Recital of Facts on the NBN-ZTE Contract and Northrail Project

By Rep. Teddy Casiño
Delivered before the House Committee on Justice on its deliberations of the impeachment complaint vs. Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
November 24, 2008


Mr. Chairman, my distinguished colleagues.

Former speaker Jose de Vencia has given a substantial account of the facts of the President’s knowledge and involvement in the anomalous NBN-ZTE contract. May I just be allowed to add a few more facts.

A few months after the infamous golf game between the former speaker, the President, COMELEC Chair Benjamin Abalos and ZTE officials, the President, through NEDA which she herself chairs, and the DOTC which is under the Executive, approved the ZTE’s proposal for a government to government contract. From a BOT project before the golf game, it became a government to government contract. Wala hong public bidding, lumobo na ang presyo ng ilang beses sa original proposal, at may mga lantarang paglabag sa ating procurement laws.

I would like to cite a ruling by the Supreme Court in Villena vs. Secretary of Interior and I quote:

“…the multifarious executive the multifarious executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed by and through the executive departments, and the acts of the secretaries of such departments performed and promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive presumptively the acts of the President.”

Pero hindi lang ho ang pagpirma ni Pangulong Arroyo sa pamamagitan ng kanyang mga opisyal at bilang chair ng NEDA at NEDA-ICC ang nirereklamo ng mga complainants. Higit pa dito, nirereklamo din ng mga complainants na tumanggap ng suhol ang Pangulo. Ang suhol o bribe ay nagre-range sa golf game, na malamang binayaran ng ZTE, hanggang sa mamahaling lunch. Ito rin ang laman ng affidavit at testimony ni Jose de Venecia Jr. sa Senado kung saan sinabi niyang narinig niya si Chairman Abalos na humihingi ng pera sa mga ZTE officials na “the President and the Speaker are waiting for it.”

The most glaring evidence of wrongdoing was the testimony of former NEDA Chief Romulo Neri who admitted being offered a P200 million bribe by COMELEC Chair Abalos, the President’s golfing buddy. After being informed of this, wala hong nangyari. The President did not stop the project. In fact, in April 21, 2007, si GMA mismo ang pumunta sa China para i-witness ang pirmahan ng supply contract. Pinagyayabang pa ito mismo ng Malacanang. Sa isang press release na may title “So much investments, so little time for PGMA in China,” sinabi ng Malacanang press office sa lead paragraph, and may I quote, “She came and went like a thief in the night bringing with her an avalanche of Chinese investments to the tune of $904.38 million.”

Yung mga nagsusulat ng press release sa Malacanang mismo ang nagsabing parang isang magnanakaw sa dilim na pumunta si GMA sa China, which shows us that Malacanang still has hope because some people there can still say the truth.

The President later admitted to the media that she knew of the irregularity but could do nothing for lack of time. Oh come on. What a lame excuse. Worse, she even used executive privilege to prevent the Senate from asking Sec. Neri further about it and even risked a constitutional crisis just to cover up the anomalies.

Thus, the complainants believe that the President committed betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption and bribery in relation to the NBN-ZTE contract.

Now Mr. Chair, allow me to proceed to the precursor of the NBN-ZTE contract which is the Northrail project. We have heard it said that the Chinese businessmen in the NBN-ZTE deal insisted they wanted a “Northrail-type contract.” This shows that Northrail was a template for future projects, namely the NBN-ZTE deal and Cyber Education Project which was discontinued after much public opposition.

Kapag kinumpara po natin ang NBN-ZTE at Northrail, mapapansin ang ilang matingkad na pagkakapareho:

1. Ang lalaki ng kontrata, bilyun-bilyon ang halaga ng proyekto: $329.5M (P15.8B) para sa NBN-ZTE, $503M (P24.1B) para sa Northrail.
2. Sa parehong proyekto, isa ang panggagalingan ng pondo na uutangin ng gobyerno at babayaran natin: ang China Export Import Bank.
3. Sa parehong proyekto, China ang nag-assign ng contractor na sa kanila rin galling – ZTE para sa NBN at CNMEC para sa Northrail
4. Sa kabila ng napakaliking perang involved, parehong walang public bidding ang proyekto dahil daw ito’y executive agreement sa pagitan ng gobyerno ng China at Pilipinas.
5. Sa pareho ring proyekto, hindi kinuha ng Malacanang ang approval ng Monetary Board bago ito umutang.
6. Sa parehong proyekto, walang Certificate of the Availability of Funds na required para sa counterpart funds ng gobyerno.
7. At pinakamahalaga, sa parehong maanomalyang proyekto, bakas na bakas ang kamay ng Pangulong Arroyo.

Ang sabi ho nila, delikadong masagasaan ng tren. Matapos ko pong pag-aralan ang mga dokumento ng Northrail, naisip ko hong mas delikado palang masagasaan ng isang drawing na tren katulad ng Northrail, na ngayon ay buo-buong komunidad ang sinasagasaan at bilyon-bilyon ang nalulustay.

Ladies ang gentlemen, allow me to present to you the facts about the President’s impeacheable acts relating to the Northrail Project.

The complainants allege that the respondent, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, committed culpable violation of the Constitution and graft and corruption by entering into contracts that violated the Constitution, were violative of several laws and grossly disadvantageous to the government.

Nilabag ni Pangulong Arroyo ang Konstitusyon at gumawa ng graft and corruption sa pagpasok sa mga kontratang lumabag sa Konstitusyon, labag sa iba pang mga batas, at dehado sa gobyerno.

Bakit po natin ito sinasabi? What are the facts?

