Volume 6 Issue No. 25 map.org.ph June 23, 2020

“MAPping the Future” Column in the INQUIRER

MODERN CAPITALISM: Where Lies Its Genius? June 22, 2020

Mr. ANTONIO “Tony” T. HERNANDEZ

The Capitalist ideology is founded on private or corporate ownership of capital goods and where products, prices, and the distribution of goods are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

In effect, society’s means of production are not held by government but by private persons (distinct from cooperatively-owned or state-owned capital goods) who have the prerogative over their productive use. And this prerogative provides the incentive to maximize profit and fire-off material progress which is said to be the upside of Capitalism.

However, it is the same prerogative that provides the downside: the temptation to exploit and yield to man’s baser desires for inordinate wealth accumulation.

Hence, the thinking that wealth accumulation and worship of the bottom line is the central principle of Capitalism; and the enforcement of private property rights is sine-qua-non for success. That explains Capitalism’s predilection for liberal political order where property ownership is protected and exchanges are free from governmental interventionism.

Idealism, pride, fame

Capitalism is said to have been coined in the mid-19th century when the first Industrial Revolution was in full swing. Individual innovators were creating new inventions to better people’s welfare. While motivated partly by profit, “more significant was the romance of patriotism, technology and the desire for fame.

1

In a famous example, writes Prof. Gregory Clark of the Univ. of California, the miner’s safety lamp which greatly expanded the coal seams in which miners could work was developed as a humanitarian venture by Sir Humphry Davy, Inventor- Chemist. He refused to take any profit from the innovation. However, he did squabble furiously and selfishly with George Stephenson, Father-of-Railways, as to who deserved the glory of the innovation.” A sterling stroke-of-policy where self-interest served the wider interest!

“The first hundred years of the Industrial Revolution produced extraordinarily little in terms of profits for the inventors who created the modern world. Even most of the innovators whose names we know --- James Hargreaves, Samuel Crompton, Edmond Cartwright (change-makers in the spinning industry which ushered in the factory system) --- gained little”, says Clark.

Clearly, wealth creators at the heart of the industrial revolution “depended as much on idealism, pride of craft, and sense of social usefulness as they did on the desire to make money” --- reflective of that early Anglo-American value system when Puritan ethics (the belief and practices of rigorous moral code and religious rules) was alive in the early capitalist period.

And value-creation was regarded a moral act: an article-of-belief linking human activity to the biblical concept of Stewardship which, in the gospel of creation, means the responsible management of “God’s holdings” entrusted to man’s care, and for which he will make an accounting one day of how faithful he was to the rules during his limited existence.

The mention of “Stewardship” raises the point that we all play a role connected to something more than ourselves --- to a web of relationships where economics, work and faith intersect --- an interdependency that demands relational responsibility.

Coincidentally, today’s deadly “COVID-19 Pandemic” dramatizes that interdependency! Could this Pandemic be the crucible to test our moral compass in a play that looks like a rehearsal of a terrifying crisis?

Capitalistic drift

But do those deep structures of moral values and beliefs that drove the capitalist ideology in its early advocacy years (which became the negation of communism) still holds, or has drifted with the onslaught of globalization?

There is no denying that Capitalism has brought material progress to the world. We have seen much miracles in new inventions --- from nuclear energy, to bio- nanotechnology and more! But what from the moral sphere of socio-economic affairs, from the art of peaceful, fair and beneficent human relationships?

Has Capitalism kept faith with the value system of the Pioneers…“doing-well-by- doing-good” as the pilgrim Quakers put it? Are the communities where Capitalism makes its fortune, better off today? --- i.e., a lot more peaceful, wholesome, undecayed 2 and secure? Or are more exploited, polluted and, stressed out with mushrooming shantytowns or urban slums? Would today’s global wealth distribution be redemptive of Capitalism? Or will it be its own embarrassment?

The global inequality of wealth distribution has been a universal issue in years. The top richest 9% owns more than 85% of the world’s wealth, while the poorest 70% own just about 3% of the global wealth. (Credit Suesse 2017 Global Wealth Report).

This implies that the world’s top richest households possess more than what the 70% of the world’s poorest (approximately 3.47 billion people) have. This financial inequality translates to worldwide social inequity, creating dehumanizing social conditions.

As Bill Gates puts it, “while the world is comparatively getting better, it's not getting better for everyone. The great advances in the world (in science, technology and medicine which have brought us to a high point in human welfare) have often aggravated the global inequities. The least needy gets the most improvement, and the most needy gets the least.”

“There are roughly over a billion people in the world who don't get enough food, who don't have clean drinking water, who don't have electricity --- the things that we take for granted. Diseases like malaria that kill over a million people a year get far less attention than drugs to help with baldness.”

Yet today’s Capitalism goes unfettered in its profit maximization drive, oblivious of “the external cost in terms of pollution, environmental destruction, depleted natural resources, and climate change --- lowering the quality of life of the majority in the affected areas who have done the least to cause it”!

Profit is king

Has the value-empty discipline of economics (“reconstructed in the academic cloister describing wealth-creation after they were accomplished elsewhere by persons sans the discipline”), undermined the Puritan ethics embedded in the early industrial revolution “which upholds goodness and worthiness as things worthwhile in themselves”?

Or has the raging competition between rival cultures of capitalism, set to naught business ethics altogether? For competition can be double-edged, depending on the moral compass of who applies it. It may bring out the best in products and the worst in people, says David Sarnoff, founder of RCA.

For example, while competition spurs innovation to improve products, it also lures competitors to break moral values and collude to limit markets leading to oligopoly, or use their power to "rig the system" by creating barriers to entry (“…like donating to officials sponsoring laws that benefit their industry.”) Eventually embracing pseudo-competition --- undercutting product innovation and service improvement --- to maximize profit as the “be all”!

3

“In today’s business world,” notes “Soul of Business” author Tom Chappell, “the right move” is weighed only according to how well it maximizes profits. If using cheap materials increases profit, if polluting the air and rivers increases profit, if squeezing wages or laying off loyal hard-working employees increases profit, then so be it.

By today’s norm, “Profit is King!” But is this where the genius of Capitalism should excel?

(This 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. The author is management and development finance consultant; Past President & Advisory Council member of the Government Association of CPAs; past Director of PICPA; and former senior officer of Land Bank of the Philippines. Feedback at and . For previous articles, please visit )

4

“MAP Insights” Column in BUSINESSWORLD

WHAT NOW NGOs?

June 23, 2020

Ms. PACITA “Chit” U. JUAN

Is there a future for non-profits in the time of COVID?

Unless you are a membership organization of corporates, like Philippine Business for Social Progress (PBSP) or Philippine Disaster Resilience Foundation (PDRF) or simply a federation like the Association of Foundations (AF) , what is the role of NGOs in this time of COVID? Can NGOs survive and do their philantrophic and community work or their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) other than giving food to frontliners and sending money for PPEs? What does the future hold for corporate NGOs?

With 80% of businesses looking for extra funds to stay afloat, NGOs and corporate foundations may soon find themselves with empty pockets or empty coffers. So who will do the CSO (civil society organization) work then in this new era?

The questions will be asked by many ongoing projects, such as ours -ECHOSi Foundation with the Philippine Commission on Women (PCW) and the Global Affairs Canada (GAC). Though we would be extended until 2021, the plan needs to be tweaked and adjusted to now accommodate ONLINE LEARNING, no mass gatherings like before, and a lot of use of technology to deliver our services to the far- flung communities and continue the work.

For our other NGO, the Philippine Coffee Board, Inc. (PCBI), we were in the middle of doing a Coffee Pilot Farm in Marawi State University (MSU) when the lockdown started. This leaves us in a quandary on how and when we can proceed with plans to propagate coffee in Marawi as a way of propagating a crop which needs no additional market because we are under producing (another subject for yet another article on import dependence of coffee) with coffee demand at 130,000 MT and production at a dismal 35,000 MT a year.

Over in Tublay, Benguet, we (ECHOsi) are supposed to meet coffee farmers and weavers to get them to market, but with Baguio closed to visitors, this is now not possible. So everything and everyone is hanging until such time that NGOs can pivot to delivering services in new or innovative ways.

5

HOW TO PROCEED WITH PROJECTS IN TIME OF THE PANDEMIC?

1. We will need to do our teaching online. This means producing relevant VIDEO training tools and webinars. 2. We will have to show the farmers new ways to market online. We can start with Facebook or Shopify on onboarding their products in an ecommerce space. 3. Blockchain might be too soon, but worth knowing the ropes so we can adopt it in the near future. 4. Teach communities how to attend Zoom meetings. 5. Use Facebook to talk to farmers or beneficiaries and let them know we are still in the project together.

