{"id":2742,"date":"2009-05-10T13:55:13","date_gmt":"2009-05-10T05:55:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.quezon.ph\/2009\/05\/10\/the-great-book-blockade-of-2009-timeline-and-readings\/"},"modified":"2022-01-28T10:17:13","modified_gmt":"2022-01-28T02:17:13","slug":"the-great-book-blockade-of-2009-timeline-and-readings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.quezon.ph\/2009\/05\/10\/the-great-book-blockade-of-2009-timeline-and-readings\/","title":{"rendered":"The Great Book Blockade of 2009: Timeline and Readings (Victory edition!)"},"content":{"rendered":"
Tweet<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/object><\/p>\n

Why the incedeniary video above? It goes to the heart of the Florence Agreement, and the lessons of history it aimed to propagate: that after the Dark Age of Fascism, and its book burnings and lists of forbidden titles, and after the destruction of libraries and schools during the War, there oughtn’t to be artificial limits on the propagation and circulation of books within and among nations. So I am not suggesting our Republic is out to stamp out books; but what I do think is that it has turned its back on a policy dating back to the 1950s, of embracing the proliferation of books, even if it affects the income generated from Customs duties by the government -a sacrifice the Florence Agreement called member-nations to embrace. Per The Curious Couch<\/a>, the Dean of the UP Law School, Marvic Leonen, is interested in filing a case to contest the new Finance regulations on importing books. Please be aware that:<\/p>\n

\n

you do NOT<\/span> have to pay taxes to claim your book purchases\/packages at the post office. Books are tax-exempt. Marvic Leonen is interested in filing a case to put an end to this kind of fiasco and has asked me to dig up my old receipt to get the case going. I have spent the last hour or so trying to find the receipt, to no avail. I am usually very good at filing even the most irrelevant documents, and so I am starting to get that sinking feeling that I must’ve thrown it away. I’ll keep on looking for it, but in any case, if you’ve had a similar experience – paying taxes for books at the post office – and you still have the receipt, please get in touch with me at chingbee(dot)cruz(at)gmail(dot)com. I’d like to collect as many receipts of this kind as possible and turn them all over to Marvic.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

“Where is your evidence? Bring it to the proper forum!”<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0\"Book_Blockade\"<\/a><\/p>\n

(illustration above courtesy of Eric Agoncillo Ambata<\/a>)<\/em><\/p>\n

Here’s an attempt to cobble together a timeline of events<\/strong><\/h1>\n

1945<\/strong><\/h1>\n

November 16<\/span><\/h2>\n

the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO<\/a>) is established. The Philippines is among the original 20 member states.<\/p>\n

1946<\/strong><\/h1>\n

November 21<\/span><\/h2>\n

The Republic of the Philippines officially becomes a member of Unesco.<\/p>\n

1947<\/strong><\/h1>\n

June 20<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n

The National Commission of Educational, Scientific and Cultural Matters (NACESCUM), is created by the First Philippine Congress with the passage of Republic Act 176. The NACESCUM was created to serve as liaison between the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the Philippine Government.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

1950<\/strong><\/h1>\n

June 17<\/span><\/h2>\n

The Florence Agreement<\/a> is concluded under the auspices of Unesco. How is this, and subsequent revisions to it, supposed to be interpreted? Narrowly, or broadly? The Unesco’s own Guide to the Florence Agreement and Nairobi Protocol<\/a>:<\/p>\n

<\/object><\/p>\n
Publish at Scribd<\/a> or explore<\/a> others: Taxes & Accounting<\/a> Business & Law<\/a> guide<\/a> howto<\/a><\/div>\n

Emphasizes the following:<\/p>\n

\n

Under the Agreement, books, newspapers, periodicals and many other categories of printed matter are granted duty-free entry. Printed music, maps and even tourist posters are similarly exempt. All the items of this annex to the Agreement, except architectural plans and designs, enjoy exemption from customs duties regardless of destination. Books are the most important category. The exemption granted to books is not subject to any qualifications as to their educational, scientific and cultural character.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That is, interpretation is supposed to be as broad as possible.<\/p>\n

1951<\/strong><\/h1>\n

May 26<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n

The UNESCO National Commission of the Philippines (UNACOM a.k.a UNCOP) is created by virtue of Republic Act 621 “in order to intensively endorse UNESCO’s target for the educational, scientific and cultural development of the country.”<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

1952<\/strong><\/h1>\n

August 2<\/span><\/h2>\n

President Elpidio Quirino signs the Florence Agreement. Unesco lists the formal Ratification of the Republic of the Philippines as having taken place on August 30, 1952<\/a>. Although another Unesco link<\/a> dates Philippines’ signature on August 7, 1979 (this may be a discrepancy reflecting the Philippines’ acceptance of the Nairobi Protocol?)<\/p>\n

1953<\/strong><\/h1>\n

June 20<\/span><\/h2>\n

Republic Act 892 amends Sections 1,2, 3 and 6 of RA 621 which transferred supervision of the National Commission from Office of the President to the Department of Foreign Affairs.<\/p>\n

1957<\/strong><\/h1>\n

March 15<\/span><\/h2>\n

(According to Jane Po, in a May 25, 2009 letter to the editor) I. P. Soliongco, in his Manila Chronicle column “Seriously Speaking,” wrote:<\/p>\n

\n

The best way of gauging the enlightenment of the nation is to examine its attitude – or better still, the attitude of its officials – toward books. If this test were to be applied to the Philippines, it would be found that as a nation, we are one of the most backward in the world. It would also be revealed that our officials, on the whole, are unsurpassed in their antagonism toward books and other cultural media. This embarrassing truth is particularly noticeable among those officials in the Bureau of Customs who determine the duties on books and among those in the Central Bank who decide the dollar allocation for the importation of reading matter.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

June 22<\/span><\/h2>\n

The Congress of the Philippines passes Republic Act 1937<\/a>, revising the tariff and customs laws of the country; it incorporates the undertakings of the Florence Agreement into Philippine law.<\/p>\n

