Congressional Record...Vol. 1 Thursday, September 18, 2014 No. 17c Congressional Record 16th...

Vol. 1 Thursday, September 18, 2014 No. 17c

Congressional Record16th CONGRESS, SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 10:00 a.m., the session was resumed with Deputy Speaker Roberto V. Puno presiding.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Puno). The session is resumed.

The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. TIANGCO. Mr. Speaker, may I know the parliamentary status?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Puno). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, we are in the period of sponsorship and debate on House Bill No. 4968 which is the General Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2015.

REP. TIANGCO. Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Puno). The Honorable Tiangco is recognized.

REP. TIANGCO. Mr. Speaker, last night, I had a motion to adjourn and I had to go out for a while and then when I came back, the session was suspended. So how was another motion entertained when I had a pending motion, Mr. Speaker?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Puno). The Dep. Majority Leader will please respond.

REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, when the Gentleman, the bespoken Gentleman from the Lone District of Navotas raised the question to adjourn, the session was immediately suspended. Then when the session was resumed, the Gentleman from Navotas did not pursue anymore the motion to adjourn and the Majority Leader moved to suspend the session until 10:00 a.m. today. So, that is how the proceedings occurred last night, Mr. Speaker.

REP. TIANGCO. Mr. Speaker, hindi na ba ho ako puwedeng umihi? Mr. Speaker, I moved to adjourn, tapos nag-suspend. So umihi lang ho ako. Puwede ninyong i-check iyong time kung anong oras ako bumalik dito.

REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, we have already responded to the query of the Gentleman as far as the parliamentary status of House Bill No. 4968 is concerned and how the session was suspended last night.

REP. TIANGCO. Hindi, Mr. Speaker. So I just want to put on record na I had a motion. Umihi lang ako, tapos, pagbalik ko dito e nag-suspend na. So wala na tayong courtesy kahit call of nature, Mr. Speaker? We cannot answer the call of nature anymore? We have to pee here, Mr. Speaker, is that what ...

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Puno). The session is suspended.

It was 10:02 a.m.


At 1:30 p.m., the session was resumed.



CONSIDERATION OF H.B. NO. 4968Continuation

PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE

REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we resume the consideration of House Bill No. 4968 and for that purpose, that we please direct the Secretary General to read only the title of the said measure.

2 THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2014

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Puno). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

The Secretary General is directed to read only the tittle of House Bill No. 4968.

THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 4968, entitled: AN ACT APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FROM JANUARY ONE TO DECEMBER THIRTY-ONE, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.


REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we open the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budgets of the Authority of the Freeport Area of Bataan, Aurora Pacific Economic Zone and Freeport Authority, the Credit Information Corporation and the Philippine Center for Economic Development.

I so move, Mr. Speaker.


REP. LOPEZ (C.J.). Mr. Speaker, there being no Member from the Minority who would like to interpellate, I move for the termination of the period of sponsorship and debate on the budgets of the following agencies: Authority of the Freeport Area of Bataan, Aurora Pacific Economic Zone and Freeport Authority, the Credit Information Corporation and the Philippine Center for Economic Development.



REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, we join the alluring and gorgeous Dep. Minority Leader in her omnibus motion to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the budgets of the above-mentioned four government corporations.


The period of sponsorship and debate on the budgets of the aforementioned agencies is hereby terminated.



REP. GUNIGUNDO. I move to suspend the session for one minute.


It was 1:32 p.m.



THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Puno). The session resumes.


REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary status is that we are in the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed General Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2015, House Bill No. 4968. I would like to believe that the Honorable Tiangco of the Lone District of Navotas wishes to make a short parliamentary inquiry.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Puno). The Honorable Tiangco is recognized for his parliamentary inquiry.

REP. TIANGCO. Mr. Speaker, tulad ho ng nabanggit ko kanina, ang nangyari ho kagabi was that I moved to adjourn at pagkatapos ho noon ay nag-suspend ho. Pagkatapos hong mag-suspend, ako ho ay hinila papunta doon, papunta na sana sa CR to answer the call of nature at pagbalik ko ho dito ay biglang nagkaroon ng motion to—“No, no”—habang nandoon ho ako sa labas, nagkaroon ng motion to suspend at na-suspend ho ang sesyon. Ang katanungan ko lang ho, Kagalang-galang na Tagapangulo, is, papaano naman hong nagkaroon ng ruling doon sa pangalawang motion if I had a pending motion. Iyon lang ho ang katanungan ko, Tagapangulo— and it was to answer a call of nature, iyon lang ho.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Puno). The Chair will now rule on the parliamentary inquiry of the Honorable Tiangco.

Last night, a motion to adjourn was made by the Honorable Tiangco and thereafter, the session was suspended. Upon resumption of session, for whatever reason stated by the Honorable Tiangco, he was absent in the Plenary Hall and subsequently, a motion to suspend was made and thereafter was granted by the Chair.

The Chair rules that, unfortunately, the absence of the movant would allow the Chair to deem the motion as

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 3

having been abandoned and that the motion to suspend which was granted was, therefore, in order at that time. That is the ruling of the Chair.

REP. TIANGCO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What happens if you have a pending motion but there is a call of nature, do we answer the call of nature right here so as to make sure that the motion is not abandoned? I just want an equal ruling, the equal application of the rules, Mr. Speaker. Kung ganoon ho talaga na kahit ihing-ihi na ako, at ako ay may motion at nag-suspend, so para lang hindi mawala ito ay susubukan ko hong pigilan hanggat makakaya ko. Pero kung hindi na kaya, huwag ninyo naman ho akong i-out of order kung dito na ho lumabas. Unfortunately, that is—yes, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Puno). Yes, unfortunately, the situation would be that if the movant would leave at the time that his motion is pending, at the resumption of the session, if he is absent, the motion is considered abandoned. So, you are correct, Your Honor.

REP. TIANGCO. Okay, thank you. So sana na lang huwag tayong abutan ng call of nature dito. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, can I rise on a matter of personal and collective privilege?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Puno). What is the subject matter of the Gentleman for which he is rising?

REP. TIANGCO. Mr. Speaker, ito lang ho ay para ipaliwanag kung ano ho talaga ang mga pangyayari dito, kung bakit ho tayo nagku-question ng quorum para naman maintindihan ng tao.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Puno). The Gentleman has 10 minutes.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE OF REP. TIANGCO

REP. TIANGCO. Kagalang-galang na Tagapangulo, alam ho ninyo, ito ho ay nagsimula noong Agosto 6, 2014. Nagkaroon ho ng budget briefing at ang unang ahensiya ho ay iyong DBCC. So, noong panahon ho na ang tinatanong ay ang Department of Budget and Management, humingi ho ako ng listahan ng mga DAP. Ang una ko ho palang itinanong was, magkano ang DAP at ang sabi ay P144 billion. Ang pangalawang tanong ko ay kung magkano ho iyong DAP na dumaan sa legislator? Ang sabi ho, seven percent and seven percent is about P10 billion. So humingi ho ako ng listahan noong DAP na dumaan sa legislators. Ang sagot ho ni Secretary Abad ay hindi ho siya ready na ibigay iyon though alam naman natin na sa panahon ng computer ngayon, hindi naman pupuwedeng hindi maibigay

iyon. Para na lang huwag hong tumagal, hiningi ko ho sa kanya kung kailan niya mako-commit ito, and I will read the records of the transcript. Sabi niya,

MR. ABAD. I guess before the plenary, we should be able to do that.

REP. TIANGCO. Is that a firm commitment, Mr. Secretary?

MR. ABAD. Yes, yes.

Okay. So, ano ho ang nangyari noong September 15? Noong September 15, nagsimula ho tayo dito ng unang araw ng ating budget deliberations, okay. Ang nangyari ho noon, hiningi ko ho iyong kopya pero wala ho silang maibigay na kopya. Pagkatapos ho, noong alas-dos ng hapon, nagkuwestiyon na ho ako ng quorum. Pagkatapos ko hong magkuwestiyon ng quorum, binigyan ho ako ng kopya at may cover letter, Ang nakasulat sa cover letter ay parang ipinapa-check ho kay Speaker at saka sa Chairman ng Committee on Appropriations kung tama iyong naibigay na listahan.

So, noong ako ho ay nag-interpellate, mga alas-sais ng hapon noon, ang una kong sinabi, “hindi naman ho katungkulan ng Speaker o ng Chairman ng Committee on Appropriations na i-validate iyong mga DAP na nagdaan sa legislator.” Iyan ho ay katungkulan ng DBM dahil dapat ho bago i-release ng DBM ang mga SARO at definitely, dahil sa SARO, alam ho nila kung ano, kung kanino at sino ang nag-request noong pondong iyon. So inisa-isa ho namin hanggang sabi ko, “bakit hindi na lang, kaysa isa-isahin natin ito at para mabilis tayo, paunahin na iyong ibang department. Magbigay lang ho ng commitment kung kalian masa-submit.”

Okay. Allow me to read the commitment, ano. I will start from the commitment of Representative Ungab, who is here, and he said that:

We hereby agree that there was an agreement, Mr. Speaker. Of course we have to take into consideration that we are informed that these are actually 16,000 copies.

So, kaya mahaba po talaga, Mr. Speaker. Ang sabi ko naman ho, quote: “No, but it is a firm commitment that it will be submitted” and Representative Ungab said, “Yes, it is an agreement”.

Ano ho iyong date na pinag-uusapan namin dito? Ang date na pinag-uusapan ho namin dito is, Wednesday, 8:00 p.m., September 17, 2014, so kagabi ho iyon. Hindi ho dumating iyong listahan ng DAP kagabi. Ano ho ba ang kaibahan noong listahan na sinasabing ibinigay sa akin at iyong listahang na sinasabing na nasa website ng DBM? Kahit tingnan ninyo ho iyong website ng DBM, sa mga nakasulat ho doon, blangko ho iyong endorser,


iyong pinakahuling column may mga items at SARO na may pangalan ng Congressman, at may mga items at SARO din na walang pangalan ng Congressman. So, it is not a complete list, and bakit ko ho hinihingi iang listahan na iyon? Because there must be full accounting, hindi ho ba? Unfair naman ho sa isang Congressman kung hindi naman talaga siya nagre-request ng DAP, tapos isusulat sa pangalan niya just to cover up the spending of DAP. So, iyon ho ang dahilan. Kaya iyong sinasabi ho ni Secretary Abad na nasa website, e nasa website ho pero siyempre kapag nag-ulat tayo ng gastusin, ng pera ng taong-bayan, dapat ho iyong gastusin na iyon ay iulat natin ng kumpleto. Kung doon sa column na iyon ay ang pangalan ng legislator, hindi ho pupuwedeng magkaroon ng blangko doon sa ibang SARO, pero doon sa ibang SARO ay may pangalan ng legislator. Kasi ang tanong doon, kaninong mga pangalan ang binura at bakit binura ang mga pangalan na iyon, at bakit tinatago ang information na iyon. So, iyon ho ang dahilan kung bakit gusto ko ho magkaroon ng quorum.

Ang dahi lan ho kung baki t gus to kong magkaroon ng quorum is para malaman na natin, bilang isang collegial body, na kahit pinag-uusapan ang transparency at accountability, kung payag ba tayo o papayagan natin si Secretary Abad na hindi ilathala ng buo ang DAP spending. Iyon lang ho ang dahilan.

Alam ninyo ho, kanina ho, umagang-umaga, sabi ko ho willing naman ako na paunahin lang iyong Judiciary. Ngunit siyempre, ang gusto ng Mayorya ay ang kapalit ho ay iyong DAR. I think we should approve the budget of the Judiciary as soon as possible, and I do not like the members of the Judiciary waiting here for their budget to be approved because they are an independent body, so, the sooner they get out of this place and the sooner their budget is approved, that is the best para balanse ho ang powers which should be guaranteed by the Constitution.

So for the record, the only reason I am yielding now is para ma-tackle ho iyong budget ng Judiciary. Since papayag na rin ho ako doon sa budget ng Judiciary, to show good faith on my side, I will not question the quorum for the rest of the day, but we have to give Secretary Abad a deadline. He must publish, by twelve o’çlock, at midnight tonight all the names—iyong mga blangko doon ay kumpletuhin ho. Ngayon, kung hindi niya ho mailalagay doon iyong kumpletong pangalan hanggang mamayang gabi ng alas dose, e hihingi ho ulit ako ng quorum para pagbotohan na natin at pagdesisyunan kung papayag tayo ng ganiyang reporting galing kay Secretary Abad o hindi. Ngunit kapag dumating doon sa botohan at pumayag ang karamihan ng ating mga kasama na papayag tayo kahit pinapalusutan tayo ni Secretary

Abad, e I will submit to the pleasure of the majority. Kaya lang ang pakiusap ko ho sa ating mga kasama ay sana naman ay samahan nila ako dito dahil ang gusto ko lang ho naman dito e malaman lahat noong mga DAP na dumaan sa legislators. Kung wala naman ho tayong tinatago at gusto lang natin ay maging transparent, gusto natin ang katotohanan, bakit naman ho ayaw natin ipilit kay Secretary Abad na ilabas ho ang buong listahan na iyon, at kapag sinabing buong listahan, ang ibig sabihin ho ay walang blangkong pangalan ng legislator. Dapat ho lahat ng SARO ay may pangalan ho ng legislator. So, iniimbitahan ko ho kayo na tingnan ninyo ho iyong website ng DBM at makikita ho ninyo ang sinasabi ko na mayroong mga blangko.

Iyon lang ho, kagalang-galang na Tagapangulo.


REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that the speech of the Gentleman from Navotas be referred to the Committee on Rules.


The question of privilege of the Honorable Tiangco is referred to the Committee on Rules.


REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, I move for a one-minute suspension of the session.


It was 2:40 p.m.




CONSIDERATION OF H. B. NO. 4968Continuation

PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE

REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we resume the consideration of House Bill No. 4968 and for that purpose, we please direct the Secretary General to read only the title of the bill.



The Secretary General is directed to read only the title of House Bill No. 4968.

THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 4968, entitled: AN ACT APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FROM JANUARY ONE TO DECEMBER THIRTY-ONE, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.


REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we open the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the Anti-Money Laundering Council. For this purpose, I ask that we please recognize the distinguished Sponsor of the said budget, the Hon. Gabriel Luis R. Quisumbing from the Sixth District of Cebu.


The Hon. Gabriel Luis R. Quisumbing, the Representative from Cebu, is recognized for his sponsorship of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) budget.

REP. QUISUMBING. Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker, esteemed colleagues. I have the honor to sponsor for the consideration of this august Body the proposed budget of the Anti-Money Laundering Council in the amount of P17.6 million for Fiscal Year 2015. We are now ready for any questions, Mr. Speaker.


THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Puno) . The Honorable Tiangco is recognized for his interpellation.

REP. TIANGCO. No, Mr. Speaker. There being no interpellators, I move that we approve the budget of the AMLC.


REP. GUNIGUNDO. Let the Minority Leader speak first.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Puno). The Dep. Minority Leader is recognized.

REP. LOPEZ (C.J.). Mr. Speaker, there being no other member of the Minority who wishes to interpellate, I join the Honorable Tiangco in moving to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Anti-Money Laundering Council.



REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, we are delighted to join the motion of the Minority Leader and the Honorable Tiangco.


The period of sponsorship and debate on the Anti-Money Laundering Council budget is hereby terminated.


REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we open the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the Pasig River Rehabilitation Commission. For that purpose, I ask that we please recognize the distinguished Sponsor of the budget, the Hon. Ben P. Evardone.


The Honorable Evardone is recognized for his sponsorship of the Pasig River Rehabilitation Commission budget.

REP. EVARDONE. Maraming salamat po, Kagalang-galang na Speaker.

Ang Komite ng Appropriations po ay handa pong i-sponsor ang proposed budget ng Pasig River Rehabilitation Commission.



REP. TIANGCO. There being no Member who wishes to interpellate, I move that we approve the budget of the Pasig River Rehabilitation Commission.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Puno). The Dep. Minority Leader is recognized.


REP. LOPEZ (C.J.). Thank you, Mr. Speaker.Again, there being no other member of the Minority

who wishes to interpellate, I join the Honorable Tiangco in motion to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the Pasig River Rehabilitation Commission.



REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, we are delighted to join the motion of the Dep. Minority Leader and the Honorable Tiangco to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the Pasig River Rehabilitation Commission, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Puno). There is a motion to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the Pasig River Rehabilitation Commission budget.

Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

THE JUDICIARY

REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we open the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the Judiciary. For that purpose, I ask that we please recognize the Sponsor of the measure, the Hon. Dakila Carlo E. Cua from the Lone District of Quirino.


The Hon. Dakila Carlo E. Cua from the Lone District of Quirino is recognized for his sponsorship of the Judiciary budget.

REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, based on the list, the first Member who would like to make a brief elliptical manifestation is the Hon. Antonio L. Tinio from ACT TEACHERS Party-List.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Puno). The Hon. Antonio L. Tinio from the Party-List ACT Teachers is recognized for his interpellation.

REP. TINIO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.I will not interpellate, but I will make a manifestation

on several important matters pertaining to the budget of the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, mga kasama, napakahalaga po ng usapin ng hustisiya sa ating lipunan. Ang hustisiya ay isa sa mga batayang karapatan katulad din ng edukasyon,

kalusugan, pabahay at iba pa na kinakailangang matiyak ng anumang estado o gobyerno na maagap at mabilis na matatanggap ng bawat mamamayan.

Sa kasamaang-palad, alam natin na ang kasalukuyang sistema ng hustisiya natin sa Pilipinas ay isa sa mga pinakamabagal sa buong mundo, at isang dahilan nito ay napaka-basic po. Kulang ang mga hukom, kulang ang mga pasilidad, kulang ang mga sala at opisina para sa mga municipal courts, regional courts, and so on and so forth. Kahit ang pinaka-basic requirements ng personnel and infrastructure ay hindi pa rin maibigay ng ating gobyerno sa ating mga mamamayan.

Kaya nga po nababahala tayo na sa proposal ng Judiciary na P32.66 billion na budget para sa taong 2015, ang isinumite lang po ng Pangulo sa Kongresong ito para aprobahan ng Kongreso ay budget na nagkakahalagang P20.28 billion, 38 percent less than proposed. Nakababahala din na kung titingnan natin ang budget ng Judiciary bilang porsyento ng kabuuang national budget ay pababa rin po ang trend. Noong 2007, 0.89 percent ang percentage share in the national budget ang budget ng Judiciary. Ngunit ngayong 2015 po, kung maaaprobahan ang budget para sa Judiciary na na-propose ng Malacañang ay bababa ito to 0.77 percent only, Mr. Speaker.

Kung gayon ay sinusuportahan po ng Kinatawang ito ang proposal ng Judiciary para sa budget na P32.66 billion at sa partikular, halimbawa, magsa-cite lang ako ng ilang mga mahalagang dapat tugunan ng Kongresong ito ngayon na sa pamamagitan ng General Appropriations Act na ating ipapasa. Isa na rito ang usapin ng pondo para sa pagtatayo ng mga bagong Halls of Justice. Sa mga kasalukuyang umiiral na batas, nasa ilalim ang pondong ito ng Executive Branch ang Department of Justice. So, I support the call of the Judiciary for the Judiciary to assume responsibility over the construction of Halls of Justice.

Sa ngayon, mayroong P120 million in Capital Outlays for the construction, completion and/or repair, rehabilitation of the Halls of Justice nationwide which is under the budget of the Department of Justice. At the proper time, Mr. Speaker, I will move that this whole fund be transferred to the budget of the Judiciary. Also, to address any concerns regarding the constitutional prohibition on any reduction in the annual budget approved by Congress for the Judiciary, we may also put in the necessary General or Special Provisions specifying that Capital Outlay Funds, being nonrecurring funds, will not be counted as reduction in the appropriations for the Judiciary, Mr. Speaker. So, iyon po ang isang magiging proposal natin na ang pondo para sa Capital Outlays para sa pagpapatayo ng mga bagong Halls of Justice ay tanggalin na sa DOJ, i-abolish na iyong tinatawag na JUSIP at ibigay na ang pondong ito sa Judiciary. Sa ganitong paraan ay mapapatibay din natin lalo ang katangian ng Judiciary


bilang hiwalay at kapantay na sangay ng gobyerno katulad ng Kongreso at ng Ehekutibo.

Isa pa pong sinusuportahan ng Kinatawang ito ay ang dagdag na pondo para sa personnel services ng Judiciary, in particular, the proposal for an additional P3.029 billion for the creation of additional positions in the Supreme Court, the Lower Courts, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Appeals, and the Court of Tax Appeals. Ang problema po sa Judiciary ay para ring problema natin sa basic education sa DepEd, ang pinaka-basic ay access to justice in the same way na ang problema sa edukasyon ay iyong access. Kailangan mo ng mas maraming mga court officials and employees, kailangan mo ng mas maraming courtrooms and so in the same way, sa public schools ay kailangan ng mas maraming teachers at mas maraming eskuwelahan. Bakit hindi natin matugunan ito?

In the past few years, huge strides had been made in addressing the problem of shortages in basic education. In the past two years, more than 100,000 new teaching positions had been created by this government and supposedly, more than 60,000 new classrooms had been built in just a span of a couple of years. Bakit hindi magawa ito para sa Judiciary, Mr. Speaker? What I am saying is, we can, this Congress can take significant steps in that direction just by making the amendments that I am proposing.

Next, the P4.43 billion additional to address the deficiencies in the personnel services budget of the Judiciary para sa mga hindi pa nababayarang Magna Carta benefits ng mga empleyado ng social workers, salaries and wages, pensions, survivor benefits and other personnel benefits of employees in the Judiciary, sinusuportahan din po natin iyan, Mr. Speaker.

Isa pang punto, Mr. Speaker, which I would like to manifest. At the proper time, I will move for the deletion of Special Provision No. 6 under the proposed budget of the Supreme Court. It states, and I quote:

Funding Requirements for the Filling of Unfilled Positions. x x x The Supreme Court shall submit either in printed form or by way of electronic document, to the Office of the President quarterly reports on the utilization of said amounts. So, pinagre-report po sa Office of the President

ang Judiciary kung paano nila ginagamit ang ilan sa mga pondo nila. Let me note that this same provision can be found in the Special Provisions in the budget of Congress itself as well as for all the independent constitutional bodies. Lahat po tayo ay pinagre-report sa Office of the President kung paano ginamit ang pondo for unfilled positions. Ang masasabi ko lang po dito, tila paglabag po ito sa—well, in the case of Congress and

the Judiciary, sa status natin bilang coequal branches, ay paglabag din ito sa fiscal autonomy, sa tingin ko, ng iba pang constitutional bodies. Kung may pag-uulatan po kung paano ginamit ang pondo, kailangan po mag-ulat so Kongreso. Bakit po sa Office of the President? So, at the proper time, I will also move for the deletion of Special Provision No. 6 in the proposed budget of the Supreme Court as well as in the other agencies and branches of government.

To wind up my manifestation, Mr. Speaker, once again, I will reiterate that this Representation supports the request of the Judiciary for additional funding for Personnel services amounting to P7.46 billion, additional MOOE amounting to P1.5 billion, and for Capital Outlays, amounting to P3.34 billion, for a total of P12.34 billion, Mr. Speaker. At the proper time, I will propose such amendments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Puno). Thank you, distinguished colleague.


REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, the next Member who will make pauciloquent manifestation, is the Hon. Jonathan A. Dela Cruz from ABAKADA Party-List.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Puno). The Gentleman from the Party-List ABAKADA, the Hon. Jonathan A. Dela Cruz, is recognized.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Maraming salamat po, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

Noong isang taon po ay nagbigay kami ng mga suggestions para sa pagpapaayos at strengthening the constitutional mandate for the coequal branch of government which is the Judiciary, Your Honor. Most of these proposals in last year’s budget were carried, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, and we would like these proposals to continue to be carried in the 2015 budget. One of which, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, for example, is the provision of coterminous researchers for judges and members of the Judiciary. We hope that this will be considered at some point in time when we come to or when we will have the period of amendments, Mr. Speaker, so that we will be able to provide the necessary additional personnel, especially researchers for judges. We understand that this has been one of the most important considerations for purposes of accelerating the delivery of justice, especially in our lower courts, Your Honor. We also support the earlier proposal of our distinguished colleague, the Hon. Antonio L. Tinio, regarding the transfer of the Justice System Infrastructure Program or JUSIP, from the Department of Justice to the Supreme Court, Your Honor. We understand that this has been one of the biggest problems as far as the


program of providing more Halls of Justice for our court personnel, especially in many areas of the country that do not have the kind of LGU support, Your Honor, provided in other jurisdictions.

We are also of the opinion, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, that we should continue and probably even provide more funds for the program of the Judiciary and the Supreme Court for its Enhanced Justice on Wheels (EJOW) Program, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. At some point in time, during the period of amendments, we will propose additional funds for this particular program of the Judiciary, of the Supreme Court, Your Honor.

The other things that we have wanted to point out is that we should retain the Special Provisions provided for and are already in the 2014 budget, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. It is unfortunate that in the 2015 National Expenditure Program for the Judiciary, there has been an inclusion of other Special Provisions which we believe are anathema to the constitutional mandate for judicial independence, Your Honor. Therefore, at some point, during the period of amendments, we will propose the deletion of some of these provisions and the inclusion of other provisions, especially on the special allowance for justices as well as judges and for other positions in the Judiciary which were already provided for in the 2014 NEP, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

These are all the things that we have wanted to point out and we want to make sure that, as we have already mentioned earlier and as some of our colleagues already mentioned, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the independence of the Judiciary should not only be maintained but enhanced, especially at this time when we are considering a number of issues of transcendental importance to our nation.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. CUA. Thank you for the recommendations, Your Honor. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.




REP. TIANGCO. There being no more Member who wishes to interpellate, I move for the termination of the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Judiciary.

REP. LOPEZ (C.J.). Mr. Speaker, the Minority bloc is one in joining the dynamic and principled Gentleman from Navotas in moving to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Judiciary.



REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, we are very delighted to join the joint motion of the honorable bespoken Gentleman from the Lone District of Navotas, the Honorable Tiangco, and the gorgeous, alluring Lady from the Minority, in terminating the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the Judiciary.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Puno). A motion has been made to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Judiciary. Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.


REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, I move for a one-minute suspension of the session to allow the members of the Judiciary family to extricate themselves from the gallery.


It was 3:03 p.m.





REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we open the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budgets of the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council, as well as the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board.


The Minority Leader is recognized.

REP. LOPEZ (C.J.). Mr. Speaker, I move to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the budgets of the following agencies: the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council and the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board.




REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, we are delighted to join the motion of the Minority Leader in moving for the termination of the period of sponsorship and debate on the budgets of the two agencies.


The period of sponsorship and debate on the budgets of the aforementioned agencies is hereby terminated.



REP. GUNIGUNDO. May I ask for a one-minute suspension of the session, Mr. Speaker.


It was 3:07 p.m.





DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we open the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the Department of Agrarian Reform and for this purpose, I ask that we recognize the Sponsor of the measure, the Hon. Pryde Henry A. Teves.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Puno). The Honorable Pryde Henry A. Teves is recognized for his sponsorship of the budget of the Department of Agrarian Reform.

REP. TEVES. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Appropriations is ready to answer any questions and queries regarding the budget of the Department of Agrarian Reform.


REP. GUNIGUNDO. Mr. Speaker, the first Member who will rise to interpellate the Sponsor is the Hon.

Fernando “Ka Pando” L. Hicap from the Party-List ANAKPAWIS.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Puno). The Honorable Hicap is recognized for his interpellation.

REP. HICAP. Maraming salamat, Mr. Speaker, sa lahat ng mga kasama kong mga Kongresista at mga bisita natin sa napakahalagang gawain natin sa hapon na ito at ganoon din kay G. Isponsor ng budget ng Department of Agrarian Reform, magandang hapon po.

Napakahalaga po para sa amin, sa mga magsasaka at sa mga mamamayan sa kanayunan ang pagpapatupad ng reporma sa lupa. Daang taon nang problema ng ating mga magsasaka ang pundamental na kawalan at kakulangan ng lupa sa ating bansa.

Lumipas ang iba’t ibang mga reporma sa lupa ng mga nagdaang administrasyon ng ating bansa. Nandiyan iyong P.D. No. 27 ni Presidente Marcos, iyong CARP at CARP Extension Reform, at mayroon nang 26 taong ipinapatupad ngunit ang kawalan ng lupa at kakulangan ng lupa ng mga magsasaka at mamamayan sa kanayunan ay nananatili. Nananatili na ang pito sa bawat 10 magsasaka ay walang lupa at bagkus ay patuloy ang kumbersiyon at pangangamkam ng lupa at pagpapalit-tanim sa ating mga agrikultural na lupain. Ang pinakamatinding naaapektuhan at nakakaranas ng kahirapan at kagutuman ay ang ating mga lumilikha ng pagkain para sa ating bansa, ang uring magsasaka. Para sa amin, napakahalaga po sa araw na ito na pag-usapan ang pondo para sa reporma sa ating bansa. Napakahalaga dahil ito ang kagyat na kailangan namin nang sa gayon sana ay malutas na ang kawalan ng hustisya; at magkaroon ng hustisya ang matagal nang ipinaglalaban at ipinagbuwisan ng buhay ng ating mga ninuno, ng mga magsasaka at mamamayan sa kanayunan na magkaroon ng sariling lupang sinasaka.

Mr. Sponsor, Mr. Speaker, ang una ko pong tanong, for clarification, ang proposed budget ng DAR sa 2015 ay P10.26 billion. Tama po ba, G. Isponsor?

REP. TEVES. Tama po kayo, Mr. Speaker.

REP. HICAP. Nakapaloob dito ang mga sumusunod na pinaglalaanan ng proposed budget sa 2015 ng Department of Agrarian Reform sa Land Acquisition and Distribution (LAD), P6,353,000,000. Tama po, G. Isponsor?

REP. TEVES. Iyan po ang LTI and AJD, that is, Land Tenure Improvement and Agrarian Justice Delivery, P6.2 billion po.

Before I proceed, nag-usap kami kanina ni Congressman Ka Pando Hicap na kung puwede ay


gawin namin ang aming interpelasyon sa wikang Tagalog. Gusto ko nga sana, kung sa wikang Cebuano ay mas matutuwa ako, but I will try my best, Mr. Speaker.

Again, ang P6.2 billion ay para sa LTI at AJD. Hindi ito para sa landowners’ compensation po.

REP. HICAP. Ano po iyong kinapalooban kapag sinabi na o ano ang pagkakaiba ng acquisition and distribution sa justice delivery ng land reform?

REP. TEVES. Tungkol sa Land Tenure Improvement at Agrarian Justice Delivery, ang LTI po is iyong pag-cover o pag-process noong folder sa lupa hanggang sa pag-process ng mga CLOA, pati pag-survey. Ang AJD ho naman ay iyong pag-adjudicate between dalawang partido dahil hindi sila nagkakatugma sa presyo, that is, between the landowner and the beneficiary or dalawang benepisyaryo na hindi nagkakatugma kung ano ang partehan sa kanilang mga lupa. That is LTI and AJD. Of course, ang Landowner Compensation Fund naman ay iyong bayad mismo doon sa may-ari ng lupa po.

REP. HICAP. Hiwalay po ba, G. Isponsor, iyong Landowner Compensation Fund doon sa mahigit na P6 bilyon na pondo para doon sa Agrarian Justice Delivery ng Land Reform Program?

REP. TEVES. Tama po kayo.

REP. HICAP. At P100 million iyong sa Landowner Compensation Fund?

REP. TEVES. Tama po kayo, Mr. Speaker.

REP. HICAP. Tapos, mayroong P1.5 million para sa Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act.

REP. TEVES. Tama po.

REP. HICAP. Maraming salamat, G. Isponsor.Kaugnay po dito aking unang tanong, Mr. Speaker.

Hinggil sa land acquisition and distribution o iyong justice delivery and land reform, bakit naglaan ng budget na P106,353,000,000 para sa land acquisition or justice delivery for the Land Reform Program samantalang nagtapos na ang CARP o ang batas sa reporma sa lupa nitong June 30, 2014?

REP. TEVES. Nakalagay po kasi sa Section 13 ng ating batas, R.A. No. 9700, na iyong mga naisyuhan na ng mga notices of coverage ay kailangang mag-proceed hanggang sa kanyang pinalidad. So, kailangan pa rin natin ang patuloy na paggugol ng salapi para sa unfinished covered lands as of June 30, 2014 po, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Ang ibig sabihin, bago magtapos ang CARP noong June 30, ito iyong mayroong initial o naisyuhan ng notices of coverage or iba’t iba pang mga porma at pamamaraan para masaklaw ng reporma ang lupa.

REP. TEVES. Tama po, ang hindi lang natin naisyuhan ng notices ay nasa mga 30,000 hectares po. Ang iba ay naisyuhan na po lahat.

REP. HICAP. Pakiulit po, G. Ispeaker, 30,000 ang …

REP. TEVES. Mga 30,200 hectares po ang hindi ho natin naisyuhan ng notice of coverage (NOC) by June 30, 2014.

REP. HICAP. Maraming salamat, Mr. Speaker.Ang ibig sabihin, dito sa land tenure services, sa

land acquisition and distribution sa 2015 na target, ito ang nilaan na pondo para dito sa acquired hectares for distribution para sa pag-issue ng free patent for public alienable and disposable lands under the DENR for the CARP na 56,071. Dito sa susunod, ganoon din, ang pag-issue ng free patents, DENR, CARP, ay mayroon ding 44,857. Dito rin sa generated CLOA registration ng LRA-CARP ay mayroong 106,298. Dito nakalaan iyong P6,353,000,000 na target. Ang ibig sabihin, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor, iyong target, hindi ito nasaklaw at hindi pa ito nabigyan ng notice of coverage bago magtapos ang CARP o CARPER nitong June 30?

REP. TEVES. Hindi po. Actual ly, kung matitingnan natin sa ating balanse, nabigyan na ho lahat ng notice of coverage because iyong government lands naman katulad ng nasa DENR ay hindi na kailangang bigyan ng notice because that is government land. However, may 30,200 pa na hindi ho nabigyan nito. So, iyon na lang ang hindi at kung makikita ninyo, mga 700,000 ho talaga ang hindi natin nabibigay pa sa mga farmers dahil mayroon pang mga legal issues concerned katulad ng survey, katulad ng issues on ownership kasi baka dalawa ang titulo kaya hindi natin alam kung sino ang babayaran natin, at issues na kung sino ang rightful beneficiaries doon sa mga lupang concerned.

So, the actual balance na hindi pa natin nabigay o hindi pa natin nadi-distribute is 700,000, but may 200,000 diyan na puwede nating sabihing problematic landholdings at baka magtatagal pa ho iyan dahil dadaan pa ho iyan sa korte dahil iyong survey plans, iyong mga coordinates dito ay hindi magkatugma, o marami ang nagke-claim na nagmamay-ari at hindi natin malaman kung sino ang babayaran at marami pang ibang legal issues po.


REP. HICAP. Maraming salamat, G. Isponsor at Mr. Speaker. Ito for clarification lang, Mr. Speaker, lahat naman ito ay public land kaya hindi na kailangan na bigyan ng halaga at ito ay acquired for distribution, bakit kailangan pa natin ng ganito kalaki na pondo para sa pamamahagi noong lupa?

REP. TEVES. Public land po iyong nasa DENR, iyan ang sinasabi nating public land na A and D or alienable and disposable public land, hindi forestal. Pag-survey ho palang diyan, kailangan mo na ng salapi. Pag-divide pa into several sub-lots, kailangan pa ang salapi, paggamit ng abogado para sa paggawa ng titulo, sa LARES pa lang, pagdaan mo sa LARES magbabayad ka na naman ng pera para lumabas ho iyong titulo. So, halos lahat iyan ay kailangan ho natin ng pera para sa proseso para lumabas ang titulo para sa ating mga benepisyaryo po.

REP. HICAP. Ilan ba lahat, ilang ektarya talaga

ang target nating ipamahagi o covered nitong P6,353,000,000?

REP. TEVES. For 2015 po, ang target natin is

198,631 hectares po. REP. HICAP. So, 190,000 … REP. TEVES. It is 198,631 hectares. REP. HICAP. …631 hectares? REP. TEVES. Yes, 198,631 hectares. That is the

target po for 2015. REP. HICAP. Kaya kapag na-divide mo ito, gaano

kalaki iyong gagastusin mo o gaano nagkakahalaga ang isang ektarya doon sa P6,353,000,000? Ganoon ang kalalabasan niyan, ano, doon sa sabi mo kanina para doon sa pagpapa-survey, pagpapa-subdivide ng mga lote, hanggang sa ipamahagi ito. More or less, mga …

REP. TEVES. Hindi po. Ganito iyan. Ang PS diyan,

para sa suweldo is P2.7 billion po; ang MOOE is P3.5 billion. Tanggalan mo pa ho iyan noong ginagastos natin sa mga korte natin sa DARAB at bababa iyan. So, pagbaba mo diyan, kung idi-divide mo iyan by 198,631 hectares, ang gastos mo diyan per title, siguro, ay nasa mga, ilagay na lang nating P12,000 ang processing fee para lumabas iyong kanyang title para bawat benepisyaryo po.

REP. HICAP. Ibig sabihin, Mr. Speaker, G. Isponsor,

iyong Personnel Services at MOOE ay kasama dito sa P6,353,000,000?

REP. TEVES. Tama po kayo—P2.7 billion ho ang PS at P3.527 billion ang MOOE. So, sa MOOE ho na iyan, at hindi lang iyan para sa paglabas ng titulo kasi mayroon pa diyang gastos—iyong DARAB courts natin. Kung ibabawas mo pa ang gastos sa DARAB courts, iyong balanse doon ay i-divide mo ng 198,631 hectares, sa computation ko po, nasa mga P13,000 to P14,000 ang bawat ektarya, para sa processing fee ng bawat titulo na hawak ng ating benepisyaryo po, mga individual titles.

REP. HICAP. Mr. Speaker, G. Isponsor, dito sa proposed budget na P10.26 million, kung i-minus natin iyong P6.353 million, P100 million and P1.4 billion para sa AFMA, kulang-kulang na mahigit sa P3 billion ang natitira. Hindi ba ito iyong nasa MOOE at PS ng Departamento?

REP. TEVES. Hindi po, dahil P6.2 billion iyong ating LTI and AJD at 2.7 billion po diyan iyong PS. So, ang balance dito na P3.5 billion, iyan ho iyong ating MOOE hindi lang para sa land tenure improvement kung hindi kasama sa agrarian justice delivery iyong mga DARAB courts ho natin.

So, basically, kung i-divide mo iyan ng 198,631 natin, lalabas na nasa P17,000. Kung ilalabas mo pa diyan iyong gastos ng korte, sa estimate namin, between P13,000 to P14,000 lang po ang gastos sa bawat ektarya para ma-process ito at para magkaroon ng titulo na ho siya para sa ating mga benepisyaryo po.

REP. HICAP. Hindi pa rin ako, ano, sa paliwanag,

ano na lang ho, Mr. Speaker, G. Isponsor, siguro, pahingi na lang kung paano iyong computation. Saan talaga nakalaan ang specific budget, itong proposed budget na P10.26 billion—proposed, ano, dito sa 2015 budget ng DAR. Pasok na lang po ako doon sa sunod na tanong ko.

REP. TEVES. Sige po. Pagkapos po nito ay bibigyan ko kayo ng detailed

computation, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Maraming salamat.Hinggil po sa landlord compensation, batay

sa inyong kasalukuyang datos at target sa landlord compensation—ito rin po, iyong breakdown kung paano idi-disburse ang P100 million na Landowner Compensation Fund at sinu-sino ang mga landlord na ito at magkano ang kanilang matatanggap.

REP. TEVES. Okay po. Sa Landowner Compensation Fund, inilagay lang ho diyan na P100 million because may unused funds pa tayo na, kung hindi ako magkamali, P6.4 billion at, in fact, may balance pa tayo to be released na P12.5 billion para sa Landbank. So,


malaki-laki pa ho itong amount na kahit may kumubra pa, considering na mag-a-average ho kayo ng P200,000 per hectare for all crops na kasabay, ang uunahin mo pa lang naman ay iyong 20 percent na Certificate of Trust Deposit. Kaya ang inilagay lang namin ngayon sa year na ito ay P100 million lang po.

REP. HICAP. Dati na iyon na budget, iyong sinabi mo. Ang itinatanong ko dito, Mr. Speaker, ay iyong halaga sa proposed budget sa 2015, kung saan ito gagamitin, sinu-sino ang makikinabang at magkano iyong matatanggap nila.

REP. TEVES. On the average po, mga P200,000.

REP. HICAP. Mahalaga ito, Mr. Sponsor, at malinaw naman ito sa proposed Landowner Compensation Fund. Ibig sabihin, sa mga landowner ibibigay itong P100 million.

REP. TEVES. Opo.

REP. HICAP. Hindi na po tayo pumunta doon sa nabanggit mo kanina na bilyones at ang itinatanong ko lamang po ay iyong P100 million na compensation—sino-sino ang mga mabibigyan at magkano iyong kanilang matatanggap. Mahirap naman siguro na—kasi ano e lump sum ito, hindi ba, buo, ...

REP. TEVES. Buo po.

REP. HICAP. ... hindi specific.

REP. TEVES. Sa Landbank po. Bale lalabas ho diyan, first-come, first-served basis, kung ano iyong unang ma-process ng Landbank at cleared na for payment po. Nakapila ho iyan, hindi ba, kung sino iyong cleared na para bayaran dahil wala nang legal issues. Babayaran na ho iyan ng Landbank but, of course, mauuna diyan iyong sa Certificate of Trust Deposit na 20 percent, at iyong balance diyan is iyong mga bonds.

REP. HICAP. Kapag nag-allocate tayo ng budget, G. Isponsor, hindi ba mayroon tayong specific na kung sino, kung magkano—iyon ang gusto kong malaman. Ano ang specific target na makikinabang at ilang ektarya iyan na sakop dito sa P100 million. Sinabi mo kanina, mayroon mang naka-allot na budget dito para sa iba pa pero dito sa target nating ipamahagi ay may specific fund na additional dito sa 2015 budget para lang sa Landowner’s Compensation. Malinaw naman, ang budget ay nakalaan para sa kompensasyon ng mga may-ari ng lupa. Iyon lamang po ang gusto kong malaman, G. Isponsor: ilan ang target na mabibigyan at magkano ang maibibigay sa kanila mula sa P100 million.

REP. TEVES. Wala ho tayong, Mr. Speaker, mabibigay na specifics. In fact, from 2010 up to 2014, mayroon tayong mga inilalaan na pondo: P5.6 billion-2010; P7.7 billion-2011; P7.3 billion-2012; P6.8 billion -2013; P6.5 billion-2014. In fact, nag-release pa ng negative SARO na P2.5 billion dahil hindi na ho natin ito nagamit. So, itong lahat ng perang ito, naka-reserve ito para sa Landowner Compensation Fund. However, napapansin ninyo naman taun-taon na ang target natin ay hindi natin nakakamit dahil sa legal issues. Kung ano lang iyong mga mako-cover ng DAR na cleared na legally at puwede nang bayaran ng Landbank, iyon lang ho iyong nababayaran. Definitely po, normally, hindi natin nauubos iyong ating inilalaan na pondo kasi nga po kapag may legal issues, talagang hindi na allowed magbayad ang Landbank.