Ang Northrail ay nakapaloob sa mga priority projects ng Pangulo mula pa noong 2001. Noong September 14, 2002, isang Memorandum of Understanding ang pinirmahan ng North Luzon Railways Corp. (NLRC), na pinangangasiwaan ng Office of the President, at ng China National Machinery and Equipment Corp. (CENMEC), para sa updating ng feasibility study at upang ilakip ang ilang instruksyon ng Pangulo kaugnay ng proyekto.

Matapos ang isang taon, Disyembre 2003, inaprubahan ng Board ng National Economic Development Authority at NEDA-Investments Coordinating Committee (NEDA-ICC), na kapwa pinamumunuan ni Pres. Arroyo bilang chairperson, ang proyekto batay sa proposal ng CENMEC para sa Northrail Phase 1 Section 1 (Caloocan to Malolos). Wala pang isang buwan, Disyembre 30, na-execute na ang supply contract sa CENMEC na nagging epektibo noong July 23, 2004.

Bago nito, noong Pebreo 26, 2004, pinirmahan naman nina Finance Sec. Juanita Amatong at ni Eximbank of China Chair and President Yang Zijin ang kasunduan para sa isang $400 milyong loan para pondohan ang proyekto. Ang Buyer Credit Loan Agreement No. 04555 ay pinirmahan sa mismong Premier Guest House ng Malacanang. Sa seremonyas na iyon, ipinagyabang ni Executive Secretary Alberto Romulo na ang Northrail project ay “a very important landmark in the ‘many-splendored’ performance of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.”

Sabi pa ni Romulo, “It has been the desire of President Macapagal-Arroyo to fast track the railway program.”

Ang kasundunang ito kaugnay ng $400 million utang ay muling ipinagtibay noong state visit ni Pangulong Arroyo sa China noong Setyembre 2004. Siya mismo at ang kanyang secretary of Trade and Industry Cesar Purisima ang nag-witness sa mga pinirmahang dokumento.

Samakatuwid, dalawang kontrata o kasunduan ang ating pinopokusan dito, mga kontratang pinirmahan ng mga alter-ego ng Pangulo bilang pagtupad sa kaniyang mga utos at patakaran: 1) Ang supply contract sa pagitan ng NLRC at CENMEC kaugnay ng 32.2 kilometrong Northrail Phase 1, Section 1 mula Caloocan hanggang Malolos; at 2) Ang kasunduan kaugnay ng $400 milyong utang ng gobyerno sa Eximbank of China para pondohan ang nasabing proyekto ng NLRC at CENMEC. Ang pagpasok sa mga kontratang ito ng kaniyang mga alter-ego ay hindi itinatwa ng Pangulo hanggang sa kasalukuyan.

Ngayon, ano ang problema ng mga kontrata at kasunduang ito?

1. Walang prior concurrence ng Monetary Board ang $400 million loan agreement na pinirmahan ng Executive at ng Eximbank of China, labag sa Sec. 20, Article VII ng Konstitusyon.

Ayon sa Section 20, Article VII ng Constitution: The President may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines with the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board, and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.”

Sa kasong ito, si Pangulong Arroyo ay hindi kumuha ng pagsang-ayon ng Monetary Board bago pirmahan, sa pamamagitan ng kanyang Sec. of Finance, ang loan agreement BCLA No. 04555.

2. Hindi dumaan sa competitive bidding ang proyekto alinsunod sa RA 9184 o ang Government Procurement Reform Act.

Sa kabila ng napakalaking halaga ng proyekto, P24.1 bilyon, hindi idinaan sa competitive bidding ang kontrata. Ang dahilan ng hindi pagsunod sa probisyong ito ng batas ay dahil daw ang proyekto ay isang kasunduan sa pagitan ng dalawang gobyerno. Subalit may ruling na ang Makati Regional Trial Court noong May 15, 2007, na ipinagtibay ng Court of Appeals nito lamang September 30, 2008, na ang kontrata ay hindi isang executive agreement o tratado, at kung gayon ay subject sa ating mga batas.

Sa mismong $400 million loan agreement sa Eximbank of China, nakasaad doon na ang proyekto ay ibibigay sa Chinese firm na CENMEC bilang prime contractor, kayat ayos na ang butu-buto, wala na talagang bidding na isinagawa.

Ito mismo ang kinumprima ng Commission on Audit sa kanilang 2007 report na inilabas noong Pebrero 2008.

3. Ang kontrata ay hindi alinsunod sa Government Auditing Code and the Administrative Code of 1987 na nagre-require ng certification na may necessary and available appropriation ang mga kontratang pinapasok ng gobyerno.

Ang bagay na ito ay una nang isiniwalat ng UP Law Center sa kanilang pag-aaral ng kontrata noong 2005 at kinumpirma sa latest COA Audit Report 2007. Ayon sa COA, ang P86.9 million government counterpart sa Phase 1, Sec. 1 ng Northrail project ay walang Certificate of Availability of Funds (CAF) na labag sa Sec. 86 ng Presidential Decree 1445 na nagsasaad na: “No contract involving the expenditure of public funds by any government agency shall be entered into or authorized unless the proper accounting officials of the agency concerned shall have certified to the officer entering into the obligation that funds have been duly appropriated for the purpose,”

4. Ang dalawang kontrata ay naglalaman ng mga probisyon na “manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government” labag sa Sec. 3(g) ng Republic Act 3019 o ang Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act:

Batay sa magkakahiwalay na mga pag-aaral at imbestigasyon ng UP Law Center, Commission on Audit, at Senate bilang Committee of the Whole:




To conclude, Mr. Chair, when the President assumed office in 2001 and again in 2004, she made an oath to preserve and defend the Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man. Yan po ang Art. VII, Sec. 5 ng Konstitusyon. Ito pong sinumpaang tungkulin ang siyang nilabag ng Presidente sa kasong ito.

