15C_2RS-51a-060512

Vol. 3 Tuesday, June 5, 2012 No. 51

Congressional Record15th CONGRESS, SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 4:00 p.m., the session was resumed.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The sessionis resumed.

The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that we proceed to theAdditional Reference of Business.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). Is there anyobjection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion isapproved.

The Secretary General will please read the AdditionalReference of Business.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCE OF BUSINESS

The Secretary General read the following House Billsand Resolutions on First Reading, and Messages from theSenate, and the Deputy Speaker made the correspondingreferences:

BILLS ON FIRST READING

House Bill No. 6236, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING INTO A NATIONAL ROAD

THE LAKE DRIVE 1 SITUATED WITHINBURNHAM PARK, BAGUIO CITY, ANDTRAVERSING NATIONAL ROADS FROM POINTTO POINT, AND PROVIDING FUNDSTHEREFOR”

By Representative VergaraTO THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND

HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6237, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING MABINI ST. (UPPER AND

LOWER) TRAVERSING NATIONAL ROADS INBAGUIO CITY INTO A NATIONAL ROAD ANDAPPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6238, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING PERFECTO ST. 1 AND 2

TRAVERSING NATIONAL ROADS IN BAGUIO

CITY INTO A NATIONAL ROAD ANDAPPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS


THE ASSUMPTION ST. TRAVERSING NATIONALROADS IN BAGUIO CITY AND APPROPRIATINGFUNDS THEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6240, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING THE DOMINICAN ROAD–

DOMINICAN–MIRADOR ROAD, TRAVERSINGQUIRINO HIGHWAY (BAGUIO–BAUANGROAD) INTO A NATIONAL ROAD IN BAGUIOCITY, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDSTHEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS


THE CITY HALL LOOP, TRAVERSING NATIONALROADS IN BAGUIO CITY, AND APPROPRIATINGFUNDS THEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6242, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING OTEK ST. IN BAGUIO CITY,

TRAVERSING NATIONAL ROADS, ANDSITUATED IN THE CITY’S CENTRAL BUSINESSDISTRICT, INTO A NATIONAL ROAD, ANDAPPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6243, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING THE PALMA–URBANO–

QUEEN OF PEACE–LOURDES EXT.–LOURDESPROPER ROAD TRAVERSING NATIONAL ROADS

2 TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 2012

IN BAGUIO CITY INTO A NATIONAL ROAD, ANDAPPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS


THE RIZAL PARK ROAD (NORTH AND SOUTH)SITUATED BETWEEN CITY HALL ANDBURNHAM PARK, TRAVERSING NATIONALROADS IN BAGUIO CITY, AND APPROPRIATINGFUNDS THEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6245, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING DOTC ROAD TRAVERSING

JUNCTION MAJOR MANNY ROAD INTO ANATIONAL ROAD APPROPRIATING FUNDSTHEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6246, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING LOAKAN LIWANAG

ROAD TRAVERSING JUNCTION LOAKANROAD AND JUNCTION LIWANAG ROADGOING TO PEZA FROM LOCAL TO NATIONALROAD AND APPROPRIATING FUNDSTHEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6247, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING BRENT ROAD FROM LOCAL

TO NATIONAL ROAD AND PROVIDING FUNDSTHEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6248, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING THE HONEYMOON–

HOLYGHOST–IMELDA VILLAGE ROAD IN THECITY OF BAGUIO INTO A NATIONAL ROAD ANDAPPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6249, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING THE TORRES BUGALLION

ROAD IN THE CITY OF BAGUIO INTO ANATIONAL ROAD AND PROVIDING FUNDSTHEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6250, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING AURORA HILL PROPER–

MALVAR ROAD FROM LOCAL INTO NATIONALROAD AND PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6251, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING SANITARY CAMP ROAD

TRAVERSING JUNCTION M. ROXAS ROAD TOWASTE SANITARY TREATMENT INTO ANATIONAL ROAD AND APPROPRIATING FUNDSTHEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6252, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING HAPPY HOMES ROAD

TRAVERSING JUNCTION MAGSAYSAY AVENUETO MAGSAYSAY AVENUE INTO A NATIONALROAD AND APPROPRIATING FUNDSTHEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6253, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING CAMDAS–QUIRINO HILL

ROAD TRAVERSING JUNCTION MAGSAYSAYAVENUE TO MT. CARMEL SCHOOL QUIRINO E/S INTO A NATIONAL ROAD ANDAPPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6254, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING AGUILA STREET ROAD

CONNECTING JUNCTION FEGUSON ROAD INTOA NATIONAL ROAD AND APPROPRIATINGFUNDS THEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6255, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING BADO DANGWA ROAD

CONNECTING JUNCTION BOKAWKAN AND E/S GOING TO FERGUSON ROAD INTO ANATIONAL ROAD AND APPROPRIATING FUNDSTHEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6256, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING BADIHOY ROAD

CONNECTING JUNCTION FERGUSON ROADINTO A NATIONAL ROAD AND APPROPRIATINGFUNDS THEREFOR”

TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 2012 3


HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6257, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING ROMAN AYSON ROAD

CONNECTING JUNCTION GAERLAN ROAD TOFEGURSON ROAD INTO A NATIONAL ROADAND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS


ABAD SANTOS DRIVE 1 IN BAGUIO CITY,TRAVERSING HARRISON ROAD AND KISADROAD, BOTH NATIONAL ROADS, ANDPROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6259, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING HAMADA ROAD IN BAGUIO

CITY, TRAVERSING QUIRINO HIGHWAY(BAGUIO–BAUANG ROAD) INTO A NATIONALROAD, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDSTHEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6260, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING DIEGO SILANG–CLAUDIO

ROAD INTO A NATIONAL ROAD ANDAPPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6261, entitled:“AN ACT ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL BUREAU OF

INVESTIGATION (NBI) EXTENSION OFFICE INTHE MUNICIPALITY OF AGOO, LA UNION, ANDAPPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR”

By Representative EriguelTO THE COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE

House Bill No. 6262, entitled:“AN ACT PROVIDING FOR FREE COLLEGE

ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS TOUNDERPRIVILEGED PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLSTUDENTS BELONGING TO THE TOP TENPERCENT (10%) OF THE GRADUATING CLASS”

By Representative AngaraTO THE COMMITTEE ON HIGHER AND TECHNICAL

EDUCATION

House Bill No. 6263, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING CYPRESS–MARVILLE ROAD

TRAVERSING JUNCTION QUIRINO HIGHWAY TO

MARVILLE ROAD INTO A NATIONAL ROADAND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6264, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING SAN CARLOS HEIGHTS–

VICTORIA VILLAGE–QUEZON HILL DRIVEROAD CONNECTING JUNCTION QUIRINOHIGHWAY ROAD TO JUNCTION VICTORIAVILLAGE GOING TO QUEZON HILL DRIVE ANDQUEZON HILL ROAD 1 INTO A NATIONALROAD AND APPROPRIATING FUNDSTHEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6265, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING SAN ROQUE ROAD

CONNECTING JUNCTION QUIRINO HIGHWAYROAD TO JUNCTION ASIN INTO A NATIONALROAD AND APPROPRIATING FUNDSTHEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6266, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING CAMP ALLEN ROAD

CONNECTING JUNCTION ABANAO ROAD TOCAMP ALLEN CHURCH INTO A NATIONAL ROADAND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6267, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING GAERLAN ROAD

CONNECTING JUNCTION QUIRINO HIGHWAYROAD TO FEGURSON ROAD INTO A NATIONALROAD AND APPROPRIATING FUNDSTHEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6268, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING AVELINO–FAIRVIEW ROAD

CONNECTING JUNCTION QUEZON HILL ROADTO FEGURSON ROAD INTO A NATIONAL ROADAND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6269, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING SEPIC ROAD CONNECTING

JUNCTION QUEZON HILL ROAD TO FEGURSONROAD INTO A NATIONAL ROAD ANDAPPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR”



HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6270, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING SANTO TOMAS–ADIWANG

ROAD TRAVERSING JUNCTION SANTO TOMASROAD TO SCHOOL AREA INTO A NATIONALROAD AND APPROPRIATING FUNDSTHEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6271, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING IRISAN (PUROK 17)–SMITH

(CIRCUMFERENCIAL ROAD) ROADTRAVERSING JUNCTION QUIRINO HIGHWAY TOASIN CIRCUMFERENCIAL ROAD INTO ANATIONAL ROAD AND APPROPRIATING FUNDSTHEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6272, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING CRYSTAL CAVE ROAD

TRAVERSING JUNCTION MARCOS HIGHWAY TOSAINT MARTIN SCHOOL, SAN PABLOSEMINARY AND TO SCHOOL AREA INTO ANATIONAL AND APPROPRIATING FUNDSTHEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS

House Bill No. 6273, entitled:“AN ACT CONVERTING NEW LUCBAN–T. ALONZO

ROAD INTO A NATIONAL AND APPROPRIATINGFUNDS THEREFOR”


HIGHWAYS

RESOLUTIONS

House Resolution No. 2457, entitled:“RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON

VETERANS AFFAIRS AND WELFARE TOCONDUCT AN INQUIRY, IN AID OF LEGISLATION,ON THE OPERATIONS OF THE BOARD OFTRUSTEE OF THE VETERANS OF WORLD WARII (BTVWWII) WITH THE END VIEW OFFORMULATING AND IMPLEMENTINGPERTINENT MEASURES THAT WOULDREDOUND TO THE BENEFIT OF OURVETERANS”

By Representatives Roman, Mandanas and PichayTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Resolution No. 2458, entitled:“RESOLUTION COMMENDING COCA-COLA

PHILIPPINES FOR ITS FREE DISTRIBUTION OFNUTRIJUICE AS A SUPPLEMENTARY FEEDINGPROGRAM IN THE COUNTRY AS PART OF ITSCORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILTIY”

By Representatives Suarez, Albano, Calimbas-Villarosa,Aquino, Magsaysay (M.), Quibranza-Dimaporo,Bagasina, Obillo, Pichay, Mercado-Revilla andRomualdez

TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Resolution No. 2459, entitled:“A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY TO CONDUCT ANINQUIRY, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, ON THE P1BILLION LICENSE DEAL THAT THE PHILIPPINENATIONAL POLICE ENTERED INTO WITHNANJING INDUSTRIAL TOOLS ANDEQUIPMENT CO. ALLEGEDLY WITHOUT GOINGTHROUGH THE PROPER PUBLIC BIDDING”

By Representatives Rodriguez (R.) and Rodriguez (M.)TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Resolution No. 2460, entitled:“RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE HOUSE COMMITTEE

ON SUFFRAGE AND ELECTORAL REFORMS TOCONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION, IN AID OFLEGISLATION, ON THE REFORMS UNDERTAKENBY THE COMELEC IN RESPONSE TO THEREPORTED BRIBERY OF COMELEC OFFICIALSBY PARTY LIST GROUPS SEEKINGACCREDITATION AND A REVIEW OF THEIMPOSITION OF THE P10,000.00 FEE FOR THEFILING OF DISQUALIFICATION CASES”

By Representatives Colmenares and CasiñoTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Resolution No. 2461, entitled:“RESOLUTION COMMENDING THE SECRETARIAT

STAFF OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESPROSECUTION TEAM FOR THEIRUNPRECEDENTED ACHIEVEMENT DURING THEIMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF CHIEF JUSTICERENATO C. CORONA, THEREBY UPHOLDINGTHIS INSTITUTION’S COMMITMENT TOUPHOLD THE RULE OF LAW AND TO ANSWERTHE PEOPLE’S CALL FOR TRUTH, JUSTICE,TRANSPARENCY, AND ACCOUNTABILITY INGOVERNMENT”

By Representatives Belmonte (F.) and Gonzales (N.)TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Resolution No. 2462, entitled:“RESOLUTION COMMENDING THE PRIVATE

PROSECUTORS OF THE HOUSE PROSECUTIONTEAM FOR THEIR UNPRECEDENTEDACHIEVEMENT DURING THE IMPEACHMENTTRIAL OF CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C. CORONA,THEREBY UPHOLDING THIS INSTITUTION’SCOMMITMENT TO UPHOLD THE RULE OF LAWAND TO ANSWER THE PEOPLE’S CALL FORTRUTH, JUSTICE, TRANSPARENCY, ANDACCOUNTABILITY IN GOVERNMENT”



House Resolution No. 2463, entitled:“RESOLUTION COMMENDING THE HOUSE

MEMBERS OF THE PROSECUTION TEAM OF THEHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR THEIRUNPRECEDENTED ACHIEVEMENT DURING THEIMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF CHIEF JUSTICERENATO C. CORONA, THEREBY UPHOLDINGTHIS INSTITUTION’S COMMITMENT TOUPHOLD THE RULE OF LAW AND TO ANSWERTHE PEOPLE’S CALL FOR TRUTH, JUSTICE,TRANSPARENCY, AND ACCOUNTABILITY INGOVERNMENT”


House Resolution No. 2464, entitled:“RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE DEEP

APPRECIATION AND GRATITUDE FOR THEWISDOM, INVALUABLE LEADERSHIP ANDUNCONDITIONAL SUPPORT OF THE HON.SPEAKER FELICIANO BELMONTE, JR. AND THEDECISIVE AND PRAGMATIC GUIDANCE OF THEHON. MAJORITY LEADER NEPTALI M.GONZALES II TO THE HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES PROSECUTION TEAMDURING THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF CHIEFJUSTICE RENATO C. CORONA, THEREBYUPHOLDING THIS INSTITUTION’SCOMMITMENT TO UPHOLD THE RULE OF LAWAND TO ANSWER THE PEOPLE’S CALL FORTRUTH, JUSTICE, TRANSPARENCY, ANDACCOUNTABILITY IN GOVERNMENT”

By Representatives Abaya, Tupas, Fariñas, Aggabao,Bag-ao, Barzaga, Colmenares, Daza, Primicias-Agabas, Tugna, Umali (R.), Quimbo, Tañada, Angara,Noel, Relampagos, Banal, Alcala and Abad


House Resolution No. 2465, entitled:“RESOLUTION URGING THE PHILIPPINE

GOVERNMENT TO SEEK INTERNATIONALSUPPORT FOR THE PHILIPPINES’ POSITION ONSCARBOROUGH SHOAL OR BAJO DEMASINLOC AND THE WATERS WITHIN ITSVICINITY”

By Representative Yap (S.)TO THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

House Resolution No. 2466, entitled:“RESOLUTION INQUIRING, IN AID OF LEGISLATION,

ON THE STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OFCURRENT LAWS ON THE JEWELRY INDUSTRY,IN ORDER TO PROMOTE FURTHER THEINDUSTRY”

By Representative Yap (S.)TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Resolution No. 2467, entitled:“A RESOLUTION APPEALING TO HIS EXCELLENCY,

PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III TODECLARE OCTOBER 1, 2012 AS A NON-WORKINGHOLIDAY TO HIGHLIGHT THE CELEBRATION OFTHE INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF THECOOPERATIVES AND TO FURTHER ENHANCETHE CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE PEOPLE ON THESPIRIT AND ESSENCE OF COOPERATIVISM ASAN IMPERATIVE CALL IN THISCONTEMPORANEOUS TIME FOR PEACEFULAND DEMOCRATIC SOCIAL CHANGE”

By Representatives Ping-ay, Paez, Lico and BrionesTO THE COMMITTEE ON COOPERATIVES

DEVELOPMENT


COOPERATIVES TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY, INAID OF LEGISLATION, WHY NO APPROPRIATEJUST COMPENSATION HAS BEEN ACCORDEDTO THOSE FISHERFOLKS DISPLACED BYGOVERNMENT’S SEA RECLAMATIONPROJECTS, AND WHY THE PARCEL OFGOVERNMENT RECLAIMED LAND KNOWN ASTHE PARAÑAQUE FISHERMAN’S WHARFWHICH WAS PUT UP BY GOVERNMENT FORSAID FISHERFOLKS HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN TOTHE FEDERATION OF COOPERATIVES OF THOSEMARGINAL FISHERFOLKS AND FISH VENDORSDISPLACED BY GOVERNMENT’SRECLAMATION OF THE SEA AND R-1PROJECTS”

By Representatives Paez, Ping-ay, Olivarez and LicoTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Resolution No. 2469, entitled:“RESOLUTION COMMENDING AND RECOGNIZING

THE OUTSTANDING PROGRAM OF ACTIVITIESOF THE PHILIPPINE EMBASSY AT FEDERALREPUBLIC OF GERMANY UNDER THELEADERSHIP OF AMBASSADOR MARIA CLEOFER. NATIVIDAD”

By Representative BataoilTO THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

House Resolution No. 2470, entitled:“RESOLUTION COMMENDING AND

ACKNOWLEDGING THE HANNS SEIDELFOUNDATION FOR ITS ADVOCACY ANDCOMMITMENT IN PROMOTING ANDPROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS, RESPECTINGTHE RULE OF LAW AND UPHOLDING PUBLICSAFETY”

By Representative BataoilTO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS

House Resolution No. 2471, entitled:“RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING FILIPINO-SWISS

RACING DRIVER MARLON STOCKINGER FORWINNING THE 2012 GP3 MONACO GRAND PRIXON 28 MAY 2012”

By Representative GomezTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES



AGRARIAN REFORM TO CONDUCT ANINVESTIGATION, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, ONTHE ALLEGED ADVERSE EFFECT ON THESUGAR INDUSTRY DUE TO THE JOINTMEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 17-11 SERIESOF 2011 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OFAGRARIAN REFORM (DAR) AND LANDREGISTRATION AUTHORITY (LRA)”

By Representative Ferrer (J.)TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Resolution No. 2473, entitled:“A RESOLUTION COMMENDING OFW ALMA GUIAO

FOR HER HEROIC DEEDS AND EFFORTS INLOCATING AND CONTACTING HER FELLOWOFWs TRAPPED IN HOMS AND FERRYING THEMTO DAMASCUS, BOTH IN WAR-TORN SYRIA,AS A VIRTUAL ONE-PERSON RESCUE MISSIONCREDITED WITH RESCUING AT LEASTTWENTY-FIVE (25) OFWs WITH SHE HERSELFUNDERTAKING THE DANGEROUS TASK OFCOMING IN AND OUT OF HOMS SEVERALTIMES AT THE HEIGHT OF THE NOW-FAMOUS‘SEIGE OF HOMS’ ”

By Representative Bello and Bag-aoTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Resolution No. 2474, entitled:“A RESOLUTION COMMENDING FR. EDWIN ‘EDU’

GARIGUEZ FOR BEING AWARDED THEPRESTIGIOUS GOLDMAN ENVIRONMENTALPRIZE AWARD”

By Representative Bag-ao and BelloTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

ADDITIONAL COAUTHORS

Rep. Roilo S. Golez for House Bill No. 695;Rep. Teddy A. Casiño for House Bills No. 2510, 5314

and 5898;Rep. Bernadette R. Herrera-Dy for House Bills No. 2840,

3710 and 5915;Rep. Jane T. Castro for House Bills No. 4886, 5323, 5727,

5926 and 6034;Rep. Roy M. Loyola for House Bill No. 4963;Rep. Raden C. Sakaluran for House Bill No. 5478;Rep. Edgar S. San Luis for House Bill No. 5784;Rep. Roberto V. Puno for House Bill No. 5929;Rep. Emi G. Calixto-Rubiano for House Bill No. 6075;Rep. Luis R. Villafuerte for House Bill No. 6229; andRep. Karlo Alexei B. Nograles for House Bill No. 6310.

MESSAGES FROM THE SENATE

Message dated June 4, 2012 informing the House ofRepresentatives that the Senate on even date passedwithout amendment House Bill No. 5608, entitled:“AN ACT REAPPORTIONING THE PROVINCE OF

PALAWAN INTO THREE (3) LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS”TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

Message dated June 4, 2012 informing the House ofRepresentatives that the Senate on even date passedSenate Bill No. 3206, entitled:“AN ACT RECOGNIZING THE EARLY YEARS FROM

ZERO (0) TO AGE EIGHT (8) AS THE FIRSTCRUCIAL STAGE OF EDUCATIONALDEVELOPMENT, STRENGTHENING THE EARLYCHILDHOOD CARE AND DEVELOPMENTCOUNCIL, AND RENAMING THE DAY CARECENTER AS CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTERAND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”

in which it requests the concurrence of the House ofRepresentatives


Message dated June 4, 2012 informing the House ofRepresentatives that the Senate on even date passedSenate Bill No. 3209, entitled:“AN ACT DEFINING THE USE AND PROTECTION OF

THE RED CROSS, RED CRESCENT, AND REDCRYSTAL EMBLEMS, PROVIDING PENALTIESFOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR OTHERPURPOSES”



Message dated June 4, 2012 informing the House ofRepresentatives that the Senate on even date passedwithout amendment the following:House Bill No. 4379, entitled:“AN ACT GRANTING THE RELIANCE

BROADCASTING UNLIMITED, INC. AFRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL,ESTABLISH, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN RADIOAND TELEVISION BROADCASTING STATIONSIN THE PHILIPPINES”

House Bill No. 4668, entitled:“AN ACT GRANTING THE CULTURAL FOUNDATION

OF DAVAO DEL SUR INCORPORATED (CFDI) AFRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL,ESTABLISH, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN RADIOAND TELEVISION BROADCASTING STATIONSIN DAVAO DEL SUR”

House Bill No. 5574, entitled:“AN ACT GRANTING THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS

TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, INC. A FRANCHISETO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, ESTABLISH,OPERATE AND MAINTAINTELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMSTHROUGHOUT THE PHILIPPINES”

House Bill No. 5613, entitled:“AN ACT AMENDING THE FRANCHISE OF WI-TRIBE

TELECOMS, INC., (FORMERLY LIBERTYBROADCASTING NETWORK, INCORPORATED)GRANTED UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1553, ASAMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 4154, ANDRENEWING/EXTENDING THE TERM THEREOFFOR ANOTHER TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS FROMTHE DATE OF THE EFFECTIVITY OF THIS ACT”

House Bill No. 5492, entitled:“AN ACT GRANTING THE TV MARIA FOUNDATION


PHILIPPINES, INCORPORATED A FRANCHISE TOCONSTRUCT, INSTALL, ESTABLISH, OPERATEAND MAINTAIN TELEVISION BROADCASTINGSTATIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES,” and

House Bill No. 5491, entitled:“AN ACT GRANTING THE NUEVA VIZCAYA STATE

UNIVERSITY A FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT,INSTALL, ESTABLISH, OPERATE ANDMAINTAIN RADIO AND TELEVISIONBROADCASTING STATIONS IN REGION II”


Message dated June 4, 2012 informing the House ofRepresentatives that the Senate on even date passedSenate Joint Resolution No. 14, entitled:“JOINT RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE LIFE OF THE

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ONDANGEROUS DRUGS, CONSTITUTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 95 OF REPUBLIC ACTNO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE‘COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF2002’ ”



Message dated June 4, 2012 informing the House ofRepresentatives that the Senate on even date passedSenate Bill No. 3164, entitled:“AN ACT AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7898,

ESTABLISHING THE REVISED AFPMODERNIZATION PROGRAM AND FOR OTHERPURPOSES”



THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The Dep.Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledgethe presence of some guests in the gallery of Hon. Tomas V.Apacible of the First District of Batangas, namely: theBarangay Officials of Barangay Tuyon-tuyon, Tuy, Batangas.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). Will our guestsplease rise. Welcome to the House of Representatives.(Applause)

REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I would also like toacknowledge the presence of the guests of Hon. Walden F.Bello from the Akbayan Party-List, namely: the Free CocoyTulawie Movement; Prof. Julkipli Wadi, Dean of UP Instituteof Islamic Studies; Herbert Demos, Secretary General of theSOCCKSARGEN Workers’ Network; Rodel Banares from theAlliance of Progressive Labor-Youth; Red Tulio from theAlliance of Progressive Labor-Youth; Ghem Labudahon fromthe Workers Solidarity Network; Antonio Armilla from thePoverty Livelihood Association; Fatima Kabanag, SecretaryGeneral, Kamao; and Rogelio Cordero of Marino-APL.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). Will our guests

please rise. Welcome to the House of Representatives.(Applause)

REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that we acknowledgethe Hon. Walden F. Bello who wishes to rise on a matter ofpersonal and collective privilege.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The Hon.Walden F. Bello is recognized.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE OF REP. BELLO

REP. BELLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker anddear colleagues.

The topic, Mr. Speaker, of the speech is “Justice forHuman Rights Advocate Cocoy Tulawie.”

It is alarming how the legal mantra “innocent until provenguilty” holds no water in some parts of the country. In fact,we are confronted with the reality that sees human rightsadvocates jailed and prosecuted as criminals by preciselythe same people that they try to call to account for. We areconfronted with the reality that human rights defenders, evenas they fight for the rights of others, must prove theirinnocence to be cleared of guilt. Clearly, the culture ofimpunity persists, and this culture allows members of politicaland economic powerhouses to violate the rights of ordinaryFilipinos, and quash voices of dissent with an even moresevere force against transparency, accountability anddemocracy. This culture creates a vicious cycle and it targetsthose who lay their life on the line to empower people to livea life of dignity.

Human rights groups have observed the increasingcriminalization of human rights defenders across the country.In a report by the International Peace Observers Network(IPON), elites have systematically filed criminal cases againstadvocates and this has been particularly effective in silencingthose who try to claim what is rightfully theirs. This effort isemployed by elites across the board, from issues of landreform and the redistribution of agricultural lands to the tillers,to issues of peace and stemming the tide of violence inpolitical hotspots, like the ARMM.

