Q: You wanted Secretary Abad to specify items in the
special purpose funds?
SPFMD: Yes, to answer all of these unfounded
allegations of a lump sum, I asked him to specify the areas where it is logical
to specify. Number one, the main calamity fund. You cannot specify that
because you would not know how many calamities would visit us. In so far as the
Yolanda Rehabilitation is concerned, you can specify that. Dahil matagal na
itong Yolanda, yung rehabilitation fund should be disaggregated and sasabihin
kung saan napunta. Hindi lang yung sasabihin natin, school building, saan
mapunta yung school building? Hindi natin pwedeng sabihing housing, saan
mapupunta yung housing? Kaya nila yun, kasi may mga plano na.
Now, yung sa calamity fund, hindi talaga pwede. May
lump sum sa death benefits, eh kung gusto nilang i-specify, sabihin na kung sino
ang mamamatay para aming ma-disaggregate, kasi lump sum yun. Kung sasabihin
nila na ito ay bawal, pwede naming i-disaggregate, pero sila ang magbigay ng
pangalan kung sino ang entitled sa death benefits. You can’t push this to its
illogical conclusions, so let us be rational about this. You keep on saying
lump sum, alin yung lump sum? As I said, you cannot disaggregate death benefits
unless you are going to tell us who are going to die.
You cannot disaggregate calamity, unless you tell us
how many are coming. Yung iba, dapat i-specify. Yung sinasabing entitlement ng
local government units on certain laws, that can be specified and they have
agreed to disaggregate it. For example, the share of a local government on a
mining company insofar as excise taxes is concerned. You cannot immediately
specify because hindi mo naman alam kung magkano ang ibabayad ng mining company
in terms of the excise tax from which the LGU will share.
What will you do? Ok, I was suggesting to them, you
make an approximation of what this LGU is entitled to, subject to the condition
that these are just estimates and the final figure will come when the treasurer
now certifies as to how much is the taxes paid. Mga ganoon na mga instances. It
is easy to shout lump sum but if you look at the specifics, you will realize
that you can only do so to a certain extent.
Q: Under SC ruling, hindi po completely pinagbabawal
yung lump sum?
SPFMD: Ang pinagbabawal ng Korte Suprema is the post-budget
participation of the legislators. Yun ang pinagbawal at wala sa budget. Yung
lump sum pinag-uusapan natin. The Supreme Court never intended that all the
lump sum should be disaggregated because they realized it is impractical to do so.
Q: Hahaba yung budget sir?
SPFMD: Hindi lang yun, hindi mo ma-predict kung sino ang
mamamatay, di ba? So sa lump sum on the death benefits, merong nakalagay. Death
benefits of barangay officials. They say this is a lump sum. Eh di sabihin
natin kung sino ang mamamatay.
Q: Pareho lang ba yung lump sum appropriations sa 2016?
Meron din sa 2015 budget?
SPFMD: Pareho lang. I am explaining to you what the lump sum
is all about.
Q: So yung issue na finile sa Korte Suprema, confident
kayo na mababasura lang yun?
SPFMD: Yes.
Q: What did Justice Carpio want to discuss with the
Senate yesterday?
SPFMD: He briefed us on the need to pay particular attention
and to unite everybody in the position taken by the Executive Branch
particularly on the arbitration because we have no capacity to contest China
economically or militarily. Therefore, our remedy is to enforce the Code of
Conduct in international law. That is why we have the arbitration.
It is the hope of Justice Carpio that once the decision
is rendered, hopefully in our favour, we should avail of all avenues to enforce
it, including particularly the United Nations. But, the principal purpose of
the lecture is to brief the senators and to make sure that we are all united
insofar as the course of action taken is concerned. What he in fact is saying
is what the government need is hope. Because right now, the Chinese government
has about seven reclamations over the South China Sea.
Q: No discussion about the SET?
SPFMD: No, in fact nobody asked. That was the request, that
was upon the initiative of Justice Carpio, that we have this briefing.
Q: So challenge po ito sa next presidency?
SPFMD: Yes, this is a challenge for the next administration
to pursue these claims that we have, because Justice Carpio does not expect a
decision until about middle of next year.
Q: On the BBL sessions in the Senate, you said that it
will take about 11 sessions to wrap up the debates.
SPFMD: I do not want to impose any deadlines, because these
can be twisted. We will see to what extent are the debates. ###
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento