Battle over land (March 26, 2010)

By some uncanny coincidence, the main points of attack of the camps of two leading presidential candidates are converging on land issues. The NP-Villar camp, including its allies from the militant left, has launched successive blasts against LP standard-bearer, Senator Benigno ‘Noynoy’ Aquino III on the Hacienda Luisita issue. In turn, accusations alleged land-grabbing, illegal land conversion and the use of power and influence in enhancing Senator Villar’s real property business have been leveled against the NP candidate.

The militant left is a leading participant in the NP-Villar camp’s attack. Recall that they opted to boycott the 1986 snap elections and were not part of Cory Aquino’s rainbow coalition that was swept by People Power into the country’s leadership. Even after President Aquino set free Jose Ma. Sison and other CPP-NPA leaders, the militant left remained critical of her administration.

The Luisita attack is a mere rehash or recycling of the militant left’s historical antipathy toward the Cory Aquino presidency. Let the son bear his late mother’s burden. Strenuous efforts are being made to link Noynoy Aquino to the alleged Luisita “massacre” of November 2004.

What are the facts conveniently forgotten or omitted in the NP-Villar camp’s Luisita offensive?

First, it was President Aquino who included sugar lands in the coverage of agrarian reform. From 1963 to 1987 --- and through both the Macapagal and Marcos administrations covering a total of 24 years --- only rice and corn lands were covered. Against her family’s own interests, President Aquino opted to place sugar lands --- including Hacienda Luisita --- under agrarian reform.

Secondly, as a sugar plantation, Luisita has always employed farm workers. Scale economy is essential to viability. It is unlike the situation in rice and corn where a landlord-tenant relationship is the dominant mode in production.

Thirdly, the Cojuangco family has no record of violence. The family acquired Hacienda Luisita from Tabacalera in 1957. For 57 years --- or until November 2004 --- there was no violence in Luisita. The violence that erupted in November 2004 arose from an illegal strike that was heavily supported by the militant left.

Now that he is a presidential candidate, Noynoy Aquino is being dragged into the Luisita controversy. Strenuous efforts are being made to link him to the alleged Luisita massacre. Contrary to allegations, he was never a vice president for security of Hacienda Luisita, Inc, or of Tarlac Development Corporation. Then there are tales on the alleged involvement of Noynoy’s bodyguards in violence against members of the Luisita union. These charges or allegations were unheard of for more than five years. These surfaced only when Senator Aquino became a candidate for the 2010 presidential elections.

What about the LP-Aquino’s charges against Senator Villar that also focus on his real property business?

When the Aquino-Roxas tandem made a sortie in Iloilo City in mid-February, senatorial candidate Franklin Drilon exposed the questionable Villar land deals. He presented an Iloilo official who reported that, according to available public records, Mr. Villar’s real estate companies first acquired parcels of irrigated land that were then allegedly fenced off, thereby depriving adjoining rice farms of much-needed irrigation. It was further alleged that this facilitated the acquisition of up to 250 hectares of land that comprise the Savannah estate owned by Mr. Villar’s companies.

Other groups have hurled similarly serious charges against Mr. Villar. A group of Dumagats have come out in the open showing documented proof that Mr. Villar’s companies used allegedly spurious documents to obtain loans from the Bangko Sentral to prop up the precarious financial standing of the Villar-owned Capitol Development Bank. This alleged instance of land grabbing is based on the contention that the land titles were supposedly issued in 1944 or during the Japanese occupation when it was most unlikely for such documents to have been prepared at all.

Another group of concerned citizens have aired a land-grabbing charge against Mr. Villar’s companies pertaining to Paradise Park in San Pedro, Laguna.
But by far the most serious charges were those aired by then Rep. Joker Arroyo who, in August 1998, delivered a privilege speech calling for an investigation of a litany of alleged violations of the constitution and laws of the land by then newly elected Speaker Villar (see Vector, 12 March 2010).

Mr. Antonio Hidalgo, who served as Secretary-General of the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC) during the Ramos administration, has corroborated Mr. Arroyo’s charges.

