SALN—a weapon of good governance

By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net

CALIFORNIA, United States—Soon after the dictator Ferdinand Marcos and his family fled to the US in the aftermath of the 1986 People Power uprising, the Philippine comedic duo of Noel Trinidad and Subas Herrera (“Champoy”) embarked on a comedy tour of the US.

One line that always drew howls of laughter was Subas’s comment about how much he felt right at home in the US "because this is where our taxes have been spent."

Subas was referring to the widespread news in the US press that Imelda Marcos had purchased five prime Manhattan properties such as the Crown Building as well as the vast Lindenmere estate in Long Island. It was also reported that she had bought about 200 choice properties in California including at least 30 holdings in Los Angeles.

How much did Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos plunder during their two decades of rule from 1966 to 1986? Estimates may vary from $20B to $50B but suffice to say that when they began, the Philippines was one of the top economies of Asia and when their kleptocratic reign ended, the country was reduced to one of the region’s most impoverished. Despite massive evidence of their brazen plunder, none of the Marcoses have ever been convicted of corruption.

Even the $310M worth of jewelry seized from Imelda Marcos by the Cory Aquino government in 1986 was ordered returned back to Imelda by Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales on June 13, 2009 because he concluded that the government could not prove that it was illegally obtained.

This was not the intent of the forfeiture law (Republic Act 1379) that was enacted on June 18, 1955. Although it has been ignored, especially during the Marcos era, the law allows the Philippine government to forfeit any property found to have been unlawfully acquired by any public officer or employee. This means that "property acquired by any public officer or employee during his/her incumbency which is manifestly out of proportion to his/her salary" can be seized by the government.

To implement this 1955 law, Congress passed the SALN law, Republic Act 3019, popularly known as the Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Net worth law on August 17, 1960 requiring "every public officer, within thirty days after assuming office and, thereafter, on or before the fifteenth day of April following the close of every calendar year (to submit) a statement of the amounts and sources of his income, the amounts of his personal and family expenses and the amount of income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar year."

Half a century later, the SALN law lies moribund because there has been no mechanism to verify the SALNs and no penalty for committing perjury in the SALNs.

An example of the weakness of this law was presented on national TV on September 3, 2009 when GMA son Representative Mikey Arroyo was asked by Winnie Monsod to explain how his SALN could show a net worth of P5 million ($100,000) in 2002 and P99 million ($2.2M) in 2008. Mikey’s answer: “You know, first of all, I got married. I received lots of gifts. Then in the election campaign, somehow, many people helped me.” Is it legal to pocket the money given by campaign donors?

In that TV interview, Mikey reluctantly acknowledged that he partly owned the property at 1655 Beach Park Boulevard in Foster City in the San Francisco Bay Area in California. Although the $1.32M residential property was listed in San Mateo County records in 2009 as owned by his wife, Angela Montenegro Macapagal, it was not listed in the 2008 and 2009 SALNs of Mikey Arroyo.

Power grab: The story behind the Jan. 20, 2001 : EDSA People Power 2 conspiracy that swept Vice President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to power

Despite his admission, Mikey still asserted that there was no proof that he violated the SALN law.

Winnie responded: “You know what, the law is very clear. If there is a problem, when there is a question of unexplained wealth here, the burden of proof is with you, with the government employee. It can’t be that (we) have to prove that (you) are guilty. No, the government employee should prove that he is innocent. That’s precisely the whole objective of having a statement of assets and liabilities.”

Representative Mikey Arroyo, who returns to Congress as the representative of the Ang Galing party list of the marginalized tricycle drivers, technically complied with the law when he filled out his SALN forms and submitted them. But how is the veracity of his SALN verified? And what happens once it is established that he has other undisclosed (Foster City) assets?

Responsibility for the enforcement of the SALN law rests with the Office of the Ombudsman headed by Merceditas Gutierrez, a GMA appointee who was the Ateneo Law School classmate of former First Gentleman Mike Arroyo. Understandably, she has shown no desire to investigate the Arroyos.

