Community pantry and its unintended consequences

You may feed a man a fish every day for a hundred years, but you’ll never make him a fisherman. In no time, you will make him a mendicant, a beggar, and unwittingly reward indolence. We have already seen how politicians have acculturated the once-productive masses into minions for their control, setting into motion the country’s spiral from being among Asia’s major economies to a pariah. We have had enough of them.

In this time of pandemic, we need to be resilient. Individual resilience translates into collective resilience. Resilience, however, is built NOT on charity, or beggary; it is built on the back of difficult experiences that steel resolve in a person; it is built on industry. 

Responsible people may have been pushed into dire circumstances by this pandemic, but they do not go out hunting for doles. They remain willing to participate in life and make a dignified living. They are the ones we ought to be out to help.

While there’s undeniable value in this community pantry movement we should be cautious not to overdo it. It should be targeted to most vulnerable individuals and families like that elderly woman with three orphaned children in her care, or one who is an invalid. It should not be open to all, if we were to avoid its unintended consequences—we are already seeing lazy freeloaders and opportunists hopping from one pantry to another, pantry raiders!  

To be more responsive, we can tweak this community pantry idea into a “work for food program,” where ordinary able-bodied folks can work in an organized menial job offering and be paid food, instead of money. This takes thinking and creativity, considering that there are works that are suspended during ECQ and MECQ (so is pantry congregation), but this should not deter us. 

One idea is to make people work on seedlings preparation; in exchange they will be paid food, as well as seedlings that they can grow into food in as fast as 20 to 30 days, with their care as their equity. Likewise, they can work on a chicken hatchery and broiler production, where they may be paid food and chicks that they can grow in a few-square-feet space for eggs, or meat. 

We can also organize tree-planting activities and provide cash crop seedlings that community planters can plant in between trees to allow them to generate short-term cash stream, in the process motivating them to continue to care for these trees until they develop past nursing stage, and into self-sustaining full-grown natural carbon sinks. 

There could be hundreds of ideas out there that we can utilize. What is important is we expose the people to ideas and activities that develop resilience in them.

It is equally important that we coordinate with LGUs for health protocol enforcement and even for works that they might need to farm out to the community. No matter how cynical we are of LGUs and the national government, it will not help our cause to be adversarial with them, or to be at their crosshair. We may criticise the government; that’s within our right. But let us continue to work with it, local and national. And it’s not hypocrisy; it is a working democracy. 

If people don’t show up, it is because they don’t deserve help—no need to wonder why or analyse.
 
We should stop treating charity events like a crowd drawing contest.

Bayanihan to Heal as One Act, RA 11469

Click the link Bayanihan to Heal as One Act

Joint Memorandum Circular No. 1, Series of 2020, Guidelines for Social Amelioration Program in Bayanihan to Heal as One Act or RA 11469

Click here Guidelines for Social Amelioration Program, under the Bayanihan to Heal as One Act, RA 11469

DA Skirts National Policy on Free Movement of Food

Click the link for a copy of the Implementation Procedure.

The DA has to reexamine its Implementation Procedure for Food Lane Accreditation that its office, through its undersecretary for operations, Engr. Ariel T. Cayanan, issued on March 16, 2020. 

Strangely, the issuance prescribes that the validity of the food lane accreditation shall be two (2) years. This gives the impression that the national government believes that this crisis is going to last two years. While we don’t dismiss the possibility of a protracted battle with COVID-19, given that even the much advanced economies like Italy and Spain struggle to rein in its spread, one month is way shorter than two years. Moreover, it has to be made in an official pronouncement by President Duterte, or through his alter ego, the secretary of the Department of Health, Franciso Duque III, then eventually reduced to a policy through the IATF.

But it’s not the case here. This two-year period just came out of thin air. If this accreditation will remain valid after the community quarantine will have been lifted, say, as it stands now, on April 13, 2020, then the grantee will continue to enjoy the privileges under it even after the emergency that provided the basis for its issuance has passed. This reeks of anomaly, for no one would extend privileges beyond what is intended, for nothing.

