Nobody can argue against her preface. Loss of confidence in Joseph Estrada triggered the economic crisis. Resolution of the problem is turning out to be longer than expected. Estrada has chosen to dig in and repel with money and might the spreading clamor for his resignation. Economists in and out of the administration forecast steep recession in the first half of 2001 resulting from the present economic downturn. Such contraction will crush even the informal sector, down to the fishball and balut vendor. So, while companies struggle to keep their heads above water, Cory appeals that they also help keep afloat the sector that most severely will be hit – the poor.
Truth to tell, that’s the job of government’s. But a government run by a man who finds thrill in bombing Mindanao communities than in talking peace with antagonized Muslims cannot be expected to do the job. A leader who has lost moral authority cannot be expected to concentrate on works for the poor as he vainly tries to hold on to power. So, it’s businessmen whom the crisis has forced to shorten their outlooks to only day to day who must come to the aid of those who live from hand to mouth.
Cory’s line was in stark contrast with Estrada’s. The latter treats NGOs with suspicion, if not contempt, as he made many of them feel in his past two years of his tenure. While he ironically surrounds himself with former leftists and street parliamentarians who should know better, he prefers conventional "pro-poor programs" that are nothing more than expensive but empty public relations stunts.
In recent weeks, Estrada barnstormed squatter colonies to perpetuate an attitude of mendicancy instead of promoting empowerment. He gave away 2,000 or so land rights – worthless scraps of paper which promise recipients that one day, if they live long enough, they might get to own the land on which their shanties stand. That is, hopefully, if the government wins long court battles for ownership or passes laws for land distribution – followed by even longer land surveying and subdivision, preparation and development, allotment and titling.
There was a cruel catch to those land rights. Barangay officers took the papers back from the recipients after he left, ostensibly to fill in some entries but actually to wipe out traces of the grand deceit.
One mansion equals 2,000 homes – an entire barangay. And there are 16 such mansions: five in Wack Wack, two in Forbes Park, two in New Manila, two in Tagaytay, two in Greenhills, one in Vista Real, one in Cebu, one in Baguio. Add to that two plush condo units: one by the Bay, another in Makati. Investigative journalists have not included the first house or the ancestral home, and have yet to flush out other hidden wealth.
The Boracay Mansion in New Manila has an Olympic-size, seaside-shaped entertainment swimming pool. Described as equipped with wave-making machines and landscape with white sand, architects estimate its cost at P20 million. Yet, barriofolk are thirsting for clean water to drink. Pipes and levers for one artesian well cost P2,000. Had the money for the pool been used for potable water, it could have dug 10,000 artesian wells.
The masters bedroom of one Forbes Park mansion cost P25 million, structure, finishings and furnishings – enough to build 250 classrooms complete with chairs and desks, with spare cash to buy books and food for grade school pupils for one year. Each mansion has eight bedrooms.
The masters bathroom of one Tagaytay mansion cost P20 million, including gold-anodized fixtures – enough to build a 150-bed hospital for the poor. Each mansion has ten baths.
To erect the shell structure alone, each square meter of mansion would have cost P50,000 – a soldier’s take-home pay for a year, net of mandatory yet unexplained deductions. The amount would double or triple to equip and furnish each square meter, depending on the taste of the mistress of the house.
Amply presented, such bits of information constitute the first step in empowering the poor.
Rebecca Jadol, Cagayan de Oro: Why should our Senate modify the Constitution’s rule on impeachment, based on US rules, to favor the accused? US rules provide for the President’s removal by two-thirds vote of all senators sitting as jury. While we are supposed to have 24 senators, one of them died, another became vice president. So computation should be based on 22.
Tomas Ruiz, uplink.com: Your question, "Would you go to jail for Erap," (Gotcha, 15 Nov. 2000) reminds me of Nixon’s men who were jailed for their part in his efforts to cover up the Watergate break-in. They admitted that their mistake was being "loyal to loyalty."
Demy Chavez, hsdphil.com: May the spirit of Speaker Villar’s gallant stand at the House last Monday penetrate the hearts of our senators.
Thank you, Ferdie Sibal, Edward Ricafort, Rita Gonzalez, Paquito Sasuman, John Botros, Mimi Evangelista, Vicente de Jesus, Aida Aguas, Angel Balauitan, Jose Labrador, Joey Legarda, Alvin Casuga, Raymundo Ocampo, Willie Vicedo, Jeremy Tan, Archie Andal, Romeo Pasco, Gino Chan, Hermenegildo Cruz, Victor Sumagaysay, Frank Rodino, Marciano Cayanan, Sancho Mercado, Juan Ventura, J.R. Borgonia, Calvin Genotiva, J. Anton, Rolly Anzures, Joey Cruz, Carlos Umali, Megan Canda, Rodolfo Darang, Dr. Manuel Eugenio, Christopher Espiritu, Arthur Africa, Virgil Ampil, Tess Rentz, Edwin Vivar, R. Bermeo, Raffy Lavilla, A.P. Santos.