Issue 11 – Mar 19, 2019

Volume 5 Issue No. 11 map.org.ph March 19, 2019

“MAPping the Future” Column in the INQUIRER

“Comprehensive Tax Reform Program (CTRP) Revisited”

March 18, 2019

Mr. RAYMOND A. ABREA

The inefficient tax system in the Philippines imposed a very burdensome tax rate and high compliance cost to taxpayers. This, however, didn’t result to a high tax collection as the existing taxpayer base remains very narrow with very low voluntary compliance from professionals and businesses.

Audit and investigation continued to generate an insignificant contribution with less than 3% of the total collections. Meanwhile, corruption in the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC) continued to proliferate. This meant that tax evasion and smuggling cases remained unresolved.

This problem would not be fixed with simple tweaks and revisions. The outdated tax system needed an overhaul.

The government’s solution to this is the Comprehensive Tax Reform Program (CTRP). At its core, the initiative seeks to create a simpler, fairer, and more efficient tax system.

The CTRP’s first package was passed in December 2017, which aimed to impose progressive rates on the personal income tax. However, the Tax Reform for Acceleration and INclusion (TRAIN) Law has also imposed new taxes and increased existing ones.

Moreover, as TRAIN Law would not benefit the poor, the first package also contained provisions on social mitigating measures.

Over the year, the BIR released various regulations, circulars, and orders to implement these changes. The regulations implementing TRAIN’s major provisions have already been released.

Since its legislation, TRAIN Law has grown controversial. The Law coincided with persistently-high inflation rates and rising global prices.

In more recent discussions about TRAIN Law, what’s discussed is not how lower personal income tax helped taxpayers. Most news about TRAIN Law are about its supposed inflationary impact by increasing the prices of basic goods and services.

Certainly, some blame can be passed to unlucky timing. However, the rushed implementation of TRAIN Law is not without its flaws.

The social mitigating measures, for one, experienced extreme delays.

The Unconditional Cash Transfers which should have been finished by the start of the year was not released immediately. The same goes for the fuel vouchers which were only doled out starting August. At that time, the oil prices were still rising and inflation was already at a nine-year high.

Then, there are the supposed fare discounts and skills training that have not been heard of. In fact, instead of fare discounts, what the Filipino people got were fare hikes.

This is not to say that TRAIN Law is a bad law or that it’s anti-poor, only certain provisions of it and its poor implementation.

Before TRAIN, the personal income tax was unfair and most of it was carried only by employees.

In fact, 82% of the individual income tax collections come from withholding taxes on compensation income.

Unfortunately, TRAIN’s offsetting measure simply turned out to be passing the tax burden from one type to another. What you would have paid as personal income tax, you paid for with higher prices.

However, TRAIN Law is not the entirety of the CTRP contrary to how much it takes the spotlight. Other packages have seen progress as well, fueled by the President’s urgings during his third State of the Nation Address.

Package 1B

Recently, another package of CTRP had been passed. As of December 13, 2018, the tax amnesty has been approved by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The two chambers produced different versions of the tax amnesty which were then reconciled in a bicameral conference.

The tax amnesty program contained an estate tax amnesty, general tax amnesty, and tax amnesty on delinquencies.

The amnesties cover the period ended December 31, 2017.

For the General Tax Amnesty, the reconciled version proposed two options. The first option is based on the House version, which notes that the rate shall be based on total assets. The second is based on the Senate version which proposed a rate based on net worth.

The bill, however, is missing certain provisions from the Department of Finance (DOF)’s proposal. Even before its reconciled version, the tax amnesty bill did not contain lifting of the Bank Secrecy Law. Legislators noted that it would violate the Constitution which states that every bill must only have one subject.

Previously, the Secretary of Finance noted the importance of lifting the Bank Secrecy Law in implementing the tax amnesty. Without lifting it, the government could lose out on as much as P15-B. The DOF remains adamant that they would continue advocating the lifting of the Bank Secrecy Law.

Package 2

The second package of CTRP has gotten some traction during the mid-year, especially in the House of Representatives. The Tax Reform for Attracting Better and High-quality Opportunities (TRABAHO) Bill has already cleared the third reading in the lower house. However, it has seen a significantly slower progress in the Senate.

Since it was submitted to the Senate Committee on Ways and Means on August 6, the bill has not progressed at all.

Several organizations claimed that, contrary to its namesake, TRABAHO Bill would actually result in massive job losses. Wary of what hasty implementation can result to, legislators are urging further study of the proposed bill.

TRABAHO Bill is supposed to lower the corporate income tax from the current thirty percent. By 2029, the Philippines would have 20% corporate income tax rate. To offset this, the government is seeking to rationalize fiscal incentives to make it more targeted.

The proposed rationalization of incentives is what organizations are foreseeing would cause massive job losses. For this reason, TRABAHO Bill is unlikely to be passed this year.

This, however, is an injustice to the majority of corporations, which are subject to the regular income tax. These entities who never availed of any tax incentives would have to wait until the issue on rationalization is resolved.

The government needs to remember that lowering the corporate income tax to 20% is indispensable if we want to remain competitive. In fact, the government should have immediately reduced the corporate income tax to the ASEAN average, 25%. From there, they could gradually decrease it to 20% depending on the collection performance.

Package 2 Plus

The next package is 2 Plus which seeks to provide funding to universal healthcare. Among the tax rates to be increased are those on mining, alcohol, and tobacco products. The proposed increase in rates are scattered through different bills and have seen varying progress. 3

House Bill (HB) No. 8400, which contains a new fiscal regime for the mining industry, was passed on November 12.

In the Senate, the DOF has expressed support for Senate Bill (SB) No. 1979. Unfortunately, the bill has not seen progress since it was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.

For the excise tax on alcohol, the lower house has prepared HB 8618 which has recently been approved on December 3. So far, there has been no counterpart in the Senate.

The DOF supported SB 1599 for the increased excise tax on tobacco products, which was been introduced back in 2017.

Recently, the lower House has also proposed their own version, HB 8677. While filed much later, the House version has shown faster progress. On December 3, HB 8677 was approved on its third and final reading.

In a recent Cabinet meeting, the President has already expressed his support for the proposal to increase the excise tax on tobacco and alcoholic products.