NGOs and small foundations can continue their work for as long as there are communities to be served. We, however, will need the help of our donors to also pivot and do something revolutionary, probably not yet in the corporate policies or guidelines. CEOs must adjust their foundation’s direction of CSR to what is doable, executable and relevant to COVID.

WHAT DO NGOs TELL THEIR PRINCIPALS?

1. Find out if they will still fund your work. If so, get a budget. 2. Rework, realign, tweak your Work and Financial Plan. In the end, a plan is necessary for donors and principals to keep the juice flowing. 3. Change your mindset to that of an entrepreneur. What you invest must come back so you can be sustainable. 4. Remind them to include in the corporate vision and mission - “If it can be shared by all and it can help the world, it will be sustainable.”

Many years ago, we tried to convert NGO people into entrepreneurs and we were not so successful as their mindsets were used to dole-outs and using project funds. But this cannot be the same today. Even NGOs must now think of how to survive or stay relevant in these challenging times.

Do not close your foundations or non-profits— just tweak them into sustainable organizations with people who put heart over money, heart over profit and but they exist for service above all. Maybe this time, NGOs will become social enterprises. They may not make money but, at least, they will earn their own money to survive. NGOs have a future, too.

(This 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.) ------PACITA “Chit” U. JUAN is the President of the Philippine Coffee Board, Inc. and runs a social enterprise called ECHOstore. [email protected] [email protected] http://map.org.ph

6

June 5, 2020 Joint Statement on the Anti-Terrorism Bill

7

June 4, 2020 Joint Statement on ARISE/PESA with a record 44 signatories

8

9

10

11

12

13

News articles on the June 17, 2020 (Wednesday) MAP Webinar on the Anti-Terrorism Bill

with former Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice

Antonio “Tony” T. Carpio

1. “Carpio says anti-terror bill to put PH under situation worse than martial law” by Ina Reformina ABS-CBN News June 17, 2020

MANILA - “Permanently under a situation worse than martial law.”

The Philippines will be under this state once the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 is enacted, according to retired Supreme Court (SC) Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio on Wednesday.

Speaking at a webinar organized by the Management Association of the Philippines, Carpio took off from an earlier pronouncement from Senate President Vicente Sotto III to explain his point.

“Senate Pres. Vicente Sotto III recently said, ‘Hindi na kailangan ng Martial Law kapag napasa na namin itong Anti-Terror Bill’."

“I agree with Sen. Sotto that upon enactment into law of the Anti-Terror Act, martial law will be superfluous. Under the Constitution, the President can declare martial law and suspend the writ of habeas corpus for not more than 60 days… Congress, by majority vote, can revoke the declaration within 48 hours from its declaration," Carpio said.

“In contrast, the Anti-Terrorism Act, once enacted into law, remains in the statute books forever until repealed by Congress or invalidated by the Supreme Court,” he added.

Carpio noted that under martial law, when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended thereby allowing warrantless arrests, “a person charged for rebellion must be charged in court 3 days from arrest, otherwise he shall be released.”

But under the anti-terror bill, which is already awaiting the signature of President Rodrigo Duterte, a person or organization tagged as “terrorist” may be detained without hearing and formal charges for up to 24 days.

“So that’s longer than the 3 days under martial law,” he said.

“The person arrested for terrorism can, at any time during the 24 days, of course, file a petition for habeas corpus. Right after the arrest he can do that."

"But once the custodian shows the written authority of the Anti-Terrorism Council to the judge, that there is an order for his arrest because he is a ‘terrorist’, then the judge would be compelled to dismiss the petition because the person is being detained ‘upon a lawful order pursuant to law.’ That will be the situation unless section 29 is invalidated by the Supreme Court," Carpio explained.

14

“In short, with the Anti-Terrorism Act, as part of the law of the land, it is as if the Philippines is permanently under a situation worse than martial law.”

ONLY COURTS CAN ISSUE ARREST WARRANTS

Carpio said the controversial proposed measure “demolishes fortresses” in the Constitution aimed at protecting the “inviolable” right against unreasonable arrest.

“There is not doubt whatsoever that under the present Constitution, only a judge must issue a warrant of arrest. This ‘fortress’ must be inviolable. The Anti-Terrorism Act has demolished the first ‘fortress’ and reinstated the ASOs (arrest and seizure without warrant orders) of the Marcos period,” he said.

The power granted to the Anti-Terrorism Council - whose members will all come from the executive department - to order arrests without court warrant also “demolishes” the constitutional guarantee that probable cause must first be established as a requisite to the issuance of warrant, Carpio said.

He said principal author Sen. Panfilo Lacson’s statement that the law will enable government to be “proactive” in fighting terrorism runs counter to the concept of legal citizen’s arrest, where the crime is being committed upon arrest.

“DEVASTATING EFFECT” ON 2022 ELECTIONS

Carpio warned that should the proposed measure be enacted in toto, it will threaten, come 2022 presidential elections, freedoms being enjoyed by the public and journalists.

“The Anti-Terrorism Council will have a devastating effect on the freedom of speech and freedom of the press in the May 2022 presidential elections," he said.

While the Human Security Act of 2007 provides for the automatic suspension of the law "one month before the elections, and two months after," the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 does not have such provision.

"So, the Anti-Terrorism Act continues during the election period,” Carpio said.

He said there are two ways to rid the new bill of its “unconstitutional” provisions: have these invalidated by the SC, or repealed by Congress.

“If we do not want to experience a contraction of our civil liberties, we must all work to have the objectionable provisions in the Anti-Terrorism Act invalidated by the Supreme Court or repealed by Congress. Vigilance is the price of freedom,” Carpio said.

15

2. 'Mas malala pa sa martial law': Dating SC Justice Carpio sa anti-terror bill ABS-CBN News June 17, 2020

MAYNILA — Mas malala pa sa martial law: ito ang pagsasalarawan ni retired Supreme Court (SC) Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio sa kontrobersyal na panukalang anti-terrorism bill na nag-aantay na lang ng lagda ni Pangulong Rodrigo Duterte para maisabatas.

"With the anti-terrorism act as part of the law of the land, it is as if the Philippines is permanently under a situation worse than martial law," ani Carpio sa isang webinar ng Management Association of the Philippines.

Iginiit ni Carpio na kumpara sa martial law na may taning na 60 araw at maaari pang ipawalang bisa ng Kongreso dalawang araw matapos ito ideklara, walang taning ang bisa ng anti-terror act hanggang hindi ito binabawi ng Kongreso o pinapawalang bisa ng Korte Suprema.

"In contrast, the anti-terrorism act, once enacted into law, remains in the statute books forever until repealed by Congress or invalidated by the Supreme Court," ani Carpio.

Labag din aniya sa Saligang Batas ang ibinibigay na kapangyarihan sa anti-terrorism council.

"There is no doubt whatsoever that under the present Constitution, only a judge must issue a warrant of arrest... The anti-terrorism council will have a devastating effect on the freedom of speech and freedom of the press in the May 2022 presidential elections," ani Carpio.

Sinabi ni Carpio na dapat magkaisa ang lahat para tiyakin na hindi makalusot ang mga ilegal na probisyon ng anti-terrorism bill.

"If we do not want to experience a contraction of our civil liberties, we must all work to have the objectionable provisions in the anti-terrorism act invalidated by the supreme court or repealed by congress. Vigilance is the price of freedom."

3. “Ping refutes ‘mistaken’ Carpio view on terror bill” by Butch Fernandez BusinessMirror June 19, 2020

SENATOR Panfilo Lacson on Thursday allayed apprehensions aired by ex-Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio over the Anti-terror bill, now awaiting presidential signature.

Lacson assured the magistrate that the remedial legislation updating the law penalizing terrorist acts provides for swift and effective delivery of justice to all concerned, and has enough safeguards against abuse, contrary to fears aired by human- rights lawyers and leaders of various sectors.

16

“With all due respect to former Justice Antonio Carpio, who I continue to admire and respect, he is mistaken on several material points in his interpretation on the contents of the Anti-Terrorism Bill,” Lacson said. Carpio had said he would join in questioning the bill in the SC, on constitutionality issues, if it is signed into law.

The senator assured the public he had already addressed many of the concerns raised over the bill in a letter-reply to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

“I hope those who share his [Justice Carpio’s] concerns take time to read it,” Lacson said, providing the link to whoever is interested at https://pinglacson.net/2020/06/16/lacson-rectifies- ibp-misconceptions-anti-terrorism-bill-swift-effective-constitutional/.

The lawmaker said that after reading the transcript of Justice Carpio’s remarks before the Management Association of the Philippines (MAP) on Wednesday, “I think he has made up his mind on his interpretation, so in the meantime I will leave it at that.”

But not one to readily give up, Lacson is looking forward to an upcoming forum where he expects to further explain the need to update the law to boost government’s capability to combat terrorism.