The Ombudsman would have to be compelled by a court order to enforce the SALN. Unfortunately, the Philippine Supreme Court—all GMA appointees—has exempted itself and the entire judicial branch from having to comply with the SALN law, a clear violation of a law enacted on February 20, 1989 (RA 6713) that expressly includes members of the judiciary as among those required to submit SALNs.

When the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) wanted to investigate reports that certain judges were charging P500,000-P750,000 to issue a restraining order or injunction, it could not obtain the SALNs of the judges because of the Supreme Court's exemption ruling.

After 50 years, the SALN law may be on life support but it isn’t dead yet. Since Congress will not likely pass any law that will put more teeth into SALN, President Noynoy Aquino should just sign an executive order designating officials in each agency of government to compile the SALNs of public officials and to review and verify them and post them online. The Department of Justice should then go after the public officials with unexplained wealth and place the onus on them to prove their innocence as Winnie explained to Mikey. That’s the way the SALN law was envisioned 50 years ago this week. It’s time to finally enforce it and use it as a weapon of good governance.

Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com or mail them to the Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco or call 415.334.7800

Published in Philippine Daily Inquirer August 15, 2010

Survey finds Cebu City 'most honest'

CEBU City was awarded as the most honest and transparent city among metro growth centers outside Metro Manila.

It also fared well in a survey on the quality of life, cost of doing business, dynamism of the local economy, human resources and training, infrastructure, and responsiveness of local government units (LGUs) to business needs.

Cebu City, along with Dagupan and Cagayan de Oro, was named the most competitive city outside Metro Manila in the Philippine Cities Competiveness Ranking Project 2009 (PCCRP) of the Asian Institute of Management (AIM) Policy Center.

Cebu City was also recognized as the Best in Disaster Preparedness, Best in the Dynamism of its Local Economy and Best in Infrastructure.

According to the AIM Policy Center website, Cebu City figured in all the award categories, which included Best Compliance with Government-Mandated Plans, Entrepreneurs’ Award for Most Supportive to MSMEs, Entrepreneurs’ Award for Most Honest and Transparent Cities, Dynamism of Local Economy, Infrastructure, and Quality of Life.

“I’m very proud of this and I’m proud our city government. At least, I have something to show to our critics and I can just laugh at them,” said former Cebu City mayor Tomas Osmeña, who received the award last week.

The PCCRP study was based on government data, a perception survey among business owners, and interviews with local chief executives and local business group’s representative.

It also classified the cities into three groups: metropolitan growth centers, growth centers and emergent cities.

According to the summary of findings and a report published by Newsbreak Online, Cebu City bested Davao in the metro growth center category, which refers to cities with an average of P3.05 billion total income and average population of 1.08 million.

The city received the Entrepreneurs’ Award for “Most Honest and Transparent in its Dealings” among metro growth cities.

It was credited for disclosing financial accountability, as well as using participation in its planning and budgeting processes.

Cebu City was also named the top performer in disaster preparedness.

It was commended for its City Disaster Coordinating Council, disaster preparedness plan and documents on tracking of informal settlers. It also met the minimum ratio for the number of firemen for every 100,000 residents.

The city also bested other cities for its dynamic economy, measured in terms of per capita income, number of commercial and universal banks, building construction area, membership in local chambers of commerce and industry, access to finance, level of foreign interest, number of Department of Tourism accredited establishments and historical sites.

It bested Davao City in infrastructure for the reduced travel time to its seaport, reduced travel time for road maintenance, commercial water connections, subscribed telephone lines and reliability of water service.

Cagayan de Oro, meanwhile, topped in the growth centers category, which included the cities of General Santos, Baguio, Lapu-Lapu, Zamboanga, Olongapo, Batangas, Iloilo, Bacolod and Mandaue. These cities have an average income of P1.2 billion and population 421,165.

Dagupan City is the most competitive among the emergent cities.

It bested the cities of Angeles, Butuan, Cotabato, Lucena, Naga, Legaspi, Pagadian, Puerto Princesa, Ormoc, Iligan, Tagum, and San Fernando in La Union, Surigao, Tuguegarao, Tacloban and Santiago.

AIM conducted the study with support from the United States Agency for International Development and the German foundation gtz. (GAC)

Published in the Sun.Star Cebu newspaper on August 14, 2010.