A very important illustration of the human rightspredicament we are in is the case of Sulu human rightsdefender Temogen “Cocoy” Tulawie. Today, Mr. Tulawielanguishes in jail for standing up against the abuses of localgovernment officials; he is in jail for a crime whose witnessesalready admitted to having been forced to make falsetestimonies against him. All this begs the question, who isMr. Tulawie and what has he done to earn the ire of the localpowerful and influential local interests?

Mr. Tulawie is a leader of a human rights movement inSulu. Through his organization, Bawgbug, Cocoy led theprotests against violations against the dignity and life ofordinary Filipinos. He sought to make local governmentleaders and the military accountable for their abuse of power.In particular, he spoke vehemently against human rightsviolations incurred by the military in its attempt to containthe Abu Sayyaf and has called for investigations of the same.To protect individual liberties and take a stand againstinstitutionalized discriminatory religious profiling, he led theopposition to the plan to impose an ID system in Sulu. Hehas likewise raised his voice against the increasing incidence


of gang rapes and sexual violence against women thatinvolved sons of influential families and the civilianemergency forces in Sulu at a time when the localgovernment would rather have swept the incidents underthe rug. He has openly engaged and criticized Sulu GovernorAbdusakur Tan for the warrantless arrests and the violationsof civil liberties that ensued during the 2009 state ofemergency in Sulu.

The local government consistently tried to silenceCocoy’s voice. In one instance, his uncle, also a localpolitician, promised him financial support should Cocoydecide to leave Sulu. Cocoy and his group were alsoconfronted by armed men when they sought the resolutionof the rape cases.

In 2009, Cocoy was charged with multiple frustratedmurder for a bombing incident that injured 12 peopleincluding Governor Tan. Because Cocoy and his supportersbelieved that having the trial in Sulu could put his life ingrave danger and may lead to a miscarriage of justice, theypetitioned to have the trial elsewhere, and the Department ofJustice relented. To date, Mr. Tulawie has waited for theRegional Trial Court of Davao City to hear his case.

For the people in the human rights movement and thepeople of Mindanao, Cocoy has become the symbol of thestate of human rights in the region.

As a nation, we have made considerable victories inrestoring social justice and punishing impunity. Alreadygrassroots initiatives to defend human rights of ordinaryFilipinos have bloomed into mass movements and there existsa broad-based consensus that individual rights and freedomare paramount to maintaining a life with dignity. Themomentum has been set for transforming the human rightslandscape of the nation, but we have a long way to go. Withcases such as Cocoy’s, it is clear that, today, the Filipino peopleneed to stand for the rights of individuals who have selflesslygiven their energies to ensure the rights and welfare of others.

Today, I urge the Members of this august Chamber tostand by the rights of Mr. Tulawie and scores of humanrights advocates who continue to languish in jail for theirpassion to defend the rights of ordinary Filipinos confrontedwith the extraordinary powers of families and localgovernment leaders.

Let us stand up for Mr. Tulawie’s right to a speedy andimpartial trial. It is a right that is intrinsic in every Filipino’sexistence, and if we in the legislature cannot stand up for asingle Filipino, then we cannot claim to be champions of ourconstituents. Let us echo the civil society’s call—theharassment should stop and at no point during the trialshould Mr. Tulawie’s life be put in danger nor his rights as ahuman being be violated.

Finally, let us join our voices with that of the humanrights advocates across the nation and the globe, andcondemn this growing global trend of repression andcriminalization of the defenders of the poor, the marginalizedand the powerless.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, thank you very much.


REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that we refer the speechof the Honorable Bello to the appropriate committee.


REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that we recognize theHon. Mel Senen S. Sarmiento of the First District of WesternSamar, who wishes to rise on a personal and collectiveprivilege.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The honorableCongressman from Western Samar is recognized.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE OF REP. SARMIENTO (M.)

REP. SARMIENTO (M.). Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise on apersonal and collective privilege.

Yesterday, I received a letter from the United Nationssecretariat of the International Strategy for DisasterReduction signed by Margareta Wahlström, the SpecialRepresentative of the Secretary General for Disaster RiskReduction in relation to my appointment as a member of theUNISDR advisory group of parliamentarians on disaster riskreduction.

We are going to look into the potential activities that wecan probably come up with, looking beyond the expirationof the Hyogo Framework For Action (HFA), the frameworkon disaster risk reduction, as we try our best to reduce therisk, and trying to build a disaster-resilient society.

We are now basically campaigning for Madrid. Madridis mainstreaming adaptation and disaster risk intodevelopment. Meaning to say, in all levels of development,adaptation and disaster risk reduction should be ourprimordial consideration and we are trying our best here inthe House to ensure that in every program, the governmentis implementing disaster risk reduction and that building adisaster-resilient community is always a primordialconsideration.

Let us look into, for example, the DPWH as an adaptationmeasure, the implementation of the Anti-Overloading Lawthat can somewhat help us address some of the concernsand the experiences that we have seen in the past. What isthe relationship of the Anti-Overloading Law to disaster riskreduction? There is a need for the DPWH, for example, Mr.Speaker, to change the kind of bridges that we build now,doing away with the piers. We are implementing andconstructing a long-span bridge rather than a bridge havingso many piers for when it rains hard, debris would pile up inthose piers that cause damming and flooding in the villageslocated near the river. These are some of the things that wecan probably do as we try our best to mainstream adaptationto ensure that we are able to build a disaster-resilientcommunity.

My appointment in the United Nations will not, in anyway, affect my work in the House of Representatives, as wellas in my district, as this is going to be an additional burdenfor this humble Representation. But I would just have to try,Mr. Speaker, to manage my time and my work in the House,as well as my work as a volunteer for the Institute for Solidarityin Asia as we try our best to be the advocate of the use of thebalanced scorecard in the government service, as well as mymembership in the multi-sector advisory councils of a goodnumber of national government agencies, again as avolunteer, Mr. Speaker, and my involvement in an orphanage,


the SOS Children’s Village. I would also like to take thisopportunity, Mr. Speaker, to thank the Unite Nations for myappointment and my being part of the United NationsInternational Strategy for Disaster Reduction.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that we refer the speechof the Honorable Sarmiento to the appropriate committee.


The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, the House and the Senatehave approved on Third Reading House Bill No. 4330 andSenate Bill No. 3146, respectively, which proposed to revivethe observance of Arbor Day.

We have been informed by the Hon. Victor J. Yu,Chairperson of the Special Committee on Reforestation, whosponsored House Bill No. 4330, that they are in concurrencewith Senate Bill No. 3146.

Mr. Speaker, I move that pursuant to our Rules, we adoptSenate Bill No. 3146 as an amendment to House Bill No. 4330.


REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that we recognize theHon. Rafael Mariano who wishes to rise on a personal andcollective privilege.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The Hon.Rafael V. Mariano is recognized.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE OF REP. MARIANO

REP. MARIANO. Maraming salamat, Mr. Speaker.I rise on a matter of personal and collective privilege, Mr.

Speaker, hinggil po sa usapin na nakababahala at dapat lamangkondenahin dahil sa malaganap sa militarisasyon na bumibiktimasa mga magsasaka at sibilyan sa probinsya ng Quezon.

G. Ispiker, mga kapwa ko Kinatawan, noong Mayo 15,2012, sa kapistahan ni San Isidro Labrador, lumuwas saMaynila ang may 500 magsasaka at mamamayan mula saprobinsya ng Quezon at ipinahayag nila sa publiko at samga kinauukulan ang kasalukuyang kalagayan doon kungsaan nagaganap ang malawakang militarisasyon nabumibiktima sa libu-libong mamamayan. Nagaganap doonang maramihang kaso ng paglabag sa karapatang pantao,lalo na sa hanay ng masang magsasaka, manggagawa sabukid at kanilang pamilya.

Mula sa Quezon, nagprotesta sila sa Camp Aguinaldoat pormal na nagsampa ng kaso sa Commission on HumanRights (CHR) kaugnay sa kaso ng paglabag sa karapatangpantao. Noong hapon ding iyon nagtungo sila rito sa Houseof Representatives upang idulog ang kanilang sitwasyon,kahilingan at panawagan.

Sa halip na tugunan ang kanilang hinaing, hinarap silang mga pulis at security guards, at idinispers ng water cannonang kanilang hanay. Nararapat lamang, G. Ispiker, nakondenahin ang nasabing marahas na pagbuwag sa kanilangmapayapang pagtitipon at malayang pamamahayag. Isangmalaking kabalintunaan na ang mga mamamayan namapayapang nagpapahayag laban sa paglabag sa karapatangpantao ay marahas na idinidispers.

G. Ispiker, mga kapwa ko Kinatawan, mula pa noongtaong 2010, nang ipatupad ng gobyerno at Armed Forces ofthe Philippines (AFP) ang internal peace and security planna siyang blueprint ng Oplan Bayanihan, nagaganap na saTimog Katagalugan ang iba’t ibang anyo ng paglabag sakarapatang pantao.

Sa kasalukuyan po, nasa Timog Quezon at BondocPeninsula rin ang focus ng umano ay proyektongpangkaunlaran, kapwa ng gobyerno at ng mga pribadongkumpanya. Ilan dito ay mga proyektong bio-diesel sa bayanng Gumaca, Mirant Powerplant Extension sa Atimonan, atang pagtatayo ng dam sa Macalelon. Nagtalaga rin ang AFPng di mapaparisang bilang ng mga sundalo sa dalawangdistrito ng probinsya ng Quezon, sa Timog Quezon at BondocPeninsula, at nahigitan pa ang deployment ng militar kaysanoong panahon ng Batas Militar.

Mr. Speaker, ayon sa ipinadalang datos at ulat ngKarapatan-Quezon, mayroong humigit-kumulang 4,000sundalo mula sa walong malalaking unit ng militar at specialforces ang naka-deploy ngayon sa 22 bayan sa probinsyang Quezon, kabilang ang apat na battalion ng PhilippineArmy—ang 76th Infantry Battalion ng Philippine Army, ang74th Infantry Battalion ng Philippine Army sa Catanauan,Mulanay at General Luna, ang 59th Infantry Battalion ngPhilippine Army at CAFGU sa Calauag, at ang 85th InfantryBattalion ng Philippine Army sa Macalelon, Unisan atGumaca. Naroon din ang 201st Brigade and Second InfantryJungle Fighter Division sa may San Francisco, ang FirstSpecial Forces ng Philippine Army sa Sampaloc, PadreBurgos, Mauban at ang 416th Police Provincial Mobile Group.

Nakapagtala ang Karapatan-Quezon ng 125 indibidwalna biktima ng paglabag sa karapatang pantao. Mayroongisang kaso ng enforced disappearanceo kaso ng sapilitangpagkawala, apat na kaso ng torture, 15 kaso ng illegal arrestand detention, limang kaso ng illegal search and seizure,tatlong kaso ng violation of domicile, tatlong kaso ngdivestment of property, dalawang kaso ng coercion at 17kaso ng threat, harassment at intimidation.

G. Ispiker, mga kapwa ko Kinatawan, 14 na buwan nangnawawala si Felix Balaston, isang magsasaka. Siya ay dinukotnoong ika-27 ng Marso, 2011 ng mga armadong kalalakihanna malakas na pinaniniwalaang mga elemento ng militar saMacalelon, Quezon. Hindi pa lumilitaw si Balaston athinihinalang naka-detain sa kampo ng 85th Infantry Battalionsa San Miguel Dao, Lopez, Quezon.

Samantala, noong Marso 22 ng taong kasalukuyan,taong 2012, naiulat naman na may mga lasing na sundalo ng74th Infantry Battalion ang nanakot sa mga kabataan sa bayanng San Andres na sina Rey Rodrigo, 16 taong gulang;Reynaldo de los Santos, 13 taong gulang; at Elmer Desuyo,21 taong gulang. Sila ay hinarang ng mga militar atpinagbintangang mga kasapi ng New People’s Army o NPA.Sinampahan sila ng mga gawa-gawang kaso ng illegalpossession of firearms, ammunition and explosives.


Hanggang ngayon ay nakakulong sila sa magkakaibangpiitan.

G. Ispiker, isang mangingisda, si Dondon Perez ng SanAndres, Quezon, ang umano ay ninakawan ng bangka atpagkain ng mga elemento ng 74th Infantry Battalion ngPhilippine Army.

Nitong Abril 29, 2012, isang sibilyan, si Manilyn Caribot,ang napaslang sa isang crossfire sa pagitan ng 85th InfantryBattalion ng Philippine Army at New People’s Army. Mataposnito, ni-ransack umano ng militar ang burol ni Caribot atpinagbantaan ang kanyang pamilya na huwag magsasampang reklamo o kaso laban sa militar.

Sa mga militarisadong lugar, napag-alaman din na nagre-recruit ang militar ng mga menor de edad para maging kasapi ng(CAFGU) gaya ng sa mga bayan ng San Andres at San Francisco.

Kabilang din sa impormasyong natanggap ngKinatawang ito ay kasalukuyang nakabase ang mga sundalosa mga kabahayan at barangay hall sa mga apektadong lugarsa 50 mga barangay sa Timog Quezon.

G. Ispiker, mga kapwa ko Kinatawan, kabilang sa mgalugar na sinisentruhan ng mga operasyong militar ng AFPay mga lugar din kung saan may agrarian disputes o sigalotsa lupa sa pagitan ng mga magsasaka at ilang malalakingpanginoong may-ari ng lupa. Kung saan aktibo ang mgamagsasaka sa pagsusulong ng tunay na repormang agraryoat paggigiit ng kanilang karapatan sa lupa, doon dinnaghahasik ng lagim at karahasan ang mga sundalo ng AFP.

Sa ngalan umano ng kapayapaan at kaunlaran,ipinatutupad ng gobyernong Aquino ang Oplan Bayanihanna karugtong lamang ng mga naunang programang kontra-insurhensya ng mga nagdaang administrasyon na OplanBantay Laya 1 at 2. Isa lamang ang probinsya ng Quezon sasinasalanta ng Oplan Bayanihan. Sa iba pang mga bahagi ngating bansa, sa mga bahagi ng probinsya ng Rizal, sa isla ngNegros, sa Agusan-Surigao, sa buong Eastern Visayas,nagaganap din ang malalalang kaso ng paglabag sakarapatang pantao dahil sa mga operasyong militar.

G. Ispiker, mga kapwa ko Kinatawan, nauulit ang nangyarisa ilalim ng Oplan Bantay Laya ng administrasyong Arroyona nag-iwan ng 1,206 biktima ng extra-judicial killings, 206 nana biktima ng enforced disappearances o mga kaso ngsapilitang pagkawala at libu-libo pang kaso ng paglabag sakarapatang pantao.

G. Ispiker, ang Timog Quezon at Bondoc Peninsula angmaituturing na sentro ng produksyong agrikultural. Ditomatatagpuan ang pinakamalalaking bilang ng mga magsasakaat mangingisda sa lalawigan ng Quezon.

Ang Bondoc Peninsula ay tinagurian ding hacienda beltdahil sa libu-libong ektaryang lupang-sakahan na pag-aaring iilang panginoong may-ari ng lupa o landlords gaya ngmatatagpuan sa mga bayan ng San Francisco, San Andres,San Narciso at Mulanay. Libu-libong ektaryang lupangsakahan ang pagmamay-ari ng mga pamilyang Murray,Zoleta, Estrada-Quizon, Tan, Reyes at Matias. Samantalangmalalaking deposito ng ginto at yamang mineral angmatatagpuan din sa mga bayan ng Tagkawayan, Buenavistaat San Andres, Quezon.

G. Ispiker, mga kapwa ko Kinatawan, dahil sa ganitongkalagayan, sa isang banda, hindi maiiwasan angmagkasalungat na interes ng masang magsasaka atmagbubukid na lumalaban sa pangangamkam ng lupa at land-use conversion, at interes ng mga panginoong may lupa,

mga pribadong encroached “development” corporations nanagtataguyod ng mga proyektong anila ay pangkaunlaransa kabilang banda.

G. Ispiker, dahil sa kalagayang ito, mahigpit naipinapanawagan ng Kinatawang ito ng Anakpawis Party-List ang kagyat na pag-pull out sa walong malalaking unitng military at special forces na naka-deploy ngayon sa 22bayan ng Timog Quezon at Bondoc Peninsula.Iminumungkahi rin ng Kinatawang ito ang paglulunsad ngon-site investigation o fact-finding mission sa mga nabanggitna bayan ng lalawigan ng Quezon.

Mahigpit pong nakikiisa ang Kinatawang ito sapanawagan ng mga magsasaka at mamamayan ng lalawiganng Quezon na itigil ang militarisasyon sa probinsya ngQuezon. Itigil ang militarisasyon sa kanayunan. Igalang atipagtanggol ang mga saligan at demokratikong karapatanng masang anakpawis at mamamayan.

Maraming salamat at magandang hapon sa inyong lahat.


REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that we refer the speechof Honorable Mariano to the appropriate committee.


OMNIBUS CONSIDERATION ANDADOPTION OF HOUSE RESOLUTIONS

REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move for the omnibusconsideration and adoption of the following measures:

1. House Resolution No. 2213, as contained in CommitteeReport No. 2227;









10. House Resolution No. 2233, as contained inCommittee Report No. 2236;













22. House Resolution No. 2252, as contained inCommittee Report No. 2248; and

23. House Resolution No. 2253, as contained inCommittee Report No. 2249.

I so move.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). Is there anyobjection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion isapproved. *

REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledgethe presence of the guests in the gallery: the Northern LuzonAlliance, the farmers from North Luzon and the PMFTC LaborUnion.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). Our guestswill please rise. Welcome to the House of Representatives.(Applause)

CONSIDERATION OF H.B. NO. 5727Continuation

PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE

REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that we take up amatter in the Unfinished Business, House Bill No. 5727,and direct the Secretary General to read the title of thebill.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). Is there anyobjection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the SecretaryGeneral is directed to comply.

THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 5727,entitled: AN ACT RESTRUCTURING THE EXCISE TAX ONALCOHOL AND TOBACCO PRODUCTS.

REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary status ofthe bill is that we are in the period of sponsorship and debate.I move that we recognize Hon. Isidro T. Ungab to sponsorthe measure and Hon. Maria Milagros “Mitos” H.Magsaysay to interpellate.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The HonorableUngab is recognized to sponsor the measure and HonorableMagsaysay is recognized to interpellate.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker.I would just like to know if I could ask some questions to theSponsor of House Bill No. 5727.

REP. UNGAB. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). Pleaseproceed.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, I would like toask if the Sponsor agrees that there is a need to raise excisetaxes on alcohol and tobacco products.


REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Do you agree that the presentexcise tax structure follows the constitutional mandate ofproviding a progressive system of taxation?


REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Is it true that low-priced brandsare currently paying a tax rate of P2.72?

REP. UNGAB. That is the present rate, Mr. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Is it also true that mid-pricedbrands are currently paying a tax rate of P7.56?

REP. UNGAB. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the second bracket.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Is it also true that high-pricedbrands are currently paying a tax rate of P12?


REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Is it also true that premium-priced brands are currently paying a tax rate of P28.30?


REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Can you, therefore, saythat the current structure complies with the constitutionalmandate of providing for a progressive system oftaxation?

REP. UNGAB. Yes, those are the present tax rates thatwe are applying right now.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, I would like toput on screen—it is already there—the proposed taxstructure under the amended House Bill No. 5727. Under theamended House bill, is it true that there will only be the two-tier system for cigarette taxation?

REP. UNGAB. Yes, for cigarettes packed by machine,Mr. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Is it also true that the new cut-off price will be P11.50?

* See MEASURES CONSIDERED (printed separately)



REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Is it true that the current low-priced brands which are currently paying a tax of P2.72 willbe paying a tax of P28.30 or equivalent to that being paidtoday by a premium brand, if their net retail price is found tobe more than P11.50?

REP. UNGAB. If more than P11.50, yes, Mr. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Is it also true that under thetwo-tier system, the mid-priced brands which are currentlypaying a tax of P7.56 will now be paying P28.30 or itsequivalent to that being paid today by a premium brand, iftheir net retail price is found to be more than P11.50?


REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Is it also true that high-pricedbrands which pay P12 nowadays will pay P28.30, if theirretail price is found to be higher than P11.50?

REP. UNGAB. Yes, that is the proposal in House Bill No.5727, as amended.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Is it also true that under yourproposal, premium-priced brands which currently pay P28.30will be paying a similar tax of P28.30 under the new Housemeasure?

REP. UNGAB. Yes, the same, Mr. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Based on your foregoinganswers, therefore, can you say that this is a progressivesystem of taxation when, in fact, premium brands would haveno tax increase as proposed?

REP. UNGAB. The present proposal, Mr. Speaker, is thatif we remove the price classification freeze, the resultingprices would be P12 and P28.30. In other words, Mr. Speaker,those that are presently paying premium, yes, they will stillbe paying the same, but those of low, medium or highclassification but were paying the rate of P2.72 and medium-and high-tier, if we remove the price classification freeze,they would be paying as such.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). So under that system, is it aprogressive form of taxation or not? Does the Gentlemanagree to that?

REP. UNGAB. It is still progressive.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Considering that the premium-priced cigarettes will maintain its rate of P28.30.

REP. UNGAB. It is still progressive taxation, Mr. Speaker,considering that if we go back to the annexes on the priceclassification freeze which has been there for the past somany years, about 15 years already, without such priceclassification, their present tax rates should be what is in theproposed low-tier and the high-tier now. In other words, Mr.Speaker, without the price classification freeze, we will now

have the same brand of cigarettes with the same pricespaying the same tax rates as compared to the previous four-tier rate which has a provision for a price classificationfreeze and which, as reflected in the annexes, does notreflect or does not pay equal taxes. There is actually aninequitable rate. Why? It is because different brands withthe same price will be paying different rates. Like, forexample, a brand with a certain price will be paying P2.72because the brand falls under the classification freeze, whileif a new brand is coming in or a brand which does not fall orwhich is not included in the classification freeze, will haveto pay the higher premium.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Okay. Therefore, Mr. Speaker,is it true that the government wants a two-tier taxation forcigarettes to simplify tax administration?

REP. UNGAB. Yes, Mr. Speaker. Just to add. We areimposing here excise taxes that is why we believe that amongthe primary objective of imposing an indirect tax which is aspecific tax is the sumptuary objective to curb a habit.

Perhaps, it is just fitting and proper to say that the mainreason for passing this bill is to address the health objectivesmost especially of the Filipinos, because prices of cigarettesin the Philippines right now are among the lowest, not onlyin Asia but also in the whole world.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). All right. I will move first toanother topic.

On the current excise tax structure for fermented liquor,which is in slide three, is it true that low-priced beer is currentlypaying a tax of P10.41?


REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Slide three please.Is it true that mid-priced beer is currently paying a tax of

P15.49?

REP. UNGAB. Yes, at present, Mr. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Is it also true that high-pricedbeer is being taxed P20.57?


REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Is it true that under theamended version of House Bill No. 5727, low-priced beer willpay a tax of P13.75?

REP. UNGAB. Low-priced beer, yes, Mr. Speaker. Thatis the proposal.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mid-priced beer, instead ofpaying P15.49, will now only pay P13.75?

REP. UNGAB. Under the proposal, Mr. Speaker, thereis no downgrading provision. They will have to pay thesame.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). So, in other words, it will remainat P15.49.



REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). All right. Is it true that underthe amended House bill, high-priced beer will pay a tax ofP18.80?

REP. UNGAB. Yes, high tax, no downgrading, Mr.Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). So, are you saying that it willbe at P20.57 still?

REP. UNGAB. It is the same . They will pay the same.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). All right. So, is it true nowthat mid- and high-priced beer will only start paying ahigher tax in 2015, if I look at the model? Can you kindlylook at the screen and tell me if what you see in the screenis accurate?

REP. UNGAB. Medyo Malabo, but will you kindly pleaserepeat the question, Mr. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). I will mention it to you. In theproposed bill, in 2015, low- and mid-priced beer will now bepriced at P14.85 and P16.73, and high-priced beer will beP20.30 and P22.22.

REP. UNGAB. Yes, Mr. Speaker, eight-percentincrease.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). All right. So, that is factual. In2017, in your proposal, it will now become P16.04 for low-and mid-priced beer and P18.06. For high-priced beer, it willbe P21.92 and P23.99.

REP. UNGAB. There is an indexation to explain inflation,Mr. Speaker, of eight percent every two years. That wouldbe increased every two years, Mr. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). I would just like to ask you,Mr. Speaker. You said earlier that the government isproposing a two-tier tax structure for tobacco products tosimplify tax administration. Am I correct, Mr. Speaker? I justwant you to repeat your answer.


REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Is it therefore …

REP. UNGAB. And not only for simplification but again,as the main purpose is the objective, to curb the incidence ofsmoking prevalence in the Philippines.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Is it true that there is currentlya four-tier tax structure for tobacco?

REP. UNGAB. There is, at present, afour-tier structure.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). And under the said Housebill, the four-tier tax structure will now be collapsed intotwo?

REP. UNGAB. Yes, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the originalproposal was unitary—only one rate of tax for all types ofcigarettes.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Actually, in the originalproposal of the House bill, this should be a unitary taxing.

REP. UNGAB. Unitary, the original proposal.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). For fermented liquor, is it truethat we are currently following a three-tier tax structure?


REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). And under the new Housebill, the three-tier structure now will be collapsed into two?

REP. UNGAB. Yes, two, Mr. Speaker, for fermentedliquor.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Is it true that new beerproducts with a net retail price greater than P50.60 shall paya tax of P18.60?

