‘Will They Next Kill Senators?’
Q & A with Sen. Joker Arroyo on civil liberties, the VAT rate hike, and Philippine governance after May 2004

“They now kill congressmen, like Henry Lanot. Will they next kill senators?” Sen. Joker Arroyo, chairman of the Senate Committee on Human Rights and vice chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, said this in an interview with Bulatlat. The interview tackled civil liberties, the recent passage of the Senate value-added tax (VAT) increase bill, and the state of Philippine governance after the 2004 election.

BY ALEXANDER MARTIN REMOLLINO
Bulatlat

Sen. Joker Arroyo Photo by Alexander Martin Remollino

“They now kill congressmen, like Henry Lanot. Will they next kill senators?” Sen. Joker Arroyo, chairman of the Senate Committee on Human Rights and vice chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, said this in an interview with Bulatlat. He was referring to former Pasig City Rep. Henry Lanot, who was gunned down April 13 while having dessert in a restaurant in Mandaluyong City. The interview tackled civil liberties, the recent passage of the Senate value-added tax (VAT) increase bill, and the state of Philippine governance after the 2004 election. Arroyo was interviewed April 14 after a roundtable discussion on “The State of Governance After the May 2004 Elections” at the Sulo Hotel in Quezon City.

The roundtable discussion was organized by the Center for People Empowerment in Governance (CenPEG) in cooperation with the Advocacy Desk of Oxfam-United Kingdom. Among the discussants were: Bp. Deogracias Iñiguez of the Diocese of Kalookan, who is also a co-chairman of the Ecumenical Bishops Forum (EBF); Meneleo Carlos, chairman of the Federation of Philippine Industries (FPI); lawyer Melvin Encanto of Transparency International; Rey Hulog, executive director of the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas (KBP or Philippine Broadcasters Association); and Leonard de Vera, incoming president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

Arroyo attained fame during martial law as a human rights lawyer who took on the Marcos dictatorship. After the 1986 People Power uprising, he served as executive secretary under the Aquino government.

He has acquired a reputation for fearlessness in denouncing the excesses of those in power, no matter if he is part of the political party to which they belong.

During his talk at the April 14 roundtable discussion, he tackled the post-May 2004 state of Philippine governance mostly in broad strokes. He said that giving a holistic picture of the issue “is an impossibility,” considering the size of the government.

Even so, his speech did contain some edges.

“The misgovernment of the past year is so well known to all the participants that for me to restate the obvious would be to beat a dead horse, it is so self-evident,” he said.

The participants in the roundtable discussion – coming from the business and labor sectors, the academe, non-government organizations, and progressive party-list groups – reached a consensus that indeed, as Arroyo said, there has been misgovernment after the 2004 presidential election.

“It would be like the group of intellectuals who announced in a joint statement that the country has a fiscal crisis, shouting ‘eureka’ as if we did not already know it.” He was referring to a group of 11 economists from the University of the Philippines – “UP 11.”

On the prospects of poverty alleviation, Arroyo had this to say:

“The cure for poverty is neither income redistribution nor the acquisition of political power. There is no longer a link between political empowerment and individual economic advancement.

“But the overhang of the budgetary deficit, where one-third of the national budget is allocated for debt service, does not allow much room for promise in government-sponsored poverty alleviation.”

Below are excerpts from the interview:

What can you say about the series of killings of journalists at present and its implications on civil liberties?

It’s the responsibility of government to track down the killers, not just because (the victims) are journalists but because they’re human beings. Government should protect everyone, not just any class of people.

But they’re journalists, meaning if (the killers) can do that to journalists – who are in a position to retaliate because they’re in media – what more the common people? They cannot be protected.

The mere fact that some people dare kill journalists is an indication. After journalists, what next?

They now kill congressmen, like Henry Lanot. Will they next kill senators?

How about the killings of activists, particularly the leaders of progressive organizations, but as well as the supporters of these groups?

Who are responsible? We don’t know that. Some say it’s the uniformed armed services but we also don’t know…

During the roundtable discussion, someone from Karapatan (Alliance for the Advancement of People’s Rights) said something about this period in our history being “similar” to the Marcos period. What do you think of that observation?

You know, in any society, as long as they have not stifled media, they have not stifled free speech, there are still antidotes to any violence.

But the moment they start to suppress those things, the people will rise. There were only 500 NPAs (New People’s Army guerrillas) at the start of martial law, but by the end  there were something like 60,000.

What do you think must the Macapagal-Arroyo administration do to address the series of killings?

I cannot answer for the Macapagal-Arroyo administration. I don’t know what she’s going to do about these.

Aside from being the chairman of the Senate Committee on Human Rights, you are also the vice chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. Now the Senate version of the VAT hike bill has just been passed, and it differs from the version of the House of Representatives.

That can be reconciled. The main difference is only in the (rate of increase).

(Sen. Ralph) Recto is stubborn: you can’t dictate to him. He’s angry. Said he: “If (President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo) told me (she wanted 12 percent) early on, I would have followed. I’m in the administration after all. She tells me what she wants when (the deliberations are) about to end. How would that make me look?” He’s right there.

Midway he even asked. An answer was given, but he said, “I want a categorical answer.”

Look at that. (In the Senate version) the 10-percent VAT is retained, the VAT is imposed on independent power producers (IPPs), big companies including telecommunication companies will be hit, the corporate income tax is increased.

But Gloria wants to grab as much as she can.

Recto told her: “Ma’am, out of the P80 billion (we need), we get P15 billion from sin taxes and P10 billion from the attrition law. So that’s P25 billion. We have P55 billion left. I’ll deliver the P55 billion.”

But Gloria wants P55 billion fashioned according to her wishes, which is 12 percent VAT. She’s protecting the big companies. She doesn’t want VAT for the IPPs.

In a few words, how would you describe Philippine governance after the 2004 election?

As I said earlier, the record of just one executive department would take one roundtable discussion. That topic was very hard, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s governance after the May 2004 elections, which means for one year. Bulatlat  

BACK TO TOP ■  PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION  ■   COMMENT

© 2004 Bulatlat ■  Alipato Publications

Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.