www.soriano-ph.com

We are urged by media and civil society organizations to ‘vote wisely’ without telling us who to vote for and why. I find this a dead statement, an empty appeal.

For me, voting wisely means letting others know how I will vote and my rationale for it. If others agree with me, at least I can find comfort that perhaps I am voting wisely. If they don’t, it could mean that those who oppose my views are themselves exercising suffrage wisely because they too have rationalized their choice.  Either way, I think we owe it to our country to help our political siblings to arrive at an informed choice, or maybe a guided judgment.  It is in this context that I am making public what would appear in my ballot come election day.

For President, my vote goes to NOYNOY AQUINO.

I don’t believe that this election should be judged based on the platform of the candidates or their political parties. Most of these campaign promises are just that anyway, pure motherhood statements. After all, no one can make a valid claim that he or she has the singular solution to our country’s perennial problems, even just on poverty and corruption.

I also remain unconvinced that the people’s vote in the forthcoming polls should be gauged on the basis of the candidates’ track record as former public officials. I do not see anything extraordinary or exemplary in what they did while in office. As public officials they were expected to do their jobs well. It would have been worse if they didn’t.

Even the so-called “rags-to-riches” story failed to impress me especially so that there are indications that this wealth was acqured through some surreptitious means. When there’s smoke there’s fire as they say. It also defies logic and psychology to conclude that a rich man would not steal. Many times in fact, those who cheated on their way up gain public approval because their experience made them perfect the craft.

Having an intelligent and very well-educated president is also not what this country needs right now. Of the past presidents this country had, who can be more intellectually superior than Ferdinand E. Marcos? Cory Aquino, a plain housewife, and Ramon Magsaysay, a simple mechanic, had a special place in our nation’s history not because of their brilliance but because their hearts were genuinely for the people. In a volatile political condition, intelligence without virtue almost always leads to abuse and exploitation.

Our beloved Philippines at this point in her history needs for her next president, a leader whom she can trust, a leader whom she can look up to as an exemplar of accountability and honesty in public governance, a leader who truly listens and assumes full responsibility for his or her actions, a leader with an uncompromising political will, and a leader who truly loves this country and its people next to God. Regrettably, I find that none of the officially declared candidates can satisfy all these qualities.

Every candidate would have their own issues, personal or otherwise. I understand though that we are not electing someone for sainthood. Some say that we just have to choose the lesser evil, and they may be right. But even if we have to do just that, we have no other choice as a people but still to make a choice on election day.

If we take away the persona of the presidential candidates, we will see that the 10 May polls would be a contest among the following elements: ancestral-driven public trust, self-serving claim of success stories, self-proclaimed performance in public office, intellectual superiority, and a nebulous moral platform. Of these, I would bet my chips on ‘trust’.

We all envision a nation whose people rely less on government for their sustenance. We need to evolve a society with a strong stratum of the middle class. And to have this nation move forward in general, I would like to believe that government needs to pursue and implement a viable economic program; which in turn would require a prudent management of scarce public resources in order to put up the infrastructure needed to stimulate economic activity and investments; which in turn would require a state policy of equal opportunity and a consistent and even playing field operating within a national strategy framework; which in turn would require fast, efficient, effective and proactive delivery of government services where the public is king and queen; which in turn would require role models and servant leaders who would uphold decency in public office and would not convulate the law for what it should not be; which in turn would require public support, faith and confidence. And this chain of governance would not hold together if this country does not begin with the basic element of having a leader who is committed to keep public trust vibrant at all times.

Who would argue that even in the ordinary scheme of things, relationship – be it in love, family, friendship or occupation – does not endure unless there is trust, so too between government and the governed.

It is true that Noynoy has to live under the shadows of his great parents, Ninoy and Cory. Obviously, he would not have been a presidential candidate now if not for them. I hold the view that it is the sacred name of his parents that would more or less guarantee that Noynoy would not breach or renege our clamor for a clean, honest and accountable government while in office. It not an absolute assurance but it is good enough. It is certainly Noynoy’s competitive advantage over the rest. Call it destiny but that is the political reality. Personally, I am convinced that Noynoy in his heart and in his mind would take off from the legacy of his parents. I have my own reservation if track record, personal success, platform or even intelligence could precede trust in our choice for the next president.

Maybe for some people, public trust can also be derived from a De Los Reyes, Perlas or even a VIllanueva presidency. Unfortunately, they failed during their campaign to captivate the imagination of the personality-oriented character of the Filipino electorate. And from the practical point of view, I would rather throw my hat in favor of someone who would realize the very reason why I am casting my vote. Otherwise, my vote would be an exercise in futility.