Manny Villar blameless?

By Solita Collas-Monsod
Philippine Daily Inquirer
01/30/2010

WHILE the Senate is declaring a moratorium on the discussion of the ethics case against Sen. Manny Villar, here are some incontrovertible facts, presented in Q & A form. The source of the information is also given.

    * Question: What roadway projects are the subject matter of the Villar ethics controversy?

      Answer:
         1. The Manila Cavite Toll Expressway Project (MCTEP), the original C-5 south extension project, linking SLEX with the Coastal Road;
         2. the DPWH C-5 Extension project (CX-5), which together with
         3. the Las Piñas-Parañaque Link Project (LPPLP), also links SLEX with the Coastal Road.

            Source: Senate Report (SR) 780.




    * Q: Is the CX-5/LPPLP project a realignment, as Sen. Jamby Madrigal describes it, or has there been no realignment, as Senator Villar’s allies insist?

      A: Technically there has been no realignment, because these are two separate roads linking C-5 from SLEX to the Coastal Road. But they are very close together and, in some areas, overlap, as can be ascertained from a site map.

      Source: interactive map available at www.gmanews.tv: http://www.gmanews.tv/story/182541/the-c5-extension-controversy-an-interactive-map




    * Q: Are there any differences between the MCTEP and the CX-5/LPPLP?

      A: Yes.
         1. The MCTEP is a joint-venture project between the government and a private Malaysian partner, with the government’s financial exposure limited to P2.68 billion for the purchase of the road right-of-way; the private partner is responsible for the construction of the project, for which tolls will be charged. The CX-5/LPPLP is a toll-free, wholly-financed government project costing P6.96 billion;
         2. The CX-5/LPPLP is longer than the MCTEP, its extra length essentially covering the LPPLP portion;
         3. The CX-5/LPPLP passes through more Villar properties than the MCTEP.

            Source: DPWH project documents cited as Exhibits A, B and TTTT in SR 780; site map from www.gmanews.tv.




    * Q: How large are the Villar company landholdings in the immediate vicinity of the questioned road projects?

      A: At least 50-52 hectares: 40 hectares in the vicinity of the LPPLP; 10-12 hectares in the area between Sucat Road and Multinational Avenue.

      Source: testimony of Anastacio Adriano Jr., senior vice president and general manager, chief operating officer of Adelfa Properties Inc. and other Villar-owned companies up to 2008; self-styled consultant and political officer of Senator Villar since August 2008. Nota bene: Senate employment records do not include his name.

      Nota bene: it is not clear whether the 50-52 hectares mentioned above include properties cited in SR 780—roughly 10 hectares in area—to be developed by Villar companies in joint venture with their owners.




    * Q: What is the involvement of Villar in CX-5 and LPPLP?

      A:
         1. The Project Feasibility Study of the DPWH for CX-5 states: “The conceptualization of and the initial release of funds for the CX-5 Project was initiated by Sen. Manuel Villar whose same efforts also paved the way for the funding of the Las Piñas-Parañaque Link Road [LPPLP]â€�;
         2. Various insertions and amendments (Priority Development Assistance Fund, read pork barrel) in the national government budget over the years 2002-2008 for CX-5 and LPPLP;
         3. Adriano (cited above), in the office of and presence of Villar, dictating to the director general of the Senate’s Legislative Budget Research and Monitoring Office (LBRMO) Villar’s proposed amendments to the 2008 budget, including a P400-million appropriation for the CX-5.

      Source: documents submitted by DPWH, lawyer Yolanda Doblon of the LBRMO, testimony of both Doblon and Adriano, cited in SR 780.




    * Q: Were the Villar properties bought for road right-of-way overpriced?
      A: SR 780 argues for the affirmative; PSR 1472 (the resolution signed by Villar and his allies exonerating him from all charges) argues for the negative. This calls for a conclusion of the reader.

      And to help that along, I have—based on the documented prices and acreage of the lands purchased in connection with the LPPLP—computed the weighted average prices that were paid for the Villar and related properties, and those paid for the non-Villar properties.

