Lessons from Yolanda (2)

14 November 2013

As it turned out the preparations made by the government to diminish the damaging effects of Yolanda was no match against the super typhoon’s force and ferocity.  Damage to property and infrastructure along its path was tremendous, but more sorrowful is the loss of thousands of lives .

The massive damage to property was not really unexpected given the typhoon’s 315 km/h sustained wind speed and the 378 km/h gusts, but the magnitude of deaths was, I would say, a shocker given that the government have reportedly evacuated about 800,000 persons to keep them safe from the threat of landslides, floods and storm surge.

The government was pushing for “zero casualty” in line with the President’s directive, but this did not materialize. Instead, a little over 2,380 fatalities – about 800 from Tacloban City - had been confirmed so far (as of Thursday morning), and this figure is expected to still increase as the reports from the affected LGUs are completed. 

In last Tuesday’s column (PJ, November 12) I related how despite the short 2-1/2 day lead time, the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council sprang into action the various local DRRMCs in 9 regions to prepare for the super typhoon’s onslaught.

Corresponding directives complementing the local DRRMC preparations were simultaneously given by Interior and Local Government Secretary Mar Roxas to concerned LGU officials, as well as the other resources under the DILG, like the PNP, the BFP and the PCG. Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin, meanwhile, was directed by the President to take charge of the preparation and to “…exert all effort to attain the zero casualty goal.”

In the same manner, President Noynoy, on the evening of November 7, went on national radio and television to inform the public that the disaster and risk management councils in the threatened regions are ready. He also mentioned that the other government assets like the PAF planes (particularly the three C-130 cargo planes) and the Navy ships are also already in position for relief and rescue operations. He however warned that Yolanda would be worse than the typhoon Pablo which caused thousands of deaths last year, and prayed that the super typhoon would not cause much damage. He also called on the public to help lessen the storm’s impact by consulting the web sites of the PAGASA (for flood and storm surge info) and the MGB (for landslide threats) to have a better idea on the danger conditions in their area.

But then Yolanda’s force (mentioned by international sources as 3.5 times more powerful than the super Hurricane Katrina that ravaged New Orleans in 2005) was just too much. Despite the preparations made by both the national and local governments to mitigate its damaging effects, it still caused thousands of deaths, unprecedented damage to property, infrastructure and vital utilities (like power, transport and communication) that caused the total isolation of regions in, and in the immediate vicinity where its center passed. To my mind, if I am to base my opinion on what I have seen on TV and heard on radio, the exceptional force of Yolanda was also manifested in not only its being able to stun, but in practically decimating the very structures installed on the ground to mitigate its effects– namely the local DRRMCs as well as the LGUs that were in its direct and immediate paths.

And why do I say this? Well because the people tasked to lead and run these structures also ended up being victims themselves, as no one was spared. So, in the immediate aftermath of the typhoon (if I am to use the situations of Guian and Tacloban as example) there was no LGU, no local DRRMC, or even a police force functioning. There were only stunned, confused, clueless and helpless survivors whose priority, understandably, were that of concern for their family members and loved ones.

Well, what has happened has happened, and I believe that the immediate concern at this point is that of getting a complete picture of the calamity’s magnitude as fast as possible, pinpointing and rescuing those that can still be rescued, and speeding up the delivery of relief and aid to the injured and survivors, as well as the others that are affected, estimated by the NDRRMC to number as much as 9.68 million people in 41 provinces (http://www.philstar.com/nation/2013/11/11/1255515/over-9.6-million-people-affected-yolanda-ndrrmc).

As the national government, hampered by its limited resources struggled to respond to the emergency, the rest of the nation, shocked as it was, immediately mobilized - as usual - to generate and provide relief aid to the typhoon’s victims. International aid also started to flow in after a few days. However, in spite of the availability of relief materials, both of the government and private sector’s relief effort encountered snags during the first 5 days after the typhoon. This, I believe, is because of the blocked roads and damaged airports, the non-availability of sufficient land transport, sea transport and airlift capability. Relief, it seems to me, was hampered as well by the absence, if not disappearance of the “local distribution network, or infrastructure” that can deliver the aid materials directly to the typhoon’s victims.

