reeko-to-readhis

[reeko-to-readhis]

How Train Law Forces the Poor to Pay Heaps of Cash While the Rich Give Spare Change

Observation

Despite the implementation of TRAIN Law in 2017 as an attempt to reduce the tax rates for the public, there is no doubt that the constant rise in petroleum prices as well as sweetened goods remain to be an issue for the consumers. Before the TRAIN Law was passed, its critics theorized that an increase in petroleum prices would set off a domino effect. This would result in an increase in the cost of products and services, ultimately adding more financial weight to the consumers, particularly the poor (Gimena, 2019). During the beginning of 2018, the critics were proven correct as the sudden inflation was apparent upon the implementation of the TRAIN Law, resulting in an uproar. In the same article, Gimena (2019) also mentioned that TRAIN Law failed to acknowledge the inability of the poorer masses to afford daily goods and other necessities such as rice, juice, softdrinks, as well as fuel for transportation.

     2. Insight

In an article by Africa (2016), he wrote that the country’s tax system should be created to address the presence of severe inequality and widespread poverty in the country, rather than to conform to the rich and private corporations. The good thing about the TRAIN Law is how income tax brackets have finally been adjusted and augmented. However, this was also accompanied by the sudden increase of inflation rate. According to Gimena (2019), inflation hit 6.7% in October, which was a far stretch from the targeted 2-4% goal of Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas for 2018. Provided that the higher excise gives primary focus on the rich, the detrimental effects brought by TRAIN Law are doubled for the poor masses.

    3. Learning

It is easy to see that no one is truly happy with having to pay excessive amounts of tax for the whole duration of their life, however, without the presence of any forms of tax, the economy and development of a country is at stake. It is such a significant part in any civilization that the fines and penalties for tax evasion have been greatly increased by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). From the previous P30,000 to P100,000, to a fine that ranged between P500,000 and P10 million.The problem with TRAIN Law is not the law itself, as the implications should have been dealt with a lot better. The exchange of currency is inevitable and as such, the government should be the one to see to it that laws regarding taxes must be carried out and accompanied with careful monitoring. For example, elites such as Imelda Marcos who are keen on investing in luxurious items such as paintings, relics, etc. Luxury spending such as yachts, casinos, and more could be given a tax regime or a higher VAT (Africa, 2016). 

Sources: 

Africa, S. (2016, September 2). TAX GANERN! DOF’s Tax Reforms Tax the Poor and Relieve the Rich (Part 2). IBON Foundation. https://www.ibon.org/tax-ganern-dofs-tax-reforms-tax-the-poor-and-relieve-the-rich-2/

de Vera, B. O. (2021, June 25). BIR sets tougher fines, penalties for tax evasion. Inquirer. https://business.inquirer.net/325716/bir-sets-tougher-fines-penalties-for-tax-evasion

Gimena, A. C. (2019, January 15). Revisiting the TRAIN Law. P&A Grant Thornton. https://www.grantthornton.com.ph/insights/articles-and-updates1/lets-talk-tax/revisiting-the-train-law/

[reeko-to-readhis]

Will Charter Change be Implemented Soon?

I. Observation

Despite having been challenged by several Presidents throughout the years, the 1987 Constitution retains its basic principles and structure. From the failed attempts of former President Fidel V. Ramos to the current President Rodrigo Duterte, there are various reasons as to why the proposed Charter Change has not been carried through (Palatino, 2021). The main reason for the failure of these proposals was public protests which occurred when allegations of the previous rulers were disclosed. The outrage brought by the proposed charter change and an attempt to rename it as a way to deem fit for the public greatly influenced these former presidents’ decision to push through with their proposed charter change. 

According to Quintos (2018), lawyer Christian Monsod addressed the problems that were raised in hopes of having a successful charter change. Monsod also disproved the need for a charter change as he also mentioned that the solution to these problems is all under the present constitution and that the Congress is the one to blame for the lack of key provisions. In addition, Monsod also implies that the drafts for a new constitution shall only be amended and revised to fit into the possibilities of having an established political dynasty in the Congress.

