His Heart Is Still Sick. What Can Cure It?

Farmers Doubt Ombudsman on Joc-Joc Case
Philippine Daily Inquirer

This is a reaction to the news reports on the return of former Agriculture Undersecretary Jocelyn “Joc-joc” Bolante to the country. We seriously doubt if the Ombudsman would pursue the case against him, and we urge the Senate to immediately reopen its investigation of the fertilizer fund scam.

Since 2004, the Ombudsman has sat on our plunder case against Bolante. We doubt if she will move to sincerely resolve the case. We believe Bolante should be made to face the music and account for what he did against us peasants.

If the Senate is to refer his case to the Supreme Court, then it should act expeditiously so that Malacañang and the Department of Justice will not be able to bring Bolante under their control. If Bolante is to testify now, then not only would he bring us closer to knowing the whole truth on the P728-million fertilizer scam; he would also shed light on the modus operandi behind the P218.7-million rice scam and the P135-million vegetable seeds scam last year. He could also help prevent another scam of the same or worse magnitude in 2010.

We are prepared to go back to the Senate and renew our testimony that we got no fertilizer funds or fertilizers from the government in 2004. In fact, we are even prepared to testify that we did not receive any vegetable seeds that were supposedly distributed to farmers last year.

Bolante should be made an example and he should be punished severely for diverting funds meant for the peasantry. Justice must be served.

The Senate must foil any administration attempt to get Bolante off the hook. They should be very wary of Malacañang because Bolante’s testimony or admission of guilt would be a very powerful push for the new impeachment case against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

We will be watching this new chapter in the fertilizer scam very closely, and we will once again take to the streets if the need arises.

FELIX PAZ, chair, Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas-Bikol, Barangay Alcala, Daraga, Albay

----------
By the sight of him being ushered upon arrival at the airport (following his deportation after finally denied asylum in the USA) on a wheelchair as he passed inanimate (except for the weak gesture of his right hand which appeared to be caressing his chest) through a crowd of people and media who were curiously awaiting (with not much gleaned from the event but more of their mixed expectations), and with the kind of smokes which emanate from the chimneys of his camp that blend with the flare lights from the tall tower, this man indeed may still be harboring the old proverbial sickness of the heart.

If a man is not willing to be cured of this type of sickness, nothing will ever make him well except himself. While the nation is giving him the opportunity, he should take the chance. How much time there is? Not much.

Let him [them] play his [their] game for a while, who knows what may happen; and maybe the whole nation might not need to play another game after all.

ADMU's [Conflicting] Stands on HB 5043?

Declaration of Support of Ateneo Faculty Members for RH Bill

Dear Honorable Members of the House of Representatives and of the Philippine Senate:

Kindly find attached to this letter the Declaration of Support for the Immediate Passage of House Bill 5043 on “Reproductive Health and Population Development,” signed by 69 individual faculty of the Ateneo de Manila University.

After studying the provisions of House Bill 5043 in light of the realities of Filipino women, poor families, and our youth, we, 69 individual faculty of the Ateneo de Manila University, speaking for ourselves and not for the University, have come to conclude that the Philippines urgently needs a national policy on reproductive health and population development, as provided by House Bill 5043.

We hope our expression of support can help enrich and broaden the discussions and debates on the issue of reproductive health and population development, by presenting an alternative view supportive of House Bill 5043 coming from Catholic academics and educators.

We hope forthcoming initiatives from the House of Representatives and the Senate can engender dialogue among various groups espousing conflicting positions on this most crucial issue. May our collective efforts in dialogue lead to a more enlightened citizenry and bring about what is the greatest good for our beloved people—especially women, the poor, and our youth.

Yours sincerely,

Sixty-nine individual faculty of the Ateneo de Manila University
(whose names are listed at the end of the Declaration of Support)

***

Declaration of support for the Reproductive Health Bill’s immediate passage into law from individual faculty of the Ateneo de Manila University

We, individual faculty of the Ateneo de Manila University, speaking for ourselves and not for the University, strongly support House Bill 5043 on “Reproductive Health and Population Development,” and call for its immediate passage in Congress. After studying the bill’s provisions in light of the realities of Filipino women, poor families, and our youth, we have reached the conclusion that the Philippines urgently needs a national policy on reproductive health and population development, as provided by the RH Bill.

