16 June 2021

1972 Martial Law

 

1972 Martial Law

Juan Ponce Enrile, 16 June 2021


Much of what had been said against the 1972 Martial Law was fiction. President Marcos became president of the country in 1965. The United States and the Soviet Union were locked in a bitter Cold War. And the communist ideology went on a rampage and set the world ablaze.

 

The Philippines was not spared. Two insurgencies were organized in the country in 1968. The CPP-NPA in Luzon and the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) in Mindanao. These insurgencies were on top of ongoing Datu Maffallen, Datu Mampatilan, Datu Mabbalao, and Ilaga rebellions there. Beyond these were also the heavily armed political warlords in many parts of the country. Such was the status of law and order in the land at that time.

 

The CPP-NPA and the Moro National Liberation Front were organized by three young men: Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino, Nur Misuari, and Jose Maria Sison. These three were former students in the University of the Philippines. They were allegedly supported by a country in East Asia that wanted to keep the Philippines busy.

 

The AFP then - which included the Philippine Constabulary - was a military force of some 48, 000 men and women. Its combat weapons were Cal. 30 M1 Garand and Cal. 30 M1 Carbine rifles that the United States used in World War II.

 

The CPP-NPA was armed with copies of Cal. 7.62mm U.S. M14 rifles, P-40 rocket launchers, mortars, and other lethal explosive devices imported from red China. The MNLF was armed with modern European guns from Belgium.

 

The CPP-NPA and MNLF recruitment was quick and extensive. The CPP-NPA for one penetrated all sectors of society: youth, students, teachers, academe. colleges, universities, churches, professional and intellectual groups, media, labor, farmers, fishermen, transport systems, urban and rural poor. Both also targeted the military for recruitment.

 

The NPA started its violence in Metro Manila and Central Luzon. Initially, its headquarters was in Hacienda Luisita in Tarlac. It built a labyrinth of underground tunnels in the town of Capas. It terrorized the countryside and murdered those that resisted it. During the national election in 1969, about August or September, the NPA massacred twelve laborers in barangay Sta. Lucia outside Clark Air Base.

 

In January, 1970, while President Marcos was delivering his SONA in Congress, the CPP barricaded the old Congress building on P. Burgos Street in Manila. It trapped President Marcos, his family, Senators, congressmen, Cabinet members, Supreme Court Justices, ambassadors, diplomats, other political and religious dignitaries, and leading business leaders inside the Congress building.

 

A day or two after, CPP elements stormed Malacañang, burned a hospital there, threatened the presidential residence. President Marcos had to evacuate his family to his presidential (yacht) in Manila Bay.

 

With the help of barrio self defense units that it organized in Central Luzon, the AFP was able to dislodge the NPA from there. It pushed them north to Isabela in the Cagayan Valley. And from there the NPA spread to Region IV in the south to the Bicol region to the Visayan Islands, and to Mindanao.

 

Meanwhile, in Metro Manila, the communists continued their destructive work. First, they bombed the Joint US Military Advisory Group (JUSMAG) headquarters in Quezon City. They bombed the Liberal Party rally at Plaza Miranda during the political campaign in August, 1971. Several people were killed. Many were injured. Senator Jovito Salonga, among others, suffered severe wounds on different parts of his body. He nearly became blind.

 

From 1970 to 1972, metropolitan Manila suffered weekly bombing. The communist insurgents bombed Oil firms, pipelines of water utilities, Meralco electric power systems, public and private buildings, business structures, public and private markets. Even the US Embassy was not spared. So were the Food Terminal Market, the Arca building, the Filipinas Orient Airways, the Court of Industrial Relations, the Philippine-American Life Insurance Company, to mention some of many.

 

Massive labor and transport strikes were mounted. The communists tried to isolate and paralyze Metro-Manila. SLEX and NLEX were not existing yet then. One of the transport strikes created a traffic jam that stretched from Los Baños in Laguna to Manila.

 

The communists also captured UP Diliman in Quezon City. They established a Communist Commune there under Erickson Baculinao as Chairman. For several weeks UP Diliman was off limits. No one could go in and out of the place. Permission from the Commune was required. UP President Salvador Lopez became a virtual prisoner in his university. One person was shot and killed in that incident.

