Metro Manila Billboards - Unsightly Signs of Danger

By Rep. Ruffy Biazon
Lone District
Muntinlupa City

As we hold our sessions today, a significant part of our country is still suffering the effects of typhoon Milenyo. The headline of the Philippine Daily Inquirer says, “Millions Still Have No Power, Water.” My family and I are included in those millions, as well as a big number of my constituents.

IN 1995, the last time that a typhoon directly hit Metro Manila, the roof of my house was blown away, exposing my home to the ravages of wind and water. This time around, though my roof is still intact, the felled trees, and downed utility posts cut off the basic necessities such as light and water. For several hours after Milenyo had left the Metro, I was even cut off from the outside world due to the blockage of roads leading out of my residence.

The wrath of typhoon Milenyo, which had winds of up to 165 kilometers per hour, surely reminded us of the power of Nature, of which even the technological advances of man have proven to be no match against.

Even with the latest technologies and techniques in construction, infrastructure was still damaged, from houses to utility poles, buildings to billboards. If there is one thing that is similar between locals of Metro Manila and the residents of the provinces usually hit by typhoons, it is that both are helpless against the onslaught of high wind and heavy rain.

But in Metro Manila, what makes strong typhoons more lethal are the various man-made structures that turn into missiles and projectiles that could kill if they hit a person. A piece of GI sheet peeled off from a roof…a piece of lumber…shattered glass…downed power lines….a gigantic outdoor advertising billboard. These pose real dangers to the people already cowering in fear of the typhoon’s wind and rain.

We can already say that Metro Manila is not just a concrete jungle but a billboard jungle as well. With the advent of large format printing, outdoor advertising was taken to new heights, literally and figuratively. There is even one billboard along EDSA which was touted as the largest billboard in the world, complete with a flashy publicity stunt. Another billboard was even used as a launch pad by former NCRPO Chief Vidal Querol when he zip-lined from one side of the Pasig river to the other.

Companies and products which wanted to catch the attention of the public, most especially those using the thoroughfares, took advantage of the ability to print their advertisements on a larger than life scale, even larger than a four story building.

Anyone who has experienced flying out of and into Metro Manila is treated to the competition for dominance of the skyline between the skyscrapers of the mega city and the billboards around the Metro. As the airplanes land in the Manila International and Domestic Airports, one can cannot help but wonder if the billboards along South Superhighway do not distract the pilots or impede their approach.

Some would think that these giant structures are sturdy enough not to pose a danger to the public. But typhoon Milenyo proved to us that the steel trusses of the giant billboards are no match to the power of Nature.

I use the South Superhighway in my daily commute. Everyday I pass that stretch, I wonder how these monstrosities would stand up to the test of the elements and forces of nature.

Now I don’t have to wonder at all. 25 billboards were felled by typhoon Milenyo in the stretch of South Superhighway from Villamor Air Base to Susana Heights alone. 25 giant billboards. Most of it fell in the jurisdiction of Paranaque and Muntinlupa.

One billboard fell across power lines, cutting off electrical service to a wide area, and caused heavy traffic along the service road and South Superhighway itself. Another one, with its tarpaulin advertisement still spread over the frame in spite of the typhoon, fell right on top of a residential community where the houses are of light materials. By the grace of God, the houses were not crushed due to a utility post and a house that was made of cement. Otherwise, it would have been a human tragedy.

Other billboards around Metro Manila were not spared. One billboard even killed an unfortunate driver of a car which was crushed along EDSA. Other billboards caused damage to property which as of now is unclear as to who will shoulder the liability.

It is understandable that the outdoor advertisers association would downplay the dangers of oversized billboards. A Mr. Carlo Llave, president of the Outdoor Advertisers Association of the Philippines said, "The population of billboards in Metro Manila is 2,500. Less than 40 fell. If we talk percentages, that's still a good number".

I am appalled at the insensitivity and irresponsibility of that statement.

