Sunday, October 21, 2012
San Pedro Calungsod: The Vague Saint
Today, October 21, 2012, at around 3:54 pm, Manila Time, Pedro Calungsod was canonized as the second Filipino saint.
With all the news about San Pedro Calungsod, I would like to discuss one characteristic of the new saint.
Perhaps, in the modern era, after the renaissance, no saint has as vague a personal circumstance as San Pedro Calungsod, who was canonized today.
That's why I call him San Pedro Calungsod, the vague saint.
Pedro Calungsod's personal circumstances are so vague that even the postulator of his sainthood could only rely on probability and common sense instead of evidentiary documents.
(to be continued)
San Pedro Calungsod: Patron Saint of the OFW?
In the afternoon of October 18, 2012, I was substituting for a radio anchor who was on a trip to the Vatican to cover the canonization of Pedro Calungsod.
During the radio program which was from 3pm to 4 pm, I discussed the travails of the Roman Catholic religion.
I talked about how a Jew (Jesus) started the religion of Christianity; how an apostle who denied Jesus three times (Peter) and a persecutor of Christians (Paul) built the Church from practically scratch.
I told recounted how the Jews later on shunned Christians.
Then I discussed the ultimate irony of it all: The Romans, who viewed Christians as source of entertainment and food for the lions, were converted to Christianity, and then hijacked the Christian religion and created the Roman Catholic Church, the largest religion in the world today.
What an irony.
Anyway, on that same afternoon, I made a sweeping statement and I warned the listeners: Listen to me and you will note that in two days, this will be the discussion of the moment: San Pedro Calungsod is the first OFW and he should be the patron saint of the OFW's.
I repeated the notice to the listeners: Before long, they will be hijacking this theory of Calungsod as OFW patron.
Later, that night I tweeted this:
St. Pedro Calungsod, is the first OFW. And now I nominate him as Patron St of the OFWs. (ThadsBentulan)
Collapse Reply Delete Favorite
8:14 PM - 18 Oct 12 · Details
That same night, after my radio stint declaring Calungsod as OFW patron saint, ABS-CBN discussed this possibility. News, today, travels faster.
Monday, September 03, 2012
Portrait of the Philippine Congress and Senate as Plagiarists
Did the Philippine government plagiarize the bureaucratic metrification idea, including the performance pledge , of the Street Strategist in his column of January 10, 2002 and adopted it without attribution when it enacted into law Republic Act 9485 (The Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007)?
The businessman Manny Pangilinan accused of plagiarism had to resign from his position in the Ateneo de Manila University.
Supreme Court Justice Mariano del Castillo has been found in substance and form to be impeachable because of plagiarism.
Senator Vicente Sotto, has been accused of plagiarism in a couple of his Senate speeches.
The professors and teachers in the universities are now cracking down on students for plagiarism.
Question: What if it is the Philippine government and its branches and instrumentalities are plagiarizing?
The point in question is the performance pledge proposal in the January 10, 2002 column of the Street Strategist titled "Metrics Wizard."
Quoted from "Metrics Wizard"
In conclusion, the mandate for the metrification of bureaucratic performance should come from no less than the President of the Republic; demanded by no less than the Street Strategist.
If the President so resolves, we would have performance pledges from all agencies that serve the public directly within a month or two.
I am strongly suggesting to the President of the Republic to issue an Executive Order requiring all government agencies to develop and publish performance pledges.
The performance pledge will be composed of identifiable major activities of the concerned agency and their corresponding performance metrics. At the end of the year, all agencies must submit performance evaluations against these metrics.
I wrote the Metrics Wizard in 2002. In 2007, the congress and the senate pass a bill which was signed into law by the President RA 9485 which plagiarized the Performance Pledge idea from the Metrics Wizard column of the Street Strategist.
You be the judge: Did the Philippine government plagiarize the Street Strategist five years after the fact?
Anyway, here is the full version of the column, followed by the text of RA 9485. Compare the both and see if plagiarism was committed.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Metrics
Wizard
I
|
am the metrics wizard. Specifically for today, I am an expert on performance metrics.
After all, perhaps nobody had been subjected to more performance metrics than myself. School and work authorities have subjected me to a continuous onslaught of performance metrics longer and more frequently than the normal guy.
And perhaps the most important thing is that I failed most of these metrics. With failures come horrendous memories that repeat forever – all the agonies of defeat in eternal slow motion.
The memory-failure equation
Indeed, nothing is etched deeper in your mind and memory than the agony of a failure, therefore the more failures you have, the better your memory is.
Since I am an expert on metrics, I hereby immediately state a mathematical proposition: The intensity of your memory (m) is directly proportional to the intensity of your failure (f). Or, m=kf, where k is the constant of proportionality.
Not bad as a mathematician, huh? Don’t worry, proportionality equations are taught in high school physics, and if you forgot them, then probably you didn’t have a tough time. You probably learned it in one go, passed the exams, and forgot about it the next year.
See what I mean? Your memory of high school physics is not as intense as mine because you did not suffer the ignominious, excruciating and catastrophic failures I had.
Anyway, I was just saying I failed most performance metrics, and it is time for others to be subjected to the same system and to suffer the same fate.
“Oh my God!”
I seldom get the chance to attend conferences primarily because my station in life is not dignified enough to qualify for these events.
In a particular exception though, I found myself in an international conference likewise attended by our country’s experts.
During one of the coffee breaks, an acquaintance whom I haven’t seen in a decade approached me. After exchanging pleasantries, he related to me an amusing anecdote that happened in one of the highly technical sessions regarding electric power quality delivered by an expert of more than 15 years in experience.
During the question-and-answer period that followed the presentation, the usual technical gibberish ensued. The monotony was shattered when upon seeing a conference participant approach the microphone in the middle of the room – within earshot of my friend who was sitting in front – the presenter softly exclaimed: “Oh, my God!”
Intrigued that the mere presence of a participant could elicit such a reaction from a power systems expert with a master’s degree, my friend was forced to turn his head.
After identifying himself, the person said: “I have only one question: Where are the metrics?”
The presenter did not appear to understand the question. He looked at the participant, obviously appealing for a clarification. “Would the gentleman care to clarify his question?”
It’s bad enough if you can’t answer the question, it’s even worse if you can’t understand the question.
“I mean, where are the metrics, the parameters, the benchmarks?” the participant said. “How could we determine quality? Is there some kind of a six-sigma parameter, for example? “
“Ah, the benchmarks,” the presenter said, relieved.
Now there’s the flash of recognition. It was now apparent that the presenter misheard the question to be about a mathematical “matrix” while the questioner was referring to “metrics.” Little did the presenter know that the querying participant was deliberately toying with these homonyms to throw the him off-guard. The questioner actually deliberately mispronounced “metrics” as “matrix.”
The entire session hall probably did not realize that the participant was a master wordsmith who intentionally kept the question vague by keeping it short and deliberately misleading.
At any rate, the query turned out to be on the mark because the presenter admitted they have not yet gathered statistical data useful enough for benchmarks due to the extremely high cost of obtaining the same from the company’s power grid.
The Q&A proceeded in a lively manner with conference participants from Europe and South Africa offering their own metrics from their own grids.
Overall, it was an excellent presentation and, hopefully, the firm could gather enough data to support properly defined metrics.
All vision, all mission
What is the relevance of the above anecdote? The recent government-sponsored economic summit reminded me of the above incident because while economists and government bureaucrats forever talk of plans and visions in their summits, the engineers and scientists talk of action and metrics.
I expected nothing of those economic summits but platitudes, visions, and missions. I strongly abhor motherhood statements on how to make our country great because it’s simply a waste of energy. I’d rather tell you how big a failure I am, rather than pontificate that our country depends on good law abiding citizens – of course, it does.
Yes, we are the best in the world in terms of developing visions and missions.
Planners and sycophants
All government agencies have medium term and long term plans, after all, they have casual workers, technical assistants, and corporate planning divisions who do nothing but update their old plans.
The government agencies are also wizards at sycophantic acronyms for economic projects carrying the initials of the country’s current Chief Executive. These acronym wizards ought to be executed.
Furthermore, we know what ails our society. We can identify what is wrong, and we all say stop corruption, start changing ourselves, follow traffic rules, and so on, yet why is it that after decades of exhortations we are still in the same abyss of corruption and inefficiency?
We are expert in making memos, rules and regulations that even acquiring a copy of the birth certificate is a task that requires hundreds of thousands of people applying for authenticated copies to take half a day off from work.
Wow, there’s even a new rule requiring drug tests on all applicants for driving license. I hope somebody stands up to take credit for inventing this inane rule.
Why are we all suffering from government corruption and inefficiency?
Practical, actionable
Oh, yes, you are complaining that while I’m out here pontificating I’m not actually helping the country either, by writing about George Harrison or about quaternions. I’m sorry but I’m just a mere armchair analyst.
Wait, I think I have one contribution. I’m very serious about this and I hope the Chief Executive of the country takes me seriously as well.
There are two major issues haunting the government: corruption and inefficiency. I’ll tackle corruption some other time.
How do we tackle inefficiency? I hereby identify major issues:
First: We love to create ad-hoc committees or task forces that endeavor to perform functions that are supposed to be done by an existing government agency. Perpetually, there’s a police task force doing what the regular police are supposed to be doing anyway.
