Mr. President, as the chamber is aware, the committee on finance has been conducting hearings on the compensation of GOCCs and the reason why I’m standing up today is to urgently request the President to suspend the allowances of the board of directors of the GOCCs because as we talk now, as we are talking today, these abuses continue unabated and unless the President immediately orders the suspension of these obscene allowances, public interest will continue to suffer. I am therefore proposing Mr. President that the Senate passes a resolution, subject to style, expressing the deep concern of the chamber over the salaries and allowances of the GOCCs, described in media as obscene and abusive. I’m urging President Benigno S. Aquino III to order the immediate suspension of the bonuses of the Board of Directors or Trustees of the different GOCCs. Let me emphasize Mr. President that we are only asking for the suspension of the bonuses of the Board of Trustees/Directors. We are not at this stage asking that any be done on the salaries and allowances of the executives, the management or the rank-and-file of these GOCCs. Only the Board of Directors, the chairman of the Board of Directors.

Why are we doing this Mr. President? Because as we talk here today, the MWSS chairman, we discovered, received 25 months bonus in 2009. As chairman of the MWSS in that 25 months bonus amounting to P5 million. And yet, MWSS lost P3.5 billion in 2008. LWUA received a subsidy from the national government to the tune of P1.8 billion. Yet, that’s their Board of Directors bonuses amounting to millions per year. The Board of Trustees of the GSIS receives P6 million in bonuses per year, and I underscored Board of Directors. I am not talking about the executives. The Board of Directors received P6 million in bonuses and benefits on an annual basis. As pointed out by Senator Angara, they meet 12 times a year. In other words, for every board meeting, they earn P500,000 per board meeting.

The Social Security System, your honor, they sit in the Boards of the investee corporations, meaning, corporations where the SSS invest their funds. For example, in Philex Mining, the [members of the] Board of Directors enjoy bonuses amounting to 1 and 1/2% of the profit after taxes. These bonuses go to the Board of Directors, including those representing the SSS. These are not turned over.

In the case of Unionbank, the three members of the Board members of Unionbank representing SSS, had a bonus of P46 million for 2009. Do you know Mr. President how much is the cash dividend for 2009 of the SSS from Unionbank? P100 million. In other words while the SSS, which invested in Unionbank, is only entitled to P100 million in 2009 as cash dividend, then the trustees of the SSS who sit in Unionbank by virtue of the investments of the SSS, made P46 million—P15 million each in 2009.

Apart from that Mr. President, as we talk here, a number of board members are entitled to what they called “extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses.” One executive… profited from the corporation of GOCC, had P10 million in extraordinary and miscellaneous expenses which he liquidated simply by certifying that he spent this amount without submitting a single peso in receipts. And therefore, this went to his pocket.

These are the kinds of abuses that we have so far seen, and I have not even made on record all the abuses that we have so far unearthed. We intend to submit legislation to this chamber to regulate and hopefully stop the abuses because there have been Executive Orders but none had been followed. For example, MO 20 issued by former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in 2001, imposed as a ceiling on the heads of GOCCs an amount which is double the salary of a Cabinet secretary. Obviously, this has never been followed.

Moreover, there are certain GOCCs which have not remitted dividends in accordance with Republic Act 7656. It would take us little time, Mr. President your committee will take a little time, for us to craft the appropriate legislation. In the mean time, unless these abusive bonuses are temporarily, at least, stopped, then we make an end to the abusive bonuses.

And I would repeat, I am not talking about the people performing the line of function, I am talking about the suspension of the bonuses of the board of directors, who do not perform line functions. They just attend board meetings and yet they are entitled to gargantuan bonuses. In the GSIS, anywhere from P300,000-P500,000 per board meeting, depending on the number of meetings they have in a year, they make P6 million.

So all of this, we are still going through our hearing. It is not an easy task because this has never been looked into before. As certainly, the government’s deficit can be addressed without in my mind immediately raising new taxes if we just put a stop to these abuses that we see. We are requiring GOCCs to comply with the obligation to remit dividends.