REP. UNGAB. Please repeat the question, Mr. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Is it true that new beerproducts with a net retail price greater than P50.60 shall paya tax of P18.80?

REP. UNGAB. Yes, the new beer, Mr. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). New beer, all right—for existingbeer products, is it true that the said beer products will payat P20.30 or an eight-percent increase by 2015?

REP. UNGAB. If they fall in that classification.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). All right. For existing beerproducts that are currently classified as high-priced, payinga tax rate of P20.57, is it true that they will pay the sameamount of tax even if their net retail price is greater thanP50.60?

REP. UNGAB. The same, no downgrading, Mr. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Same, okay. For existing beerproducts, applying the last paragraph of your amendedSection 143 on Fermented Liquor, is it true that existing beerproducts classified as of high-priced brand will pay a tax ofP22.22 by 2015?


REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). For existing beer productswhich pay a tax of P20.57, by 2015, they will be paying a newtax of P22.22?

REP. UNGAB. After two years, there will be an eight-percent increase, Mr. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). In other words, Mr. Speaker,


just for high-priced beer alone, you now have a two-tier tax. In your earlier statements, you confirmed, thatif it is an existing beer product, you will be paying atax rate of P20.57, and if you are introducing a newbeer product in the market, they will only be payingP18.80 which is much less than the existing beerproducts.

REP. UNGAB. The new proposal, Mr. Speaker, does notallow downgrading. No downgrading. In other words, if theypay the higher taxes before, then they have to maintainpaying the same higher taxes.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). All right. The same goes formid- and low-priced beer. The existing rate in 2013 will beP15.49 or P13.75 because where low-priced beer now willbecome P13.75 in 2013, but since you said that there is nodowngrading, the mid-priced beer will still be at P15.49. Am Icorrect, Mr. Speaker?

REP. UNGAB. For fermented liquor, Mr. Speaker, I thinkit is clear that there are only two tiers.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). All right. In other words, in2015, ang bagong pasok na beer products which pay atP13.75 will only pay P14.85 in 2015.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

REP. UNGAB. I will check first. May I request for a one-minute suspension of the session.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Garcia, P.). The sessionis suspended for one minute.

It was 4:49 p.m.




REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, whether the new brand iscoming in, it will depend on the price because if the brandwill fall on the upper tier or the lower tier, then that would bethe classification or that would be the tax rate that the brandis going to pay.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, ang gusto ko langsabihin dito, base roon sa slide na nakita ko, ibig sabihinniyan, iyong mga bagong pasok na produkto ng alcohol,mas mababa ang babayaran nilang buwis kaysa roon sa mgakumpanya ng alcohol na namuhunan na rito sa Pilipinas nanag-ugat na. Kasi kung makikita mo po roon sa currentsituation natin ang low-priced, P10.41; ang mid-priced,P15.49; ang high-priced, P20.57. Pero doon sa bagong batasna gusto ninyong pairalin, lalabas po riyan na kung ako poay bagong kumpanya na gustong magtinda ng alcohol saating bansa, ang babayaran ko lang ay P18.80. Pero kungako ay lumang kumpanya na nagpasok ng alkohol, na

nagtitinda ng alkohol dito, kung ang dating binabayarankong buwis sa mid-priced ay P15.49, babayaran ko pa rinsa bagong batas ang P15.49 at iyong high-priced namankung ang dati kong binabayaran ay P20.57, magbabayadpa rin ako ng P20.57. Ang tanong ko, doon sa mgaproponents ng measure na ito, hindi po ba madaya iyan ounfair iyan doon sa mga kumpanyang namumuhunan saating bansa? Kasi parang pinaparusahan mo iyong mgakumpanya na dati nang namuhunan at nag-ugat na ditosa Pilipinas na nagbigay ng mga negosyo at trabaho saating mga kababayan kumpara doon sa mga bagongpapasok pa lang. Parehas din po iyan doon sa tobacco.Sa tobacco po, nakita ninyo, magkano po ang increase?Balik ninyo ho sa first slide. Diyan ho makikita ninyo salow-grade cigarettes, tumaas po ng 341 percent ang taxng low-grade tobacco. Pagdating sa mid-priced tobacco,tumaas po iyong tax ng 274 percent; sa high-priced, 135percent; sa premium, walang itinaas. Ang tanong ko sainyo rito, bakit ganoon ang tax structure natin para satobacco at tsaka sa alcohol? Pakipaliwanag lang po saakin kung bakit ganoon ang bagong pasok na kumpanya—mas mura ang babayaran na tax kumpara doon sa mga dating namuhunan dito sa ating bansa natin na magbabayadng mas mataas na buwis?

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, that is the feature of this bill.It is really intended to level the playing field.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, how can youlevel the playing field? In the first place, if you talk abouttobacco and alcohol, all these existing tobacco and alcoholcompanies in this country have been around for more thana hundred years. Here comes a new tobacco or alcoholplayer who will just enter the country for the first time andstart importing alcoholic products here to compete withour locally manufactured alcohol and cigarettes, but theywill pay a lower tax for alcohol than the existing companieswhich have put up manufacturing plants for tobacco andalcohol in this country. Iyon lang ho ang kailangan kongpaliwanag na manggaling sa inyo. Bakit ganoon po, parangunfair? You were talking about inequitable distributionearlier. So, I am asking you, do you not think it is inequitablefor you to be giving more incentives to new players thanprotecting your old players who have been in this countryfor 100 years already, who have put up manufacturing plantsfor tobacco, who have put up manufacturing plants foralcohol, who have given employment to most of ourpopulation from Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, and herecomes new players and you are going to give them only alesser tax compared to the ones who have been here forquite some time already?

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, this is actually the spirit ofthe bill. That is why we removed the price classification freezein order to allow new entrants in the playing field.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, I understand yourpoint. You want to make new players come in, but why areyou giving a lower tax to the new players and higher tax tothe old players? Kumbaga, Mr. Speaker, wala pa ponggoodwill iyong mga bagong papasok na magtitinda ngalcohol at tobacco. Bakit parang mas maganda iyong kanilang


sitwasyon kasya iyong mga datihan na po na nandito saPilipinas na nagha-hire ng local employment dahilnagbibigay sila ng trabaho, dahil may mga manufacturingplants sila rito ng tobacco at saka alcohol? Iyon lang ho anggusto kong masagot kasi hanggang ngayon po hindi pa ponasasagot iyong point na iyon.

REP. UNGAB. That is precisely the reason theseprovisions were recommended or proposed, Mr. Speaker, inorder to allow the old and new players to have the same taxtreatment.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, but the way I seethe slide—it does not show same tax treatment, because ifyou look at the alcohol products, they will be paying muchmore in 2015 for old players and much less for the new players.I thought that you wanted a two-tier system; but in 2015, ifyou look at the alcohol, it will go back to a four-tier systembecause iba po ang tax para sa old players, iba rin ang tax fornew players.

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Kaya nga po may diperensiyakayo na P22.22, P20.30, P16.73 at P14.85.

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, the rates will apply as to theprice of the net retail price or the current net retail price. Wecannot discriminate against the new or discriminate againstthe old. All will have the same level of taxes.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree.I am so sorry, I cannot agree to your point when you saythat you are leveling the playing field. Maliwanag namanpo sa slide. Nakalagay po riyan kung old player ka, P15.49iyong babayaran mo para sa mid-priced beer, pero kapagikaw ay new player na papasok sa merkado rito, angbabayaran mo lang pong tax ay P13.75. So, paano mo pomasasabing level ang playing field, eh mas mura po angbabayarang tax ng bago doon sa luma? You are favoringthe new entries or the new players over the old playersna— nag-ugat na po sa bansa natin. Kaya ho hindi akopapayag na sasabihin ninyong nile-level iyong playing fieldwith this tax measure.

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, before this tax structure wasfinalized, especially in the case of the beer industry or thefermented liquor, this proposed tax structure really was aproduct of consultations with the leaders of the industry. Infact, these existing firms that have been consulted accountfor more than 95 percent of the market.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, I will go to thatpoint about consultation later, pero I would like to point outthat my question has not yet been answered, Mr. Speaker. Iam still wondering how come you can tell me that it will levelthe playing field when at the onset, I can already see that itwill be favoring new players who have no goodwill in thiscountry, who have not put up manufacturing plants, whohave not employed thousands of workers, and who havenot given taxes to this country for the last 100 years, Mr.Speaker.

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is only right togive the same taxes for all players whether old or new. Wecannot be giving too much favors for old brands so as todiscriminate the new brands, but I think it is only proper thata particular brand which comes in with a net retail price,which falls under a particular class or category, pay theamount of taxes which that brand should be paying underthat category.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). I agree with you, Mr. Speaker,as far as the net retail price is concerned, because in yourproposed measure, it already shows there that as long asyour SRP is below P50-P60, you will be paying a tax of P13.75for mid- and low-priced beer. Then, earlier, I asked you kungbagong entry, sabi mo P13.75, pero kung lumang entry ka atmid-priced iyong beer mo—for example, iyong nasa picture,San Miguel Beer yata iyan kung nababasa ko iyan nangmedyo maliwanag—ang binabayaran nila ngayon ay P15.49.Ngayon, papasok iyong price X ng beer, palagay mo na langKirin, mid-priced kunwari iyong Kirin. Hindi naman po akoumiinom. Ang bagong player na Kirin ay magbabayad langng P13.75. Pareho sila ng San Miguel Beer na mid-pricedbeer. Kunwari, ang San Miguel ay magbabayad ng P15.49 atang Kirin ng P13.75. Hindi po ba hindi level ang playing fielddoon, kasi parehas lang ang classification nila, parehongmid-priced beer, parehas lang ho silang ang SRP ay P50-P60,hindi lumampas doon? Bakit mas mahal iyong babayarangbuwis ng San Miguel over the new entry which is Kirin?

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, the products, whether newor old, are classified based on their net retail price. Thus, theprice of the product is the determinant of the tax burden. Thepurpose here is to level the playing field.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Tama po kayo,nagkakaintindihan po tayo roon. Pero, bakit pagdating ng2015, makikita mong dalawang tiers na po ang mid-pricedbeer. It is two tiers, isang P16.73 at isang P14.85. Pagdatingsa high priced, P20.22 at saka po P20.30. Kung talagang two-tier tax system lang ang gusto ninyong pairalin under thisHouse bill, bakit nagkaroon ng four classifications ng tiersng tax pagdating sa 2015? So, bumalik pa rin tayo sa fourtiers imbes na two tiers. Dapat ang makikita ko sa 2015 atsaka 2017 ay dalawang figures lang—isang tax for high pricedat isang tax for mid- and low-priced beer, imbes na apat.

REP. UNGAB. Again, Mr. Speaker, let us not complicatethe matter, because the purpose here is really to simplify. So,there are only two tiers. So, whatever would be your netretail price on the tier, let us say, in 2015 or in 2016 or 2017,you will be taxed according to what is your net retail price onthat year whether old or new.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, I am not the onecomplicating the matter. If you want a two-tier tax system, Iwill agree with your proposal, but you will have to explain itwell because what I see on the screen is not a two-tier taxsystem, because I see four figures being paid there in 2015.Kung titingnan mo, Mr. Speaker, ang bagong player ay masmababa ang babayarang buwis kaysa sa lumang player. Tamapo ba iyon? Fair po ba iyon? Kaya hindi po tayo pwedengumusad doon sa ibang points na gusto kong i-raise, kasi


hanggang ngayon, hindi ninyo maipaliwanag kung bakit apatna tiers ang nakikita ko riyan. Dapat dalawa lang iyan.

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, it is really impossible to havefour tiers with the proposed two tiers because there is nodowngrading provision.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Then why do you not proposethat if you do not want any downgrading? Dapat sa 2013,iyong bagong players ng beer ay magbayad din ng P15.49,which is the highest. At saka iyong sa high-premium beer,dapat imbes na P18.80 ay P20.50. Di wala kang na-downgradekasi ganoon ang ginawa ninyo sa tabako. If you look at theslide of tobacco, ipinantay po ninyo iyong mid, iyong high,at saka premium cigarettes.

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, I would say that it is notgood to compare the case of beer and the case of tobacco,because if we go back to the main purpose of this law or thisproposed House bill, the main purpose is sumptuaryobjective—it is to influence or to curb a habit.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). To curb what?

REP. UNGAB. Curb a habit.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Do you not think that drinkingand smoking are both habits?

REP. UNGAB. They are both habits.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Do you not think that both ofthem are dangerous to your health?

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain thatthere is a big difference between beer and tobacco.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). We will go to that later, butuntil now, you have not explained that to me. If you reallywant a two-tier system, what you should have done in themeasure is just put the price in 2013 for alcohol at a higherprice which is P15.49, instead of putting it down to P13.75,because there is no equitable and level playing field betweenthe two kinds of alcohol for the new entry and the old entry.Kasi, imbes po na maging progressive at tumaas iyong tax,bumaba po iyong tax na babayaran eh.

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, again, let me just emphasizethat there is a provision here, in the case of fermented liquor,that there should be no downgrading.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). That is my point, precisely.

REP. UNGAB. Yes, there is a provision that there will beno downgrading.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). I agree with you, Mr. Speaker.That is why in the case of fermented liquor, instead ofproposing in 2013 that the low and the mid become P13.75,eh di gawin mo nang P15.49, para iyong mga bagong entriesng alkohol sa Pilipinas ay magbayad ng same tax katulad ngmga lumang kumpanya na nagtitinda na ng alkohol ngayon.

Pagdating sa high naman, imbes na bigyan mo ng P18.80iyong mga bagong pasok na beer sa bansa natin, eh diipantay mo na doon sa mga lumang nagtitinda sa P20.57para dalawang tiers lang talaga ang makikita ko sa screen athindi apat pagdating ng 2015.


REP. UNGAB. May I request for a one-minutesuspension of the session, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER. The session is suspended forone minute.

It was 5:08 p.m.




REP. UNGAB. Again, Mr. Speaker, let me further emphasizethat we are really serious in our proposal, but there will beonly two tiers for the fermented liquor. In fact, the current taxstructure in beer is effective for one year only since 74 percentof the volume is in the low-taxed-beer category. So, we believethat the main purpose here, in the fermented liquor, is to helpraise revenues for the government, and that is why there is aprovision for no downgrading.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, I see your point.You have not yet explained to me kung bakit po imbes naginawa ninyong talagang tunay na two tiers, sana ginayaninyo na lang iyong proposal ninyo sa tobacco. Kasi satobacco, kapag bumalik tayo sa slide ng tobacco, iyong low-priced cigarettes, from P2.72 ay ginawa mong P12. Iyong mid-priced, dating P7.56; iyong high-priced, dating P12; iyongpremium, dating P28.30. Ngayon, para magawa ninyong two-tier system iyong cigarettes, ang ginawa ninyo ay iyong mid,iyong high at iyong premium ay ipinantay ninyo lahat sa P28.30,which is the highest. Bakit sa beer parang ang nangyari ay in-average mo? Iyong dating low at mid na P10.41 at P15.49, sabagong tax structure, P13.75. Iyong dating high na binabayaranng San Mig Light at iyong mga ganoong klaseng beer naP20.57 ay ginawa mong P18.80. Parang ang nangyari po tuloydito, pinapaboran mo iyong bagong mamumuhunan pa langna importer dito sa bansa to the detriment of existing alcoholand tobacco companies who: 1) have invested their plants inthe country; 2) have employed thousands of workers to workin their manufacturing plants; 3) have been paying their taxesreligiously in the local government units and the nationalgovernment; 5) have given health benefits, SSS and GSIS totheir regular employees; and 6) have provided livelihood tothe people of this country by procuring locally sourced rawmaterials for both tobacco and alcohol.

Ano naman po ba ang pinuhunan nitong mga bagongplayers na bibigyan mo ng mas magandang benefit underthe new tax measure? Wala silang puhunan, wala silangplanta, wala silang empleyado, hindi nagbabayad ng buwis,hindi nagbabayad ng kuryente, hindi nagbabayad ng tubig,


at hindi nagbabayad ng benefits sa mga manggagawa. Taposang gagawin lang nila ay mag-i-import lang sila ng beer at ngtobacco at wala man lang pinuhunan for the last 100 years.Tapos sila pa ngayon ang mas mababa ang ibabayad nabuwis kaysa sa mga datihan na. Iyon ang hindi ko kayangtanggapin diyan sa measure po ninyo.

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, if we end up with a law thatwould tend to protect the existing players against the newplayers, which is happening right now, it will not be good forthe industry. It will not be good for the overall economicdevelopment of the country because it will protect amonopoly. If that would be the case, you can no longer allownew players in the market if you protect the old from the new.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, we are notprotecting a monopoly here. What I am questioning is thetax component. Old players will have to pay mid-priced beerat P15.49 and new beer players will now pay only P13.75. Sohow can you tell me that we are protecting the old playerswhen they are paying more taxes than the new players? Howcan you level the playing field, Mr. Speaker? Kaya nga angsuggestion ko sa inyo, kung ang ginawa mo sa tabako naiprinesyo mo iyong mid, iyong high at iyong premium sapinakamataas na tax, which is P28.30, bakit hindi mo rin iyanginawa sa beer para talaga hong two-tier system lang?

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, let me again go back andexplain that the main purpose here is the health objective.There is a big difference between the case of beer and tobacco.Tobacco is directly proportional to the volume being taken.In other words, even a stick, two sticks or three sticks willhave harmful effects to the person consuming. In the case ofbeer, we have a different case here because beer, distilledspirits and wine, if taken to a certain degree—that was whatwe learned during the committee hearings or the publichearings—that if taken moderately, if it is below 40 mL, it isbeneficial to the health. It is only when liquor or alcohol istaken more than 60 milliliters that it is harmful to the health.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). I will go to that point later, Mr.Speaker.

Can you please just confirm. In 2009, wherein thegovernment revenue was at P60.5 billion, the actual revenuewas P1.223 billion, were you able to collect excise tax fromboth alcohol and tobacco at P23.9 billion? Parehas po ba?

REP. UNGAB. Let me check the figures first, Mr. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Magkano po ang nakolekta?

REP. UNGAB. What year, Mr. Speaker, are you referringto?

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Two thousand and nine, Mr.Speaker.

REP. UNGAB. Two thousand and nine. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). So, tama po ba iyong nasaslide? Pakisilip lang po iyong slide. P23.9 billion yungnakolekta ninyo from tobacco and P23.9 billion from alcohol.

REP. UNGAB. In 2009, the total excise tax from cigarettesis P23.8 billion.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Then for alcohol?

REP. UNGAB. The total for alcohol is P20.6 billion.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). P20.6 billion?

REP. UNGAB. Yes.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Two thousand and nine?

REP. UNGAB. Two thousand and nine.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). How about in 2010, Mr.Speaker?

REP. UNGAB. Two thousand …

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Ten.

REP. UNGAB. … and ten. For cigarettes, Mr. Speaker, itis P31.6 billion, and for alcohol, it is P21.5 billion.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). In 2011, how much were youable to collect?

REP. UNGAB. In 2011, for cigarettes, it went down toP25.49 billion , and alcohol is P22.7 billion.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). So, would you agree with me,Mr. Speaker, that in the last three years—2009, 2010 and2011—both alcohol and tobacco were contributing, more orless, on an even scale as far as excise taxes for sin productsare concerned?

REP. UNGAB. Based on the nominal value, yes, theywere contributing, Mr. Speaker, but if we are to compute therevenues as a percentage to the GDP, for the past 10 years, ithas been decreasing every year.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). So, you would say that theseproducts, more or less, have the same amount? May I justask you, for the figure 2012, when you implement thismeasure, how much do you stand to gain for tobacco?

REP. UNGAB. For tobacco, Mr. Speaker, the target isP26.8 billion.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). That is for tobacco?


REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Additional on top of P25 billionor is that the whole amount already that you will be able tocollect?

REP. UNGAB. Incremental.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Incremental. How about foralcohol, Mr. Speaker?


REP. UNGAB. Alcohol—for fermented liquors, it is P3.03billion, and for distilled spirits, it is P1.45 billion.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). How come it is …

REP. UNGAB. For a total of P4.48 billion.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). So, for tobacco, it is P26 billionand for alcohol, it is P4 billion plus?


REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). How come there is a hugedisparity now, wherein before you used to collect from sinproducts more or less on an even basis, give or take one ortwo billion pesos, but now you can see it is P26 billionincremental for tobacco and only P4 billion for alcohol?

REP. UNGAB. Again, Mr. Speaker, let me go back to themain purpose of this bill — health objectives. Why?

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Never mind, I will tackle thatlater, Mr. Speaker.

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker …

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). What is the basis ?

REP. UNGAB. … I have to explain why. The Philippines isnow one of the top or the highest—having the highestprevalence of smoking in the whole world. Almost 30 percent ofour population are now smokers. Smokers, which starts smokingat the age of 10 years old, what is alarming here is that becausewe have very, very low prices of cigarettes, one of the lowest inthe whole world not only in Asia, even the school children canafford to buy our cigarettes. The increase in prevalence orincidence for 15 years old and below has increased in threeyears time alone from 2004 to 2007 to 40 percent.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). May I just…

REP. UNGAB. This is an impending epidemic that wemust look into.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). May I just ask you what is thehealth cost given by the DOH.

REP. UNGAB. Health cost for last year 2011, Mr. Speaker,is P177 billion.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). One hundred seventy-sevenbillion.

REP. UNGAB. Billion.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). All right.

REP. UNGAB. Related to tobacco.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). I have a report here, Mr.Speaker, from the DOH and World Bank and DENR. I am surethe DOF has this. It states here, Mr. Speaker, that:

The cost associated in treating the reporteddisease cases attributed to air pollution amount toP962 million per year, and air pollution-related deathsdue to pneumonia in children and cardio pulmonarydisease and lung cancer in adults, resulted in anadditional P6.7 billion.

So, how can you now tell me, how can you now reconcilethe figures in this report compared to what you said was thesocial cost of P170 billion? Because if I total it, Mr. Speaker,wala pa pong P8 billion iyong para sa upper respiratorydiseases caused by air pollution. And it further states hereas I read, “particularly, emissions in Manila are largely frommotor vehicles – 84 percent; solid waste burning – 10 percent;and industries – 5.5 percent.”

So, what I am trying to say here, Mr. Speaker, is thatmost of the upper respiratory diseases faced by our countryare not due to smoking because I was looking at the wholearticle if they attributed it to smoking, but I did not find it inthis report, Mr. Speaker. What they were saying was, upperrespiratory diseases in our country were mostly due tooutdoor air pollution. Kapag indoor air pollution, they wereattributing it doon sa mga nagluluto po sa mga LPG. So, angtanong po, Mr. Speaker, saan po ninyo pinagbasehan iyongreport ninyo kasi binabasa ko po ito, iyong binigay po ngWorld Bank sa DOH at DENR, at wala pong nakalagay namajority of the cases of upper respiratory diseases in thiscountry or those who died because of lung cancer is causedby smoking and not air pollution?

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, we have representatives herefrom the Department of Health, and they have beenconsistently attending our committee hearings, and in fact,they are here at the back and they gave me these figuresshowing that the updated economic burden of health impactsbecause of smoking in the Philippines for 2011 is a total ofnot even P177, which I mentioned awhile ago, but P188 billionin health care cost, productivity loses, and premature death.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, may I just askyou, the figure that you cited a P188 billion, is that due tosmoking alone?


REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Can you please furnish thisRepresentation a copy of the report because I do not seeany report which states that it amounts to P188 billion?

REP. UNGAB. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will provide you that.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). May I also ask you, Mr.Speaker, Mr. Sponsor, in this article I read in the PhilippineDaily Inquirer, it states here that the DOH was rapped forthe slow pace of foreign loan-funded projects, and I quote:

The Department of Health has been slow inusing loans for foreign-assisted projects, delayingthe implementation of vital health programs for thepoor and causing the government P79 million incommitment fees from 2007 to 2010, according tothe Commission on Audit.


Ang ibig sabihin po ng report na ito, binigyan tayo ngmga foreign funders ng grant for our health needs andpolicies in this country pero hindi po ginastos ng DOH iyongperang ibinigay sa atin kaya na-penalize tayo ng foreignfunders natin at nagbayad tayo ng penalty na P79 million fornot utilizing the funds for health purposes.

So, ang tanong ko, sabi mo ang rationale ng batas na itoay para tugunan iyong kalusugan at universal care ng atingmga kababayan. Bakit iyong mga existing na pondo naibinigay na sa ating bansa, hindi ginamit ng DOH? Tuloy,naparusahan pa tayo, nagbayad pa tayo ngayon ng penaltyna P79 million. May pera naman pala, Mr. Speaker. Mayroonpalang nagbibigay ng grant sa atin para sa health needsnatin para ma-fund iyong healthcare programs ng Pilipinas.Bakit hindi ginamit ng DOH iyong pera? Bakit hinayaan nilangmatulog iyong pera at mag-expire iyong pera; tuloy, tayo pangayon ang na-penalize ng P79 million?

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, again, the purpose of thisbill is sumptuary in nature, in order to curb a habit which issmoking. The incidence and the prevalence of smoking hasgone very high in the Philippines. That is the purpose: tomake it not affordable to the children, the school children,the young, most especially, the poor. Perhaps, the best timeto raise that question of the honorable Lady, future Senatorfrom Zambales, is during the budget hearing because theDepartment of Health family will be talking about the budget,but I have here a note…

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). But, Mr. Speaker, …

REP. UNGAB. … from the Department of Health, becausethey are around. The funds that you have mentioned wereintended for LGU infrastructure and are not related to anti-smoking campaign.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, you mean to say,ang health needs lang pala ng bansa natin na ipa-fund nitongmeasure na ito is just to curb smoking and not really—akalako, universal healthcare? When you say universal healthcare, Mr. Speaker, it does not just involve smoking; it alsoinvolves other diseases which are prevalent in our countrylike tuberculosis, pneumonia, hypertension, diabetes,arthritis, primary complex, iyong mga mayroong sakit ngganoong klaseng diseases. Akala ko iyong universal healthcare na pina-fund nitong measure na ito is for all kinds ofdiseases and not only related to smoking.