I wonder if Mr. Llave can face the family of Felipe Gumapon, the ill-fated driver who was killed by a billboard, and tell them that the billboard which snuffed the life out of Felipe is just 0.04% of the billboards in Metro Manila, a good number in terms of percentages?

One billboard that falls down and kills one person is one billboard too many. One billboard that causes damage to other people’s property and disruption of daily living is one billboard too many. Talking in percentages only serve to mislead the people and cover up the obvious lack of wisdom on putting up giant billboards.

A PCIJ report in November of 2004 revealed that a single ad account for a giant electronic billboard “can mean revenues of up to P445,000 a month”. A modestly sized billboard (30’ x 50’) in my district located in an inner road of the city costs P30,000 a month. What about those along main thoroughfares such as the North and South Luzon Tollways or EDSA? Perhaps such income of these billboard operators is enough motivation to set aside sensitivity for public safety.

After typhoon Milenyo left the piles of twisted metal that were once billboards, it cannot be denied that giant billboards pose a danger to the public. It is about time that government does something about it. The Metro Manila Development Authority has been wanting to address this concern but is hampered by legal technicalities and existing law.

The MMDA even has a Metro Manila Council Resolution which required advertisers to secure clearance from the MMDA prior to the erection of billboards. But Chairman Bayani Fernando himself said he never issued any clearance because none were applied for. The billboard owners all went direct to the local government units, which readily gave permits.

The proliferation of oversized billboards in Metro Manila cannot go unacted upon especially in the aftermath of typhoon Milenyo. The situation of the MMDA vis-à-vis the local government units gives reason for us to pass a law on billboards.

. There are many proposals that have been forwarded in the wake of typhoon Milenyo, all that is needed is to consolidate all of these and craft legislation that would address the concern.

Suggestions such as prescribing a limit to the sizes of billboards or the establishment of buffer zones around the structures are worthy to be considered. Even the imposition of higher taxes or penalties for violations should be looked into. The outright ban is a bit extreme, although not entirely uncalled for.

While we contemplate on the appropriate measure that should be undertaken, government can initiate immediate steps to address this matter. Billboards which stand on government owned property should be the first to go. Whether to remove them outright or replace them with smaller sized billboards is within the power of government.

One example is the giant billboard erected in the property of the Bureau of Food and Drug in Muntinlupa City. Another is across the said billboard, right beside the building of Pedro Diaz High School, within the school’s compound.

Government needs to act on this now. To say that regulating outdoor advertising is bad for business is to neglect the welfare of the greater majority of citizens. To do nothing after seeing how the gigantic billboards could cause damage to property, injury and loss of life to people and disruption of our way of life is to fall short of our responsibility as public servants.

In view of this, I am calling on the House of Representatives to task the Special Committee on Metro Manila Development to look into the devastation brought about by the toppling of billboards during the visit of typhoon Milenyo, consider the proposed measures to formulate a policy and recommend the legislation needed to be filed to deal with this matter.

Thank you very much.

Privilege Speech delivered by Rep. Biazon on 2 October 2006
(originally posted at Rep. Biazon's Blog)

I would vote 203 million times “NO”

By Jovito R. Salonga
Former Senate President &
Former Liberal Party President

Today, we have finally summoned the political will to stand up and end 470 years of foreign military presence here in the Philippines. To be sure, this decision is not without its cost. There will be temporary dislocation and hardships all around, especially in Central Luzon. But we should learn the lesson we should have learned long ago—namely, no nation can become truly free without sacrifice. The trouble with some of us is we want freedom and independence without sweat and without tears. But there is no other way.

Salamat na lamang at hindi na tayo nagdaan ngayon sa isyung ito sa isang malupit at maduging digmaan. Ang sabi ng ating mga kaibigan—“Kayo po naman ay hindi nakadanas ng paghihirap. Maawa namankayo sa amin na nawalan ng trabaho.”(I am grateful that we did not have to tackle this issue in abitter and bloody manner. Our friends who work in the bases told me—“You have never known poverty. Please have pity on us who will lose our jobs.”)