We create committees and agencies that duplicate existing functions and somehow all these committees evolve into permanent fixtures because the members don’t want to go back to what they were doing before. The committees eventually become agencies and grow even bigger.
In fact, when I heard about the plans to have an inter-agency anti-corruption superbody, I immediately commented to a friend who has been attending the organizational meetings that such will not work. Each nominee to this committee will be beholden to his original agency and therefore will protect his buddies in case they are the ones being investigated. It’s called presumption of innocence.
If you want to have an anti-corruption agency it has to be a single independent institution of idealists. Or clone Hong Kong ’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) lock, stock and barrel.
By the way, in an eerie case of serendipity, the ICAC was created when the Crown Colony’s Governor had testimonies, tapes and films showing that the highest ranking police official was actually involved in drugs, crime, and corruption.
Going back, stop this propensity for ad-hoc committees and let the regular civil service perform their assigned tasks.
In fact, I’m watching with seriousness certain movements in Congress calling for the abolition of the Bureau of Customs. And what does the National Computer Center
Second: We love to make rules some of which are inane and useless. This contributes to red tape, and each additional requirement, by the way, is a source of corruption because people pay to skip the requirement that is useless in the first place. How many documents do you need to apply for an environmental clearance certificate?
Third: Despite demurrers that there are only a few rotten eggs in the basket, being in government service has become the license by civil servants to work slower in shorter actual hours, with poor delivery of the service. Come to think of it, good manners and efficient service are exceptions to the rule that we are surprised if a civil servant grants us these blessings. Does mail get across the metro area in half a day?
Fourth: There are no performance metrics. Yes, there are visions, missions, medium term plans, long term plans, and policy statements, but how many agencies have published their own performance metrics?
Performance metrics
Given my pseudo-expertise on performance metrics and my absolute freedom to think, now comes my contribution to improving the bureaucracy: I am strongly suggesting to the President of the Republic to issue an Executive Order requiring all government agencies to develop and publish performance pledges.
The performance pledge will be composed of identifiable major activities of the concerned agency and their corresponding performance metrics. At the end of the year, all agencies must submit performance evaluations against these metrics.
Obviously, not all activities can be measured by a performance pledge but if we really look closely there are some activities that somehow deal directly with the public or with another agency that can be easily measured.
The best way to illustrate these is to lift performance pledges from other countries who have implemented them such as our close neighbor Hong Kong .
Here are some performance pledges and metrics adopted in Hong Kong swiping one each from a few agencies to show how widely pledges are implemented:
Printing Department: “Produce and deliver identity cards within 3 working days.”
Intellectual Property Department: “Time taken to process or record 80% of applications for change of records of registered trade mark: 1.5 months”
Transport Department: “First issue and renewal of full driving licence: 40-75 mins.”
Land Registration Dept: “Registration of land documents: 20 working days”
Leisure Services: “Applications for enrolment in recreation and sports activities: within 20 minutes queueing time except peak period.”
Companies Registry: Incorporation/Registration of New Companies: 6 days.
Libraries: “Applying for a new library card: 10 mins.”
Urban Services Department: ““Toilets cleansed at least twice a day between 7:30 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. , and those with a high usage rate provided with attendants for the same hours. Minor defects in public toilets will normally be rectified within 24 hours.
As for performance review, here is an example from Hong Kong Post: “We met and exceeded 20 of the 22 service pledges. In particular we were able to achieve a success rate of 98.5% for next-day delivery of local letters.”
What’s keeping the entire government bureaucracy to embark on performance metrification?
One step up
Will the performance metric solve corruption? Not directly, but it is a step in the right direction. And I have to point out that this is not a motherhood statement; we have a practical and quantifiable proposal.
The main advantage of adopting performance metrics is that we can evaluate performance on major tasks with transparency. There is no need to adopt metrics to all activities but it can be done step by step for major ones. For the first year, maybe five to ten activities can be measured.
Another flow-on effect of this process is that it will encourage meritocracy because the promotion can be handed over to the executive who can deliver better performance pledges. One postmaster may say, “If you promote me, I can deliver mail within the metro cities within the day if the mail is posted before 9 a.m. ”
There is the temptation to understate the metric thereby making it easily attainable. But this anomaly would be rectified when some competing colleague will then propose to improve the performance if he is given the chance. This competition is one truth-inducing scheme. Somewhere along the process, we can introduce other truth-inducing schemes to prevent understatement of performance goals or fudging of data.
Most of all, this will change what people expect of government service and change the mindset of the civil servants.
If the President so resolves, we would have performance pledges from all agencies that serve the public directly within a month or two.
This is a non-tariff measure, meaning that it does not cost much to implement. All that is needed is a simple executive order. The order will grant the agencies a few weeks to identify the initial set of activities to be measured. These activities are typically those that deal directly with the public such as post offices, licensing, passports, and retirement and benefits processing.
Note that I emphasize an initial set of activities rather than all the agency activities being measured all at once.
Does this plan sound too easy? Yes, it does sound simple which could have been implemented decades ago, but some people don’t see things the way we do. Now, let’s hope they find some value in implementing the performance pledge.
All I can say is, we use metrics all the time in school to exact the best performance.
Ironically, the government whose biggest department in terms of budget is the Department of Education doesn’t adopt metrics for its own performance.
Visit the websites of the agencies and you can read their vision, mission, policy statements and all about their history but there is never a word on their performance pledge with specific performance metrics.
Hey, business executives, don’t think I forgot about you. You are also guilty – you don’t have a performance pledges either; they’re not in your websites or annual reports.
Ruminate on this one of the many performance pledges by a private telecom company in Hong Kong : “We will install your residential telephone line within seven days of the order. If we fail to install your telephone line as promised, you can claim one month’s free line rental for every day we are late.”
Note that the one-month rebate is for every single day of delay. The company backs up its performance pledge with real monetary value. Can you top that?
Presidential mandate
Lord Kelvin, the physicist who handed us the laws of thermodynamics and entropy was a believer of metrics: “I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind.”
Ever since I read it in college, this quote has become one of my favorites because it encouraged me to understand the equations behind concepts and to abhor motherhood political statements. And this quote should be memorized by the government bureaucrats.
In conclusion, the mandate for the metrification of bureaucratic performance should come from no less than the President of the Republic; demanded by no less than the Street Strategist.
I have to go now. By the way, remember that conference and the coffee break with my friend? He revealed that he had not bothered to look who asked questions but he made an exception by turning around when the expert said, “Oh, my God!”
That the presenter was thinking of the word “matrix” when the participant used “metrics” was logical because – as it turned out – the two of them had fought mind games before as teacher and student, respectively, in mostly mathematical topics which included matrix analysis. Therefore, when the participant used the word “metrics,” the presenter thought it was “matrix.” The former student deliberately tried to confuse his former teacher by leading the latter to think of matrix, not metrics.
Not that it was an important detail, but it showed the frames of mind of the two protagonists, who have met again after so many years.
And when my friend, who was sitting in front, turned to look at this mysterious guy standing before the microphone, that was the time he knew I also attended the conference. He said, “It was you.”
By the way, certainly not everything can be quantified, although we should strive to quantify as much as possible, otherwise how do you quantify the haphazard train of thought and the aimless analysis of the Street Strategist?
(Thads Bentulan, January 10, 2002)
* * * * * t * * * * *
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Republic of the Philippines
Congress of the Philippines
Metro Manila
Thirteenth Congress
Third Special Session
Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the nineteenth day of February, two thousand seven.
Republic Act No. 9485 June 02, 2007
AN ACT TO IMPROVE EFFICIENCY IN THE DELIVERY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC BY REDUCING BUREAUCRATIC RED TAPE, PREVENTING GRAFT AND CORRUPTION, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES THEREFOR
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
SECTION 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007".
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby declared the policy of the State to promote integrity, accountability, proper management of public affairs and public property as well as to establish effective practices aimed at the prevention of graft and corruption in government. Towards this end, the State shall maintain honesty and responsibility among its public officials and employees, and shall take appropriate measures to promote transparency in each agency with regard to the manner of transacting with the public, which shall encompass a program for the adoption of simplified procedures that will reduce red tape and expedite transactions in government.
SEC. 3. Coverage. - This Act shall apply to all government offices and agencies including local government units and government-owned or -controlled corporations that provide frontline services as defined in this Act. Those performing judicial, quasi-judicial and legislative functions are excluded from the coverage of this Act.
SEC. 4. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act, the following terms are defined as follows:
(a) "Simple Transactions" refer to requests or applications submitted by clients of a government office or agency which only require ministerial actions on the part of the public officer or employee, or that which present only inconsequential issues for the resolution by an officer or employee of said government office.
(b) "Complex Transactions" refer to requests or applications submitted by clients of a government office which necessitate the use of discretion in the resolution of complicated issues by an officer or employee of said government office, such transaction to be determined by the office concerned.
(c) "Frontline Service" refers to the process or transaction between clients and government offices or agencies involving applications for any privilege, right, permit, reward, license, concession, or for any modification, renewal or extension of the enumerated applications and/or requests which are acted upon in the ordinary course of business of the agency or office concerned.
(d) "Action" refers to the written approval or disapproval made by a government office or agency on the application or request submitted by a client for processing.