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, the top 10 killers in thecountry, according to the Department of Health, as of July2010, are: number one, stroke; two, heart attack; three, cancer;four, chronic lung diseases—all are related to smoking, Mr.Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, that is an argumentthat we can go on and on. So, are you telling me that if youhave hypertension, na kapag kumain ako, by using theargument of Congressman Gunigundo, kung kumain ako nglechon araw-araw, pero hindi ako nagsisigarilyo, hindi akomamamatay dahil sa cholesterol? Dahil ako, Mr. Speaker,iyong tatay ko, hindi nagsisigarilyo. He never smoked in hislife but he died of heart problems because of hypertension

due to bad cholesterol, which did not come from smoking.So, how can you tell me that argument that hypertension iscaused by smoking, and so the number one cause issmoking, Mr. Speaker.?

Siguro, medyo ayusin po ninyo iyong explanation ninyo.

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, the figures from the HealthDepartment would show that 240 people are dying everydayin the Philippines because of smoking-related diseases.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). May I ask you, Mr. Speaker,how many of the people in this country are dying dailybecause of stroke?

REP. UNGAB. Again, as I have mentioned earlier, thereare 50,000 people dying every year in the Philippines becauseof stroke.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). May I just ask you what is thenumber-one killer in this country?

REP. UNGAB. Again, smoking is the number one killerin the country, at least 240 people in the Philippines. In theU.S., it is 1,000 people per day.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, where did the DOHbase that? May I just ask the person, the resource person atthe back, if he is a member of an anti-lobby or anti-advocacycourse against smoking? May I just ask you, Mr. Speaker, dowe get funds like this action for economic reform? May I justask you if they are your resource persons at the back?

REP. UNGAB. My resource person, who said that thefigures come from the National Health Survey, is from theDepartment of Health.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Okay, may I just ask you,you just have to confirm—is there such an advocacy groupin this country, the Action for Economic Reforms–Philippines, wherein the amount given was $255,000.00?May I just ask?

REP. UNGAB. There is a group called Action forEconomic Reforms (AER) that I know of but they belong tothe civil society group. They are mostly from the privatesector.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). All right. Is it true that theproject aims to secure the passage of a law that will reformand increase tobacco taxation in the Philippines?

REP. UNGAB. That I do not know, Mr. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Maybe you can ask theresource persons at the back.

REP. UNGAB. It is good that the Speaker knows that,but personally, I do not know.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). There is another advocacygroup called Add+Vantage Community Team Services Inc.which has a grant of $158,405.00.


REP. UNGAB. May I request the Lady from Zambales toplease repeat the question, Mr. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). I would just like to ask if thereis another advocacy group called Add+Vantage CommunityTeam Services which have a grant of a $158.405.00?

REP. UNGAB. I do not know that, Mr. Speaker, nothingpersonal that I know.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). May I just ask you if theDepartment of Health and the National Center for HealthPromotion is also coordinating with the DOH which has agrant of $369,877.00 and the project aims to achieve fullimplementation of the WHO-FCTC in the Philippines. It willestablish a National Tobacco Control Coordinating Officewithin the DOH and a sectorwide Anti-Tobacco Council. Itwill also deliver a national tobacco control strategy and amedium-term plan which aims for the lowest possible tobaccouse or prevalence of the highest level of protection fromsecond-hand smoke.

REP. UNGAB. Our representatives from the Departmentof Health would say that there is such a group, but personally,I do not know that, what you have said, that there is thatkind of grant. Wala po tayong alam.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Well, actually, Mr. Speaker, itis all right because you are just answering for yourprincipals. Is there another one called FrameworkConvention on Tobacco Control Alliance of the Philippineswherein it has a funding of $454,565.00, and the aim of theproject is to achieve a national tobacco control managementwith priority given to graphic health warnings, tobaccotaxation policy, and bans on tobacco advertising promotionand sponsorship?

At this juncture, Deputy Speaker Garcia relinquishedthe Chair to Sr. Dep. Majority Leader Janette L. Garin.

REP. UNGAB. There is such a group, Mme. Speaker, butthey are not based here in the Philippines.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). But have they been givengrants?

REP. UNGAB. It is attached to the World HealthOrganization but they are not here in the Philippines.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). I can go on and on, Mme.Speaker. I have eight pages of tobacco lobby groups whohave been given funds to work here in the country, but thatis not my point. I just wanted to point that out my mainargument, Mme. Speaker, that if you are saying that tobaccois the number-one killer in the country, do you not thinkthat tobacco and alcohol are the same? Because if youdrink alcohol on a regular basis everyday, it can damageyour liver which can lead to a cirrhosis which you can dieof. At the same time, if you drink too much alcohol, you canalso die because your faculties will be—malalasing ka,magmamaneho ka, mababangga ka o mamamatay ka. Pwedekang maaksidente o mamatay. So, why are you now telling

me that tobacco should have a higher taxation over alcohol…

REP. UNGAB. Mme. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). … if your goal really is just tocurb a habit? I do not mind curbing a habit. I do not smoke,I do not drink. I have not touched alcohol since 19 years oldand I have not touched cigarette. So, for somebody like mewho also wants to make other people curb that habit, howcome you are not levelling the playing field? You are allowingnew players to come into this country for tobacco and alcoholwith a cheaper tax and then you are penalizing the existingplayers by making them pay a higher tax. The bottomline,Mme. Speaker, is that this is not the Committee on Health,this is the Committee on Ways and Means. We are allsupposed to look at higher taxation, we are supposed tolook at tax measures which will help our government fundtheir program. I do not mind the government funding theirprograms, especially health program, but my point is, Mme.Speaker, you are not levelling the playing field between andamong the players of the tobacco and alcohol.

REP. UNGAB. Mme. Speaker, what we are discussinghere are excise taxes. Excise taxes are indirect taxes.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Exactly.

REP. UNGAB. One of the primary purposes of excisetaxes is to serve as its sumptuary objective and that is whywe are passing this in order to help control the fast-risingprevalence of smoking in the country.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Do you mean to say, Mme.Speaker, that this measure is only anti-tobacco and not anti-alcohol?

REP. UNGAB. Again, Mme Speaker, ...

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Since we started this argument,Mme. Speaker, you have been heavily pulling againsttobacco.

REP. UNGAB. We are not saying we are anti-tobacco oranti-alcohol, we are just curbing this habit. We are trying toregulate a habit. What is the big difference between alcoholand tobacco? In the case of alcohol, if taken moderately—again, let me say the volume is 40 mL, it does not go beyondthat, that is healthy if you do that everyday.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). So, Mme. Speaker,...

REP. UNGAB. Then, Mme. Speaker, I do not know if sheis asking for an answer. I have to finish my answer.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). All right.

REP. UNGAB. Mme. Speaker, so in the case of alcohol,if taken moderately, it is good for the health. But if you exceed60 mL, that is already dangerous for the health. You have toregulate that because one of the major causes of accidentsis drunk driving. Now, if we go to tobacco, tobacco even of


small amount, whatever you take between the human being,the flesh and the flame of smoke in that cigarette, any amountof volume taken is hazardous to the health.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). So, Mme. Speaker, if I drinkone beer bottle a day, is that healthy?

REP. UNGAB. Yes.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). What health benefit will I getfrom drinking one beer bottle a day for 365 days?

REP. UNGAB. It increases the good cholesterol level,Mme. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Up to how many beer bottleswill be healthy for me, Mme. Speaker?

REP. UNGAB. One to two bottles, Mme. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). One to two beer bottles a day.

REP. UNGAB. Yes, Mm Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). So, in case I drink two beerbottles a day, you and the Department of Health will notstop me from drinking because it is still healthy to drink twobottles of beer a day. So, from now on, Mme. Speaker, I willtell all my constituents in my district that you better startdrinking two bottles of beer a day because it is healthy foryou. It is good cholesterol.

REP. UNGAB. Moderate drinking is good so we willstop there, Mme. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mme. Speaker, there is no ifsor buts here. It is either you tell me to tell my constituents tostart drinking two bottles of beer a day or not.

REP. UNGAB. Yes, Mme Speaker. In fact, we have here acolleague in the House when I used to be with the privatesector who encouraged me to drink wine because it is goodfor the health. At that time, he was still a governor; now, heis a Congressman. I do not know if he remembers.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mme. Speaker, studies showand it was shown in the committee that 95 percent of thosewho drink alcohol in this country come from the poor sectorwho cannot afford wine. They end up drinking the low-priced brand beer. So, in other words, Mme. Speaker, I willtell the poor people now that what you are doing—drinkingbeer everyday—is correct because that is good for yourhealth.

REP. UNGAB. You were asking, Mme. Speaker, if it isgood for the health, and I said yes. If you would ask me thepurpose of this bill, it is not to make alcohol so easilyaffordable to the poor and the young because that willconstitute a large portion of their small income. Bakit hindina lang ilagay sa pagkain o sa edukasyon o sa masmagandang patutunguhan iyong kanyang porsyon naginagastos para bumili ng alak?

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). So, in other words, Mme.Speaker, para mong sinasabi na kung ikaw ay mahirap natao, wala kang “k” na uminom at magsigarilyo dahil kulangiyong kinikita mo para ikaw ay makapagsigarilyo at makainomng alkohol.

REP. UNGAB. That is the essence of this law, Mme.Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). So, are you saying, Mme.Speaker, that this bill is anti-poor?

REP. UNGAB. It is not anti-poor. We are protecting thepoor. In fact, Mme. Speaker, we are caring for the poor. Why?Because when the poor go to the hospital because ofexcessive drinking or excessive smoking, they cannot affordto pay the health cost.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.) So, in other words, …

REP. UNGAB. That is why we are going to regulate thisto a certain point, Mme. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). So, Mme. Speaker, if it is a richperson who drinks everyday—one case of beer everyday—and goes to the hospital, dapat okay lang sa atin lahat iyankasi may pambayad naman iyong isang mayaman na tao napumunta sa ospital dahil siya po ay may cirrhosis of theliver. Kasi kaya naman niyang magbayad. Okay lang kasikaya mo namang uminom at kaya mong bayaran iyongpagpapagamot mo sa ospital dahil mayaman ka.

REP. UNGAB. Mme. Speaker, the purpose of this bill isto regulate the consumption whether he belongs to the richor the poor. This will be uniformly applied. It does not meanthat when you pass this bill, you are anti-poor or pro-rich.No, that is not what it means.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). So, in other words, Mme.Speaker, it is a vice because we talk about habits. Ano langpo ba ang dapat nating ibigay na habits sa mga mahihirap?Under the law, ano iyong sa tingin mo ang dapat maginghabits ng mga mahihirap? Bawal na pala silang uminom, bawalpa silang magsigarilyo. Ano na lang po ba ang pwede nilangmaging bisyo para naman po kahit paano, kapag napagodsila sa bukid sa pagtatanim at pagsasaka buong araw, ano nalang ang pwede nilang gawing enjoyment na papayagan ngbatas, Mme. Speaker?

REP. UNGAB. Mme. Speaker, this is a free country.Everyone can do what he wants except those that are harmfulto health. I think it has been scientifically proven. There arelots of empirical data.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Okay, ito ang tanong ko, Mme.Speaker, ipagpalagay mo na naipasa natin iyong batas attumaas ngayon iyong kaha ng sigarilyo from P12 to P35,tapos iyong low-priced beer ngayon ay halos palagay moP60—wala po akong idea kung magkano iyong beer sa sari-sari store—so, ngayon, Mme. Speaker, sa tingin mo ba,ano po ba ang present base volume natin sa tabako at saalkohol?


REP. UNGAB. Please repeat.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Magkano ang nako-consumeng bansang Pilipinas pagdating po sa alkohol? How much isthe base volume used to compute the revenue for alcoholand how much is being used for tobacco?


REP. UNGAB. May I ask for a one-minute suspensionof the session. We are going to see the figures.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). The sessionis suspended.

It was 5:43 p.m.


At 5:46 p.m., the session was resumed with Dep.Majority Leader Jorge “Bolet” Banal presiding.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Banal). The session isresumed.

REP. UNGAB. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If we base thevolume on the actual removal, this means that those thatwere collected by the BIR—the volume of fermented liquorfor 2011 is 1.5 billion liters and in the case of cigarettes, it is4.6 billion packs for 2011.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, was that 1.5 billionliters?

REP. UNGAB. Liters, yes.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Billion liters.


REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Million.


REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Billion.


REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, may I just ask: With thenew tax rate, do you think that you will still be able to draw 1.5 billionliters for alcohol and 432 million packs for cigarettes, considering natumaas na po iyong presyo ng sigarilyo from P12 to P35 and iyongbeer po will now become something like P62 per beer? Would yousay that you would still be able to generate the same sales?

REP. UNGAB. The Department of Finance has projecteda decrease. However, ...

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). A decrease.

REP. UNGAB. A decrease in volume but an increase inrevenues.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). How much is the decrease involume, Mr. Speaker?

REP. UNGAB. In the case of the presentation made byPhilip Morris, they projected a 26-percent volume reduction.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Volume decrease.

REP. UNGAB. Decrease.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Decrease.

REP. UNGAB. Decrease, decrease. Reduction, reduction.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Increase?

REP. UNGAB. Reduction.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Reduction. How about saalcohol po?

REP. UNGAB. There is also a decrease, Mr. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). So, Mr. Speaker, how will youassure us that we will really be getting the revenue that youare projecting considering that? I was asking you that duringthe committee hearings so many times, yet you did not answerme in concrete terms. Ilan po ang maaapektuhan? Ano angvolume pagdating sa low-grade cigarettes, sa mediumcigarettes, sa high at premium, at pagdating sa beer, iyonglow, medium at saka high at premium beer? I have been askingthat figure in so many committee hearings already, Mr. Speaker.

REP. UNGAB. These are the figures, Mr. Speaker. Beforethe reform, the low bracket for cigarettes was 3.5 billion packs.After the reform, it will now become 1.86 billion packs. In thecase of medium, it was 0.54 billion packs. After the reform, itwill become 0.14 billion packs. In the case of high, from 1.37billion packs or high and premium, it would become 0.92 plus0.18 plus 0.004. So, that is ...

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, I will justconcentrate on the low. How much was the originalconsumption of the low?

REP. UNGAB. It is 3.54 billion packs.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Now, it would become 1.86 ...

REP. UNGAB. Yes, 1.86 billion packs.

REP.MAGSAYSAY (M.). Okay. May I just ask, Mr.Speaker, regarding the 3.5 million packs of low-gradecigarettes. Where do cigarette manufacturers procuretobacco leaves from?

REP. UNGAB. They are from local and imported leaves,Mr. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). I would probably assume thatthe ratio of local would be higher than imported low-gradetobacco leaves. Am I correct, Mr. Speaker?


REP. UNGAB. These are the figures from the Bureau ofInternal Revenue, Mr. Speaker, as regards the volume used inthe production of cigarettes. From locally grown tobacco forthe year 2011, in terms of kilogram, it is 22,991,170 kilograms;imported tobacco is higher at 72,430,672, for a total of95,421,842. In other words, as to the percent share of localagainst imported, there is only 24 percent local and 75.9 percentimported. These are figures from the BIR and you can get this.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). I will just ask, Mr. Speaker, ifthat is based on 3.5 million packs sold at its present rate. AmI correct, Mr. Speaker?


REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Okay. Now, you are going toincrease the price of low-grade cigarettes from P12 to P35because of the tax ngayon, 1.8 million tax na lang angmatitinda nila based on the DOF data. May I just ask: Anonaman ang magiging epekto noon sa tobacco farmers natinnationwide? Kasi sabi mo, 22 million kilos ang pino-procureng mga cigarette companies from tobacco farmers. Ngayon,bababa na po iyong consumption from 3.4 million packs ayear to 1.8 million packs for low-grade cigarettes. Ano poang magiging epekto noon sa tobacco farmers natin? Ilangmillion kilos po ang mawawala dahil mada-downgrade moang sales ng low-grade cigarettes from 3.4 to 1.8?

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, again, as I have mentioned awhile ago, local production accounts for only 24 percent oftotal cigarettes produced. I have here figures from the UnitedNations Commodity Trade Statistics Database of the Foodand Agriculture Organization which monitors exports andimports of products all over the world. It was reported thatexports of tobacco from the Philippines amount to 35,678,491kilograms. In other words, there is a big market for exports.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). So, in other words, Mr. Speaker,what you are trying to tell me is that even though you increasethe price of low-grade cigarettes here, hindi maaapektuhaniyong tobacco farmers kasi they are still exporting 35 millionkilos. Iyon po ba?

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, it may have affected theproduction somehow. However, let us go back to the empiricaldata and surveys…

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). No. Mr. Speaker, what I wantto...

REP. UNGAB. ... all over the world which show thatdespite an increase in prices, production or consumptionwill not be heavily affected because the product is inelasticand tobacco or cigarette is addictive.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, you said it isinelastic. Ibig sabihin, kapag tumaas ang presyo, hindibumababa ang consumption, tama?

REP. UNGAB. Yes, inelastic to a certain degree.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). How can you now reconcile

that since you are using data from abroad? The World Banksaid that every time you increase the price of cigarettes by10 percent, bumababa po ng eight percent ang consumption.So, how can you now say that it is inelastic when it is veryclear that it is elastic dahil kapag tumaas ang presyo ngsigarilyo, bumababa po ang consumption by eight percent?

REP. UNGAB. That is the computation in more advancedcountries. In the case of the Philippines, the assumption is 0.5elasticity. Again, Mr. Speaker, experience from other countrieswould show. In fact, we had visitors from Vietnam a few monthsago. Congressman Sarmiento was there. The Speaker was there.We asked about how they manage their excise taxation oncigarettes and they said that they increase taxes, but consumptionis the same. Now, they want to increase again their taxes.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). May I ask you, Mr. Speaker:Is Vietnam a tobacco-producing country?

REP. UNGAB. Vietnam is not but Thailand is a tobacco-producing country.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Exactly, Mr. Speaker. So, whenyou say that it is not a tobacco-producing country, even ifwe increase the tax of tobacco, wala kang tinatamaangstakeholder kasi wala naman silang tobacco farmers namatatamaan. Isa lang po iyong isyung gusto kong tanunginsa inyo. Balik po tayo. Sinabi mo na 3.4 million packs anglocally generated revenue coming from low-grade cigarettes.Kapag tinaasan mo with the new bill, 1.8 million packs nalang ang ibebenta. Definitely, will you agree with me namaaapektuhan po iyong procurement ng cigarettemanufacturers sa mga tobacco farmers natin ng tobaccoleaves considering na bumaba po ang consumption from 3.4million packs to just 1.8 million packs na lang in a year?

REP. UNGAB. In a way, somehow it can be affected.That is precisely the reason there are safety nets provided inthis law—15 percent of whatever revenues that will begenerated will go back to the farmers.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). May I just ask you, Mr. Speaker.We have about 2.8 million tobacco farmers nationwide spreadout in Regions I, II, III, IV and down to Mindanao. Sinabi poninyong 3.4 million packs ang dating consumption atmagiging 1.8 million packs, at iyong dating 22 million kilosna kinukuha ng cigarette manufacturers from the tobaccofarmers will now be slashed in half at magiging 11 millionkilos na lang po ang kukunin nila sa tobacco farmers. Anopo ang gagawin sa 11 million kilos na hindi po mabibiliconsidering that, at present, ikaw mismo ang nagsabi sa akin,na nag-e-export tayo ng 35 million kilos abroad? So, 35 millionkilos plus 22 million, that is a total of roughly 57 million kilosbeing produced by tobacco-producing farmers in thiscountry. Pero kapag ibinaba mo from 3.4 million to 1.8,definitely, mababawasan po iyong kukunin o bibilhingtobacco. Ano ang gagawin natin ngayon sa sobra, eh angbinibili at ine-export abroad is only 35 million? Saan natindadalhin iyong sobrang 11 million kilos na tinatanim po ngmga farmers at sino po iyong farmer na hindi mabibilhan ngtobacco dahil po mas mababa na po ngayon ang demand fortobacco leaves?


REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, again, if we go back to thesafety nets, there is 15 percent in this bill. There alreadyexists from the Virginia Tobacco Law and from the Burleyand Native Tobacco Law. There are three laws which provideexcise taxes on that. If we add these up, it will be about 11billion and aside from that, Mr. Speaker, ...

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). May I just ask ...

REP. UNGAB. ...during the period 2008 to 2011, between60 percent and 70 percent of domestic tobacco leaf productionwere exported.

This proportion had been increasing since year 2000.So, we have here a graph and it would show that for the pastten years, the export market for tobacco leaves is increasing.In other words, …

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). By how many percent, Mr.Speaker?

REP. UNGAB. In 2008 to 2011 alone, 60 percent and 70percent of tobacco leaf production were exported.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Well, I would agree withyou because you said that in the locally producedcigarettes, 22 million kilos go to locally producedcigarettes and 35 million kilos go to export. But with thenew law, only roughly 11 million kilos will be procured bythe local cigarette manufacturers kasi bumaba iyongdemand mo for cigarettes, kasi sinabi mo, 1.8 million packsna lang ang mabebenta sa ating bansa. So, ang tanong kosa iyo, iyong 11 million kilos, that is 50 percent of thelocal market na mawawala, papaano mo ngayon idadagdagiyong 50 percent na iyan sa export, considering na angincrease mo lang pala ay 10 percent or three million? Kungsinabi mong 35 million ang ine-export mo ngayon, nextyear, magdadagdag ka ng five percent to four percent—that is not even enough to absorb iyong sobra ng mgatobacco farmers pagdating sa mga tanim nila. Saan modadalhin ngayon iyon?

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, again the export market oftobacco leaves has been increasing.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). I agree, Mr. Speaker. You saidthat it is increasing 60 percent to 70 percent. Wala namantayong pagtatalo diyan eh. Pero ang increment of increase,hindi mo ako sinasagot kung gaano kataas ang increase saexport ng tobacco yearly. Is it two percent, three percent orfour percent?

REP. UNGAB. Just to give you, because these are notexpressed in percentage.

Mr. Speaker, the volume of tobacco exports has beenincreasing since, I would say, year 1998 to year 2010, and it isincreasing every year. In 1998, it was 13 million kilos; it wentto 19 million kilos in 1999; it went down in 2000 by 10 millionkilos; it went up again to 10.7 million kilos in 2001; it went upto 13 million kilos in 2002; in 2003, it went up to 13.5 millionkilos; in 2004, it went up to 15.7 million kilos; it went up againto 18.8 million kilos in 2005; in 2006, it went up to 19.04 millionkilos; in 2007, it went up to 20,533,000 kilos; in 2008, it went

up again to 25,069,000 kilos; in 2009, 31,925,000 kilos; and in2010, it went up to 35,678,000 kilos.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). So, roughly, ipagpalagay monang 10 percent, Mr. Speaker, generous na po iyong 10-percent increase.

REP. UNGAB. Average of 11-percent increase.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). So 11 percent. Ang tanong kosa iyo, iyong mawawala po sa locally procured cigarettes,tobacco leaves, is roughly 50 percent? Kasi, dati angconsumption is 3.4 million packs, bababa na lang siya ng 1.8million packs which is roughly mga 48 percent ang mawawala.So, ang tanong ko ho sa inyo, doon sa 22 million kilos nabinibili po sa tobacco farmers natin, sino ho ang mag-a-absorbnoong sobrang production nila, considering that our exportcan only absorb 11 percent per year? May sobra pa rin potayong seven million kilos na wala pong bibili. Ano po angmangyayari doon?

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, if we go back again to thefigures which I have said a while ago, locally grown tobaccocomprise this time only 24 percent of the inputs used by thecigarette manufacturers, while 75.9 percent or 76 percent arenow being imported, tobacco leaves are now being used bycigarette manufacturers. In other words, we export and theyalso import, and the assumption that if it will go down, thelocally grown tobacco which will not be absorbed can beexported. That is precisely the reason we have placed a safetynet of 15 percent of the revenues here to go back to thetobacco farmers.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker.

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, we are not talking only of 15percent of House Bill No. 5727. There are also existing lawswhich also go back to the tobacco-producing regions. Thisis Republic Act No. 7171 and the Burley and Native TobaccoLaw which also provide for a certain amount that will goback to the tobacco-producing regions. I did pencil pushingas to how much will go back to the tobacco farmers. Wouldit be …


REP. UNGAB. … about P11 billion, Mr. Speaker?

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Eleven billion, Mr. Speaker. Ido not think so. Masyadong mataas iyong P11 billion dahilP25 billion ka lang noong 2011 plus another P26 billion, so P52billion. So kung 15 percent, nasa roughly P8 billion ka lang.

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, I based my figures in theBESF, Budgetary Estimate and Sources of Fund, for 2012.Virginia Tobacco Law is about P7 billion and another aboutP1 billion from the Burley Tobacco Law and the balance isfrom this proposed bill.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, you said that theincrement of export is roughly 11 percent annually. Am Icorrect, Mr. Speaker?



REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). All right. Ang mawawala posa tobacco farmers ay halos 48 percent ng market kasi walanang bibili sa kanila na local cigarette manufacturer dahilmas maliit na po iyong demand for consumption forcigarettes na galing mismo sa data mo na 1.8 million packs.So, in other words, iyong 22 million kilos na dating binibili sakanila, bawasan mo ng 48 percent iyon, mawawala po—anghindi mabibili sa kanila is roughly around 10 million kilos. Sa10 million kilos, ipalagay mong isinama mo iyong 10 percentna increment of increase for export, may mawawalang 3.5,mayroon pa ring 6.5 million kilos ng tabako na hindi pomabibili na walang mag-a-absorb.

Kaya ang tanong ko sa iyo, ano ang gagawin natin doonsa sobrang 6.5 million kilos ng mga tobacco farmers? Kasidati, sanay silang magtanim at 22 million na locally procuredng cigarette companies at export ng 35 million kilos. So, angtanong ko, ano ang mangyayari doon sa hindi mabebenta?Sino ang mag-a-absorb noong 6.5 million kilos na produktonila?

REP. UNGAB. Again, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely thepurpose of why we provided the 15 percent amount of thatrevenues that will go back to the tobacco farmers.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, can you kindlycompute for me how you will distribute now the P8 billion ngiyong sinasabi mong safety net? How will you distributethat among the tobacco farmers nationwide? Eight billiondivided by 2.8 million tobacco farmers, ganoon ba angcomputation noon? How will you do the subsidy, Mr. Speaker,para maliwanag din po sa amin?

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, not all tobacco farmers willbe affected; it is only the portion that will be reduced, thatproduct will not be absorbed by the market. So, a certainportion and that includes the direct and the indirect …

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Who determines, Mr. Speaker,who will not be absorbed and who will be absorbed? ParangRussian roulette ang mangyayari niyan—lahat silanangtatanim, iyong iba sa kanila mabibili iyong tabako nila,iyong iba hindi. So, paano natin made-determine kung sinoiyong hindi mabibilhan at sino iyong mabibilhan?

REP. UNGAB. It is now on the implementing rules thatthat matter would be taken cared of, Mr. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, I think it is bestthat you explain to us how you will be addressing this issue.Kasi ang lahat ng mga magsasaka nationwide ay magkakaroonng fear na baka sila iyong hindi mabilhan—magtatanim silang tabako tapos hindi mabibili ang produkto nila, ano anggagawin nila doon sa hindi mabebenta nila?

Let us face it, Mr. Speaker. May mga areas in our countryna kapag dry season, wala kang ibang pwedeng itanim kunghindi tabako. At kahit magtanim po sila ng gulay, hindinaman—they will not yield the same price as tobacco. Mismoiyong Agricultural Statistics Office ng Department ofAgriculture na ang nagsabi that the highest crop beingplanted in this country, one of them is tobacco. Kung

papalitan nila iyong tobacco ng tomatoes, they will not yieldthe same price as tobacco. Iba po iyong presyo ng tobacco,iba ang presyo ng mga ibang bahay-kubo crops na pino-propose po ng Department of Agriculture, ng DOF at sakang DOH. So, sabihin ninyo po sa akin, ano ang ipapalit natingprodukto kapalit ng tabako para naman hindi masayang poiyong produkto. Magtatanim sila tapos kung wala namangbibili. Ang problema nila, hindi nila alam kung sino angmabibilhan at kung sino ang hindi mabibilhan.

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, there were studies made. Infact, last Wednesday, I was able to bring that copy, readsome of the items, that there were also crops that havelucrative income.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). May you please tell me whatthose crops are, Mr. Speaker.

REP. UNGAB. In that survey that includes hot peppers,sweet peppers, onions, vegetables, there were cropsidentified that can help the farmers. That is why this 15-percent amount is provided for the safety nets.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, can you kindlytell me what is that company that buys pepper in the millionsof kilos?


REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Kasi po ang tobacco, kahit namag-plant ka riyan ng millions of kilos of tobacco, mayroonpong mga kumpanyang papakyawin talaga lahat ng produktomo, whether locally used or exported to other countries.Bigyan ninyo po ako ng example ng isang bahay-kubo cropna kapag itinanim po ng mga—palagay na lang natin iyongmga madi-displace na lang na mga 100,000 tobacco farmersout of the 2.8 million tobacco farmers nationwide—ano poang produktong pwedeng itanim ng 100,000 tobacco farmersna iyon na kapag time for harvest na ay papakyawin po lahatng produkto nila?


REP. UNGAB. May I ask for a one-minute suspensionof the session, Mr. Speaker. I am going to get my notes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Banal). The session issuspended.

It was 6:13 p.m.




REP. UNGAB. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.Mr. Speaker, before I read the executive summary of the

survey conducted in the tobacco-growing areas, we havehere a note from the NTA. These figures which I have said


also last Wednesday that the direct farmers are only 55,000.These figures are from the National Tobacco Administrationand the 2.9 million farmers mentioned a while ago by theLady from Zambales are not all farmers. They include thetraders, the dependents, the sari-sari store and the peddlers.The actual figure, as listed by the National TobaccoAdministration, is only 55,000, and this covers the tobacco-producing areas. It is the figure from the National TobaccoAdministration.


REP. UNGAB. With regard to the survey, I read thisduring the interpellation of the Gentleman from Cagayan deOro last week that a survey was conducted among tobaccoand non-tobacco farmers in the four provinces of Region I inthe Philippines: (a) to establish the profile of the farminghousehold; (b) to compare the farming practices and income;(c) to determine the socioeconomic considerations indecision-making process by farmers on whether or not toplant tobacco; and (d) to analyze the suitability of othercrops that can be grown in the tobacco-producing areas.Region I is the main tobacco-growing area in the country. Itis composed of four provinces, namely: Ilocos Norte, IlocosSur, La Union and Pangasinan.

The survey conducted covered the 2006 and 2007cropping season. The Virginia type of tobacco is thepredominant type grown by farmers. There were 987respondents involved in the survey and the breakdown isas follows: 503 tobacco farmers and 484 non-tobaccofarmers.

Furthermore, the survey area was subdivided into twogroupings, namely: (a) very good area or good area, and (b)marginal, salty area based on their suitability for tobaccocultivation. There were 660 respondents for the very goodarea and 327 respondents for the marginal or salty area.

Data obtained showed that the area under cultivationand the total production of tobacco in Region I had beendeclining at an annual average rate of 9.36 percent and 5.36percent, respectively since 2001. However, average yield perhectare has been increasing by 4.72 percent.

Farmers in the area whether cultivating tobacco or notcan be characterized as:

a. Male;b. Generally young at age of 21 to 60 years old;c. Had secondary education;d. Has a household size of three to five;e. Has a small farm-sized one hectare or less;f. Had more than 10 years of farming experience;g. Has high tenancy rates, 60 percent for tobaccofarmers, and 40 percent for non-tobacco farmers;andh. Has a total annual income of less than P100,000.Tobacco and non-tobacco farmers gave similarreasons for cultivating their respective crops, suchas:a. Profitability;b. availability of market buyer;c. accessibility, availability of inputs and labor;andd. availability and familiarity of productiontechnology and suitability of the area climate.

The majority of the tobacco farmers, that is 86.8 percent,will continue to grow tobacco in the next cropping seasondue to: a) profitability; b) available market or buyer; and c)experience in growing the crop. For the non-tobacco farmers,they will continue growing similar crop due to: a) less laborrequirement; b) lower input cost and c) experience in growingthe said crop.

For tobacco farmers who will shift to another crop thiscropping season, the reasons given were high labor andinput cost in cultivating tobacco, while for the non-tobaccofarmers who will shift to tobacco, the reasons given werehigh profitability and price of tobacco. Corn, legumes, mungbeans, beans, peanuts and various species of vegetablessuch as: tomato, eggplant, garlic and onion are the preferredcrops by farmers for cultivation.

Among the different types of tobacco grown by farmers,the Virginia type gave the highest net income followed bythe burley type and the least was the native type. Costs andreturns analysis show that cultivating vegetables gave 1.5to 5 times higher net income than tobacco, and that is theVirginia type. Net income derived from corn is at par withthat obtained by planting native tobacco, but much lowercompared to burley and Virginia types of tobacco. For mungbean, the net income derived from cultivating is almost similarto that of burley tobacco, while for peanut, it is 1.5 timeshigher compared to Virginia tobacco. However, one-time laborcost of the farmer was not taken into account in these costsand returns analysis.

Based on the percent net income which ranges from 31percent to 72 percent, garlic had the lowest and hot pepperhad the highest percentage. In addition, the average percentnet income obtained by farmers in growing tobacco wassimilar to that of growing non-tobacco crops. Virginia tobaccorequires highest input cost and labor requirement per hectareamong the three tobacco types. For the non-tobacco crops,input cost ranges from P10,540 to P120,000 and laborrequirement from 54 man-days for mung bean, and 209 man-days for tomato. Corn, being the most preferred crop plantedby non-tobacco farmers, require an input cost of P14,990which was the second lowest among the crops, and 150 man-days as a labor requirement.

Hence, farmers always weigh their option based on theirfinancial resources, availability of labor and profitability ofthe crop in choosing which crop to plant each year. Fortobacco farmers, particularly those planting the Virginia type,source of labor outside the family is becoming a majorconcern since the crop requires considerable manpower, thehighest among the various crops, to grow and limitedmanpower available in that community. Tobacco farmers tendto sell their product directly to the tobacco companies, whilenon-tobacco farmers tend to do their own marketing of theirproducts in the local market. Tobacco companies and tradersor middlemen go to the different communities to purchasethe farmers’ products, hence, shouldering all the marketingcosts.

GIS maps for tobacco, corn, vegetables and legumesshow the various areas suitable for growing these crops inthe four provinces of Region I. They also show that theareas suited for tobacco cultivation are also suitable for thenon-tobacco crops preferred by farmers as substitute fortobacco. In some cases, the areas suited for these crops aremuch larger than areas suitable for tobacco growing.


That is the executive summary of this long study, Mr.Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, may I know thesource of your study?

REP. UNGAB. UP–Los Baños, Mr. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, I would like toask you because you are mentioning—iyong crops that cangrow, may I ask you, how much is the procurement of—howmuch do the farmers get for palay per kilo?

REP. UNGAB. I do not have all the figures here.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). In 2011, Mr. Speaker, the priceis P15.24 per kilo. Iyon ang procurement ng palay. Kapagcorn, Mr. Speaker, P12.56 per kilo. Kapag kamatis, Mr. Speaker,P13.57 per kilo. Sa 2011, Mr. Speaker, ang price ng tobaccoay P66.89 per kilo.

So, ang gusto ko lang pong puntuhin dito, kapag ikaway nagtanim during dry season—kasi sa wet season naman,Mr. Speaker, itong mga tobacco farmers na ito ay nagtatanimdin naman ng mais at palay, pero ang problema, Mr. Speaker,kapag wet season, iyong palay and corn have 80 percentpossibility of destruction. Kapag dry season, Mr. Speaker,ano ang pwedeng itanim ng mga magsasaka natin doon salupa? Kapag wet season, palay and corn; kapag dry season,tabako. Ang tanong ko, Mr. Speaker: Ano ang pwede natingipalit sa tabako during dry season na mabubuhay during dryseason at makakapagbigay din ng P66.89 per kilo? Duringdry season ha, hindi wet season, kasi kapag wet season,palay at corn ang itinatanim nila. Kapag dry season angtanong ko.

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, a while ago, I was readingthe executive summary of a long study, and that study alsoenumerated some crops that can be grown during the dryseason, which includes …

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Pero ang tanong ko, Mr. Speaker,can you give me an example, Mr. Speaker, just one crop.

REP. UNGAB. Garlic.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Garlic. Okay, do you think thatthere is anyone in this country, who will be buying 10 millionkilos of garlic?

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, we are …

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Kasi, iyon ang mawawala eh,kung ayaw mo na ng tabako …

REP. UNGAB. We are not talking of the industry levelhere. We are talking of the individual farmer level.


REP. UNGAB. The individual farmer, because what weare trying to come up with here is individual alternativelivelihood for farmers, and we cannot compare the price of …

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Tama ka, Mr. Speaker, …

REP. UNGAB. … a particular vegetable against the priceof tobacco because that is just the price of the crop whenharvested. Before you can harvest that crop, you have toinvest. Magkano ang manpower? Magkano ang inputs atfertilizer? Magkano ang gagastusin mo lahat? So, you baseit on return on investment (ROI), kung magkano angproduction mo, less operating cost, iyong net profit mo orgross profit mo, iyon ang iko-compare mo. Tobacco may behigh. It commands a high price but it is labor intensive; it isinput intensive.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Pero, Mr. Speaker, bear withme ha? Ang sabi mo, 55,000 lang ang farmers natin ng tabakonationwide, dini-dispute mo iyong figure na 2.8 million nasinabi ko. Ang sabi mo, ang tobacco industry employs about2.8 million. Ang akin na lang is 2.8 million farmers aredependent on the industry itself. Ngayon, kung magda-downsize po tayo at sasabihin natin sa mga magsasaka nahuwag na silang magtanim ng tabako at palitan na lang iyongprodukto nila kasi hazardous iyan sa ating kalusugan,magtanim na lang sila ng bahay-kubo crops, siyempre itongmga dependent na mga magsasaka ng tabako, kailangan parin nilang palitan iyong tabako with something else, kasithey are totally dependent on tobacco wherein they getP66.89 per kilo. Kung ako po iyong magsasaka at sinabihanmo ako, “Huwag ka nang magtanim.” So, sasabihin ko, “O,sige, papayag na po ako. Imbes na magtanim ako ng tabakoduring dry season, magtatanim po ako ng bawang.” Angtanong ko, “magkano po ba ang makukuha ko sa bawang?”

“Pangalawa, kanino ko po ima-market iyong bawangkung sakali? Isa po kaming kooperatiba. Marami po kami,miyembro namin nasa 2,000 tobacco farmers na magshi-shiftsa bawang. Sino po ang bibili sa amin ng ganoong karamingbawang na magbibigay po sa amin ng P66.89 per kilo? Kasimarami pong umaasa sa amin. Madi-displace iyong mga anaknamin, iyong pamilya namin, iyong mga laborers namin, iyongmga magsasaka namin, iyong mga traders namin, iyong mgawholesalers namin, iyong mga nagtitinda sa sari-sari store.Lahat ho iyon ay apektado kapag binawasan mo iyong supplyng cigarettes in the country.” So, ang tanong ko, “ano angipapalit kong produkto at paano ko maa-assure sa lahat ngdependents ko na kaya ko pa rin silang buhayin at the samelevel when I was planting tobacco?” Kasi kung pinalitan kong kamatis, P13.57 per kilo. Kapag pinalitan ko ng mais sadry season, hindi ko alam kung mabubuhay iyon, P12.56 perkilo lang. Iyong tobacco, P66.89. So, paano ko maa-assureiyong quality of life sa mga dependents ko na they will stillhave the same quality of life if I do not plant tobacco anymore,if I just plant bahay-kubo products, na iyong dating nae-enjoy ng mga anak ko na nakapag-aaral sa eskuwelahan, nasila po ay binibigyan ko ng baon, ay mabibigay ko pa rin?”

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, good quality of life is, indeed,the dream of every father for a family. Pero isipin namannatin iyong namamatay araw-araw.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, mas marami poang nabubuhay kaysa namamatay. Ang akin po, paano momami-maintain na hindi mamamatay iyong mga magsasakaat dependents nila kung sakaling hindi ko na sila


pagtatanimin ng tobacco? Iyon lang naman ang tanong ko.Give me an alternative solution para magkaroon lang tayong agreement dito. Kapag masabi mo lang sa akin dito na,“Okay, kapalit ng tabako, huwag na silang magtanim ngtabako, let them plant something else if they will get thesame yield.” Parehong kita. Wala tayong maging argumentdito, Mr. Speaker.

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, a while ago, I presentedthe executive summary of a study, which was a scientificstudy, ...

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, ...

REP. UNGAB. ... and it shows that there are crops thatcan yield, that would be able to give a good income to thefarmers.


REP. UNGAB. Based on the saving price, based on actualincome, that is the real score. There are actual studies already.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, you have a studybut at what magnitude can you apply that study? You have55,000 farmers as you claim. Now, if I displace them by saying,“Do not plant tobacco, 10 percent of you or 20 percent ofyou cannot plant tobacco kasi wala nang bibili noongprodukto ninyo.” Ano iyong pwede kong ipalit doon sa 20percent o iyong 10,000 farmers na madi-displace ng tabako?Ano ang pwede kong sabihing solution sa kanila at pwedekong sabihing, “kapag itinanim mo ito, kikita ka rin na parangnagtanim ka rin ng tabako. Iyong buhay ng dependents mowill stay and remain the same.” Iyon lang ang hinihingi ko sainyo, sa committee. Just give me that solution and we willhave no argument here.

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, a while ago, I read theexecutive summary that was a scientific survey, scientificstudy—983 respondents cannot be wrong—but I will notargue any further because it seems that she does not wantto get or to appreciate what has been the findings of thatsurvey.


REP. UNGAB. I would like to say further that aside fromshifting to other crops, these farmers, if they want to continueplanting tobacco, we can still export that. There are exportmarkets and they are increasing every year.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, I have a reporthere from the Tobacco Reporter Magazine, which states:

x x x The world’s leading tobacco merchants,Universal Leaf and Alliance One, closed theirSeptember 2010 financials with leaf inventories onthe balance sheet in excess of $1 billion each. x x x

What this wants to say, Mr. Speaker, is that sumobra poang production nila ng tobacco kaya nga po magbabawasna lang sila at magda-downscale po sila ng kanila pong

pagtatanim ng tobacco in Europe, in other countries and inthe US. So, how can you now tell me that these farmers canexport it to other countries when other countries themselvesare now downsizing the planting of tobacco?

Ang nakalagay po rito sa final, and I quote:

x x x However, the immediate requirement is torestore equilibrium on volumes and prices in tobaccosupply.

The 2010 oversupply has created large levelsof uncommitted inventories and will result in a naturalcurb of output levels in 2011 and beyond.

In other words, sumobra po iyong pagtatanim atsumobra ngayon iyong imbentaryo. To quote further:

The full impact of the EU decoupling of subsidieshas occurred in 2010, and this phenomenon will haveno impact on global supply going forward. Producersof mostly filler type tobaccos, such as Bangladeshand India, will need to rein in their production in orderto bring back pricing equilibrium.

In other words, sinasabihan iyong ibang bansa, “Huwagmuna kayong magtanin ng maraming tabako para bumalikiyong presyo kasi bumagsak ang presyo ng tabako.”

Let me continue:

And countries such as Brazil are alreadyplanning for a reduced crop in 2011. A rethink iscalled for in the context of Africa. Production in thenew growing countries took off in response to theZimbabwe’s demise. As that country appears to bemaking a comeback of sorts, the case for thesecountries weakens.

One message is clear for 2011: the industryneeds less tobacco, not more.

So, how can you now tell these tobacco farmersthat in case the demand for local tobacco cigarettes is lowerafter this bill is passed, they can export their tobacco leaveswherein the world market itself is now downsizing theirtobacco production and they do not need to import from thePhilippines kasi sila mismo na nagpo-produce ng sigarilyo,sila mismo ay may oversupply ng tobacco leaves? So, paanomo ngayon dadalhin itong mga tobacco farmers na ito? Paanopa sila mag-e-export kung iyon mismong ibang bansa ayayaw na rin mag-import, dahil sila mismo ay may oversupplykaya nga nag-downsize sila?

So, ang tanong ko ulit sa iyo, ano ang gagawin natindito sa madi-displace na mga magsasaka ng tabako? Hindimo pwedeng sabihin sa akin iyong study mo kasi buti sanakung ang maaapektuhan lang dito ay 100 tobacco farmers.Buti sana kung 200 lang. Ang pinag-uusapan natin dito ay55,000 tobacco farmers based on your report. What if 10percent of them or 20 percent of them will be displaced? Thatis still 10,000 tobacco farmers nationwide who will lose theirlivelihood because of the downsizing of the demand fortobacco cigarettes in this country, from P3.4 million packs toP1.8 million packs.

At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, ang tanong ko sainyo, sa DOF: Ano ang gagawin natin dito sa mga


magsasaka? Ano ang pwede nilang itanim kapalit ng tabakoduring dry season? Hindi mo naman pwedeng sabihing lahatsila ay magtanim ng garlic. Babagsak ang presyo ng garlicdito sa bansa dahil magkakaroon ng oversupply. Hindi monaman pwedeng sabihin na lahat sila ay pwedeng magtanimng kamatis dahil lahat po iyon, wala namang bibili ng ganoonkaraming kamatis which is 11 million kilos of kamatis. Hindimo rin sila pwedeng pagsabihan na magtanim sila ng patatas,kamatis o kamote dahil kapag nag-oversupply ka ng bahay-kubo vegetables, babagsak din ang presyo nito at walangbibili. So, ang tanong ko sa inyo, ano po ang alternative?Iyon lang po ang hinihingi ko sa inyo. What is the solution?

REP. UNGAB. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the statementbecause that strengthens my argument that we really needalternative sources of livelihood for our farmers.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Exactly, Mr. Speaker.

REP. UNGAB. That is precisely the reason we are placinga safety net of 15 percent so that this—let me again read thepurpose why we placed a safety net of 15 percent in thisHouse Bill No. 5727, as amended. This amount is intendedfor or to be allocated to:

1) programs that will provide inputs, training and othersupport for tobacco farmers who shift to production ofagricultural products other than tobacco;

2) programs that will provide financial support fortobacco farmers who are displaced or who cease to producetobacco voluntarily; and

3) cooperative programs to assist tobacco farmers inplanting alternative crops or implementing other livelihoodprojects.

To add, Mr. Speaker, I have talked to the NTAadministrator a while ago. If you remember, the figures wouldshow that 24 percent of total tobacco production is thecomponent for locally produced and 76 percent are imported.Those are also the figures that were shown to us by theBureau of Internal Revenue. According to our NTAadministrator, he can intervene to help the local tobaccoproducers replace the imported tobacco. That is a very bigvolume, 76 percent. So, instead of importing, we will facilitateassisting the farmers to fill the gap of the imported. In otherwords, it will be the imported products that will be reducedand not the local production.

MS. MAGSAYSAY (M.). May I ask you, Mr. Speaker,how will you regulate the importation of cigarettes andalcohol? Is there a safety net in the bill that says, okay, forthis year, we can only import “x” amount of cigarette packsand for alcohol we can only import “x” amount of bottles ofliquor to protect the local industry of tobacco and alcohol?

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, we are...

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Is there anything in the billwhich states that you will now start to curtail how many orhow much can just be imported in this country as far astobacco and alcohol are concerned?

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, we are a signatory to theGATT, the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade...

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). That is my point.

REP. UNGAB. ... and we are covered by those agreements.In fact, that is one of the reasons there were complaints.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). That is my point, Mr. Speaker,because earlier, you said in your statement that you willregulate the amount of importation.

REP. UNGAB. It is not regulation, Mr. Speaker. I thinkshe misunderstood my point. The NTA administrator will helpfacilitate that the produce of the farmers will be the ones thatwill be bought by the cigarette manufacturers instead of theimported ones. In fact, prices of local produce, if I were thenegosyante, is very much cheaper than the imported, in thesame manner that prices of export is higher than the localproduce.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, that would dependon the quality of the tobacco leaf. Kapag sinabi mong theywill procure more, source it on a local level, depende iyon saquality noong tobacco leaves. Kaya nga nag-i-import po sila,Mr. Speaker, dahil siguro hindi kaya po ng quality noonglocally produced iyong hinahalo po sa kanilang sigarilyo tomaintain their quality kung anumang brand mayroon ho sila.Ang tanong ko ho sa iyo ay, babalik ho uli ako kasi umiikotho tayo sa discussion. Sinasabi mo na magpa-facilitate iyongNTA administrator, tutulungan sila, pero hindi ninyo namanpo naibibigay. In concrete terms, ano ba exactly ang tulongna maibibigay ng batas na ito? Ang sinasabi ninyo lang po saakin, 15 percent ng income ang ibibigay ninyo sa displacedtobacco farmers. Paano po iyong mechanics noon? How willyou assist the farmers in terms of their livelihood or forgonelivelihood o iyong mawawalang income nila kung sakali pongma-displace sila? Kasi tandaan mo, hindi lang naman natinpinag-uusapan dito iyong 55,000 farmers. Iyong bawat 55,000farmers na iyan, mayroon po silang farmhand, iyongpinagtatrabahong laborers sa kanilang mga farms. Dependentpo rin sa kanila iyong kanilang mga pamilya na tumutulongpo sa kanila, iyong mga anak nilang pinapaaral nila, iyongmga asawa nila na kailangan nilang buhayin at saka pamilyanila. Iyong mga traders po at wholesalers na bumibili po ngsigarilyo sa ating bansa na nagbebenta po sa mga sari-saristores, lahat po iyan ay apektado. Ano ang pwede natingipalit na income? Kasi hindi lang naman tobacco farmers angapektado rito. Kapag bumawas iyong supply ng sigarilyo,mas kokonti na rin po ang maibebenta ng mga taga-sari-saristore at ng mga taga-supermarket, kasi bumaba ang demand.Everybody will experience a loss in sales. Iyan po ang cleardiyan.

When you say that the P3.4 million tax now will becomeP1.8 million tax, definitely mayroon po ritong mawawalan nghanapbuhay, mawawalan ng income. Nandiyan iyong mgatobacco farmers, nandiyan iyong cigarette manufacturers,nandiyan iyong mga wholesalers, nandiyan iyong mgaretailers. So, sa akin ho, ano ang ipapalit natin? Kasi hindininyo pa nakwa-quantify iyong loss ng wholesalers, ngretailers at ng cigarette manufacturers at ng mga dependentsng tobacco farmers.