1960<\/strong><\/h1>\n

Filipino Librarian<\/a>, in a May 24, 2009 blog entry, points out booksellers have had to contend with attempts to impose book import duties before. He publishes an extract from a Philippine Studies article by the late Joaquin Po, co-founder of Popular Bookstore:<\/p>\n

\n

Prior to the enactment of the 25% margin fee law, the 17% exchange tax was converted into the 17% special import tax in accordance with the Laurel-Langley Agreement. In order that imported books be exempted from this tax, a certification has to be obtained from the Secretary of Education to the effect that they are texts, references, scientific, technical or religious books – which means, of course, that general books for general readers are not considered at all. After obtaining the certification, it still has to be submitted, together with other documents, to the Central Bank for approval in order that the books can be exempted from the payment of the 25% margin fee.<\/span> It is very frustrating to note that all these restrictions are being imposed on the importation of books in spite of the fact that the Philippines is a signatory to the UNESCO Agreement on the Importation of Educational, Scientific and Cultural Articles and Materials… Instead of abiding by these international commitments, our government in most instances has been doing just the opposite… Source: Philippine Studies<\/span> 8 (1960): 389-393<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

1964<\/strong><\/h1>\n

April 13<\/span><\/h2>\n

Republic Act 3849 further amends RA 621 “further expanding its activities and strengthening its work,” further amended by Presidential Decree 221 on June 20, 1973 which exempted the Commission from the required transfer of functions to the Office of United Nations Affairs of the Integrated Reorganization Plan of the Government; and amended further by Executive Order 850 on December 1, 1982 reorganizing the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and assigning to it the task of exercising administrative supervision over the UNACOM. This was implemented by Ministry Order No. 25-85 dated November 6, 1985 which directed the Office of United Nations and International Organization (UNIO) to provide staff support and guidance in the supervision of the National Commission. (Information from 1947-1982 lifted almost verbatim from UNACOM documents online).<\/p>\n

1972<\/strong><\/h1>\n

June 30<\/span><\/h2>\n

From a May 25, 2009 letter to the editor by Jane Po:<\/p>\n

\n

The Philippines Daily Express, in its editorial … noted: “If the postal authorities would in fact insist on playing a role as guardian of the mind, or arbiter of taste in reading material, and as a nemesis of subversion, they should first prove that they are capable of understanding and appreciating the nature and impact of ideas, such ideas as are to be discovered in the very books it had already consigned to limbo.” “From the evidence, neither the postmaster general, nor his alleged committee of arbiters, is ready for the task of passing judgment on reading material coming through the mails. Indeed, it would take more than just a group of scholars to make censorship palatable, and even then they will have to be scholars who have had a lifetime of intimacy with reading, with books, with ideas. And who among this rare breed would lend themselves to censorship?”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

1973<\/strong><\/h1>\n

September 3<\/span><\/h2>\n

Ferdinand E. Marcos issues Presidential Decree No. 205<\/a> authorizing the republication of foreign books domestically if the prices of books becomes “so exorbitant as to be detrimental to the national interest.” He also issues Presidential Decree No. 284<\/a> substituting existing provisions in the Customs and Tariff Code with the following provisions:<\/p>\n

\n

Section 1. Subsection (s) of Section 105 of Republic Act Numbered nineteen hundred thirty-seven, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows: \u00a0“s. Economic, technical, vocational, scientific, philosophical, historical, and cultural books and\/or publications: Provided, That those which may have already been imported but pending release by the Bureau of Customs at the effectivity of this Decree may still enjoy the privilege herein provided upon certification by the Department of Education and Culture that such imported books and\/or publications are for economic, technical, vocational, scientific, philosophical, historical or cultural purposes or that the same are educational, scientific or cultural materials covered by the International Agreement on Importation of Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials signed by the President of the Philippine on August 2, 1952, or other agreements binding upon the Philippines. “Educational, scientific and cultural materials covered by international agreements or commitments binding upon the Philippine Government so certified by the Department of Educational and Culture.” “Bibles, missals, prayer books, Koran, ahadith and other religious books of similar nature and extracts therefrom, hymnal and hymns from religious uses.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

A reader’s response in a May 19, 2009 Philippine Star readers’ poll gives an insight into the privileges granted by President Marcos above:<\/p>\n

\n

Gerii Calupitan, Muntinlupa City: …<\/strong>In 1973, the Theosophical Society of the Philippines imported spiritual books from Madras, India. The BoC held them and demanded taxes until then PIO chief Kit Tatad stepped in. These sipsips tried to impress Marcos then, and they’re trying to impress PGMA now.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

1976<\/strong><\/h1>\n

November 26<\/span><\/h2>\n

The Nairobi Protocol<\/a> to the Florence Agreement is signed.<\/p>\n

1977<\/strong><\/h1>\n

September 27<\/span><\/h2>\n

Ferdinand E. Marcos issues Presidential Decree No. 1203<\/a> amending his earlier order, granting the payment of royalties to authors affected by the domestic republication of books.<\/p>\n

1978<\/strong><\/h1>\n

June 11<\/span><\/h2>\n

President Ferdinand E. Marcos issues Presidential Decree No. 1464<\/a> consolidating existing Customs-related laws and decrees into the Tariff and Customs Code of 1978, including the following under Section 105, Conditional Duty-Free Imports:<\/p>\n

\n

s. Economic, technical, vocational, scientific, philosophical, historical, and cultural books and\/or publications: Provided, That those which may have already been imported but pending release by the Bureau of Customs at the effectivity of this Decree may still enjoy the privilege herein provided upon certification by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports that such imported books and\/or publications are for economic, technical, vocational, scientific, philosophical, historical or cultural purposes or that the same are educational, scientific or cultural materials covered by the International Agreement on Importation of Educational Scientific and Cultural Materials signed by the President of the Philippines on August 2, 1952, or other agreements binding upon the Philippines. Educational, scientific and cultural materials covered by international agreements or commitments binding upon the Philippine Government so certified by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports. Bibles, missals, prayer books, Koran, Ahadith and other religious books of similar nature and extracts therefrom, hymnal and hymns for religious uses;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

