"Good governance rests on three pillars.
         First, a sound moral foundation to guide our leadership at all levels.
         Second, a philosophy of transparency in all government actions.
         Third, an ethic of effective implementation throughout the bureaucracy.
These are high standards to be held up to, but the people deserve no less. "-President Macapagal-Arroyo1

 

 

 Culpable Violations to EO 170

 

Must the Philippine Ports Authority and the Cebu Ports Authority represented by their respective board members as well as other government officials that are shown to have participated in the non-implementation of Executive Order 170 (EO 170) and its implementing rules and regulations be held liable for their individual and collective acts for violating the provisions of the EO?

Executive Order 170 entitled "PROMOTING PRIVATE SECTOR PARTICIPATION AND INVESTMENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF THE ROAD ROLL-ON/ROLL-OFF TERMINAL SYSTEM" was signed by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in January 23, 2003 and announced publicly during the 56th anniversary celebration of the foundation of the Development Bank of the  Philippines."  Some four years after its enactment, the President still has to send her secretaries out to "fast-track" the EO implementation.  Why has there been a snail-paced implementation of the EO?

A news analysis of why the EO was issued was made by by CV Chikiamco from the Manila Standard.  In his column entitled "Lateral thinking", Mr. Chikiamco had this to say:

"Here is where lateral thinking comes in. Instead of directly confronting the powerful shipping companies and stevedoring and labor groups, President Arroyo issued an executive order declaring ro-ro terminals, which use the seas as transport lanes, as part of the national highway system. Ergo, if the ro-ro terminals are part of the national highway system, they need not be approved by the Philippine Ports Authority and subjected to all kinds of regulations and regulatory costs. The EO effectively made truckers competitors to shippers. (However, in certain goods like grains and other commodities handled in bulk, shippers will always have the edge over truckers.) "

That the EO 170 RRTS facilities have not multiplied is a strong indication that perhaps, the President's "lateral thinking", according to Mr. Chikiamco has failed.  Whether it is indeed the "powerful shipping companies and stevedoring and labor groups" that have been the stumbling blocks to the implementation of the EO still has to be proven.  However, there have been persons and agencies that have been identified as having violated the provisions of EO 170.  This can easily be proven by the documentary evidence and newspaper reports about these violations.

Some seven months after the EO was signed, a letter signed on September 5, 2003 by LGU representatives, ship operators, and logistics providers had this to say to the President:

"What we see have been large newspaper ads heralding the operation of one big shipping company on what is called “long-haul” roro, but we do not see it as part of the RRTS as envisioned in EQ 170. Before any facility may be considered as part of the RRTS, EO 170 mandates that the facility has to be operated by an LGU or a private entity. No part of any existing PPA or CPA port has been able to meet this requirement; hence, no RRTS facility can be identified up to now.

Meanwhile, some eager participants have started to implement their plans, but these are slowed down due to a lack of proper guidelines in pursuing the projects. May we therefore request from you to instruct the agencies concerned, particularly the Philippine Ports Authority and the Cebu Ports Authority, to issue clear guidelines on how private terminal projects may be given a go signal to proceed under EO 170 and become part of the RRTS?"

The clamor for clear and specific guidelines for the implementation of EO 170 was brought to the attention of a DOTC official.  As a result, Undersecretary Agustin Romulo Bengzon sent out a directive dated November 21, 2003 and addressed to all implementing agencies to render a report on their activities regarding the implementation of the EO.

    1. Board Resolution, Administrative Order Or Other issüances if any related to the implementation of the Executive Ordirs;
    2. List of applicants and, status of application for ptivate commercial port operation under the arnbit of the Executive Orders;
    3. Presentations, brochures and other publications, if any, information to interested investors in RO-RO terminals.; and,
    4. Orientation/workshop conducted for regional/sub-offices, if any, on the Executive Orders and/or the processing of applications.

By February 10, 2004, Secretary Saludo of the Presidential Management Staff sent a letter specifying five items claimed to be accomplishments towards the implementation of EO 170.  All five items were debunked and in a letter reply sent to the PMS and dated March 1, 2004, explanations were made why such claims were not proof of any serious implementation of the EO. See also(A, B, and C).