“That said, I am scheduled to speak before the same Management Association of the Philippines membership meeting on June 24, and I will have the opportunity to respond point by point to the constitutional issues and concerns that he raised as guest speaker of the same forum,” the senator added.

Lacson and lawmakers standing squarely behind the controversial ATB insist that the Human Security Act of 2007, which the pending ATB law seeks to amend, has proven not enough to fight terrorism. They said a new, tougher law with sharper focus on terrorist targets, could reduce the risks of another Marawi Siege happening.

4. “Carpio ‘mistaken’ on several material points of anti-terror bill—Lacson” by DONA MAGSINO GMA News June 18, 2020

Senator Panfilo Lacson on Thursday said several provisions of the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act had been misunderstood by retired Supreme Court justice Antonio Carpio. advertisement

"With all due respect to former Justice Antonio Carpio, who I continue to admire and respect, he is mistaken on several material points in his interpretation on the contents of the Anti-Terrorism Bill," Lacson said in a statement.

"I think he has made up his mind on his interpretation, so in the meantime I will leave it at that," he added.

An author and principal sponsor of the bill, Lacson said he already addressed Carpio's concerns in a letter he previously sent to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

17

The senator also committed to respond "point by point to the constitutional issues" raised by Carpio, as he disclosed that he is scheduled to speak before the Management Association of the Philippines (MAP) membership meeting on June 24.

The MAP also hosted the webinar on Wednesday wherein Carpio enumerated his various concerns on the proposed bill.

Carpio said the Philippines will "permanently" be in a situation "worse than martial law" if the measure becomes a law.

The Anti-Terrorism Council's supposed authority to order arrests of terrorism suspects and to proscribe a group for being involved in acts of terrorism; and the "too broad" definition of terrorism in the bill were among the issues raised by Carpio.

Lacson, for his part, has previously said the ATC does not have the judicial authority to order arrests, and that enough safeguards were placed in the proposed law.—LDF, GMA News

5. “Carpio: PH will be in situation ‘worse than martial law’ if anti-terror bill becomes law by Tetch Torres-Tupas Philippine Daily Inquirer June 17, 2020

MANILA, Philippines — If the Anti-Terrorism Bill becomes law, the country will be in a situation worse than martial law.

This was the warning issued by retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, who also expressed his objection to the proposed measure “because several provisions are unconstitutional.”

“With the Anti-Terrorism Act as part of the law of the land, it is as if the Philippines is permanently under a situation worse than martial law,” Carpio said in a Management Association of the Philippines (MAP) webinar on the Anti-Terrorism Bill.

According to Carpio, the controversial Anti-Terror Bill contains provisions that demolish the people’s “inviolable” rights stated under the 1987 Constitution.

“I am objecting to the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 because several provisions are unconstitutional,” he said. Detention without judicial warrant

Section 29 of the Anti-Terrorism Bill allows the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC), composed of Cabinet Secretaries, to order the arrest of a suspected terrorist as well as his or her detention for up to 24 days.

However, under the present Constitution, Carpio said “only a judge can issue warrants of arrest.”

He noted that the constitutional provision authorizing executive officials to issue warrants of arrest was under the 1973 Constitution, which was used as a basis for the government’s arrest, search, and seizure orders during the martial law. 18

“The framers of the 1987 Constitution vowed to never again and reinstated the 1935 Constitutional provision that only judges can issue warrants of arrest,” the retired senior magistrate stressed.

Under the prevailing 1987 Constitution, Carpio said even with the declaration of martial law, warrantless detention is only allowed for three days with an extraordinary remedy of the writ of habeas corpus.

But, he warned, once the Anti-Terrorism Bill takes effect, such a remedy will become useless.

“Once the custodian shows the written authority of the ATC to the judge that there is an order for his arrest because he is a terrorist, then the judge will be compelled to dismiss the petition because the person is detained upon lawful order pursuant to law. That will be the situation unless Section 29 is invalidated by the Supreme Court,” Carpio explained.

He added that the requirement of probable cause or the existence of such facts and circumstances that a person has committed an offense and should be prosecuted, which is a requirement for the issuance of an arrest warrant, is disregarded under the anti-terror bill.

“Section 29 does not require probable cause before the ATC can issue an arrest order. Clearly, the ATC can issue an arrest order even without probable cause… Section 29 does not create standards or limitations to the power of the ATC,” Carpio said.

Carpio then agreed with Senate President Vicente Sotto that martial law is no longer needed once the Anti-Terrorism Bill becomes a law.

“Upon enactment of Anti-Terror Act, martial law will be superfluous,” he said.

Carpio further said that unlike martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus that should last for not more than 60 days, “the Anti-Terrorism Act remains in the statute books forever, until repealed by Congress or invalidated by the Supreme Court.”

“If we do not want to experience a contraction of our civil liberties, we must all work to have the objectionable provisions in the Anti-Terror Act invalidated by the Supreme Court or repealed by Congress,” Carpio said.

6. “Carpio ‘mistaken’ in his interpretation on several anti-terror bill contents – Lacson” by Christia Marie Ramos Philippine Daily Inquirer June 18, 2020

MANILA, Philippines — Senator Panfilo Lacson on Thursday said retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio misinterpreted some provisions under the controversial anti- terrorism bill.

During a Management Association of the Philippines (MAP) webinar on Wednesday, Carpio said several provisions of the measure were “unconstitutional.”

19

“With all due respect to former Justice Antonio Carpio, who I continue to admire and respect, he is mistaken on several material points in his interpretation on the contents of the Anti-Terrorism Bill,” Lacson, the principal author of the measure in the Senate, said in a statement.

Lacson said he already addressed many of Carpio’s concerns in a June 15 letter he sent to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which also raised fears over several provisions under the proposed law.

Both the retired senior magistrate and the IBP frowned on a provision of the bill, which supposedly authorizes the anti-terrorism council (ATC) to order the arrest of a suspected terrorist as well as his or her detention for up to 24 days.

“Section 29 does not require probable cause before the ATC can issue an arrest order. Clearly, the ATC can issue an arrest order even without probable cause… Section 29 does not create standards or limitations to the power of the ATC,” Carpio had said during the webinar.

He also pointed out that once the anti-terror bill is enacted into law, “it is as if the Philippines is permanently under a situation worse than martial law.”

But in the letter Lacson had sent to the IBP, he maintained that the bill aims to combat terrorism not only in a “swift, effective” manner but also within the bounds of the Constitution.

The senator, a former chief of the Philippine National Police, stressed that the ATC could not authorize in writing the “taking into custody” of terrorism suspects.

“The ‘written authorization’ of the ATC is intended to be issued to duly designated deputies, i.e., law enforcement agents or military personnel specially tasked and trained to handle the custodial investigation involving violations of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 as proposed, considering the complexities and nature of terrorism,” Lacson wrote.

“If the ATC has no authority to order the arrest, much more does it have the authority to determine the period of detention of the person arrested,” he further noted.

The senator reiterated that the bill contains “safeguards,” which includes the requirement to immediately send a written notice to the judge of the court nearest the place of arrest, with copies furnished to the ATC and the Commission on Human Rights.

The detained suspect would also be informed of his or her rights and would not be denied access to a counsel, he added.

He also said that the phrase “having been duly authorized by the ATC,” which he said is now being challenged as unconstitutional, was Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon’s amendment in the 2007 Human Security Act.

This was merely retained in the anti-terror bill, according to Lacson.

“After reading the transcript of his (Carpio) remarks before the MAP yesterday, I think he has made up his mind on his interpretation, so in the meantime I will leave it at that,” Lacson went on.

20

The lawmaker added that he would respond, “point by point,” to the constitutional issues and concerns raised by Carpio when he attends the same MAP forum on June 24 as a guest speaker.

“I am scheduled to speak before the same Management Association of the Philippines membership meeting on June 24, and I will have the opportunity to respond point by point to the constitutional issues and concerns that he raised as guest speaker of the same forum,” Lacson said.

The anti-terror bill seeks to amend and repeal the Human Security Act of 2007 (HSA) and punish those who will propose, incite, conspire, participate in the planning, training, preparation, and facilitation of a terrorist act; including those who will provide material support to terrorists, and recruit members in a terrorist organization.

The proposed law, which is now only awaiting President Rodrigo Duterte’s signature, has been met with widespread opposition from various groups, which raised fears that the measure could spur human rights violations and suppress dissent.

7. “Lacson disputes Carpio’s critique on proposed anti-terrorism law” by Mario Casayuran Manila Bulletin June 18, 2020

Senator Panfilo M. Lacson, principal author of the controversial Anti-Terrorism Bill (ATB), and former Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio have opposing interpretations of the controversial Anti-Terrorism Bill (ATB).

“With all due respect to former Justice Antonio Carpio, who I continue to admire and respect, he is mistaken on several material points in his interpretation on the contents of the Anti-Terrorism Bill,’’ Lacson, chairman of the Senate national defense and security committee, said.

