SPEECH OF HIS EXCELLENCY BENIGNO S. AQUINO III PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES AT THE ANNUAL PRESIDENTIAL FORUM OF THE FOREIGN CORRESPONDENTS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES MANILA HOTEL, MANILA OCTOBER 23, 2013 [Delivered at the Manila Hotel, Manila, on October 23, 2013] [Greetings PTBA] Good morning. Over the past couple of years, I have come to look forward to this event, since the questions you almost always ask make for a memorable experience; and on the days leading up to this forum, I make a point to review all the data I need to explain the issues clearly. I remember that in 2011, I addressed you for the first time as President of the Republic. Back then, we had to face a delicate balancing act. As we took a long hard look at the contracts and systems we inherited, and set about to purge them of opportunities for graft, the necessary pause led to a growing demand to pump prime the economy. This was the dilemma we faced when we set about to fulfill our two pronged promise of eliminating corruption to significantly lessen poverty. Simply going back to business as usual to provide stimulus would fatally hamper our anticorruption drive; on the other hand, economic momentum had to be maintained, even accelerated, as the public demanded to see the fruits of reforms. This is why, in this very forum two years ago, I announced our strategy to address both these concerns. As some agencies had to retool, so to speak, for good governance, we had other agencies take up the slack. This was the idea behind the stimulus package I unveiled to you two years ago. By spending money the right way—without kickbacks, without overpricing, without collusion in contracts—we had generated a great amount of savings. This, along with additional and new sources of funds, could be spent strategically to accelerate and expand much-needed programs. It was an embodiment of our campaign promise: By curbing corruption, we saved money; and we were able to channel this to programs that would bring us closer to our goal of alleviating poverty. If I may give a concrete example: The Araneta Underpass in Quezon Avenue was allotted a budget of P694.15 million. But because we undertook a proper, transparent bidding process, we were able to lower the project’s total cost to P430 million, and it was even finished a hundred days ahead of schedule. The savings, worth P264 million in this case, then went back to the national coffers, which could then be allocated towards other projects under the national strategy—whether it was building other road projects, or funding vital services such as education and health. I am happy to report that the stimulus program went on to help thousands of our countrymen. We were able to relocate informal settlers who were living in danger areas, build necessary infrastructure through the DPWH, and upgrade the facilities of government hospitals, such as the Lung Center of the Philippines, the Philippine Heart Center, and the Philippine Children’s Medical Center. The program also helped fund TESDA’s Training for Work Scholarship Program, and was responsible for also electrifying 1,513 sitios all around the Philippines. It provided funds for the PNP to hire an additional 15,000 non-uniformed personnel to do administrative work, so that our policemen can fulfill the duties that they were trained for. It also funded Project NOAH, which has saved countless lives and freed many more from the unease brought about by natural calamities. The stimulus package was successful in advancing the benefits accrued to the citizens. When, in the past, such benefits would be delayed by a cumbersome bureaucracy, our processes ensured the biggest positive impact in the most efficient and fastest possible manner. Needless to say, the program was very well received. The World Bank even said, in their quarterly report, that the stimulus program contributed 1.3 percentage points to GDP growth in the fourth quarter of 2011. It helped us overcome the inertia that the economy was experiencing then. And we are sustaining the momentum up to now. In 2012, our economy grew by 6.8 percent, and then by another 7.6 percent in the first half of 2013, exceeding the forecasts of many experts. We moved to the 59th spot in the World Economic Forum’s Competitiveness Rankings, marking a 26-place jump in only three years, which allowed us to leapfrog more traditionally competitive countries in the rankings. Above that, our proper spending on that stimulus package—and our general fiscal responsibility—convinced the world’s three most renowned credit ratings agencies to grant our country investment grade status. This stimulus program that heralded our country’s economic boom was named the Disbursement Acceleration Program. You may have heard of it. After all, at this point, who has not? For the past few weeks—nearly two years after I announced it—it has been unjustly and oddly vilified in the media. Perhaps I can repeat that for emphasis: Two years after I announced the program—nearly two years after the same media lauded government for its resourcefulness, and after two years worth of projects that have helped perhaps millions of our countrymen—it is receiving intense criticism from some quarters. In fact, I was