Let’s start with Neri and executive privilege: A timeline courtesy of the PCIJ.
My column today is A color of constitutionality The Inquirer editorial today is In aid of transparency, My column was less enthusiastic than today’s editorial about the compromise offered by the Chief Justice: Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J. who, by all accounts, was coaching the legal team arguing the Senate case, wasn’t pleased, either, but tried to make the best of it in A case of delicate balancing -but all have been overtaken by events.
The problem is of course, something that came as a surprise yesterday evening: Senate rejects SC compromise on Neri.
(see also, Senate rejects compromise: Conditions set by SC seen as crippling legislature) I’ve been mulling over the reasons why the Senate decided to harden its position and rebuff the Supreme Court. I think the Senators decided they are operating from a position of strength, legally and politically speaking.
By all accounts, going into yesterday’s oral arguments, the Supreme Court was split, 7-7, on Neri’s petition. The effect of such a vote, if it had taken place, would have been to deny Neri his petition. However, revealing, in essence, a party-line vote would have discredited the Supreme Court, because it would have shown that even clearly significant cases are now reduced to which justice is loyal to the President, or not.
For that reason, it would have made sense for the Chief Justice to throw the ball back in the Senate’s court, hoping it would clarify the extent to which Neri intended to be obstructionist. The Palace, for its part, faced with a sure loss if the Supreme Court had voted, could also look forward to a reprieve, while Neri in the meantime could invoke executive privilege, get into trouble with the senators, and have the whole thing end up back in court.
By which time, a new Justice would have been appointed, thus further firming up the administration’s numbers in the high court.
The Senate, though, in rejecting the compromise offered by the Chief Justice, and which has therefore puts pressure back on the court. The Supreme Court can now proceed to drag its feet: SC needs time for final ruling on executive privilege.
Lawyer Teddy Te, for one, is happy over the Senate’s decision (see his blog, Vincula):
After nine hours of orals, the Supreme Court Chief Justice offers a compromise–perceived by Malacanang to be “solomonic”, which should already put you on guard–to the Senate: 1. Neri will testify at the Senate, 2. he will not be arrested anymore, 3. but the three questions he had invoked “executive privilege” against will not be asked anymore and will be considered asked, and 4. each and every time he invokes executive privilege, the issue will be tossed back to the Court.
My first reaction was that it was a “cop out” by the Court, after strong decisions on press freedom and showing strong resolve against EJK and ED with amparo and habeas data. Later on, after speaking with very reliable sources, it made sense–though I still didn’t agree with the compromise; my sources told me that the CJ and Justice Carpio felt outvoted by the Gloria people in the Court and feared a loss had they insisted on a decision–so to avoid a loss, the CJ offered the compromise. One step backward, two steps forward–was it Lenin who said this, or Tommy Manotoc? Yes, it made sense but it still left me with a bad taste in the mouth.
If the Senate approved the deal, Gloria wins, hands down and the Senate loses, big time. The power of the Senate to summon witnesses would be severely impaired and the dictator gets away with silence on the three questions that directly place the ZTE deal at her doorstep.
I am glad that the Senate FINALLY acquired a collective spine (did that include you, Joker?) and some collective sense of identity and history and said, “thanks, but no thanks.” I hope the SC addresses this issue and, despite the lifting of E0 464, rules that its invocation under those circumstances was not proper and that Neri SHOULD answer those 3 questions.
This explains, to my mind, why the Palace slams Senate’s ‘arrogance’ for rejecting SC proposal. The compromise could have hidden the party-line vote it had in the Supreme Court; and it bought that most precious of political commodities, time. But, since anything is possible, it could also happen that an irritated Supreme Court, piqued by the Senate’s rejection, could then simply decide in Neri’s favor.
In the meantime, returning to Fr. Bernas’ piece, some problems now arise:
If no compromise is reached, will the court require Neri to appear at the Senate? Neri has claimed that he has the right not to heed the Senate’s call.
Should the court require Neri to appear, it would mean that for the court, the current Senate inquiry is not one where President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo may prevent a department secretary from appearing, as provided for in Article VI, Section 22 of the Constitution.
Rather, the court would be saying that the current Senate inquiry is one in aid of legislation under Article VI, Section 21.
In Senate v Ermita, the court said that only the President and justices of the Supreme Court are exempt from summonses to an investigation in aid of legislation. Neri is neither the President nor a justice of the Supreme Court.