Just last week, upon our initiative as we registered on the record, Bangko Sentral agreed to remit P9.3 billion in back dividends. The Development Bank of the Philippines has agreed to declare additional dividends out of the P18 billion retained earnings. So these steps that we are taking will certainly augment the coffers of this government without new taxes being imposed. These dividends will go a long way in building more schools, hiring more teachers, providing our policemen with equipment so that the unfortunate incident in Luneta can better be handled next time.

It is in this sense that we are asking that the Senate adopt a resolution expressing deep concern over the allowances and salaries of the members of the governing boards of the GOCCS, and urging the President to immediately suspend the bonuses of the chairman of the Board of Directors of the GOCCs. I so move Mr. President.

In a meeting in Manila recently, on the occasion of the conference “Asian Liberal Parties in Power: Getting There, Remaining There” held on June 28-29 at the  Dusit Thani Hotel in Makati, the CALD Executive Committee (Execom) made a decision to bestow an honorary individual membership title to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Laureate and one of Asia’s most revered icons of democracy.

As a former CALD chairman, I am hopeful that the entry of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi into this council of Asian liberals can hasten the return of democracy in Burma through the initiative of dialogue and peaceful negotiations.

I recall that President  Cory Aquino, President Noynoy Aquino’s mother and the Philippines’s own democracy icon, was very close to Suu Kyi and even represented the jailed Burmese leader in various international events. Cory’s heart was close to Suu Kyi. Cory believed that Suu Kyi can lead the Burmese in its fight for freedom and democracy.

CALD can serve as the vehicle for Suu Kyi and her aspirations to bring back democracy in Burma through the unwavering support and solidarity of the international community with the people of Burma in their continuing struggle for justice, freedom and democracy.

Founded in 1993, CALD is a regional alliance of liberal and democratic political parties in Asia. Besides the Liberal Party of the Philippines, other members include the Democrat Party of Thailand, the Democratic Progressive Party of Taiwan, the Liberal Party of Sri Lanka, the Sam Rainsy Party of Cambodia, the Singapore Democratic Party, the Malaysian People’s Movement Party (Gerakan), the National Council of the Union of Burma(NCUB), and the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P).

I would like to extend my warm welcome to all of you most especially to our international visitors from the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats, the Liberal International and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation.

You come here during a most historic occasion. After more than a half a century, we will be inaugurating, two days from now, the next President of the Republic, the Executive Vice President of the Liberal Party, President Benigno S. Aquino III, or simply President Noynoy as he wants to be addressed.

Today, we are here to pay tribute to a man whose sacrifices and contributions to our country’s continuing struggle for freedom, justice and human rights, the rule of law and democracy, have no equal.

During the dark days of Martial Law and the creeping forces of tyranny that remained resilient even after the restoration of democracy, the Liberal Party has been in the forefront of democratic struggle. And during all these, we remained strong because of our singular pillar, our Jovito R. Salonga. With pride, I recall that it was Jovito R. Salonga who inducted me into the LP, whose membership at that time could fit into one Volkswagen.

In a society like the Philippines where the elite dominate the country’s social, political and economic life, Jovito Salonga is a rarity. He was born in poverty and worked his way through college and law school. He was incarcerated by the Japanese Imperial Army, and tortured in the presence of his father.

After the war,  Salonga finished his law degree, passed the bar and went to the United States for his masters in Harvard University and doctorate in law from Yale University.

His academic success was only matched by his political victories. Drawing support from the grassroots, many of whom were young people who felt disenfranchised because of the elitist nature of Philippine democracy, Ka Jovy, a man of humble beginnings, was elected as congressman of his native province of Rizal.