(e) "Officer or Employee" refers to a person employed in a government office or agency required to perform specific duties and responsibilities related to the application or request submitted by a client for processing.
(f) "Irrevelant requirement" refer to any document or performance of an act not directly material to the resolution of the issues raised in the request or needed in the application submitted by the client.
(g) "Fixer" refers to any individual whether or not officially involved in the operation of a government office or agency who has access to people working therein, and whether or not in collusion with them, facilitates speedy completion of transactions for pecuniary gain or any other advantage or consideration.
SEC. 5 Reengineering of Systems and Procedures. - All offices and agencies which provide frontline services are hereby mandated to regularly undertake time and motion studies, undergo evaluation and improvement of their transaction systems and procedures and re-engineer the same if deemed necessary to reduce bureaucratic red tape and processing time.
SEC. 6. Citizen's Charter. - All government agencies including departments, bureaus, offices, instrumentalities, or government-owned and/or controlled corporations, or local government or district units shall set up their respective service standards to be known as the Citizen's Charter in the form of information billboards which should be posted at the main entrance of offices or at the most conspicuous place, and in the form of published materials written either in English, Filipino, or in the local dialect, that detail:
(a) The procedure to obtain a particular service;
(b) The person/s responsible for each step;
(c) The maximum time to conclude the process;
(d) The document/s to be presented by the customer, if necessary;
(e) The amount of fees, if necessary; and
(f) The procedure for filing complaints.
SEC. 7. Accountability of the Heads of Offices and Agencies. - The head of the office or agency shall be primarily responsible for the implementation of this Act and shall be held accountable to the public in rendering fast, efficient, convenient and reliable service. All transactions and processes are deemed to have been made with the permission or clearance from the highest authority having jurisdiction over the government office or agency concerned.
SEC. 8. Accessing Frontline Services. - The following shall be adopted by all government offices and agencies:
(a) Acceptance of Applications and Request - (1) All officers or employees shall accept written applications, requests, and/or documents being submitted by clients of the office or agencies.
(2) The responsible officer or employee shall acknowledge receipt of such application and/or request by writing or printing clearly thereon his/her name, the unit where he/she is connected with, and the time and date of receipt.
(3) The receiving officer or employee shall perform a preliminary assessment of the request so as to promote a more expeditious action on requests.
(b) Action of Offices - (1) All applications and/or requests submitted shall be acted upon by the assigned officer or employee during the period stated in the Citizen's Charter which shall not be longer than five working days in the case of simple transactions and ten (10) working days in the case of complex transactions from the date the request or application was received. Depending on the nature of the frontline services requested or the mandate of the office or agency under unusual circumstances, the maximum time prescribed above may be extended. For the extension due to nature of frontline services or the mandate of the office or agency concerned the period for the delivery of frontline services shall be indicated in the Citizen's Charter. The office or agency concerned shall notify the requesting party in writing of the reason for the extension and the final date of release for the extension and the final date of release of the frontline service/s requested.
(2) No application or request shall be returned to the client without appropriate action. In case an application or request is disapproved, the officer or employee who rendered the decision shall send a formal notice to the client within five working days from the receipt of the request and/or application, stating therein the reason for the disapproval including a list of specific requirement/s which the client failed to submit.
(c) Denial of Request for Access to Government Service - Any denial of request for access to government service shall be fully explained in writing, stating the name of the person making the denial and the grounds upon which such denial is based. Any denial of request is deemed to have been made with the permission or clearance from the highest authority having jurisdiction over the government office or agency concerned.
(d) Limitation of Signatories - The number of signatories in any document shall be limited to a maximum of five signatures which shall represent officers directly supervising the office or agency concerned.
(e) Adoption of Working Schedules to Serve Clients - Heads of offices and agencies which render frontline services shall adopt appropriate working schedules to ensure that all clients who are within their premises prior to the end of official working hours are attended to and served even during lunch break and after regular working hours.
(f) Identification Card - All employees transacting with the public shall be provided with an official identification card which should be visibly worn during office hours.
(g) Establishment of Public Assistance/Complaints Desk - Each office or agency shall establish a public assistance/complaints desk in all their offices.
SEC. 9. Automatic Extension of Permits and Licenses. - - If a government office or agency fails to act on an application and/or request for renewal of a license, permit or authority subject for renewal within the prescribed period, said permit, license or authority shall automatically be extended until a decision or resolution is rendered on the application for renewal: Provided, That the automatic extension shall not apply when the permit, license, or authority covers activities which pose danger to public health, public safety, public morals or to public policy including, but not limited to, natural resource extraction activities.
SEC. 10. Report Card Survey. - All offices and agencies providing frontline services shall be subjected to a Report Card Survey to be initiated by the Civil Service Commission, in coordination with the Development Academy of the Philippines, which shall be used to obtain feedback on how provisions in the Citizen's Charter are being followed and how the agency is performing.
The Report Card Survey shall also be used to obtain information and/or estimates of hidden costs incurred by clients to access frontline services which may include, but is not limited to, bribes and payment to fixers.
A feedback mechanism shall be established in all agencies covered by this Act and the results thereof shall be incorporated in their annual report.
SEC. 11. Violations. - After compliance with the substantive and procedural due process, the following shall constitute violations of this Act together with their corresponding penalties:
(a) Light Offense - (1) Refusal to accept application and/or request within the prescribed period or any document being submitted by a client;
(2) Failure to act on an application and/or request or failure to refer back to the client a request which cannot be acted upon due to lack of requirement/s within the prescribed period;
(3) Failure to attend to clients who are within the premises of the office or agency concerned prior to the end of official working hours and during lunch
(4) Failure to render frontline services within the prescribed period on any application and/or request without due cause;
(5) Failure to give the client a written notice on the disapproval of an application or request; and
(6) Imposition of additional irrelevant requirements other than those listed in the first notice.
Penalties for light offense shall be as follows:
First Offense - Thirty (30) days suspension without pay and mandatory attendance in Values Orientation Program;
Second Offense - Three (3) months suspension without pay; and
Third Offense - Dismissal and perpetual disqualification from public service.
(b) Grave Offense - Fixing and/or collusion with fixers in consideration of economic and/or other gain or advantage.
Penalty - Dismissal and perpetual disqualification from public service.
SEC. 12. Criminal Liability for Fixers. - In addition to Sec. 11 (b), fixers, as defined in this Act, shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment not exceeding six years or a fine not less than Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) but not more than Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) or both fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
SEC. 13. Civil and Criminal Liability, Not Barred. - The finding of administrative liability under this Act shall not be a bar to the filing of criminal, civil or other related charges under existing laws arising from the same act or omission as herein enumerated.
SEC. 14. Administrative Jurisdiction. - The administrative jurisdiction on any violation of the provisions of this Act shall be vested in either the Civil Service Commission (CSC), the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) or the Office of the Ombudsman as determined by appropriate laws and issuances.
SEC. 15. Immunity; Discharge of Co-Respondent/Accused to be a Witness. - Any public official or employee or any person having been charged with another under this Act and who voluntarily gives information pertaining to an investigation or who willingly testifies therefore, shall be exempt from prosecution in the case/s where his/her information and testimony are given. The discharge may be granted and directed by the investigating body or court upon the application or petition of any of the respondent/accused-informant and before the termination of the investigation: Provided, That:
(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the respondent/accused-informant whose discharge is requested;
(b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said respondent/accused-informant;
(c) The testimony of said respondent/accused-informant can be substantially corroborated in its material points;
(d) The responden/accused-informant has not been previously convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude; and
(e) Said responden/accused-informant does not appear to be the most guilty.
Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of the records of the investigation. Should the investigating body or court deny the motion or request for discharge as a witness, his/her sworn statement shall be inadmissible as evidence.
SEC. 16. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The Civil Service Commission in coordination with the Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP), the Office of the Ombudsman and the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC), shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations within ninety (90) days from the effectivity of this Act.
SEC. 17. Separability Clause. - If any provision of this Act shall be declared invalid or unconstitutional, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Act.
SEC. 18. Repealing Clause. - All provisions of laws, presidential decrees, letters of instruction and other presidential issuances which are incompatible or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby deemed amended or repealed.
SEC. 19. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect within fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.
Approved,
JOSE DE VENECIA JR.
Speaker of the House of Representatives
MANNY VILLAR
President of the Senate
This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2589 and House Bill No. 3776 was finally passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on February 8, 2007 and February 20, 2007 respectively.
ROBERTO P. NAZARENO
Secretary General
House of Representatives
OSCAR G. YABES
Secretary of Senate
Approved: JUN 02, 2007
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
President of the Philippines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Republic of the Philippines
Congress of the Philippines
Metro Manila
Thirteenth Congress
Third Special Session
Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the nineteenth day of February, two thousand seven.
Republic Act No. 9485 June 02, 2007
AN ACT TO IMPROVE EFFICIENCY IN THE DELIVERY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC BY REDUCING BUREAUCRATIC RED TAPE, PREVENTING GRAFT AND CORRUPTION, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES THEREFOR
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
SECTION 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as the "Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007".