Should Neri still refuse to appear, in effect he would be claiming a right analogous to the right of an accused against self-incrimination. An accused can completely refuse to take the witness stand.
But if Neri is required to appear, the court would be saying that his situation is more analogous to the right against self-incrimination of a witness who is not an accused.
A witness who is not an accused may raise the defense of right against self-incrimination only when an incriminating question is asked. He has no right to refuse to take the witness stand altogether.
By analogy, the court would be saying that Neri may raise the issue of executive privilege only when a question he deems to be against executive privilege is asked.
It should be remembered that executive privilege belongs to the President and to no one else. At most, it can be claimed by the executive secretary by express authority of the President.
Hence, Neri must be able to show that after prior consultation with the President, he was instructed to claim executive privilege.
Whereupon, following the teaching of Senate v Ermita and in accordance with the tenor of the questions posed by the justices on Tuesday, Neri will be asked what exactly he is seeking to hide behind executive privilege.
At this stage, and as already mentioned during the Tuesday hearing, it may become necessary for the court to examine in chambers the secret sought to be guarded by the executive for the purpose of determining whether indeed the matter can or should be legitimately kept from the eyes of the public.
After all, the Senate has to be properly informed if it is to legislate intelligently, and the public generally has a constitutional right to be informed of matters of public concern.
Moreover, as already admitted in the Tuesday hearing, criminal matters are not covered by executive privilege.
Meanwhile, the story behind this news item –Arroyo revokes EO 464 after meeting with religious leaders– I found out last night. No one was supposed to know the President was going to meet her allied bishops, particularly the ones from Mindanao, at the Discovery Suites. However, the media was tipped off and reporters camped out. This meant that attendees were observed coming and going. And that the President ended up making her announcement sooner than planned. Speaking of bishops, Patricio P. Diaz dissects recent statements by the Catholic hierarchy.
In the meantime, Senators also want Memorandum Circular 108 scrapped. Check out smoke’s comparison of E.O. 464 and M.C. 108.
When he does publish a book, it will a doozy. Read Lito Banayo’s growing feeling of Déjà vu. Meanwhile, the plot thickens: Arroyo not just witness at NBN-ZTE deal signing: and Another China contract missing.
And Gail Ilagan has some interesting observations concerning Lozada’s abduction.
Economic news: Poverty worsens between 2003 and 2006, according to the National Statistics Coordination Board. (see Poverty worsens despite growth and Poor Filipino families now number 4.7 million and More Filipinos below poverty line ) In his blog, [email protected] comments on the figures. In his column, Peter Wallace says that while government claimed 7.3 percent GDP growth last year, the real figure is about 4.8 percent growth. See also Inflation surges to 5.4% in February and NEDA expects to record growth slowdown in Q1.
How do foreign analysts go about determining risk in the Philippines? Read Forecast that Arroyo will survive has ‘large margin of error’ – analyst.
In the blogosphere, Phoenix Eyrie, Reloaded, is at the very least, ambivalent about opposition to the President. Spring Roll is confused by recent events. Mandaluyong High School says, let’s think positive. Splice and Dice thinks that the issues gives people a chance to seize the day. blackshama believes the old People Power is dead, long live whatever replaces it.
Observations from a Lowly Traveller is looking forward to migrating. Bayan ni Kabayan looks at the Neri chart.
…an achievement worthy of a place in the guiness book of world records! 😉
that’s right! pgma only needed 6 years to ACHIEVE all that marcos accomplished, if any, in 20 years.
maybe she will achieve a lot, lot more if she is given an additional 16 years, huh?
that’s right! pgma only needed 6 years to ACHIEVE all that marcos accomplished, if any, in 20 years.
maybe she will achieve a lot, lot more if she is given an additional 16 years, huh?—
yeah you bet! a lot more stealing and looting. a lot more unabated extra-judicial killings. a lot more or maybe the entire filipino people leaving for abroad to feed our their families and to pay for foreign debt gma and her kampon would have amassed! a lot more indeed. and maybe we will have the first filipino in the richest person in the whole world in forbes magazine, glory gloria, numero uno! 😉
…and maybe by then gloria had sold the whole country to china and the philippines will be known as a province of republic of china! that will be great because china by then will be the economic giant biggest of all and a vast wasteland of toxic industrial wastes! glo(w) in the dark pinoys!