On August 21, 1971-a day of infamy not just for the Liberal Party but for the entire nation as well, Ka Jovy suffered some of most serious injuries when Plaza Miranda was bombed during the party’s campaign rally. To this day, Ka Jovy carries dozens of shrapnel in his body, and remains blind in one eye, and deaf in one ear. Ka Jovy topped the senatorial elections that year.

Together with fellow Liberals like Ninoy Aquino and Gerry Roxas, Jovy Salonga opposed the declaration of Martial Law. He served as lawyer of various political detainees, both obscure and celebrated, until he himself became one. At one point, he was thrown in the same isolation room where Ninoy spent seven years of his life. Ka Jovy was now again imprisoned and humiliated, but this time, not by foreign invaders but by his fellow Filipinos.

In 1987, a year after Cory Aquino became president, Ka Jovy once again topped the senatorial race and was elected President of the Philippine Senate. This was not surprising. Ka Jovy was the embodiment of the statesman of the highest order who walked the august chambers of the Philippine Senate prior to the declaration of Martial Law: brilliant in mind, and eloquent in speech, whose actions and very life embodied the principles and ideals that they espoused.

And what makes it more amazing is how Ka Jovy survived despite the odds: his imprisonment and tortuous ordeal during the Second World War; the Plaza Miranda bombing that mutilated his body but not his spirit; and his imprisonment and political persecution during Martial Law.

Ka Jovy belongs to that greatest generation of Filipino statesmen.  At the same time, Ka Jovy belongs to no particular generation because his wisdom is timeless, and his ideals, ageless.

In 1991, despite tremendous pressure, Senate President Salonga and 11 other senators including Liberal Party’s Wigberto Tanada, Victor Ziga and Teofisto Guingona, voted against the ratification of the US bases. Many of us remember his immortal words spoken on September 16, 1991: “The need to maintain US bases in the Philippines explains why the US supported the corrupt, repressive Marcos dictatorship for 14 years…As long as the bases are here, our relations with the US will not be healthy or normal… The moment of truth has arrived…and we are writing a glorious chapter in our history…As a nation, our best years were when we took our destiny in our hands and faced the uncertain future with boldness and faith…Today, we have finally summoned the political will  to end 470 years of  foreign military presence here in the Philippines”

On a personal note, I was the executive secretary of President Cory Aquino at the height of the debate on the ratification of the RP-US bases agreement. President Cory Aquino, mother of our incoming president, sincerely believed that it was in the country’s interests to ratify the new bases agreement.

As President Cory Aquino’s Executive Secretary, the implementation of the campiagn to convince Senate President Salonga and the Senate to ratify the agreement fell on my lap. I remember walking under the rain with President Cory Aquino from Luneta to the Senate. Dripping wet, President Cory Aquino led pro-bases advocates in trying to convince Senate President Salonga and the senate to ratify the bases agreement. Of course, we failed. No power of the presidency could convince Jovy Salonga and the Senate to change their vote.

In my political career, this is one failure I cherish.

Can you imagine if we succeeded? Those damn bases would still be with us.

Just this morning, I was being interviewed by a Japanese newsman. Today the Japanese society is confronted by the question  on whether  or not to retain the US military bases in Okinawa, an issue that has already caused the collapse of one government.

He asked me: How was the Filipino people able to muster the political will to let go of the US bases in the Philippines. The answer was quite obvious; we had Jovito R. Salonga.

The decision of Ka Jovy took its toll when he run for President in 1992.  But Ka Jovy was proven right. The former US bases in the Philippines, in particularly Subic and Clark, are now thriving economic freeport zones and popular tourists destinations.

Here you can see his foresight—though politically costly, he believed that in the long term, there will be more benefits to a greater number of people if the military bases were used for civilian purposes. Ka Jovy is not a traditional politician who is preoccupied merely with electoral victories, he is a statesman of the highest order who has dedicated his heart, mind and soul for the benefit and welfare of Filipinos and generations of Filipinos to come.  As our Liberal Party campaign slogan for 2010 proudly hails, “Country above self!”