A consistent, integrated, and comprehensive population framework guarantees budgetary support from the national government for reproductive health initiatives, and ensures their sustainability across local government units regardless of changes in national and local leadership. While curbing our rapid population growth rate of 2.04 percent will not, by itself, solve poverty in our country, addressing the population problem is crucial to overall economic growth and poverty reduction, along with asset redistribution, employment and livelihood opportunities, combating corruption, improving governance, and strengthening institutions.

We further believe that it is possible for Catholics like ourselves to support HB 5043 in good conscience, even as we recognize, with some anguish, that our view contradicts the position held by some of our fellow Catholics, including our bishops. Those who oppose the RH Bill have denounced it as “pro-abortion,” “anti-life,” “anti-women,” “anti-poor,” and “immoral.” However, our reason, informed by our faith, has led us to believe and say otherwise.

The RH Bill is pro-life and pro-women. HB 5043 categorically rejects abortion, which it deems a “crime,” in consonance with the 1987 Constitution. What it, in fact, wants to do is prevent abortions by offering couples an array of “medically-safe, legal, affordable and quality” family planning methods, from which they can choose the one that will work best for them. In sodoing, the RH Bill seeks to avert unwanted and mistimed pregnancies, which cause mostly poor and married women despairing over yet another pregnancy to seek an induced abortion. We are alarmed that an estimated 473,400 Filipino women went for an abortion in 2000, and that some 79,000 of them wound up in hospitals for abortion complications. We consider it our guilt and our shame that so many of our women should be driven to such dire straits as to make abortion a family planning method, for want of information on and access to an effective means to prevent an unplanned pregnancy.

***

This declaration of support is based on the 15 October 2008 position paper entitled “Catholics Can Support the RH Bill in Good Conscience” by individual faculty of the Ateneo de Manila University, namely Marita Castro Guevara (Department of Interdisciplinary Studies), Raymond B. Aguas (Department of Theology), Liane Peña Alampay (Department of Psychology), Fernando T. Aldaba (Department of Economics), Remmon E. Barbaza (Department of Philosophy), Manuel B. Dy, Jr. (Department of Philosophy), Elizabeth Uy Eviota (Department of Sociology-Anthropology), Roberto O. Guevara (Department of Theology), Anne Marie A. Karaos(Department of Sociology-Anthropology), Michael J. Liberatore (Department of Theology), Liza L. Lim (Department of Sociology-Anthropology), Cristina Jayme Montiel (Department of Psychology), Mary Racelis (Department of Sociology-Anthropology), and Agustin Martin G. Rodriguez (Department of Philosophy).

***

We believe in the sanctity and dignity of human life, whether that life is the mother’s or the unborn child’s. It is for this reason that we support the RH Bill’s intent to expand couples’ — but especially women’s — access to safe, legal, and reliable family planning methods, whether modern natural or modern artificial. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) says that women’s access to effective contraception would avert 30 percent of maternal deaths, 90 percent of abortion-related deaths and disabilities, and 20 percent of child deaths. Thus, the RH Bill is not only pro-life (in that it aims to prevent the termination of an unborn child’s life), but also pro-women, because it enables them to plan the number and spacing of their children so as to avoid frequent and closely-spaced pregnancies that imperil their health and lives. Moreover, given that our maternal mortality rate is a staggeringly high 162 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, the RH Bill aims to improve maternal and infant health by enjoining cities and municipalities to provide an adequate number of skilled birth attendants and hospitals rendering comprehensive emergency obstetric care.

In sum, because reproductive health is central to women’s overall health, fundamental aspects of women’s wellbeing are compromised when reproductive health is ignored. The conditions under which choices are made are as important as the actual content of women’s choices: the right to choose is meaningful only if women have real power to choose.

The RH Bill is pro-poor. Based on the Pulse Asia 2007 survey on family planning, an overwhelming majority (92%) of Filipinos believe that it is important to plan their family, and most (89%) say that the government should allocate funding for modern artificial methods of family planning, including the pill, intrauterine devices (IUDs), condoms, ligation, and vasectomy. And yet only 5 out of 10 married women (50.6%) use any family planning method, whether modern natural or modern artificial. This suggests a significant unmet need for reproductive health services.

By treating contraceptives as “essential medicines,” HB 5043 makes contraceptives (including those requiring hospital services like tubal ligation, vasectomy, and IUD insertion) part of the National Drug Formulary, and therefore more accessible and cheaper for Filipinos. This is a decidedly pro-poor measure, considering that the majority (58.1%) of those who use modern artificial family planning methods rely on the government for their supply of contraceptives. Our Catholic faith calls on us to embrace the preferential option for the poor and marginalized. We therefore support the RH Bill, which we believe will be especially beneficial for our poorest 20 percent who cannot afford family planning services, and therefore have the highest unmet need for family planning (26.7%), and 2.5 children more than they desire. Furthermore, we uphold the principle of integral human development, which is why we want couples to be able to have only the number of children that they want and can adequately feed, clothe, care for, and send to school, so that they can attain their full potential as human beings, and contribute to the development of Philippine society.

The RH Bill is pro-youth. As teachers of our young people, we are deeply concerned that, over time, more of them are getting initiated into sex at increasingly younger ages. Based on the 1994 and 2002 Young Adult Fertility and Sexuality surveys of the UP Population Institute, not only did the proportion of youth aged 15-24 who are engaged in premarital sex increase (from 17.8% in 1994, to 23.4% in 2002), but the average age of their first sexual encounter declined (from 18 in 1994, to 17.5 in 2002). Even more worrisome is how their premarital sex act is often unprotected, with three in four of them (75.1%) admitting to not using any kind of contraceptive during their most recent premarital sex act, primarily because of lack of knowledge on contraception. Our young people’s premarital and unprotected sex therefore places them at high risk for early pregnancies, and contracting HIV-AIDS and sexually-transmitted diseases.

We favor the RH Bill’s provision of mandatory age-appropriate reproductive health education, believing as we do that much of our youth’s risky sexual behavior is linked to their lack of information and values formation on their reproductive and sexual health. We take exception to the opinion that teaching them about sex will make them prurient and promiscuous. Rather, we hold the view that by providing our young people the information and values they would need to take care of their reproductive health, and by creating opportunities for them to articulate and clarify their questions and feelings about sex, we are empowering them to make responsible decisions regarding their sexuality and sexual behavior, whether now or in the future. After all, Catholic social theology teaches us that the principle of human dignity requires us to uphold human rights, which include the right to education and appropriate information (Gaudium et Spes, 1965) and the right to develop one’s intelligence and freedom in seeking and knowing the truth (Centesimus Annus, 1991).

The RH Bill is pro-informed choice. In seeking to promote both modern natural and modern artificial methods of family planning (with “no bias for either”), HB 5043 recognizes that couples, especially women, have the right to choose the family planning method that they consider to be the safest and most effective for them, provided that these are legally permissible. Although natural family planning (NFP) which the Catholic Church promotes offers many benefits, it is important to realize that pursuing an NFP-only population policy will be a disservice, if not a grave injustice, to women and couples for whom NFP simply cannot work. We are thinking of women who find it impossible to predict their infertile periods; or couples who see each other on an irregular basis; or women who are trapped in abusive relationships with men who demand sex anytime they want it. Why is it morally wrong for such women and couples — and even others not encompassed by the above situations — to use a modern artificial family planning method that has been pronounced safe and non-abortifacient by health authorities, if their discernment of their particular situation has led them to conclude that such a method will enable them to fulfill the demands of marital love and responsible parenthood?

Catholic social teachings recognize the primacy of the well-formed conscience over wooden compliance to directives from political and religious authorities. Gaudium et Spes (1965) tells us: “In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged” (no. 16).

We respect the consciences of our bishops when they promote natural family planning as the only moral means of contraception, in adherence to the teachings of Humanae Vitae (1968). In turn, we ask our bishops to respect the one in three (35.6%) married Filipino women who, in their “most secret core and sancturary” or conscience, have decided that their and their family’s interests would best be served by using a modern artificial means of contraception. Is it not possible that these women and their spouses were obeying their well-informed and well-formed consciences when they opted to use an artificial contraceptive?