Lacson, a former Philippine National Police (PNP) chief, said he already addressed many of the concerns raised by Carpio in his letter reply to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

Lacson, who once served as Chief of the Philippine National Police, is a Philippine Military Academy (PMA) graduate.

Carpio, who served as Senior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and served in the high tribunal for nearly two decades, is highly regarded as a legal titan.

“After reading the transcript of his remarks before the MAP (Management Association of the Philippines) yesterday, I think he has made up his mind on his interpretation, so in the meantime I will leave it at that,’’ he said.

Since he is scheduled to speak before the same organization during its membership meeting on June 24, Lacson said he would have ‘’the opportunity to respond point by point to the constitutional issues and concerns that former Justice Carpio raised.

The enrolled ATB has been sent to Malacanang. It awaits the President’s approval or veto. The bill automatically becomes law if unacted upon by the President 30 days after its submission to the Chief Executive. 21

Last Tuesday, Lacson sent a lengthy clarification on misconceptions harbored by the IBP about the controversial proposed Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.

The measure, according to Lacson, aims to combat terrorism in a “swift, effective and constitutional” manner.’’

In a letter-reply to IBP president Domingo Egon Q. Cayosa, Lacson addressed the IBP’s concerns about parts of the bill, including the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC).

“The Anti-Terrorism Bill speaks clear of our swift, effective, and constitutional policy against these acts of terror and against no one else but its perpetrators,” he said.

8. “Retired SC Justice Carpio Ready To Challenge New Anti-Terror Act, Calls It Worse Than Martial Law” by Vince Nonato One News June 18, 2020

Retired Supreme Court senior associate justice Antonio Carpio says he will file a petition against a “very defective” measure with “many unconstitutional provisions” if President Duterte signs the anti-terrorism bill into law.

The proposed Anti-Terrorism Act is a “very defective” measure with “many unconstitutional provisions” and will place the Philippines “permanently under a situation worse than martial law,” retired Supreme Court senior associate justice Antonio Carpio said.

Carpio, usually described as the “best chief justice we never had,” bared that he would be among the petitioners who would challenge the proposed measure before the SC should President Duterte sign the anti-terrorism bill or allow it to lapse into law.

“With the Anti-Terrorism Act as part of the law of the land, it is as if the Philippines is permanently under a situation worse than martial law,” Carpio said in an online forum organized by the Management Association of the Philippines on Wednesday, June 17, citing various reasons.

The bill has drawn condemnation for granting sweeping powers that usually belong to the courts to the Anti-Terrorism Council or ATC, a nine-member body chaired by the executive secretary and composed of Cabinet officials and the executive director of the Anti-Money Laundering Council.

Critics also fear that the vague wording of the bill’s provisions may be used to crack down on dissidents and activists.

Carpio specifically objected to the following provisions for going against the Constitution or for being too vague and broad:

• Section 29 allows the ATC to authorize the arrest of persons who are merely “suspected” of committing terrorism, in violation of the Constitution’s requirement that a warrant of arrest be issued by a judge upon finding of probable cause. 22

• Section 29 allows the detention of a suspect for as long as 24 days without being charged with any crime before the courts, eight times longer than the three-day maximum period provided by the Constitution. • Section 25 empowers the ATC to designate persons or organizations as “terrorist” without being required to conduct hearings where they can air their side and rebut the allegations. Recruitment to or membership in such organizations is penalized under Section 10. • Section 34 provides for the house arrest of suspects even if they are entitled to bail as a matter of right in non-grave felonies or by reason of weak evidence in nonbailable offenses. • Section 4(a) vaguely defines terrorism as committed by a person who “engages in acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person, or endangers a person’s life.”

Overstepping on the court’s functions

Carpio mostly focused on Section 29, the section concerning “detention without judicial warrant of arrest.”

The section provides for law enforcement agents or military personnel to take custody of “a person suspected of committing” terrorism if they are “duly authorized in writing by the ATC.”

But under Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution, a warrant of arrest may only be issued “upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.”

Carpio explained that this provision puts up “two fortresses” against unreasonable arrests – the requirement that the warrant be issued by a judge and the requirement that the warrant be based on the existence of probable cause.

Notably, the framers of the 1987 Constitution deleted the provision in the 1973 Constitution that also empowers “such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law” to issue a warrant of arrest. In other words, Congress lost its Marcos-era option to give the executive branch of government the power to order arrests.

Carpio noted that only judges can now order arrests, because the framers vowed to “never again” allow the horrors inflicted by the “notorious arrest, search and seizure orders (ASSOs)” issued by the secretary of national defense under the bloody regime of dictator Ferdinand Marcos to happen.

Critics of the bill say the ATC seems poised to overstep on the functions of the court, as the bill allows it to issue a written authority for making warrantless arrests.

“This first fortress must be inviolable. Now what has the Anti-Terrorism Act done? The Anti- Terrorism Act has demolished the first fortress and reinstated the ASSOs of the martial law period,” Carpio said.

Warrantless arrests may be reasonably carried out by a peace officer or a private person under Rule 113, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

23

But the rule allows this only for three scenarios:

• The person has committed, is committing or is about to commit an offense in the presence of the officer; • The person has just committed an offense and the officer has probable cause to believe it based on personal knowledge; • The person escaped from detention or confinement.

In these urgent cases where the crime is happening almost at the moment of an arrest, written authority is no longer required.

“Clearly, the written authority under Section 29 is not for the purpose of effecting warrantless arrest under Rule 113. The written authority of the ATC is necessary to arrest the person suspected of terrorism outside the situations wherein the warrantless arrests are allowed under Rule 113,” Carpio said.

Carpio found this reasoning to be “senseless,” unless Congress intended to give the executive branch the power of the courts.

“This is obviously unconstitutional since the present Constitution allows only a judge to issue a warrant of arrest,” he added.

Arrests based on mere suspicion

The “second fortress” against unreasonable arrests is the requirement for the warrant to be based on a finding of probable cause. The Constitution requires judges to personally examine the complainant and the witnesses to find out if there is a reasonable ground to believe that the suspect probably committed the crime.

“In short, if the judge believes that no crime has been committed, he cannot issue a warrant of arrest,” Carpio said.

He then contrasted this with the reasoning of Sen. Panfilo Lacson, who during deliberations in the Senate said he wanted authorities to be “proactive” in arresting terrorism suspects even if they have not committed a crime yet. Lacson has argued that successful counterterrorism involves preventing the crime from being carried out.

Lacson said: “In ordinary crimes, hindi puwede iyong nasa planning stage, hindi naman niya ginawa, hindi naman siya nag-commit ng crime. Pero dahil iyong tinatawag nating inchoate offense, hindi pa nangyari, nasa simula pa lamang, puwede na nating arestuhin (In ordinary crimes, you cannot [make arrests] in the planning stage and he has not done it yet, he has not committed the crime. Because we call [terrorism] an inchoate offense, even if it has not happened, it is only beginning, we can make arrests) because we want to be proactive, because this is a new phenomenon.”

Carpio interpreted Lacson’s statement to mean “the ATC is authorized to order the arrest of any person even if he or she has not committed any act of terrorism.”

24

Carpio noted that Section 29 “does not provide standards of limitations to the power of the Anti- Terrorism Council to issue arrest orders.” The section only mentions that the person to be arrested is just “suspected to be committing any of the acts” criminalized by the bill.

“Clearly, the Anti-Terrorism Council can issue an arrest order even without probable cause, demolishing completely the second fortress erected by the Constitution to ensure the guarantee against unreasonable arrests is inviolable,” Carpio argued.

24-day warrantless arrest

Section 29 also allows authorities to keep detainees for 14 days, extendible by another 10 days, before they are required to file charges before the court.

Under Article 7, Section 18 of the Constitution, the President may suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in case of invasion or rebellion and when required by public safety. In this case, an arrested or detained person “shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.”

In other words, the Anti-Terrorism Act provides for a period of detention without charges that is “longer than the three days under martial law.” This prompted Carpio to declare that the Philippines will be “permanently under a situation worse than martial law” if the bill is enacted.

Carpio pointed out that even martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus only has a limited lifespan. It may last for a period of 60 days, subject to extension or revocation by Congress.

The Anti-Terrorism Act is much worse, he said, because the measure, “once enacted into law, remains in the statute books forever, until repealed by the Congress or invalidated by the Supreme Court.”

Even the writ of habeas corpus would not be of much help if the Anti-Terrorism Act is in force.

The courts may require the custodian of a suspect to justify his detention, but all the custodian needs to do is show the written authority of the ATC. “Then the judge will be compelled to dismiss the petition because he is being detained upon lawful order pursuant to law,” Carpio stressed.