Package 3

CTRP’s Package 3 has already breezed through Congress. On November 12, the House of Representatives approved HB 8453 containing provisions on real property valuation. The bill also contained provisions on the reorganization of the Bureau of Local Government Finance.

In the Senate, the only bill on real property valuation is SB 44, but it has not yet been updated. The DOF has proposed several revisions to the SB in its Package 3 proposal.

Package 4

Lastly, Package 4 has only recently garnered the attention of the lower House. Despite that, it was already approved in less than a month. The package will focus on capital income taxation and is designed to be revenue neutral.

HB 8645 or the "Passive Income and Financial Intermediary Taxation Act of 2019” was passed on December 3. Unlike the House’s swift action on the last package, there has not yet been any progress in the Senate.

Administrative Reforms

It is important to note that tax policy reform without tax administrative reform is pointless. No matter how fair and simple the policies are, if the bureaucracy remains corrupt, then it would be ineffective.

The tax reform imposes more responsibilities on the BIR which, as it stands, are currently undermanned. This lack of manpower hinders the implementation of tax laws and opens the BIR to corruption. The government needs to increase their budget, along with the compensation of examiners. 4

This measure will allow the BIR to hire a more honest and technocratic administration. It will also allow the bureau to modernize their systems and implement, by default, paperless bookkeeping.

There should also be measures against corruption in the BIR audit by making it more risk- based and targeted. Under the current system, the same taxpayers are being audited over and over again.

With the current administration’s support behind CTRP, it will only be a matter of time before these packages are passed. These sprawling changes impact every taxpayer and learning about them beforehand could help businesses grow.

The alternative is, at best, not to miss out on opportunities and, at worst, be burdened with failed compliance. Preparing beforehand by attending tax seminars, tax coaching, or an executive tax briefing could arm you with the appropriate knowledge to face the tax reform.

(This article reflects the personal opinion of the author and does not reflect the official stand of the Management Association of the Philippines or MAP. The author is one of the 2017 Outstanding Young Persons of the World, a Move Awards 2016 Digital Mover, one of the 2015 The Outstanding Young Men of the Philippines (TOYM), an Asia CEO Young Leader of the Year, and Founding President of the Asian Consulting Group (ACG) and the Center for Strategic Reforms of the Philippines (CSR Philippines). Feedback at and . For previous articles, please visit )

“MAP Insights” Column in BUSINESSWORLD

“Gauging the SEC CG Codes Against the “CG” Provisions of the Corporation Code” March 19, 2019

Dean CESAR L. VILLANUEVA

1. Hierarchical Placement of the SEC’s CG Codes Vis-à-vis the Corporation Code and Securities Regulation Code

It would be helpful to discuss briefly the hierarchical value of the SEC Corporate Governance (CG) Codes in relation to the provisions of the Corporation Code (CC) and the Securities Regulation Code (SRC) that actually have within their frameworks systems of CG.

The Original CG Code, the Revised CG Code, and the CG Code for PLCs were promulgated by the SEC in the exercise of its rule-making power, otherwise known in Administrative Law, as its quasi-legislative power, and constitute therefore what is termed “subsidiary legislation.” Section 143 of the CC defines the rule-making power of the SEC, thus:

… The SEC shall have the power and authority to implement the provisions of this Code, and to promulgate rules and regulations reasonably necessary to enable it to perform its duties hereunder, particularly in the prevention of fraud and abuses on the part of the controlling stockholders, members, directors, trustees or officers.

Section 72.1 of the SRC provides for a more expanded authority for the SEC, thus:

… This Code shall be self-executory. To effect the provisions and purposes of this Code, the Commission may issue, amend, and rescind such rules and regulations and orders necessary or appropriate. … For purposes of its rules or regulations, the Commission may classify persons, securities, and other matters, within its jurisdiction, prescribe different requirements for different classes of persons, securities, or matters, and by rule or order, conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person, security, or transaction, or class or classes of persons, securities or transactions, from any or all provisions of this Code.

Failure on the part of the Commission to issue rules and regulations shall not in any manner affect the self-executory nature of this Code.

There is controversy of how much leeway and power can be exercised by SEC on the basis of the language of Section 72.1 as not to offend well-established principles in Constitutional Law of non-delegation of legislative powers. For example, the power of the SEC under Section 72.1 “by rule or order, conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person, security, or transactions … from any or all provisions of this Code,” is tantamount to granting SEC

6 the discretion to override the prohibitory or mandatory rules of the SRC, which essentially amounts to power to “unmake” the law.

The prevailing theory in our jurisdiction is that the exercise of quasi-legislative power of any administrative agency like the SEC cannot amount to “law-making” (or unmaking for that matter), but can only cover “law-execution;” that administrative regulations are intended only to implement the law and to carry out the legislative policy, but that “[t]he discretion to determine what the law shall be is exclusively legislative and cannot be delegated.”

No matter what language may be used in a statutory provisions defining SEC’s rule-making power, there can be no doubt that SEC has no power to violate constitutional precepts, particularly those found in the Bill of Rights. For example, the Bill of Rights provides for due process and prohibits undue classification: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied equal protection of the law.”

Therefore, although Section 72.1 of the SRC empowers the SEC to “classify persons, securities, and other matters,” for purpose of determining application or non-application of the provisions of the SRC, such provision cannot be used to unreasonably discriminate against a person or class of persons under the principle “that no person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same place and in like circumstances.”

In evaluating therefore the various provisions of the SEC CG Codes that seek to expand the powers of the Boards of Directors over their composition, the manner of election, the providing for additional qualifications and disqualifications, as well as the setting-up of competitive remunerations rates for directors, we shall be guided by the principle that such exercise of SEC’s quasi-legislative power would be illegal and void when they violate or are contrary to the terms of, or the policy behind, the specific statutory provisions, or they extend the coverage thereof beyond the original intention provided under the statutory provisions sought to be implemented.

2. Approaches of the SEC CG Codes on Empowering the Boards of Directors of Publicly-Held Companies

a. Original and Revised CG Codes: Mandatory and Rules-Based in Character

When the SEC initiated in 2002 the CG reforms within entire PHC Sector, the CG principles and best practices contained in the original CG Code were mandatory in character, and yet the only penalty clause referred to the non-submission of the manual of CG, thus:

VIII. Commitment to CG

Corporation shall promulgate and adopt its CG rules and principles in accordance with this Code. Said rules shall be in manual form and available as reference by the directors. It shall be submitted to the Commission, which shall evaluate the same and their compliance with this Code taking into account the size and nature of business. The said manual shall be available

for inspection by any stockholder of the corporation at reasonable hours on business days.