We therefore ask our bishops and fellow Catholics not to block the passage of HB 5043, which promotes women’s and couples’ access to the full range of safe, legal, and effective modern natural and modern artificial family planning methods, from which they can choose the one most suitable to their needs and personal and religious convictions. To campaign against the bill is to deny our people, especially our women, many other benefits, such as maternal and child health and nutrition; promotion of breastfeeding; adolescent and youth health; reproductive health education; prevention and management of gynecological conditions; and provision of information and services addressing the reproductive health needs of marginalized sectors, among others. In pursuit of the common good, or the “sum total of social conditions which allow people… to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily” (Gaudium et Spes 1965, no. 26), we call on the Catholic Church to let the RH Bill pass in Congress, and to consider forging a principled collaboration with the government in the promotion of natural family planning, which Humanae Vitae deems morally acceptable, and in the formation of consciences with emphasis on the value of responsible sex and parenthood.

To our fellow Catholics who, in good conscience, have come to conclude, as we have, that we need a reproductive health law: we ask you to declare your support for HB 5043.

Finally, we call on our legislators in the House of Representatives and in the Senate to pass the RH Bill. Doing so upholds the constitutional right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions; honors our commitments to international covenants; and promotes the reproductive health and reproductive rights of Filipinos, especially of those who are most marginalized on this issue — our women, poor families, and youth.

We sign this declaration as individual faculty of the Ateneo de Manila University, and speak for ourselves and not for the rest of our colleagues or the University.

Signed: 69 individual faculty of the Ateneo de Manila University (28 October 2008)

Ricardo G. Abad (Department of Sociology-Anthropology)
Joy G. Aceron (Department of Political Science)
Raymond B. Aguas (Department of Theology)
Liane Peña Alampay (Department of Psychology)
Fernando T. Aldaba (Department of Economics)
Raul Socrates C. Banzuela (Program for Development Studies)
Raymundo S. Baquiran, M.D. (Ateneo School of Medicine and Public Health)
Remmon E. Barbaza (Department of Philosophy)
Germelino M. Bautista (Department of Economics)
Edsel L. Beja, Jr. (Department of Economics)
Rofel G. Brion (Department of Interdisciplinary Studies)
Ma. Cecilia C. Bulos (Department of Psychology)
Liberty L. Chee (Department of Modern Languages)
Sharon Ann C. Co (Department of Psychology)
Antonio Esteban G. Conejos (Department of English)
Manuel D. Cuenca, Jr., M.D. (Department of Psychology)
Gary C. Devilles (Kagawaran ng Filipino)
Aleta C. Domdom (Department of Economics)
Atty. Alexander C. Dy (Ateneo Law School)
Manuel B. Dy, Jr. (Department of Philosophy)
Elizabeth Uy Eviota (Department of Sociology-Anthropology)
Ana Marie O. Fernandez (Department of English)
Joseph H. Francia (Department of Economics)
Jamil Paolo S. Francisco (Department of Economics)
Geoffrey A. Guevara (Department of Philosophy)
Marita Castro Guevara (Department of Interdisciplinary Studies)
Roberto O. Guevara (Department of Theology)
Ma. Regina M. Hechanova (Department of Psychology)
Anne Marie A. Karaos (Department of Sociology-Anthropology)
Albert M. Lagliva (Department of Philosophy)
Michael J. Liberatore (Department of Theology)
Liza L. Lim (Department of Sociology-Anthropology)
Ma. Emma Concepcion D. Liwag (Department of Psychology)
Ada Javellana Loredo (Department of English)
Jozon A. Lorenzana (Department of Communication)
J. Ma. Arcadio Malbarosa (Department of Philosophy)
Michael Ner E. Mariano (Department of Philosophy)
Pamela Joy M. Mariano (Department of Philosophy)
Ma. Isabel Pefianco Martin (Department of English)
Marcia Czarina Corazon M. Medina (Department of Sociology-Anthropology)
Ma. Isabel E. Melgar (Department of Psychology)
Luisito G. Montalbo (Ateneo School of Medicine and Public Health)
Cristina Jayme Montiel (Department of Psychology)
Aaron Rom O. Moralina (Department of History)
Jocelyn M. Mayoralga-Nolasco (Department of Psychology)
Mira Alexis P. Ofreneo (Department of Psychology)
Glenda C. Oris (Kagawaran ng Filipino)
Josephine P. Perez (Department of Psychology)
Raul Pertierra (Department of Sociology-Anthropology)
Caroliza T. Peteros (Program for Development Studies)
Alicia T. Pingol (Department of Sociology-Anthropology)
Emma E. Porio (Department of Sociology-Anthropology)
Mary Racelis (Department of Sociology-Anthropology)
Ma. Margarita A. Ramos (Department of Psychology)
Mariel Vincent A. Rapisura (Program for Development Studies)
Danton R. Remoto (Department of English)
Agustin Martin G. Rodriguez (Department of Philosophy)
Alma Maria O. Salvador (Department of Political Science)
Atty. Maria Cleofe Gettie C. Sandoval (Leaders for Health Program, AGSB – Health Unit)
Joselito T. Sescon (Department of Economics)
Anton Luis C. Sevilla (Department of Philosophy)
Alma Valerie C. Soriano (Department of English)
Sherilyn T. Siy (Department of Psychology)
Mary C. Thomas (Department of English)
Jose Ma. Edito K. Tirol (Department of History)
Philip Arnold P. Tuaño (Department of Economics)
Eileen F. Tupaz (Department of Philosophy)
John Carlo P. Uy (Department of Philosophy)
Ma. Eufemia C. Yap, M.D. (Ateneo School of Medicine and Public Health)