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby declared the policy of the State to promote integrity, accountability, proper management of public affairs and public property as well as to establish effective practices aimed at the prevention of graft and corruption in government. Towards this end, the State shall maintain honesty and responsibility among its public officials and employees, and shall take appropriate measures to promote transparency in each agency with regard to the manner of transacting with the public, which shall encompass a program for the adoption of simplified procedures that will reduce red tape and expedite transactions in government.
SEC. 3. Coverage. - This Act shall apply to all government offices and agencies including local government units and government-owned or -controlled corporations that provide frontline services as defined in this Act. Those performing judicial, quasi-judicial and legislative functions are excluded from the coverage of this Act.
SEC. 4. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act, the following terms are defined as follows:
(a) "Simple Transactions" refer to requests or applications submitted by clients of a government office or agency which only require ministerial actions on the part of the public officer or employee, or that which present only inconsequential issues for the resolution by an officer or employee of said government office.
(b) "Complex Transactions" refer to requests or applications submitted by clients of a government office which necessitate the use of discretion in the resolution of complicated issues by an officer or employee of said government office, such transaction to be determined by the office concerned.
(c) "Frontline Service" refers to the process or transaction between clients and government offices or agencies involving applications for any privilege, right, permit, reward, license, concession, or for any modification, renewal or extension of the enumerated applications and/or requests which are acted upon in the ordinary course of business of the agency or office concerned.
(d) "Action" refers to the written approval or disapproval made by a government office or agency on the application or request submitted by a client for processing.
(e) "Officer or Employee" refers to a person employed in a government office or agency required to perform specific duties and responsibilities related to the application or request submitted by a client for processing.
(f) "Irrevelant requirement" refer to any document or performance of an act not directly material to the resolution of the issues raised in the request or needed in the application submitted by the client.
(g) "Fixer" refers to any individual whether or not officially involved in the operation of a government office or agency who has access to people working therein, and whether or not in collusion with them, facilitates speedy completion of transactions for pecuniary gain or any other advantage or consideration.
SEC. 5 Reengineering of Systems and Procedures. - All offices and agencies which provide frontline services are hereby mandated to regularly undertake time and motion studies, undergo evaluation and improvement of their transaction systems and procedures and re-engineer the same if deemed necessary to reduce bureaucratic red tape and processing time.
SEC. 6. Citizen's Charter. - All government agencies including departments, bureaus, offices, instrumentalities, or government-owned and/or controlled corporations, or local government or district units shall set up their respective service standards to be known as the Citizen's Charter in the form of information billboards which should be posted at the main entrance of offices or at the most conspicuous place, and in the form of published materials written either in English, Filipino, or in the local dialect, that detail:
(a) The procedure to obtain a particular service;
(b) The person/s responsible for each step;
(c) The maximum time to conclude the process;
(d) The document/s to be presented by the customer, if necessary;
(e) The amount of fees, if necessary; and
(f) The procedure for filing complaints.
SEC. 7. Accountability of the Heads of Offices and Agencies. - The head of the office or agency shall be primarily responsible for the implementation of this Act and shall be held accountable to the public in rendering fast, efficient, convenient and reliable service. All transactions and processes are deemed to have been made with the permission or clearance from the highest authority having jurisdiction over the government office or agency concerned.
SEC. 8. Accessing Frontline Services. - The following shall be adopted by all government offices and agencies:
(a) Acceptance of Applications and Request - (1) All officers or employees shall accept written applications, requests, and/or documents being submitted by clients of the office or agencies.
(2) The responsible officer or employee shall acknowledge receipt of such application and/or request by writing or printing clearly thereon his/her name, the unit where he/she is connected with, and the time and date of receipt.
(3) The receiving officer or employee shall perform a preliminary assessment of the request so as to promote a more expeditious action on requests.
(b) Action of Offices - (1) All applications and/or requests submitted shall be acted upon by the assigned officer or employee during the period stated in the Citizen's Charter which shall not be longer than five working days in the case of simple transactions and ten (10) working days in the case of complex transactions from the date the request or application was received. Depending on the nature of the frontline services requested or the mandate of the office or agency under unusual circumstances, the maximum time prescribed above may be extended. For the extension due to nature of frontline services or the mandate of the office or agency concerned the period for the delivery of frontline services shall be indicated in the Citizen's Charter. The office or agency concerned shall notify the requesting party in writing of the reason for the extension and the final date of release for the extension and the final date of release of the frontline service/s requested.
(2) No application or request shall be returned to the client without appropriate action. In case an application or request is disapproved, the officer or employee who rendered the decision shall send a formal notice to the client within five working days from the receipt of the request and/or application, stating therein the reason for the disapproval including a list of specific requirement/s which the client failed to submit.
(c) Denial of Request for Access to Government Service - Any denial of request for access to government service shall be fully explained in writing, stating the name of the person making the denial and the grounds upon which such denial is based. Any denial of request is deemed to have been made with the permission or clearance from the highest authority having jurisdiction over the government office or agency concerned.
(d) Limitation of Signatories - The number of signatories in any document shall be limited to a maximum of five signatures which shall represent officers directly supervising the office or agency concerned.
(e) Adoption of Working Schedules to Serve Clients - Heads of offices and agencies which render frontline services shall adopt appropriate working schedules to ensure that all clients who are within their premises prior to the end of official working hours are attended to and served even during lunch break and after regular working hours.
(f) Identification Card - All employees transacting with the public shall be provided with an official identification card which should be visibly worn during office hours.
(g) Establishment of Public Assistance/Complaints Desk - Each office or agency shall establish a public assistance/complaints desk in all their offices.
SEC. 9. Automatic Extension of Permits and Licenses. - - If a government office or agency fails to act on an application and/or request for renewal of a license, permit or authority subject for renewal within the prescribed period, said permit, license or authority shall automatically be extended until a decision or resolution is rendered on the application for renewal: Provided, That the automatic extension shall not apply when the permit, license, or authority covers activities which pose danger to public health, public safety, public morals or to public policy including, but not limited to, natural resource extraction activities.
SEC. 10. Report Card Survey. - All offices and agencies providing frontline services shall be subjected to a Report Card Survey to be initiated by the Civil Service Commission, in coordination with the Development Academy of the Philippines, which shall be used to obtain feedback on how provisions in the Citizen's Charter are being followed and how the agency is performing.
The Report Card Survey shall also be used to obtain information and/or estimates of hidden costs incurred by clients to access frontline services which may include, but is not limited to, bribes and payment to fixers.
A feedback mechanism shall be established in all agencies covered by this Act and the results thereof shall be incorporated in their annual report.
SEC. 11. Violations. - After compliance with the substantive and procedural due process, the following shall constitute violations of this Act together with their corresponding penalties:
(a) Light Offense - (1) Refusal to accept application and/or request within the prescribed period or any document being submitted by a client;
(2) Failure to act on an application and/or request or failure to refer back to the client a request which cannot be acted upon due to lack of requirement/s within the prescribed period;
(3) Failure to attend to clients who are within the premises of the office or agency concerned prior to the end of official working hours and during lunch
(4) Failure to render frontline services within the prescribed period on any application and/or request without due cause;
(5) Failure to give the client a written notice on the disapproval of an application or request; and
(6) Imposition of additional irrelevant requirements other than those listed in the first notice.
Penalties for light offense shall be as follows:
First Offense - Thirty (30) days suspension without pay and mandatory attendance in Values Orientation Program;
Second Offense - Three (3) months suspension without pay; and
Third Offense - Dismissal and perpetual disqualification from public service.
(b) Grave Offense - Fixing and/or collusion with fixers in consideration of economic and/or other gain or advantage.
Penalty - Dismissal and perpetual disqualification from public service.
SEC. 12. Criminal Liability for Fixers. - In addition to Sec. 11 (b), fixers, as defined in this Act, shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment not exceeding six years or a fine not less than Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) but not more than Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) or both fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
SEC. 13. Civil and Criminal Liability, Not Barred. - The finding of administrative liability under this Act shall not be a bar to the filing of criminal, civil or other related charges under existing laws arising from the same act or omission as herein enumerated.
SEC. 14. Administrative Jurisdiction. - The administrative jurisdiction on any violation of the provisions of this Act shall be vested in either the Civil Service Commission (CSC), the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) or the Office of the Ombudsman as determined by appropriate laws and issuances.
SEC. 15. Immunity; Discharge of Co-Respondent/Accused to be a Witness. - Any public official or employee or any person having been charged with another under this Act and who voluntarily gives information pertaining to an investigation or who willingly testifies therefore, shall be exempt from prosecution in the case/s where his/her information and testimony are given. The discharge may be granted and directed by the investigating body or court upon the application or petition of any of the respondent/accused-informant and before the termination of the investigation: Provided, That:
(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the respondent/accused-informant whose discharge is requested;
(b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of said respondent/accused-informant;
(c) The testimony of said respondent/accused-informant can be substantially corroborated in its material points;
(d) The responden/accused-informant has not been previously convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude; and
(e) Said responden/accused-informant does not appear to be the most guilty.
Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall automatically form part of the records of the investigation. Should the investigating body or court deny the motion or request for discharge as a witness, his/her sworn statement shall be inadmissible as evidence.
SEC. 16. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The Civil Service Commission in coordination with the Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP), the Office of the Ombudsman and the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC), shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations within ninety (90) days from the effectivity of this Act.
SEC. 17. Separability Clause. - If any provision of this Act shall be declared invalid or unconstitutional, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Act.
