Coerced, compelled borrowing

Now – or the next 30 days – is the “season” when companies or businesses are best advised to put out or place their full-size SUVs, pick-up trucks, vans, helicopters and executive jets for servicing.

If it’s not on the schedule yet, simply “put them up on blocks” or “jack stands,” take off wheels or landing gears, remove seats and have them shampooed to dry out for 30 days!

After you do so, the next three or four weeks before the May 12 elections would be the best to schedule your executive check-up, elective surgery, family corporate team building or vacation. Spending P1 million on your family or employees is better spent than giving away money to people who never held a real job in any company.

Skipping town may also be the best security measure against this season of kidnapping for election fund-raising. There are already two high profile rumors of kidnapping amounting to millions in US dollars.

This advice is about how to avoid solicitations for campaign funds and the practice of “coerced, compelled borrowing” of various types of vehicles and planes for campaign purposes.

Since 1992 onwards, I have listened to the lamentations and losses of companies that have been victims of “coerced, compelled borrowing” of vehicles. Given a choice, many have opted to be “voluntold” to lend their vehicle or aircraft rather than make million-peso campaign contributions that require process and approvals.

Unfortunately, this can also be “penny wise – pound foolish” when the borrowed vehicles end up being “possessed” by the borrower.

Several politicians have been known to borrow high end SUVs like Land Cruisers and Lexus to fit the comfort level they are accustomed to.

Nothing wrong with that until after the campaign, when the SUVs that were trashed in the campaign are returned to the owners for repairs and were promptly borrowed again for continued use by the elected or re-elected politicians and their staff.

The prickliest “sumbong” I heard was about a congressman who visited a gambling lord, solicited campaign funds and on his way out saw a brand-new imported van in the driveway, asked for it and drove it home.

But what can you do if an incumbent senator, congressman or someone from Malacañang solicits your services or “borrows” your chopper or business jet?

People may not be putting a gun to your head, but in the Philippines where politicians keep longer lists of enemies than friends, businessmen have learned to write losses in water than to watch their profits burn in political vendettas and perceived slights!

In a year that may have a long list of aviation disaster and crashes, I am reminded of two incidents where private jets were borrowed or leased by very high-ranking officials that ended up severely damaged or junked.

One involved a jet where the pilots were pressured by a high ranking official to take off during inclement weather because the VIPs had to attend to national concerns in Manila. After waiting and delaying take off, the pilots ran out of options, took off and skidded on the tarmac, totally destroying the plane.

The second incident involved a Malacañang official who pressured the pilots to land at NAIA instead of Clark, ignoring the warning of the dust clouds spewed by Taal Volcano. The plane landed safely but cost the company something like over a million US dollars to replace the engines!

Business people and companies end up with the damaged goods, paying for cost of repairs and absorbing serious losses. In the meantime, the compelling or coercive borrower walks away with no costs and “no fault.”

*      *      *

“Should anyone present know of any reason that this couple should not be joined in holy matrimony, speak now or forever hold your peace.”

Since the mid-1500s couples were required to announce their forthcoming marriage or wedding through “matrimonial banns” three Sundays in a row and on the wedding day.

The challenge was mostly because someone was being forced to marry against their will, the parties were seriously under aged or too closely related as in borderline incestuous.

I wish similar pronouncements can become part of all government biddings, with a last and final public challenge given on the day projects are formally awarded. A desistance or quit claim should also be signed by every bidder.

The period of challenge should also be set for non-bidders but affected parties. This would stop companies and vested interests from tying up projects and development goals by simply getting a TRO from a very cooperative RTC judge, as pointed out by Erap and Digong in their time.

Right now, there is a petition for a TRO on the DOTr-SMC/NNIC management and development project. At the bottom of it is the resistance of certain companies operating inside NAIA to pay the fair price for land lease and fees.

The DOTr-SMC/NNIC project was transparent and publicly bided out. For some strange reason, all the whinny CEOs and complainers did not take the DOTr to court back then because several of them participated in the bidding and did not want to scuttle their bids.

If the bid requirements were good enough then, why challenge it seven months after the awarding? As bidders they should have already cried “Wolf!” Otherwise pay the fair price to the government.

“Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” – Matthew 22:21

*      *      *

Email: utalk2ctalk@gmail.com