Congressional Record...Vol. 1 Friday, October 2, 2015 No. 26d Congressional Record 16th CONGRESS, THIRD REGULAR SESSION HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 10:01 a.m.,

Vol. 1 Friday, October 2, 2015 No. 26d

Congressional Record16th CONGRESS, THIRD REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 10:01 a.m., the session was resumed with Rep. Joseph “Ace” H. Durano presiding.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Durano). The session is resumed.

The Secretary General is directed to read the Additional Reference of Business.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCE OF BUSINESS

The Secretary General read the following House Bills and Resolutions on First Reading, Communications and Committee Reports, and the Presiding Officer made the corresponding references:

BILLS ON FIRST READING

House Bill No. 6176, entitled:“AN ACT DECLARING FEBRUARY 2 OF

EVERY YEAR A SPECIAL NONWORKING HOLIDAY IN THE PROVINCE OF ILOCOS SUR DECLARING IT AS ILOCOS SUR DAY TO BE KNOWN AS ‘KANNAWIDAN ILOCOS FESTIVAL”

By Representatives Singson (E.) and Singson (R.)

TO THE COMMITTEE ON REVISION OF LAWS

House Bill No. 6177, entitled:“AN ACT DECLARING MARCH 26 OF

EVERY YEAR A SPECIAL NONWORKING HOLIDAY IN THE CITY OF LAS PIÑAS IN COMMEMORATION OF ITS FOUNDING ANNIVERSARY TO BE KNOWN AS ‘LAS PIÑAS CHARTER DAY’ ”

By Representative VillarTO THE COMMITTEE ON REVISION OF

LAWS

House Bill No. 6178, entitled:“AN ACT GRANTING EDUCATIONAL

ASSISTANCE AND BENEFITS TO THE DEPENDENTS OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES (AFP), PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE (PNP), BUREAU OF FIRE PROTECTION (BFP), BUREAU OF JAIL MANAGEMENT AND PENOLOGY (BJMP), NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (NBI), PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT A G E N C Y ( P D E A ) , P H I L I P P I N E COAST GUARD (PCG) AND BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS (BUCOR) WHO ARE KILLED OR PERMANENTLY INCAPACITATED WHILE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTY OR BY REASON OF THEIR OFFICE OR POSITION”

By Representatives Alejano and AcedilloTO THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENSE

AND SECURITY AND THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY

House Bill No. 6179, entitled:“AN ACT STRENGTHENING THE MECHANISMS

FOR THE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION OF THE NATIONAL CULTURAL HERITAGE BY BROADENING THE MANDATE OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR CULTURE AND THE ARTS, ENHANCING ITS POWERS AND FUNCTIONS, RATIONALIZING THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF AFFILIATED CULTURAL AGENCIES, PROVIDING STIFFER PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10066, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE ‘NATIONAL CULTURAL HERITAGE ACT OF 2009’ AND REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7356, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS ‘THE LAW CREATING THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR CULTURE AND THE ARTS’ ”

By Representatives Ocampo, Cojuangco (K.), Castelo and Vargas

TO THE COMMITTEE ON BASIC EDUCATION AND CULTURE

2 FRIDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2015

RESOLUTIONS

House Resolution No. 2415, entitled:“RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE

PHILIPPINE PARLIAMENTARIANS’ LEAGUE FOR MARITIME SECURITY IN ASIA”

By Representatives Bichara and BiazonTO THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENSE

AND SECURITY

House Resolution No. 2416, entitled:“RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE HOUSE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS AND WELFARE TO CONDUCT A REVIEW OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8220 IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THE ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE COMPUTATION OF THE PENSION OF OUR RETIRED CHIEF MASTER SERGEANTS (CMS) AND SENIOR MASTER SERGEANTS”

By Representatives Alejano and AcedilloTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Resolution No. 2417, entitled:“RESOLUTION CONDEMNING THE ATTACK

ON GOVERNMENT TROOPERS GUARDING THE CITY OF COTABATO, THE REGIONAL CENTER OF THE AUTONOMOUS REGION IN MUSLIM MINDANAO (ARMM), KILLING ONE SOLDIER AND SEVERELY INJURING ANOTHER”

By Representatives Alejano and AcedilloTO THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENSE

AND SECURITY

House Resolution No. 2418, entitled:“A RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING AND

COMMENDING THE IGLESIA NI CRISTO (CHURCH OF CHRIST), THROUGH THE LEADERSHIP OF BRO. EDUARDO V. MANALO, FOR SUCCESSFULLY STAGING THE BIGGEST SIMULTANEOUS GRAND EVANGELICAL MISSION WORLDWIDE ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2015”

By Representative CasteloTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

House Resolution No. 2419, entitled:“ A R E S O L U T I O N D I R E C T I N G T H E

COMMITTEES ON GOOD GOVERNMENT AND TRANSPORTATION TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, INTO THE ‘LAGLAG-BALA MODUS OPERANDI’ AT THE MANILA AIRPORTS”

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

ADDITIONAL COAUTHORS

The list of additional coauthors is reflected in Journal No. 26, dated October 2, 2015.*

COMMUNICATIONS

Letter dated June 10, 2015 of Visitacion Q. Mendoza, Director IV, Regional Director, Commission on Audit, Regional Office IX, transmitting copy of the Annual Audit Report on the Zamboanga City State Polytechnic College, Zamboanga City for the year ended 31 December 2014.TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Letter dated August 10, 2015 of Atty. Sheila U. Villa, Regional Director, Commission on Audit, Regional Office No. IV-B, submitting copies of the Annual Audit Reports on the following Stand-Alone Agencies, National Government Sector for the year ended 31 December 2014, pursuant to Section 43 of Presidential Decree No. 1445:1. Occidental Mindoro State College;2. Mindoro State College of Agriculture and

Technology;3. Marinduque State College;4. Romblon State University;5. Palawan State University;6. Western Philippines University; and7. Palawan Council for Sustainable Development

Staff.TO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Letter dated August 27 , 2015 of Victoria M. Ramirez, State Auditor III, OIC Audit Team Leader, Commission on Audit, Audit Group NGS-State Universities and Colleges Audit Team R5-02, Camarines Norte State College, furnishing copy of the Annual Audit Report on the Camarines Norte State College, Daet, Camarines NorteTO THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Report by the Committee on Transportation (Committee Report No. 905), re: Motu proprio inquiry into the alleged discrimination of airline-related entities in the bidding of airport projectsinforming the House on its findings and

recommendationsSponsor: Representative Sarmiento (C.)TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2015 3

Report by the Committee on Transportation (Committee Report No. 906), re H. R. No. 2426, entitled:“ R E S O L U T I O N C O M M E N D I N G T H E

MARITIME PROFESSIONALS OF MV CRIMSON POLARIS, NAMELY CAPT. VENANCIO DE LA CRUZ AS CAPTAIN OF THE VESSEL, ALONG WITH CHIEF ENGINEER RONNIE DILAO; CHIEF OFFICER MARLON MAGGULING; 2ND OFFICER ENRIQUETO FERRAREN; 3RD OFFICER NINO SALANGSANG; 1ST ASSISTANT ENGINEER NOEL LANAQUE; 2ND ASSISTANT ENGINEER ALEJANDRE DIOCARES; 3RD ASSISTANT ENGINEER DENNIS SULAYAO; CHIEF COOK ZANDY TULLO; BOSUN MILO MELON; OILER ARCHIE MANZO; OILER DESIDERIO PALMA JR.; WIPER DARYL TAER; ABLE SEAMAN CRIS ESPINOSA; ABLE SEAMAN XYRUS FABILA; ABLE SEAMAN KIM ANINANG; ORDINARY SEAMAN JOHN VILLARBA; ORDINARY SEAMAN JAY ORTIZ; DECK CADET BARRY FRANCISCO; AND MESSBOY ELISON GALANG FOR THEIR COMPASSION, BRAVERY AND EXCEPTIONAL SEAMANSHIP IN RESCUING NINE FILIPINO FISHERMEN FOUND IN DISTRESS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WEST PHILIPPINE SEA ON 7 JULY 2015, AMIDST THE ONSLAUGHT OF TROPICAL STORM ‘EGAY’ ”

recommending its approval in substitution of House Resolution No. 2271

Sponsors: Representatives Sarmiento (C.) and Manalo

TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

Report by the Committee on Transportation (Committee Report No. 907), re H. R. No. 1736, entitled:“A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE HOUSE

OF REPRESENTATIVES TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY, IN AID OF LEGISLATION, ON THE DEFERRED DEVELOPMENT OF DUMAGUETE AIRPORT BECAUSE OF CONVERGENCE ISSUE BETWEEN THE DOTC AND NEDA”

informing the House on its findings and recommendations

Sponsors: Representatives Sarmiento (C.) and TevesTO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Durano). The session is suspended.

It was 10:04 a.m.


At 10:13 a.m., the session was resumed with Rep. Jorge “Bolet” Banal presiding.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Banal). The session is resumed.

The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. DURANO. Mr. Speaker, at this point, I move that we take up the Unfinished Business.

I so move, Mr. Speaker.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Banal). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.


CONSIDERATION OF H.B. NO. 6132Continuation

PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE

REP. DURANO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we take up House Bill No. 6132, as contained in Committee Report No. 894, and to direct the Secretary General to read the title of the bill.


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Banal). The Secretary General is instructed to read the title of House Bill No. 6132.

THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 6132, entitled: AN ACT APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FROM JANUARY ONE TO DECEMBER THIRTY-ONE, TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Banal). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

STATE UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES

REP. DURANO. Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary status is that we are in the period of sponsorship and debate. For this purpose, I move that we consider the proposed budget of the State Universities and Colleges and, at the same time, recognize the Hon. Mariano U. Piamonte Jr. for his sponsorship.


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Banal). The Honorable Piamonte is recognized to defend the budget, and yes, please proceed.


REP. PIAMONTE. Good morning and thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Dep. Majority Leader.

This morning, I have the honor to present and defend the budget of the State Universities and Colleges or SUCs. There are 112 of them with two campuses with separate budgets, so that makes 114 institutions.

The current proposed budget is P46,013,772,000 as against the present budget of P44.37 billion. There is an increase in the budget of P1.616 billion or 3.64 percent over the current budget. Specifically, the budget consists of Personnel Services, P26,916,021,000; MOOE, P11,129,474,000; Capital Outlays, P5,721,674,000; and then we have the Retirement and Life Insurance Premium, P2,246,603,000, for a grand total of P46,013,772,000.

Mr. Speaker, I am ready to receive or to hear any queries from our colleagues.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Banal). Thank you.


REP. DURANO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we recognize the Hon Terry L. Ridon for his interpellation.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Banal). Our distinguished colleague from KABATAAN Party-List, the Hon. Terry L. Ridon, is recognized for his interpellation.

REP. RIDON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To begin our interpellation, let us go over the Special Provisions governing the budget of State Universities and Colleges. Section 1 of the Special Provisions for SUCs pertain to tuition fees and school charges. Can the distinguished Sponsor report on how much our SUCs collect in total from tuition and other fees charged from students in academic years 2010 to 2011, 2011 to 2012, 2012 to 2013, 2013 to 2014, and the current academic year. In other words, Mr. Speaker, can the distinguished Sponsor report on tuition and other school fee collections of SUCs under the Aquino administration. As an additional question, we want to know what percentage of the total internal operating budget of our SUCs are sourced from tuition and other school fees as against general subsidy from the government, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor.

REP. PIAMONTE. The tuition and other charges, which are part of the internally generated income of the SUCs, are P14,667,987,000 in 2012; and then in 2013, P17,038,884,000; in 2014, P17,953,127,000; for 2015, because the school year is not yet over, it is P17,766,988,000, and the projected is P17,446,179,000. The ratio of the internally generated income representing

tuition fee for 2015 versus the proposed—so there is a decrease of 1.81 percent because of the expected decline in enrolment in First Year college due to the implementation of Grade 11 starting June 2016.

REP. RIDON. Thank you for the response. We

just want to get the particular data, Mr. Speaker, for the review of our office of this particular tuition data, Mr. Speaker.

REP. PIAMONTE. Pardon?

REP. RIDON. We want to get a copy.

REP. PIAMONTE. Yes, yes, of course, we can always supply the Gentleman a copy.

REP. RIDON. Let us now proceed to Section 2 of the Special Provisions, which refers to Hospital Incomes. The section states:

All income generated from the operations of the University of the Philippines-Philippine General Hospital, the Western Visayas State University Hospital, and such other hospitals or medical centers under SUCs x x x shall be used to augment the hospital’s MOOE and Capital Outlays.

This Representation, Mr. Speaker, is worried about this provision because apparently, we are pushing our state hospitals to earn internal income to sustain its operations. We are very much concerned, particularly because if such is the case, we might expect severe decreases in the subsidies provided to the Philippine General Hospital and other state hospitals under SUCs. More importantly, if such is the policy objective of the government for next year, we are quite certain that we might be implementing some market mechanisms, particularly in respect to rates and fees that are being charged to many of our patients in all of these hospitals, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

REP. PIAMONTE. Okay.

REP. RIDON. So, is it, therefore, the policy objective of the government, at this point, to really force the state hospitals to be in a situation in which they will have to raise their rates in order simply to sustain their operations, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mr. Speaker, well, it depends on the hospital because if it is really deemed necessary that increases be made due to the acquisition of more expensive but state-of-the-art equipment, then I think that would justify the increases. But the increases


should be guided by the general principle that the state should really ensure assistance to the poor but deserving patients.

REP. RIDON. Yes, Mr. Speaker, thank you.

REP. PIAMONTE. That is why the number of PhilHealth beneficiaries has also increased. The PhilHealth is really a form of assistance to the poor patients.

REP. RIDON. Thank you for your response, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

Focusing further into the Philippine General Hospital, may we know whether or not in the last couple of years, there had been significant increases in the rates imposed by the Philippine General Hospital despite additional Capital Outlay, for example, that has been granted by government to the Philippine General Hospital, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. We have been receiving reports that the rates, even for indigent patients of Philippine General Hospital, have increased in the last couple of years, and it is not the same hospital that we had seen in decades past where it has essentially been a bit affordable for many of our indigent patients. I understand, of course, that there had been an expansion of the PhilHealth coverage, but the basic question really is, irrespective of the expansion of PhilHealth coverage, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, had there, in fact, been a significant increase in the rates that are being charged upon indigent patients of the Philippine General Hospital, Mr. Speaker?

REP. PIAMONTE. Okay. We have two kinds of patients, Mr. Speaker: patients from the private sector, those who can afford, and the other kind is, of course, the indigent patients. We call this “Class B.” Although the number of Class B patients has increased in terms of number, numerical, the fees and charges remain the same, except, perhaps, when there are new laboratory tests to be conducted. Then, of course, the fees shall also increase correspondingly.

REP. RIDON. Yes, and there has been lingering information that many of the patients, for example, in the Philippine General Hospital have been subjected to some payments, particularly on what has been stated, laboratory tests or even for the equipment or the instruments that they might need to use for their services. For example, for the small instruments that they need to purchase, these are not, as I understand, free for indigent patients. Either they have to get them from, maybe from PGH itself, or they might have to get them from somewhere else, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. Is this a situation that persists up until today or is this some lingering information that is not true, Mr. Speaker?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mr. Speaker, the more expensive laboratory tests using state-of-the-art equipment are usually availed of by private patients who can afford to pay their fees. For the rest of the patients who are considered as poor, if it is really necessary that they have to be subjected to such laboratory test, they can seek assistance from agencies like the PCSO and the PAGCOR. I have made several referrals to these agencies and most of my referrals have been addressed by these agencies.

REP. RIDON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. We are satisfied with the response.

Let us now proceed to Section 3 of the Special Provisions for SUCs. It refers to income from intellectual property, which states:

Income derived from the sale, marketing and commercialization of intellectual property created by the faculty and personnel of SUCs shall accrue to the SUCs in accordance with Sections 30 and 178 of R.A. No. 8293.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this is the worrying provision, particularly because it appears that we are pushing again many of our experts to really commercialize intellectual property that is created by the university. Our basic concern, Mr. Speaker, is that, if such is the case, we might simply be subjecting many of our researches to those which are marketable, to those which can, in fact, be subjected to market forces, those which can, in fact, be sold to private owners or to corporate interests, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. If such is the overarching concern, our situation might be that those which are needed but might not necessarily be marketable or can be subjected to market forces, these types of researches might not be given priority in these particular types of policy objectives, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. Is that not correct?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mr. Speaker, take note that this is income from intellectual property, income derived from the sale, marketing, and commercialization of intellectual property created by faculty and personnel of the SUCs. Now, it is necessary because, you know, you have to incur expenses in the conduct of research and testing of these intellectual properties. It is just but fair that the expenses shall be recovered through sale and commercialization. But, again, because the owners of intellectual properties are the SUCs themselves, when they market or sell these to the public, they should be guided again by the principle that they have to give preferential option to our poor patients.

REP. RIDON. Well, …


REP. PIAMONTE. But they need to generate income, also to maintain these equipment.

REP. RIDON. Well, of course, the flipside of this, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, is the question on whether the State is, in fact, going to provide adequate funds to really fund these particular types of research because if there exist significant amounts of funds for these types of research, the potential of it, even not having to be subjected to market forces, is also a possibility. So, do we have information on whether or not the State is really providing significant support for research in the next budget, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague?

REP. PIAMONTE. Yes, we will consider that, Mr. Speaker, at the proper time.

REP. RIDON. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let us now proceed to Section 4 of the Special

Provisions of the budget of SUCs which pertain to the Expanded Students’ Grant-In-Aid Program. Can the distinguished Sponsor report on the accomplishments of this program, Mr. Speaker? And are there mechanisms in store for us to ensure that there are no ghost students benefitting from this program, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague? This has been raised in the budget briefing previously, and as I understand, several of the legislators, in fact, are proceeding with referrals of students to the Commission on Higher Education under this program. The question, really, is whether or not this particular program continues to constitute a continuation of the pork barrel that has been prohibited by the Supreme Court, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

REP. PIAMONTE. Mr. Speaker, every region has a regional monitoring body. If we talk about scholarships coming from the DSWD, then it consists also of the regional director of the CHED, of the representative from the CHED, the DSWD and other persons who the regional director thinks should be part of that monitoring. Of course, the referrals submitted by any Representative of this House to the CHED should themselves be verified by the secretariat of the Congressman that the list, really, is composed of living persons, not ghosts. But for the others, the regional monitoring office will have to visit the school, ask for the enrollment list, and interview the students to really ensure that the students are not ghosts.

REP. RIDON. Thank you for the response, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

Well, obviously, the most important concern in

respect to this particular program is not simply that there might have been ghost students, but the greatest concern, really, is that this particular program is being subjected to political patronage by legislators in different parts of the country.

In the briefing by the CHED on this particular question, it has been admitted that although there might not be an expedited lane for legislators, it has been stated there that usually, the referrals get to be approved, I think, on a more expedited basis than compared to direct applications from normal students. Our greatest concern, really, is that we do not want scholarship programs to be subjected to patronage politics. We do not want scholarship programs to be subjected to whoever is the closest to legislators referring students to the Commission on Higher Education.

When we speak about grants-in-aid, when we speak about scholarships, it should be something that is based on need, it should be something that is based on merit, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. Our greatest concern is that even if we have set some standards in these grants-in-aid programs, it has always been our lingering suspicion that because legislators are able to refer students, these are not politics-neutral referrals. These are referrals that are based on the closeness perhaps of political leaders or political supporters to legislators referring for scholarship, referring for grants-in-aid. I am not quite certain whether or not the budget can resolve this particular question, Mr. Speaker, but I think this is something that the CHED and the government really need to be able to competently resolve, whether or not through this budget, or through whichever mechanism for policy formulation, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

REP. PIAMONTE. Mr. Speaker, in this country, legislators, while they perform principally the task of legislating, they also help address the needs of their constituencies. So, it is a practice that legislators make referrals, submit lists of students whom they know are indigent students. The legislators are always in contact with their constituencies so they know the economic conditions. But even if the legislators submit a list, it does not follow that the CHED, the implementor of the scholarship, would accept everybody, everyone in the list because there are guidelines to be observed. Also, we have to consider the academic freedom of the institution to determine whom to admit. Therefore, the students must still be subjected to the admission policies of the institution.

We have to distinguish between scholarships and grants-in-aid. Scholarships are really financial assistance and other forms of assistance given to students who are academically qualified. Those who may not be academically qualified for scholarships but are poor, then they are given what we call “grants-in-aid.” I


would like to emphasize that it is still the observance of the CHED rules and the academic freedom of the institution that determine whom to admit. These shall prevail over the referrals done by the legislators, by their Congressmen. And, if there are some in the list submitted to CHED who cannot be admitted because they do not qualify according to the guidelines, then I do not think there is something that will prevent the legislators from replacing the names of those that, unluckily, were not accepted by the CHED and the higher education institutions.

REP. RIDON. Thank you for the response, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

Let us now proceed to Section 6, which pertains to SUCs Programs and Course Offerings. It states, for the record, Mr. Speaker:

SUCs shall maintain only programs and courses that directly support their core mandate and may open only programs and courses aligned with the global innovation platforms.

This provision obviously reflects a worrying trend in Philippine higher education in which SUC program offerings are being downsized or even closed due to the ongoing rationalization program of government. We would want to know, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, what is the result, what has been the result of the rationalization program for SUCs, particularly on the program offerings of our state schools, if the distinguished Sponsor knows the response, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mr. Speaker, we have to remember that we have a limited number of SUCs, only 112 of them plus two campuses that have their own budgets. We also have limited funding for scholarships and grant-in-aid to deserving students. It is, I think, but proper that we have to focus on the more relevant courses that are needed not only for local employment and for overseas employment if the students so desire so that they can readily compare with the graduates of the institutions of the countries where they go. Now, the higher education institutions especially funded by the government, those funded by the government should really focus more on courses that are aligned to their mandate. They should not be offering left and right whatever courses they want even if these courses are not relevant and there are less chances of employment because these courses are oversubscribed. So, we will be wasting the time and money of our poor students giving them false hopes that a college degree would guarantee their liberation from poverty. We notice that many college graduates now from oversubscribed courses

have no jobs. That is why they take the TESDA courses because it has been observed and reported that graduates of TESDA courses are more employable than college graduates of irrelevant and oversubscribed courses. So, I think we should not waste government money and the time and resources of the poor students.

REP. RIDON. Thank you for your response, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. Have there been instances when our state schools were forced, in fact, to downsize this particular program offering or even close course offerings due to this policy, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague?

REP. PIAMONTE. Well, I have been informed that the SUCs are not forced but they are discouraged from overexpanding their courses which are deemed to be non-priority courses. So, I think part of the evaluation of the SUCs is—okay, yes, as part of the evaluation under the normative funding scheme, the courses are also reviewed by the evaluators. Some of the SUCs are complaining that they have not received “Tulong Dunong” whatever because these scholarship programs are intended really for students who should enroll in priority courses because, as I said earlier, we will be wasting government money enrolling them in courses where the probability of employment is very, very low. So, well, there are also some institutions that closed their programs because some of the oversubscribed, irrelevant courses no longer have students to maintain these courses. If you have only one, two or a dozen enrollees, that is not sustainable.

REP. RIDON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. Let us now proceed to Section 10 of the Special Provisions on the budget of the SUCs pertaining to the maintenance of laboratory classes. May we know how many secondary schools are run by our SUCs as laboratory classes for their education courses?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, I am still waiting for the data from the CHED and the PASUC, the Philippine Association of State Universities and Colleges. Basically, the SUCs that offer education courses or teacher education courses are the ones who offer laboratory high schools because the laboratory schools are used in the practice teaching of the education students. In the case of elementary teacher education, the SUCs are encouraged to use the nearby public schools as the laboratory schools of their education students.

REP. RIDON. Yes, we would just want to get, probably, a report on this particular question, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, on the laboratory schools,


and whether or not there had been some closures of laboratory schools, for whatever reasons, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

REP. PIAMONTE. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, according to the information from the Philippine Association of State Universities and Colleges, 80 percent of the 112 state universities and colleges are offering education courses and the education students enrollment is about 40,000. So, 80 percent of 112 is around 85 to 86 institutions.

At the moment, the laboratory schools of those offering teacher education programs are limited to only 500 students. But, that is now the present allowable size for First Year to Fourth Year. But we are considering adjusting that ceiling of 500 students, high school students, because by 2016, the SUCs will offer also Grades 11 in those laboratory schools. So, if we stick to 500, then they will have to displace some of their existing students. So, we have to adjust accordingly, the 500 is for the junior high school, First Year to Fourth Year, and then we consider the entry of Grades 11 and 12 beginning 2016.

REP. RIDON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

Let me now proceed to Section 12 of the Special Provisions on the budget of the SUCs which tackles the vocational and practicum training of students. It states here:

SUCs are authorized to avail the voluntary services of their students in the construction or repair of buildings and the fabrication or repair of buildings and the fabrication and repair of equipment subject to the payment of twenty-five (P25) per hour but not to exceed four (4) hours a day. They may likewise utilize student labor for academic, research, extension and administrative matters as part of practicum training subject to payment of twenty-five (P25) per hour.

Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, we raised this already during several budget deliberations ago and we are really aghast as to why we continue to insist that this is of such an important policy declaration that we are even putting it in the Special Provisions, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. Is there an explanation? Is there a new explanation as to why this is particularly placed into the budget provisions, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague? Because, I do not think the students are in school to do student labor. They are there to study. They are there to make their parents proud. I think the work of construction is something, even if voluntary,

even if paid for, even if paid for the right amount, Mr. Speaker. I think there ought to be no space for students to be even—for the state universities and colleges to even think of this as a particular policy for students, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

REP. PIAMONTE. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, it is a common practice in higher education institutions, both government-owned and private, to implement what we call “practicum.” You know, we do not teach theories, only theories in our institutions. We have to subject our students also to the application of theories to practice. So, in most courses, there is part of the curriculum what we call “practicum.” Now, they learn in their voluntary work in the services that were mentioned. We are now teaching students even to take technical-vocational. Our high school students starting at age 12 in First Year high school, they already take TLE, Technology and Livelihood Education. And then, by Grades 11 and 12, they will be taught technical-vocational courses that will be granted NC I and NC II by the TESDA.

Now, in many countries, for example in Germany, they teach the theories in school, but the students are really required. It is not encouraged but required to really take their practice outside of the school. So, it is part of learning, both theory and practice, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. I think there is nothing wrong with that.

REP. RIDON. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I understand your position on the matter, but, again, as worded, Section 12 would show you that this particular matter is simply not confined to those that are involved in vocational or tech-voc. This is something that can be open to all types of students. So, Mr. Speaker, it is possible that a Political Science student is subjecting himself to construction, construction work and repair work of buildings under this provision. My most basic concern really is, is it really necessary for the government, for SUCs to make this particular policy declaration in this budget, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague? Because as stated, as particularly worded, anyone, any student can subject himself to voluntary work in the construction and repair of buildings or equipment.

So, Mr. Speaker, yes, I do not think this has been removed in previous budgets and we would continue to insist at the proper time, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, that this particular provision be removed from the budget next year. If there are considerations for practicumers for technical-vocational subjects, then let this particular programs do it themselves. But I do not think that this ought to have a special place in the budget of SUCs, Mr. Speaker, because this provides—it sends a message that, well, we can always get students of state universities and colleges to do construction work


instead of hiring proper construction workers to do the work of students in state universities and colleges, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

REP. PIAMONTE. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, take note that schools are authorized; they are not compelled. They are authorized. If they feel that they want to really assist the students to provide them with practical knowledge, they can do it. On the part of the students, I would like to underscore the word voluntary. Nobody is compelled. So, even if you are a Political Science major, but you feel that you want to be educated in some aspects of construction because you think that with the experience in doing some construction work, if you fail to find work with you major in Political Science, then it is possible that you can find temporary jobs in the construction sector while waiting for final employment using your Political Science major.

REP. RIDON. Yes, we understand your position, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, but at the proper time, we will make representation to propose to expunge this provision from the Bill, Mr. Speaker.

Let me now go to the main aspect of my interpellation which is the funding for SUCs for 2016. There is no question that the budget of SUCs has increased nominally from a total of P42.3 billion in 2015 to P43.8 billion, Mr. Speaker. However, when we requested additional data from the Department of Budget and Management, we were astonished to discover that the original amount requested by our 114 SUCs amounted to around P82.6 billion. This means basically that the DBM had only approved around half of the original funding requirement of our SUCs. In other words, Mr. Speaker, sa bawat dalawang pisong pangangailangan ng pampublikong kolehiyo at unibersidad, piso lang ang inilalaan ng pamahalaan. And our most basic question on this is, why did the DBM approve P43.8 instead of what the SUCs asked for which is around P82.6 billion, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, when an SUC presents its proposed budget, the CHED applies their normative financing scheme. It does not follow that what you present will be approved in its totality.

Now, the reason some of the proposed budgets were reduced is that under the normative funding scheme, some SUCs did not score well in the evaluation, especially in the quality of teaching and research. So, necessarily, their scores will go down. Also, we have to consider that there were a lot of insertions done for the present 2015 budget which are no longer done in 2016. So, necessarily, because we normally ask more than what we are currently using in terms of operating

fund, if those insertions are no longer provided in the succeeding budget, of course, there will be a reduction and also, that the overall reduction is also partly caused by the non-allocation of the UP Capital Outlay. They were allocated P3 billion for 2015, of course, and we do not expect that another P3 billion will be given to them this 2016, because they are still in the process of implementing their P3 billion; construction of infrastructure are undergoing.

Now, yes, I mentioned earlier that in the present budget, we had congressional insertions which are no longer—because now we have to follow the Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of our congressional allocations.

REP. RIDON. Yes, well, allow me to proceed with the questions on the normative funding formula. This has always been a continuing debate even within the SUC community, even within Congress, and, well, my most basic question is: Had there already been significant adjustments in the normative financing funding formula to really consider the situation of emerging new universities as against already established large universities like the University of the Philippines and the Mindanao State University, because many of the emerging universities are saying that they had always been stuck in a chicken-and-egg scenario, particularly in respect to the funding of all of their required needs, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. Because of their nature as a new or an emerging university, they cannot adequately respond to the requirements of the normative financing formula. So, my question at this point is, has there already been adjustments to really respond to their particular difficulties, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, in

the previous meetings with the CHED, I also raised this issue. One institution, when it was elevated to university status, got a lower allocation simply because the new institution that was promoted did not meet the requirements for the university status. So, that was one. I also requested the CHED to review the normative funding scheme because of concerns that you raised. In a prior meeting, the CHED Chairperson assured me that they are actually now reviewing the normative funding scheme to improve it and to make it fairer to the schools concerned.

REP. RIDON. Yes, but is it not correct to say

that what they wanted to implement is not yet being implemented for the 2016 budget? Or has it, in fact, been implemented for the 2015 budget, as well, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague?

REP. PIAMONTE. According to the information


that I gathered from the CHED, they are already beginning to implement the adjustments on the normative funding scheme for the proposed budget of the SUCs for 2016.

REP. RIDON. Thank you. REP. PIAMONTE. The review is constantly being

done. REP. RIDON. Thank you for the response, Mr.

Speaker.Well, going into the cuts that you just stated

previously, 10 SUCs will incur a net decrease in their respective budgets and as a more in-depth analysis would show, it has already been revealed previously that 59 SUCs are set to incur hefty cuts in their Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses and 40 SUCs will suffer cuts in their Capital Outlay for next year. We also note that Western Visayas is the region most affected by the cuts, with eight schools in the region affected, and a close second is Eastern Visayas, with seven schools affected by the cuts in the MOOE.

So, my question is, is the DBM or maybe the government prepared already to do something about what has been cut? As I understand it, it is not just this Representation who has expressed a resolve that we certainly ought to restore what has been removed from the Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses.

Mr. Speaker, the most basic concern of this Representation in all of these cuts in the MOOE is that the administration can most definitely use this again as an excuse, as a reason to raise tuition and other school fees. If there will be difficulties in the payment of water and electricity, we are quite certain that the administration will again come up with new types of fees, simply to respond to this particular reality on the ground. So, I am quite certain that there might be a water fee or additional energy fees, additional infrastructure fees, which most interestingly, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, continue to remain a continuing policy of state universities and colleges.

So, is there a plan or does Congress, in fact, have a plan to, at the very least, respond to this particular question on the cuts on the MOOE, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, remember that Congress has the power of the purse. So, if you feel that we should restore some of the decreases, then you can make your proposal and we will consider that at the proper time. The very reason there are reductions in the MOOE is that as regards Tulong-Dunong which is part of the MOOE, some of our colleagues have not provided for Tulong-Dunong in the 2016 budget year. So, naturally, that will really

cause a decline. There are also some proposals from our institutions for Capital Outlay which do not fall under the STEM priority which proposes to address priority needs especially in the areas of Science and Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.

The other reason is that, some of our higher educational institutions have problems in the utilization rates of their Capital Outlay budget. So, if implementation is rather slow and not satisfactory under the evaluation of the CHED and the DBM, naturally, they will not be given a subsequent allocation or if ever given, a reduced allocation for Capital Outlay because, then, another problem will arise relative to the utilization of the additional Capital Outlay. And then, also, the COA is prescribing what we call as… So, correction, Your Honor, there is no matter related to the COA in my response. So, those are the reasons the MOOE and Capital Outlay budgets have been reduced.

REP. RIDON. Thank you for your response, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

Well, to a certain extent, particularly in your response to Capital Outlay and the difficulty in the utilization rates, I might kind of agree with you that there had been several problems on the implementation of the projects. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I just want to state for the record that we have been going around several schools in Mindanao. In fact, we just went around Central and Southern Mindanao to speak to the students and find out what their problems are. In one of the schools, particularly around Cotabato, their particular concern, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, is, they do not have seats in their classrooms. When we asked them, “How long has this problem been persisting in your school?” The response of the students when I asked them, “Has this been a problem for a year?” Their response to us is, “This has been a problem since the first time we arrived in the university, in the college.”

Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, I think this is something that we really have to investigate as well, because we do not want also to make patrons out of state university administrations, because when we went around the schools, we have seen that they have dilapidated facilities and equipment, and they have no buildings and classrooms for our students. So, I think the SUCs also need to be accountable for these particular failures in the use of their funds, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, which brings me also to this continuing concern that we have as well with the SUCs which is the question on development fees.

This is a question that has been continuously raised in several of the committee hearings in the Higher Technical Education Committee and I understand that the SUCs continue to maintain that this is something that needs to be imposed on the students because of Capital Outlay problems, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.


But again, we would want to state for the record that it should not be Capital Outlay. Infrastructure development for state schools is something that should not be the burden of the students themselves. Infrastructure development is something that ought to be the burden of the state itself, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. The response of the CHED has also been not satisfactory in this regard, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, particularly because their simple response to the question is merely to make certain that development fees are described particularly in the registration forms, Mr. Speaker. I think what the students are asking in this regard is not merely to state fees with some particular detail like infrastructure development fee or student development fee, but for the state schools to remove these types of fees in their entirety from payment by the students, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

Our explanation has always been very, very simple. If the government and schools would want to impose development fees or fees of these types, I think this is something that is not being readily used by the students. This is clearly different, for example, from the use of library fees, even clinic fees which the students can readily use in the course of their stay in the schools. But with respect to development fees or fees of these types, these are fees being collected from the students for infrastructure projects, for facilities that they will not be able to use in the course of their stay in the schools, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

May we know from the SUC representation or from the CHED maybe, whether or not this continues to be a continuing policy, that all they wanted to do for the state schools is to simply describe these particular fees with particularity in order for the students to determine whether or not they should proceed with enrolment given these fees? I think the call has always been, Mr. Speaker, for the schools to remove these particular types of fees, whatever animal they are called, whether development fees, whether student development fees or what have you, distinguished colleague.