I am not expecting a rose garden under a Noynoy presidency. It is a matter that would be six years in the making. All I desire for now is to start from where this nation should begin – public trust in government.

I am also voting for MAR ROXAS as Vice-President not only because it is inevitable with my choice of Noynoy but more importantly because I admire his magnanimity – which he demonstrated when he surrendered his personal ambition over a more compelling interest of political unity.

For Senators, my personal choices are the following: NERIC ACOSTA*, OMPONG PLAZA*, RISA HONTIVEROS BARAQUEL, ARIEL QUERUBIN, DANNY LIM, JUAN PONCE ENRILE, FRANK DRILON, ADEL TAMANO, TEOFISTO GUINGONA III, SERGE OSMENA III, REGALADO MAAMBONG AND SUSAN OPLE. I chose them for varied reasons ranging from personal acquaintance (*and so I could also vouch for personal integrity) to track record, qualifications, and stand on various issues. Most of them are new faces and I personally think that the Senate needs fresh faces. One thing is sure though, I know that they can all competently handle the delicate craft of legislation.

For Mayor of Quezon City, my heart goes for HERBERT BAUTISTA, with whom I became personally acquainted when we were classmates at the National Defense College of the Philippines. I know him personally as a good man with a constant appetite for public service and new ideas.

And so I urge all of you not to squander your vote this coming elections. Vote wisely and make them known.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) - 27 January 2008 Issue

The congressional proceedings on the cheaper medicine bill are in the final stages. The deliberations on the measure have been controversial, if not emotional, among the stakeholders since last year. The primary objective of the proposed law is to address the popular clamor for a more affordable health care by bringing down the exorbitant costs or the overpricing of medicines in the market.

Understandably, every time government is confronted with a pressing public demand the usual response is to come up with a law to respond or as a political reaction to the issue. Fortunately for the government, the cacophony would subside momentarily. But unfortunately to the public, the predicament almost always remains unresolved. Ironically, the law in many situations consequently aggravates the issue or becomes the source of a much bigger concern.

One of the promises of the proponents of the Generics Act of 1988 was to accomplish almost the same purpose as the cheaper medicine bill. Two decades after this law, the Filipino people are still suffering from same much higher prices of medicines.

Ten years ago, Congress passed the Downstream Oil Deregulation Act of 1998. The promise is to ensure a truly competitive market under a regime of fair prices, adequate and continuous supply of environmentally-clean and high-quality petroleum products.  Price control of fuel products, which have been blamed by some quarters for higher prices, became deregulated. But still, fuel prices are unreasonably high and worse, oil companies are accused of predatory pricing under a monopolistic arrangements disguising as deregulation.

Overseas Filipino worker Flor R. Contemplacion was executed in Singapore for the murder of another Filipino domestic helper. In response to the weeks of consistent public protests over the issue and the plight of Filipino workers abroad, former President Fidel V. Ramos pushed for the passage of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995. The promise was to reform the overseas employment industry, provide better protection to the overseas workers, and pursue a state policy of deregulation. Twelve years after, another law was passed setting aside the deregulation policy and still the victims of illegal recruitment and exploitation continue to grow in number.

In 1989, the Magna Carta for Countryside and Barangay Business Enterprises (Kalakalan 20) was passed by Congress. In 2002, an almost similar law was also enacted called the Barangay Micro Business Enterprises Act. The promise of both statutes is to promote entrepreneurship outside of urban centers by providing a package of tax and credit incentives, simplifying business regulations, and hopefully, to ease poverty and unemployment. Judging from the almost a million Filipinos seeking employment abroad in last couple of years, it is doubtful whether these programs even got off the ground.

Time and time again, government professes that foreign investments are needed to spur economic growth. But even all the packages of government incentives accorded by various laws to foreign investors did not seem to really attract them. Otherwise, this country would not be talking now about poor economic conditions and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo would not be breaking her back campaigning to foreign businessmen that the Philippines is an ideal haven for their investments.

Twenty years ago, landless farmers and farm workers were promised a more equitable distribution and ownership of lands through the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. With the law about to expire in June 30 and Congress talking about its extension, farmers remain poor and locked in a tug-of-war with landowners.

Labor’s demand for higher wages and the turtle pace legislative reaction brought about the Wage Rationalization Act of 1989. But the nagging issue on minimum wage fixing and implementation before the enactment of said law remains.

Other countries should envy the Philippines for having one of the best Government Procurement Reform Act, Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, and Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in the world. But corruption in government is a never-ending story.

And the list of these “false hope statutes” could be never ending.

As in most regimes, government’s stance to public issues is always reactive. Good, if the reaction provides the appropriate and lasting solution. What is worse is if the reaction simply offers a false hope.  

Sometimes it is a source of wonder why government still exists.