wherever they want to live.
        That simple. Create jobs jobs jobs jobs and more jobs. More taxes if there are more jobs in this country.

        Let the donkeys in congress and senate work to legislate a job creations.

      • mamer2

        New jobs COMES, mostly, from new companies, new investments, new projects.

        These New Investments, New Companies and New Projects…, can only come from NEW Available Funds.

        New Available Funds come mostly from the NET EARNINGS of the Big Earners…, NET of their Expenses, aside from taxes.

      • Simplify1

        Fair comment… However, our taxes are skewed towards creating more millions for millionaires at the expense of the general population. My simple computation simply highlights the disparity of income tax rates.

        Come to think of it, the maximum tax rates are already met once taxable income reaches 500,000 pesos. Converted to US dollars, this makes about $12,000 – THE POVERTY LEVEL OF DEVELOPED NATIONS!!

      • Simplify1

        That’s exactly what the proponents of the magna carta for the poor were thinking!! Easier to say than actually doing. My comment was an attempt to think outside the box… thinking along the lines of… WHY NOT?

      • huseng_batute

        What is 5% of 10,000? 500
        What is 32% of 500,000? 160,000
        What is unfair?

      • Simplify1

        You feel that a poor person who only made 10,000 taxable income in the year should still part ways with his 500 for taxes? The rich should do more and contribute more to help eradicate poverty. Its so amusing that the Philippines with $4,000 GDP per capita has MORE $$ BILLIONAIRES than Malaysia who exports oil and gas and having in excess of $16,000 per capita!! ASTOUNDING FACT!!

      • huseng_batute

        I think any income earner should not be paying any more income taxes.

        Do you think those billionaires got their money from regular income? THEY ARE BUSINESSMEN!! Mga may ari ng companies and corporations.

        If you want more money in the government coffers you should get them from corporate taxes, not from income earners.

      • mamer2

        Reducing drastically the net earnings of the BiG EARNERS…, would effectively reduce their net earnings.
        A drastically reduced net earnings of these Big Earners would also drastically reduce Funds from these sources for other & future investments. Meaning, new and bigger investments will grow very very slowly.

        It is ONLY the Big Earners who are in the position to put up new and bigger projects, investments, companies, factories…, etc etc etc.

        It is ONLY the Big Earners who have the available fundings for these improvements & development.

      • Simplify1

        I beg to disagree. Raising 2% more from the top 20% of the population is NOT DRASTIC…..this is merely a drop in the bucket. On the other hand our poorest people will benefit greatly if their own taxes are significantly reduced.

      • Concur_Dissent

        The number one problem of investing in the Philippines is graft and corruption in government because these public servants are not well paid. Raising the income level of government employees may result in a reduction of corruption across the board…..

        The “Big Earners and Investors” will not have to cough up billions of pesos in lagay just to get a project or get a business going. The Big Earners and Investors will definitely benefit from reduced corruption in government, which I think will more than offset the 2% tax increase rates for such millionaires

    • zeroko

      You are crazy! Do you know that anyone earning half a million pesos pays these lousy government 35% of their earnings and get a stupid service and too much corruption?

      • Simplify1

        corruption is a multifaceted beast…. most government employees who fall to corruption are due to low salaries….. If these government employees are paid properly, corruption could be reduced drastically…. The government is the largest employer and if government employees salaries are raised at least to middle class standards, they will form the backbone of a very strong middleclass….

        Most if not all economically successful countries have government employees who are paid better relative to employees from the private sectors

      • mamer2

        To give government employees bigger salaries than what they are receiving now, the government has to raise taxes.
        To raise taxes, would reduce the net earnings of the common Filipino.

        How can the reduction of net earnings make the common Filipino happier and have a better life..?

    • koolkid_inthehouse

      Senate and congress should seriously consider this:
      You don’t have to do this math if Filipinos can work on full time permanent jobs with benefits and feel secure to get a mortgage from the bank to buy a house wherever they want to live.
      That simple. Create jobs jobs jobs jobs and more jobs. More taxes if there are more jobs in this country.

      Let the donkeys in congress and senate work to legislate a job creations.

      • Simplify1

        That’s exactly what the proponents of the magna carta for the poor were thinking!! Easier to say than actually doing. My comment was an attempt to think outside the box… thinking along the lines of… WHY NOT?