IX. Administrative Sanction

Failure to adopt a manual of CG as specified therein shall subject a corporation, after due notice and hearing, to a penalty of P100,000.00.

The enforcement approach of the Original CG Code was to compel publicly-held companies to formally adopt a manual of CG for their particular corporate situation that would become part of the charter and thereby legally enforceable by the SEC and their stakeholders. The adoption and formal registration with the SEC of a manual for CG ensured that every PHC Board and Management reviewed the provisions thereof on the basis of their corporate setting and the unique demands of the industry in which they operate, and thereupon adopt a manual of CG that translate the CG principles and leading practices thereof to their particular corporate situation. The results would be that on the corporate front, each publicly-held company would then begin to “own” the terms of the governance principles and practice which it has on its own adopt under the terms of the manual. The manual itself, being submitted formally with the SEC, serves as a contractual commitment on the part of each publicly-held company, its Board of Directors and Management, to which it can be made accountable, and the failure to comply with its terms and conditions would always be construed against the company itself, for it is the very proponent of the terms thereof.

It was rather curious therefore that in 2009 when the Revised CG Code replaced the Original CG Code, it provided for a penalty clause for non-compliance or violations of the provisions thereof, thus:

Article 11: Administrative Sanctions

A fine of not more than Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000) shall, after due notice and hearing, be imposed for every year that a covered corporation violates the provisions of this Code, without prejudice to other sanctions that the Commission may be authorized to impose under the law; provided, however, that any violation of the Securities Regulation Code punishable by a specific penalty shall be assessed separately and shall not be covered by the abovementioned fine.

Fines and other penalties imposed by the SEC are serious matters, not only because of the pecuniary burdens placed on the company, but more importantly, under the CC, and in the Revised SEC Code itself, a violation may constitute as a ground for the disqualification of a director, or constitute as “proper cause,” for his removal by the requisite vote of stockholders.

Although there is no doubt that the failure to comply with the requirement of filing the manual is punishable under Article 11 of the Revised CG Code, it seems difficult to see how any other “violation” thereof may be properly punished by a fine of P200,000 “for every year that a covered corporation violates the provisions of this Code.”

Firstly, instead of the fine being imposed on every violation of the provisions of the Revised CG Code, the penalty that is imposable is limited to “P200,000 every year.” This would come to the dubious end that a covered corporation may commit various infractions under the Code, and only be liable to a maximum penalty of “P200,000 per year.”

Secondly, CG principles and best practices are primarily to be followed or practiced by the directors and key officers of a covered corporation, and the infraction would be a personal liability on their part. Yet the provisions of Article 11 of the Revised CG Code apply the penalty only to a violation by the “covered corporation,” and not on the director or officer guilty of an offense under the Code.

Thirdly, although the non-filing of the manual on CG constitutes a situation that “a covered corporation violates the provisions of this Code,” simply because the original provisions of the original SEC Code specifically covered only such violation, it is not clear what other violations may be punishable under Article 11 of the Revised CG Code.

The then SEC Secretary, Atty. Gerard M. Lukban, was quoted as saying that “The previous code had provisions that use ‘may’. … Here some were changed to ‘shall’ so they are no longer just recommendatory.” That would mean that every provision that imposes an obligation with the use of the word “shall” would be a violation of the Revised CG Code that would be punishable with the find under Article 11 thereof.

For example, under Art. 2(F), it is provided that “The Board should formulate the corporation's vision, mission, strategic objectives, policies and procedures that shall guide its activities, including the means to effectively monitor Management's performance.” Obviously, compliance with the such duty may find its expression in the manual of CG submitted with the SEC. But if the manual duly submitted does not contain one or some of the items enumerated, or what are submitted are not effective or complete, does that constitute a violation of the Revised CG Code, triggering the imposition, after notice and hearing, of the P200,000 fine? Who is to judge what is “effective”?

Another example would Article 6(B) of the Revised CG Code which reads —

B) The Board should be transparent and fair in the conduct of the annual and special stockholders' meetings of the corporation. The stockholders should be encouraged to personally attend such meetings. If they cannot attend, they should be apprised ahead of time of their right to appoint a proxy. Subject to the requirements of the bylaws, the exercise of that right shall not be unduly restricted and any doubt about the validity of a proxy should be resolved in the stockholder's favor.

In a situation where there are issues in the implementation of by-law provisions on proxy, and the Board, upon advice of counsel, takes a position which is deemed restricted of the right of a stockholder, would that trigger the imposition of the penalty under Article 11 of the Code? Would the fine be imposable against the covered corporation or against the members of the Board? Who is to say what is “unduly restrictive”?

If we were to presume that the clear intention under Article 11 of the Revised CG Code is that the penalty imposed would be personally against the offending director or officer, it would have a chilling effect on the exercise of business judgment on the part of the Board of Directors, and would even discourage qualified professional directors to accept 9 appointment to publicly-held companies simply because they are not certain exactly what action or inaction would constitute punishable offense under said provision.

In any event, what is important to consider is that the net effect of the changes introduced by the Revised CG Code was to make the provisions thereof mandatory to publicly-held companies, and non-compliance therewith may involve the imposition of administrative and penal sanctions. Such penalty provisions are often necessary to get any system going, but effective only when they are evenly enforced. However, the use of coercive measures in fact misses the whole point of what CG reform movement is all about — it is meant to show to businessmen that doing good is consistent with doing well in business. As they say, piety obtained out of fear is mere pretense.

The second important feature of both the Original and Revised CG Codes is that they both presented with the same format: they start each section by stating the CG principle in a certain area of concern, and then provide under each principle a set of duties and responsibilities or best practices that would enforce the principle highlighted. In short, both SEC CG Codes are “rules-based” codes, as contrasted from “principles-based” approach in CG reforms.

The main objection against rules-based codes, especially those that carry sanctions, is that they do not promote a “change of hearts and minds,” in the sense that they merely impel directors and officers to right away refer the matters to their legal counsel, and the organization ends up with “ticking the boxes”, to ensure compliance with the required or indicated measures of the code.

