Our congratulations to the newly appointed Chief Justice, Teresita Leonardo de Castro, whose experience in the bench has been quite extensive.
One of the criticisms leveled at her appointment is that she will be retiring in October 8 this year, and will thus serve for just 41 days. Those who criticize on this ground forget that President Corazon C. Aquino appointed Associate Justice Pedro Yap of Cebu, who served for just a bit longer, 72 days, from April 19, 1998 to June 30 of the same year when the jurist reached the mandatory 70 years age of retirement.
De Castro’s abbreviated stint as head of the highest tribunal is not exactly without precedent.
* * *
Two weeks back, the former tourism secretary, in a television interview felt insulted that she was being questioned by the Commission on Audit for ordering the withdrawal of some goods from Duty-Free Philippines, a GOCC attached to her department.
She denied taking goods that do not fit “her style” as she was used to traveling even before her appointment, and would buy real designer items. She in fact chided her Duty Free manager about the less-than-acceptable brands they purveyed, because the Chinese tourists prefer expensive designer labels.
She was right. You see hordes of Chinese tourists line up in the Louis Vuitton and Gucci stores in Hong Kong, or buy every Dior or Channel they could get their hands on at the Galleries Lafayette in Paris. The former tourism secretary does not see these in our shoddy-looking displays at the international airport terminals.
But then again, isn’t it about time our duty free stores are privatized? This is retail business, and pray tell, how could government appointees properly manage retail, let alone any business endeavor, with CoA and bureaucratic procedures hampering quick and effective management?
Leave business, especially retail business, to the private sector. Lease the rights for a fee, collect rent from airports where duty free outlets are located, but do not run the business.
* * *
There is Nayong Pilipino, whose entire board was sacked recently because it allegedly leased prime real estate “for a song” to a gaming firm whose chairman was two weeks later arrested in Cambodia on the behest of China for supposed involvement in corruption.
What do we need a Nayong Pilipino for? What we used to have beside the airport were outmoded mock-ups of Philippine tourist destinations. But in this day and age, who would pose for a photo with a squat, concrete Mt. Mayon, when the volcano in all its wondrous glory can be seen on video walls or even giant tarps?
All that Nayong Pilipino Foundation has is real estate. So abolish the foundation and transfer the real estate to other government agencies, like the BCDA or MIAA. Simple.
* * *
The same thing goes for gaming, the more polite word for gambling. Regulate gambling for heaven’s sake, but it’s not for government to own and run casinos. Look around us. It’s the privately run casinos that are being patronized by high rollers from abroad. Solaire, City of Dreams, Resorts World to name a few.
The present Pagcor management is already devolving their previous operation of casinos in favor of privately-run but government-regulated enterprises. And earning much more in the process.
* * *
That is the same argument behind getting the National Food Authority out of commercial operations. A GOCC should not be both market regulator and market player. The huge indebtedness of the NFA is testament to the folly of government being in business for itself.
It buys palay at 17 pesos per kilo, lower than what the private sector offers our farmers ( at last PSA reckoning, already P22.28 per kilo of palay, national average) so how could it make a dent in the market? At P17 per kilo, the rice equivalent should sell for P34 minimum, just to break even, but NFA sells at P27 pesos. The losses merely pile up.
There was a time when Imelda Marcos ordered the NFA to put up Kadiwa stores to retail not just rice, but fish, poultry and vegetables as well, and make these more affordable for the urban poor. Since it was martial law, nobody could say no, even if NFA managers knew from the start that the venture would be a losing proposition. Bad economics, but good political optics.
All these, however, create inefficiencies that cost the government a lot of wasted money. That’s taxpayer money.
* * *
Speaking of cost-ineffectiveness, let me go to another “service” that government proclaims to be illegal, but cannot contain—jueteng.
Instead of policemen being let loose apprehending “cabos” and “cobradores,” and then getting loose change from the jueteng lords to release them and turn a blind eye to “illegal” gambling, why not just legalize it and let government earn from this centuries-old numbers game?
Mine is a simple proposal.
Each year, at an appointed time, a national government official designated for the purpose, along with the mayor of a municipality, in full view of the city council and media, would bid out the annual rights to operating jueteng in the defined territory. A floor price is set, say, P50 million for the annual jueteng rights in San Pablo or San Fernando.
If the highest bid is for P60 million, the winner gets the right to operate jueteng for the year. Thirty million is paid up-front; the balance in monthly or quarterly payments to the municipality. The national government gets the 50 percent front payment; the municipality collects the installments for its own account.
You can just imagine how much money government will earn, both local and national. No raids by the police who should be running after criminals big and petty, and keeping peace and order. No “intelihensya” or bribes needed to grease politicians’ and generals’ palms for “protection”. The cabos and cobradores become legit; they can even sport IDs for all the police care. And the collections can be earmarked for social purposes. As for the penny-ante gamblers, why the hell should we “save” them from their vice?
There should be a cardinal rule in governance: Make it simple.
Give government officials and bureaucrats very little discretion. The more discretion, the greater the graft. The more discretion, the more management gets inefficient.
Business is not for government. Cost efficiencies require quick though studied decisions, unburdened by bureaucratic procedures that enshrine checks and balances as be-all and end-all, and not efficiency or cost-effectiveness.
To repeat: Privatize. Simplify.