😉
…pardon for my rich imagination. then again nothing is impossible when you have God’s messenger as your leader! forget the Blessed Tinity! there is fourth component, gloria! “blessed quadruplet”
😉
make up your mind, will you”? i thought you said “achieve”. are you bastardizing the word “achievement” to mean atrocities as warped minds do? your funny faces don’t cure that kind of stupidity. where i am now, we don’t call wrongdoings “achievement”. mabuti pa magtagalog o magbisaya ka na lang kung hindo mo naiintidihan and salitang ginagamit mo.
make up your mind, will youâ€Â? i thought you said “achieveâ€Â. are you bastardizing the word “achievement†to mean atrocities as warped minds do? your funny faces don’t cure that kind of stupidity. where i am now, we don’t call wrongdoings “achievementâ€Â. mabuti pa magtagalog o magbisaya ka na lang kung hindo mo naiintidihan and salitang ginagamit mo.—
tatang naman! i thought you’re one smart puppy! let mi explen (wid bisaya syntax pa!), to yu.
arroyo achievements are her atrocities against the entire filipino nasyon! nothing gud cams awt ob an evil person dat she is!
o naintidihan mo na ako? o ulianin ka na nga? ay naku ang hirap mong kausap! i know dat in inglis, senile! at hindi viagra ang gamot para dyan! gets mo ko? 😉
…ika nga medyo sarcastic ba ang dating. (more funny faces) lol. 🙂 😉 🙁
a ganoon! sarcasam pala. ambigus kasi ang pag-gamit mo ng “achievement” eh! masiyado ka namang “malalim” (yan ang sarcasam). tsupe!
a ganoon! sarcasam pala. ambigus kasi ang pag-gamit mo ng “achievement†eh! masiyado ka namang “malalim†(yan ang sarcasam). tsupe!
tatang naman. amg puso mo ingatan ha. 😉 kulang tayo sa nars at doktor. ang blue pill hindi para sa puso. 😉 nakapag-almusal na ba tayo?
sabi ng iba dito bakit parati si gloria na lang pinag-iinitan sa lahat na mga anomalya at katiwalian na nangyayari sa ating bayan at gobyerno? wala naman dun ang pirma nya sa mga kontrata (kung makita man, ninakaw daw) na sinasabing ilegal. pero meron ba syang ginawa na hakbang para parusahan ang mga hinihilaang mga sangko sa krimen? puro hugas kamay na lang, daig pa si punso pilato. daming beses na naghugas ng kamay sya na yata ang may pinakamalinis na kamay sa buong mundo.
pero may napulot ako kanina sa paglalakad, “respondeat superior”. siguro naman alam eto ng mga abogado at economista dito na mahihilig sa “latin”.
sa halip na pakinggan nya si neri, “sec. may 200 ka dito” ( maybe 200 viagra pills), ani ni burjeer abalos, pinatuloy pa rin ang pirmahan and naki-eksena pa sa china habang malubha and karamdaman ni mister (my fellow bisayan)! tingnan mo nga naman o, masamang damo matagal matepok talaga! hasan si abalos? nagogolf sa wakwak, kumakain ng burjeer nya. si lozada? sinungaling daw! si neri di na pinagsalita. may sariling security. kinaialangan bantayan baka makawala pa at kumanta kagaya ng batang pempengko!
i told you to be careful using terms you are clueless about. respndeat superior is not what you are thinking. it is a doctrine used in the law of agency. but i’m not gonna give you a free lesson on its meaning. it’s not worth it. so hire yourself your own lawyer, get educated, then come back and argue about it as much as you want.
i told you to be careful using terms you are clueless about. respndeat superior is not what you are thinking. it is a doctrine used in the law of agency. but i’m not gonna give you a free lesson on its meaning. it’s not worth it. so hire yourself your own lawyer, get educated, then come back and argue about it as much as you want.—
tatang. para sa isang katulad ko na sinasabi nyo na walang alam, tuloy pa rin ang pansin nyo.
k lang yang na tawagin nyo ako ng kahit ano. basta, eto pa rin ako, itinataguyod ang mga pinapaniwalaan.