SEC. 18. Repealing Clause. - All provisions of laws, presidential decrees, letters of instruction and other presidential issuances which are incompatible or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby deemed amended or repealed.
SEC. 19. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect within fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.
Approved,
JOSE DE VENECIA JR.
Speaker of the House of Representatives
MANNY VILLAR
President of the Senate
This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2589 and House Bill No. 3776 was finally passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on February 8, 2007 and February 20, 2007 respectively.
ROBERTO P. NAZARENO
Secretary General
House of Representatives
OSCAR G. YABES
Secretary of Senate
Approved: JUN 02, 2007
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
President of the Philippines
Friday, August 31, 2012
Jesse Robredo and the Street Strategist
Strange it may seem but there's a connection between DILG Secretary Jesse Robredo and the Street Strategist.
1. A friend of the Street Strategist, Rene Sanapo, in 2002, ordered a few copies of "Strategy Myopia," the first book compilation of the Street Strategist's columns. One of those autographed copies was made out to "Dear Jesse."
2. Under the helm of Jesse Robredo, Naga City is the first local government unit to fully implement the performance pledge proposal embedded in the January 10, 2002 column of the Street Strategist titled "Metrics Wizard."
Quoted from "Metrics Wizard"
I wrote the Metrics Wizard in 2002, it is now 2012, why does it take 10 years for my ideas to become en vogue?
Anyway, here is the full version of the column.
-------------------------------------------------------------
1. A friend of the Street Strategist, Rene Sanapo, in 2002, ordered a few copies of "Strategy Myopia," the first book compilation of the Street Strategist's columns. One of those autographed copies was made out to "Dear Jesse."
2. Under the helm of Jesse Robredo, Naga City is the first local government unit to fully implement the performance pledge proposal embedded in the January 10, 2002 column of the Street Strategist titled "Metrics Wizard."
Quoted from "Metrics Wizard"
In conclusion, the mandate for the metrification of bureaucratic performance should come from no less than the President of the Republic; demanded by no less than the Street Strategist.
If the President so resolves, we would have performance pledges from all agencies that serve the public directly within a month or two.
I am strongly suggesting to the President of the Republic to issue an Executive Order requiring all government agencies to develop and publish performance pledges.
The performance pledge will be composed of identifiable major activities of the concerned agency and their corresponding performance metrics. At the end of the year, all agencies must submit performance evaluations against these metrics.
I wrote the Metrics Wizard in 2002, it is now 2012, why does it take 10 years for my ideas to become en vogue?
Anyway, here is the full version of the column.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Metrics
Wizard
I
|
am the metrics wizard. Specifically for today,
I am an expert on performance metrics.
After all, perhaps nobody had been
subjected to more performance metrics than myself. School and work authorities
have subjected me to a continuous onslaught of performance metrics longer and
more frequently than the normal guy.
And perhaps the most important thing is that I failed
most of these metrics. With failures come horrendous memories that repeat
forever – all the agonies of defeat in eternal slow motion.
The memory-failure equation
Indeed, nothing is etched deeper in your mind and memory
than the agony of a failure, therefore the more failures you have, the better
your memory is.
Since I am an expert on metrics, I hereby immediately
state a mathematical proposition: The intensity of your memory (m) is directly
proportional to the intensity of your failure (f). Or, m=kf, where k is the
constant of proportionality.
Not bad as a mathematician, huh? Don’t worry,
proportionality equations are taught in high school physics, and if you forgot
them, then probably you didn’t have a tough time. You probably learned it in
one go, passed the exams, and forgot about it the next year.
See what I mean? Your memory of high school physics is
not as intense as mine because you did not suffer the ignominious, excruciating
and catastrophic failures I had.
Anyway, I was just saying I failed most performance
metrics, and it is time for others to be subjected to the same system and to
suffer the same fate.
“Oh my God!”
I seldom get the chance to attend conferences primarily
because my station in life is not dignified enough to qualify for these events.
In a particular exception though, I found myself in an
international conference likewise attended by our country’s experts.
During one of the coffee breaks, an acquaintance whom I
haven’t seen in a decade approached me. After exchanging pleasantries, he
related to me an amusing anecdote that happened in one of the highly technical
sessions regarding electric power quality delivered by an expert of more than 15
years in experience.
During the question-and-answer period that followed the
presentation, the usual technical gibberish ensued. The monotony was shattered
when upon seeing a conference participant approach the microphone in the middle
of the room – within earshot of my friend who was sitting in front – the
presenter softly exclaimed: “Oh, my God!”
Intrigued that the mere presence of a participant could
elicit such a reaction from a power systems expert with a master’s degree, my
friend was forced to turn his head.
After identifying himself, the person said: “I have only
one question: Where are the metrics?”
The presenter did not appear to understand the question.
He looked at the participant, obviously appealing for a clarification. “Would
the gentleman care to clarify his question?”
It’s bad enough if you can’t answer the question, it’s
even worse if you can’t understand the question.
“I mean, where are the metrics, the parameters, the
benchmarks?” the participant said. “How could we determine quality? Is there
some kind of a six-sigma parameter, for example? “
“Ah, the benchmarks,” the presenter said, relieved.
Now there’s the flash of recognition. It was now apparent
that the presenter misheard the question to be about a mathematical “matrix”
while the questioner was referring to “metrics.” Little did the presenter know
that the querying participant was deliberately toying with these homonyms to
throw the him off-guard. The questioner
actually deliberately mispronounced “metrics” as “matrix.”
The entire session hall probably did not realize that the
participant was a master wordsmith who intentionally kept the question vague by
keeping it short and deliberately misleading.
At any rate, the query turned out to be on the mark
because the presenter admitted they have not yet gathered statistical data
useful enough for benchmarks due to the extremely high cost of obtaining the
same from the company’s power grid.
The Q&A proceeded in a lively manner with conference
participants from Europe and South
Africa offering their own metrics from their
own grids.
Overall, it was an excellent presentation and, hopefully,
the firm could gather enough data to support properly defined metrics.
All vision, all mission
What is the relevance of the above anecdote? The recent government-sponsored
economic summit reminded me of the above incident because while economists and
government bureaucrats forever talk of plans and visions in their summits, the
engineers and scientists talk of action and metrics.
I expected nothing of those economic summits but
platitudes, visions, and missions. I strongly abhor motherhood statements on
how to make our country great because it’s simply a waste of energy. I’d rather
tell you how big a failure I am, rather than pontificate that our country depends
on good law abiding citizens – of course, it does.
Yes, we are the best in the world in terms of developing
visions and missions.
Planners and sycophants
All government agencies have medium term and long term
plans, after all, they have casual workers, technical assistants, and corporate
planning divisions who do nothing but update their old plans.
The government agencies are also wizards at sycophantic
acronyms for economic projects carrying the initials of the country’s current
Chief Executive. These acronym wizards ought to be executed.
Furthermore, we know what ails our society. We can
identify what is wrong, and we all say stop corruption, start changing
ourselves, follow traffic rules, and so on, yet why is it that after decades of
exhortations we are still in the same abyss of corruption and inefficiency?
We are expert in making memos, rules and regulations that
even acquiring a copy of the birth certificate is a task that requires hundreds
of thousands of people applying for authenticated copies to take half a day off
from work.
Wow, there’s even a new rule requiring drug tests on all
applicants for driving license. I hope somebody stands up to take credit for
inventing this inane rule.
Why are we all suffering from government corruption and
inefficiency?
Practical, actionable
Oh, yes, you are complaining that while I’m out here
pontificating I’m not actually helping the country either, by writing about
George Harrison or about quaternions. I’m sorry but I’m just a mere armchair
analyst.
Wait, I think I have one contribution. I’m very serious
about this and I hope the Chief Executive of the country takes me seriously as
well.
There are two major issues haunting the government:
corruption and inefficiency. I’ll tackle corruption some other time.
How do we tackle inefficiency? I hereby identify major
issues:
First: We love to create ad-hoc committees or task forces
that endeavor to perform functions that are supposed to be done by an existing
government agency. Perpetually, there’s a police task force doing what the
regular police are supposed to be doing anyway.
We create committees and agencies that duplicate existing
functions and somehow all these committees evolve into permanent fixtures
because the members don’t want to go back to what they were doing before. The
committees eventually become agencies and grow even bigger.
In fact, when I heard about the plans to have an
inter-agency anti-corruption superbody, I immediately commented to a friend who
has been attending the organizational meetings that such will not work. Each
nominee to this committee will be beholden to his original agency and therefore
will protect his buddies in case they are the ones being investigated. It’s
called presumption of innocence.
If you want to have an anti-corruption agency it has to
be a single independent institution of idealists. Or clone Hong Kong ’s Independent Commission Against
Corruption (ICAC) lock, stock and barrel.
By the way, in an eerie case of serendipity, the ICAC was
created when the Crown Colony’s Governor had testimonies, tapes and films
showing that the highest ranking police official was actually involved in
drugs, crime, and corruption.
Going back, stop this propensity for ad-hoc committees
and let the regular civil service perform their assigned tasks.