Upon reading and comparing the responses in the online survey I conducted, it was evident that all of the participants believed the constitution did not need any amendments or revisions. The survey was intended for determining the opinion of those in the professional field regarding the 1987 Philippine constitution. As to why they believed it was unnecessary, two of them had similar answers, however, they were all very specific in ruling out their disagreement with having a change in the constitution. 

Two of the participants answered that amendments may result in an abuse of power, while one answered that there is a long process in having to amend a constitution that has been adopted since 1987. Another participant believed that the constitution already provides enough protection for the country’s sovereignty, democracy, and its people, while the remaining participant finds that the government should focus on other contexts before considering having a change in the constitution. In addition, they also mentioned how their work, in general, has not been directly affected by the constitution as there were several opportunities from the line of work, to the mode of transportation, etc. Lastly, among the five participants, three of them believed that on a scale of 1 to 5, the Philippine constitution’s effectiveness is only a 3. On the other hand, the two remaining participants answered 4.

II. Insight

With regards to the complexity of having to amend or revise a constitution, it is also evident that the more people believe that a President’s reason for pushing charter change is mostly self-beneficial, the higher the possibility of having their proposal retracted. The call for a charter change has long been attempted dating back from the Fidel Ramos presidency to the now President Rodrigo Duterte, but much like his predecessors, Civil society groups would continue to point out this human rights record which they believed would eventually lead to an authoritarian type of government (Palatino, 2021). While I agree that amendments or revisions to the 1987 constitution are unnecessary, I still believe that there are still a lot of issues to be addressed. 

Recalling the events that occurred on November 23, 2009, which has since then been referred to as the Maguindanao massacre, there were 58 deaths and among them were 30 journalists (Jorgio and Griffiths, 2019). The massacre was planned by Datu Andal Ampatuan, Jr., the rival of Ismael "Toto" Mangudadatu who was one of the victims. The two were both planning to run for governor of Maguindanao, however, the massacre took place which led to the death of 58 people and the life sentence of Ampatuan, many of his relatives, and other primary suspects. Since then, there have been several calls to put an end to the presence of state support which allowed political families to have private armies and other militias that would only promote “political warlordism”. Unfortunately, there were believed to still be 80 unidentified suspects running free during those times, including police forces and soldiers.

III. Learning

Before I conducted an online survey, I expected at least one of the participants to answer “yes” to my first question. The first question was asked whether or not they thought that amending or changing the constitution is necessary, to which they all answered “no”. I did not do further research on the Philippine constitution so I initially thought that amending or revising a constitution would be as simple as amending a particular section in an Act. Admittedly, my mind has not only been changed for the better, but I have grown to further appreciate the capability of other people to teach me by merely expressing their thoughts without the intent of convincing me to agree. 

All things considered, there truly is a reason as to why there has not been a charter change after all these years of several Presidents urging the public to agree. From the excruciatingly long process of analyzing and passing amendments or revisions, or the concern on the lack of key provisions that must be implemented, there is also the issue of voting in a Constituent Assembly. During the process of changing the constitution, Article XVII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution fails to indicate whether the two chambers in the Congress shall vote jointly or separately. 

Sources: 

Gavilan, J. (2018, January 16). What you need to know about Charter Change. Rappler. https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/charter-change-explainer-philippine-constitution

Jorgio, J., & Griffiths, J. (2019, December 19). Planners of Maguindanao massacre found guilty of murder in Philippines “trial of the decade.” CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/18/asia/philippines-maguindanao-massacre-verdict-intl-hnk/index.html

Palatino, M. (2021, February 2). A Brief History of Charter Change Attempts in the Philippines. The Diplomat. https://thediplomat.com/2021/02/a-brief-history-of-charter-change-attempts-in-the-philippines/

Quintos, P. (2018, January 8). “Is charter change really necessary?” ABS-CBN News. https://news.abs-cbn.com/focus/01/08/18/is-charter-change-really-necessary

[reeko-to-readhis]

A Modernized World Where No One is Left Behind

I. OBSERVATION

Discrimination and Injustice towards the rural poor dates back to the implementation of Republic ACT No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), which was founded by the Aquino administration during Corazon Cojuangco Aquino’s presidency. The services provided by CARP were benefited by land-owners the most, as several non-land schemes caused the exemption of land distribution from the actual and physical distribution of land to the farmers that were grantees of the said program. Despite being catered as a reform program, government support towards land reform services and beneficiaries were greatly inadequate.