      The results: The Villar/related properties, comprising 23,455 square meters, were bought for P168.1 million. The non-Villar properties, comprising 11,685 square meters, were bought for P22 million. That comes to a weighted average of P7,168 per square meter for Villar’s properties, and P1,880 per square meter for the non-Villar properties. That has to be a statistically significant difference.



Given the above facts—which no one can contest, since they are based on official documents, and not on a he-says-she-says set of assertions—it has to be reasonable to conclude:

   1. Since there was already an ongoing project (the MCTEP) linking C-5 to the Coastal Road, it was totally unnecessary to build a second one.

   2. Which means that there was a waste of scarce resources. Instead of using only P2.6 billion of government funds for the first project, the government had to spend an additional P6.9 billion for the second, which practically duplicated the first, except for the additional length which happily for Senator Villar, traversed his properties.

   3. This unnecessary, wasteful project was certainly Villar’s idea. It is specious to argue that it is a DPWH project. As the DPWH feasibility study states (in black and white), both the CX-5 and the LPPLP were conceived and initially funded by Villar.

   4. Villar benefited tremendously from the second project. Certainly, his companies were paid significantly more per square meter for the road right of way (which were mostly bought from him). But that pales into insignificance compared with the tremendous increase in the values of his real estate holdings in the area—at least 50-52 hectares.


Is he blameless? Is the Pope protestant? ###

LP campaign acronym: Thank you, Lorrrd!

By DJ Yap
Philippine Daily Inquirer

MANILA, Philippines—Invoking the Lord’s name in a political campaign has become standard practice in this predominantly Christian country. But what about using the name of the “Lorrrd”?

In what could be called either a political masterstroke or just plain gimmickry, Liberal Party senatorial candidates have formed their names into a rather catchy campaign acronym: “SLAMAT LORRRD.”

“That’s not just ‘salamat (thank you), Lord.’ It’s ‘salamat Lorrrd,’” said Sen. Francis Pangilinan, exaggeratedly rolling his Rs.

The acronym stands for: S-Sonia Roco, L-Brig. Gen. Danny Lim, A-Nereus Acosta, M-Martin Bautista, A-Alexander Lacson, T- Teofisto “TG” Guingona, L-Yasmin Busran Lao, O-Serge Osmeña (guest candidate), R-Ruffy Biazon, R-Ralph Recto, R-Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel, and D-Franklin Drilon.

Pangilinan, who was recently designated as spokesperson for LP’s senatorial slate, said they came up with the acronym during a recent brainstorming session.

“We thought it up” when the lineup was complete, he said.

Why rich people cannot afford many kids

Philippine Daily Inquirer

The rich cannot afford to have many children because more children will deprive them of time to make more and more money. Only the poor can afford to have many children because they trust that God will bless their best efforts to provide for their children.

If only the government would honestly use the billions and trillions of money allotted for good governance and public service, including proper infrastructure development, good education and health care, then all of us can work for a decent life. Then those who teach the morality of treating pregnancy as a disease like the proponents of the Reproductive Health (RH) bill do, and those who consider abortion simply as a process of “evacuating uterine contents,” would have no reason to force their morality on us.

A large majority of women who seek abortion are those who had failed in their attempt at contraception. Legalizing artificial contraception through abortifacients will surely lead to legalizing abortion.

Also, doctors do not have to be sick in order to treat their patients with similar cases of cancer, tuberculosis and other sicknesses. In the same way, the Church hierarchy under the infallible teaching of the Holy Father the Pope on faith and morals, do not have to have first-hand experience of married life in order to teach us about the sacredness of life and family.

—LELLA M. DE JESUS,
Commission on Family and Life,
Mary Mother of Good Counsel Parish,
Parañaque City,
email: lellamdj@gmail.com

7 reasons why we get hurt

By Marge C. Enriquez
Philippine Daily Inquirer

PROTECTION IS OFTEN equated with physical means—vaccines, security guards, martial arts or amulets. But majority of us would never think about protecting ourselves from being emotionally scarred by others. Says London-based author and motivational speaker Mike George, “We will never need to worry about being hurt by others as our average day carries very little physical threat. However, if we move to the mental and emotional level, there appears to be a different kind of possibility that we may get hurt. Our symptoms of hurt emerge as a result of blaming, complaining and accusing others for ‘making me feel this way.’ Is that because, like physical hurt, we are not strong enough or not powerful enough to protect ourselves, or is it because we feel we are at the mercy of other people and circumstances ... Do we need some kind of ‘bouncer system’ standing guard at the windows of our minds and at the doors of our heart?”