In fact, this is not the only problem. The more sinister part of this issuance, which I wrote about in yesterday’s article, is that it imposes requirements that have no basis, if we consider the underlying concerns that motivated the creation of this food lane. 

Up to now, and until this ill-advised issuance is implemented, the only change that has been introduced in how deliveries of foods and their raw materials are handled is that checkpoint personnel must determine that the delivery content is, indeed, foods, or their raw materials accompanied by an inventory, or if delivery has already been made, a delivery receipt; that checkpoint personnel must determine whether the number of delivery crew or contingent is at its leanest, or just enough to carry out the task; and most importantly, that checkpoint personnel must determine that the delivery crew or contingent pass the thermal scan, to ensure that we don’t allow suspected cases to be moving around. 

Bearing in mind that the main objective of the quarantine is to restrict or limit the movement of people, based on scientific finding that COVID-19 transmits through droplets, or people’s close contact.  The only impetus for establishing this green lane is the observation that delivery vehicles containing foods and goods have stalled in checkpoints, as they co-mingle with the rest of queuing vehicles. Thus, consistent with the national policy, which the national government, through its national officials including the president, have pronounced ad nauseam, that is, movement of foods, and goods, and cargoes in general, must remain unhampered and unimpeded, all the government needs to do is create a special checkpoint lane for foods, and their raw materials—precisely this food lane, without the unreasonably onerous requirements.

This “unhampered movement” policy is borne out of plain common sense. The government knows that if it chokes the flow of foods or their raw materials, food shortage and price spikes will ensue, bringing in chaos, and exacerbating our predicament.

Instead, the DA issued a much-detached issuance, fashioned as an implementation procedure, imposing a whole gamut of requirements, which has nothing to do with restricting or limiting the movement of people. In what seems to be a surreptitiously crafted procedure, the DA, in this wicked issuance, requires that applicants, to be eligible, have to be registered with DTI, SEC, CDA, or DOLE; that an applicant must have a valid business permit; that an applicant present its delivery vehicle’s CR/OR; that an applicant must have no complaint filed against it. 

How much of the country’s farmers are registered with SEC, DTI, CDA, or DOLE, or have business permits, or have their own vehicles? And what has a complaint against an applicant to do with its ability to deliver foods? This subversive policy will only exclude the subsistence farmers, those in Benguet and Nueva Ecija, among others, whom the government have been publicly promising to help sell their products directly to their market here in Metro Manila, in favor of the bigger middlemen, who are likely to be the ones able to satisfy the DA accreditation requirements. This will make the government’s promise of levelling the playing field, nothing more than just another lip service. 

Let us take note that all these requirements did not exist before COVID-19, so under what basis do these exist now, where the national policy, spawned by the need to respond to the crisis, is to keep the movement of goods unhampered and unimpeded—keep it the way it was before the crisis? Obviously, no basis exists. Why it is there, is something only the DA can explain.

The irony of it all is that behind this audacity, the DA has no authority to demand any of the requirements it has imposed on the prospective applicants, as these are out of its jurisdiction. 

The DA needs reminding that even overzeal, if it be the motivation, cannot be made an excuse for a subordinate department to disobey a superior order, or override a national policy, consequently undermining the office of the president. Overzeal cannot make it immune from censure, even prosecution. The DA, no matter how noble its intention,  cannot supplant its own wisdom over that of the nation’s, through the IATF, and ultimately the office of the president. 

The President must call the DA out on this sneaky issuance, and order it to rewrite its procedure in a way that conforms with the national policy.

Department of Agriculture Muddles "Unhampered Movement of Goods" Policy

DA Implementation Procedure Related to Food Lane Accreditation

Government is so used to “red tape,” or complicating matters that it can’t spare an extreme emergency situation. The official national policy on food, and goods, as laid out in the “Community Quarantine over the Entire Luzon and further Guidelines for the Management of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation” issued by ES Salvador C. Medialdea, by order of the president, on  March 16, 2019, is categorically to allow their (foods and goods, or cargoes) unhampered movement and flow: “The movement of cargoes within, to and from the entire Luzon shall be unhampered. For this purpose, guidelines for the accompanying crew or personnel of transiting cargoes shall be formulated by the Department of Transportation.”