The complainants believe that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, committed culpable violation of the Constitution and graft and corruption by entering into contracts that violated the Constitution, were violative of several laws and grossly disadvantageous to the government.

Earlier, former Speaker de Venecia appealed to the conscience of our colleagues. May I also appeal to their sense of dignity and honor as members of the House and leaders of our nation to hold the highest official of the land accountable for her wrongdoings.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.###

"NO" Vote to the Approval of 2009 General Appropriations Act

Explanation of 'NO' Vote to the Approval of 2009 General Appropriations Act

By Rep. Teodoro A. Casiño
November 11, 2008

Mr. Speaker, when we started the plenary debates on the budget, I remember that we spent at least five hours debating on the macroeconomic provision. And the reason for that, Mr. Speaker, is that, the budget was formulated without considering the global crisis that exploded around September of this year. And because of that, we wanted –we needed to debate the macroeconomic provisions because we needed to rework the budget to make the budget more responsive to the global crisis; to reduce the budget or if that was not possible, then, to rechannel the budget to the items that needed it, that needed increases in this budget given the impending crisis in the Philippines economy brought about by external developments.

After more tan five hours, Mr. Speaker, it appears that the committee did not take into consideration these very urgent points. And we still have the budget as it is, basically, originally proposed, more than P1.4 trillion in budget.

Mr. Speaker, specially, we wanted a reduction in debt service, specifically on unjust or illegitimate debt because a fourth of the budget or more than half of all expenditures, if we include the principal, went to this budget alone.

We wanted a reduction in the discretionary funds, otherwise know as the pork barrel, both the presidential and the legislative kind; and it was already mentioned like the Kilos Asenso program, Kalayaan sa Barangay, the two-billion Reforestation program. These are discretionary funds which are basically political in nature-political finds.

We wanted a reduction in intelligence and confidential funds, including the 650-million peso intelligence funds under the Office of the President, reduction in defense spending. On the other hand, we wanted increases, significant, substantial increases in the budgets of education, health, housing, social services. Increases in the budgets economic services and a reprioritization of infrastructure projects, not only as pump priming, but more importantly infrastructure to spur national industrialization, food security, and modernization in the agricultural sector.

We wanted an increase in the budget of Public Attorney’s Office, for example, in order to implement the law that we passed last Congress.

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, political considerations have once again hijacked the budget. Sinabi na namin noon na iyong P1.4 trillion budget is unrealistic, hindi ito nag-re-reflect ng tunay na kakayanan ng economy. This will result in a bigger debt burden years from now. And the budget- this kind of a budget, in this kind of a crisis situation, will be used basically to fund the political interest of the Arroyo administration for the 2010 elections.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I vote no to this budget. Thank You.

The FOSS Act: towards a better (software) world

By Rep. Teddy Casino, Bayan Muna
September 15, 2008

I would like to first of all thank everyone for attending the opening ceremonies of the 2nd House of Representatives FOSS Week.

I would like to especially thank my staff, especially CJ, Abby and Gerald who have been working on this for the last two months.

Also our friends from the IT department of Congress, the Committee on Information and Communications Technology and the Committee on Trade and Industry, especially their respective chairpersons Representatives Joseph Santiago and Tony Alvarez, who we collaborated with on this endeavor.

Lastly, I thank the participating groups without whose presence this exhibit wouldn’t have pushed through.

Aside from educating members of the House and the congressional staff on what FOSS is and how it can help them in their work, this exhibit is also meant to bring attention to House Bill 1716, or the proposed Philippine FOSS Act, which will be initially deliberated upon by the appropriate committees this Wednesday.

Basically, the bill aims promote the use and development of FOSS by mandating the government to use open standards, open formats, and FOSS in its data storage, communications, documents and ICT goods and services except in situations where such software are not available. It also encourages the private sector to develop a truly Filipino FOSS-based software industry.

But why choose FOSS over traditional, proprietary software? In a nutshell, because FOSS is cheap (in fact, most FOSS are distributed gratis to the public by their own developers and can be freely distributed). It is flexible and development-friendly (FOSS source codes are accessible to consumers who may study, modify and customize the software). It is interoperable (FOSS adhere to open standards and are meant to work across various platforms and protocols). And it is stable and safe (the opening of the source codes and the use of open standards have allowed hundreds of thousands of users around the globe to serve as a virtual research and development team, providing patches and solutions to bugs and glitches in real time over the internet).

Mandating the use of FOSS to government agencies will lower cost of ICT implementations. Rather than spending on software which have FOSS equivalents, additional hardware can be acquired instead. FOSS more importantly, reduces dependence on proprietary technologies which are usually owned by foreign monopolies and carry very restrictive and oppressive license and patent conditionalities. In this way, it will also pave the way for the reduction, if not eradication, of software piracy since by its very nature, FOSS can be modfied, copied and given away for free by its users.

The extensive use of FOSS in government is not an impossible task. In fact, many government agencies or sub-agencies have started migrating their information and data systems, in one way or another, to FOSS and open standards and formats. These include the DOST, NEDA, DTI, NSO, many LGUs, the Supreme Court and of course Congress.

The challenge for Congress, really, is to come up with a policy framework that would lead to the use and development of FOSS. Mandating its use in government is just one step. The more daunting task is to ensure our people’s access to information through technologies that are affordable, democratic and developmental. The use of FOSS, open standards and open formats plays a crucial role in this task of empowering our people. You can not make digital information accessible to the greatest number of people unless the programs that you use to tap such information are, by themselves, accessible and free of unecessary restrictions.