In fact, I’m watching with seriousness certain movements
in Congress calling for the abolition of the Bureau of Customs. And what does
the National
Computer Center
Second: We love to make rules some of which are inane and
useless. This contributes to red tape, and each additional requirement, by the
way, is a source of corruption because people pay to skip the requirement that is
useless in the first place. How many documents do you need to apply for an
environmental clearance certificate?
Third: Despite demurrers that there are only a few rotten
eggs in the basket, being in government service has become the license by civil
servants to work slower in shorter actual hours, with poor delivery of the
service. Come to think of it, good manners and efficient service are exceptions
to the rule that we are surprised if a civil servant grants us these blessings.
Does mail get across the metro area in half a day?
Fourth: There are no performance metrics. Yes, there are
visions, missions, medium term plans, long term plans, and policy statements,
but how many agencies have published their own performance metrics?
Performance metrics
Given my pseudo-expertise on performance metrics and my
absolute freedom to think, now comes my contribution to improving the
bureaucracy: I am strongly suggesting to the President of the Republic to issue
an Executive Order requiring all government agencies to develop and publish
performance pledges.
The performance pledge will be composed of identifiable
major activities of the concerned agency and their corresponding performance
metrics. At the end of the year, all agencies must submit performance
evaluations against these metrics.
Obviously, not all activities can be measured by a
performance pledge but if we really look closely there are some activities that
somehow deal directly with the public or with another agency that can be easily
measured.
The best way to illustrate these is to lift performance
pledges from other countries who have implemented them such as our close
neighbor Hong Kong .
Here are some performance pledges and metrics adopted in Hong Kong swiping one
each from a few agencies to show how widely pledges are implemented:
Printing Department: “Produce and deliver identity cards
within 3 working days.”
Intellectual Property Department: “Time taken to process
or record 80% of applications for change of records of registered trade mark:
1.5 months”
Transport Department: “First issue and renewal of full
driving licence: 40-75 mins.”
Land Registration Dept: “Registration of land documents:
20 working days”
Leisure Services: “Applications for enrolment in
recreation and sports activities: within 20 minutes queueing time except peak
period.”
Companies Registry: Incorporation/Registration of New
Companies: 6 days.
Libraries: “Applying for a new library card: 10 mins.”
Urban Services Department: ““Toilets cleansed at least
twice a day between 7:30 a.m.
and 9:30 p.m. , and those
with a high usage rate provided with attendants for the same hours. Minor
defects in public toilets will normally be rectified within 24 hours.
As for performance review, here is an example from Hong
Kong Post: “We met and exceeded 20 of the 22 service pledges. In particular we
were able to achieve a success rate of 98.5% for next-day delivery of local
letters.”
What’s keeping the entire government bureaucracy to
embark on performance metrification?
One step up
Will the performance metric solve corruption? Not
directly, but it is a step in the right direction. And I have to point out that
this is not a motherhood statement; we have a practical and quantifiable
proposal.
The main advantage of adopting performance metrics is
that we can evaluate performance on major tasks with transparency. There is no
need to adopt metrics to all activities but it can be done step by step for
major ones. For the first year, maybe five to ten activities can be measured.
Another flow-on effect of this process is that it will
encourage meritocracy because the promotion can be handed over to the executive
who can deliver better performance pledges. One postmaster may say, “If you
promote me, I can deliver mail within the metro cities within the day if the
mail is posted before 9 a.m. ”
There is the temptation to understate the metric thereby
making it easily attainable. But this anomaly would be rectified when some
competing colleague will then propose to improve the performance if he is given
the chance. This competition is one truth-inducing scheme. Somewhere along the
process, we can introduce other truth-inducing schemes to prevent
understatement of performance goals or fudging of data.
Most of all, this will change what people expect of
government service and change the mindset of the civil servants.
If the President so resolves, we would have performance
pledges from all agencies that serve the public directly within a month or two.
This is a non-tariff measure, meaning that it does not
cost much to implement. All that is needed is a simple executive order. The
order will grant the agencies a few weeks to identify the initial set of
activities to be measured. These activities are typically those that deal
directly with the public such as post offices, licensing, passports, and
retirement and benefits processing.
Note that I emphasize an initial set of activities rather
than all the agency activities being measured all at once.
Does this plan sound too easy? Yes, it does sound simple
which could have been implemented decades ago, but some people don’t see things
the way we do. Now, let’s hope they find some value in implementing the
performance pledge.
All I can say is, we use metrics all the time in school
to exact the best performance.
Ironically, the government whose biggest department in
terms of budget is the Department of Education doesn’t adopt metrics for its own
performance.
Visit the websites of the agencies and you can read their
vision, mission, policy statements and all about their history but there is
never a word on their performance pledge with specific performance metrics.
Hey, business executives, don’t think I forgot about you.
You are also guilty – you don’t have a performance pledges either; they’re not
in your websites or annual reports.
Ruminate on this one of the many performance pledges by a
private telecom company in Hong Kong :
“We will install your residential telephone line within seven days of the
order. If we fail to install your telephone line as promised, you can claim one
month’s free line rental for every day we are late.”
Note that the one-month rebate is for every single day of
delay. The company backs up its performance pledge with real monetary value.
Can you top that?
Presidential mandate
Lord Kelvin, the physicist who handed us the laws of
thermodynamics and entropy was a believer of metrics: “I often say that when
you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you
know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot
express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind.”
Ever since I read it in college, this quote has become
one of my favorites because it encouraged me to understand the equations behind
concepts and to abhor motherhood political statements. And this quote should be
memorized by the government bureaucrats.
In conclusion, the mandate for the metrification of
bureaucratic performance should come from no less than the President of the
Republic; demanded by no less than the Street Strategist.
I have to go now. By the way, remember that conference
and the coffee break with my friend? He revealed that he had not bothered to
look who asked questions but he made an exception by turning around when the
expert said, “Oh, my God!”
That the presenter was thinking of the word “matrix” when
the participant used “metrics” was logical because – as it turned out – the two
of them had fought mind games before as teacher and student, respectively, in
mostly mathematical topics which included matrix analysis. Therefore, when the
participant used the word “metrics,” the presenter thought it was “matrix.” The former student deliberately tried to
confuse his former teacher by leading the latter to think of matrix, not
metrics.
Not that it was an important detail, but it showed the
frames of mind of the two protagonists, who have met again after so many years.
And when my friend, who was sitting in front, turned to
look at this mysterious guy standing before the microphone, that was the time
he knew I also attended the conference. He said, “It was you.”
By the way, certainly not everything can be quantified, although
we should strive to quantify as much as possible, otherwise how do you quantify
the haphazard train of thought and the aimless analysis of the Street
Strategist?
(Thads Bentulan, January 10, 2002)
* * * * * t * * * *
*
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Of Commotion and Connection: Pacquiao vs. Bradley
Of Commotion and Connection:
Pacquiao vs. Bradley
by Thads Bentulan
thadsbentulan@streetstrategist.net
In my personal opinion, in
committing the amateur mistake of confusing commotion with connection, the
professional judges of the Pacquiao vs. Bradley fight committed the delict of
dispossessing Manny Pacquiao a rightfully deserved 147-lb WBO Welterweight Title
victory over Timothy Bradley on June 9, 2012 in Las Vegas.
In handing Pacquiao his only loss
since 2005, judges C J Ross (115-113) and Duane Ford (115-113) shocked the
entire boxing world with this robbery, ending Pacquiao’s 15 straight wins reign.
The remaining judge Jerry Roth favored Pacquiao (115-113).
The really awkward moments came
when after announcing the controversial split-decision, the video replays
couldn’t even show clips where Bradly’s commotions converted into connections.
On the other hand, from the
entire fight, one can gather many clips showing Pacquiao’s fast and powerful
punches hammering and connecting to Bradley’s head and body.
There are statistics to prove it.
How does Compubox tally it? In summary: Pacquio landed 253 punches while
Bradley landed only 159 punches; an undeniable 94-punch difference. This alone
is the statistic that matters.
Pacquiao threw 751 punches overall
and connected 253, displaying an accuracy of 34%. Bradley threw 839 punches
overall and connected only 159, for an all-in accuracy of only 19%. This is the
evidence to show that Bradley was all about commotion, not connection. Can you
imagine Pacquiao losing the first after connecting 94 punches more than your
opponent?
Then, there is a further
breakdown. Speaking of jabs, Pacquiao threw 258 jabs with 63 connecting, with a
24% accuracy. Bradley released 449 jabs with only 51 connection, with only an
11% accuracy. Based on the jabs breakdown, Pacquiao connected 12 more jabs than
Bradley. This is further evidence that Bradley’s 449 jabs were all commotion,
not connection.
Then, again, there is another
breakdown. This time on the decisive category of power punches. Pacquiao
unleashed a barrage of 493 power punches compared to Bradley’s only 390.
Pacquiao connected 190 of those power punches, some of which were shown on video
replays while waiting for the decision, while Bradley only connected 108
punches. Pacquiao’s accuracy on the very important power punches category is
39% while Bradley’s is a mere 28%.
When you have outboxed,
outperformed, and outwitted your opponent not only in the visual displays but
in the hard statistics as well, how can you lose?
How did the sports networks score
the fight? Pacquiao won in their scorecards. ESPN (118 – 110); Fox Sports (119-100); the UK-based Guardian (117-111); LA Times (117-111); HBO (119-109); Fighthype.com (116-112; Eastside Boxing (118-110); Associated Press (117-111); Yahoo! Sports (117-111); and Las Vegas Review-Journal (117-111).