Assuming that authorities could not gather enough evidence within the 24-day period of warrantless detention, there is no provision in the Anti-Terrorism Act regarding re-arrest. “After a few days, he can be arrested again and the 24-day cycle will repeat and keep on repeating,” Carpio warned.

Currently, the Rules of Court require that when a person is ordered released by the court upon the grant of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, “he cannot be arrested again for the same charge unless there is an express order by the court.”

25

Designation without due process

For Carpio, another cause for concern is the power of the ATC under Section 25 to designate individuals or groups as terrorist “upon a finding of probable cause” that they have committed, are attempting to commit, or are conspiring to commit terrorist acts.

Carpio noted that under the section, “probable cause does not require a hearing where an individual can be heard or rebut witnesses of the government.”

The consequence of being tagged a terrorist, without being given the chance to explain, can be dire, considering that recruitment to a terrorist organization is punishable with life imprisonment and even mere membership can lead to a 12-year sentence.

Carpio said Section 25 would be unconstitutional for going against both the right to form associations for purposes not contrary to law and the right against deprivation of liberty without due process of law.

“The only time they will know is when they will be arrested. Due process means a hearing where the organization can present their side to rebut the allegation that they are engaged in terrorism,” he pointed out.

House arrest

As for other contentious provisions, Carpio flagged Section 34 for allowing suspects to be placed under house arrest even if they are entitled to bail as a matter of right in non-grave felonies or by reason of weak evidence in non-bailable offenses.

Section 34 provides for several restrictions to the right to travel. A unique restriction for a terrorism suspect is that even if the evidence is not strong enough for grave offenses, the court shall limit his movement to the municipality or city where he resides or where he faces the case. Going outside the municipality or city will then be used as a ground to forfeit the bail.

The same section also gives the courts the option to place the suspect entitled to bail under house arrest, where the use of gadgets and any means of communication may be prohibited. For Carpio, this negates “his constitutional right to bail.”

Carpio found even the very definition of “terrorism” in the Anti-Terrorism Act questionable. Section 4(a) of the measure vaguely defines terrorism as committed by a person who “engages in acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person, or endangers a person’s life.”

He wondered if this loose definition could be used against reckless drivers or college students holding protests amid the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. He said the gathering of rallyists could even be construed as creating an “atmosphere of fear” that could count as an act of terrorism.

Should have abided by the Constitution

Proponents of the bill, as well as presidential spokesperson Harry Roque, argued that the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act was modeled after the anti-terrorism laws of other countries. But

26

Carpio reminded them: “We’re bound by our Constitution and all our laws must abide by that Constitution.”

Carpio said the bill could have been saved “if only this can be discussed by everyone” and not rushed by the House of Representatives without amendments. The House had adopted the measure passed by the Senate in February.

“We’re stuck with this now, and I think this is a very defective law and there are many unconstitutional provisions,” Carpio bewailed.

If Duterte proceeds to sign the Anti-Terrorism Act or let it lapse into law by next month, Carpio said “there can be a two-pronged attack – one in the Supreme Court and one in Congress” in order to solve the problem.

“The House or the Senate can pass a bill to correct the Anti-Terrorism Act. They can introduce amendments right there after it becomes a law, they can start the ball rolling,” Carpio said. “We can draft a law that protects the country against terrorism within the bounds of the Constitution.”

If the national security officials really do not find the three-day detention to be enough to gather evidence against suspects, Carpio suggested that a law be passed, allowing them to file a “preliminary” charge of terrorism and “prove to the judge that there is probable cause already, but the evidence is not strong enough or you want to gather more evidence, but the evidence is strong enough for the charge to stick.”

In other words, this could work as a court-sanctioned “extended time to gather the evidence and file the final charge within 24 days.”

Another point for improvement is to tighten the definition of the crime of “inciting to commit terrorism” under Section 9, which critics have denounced as a looming crackdown on dissidents. Carpio proposed that incitement be punished only when it “invites immediate lawless action,” so that journalists would not be covered by the law.

“With what we have now, the judge will look at it, look at what you’ve written as a columnist and say, ‘oh, this is inciting to terrorism,’ and that means you can be arrested already,” he noted.

The bill was approved on third and final reading by the Senate on Feb. 26 by a vote of 19-2. The senators who voted in favor, apart from Lacson, were Senate President Vicente Sotto III, Majority Leader Juan Miguel Zubiri, Minority Leader Franklin Drilon as well as Sonny Angara, Nancy Binay, Pia Cayetano, Ronald dela Rosa, Grace Poe, Imee Marcos, Manuel Lapid, Joel Villanueva, Cynthia Villar, Manny Pacquiao, Sherwin Gatchalian, Bong Go, Richard Gordon, Bong Revilla and Francis Tolentino. Only Francis Pangilinan and Risa Hontiveros dissented.

After Duterte certified the measure as urgent, the House adopted the Senate version on June 3 after barely a week of deliberations, with the leadership refusing to entertain any amendment to address constitutionality issues. Even as some congressmen withdrew their votes in favor of the bill, the leadership of the House and the Senate submitted an enrolled bill to Malacañang on June 9.

27

In sponsoring the measure, Lacson had said: “We need a strong legal structure that deals with terrorism to exact accountability, liability and responsibility. Those who have committed, are about to commit, or are supporting those who commit terroristic acts should be prosecuted and penalized accordingly.”

For Carpio, there is a lesson that the proponents of the Anti-Terrorism Act should learn: “All of these can really be done if we look at it carefully.”

9. “Carpio warns: Situation 'worse than martial law' under anti-terrorism law” by Kristine Joy Patag The Philippine Star June 17, 2020

MANILA, Philippines — The Philippines would perpetually be in a state worse than martial law if the anti-terrorism bill is signed into law, former Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio warned.

Speaking at a webinar hosted by the Management Association of the Philippines, Carpio on Wednesday said he agrees with Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III that there will be no need to declare martial law if this controversial bill is in place.

The anti-terrorism bill has also been said to be a substitute for the repealed Anti-Subversion Law that the Department of the Interior and Local Government wanted revived last year.

The former SC justice explained that under the Constitution, the president may put an area or the entire Philippines under martial law for not more than 60 days and would have to gain the majority vote of the Congress.

The declaration of martial law would be "superfluous" with enactment of the anti-terrorism bill, Carpio said.

Under martial law, a person arrested should be charged in court in three days otherwise he should be released. But with the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, a person arrested for terrorism may be detained for 24 days — far longer period than when martial law is enforced — before a charge should be filed.

“In contrast, the anti-terrorism act remains in the statute books forever, until repealed by Congress or invalidated by the Supreme Court,” Carpio said.

“In short, with the anti-terrorism act as part of the land, it is as if the Philippines is permanently under a situation worse than martial law,” he added.

'Anti-terrorism bill has unconstitutional provisions'

Carpio has been vocal in his opposition to the looming new law, saying that it contains provisions that are unconstitutional.

Citing Art. III Section 2 of the Constitution, he stressed that the right of people “to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and purpose shall be inviolable.”

28

“This inviolability against unreasonable arrest, the Constitution erected two fortresses—the first fortress is that only a judge can issue warrants of arrest. Second fortress is that warrants of arrest must be issued only upon probable cause,” Carpio said.

He recalled that in the 1973 Constitution, executive officials were authorized to issue warrants of arrests. “The result was the notorious arrest search and seizure orders issued.... during the martial law.”

“The framers of the 1987 Constitution vowed to never again and reinstated the 1935 Constitution that only judges can issue warrants of arrest,” Carpio said.

Under the proposed anti-terror law, law enforcement agent need only a written authority from the anti-terrorism council—composed of Cabinet members and mostly of former military officials, to effect a warrantless arrest.

“That would defeat the purpose of warrantless arrest where time is of the essence and in Rule 113 (on warrantless arres) the crime is already being committed in the presence of the law enforcement agent and if he still has to secure the written authority from the anti terrorism council to arrest the offender then that would be senseless,” he said.

Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, a warrantless arrest may be done if a person has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; if a crime has just been committed; or if the person is an escaped prisoner.

'Protest against anti-terrorism bill during COVID-19? You may be arrested for that'

Carpio also assailed the “broad” definition of terrorism in the bill.

Section 4 of the bill states that terrorism is committed by a person who “engages in acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person, or endangers a person’s life.”

He said that the definition could include protesters at a time of a public health crisis due to a highly transmissible coronavirus disease.

Carpio said that while the Constitution guarantees the freedom to associate, the anti-terrorism bill states that if an act intends to "spread an atmosphere of fear," it may be labeled an act of terrorism.

"It's a very broad thing. Anything can be fearful to society. We really need to refine a little bit," he added.

“Assuming the law is in effect now, and there are students today, this afternoon in UP who are demonstrating against the law and they are demonstrating en masse so they are engaged in an act that endangers the lives of other people because COVID,” he said.