1990<\/strong><\/h1>\n

November 27<\/span><\/h2>\n

President Corazon Aquino issues Executive Order No. 438<\/a> imposing a 5% duty on all imported items except those enumerated as duty-free under Section 3 of the order, which includes “those conferred by effective international agreements to which the Government of the Republic of the Philippines is a signatory”\u009d.<\/p>\n

1995<\/strong><\/h1>\n

June 7<\/span><\/h2>\n

The Congress of the Philippines passes Republic Act 8047<\/a>, the Book Publishing Industry Development Act, which among other things, exempts foreign and domestic books from the Value Added Tax (VAT):<\/p>\n

\n

Sec. 12. Incentives for Book Development. ” ; In the case of tax and duty-free importation of books or raw materials to be used in book publishing, the Board and its duly authorized representatives shall strictly monitor the quality and volume of imported books and materials as well as their distribution and the utilization of the said imported materials. The Board shall also recommend to the proper prosecuting agencies any violations of the conditions of the duty-free importation. Books, magazines, periodicals, newspapers, including book publishing and printing, as well as its distribution and circulation, shall be exempt from the coverage of the expanded value added tax law.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The Law also mandates the following:<\/p>\n

\n

Sec. 4. National Book Policy. – The National Book Policy shall conform to the policy provided for in Section 2 hereof and shall have the following basic purposes and objectives: (i) to ensure an adequate, affordable and accessible supply of books for all segments of the population; (j) to reaffirm and ensure the country’s commitment to the UNESCO<\/span> principle of free flow of information and other related provisions as embodied in the Florence Agreement and in other similar international agreements;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Columnist Jarius Bondoc<\/a> on May 11, 2009 writes that Customs has been trying to impose duties on books as far back as 1995.<\/p>\n

2003<\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n

Roland Benzon<\/a> notes in a May 6 at Philippine Genre Stories comment that attempts to tax the importation of books were already taking place at this time:<\/p>\n

\n

so i have shipped books and magazines by surface and air since the 80s, all for personal consumption and collection; some donated to public libraries. all tax-free. as recent as 2001, i air-shipped books from amazon. air freight is pricey, but the books were not taxed. i first encountered book taxation around 2003, when i claimed a parcel of books from the makati post office. citing the florence agreement and my long history of importing books, i argued my case. the postal clerk just played dumb, and countered with “new law”\u009d and “just doing our job”\u009d. in disgust, i told them to return the books. i refused to be a victim. attempting to bypass the post office, i ordered books for door-to-door delivery. i was more willing to pay a premium than fill pockets of crooks. but when dhl delivered the books, same thing: customs duties. in resignation of the inescapable, i paid the taxes and vowed never to ship by air again. i do not remember the taxes, but i can tell you this much: it was not 1% or 5%, which i wouldn’t have blinked at. it was 15%, at least! heck, it might have even been close to 50%.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

2005<\/strong><\/h1>\n

January 25<\/span><\/h2>\n

The Congress of the Philippines passes Republic Act 9335<\/a> providing for “a Rewards and Incentives Fund and a Revenue Performance Evaluation Board” for the Bureaus of Customs and Internal Revenue; The Trojan Bore<\/a> suggests this may have provided the motivation for officials to seek every means possible to meet revenue targets.<\/p>\n

2008<\/strong><\/h1>\n

June 18<\/span><\/h2>\n

In a column, Bernard Karganilla<\/a>, referring to ongoing textbook-error controversies, brings up the international policy the Florence Agreement represents:<\/p>\n

\n

Trade liberalization covers knowledge commodities and the accelerated use of English as lingua franca. The Internet, cable TV, DVDs, cellphones and other IT channels enable races, nations, ethnic groups and NGOs to learn more about the rest of the known world. The United Nations is the ideal, particularly the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. The UNESCO has Committees on Social and Human Sciences and international protocols. Its Florence Agreement of 1950 and the Nairobi Protocol of 1976 allow the 94 ratifying States to dismantle customs barriers for imported books, works of art, audiovisual material of educational, scientific and cultural nature, scientific equipment and appliances and materials for the blind in order to foster the free circulation of cultural goods. In this wise, particular countries can discover the best practices and products across the continents.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

September 23<\/span><\/h2>\n

My entry on how Post Office and Customs attempts to levy 5% duty on a shipment of books, plus VAT<\/span><\/a> (see similar experiences in The Curious Couch<\/a>, in Regin’s Realm<\/a>, in Derdo’s Weblog<\/a> and as recounted by Cristina C. Espina<\/a> and in Boomarked!<\/a>). BIR<\/span> officials opine no such levies are warranted.<\/p>\n

2009 The Great Book Blockade <\/strong><\/h1>\n

(for additional details see Booklat<\/a>, \u00a0Philippine Genre Stories<\/a>, Bibliophile Stalker<\/a>, and Bahay Talinhaga<\/a>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

January 26<\/span><\/h2>\n

Air shipments of books are stopped and held by Customs authorities. Cause? As reported by Robin Hemley,<\/p>\n

\n

Twilight by Stephenie Meyer; an international best seller, had apparently attracted the attention of customs officials. When an examiner named Rene Agulan opened a shipment of books, he demanded that duty be paid on it; Mr. Agulan told the importer that because the books were not educational (i.e., textbooks) they were subject to duty.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

January 27<\/span><\/h2>\n

Department of Finance tells Customs to release the books; “but their order was ignored by the aforementioned examiner Rene Agulan.”\u009d Bahay Talinhaga<\/a> goes on to suggest this provided the impetus for the bureaucracy to confer “and eventually, Customs and the Dept. of Finance, found common ground on this issue.” Hemley summarizes the goings-on as follows:<\/p>\n

\n

Throughout February and March, bookstores seemed on the verge of getting their books released -all their documents were in order, but the rules kept changing. Now they were told that all books would be taxed: 1 percent for educational books and 5 percent for noneducational books. A nightmare scenario for the distributors; they imagined each shipment being held for months as an examiner sorted through the books. Obviously, most would simply pay the higher tax to avoid the hassle. Distributors told me they weren’t “capitulating”\u009d but merely paying under protest. After all, customs was violating an international treaty that had been abided by for over 50 years. Meanwhile, booksellers had to pay enormous storage fees. Those couldn’t be waived, they were told, because the storage facilities were privately owned (by customs officials, a bookstore owner suggested ruefully). One bookstore had to pay $4,000 on a $10,000 shipment.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

March 5<\/span><\/h2>\n

Date of a letter to to “Atty Pasion-Flores of the NBDB,<\/span> the examiner refused to release the books despite the fact that all previous requirements had been met, including a ‘certificate of membership with NBDB.”<\/span>\u009d Somewhere during this time, officials from the Department of Finance apparently engaged in consultations with members of Congress.<\/p>\n

March 16<\/span><\/h2>\n

Usec. Sales meets booksellers. As reported by Robin Hemley:<\/p>\n

\n

Customs Undersecretary Espele Sales explained the government’s position to a group of frustrated booksellers and importers in an Orwellian PowerPoint presentation, at which she reinterpreted the Florence Agreement as well as Philippine law RA 8047, providing for “the tax and duty-free importation of books or raw materials to be used in book publishing.”\u009d For lack of a comma after the word “books,”\u009d the undersecretary argued that only books “used in book publishing”\u009d (her underlining) were tax-exempt; Likewise, with the Florence Agreement, she argued that only educational books could be considered protected by the U.N.<\/span> treaty. Customs would henceforth be the arbiter of what was and wasn’t educational. “For 50 years, everyone has misinterpreted the treaty and now you alone have interpreted it correctly?”\u009d she was asked. “Yes,”\u009d she told the stunned booksellers.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

As reported by Kenneth Yu:<\/p>\n

\n

After this meeting with the Congressmen, Undersecretary Sales and her team also met with various booksellers. She said that her meeting with them was cordial, good, and respectful, as she made all these details clear to them. In other words, her meeting with them went well with no untoward incidents, which is why she was surprised at what came out in the Hemley article. Everything was spelled clearly to the booksellers.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

As recounted by Rep. Teodoro L. Locsin Jr. in his letter to the President:<\/p>\n

\n

After much discussion with DOF officials, I attended a meeting last month with your Secretary, Margarito B. Teves, his Undersecretary Estela V. Sales, and NBDB Executive Director Atty. Andrea Pasion-Flores, along with most of the major players in the book industry, to resolve this problem. The arguments above, among others, were relayed to the DOF team present in the meeting. Despite this, the DOF issued the guidelines imposing a 1% – 5% duty on book importations by book traders and, indeed, by all book-reading citizens.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

March 17<\/span><\/h2>\n

First of the stopped shipments are released “a day after Undersecretary Sales spoke with importers and book sellers, and storage fees were paid.” According to Hemley:<\/p>\n

\n

The day after the first shipment of books was released, an internal memo circulated in customs congratulating themselves for finally levying a duty on books, though no mention was made of their pride in breaking an international treaty.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

March 24<\/span><\/h2>\n

The Department of Finance issues Department Order No. 17-09, published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on Easter Sunday, April 12: \"scan0001vnj\"<\/a>\"scan0002uza\"<\/a> The Department Order institutes a regime in which all books brought into the country are deemed subject to Customs duties until or unless a complicated process of obtaining dispensations from the authorities are resorted to; and which further assumes that titles must be in small quantities and not for sale, barter, or trade to qualify for any Customs duty exemption. The Order furthermore institutes an elaborate series of definitions for books covered by existing Duty-free importation privileges, which are definitions different from the broad classifications in the Florence Agreement; and furthermore, restricts the interpretation of the National Book Development Act to apply only to the duty-free importation of books “used for book publishing.”\u009d The duties imposed are 1% for “educational, technical, scientific, historical or cultural books” and 5% for all other books, according to the Department of Finance’s new definitions. A backgrounder on how the Order above was put together. Here is Usec. Sales’ version of events as reported by Kenneth Yu:<\/p>\n

\n

First of all, Undersecretary Sales and her team at the DOF<\/span> spent a lot of time studying the rules\/laws\/regulations involving this matter beforehand, and found that in Sec. 105 of the Tariffs and Customs Codes, there really is a provision for a 1% duty on imported books (“educational, cultural, etc.”) that are for sale and for profit, and she said that the Florence Agreement was addressed here in this specific section. This 1% has been in existence since way long ago, and in fact, has not been implemented for that long a time. After Undersecretary Sales and her team studied all these laws, the results of this was that this regulation should be followed because it is the law, and forthwith published this information on Easter Sunday 2009, with implementation to follow 15 days after Easter Sunday. From what I understood of what she said, there will be no duty only if these imported books are donations to public schools, readers’ groups, etc., that is, if the books imported are not for sale or for profit. This 1% is for, to use her words, “control\/monitorinig”\u009d of the imported books coming in. She used the example that if a bookseller brings in P100,000.00<\/span> worth of books, the duty on this is only P1,000.00.<\/span> She told me that she would like to also make clear that vat on books is still 0%, no matter what.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

Now, if a book or title does not fall under “cultural, educational, etc.”, then that duty goes up to 5%. However, she points out that the DOF<\/span> is not the one who determines a title’s labeling of whether it is “educational, cultural, etc.”\u009d She said that this labeling belongs to other organizations (she mentioned the DepEd and Unesco); I also asked her about books ordered, say, on Amazon, and picked up at the post office. Should that duty be paid there too? She said, “Yes, but only if that hasn’t been included in the original payment.”\u009d In other words, check your receipt and your emails of the online transaction. If duties had already been paid via Amazon or whatever online bookseller, then print that receipt\/email and bring that proof with you to show that duties have already been paid. If however your receipt\/email doesn’t show this duty, then you are obliged to pay for that duty.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Abdon Balde says Rep. Teodoro L. Locsin Jr. proposed amendments to the Department Order but these were not viewed favorably by Usec. Sales. Here is what Locsin wrote in his letter to the President:<\/p>\n