In addition, since a rules-based code cannot possible anticipate all situations that may occur in the corporate setting, then pursuit of CG reforms ends up with the Board and Management looking for loopholes, or of pursuit a set of actions that are not clearly within the mandatory coverage of the rules or measures indicated in the code.

Finally, CG codes that are the product of the exercise by the supervising agency of its quasi- legislative powers tend to be challenged by covered companies as being unlawful when the area covered is clearly not within the powers of the agency to promulgate or tend to conflict with existing statutory provisions on the matter.

(The article reflects the personal opinion of the author and does not reflect the official stand of the Management Association of the Philippines or the MAP) ------CESAR L. VILLANUEVA is Chair of the MAP Corporate Governance Committee, the Founding Partner of the Villanueva Gabionza & Dy Law Offices, and the former Chair of the Governance Commission for GOCCs (GCG). [email protected] [email protected] http://map.org.ph

MAP Statement on the Appointment of Sec. Benjamin Diokno as BSP Governor

March 5, 2019; 2:55 PM

The Management Association of the Philippines (MAP) welcomes the appointment of Sec. BENJAMIN E. DIOKNO as the new Governor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP).

We believe that his expertise as an economist and his extensive experience in the Executive Branch on fiscal policy and management will serve him well in his new job.

We fully support the BSP’s initiatives to maintain price and financial stability in support of sustained economic growth, a more efficient payments system as well as its efforts to further broaden financial inclusion.

We are confident that the BSP, under Governor Diokno, will continue to promote good governance and transparent policies in the financial system.

Let us help PPCRV please

The May 13, 2019 national elections will definitely have a critical impact on the future of our country, people, industries and businesses. It is therefore very important that all enlightened citizens, like MAP members, participate in ensuring credible elections.

In line with the MAP’s advocacy for credible elections, the MAP Board of Governors has agreed to call on MAP members for voluntary contributions to the Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting (PPCRV). The MAP Board also agreed that the MAP will match the total contributions of MAP members up to P200,000.

The PPRCV is a bona-fide, non-partisan, parish-based association duly organized by and composed of civic-minded citizens drawn from the various sectors of Philippine society, mandated to help form the civic conscience of the Filipino voters and campaign for an honest, meaningful, and peaceful elections. It holds office at the Pope Pius XII Catholic Center in UN Avenue. As a non-partisan organization, it does not support any candidate, political party, organization, or coalition of political parties involved in the forthcoming elections.

Your support will be most beneficial to the trainers and PPCRV volunteers who are fulfilling PPCRV’s mission of serving as the citizen’s arm of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in maintaining the integrity of the forthcoming elections. The PPCRV has a triple mandate of conducting voters’ education, candidates’ forum, and poll watching and canvassing.

Your contribution will finance the meals for the trainers, trainees, volunteers and staff who will be conducting voters’ education, candidates’ forum, and poll watching and canvassing during the May 2019 Elections.

The schedule of the Training of Trainers is as follows: February 27 – March 1 (Luzon 1), March 6 – 8 (Luzon 2), March 13 - 15 (Visayas), and March 20 – 22 (Mindanao).

After the elections, the volunteers tasked with data entry of election returns at the PPCRV Command Center will be about 200 each day starting the night of the election. They will be at the Command Center for a month until all election returns have been sent by precincts.

Please make your check donation payable to “Management Association of the Philippines” and send to the MAP Secretariat. If you need a Statement of Account to process your payment, please call MAP Staff Assistant Milo Dapilos via +63927-002-3413 or [email protected].

If you have questions, you may contact PPCRV Chair MYLA C. VILLANUEVA and PPCRV Trustee for Ways and Means Committee THERESA CURIA via +632 536-5819, [email protected] or [email protected]

Let us help NAMFREL also please

Earlier, we issued a circular asking for your contribution to PPCRV. We are reaching out to you again, this time for NAMFREL.

The National Citizen’s Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL) has been accredited by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) as a citizen’s arm for the May 13, 2019 elections. The accreditation authorizes NAMFREL to monitor the entire electoral process and gather data and results, which can then be made accessible to all election stakeholders.

NAMFREL has identified three very important activities to secure the integrity of the process, thus contributing to the credibility of the forthcoming elections. These are:

1. Monitoring the conduct and implementation of the Automated Election System (AES)

2. Designing and implementing an Open Election Data Website project, where election data posted shall be made available to all stakeholders and interested groups

3. Partnering with COMELEC in the conduct of the Random Manual Audit (RMA), which is considered the last safeguard in assessing the accuracy of the voting machine.

NAMFREL volunteers will likewise be involved in election activities before, during, and after election day, which will include the review of the computerized voter list, voters’ education, observation of the testing of the automated voting machines, and the mock elections that will be conducted before the elections. But while NAMFREL volunteers have the experience and expertise in all of the above activities, they would however need sufficient financial resources to carry them out in a more thorough and effective manner.

NAMFREL needs your support to carry out the huge tasks of mobilizing some 50,000 volunteers to monitor the election activities in 123,350 clustered precincts during the election period, and most especially those on election day.

The MAP Board agreed that the MAP will match the total contributions of MAP members up to P200,000.

If you want to deposit your contribution, please use the following bank account details and kindly email to us the scanned copy of the deposit slip or the screenshot in case of an online transfer:

Depository Bank/Branch : BPI Ayala Triangle Account Name : Management Association of the Philippines Account Number : 002593-1055-74

If you have questions, you may contact NAMFREL Secretary-General ERIC ALVIA via +632 470-4151; +632 736-0969, +632 788-3484, or [email protected].

Thank you in advance for your generosity.

Forthcoming Events

While the REIT industry across the world has continued growing (total market cap of approximately US$1.7t), the Philippine REIT industry – unfortunately – has not made great strides since the passage of the REIT Act of 2009. Until recently, with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) now taking significant measures to jumpstart the REIT industry once again and attract potential investors and REIT issuers by relaxing stringent regulatory conditions and placing a proposal to the Department of Finance (DoF) to reduce the minimum public ownership (MPO) requirement for REIT from 67% to 33%. In addition, SEC has also requested DoF to review and reduce corporate taxes on capital markets including stock transaction tax and initial public offering (IPO) tax.