There are many more issues covered by the bill but the biggest hindrance to its approval is lack of information. To be blunt, I’d say that most congressmen do not even know what FOSS is, much less cares whether they use FOSS or proprietary software.

Which brings us to the importance of this exhibit. In order to pass a law on FOSS, members of Congress should first know what it is – this is our mission for the coming week.

Once again, thank you very much for coming and I hope to see you in our various events for this week, especially the committee hearing for HB 1716 this Wednesday.

Maraming salamat po. May the FOSS be with you.###

Sponsorship speech of Rep. Casiño for House Bills 1724, 3029, 3030

Delivered during the hearing of the House Committee on Energy
August 20, 2008

The four House bills being proposed by representatives from the party lists Bayan Muna, Gabriela and Anakpawis – HB 1724 repealing the Oil Deregulation Act of 1998, HB 3029 regulating the industry, HB 3030 establishing a centralized oil procurement mechanism, and HB 3031 re-establishing state ownership of Petron, which is in another committee – are attempts to legislate medium-term solutions to the problems plaguing the oil industry.

Exactly what are these problems? From a layman’s perspective, these are the following:

1. Frequent and steep oil price hikes;
2. Transfer pricing and other unfair practices of the foreign-dominated oil cartel;
3. The inability of the State to protect the people from the oil oligopolies;

These were the very same problems supposed to be addressed by the Oil Deregulation Act some 10 years ago. But these problems persist and have even worsened.

Since the first deregulation law in 1996, there have been at least 81 rounds of oil price hikes. Prices have risen by some 400%. Since Mrs. Arroyo came to power, prices have increased by 275%. In 2006, prices increased 36 times. This year, prices have increased by at least 18 times.

Deregulation was supposed to break the stranglehold of the oil cartel, the so-called Big 3 of Shell, Petron and Caltex. To date, they are still the dominant players, controlling 85-90% of the market and practically all oil refineries. The cartel’s profits, both here and abroad, are at an all-time high. Their monopoly operations have become more sophisticated. As an effect, the smuggling of oil has become a rampant practice.

In the face of all these, the state has failed to protect the people. Deregulation has tied the hands of the government and reduced it to being a mere spectator – shouting and pleading with the oil companies every time oil prices go up but not being able to actually do anything about the situation. In most cases, the Department of Energy and the President herself become the spokespersons and apologists of the oil companies.

What do we propose?

Basically, we want to develop a strong national oil industry that is:
• Owned and controlled by Filipinos
• Regulated, transparent and accountable, with the State itself as a major player; and
• Sustainable, aimed towards self-sufficiency and geared for national development

Towards this aim, we are proposing the following measures:

HB 1724 repeals RA 8479 or the Downstream Oil Deregulation Act of 1998.

HB 3029 creates a 6-person Petroleum Regulatory Council – a quasi-judicial regulatory body that will:

• monitor, regulate and hold hearings on oil and petroleum prices
• maintain a comprehensive database on the industry
• manage a buffer fund, called the Oil Price Buffer Fund (OPBF)

Unlike the previous Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF), the proposed buffer fund is for the strict and unique purpose of cushioning the impact of frequent and drastic price fluctuations. It prohibits all other reimbursements and specifically prohibits the President from tapping the fund. After five years, funds may be invested in secure instruments.

HB 3030 - Creates the National Petroleum Exchange Corp. as a subsidiary of the Philippine National Oil Company (PNOC). Within 4-5 years, the Exchange Corp. is envisioned to be in-charge of importation, storage, sale and distribution of all oil and petroleum products in the country.

The state-owned PNOC-NPEC shall formulate a Centralized Petroleum Procurement Plan, which will determine the country’s total oil requirements including the formation of a buffer supply, and negotiates accordingly with suppliers, whether private or state-owned, for the best prices and terms.

Integral to the operation of both bills is the government buy-back of Petron, as envisioned in HB 3031. This is to be done in stages, with government initially controling 51% of the company and then 100% within four years. Petron is to be reoriented as a state-owned company with social and developmental functions and responsibilities. Four billion pesos is initially allotted for the buy-back, with the rest to come from future the earnings.

There are other features of the bill which I leave to the committee’s discretion to deliberate on.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Towards a pro-Filipino and pro-people Mining Act

To our comrades in KAMP, our compatriot indigenous peoples from north to south, the Center for Environmental Concerns, guests and observers, warmest militant greetings from Bayan Muna!

During the Marcos dictatorship, the joke used to be that Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos had a very simple mining policy: that is mine, this is mine, everything is mine. I guess the times have not changed that much.

Seriously now, the policy framework of the current government, as enshrined in the Mining Act of 1995, can be summed up as follows: the more the merrier, the bigger the better. Never mind if the site targets are in populated areas. Never mind if most, if not all remaining mineral deposits in the country are in the ancestral domains of our tribal brothers and sisters. Never mind if mining operations are environmentally hazardous. As long as it is large-scale, foreign-owned, and geared for export, then by all means, mine the country. It is a policy premised on the sell out of our indigenous peoples, the national patrimony and the environment.

You know better than I the catastrophic impact of such a mining policy. The big time mining projects and applications for the same have fomented divisions and conflicts in and among various tribes and have caused the forced evictions and displacement of indigenous peoples in Abra, Benguet, Cagayan, Nueva Vizcaya, Mindoro, Zambales, Caraga, Davao Oriental, SoCSKSarGen, the Zamboanga Provinces, and in non-IP areas like Samar and Negros, to name a few.

The entry of mining companies severely alter the customary laws and ways of life of our indigenous communities. Their laws, interests and opinions are least considered by the government and mining firms. The word of the DENR secretary and the President usually prevail over any opposition from the communities. The current Mining Act and related laws allow the use of deception, bribery and strong-arm tactics to force mining operations into an area.