REP. PIAMONTE. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the CHED does not allow the collection of such fees like development fees. What are allowed to the institutions are the collection of tuition and miscellaneous fiduciary fees. What do we mean by fiduciary fees? Fees that are to be used for the purpose for which they are collected like dental, medical, library, guidance and counseling. So, developmental fees are not in the nature of fiduciary fees because they can be used in different purposes. So, I suggest that you bring to the attention of the CHED the particular schools that are complaining to you so that the CHED can make the necessary follow-up and take action.

REP. RIDON. Yes. Well, thank you for that willingness to support our position, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. But we also wanted to state for the record that some of the state schools had gone around this particular policy position of the CHED. What they had done is to simply sufficiently describe with particularity these types of fees. So, when they stated, “Oh, okay, we will not call it development fee, we will just call it infrastructure fee or fee for construction, or construction fee, infrastructure construction fee,” my concern is that because it has been sufficiently described with particularity, it might now already be within the ambit of what CHED considers as fiduciary fees. Our concern is not mere semantics, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. Our concern is that these types of fees should not be the burden of the students because these ought to be the burden of the state or the private schools. Of course, these ought to be taken from revenues which have been raised from tuition and other school fees, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

REP. PIAMONTE. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, again, according to the CHED, they do not tolerate these kinds of fees. The CHED has already defined the names and nature of the fees. They are definite fees. But, of course, it is the obligation of the CHED to monitor these kinds of activities done by our SUCs. According to the CHED, they do not allow these kinds of collection from our students.

REP. RIDON. Yes. Thank you for the response. So, we will just make representation with the particular schools, Mr. Speaker, that continue to be involved in violation of the CHED pronouncements, distinguished colleague.

Well, before proceeding to the budget of the University of the Philippines, I also would want to know whether or not the CHED continues to tolerate, for example, fees of the nature like energy fees, Mr. Speaker. As I remember, during my time in the University of the Philippines, even UP had imposed a type of fee that is called an energy fee or an electricity fee, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. As far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, this is a surplusage which should be removed as this is similar to development fees as well, particularly because we had received some reports. It is not from SUCs but from a private school, for example, that energy fees and fees of these types are being used by schools to simply gain extra income for SUCs, maybe not for themselves, but for greater internally generated income for the school, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. Our concern here is that, if the answer is yes, there continues to exist energy fees in SUCs, is this something that should not have been responded to by


an adequate provision for maintenance and operating expenses and, therefore, additional energy fees imposed by the schools on the students should not, in fact, be paid for by the students anymore? Is that not correct, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, in yesterday’s pre-plenary conference, I was the one presiding, and the SUCs were all there, there was a suggestion from one of our colleagues that the CHED collect or gather data on the various fees being charged by the HEIs. The CHED should be able to really know the charges being imposed. Also, the CHED should not be contented with the submission of the list of charges because for all we know, some of the HEIs may not include in the list submitted to the CHED, charges that they deem are prohibited by the CHED.

So, it is incumbent upon the CHED to really monitor, first, to verify with the institution the list of charges submitted to them, at the same time, to look into the possibilities of violations of the CHED policy of higher education institutions not collecting unauthorized fees. In the case of the private schools, there are guidelines that are applicable to them, and that is of separate concern here because we are dealing with State Universities and Colleges concerns, not private schools concerns.

REP. RIDON. Thank you. Well, of course, again, we will make representation

with respect to these particular charges, and we would want to follow up as well on what has been proposed yesterday particularly on the review on the fees. But, we just wanted to state for the record, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, that one of the reasons SUCs had been given like a free pass to really raise all of these types of fees whether or not within the CHED regulation, is that under the Higher Education Modernization Act, it states there, “The schools can charge/impose fees as they may deem proper to impose”.

Our greatest concern there, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, is that despite a review of the fees, they would simply continue to insist on this particular statutory provision on their right and their power to raise fees or impose new fees under the Higher Education Modernization Act. I think this is something that the CHED, of course, will really have to look into because I think that even if there exists that particular provision on the free pass of schools to raise rates or impose new fees of whatever type, I think the CHED can still make some representation, or if the CHED has some power, still, to set some standards, to set some guidelines on the types of fees that can, in fact, be imposed by the state schools despite the Higher Education Modernization Act, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

REP. PIAMONTE. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, we have a CHED Charter, the law that created CHED as a supervisory and regulatory body over institution of higher learning. The CHED was not created for private schools only, but both, for all higher education institutions. The Department of Justice has already given an opinion that indeed the CHED is the supervisory and regulatory body over all higher education institutions including the SUCs. So, while we say that the HEIs are autonomous, they have their own boards, but, the autonomy is not absolute, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, they are still to be subjected to the rules and regulations of the CHED, otherwise, what is the purpose why we are creating the CHED as the supervisory body over HEIs?

REP. RIDON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your response.

Let me now go to the UP budget, to the budget of the University of the Philippines. The UP proposed P25 billion for 2016, but in our present Budget Bill, only P10 billion is appropriated for it. May we know the reason why more than half was not approved. Of course, I understand that as against other state schools, Mr. Speaker, that is still a staggering amount, but of course, we just want to get an explanation as to why more than half was not approved by the Department of Budget and Management, Mr. Speaker.

REP. PIAMONTE. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, one of the reasons for the reduction in the budget is, that, the three billion that was given to them for 2015 has not been repeated in the proposal for 2016 because they are still concerned about the utilization of the P3 billion Capital Outlay for the current fiscal year. So, if you remove the P3 billion, naturally, there will be a reduction, especially, in Capital Outlays compared to the current fiscal year. Well, of course, I would like to mention also that for the other SUCs, yesterday, there was a proposal from the DBM that they should submit justification for the restoration of their budgetary cuts. So, we will consider their proposals for restoration in the proper time.

REP. RIDON. Yes.

REP. PIAMONTE. In the period of amendments.

REP. RIDON. Well, just to respond to the distinguished Sponsor, Mr. Speaker, well, it is not simply because there is P3 billion that has been allocated already, because, I understand, Mr. Speaker, the P25-billion proposal is a new proposal. We have seen that, for example, for Personnel Services, we proposed P9 billion, we had proposed P9 billion, but


the DBM approved only P7 billion. The University of the Philippines proposed P5 billion for MOOE, but DBM approved P2.7 billion only. The UP requested P11 billion for infrastructure, but only P1 billion was approved. So, Mr. Speaker, obviously, irrespective of the P3 billion that has been granted and not granted this year, there are new proposals of the University that have not been approved, so we just wanted to know the reason these particular requests were not completely approved, and what types of projects were not approved for implementation for 2016, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

REP. PIAMONTE. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, there is, actually, an increase in the budget of the UP relative to Personnel Services from P6 billion in the current fiscal year to P7 billion in the next 2016. The MOOE has also been increased from the current of P2.4 billion to P2.7 billion for P2016. The Capital Outlay has also been provided although not the same amount provided in 2015, the current fiscal year, but they are provided with P1.1 billion Capital Outlays.

REP. RIDON. Yes.

REP. PIAMONTE. Of course, there were some budget proposals for offering of new programs and training programs, but well, of course, some of them were not totally approved by the DBM.

REP. RIDON. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

REP. PIAMONTE. Also, one reason the Capital Outlays being requested has not been fully provided by the DBM is that, per information that we got from them is that the DPWH has also provided a lot of infrastructure for the additional infrastructures for 2016.

REP. RIDON. Okay. Thank you for the response, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

Well, of course, we have stated that relative to last year’s allocation, of course, you admit that, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, but, again, what you have stated is that in comparison with what has been proposed, it is clearly lower than what has been approved, Mr. Speaker. We just wanted to know the reasons and, of course, you have stated that already, but we just wanted to state, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, that this concern for the budget is not just for, you know, the University of the Philippines, because this is a situation that is always faced by state schools each and every time.

I understand that the government is talking about a very finite pie of appropriations, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. But I think, everyone will agree with me in the Body, and of course, in the audience,

that state schools really need to be given some greater priority, year on year, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

Another key SUC, in fact, that needs to be considered is the Mindanao State University (MSU), which is one of the largest systems in the Philippines. We have received information...


THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Banal). With the indulgence of Congressman Piamonte and Congressman Ridon, the Presiding Officer, together with our Majority Leader, Boyet Gonzales, and all the Members of the House of Representatives, wish to greet our Speaker, the Hon. Feliciano “Sonny” Belmonte, a very happy birthday. (Applause)

We would like to suspend the session for a few minutes to allow our colleagues to personally greet our beloved Speaker.

It was 11:31 a.m.


At 11:32 p.m., the session was resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Banal). The session is resumed.

Our parliamentary status is we are in the period of sponsorship and debate, and Congressman Ridon was interpellating the Sponsor, the Honorable Piamonte.

Congressman Ridon, distinguished colleague, please proceed.

REP. RIDON. Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Happy Birthday, Speaker.Well, we are now talking about the MSU, Mr.

Speaker. The budget was slashed by around P29 million, from P2.18 billion in 2015 to only P2.15 billion in 2016. We just wanted to know, Mr. Speaker, the reason for the cut for the budget of MSU, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

REP. PIAMONTE. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, first, on the decrease in the UP budget which you mentioned earlier, I would like to reiterate that the Capital Outlays being provided this year is much lower than what was provided for the current fiscal year, so, naturally, in the overall, there will be a decrease, apparently, a decrease. But relative to the other items on the budget MOOE and others have been increased.

Now, with regard to the budget of the Mindanao State University, one of the reasons there is a reduction in their budget is that of the application of normative funding scheme by the CHED. And second, there were


insertions made through congressional amendments in 2015 which are no longer provided in 2016. So, those amounts are no longer repeated in 2016. Naturally, there will be apparently again a reduction in the budget.

REP. RIDON. Thank you for your response, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. Well, we are gravely concerned for the MSU as well because we think that this will greatly impact many of our students in Mindanao. In fact, we received communication from the MSU-Tawi-Tawi College of Technology and Oceanography, that they themselves are alarmed with the cut in their budget from P12.8 million to just P6.8 million in 2016. It is their position, Mr. Speaker, that the cut will tremendously hamper the education opportunities they offer to the youth in Tawi-Tawi. I In fact, Mr. Speaker, MSU-Tawi-Tawi will incur the largest MOOE cut next year in percentage terms, which is why we would really want to appeal to the plenary to really reconsider the budget of the MSU System particularly with respect to the units of the MSU, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

REP. PIAMONTE. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, we have already heard the problem of the MSU-Tawi-Tawi not only in the Committee on Appropriations level but even in the pre-plenary yesterday. There are a number of Congressmen who are really proposing the restoration of the budget of MSU-Tawi-Tawi. In fact, the president came to me even before the Committee on Appropriations hearing on SUCs to present their concerns, because there is also another problem with MSU-Tawi-Tawi—their offering of high school students in 22 campuses. They have more or less 2,000 college students, but they have about 6,000 high school students. But, we are trying to resolve this issue in the light of the CHED policy that they have to maintain only a laboratory-size number of students, at the same time, that MSU should, little by little, concentrate on their core mandate, because the mandate of MSU is not really to offer such a large number of high school students, because that would actually make a negative impact on their operations of their college department. But, we are really trying because we do not want also a drastic phase out of their high schools. We have to look for solutions like ask DepEd to absorb the students or to subsidize the students by way of similar to the GASTPE so that in the meantime we try to encourage the gradual phasing out, the student will not be prejudiced.

Of course, it is very ironic that the MSU is the only college offering a degree program on Oceanography and I think for a number of decades, but until now they have not been provided a vessel which is very, very important for the MSU. Again, some legislators

are very concerned about the situation of MSU. They have submitted to us proposals for the restoration of the budget of the MSU especially the budget for the vessel which cost about P30 million, Your Honor.

REP. RIDON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this juncture, we would want to inform the Body

that a resolution has been filed, House Resolution No. 2377, which seeks to restore the P477.8 million budget slashed by the Department of Budget and Management from the maintenance and operating expenses of 59 State Universities and Colleges in the proposed 2016 budget, and study options to further increase the budget for public tertiary education. This resolution has been co-authored by no less than 24 of our colleagues including several senior Members of House Committee on Appropriations and even Committee on Higher and Technical Education Chairperson, Cong. Roman Romulo.

We wanted to state for the record who these Congressmen are: Hon. Emil L. Ong, Hon. Ma. Victoria Sy-Alvarado, Hon. Florencio T. Flores, Hon. Thelma Z. Almario, Hon. Winston “Winnie” Castelo, Hon. Romeo M. Acop. Hon. Francisco “Lalo” T. Matugas, Hon. Aleta C. Suarez, Hon. Raneo E. Abu, Hon. Evelina G. Escudero, Hon. Fernando L. Hicap, Hon. Luzviminda C. Ilagan, Hon. Celso L. Lobregat, Hon. Rolando “Klarex” A. Uy, Hon. Carlos Isagani T. Zarate, Hon. Scott Davies S. Lanete, Hon. Tupay T. Loong, Hon. Susan A. Yap, Hon. Joselito “Jonjon” R. Mendoza, Hon. Roman T. Romulo, Hon. Antonio L. Tinio, Hon. Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez, Hon. Jim Hataman-Salliman, and Hon. Imelda R. Marcos, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

And of course this Representation enjoins you—and, of course, including Hon. Mariano Piamonte, I understand that he has also signed …

REP. PIAMONTE. Signatory, also a signatory.

REP. RIDON. … the Resolution, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, and several others which we have not stated at the moment. This is why we are enjoining all of our other colleagues and, of course, the whole Body to pass this Resolution as it is but just and reasonable for the House Committee on Appropriations to really and seriously consider restoring even just the P477.8 million slashed in the MOOE of 59 SUCs, considering that we have a very wide fiscal space next year, P582.7 billion to be exact, so wide that we can even double the budget of all SUCs and still have plenty of room for more.

Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, in closing, we cannot emphasize enough how underfunding public higher education will be tantamount to undermining the future of the nation. Together, Mr. Speaker,


distinguished Sponsor, let us unite in giving higher funding for our state schools.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We yield the floor. Good afternoon. (Applause)

REP. PIAMONTE. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and Your Honor.

At this juncture, Representative Banal relinquished the Chair to Deputy Speaker Henedina R. Abad.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abad). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. DURANO. Mme. Speaker, at this point, I move that we recognize the Lady from Cebu, Hon. Gwen F. Garcia, who wishes to make a manifestation.

I so move, Mme. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abad). Rep. Gwen Garcia is hereby recognized to make her manifestation.

REP. GARCIA (G.). Thank you, Mme. Speaker.This is just a short manifestation, Mme. Speaker.

And by way of introduction, may I echo the final statement of my distinguished colleague, the Hon. Terry Ridon, to fully support the budget of our SUCs.

In fact, Mme. Speaker, it is the SUCs that do give us the opportunity to ensure that quality education may be availed of, not just in our urban areas, but more especially in the less developed rural areas. I speak from experience because this Representation had the opportunity to serve the province of Cebu as its governor for nine years.

The setting up of satellite campuses, especially in third-class or fourth-class municipalities opens many doors to many households belonging to the less fortunate, where college students would otherwise not have the opportunity to avail themselves of tertiary education; they needed to go to the city in order to get such education. I am aware that there is a school of thought, unfortunately prevailing, that there seems to be a fear that the quality of education might be eroded by the setting up of satellite campuses. Perhaps, such an opinion may have stemmed from inexperience, or should we say, not having actually gone to our barangays and seen how our high school students in our public schools pine and hope for a college education and yet, because of abject poverty, are denied one. If they would have to come to Cebu City, that would entail additional expenses, board and lodging and, furthermore, that would take them away from the guidance of their parents who would need to stay, of course, in these towns.

And so, I manifest, therefore, Mme. Speaker, my

full support for our SUCs especially in the setting up and the continuing support of satellite campuses, to be more specific, I am manifesting that two such satellite campuses, one located in a third-class municipality, Pinamungajan, and the other located in Balamban—the one in Pinamungajan is a two-year old campus that was set up by the Cebu Technological University, and the other, one that has been set up in Balamban—that additional budget may be given to these two satellite campuses in order for them to be able to construct more classrooms.

To be more specific, Mme. Speaker, Pinamungajan has only eight classrooms. The campus director himself does not have an office. Other courses cannot be offered, precisely because there is a lack, a dire lack of classrooms. There are no plantilla items. These are part-time teachers that are currently instructing our students. In Balamban, the second floor does not have walls. There is no fence that secures the premises of this campus. And yet, perhaps, to contradict that school of thought that believes that the quality of education would be eroded by satellite campuses, the Balamban Cebu Normal University campus, in the recent Licensure Exam for Teachers, got for its average 82 percent, where the national average was a mere 27 percent. In the satellite campus of the CNU in Medellin, the average that was achieved by Medellin was 97 percent, as compared, again, to the national average of 27 percent. Surely, these should be the best arguments proving that we should fully support satellite campuses. If we say that education is the great equalizer, let us put more teeth into such a motherhood statement. If we say that education can be the key to poverty alleviation, then let us translate such grand words into real action by this full support for satellite campuses that reach out to the poor and needy students in our municipalities, in our rural areas.

Thank you, Mme. Speaker, and I reiterate, once again, my support for the budget of the SUCs. Please remember the satellite campus of Pinamungajan and the satellite campus of Balamban.

Thank you very much , Mme. Speaker. (Applause)

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abad). Thank you, Representative Garcia.


REP. DEFENSOR. Mme. Speaker, may we recognize the Gentleman from ABAKADA for the next interpellation, the Hon. Jonathan A. Dela Cruz.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abad). The Gentleman from ABAKADA, Rep. Jonathan Dela Cruz, is hereby recognized for his interpellation.


REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mme. Speaker.

Will the distinguished Sponsor, our esteemed colleague, Congressman Piamonte, yield to a few questions?

REP. PIAMONTE. Yes, Mme. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Mme. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, before I move for the approval of the budget of the SUCs, may I be allowed to reiterate certain points and, probably, request, Mme. Speaker, the Gentleman to answer a few questions.

Mme. Speaker, I noted that one of the issues raised during the budget hearings was the status of the Philippine General Hospital. What is really the classification of the Philippine General Hospital?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, the UP-PGH is a tertiary hospital, and it is also the main referral hospital of the Department of Health. It performs certain research activities that promote the development of medical services in the country. It is part of the university because the university is offering courses in medicine. So, it is a teaching hospital as well.


It appears that the PGH has a number of mandates and, being a teaching hospital, it has its own requirements for the purpose. But being a tertiary and referral hospital, it has also its own requirements as well. Does the PGH get its full funding from the budget of the UP System, or is it also getting some funding from the Department of Health and other agencies?

REP. PIAMONTE. The budget of the hospital, Mme. Speaker, is actually part of the overall budget of the University of the Philippines, but they have really, under that overall budget, they have a particular soft budget, soft university budget, specifically for UP-PGH.

REP. DELA CRUZ. How much is it getting from the University of the Philippines’ budget, Mme. Speaker?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, the overall proposed budget of UP is P11.4 billion, but the allocation for PGH out of that P11 billion is P2.2 billion. This is about, more or less, 20 percent of the overall budget, but we have to remember that UP has several campuses, 16 to be exact.


So, it is not getting any kind of funding from other

sources, from the Department of Health, from other agencies and the like, Mme. Speaker, the PGH?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, per information of the UP President and the Chancellor, the PGH also receives, but occasionally only, funding from the DOH.

REP. DELA CRUZ. When the Gentleman says “occasional,” is there any way by which we can determine how much has been afforded the PGH from other sources?

REP. PIAMONTE. The DOH gives some funding to the PGH not for operations, but for research purposes, and the amount is minimal.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Very minimal. Is it P500 million, P200 million?

REP. PIAMONTE. Less than P500 million.

REP. DELA CRUZ. What about for its referral services, Mme. Speaker? If the DOH refers patients and the like to the PGH, is it given a kind of subsidy?

REP. PIAMONTE. The hospital, Mme. Speaker, also received P144 million last year, referrals from the Department of Health.

REP. DELA CRUZ. P104 million?

REP. PIAMONTE. P144 million.

REP. DELA CRUZ. P144 million. I am told, Mme. Speaker, that there is a PGH Foundation. Is this correct? This PGH Foundation supposedly has some funds in its custody that are being used for purposes of upgrading and enhancing the capability of the PGH to undertake its functions. Is this correct information or are there some other things that have come about, that this particular foundation is no longer in existence?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, the foundation is not really a UP foundation. It is a foundation put up by the alumni for purposes of helping the PGH raise some income or donations, and also for helping indigent patients get financial assistance so that they can avail of UP-PGH services.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mme. Speaker. That is in addition to an earlier foundation? I understand that there was a foundation that was set up during the time of President Marcos and that this foundation was granted certain privileges and benefits. Does this foundation still exist and does this foundation still support the PGH?


REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, current officials of UP—UP President and Chancellor, and the Director of the PGH—are not aware of the existence of such foundation. If it was founded several years ago, and the current officials are not aware of it, it is probable that the foundation was already phased out.

REP. DELA CRUZ. I have some documents here, Mme. Speaker, that show that this particular foundation, which has been in existence since the time of President Marcos, continues to assist the PGH. If the PGH Director himself does not know that there are some funds coming from this particular foundation, there must be something wrong because that is exactly the same thing that happened in the Fourteenth Congress. I remember that I had a fund—it is not exactly a big fund, Mr. Speaker. It was about close to P1 million. I had P800,000 left after the Fourteenth Congress. Up to now, and I have been requesting this since then, Mr. Speaker, that I had wanted to find out what happened to this particular fund. So, it is not really surprising to the Director of the PGH—does not even know that there is a fund that has a million pesos in its bank that has been helping the PGH—does not know that this particular foundation is helping the PGH, and it has been providing some funds for the purpose.

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, the

UP officials again claimed that they are not aware of the existence of such foundation.

REP. DELA CRUZ. No. Is the PGH Director also

telling me that he is not aware that I actually put P1 million in the PGH for purposes of medical assistance? Is that what the PGH Director is telling you right now, Mr. Speaker?

REP. PIAMONTE. Yeah, he is aware of the fund. REP. DELA CRUZ. Whatever happened to

those? REP. PIAMONTE. That is P55,621… REP. DELA CRUZ. No, Mr. Speaker. REP. PIAMONTE. One million, and then utilized

is P444,000. So, you have a balance of P555,000. REP. DELA CRUZ. So, who actually authorized

the use of that fund, Mr. Speaker. Is it the PGH Director? That particular fund was supposed to be a part of our participation in the medical assistance for our constituents. So, he has been using it without our permission. Is that what the PGH Director is telling you?

REP. PIAMONTE. Well, the amount utilized has actually been applied to your beneficiaries, Mr. Speaker. And they received the …

REP. DELA CRUZ. I am sorry, distinguished

Sponsor, I do not have any list of those things. And if the Director is telling you that these are my beneficiaries, he has to give me a list of those beneficiaries because I have been writing him, I have written him since then and up to now I have not received a letter coming from the Director. So, I will have to propose a deferment of the consideration of the budget of the PGH for that purpose, outside of the budget of the UP System, until I can get a clear answer from the PGH Director whatever happened to all of the funds that we have provided to the PGH. So, if the budget of the UP System is P11.4 billion, I will have to propose for the deferment of the consideration of the P2.2 billion for the PGH until I get a clear answer from the PGH Director.

I will now proceed, Mr. Speaker, to the other issues regarding other areas of concern for the SUCs. Earlier, we requested in the budget hearings, Mr. Speaker, for an inventory of the assets of the SUCs, on a per SUC basis. I was wondering if this particular list or inventory has been provided to the Committee, Mr. Speaker.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION REP. PIAMONTE. May I request for a minute of

suspension, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abad). The

session is suspended. It was 12:04 p.m.



THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abad). The session is resumed.

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, the CHED has the inventory but it is not yet complete. The preparation of the inventory is still ongoing, but they are willing to provide Your Hour with a copy of whatever they have relative to the partial inventory of assets.

REP. DELA CRUZ. When do you think, distinguished Sponsor, that this full inventory of the assets of the SUCs can be provided us so that we will have an understanding of what these particular assets


are, how much is the valuation of these assets, and what particular use the SUCs are contemplating in terms of the optimum usage of these particular assets in order to support their own undertakings and in order to support the constitutional mandate for educational development? When do you think this particular inventory can be submitted to us?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, I think we have to allow the CHED some time to finalize their inventory. But if Your Honor would like to have a copy of whatever data they have, they are willing to provide you with it.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes, and the partial inventory, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, has also an indication of the values of these particular assets, and what the SUCs themselves proposed so that these particular assets can be used to the optimum for the benefit of the SUCs as well as the students who are enrolled in these SUCs. Do we have that kind of information or we do not have that kind of information?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, according to the CHED Chairperson, they have the inventory but they are also undertaking a review on what to do with those assets. But they are willing to provide you, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you, Your Honor, because I will ask the same questions when we come back this afternoon perhaps to discuss the budget of the CHED, because it is very critical for us, Your Honor, to understand what kind of assets we have as far as the SUCs are concerned, because we have been receiving reports that these particular assets have either been compromised or these particular assets have been misused for purposes other than those provided for in the—for uses that are not provided for in the original effort of donation, Your Honor. That is the reason we want to find out what is happening to all of these assets, because it is very critical for the use of the SUCs themselves and, of course, for our purposes, because if these assets are of such value, then perhaps we could include this evaluation and eventual use of these assets with the funds. We can actually put a special provision in the budget to put this in a perpetual fund for the use of the specific SUCs, Your Honor, so that in time this will also be earning and this will also be used to augment whatever will be the requirement of every SUC. But in the meantime, I will have to let go of that and will probably have to discuss that at some later point, at the opportunity when we have the discussion on the Commission on Higher Education.

In any event, Your Honor, I noticed that there are actually five SUCs that have 36.2 percent of the total SUC budget. I am referring to the University of the Philippines System which takes up the lion’s share of the total SUCs at 24.9 percent; the Mindanao State University, 5 percent; the Polytechnic University of the Philippines, 2.6 percent; the West Visayas State University, 1.9 percent; and the MSU Iligan Institute of Technology, 1.8 percent.

Is the distinguished Sponsor, Mme. Speaker, in a position right now to provide us with some information and for us to be properly educated about the usage of this particular share of these five SUCs in the SUC budget, Your Honor, so we will have an understanding what kind of usage, what kind of products we have produced as a result of this allocation of much needed resources to these five SUCs, Your Honor?

REP. DEFENSOR. Mme. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abad). Yes, the Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. DEFENSOR. I am up to move for a suspension of the consideration of House Bill No. 6132, but before that, let us acknowledge the presence of the guests of Reps. Josephine Veronique R. Lacson-Noel, Victoria Isabel G. Noel, and Neil Benedict A. Montejo.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abad). Puwede ho bang tumayo ang ating mga bisita.

REP. DEFENSOR. They are Nenita and Felipe Agas of Texas, USA, and Evangeline and Reny Garcia of Maryland, USA.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abad). May we ask our guests to please rise to be acknowledged. (Applause) Good afternoon and welcome to the House of Representatives.

Yes, the Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. DEFENSOR. Mme. Speaker, I would like to move for the insertion in the Congressional Record of the manifestation of the distinguished Gentleman from the First District of Sulu, Rep. Tupay T. Loong. This is on the proposed budget of the Mindanao State University-Sulu Campus.

I so move, Mme. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abad). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved. *


* See ANNEX (printed separately)



REP. DEFENSOR. Mme. Speaker, I move for a suspension of the session.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep.Abad). The session is suspended.

It was 12:13 p.m.






REP. DEFENSOR. Mme. Speaker, I move that we suspend the proceedings and we resume at one-thirty in the afternoon.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abad). The session is suspended and we will resume at one-thirty this afternoon. Have a good lunch.

It was 12:15 p.m.





REP. DEFENSOR. Good afternoon, Mme. Speaker.

The parliamentary status is that we are in the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the State Universities and Colleges, and interpellating was the Hon. Jonathan Dela Cruz, when we suspended for the lunch break. In the meantime, Mme. Speaker, we have accommodated the manifestation of the Hon. Tupay T. Loong. Also, with the indulgence of the Honorable Dela Cruz, we will accommodate a manifestation of the Hon. Anthony M. Bravo. I move that he be recognized, Mme. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abad). The Honorable Bravo from COOP-NATCCO Party-List is hereby recognized for his manifestation.

REP. BRAVO (A.). Thank you, Mme. Speaker.

Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, good afternoon. This Representation would just want to make a manifestation to be stated on record. Yesterday, during the pre-plenary hearing on the proposed budget of the 113 SUCs, the issue on the implementation of NBC 461 was again brought to the attention of the sub-committee chaired by the distinguished Sponsor, Honorable Piamonte, and the representative of the DBM.

At this juncture, Mme. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, this Representation would like to express first his sincere thanks and appreciation to the CHED and the DBM for the allocation of P1.3 billion that covered the 10-year accumulated differential of the salaries of the faculty members of the SUCs with a cut-off in 2010. However, it only covered until 2010 as agreed to be the cut-off, but from 2010 onwards, there is no guarantee of the availability of funds. As such, it brought again fear to this Representation that we will be repeating the same difficulties confronting our faculty members on the uneven implementation of the aforesaid NBC 461.

Along this line, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, this Representation would like to strongly recommend to the Committee to please find all means to provide funds for the continuous implementation of the NBC 461 for the benefit and welfare of our SUC faculty members in the entire country. This Representation truly believes this is due them, and second, they will be more inspired to work better and deliver better, if not the best services, in terms of instruction, research extension and production, benefitting our students in the service areas they serve, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

May I request a response from …

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abad). Will the good Sponsor respond to the manifestation?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, I confirm that that concern was brought up yesterday in the pre-plenary hearing, and that was amply discussed in the presence, of course, of the CHED authorities and the DBM representatives. And so, it was agreed yesterday that the CHED and the DBM will jointly find solutions to this problem and the DBM actually has already informed I think the upper authorities about this concern, because indeed, the requirements for the NBC should really be complied with especially by those who have not availed themselves of the benefit. So, in fairness to these faculty members, because it has already been many years that they have not availed of it, I think we are lawfully and morally bound really to resolve this issue, so that our faculty members’ morale could not be affected.


REP. BRAVO (A.). Thank you, Mme. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor.

Further, Mme. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, this Representation also strongly recommends the restoration of, more or less, some of P800 million slashed budget from 40 SUCs, so that these SUCs will be able to dutifully deliver their mandates to their clients for the school year targeted by this proposed appropriation.

REP. PIAMONTE. I also confirm that, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor. We also discussed that amply yesterday. Well, of course, the DBM asked the SUCs concerned to submit to them the justification for the restoration of the decreases in their proposed budget. Because this was manifested also by our honorable colleague, this manifestation will be brought to the attention of the Committee when we prepare the final decision on the proposed budget. We will consider your recommendation at the proper time.

REP. BRAVO (A.). Thank you, Mme. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. I will take it as an assurance that, indeed, this will be addressed by the major committee.

At this juncture, Mme. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, this Representation would like to manifest further that he is in full support of the approval of the budget of the SUCs, subject to further amendment to accommodate the issues raised at hand.

Thank you, Mme. Speaker. Thank you, distinguished Sponsor.

REP. PIAMONTE. Thank you also, Mme. Speaker. Thank you, my honorable colleague.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abad). Thank you.


REP. DEFENSOR. Mme. Speaker, I also move that we recognize also the Hon. Celso L. Lobregat for a brief manifestation.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abad). Rep. Celso Lobregat is hereby recognized for his manifestation.

REP. LOBREGAT. Mme. Speaker, not a manifestation, just a confirmation of certain positions.

Will the Sponsor be willing to answer a few questions from this Representation?

REP. PIAMONTE. More than willing, Your Honor, Mme. Speaker.

REP. LOBREGAT. Mme. Speaker, yesterday also,

in the pre-plenary hearing, the issue of the P34 million that was supposed to be given to the Zamboanga State Polytechnic College for the replacement of their equipment damaged during the surge after the siege in Zamboanga, the DBM yesterday said that it was not released because the equipment that was damaged was not damaged because of the siege, but because of the surge. Be that as it may, Mme. Speaker, there was an amount released for the damaged infrastructure caused by the surge, so why will the P34 million not be released if this was damaged also by the storm surge?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, I confirm that the honorable colleague of mine presented this concern yesterday. And I think our agreement with the DBM is that the school should formally ask for reconsideration because, anyway, the funds have not yet been released and together with the suggestion that, in the future, whenever they make an assessment, it should really be done promptly and, at the same time, should involve the people from the regional DBM, the regional CHED and the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council, so that the problem can be addressed and validated immediately.

I have now in my hands the formal request of the institution to the DBM, as we requested yesterday that they should prepare it immediately last night. For the CHED, we are asking them to endorse this request for reconsideration.

REP. LOBREGAT. So, do you confirm that the CHED will favorably support and endorse this request, not only the CHED, but also the PASUC?

Do I have the commitment of the CHED and the PASUC?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, I received information from both the CHED and the PASUC that they have actually confirmed this request for reconsideration, but they are just providing me a copy.

REP. LOBREGAT. Not only confirm, but they will support and endorse.

REP. PIAMONTE. Yes, support and endorse as well, Mme. Speaker.

REP. LOBREGAT. Thank you very much, Mme. Speaker.

There was also the second issue in the pre-plenary hearing yesterday. I would like to confirm that the Western Mindanao State University already complied. They have given me all the data of the scholars in the Western Mindanao State University, and I would like to thank the President, Dr. Milabel Ho, for working overnight to correct all these records.


Last two points, Mme. Speaker. I also asked about the position of the CHED concerning amalgamation. From the Committee hearing yesterday, I would just like to confirm that the CHED said that amalgamation will not be forced on any particular region, meaning to say, that it will depend on the stakeholders and players of each region.

Furthermore, the CHED also said that it will not be a fit-all system where there will be only one university in a region—that was what we understood amalgamation to be—that will no longer be the case. There will be amalgamation of programs, but before amalgamation is introduced in any region, it will depend on the position taken by the stakeholders and the players of that region. Is that correct?

REP. PIAMONTE. Yes, that is correct, Mr. Speaker. Although at the beginning, the concept of amalgamation, as reflected also in some proposed bills, amalgamating the HCIs in different regions to establish a regional university system, was actually raised. But this time, well, we have to consider also the readiness of the institutions in the regions, at the same time, the concerns raised by our legislators, as well as concerns raised by the school heads of the various HEIs which were contemplated to be amalgamated. But this time, in view of these developments, the CHED is adopting the model of complementation instead of forcing or mandating the amalgamation, in the sense that all of the colleges and universities in a certain region will now fall under the mother university. They are now experimenting on complementation, like programs, we have to complement one another, avoid duplication of programs, sharing of resources, even faculty and personnel development. That should be the one that they have to try first. But if, in the long run, some colleges and universities would like to be amalgamated to a bigger university, I think we should also welcome that if they themselves are voluntarily willing to combine or to join together.