According to Mr. Hidalgo, in the aftermath of the EDSA revolution, Mr. Villar and his colleagues in the Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Associations (CREBA) influenced the Aquino administration in launching an aggressive mortgage financing program, the Unified Home Lending Program (UHLP) of the National Home Finance Mortgage Corporation (NHMFC) and the Pag-Ibig Fund. Mr. Hidalgo wrote in a well-disseminated email message:

“Look at the results of Villar's thousands of houses under the UHLP from 1986 to 1997 (when we reformed the UHLP to prevent Villar from bankrupting the country). Villar became a billionaire. NHMFC, the financial coordinator of the program, was bankrupted. The funders (SSS, GSIS, Pag-Ibig) were stuck with billions in bad home mortgages covering Villar's houses and flirted with bankruptcy for a while.
Eventually, these bad mortgages had to be covered by the national government using its tax revenues (including your taxes and mine) because the funders were covered by a sovereign guarantee. Subsequently (beginning 2003 or 2004), the losses on the bad mortgages had to be written off by selling them through special purpose asset vehicles (SPAVS) at a fraction of their face value. Meanwhile, look around you. Nearly half of the residents of Metro Manila still live in squatter areas!”

Messrs. Arroyo and Hidalgo are emphasizing the same theme: Mr. Villar, as a congressman (then House Speaker) and as a Senator (then Senate President) actively participated in the enactment of laws that favored his businesses directly. This is the essence of the resolution of the Senate Committee of the Whole on the C-5 controversy which 12 of his fellow Senators have signed: that he committed acts inimical to the Republic and favorable to his own businesses.

It is undeniable that the tremendous increase in Mr. Villar’s personal net worth --- he was catapulted to the Top 10 Richest Filipinos list of Forbes magazine in 2008, the only public official in that list --- was achieved while holding public office.

Last Sunday, the gospel featured an admonition from Jesus Christ to the Pharisees who had wanted to stone an adulterous woman, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

Comparing both the Aquino and Villar records on these contentious issues, who, then, between the two leading presidential contenders, is more worthy of being elected President?

Readers are invited to send their comments to sonnycoloma@gmail.com

Smarter to be in politics

“If I only want to enrich myself further, I will just go back to business,” declares Senator Manuel Villar in a TV commercial promoting his bid for the presidency. A recent article by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism’s Malou Mangahas points out that Mr. Villar’s net worth, as declared by him in his statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN), had increased fourteen-fold from 75.43 million pesos at the end of 1992 (his first year as a congressman) to 1.05 billion pesos in 2007 when he has reelected to the Senate.

With such impressive gains in his personal net worth, who will believe Mr. Villar’s claim?
This question is being posed, especially in light of certain revelations that raise serious questions about the manner in which Mr. Villar has conducted himself in public office.

In a privilege speech delivered in the House on August 17, 1998, then Makati Rep. (now Senator) Joker Arroyo outlined specific charges against Mr. Villar and called for a congressional investigation.
First, he said, companies owned by Mr. Villar “were given financial accommodations by government banks or financial institutions, among them, PAG-IBIG and the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation among others, during (his tenure) as Representative from 1992 to 1998 to finance their business purposes.”

This was, he claimed, was in violation of Article XI of the Constitution entitled “Accountability of Public Officers” which proscribes in Section 16 that:

“No loan, guaranty, or other form of financial accommodation for any business purpose may be granted, directly or indirectly, by any government or controlled bank or financial institution to the President, the Vice President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Constitutional Commission, the Ombudsman, or to any firm or entity in which they have controlling interest, during their term.”

A second charge made by Mr. Arroyo against Mr. Villar is his alleged violation of another law, Republic Act No. 6713 known as the “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials” that states in Section 9:

“Divestment. – A public official or employee should avoid conflicts of interest at all times. When a conflict of interest arises, he shall resign from his position in any private business enterprise within thirty (30) days from his assumption of office and/or divest himself of his shareholdings or interest within sixty (60) days from such assumption. .”

Mr. Arroyo observed then that Mr. Villar was “in no hurry to divest because he has declared that he is under no obligation to do so.” In defending himself on the C-5 issue before his Senate colleagues last Feb. 3, Mr. Villar cited an opinion of then Justice Secretary Serafin Cuevas that “there was no conflict of interest.”

But the conflict of interest is evident: remaining involved in businesses that obtain favorable treatment from government agencies.