\n

The DOF, however, has adopted the position that imported books which were to be sold and traded were not entitled to the duty-free privileges granted by the Florence Agreement and the Nairobi Protocol. \u00a0This interpretation is, as we argued with DOF at the time it attempted consultations with Congress, without basis either in fact or law, and flouts half a century of established Customs policy and practice. The DOF said that half a century of policy and practice must yield to the eureka moment of its legal department when, in a flash of inspiration – really, imagination bordering on delusion- it devised a scheme in which all books imported for sale should be taxed. Neither estoppel nor prescription, said the DOF, can run against the State, citing no authority on the matter because, in law, both can run against the State. What the DOF really meant to invoke is the outdated not to say obnoxious principle that the State, like the King, can do no wrong. Madam President, the DOF is legally wrong. The law is what an international treaty solemnly ratified by our Republic and further confirmed by half a century of tax free importation of books has made it. I offered to introduce legislation imposing a tax on books if that is the DOF’s pleasure but it cannot, on its own authority, wake up one morning and say that half a century of state policy and practice are wrong. The DOF said there was no need for a law, as its interpretation is now the law. It is not. An international treaty, in this case, says what is law and its legal enforcement over half a century underscores the treaty’s true meaning. Nowhere in the Florence Agreement does it state or even imply that the book or printed matter should not be for sale for it to be duty-free. Indeed, the only requirement for duty-free treatment is that the book or printed matter is listed or described in Annex A of the treaty. And so it has been, in Philippine practice and policy for half a century.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Here is Kenneth Yu’s report on Usec. Sales’ mentioning consultations with Congress:<\/p>\n

\n

These laws which she and her team researched were brought up in a respectful meeting with various Congressmen. She said that at first, a number of them were against it, but when she explained that this duty has been in existence in law for so long and really has just not been implemented, they agreed to it. She said that if the Congressmen really want to make it 0% duty for all, then they must pass that law first before the DOF<\/span> can implement it. In other words, the legislative part of the gov’t, Congress, has to pass it into law before the DOF,<\/span> the executive branch that “executes”\u009d these laws, can enforce it. As of now, after all their study, Undersecretary Sales and her team have seen that this duty exists in law, and they are doing their job in enforcing it.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

April 27<\/span><\/h2>\n

The Department of Finance Order goes into effect.<\/p>\n

April 30 <\/span><\/h2>\n

The National Book Development Board writes a letter to the Secretary of Justice asking for an Opinion because it was “suddenly jolted”\u009d by the Finance Department’s Order:<\/p>\n

\n

April 30, 2009 HONORABLE RAUL<\/span> M. GONZALEZ<\/span> SecretaryDepartment of Justice Padre Faura St., Manila Dear Secretary Gonzalez: The book reading public in the country is suddenly jolted when the Department of Finance (DOF) imposed duty on the importation of books through Department Order No. 17-09: Guidelines of Duty-Free Importation of Books, issued on 24 March 2009 by Secretary Margarito B. Teves, published on 12 April 2009 at the Phil. Daily Inquirer and is now being implemented. We earnestly seek your opinion on said Guidelines because they run counter to Sec. 12 of RA 8047, which provides that “In case of tax and duty-free importation of books or raw materials to be used in book publishing, the Board and its duly authorized representatives shall strictly monitor the quality and volume of imported books and material as well as their distribution and the utilization of the said imported materials.” It is interesting to note that RA 8047 or the Book Publishing Industry Development Act of 1995 was co-authored by Secretary Teves when he was a member of the House of Representatives. Your immediate rendering of opinion on this matter will greatly benefit our reading public and the book industry. Please find attached a copy of the DOF<\/span> Guidelines and the position paper of the Book Development Association of the Philippines. Respectfully yours, LIRIO<\/span> P. SANDOVAL<\/span> President<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

May 1<\/span><\/h1>\n

Robin Hemley’s The Great Book Blockade of 2009<\/a> is published online in Timothy McSweeney’s Internet Tendency.<\/p>\n

May 5<\/span><\/h2>\n

Kenneth Yu publishes the results of his interview of Undersecretary Salas, giving the Department of Finance version of events for the first time (and so far, the only time).<\/p>\n

May 6<\/span><\/h2>\n

Louie Aguinaldo establishes the Facebook group, FILIPINOS AGAINST THE TAXATION<\/span> OF BOOKS<\/span> BY CUSTOMS<\/span><\/a>. In 24 hours, 2,330 people sign up<\/a>. In his blog, Robin Hemley<\/a> worries that Filipinos might be “parsing the issue too finely”\u009d:<\/p>\n

\n

However, what worries me is that some bloggers in the Philippines are parsing the issues too finely, in such a legalistic manner that they run the risk of diluting the issue entirely. The bottom line is that the Philippines is in direct violation of an international U.N.<\/span> treaty it ratified in 1979 that prohibits any and all duties imposed on books. It’s that simple. No wiggle room. If the Philippines wants to withdraw from the treaty, that’s its right, but it hasn’t done so.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

May 7<\/span><\/h2>\n

According to Dennis Gonzalez<\/a>, the National Book Development Board meets and passes a resolution<\/p>\n

\n

that strongly urges the Department of Finance to recall Department Order 17-09: Guidelines on Duty-Free Importation of Books, which were published last April 11, Easter Sunday.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Jessica Zafra in her blog publishes the Position Paper of the Book Development Association of the Philippines Re: Tax and Duty Free Importation of B<\/a>ooks: <\/object><\/p>\n

<\/h2>\n

May 8 <\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n
An online petition No to the Philippine book blockade!<\/a> is launched.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n

May 9<\/span><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n
Philippine Daily Inquirer publishes letter to the editor from Erwin Rafael<\/a>.<\/div>\n

May 10<\/span><\/h2>\n

Jessica Zafra<\/a> publishes a column on the issue. The Philippine Star<\/a> reports Usec. Sales as saying that novels are “not educational.”\u009d Maybe it will only be a matter of time before Republic Act 1425<\/a> or the Rizal Law faces legal challenge since the Noli and the Fili are “not educational.”\u009d UNACOM<\/a>, to date, makes no statement on the government’s interpretation of the Florence Agreement. The Business Mirror <\/a>newspaper reports that Makati City mayor Jejomar Binay issued a statement condemning the new Customs policy and for a focus on catching big-time smugglers, instead.<\/p>\n