 

In July, 1972, Defense Minister General Maraden Panggabean of Indonesia was my official guest in Manila. When he observed what was going on in the country, he said in one of our conversations: "You know, Johnny, what I noticed about your country reminds of what happened to us in Indonesia during the communist trouble there. Be careful!"

 

The final straw that broke the camel's back came from Ninoy Aquino himself. In August, 1972, Ninoy asked me for an urgent meeting. I met him in Urdaneta Village in Maketi in the house of Ramon Siy Lay, our common friend. His brother Paul Aquino was with him. He told me that he met leaders of the CPP, and they discussed a coalition between the CPP and the Liberal Party should President Marcos declare Martial Law.

 

I made a written report of that meeting to President Marcos. When President Marcos informed the public about what I reported to him, Ninoy denied that he met me. President Marcos invited the Liberal Party leaders to Malacañang for meeting with him, but the Liberal Party leaders refused to attend. This incident made up the mind of President Marcos. history was made. He proclaimed Martial Law throughout the land.

 

https://www.facebook.com/JuanPonceEnrile

https://www.facebook.com/JuanPonceEnrile/posts/10159802919798783

 

15 June 2021

Oligopolies stall Philippines development; more FDI needed – Salceda

 

Oligopolies stall Philippines development; more FDI needed – Salceda

Delon Porcalla 

(The Philippine Star )

- June 14, 2021 - 12:00am

MANILA, Philippines — The Philippines remains a laggard among its Asian neighbors, partly because of the influence oligopolies have over practically all administrations and, as such, local tycoons’ businesses thrive and deprive the country of much-needed foreign direct investments.

This was the assessment made recently by Albay Rep. Joey Salceda on the state of economic affairs in the country, in a recent digital forum sponsored by the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG).

“Operating as monopolies and oligopolies, the corporate conglomerates find it convenient to restrict production and investment below the competitive level,” the economist lawmaker who chairs the House ways and means committee said.

An oligopoly exists when a market or industry is dominated by a small group of large producers and sellers.

Citing the country’s few FDI, Salceda explained that foreign investors’ “willingness to invest” is “inhibited by their concentrated ownership structure and their uncertainties about the stability and duration of government favoritism.”

The DILG-led webinar sessions are held in support of Resolution of Both Houses 2 (RBH 2), authored by Speaker Lord Allan Velasco, which seeks to open up the country to more foreign investors by amending restrictive economic provisions in the Constitution.

Asked about the impact of opening the economy on the micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), Salceda said more FDI should benefit market competition.

“FDI restrictions lead to lack of competition in the country which increases oligopolistic power and reduces the need to invest. As a result, oligopolies are the ones benefitting from profits, influence law, and prevent foreign competitions to enter the Philippines,” he said.

Salceda lamented that while the country’s post-Marcos Constitution made sure dictatorships will never see the light of day again, its very rigid protectionist economic policies allowed domestic industries to be controlled by oligopolies.

“In trying to be nationalistic with our Constitution, we have ironically fattened our domestic oligopolies, at the expense of the people. Shamefully, and once again, we are the most oligopolistic market in the region,” he said.

Seeking to correct this is what moved the House to approve RBH 2 on third and final reading last June 1. It is now pending before the Senate.

Ako Bicol party-list Rep. Alfredo Garbin Jr., who heads the House committee on constitutional amendments, remarked on Independence Day last Saturday that Filipinos should be “free” from the “economic chains” in the 1987 Constitution.

“Twenty (20) years of the 21st Century have passed and we are realizing now that we cannot prosper in the remaining decades of this 21st Century if we keep ourselves chained to these restrictive economic provisions,” said Garbin as he urged the Senate to act on RBH 2.

https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2021/06/14/2105309/oligopolies-stall-philippines-development-more-fdi-needed-salceda?fbclid=IwAR28X0gIZ1b6NnwJbrv0u1lVii2gdWYVcT4AxylF5amRtGNE6gRPd4H79vQ

Easing of foreign ownership restrictions to break ‘vicious cycle’ of oligopolies —Salceda

 

Albay Representative Joey Salceda

Easing of foreign ownership restrictions to break ‘vicious cycle’ of oligopolies —Salceda

By TED CORDERO, GMA News

Published June 11, 2021 2:51pm

Albay Representative Joey Salceda said Friday that easing foreign ownership restrictions in the 1987 Constitution will open the country for more foreign direct investments (FDIs) which will force local large enterprises to invest more and be competitive.