REP. LOBREGAT. Yes, Mme. Speaker.

REP. PIAMONTE. We have conducted a few regional hearings on amalgamation. We have been to Northern Luzon, in fact, the MUST, Mindanao University of Science and Technology and the MOSCAT, I think in Misamis Oriental, will be our first example of amalgamated institutions because the two institutions are willing to join together, not merely exist as partners. But for the others, the CHED will adopt the complementation strategy. First, but of course, as I have said earlier, if in the long run the institutions really decide to join together, then that is the prerogative of the institution.

REP. LOBREGAT. Definitely, Your Honor, Mme. Mme. Speaker, that is a welcome development and a welcome position if certain colleges want to be amalgamated, then that is their choice.

REP. PIAMONTE. Yes.

REP. LOBREGAT. But if other colleges do not want to be amalgamated, the amalgamation should not be forced upon them. With that position now officially taken by the CHED, I think we will have no problem on this issue.

Lastly, Mme. Speaker, yesterday I also brought up the different republic acts, the different laws that were passed within this Congress: Republic Act No. 10647, the Ladderized Education Act; Republic Act No. 10648, the Iskolar ng Bayan Act; and Republic Act No. 10650, the Open Distance Learning Act, and if you look at the numbers of the bills, magkakasunod iyan. Actually, this was the effort of this Congress and also the effort of the Committee on Higher Education chaired by Congressman Romulo.

Unfortunately, while we have passed all these laws, it would seem that there is lack of information and especially education and participation not only among the SUCs but also the Department of Education. So, yesterday, I brought this up because I said the institution that will be implementing these different Republic acts should be at the forefront, they should be the most knowledgeable on the provisions of this Republic act. So, I requested yesterday that there really be a concerted effort of the CHED, the PASUC and the Department of Education for the proper dissemination so our beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries will know what benefits they can derive out of these laws. So, do you confirm that, Mme. Speaker?

REP. PIAMONTE. Yes, Mme. Speaker, and Your Honor, I confirm what our honorable colleague said. So, while it was admitted yesterday that some of the SUCs are not aware of some of the legislations like scholarships and other programs beneficial to our poor but deserving students, we agreed yesterday that we have to involve the DepEd because the DepEd, as part of their career guidance counseling efforts, should really inform our graduating students. Now, we have the Grade 10 or Fourth Year, but they will go into Grades 11 and 12, but when the time comes that we will have graduates of Grade 12 by 2017, the graduates should be informed about these developments.

Also, even our local government officials like the barangays should also be informed about this because it is sayang, the missed opportunities for our poor but deserving students not to be able to avail of this for the simple reason that they are not aware of it. So, it is indeed a concerted effort of the concerned agencies and sectors, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.


REP. LOBREGAT. So, with that Mme. Speaker, I would like the Chairman of the CHED, Chairman Licuanan, and all the Commissioners, and also the President for PASUC, Dr. Rotoras, and also the Presidents of the State Colleges and Universities in Zamboanga City, for all the efforts in trying to promote higher education in Zamboanga City, Dr. Mirabel Ho of WMSU, Dr. Milavel Nazario of the Zamboanga State College of Marine Science and Technology, and Dr. Nora Ponce of the Zamboanga City State Polytechnic College. Thank you very much, Mme. Speaker, thank you very much, Mr. Sponsor.

REP. PIAMONTE. Thank you.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abad.). Thank you.

REP. PIAMONTE. Thank you also, Mme. Speaker. Thank you also honorable colleague.


REP. DEFENSOR. Mme. Speaker, I move that we recognize the Hon. Jonathan A. Dela Cruz for the continuation of his interpellation.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abad). The Hon. Jonathan A. Dela Cruz is hereby recognized to continue his interpellation.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mme. Speaker. Thank you very much, distinguished Sponsor.

I will now continue with our earlier discussions. Earlier I requested information regarding the inventory of assets on a per-SUC basis and I was advised by Your Honor that we have a partial inventory and that will be made available before the close of our discussions on the budget. I then proceeded, Your Honor, with the discussions about the five top recipients of getting the lion’s share of the total SUC budget and we mentioned that these are the University of the Philippines which is getting 24.9 percent; the Mindanao State University which is getting 5 percent; the Polytechnic University of the Philippines which is getting 2.6 percent; the West Visayas State University, 1.9 percent; and MSU-Iligan Institute of Technology, 1.8 percent.

I was asking if it is possible for the distinguished Sponsor to just advise us of the specific special requirements of these SUCs that merited this kind of allocations, Your Honor.

REP. PIAMONTE. Well, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, first is that these five universities have the lion’s

share because in terms of size and programs, they are also as big as lions, and the biggest lion of them is the University of the Philippines. The five SUCs have the bigger population. They also have special programs like hospitals, so naturally, because UP-PGH is, I think, the biggest government-owned hospital in the country and the budget of that hospital by itself is considerable. So, these are the reasons they have the lion’s share.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor. How many students are enrolled in the University of the Philippines System?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, according to UP sources, they have 60,000 enrollment for 16 campuses nationwide.

REP. DELA CRUZ. And these are in 16 campuses nationwide, 60,000 in 16 campuses.

REP. PIAMONTE. In 16 campuses.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much. This is only for the tertiary level. Do they have laboratory schools? Do they also have secondary schools, other kinds of units?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, the 60,000 refers only to tertiary enrollment. They have not yet included the basic education students. UP has an integrated school in basic education and a high school.

REP. DELA CRUZ. The integrated school is also supported by the proposed budget of the University of the Philippines System.

REP. PIAMONTE. Yes, Your Honor, in like manner that the budget of the SUCs includes their laboratory schools.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Your Honor, Mme. Speaker.

What about the information that we are getting that the UP itself has its own perpetual fund, let say, fund that was raised during the, I think, the hundredth year anniversary of the UP, and is this considered part of the funds that are being used for the maintenance and enhancement of UP activities of the University of the Philippines System?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, the UP Centennial Fund has generated P200 million but the main purpose of the fund is for faculty development.

REP. DELA CRUZ. This is P200 million for faculty development.


REP. PIAMONTE. Yes, that is the principal reason.

REP. DELA CRUZ. You know, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, the UP has become some sort of a model for most of our SUCs regarding the optimization of its assets. I just wanted to find out if there has been an inventory of these assets and what are the usages of these assets, if there is already such an undertaking; the development plan, if there is such an undertaking; in what particular campuses, if we have these campuses, if these developments are being undertaken in various campuses; and if it is possible for us to find out if the UP itself has its own valuation of these particular assets.

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, the University has already submitted to the Commission on Audit an inventory of their assets including the utilization of the same.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Do you have a copy?

REP. PIAMONTE. Yes, they are willing to provide you with a copy later.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes. The reason I am asking this is, Your Honor, if it turns out that the University of the Philippines has been the most responsible in terms of the use of its assets, then perhaps it can be the model for the other SUCs and I just wanted to find out what are the highlights of these things. For example, in the case of the UP Diliman Campus, what kind of arrangements has been made in order to optimize these assets? Because, my information, Your Honor, is that, unfortunately, a good number of the area that was originally donated to the University of the Philippines in Diliman has been taken over by informal settlers. I just wanted to find out the extent of such takeover and whether the University of the Philippines has already taken steps to make sure that these particular assets will be preserved for the use of the University.

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, indeed, there are still informal settlers, in other words, squatters, within the UP Campus in Diliman. But our UP authorities are working together with the Quezon City government to resolve this problem on informal settlers. I think the city government is more duty-bound than the UP to find housing for these informal settlers because UP has its own mandate.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes.

REP. PIAMONTE. The role of the local government is to provide services, like housing, to their inhabitants.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor. We will be provided with this kind of development plan for the UP and that will include not only the UP Diliman Campus but all the other campuses, Your Honor. That will be provided us before the end of this particular discussion.

REP. PIAMONTE. Yes, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you, thank you very much, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

What about the Mindanao State University, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, is there any particular reason we are giving them 5.016 percent of the total budget of the SUCs?

REP. PIAMONTE. Well, MSU is a very big system, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, and it has also one of the biggest enrollments among the SUCs. We also have the very famous school, MSU-IIT in Iligan and this is a science and technology institution. Therefore, the MSU deserves a bigger share in the budget.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

I can see that there is a Mindanao State University budget, there is an MSU-Iligan Institute of Technology budget, and there are various campuses attached to the MSU.

How many campuses are being supported out of the 5.016 percent share of the Mindanao State University, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, if you have any idea?

REP. PIAMONTE. There are 11 campuses of the MSU System, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, all over Mindanao.

REP. DELA CRUZ. These 11 campuses are being supported out of this share, 5.016 percent share of the Mindanao State University, except the MSU-Iligan Institute of Technology which has a separate share of 1.824 percent.

REP. PIAMONTE. Yes, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, they also share, but it depends again on the size, the enrollment, and the programs of each campus. It is not equal sharing for all the campuses. There are many considerations, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. I understand, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

You know, to a certain extent, this Representation has some fond memories of Mindanao State University. We used to go to several campuses of the Mindanao State University, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor. I was


wondering if the University has been able to take hold of the assets that have been given to it as grants from the national government because I understand right now that in Marawi, the sprawling campus of the University has been, more or less, taken over by a number of informal settlers and by other organizations not associated with the University. Is this correct?

What was the original land grant given to the Mindanao State University in Marawi, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, and how much of it has been taken over by others? How much of this is still maintained by the University?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, the MSU-Marawi Campus has 1,000 hectares, but only around 400 hectares of it are directly used by the University. The rest, of course, they have informal settlers, but also some areas are used by the local government and even of the National Police.

REP. DELA CRUZ. But all of these have been titled to different institutions and individuals, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, or out of the 1,000, you are telling us that there are only 400 hectares left in the possession of the University and therefore, 600 hectares have been given up to informal settlers, other organizations and institutions. Is this a correct appreciation of what you are telling us, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor?

REP. PIAMONTE. Your Honor, Mme. Speaker, it is not really given away. They are allowed to use those areas temporarily, but the real owner or possessor of those properties is the University.

REP. DELA CRUZ. The MSU remains the owner.

REP. PIAMONTE. Yes.

REP. DELA CRUZ. I hope that particular information is actually accurate, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, because the information that we are getting is that it is not so. Is it possible for, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, to please advise us if there is such an arrangement right now, and under what arrangement is the MSU involved in insofar as the use of the 600 hectares is concerned that have been given up or that have been allowed to be used by individuals and other organizations? What kind of arrangements are in place?

Is the University being compensated for the use of these particular areas, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, or does the University just have these organizations and individuals use these areas for their own purposes?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, there are

many claims. Some have submitted spurious titles,

but, you know, the problem is under investigation right now because, indeed, the land grant given to the MSU is 1,000 hectares. There are some users, like some local government agencies, SPDA, they have some agreements, but the compensation are token compensations because after all, these are government agencies temporarily using the properties.

REP. DELA CRUZ. The reason I am actually insisting on having all of these things, on having all of these information made available to us, Mme. Speaker, is because, as I mentioned earlier, we want to make sure that the land grants, the assets that have been given to the universities, to the colleges, to the state universities and colleges, are going to be used for the purposes that were originally mentioned in the grants and, at the same time, for these particular assets to be used optimally.

REP. PIAMONTE. The Gentleman is correct, Mme. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. That is the reason we are asking for all of these information, Mme. Speaker, and it will be a pity indeed if these particular assets will be degraded and these particular assets will be used by other institutions or individuals for purposes other than those that were originally mentioned in the land grants for these particular SUCs, Mme. Speaker.

I hope that in the case of MSU, for example, because we have received information that it may be quite impossible for MSU right now to actually have some of these areas returned back for use by the University, I hope that the distinguished Sponsor will ask the MSU management to give us an update regarding this particular land grant that we have—1,000 hectares in Marawi alone—so that we will have an idea what particular areas are being used exclusively for the University and what particular areas are being used by other persons or entities, Mme. Speaker.

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, the University is willing to give the Gentleman a report later. An inventory of the areas outside of the University activities or assets will be given to him later, showing areas occupied by government agencies, areas occupied by the police, areas occupied by the informal settlers.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you, thank you very much, Mme. Speaker.

Now, since the distinguished Sponsor, Mme. Speaker, has already committed to provide us with whatever is available insofar as the inventory of assets on a per-SUC basis is concerned, and in the case of the University of the Philippines System and the Mindanao State University, which had two divergent methods by which they secured their assets, Mme. Speaker, we


will be provided also with information about how the management of these universities or the administrations of these universities have been using their land grants and other assets.

At this juncture, Deputy Speaker Abad relinquished the Chair to Rep. Jorge “Bolet” Banal.

Since that has already been committed to us to be provided pretty soon, Mr. Speaker—hopefully by next week—I will now go to another question, Mr. Speaker, regarding the unused appropriations from 2012 to 2014. In the report that we have been getting, Mr. Speaker, we found out that the University of the Philippines System had the biggest average unused appropriations this year at P423.2 million. Is there any information that can be provided to us which can explain why we have this average unused appropriation from 2012 to 2014, in the case of the University of the Philippines, at an average of P423.2 million? What is the explanation for this, if there is any?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mr. Speaker, of course, we refer principally to the Capital Outlay as the reason for the unobligated amounts for allotments. For example, for fiscal year 2014, one reason is the unavailability of suppliers and contractors within areas affected by the typhoon Yolanda. They also have a campus there in Eastern Visayas. Then, it is also due to several failed biddings; the complexity of the Capital Outlay projects being undertaken; and, of course, due to the ill-timed resignation of people assigned in critical positions handling these projects.

REP. DELA CRUZ. So, Mr. Speaker, the Gentleman is telling us that the bidding process is one of the problems, that this has actually resulted in the average unused appropriation of UP at P423 million, the bidding process?

REP. PIAMONTE. I think the University has also raised a concern regarding the procurement process, which is causing also the delays and problems. I think we should look into how to improve the procurement process so that it will not cause the delays in the utilization of funds.

REP. DELA CRUZ. That is precisely one of the issues that we would like to raise, specifically insofar as the SUCs are concerned, Mr. Speaker, because as I gathered from the reports that we have been getting, the SUCs are having a hard time undertaking their Capital Outlay allocation—for example, putting up structures and the like—precisely because of the very stringent procurement process that may not apply to SUCs anymore. Is there a way by which we can probably

look into this because the procurement process has become one of the most compelling obstacles to the enhancement of the capability of the SUCs to undertake their mandates, Mr. Speaker.

I was wondering if it is possible for us to get information not only from the University of the Philippines but from the PASUC itself so that we can be guided as to how we can probably simplify the bidding processes for the SUCs because it is quite abnormal and impossible for us to have our universities holding on to this kind of appropriations, at the same time that they are in immediate need of certain infrastructure requirements, equipment and the like. So, has the PASUC or the association come out with some suggestions as far as this is concerned?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mr. Speaker, the PASUC president has not informed me about the developments. They are actually undergoing a review of the procurement process, and they will submit it to the CHED by next week. I think I agree with the Gentleman that we should really improve the procurement process. It should not be an obstacle to the prompt delivery of services and programs of state universities and colleges.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. That can mean the simplification of the processes, especially for the state universities and colleges, and also the capacitating of the personnel specifically dedicated to undertake this kind of work for the state universities and colleges. That can mean a plantilla position or plantilla positions that will be specifically dedicated to undertake and implement equipment-buying or the procurement process for the university, Mr. Speaker.

Is it also possible that one of the problems is the manner by which the Department of Budget and Management has been undertaking the release of the budgets of the SUCs? Do we have any problem insofar as releases of the allocated funds for the SUCs are concerned?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mr. Speaker, according to the COA, the DBM rather, the release of funds is a comprehensive release. And relative to the Gentleman’s concerns about the Bids and Awards Committee, they have also allocated additional plantilla for the BACs.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes, because we have noticed, in the case of other agencies, Mr. Speaker, that one of their problems is actually the delays in the releases of actual obligations that have been funded out of the Appropriations Act. That is the reason why I am asking if this has also been the experience of the SUCs.


REP. PIAMONTE. The release, Mr. Speaker, is comprehensive. NCA is also comprehensive. There are only two periods of releases, unless it is urgently necessary, twice a year, once every six months.

REP. DELA CRUZ. So, in other words, they are not experiencing any delays. Is that the impression that the Gentleman is trying to tell us? Because that means that they are especially blessed by the Department of Budget and Management.

REP. PIAMONTE. According to the DBM, the allotments of the NCA have already been released, most of them.

REP. DELA CRUZ. What I mean is, are these released at the early stages of the year, or are these requirements for the first quarter, for example, released in the third quarter?

REP. PIAMONTE. The release of the NCA, Mr. Speaker, is in January and July, every six months. But the allotments provided in the GAA, they are deemed released when the GAA is approved to be effective, in January.

REP. DELA CRUZ. That is our understanding, Mr. Speaker, and that is also our understanding in the case of other agencies, but the reality seems to be different. So, I was just wondering if this is a concern of the SUCs. If it is not a concern of the SUCs, I will not belabor the point.

REP. PIAMONTE. Is the Gentleman referring to the billings of the contractors, Mr. Speaker?

REP. DELA CRUZ. I am referring to the manner by which the fund releases for the SUCs is concerned, and that includes everything—that includes Personnel Services, that includes Capital Outlay, and that includes MOOE. So, if the distinguished Sponsor is now telling us that there is a comprehensive release of all funds for the SUCs, one in January, and the other one in July, I will not belabor the point, but I will have to …

REP. PIAMONTE. The NCA, Mr. Speaker, is in January and July.


REP. PIAMONTE. The allotments, according to the DBM, once you have the GAA approved, then that is already deemed released. But according to them, they have already released comprehensively.

REP. DELA CRUZ. We will have a separate

discussion about the Department of Budget and Management, Mr. Speaker, so I will not take this up at this time. I just wanted to advise the distinguished Sponsor that we have been getting reports from various SUCs that that seems to be one of their problems.

So, anyway, Mr. Speaker, I will now—I am actually concerned about these releases as well as unused funds because there was a project, a very small project of, I think, P10 million, that was supposed to have been implemented at the level of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines, and this was supposed to be for a solar project in the University. Apparently, it took them sometime before they got their funds, Mr. Speaker, although this was already allocated in the budget of the SUCs as well as in the CHED. That is the reason I am asking this question because that became a problem, and I have yet to get the information from the PUP itself, whether they have already implemented this particular project or not.

REP. PIAMONTE. Mr. Speaker, the solar project has not yet been implemented because according to them, there are no suppliers yet, but the funds for that would come from their income.

REP. DELA CRUZ. So, this is being implemented, or has it been implemented?

REP. PIAMONTE. Not yet implemented.

REP. DELA CRUZ. This has been implemented?

REP. PIAMONTE. Not yet, not yet.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Ah, not yet. So, what seems to be the problem if it has not yet been implemented?

REP. PIAMONTE. Lack of suppliers, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. I will appreciate it if the distinguished Sponsor will advise us later on, if he can give us some information about this so that we can proceed to the other issues that we have on the table, Mr. Speaker.

REP. PIAMONTE. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, distinguished Sponsor, Mr. Speaker.

I will now proceed to the discussion about the Student Assistance Fund. There are a number of funds that are made available to poor but deserving students, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible for the distinguished Sponsor to educate us on the funds that can be made available to our students. What are these funds? How much is


allocated for each class of fund, Mr. Speaker? And are these available across the board?

At this juncture, Representative Banal relinquished the Chair to Deputy Speaker Henedina R. Abad.

REP. PIAMONTE. Well, we have assistance grants, scholarships, grants-in-aid, and student loans provided in the General Appropriations Act. We also have the Higher Education Development Fund. Again, these are in the forms of scholarships, grants-in-aid, and student loans. The other is the Socialized Tuition and Financial Assistance Program or STFAP. We have the Tulong-Dunong Program, the PAMANA Program, the Iskolar ng Bayan, scholarship grants for children and dependents of sugar industry workers and small farmers, and then we have also the SGFPA, Student Grant for Poverty Alleviation.

REP. DELA CRUZ. So all in all, Mme. Speaker, how much has the government allocated for all of these kinds of assistance to students, if there is information that can be made available?

REP. PIAMONTE. Okay, the total is P3.3 billion, Mme. Speaker, for the SUCs, and then those that are being handled by CHED, P2.2 billion.

REP. DELA CRUZ. So, all in all, almost P11 billion for all kinds of assistance, grants, and others, for our students in the tertiary level, Mme. Speaker.

REP. PIAMONTE. Five billion only, Mme. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Ha?

REP. PIAMONTE. Because you have P2.2 billion plus P3.3 billion, that is P5.5 billion.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Is it P2.2 billion plus P3.3 billion or P8.3 billion?

REP. PIAMONTE. P3.3 billion.

REP. DELA CRUZ. P3.3 billion?

REP. PIAMONTE. Yes.

REP. DELA CRUZ. P3.3 billion, so it is only P5.5 billion.


REP. DELA CRUZ. And how many students are covered by this particular assistance program, if the

Gentleman has any information? How many students have availed of this or can avail of this particular assistance program, Mme. Speaker?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, the total beneficiaries is 286,814 as of the current year.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor. The reason I am asking this, Mme. Speaker, is because there is a proposal from our Party-List. It has been discussed at our level, in ABAKADA, and there is a proposal to perhaps instead of having these funds directly allocated for specific beneficiaries, perhaps a portion of this particular fund can be put into some kind of a guaranty fund which can be used by banks and other financial institutions in order to increase the amount made available to poor but deserving students. This is a loan program, the student loan program, that is already in place in many countries, Mme. Speaker, including the United States. And if we have, on a regular basis, I assume that this is a regular allocation, P5.5 billion, if we can set aside, perhaps on a regular basis, even just 20 percent of this, Mme. Speaker, over time, we will have a guaranty fund that can translate into more funds made available to poor but deserving students that will be coursed through private banking institutions or financial institutions. Is that something that can be discussed at the level of the CHED, Mme. Speaker, and the DBM, including the SUCs, so that at some point, we will have a guaranty fund that can provide for a more leeway for our students and their parents to avail of funds in order to get them through tertiary education?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, at the moment, we really have a loan fund, a Study Now, Pay Later Plan.

REP. DELA CRUZ. But how much is that? How much is that, Mme. Speaker?

REP. PIAMONTE. We have P53,935,000, and the beneficiaries, 3,486.

REP. DELA CRUZ. That is what I mean, Mme. Speaker, because if we have this kind of assistance fund, various kinds of assistance funds, P5.5 billion, if we can only probably set aside a portion of this, say 20 percent on a yearly basis, and put it in a guaranty fund, the guaranty fund can provide the cushion for private sector participants in the student loan program, Mme. Speaker. In other words, we will be able to expand perhaps geometrically, incredibly expand this particular student loan assistance program to more beneficiaries instead of having this directly associated with direct assistance to students that is coursed through the SUCs


and the CHED, Mme. Speaker. A guaranty fund can then be the cushion by which the private sector can participate in expanding our student loan program. Is that something that can be discussed at some point in time, Mme. Speaker, because it is something that we have discussed at our level in our party, and we have certain studies that have been made in this regard? We think that it will exponentially increase the number of possible beneficiaries especially since we will be expanding the financial base which these particular beneficiaries and students can avail themselves of.

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, your remarks are well-taken. We have actually a program, the Study Now Pay Later Plan, that is being implemented by the CHED. In fact, I was one of the members in the task force several years earlier on how to implement this Study Now, Pay Later Plan but because of poor collection, some people labelled this plan as Study Now, Pay Later Plan. But the program is really laudable because the government cannot provide subsidies for all the needy students. So, student loan is one mode of providing access to education. But the students are obligated really to pay back. The problem is, the CHED, because of limited personnel, has problems of collection.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Collection.

REP. PIAMONTE. There was a point reported by former CHED Commissioner Ester Garcia, that the amount they have collected is even lesser than the amount spent for the collection. But in that public hearing when we discussed this concern, she said, you should benchmark with other countries that have successful student loan programs. And at the moment, there are also some bills being proposed to engage government-financing agencies and even private banks to extend loans to our students, soft loans with affordable interest, and also government agencies like the SSS and the GSIS are providing scholarships and loans also to students of their members.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely why I am suggesting that, perhaps, instead of the government itself parlaying all of these funds for student loans, perhaps we can engage the private sector by having a guaranty fund. A guaranty fund can then provide the leeway for the private sector to participate because there will be a cushion in a sense, and we will be increasing the amounts made available to student loans for the purpose, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker. But since the distinguished Sponsor has already mentioned that there are pending bills for the purpose, perhaps we can include this in the discussion because as I said, the government alone cannot provide

the necessary funds for our poor but deserving students who participate in the education development plans that we are having, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker. It will be a pity if they will not be able to have access to affordable funds since they can probably benefit or they will definitely benefit from such an assistance from the government, and I am sure that at some point in time they will be able to parlay this into better careers.

Our experience in the case of other loan guarantees, Your, Honor, Mr. Speaker, of course, has been spotty but I am sure in the case of educational assistance this may be better. And if the distinguished Sponsor is telling us that there are pending bills that are now being discussed at the level of the Committee on Higher and Technical Education in Congress, I will leave it at that and perhaps we can together accelerate the enactment of such bills into law, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

Now, I will go, Mme. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, to some other concerns.

Not counting the private school enrollment in School Year 2014-2015, according to the Department of Education, there were 1,277,000 Grade 10 students in the public schools. Assuming that the same number will be enrolled for Grade 11 this school year, or are already enrolled for Grade 11 this school year, and for Grade 12 in School Year 2016-2017, what is the projection of the SUCs and the CHED in terms of the number of First Year students that institutions will be losing next school year? Is there such a projection already, Your Honor, Mme. Speaker?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, the Grade 11 students will enter on June 2016.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes


REP. PIAMONTE. Okay. When they become Grade 12 students, they will enter in 2012. Now, may I request for a minute of suspension of the session, Mme. Speaker, while we are trying to retrieve data from the CHED.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abad). The session is suspended.

It was 2:49 p.m.




Yes, Mr. Sponsor.


REP. PIAMONTE. Yes. Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, relative to your concern, at the moment, the CHED and the PASUC are coordinating with the DepEd, so that the DepEd will assist them in the projection. We have to remember that DepEd schools are the biggest feeders to Grades 11 and 12. And per their information, they are going to hold a workshop, if possible, beginning next week involving the DepEd, so that they can really come up with a more realistic projection, because we have to remember that it is a transition. Our graduates in Fourth Year high school who normally go to college without the K to 12, without the Grades 11 and 12 program, the students will normally remain in their respective schools if these schools offer Grades 11 and 12. But per information we gathered from the DepEd, the great majority of private schools, for example, are offering Grade 11, so their high school graduates cannot go immediately to the higher education institutions. Likewise, a big number also of DepEd schools are offering Grade 11, so the students will still remain with these schools, with these senior high schools, in 2016. That is why it poses—this transition really poses a problem to all HEIs, both public and private, and therefore, there is really a need to carefully study the impact of this whole on our higher education institutions. The PASUC and the CHED said that they are really working together with the DepEd and will conduct the seminar relative to the estimates and projections come 2016.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor. That is very, very critical, Your Honor, because of that particular estimation and a comprehensive view of what will happen with the introduction of Grades 11 and 12, Your Honor, it will have everything to do also with the amount of funds that will have to be poured into the higher educational institution.

You will agree, Your Honor, Mme. Speaker, that with this transition, we will have a decrease in college enrollment next school year. Is this something that the distinguished Sponsor will agree to?

REP. PIAMONTE. Yes, I agree, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, that is why we have the bill transition fund. I am a coauthor, the principal author here is Congressman Romulo. I think it was already approved, more or less, in the committee level. We will provide for several billions to address the displacement of teachers. We do not worry about the students because they either remain in their respective schools, senior high school, or they can choose also to proceed to the HEIs where they plan to enroll in the formal college degree program. But as I said, while we are trying to help the affected institutions especially their displaced faculty, the concerned agencies must really work together so that the transition would be as painless as possible.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes, thank you very much, Your Honor.

Kasi po ang mangyayari nito, iyong mga nasa DepEd level, iyong mga high school, iyong mga secondary school, they will have to expand their infrastructure facilities as well as personnel. They will have to have more personnel so that they can accommodate these additional years of Grades 11 and 12. But, in the case of the higher educational institutions, like in this instance the SUCs, there will definitely be a transition, quite a vacuum in the number of students that will have to go into the First Year of college, and that may have an impact on the income of the SUCs. Has there been an estimation on the impact of the income of the SUCs as a result of this transition, Mme. Speaker?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, the estimated foregone SUC income in 2016 to the half of 2017, because our school year falls under two fiscal years, the foregone income is estimated at P3.9 billion, Mr. Speaker. But even if the income does not come in, we have to remember that they also have fewer students so, their expenses, relative to the usual number of freshmen students that they have …

REP. DELA CRUZ. So, there will be an equalization in a sense.

REP. PIAMONTE. Pardon?

REP. DELA CRUZ. There will be an equalization in a sense, because even if you lose income to the tune of P3.9 billion, you will actually have lesser students. Is that …

REP. PIAMONTE. More or less, Mme. Speaker, but …

REP. DELA CRUZ. In other words, the requirements of the SUCs will more or less balance. So, in effect, even if they are going to lose income, they will be able to contend with such loss given the fact that there will be lesser students enrolled in the SUCs for the next two years, 2016 to 2017.

REP. PIAMONTE. Yes, Mme. Speaker, and with regard to personnel salaries, that is subsidized by the government. In fact, 15,000 plantilla are being provided under the present—under the proposed budget for faculty positions. So, whether they have more or less—whether they have few or more students, the security of the personnel is guaranteed. Besides, the transition fund provides also for some measures to address the problems of the displaced teachers. So, they can go on


scholarships, they can go on research activities where they can also be provided with honoraria.

REP. DELA CRUZ. How much is the transition fund, if there is such a fund being contemplated right now, Mme. Speaker?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, the transition fund is for five years because it will affect the college programs. Remember, we have four-year courses, we also have five-year courses. The total transition fund proposed is P28 billion, but the amount to be allocated for 2016 is P8.27 billion. The rest will be provided from year to year until the end of the fifth year.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Over a period of five years.

REP. PIAMONTE. Five years, Mme. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. And in the estimation of the CHED, as well as the SUCs, this will be more than enough to take care of the loss of income of SUCs and, at the same time, ensuring that there will be less displacement or no displacement at all of faculty members.

REP. PIAMONTE. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. This is the estimate of the SUCs.

REP. PIAMONTE. So, in the meantime that there are some faculty members who will have no students to serve, then they may go on scholarships and research activities or maybe extension programs.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Is there also a possibility that some of the faculty members will be assigned to assist in the transition insofar as teaching in senior high school is concerned? Is this something that is being contemplated or this is something that is not being talked about?

REP. PIAMONTE. Well, it has been talked about in our earlier meetings but it is up to the CHED now, to the SUCs and to the DepEd, because it is also possible that they can volunteer to teach in the senior high school level in the DepEd.

REP. DELA CRUZ. They can volunteer to teach in the senior high school level, and as they do so, they will not be deprived of their permanent positions.

REP. PIAMONTE. Of course. They will maintain their plantilla positions with the SUCs.


REP. PIAMONTE. But, in the meantime that they do not have enough work to do because of the lack of students to teach, those are options being considered.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Can that be made available to the faculty, ...

REP. PIAMONTE. Yes, it all depends on arrangements.

REP. DELA CRUZ. …so they can go on sabbatical for purposes of getting their degrees, additional postgraduate and the like. They can also teach in the senior high schools and they can go to the private sector in the meantime.

REP. PIAMONTE. In community extension programs, they can also engage.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Probably, they can participate in the alternative learning systems program. This kind of things will be made available to them without loss of positions. And, what about income, will they still maintain their income? No, because they are not working.

REP. PIAMONTE. They are already under the plantilla of the SUCs and necessarily they have to continue receiving.

REP. DELA CRUZ. They will be allowed to have their salaries even as they are going to be assigned some other way.

REP. PIAMONTE. That is something that the CHED...

REP. DELA CRUZ. That is also the part of the transition program that is being worked out at the level of the CHED right now. What kind of arrangements will be made insofar as the faculty is concerned?


REP. DELA CRUZ. Mme. Speaker, can we have a one-minute suspension of the session.


It was 3:03 p.m.





REP. PIAMONTE. I think the interpellator has excused himself, Mme. Speaker.


THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abad). We need to suspend for a few minutes. The session is suspended.

It was 3:03 p.m.




Yes, Rep. Jonathan Dela Cruz is recognized.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mme. Speaker. We were waiting for the advice coming from the distinguished Sponsor, Your Honor. What kind of arrangements can be made available to faculty members who will be more or less in some kind of a floating situation in the transition period from 2016 to 2017?

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abad). So, the distinguished Sponsor is now ready to answer the question?


THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abad). Yes.

REP. PIAMONTE. Your Honor, the Commission on Higher Education, together with the PASUC, Philippine Association of State Universities and Colleges, is really studying all possible options on how to engage our faculty especially those who will not have students to teach. While it is true that our SUCs are allowed to offer Grade 11 and eventually Grade 12, not all of the faculty can really be engaged to teach in those levels. So, a big number of the faculty will have to be engaged somewhere else. They can avail of scholarships; they can avail of volunteer programs and community extension services. So, in the meantime, the CHED together with the SUCs, is really studying very carefully what to do with their faculty who are more or less not being able to teach in Grades 11 and 12.

REP. DELA CRUZ. How many are involved if there is already an estimate, Your Honor? How many such faculty members will be involved in this particular transition plan?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, the CHED and the PASUC are continuously exploring, continuously making projections. They have to be very careful here because it affects the school operations and also the financing from our national government.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes, Your Honor. That is precisely why I am asking the question, Your Honor, because we would like to find out what kind of transition plan we will have and how many people will be involved. That will not only involve faculty members, Your Honor, but also the non-academic personnel, I assume.

REP. PIAMONTE. That is correct.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Therefore, we should be prepared to take care of their assignments, as and when this will be necessary because this is already coming to the fore, Your Honor, as you mentioned and we will have a two-year transition period that we will have to take care of. Therefore, this will have everything to do with the budgets of the SUCs and the CHED, and it will have something to do also with the health of the State Universities and Colleges of the entire system that we are now discussing the budget of, Your Honor.

REP. PIAMONTE. That is correct, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. So, is it possible that perhaps within the year, we will have some kind of an understanding because we are already talking about the budgets for next year, Your Honor?

REP. PIAMONTE. According to the CHED, we will conduct a strategic planning in October and November, and even before that, they will have to do some activities preparatory to the strategic planning.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor. I am just concerned that if they are still going to do their strategic planning studies in October and November, then whatever their concerns will be will not be funded anymore. But, is there a provision in the budget that we are now discussing, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, that will cover whatever will be necessary, for example for next year, so that we will not have to scrounge around for funds for the CHED as well as for the SUCs?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, according to the CHED, the funding will not be a problem.

REP. DELA CRUZ. So, they have a lot of unused funds, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor. It appears ...


REP. PIAMONTE. No.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Are we providing some additional funds, in this particular budget?

REP. PIAMONTE. You mean the workshop, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor?

REP. DELA CRUZ. No, not the workshop.

REP. PIAMONTE. The transition.

REP. DELA CRUZ. The Transition Fund—you just mentioned, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, that there is a contemplated P28 billion that is going to be ...

REP. PIAMONTE. For five years, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. For five years. And of which, P8.27 billion is going to be allocated for 2016. Is this correct? Is that enough in the contemplation of the CHED as well as the PASUC? Is that enough buffer fund for purposes of taking care of the 2016 requirements, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor? That is something.

REP. PIAMONTE. That is correct, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. That is enough.

REP. PIAMONTE. As regards the funds, apart from the salaries which their personnel normally receive, they will continue to receive their compensation and benefits.

REP. DELA CRUZ. So, we do not have to worry about ...

REP. PIAMONTE. But for scholarships, yes, for scholarships, of course, the CHED will have to pay for the school fees of the graduate schools, maybe provide for some allowances if the scholarship is to be taken abroad, or for scholars from Mindanao studying in Manila schools, of course, you have to provide for them. We do not expect our scholars to spend for their scholarships out of their pocket or out of their salaries and benefits.

REP. DELA CRUZ. So we are not looking at a situation where 15,000 more or less personnel of SUCs will be camping in all of the SUCs all over the country because they do not have anything to do. That is not going to happen.

REP. PIAMONTE. That is why, the CHED will

conduct the workshop come October and November, engaging also the DepEd so that, you know, the time of our faculty and, of course, the money of the government, as they will continue to receive compensation, will not be wasted. Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, the P8 billion will be allocated this way: graduate studies and professional management, advancement of the HEI faculty, P3.2 billion; estimated beneficiaries are 5,909 masteral and doctoral students. And then, they also have faculty development grants; of course, this refers to research, industry immersion and community service extension, that is P3.5 billion. Then for staff development grants, of course, for professional training and development, the allocation is P727 million, benefitting 4,241 personnel. For the faculty development grants, which I mentioned earlier, relative to community extension, research and immersion, beneficiaries are 9,365. For retraining for senior high school, for those faculty who will be assigned to teach Grades 11 and 12, of course, they will have to be upgraded, P245.400 million to beneficiaries, 1,227 faculty members. And then, innovation grants for the institution, for opportunities for internationalization, industry-academe linkages, research development of niche and endangered programs, P500 million. So, the total is P8.2 billion. The beneficiaries will be about 20,000 to 25,000 faculty members.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

What about the non-academic personnel? There will be no non-academic personnel who will be affected by these transition arrangements, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor?

REP. PIAMONTE. As I mentioned earlier, it is faculty and staff program.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Jointly?

REP. PIAMONTE. Yes, because we cannot disregard or neglect the non-teaching personnel.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes, we should not because they are the backbone of our SUCs as well. The SUCs cannot function without the non-academic personnel as well, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

Now, because of the transition arrangements that we have, and because we are going to have this senior high school Grades 11 and 12, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, we assume that there will be no First Year Medical students who will be enrolled, which implies that we will have no new Medical doctors for two years because there will be no Medical graduates in school years 2023 and 2024, and 2024 and 2025.


Is there a plan on the part of the CHED to accommodate this kind of a situation, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor? What is the projection of the CHED and the implications of not having new Medical doctors for two years? How will it help the Medical schools, as early as now, to reduce the impact of this, as well as to our nation, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor? And how many SUCs right now will be affected by this situation?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, I would like to remind our colleague that some of these concerns are proper to be asked during the budget hearing of the CHED. I would suggest if we can focus more on the problems of the SUCs and then later on, bring these concerns.

REP. DELA CRUZ. There are no SUCs. There are …

REP. PIAMONTE. These concerns, of course, are interlocking, I understand.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Only the University of the Philippines has a Medical school. Are there new other SUCs …

REP. PIAMONTE. The MSU also offers Medical programs.

REP. DELA CRUZ. The MSU is also a Medical school? I understand West Visayas—anyway, how many SUCs have Medical schools, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor?

REP. PIAMONTE. There are six SUCs that offer Medical programs: West Visayas State University, …

REP. DELA CRUZ. West Visayas State University, the University of the Philippines, the MSU, and what else, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor?

REP. PIAMONTE. Cagayan State University, Mindanao, and then you have the West Visayas, and the University of Northern Philippines.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes. In the case of the University of Northern Philippines, my information is that they are going to have cooperation with Mariano Marcos State University. Is this cooperation now in place, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, or is this going to still be worked out by the CHED?

REP. PIAMONTE. Well, partnerships and …

REP. DELA CRUZ. Is there already a partnership in place between the University of Northern Philippines

and the Mariano Marcos State University, and they are going to make use of the medical school for both universities? There is already such a thing.

REP. PIAMONTE. Yes, ongoing.

REP. DELA CRUZ. There is an ongoing …

REP. PIAMONTE. And we also have the Bicol University in Legaspi City offering a Medical course.

REP. DELA CRUZ. So, there are about six to seven SUCs that are offering …

REP. PIAMONTE. Six, Your Honor, Mme. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

So, of course, that will have to be discussed with the CHED because that will imply our own projections as far as the medical profession is concerned.

Now, I will go to some parochial concerns, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

I noticed in the budget for 2016 that there is only P114.5 million allocated for the Philippine State College of Aeronautics. I was wondering if there is a way by which we can increase this particular budget because this is the only state college that is offering what I may call a “sunshine profession,” Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, which is the field of Aeronautics. There are a number of courses in this particular school which I am sure will be of benefit to all of us, especially to students, since the aviation industry is a sunshine industry. It is an expanding industry, Your Honor, Mme. Speaker, and tourism is getting well off the ground in many parts of the world.

There will be a requirement, I am sure, for graduates of the Philippine State College of Aeronautics and if it is possible for us to increase the budget of this particular college and probably at some point, given the exponential increase in the requirements for the aviation industry and the tourism industry, probably we can have this increased, Your Honor, Mme. Speaker, and provide the college at this point with the necessary personnel as well as equipment so that they can be considered as part of the worldwide, the global network of aviation service providers.

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, if you look at the proposed budget of this Philippine State College of Aeronautics, in 2014, the budget was P90 million.



REP. PIAMONTE. In 2015, it is P92 million.


REP. PIAMONTE. And the proposed for the incoming 2016 is P114 million. So, the increase from 2015 to 2016 is 23 percent.


REP. PIAMONTE. So, that is a considerable increase already, Your Honor, Mme. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. The number of professionals which a college like the Philippine State College of Aeronautics will be graduating, Your Honor, Mme. Speaker, has also exponentially increased. As a matter of fact, the report that we have been getting is that we are getting more and more foreign pilots, as well as mechanics and the like, precisely because we cannot, our school system, those engaged in the aviation industry and aeronautics, do not have enough personnel to man our requirements in the country, Your Honor, Mme. Speaker, because many of our personnel, many of our experts, many of our employees in the aviation and aeronautics industries are being pirated overseas, and that is the reason I was thinking that perhaps, we can expand the enrollment in this particular school, and probably provide it with the personnel as well as the equipment so that they can meet the requirements of industry, Your Honor, Mme. Speaker. Even if they have already increased by 23 percent, the increase in the number of requirements, I am told, is 100 percent, Your Honor, Mme. Speaker. So, there must be a way by which we can realign certain portions of the budget so that we can probably capacitate actually the Philippine State College of Aeronautics and the other institutions within the SUC system which may be offering this kind of courses, Your Honor, Mme. Speaker, so that we can meet the requirements of industry here and abroad. So, probably that is something that we can get going, Your Honor, Mme. Speaker, and it will not be much anyway.

REP. PIAMONTE. Okay, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, your suggestion is well taken.

REP. DELA CRUZ. So, my suggestion is, probably we can increase this by another P100 million and I will find a way by which we can get this from some other budget provisions in the CHED or in the SUCs and probably in some other areas in the budget, Your Honor, Mme. Speaker.

REP. PIAMONTE. Noted, Your Honor, Mme. Speaker.


There is also a request on the part of the Bulacan State University for their original budget for Capital Outlays to be reinstated, Your Honor, Mme. Speaker, and I am talking about a P136 million budget that was originally included already but unfortunately was taken off by the Department of Budget and Management from the budget of the Bulacan State University. So, at the appropriate time, Your Honor, Mme. Speaker, I will request that this be reinstated because we think that the Bulacan State University is in need of that budget for its Capital Outlays.

REP. PIAMONTE. Noted, Your Honor, Mme. Speaker.


At this juncture, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, I will join our colleagues who have already signed on, as I have already signed, myself, the resolution, House Resolution No. 2377, which seeks to restore the amount, very small amount, of P477.8 million budget, which was slashed by the Department of Budget and Management from the Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses of 59 State Universities and Colleges in the proposed 2016 budget.

I am joining our colleague, Congressman Terry Ridon, and as well as Your Honor, the distinguished Sponsor himself, as well as our Chairman of the Committee on Higher and Technical Education in ensuring that this particular slashed amount of P477 million will be reinstated in the budget of the 59 State Universities and Colleges.

REP. PIAMONTE. Well taken, Mme. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Noted, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor. I will now end my interpellation with the hope that the requested information that we have earlier discussed and which the distinguished Sponsor agreed will be submitted to us before the end of our budget deliberations, will be submitted in due time, Mme. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mme. Speaker. Thank you very much, distinguished Sponsor, for giving me the opportunity.

REP. PIAMONTE. Thank you very much also, Mme. Speaker, Your Honor.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abad). Thank you, Gentlemen.

Yes, the Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. DEFENSOR. Mme. Speaker, may we


recognize the Gentleman from the Party-List ACT TEACHERS, the Hon. Antonio L. Tinio, for his interpellation.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abad) . Representative Tinio is hereby recognized for his interpellation.

REP. TINIO. Thank you, Mme. Speaker.Mme. Speaker, my interpellation on the budget of

the State Universities and Colleges will focus, first of all, on the issue of creation of new positions for State Universities and Colleges.

For decades, the State Universities and Colleges have seen a significant growth in their enrollment. Because of the rising cost of private higher education, there has been a steady influx and migration of young Filipinos seeking higher education from the private schools to State Universities and Colleges. In the early 1990s, the percentage of enrollment in private as against public education, public tertiary level education, was something like 80 percent enrollment in private universities and colleges as against 20 percent in State Universities and Colleges. But at this time, if I am not mistaken, it is closer to 60 percent in private higher education institution as against 40 percent in State Universities and Colleges. So, we see there the dramatic shift in enrollment due mainly to the rising cost of private higher education.

So, we have seen massive growth in the enrollment in State Universities and Colleges. However, during that same period, there has been no increase, whatsoever, no significant increase in the plantilla positions of our 110 or 111 State Universities and Colleges. How have the State Universities and Colleges cope? Unfortunately, they have been forced to resort to the hiring of contractual faculty, using contract of service and job order, funded from the proceeds of commercialization. So, through their own income-generating activities—unfortunately, this includes the raising of tuition fees, engaging in all sorts of income-generating businesses, and so on, commercializing even the use of facilities like, you know, halls and their auditoriums, and so on.

So, we have also seen during this period of growth in enrollment a corresponding growth in the number of job order and contractual faculty. So that now, again, if I am not mistaken, up to one-third of the teaching course in State Universities and Colleges, roughly 15,000, out of a total of over 30,000 teaching personnel are under contracts of service and job order.

As I have often pointed out, including in previous budget deliberations, job order and contract of service are particularly onerous as work arrangement, especially for our teaching personnel in State Universities and Colleges, for all people in government service and especially for the faculty.

In the past few years I have lent support in particular to the struggle of the job order faculty of Bulacan State University, Mme. Speaker, because in this particular state university, the problem of lack of permanent positions or regular positions for faculty is particularly acute. Out of a teaching force of a little over 1,000, over 700 are job order or contract of service faculty. It is very sad, when I spoke with these teachers and listened to their experiences, I remember one particular faculty member of Bulacan State University, who has been serving Bulacan State University but as a job order faculty for more than 15 years, telling me that he has spent the better part and perhaps the most productive part of his professional career as a job order.

So, it is therefore very welcome that finally, after years of struggling and lobbying, including taking the struggle of the Bulacan State University job order faculty to the DBM and holding dialogues, I see Director Clasara there, I know in one dialogue she was there, also had dialogue with Chairperson Licuanan herself, where the faculty of Bulacan State University were able to express, to share their plight in the injustice of their situation.

So, therefore, now, it is a very welcome development that finally the administration or at least it appears, and I would like to have a confirmation that, finally, there is a provision in the proposed 2016 budget for the creation of 15,000 new teaching positions, and that an amount of P5 billion is supposedly set aside under the MPBF, Miscellaneous Personnel Benefits Fund, for the creation of these new positions.

So, I would like to confirm with the Sponsor, Mme. Speaker, although strictly speaking, this budget item is not under the SUC budget but in the MPBF, under the Special Purpose Fund known as the MPBF, but could we hear confirmation from the Sponsor that, indeed, such fund is proposed in the 2016 budget and that the administration will, indeed, push through with the creation of these regular positions for the faculty of State Universities and Colleges throughout the country.

REP. PIAMONTE. Well, I confirm that there is really 15,000 plantilla positions included in our budget under the MPBF, but we are also trying to negotiate that part of that 15,000 plantilla be allocated also to the non-teaching personnel because as you mentioned, there are some personnel who have been in their job for a number of years, but until now, they could not be made permanent, but we have also to remember that there are certain qualifications for certain positions. So, it is not the number of years that will ultimately be used as the justification for awarding you a plantilla. In the case of teaching positions, the minimum qualification is masteral and for certain specializations and for deanship and, you know, being vice president of academic affairs, they require also doctorate degrees. So, the plantilla


can be filled up provided that those to be awarded have complied with the minimum requirements to avail of the position. So, that is true that there is really 15,000 plantilla positions and the allocation is P5 billion for that.

REP. TINIO. Well, thank you for that confirmation, Mme. Speaker, and of course, the point is well taken and understood that the positions will be granted only to those who are qualified. So, whatever the position requires, obviously, must be followed. Although I would insist that given the qualifications, the number of years that the individual has served under contract of service or job order should also be a major consideration in granting the regular item, Mme. Speaker.

Does the Sponsor agree with this that given the qualifications, if the qualifications are there, then consideration should also be given to the number of years that the faculty member in question has also served although under job order or contract of service?

REP. PIAMONTE. That is true.

REP. TINIO. Would you agree?

REP. PIAMONTE. Yes.

REP. TINIO. In other words, I hope it will not happen that, yes, there are new plantilla positions available, but that a totally new comer having the qualifications will be given preference over an equally qualified faculty member who has served but as a job order.

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, Your Honor, I am also a management person and I know that taking things equal, the person with a higher number of years of experience will really be preferred over somebody who has a lesser number of years of experience. That is a general practice.

REP. TINIO. Well, as a good manager, I am sure that that would be the practice of the Honorable Piamonte. I know he was, before coming to Congress, he was a school administrator, but I do hope that principle will find expression in the guidelines or implementing rules for the regularization of qualified job order or contractual faculty.

In the same way that it was necessary, in the case of the Department of Education, for Congress to include a special provision, particularly in the General Appropriations Act of 2012, 2013, and I believe 2014, which expressly stated that priority in hiring should be given to qualified contractual and volunteer teachers because it was the experience, the unfortunate experience in the Department of Education that often,

new applicants were, for some reason or another, given priority in hiring over also qualified faculty who had years of experience serving as, for instance, locally paid teachers or volunteer kindergarten teachers.

So, would the Sponsor be amenable to, if necessary, only if necessary, including some provisions in the appropriate portion of the budget to ensure that those job-order faculty who have served the SUCs for many years will be given some sort of recognition and priority in hiring, given that they have the necessary qualifications?

REP. PIAMONTE. Well, Mme. Speaker, we really have to follow certain criteria—applicants who meet the qualifications required, not only in terms of years of service or in terms of experience, but all other considerations like academic qualifications or educational attainment, for as long as the employees who are applying for the plantilla position are really given free and fair consideration. No favoritism is involved. No political endorsement is involved, if possible.

REP. TINIO. Yes, of course. My point is, precisely, for as long as the applicants are all qualified, then weight should be given to the years of service previously rendered, Mme. Speaker.

Anyway, so we welcome this historic development. For the first time, a large number of items will be created for state universities and colleges and we consider this to be a victory in the advocacy for the rights and welfare, the right to job security, in particular, of faculty in state universities and colleges.

It was good, Mme. Speaker, that the Sponsor mentioned, as well, the plight of the non-teaching personnel in state universities and colleges. And so, would it be possible, just to put it on record, to set aside, as well, a substantial number of new plantilla positions in order to be able to regularize many non-teaching personnel in state universities and colleges? Because as the Gentleman is aware, a large number of non-teaching personnel in state universities and colleges are engaged by universities through job orders and contracts of service, as well. So, this also has to be addressed. This injustice also has to be addressed by Congress and by the administration.

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, in yesterday’s pre-plenary conference where we had the CHED, SUCs and DBM representatives, it was agreed that we have to explore how we can allocate the 15,000 plantilla to be provided under the proposed budget for the non-teaching personnel, but they are still studying the correct proportion there.

REP. TINIO. Could this Representation, Mme.


Speaker, be provided with any existing planned allocations of the new items? How will these be distributed, the 15,000 new items, how will they be distributed or allocated among the 111 State Universities and Colleges, how many will go to faculty, and how many will go to non-teaching personnel?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mme. Speaker, since we are all busy about these budget hearings, now the CHED, the PASUC and the DBM will still have to meet and coordinate next week. Hopefully, they can really come up with the final proposal on how many slots out of the 15,000 plantilla will be allocated for the faculty and for the non-teaching personnel. More or less, we have the assurance that the non-teaching personnel will also be provided plantilla, whether it will come from the 15,000 allocated for next fiscal year or from somewhere else. Because we really emphasized yesterday that as we look after the welfare of the teaching personnel, we should not forget or neglect the non-teaching personnel because they are, after all, partners of the teachers. I cannot imagine a school with only teachers working there, without administrative and support staff around. They are also human beings who have their human needs, so it is just fitting and proper that their needs should also be attended to.

REP. TINIO. We agree with the Gentleman fully, Mme. Speaker, and indeed, we have sought assurance during this interpellation that for the 2016 budget, there will indeed be provision for the creation of non-teaching items as well. And I think that is what we have heard. My request stands that we be given updated information on how the proposed new items will be allocated among the 110 universities. So, I will just follow up from the appropriate committees, Mme. Speaker.

With that, I end my interpellation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abad). Thank you.


REP. PIAMONTE. Thank you, Mme. Speaker, honorable colleague.



It was 3:48 p.m.



THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abad). The session is resumed


REP. DEFENSOR. Mme. Speaker, may we recognize the Gentleman from 1-BAP, the Hon. Silvestre “Bebot” H. Bello III, for his manifestation.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abad). Rep. Silvestre “Bebot” H. Bello III is hereby recognized for his manifestation.

REP. BELLO. Thank you, Mme. Speaker, honorable Sponsor.

Just a quick manifestation, honorable Sponsor. In fact, it is just a reiteration of my manifestation yesterday during our preliminary conference, and that is my appeal to CHED for the restoration of all the amounts reduced from the budget of all State Universities and Colleges in the 2016 National Expenditure Program with emphasis, honorable Sponsor, on the 2016 budget of the MSU Tawi-Tawi College of Technology and Oceanography.

Thank you, Mme. Speaker. Thank you, honorable Sponsor.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abad). Thank you. (Applause)

REP. PIAMONTE. Thank you, Mme. Speaker. Thank you, honorable colleague.



REP. DEFENSOR. I move for suspension, Mme. Speaker.


It was 3:51 p.m.


At 3:53 p.m., the session was suspended.


REP. DEFENSOR. Mme. Speaker, I move that we recognize the Hon. Roman T. Romulo for his interpellation.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Abad). Rep. Roman Romulo is hereby recognized for his interpellation.


REP. ROMULO. Thank you, Mme. Speaker.Magandang hapon sa ating Chairperson,

Congressman Piamonte.Mme. Speaker, I just have a few questions to clarify

and just put on record things that were already discussed during the committee meeting, and probably raised by some of our colleagues throughout the day.

Siguro, Mme. Speaker, let me proceed first with the issue on the plantilla positions.

Yes, Mme. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor, for next year, I understand we have available about 15,000 plantilla positions for our various SUCs. Is that correct, Mme. Speaker?

At this juncture, Deputy Speaker Abad relinquished the Chair to Deputy Speaker Giorgidi B. Aggabao.

REP. PIAMONTE. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.

REP. ROMULO. And my understanding is that of the 15,000 plantilla positions, about 9,000 are new plantilla positions and 6,000 are those that are already existing at the moment. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mr. Speaker, the 9,000 for teaching and 6,000 is still under study. That is only an initial estimate given, but the CHED and the PASUC will sit down together next week to really determine a more accurate allocation of the 15,000.

REP. ROMULO. Yes, but the SUCs can be assured that they will have 9,000 new plantilla positions plus the 6,000 existing plantilla positions. Is that correct?

REP. PIAMONTE. That is correct, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the original intention of the 15,000 is for teaching positions.

REP. ROMULO. Yes.

REP. PIAMONTE. But then, because we have to consider also the plight of our non-teaching personnel.

REP. ROMULO. Yes.

REP. PIAMONTE. Oftentimes, they are forgotten whenever salary adjustments are made. So, we felt that we should also allocate something out of the 15,000, …

REP. ROMULO. Yes.

REP. PIAMONTE. … for our non-teaching personnel.

REP. ROMULO. Yes. And, Mr. Speaker, of the plantilla positions that the Gentleman is referring to for the non-teaching personnel, at the moment, we have an assurance of, at least, 2,000 for non-teaching personnel. Is that correct?

REP. PIAMONTE. More or less, Mr. Speaker. But that will be determined more accurately next week.

REP. ROMULO. But, at least, there will be more or less, 2000 new plantilla positions for the non-teaching personnel.

REP. PIAMONTE. That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

REP. ROMULO. Yes. Mr. Speaker, could I just clarify now, when we refer to this 9,000 new teaching positions and the 2,000 for the non-teaching personnel, does this include allotment for UP, for the University of the Philippines, or is that another case?

REP. PIAMONTE. Okay. According to information from the CHED, UP is not included in the 15,000 …

REP. ROMULO. Yes.

REP. PIAMONTE. …. plantilla for 2016.

REP. ROMULO. Yes. So, at least, it will be very clear that with the exception of UP, there are at least 9,000 new plantilla positions for teachers, and at least, more or less, 2,000 for non-teaching personnel in all our SUCs, excluding UP.

REP. PIAMONTE. Yes. That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

REP. ROMULO. What about UP? What happens now to UP, Mr. Speaker?

REP. PIAMONTE. I think UP can stand on its own. They have resources for this, because I think they also feel that the other universities need the additional plantilla more than—according to the UP President, they are making separate arrangements with the DBM.

REP. ROMULO. Yes, so that UP will also be given by the national government, additional plantilla positions, …

REP. PIAMONTE. Yes …

REP. ROMULO. … but not included within what we earlier discussed.

REP. PIAMONTE. Not included, not included.


REP. ROMULO. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker?

REP. PIAMONTE. That is correct, Mr. Speaker. The UP Republic, Mr. Speaker, the UP Republic.

REP. ROMULO. Yes. They are not really, Mr. Speaker, but we want to ensure that the 15,000 plantilla positions will exclusively be used for the SUCs, excluding UP. That is why I think it is good that we put separate items for the University of the Philippines so that the other SUCs are assured of a sizeable amount of new plantilla teaching and non-teaching positions.

REP. PIAMONTE. That is correct.

REP. ROMULO. Mr. Sponsor, Mr. Speaker, can we now go to NBC 461, just to put an end to this discussion on NBC 461. This year, the national government allotted about P1.3 billion for funding for the NBC 461. I understand that there are some schools, some SUCs that were not able to benefit from the P1.3-billion NBC 461 Fund. Could this Representation know what will happen now to the other SUCs who have completed submissions for NBC 461 for this year, but the funds have already run out?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mr. Speaker, this concern has been raised by Congressman Bravo earlier…

REP. ROMULO. Yes.

REP. PIAMONTE. ...and was also raised in yesterday’s pre-plenary …

REP. ROMULO. Yes.

REP. PIAMONTE. …meeting of ours, and it was agreed by the CHED and the DBM that we really have to find ways on how to provide for those who have not availed of the P1.3 billion under NBC 461.

REP. ROMULO. In other words, Mr. Speaker, there is a commitment by the Chairman that we will find funds. Congress will find funds for us to enable the NBC No. 461 to be funded for those SUCs who have not received but submitted complete documents. Is that correct? At the proper time, we will make amendments to ensure that they will be able to get their NBC No. 461.

REP. PIAMONTE. That is correct, Your Honor.

REP. ROMULO. That is correct.

REP. PIAMONTE. Yes.

REP. ROMULO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of talks about

budgetary cuts with the various SUCs with respect to MOOE and Capital Outlays. I understand from the committee meetings, the pre-plenary meetings, the budget briefing, that the various SUCs have been asked to submit to the Committee on Appropriations’ justification so that there can be a restoration of this budget, is that correct, Mr. Speaker?

REP. PIAMONTE. That is correct, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. ROMULO. Yes.

REP. PIAMONTE. That was suggested by the DBM yesterday.

REP. ROMULO. So, at the proper time, is it possible that these budgets will be restored?

REP. PIAMONTE. It is possible, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. ROMULO. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, just one final point on these budgetary cuts. Could I just focus on the issue of the MSU-Tawi-Tawi. MSU-Tawi-Tawi, I understand, operates about 21 high schools, but based on the cut in their MOOE, they will no longer be able to provide the assistance that they have been giving these 21 high schools. Could we be apprised here, for the record, what will now, what is the plan for the 21 high schools?

REP. PIAMONTE. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the MSU-Tawi-Tawi concerns were presented in our Appropriations Committee meeting.

REP. ROMULO. Yes.

REP. PIAMONTE. And also in our pre-plenary meeting yesterday.

REP. ROMULO. Yes, that is correct.

REP. PIAMONTE. Well, the problem is for the MSU both as a higher education institution (HEI) and MSU also as a service provider, high school service provider.

REP. ROMULO. Yes.

REP. PIAMONTE. MSU-Tawi-Tawi has 2,000 college students, but has 6,000 high school students spread in 22 campuses, because there are several islands. But, for quite some time, the MSU has been allowed to


operate their high schools, the number of students of which is beyond the allowable laboratory-sized science high school which is authorized to the SUCs. But, of course, the MSU-Tawi-Tawi has a unique situation because Tawi-Tawi is composed of so many islands and some islands can be reached by boat for a number of hours, and the DepEd cannot fully address also the high school needs of the students there.

In order for the MSU-Tawi-Tawi to really focus more on its core mandate as a higher education institution, the advice that was given was to gradually phase out the 22 campuses, probably turn them over to the DepEd or it is also possible that as we gradually phase out which may take years, we can ask the DepEd to subsidize the cost of education for the high school students in like manner that the DepEd is subsidizing the students under the GASTPE for the private schools. So, similar to the GASTPE, because the students also will go to the SUCs coming from the DepEd who will enroll in Grades 11 and 12 in SUCs will also be covered by a subsidy. So, we do not see any legal impediment for the DepEd to provide also subsidy for the students in the meantime, but the phasing out must have to be gradual. At the same time, we strengthen the MSU Tawi-Tawi as a higher education institution. There are certain requests like, for example, the vessel for their oceanography program which costs about P30 million, which is very ironic, the only school offering oceanography without any vessel. For me, as far as I am concerned, that need for a vessel is also very urgent as we address also the problem regarding the needs of the 6,000 high school students.

REP. ROMULO. In other words, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor, despite the challenges, like the fact that it is supposed to be supervised by the DepEd, and then it is now being supervised by an HEI, the Committee will give a commitment that it will find a way that funding will be given so that the 21 high schools in Tawi-Tawi will continue to be operational. That is correct.

REP. PIAMONTE. That was our understanding in the Committee because we simply cannot ignore the financial requirements for these 6,000 students. As I said, one justification is that the areas of these campuses are also having peace and order problems. So, there is really a need for us to continue operating these high schools but at the same time we have to little by little really phase them out which might take five, 10 years so that eventually MSU Marawi CityTawi-Tawi can function principally as an institution of higher learning.

REP. ROMULO. Mr. Speaker, with the assurance of the Chairperson of this Committee that the 21 high schools in Tawi-Tawi will certainly continue to be

operational and also the assurance that at the proper time, with the proper justifications, the budget of the various SUCs that have been cut will be restored, I have no further questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Thank you, Your Honor. The Gentleman from Pasig has yielded the Floor.

The Asst. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. ROMUALDO. Mr. Speaker, the next Member who wishes to interpellate the Sponsor is the Gentleman from BUHAY Party-List, the Hon. Jose L. Atienza Jr. I move that he be recognized.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The Gentleman from the Party-List BUHAY, the Honorable Atienza, is recognized to interpellate the distinguished Sponsor. You have the floor, Your Honor.

REP. ATIENZA. Salamat po. Mr. Speaker, at this point where we have exhausted questions and we have gotten answers and our officers of the State Universities and Colleges have been here listening, we feel that since we cannot even grant the requests of many of them for a bigger budget, I wish we could but we cannot, so at this point, I move that we terminate the discussion and debate, and that we approve all of these budgets as they are now presented to us. (Applause)

REP. DELA CRUZ. Mr. Speaker, we second the motion.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). There is a motion coming from the Minority. But before we rule on that motion, of course we have to hear the Majority. The Asst. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. ATIENZA. If we have the concurrence of the three Minority Members on the floor, we are moving for the termination of the debate and let us approve all of these budgets, including that of the Commission on Higher Education. (Applause)

REP. ROMUALDO. Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). My apologies but the Gentleman from BUHAY Party-List comes not from the Minority but from the Independent bloc, my apologies. So, let us put some order.

REP. ATIENZA. Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Yes.


REP. ATIENZA. My being a member of the Independent Minority bloc allows me to become active in the Minority voice, so there is nothing wrong with the motion coming from us, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). All right.

REP. ATIENZA. And duly seconded by my colleague and concurred in by another member of the Minority.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Yes. Duly noted, Your Honor. The Asst. Majority Leader can please make his manifestation.

REP. ROMUALDO. Mr. Speaker, may we ask that the Asst. Minority Leader confirm the motion of the Honorable Atienza.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The Asst. Minority Leader, the Honorable Bello, is recognized.

REP. BELLO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.On the part of the Minority, I join the Honorable

Atienza in moving for the—that we terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the SUC budget, Mr. Speaker. (Applause)


THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Before we rule on the motion, we recognize the Asst. Majority Leader.

REP. ROMUALDO. Mr. Speaker, there being no other Member from the Majority who wishes to interpellate, we join the motion of the Minority to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the State Universities and Colleges.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). On motion of the Minority, concurred in by the Majority, the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the State Universities and Colleges is terminated.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Mr. Speaker.


REP. ROMUALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we suspend the session.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The session is suspended.

It was 4:11 p.m.



THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The session is resumed.


LEGISLATIVE-EXECUTIVE DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL

REP. ROMUALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we open the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council. For the purpose, Mr. Speaker, I move that we recognize the Hon. Gabriel Luis R. Quisumbing to sponsor the said budget.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

The period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council is now open.

The Gentleman from Cebu, the Honorable Quisumbing, is recognized to sponsor the said budget.

REP. QUISUMBING. Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker, esteemed colleagues.

This humble Representation has the honor to sponsor, for the consideration of this august Body, the proposed budget of the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council or the LEDAC in the amount of P2.883 million for the Fiscal Year 2016.

We are now ready, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, to answer any questions.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The Asst. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. ROMUALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we recognize the Asst. Minority Leader, the Hon. Silvestre “Bebot” H. Bello III.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The distinguished Asst. Minority Leader, the Honorable Bello, is recognized.

You have the floor, Your Honor.

REP. BELLO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, honorable Sponsor.

On the part of the Minority, we move to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget


of the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council.


THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Thank you, Your Honor.


REP. ROMUALDO. Mr. Speaker, there being no other Member of the Majority who wishes to interpellate the Sponsor, we join the motion of the Minority to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). On motion of the Minority, concurred in by the Majority, the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council is terminated.

REP. QUISUMBING. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.



REP. ROMUALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we suspend the session for a few minutes.


It was 4:18 p.m.





COMMISION ON HIGHER EDUCATION (CHED)

REP. ROMUALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we open the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED). For this purpose, I move that we recognize the Hon. Pryde Henry A. Teves to sponsor the said budget.


The period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Commission on Higher Education is opened. The Honorable Teves is recognized to sponsor the said budget.


REP. TEVES. Mr. Speaker, we are now ready to defend the budget of the Commission on Higher Education, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The Gentleman, the Honorable Teves, is ready to defend.


REP. ROMUALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we recognize the Hon. Jonathan A. Dela Cruz who wishes to make a manifestation.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The Honorable Dela Cruz is recognized to make his manifestation. You have the floor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Most of the questions that are supposed to be asked of the Commission on Higher Education had actually been asked earlier, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, in the course of our discussions on the budget of the SUCs, State Universities and Colleges. Actually, the questions intersect with each other and there are a number of other questions that we wanted to ask but as I mentioned earlier, these particular questions will be put in writing, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, and it is my hope that we will be able to get answers before the end of our budgetary discussions next week.

On that note, I have no more questions to ask, just a manifestation that hopefully, we will get our answers from the Commission on Higher Education on the pending issues that are still with us after we have discussed exhaustively the budget of the SUCs, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The Gentleman from ABAKADA Party-List has yielded the floor.


REP. ROMUALDO. Mr. Speaker, the next Member who wishes to interpellate the distinguished Sponsor is the Gentleman from KABATAAN Party-List, the Hon. Terry L. Ridon. I move that he be recognized.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The


Gentleman from the Party-List KABATAAN, the Honorable Ridon, is recognized to interpellate the distinguished Sponsor.


REP. RIDON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We would want to begin the interpellation by first discussing the Special Provisions similar to the proposed provisions for State Universities and Colleges. We would also want to make of record that we have several student leaders who are going around Congress and plenary asking for support from Congressmen and officials of state schools to support the House resolution asking for the restoration of the budget cuts particularly on the MOOEs of the 59 schools, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

So, going to the interpellation proper, in the first and second provisions governing the CHED budget, the HEDF or the Higher Education Development Fund is mentioned. Can the distinguished Sponsor, Mr. Speaker, report on the status of the use of the fund and the number of projects and beneficiaries who have benefited from this particular fund for the past year, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor?

REP. TEVES. Yes, Mr. Speaker. Currently, the balance of the fund is about P5.7 billion. However, about P3 billion of that will be earmarked for the K to 12 Program budget which will be handled by the CHED on scholarships and incentives and other things for our educators, and there will be P1 million that will also go to scholarships. As a whole, starting from its inception up to the present, I can certainly give a detailed report on the fund usage of the said budget to our good colleague from KABATAAN Party-List, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RIDON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We will appreciate a submission of the CHED with respect to this particular fund, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

REP. TEVES. Right after this interpellation is over, Mr. Speaker, certainly I would give it to my good friend and colleague, Congressman Ridon, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RIDON. Thank you. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we remember from the past GAA that the CHED had been required to submit, either in printed form or by way of electronic document, to the DBM, copy furnished the House Committee on Appropriations and the Senate Committee on Finance, quarterly reports on the financial and physical accomplishments on the utilization of the HEDF. We would want to know, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, whether or not the CHED was able to comply with this provision.