May 11<\/span><\/h2>\n

Rep. Teodoro L. Locsin Jr. writes to President Arroyo asking her to revoke the Department of Finance order:<\/p>\n

\n

I now come before you to seek your intervention. We have exhausted all administrative remedies. Despite their patent inability to answer our arguments, the DOF panel has insisted on having its way. Its last argument was that it has marching orders from you to raise revenues by any means necessary. We assume this order excluded illegal measures and those that contradict national policy and international treaty obligations. Let me say in the most categorical terms that imposing a duty of 1% – 5% on book importations by our book traders and our book-reading countrymen will not only make books less accessible and affordable to the Filipino people as a whole, but will expose our government to criticism and outright ridicule, not to mention sparking formal protests from the civilized members of the international community who are all signatories to the Florence Agreement, thereby embarrassing your administration. With a stroke of a pen, the DOF replaced our status as an internationally acknowledged frontrunner in having a national book policy consistent with the Florence Agreement and the Nairobi Protocol with the dubious distinction of being the only contracting State in the Florence Agreement which will impose duties on book importations listed in Annex A of the said treaty.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Teodoro L. Locsin Jr to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo<\/a> <\/object> ABS-CBN News reports<\/a> that Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago calls for a Senate inquiry into the new Customs policy and the repercussions of violating the Florence Agreement. The Philippine Star<\/a> also publishes Makati City mayor Binay’s condemnation of the new Customs policy. In the House of Representatives, AKBAYAN Party List Rep. Hontiveros-Baraquel files a resolution calling for an investigation: HR1147 (Book blockade resolution)<\/a> <\/object><\/p>\n
Publish at Scribd<\/a> or explore<\/a> others: School Work<\/a> Books<\/a> Non-fiction<\/a> book blockade<\/a><\/div>\n

According to blogger In Pursuit of Whimsy<\/a>, author Neil Gaiman, reached via Twitter, agreed to help spread the word on Robin Hemsley’s article.<\/p>\n

May 12<\/span><\/h2>\n

The Philippine Star <\/a>publishes the latest official statement from the Bureau of Customs on the matter:<\/p>\n

\n

BOC Deputy Commissioner Alexander Arevalo said protesters are barking up the wrong tree and should instead raise their complaints before the courts or the Senate and the House of Representatives. “Our hands are tied. The BOC does not collect duties and taxes to make life difficult for the importers. Our objective is to implement the law,”\u009d said Arevalo. “We implement the guidelines on the importation of books ; or else we would be brought to jail. The venues for their complaints are the courts that interpret the law or the legislative that writes the law.” The deputy commissioner said he is puzzled why there is now a public outcry when there had been no change on the duties on imported books and the law that has been existing and being followed for many years. “We are not implementing anything new. The policy has not changed.” Under the clarificatory guidelines on duty-free importation of books or Department Order no. 17-09 issued by the DOF, there is a one percent duty for books that are educational, technical, scientific, historical or cultural, and five percent duty for books\/materials other than educational, technical, scientific, historical or cultural and those books or raw materials not to be used for book publishing but are intended for sale, barter or hire, he added. The Department of Education (DepEd) and the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) are the agencies that determine if the imported articles are economic, technical, vocational scientific, philosophical and historical books. He explained that the BOC could not do anything about it at this time, and that readers should ask the DepEd or CHED to include their favorite books in the exempted list. He added that the public might not even be aware that they have been paying duties for books for a long time now. “The book importers know about this. May be the readers do not know that they have been paying duties.” To shed light on the misinformation and appease book lovers, he said that they would be loading the Finance department’s order and clarificatory guidelines in their website www.customs.gov.ph<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Here are the guidelines, in the form of a FAQ briefing, issued by the Bureau of Customs: Importation of Books FAQ<\/a> <\/object><\/p>\n
Publish at Scribd<\/a> or explore<\/a> others: Taxes & Accounting<\/a> Business & Law<\/a><\/div>\n

The guidelines above are based on the following issuance, dated March 24, 2009, from the Department of Finance: Importation of Books DOF 17-09<\/a> <\/object><\/p>\n
Publish at Scribd<\/a> or explore<\/a> others: Taxes & Accounting<\/a> Business & Law<\/a><\/div>\n

A spirited defense of the above by a veteran of the Bureau of Customs can be found in IMHO by RJA<\/a><\/p>\n

:<\/p>\n

\n

Just imagine every book and magazine that is imported will benefit preferential import treatment. No duties. That’s good for the reading public generally, but not books and magazines are alike. I can relate to duty free importations of the Asia Foundation, UST and other universities. I can appreciate Scientific American, the Harvard Law Journal, and all science and computer books – they should be imported duty and tax free. But what about comic and anime books and magazines, flesh magazines, best seller books such as Angels and Demons, the Harry Potter series, the Lord of Rings series and similar books? It is high time that these importers and sellers are taxed. They are just hiding behind some color of legality. When I was a Customs Officer at NAIA in the middle 1990’s I used to groan every time I was assigned to examine a consignment of books or magazines. You exert your best to perform your duty (no pun intended) but you end up extending tax and duty free privilege to an importation which you know is being sold for a handsome profit. For all I know, those books are being sold at a very high profit margin. Value at Risk: The New Benchmark for Managing Financial Risk 3rd Ed by Philippe Jorion is selling at Amazon at US$53.35 or around PhP2,557 but a store in Manila is able to offer it at PhP2,158 only. See? Their profit margins are so high, these sellers can undercut the market. They are given distributors discount roughly between 30 to 50 percent off the retail prices, and they do not pay a single centavo of duties and taxes. They end up fattening their pockets so much that when government moves in to collect its rightful revenue, they are suddenly alarmed by the legal, educational and other repercussions of taxation. They say they are only after the public’s welfare. But what do we expect? Importers, publishers, and book sellers are in the business to make profit. Can we honestly say that we can sacrifice government revenues just because those idiots do not want to acknowledge their social responsibility to be good citizens and tax payers?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