----------
Statement of Fr. Nebres on Reproductive Health Bill 5043

Yesterday, the Manila Standard had a headline story entitled “Ateneo profs defy bishops, back family planning bill.” The article is based on an October 15, 2008 position paper issued by individual faculty members of the Ateneo de Manila, “Catholics Can Support the RH Bill in Good Conscience.” A shorter version of this position paper is attached.

In reply to a request for clarification from His Excellency Most Rev. Angel N. Lagdameo, D.D., President of the CBCP, I wrote him yesterday, October 22, as follows:

First, that “the faculty members clearly state that they are not speaking for the Ateneo de Manila and that this is their personal position.”

Second, that I was asked to respond to this concern a few weeks ago by Archbishop Paciano Aniceto and Bishop Gabriel Reyes and I wrote them on October 2, 2008 regarding our position on the Reproductive Health Bill 5043:

As in all matters that are connected with faith and morals, the Ateneo de Manila, as a Jesuit and Catholic university, stands with the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) and the Philippine Province of the Society of Jesus.

I am familiar with the considered opinion of our moral theologians that, although there are points wherein the aforesaid bill and the Catholic moral tradition are in agreement, there are certain positions and provisions in the bill which are incompatible with principles and specific positions of moral teaching which the Catholic Church has held and continues to hold.

I trust that this will help clarify our position. At the same time, together with the CBCP and the Philippine Province, we favor and encourage honest, sincere and mutually-respectful dialogue on the important issues taken up in the bill.

In my letter to Archbishop Lagdameo yesterday, I also said that several Jesuits would be meeting with the Ateneo faculty members yesterday in a dialogue on this important matter. The dialogue yesterday was forthright and mutually respectful and we pointed out that, while we respect their deep concern for the poor and appreciate our mutual dialogue with them, it is necessary for the Ateneo de Manila as a Jesuit and Catholic university, to state clearly our position on RH Bill 5043. The position of the Ateneo de Manila is as follows:

1) We appreciate the efforts of these members of the Ateneo faculty to grapple with serious social issues and to draw from Catholic moral teaching in their study of the bill.

2) We acknowledge their right to express their views as individual Catholics and appreciate their clear statement that their views are their own and not that of the University.

3) However, the Ateneo de Manila University does not agree with their position of supporting the present bill. As I said in my letter of October 2 to Archbishop Aniceto and Bishop Reyes, it is “the considered opinion of our moral theologians that, although there are points wherein the aforesaid bill and the Catholic moral tradition are in agreement, there are certain positions and provisions in the bill which are incompatible with principles and specific positions of moral teaching which the Catholic Church has held and continues to hold.”

We thus have serious objections to the present bill in the light of our Catholic faith.

4) Ateneo de Manila thus stands with our Church leaders in raising questions about and objections to RH Bill 5043.

5) It is also the responsibility of the Ateneo de Manila as a Jesuit and Catholic university to ensure that, in our classes and other fora, we teach Catholic faith and morals in their integrity.