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, again, I have talked a whileago to the NTA Administrator and he assured me that


displacement will be negligible considering that the localtobacco industry can now produce good quality leaves …


REP. UNGAB. … that can replace the imported tobacco.


REP. UNGAB. Aside from that, Mr. Speaker, we all knowthat it is not the entire 55,000 that will be affected here becauseonly a portion …

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). How much is that portion, Mr.Speaker?

REP. UNGAB. … that will be eight, as you mentioned awhile ago. But that was the old data. It is only four, which ispracticed by the World Bank right now. It is four-percentchange for one-percent change in elasticity. One-percentincrease in price would result to four percent. That is thefigure being practiced right now. That is the new data.

So, in other words, your 11 million kilos would go lowerthan as you have said. Aside from that, Mr. Speaker, the NTAhas assured us that the Philippines has now produced goodquality leaves. In fact, the locally produced is only about P66to P70 per kilo. The export price is about P155 per kilo becausewe are producing already good quality leaves.

Congratulations to the Department of Agriculture andthe NTA for providing good technical assistance to thefarmers, that they can now produce good quality leaves.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, we have noargument to that.

REP. UNGAB. Let us not close our minds to solutions,because there are only two parts of the problem or solution.If we want to solve the problem, let us go into the solutions.As Legislators, we have to think positive.


REP. UNGAB. We have to think that the future of ourfarmers will be taken care of. But also, let us not forget thatthere are 93 million other Filipinos that must be taken care of,that must be protected also by a harmful effects of dangerous,I would say, hazardous smoking.

There are 17 million Filipinos that are smoking right now.We have to find some ways by which we have to protect ourpopulation because if you want to have a progressivePhilippines, if we want to have a very good future for ourpeople, we should have healthy population. If we have anasthmatic population, if we have a cancerous population,then that is dangerous for our future.

We better invest now in our people and come up withhealthy measures, because I am afraid if we do not pass this,more and more of our children and our youth and our schoolchildren will fall into the possibility of smoking at a veryyoung age and we know the effects of that.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, I like the speechthat you made because I do agree with you and most of your

points as far as health issues are concerned. But my onlyconcern is that we can always propose that in the nationalbudget. As far as this Representation is concerned, you cannothinge the health issues of this country on the excise tax oncigarettes and alcohol. There are other ways of getting abudget for the Department of Health. Why do not we proposeit in the national budget that instead of putting our moneyinto CCT or the conditional cash transfer, we put it in universalhealthcare? Para just in case that we meet a shortfall as far therevenues on tobacco and alcohol are concerned, hindi namanmaapektuhan iyong health needs ng bansa natin. Kasi, alammo, projection ninyo lang po iyan na baka sakaling kitain ngDOF iyong P26 billion additional sa tobacco at P4 billionadditional sa alcohol. What if it does not materialize? What ifmas mababa doon ang kikitain ng pamahalaan natin? Doesthat mean now na hindi na natin pwedeng i-implement iyongUniversal Health Care Program dahil kulang ang nagingcollections natin sa tobacco and alcohol? Kaya po para saakin, kung talagang gusto nating alagaan ang health needs ngbansa natin, then let us put it in the national budget. Regardlessof whether tobacco and alcohol meet their targets or not, atleast, we are ensured that the 93 million Filipinos will have achance to have the proper health care coming from government.

Kasi, ang argument ninyo po kasi is parang nakasalalaydito iyong health care ng bansa natin, na kapag hindi ipinasaito, wala tayong universal health care para sa tao. Bakit hindinatin baligtarin? Ilagay natin sa national budget. Let uspropose. How much money do you need for universalhealthcare?

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, again, this is the excise taxwe are discussing. The Lady ...

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, you keep on tellingme that it is the excise tax that we are talking about. But whenI start talking to you about taxation, you start pointing to thehealth needs of this country. So, I have to go back to theoriginal reason that you want to pass this measure. It is toprovide for universal health care.

REP. UNGAB. Yes, Mr. Speaker. That is precisely thepurpose of excise taxes. Excise taxes are intended to regulatea habit.


REP. UNGAB. The purpose is to ...

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, you are talkingabout excise taxes. May I ask you, when you get an excise taxfrom gasoline, what is it supposed to fund?

REP. UNGAB. The excise tax from gasoline go to thegeneral budget, Mr. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Exactly, Mr. Speaker. Whenthe excise tax from gasoline goes to the general fund, it canfund any purpose. It can even fund universal health care. AmI correct, Mr. Speaker?

REP. UNGAB. If it goes directly to the general fund, thatis, of course, subject to the allocation, legislation, ...


REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Correct, Mr. Speaker.

REP. UNGAB. ... and the usual budget preparationprocess. But if we earmark it this early, if we earmark 15 percent,that will go back to tobacco farmers. If we earmark it, that 85percent will go to the universal healthcare of the variousdistricts of the country or the various LGUs of the country,then we can do that.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, that is why I amtelling you. Ang original reason you want to pass this measureis not really taxation purposes, but to fund a universal healthcare program for the country, because that is what you havebeen explaining to me kanina pa, na every time I talk abouttaxation for alcohol and beer, you always point back, becauseyou want to curb a habit in this country. So, as far as I amconcerned, when you want to curb a habit, then it is notanymore taxation. It is more you want to just reduce the habitof the people from smoking and from drinking.

Because you said, excise taxes are supposed to fund aproject. My question to you is, and you did not answer me, Mr.Speaker, you did not answer me eh. Excise tax ng gasoline goesto the general fund which can fund universal health care.

REP. UNGAB. That is why, Mr. Speaker, if your purposeis that a certain amount will go to universal health care, it isbetter you if you earmark it now because if you do not earmarkit now, it will go to the usual budgetary procedures. You go tothe DBCC, Development Budget Coordination Committee,then we go to Congress, then from Congress, ...

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, it does not haveto go through that process if you really want to fund universalhealth care. All we have to do in Congress is to allocate abudget for universal health care during the budget hearing. Itcan come from the general fund. Kung iyan talaga ang goalnatin, we have to make sure that all the Filipinos in this countrywill be given access to universal healthcare. All we need todo is put it in the budget yearly and put a budget of P30billion for the Department of Health for universal health care.It does not matter where the funds come from but what isimportant is that we can use the budget for universal healthcare. Ang fear ko, Mr. Speaker, paano kung hindi mo na-achieve iyong target mo? Paano kung hindi mo na-achieveiyong goal mo na P26 billion increment at P4 billion galing saalcohol? Saan manggagaling ngayon iyong universal healthcare program mo? Magiging rason ba iyan na tayo saadministrasyon will say na pasensya na kayo dahil hindinamin nakolekta iyong aming intended revenue fromcigarettes and alcohol kaya wala kaming pwedeng ilabas nauniversal health care kasi kulang ang aming nakolekta fromtaxes from alcohol and tobacco?

So, dapat ihiwalay natin iyan. Kung gusto mo talaga nguniversal health care, kasi kanina ninyo pa po ginagamit narason iyong universal health care to fund this bill, bakit hindina lang ho natin ilagay sa national budget iyong universalhealth care para manggaling po iyan from the general fund. Itcan come from excise tax from gasoline. It can come from VATon oil of 12 percent. It can come from the mining companies.It can come from the environment. It can come from anysource. Para masigurado natin na talagang ma-implementnatin iyong universal health care program ninyo.

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, the budget, the universalhealth care is really in our budget and we want to expandthat. Aside from expanding that, we want also to curb theincidence or to decrease the incidence of smoking. That iswhy this excise tax bill is being passed.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). No, Mr. Speaker. Iyon nga anghindi ko maintindihan. You want to curb a habit or habits?

REP. UNGAB. Habit, Mr. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Habit, meaning, isa lang?

REP. UNGAB. Habit.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). So, which one is a habit, Mr.Speaker, drinking or smoking?

REP. UNGAB. Both drinking and smoking are habits.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). So, why did you say habit?Because when you say habit, singular iyon. So, ang tanongko sa iyo, alin doon ang gusto mong i-curb? Which habit?

REP. UNGAB. Then let us correct it, Mr. Speaker. Habits.That is, our bad habits.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Exactly, Mr. Speaker. There area lot more bad habits from cigarette smoking that can bedetrimental and morally devastating also for a family, but I donot want to delve into that, Mr. Speaker. Kaya ang point ko saiyo, Mr. Speaker, walang problema sa akin, maganda angrationale ng bill, universal health care. I will agree with youon that, 100 percent. Pero ang sabi ko, ang fear ko baka kapaghindi na-achieve natin iyong target natin ng revenue, bakama-displace din iyong universal health care na gusto natingi-propose dito. Wala namang problema sa akin, walangargument sa akin iyong inyong rationale for universal healthcare. I am one with you pagdating diyan. Gusto ko lahat ngtao ay may PhilHealth card.

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, may I request the Lady toplease repeat the question.

REP. MAGASAYSAY (M.). Well, what I am saying, Mr.Speaker, wala akong argument with you as far as rationale ofthe bill or the measure which is to give universal health care.Pero to arrive at universal health care, marami tayongdadaanang proseso. Number one, nakita kong hindi leveliyong playing field between the tobacco and alcohol industry.Sa alcohol, 32 percent increase; sa tobacco, 341 percentincrease. Sa alcohol, nakita ko na iyong mga old players ngalcohol who will be paying much higher taxes than the newplayers of alcohol. Bakit naman ganoon? Magbibigay ako ngexample—kunwari, iyong mga San Miguel Corporation, iyongnagtitinda ng Beer na Beer, iyong mga Red Horse, mas mahaliyong babayaran nilang tax kaysa sa bagong pasok pa langna alcohol. Let us say iyong Tsingtao Beer or iyong mgaCorona Beer or kung ano mang klaseng beer from othercountries, will only be paying at P13.80 and not P18.80 ascompared to old companies, who have invested time, money,effort, and income here which they have to pay at P15.49 and


P20.80. So, doon pa lang ho ay may disparity na po kayo saalcohol industry. Mas mahal po ang babayarang tax ng mgalumang kumpanya na nandito na for 100 years as compareddoon sa mga importers na wala naman pong ini-invest ditongmanufacturing plant, walang mga empleyado, wala po silangdistribution, kumbaga, importation lang. Ang katapat lang ponila ay Bureau of Customs, at tapos na.

Pagdating naman po sa tobacco, nakita ko po, iyonglow-grade tobacco, tinaasan ninyo ng 341 percent ang tax.Pagdating sa medium, high at premium tobacco, pinantayninyo iyong medium at high sa premium, kaya umabot nakayo ngayon ng P28.30 ang tax. Ang problema, Mr. Speaker,wala namang problema sa akin iyong mga nagsisigarilyo ngpremium kasi mayayaman naman iyang mga iyan. Kaya nilangmagbayad. Pero in both accounts, Mr. Speaker, both alcoholand tobacco, it has been shown in the committee hearingsthat majority of those who patronize alcohol and cigarettes inthe country come from the low-income families. Theycomprise 93 percent of the market. So, ang tanong, Mr. Speaker,kapag pinatay mo iyong very market na kumikita ang gobyernong malaki in terms of revenue—I am not sure if the Speaker isstill listening to the interpellation.

REP. UNGAB. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am willing to answer.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, can you pleaserepeat what I was telling you?

REP. UNGAB. I will answer because there is a question.Mr. Speaker, first of all, there is a big difference between

alcohol and tobacco. Tobacco is more harmful than alcohol. Ihave explained that a while ago. If you look at the tax base, itis very small that is why there is an increase, but if you aregoing to say it in percentage, malaki nga pakinggan, but thereal price is not that big because that is just the same amount.The new rates, P12 and P28, are the rates if you remove theprice classification freeze. Those are the rates that you willget at present.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Now, Mr. Speaker, ang sinasabiko sa iyo, kasi you were busy talking kanina, is that majorityor 93 percent of the market, the ones that patronize it comefrom the low-income families—whether it is alcohol or tobacco.Now, if you increase the price of tobacco and alcohol, andthey cannot afford anymore to buy it, where does thegovernment expect to get the revenue? Considering that youdo not get your revenue naman from the rich because therich, as far as alcohol is concerned, comprise only sevenpercent and lesser for tobacco since the volume of tobaccosmokers come from the low- to middle-class families. So, angtanong ko sa inyo, paano ninyo ngayon or how do you stillexpect to get your revenue considering that ang tinatamaanninyo ay iyong mga low-income families and, at the sametime, iyong klase ng tobacco na binibili ninyo ay nanggagalingsa low-grade cigarettes na pino-produce ng tobacco farmersnatin?

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, the disadvantaged sectorsthat is mostly affected by the hazardous effects of smokinghere are the young and the poor. The reason we want toimpose sin taxes is, basically, to protect the young and thepoor from the damaging effects of smoking.

With regard to revenues, it has been an established trendworldwide per data from World Bank sources, I have readthis many times ...

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, may I ask wherethe World Bank gets their funding from? Someone told methat the World Bank gets their funds from Bloomberg.

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, World Bank is a big bank. Itis funded by several nations and countries all over the world.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Yes, but when it comes to theirhealth program, Mr. Speaker, they also get grants.

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine the WorldBank receiving funds from a smaller company. It may be WorldBank that would be funding the bigger companies because itis the biggest bank in the whole world.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). I am sorry, not the World Bank,but where does the World Health Organization (WHO) get itsfunding. The World Bank itself already said that in case theprice goes up, there is a downward trend of eight percent,which we had been disputing kanina, and the World HealthOrganization is the one which gets grants from Bloomberg,and I do not know if your statistics come from there.

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, I have not worked with theWHO. I used to work with the Asian Development Bank, butWHO—hindi. What I understand is that the WHO is part ofthe United Nations, and it receives voluntary funds frommember countries.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Exactly. Would you agree thatpart of the funds come from Bloomberg, which is an anti-tobacco lobby group?

REP. UNGAB. I do not think that the World HealthOrganization, Mr. Speaker, which is a very big organization,gets its funds from Bloomberg.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). The same way…

REP. UNGAB. Perhaps the smaller organizations here orsmaller organizations abroad or …

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). So, may I just ask you, Mr.Speaker, and the people who are also behind you. Do theyget the funding from these groups that you are talkingabout—the smaller funding groups? I think it is best thatthey also disclose where they are coming from, para at least itis very clear naman that the data that you are getting alsocome from them.

REP. UNGAB. Right, directly behind me, Mr. Speaker, isa heavyweight from the Department of Finance, andheavyweight because he is the undersecretary.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). No, what I am asking you, Mr.Speaker, is the one that comes from the advocacy groups.There are some people there behind you. I would like to askwhere the data that they are providing you come from,


because, you know, we have to disclose everything here forthe sake of transparency and accountability. Hindi naman popwede na magsasalita ka rito, magbibigay ka ng figures sa aminglahat, tapos hindi mo idi-disclose kung kanino galing iyongsource of funding at kung saan galing iyong source of fundsnila. Unfair naman po iyon para sa ating lahat. I mean, we want topass your measure but at least let us be honest here naman.

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, most of our data officiallycame from the Department of Health (DOH) and theDepartment of Finance.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). May I ask the DOH if they getfunding from anti-tobacco lobby groups or is any of them …

REP. UNGAB. The DOH gets its funding from theRepublic of the Philippines. In fact, we deliberate every yearon its budget, Mr. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, I think, you betterbe clear with your answer, because they get grants fromforeign sources. That is why we were penalized for notimplementing health policies in our country. We were penalizedto the tune of P79 million, because they got grants from abroadbut they did not implement health programs and policies, andthey were supposed to implement them. So, I think, Mr.Speaker, for the sake of transparency, which is a policy of theadministration, they have to be very clear. Kasi, ang hirap porito ay hindi po tayo nagkakaroon ng proper disclosure.

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, I am not aware. ThisRepresentation is not aware. She asks me if I am aware; I amnot aware.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Exactly, Mr. Speaker, that iswhy I told you that we have to be very careful when wedisclose information here in the halls of Congress, because itwould not be nice for us to be citing figures and facts here,and the source will be from people who get funding fromcertain lobby groups. I do not mind that they lobby, walangproblema sa akin iyan. Ang akin lang, maging factual langtayo sa figures natin. Gusto ko lang masigurado na iyongmga madi-displace nating mga magsasaka ay makukuha namannila iyong kanilang benefits kung sakaling mawalan sila nghanapbuhay. Kasi hindi ko maintindihan kapag taxation angpag-uusapan natin, when I talk about a two-tier or four-tiertax system, sasabihin ninyo na the rationale of this bill is thatit is a health measure. We are after the curbing of a habit. Weare here for a universal health care. Kapag tinira ko namaniyong universal health care aspect at saka iyong DOH,sasabihin ninyo, doon ko na lang dalhin sa budget hearingdoon sa Department of Health. So, Mr. Speaker, maging klaropo tayo. Ano po ba talaga ang gusto ninyo? Is this a taxmeasure to generate revenues for the country regardless ofwhat is the rationale behind the measure, or is it really a measurejust to curb a habit which is smoking?

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, House Bill No. 5727, asamended, is both a health and a revenue measure.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Which is of more importance,a revenue-collecting measure or a curb-a-habit measure?

REP. UNGAB. Both are important, Mr. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, paikot-ikot tayo.Hindi po ako kuntento sa sagot ninyo. Hanggang ngayon,Mr. Speaker, hindi pa rin ninyo sinasabi sa akin kung ano angipapalit nating produkto. Kung sinasabi mo na high-yieldingna po ang pino-produce ng farmers natin, then how come weare still importing high-grade tobacco from other countries tothe tune of 72 million kilos kung kaya naman palang i-produceng local farmers natin iyong requirement for high-gradetobacco? Bakit hanggang ngayon nag-i-import tayo—72million kilos from other countries and 22 million kilos langang binibili sa local farmers natin—kung talagang totoo iyongstatement mo kanina na talagang magaling na iyong NTAadministrator natin, na talagang kaya nilang turuan itong mgafarmers nating mag-plant ng high-grade tobacco atmabubuhay sa ating bansa? We do not need to import 72million kilos.

REP. UNGAB. Yes, we are already exporting high-gradetobacco. The Philippines is already exporting high-gradetobacco, Mr. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Yes, but you are also importing72 million kilos of tobacco leaves from other countries to bebrought in here, to produce cigarettes. Why is that happening,Mr. Speaker, kung totoong sabi mo sa akin na sinabi ng NTAadministrator sa iyo at talagang na-validate at in-assure ka nakayang mag-produce iyong tobacco farmers nating ng high-grade cigarettes para wala nang importation ng tobaccoleaves from other countries?

Isang punto na lang, Mr. Speaker, kasi alam kongmagsasalita pa po si Congressman Suarez.

REP. UNGAB. That is why, Mr. Speaker, in that data,there is an opportunity for import substitution. We cansubstitute.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Import what?

REP. UNGAB. Import substitution. We can substitutethe imports with our local products.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). You will import with localproducts by substitution. Will you please explain thatstatement.

REP. UNGAB. That imported commodities will besubstituted with local products. That is what importsubstitution means.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, ang gusto kongsabihin sa iyo, kung totoo iyong statement mo na kaya natingi-substitute ng local products ang imports, then bakit po maydisparity, 72 million kilos ang ini-import, 22 million kilos langpo ang binibili sa mga farmers natin dito sa Pilipinas, kungtotoo iyong statement mo na kayang palitan ang ini-importng local products?

Dapat baliktad po ang mangyari. Dapat mas maramingipo-procure iyong cigarette manufacturers locally in 72 millionkilos at ang ii-import na lang ay 22 million kilos from abroad,kung totoo po na kaya talaga ng National Tobacco


Administration na turuan na magtanim ng high-grade tobaccoat talagang mabubuhay din ang high-grade tobacco dito samga lupa natin sa PIlipinas.

So, Mr. Speaker, iyong statement na sinabi mo na importsubstitution kapalit ng local products, I do not think, Mr.Speaker, that it will hold.

REP. UNGAB. That is the beauty of this deliberation,because we see the opportunity that really our local productsare really of good quality and we can substitute that volumewhich is imported. I asked the NTA administrator why thereare exports, why there are imports, and importation is 74 or76 percent as against the local component, which is 24percent of the tobacco industry. According to him—may Ifinish, Mr. Speaker—kulang daw talaga ang local productionkaya nag-i-import iyong mga cigarette companies. In otherwords, whatever volume that will be displaced can beabsorbed.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Kung kulang po iyongproduction at sinabi mo that is the reason for theimportation, then why does the government not encourageour tobacco farmers to plant more tobacco para lesseriyong importation? Para imbes na kumita iyong tobaccofarmers sa ibang bansa, ang kikita ay ang sarili natingfarmers, kung iyan po ang linya mo, kung iyan angpaliwanag mo sa akin.

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, it is really hard to producetobacco. In fact, it is delicate because it is a sensitive crop. Itgrows only during the dry season. Konting ulan lang iyan,apektado na iyan. That is why, they are very selective or it isvery hard to choose—for the farmer who is going to producethe tobacco. That is the reason local production is not reallyenough to meet the demands.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, do you not thinkna mas mahirap magtanim ng palay at mais kasi 80 percentng production nila kapag tag-ulan ay pwedeng masira kaysasa tobacco na nabubuhay sa dry season kahit walangtubig? Iyong palay at mais nga during wet season, pwedepang masira iyong 80 percent ng production ng mgamagsasaka natin nationwide, so if there is any productthat is easier to plant, it will be tobacco compared to palayand corn.

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, I take the word of the NTAadministrator because he is from the place and, indeed, Idid a lot of reading before coming here in the Session Hall.Indeed, tobacco production is a very delicate way of farming.We have Congressmen here from the northern part of thecountry. I think they are more in a position to say which ismore difficult to farm.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Then, Mr. Speaker, if you aresaying that there are Congressmen from tobacco regions inthis hall or in this House of Representatives, then why arethey fighting, Mr. Speaker, for this bill or this measure not tobe passed?

I do not come from a tobacco-producing region. Myfarmers do not plant a single tobacco in Zambales, but if youare telling me that they would know more, then how come it is

the tobacco-producing regions that are opposing thismeasure, Mr. Speaker? Why do you think they are opposingthe measure, Mr. Speaker?

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, the question is whethertobacco is harder to produce than other crops. That is why, Isaid, if we want to know kung ano talaga ang mahirap i-produce, corn ba o palay o tobacco, tanungin natin iyongmga taga-northern Luzon. Ako, naging farmer din ako, …

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Pero ang tanong ko din, …

REP. UNGAB. … but wala akong experience sa tobaccokaya hindi ko ma-compare. I cannot compare tobacco andcorn or palay or the other crops that I have produced becauseI have no experience regarding tobacco. Iyong mgaCongressmen dito—ang ibig kong sabihin, Congressmen fromthe north can say whether or not mas mahirap bang mag-produce ng tobacco. Based on my readings, based on thereference materials that I have read, mahirap talaga i-produceang tobacco. Iyon po ang tanong eh.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, kung mahirappong magtanim ng tabako, hindi na sila magtatanim ngtabako. Pero bakit sila nagtatanim ng tabako sa tobacco-producing regions such as Regions I, II, III and IV? Numberone, kasi gamay ng lupa nila iyong tabako; number two,mas mataas ang kita nila sa tabako during dry season thanany other crop. Number three, Mr. Speaker, sa tingin moiyong mga ibang Congressmen dito, those from thetobacco-producing regions, are against the measure? Iyonlang po ang ipaliwanag mo sa akin. Ano kaya ang rationalekung bakit ayaw po nilang maipasa ito? Kasi ako po, walaakong tabako, wala rin akong alkohol sa distrito ko perogusto ko hong maintindihan itong measure ninyo kayaako nagtatanong. Kasi hindi naman ninyo ako pinayagangmagtanong doon sa committee hearing.

Noong ipinasa po at nai-propose ng DOF iyong two-tier system, basta na lang po ipinasa sa committee itongmeasure na ito. We were not given a chance to react. Wewere not given a chance to ask questions. When we askedyou, as Committee Chairman, if we will be allowed to askquestions after the DOF and the alcohol industry hadpresented their side, you said, yes. Pero pagkatapos noon,na-railroad na po itong measure na ito. Bigla na lang pongnagkabotohan. Hindi na namin alam. Wala man lamangamendments doon sa committee hearing natin. Bigla nalang ninyo ipinasok iyong two-tier system. Natanong baninyo iyong stakeholders kung payag sila sa two tiers?Tinanong ba ninyo kami kung ano iyong questions namindoon? Kaya pasensya na lang po kung humahaba anginterpellation natin dito dahil hindi ko po naitanong lahatito during the committee hearing. Kung pinayagan lang poninyo akong magtanong, kung pinayagan lang ninyokaming lahat magtanong, sana dito sa plenary wala natayong pino-problema at magkakaintindihan na po tayo.Pero until such time na hindi ninyo kami pinayagan, ganitotalaga ang mangyayari sa atin dito kasi I really do notunderstand.

How come the very Congressmen who come from regionsthat are producing tobacco are against the measure? What isthe rationale for being against the measure?


Like you said, they are the experts when it comes totobacco. They are the experts when it comes to theirconstituents. They are the experts when it comes to how itwill affect their constituents, whether positively or negatively?But in this case, Mr. Speaker, how come they are against themeasure? Because probably, they think that it will affect theirconstituents negatively?

Iyon ang tanong ko sa inyo kaya ipaliwanag ninyo po saakin yan. I am not against you, but you have to explain it tome para maipaliwanag ko rin sa constituents ko kasi hindininyo ako binigyan ng opportunity na magtanong noongcommittee level.

