INQUIRER.net - Archive Search http://archive.inquirer.net/view.php?
db=0&story_id=21527
Advertise | Express | Mobile | RSS | Wireless | Newsletter | Archive | Corrections | Syndication | Contact us | About Us| Article Index
Today is:
June 13 2007
Inquirer.net HOME NEWS SHOWBIZ AND STYLE TECHNOLOGY BUSINESS OPINION GLOBAL NATION
New Search
ARTICLE
Advertisement
Selling the Brooklyn Bridge
First posted 23:22:29 (Mla time) December 17, 2004
Solita Collas- Monsod
Inquirer News Service
I REALLY thought there was hope. I thought that the Senate was made of
sterner stuff than the House, and that reason and fairness would triumph.
After all, Joker Arroyo was there. And Jun Magsaysay. And Pia Cayetano.
And Dick Gordon. Not to mention Mar Roxas. And that's just for starters.
They surely wouldn't allow the interests of the Filipino people to be
subordinated to the interests of cigarette manufacturers. They surely would
see that between raising something close to P8 billion and something close
to P22 billion--from cigarettes alone--there would be no contest, and they
would choose P22 billion without batting an eyelash. They surely would
correct a situation where one group was given an unfair competitive
advantage over others. Or so I thought.
That's why I went to the Senate last Tuesday, when amendments to the
Recto-cum-administration-cum-Tan (hereafter to be called RAT) version of
the sin tax bill were being discussed. I wanted to witness the proceedings,
witness the Senate in action.
What a disappointment.
I will not mention names, but one senator, whom I approached to ask what
he thought of what I call the "poison pill" provision in the 1997 sin tax bill
(i.e., the one that creates an uneven playing field), asked me to provide
him the details, the specific section of the law.
He was not the only one who hid behind the "ignorance" excuse, alas. And
it had to be an excuse, because there must have been at least a month's
worth of deliberations behind this bill. Moreover, the pertinent provisions on
cigars and cigarettes in RA 8424 or the Tax Reform Act of 1997, contained
in Title VI, Chapter 4, is exactly one section (Sec. 145) long. Chapter 4
itself, entitled "Excise Taxes on Tobacco Products," has only four sections.
And to top it all, one of those pleading ignorance was someone I considered
among the most intelligent of the lot.
Then there was the senator who told me that, of course, he was in favor of
removing that "poison pill" provision, but it was a useless exercise. Why, he
did not elaborate. (It was later explained that what he must have meant
was that a caucus had been held among the leadership of both the
legislative and executive branches, and the agreement reached was that
the RAT version would be passed in exchange for full release of all pork
barrel funds.)
Another senator, considered to be very knowledgeable about the business
sector, admitted--without any prodding on my part, mind you--that the
1 of 2 6/13/2007 5:40 PM
INQUIRER.net - Archive Search http://archive.inquirer.net/view.php?db=0&story_id=21527
"LT" factor was at work. His hands were tied; he was only following orders.
Whose orders? The "SP's," he replied (he is fond of using initials), and he
kindly explained to ignorant me that meant the Senate President.
Still another senator said that it was too late to make any substantive
changes to the RAT bill. Removing the "poison pill" provision, he said,
would drastically change the "structure" which had taken so long to
hammer out. He also explained, in an attempt to either rationalize or
console, that anyway the RAT would result in additional revenues of P18
billion, which was pretty close to the P22 billion additional revenue estimate
that could be collected if current rather than 1996 prices were used as
base.
How was that possible, since the Enrile bill would only result in P11 billion,
and the RAT had incorporated a watered-down version of the Enrile bill? A
closer examination would show that only P8 billion of the P18 billion would
come from cigarette taxes: P5 billion would come from alcohol and liquor
taxes, and the other P5 billion from a new source, which is removing the
tax-free status of duty-free cigarette imports.
In effect, comparing P18 billion to P22 billion was like comparing apples to
oranges. Some intellectual dishonesty there. The proper comparison would
be between P18 billion and P32 billion, or between P8 billion and P22
billion. In either case, there is still a P14-billion difference arising from
ignoring the poison-pill provision.
But ignore it, the Senate did anyway. In re Fortune vs. the Filipino people,
the Senate chose Fortune. That's the bottom line.
But there were some senators who were fighting for the Filipino, and their
names I will not hesitate to mention: Ping Lacson, Fred Lim, Jamby
Madrigal. There were others who voted with them, but one is not sure
whether the vote was for the principle or for the sake of opposition, so one
withholds judgment. I assure the readers that it is as strange for me, as it
must seem strange to you, that I find myself in a position where I am on
Lacson's side. And I must say that on this issue, I am proud to be
associated with him. He tells me he will continue the fight, and I will
support him.
But the story doesn't end there. Came the bicameral conference
committee, and the RAT, or more accurately the Enrile compromise tax
portion of it, was further watered down. The tax on the lowest-priced
cigarettes was brought down from P3 to P2. And since these comprise at
least half of all cigarette sales, one would have expected the estimated
additional revenue to be reduced largely.
One would be wrong. Most newspaper reports said that the estimated
additional revenue was P17.5 billion. How did that come about? By
increasing further the expected tax take from duty-free cigarettes. The
advocates of this bill have not only sold the Filipino people down the river,
they are also selling us what amounts to the Brooklyn Bridge.
Copyright INQUIRER.net. All rights reserved. This material may not be
published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
© Copyright 2001-2006 INQUIRER.net, An INQUIRER Company
The INQUIRER Network: HOME | NEWS | SHOWBIZ & STYLE | TECHNOLOGY | BUSINESS | OPINION | GLOBAL NATION | Site Map
Services: Advertise | Buy Content | Wireless | Newsletter | Low Graphics | Search | Archive | Contact us
The INQUIRER Company: About INQ7 | About the Inquirer | About GMA7 | User Agreement | Link Policy | Privacy Policy
2 of 2 6/13/2007 5:40 PM