REP. HICAP. Ang ibig sabihin, iyong proposed na P100 million ay walang specific objectives at naka-base ito doon sa kung ano ang o kung sino iyong—first-come, first-served, sabi ninyo kanina— landowner na magki-claim ng kanilang just compensation. Ganoon ang mangyayari kaya maaaring kulang-kulang iyong budget natin at maaari ring mayroon pang balance ang ating budget.

REP. TEVES. Yes po, but based on the computation ng DBM sa fund utilization, iyong standby funds natin para sa Agrarian Reform Fund ay masyadong malaki. In fact, 6.4 plus 12.5, ang laki na ho niyan, kaya 100 lang ho ang nilagay namin pero para ho sa tanong kanina ng ating kagalang-galang na Kasama, nasa website na ng DAR iyong mga nabigyan ng notice of coverage and so, potentially, ito hong lahat na may NOC, ito po ang potentially na puwedeng maging beneficiary o mababayaran ho na landowner ng pera na ito. As I said, hindi natin mabibigay ang specifics dahil pending any legal clearance, pending the clearing of all legal issues and adjudication, hindi natin mako-confirm na mababayaran sila sa taon na ito o sa susunod na taon po, Mr. Speaker.

REP. HICAP. Hindi ba dapat ano, G. Isponsor, kapag naglagay ka ng budget, nagba-budget tayo lahat, ay tinitingnan lalo’t lalo pa nasa 26 taon na ng pagpapatupad ng Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, pero hindi pa ba natin alam, hindi pa ba natin napa-practice na sa bawat target nating lupa na dapat saklawin ng land reform ay ganito iyong ibabayad? Sa bawat ibabayad natin sa lupa, magkano iyong nagagastos doon sa mga justice delivery at sa iba’t iba pang mga kailangan para tuluyang maipamahagi na ito sa mga magsasaka kasi lumalabas doon po sa parang lump sum ninyo ay walang specific, kung saan at sino ang makikinabang noong budget.


REP. TEVES. In the most ideal situation po, tama kung ganoon but since ang bawat mamamayan, benepisaryo, at landowner ay may kani-kanilang rights, kung sila ay nagpunta sa DARAB or pumunta sa korte at magkakaroon ng legal tussle, matitigil muna lahat ng proseso. Dahil sa ganyan na sitwasyon hindi ho talaga natin ma-specify kung sino ang mababayaran on a detailed scheme na per tao po because as I said, while the process is going on, things are not as permanent as it should be, kasi nga puwede pang mag-contest iyong landowner o puwedeng mag-contest iyong benepisaryo, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Oo, tama iyon, kaya nga sabi ko nga napakatagal na ang implementation natin ng CARP na ito, ganoon na ang nagiging sitwasyon kaya dapat alam na natin kung paano talaga ang specific. Mahalaga na tinatanong ko po ito, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker, dahil una, kung kulang, halimbawa, iyong budget natin para doon sa Landowner Compensation Fund, P100 million, kung kulang ito ay saan kukuha ang Departamento? Kung sobra naman ito, saan ilalagay ng Departamento? Hindi ba dapat ganoon iyong magiging pagtrato at ganoon dapat iyong paglalaan ng pondo? Mayroon tayong specific objectives, tapos, mayroong mga pamamaraan—paano kung kulang iyong ating pondo at paano kapag mayroong sobra ang ating pondo—para alam natin at iyong target natin ay maabot at magkaroon talaga ng tamang paggastos o tamang pamamaraan ng paggamit noong laan na pondo sa ating Departamento.

REP. TEVES. Sa tagal po ng ating programa, tama ang ating Kasama na may mga weaknesses ang ating programa at since nag-lapse na ang LAD natin noong June 30, at kung may mga proposals ang ating Kasama para papaano natin ma-refine at baguhin ang ating Agrarian Reform Program, siguro panahon na, tutal ang desisyon kung saan tayo patungo ay nasa Kongreso pong ito. It is within the legislative mill where we find out what direction we will take and as I said, if there are some changes to be made, I think the time is now for our colleagues to propose refinements/changes in the Agrarian Reform Program itself, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker, kaya bigo ang ating reporma sa lupa dahil nga doon sa pag-target at pag-specify kung paano i-acquire ito at paano gagamitin iyong pondo natin at sino iyong makikinabang. Ang realidad talaga ay nagagawang, ginawa ano, gatasang-baka ng mga landowner ang Land Reform Program sa loob ng 26 na taon. Patunay diyan ay wala pa ring lupa ang ating mga magsasaka dahil sa ganitong sistema na hindi maayos at hindi planado iyong ating mga programa.

Isa-cite ko lang na ganito ang sitwasyon sa Hacienda Luisita. Iyong Hacienda Luisita ay binayaran ng P471,500,000 bilang just compensation sa pamilyang Cojuangco-Aquino sa kanilang lupa na 4,915 hectares na na-desisyunan ng Korte Suprema na dapat nang ipamahagi sa mga benepisyaryo ng Hacienda Luisita. Ang desisyon ng Korte Suprema ay dapat ang halaga ng lupa ay ibatay noong 1989 nang ma-cover siya ng Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. Noong 1989, ang halaga ng lupa ng Hacienda Luisita, batay sa valuation, ay umaabot lamang ng P40,000 bawat ektarya. Kaya kung P40,000 lang iyan, sa 4,915 ektarya ay aabot lamang po, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker, ng P136 million ang halaga na dapat ang ibinayad sa pamilyang Cojuangco-Aquino. P Ang ibinayad ng Landbank at ng DAR sa pamilyang Cojuangco-Aquino ay P471.5 million. Tama po ba ang ganito o makatarungan ba sa atin, sa ating mga kababayan na napipilitang magbayad ng buwis at iyong buwis na iyon ay napupunta lamang sa kompensasyon ng mga landowner na hanggang ngayon ay hindi pa nila naipapamahagi ang lupa, nanatili sa control ng pamilyang Cojuangco-Aquino ang lupa ng Hacienda Luisita at ginagamit pa iyong P471.5 billion para bayaran iyong mga benepisyaryo, tapos bakuran at kasuhan iyong mga manggagawang-bukid na benepisyaryo ng Hacienda Luisita?

Mr. Speaker, G. Isponsor, makatarungan ba ang nagaganap na ito sa Hacienda Luisita at ganoon din sa iba pang mga hacienda at iba pang mga na-cover ng land reform mula P.D. No. 27, ng CARP, ng CARPER, at tuloy-tuloy na binabayaran ng mga magsasaka pero hindi pa rin napupunta sa kanila habang ang mga landowners ay nabayaran na mula sa buwis ng mamamayan?

REP. TEVES. Maganda ho iyang tanong, Mr. Speaker, kasi, well, ako ay anak ng isang landowner at para sa isang landowner, gusto niyang i-maximize iyong kanyang makukuha bago niya ilabas iyong kanyang lupa para makahanap siya ng ibang hanapbuhay. Para naman sa benepisyaryo, gusto niyang mababa iyong presyo ng lupa para mas madali niyang mabayaran ito pero ang ginagawa ng ating gobyerno, since isa tayong demokrasya, e mayroon tayong adjudication at mayroon ho tayong mga korte. I was informed by the agency, by the DAR itself na ang problema dito ay kino-contest ho ito at nasa Adjudication Board na ho. It is the right of every citizen of this country to fight for their rights. Unfortunately, siyempre, opposing iyong kanilang interes. Ang landowner, gusto makakuha ng mas malaki para makahanap siya ng ibang negosyo. Ang farmer ho naman, gusto mabayaran ng maliit para madali niyang mabayaran iyong kanyang babayaran sa bangko. Para ho ma-strike ang balance, it is just right that the adjudication process is placed in a democracy like our country po, Mr. Speaker.


REP. HICAP. Kaya bigo, G. Isponsor, bigo talaga ang CARP dahil sa ganitong mga proseso, dahil ang nag-uusap na lamang kung magkano ang halaga at magkano ang gusto na halaga ng landowner ay iyong DAR at iyong landowner. Kapag hindi gusto ng landowner ang halaga ay pupunta doon sa Adjudication Board, may mga kaso-kaso pero kadalasan ay na-exempt o hindi na nasasaklaw ang lupa ng mga landowners.

Ang tanong ko lang, ibalik ko lang dito sa tanong ko kaugnay dito sa Hacienda Luisita. Direktang tanong, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker: makatarungan ba ang ibinayad sa pamilyang Cojuangco-Aquino ay P471.5 billion samantalang ang halaga ng lupa ay dapat ay aabot lamang sa P196 million? Napakatagal nang panahon na pinagsamantalahan ang mga manggagawa mula pa 1957 hanggang sa kasalukuyan dahil ito ay nasa kontrol at pinapakinabangan pa rin ng pamilyang Cojuangco-Aquino, ng pamilya ni Presidente Noynoy Aquino, at patuloy na sinusupil ang mga karapatan at ang katahimikan ng ating mga benepisyaryo doon sa Hacienda Luisita.

REP. TEVES. Mr. Speaker, sumusunod lang po ang mga ahensiya natin kung ano desisyon ng Korte Suprema. Sa isang Korte Suprema Resolution dated April 24, 2012, sinabi na 1989 ang date of the taking, iyon ang ginawa ng ating mga ahensiya at ng Landbank at nagbayad sila base po lamang sa kung ano ho ang order ng Korte Suprema.

REP. HICAP. Kaya nga po, 1989. Noong 1989, iyong valuation ng lupa niyan ay P40,000 bawat hectare pero bakit binayaran natin ng P471.5 billion ang pamilyang Cojuangco-Aquino? Masasabi ba nating makatarungan o tama ito?

REP. TEVES. Tumaas po lamang iyong bayad niyan dahil may kinargang interes—iyan ang pagkakaintindi ko ho. From the date of taking and since it was just paid now, may interes ho na ikinarga kaya medyo tumaas ho ang halaga, Mr. Speaker.

REP. HICAP. Mas malaki iyong interes kumpara sa prinsipal, ganoon ba kataas iyong ano—kung P196 million iyong halaga niyan noong 1989 at binayaran ng P471 billion, halos mahigit sa kalahati iyong halaga ng lupa ng Hacienda Luisita, samantalang iyong produkto ng mga manggagawang bukid sa Hacienda Luisita magmula noong 1957 hanggang ngayon, iyong pagsasamantala sa kanilang lakas-paggawa ay nagpapatuloy. Dapat nga hindi na bayaran, hindi ba? Unang-una, utang din ng Hacienda Luisita iyan bago inutang sa gobyerno. Iyong pag-utang ba ng pamilyang Cojuangco-Aquino para ma-acquire nila iyong lupa noong 1957, hindi ba ito kinokonsidera ng gobyerno na dapat ay bahagi na o dapat ay bayaran din ng pamilyang Cojuangco-Aquino?

REP. TEVES. Mr. Speaker, as I said, ang mga ahensiya mismo, ang Landbank at ang DAR, limited ang kanilang action based sa kung ano ang sinabi ho ng Korte Suprema; otherwise, iyong mga nasa likod ko naman ho ang makukulong. Kung ano ang sasabihin ho ng Korte Suprema, hanggang doon lang ho sila. Hindi sila puwedeng bumawas, hindi sila puwedeng kumulang, unfortunately po, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Mabuti at ganoon iyong pagtingin, ano, na dapat sinusunod iyong desisyon ng Korte Suprema pero ang realidad, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker, ay hindi po nararamdaman na nasusunod ng Departamento iyong desisyon ng Korte Suprema. Una, iyong pamamahagi ng lupa dahil hanggang ngayon ay hindi pa rin naipamamahagi ang lupa. Hindi pa rin nai-install at karamihan nga ay binabawian ngayon, binu-bulldozer iyong kanilang mga lupa. Dapat nga bayaran sila ng pamilyang Cojuangco-Aquino bilang bahagi doon sa iligal na ibinenta ng Hacienda Luisita, Inc. na 500 ektarya sa RCBC at saka iyong mahigit sa 80 ektarya na dinaanan ng SCTEX. Hanggang ngayon po, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker, ay hindi pa nababayaran iyong mga magsasaka ng P1,033,000,000 bilang bahagi o share nila doon sa mahigit sa 580 ektarya na iligal na ibinenta ng Hacienda Luisita. Bakit po hindi pa sila nababayaran?

REP. TEVES. Ganito po. Ang pagkakaintindi ko, may mga farmer pa ho na hindi nakakasama. Iyon ba ang nire-raise ng ating kasama? Mayroon daw hindi pa ho pumirma kaya noong nag-distribute ho ng lupa, since hindi sila pumirma, hindi sila nasama. Ang sabi naman ng ating Secretary of Agrarian Reform, ina-accommodate nila ngayon sa kanilang opisina iyong mga hindi pumirma at finally, pumirma na ho sila kaya masasama na sila doon sa makakatanggap ng lupa, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Bakit po hindi pa sila nababayaran ng share nila doon sa 500 ektaryang ibinenta sa RCBC at saka iyong 80 ektaryang dinaanan ng SCTEX, bilang bahagi noon ng mga manggagawang-bukid?

REP. TEVES. Ganito po. Since nasa korte ho iyan, ang Supreme Court ay nag-request na maglagay ng audit committee at magko-convene pa ho. As I said, once it is under the courts, kailangan natin maghintay ng desisyon ng courts kasi bound tayo ho diyan. Lahat ng executive agencies are bound by the courts to wait for their decision since nasa kamay ho nila ang mga kasong iyan, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Malinaw naman, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker, lupa itong ibinenta at ang perang ito ay bahagi ng share nila kaya bakit isa-subject pa doon sa pag-aaral


kung ano pa iyong asset ng mga Cojuangco-Aquino bago sila bigyan samantalang binayaran ng cash ang bentahan ng Hacienda Luisita? Bakit hindi ibinigay? Bakit kailangan pang tingnan iyong mga asset at i-audit? G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker, hindi ba kapani-paniwala kung binayaran ka na noong halaga at cash na ibinigay sa iyo, tapos iyong kaparte mo o bahagi na may-ari ng lupa ay hindi mo binigyan dahil sasabihin mo, “sandali muna, hindi ko muna ibibigay sa iyo dahil i--assess ko muna iyong ari-arian ko kung mayroon pa ba akong natitirang halaga dito at kung mayroong natira doon, saka na lang kita bibigyan.” Tama po ba iyong ganoong argumento?

REP. TEVES. Actually po, since may kuwestiyon nga doon sa funding, para sa Kinatawang ito, it is just right that an audit must be made. Tama lang na i-audit para ma-justify natin kung makatarungan o hindi at kung may sobra nga at ma-justify at ma-rule ng Supreme Court na may sobra, then the agency will follow what the Supreme Court will say, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Ang dapat i-audit ay iyong natitirang ari-arian, iyong lupa na natitira at iba pang asset ng Hacienda Luisita. Iyon ang kailangang i-audit pero iyong ibinenta na, kailangan pa bang i-audit iyon e binili na nga? Cash na nga iyon e. Bakit hindi natin ibigay iyong bahagi na share nila samantalang hawak mo na iyong cash? Ang kailangan sigurong dapat i-audit ay iyong iba pang asset o ari-arian na pag-aari ng pamilyang Cojuangco-Aquino at ng mga farmworker o iyong kabuuan ay noong Hacienda Luisita, Incorporated (HLI), hindi po ba, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker?

REP. TEVES. Actually po, kung ako man ang auditor, mas gusto ko talaga i-audit galing sa simula po kasi, as I said, kung may expenses man, gusto kong malaman kung legitimate o hindi ang expenses para ma-cross-out ko ito at malaman ko na ito ay hindi legitimate kaya hindi ninyo ito puwedeng i-charge, at ito ay para i-award sa kabilang side dahil hindi ito legitimate expense. In any audit, for that matter, mas maganda na tingnan ang kabuuan at hindi lamang ang isang parte ho lamang para mas malaman natin kung ano ho talaga ang totoo, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Pero, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker, ang binenta po ay lupa. Ang lupa po ay malinaw na covered ng CARP kaya ipinaloob ito sa stock distribution option (SDO) noong 1989. Iyong lupa ay malinaw na kinilala na ito ay pag-aari ng mga farmworker at nang ipasok ito sa stock distribution option, ito iyong naging share ng farmworker sa Hacienda Luisita, Incorporated. Kaya kung tutuusin, ang lupa ay pag-aari ng mga farmworker. Tapos, binenta iyong lupa ng Hacienda

Luisita, Incorporated at nasa kanila iyong buong-buong halaga ng binentang lupa at pagkatapos, hindi man lang binigyan ng bahagi, kahit na lang iyong sinasabi na halaga ng lupa noon bilang bahagi ng stock nila o share of stock na 33 percent ng asset ng Hacienda Luisita. Hindi pa ito ibinigay.

Makatarungan ba ito, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker?

REP. TEVES. Ang downside po, tapos na ho iyong stock distribution option, nangyari na ito and in fact, na-recall na ito pero sa paggawa sa option na iyon, it was agreed upon by both parties na mag-stock distribution option. Dalawa iyong puwedeng puntahan noon. Kung tumaas iyong stocks, lahat masaya. Kapag bumaba naman iyong stocks, nalugi, lahat naman ay may problema. Medyo malas-malas lang po tayo dahil hindi tumaas e, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. G. Isponsor, lupa po ito e. Hindi po ito iyong nilikha noong Hacienda Luisita na HLI na dapat nga ay mayroong dividend at share iyong mga farmworker na 33 percent pero hindi nga sila nabigyan. Mas matindi ngayon ang kalagayan nila—iyong panggigipit, iyong pagpiga sa kanilang lakas-paggawa sa pamamagitan ng napakababang sahod o aliping-sahod na humantong nga noong 2004 sa kanilang pagwewelga dahil halos P9.15 lamang iyong kanilang take-home pay sa isang araw na paggawa nila, at halos sa isang lingo ay isang araw na lamang iyong kanilang trabaho. Imbes na tugunan sila bilang bahagi ng may-ari, iyong dapat na kanilang ari-arian, iyong lupa na dapat nga ay buong-buo sa kanila, hindi pa ibinigay ito ng pamilyang Cojuangco-Aquino. Hindi na nga ibinigay pero binayaran pa natin sila ng P471.5 billion—ito ay hindi talaga makatarungan, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker.

At iyong argumento ninyo kanina na ito ay tapos na dahil sa stock distribution option, natapos lang ang stock distribution option system sa Hacienda Luisita after magdesisyon ang Korte Suprema ng pinal nitong 2012 kaya hindi puwedeng batayan iyong argumentong ganoon. Mayroong umiiral na inhustisya, hindi ito makararungan, at nakikita ko na mayroong sabwatan ang DAR at saka ang pamilyang Cojuangco-Aquino para higit pang pagsamantalahan, apihin at pinatay. Ang totoo lang, pinapatay iyong ating mga manggagawang-bukid sa Hacienda Luisita at noong 2004, pito sa mga manggagawang-bukid iyong namatay dahil sa massacre.

Hanggang ngayon ay hindi nabibigyan ito ng hustisya. Mayroong pinatay pero walang pumatay. Ito ang klase ng hustisya sa ating bansa. May desisyon na ipamahagi ang lupa pero hindi naipamamahagi at ito ay nasa kanila pa rin. Nagbenta ng ari-arian, dapat bigyan sila ng share pero hindi pa binibigyan dahil kailangan daw i-audit. Anong klaseng reporma mayroon tayo?


Anong klaseng departamento ang DAR? Dapat ang DAR ay naglilingkod at nagtataguyod sa interes ng mga magsasaka at manggagawang- bukid sa atin pero sila pa mismo iyong nagiging kasangkapan ng mga landowner, lalo ng pamilyang Cojuangco-Aquino, ang pamilya ni Presidente Noynoy Aquino?

REP. TEVES. Opo, naiitindihan ko ho ang feeling ng ating kasama. Ang isa ko rin nakitang rason ho diyan is iyong na-delay ang ating common service facilities para maipakita talaga ng ating ahensiya at ng ating gobyerno na may atensiyon na ibibigay sa ating mga farmer para ang kanilang buhay ay umayos. Nakausap ko ngayon si Secretary at tinatanong ko siya kung ano na ang nangyari sa ating ARCCESS or the Agrarian Reform Community Connectivity and Economic Support Services Program kasi alam ko na medyo malaking bahagi rin doon ay para sa Luisita mismo. Ang alam ko ay may 60 hectares para sa vegetable production areas at may mga isang dosenang traktora para doon sa mga sugar block farms na may 1,000 hectares ang pumirmang sumama. So, ang amin lang ay pinapa-commit ko nga itong ahensiya na kung puwede ngayong Disyembre ay matapos na ho iyang bidding diyan para mabigay na ito sa ating mga magsasaka para ma-feel naman nila na ang ating ahensiya ay nakatutok sa kanila at gusto talaga na bigyan sila ng atensiyon, na ang mga programang at planong pataasin ang antas ng kanilang buhay doon sa Luisita ay nasa puso ng ating ahensiya po, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

At this juncture, Deputy Speaker Puno relinquished the Chair to Deputy Speaker Apostol.

REP. HICAP. Iyong realidad, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker, hindi po iyon ang kalagayan doon sa Hacienda Luisita. Sa ngayon, napakaraming iligal na inaaresto ng pulis, kinakasuhan ng mga gawa-gawang kaso, binu-bulldozer iyong kanilang mga tanim, binu-bulldozer iyong kanilang mga bahay at mayroong pangyayari na ang DAR mismo at saka iyong mga security guard at PNP ng Tarlac ay kasama sa nag-complain at kinasuhan iyong benipisyaryo ng Hacienda Luisita.

Ngayon, rampant po, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker, ang pagpapa-aryenda sa mga benepisyaryo, pinipilit sila ng mga aryendador— sinasamantala ng mga aryendador ang kahirapan ng mga magsasaka dahil sa hindi nga sila nakakasaka sa kanilang mga lupa—at nandiyan din, araw-araw at gabi-gabi, ang harassment sa kanila ng mga security guard, ng PNP at saka ng AFP. Ganoon ang kanilang kalagayan. Hiwalay doon sa sinasabi mo kanina, G. Sponsor, na iyong lupa ay makakamit ng ating mga benepisyaryo ng Hacienda Luisita.

Sa katunayan talaga, ang nakukuha nating impormasyon, mula nang bigyan ang pamilyang Cojuangco ng P471.5 billion na bayad sa kanilang

lupa, doon nagsimula itong laganap na paglalako ng mga financier para sa pagpe-prenda ng lupa at doon din nagsimula ang malawakang at tumitinding harassment at saka ang pagbabakod ng mga lupa doon sa Hacienda Luisita. Kaya iba po ang sinasabi mo kanina, G. Isponsor, na kung sino ang dapat makinabang doon sa mga services ng ating Departamento. Hindi po services ang nararamdaman at nagaganap sa Hacienda Luisita kundi napakatinding pagsupil sa kanilang mga karapatan at pagkakait ng pamamahagi ng lupa. Sa ngayon ay nakadanas sila ng napakatinding at iba’t ibang porma ng mga human rights violation.

Alam ko na alam ng Departamento na ganito ang sitwasyon doon. Ang nakakabahala po, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker, ay walang ginagawa ang Departamento tungkol dito, sa kabila na dapat ipagbawal nila ang pagpe-prenda o pag-a-aryenda ng lupa. Ito po ang isa sa mga tanong— bakit hiwalay o iba doon sa sinasabi ninyo at doon sa realidad. Bakit hindi inaaresto ng Departamento ang mga financier na nagsasamantala para makuha ang lupa doon sa mga benepisyaryo sa Hacienda Luisita?

REP. TEVES. Actually po, ang problemang iyan, nalaman ko na mayroon pa palang part ng HLI na hindi na-cover, iyong 358 ektarya, pero may notice of coverage na rin po iyon ngayon. So, definitely ho, mako-cover iyon kasi December 17 pa lang nabigyan na iyon ng notice of coverage. Sa tingin ko, diyan ho ang contention kasi kung hindi pa ho iyan na-cover ay magkakaroon talaga ng friction ang landowner at ang benepisyaryo. Kung hindi pa iyon na-cover, ang ibig sabihin ay hindi pa ho nababayaran ang landowner. Nasa batas naman ho natin na kapag hindi pa nababayaran, hindi pa dapat puwedeng basta kunin-kunin ho na lang.

On the peace and order situation regarding that matter, I really believe, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, that that is a police matter. Kailangan lang ng ating ahensiya na tumulong sa pag-monitor at pag-report ng violence or disruption of peace and order para ma-report ito sa police at para police po ang mag-aksyon sa ganoong mga problema, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Ang problema, G. Isponsor, iyong ahensiya mismo na dapat nag-a-assess sa ating mga benepisyaryo ng reporma sa lupa para ipagtanggol ang kanilang karapatan na manatili at mag-ari ng lupa, pero hindi po naging ganoon iyong sitwasyon. Batay doon sa kanilang mga report, mismo iyong ahensiya ay bahagi doon sa pagkukumbinsi at kasama doon sa pagbu-bulldozer. Ang dahilan lang, noong 2004, pagkatapos noong marahas na masaker, dahil walang makain ang ating mga manggagawang-bukid, para mabuhay at maka-survive ang kanilang pamilya, ay nagkaroon po ng bungkalan. Ito ang collective farming


kung saan ay na-cultivate nila ang malalawak na lupain at nasuportahan ang kanilang pangangailangan mula 2004 hanggang 2012. Noong nagkaroon ng decision ang Korte Suprema, umaasa ang mga benepisyaryo na tuluyan nang maaari nila ang lupa at mabubungkal ito para sa kanilang sarili. Ang isang problema, ang ginawa ng Department of Agrarian Reform sa porma ng pamamahagi ay gumamit sila ng tambiolo kaya winasak ng porma ng pamamahagi ng Hacienda Luisita ang collective farming na umiiral sa Hacienda Luisita. Ang pinakamasama pa, sa pamamaraan ng tambiolo system ng land reform sa Hacienda Luisita, ang hindi naman kasama doon sa bungkalan o collective farming ay nakakuha doon sa lupang produktibo na. Iyong mga ilan na nandoon na kasama sa collective farming ay napunta doon sa mga malalayong lugar dahil dito sa sistema na ito. Ito ay sa kabila na ginigiit ng Alyansa ng Manggagawang Bukid sa Asyenda Luisita o ng AMBALA na huwag nang ipamahagi ang lupa sa isa-isa kundi isang kolektibong pag-aari ng lupa ang ipatupad doon sa Hacienda Luisita. Pero ang ginawa ng ating Departamento ay pinilit iyong kanilang sarili.

Kaya po ang sinasabi ninyo kanina na hindi nagpirma doon sa APO at hindi tumanggap ay dahil nagpo-protesta sila, hindi nila gusto ang porma at pamamaraan na ginawa ng Departamento sa pamamahagi ng lupa kung saan nag-create lalo ito ng paghiwa-hiwalay at nag-create ng away-away mismo sa loob ng Hacienda Luisita at naging madali, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker, sa ganitong sistema na magkaroon ng lupa, kung ilang ektarya o ang sukat na lupa o lote ang bawat benepisyaryo at doon na po pumasok, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker, itong mga aryendador. Kaya kitang-kita mo na iyong porma at pamamaraan na talagang hindi pamamahagi ng lupa. Kaya na-distribute sa indibidwal para madali na kausapin, madaling kumbinsihin, dahil walang kapasidad magtrabaho kaya ito ang sinasamantala ng mga kapitalista. Ayon sa nakaabot sa aking opisina ay ito iyong pera ng pamilyang Cojuango-Aquino mula doon sa P471.5 billion na ibinayad natin na just compensation.

Kaya hindi po makatarungan, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker, ang ganitong sitwasyon doon sa Hacienda Luisita. Hindi ito sentimyento kundi ito ang realidad na nagaganap doon sa Hacienda Luisita. Kaya may problema talaga, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker, ang sistema ng land reform sa ating bansa. Patunay dito na napakaraming mga lupa na na-acquire na o nasaklaw ng CARP at hanggang ngayon ay nabawi uli at pinalayas na ang mga magsasaka. Kung hindi man sila ang nagigiit, kung hindi man sila kinakasuhan, ay binabaril at pinapatay na lamang na parang mga hayop ang ating mga magsasaka. Ito ang napakasama na kalagayan nila, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker.

Tama ba na lagyan pa natin ng pondo, lalong-lalo na ang pangbayad galing sa Landowner Compensation

Fund ng Departamentong ito na hindi naman nagkakaroon ng realidad na ipamamahagi ang lupa sa mga magsasaka?

REP. TEVES. Mr. Speaker, the decision to continue the Agrarian Reform Program or to craft new laws to improve the Agrarian Reform Program rests on this House, Mr. Speaker. So ang wisdom ng Kamarang ito ang maghahanap o maglalagay ng direksiyon kung saan tayo pupunta, base iyan sa ating Agrarian Reform Program, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Maraming salamat, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker.

Kaya mahalaga at kailangan talaga ng bagong batas, batas na tunay na magpapatupad ng reporma sa lupa, na magtitiyak ng lupang sasaklawin ng ating reporma—iyong batas ay ang magtitiyak na ipamamahagi sa ating mga magsasaka ng lupa at magtitiyak na hindi na mababawi ang lupang ito. Dapat tiyakin ng gobyerno sa batas at sa reporma na ipatutupad natin, iyong mga batayang serbisyong pangangailangan para paunlarin ng ating mga magsasakang benepisyaryo ang mga lupa na na-award sa kanila at ganoon din, huwag nating payagan na ganito ang mangyari na bibigyan natin ng karapatan na magbenta o magsangla ng kanilang mga lupa. Ang kailangan ng mga magsasaka ay manatili sa kanilang lupa kaya napakahalaga po ang mga patakaran na magtitiyak na hindi na magaganap ang ganitong mga sistemang umiiral dito sa huwad na reporma sa lupa. Ito po ay nasa panukalang batas ko, ang House Bill No. 253, ang pagpapatupad ng Genuine Agrarian Reform Bill na magtitiyak dito sa nabanggit ko— para manatili na agrikultural at manatili ang pakinabang ng ating mga lupa na binungkal ng ating mga magsasaka, na ito ay mapunta sa kanila. Hindi na kailangan pa ng extension noong CARP; ang kailangan ay tunay na reporma sa lupa o batas para sa tunay na reporma sa lupa, hindi po ba, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker?

REP. TEVES. Noong nakaraang mga termino po, kasama ko ho ang ating kagalang-galang na Ka Paeng at kami ay umikot sa Visayas at Mindanao, at kung gustong i-revisit ng ating kasama ang minutes noong aming public hearings sa iba‘t ibang lugar sa ating bansa, puwedeng-puwede nang magamit iyon ng ating kasama para sa kanilang paggawa ng improved version ng ating Agrarian Reform Program, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Maraming salamat, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker. Tama po iyon. Actually, ang House Bill No. 252 ay mula pa iyan noong 2007. Na-file iyan pero hanggang ngayon, at nasa komite po ninyo ito noong Fifteenth Congress, ay nagtuloy-tuloy ang mga public hearings sa mga regions. Umaasa ako na sana ay maipasa ito


nang sa gayon ay matuldukan na at magkaroon na ng tunay na hustisya ang ating mga magsasaka. Maraming salamat po, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker.

Pasok na po ako doon. Isang tanong na lang, isang paglilinaw. Kanina, nabanggit ninyo po ang pamamahagi o pag-isyu ng notice of coverage sa 358 hectares ng Tarlac Development Corporation na nabanggit ninyo. Ang isang problema dito, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker, noong mag-isyu ang DAR ng notice of coverage noong December last year, doon po nagsimula iyong pagbu-bulldozer ng mga sakahan at doon din po nagsimula ang pagbabakod. Kaya makikita mo na talagang ang notice of coverage ay hindi garantiya na kapag nag-isyu na tayo ng notice of coverage ay puwede nang sabihin na “maglagay ka na ng magsasaka bilang benepisyaryo” or ipagpatuloy na ng mga magsasaka ang kanilang sinasaka na na-cover na o na-isyuhan na ng notice of coverage. Dahil dito mismo sa Hacienda Luisita, ang 358 na sinasabi nila na na-isyuhan noong December ng DAR ay binubungkal noong mga lider mismo ng Alyansa ng Manggagawang Bukid sa Hacienda Luisita. Ang nangyari, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker, na-bulldozer, binakuran at ngayon ay may bakod na, may bulldozer na. Sa ngayon, G.Isponsor, Mr. Speaker, ay mayroon pang ginagawa ang pamilyang Cojuangco-Aquino na nag-a-apply na ipaloob sa economic zone ang mahigit sa 200 ektaryang lupa. Alam ba ito ng DAR? Ano ba ang puwedeng gawin ng DAR para mapigilan ito? Kasi hindi na sa kanila ang lupa e. May desisyon na ang Korte Suprema doon sa plano na kumbersiyon ng lupa, ang pag-iwas na ipamahagi ang lupa at manatili sa pakinabang ng pamilyang Cojuangco-Aquino sa kabila na sila ay bayad na noong halaga ng lupa.

REP. TEVES. Sa tingin ko ho, ang problema diyan sa 358 at base nga sa aking nakikita, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, ang Hacienda Luisita or Tadeco as a whole is a corporate farm structure. Hindi siya tenancy. Kung tenancy ang structure niya na nagbibigay ng shares sa farmers doon, kung sino ang nakapuwesto, siya na po ang magiging benepisyaryo? In a corporate farm structure, lahat ng kasama sa korporasyon, maybe ang truck driver, ang tractor operator at kung sinu-sino pa, kailangang makikibahagi rin sila doon sa lupa. That is why kailangan talaga ang dayalogo dito sa benepisyaryo, sa DAR at sa may-ari ng lupa kasi hindi puwedeng ang i-a-accommodate lang sa lupa ay iyong nakaposisyon doon. Corporate structure ho ang Hacienda Luisita o ang Tadeco po, ito ang problema diyan.

Second, as I said, kung hindi pa nababayaran ang landowner, may rights talaga ang landowner dahil sa kanya pa ang lupang iyan, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Iyon nga, e, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker, may practice na po. Tama po iyon dahil corporate iyan. Practice na ng mga manggagawa diyan ang collective

farming. Dapat iyon na lang ang pinaunlad ng DAR dahil alam naman pala ng DAR na ganoon ang katangian ng lugar pero bakit pinili pa nila na mag-tambiolo at ipamahagi ang lupa sa mga indibidwal samantalang mas kailangan o sana na, mas higit pa na patatagin at mabilis ang pag-unlad kung ito ay collective o sama-samang kumikilos at kailangan lang ng suporta. Pinapayagan naman o hindi naman bawal ito sa Konstitusyon dahil sa Konstitusyon naman, ang mandato ay puwedeng mamahagi individually o collectively ang mga lupa. Ang ginawa ng DAR, hayun, hinati-hati at pagkatapos na hati-hatiin, pumasok ang mga kapitalista para ipa-aryenda sa kanila.

Kaya, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker, makikita mo na hindi talaga sinsero kahit ang DAR na tugunan ang problema ng mga manggagawang-bukid at hindi dapat argumento na sabihin natin, “corporate iyan, kailangang ikonsidera natin ang lahat na dapat mga benepisyaryo.” Hindi po iyon ang problema. Ang problema ngayon ay hindi nga nai-install, hindi nga natutuluyan na ipamahagi ang lupa at bagkus, ang mga ito ay binabakuran at hindi lamang iyong 358 hectares, kundi napakalawak na po ng mga lupang binabakuran doon. Actually, halos sa limang barangay yata ito ay nagaganap na. May bakod na ang mga lupang ito at sa tingin ko, libu-libong ektarya na ang binabakuran, hindi lamang iyong 358 ektarya na inisyuhan o sinasabi ng pamilyang Cojuanco-Aquino na hindi covered ng CARP at inisyuhan ng DAR noong December ng notice of coverage.

Kaya malinaw po na hindi katanggap-tanggap ang ganoong argumento. Hindi talaga sinsero. Hindi iyong batas, iyong CARP per se, ang huwad kundi ang nagpapatupad ay may bias sa landowner at sa mga magsasaka. Ganoon po ang lumalabas, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker. Ano po ang masasabi dito ng DAR? Sa katunayan nga, kasama ang DAR mismo sa nagkaso doon sa isang pangyayari sa Hacienda Luisita.

REP. TEVES. Ganito po, since kino-cover pa po ang lupa, naglilista na ho ang DAR kung sino ang mga benepisyaryo. Ang proseso iyan, aabot pa iyan hanggang inclusion at exclusion. Kung ang mga kasamahan ng ating kagalang-galang na kasama dito ay gustong maging benepisyaryo doon, puwede pa ho silang mag-palista and rerespetuhin ng DAR kung gusto nilang mag-collective farming o mag-individual farming. Ibig sabihin, ang mga sampu-sampo, bente-bente na gusto nilang katabi, gagawing magkakatabi sila para araruhin nila as one iyong kanilang mga lupa at rerespetuhin po ng DAR ang kagustuhan nila, kung iyan po ang gusto nilang sistema.

As I said, ongoing ang lista ng pag-include ng benepisyaryo, since nasa notice of coverage pa lang po tayo, ang mga farmer na gustong isama ng aking colleague ay puwedeng mag-apply sa tanggapan ng


DAR as one of the potential farmer beneficiaries, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker, 1989 pa malinaw na po ang benepisyaryo diyan e. Bago pa man ipinaloob iyan sa CARP noong 1989 ay malinaw na kung ilan at kung sinu-sino ang mga benepisyaryo ng Hacienda Luisita, na siyang bahagi na dapat ay nakikinabang ng share ng Hacienda Luisita at dapat binayaran ng share nila doon sa illegal na pagbenta ng 580 na ektarya sa RCBC at dinaanan ng SCTEX.

Siguro hindi ko na kailangan sabihin, Mr. Speaker, malinaw naman ang realidad at naibahagi ko ang tunay na realidad at narinig ko ang argumento ng G. Isponsor. Ang tanong ko na lang po ay kung alam ba ng DAR na ang mahigit sa 200 ektarya ng Hacienda Luisita ay ina-apply para i-cover o ipailalim sa economic zone?

REP. TEVES. Nabasa po namin iyan sa newspaper pero wala pang official na papeles na dumating sa DAR tungkol diyan, kung saan exactly ang lugar na ina-apply-an na economic zone. Bago kasi mag-approve ang PEZA, ang ating export zone authority, dumadaan talaga sa DAR for DAR clearance. But officially, as of now, wala pang application na dumadaan sa DAR, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Kung hindi pa alam iyan ng DAR, ako personally, hindi naniniwala, kasi noong budget hearing ng PEZA dito, tinanong ko rin ito at ang sabi nila nasa proseso na, nag-apply ang Hacienda Luisita para i-cover ang mahigit sa 200 ektarya sa economic zone. Mayroon na ring board resolution ang EPZA sa ongoing process sa pag- apply ng Hacienda Luisita para ma-cover o maipasailalim sa economic zoneang mahigit 200 na ektarya.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). May I interrupt the Gentleman. We have been repeating all over again the same subject matter. Will we continue this until midnight?

REP. HICAP. Mahalaga lang po kasi, G. Ispiker, kaya binalikan ko lang. Salamat po, G. Ispiker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Hindi ba tayo hihinto diyan?

REP. HICAP. Buhay po kasi ang nakataya sa mga manggagawang bukid sa Hacienda Luisita. Hanggang ngayon threatened sila at mayroon silang isinampang kaso. Ngayon po mayroon conversion o planong i-convert ang mahigit 200 ektaryang lupa na dapat sa kanila. Kaya napakahalaga po sa ating mga magsasaka na benepisyaryo ng desisyon ng Korte Suprema noong 2012, na hanggang ngayon ay hindi naipamahagi at

mawawala pa ang mahigit sa 200 ektarya. Binalikan ko lang po ito para maging malinaw, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Okay. Pabalik-balik lang tayo e. Mayroon ka pang isang balik, Congressman Hicap.

REP. HICAP. Okay.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Okay, the Sponsor may answer.

REP. TEVES. If officially, dumating na po ang application sa DAR, bibigyan ko ng kopya ang ating kasama, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Okay, maraming salamat. Ibig sabihin wala pang application ng conversion ang pamilya Cojuanco?

REP. TEVES. Wala pa po.

REP. HICAP. Ongoing na raw kasi sabi ng PEZA director noong magkaroon ng budget hearing.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Is the Gentleman finished?

REP. HICAP. Doon na po ako sa susunod na tanong ko kaugnay sa cancellation ng mga certificate of land ownership award o CLOA.

Mr. Speaker, G. Isponsor, ang karaniwang mga datos na inilalabas ng DAR ay kung ilan na ang mga tinatawag na benepisyaryo ng land reform, ang nagawaran na ng CLOA o certificate of land ownership award. Minsan naglalabas din ang DAR kung ilan ang mga nakakumpleto ng bayad sa amortization. Ang tanong ko po ngayon, Mr. Speaker, G. Isponsor, ilan sa benepisyaryo na ba ang nabawian o nakanselan ng CLOA?

REP. TEVES. Pinapahanap ko lang ang exact figure ng

nabawian at nakanselan ng CLOA. But honestly, kaya nga ngayon medyo careful ang ating si Secretary Delos Reyes sa pag-cover right from the start. Kasi kung problematic talaga ang landholding at idiniretso mong i-cover, pagdating diyan sa dead end, most probably magkakaroon talaga ng problema ang benepisyaryo, makakansela ang CLOA at ang hopes niya na magkaroon siya ng lupa ay mawawala. That is also why medyo bumabagal ang ating coverage of land ngayon dahil, as I said, maraming lupa dati na kinover way before the time of the administration of Secretary Delos Reyes ng DAR na nagresulta ngayon sa problema. Pero kukunin ko lang po ang actual data o actual number of the CLOA holders na nakansela. There are 53 CLOAs lang ang na-cancel sa 2009 hanggang ngayon. Ang siyam dito nabalik sa landowner at ang


sobra ay inilipat lang sa ibang benepisyaryo. Ang ibig sabihin ang benepisyaryo na-disqualify o wala na doon, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Mga ilan po? Mga ilang porsyento ang naisyuhan natin ang nakansela?

REP. TEVES. This is only 117 hectares, Mr. Speaker. Masyadong maliit po ito na porsiyento compared to the total number of distributed lands.

REP. HICAP. Batay po ba sa report ito na naipamahagi na ng dalawang ahensiya mula sa DENR at sa DAR.

REP. TEVES. Opo, kasi ang total natin is that

the DAR distributed 4.5 million hectares. Sa DAR pa lang po 4.5 million na. So kung 117 hectares na po ang nakansela, this is a very small percentage. This is from 2009, onwards only, hindi ko alam ang before. Since hindi pa nailagay sa database ng DAR ang before 2009, sinisimulan pa lang ito para accurately talagang ma-compute natin kung ilan na ang mga na-cancel na CLOAs from the start of the Agrarian Reform Program, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Doon po sa nakansela, puwede ba tayong magbigay o meron bang listahan ang departamento, Mr. Speaker?

REP. TEVES. Puwede po, Mr. Speaker.

REP. HICAP. Nang nakansela ang kanilang CLOA, dahil ba hindi nakakabayad ang mga benepisyaryo?