di ko naman sinasabi na sa korte ng batas para sa pamahalaan ang respondeat superior. halimbawa lang ho. kung ang isang may-ari ng negosyo ay sya ang may pananagutan sa katiwalian ng mga empleyado nya. inahambing lang o inahalintutulad ika nga. palaisipan lang ho kung ang isang may-ari ay may ganoong responsibilidad ay lalo na ang ating mga leader(kuno). ika nga accountability.
siguro kahit papaano may responsibilidad din si arroyo sa mga tao nya at mga ginagawa nito. alter ego ba.
masarap ho ba almusal natin? 😉
Re charter change, obviously people view this issue with fear which clouds your thinking. If taking the cudgels for a change in the system means I’m pro-Gloria, well, everyone is entitled to their own narrow-minded opinion. That’s not going to stop me from believing what I feel is best for the country and the future.
BTW, those who live in fear should see Michael Moore’s “stupid White Men” just to understand how this enveloping ourselves in this climate of fear can sow irrational thinking and behavior.
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 01:01:00 03/08/2008
Opinion
A losing battle
— The administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo proudly touts the relatively high economic growth during its watch as if it were its crowning achievement. It never misses any opportunity to remind everyone that the rate of economic growth has been accelerating since 2001, allowing it to outperform previous administrations, while glossing over the fact that, except for last year when the Philippines posted a remarkable 7.3 growth in gross domestic product, it still was not keeping pace with its dynamic neighbors. And always the key question is: Who is benefiting from such growth? Why are the main streets in major cities teeming with hungry children and why are there sidewalks filled with homeless people?
The latest survey on poverty done by the National Statistical Coordination Board shows the benefits of growth have not trickled down to the poorest of the poor. On the contrary, between 2003 and 2006, when the GDP grew by an average of 5.4 percent a year, 700,000 families joined the ranks of those who were officially classified as poor. Thus, the total number of poor families increased to 4.7 million in 2006 from 4 million in 2003. These are families that earn less than P6,274 a month, the amount a family of five needs in order to afford the most basic necessities, mainly food, shelter, health and education.
Thus by the government’s own definition of poverty, the number of Filipinos who were poor grew by some 3.8 million over a period of three years, from 23.8 million in 2003 to 27.6 million in 2006. That means that almost one out of every three Filipinos (32.9 percent) is considered poor by their own government.
And that is not the last of the grim statistics. According to the same survey, the number of families that did not earn enough to buy the minimum amount of food they needed rose to 1.9 million in 2006 from 1.7 million in 2003. That means that 12.2 million Filipinos, or 14.6 percent of the population, were not eating enough or “food-poor.â€Â
How did so many millions swell the ranks of the poor at a time when the economy was growing? Augusto Santos, acting director-general of the National Economic and Development Authority, said this was due to the higher prices of essential commodities and an “insufficient increase in personal income.†The first, he said, was partly caused by the expanded coverage and the increased rate of the value-added tax, while the second could be partly attributed to agricultural losses from two devastating supertyphoons that struck the country in 2006.
What Santos failed to mention was that despite sustained economic growth, real family incomes actually fell during the period not only because of higher prices but because economic growth was not high enough to improve family incomes as the population continued to grow at a fast pace. And the worse news is that there is little reason to hope that the war against poverty can be won anytime soon.
The Asian Development Bank, for one, says the country would be hard put to sustain last year’s record (for the past three decades, at least) 7.3-percent growth, which it said was largely driven by huge election spending. In its report, titled “Philippines: Critical Development Constraints,†the ADB identified three major factors that are bound to hamper economic growth. These are: (1) the government’s “tight†fiscal situation; (2) declining investments in infrastructure; and (3) lack of investor confidence because of corruption and political instability.
And what would it take to correct these constraints? Good governance. Checking graft and corruption and other government reforms will improve tax collection, ensure the proper use of government resources and enhance investor confidence.
But given all the scandals erupting around it, it would be wishful thinking to expect major improvements in governance during the remainder of the term of President Arroyo. It seems that the poor will not just remain with us while she continues to govern, but they will continue to grow in numbers too.
UPn student, i don’t think you can blame population growth alone. During the 1990’s, the population was growing at an even faster pace than today , but personal incomes (as measured by the FIES) rose. That means that the kind of growth we are experiencing benefits only the richer sectors. No trickle down, more likely trickle-up (with the Chinese loans that we have to pay through our taxes).