The situation however, I think, would start improving now that the President has declared a state of national calamity which allows the national government to have a more direct hand in responding to the devastation. The access road for relief cargo trucks going to Samar and Leyte have been cleared, and the number of boats ferrying cargo trucks (across San Bernardino Straight) have been increased, easing the bottleneck that stalled the movement of aid cargo trucks. Also, cargo air lift capability has been greatly enhanced by the arrival of 8 C-140 cargo planes and some helicopters from the US Air Force, and would even be improved further with the expected arrival of the aircraft carrier USS George Washington, as well as other assets committed by the international community.

Due to space limitations, the lessons that can be gained from the Yolanda experience shall be covered in the next column as Part 3 of this article. Meanwhile, comments/reactions will be appreciated and can be sent through this writer’s email (sl3.mekaniko @gmail.com) or this writer’s blog (http://mekaniko-sl3.blogspot.com)

Lessons from Yolanda (1)

11 November 2013

The most powerful typhoon that is said to have made a landfall caused, so far, a confirmed loss of hundreds of lives (but with grave fears of higher levels) as well as damage to private property and infrastructure, mostly in the Visayas.

The final magnitude of the damage it caused is still slowly unfolding while this article is being written, as the government gradually re-establishes access to the affected and isolated LGUs, and restores the various means of communication.

This typhoon, which the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (of the US Navy and US Air Force based in Hawaii) began monitoring on November 2 - as if formed in the Pacific Ocean – was upgraded into a Tropical Storm (and assigned the name Haiyan) by the Japan Meteorological Agency on November 4, and intensified into a typhoon by November 5.  It further strengthened into a super (or Category 5) typhoon on November 6 before it entered the Philippine Area of Responsibility on November 7.  By this time, already assigned with its local name “Yolanda”, it progressed along the country’s eastern seaboard towards Eastern Visayas and made the first of its five landfalls at 4:40 A.M. of November 8 in Guiuan, Eastern Samar, with an estimated sustained winds of 315 km/h, and gusts up to 378 km/h (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Typhoon_Haiyan).

The government was not remiss in monitoring and preparing for the storm. While still focused on the Tropical Depression Wilma which made a landfall on November 4 in Surigao del Sur - and brought heavy rains over large parts of Mindanao and the Visayas, PAGASA’s weather forecasters already noted the existence of Haiyan/Yolanda. The forecasters also indicated a high possibility of the typhoon hitting land because of the prevalence during this part of the year of northeasterly winds that tends to push a “typhoon’s path” further down (towards the South part of the country).

On November 5, as Wilma weakened and on her way to the West Philippine Sea, PAGASA advised the public to “brace” for storm Haiyan indicating that it could intensify into a super typhoon and, moving westward at 25 kph, is expected to make landfall over the Leyte-Samar Area Friday afternoon, November 8.

This development triggered the National Risk Reduction and Management Council to place nine regions in the country (namely Caraga, Northern Mindanao, Central, Eastern and Western Visayas, Bicol Region, Southern Tagalog, and Metro Manila) under Blue alert to prepare for the typhoon.

With just about 2-1/2 days of lead time the government scrambled to prepare to mitigate the damaging effects of the super typhoon; notably the governors of Cebu, Bohol and Albay were among the first reported to have suspended classes in all levels in their provinces  starting November 7 – with the Albay governor even including suspension of all government offices on that day.

Interior and Local Government Secretary Mar Roxas, reportedly, also tasked on November 6 “…local officials in the Visayas and Bicol Regions to prepare their constituents for the expected onslaught of the typhoon…activate their local DRRMCs and disaster monitoring systems…immediately adopt measures to effectively warn residents, particularly those living along the coastlines and other danger areas…seek assistance from the local police, the Bureau of Fire Protection, the Philippine Coast Guard, and other first responder units in case there is any need to evacuate residents from danger zones…mobilize all government vehicles that may be needed in the evacuation process and put in place search and rescue teams…[as well as]identify and prepare evacuation centers and preposition relief goods for distribution” (PhilStar, November 7).

President Aquino meanwhile – and also on the same day “…directed Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin to take charge of preparations…and exert all effort to attain the zero casualty goal.”

At this point in time, the NDRRMC had already mobilized all its attached agencies, particularly those that are in the Visayas Region; the Philippine coast Guard had mobilized newly acquired boats for rescue operations, the PNP had activated its Disaster Incident  Management Task, the NCRPO had been alerted for possible rescue operations in the Metro Manila cities perennially usually submerged by floodwaters, and the DSWD had also prepositioned emergency relief resources, composed of standby funds, family food packs as well as non-food items in the regions that would be affected.