Unemployment is a big problem, indeed, and we sympathize. It is because of our sensitivity to this problem that one of us, on his own initiative, proposed a 3-year phased withdrawal from Subic, so this problem as well as other problems in Central Luzon can be attended to during that period of adjustment, which will allow for a smooth transition. But before we could discuss it, some of our distinguished colleagues and the Palace shot down this pro-poor proposal, for political reasons.

Let me now be a little personal by way of answer to the argument that we have not experienced suffering. I recall that as a young man of 21, I joined the underground resistance in 1942, was eventually captured, then repeatedly tortured in Pasig in the presence of my father, transferred to Fort Santiago and to three other jails, then sentenced by a Japanese military tribunal to 15 years of hard labor in Muntinglupa.

When Marcos imposed martial law in September 1972, I was among the earliest to oppose it openly and publicly. I handled the cases of well-known as well as obscure political detainees. I was persecuted, arrested and thrown into the same isolation room where Ninoy Aquino had been imprisoned for more than 7 ½ years of his memorable life. I recall that in the early years of martial law, we were only a few fighting the Marcos dictatorship.

Ang pinuhunan naming ay buhay—hindi empleyo lamang. Hubad yata sa katwiran at katotohanan ang mga patama n gating mga kaibigan. (I put my life on the line, not just my job. I think our friends’ criticism of me is misplaced.)

Many friends to whom we owe debts of gratitude or bound by ties of pakikisama have called us, from here and abroad, or approached us so we would change our vote from No to Yes to this one-sided and unconscionable Treaty. To them I say—Malaki ang akingutang na loob sa inyo, at marahil ako’y makababayad din sa inyo balang panahon. Nguni’t hindi ko maaaring ipagpalit ang kapakanan at ang kalayaan ng ating Inang Bayan.Maaaring kayo’y pro-bases, ngun’t tingnan naman ninyo ang kasunduang ito—masyadong api naman at agrabyadong-agrabyado ang bansang Pilipino. (I owe you a tremendous debt of gratitude and perhaps someday I can repay this debt. But I cannot exchange the welfare and freedom of our Mother Country. You are pro-bases, but look at this treaty—it is entirely to the disadvantage of the Filipino nation.)

I realize that the nation is divided. We in this Senate are divided. Even the pro-Bases Senators are apparently divided among themselves about their adherence to this one-sided, anachronistic Treaty, and I wish it were possible we could follow Senator Pimentel’s proposal for us to give a unanimous “NO” to heal this divided nation.

I think all of us are engaged in a search—search for the soul of this nation, a quest for the best Filipino character, a search for the true Filipino spirit. We summon the memories of those we honor—from Jose Rizal to Andres Bonifacio, from Abad Santos to Ninoy Aquino. Their collective message, even on the eve of their death, was one of hope, not of fear; of faith, not of doubt; of confidence in the capacity of the Filipino to suffer and overcome, not of his unwillingness to stand the rigors of freedom and independence.

I look at this Treaty; it is entitled A Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Security. But when we read the text closely and analyze its implications, it does not strike me as a Treaty of Friendship; it is a Treaty of Surrender. It is not a Treaty of Security; it is a Treaty of greater insecurity.

Ships and aircrafts in transit carrying nuclear weapons can come in, without knowledge or approval of the Philippine Government. And may I say now, sea-based nuclear missiles, according to the best scientific evidence, are more dangerous than land-based weapons. The release of land-based nuclear missiles is severely limited by a chain of command procedure, all the way up to the President of the United States.

In contrast, the firing of sea-borne missiles is at the discretion only of the commander of each naval vessel. But really, what is the pint of brining nuclear weapons here when the United States is only remaining superpower in the world today?