Salceda, an economist, is one of the key proponents of the Resolution of Both Houses No. 2, which seeks to amend the economic provisions of the Constitution.

The measure has been adopted by the House of Representatives on third and final reading on June 1.

RBH No. 2 is seeking to insert the phrase "unless otherwise provided by law" to the constitutional provisions on national economy and patrimony; education, science and technology, arts, culture, and sports; and on general provisions to give Congress flexibility to enact laws that would free up the economy to foreign investors.

Salceda said the measure will open the economy to more FDIs, noting that the Philippines is among the most restrictive to FDIs across various sectors.

“FDI restrictions also resulted in the presence of oligopolies, making the Philippines the most oligopolistic in the region,” the lawmaker said, citing data from the World Economic Forum.

Salceda said this is the case since the market is dominated by a small group of large conglomerates.

“Oligopolies further reduce the investment appetite. Operating as monopolies and oligopolies, the corporate conglomerates find it convenient to restrict production - and investment - below the competitive level,” he said.

“Also, their willingness to invest is inhibited by their concentrated ownership structure, and their uncertainties about the stability and duration of government favoritism,” he added.

To break the “vicious cycle” of undisturbed oligopolies, easing restrictions on FDIs will force local conglomerates to be “reasonably competitive” and “invest more” in the country.

“We are not really after the money, we are after the technology and knowledge transfer which foreign investments can provide,” Salceda said.

Citing data from the World Bank and Department of Finance estimates, the lawmaker said the Philippines’ share of FDIs in Southeast Asia declined from 5.1% in 1996 to 4.4% in 2019 due to restrictive and protectionist provisions in the Constitution.

Salceda said if the Philippines opens its doors further to foreign investors through easing of foreign ownership restrictions, the country can dramatically grow the same way as Vietnam when its gross domestic product grew five times from $6.472 billion in 1990 to $31.173 billion in 2000 when it passed its Foreign Investment law in 1987.

This is also favorable for the country as it moves to recover from a pandemic-induced recession.

The Makabayan bloc earlier said that the measure would not address the pandemic's adverse effects on the lives of Filipinos.

Other lawmakers also feared that this would only pave the way for the introduction of political amendments in the present Constitution such as term extension for some elected officials or lifting their term limits.

But Speaker Lord Allan Velasco has insisted that the intention is purely to help the Philippines rise from the pandemic and to make the country fully-competitive with Asian neighbors.—AOL, GMA News

https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/791146/easing-of-foreign-ownership-restrictions-to-break-vicious-cycle-of-oligopolies-salceda/story/

08 June 2021

Filipino last?

 Filipino last?

DEMAND AND SUPPLY - Boo Chanco 

(The Philippine Star) - June 7, 2021 - 12:00am

The Filipino First policy, a legacy from our post WW2 politicians, resulted in the Philippines being relegated from second only to Japan, to last in our region of tiger economies. It was a policy that was used by our economic elite for rent-seeking privileges.

With Filipino First, we developed a feeling of economic insecurity that made us afraid of foreign investors. This kind of economic nationalism is not useful in today’s world.

It enabled the economic elite to keep prices high to the disadvantage of Filipino consumers while delivering mostly substandard products and services. Puede na yan means Pinoys must live with less quality.

In the telecom industry, I still remember how my parents waited over 10 years to get a telephone line from PLDT.

Then the industry was liberalized by FVR, but investors were limited to Filipinos. There were six or seven groups that got franchises to compete with PLDT. Soon, they all sold out to PLDT or Globe. Rent-seeking at its best.

Telecoms is an industry that requires big investments. Only the international players can be expected to compete with our telecoms duopoly.

And if we really think about it, even the current prohibition for foreign ownership in telecoms looks silly, with Globe and PLDT effectively controlled by foreign entities. The largest shareholder of Globe is Singapore Telecom, not Ayala. PLDT is Indonesia’s First Pacific.