Here are seven reasons why we might feel hurt.

Insulted. “How dare you say that to me!” We can easily feel disrespected or sullied when somebody makes derogatory or unflattering remarks about our work or our personality.

Offended. “Can you believe what they just said about ‘my’ religion, beliefs, ideas, etc.” The feeling is similar to being offended after someone makes disparaging comments of another person’s appearance, actions or speech. In our “conclusion” of the other, we see them doing or saying something against our own values or beliefs.

Let down. “I’m so disappointed in you because you’ve let me down.” Getting upset or disappointed comes from the perception that someone has not met our expectations. Whether they showed up late or failed to do what they said, we take it personally. Once our sorrow has waned, we hold on to a negative impression of them.

Betrayed. “How could you tell them what I said, how can I ever trust you again?” In truth, people don’t have the power to merge especially when they are asked to keep a secret. The hurt comes when we expect people not to pass on what we said.

Robbed. “They took everything from me.” We feel violated when something precious is taken away from us. It’s not just theft; even businesses are out to mooch us they can for their product and service.

Broken promise. “But you promised me...” It’s a personal hurt when someone does not keep his word, whether it’s the parent who fails to purchase the toy for Christmas, the boss who fails to deliver a promotion, or a friend who fails to pay a debt.

Excluded. “You didn’t invite me...” You feel insecure when you’re not included to an event or group that you aspired to be part of. The sensitive feelings are heightened when there’s the thought, “What’s wrong with me?”

It feels as if life offers many opportunities to feel hurt and powerless in the face of other people’s behavior or the prevailing situation. That’s just a matter of perception. George points out that these responses are actually habits of creating our own suffering.

Self-empowerment

Here are his suggestions for self-empowerment.

1. Accept responsibility. The main responsibility in life is the ability to respond. Any hurt reactions are self-created and not caused by another person or event. That’s easier said than done. George says it takes time for the situation or the reaction to die down. By then, we see things more objectively and realize that we feel hurt because “the world is not dancing to our tune.”

2. End controlling. Majority of the hurts stem from the fact that people are not behaving the way we want them to behave. “Our emotional reaction is a sign that we are trying to control what we cannot control,” says George.

3. Be happy anyway. The media and social conditioning have led us to believe that we can’t be happy unless we’ve got this or that. But as long as our contentment is based on another human being or situation, our emotions will vacillate and we will be unable to be centered inside and be genuinely nice to others.

4. Letting go. The cause of all sorrow is holding on to ideas, belief systems, possessions, people and, more significantly, attachment to images of how others should behave. Letting go means not expending our energy on these attachments and instead responding positively to the situation.

5. Self-awareness. Take a few minutes each day and note down the times you felt hurt by someone or by a situation, and see why it was caused by your reaction and not them. This exercise will remind us that we create our own feelings regardless of other people’s behavior. George points out that we could even be guilty of doing what hurts others and we may not be aware of it.

Once we’ve taken up the cudgels for change, here are the signs of self-empowerment:

1. Whatever insults are hurled to you are just words, not sticks and stones.

2. You are not offended when you are no longer holding on to a belief system about how people should speak or behave or dress up.

3. You don’t feel hurt when someone lets you down because you’ve learned not to make your happiness dependent on your expectations of others.

4. You don’t feel betrayed when a person divulges confidential information which you shared. “You know that you cannot control what others will do with what you share,” says George.

5. You can’t be robbed of anything because the real treasures are spiritual. Everything else that is material is ephemeral.

6. You can’t be hurt by broken promises because you accept that people can’t always be relied upon to conform with what they’ve said, and your happiness is not dependent on a fulfilled promised.