“Because they are conducting a mass event that they are endangering the lives of other people and that creates an atmosphere of fear so they are already committing an act of terrorism under this provision,” he added.

29

Last week, protesters in UP Diliman were unfazed by the threat of charges and trooped to the University of the Philippines Diliman to call for the veto of the anti-terrorism bill.

Protesters in Iligan City were arrested, however, and have since said that they were harassed and they were not read their rights as required by police guidelines.

Is there recourse left if it becomes a law?

President Rodrigo Duterte received the enrolled bill last week, starting the 30-day countdown for him to act on it. He can either sign it into law, veto it or just wait until July 9 and it will automatically lapse into law.

If it becomes a law, it may be difficult to find “remedy” in international law unless “crimes against humanity are committed in the course of implementation,” Carpio explained.

Lawmakers however may pass bills “to correct” it. “They can introduce amendments right there, after it becomes a law,” he said.

Another recourse is assailing its unconstitutionality before the Supreme Court and Carpio said he will be among the first petitioners firing a legal challenge against this looming new law.

He warned: “If we do not want to experience a contraction of our civil liberties, we must all work to have the objectionable provisions in the anti-terrorism act invalidated by the Supreme Court or repealed by the Congress.”

10. “PH situation 'worse than martial law' under anti-terror bill – Carpio” by Lian Buan Rappler June 17, 2020

MANILA, Philippines – Retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio said on Wednesday, June 17, that the Philippines will be hurled into a situation "worse than martial law" if the proposed anti-terrorism bill is enacted into law.

"With the anti-terrorism act as part of the law of the land, it is as if the Philippines is permanently under a situation worse than martial law," Carpio said in a webinar hosted by the Management Association of the Philippines (MAP).

Carpio categorically declared his opposition to the anti-terror bill which he said has unconstitutional provisions. (READ: EXPLAINER: Comparing dangers in old law and anti- terror bill)

"I am objecting to the anti-terrorism act of 2020 because several provisions are unconstitutional," said the retired justice, among the country's leading authorities on the 1987 Constitution.

Section 29

Carpio focused on Section 29 that authorizes the proposed anti-terror council (ATC) to order the arrest of a suspected terrorist and order his detention for up to 24 days.

30

Bill sponsor Senator Panfilo Lacson has denied that the council is authorized to do this, but it is very clear in Section 29 that it is.

Carpio said that at least in the 1987 Constitution, a declaration of martial law only authorizes warrantless detention for 3 days.

Carpio said that the extraordinary remedy of petition for the writ of habeas corpus, which is what activists usually file when they are arrested and detained without warrants, will be effectively useless because of Section 29.

"Once the custodian shows the written authority of the ATC to the judge, that there is an order for his arrest because he is a terrorist, then the judge will be compelled to dismiss the petition because the person is detained upon the lawful order pursuant to law. That will be the situation unless Section 29 is invalidated by the Supreme Court," said Carpio.

Carpio added that at least martial law is temporary and can be revoked by Congress.

"In contrast the anti-terrorism act remains in the statute books forever, until repealed by Congress or invalidated by the Supreme Court," said Carpio.

He said that once the anti-terror bill is enacted into law, he will be among the petitioners who will challenge the constitutionality of the measure before the Supreme Court.

Carpio said that the anti-terror bill, once signed, can be challenged right away without having to wait for any direct injury to happen.

"If we do not want to experience a contraction of our civil liberties, we must all work to have the objectionable provisions in the anti-terrorism act invalidated by the Supreme Court or repealed by Congress," said Carpio. – Rappler.com

11. “Carpio: House arrest clause of anti-terror bill violates right to bail” by Lian Buan Rappler June 17, 2020

MANILA, Philippines – Under the contested anti-terror bill, even people charged with bailable offenses like inciting to terrorism can be placed under house arrest, which is a violation of the constitutional right to bail.

Retired Supreme Court (SC) senior associate justice Antonio Carpio pointed that out on Wednesday, June 17, during a webinar hosted by business group Management Association of the Phiippines.

Another bailable offense is membership to what is deemed a terrorist organization.

"The penalty for mere membership in an organization designated by the Anti-Terrorism Council is 12 years. That is bailable, but the accused can be placed on house arrest, negating his constitutional right to bail," said Carpio.

31

This is found under Section 34 of the bill on the restriction of the right to travel. The provision states that persons charged with any offense, including bailable terror crimes, can be restricted to move only within his or her municipality of residence or where the case is being tried.

"He/she may also be placed under house arrest by order of the court at his/her usual place of residence," says Section 34. (READ: EXPLAINER: Comparing dangers in old law and anti- terror bill)

This means that even if a person's charge is bailable, he or she can either be placed by the court under house arrest, or his or her movement would be restricted to one municipality.

The same goes for non-bailable offenses but which have been granted bail by the court. A person charged with a non-bailable offense can move for bail, and if the court finds that the evidence of guilt is not strong, grant the right to bail.

Travel restriction

Under the Rules of Court, persons out on bail would face hold departure orders (HDOs) preventing them from leaving the country, but they can still apply for travel authority, which is usually granted if the person proves he or she is not a flight risk.

Moreover, Section 34 says: "While under house arrest, he/she may not use telephones, cellphones, emails, computers, the internet, or other means of communications with people outside the residence until otherwise ordered by the court."

The bailable crimes under the anti-terror bill are threat to commit terrorism, proposal to commit terrorism, and inciting to commit terrorism.

Carpio said the anti-terror bill would put the Philippines under a permanent situation worse than martial law, and said he is willing to be a petitioner in a case against it before the SC.

Section 34 also imposes stricter restrictions on travel because in the 2007 Human Security Act, travel is restricted only when the person is charged in court.

In the new bill, the government can restrict travel even when the suspect has not yet been charged. This is through the application of a precautionary hold departure order (PHDO) which can bar a suspect from leaving the country.

A PHDO is a new SC rule that allows blocking departure from the country even if the complaint has not reached the court yet. HDOs are generally issued only by courts, but there were situations when, by the time the case had reached the court, the suspect had already fled. – Rappler.com

32

Articles/Papers from MAP Members

1. “Father figure” from MAP Tax Committee Chair ALEXANDER B. CABRERA’s “As easy as ABC” Column in THE PHILIPPINE STAR on June 21, 2020

I never appreciated how important pleats were to trousers until I started working.

Back in the day, we would watch and silently make fun of our father who ironed our pants that we would wear to school. For us, it was a bit funny to see him seriously wriggle a wet hand towel to sprinkle droplets on the folds of the pants he was ironing, and how he would exert slow and deliberate strokes to produce a singular pleat on each pant leg. Maybe it was funny for us because steam was coming out of our pants, and we were worried that my father would burn holes in them, but that never happened. I must admit my pants nowadays are never perfectly ironed, compared with how my father perfectly did it then.

As I write this, relaxed and comfortable for this Sunday’s papers, I realized my father then did not really have a day off. He worked until Saturday, and did household chores on Sunday, napped in the afternoon and thereafter, started ironing our clothes for school for the coming week.

On Monday, he would drive us quite early to school, and would park our jeep at the back of the Antipolo Church opposite our school. From there, my father would commute via public transportation to his place of work in Mandaluyong to save on fuel costs (because our owner- type jeep was not fuel-efficient).

Some of my classmates would joke about our jeep parked in front of the school all day, saying that my dad drove a Feroza (a popular compact SUV brand back then). I told my dad that my classmates were making fun of our jeep, and what my dad did next was something that always stuck in our heads (my brothers’ and mine). He said: “Mga anak, ito lang ang tandaan n’yo. Ang mahalaga, wala kayong kinakain na galing sa nakaw, at ‘wag kayong magpapakain sa mga magiging anak n’yo ng galing sa nakaw.” (Sons, always remember this: You’re not being fed with anything that comes from stealing, and don’t feed your children anything that comes from stealing.)

For someone in first year high school then, I didn’t appreciate the relevance of that answer then about our jeep being compared by my classmates to a Feroza. But my father wasn’t done. He said that the other important thing that we should always remember was: “Bago n’yo isubo ang pagkain sa bibig nyo, tingnan n’yo muna ang kapatid n’yo kung meron din siyang makakain.” (Before you put food in your mouth, check first if your brother has anything to eat as well.)

Little did I know that these two little big lessons that our father kept drilling into our heads would be the foundation of how I would choose my employer, of how I would make my decisions, and of all my social advocacies.

While immersed in these thoughts, I was almost stung by what this African-American woman talked about in a video. She cited data that 73 percent of black families are broken, and children in these families grow up without a father figure, which the moderator then attributes to the

33

higher likelihood of these children committing crimes, dropping out of school, or staying poor. Politics or not, this could not be closer to the universal truth.