A third charge hurled by Mr. Arroyo is that a Villar-owned and controlled institution, Capitol Development Bank “received loans, financial accommodations and guarantees from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas from 1992 to 1998 while he was a Representative.” That is, according to him, constitutionally forbidden.

Another major charge hurled by Mr. Arroyo is that legislation introduced or co-authored by then Rep. Villar from 1992 to 1998 were designed to benefit his business, a violation of the Anti-Graft Law. He cited the third paragraph of Section 6 thereof, as follows:

“It shall likewise be unlawful for such member of Congress or other public officer, who, having such interest prior to the approval of such law or resolution authored or recommended by him, continues for thirty days after such approval to retain such interest.”

What are these laws that favored Mr. Villar’s businesses? To substantiate his charge, Mr. Arroyo cited the propaganda kit for the Villar speakership bid in 1998 that included documents entitled “Manny B. Villar, Jr., Achiever and Visionary Leader,” and the “Legislative Performance of Congressman Manny B. Villar, Jr.” Mr. Arroyo pointed out: “Representative Villar unequivocally said that he ‘incorporated in the landmark Comprehensive and Integrated Shelter Finance Act, Republic Act No. 7835, the recapitalization of the National Home Mortgage and Finance Corporation and the amendment to the Agri-Agra Law to include housing investment.’”

The shelter finance act, according to Mr. Arroyo, “mandates “banks to extend to housing loans not utilized for agriculture and agrarian reform credit.” In other words, he asserted, “loanable funds for agriculture and agrarian credit are to be re-channeled to housing, Speaker Villar’s business.”
Representative Villar co-authored H.B. No. 11005 which “increased the capital of the National Home Mortgage and Finance Corporation” and is the main source of funding of Speaker Villar’s companies.

Mr. Arroyo even recounted a specific anecdote to buttress this claim:
“President Estrada admitted that the National Home Mortgage and Finance Corporation is presently bankrupt. He said that to the following: LAMP President Edgardo Angara, Congressman Agapito Aquino, Presidential Legislative Liaison Officer Jimmy Policarpio, former Congressman Miguel Romero and myself. The President no less said that it is bankrupt. Increasing the capitalization of a bankrupt GFI benefited Representative Villar’s housing companies.”

Finally, according, too, to Mr. Arroyo: “In the same propaganda kit of Speaker Villar, it states that ‘also passed by the House were Villar’s measures to make Pag-ibig Fund contributions compulsory and to increase housing investments with the SSS.’ Pag-ibig is a main source of funding of Speaker Villar’s companies.”

Antonio Hidalgo, who served as Secretary General of the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC) during the Ramos administration, corroborates Mr. Arroyo’s comprehensive narrative.

If there were a Truth in Advertising act in this country, Mr. Villar would be compelled to pull out his advertisement, or come up with a new one where he asserts that, indeed, “Those who are smarter than others end up richer.”

Readers are invited to sonnycoloma.blosgspot.com or to send their comments to sonnycoloma@gmail.com

Lessons from Toyota

“I am deeply sorry,” said Akio Toyoda, president of Toyota Motor Corp. as he prepared to testify before the US Congress last week. A recent spate of recalls made by the world’s largest auto maker has cast a giant shadow over the company’s hard-earned reputation for quality. It’s back to basics at Toyota, declared Mr. Toyoda, after what he described as a humbling experience that has prompted “fundamental changes in the way Toyota does business.”

First, he said they would take care of vehicles on the road today, even while they commit to making “even safer vehicles in the future.”

Emphasizing his personal involvement and commitment, Mr. Toyoda said further: “All Toyota vehicles bear my name. When cars are damaged, it is as though I am as well. I love cars, and I take the utmost pleasure in offering vehicles that our customers love. I, more than anyone, want Toyota cars to be safe, and for our customers to feel safe when they drive our vehicles.”

Members of the US Congress rained down criticism on the self-effacing Toyota CEO. A congresswoman from a Michigan district where a fatality in a Toyota car crash lived pointedly told Mr. Toyoda: “Never again use the excuse (that) it is driver error.” She said witnesses saw a 76-year old woman driver looking like she was half-standing, her hands on the steering wheel, before the car spun out of control and crashed into a tree.