Also as i’ve repeatedly mentioned, the GDP growth figure itself is being overstated because of increased smuggling during GMA’s term which accounts for the dissonance between increasing per capita GDP and decreasing personal income.
Its so sad that the Inquirer will politicize everything icluding poverty statistics. Incredible in a sense, they attempt to inappropriately undermine any administration in power. No wonder we cant get out of the gutter we are in politically and economically. They should spend less politicizing and more time actually fighting for what is right. In an environment of polarized society, a sense of objectivity has to be maintained to foster national concensus on matters of utmost importance.
cvj: my observation is that you arrived at “smuggling is the answer”-hypothesis only a few blog-entries ago. Now your challenge, if you choose to accept it, is to prove your hypothesis true (or to find confirmation from Habito or others with better access to data.)
The highlighted “population-is-a-culprit” is also mentioned in the 2008-Monsod article that Q3 pointed to. I don’t remember if Mangahas alluded to it – population — when, in a Nov2007 Inquirer article, he also mentioned the FIES-family-income-down versus per-capita-GDP-up dissonance. And best I can recall, neither Monsod nor Mangahas (nor Habito, nor anyone from NEDA) pointed to hard data to explain why two statistics with reasonable positive correlation had diverged for the Philippine scenario.
UPn, former NEDA Director General Felipe Medalla (as cited by Habito) also said that he believes that GDP growth is overstated.
The ‘smuggling as answer’ was arrived at by Peter Wallace more than six months ago.
The ‘population as culprit’ explanation calls into question the per capita GDP increase because ‘per capita’ is already supposed to take into account any population increase. In our previous discussions, you put forward two alternative possible reasons for the divergence.
One possible reason that you pointed out is that the divergence between average family income in FIES and per capita GDP is a statistical fluke because the increase in number of families is higher than the increase in population. That was indeed a theoretical possibility worth checking so i checked the data and saw that was not the case for the 2003 to 2006 FIES. Number of families increased by 1.87% which is lower than the 2.05% projected increase in individuals for that period.
The other possible reason that you pointed out was maybe it is business income that is increasing faster rather than personal income. However, if you check the GDP figures, that reasoning does not hold up because any increase in business income would have shown up as increased capital formation. We can see from the GDP growth statistics, it is personal consumption expenditure that is still driving growth. Capital formation is not growing as fast and in fact, in some years, has decreased.
Failing those two alternative reasons, the overstatement of per capita GDP because of smuggling becomes a more likely candidate reason.
Mita,
Go ahead and propose your revisions (and assumed benefits) to our Charter.
After which we should try to “reconcile” them if they are similar to the previously proposed revisions and also ponder on the possible outcome.
cvj: cool! Thanks! Glad you’re okay with the stats.
blockquote from Peter Wallace:
On Population Growth, Wallace says:
UPn, what Peter Wallace overlooks in his analysis is the reality of class dynamics. After all, it isn’t the poor that is selling out our country to foreigners. In this respect, Neri’s template which places the Oligarchs at the center of our dysfunction is a more realistic description.
If we will follow Wallace’s views, then population increase will be one of the culprits. But we are surrounded by countries with booming population. Except maybe Japan and Singapore. Does it mean that their economic growth will also be hampered?
I thought theories on population growth hampering economic growth have long been demolished.
Maybe, rapid population growth is a burden but a burden that will turn beneficial in the long run.
FIES is a survey of the family’s income and expenditures that is done every three years.
The income stated in the FIES include those members of the family who are working abroad.
So what are my points:
1. income is expressed in terms of pesos. peso strengthened, dollar weakened, income of the
family whose dependent on remittances dropped.
2 FIES hard data, not even the growth rate should not be compared with GDP.
GDP represents total domestic production only while GNP includes payment for services outside the country. The latter accounts for the OFW earnings.
3. When filling in the form, the respondents of the survey may not totally disclose the income as well as the expenditures.In the same manner, businesses when reporting to the regulatory agencies do not necessarily provide the exact data. Most of the figures are just purely estimates. As we are dissecting the 2007 (which are just estimates, usually 10 per cent is added to the previous year), the financial information of businesses are still to be decided what should be included and what should be excluded until April 2008 or end of the year with extensions.
Manipulations for those which stocks are not traded publicly are for the purpose of tax evasions.
Manipulations for those which stocks are traded in public are for the purpose of reflecting
higher earnings per share.
Financial statements in corporation are two types. One is for reporting and one is for the eyes only of the management. The person forwarding the report to the regulatory agencies use the former. The possibility that a GDP or GNP is understated is higher than being overstated.
cvj, your
You still insist on this reason: The smuggled goods are reflected in the consumption but are not deducted from the imports.
But my dear economist wannabe:
1. If what is reflected in the consumption is the purchase price of the smuggled goods, then the expenditures should be lower.
Take for instance in the family consumption. Smuggled Food stuffs that must have been bought at much lower prices would give a report of lower food consumption. Result: Lower GDP
Your rebuttal maybe, the smuggled goods overstate their consumption. No my dear. The smuggled goods substituted for the local products .
In business, the same is true, assuming that this smuggled cost of raw material components is going to be reported. Smuggled, therefore are not reported.
So your contention that this should be deducted from the exports (X-M) does not hold water.
How can you deduct the item when it is not included in the first place. And since the cost of raw materials are not reported there is a high possibility that related exports are not also reported.
What business in their right mind errrm accountant would report export withhout corresponding cost or lower cost due to technical smuggling? The result would be higher profit. Higher profit means higher tax. Who would like that.
So what do they do? Well technically they misdeclare their exports. The rest of the values of the exports are then deposited in the offshore bank account of the exporters. Many say that it takes two to tango, I say, it takes a ballroom.
That makes the problem worse. That means that even if you factor in remittances (which is not part of GDP), average family income still decreased.
Tell me about it. As an OFW, when i remit to my family, i remit the peso equivalent which consumes more dollars than before. I don’t reduce my remittance.
Since the respondents of the FIES are the result of a random sample, that would mean that those conducting the survey have chanced upon a sample of respondents that is more dishonest than the last one. That’s highly unlikely unless you’re asserting that the general level of dishonesty (in answering surveys) of ordinary folks has increased in 2006 (compared to 2003).
The purchase price of the smuggled goods must not be reflected in the GDP at all. If i buy 100 Pesos worth of smuggled rice, it will be reflected as part of personal consumption expenditure (pce) portion of GDP. Since this 100 Pesos worth of smuggled rice was not produced in the Philippines, the proper treatment would be to deduct the 100 Pesos. However, since the NSO did not receive a report including this 100 Pesos worth of rice as part of imports (dahil smuggled nga), then it will not be deducted and GDP would have been overstated by 100 pesos.
For poor people or even for middle class people like me, any money saved on cheaper rice would have been spent on other needs (e.g. electricity, gasoline, medicine). If not, the FIES would have shown higher savings rate.
Lots of imports like oil and rice are for domestic consumption. Unless these are reported as imports, their value will not be deducted.
You still don’t get it do you?
The 100 peso worth of rice substituted for a domestically produced rice worth 200.
Your assumption is that the people consume two / one for the smuggled and one for the domestically produced.
Halimbawa, ang pamiya eh bumibili dati ng sako ng bigas na sabihin nating nagkakahalaga ng 500 at nauubos nila ito sa isang buwan.
Sa halip na itong 500 ang binili nila sa susunod na buwan, binili nila ay smuggled na 100 pesos.
Naubos din nila ang isang sakong bigas.
Tanong:
Noong unang buwan ano ang halaga ng bigas na isang kaban na kinain nila?
Sagot: 500.
Tanong:
Noong ikalawang buwan, ano ang halaga ng bigas na isang bigas kinain nila?
Sagot: 100.
Tama ba si cvj?
Tama siya kung ang pamilya ay kumain ng dalawang kabang bigas, isang 500 at isang 100. overstated nga ng 100.
Pero hindi ibig sabihin ng pagbaba ng presyo ng bigas ay magbibigay ng paregong pagtaas sa pagkain nito dahil ang correlation nito ay napakababa.
Tanong: pag bumaba ba ang bigas, lalo ka bang tatakaw?
hahaha
unsolicited advice to our counsel
“i request that anyone who would quote me should do it without deliberately omitting parts that make up the true context of what i said.”