Even after retiring from politics, Ka Jovy remained the conscience of Philippine society. He formed the Kilosbayan or People’s Movement, a non-partisan, independent and ethics-oriented people’s organization that serves as a forum for increasing public awareness and participation in political issues and governance, and Bantay Katarungan,   or the Sentinel of Justice, formed for the purpose of reforming and modernizing the system of justice in the Philippines.

It is but proper that we give this tribute to the pillar of Philippine liberalism on this occasion, where we have the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats, the oldest, biggest and most dynamic  grouping of political parties in Asia. Ka Jovy believed in strong political parties as vital and irreplaceable in any functioning democracy.

To a significant extent,  the story of Jovito Salonga mirrors  the history of our young nation and the history of the Liberal Party.  Jovito Salonga, the Liberal Party, and the 3rd Republic of the Philippines, with President Manuel Roxas at the helm, all rose from the ashes of war. Democratic gains were halted because of authoritarian and corrupt regimes. Now we witness once again the winds of hope and change with the ascent of Noynoy Aquino as the next president of our republic.

Through the highs and lows of our history—the voice of this man, though perhaps small in physical stature, was and continues to remain a formidable intellectual and moral presence. Whether in the chambers of the legislature or in the parliaments of the streets, whether from prison or while in exile, whether as the third highest official of the land or as an academic or as a leader of civil society, when ka Jovy Salonga speaks, we listen. We listen because it is the voice of wisdom tempered by experience; it is the voice of idealism that crosses generations. Ignore Ka Jovy and you deprive yourself from the privilege of his wise counsel that is bereft of any motive or ill will.  Engage him and your life becomes fuller, richer and nobler.

What if Gloria Arroyo gave serious thought to Ka Jovy who said during the fateful day in September 1991 when Filipinos decided to get rid of the US bases and regain its pride:  “In the end we live with our conscience, everyone of us. None of us can escape the judgment of history.”

Now that we in the Liberal Party have been given the privilege to serve the people, let the wisdom of Ka Jovy continue to guide us. We must live with our conscience and be ready to die with our integrity intact.

Otherwise, we face the condemnation of our people’s collective memory.

The Liberal Party of the Philippines, now the party in power after more than half a century, is tasked not only with making our party stronger, but also in initiating the necessary political and electoral reforms needed to strengthen the vital institutions that make democracy work and sustainable.

And with the victory of Noynoy and the legacy of Ka Jovy, we Liberals are on the right track.

Mabuhay! Maraming salamat po!

The recent statement of Aquino spokesperson Edwin Lacierda that the Aquino camp finds both malice and bad faith in Arroyo’s rash of appointments since “it intends to stifle the next administration” appears to be laying the legal groundwork for such revocation.

But can Arroyo’s appointments be considered midnight appointments even if they were made or dated before the two-month prohibitory period stated in the Constitution?

According to media reports, from March 1 to March 9, President Arroyo appointed more than 170 persons to important government positions. These appointments allegedly beat the deadline on the 60-day ban on appointments prior to elections, which started on March 10.

But are these appointments legal or are they invalid since they fall under the Constitutional prohibition on midnight appointments?

This question, it appears, will dominate the legal landscape of the country in the coming weeks. Allow me, however, to dissect the various legal principles and doctrines involved in this issue.

The Appointing Power and the Necessity of Acceptance

The power to appoint is essentially an executive function and is thus conferred by the Constitution to the president. The power, however, is not absolute.

One limitation is imposed by Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution which prohibits the practice of midnight appointments by an outgoing president. It states: “Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a president or acting president shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.”

Technically, appointments made before the prohibited two-month period prior to the presidential elections are not midnight appointments. But all appointments require the acceptance of the appointee as this is necessary to complete an appointment.  It is the acceptance by the appointee that renders the appointment effective and entitles him to the enjoyment and benefits of the office.