Now, you might say, if foreigners can do what they did in Globe and PLDT under current rules, is there still a need to amend the Public Service Act to liberalize foreign ownership?

Yes, because many foreign investors want straightforward rules and policies that allow them majority ownership. If they have to go to a local law firm to help them go around the Constitution, that makes them susceptible to corruption from local regulators and the courts.

The proposal to exclude telecommunications from the definition of public utility subject to the 60/40 rule had been passed by the House and is now pending in the Senate.

But some senators are using national security as an excuse to stop the measure. It is easy to suspect they are just trying to keep out competitors of the existing players.

The issue however, is beyond the telecoms industry. We simply need more foreign investors to come in and create jobs. But because they sense a lack of hospitality for foreign capital through our Filipino First policies, they go elsewhere, like Vietnam.

The latest preliminary data from the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) showed that foreign investments in 1Q21 fell by 32.9 percent YoY to P19.6 billion from P29.1 billion, marking the fifth consecutive quarter with a YoY decline and the lowest level since the P15.5 billion logged in 2Q20.

Foreign capital goes where it is welcome, and countries in our region are more hospitable to foreign capital than we are.

But why should we be afraid of foreign investments?

I received this e-mail from a senior Korean business executive who was reacting to a column I wrote on Vietnam and how it overtook us in economic growth.

“Your column on Feb 12, was quite instructive for me. I’ve been thinking over and I suggest you write another column on ‘Why Samsung Electronics went to Vietnam’.

“In 2008, the big boss of Samsung was here in the Philippines to evaluate the business conditions on which country is the best for them. But finally, Samsung chose Vietnam. Not the Philippines.

“This is quite an interesting story because the Philippines still has the same way of thinking as in 2008. There are many restrictions and limitations on foreign investors here in the Philippines. Under these restrictions, I am sure no big Korean investments will come.

“None of the other countries in the region have such restrictions on foreign investors. Every country is willing to give special incentives and benefits for foreign investors. Please study why Samsung went to Vietnam in 2008.

“Now, the biggest investors in Vietnam are Korean. More than 9000 Korean companies are located in Vietnam. (Here only a few hundred). Whenever I talk to officials of the government, I think they don’t know this story.”

Unfortunately, the Senate may continue to be a hindrance to foreign investments.

Senator Recto is opposing the PSA bill because he is afraid the Chinese may take over our telecom industry. Precisely why we need the PSA bill to pass… The industry grapevine tells me that two Japanese telcos (KDDI and Softbank) are eager to come in, but only if they will be legally allowed to invest in majority ownership.

To safeguard national security, three provisions were included: vetting by the National Security Council and approval by the President of all investments in critical infrastructure; prohibition of SOEs (State-Owned Enterprises) from investing in telecommunications or increasing their share; cybersecurity ISO certification for critical infrastructure.

The ban on investment of SOEs (State-owned Enterprises) in telecom and other critical infrastructure effectively bans all Chinese telecom companies because they are all SOEs. But China Telecom is already invested in Dito Telecommunity.

The danger to national security is not so much who owns the telecom companies, but who manufactures the equipment they use. All existing telecom companies here use China’s Huawei equipment.

By allowing Japanese, Korean and other foreign players in, we may be able to diversify our sources of equipment as well. This is important because eventually under the US CLEAN program, our telcos won’t be allowed into the US financial system using Huawei equipment. That cuts us from the US banking system.

In the proposed PSA, a blanket ban on all foreign ownership of telcos being contemplated by some senators will leave us with three telcos dependent on Huawei equipment. We run the risk of our telcos‘ technology getting obsolete as Huawei is denied advanced US technology.

Passing the PSA bill is the first step to create a favorable investment environment here for foreign investors.

We have to stop being afraid of foreign capital. We just have to properly regulate their activities. Letting them own their business here should not matter. They bring competition that benefits consumers, and we need the jobs they will create.

Our Filipino First policy only made Filipinos last. That’s the awful truth.

https://www.philstar.com/business/2021/06/07/2103544/filipino-last?fbclid=IwAR3cyQHpe1XI85-TlJJ_ANw7EO3r15S9jtUgZBZ8P-lRJSv7ZV4VyR9zw2c