PRESIDENT Duterte revived fears about martial law over the weekend.
He said no one can stop him from declaring it—not Congress, not even the Supreme Court. This is so he could deal with the worsening problem of illegal drugs and protect the Filipino people.
Recall that it was only recently when he said martial law would not solve the problem of the nation. During the time of former President Ferdinand Marcos, it did not solve the problems of the country, either.
If you are confused as to what might be going on in the President’s mind, so am I. At the rate he is talking, he may actually declare martial law if only to protect the nation, especially the youth.
What really worries me is that Duterte said he could ignore the restrictions that can be posed by the other branches of government, as provided for by the 1987 Constitution. This would only be possible under a one-man rule, or under a revolutionary government.
I am one with the President in his war against illegal drugs, especially since thousands of officials are also involved in this trade. There are millions of drug users in the country. This is a real problem. I do not believe any president can solve this within a six-year term. This is a difficult journey, endless even.
But with his repeated pronouncements about martial law, President Duterte has succeeded in instilling a climate of fear among the people.
Worse, after he was quoted about the matter in newspaper reports, now comes Communications Secretary Martin Andanar saying the President was misquoted. Andanar only makes the President look like a liar. Duterte would be better off without him.
* * *
Secretary Ernesto Abella, Palace spokesman, has compared the President to Singapore’s founder and first Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, who transformed the third-world city-state into a first-world nation.
How ignorant can people around President Duterte get? There’s no comparison at all. The authoritarian rule of Lee was necessary because of civil strife.
Lee’s rule gave emphasis to meritocracy. To avoid corruption, he gave all public officials the same compensation as those given in the private sector. Lee’s rule was marked by the suppression of press freedom and political dissent. He succeeded.
In the early 1960s, I was among a select group of journalists invited to Singapore. We interviewed Lee, where he told us about his vision for the city-state and his decision to impose authoritarian rule.
Abella’s comparison of President Duterte to Lee smacks of ignorance of fact. Unlike Duterte, Lee did not reward his supporters with sensitive positions in government.
Abella also said that like Lee, Duterte is decisive and a “man of action.” My gulay, how can Duterte be decisive when he says one thing only to contradict it the next time around?
I can understand Abella, though. Like Andanar, he is just trying to earn his salary.
* * *
Former President and now House Deputy Speaker Gloria Macapagal Arroyo wants the Bureau of Internal Revenue shielded from political interference. She filed House Bill 695 creating the National Revenue Authority.
I believe it’s about time.
Arroyo said a National Revenue Authority is needed to address the growing dissatisfaction of taxpayers, particularly over frontline services, high-level tax evasion, avoidance and increasing perception of systematic corruption in the BIR. Past efforts to reorganize and overhaul the bureau were unsuccessful.
Former President Arroyo knows only too well what ails the BIR—at least three fundamental institutional constraints. There is the rigid personnel management system where promotion is based merely on loyalty and seniority rather than exemplary performance. And then you have a compensation structure that restricts the hiring of first-rate professionals. The strict line-item budgeting system also limits the flexibility in the allocation of funds.
Both Houses of Congress should make the Arroyo bill a priority. It is timely and urgent. The BIR has consistently performed poorly in the collection of taxes. The NRA, on the other hand, would start with a clean slate.
A Revenue Board would be created composed of four government representatives and three from the private sector.
The government representatives would include the heads of the Department of Finance as chairperson, budget and management, the National Economic and Development Authority and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The private sector representatives shall include experts in the field of economics, accounting, law, business management and other allied professions. They would serve for a fixed tenure to avoid disruption of services. The chief executive or CEO would be appointed by the Revenue Board.