REP. TEVES. Wala po. Wala pong nakansela due

to non-payment, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. REP. HICAP. Maraming salamat.Balikan ko lang ang Hacienda Luisita. Ang tanong

sa sinabi ninyo na sabi ng DAR ang mga hindi nag-claim ay forfeited na. Nasa kabila ang mga benepisyaryong may nakabinbin na motion for reconsideration sa Hacienda Luisita kaugnay dito sa questioning sa implementation ng DAR. Bakit po forfeited, hindi ba sila pumirma sa program?

REP. TEVES. Kasi po, when you apply for the program, siyempre you are required to sign, to take your oath, to take care of the land and other promises you have to give to the Republic of the Philippines. So kailangan talaga pumirma sila. Kung hindi pipirma at ayaw pumasok sa isang kasunduan or contract or agreement with the country, then definitely you will not be allowed to join the program, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Sa kabila nang mga nag-rehistro at hindi nila gusto ang porma at pamamaraan ng pamamahagi ng DAR sa Hacienda Luisita, hindi ba tinitingnan na kailangang pakinggan at dinggin, lalu’t lalo pa ay nag-ano sila sa korte para sa kanilang lehitimo at makatarungang panggigiit, na dapat huwag ng indibidwal na pamamahagi kung hindi kailangang talagang ang gusto nila ay collective na pagmamay-ari ng lupa.

REP. TEVES. As I said, irerespeto ng ahensiya kung kagustuhan ng isang grupo ng collective farming, irerespeto po iyon, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Maraming salamat.

REP. TEVES. Pero kailangang po nilang pumirma. Kasi pag oath-taking mo, kailangang pipirma talaga; kailangan bubungkalin mo ang lupa, gagawin mong produktibo at hindi mo ibebenta o whatever. But definitely, you have to sign, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Tama iyon. Actually, sabi ko nga kanina, wala pa ang desisyon ng Korte Suprema ay nagbubungkal na sila, itong mga may gusto ng collective distribution dahil produktibo sila, at ang mga nagde-develop ng lupa na naging biktima ng tambiolo system, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker.

Sunod na tanong ko po kaugnay dito sa Araneta estates, sa Tungkong Mangga in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. Bakit nagpapatuloy ang iligal na pagsusukat at pagsa-survey ng lupa ng Rasa Surveying Co. sa Araneta estate sa Tungkong Mangga sa San Jose del Monte, Bulacan sa kabila ng hindi pa rin nase-settle ang land dispute sa lugar. Actually, nasa Kagawaran ang kasong ito.

REP. TEVES. Ito po ba iyong nasa Bulacan?

REP. HICAP. Bulacan po.

REP. TEVES. Ito iyong sa Bulacan. Okay.Nagkaroon ng conversion order. Nagkaroon po

ng Petition for Revocation of the Conversion Order at nakabinbin ito at dinidinig sa ngayon ang current petition, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. So it is under the Petition for Revocation of the Conversion Order.

REP. HICAP. Ang tanong nga po, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker, wala bang gagawin ang departamento dito dahil nandiyan pa ang petition for revocation at hindi pa nase-settle. Pero ang nagsasabi na may-ari ng lupa, tuloy-tuloy na ang pagsa-survey ng lupa. Ano ba ang puwedeng gawin ng ahensiya?

REP. TEVES. Ang ginagawa po ng ahensiya ngayon ay nakikipag-coordinate sa PNP. Of course,


primary importance ang peace and order. They are coordinating with the PNP to ensure na walang violence na mangyayari sa area na iyan sa Bulacan, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Kasi 1950 pa nagbubungkal sa lupa ang ating mga magsasaka diyan na. Mahalaga kung ano iyong papel ng ...

Ito bang lupa na ito, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker, na may petition for revocation ay bahagi sa pagpapatayo o gagawing MRT-7 kaya magkakaroon ng conversion? Dahil ba ito sa MRT-7 project?

REP. TEVES. May I know o puwede ko bang malaman kung ano ang gustong malaman ng ating...

REP. HICAP. Ang bahagi ba ng petition for revocation ng nagke-claim ng lupa sa CARP ay dahil ba sa planong pag-tayo ng MRT-7 project doon sa lugar?

REP. TEVES. Hindi po natin masasagot iyan because that is a private matter. Hindi natin alam kung ano talaga ang plano nang may-ari, ang mga Araneta. Hindi ko po talaga alam ang plano ng mga Araneta diyan, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Ang lupa ay pag-aari po ng mga Araneta at mga Roxas, mgakapamilya ni DILG Secretary Mar Roxas.

REP. TEVES. Opo, Mr. Speaker.

REP. HICAP. Sa application for revocation, hindi ba nakalagay doon kung bakit nag-apply sila para hindi saklawin ng CARP ang lupa kaya kailangang i-revocate?

REP. TEVES. Kasi ho nakalagay kasi sa kanilang conversion noon, petition for conversion, mixed-use e. Ibig sabihin ng mixed-use, siguro may pabahay, siguro may commercial, siguro may industrial. Mixed-use po ang nakalagay. So kung ano talaga ang plano nila hindi po natin alam. Pero nalaman ko rin na while sa Araneta po iyan, ibang branch ito ng Araneta at hindi related kay Secretary Roxas. I think Albert Araneta po ang may-ari.

REP. HICAP. Kailan ba, distinguished Sponsor, Mr. Speaker, sila nag file ng petition for revocation sa lupang ito?

REP. TEVES. Bago lang po. Actually ang conversion order medyo matagal-tagal na po iyan e. But recently, ang farmers na nandoon ang nag-file for revocation of the conversion. On the actual date, ibibigay ko po sa inyo mamaya kung ano ang actual date noong pag-

file ng petition for revocation ng farmers natin, Mr. Speaker.

REP. HICAP. For an estimate, mga ilang taon na kaya, may lima na ba?

REP. TEVES. Mamaya-maya po after the session, I will give you a complete copy. Bibigyan po kayo ng complete details ng history, when it was converted at kailan nagkaroon ng petition for revocation para guided kayo sa history tungkol sa issue, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Hindi ba puwede dito para malaman ng ating kapwa mga Mambabatas?

REP. TEVES. Pinapa-check ko po as of now. Once the data is available, I will give it to you right away kasi siyempre ayaw ko naman magbigay ng hindi accurate ang data, Mr. Speaker.

REP. HICAP. Okay. Maraming salamat, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker. Papasok po ako doon sa isang isyu ng mga magsasaka sa Hacienda Dolores sa Pampanga. Ang history nito ay agricultural land at panahon pa ng Kastila nandoon na ang mga pamilya pero ngayon ay kino-convert para sa eco-residential, commercial light industries, tourist facilities and establishment ng Ayala Land Incorporated. Ang tanong ko po dito, bakit na-exempt sa coverage ng DAR ang Hacienda Dolores sa Porac, Pampanga sa kabila na isa itong agricultural land?

REP. TEVES. Opo. Nagkaroon pala ito dati ng conversion order pero ang nangyari tinaniman ng mangga, ibig sabihin, ginamit pa rin for agricultural use. Hence, may nagreklamo na ipa-revoke ang conversion order. This is an exemption pala, inireklama ang kanyang exemption order. As of now, the issue is also hanging and it is being handled by the Office of the President, Mr. Speaker.

REP. HICAP. Dahil lang sa tinaniman nila ng mangga. Sa katunayan, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker, ang kuwento ng mga magsasaka doon na isa sa malaki na pinag-kukunan ng pamilya doon ay ang bayabas. Malaking tulong sa kanila ito at halos libu-libo ang mga manga at iba pang mga pananim na root crops na sumusuport sa kanilang pamilya.

The agricultural products, iyon at iyon ang tugma na produkto sa mga magsasaka doon, pag ganoon po ba ay kailangan ng exemption? Hindi na ba ito saklaw, hindi na ba ito agricultural land kaya kailangan ng conversion o pagpapalit gamit ng lupa?

REP. TEVES. As I said po, tama ang farmer na i-reklamo niya kasi kung humingi sila ng exemption


para gamitin nga sa ibang paraan ang lupa, for different use, they should have used it for that purpose. However, as I said, since hindi ginamit ng landowner na nag-request ng exemption para sa gusto niyang mangyari, may right po talaga ang farmer mag-protesta kasi ginamit ang lupa for farm use kaya hindi dapat ito i-exempt. Tinaniman pa nga ng mangga eh. You are right. But right now, inakyat sa Office of the President ang kaso, nag-aantay rin ang ating Kagawaran kung ano ang order ng Presidente para mag-proceed sila kung anong aksiyon ang gagawin nila.

REP. HICAP. Kaya ibig sabihin wala pa, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker. Wala pang desisyon?

REP. TEVES. Nasa OP pa po at naghihintay ang ating Kagawaran kung ano ang magiging order ng Presidente, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Maraming salamat, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker.

Pero sa ngayon po alam ng DAR ito ang kalagayan ng mga magsasaka sa Hacienda Dolores. Mayroon nang pinatay, mayroon nang binaril at ang kapitan ng Hacienda Dolores ay nakakulong ngayon dahil sa trumped-up charges. Binubuldoser na ang lupa at ang mga guwardiya at security guards mismo ng Leoning o Leonardo–Lachenal-Leonio Holdings Inc. at ang Ayala Land Inc. (ALI) ang nandoon sa lugar.

Ganoon ang sitwasyon dahil pending pa ang desisyon mula sa Office of the President. Bakit umiiral ang ganitong sitwasyon sa ating mga magsasaka sa Hacienda Dolores? Ano ang ginagawa ng Departamento para manatili sila sa kanilang mga lupa at mapigil ang ginagawa nitong mga developer sa Hacienda Dolores, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker?

REP. TEVES. Sa ngayon po nagpapatulong ang DAR sa NBI mismo. Ang National Bureau of Investigation ang hiningan ng tulong ng Kagawaran para magkaroon ng impartial investigation kung ano talaga ang nangyari sa Hacienda Dolores, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Kailan po natin malalaman? Paano natin matitiyak na makababalik o matitigil ang conversion? Tuloy-tuloy na ngayon at makababalik kaya ang ating mga magsasaka sa Hacienda Dolores?

REP. TEVES. We should now wait for the decision from the Office of the President since nasa opisina po ng ating kagalang-galang na Presidente ang kaso, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Ibig pong sabihin, Mr. Sponsor, Mr. Speaker, walang magagawa ang Departamento para

tulungan ang ating mga magsasaka sa Hacienda Dolores para maibalik sila sa kanilang sakahan at matigil ang plano nilang conversion sa lupa habang wala pang desisyon si Presidente?

REP. TEVES. I have asked the agency itself to make verbal representations to the Office of the President so that they can speed up the process, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. Ipapa-follow up po natin kaagad.

REP. HICAP. Mga kailan kaya?

REP. TEVES. Bukas na bukas po, ipapa-follow up ko sa kanila sa Office of the President. Yes, bukas na bukas. By the way, ang conversion nito nangyari pa pala sa Tungkong Mangga noong 1997. Iyan po ang hinihingi mo kanina sa Bulacan.

REP. HICAP. Sa Tungko po?

REP. TEVES. Yes, 1997 pa po ang nangyaring conversion, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Napakatagal na ano.

REP. TEVES. Opo.

REP. HICAP. Taon na ang lumipas. Okay, maraming salamat, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker.

Iyong dito sa Hacienda Dolores, kasi pag ang magsasaka tinanggal mo sa lupa magugutom siya, apektado ang pamilya niya, pati ang pag-aaral apektado din. Wala bang insurance ang ating ahensiya, G. Isponsor, na maibabalik natin sila sa kanilang mga lupang sinasaka at matigil ang conversion na nagaganap na sa Hacienda Dolores? Kasi ang magsasaka doon ay nagkampuhan na sa DAR region, pero mukhang walang aksiyon kaya patuloy pa din ang conversion.

REP. TEVES. Sa ngayon po, since the exemption stands as it awaits the decision from the OP, maghihintay talaga tayo kung anong magiging desisyon. As of now kasi ang exemption active pa e, Mr. Speaker.

REP. HICAP. Kaya walang maaasahan, G. Isponsor. Walang maaasahang tulong ang mga magsasaka mula sa Departamento, Mr. Speaker?

REP. TEVES. Sinabi ko po kanina na bukas na bukas ipapa-follow up ko sa ating Kagawaran sa Malacañang ang kaso tungkol dito sa Hacienda Dolores para makabigay kaagad sila ng desisyon, at kung ano man ang desisyon ay matatanggap na ng ating mga farmer-beneficiaries, Mr. Speaker.


REP. HICAP. Okay. Dapat sana pumabor ano, lalo pa dapat nga ang DAR mismo ang naggigiit. Ang tanong nga e, bakit umabot pa sa Office of the President kung puwede naman gawin sana ng regional at national office ng DAR dahil ito naman ay agricultural land. Anyway, nandiyan na iyan, sana maging pabor ang desisyon ni Presidente para sa mga magsasaka.

Ang susunod na tanong, Mr. Speaker. May karanasan na ba ang DAR na naibalik sa agricultural land ang classification o covered ng CARP katulad ng Hacienda Dolores? Posible kaya ang ganitong pangyayari o may nangyari nang ganitong karanasan sa ibang mga lupa na covered ng DAR?

REP. TEVES. Marami na po. May mga kaso na initially kinonvert ang lupa kasi gustong gamitin na mixed-use pero hindi naman ginawa, so ibinalik ng DAR sa classification na agricultural land, Mr. Speaker.

REP. HICAP. Kung gayon posible na maibalik.

REP. TEVES. Posible po.

REP. HICAP. Saan po iyan? Mayroon ba tayong puwedeng gawing example na ganito ang sitwasyon?

REP. TEVES. Magpapagawa po ako ng listahan and at the latest, Monday morning, maibigay na ito sa ating kasama, Mr. Speaker.

REP. HICAP. Okay, maraming salamat, G. Isponsor.Ang sunod na tanong, Mr. Speaker. Bakit na-exempt

sa land acquisition and distribution ang 39,238 ektarya ng Yulo King Ranch sa Coron, Palawan sa kabila na may mga magsasaka na nakaposisyon at nagsasaka sa lugar bago pa man dumating ang Yulo King Ranch? Noong 1930 pa sila nandoon sampu ng kanilang mga ninuno.

REP. TEVES. Pinapa-check ko lang po because I would like to make sure na ang Coron ito iyong malapit sa Busuanga. Para accurate ang data na makuha ko, pinapa-check ko lang sa kanila ang kaso. So 39 hectares po ano ang pinapa-check ninyo? Pinapa-clear ko lang kung ano talaga ang nangyari doon.

Ito pala ang may PCGG case base sa database ng ating Kagawaran. Hindi po ito exempted. In fact, naka-notice of coverage rin po ito sa ngayon kaya mako-cover din ito, Mr. Speaker.

REP. HICAP. Opo, Mr. Speaker. Based ito sa no pasture reserve declaration ni Presidente Marcos noong 1975 batay sa Proclamation No. 1387. Ang nakinabang dito ay sina Yulo at Peter Sabido kung saan naka-acquire sila ng lupain sa ilalim ng nasabing proclamation. Nang mapaalis, mapatalsik si Presidente Marcos, napunta sa Presidential Commission on Good Government ang

Yulo King Ranch noong 1986 at nalipat sa pamamahala ng Bureau of Animal Industry. Binago ang pangalan ng Yulo King Ranch bilang Busuanga Breeding and Experimental Station. Napakalaki po ng lupang ito, 39,238, para lang sa experimental breeding. Ibig sabihin ba ang ganoon kalaking lupa karapat-dapat na ganoong gamit sa kabila na ito ay kinu-cultivate ng mga magsasaka, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker?

REP. TEVES. Tama po kayo. Kahit na nasa Sandiganbayan pa ang kasong iyan, pinadalhan pa rin ng Notice of Coverage ng Kagawaran para makasiguro na ma-cover ang lupa at maipamahagi sa mga magsasaka, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Okay. Sunod na tanong po, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker, ano na ang status ng DAR-DA-DENR convergence initiative?

REP. TEVES. On-going pa rin po. In fact, may mga proyekto tayo na nasa DA, may mga DAR project tayo na nasa NIA. Tuloy-tuloy pa rin po ang convergence strategy. It is ongoing and still active, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Doon sa convergence, wala bang apektadong mga manggagawa natin o mga kawani ng mga ahensiyang ito?

REP. TEVES. Pasensiya na, I am sorry. Ang 39,000 hectares pala na sinabi mo na may NOC ay sa Busuanga po at ang sinabi ninyo na may 800 hectares and ongoing ang coverage ngayon, sa Coron naman. Puwede ninyo i-check na may ongoing 800 hectares sa Coron ngayon .

REP. HICAP. Eight hundred hectares, G. Ispiker.

REP. TEVES. Yes, on-going po ang coverage.

REP. HICAP. Ano ang stage ng coverage niyan? May NOC pa rin o …

REP. TEVES. So nasa convergence na tayo, Mr. Speaker.

REP. HICAP. Doon muna tayo sa 800 hectares na may coverage, ano na ang stage ng processing nito sa Coron?

REP. TEVES. Ang 800 hectares may CLOA na. If I am not mistaken, magdi-distribute na po sila. Medyo nahihilo lang sila kasi ang Coron at Busuanga are islands na magkakatabi kaya medyo pinapalinaw ko lang kung saan ang saan. Gaya po ng sinabi ninyo meron coconut breeding, sa kabila naman cattle breeding, puro


breeding ang nandito. Parang meron pa ditong mga giraffe at zebra, pero sa Calauit naman ito.

REP. HICAP. Tama po iyon, G. Isponsor, ...

REP. TEVES. Puro ito breeding.

REP. HICAP. … madaling i-convert ang gamit noong ating agricultural land.

REP. TEVES. Okay po. Ang sinabi ninyong coconut, sa Bugsuk naman ito. Ang may NOC na po ito but it is under the Sandiganbayan. Ang sinabi kong 800 hectares ay cattle breeding farm at naibigay na ito. Ito iyong nasa Busuanga, distributed na po ang 800 hectares.

REP. HICAP. Ito ba iyong bahagi ng 39,238 hectares?

REP. TEVES. Opo. Pero ang ibang part na A and D, public land ito. Iko-cover rin ito siyempre pero under sa DENR. Ang public kasi under sa DENR.

REP. HICAP. Okay. Maraming salamat, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker.

Saan po iyan?

REP. TEVES. Sa Busuanga po. Yes, sa Busuanga.

REP. HICAP. Pahingi na lang siguro ng ano.

REP. TEVES. Sige po. Idi-detalye ko kasi iba’t ibang islands ito e. By Monday, I will have it sent to your office, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Okay. Maraming salamat.Doon po sa tanong ko kaugnay sa convergence

initiative.

REP. TEVES. It is still active. As I said, katulad kanina, ang public land sa DENR, hindi po ba? So, the convergence initiative still continues. Ang ating development programs on agriculture, marami na rin tayong pondo na nasa NIA, nasa PCA, nasa DA na intended for our agrarian reform communities.

Confidently, masasabi ko na active at moving naman ang ating convergence initiative, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Okay. Ang susunod na tanong kaugnay po sa umiiral pang mga stock distribution option na nasa ilalim pa ng SDO na hindi pa nako-cover doon sa physical na pamamahagi. Ano na ang kalagayan ng mga haciendang malalawak ang lupain na nakapailalim sa stock distribution option?

REP. TEVES. May dalawang kaso diyan na pinapa-revoke na rin po. As of now, may two pending cases on the SDO for revocation, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Mga ilan lahat ang under pa sa stock distribution option ngayon, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker?

REP. TEVES. Mga 13 farms lang po. Ilagay mo na wala na ang HLI, so 12 na lang. May dalawa ngayon for revocation, somay 10 na farms pa ang naiiwan na naka-SDO, Mr. Speaker.

REP. HICAP. Mga 10 pa.

REP. TEVES. Opo.

REP. HICAP. Alin po ang dalawang pending case for revocation?

REP. TEVES. Ang dalawa po ba?

REP. HICAP. Opo.

REP. TEVES. Alam ko nasa Negros iyon e pero tingnan natin ang pangalan. Okay, it is the SVJ Farms and the Najalin Farms, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Okay. Maraming salamat, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker.

Mayroon po akong resolution diyan for investigation. Tapos, mayroon din panawagan na dapat nang buwagin ang stock distribution option at ipamahagi ang mga lupain physically sa mga magsasaka, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker.

Ang susunod na tanong at ilan na lamang ito, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker. Sa usapin ng rationalization plan sa DAR na batay sa paabot ng DAR Employees Association o DAREA, mula sa 12,689 employees, nabawasan sila at naging 9,486 employees na lang ngayong 2014. Ano po ang katotohanan dito? Hindi ba dapat nagki-create tayo ng trabaho at hindi nagtatanggal, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker? Dapat mahalaga, tinitiyak at tungkulin ng ating gobyerno na mayroong trabaho ang ating mga mamamayan, maysecurity of tenure at nakabubuhay na sahod. Hindi dapat tanggalan ang nagaganap.

REP. TEVES. Ang nangyari po kasi, sa ibang areas natin tapos na ang LAD o land acquisition and distribution. So, ang mga rehiyon na bumaba na ang coverage, iyon ang binawasan ng empleyado. Pero binigyan naman po sila ng magandang package with other options para makapunta sa ibang career o other choice of career path.

But of course, when the time comes that support services will continue and as the need grows, kung


malalaman ng gobyernong ito na kailangan pa natin ng mas maraming tao para sa support services, again, it will still be up to this Congress to make the direction on saan tayo pupunta in the next 10-20 years, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Mga ilan ba talaga ang natanggal sa kabuuan dahil sa rationalization na nag-avail sa sinabi ninyong package?

REP. TEVES. Ang umalis po voluntarily, from 15,000 authorized positions, 9,000 na lang ngayon. But the actual count ng nag-retire is 3,000, Mr. Speaker.

REP. HICAP. O tinanggal, Mr. Speaker?

REP. TEVES. Voluntarily po silang umalis due to the package. They had the choice to stay or to take the juicy retirement option, Mr. Speaker.

REP. HICAP. Sabi ninyo kasi kanina, G. Sponsor, Mr. Speaker, na no choice kasi wala na ang program o wala ng trabaho. Anyway, ang kailangan lang talaga ay ang katiyakan. Tama na dapat ang programa ay nagsisiguro na maabot ang ating objective lalo’t lalo na ang pamamahagi ng lupa. Ang pagtitiyak din ng security of tenure ng ating mga mangagawa, kasi mas masasabi nating produktibo kung hindi tayo nagtatanggal bagkus nagpaparami pa noong ating mga manggagawa, hindi po ba, G. Sponsor, Mr. Speaker?

Anyway, sa pinakahuling tanong ko, G. Sponsor, Mr. Speaker. Humihingi na lang ako ng data ng umiiral na mga joint venture at mga lease-back arrangement sa ngayon. Mayroon bang data ang Kagawaran tungkol sa umiiral na joint ventures at mga list-back arrangements sa atin?

REP. TEVES. Sige po, pagagawan ko kayo again ng detailed list ng joint-venture agreements at list-back agreements na officially enrolled sa Kagawaran. As of now, iniimbentaryo pa namin but mayroon na kaming unofficial lists. Ang Region XI pa lang po ang kumpleto ang imbentaryo. However, as promised, by Monday, ibibigay ko sa inyo ang listahan ng mga joint-venture agreements and list-back arrangements, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Saka siguro kasama na rin doon ang umiiral na patakaran o sistemang umiiral sa loob ng ganitong mga agreement at mga list-back arrangement para makita natin ang kabuuan. Ilan ba ang mga manggagawa para makita natin kung ano ba talaga ang tunay na kalagayan ng ating mga manggagawang bukid sa mga umiiral na sistema ng pagsasaka sa ating bansa?

REP. TEVES. Tama po kayo para malaman natin kung ang arrangement ay fair ba para sa ating mga magsasaka, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Maraming salamat, G. Sponsor, Mr. Speaker. Siguro po sa lahat, para sa panghuli, sa kapwa ko Mambabatas na may pangangailangan talaga ng batas para sa reporma sa lupa, na higit nang magtitiyak na mananatili sa mga magsasaka ang kanilang sakahan; na ang mga agricultural lands natin ay hindi nako-convert dahil ito ay bahagi na ng LAD o free distribution at full support para sa pagpapaunlad ng ating agrikultura; at ito po ay nasa House Bill No. 252 or the genuine Agrarian Reform Bill. Kaya umaasa ako na susuportahan natin para sa kagalingan at pag-unlad ng kanayunan, at ng agrikultura at ekonomiya ng ating bansa, para sa kapakanan ng mamamayang Pilipino.

Muli, magandang hapon po sa ating lahat.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Thank you. You have covered the whole country. (Laughter) Anyway, the Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, the next of our colleague who has registered to interpellate the honorable Sponsor is our colleague from the Party-List ABAKADA, I move for the recognition of the Hon. Jonathan Dela Cruz.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). On what matter? Congressman Hicap has covered everything. (Laughter)

REP. TEVES. Mr. Speaker, puwede ba Cebuano naman?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Sino?

REP. TEVES. Kanina pa ako nagta-Tagalog, Mr. Speaker.

Binisaya na pud. Tadlaw tad-tagalog ini.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Ikaw magsasalita ng Cebuano? (Laughter) Hindi kasama iyan.

Congressman Dela Cruz, you speak in Bisaya.

REP. DELA CRUZ. I cannot, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, I am an Ilocano.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Okay, you are recognized.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much, Your Honor.

Will the distinguished Sponsor, our good friend, Cong. Pryde Henry A. Teves…


REP. TEVES. Just a minute. Why are you there? You are supposed to be here.

REP. DELA CRUZ. I cannot speak here? Do I have to be there?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Yes. Anyway, go ahead, just move a little here so that I can see you.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Okay. Please proceed.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, I want to find out from the distinguished Sponsor, what is the present funding situation, as far as land acquisition for agrarian reform is concerned? I am talking, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, about the Agrarian Reform Fund. How much is this ARF right now and how much has been put into this fund since, let us say, 1987 to the present, and how much has been released for purposes of land acquisition?

REP. TEVES. That is for the total, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker. As of now, for starters, the balance is P6.4 billion with the Landbank and about P12.5 unreleased with the DBM. The total released since 1987 is P246,854,000,000, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. And for that purpose, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, how many hectares have been paid for as a result of this land acquisition funds of P246 billion?

REP. TEVES. Paid for, Mr. Speaker, would be 1.5 million hectares, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Your Honor, and of the P246 billion, Mr. Speaker, as part of the ARF, the Agrarian Reform Fund, how much was contributed, if you know, by the PCGG and how much by the Privatization and Management Office?

REP. TEVES. From the PMO it is P32.3 billion and P76.1 billion from the PCGG, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. This is from 1987 to June 2014 or this is ...

REP. TEVES. Up to 2013, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. So up to 2013 only?

REP. TEVES. Yes.

REP. DELA CRUZ. The figures given to me, Your Honor, by the National Treasury is that from the PCGG, the total remittances is about P88.684 billion and P60.731 billion from the PMO.

REP. TEVES. I am informed that there is a reserved part of that for the Human Rights victims, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Is this from the PCGG remittances or from the PMO remittances, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker? All of these proceeds from the PCGG assets and from the assets also sold by the PMO are supposed to go to the Agrarian Reform Program.

REP. TEVES. You are correct, Mr. Speaker, but I believe that on the PCGG side, there is a provision which states that there is some percentage for the human rights victims. But for the APT PMO, there is none, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Did we give any funds coming from the annual General Appropriations Act, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, or these are separately considered for purposes of the total Agrarian Reform Program, for purposes of land acquisition?

REP. TEVES. I am informed that everything passes by Congress, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. So, all of these funds have actually been passed by Congress since 1987, and that at the moment we have close to 19, actually P19 billion left for purposes of land acquisition, P6.4 billion from the LandBank of the Philippines and P12.5 billion to be released or about to be released by the Department of Budget and Management.

REP. TEVES. You are correct, Your Honor, plus P100 million for 2015 that would make it P19 billion, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. We only have P100 million for 2015?

REP. TEVES. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of Agrarian Reform actually issued notices of coverage for—how many hectares would that be, Your Honor, if you have any idea?

REP. TEVES. Notices of coverage …

REP. DELA CRUZ. After the expiration of the CARPER, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, last June.


REP. TEVES. The ones that we missed were around 30,200, Mr. Speaker, the ones that were not issued, notices of coverage.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Do you think, Your Honor, is it the contemplation of the Department of Agrarian Reform that the P19 billion available now for purposes of land acquisition will suffice to acquire this remaining 30,000 hectares, Mr. Speaker?

REP. TEVES. Up to 2015 or the next two years, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, we believe so.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Your Honor.

For purposes of acquisition, are there any other efforts on the part of the Department of Agrarian Reform to have other parcels of land covered aside from those that are already provided for in the recent notices of coverage of the DAR?

REP. TEVES. Other parcels of land should come from, I believe, the DENR. There are still some public lands that are A and D, Mr. Speaker, that are yet to be distributed also, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much. How many hectares would that be if you have any

information, Your Honor, on the public lands under the DENR?

REP. TEVES. Yes, I would gladly submit a report to the remaining public lands still to be distributed, Mr. Speaker, to our distinguished colleague after the session.


May we know since 1987 to the present, Your Honor, if there has been any study on the part of the Department of Agrarian Reform on the actual performance of those who have been given lands under the various laws provided for agrarian reform? Do we have that kind of study, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker?

REP. TEVES. The last study was the one conducted by GIZ if I remember correctly and the PIDS, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. Right now, I am informed that there is the latest study being done by the Philippine Center for Economic Development. Let us give it until February at the latest, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, then we can have the report.

REP. DELA CRUZ. There is such an agency as Philippine Center for Economic Development?

REP. TEVES. Philippine Center for Economic Development, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. What particular agency is this, is this a government agency or a private agency, Your Honor?

REP. TEVES. It is a government agency but it is within the UP School of Economics, Your Honor. This is a credible one, Mr. Speaker.


In the meantime, what kind of performance report, if ever, has the Department of Agrarian Reform come out with? I supposed that they have had their own studies, Your Honor. I am particularly interested because there are certain areas in the country where agrarian reform, the program itself has been very successful. There are also some parts of the country where the Agrarian Reform Program has been spotty in terms of performance. Do we have this kind of an assessment at this point in time, Your Honor?

REP. TEVES. As of now, Mr. Speaker, we have a planning tool where we placed some specific examples of failures and successes. It is worthwhile noting if whether we have to restudy or revisit the successes. I would be glad to supply my distinguished colleague whether the list of very successful ARCs, including those which have failed, of course, Mr. Speaker, so that my good colleague could also study and maybe propose future legislations in the future, Mr. Speaker.

At this juncture, Deputy Speaker Apostol relinquished the Chair to Deputy Speaker Abad.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes, thank you very much, Mme. Speaker. I am asking this precisely because as our distinguished Sponsor knows, we are in the process of crafting a new bill. The CARPER Law has actually expired, we are in the process of crafting a new bill and, therefore, these particular studies, if there are any, will be very, very critical in the determination of what particular bill we should come out with, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor. The original idea behind CARPER, as you know, Mme. Speaker, is for us to be able to provide some kind of support from government, total support, as I understand it, in terms of services so that the lands acquired and for distribution to our farmers will actually perform much better than when they were under another kind of ownership, Mme. Speaker. That is why I am going to this particular issue eventually because I want to find out what kind of problems attended those particular lands which have been distributed and which have remained stagnant, in a sense. What kind


of ideas or what kind of processes, measures, initiatives were afforded those that became successful. That is the reason we would like to come out with this kind of studies. I appreciate the fact that you have advised that by February we will have this kind of study on a holistic basis. But in the meantime, the Department of Agrarian Reform will provide us with its own internal studies, Mme. Speaker.

REP. TEVES. Yes. The Department will be able to give you some details, partial reports on successful ARCs as well as ARCs that have significantly failed, Mme. Speaker. But as I said, by February, the PCCED study should be with us already.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mme. Speaker. I have some reports with me, regarding the additional funds that have been provided to the Department of Agrarian Reform for purposes of ensuring that the program is put underway and is successful. For example, I have here with me, Mme. Speaker, a report from the Commission on Audit dated June 27, 2011, regarding the audit of funds released to the different national and local government agencies chargeable against the Department of Energy, Malampaya Funds. There is an item here regarding P900 million that was released to the Department of Agrarian Reform. Will the distinguished Sponsor advise us where this particular money went, what particular expenses were covered by this Malampaya release?

REP. TEVES. The report shows that it went to several LGUs, as well as NGOs and foundations, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Will the distinguished Sponsor be able to provide us with a listing of the LGUs, as well as foundations and other partners of the Department of Agrarian Reform which availed of this P900 million.

REP. TEVES. Definitely, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, I will. Personally, I will provide my good friend a copy.

REP. DELA CRUZ. We will appreciate it if that can be provided before the end of the plenary sessions, Mme. Speaker, so that we can be properly advised. There is also information that the Department of Agrarian Reform was also the recipient of funds from the Disbursement Acceleration Program. Will His Honor confirm this particular information, Mme. Speaker?

REP. TEVES. Yes, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. And how much will that be Your Honor?

REP. TEVES. About P1.2 billion, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. And of this amount, will Your Honor also provide us a list of the distribution, the usage …


REP. DELA CRUZ. … of this particular amount…

REP. TEVES. Definitely.

REP. DELA CRUZ. … of this P1.2 billion.

REP. TEVES. Definitely, Mme. Speaker, I will send you the list for the budget, as well as the actual utilization, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. I am asking this question, Your Honor, because my information is that part of this should have been given to support services to various agrarian reform communities and to various agrarian reform beneficiaries. We will be happy if you will be able to show that part of the funds was really provided for purposes of support to agrarian reform communities and agrarian reform beneficiaries.

Your Honor, I also have information that the Department of Agrarian Reform has actually carried over certain amounts of at least P4 to P5 billion for purposes of providing services to agrarian reform communities and agrarian reform beneficiaries. Specifically, Your Honor. I am informed that there is P2 billion available at the Department of Agrarian Reform, which is being considered for purposes of providing farm implements and equipment, will Your Honor confirm this amount and the use of this amount, Mr. Speaker?

REP. TEVES. Yes, that is about P2 billion, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, for 2013 and 2014 or for two years, that is a two-year fund, totaling to P2 billion. It is now under the DBM procurement service, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. So, this particular fund was actually an accumulation of funds that were provided for under the 2013 and now, under the 2014 General Appropriations Act, Your Honor?


REP. DELA CRUZ. And this will be used for what purposes if Your Honor will advise us?


REP. TEVES. For the purchase of tractors, trucks and other agricultural equipment, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Will Your Honor please advise us also, and if he can provide us with a listing of all the equipment, on implements that are going to be purchased out of this particular fund?

REP. TEVES. Definitely, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. And will Your Honor also advise us whether this particular equipment will be distributed equitably to the various regions or will be concentrated in certain areas of the country, Mr. Speaker,Your Honor?

REP. TEVES. It is to be divided through farmers organizations, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, but when the list comes, then we can determine if, indeed, the distribution will be equitable, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. The reason I am asking this is that if we were not able to purchase equipment and implements in 2013 and we are again contemplating to purchase equipment and implements, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, using an additional fund from the 2014 budget, I am afraid that we will not be able to do so at this point in time because there is a certain, I do not know if the information that is given me is correct, but I understand from these particular notices that the fund will not be available anymore after December.

REP. TEVES. During the pre-plenary briefings, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, I tasked the agency to check on how the Department of Agriculture does their procurement because they do it in five, six months’ time. But when I talked to our finance undersecretary, he commited that by December, everything should be procured already, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. We are already towards the last quarter, Your Honor, October is just around the corner.

REP. TEVES. Yes.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Is the Department of Agrarian Reform committing that by December, they will be able to completely purchase all of the equipment and implements that are provided for under this P2 billion program, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. TEVES. While it is a DBM procurement service that is doing the bidding, the agency is very confident, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, that by December they can deliver.

REP. DELA CRUZ. What happens, Mme. Speaker, if this particular commitment is not in place by the end of December, I am talking about the end of December because this may just revert to the national treasury, and we will not be able to avail of this particular fund if by December, we will not be able to really use it. I am informed, for example, that in the case of the AFP Modernization Program, there have been a lot of reversions, Mme. Speaker, and we do not want this to happen because this is something that we have been looking forward to for our farmers for a long, long time, Mme. Speaker. As a matter of fact, precisely the CARPER was originally crafted to provide services for our farmers and for our agrarian reform communities. This is one of the things that we had always expected aside from financing, Mme. Speaker, for the livelihood activities of our farmer beneficiaries and agrarian reform communities.

What will happen if the Department of Budget and Management and the Department of Agrarian Reform will be unable to purchase all of these equipment and implements by the end of the year?

REP. TEVES. That would be really be a problem, because that will hinder the timing of the trainings of the farmers and the availability of the equipment. If there will be no equipment or trainings, the training will be imaginary like or how do you call that in airplane training, Mme. Speaker?

REP. DELA CRUZ. Simulated.

REP. TEVES. Yes, simulated, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. I hope that one of the equipment they will purchase is a simulator, Mme. Speaker, because I am sure that they will not be able to purchase the P2 billion worth of equipment and implements in three months’ time. I hope they will include a simulator as an item in the equipment list.

In any event, Mme. Speaker, is it a commitment of the Department of Agrarian Reform that they will be able to do this within this three-month period and that in the event that this will not be available, they will have to resort to other forms of procurement, Mme. Speaker. They will probably request the Department of Budget and Management to provide them with a window so that they will be able to resort to other forms of procurement. I am looking at the possibility of this particular equipment purchase distributed among the


regions, Mme. Speaker, which might be a better way of doing it rather than on a centralized basis within a short period of time. We will have—I am afraid and I hope this will not happen, I am afraid that this particular procurement might be challenged as a result, and we do not want that to happen—I hope that the Department of Agrarian Reform will provide us with some kind of a security so that this will not happen within the period contemplated for purposes of the purchase.

REP. TEVES. Mme. Speaker, May I advise furthermore, after conferring with the Department of Agrarian Reform, since the DBM will also be back next week,—our good colleague should also get the same commitment from the Department of Budget and Management Procurement Service (DBM-PS) because it seems that this bidding is a collaboration between the two agencies, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. We will do that, Mme. Speaker, and I hope, the coordination will be responsive to the requirements of our agrarian reform communities and beneficiaries, Mme. Speaker.

In any event, we also wanted to find out if the Department of Agrarian Reform has been using non-government organizations, civil society organizations (CSOs) for purposes of implementing its mandate under the law.

REP. TEVES. Right now, I believe, we are more concentrated on using SUCs, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, but for those CSOs, there is a rigorous requirement, they go through bidding and they go through a screening to check on the veracity, credibility, integrity and capability of course of such CSOs, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. You mentioned the SUCs, Mme. Speaker, the SUCs are being used or being partnered to by the Department of Agrarian Reform for what purpose?

REP. TEVES. For needs assessment for agricultural extension, among others, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Which brings me to one question, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor. Has the Department of Agrarian Reform firmed up its rationalization plan? Do we already have a completed rationalization plan at the Department of Agrarian Reform?

REP. TEVES. It is still ongoing, I believe, on the part of the agency itself, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor. They have submitted it already to the DBM. I was talking to Director Salud a few weeks ago and he was given an order by DBM Secretary Abad to finish it

within the month of September, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. I hope that can be finished in due time, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, because as was mentioned, I think it was shown to the Department of Agrarian Reform leadership a letter coming from the Department precisely pertaining to certain levels of rationalization, including the use of certain funds of the Department of Agrarian Reform. Has there been any resolution of that particular issue because one of our colleagues mentioned earlier, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, I do not know if you still remember this, but one of our colleagues mentioned the misuse of certain terms in that particular letter of the Department of Agrarian Reform to the Department of Budget and Management which actually may be construed as not in accordance with the law.

REP. TEVES. Luckily, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, that letter did not make it outside the office. However, if it ever did, the act would have been legal because it would have been a transfer of funds within the Department, within the same classification which was the MOOE, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. So, it was a transfer of funds that could have been legally undertaken anyway?

REP. TEVES. Yes, from the regional to the central

office for basically, the same program or the same use, Mme. Speaker, and purpose, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. That is most welcome if that is the case, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, because I am afraid that we will have the leadership of the Department of Agrarian Reform answering a lot of questions and we do not want that to happen because we would like the Agrarian Reform Program to proceed with dispatch, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor. But in any event, we hope that we will be provided with an explanation as to why this happened and whatever happened to that particular issuance at this point.

REP. TEVES. It was a typographical error, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor. Our finance guys wrongly used the word “unfunded” in the GAA. But clearly, funds for the computerization and software procurement were clearly in the GAA, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor. So, it was just more of a case of a typographical error. But as I said, luckily, it did not get out of the office. It would have been embarrassing, Mme. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much. I will just have three more questions if the distinguished Sponsor, Mme. Speaker, will agree.


REP. TEVES. Of course, Mme. Speaker. I hope I had the intelligence network of our

colleague here who has a lot of sources of information, Mme. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. I had wanted to ask regarding the policy and coverage of the Department of Agrarian Reform, Mme. Speaker, because we have had information that there had been a number of instances, as a matter of fact, increasing number of instances where certain lands were already put under notices of coverage. Then we have the CLOAs which had been issued and suddenly we have exemptions from coverage issued also by the Department of Agrarian Reform. What is usually the procedure, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, for the benefit of our colleagues, as well as for the benefit of the public. Once a particular area has been put under coverage, Your Honor, and that this particular coverage has matured into the issuance of the CLOAs, is it still possible for this particular area, or piece of land to be exempted? Is there a procedure for exemption, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor?

REP. TEVES. Yes, normally, after the notice of coverage, it takes one year before the CLOAs come out. But within that timeframe, there is really a procedure but it is very stringent. Applications for such are being accepted for the cancellation, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor. And, yes, there is a detailed procedure which I can also furnish a copy of to my distinguished colleague.

REP. DELA CRUZ. So, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, are you telling us that even if a CLOA has been issued, even if a certificate of land ownership has been issued to the farmers, the Department of Agrarian Reform can still issue exemptions as far as these particular pieces of land are concerned, the same piece of land which has already been covered and the CLOAs have been issued, there is a possibility that this particular piece of land can be converted or even exempted again? Is that something that is contemplated under the Agrarian Reform Law?

REP. TEVES. Unfortunately, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, RA No. 9700 allows that but only the Secretary can do it. There must be very stringent and justifiable reasons for such to happen, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Is it also possible, under the current provisions of the agrarian reform law, Your Honor, Mme. Speaker, that if there is a showing that this particular exemption or this particular conversion is bereft of any factual evidence, that that particular piece of land can be recovered and even given again,

meaning, the CLOAs can even be issued all over again to the beneficiaries. Is that possible?

REP. TEVES. Yes, definitely, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor. Normally, people filed for conversions and they are given a timeframe to develop. If they do not develop as followed with the exemption given to them, then it can be recovered and be given back to the farmers with the CLOAs, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, so there is a possibility of recoveries.

REP. TEVES. Yes, Mme. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. What are the terms and conditions under which lands which have been provided for or given exemptions, or converted even, by the Department of Agrarian Reform, under what conditions can they be recovered?