        THE MAGNA CARTA FOR THE POOR ALREADY PASSED THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE AND IF NOT FOR A CARING PRESIDENT, WE WOULD HAVE HAD A BIGGER PROBLEM HAD THIS BILL BECOME A LAW

  • bgcorg

    The 50% share of the Magna Carta for the poor would come from the PCSO share after deductions, e.g., funds set aside for prizes. As far as the apparent conflict with DAR laws, the government simply had to do more effort in disposing those sequestered assets, and look at the separability clause of the law. Wherever there is a conflict, the latter law prevails. Anyway, there is still (assuming no presidential veto) the matter of the particularizing IRR which could realistically specifically budget over 5-10 years the progressive implementation of the Magna Carta for the Poor, if the money is not lost to corruption. Hopefully, the bill with the modifications the President would like to introduce is quickly passed into law. It will put off the much-needed focused program for the poor for a whole year, hopefully sooner, due to legislative discussions, etc. and synchronization with a suitable General Appropriations Act “on a progressive” basis. In the meantime, UNA can surge ahead.

    Important is the rule: “Give the hungry man not just fish for the day, but the means to catch fish” so that the changes in poverty paradigm could change and be sustained. Dole outs only make the receiver dependent for a temporary benefit. Team Pnoy seems to have forgotten the bulk of its constituency, at least for a year….

    • Handiong

      “In the meantime, UNA can surge ahead.”???? In your dreams. Why would the people put an obstruction on their path to a better life?

      • JOHNCeneza

        Because no govt can perform magic.

  • jjammess

    Well this Magna Carta still make the poor remain as poor. These lawmakers should state that housing to be given should have 3 bedrooms with a lawn. And Medical care should be at st. Luke not pgh so poor could taste luxury too. Education at ateneo n de lasalle so dat what is given is quality education. To all lawmakers, Ain’t it better you think?

    • JOHNCeneza

      Better sana, kung population ng poor natin ay nasa 1000 lang.

  • Jane Tan

    Hmmm… funding will come from earnings of PCSO… then the poor will use the money they get to buy lotto? Paikot-ikot lang lol.

    • mamer2

      PCSO does NOT generate new funds, nor new income.!
      It is money, already in existence. No production, of any kind is involved.
      Walang selvi. Only increases vices and the “shady-people” that go with it.

  • Handiong

    Simply put, the sponsors of the bill in Congress did not do their homework.

  • malvar pagasa

    “The PCSO has said that 55 percent of what it takes in it pays out as prizes. How can it give 50 percent to this fund?” e di after 55% pay out for prizes, 50% nun, naku kahit magmukhang bobo may masabi lang, un na nga e di ka lawyer, economist ka, e di alam mo na at least basics ng distribution, nk-lump na nga as poor ung target ng mga programs e tsktsktsk

  • poltergeist_fuhrer

    2.3 trillion for housing of 25 million filipinos???common PENOY….dont fool us…

    dont tell us that there are 25 million HOMELESS FILIPINOS…and as if 25 million families that need 25 million homes…

    hangang kailan ka mang uuto penoy???

    • JOHNCeneza

      I think the report said 5 million housing unit would cost 2.32 trillion. Doing the math that would be 460,000 pesos per unit.

      • poltergeist_fuhrer

        the gawad kalinga can build houses worth 30k

  • disqusted0fu

    Of course PCSO will disagree on the implementation of magna carta because how can Pnoy’s PCSO board members take advantage of the billions of funds that they have if they will give half of it to the funds for the poor?! Speaking of which, whatever happened to the audit of PCSO misusing their funds in 2011???

  • koolkid_inthehouse

    Very simple solutions to Philippine poverty. Filipinos are willing to work given a level playing field.

    Create jobs jobs jobs and more jobs. They will feel secure to get a mortgage to buy a house if they have full time permanent jobs with benefits. They can choose where they want to live.

    Calling all politicians to create jobs not only for yourself and your family.

    Encourage foreign investments in the country. Graft and corruption must be eliminated, Communication infrastructure should be updated, tv still flaky, internet signals sucks, no satellite communication, banking system and security must be enhanced. I think this is too much for their veggie brain.

  • koolkid_inthehouse

    Not much revenues because all these will simply lost in graft and corruptions.

  • JasonBieber

    They balked coz you probably PNoy told them to.

    PNoy has not done anything substantial to help the poor and the same goes for the PCSO and the DAR. In fact, there were some shady spendings done by PCSO that the COA revealed…however, PNoy made those questions about the suspicious activity disappear.

    It’s funny how there seems to be as much corruption or at least more evidence of corruption in the PCOS during the PNoy Administration than the previous Administration.

  • JOHNCeneza

    Overpopulation is still the root of all this problems.

  • HarryK

    ” Increase the Pork and we will take care of the poor!” ….Lousy legislators.

To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.

Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:

c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City,Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94

editors' picks

advertisement

popular

advertisement

videos