Arguably, since the appointment is effective only after the person has accepted the post, such acceptance must also be made before the prohibited period. This means that officials who failed to accept their appointments before the March 10 deadline are deemed midnight appointees.

Legality of Midnight Appointments

Those who introduced this prohibition in the 1987 Constitution were apparently aware of the 1962 Supreme Court case of Aytona v. Castillo where the court nullified the 350 appointments made by outgoing President Carlos Garcia on the eve of incoming President Diosdado Macapagal’s inauguration.

In upholding Macapagal’s cancellation of Garcia’s appointments, the Supreme Court ruled: “Nobody will assert that Garcia ceased to be President earlier than at noon of December 30, 1961. But it is common sense to believe that after the proclamation of President Macapagal, (Garcia’s) was no more than a ‘care-taker’ administration. He was duty bound to prepare for the orderly transfer of authority to the incoming president, and he should not do acts which he ought to know would embarrass or obstruct the policies of his successor.”

In its ruling, the Supreme Court admonished Garcia that “it was not for him to use powers as incumbent president to continue the political warfare that had ended or to avail himself of presidential prerogatives to serve partisan purposes.”

While the appointments were issued by Garcia at the time when he was still President, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Macapagal on the grounds that Garcia exercised his constitutional power of appointment with “an abuse of presidential prerogatives” and with the “mere partisan effort to fill all vacant positions irrespective of fitness and other conditions” for the purpose of depriving “the new administration of an opportunity to make the corresponding appointments.”

The high tribunal stressed that “the filling up of vacancies in important positions if few, and so spaced as to afford some assurance of deliberate action and careful consideration of the need for the appointment and the appointee’s qualifications may undoubtedly be permitted.”

In other words, an outgoing president may still issue appointments at the onset of the prohibited period provided these are few and spaced, thus assuring that careful deliberation was made on the need for such appointments.

Applicability of the Prohibition on Midnight Appointments

In the case of the appointments made by Pres. Arroyo from March 1 to March 9, the rationale of the ruling in the Aytona case can be the basis for the cancellation by President-elect Aquino of Arroyo’s appointments.

There is no question that President Arroyo can still exercise her power of appointment before March 10, 2010.  However, Arroyo’s prerogatives as President leading to the two-month prohibitory period against midnight appointment “is no more than that of a care-taker administration” tasked to prepare for the orderly transfer of authority to the next president.

Therefore, if it can be shown that her appointments were also attended with similar, if not identical, “extraordinary circumstances” as in Aytona, then her appointments can also be nullified by the new president.

At President Garcia did in Aytona vs. Castillo, it is clear that President Arroyo exercised her power of appointment in “abuse of presidential prerogatives” and with the “mere partisan effort to fill all vacant positions irrespective of fitness and other conditions” for the purpose of depriving “the new administration of an opportunity to make the corresponding appointments.”

We should not countenance the selfish and self-serving motive of an outgoing president of depriving her successor of the opportunity to make his own appointments and be able to pursue his own programs of government. An outgoing president should never exercise the power of appointment unfairly or arbitrarily, or in violation of the adage that a public office is a public trust. Such power should not be exercised in a manner that is harsh, oppressive, vindictive or done out of malice or spite.

Even if Arroyo’s appointments were made before March 10 deadline, they still fall under the prohibition on midnight appointments because of the “extraordinary circumstances” present – that they were made to contravene the very rationale behind the constitutional injunction against midnight appointments.

It is clear that the principal intent and spirit of the Constitutional ban against midnight appointments is to preclude an outgoing president from perpetuating his influence beyond his mandated term.

A midnight appointment can be used as a potent tool to obtain the loyalty of the appointees. Such loyalty is a vital component should Mrs. Arroyo desire to continually promote and protect her selfish political interests.

Furthermore, the prohibition on midnight appointments should serve to ensure that President-elect Aquino will be guaranteed a free hand in appointing the officials of the various government agencies under his administration.