REP. TEVES. Yes, the CHED has complied with the said requirements, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RIDON. Thank you, and if yes, we want to get the submission of these quarterly reports as well, Mr. Speaker.

REP. TEVES. I commit to the said requirement, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RIDON. Thank you. Section 1 of the Special Provisions also speaks of P3 billion allotted for implementation of the K to 12 Program that will be charged from the HEDF. Can the distinguished Sponsor, Mr. Speaker, explain the mechanism on the use of this P3-billion budget from the HEDF for the K to 12 Program.

REP. TEVES. Mr. Speaker, on the transition itself, there will be some expenses to be had and there will be some displacement that will happen. There will be some teachers who will have less load and these teachers will be given a chance to improve their own capabilities by giving them scholarship grants to get their masteral and doctorate degrees. Of course, there will also be some support from the DOLE for those who will temporarily lose their jobs by giving six-month and three-month packages for permanent and non-permanent positions. There would also be support for HEIs which will certainly be affected by the low turnout of enrollees for the coming two years.

So, all in all, Mr. Speaker, and, of course, training packages for those who wish to go into the Senior High School Program for those who will lose their jobs from the HEIs will be given a priority to come in as Senior High School teachers. Virtually, the program will go around those packages and incentives that are prepared by the government to cushion and to make sure that the transition in the next five years will be more or less much smoother, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RIDON. Thank you for the response, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. Before proceeding to the next point, I have a question on the nature of the HEDF, particularly for K to 12. Does this mean that the HEDF will be used for the funding of the transition, particularly of private HEIs, as we enter into the K to12 Program by next year?

REP. TEVES. The P3 billion out of the HEDF will be used for the said programs that I have just mentioned, Mr. Speaker. That is P3 billion.

REP. RIDON. I apologize for my ignorance. Is it not correct to say that the HEDF is a fund that is supposedly for State Universities and Colleges solely,


or the CHED has a wide latitude for its use? Is it not correct that despite their having a wide latitude for the use of the transition fund, is it something that is within the ambit of this particular wide latitude for the use of the HEDF, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor?

REP. TEVES. The position of the CHED, Mr. Speaker, is that HEDF is not just strictly for SUCs but for everybody as long as it will benefit the Filipino people, in general, the youth.

REP. RIDON. Yes, and that is actually, precisely, my concern, Mr. Speaker, because I am not quite certain whether or not we have established sufficient standards or mechanisms for defining the use of the HEDF—this is not to make particular judgments on whether or not a transition fund is improper but my only concern is that, are we not, maybe, overbroadening in putting the transition fund under the Higher Educational Development Fund? As I understand it, in previous experiences, is it not the case that the HEDF has been used to augment, maybe, infrastructure for SUCs, is that not correct, or for whatever use? At the very best, Mr. Speaker, maybe the CHED can at least define, for the record, the definition of the HEDF and the mechanism of its use, distinguished colleague.

REP. TEVES. Before I go to the HEDF itself, for one, we know very well that a lot of private HEIs, especially those who are teaching there, will be affected due to the reduced load. While these are challenges, the CHED is trying to take advantage of them, to make them into opportunities by allowing these professors to improve on their capabilities by taking masteral and doctorate degrees which they will clearly need in the future. After the two- or five-year transition, the enrollees will come back and definitely by this time, if these teachers will want to proceed to be college professors later on, they will be more qualified and definitely, they will have greener opportunities ahead.

Definitely, the HEDF is for public and private HEIs and of course, while we are also willing that we might over-broaden the things that we have to spend by virtue of the HEDF, this is currently now a shared cost. While the K to 12 Program transition is about an initial of P5.7 billion with a P3 billion in Unprogrammed Funds, this is a shared cost between the GAA, a budget of about P2.2 billion and another P3 billion from the HEDF. It will be a shared cost because, of course, we also know very well that we do not want to over-broaden the liability or what we have to get from the HEDF, knowing fully well that we also do not know if our income from the PCSO, the travel tax and other sources of the HEDF would increase or decrease in the future. For now, on the HEDF itself, this is part of, of course, the CHED Law, and one of the sections thereat clearly stated that

a Higher Education Development Fund shall be placed or shall be created for the purpose of improving not just our institutions, but our teaching capacities, and most of them as well. In detail, I am very willing also to submit to our good colleague the latest guidelines that are created by the CHED itself on how the HEDF is being managed, for his perusal and, maybe, also because our good colleague might also want to propose improvements on the guidelines, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RIDON. Yes, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for the policy explanation of our distinguished colleague, Mr. Speaker. We would want to know at this point, actually, the clear policy position of the HEDF and the mechanism on its use because, as far as I understand, the reason Congress is contemplating the Transition Bill for K to 12 is that there might be some technical legal troubles for this particular transition, especially in the case of private HEIs.

So, my question, basically, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, is, shall we not fall into some sort of a legal issue by proceeding with the funding under the HEDF in spite of the fact that we have not yet passed into law the Transition Bill for the K to 12 Program? At the very least, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, we need a clear policy statement on whether or not it is legally permissible for the HEDF to be used for this particular transition and if the answer is in the affirmative, we would want to know the basis for this legal permissibility on the use of the HEDF.

REP. TEVES. Yes, I understand clearly the point of our good colleague because I know for a fact that the bill regarding tertiary funds is still in Congress, in the Senate, and it is still being deliberated upon.

The HEDF is for institutional capacity building, faculty training and scholarships, and instructional materials upgrading. It is not for infrastructure. We can use it also for labs, libraries and laboratories. On the specific question on the legalities, while it is still the position of the CHED now that it can be used for private and public HEIs, I would be very willing to submit in formal and proper form the position and the bases of the CHED on why it is their position that, pending the said bill, it is already legal for them to use the HEDF, for our good colleague’s perusal, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RIDON. Yes, thank you for the response. Actually, this is simply more of caution or maybe a concern that the CHED will really have to look into because, of course, especially as we wind up our work for the Commission, as we reach the end of our terms, I do not want to find ourselves, to find the Commissioners in a position where several actors, several political personalities or private persons will bring them to court and question whether or not we had not used the HEDF


within the bounds of law, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. Obviously, this is not, at this point, wanting to frustrate the use, but more on that we just want to know actually whether or not it is legally permissible for us to use this particular fund.

REP. TEVES. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was just informed by our CHED family that they also have a legal opinion from the DOJ which authorized the Commission en banc to manage the said funds and to widen or exercise its discretion over the funds and their use subject to guidelines and distributed equally, of course, across the regions. I will also submit to our good colleague the said DOJ opinion or a copy of such for his perusal, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RIDON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At the very least, the mechanism on its use is the most important for our purposes, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

REP. TEVES. Certainly, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RIDON. Proceeding with the interpellation, Section 2 of the Special Provisions for the CHED states that the CHED should ensure that the full requirements of existing scholars are considered to guarantee their continued funding. Well, this is more of a continuation of the questions that had already been raised in the previous interpellations on the State Universities and Colleges and, of course, we would want to reiterate this question, particularly on the grants-in-aid and the Tulong-Dunong Program. We want to posit the point, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, that as far as we are concerned, the Tulong-Dunong Program is again being used as a form of pork by legislators.

At this juncture, Deputy Speaker Aggabao relinquished the Chair to Rep. Jorge “Bolet” Banal.

We had seen that, according to reports and, of course, admissions, there seems to be a possibility that those who had been recommended or are being recommended, get some, at the very least, expedited attention by the CHED. I understand, of course, that the CHED is still subjecting all requests, even those by legislators, to particular standards and determination by the CHED regional offices.

We just want to reiterate our previous position this morning that we do not want these scholarship programs being subjected to politics in the localities, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. Scholarships and grants-in-aid should be politics-blind. They should never be subjected to political patronage in the localities. If there is a need for them to be granted a scholarship, it ought to be based on merit, it ought to be based on need, and the continuation of a Tulong Dunong Program in which

there are continuing referrals by legislators is something that is certainly a concern. I understand that many schools and even higher education policymakers had already posited this particular concern. We understand that on the ground, of course, the Congressmen would want to provide some services, but it has always been our position that it is an obligation that is not for legislators but for educators to make. So, there, Mr. Speaker, at the very least, on the question of Tulong Dunong.

At this juncture, the Presiding Officer relinquished the Chair to Deputy Speaker Giorgidi B. Aggabao.

Let me now proceed to Section 5 of the Special Provisions on the budget of CHED which is about the PAMANA Program. The provision stated that there is a P14.5 million allocation under CHED that shall be used to implement projects in conflict-affected areas already identified by the OPAPP. Mr. Speaker, we have always been very concerned about the presence of this provision in the CHED’s budget since the CHED has always been replying in several budget deliberations in the past that the budget for this is within the purview of OPAPP. My question, distinguished Sponsor, Mr. Speaker, has always been, what are the types of projects in these conflict-affected areas that will be funded by the P14-million fund? Are we talking about scholarships for Lumad children that are currently being subjected, at this point, to extreme militarization in Mindanao, among other mechanisms, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague? Our grave concern here is that we would not want the Commission on Higher Education particularly to be a party to the continuing militarization in counterinsurgency areas, most especially in conflict areas as we are seeing now in Mindanao. So, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, do we have information on the mechanism for the use of this fund?

REP. TEVES. Yes, basically, these are just student grants in coordination with the OPAPP and the CHED to the tune of P10, 000 per grantee, Mr. Speaker. In any case, while the guidelines are with us, in coordination with the OPAPP, we will also submit to our good colleague the copy of the details on the actual guidelines as agreed upon by the OPAPP and the CHED, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RIDON. Thank you for this future submission, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. Let us now proceed to Special Provision No. 6 which pertains to the K to 12 Basic Education Program. It allots P2.2 billion additional budget for the implementation of K to 12 Program apart from the previously stated budget that will be sourced from the HEDF. We would want to know, Mr. Speaker, whether we are lumping this


together or is there a clear differentiation in the use of this P2.2 billion fund as against the P3-billion budget that will be sourced from the HEDF, Mr. Speaker, and if there is a clear differentiation, maybe the good Sponsor state it for the record.

REP. TEVES. Of course, the P3 billion out of the HEDF should follow guidelines as managed by the Commission en banc on the HEDF use, Mr. Speaker, while the K to 12 Program budget of P2.2 billion which will be coming from the GAA should obviously be managed within the Special Provisions that will be put in the GAA, in which the menu will be based on the Special Provisions that we will put in, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RIDON. Yes. So, well, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, can the Representation just submit, I mean, the appropriations or the projects or whatever it is that the P2.2 billion will be used for particularly, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

REP. TEVES. Yes, of course, we will already be giving to our good colleague the HEDF guidelines, Mr. Speaker. We would also be submitting more or less the Special Provisions that would manage the P2.2. billion in the GAA, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RIDON. Thank you. Let us now proceed to the CHED budget proper, Mr. Speaker. The CHED has a total of P4 million for Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses. One use of this fund as stated under the General Provisions is for contributions to civic and charitable institutions. Well, we just want to know how much did the CHED spend as contributions to civic or charitable institutions in the past fiscal year, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. Did we contribute to the church? Did we contribute to the visit of the Pope? Did we contribute to take care of foundlings, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague?

REP. TEVES. Mr. Speaker, I was informed—well, I have the breakdown of donations here which is about P4.5 billion. It is still mostly for scholarships, Mr. Speaker, 1.3 as regular and 986,000 as Tulong Dunong. Yes, it is just a term of the DBM, Mr. Speaker. My point is, the donations that were classified as donations would still fall under assistance to students, Mr. Speaker

REP. RIDON. Thank you for your response, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. So, let us now go to the other funds that had been used. The Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses also included official entertainment. Have the CHED public funds in 2013 and 2014 been used for so-called “official entertainment” and did we invite singers and dancers, Mr. Speaker, for a CHED program like what we had been seeing in

the last couple of hours, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague?

REP. TEVES. Mr. Speaker, I was informed that they have not been spending official entertainment expenses of such nature. However, if there were expenses for official functions, the CHED can guarantee that everything was already cleared by the Commission on Audit, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RIDON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, just to proceed. We are very happy that this has not been used—that this has been cleared—we have not used this for singers/dancers as well, Mr. Speaker, in official functions or to announce whatever, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

So, let us now proceed to the next question. The CHED is yet to receive P17.7 million for the formulation of policies and guidelines on student affairs and provision of student services. May we know from the Sponsor, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, what policies and guidelines on student affairs are in the pipeline of the CHED, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague?

REP. TEVES. Well, basically, the budget is for—that is the regular job of the CHED, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor—continuing to meet on how to improve the systems, how to monitor this and that institution, how to continue releasing CMOs in order to further make, say, scholarships and other curricula more efficient. The latest that they are following will be the enhanced policies and guidelines on student affairs on services, that is CMO No. 9, Series of 2013, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RIDON. Yes.

REP. TEVES. While this is continuing, certainly it needs an annual budget for the CHED to operate efficiently and be effective, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RIDON. Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that response. Well, responding to that policy declaration on an expansion of student affairs, some of our concerns really have always been with respect to the level of tuition increase monitoring by many of the CHED regional offices. We have always been under the impression, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, that because the CHED has always been severely undermanned, it has been very difficult for the Commission to really determine with great conclusiveness whether or not the schools have, in fact, complied with the policies set by the CHED. So, is it not correct to say that more personnel need to be placed, at the very least, at the regional level to really improve the monitoring not just, of course, of tuition


increases, which is done almost every year, but also on whether or not there are, in fact, exorbitant fees are being imposed by the schools year in, year out, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

REP. TEVES. Yes, in fact, we were already given the budget by the DBM, the go-signal to fill up unfilled positions to create some new positions. In any case, while they are already being filled up, there are still about 75 positions for the CHED to be filled up very soon, Mr. Speaker, to augment the current workforce of the CHED, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RIDON. Yes. Thank you, for that response, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. In fact, Mr. Speaker, just like what we had stated in this morning’s interpellation on the SUCs, we would really want to get a full and complete review of the normative financing formula which many believe led to the severe rounds of budget cuts in SUCs, especially in emerging ones, year in and year out. Second, we would want the review and, at the very least, the revocation of the CHED Memorandum No. 3, Series of 2012 which constituted the new guidelines on tuition and other fee increases.

As I understand it, the students have always been of the position that CMO No. 3 has resulted in the CHED’s failure to exercise its constitutional duty to reasonably regulate and supervise HEIs by failing to include within the ambit of regulation, the determination of schools of its rates of tuition and other school fees. The students are of the position that by not implementing any form of regulation and the determination of rates of tuition and other school fees, schools are not only empowered to determine the rates of tuition and other fees at the first instance but also at the final instance, and subsequently these become imposable, thus, affecting the students. The students had also manifested that CMO No. 3 also limited severely the CHED’s power to exercise reasonable supervision and regulation over the determination of rates of tuition and other school fees with respect to incoming freshmen, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

REP. TEVES. Yes, for the first question, Mr. Speaker, I myself tried to study the normative funding formula. Very soon, the CHED is also trying to further improve the formula and maybe, it must be updated as the years go by.

On CMO No. 3, this, too, is a work in progress, as the CHED also believes that they must continue to improve further or make more efficient and effective, the guidelines on tuition fee increases and other school fees, Mr. Speaker. As I said, in talking with the CHED family, currently, they are already discussing, sitting on the matter, on how to improve CMO No. 3 which is already almost four years old, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RIDON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. Well, I just want to state for the record that this is my third budget deliberation and this is also the very first time that we had learned and heard that the CHED will make some substitutions or replacements or some amendments to CHED Memorandum No. 3. In fact, in almost every Committee hearing on the question of tuition increases and other school fees, it has always been discussed and reported that the CHED is about to release a new formula on the determination of the reasonableness of tuition rates.

I understand that this is in partnership with the Development Academy of the Philippines and that this is something that is still being studied. Actually, we just want to say that it is taking a little bit long, it seems to be a little bit long, is it not? I understand that it is really taking such a long time, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, for the CHED to conclusively make up its mind on whether or not it will already abandon CMO No. 3 and replace it with what they had been trying to present to Congress, which is a new formula to determine the reasonableness of the increases in tuition, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. So, my most basic question on this matter is, what is the status of this proposal? Can we expect that, by the next round of tuition increases around February of next year, we will have a new CHED memorandum with respect to tuition fee increases and other school fees?

REP. TEVES. We will take note of that, Mr. Speaker. I was informed that the ongoing review of the said framework is in conjunction with the PIDS, and I am sure that our colleague is well knowledgeable about the PIDS framework and their officials. I am sure that, later on, our colleague would also get a more accurate timeline on when this will really come out.

I cannot commit that it will come out on February, but I am certain that our good colleague would know better as he is very well connected with his PIDS peers.

I must also say that while this will help or this will be of assistance in regulating our tuition fees, I honestly think that this Congress must also try to revisit Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 or the Education Act of 1982 because this can also still be something or an ace up the sleeves of private HEIs, that we insist that they have the exclusive right to define their tuition fee increases, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RIDON. Yes.

REP. TEVES. I know that my good colleague knows that very well, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RIDON. Yes, Mr. Speaker, and we are very


thankful for this particular position of the distinguished Sponsor. I just wanted to state, Mr. Speaker, that we are hopeful that we would not reach the end of our term without the new guidelines and, well, not just the end of our term but actually, we just want a new memorandum with respect to tuition and other school fees before the next round of tuition increases around February next year, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. Basically, Mr. Speaker, under the regime that we have at the moment, it has clearly been skewed in favor of private school owners first and the final determination is made by the schools because of the lack of personnel in the CHED to monitor it. I would daresay that I always have a lingering suspicion that many of these particular proposals are proposals that should not have been approved by several regional offices. However, because of the lack of personnel, many of these tuition increases and other school fee increases proceeded, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

More important, we wanted also to disabuse the minds of policymakers and of course, Congress, that because of Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 and jurisprudence, higher education is essentially a deregulated regime, and it is a continuing policy proposition that we have continuously rejected because in several jurisprudence, it has always been stated that education is imbued with great public interest and that even if it is being run as a business, it should still respond to prevailing social needs, particularly the right to education.

This is a position that is also not novel in industry as well. In fact, Mr. Speaker, other regulatory bodies particularly with respect to increases in the rates of water, in the rates of toll, in the rates of electricity transmission, generation and distribution—all of these are subjected to some form of proceedings, particularly the increases of these rates. In fact, these regulators subject all of these rate proposals to particular mathematical computations as well as some sort of substantial evidence before it is even decided upon by the regulatory bodies. This is also the regulatory regime that we would really want to have for higher education as well, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, because we will again go back to the original proposition that it is our position that even in higher education, education remains a right and the State should still subject it to some form of reasonable regulation and supervision, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

REP. TEVES. Well, Mr. Speaker, coming from a very good lawyer, I completely agree. One more thing, I convinced and I got a more accurate response from our CHED family that regarding the CMO that is being requested by our good colleague, while we cannot promise that it will come out on February, we can commit that before April, it should already come out, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RIDON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, of course, we just want to state that if it will be issued by around April, I am not quite certain whether or not it will be on time before the next round of tuition increases, but if the position of CHED is that the new guidelines will be imposed on the next round of increases, that would be something that we would be most interested about, Mr. Speaker.

REP. TEVES. We will commit that it will come out before the new tuition season, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RIDON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this response and position, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. So, let me now proceed to other matters, particularly a COA report. The COA had several other findings on the use of the budget, particularly on the use of DAP, the Disbursement Acceleration Program. I just want to read what the COA had to say on the use of the DAP funds:

4. Out of the amount of DAP funds that the CHED received from DPWH, DSWD and PIDS in December 2011 totaling P4,063,399,850, CHED transferred the amount of P3,825,318,854.26 to the SUCs between July 2012 to December 2013, retaining the amount of P238,080,995.74 in CHED-CO for administrative and other expenses. Of the amount transferred to SUCs, P3, 638,224,289.49 or 95.11 percent remained unliquidated at yearend, contrary to COA Circular No. 94-013 dated December 31, 1994 and the MOA between the CHED with the Source Agencies and the SUCs.

Can the distinguished Sponsor explain how the CHED has responded to this particular audit observation, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor?

REP. TEVES. Mr. Speaker, on the money that was received by the CHED Central Office (CO) from the DSWD, we have already returned the said monies and the corresponding ORs, copies of such are with this Representation, Mr. Speaker. On the SUCs, there are about 39 of them, we already sent letters to the SUCs and requested for liquidations, disbursements and if there are unexpended balances, to have those unexpended balances returned immediately, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RIDON. I thank the Gentleman for his response. Do we have information on whether or not the SUCs had already complied adequately on the obligation to return, or is it a continuing concern by the CHED, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague?


REP. TEVES. Some have already complied, Mr. Speaker, some have not. In any case, I am very willing to submit a report to our colleague regarding the matter, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RIDON. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. We would appreciate a report on this particular question. Before proceeding to the next item, because I understand that, particularly, on the question of DAP, the CHED—well, of course, particularly are the officials of CHED not a bit concerned on whether or not they might be implicated in the continuing controversy on the DAP, particularly because the Ombudsman has proceeded to continue to investigate the main actors of the Disbursement Acceleration Program, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague?

REP. TEVES. Mr. Speaker, we all know fully well what happened with the DAP. Those that were obligated were allowed to continue because these were already obligated and those that that were not, were asked to be returned immediately. I believe the CHED has complied with all the instructions on the matter, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RIDON. Yes. Is it not correct that, particularly for those that had been provided to the SUCs, it might be a possibility as well that if there is a failure to return, the SUCs involved might be subject to some form of liability? Is that not correct?

REP. TEVES. Of course, DAP or not, the unutilized, unexpended balances that are not returned upon instruction by the top executive agencies, Mr. Speaker, would really put those officials in trouble, DAP or not. If there are unexpended balances or monies that were never liquidated properly, DAP or not DAP, they will really go into trouble, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RIDON. Yes, that is correct, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. Of course, we would not want to see SUC officials, even CHED officials, go to jail but we just want to raise a red flag and that the CHED should really make certain that all of the monies that had been involved here should really be fully accounted for. I am quite certain that this will be a continuing concern, if not a problem, of the SUCs and even of the CHED, even beyond 2016, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

REP. TEVES. Certainly, Mr. Speaker. You must remember that when all these agencies received those amounts, no one knew if it was DAP or not DAP. Hence, after rectification, it is just our duty to follow the instructions on what is to be done on the DAP, whether it is obligated or unobligated, liquidated or unliquidated, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RIDON. Yes.

REP. TEVES. Definitely, I agree with my good colleague here, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RIDON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. Let me now proceed to the PCARI Project particularly because the COA has made a new audit observation on the matter. Although I understand that the PCARI is already proceeding even though belatedly, Mr. Speaker, we just want to get the response of CHED on the audit observation. Let me read, for the record, the observation:

Due to the absence of joint review/evaluation guidelines with the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) and the Department of Health (DOH) as required under Section 6, Special Provisions, RA 10352, the CHED was not able to implement the 25 Research Project Proposals (RPPs) and scholarships for the PCARI Project with a budget of P1.2505 billion, targeted for CY 2013 out of the P1.769 billion funds allotted and released to CHED. Only P518.5 million was disbursed or a 29 percent utilization rate, P501 million of which was advanced to the Procurement Service (PS)-DBM, on September 11, 2013 for the purchase of various Laboratory and Information Technology (IT) equipment but had not been delivered as of audit date.

So, Mr. Speaker, we would want to get the formal response of the CHED with respect to this question.

REP. TEVES. Yes, we admit the delay, Mr. Speaker, and one of the causes of that delay was that, since it allowed two agencies to conduct different evaluations before they can jointly approve it, the suggestion of Dr. Padolina who is the head of the PCARI, for it not to experience the same delay, is for them to already form a joint committee to review it rather than reviewing it separately, then meeting and in the process, finding a common date where everyone is available to be able to discuss on the matter. If right from the start they are already jointly meeting together and reviewing it as one whole joint body, Mr. Speaker, that would make things faster. In fact, Mr. Speaker, just a few days ago, the PCARI people were already asking us in Congress to help in finding a right date to meet with the DOST officials. Fortunately this morning, they already met and they are already going to the second cycle. We are going into our catch-up plan. Our catch-up plan is to make sure that these budgets will be obligated by year-end, Mr. Speaker.

On the matter of those equipment that were


mentioned by our good colleague, yes, while it was a very highly technical set of equipment that needed very careful, you know, pencil-pushing, very careful evaluation before it can be submitted for bidding, it is now already with the DBM-PS for actual procurement, Mr. Speaker.

REP. RIDON. Thank you for that response and assurance on the use of the fund, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. Before we yield the floor, again, we would want to reiterate our request for full reports from the CHED on all the issues discussed, which include the use of the HEDF, the effect of the K to 12 implementation on higher education, the CHED’s use of DAP funds, updates on the PCARI Project and finally and most importantly, an update on our appeal regarding the strengthening of the policy on the regulation of tuition and other school fees.

We ask that the CHED submit the reports before the end of the plenary debates not of CHED of course, but of the entire budget, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. With that, I yield the floor, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker


The Gentleman from the KABATAAN Party-List has yielded the floor.


REP. LAGDAMEO (M.). Mr. Speaker, we now proceed to the next interpellator, the Hon. Rodolfo G. Biazon from the Lone District of Muntinlupa.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The Gentleman from Muntinlupa, the Honorable Biazon, is recognized to interpellate the distinguished Sponsor.

The Gentleman has the floor, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BIAZON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the Gentleman yield to a few questions?

REP. TEVES. It would be my honor, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BIAZON. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, next year, we will begin to feel the effects of K to 12 senior high school. I would like to ask this question first, what is the student population of all LUCs or local universities and colleges in this country, especially those in the four-year courses?

REP. TEVES. For SUCs and LUCs, Mr. Speaker, about a little less than 900,000, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BIAZON. All the four-year courses?

REP. TEVES. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BIAZON. I got a different number.

REP. TEVES. That number is for SUCs and LUCs, Mr. Speaker, for both.

REP. BIAZON. Can the Gentleman check this please because the figure I got was 3.8 million.

REP. TEVES. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Of course, the total population of our enrollees would be about 3.8 million and that would be divided into a ratio of 55:45 or 56:44, Mr. Speaker.

In the private institutions, it would be about 2.1 million and in the public, it would be 1.7 million students, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BIAZON. So, for as long as we are considering the state universities and colleges in the country, the question is: what is the total student population for the four-year courses in the Philippines as far as the SUCs are concerned?

REP. TEVES. For SUCs, it is 1.7 million, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BIAZON. It is 1.7 million?


REP. BIAZON. Therefore I was fed the wrong number. Anyway, if it is 1.7 million, what is the total population for the four-year courses?

REP. TEVES. It is 3.8 million, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BIAZON. No, no, no, I am talking about SUCs.

REP. TEVES. For SUCs, that would be considered public HEIs, that is 1.7 million or 44 percent of the total students in the HEI, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BIAZON. Okay. Let us therefore accept the figure, 1.7 million divided by four because we are considering the four-year courses. We are therefore talking of about 400,000 a year.

REP. TEVES. A little more, 425,000.

REP. BIAZON. So, 425,000 per year.

REP. TEVES. Yes, Mr. Speaker, 425,000.

REP. BIAZON. It is 425,000, okay, fine. Next year,


the enrollees to the SUCs will be less than 425,000 because there will be no entrees.

REP. TEVES. Graduates, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BIAZON. Entrants, 425,000.


REP. BIAZON. All right. So, in 2017, it will double to about 850,000. Do you agree, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker?


REP. BIAZON. Yes. So, the question is, what is the effect of this 850,000 less in the student population of all the SUCs in relation to the deployment of budgets?

REP. TEVES. Some SUCs applied for the senior high school program, they applied for that to be able to accept senior high school students—some SUCs, Mr. Speaker, and some HEIs also. Well, on the budget itself, of course, certainly there will be reduction of the budget for scholarship grants, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BIAZON. That is correct. This is where I am concerned, where I am worried about. In the implementation of K to 12 insofar as high school is concerned, the Department of Education is not prepared to fully implement the curriculum of senior high school, especially on the issue of tech-voc track because there, you are going to need not only additional classrooms, not only additional teachers, but also the need for equipment so as to conduct instructions on the tech-voc track of K to 12. For example, in my district alone, in the implementation of the K to 12 Program, the high school, my district will need something like an additional 300 classrooms. My district will need an additional 450 additional teachers for the two years of senior high school, and divided by two because next year, I will need 150 additional classrooms and 200 plus—225 additional teachers but that is not the only problem. The problem is, if we teach tech-voc curriculum and if you are going to teach basic computer, you are going to need computer sets. If we teach welding, we are going to need welding equipments. If we need, for example, to teach basic HRM subjects, you will need probably forks, spoons, tables—you may even need a mock-up hotel room. These things we do not have at the moment. I am worried about the declaration of the Department of Education that we are going to tap private schools, but are the private schools equipped with all of these additional requirements?

Number two, if we are tapping the state universities and colleges, SUCs, are they also equipped to teach

tech-voc curriculum? They are, I think, similarly situated with the private colleges and universities, not being configured with facilities and probably, not even being configured with instructors and teachers trained to teach tech-voc subjects.

So, I am worried about your statement that the SUCs are being tapped to teach high school, not just ordinary high school but senior high school that requires additional facilities to be able to implement the teaching of tech-voc track to our students.

So, I ask: are our SUCs configured to assume the responsibility of teaching senior high school? I may agree with you that, maybe, the TESDA is configured to do that but do we have a TESDA in every barangay in this country? Each barangay is supposed to have a high school and there are 43,000 barangays in this country. So, I do not think the CHED will be able to provide the vacuum that will be created in the implementation of the senior high school in this country. I cannot accept the proposition that the budget surplus, as a result of vacuum of First Year next year, will be the reason; the reason will be that it can be redeployed to meet the requirement of senior high school. So, what will you do with the surplus budget …

REP. TEVES. Mr. Speaker.

REP. BIAZON. … considering that there will be minus 425,000 students by the opening of the calendar year, school year by June? What will you do with the surplus budget? Consider this, without students to teach, 425,000 of them, ano ang gamit noong mga professors diyan? Siguro papayag pa ako kapag sinabi po ninyo na ang surplus budget na iyan ay puwede ninyong gamitin to improve the teaching capability of our professors in the SUCs, like sending them to masteral or whatever courses.

REP. TEVES. Mr. Speaker, there are already several issues. Let me start with the first one. On the SUCs, you must remember, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, that 40 percent of the SUCs used to be polytechnic colleges. My SUC, which is NORSU or the Negros Oriental State University now, used to be the Central Visayas Polytechnic College and it was a trade school, so I believe that it is very capable in teaching tech-voc. While the CHED is not really the agency to implement the K to 12 Program, it is a support agency and it is doing its role. In fact, 669 HEIs were already issued permits to teach senior high school, some with tech-voc, some without tech-voc, but that depends on the due diligence of the CHED and the TESDA to check if they are really capable.

Now, the Gentleman’s proposal on scholarship grants to our professors is already in place with the K to 12 Program under the CHED. When these teachers’


teaching loads will be reduced, they will now have all the time to be able to improve themselves. We must remember that 50 percent of our college teachers do not have a master’s degree and so, within that two-year lull, that will be their chance to get their masteral or doctorate degrees because clearly, the CHED has budgeted no less than P5.269 billion and part of that will go to help these educators improve themselves within the two-year gap, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BIAZON. I have stated that that is the kind of program I will agree with. Nasabi ko na ito kanina.

REP. TEVES. Thank you very much, Sir.

REP. BIAZON. However, may we ask that that program be submitted to Congress.

REP. TEVES. Definitely, Mr. Speaker, and I will give a copy to my good colleague from Muntinlupa.

REP. BIAZON. Especially, of course, that for next year, your budget will be applicable up to the March graduation?

REP. TEVES. Yes.

REP. BIAZON. Beginning June, the opening of classes, then the situation will already prevail kaya po, if we can be given—and remember, next year, you will be dealing with 425,000 less students at the beginning of the school year. In 2017, you will be dealing with SUCs with 850,000 less students kasi dalawang taon iyon e. That will be 2017. Then in 2018, you will be dealing with 425,000 less students as you have configured today and then in 2019, you will still be dealing with 425,000 less students until the four-year course students already have completed the four years. Therefore, you will be dealing only with those courses that requires five years like engineering, I think.

REP. TEVES. Yes.

REP. BIAZON. Engineering, hindi ba?

REP. TEVES. Five years.

REP. BIAZON. Kakaunti na iyan. Ilan ba ang engineering students in the SUCs?

REP. TEVES. That will be considered one of the STEM subjects— Science, Technology and Engineering.

REP. BIAZON. Yes.

REP. TEVES. I have it with me, Mr. Speaker. Engineering students will be—it is about 212,000, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BIAZON. Okay.

REP. TEVES. So, out of 3.8 million, that is very small, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BIAZON. Of course, for courses that would require beyond five years like law and medicine as we have SUCs offering law and medicine, hindi ba?


REP. BIAZON. Siguro negligible na ang number na iyon, ano, pero I am interested, ilan ho iyong taking up medicine and law, and other courses that may require more than five years?

REP. TEVES. For SUCs, I know that there are only six SUCs that are offering those, Mr. Speaker, …

REP. BIAZON. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. TEVES. … but I am trying to get a more accurate number on the total students enrolled thereat from our CHED family. In general, Mr. Speaker, out of the whole pie, those enrolled in the STEM subjects which, I said, is 707,000 out of 3.8 million, 52 percent are in engineering; 17 percent are in agri and fisheries; 2 percent are in mathematics; 6 percent are in science and that would include, you know, the medical courses; and 23 percent are in technology, and that is only 707,000 out of 3.8 million, Mr. Speaker, a very small number.

REP. BIAZON. Thank you, Your Honor. Of course, the problem of implementation—the senior high school program will be implemented by the next administration.


REP. BIAZON. Okay, whoever he or she may be.


REP. BIAZON. Okay. I would like to see that the program is already prepared and so, the questions that I had just asked—that is the reason I am asking. The first time when we have to deal with this problem is going to be in June of next year. There is no problem between now and the graduation time of March and April unless may mga summer na diyan, ano, so iyon ho. I would like to see that we are preparing, not for this administration alone but for the next administration in whose hands this problem will fall, hindi po ba?


REP. TEVES. Definitely, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BIAZON. Thank you. So, may I reiterate, therefore, a submission of this program that will have to deal with the four-year negative effect—not negative but the effect of the implementation of senior high school vis-à-vis the student population of the state universities and colleges.

REP. TEVES. Allow me, with the indulgence of our good colleague, to submit everything completely by Tuesday of next week, Mr. Speaker.

REP. BIAZON. Thank you, Your Honor; thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Thank you, Your Honor. The Gentleman from Muntinlupa has yielded the floor.


REP. ROMUALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that the Asst. Minority Leader, the Hon. Antonio L. Tinio, be recognized.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER. The Asst. Minority Leader, the Honorable Tinio, is recognized.

REP. TINIO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the Minority, there being no other Member who wishes to interpellate, we therefore move for the termination of the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Commission on Higher Education. (Applause)

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Thank you.


REP. ROMUALDO. Mr. Speaker, on the part of the Majority, there being no other Member who wishes to interpellate, we join the motion of the Minority to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the Commission on Higher Education.


On the motion of the Minority, concurred in by the Majority, the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Commission on Higher Education is terminated.





It was 5:40 p.m.





PRESIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS OPERATIONS OFFICE

REP. ROMUALDO. Mr. Speaker, I move that we open the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the Presidential Communications Operations Office (PCOO), including its attached agencies and corporation. I likewise move, Mr. Speaker, that we recognize the Hon. Dakila Carlo E. Cua to sponsor the proposed budget.


The period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Presidential Communications Operations Office is opened, and the Gentleman from Quirino, the Honorable Cua, is recognized to sponsor the said budget.


REP. CUA. Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, thank you. We are now ready to answer any questions regarding the budget of the PCOO and its attached agencies/corporation.


REP. ROMUALDO. Mr. Speaker, the first of our colleagues who wishes to interpellate the Sponsor is the Gentleman from Party-List ACT TEACHERS, the Hon. Antonio L. Tinio. I move that he be recognized.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The Gentleman from ACT TEACHERS Party-List, the Honorable Tinio, is recognized to interpellate the distinguished Sponsor.


REP. TINIO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my interpellation will focus on the proposed budget of one of the attached agencies of the PCOO, namely the NPO, the National Printing Office. In particular, I would like to register my strong objection to the proposal for a


mere P19,069,000 as budget for the Personnel Services of the National Printing Office, considering that the NPO has well over, I believe, 300 or 400 employees. How many employees does the NPO have, for the record, Mr. Speaker?

REP. CUA. The NPO employs a number of 413 employees in total, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker.

REP. TINIO. Yes, 413 employees, 413 plantilla positions, and the compensation for which cannot possibly be covered by the P19.069-million budget proposal for Personnel Services of the NPO. So, it is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that at the proper time, this Representation will move that the amount sufficient to cover the salaries and other compensation of the 413 employees of the NPO be proposed for the Personnel Services budget. In the 2015 General Appropriations Act, the amount was P133.829 million. Does this amount still stand? Is this still the same amount that is required?

REP. CUA. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. TINIO. Well, if so, then I propose the restoration of this amount. Would the Sponsor be amenable to the restoration of the full amount for the PS of the NPO employees, Mr. Speaker?

REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, this Representation, this Sponsor, is likewise of the same opinion that it would be most prudent to reinstate the P133 million as this reflected the proper salary and compensation scheme for the entire NPO as opposed to the current P19 million. So, we support the good suggestion of our distinguished colleague, Mr. Speaker.

REP. TINIO. Thank you for that, Mr. Speaker. This Congress can do no less because precisely, since these 413 employees are regular employees of the government, the law entitles them the full guaranty on the commitment for the payment of all salaries and benefits due them, and this guaranty can only come from the inclusion of the amount in the General Appropriations Act. So, I am very glad to hear that the Sponsor and I are in agreement on this matter.

However, I would like to take up another point in relation to this. In fact, this is not the first time, Mr. Speaker, that we received a proposal from the President for a much reduced PS amount for the NPO. This happened last year as well. The amount of P133 million was restored in the GAA; however, there was a provision, a proviso, inserted among the Special Provisions for the NPO budget. Let me read into the record the relevant proviso, Mr. Speaker.

This is from the 2015 General Appropriations Act, Special Provision No. 1 of the NPO budget which stated:

Provided, that the amount of P131,829,000.00 appropriated herein for Personnel Services shall only be released upon submission by the NPO to the DBM of a certification from the BTr, the Bureau of the Treasury, that the corresponding amount sourced from collections under this fund has been deposited with the National Treasury.

Mr. Speaker, the fund referred to here is the revolving fund of the National Printing Office, meaning the fund consisting of the income derived by the NPO from their printing activities.

Mr. Speaker, I would move for the removal of such a proviso because the NPO employees, like all other government employees, are covered by the Salary Standardization Law which provides that the funds for their salaries be sourced from the General Appropriations Act. This is a highly anomalous condition which requires that the release of their salaries shall be contingent upon their depositing a certain amount of income to cover their salaries. I think that is an unfair condition to impose on the employees of the NPO. So, would the Sponsor be amenable to the deletion of such proviso which sets a precondition for the release of the Personnel Services budget, in other words, the salaries and compensation of the NPO employees, Mr. Speaker?

REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, this Representation, this Sponsor, acknowledges the sound reason of our friend from the ACT TEACHERS Party-List. Perhaps, if his proposal is to remove this provision, then there should be a proposed mechanism on the usage of funds of the NPO from their revenues. I believe this was put in place to ensure the sound management of the revenues generated by the NPO from their printing activities. That being the case, this Representation, this Sponsor, together with the NPO and the entire PCOO, is willing to reinvent the provision to make it more compliant with international standards as well as sound accounting and expenditure practices.

REP. TINIO. With the Salary Standardization Law as well, I hope, Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Sponsor.

REP. CUA. Yes, to be compliant as well with the SSL.

REP. TINIO. Thank you. Well, with that assurance, Mr. Speaker, I end my interpellation.

Thank you.

REP. CUA. Thank you, distinguished colleague. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Thank you. The Gentleman from ACT TEACHERS has yielded the floor.


REP. LAGDAMEO (M.). Mr. Speaker, we now move to the next interpellator, the Hon. Jonathan A. Dela Cruz from ABAKADA Party-List.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The Gentleman from the Party-List ABAKADA, the Honorable Dela Cruz, is recognized to interpellate the distinguished Sponsor.

You have the floor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Will the distinguished Sponsor yield to a few questions?

REP. CUA. With honor, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes. Thank you very much, Your Honor. May I know if the distinguished Sponsor is aware of the status of IBC 13?

REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, the IBC 13 privatization plan had already been submitted to the Office of the President for the approval of the proposed terms from the PCOO. The Executive Secretary had likewise recommended its approval, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Your Honor. The reason I am asking this, Your Honor, is that we have here in the audience right now, some of the workers from IBC 13, many of whom had already retired, but have certain agreements in place with the management of IBC 13. They would like us to take consideration of their situation, Mr. Speaker, and that is the reason I am bringing this up. Apparently, they have also gotten a decision from the National Labor Relations Commission with a writ of execution, Mr. Speaker, and this particular decision compels the IBC 13 to pay all of their retirement/separation benefits. It is dated June 23, 2015.

So, if Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, is in a position to advise the present management of the IBC 13, which I understand is still under the custody of the PCOO, I will appreciate it if this particular effort on the part of the retired workers will be given their just compensation as well as the compensation package provided for under this NLRC decision, will be properly looked into, and if possible, immediately implemented.

REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, the management of the IBC 13 is under the realm of the PCOO, and I was

informed by the good Undersecretary that they have not turned their backs on this obligation as dictated by the courts, of the NLRC, and they are slowly but continuously paying their obligations to the said affected employees.


The PCOO also believes that upon the privatization of the IBC 13, this will very much expedite the closure of these problems as it will infuse funds to the PCOO for them to immediately comply with the requirements of these cases of the employees.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The request is actually based on a situation which has put these workers at some disadvantage because many of them, actually all of them had actually retired and some of them are just waiting for this particular compensation package to get them through their retirement years. There is a certain urgency in this regard, and that is the reason it will be best, I think, for the IBC 13 management, which is still under the PCOO, to take a look at this and probably, come to terms with these workers pending the full privatization of the IBC 13. I understand that the IBC 13 is still in operation, Mr. Speaker, and I understand that they are still getting certain revenues from their operations and therefore, it might not be too much for the IBC 13 and the PCOO to take a look at this particular request so that they can help the workers who have labored with the station for some time get through their life in their retirement years.

That is the only request that we are having, and if Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, will not mind, we will give this particular request to you so that this can be forwarded properly to the representatives of the IBC 13 and to the Secretary of the PCOO so that they can take a look at this seriously and probably, provide some temporary relief to our retired workers, many of whom, as I said, had spent their entire career with the IBC 13.

REP. CUA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we would be more than willing to receive the said proposal, and I personally commit myself to having the Secretary and the ranks of the PCOO carefully study the possibility of acceding to the request of the proposal.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes, at least, temporarily, Mr. Speaker, in the meantime that this particular privatization effort is being undertaken because, as I said, many of them are already in retirement, many of them are just depending on their pensions, and the others are definitely depending only on the possibility of


getting their separation pay and retirement benefits. It will be a pity if we cannot even take care of our workers, many of whom, as I said, had already spent most of the best years of their lives with the IBC 13. On that note, Mr. Speaker, I will just give this to you so that this can be properly endorsed to the IBC 13 management.

I will go to another case, Your Honor. You remember that in the budgetary hearings on the PCOO, we requested for some information about the initiatives that had been taken by the Asian Productivity Organization, APO, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, which was designated as one of three agencies in government which can print and undertake projects of government, Your Honor, especially high security matters, Your Honor. So, may I just be informed whether the APO has already put in place some of these requirements, Your Honor, especially the security requirements of our passports as well as other government agency materials which have a high security value.

At this juncture, the Presiding Officer relinquished the Chair to Deputy Speaker Giorgidi B. Aggabao.

REP. CUA. Your Honor, the update is that everything is in place and the backlog regarding all the printing of these sensitive documents has already decreased.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Is it correct to assume, Your Honor, that the office requirements, especially in the case of passports because as, you know, these are very, very sensitive documents and there are also clear security considerations, are already in place?

REP. CUA. Yes, Your Honor, the agreement with the Department of Foreign Affairs had been finalized and through that agreement, all the security features had been put in place.

REP. DELA CRUZ. There will be some occasions, even after the budget hearing, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, that we will be able to take a look at the state of this particular operation so that together with the Department of Foreign Affairs, we can reassure the public that there are such features that are already put in place that will make our passports acceptable and in accordance with international standards, Your Honor.

REP. CUA. Yes, Your Honor, I would like to join you as well that we have an ocular visit to the APO facility to witness firsthand how they conduct their production.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes, thank you very much, Your Honor. Also, during the budgetary hearings, Your

Honor, we requested for a listing of all assets under the care of the PCOO, specifically PTV-4 and the Radyo ng Bayan network. Do you have that particular list with you right now, Your Honor?

REP. CUA. Yes, Your Honor, we have a copy here but I was informed that a copy had already been submitted to your office, but yes, there is another copy here.

REP. DELA CRUZ. There is a copy available of the listing of such assets. Of course, I supposed there is already some kind of valuation of these assets, Your Honor, because these assets are supposed to be embedded and inputted into the newly chartered PTV-4.

REP. CUA. Yes.

REP. DELA CRUZ. So, is the distinguished Sponsor now in a position to tell us what the financial standing of PTV-4 is?

REP. CUA. Your Honor, this year, by law, there had already been a release of a total of P892 million, and the plan is to have another P800 million released in 2016.

REP. DELA CRUZ. That will provide PTV-4 with a financial position of about P3 billion already because last year, we also had an infusion in PTV-4?

REP. CUA. Close to P3 billion, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Close to P3 billion?


REP. DELA CRUZ. My understanding is that when we approved the re-chartering of the PTV-4, there was a five-year program to make it a viable operation, Your Honor and this is part of the five-year program.


REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Your Honor. Before I close, I would just like to second the earlier injunction provided by our esteemed colleague, Congressman Tinio, regarding the requirements of the National Printing Office and since the distinguished Sponsor, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, has already acceded, making sure that all of the requests will be properly considered, I will no longer ask the questions about the National Printing Office. I will just say that I will second that particular injunction of Congressman Tinio as approved and considered by the distinguished Sponsor.


On that note, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, I thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to ask certain questions and to provide you with some information regarding some of the initiatives and undertakings in the PCOO and the attached agencies. Thank you.

REP. CUA. Thank you distinguished colleague. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Thank you, Your Honor. The Gentleman from ABAKADA Party-List has yielded the Floor.


REP. LAGDAMEO (M.). Mr. Speaker, I move that we recognize the Hon. Carlos Isagani T. Zarate for his interpellation.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The Hon. Carlos Isagani T. Zarate is recognized to interpellate the distinguished Sponsor.


REP. ZARATE. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that the Sponsor, acceded

to the motion of Congressman Tinio to reinstate the original budget of the National Printing Office, at least the budget for the Personnel Services (PS) of P133,829,000 to the same level as it was reflected in the 2015 General Appropriations Act.

Just a few questions related to the NPO, Mr. Speaker. Is the National Printing Office a regular agency under the PCOO?


REP. ZARATE. It is not a government-owned or -controlled corporation?

REP. CUA. No, it is not.

REP. ZARATE. In fact, of the three agencies accredited to print forms for the government, only the APO is not considered as a government-owned or -controlled corporation.

REP. CUA. That is correct, Your Honor.

REP. ZARATE. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I inquire, Mr. Speaker, how much budget was originally proposed by the PCOO as far as the National Printing Office is concerned for the 2016 budget?

REP. CUA. It is P133.8 million, Your Honor.

REP. ZARATE. Was there a proposal from the

PCOO submitted to the DBM as far as the MOOE is concerned for the 2016 budget?

REP. CUA. Your Honor, the total of P133 million included both PS and MOOE but the MOOE component of that is PS-related.

REP. ZARATE. So, the P133,829,000 is both PS and MOOE?

REP. CUA. Yes, that is correct.

REP. ZARATE. For 2016, no, because in 2016, what was approved by the DBM is only P19 million and there is now, at least in principle, an agreement that we will reinstate the amount of P133,829,000, the same level in 2015, for the 2016 budget but this will follow their proviso under the Special Provisions that this will only be for PS. Is that correct, Mr. Speaker?

REP. CUA. Yes, Your Honor. First of all, may I just be allowed to clarify that in no way is the Sponsor authorized to increase the appropriation at the moment, but this Sponsor promises to support, as I agreed, the laudable recommendations of the Honorable Tinio, the Honorable Dela Cruz and your recommendation.

As to the provision on how to expend the P133 million, I believe that would depend on the final version of the provision and as requested by the Honorable Tinio, they sit down and discuss thoroughly the mechanics on what to include in such a provision when it is redrafted, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. ZARATE. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that, in Congress, we really have to have a final statement on this because for several years now, the NPO is lobbying that their budget should not be made dependent or contingent on some revolving funds because it is a regular agency. Like this year, we can do so much only up to P133 million because that is the level that was approved in the previous budget and that was limited to the PS. In fact, under the Special Provisions in the previous budget and even in the present proposed budget, I think the problem there is, the PCOO and even the DBM kept on referring to Executive Order No. 378, series of 2004 as the justification why this is being done.

Mr. Speaker, I was informed, correct me if I am wrong, that this Executive Order No. 378 was already superseded by Memorandum Circular No. 180, series of 2009, also issued by then President Gloria Arroyo which, among others, stated that the National Printing Office shall continue to be the primary and main provider of printing services to national, provincial, city and municipal governments, agencies and instrumentalities,


including government corporations, as mandated by law subject to the qualifications. So, it practically reinstated the original mandate of the National Printing Office.

Would you agree to this, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor?

REP. CUA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. ZARATE. So, I think we have to revisit this, we have to harmonize this. If I may, because we kept on referring to EO 378 and this EO 378, true, when it was issued by then President Gloria Arroyo, it removed some powers and in fact, if I may call it, it privatized some functions of NPO in the guise of self-sufficiency. So, it divested the NPO of its exclusive jurisdiction in printing, for example, government forms, but under Memorandum Circular No. 180, this was already reinstated. So if this was reinstated and the NPO is still a regular agency, we have to give the NPO the regular budget it deserves for the PS, the MOOE and others, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor.

REP. CUA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, we totally agree on the appreciation of the situation that there is really a problem on how the NPO is being treated. Understandably, activities such as printing, the business of printing, it would be more convenient if this is under the scheme of a GOCC, which would probably be the reason the DBM, from a managerial perspective, tried to institute that the retained earnings be used to operate the printing services and operations. On the other hand, it is mandated by a Charter as a government line agency.

REP. ZARATE. Yes.

REP. CUA. So, tama po ang sinabi ninyo. Talagang may kaunting problema sa pag-appreciate ng sitwasyon.

REP. ZARATE. Tama po dahil ang lumalabas dito, halimbawa, pinapaboran ng DBM ang APO dahil ito ay GOCC kaya kumikita pero kumokonti ang printing jobs for the NPO, tapos, ang nilagay natin dito sa budget ay dependent ang kanilang PS at MOOE sa kinikita nila kaya mayroong revolving fund. Wala na hong magpapa-print doon sa NPO dahil nandoon na lahat sa APO and that is happening now. Some forms are already being farmed-out to APO, to BSP and in fact, to some other private entities. Ang term nga nila dito, ng mga kawani ng NPO, parang “we are killing them softly.” Dahan-dahan, taun-taon, pinapatay sila dahil taun-taon na lang nagla-lobby sila para sa kanilang budget.

Sa tingin ko, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sponsor, nasa kamay natin na i-correct ang anomalous situation na ito, kung saan ang isang regular na ahensiya ay taun-taon na lang

nagmamakaawa na bigyan sila ng pondo, samantalang ang ibang ahensiya naman ay regular na binibigyan ng pondo.

REP. CUA. Sang-ayon po kami sa inyong panananaw, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

REP. ZARATE. Sana po, samahan tayo ng Sponsor at ng ating mga kasamahan na ituwid na ito in this 2016 budget. We can craft a special provision that will already correct this mistake in the past, Mr. Sponsor, Mr. Speaker.

REP. CUA. Iyan po ay isang magandang suggestion na aming seseryosohin at sisikapin namin na magkaroon ng magandang special provision. Para lang po sa ating kaalaman, kanina po nag-usap kami ng Kalihim ng PCOO, at sinabi niya na dapat din talagang bisitahin ang Charter ng NPO at ng APO at tingnan kung ano ang pinakamagandang pagsasa-ayos ng dalawang ahensiyang ito at kung ano ang pinakamagandang kinabukasan para maging mas maayos ang printing service ng ating gobyerno.

REP. ZARATE. Salamat po. Sana nga po ay talagang mabigyan natin ng katugunan ito dahil nandito naman ang mga kawani/empleyado ng NPO at talagang ito ang dinadalangin nila nang mabigyan ng tuldok ang problema nila taun-taon nalang. By the way po, kung puwede ko lang pong matanong, in the 2015 budget that we approved, there was this revolving fund for P133 million but, again, as pointed out earlier by Representative Tinio, parang contingent siya. How much of the P131 million was already released by the DBM?

REP. CUA. Wala po.

REP. ZARATE. Wala pa po? So, saan ho nagmula ang pasuweldo at iyong lahat na benepisyo ng ating mga kawani?

REP. CUA. Kinuha po ang mga pasuweldo mula sa kanilang retained earnings.

REP. ZARATE. From their retained earnings? Hindi ho nagmula dito sa revolving fund na ito?

REP. CUA. Hindi po. Hindi po natuloy ang iskema ng pag-deposit sa Treasury, kung saan pagkatapos ng pag-deposit, ire-release ng DBM sa NPO. Hindi pa natuloy ang pag-ikot ng kuwarta ng ganoon at ang nangyari, ang mga suweldo ng mga empleyado ay nanggagaling sa kanilang retained earnings.

REP. ZARATE. Salamat po, Mr. Speaker. May


I know, Mr. Sponsor, Mr. Speaker, how much is the retained earnings now of the NPO as we speak now, less all the expenses?

REP. CUA. Above P200 million is available in their retained earnings account, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. ZARATE. So, P200 million but, of course, this will be used for operations, …

REP. CUA. Yes.

REP. ZARATE. … the MOOE, …

REP. CUA. Yes, and salaries.

REP. ZARATE. … and the salaries, of course. Hanggang sa katapusan ng taon ay kakayanin pa ito, Mr. Sponsor, Mr. Speaker? Then again, I am going back to my earlier statement na habang wala ho talagang regular budget ay nalalagay din palagi sa alanganin itong ating mga kawani.

Mabuti ngayon at mayroon pang P200 million, but when the time comes na paliit nang paliit nga iyong printing activities nila dahil nga there appears to be a competition now between the APO and the NPO, at siyempre itong APO ay, sa tingin ng iba, napapaboran doon sa pag-a-award ng mga printing jobs, lumiliit nang lumiliit iyong napupunta sa NPO at darating ang panahon na kung hindi natin sila bibigyan ng regular na budget ay malalagay sila sa alanganin.

Before I end my interpellation, Mr. Sponsor, Mr. Speaker, I hope the Sponsor will also agree na we have to make a definitive stand that Executive Order No. 378 and Memorandum Circular No. 80 should be harmonized because we keep on referring to EO 378 when it was already superseded, Mr. Sponsor, Mr. Speaker.

REP. CUA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. We take note and we accept the good suggestion of the Gentleman.

REP. ZARATE. So, with that, Mr. Sponsor, Mr. Speaker, I am ending my interpellation.

REP. CUA. Maraming salamat po. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Honorable Zarate has yielded the floor.The Asst. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. LAGDAMEO (M.). Mr. Speaker, I move that we recognize the Honorable Ridon of the Minority.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The

Gentleman from the KABATAAN Party-List, the Honorable Ridon, is recognized.

REP. RIDON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On the part of the Minority, there being no other Member who wishes to interpellate, we move to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the Presidential Communications Operations Office, including its attached agencies and corporation.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Thank you.


REP. LAGDAMEO (M.). Mr. Speaker, we join the motion of the Minority in terminating the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Presidential Communications Operations Office, including its attached agencies and corporation.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). On motion of the Minority, concurred in by the Majority, is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

The period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Presidential Communications Operations Office, including its attached agencies and corporation, is terminated.



REP. LAGDAMEO (M.). Mr. Speaker, I move for a few minutes suspension of the session.


It was 6:22 p.m.





NATIONAL ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

REP. LAGDAMEO (M.). Mr. Speaker, I move that we open the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), including its attached agencies and corporation, and for that purpose, I move


that we recognize the Sponsor, the Hon. Gabriel Luis R. Quisumbing.


The sponsorship, interpellation and debate for the budget of the National Economic and Development Authority, including its attached agencies and corporation, is opened, and the Gentleman from Cebu, the Honorable Quisumbing, is recognized to sponsor the said budget.

Please proceed, Mr. Speaker.

REP. QUISUMBING. Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues. This Representation has the honor to present for the consideration of this august Body the budget of the National Economic and Development Authority and its attached agencies. We are now ready for questions, Mr. Speaker.


REP. LAGDAMEO (M.). Mr. Speaker, I move that we recognize the only interpellator, the Hon. Jonathan A. Dela Cruz from the Party-List ABAKADA.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). We recognize the only interpellator from the Party-List ABAKADA. The Honorable Dela Cruz is recognized to interpellate the distinguished Sponsor. The Gentleman has the floor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Will the distinguished Sponsor of the budget of the NEDA and its attached agencies yield to a few questions?

REP. QUISUMBING. It will be a pleasure, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am poised to inquire on the activities and practices of the NEDA with a sad heart, Mr. Speaker, precisely because it appears to me that the NEDA, the central planning agency of government, has apparently ceded its powers, duties and mandate to certain other agencies in the government in the Economic Cluster. It has failed to assert its mandate. It has failed to assert its professionalism, and it has allowed other agencies in the government to run roughshod over the economic policies of this administration.

That is the reason I had wanted to inquire from the distinguished Sponsor if there is a way by which we can probably reenergize the NEDA, its professional

staff. I know many of them and they have been in the service of the country for a long, long time and have been providing very, very responsible and good service to the country, Mr. Speaker. I know the leadership of the NEDA. They are very good professionals, Mr. Speaker. The professional staff at the NEDA has been performing well but unfortunately, as I said, it has failed, the institution itself has failed to assert its powers and mandate.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I want to find out from the NEDA, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, whether it still maintains its very, very robust and optimistic assessment regarding the prospects of the country’s economy in the near term and probably, for the next year or two. The assessment coming from the Economic Cluster, Mr. Speaker, apparently started at 6 to 7 percent but given the situation right now, Mr. Speaker, is that still the same assessment as far as the growth of economy is concerned on the part of the NEDA leadership?

REP. QUISUMBING. Yes, Mr. Speaker. As the distinguished Gentleman mentioned earlier, the range for the growth that the NEDA had targeted is between 6 to 7 percent. In the first quarter of 2015, the economy grew by 5.2 percent. However, the NEDA is confident that with the increase in public infrastructure spending as well as other factors in the third and fourth quarters, we will realistically hit the target of 6 to 6.5 percent, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. It is still asserting that we will be able to hold up at 6 to 6.5 percent, Mr. Speaker?

REP. QUISUMBING. The indicators indicate that we will hit that target, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. That is not due to pre-election spending? That is due to certain things that we are doing, including the spending for infrastructure?

REP. QUISUMBING. That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Well, if that is the case, I hope the NEDA will take a second look at its assumptions because it appears to me, Mr. Speaker, that these assumptions are, at best, highly optimistic and at worst, quite improbable. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I just want to find out if in the view of the NEDA leadership, we will be able to meet our Millennium Development Goal targets in the case of poverty eradication, educational system, school participation, empowerment of women, and access to sanitary toilet facilities and safe water. Are these particular targets which we have committed ourselves to, Mr. Speaker, still attainable in the view of


the NEDA leadership, or are these no longer available for us?

REP. QUISUMBING. Mr. Speaker, on the Millennium Development Goals, the NEDA is—if you could give me one moment, Your Honor, to pull out the ...

REP. DELA CRUZ. They are still confident that we will be able to meet the Millennium Development Goals despite the setbacks that have been incurring over the past few months and even for the past few years, Mr. Speaker? Over the past years, we have been really unable to meet our Millennium Development Goals.

REP. QUISUMBING. Mr. Speaker, there is a high probability that in 2015, the NEDA is projecting that we will reach our Millennium Development Goals on reducing food poverty, improving elementary participation, enhancing educational opportunities for girls, reducing the under-five and infant mortality, reducing the prevalence of malaria and deaths associated with the disease, and improving the access of families to a safe water supply and sanitary toilet facilities, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I will appreciate it if the distinguished Sponsor can provide us with, at the very least, a document that can show how all these can be undertaken—all these very robust and optimistic views on the state of our economy and the probability of our meeting the Millennium Development Goals.

I will not belabor the point at this point, Mr. Speaker. I will appreciate it if that can be provided us by way of some documents so that we can at least content ourselves with the possibility of participating in ensuring that these particular goals or targets will be met by way of providing the necessary funds to the various agencies that may be requiring these funds, Mr. Speaker, in order for us to meet the targets and, of course, to the NEDA so that it can better prepare our plans for that particular purpose.

REP. QUISUMBING. We will comply, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, one of the more urgent requirements that we have is the manner by which we are going to meet the threat of El Niño. I would like to find out if the NEDA has already come out with some documentation in order for us to meet this particular threat, Mr. Speaker, and if it has, what are the features of this particular plan that we have because the threat is already in place. We are about to go there, and if we cannot properly respond to this challenge, we will probably have lesser than the projected growth target, Mr. Speaker.

REP. QUISUMBING. Mr. Speaker, after extensive consultations with the different stakeholders, the NEDA has come up with a roadmap for the mitigation of the effects of El Niño and is currently in the process of finalizing the same, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. When does the Gentleman think we will be given this because if we are still going to finalize the measures, the plan itself, Mr. Speaker, it is already here and the effects of El Niño will be with us probably after we get out of this plenary hall, but when do you think this will be available?

REP. QUISUMBING. I am assured, Mr. Speaker, that by next week, the NEDA will have finalized their report.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Of course, this will involve a lot of other agencies, including local government units, Mr. Speaker, and the private sector.


REP. DELA CRUZ. Will that be provided to us, probably, before we end the budget deliberations, Mr. Speaker?

REP. QUISUMBING. We will comply, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to find out from the distinguished Sponsor, Mr. Speaker, the processes right now that are involved because apparently, the processes for the determination of priority projects as well as their final approval have changed. So, I just want to find out from the distinguished Sponsor if we have some information regarding the processes involved insofar as project development and approval are concerned because, especially for high-impact and high-value projects, Mr. Speaker, this will require NEDA approval. Just as an example, I want to find out if the NEDA was consulted insofar as this huge P124-billion North and South Rail Project is involved. Was it ever consulted? Did it give its approval and is it monitoring the implementation of this particular project, Mr. Speaker?

REP. QUISUMBING. Mr. Speaker, is the Gentleman referring to the PPP projects or the projects in general, Mr. Speaker?

REP. DELA CRUZ. I am referring specifically to this project, Mr. Speaker, North and South Rail Project.


REP. QUISUMBING. Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is a PPP project that was endorsed by the NEDA Board, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. How is it being implemented right now, Mr. Speaker, because I understand that the terms of reference are incomplete and that includes also, of course, the draft concession agreement? This is going to be a PPP project and so, there is a concession agreement that is attached to it. I understand that right now, the DOTC, which is the implementing agency, is accelerating the accreditation of possible participants in this project and by doing so, it may compromise the integrity of this particular project which may lead to more problems rather than solutions, Mr. Speaker.

REP. QUISUMBING. Mr. Speaker, that project is currently still under the prequalification stage.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes, but, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, I am told that the DOTC has placed a particular deadline and we are talking about 15 days from now—actually 14 days from now, October 15—as the deadline for the prequalification of contractors when this particular project was only announced about a month ago. That seems to me a very, very short deadline for prequalification. Not many corporations, Mr. Speaker, can comply because it is a P124-billion peso project.

REP. QUISUMBING. Yes, Mr Speaker. Currently, several interested parties have requested for an extension and that is being deliberated on now by the Bids and Awards Committee of the DOTC, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. So, a lot of companies which would like to participate have requested for an extension for the prequalification?


REP. DELA CRUZ. So, this is not an absolute deadline, October 15?


REP. DELA CRUZ. I would hope so because if the DOTC insists on this particular deadline, I believe there will only be one or two prequalified bidders, Mr. Speaker, and that will be a pity. We will go into the same problems that we are now having in almost all of the transportation projects of the DOTC. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I want to find out how it is or what is the process right now? A government agency, for example,

the DOTC, proposes a project and if it is a public-private partnership, of course, it goes to the PPP Center first which discusses it with the implementing agency and then, it goes to the NEDA Board.

REP. QUISUMBING. Mr. Speaker, the NEDA collates the proposals from the different implementing agencies and prepares the public investment program which is elevated to the Investment Coordination Council. The results of the deliberations thereon are then elevated to the NEDA Board for approval, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In other words, for projects of this nature, Mr. Speaker, the participation of the NEDA is embedded in the entire process.


REP. DELA CRUZ. That means that the agencies are also being monitored by the NEDA itself insofar as the development of these projects is concerned and eventually, in the implementation of these projects.

REP. QUISUMBING. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, that is correct.

REP. DELA CRUZ. In many instances, I suppose the NEDA is also consulting other agencies on the use of the concessional arrangements under the Official Development Assistance (ODA) Program.

REP. QUISUMBING. Yes.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Is this particular route still being used by the NEDA or has it been heavily dependent on public-private partnerships?

REP. QUISUMBING. Depending on the needs of the project, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the NEDA still coordinates.

REP. DELA CRUZ. In other words, the NEDA also takes a look at how best these particular projects can be implemented, whether this can be implemented by way of relying on Overseas Development Assistance and therefore, will be implemented on a government basis, or doing it on a public-private partnership.

REP. QUISUMBING. That is correct, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. There are certain standards for this at this point in time.


REP. QUISUMBING. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. There is a provision in the NEDA budget for research and feasibility studies. I remember last year, there was a P400-million Feasibility Studies Fund. Has this particular fund been used up, Mr. Speaker, and is there an additional fund for 2016?

REP. QUISUMBING. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. In 2015, P400 million was allocated for feasibility studies and the fund had already been utilized. There are 14 projects within the scope of this Feasibility Studies Fund, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. So. 14 projects?

REP. QUISUMBING. That is correct, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. For 2016, how much is the fund for feasibility studies?

REP. QUISUMBING. In 2015?

REP. DELA CRUZ. For 2016.

REP. QUISUMBING. There is no provision for the fund in 2016, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. There is no provision, meaning that the NEDA has enough resources to fund whatever is needed for feasibility studies.

REP. QUISUMBING. As much as the NEDA would have wanted a fund for additional feasibility studies, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the item was not carried in the Budget Committee.

REP. DELA CRUZ. The reason I am asking this, Mr. Speaker, is, I suppose there will be a need for that kind of fund all over again. Did the NEDA ever suggest and incorporate in its original proposal to the Department of Budget and Management, a Feasibility Studies Fund and if so, how much did it suggest?

REP. QUISUMBING. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. A proposal in the original budget call included a Feasibility Studies Fund in the same amount for 2016, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Of P400 million?

REP. QUISUMBING. Yes, P400 million, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Of course, it must have a justification for this, distinguished Sponsor, for the P400 million.

REP. QUISUMBING. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, there were proposals attached to that budget request.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, I am amazed that this particular P400 million was scratched off the budget of the NEDA. If there is any possibility, we will have to at least put a certain amount and if it is not P400 million, at least a certain respectable amount so that the NEDA can actively undertake this particular effort of providing the necessary feasibility studies for various projects of consequence to the nation, Mr. Speaker. So, at the appropriate time, I will propose the reinstatement of that particular budget for feasibility studies and if the distinguished Sponsor can probably ask from the NEDA the original proposal, including the attached projects or, the projects attached to it, Mr. Speaker, we will appreciate it so that we can make the necessary insertions for that purpose in the final amendment of the 2016 General Appropriations Bill.

REP. QUISUMBING. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the NEDA is grateful for the support of the distinguished Gentleman from ABAKADA Party-List and will comply with the request.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Your Honor. Finally, I want to find out from the NEDA, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, if it is, in any manner or form, involved in the justification of what they call a Risk Management Program which will involve putting up P30 billion. Is the NEDA involved?

REP. QUISUMBING. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, this program that was mentioned by the distinguished Gentleman is a program under the Department of Finance with inputs from the PPP Center.

REP. DELA CRUZ. The distinguished Sponsor can probably encourage the PPP Center and the NEDA, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, to provide us with some information regarding this and the kind of justification in place in order for us to approve this P30-billion Risk Management Program fund, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker. It will be an opportunity for us to take a look at what this particular fund will cover, what are the incidents by which certain participants can avail of this particular fund, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker.

REP. QUISUMBING. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the PPP Center had a study made on this particular item and they will submit it to your good office, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.


REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, because that will be of help to us especially since we are in the process right now of discussing the reduction in the tax rates for lowly paid workers, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, and if we have a P30-billion Risk Management Program fund for big businesses, we must at least have some risk management program by way of income tax reduction for the masses of our people, especially the working people. So, that can also be submitted probably by next week, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker?

REP. QUISUMBING. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, we will comply.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker. I will have no other questions at this point in time, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker. On the other questions, I will probably just put them in writing and request the distinguished Sponsor to submit them to the NEDA for purposes of providing us the necessary answers. There are lot of other issues and concerns that we have but the main point of all these exercises, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, is to encourage the NEDA to assert itself and to make sure that it becomes truly the central government planning agency that it is involved in providing the roadmap— as it has always provided, the roadmap for Philippine development not only in the near term but for the long term, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker. As I said, we would like to encourage the NEDA by way of providing them with the necessary resources for that purpose, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, because I know that the NEDA has a very good professional staff and it will be a pity if we cannot optimize the use of such professional staff for the country’s development.

