COLUMN: OPINION ON PAGE ONE- Do we need to copy the French? / By Francisco S. Tatad

Protesters lit fires near the Arc de Triomphe.

.

IN Paris, the Arc de Triomphe has been defaced. Champs Elysees and the avenues off it damaged. Protesters wearing yellow vests are threatening riots and burning vehicles and debris in public places. At least four deaths have been reported. This may not be the 1968 French revolution all over again, but what began as a protest against President Emmanuel Macron’s tax on diesel, which is widely used by French motorists but traditionally less heavily taxed than other types of fuel, has grown into something much bigger, and spread into major cities. The anger is directed no longer simply at the fuel tax, but also at high living costs, the marginalization of rural France, and Macron’s failure to deliver on his promise of a more dynamic economy and lower unemployment. The crisis has pulled down Macron’s and Prime Minister Edouard Philippe’s approval ratings, 23 percent for Macron and for Philippe 26 percent.

The protest is not even led by any known or identifiable personalities. With the social media as their battleground, France’s “little people” have come together, with anarchists on the far left, nationalists on the far right, and moderates in between, to demand greater fiscal justice, greater social justice, increased purchasing power, and to force the government to listen. Macron had earlier vowed not to capitulate, but Philippe was ultimately forced to announce the suspension of the so-called carbon tax on vehicle fuel, which was to come in on January 1, 2019; planned increases in gas and electricity prices this winter; and the toughening of rules for vehicle emission tests.

Despite their victory, the protests promise to continue — no longer on the issues that have been won, but on other larger issues. This means the Macron government is in trouble. The “little people’s” demand to be heard is clearly winning over there. But not here.

.

ADS by Cloud 9:
.
– SPACE RESERVE FOR YOUR ADVERTISEMENT –
.

.

Not like Paris
Here, inflation remains at 6 percent, after rising to its highest level in years last September-October. But the peso remains devalued, jobs are down, foreign investors are leaving, and hunger and starvation stalk the homes of the poor.

There are no angry protesters burning cars and foreign flags and protesting failed economic policies. And upon the recommendation of the three “economic managers” — Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez, Economic Planning Secretary Ernesto Pernia and Budget Secretary Benjamin Diokno — President Rodrigo Duterte, at his Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, approved the proposed increase in fuel excise tax, which they had earlier proposed suspending, for next year.

But this is where we expect the economic and political heat to come from. The fact that it is an election year makes this doubly inevitable.

The 2017 Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (Train) law was meant to reduce the burden on Filipino taxpayers. But its immediate result was the exact opposite of the declared intention. When inflation and world crude prices shot up, the government was forced to consider suspending the proposed fuel excise tax hike next year. But after world crude prices suddenly dropped from $80 per barrel to $68 per barrel, with Dubai Futures projected to further decline below $60 per barrel, the economic managers revived their push for the tax hike next year.

.

Possible losses
Beyond the fuel tax issue, Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon warns of the broader effects of the Train law (Part 2) on jobs and foreign investments. He says that some 1,200 companies are poised to leave because of the government’s plan to remove incentives through Train 2. This could mean a loss of at least 150,000 jobs, the veteran lawmaker says.

We need to hear from our economic managers. What do they say?

In an election year, it won’t be easy to make a case for any tax increase. However, the administration will exert a great effort to make it. One plausible argument is that the tax hike could add an estimated P43.4 billion to the national treasury, and thereby reduce the estimated gargantuan budgetary deficit.

But one counter-argument is that the government could more easily cut, even perhaps wipe out, its humungous budgetary deficit by cutting down on the President’s unnecessary foreign travels and his abnormally inflated entourage, and the uninterrupted thieving of billions in public works funds by members of Congress, who have managed to keep the infamous “pork barrel” alive and well in everything but name, after it was supposedly terminated and buried by a landmark ruling of the Supreme Court. Why are there congressmen with “dredging” and “riprapping” projects, each worth billions of pesos?