6) At the same time, as I also wrote on October 2, we support continuing efforts on the critical study and discussion of the bill among Church groups including the University and in civil society.

BIENVENIDO F. NEBRES, S.J.
President

Had it involved AFP's CIC, it would be a different story

Palace won't use executive privilege to hinder Moscow cash scandal probe
ABS-CBN News

The Office of the President vowed not to use its constitutional right to executive privilege to stop Interior and Local Government Secretary Ronaldo Puno and other officials of the executive branch from testifying in the Senate on Thursday on the P7 million cash scandal in Russia.

Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita said it will not exercise its right to executive privilege on any public official who will be invited by the Senate when it investigates the P7 million cash scandal of the so-called "euro generals" of the PNP led by retired PNP comptroller Eliseo dela Paz.

Press Secretary Jesus Dureza said it is the PNP who should face the Senate. He said the Office of the President will help ferret out the truth on the undeclared cash advance for the 8-man PNP delegation's participation at the October 7 to 10 Interpol assembly in Russia.

Meanwhile, Senate Sgt.-at-Arms Jess Tabancura failed to serve the Senate's subpoena on dela Paz in Camp Crame Tuesday night.

The subpoena was not received by the PNP office of the director for comptrollership since dela Paz has just recently retired from the police service.

Tabangcura failed to get dela Paz's home address since his records have already been pulled out.

Subpoenas for other police officials were also not served since their offices were already closed.

Earlier on Tuesday, the subpoena for dela Paz to appear before the Senate on Thursday was faxed to his office.

Miriam's disbelief

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, meanwhile, expressed disbelief over the statements of dela Paz insisting that the 105,000 euros (P6.9 million) of undeclared cash found by Russian customs authorities last October 11 was legitimate cash advance.

In response to dela Paz's press statements made Tuesday after he returned from Moscow, Santiago said dela Paz not only has to explain why he failed to declare the excessive cash advance but also why he failed to declare it when he left the Philippines for the Interpol assembly in Russia.

The government requires passengers carrying more than $10,000 to declare the money before leaving the country.

Santiago said dela Paz may have passed through the VIP room when he left Manila for Russia for the October 7 to 10 Interpol assembly, which is why his handcarried bag was most likely not checked at the international airport.

Santiago said it was not only "embarrassing" that a Filipino policeman would be caught with 105,000 euros but also "scandalous" considering that dela Paz represented a poor country.

No contingency fund

She said the Commission on Audit (COA) would surely say that a "contingency fund" for foreign travel of public officials is not allowed.

In all of her official travels, Santiago said she has never been granted "contingency fund."

On dela Paz's defense that the money was legitimate cash advance for foreign travel, Santiago said cash advance is usually given to pay for hotel and transportation expenses. In the case of the 8-man PNP delegation, their hotel and transportation expenses had already been paid.

She also noted that Interior and Local Government Secretary Ronaldo Puno had already said that he only authorized the release of P2.3 million for the 8-man delegation's trip to Russia.

On PNP officials' claim that it was contingency funds in case any of those in the delegation needed medical treatment, Santiago said the police officials didn't have to bring such a big amount since they could have asked for the help of the Philippine embassy in Moscow if they had gotten sick in Russia.

Saving their skin?

Santiago said higher-ranking officials of the PNP are washing their hands of the scandal "to save their skin."

She said PNP Chief Jesus Versoza cannot claim ignorance of the cash advance since he is the approving authority.

Santiago said a case of malversation of public funds can be filed against Versoza and dela Paz, including other violations of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act.

Santiago said he once attended an Interpol assembly when he was immmigration commissioner during the Aquino administration, and she found it was a "waste of time" and just "a free junket."

"That's why I never went to an Interpol assembly again," she said.

Puno: I didn't clear P7M

Meanwhile, Interior and Local Government Secretary Ronaldo Puno on Tuesday acknowledged that the P6.9 million alleged cash advance of dela Paz was "not covered by the authority" he issued for the travel expenses and allowances of the PNP delegation.

"It's large so I don't know what contingencies they were anticipating," he told ANC's Top Story Tuesday. "It was not covered by the authority I issued, which was for per diem and travel cost."

Puno said he only authorized the release of P2.3 million for the 8-man PNP delegation's participation in the October 7 to 10 Interpol assembly in Russia.

