Advertisement

Rody seeks graft-proof coconut bill

The Palace on Sunday defended President Rodrigo Duterte’s first use of his veto power, saying he wanted Congress to make the bill strengthening the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) less susceptible to corruption.

“The veto of the bill will give Congress more time and opportunity to improve the formulation of the PCA and the distribution of coco levy funds,” said presidential spokesman Salvador Panelo, saying that a new version of the bill should have more safeguards to protect taxpayers’ money and shield the coconut levy funds from irregular and unlawful use.

The Palace official said the P10 billion annual appropriation for the development of an industry that does not seek approval from the executive branch is “susceptible to corruption akin to creating pork barrel funds.”

“The oversight functions over the PCA are placed only with Congress. Specifically, the strengthened PCA bill mentions an oversight to be exercised by the coconut farmers and the industry oversight committee to the exclusion of the executive branch,” Panelo said.

He also observed that the bill gave the reconstituted PCA functions over the sale, disposition or dissolution of coco levy assets, but did not giveit the power of checks and balances.

This would render the Department of Justice powerless over cases involving the coco levy fund, he added.

Furthermore, the vetoed bill called for 15-member PCA Board that allows seven members from the private sector to join. The Palace official said such move will permit private persons to influence the disbursement of public funds.

“The PCA is set up like the Road Board which is heavily criticized for allegations of corruption and misappropriation of funds,” he said, maintaining that Duterte’s use of veto on the bill was done to promote good governance and public accountability.

On Friday, Duterte sent a letter to Senate President Vicente Sotto III and members of the Senate explaining the need to veto the bill, believing that its enactment would be against the full utilization and distribution of coco levy funds to its beneficiaries.

The PCA bill is one of the priority bills pushed by Duterte.

Under the proposed measure, the reconstituted and strengthened PCA will handle the P100 billion coco levy fund.

The reconstituted PCA gives greater representation to farmers with six seats (two each from Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao) in the 11-member PCA Board.

Other members will be composed of a representative from the PCA, the Department of Finance, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Budget and Management, and one coconut industry stakeholder.

Senators Cynthia Villar and Francis Pangilinan said the President’s veto would not discourage them from fighting for the rights of farmers to the coco levy fund, which rightfully belongs to them.

“In the coming days, I hope to be enlightened more on why the President believes the measure lacked vital safeguards and will work with him to improve this bill,” said Villar.

Pangilinan said the President’s veto has put a cloud of uncertainty on when the country’s coconut farmers would finally be able to benefit from the coco levy fund.

“It is their money -- from years of toil and sweat,” he said.

The measure before the President, he said, is not reflective of the farmers’ sentiments and needs. “It has gone through a tedious process of revisions and has lost its soul.”

However, he said the veto means Congress is back to square one.

“We urge fellow advocates of the coconut farmers’ cause to stay the course and again work on the proposed law that would truly be beneficial to the farmers and the industry,” he said.

READ: Rody vetoes coconut bill for lack of safeguards

Topics: Rodrigo Duterte , Philippine Coconut Authority , Salvador Panelo , Department of Justice
COMMENT DISCLAIMER: Reader comments posted on this Web site are not in any way endorsed by Manila Standard. Comments are views by manilastandard.net readers who exercise their right to free expression and they do not necessarily represent or reflect the position or viewpoint of manilastandard.net. While reserving this publication’s right to delete comments that are deemed offensive, indecent or inconsistent with Manila Standard editorial standards, Manila Standard may not be held liable for any false information posted by readers in this comments section.
AdvertisementGMA-Congress Trivia 1
Advertisement