Aptly themed REIT: BLUEPRINT FOR A ROBUST PHILIPPINE CAPITAL MARKETS, the 3rd APAC REIT Investment Summit 2019 is set to take center stage to provide its delegates from the most prominent companies operating in the real estate sphere a day of knowledge sharing and unparalleled networking and investment opportunities.

With an expected turnout of over 200 industry professionals, the 3rd APAC REIT Investment Summit 2019 – designed to be the country’s premier business gathering for chief property experts and players from across the region – is committed to deliver thought leadership and high quality audience making this landmark event a superb platform to:

CONNECT with potential investors ESTABLISH business partnerships GATHER latest market insights LEARN from industry leaders and think tanks

Some of the 3rd APAC REIT Investment Summit 2019’s invited expert discussants are:

Hon. Carlos G. Dominguez III, Secretary, Department of Finance Hon. Caesar R. Dulay, Commissioner, Bureau of Internal Revenue Hon. Ephyro Luis B. Amatong, Commissioner, Securities and Exchange Commission Amb. Jose E.B. Antonio, Chairman, Century Properties Group, Inc. Atty. Francisco Ed. Lim, President, Shareholders' Association of the Philippines Mr. Ramon S. Monzon, President and Chief Executive Officer, The Philippine Stock Exchange, Inc. Ms. Sigrid G. Zialcita, Chief Executive Officer, Asia Pacific Real Estate Association

For more information than what is presented, please click here.

About the Summit Host

Asia Pacific Real Estate Association (APREA) is an association that champions the property investment industry across Asia Pacific. Its members include prominent pension, insurance and sovereign wealth funds, investment and asset managers, family office platforms, developers and respected service providers. APREA's focus is cross-border real estate investment across all sectors, styles and the four quadrants of real estate investing. APREA’s Philippine chapter is chaired by Amb. Jose E.B. Antonio of Century Properties Group.

Articles/Papers from MAP Members

1. “We have stability” from MAP Governor PETER WALLACE’s “Like it is” Column in the PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER on March 14, 2019

A central bank is a lynchpin of stability for a country and its economy. You don’t play politics with it, and you certainly don’t put a politician in charge of it.

In 2017, Duterte didn’t, he made the well-applauded appointment of the Deputy Governor. Stability was assured, continuity was assured. And Nesting Espenilla delivered. When inflation rose he increased interest rates, the flow of money slowed, demand softened, prices stabilized. Some said he moved too slowly, but caution is the hallmark of a good central banker, you move after careful reflection. Subsequent events proved it a wise course, inflation is now on the way down into government’s 2 to 4 percent range. He broke new ground in the Philippine quest for greater financial Inclusion and capital market development, and improved resilience of the banking system in facing new challenges coming from increased global economic and financial integration and disruptive technology.

He left us after a too short, but illustrious career. And left the Philippines in a stable monetary condition with a sound banking system.

We’ll miss him.

On to the stage comes Ben Diokno, a surprising choice as the “tsismis” on who’s next didn’t even bring him into the picture at all. But it’s a clever choice of the president. We are, as some of my recent columns brought to the fore, on the cusp of a digital revolution few are recognizing, and even fewer are doing much about.

Ben brings an outsider’s view into the Bank, a new way of thinking the bank will need as we digitize the world-and particularly banks. His introduction of cash-based budgeting at the DBM and helping solve the protracted underspending of government suggests this needed ability to think outside the box. And his fight with Congress shows he’s prepared to stand up strongly to protect his position despite high level opposition — an essential characteristic of a Central Banker.

He’s likely to make the BSP less isolated, but no less independent but one that works closely with the fiscal side of the economy. He and the Finance Secretary get along well. Ben has already stated that "BSP’s role is to ensure steady, strong growth. In order to achieve this, monetary policy has to be in sync with fiscal policy."

In a reflexive reaction markets fell, but on reflection quickly recovered to their pre-Diokno level indicating a true confidence in him.

On the recent accusations against him, as I said in a blog at the height of the controversy over him, “I’ve known Ben Diokno for many years and I’ve never seen a whiff of corruption. I’d be very surprised if he was involved in some sort of anomaly. It would be better if the House first inquire, not immediately attack. That’s hardly fair for any person. And surely there’s no sufficient evidence yet to call for him to be fired. The President is quite right to reject it.”

If those in Congress still feel there was misdoing I hope they just quietly look into it more closely, and only bring it forward if they can find more conclusive proof of wrong-doing.

And what is the House of Representatives up to? For the first time in nine years we have a delayed budget. Earlier, Finance secretary Dominguez said that the reenactment of the 2018 national budget is costing the government about half a billion pesos a day. Here we are mid- March, so even just a first quarter delay won’t be all it is. Dominguez estimates the government couldn’t implement about P46 billion worth of public infrastructure in the first quarter due to budget reenactment. It will move into April as the House recalled the bicam- approved budget for further review. An unheard of action, an action that is not representing the people. When the President gets to sign it let’s hope he vetoes these last minute revisions. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case the delay is causing too much damage to our economy. And Congress must stop it and send the budget in the form the Bicam agreed to print—today!

The ever so much needed infrastructure build this government has made one of its fundamental programs has already been delayed at least four months. It could well extend through the whole of the first half if congress doesn’t stop this now. It’s delayed at the worst time, when the weather is ideal for uninterrupted construction. Soon the rains will come, resulting in delays that wouldn’t have occurred. The damage to the infrastructure program is immense.

Read my previous columns: www.wallacebusinessforum.com E-mail: [email protected]

2. “Philippine ‘democracy’” from MAP National Issues Committee Member BENJAMIN “Ben” R. PUNONGBAYAN’s “Opinion” Column in the BUSINESSWORLD on March 14, 2019

DEMOCRACY can be defined in a variety of ways, from definitions with varying complexities to a rather simple one. Let us pick a basic and simple definition: a form of political association among the people of a state within a defined geographical area where sovereignty resides in the people who express such sovereignty by voting to select the leaders of the government of the state.

The ancient Greek philosopher Plato, in his book, Republic, considers a democracy an inferior form of government and holds the view of its likely deterioration into despotism.

Later philosophers have expressed their thoughts about the structures of government. Of particular note are those of Polybius (Roman era) regarding checks and balances, and Montesquieu (18th century) about separation of powers (both referenced from The Great Political Theories [Vol. 1], edited by Michael Curtis). 37

The most popular country that adopted democracy as a form of government right from its founding is the United States, with its systems of separation of powers (executives, legislative, and judicial) and of checks and balances.

Then the Philippines became a US colony during the term of President William McKinley. Succeeding US political leaders, urged on by Filipino nationalists, prepared the Philippines to a path towards independence. In doing so, the influence of the US was very strong in developing the government structure of the nascent independent Philippines. The resulting Philippine government structure, as promulgated in the 1935 Constitution and retained in the existing Constitution, is substantially a mirror image of the US federal government structure. However, I thought a big mistake was made when the members of the Philippine Senate were made to be elected at large in the whole country. This is very different from the US (Federal) Senate, to where each US state sends two senatorrepresentatives who are elected statewide by each state. It was an unfortunate oversight. It was not a case of differentiating a federal senate from a national senate. The underlying principle is whether the members of a country’s senate (the second legislative chamber) are to be elected geographically (by province or by region, in the case of the Philippines) as it is in the US Senate (two senators from each state).

Interestingly, in my review of the present structures of the state senate (different and separate from the US or Federal Senate) of large US states (California, New York, Texas, and Florida), I find that the state senators in these states are elected by district (one for each district) and not statewide. There are indications that these structures had developed later than the time when the Philippine 1935 Constitution was promulgated. What I want to emphasize is that, even in a US state government itself, the senators in the state senate are presently elected geographically and not statewide.

More interestingly, I find that California imposes term limits for their state legislators. It has the novel practice of requiring a term limit of 12 years for a legislator, the period of which is counted in any combination of four-year state senate and two-year state assembly terms.It appears that this term limit is counted cumulatively and not necessarily consecutively.Therefore, when a state legislator completes a term of 12 years, they cannot run for either the state house or state senate anymore. We should adopt a similar requirement to prevent our own legislators to hop from the Senate to the House or vice-versa and turn around again, ad infinitum.

To this day, the members of the Philippine Senate continue to be elected nationwide. As a result, the provinces have a weaker voice in the Philippine Congress, because the perspectives of Philippine senators are not about specific provincial concerns, unlike their US counterparts whose perspectives are about the concerns of their respective states. Each Philippine senator takes the role of a national spokesperson and postures themselves as the probable next President. No wonder that the national government has been given the sobriquet “Imperial Manila,” in spite of the presence of the people’s provincial representatives in the House.

That said, there is a much bigger concern, though. It is clear to me that Philippine “democracy” has turned into a government of oligarchs, a condition that may turn into despotism as anticipated by Plato. It happened before, during the time of Marcos.

The reason is clear. Voting, the people’s expression of their sovereignty, is not being exercised properly. And our leaders do not seem to care; they probably like it that way. There are two main causes of this existing condition: a voter’s lack of adequate information about relevant issues and problems to enable them to make an informed judgement about who to elect; and vote buying. These two factors actually overlap.

A voter’s lack of adequate information is a consequence of widespread poverty and applies to most voters. As a result of poverty, a large majority of the present adult population did not finish high school and many of them did not even go farther than elementary school. Because of this handicap, they tend not to have interest in acquiring a good understanding of important current problems and issues, not to mention the already existing political, social, and economic conditions. They generally do not read newspapers, which are mainly published in English. The television shows they watch are slapstick programs during the daytime and movies throughout the day. Since they provide the biggest audience for television, television broadcasters match their programs to their tastes and, therefore, continue to produce similar shows over and over. This audience, seldom, if not at all, tune up to programs that deal with political, social, and economic news, views and issues which are expressed in English. In any case, such programs are now rare on mainline TV and are mostly found on cable TV, to which most of the poor do not have connection.

The other cause relating to most voters’ lack of adequate information is the unfortunate existing lack of use of a common language. The government, both national and local, deliberate in English and issue their communications in English. On the other hand, most of the population do not have the appropriate level of understanding of English, because of inadequate education or, simply, they do not use the English language at all. As a result, they are unable to appreciate the deliberations in government; communications issued by government; and news, views, and reports in print media and English TV programs. Had we developed a common language for common use, whether such language be Filipino, English, or Spanish, Filipinos, even the poor ones, may have a better understanding of current events and issues.

Countries in Southeast Asia that were similarly colonized as the Philippines had conclusively dealt with such an important issue. Indonesia, a former Dutch colony, right at the time of its independence, chose a native language, Bahasa Indonesia. Similarly, the former French colonies, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos use a native language. Among the British colonies, multi-ethnic Singapore, whose population is predominantly Chinese, chose English. Multi-ethnic Malaysia, predominantly Malay, had decided on Bahasa Malaysia, which is similar to Bahasa Indonesia, many years ago. In Myanmar, the official language is Burmese, a native language.

The lack of adequate information among voters leads to their inability to make well- evaluated personal choices. Instead, they go for name recall, which created the development towards movie and TV personalities getting into electoral contests. Moreover,these voters are also easily influenced and swayed by strong local leaders to support these leaders’ choices, enhanced by vote buying.

Vote buying, the other cause of improper expression of people’s sovereignty, is now common, particularly in elections for local government officials and House representatives. There are standard prices for vote buying in each province or region, depending upon the position being contested. The government is not doing anything about it. 39

So, under these circumstances, what are the possible solutions? The short-term solutions are obvious, but could not be promulgated and, if already promulgated, could not be implemented, because the decision makers, members of the present oligarchy, will not relinquish their hold on power and so lose their superior political advantages. The framers of the present Constitution did recognize the problem and included provisions in the Constitution that may provide solutions. They provided for the adoption of an anti-dynasty legislation but, which, sadly, has been totally ignored by legislators. They also provided for mandatory term limits, but this requirement cannot stand alone. It has to be paired with an anti-dynasty law to work effectively. Note that these remedies do not even directly deal with the problem. These are indirect measures that merely reduce the size of the problem, because the direct solution of improving the education of the voting mass will take much time, especially under present political circumstances.

The adoption of a language for common use is highly desirable. But it needs a strong leader who recognizes the underlying issue to get the solution, which is necessarily long-term, done.

Vote buying is right in front of our eyes for some time now. But those who can deal with it, don’t.

So, under these circumstances, the only alternative is to wait for the Filipino voters to get better educated and, thus, acquire the discernment to exercise properly their sovereignty by making an informed judgement when making choices in electoral contests. That, of course, will be a very long wait.