We have been told that if we reject this Treaty, no matter how unjust and one-sided it may be, the act of rejection will send a wrong signal to Washington. So we had better ratify it, otherwise, we will be punished by Uncle Sam. Once we ratify, even if there are no concrete, specific obligations imposed upon the United States by the Treaty, the generosity and altruism of the United States Government would descend upon our poor nation, as a result of our blind act of servility.

Fortunately, we can draw lessons from the words of wisdom of American policy-makers themselves. President Dwight Eisenhower, who once served under General MacArthur in the Philippines, declared in 1958:

Everything we do in the foreign field has for its basic purpose—our national security, our own national prosperity… we are not doing these things in the foreign filed as a matter of altruism and charity.

Ambassador Charles Bohlen, one of the ablest US ambassadors who served here in the late 50’s. Reminded his Filipino audience: “We in the US Embassy are her (in the Philippines) to protect American interests. We expect your officials to protect your own interests”.

What a stinging rebuke to many Filipinos whoa re inclined to believe that they also serve our own interests when they first promote US interests! The truth of the matter is that for as long as the Bases are here, our relations with the US will not be healthy and normal. If we ask for a higher compensation, they tell us we are mercenaries and our brand of diplomacy a cash-register diplomacy. Iyon pala pagkatapos ng Pinatubo, babaratin tayo nang husto! (After the Mt. Pinatubo eruption, they decide to shortchange us!).

When we told them before Pinatubo that their bases here were the biggest US overseas bases in the world and we should get the compensation we justly deserve, their retort was that we should not view this as a real estate transaction but a mutual security arrangement. But after Pinatubo, the whole thing from their perspective became nothing but a real estate transaction!

Why our relations with the US will never be normal while they have their bases here is truthfully explained by former Ambassador Francis Underhill (who used to be political counselor in Manila from 1986 to 1971), who advocated their closure long ago. He said: “Our relations with the Philippines can never be normal while our bases remain; on the one hand, the bases symbolize their special relationship with us. On the other hand, the bases are also regarded as an affront to Philippine national pride and a symbol of imperfect independence and continuing dependency. In Third World circles, they yearn to join.

The Filipinos are condemned and ostracized because of these bases and the solatium they now seek they see as modest compensation for the obloquy they suffer on our account. The Base relationship also helps to perpetuate in the Philippines a neurotic, manipulative, psychically crippling form of dependency. As a consequence, the Philippines is a country that is difficult to take seriously.”

The world has changed since 1947 when we ratified the first Military Bases Agreement. The Soviet Union has agreed to the withdrawal of its forces from former Communist satellites in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union itself today is hardly recognizable. Both Yeltsin and Gorbachev have pledged to abolish nuclear weapons. Yet this Treaty takes a different tack—it is as if the Cold War was not yet over. China, rent by restiveness, is now collaborator of the United States. The logic of events, therefore, should point to a diminution of warlike postures in Southeast Asia, especially Philippines.

Long before the eruption of Pinatubo, responsible American officials, ware of the contradictions and strains that wrap Philippine-American relations, have recommended the withdrawal of American bases in the Philippines. George Kennan, the principal architect of American foreign policy after World War II had advocated in 1948 that the United States must without any sentimentality, control a theoretically independent Philippines in order to contain Soviet expansion.

But in 1977, at the height of the Marcos dictatorship, Kennan reversed himself and urged “immediate, complete, resolute and wordless” withdrawal of US bases in the Philippines. He said that “paying huge annual bribes as a form of hush money to keep Filipino leaders quiet and to cause them to accommodate themselves reluctantly…is not a position in which the United States should ever choose to appear.” And after his election as US president, Jimmy Cater declared that human rights would be the centerpiece of American foreign policy. But in his testimony before the US Congress, his own Secretary of State Cyrus Vance candidly admitted that “human rights of Filipinos will have to yield to overriding US security considerations” for as long as the US bases are in the Philippines.