I therefore submit that there is sufficient legal basis to challenge President Arroyo’s appointments, even if they were made before the two-month prohibitory period on midnight appointments.

While she remains President until noon of June 30, Mrs. Arroyo’s prerogative is by no means absolute, as it remains subject to pertinent laws and regulations, as well as the requisites for the issuance and completion of a valid appointment.

We must remember that even if President Arroyo’s rash of appointments beat the March 10 deadline, the Supreme Court has upheld, as in Aytona, that the observance of strict legality of these appointments must ultimately yield to “fairness, justice and righteousness” in the face of exceptional circumstances.

Government must strengthen the country’s alternative educational programs to address the growing number of illiterate Filipinos which has reached 15 million in the last six years.

According to the Functional Literacy, Education, and Mass Media Survey (FLEMMS), which is done every five years to determine literacy rate in the country, of this total number, 11 million Filipinos do not have functional literacy and four million do not have basic literacy.

Whatever the reasons why our fellow Filipinos are not able get education must be addressed in the soonest possible time.

While the state provides free elementary and secondary education, we also know that schooling costs go beyond tuition. There are other expenses that families bear in sending their children to school. I myself was a product of the public school system, and I saw how my parents put us through school.

In view of this, the education department’s alternative learning system (ALS) must be strengthened. This is the only way we can reach most of the 15 million, if not all. Our formal education system cannot do the job alone.

One primary reason for this ballooning illiteracy rate is poverty. I surmise that most, if not all, of the 15 million are in the far-flung communities, who do not have the money to travel to school, or buy school supplies, or have money for baon.

The ALS, delivered by the Bureau of Alternative Learning System (BALS), is an educational route parallel to formal basic education, which on the other hand is delivered by the bureaus of elementary and secondary education. The BALS, formerly known as the Bureau of Non-formal Education, is an integral bureau of the Department of Education.

The programs under the alternative learning system would allow an adult illiterate to get basic literacy, and an out-of-school adult or out-of-school youth acquire functional literacy almost at no cost.  And their education can reach them wherever they are, because the alternative learning system delivers education outside the classroom.

We should work double-time to prevent this 15 million to balloon some more. The country’s alternative learning programs should be given the budget sufficient enough to bring education to the people.

I have always said that education levels the playing field, that it is the route to fight poverty, and that because it is a right, our 15 million fellow Filipinos should get their education, wherever they are, at whatever time.

With the candidates’ exorbitant spending in what I described as the most expensive election in Philippine history, legislators who are successfully elected must assure the people that their countrywide development funds, more commonly known as “pork barrel,” would not be used to reimburse their campaign expenses.

Our candidates, as well as the present members of Congress, should be mindful of the fact that while a senator or a congressman has full discretion as to how his pork barrel funds should be spent, these funds are not his but of the people, and therefore should be spent only in projects which would directly benefit the people.

If elected back to the Senate, I will continue allocating my funds to the construction of school buildings in remote provinces throughout the country, recognizing the fact that education is still the key to a country’s sustainable growth.

As you are aware, in all my 12 years as a senator, my pork barrel funds had been devoted largely to the construction of school buildings and classrooms in various provinces across the country.

In partnership with a non-stock, non-profit organization, we were able to construct around 1,400 school buildings and 415 classrooms throughout the country, at half the cost of the school buildings built by our Department of Public Works and Highways.

But these are not enough to deliver quality education to majority of our people. We certainly need more classrooms and more teachers if we are to achieve a hundred percent literacy rate and really move our country forward.

Aside from constructing school buildings, I also used my pork barrel funds to construct around 95 halls of justice throughout the country.

The new Congress should commit to give the highest allocation to education in the national budget, pursuant to the mandate of our Constitution.

Our Constitution requires the government to assign the highest budgetary priority to education, and ensure that teaching will attract and retain its rightful share of the best available talents through adequate remuneration and other means of job satisfaction and fulfillment.

Education and the teaching sector remain the most undervalued sector of our society. While OFW remittances have sustained our country for years, we cannot afford to lose our best teachers to foreign countries who pay them more. The government, especially Congress, should adopt measures to elevate the quality of education in our country, and these include measures to augment our teachers’ income so they would not be enticed to work overseas.

My mother was a public school teacher, and I myself am a product of the public school system.  Equal access to good education is the mark of a fair and just society.

Under an LP administration, overseas Filipinos who want to settle down and invest businesses here will find it easier to transact business in a graft-free and reform-oriented government. No longer will they have to contend with the usual graft and corruption and red tape.

Under Aquino’s platform of transparency and good governance, more investment possibilities will be offered to overseas Filipinos holding dual citizenship.

Filipinos who have dual citizenship status are still Filipinos. They are still covered by our Constitution, therefore they should not be deprived of the rights their fellow Filipinos have, especially when it comes to doing business in the country.

In August of 2003, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003 ( R.A. 9225) which states that Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act. Allow me to tell you that I was principal author of the Dual Citizenship Law.

Now, natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are now deemed to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship. Overseas Filipinos only need to swear allegiance to the Motherland, and, of course, follow the rules and regulations of the country.

Our economy needs not just the influx of funds that hardworking Filipinos send from abroad. We need their businesses, and I firmly believe that Noynoy, with the help of the Liberal Party and the rest of the business community, can make things happen.

The Aquino administration will make it a priority to attract, promote and welcome productive investments from foreign individuals, partnerships, corporations, and governments, including their political subdivisions, so long as they invest in activities which will significantly contribute to the nation’s industrialization and socio-economic development.

There are a lot of overseas Filipinos with dual citizenship who dream of making a difference in their lives, and one of these dreams, as we know, is to have the freedom to run their own businesses.

Now, overseas Filipinos who are tired of working abroad and instead want to come home and settle down with their own businesses, for as long as they follow the rules mandated by the Constitution, they need not fear that their status as having dual citizenship will be a deterrent to achieving their dreams.

Investments made by dual citizens will be highly encouraged by the Aquino administration in ventures that will greatly expand the livelihood and employment opportunities for every Filipino, enhance the economic value of farm products, and, of course, promote the welfare of Filipino Consumers.

Foreign investments will definitely be a welcome supplement to Filipino capital and technology, especially in enterprises serving mainly the domestic market.

Overseas Filipinos with dual citizenship, having their network of foreign markets, can help expand the scope, quality and volume of exports in the Philippines. With the knowledge that they have gained from working abroad, OFWs can help Noynoy in his fight to address poverty, through the transfer of relevant technologies in agriculture, industry and support services.

Labor day will be another sad day for the Filipino worker. As a former Labor Secretary in the Cory Aquino Administration, I am alarmed at our current situation where millions of workers remain underemployed or are forced to find jobs in others countries because of the lack of employment opportunities at home.  Traditionally, government grants wage benefits or outight salary hikes to workers during Labor Day. This year, they’ll get nothing. Apparently, one needs a special relationship with the first couple to improve their lot in life, similar to the cases of  Arroyo’s manicurist, Anita Carpon, recently appointed to the PAG-IBIG Housing Fund Board, and her gardener, Armando Macapagal, who is now Luneta Park deputy administrator.

Unemployment and underemployment continue to be a huge problems here with breadwinners unable to make both ends meet. In my opinion, this is connected to the general lack of investment confidence in the government due to its dismal record in fighting graft and corruption, as well as persistent talks that oligarchs close to the First Couple are given preferential treatment. What we need now is to elect a President whom investors, both local and foreign, can trust will provide good governance and a level playing field for business. Without investor confidence, no job opportunities can be created. And without local job opportunities, Filipinos will continue to go abroad.

This is perhaps the greatest cost of the OFW era: the separation of millions of family members. Modern Filipino society is littered with sad stories of broken homes. Young children practically grow up without their fathers and/or mothers because circumstances force them to leave.