We are not a democracy today. We are under an oligarchical rule, with its consequent unchecked abuse of power and promotion of self-interest and the inevitable effects of limiting the sustainability of political and economic growth and development.

We, the sovereign Filipino people, now find ourselves inside a straitjacket. We will stay that way for generations, if we continue to be indifferent. Must we?

Benjamin R. Punongbayan is the founder of Punongbayan & Araullo, one of the Philippines’ leading auditing firms. [email protected]

“MAP Talks” on YouTube

You can also view the following videos under “MAP Talks” via the following link: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheMAPph

1. Acceptance Speech of Mr. HENRY SY, SR. as “MAP Management Man of the Year 1999.”

2. Acceptance Speech of Mr. FERNANDO ZOBEL DE AYALA as “MAP Management man of the Year 2018.”

3. Acceptance Speech of Dr. GEORGE S.K. TY as “MAP Management man of the Year 2006.”

4. Acceptance Speech of Mr. DAVID M. CONSUNJI as “MAP Management man of the Year 1996.”

5. Speech of Gov. NESTOR A. ESPENILLA JR. at the MAP GMM on March 6, 2018

6. Keynote Speech of Malaysia former Deputy Prime Minister ANWAR IBRAHIM at the MAP International CEO Conference on September 4, 2018

7. The MAP Lifestyle Masters on Living Well and Aging Well

8. Interview of MAP President RIZALINA “Riza” G. MANTARING interview on ANC's "Early Edition" on January 15, 2019

PICTURES uploaded in the MAP Facebook account

1. March 12 Children's Hour Annual Benefit Lunch 2019

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.2291762224431491&type=1&l=35f4a873fa

2. March 14 Meeting of the MAP Sports, Fellowship and Wellness Committee’s Sub-Committee on Golf

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.2292778310996549&type=1&l=4a852b4be5

3. March 18 FINEX – MAP – MBC – PCCI Joint GMM on “New Voices for the Senate Part 1 : A Business Forum for First-time National Candidates” featuring Cong. GARY ALEJANO, Atty. CHEL DIOKNO, Atty. SAMIRA GUTOC, and Atty. FLORIN HILBAY

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.2295117124096001&type=1&l=a979a76c8a

Happy Birthday to the following MAP Members who are

celebrating their birthdays within March 2019

March 1 1. Arch. BENJAMIN S. “Bing” AVILA, Principal Architect, Avila Architect 2. Atty. EDUARDO M. “Ed” PANGAN, Partner, Mendoza and Pangan Law Offices 3. Mr. PHILIP “Philip” SOLIVEN, President, Cargill Philippines, Inc. 4. Mr. RICHARD C. “Dick” UPTON, Chair, JRP Center, Inc.

March 2 5. Mr. MANOLITO OCAMPO “Lito” CRUZ, President and CEO, Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation 6. Mr. FAUSTO R. “Fausto” PREYSLER JR., President and Chair, Smith Bell Corporation 7. Mr. SIMPLICIO P. “Jun” UMALI JR., President and General Manager, Gardenia Bakeries (Phils.), Inc.

March 3 8. Ms. MELESA D. “Elsie” CHUA, President and CEO, CDC Quadrillion 9. Mr. JUAN CARLOS G. “Carlos” DEL ROSARIO, Chair, Amalgamated Investment Bancorporation 10. Mr. ENRIQUE K. “Ricky” RAZON JR., Chair and President, ICTSI

March 4 11. Mr. HORACIO E. “Ricky” CEBRERO III, EVP for Treasury Group, Philippine National Bank (PNB) 12. Mr. WILLIAM N. “William” CHUA CO KIONG, President, Wills International Sales and Corporation 13. Dr. HAZEL P. “Hazel” ZUELLIG, President, Z Healthcare Asia Holdings Corporation

March 5 14. Ms. JOANNA THERESE “So-bee” CUYEGKENG DUENAS CHOA, General Manager, Mary Kay Philippines 15. Mr. TEOFILO S. “Pilo or Theo” EUGENIO, President, Asia Pacific Chartering Phil., Inc. 16. Mr. CONRADO G. “Conrad” MARTY, Vice Chair, Hyundai Asia Resources Inc.

March 6 17. Mr. ALOYSIUS B. “Nonoy” COLAYCO, Country Chair, Jardine Matheson Group of Companies - Philippines 18. Mr. ALFREDO S. “Al” PANLILIO, SVP and Head of Customer Retail Services and Corporate Communications, MERALCO 19. Mr. JAIME AUGUSTO “Jaime” ZOBEL DE AYALA II, Chair and CEO, Ayala Corporation

March 7 20. Mr. REYNALDO C. “Rey” CENTENO, President and CEO, General Life Assurance Philippines, Inc. 21. Cong. FELICITO C. “Tong” PAYUMO, Chair, University of Nueva Caceres

March 8 22. Mr. VITALIANO N. “Lanny” NAÑAGAS II, President, Organizational Systems, Inc.

March 9 23. Atty. ARNEL PACIANO D. “Arnel” CASANOVA, Country Representative, AECOM 24. Ms. CORAZON S. “Cora” DE LA PAZ-BERNARDO, Honorary President (former President - 2004 to 2010), International Social Security Association 25. Engr. WILFREDO L. “Will” DECENA, CEO, Will Decena & Associates, Inc. 26. Amb. KOJI HANEDA, Ambassador of Japan to the Philippines 27. Mr. DANIEL GLENN C. “Glenn” SAN LUIS, Executive Director - Inquirer Academy, Linq Academy Education Services Inc. 28. Mr. JEFFREY O. “Jeff” TARAYAO, President, One Meralco Foundation

March 10 29. Mr. AFTAB “Aftab” AHMED, CEO, Citibank, N.A.