I have stayed long enough in exile in the US—more than three years in fact after my release from prison—to know that ordinary Americans do not even know where Subic is. They will not even understand why we are voting on this one-sided Treaty even as they could not understand in 1983 why a corrupt, ruthless dictatorship that in their opinion had something to do with the barbaric assassination of Ninoy Aquino should be aided and supported by their Government.

I have no doubt that average American, known for their generosity of spirit, decency and sense of fair play, would condemn this Treaty as unconscionable, if they only had the chance to read it. From well-informed Americans in colleges and universities, churches and organizations devoted to peace, disarmament and international understanding and from many American who once served as missionaries and teachers here, I have not yet received any letter or message asking us to ratify this Treaty—all of them manifested their objection to this unjust agreement. The reason is simple. The acts of the Pentagon and the State Department have not always come up to the basic decency and the sense of fairness of the American people.

One last word. I have been warned by well-meaning friends that my stand on this Treaty will hurt my chances of becoming president. No matter. That is an insignificant consequence. In times of great crisis, our martyrs and heroes offered their lives that our people might become truly free. Anong kuwento ng puwesto kung ito’y ihahambing natin sa halaga ng buhay? I said it before but I will say it again. After walking through the valley of the shadow of death, twice in my life, title and positions do not mean much to me anymore. What is more important is to be of real service to our people, with or without any position in Government.

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, hope and faith. Those were the items when we experienced a sense of national renewal and self-respect. The Revolutions of 1896. The battle for the liberation of the Philippines from 1942 to 1945. The struggle for freedom during the darkest years of martial law and dictatorship, culminating in the mountain-peak experience of EDSA in February 1986. How can we ever forget these high moments in the life of this nation?

September 16, 1991 may well be the day when we mustered the courage and the will to declare the end of foreign military presence in the Philippines and helped pave the way to lasting peace here and in the world.

Therefore, I vote “NO” to this Treaty, and if it were only possible, I would vote 203 million times “NO.”

Highlights of the September 16, 1991 Speech
Of Former Senate President and LP Chair
Emeritus Jovito R. Salonga, during the Senate
Vote on the U.S.-R.P. Military Bases Agreement

(This is to express our gratitude to all Senators who voted 'No' on the U.S. - R.P. Military Bases Treaty)

Some thoughts on SONA 2006

By Rob Ramos
(taken from http://www.phoenixeyrie.blogspot.com/)

What an... interesting SONA.

The President appeared to be in an upbeat mood... and was probably a little bit too excited for her SONA, as she stepped up to give her speech even before the singing of the National Anthem. Whoops. I expect several Protocol Officers to get a really good tongue lashing later, as well this little incident getting blown totally out of proportion by the media and her enemies.

Quite a bit of names congratulated there, and not a few ribbing. She even took a playful jab at Makati Rep. Teddy Boy Locsin.

She rattled off quite a good number of programs, nearly all of it infrastructure in nature: roads, sea and air facilities, railways... In one sense, the construction of all these transportation infrastructure makes sense on a strategic level: roads, rail facilities, seaports and aerodromes are not called "arteries" for nothing. These are the essential pipelines through which a nation's economy and growth flow through, and development is usually interconnected, pun not intended, with the level of development of such. A bad road usually means less progress coming into a locale, just as a well-paved and maintained highway quite literally speeds up the flow of investments and people into a place.

Of course, as the Prez continued to rattle off all those projects - some of which, she said, are in place already - my mind had one question: where are we going to get the money for all this?

Is that why she started her SONA by saying we not only have money to pay off the national debt, but to build needed infrastructure?

And I don't think she should have spent the amount of time she did in praising Gen. Palparan. She's currently under flak for the disappearance and deaths of Leftists; heaping such accolades on the man regarded as the foremost hunter of the Left in the Philippines might not be good PR. People would say she's sancitoning extra-judicial killings now, straight from her own mouth, even if there really is no proof until now that the military, and Palparan in particular, are behind many if not all of the deaths and disappearances.