Don’t be so verbose then. It’s hard to trawl for gold (if any) in a pile of rubbish.
cheers, peace
Sa mga mahilig sa rule of law…
Dito sa Hong Kong merong isang employer na napawalang sala sa panghihipo sa kanyang katulong. Ang pinay ay nag-accuse sa kanyang amo na hinipuan siya at “fi-ninger”.
Sabi ng amo hindi niya hinipuan ang pinay, ang kanyang anak(sharing the room with the helper) ang kanyang tiningnan sa kwarto at hindi niya alam kung bakit napasok sa ari ng katulong ang kanyang finger.
Ang sabi ng katulong, hindi raw niya nakita ang kanyang amo pero naramdaman niya ang ginawa nito pati ang pagpasok ng daliri.
Sabi ng korte, hindi pwedeng ma-convict ang employer dahil hindi siya nakita ng katulong dahil madilim! Hindi rin daw nakita ang kamay ng amo, kaya hindi masigurado kung ang employer nga ang nanghipo!
Crazy no? But that’s the law.
How can you even be sure that the smuggled rice always replaces domestically produced rice? There may be situations where the local rice harvest is not enough to meet our food requirements hence the need for foreign rice to cover the shortfall. In that case, the choice is not between smuggled or locally produced rice, but between legitimately imported rice and smuggled rice.
Anyway, the above is irrelevant because for purposes of measuring GDP, the fact that there may be 500 worth of rice that would have been sold does not cancel out the mis-reporting of 100 pesos worth of smuggled rice as part of GDP.
Put another way, if i do not buy a Toyota worth 1 Million because i smuggled a Jaguar worth 10 million, the overstatement to GDP would still be worth 10 million and not 9 million.
In any case, you cannot say the same thing for smuggled oil which is not locally produced (in large enough quantities anyway).
I don’t need to make such an assumption. For low income (and even middle income) families, the 400 pesos saved on cheaper rice would more likely be spent on something else, as i said above, on electricity, gasoline, medicine or even cellphone load.
nash, one man’s rubbish is another man’s gold. you don’t have to poke your flat nose on the garbage unless you thrive on it. who told you to do that anyway, huh?
It decreased because the family income decreased as the currency exhange rate decreased.
A family who’s receiving 500 dollars a month in 2003 with an exchange rate of 50 per dollar received an equivalent income of 25,000.
A family who’s receiving same amount in 2007 with an exchange rate of 40 dollars will be receiving 20,000 only or a decrease of 5,000.
Family income includes income earned outside the country so it is not correct to compare with GDP because the GDP reports only those earned within the country.
Anonymous,
Your narration appears as if the employer admitted that his finger got inserted into the sensitive parts of the maid; its just that he doesn’t know how it happened but he is also claiming that he didn’t “touch” the maid.
Probably one of those called “lost in the translation”. Unfortunately, we also don’t know their specific law on these matters.
How can you even be sure that the smuggled rice always replaces domestically produced rice? There may be situations where the local rice harvest is not enough to meet our food requirements hence the need for foreign rice to cover the shortfall.
It is not the question of sufficiency in the supply from the domestic production, it is a matter of where the rice cartel will profit more.
The supply in the warehouses can easily be disposed of by accidental burning.
YOur thinking is of what is ideal, but hey in business, it isn’t the reality.
tssk stssk now i am convinced that you are still clueless about economy.
cvj: OFW remittances get reflected in GDP on the PCE side (except for that portion which they put in a tin can and then bury in the yard or hide behind a wall).
But there is really no increase in the GDP because of the savings, the money was spent on something else.
Equation: before smuggled rice is accounted for instead of the domestically produced rice.
Total income as spent on the following: 1000
Total Expenditures= 500 (for rice)+200 for electricity +200(cell phone load) +100 (gasoline) =
Equation: after smuggled rice is accounted for instead of domestically produced rice
Total income is the same 1,000
Total expenditures: 100 (for rice)+electricity (300)+ cell phone load +300 (cell phone Load)+200 (for gasoline)+ 100 (extra expenses)
What goes to the GDP is still 1,000. It is only the type of expenditure which changed. Where is the overstatement?
and one should not forget the other side of the coin. Maybe, just maybe, the FIES numbers are not to be believed based on a combination of
(1) FIES numbers are based on a survey of only so many households;
(2) the survey instrument may be flawed (e.g. dialects);
(3) that the survey respondents answered incorrectly
(3-a) respondents did not understand the question;
(3-b) respondents overstated or understated their response for personal (e.g. ego) or financial (e.g. taxes) reasons;
(3-c) poorly trained interviewers asked leading questions;
(4) errors during data processing
And we must not forget the eternal bogeyman 👿
(5) GMA exerted pressure on the data-processors to push out confusing statistics which made her look good — Gini coefficient — while making her look bad (everybodies income droppedy, from upper percentile to bottom percentile)
if you are really an economist, you will not compare a luxury item to a staple product. Bagsak ka niya sa economics.