Eliminating this modern tragedy and its root causes are central to the the Liberal Party’s platform.

Under an LP administration led by Noynoy Aquino, the government will immediately implement comprehensive reforms to jumpstart the economy and generate new jobs for all Filipinos. Currently, employment growth is concentrated in the business process outsourcing sector which benefits primarily young and educated professionals. Employment generation initiatives must be expanded to include new opportunities for blue collar wage earners who represent the bulk of our workforce.

I welcome the Commission on Elections (Comelec) decision dismissing the disqualification case against me.

In a nine-page resolution on Monday, the poll body ruled that there is no constitutional provision barring me from running in the May 10 senatorial elections. The poll body cited the Socrates case wherein the Supreme Court said that a three-year hiatus was “sufficient” in order to successfully “hurdle” the two-term limit.

I have always maintained that the law was on our side and this case was merely one of the many harassment suits filed by the Arroyo administration against opposition figures like me.

The disqualification case was filed by a certain Vladimir Cabigao who claimed I should be disqualified because I have not completed the “prohibitory period” of one term, or six years, from my last term in 2007.

I have served two terms in the Senate, from 1995 to 2007. Because of this, Cabigao said I could only seek reelection in 2013, or six years after I have served my consecutive terms in the Senate.

I have said before that it was only a move by the administration to weaken the opposition. When it was filed, I already had predicted that the Comelec would eventually dismiss the petition.

The Comelec’s decision is a clear indication of the wheels of justice moving on the side of what is right.

The records of the 1986 Constitutional Convention indicate that a senator can run after only three years, following his completion of two terms.  The Constitution also acknowledged that the prohibited election refers only to the immediate reelection, and not to any subsequent reelection, during the six-year period following the two term limit.

I am vindicated by the fact that Comelec followed the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Socrates case, wherein the high court ruled that a three year term hiatus was sufficient in order to successfully hurdle the two-year term limit of an aspiring candidate.

I had a hiatus of three years since my second consecutive term as Senator. Last February, the poll body also ruled that former Senator Serge Osmeña III is eligible to run in the May polls. Cabigao was also the one who filed the disqualification plea against Osmeña on the same grounds.

There is still enough time for Philippine embassy officials abroad to step up the overseas voters information campaign to improve on the sixteen percent (16%) voter turnout in the 2007 elections.

Officials and personnel of the Commission on Elections, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Labor and Employment and other government offices based in Philippine embassies abroard can very well promote absentee voting among OFWs.

Just to refresh your memory, dear readers, I was Senate President when the Overseas Absentee Voting Act was signed into law. I was also the principal author of the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003 that granted dual citizenship to overseas Filipinos. These two laws are very close to my heart, so to speak.

The Comelec and other government offices abroad should at least aim to equal the 65 percent voter turnout in the 2004 elections by going full-blast in their information drive.

After nine years of maladministration and mismanagement under President Arroyo, the Filipinos deserve a better government and our countrymen overseas have as much stake and say—as us resident Filipinos—in the shaping our country’s future and must be given every opportunity to exercise their right of suffrage.

It would be very unfortunate if our registered overseas voters cannot cast their vote due to lack of information and inefficiencies in the implementation of the law.

The concerned government offices should not be hampered in their voter participation efforts by budgetary constraints. Aside from the customary and traditional media-driven information campaign, our government officials can innovate by using available technology, such as the Internet, email, social networking sites, and even YouTube.

Overseas absentee voters have between April 10 to 6 p.m. of May 10 to vote for their choices for president, vice president, senators, and party list. Based on available data, of the 8.1 million Filipinos overseas workers and residents, 589,830 are registered and eligible to vote for this year’s national elections. One hundred two embassies and consulates will have postal voting and 70 diplomatic posts will have personal voting. Overseas voters in Hong Kong and Singapore will be using the automated election system.