It's also good to see a new guy at the helm of the Senate. I have nothing against a Senate that is indepedent and even critical of the Executive Branch; the principle of the Separation of Powers only holds if all three branches are strong. But, given the context of Frank Drilon's actions since 8 July 2005, the Senate's activities appeared to go beyond mere fiscalizing.

Now that a man without (immediate) ulterior motives on the Presidency is at the Senate's helm, perhaps it would be a more productive one, and not just plain destructively noisy.

SONA. .. What's in a Name?

By Jonathan Malaya
(taken from http://republic-of-malaya.blogspot.com/)

The State of the Nation Address

Origins –

· Derived from the State of the Union Address of the President of the United States

· First delivered during the Commonwealth Period by Pres. MLQ, 1935 during the Opening of the First Session of the 1st National Assembly.

· Its first title was “On the Country’s Conditions and Problems”

o Relations with America
o Gold Reserve funds and Excise Tax on Oil
o Our Foreign Relations
o Peace and Order
o Social Justice
o Previous Legislative Enactments
o Public Instruction
o Civil Service
o The National Language
o New Taxes

· These were officially “messages” and were followed by the submission by the President of her recommended budget (National Expenditure Program).

The last such message during the Commonwealth period was delivered by Roxas who did so in June 3, 1946: “Message to the Second Congress of the Commonwealth”

Legal Basis –

· Article VI (Legislative Department), 1935 Constitution. The Congress shall convene in regular session once every year on the fourth Monday of January, unless a different date is fixed by law.

· Article VII (Executive Department). The President shall from time to time give to the Congress information on the state of the Nation and recommend to its consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.


SONA as we know it –

· The first “SONA” was delivered by President Roxas (“Message on the State of the Nation” January 27, 1947 to the 1st Congress of the Republic of the Philippines.

· Thus began the tradition of calling it “SONA.”

· But the use of “address“ instead of “message” belongs to President Quirino who gave his “Address on the State of the Nation” January 22, 1951. The SONA in its present form derives from this time.

· The SONA as a ceremony of state began in the late 1960s with the rise of student protests.

The SONA under the 1987 Constitution

The SONA as an Exercise of the Powers of the Presidency

The Informing Power (Sec. 23, Article VII) – The President shall address the Congress at the opening of its regular session. He may also appear before it at any time.

Sec. 15, Art. VI – Congress shall convene once every year on the fourth Monday of July, unless a different date is fixed by law…

Limited Legislative Powers –

Power to set a Legislative Agenda (through her SONA and agreements made in LEDAC)

Call Congress to a Special Session (Sec. 15, Art. VI)

Power to approve or veto bills (Sec. 27, Article VI)

Power to certify to the urgency of bills (the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency) which dispenses the requirement of three readings on separate days.

Budgetary Powers (Sec. 22, Article VII) – The President shall submit to Congress within 30 days from the opening of every regular session, as the basis of the general appropriations act, a budget of expenditure and sources of financing, including receipts from existing and proposed revenue measures.



The Basics of a SONA

General:

1. Technically, an address to Congress, representing the Filipino people
2. A Report of the accomplishments in the previous year
3. Advocates for the enactment of laws/policy direction

Elements of A SONA

· Accountability – the President has to make a good account of herself, an account that will impress the people with its substance not only form. There is no substitute for solid accomplishments.

o Report on the 58 Targets she set out in her 2001 SONA
o Her 2002 SONA dealt only with 14 of these targets
o The President’s website has “SONA Updates”

· Policy Direction/Vision for the Country – “Strong Republic” (2002 SONA), Priorities in the coming year

· Legislative Agenda – what Congress should prioritize; advocates for the enactment of laws

· Advocates for budgetary allocation to implement these priority programs and projects

· As Differentiated from an Inaugural –

A presidential inaugural address is meant relay to the people the visions and priorities for the administration; to mobilize public support and infuse a sense of urgency and purpose in the tasks ahead.