Unable to refute the charges that the Office of the President was being fed with hogwash by the reporting agencies, the matter was referred to the DOTC Secretary on March 8, 2004. At about the same time, the Regional Development Council of Region 7 sent a resolution dated March 19, 2004  to the DOTC Secretary, confirming observations relative to the non-implementation of the Executive Order.

Having gone a full circle, the same office at DOTC that was ignored by the PPA, CPA and MARINA when it requested for a report on the implementation of EO 170 previously some seven months ago or promises to apprise the complainants if and when there are further developments by referring the PMS letter back to the agencies being complained about.  This memo sent from the office of Usec Bengzon dated April 5, 2004, clearly indicates how much attention and urgency the matter of implementing the President's EO 170 has received from all officials concerned.

Signed in January 23, 2003, Presidential Executive Order 170 was treated like a basketball by its implementers one-and-a-half years later.

When the pressure for an accounting on the implementation of the EO mounts, the Manger of the Cebu Ports Authority (CPA) makes a barren attempt at explaining his accomplishments and as a final defense, bares the collective contempt of the implementers on the EO's spirit of allowing greater private sector participation in the RRTS.  His letter of April 26, 2004 arrogantly claims:

"Moreover, the Cebu Port Authority subscribes to the relevant counsel of another government agency, that the privatization policy enshrined in the E.O.s are to be embraced with great caution as not everyone have the management competence and the strong desire to promote public interest."

Prior to this letter of the CPA GM, it was reported in a news item dated March 14, 2004, that CPA had taken over a private port project in Lapulapu City.  It was reported that:

"But the contractor said Cebu Port Authority (CPA) stopped them from working on the causeway because the government is planning to convert it into a roll-on-roll-off (Roro) port. "

.... and that:

"CPA also disapproved Goldland’s detailed development plan earlier approved by the City. The CPA showed its own Roro layout plan to Goldland last December 2003.", eleven months after EO 170 was signed by the President.

Does the CPA GM's statement lay the predicate as to why the slow pace of implementing the EO is evident?  Nowhere in the official implementing guidelines issued is there any mention or hint that selection of private investors should include an assessment as to whether they qualify to run the ports as private facilities.  When people participate and put up their share of the project equity, it is presumed that they know what they are doing, not otherwise as claimed by the CPA GM as being also held by another implementing agency.  The PPA perhaps?

Having finally enough evidence on the reluctance of implementing agencies to implement EO 170, a formal complaint dated July 14, 2004,  was lodged against the implementers of EO 170 with the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC).  The complaint rounded off all efforts to exhaust all administrative remedies open to the petitioners.

The attempt to get the observations through to the President did not end with the administrative complaint filed with the PAGC.  On October 28, 2004, the DOTC Secretary was sent a letter informing him of the misinformation reported to him by the agencies under him that were charged to implement EO 170.  On this same day, the President is reported to have made some pronouncements tending to be violative of her own Executive Order.  She was made to announce a fifty% cut in the wharfage fees charged at the ports of Dumaguete City and Santander town in Cebu.  EO 170 provides that no wharfage dues shall be collected on any part of the National Road Network.  The false information given to the President must have only come from PPA and CPA since the ports concerned were owned by them, respectively.

Also, in April 8, 2005 a Cebu Ports Authority Commissioner, most probably also misinformed about EO implementation claimed that EO 170 was already implemented by the CPA.  If so, how is it that up to March 2007, these ports still collect wharfage fees?

Pushed to do something about the lack of guidelines, the PPA announced on January 11, 2005, two years after the signing of EO 170, that the PPA guidelines for private sector participation in the operation and investment in RRTS facilities was approved by the PPA Board on December 15, 2004.

Other documentary evidence against the CPA and PPA for violation of EO 170 provisions are available at the "Archives"

  Click here to send comments.

 1 President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Keynote address to the Intemational Conference on Institutionalizing
   Strategies to Combat Corruption: Lessons from East Asia, Manila, August 12-13, 2000.

Note:  To download any highlighted file, right-click on mouse button and choose "Save Target as..."

 

[Home]