Warrantless arrests under year-long calamity state

Not only will the Arroyo-declared state of calamity be in force for a full year, even after President Arroyo steps out of Malacañang on June 30, 2010, but also warrantless arrests of businessmen will be the practice of the administration if they are caught resorting to overpricing of goods which have a mandated price ceiling.

Trade and Industry Secretary Peter Favila yesterday said authorities are prepared to make warrantless arrests of businessmen caught in the act of violating the government-imposed price ceilings on basic goods.

The government has yet to come out with a statement on the limits of the warrantless arrest provision under the state of calamity declaration which the Palace officials have said may be extended to a year.

Senators, however, stood opposed to the Palace’s plan of extending the declaration of state of calamity, to last for about a year, citing numerous possible abuses in the disbursement of funds, especially since procurement laws will be effectively relaxed, with the bidding rules disregard.

Even some administration senators are wary over this proposal, echoing the concerns of opposition senators on the possibility of the Executive juggling these so-called calamity funds.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, while appearing to be amenable to the proposal, admitted that the presidential declaration may outlive the sitting Chief Executive.

Enrile pointed out that the rehabilitation program “goes beyond the term of the outgoing president.

“The calamity does not disappear overnight. The effect can last for some time. The flooding in 1972 lasted all the way to 1974. There were scarcities of sugar followed by a scarcity of rice, fuel, coconut-based consumer products and then scarcity of grain for producing animal feeds.

“You need to control the rise of prices of commodities, especially prime commodities during periods like this. This is not the first time that that this was done. It has been done during the Marcos years and it was done also even before the Marcos years. In the case of the flood in 1972, the price control lasted for almost two years because it depends upon the extent of the damage,” he said in an interview with reporters.

The senators, however, gave a different view, adding that a longer period of declaration of a state of calamity will also give a negative impression as far as the country’s economy is concerned.

“I’m opposed to the declaration of the state of calamity lasting for one whole year for the following reasons: First, should the state of calamity last for a year, it would be extremely counterproductive. The calamity fund of every local government unit shall be open for appropriation. That amounts to about P13.3 billion. That would allow the local government unit to get 5 percent of its total expected revenues. The longer the state of calamity extends, the more abuses can be expected,” said Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago.

“My proposal is to limit the declaration of the state of calamity to just three months. It is necessary that the flood victims should get on with their lives. If we are going to spread out the release and use of the calamity fund to one whole year, there will always be an unrealized expectation of a return to normalcy. The faster you lift the state of calamity, the better for the funds.

“Another consequence of the declaration of the state of calamity is that the President will have power to transfer appropriations. Normally, this is not allowed, but when there is a state of calamity, she can juggle the funds. There will be extreme pressure from many vested interests to transfer appropriations, but not necessarily to the most calamity-stricken areas. In my view, it makes the President even more politically vulnerable to politicians.

“The final adverse consequence is that under the Government Procurement Reform Act, if there is a state of calamity, there does not have to be a process of bidding or auction. Negotiated purchases will be allowed. You know that is a very fertile source of corruption.

She suggested that the state of calamity should be limited to three months or not later, emphasizing that there is no need to come up with a supplemental budget as funds can be sourced from savings of some agencies, those given substantial increases in this year’s national appropriations.

“We can easily augment the calamity funds simply by asking the President to exercise her power to transfer appropriations,” she said.

Santiago said the Executive could tap the appropriations of the Departments of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Agriculture (DA) and the Motor Vehicle Users Charge (MVUC) which were provided increases in the amounts of P28.2 billion, P2.9 billion respectively for this year while the MVUC or Road Users Tax is expected to collect around P9 billion.

If one-third of that amount is reprioritized for NCR, Region IV-A, and Region III roads, that would amount to P3 billion, she said.

“I do not want a prolonged state of calamity, because in the same way that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely, calamity tends to corrupt. The longer the declaration of a state of calamity, the longer the corruption,” she stressed.

Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero, banks committee chairman, raised similar concerns as far as fund use, image to the country of prolonged declaration of a state of calamity and its coverage.

