Now we have the FATF staring us in the face like a barrel of a shotgun, saying we either do it or we don’t. Sooner or later, we’re going to have to comply, and since we neither have the time nor the wherewithal to study it further, the country has no other choice but to act on the demands. Now we are forced to walk the plank – worse, blindfolded.
The pros and cons about the issue are many. Some are saying we’re getting an unfair deal from the FATF since there are countries that enjoy a "no threshold" status like Taiwan and Singapore, to name a few. On the other end, there are those who argue that the court order requirement in the law only made the present AMLA ineffective and with less teeth, that’s why drug lords and terrorists can use the banking system as an unwitting means to their illegal ends. There are also others who say the requirements are against the Bill of Rights, and that we should stand by our principles and let no other country or entity dictate upon us. I remember what the late sugar magnate Alfredo Montelibano once said, "Principles are for people who can afford it." At this point, we cannot.
Two sectors would suffer the most if sanctions are imposed: the self-sacrificing OFW who needs an unrestricted banking policy so they can remit their hard-earned dollars to their families, and the small-scale exporters who rely heavily on banks for funding and credit transactions. Families of OFWs could lose more than US$ 300 million due to potential lags in remittances if sanctions are imposed. Exporters, which belong to a US$35 billion industry, would suffer, at the very least, 20 to 130-day delays in operations due to unavoidable funding problems.
The irony is that criminals, it seems, have more knowledge of the banking system than some people in government, and as such, they are already five steps ahead. While agencies concerned are trying to disentangle themselves from the controversy, criminals, with their devious minds, are already creating ways and means to beat the system, even create a new one, I suppose, to launder their money.
So, at the end of the day, if we do not comply with the demands of the FTAF and sanctions are imposed, who do you think would suffer the most? It’s not going to be the Johnny-come-latelys, but the poor ol’ Johnny dela Cruzes – the hardworking OFW and the small-scale exporters – who will end up paying the price.
Reports about the Green Berets coming into the country and engaging the Abu Sayyaf and the Pentagon gangs in actual combat are inaccurate. This arrangement was reportedly agreed upon by both the US and Philippine governments to stop terrorism in the country. But the VFA is clear: no direct combat engagements with foreign troops. The only agreement within the law so far is they can shoot back in self-defense. But we have to remember that the US has already lost an American serviceman – unprovoked – in one of the training exercises. For more than a year, the Philippines was the staple news internationally because of the kidnapping of the American missionaries and the eventual murder of Martin Burnham. We should never forget these terrorist rascals have cost the country billions in tourism revenues and investments. Their activities have placed the country in the international list of terrorist havens – up to this day.
Bottom line is: the military aid we need must be combined with a viable socio-economic package. This has been, and will always be, the long-term solution to the problems of the South. In the long run, the US must help us become a strong ally, and not a strong puppet.