AT the latest Saturday Forum at Annabel’s that I cohosted with Party-List Rep. Jonathan de la Cruz of Abakada, we asked Rep. Toby Tiangco of Navotas, the interim president of the United Nationalist Alliance, to respond to the latest developments in the corruption allegations against Vice President Jejomar C. Binay, particularly the freeze order by the Court of Appeals on a total of 242 bank accounts of Binay, members of his family and associates based on findings of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC).

Tiangco clarified at the outset that Binay has only five bank accounts. The total amount in these accounts, he said, corresponds to the amount declared in Binay’s Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth (Saln).

The Navotas representative pointed out that since no case has yet been filed against Binay before the Sandiganbayan, there is no basis for the AMLC to say that the money in Binay’s bank accounts is ill-gotten.

Tiangco then wondered aloud why the AMLC itself, particularly its executive director, has not even bothered to appear in public and confirm their findings, considering the serious allegations against Binay.

He theorized that the secrecy with which the whole issue is being handled naturally raises the suspicion that the administration party may be behind the AMLC report and the CA freeze order.

In news reports, Binay maintains that the leak to a national newspaper of the AMLC report on its initial investigation into more than 200 bank accounts is a brazen violation of the law. Binay insists that the AMLC got it all wrong.

One, he does not have 242 accounts. “Only five accounts included in the freeze order are under my name. And all the funds in these five accounts were acquired legally. They are not hidden wealth.”

Two, his government salary is not his “only source of funds”; with this wrong premise, the AMLC concluded his salary “does not match the amounts in my bank accounts. This is not true.”

Three, his accounts “include income and savings before I joined the government. We also have businesses that are already decades old. We pay taxes.”

Four, even legal campaign contributions, which have been reported to the Comelec, were described as ill-gotten by the AMLC.

And five, the AMLC even included bank accounts that have already been closed.

Binay’s spokesman for political affairs, lawyer Rico Quicho, earlier described the media release of the CA freeze order as a “blatant attempt to engage the Vice President in trial by publicity and to deprive him of his right to due process provided by the Constitution.”

For Quicho, the freeze order is another attempt “to condition the minds of the people by maligning the reputation of the Vice President, because his detractors have again failed to produce proof to back up their charges in the Senate and before the Ombudsman.”

Another lawyer of Binay, Claro Certeza, claimed that the AMLC misled the CA into issuing a freeze order on the assets of Binay when it withheld crucial details about his bank accounts in its report.

Certeza said the AMLC omitted the fact that Binay received campaign contributions amounting
to P231 million and incurred expenses of about P218 million through his designated bank accounts, which were duly reported in his Statement of Election Contributions and Expenses.

The AMLC, he said, “deliberately concealed the fact that Vice President Binay and his wife were earning additional income from their respective businesses in addition to the Vice President’s salary.”

Certeza said all these financial details were duly reported in the income tax returns of the Vice President, spanning almost three decades, which are filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

Amid all this, fears have been expressed that the AMLC report and the subsequent the CA order may have a chilling effect on banks and business in general.

This apprehension is, of course, speculation at this point. We will have to wait and see if indeed the AMLC disclosures will lead to loss of confidence in the banking system, and whether businessmen will have second thoughts about the local banking system, especially when the political landscape is heating up as we approach the 2016 elections.

Speed up infrastructure spending

THE business community is keeping its fingers crossed and hoping that Malacañang would truly make good on this promise to finally raise infrastructure spending as poor road infrastructure—along with its resultant traffic congestion, especially in Metro Manila—and government’s propensity to change business rules midstream and breaching contracts with private partners continue to dampen investor confidence.

Indeed, as Henry Schumacher, executive vice president of the European Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, pointed out recently: “Infrastructure is badly needed if economic growth is to be maintained. The implementation of PPP projects needs to be accelerated, especially on the DOTC [Department of Transportation and Communications] side.”

For John Forbes, senior adviser to the American Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, “the government can’t spend enough on infrastructure fast enough. Poor infrastructure combined with fast growth will lower growth if it creates too much congestion.”

The unabated congestion at the Port of Manila resulting in large part from the failure of cargo forwarders and truck haulers to move their goods fast enough in and out of the metropolis or do business more efficiently in alternate ports north and south of the capital, reinforces the belief by business leaders that poor infrastructure and the ensuing monster traffic are worrisome for prospective investors.

The Port of Manila’s worsening congestion since last year was estimated earlier to have cost foreign and local businesses over $500 million in combined losses.

Port congestion reflects the larger problem of Metro Manila’s road infrastructure woes and monster traffic, underscoring the urgency for Malacañang to speed up completion of the parallel expressways being built separately by San Miguel Corp. (SMC) and the Metro Pacific Tollways Corp. (MPTC) to connect the North Luzon Expressway (Nlex) and South Luzon Expressway (Slex).

MPTC’s unsolicited proposal is to build a 13.4-kilometer expressway linking Nlex and Slex next to the parallel skyway now being built by SMC through its consortium with the Citra Metro Manila Tollways Corp. MPTC’s portion involves the construction of the four-lane elevated expressway, originally via the Philippine National Railway (PNR) tracks, with three exits to connect Nlex with Slex.

Both mega-expressways are now facing delays after the National Economic and Development Authority Board, chaired by President Aquino, recently greenlighted the North to South Railway Project, which has two railroad components from Manila to Bulacan in Central Luzon and from Manila to Legazpi City in Bicol. 

Source: Business Mirror