For a contrary view, see dissection of the FAQ and Guidelines above by blogger Bahay Talinhaga<\/a> (re-ordered, for clarity, in that I will blockquote his views on the Finance “clarifications” and then his views on Customs: Concerning the Department of Finance, the purpose of the “clarifications” is”,<\/p>\n

\n

The DOF guidelines contain a lot of legal definitions so as to allow Customs to distinguish between books in general, educational books, historical books, cultural books, book publishing etc. With all due respect: none of that matters. No. Import. Duties. On. Books. Once more, with feeling:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • Under the Florence Agreement, a binding international treaty which the Philippines has already ratified, any book – whether textbook or bodice-ripper-romace—that isn’t an advertisement should be exempt from customs duties, whatever its content;<\/li>\n
  • Under Article 46 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, except in extreme circumstances a State party to a treaty cannot use its municipal\/national laws to justify failure to comply with a treaty;<\/li>\n
  • Applying a customs duty on the importation of books contravenes the Florence Agreement;<\/li>\n
  • No law or interpretation of the law, whether the TCCP or RA 8047 or what-have-you, can justify duties on the importation of books.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    So, again, in the humble opinion of one who knows the basics of international law: these guidelines are legally infirm; and as municipal law cannot overturn treaties, much less can municipal guidelines”\u009d have any effect.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    As for Customs’ FAQ:<\/p>\n

    \n

    For those who did not go through a compulsory 2 units of Public International Law, the argument of Customs can be summarized in this way: [Best done in a Jon-Stewart-impersonates-George-W-Bush-voice] <\/em>Yes there’s a Florence Agreement, but see what we did was we put the Florence Agreement into our own municipal law – then we added some, well, conditions before the Agreement can apply, and that amended the Agreement. So, we’re cool right? Not really. First, you can’t amend an international treaty by means of a municipal\/national law. Why? Two reasons come to mind: (a) before signing a treaty, a State is allowed to make reservations (“\u009dWe only agree to this part but not that part”\u009d) but if it signs the treaty, it is presumed to have agreed to be bound to the treaty as it is worded; (b) a treaty is an instrument in the realm of international law, and thus beyond the reach of any national legislature, so Congress could enact a zillion laws and they would have zero effect on the provisions of a treaty. No. Import. Duties. On. Books. Second, and corollary to the first, if you can’t amend a treaty by a new law, neither can you do so by inserting its provisions in said new law and adding qualifications therein: that’s akin to saying that if a student took his report card, framed it, then used a marker to scrawl “A’s”\u009d all over it, he should be class valedictorian. No. Import. Duties. On. Books. Third, it doesn’t matter that the law was enacted later than the date of the treaty<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    See Customs Little Helper<\/a> for another commentary critical of the Customs regulations. Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago’s office issues an official press release<\/a> on her call for an investigation into the book tax. The Business Mirror newspaper publishes an editorial<\/a> saying government is scraping the bottom, fiscally, and concludes with Rep. Locsin’s appeal to the President to lift the book tax:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n

    Actually, the BIR would not have been as hard-up today were it not for the unfortunate timing – from the taxman’s viewpoint – of populist tax measures passed last year. Beginning July last year, additional tax exemptions were granted to salary men, while minimum-wage earners were exempted from income tax.<\/p>\n

    The corporate-income-tax rate was reduced to 30 percent from 35 percent; and professionals and small busi- nesses were accorded the opportunity to enjoy tax savings by opting for a 40-percent Optional Standard Deduction. Obviously, all these measures impact on tax collection unless coupled with remedial measures to address the decline in revenue generation.<\/p>\n

    These laws could have boosted confidence and promoted investments, particularly in an era of prosperity and steady economic growth, but with the global recession, the opposite has occurred. Despite providing for an environment that encourages business, investors have been tentative, if not fearful.<\/p>\n

    Even consumption is contracting, as seen in first-quarter financial reports. Property giant Ayala Land Inc.’s net profits fell 50 percent year-on-year to P907 million from P1.83 billion in 2008. Food-and-beverage giant San Miguel Corp.’s net profit dropped by 76 percent to P2.7 billion from P11.03 billion a year ago. As large taxpayers like these encounter setbacks, tax due from them would fall, as well, adding to the government’s woes.<\/p>\n

    Still, the government brought on some of its fiscal woes on itself, given its failure to prosecute tax cheats. From 2006 to 2008, the government reportedly lost an estimated P93.3 billion in tax revenues to oil smuggling. Tax records from the Subic and Manila ports show per-day oil demand declined 12.87 percent from 1997 to 2008, even as the economy was growing in that same period by an average 4.4 percent, and vehicle registration an average 5.5 percent.<\/p>\n

    The desperation for tax revenues is evident. On Monday, Makati City Rep. Teodoro Locsin Jr. sent an urgent appeal to Malacanang to protest what he called a baseless and whimsical imposition by the Department of Finance – a tariff on all books and printed materials imported for sale. There’s an apt metaphor for this: scraping the bottom.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    Radio jock Mojo on 89.9 FM show “Good times,” discusses the issue, per blogger the trigger-happy penguin<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    The issue was also covered on GMA Network’s evening news program, 24 Oras.<\/p>\n

    May 13<\/h2>\n

    Jojo Robles<\/a> publishes a column on the issue.<\/p>\n

    Senator Manuel Roxas II’s office issues an official press release<\/a> on the issue, calling for the Department of Finance to explain itself. Senator Richard Gordon’s office issues an official press release<\/a> saying books should be made more accessible, and not taxed.<\/p>\n

    May 14<\/span><\/h2>\n

    According to a May 22 comment in this blog, Louie Birogo files a petition in the Supreme Court:<\/p>\n