On the evening of November 7, the President once more addressed the nation and warned that Yolanda would be worse than Typhoon Pablo which caused more than a thousand deaths in Eastern Mindanao last year. And although he informed the public that all the disaster and risk management councils in the threatened regions are ready, he prayed that the super typhoon would not cause much damage.

He also mentioned other preparations such as having consulted with the DOST and the Mines and Geosciences Bureau regarding ideas on how to deal with the monster typhoon, as well as his sending Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin and DILG Secretary Mar Roxas to Leyte to lead the preparations there. He also added that the three C-130 cargo planes as well as 32 other planes and helicopters of the PAF are already standing by, and 20 ships from the Philippine Navy are already positioned (in Cebu, Bicol, Cavite and Zamboanga) and ready for relief and rescue operations.

The President also called on the public to help lessen the impact of the storm and consult with the websites of the PAGASA and the MGB to have a better idea on the danger conditions in their area.

Despite all of these effort by the National Government, its concerned agencies (like the NDRRMC, DND, DILG, DOST, PAGASA, MGB, DSWD, AFP, PNP, etc.) and the concerned LGUs, it was just no match against the fury of a super typhoon that packs winds of 315 km/h, and gusts of up to 378 km/h that not only demolished even concrete structures but also completely isolated the ravaged areas both physically and in terms of complete communication block out.

Due to space limitations, the lessons that can be gained from the Yolanda experience shall be covered in the next column as Part 2 of this article. Meanwhile, comments/reactions will be appreciated and can be sent through this writer’s email (sl3.mekaniko @gmail.com) or this writer’s blog (http://mekaniko-sl3.blogspot.com)

Hooray for PNoy! (2)

07 November 2013

Relating my take on President Noynoy’s October 30 primetime TV message in last Tuesday’s column (PJ, November 5), I mentioned that I felt he did right in directly addressing to the citizens his views regarding the Pork Barrel and DAP issues, now being muddled in the ongoing public debate.

Identifying the opposing sides as the government together with his kababayans versus the officials allegedly involved in the Pork Barrel Scam, the President stressed that the real issue is that of the “crime of stealing” which those who are accused are trying hard to divert from the public’s attention.  And since they would have difficulty justifying their repeated use of the same fake NGOs, and not checking even once whether the funds served the proper beneficiaries, they resorted to throwing counter charges to muddle the issue, and get the public to view the administration as of the same kind as them.

I expressed the view that even if the President did not verbalize it, he was referring to the privileged speech of a senator who insinuated that “senator judges” were bribed with P50 million during the trial of the convicted former justice. The same senator later on, during interpellation, said that the P50 million was not a bribe.

 The “bribe” issue however snowballed, prompting the DBM to explain and counter the accusation and in the process cited the DAP as the mechanism used in speeding up the capital project expenses to improve the GDP growth which nosedived in 2011. This explanation however was not acceptable to certain sectors who questioned the DAP’s legality as well as the real intention of the administration in adopting such mechanism.

President Noynoy, in his TV message strongly rebuffed the claim of the accused scammers that they and the administration are of the same kind, and categorically stated that he and his team are not thieves, and instead are the ones going after thieves. He also continued to state that the DAP is not a Pork Barrel, and it is not stealing because the Constitution allows the use of such a process in spending funds wherein the government is enabled to spend savings, as well as new and additional revenues.

 Such savings used for the DAP came from the successful efforts made in some agencies to curb “connivance of some in bidding for contracts, in padding cost, overpricing and kickbacks…proper spending of … [the] budget…[and] … from good governance now seen in … [the] GOCCs.”

 Digressing a bit from the President’s message, the effort to eliminate leaks was already strongly emphasized through various controls, even in the very first budget – for 2011 - the Aquino administration submitted to Congress (see http://www.dbm .gov.ph/?page_id=632). And although these controls enabled some agencies (e.g. DPWH, DepEd, etc.) to achieve a certain level of success in generating savings, they also disrupted the rate at which the government’s capital projects spending (already reduced by 5.7% in 2011 vs. 2010) was implemented, and this  – together with the unrealized expectations from PPP - dampened the country’s GDP growth. 