Many tribal communities have become severely divided between those for and against mining. So does mining destroy not only the environment and the people's livelihood but their families as well. No amount of royalties and local taxes can compensate for IP communities displaced by mining operations. Their land is their life.

Bayan Muna stands with the indigenous peoples, environment defenders and the rest of the Filipino people who oppose this kind of a mining policy. While we hold the view that mining is highly important in nation building, it should not be done at the expense of our people's rights and the environment. Our country's natural wealth of mineral resources is finite and needs to be reserved for Filipino citizens and optimally exploited for the genuine development of the nation.

In this light, we are one with you in opposing all forms of foreign, large-scale mining operations in the country. We are one with you in asserting your rights and protecting the environment. We are one with you in calling for the repeal of the Mining Act of 1995.

In this light, we must work towards a new mining policy that respects human rights, especially those of indigenous peoples, and gears the industry towards building a progressive, independent and self-reliant national economy. This of course should be based on the requisites of addressing the country's industrialization requirements and to modernize the backward and inefficient agriculture production under a framework of genuine agrarian reform, social justice and food security.

Such a mining policy would be the complete opposite of the current government framework that is premised on nothing but profits and tongpats, thus the stress on large-scale, foreign mining operations for export.

We believe that we can promote and propagate our People's Mining Policy with renewed vigor and in an additional arena, the halls of the legislature. Our measure (House Bill 1793) to repeal the Mining Act of 1995 is now pending in the House Committee on Natural Resources. We have realized, though, that it is not enough to call for the repeal of the Mining Act. If we want to up the ante and totally engage government in a policy debate on matter, it is important to come up with a concrete, alternative proposal. This is the importance of fleshing out the People's Mining Policy into an alternative piece of legislation. We hope KAMP and all tribal organizations will help us in crafting such a bill.

Such a pro-Filipino mining bill is premised on the principle that our national patrimony - our finite mineral resources, our lands, our biodiversity - should be conserved and developed according to our terms and our needs as a people. It should not be exploited just to meet the demands of the free market.

In particular, we hope to take the cue from your sector on the following issues:

1. the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination and ancestral domain;

2. a wider and more democratic free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) process for all communities affected by mining, especially IP Communities;

3. democratic consultations and participation at every stage and level of mining activity in tribal lands;

4. job priority, security, living wages, safe working conditions for mine workers;

5. stringent application of international environmental standards and safeguards;

6. a total mining ban in environmentally- critical areas and conservation priority areas;

7. absolute prohibitions on the dumping of mine wastes and tailings into rivers, lakes and seas.

These are just some of the ideas that we would want to incorporate into the pro-Filipino mining bill. You are in the best position to contribute your ideas on what the indigenous peoples would want to include in the bill we are to draft.

Let me emphasize though that we harbor no illusions that Congress will pass such a bill or change the current situation faced by the indigenous peoples. Our bill will be a political statement, an alternative policy that will show the public what should be done. Its main aim will be to expose the criminal nature of the present policy and the government that implements it and to engage government and the industry in a public debate to highlight the issues and push forward our mass campaigns against large-scale, multinational mining operations.

In other words, this will just be an additional arena for our battle. Our main battle front is still in our communities. Our main weapon is still our mass struggles and campaigns.

We shall await your proposals for inclusion in the pro-Filipino mining bill to be filed by Bayan Muna in Congress.

Thank you and tuloy ang laban ng katutubo at sambayanang Pilipino! #

Aid effectiveness in the context of the Philippines: a view from the House of Representatives

By Rep. Teddy Casiño (Bayan Muna)
Member, Congressional Oversight Committee on ODA

(Speech delivered before the Philippine Consultation on Civil Society Organizations and Aid Effectiveness on July 18, 2008 at the Richmond Hotel, 21 San Miguel Avenue, Ortigas Center, Pasig City)


I speak to you today in behalf of Rep. Exequiel Javier, co-chairperson for the House of the Congressional Oversight Committee on Official Development Assisstance or COCODA, who sends his regrets for not making it to today’s conference. The COCODA is a joint Senate-House body composed of the Chairmen of the Committee on Ways and Means of both the Senate and House of Representatives, five (5) members each from the Senate and the House representing the majority and two (2) members each from the Senate and the House representing the minority, that’s me.

In behalf of Congressman Javier and the COCODA, let me thank the organizers of this conference for inviting us to give our views on aid effectiveness. This gathering could not have been more timely, and I think is long overdue. In the past year, there has been a renewed interest in the halls of Congress on the issue of ODA due to various controversies hounding multi-billion ODA projects from the Chinese government. Although the issues have revolved around tong-pats and other anomalies, this has opened the doors for the discussions of other ODA-related issues, including those of aid effectiveness, ownership, conditionalities and the like.

Members of Congress are and should be concerned about the issue of aid effectiveness for the following reasons:

1. We are the ones who craft the national budget, including allocations for the local counterpart of ODA-funded projects and for the payment of ODA loans. As such, we have to make sure that the money we appropriate is spent well;
2. We are the ones who mainly craft national policy and have to ensure that ODA projects are in tune and support our national development goals;
3. ODA projects affect our constituents and we have the obligation to ensure that these projects meet not only their desired goals but the development needs of their intended beneficiaries and the national interest at large;
4. ODA projects are potential sources of high level corruption that have to be scrutinized by Congress as part of its oversight functions;

Because of this, Congress is a natural arena of engagement as far as aid effectiveness is concerned. The following legal instruments institutionalize this:

1. Article VI of the Constitution that spells out, among other things, Congress power over appropriations;
2. Article VII, Sec. 20 of the Constitution which requires the Executive, through the Monetary Board, to submit a quarterly report to Congress on its decisions on applications for loans to be contracted or guaranteed by the Government or GOCC;
3. Sec. 5 of RA 4860 or the Foreign Borrowings Act of 1966 that requires the President to report, within 30 days of the every session, the amount and purpose of all loans including guarantees extended by the government;
4. Sec. 8(c) of RA 8182, as amended, also known as the ODA Law of 1996, creating the COCODA;
5. Sec. 10 of RA 8182 requiring the President to report to each member of Congress, 30 days after the opening of every session, the loans and grants incurred by the government under the ODA Law;
6. Rule 8 of the IRR of RA 8182 which requires the NEDA to report to Congress, before June 30 of every year, the outcome of the annual ODA Portfolio Review.

