|
The unbending stand of those for and against the imposition of
expanded value-added tax (E-VAT) on oil means that the status quo
will remain. Why not compromise to ease the burden of high oil
prices while ensuring the funding of vital public services?
The two sides have very valid arguments. Speaker
Prospero Nograles warned that removing E-VAT on oil would greatly
impair the government’s capacity to implement projects and
programs that are precisely designed to improve the economy. Sen.
Joker Arroyo, who voted against the E-VAT, explained that revenues
from E-VAT are already factored into the current budget so removing
it would result in smaller funds for projects and programs.
Sen. Mar Roxas, on the other hand, said that
removing the E-VAT on oil would provide relief to consumers who are
now facing a “perfect storm of food and oil price hikes.” He
pointed out that oil cost $34 a barrel when the E-VAT law was being
deliberated upon, but it now costs four times more. He said the
E-VAT on oil works for slower economic growth.
I believe that a golden mean can be arrived at
by pegging the 12-per cent E-VAT to the assumed price of oil when
the national budget was prepared. Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, the
chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, said that the 2008
budget was prepared on the assumption that the average cost of oil
would be at $66 to $70 a barrel. So, why not pass an amendatory law
pegging the E-VAT on oil at $70 a barrel? This way, the expected
funds will still come in, while dulling the blows from the high
price of oil.
There might be some complications from this
proposal. If the 12-percent E-VAT is limited to the budget-assumed
price of $70 a barrel, this would not help government agencies who
would continue to spend more for higher transportation and gasoline
based on current price. Maybe, the $70 could be adjusted upwards but
certainly, not the full cost.
More on Chiz
In the First Regular Session and only on his
first year as senator, Chiz Escudero has accomplished more than many
of his veteran colleagues. The Committees on Justice and Human
Rights and on Ways and Means, which he heads have churned out the
most number of committee reports in the just concluded First Regular
Session. He said he is intent on cleaning out his committees of all
bills referred to them.
Chiz was congressman for nine years so he
understandably felt at home with the legislative work at the Senate.
He noted, however, that there is more work at the Senate, which has
only 22 working members compared with the House, which has 239. He
puzzled me when he said that his main accomplishments at the Senate
are “acting on bills and not acting on some bills.” Now, passing
bills is decidedly an accomplishment, but inaction?
Chiz clarified that he was referring only to tax
bills. He said that as chairman of the Senate Committee on Ways and
Means, he would oppose any bill imposing new taxes.
“This I accomplished by sitting on tax bills.
As long as I am chairman, there will be no new taxes. I am balancing
this by pointing to the government how they can generate more
revenues based on existing tax laws. Our inquiries on smuggling
activities and on the tax payments of Pagcor aim to do this,” he
said.
He also supports the removal of the E-VAT on oil
“because that is the clamor of the people.”
“It is not our job to tell the people
that they are wrong. It is our duty to articulate their
sentiments,” he contended.
He added that it is because of the people’s
overwhelming sentiments that he favors the removal of E-VAT on oil.
He said that he is firm in his stand against new taxes and against
the existing E-VAT on oil.
“They can remove me as chairman but they
will have to contend with me on the floor,” he said.
Update on Koko’s protest vs Migz
Lawyer Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel 3rd has
asked the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) to dismiss the
counter-protest filed by Sen. Juan Miguel Zubiri on the ground that
this is a “sham” meant only to delay the resolution of the
legitimate election protest.
In his counter-protest, Migz said that fraud was
committed against him in “73,266 precincts in 10 provinces and 17
cities.”
“By counter-protesting the election results in
one-third of the country, it is obvious that Zubiri, the one
enjoying the contested office, is involved in a delay-the-protest
strategy! Which strategy speaks volumes on the lack of substance,
integrity and credibility of his counter-protest,” Koko said.
Migz has consistently refused to comment on the
SET case while it is still pending.
efrendanao2003@yahoo.com
|
