As any real Star Wars fan knows, that’s the episode when “the Empire strikes back.” It’s the episode that the embattled Solicitor General Jose Calida may feel he’s trapped in, as the yellow empire built over more than three decades descends on him with a vengeance over his audacious unseating of an improperly seated Chief Justice whom the empire was counting on to carry the yellow banner all the way to 2030.
It started with the filing of misconduct charges against Calida over an alleged extramarital affair and related diversion of public funds, which he’s dismissed as a “big fat lie.” If the court agrees with him, there ought to be consequences for the plaintiff, one Jocelyn Niperos, a founder of the oppositionist Silent Majority.
Then an adverse CoA ruling was breathlessly reported, stating that Calida received over P7m in excess honoraria and allowances in 2017. The basis for this was a CoA memorandum circular that such allowances should not exceed 50 percent of a government official’s salary.
The issue, however, is that such circulars must yield when in conflict with established law. In this case, according to RA 9417 (the “OSG Law”), EO 292 (the Revised Administrative Code), and PD 478, lawyers under the Office of the SolGen are “authorized to receive allowances and honoraria for their legal services to government offices WITHOUT QUALIFICATION, in addition to their regular compensation.”
This is why at least two previous SolGens, both under President Aquino, were also charged by CoA with receiving excess allowances: P4.6m to Florin Hilbay for the first half of 2016, and P1m to current SC Justice Francis Jardeleza in 2012. In short, it’s an unsettled and legitimate difference of opinion between auditor and audited—a situation quite familiar to managers in both the private and public sectors.
* * *
What may be more troublesome to Calida are revelations that the family-owned security agency where he retains a majority share was able to bag hundreds of millions of pesos worth of contracts with various government offices.
Nobody is claiming that Calida improperly intervened in the awarding of any of those contracts. And Calida points out that what the law requires is for him to divest his shareholdings OR (not “and”) give up management control, following which he chose to take the latter course of action.
Unfortunately, the law often isn’t a sufficient guide to action. Public perception can also loom large, especially so soon after former Tourism Secretary Wando Teo had to leave on account of government contracts awarded to her famous Tulfo brothers.
It would be straightforward for Calida to simply divest himself from ownership as well as management of the family business, even if it isn’t strictly required by the law. But how he responds to the optics of the matter is entirely up to him. And of course he should under no circumstances give the yellows the pleasure of seeing him leave office.
The pugnacious SolGen, when asked about all of this, replied, “As a lawyer, I’m prepared for such attacks. The question is this: Are they prepared for my counter-attack?” We wish him well as he launches Episode VI: the return of the Jedi.
* * *
A welcome piece of news for local businessmen is the President’s recent signing of the Ease of Doing Business (EODB)/Efficient Government Act, which promises to make government much more user-friendly to businessmen, especially at the LGU level.
The new law amends the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007, perhaps in response to the sting of the country’s recent drop by several notches in a global business competitiveness index. Among the important reforms sought:
Mandatory deadlines for government to finish processing transactions: three working days for “simple” transactions; seven for “complex” ones; and twenty working days for “highly technical” transactions.
Replacement of the confusing forms required by different agencies, with the implementation of unified business application forms.
Establishment of business one-stop shops by LGUs, while barangay clearances and permits will now be issued at the city or town level.
Creation of a Central Business Portal to capture all data from business-related transactions, and a Phil Business Databank for the reference of national agencies and local governments.
Of course, in this country a law isn’t taken seriously until its implementing rules and regulations are finally issued. Here’s hoping that the IRR in this case will be issued in time for the EODB law to “go live” no later than next year.
* * *
Many people weren’t really surprised when the Irish voted last month to repeal the 8th amendment to their constitution, which had provided equal protection to the life of the woman and her unborn baby. From now on, the protection is no longer equal. Irish babies will have to fend for themselves; they’re no longer safe even in their mother’s wombs.
This leaves the Philippines as one of only six countries in the world with a total ban on abortion. And since we’re the only large country among the six, this makes us an especially tempting target for the abortionists.
One of them is Clara Rita Padilla, a lawyer and founder of a group called EnGendeRights. Let’s meet the other groups who’re pushing abortion together with her: the Phil Task Force CEDAW Inquiry, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and IWRAW-Asia Pacific.
“CEDAW” stands for the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. In a thought piece for Rappler, Ms Padilla argues for adopting CEDAW’s recommendation in 2015 to amend our Revised Penal Code in order to:
“Legalize abortion in cases of rape, incest, threats to the life and/or health of the mother, or serious malformation of the fetus”
“Decriminalize all other cases where women undergo abortion”
“Adopt necessary procedural rules to guarantee effective access to legal abortion”
* * *
Okay, item one at least appears to be an honest statement of principle, by enumerating specific instances where abortion is deemed justified. In fact, Ms. Padilla admits that our current laws do allow abortion when the mother otherwise risks death or serious disability.
But item two is where the dishonesty of her whole case is exposed. Why even bother with itemizing what should be legalized, when in fact her intention is to decriminalize every other kind of abortion as well?
Evidently it’s so that she—and CEDAW—can slip in a blanket endorsement of abortion on demand under the cover of smooth and slippery language about favoring only this or that kind of abortion. It’s a time-honored piece of rhetorical trickery resorted to in the absence of anything that is factually, logically, or morally redeemable.
Try again, Ms Padilla. It may be true, as you say, that illegal abortion is shameful and can be dangerous to the mother. But if you’re trying to protect unborn babies with no other means to defend themselves, shouldn’t it be that way?
Readers can write me at gbolivar1952@yahoo.com.