This GDP downturn was felt during the first two quarters of 2011 (4.9% and 3.4% respectively for  the 1^st and 2^nd quarters vs. 7.6% for 2010), and this alerted the government to take action and implement remedial measures that would accelerate capital project spending and arrest the GDP’s downward slide. Such measure, I surmise, was found in Article VI, Section 25, Sub-section (5) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, made operational by Sections 39 and 49, Book VI of E.O. No. 292, Administrative Code of 1987, and implemented as the DAP starting with the last semester of 2011. I say this because the quarterly GDP growth swung upwards to 3.6% and 3.7% during the 3^rd and 4^th quarters of 2011 (http://www.focus-economics.com/en/economy/charts/Philippines/GDP), and “according to the World Bank, DAP contributed 1.3 percentage points to our GDP growth in the fourth quarter of 2011.”

The government learned a lesson from 2011, so in their 2012 budget (presented to congress in July 26, 2011 – see http://www.gov.ph/2011/07/26/president-aquinos-2012-budget-message/) they increased the year’s Capital Outlay allocation by 25.4 %, and “In particular, Infrastructure and Other Capital Outlays by 33.1%” versus 2011. At the same time, provisions for the “…reduction of leakage, inducement of efficiencies and better selection of project priorities” were intensified.

Among these provisions are the use of zero based budgeting which would minimize “lump sum budgeting”, as well as  check “over budgeting” or the allocation of excessive funds by agencies which could end up unused, thereby generating savings, which can then be an item for the much abused practice of  “conversion.”  Also strengthened is the DBM’s oversight function on the realignment of funds across allotment classes within capital outlays, and over the agencies’ use of funds.

Going back to the President’s message, he emphasized that DAP funds were allocated only to “…projects that were within the proposed budget and [those] that had a clear benefit to the country.” Dormant funds of implementing government agencies (because of slow paced or unimplemented projects) are tapped and (together with funds from other sources) channeled to projects/programs of agencies that have been proven to be fast and efficient in their implementation.

Among the projects funded through the DAP were the DOST’s “Nationwide Operational Assessment of Hazards” which gives accurate and timely warnings during calamities, the “Training for Work Scholarship” of TESDA which provided vocational/technical education to 150,000 Filipinos (enabling 90,000 of them to get employed), projects that benefited the Air Force and the Police, construction of infrastructure for Mindanao and other parts of the country, restoring the GSIS benefits of the DepEd employees.

Another beneficial effect of the DAP, the President explained, is it’s being instrumental in the growth of the economy (in 2012 and continued to do so during the 1^st semester of 2013) because through it the government was able to accelerate spending for essential capital projects.

 And why is this so? Well, my small research indicated that the 4th major component of GDP (which is the internationally recognized measure of the size of a country’s economy and indicator of its economic health), aside from “the country’s entire consumer spending”, “the sum of all the country’s business spending on capital”, and “the country’s total net exports” is the “sum of government spending.” So the increase in government spending, particularly  on infrastructure and capital projects, automatically increases GDP.

The improved GDP, thanks to DAP, helped our country earn new respect from the international financial community which no longer regard it as the “Sick Man of Asia” and has instead been afforded us with new labels such as “Asia’s Fastest Growing Economy”, “Rising Tiger”, and “Brightest Spark.” The improved GDP, thanks to DAP, also served as a major factor in our country being granted an investment grade rating by the 3 most reputable investment rating agencies in the world, which to my mind is an excellent indicator that the DAP funds have been used diligently by those who were tasked to administer it.

Due to space constraints, the continuation and final part of this article will follow as part 3 in the next column. Meanwhile, comments/reactions will be appreciated and can be sent through this writer’s email (sl3.mekaniko @gmail.com) or this writer’s blog (http://mekaniko-sl3.blogspot.com)

Hooray for PNoy! (1)

04 November 2013

Last October 30, President Noynoy addressed his “Minamahal [niyang] kababayan” on primetime TV.

Unfortunately I missed the telecast, since I was in Mindanao on that day and was occupied up to late in the evening, so I had to rely on the text of his speech which I accessed from the official gazette when I got home.