Unintended acceleration and faulty braking were the two defects that prompted the massive recall of an estimated 8 million Toyota cars in the US. Toyota’s technical response is to install brake override systems to address electronic throttle malfunction problem. Mr. Toyoda said that a “new Smart Pedal braking system will cut engine power when the accelerator and brake pedals are both engaged.

Toyota has also announced that it will install a black box reader similar to the function performed by a black box in an airplane that enables safety investigators to pinpoint causes of accidents.

In the hearing, Mr. Toyoda also answered in the affirmative when asked if his company was willing to fully disclose to the US government all Toyota vehicle malfunctions reported globally.

Despite asserting that Toyota remained committed to its reputation for a quality culture of “doing the right things right the first time and every time”, Mr. Toyoda admitted: “Yet it is clear to me that in recent years we didn’t listen as carefully as we should --- or respond as quickly as we must --- to our customers’ concerns. While we investigated malfunctions in good faith, we focused too narrowly on technical issues without taking full account of how our customers use their vehicles.” Thus, he also committed that, in response to the US representatives’ concerns, “Toyota will emphasize US culture and customs” more intently as the company endeavors to overcome its biggest confidence challenge.

Mr. Toyoda introspected, “I fear the pace at which we have grown was too quick.” As a consequence, he acknowledged that “the development of (our) people may not have kept pace.”

The twin pillars of Toyota’s philosophy of doing business are kaizen (continuous improvement) and respect for people.

In 2008, I was invited by Toyota Motor Philippines to an “immersion” in the key facets of company operations. I had wanted to validate the principles of Toyota’s management system after reading the book, Toyota Culture by Jeffrey Liker & Michael Hoseus (NY: Random House, 2008).

I am pleased to share three significant “Aha!” or discovery experiences that I had in the course of my immersion. The first was in the quality control process and the second was in the safety program.

The quality control process particularly impressed me. Kaizen (Japanese term for Continuous Improvement) is the byword or mantra of quality control. Every individual employee is responsible for kaizen. Attainment of objectives is a willful, purposive process that is driven by every team member’s conscious intention to contribute to a unified effort that delivers desired outcomes.

I asked the QC supervisor: “What if the individual employee has no more ideas, or has simply run out of suggestions for improving the process?”

He replied immediately: “That does not happen because they have become accustomed to giving suggestions for improvement such that the practice has become a habit, or we might even say, a discipline. They have become very earnest in seeking or creating better processes.”

It made me aware that, indeed, the entire Toyota Way, is person-centered. It is founded upon the belief that every team member is a valuable contributor to the attainment of the collective goals. It is anchored on the proposition that Continuous Improvement is, in essence, rooted on respect for people. Thus, there is fusion in the twin elements of the Toyota Way.

My second ‘Aha!’ experience related to the safety program. At the entrance of TMP’s Assembly plant in Sta. Rosa Laguna is a green, rubberized, wrap-around Safety Gate. During the anniversary day program that was participated in by TMP’s 2,000-plus people, TMP President Ito announced the creation of a company-wide Safety Committee with himself as the Chairman.

At the Toyota Assembly plant, concern for safety is palpable and highly evident. People walk only in clearly designated walking lanes at the outer edges of the plant floor. Fork lifts and other vehicles that move on the factory floor observe a heightened sense of traffic discipline. Even during lunch break, team members observe the walking lanes and do not break out into the vehicle passage lanes. They take their time to walk and do not rush or shove.

At the assembly line, there is the legendary practice of allowing even the lowest-ranking employee to stop the entire production process if an incorrect or unsafe incident is noted. When I was ushered into the painting booth, I needed to observe strict procedures of safety: wearing proper shoes and attire and also staying only within the designated space.

As it deals with a major crisis, Toyota Motor Company is once again mining a tremendous wealth of experience for further improving its system of managing operations and people.

Readers may send their comments to sonnycoloma@gmail.com

Ninoy Aquino: Catalyst for People Power

Nearly a generation after the historic Edsa People Power revolt, Filipinos continue to reflect on its meaning and how it could possible serve as a beacon of hope and inspiration for future generations.