REP. TEVES. For conversions, Mme. Speaker, once you have it converted, you must develop it within five years, if not, then it can be cancelled, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Unless the conversion itself is devoid of factual basis, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. TEVES. Yes. Misrepresentation is a ground for revocation.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Or misrepresentation. Like in the case of this agrarian dispute that was earlier mentioned by our colleague from ANAKPAWIS, Maimpis, where the exemption and conversion was based on spurious documentation, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. It is very possible that this particular land can be recovered and the farmers can enjoy ownership of this particular land.

REP. TEVES. Before then, when the exemption was filed, it was undeveloped and it had an 18 percent slope. However, when they started planting, then it became a developed land, it became a farmland, hence the justification that it can be revoked, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes. I am reading here right now the notes on the agrarian dispute in Maimpis, Mr. Speaker,Your Honor, and it says here that many of the facts that were presented by the alleged, the supposed owner were not actually proper, these were actually spurious documents that were presented, and that the facts do not actually provide for a proper and responsible exemption from the coverage of agrarian reform.


REP. TEVES. Yes, in fact, Mme. Speaker, the very active Congressman Guanlao from Pampanga informed me that this morning it was taken up in the Committee on Agrarian Reform and they are taking definite steps, solutions to the problem, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Finally, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, we want to find out whether it is possible for us to get an idea of the timeline for the exemption or conversion from the CARP coverage of specific parcels of land. Is there any timeline? Do we have any specific timeline within which a particular application for coverage is on one hand and an application for exemption on the other hand? Is there specific timeline within which these particular activies can be undertaken, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor?

REP. TEVES. On the CLOA itself, the timeline is upon the award of the CLOA, you should not convert it within five years, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, and within 10 years you cannot sell it because it matures after 10 years.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Will the distinguished Sponsor, Mme. Speaker, give us a listing of lands which were originally covered and which have since reverted to lands which were originally covered, where the CLOAs have been issued but eventually reverted to the owners or to other owners. In other words, these became pieces of property that became the subject of commerce instead of subject to agrarian reform.

REP. TEVES. I will submit it by Monday to my distinguished colleague, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor. Final ly, may I know the role of the Center for Land Use Policy Planning and Implementation of the Department of Agrarian Reform? What is the center and what does it do, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor? What is the CLUPPI?

REP. TEVES. I am informed that it has been abolished, the office has been dissolved, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor. It is now under the BALA, which is now called the Land Use Cases Division, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

At this juncture, Deputy Speaker Abad relinquished the Chair to Deputy Speaker Apostol.

REP. DELA CRUZ. And then what does it do?

REP. TEVES. Yes. It is still the office that reviews all the applications for conversions and the like, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. So, this is the center, or this is the agency, or this is the unit within the Department of Agrarian Reform that handles all conversion, is it correct?

REP. TEVES. Yes, considering if it is above five hectares, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. So, if it is less than five hectares or five hectares and below, it is going to be handled by the …

REP. TEVES. The region can take care of it, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. The regional director of the Department of Agrarian Reform will handle that, otherwise more than five hectares it goes all the way to the CLUPPI.


REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. These are all the questions that I wanted to ask of our distinguished Sponsor. I thank the Sponsor for giving us, and I will appreciate it if the reports and studies advised us will be provided before the end of the Plenary, Mr. Speaker.

REP. TEVES. I will submit it on Monday, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much.

REP. TEVES. Thank you very much.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, in order to give our honorable Sponsor, as well as the officers of the Department of Agrarian Reform a much-needed break, I move that we suspend the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Department of Agrarian Reform.


THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

The sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Department of Agrarian Reform is hereby suspended.



REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, let us take time out to acknowledge the presence of our visitors in the gallery, they are the officers of the DAR Employees Association or DAREA, their national officers, their regional officers from the various regions of the country led by their President, Mme. Nanette Pascual, DAREA national President. The officers of the DAR Employees Association are guests of the Hon. Antonio L. Tinio of the ACT TEACHERS Party-List.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). All stand please.

Welcome to the House of Representatives. (Applause)


METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, at this juncture, I move that we open the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority. For this purpose, may we recognize the honorable Sponsor from the Lone District of Eastern Samar, our distinguished colleague, Rep. Ben P. Evardone.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Congressman Evardone is recognized.

REP. EVARDONE. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ang Committee on Appropriations ay handa ng mag-sponsor ng budget ng MMDA. Maraming salamat po.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Mr. Speaker.

REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Jonathan A. Dela Cruz…

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Are you talking?

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aposto). I cannot see you. It is good for you to wear a white shirt next time. (Laughter)

Congressman Dela Cruz is recognized.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will definitely use a white shirt or a barong. Ano na po, I am about to have gray hair. In any event, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

This is actually not an interpellation but a manifestation, Mr. Speaker. I just would like to advise

that we thank the Metro Manila Development Authority for agreeing to reconsider the interim program that they have for purposes of the integrated terminal for buses coming from the south at the Alabang Center, Mr. Speaker.

I understand that this was the subject of the request of our friends and our colleagues from the Bicol Region. This has been properly reconsidered and for that purpose, we would like to thank the MMDA. I hope that the MMDA will later on be able, Mr. Speaker, to advise the LTFRB and the LTO that this particular effort has been reconsidered and that there has been a lifting and that the buses from the south, especially those coming from the Bicol Region will now be allowed to enter Metro Manila as in the past, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

On that basis, we would like to thank the Metro Manila Development Authority for agreeing to this particular proposition and hopefully, we will be able to ease the traffic and to provide some kind of assistance to our commuters and others coming from the south, especially from Bicol, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

Thank you very much.


REP. ALBANO. Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). You are not the Dep. Majority Leader, what is your pleasure?

REP. ALBANO. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but in behalf of the Minority we move that we approve the budget of the MMDA.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Is there no other Member who wishes to interpellate?

REP. ALBANO. We move to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget…

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Are you moving to close?

REP. ALBANO. Yes, in behalf of the Minority, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Okay, the Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, we join the Minority in moving to close the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority.




The period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the MMDA is hereby closed.



REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a few minutes suspension of the session.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). The session is suspended.

It was 5:48 p.m.



THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). The session is resumed.


REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, once more, I move that we open again the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the Department of Agrarian Reform. For this purpose, may we recognize its Sponsor, the Hon. Pryde Henry A. Teves.



The period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the Department of Agrarian Reform is hereby resumed, and Congressman Teves is recognized as the Sponsor.

REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, I move for the recognition of our colleague from the ACT TEACHERS Party-List, the Hon. Antonio L. Tinio for his interpellation of the honorable Sponsor.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Congressman Tinio is recognized.

REP. TINIO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.Mr. Speaker, earlier, the officers and some members

of the DAR Employees Association or DAREA, including their national officers and leaders from the regions were acknowledged in the gallery. They are here and they shared with me their concerns on a particular special provision found in the proposed budget of the Department of Agrarian Reform. I refer to Special

Provision No. 3 of the DAR budget on Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Program. In particular, Mr. Speaker, this Representation shares the concerns and apprehensions of the thousands of employees of the DAR with the provided clause, and let me read it into the record:

PROVIDED, that the DAR shall undertake the transition process for the implementation of the PBD component of the CARP by the DA and other appropriate agencies of the government.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the employees association of the DAR rightly sees this proviso as, in one way or the other, directly connected to certain proposals to, perhaps, abolish the agency; and so they are rightly concerned about their security of tenure, and they are concerned about their jobs and their families, Mr. Speaker. I think that the matter of the transition after the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, and the extension of this program shall have ended, is a subject that should properly be discussed more fully in another venue and at a more appropriate time, instead of just Congress deciding on the fate of thousands of employees by mere approval of this proviso.

Mr. Speaker, is the Sponsor amenable to deleting this proviso, this “provided” clause in Special Provision No. 3 of the Department of Agrarian Reform’s proposed budget?

REP. TEVES. I fully agree with my distinguished colleague, Mr. Speaker, and that is the commitment from the Appropriations Committee that it will be deleted by virtue of an errata from the DBM, Mr. Speaker.

REP. TINIO. Thank you for that, Mr. Speaker, so we will hold the Sponsor and the Committee on Appropriations to that commitment in behalf of the thousands of employees of the DAR as represented by their leaders who are here this afternoon. I hope they can now go home with the assurance that at least for 2015, there will be no such sword hanging over their heads, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for that.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). No more questions?

REP. TINIO. May question pa po, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). You already achieved what you want.

REP. TINIO. Okay. On to another topic then, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker, this Representation just needs a definitive clarification, for the record, on the matter of a proposed recalibration of the 2014 targets and the budget of the Department of Agrarian Reform. I refer to a letter signed by Undersecretary for Finance of the DAR, Felix Perry A. Villanueva, addressed to DBM Secretary Butch Abad, requesting that P300 plus million of the 2014 appropriations of the Department of Agrarian Reform be “recalibrated.” That was the term used, Mr. Speaker, essentially realigned for other purposes even those which are not found in the approved General Appropriations Act of the Department of Agrarian Reform.

Mr. Speaker, when I raised this matter during the plenary debate on the General Principles in the proposed budget, my concern being that this seemed to be a concrete example of what would happen if this Congress approves the proposed redefinition of savings and augmentation of Malacañang, when I raised this matter in that earlier debate, the response given by the Chairperson of the Committee on Appropriations was that the DBM received no such communication from the Department of Agrarian Reform.

Now, this is contrary to the response given by Usec. Felix Villanueva, with the confirmation of no less than DAR Secretary Gil Delos Reyes, during the budget briefing of the DAR before the Committee on Appropriations. So, upon my query, they said, they confirmed that indeed such a letter exist requesting for a calibration, they confirmed that they sent it to the DBM, they also confirmed that they got a positive response. The DBM said yes to their proposal, Mr. Speaker. We can go back to the transcripts of that budget briefing before the Committee on Appropriations. I would just like to have a clarification for the record, Mr. Speaker, with regard to this matter since there are contradictory statements coming from the DBM and the DAR, Mr. Speaker.

REP. TEVES. First of all, since it was not the Secretary who was the signatory, the Secretary knew that there was such a letter being drafted because they wanted to make sure that if they did something, it would be perfectly legal and within the bounds of the law. However, as confirmed, the letter was never sent nor was it received by the DBM, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. TINIO. Why then did the DAR, specifically Undersecretary Villanueva, testify before the Committee on Appropriations that they did send the letter and that they got a response from the DBM.

REP. TEVES. Actually, there was never a response, maybe hindi na rin ipinadala because in reality they did not pursue it, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. But had they pursued

it, it would have been perfectly legal because it would have been transferred within the same fund utilization within the same department, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. It was supposedly a query to the DBM because they wanted to make sure. However, since it never pushed through, the funds in the region remained with the region and no such fund transfers happened because they did not pursue it, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. TINIO. So, to clarify, Mr. Speaker, they acknowledged the letter, yes?

REP. TEVES. They acknowledged that they crafted the letter, Mr. Speaker, but it was never sent, nor was it received by the DBM, Your Honor.

REP. TINIO. They acknowledged that it was not officially sent and officially received by the DBM.

REP. TEVES. Yes. And it was no longer pursued. So, since it was not pursued, Mr. Speaker, the DBM, of course, never sent a reply, Your Honor.

REP. TINIO. Okay.Will the DAR then acknowledge that the answers

they gave during the Committee hearings were, well, misleading?

REP. TEVES. If the letter was drafted or not, they acknowledged that it was drafted. But if it was pursued and sent to the DBM, that was not part of the acknowledgement, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

But more than that, I also advised them that the next time that they send a letter to another agency, it should be with a Secretary to a Secretary, and reviewed by the legal division or legal office of that agency, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, so that things like these will not happen again.

REP. TINIO. Okay, I will accept that answer, Mr. Speaker, and consider this matter closed then.


REP. TINIO. My last point has to do with the budget for the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, in particular, the appropriations for Land Owners Compensation. Mr. Speaker, first of all, may we know the status of the available appropriations for Land Owners Compensation for the current year, 2014, and for previous years, if any, Mr. Speaker?

REP. TEVES. Since there is P6.4 billion available money with the LandBank for Land Owners Compensation, and there is another P12.5 billion for release by the DBM for the same amount, that will


already be almost P19 billion. If you add it to P100 million, it would have P19 billion available for Land Owners Compensation, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. TINIO. So, there is already at least P19 billion available apart from the P100 million proposed, Mr. Speaker.

REP. TEVES. Yes, P18.9 billion to be exact, Mr. Speaker.

REP. TINIO. P18.9 billion already appropriated and still available, Mr. Speaker, …


REP. TINIO. …for Land Owners Compensation…


REP. TINIO. … in the LandBank, as well as with the Agency, Mr. Speaker.


REP. TINIO. Is this or is this not, the P18.9 billion, sufficient for the activities related to the Land Owners Compensation for the current year, as well as for 2015, Mr. Speaker?

REP. TEVES. Confidentially, as initial cash payment, up to the end of 2015, Mr. Speaker, that should suffice, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. TINIO. So the P18.9 billion is already sufficient, Mr. Speaker?


REP. TINIO. Then why is the Agency still asking for an additional P100 million in appropriations for Land Owners Compensation, Mr. Speaker?

REP. TEVES. While there is a section there that allows continuing appropriations, it is more of a statement from the administration that they are not abandoning the land acquisition and distribution because as we all know, a Notice of Coverage has been sent and still has to be processed, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. TINIO. If the intention, Mr. Speaker, is merely symbolic—there are, in fact, already enough funds, P18.9 billion still available and unused for the Land Owners Compensation, and the proposed P100 million here is, apparently, only symbolic to show that

the administration still has a commitment as to the implementation of the Agrarian Reform Programs, then, that is a very expensive symbol, that is a very expensive gesture, Mr. Speaker. So I propose, at the proper time, I will propose, Mr. Speaker, that we just provide appropriation cover for this particular item. In short, alam naman natin puwede kahit P1 lang. Napakarami pong ibang ahensiya na nangangailangan ng P100 million or P900,099,999.00. I can think, for instance, of the Department of Education. Aba ay marami silang mga benepisyong hindi nababayaran pa, di maidagdag natin para sa mga teachers and employees. I could go on and on with this, Mr. Speaker. So, would the Sponsor be amenable, at the proper time, to an amendment which will reduce this request of P100 million to a considerably smaller amount?

REP. TEVES. In the event that the process of acquiring the lands would be smooth, then this would be needed. However, in the possibility that legal issues will happen, then my distinguished colleague is correct. This money will remain as a reserve amount. Personally, I do not see that as a problem, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. TINIO. Thank you for that, Mr. Speaker. So my proposal will stand that the P18.9 billion unused funding for Land Owners Compensation is more than enough. Hindi na po natin kailangang dagdagan pa ng P100 million. At the proper time, i-reduce na po natin. Kahit piso lang puwede, Mr. Speaker. With that, I end my interpellation.




REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, the next to interpellate our honorable Sponsor is the Gentleman from the Party-List KABATAAN, the Hon. Terry L. Ridon.

I so move, Mr. Speaker

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). He is the Sponsor of the Bill, why is he interpellating?

REP. BONDOC. He will interpellate the Sponsor, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Okay. Congressman Ridon is recognized.

REP. RIDON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.We will try to be as brief as we can so we can

proceed to the other agencies.


Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, under Section 3.1 of the Special Provisions for the DAR, it is stated:

xxx The amounts appropriated herein shall be used in support of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Program (AFMP).

The section further states:

xxx The amount of Six Billion Three Hundred Fifty-Three Million Five Hundred Eleven Thousand Pesos (P6,353,511,000) shall be used for Land Acquisition and Distribution (LAD) and Agrarian Justice Delivery under the CARP: xxx

We should note, however, that the CARP has lapsed already last June and, therefore, there should not be a single centavo for the DAR since there is no Agrarian Reform Program to support. Does the distinguished Sponsor, Mr. Speaker, agree with this proposition?

REP. TEVES. No, Section 30 of Republic Act No. 9700 clearly states that for those that were already covered, it must be allowed to proceed to its finality, Mr. Speaker. That is in, if I believe, Section 30 of Republic Act No. 9700, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. RIDON. Okay, thank you for the response, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

Let me now proceed to my next question. In Section 3 of the Special Provisions for the DAR, it is stated that the “DAR shall undertake the transition process for the implementation of the Program Beneficiaries Development Component of the CARP by the DA and other appropriate agencies of the government.” Can the honorable Sponsor, Mr. Speaker, explain what this so-called transition process is and what it entails for the Agrarian Reform Department?

REP. TEVES. I believe that the Appropriations Committee has committed to delete the said provision, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. RIDON. Thank you for the response and I think we are glad that there is such a commitment by the Department.

Now, my next question is, there is a P2.1 billion allocation under the DPWH, for the Tulay ng Pangulo Para sa Kaunlarang Pang-agraryo, which is part of the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Program, as stated in Section 3 of the Special Provisions of the DAR budget. Can the distinguished Sponsor give us more details about this Tulay ng Pangulo Program, and can we get a listing of where bridges will be built, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague?

REP. TEVES. The P2.1 billion is still an appropriation cover, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. For the actual installation of the bridges, the DPWH Secretary Singson proposed to us to appropriate P2 billion, for it to be farmed out already so that it can be used by our farmers. There is a total of 418 bridges. I will definitely give a listing to my distinguished colleague. Give me until Monday, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. RIDON. Thank you for the commitment, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

Let me now proceed to questions on the delivery of legal services by the DAR. Can the distinguished Sponsor report on the number of farmer- beneficiaries who were able to obtain legal services from the DAR in the past years, and how many cases have been adjudicated and resolved in 2013 and 2014?

Sa tingin po ba ninyo, Mr. Sponsor, Mr. Speaker, patas at naaabot ba ng karaniwang magsasaka ang mekanismo ng legal na serbisyo ng DAR para sa ating mga magsasaka?

REP. TEVES. For the adjudication of cases, I am informed on the report that from the start until 2013, adjudication cases totaled 434,663 with a balance of 5,641 pending cases as of now. For agrarian legal assistance, there is a total of 844,876 cases with a balance of 12,401 pending cases, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. RIDON. Okay, thank you for the response, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. I am not certain whether the next question has already been responded to. But may we know how many individual certificates of land ownership awards have been given to farmer-beneficiaries in 2013 and 2014? And of this number, do we know how many farmers actually hold and presently own their lands at the moment, because as it should be noted by everyone, receipts of the CLOAs do not necessarily equate to actual receipt or use of the land, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

REP. TEVES. Yes, I will have them calculate in a minute as to how many of the collective CLOAs have already been subdivided into individual CLOAs. As of now, that is one of the things that the DAR has been doing, that is why its survey teams are very busy, and we are farming out survey teams to solve such things. But right after the session, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, I will supply the details on how many collective CLOAs have already been divided into individual CLOAs to my distinguished colleague, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RIDON. Again, thank you for the commitment, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.


Let me now proceed to my next question. The DAR is also mandated not just to provide legal services to the farmers but also to provide technical support to farmer-beneficiaries. We would want to know, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, a report on how the Agency fared with respect to this particular mandate in the past year. What kind of services have been extended to the farmer-beneficiaries and how many farmer beneficiaries have in fact been benefited by technical support services by the DAR, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague?

REP. TEVES. Talking about beneficiaries’ development, we are, as of now, we are helping, we have 488 sub-projects and we will be giving away 1,020 CSF or common service facilities to these ARB organizations. For credits, it is not that much yet, while we have approved P600 million for credits, about P430 million has been released, and 9,819 beneficiaries have availed of such, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. RIDON. Okay. Thank you for your response, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. We have also reviewed the budget of the DAR. Particularly, it is requesting a budget for Training and Scholarship Expenses in the amount of P550.5 million. Can you give us details on where this fund will go because we are not a bit certain on whether it is the purpose of the DAR to provide scholarship expenses for farmer-beneficiaries, or is it not a better mechanism to just put this budget under the Commission on Higher Education or several of our education agencies, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague?

REP. TEVES. Yes, Mr. Speaker, this will be used by SUCs tapped by the DAR to do such trainings. This will be used by some CSOs that passed the stringent standards and screening as far as capability and integrity is concerned, and some other partner agencies of the DAR, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. But I will commit to give detailed listing to my distinguished colleague on how the Agency intends to distribute the said funds, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. RIDON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

The DAR is also asking for P7.6 million in Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses. Gusto lang po naming malaman kung saan mapupunta o napupunta ang pondong ito, saan ginagamit ang pondo para sa mga ito noong 2013 and 2014, at kung tama po ba ang paggamit ng pondong ito, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague?

REP. TEVES. Yes. By the way, going back to the previous question, the trainings are purely for trainings, no scholarships on the P550 million. On the

discretionary funds, I believe that it is also in the General Provisions of our GAA that for third level officials there is a certain amount that they use as discretionary funds, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. RIDON. Thank you, we are glad that the Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Funds are not as high as the other agencies, but we have also noticed that the DAR is at the moment asking for P74.4 million in Representation Expenses. We would want to know kung saan po ito ginagamit, and we would want to know whether previous Representation Expenses did not get any adverse COA report especially because representation expenses are very notorious in the kind and quality of use particularly in some government agencies, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

REP. TEVES. Yes, I was given a copy by the Committee on Section 53 and it seems that Section 53 is very specific on how much is being allowed to be used by third level officials, from department secretaries to undersecretaries to assistant secretaries and down to division chiefs, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. RIDON. So, may we know what the standard is for the use of the representation expenses? Is there a limit? Is there a standard for the use of the representation expenses, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague?

REP. TEVES. Yes, it is actual expenses. It has to be liquidated by a receipt, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. RIDON. Okay. We are satisfied with the response, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. We have no more questions. Thank you.


THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Are you through? Okay. The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, the Minority has a manifestation.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Go ahead.

REP. TY. Mr. Speaker, on the part of the Minority, there are no Members who wish to interpellate, I move to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Department of Agrarian Reform.



REP. BONDOC. We join our colleagues in the Minority in moving for the termination of the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Department of Agrarian Reform, Mr. Speaker.



The period for sponsorship and debate is hereby terminated.



REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, we ask for a one minute suspension of the session to allow the officers of the Department of Agrarian Reform to exit the gallery.



It was 6:20 p.m.





PHILIPPINE POSTAL CORPORATION

REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, I move that we open the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Philippine Postal Corporation.For this purpose, may we recognize the distinguished Sponsor, our colleague from the Second District of Nueva Ecija, the Hon. Joseph Gilbert F. Violago.


THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). The honorable Rep. Joseph Gilbert Violago is hereby recognized.

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, may I deliver my sponsorship speech on the budget of PhilPost for the year 2015.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Of course, that is why you are recognized.

SPONSORSHIP SPEECH OF REP. VIOLAGO

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, isang karangalan po at nagagalak sa pagkakataong tungkuling naiatas sa akin na ipagtanggol sa plenaryo ang isang taong panukalang pondo ng Philippine Postal Corporation. May kasabihan po tayo na malalaman mo ang kahalagahan ng isang tao o isang bagay kapag siya o ito ay mawala. Tulad nang isara ang higit na 500 post offices dahil sa programang rationalization ng PhilPost, napagtanto ng ating mga kababayan na mahalaga pala talaga at kinakailangan natin ang serbisyo ng mga post offices. Ito po ay mapapatunayan ni Postmaster General at Chief Executive Officer Maria Josefina Dela Cruz sa mga dumating at kasalukuyan pang dumarating na mga hiling para sa postal services sa mga lugar kung saan isinara ang mga post offices. Maaari ka ngang magdala ng mga sulat sa internet o mensahe sa cellphone, pero ang mga packages ay maipapadala mo lamang sa pamamagitan ng post offices o kaya sa mga courier companies saan mang lugar ng Pilipinas at sa mundo.

Para po, Mr. Speaker, sa taong 2015, ang naimungkahing budget ng Philippine Postal Corporation ay umaabot sa P4.836 billion na sadyang napakaliit at kabuuang P2.6 trillion budget kumpara sa lawak at aabot ng kanilang serbisyo at paglilingkod sa ating mga kababayan na nasa bansa. Gayon din sa mga overseas Filipino workers na nagpapadala ng kanilang remittances at mga padalang mga bagay at iba pang serbisyong pangbangko.

Hangad ko pong makuha ang inyong mga suporta para mapanatiling matatag ng PhilPost ang pagganap ng kanilang tungkulin at misyon para lalo nilang mapagbuti ang kanilang serbisyo sa taong-bayan kasabay na ang pagpapanatili ng integridad ng ating sistemang postal.

Ang inyo pong abang lingkod, kasama ng buong pamilya ng Philippines Postal Corporation ay narito sa plenaryo ngayon at nakahanda na pong tumugon sa mga katanungan ng atin pong mga kasamahan.

Maraming salamat po, Mr. Speaker.


REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, the first to interpellate our honorable Sponsor is our distinguished Sr. Dep. Minority Leader from the Party-List BAYAN MUNA, the Hon. Neri J. Colmenares. I move that he be recognized.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Congressman Colmenares is recognized.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you. Maraming salamat, Mr. Speaker, at maraming salamat din Congressman Violago.


First time na may nag-sponsor, as far as I know, ng budget in Filipino. Napakaganda noon kahit ang sulti ko bisaya, at least, maganda ang pagkapaliwanag, at magandang gabi rin sa pamilya ng Philippine Postal Corporation.

Naitatag po ang PhilPost noong 1992 through RA No. 7354 at ito ay namamahala doon sa postal system natin. Iiksian ko lang po ito kasi very specific ang tanong ko. Nagpalabas po ang gobyerno ng EO No. 366 na kung saan may rationalization plan o program ang gobyerno para sa mga empleyado ng PhilPost. Ngayon, maraming empleyado na ang nag-avail ng rationalization program na ito at nag-retire based naman doon sa pangakong incentives ng gobyerno. Ngayon, marami ang dumudulog sa amin regarding this issue. Matanong ko lang po, ilan ba ang nag-avail na empleyado dito at kumusta na ang kalagayan o implementation of EO No. 366, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, humigit kumulang 3,300 plus po ang nag-avail ng retirement para sa insentibong ito.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes. All over the country ito, Mr. Speaker.

REP. VIOLAGO. Tama po, Mr. Speaker, all over the country.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes. Ngayon, dumulog po sila at ang problema ay ang retirement plan, kung baga, ang mga incentives sa rationalization plan ay hindi naibibigay sa kanila. Mga ilang taon na po ba ang EO No. 366 na nandoon at kailan nag-retire ang mga retirees, Mr. Speaker? Ilang taon na sila na hindi kumpletong nababayaran ng gobyerno, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, ang hindi lang po nababayaran ay ang kanilang terminal benefits.

REP. COLMENARES. Terminal benefit.

REP. VIOLAGO. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes. Lahat po ng 3,300 plus hindi pa nababayaran ng terminal benefits?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, 40 percent po bayad na at ang 60 percent hinahanapan pa po ng pondo.

REP. COLMENARES. Kung bibilangin po natin, magkanong pondo ang kakailanganin para sa pagbigay ng full benefits under EO No. 366 na ipinangako sa mga empleyado, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, around P600 million pa po ang kailangan.

REP. COLMENARES. Kung ganoon po na P600 million ang kailangan, bakit hindi naibigay ito despite the fact na mayroon namang executive order at mayroong pangako ang gobyerno sa mga manggagawang ito?

Sila ay nag-avail ng isang programa na sinabi ng gobyerno para ma-rationalize ang Philpost. Ngayon, noong nag-avail na sila, medyo malungkot para sa mga empleyado at unjustifiable naman on the part of government na in-avail nila pero hanggang ngayon naghihintay sila ng mga pangakong benefits na nabanggit, Mr. Speaker.

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, actually, obligasyon po ng Philpost ang pagbibigay ng benefits, kaya lang wala pang sapat na pondo kaya dumulog na rin ang ating Philpost postmaster general sa national government na tulungan sila. Kung titingnan po natin, nagsimula lang ang Philpost by 1992 pero ang nag-retire sa postal system mayroon pa iyong earlier than 1992 na sino-shoulder na rin ng Philpost Corporation.

Bagamat sumulat na po sila sa DBM, nagkaroon na rin ng sagot, kaya lang ang sagot ay parang gawan muna ng paraan ng Philpost ang pag-aabono at titingnan kung paano matutulungan ng national government ang Philpost para sa pagbayad ng P600 million.

Kaya po sa ganitong katayuan, ang ating Philpost postmaster general ay nag-allot na rin ng additional P300 million for next year para P300 million na lang muli para sa 2016 budget. Iyan po ang naging plano ng Philpost Corporation.

REP. COLMENARES. Salamat po, Mr. Speaker. Pero siyempre, sa punto ng taumbayan, they will not consider the fact na before 1992, gobyerno iyon, but by 1992, Philpost na, iba na ang nature. Ang DBM sa kanila walang pagkakaiba iyon, ang kausap nila dito gobyerno, kesyo DBM pa iyan, Philpost o Postal Office—ano nga ba ang datng pangalan?

REP. VIOLAGO. Bureau of Posts po, Mr. Speaker.

REP. COLMENARES. Bureau of Posts noon, sa kanila gobyerno iyan, kaya ang hirap din sabihin na ayaw ng DBM. Actually, very unjustified ang posisyon ng DBM. Ang DBM may pera sa maraming mga proyekto, maraming mga DAP, pero ito, ipinangako sa mga empleyado, empleyado ng gobyerno, ayaw naman tuparin. Kaya nga dapat talagang igiit ng Philpost na bayaran sila.

Pero ang tanong, Mr. Speaker, is this, doon sa binayaran ng Philpost, 1992 lang ang Philpost nagkaroon ng existence. Before it became a GOCC


kumbaga, ang Bureau of Posts is a government office, at maganda nga na ang ginawa ng Philpost, e di covered naman na lahat whether you started in 1982, before the existence of Philpost, e covered na doon. Ang problema, ang gobyerno mismo na siyang namamahala noong 1982 to 1992, na DBM at Malacañang, ayaw nilang i-recognize ang ganoong punto.

Mr. Speaker, dapat lang na laanan ito ng budget ng P600 million at dapat sa period of amendments, we should propose, Mr. Speaker, na dapat bigyan ng P600 million ang Philpost para pambayad sa mga benefits ng manggagawa, Mr. Speaker.

Alam ninyo, kapag maghintay pa ng one more year o two more years, matagal na nag-retire, hindi ba? So, kailangan na kailangan nila ang mga benepisyong ito. Talagang hind puwede na itingi-tingi natin ang retirement ng mga empleyado. Kumbaga, dapat lang na dagdagan natin sa period of amendments ang budget ng Philpost ng P600 million, nang sa gayon ay mabayaran na ang mga empleyado ng Philpost na nag-retire at nag-avail ng rationalization program.

Ano po ang tingin ng distinguished Sponsor sa ganitong panukala, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, ako po ay sang-ayon sa inyong panukala dahil sabi nga natin, ang mga retiradong tao po ng postal service ay umaasa sa retirement benefits na ito. Kung ako ang tatanungin ninyo, kasama po ninyo ako na sana matulungan natin na mapondohan, mabigyan ng pondo ang Philippine Postal Corporation para matugunan na ang pangangailangan na P600 million. I join you, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. COLMENARES. Maraming salamat, Mr.

Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. Maybe our colleagues have heard the motion that will be forwarded during the period of amendments. Welcome naman ang pagtanggap ng Sponsor. I am sure welcome ito sa mga empleyado ng Philpost na nangako na, “Mag-retire kayo, may rationalization program, tanggal na kayo dito. Para ma-rationalize, ito ang benefits ninyo.” Tapos in-avail ng empleyado, nag-retire nga sila, may pangako na ganitong benefits, biglang sabihin ng DBM, biglang sabihin ng Malacañang, “walang pera, hanapan mo muna ng paraan.”

In fact, meron pang pangako ang Malacañang na abonohan mo muna iyan. E kahit iyon man lang, Mr. Speaker, i-reimburse lang ang P600 million na pinang-abono nila ay hindi man lang nila nagagawa. So double whammy ito, Mr. Speaker.

Ang first whammy sa empleyado: Sabi mo sa empleyado, “mag-retire ka, bayaran ka namin ng mga benefits.” Hindi ibinigay ng gobyerno. Ang second whammy dito, Mr. Speaker, sabi mo sa Philpost, abonohan mo muna, kami na ang bahalang magbayad sa

iyo at mag-reimburse. Ngayon parang ayaw i-reimburse. So. hindi talaga maganda iyan, Mr. Speaker. I’m glad that the distinguished Sponsor is with us in this issue. We really hope na sa period of amendments madagdagan po ang budget na P600 million.

More than 3,000 workers all over the country and I am sure in all districts siguro naman merong Philpost employee doon na naghihirap ngayon at malaking tuwa nila if this Congress will approve the budget for them, especially since hindi nila hinihingi iyon. It is a matter of right, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Okay,

you can prepare now your amendment. REP. COLMENARES. Yes, we will prepare the

amendment, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Next week.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes, we will prepare the

amendment …

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). I think Friday.

REP. COLMENARES. … come the period of

amendments. As a matter of principle lang, Mr. Speaker. I am sure, sa distrito ng Presiding Officer, napakarami ding mga empleyado ng Philpost ang magtatamasa kung sakaling maaprubahan natin ito.

One last question, Mr. Speaker. Alam naman ninyo na isa po ako sa author ng Marcos Human Rights Compensation. Ang isang nangyayari dito, may mga sulat na ipapadala sa human rights victims na involved sa Hawaii case at involved dito. Siyempre ire-recognize dito sa batas na ipinasa ng Kongresong ito, na ipinasa to recognize them and for reparation of the victims.

Meron pong report na ang mga sulat na para sa mga victims ay hindi na-deliver o kaya medyo naantala sa Philpost o natambak doon. Gusto ko lang i-confirm, Mr. Speaker, totoo ba ito na may mga sulat for the human rights victims na hindi na-deliver o hanggang ngayon ay nandiyan pa rin sa Philpost, Mr. Speaker.


REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, may I ask for a one minute suspension of the session, please.


It was 6:38 p.m.





The Sponsor will please proceed. REP. VIOLAGO. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, sa

pagkakaalam po ng ating Philpost postmaster general ini-insist po ng American lawyers na ang mga sulat ay sa Philpost ipinadala. Pero wala sa record ng Philpost na natanggap nila ang mga naturang sulat. Kaya po sumulat na rin po ang ating postmaster general doon sa mga sumulat sa kaniya at sinagot, hindi nga nila natanggap ang mga sulat na galing sa human rights.

REP. COLMENARES. Maraming salamat, Mr. Speaker.

It was just that these US lawyers, ini-insist kasi nila ang rules of court sa US. The rules of court in the US require na sasagot ka kapag nasa class suit ka, doon sa mga sulat ng korte. Kapag natanggal ka doon at hindi ka nakasagot doon sa sulat ng korte, matatanggal ka sa list ng plaintiffs nila. And you know what, that Hawaii case is one of the largest ever, judgment ever in the world. It is $2.1 billion for the 10,000 human rights victims against the estate of Ferdinand Marcos. Ngayon, ang iba sa kanila, dahil hindi na-deliver ang sulat, hindi sila nakasagot, natanggal sila sa list. So, para sa mga mahihirap na mga biktima, that is about, I do not know, kung $2.1 billion divided by 10,000 people. Aba, that is hundreds of millions of pesos na hindi mo mari-receive just because hindi ka nakatanggap ng sulat. Congresswoman Luz Ilagan, being one of those in the 10,000, siya mismo ay hindi nakatanggap at ang sabi nga ng lawyers ay nandoon nga sa Philpost.

So, I would like to ask later kung ano po ang report dito sa isyung ito, if I may ask, Mr. Speaker, para naman po malaman namin kung ano talaga ang nangyari doon sa sulat at kung sino ang may kasalanan, ang korte ba ng Hawaii ang may kasalanan o tayo dito sa Pilipinas ang may kasalanan, although we should insist, of course, to the court in Hawaii that you cannot impose on us your rules of court. The fact is, iyon ang rules nila and it is they who really decide on this issue. And really, one single letter misplaced will cost you P100, P200 million. Ganoon po iyon kalaki, kasi it is $2.1 billion for 10,000 victims. So, can we request for the information on that, Mr. Speaker, para naman mai-report namin sa mga biktima kung ano ang status ng mga sulat na ito?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, ayon talaga sa talaan ng Philpost ay hindi po nila natanggap ang mga naturang sulat na ini-insist ng American lawyers na sa Philpost ho nila ipinadala. So, as per

their record, talagang wala ho silang natanggap, kaya ho iyon ang stand po ng Philpost hanggang ngayon, Mr. Speaker.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you.May we just ask for a certification then, on the

part of Philpost, na hindi namin natanggap iyan and, if possible sana, you know, next week, makapagbigay na short certification lang as to the truth na hindi talaga namin natanggap, kasi baka naman, you know, malaking bagay din ito sa katulad ni Congresswoman Ilagan. She can tell the court na hindi namin natanggap at nagkamali ang address ninyo, huwag ninyong ituro sa amin iyong kasalanan; it was your fault. So, malay natin baka mali-mali. I do not know how they sent it. Basta the fact is, can we just ask for a certification on the part of Philpost na hindi nga talaga dumaan doon and, in fact, walang natanggap na ganoon from the Hawaii court to victims of human rights violations, Mr. Speaker.

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, rest assured, magbibigay po ng certification ang Philpost na hindi po nila natanggap ang mga naturang sulat within next week po.

REP. COLMENARES. Maraming salamat. Not just for Congresswoman Luz iyong listahan ng ...

REP. VIOLAGO. Yes, Mr. Speaker. All those—lahat po ng sinasabing hindi po nakatanggap.

REP. COLMENARES. Maraming salamat, Mr. Speaker, and thank you very much, distinguished Sponsor. We hope that itong issue sa human rights violations victims, makatulong itong certification na ito. Maraming salamat po.



REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, the next to interpellate our honorable Sponsor is the honorable Representative from the Party-List ABAKADA, I move for the recognition of the Hon. Jonathan A. Dela Cruz.

I so move, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Magtatanong ka na naman, hindi ka ba nagsawa? (Laughter) Okay. Congressman Dela Cruz is hereby recognized.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Maraming salamat po, Mr. Speaker.



REP. DELA CRUZ. Maaari po bang magtanong sa ating kaibigan, Congressman Violago, ang distinguished Sponsor ng ating ...

REP. VIOLAGO. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, handa pong sumagot sa mga katanungan ang inyo pong lingkod.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Dalawa lang po, actually. Actually, parang hindi nga po tanong ito sapagkat nais ko lamang pong ipahayag ang ilang mga saloobin ng ilan nating mga kaibigan. Isa na nga po diyan iyong tungkol nga doon sa nangyari na report tungkol po doon sa CCT funding na dumaan po sa Philpost. Nais lang po nating bigyan ng pagkakataon ang ating presidente ng Philpost na magkaroon ng pagpapahayag tungkol po dito sapagkat ang ayaw po nating mangyari ay siya ang malagay sa alanganin, iyon pala ay hindi naman pala siya ang dapat bigyan ng ganyang pag-aalangan sapagkat ang pagkakaintindi po natin ay naayos na naman daw po at inaayos na ang kanilang records tungkol doon. Ano po ba talaga ang situwasyon tungkol doon?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, iyon ho bang binabanggit ninyo ay iyong tungkol sa news item na five …

REP. DELA CRUZ. Opo, iyong news item tungkol doon sa sinasabi na mayroong P5 billion daw na nawawala at parang idinaan po ito sa ating postal system.

REP. VIOLAGO. Yes, Mr. Speaker. Ang katunayan po niyan, Mr. Speaker, ay iyon ho kasing cut-off noong mga reporting ay usually on a quarterly basis, so noong kinuha po ang data na iyon, ang P5 billion ay at the end of December. Kaso ho, magre-reflect lang po sa records ng Philpost at saka ng DSWD ang kanilang distribution on the month of February, kaya po ang sinasabing P5 billion po daw na nawawala ay hindi po talaga nawawala iyon kundi magre-reflect pa lang po on the next two months after ho noong cut-off. Kaya ho kung titingnan po natin, hindi po talaga actual na P5 billion ang sinasabing unliquidated na idini-distribute po ng Philpost.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, ang ibig sabihin po niyon ay reconciliation ng records.

REP. VIOLAGO. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, iyon lang ho ang kailangan.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Ang ibig sabihin noon, ang pera na iyan ay naibigay naman talaga sa mga benepisyaryo at ang nangyayari lang ay dahil nga doon sa cut-off

na binabanggit po ninyo ay ire-reconcile ang mga record.

REP. VIOLAGO. Tama po, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Ay, mali pala ang mga nababalita na ganyan sapagkat kawawa naman po ang ating presidente ng Philpost kung ganoon na siya ang napagbibintangan na parang nawawala ang mga pera na iyan pero hindi naman pala. So, bigyan na lang po sana tayo ng report ng Philpost kung maaari tungkol po sa nangyaring iyan kasi sa susunod pong linggo ay makakausap uli natin si Secretary Soliman para magkaroon po ng maayos na kalakaran pagdating po diyan sa issue na iyan ng CCT beneficiaries.

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, rest assured ife-furnish po kayo ng Philpost ng copy po ng kanilang report.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Ang isa pa ho at susundan ko po ang nabanggit kanina ng ating kaibigang si Congressman Neri Colmenares tungkol po sa sitwasyon ng mga manggagawa ng Philpost. Nais ko nga hong madagdagan kanina na ang mga nag-retire ay mabigyan ng pagkakataon na makuha naman nila ang kanilang mga benepisyo at kung kinakailangan po na magkaroon ng panibagong pagsasalansan ang ating badyet para iyan ay matugunan ay sana po ay mabigyan natin ng pagkakataon iyan sa susunod na mga araw sa ating period of amendments po. Ang hinihingi lang po ng ibang mga miyembro rin po ng unyon ng Philippine Postal Corporation ay ang mga maysakit, ang mga may mga karamdaman, ang mga nagkakaroon ng konting kaso tungkol doon ay baka naman po pwedeng mabigyan lalung-lalo na po iyong mga matatagal na po sa Philippine Postal Corporation at malapit nang mag-retire o nag-retire na nga at nanghihingi ng kanilang pagtulong, baka naman po mabigyan ng pagkakataon na matulungan itong mga ito sapagkat marami po dito sa mga ito ang kanilang situwasyon, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, ang kanilang situwasyon ay talagang matagal na silang nasa post office, nasa Postal Corporation. Sa katunayan, parang henerasyon na sila. Iyong iba nga doon, nagkaroon ng konting kaso pero palagay ko naman ay maaayos iyon at some point. Kaya sila naman po ay humihingi ng pagkalinga ng pamunuan ng Philippine Postal Corporation nang sa ganoon ay masaklolohan ho sila lalung-lalo na po ang mga situwasyon ng mga maysakit, ang mga iba na old age na nga na retired na. Baka kailangan pong mabigyan ng pagkakataon ang mga ito at kung mamarapatin po ng liderato, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, ng Philpost na sila naman ay magkaroon ng panahon para makausap itong mga ito, itong mga worker na ito pati ang kanilang


pamilya ay sana po ay mapagbigyan ito na kahilingan ng mga worker na iyan.

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, isa sa batayan po ng pagkalinga po sa mga empleyado ng Philpost ay inuuna ho talaga nila ang mga empleyado nilang mayroong immediate needs. Kaya rest assured ang mga binanggit po ninyo, iyon po ang talagang priorities po nila, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Maraming-maraming salamat po, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. Maraming-maraming salamat sa pagkakataon.


REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, the Asst. Minority Leader wishes to make a manifestation.

REP. TY. Mr. Speaker, on the part of the Minority, there being no other Member who wishes to interpellate, I move that we terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of Philippine Postal Corporation.



REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, we join the Minority in moving for the termination of the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Philippine Postal Corporation.


THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. The period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Philippine Postal Corporation is hereby terminated.



REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, may I ask for a few minutes suspension of the session to allow the staff of Philippine Postal Corporation to clear the gallery.


THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Five minutes, all right, the session is suspended for five minutes.

It was 6:51 p.m.





NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, I move that we open the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the National Telecommunications Commission or NTC, and for that purpose, I also move that we recognize the honorable Sponsor, the Hon. Joseph Gilbert F. Violago, of the Second District of Nueva Ecija.


THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Congressman Violago is recognized.

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, I will just submit the copy of my sponsorship speech for the budget of NTC to the Secretary General.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). You are not delivering it?

REP. VIOLAGO. No, not anymore, I will just submit it, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Okay. That is what Congressman Atienza is complaining about. Anyway, if the Dep. Majority Leader has no objection…

REP. BONDOC. No objection, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). …the written sponsorship speech is hereby accepted.*


REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, for his interpellation of the honorable Sponsor, I move for the recognition of our honorable Dep. Minority Leader from the Party-List BAYAN MUNA, the Hon. Neri J. Colmenares.


THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). How can he interpellate when he has not even heard the sponsorship speech? Well, anyway, you can in touch anticipate.

Congressman Colmenares is recognized.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

* See ANNEX (printed separately)


We clearly heard the budget during the committee deliberations and more or less we see the gap, so I guess we have to interpellate on these issues, Mr. Speaker.

First issue, maraming salamat, Mr. Speaker, magandang gabi po ulit sa ating kasama, Congressman Violago at sa NTC.

Ang first question is about the law passed by Congress, Republic Act No. 10639, AN ACT MANDATING THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDERS TO SEND FREE MOBILE ALERTS IN THE EVENT OF NATURAL AND MAN-MADE DISASTERS AND CALAMITIES, also known as “ The Free Mobile Disaster Alerts Act.” So, ang batas na ito is of major help sa ating mamamayan. Kasi dito, minamandato ang mga telecommunications service providers na kapag mayroong bagyo o ano pang calamities, dapat for free i-text nila sa lahat ng subscribers nila, kahit Globe, Smart, o ano ka pa man, ang lahat ng instructions ng gobyerno at ng NDRRMC sa mamamayan like, kailan darating ang bagyo, gaano kalaki ito, gaano kalakas, saan ang mga evacuation centers, kung tapos na ang bagyo, saan ang mga relief goods ipapamahagi, anong oras—napakaimportante ng mga ganitong information, Mr. Speaker. Hindi lang dahil siguro, this Representation is the author of the law, but also because it will play an important role sa isang disaster-stricken country like the Philippines.

Maganda naman ang may TV at radio, at maririnig mo ang instructions ng gobyerno, pero kung minsan, kung walang kuryente, minsan, ang telepono lang ang gumagana. Pero kahit na may kuryente at may radyo at TV, minsan hindi mo ma-remember ang instruction sa radyo pero kung text, naka-store kasi iyan e—bukas, alas-nuwebe, sa simbahan, sa eskwelahang ganito, sa evacuation center darating ang relief goods, et cetera. Very important talaga ito. May we know, Mr. Speaker, kung papaano ii-implement ito. This was passed by this Congress this year, Mr. Speaker, lalo na at may ilang bagyo nang dumating, dalawa, in fact, na nag-e-expect ang taumbayan na may mari-receive na silang disaster alerts from the telcos, pero wala pa ngayon, Mr. Speaker. May we know the status of the implementation of this law, Mr. Speaker.

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, first of all, ako po ay sang-ayon sa sinabi ninyo na talagang kailangang-kailangan po iyan. Kaya ang NTC naman po ay ginagawa ang kanilang trabaho, at nakatatlong public hearing na po sila sa mga naturang stakeholders at consultations. Nagkaroon na rin po sila ng consultations para po magawa ang IRR, ang implementing rules and regulations, and this coming October 7 ay mayroon na pong hearing at magkakaroon na po sila ng IRR after the public hearing this coming October 7, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker.

REP. COLMENARES. Maraming salamat, Mr. Speaker. Next slide please. Kasi kung titingnan natin iyong Section 7 ng batas, the IRR should have been approved, in fact, within 60 days from the effectivity of this Act. So, kung tama ang bilang ko, lumampas na tayo diyan sa requirement ng batas kung kaya napakahalaga sana na ma-implement ito lalo na at iyong bagyo kasi at iba pang mga kalamidad ay halos hindi lang once a month kundi twice a month or three times a month na dumarating sa atin and we believe that this law can actually save a lot of lives kapag fully implemented na ito, Mr. Speaker.

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, dahil nga po medyo marami pong stakeholders involved at iyong kanila pong ginawang consultation na tatlo ay medyo natagalan, pero the NTC is hoping na after October 7 ho ay mayari na po lahat po ito, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. COLMENARES. Maraming salamat. I will not press that issue for now. Probably, there are certain complications although the telcos have assured this Representation when we filed that Bill that they are willing to comply with the requirements here. In any case, October 7 is the promise of the NTC and we really hope na by that time, sa susunod na bagyo, we would be able to receive the instructions and the text messages, Mr. Speaker.

REP. VIOLAGO. Rest assured, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, na sana magawa po nila daw iyon talaga by October 7 without any delay, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. COLMENARES. Maraming salamat, Mr. Speaker.

I will go to an issue which I was involved in, Mr. Speaker. There is an issue of refund and I am sure the NTC knows that I will raise this, being one of the petitioners on the issue of refund. Pang-preliminary lang muna, Mr. Speaker, before we go on the issue na ang NTC ordered the telcos na mag-refund kayo ng overcharging ng telcos at ngayon umaabot na siya, at least, as of kanina sa P8,177,000,000 na ire-refund sa mga subscribers at sa lahat sa atin, kasama naman iyong mga kasamahan natin sa Kongreso. But, first, preliminary question lang, how many texts a day ang nare-record po natin dito sa buong Pilipinas na ipinapadala during the 24-hour period or sa isang araw, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, an average of two billion text messages in a day.

REP. COLMENARES. Two billion text messages


a day. That is a lot of SMS, Mr. Speaker. Ang ibig sabihin, kung sabihin natin na kapag kumikita ka lang ng P0.50 bawat text, ito ay P1 billion sa isang araw. Napakalaki siguro.

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, pero marami po dito sa two billion na ito ay nanggaling po sa unlimited.

REP. COLMENARES. Ah, okay. Now, that you mentioned it, Mr. Speaker, ilan dito ang standard kumbaga, iyong standard na text, at ilan namang porsiyento dito sa two billion na ito ang masasabi nating promo, kumbaga iyong mga unli-unli, Mr. Speaker? Just a percentage, Mr. Speaker.

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, 10 percent po iyong standard regular rate and then 10 percent of that ay iyong nagko-crossover po, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, sa ibang net.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes. So, out of the two billion texts a day, ang 200,000,000 texts diyan ay standard, okay, tapos dito sa 90 percent na ang ibig sabihin ay ito iyong mga promo-promo, which is roughly 1.8 billion Mr. Speaker. Tama po?

REP. VIOLAGO. That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

REP. COLMENARES. Ilan naman dito iyong off-net kumbaga? Ang ibig kong sabihin ay magkaiba, Smart to Globe or, dito sa two billion na ito, Mr. Speaker.

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, around 20 million po iyong off-net.

REP. COLMENARES. Twenty million.

REP. VIOLAGO. Ten percent of the 10 percent.

REP. COLMENARES. Ten percent nitong standard, ah, okay.


REP. COLMENARES. Ten percent ng standard ay off-net, whereas kapag dito sa 90 percent, may off-net din ba dito? Ang ibig kong sabihin ay may unli ako sa Smart pero tumawag ako sa Globe o nag-text ako sa Globe.

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, mayroon din po pero bundled po siya, Mr. Speaker.

REP. COLMENARES. So, mga ilan dito sa 90 percent na natira ang off-net talaga?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, iyong 10 percent po ng 10 percent noong regular, iyon po iyong labanan.

REP. COLMENARES. Iyon iyong 10 percent lang.


REP. COLMENARES. So, 20 million texts a day. REP. VIOLAGO. That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes. Paano namo-monitor ito ng NTC? Mayroon ba kayong system of monitoring or is it based on the reports of the telcos themselves, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, gumawa po ng order ang NTC na i-submit ng telcos iyong bilang ng text messages po na naise-send every day na nag-cross.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes. The total text messages siguro, do you still—how would you know? Ang ibig ko lang sabihin dito, is there a system sa NTC or talagang iyong report ng mga telcos ang pinagbabatayan nitong two billion, 10 percent, 90 percent, 20 million, etc.? May independent monitoring ba ang NTC or telcos reports, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, wala pong way para malaman ng NTC kaya they are very dependent doon po sa report ng telcos.

REP. COLMENARES. Is it possible that the telcos would, you know, distort the data? Would you be able to find out if the telcos distorted the data and say, “Well, it is two billion” but, actually, it is four billion? Actually, off-net is 50 million, kaya lang sasabihin nila 20 million lang. Is it also possible, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. There is a possibility, Mr. Speaker, pero since may visitorial power ang NTC, siguro parang iyon na lang po iyong kanilang random check kung tama po iyong nire-report ng mga telcos.

REP. COLMENARES. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, kung gaano kaiksi kanina iyong ating previous ano, no? Dito kasi, medyo main concern ko itong sa issue ng telcos. I have to really ask these questions.

So, visitorial power. Paano malalaman ng NTC through a visitorial power kung ilang texts at ilang off-net? What does it mean? Do you open their computer systems or how do you go about it, Mr. Speaker, in confirming the veracity of the reports of the telcos as


to the total text messages and off-net accounts, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, matse-check po nila iyon sa computer billing po ng telcos.

REP. COLMENARES. Computer …

REP. VIOLAGO. Computer system, sorry. Computer system po ng—computer system billing ng telcos.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes. For example lang, when was the last visitorial, you know, and how do you call this visit of NTC, and which telco was visited by NTC, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, as of now, wala pa ho silang nagawa.

REP. COLMENARES. Ah, okay. Since kailan, Mr. Speaker? Since then, wala pa.

REP. VIOLAGO. That is correct, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. COLMENARES. Very interesting, Mr. Speaker. Talagang ang ibig sabihin ay subject talaga tayo doon sa kung sasabihin ng telco na, “Ito lang. Pagpasensiyahan ninyo na po. Twenty million lang iyong off-net e.” So, talagang bound ang NTC.

May we know the reason for this failure of NTC to do such, and I hope it is not going to be for lack of personnel or funding, Mr. Speaker.

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, come again.

REP. COLMENARES. What is the reason for the failure of NTC to conduct these visitorial, should we say, investigations on the part of the NTC, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, kaya pala ho gagawin ng NTC ngayon iyong visitation power nila is because of the case na nai-file. Pero, otherwise, kung wala po ito, they admitted na talagang hindi ho nila ginagawa iyan previously.

REP. COLMENARES. The case that we filed, is that what you mean, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is right.

REP. COLMENARES. Okay. So, now that we have filed the case, nag-visit na po ba kayo o hindi pa o may

plano ba kayong mag-visit? You do not need to tell me the dates kung iyong future visits ninyo but at least ...


REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, may I ask for a minute of suspension of the session please.


It was 7:10 p.m.




REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, ang gagawin po ng NTC ngayon ay ibabase po nila iyong kanilang pagbisita kapag natanggap na po nila iyong billing na dapat i-refund ng mga telcos na kung saan nakasaad po doon sa case na kanila pong kinalalagyan ngayon. Then secondly, ang NTC po ay matagal na rin pong nagre-request ng budget sa atin pong national government para magkaroon po ng metering device para ma-measure po iyong mga messages kaya lang po ay hindi pa ho nabibigyan ng tugon at hindi pa ho nabibigyan ng pondo para magkaroon po ng sapat na kakayahan ang NTC para malaman kung ilan ho iyong mga messages na naise-send ng bawat telco.

REP. COLMENARES. Magkano po ba iyong metering device na hinihingi para ma-monitor itong mga text o business ng telcos, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, ang halaga po ng metering device is around P1.5 billion na kung saan ipinropows po ni Cong. Danny Suarez.

REP. COLMENARES. Ipinropows dati, Mr. Speaker.

REP. VIOLAGO. Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is right.

REP. COLMENARES. Balikan ko lang po ang visitorial. I thought that the power of the NTC to visit is a plenary power to implement the law of regulating, hindi po ba? It is not dependent on whether there is a case filed by us o wala, but whether or not we filed the case or anybody files a case for that matter, that visitorial power is exercised by the NTC as part of its monitoring. So, I do not see any reason, Mr. Speaker, why it should depend on the pleadings of the court because I thought this was part of its power, Mr. Speaker.


REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, ang NTC po kasi ay marami pong binibisita sa mga telcos at mga cell sites. Kasama na po iyon sa kanilang mga functions kaya hindi naman ho pupuwedeng ifo-focus lang po doon sa pag-monitor ng text messages being sent ng mga telcos.

REP. COLMENARES. Out of curiosity lang po, ano ang tinitingnan ng NTC sa cell sites?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, tungkol po sa mga cell sites ay sinisiguro nila na tama po iyong frequency na ginagamit at kung hindi po nag-i-interfere sa iba pong mga cell sites or sa ibang telcos. Iyon po ang mga ginagawa nila regarding cell sites, Mr. Speaker.

REP. COLMENARES. So, ang ibig sabihin, Mr. Speaker, even without the pleading, the NTC can do visitorial investigations. It is just a question na napakaraming trabaho kaya hindi nila kakayanin iyong pag-visit.


REP. COLMENARES. Yes. So, hindi talaga dependent on the pleading ng court. Kahit wala iyong kaso na iyon puwedeng mag-visit ang NTC?


REP. COLMENARES. Yes. I was asking that question, kaibigan naman si Congressman Violago, but the NTC is—alam ninyo medyo maano kami sa regulatory bodies natin. I am not even just talking of the ERC, including NTC. Kasi, you are supposed to regulate these big businesses. To the detriment ito ng publiko kapag hindi ninyo sila na-regulate well. Importante naman sigurong dalawin iyong cell sites. Ang frequency ninyo ba ay tama o ano? Pero importante na rin kasing malaman natin itong business side ng mga telcos. Hindi po ba, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Tama po iyon, Mr. Speaker.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes. So, ang tanong ngayon ay ganito. Itong off-net na refund, balikan ko lang muna, itong standard pala na sinabi ninyo na 10 percent—sorry, iyong hindi off-net na SMS, magkano ang singil nito normally sa standard, piso pa rin ba iyan, Mr. Speaker? Piso per text, ang ibig kong sabihin.

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, iyong regular po ay puwedeng P1.00 or pababa, depende po sa telcos.

REP. COLMENARES. P1.00? Itong sa off-net, iyong may interconnection charge, correct me if I am

wrong, piso iyan pero may desisyon ang NTC na babaan kasi ang interconnection charges. Tama po?

REP. VIOLAGO. Tama po, Mr. Speaker.

REP. COLMENARES. From P0.35, if I am not mistaken to P0.20.

REP. VIOLAGO. From P0.35 ginawa hong P0.15, Mr. Speaker.

REP. COLMENARES. Sorry, P0.15.

REP. VIOLAGO. P0.15, Your Honor.

REP. COLMENARES. So, kung ganoon, Mr. Speaker, magkano dapat ang singil sa mga may off-net na mga SMS, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, hindi dapat tataas ng P0.80.

REP. COLMENARES. Hindi dapat tataas ng P0.80. Okay. So, pero ito ay may interconnection charge na P0.80, tama?

REP. VIOLAGO. Yes, Mr. Speaker, P0.15 ang interconnection charge.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes. So, itong mga hindi nag-i-interconnect na standard, bakit sila piso pa rin? Kung ito ngang may interconnection charge ay dapat P0.80, itong walang interconnection charge na standard na hindi off-net, bakit piso pa rin siya, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, depende po kasi sa user. So, kung hindi ho siya nag-avail ng unli, ang nangyayari sa kanya ay nacha-charge po siya ng regular rate which is piso. Pero kapag nag-avail ka ng unli, mababang-mababa na po iyong presyong ginagamit po niya, Mr. Speaker.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes. Pero, Mr. Speaker, ito kasing nag-i-interconnection na P0.80, magbabayad ka pa diyan ng P0.15 sa interconnection charge. E di kumbaga ang natira ay P0.65 na lang, kasi interconnection iyong isa e. Pero, itong isa, hindi siya nag-i-interconnect e, ibig sabihin, wala siyang babayarang interconnection charge, e di dapat lower siya kaysa sa P0.80, lalo kasi wala siyang interconnection charge e. Iyon ang isang palaisipan sa akin, Mr. Speaker, kung bakit itong standard ay piso pa rin siya, whereas itong may interconnection charge ay dapat ay 80 sentimos siya? Parang limpak-limpak na iyong tubo pala ng telcos dito, kasi kung tumutubo siya doon sa may interconnection charge, e di lalo siyang


tutubo dito sa walang interconnection charge at piso ito, Mr. Speaker.

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, actually, maganda po iyong napuna ninyo at pag-aaralan po ng NTC iyong nabanggit po ninyo para maging kapakipakinabang pa sa ating mga user na maging mas mababa ang rate ng mga telcos.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you. Maraming salamat, Mr. Speaker.

I am just surprised that the NTC did not notice that before. Kasi, you know, 15 centavos. I mean, kung ang may interconnection charge ay P0.80 at piso ang singil mo at hundreds of millions, ilang milyon iyan a day, medyo malaki-laking pera pala ang nawala dito kumbaga sa subscribers, Mr. Speaker, tama po?

REP. VIOLAGO. Tama iyon, Mr. Speaker, kaya nga kababanggit ko lang sa inyo na pag-aaralan nilang mabuti para maging mas maganda po iyong kanilang pag-regulate ng mga rates.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes. Can we ask for a copy of the reports, Mr. Speaker, then doon sa number of texts, iyong 20 billion, iyong 20 million, para lang makita namin iyong report na iyon, sana po kung within this week or at least early next week, Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is available.

REP. VIOLAGO. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the NTC will provide you a copy.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes, Room 210 lang ako, North Wing dito sa House of Representatives, and thank you for that, distinguished Sponsor.

So, balik na tayo ngayon sa isyung inano namin. Nag-order iyong NTC na babaan ang interconnection charge by 20 centavos. So, sabi ng NTC, telco babaan ninyo na iyang interconnection charge ninyo kasi masyadong mataas iyong 35 centavos, dapat 15 centavos lang iyon. Hindi nila ibinaba, hindi nila sinunod iyan since 2011, at iyong total ngayon niyan base sa aming calculation lang is P8 billion. Although, I would like to ask the NTC, magkano na ba talaga ang total na dapat nilang i-refund per your official record, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, I think iyon hong nasa figures niya ay more or less, ganiyan po kalaki.

REP. COLMENARES. More or less?

REP. VIOLAGO. More or less.

REP. COLMENARES. Presuming na tama iyong

20 million na off-net, pero hindi natin alam, I mean, you know, they said it is 20 million.


REP. COLMENARES. So kung 20 centavos times 20 million a day, iyon iyong—pero kung 40 million iyon, talagang iiba na, dodoble iyan. Iyan ang problema kapag dependent lang tayo sa report ng telcos, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that the NTC recognizes the significance of that monitoring activity; otherwise, ang laki-laki na nga ng kita nila, bilyun-bilyon na nga e bawat araw tapos hindi pa tayo—eight billion lang ang pinapa-refund ng consumer, ayaw pang ibigay. Hindi pa tayo sigurado kung tama iyon, kasi pwedeng doble doon kapag doble din pala iyong off-net nila na mga SMS, tama po ba?

REP. VIOLAGO. Tama iyon, Mr. Speaker.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes. So, ngayon, ang tanong namin, bakit hindi siya in-implement ng NTC? According to the rules of the NTC and I read the rules, according to the rules of court, it says na kapag mayroong desisyon ang isang quasi-judicial or administrative agency, ito ay executory pending appeal unless restrained by a court of law. So, for a long period, nito lang naman nagpalabas ng TRO iyong Court of Appeals. For a long period, iyon nga precisely ang petition namin sa NTC, bakit hindi in-implement na itong refund na ito, when, in fact, the NTC—and I would like to, you know, tell the NTC na tama lang naman na tindigan ninyo ang desisyon ninyo—may desisyon kayo to refund P8 billion. Bakit hindi in-implement ito, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, iyon ho kasing ire-refund ay depende sa report na ibibigay ng telcos. Ang problema, hindi po nag-submit ang telcos kaya wala ho silang mapagbasehan at inabutan na po ng TRO iyong kanila pong kaso.

REP. COLMENARES. So, talagang dependent tayo, subject tayo sa whims and caprice ng mga telcos na ito na pati regulatory body natin ay walang magawa kapag hindi sila nag-submit ng report.


REP. COLMENARES. Question, ang regulatory body kasi, we were able to force the ERC to exercise its regulatory function, wala ba kayong power to sanction a telco that does not obey your orders, like you ordered them to submit a report? Wala namang TRO sa inyo or anything, why do you not sanction them for not submitting their reports required by the regulatory body, Mr. Speaker?


REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, una po sa lahat, ang NTC po ay wala pong contempt power at matagal na rin pong hinihingi ng NTC sa atin pong Kongreso na iyon pong violation penalty na ibinibigay po nila sa telcos ay napakababa. It is only P200 a day based on Public Service Act of 1936.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes, we are planning on amending that, Mr. Speaker. We have already conducted the research and the initial drafting of the bill. Pero, ang tanong ko lang, so wala talagang poder ang NTC? Do you have power over their licenses, their franchises, or whether or not you will allow them or not allow them to operate, Mr. Speaker? May poder po ba kayong ganyan?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, ang kaya lang pong gawin ng NTC sa ngayon ay cancellation of their provisional authority. At kapag ginawa naman po nila iyon ay mawawalan po ng serbisyo ang atin pong mamamayang Pilipino.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes. So, may poder kayo to cancel?


REP. COLMENARES. Iyon lang ang inyong poder.


REP. COLMENARES. Pero kung mag-order kayo ng ganyan, mawawalan ba ng serbisyo for that particular period?

REP. VIOLAGO. Tama iyon, Mr. Speaker.

REP. COLMENARES. So, talagang hostage tayo ng mga telcos na ito, Mr. Speaker.

REP. VIOLAGO. Parang ganoon na nga, Mr. Speaker, sa katayuan po ngayon ng NTC. Kaya siguro malaki pong tulong kung iyong penalty na P200 ay maitataas para magampanan talaga ng NTC iyong kanila pong trabaho dahil medyo, ‘ika nga, iyong telcos ay kailangang mag-comply sa atin pong regulations ng NTC.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes, dapat naman. Pero ang problema lang dito, Mr. Speaker, ay hindi talaga siya parang regulatory body in that sense kung wala siyang ngipin, as claimed by the NTC. At mahirap iyon. Mahirap ang isang regulatory. We will look into that, Mr. Speaker, and, in fact, we are studying that for now. So, isa iyon sa problema na dapat lutasin.

Now, I would like to ask on the issue of—mayroon kayong Memorandum Circular No. 05-07-2009. Parang ang sabi, iyong parang billing of cellular mobile telephone services, iyong sa payment mo per pulse, can you explain this Memorandum Circular No. 05-07, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the maximum unit of billing doon sa mga cellular mobile phones?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, sa ngayon po, ang atin pong basehan noong rates ay nakabase po sa per minute. So, kahit na gamitin mo lang siya ng ilang seconds ay one minute pa rin ang itsa-charge sa iyo. So, iyong Memorandum Circular po na binabanggit ninyo, iyon po iyong ginawa ng NTC na kung saan hinati po sa six pulse iyong isang minuto para kung makakagamit ka ng isa o dalawang pulse e iyon lang po ang babayaran mo.

Nanalo po ang NTC sa Court of Appeals, pero ngayon iyong kaso po ay nasa Supreme Court pa. Iyon po ang status po noon.

REP. COLMENARES. So, hindi mo puwedeng ipatupad ito pending the resolution of the Supreme Court? Is there a restraining order issued by the Court?

REP. VIOLAGO. May injunction po, Mr. Speaker.

REP. COLMENARES. May injunction. Matindi nga pala kapag mayaman ang kalaban mo, talagang hirap na hirap kang manalo sa korte. Pero ang intindi ko po dito, ang advantage dito is this, magkano ba ang per minute na singil ng telepono, more or less, on an average?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, P8 po per minute.

REP. COLMENARES. Eight pesos per minute. Ang problema mo dito, tumawag ka lang ng 30 seconds, P8 ang babayaran mo. Tumawag ka lang …

REP. VIOLAGO. Tama po iyon, Mr. Speaker. Tama po.

REP. COLMENARES. Tama po. Tawag ka lang ng 12 seconds, P8 ang babayaran mo, whereas, itong Memorandum na ito, six seconds. So, kung 12 seconds ka lang talaga tumawag, talagang dalawang pulse lang iyong singil sa iyo, hindi iyong P8, kaya malaking tipid para sa subscriber para sa tumatawag kung maipatupad itong Memorandum Circular na ito, Mr. Speaker.


REP. COLMENARES. So, again, billions of pesos


na naman ang nawawala dito sa taumbayan kasi kahit na, you know, iyon nga, 12 seconds o 18 seconds lang ang tawag mo, you are still being charged for 60 seconds, kumbaga one minute na P8, Mr. Speaker.

REP. VIOLAGO. Tama po, Mr. Speaker.

REP. COLMENARES. And there is nothing the NTC can do about this until now.

REP. VIOLAGO. Ang puwede lang hong gawin ng NTC ay hintayin talaga iyong Supreme Court decision bago nila ma-implement po iyon.

REP. COLMENARES. Kung mananalo tayo sa Supreme Court, puwede ninyo pa bang i-recalculate iyong total na dapat ay binayaran ng mga telcos doon sa overcharging, kumbaga, doon sa kanilang ginawang one-minute maximum unit of billing, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, depende po sa magiging desisyon ng Supreme Court. Kung sasabihin nila na pati iyong magmula noong nakaraan ay dapat ibalik ay iyon po ang gagawin ng NTC.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes, so, kung sabihin ng Korte Suprema regarding 05-07-2009, “Ay hindi, tama iyong desisyon ng NTC. Dapat ang overcharging or iyong singil doon ay ganito na lang since 2009,” mga magkano po ba ang dapat na ma-refund kumbaga ng telcos dito, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, bibigyan na lang po namin kayo ng data kasi medyo hindi pa ho nakukuha iyong data ngayon.

REP. COLMENARES. I understand. I am not unreasonable. The question is not very easy actually. So, okay, siguro sabay na lang doon sa hinihingi kong data, Mr. Speaker.


REP. COLMENARES. Salamat. So, balik tayo sa P8 billion. So, kung ito ay manalo tayo sa, well, aakyat naman ito ng Korte Suprema, kung manalo tayo dito sa P8 billion, iyong kanina, iyong sa interconnection charges, ano ang iniisip ninyo, how do we refund it sa mga consumers sa ngayon, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, ang plano po ng NTC, kapag ito po ay nangyari, doon po sa mga prepaid, ilo-load po doon sa kanilang telepono, sa kanilang numero. At doon naman po sa mga postpaid, ia-apply po roon sa kanilang bill.

REP. COLMENARES. Ah, okay. Bale lahat, pati kami, pati si Presiding Officer, lahat tayo dito ay mayroon tayong refund out of the P8 billion, Mr. Speaker.


REP. COLMENARES. I guess that is the only way to refund it. Kasi lahat naman siguro ng tao na mayroong cellphone noong 2011, mayroon pa rin silang cellphone hanggang ngayon, kaya hindi naman sila nawalan. Kokonti lang siguro ang tao na may cellphone noong 2011 pero ngayon ay wala ka na talagang SIM card o cellphone at hindi mo na talaga matanggap iyong refund. Majority naman ng mga may cellphone noon maintained their cellphone ngayon, so I agree with the proposal of the NTC na i-refund lahat sa subscribers na naka-register sa lahat ng telcos sa buong Pilipinas. Tama, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Tama po iyon, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. COLMENARES. Sige, salamat po. So, I will just go to the next issue na lang. Malapit

na lang po ito. Next slide. Ito, problema talaga ito e, the past—hindi. Bago pala ako umalis doon sa ano, nalimutan ko lang, parang napakaraming dropped calls nitong ano—well, actually, palagi namang maraming dropped calls e. Ano ang rule pala diyan? Babayad pa ba ang subscriber ng one minute kahit na dropped call iyong—halimbawa, tumawag ka, “hello,” tapos dropped, e kung iyon pala ang billing per minute, babayad ka pa rin ba ng P8 per dropped call, Mr. Speaker?


REP. COLMENARES. Mayroon bang requirement ang NTC sa mga telcos in terms of iyong—ang performance ninyo, ano ang ia-achieve ninyo na level of efficiency na acceptable sa consumers? Is there such a standard being set by the NTC na kapag bumaba ka diyan, may penalties ka na, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, mayroon pong quality of standard ang NTC, kailangan two percent lang po ang dropped calls.

REP. COLMENARES. Two percent. So, may study kayo kung ilang porsiyento ang dropped calls noong 2013, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, as of June 2014, regarding dropped calls, mayroon pong—mula po sa Globe Telecom which is 0.6 percent.


REP. COLMENARES. It is 0.6 percent lang, okay.

REP. VIOLAGO. That is correct, Mr. Speaker. Globe is 0.6 percent and Smart is one percent.

REP. COLMENARES. One percent. What about any other telco, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Dalawa lang po, Mr. Speaker, iyong…

REP. COLMENARES. Dalawa lang ang mayroon tayo. So, papaano ninyo na-monitor ito, Mr. Speaker? Paano ninyo nalaman na these are the number of dropped calls ng telcos, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, ang NTC po ay mayroong benchmarking equipment.

REP. COLMENARES. Sorry, sorry.

REP. VIOLAGO. Benchmarking equipment.

REP. COLMENARES. Short ano lang, paano po nito namo-monitor iyong dropped calls, ng benchmarking equipment?


REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, one-minute suspension, please.


It was 7:37 p.m.




REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, iyon pong benchmarking equipment ng NTC ay iniikot po iyan around the city na kung saan ay parang tinatawagan po niya lahat noong telepono within the vicinity, kaya lang street level po ito, pero nakukuha niya iyong indoor and outdoor na mga telephones at mine-measure po iyong dropped calls, iyong quality of service, at ginagawa po ng NTC ito once a month para ma-measure po nila iyong quality of service at ina-average po ito for the year.

REP. COLMENARES. So, ibig sabihin…

REP. VIOLAGO. I am sorry, every quarter ho pala. Ina-average every quarter.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes, so ibig sabihin, iyong machine na iyan, equipment na iyan, iikot, makukuha niyang lahat ng tawag sa buong siyudad o in that area or in a radius of what, five kilometers or 10?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, mayroong sariling SIM card iyong machine. So, iyon ho iyong tumatawag para malaman niya kung iyong quality ng calls, para ma-measure ho iyong quality ng calls.

REP. COLMENARES. Ah, okay.

REP. VIOLAGO. Isinasaksak po doon ang SIM ng bawat telco.

REP. COLMENARES. Okay. Maririnig niya rin ang mga phone calls.

REP. VIOLAGO. Hindi po, Mr. Speaker.

REP. COLMENARES. So, iyong ano lang. Has there ever been a time na lumampas ng two percent ang any of the telcos?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, mayroon, noong time po ng mga first quarter po ng 2013, lumampas po ng two percent.

REP. COLMENARES. 2013, first quarter.

REP. VIOLAGO. That was the last, sa record po nila.

REP. COLMENARES. Can we ask na lang a copy—anyway nasa record naman. Puwede bang isabay, Mr. Speaker.

REP. VIOLAGO. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will furnish you a copy.

REP. COLMENARES. Maraming salamat po. So, anong penalties po nila? Was there a penalty

for the dropped call?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, so far, ang ginagawa po nila kapag lumagpas po ng two percent, pina-publish po nila iyong poor quality of service noong telcos. So, iyon iyong unang action na ginagawa nila. And then kung talagang hindi ho nila gagawan ng paraan, magbibigay ng moratorium ang NTC para kumuha pa ng mga bagong subscribers until ma-improve po nila iyong system.


REP. COLMENARES. Thank you for that, Mr. Speaker.

Dapat Mr. Speaker, kasi pag dropped call, walang bayad, di ba? I mean, you were not able to achieve your purpose of calling. Tatawag ako sa kanya sa A, kay B, e hindi naman natuloy, bakit ako magbabayad ng piso per minute doon sa dropped call na iyon na hindi naman natuloy? Hindi po ba tama lang na—anyway, napakalaki naman ng kita ng mga telcos, pati iyong piso na dropped call, sisingilin pa nila, Mr. Speaker. Parang hindi naman yata makatarungan iyan, Mr. Speaker. At hindi ba puwedeng i-rule out natin na hindi na babayaran iyan, whether it is two percent or 6.6. percent or one percent? The company failed to deliver the service, so bakit magbabayad iyong isang ordinaryong empleyado ng piso per minute e kung sa isang araw nakatatlo kang dropped calls, sa isang buwan, aba, malaki rin iyon. You know, maka-30 dropped calls ka, that is P30 or P60. Malaking bagay din iyon, Mr. Speaker, especially since sa buong taon, billions na naman ulit iyong dapat nawala doon sa kita, pero pinagkakakitaan pa din, Mr. Speaker.

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, tama po iyon. Kaya nga po ginawa ng NTC iyong Memorandum Circular na six seconds pulse para po iyong dropped calls na iyan ay bumaba po iyong charges.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes, maraming salamat, Mr. Speaker. But unfortunately, as NTC mentioned, may injunction pala na inisyu ang Korte Suprema.

REP. VIOLAGO. Tama po iyon, Mr. Speaker, the Court of Appeals issued the injunction.

REP. COLMENARES. Court of Appeals, well, expected iyan. Court of Appeals.

So, anyway, I will go to the Internet na. Bakit mabagal ang Internet natin, Mr. Speaker? Ang bagal. Dito sa House, actually nagrereklamo iyong staff namin, Mr. Speaker, especially in the past two months, parang intermittent. Sa bahay, nagrereklamo na ang asawa ko kasi akala niya nangako si PLDT na bumili ka nito DSL, etcetera, pero wala. Talagang ang bagal-bagal niya. Is it a question of may diperensya lang dito sa House of Representatives kaya ang bagal ng Internet? Or is there a big problem really about slow Internet connection in the entire country, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, iyong NTC po ina-admit na malaki po talaga ang problema sa Internet services especially kapag umuulan katulad po ng mga panahon ngayon. Ang totoo po noon ay talagang nagpo-propose ang NTC na para gumanda ang Internet services ay magkaroon po talaga ng investment sa infrastructures. Kasi sa kasalukuyan ay

iyon pong private sector ang naglalagay ng investment sa infrastructures. Kaya kung ikukumpara po natin sa ibang bansa lalo na iyong mga study kung bakit mas maganda, mas mabilis iyong kanilang Internet services, because iyon ho mismong gobyerno nila ay nag-i-invest ng bilyon at kung saan ay ipinagagamit naman po sa private sector, for leasing, para maserbisyuhan po iyong kanilang mga mamamayan. So, iyon po iyong reyalidad natin sa ngayon, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. COLMENARES. Ano pong infrastructure iyong iniisip ninyo diyan and how much will it take, at least, to achieve the minimum standards, Mr. Speaker, doon sa nabanggit na dahilan na mabagal na Internet connection?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, siguro isa-submit na lang po ng NTC kung ano ho talaga iyong kailangan na infrastructure. Kasi, marami po kasi siyang modelo, so practically, kung ano ho iyong suitable sa atin pong bansa, iyon po ang kanilang ipo-propose, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes, thank you, so isabay na rin po doon. I am sure it is a ready report. Sige po. As I have said, hindi naman ako unreasonable to demand that now.

Tama ba iyong analysis ng aming staff na ang slow Internet connection in the country is caused by the unwillingness of the PLDT to interconnect in the local exchange managed by the DOST?


REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, one-minute suspension of the session.


It was 7.46 p.m.




REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, ang sabi po ng NTC, tama po iyon na may problema po ang ating connection noong mga Internet providers dahil sa ngayon po ang nangyayari ay wala pong domestic IPP peering, so kailangang lumabas pa ho muna internationally. For example, from Globe, lalabas muna tapos saka ho babalik sa atin o kung sa Smart man iyong


pupuntahan. Kaya ang plano po ng NTC ay maglabas ng memorandum circular ordering na magkaroon po ng domestic peering para mas maging mabilis po ang koneksyon. Kaya lang po siyempre ay magkakaroon po ito ng typical arrangement between the two companies or several companies na, iyong interconnection fees, probably, ganoon po ang mangyayari.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes. Bakit walang domestic? I thought all along PLDT has all this infrastructure for that domestic requirement, Mr. Speaker. Wala bang ganoong existing today, Mr. Speaker? Or mayroon ang PLDT ...

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, specifically sa Internet, hindi ho talaga sila connected.

REP. COLMENARES. Hindi talaga connected.


REP. COLMENARES. So ibig sabihin, I need to connect here sa Pilipinas, the message will have to go to Hong Kong and then back.


REP. COLMENARES. Kapag PLDT, ganoon din or iba kapag PLDT?

REP. VIOLAGO. Kapag within the same company, Mr. Speaker, hindi na.

REP. COLMENARES. Hindi.

REP. VIOLAGO. Kapag ano lang ho, kapag different companies.

REP. COLMENARES. Okay. So, kapag Globe to Globe, hindi na kailangang pumunta ng Hong Kong?

REP. VIOLAGO. That is correct.

REP. COLMENARES. Kapag Smart to Smart, sorry, kapag PLDT, hindi na kailangang pumunta ng Hong Kong?

REP. VIOLAGO. That is correct.

REP. COLMENARES. So, pero hindi ba mabagal pa rin kahit na, I mean, does that entirely explain the lack of speed on the part of the Internet system here, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, kapag within the same company, dapat po hindi na po mabagal iyon.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes.So, wala bang koneksyon iyong sumobra ang users

ng isang promo ng say, halimbawa, PLDT, may sasabihin siya, ano ba iyon, MyDSL or something, sabihin niya, o ganito one or kung anumang MBPS na kailangan niyang i-standard niya. Halimbawa, bili ka nito, you know, P700 a month, ganito kabilis ka, pero later on, sa dami ng kumuha, lalong bumagal. Tama po ba iyan or walang relationship iyong dami ng users doon sa pagbagal ng Internet provider, Mr. Speaker, o may koneksyon?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, regarding po doon sa speed, that is why para ma-monitor ng atin pong NTC kung tama po iyong ibinibigay nilang services, ay humingi nga po ang NTC ng P14 million to buy LTE benchmarking equipment kung saan mame-measure po iyong speed ng mga Internet. Iyong binanggit po ninyo kanina na kung isang dahilan ay iyong marami na pong users, may posibilidad po iyon, Mr. Speaker, kaya bumabagal po ang services ng provider.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes. So, kung ganoon po pala, Mr. Speaker, dapat may sanction ang— halimbawa iyong capacity mo pala is, I do not know, sabihin natin, one million users. Sa sobra mong advertise sa ganda ng produkto mo ay binuksan mo naman to two million or three million users, bumagal tuloy, hindi mo nai-deliver iyong standard na sinabi mo sa advertisement mo na dapat i-deliver. So wala bang sanction diyan sa mga kumpanyang nag-o-over sell, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, babalik pa rin ho tayo doon sa iyong P200 na penalty, iyon lang po ang puwedeng gawin ng NTC sa ngayon.

REP. COLMENARES. Well, as I have mentioned kanina, we are preparing a draft law on the Public Service Act and we will be asking for inputs, of course, from people, pero hindi ba nire-require itong, say, PLDT or sinuman na telco. sabi mo ganito ide-deliver ko iyan, tapos instead of one million, naging two million, hindi ba dapat mag-invest sila ng infrastructure para kakayanin nila ang two million? Anyway, for one million lang sana iyan, iyong program nila na iyon ay naging two million, e di ang laking kita nila. Hindi ba dapat mag-invest sila, balik sila doon ng investment para kaya nilang i-service iyong two million na sumobra doon sa initial target nila? Is that not required of these companies, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, kaya nga bibilhin natin iyong equipment para ma-measure natin iyong bilis ng service nila para ma-compel natin sila na i-provide talaga iyong speed na bino-broadcast po nila sa advertisement, iyon ho ang purpose po nito, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.


REP. COLMENARES. Salamat, Mr. Speaker. Mayroon bang minimum service reliability ito sa mga Internet providers na hinihingi ng batas or any NTC regulation, Mr. Speaker, para at least ma-attain mo iyong minimum service reliability mo, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Yes, Mr. Speaker, mayroon pong minimum. For example po, sinabi mo na 1 MBPS, 80 percent dapat po noon ang minimum, 80 percent of the time.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes, 80 percent as the way we understand it, Mr. Speaker, I know if the NTC will have a contrary data, lampas lampas na po, mababang-mababa na po ang reliability minimum service na na-provide nila. What is the data of NTC, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, kaya nga po—uulitin ko, kaya nga po kailangan natin ng equipment para ho ma-measure natin na talagang nandoon ho sila sa minimum dahil before wala ho talagang paraan para ma-determine if iyon hong mga providers ay nagbibigay ng minimum of 80 percent.

REP. COLMENARES. Ibig sabihin, Mr. Speaker, sabi ng batas, sabi ng regulasyon, o, 80 percent para reliable ka dapat. Pag 70 percent, reliable ka lang, may problema ka. Puwede ka naming i-sanction, puwede kang i-penalize for 50 percent or 60 percent.


REP. COLMENARES. Iyon ang pinaka-minimum. Dapat 90 percent...

REP. VIOLAGO. Tama po iyon.

REP. COLMENARES. Kahit siya mataas, huwag bumaba sa 80 percent. Pero ang problema natin ngayon, Mr. Speaker, if I understand it right, walang capacity ang NTC to find out whether naabot nila iyong 80 percent, 70 percent, or 90 percent, Mr. Speaker.

REP. VIOLAGO. Tama po iyon, Mr. Speaker, kasi wala ho tayong measuring equipment.

REP. COLMENARES. It is really horrible na na-privatize natin iyong mga areas na iyan, tapos hindi natin ma-regulate na naman ulit. There are some things that we should hold on to. It is really—wala akong masabi kasi magmula pa kanina, ang laki-laki ng kinikita nila, tapos we have no way of finding out kung tama o mali, the way NTC explained it. Mayroon tayong isang naipanalo, napakaliit na bagay, P8 billion.