So, on that note, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor, thank you for giving us the opportunity to voice some of our concerns. Thank you very much.

REP. QUISUMBING. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Thank you, Your Honor. The Gentleman from ABAKADA Party-List has yielded the floor.


REP. LAGDAMEO (M.). Mr. Speaker, I move that we recognize the Honorable Ridon from the Minority.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The Honorable Ridon is recognized.

REP. RIDON. Mr. Speaker, on the part of the Minority, there being no other Member who wishes to interpellate, we move to terminate the sponsorship, interpellation and debate on the proposed budget of

the National Economic and Development Authority, including its attached agencies and corporation.


REP. LAGDAMEO (M.). Mr. Speaker, the Majority joins the motion of the Minority in terminating the period of sponsorship, interpellation and debate on the proposed budget of the National Economic and Development Authority, including its attached agencies and corporation.


On motion of the Minority concurred by the Majority, the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the National Economic and Development Authority, including its attached agencies and corporation, is terminated.



REP. LAGDAMEO (M.). Mr. Speaker, I move for a few minutes suspension of the session.


It was 6:50 p.m.





CLIMATE CHANGE COMMISSION

REP. LAGDAMEO (M.). Mr. Speaker, I move that we open the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the Climate Change Commission, and for that purpose, I move that we recognize the Sponsor, the Hon. Ma. Victoria R. Sy-Alvarado from the First District of Bulacan.


The period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Climate Change Commission is opened. The Lady from Bulacan, the Honorable Sy-Alvarado, is recognized to sponsor the said budget.



REP. SY-ALVARADO. Good evening, Mr. Speaker. The Climate Change Commission is ready for any queries or interpellation in relation to the proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2016, Mr. Speaker.


REP. LAGDAMEO (M.). Mr. Speaker, I move that we recognize the only interpellator for this agency, the Hon. Jose L. Atienza Jr. from Party-List BUHAY.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The Honorable Atienza is recognized to interpellate the distinguished Sponsor.


REP. ATIENZA. Maraming salamat po, Mr. Speaker. Will the Gentlelady just clarify certain matters about the functions of the Climate Change Commission in relation to the budget that they are now requesting from this Body?

REP. SY-ALVARADO. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

REP. ATIENZA. Mr. Speaker, we would like to ask the Gentlelady to present to this Body—incidentally, it is getting very cold because we have Members who have left, medyo lumalamig na kaya hindi ko tatagalan itong aking question—just questions on some basic things and issues involving the functions of the Climate Change Commission.

Ito po bang Komisyong ito ay maituturing nating mahalaga sa istruktura ng ating pamahalaan ngayon at in one very clear, simple definition, how would you describe the Climate Change Commission in relation to the total administration of our government right now?

REP. SY-ALVARADO. Mr. Speaker, the Climate Change Commission was created by Republic Act No. 9729 and mainly, this Act is for mainstreaming climate change into government policy formulations, establishing the framework strategy and program on climate change, creating for this purpose the Climate Change Commission, and for other purposes, for mitigation. It is the sole policymaking body of the government on climate change and is tasked to coordinate, monitor and evaluate the programs and action plans relating to climate change as per Republic Act No. 10174, Mr. Speaker.

REP. ATIENZA. Is the Chairwoman or Chairman of the Commission present in today’s deliberations of the budget?

REP. SY-ALVARADO. The Chairperson po is the President of the Philippines and the Vice Chairperson is present.

REP. ATIENZA. So, is the Vice Chairperson present?

REP. SY-ALVARADO. Very much, Mr. Speaker.

REP. ATIENZA. She is right behind you, the very charming lady from Mindanao.

Alam po natin ang kahalagahan ng climate change sa ating ginagalawang mundo ngayon. No less than the President himself has attended major international conferences on the issue. The problems brought by climate change all over the world are immeasurable. The damage is tragic. In fact, we just experienced the Yolanda storm surge or tidal waves in Leyte and therefore, we would consider climate change as a major problem now facing the Philippine islands.

I am a bit worried because looking at the budget, I can only estimate that about P88 million was allotted for this very important function. So, could you give us an idea on why the budget is so measly, minimal, for a very important, critical office that should really be preparing the country and our countrymen on the threats of climate change, and how we could possibly help in mitigating the impact and the destructive effects of this climate change?

REP. SY-ALVARADO. Mr. Speaker, in response to the statement of the Honorable Atienza, the proposed budget for 2016, based on the NEP, is P132 billion, 4.4 percent of the total budget and this is distributed to the different agencies with climate change budget. We have here for the DENR, P12. 9 billion; DPWH, P95.3 billion; Department of Agriculture, P7.2 billion; Department of Tourism, P8.1 billion; MMDA, P1.9 billion; and for the other agencies, we still have to collate the figures, Mr. Speaker. We will submit this to your office, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. ATIENZA. So, you would say, Mr. Speaker, that the budget of the government to handle the responsibility of preparing the country for the destructive effects of climate change and global warming is distributed among the different departments. May we ask therefore, what is the function of the Climate Change Commission if they are not in any way involved in the handling of the funds which are critical to effect whatever they are trying to accomplish?

REP. SY-ALVARADO. Mr. Speaker, the major task of the Climate Change Commission is, according to Executive Order No. 174 is the institutionalization of greenhouse gas inventory; and its mandate is to lead


the policymaking of the government on climate change per Section 9 of Republic Act No. 9729 as amended, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. ATIENZA. So, you are saying that the main function is policy definition?

REP. SY-ALVARADO. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. ATIENZA. So, may I ask a hypothetical question as far as budget usage is concerned. If you say that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources is given P12 billion, in what way would the Commission be able to ensure the proper usage of this fund?

REP. SY-ALVARADO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the other function of the Commission is coordination with the different agencies as well as monitoring and evaluation.

REP. ATIENZA. So, would you say that the actual usage of this fund is known to the Climate Change Commission?


REP. ATIENZA. So, for the record, may I inquire, in the past year, what did the DENR do to mitigate the negative, destructive effects of climate change on the Philippines as far as the Climate Change Commission is concerned and are they satisfied with what is being done? Or they feel that it is still inadequate and therefore should be noted down?

REP. SY-ALVARADO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the DENR has a National Greening Program to help in the mitigation of the effects and adaptation to climate change.

REP. ATIENZA. So, the bulk of the P12 billion is going to the Greening Program, the reforestation of our denuded areas, the planting of more trees in the different regions.


REP. ATIENZA. In the opinion of the Climate Change Commission, have they accomplished any effect through this Greening Program that started so many years ago and is still being continued now? I noticed that P12 billion is indeed a great amount, much more than what has been allotted to that particular

requirement all these past decades. Twelve billion pesos for greening and reforestation is a huge amount. So, in the mind of the Commission, would they say that the greening effort is succeeding at this point? What percentage of denuded forests is now covered and what would be the total area of our forested areas that had been recovered from destruction?

REP. SY-ALVARADO. In terms of increasing the carbon sequestration potential from the forests, Mr. Speaker, the National Greening Program really helps in the mitigation of the effects of climate change. The program of the DENR really becomes so effective, Mr. Speaker. For example, the reforestation in the Sierra Madre mountain, we can see the effects of reforestation in our province of Bulacan. In Iloilo, in Mindanao, there are also parts; and in Pangasinan, there is also reforestation; in Nueva Ecija, there is also reforestation, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. ATIENZA. So, can the Congresswoman from Bulacan give us an estimate as to the targets for 2016 if this P12-billion budget for reforestation is given the DENR? Ilan po ba ang total hectarage ng forested areas natin? Ilan po ang area na natamnan na muli at ano pa ho ba ang hectarage na masasabi nating kulang pa kaya kailangang dagdagan ang budget para ma-anticipate natin for next year? Twelve billion pesos may not be enough and so, we will work for a bigger budget for reforestation, knowing that is one of the most critical requirements for mitigating the destructive effects of climate change. Mayroon po ba tayong mga figures na iyon?

REP. SY-ALVARADO. Mr. Speaker, if I remember it right, there is 620,000 hectares in Bulacan alone.

REP. ATIENZA. So, could we get the latest picture of our forested areas and the problems that are still existing at this point? I would like to inform the Lady, I will also be questioning and inquiring from the Department of Environment on this fundamental issue of reforestation, but if you could help us gather more data that would give us a better appreciation of what is going on in the reforestation, we would appreciate it.

REP. SY-ALVARADO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, we are very glad to submit to you the data with regard to your query.

REP. ATIENZA. Would the Gentlelady admit also and accept the fact that the water bodies all over the country play a major factor in our efforts to improve the country’s condition in addressing the problem of global warming which is contributory to the climate change? Ngayon po, ang bagyo ay mas malakas, pati kulog


ay malakas. Kung napapansin ninyo, ang kulog natin ngayon ay hindi lamang po ordinary. Iyon po ay mga palatandaan ng impact ng pagbabago ng panahon. Iyong dumarating na mga bagyo sa bansa ay kahina-hinala sapagkat kung minsan ay bigla na lang sumusulpot kaya hindi natin nabibigyan ng pansin.

So, on water bodies, ilan po ba ang ating mga ilog, lawa, sapa at lahat ng mga water bodies sa bansa? Do you have this data right now or if not, we would appreciate your giving this to us immediately so that we could confront again the Department of Environment when they come to Congress to work on their budget?

REP. SY-ALVARADO. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, we will be glad to submit to you all the data that you need with regard to water bodies.

REP. ATIENZA. We noticed, Mr. Speaker, that the budget of the Commission on Climate Change is limited to almost salaries and wages of the actual employees of the Commission. So, could you tell the Body—ilan nalang po kami naririto ngayon—-in confidence, tell us how effective is the work of the Climate Change Commission in relation to the magnitude of requirements so that we as a nation and as a people would be better prepared for the impending destruction? Mind you, according to the experts on climate change from the United Nations no less, they are projecting that the Philippines would be one of the most destroyed nations due to climate change unless the trend changes now and not later.

So, lahat nitong pinagsisikapan natin ay may kaugnayan sa paghahanda o paglaban, the mitigation of the destructive effects and the adaptation of the nation to our conditions. So, would you say that the Climate Change Commission right now—headed no less by the President himself as you said and we only have a Vice Chair to question at this point—that it is doing effective work, or is this merely a way of putting the item in the budget and it would be most difficult to monitor this later on?

REP. SY-ALVARADO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, as far as I know, the Climate Change Commission has been effective in the mitigation and adaptation—in the formulation of policies and programs to mitigate the climate change.


REP. ATIENZA. Mr. Speaker, I understand the position of the lady Sponsor, my good friend, Congresswoman Sy-Alvarado, and I also understand the opinion of the Vice Chair of the Commission, but at this point in time, this Representation is not ready to

accept the answer that the work of the Climate Change Commission is effective at all because you are not in control of the requirements that have to be done. Your budget, as you said, is spread all over the bureaucracy—baka pati ang Department of Tourism ay mayroon ding climate change portion sa kanilang budget. Since they will be ones next to after you, I next after you, I would like to ask them, do they have a portion of the climate change budget in the Department of Tourism? Or kasama rin po ba iyong Department of Education? Nagkalat po iyong budget pero sa totoo lang, I am sure we cannot exact from the Climate Change Commission, at this point, a comprehensive, accurate, clear position of the country as far as mitigating the destructive effects of climate change.

Hindi ko na po pahahabain ang problema ng aking kaibigang Kongresista sa Bulacan but I would like to manifest, Mr. Speaker, that the setup of the country and our government today as far as addressing this very critical issue of climate change, global warming and the destruction being brought upon us—right now, a storm, a typhoon is raging in the upper portion of Luzon and we will be expecting more of this. We are also experiencing or going to experience a severe El Niño and so, the Climate Change Commission should have been preparing for this and our nation should have been forewarned. We do not know what is going to happen to our crops, to our agricultural production with the impending El Niño coming to the islands.

So I am manifesting that the setup of the Climate Change Commission is, to say the least, misplaced kasi wala po silang magagawa. Pinag-aaralan ko iyong budget nila e puro po pangsuweldo lamang iyon at babahagya lamang po iyong konting halaga para sa printing of materials. They have something like P2 million for printing of materials—P2 million pesos to educate our people. Sa palagay ko, mahihirapan talaga ang magagaling nating mga technicians na bumubuo sa Komisyon sapagkat ang kailangan ng ating gobyerno ngayon ay tunay na pagharap at pondong sapat upang ang mga requirements at pangangailangan sa pagpapakalat ng wastong impormasyon upang ihanda ang ating mga mamamayan ay matugunan.

I would have asked many other questions in relation to local government units, the geo-hazard mapping that has been completed and that should be well-known already to all agencies and to all the local government officials, but I would guess that I would not want the Vice Chair to be answering these questions because I know she will be merely put in a precarious sensitive spot. Yet I would like to stress na hindi tama ang ating kalagayan ngayon dito sa tinatawag nating paghahanda sapagkat binalaan na tayo ng United Nations in so many international conferences where the Philippines was a participant, directly and unequivocally to be prepared for the impact of climate change. We are now


experiencing the initial effects of all these—El Niño coming in, the typhoons which are becoming stronger and the elements bearing on us, the weather conditions worsening in many parts of the country, and we have a Climate Change Commission that is existing only in name. Hindi po naman tama iyon.

So, I would like to work on some kind of a study to improve our country’s position in preparing for the destructive effects of climate change as we cannot expect much from this present setup. “You cannot squeeze,” as the good old saying goes, “blood from a turnip” sapagkat wala po talagang kakayahan, walang talagang magagawa sapagkat hindi nila hawak ang tunay na kapangyarihan dahil kung sino ang may pondo, siya ang may kapangyarihan. Masasabi natin na ang magagawa lamang ng ating mga magagaling na Climate Change Commissioners ay makipag-usap at makiusap sa mga kinauukulan.

So, just for a closing point on our position on the matter, may I ask the Lady from Bulacan, where the information is coming from the Vice Chair herself, how often have they met with the Chairperson of the Climate Change Commission and that is the President of the Philippines himself? Do they even meet regularly once a month, once in two months, once in six months? This government has been in existence for the past five years kaya ilang beses na po silang kinausap ng Pangulo tungkol sa climate change at sa trabahong pinagsisikapan nila?

REP. SY-ALVARADO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, I was informed by the Vice Chair that they meet often and the last meeting was yesterday.

REP. ATIENZA. For the record, Mr. Speaker, I am denying that particular statement because in our other budget meetings, I was able to extract the truth. The President is not really on top of the efforts to provide preparations for climate change in the country. I can understand the Vice Chair as saying that she meets with the President. I can even accept if she says that the President calls her for consultation, but I know for a fact that she is by herself with her group of commissioners in this body. We are not prepared to face climate change, global warming and all the other destructive elements of nature which are going to bear down on the Philippines. Let it be on record—hindi tayo naghahanda. Lahat ito ay may kaugnayan lamang sa preparation ng budget but in reality, there is no comprehensive, clear direction kung saan pupunta ang Pilipinas kapag tayo ay tinamaan na ng malalaking tidal waves na sinabi ng mga eksperto na tatama dito sa ating kapuluan.

Maraming-maraming salamat po, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Lady for being patient and understanding. It is not her fault; it is neither the fault of the Vice Chair. This is a serious shortcoming of this administration.

Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Banal). The Asst. Majority leader is recognized.

REP. SY-ALVARADO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. ROMUALDO. Mr. Speaker, the next Member to interpellate the Sponsor is the Gentleman from KABATAAN Party-List, the Hon. Terry L. Ridon. I move that he be recognized.

REP. RIDON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Banal). The distinguished Gentleman, Congressman Terry Ridon, is recognized for his very short interpellation.

REP. RIDON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, I just want to ask about the preparations of the Climate Change Commission in the 2015 COP21 which will be held in December 2015 in Paris, France, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague. What are the preparations that the Philippines is going to bring to the table in the negotiations? We also would want to know whether or not the Philippines will have a leading role in representing emerging economies during the negotiations, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor.

REP. SY-ALVARADO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the next negotiations will happen on the first week of October and the technical working group is going to discuss climate change mitigations and adaptation before the Paris Convention, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. RIDON. Yes, thank you. During the Paris meeting, what are the Philippines and emerging economies expecting to get from this particular new round of negotiations? Are we expecting new commitments by the larger powers to commit to further reducing their emissions in the next couple of years or in the next couple of months, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague? This has largely been the trouble that many of the emerging economies have been facing in almost every round of talks and so, we just want to know whether or not this particular new round will achieve something substantial in comparison to what had been undertaken in the last couple of years, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

REP. SY-ALVARADO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the position of our country, particularly the Climate Change Commission, is on the climate finance agreement and $10 billion was already released and they are still waiting for $100 billion to be released up to year 2020, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.


REP. RIDON. Thank you for your response, Mr. Speaker, distinguished Sponsor. On my particular question on whether or not the CCC or emerging economies are expecting something substantial to be made as a commitment by larger powers, is there anything that is part of the technical working group in previous weeks or the coming weeks to this effect because as I understand in the last state visit of China to the United States, there had been particular commitments on cutting down emissions. So, I was wondering whether or not this particular bilateral commitment of China to the United States would be carried forth in the climate negotiations in Paris in December, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

REP. SY-ALVARADO. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, it is considered.

REP. RIDON. Okay. Well, aside from all of these things, of course, we are expecting that the Climate Change Commission will competently represent the Philippines in these particular climate negotiations. With respect to the mitigation and adaptation mechanisms that we had already undertaken in the past, can we state that these had already been substantial, or is it the case that because we have not yet been able to use the People’s Survival Fund (PSF), there are particular difficulties in proceeding with all of these adaptation and mitigation mechanisms, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague?

REP. SY-ALVARADO. Mr. Speaker, we are assured that the fund will be released. 1925 02 OCT

REP. RIDON. Yes and I understand, being a

member of Special Committee on Climate Change and so we had received some briefings by the CCC itself, that there had been particular difficulties really in the use of the People’s Survival Fund. Is it not because of the layers of bureaucracy that needed to be surmounted by project proposals and project proponents simply to access and use all these funds? Is that not correct, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague?

REP. SY-ALVARADO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, 2015, this current year, the People’s Survival Fund was released, P1 billion or P2 billion; and the call for proposals from the LGUs, 150 LGUs, on October 22 next year—for this year, if the proposals of the LGUs are acceptable, then it will be released, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. RIDON. Thank you for your response. I am very interested also in the mechanism in the use of the People’s Survival Fund. I understand there are standards that are being undertaken to make certain that these funds are used diligently. So, is it more of a problem

of the layers of bureaucracy, or what are the difficulties that the CCC has been facing in the use of this particular fund, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague?

REP. SY-ALVARADO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, as far as I was informed, there is no problem with the release of this Survival Fund if the proposals that will come from the LGUs will be acceptable, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. RIDON. Yes. As a final question on the People’s Survival Fund, the ultimate determination, the approval or disapproval of project proposals of LGUs is determined by whom again? Is it determined by a body, is it determined solely by a singular personality or is it determined by a committee, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague? There has been a lingering suspicion that maybe, this might constitute as a pork barrel of executive officers of the CCC, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague.

REP. SY-ALVARADO. Mr. Speaker, the decision comes from the board and even the Makati Business Club is a member of this, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. RIDON. Thank you. So, it is the position of—so, it is the mechanism that the determination is subject to board approval, is that not correct?


REP. RIDON. So, it is not the case of a single secretary or chairperson or whoever that determines the use of the funds, is that correct?

REP. SY-ALVARADO. No, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. RIDON. So, it also means that to a certain extent, there is some diligent use of the funds, is that not the case?

REP. SY-ALVARADO. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor

REP. RIDON. In the last couple of months, have there been some observations by the COA, if there are or there is none yet, in the use of the funds?

REP. SY-ALVARADO. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the COA has nothing to do yet here because there are no LGUs yet that submitted their proposals and so, the budget is not yet released.

REP. RIDON. So, as a final request, Mr. Speaker,


distinguished colleague, we would just want to get, maybe, the latest report in the utilization of the People’s Survival Fund, perhaps the list of all those that had requested, those that had been denied or those that had been approved for the use of the fund. At the very least, for the information of this Representation and of course, to determine whether or not the funds had been, in fact, used diligently by the Commission and the board.

We have no more questions, and we yield the floor, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Banal). Thank you.


REP. LAGDAMEO (M.). Mr. Speaker, I move that we recognize the Honorable Ridon for the Minority.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Banal). The Hon. Terry L. Ridon is recognized.

REP. RIDON. Mr. Speaker, on the part of the Minority, there being no other Member who wishes to interpellate, we move to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the Climate Change Commission.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Banal). The Asst. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. ROMUALDO. Mr. Speaker, the Majority joins the motion of the Minority to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the Climate Change Commission.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Banal). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

The period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the Climate Change Commission is hereby terminated.




THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rep. Banal). The session is suspended for a few minutes.

It was 7:31 p.m.


At 7:34 p.m., the session was resumed with Deputy Speaker Giorgidi B. Aggabao, presiding:



DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM

REP. LAGDAMEO (M.). Mr. Speaker, I move that we open the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the Department of Tourism, including its attached agencies and corporations. For this purpose, I move that we recognize the Sponsor, the Hon. Dakila Carlo E. Cua.


The period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Department of Tourism, including its attached agencies and corporations is opened, and the Gentleman from Quirino, the Honorable Cua is recognized to sponsor the budget.

You may proceed, Your Honor.

REP. CUA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, thank you Asst. Majority Leader.

We are now ready to answer questions regarding the budget of the Department of Tourism and its attached agencies.


REP. LAGDAMEO (M.). Mr. Speaker, I move that we recognize the Hon. Jose L. Atienza Jr. from the Party-List BUHAY for his interpellation.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The Gentleman from the Party-List BUHAY, the Honorable Atienza, is recognized to interpellate the distinguished Sponsor.

You have the floor, Gentleman.

REP. ATIENZA. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Before I start, let me greet everyone who has the patience and diligence, who are still around to participate in this supposedly very important interpellation and discussion on the budget of the Department of Tourism. As a starter, may I request the Pages to check the tables. We have roses on our tables and if we can collect all of these, let us give all of the members of the family of the Department of Tourism a


bunch of roses for staying on with us. (Applause) Kung hindi po, mabubulok ang mga ito, masasayang lamang. Maiuwi na ninyo ang mga ito sa inyong mga boyfriend at sa inyong mga girlfriend, sa inyong tahanan.

REP. CUA. Maraming salamat daw po on behalf of the Department Secretary.

REP. ATIENZA. Courtesy of Speaker Sonny Belmonte dahil galing po sa kanya lahat ito.

Mr. Speaker, to take advantage of this opportunity, we would like to ask the Sponsor the latest figure of tourist arrivals in the country as of now, as of today.

REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, inbound receipts for August grew by 21 percent with the amount of P21.9 billion as total revenues from foreign visitors. So, that is from January to August. I am sorry, for January to August it amounted to P152 billion.

REP. ATIENZA. Ang tinanong ko po, Mr. Speaker, ay number of arrivals, hindi po ang economic value ng tourism as an industry. Ilan po ba ang dumating na sa bansa natin as of August or September, if you have the figure?

REP. CUA. The figure here, Your Honor, of visitor arrivals from January to August was at 3.59 million.

REP. ATIENZA. Mr. Speaker, 3.5 million?

REP. CUA. Yes.

REP. ATIENZA. So, if we project from September to December, another four months, we would probably reach 5 million. Would that be a fair estimate?

REP. CUA. The estimate, Your Honor, is 5.3 million approximately.

REP. ATIENZA. It is 5.3 million and so, we are 50 percent short of our projected arrivals as we were discussing it last year. Sabi po natin last year, as a justification for the budget, we were expecting and projecting the arrival of 10 million tourists in the country. So, if we only get 5.3, it means we are really short and we really run short of our estimate and our targets.

I remember, Mr. Speaker and distinguished colleague, that in the budget hearing in the Committee, I pointed out to the Secretary of Tourism—is he around in tonight’s deliberations?

REP. CUA. Yes, Your Honor, he is right here on the floor.

REP. ATIENZA. Thank you. I am most gratified that he is showing interest in these proceedings and processes that we have to undergo.

Now, I was saying, and we pointed this out to him, that the peace and order condition in the country, to our impression, is one of the biggest factors as to why he is not able to accomplish his goal of 10 million. At that time, from last June and July, we were only halfway to the five-million mark and now, we already have 3,400,000. So, we are saying that we are still long way off the mark of 10 million and that would be almost impossible to reach anymore.

So, as we stated in the budget hearing of the Committee, we stressed that the peace and order condition then is in such a bad state that tourists are discouraged from coming to the Philippines because of that. No matter how beautiful our beaches are, no matter how aggressive our promotions were or still are, tourists would just not go to a country where they are not secure. That is a fact. At that time, I remember the good Secretary denying that there was a problem in the peace and order condition but since then, a lot of assassinations, murders, kidnapping and dead bodies found in deserted cars, have happened. Three tourists in Malapascua Island were held up along the highway, three foreign tourists and a Filipina were abducted somewhere in Mindanao, and so on, and so forth. I can go on and on and if I will recite all the crimes committed from the time I posed that question, ay talagang mauubos po iyang ating gabi sapagkat talagang lumala ang peace and order condition. The good Secretary and his Department, no matter what they do—I get this from my own contacts abroad—people are refrained or discouraged even by their relatives and friends to come to the Philippines because they know our nation is engulfed in a breakdown of order and they will not be secure in their movements. When a crime is committed, they know that the criminals are not punished. Alam naman natin na crimes are committed all over the world. Sabi ni Secretary Jimenez noon, and he can deny this if he wants to, “The Philippines is one of the safest places in the world.” To which statement I reacted very violently because I come from Manila, the tourist belt is in Manila and right there, along M. H. Del Pilar, Mabini, Remedios, tourists are being held up in broad daylight. Women are being molested. They are being deprived of their properties—handbags, necklaces, watches, and these are happening right in the center of Manila.

So when I got that denial, I really felt that our Department of Tourism and the Secretary do not seem to be living in reality. Iyong nasabi ko sa inyo, ngayon. mas malalaking crimes na ang nangyari and so, we now have advisories from other governments for their nationals to refrain from traveling to major portions of the Philippines because they cannot assure the safety of their nationals.


So, at this point, Gentleman colleague, I would like to get the latest reaction from the Secretary of Tourism. Does he still maintain that the Philippines is the safest place in the world? Or are we ready to help one another secure our tourists? Handa po nating tulungan siya kung aaminin niyang may problema. Kung wala pong problema, we will stand by his word and we can all go to all levels till kingdom come, and we will not change the picture that the Philippines is a dangerous area today in the tourist map.

REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, upon conferring with the good Secretary, he would like to categorically deny ever stating that the Philippines is the safest place in the world. What the Department wishes to espouse is that our country is the friendliest place in the world, and their mission is to sell the greater part of the Philippines which is the friendliest, and what they are trying to espouse is that the greater part of the Philippines is still the friendliest place in the world. That is what they are trying to send out, a message of positive image for our country.

REP. ATIENZA. Mr. Speaker, I am still a young man with a very sharp memory, one of my qualities maybe, and I cannot also accept that he never said that statement. He said, “The Philippines is one of the most or one of the safest places in the world.” He said that and if he is denying that, I will move for the deferment of this budget and allow him to debate with me anywhere to prove that he said that. I want him now to reconsider what he said, that it is not safe and so, let us work together to make it a safer place. Dine-deny po ba niya na sinabi niyang ang Pilipinas ay isa sa mga safest places in the world?

REP. CUA. No, Mr. Speaker.

REP. ATIENZA. E nag-react nga po ako roon.

REP. CUA. No, he does not deny that he never said …

REP. ATIENZA. Sabi niya, “categorically.” Sabi po ninyo, categorically he is denying it.

REP. CUA. Yes, what was denied is the statement that the Philippines is the safest.

REP. ATIENZA. No, no, no.

REP. CUA. What he accepts is that …

REP. ATIENZA. Mr. Speaker, I never said it is the safest. I said, “one of the safest places in the world.”

REP. CUA. Then that is true.

REP. ATIENZA. He is admitting that?

REP. CUA. Yes.

REP. ATIENZA. So, I would like to follow it up. Does he admit now that the Philippines is not one of the safest? It is a dangerous area, and Australia, United States, New Zealand, and Canada have already warned their nationals to avoid coming to the Philippines because of the abduction of three foreigners and one Filipina in Simunul. E, hindi ko na po puwede pang matulungan siguro ang Department of Tourism kung ide-deny nila na mayroong tayong problema. Kung may problema, let us help one another, but if there is no problem in their eyes, I will wait for 2016 when there will be a new Secretary of Tourism.

REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, the good Secretary admits that there is a good opportunity for the Department to work with you and all the interested Members in this Chamber, and the Department appreciates the efforts of our honorable colleague inasmuch as he is espousing or trying to advocate the safety of tourists visiting our country.

REP. ATIENZA. Distinguished colleague, what I want to hear from the Department Secretary is the effort that he would put in in getting all the departments involved with security and peace and order—the PNP, the DILG, the military and all the armed elements of the government—to be more conscientious in their efforts to secure our tourist spots. Here we are trying to invite the tourists to visit the islands, enjoy the islands, but they will not come here if there is insecurity hovering in their minds. They are warned by good, well-meaning friends, “Do not go to the Philippines, not at this time because it is dangerous.” So, what I expect from the good Secretary is some kind of an effort that he will do, as I mentioned then and I am mentioning it again—wake up the PNP as they are giving us bum and sugar-coated reports.

Nabasa ko sa peryodiko noong makalawa, ang peace and order condition daw po natin has never been this good and that we have even improved by 67 percent. That is a lot of baloney. We know very well that families are not safe even in their homes. Sasabihin pa ng pulis, “Wala naman pong krimen e.” Walang krimen? The other night, dalawang katawan ang nakita sa loob ng kotse. Noong isang araw, pinasok iyong bahay sa Sampaloc, Maynila. Tapos, sasabihin ng pulis, “E safe na safe naman ang Pilipinas.” E, hindi tayo talaga gagalaw sa ating pagsisikap if the authorities would keep on denying that there is a problem.

So, I am taking this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to


remind the Secretary, his voice bearing this gravely to inform the leader of the country no less, in your Cabinet meetings, speak up and tell everybody, “Let us address the problem of peace and order because I will not succeed if we do not do this now.”

REP. CUA. The proposal is very well accepted, Mr. Speaker, and the Secretary, although he is already conducting a lot of joint programs with the law enforcement bodies, will double their efforts to strengthen ties with the law enforcement agencies and push them even more to keep the people and most specially the tourists, safe in our streets.

REP. ATIENZA. We appreciate that assurance, distinguished colleague, and that they accept that there is a problem and from there, we can try and find the solution. Hindi po naman talagang masamang tao ang Pilipino. Ang Pilipino ay napakabait at napakadisiplinado kung mayroong magdidisiplina. We follow rules when we are made to follow rules. In other words, the law enforcement agencies are lacking in their performance and then, when you read the report where they are claiming that peace and order has improved by 67 percent, and the government accepts this, we, the citizens, are placed in a predicament. Saan tayo malalagay? Saan lalagay ang mga pangkaraniwang tao? Di lalo na iyong mga bisita, the tourists who are unfamiliar with the terrain and the condition, who would be walking in the dark streets of Metro Manila and just be jolted to reality when a gun is poked in his face so as to get his properties.

Ang hinihingi lang po nitong Representasyon ay tanggapin nating lahat na may problema tayo at pagtulung-tulungan natin. Let us all have one voice in waking up everyone involved in security and peace and order, that they should do a better job. Hindi puwede iyong nagre-report sila ng maganda, nagpapalakpakan naman iyong nakakarinig, e hindi po naman totoo iyon. Natatawa na lang ang tao dahil gabi-gabi, buksan mo ang telebisyon mo, it is all about crimes. Pagbasa mo ng peryodiko, it is all about crimes, people dying and being killed by riding-in-tandem criminals, and when you realize that the government is not even aware or is even denying that there is a problem, then we have a problem, indeed.

I am happy if the good Secretary has accepted the fact that we have a problem in securing our tourists. This is one of the biggest disincentives, and I do not want to blame his efforts if he is running short of his target because kung talagang magulo ang Pilipinas, hindi pupunta ang mga turista rito. Maski na gaano ang galing ng ating mga tauhan sa DOT, maski na gaano ang kagandahan ng ating kapuluan, kung hindi ligtas ang mga turista, hindi rin sila pupunta rito.

So, with that, distinguished colleague, I would be

monitoring the efforts in the Tourism Department and ask them to join us who are agitating for a more effective law enforcement in the country, a more efficient PNP, a more diligent military, less politicized, more dedicated to their duties. We all know that tourism could be the lifesaver of our country and our countrymen. This could be the biggest industry in the Philippines. This could be the biggest moneymaker for our economy. We have competent men running the Department but unless we keep our tourists safe, whatever we do, we will fail. Iyan po ang palagay ko kaya tayo ay nasa three point something million lang and we will only have 50 percent by December, running short of our projection of 10 million. We hope that next year, they succeed in inviting 20 million. We hope and pray that our peace and order condition improve, but that problem must be addressed by no less than the national leadership, and we would expect no less.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, distinguished colleague.

REP. CUA. Thank you as well, Your Honor. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The Gentleman from the Party-List BUHAY has yielded the floor.


REP. LAGDAMEO (M.). Mr. Speaker, we now move to the next interpellator. I move that we recognize the Hon. Jonathan A. Dela Cruz from the Party-List ABAKADA.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The Hon. Jonathan A. Dela Cruz is recognized to give an abbreviated interpellation.

You have the floor, Mr. Speaker.

REP.DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Will the distinguished Sponsor yield to a few questions?

REP. CUA. Gladly, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in the deliberations that we had in the budget hearing, there was a request on the part of many of our colleagues for us to be given an idea of what the TIEZA—this is the infrastructure arm of the Department of Tourism—has been doing and what can be done regarding all of the requirements that they have been trying to impose insofar as the development of our tourists areas are concerned, Mr. Speaker, as well as its participation in the convergence program involving the infrastructure development of such tourism areas.


We are just wondering if the distinguished Sponsor has already been informed about all of the cases that were brought to the attention of the Department during the budgetary hearing, including the one that was advised by Congresswoman Cagas.

REP. CUA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the TIEZA that in addition to the conduct of the pre-plenary hearing this morning, they also approached several of the concerned colleagues of ours regarding their parochial, as well as other concerns regarding the TIEZA and other matters regarding the Department of Tourism.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. We will appreciate it if the distinguished Sponsor can update us by way of some indications in terms of the list of those who have made certain representations about TIEZA and the resolutions, if ever, because as I had mentioned in the previous interpellation, I am just the recipient of a number of requests coming from our colleagues who are now out of town, Mr. Speaker.

REP. CUA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, if the Gentleman wishes, the TIEZA can furnish a list of all the actions taken regarding the concerns brought up by our colleagues.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker. Now, there are certain findings of the Commission on Audit, Mr. Speaker. One of the main findings, and this is quite alarming, Mr. Speaker, is that up to now, on the basis of a 2013 audit report, the COA mentioned that most of the Department of Tourism’s regional offices do not have a database of tourism enterprises and so, there has been a low rate of accreditation for the regions with complete tourism enterprise listings.