How did Timothy Bradley himself
score the fight? Bob Arum narrated this story: “After I got into the ring after
the fight, I went over to Bradley and said 'You did very well.' He said, 'I
tried hard, but I couldn't beat the guy.”
Even Bradley himself knew, there
was no way he could have won that fight. Unless with the help of Danny Ocean’s
11.
Will the Nevada State Athletic
Commission initiate an investigation? Today, this delict has tainted the integrity
of boxing.
Whenever people say boxing isn’t
a science, it is usually said as a predicate to justifying a victory robbed in
front of millions of eyes.
Should the millions of boxing
fans disbelieve their eyes and ignore statistics and agree with the decision of
two judges who probably acted out of revenge for having to wait for Pacquiao to
finish the Miami vs. Celtics game?
Is boxing now all about commotion
not connection? If so, bring Jacky Chan into the ring – he has the speed, the
action, and the commotion.
Manny Pacquiao did not lose that
fight. The judges lost it for him. The judges confused commotion with
connection.
-end-
Wednesday, June 06, 2012
How the K+12 was conceived
How K12 was conceived. Once upon a time, a group of experts was tasked to identify the problems of the Philippine educational system. Problems identified: Lack of comfort rooms, lack of classrooms, lacks of books, lack of teachers, lack of chalk, very low salary. The experts were given one week to come up with a solution. After one week, they came back with the ultimate solution: Add two more years of schooling!! Thus the K+12 was born.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Who has jurisdiction over a "non-impeachable" act?
Who has jurisdiction over a "non-impeachable act?" (not to be confused with an "impeachable act")
These are a series of questions that could be answered in one integrated explanation. Note most the questions below require a legal background to be answered.
1. When a court like the Regional Trial Court adjudicates an issue that is not enumerated by law or the constitution as part of its jurisdiction, will the said RTC's decision be valid or not? (For example, the issue is cognizable only by the Sandiganbayan yet the Regional Trial Court usurps the recognition of the issue.)
These are a series of questions that could be answered in one integrated explanation. Note most the questions below require a legal background to be answered.
1. When a court like the Regional Trial Court adjudicates an issue that is not enumerated by law or the constitution as part of its jurisdiction, will the said RTC's decision be valid or not? (For example, the issue is cognizable only by the Sandiganbayan yet the Regional Trial Court usurps the recognition of the issue.)
2. Does the Impeachment Court (IC) have exclusive jurisdiction over the “impeachable acts” as enumerated in the Constitution?
Article XI, Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.
Article XI, Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.
3. On the other hand, does the IC have exclusive jurisdiction over “non-impeachable acts” (i.e. those acts not enumerated in the Constitution? e.g. jaywalking)
4. Is the IC’s decision "jurisdictionally valid" when it acquits a respondent over failure to attain the burden of proof of an “impeachable act?”
5. On the other hand, is the IC’s decision "jurisdictionally valid" when it convicts a respondent over a “non-impeachable act? ” (in contrast to an "impeachable act")
6. Will the IC be lacking of jurisdiction or will be in excess of jurisdiction when it adjudicates over an issue, subject matter, or res, that involves a “non-impeachable act?”
7. Is non-disclosure of the SALN part of the constitutionally-enumerated so-called “impeachable acts?”
If it is not, then is the Senate, on its own, amending the words of the constitution by adding the phrase "non-disclosure of SALN?" Does the Senate IC have the power to amend the Constitution? If there is an "interpretation issue" who has the power to interpret the Constitution?
If it is not, then is the Senate, on its own, amending the words of the constitution by adding the phrase "non-disclosure of SALN?" Does the Senate IC have the power to amend the Constitution? If there is an "interpretation issue" who has the power to interpret the Constitution?
8. If such non-disclosure is a “non-impeachable act”, then, is it possible that the IC lacked jurisdiction or was in excess of jurisdiction in “convicting” a respondent over a “non-impeachable act?”
9. According to the Constitution, when any court or government agency or body is lackning in jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, can the Supreme Court,( under its expanded power of judicial review) modify, review, or reverse the decision of such body or court?
10. What if that agency or body or court were the IC, does the SC still have the power of judicial review over it?
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Yes, the Supreme Court can review the decision of the Impeachment Court
The jurisdiction of the Impeachment Court is exclusive over the so-called "impeachable offenses."
It has no jurisdiction over "non-impeachable offenses.
Its judgment over a "non-impeachable offense" is therefore void ab initio being a judgment in excess or lack of jurisdiction.
This is not new. For example, only the Family Court has jurisdiction over family issues.
The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction only over offenses or persons enumerated.
The question is this: Is moral fitness an impeachable issue? Is non-disclosure in SALN an impeachable offense?
If these issues or offenses or acts are not impeachable, then the Supreme Court can render the Impeachment Court's decision as null and void due to lack or excess of jurisdiction under the Supreme Court's expanded power of Judicial Review under the 1987 Constitution.
It has no jurisdiction over "non-impeachable offenses.
Its judgment over a "non-impeachable offense" is therefore void ab initio being a judgment in excess or lack of jurisdiction.
This is not new. For example, only the Family Court has jurisdiction over family issues.
The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction only over offenses or persons enumerated.
The question is this: Is moral fitness an impeachable issue? Is non-disclosure in SALN an impeachable offense?
If these issues or offenses or acts are not impeachable, then the Supreme Court can render the Impeachment Court's decision as null and void due to lack or excess of jurisdiction under the Supreme Court's expanded power of Judicial Review under the 1987 Constitution.
Friday, February 03, 2012
Manila Bulletin: The Untold Origin
On Feb 2, 2012, the Manila Bulletin celebrated its 112th anniversary. Towards the end of this article, you will read about its untold history.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manila Bulletin celebrates its 112 years of service to the nation
February 1, 2012, 10:51pm
MANILA, Philippines — The Manila Bulletin was founded on February 2, 1900, as the Philippines was about to cross into the twentieth century. From a newspaper publishing local shipping and commercial news, it is now one of the few centenarian publications in the world recognized as the leading newspaper in this country and one of the leading English dailies in Asia.
The Manila Bulletin lived through the peaceful struggle for political freedom, the wartime occupation, the independence, and the demands of a democratic republic. It continuously served the country as it went through a major war, and economic upheavals. On the political front, the country was governed under five successive Constitutions and the administrations of 15 Presidents, namely, Emilio F. Aguinaldo, Manuel L. Quezon, Jose P. Laurel, Sergio S. Osmeña, Manuel A. Roxas, Elpidio R. Quirino, Ramon F. Magsaysay, Carlos P. Garcia, Diosdado P. Macapagal, Ferdinand E. Marcos, Corazon C. Aquino, Fidel V. Ramos, Joseph E. Estrada, Gloria M. Arroyo, and Benigno S. Aquino III, from 1900 to 2012.
The nation’s population has grown from 6 million in 1901, when the first national census was taken, to over 98 million as of June 30, 2011.
Responding to the consequent societal demands, the Manila Bulletin has been transformed into a comprehensive newspaper with a weekly magazine Panorama and Style Weekend, a second daily Tempo, a third daily Balita, special interest magazines Agriculture, Cruising, Animal Scene, Sports Digest, and Sense & Style, and magazines in the vernacular Liwayway, Bisaya, Bannawag, and Hiligaynon, for a total of 14 daily, weekly, and monthly publications.
It also publishes the Manila Bulletin Yearbook which provides valuable information on government officials, civic organizations, and notable institutions in our country.
The newspaper continues to expand, with its modern and sophisticated printing equipment in the country. It was the first newspaper company to go public on April 18, 1990, and had 2,829 Stockholders as of December 31, 2011.
Most important is the fact that the Manila Bulletin has remained faithful to its mission of providing honest, factual, and impartial news service to the citizenry. Its priority is information and its hallmark is objectivity. Ethical accuracy, and not sensational journalism, is its editorial policy, which is appreciated by an enlightened people as shown by the increasing readership of its publications.
On the occasion of its 112th Anniversary today, the Manila Bulletin rededicates itself to its mission of service to the Filipino public and pledges once more its commitment to be a vehicle of fidelity and impartiality in meeting the information needs of our people and our democratic institutions.
The Manila Bulletin Chairman Dr. Emilio T. Yap, Directors, Officers, and Editors, once again extend their sincere appreciation and heartfelt gratitude to our Readers, Advertisers, Dealers, Friends, and Supporters for their continued support and patronage. MABUHAY!
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Untold History
Here are some of my recent findings, not as a professional historian, but as a curious individual.
These findings are based on commercial and legal documents whose original purposes were for documentation as required by law and contracts.
Yet, such documents are a very important source of history.
After all, history is sourced from documents, not the other way around.
Now, let us proceed to the untold history.
Here is what history books do not tell us. This origin is taken from a document. Remember, documents were not written for history. There were encoded and entered as transactions in the ordinary course of business on a day to day basis. Unlike history, documents do not make up angles or perspectives or interpretations.
One document, a certificate of land title, numbered OCT-01-4 which was created formally in 1764 (yes, it's that old), was preserved, and re-constituted, and re-created and re-registered whenever the land registration laws changed over the years, contains certain annotations at the back.