If a father’s absence is bad, a father’s presence is a great influence. There is no better explanation about the path for instance of children who become entrepreneurs, some at a level of success greater than what their fathers achieved. What they see growing up is what becomes second nature to them.

It is probably in the Philippines where you see the father’s presence despite physical absence. It’s the story of all OFW (overseas Filipino worker) fathers who physically live apart from their Filipino families. They accepted a life of lesser quality for themselves to be able to provide for their sole source of joy.

Indeed, if fathers were an invention, they were invented to address the pain point of principally providing for the family and making sure their children finish their education. There is nothing to take away from mothers who play father at the same time, but you see, this Sunday is a tribute to fathers. All men are babies and, in their own way, mellow at heart – almost all of them. That’s why they also need taking care of, and have some time for their hobbies. And for them to be able to set aside all that, and tough it out when it’s asked of them, make them deserving of this day.

So why don’t I just leave the dramatic stories for a while, and pour myself a double of my favorite single malt to raise a toast to all my fellow fathers: may you always manage to see your favorite bottle of scotch as half full.

* * *

Alexander B. Cabrera is the chairman and senior partner of Isla Lipana & Co./PwC Philippines. He is the chairman of the Integrity Initiative, Inc. (II, Inc.), a non-profit organization that promotes common ethical and acceptable integrity standards. Email your comments and questions to [email protected]. This content is for general information purposes only, and should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional advisors.

2. “Unrealistic expectation” from former MAP Governor PETER WALLACE’s “Like it is” Column in the PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER on June 18, 2020

The Philippines has some of the most rigorous, limiting rules on work of any country. The Philippines gets the lowest level of new foreign investment of any of its comparable neighbors. From 2016 to 2018, data from the World Bank showed that the Philippines attracted $28 billion in foreign direct investments (FDI) compared to Vietnam’s $42 billion, Indonesia’s $44 billion, and Singapore’s $260 billion. I’ve been struggling to try and determine when we might get enough ampoules of a COVID-19 vaccine to inoculate at least 70 million people. I’ve read extensively, and the estimates are all over the place.

It normally takes an average of 10 years to develop, test, and release a vaccine. The quickest ever was four years for measles. Could seeking a COVID-19 vaccine be an exception? Things are happening at an unprecedented rate, with collaboration between competitive companies and governments. That has never happened before. There’s some talk of a vaccine being available late this year or early next year.

34

But vaccines are unlike cures; a cure is given to one sick person in the hope it will make them well. If there are side effects, they affect only that one person. Vaccines are given to millions of healthy individuals, so if there are side effects they can make many of those healthy people sick. Consequently, testing must be far more rigorous. Producing a provably safe vaccine that quickly could bring considerable risk—a risk that will have to be weighed against the benefits. The worst thing would be if politicians decide, not scientists. There’s talk that US President Donald Trump will force a success in October to try to win a reelection. This is a man who’s killed tens of thousands through his callous ineptness. Let’s hope he’s not allowed to add to that deadly list.

In a remarkable display of cooperation to try and provide a vaccine in record time, the pharmaceutical industry is collaborating to rapidly scale up manufacturing capacity for high- volume production, and is working together to establish risk-sharing models that include funding for manufacturing and advance purchase agreements.

Given this, you are looking at a minimum of two to three years before the Philippine population is free from risk. This is assuming that it will be one of the early countries to get the vaccine, which is a bold assumption.

There’s an attempt to reach a global agreement to govern the manufacture and distribution of a vaccine. Which, if it works, could greatly speed up identification, production, and distribution. But logistical constraints still have to be considered. We are talking about inoculating billions of people (China and India alone are 2.7 billion, the US another 328 million). No matter how efficient production is, there’s no pharmaceutical plant or plants capable of these volumes. They’re not even set up for whatever processes will be necessary to produce the vaccine. And that can’t be until the ingredients and how they’re to be mixed are known.

There may be cures found in a relatively short time, and that will certainly help to flatten the curve of deaths, if not of sickness. Eli Lilly & Co. is talking about a drug available this year. Dexamethasone, a commonly available steroid, has also been found to cure some patients. But cures don’t give the protection necessary to get the world back to (a new) normal way of life. And if the price of the drug is halved, will we get the cure or the vaccine? Drive efficiency in your manufacturing business with AI Adoption. Drive efficiency in your manufacturing business with AI Adoption. Microsoft Recommended by

The Philippines has an ill-considered executive order (EO 104) issued by the Department of Health that halves the price of essential medicines. A COVID-19 cure and vaccine are essential medicines, so their price will have to be drastically cut, too. They can’t be considered any more important than medicines for the heart or diabetes, which have had their prices slashed. So those for COVID-19 must be, too. With that, will the manufacturers put the Philippines high on the list of early recipients?

EO 104 needs to be talked through with the industry because there are other, more acceptable ways to get prices down. Already, we are not getting new drugs because of this.

Maybe the First World will step in to supply the Third World with a vaccine for free, but surely that will be after they’ve supplied their own populace and paid the producers for it. With many countries clamoring for the drug, can we risk being low on the list?

35

The IATF needs to do three things: 1) Think of ways to be an early recipient of the vaccine. 2) Plan on when to relax controls based on having a cure maybe in a year or so, but not having a vaccine in enough quantity for two or more years. 3) Put EO 104 on hold, or better cancel it as it has no part to play in a free market economy.

If it turns out to be better than this, we’re ahead. But if we plan on a quick vaccine solution, we could be consigning many Filipinos to an early death.

Email: [email protected]

PICTURES uploaded in the MAP Facebook account

June 17, 2020 MAP Webinar on the Anti-Terrorism Bill with former Senior Associate Justice ANTONIO “Tony” T. CARPIO!

https://www.facebook.com/mapphilippines/media_set?set=a.2661041737503536&ty pe=3

Links of Video Recordings of MAP GMMs

1. June 9, 2020 Online MAP General Membership Meeting (GMM) on “MAYORS ENVISION A POST-COVID FUTURE”

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1cBXr7rVG4GyFs8EFZRfl_le54SCSxrUd

2. May 20, 2020 Online MAP GMM on “Leveling the Playing Field amid the COVID-19 Pandemic” with PCC Chairman ARSENIO M. BALISACAN

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1421EkKb2v-4MNIuj1Ehf2ec7AXMoo_B1

3. April 14, 2020 Online MAP GMM on "Leading Through COVID-19"

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDc-UsY8JjBlgj1hJEpTB0YNk4X27l4i

36

Links of Video Recordings of MAP Webinars

1. June 17, 2020 MAP Webinar on the Anti-Terrorism Bill with former Senior Associate Justice ANTONIO “Tony” T. CARPIO!

https://www.facebook.com/map.org.ph/videos/595019701134645/

2. May 8, 2020 MAP Webinar on “Helping the MSMEs Survive the Pandemic”

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1y6nO1ADqxt4vupCYTyQ22cAfhVVT_xhe

3. April 24, 2020 (Friday) MAP Webinar on "Developing Health Protocols for Workforce Re-Entry"

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1FkaCfuEZljgWby_LLuTbz1ElYeIfMLcS

4. April 17, 2020 MAP Webinar on "Managing the Workforce Today and Preparing them for the New Normal"

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1AZ-Sk1Xv0qrosfo2V1rPdcxFeLGr_1JQ

5. April 2, 2020 First MAP Webinar on “Responding to COVID-19”

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ksosIhf8J8iUfmvIyWNErsX8BBYWnwuH

“MAP Talks” on YouTube

The following videos are available under “MAP Talks” via the following link:

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheMAPph

1. MAP Legacy Series 2019 on ANC featuring “MAP Management Man of the Year (MMY) 1992” ALFONSO T. YUCHENGCO

2. MAP Legacy Series 2019 on ANC featuring “MAP MMY 1996” DAVID M. CONSUNJI

3. MAP Legacy Series 2019 on ANC featuring Mr. WASHINGTON Z. SYCIP as “MAP MMY 1967”

4. MAP Legacy Series 2019 on ANC featuring Dr. GEORGE S.K. TY as “MAP MMY 2006”

5. MAP Legacy Series 2019 on ANC featuring Mr. HENRY SY, SR. as “MAP MMY 1999”

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

37

Happy Birthday to the following MAP Members who are celebrating their birthdays within June 1 to 30, 2020