Given this mandate, how has Congress performed in so far as monitoring and ensuring aid effectiveness?

To answer that question, let me just share with you some observations.

One, would you believe that it took nine years after the enactment of the ODA Law before a meeting of the COCODA was actually convened? This happened in August 2005 and involved only the House contingent. As far as our counterpart in the Senate is concerned, our information is that they have yet to convene until now.

During the 13th Congress, the House COCODA conducted several briefings with NEDA, the DOF and the BSP in 2005 and 2006. It also organized a congressional mission to Japan to iron out some problems relating to unpaid taxes. That’s about it.

In the 14th Congress, it was only last March that the House COCODA held its first meeting. Earlier in February, concerned that the House was not doing anything about the anomalies afflicting Chinese ODA projects, I filed House Resolution No. 485 calling on the COCODA to convene immediately to review all ODA contracts and agreements and to fulfill its other functions. Until now, only the House contingent has met to be briefed by NEDA and the DOF. The joint Senate-House body has yet to be organized and convened 12 years after the passage of the law that created it.

It is one thing that only the House COCODA has been convened, late as it is. It is another thing that during these meetings, the issue of aid effectiveness as we understand it is hardly ever discussed. Oftentimes, discussions revolve around NEDA’s annual ODA Portfolio Review, which is focused on the completion of physical targets, the cause of delays, reasons for bottlenecks, and cost overruns. Hardly is there any mention on a projects actual impact on people’s livelihoods and incomes, their standards of living, the enjoyment of their human rights, the impact on the environment, public participation and other such issues of greater concern to the people. The Paris Declaration has never been mentioned in our meetings.

During budget deliberations, hardly anyone in Congress bothers to look at the ODA portfolio, mainly because it falls under automatic appropriations and so traditionally is never tinkered with by Congress. In fact last year, we tried to break tradition by transferring the allocation for interest payments from automatic appropriations to general appropriations and reducing it by P25.9 billion.

In that same section, we decreed that “No amount shall be used for the interest payments on debts which are challenged as fraudulent, wasteful and/or useless” and cited several ODA projects as examples.

We also required the BSP and DOF to submit to Congress quarterly reports not just of contracted or guaranteed loans, which they already do, but of actual foreign and domestic debt service payments, which they don’t.

Do you know what happened to our experiment? Simple: the President vetoed the entire provision lock, stock and barrel, invoking the Foreign Borrowings Act (RA 4860), the Budget Reform Decree (PD 1177), the Administrative Code of 1987 (E.O. 292), plus the constitutional guarantee on the non-impairment of contracts.

This just goes to show how big the work before us is. But here’s some good news. The present chairperson of the House COCODA, Rep. Javier, is committed to do things differently. Among his plans are the following:

1. Getting funding and setting up a permanent secretariat for COCODA;
2. On-site visits to assess ODA funded projects on the ground;
3. Conducting oversight not only on NEDA, DOF and BSP but all agencies that have big ODA portfolios; and
4. Encouraging congressmen to raise their concerns regarding ODA projects in their districts.

If you will notice, absent in this list is the engagement with civil society organizations and social movements advocating aid effectiveness. That’s the challenge I am posing for us here today.

Indeed, it is logical that Congress, specifically the COCODA, should be working hand in hand with AidWatch and other civil-society organizations on the matter of aid effectiveness. In fact, I hope our presence here today signals the start of such a partnership.

To be honest, I think Congress needs a shot in the arm, or maybe a knock on the head from groups like you for it to fulfill its various duties in so far as ODA and aid effectiveness is concerned. In fact, given the reality of Congress as a bastion of neoliberal thought, corruption and reactionary politics, the only way that it can be pushed to fulfill its job is if groups like those present here today can challenge it to live up to its mandate. And for that, you will need warm bodies in the streets as well as warm bodies in congressional hearings. The congressmen and senators will have to see, hear and feel the people’s concern on the ODA issue. I invite you, therefore, to engage us on the matter. Make us targets of your struggle.

Thank you very much. ###

RP made to account for killings, disappearances in UN

By Rep. Teodoro A. Casino
Geneva, Switzerland
April 15, 2008


My trip to Geneva, Switzerland as part of the Philippine UPR Watch delegation culminated yesterday in a picket-protest in front of the United Nations headquarters.

After listening to Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita deliver the Philippine National Report to the UN Human Rights Council, I joined some 30 Filipinos and Swiss citizens who had put up a picketline right outside the UN gates to dramatize our people's continuing quest for an end to the killings, disappearances and the impunity by which human rights atrocities are committed in the Philippines.

The Philippine report, presented by no less than Sec. Ermita with his extraordinarily large contingent of bureaucrats flown in from Manila, was a self-serving, selective and totally one-sided depiction of the Philippine human rights situation.

The aim of the report was to depict the Arroyo administration as a vanguard defender of human rights and good governance in the country.

I was particularly flabbergasted to hear Sec. Ermita boast of the government's superlative gains in fighting graft and corruption in the Philippines.

