Legal anarchy exemplified

Just recently, Caloocan Mayor Enrico “Recom”  Echiverri was shown in the papers submitting a reconciled statement to the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) to resolve once and for all allegations of non-payment of GSIS contributions by the local government. In fact, he said that the City of Caloocan even overpaid the GSIS.

What was not shown in the photos though is the fact that Echiverri submitted the documents to GSIS after the Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order against the implementation of a six-month preventive suspension imposed by the Office of the Ombudsman. The latter handed down the suspension order last July 17 in connection with charges slapped against Echiverri and his co-petitioners in connec-tion with non-payment of the city employee’s premiums to the GSIS  amounting to over P343 million.

But the CA thought otherwise. In issuing the TRO against the implementation by the Office of the Ombudsman and the DILG of preventive suspension, the appellate court said the act enjoined  is violative of the Echiverri’s right to enjoy and perform his official duties.

In one case, the Supreme Court explained that the purpose of preventive suspension is to prevent the accused from using his position and the powers and prerogatives of his office to influence potential witnesses or tamper with records which may be vital in the prosecution of the case against him.

It is unfortunate that while complaints abound before as to former Ombudsman’s lack of action, we now have an Ombudsman doing her job, only to find out later that the courts at any time can render her job useless.

There are claims that Echiverri was able to “clean” the records of the GSIS payments in a matter of two weeks. We don’t know that for sure, but the preventive suspension was supposed to prevent that from hap-pening.

Making business sense

Many consumers registered a “significant discomfort” over news that the safe choice for condiments is a leading Japanese soy sauce brand, in light of reports that some soy sauce brands may contain the toxic and carcinogenic ingredient 3-monochloropropane (3-MCPD).

Both local and international tests had shown that Kikkoman (yes, the once we use for sushi and sashimi) is safe. This is not surprising though considering that Japanese health authorities are known to be very stringent.

Sadly, a good number of local soy sauce products may not be compliant with the international standards set for safe and acceptable 3-MCPD levels.

This revelation should push our Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) to encourage local manufacturers to try and catch up, if not match, the product quality standards set by the likes of Kikkoman.

After all, Filipinos deserve no less in terms of quality and food safety.

This is not just a food safety issue. This is also a business issue. Unless local soy sauce manufacturers make aggressive efforts to assure their consumers that their products are 3-MCPD safe, they will lose by default to the likes of Kikkoman.

The assurance would not only be an exercise in corporate responsibility, it would also make for good business sense.

A souring PPP

There are news reports that Bob Sobrepena-controlled Camp John Hay Development Corp. (CJHDevco) is now being threatened with legal action by the Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA) for alleged unpaid rentals totaling P381.8 million covering Dec. 2009-June 2011 for the use of John Hay.

The BCDA claims this excludes the P2.4 billion that it has been asking CJHDevco to pay for the lease of 247 hectares in the John Hay Special Economic Zone.

CJHDevco officials have expressed surprise, if not disappointment, that BCDA has been making these statements  when both parties have just agreed to find a “win-win” solution to this issue and resolve their differences via a “mini-restructuring” plan.

CJHDevco said that in a conciliatory gesture of good faith, it had even submitted a proposal to settle the amount of P381.8 million on a staggered basis (P100 million upfront, the balance in installment over the next six to 12 months), subject to the issuance of all the pending permits that the private company have long been asking from the BCDA.

CJHDevco maintains that they had the legal right to suspend payments because the former violated its contractual obligations to CJHDevco. The right to suspend payments if and when BCDA violates its com-mitments or obligations is spelled out under the restructuring MOA forged by the two in July 2008.

BCDA’s alleged violation includes failure to maintain operations of the One Stop Action Center (OSAC) with full authority to process and issue national and local business and developmental permits, certifi-cates and licenses from all government agencies necessary for its implementation of the Revised Master Development Plan and the Project which are applicable inside the John Hay Special Economic Zone (JHSEZ), and which remains an indispensable requirement for the success and viability of the Camp John Hay Project.

But CJHDevco claims that BCDA has failed to open a functioning OSAC and had merely passed on the applications for permits and licenses submitted by business locators in Camp John Hay to the government agencies that are supposed to process them. Thus, rather than eliminate red tape to best facilitate doing business in Camp John Hay—which is at the core of the RMOA—the BCDA merely lengthened and de-layed the process.

Making matter worse, according to CJHDevco officials, are the stringent requirements imposed by the Baguio city government in the processing of business and building permits in the Zone.

What is significant here is that CJHDevco  made the offer to pay even though legally, it has the right to suspend payments to the BCDA.

It’s about time that all these problems be ironed out because after all, a failed public-private partnership like the one we have at John Hay is not going to help the country’s souring investment climate.

For comments, e-mail at [email protected]