June 1 1. Mr. CARLO ROY “Carlo” SINGSON, Associate VP and Managing Director, NBA Philippines, Inc. June 2 2. Mr. RAUL M. CASTRO, Chair and CEO, McCann Worldgroup Philippines 3. Dr. CONRADO “Conrad” E. IÑIGO JR., VP - Academic Affairs, Lyceum of the Philippines University June 3 4. Atty. ENRIQUE “Ike” A. SOBREPEÑA JR., President and CEO, College Assurance Plan Philippines, Inc. 5. Mr. PETER WALLACE, Chair, Wallace Business Forum June 4 6. Mr. MANOLITO “Lito” T. TAYAG, Country Managing Director, Accenture, Inc. (Philippines) 7. Mr. WILLY YU TIENG, President, KLG International, Inc. June 5 8. Ms. MONA LISA “Lisa” B. DELA CRUZ, CEO, The Insular Life Assurance Company, Ltd. 9. Ms. MARIA CAROLINA “Carol” V. DOMINGUEZ, President and CEO, John Clements Consultants, Inc. 10. Mr. GEORGE J. MARTIREZ, 2nd Vice Chair and CEO, Malayan Bank 11. Mr. RUY Y. MORENO, Vice Chair, Center for Global Best Practices 12. Atty. CARLOS “Charlie” G. PLATON, Managing Partner, Platon Martinez Flores San Pedro and Leaño June 6 13. Mr. ROBERT “Bob” Y. COKENG, President, F & J Prince Holdings Corporation 14. Mr. RAMON LORENZO LUIS “Renzo” R. GUINTO, President and CEO, PH Lab/ Harvard University June 7 15. Mr. ROBERTO “Obet” DE VERA ROBES, President and General Manager, Sky Green Imports Incorporated June 8 16. Mr. MICHAEL “Mike” O. DE JESUS, EVP and Corporate Bank Head, RCBC 17. Ms. DELIZA GOZE RIDOLOSO, President, Pacific Sun Solutions, Inc. 18. Mr. JUAN CARLOS “John-C” L. SYQUIA, SVP and Head of Corporate Client Segment, BPI Capital Corporation June 9 19. Mr. ONOFRE “JR” BANSON JR., President, Monark Equipment, Inc. 20. Dr. EDUARDO “Ed” C. JIMENEZ, President, Kabalikat para sa Maunlad na Buhay Inc. (A Microfinance NGO) June 10 21. Dr. LUIS MARIA “Chito” R. CALINGO, President, Holy Angel University 22. Ms. EVELYN T. CARADA, EVP and General Manager, Fortune Life Insurance Company, Inc. 23. Mr. MANUEL ANTONIO “Manny” G. LISBONA, President, PNB Securities, Inc. June 11 24. Mr. SANDEEP G. CHANDIRAMANI, President, iGlobal Financial Services, Inc. 25. Atty. MARIAN JOANNE “Joanne” K. CO-PUA, Managing Partner, Bawar Co-Pua Law Offices 26. Mr. DENNIS B. FUNA, Insurance Commissioner, Insurance Commission June 12 27. Atty. ANTHONY ALDEN “Anton” SY AGUILAR, Senior Partner, The Tax Offices of Romero Aguilar & Associates 28. Sister MERCEDITAS O. ANG, SPC, President, St. Paul University Philippines (SPUP) 38

29. Atty. RAMIL E. BUGAYONG, Partner, PJS Law 30. Ms. HELEN PEREZ MACASAET, Chair Emeritus, Pentathlon Systems Resources, Inc. 31. Mr. ALEXANDER “Alex” N. VALORIA, President and CEO, Anflo Management and Investment Corporation June 13 32. Atty. ANTONIO “Tony” M. BERNARDO, ExCom Chair and Senior Partner, Bernardo Placido Chan & Lasam Law (BPCL Law) 33. Mr. ANTHONY “Anton” T. HUANG, President, Stores Specialists, Inc. June 14 34. Engr. BERNARDO “Bernie” F. ABIS, COO, Webcast Technologies, Inc. 35. Mr. JAIME “Jimmy” B. AQUINO, Chair, Comfac Global Group 36. Mr. ALVIN M. CARRANZA, CEO, Digital Out of Home, Inc. June 15 37. Amb. HARALD FRIES, Ambassador, Embassy of Sweden in the Philippines 38. Mr. RYAN C. GUADALQUIVER, Country Manager, SAS Institute Philippines, Inc. 39. Mr. GEORGE SYCIP, President, Halanna Management Corporation June 16 40. Mr. JAIME “Jimmy” I. CABANGIS 41. Ms. PATRICIA ANNE “Pixie” J. GUTIERREZ, Executive Director and Head of Corporate Communications, JP Morgan Chase & Co. June 17 42. Ms. KATRINA “Kat” LUNA ABELARDE, President and CEO, PLDT Global (Phils.) Corporation 43. Mr. MARIO “Mar” R. GATUS, President and CEO, DRAKE BEAM MORIN PHILIPPINES INC. 44. Mr. ALFREDO “Jun” V. LAGMAN, President and CEO, Alen Group of Companies, Inc. 45. Ms. JANE FROILAN LOBOS, Associate Director, Standard Chartered Bank (Singapore) Limited 46. Mr. ANICETO “Chito” M. SOBREPEÑA, President, MetroBank Foundation, Inc. 47. Mr. RAOUL ANTONIO “Raoul” A. VILLEGAS, Executive Director - Deals and Corporate Finance, Isla Lipana & Co./ PwC Philippines June 19 48. Mr. JOSE “Joe” P. MAGSAYSAY, Chair and CEO, Prime Options June 20 49. Mr. PAUL JOSEPH “PJ” M. GARCIA, CEO, Leechiu Management, Inc. 50. Mr. RAFAEL “Paey” LLAMADO REYES, CEO, FIGS, Inc. June 21 51. Ms. LOURDES “Utchie” C. ANGELES, Managing Director, CHAMP Cargosystems Philippines, Inc. 52. Engr. EUSTAQUIO “Jun” T. CORONEL JR., President, ETCOR Construction Consultancy Corp. 53. Atty. PONCIANO “Jackie” V. CRUZ JR., Senior Partner, Santiago, Cruz & Sarte Law Offices 54. Mr. JUAN CARLOS “JC” O. MEDINA, COO, Human Resource Innovations and Solutions, Inc. (HURIS) June 22 55. Mr. ROBERTO “Bobby” W. ANSALDO, Project Director for Inclusive Growth Initiatives, Cagayan de Oro Chamber of Commerce and Industry Foundation, Inc. 56. Mr. ANTONIO “Tony” M. GARCIA, Chair and CEO, Chemphil Group of Companies 57. Mr. ROLANDO PAULINO “Roland” R. RUIZ, Managing Director, Development Dimensions International Philippines Inc. 58. Mr. JOHN ALLAN “John or Jojo” T. VINTA, President and COO, Micromatic Industries, Inc. June 23 59. Ms. ISABELITA “Eisa” PAREDES MERCADO, Chair and CEO, IPM Group of Companies June 24 60. Ms. FIDELINA “Faye” A. CORCUERA, Managing Partner and Chief Flamethrower, Kick Fire Kitchen (Kick Fire Curiosity Corp) 61. Mr. JJ SAMUEL “JJ” A. SORIANO, Chair, Soriano Projects & Ventures Group (SPV)

39

June 25 62. Ms. ALICIA RITA “Aleli” MORALES ARROYO, Managing Director, John Clements Consultants, Inc. 63. Mr. ROBERTO GERARD “Robert” L. NAZAL JR., President, YSA Skin Care Corporation 64. Mr. DEXTER “Dex” E. QUINTANA, President, Jolliville Holdings Corporation (JOH) 65. Mr. RENE R. REINOSO, President, DAGxpress Courier Inc. June 26 66. Mr. EMMANUEL “Manny” V. RUBIO, EVP - COO, Aboitiz Power Corporation

June 27 67. Dr. VICTOR “Vic” A. ABOLA, Director, Strategic Business Economics Program, University of Asia and the Pacific 68. Mr. JESSIE C. CARPIO, Division Head, Audit & Assurance, P&A Grant Thornton 69. Ms. GERMAINE A. REYES, President and CEO, Synergy Market Research + Strategic Consultancy June 28 70. Mr. CALIXTO “Toti” V. CHIKIAMCO, Founder and CEO, MRM Studios, Inc. and Mobilemo. Inc. 71. Mr. MARTIN C. GUANTES, Partner, Assurance and Market Group 3 Leader, SGV & Co. 72. Dr. MARY GAW “SO, President, Rehub Real Estate, Inc. June 29 73. Mr. ANTHONY “Tito” L. FERNANDEZ, President and COO, First Balfour Inc. 74. Mr. MALONY “Malone” M. GUEVARRA, President, Alcon Laboratories (Philss.) Inc. June 30 75. Mr. ROQUE “Rocky” D. BACANI, Head, Corporate Technology and Transformation, MERALCO 76. Mr. ARSENIO “Archit” M. BARTOLOME III, Chair, AMBER Properties, Inc. 77. Atty. PERRY L. PE, Partner and ExCom Member, Romulo Mabanta Buenaventura Sayoc & de los Angeles

Please like MAP on Facebook by clicking the following:

https://www.facebook.com/map.org.ph/

40