I mean, if you have P2 billion of text messages a day, sabihin lang natin 50 centavos lang iyong kita nila,

that is P1 billion a day, P30 billion per month. Mano ba namang mag-refund ka ng P8 billion pagkahira-hirap pa. Plus dagdagan mo pa ng dropped calls, dagdagan mo pa ng six-second pulse, dagdagan mo pa ng 80-percent reliability, halos lahat tubo ng telcos; tayong ordinaryong taumbayan, wala tayong matakbuhan because even the regulatory body is saying there is nothing we can do, Mr. Speaker.

I really hope that this Congress will support the bill that we will file about regulating this especially since it is about time the Public Service Act must be overhauled, Mr. Speaker. So, walang puntahan tayo dito sa punto na the NTC is saying na wala kaming magawa. I believe kasi, the NTC can exercise its regulatory functions. Just the mere collection of data, just the mere visitorial powers na bibisitahin iyong, ibigay ninyo sa amin iyong data, kami na ang magkakaso sa kanila. I mean, I know it is difficult to go against Globe, this is a big company, big family, pero iyong tama naman, tama kung tama naman sila, di okay. Pero kung mali naman sila to the detriment of ano, hindi naman sana natin hayaang ganyan, Mr. Speaker.

I really hope that, hindi dapat hanggang doon lang ang regulatory function ng NTC; otherwise, tinatawanan po kayo ng NTC ha, tinatawanan lang kayo ng telcos dito, Mr. Speaker.

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, I, ako po ay sang-ayon sa inyo, sa lahat ng mga nabanggit ninyo. Kaya naman po ang NTC ay tatlong taon na pong humihingi ng suporta sa Kongreso na mabigyan ng pondo para iyon hong binanggit ninyo na ‘ika nga’y makuha ang mga data ay magampanan po nila. Kasi sa pamamaraan lang po ng equipment na ito, lahat po ng nabanggit ninyo ay doon lang ho magkakaroon ng katuparan na mamo-monitor ho talaga lahat ho ng services na ginagawa ng mga telcos. Kaya nga ho hanggang ngayon ay humihingi pa rin ng additional na funds ang NTC pero mukhang kulang pa rin iyon hong budget na kanila pong natatanggap.

REP. COLMENARES. Maraming salamat, Mr. Speaker. My staff naman copied the documents you promised, but I hope na—you know, I am sure you are going to give them to us early next week, if not, within tomorrow or this weekend.

Ito na nga ang isang problema, Mr. Speaker. Privatization has not worked before, it will not work now, it will not work in the future. There are certain functions of government that government must hold on to. Ang masama dito, double whammy, e EPIRA man iyan o Oil Deregulation Law or communication, i-privatize mo, wala pang ngipin o kaya hindi nagfa-function iyong mga regulatory bodies mo as they should, then, may malaki kang problema kasi ang kawawa dito palagi ay ang taumbayan.


When private corporations indulge in government functions, these private corporations, their main emphasis, their main intention is profit, and public service becomes secondary, Mr. Speaker. Iyan talaga ang problema dito. Kaya ang statement nga namin sa gobyerno, kung ayaw mong gawin ang public function mo, gusto mo i-privatize ang MRT, huwag ka nang tumakbo sa gobyerno, huwag ka nang magpatakbo ng gobyerno. Sasabihin ng gobyerno, e kasi kapag gobyerno ang hahawak ng mga functions na iyan, inefficient, corrupt, di ang solusyon, e di i-weed out mo ang inefficiency and corrupt, huwag mong i-privatize. Mangangako kang patatakbuhin mo ang buong gobyerno; isang korporasyon, hindi mo mapatakbo; Napocor, hindi mo mapatakbo; ano klaseng gobyerno ka?

Now we are reaping the evils of this privatization, this globalization and this commercialization of government function, Mr. Speaker. At sayang, napakadami sanang bilyun-bilyong pera na napakahalaga sa taumbayan ang napunta sa kanila, if only, if only, the government maintained its function of providing these services.

Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I am glad that there were promises of data and documents, and rest assured, Mr. Speaker, we will make sure na kung hindi kayang gawin ng NTC sa ngayon, we will try our best to also help in providing sanctions against companies that violate, not just their mandate, but even the few requirements of the law as to services and profit, and hopefully, maibalik nang konti naman sa taumbayan, Mr. Speaker.

Maraming salamat po, Mr. Speaker.

REP. VIOLAGO. Maraming salamat din po.


REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, the next to interpellate the honorable Sponsor is the Gentleman from the Party-List ABAKADA, the Hon. Jonathan A. Dela Cruz.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Si Jonathan na naman? Walang hinto ito.

REP. BONDOC. I move for his recognition, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). O, Jonathan, you are recognized.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. It seems that I am your favorite.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Hindi, si Ridon ang favorite ko.

REP. DELA CRUZ. A, okay.Mr. Speaker, I just have two or three questions, so,

if the distinguished Sponsor will allow.

REP. VIOLAGO. Nakagayak po ang inyong lingkod, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Maraming salamat po.Mr. Speaker, nais ko lang malaman kung

mayroon nang nagawang study o pag-aaral ang NTC tungkol po dito sa impact nitong EDCA. Kung natatandaan po ninyo, under the EDCA, mayroong pag-aayos doon na kukuha ng mga frequency ang US forces pagdating po dito sa atin at sila po ay hindi papatawan ng mga fees or charges. Ano po kaya ang impact nito sa ating telecom system? Kasi, gaya noong nabanggit kanina, medyo problemado na nga po tayo pagdating sa mga regulation sa mga telcos na nandidito sa ngayon, papasukan pa tayo nitong sitwasyon under the EDCA, kung meron na pong pag-aaral.

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, ang NTC po ay hindi po kinakausap regarding that matter dahil sa pagkakaalam po nila, ang gagamitin po doon sa sinasabi po ng EDCA ay ang frequency po ng military na kung saan, wala naman pong binabayaran ang military in terms of frequency, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Baka maganda po, Mr. Speaker, na kausapin ng NTC ang military kasi sa kanilang representasyon sa mga budget hearings, parang hindi po ganoon ang pagkaintindi namin, kaya maganda po siguro habang may panahon ay makausap ng NTC ang military, ang Armed Forces of the Philippines, kasi hindi po ganoon ang kanilang representasyon.

REP. VIOLAGO. Yes, Mr. Speaker, gagawin po ng NTC iyan, to coordinate with the military.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Maraming-maraming salamat po. Mayroon din pong nababanggit pagdating po sa national franchises at pagdating po sa mga regional or local franchises. Maaari po bang bigyan ninyo kami ng impormasyon, ano po ba ang pagkakaiba ng mga local na franchises, at saka ano naman po ang pagkakaiba ng mga national franchises, kung mayroon pong ganoon talaga na categorization pagdating po sa telcos.


REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, one-minute suspension, please.



It was 8:05 p.m.




REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, iyon bang binabanggit ninyo pong franchise ay franchise lang po ng telcos o franchise din po ng mga broadcasting?

REP. DELA CRUZ. Iyon nga po ang gusto kong malaman, may telcos, may broadcast.

REP. VIOLAGO. Practically, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, halos parehas po ang description po noon. Kapag sinabi po nating national franchise, ibig sabihin, kung telcos ka man, puwede kang mag-operate nationwide. Kung regional po ang franchise mo, pang region ka lang ho, hindi ka po puwede sa ibang region. Same thing din ho sa broadcasting. Meron hong national na franchise, meron din pong local franchise, so kapag local franchise po siya, pang province-wide, doon lang po sa probinsya dapat ang kino-cover po niya.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Pagdating po sa, halimbawa, local telephone company, kagaya po doon sa Misamis Oriental, meron silang MisOr Telco at iyon ay nabigyan ng franchise at ang kanilang ginagamit na frequency at lahat doon ay pang doon lang.


REP. DELA CRUZ. Meron po bang listahan ang NTC pagdating po sa ganyang categorization, iyong mga may national na nabibigyan pati ng frequency at saka ang may mga lokal.

REP. VIOLAGO. Meron po, Mr. Speaker. I-po-provide po namin kayo.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Maraming-maraming salamat po. Kasi kagaya po ngayon, may mga sitwasyon na ang pangangailangan ng iba nating mga kaibigan sa probinsya at lahat ay, kung minsan, hindi naman sila talaga magbo-broadcast pang-national, pang doon lang po sa kanilang mga probi-probinsya iyan at nangangailangan sila, iyong iba. Developmental po iyong pasok at iyong iba naman po ay para lang pananggalang sa kanilang mga sitwasyon. Pagdating po dito sa mga naibigay nang mga prangkisa, halimbawa

po, meron palang DZUP, meron palang armed forces radio. Ano po itong mga ito? Ano po ang kategorisasyon ng mga ito?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, iyon pong DZUP ay government broadcasting ho iyon kaya wala po siyang franchise.

REP. DELA CRUZ. E, iyong sa armed forces.

REP. VIOLAGO. Same , s ame d in po , government.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Same din. Marami po ba tayong ganoon, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, na mga government-owned stations? May kanya-kanya ring mga frequency po ito, hindi po ba, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, marami po. Bibigyan din ho namin kayo ng listahan.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Oo, napakaganda po niyan para maintindihan natin, kasi, sa ginagawa po ngayon ng NTC, ang pagkaintindi ko po, merong rationalization program ang NTC. Kasi, kung minsan, nagkakapatung-patong po ang mga frequency ng iba’t iba, iyong broadcast, iyong telco, iyong mga ganoon ho. Ito bang rationalization program ng NTC po na ito ay malalaman po natin at ang NTC po ba ay nagkaroon na ng parang road map para naman po ma-enhance natin ang ating capability pagdating po sa telecommunications at magkaroon po tayo ng globally competitive na sitwasyon pagdating po sa telecoms? Kasi, ang pagkaintindi ko po, at ako po naman ay nakahandang inyong masabihan, ang pagkaintindi ko po parang kulang na kulang po tayo pagdating po sa ganoon at talung-talo po tayo dito sa ASEAN.

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, meron pong road map ang NTC at bibigyan na lang po kayo ng kopya ho ng kanilang road map.

REP. DELA CRUZ. At iyon naman po ay nakahanda ang NTC na sabihin sa atin na pagdating po ng, ilang taon po kaya? Ilan taon po kaya para tayo ay, halimbawa, as competitive as, for example, Malaysia or Singapore?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, medyo mahirap pong i-determine ang binabanggit po ninyo kasi kung ikukumpara ho talaga natin sa ibang bansa, masyado hong malaki ang ini-invest ng government in terms sa kanilang communication at ang mga ibang services ho.

So, practically, mahirap ho nating sabihin sa ngayon kung gaano ho katagal.


REP. DELA CRUZ. Kaya pagdating po sa telecoms at pagdating po sa modernization ng ating sistema, masasabi po ba natin na ang ating pinatutunguhan at ang ating magiging pundasyon ay ang partisipasyon ng private sector? Ganoon po ba?

REP. VIOLAGO. Sa ngayon po, ganoon na nga ho ang nangyayari dahil, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, katulad po ng nabanggit ko kanina, sa ibang bansa ho kasi, investment po nila ay billions of dollars na ipinali-lease lang po sa private sector. Samantalang sa atin po, dito sa bansang Pilipinas, iyon hong private sector lang po ang nag-i-invest, especially sa infrastructure.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Kaya nga po nagkaroon ng isang programa dati at nais ko lang malaman kung ito po ay sinusundan pa natin o ito ay hindi na ipapatupad. Kung natatandaan po ninyo, nagkaroon ng programa tungkol sa NBN-ZTE. Iyan po ba ay gagawin pa ba natin?

Kasi ang ideya po yata doon, and I am ready to be corrected, Your Honor, ang ideya po yata doon ay magkakaroon mismo ang gobyerno ng sariling network, ng sariling sistema nang sa ganoon ay hindi tayo masyadong nagiging dependent sa private sector.

Iyon po ba ay ipapatupad pa natin o hindi na po?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, iyon hong binanggit ninyo na program na iyon ay—iyon ho talaga ang kailangan po natin sa ngayon. Kaya lang po, hindi po kasama iyon sa progama ng NTC pero sa pagkakaalam po natin ay ang DOST po ang may gustong gumawa po noong binanggit po ninyo.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Ibinigay na po natin sa DOST. Pero ang sistema na iyon, iyong nais nating magkaroon ng government-owned and -controlled na telecom system, iyan po ay mangyayari pa rin pero sa ibang ahensiya na.

REP. VIOLAGO. Under DOST na po, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Marapat po siguro at maganda kung tayo po ay mabibigyan ng parang update lang o report, para maintindihan natin. Kasi ito po ang iba’t ibang mga reporma, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, na kailangan natin pagdating sa telecom sector. Kaya iyong road map, pati ang reform agenda ng NTC bilang isang regulatory body ay magkaroon tayo ng pagkakataon na maintindihan, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, nang sa ganoon maiprograma din po natin ang partisipasyon ng iba’t ibang sektor tungkol po dito sa pag-aayos ng ating telecoms industry.

REP. VIOLAGO. Sang-ayon po ako sa inyo, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Iyon lang po ang aking mga katanungan at pagpapaliwanag, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

Maraming-maraming salamat po.


REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the next to interpellate our honorable Sponsor is your favorite, the Gentleman from the Party-List KABATAAN, the Hon. Terry L. Ridon.

I move for his recognition, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Congressman Drilon is recognized.

REP. RIDON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). No, no, Ridon. Mali.

REP. RIDON. That is the larger Chamber, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

According to the NTC’s mandate, the NTC has the responsibility over the regulation of all radio services in the country.

Well, my question has been asked already with respect to the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement. My only question is, how is it that the NTC allowed such provision to be included in the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement in view of the fact that the use of radio waves in the country is a part of our sovereign rights as a state, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, ang alam po ng NTC ay ang frequency po ng military ang gagamitin. So, practically, parang military po ang nag-uusap, hindi na ho kasama iyong NTC.

REP. RIDON. Well, thank you for the response, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. I think at this point, maybe we cannot fault the NTC that they were bypassed but we would want the Department of National Defense and whoever it is, perhaps, the Department of Foreign Affairs, to be held accountable for this oversight because I think ultimately, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, as the NTC is the primary and sole agency with responsibility over the regulation of radio services in the country, I think they should have been consulted with respect to this, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

My next question would be with respect to the almost monopoly of the private sector with respect to


the industry. May we know whether the government still owns aspects of the telecommunications industry, Mr. Speaker. Is there a percentage for it?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, very negligible na po ang government-owned, ang pag-aari ng government. Nasa Mindanao area na lang po, but here in Luzon or Visayas, wala na po.

REP. RIDON. Thank you. Well, I am raising all of these questions because I think it is most important for the state to provide accessible telecommunications services to the people and to a certain extent, much of what is supposed to be competition mechanisms had in fact been obliterated particularly in the most important telecommunication sectors like Internet, landline and mobile services, especially because there are only few players that are able to really intervene and I think it should be among the policy direction of government to really provide a mechanism to make certain that accessible services, telecommunication services can be delivered to the public in the soonest possible time, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

My next question would be with respect to the quasi-judicial powers of the National Telecommunications Commission. May we know, in the past year, how many cases were filed and what is the nature of these cases and had these cases in fact been resolved or unresolved by the NTC, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, we will provide the distinguished Gentleman, my colleague, the data regarding the cases filed and the cases resolved by the NTC.

REP. RIDON. Okay, thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the response. We will be expecting the commitment.

Let me now proceed to the organizational outcomes of the NTC. I understand that the NTC would want to provide services to all barangays and municipalities. Should the public expect that by 2015, the public can avail themselves of free broadband Internet in their areas, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague?

REP. VIOLAGO. That is correct, Mr. Speaker, that is the Information and Communications Technology Office or ICTO.

REP. RIDON. Yes, and we are very much happy, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, that this is something that is being initiated by the National Telecommunications Commission because I think by bridging the technology gap in most parts of the country, we will have to eventually lessen the knowledge gap as well especially since much of the country today still have a very limited access to educational facilities and

services despite massive funding for it. Well, we just do not want that the public will be having some false hopes by next year and expect that in all barangays in all areas there will be broadband Internet, Mr. Speaker.

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, the ICTO program will be under the DOST, the agency of the DOST and the NTC will only be supervising or helping them in the implementation of the program.

REP. RIDON. Thank you. In fact, it is something that needs to be supported, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, particularly some aspects of the TV White Space or TVWS Initiative, because this is a mechanism in which those that are not serviced by commercial telecommunications outfits shall soon be serviced by the government, particularly in far-flung areas, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. I think the NTC and, of course, the ICTO deserve some amount of recognition for this, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

Let me now go to another point, Mr. Speaker. Well, I think this has been raised already by the author of the Bill, Congressman Colmenares, but my question is whether in the last few weeks when there were typhoons and some calamities in different parts of the country, were we able to monitor whether the telecommunications companies were in fact compliant with the disaster-reporting or disaster-texting mandate of this new law, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, as I have said a while ago, the IRR are coming with it after the hearing on October 7.

REP. RIDON. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your response.

My next question would be with respect to a report that has been received with respect to the Philippines, particularly, Manila, being used as the listening post by the Central Intelligence Agency. May we know the extent of the use of the Philippines as a listening post and, at the moment, do we have an actual report, an internal report by the NTC with respect to this particular report, that the Philippines, particularly, Manila is being used as a listening post by the CIA, Mr. Speaker?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the NTC has no knowledge about that matter. I do not know if the military has, but as far as the NTC is concerned, wala po silang alam sa report po na iyan.

REP. RIDON. Thank you for the response. In fact, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, I think this is something that should not only concern the NTC as a regulatory body, but this should concern, of course, like what the Sponsor stated, the Philippine military and the


Department of Foreign Affairs. I think, it is a reduction of Philippine sovereignty with us allowing local and foreign military agents to use our telecommunications services as part of their efforts in doing covert operations in the country, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

Let me now go on to particular questions on Internet services. According to the organizational outcome of the NTC, it is planning to increase their broadband speed to 15 MBPS and 10 MBPS upload speed. How does the NTC plan to roll out such target without obliging the public to shoulder the impact of such technological improvement, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague?


REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, may I ask for a minute of suspension of the session.


It was 6:23 p.m.




REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, iyong mine-mention ninyo about increasing the speed of the Internet, the services of the private sector, if I am not mistaken, ang plano po ng ating government is to have our own Internet service, which is called the iGov, and it is not under the NTC, it is under the DOST, so that lahat ng government agencies ay mawawala na sa sineserbisan po ng private sector. Maybe, that is one step para mag-increase iyong speed ng services po ng telcos sa private sector.

REP. RIDON. Thank you for the response, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. While we are talking about broadband services, I think among the more interesting aspects of mobile services today would be LTE services, but the services are, I think, at the moment a bit costly for consumers. Is the NTC going to proceed to regulate the rates of LTE services as well or will we simply subject it to market forces in the next couple of weeks and months, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague?

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, since deregulated po ang rates, the NTC will not come in kung bumababa iyong kanilang rates, pero kung tumataas po siya, that will be the time that the NTC will come in to

regulate the rates, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. RIDON. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

Another issue in mobile services is the services disruption on the Internet due to inclement weather and other causes, and there have been reports of poor services, but as far as consumers are concerned, there seems to be no mechanism for rebates. Does the NTC know of this problem, and would we know any mechanisms by telcos to address this problem, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague because, I think, the consumers deserve some form of rebate in the event, for example, that no service has been received for a particular 24-hour period, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague?

REP. VIOLAGO. That is correct, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. Under the rule, kung naka-off ang service ng isang provider for a day, so kailangang mag-rebate po ang provider for that reason, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. RIDON. Thank you for the response, Mr. Speaker.

Do we also have any updates on the moves to resolve the high rate of interconnection charges, because, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, I understand that a very, very big chunk in the day-to-day expenses for mobile calls, Mr. Speaker, and texts is coming from the very high rate of interconnection charges?

D o w e k n o w w h e t h e r t h e p r i v a t e telecommunications companies are, in fact, going to the direction of removing or reducing interconnection fees? In fact, Mr. Speaker, we had submitted a House bill in Congress at the moment to really reduce if not remove interconnection charges year after year, so that we can achieve a situation in which all that the consumer will have to pay will be the actual use of phone services and not interconnection charges, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, kung papasa po iyong nai-file na bill ay mangyayari po ito, pero as of now, under Section 18 or Republic Act No. 7925, wala pong magagawang power ang NTC since ito pong section na ito ay kung ano lang po iyong napag-usapan ng telcos at sinabmit po sa NTC. They just have to look into it para i-review lang po at umoo sa agreement po nila.

REP. RIDON. Thank you for the response, and we are hopeful that Congress will look on our bill most favorably and submit it for resolution at the soonest possible time, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.


My next question would be with respect to load expiration. I understand that many of the prepaid subscribers are, in fact, complaining that their loads are usually expiring at a particular period despite payment for those particular loads. May we know whether the NTC has, in fact, intervened with respect to these questions because I think it is not good for the telcos to make an expiree for a particular load that has been paid for by the consumers because it should supposedly inure already to the benefit of these particular users of mobile technology, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.


REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, may I ask for a minute of suspension of the session please.


It was 8:31 p.m.



THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). The session resumed.

REP. VIOLAGO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, ang NTC naman po ay hindi against sa proposal na mawala po ang expiration, especially sa mga prepaid loads, provided, the following conditions will be addressed:

a. Carrying cost of a subscriber. In the design of a cellphone network, the traffic per subscriber is determined and the network is installed based on such parameter. Each subscriber is allocated a portion of the network. Since more than 90 percent of the cost of operating the mobile network is fixed, whether or not the network is used, the same operation and maintenance cost is incurred. If prepaid loads do not expire, the carrying cost of the subscriber that does not use the network is subsidized by those who use the network. There may be some adjustments in pricing;

b. Possible reduction in the revenue of small prepaid load retailers. With the expiration of prepaid loads, the reloading of prepaid subscriber may be longer than when the prepaid loads expire; and

c. Possible exhaustion of cellphone, telephone numbers. The cellphones’ telephone numbers are assigned using access codes 0900 to 0999 or a total of 100 access codes. Each access code has a maximum of nine million telephone numbers. The other numbers are used as special three- or four-digit numbers. If there are 100 million subscribers and each subscriber has 10 SIM cards, each SIM card is assigned with one telephone

number. The number of the cellphone number should be one billion, which is more than available. As SIM card with one-peso load is considered active.

Iyon po iyong mga reasons kung bakit—kung itong mga reasons na, kung maa-address, puwede naman ho talagang mawala iyong expiration po ng mga prepaid loads.

REP. RIDON. Thank you for the very detailed response, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. Well, before I proceed to my last question, I would want to raise this issue on the Fair Use Policy of the telecommunications companies, particularly of Smart and all the others, Mr. Speaker, because I understand that this is among the issues that are being raised by the consumers. I think it is not a Fair Use Policy and this is an unfair use policy because many of our consumers had, in fact, paid for, for example, an unlimited service, but because of the Fair Use Policy, their speeds are already being reduced in the event, for example, that they reach a particular amount of downloaded data. I think the policy direction of the NTC is that there needs to be a new law, which is also among the bills of this Representation. I think and I hope that Congress will support this because this is truly in favor of the consuming public that are using the Internet, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

As a final question, but this is more of a final remark, I think we have to recognize, Mr. Speaker, the effort of the National Telecommunications Commission and its Chairman and Commissioner, Liel Cordoba, in fighting the massive giants in the telco industry, particularly in fighting the high rates of SMS, Mr. Speaker. I understand that we received some favorable resolutions with respect to this, in which refund has been ordered, but I understand that the telcos subjected this good news to a 60-day TRO and, in fact, appealed to the Court of Appeals, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. This Representation and, I think, Congress can only hope and can only pray that the NTC will proceed with this case with great fervor and will always think of the public good with respect to all of these rates as they proceed to the CA, and most expectedly, up until the Supreme Court, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

Maraming salamat po at magandang gabi.

REP. VIOLAGO. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Tapos ka na? Natapos ka rin ha.


REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, the Minority wishes to make a manifestation.


REP. TY. Mr. Speaker, on the part of the Minority, there being no Member who wishes to interpellate, I move to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the National Telecommunications Commission.



REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, we join the Minority in moving for the closure of the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the National Telecommunications Commission.


THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). The period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the NTC is hereby terminated.



REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a few minutes suspension of the session.


It was 8:42 p.m.





GOVERNANCE COMMISSION FOR GOCCs

REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, I move that we open the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Governance Commission for GOCCs, and for that purpose, to recognize the honorable Sponsor, the Gentleman from the Sixth District of Cebu City, the Hon. Gabriel Luis “Luigi” R. Quisumbing.


THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Congressman Quisumbing is recognized to sponsor the budget.

REP. QUISUMBING. Daghang salamat, Mr. Speaker.

I have the honor to sponsor for the consideration of

this august Body the proposed budget of the Governance Commission for GOCCs in the amount of P99.057 million for Fiscal Year 2015.

We are now ready for any questions, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, the first to interpellate the honorable Sponsor is our honorable Sr. Dep. Minority Leader, the Gentleman from the Party-List BAYAN MUNA, the Hon. Neri J. Colmenares.

I move for his recognition, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Congressman Colmenares is recognized.

REP. COLMENARES. Maraming salamat po, Mr. Speaker.

Magandang gabi, alas otso y medya na, kay Congressman Quisumbing at sa pamilya ng GCG.

Very short questions na lang po ito, Congressman Quisumbing, Mr. Speaker. The first slide lang, first, iyong aking tanong lang with regard to issues sa PAGCOR, may desisyon, may memorandum ang BIR na ayon sa batas ay hindi na exempted ang PAGCOR doon sa pagbayad ng income tax; therefore, sisingilin na ngayon ang PAGCOR and its licensees ng income tax. Ang PAGCOR, meron siyang ginawa na instead of 25 percent, for example, ng gross sa license fees ang ibabayad ng mga casino owners, for example, binabaan niya ito into 15 percent. So, parang ang 10 percent ay gagamitin ng mga casino owners para pambayad ng income tax nila. So, hindi talaga maintindihan ang desisyon ng PAGCOR na ito. Kasi presuming they have a contract, Mr. Speaker, with the casino owners na itong license fees na babayaran ninyo, in lieu of all taxes and fees, that is all right, but engrained sa contract na iyon ang batas.

Pangalawa, sige pa, questionable ang decision ng BIR. Puwede namang sabihin ng PAGCOR, e wala kaming magawa kasi iyon ang owners, kasi may BIR memorandum, susundin namin talaga ito, kaya talagang you have to pay the income tax. Kung gusto ninyong mag-question, e di akyat muli kayo sa Korte Suprema. Napakasimple po ng desisyon na iyan. Sabihin lang ng PAGCOR iyan. Ako actually, sasabihin ng PAGCOR, okay talaga ako na hindi kayo magbayad ng income tax, kaya lang order ng BIR e. So, if you have questions, you go up to the Supreme Court. Hindi e, ang ginawa ng PAGCOR, hindi, sige ako na ang bahala, babawasan ko ang bayad ninyo sa amin, tapos ito na lang ang gagamitin ninyong pambayad.

Sa ganang amin, Mr. Speaker, that is really parang—anong kinita doon. Sabi ng BIR, sisingilin ng income tax dito sa kaliwa, iyong kanan pala ibabalik din naman doon sa mga casino owners when in fact


they were already earning billions then. So, mabuti sana kung private money iyan ng PAGCOR, e public funds iyon. So, talagang very questionable iyan, Mr. Speaker. That is why we filed an opposition with the GCG with regard that issue, Mr. Speaker.

The first question is, PAGCOR apparently filed a reply to our opposition, Mr. Speaker. May we know kailan nai-file ng PAGCOR iyong reply nila sa aming opposition as to their appointment, Mr. Speaker, filed with the GCG, Mr. Speaker?

REP. QUISUMBING. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the GCG received the reply of the PAGCOR on July 11, 2014.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not remember seeing or having a copy of the

reply, Mr. Speaker. Is it part of the procedure of the GCG that the respondent, for example in this case, the PAGCOR, is not required to give a copy to the opposition in this case, Mr. Speaker, this Representation, because I do not remember the PAGCOR giving us a copy of the reply, Mr. Speaker.

At this juncture, Deputy Speaker Apostol relinquished the Chair to Presiding Officer Banal.

REP. QUISUMBING. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the Governance Commission—the GCG, forwarded a copy, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, to your office on September 9, 2014.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have here a copy of the letter from the GCG itself

with regard—it is dated September 4. But we probably received—yes, indeed it is right. We received this September 9. But it was the GCG which forwarded it to us. In the procedures ba, PAGCOR is not supposed to inform us as to its reply, Mr. Speaker?

REP. QUISUMBING. It was the expectation, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, that the PAGCOR would furnish their own copy to the distinguished Gentleman. However, on the part of the GCG, they did their own due diligence in forwarding the reply to the respondents, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, actually, it is good that the GCG gave us this

letter because we did not receive the PAGCOR’s letter. However, the GCG forwarded, it is a sort of initial resolution on the case but I do not see any copy of the PAGCOR’s reply. I am looking at the papers here, I do not see any copy of the PAGCOR’s reply, actually, but if I may be given a copy, Mr. Speaker, of the reply of the PAGCOR so that at least mayroon na rin kaming

official na kopya ng kanilang reply doon sa aming oposisyon, Mr. Speaker.

REP. QUISUMBING. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

The GCG did not include the reply of the PAGCOR in the letter that they forwarded to Your Honor but ...

REP. COLMENARES. Can we ask for a copy na lang?

REP. QUISUMBING. .. you have our assurance, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, that we will comply and submit it, the full answer of the PAGCOR.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you. Maraming salamat at GCG pa ang nag-forward ng reply nila sa amin.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, since hindi ko nakikita ang reply, did the PAGCOR explain in their reply how much iyong mga nabawas sa license fees na nawala sa kanila because of their 10 percent reduction of the license fees being paid by these casino owners, Mr. Speaker?

REP. QUISUMBING. The PAGCOR did not submit, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, to the GCG the total amount of the revenue concerned.

REP. COLMENARES. Pardon, pardon, I did not hear it. So, did the PAGCOR state how much ang na-forego sa income ng PAGCOR in their letter-reply to the GCG, Mr. Speaker?

REP. QUISUMBING. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, they did not submit that. What they did was they submit a formula based on what they would have gained otherwise, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. COLMENARES. Okay. So in that formula did they say—the way I understand it, did they say how much income was lost, in that formula, Mr. Speaker?

REP. QUISUMBING. The calculation that the PAGCOR submitted to the GCG, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, showed that there was no loss to the government.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes, there was no loss to the government but there was a loss to the PAGCOR, and there was no loss to the government but there was no income, in any case, to the government, Mr. Speaker, in the sense that the BIR income tax was not really paid by the casino owners. Am I right in that, Mr. Speaker?

REP. QUISUMBING. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.


REP. COLMENARES. Yes. Did the PAGCOR, in their letter, state to the GCG whether or not the casino owners or their licensees are paying the income tax, Mr. Speaker?

REP. QUISUMBING. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the licensees should be paying their income tax directly to the government,

REP. COLMENARES. Yes, Mr. Speaker. My question is, did the PAGCOR, in their reply, also assure the GCG that their licensees, the casino owners, for example, are now actually paying the income tax to the government, Mr. Speaker?

REP. QUISUMBING. That is the implication, Mr.

Speaker, Your Honor, but there was no categorical statement to that effect.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes, because information has come to our attention, Your Honor, that the licensees are actually questioning the memorandum of the BIR and that, therefore, because the licensees, the casino owners are questioning the memorandum of the BIR, they are not paying the income tax now. So, while the PAGCOR has already decreased the license fees—I will finish the question, Mr. Speaker, hindi na nga sinisingil ng PAGCOR iyong 10 percent na pinorgo nila. Ang impormasyon na narinig namin, I hope the GCG will also ask this, iyong mga licensees na hindi rin nagbabayad ng income tax kasi kinu-question nila ang BIR memorandum, so—is there any confirmation on this information, Mr. Speaker, or is the GCG not aware of this information, Mr. Speaker?

REP. QUISUMBING. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. The GCG is not aware of that and they will do their due diligence in confirming the information.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you. Maraming salamat, Mr. Speaker. Kasi kung totoo iyan, e di may loss ang gobyerno kasi pinorgo mo na iyong 10 percent pero iyong income tax hindi rin binabayad, so may loss talaga iyan and I do not think the PAGCOR was forthright in saying na no loss to the government. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, 10 percent ang pinorgo mo sa license fees, is it equivalent to the income tax that to be paid by the licensee e halimbawa sumobra pala iyong 10 percent na iyon, say, I do not know, kung sabihin natin P1 billion iyon pero ang income tax palang babayaran nila ay P750 million lang e di saan pupunta iyong P250, ibabalik na naman sa PAGCOR or what? Iyan ang problema dito sa arrangement ng PAGCOR, a standard 10 percent pero ni hindi nila calculated kung ilan ang income tax ng licensees so iyan ang isang problemang dapat malaman ng GCG kung doon sa issue na sinasabi

ng PAGCOR na walang lugi naman ang gobyerno, Mr. Speaker.

REP. QUISUMBING. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the GCG has committed to look into the matter.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes, Mr. Speaker. Did the PAGCOR reply also state na mayroong school building program ang PAGCOR at pinopondohan ng school buildings na ito all over the country pero dahil sa ni-reduce nila ang 10 percent na franchise fees ngayon ang school building program na iyan ay wala ng pondo, Mr. Speaker, and, therefore mahihirapan na silang ipagpatuloy iyan? Did the PAGCOR also admit that in their letter reply to the GCG, Mr. Speaker?

REP. QUISUMBING. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, that was not covered in the reply that the PAGCOR sent to the GCG.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes, because we have information, Mr. Speaker, that the PAGCOR, there is an official document here na sinasabi na talaga ng PAGCOR, I do not know which officer ng PAGCOR, na hindi na natin kayang i-fund iyong school building kasi ang laki ng 10 percent na binawas doon sa license fees so, parang is there no loss on the part of the government. Would not the PAGCOR consider the fact that may mga kabataan na hindi na mapatayuan ng school buildings and classrooms ngayon because they lower the license fees of these casinos owners, Mr. Speaker? That is a loss to the government, Mr. Speaker, at hindi puwedeng sabihin ng PAGCOR na all is well that ends well, Mr. Speaker. What is the opinion of our distinguished colleague on that assertion, Mr. Speaker?

REP. QUISUMBING. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the GCG is very appreciative of the information that the distinguished Gentleman has brought before them and they will definitely be looking into that as well, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May fiduciary duty kasi ang mga GOCCs, public funds ito e, hindi naman nila personal na pera kaya talagang kapagka naka sarili nilang pera, gagawin mo ba iyon? Hindi e, may income kang ganito, 25 percent, sasabihin mo hindi, 15 percent na lang, kawawa ka naman may ibabayad kang tax sa gobyerno, di problema mo iyong income, I mean income tax babayaran ng taumbayan because these are public funds. Ang problema dito, Mr. Speaker, ang magbabayad ng tax ay taumbayan pero ang kukuha ng income ay ang casino owners. Parang hindi ba you pay your income tax kasi may income ka. Ito ngayon, may income ka pero ang nagbabayad ng tax mo, taumbayan. I mean, that is really


absurd for the PAGCOR to have this kind of a formula na billions ang worth to save their licensees without any care or concern at all doon sa taong-bayan na may-ari ng pondong iyan, Mr. Speaker.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, I will read na lang the letter-reply of the PAGCOR but I really hope that the GCG will also ask incisive questions with regard to the PAGCOR at hindi lamang magkasya doon sa business decision nito as if they are divorced from the functions of a government agency or office.

Last question na lang, Mr. Speaker, as I promised our colleague in this case. Anyway, wala akong kopya ng sulat kasi. That really hinders a lot.

Second to the last na lang. Mayroong statement kasi dito sa GCG letter to me which caught my attention actually. Ang sabi niya, insofar as the PAGCOR’s tax exemption is concerned, this matter is sub judice in view of the motion for clarification filed by the PAGCOR, and the Governance Commission is in no position to comment on the same pending resolution thereof by the Supreme Court. Ang kini-claim ng PAGCOR, hindi pa naman malinaw sa desisyon ng Korte Suprema na hindi na exempted ang PAGCOR sa income tax. Hindi naman daw klaro so sa may motion for clarification sila.

Mr. Speaker, look at the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of PAGCOR vs. BIR. Ito iyon eh. Ang sabi diyan:

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED,. Section 1 of Republic Act No. 9337, amending Section 27 (c) of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, by excluding petitioner Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation from the enumeration of government-owned and controlled corporations exempted from corporate income tax is valid and constitutional x x x.

That is a very clear decision of the court na nagsasabi, “PAGCOR, hindi ka na exempted.” Tsina-challenge ni PAGCOR, a, hindi naman constitutional iyan. Sabi ng court, “No, constitutional iyan na hindi ka na exempted from income tax.” So, Mr. Speaker, did PAGCOR explain kung bakit tingin nila, what is there to clarify in that decision which is very expressly explicit, Mr. Speaker—expressly na, explicit pa—that they are excluded na from the enumeration of tax-exempt or income tax-exempt GOCCs, Mr. Speaker. Did the PAGCOR explain that in their letter, Mr. Speaker?

At this juncture, Presiding Officer Banal relinquished the Chair to Deputy Speaker Apostol.

REP. QUISUMBING. It is the contention of the PAGCOR, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, that the decision was based on the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code. They are seeking clarification as they are basing their position on their charter, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. COLMENARES. Yes. At sub judice siya, sabi ng GCG. There is a motion for clarification. A motion for clarification, Mr. Speaker, is not a motion for reconsideration. A motion for clarification means the decision stays. It cannot be reversed. It is not a motion for reconsideration. So, if it is a motion for clarification, that decision has become final and executory. Well, you can clarify something. I do not know what they want to clarify there but the fact is, it is no longer a live case. The case is terminated. The case is over. The case is final. You are just clarifying something because a motion for clarification is not in the Rules of Court na it is a motion for reconsideration.

So, what does the GCG think? Is the petition still live but it is sub judice in the sense, or is the petition still subject to be reversed by a mere motion for clarification, Mr. Speaker?Or it has become final and executory notwithstanding the fact that a motion for clarification has been filed by the PAGCOR, Mr. Speaker.

REP. QUISUMBING. The GCG, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, has no position yet on this matter as it feels that the matter has not been finally resolved with regard to the issue of the charter.

REP. COLMENARES. Well, I will not belabor the point in this case, Mr. Speaker, but a motion for clarification is probably a third MR, but still, the fact is, even if it is a third, or a fourth MR, they termed it as a “Motion for Clarification.” There is no way that the court will reverse that on a mere clarification, and therefore, that has become final and executory. Therefore, in fact, it is not even sub judice in that sense.

Although, if you really look at it, what is sub judice now in the Philippines? Everybody is talking about pending court cases before the Supreme Court. Even the President of the Republic is arguing his motion for reconsideration through TV channels and berating the Supreme Court for their decision on DAP. Petitioner po kami doon sa DAP e, panalo po kami doon e, pero ang kalaban namin, in public, tinatakot iyong korte. How would the petitioner feel? Talo ka na e. But, you know, ang tingin ng iba, sub judice, from the President down to the lowest man on the street ay nagdi-discuss ng petition sa Korte Suprema. I hope the GCG will not allow the PAGCOR to argue that, e sub judice pa ito, wala kayong jurisdiction dito because that is really not the case in this situation, Mr. Speaker. But be that as it may, it is up for the GCG to decide.

I will just go to the last question na lang. The GCG was created, precisely, among others, of course, but one of the main reasons is for the GCG to come up with a compensation plan to rationalize and standardize all these GOCCs’ benefits, and salaries, and so on. This came about because of the issues that some GOCCs got this huge bonus, some GOCCs have these salaries that


are so absurdly, you know, horribly high, while others do not have that—so, compensation plan. May we ask, Mr. Speaker, what is the status of this compensation plan that is supposed to have been promulgated by the GCG sometime ago, Mr. Speaker?

REP. QUISUMBING. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The GCG takes that mandate and mission very seriously. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, they took the initiative to hire one of the best that the industry has, Towers Watson, to come up with a compensation plan. Currently, it is now under consultation with several departments, including an interagency task force, to see the implications of the implementation, Mr. Speaker.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When was that—well, let us call it a draft for now because it has not yet been approved. When was that draft compensation plan issued or finished by the GCG, Mr. Speaker?

REP. QUISUMBING. The first draft, Mr. Speaker, was submitted in October 2013. Since then, it has undergone several drafts and revisions and is continually being reworked at this point.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.It has been three years since the GCG was created,

if I am not mistaken. The draft for the compensation plan has been there since 2013, October, last year. Mag-iisang taon na, Mr. Speaker, next month, iyong draft. How long does it take to approve the draft? I mean, I thought this issue has long been studied by the various agencies. May we know what composes the interagency, Mr. Speaker?

REP. QUISUMBING. Mr. Speaker, the task force is composed of the Office of the President, the DBM and the Department of Finance.

REP. COLMENARES. Okay. Medyo maganit pala iyong interagency na ito. Ito iyong mga ayaw gumastos pag ayaw nila ng proyekto. Pero pag DAP o iba pa, mabilis gumastos di ba? Iyon ho ang problema. So, what is the problem, Mr. Speaker? Saan ang problema dito? The draft is there, so, what is the main reason, what is holding it up, Mr. Speaker? Ano, walang pera, o hindi kaya, o, I mean, what is the reason for the holding of this draft compensation plan?

REP. QUISUMBING. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the delay in the implementation, is due to the complexity that the implementation of a standardized compensation plan for the GOCCs with a wide range of mandates and functions would create, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

It is important for the task force to make sure that, once implemented, it will not affect negatively the performance of these GOCCs.

REP. COLMENARES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.So, were there consultations conducted also

with the, you know, stakeholders, kumbaga, dito sa compensation plans, iyong mga empleyado o iyong mga opisyales ng various GOCCs na maaapektuhan ng compensation plan na ito, Mr. Speaker?

REP. QUISUMBING. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. The plan was consulted with the different agencies and GOCCs as well as labor unions and other organizations concerned, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. COLMENARES. Well, subject to your commitment or your assurance that consultations were undertaken and there was support, I presume you will say that, from the stakeholders, then I see no reason, if true, na may consultation, may support naman sa GOCCs itong compensation plan. For the Executive practically, this is the Executive that is holding it up. Mahirap ito kasi, the very purpose of GCG is not even being implemented here, in that sense, Mr. Speaker, kasi nawala iyong ganoong aspeto sa compensation plan. So, when do you think will it be officially promulgated, Mr. Speaker, and become the standard that the law mandates the GCG to have, Mr. Speaker?

REP. QUISUMBING. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the GCG does not have approval powers over the compensation plan. The compensation plan, as we mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, is still undergoing refinement before it is finally approved.

REP. COLMENARES. In that case, Mr. Speaker, come time na ng Office of the President, we will probably directly and pointblank ask the OP, ano pa ba ang dahilan dito? That was the reason the law was passed, in the first place. Tatlong taon na, tapos parang wala pa rin, and maybe the complexity as discussed by the distinguished colleague is part of it but we would really probably like to hear it from the OP themselves, Mr. Speaker, kung ano ba talaga ang dahilan bakit hindi pa nagagawa itong compensation plan na ito, Mr. Speaker.