7. You don’t feel bad if you’ve been ignored or even blackballed. Self-esteem is not dependent on acceptance from others. “You no longer need to be involved in anything to be content within yourself. You know there is nothing wrong with you. You are a free spirit,” says George.


    

Population trends: lessons for RP

By Fr. Gregory D. Gaston, SThD
Philippine Daily Inquirer

“REMEMBER the population bomb? The new threat to the planet is not too many people but too few,” Michael Meyer reports on “Birth Dearth” (in Newsweek, Sept. 27, 2004). He continues: “The world’s population will continue to grow – from today’s 6.4 billion to around 9 billion in 2050. But after that, it will go sharply into decline. Indeed, a phenomenon that we’re destined to learn much more about – depopulation – has already begun in a number of countries.”

In general, a total fertility rate (TFR or children per woman) of 2.1 is necessary to replace a country’s population. The UN Population Division (UNPD) states, “The primary consequence of fertility decline, especially if combined with increases in life expectancy, is population ageing. It adds, “Globally, the number of persons aged 60 years or over is expected almost to triple” between 2005 and 2050.

Population controllers never highlight population ageing and decline. In countries where these phenomena happen today, a huge number of elderly have to be supported by proportionally fewer working people. The pension fund and the social security system are overburdened. The local labor force grow older and less efficient, hence they need immigrants.

Having fewer and older people means a smaller market, especially for certain sectors such as baby food, clothing, vaccines and certain other medicines, sports facilities, office equipment, education, etc. –products and services the elderly employ less. More countries will soon need more coffins than cradles.

Below replacement levels

A population with an above-replacement TFR (that is, with 2.1 or more children per woman) will have a pyramid-shaped “population pyramid.” In this scenario, the economically active persons support their children and a small group of elderly dependents.

If a country’s TFR goes below replacement level, the wide bases of the pyramid are replaced by narrower bases each year, reflecting the fewer children born each year.

Continued below-replacement TFR will lead to a diamond-shaped figure.

By this time the economically active persons will have to support a relatively few children and a rapidly increasing number of elderly.

This condition contributes to the present economic boom of rich countries, since the workers will get to keep a big share of their earnings, instead of spending them for the needs of children and the elderly.

This is the situation that population controllers want us to foresee: They explain that the Philippines will become well-off when it reaches this stage. But they never explain what will happen beyond this stage, which, to say the least, is a disaster.

If the country’s TFR remains below replacement levels, the diamond-shaped population pyramid will become shaped like a toy top.

If the trend continues, the country will end up having an inverted population pyramid, with an extremely aged and shrinking population.

Babies needed

Because of an elderly and forthcoming collapsing population, Dr. Joseph Chamie, former UNPD director, said to the Population Association of America that governments were “adopting polices... to increase their child bearing,” including restricting or limiting contraception [and] abortion, match making, conducting public-relation campaigns for marriage, childbearing and parenthood, and giving out cash bonus for the birth of a child.

They have not succeeded so far. But if ever they do succeed in increasing birthrates, their population “pyramid” will acquire the shape of an hourglass.

In this scenario, their workers will have to care not only for their big population of elderly dependents, but also for the increasingly big batches of children they want to have, the young dependents.

This will mean a double economic burden for them. Hence, these countries will soon be in a serious predicament: Continued economic woes and the nation’s extinction if they don’t produce more children and doubled economic woes if they do.

They hope to return to the scenario they were in 50 years ago: To have many babies who would eventually replace the work force, and in turn care for both the young and the elderly dependents. That is, they seek a normal population pyramid, shaped like a real pyramid, with a wide base and a narrow tip, and not like a diamond, a toy top, an inverted pyramid, or an hourglass.

In short, they want to revert to the type of pyramid that the Philippines still has – a pyramid that it will soon lose, as its TFR continues to decline. Within two decades, our country will fall into the same trap where ageing countries find themselves in and want to escape from right now, a TFR below the 2.1 replacement level.

Lessons

The UNPD figures indicate that it is not an exaggeration to say that as early as now the Philippine TFR is already dangerously low.