REP. UNGAB. First of all, Mr. Speaker, the question was,mas mahirap daw i-produce ang rice and corn kaysa tobacco,that is why I said that tobacco is more sensitive, more delicate,kaya hindi nami-meet iyong ating requirements nakinakailangan ng cigarette industry. That is why I madereference to our friends, our colleagues in Congress fromNorthern Luzon because they know more about the way offarming tobacco. That was the question, whether or not iyonbang pagtatanim ng tabako ay mas mahirap sa palay at sacorn?

Now, with regard to the question as to whether theyvoted against or not, well, we cannot say because some fromNorthern Luzon also voted in favor at the committee level. Infact, there were 46 Congressmen who voted in the committeelevel.

There were a lot of deliberations and, in fact, the originalbill which was the most ideal if the purpose is to simplify taxadministration or implementation is unitary. But becauseduring the entire public hearings, there were a lot ofquestions, and based on the public hearing —the inputs wegathered were that we have also to put another tier toaccommodate the low-priced product. That is why the DOFmade a presentation that they are going to propose for twotiers.


REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, if I remember it correctly, itwas a member of the Minority who moved for the approval ofthe amendments.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). But, Mr. Speaker, this measureis not majority or minority.

REP. UNGAB. In a committee hearing, anybody can makea motion.

In fact, in one of the committee hearings that we had,Congressman Rodriguez moved to approve the substitutebill—Subcommittee Bill No. 6.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). But it was not neverdiscussed…

REP. UNGAB. But that was not given due course becausethere was no quorum at the time.

Mr. Speaker, I am saying this because that was approvedin a formal committee hearing.


REP. UNGAB. Six people voting in favor …

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, you are correct.We had a lot of deliberations on this measure when you werenot yet the Ways and Means Committee Chair. And weproduced a subcommittee report wherein it was voted uponto be adopted.

REP. UNGAB. Voted at the subcommittee, Mr. Speaker,but that was not …

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Correct.

REP. UNGAB. The records will show that it was notapproved at the mother committee.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Exactly. But the process, Mr.Speaker, if it is voted upon in the subcommittee, then thatshould be the bill to be discussed in the mother committee.

REP. UNGAB. That was not approved at the …

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, wait a minute. Butin the mother committee, what happened? There was anothermeasure that was proposed, this House bill, wherein it wassupposed to be a unitary tax system, P30 billion from alcohol,P30 billion from tobacco, to come up with a total amount ofP60 billion incremental revenue coming from a unitary taxsystem.

Mr. Speaker, what was introduced in the last hearing wasa two-tier proposal coming from the DOF which was justapproved by the author of the unitary tax, and dapat pinag-uusapan na natin iyong subcommittee report and the Housebill of Congressman Abaya. But what happened, Mr. Speaker,sinira natin iyong sarili nating rules. Ang nangyari, ang pinasanatin iyong isang amended bill na hindi naman po proposedni Congressman Abaya nor ng subcommittee report.

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, …

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). And in the end, Mr. Speaker,we are now left in the situation that we all now have to askour questions on the floor because we did not follow properprocedure.


REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, ano na po ang…


REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). …the Subcommittee on Waysand Means discussed this measure for one year. We had sixhearings, we had a vice chair and Congressman RufusRodriguez acted as our Chair. Kaso binalewala ninyo iyongsubcommittee report namin, Mr. Speaker. You did not evendiscuss it on the floor in the committee level. What wasdiscussed was the unitary tax bill of Congressman Abaya,which we did not end up voting on, the unitary tax. If youwere going to make amendments to both bills, you shouldhave filed another bill or a substitute to that, pero hindi poganoon ang nangyari. Kaya po kami ngayon nahihirapan kasi


marami pong short-cut doon sa proseso in just trying to passthis measure. Marami pong questions na hindi ninyo po na-satisfy kami during the committee level. Kung pinayagan ninyolang po lahat ng stakeholders na mag-comment doon sa two-tier system mo, sana pina-comment mo iyong tobacco industry.Because remember, Mr. Speaker, that day when he had thathearing, ang nakalagay sa agenda mo, ang nakalagay lang podoon, we will only discuss the excise tax for alcohol only, Mr.Speaker. Walang nakalagay doon na we will be discussing thetobacco industry that day. Pero ano ho ang ginawa natin sacommittee level, Mr. Speaker? Bigla mong ipinapasa angamendment ng both alcohol and tobacco na hindi naman partng agenda iyon. That is why we were all caught by surprise.

When the DOF proposed the two-tier system andCongressman Abaya agreed, did you ask the alcoholindustry? You only asked the alcohol industry if they agreed,but you never asked the tobacco industry if they will agree tothe two-tier system. You never asked the stakeholders for thetobacco and alcohol industry, iyong mga empleyado nila,kung papayag sila roon sa two-tier system. Wala kayongibinigay na kahit anong pagkakataon na makapag-respondiyong mga stakeholders, Mr. Speaker. Hindi mo rin kamipinayagang mga Congressmen na magtanong tungkol saamended version na two-tier system, Mr. Speaker.

So, ang tanong ko ngayon dito sa august Chamber naito, ganito na ba ang tamang proseso ng paggagawa ng batassa ating House of Representatives na we will just disregardall the rules?

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, first of all, Sub-committeeReport No. 6 was approved only at the subcommittee level. Itwas not approved in the mother committee.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Exactly, Mr. Speaker. That iswhy that should have been the basis.

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, she has been talking for solong and I think it is I who has the floor.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Banal). A gentlereminder to the honorable Sponsor and the Lady fromZambales, please let each other finish before one interjects.Thank you.

REP. UNGAB. I have the floor, Mr. Speaker.Mr. Speaker, Sub-committee Report No. 6 was only

approved at the sub-committee level. It was not approved atthe mother committee. Then, inabot po ito ng proposal ngHouse Bill No. 5727. What is this House Bill No. 5727? It wasthe LEDAC version. It was agreed in the Legislative ExecutiveDevelopment Advisory Committee. As Chairman, I wasinformed by the Speaker. I was also briefed by the Departmentof Finance that this is the LEDAC version. On Section 3 ofthe Internal Rules of the Ways and Means Committee—Time,Place, and Agenda—it says that the chairman shall decide onthe agenda. It is to the best judgment of the chairman thatwhat has been proposed by the Legislative ExecutiveDevelopment Advisory Committee will be given priority. Thatis why we conducted several public hearings to discussHouse Bill No. 5727. It was approved in a formal committeehearing that was approved and we made the committee report.It was presented to the Committee on Rules, and it is now

being deliberated because we believe, the chairman believes,that we have to prioritize House Bill No. 5727, because it wasthe version of the Legislative Executive DevelopmentAdvisory Committee. That is why we acted on it, Mr. Speaker.To add, when it was approved by the committee, it wascertified as urgent by the President of the Republic.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, the LEDAC is notCongress. They can only propose measures. It is up toCongress to decide what they want to pass and what they donot want to pass. But, Mr. Speaker, what I am asking now isthe process, because we had the sub-committee report. Youshould have discussed the Abaya Bill vis-à-vis the sub-committee report. You should have compared the sub-committee report with the Abaya Bill. Wala tayong problema,pero ang problema, Mr. Speaker, iba iyong Abaya Bill. TheAbaya Bill proposed a unitary tax system; it did not proposea two-tier system, Mr. Speaker. So, what we passed in thecommittee level is a totally different animal. It is not the sub-committee report and it is not the Abaya Bill. Under our rules,Mr. Speaker, you are supposed to give a five-day notice beforeyou can discuss the amendments to a bill, but there was nofive-day notice, Mr. Speaker.

Is this now the practice in the House that we break allour rules just because it is in the LEDAC? I do not mind, Mr.Speaker, if it is in the LEDAC. It is fine with me. I agree. Let usmake it a priority measure, but let us do it the right way, Mr.Speaker. Congressman Abaya’s proposal was a unitary taxmeasure. The subcommittee report—we had a sub-committeereport in the Committee on Ways and Means. You shouldhave at least respected and honored the subcommittee reportwhich was brought on by your own Members. You cannotjust disregard the subcommittee reports because …

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, there were a lot of reasonswhy this Representation did not consider the sub-committeereport. First, there was a LEDAC version presented. Second,the sub-committee report retains the four-tier taxclassification bracket. In other words, there is no reform.Next, it goes back …

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, …

REP. UNGAB. … to the wholesale-price basis of whichhindi na gumawa iyong BIR ng projection kasi wala silangmakuhanan ng data at saka paatras nang wholesale.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, may paatras ngarin ngayon eh.

REP. UNGAB. Yes, kaya I did not discuss that anymorein the mother committee, Mr. Speaker.


REP. UNGAB. We are supposed to raise revenues asidefrom the health. That bill, if pursued, would lead to negative.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, may I ask you,the report of the sub-committee, of which you are theChairman, was it regressive as far as taxation is concerned ordid it increase the taxes on all tiers?


REP. UNGAB. Again, it was not discussed in the mothercommittee level.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Exactly, Mr. Speaker, may I justask you …

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, …

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, may I just ask theRules of the House …

REP. UNGAB. It retains the four-tier structure, Mr.Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). No, Mr. Speaker, I will just askyou, as committee Chairman, in any committee in the House,when there is a sub-committee report done by a sub-committee, which will be discussed by the mother committee,the sub-committee report done by your own members oranother bill?

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, Section 3 of our Rules providesthat the Chairman shall determine the agenda. It is of the bestjudgment of the Chairman that House Bill No. 5727, …

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). All right, fine.

REP. UNGAB. … being the LEDAC version, must betaken into consideration.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Fine with me if that is youragenda, but what did your agenda state? It only stated thatwe will discuss excise taxes on alcohol only. It did not …

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, there were more than five—I think, four or five public hearings before the last, that iswhy we invited the alcohol stakeholders during that daybecause every time we talk altogether, when they are bothinvited, it is always the cigarette group that has been doingthe speaking.


REP. UNGAB. We were trying to give a chance to thealcohol people to talk.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Mr. Speaker, I have no argumentwith that. Actually, I am glad that you allowed the alcoholindustry to also be able to say their piece. But remember, wewere commenting on the unitary tax system which was theproposal of Congressman Abaya. His bill said unitary tax,not two tiers, not three tiers, because we were discussing itvis-à-vis his measure which is a unitary tax system. But muchto our surprise, the DOF made a two-tier proposal. He acceptedit and we passed it; but that is already an amendment to hismeasure, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Speaker. That is already anamendment to the bill filed by Congressman Abaya becausein the LEDAC meeting they said that they should passCongressman Abaya’s bill which is a unitary tax system. Butthen, what happened, Mr. Speaker, …

REP. GONZALES (N.). Mr. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). …it was not CongressmanAbaya’s bill that was passed into law or in the committeelevel.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Banal). The MajorityLeader is recognized.

REP. GONZALES (N.). With the kind indulgence of theLady from Zambales and the distinguished chairman of thesponsoring committee, may we just respectfully inform thetwo Members of the House that in accordance with our Rules,considering that the subject matter which is now beingdebated has been the subject of a debate and has beenreported out by the Committee on Rules, then it is a matterwhich is in order, Mr. Speaker. So, it will be pointless for us todetermine what exactly were taken up or the procedure takenup by the sponsoring committee at the time that the saidmatter was still within the jurisdiction of the Committee onWays and Means. But considering that it is now the subjectof debate and the same had been reported out, then it isalready within the jurisdiction of the plenary, Mr. Speaker.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Well, Mr. Speaker, I will submitto the point of the Majority Floor Leader with regard to thatissue but I just want to point out that we are having a heateddebate on the floor because we were not allowed to askquestions. If only these questions were propounded duringthe committee hearing, then I guess we do not even have tostay long here in the plenary, Mr. Speaker. That is the problem.That is why I have no choice but to stay for two hours becauseI was not convinced. I know that I already took some time, butmuch to my regret, though I want the measure to be passedbecause I really believe in universal health care, it is just that Iam afraid that if you do not come up with the necessary figuresand revenues coming from tobacco and alcohol, and you aregoing to hinge universal health care on that, it will be unfair tothe Filipino people that you will be taxing them more. In theend, they will not get their universal healthcare.. Paano kungnagkulang iyan at na-short iyan, Mr. Speaker? What happensnext? Do we still continue with universal health care or do wejust have partial universal health care?


REP. GARIN (J.). Mr. Speaker, I move for a few minutessuspension of the session.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Banal). The session issuspended.

It was 7:37 p.m.




The honorable Lady from Zambales is recognized.

REP. MAGSAYSAY (M.). Yes, Mr. Speaker.At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, this Representation


is not satisfied still with the explanation given by theproponent because as far as I am concerned, he did notproperly tell me how we can give alternative livelihood to thedisplaced farmers, if ever. Mr. Speaker, I have been goingaround the country; I have also been talking to the samestakeholders that probably you have been talking to also.

Sa akin naman po, walang problema kung gusto nating i-curb ang smoking, i-curb ang drinking, kasi ako mismo ay hindinagsisigarilyo at hindi rin po ako umiinom, kaya wala po silangnakukuhang revenue galing sa akin. Pero ang sa akin lamang,Mr. Speaker, I do not want to hinge the universal healthcare ofour country on the excise tax from tobacco and alcohol.

As far as this Representation is concerned, if we reallycare for our Filipino countrymen, why do we not just put thatin the national budget and let us source out those fundscoming from the general fund. It may come from excise tax ongasoline; it may come from mining companies; it may comefrom the BPO industry; and it may come from tobacco andalcohol. Para masigurado lang natin na iyong magandangrationale noong bill ni Congressman Abaya, which is toprovide for universal health care, will be properly dispensedand implemented at the grassroots level.

Mr. Speaker, I saw also that there is a disparity andinequitable distribution of tax burden between habits thatyou want to curb.

Third, Mr. Speaker, I see that it is not really a two-tiersystem as far as both tobacco and alcohol are concerned.Parang nakikita ko, Mr. Speaker, at the onset, parang maspinapaboran ninyo ang mga importers kaysa po doon sa mgalocal players natin sa industriya na namuhunan dito, na nag-ugat na rito ng 100 taon, na nagbigay po ng trabaho sa atingmanggagawa at sa ating mga kababayang Pilipino, nanagbabayad po ng buwis, na nagbabayad ng realty tax, nanagbabayad ng rent, na nagbabayad ng kuryente, nanagbabayad ng tubig, na nagbabayad ng buwis sa localcommunity at saka sa national government. Kasi with thismeasure, Mr. Speaker, you are correct, you are leveling theplaying field as you claimed. Totoo ba iyon? How can youlevel the playing field when I can see that importers of alcoholwill be paying much less tax than those who have investedbillions in this country, Mr. Speaker? At the same time, I cansee that in the original version of the bill of CongressmanAbaya, there was a P60 billion incremental increase in thebudget—P30 billion coming from alcohol and P30 billioncoming from cigarettes. Pero at the end of the day, anglumabas, P26 billion from tobacco and P4 billion from alcohol.

So, Mr. Speaker, para sa akin, I will just leave it to thefloor to decide whether they think this bill should be passedor not. Until the time, I hope the future interpellators will beable to draw out real solutions to the farmers in this countrybecause I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that the Chairman wasable to address the points that I raised.

Is it a tax measure or is it a health measure? We cannotserve two masters, Mr. Speaker. It should be one or the other.If you want to make it a tax measure, then by all means, let usincrease the taxes. Pero dapat gawin naman nating equitable.Kung gusto ninyo ng health measure, kulang pa siguro iyongitinaas ninyong tax kung talagang iyan ang gusto ninyo. PeroI doubt, Mr. Speaker. With 3.4 million packs of cigarette beingprocured now down to 1.8 million packs of cigarette once thisbill is passed, I just do not know. You cannot even qualify tome how many farmers will be displaced, how many farmer-

beneficiaries and their families will be displaced, how manyof those working in the industry will be displaced, and howmuch revenue will be displaced as far as wholesalers andtraders down to the sari-sari store are concerned. You havethe DOF; you have the DOH with you.

At this juncture, Rep. Banal relinquished the Chair toSr. Dep. Majority Leader Janette L. Garin.

At the end of the day, Mme. Speaker, they have notgiven us concrete terms how they computed iyong kanilangpossible income or where they derived that possible incomefrom.

So, Mme. Speaker, that is all I can say. Good luck na langpo to the next Speaker.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). The Dep.Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. BINAY. Mme. Speaker, I move that we recognize thehonorable Minority Leader, Danilo “Danny” E. Suarez, whowishes to interpellate.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). The Hon.Danny Suarez, the distinguished Minority Leader, is herebyrecognized for his interpellation.

REP. SUAREZ. Mme. Speaker, would the distinguishedSponsor like to take a five-minute break?

REP. UNGAB. Yes, Mme. Speaker. It is an honor to beinterpellated by …

REP. SUAREZ. Do you want to take a five-minute rest?

REP. UNGAB. No, Mme. Speaker. Akala ko interpellation.

REP. SUAREZ. Mme. Speaker, this Representation is acoauthor of, once and for all, correcting measures inconnection with sin products. So, I will delve on clarificatoryquestions. You are new as the Chair of Ways and Means. Idid file two House bills, one for cigarette and one for distilledspirit. Did you have the opportunity to read those twomeasures, Mme. Speaker?

REP. UNGAB. Yes, Mme. Speaker. I have read that partlyand, in fact, this proposal is somehow similar to the Housebill proposed by the honorable Minority Leader who is also aformer Chairman of the committee, Mme. Speaker.

REP. SUAREZ. Okay. So, can we start on distilled spirits.Although this Representation’s concern on the proposedmeasure of addressing the issue on taxation depending onprices will have very little effect on coconut farmers, I ammore concerned with sugar planters, Mme. Speaker.

You are aware of brandy and rum which are quite popularin the country, maybe in the same level as beer itself in termsof the market. As I have said, brandy and rum actually aremislabelled. When we talk of Tanduay, you said it is TanduayRhum; Añejo, it is rum. You have gin, I mean you have differentkinds of brandy, but in actuality, the base is coconut. Do youagree with me Mme. Speaker?


REP. UNGAB. Yes, Mme. Speaker.

REP. SUAREZ. Therefore, in connection with myproposed measure on distilled spirit, my proposal is to comeup with a measure that will be pro-poor and pro-rich; meaning,you want to drink good wine that might cost P2,000 a bottle,then prepare to pay a straight amount of, if I am not mistakenmy proposal is 30 percent of the selling price. Am I correct onthat, distinguished Sponsor?

REP. UNGAB. Yes, Mr. Speaker.The Minority Leader, the author of House Bill No. 3183,

is proposing, in fact, ad valorem type of taxation.

REP. SUAREZ. So, nakikita po ninyo ang punto ko, Mme.Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, na napaka-sociable po nitongmagiging approach ng Kongreso dahil sa kung tinitingnanko, kung gagawin po nating ang base ng taxation will beproof of distilled or alcohol content, it will be debatable. Someconsumers might even complain na naubos ko na iyongdalawang bote ay hindi pa ako lasing, so baka diluted itongalak na iniinom ko. So, along that line, this may be, as I havesaid, I will repeat, a sociable approach to taxation in terms ofdistilled spirit.

REP. UNGAB. Yes, Mr. Speaker. The original proposal isreally very hard to implement.

REP. SUAREZ. I believe that when I did the draft andfiled House Bill No. 3183, its conformed with the provisionsof the WTO which has been the subject of an arbitration withthe European Union. Mme. Speaker, will the distinguishedSponsor give us some comfort level that in the event that thismeasure is approved, we will be complying with the provisionsof the WTO?

REP. UNGAB. Yes, Mme. Speaker, the version that wasproposed in House Bill No. 5727 is compliant with theprovisions of the WTO since the one that was disputed beforewas based on raw materials. This one is now based on netretail prices.

REP. SUAREZ. A lot of questions had been raised by mydistinguished Deputy Minority Leader, so I would like to ask:Do you have a representative from the Department of Healthin your back-staffers?


REP. SUAREZ. I would imagine that there is what we callmedical report and every time that a constituent of oursapproaches us for medical assistance, we refer him to differenthospitals. We always ask for a Department of Social Servicesmedical report, especially for indigents. Now, can we comeup with due diligence on an assured medical report of theDOH on related diseases that are caused by heavy drinkingor excessive drinking?

REP. UNGAB. Yes, Mme. Speaker, we have. Yes, theycan provide.

REP. SUAREZ. You and I, we come from a district that we

can call rural. You can see for yourself na mga bandang alas-tres pa, nag-iinuman na sila.

REP. UNGAB. Yes, I agree, Mme. Speaker.

REP. SUAREZ. We are talking here of hard drinks. So,can I just get a bird’s eye view, for instance, of a possibleprice, in the event that this measure will be approved andwill be supported by our counterpart in the Senate. May Iknow how much will be the price of Tanduay Rhum, for thatmatter?


REP. UNGAB. May I ask for a suspension of the session,Mme. Speaker. We will get the figures.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). The sessionis suspended for a few minutes.

It was 7:54 p.m.



THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). The sessionis resumed. The Hon. Sid Ungab may now proceed with hisanswers.

REP. UNGAB. Thank you, Mme. Speaker. Now, withregard to the question of the honorable Minority Leader,Tanduay Rhum, which is presently priced at P32.12, will bepriced in 2013 at P33.9; in 2014, it will be P33.9; in 2015, P34.4;and in year 2016, P34.4.

REP. SUAREZ. That will be the effect of a 30 percentacross-the-board selling price. Am I right on thatpresumption? What percentage are we going to talk regardingthis tax, Mme. Speaker?

REP. UNGAB. We made two tiers, Mme. Speaker. So, inthe case of distilled spirits, there were three tiers. So, for aprice of less than P90, it is P20 per liter; P90 to P150, it is P80per liter; and more than P150, it is P120 per liter. There is nodowngrading provision, Mme. Speaker.

REP. SUAREZ. So, are we saying here that in theproposed measure that is being presented for approval, thevariance of new taxes will not be too significant, for thatmatter, as compared to cigarette?

REP. UNGAB. Yes, Mme. Speaker. There are brands thatwill show that the change in prices is not that significant.

REP. SUAREZ. So, when we talk of the DOH report onrelated illness as caused by severe smoking, drinking orsecondhand smoke which, I think, the DOH will agree withme, is more fatal than actual smoking, do we have a round offigures coming from our A,B,C,D in our society on how muchthe government and the citizens themselves spend for relateddiseases caused by smoking or drinking?


REP. UNGAB. Yes, Mme. Speaker. They have figuresalthough in the figures that were given to me the total amountwas not broken down yet to the A,B,C,D group. The totalfigure is about P182,300 billion.

REP. SUAREZ. That is medication. Does it include timeloss, man-hour cost loss or state medication?

REP. UNGAB. Yes, Mme. Speaker. That would includehospitalization, medical fees, professional fees, loss ofproductivity and income loss.

REP. SUAREZ. Mme. Speaker, you are saying that theDOH came up with an analytical study that includes man-hour cost, opportunity loss, et cetera, and not statemedication?

REP. UNGAB. Yes, Mme. Speaker. Again, it would includehospitalization, medicines, loss of income, loss of productivityand debts.

REP. SUAREZ. So, in the event that this measure isapproved again, how much do you estimate will be thecollection of the bureau in terms of removal and straight excisetax out of its selling price for 2013?

REP. UNGAB. For both tobacco and alcohol, Mme.Speaker?

REP. SUAREZ. No. Just for the distilled spirits alone.

REP. UNGAB. For distilled spirits, the projection is P1.4billion in incremental revenues, Mme. Speaker.

REP. SUAREZ. P24 billion.

REP. UNGAB. P1.4 billion.

REP. SUAREZ. That is the increment.

REP. UNGAB. Increment plus the existing.

REP. SUAREZ. Well, plus the existing. That is why Ihave defined that. You said that that is only the increase thatwill be imposed on this. As you said, this would be sociallyoriented selling price and in terms of distilled spirits, the impactreally is not much. That is over and above what is beingpresently collected. So, maybe you can ask your staff as tohow much will be the total projected revenue to include allrevenues in terms of distilled spirit.

REP. UNGAB. If we include, Mme. Speaker, the presentcollection, it would be a total of P5.1 billion.

REP. SUAREZ. That is your projection for 2013.

REP. UNGAB. For 2013, Mme. Speaker.

REP. SUAREZ. Can we go into cigarettes? I think weshare the concern of our colleagues who are representing thetobacco farmers. Will the distinguished Sponsor educate thisRepresentation on what will be the percentage? If we said

that we are consuming about 40 million packs, and youtranslate that into a stick of cigarette, what is the variable ofimported leaves as to locally produced leaves?

REP. UNGAB. Mr. Speaker, we had these figures. Theimported leaves that are being used in cigarette manufacturing,Mme. Speaker, amount to 369,292,141 kilos, while that of local-grown tobacco is 106,487,364.

REP. SUAREZ. So, safely, we can say that it can be 30-70or 35-65.

REP. UNGAB. The latest, Mme. Speaker, is now 22.3 localagainst 77.6.

REP. SUAREZ. Seventy-seven point something…

REP. UNGAB. Imported.

REP. SUAREZ. So, as what my colleagues had pointedout, we are making foreign farmers richer by buying theirtobacco leaves.

REP. UNGAB. Yes, Mme. Speaker, that is why ...

REP. SUAREZ. Now, my sentiment on this, Mme. Speaker,is to deter early smoking and I think we share the samesentiment on that as I, being in government service since1992, when I go around my barangay, I can see 12- to 13-yearolds with a pack of cigarette in their pockets. Why? Becauseit is cheap.

Now, can I just ask from the Department of Health, doesthe illness caused by excessive smoking—does it make anysemblance of class on whether cheap tobacco can be morefatal than expensive burley or Virginia tobacco, or does it notdistinguish quality at all?