After carefully reading the President’s speech, my take is as follows: I felt that he made the right move in directly addressing the citizenry and state his views to help clarify the Pork Barrel and DAP issues, which he felt is being muddled in the ongoing public debate. His tapping the TV networks to provide - for the first time -  airtime for his “President’s Address to the Nation” also jibes with what I have noticed lately as the President’s seeming intensification of his direct contact with the citizens on relevant issues and concerns. Such was reflected in his extended stay in Zamboanga during the ill-famed siege by the rogue MNLF faction, as well as in his two visits to Bohol after the 7.2 magnitude earthquake, where he – together with members of his cabinet - even slept one night in tents to somehow show sympathy and unity with the suffering citizens.

In his primetime TV message, he identified the opposing sides as his Kababayans and the government they mandated to implement changes (and which for the last 3 years and 5 months have instituted reforms, went after those that are corrupt, and took care of the poor) on one side, and, the anomalous officials allegedly involved in the Pork Barrel Scam on the other side.

The President stressed that the real (root of the) issue is that of the “crime of stealing”, which those who were accused of involvement (in the PDAF scam) have been trying hard to divert away from the public’s attention. He also opined that it would be difficult for the accused officials to explain, and for the public to believe justifications for their repeated use of the same fake NGOs for their pork barrels; or their not checking, even once, whether the funds budgeted for their projects actually delivered the intended outputs, or, whether such outputs were really enjoyed by the intended beneficiaries.

 And so, instead of refuting the crime they are charged with, and categorically state that they are not thieves, those that were accused, on the advice of an elder, resorted instead to a strategy that introduced counter charges that would muddle the real issue and get the public to believe that those that are in the administration are no better than them, and so, making all of them, of the same kind.

It is my opinion that the President, although not verbalizing  it, was referring to, among others, the insinuation made by one senator in a privileged speech – while brandishing a supposed memo, the contents of which the public never got to see - that the “senator judges” were bribed with P50 million during the trial of the convicted former chief justice. Such insinuation however was recanted by that same senator during interpellation after the said privileged speech, and who also stated that the P50 million was not a bribe.

However, the said “bribe” issue snowballed, prompting the DBM to come out in an effort to explain and counter the accusation. In the process, the DBM cited the existence of the Disbursement Acceleration Program as the mechanism used in accelerating the use of funds to increase the country’s capital project expenses that can improve the GDP growth.

In a contrasting response to the evasive manipulation and scheming maneuvers of the officials accused of stealing, the President not only strongly rebuffed the claim of the accused PDAF scammers that they and the members of his administration are of the same kind; he also categorically stated that he and his team are not thieves, and that they are instead the ones persecuting thieves.

To fortify his claim, he also cited the appointment, in his administration, of credible people leading the Commission of Audit (which for the first time made public its report on the PDAF special audit which officially revealed the scam), as well as a reliable Ombudsman who can assure the public of just and fair investigations needed in pushing the Tuwid na Daan advocacy of the administration.

The President continued in his speech to say that DAP is not a Pork Barrel, and that DAP is also not stealing. This is so because allowing spending of funds through the use of a mechanism such as DAP is clearly stated in the Constitution, and in other laws.

The way I understand it (and which I also mentioned in last Friday’s column, PJ, November 1), such provision is contained in Article VI, 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines Section 25, Sub-section (5), i.e., “…the President…may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.”

Meanwhile the law that makes this constitutional provision operational is contained in E.O. No. 292, Administrative Code of 1987, Book VI –National Government Budgeting, i.e., “Section 39 Authority to Use Savings in Appropriations to Cover Deficits. – Except as otherwise provided in the General Appropriations Act, any savings in the regular appropriations authorized in the General Appropriations Act for programs and projects of any department, office or agency, may, with the approval of the President, be used to cover a deficit in any other item of the regular appropriations…” and “Section 49. Authority to Use Savings for Certain Purposes. – Savings in the appropriations provided in the General Appropriations Act may be used for the settlement of the following obligations incurred during a current fiscal year or previous fiscal years as may be approved by Secretary in accordance with rules and procedures as may be approved by the President: … (9) Priority activities that will promote the economic wellbeing of the nation, including food production, agrarian reform, energy development, disaster relief, and rehabilitation.”

Such position, I believe, has also been expounded on by former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban in his column, With Due Respect, last Sunday (PDI, November 3).

Due to space constraints, the continuation of this article will follow as part 2 in the next column. Meanwhile, comments/reactions will be appreciated and can be sent through this writer’s email (sl3.mekaniko @gmail.com) or this writer’s blog (http://mekaniko-sl3.blogspot.com)