perplexed to hear that some people equated the DAP with PDAF, when, simply, it was a program that strategically allocated funds to agencies that had already proven the capacity to implement projects and programs rapidly and efficiently. The legality of such a process has never been in question. As clearly stated in Executive Order 292, or the Administrative Code of 1987 amongst other laws. It is difficult to fathom how one could equate this program with PDAF. The only thing one could remotely relate to PDAF were those projects undertaken through consultation with our legislators. After all, just as we engaged regional offices, local partners, and civil society in identifying projects, was it not also appropriate to hear the proposals of the elected officials of the land? Taking this into account, such projects by the legislators made up a mere nine percent of the program. Why, then, is the DAP being made an issue? The criticism of DAP also coincides with the criticism we are receiving about the bonuses granted by the SSS—the framework for which was outlined in the GOCC bill we signed into law two years ago. Even our reforms over at the Bureau of Customs—which the public had long been asking for—has received unfair criticism. There have been personal attacks on some of the Deputy Commissioners we have just appointed; and you may have even gotten a vitriolic white paper attacking the person of Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima. And if I may share this, I read an article on the matter a few weeks ago that, again, perplexed me. It mentioned a certain court decision issuing a Temporary Restraining Order against one of our steps to reform the Bureau of Customs. The decision suggested that “grave injustice” would be done if Customs personnel were detailed to a new unit that would focus on crafting much needed administrative, procedural, and legislative reform in the bureau. Where is this “grave injustice,” if I may ask, When these personnel would be paid exactly the same amount as they are making in their old posts with their seniority intact? I wonder what would happen to our country, if every employee that was assigned a new task by his superior would find it prudent to petition for a TRO to be granted. Since I am in a room full of journalists, perhaps I can leave it to you to connect the dots: All of these attacks came after plunder cases, among others, that were filed before the Office of the Ombudsman against a few well-known politicians. And perhaps, again because I am in a room full of journalists, I do not need to remind you of the true issue that has seemingly been drowned out by all the background noise. And so I ask you: Let’s keep our eye on the ball. The public was outraged by the audacity with which public officials allegedly stole from the national coffers through PDAF. This is an outrage we share, and this is precisely why we abolished PDAF, and followed the evidence so that we may hold all those who committed wrongdoing accountable. Our media and our people are far too good—far too wise—to be grossly and brazenly led to the wrong issue. Plunderers should be taken to account. As FOCAP, formed in 1974 to resist the Martial Law regime’s iron grip on information, has seen: the Philippines developed a moribund reputation because the world saw that reforms could be stopped in their tracks by the corrupt. Yet, I submit that at no other time in living memory have we been so close to achieving permanent change. In the coming months and years, we can expect those wedded to the old ways to stop at nothing to prevent this change. I am confident, however, that the sober reporter—the responsible journalist—will see just how far we have gone, and how much the old crooks have their backs to the wall. I am here to ask all of you only to continue pursuing your journalistic ideals. After all, upon all our shoulders—government, media, and private citizens alike—rest the never-ending task of protecting and advancing our democracy. In the midst of the cacophony of voices, the journalist must be able to separate the important from the frivolous, the spin from the facts, the malicious lies from the simple truth. I am confident that you will pursue the type of journalism that is not about page views or advertisers, or about renting a megaphone to the highest bidder; but rather, the type of journalism that those who came before us fought for, and at times, died for. The type of journalism that builds nations. I encourage all of you to continue reporting what is important to the public. Just as I continue my own endless pursuit of leading a government that Filipinos deserve—I hope that you continue your equally endless pursuit of being the media that the people deserve. I believe this is the significance of our forum. This is why I am very eager to have a candid, transparent conversation with all of you: to further strengthen the relationship between government and media; to help myself and my Cabinet gain an even greater feel of the pulse of the media and the people; and to give rise to balanced, informed reporting that works for the public’s interest. Thank you, and with that, I believe I’m ready for any all your questions.
Posted on: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 06:15:24 +0000