Apologies to the BIR internal communication staff – we know we are "scooping". But there has been such a dearth of good news that coffee shop habitués are wont to let a rare piece of good news pass them by. We verified the bits of information we gathered on the BIR performance for June from highly reliable sources and thus confirmed what the country has hoped for: an impressive June performance by this much-pilloried agency.
Our sources say the goal for June 2006 was P49 billion in revenue collections. Apparently, that figure was exceeded by some P400 million. To make that performance even more significant, our sources say the June 2006 revenue collection easily beat the collection levels of June 2005 by some 12 to 14 percent.
Now, we can all heave a momentary sigh of relief. And then get back on our vigil as we hold our breaths for the announcement of how much would be collected in July 2006 and whether or not that would be over or below the target collection levels.
Our readers may wonder why BIR’s monthly performance has become so important to coffee shop newshounds. The reason is the topic of revenue collection has been transformed into some kind of tele-novela ever since some quarters cooked up the idea of a public lynching for the soft-spoken Finance Secretary Gary Teves and his most valuable revenue collection asset, the equally low-key BIR commissioner Jose Mario Buñag, merely on the basis of a single month’s collection figure.
It will be recalled that a drama of sorts was played out last month in an apparent bid to crucify Buñag for what was drummed up as a revenue collection shortfall last April. Many, of course, wondered why a big deal was being made out of a one-month shortfall despite the fact that the BIR had sustained a performance improvement ever since the President named an honest-to-goodness tax lawyer in the person of Buñag to run the agency.
We were puzzled by the apparent viciousness of the media campaign to drum up the April "shortfall". Weren’t collection shortfalls more the order of the day than exceptions in the past? As far as we can recall, that was the first time, a BIR commissioner was being publicly crucified for a single month’s performance.
Fortunately, BIR collection figures spoke for themselves. What the carefully scripted media drama did not tell us was that the BIR was actually ahead of its collection targets in February and March this year by P3.04 billion and P1.09 billion, respectively.
The other thing kept hidden from the public by the obvious smear effort was the fact that the BIR has actually been performing better this year compared to the same period last year prior to Buñag’s assumption.
During the first four months of 2006, the BIR already had P206.32 billion in its coffers, compared to P173.31 billion over the same period in 2005. That’s a clear difference of P33.01 billion between the first quarter performances of 2005 and 2006, or a 19.05-percent improvement .
The sustained improvement in the BIR’s performance speaks well, not just of Commissioner Buñag’s tax administration expertise, but also of his strong private sector background. In case some of our readers don’t know it, the BIR boss was a long-time legal practitioner on taxation before he accepted the government invitation to help out then BIR chief Guillermo Parayno who later quit to join the Hyatt 10.
Commissioner Buñag’s wide network in the private sector appear to have been a major advantage in raising the bar of BIR’s performance. It was noted that the support of the corporate and large taxpayers sectors have been on a consistent climb and contributing significantly to the collection efforts.
The comparative collection figures served only to spark suspicion in people’s minds. The nagging question was this: Was the April "shortfall" being used merely an excuse to bring in new people into key BIR posts? Was it an excuse to cripple Teves by removing Buñag? Was somebody interested in the post simply laying the groundwork for his or her entry?
Maybe, the coffee shop gang would never have the clear answers to the questions sparked by that unfortunate smear campaign. But maybe, too, the issue is moot and academic. The comparative collection figures have spoken for themselves.
And the forthcoming June 2006 revenue collection performance should put an exclamation point to the whole thing.
Henceforth, one fact is clear: if Buñag is ever replaced, the excuse could not be performance. It would have to be something else.
There are still names of those interested in the top BIR post floating around in coffee shops and political circles. It is not per se bad to covet the post. But we can only commiserate with anyone who would land the plum position at this time. With the BIR performing well under Buñag, we can only speculate that any other appointment to the post at this time would have to be related to the 2007 elections.
Some of our coffee pals have admonished us to leave the issue alone. We can’t. Secretary Teves wants to wipe out the budget deficit and we are solidly behind him on this drive. We do know that Commissioner Bunag would be key to this mission. To replace the latter now with a politically-tainted personality and equally tainted motive would be to derail the Finance Secretary’s efforts.
Let’s leave the guys alone to do their job. We will all benefit from it.
For comments, e-mail at philstarhiddenagenda@yahoo.com