I was a student activist in the First Quarter Storm of 1970. I was among those who were arrested and detained after the imposition of martial rule in September 1972. Through the long, dark night of the dictatorship, I wondered if the day will ever come when we could enjoy our basic freedoms again --- after more than a decade of oppression beneath a façade of normalcy that lulled our people into tacit acceptance of an unjust regime.

The snap elections in February 1986 gave our people the opportunity to express their real sentiments. Corazon Aquino, widow and housewife, became the rallying point of a long-suffering people who finally stood up to assert their sovereignty. Only five years earlier, President Marcos secured a “fresh mandate” when he handily defeated former Defense Secretary Alejo Santos in elections that were called to legitimize the sham lifting of martial law.

When it was all over, there was even dancing in the streets. It felt so good to be a Filipino. “Everything’s right here in the Philippines,” proclaimed a new advertisement of Philippine Air Lines. Notice the double meaning. It was not just the tourist destinations that the flag carrier sought to promote. It was the righting of a wrong signaled by the return to democracy.

Democratic institutions were restored. We began to enjoy the vast democratic space that allowed us to express our ideas without fear of arbitrary arrest or detention. From negative growth, our economy achieved positive GDP numbers barely ten months after EDSA. But it was not, by any reckoning, a seamless transition.

President Corazon Aquino faced and quashed at least seven coup attempts, with the support of the armed forces then led by her Defense Secretary Fidel Ramos, one of two leading heroes of Edsa Uno. In 1992, Mr. Ramos rode on the crest of Mrs. Aquino’s endorsement and eked out a slim victory over the feisty Miriam Defensor Santiago and business tycoon Eduardo “Danding” Cojuangco in a tight race where the eventual winner received 23.2 per cent of all the votes. It was the first peaceful transition in the presidency after 27 years --- a period spanning an entire generation.

But how did the Marcos dictatorship end and how did the march of People Power begin?

It began with the arrest of Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino, Jr. on the night of September 22, 1972. He was then widely considered to be a leading candidate for President after the end of Ferdinand Marcos’ second term in December 1973. But the declaration of martial law changed the entire political landscape. It also changed the course of the lives of the members of my generation.

I was in grade six and barely 12 years old when Mr. Marcos was elected President. I was already 33 years old, with a five-year old daughter, by the time he was swept out of power in February 1986.

Ninoy Aquino opted out of a brief interlude of comfort and normalcy in Boston after he underwent heart surgery. He bravely came home in August 1983 against all dire prognostications and stern warnings. He was killed as he stepped into the airport tarmac. His sacrifice triggered the reawakening and resurgence of an entire nation.

What was it like for him and his family through almost eight years of incarceration and becoming virtually a voice in the wilderness? We only caught glimpses of his old fiery form when he led the Laban slate in the sham 1978 Batasan elections. Only much later did we learn from his wife Cory the extreme pain and suffering inflicted upon her and her children.

It was the massive outpouring of grief and outrage at Ninoy’s funeral that sent shivers down the dictator’s spine and forced his hand to gamble on a snap election that he eventually lost. When our people cried, “Ninoy, hindi ka nag-iisa” they finally claimed his erstwhile lonely --- and seemingly futile --- crusade as their own.

We are told that while detained in Fort Bonifacio (now better known as The Fort or The Global City) Ninoy and Pepe Diokno sang “The Impossible Dream” if only to assure each other they were still alive while in solitary confinement. This was also the theme song of former Antique Governor Evelio Javier when he campaigned for Cory Aquino and was brutally murdered (barely two weeks before Edsa Uno) while protecting her votes.

These are the essential elements of history that are largely unknown to large segments of our population, especially those in the 25-34 years old bracket, who are the children of parents that may or may have not personally witnessed or appreciated the full significance of the events of February 1986.

Ninoy Aquino declared in Boston that “The Filipino is worth dying for.” He defied all warnings and insisted that he would talk to Mr. Marcos to convince the latter that there was still time to stem the tide of a violent revolution, if only he would dismantle the dictatorship and restore democracy.

Cory Aquino stepped into Ninoy’s giant shoes and continued the good fight. Their idealism and commitment to democracy were vindicated when the people heeded their call for peaceful transformation at EDSA Uno.

Our people’s quest for the unreachable star continues.

Readers are invited to sonnycoloma.blogspot.com or may send their comments to sonnycoloma@gmail.com