Out of the 15 regions of the country, only three regions—these are the Cordillera Administrative Region, Regions I and VIII—have a database of the existing primary tourism enterprises and secondary enterprises in their areas of supervision. Why is this so? What seems to be the problem? This is very important, Mr. Speaker, precisely because we are trying to encourage community participation and we are trying to make sure that tourism enterprises all over the country are up to international standards.

REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, the Department has already clarified with the Commission on Audit that they indeed have a comprehensive database. In my possession at the moment, Mr. Speaker, is a listing of the number of enterprises in all the regional jurisdictions

in our country. The number of available rooms is also indicated in here.

So, perhaps it is just a matter of clarifying with the Commission on Audit the actual number of enterprises recorded in the Department of Tourism.

REP. DELA CRUZ. So, in the contemplation of the distinguished Sponsor, Mr. Speaker, the Tourism Accreditation Program of the Department of Tourism is already in place and that tourists, whether these are domestic or foreign tourists, can access this particular database that the distinguished Sponsor mentioned and therefore, can be advised on the kind of tourist facilities there are in every corner of the Philippines. Is this a correct appreciation of what the distinguished Sponsor is telling us?

REP. CUA. Yes, Your Honor, it is an ongoing effort that the Department of Tourism is conducting every year.

REP. DELA CRUZ. How is the Tourism Accreditation Program being conducted, Your Honor? Is this being done together with the local government units or is this being done solely by the Department of Tourism personnel, or is this an outsourced program that is being undertaken?

REP. CUA. Your Honor, these accreditations are done in coordination with local government units, as you correctly pointed out and I believe, as well with the local tourism councils where private individuals are involved in tourism enterprises.

REP. DELA CRUZ. If the distinguished Sponsor, Your Honor, is aware, how many tourism councils are there in the country right now? We have 89 provinces, we have more than or almost a hundred cities and 1,490 municipalities, Your Honor.

REP. CUA. Your Honor, there should be at least one tourism council for every province.

REP. DELA CRUZ. At least?

REP. CUA. Yes.

REP. DELA CRUZ. For every province?

REP. CUA. Yes, not to mention the regional tourism councils.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Do we have a tourism council at the level of the municipalities or cities, or this is just limited to provinces?

REP. CUA. Most major cities have tourism councils,


Your Honor, but municipalities may also have their own tourism councils.

REP. DELA CRUZ. In this instance, what is the relationship of the Department of Tourism with the tourism councils? Are these particular organizations working with the Department and if they are working with the Department, how is the relationship, Your Honor?

REP. CUA. There is a regular coordination between the Department of Tourism and their tourism councils, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Are the tourism councils involved in the many activities of the Department of Tourism?

REP. CUA. Yes.

REP. DELA CRUZ. For example, there is the branding program, “It’s More Fun in the Philippines” and the tourism councils are properly advised about this and they have their own participation.

REP. CUA. The way I understand it, Your Honor, in my own view, is that the branding effort comes from the central government, central office, but, yes, these campaigns are trickled down to the councils in the local level.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes, it will be unfortunate if the local councils are not involved, Your Honor, because they are the ones on the ground. They should be the ones who should be more interested in making sure that a branding effort is properly implemented at that level because in the end, the tourists will have to contend with what is happening on the ground.

REP. CUA. Yes, Your Honor, there is constant downloading of strategies, tactics and methodologies coming from the central office down to the tourism councils.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Your Honor. Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, I remember that there had been a number of successful tourism programs in the past, including what we call the Balikbayan Program. Are these particular programs still in place and if these are in place, how are these faring at this point in time, Your Honor, and whether these particular efforts are actually supported also by way of incentives as well as promotion by the Department of Tourism?

REP. CUA. Your Honor, the Balikbayan Program is still very much active. In fact, it is bigger now than

ever with a large participation from the Middle East and the Filipino communities in the United States as well as Canada.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. How many, in the listing of the Department of Tourism, had actually availed of the benefits and privileges of this Balikbayan Program? For example, last year, how many such individuals availed of the benefits and privileges of the Balikbayan Program, if you have the information, Your Honor?

REP. CUA. We will check in a few seconds, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much.

REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, if you would wish to move on to the next question while the Department tries to secure the data that you requested.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes, thank you very much, Your Honor. I will now request information about the Philippine Retirement Authority. As the distinguished Sponsor is well aware, there is an increasing number of retirees all over the world and many of these retirees, including Filipino pensionados from the United States, are looking for ways by which they can avail of the benefits and privileges of a comprehensive retirement program in the Philippines. As a matter of fact, in our province, in Ilocos Norte, there had been a number of occasions where many pensionados, most of them from Hawaii, have been asking us whether it is possible for them to avail of the benefits and privileges of the retirement program.

I am just wondering how this particular program is being implemented right now and how successful it has been. Do we have retirement areas in the country that we have which are probably in the same level of competence or the same level of privileges as in other countries? What about for individual retirees, how can they avail of the benefits? What are the programs, if there are any? How many do we expect, say this year and five years from now, if we have a plan, Your Honor? How can we enhance and even accelerate the development of the country as a retirement haven, Your Honor?

REP. CUA. Your Honor, let me begin by stating that there are now 30,000 registered retirees in the program, and the bulk or concentration is in Metro Manila, Davao, Cebu, Dumaguete and Baguio.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes, Your Honor. Under the Philippine Retirement Authority, what kind of privileges


and benefits can be availed of by retirees? What are the requirements for availment of these particular programs?

REP. CUA. They are given ease of entry, Your Honor. They have visas that allow them to stay in the country for as long as they want. They may also bring their families over to the Philippines. The requirement now is a $20,000 deposit at the bank.

REP. DELA CRUZ. This is the minimum requirement for a retiree. You must have at least $20,000 in the bank, and what is that? Is that a bond? Is that something that will not be used? The retiree has to have some other means by which to live by, Your Honor.

REP. CUA. No, it is not a bond, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, and it is not really the minimum but it is the most popular amount. Of course, most retirees are encouraged to put more money, but it is not tied up. They may use the money if they need to.

REP. DELA CRUZ. How does our retirement program compare with those of other countries, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor? For example, in Malaysia or in Indonesia perhaps, or even in Vietnam, how many retirees are there or is there such a program? The first thing to ask is: is there also such a similar program in these countries for retirees, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor,?

REP. CUA. There is not really a retirement program in most countries, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. What they have is a long stay program that they may extend. It is not really the same as the product that the Philippines is offering.

REP. DELA CRUZ. So, it is called a long stay program and ...

REP. CUA. Yes.

REP. DELA CRUZ. ... these are not for old people; these are actually or these particular programs are meant for people other than senior citizens, for example.

REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the long stay programs of most countries are for retirees.

REP. DELA CRUZ. For retirees?

REP. CUA. Yes, but they have a fixed amount of time which may not necessarily be till the end of their life.

REP. DELA CRUZ. So, what particular country can

we compare our retirement program with, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, and if there is such a country? Probably, what we can do is to understand what particular country should we emulate for purposes of enhancing our retirement program.

REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, in the ASEAN at the very least, there is no similar product being offered to retirees and that is why the retirement package of our country is very much attractive to retirees. The most successful models of retirement programs are found in the US.

REP. DELA CRUZ. In the US?

REP. CUA. Yes.

REP. DELA CRUZ. We hope we will be able to emulate some of these particular programs in the US. I suppose these are in certain states in the United States.

REP. CUA. To name a few, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, these are in the states of Nevada and Florida. Another factor that gives the Philippines the competitive edge is the look-see visa for six months where a retiree may opt to come to the Philippines without necessarily putting up the $20,000 and just allow him or her to have a look and see the place and experience the Filipino way of retirement.

REP. DELA CRUZ. So, that is a look-see and what are the requirements for a look-see visa, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor?

REP. CUA. They merely have to apply, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. That is all.

REP. CUA. Application.

REP. DELA CRUZ. They will not be a burden to our country, I hope, because, you know, they can apply and they stay here, but they become a burden to society. There is no military requirement, meaning, you have to have this much in order for you to stay in the country, otherwise you will become a burden to the Philippines. We already have a lot of burdens in the Philippines, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. CUA. No, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, it is more like a prepaid six- month vacation package that most retirees partake of when they take a look-see.

REP. DELA CRUZ. So, it is a vacation package and therefore, ...


REP. CUA. Yes, it is similar to a vacation package.

REP. DELA CRUZ. ... there is also a monetary consideration for that because nobody can just get any vacation package. You have to pay for the vacation package.

REP. CUA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. We generate income from that activity.

REP. DELA CRUZ. How many such look-see visas had been issued by the country, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, if you have any idea?

REP. CUA. It is a very new program, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. Wala pa pong isang taon ito so very few have taken advantage of this opportunity.

REP. DELA CRUZ. This is a program that was just introduced during the term of Secretary Jimenez?

REP. CUA. Yes.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. Now, I will now go to the events that have been sponsored by the Department of Tourism in the country. Have there been any world-class events that the Department of Tourism sponsored, and what are these particular events or programs that the Department of Tourism is sponsoring in order to attract more tourists into the country?

We already have programs, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. In every province, every other week, they have their own activities, they have their own events. Is the Department of Tourism in any way, manner or form involved in promoting these events, not only the local events but certain specific events of international character or value which can attract tourists coming into the Philippines?

REP. CUA. To start off, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, barely a few months ago, there was the Madrid Fusión which was an international culinary event which they intend to hold again next year. Then the Philippines has bid out—we won the bid to host IRONMAN Asia-Pacific in 2016. So, these are just two of the major international events that the DOT has spearheaded, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. Of course, we are going to host the APEC, as we are already hosting some of the activities in the APEC.

REP. CUA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. How are we doing as far as the hosting of the APEC is concerned? That will involve, probably, the entry of thousands of visitors, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, not only high officials, but visitors that will come into the country as part of the APEC activities. How many visitors are we expecting to have with the APEC program?

REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the APEC hosting has commenced since December of the previous year.


REP. CUA. To date, there has been 28 conferences conducted in our country, and each has an average of about 500 participants.

REP. DELA CRUZ. The highlight of which will be the heads of state meeting and this will be held in Manila.

REP. CUA. Yes, and such event will have approximately 7,000 visitors.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Of course, I suspect that we are already preparing or we have actually prepared for this. Are there enough rooms of international standard, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, that can accommodate 7,000 visitors?

REP. CUA. Yes, most definitely there are enough rooms.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Of course, we will be highlighting our activities, our achievements in that particular APEC meeting, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, of heads of state. Then after that, what else do we have if the Department is already thinking of other events? I am interested in this, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, because I remember during the time of our colleague, Congressman Ace Durano, there was an effort to have most of the World Pool events in the Philippines. Unfortunately, I think there were some problems that came up, and I was wondering if the Department will still be interested to help assist the organizers for the World Pool event, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor.

REP. CUA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor. The Secretary of Tourism is very enthusiastic on working on that suggestion.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes, because in the Philippines, the estimate is that we have five million pool players and I think they will be happy to participate in this kind of an activity. It can be a national program. It can generate


a lot of enthusiasm, and if we get all of the world-class pool players coming over to the Philippines, that will definitely draw a lot of tourists as well.

I was thinking that this is one event that can be looked into by the Department. At the same time, there are other events, sporting events and tourism events, that we can probably host on an annual, regular basis so that tourists can be attracted to the country, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker.

So, I am glad that the Secretary of the Department is contemplating and as a matter of fact, has committed to participate actively in the hosting of such particular events, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker.

REP. CUA. The Secretary has mentioned that he will direct the Tourism Promotions Board with immediately engaging the feasibility analysis for your suggested event, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, because the Tourism Promotions Board will be in the best situation to undertake this kind of activities.

REP. CUA. Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, I was just informed by the Secretary that the memo to the TPB has already been issued regarding your proposed event. So, it is really seriously in play and they are pursuing this seriously.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes, thank you very much, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker. Now that we are discussing the Tourism Promotions Board, my understanding is that in accordance with Section 55 of Republic Act No. 9593, 70 percent of the DOT share in the net income of the Duty Free Philippines goes to the Tourism Promotions Board. How is the Duty Free Philippines right now, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker? How much is its income, how many Duty-Free Shops do we have, how many employees do we have, and how many have availed themselves of the duty-free privileges under the Duty Free Philippines?

REP. CUA. Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, for 2014, the revenue of the Duty Free Philippines was recorded at $229 million.

REP. DELA CRUZ. At $229 million?

REP. CUA. Yes, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. This is the net revenue or this is the gross revenue?

REP. CUA. That is the gross revenue.

REP. DELA CRUZ. In terms of the net income,

how much was the net revenue of the Duty Free Philippines?

REP. CUA. The net income, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, was P270 million.

REP. DELA CRUZ. So, out of the gross revenue of $229 million, the net income of the Duty-Free Shops is P270 million. With a gross revenue of $229 million and a net income of P270 million, this seems to be a losing proposition, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker. What kind of benefits, anyway, what kind of incentives do we have and what kind of capitalization did the government input into the Duty-Free Shops? What was the original capitalization of the Duty-Free Shops, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, if you have any idea? How come it has such a pithy income out of a gross revenue of $229 million?

REP. CUA. Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, the initial capitalization of the DFP has already been remitted back to the Treasury and currently, for most of the recent past, they have been operating through their own revenues. So, wala na po iyong capital.

REP. DELA CRUZ. So, it has been returned to the Treasury. What was the original capitalization?

REP. CUA. Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, the initial capitalization of the Duty-Free Philippines was a mere P10 million.

REP. DELA CRUZ. That was in the 1980s or 70s?

REP. CUA. Sorry, Mr. Speaker, please?

REP. DELA CRUZ. It was in the 70s, I suppose.

REP. CUA. In 1987, Mr. Speaker, and the total remittance to the Treasury from 1987 to 2014 is already in the amount of P11 billion.

REP. DELA CRUZ. So, how does the DFS, right now, support itself, Mr. Speaker? It is using its own resources, it is using its own bank lines, it does not have any capitalization coming from the government, is that the impression that you are telling us?

REP. CUA. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. I suppose the activities of the Duty-Free Shops are being audited by the Commission on Audit.

REP. CUA. Yes.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Do we have the latest audit


report from the Commission, Mr. Speaker? What is the latest?

REP. CUA. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleague, they do not have a copy at the moment but they can provide it at the soonest possible time.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes. I hope that can be provided by early next week, Mr. Speaker.

REP. CUA. Definitely.

REP. DELA CRUZ. I have certain reports coming from the employees of the Duty-Free Shops, Mr. Speaker, that tend to imply that there are a number of things that have to be resolved at the level of the Duty-Free Shops. If the management of the Duty-Free Shops will be so kind to give us this audit report as well as a list of all the partners that they have, meaning, where they are buying, what particular goods, who are their suppliers and the like, I will appreciate it if that can be provided. I suppose the Duty-Free Shop is not using its own money to buy its own goods. There are a lot of suppliers that are in place in the Duty-Free Shops. Who are these accredited suppliers, and what kind of items do they have in the Duty-Free Shops? What kind of privileges are they entitled to if they are in the Duty-Free Shops? What kind of sharing do we have as far as the government is concerned insofar as these suppliers are concerned?

REP. CUA. Yes, Mr. Speaker, they will all be submitted to you.


REP. CUA. Early next week.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to get the advice of the Secretary and the Department of Tourism regarding the tourism infrastructure program. As I understand it, the lighthouses that are still in existence, Mr. Speaker, are being rehabilitated and maintained by the Coast Guard, but I understand they are doing this in coordination or in association with the Department of Tourism. Is the Department aware of this particular program regarding our lighthouses which are located in our tourist destinations? In fact, in our province, for example, Cape Bojeador is one of the oldest lighthouses in the country, and we want to find out whether the Department, probably through the TIEZA, is involved in the rehabilitation and upkeep of these lighthouses.

REP. CUA. Mr. Speaker, I was informed by the

TIEZA that the Corregidor Lighthouse has been restored through the efforts of the TIEZA. Just for the information of this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, Your Honor, the lighthouses in the strict sense is really under the realm of the Department of Transportation and Communications.


REP. CUA. Unless they are historic in nature, then it falls under the NHCP. However, the DOT, through the TIEZA, may still be involved once they are invited to support the rehabilitation or restoration of such lighthouses.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the reason I am asking this is that I want to find out if the Department is also involved. The Department should be involved in the rehabilitation, restoration of certain historical sites, Your Honor. That is the reason I had wanted to find out whether the TIEZA is involved in some of these activities. I will appreciate it very much, Your Honor, if we can get a listing of the areas of these particular sites that the TIEZA is involved in so that we will have a better understanding of the participation of the Tourism Department as far as historical sites are concerned. On that note, Your Honor, I also want to find out whether the Department is involved, together with the National Historical Institute as well as the National Museum and the National Commission for Culture and the Arts, whether they have some kind of convergence as far as identification of historical sites is concerned, and what kind of participation they have insofar as restoration and development, in fact, of these historical sites are concerned, Your Honor.

REP. CUA. Your Honor, there are convergence projects between the TIEZA and the National Historical Commission, specifically for the restoration of particular sites in Bohol as well as some in Iloilo.

REP. DELA CRUZ. There must be a listing of these things, Your Honor.

REP. CUA. Yes, and that listing will be submitted, Your Honor.

REP. DELA CRUZ. I suppose the Department of Tourism has already in its own database, Your Honor, the most frequently visited historical sites and the like because this is something that we should have as part of our Tourism Development Program and probably, we can have also that kind of listing, including—even if it is not involved as yet—for example, the birthplace of Dr. Jose Rizal and all of these things, even in the Maragondon and all of these places, Your Honor. I


suppose the Department of Tourism is in contact with the National Historical Institute as well as the National Museum to have a listing of such places which need to be rehabilitated, which have been identified as of historical value and therefore, need to be properly rehabilitated and even upgraded in order to be good areas or destinations for our tourists. So, there is such a listing?

REP. CUA. Yes, Your Honor, and it will be made available early next week.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes, including, of course, what the Department is already doing as far as Intramuros is concerned, Your Honor, because there is an Intramuros Administration.


REP. DELA CRUZ. I understand that there has been a number of challenges as far as the Intramuros Administration is concerned for purposes of rehabilitating Intramuros as well as similar areas outside of Metro Manila, Your Honor, which are also of historical value as well like, for example Vigan, and the like. These are areas that perhaps the Department of Tourism can advise us as possible areas for rehabilitation and tourist destinations. This will be submitted to us probably by next week, if that is possible?


REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, Your Honor.

On that note, I will no longer go to the National Parks Development Committee because that is already something that probably can also be provided us, what particular parks are being handled by the Department of Tourism. There is also a listing of that and we will probably have a copy of that list by next week as well.

REP. CUA. Only the Rizal Park and the Paco Park are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Tourism.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes, I know, distinguished Sponsor, but I suppose being the Department of Tourism, they must have some levels of cooperation or convergence with other agencies that are involved with parks, especially local government units. So, there must be certain things that the Department of Tourism is doing in order to protect and probably promote these particular parks, unless they have limited themselves to just Rizal Park.

REP. CUA. Their main jurisdiction, Your Honor,

is Rizal Park and Paco Park, but they may be engaged by an LGU or any other government agency that is in custody of a park to co-develop parks other than the Paco and Rizal Park.

REP. DELA CRUZ. The reason I am asking this, Your Honor, is that I suppose the Department has the professional staff. It has a pool of experts who can assist in developing a network of parks all over the country which can be considered world-class, Your Honor, and that is my main interest. Is it possible, for instance, for the Department of Tourism to put into action many of these experts that they have in the Department? How many personnel do we have anyway in the National Parks Development Committee?

REP. CUA. I am sorry, Your Honor, please repeat.

REP. DELA CRUZ. How many personnel, how many parks development experts do we have in the National Parks Development Committee, if that is available?

REP. CUA. Only about 10, Your Honor, landscape architects and engineers, a total of about 10.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Iyan lang po ba? Ganoon po ba ang development natin? So, paano pa natin nade-develop iyong Rizal Park, ang laki-laki noon, 10 lang po iyan?

REP. CUA. Sampu iyong architect at mga engineer levels, but I assume they have …

REP. DELA CRUZ. Are they outsourcing the development of the park, Your Honor, they do not have organic personnel? If they do not have organic personnel, I will propose that we include in their budget an additional amount so that we can have a pool of experts in the Department of Tourism.

REP. CUA. Your Honor, they do have there a small army of gardeners who are in charge of maintenance and development of the parks.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Of the parks?

REP. CUA. The figure 10 which I mentioned are only the managerial architect and engineer levels.

REP. DELA CRUZ. The reason I am asking this, Your Honor, is that, of course, the local government units look at the Department of Tourism as a central agency for purposes of developing sites as tourist destinations and one of these, of course, is a network


of parks that we can have. So, I was looking forward to having the possibility of asking, for example, the experts from the Department of Tourism to assist in developing some of what we consider in our province as possible sites. These are parks, the Paoay Sand Dunes, for example, I am sure they will be happy to help us, but if you have only 10 people in the National Parks Development Committee, then that will be a pity, Your Honor.

REP. CUA. Your Honor, they would be very glad to be in a position to help the Paoay and many other parks all over the country.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Yes, Your Honor.

REP. CUA. The TIEZA, for example, has access to a lot of urban planners and landscape architects just as the National Parks Development Committee as well, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, because of this new revelation coming from the Department of Tourism, at the appropriate time, I will probably have to request for some additional funding for the National Parks Development Committee so that they can probably increase the number of experts that they have from 10 to probably 20 so that we will have more people engaged in parks development. In the United States and other developed countries, Your Honor, the parks actually are very huge tourist attractions, and it will be a pity if we cannot develop the parks network in the country as such tourist destinations.

So, it is just unfortunate that the Department of Budget and Management probably has not seen this and has not seen the light insofar as parks development is concerned. In any event, Your Honor, Mr. Speaker, as I said, at some appropriate time, I will probably request and if the distinguished Sponsor will join me, we will probably request for an additional amount for the Parks Development Program of the Department of Tourism. (Applause)

REP. CUA. Your Honor, we thank you very much for the support to the National Parks Development Committee, and we join you in the effort to empower the said agency.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Thank you very much, distinguished Sponsor, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to ask these questions and concerns. Thank you.


REP. CUA. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The Honorable Dela Cruz has yielded the floor.


REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, with leave of the Minority, there being no other Member who wishes to interpellate, we move that we terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the Department of Tourism, including its attached agencies and corporations. (Applause)

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). There is a motion to terminate the period of sponsorship and debate on the budget of the Department of Tourism. Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.


REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that we open the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budget of the following departments: Mindanao Development Authority, National Commission on Muslim Filipinos, Budgetary Support to Government Corporations, Southern Philippines Development Authority, Zamboanga City Special Economic Zone Authority, Authority of the FreePort Area of Bataan, Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority and the Bases Conversion and Development Authority.


The period of sponsorship and debate on the budgets of the following agencies is open: Mindanao Development Authority, National Commission on Muslim Filipinos, Southern Philippines Development Authority, Zamboanga City Special Economic Zone Authority, Authority of the FreePort Area of Bataan, Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority and the Bases Conversion and Development Authority.


REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, with leave of the Minority, I move for the omnibus termination of the period of sponsorship and debate on the proposed budgets of the following agencies: Mindanao Development Authority, National Commission on Muslim Filipinos, Southern Philippines Development Authority, Zamboanga City Special Economic Zone Authority, Authority of the FreePort Area of Bataan, Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority and the Bases Conversion and Development Authority.

I so move.


THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). On motion of the Majority, with leave of the Minority, is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

The period of sponsorship and debate on the budgets of the aforementioned agencies is terminated.


SUSPENSION OF CONSIDERATION OF H.B. NO. 6132

REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that we suspend the consideration of House Bill No.6132.


The consideration of House Bill No. 6132 is suspended.

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


The Secretary General will please read the Additional Reference of Business.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCE OF BUSINESS

The Secretary General read the following Committee Report and the Deputy Speaker made the corresponding reference:

COMMITTEE REPORT

Report by the Committee on Legislative Franchises (Committee Report No. 908), re H. No. 6193, entitled:“AN ACT RENEWING FOR ANOTHER TWENTY-

FIVE YEARS THE FRANCHISE GRANTED TO KALAYAAN BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INCORPORATED UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7303, AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8105, ENTITLED ‘AN ACT GRANTING THE KALAYAAN BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INCORPORATED, A FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN RADIO BROADCASTING STATIONS IN THE ISLAND OF MINDANAO AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES’ ”

recommending its approval in substitution of House Bill No. 3340

Sponsors: Representatives Teodoro, Lagdameo (A.), Arnaiz, Tambunting, Lagdameo (M.), Bello (S.), Salvacion, Mendoza (R.), Cosalan, Fortuno and Pichay

TO THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, we are in receipt of a message from the Senate informing the House that the Senate passed with amendments House Bill No. 4484, entitled: AN ACT CREATING TWO (2) ADDITIONAL BRANCHES OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT IN THE PROVINCE OF ILOCOS SUR TO BE STATIONED IN THE CITY OF VIGAN AND IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF STO. DOMINGO, FURTHER AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 14, PARAGRAPH (A) OF BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 129, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS “THE JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980”, AS AMENDED, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR.

We have been advised that the Committee on Justice, the Sponsor of House Bill No. 4484, as well as the author of this measure have no objections to the amendments introduced thereto by the Senate. In accordance with our Rules, I move that we concur with the Senate amendments to House Bill No. 4484.


The House concurs with the aforementioned Senate amendments to House Bill No. 4484.


OMNIBUS CONSIDERATION OF LOCAL BILLS ON SECOND READING

REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move for an omnibus motion for the consideration of the following local bills on Second Reading:

1. House Bill No. 6011, contained in Committee Report No. 876;

2. House Bill No. 6053, contained in Committee Report No. 893; and

3. House Bill No. 6193, contained in Committee Report No. 908.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.*

REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that we consider the Explanatory Notes of the respective Bills as the sponsorship speeches thereon.

* See MEASURES CONSIDERED (printed separately)



REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, there being no Member who wishes to interpellate, I move that we close the period of sponsorship and debate.


COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS

REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, we would like to introduce the following Committee amendments to House Bill No. 6011:

1. On page 1, line 5, after the word “Bohol,” insert the phrase AND THE VISAYAS; and

2. On the title, after the word “Bohol,” add the phrase AND THE VISAYAS.

I so move for the approval of these amendments.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendments are approved.

REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, we would like to introduce the following Committee amendments to House Bill No. 6053:

1. On page 2, line 7, insert the word INSTALL after the word “construct;”

2. On the same page, line 9, replace the word “in” with the word THROUGHOUT;

3. On the same page, line 6, after the word “facilities,” add the phrase FOR THE GRANTEE’S PRIVATE USE IN THE BROADCAST SERVICE;

4. On the same page, after line 16, insert a new section on DISPERSAL OF OWNERSHIP, as follows:

SECTION 3. DISPERSAL OF OWNERSHIP – I N A C C O R D A N C E W I T H T H E CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION TO ENCOURAGE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN PUBLIC UTILITIES; THE GRANTEE SHALL OFFER TO FILIPINO CITIZENS AT LEAST THIRTY PER CENT (30%) OR A HIGHER PERCENTAGE THAT MAY HEREAFTER BE PROVIDED BY LAW OF ITS OUTSTANDING CAPITAL STOCK IN ANY SECURITIES IN THE PHILIPPINES WITHIN FIVE (5) YEARS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF ITS OPERATIONS. PROVIDED, THAT IN CASES WHERE PUBLIC OFFER OF SHARES IS

NOT APPLICABLE, ESTABLISHMENT OF COOPERATIVES AND OTHER METHODS OF ENCOURAGING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BY CITIZENS AND CORPORATIONS OPERATING PUBLIC UTILITIES MUST BE IMPLEMENTED. NONCOMPLIANCE THEREWITH SHALL RENDER THE FRANCHISE IPSO FACTO REVOKED.

and renumber the rest of the sections accordingly.5. On the same page, insert another Section to

read as follows: SECTION 4. SECTION 8 OF REPUBLIC

ACT NO. 7279 ON TAX PROVISIONS IS HEREBY REPEALED; and

6. Amend the title to read as follows: AN ACT RENEWING FOR ANOTHER TWENTY-FIVE (25) YEARS THE FRANCHISE GRANTED TO ZOE BROADCASTING, INC., AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7279, ENTITLED “ A N A C T G R A N T I N G T H E Z O E BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC. A FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN RADIO AND TELEVISION BROADCASTING STATIONS THROUGHOUT THE PHILIPPINES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,” AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7968.

I so move for the approval of these amendments.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendments are approved.

REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that we close the period of amendments.


REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move for the omnibus approval of House Bills No. 6011, 6053 and 6193, as amended.

VIVA VOCE VOTING

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). As many are as in favor of the approval of the Bills enumerated in the omnibus motion, please say aye.

SEVERAL MEMBERS. Aye.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). As many as are against, please say nay. (Silence)


OMNIBUS APPROVAL OF LOCAL BILLS, AS AMENDED, ON SECOND READING

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao).The ayes have it; the motion is approved.

The Bills enumerated in the omnibus motion are hereby approved, as amended, on Second Reading.

CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. NO. 2355

REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that we consider House Resolution No. 2355. May I ask that the Secretary General be directed to read only the title of the measure.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.*

The Secretary General is directed to read only the title of the measure.

With the permission of the Body, and since copies of the measure have been previously distributed, the Secretary General read only the title thereof without prejudice to inserting its text in the Congressional Record.

THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Resolution No. 2355, entitled: RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING WITH DEEP PRIDE AND APPRECIATION THE IMMENSE CONTRIBUTION TO THE PHILIPPINE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY OF MR. EDDIE GARCIA, DISTINGUISHED ACTOR AND DIRECTOR.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. BINAY. I move that we adopt House Resolution No. 2355.

ADOPTION OF H.RES. NO. 2355


House Resolution No. 2355 is adopted. The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

CONSIDERATION OF H.B. NO. 6184ON SECOND READING


REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that we consider House Bill No. 6184, contained in Committee Report No.

903, as reported out by the Committees on Higher and Technical Education, Appropriations and Ways and Means.

May I ask that the Secretary General be directed to read only the title of the measure.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Is there any objection? (Silence)The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.*



THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 6184, entitled: AN ACT STRENGTHENING THE MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR.


REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that we consider the Explanatory Note of the Bill as the sponsorship speech on the measure. There being no Member who wishes to interpellate, I move that we close the period of sponsorship and debate.



REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that we open the period of amendments. There being no Committee amendments, I move that we close the period for Committee amendments.


REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that we open the period for individual amendments.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The period for individual amendments is opened.


INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS

REP. BINAY. With the consent of the sponsoring



Committee, I move for the adoption of the following individual amendments:

On page 4, line 43, I move to delete the conjunction “and.”

On the same page, lines 45 and 46, after the letter “n,” delete the provision “one (1) Regent who is a prominent national educator and who is not presently employed in any of the University’s campuses” and in lieu thereof, insert the phrase ONE (1) CHANCELLOR REGENT REPRESENTING ALL CHANCELLORS OF THE UNIVERSITY, to be followed by a semicolon (;) and the conjunction AND.

On page 5, line 1, insert subsection “O” and a provision to read as follows: ONE (1) REGENT WHO IS A PROMINENT NATIONAL EDUCATOR AND WHO IS NOT PRESENTLY EMPLOYED IN ANY OF THE UNIVERSITY’S CAMPUSES, AS MEMBER.”

On page 5, line 6, insert the paragraph THE REGENT REPRESENTING THE CHANCELLORS SHALL BE ELECTED BY ALL CHANCELLORS AMONG THEMSELVES AND SHALL HAVE A TERM OF TWO (2) YEARS.

I move for the omnibus approval of the aforementioned individual amendments.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Is there any objection to the proposed individual amendments? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the individual amendments so proposed are approved.


REP. BINAY. There being no other individual amendments, I move that we close the period of amendments.


REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that we approve House Bill No. 6184, as amended, on Second Reading.

VIVA VOCE VOTING

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). As many as are in favor of House Bill No. 6184, as amended, please say aye.


THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). As many as are against, please say nay.

FEW MEMBERS. Nay.

APPROVAL OF H.B. NO. 6184, AS AMENDED,ON SECOND READING

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The ayes have it; the motion is approved.

House Bill No. 6184, as amended, is approved on Second Reading.



REP. BINAY. I move that we suspend the session for a few minutes.


It was 8:48 p.m.





CONSIDERATION OF H.B. NO. 6191ON SECOND READING


REP. BINAY. I move that we consider House Bill No. 6191, contained in Committee Report No. 904, as reported out by the Committee on Transportation.

May I ask that the Secretary General be directed to read only the title of the measure.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Is there any objection? (Silence)The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.*



THE SECRETARY GENERAL. House Bill No. 6191, entitled: AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF AIRLINE PASSENGERS AND PENALIZING ACTS IN VIOLATION THEREOF.




REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the Explanatory Note of the Bill be considered as the sponsorship speech on the measure.




REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that we open the period of sponsorship and debate, and recognize the Hon. Jose Christopher Y. Belmonte from the Sixth District of Quezon City, to sponsor House Bill No. 6191.


The Gentleman from Quezon City, the Hon. Jose Christopher Y. Belmonte, is recognized.

REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, there being no Member who wishes to interpellate the Sponsor, I move that we close the period of sponsorship and debate.


REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that we open the period for Committee amendments. There being no Committee amendments, I move that we close the period for Committee amendments.


The period for Committee amendments is closed.The Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that we open the period for individual amendments.


The period for individual amendments is open.


REP. BINAY. With leave of the House, Mr. Speaker,

I move that we adopt the individual amendments as contained in the documents submitted before the Body to be reconciled, subject to style.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Before we grant the motion, the Gentleman from Quezon City, the Hon. Jose Christopher Y. Belmonte, is recognized.

REP. BELMONTE (J.). Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Committee, we accept the proposed individual amendments, subject to style.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The Honorable Dela Cruz is recognized.

REP. DELA CRUZ. Mr. Speaker, just to ensure that we understand each other, we submitted certain documents for purposes of harmonizing these documents with those of the others insofar as the individual amendments are concerned.

Thank you.

REP. BELMONTE (J.). That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). On the basis of that manifestation, the Dep. Majority Leader is recognized.

REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that we close the period of individual amendments.


The period for individual amendments is closed.


REP. BINAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that we approve House Bill No. 6191, as amended, on Second Reading.

VIVA VOCE VOTING

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). As many as those in favor of House Bill No. 6191, as amended, please say aye.


THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). As many as are against, please say nay.


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/10192015/0940

FEW MEMBERS. Nay.

APPROVAL OF H.B. NO. 6191, AS AMENDED, ON SECOND READING

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). The ayes have it; the motion is approved.

House Bill No. 6191, as amended, is approved on Second Reading.



REP. BINAY. I move that we suspend the session until Monday, October 5, at ten o’clock in the morning.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (Rep. Aggabao). Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the session is suspended until October 5 at ten o’clock in the morning.

It was 8:57 p.m.

Documents

Congressional Record...Vol. 1 Friday, October 2, 2015 No. 26d Congressional Record 16th CONGRESS, THIRD REGULAR SESSION HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES RESUMPTION OF SESSION At 10:01 a.m.,