March 11 30. Atty. ARNEL JOSE S. “Arnel” BAÑAS, Deputy Secretary for Administration and Financial Services, Senate of the Philippines 31. Mr. RAINERIO M. “Bong” BORJA, President, Alorica 32. Mr. EDUARDO V. “Ed” FRANCISCO, President and CEO, BDO Capital & Investment Corporation 33. Dr. CIELITO L. “Cielo” GARRIDO, CEO, San Dionisio Credit Cooperative 34. Mr. DEXTER CHUA “Dexter” LEE, President and CEO, Guevent Investments Development Corporation 35. Mr. ROLANDO “Ron” VALDUEZA, CFO, ABS-CBN Corporation

March 12 36. Mr. RENE D. ALMENDRAS, President and CEO, AC Infrastructure Holdings Corporation 37. Mr. DANTE FRANCIS M. “Klink” ANG II, Executive Editor, President and CEO, The Manila Times 38. Mr. RODRIGO E. “Rod” FRANCO, President and CEO, Metro Pacific Tollways Corporation 39. Mr. FRANCISCO H. “Kaiku” LICUANAN III, Chair, Geostate Development Corporation

March 13 40. Mr. ROLANDO S. “Rolly” NARCISO, Director/ Consultant/ Advocate 41. Mr. JULIUS ORDOŇEZ, President, Benchmark Consulting

March 14 42. Mr. MANUEL JOEY T. “Joey” ADRIATICO, General Manager, Avon Products Manufacturing, Inc. 43. Dr. CYNTHIA R. MAMON, COO, Enchanted Kingdom, Inc. 44. Mr. JOSE R. “Joe” SOBERANO III, President and CEO, Cebu Landmasters, Inc. 45. Mr. FERNANDO ZOBEL DE AYALA, President and COO, Ayala Corporation

March 15 46. Ms. ANNA JERMAINE V. “Jermaine” BOMBASI, Managing Director, Empire Centre for Regenerative Medicine 47. Mr. WILSON CHU, Chair, Walden Textile Industries, Inc. 48. Mr. ROLANDO A. “Rolly” JAURIGUE, ButterflyHouse at KM 89 Garden

March 16 49. Arch. FELINO A. “Jun” PALAFOX JR., Principal Architect - Urban Planner, Founder and Managing Partner, Palafox Associates 43

March 17 50. Dr. CORAZON PB. “Cora” CLAUDIO, Vice Chair, The Technical Institute of St. Rita & St. Jude, Inc. 51. Mr. RENATO A. “Rene” FLORENCIO, Chair, GolconDIA Jewelry and TechnoMarine 52. Dr. NICETO S. “Nick” POBLADOR, Retired Professor of Economics and Management, University of the Philippines (UP)

March 18 53. Mr. DAVID F. “Dave” DRILON, Chief Digital Officer, Publicis JimenezBasic 54. Dr. ESTER A. GARCIA, President, University of the East (UE) 55. Mr. LEANDRO L. “Lean” LEVISTE, Founder and President, Solar Philippines 56. Hon. FIDEL V. “Eddie” RAMOS, Chair, Ramos Peace and Development Foundation

March 19 57. Mr. ARTHUR N. “Art” AGUILAR, President, Negros Island Biomass Holdings, Inc. 58. Mr. RAUL JOSEPH A. “Jojo” CONCEPCION, President and CEO, Concepcion-Carrier Air Conditioning Company 59. Consul Gen. M. ISSAM “Sam” ELDEBS, Consul, Consulate of the Syrian Arab Republic 60. Mr. RENATO C. “Rene” VALENCIA, Vice Chair, OMNIPAY, INC.

March 20 61. Mr. JOSE ARANETA “Peppy” ALBERT, President and CEO, GS1 Philippines, Inc. 62. Mr. ALEXANDER M. “Alex” GENIL, President and CEO, ZMG Ward Howell 63. Mr. JOSE MARCEL E. “Jocel” PANLILIO, Chair and CEO, Boulevard Holdings 64. Mr. FREDRICK M. “Rick” SANTOS, Chair and CEO, Santos Knight Frank Inc. 65. Mr. MICHAEL G. “Mike” TAN, COO, Asia Brewery Incorporated 66. Dr. REYNALDO B. “Rey” VEA, President and CEO, Mapua University

March 21 67. Mr. LEOPOLDO P. “Leo” DE GUZMAN, Chair and CEO, Marigold Estate Ventures Company, Inc. 68. Mr. WILLIAM CARLOS “William” UY, Chair and President, Parity Values, Inc.

March 22 69. Mr. CARL LESTER SY “Carl” ANG, EVP, Multi-Rich Home Decors, Inc. 70. Mr. WILSON TAN LEI “Wilson” YEE, President, Segway Moving Philippines, Inc.

March 24 71. Mr. EUGENE S. “Eug” ACEVEDO, Deputy CEO, RCBC 72. Ms. MA. LUNA E. “Luna” CACANANDO, President and CEO, Small Business Corporation (SBCorp) 73. Dr. VICTOR SIMPAO “Vic” LIMLINGAN, Managing Director, DMCI Holdings, Inc.

March 25 74. Ms. MARLETH S. “Marleth” CALANOG, Executive Director, Ateneo de Manila University Graduate School of Business Center for Continuing Education 75. Mrs. VICTORIA P. “Vicky” GARCHITORENA-ARPON, Consultant, Family Philanthropy and Corporate Social Responsibility 76. Mr. JUAN JONATHAN DC. “JJ” MORENO, Chief Strategy and Governance Officer, Metro Retail Stores Group, Inc. (MRSGI) 44

March 27 77. Mr. RODRIGO SEGURA, Partner and Senior Consultant, CMC Business Solutions, Inc.

March 28 78. Atty. J. ANDRES D. “Andy” BAUTISTA, former Chair, Commission on Elections (COMELEC) 79. Mr. MENELEO J. “Ito” CARLOS JR., President, RI Chemical Corporation 80. Sec. HERMINIO B. “Sonny” COLOMA JR., EVP, Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation 81. Mr. WOLFGANG KURT “Wolfgang” HARLE, Managing Director, Harle Philippines, Inc. 82. Mr. RAMON S. “Mon” MONZON, President and CEO, Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE) 83. Mr. JOSE ARNULFO A. “Wick” VELOSO, President, Philippine National Bank (PNB)

March 29 84. Mr. JOHN D. FORBES, Senior Adviser, AMCHAM Philippines

March 30 85. Mr. JOHANNES R. “Hans” HAURI, President, Bonifacio Landmark Realty and Development Corporation 86. Mr. JAIME F. “Jimmy” SINGSON, President, USA BPO, Inc. 87. Mr. VICTOR JOSE “Vic” TANCINCO, President and CEO, St. Peter Life Plan, Inc.

Please add MAP as your friend on Facebook by clicking the following:

https://www.facebook.com/mapphilippines