And this is a validation, once again, of the existence, the validity, and the authenticity of Torrens Title OCT-01-4 issued in favor of
Manila Bulletin celebrates its 112 years of service to the nation
February 1, 2012, 10:51pm
MANILA, Philippines — The Manila Bulletin was founded on February 2, 1900, as the Philippines was about to cross into the twentieth century. From a newspaper publishing local shipping and commercial news, it is now one of the few centenarian publications in the world recognized as the leading newspaper in this country and one of the leading English dailies in Asia.
The Manila Bulletin lived through the peaceful struggle for political freedom, the wartime occupation, the independence, and the demands of a democratic republic. It continuously served the country as it went through a major war, and economic upheavals. On the political front, the country was governed under five successive Constitutions and the administrations of 15 Presidents, namely, Emilio F. Aguinaldo, Manuel L. Quezon, Jose P. Laurel, Sergio S. Osmeña, Manuel A. Roxas, Elpidio R. Quirino, Ramon F. Magsaysay, Carlos P. Garcia, Diosdado P. Macapagal, Ferdinand E. Marcos, Corazon C. Aquino, Fidel V. Ramos, Joseph E. Estrada, Gloria M. Arroyo, and Benigno S. Aquino III, from 1900 to 2012.
The nation’s population has grown from 6 million in 1901, when the first national census was taken, to over 98 million as of June 30, 2011.
Responding to the consequent societal demands, the Manila Bulletin has been transformed into a comprehensive newspaper with a weekly magazine Panorama and Style Weekend, a second daily Tempo, a third daily Balita, special interest magazines Agriculture, Cruising, Animal Scene, Sports Digest, and Sense & Style, and magazines in the vernacular Liwayway, Bisaya, Bannawag, and Hiligaynon, for a total of 14 daily, weekly, and monthly publications.
It also publishes the Manila Bulletin Yearbook which provides valuable information on government officials, civic organizations, and notable institutions in our country.
The newspaper continues to expand, with its modern and sophisticated printing equipment in the country. It was the first newspaper company to go public on April 18, 1990, and had 2,829 Stockholders as of December 31, 2011.
Most important is the fact that the Manila Bulletin has remained faithful to its mission of providing honest, factual, and impartial news service to the citizenry. Its priority is information and its hallmark is objectivity. Ethical accuracy, and not sensational journalism, is its editorial policy, which is appreciated by an enlightened people as shown by the increasing readership of its publications.
On the occasion of its 112th Anniversary today, the Manila Bulletin rededicates itself to its mission of service to the Filipino public and pledges once more its commitment to be a vehicle of fidelity and impartiality in meeting the information needs of our people and our democratic institutions.
The Manila Bulletin Chairman Dr. Emilio T. Yap, Directors, Officers, and Editors, once again extend their sincere appreciation and heartfelt gratitude to our Readers, Advertisers, Dealers, Friends, and Supporters for their continued support and patronage. MABUHAY!
--------------------------------------------------
Manila Bulletin
 | |
| Type | Daily newspaper |
| Format | Broadsheet |
| Owner | Manila Bulletin Publishing Corp. |
| Editor | Cris Icban, Jr. |
| Founded | 1900 |
| Political allegiance | Administration, Conservative |
| Headquarters | Manila, Metro Manila,Philippines |
| Website: | www.mb.com.ph |
Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation (PSE: MB) is a publicly-listed and Philippines-based newspaper company that publishes the Manila Bulletin. It is the oldest newspaper published in the country and the second oldest English newspaper in the Far East. The company is owned by Chinese-Filipino businessman Emilio Yap. Manila Bulletin bills itself as "The Nation's Leading Newspaper", which is its official slogan. As of December 15, 2010, the company has a total market capitalization of P1.8 billion and share price of P0.60.
Contents[hide] |
[edit] History
Manila Bulletin was initially established as the Daily Bulletin by Carson C. Taylor in 1900. In 1906, The Daily Bulletin changed its name to Manila Daily Bulletin. In 1912, it was incorporated as Bulletin Publishing Company with Taylor controlling 75% of the company. Business operations continued until 1945 when at the height of World War Two in 1942, Japanese officials closed down the company. Three years later, the Manila Daily Bulletin office was destroyed in the Battle of Manila.
However, in 1946, the company would resume its publications under the leadership of editor Ford Wilkins and Han Linn. It was eventually sold to Menzi and Co., Incorporated owned by Swiss-Filipino Brig. General H.W. Menzi. In 1959, it was re-incorporated as Bulletin and Publishing Company. It was under Menzi’s leadership that the publication’s circulation increased by 20 times.
In 1961, Yap purchased the shares of Menzi and was unanimously elected as Vice-Chairman and Director. In 1972, the company was also shut down together with other major publications when former president Ferdinand Marcos proclaimed Martial Law. Two months later, it re-opened as Bulletin Today.
In 1989, it was renamed Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation. On April 1980, its common shares were listed in the Philippine Stock Exchange.
[edit] Other titles
Aside from Manila Bulletin, the company also publishes Panorama Magazine on Sunday, Style Weekend on Friday, and Travel Magazine on the second and fourth Thursday of the month. Also included in its publications are daily tabloids, Tempo and Balita.
The company also publishes magazines of special interest. Agriculture Magazine talks about the latest programs and developments in farming that includes production of vegetables, poultry and cattle-raising, agri-business and fish production.
Cruise Magazine promotes local tourism and travel. It also includes information on travel routes, destinations, restaurants, lodging, resorts, and even flea markets. It also includes safety and medical advice for travellers. Animal Scene features news and information for animal enthusiasts. It also tackles veterinary concerns, tips on proper pet caring and grooming,
Manila Bulletin Sports Digest provides up-to-date news on sports, features athletes’ profiles and offer sports trivia. Sense and Style is a lifestyle magazine that promotes the latest trends in fashion and beauty, food and dining, gardening, and even opportunities for women. The company also publishes magazines in different vernacular. Liwayway in Tagalog, Bisaya in Cebuano, Bannawag in Ilocano and Hiligaynon in Ilonggo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Untold History
Here are some of my recent findings, not as a professional historian, but as a curious individual.
These findings are based on commercial and legal documents whose original purposes were for documentation as required by law and contracts.
Yet, such documents are a very important source of history.
After all, history is sourced from documents, not the other way around.
Now, let us proceed to the untold history.
Here is what history books do not tell us. This origin is taken from a document. Remember, documents were not written for history. There were encoded and entered as transactions in the ordinary course of business on a day to day basis. Unlike history, documents do not make up angles or perspectives or interpretations.
One document, a certificate of land title, numbered OCT-01-4 which was created formally in 1764 (yes, it's that old), was preserved, and re-constituted, and re-created and re-registered whenever the land registration laws changed over the years, contains certain annotations at the back.
One such annotation is relevant to: Manilal Bulletin:
This annotation is dated November 13, 1902, annotation number EDC-096S-1900. The date of the real estate mortgade is February 3, 1902, for the amount of P1.5 millions with Banco-Filipino-Espanol (now called BPI).
EDC-096
S-1900 |
Real Estate Mortgage executed by Don Esteban Benitez Tallano secured by 250 hectares of commercial lot in Centro Intramuros, in favor of Banco Filipino-Español for the sum of P 1,500,000.00. The said sum received by Messrs. H.G. Farris and Carson Taylor for the establishment of Manila Daily Bulletin.
Date of the Document: February 3, 1902
(Sgd) H.K. SLEEPERLand Registration Officer
|
November 13, 1902
|
What does the above transactional annotation document in the land title OCT-01-4 tell us?
It tells us what history books have failed to capture.
1. There is a title Oct-01-4.
2. The title has annotations.
3. One of such annotations refers to a real estate mortgage.
4. The land involved is 250 hectares of commercial lot in Centro Intramuros
5. The land is owned by Don Esteban Benitez Tallano (heirs of Luisong Tagean)
6. The money borrowes in P1.5 million.
7. The sum was received by H G Farris and Carson Taylor.
8. The purpose of the loan was to establish Manila Daily Bulletin (now Manila Bulletin). (apparently to expand the originally a shipping bulletin into a full fledged newspaper)
9. The annotation was signed by HK Sleeper, the land registration officer at the time.
10.. The date of the real estate mortgage was Feb 3, 1902.
As you have noticed, the annotations and the history accounts dovetail in agreement.
This is what the history books failed to capture, but in reality was documented not by a historian, but by an officer who was doing his work in the ordinary course of business on day to day basis.
And this is a validation, once again, of the existence, the validity, and the authenticity of Torrens Title OCT-01-4 issued in favor of
| "Prince Lacan Acuña Tallano Tagean (formerly Tagean Clan), married with Princess Rowena Ma. Elizabeth Overbeck Macleod of Austria, the owner in Fee simple of certain lands, known as HACIENDA FILIPINA" (email me to get a scanned copy of the title issued by the register of deeds) Note: The early transcriptions were in Spanish but the government had its translated into English through the efforts of then Solicitor General Felix Makasiar under Pres. Diosdado Macapagal (who later become Chief Justice under Marcos). Therefore, the government itself has consistently recognized the validity and the authenticity of OCT 01-4. History from original source documents! What a refreshing perspective! |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)