Whereas in the early 1970s the average Filipina had six children, today she has around three, and in another 20 years, only two.

Shortly after 2020, the Philippine TFR will sink below its specific replacement level of around 2.29 (higher than the usual 2.1 because of higher infant mortality and other factors).

It will be too late and useless to wait for the TFR to go below replacement level and then try to raise it up again. The only solution would be to try to prevent its further decline today – an effort that will probably not succeed within a few decades, but will hopefully at least lessen the impact of an ageing population. If approved, the bills promoting population control will certainly plunge the Philippine TFR further down.

The Philippine population pyramids of 2000, 2025 and 2050 (from the US Census Bureau website) reflect the TFR’s downward trend.

We can no longer sit back, relax and think of “just crossing the bridge when we get there,” because we have already reached the bridge. At the rate its TFR is declining, the Philippines will, within 20 years, join the other countries that have fallen into the river. It will be a point of no return, or at least, of extremely difficult return. Why go there in the first place?

It has to be stressed that the Philippine TFR will probably reach below replacement levels within two decades even without additional population control efforts.

Filipinos now marry later in life, marital unions have become less stable, emigration to urban centers makes rearing children more difficult, emigration to other countries is on the rise (physically subtracting members from the country, especially those of reproductive age, and reducing the number of children those left behind beget), decisions on how to spend money have left having more children out, and the mass media greatly influence spouses to have few children.

Population control

Countries that were already rich 30 to 40 years ago when their TFRs started to decline and are now ageing encounter extreme difficulty in solving their economic problems.

Their efforts to encourage their citizens to produce more children have not yielded acceptable results after a decade. They depend on immigration to maintain their population growth.

The Philippines is not a rich country and may or may not be rich within 50 years. How will it support its ageing population? Will it also invite workers from other countries to replace its dwindling workforce? Will it also pay mothers for each child born? Impossible.

Even if it becomes rich by then, it will have to face the same problems rich countries face now and will have to tell the people to raise more children.

Graphically speaking, we cannot afford to have in the future a population pyramid like the rich countries’ and then, like them, wish to regain the population pyramid we have now.

Population control has to be ruled out as a quick-fix solution to poverty. This in no way means telling the people to have as many children as they can, to uncontrollably “go forth and multiply” (as some erroneously claim the Church teaches).

Rather, parents should be guided and supported to attain the number of children they can generously and responsibly raise and educate. For some spouses, this means having one child or two and for others, 5, 10, 12, or in some cases, 15 or even more. If they could really manage to properly care for them, why not?

Neither the government nor the Church may compel, instruct or encourage spouses to raise a specified number of children, as what population control programs definitely try to do. Rather, the government and the Church should form and guide the people to reflect on their actual circumstances and to freely, generously and responsibly decide whether or not to have another child for the time being or indefinitely.

Human capital

Any economic, social or political policy proposed to solve poverty should take advantage of, rather than suppress, our abundant human resources. As Dr. Gary Becker, 1992 Nobel Prize winner in economic science, says, “human capital,” which refers to the skills, education, health and training of individuals, comprises around 80 percent of the wealth of advanced countries and hence “can be neglected [only] at a country’s peril.”

Any solution to poverty, furthermore, has to take into account, support and promote our closely knit family ties, the time and dedication parents give to their children, the care children and extended families give to the elderly whom we truly love, the moral principles and holistic training children receive from their parents and all the other values that the Filipino family has until now maintained, in spite of the pressures exerted upon it by secularism.

The contribution to the national economy of these services and values that find their dynamism within the family is impossible to calculate, but they provide a key – the most important one – to good governance in the public and private sectors, a condition sine qua non to attain stability in society, reach economic development and diminish poverty.

(Gregory Gaston is a priest of the Archdiocese of Manila, professor and former dean of the Graduate School of Theology of San Carlos Seminary in Makati. He holds a doctorate in sacred theology. He presented this topic at the Society of Catholic Social Scientists’ annual meeting at the University of Mississippi School of Law on Oct. 31, 2009. This article is excerpted from “Familia et Vita” (2007), the Quarterly Review of the Pontifical Council for the Family [full text at www.safe.ph].)