It is clear that the purpose of the community quarantine, aimed at containing the contact-transmitted COVID-19, is to limit the movement of people, not goods. 

The DA, however, in its Implementation Procedure, has imposed restrictive requirements not found in, or that even contradicts, the president’s directive—requirements that have nothing to do with restricting the movement of people.

For instance, first, it requires that applicants must be registered with DTI, SEC, CDA, or DOLE. Majority of farmers are not registered with any of the above. While it is a worthy policy direction to have the farmers register with at least one of the above, this is not an occasion to pursue this direction, and it is not within the jurisdiction of DA. This has nothing to do with limiting the movement of people.

Second, it requires that an applicant must have a valid business permit. Most farmers are not registered, as mentioned above, and thus, have no business permits. Again, this is not within the power of DA to require a business permit, and again, this has nothing to do with restricting the movement of people. Let the farmers or business people deal with their issues with business permits. If there are penalties assessed or imposed on them for operating without business permit or on expired permit, let them deal with it utilizing their right to due process and to counsel.

Third, it requires that an applicant present its delivery vehicle’s CR/OR. Most farmers don’t have their own delivery vehicles, so they contract with different transport providers, even jeepney operators, as may be available at the time. This will narrow down the farmers' available transport choices and may subject them to greater cost. Yet again, DA has no authority to require CR/OR, and this has nothing to do with restricting the movement of people.

Fourth, in the pre-qualification form, it requires, on top of the above, that an applicant must have no complaint filed against it. How can a company control others from filing a complaint against it? To think that a good number of complaints can even be baseless. Whatever happened to presumption of innocence? Again, still, it is not within DA’s power to impose this requirement, and going back to the objective, this has nothing to do with restricting the movement of people.

Focus on the Objective

The better policy, which I think is what the president’s directive intends, is to maintain the status quo ante, which allows goods to flow unhampered subject to transport laws, and other existing laws, AND determine the proper and allowable number of delivery crew and contingent, AND subject them to thermal scan. That is hemming it squarely in the objective of the President’s directive, and the supposed limit of this administrative issuance—restricting the movement of people. A rule cannot go beyond the law it seeks to implement.

Prior to COVID-19, were delivery trucks flagged down for their DTI, SEC, CDA, DOLE registration? No.  

Were delivery trucks flagged down for their business permits? N0.

Were delivery trucks flagged down for their CR/OR? No.  

Were delivery trucks flagged down to prove they have not been complained against? No.  

In fact, even today, unless and until this issuance is enforced, DA’s William Dar’s pronouncement stands: that it suffices that delivery trucks are able to present an inventory of goods contained in the vehicle, and after delivery, a delivery receipt.

What this issuance unwittingly achieves is promote the bigger middlemen, mostly compliant with the above unwarranted requirements, where the policy is to empower the farmers, and the micro and small players, mostly marginalized. Worse, this exacting requirements will choke the food supply, resulting in food shortage, price hike, and chaos—something the government is carefully trying to avoid in this delicate situation.

From Machetes, Bolos, Bamboo Spears... How Far has our Military Developed?

Our heroes fought invaders’ guns with machetes, bolos, bamboo spears, and bows-and-arrows, making do with what colonized Philippines had. Now, they must be turning in their graves to know that 121 years since our independence, we still have in our puny arsenal weapons dating back to world war II.

We should honor our heroes with credible investment in our defense capability—long time coming. While we were dabbling in our military capacity, China has quietly grown its military might to become the world’s third strongest military overall, next only to Russia and the US, but second in terms of the most number of military personnel, only slightly edged out by India.

Make no mistake about it, China has invested significant resources in, and has worked tirelessly for centuries, building its military to become the behemoth that it is now, and for a reason. Let us not kid ourselves that it will yet again let it pass this time.