    \n

    Last May 14, I filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of DOF Order No. 17-09 on constitutional and statutory grounds… I brought suit as a citizen, as a taxpayer, and, more importantly, as a book reader and collector.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    The Philippine Star<\/a> reports that Senators Edgardo Angara, Manuel Roxas II and Richard Gordon have joined Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago in questioning the BOC’s move to impose taxes on imported books. Dennis Gonzalez, Chairman of the National Book Development Board, publishes in his blog Discover The Gift<\/a>, that the NBDB formally passed a resolution calling on the Department of Finance to recall Department Order 17-09 and related guidelines. His entry is worth quoting from extensively, as it surely reflects the official stand of the NBDB:<\/p>\n

    \n

    Among the basic objectives of our National Book Policy is “to reaffirm and ensure the country’s commitment to the UNESCO principle of free flow of information and other related provisions as embodied in the Florence Agreement”\u009d (Sec. 4-j, RA 8047). Under the Florence Agreement, contracting States agree “not to apply customs and duties and other charges on, or in connection with, the importation of books, publications and documents.”\u009d Furthermore, a UNESCO Protocol that was adopted in Nairobi in 1976 states: “the exemption granted to books [under the Florence Agreement] is not subject to qualification as to their educational, scientific, and cultural character.” In other words, the Florence Agreement does not distinguish between educational and non-educational books and between books for personal study or books for sale. All kinds of books, whether for educational or commercial purposes, as long as these do not directly endanger “national security, public order, or public morals”\u009d (Art. 4, Florence Agreement) are exempted from customs and duties. RA 8047 grants “incentives for book development”\u009d among which are tax and duty-free importation of books, and makes the NBDB, not the DOF or the Bureau of Customs, the primary agency that will monitor the duty-free importation of books. The law states: “In the case of tax and duty-free importation of books or raw materials to be used in book publishing, the Board and its duly authorized representatives shall strictly monitor the quality and volume of imported books and materials as well as their distribution and the utilization of the said imported materials”\u009d (Sec. 12, RA 8047). The DOF Guidelines have grossly misinterpreted the law by concluding that only “books to be used in book publishing\u009d are duty-free.” The DOF equates duty-free books with “raw materials to be used in book publishing.” What are those books that are only intended for, or are raw materials in, book publishing? What is the wisdom or logic of a law that grants a duty-free incentive to such a very limited category of books, if such books do exist? Is this not a ridiculous interpretation of the law? The “raw materials to be used in book publishing” refer to paper and ink. Section 100 of the Marcos-era Tariffs and Customs Code (PD 1464) provides exemptions to the general rule of imposing duties on imported articles, if these exemptions are stated in the Code “or other laws.”\u009d The 1995 Book Development Act should be considered such a law that effectively provides exemptions to import duties. The NBDB expects the DOF to see the light, withdraw those Guidelines, and reaffirm the wise principle of the free flow of information, knowledge, and books worldwide.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    Blogger lightandshade<\/a> reports Bayan Muna Party-list Rep. Teodoro Casino<\/p>\n

    \n

    initiated a Congressional inquiry into the “Book Blockade of 2009<\/a>“\u009d by filing House Resolution 1157 titled A Resolution Directing the House Committee on Ways and Means to Conduct an Inquiry, in Aid of Legislation, on the Basis of Department of Finance (DoF) Order No. 17-09, which Restricts the Entry of and Imposes Duties on Imported Books, as well as its Impact on the People’s Access to Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    The Blog Herald<\/a> reports that on Twitter, the #bookblockade hashtag has made a splash:<\/p>\n

    \n

    A very interesting thing is happening in the Philippines as I post this – American Idol runner up David Archuleta just appeared on “Eat Bulaga” a noontime variety show which caused a huge soar in trending topics for the word Philippines. Almost instantly, local bloggers and Internet marketers (a lot of US companies outsource SEO and Internet Marketing strategies in the Philippines) picked up the trend and are now crossmarketing the #bookblockade hashtag<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    Even as the FaceBook Group Filipinos Against the Taxation of Books by Customs<\/a> reaches 12,000 members, Robin Hemley<\/a> points out the need for action beyond virtual assemblies:<\/p>\n

    \n

    it’s important for the group to tax action beyond FB because FB can also be a tidy little area of containment for the government. In other words, let all of these book lovers vent all they want on FB. Who cares? Not that I’m in any way belittling the group. I admire it. But it’s important to take other organized steps. Norman Sisson has urged people to write to Unesco… This seems like one of many good tactics to me. Not only should the U.N. be involved (as the treaty broken by the Philippines is a U.N. Treaty), but the embassies of countries that export books to the Philippines should also be kept informed: presumably, the U.S., Great Britain, Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia, Canada, etc. It should be remembered that this issue is not only a local one, but an international issue and the government should be called to account by the international as well as the Filipino community. The Book Development Association of the Philippines should bring this issue up with embassy officials as well and urge them to take a stand. I would love to be a fly on the walls (though I think I’d stand a good chance of being swatted) of the Bureau of Customs, the Department of Finance, and Malacanang right now. I’m sure that this issue is getting some attention in these hallowed halls despite any public mask of disdain. Some, if not most, would surely like to dismiss the issue. Some ridicule it. Some would like to ignore it. But surely, some, maybe a growing number of corrupt officials, are getting more than a little nervous. One more note: Filipinos who order books from Amazon and other such services have routinely paid taxes for their books at the Post Office for years. Now, more and more people have become aware of the Florence Agreement and its no wiggle room language re: the taxation of imported books. Is it possible that ordinary Filipinos might now have the power to refuse the petty extortion of Post Office officials? I’m not holding my breath on this one, but I think they should try.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    May 15<\/span><\/h2>\n

    Cnet Asia publishes a report by Joey Alarilla on the issue: see Filipino Netizens rally vs. Government’s “book blockade”<\/a> Following Robin Hemley’s proposal, made a proposal of my own for Seven Days of Action Against the Book Tax: Day 1:<\/strong> Text\/fax\/postcard executive officials, supporting appeal of Rep. Locsin to the President to rescind book tax, and supporting, too, the NBDB resolution opposing the tax.You can try to leave an online message to the President of the Philippines<\/a>. Or: EDUARDO R. ERMITA<\/strong> Executive Secretary Tel.# 735-5334 Fax# 7361076 Email address:<\/p>\n