The same was expressed by Senators Manuel “Mar” Roxas and Alan Peter Cayetano.

Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. also cited the same drawbacks in releasing funds under a state of calamity, as it would not entail strict accounting.

“So the longer the period, the possibility of abuse will be greater,” he said, adding that the matter of the funds being diverted is also an issue in view of the forthcoming elections.

There are those also questioning the Executive in having the state of calamity cover the entire country when the devastation left by typhoon Ondoy is concentrated only in Metro Manila while typhoon Pepeng affected mainly provinces in northern part of Luzon.

“Regarding Malacañang’s plan to extend its declaration of a state of calamity for a year or longer, this has to be evaluated further. Some areas are also recovering faster than the others. There has to be a balance and a consensus. At this early, business groups are already wary about the idea, they should be consulted to see how it will affect them,” said Sen. Manuel Villar.

“It is also important to put a semblance of normalcy to the people’s lives as soon as possible. Even the flood victims need to go back to their homes, to their jobs and move on eventually. They cannot rely on people’s charity for long, we have to make them self-reliant again,” he added.

Arroyo’s logic in placing the whole country under state of calamity continues to find itself submerged in the pool of questions and dissensions not only by the usual critics and think tanks but also from some members of the Makati Business Club (MBC).

Malacañang yesterday tried to appease businessmen by rehashing earlier statements, this time claiming that the imposition of price controls has its own given time frame depending on what the present situation demands.

Golez backtracked, saying that the creation of price ceilings should have been taken as a separate issue pertinent to its own official mandate which was under Republic Act 7581 or the Price Act.

He explained that under that Price Act, price controls or the price ceilings may only take effect for about 60 days aside from the authority vested to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) secretary who can make recommendations on whether to lift the said order even before it reaches the 60-day period.

“It all depends on the recommendation, consultation, or discussion with different sectors. If the DTI secretary says there is already discipline (among the producers) in the market, when nobody is taking advantage of the situation, then, the secretary can always recommend to the President to lift this (price) regulation even before it reaches the 60th day.),” Golez said.

DTI Secretary Peter Favila appeared before Palace reporters yesterday to clarify and answer the arguments being raised by the businessmen with regard to the goods and services covered under the Price Act.

Favila cited Section 4 of R.A. 7581 which stipulates that concerned parties may file a petition whereupon a public hearing by the implementing agency may be conducted with the approval of the President to exclude other types of products or services from the coverage of Price Act.

“Types or brands of the goods included in the definition of basic necessities and prime commodities, which may be deemed as nonessential goods or luxury goods; provided that, any type or brand so excluded may be reinstated by the implementing agency during occasions of acute shortage in the supply of the basic necessity or prime commodity to which the excluded type or brand used to belong,” the Price Act stated further.

Owing to this citation, Favila said he would instead suggest to all those businessmen at large to just look at the provisions of the Price Act in order to sort out whatever dissension they may hold.

Presidential Economic Spokesman Gary Olivar, for his part, said that the concerns of the business sectors were totally out of place, if not, downright unreasonable given the fact that the agriculture was the lone sector which suffered grave damages and that the major production and distribution infrastructure in the manufacturing sectors were barely affected.

“If they (businessmen) are reasonable people, they will understand and will see the logic of the move of government as we have to maintain order in the market, in the face of instability, as long as there is disturbancesc If they are sincere about their views on this whole situation, there is no reason for them to worry. I think that’s an overreaction to the situation. I am starting to wonder why they are so into things like these,” Olivar said.

Deputy Presidential Spokesman Lorelei Fajardo, meanwhile, reiterated that the declaration of state of calamity and the imposition of price controls, for that matter, are just temporary under the present circumstances because the country is still recovering from a tragedy. “We are not saying that they (businessmen) should sell (their products) in lower prices than the usual. The price ceiling is (there) to make sure that nobody will take advantage (of the situation) so we are ensuring the normal price in the market. You will only worry if you are on the wrong side.” –Angie M. Rosales and Aytch de la Cruz, Daily Tribune