We can not—we must not—rely on the US to secure our territorial integrity. Even a Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) will not guarantee that the US will stand on our side at the first signs of trouble. It is not as straightforward as we would like to believe it to be.

Let us consider that the US may be more interested in the trade that goes through the WPS strategic sea lane, which explains why it is insisting in maintaining freedom of navigation, than our sovereign security, if only to spur us to finally get our acts together and draw up a realistic military modernization program.

Former Mayor and Convicted Rapist and Killer Antonio Sanchez will NOT likely Walk Free

Guevarra: “Former Mayor Sanchez, convicted rapist and killer of Eileen Sarmenta and Allan Gomez, will likely walk free.” https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2019/08/21/1945203/ex-mayor-antonio-sanchez-set-release?fbclid=IwAR2cr63xuNPtZ5DdtC2kONDJD85d3b6DJA7Lsu9gDoLzU1wZa2wCtD4XexI

Words of the lead authority brought the victims’ families to the deepest of despairs, and back to the memory of the ghastliest crime of its time. 

But it’s outrageously premature, and if you consider Guevarra’s use of the adjective “likely” to describe the alleged possibility of Sanchez’s walking free, it sounds irresponsibly biased. 

The truth is, it is a 50-50 chance at best, and the victims’ families should have been spared the harrowing ordeal of reliving the torment of the moment.

The law itself, RA 10592, while increasing the sentence deduction allowed for good conduct, amending article 97 of the Revised Penal Code, provides for conditions for a prisoner or a person deprived of liberty (PDL) to qualify, or be eligible to benefit from this law. That is, among others, that he agrees in writing and with assistance of counsel to abide by the disciplinary rules imposed on convicted prisoners, and that he is not a recidivist, or have been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime; and finally that he is not a recidivist, habitual delinquent, escapee, and is not charged with a heinous crime.

Given these conditions and knowing Sanchez’s notorious and murderous past, the prospect of him walking free is not that rosy at all.  

We may recall that in 1991 or two years before the Sarmenta rape-slay, Sanchez was indicted for ordering the killing and deaths of father and son Nelson and Rickson Penalosa—apparently Nelson was a political leader and supporter of Sanchez’s political rival. Sanchez’s conviction in the Sarmenta rape-slay case became final sometime in 2001, while his conviction in the Penalosa double murder case became final in 1999. 

The law defines recidivist as one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Code. Sanchez may be considered a recidivist since he was convicted, successively, of the crimes of double murder and rape with homicide. Rape, by the enactment of amendatory law, RA 8353, has been reclassified as a crime against person, bringing it to “within the same title,” title eight, of the Code, as required by the definition of recidivist. 

Sanchez could also be covered by the second phrase “have been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime,” since Sanchez was previously convicted of two murders, and alternatively, we know too, that he’s been indicted for possession of marijuana in 2006, and for possession of P1.5m worth of shabu in 2010, and presumably for a graft case, since there was forfeiture of his ill-gotten wealth, depending on whether the conviction for the latter cases came earlier.

Significantly, the law excepts from the coverage of the law those who have been charged with a heinous crime. Sanchez have not only been charged, but have been convicted, of heinous crimes, the rape-slay of Sarmenta, with Sanchez’s six conspirators and co-accused taking turns in raping the hapless Sarmenta before killing her, and ending with the killing of Sarmenta’s friend and companion, Gomez, and the senseless murder of the Penalosas.

Obviously, that Sanchez was found in possession of marijuana, of shabu, and a flat-screen television, an air conditioner, and a refrigerator in his cell, in separate instances and all while he was in detention serving sentence, he could not be said to have abided by the rules (and the laws), or have exhibited good behavior. 

For these reasons, the cards are stacked against Sanchez, and the victims’ families can take comfort that it is not a lost fight, not by a long shot. They must take a proactive stance, though. They manifest their objection, and impress upon the authority their intent to see the law’s strict application through every step of the way to ensure that Sanchez will not unduly benefit from this law.