.

Why people hate taxes
People abhor burdens they cannot bear, especially when they are getting no service or just governance in return. And they feel they are overtaxed and underserved. They have borne the President’s excesses in silence, but the breaking point could be reached, if and when further burdens are imposed without adequate consultations, and without their express consent. As of now, most members of Congress are perceived, no longer as the people’s elected representatives, but as the President’s sycophants and lapdogs.

One concerned political observer has warned we might be approaching a situation similar to that of the American colonies in the late 1700s when they rejected the power of the English Crown to tax them without first making them part of the British government.

This happened in 1765, when the British Parliament required American colonists to pay taxes on every page of printed paper they used, and for playing cards and dice. Known as the Stamp Act, this prompted the orator Patrick Henry of the Virginia House of Burgesses to declare, “No taxation without representation!”, and, subsequently, the American colonies to convene a Stamp Act Congress in New York to formally declare that the Crown had no right to tax Americans who had no representation in the British Parliament.

The Stamp Act Congress sent its declaration to the King of England and Parliament, but they all ignored it; Parliament declared it had the right to tax the colonies as it saw fit. The American Revolution and war for independence did not take long in coming.

.

It isn’t just the tax
In our case, DU30 has tried to impose large, sometimes unconstitutional, burdens on us as a people without any proper consultations and without our express consent. Beyond simple tax measures that could tax our resources to breaking point are measures that could tax our law-abiding and God-fearing nature, our patriotism, our intelligence, and our patience to breaking point. The most obvious example is DU30’s effort to railroad his proposed “federal system of government.”

Whether this is good or bad, feasible or not feasible, can be debated; but before it can be debated, we should first examine whether DU30 has any right or duty or competence or power to propose it. This is what lawyers call the prejudicial question. Unless the answer to that question is yes, we cannot allow DU30 to get involved.

I have virtually exhausted my physical and intellectual energy pointing out that the President does not have the right or duty or competence or power to propose any constitutional amendment, much less propose a revision of the form or structure of government. This view has not been refuted, yet it has not prevented DU30 from using government time, money, personnel and other resources in trying to railroad it.

Who am I to exclude the President from getting involved in this process? I am not the one trying to exclude the President from it. Not at all. It is the Constitution itself that excludes him from any involvement in the process. Article XVII of the Constitution provides how and by whom it may be revised or amended.

.

So it says: any amendment to, or revision of, the Constitution may be proposed by: 1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members; or 2) a constitutional convention called by Congress upon a vote of two-thirds of all its members, or called by people in a plebiscite upon the recommendation of a majority of all the members of Congress; or 3) the people through initiative upon a petition of at least 12 percent of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district is represented by at least three percent of the registered voters therein.

Pure hokum?
The President is not mentioned among those who may propose any constitutional revision or amendment. He is excluded. How did former Chief Justice Rey Puno and the entire San Beda College of Law miss all this? Shouldn’t they have told him he could not create a consultative committee for the purpose of proposing a draft federal charter, to which they would all be appointed? Was the temptation of political power so strong that they could not resist its blinding effect? Assuming we could ignore the unconstitutionality and gross impropriety of DU30’s involvement, can we shift to a federal government without first knowing what exactly is this system, and how it will work?

The truth is, most of the people who are pushing madly for federalism have no great understanding of how it will work, and therefore cannot be said to be earnestly in favor of it. The people on the ground know even less, and cannot possibly be more supportive. I doubt that even President DU30 truly understands it and truly supports it. It may all be a con game, meant to distract us from the real issues of society and government. So why don’t we just end all this hokum and face life with all its adversities?

[email protected]

ADS by Cloud 9:
.
– SPACE RESERVE FOR YOUR ADVERTISEMENT –
.

.

All photographs, news, editorials, opinions, information, data, others have been taken from the Internet ..aseanews.net | [email protected] |.For comments, Email to :D’Equalizer | [email protected] | Contributor