In that case, Mr. Speaker, ito na lang ang masasabi ko—because we did not get a reply from the PAGCOR, I do not know what the PAGCOR said in its defense. Pero we will really demand during the Office of the President’s budget hearing that the PAGCOR be here. We want to ask questions about this case, Mr. Speaker. Even with the Department of Finance, we will ask these questions. I really hope that the PAGCOR will be here. But if the PAGCOR will not be here, we will ask it


from the Office of the President and the Office of the President should know how to answer the questions, Mr. Speaker. Billions of pesos were lost here, loss that should have, you know, these are public funds and they were lost because of the leniency of the PAGCOR over the funds that it is supposed to take care of, Mr. Speaker. We will really put to task the Office of the President if they continue to fail to answer questions in relation to this. In fact, we asked them for certain documents and it should be forthcoming long before the final plenary’s day for the approval of this budget, Mr. Speaker.

In that case, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the GCG will consider the issue with seriousness, and make a careful decision on this issue, especially since this involves billions of pesos of public funds.

Maraming salamat po, Mr. Speaker. That would be all for now, Mr. Speaker. With that, you know, expression of sentiment that we will really make sure that the PAGCOR is questioned when the Office of the President comes into play during the plenary debates, Mr. Speaker.

Maraming salamat po.

REP. QUISUMBING. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.


REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, the next of our colleagues to interpellate the honorable Sponsor is the Representative from the Party-List ABAKADA, the Hon. Jonathan A. Dela Cruz. I move that he be recognized. I so move, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). The Hon. Jonathan A. Dela Cruz is recognized.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Will the distinguished Sponsor of the budget of the Governance Commission yield to a few questions?

REP. QUISUMBING. With pleasure, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, how many GOCCs do we now have?

REP. QUISUMBING. One hundred sixteen, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. And of these 116, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, what is the classification in terms of capitalization, if we have any idea?

REP. QUISUMBING. In terms of assets, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, it is P5.3 trillion.

REP. DELA CRUZ. That is the total assets based on all of our GOCCs.

REP. QUISUMBING. Total assets.

REP. DELA CRUZ. I suppose you have a listing, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, of the top 10 GOCCs that we have. We will appreciate it if you can give us this classification so we will have an idea of which particular GOCC agencies are performing their mandate, and which particular agencies are in the red and not performing their mandate.

REP. QUISUMBING. We will gladly comply, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.


Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, in the 2011 budget, the budgetary support for GOCCs was P22.3 billion, but the actual disbursement for that particular budget item, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, was P68.7 billion. In 2012, the budgetary support was for P33.9 billion, but the actual disbursement amounted to P63.4 billion. And in 2013, last year, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the budgetary support was P46.3 billion, but the actual disbursement was P77.8 billion.

Is the distinguished Sponsor in a position to explain to us the large deviation as to why this happened, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor? What seems to be the problem?

REP. QUISUMBING. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the GCG will look into why the actual disbursements are higher than what was originally allocated for. For the GCG, it has to do primarily with the augmentation of their budgets while saving to pump prime the economy, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. The next question that comes to mind is: If this is the manner by which we have been subjecting our GOCCs, we are providing for augmentation more than their actual budgetary support as provided for in the annual General Appropriations Act, is this the proper and responsible use of public funds, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, because there may be some other programs or projects which may be better served with these huge amounts, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor? My understanding is that the GCG was precisely established or created in order to make sure that our government-owned and controlled corporations will not only be responsible stewards of public funds but will


provide the services as well as the income necessary in order that we will be able to grow the corporate sector in the government. It appears to us that we have ceded a lot of our, what we call the commanding heights of the economy, Your Honor, to the private sector. It may be time for the government, at the least the government, the responsible government-owned and -controlled corporations, to get back and be able to provide the kind of services as well as the initiatives necessary for us to have what we call globally competitive government-owned corporations, just like in Singapore.

REP. QUISUMBING. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the GCG appreciates very much the input of the honorable Gentleman and will look into the facts that he brought up.

REP. DELA CRUZ. In this regard, Your Honor, we will appreciate and I hope the Governance Commission has already come out with some kind of guidelines, initiatives, measures or even what we might call a road map so that we will have an understanding of where government-owned and -controlled corporations should be located and how these government-owned and -controlled corporations should evolve in the years to come.

REP. QUISUMBING. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the GCG is in the process of rolling out an integrated corporate reporting system that will be applicable to all of the GOCCs under their supervision and they are hoping that this will be implemented fully by the end of the year.

REP. DELA CRUZ. In addition to that, Your Honor, since the government-owned and -controlled corporations are in charge of trillions of pesos of assets, it will be most appreciated if the distinguished Gentleman can advise the GCG to just provide us with some sort of a guide, Your Honor, so that we will know whether what particular sectors should the government come to in full force. Meaning, should the government control that particular sector for purposes of the country’s good and national development?

Just in the case of Singapore, most of the huge and globally competitive corporations in Singapore are government-owned or at least partnered with the government. So, this is something that we would like to have if that is needed by the times, and we will appreciate it if the GCG, Your Honor, will provide us with this kind of a guideline so that we will have an understanding which particular sectors, in the view of the Governance Commission, should the government concentrate on.

We have ceded our power sector, for example, to the private sector. We have ceded our public transport,

basically, to the private sector. In the case, for example, of the MRT, Your Honor, up to now, we have not completed the loop that we have all expected in Metro Manila for the Light Rail Transit Program.

In the case, for example, of even the financial institutions, we would like to find out whether we are properly represented in that particular sector and whether the government, by way of its corporations, can have a role in making sure that the financial sector will be geared towards providing the best service for most of our people instead of merely relying on the private sector which, as you know, Your Honor, is, of course, heavily dependent on the profit motive.

So, is that something that the Governance Commission is looking at, Your Honor, because we will appreciate it if that is so; and if that is so, what kind of arrangements are they looking at this point in time so that the government-owned and -controlled corporations will be geared towards this particular objective?

REP. QUISUMBING. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. The GCG is very willing to undertake a study to that effect and we will comply with the submission of the findings, once they are completed, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Of course, I understand, Your Honor, that one of the reforms that the GCG, Governance Commission, has actually involved itself in, and is actually implementing, is what they call performance-based evaluation. Is this correct, Your Honor? Can you please educate us as far as this particular performance-based evaluation of our government-owned and -controlled corporations is concerned? What kind of performance indicators do we have, and if they have already subjected the 116 government-owned and -controlled corporations to this measure of performance, Your Honor?

REP. QUISUMBING. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, it is now in its third year of implementation, and it forms the basis for the PBI, the performance-based incentive.


I am now reading, Your Honor, Chapter V of the Code of Governance for GOCCs, and it says here, and I quote:

Section 25. Full Disclosure. – All GOCCs shall maintain a website and post therein for unrestricted public access: (a) Their latest annual audited financial and performance report within thirty (30) days from receipt of such report;


(b) Audited financial statements in the immediate past five (5) years; (c) Quarterly, annual reports and trial balance; (d) Current corporate operating budget; (e) Complete compensation package of all the board members and officers, including travel, representation, transportation and any form of expenses or allowances; (f) Local and foreign borrowings; (g) Performance scorecards and strategy maps; (h) Government subsidies and net lending; (i) All borrowings guaranteed by the government; and (j) Such other information or report the GCG may require.

Is this something that has already been imposed on all of the 116 GOCCs, Your Honor?

REP. QUISUMBING. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the GOCCs under the GCG do comply with this. As a matter of fact, it is under the Transparency Seal section, and if they are not able to comply with this, they are not eligible to receive the bonuses that they are entitled to. For purposes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, of convenience to the public, the GCG also integrates this under their Integrated Corporate Report.

REP. DELA CRUZ. I am particularly interested, Your Honor, in a number of GOCCs that have both regulatory and proprietary functions, one of which was already mentioned by the honorable Sr. Dep. Minority Leader, the PAGCOR. Is the distinguished Sponsor in a position to provide us with the disclosure requirements as I read earlier, Your Honor, for the following agencies: the CAAP, what about the LLDA, for example, Your Honor, or the NFA, the MWSS, the PPA, the BCDA, the SBMA, Your Honor, and Clark Development Corporation? Can we be provided with at least the disclosure requirements for as well as the performance evaluation of the Governance Commission on these particular agencies, Your Honor?

REP. QUISUMBING. We will comply, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, with the exception of the SBMA, which is not under the jurisdiction of the GCG.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Why is the SBMA not under the jurisdiction of the GCG?

REP. QUISUMBING. By express provision of law, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the law states that it is not. Export processing zones, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, are

not covered under the GCG Law. They are under the PEZA, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. What is the classification of the SBMA, Your Honor?

Is it an export processing zone?

REP. QUISUMBING. Economic zone authority, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. It is an economic zone authority, it is not a government-owned and -controlled corporation, but it has corporate powers.

REP. QUISUMBING. It is a GOCC, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, but it is expressly excluded from the GCG.

REP. DELA CRUZ. It is expressly excluded; what about the BCDA?

REP. QUISUMBING. The BCDA falls under the jurisdiction of the GCG, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. It falls under the jurisdiction of the GCG. I am asking this, Your Honor, because we have been reading in the newspapers that the BCDA has been expanding its operations and has actually been titillating the public with all the information regarding a number of initiatives, for example, in the case of the BCDA. They are trying to advise us, Your Honor, that they are going to put up a green city in the Clark Economic Zone. Is Your Honor in a position to provide us with the information regarding these latest BCDA operations, Your Honor? It appears to us that up to now, the BCDA has not completely provided the public and the GCG with information regarding its program of work for the next several years, Your Honor.

REP. QUISUMBING. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, we will comply.

REP. DELA CRUZ. That will be most appreciated, Your Honor, because that has everything to do with the arrangements that have been made with the creation of the BCDA. As you know, most, if not all, of the income of the BCDA is supposed to go to the Armed Forces Modernization Program, Your Honor. We will appreciate it if the Governance Commission and the BCDA will be able to provide us with the information regarding the remittances that they have been providing the Armed Forces Modernization Program as well as the assets that they are now controlling, Your Honor, including the partnership agreements that they have entered into with various corporations, Your Honor, in which, I understand, these partnership agreements have


enhanced the value of the assets of the BCDA and this particular valuation. The increase in the valuation of these assets should eventually provide us with more income for our soldiers and veterans as well as the AFP Modernization Program.

So, is that something that we can expect the Governance Commission to provide us before the end of plenary hearings, Your Honor?

REP. QUISUMBING. The GCG has given its assurance, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, that they will submit the documents that the Gentleman requires.


We will also appreciate it if the GCG can provide us with at least the complete compensation package for the GOCCs I mentioned, Your Honor, including the housing corporations. I am referring in particular, Your Honor to Home Guaranty Corporation (HGC), the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC), Your Honor, and its wholly-owned subsidiary, the Social Housing Finance Corporation (SHFC).

REP. QUISUMBING. The GCG will provide the current compensation plans for the GOCCs that you mentioned, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.


In the case of the government financial institutions which are also under the jurisdiction of the Governance Commission, Your Honor, we will appreciate it if their performance can be provided us in a report including the local and foreign borrowings that they have entered into, if ever.

REP. QUISUMBING. We will comply, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. By the way, Your Honor, do we also have an information about the guarantees that have been issued by the government in favor of these 116 corporations? If that can also be provided, Your Honor, because that will form part of the obligations of the government. As you know, Your Honor, in the General Appropriations Act for 2015, almost 29 percent of the total NEP, National Expenditure Program, will be allocated for payments of our obligations, Mr. Speaker, and guarantees, of course, form part of those obligations.

REP. QUISUMBING. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. The GCG has indicated that they are in possession of this information and we will gladly comply, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Is the COA the auditor of all of these government corporations, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, or do they maintain their own auditors?

REP. QUISUMBING. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the COA is the sole auditing body for all of the GOCCs.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. There are certain issues that have been raised regarding the performance of the GOCCs, Mr. Speaker, and one of the concerns that have been raised is the one-year term that is embedded in the law creating the Governance Commission. Has there been any assessment on the part of the Governance Commission, Mr. Speaker, on whether this particular arrangement has actually resulted in better performance by the GOCCs or is this some sort of a sword of Damocles over the heads of the GOCCs and, therefore, it can be a destabilizing measure instead of a stabilizing one for our GOCCs?

REP. QUISUMBING. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, this rule with the GCG is in line with what the private sector currently practices. This, we feel, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, will also provide ample motivation for the leaders of these GOCCs and GFIs to be able to meet their targets on a yearly basis.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Mr. Speaker, will this not subject the members of the board, as well as the executives of the GOCCs, to a lot of political maneuverings? If you do not have a fixed term, Mr. Speaker, that is enough for you to make some difference in your own corporation. It might destabilize the corporation unnecessarily, Mr. Speaker. A one-year term in the private sector may be proper, may be responsible because in the private sector you are actually rated on the basis of the profits that you put in for the corporation. But in a government corporation, Mr. Speaker, it is not only the profit that matters. There is a service that is associated with the government corporation that precisely, the government corporation was established or created in order not only to make sure that government funds are properly used but the services expected of that government corporation will be properly undertaken, Mr. Speaker. So, is it the contemplation of the Governance Commission that the one-year term for the board members, as well as the heads of these GOCCs, is something that is proper and responsible, it is not destabilizing, Mr. Speaker? Is that the information that we are getting from the Governance Commission?

REP. QUISUMBING. Precisely, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the GCG has found that the one-year term that is allotted is a good motivator for the heads and directors of the GOCCs and GFIs in order for them to make sure


that they are able to show performance which would make them worthy of reappointment within that year,.

REP. DELA CRUZ. What about the members of the Governance Commission itself, Mr. Speaker, are they properly settled, meaning they have a fixed term? If the Governance Commission members themselves are not properly settled, they do not have a fixed term, they may be the object of a lot of politicking, Mr. Speaker, and you know, under our system, that can be a very destabilizing effort. Since they are the ones in charge of making sure that our 116 GOCCs perform well, in accordance with certain standards, by destabilizing them without a fixed term, that is a disincentive that we can ill afford at this point in time, Mr. Speaker. Are the members of the Governance Commission provided with a fixed term, Your Honor, or are they also subject to the pleasure of the President?

REP. QUISUMBING. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the members of the GCG serve at the pleasure of the President.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Given the three-year experience that we have had with the Governance Commission, Your Honor, is it about time for us to consider amending that particular provision, so that the members of the Governance Commission can be provided with a fixed term and, therefore, they can guide, they can nurse our GOCCs to better performance if they have that kind of stability, if they have that peace of mind in order that they can be considered the guides of our GOCCs to provide better service and for these GOCCs to be real corporate giants in the future, Your Honor? Is it not about time for us to consider providing for a fixed term for the members of the Governance Commission?

REP. QUISUMBING. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, many of the key programs of the GCG are still in their infancy and they are confident that we will continue to see the benefits of the reforms and plans that they have brought into the governance of the GOCCs. With regard to whether the membership of the GCG should have a fixed term, the GCG will leave it to the wisdom of Congress to determine.

REP. DELA CRUZ. What is the view of the Governance Commission, Your Honor? Have they come out with any kind of a comparative study, perhaps, with the comparable agencies in other countries, Your Honor? What is the situation in other countries, in the ASEAN, for example? I am sure many of the government corporations in Malaysia, Thailand or even in Singapore, Your Honor, are also governed by certain rules and if they have governance commissions themselves, what is the situation in these countries, if you have any information?

REP. QUISUMBING. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, though there are pros and cons in providing for a fixed term for any officials, the GCG, again, would leave it to the wisdom of Congress to determine whether or not the law needs to be amended.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much for that. But the members of the Governance Commission will not be averse to having fixed terms, Your Honor. Will they be averse to having fixed terms?

REP. QUISUMBING. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, with regard to whether they would be averse or not, again, they defer to the wisdom of Congress.

REP. DELA CRUZ. They will just rely on the wisdom of Congress, Your Honor, they do not want to hear the wisdom of their bosses, just like the President? The President always listens to his bosses, Your Honor.

REP. QUISUMBING. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, precisely so, the GCG was created by an act of Congress and, therefore, any changes to the compensation or their term will have to depend on what will, most certainly, be a comprehensive and very exhaustive deliberation on whether fixed terms should be provided for the directors of the GCG.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Mr. Speaker, I was amazed to find out that the Governance Commission has already closed down or has already abolished, dissolved or classified as inactive or non-operational 20 GOCCs and 12 dissolved. Do we have a listing of these classified as inactive or nonoperational GOCCs, Your Honor, and what about the dissolved or abolished GOCCs?

REP. QUISUMBING. We have a list, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, and we will gladly furnish the distinguished Gentleman with a copy of the same.

REP. DELA CRUZ. I am most interested, Your Honor, with the four GOCCs that were mentioned as having been conduits for the misappropriation of funds if that can be the classification or the information coming from the PDAF. This involves, for example, the Technology Resource Center, the Zamboanga Rubber Estate Corporation, the National Livelihood Development Corporation and another corporation, Mr. Speaker. Whatever happened to these four corporations?

REP. QUISUMBING. They have all been dissolved, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, and we will provide the distinguished Gentleman the findings of the GCG as well as their recommendations.


REP. DELA CRUZ. I hope that particular report will also contain or indicate the so-called participants in this particular program regarding the use of what they call tainted foundations, which availed of the services of these government corporations, Mr. Speaker.

REP. QUISUMBING. It is the Commission on Audit that would have that information, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. You mean to tell me, Mr. Speaker, that these particular corporations do not have the records of the transactions that they have made insofar as the use of these funds is concerned, Mr. Speaker? I suppose that before they were dissolved, the Governance Commission should have secured this information, Mr. Speaker, at least, the records.

REP. QUISUMBING. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, these files are currently in the possession of the COA and were secured by the same agency.

REP. DELA CRUZ. These files are in the possession of the COA.

REP. QUISUMBING. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. May I know, Mr. Speaker, if the Governance Commission has actually a listing of all of the files before they dissolved all these corporations—audited financial statements, all the indicated resolutions, whatever, of the board of these corporations, as well as the assets of all of these corporations. Will that be made available to us at some point in time, Mr. Speaker?

REP. QUISUMBING. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the files that the honorable Gentleman is requesting were turned over by the COA to the DOJ.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have with me some information regarding these corporations. As mentioned in a report that was provided to me, Mr. Speaker, for example, in the NABCOR, the National Agribusiness Corporation, nothing in the annual audit reports of the resident auditors mentioned misuse and/or receipt of kickbacks from the PDAFs by the Senators or Congressmen.

This is a report of the auditor, Mr. Speaker, and I am making this of record, precisely because we want to make sure that everybody understands that as far as this National Agribusiness Corporation, the judgment of the resident auditor runs contrary to the opinion of the COA leadership, Mr. Speaker. I will quote, for the record, the assessment of Associate Justice, Sandiganbayan Justice Samuel Martires himself, “It would take a century for this government to get rid of graft and corruption if the

present management of COA continues to interfere in the work of the resident auditors.”

Is the Governance Commission aware of this particular information, Mr. Speaker? I have every reason to believe that the resident auditors in this particular case, Mr. Jaime Serrano, State Auditor V, the supervising auditor, and Merle M. Valentin of NABCOR, did their duties well, and in their judgment in their annual reports, there was no mention of misuse and/or receipt of kickbacks from the PDAF, but the COA leadership came out with another information, and they even broadcast it in the media, Mr. Speaker. That is the reason Associate Justice Samuel Martires of Sandiganbayan himself mentioned, and I quote, as I had quoted earlier, and I will add, “The COA leadership chose to overdo and decided to pinpoint accountability to a few who all belong to the opposition, if only to show to their appointing authority that they have accomplished something.”

The audit report is completely contrary to the information that we have been getting from the COA leadership, Your Honor.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). How many hours do you need more to interpellate?

REP. DELA CRUZ. About 10 hours. No, about five minutes more, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. I am just reading for the record …

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Okay.

REP. DELA CRUZ. … these particular audit reports because I wanted to make sure that everybody understands these particular reports, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, because to our dismay and, of course, to our complete amazement, the Members of Congress have been demonized as a result of all of these things. I am talking about four government corporations where so-called funds from legislators were channeled, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, and I am just reading this for purposes of the record.

In the case of the Zamboanga del Norte Rubber Estate Corporation, the report said:

The resident auditors exercised properly the audit process. Nothing in the annual audit report of the resident auditors was there a mention that there was a misuse and/or receipt of kickbacks by any particular legislator from their PDAF.

I just wanted to make this of record. I hope that in time, the Governance Commission itself will be able to reflect this in their own report, including those of the National Livelihood Development Corporation and the Technology Resource Center, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, so that we will be properly guided and the Members of Congress who have been demonized will be properly


vindicated. I just wanted to read that for the record. I have no more questions, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

I thank the distinguished Sponsor, and I thank the Speaker for giving me the opportunity.

REP. QUISUMBING . Thank you, Mr. Speaker.



REP. TY. Mr. Speaker, on the part of the Minority, there are no Members who wish to interpellate, I move to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Governance Commission for GOCCs. I so move, Mr. Speaker.


REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, we in the Majority join the Minority in moving for the termination of the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Governance Commission for GOCCs. I so move, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.


The period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Governance Commission for GOCCs is hereby terminated.


REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, at this juncture, I move that we open the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Presidential Communications Operations Office, including its attached agencies and corporations. For this purpose, may we recognize our colleague from the Lone District of Quirino, the Hon. Dakila Carlo E. Cua, to deliver his sponsorship speech.


PRESIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS OPERATIONS OFFICE

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Congressman Cua is recognized.

REP. CUA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.We would like to dispense with the delivery of a

sponsorship message, and we are now ready to answer questions pertaining to the budget of the PCOO.


REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, I move for the recognition of the Hon. Antonio L. Tinio, our colleague from the Party-List ACT TEACHERS, for his chance to interpellate the Sponsor.


THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Congressman Tinio is recognized to interpellate.

REP. TINIO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions pertain to the budget of an agency attached

to the PCOO, namely the National Printing Office. First of all, Mr. Speaker, in the previous General

Appropriations Acts, at least, as early as 2011 up to 2014, there has always been a General Provision pertaining to printing and publication expenditures. As the title of that General Provision suggests, it has been very relevant to the functions of the National Printing Office. However, as this Representation pointed out during the budget briefing of the PCOO before the Committee on Appropriations, I was surprised to find that that provision on Printing and Publication Expenditures can no longer be found. In short, it was not included in the General Appropriations Bill for 2015.

I, therefore, propose that such a provision be reinstated with the following wordings, Mr. Speaker:

Printing and Publication Expenditures. – Departments, bureaus, offices and instrumentalities of the government including constitutional offices enjoying fiscal autonomy, SUCs and GOCCs, and LGUs shall engage the services of the National Printing Office and APO Production Unit, Inc. in the printing of accountable forms.

Is the Sponsor amenable to the inclusion of such General Provision in the General Appropriations Bill, Mr. Speaker?

REP. CUA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, we are in support of your move to reinstate such a provision that will benefit the National Printing Office.

REP. TINIO. Thank you for that, Mr. Speaker.On to my second question then, Mr. Speaker.

Again, this Representation, during the budget briefing of the PCOO noted with alarm that in the General Appropriations Bill that we have before us, there is only an amount of P6,000 being proposed as appropriations for the National Printing Office, P6,000 under Personnel Services, Mr. Speaker. While these are some of the facts, it is a fact that for 2015, the NPO has a total authorized plantilla of 489 positions with 443 of these positions


being filled positions. So, they have at least 443 regular government employees in the NPO.

During the budget briefing, it was explained to me that a mere P6,000 was proposed for appropriation because the NPO would be authorized to make use of its income generated from printing activities in order to cover not only the amounts necessary for their maintenance, operations and capital outlay expenditures but also the salaries and other personnel benefits required by their employees, Mr. Speaker. This Representation, also upon consultation with the union of the National Printing Office, strongly opposes this proposed appropriation of a mere P6,000 as an annual appropriation for the NPO. I would like to cite in particular the Salary Standardization Law, particularly Joint Resolution No. 4, in its section on “Coverage,” which clearly establishes that a national government entity, such as the National Printing Office, is covered by the Salary Standardization Law. All positions in the NPO must be covered by the Salary Standardization Law.

Furthermore, in Section 19(a), it is clearly specified and mandated that for national government entities, the funding source must be in the General Appropriations Act. Let me read the exact wordings: “For national government entities, x x x such amounts as are needed shall be x x x in the x x x General Appropriations Act.” Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to propose that instead of the P6,000 in the General Appropriations Bill, an amount of P150,790,000 be included under Personnel Services in the proposed budget of the National Printing Office, Mr. Speaker, in order to ensure that their budget is compliant with the existing laws on salaries, specifically Joint Resolution No. 4, and in particular, to extend to the 443 employees of the National Printing Office, the guarantee of the State that their salaries, benefits and other such compensation due them will be paid no matter what because it has the guarantee of the State through the General Appropriations Act. Would the Sponsor be amenable to my proposal that the amount of P150,790,000 be included under the Personnel Services of the budget of the NPO, Mr. Speaker?

REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, dear colleague, the Sponsor is of the same view as the Honorable Tinio in believing that the proposed amount of P150 million be rectified to guarantee the payment of salaries and wages of the employees of the NPO.

REP. TINIO. Well, thank you for that, Mr. Speaker. Just for the record, Mr. Speaker, is that a commitment that such amendment at the proper time will be made to address the concern that I have raised?

REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, dear colleague, you can rest assured that I believe in what you say and I agree in your opinion. We will appeal personally, with your support, to the Committee to possibly rectify the situation and augment the P6,000 PS cover to the appropriate amount of P150 million.

REP. TINIO. Well, thank you for that, Mr. Speaker. I will be satisfied with that answer for now, but rest assured that we will continue to monitor this particular issue, and we will join the Sponsor in making sure that the Committee on Appropriations addresses this matter. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

REP. CUA. Thank you, dear colleague, for your helpful and supportive recommendations. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). You are through?



REP. TY. Mr. Speaker, on the part of the Minority, there are no Members who wish to interpellate. I move to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Presidential Communications Operations Office, including its attached agencies. I so move, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BONDOC. Likewise, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Majority, we move to close the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Presidential Communications Operations Office, including its attached agencies and corporations. I so move, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). The sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Presidential Communications Operations Office, including its attached agencies and corporations, is hereby terminated.


SOCIAL HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION

REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, at this juncture, I move that we open the period of sponsorship and debate on the Social Housing Finance Corporation. For this purpose, I move that we recognize the honorable Sponsor, our colleague from the Third District of Negros Oriental, the Hon. Pryde Henry A. Teves.



THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Congressman Teves is recognized to sponsor the appropriations.

REP. TEVES. Mr. Speaker, this Representation is now ready to entertain questions regarding the budget of the Social Housing Finance Corporation.

REP. BONDOC. Mr. Speaker, I move for the recognition of our colleague, the Hon. Jonathan A. Dela Cruz from the Party-List ABAKADA for his interpellation of the honorable Sponsor.


THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Cong. Jonathan A. Dela Cruz is recognized.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Will the distinguished Gentleman, the Hon. Pryde Henry A. Teves, yield to a few questions?

REP. TEVES. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I will do my best.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Your Honor. Is Your Honor aware that the Social Housing Finance Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation, now has more assets, and, in fact, is more properly capitalized than its mother agency, the mother corporation, Your Honor? Your Honor, in an audited financial statement, it has actually increased its equity. When it was established in 2004, it only had, at that point in time, Your Honor, P100 million in terms of equity. But now, its total assets and equity as of 2011, Your Honor, is P10,656,859,732, which is more than that of its parent corporation, the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation.

REP. TEVES. In actuality, the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation still has a bigger asset compared to the Social Housing Finance Corporation. However, it is true that they have grown considerably in the past 10 years, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. To what would the distinguished Sponsor attribute the growth in the asset base of the Social Housing Finance Corporation, Your Honor?

REP. TEVES. Basically, a big amount in the yearly subsidy for the CMP, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor?

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes, I can see that that is where the increase in the capitalization and assets of the Social Housing Finance Corporation came from, Your Honor, especially since they have now taken over most of the CMP, Community Mortgage Program, of the

government as well as the Abot-Kaya Pabahay Fund, which is the amortization support and development financing program for a lot of homeowners. That is the reason I had wanted to find out if it is true that the Social Housing Finance Corporation has actually taken over all of the Community Mortgage Programs of the national government.

REP. TEVES. That is true, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Will the distinguished Sponsor advise us, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, what actually is the Community Mortgage Program that the Social Housing Finance Corporation is undertaking because in the original presidential decree creating the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation, there were two things that were being worked out under the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation. One is a guarantee program, Your Honor, and the other one was an actual program for the provision of financing and development services for homeowners especially in the depressed areas. So, the Social Housing Finance Corporation has actually taken over that other aspect of that particular program, Your Honor. So, it is now in charge of the actual delivery of financing and housing services for Community Mortgage Program while the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation is just providing guarantees. This is how we understand the program, Your Honor.

REP. TEVES. Well, EO No. 272 in 2004, specifically created the Social Housing Finance Corporation to administer the CMP. It started the CMP itself which gives loan packages now up to P250,000 per loan, and it has also expanded to go into this what you call low medium-rise buildings, which will benefit mostly construction in the urban areas: Malabon, Valenzuela, Caloocan and Quezon City, and also some off-site constructions in Bulacan, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. What is the relationship, Mr. Speaker, if we can be given that information, between the activities of the Social Housing Finance Corporation and the National Housing Authority?

REP. TEVES. Basically, while it addresses the problems of housing, the NHA itself is on the production side of things, the Social Housing Finance Corporation is doing the financing packages for such problems of this country, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. So, are they not duplicating the efforts of the Pag-IBIG Fund, for example, Mr. Speaker? Is this a program that is complementary to the Pag-IBIG Fund Program or this is a program that is actually contrary to the program of the Pag-IBIG?


REP. TEVES. It will be complementary in nature, Mr. Speaker, because this caters to the informal settlers, the IFS, while the Pag-IBIG caters more to the formal, the people with a higher capability of paying.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Since it is providing loans, are the loans being provided to an organization, Mr. Speaker, or are they provided to individuals who may well avail of that particular amortization support and development financing program?

REP. TEVES. It is mostly on organizations, Mr. Speaker. In fact, now, they even cater to less than 20 members, normally 20 members, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. How many projects has the Social Housing Finance Corporation undertaken thus far, Mr. Speaker, since the time it was organized in 2004 to the present? Will you have any idea?

REP. TEVES. For the CMP itself, it would be 2,341 projects catering to 264,621 families, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. There is also a mention, Mr. Speaker, in the notes of the financial statement of the Social Housing Finance Corporation of an Abot-Kaya Pabahay Fund. Will Your Honor please educate us what this particular fund is all about and how much is the fund worth right now, Mr. Speaker, if he has any information.

REP. TEVES. It is basically a development loan program, I understand, Mr. Speaker, and the amount as of now is P250 million, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. In the 2015 budget, Mr. Speaker, the Social Housing Finance Corporation is requesting for a huge amount. Is the distinguished Sponsor in a position to provide us with information on the usage of this particular amount—this is actually, in effect, an equity, a subsidy on the part of the government for purposes of the Community Mortgage Program and other programs for our informal dwellers, Your Honor?

REP. TEVES. Well, this is because they are going into the high-density housing program which would be in the amount of P3.7 billion, Mr. Speaker, that would cater to about 7,754 informal settler families. That is the reason there was an increase because, of course, high-density housing will be a little more costly compared to the off-city houses, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Will the distinguished Sponsor advise us where this particular high-density housing will be located, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, if he has any information.

REP. TEVES. Yes. It will be in Malabon, Valenzuela, Caloocan and Quezon City, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. And these are housing projects that were actually provided for, or are they going to be provided financing by the Social Housing Finance Corporation as a result of the organization of certain informal settlers or families, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker?

REP. TEVES. Yes, Mr. Speaker. It will be about P450,000 per beneficiary but with a very minimal interest of 4.5 percent per annum, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker.

So, no individual can avail of the financing program of the Social Housing Finance Corporation, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker. It has to be an organization of prospective homeowners.

REP. TEVES. That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. How many more, in the contemplation of the Social Housing Finance Corporation, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, are they going to support for purposes of this particular financing program? If they are saying that it is complementary to the activities of the National Housing Authority, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, are they also involved in the relocation or the reassignment of certain settler families? If, for example, along the banks of the Malabon River, there will be certain families organizing themselves, will they be in a position to provide financing for these particular families?

REP. TEVES. Yes. Basically, the beneficiaries of this high-density housing program would come from those on the waterways like the Tullahan, Estero de Sunog Apog, San Juan River, Kipungoc, Las Piñas, Malabon, Navotas Rivers and Calamiong River, among others, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker.

While this particular program is very laudable, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, as it caters to the poorer members of society, I have been informed, and I am reading now, that the compensation package for the officers of the Social Housing Finance Corporation is actually, to my mind, compared with the other government employees, quite extravagant. I will read, for the record, the compensation package for officers: “For the position of president, the basic salary, the maximum of P78,916 per month and the benefits, P277,393.” This is a very, very extravagant package, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker,


and I was wondering if this particular package is generated out of the financing that they are providing the homeowners to whom, as I understand it, the financing provided is P250,000, is that correct, per member of the homeowners association?

At this juncture, Deputy Speaker Apostol relinquished the Chair to Presiding Officer Bondoc.

REP. TEVES. Well, since this is just an EO, it has no charter. They followed the Salary Standardization Law and I am informed that it was approved by the Civil Service Commission, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. So, with that, then it is within the bounds of the law, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. I will read for the record the benefits that are provided for, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker: personnel economic relief assistance, rice allowance, uniform allowance, medical allowance, children’s allowance, meal allowance, representation allowance, birthday gift benefit, thirteenth month pay, cash gift, year-end bonus, economic subsidy, performance incentive bonus, and transportation allowance.

Are these particular benefits afforded to other government employees, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, if you can give us information if this is available also to other government employees, this kind of compensation package? Or this compensation package is more than what is provided for under existing laws?

REP. TEVES. I believe so, Mr. Speaker, except, of course, those offices which are already receiving RATA.

REP. DELA CRUZ. We will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, if the distinguished Sponsor and the Social Housing Finance Corporation people will be able to provide us some information regarding this, as compared to other government-owned and -controlled corporations.

REP. TEVES. Sige po. I will be asking the agency to make a, more or less, comparative matrix compared to, maybe, four or five other government agencies, if that would suffice for my distinguished colleague, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, that will suffice for our purposes in the meantime as we are also asking this of other government-owned and -controlled corporations. We have requested this from the Governance Commission, and I have yet, of course, to get any information regarding the performance of the Social Housing Finance Corporation. I hope that

they will be equal to the compensation package that is provided for which I earlier read, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

In any event, I hope that the Social Housing Finance Corporation will be able to undertake its mandate in a manner that is responsive to the requirements of our informal settlers, especially, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, and that is in consonance with the governance regulations of the Governance Commission.

REP. TEVES. I will commit to supply the needed information by, latest, Wednesday next week, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.


These are all the questions that I had wanted to ask of the distinguished Sponsor. I have no more questions.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Bondoc). The Asst. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. LAGMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I move that we recognize the Asst. Minority Leader, the Hon. Arnel U. Ty.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Bondoc). The Honorable Ty is recognized.

REP. TY. Mr. Speaker, on the part of the Minority, the Minority has no more questions, so I move to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Social Housing Finance Corporation.



REP. LAGMAN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.We join the manifestation of the Minority.May I move for a five-minute suspension of the

session.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Bondoc). The Chair will rule.

REP. LAGMAN. Okay.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Bondoc). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Social Housing Finance Corporation is closed.

The Asst. Majority Leader is recognized.



REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move for a five-minute suspension of the session.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Bondoc). The session is suspended.

It was 10:23 p.m.



THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Bondoc). The session is resumed.


NATIONAL HOME MORTGAGE FINANCE CORPORATION

REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move that we take up the budget of the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation, and recognize the Sponsor, the Hon. Pryde Henry A. Teves.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Bondoc). The Honorable Teves is recognized.

REP. TEVES. Yes, Mr. Speaker. We are ready to entertain questions regarding the budget of the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation.


REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move that we recognize the Hon. Jonathan A. Dela Cruz of the ABAKADA Party-List.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Bondoc). The Hon. Jonathan A. Dela Cruz is recognized.


This is not actually an interpellation. I just wanted to ask of the distinguished Sponsor if he can provide us with a report of the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation in the manner that I had always requested of the subsidiary, Your Honor, and that includes a report on the compensation package for the officers and members of the board of the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation.

REP. TEVES. I commit to supply the information, latest, Tuesday next week, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. I hope that it will include, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, the performance report of the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation for the past four years if that is possible.

REP. TEVES. I so do commit on such information, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, distinguished Sponsor, Mr. Speaker; thank you very much.


REP. LAGMAN. Thank you, Mr. Spaker.I move that we recognize the Asst. Minority Leader

Arnel U. Ty.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Bondoc). The Honorable Ty is recognized.

REP. TY. Mr. Speaker, on the part of the Minority, there are no more Members who wish to interpellate. I move to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation.


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Bondoc). What do you say, Asst. Majority Leader?

REP. LAGMAN. The Majority joins the Minority, Mr. Speaker.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Bondoc). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation is closed.



REP. LAGMAN. I move to suspend the session for a few minutes, Mr. Speaker.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Bondoc). The session is suspended.

It was 10:26 p.m.




THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Bondoc). The session is resumed.


NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY

REP. LAGMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move that we take up the budget of the Social Housing Finance Corporation—I am sorry, the Budgetary Support to Government Corporations, the National Housing Authority, and we recognize the Hon. Pryde Henry A. Teves to sponsor the same.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Bondoc). The Honorable Teves is recognized.

REP. TEVES. Mr. Speaker, this Representation is now ready to accept questions regarding the budget of the National Housing Authority.


REP. LAGMAN. Okay. Mr. Speaker, I move that we recognize the Hon. Emmi A. De Jesus of the GABRIELA Party-List for the interpellation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Bondoc). The Hon. Emmi De Jesus from GABRIELA Party-List has the floor.

REP. DE JESUS. Magandang gabing-gabi na po sa ating lahat, gabing- gabi na.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor, sa pagkakataong ito at bilang pagkilala po sa kalagayan din at katayuan ng Representasyong ito, physically, ako po ay hindi na magtatanong kundi magpapahayag ng aking manifestation. Ito ay pagkilala rin at recognition doon sa initiative and effort ng mga lider kababaihan na nagpunta rito kaninang umaga para dalhin ang kanilang demands dahil alam nila na ihaharap ngayon, ihahapag ngayon ang National Housing Authority budget, at sa bahagi ko ay nais kong ipahayag iyong kanilang mga katanungan. Syempre, ang bottom line naman ng lahat noong aking katanungan ay nasa balangkas o nandoon sa framework ng, nasaan ba ang puwang o iyong lugar ng kanilang katiyakan sa paninirahan, at mahalagang maibahagi sa kanila ang mga kasagutan sa mga sumusunod na katanugan kaugnay ng pondo. So, we are after the funds that are allotted to the National Housing Authority dahil alam namin na ang mandato ng National Housing Authority ay on socialized housing.

Iyong una pong point,—I will be using the DBM presentation which was brief and, more or less, concise at nakasumada na.

Ang mandato po, with regard to socialized housing ng NHA ay tatlong punto. Iyong una, iyong project which means Housing Program for ISF residing in danger areas. Kaugnay po nito, hihingin po ng Representasyong ito ang detalye doon sa budget na P3,586,000,000 na nagta-target ng 8,108 families na magiging beneficiaries for the year 2015. Ngunit gusto ko ring idugtong, dahil iyong 2014 mayroong budget itong P5,493,773,000 para sa 6,807 beneficiaries, paano ito ni-utilize?

At this juncture, Presiding Officer Bondoc relinquished the Chair to Deputy Speaker Apostol.

Mahalaga po itong katanungan na ito para makita rin, ano ang parameter ng NHA vis-à-vis doon pa sa iba pang ahensya katulad ng DILG na nag-a-address din ng issue ng informal settlers at mayroon ding pondo. Ganoon din ang DSWD, doon sa kanilang pondo na mayroon din silang mga binabanggit na konstruksiyon para rin sa pabahay. So, ito po ay napakahalagang katanungan at sana maibigay mula sa ahensya.

Iyong pangalawang punto po kaugnay ng emergency housing assistance for calamity victims, ito ay mayroong pondo na malaki pa doon sa resettlement housing pero, kauna-unawa dahil doon sa profile nakalagay na malaki rin ang target na bilang ng mga beneficiaries. Mayroong 26,426 beneficiaries, at kanina po, nabanggit din sa pakikipag-usap ko kay GM Chito Cruz, nabanggit niya na hindi ito bahagi ng “Yolanda.” Kaya ito pong halagang P736 million ay maganda ring makuha kung saan, ano, at sino ang pinaglalaanan nito. Kasi ang nakalagay pa nga 16,500 for 2015. Ibig sabihin ba nito, itong 16,200 na na-allot lang natin, nilagyan lang ng allotment na 3,000 noong 2014, na na-allot natin ng 100,000 ay maganda rin pong makita, ano na ang development. Saan-saang area po ito kung labas ito sa “Yolanda”?

At pangatlong punto, at palagay ko, pinakamahalaga, dahil ang mga nagsagawa po kanina ng kilos-pagpapahayag, kilos-protesta ay mga nanggaling sa resettlement areas. At ito po, para sa pagbabahagi, ang Representasyong ito ay talagang—isang area ito na gusto talaga naming palalimin—kasi kapag sinabi nating resettlement, may pinanggalingan na lugar na kung saan naroroon ang kanilang o marami sa mga pamilyang inililipat, dahil iba nga iyong ISF. Pero itong Resettlement Program na binabanggit ay gusto naming malaman ang mga dahilan, bakit nga sila tatanggalin doon sa lugar at saan sila dadalhin? Kung titingnan din iyong budget, sa biglang tingin talagang napakaliit, ano, P577 million lamang para sa mga pamilyang ililikas sa 2015 na 7,215. Dito po sa paglilikas na ito, at ito, dati na naming itinatanong, sino iyong mga developers na ka-partner ng ahensya? Dahil kanina po sa pagkilos ng mga kababaihang lider mula sa mga resettlement areas,


isa sa kanilang panawagan ay iyong “serbisyo, huwag gawing negosyo.” Ibig sabihin, baka po itong programa ng resettlement ay pinagkakakitaan at magandang Makita, ano ang nasa likod ng resettlement program na ito na pinagkakakitaan ng mga negosyante?

Gusto ko ring irehistro at nagpapasalamat ako at ina-acknowledge ko ang pagsagot ng ahensiya doon sa pre-plenary na humingi ako ng record ng, ano ba ang intervention sa socioeconomic program dito sa resettlement areas? Sa kasamaang palad, doon po sa inisyal na pag-aaral, kalakhan po ng intervention na nakita naming, ang tinutukoy nilang socioeconomic intervention o pagtulong doon sa mga pamilyang resettled ay iyong programa rin ng DSWD na 4Ps. Kaya nakababahala ito, dahil ang ibig sabihin, ang 4Ps po ay conditional cash transfer na tinitiyak na pag-aaralin iyong mga bata, magpapadoktor ang kababaihan at ang anak na maliliit, pero sa kasamaang palad, kung malayo nga iyong resettlement area, walang ospital, walang eskuwelahan, siyempre ang pera diyan ay gagamitin doon sa kagyat na pangangailangan nila. Lalong makikita na hindi talaga ito intervention sa kanilang kabuhayan. At, kalakhan po ay training at kung titingnan iyong training, siyempre, sana, iyong training na makukuha nila ay mayroong kaagad na trabahong mapagkakakitaan.