REP. UNGAB. Mme. Speaker, according to ourrepresentatives from the DOH, it does not distinguish whetherit is burley native or Virginia-type—they are all hazardous tohealth.

REP. SUAREZ. To health.

REP. UNGAB. Yes.

REP. SUAREZ. So, regardless of whether we say that weare using cheap tobacco for the cheap cigarette and importedtobacco leaves for our high-priced cigarette, the effect onhealth is the same, they are equal.

REP. UNGAB. Yes, equal, Mme. Speaker.

REP. SUAREZ. Hazardous to health.

REP. UNGAB. Yes, hazardous, very hazardous tohealth.

REP. SUAREZ. So, is it also a possibility that in the eventthat—can I just be clarified again, Mme. Speaker. I proposeda two-tier in my proposed measure—are we adopting a two-tier in the ...


REP. UNGAB. Yes, Mme. Speaker, we are adopting twotiers, low and high.

REP. SUAREZ. Thank you. Now, will there be a possibilityof decreasing imported tobacco leaves and increasingpurchases from local leaves just to augment the pricedifference in terms of price impact?

REP. UNGAB. Yes, that is the challenge and the work ofthe National Tobacco Administration, which a while ago hadcommitted that they can help facilitate substituting theimported portion of tobacco with local products.

REP. SUAREZ. So, there is a possibility, Mme. Speaker,that the 72.8 and 27.2 variables between imported tobaccoleaves and locally produced leaves can be altered, becausewe will have to assume that the imported leaves are moreexpensive than the locally produced leaves? Am I correctthere, Mme. Speaker?

REP. UNGAB. Yes, the prices are very much higher.

REP. SUAREZ. I did ask from our colleague from thetobacco provinces that the business of planting tobaccoreally is that the several first stems are those that aresupposedly not the premium, but iyong mga susunod namga dahon, iyon ho yata ang premium. I am also assuredthat the quality of locally grown burley and Virginia typecan be compared in some ways to imported tobaccoleaves.

So, iyong atin hong concern na baka ma-displace angtobacco farmers natin because of this two-tier version and,dramatically, the prices, definitely, will increase, but I willhave to say that, in return, we will deter early smoking, wewill control consumption of smoking for those who mightbe concerned about prices and, at the same time, we willhave a possibility of helping farmers sell their product interms of quantity and even maybe of price.

REP. UNGAB. Yes, I agree, Mme. Speaker.

REP. SUAREZ. Now, on the refinement of this measure,Mme. Speaker, maybe the different congressional committeescan come up with an analysis on the possibility that we cangive comfort to the industry and to the farmer sectors that wewill cut on importing leaves and we will buy more from you. Ifthat is a clear assurance, maybe we can give peace of mind toour colleagues here who, two days from now, will be goingback to their districts and they will be asked whether it is truethat what they are planting now will not be bought anymoreby the cigarette manufacturing company.

REP. UNGAB. Yes, Mme. Speaker, we will do that, andaside from the assurance a while ago from the NTAadministration, we can also perhaps include this in theimplementing rules as to the assistance that will go back tothe farmers, that is about 15 percent. Let us say improvingthe quality of present produce and other livelihoodalternatives that the government can provide to those farmerswho will be affected.

REP. SUAREZ. Mme. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor,

will you be able to come up with a tactical amount of howmuch increment can be collected in terms of taxes in the eventthat this measure is approved, on both cigars and distilledspirits?

REP. UNGAB. For tobacco, Mr. Speaker, or …

REP. SUAREZ. For everything.

REP. UNGAB. All in all, Mme. Speaker, fermented liquor,distilled spirits, tobacco, that would sum up to about P31billion, Mme. Speaker.

REP. SUAREZ. Thirty-one billion?

REP. UNGAB. Three-one, yes.

REP. SUAREZ. Will that be in accordance, in fullagreement with the Bureau of Internal Revenue consideringthat the Commissioner is here? Maybe the distinguishedSponsor can ask the Commissioner whether in terms of heranalysis, every time that we do address the increase ofdistilled spirit, there is always a reversal of volume. Am Icorrect there? I mean, I did chair the Ways and Means for awhile and we know that every time there is a projected increase,they do flood the market first in terms of removal. Am I correctthere?


REP. SUAREZ. So, we safely assume that the industrywill do the same, anticipating that this bill will be approvedand made into law. There will be a reduction in terms of volumeand it might pick up after several months or maybe even ayear. Am I correct there?

REP. UNGAB. Yes, you are correct there, Mme. Speaker.

REP. SUAREZ. But, of course, we have the comfort ofhaving a very good commissioner in terms of accuracy andhonesty, and in terms of removal. So, in the proposed measurethat—can we have some comfort in the Minority, Mme.Speaker—that the Senate version will be somewhat the same,because they will not act on this unless we finish this. Myconcern is my comfort level as well because I practically havethe same idea with what that of the Chairman of Appropriations.So, tayo ho ba ay nakasisiguro na iyong ating gustongmangyari, deterrent on early smoking and maybe curbing thenumber of smokers in terms of consumption, will somewhat beadopted by our counterparts in the Senate?

REP. UNGAB. Mme. Speaker, we cannot really predictwhat will happen in the Senate. However, the Executive willreally do their best to fight for …

REP. SUAREZ. When you say fight, can we be assuredthat this will be watered down?

REP. UNGAB. The Commissioner says, yes, they will dotheir best that it should not be watered down. But again, wecannot predict because they are another Chamber, Mme.Speaker.


REP. SUAREZ. Well, with the very close relationshipbetween the leadership of the Senate and the House, can wesay that we will be comfortable? This very important measureis a breakthrough in terms of taxation, Mme. Speaker. This isthe first time that we will be able and finally adopt a measurethat will be a pro-health, socially oriented approach in termsof alcohol, and somewhat a good deterrent to early smoking,towards a limited consumption of cigarettes.

So, with this, Mme. Speaker, I would like to thank thedistinguished Sponsor for answering some of my questionsand hope that the House version will be the one to be adopted.

Thank you very much.

REP. UNGAB. Mme. Speaker.


REP. UNGAB. Mme. Speaker, may I …

REP. REMULLA. Mme. Speaker.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). The Hon.Jesus Crispin “Boying” C. Remulla is hereby recognized forhis interpellation.

REP. REMULLA. Thank you, Mme. Speaker,distinguished Sponsor. Now, for the information of the Body,in the year 2004, when we passed the last law on excise taxes,this Representation filed a unitary tax for cigarettes. At thattime, if I remember it right, the consumption of the countrywas around 22 billion sticks of cigarettes a year. What is theestimate now of the consumption of cigarettes in the country?

REP. UNGAB. The removals, Mme. Speaker, in terms ofnumber of packs, was about five billion packs.

REP. REMULLA. Five billion times 20, that would be 100billion cigarettes. Am I correct, Mme. Speaker?

REP. UNGAB. Yes, in fact, we are one of the top smokersin the world, not only in Asia.

REP. REMULLA. So, given the figure of—is it one billionor ten billion—how many sticks are we talking about?

REP. UNGAB. 100 billion sticks.

REP. REMULLA. One hundred billion sticks. Now, in theproposal that I did seven years ago, I just proposed a one-peso-per-stick tax for all cigarettes. Meaning to say, if we canpredict a hundred billion income for the country, without anytwo tiers, that can cause a confusion. Why did we deviatefrom that original version of the unitary tax?

REP. UNGAB. The original version really, Mme. Speaker,and I agree that that was the most ideal and the most simple toimplement, is unitary. However, we took into consideration thefeedback and the inputs during the public hearings, and …

REP. REMULLA. Of course, the lobbyists were there,trying to lobby for one cause or another. Am I correct?

REP. UNGAB. Not that, Mme. Speaker, but we also havetaken into consideration the plight of the farmers, the small-scale manufacturers. But we believe that that was the bestalternative. The DOF also submitted that proposal, two tiers.

REP. REMULLA. So, we are also expecting how muchnow, based on the two-tier system of taxation?

REP. UNGAB. The two-tier system, the estimatedrevenues would be about P26 billion, Mme. Speaker.

REP. REMULLA. Thirty-six billion?

REP. UNGAB. Increment, yes—P26 billion increment.

REP. REMULLA. Twenty-six billion for the first year.

REP. UNGAB. For the first year.

REP. REMULLA. On the second year?

REP. UNGAB. It will go higher to … on the second, P34billion, Mme. Speaker.

REP. REMULLA. All right. So, given that figure,distinguished Sponsor, I will not belabor the point. Whatpercentage of the national taxes would this constitute, thesin taxes, so to speak? What percentage are we talking about?

REP. UNGAB. As a percentage to the total revenues?

REP. REMULLA. Yes, total tax collection.

REP. UNGAB. Mme. Speaker, while our staff from theBureau of Internal Revenue and the Department of Finance arelooking for the data, just to give an idea of what is the presentsituation, the excise tax, as a percentage to total revenuescollected and as well as the total GDP, is decreasing every year.

REP. REMULLA. It is decreasing.

REP. UNGAB. The real value.

REP. REMULLA. In real value.

REP. UNGAB. The nominal value—he is a banker, heunderstands this. (Laughter) Mr. Speaker, it would show thatit is increasing, but the real value is decreasing, as a percentageto GDP, Mme. Speaker.

REP. REMULLA. Now, we are talking about sin taxes, weare talking about taxes on addiction. Am I correct?

People are addicted to products which have social costsand health costs. Am I correct that this is part of the bill, partof the problem that the bill wishes to address?

REP. UNGAB. Yes, Mme. Speaker, I agree that the primaryobjective is the health objective.

REP. REMULLA. So, when we talk about sin taxes,smoking is definitely bad for the body. Is there any debateabout that? There is no debate.


Alcohol taken in excess is also very bad for the body.Am I correct?

How about gambling? Why did we not include gamblingas one of the sin tax areas? Because, I see an entertainmentcity rising for tourism, so to speak, but most of the peoplewho will be going there will be Filipinos whose families willbe broken apart because they will become bankrupt due togambling losses and gambling addiction. Why did you notinclude gambling? Because I believe that if we want to tax sinproducts or services, gambling should be included, even, soto speak, prostitution although it is still illegal.

REP. UNGAB. Mme. Speaker, that is a very good idea.We will take that into consideration.

REP. REMULLA. Because, distinguished Sponsor, Mme.Speaker, in Singapore, before you enter a casino, you have toshow that you are not a Singaporean. You have to show thatyou are a tourist. In the Philippines, they will just allow everyFilipino to come in, and the social cost has been very high. Isthere a study from the DOF or from any statistical bureau onthe effect of gambling on the Filipino?

REP. UNGAB. Mme. Speaker, at present, the Departmentof Finance has no study yet on the social cost of gambling.However, that is a very good idea, and we might ask them toprepare one, I guess, for research purposes and perhaps forour consumption in the future.

REP. REMULLA. I hope it is not for research but to reallyput in a policy wherein Filipinos will not be attracted to gamblingand only foreigners who come into the country, because weknow its pernicious effects. We know how many people diebecause of it, who go broke, who commit suicide and who dropout of school. I mean, the social cost is very high and there isno study, whatsoever, and we are talking about sin products orsin taxes or sin services. So, are we clear on this?

REP. UNGAB. I completely agree with the point of theDeputy Speaker, Mme. Speaker.

REP. REMULLA. Now, given the scenario that we areprojecting so many increases for revenue collection basedon sin taxes, do you not believe that there is the other sidethat the government can become addicted to these taxes also,to the point that if the demand is inelastic or elastic, whenpeople will stop smoking, the revenues will go down, andthen we will have a bigger deficit?

REP. UNGAB. Mme. Speaker, on the contrary, data andstudies from the World Bank would show that if we increasetaxes, consumption to a certain degree will decrease, butrevenues will ultimately increase.

REP. REMULLA. Well, of course, that is a very debatablepoint. In the US, they had the Master Settlement Agreement.The tobacco companies had to pay $100 billion to the federalgovernment to keep going. After that, another chapter cameabout, which was on cheaper cigarettes coming fromreservations, cheaper cigarettes coming from illegal sources.It was bruited about that raising taxes will increase smuggling.What is the comment of the distinguished Sponsor on this?

REP. UNGAB. Mme. Speaker, with regard to smuggling,the Philippines was among with the lowest prices of cigarettesnot only in Asia but in the whole world. In Asia, we are thelowest, if we consider the purchase power of the consumers.

So, right now, in fact, the Philippines is being watchedby other countries because we are the source of smuggledgoods. In other words, local products are going out smuggledto other countries. So, if we increase taxes, even if we doubleor triple the amount, we are still below the average price ofcigarettes in Asia and in the whole world.

So, we are still safe and if we follow the market forces, weare confident that smuggling can be curtailed. Aside fromthat, all studies would show that smuggling is actually directlyrelated to the enforcement of laws. Smuggling is very muchrelated to graft and corruption.

So, with the President leading the administration and thegovernment with its honest-to-goodness campaign for goodgovernance, we believe that smuggling can be controlled ifwe impose higher taxes as reflected in House Bill No. 5727,Mme. Speaker.

REP. REMULLA. Now, given that, what would you saythe demand for cigarettes would be of the low-income groupsto which the majority of the country belongs? Is the demandfor cigarettes elastic or inelastic? Let us say there is a higherprice, will more people stop smoking or will people stillcontinue buying?

REP. UNGAB. It is inelastic, Mme. Speaker. It has anelasticity coefficient of less than one. In the old data, theyused 0.8 percent elasticity. Now, the World Bank is using 0.4percent elasticity. However, there were also occasions in somecountries when on the first year of implementation,consumption really went down. However, in most cases, itgoes back because as the Deputy Speaker had said a whileago, it is indeed addicting.

REP. REMULLA. Yes.

REP. UNGAB. That is why the main reason of this bill ishealth purposes, and excise taxes to curb the habit ofsmoking.

REP. REMULLA. In the end, is it not a point that we wanteverybody to stop smoking?

REP. UNGAB. Yes, we really want that, but if we reallywant everybody to stop smoking, the most ideal scenariowould be the unitary tax rate, as proposed by HonorableAbaya, the original version.

REP. REMULLA. Yes.

REP. UNGAB. After several public hearings, we havealso taken into consideration the plight of the stakeholders,so that they will not be drastically affected.

REP. REMULLA. For the information of the distinguishedSponsor, when I was in Singapore—I was a smoker 30 monthsago and I stopped—a stick of cigarette is around P50 perstick in Singapore, but people continue to smoke, peoplecontinue to buy; meaning, it has become part of the staple of


the Singaporean government, and they are also addicted tocigarette taxes. So, are we, in effect, not looking at the rightparadigm for smoking cessation, because in the end, whenwe look at the health care program, smoking cessation seemsto be not included in the programs set for this tax itself. Or ifthere is any, how much is directed towards smoking cessationto make people stop smoking?

REP. UNGAB. Mme. Speaker, if we really want a portionof our population, more importantly the poor, as well as theyouth…

REP. REMULLA. Everybody, including the rich, Isuppose.

REP. UNGAB. …to stop smoking, …

REP. REMULLA. …who are very few anyway.

REP. UNGAB. … the way is to increase taxes drastically,but we cannot do that, taking into consideration all the otherstakeholders. We believe this proposal of providing two tierswith a bracket of P11.50, classified as low and high couldalready decrease consumption. In fact, during thepresentation of one of the leading brands, Philip Morris, theywere afraid that the impact will be a reduction of 26 percentof…

REP. REMULLA. Is the Sponsor not contradicting himselfby saying that the demand is inelastic? Did you say it isinelastic?

REP. UNGAB. Yes, it is inelastic.

REP. REMULLA. Meaning to say, it is an addiction, whileyou are saying now that there will be a decrease in demand.Which is which?

REP. UNGAB. To a certain degree, it is inelastic becauseit has elasticity of between 0.4 to 0.8 percent. In other words,an increase of one percent in price would reduce the demandby 0.4 to 0.8 percent.

REP. REMULLA. So, I have finished my case on tobacco,and maybe another point on alcohol. Right now, we see thespectacle of being able to purchase wine at P120 to P160,and given this scenario, we will be purchasing TanduayRhum at P250 per bottle, while wine will remain at P120 toP160. Is that not a distortion since wine is an importedproduct?

REP. UNGAB. Mme. Speaker, in the case of wines, bothwines and distilled spirits will have an increase. In the case ofwine, there will be an increase in prices because of the taximposition.

REP. REMULLA. Compared to local products, howmuch will the wine price increase, let us say, compared toGinebra San Miguel, Tanduay Rhum and red wine? Is it thesame in percentage or will Tanduay Rhum end up moreexpensive or Ginebra San Miguel end up more expensivethan wine?


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). The sessionis suspended.

It was 8:31 p.m.



THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). The sessionis resumed.

REP. REMULLA. Well, I will withdraw my previousquestion, Mme. Speaker, since we will just discuss thisafter the session. I will just go to a final point regardingthis tax system that we want to put in because I believe,and it seems to be, that the inability to answer thequestions raised is caused by the fact that we have madeprevious commitments with the WTO. Given the economicsituation in Europe, they want to dump products to ahuge population like the Philippines, so we end up havingto absorb their surplus and to kill our own industry. Canthe distinguished Sponsor assure this Representation thatthe local industries, tobacco and alcohol, will not diebecause we want the Europeans, the Americans and theothers to live? Can you assure this Representation thatthis will not happen, that we are not favoring theEuropeans, the Americans and other producers fromabroad because our commitments, just and in so doing,kill our local industries?

REP. UNGAB. Yes, Mme. Speaker, we can assure theDeputy Speaker of that, notwithstanding the fact that this is,in effect, WTO compliant after imposing these taxes, and itwill still turn out that the products from Europe and othercountries would be higher in price. So, there is a big differencein the prices, and our products somehow will be patronizedby our local consumers.

REP. REMULLA. Well, given that, given my trust in thedistinguished Sponsor, being the good man I know him to be,I will just take his word for it, but being a Filipino who lovesthis country, I am just worried that our local industries mightsuffer or even disappear because of our giving in to thedemands of foreigners, especially because of our prematurecompliance to the WTO in the 90s, kung saan ngayon, tayopo ang binu-bully.

Sana po, ang Pilipino ay huwag magpapaapi, lalung-lalona sa mga puti na gusto lang na magtambak dito ng kanilangmga hindi mabenta, kasi hindi na sila gumagawa ng bata eh;wala nang tao eh. They have a demographic winter while wehave a very robust population. Kaya, we are the biggestconsumers. So, the assurance is good enough for thisRepresentation, and I hope that we are correct because historywill judge us in the end.

Salamat po, Mme. Speaker, and thank you, distinguishedSponsor.



REP. BINAY. Mme. Speaker, I move that we terminate theperiod of sponsorship and debate for House Bill No. 5727.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). Is there anyobjection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the period ofsponsorship and debate is hereby terminated.

REP. BINAY. Mme. Speaker.


SUSPENSION OF CONSIDERATIONOF H.B. NO. 5727

REP. BINAY. Mme. Speaker, I move that we suspend theconsideration of House Bill No. 5727.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). Is there anyobjection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion isapproved.

Consideration of House Bill No. 5727 is hereby suspended.The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

DESIGNATION OF MEMBERS TO THE BICAM. CONF. CTTEES.

REP. BINAY. I move that we nominate the following asmembers of the Bicameral Conference Committee on HouseBill No. 4275 and Senate Bill No. 3009, namely: Reps. Sergio F.Apostol, Rufus B. Rodriguez, Roilo S. Golez, Arthur R.Defensor Jr. and Danilo E. Suarez.

I so move.


The Members nominated are so designated.The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. BINAY. Mme. Speaker, I move that we nominate thefollowing as members of the Bicameral Conference Committeeon House Bill No. 6235, namely: Reps. Danilo Ramon S.Fernandez, Lorenzo R. Tañada III, Rufus B. Rodriguez, MariaIsabelle “Beng” G. Climaco, Mel Senen S. Sarmiento, AngeloB. Palmones, Irvin M. Alcala, Edgar S. San Luis and Carlos M.Padilla.

I so move.


The Members nominated are so designated.The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. BINAY. Mme. Speaker, the House and the Senatehave approved on Third Reading House Bill No. 4530 andSenate Bill No. 3113, respectively, which propose to furtherauthorize the city or municipal registrar or consul general tocorrect clerical or typographical errors in the date of birth andsex of a person appearing in the civil register without need ofa judicial order.

We have been informed by the Hon. Niel C. Tupas Jr.,Chairperson of the Committee on Justice, who sponsoredHouse Bill No. 4530, that they are in concurrence with SenateBill No. 3113.

Mme. Speaker, pursuant to our Rules, I move that weadopt Senate Bill No. 3113 as an amendment to House BillNo. 4530.


Senate Bill No. 3113 is hereby adopted as an amendmentto House Bill No. 4530.


REP. BINAY. Mme. Speaker, I move that we proceed tothe Additional Reference of Business.


The Secretary General will please read the AdditionalReference of Business.

ADDITONAL REFERENCE OF BUSINESS

The Secretary General read the following CommitteeReports and the Presiding Officer made the correspondingreferences:

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Report by the Committee on Youth and Sports andDevelopment (Committee Report No. 2226), regarding:House Resolution No. 1284, entitled:“RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON

YOUTH AND SPORTS DEVELOPMENT TOCONDUCT AN INQUIRY, IN AID OF LEGISLATION,INTO THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDINGTHE DEATH OF MOTORCYCLE RACINGCHAMPION MAICO GREG BUNCIO DURING THETIME TRIALS CONDUCTED ON MAY 21, 2011 ATTHE CLARK SPEEDWAY RACING CIRCUIT”


YOUTH AND SPORTS DEVELOPMENT TOCONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION, IN AID OFLEGISLATION, INTO THE UNTIMELY DEMISE OFNATIONAL SUPERBIKE CHAMPION MAICOGREG BUNCIO IN ORDER TO SECURE ANDUPHOLD INTERNATIONAL SAFETYSTANDARDS FOR PHILIPPINE MOTORSPORTSCIRCUITS AND RACE TRACKS”

and House Resolution No. 1367, entitled:“RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON

YOUTH AND SPORTS DEVELOPMENT TOCONDUCT AN INQUIRY, IN AID OF LEGISLATION,INTO THE ACCIDENT RESULTING TO THE DEATHOF NATIONAL SUPERBIKE CHAMPION MAICOGREG BUNCIO IN ORDER TO REVIEW EXISTING


SAFETY STANDARDS FOLLOWED IN RACINGCIRCUITS”

informing the House of its findings and recommendationsSponsors: Representatives Unico, Sambar and LapusTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

Report by the Committee on Local Government (CommitteeReport No. 2250), re H. No. 6316, entitled:“AN ACT CHANGING THE TERM OF OFFICE OF

BARANGAY AND SANGGUNIANG KABATAANOFFICIALS FROM THREE (3) YEARS TO FIVE (5)YEARS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSEREPUBLIC ACT NO. 9164, AS AMENDED, ANDFOR OTHER PURPOSES”

recommending its approval in substitution of House BillNos. 4991, 5724, 5991, 6055 and 6072

Sponsors: Representatives Arnaiz, Romualdo, Rodriguez(R.), Bichara and Treñas


Report by the Committee on Aquaculture and FisheriesResources (Committee Report No. 2251), re H. R. No.2480, entitled:“RESOLUTION REQUESTING HIS EXCELLENCY

PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III TOISSUE AN EXECUTIVE ORDER CREATING THETASK FORCE ON FISHERFOLK SETTLEMENT”

recommending its adoption pursuant to HouseResolution No. 1411, informing the House of itsfindings and recommendations

Sponsors: Representatives Salimbangon, Garin (S.) andBag-ao



CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. NO. 2473

REP. BINAY. Mme. Speaker, I move that we considerHouse Resolution No. 2473.

May I ask that the Secretary General be directed to readonly the title of the measure.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). Is there anyobjection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion isapproved. *

The Secretary General is directed to read only the title ofthe measure.

With the permission of the Body, and since copies of themeasure have been previously distributed, the SecretaryGeneral read only the title thereof without prejudice toinserting its text in the Congressional Record.

THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Resolution No.2473, entitled: A RESOLUTION COMMENDING OFW ALMAGUIAO FOR HER HEROIC DEEDS AND EFFORTS INLOCATING AND CONTACTING HER FELLOW OFWsTRAPPED IN HOMS AND FERRYING THEM TODAMASCUS, BOTH IN WAR-TORN SYRIA, AS A VIRTUALONE-PERSON RESCUE MISSION CREDITED WITHRESCUING AT LEAST TWENTY-FIVE (25) OFWs WITH SHEHERSELF UNDERTAKING THE DANGEROUS TASK OFCOMING IN AND OUT OF HOMS SEVERAL TIMES ATTHE HEIGHT OF THE NOW-FAMOUS “SIEGE OF HOMS”.


REP. BINAY. Mme. Speaker, I move that we adopt HouseResolution No. 2473.

ADOPTION OF H.RES. NO. 2473


House Resolution No. 2473 is hereby adopted.


ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

REP. BINAY. Mme. Speaker, I move that we adjourn thesession until four o’clock tomorrow, June 6, 2012.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Garin, J.). Is there anyobjection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the session isadjourned until tomorrow at four o’clock in the afternoon,June 6, 2012.

It was 8:39 p.m.

* See MEASURES CONSIDERED (printed separately)

Published by the Publication and Editorial Service, Plenary Affairs BureauThe Congressional Record can be accessed through the Downloads Center of the official website

of the House of Representatives at www.congress.gov.phFLL/06142012/1400

Documents

15C_2RS-51a-060512