Regarding smuggled porsche, read willie revillame’s case. hohoho
JL,
The link of the news is here. Apparently the part where the employer said he didn’t know how his finger got inside was really lost in translation…, or read from a different source 🙂
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/83546/HK-employer-acquitted-of-assaulting-Filipina-maid
The point I’m driving at though is that if we get stuck with legalities all the time, sometimes justice is not served.
We both agree that Family income includes income that is earned both inside and outside the country and that gdp measures income earned inside the country.
The following are the average Peso:Dollar Exchange Rates the 2003 and 2006:
2003 – 54.2033
2006 – 51.3143
The remitances reported for those years in
2003 – 7.6 billion dollars
2006 – 12.8 billion dollars
In peso equivalent, the remittances would then be:
2003 – 412 billion pesos
2006 – 657 billion pesos
So even with the weaker dollar, the inflow of remittances, i.e. income from abroad is higher in 2006 than in 2003 (the relevant period for the FIES study). The portion that is being earned outside the country has been increasing.
That indicates that the decrease in overall income is due to the decrease in the domestic component.
Maybe GMA pressured the bureaucrats to report lower income. Maybe FIES is the issue. Maybe the issue is less the GDP. Shoot…. practically everyone complains about worsening income inequality — the issue is GINI. [Think again that FIES reports the upper 10%’s income dropped. Lucio Tan’s income dropped. Danding Cojuangco’s income, also Cory’s income dropped. Tommy Alcantara’s income dropped. Imelda Marcos’ income dropped. ]
BUT don’t ask me to prove anything. I do not have access to hard numbers.
So do loans from China that get spent during elections. However, whether it be OFW remittances or loans from China, the part that is spent on smuggled goods (and not properly deducted as imports) would result in an overstatement of GDP.
In the second example, the overstatement is 100 (for rice) because it was spent on something that was not produced domestically. Had it been recognized as such, it would have been deducted as part of imports.
So in your two examples, in the first one, the GDP would be 1,000 while in the second example, the GDP would be 900. That there is 500 pesos worth of unsold rice in the warehouse is irrelevant.
TRUCE!!! Time Out!!!
Hey guys, the way I see it, we can’t do much about the population growth, inflation, smuggling, etc., but we can at least try a more long term but doable approach – EDUCATION. If we can effect an increase in access to education for Filipino children, it may have a positive impact in the future. Manolo, I hope you don’t mind?
http://www.worldvision.org.ph WORLD VISION is an organization that I came upon last year as a suggestion from one of the bloggers here named QWERT (where is she btw?). So far, the group has sent total of 23,739 children to school, several millions more to go, but its a start right? For 5,000Php, you can send a child to school for a year already. Anyway, PLEASE, PLEASE check out their website (link provided) http://www.worldvision.org.ph
“If you want to help others, do not wait for the leaders, do it on your own, person to person.” – Mother Teresa
The Filipino is worth it… 🙂
its not only access to higher education but the quality of it as well. i taught history in two universities and i was quite disappointed with their english profiency. many of my students could not write simple essays. i was told by my co-lecturers that this situation is pervasive in many colleges and universities.
indeed, if you look at many oschools f higher learning, their course offerings are mostly dictated by what’s hot in the market place i.e. demand-driven. a university of long academic standing has a course on international hospitality management.
i believe what the country needs is strong grounding in english (the lingua franca of international business), engineering, and science. china established a crash course of english training for its citizens. soon they will be a major competitor in the BPO and custumer service outsourcing, sooner than later.
its a little distressing.
Anonymous,
I commiserate with her but I doubt that anything more can be done for her case.
Manolo,
Your new “Kind ap catcha” program wherein you have to put in the code doesn’t readily redirect back to your blog.
Or am I the only one with this problem?
hey, is it just my computer or Manolo has changed the format of the blog?