Ang isa ngang comment ko noong ako po ay nakinig sa mga nanay, turuang mag-manicure, mag-pedicure, sabi ko, sino naman ang market ninyo? O gagawa ng sabon, gagawa ng kung anuman, ano, pero ang vision sa ganitong mga training ay walang marketing scheme such that talagang nababalaho rin o stranded iyong hinaharap nila na socioeconomic activities.

Panghuling punto po sa aking manipestasyon ay iyong gusto rin naming malaman: Ilan ba ang properties ng NHA na mayroong mga ospital na nakatirik? Siyempre, alam naman natin na ang tinutukoy ko, isang halimbawa rito ay iyong PCMC. Ibig sabihin, itong nai-forward na rin po iyong concern namin dito sa PCMC during the pre-plenary, pero baka hindi lamang PCMC ang property ng NHA kung saan mayroong tertiary hospital. Kaya, nakababahala, kung baga, hindi lamang ito ang concern ng NHA, concern talaga ito ng pambansang pamahalaan, ng DOH, para tiyakin na mayroon tayong tertiary hospitals at hindi sila iskuwater. Ano ang mga solusyon diyan, ano iyong mga terms?

With that, Mr. Sponsor, Mr. Speaker, inaasahan po namin na itong mga naipahayag at kung may maidadagdag pa, at pinatunayan naman na ang NHA ay bukas sa mga nais pang itanong o nais pang linawin, ang manipestasyon pong ito ay tinatapos ko. Sa ngalan po ng ating mga kababayan na naghahangad ng katiyakan sa paninirahan, nais ko muling banggitin na ang katiyakan sa paninirahan ay lagi-lagi nang may katapat na dapat

pinag-iisipan ang kanilang katiyakan sa pagkakakitaan na disente, pagkakakitaan na sigurado o hanapbuhay.

Iyon lamang po at magandang gabing-gabi uli sa ating lahat.

REP. TEVES. I commit to give all required information by Tuesday, next week, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.


THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). The Asst. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. LAGMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I move that we recognize Cong. Fernando “Ka Pando” L. Hicap of ANAKPAWIS Party-List.

REP. HICAP. Maraming salamat.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Congressman Hicap is recognized.

REP. HICAP. Maraming salamat, Mr. Speaker, G. Sponsor, at sa ating mga kapamilya sa National Housing Authority, magandang gabi po sa lahat. Sabi ni Cong. Emmi De Jesus ay gabing-gabi na.

Actually, iyong mga tanong ko kanina ay naitanong na rin, napasadahan na kanina ng mga nauna doon sa SHFC sa pagtanong. May ilan na lang na mga tanong. Bago siguro iyon, gusto ko lang magpahayag na ang ating pagdami, ang pagdami ng ating mga maralitang-lungsod sa ating bansa ay nagpapakita ng tunay na mukha ng kahirapan sa ating bayan. Ito rin ang realidad ng kawalan at kakulangan ng trabaho sa ating bansa. Ito rin ang nagpapakita kung gaano katindi ang pangangailangan ng higit pa na bigyan ng pansin, pangunahin, ng ating gobyerno kung paano sosolusyunan ang lumalalang kalagayan ng kawalan ng bahay at paninirahan, at kawalan ng tunay na serbisyo na mauugat natin doon sa kawalan ng seguridad sa trabaho. At karamihan ng mga maralitang lungsod, batay sa pag-aaral ng KADAMAY, ay aabot na sa 30 milyong pamilya sa buong bansa. Kaya, kung mayroong 100 milyon, malaki ang ating mga kababayan na masasabi nating walang sariling tahanan. Kung isasama mo pa rito ang tinagurian ng ating gobyerno at tinatawag na rin ngayon na mga informal settlers at mga iskuwater sa ating bansa, ang mga mangingisda na lalong mga nasa danger zone, ay talagang napakarami na, napakalaki ng bilang ng higit na nangangailangan talaga ng pagkalinga ng ating gobyerno sa ating mga kababayan. Ito ang napakahalaga na kailangan nating solusyunan at napakahalaga na dapat busisiin at dapat tingnan ang prioritization sa paglalaan sa bawat taon ng ating badyet. Alin ba talaga ang dapat unahin? Alin ba dapat


ang priyoridad para sa pag-unlad kapuwa ang layunin na lahat ay umuunlad hindi lamang sa iilan. Umuunlad nga ang ekonomiya natin, pero ang iilan lamang, pero ang nakararami ng ating kababayan ay tumitindi ang kahirapan at tumitindi ang pagdarahop.

Kaya, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor, at sa ating pamilya, may mga ilan na lamang. Higit na naging biktima rito, lupa ng gobyerno, lupa ng NHA na pinarentahan sa gobyerno na nagresulta sa pag-demolish sa kanila at pag-relocate doon sa mga lugar na walang trabaho na mas lalo pang lumikha ng matinding kagutuman at kahirapan at hindi nabigyan ng pag-aaral ang kanilang mga anak.

Kaya, ang unang tanong ko po kaugnay dito sa isyu ng San Roque, dito sa tatayuan ng Ayala, ilan pa hanggang sa ngayon ang nakatira pa rin sa center island after ng demolition noong January 27-28 sa Agham Road? Kasi, Mr. Speaker, makikita natin diyan ang ating mga kababayan na halos nandiyan na sa palibot o nasa center island magmula dito sa may Agham Road, kahit doon sa may NIA, halos diyan sa mga gilid-gilid ang ating mga kababayan, kahit dito sa may Kalayaan. Kahit saan ka yata pumunta sa ating mga lugar ay mayroong mga pamilya ang ating mga kababayan na nakahimpil doon na doon na lamang natutulog, doon na nakatira sa kanilang mga barong-barong na itinatayo pansamantala na mga silungan.

REP. TEVES. Ganito po. Sa ngayon, sa pag-ikot din ng mga tauhan ng NHA, wala na talaga silang nakitang permanenteng nandoon. Maybe, minsan sa ibang gabi may natutulog doon, minsan nawawala. Pero ang importante, kung ang ating kasama ay mayroon pang mga miyembro o mga kilala na galing doon na hindi pa rin naa-accommodate, puwede pa rin natin silang i-accommodate sa mga housing projects ng NHA, kung puwede man sa Bulacan o sa Rizal o kung saan pa, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Dapat lang. Dapat at tungkulin at responsibilad natin natin na tulungan ang ating mga kababayan. Pero, ang lahat ng ito ay dapat tanggapin natin na biktima ito ng demolisyon dahil sa maling proyekto, ang priyoridad ng paglalaan ng lupa ng ating gobyerno tulad ng sa San Roque na dating tirahan ng mamamayan iyan, sariling bahay nila, pinaghirapan, napakatagal na panahon para magkaroon ng bahay, pero dahil sa layunin na pagkakitaan ng lupa ay pina-lease sa mga mayayaman tulad ng Ayala at ngayon ay naging biktima sila ng maling priyoridad ng paggamit ng lupa na dapat ay para sa kanila dahil gobyerno naman ang may-ari ng lupa.

Sunod na tanong ko po, G. Sponsor, Mr. Speaker, napakarami na po ng guwardiya diyan, security guard. Sino po ang nagpapasahod sa kanila, ang NHA ba o ang kumpanya ng nagpapatayo diyan, iyong Ayala?

REP. TEVES. Since nai-turn over na ho iyan sa Ayala Corporation po, guwardiya na ho iyan ng Ayala Corporation, Mr. Speaker.

REP. HICAP. Guwardiya ng?

REP. TEVES. Ayala Corporation.

REP. HICAP. Ayala Corporation.

REP. TEVES. Opo.

REP. HICAP. Kasi, mayroong nakarating sa akin, sabi mayroon daw kontrata sa pagitan ng NHA at BDM Security Agency na siyang nangangasiwa sa pagguwardiya diyan. Kung ganoon na iyan ay nasa Ayala Corporation, kasi mayroong mga reklamo ng harassment na nakarating sa akin mula sa mga nakatira pa diyan, responsibilidad nila iyon. Hindi ang NHA ang mananagot doon sa ganoong mga pangyayari.

REP. TEVES. Mas mabuti na lang po siguro na i-turn over sa opisina ang mga pangalan ng mga hindi pa ho naa-accommodate para ma-accommodate na sila sa proyekto ng NHA para, at least, hindi na rin sila ma-harass ng mga guwardiya ng mga Ayala Corporation po, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. G. Sponsor, Mr. Speaker, ito po ang mga natitira pa riyan, ang nakararanas ng harassment doon sa mga security guard. Iyan pala, ang mga natitira diyan, ano ang plano diyan? Ide-demolish pa ba sila o kailangan na nating tulungan sila para paunlarin na nila ang komunidad diyan?

REP. TEVES. Kung ano man po, since ngayon may accommodation o mga programa ang NHA na tinatawag nating people’s plan, kung ang mga komunidad na naiwan doon ay may sariling plano, puwede natin iyang pasuportahan sa NHA, puwede natin silang idayalogo para kung ano man ang plano nila, at napasok naman sa programa ho ng NHA, ay puwede naman nating matulungan at masuportahan po, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Maraming salamat, G. Sponsor.Ang tanong ko po, ano ba ang plano diyan? Kung

mag-dialogue man, ano ang plano? Pangunahin, nandiyan sila. Doon na talaga on-site na doon natin sila ide-develop na para maging maayos ang kanilang komunidad o anong klaseng, ano iyong ano ng NHA?

REP. TEVES. As a sample po, iyong may dalawang grupo na successful naman ang ating ginawang pagplano. Ang isa, nagpalipat sila sa Novaliches; ang isa naman, nagpalipat sila sa San Jose del Monte po. So, iyong isa Novaliches, iyong isa San Jose del Monte.


REP. HICAP. Ang tanong ko po, ang natitira diyan, hindi ang nagpalipat, G. Sponsor. Ano ang gagawin natin sa mga natitira pa diyan na mga naninirahan? Sa NHA ang lupang iyan, gobyerno ang may-ari, ide-demolish ba natin sila ulit?

REP. TEVES. Okay, sila pala ang pumili po nito. Sila ang nag-propose ng site na gusto nila dito sila, at sila rin po ang nag-design ng bahay na iko-construct, na gagawin.

REP. HICAP. Kaya, on-site, diyan na sila.

REP. TEVES. Off-site po iyan.

REP. HICAP. Kaya, ide-demolish sila diyan?

REP. TEVES. Ililipat po, ililipat.

REP. HICAP. Ililipat sila.

REP. TEVES. Yes, po.

REP. HICAP. Kaya ide-demolish.

REP. TEVES. Ganito po iyan, kaya nga sila namimili ng proyekto kasi alam nila na ililipat na ho sila para sa isang lugar na maituturing nilang talagang sa kanila na ho at sila ho ang namili, at sila na ang nag-design ng bahay, at probably, pati titulo, siyempre, sa kanila na rin.

REP. HICAP. Saan naman po ang lugar na iyon?

REP. TEVES. Ito nga po, sa San Jose del Monte at sa Caloocan po pala, Barangay Grace Park, Caloocan po.

REP. HICAP. Okay. Anu-ano at saan ipinatayo ang mga medium-rise building para sa informal settler families na naninirahan sa sinasabing mga danger zones?

REP. TEVES. Kanina po, nabasa ko iyon, Malabon, Valenzuela, Caloocan, Quezon City po. Mayroon ginagawa rin daw po sa Pasig at saka sa Mandaluyong.

REP. HICAP. Ano naman ang papel ng DILG dito? Kasi kine-claim din ng DILG na sila ang may ano sa mga danger zone area.

REP. TEVES. Well, ang NHA po ay binigyan ng budget para gawin ho ito at ginagawa ng NHA ang ibinibigay na trabaho po sa kanila. Kung ang DILG po ay binigyan din ng misyon para gawin ho ito, a

sana naman ay ginawa rin nila ang kanilang tungkulin, because like a good soldier, kung ano ang ibinigay na proyekto sa NHA, gagawin ng NHA to the best of their ability, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Ano ang ano niyan, G. Sponsor, Mr. Speaker. Sino ang pangunahin, ang NHA ba o ang DILG, para sa pag-relocate dito sa mga tinaguriang mga nasa danger zone?

Kasi kung hindi ako nagkakamali, from 2010 hanggang 2016 yata, mayroon bang P50 billion na budget ang DILG para sa relocation ng mga nasa danger zone sa National Capital Region, at ito iyong tinatawag nilang ”estero declaration,” actually, noong dati pang DILG Secretary Robredo.

REP. TEVES. Ang pagkakaalam ho namin, kasi ang ginawa ng Presidente ay parang composite team--ang team leader, DILG, papasok ang DILG; kung may mga emergency, magbibigay ang DSWD ng assistance; kung may mga barado doon sa waterways, ang nagki-clear ho ang DILG, at ang role noong NHA—DPWH pala, at ang role noong NHA, taga-gawa ho ng bahay. So, in effect, doon sa composite team, sa convergence team na ginawa ng Presidente, isang bahagi po doon ang NHA, which is construction arm, taga-gawa po ng bahay, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Kaya nakasama na ng DILG, pero based sa mandato, ang NHA ang mayroong sole ano niyan sa …

REP. TEVES. Sa pabahay po, yes.

REP. HICAP. … pabahay.

REP. TEVES. Definitely po.

REP. HICAP. Hindi naman nagkakaroon ng ano ang NHA at DILG dahil dito sa halos—kasi mayroong mga report din na nakarating sa akin, doon sa “Yolanda” victims, na mayroong hindi nagkakasundo. Sino ba talaga ang magpapatayo ng bahay doon sa mga biktima, ang DILG ba o ang NHA?

REP. TEVES. Parang maganda naman na ho ang ngiti ni GM Cruz e, parang wala naman ho siyang problema sa DILG po.

REP. HICAP. Doon sa ano niyan, G. Sponsor, Mr. Speaker, sa kalagayan ng mga relocatees natin, ang pagtindi ng kahirapan, kawalan ng hanapbuhay, at ang kino-complain nga nila, wala nang trabaho doon, walang kabuhayan, at napakalayo nila sa dati nilang trabaho, at napakalaki ng gastos kung pupunta sila sa trabaho.


Meron ba tayong plano, meron ba tayong programa o package ng programa para i-address itong mga problema ng ating mga relocatees?

REP. TEVES. Two points po. Unang-una, kailangan

nating gawin ang transport cooperative para iyong pamasahe nila ay bababa papunta sa worksite.

Second po, iyong tinanong kanina ni Congresswoman Emmi De Jesus na ang mga interventions ho natin, ang mga trainings at skills development doon sa mga miyembro noong mga komunidad na iyon, medyo, at least, madagdagan naman ng ilang kaalaman para sila ay makahanap ng trabaho. So, those are the two points na ina-address ho rin ngayon ng NHA para matulungan naman ang ating mga na-relocate na benepisyaryo po, Mr. Speaker.

REP. HICAP. Ito ba na-implement na o i-implement pa lang, o nasa plano pa lang?

REP. TEVES. Ang interventions po, ini-implement na po.

REP. HICAP. Saan naka-implement na itong mga interventions ng transport cooperative, itong mga trainings, iyong mga livelihood projects, at anong mga klaseng trainings at livelihood projects iyon? Paano ang mga ito nakatutulong doon sa mga relocatees?

REP. TEVES. Ito po, mamaya po, kung papayag ang ating kasama, ibibigay ko itong listahan kung saan ho ito na-implement which is in Northville and Southville Resettlement Sites. May lista dito kung ano ang mga interventions at number of beneficiaries po na naka-avail dito sa ating interventions, kung mamarapatin ho ng kasama natin.

REP. HICAP. Okay. Actually, after ng demolition diyan sa San Roque, nang na-relocate na doon sa Montalban, makalipas ang isang linggo, pumunta ako doon, tiningnan ko ang lugar. Alam ninyo ang problema doon, ang nilipatan walang pinto, walang bintana, walang sarahan. Isang bahay lang na buong ganoon, walang tubig, walang koryente.

Ganoon ba tayo, lahat ng ating mga nire-relocate na mga biktima ng di-pantay na proyekto tulad ng dito sa San Roque ay ganoon ang naging sitwasyon? Kaya wala na nga silang kabuhayan, problema pa nila paano nila sasarahan ang pinto, walang security, kahit tubig ay wala, walang ilaw.

REP. TEVES. Nababahala po rin ang ahensiya

sa report na iyan ng ating kasama. Sa sarili ko ring experience, kasi bago tayo lilipat, kukuha tayo ng building permit; fire, health, sanitation permit, at bago tayo lumipat, occupancy permit. So, sa tingin ko, dapat

pati ang mayor, alam na iyan na hindi kompleto bago siya nagbigay ng occupancy permit.

Ang maisa-suggest ko po, kung puwede, after the budget hearing, kung may resolusyon man ang ating kasama na i-file, para maimbestigahan ho natin ito, kasi para sa akin nga, isang regulatory agency rin mismo ang ating local government. So, dapat ginawa rin ng local government ang kanyang trabaho diyan sa pag-monitor, kasi bago nga siya magbigay ng occupancy permit, dapat ho kompleto na iyon. Kung may resolusyon diyan ang ating kasama, susuportahan ko po iyan, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Maraming salamat, G. Sponsor. Kaya lang ang tanong ko ho, ito recent lang,

lalo pa ang mga nauna. Ganoon ba talaga o baka ang problema, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor, hindi kaya doon sa mga contractor natin na gumagawa? O saan ba ang problema? Bakit nire-relocate natin ang ating mga kababayan sa ganoong kalagayan? Hindi kaya ang may problema doon sa paano talaga ang plano natin, tapos ang contractor, actually contractor din, di ba, may contractor na gumagawa ng bahay. Sino ba ang may kasalanan? Saan may responsibilidad, dapat may pananagutan, ang NHA ba o ang contractor?

REP. TEVES. Mayroon pong iba daw, ang napag-

alaman ko rin, hindi muna inilalagay lahat ang puwedeng nakawin hanggang ang tao lumipat na po. Kasi kung ilalagay niya, baka pagdating ng tao, ninakaw at nabenta na po sa iba. So, mayroon ring mga arrangements na ganoon. But going back doon sa aking premise kanina, malaki ang role ng LGU dito kasi lahat ng permit na ibinibigay bago ginawa ang bahay ay manggagaling sa LGU. So, definitely, dapat namo-monitor ho talaga itong mga ganitong problema. So, definitely, dapat namo-monitor ho talaga itong mga ganitong problema. Tama lang po na we put things in order by putting a resolution and checking for ourselves. Baka nga puwede tayong mag-ocular inspection pa e, sasama ho ako sa ating kasama, Mr. Speaker.

REP. HICAP. Oo, dapat. Maraming salamat. Dapat lang at alam naman ng NHA kung ano talaga ang kalagayan.

Pero itong mga bahay, punta tayo sa susunod na tanong, itong mga na-relocate natin sa mga ano ng NHA, binabayaran ba ito? Nagbabayad ba iyong ating mga relocatees?

REP. TEVES. May moratorium po iyan ng isang taon, pagkatapos, mayroon na iyang slow payment first five years niyan mga P200 a month, then 30 years to pay. So adjusted ho iyan as the years go by, but definitely, maximum 30 years to pay po iyan, Mr. Speaker.


REP. HICAP. Saan napupunta iyong bayad noong mga relocatees?

REP. TEVES. Parang lalabas na revolving fund po na kapag nakakolekta ho tayo at mayroon tayong bagong mga programang pabahay ay gugugulin ho doon para ma-expand iyong resettlement projects po ng NHA.

REP. HICAP. Ang ibig sabihin, sa NHA napupunta iyon. Paano iyong mode of collection doon sa kanila?

REP. TEVES. Monthly po, monthly.

REP. HICAP. Monthly.

REP. TEVES. Opo.

REP. HICAP. Paano doon sa mga ano iyan—kasi matindi ang kahirapan, walang hanapbuhay–doon sa mga hindi nakakabayad, ano ang policy?

REP. TEVES. So far po, medyo mababa pa ho talaga ang koleksiyon pero for the record, wala pa naman pong ine-evict so far.

REP. HICAP. Wala pang ine-evict.

REP. TEVES. Wala pa po.

REP. HICAP. Okay. Dahil doon sa hindi nakabayad.

REP. TEVES. Opo.

REP. HICAP. Doon sa mga relocatees natin, our relocation area, mayroon ba tayong percentage na kung ilan pa ba ang natitira doon, ilang porsiyento ba ang umalis, ilang porsiyento ang natitira. Kasi, mapapansin mo kapag pumunta ka sa mga relocation areas, napakarami ng mga bahay na wala namang mga tao na dahil nga doon sa walang hanapbuhay, walang serbisyong maayos, kaya napipilitang umalis sila at bumabalik doon sa mga lugar kung saan sila dating nabubuhay dahil mas alam nila kung paano mabuhay doon sa mga lugar na iyon.

At idugtong ko na lang para isahang tanong na lang, G. Isponsor, kasi medyo humahatinggabi na. Kapag umalis sila or naibenta iyong lupa at bumalik doon, kung, halimbawa, nakakuha sila uli ng bahay sa isang area at inabot na naman sila ng demolisyon, hindi na sila magiging beneficiary noong NHA.

REP. TEVES. Ganito po, normally ang retention rate nila is mga 75 percent; iyong umaalis, normally po, iyong 25 percent, ibinebenta ho iyong rights nila. So sa

ganoon ay madi-disqualify ho talaga iyon kasi magiging propesyon na ho nila iyon, lilipat at ibebenta iyong rights at lilipat na naman ho sa kabila. So, definitely, dapat ma-disqualify lang ho talaga sila.

REP. HICAP. E, kapag ganoon, hindi na sila makaka-avail ng pabahay.

REP. TEVES. Hindi na po.

REP. HICAP. Kaya darami iyong ating mga kababayan na diyan pa rin sa tabi-tabi, mga gilid-gilid ng mga kalsada maninirahan dahil sa ganoon ngang sitwasyon.

Hindi ba dapat i-address talaga at ang kailangan siguro dito, G. Isponsor, Mr. Speaker, ay kung paano iyong holistic approach talaga, ano talaga ang dapat nating gawin para manatili na iyong ating mga kababayan doon sa mga relocation areas at hindi na kailangang pumunta pa kung saan para maghanap ng trabaho, kung hindi within doon sa kanilang relocation area, doon na mismo. Iyon ang kailangan dapat, paano talaga iyong comprehensive program para sa paglutas ng pagdami ng bilang ng mga kababayan natin na walang permanenteng tirahan. Dapat ganoon iyong programa ng NHA, dapat naka-package sa ganoon, hindi lang bibigyan mo ng bahay pero wala namang hanapbuhay, iiwanan din iyong bahay kasi wala naman silang hanapbuhay. Pero kung mayroon kang hanapbuhay, kahit wala kang bahay, makakagawa ka ng bahay. Dapat ganoon. Hindi ba puwedeng ikonsidera ng NHA na dapat holistic iyong pag-approach doon sa pag-address sa kawalan ng bahay o permanenteng bahay ng ating mga kababayan?

REP. TEVES. Sa aking kasama po, actually, nakita ko na rin iyan, kaya nga after this budget hearing, gusto kong magpa-meeting sa NEDA at sa ibang mga ahensiya kasi kung holistic approach ang pag-uusapan natin, galing ho iyan sa NEDA. Two things, kung mayroon kayong murang lupa in city, puwedeng in city. Pero kung wala, ang una nating dapat gawin, transportation—tren, gagawa tayo ng tren para kung saan man natin ilagay iyong ating off-city relocation sites, mayroon silang tren na babalikan na wala silang trapik na mararanasan, na puwede silang pumunta ho sa kanilang lugar kung saan ang kanilang hanapbuhay. If a holistic approach is to be followed, then it must start from our planning authority which is the NEDA, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Dapat kasama iyong mga kababayan natin.

REP. TEVES. Dapat ho talaga, sa kanila nagsimula, opo.


REP. HICAP. Maraming salamat. Ano na lang siguro, hihingi na lang ako ng mga datos, huli na lang ito kundi ilang mga datos kaugnay sa clearing ng ISF sa Quezon City, update report on the dangers and clearing, tapos iyong complete list ng mga relocation sites nationwide including contract at mga contractor, project site description, at saka kung saan iyong relocation site, lot size, housing and cost specification, subdivision plan, number of houses, number of relocatees, feasibility study sa mga relocatees’ area sites sa Rizal, Laguna, Cavite, at Bulacan na nabanggit kanina, kasama na ang Camarin, medium-rise building, saka iyong mga approved na project proposal para sa in city housing, at ang mga NGO ka-relate ng proyektong ito, G. Isponsor.

REP. TEVES. I commit to give all information by Tuesday, next week, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. HICAP. Maraming salamat, G. Isponsor. Maraming salamat, Mr. Speaker. Maraming salamat sa lahat; magandang gabi po sa ating lahat.

THE DEPUTYSPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Salamat. Maaalis na ang antok natin. The Asst. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. ROMUALDO. Mr. Speaker, the next Member who wishes to interpellate is the Gentleman from ABAKADA Party-List, the Hon. Jonathan A. Dela Cruz. I move that he be recognized, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). Inaantok na tayo, banat ka pa rin ng banat, Jonathan. O sige, you are recognized.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Hindi po actually interpellation ito, it is just a manifestation kasi iyong lahat ho ng gusto kong sabihin, nabanggit na ho ni Ka Pando. Kaya ito po ay aking ipapakiusap lamang at kung maaari ay magawan ng paraan ng ating distinguished Sponsor, Mr. Speaker, kasi napakaimportante pong mapag-aralan nang mabuti ito.

Unang-una, noon pong isang taon ay hiningi po natin, Mr. Speaker, iyong inventory ng assets ng National Housing Authority, e nais po nating malaman kung iyan po ay available o hindi, at kung maaari ay maibigay nila sa atin ito at the soonest possible time. Kaya ko po hinihingi itong inventory of assets ng NHA ay sapagkat napag-alaman po namin na may mga assets po ang NHA na napapabayaan, hindi na nila naaasikaso sa dami po ng problemang inaasikaso nila kaya napakaganda po kung maibigay sa atin itong inventory of assets nila nang sa ganoon ay mapag-aralan natin kung paano pa mao-optimize ang paggamit ng mga assets na ito.

Ang pangalawa po ay iyong nabanggit kanina ni Congressman Hicap, iyon pong tungkol sa pagbibigay ng livelihood and other services para sa ating mga nire-resettle na mga kababayan. Napakaimportante po kung maiintindihan natin na NHA na po mismo ang magdala at mag-ayos ng isang task force, mayroon na po yata ito, pero kung maaari ay ang NHA na po ang magdala nito sapagkat kung minsan, napag-iiwanan ito ng ibang mga ahensiyang binibigyan ng pagkakataon na mag-ayos nito. Ang importante po ay iyon mismong ahensiya na talagang mandated by law to be the housing authority kagaya ng NHA na sila na po ang maglikom nito.

Halimbawa po, iyong sinasabi kanina tungkol sa livelihood activities, maaari sigurong mapag-usapan at some point in time, Mr. Speaker, iyong tungkol doon sa pagta-transform ng mga NHA resettlement areas into what we call “social enterprise zones,” para mabigyan ng incentive ang sinumang maglalagay ng mga livelihood activities sa mga resettlement areas. Ngayon po kasi, Mr. Speaker, wala pong ganoon, at sana mapag-aralan natin nang mabuti ito, and we will be prepared, and I hope the distinguished Sponsor will be prepared as well, Mr. Speaker, to co-sponsor with us an amendment to the NHA charter that will provide for, precisely, that kind of a service and be made available to the resettlement areas, and which will provide incentives and other benefits for those who will be locating their projects in these resettlement areas, Mr. Speaker.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I had wanted to find out, and we will be happy if the NHA can provide us with some information regarding the organization of homeowners in the resettlement areas. I do not know if this is one thing that the NHA is undertaking right now, but it will be appreciated if there is this particular effort of organizing the homeowners themselves so that on their own, they will be better prepared to assume the responsibilities as homeowners of such resettlement areas, Mr. Speaker, and, therefore, they can provide by themselves with the assistance of the NHA all the services that will be necessary for their particular areas. I hope that the NHA has already some kind of studies on this, and if they are not yet in a position to do these things, I hope that they can commission a study for the purpose because napakaimportante po nitong organization mismo ng mga homeowners association.

Finally, we will appreciate it if the NHA will also give us some feedback regarding the housing activities or initiatives being undertaken by other agencies. I was wondering if the NHA is on top of the housing assistance efforts of the agencies such as the DILG and the DSWD because what is important here, Mr. Speaker, is some synchronization and harmonization. We understand that the DILG and the DSWD have been given billions of pesos for the purpose of providing housing assistance to informal settlers and resettled families. It might be best and at some point in time, it may be important for


us, and I will appreciate it if the distinguished Sponsor will probably join us in introducing some amendments to this particular budget that we have right now, so that we can get more funds for the NHA coming from the extra funds which are now allocated to other agencies such as the DILG and the DSWD. I was looking at the Grassroots Participation Budget of the DILG, for example, and even the CCT budget of the DSWD, Mr. Speaker.

So, these are all the things that I had wanted to bring to the attention of the distinguished Sponsor and the NHA leadership, Mr. Speaker.


REP. TEVES. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). The manifestation is noted.


REP. ROMUALDO. Mr. Speaker, the next Member who wishes to interpellate the Sponsor is the Lady from the Second District of Isabela, the Hon. Ana Cristina Siquian Go. I move that she be recognized.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). The Lady is recognized.

REP. GO (A.C.). Thank you, Mr. Speaker.Good evening to everyone, especially to the family

of the National Housing Authority. This is not an interpellation, it is just a simple manifestation.

I would like to manifest that, on behalf of the Second District of Isabela, because of the National Housing Authority, through the management of our General Manager, Atty. Chito Cruz, we are enjoying the benefits of the programs that you have implemented in my district. For that reason, Mr. Sponsor, I would like to ask if there is continuity in these programs. For instance, these used to be part of the Gawad Kalinga Program. But then through the intercession of the NHA, naging para po siyang subdivision na may master plan and we thank you for that. Nagkaroon na rin po sila ng whatever iyong budget amounting to mga P4 million lang po na natitira noong mga previous Congressmen, still, because napakaganda po ng management doon sa ibaba, sa aming lugar, they were able to put up a water system at nagkaroon po ng electrification. That is why I am saddened by the fact na madami akong naririnig na problema na nakakarating po tungkol sa NHA. But, on our part, napakaganda po ang nagawa ng NHA. Lahat po ng aming mga lugar na ito ay actually cemented roads, napakaganda po, and we thank you for that.

Ngayon po, ang tanong ko lang, is there continuity in these projects? I do believe there are still municipalities

in my district or other districts which are still in need of these projects.

REP. TEVES. They are already beginning to package what is in store for the budget call next year. So, the NHA advises that proposals should be submitted as soon as possible para ho masama iyong project ho ninyo, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. GO (A.C.). Okay. Also, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor, I would like to know, if I can recall it right, during the Committee hearing, the good Sponsor had mentioned that since the request of the NHA is P27 billion but only P5 billion was approved, he would be asking or would make a request of P6 billion to the DBM for the NHA. I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor, the response of the DBM, or what is the status of this request?

REP. TEVES. Well, truly, about two or three days ago, I went to the DBM, together with the Chairman of the Committee on Housing and Urban Development, Congressman Alfredo “Albee” B. Benitez, and since they were questioning the absorptive capacity of the NHA, there was, more or less, a loose agreement that granting that the NHA can obligate the amounts before the first half of the year next year, then the DBM is willing to augment the said funds, of course, subject to Congress’ concurrence, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. GO (A.C.). So, right now, given, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor, that the status is they have to …

REP. TEVES. They have to move fast, Mr. Speaker.

REP. GO (A.C.). Move faster.

REP. TEVES. Yes.

REP. GO (A.C.). Before they can get more funds for the NHA.

REP. TEVES. That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

REP. GO (A.C.). Well, anyway, since I am the last speaker and I am the last to interpellate or make a manifestation, Mr. Speaker, since I belong to the Minority, I would like to join the Majority and our Sponsor in supporting the budget of the National Housing Authority.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol.). The Asst. Majority Leader is recognized. Ah, The Asst. Minority Leader first.


REP. TY. Mr. Speaker, on the part of the Minority, there are no Members who wish to interpellate. I move to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the National Housing Authority.



REP. ROMUALDO. Mr. Speaker, on the part of the Majority, we join the motion of the Minority to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the budgetary support to the National Housing Authority.


The period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the National Housing Authority is hereby terminated.


SUSPENSION OF CONSIDERATION OF H.B. NO. 4968

REP. ROMUALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we suspend the consideration of House Bill No. 4968.



The consideration of House Bill No. 4968 is hereby suspended.


REP. ROMUALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we proceed to the Additional Reference of Business.


The Secretary General will please read the Additional Reference of Business.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCE OF BUSINESS

The Secretary General read the following House Bills and Resolutions on First Reading and Committee Reports, and the Deputy Speaker made the corresponding references:

BILLS ON FIRST READING

House Bill No. 5006, entitled:“AN ACT TO POSTPONE THE SANGGUNIANG

KABATAAN ELECTIONS ON FEBRUARY

21, 2015, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT 10632, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”

By Representative Del Rosario (A.G.)TO THE COMMITTEE ON SUFFRAGE AND

ELECTORAL REFORMS

House Bill No. 5007, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING THE PANLAYAAN

TECHNICAL VOCATIONAL SCHOOL IN BARANGAY PANLAYAAN, SORSOGON CITY INTO PANLAYAAN NATIONAL VOCATIONAL SCHOOL IN SORSOGON CITY AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR”

By Representative EscuderoTO THE COMMITTEE ON BASIC EDUCATION

AND CULTURE

House Bill No. 5008, entitled:“AN ACT REGULATING THE PLACEMENT AND

CONTENT OF BILLBOARDS INCLUDING THEIR SUPPORT STRUCTURES”

By Representative Gatchalian (S.)TO THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

AND HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 5009, entitled:“ A N A C T S E PA R AT I N G T H E N E W

NONGNONGAN NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL – SAN NICOLAS ANNEX IN BARANGAY SAN NICOLAS, MUNICIPALITY OF DON CARLOS, PROVINCE OF BUKIDNON, FROM THE NEW NONGNONGAN NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL, CONVERTING IT INTO AN INDEPENDENT NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL TO BE KNOWN AS SAN NICOLAS NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR”

By Representative ZubiriTO THE COMMITTEE ON BASIC EDUCATION

AND CULTURE

House Bill No. 5010, entitled:“AN ACT ESTABLISHING A BRANCH OFFICE

OF THE REGISTRY OF DEEDS IN THE CITY OF TANJAY, PROVINCE OF ORIENTAL NEGROS, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR”

By Representative ArnaizTO THE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE

House Bill No. 5011, entitled:“AN ACT ESTABLISHING A GREEN

BUILDING STANDARD FOR PLANNING, DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION


OR MAINTENANCE PRACTICES , R E N O VAT I O N , E X PA N S I O N A N D RETROFITTING OF GOVERNMENT B U I L D I N G P R O J E C T S I N T H E COUNTRY”

By Representatives Bondoc and NogralesTO THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

AND HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 5012, entitled:“AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE MANDATORY

PHILHEALTH COVERAGE FOR ALL INDIGENT, ABANDONED AND ORPHANED PERSONS WITH DISABILITY (PWDs) AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR”

By Representative Tan (A.)TO THE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

House Bill No. 5013, entitled:“AN ACT TO PREVENT YOUTH ACCESS TO

TOBACCO BY MANDATING A MINIMUM CIGARETTE PRICE”

By Representative MadronaTO THE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND

INDUSTRY

RESOLUTIONS

House Resolution No. 1501, entitled:“A RESOLUTION COMMENDING THE

MEMBERS OF THE JOINT FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE-REGIONAL OFFICE-CENTRAL LUZON UNDER CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT RAUL PETRASANTA, THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE’S ILLEGAL DRUG SPECIAL OPERATIONS TASK FORCE (AIDSOTF) AND THE PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (PDEA) HEADED BY UNDERSECRETARY ARTURO CACDAC ON THEIR RELENTLESS CAMPAIGN AGAINST DANGEROUS DRUGS WHICH LED TO THE APPREHENSION OF FOUR (4) CHINESE NATIONALS AND THE SEIZURE OF METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE OR SHABU WITH AN ESTIMATED STREET VALUE OF FOUR BILLION PESOS (P4B) IN THE PROVINCE OF PAMPANGA”

By Representative VillanuevaTO THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ORDER

AND SAFETY

House Resolution No. 1502, entitled:“A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO

CONGRATULATE CAPTAIN FRANKLYN M. DESIDERIO OF MEYCAUAYAN CITY, 4TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, PROVINCE OF BULACAN FOR BEING THE FIRST FILIPINO PILOT TO FLY THE AIRBUS A380, THE WORLD’S LARGEST COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT”

By Representative VillaricaTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Resolution No. 1503, entitled:“A RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING THE

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY (NU) PEP SQUAD FOR EMERGING AS GRAND CHAMPION IN THE UAAP CHEERDANCE COMPETITION FOR THE SECOND CONSECUTIVE SEASON HELD AT THE ARANETA COLISEUM ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2014”

By Representative CasteloTO THE COMMITTEE ON YOUTH AND

SPORTS DEVELOPMENT

House Resolution No. 1504, entitled:“A RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING REGIE

RAMIREZ, 21-YEAR-OLD FRESHMAN EDUCATION STUDENT OF THE EASTERN VISAYAS STATE UNIVERSITY-ORMOC CAMPUS, FOR PLACING SECOND OVERALL IN THE JUNIORS CATEGORY OF THE WORLD POWERLIFTING CHAMPIONSHIP HELD IN ORASHAZA, HUNGARY EARLY SEPTEMBER, 2014”

By Representative CasteloTO THE COMMITTEE ON YOUTH AND

SPORTS DEVELOPMENT

House Resolution No. 1505, entitled:“RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE

ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, ON THE ILLEGAL CLOSURE OF HOYA GLASS DISK PHILS. IN TANAUAN, BATANGAS AND THE SUBSEQUENT DISMISSAL OF THE COMPANY’S 2,600 WORKFORCE”

By Representative HicapTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Resolution No. 1506, entitled:“RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE

ON WAYS AND MEANS TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, INTO THE EFFECTS AND IMPACT OF MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 23-2014 ISSUED BY THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL


REVENUE (BIR) ON THE LIVELIHOOD AND ECONOMIC STATUS OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES”

By Representative HicapTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Resolution No. 1507, entitled:“A RESOLUTION URGING THE HOUSE

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ORDER A N D S A F E T Y TO C O N D U C T A N INVESTIGATION, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DISCIPLINARY, RELIEF AND DISMISSAL SYSTEMS AND PROCESSES IN THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE”

By Representative Gatchalian (S.)TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

ADDITIONAL COAUTHORS

The list of additional coauthors is reflected in Journal No. 17, dated September 18, 2014.*

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Report by the Committee on Civil Service and Professional Regulation (Committee Report No. 428), re H. No. 5014, entitled:“AN ACT REGULATING THE PRACTICE

OF METALLURGICAL ENGINEERING IN THE PHILIPPINES, REPEALING FOR THE PURPOSE PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1536, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE METALLURGICAL ENGINEERING LAW OF THE PHILIPPINES”

recommending its approval in substitution of House Bill No. 1823

Sponsors: Representatives Salvacion and YuTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

Report by the Committee on Civil Service and Professional Regulation (Committee Report No. 429), re H. No. 5015, entitled:“AN ACT REGULATING THE PRACTICE

OF MINING ENGINEERING IN THE PHILIPPINES, REPEALING FOR THE PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED FOUR THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY-FOUR (R.A. NO. 4274), AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE ‘MINING ENGINEERING LAW’ ”


Sponsors: Representatives Salvacion and YuTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

Report by the Committee on Civil Service and Professional Regulation (Committee Report No. 430), re H. No. 5016, entitled:“AN ACT REGULATING AND MODERNIZING

THE PRACTICE OF CHEMISTRY IN THE PHILIPPINES, REPEALING FOR THE PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED S E V E N H U N D R E D F I F T Y F O U R (R.A. NO. 754), OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE CHEMISTRY LAW OF THE PHILIPPINES”


Sponsors: Representatives Salvacion and NoelTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

Report by the Committee on Health (Committee Report No. 431), re H. No. 5018, entitled:“AN ACT REQUIRING GOVERNMENT

AGENCIES TO INDICATE THE BLOOD TYPE OF INDIVIDUALS IN THE IDENTIFICATION CARDS, CERTIFICATES AND LICENSES”

recommending its approval in substitution of House Bill Nos. 403, 1057 and 3607

Sponsors: Representatives Eriguel, Yap (S.), Gonzales and Villar

TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

Report by the Committee on Local Government (Committee Report No. 432), re H. No. 5021, entitled:“AN ACT RATIONALIZING THE INCOME

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CREATION OF A MUNICIPALITY, THE DECLARATION OF HIGHLY URBANIZED STATUS IN THE CASE OF COMPONENT CITIES AND THE CREATION OF A PROVINCE, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTIONS 442 (a), 452 (a), 453 AND 461 (a) AND (c) OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7160 AS AMENDED OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991”

recommending its approval in substitution of House Bill Nos. 1251, 2954 and 3362

Sponsors: Representatives Acharon, Garcia (G.), Cojuangco (E.), Yap (S.) and Rodriguez (O.)


Report by the Committee on Government Enterprises and Privatization (Committee Report No. 433), re H. No. 5023, entitled:“AN ACT REQUIRING THE PHILIPPINE

POSTAL CORPORATION TO ISSUE POSTAGE STAMPS DEPICTING PHILIPPINE TOURIST SPOTS, TO BE AFFIXED ON ALL

* See ANNEX (printed separately)


INTERNATIONAL MAIL TO ATTRACT FOREIGN TOURIST”


Sponsors: Representatives Olivarez and SacdalanTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

Report by the Committee on Government Enterprises and Privatization (Committee Report No. 434), re H. No. 5024, entitled:“AN ACT STRENGTHENING THE PHILIPPINE

CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION (PCIC), AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1467, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE CHARTER OF THE PHILIPPINE CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION”

recommending its approval in substitution of House Bill Nos. 418, 469, 2074 and 3226

Sponsors: Representatives Sacdalan, Ungab, Yap (A.), Guanlao, De Venecia, Teves, Bravo (A.) and Paez




REP. ROMUALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we suspend the session until tomorrow, 10 o’clock in the morning, September 19, 2014.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Apostol). The session is suspended until tomorrow at 10 o’clock in the morning.

It was 11:24 p.m.

Published by the Publication and Editorial Service, Plenary Affairs BureauThe Congressional Record can be accessed through the Downloads Center of the official website

of the House of Representatives at www.congress.gov.phMAD/AZB/10072014/1739

Date post:	08-Jan-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

Congressional Record...Vol. 1 Thursday, September 18, 2014 No. 17c Congressional Record 16th...

Documents