I almost fell from my seat listening to him expound on government efforts to strengthen the Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan, the success of its electronic procurement system, and effectivity of its lifestyle checks.

In the light of the latest swine scam and the NBN-ZTE deal, this is chutzpah of the highest degree, inspired by no less than a cheating, lying and stealing President.

Fortunately, not all countries took this line hook and sinker. At least 16 countries -- including the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom -- expressed concern on the extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances and, in typical diplomatic language used in the UN, practically told the Philippines it was not doing enough on the matter, especially with regards to the recommendations of UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions Philip Alston.

Other issues of great concern to the international community were the violations of the rights of Filipino migrant workers and those of women and children.

In other words, the Philippine government's attempt to downplay the killings and disappearances and project the image that the situation was improving did not wash. In part through the efforts of the Philippine UPR Watch, the truth came out and the Arroyo government was held to account for its failures by the international community.

I am leaving Geneva with the knowledge that the world is watching the Philippines and is in solidarity with its quest for truth, justice and accountability. ###

Political persecution and the killings and disappearances in the Philippines*

By Rep. Teodoro Casiño
Bayan Muna (People First) Party
Philippine House of Representatives

I speak to you today as a member of Congress, a representative of my political party that has borne the brunt of the extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances in my country, and a victim of my government's brazen and systematic human rights atrocities against its critics and perceived enemies.

I was elected as party list representative in the Philippine House of Representatives in May 2004 and again in 2007. My party is called Bayan Muna or People First, a national political party that, under the Philippine party list law, is mandated to represent the marginalized and underepresented sectors in Philippine society – meaning the workers, peasants, urban poor, indigenous peoples, youth, women and children and others whose voices are hardly heard in Congress.

Being a party of the poor and the oppressed, we are naturally critical of many government policies and programs that have, for so many decades, served the interests of big landowners, big corporate monopolies, politicians and bureaucrats at the expense of the vast majority. It is no surprise that my party is a Left party whose platform is based on the principles of social justice, human rights and peace, people empowerment, new politics and good governance, sustainable development and environmental protection, and national sovereignty and independence. It is also no surprise that my party is one of the most persistent critics of the incumbent administration. We have supported every attempt to impeach Pres. Gloria Arroyo and have openly called for her resignation in the light of serious evidences of electoral fraud, corruption and bribery, human rights violations, her brazen abuse of power, her support for the US-led war on terror and rabid adherence to neoliberal globalization.

Because of what we stand for, Bayan Muna topped the party list elections on its first try in 2001 and got the maximum three seats allowed for each party list in Congress. That feat was repeated in 2004. In the 2007 elections, however, the Commission on Elections suddenly changed the rules and prevented my party from claiming its third seat in Congress. We have questioned this in the Supreme Court, where the case is currently pending.

Our dramatic victory in 2001 was met with incredulity by the Arroyo government, especially by its armed forces. A 2002 paper published in the journal of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) called our victory a “national security problem.” Since then, the government has done everything, and I mean everything, to disenfranchise our constituents, annihilate our parties and allied organizations, and kick us out of the political mainstream.

Since 2001, at least 132 of our party leaders and members have been killed extrajudicially by suspected state security forces. Fourteen of our leaders have been involuntarily disappeared and are still missing till this day. Moreover, our leaders and members have been continually subjected to threats, harassments, intimidation, frustrated killings, arbitrary arrests, illegal detention, and torture at the hands of state security forces.

In the 2004 and 2007 elections, the AFP and other government entities openly campaigned against Bayan Muna and other progressive parties, labeling us as destabilizers and terrorists.

In order to justify the attacks against my party, the government and the AFP accuse us of being “front organizations” of the Communist Party of the Philippines, the New People's Army and the National Democratic Front (CPP-NPA-NDF). This doctrine of “front organizations” has been incorporated in the government's National Internal Security Plan (NISP) and its counter-insurgency program Oplan Bantay Laya (Operation Guard Freedom), leading to the alarming rise in the number of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. Worse, many of our party members have been forced to admit to being communist rebels and then asked to surrender under pain of torture or death.

Let me quote UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions Prof. Philip Alston, who visited the Philippines last year:

“Two policy initiatives are of special importance to understanding why the killings continue. First, the military’s counterinsurgency strategy against the CPP/NPA/NDF increasingly focuses on dismantling civil society organizations that are purported to be “CPP front groups”. Second... the criminal justice system has failed to arrest, convict, and imprison those responsible for extrajudicial executions.... partly due to a distortion of priorities that has law enforcement officials focused on prosecuting civil society leaders rather than their killers.”

Prof. Alston made two case studies of how the counter-insurgency program was being implemented on the ground and came up with the conclusion that, and I quote:

“These case studies demonstrate the concrete ways in which a counterinsurgency focus on civil society leads to extrajudicial executions and tempts commanders to make such abuses routine and systematic.”

The Batasan 6 case and the “legal offensive”

On February 24, 2006, a massive demonstration commemorating the 1986 ouster of Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos called for Pres. Arroyo's removal from power. In response, the President declared the presence of a “Left-Right conspiracy,” imposed a “State of National Emergency” and sent out her troops. On the next day, armed teams were sent to arrest me and my colleagues from the progressive party list bloc in Congress – Representatives Satur Ocampo, Joel Virador, Liza Maza, Crispin Beltran and Rafael Mariano.

Rep. Beltran was illegally arrested, arbitrarily detained and later charged with inciting to sedition and rebellion. The rest of us were able to evade arrest and were given protection by the Congress. Thus, for 71 days, the five of us were forced to live in our offices in Congress under threat of being arrested once we left the premises. The courts subsequently ruled that we could not be arrested without due process and so we were able to get out of our de-facto detention after more than two months.