The act was arranged to be effective for a period of 10 years until Republic Act No. 8532 was passed, serving as an amendment to the purpose of section 63 of CARP. Furthermore, it was once again extended by several laws that were enacted with the sole purpose of extending the duration of CARP. On the 7th of August 2009, there had been another attempt at perpetuating CARP when Republic Act No. 9700 or CARP Extension with “Reforms” (CARPER). Despite the misalignment of the effectivity date set in the bill, CARPER was approved. Consequently, the farmers who were actively pushing for the Genuine Agrarian Reform Bill (GARB) were outraged by this news. During the 14th Congress, the Genuine Agrarian Reform Bill (GARB), initially referred to as House Bill No. 3059, was filed by former Anakpawis Representative Rafael “Ka Paeng” Mariano.

II. INSIGHT

House Bill 555 or Genuine Agrarian Reform Act of  2016 recognizes the lack of significant development in Philippine agriculture. The bill aims to address the inadequate subsistence provided by the previous agrarian reform program to farmer-beneficiaries. In addition, the Genuine Agrarian Reform Act of 2016 emphasizes the need to delink the commodification of land by the land-owners as well as foreign control. Regardless of how this new bill captures the shortcomings of CARP, the challenges of it reaching full effectivity remains at large. Acknowledging the issues with CARP remains significant, as it shall serve as a guide towards achieving a successful agrarian reform. 

According to Adriano (2020), there are three reasons for the failure of the previous agrarian reform starting with the lack of a specific political objective. Rather than a program with intended long-term benefits and services, CARP could have been implemented by means of achieving a certain goal within a limited period of time. Regardless of whether or not the goal had been fulfilled, setting up a mere program that was visibly aiming for long-term effects had a lot of shortcomings in the first place. Due to the dismantlement of several lands in a span of 30 years, the average land size owned by a farmer during these times would only be around one hectare. Moreover, government support was the most lackluster for the previous agrarian reform program as it is now. The second reason for the failure of CARP is the exemption of landlords from providing support to their tenants in terms of basic needs for farming as well as credits that are due. As a result, the state is supposed to fill in the role of giving the aforementioned equipment and finances to these farmers. However, the inefficiency of the government was once again exposed as the higher-ups neglected to fulfill this and continued to focus on capital gain. The final reason is as simple as neglecting to properly title the lands which prevented the beneficiaries from being able to use their land. 

III. LEARNING

Taking into consideration the issues and the intended purpose of the two agrarian reform programs, both had the potential to be a truly successful reform. In acknowledging what went wrong and what can be improved further, I firmly believe that the path towards justice for the farmers is only a few more calculated steps ahead. I agree with the fact that land is monopolized and has been used mainly for industrialization, however, the agricultural aspect in the Philippines continues to lag behind. Adriano (2020) also found that the only way a farmer can earn a decent income from a mere 1.5 hectares of land is if he strays from traditional crops and cultivates high value crops like flowers or vegetables instead. Unfortunately, Filipino farmers continue to till only rice, corn, and other traditional crops. 

Until now, the government has not been paying enough attention to the plea of poor farmers who are desperate for change. I believe that instead of striving for total industrialization, pushing through with the Genuine Agrarian Reform would create a breakthrough for both the political and agricultural aspects in the Philippines. Once the state finally enacts a successful agrarian reform, the efficiency of the state as well as the subsistence of these farmer-beneficiaries in the rural poor would greatly improve.

sources: 

HOUSE BILL NO. 555. (2016, June 30). congress gov ph. https://www.congress.gov.ph/legisdocs/basic_17/HB00555.pdf

Adriano, F. D. (2020, December 3). Agrarian reform, populism and agrarian debacle. The Manila Times. https://www.manilatimes.net/2020/12/03/business/agribusiness/agrarian-reform-populism-and-agrarian-debacle/804101

Adriano, F. D. (2020, August 27). Why Filipino small farmers remain poor. The Manila Times. https://www.manilatimes.net/2020/08/27/business/agribusiness/why-filipino-small-farmers-remain-poor/759852