However, since dela Paz was the PNP comptroller, Puno said he was "entitled to a cash advance" within a certain limit, but this should have been authorized.

Puno said an internal investigation will be conducted by the National Police Commission (Napolcom) to determine if the "cash advances have any basis, who authorized the cash advance, what contingencies were anticipated."

Puno also defended the presence of dela Paz at the Interpol assembly even if he would already have retired from service during his scheduled return to the Philippines on October 11.

"The Interpol meeting was on financial and program plans. Since he was comptroller, there was reason for him to go," he said. [...]

Click here to read full text.

----------
Thanks to the Russian authorities for being instrumental in the discovery of this alleged anomaly.

Plant Camote If We Must

Recession Risks to Filipinos
By Mon Casiple

In the light of the failure to rekindle market confidence of the passage of the US law authorizing up to US$700 billion bail-out and the deepening global financial crisis, the recession scenario cannot anymore be brushed aside and it may arrive sooner than later. The Iceland bankruptcy, the EU bank bail-outs, plunging world stock markets, US job lay-offs, and continuing tight credit regimes all point to the increasingly precarious global financial system. It is a matter of time that the real economy–the daily economy of societies and peoples–will be affected. We are looking at the opening maw of the abyss called global recession.

The Philippine authorities desperately tries to draw attention from this grim scenario with endless assurances that we are not affected. It would have been better if they started telling the people the truth and prepare them for the hardships ahead. It is not fair nor prudent to mask the reality–when it hits with no preparations, psychological or otherwise, it will simply swamp those unprepared to survive the economic blows.

The real economy and the “virtual” economy of the financial system, the economies and financial systems of almost all countries, and the global villages that we have become under globalization all cannot be separated nor isolated from each other–we are all connected and intertwined. It is simply not true that the Philippine economy or financial system can be protected or distanced from the recession.

How may Filipinos be affected by recession? Let me count the ways: 1) you may lose your job in the global job market, whether it be in the call center here or your overseas job; 2) you may lose the foreign market for your goods; 3) you may lose your credit card, your insurance plan, and/or your bank account; 4) you may not be able to get loans or credit for your business or other needs; and 5) your foreign investor partner may leave and saddle you with the remaining liabilities.

A second round where the local economy contracts in sympathy will do the following to you: 1) your business may fold up with the shrinkage or disappearing foreign market, lack of capital, or bad debts; 2) you may not have the necessary reserves to weather the slowing or stopping of the business cycle and consequent loss of earnings and profits ; 3) you may lose your job; 4) your peso may not be worth much as exchange rates deteriorates; and 5) you may not have the money at all to buy basic necessities.

Time to plant camote–the old saying goes. Prepare for days of survival ahead. GMA and rosy drumbeaters be damned!

----------
Whatever preparations there are to be made, governments can only do so much. This crisis is just about to exit its preliminary stage that is why many of the developing economies are not yet experiencing real significant impact as what the major developed economies are already beginning to experience.

Developing economies (like our Philippine economy) are somewhere near the lower portion of the world economic structure. The scenario can be likened to an iceberg. The upper portion of the iceberg are the world's major economies, the lower portion that is submerged comprises the minor economies. When the globe warms up some degrees higher than normal, the top portion of the iceberg melts first because they are most exposed to the warming surface of the ocean. At preliminary stage, the melting process starts slow and almost undetected. It continues for some length of time until the process is recognizable. As the melting process progresses to the secondary stage, there is a point where it suddenly accelerates. The iceberg divides into multiple smaller sizes then later on, at the final stage, breaks down into even smaller chunks and dissolves within a short period of time.

Will this current "meltdown" continue all the way to the final stage, or will it stop at some point ahead? It will only stop when its purposes are completed. Plant camote if we must because it is not for everyone to know all the reasons for the season.

Necessary difficulties are not just simply allowed to happen by the All-knowing Power for no unnecessary reason. Operating in the principle of "hitting many birds with just one stone", there are deeper objectives that this particular "difficulty" is meant to accomplish which are not obvious. Just as the draining of a pond exposes submerged objects, also in like manner, this crises will "quietly reveal" things but only to those who are called and prepaired to do their tasks so that they will know what to do when their time comes.