Rep. Beltran was not as lucky. Because they got to him first, state prosecutors used every trick in the book to keep him detained for more than a year despite his ailing health. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled that the government did not even have probable cause against us and our co-accussed, thus resulting in the dismissal of the rebellion charges and the release of Rep. Beltran.

The rebellion case filed against us and 45 others in February 2006 was just the start of what the President's National Security Adviser called a “legal offensive” against us courtesy of a body tasked for this purpose called the Inter-Agency Legal Action Group (IALAG). UN Special Rapporteur Alston specifically recommended the abolition of this instrument of political persecution in his report.

In March 2007, two months before the congressional elections, Rep. Ocampo was arrested on the basis of a multiple murder case that allegedly happened 23 years ago. The Supreme Court stepped in and ordered Rep. Ocampo released on bail.

During the campaign period for the May 2007 elections, I was accused of obstructing justice for demanding a proper warrant from soldiers who arrested one of my campaigners. The case is still pending before the prosecutors office.

Also at this time, a disqualification case was brought against progressive party lists Bayan Muna, Gabriela and Anakpawis. These frivolous charges were later dismissed by the Commission on Elections.

In November 2007, government prosecutors submitted for resolution another multiple murder case, this time involving Reps. Ocampo, Maza, Mariano and myself. The prosecutors denied a request for a clarificatory hearing which was necessary in light of the complaints refusal to reveal their identities by concealing their faces during the investigation.

What are we to make of this? In its report on its mission to the Philippines last April 2007, the Inter-Parliamentary Union's Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians concluded that such cases were politically motivated and that “The sequence and tenacity of the authorities in the filing of sedition, rebellion and murder charges and, more recently disqualification cases against (politial parties) Bayan Muna, Anakpawis and Gabriela lends the impression that everything is being done to remove the parliamentarians concerned and their parties from the political process.”

Concern over the UPR

Despite the attacks against my party, its constituents and on myself and my colleagues as elected members of Congress, the Arroyo government has the gall to proclaim, in paragraph 119 of its national report for the UN Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review (UPR), that:

“The Philippines repealed several years ago the Anti-Subversion Law and legitimized the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). Organizations of all political persuasions and sectoral interest groups have the opportunity to secure congressional representation and participation in mainstream elections through the party list system.”

While this is true on paper, it is sheer hypocrisy for the government to say this considering that the government itself, especially its armed forces, has taken every opportunity to villify, malign, harass, disenfranchise, disempower, disqualify and annihilate the progressive party list organizations and their members. In fact, we are still alive and in Congress inspite, not because of, the government.

Honestly, I am appalled at how easy it is for the Arroyo government to dish out lies and half-truths about the human rights situation in the Philippines. It is an insult to the UNHRC and the UPR process that a government can so easily present barefaced lies and self-serving reports and expect other countries to just swallow it all up. I hope that the UNHRC does not turn out to be just another old boys club and the latest tool for my government's cover up of its crimes against its people.

I hope that other critical voices will be heard and considered in the UPR. With your help, let us bring justice and peace to my country and my people.

Thank you very much. #


*Speech delivered at the Philippine UPR Watch Forum on April 10, 2008 at the World Council of Churches conference hall in Geneva, Switzerland.

Explanation of NO Vote to the Motion to Declare the Position of Speaker Vacant

Bayan Muna Rep. Teddy A. Casiño
February 4, 2008

Mr. Speaker,

The motion to declare the position of the Speaker vacant is being made because the Speaker’s son decided to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the anomalous ZTE-NBN contract. He is being replaced unceremoniously because the Arroyo bloc in the House which includes 3 congresspersons, and the President herself wants to discard a loyal lieutenant whose hands they suspect to have dipped itself into the cookie jar once too often, and whose differences with the President and personal ambitions cause Malacañang and the First Family sleepless nights.

Let us call a spade a spade. Magpakatotoo po tayo. Ang pagpapatalsik kay Speaker de Venecia ay pakana ng Malacañang para higit pang kontrolin ang Kamara. Anumang reporma o pagbabago daw na itinutulak ng mga kakampi ng Presidente ay pagbabago para sa kapakanan ng administrasyon, para sa kapakanan ng Presidente. Ayaw ng Malacañang ng congressional investigations, ayaw ng Palasyo ng impeachment, ayaw ng Unang Pamilya ng kaagaw sa mga kontrata mula Tsina. Kaya ayaw na nila kay Speaker de Venecia.

Mr. Speaker, hindi po lamang simpleng away o grudge fight ito sa pagitan ng mga Arroyo at de Venecia, although that’s what it initially appears to be. This is a fight for control in the House. Malacañang wants to control the House even more than it did under Speaker de Venecia’s leadership.

Gusto ng Malacañang na kontrolin ang Kamara nang higit pa sa kontrol nila ilalim ng liderato ni Speaker de Venecia. Bakit? Alam nyo nang lahat kung bakit.

To get away with murder and all the other crimes committed by this administration. Yan po ang tunay na issue rito. Ano ba ang pakinabang ng karaniwang tao sa usaping ito? Wala.

Iisa lang ang sigurado, mas malaki ang magiging utang na loob sa Malacañang ang papalit kay Speaker de Venecia.

In this light, I vote no to the motion not because I want a de Venecia leadership – and the records will show we have opposed him all the way – but to oppose a plot that would make Congress not only Malacañang’s rubber stamp, but its partner in crime.

I have always believed that Congress should be independent from the Executive and serve as a check and balance against its abuses. Today we bury the House’s integrity as a separate branch of government. That is why I’m wearing my black barong, Mr. Speaker, to mourn for this House.

Again I vote NO to the motion.