Theory: Junjun Binay and the Dasmariñas Gate Incident Shows a Disrespect for Property Rights

Grave abuse of discretion???  almost 700k views!!!

I originally planned to simply let this Junjun Binay gate incident pass without writing anything about it. I thought that much has already been said on the issue. Much discussion on the issue, most focusing Politicians and their sense of entitlement—and that politicians should set an example to the rest of the Filipinos.

On December 20, 2013, Blogger benign0 wrote that gated communities should not even be preventing people from coming in and out of their premises.

On December 27, 2013, Nicole Curato wrote on Rappler wrote that gated communities tend to increase the social divide and inequality in cities which should ideally be “Democratic Spaces”.

Thus, this incident has stuck. It remains provocative. Thus, I would like to contribute another angle, one that I feel has been left out: The property rights angle, public versus private.

Who exercises the rights of ownership in Dasmariñas Village?

Dasmariñas Village is a posh subdivision, it is privately owned. It is run by the DasmariñasVillage Association (DVA) a corporation whose membership is composed of real estate owners within the subdivision.  I presume that while the individual lots are owned by individual owners, the roads, walls and common spaces within the Village are owned by the DVA. Essentially, the Village is just one big piece of land owned by a corporation.

Under the law, a corporation has juridical personality much like that of an actual/natural person. The corporation acts through its board which promulgated certain rules and regulations. The rule that one may not exit a certain gate at a certain time is one such rule.  

The letter of commendation says it all: “Dasmariñas village is a private subdivision”

In this incident, it appears that the association has ratified the action of its Security Guards as its own. There can be no doubt and one can say that Dasmariñas Village had every intention to exclude any and all persons from using the passageway beginning 10PM. The acts of the Guards were the act of the Village.

Did the Mayor have the right to pass through the gate contrary to the village rules?

The Mayor has two aspects. The public and the private aspect. When he dons the visage of a public officer, he carries with him all the rights appurtenant to his office which include certain immunities and rights and privileges. For example, a public person [such as the Mayor in this case] if he takes advantage of his position in the commission of a crime, the courts will take such circumstance against him and makie his punishment stronger [Art. 14 (1) , Revised Penal Code]. The other side of the coin is that if a person using force or intimidation tries to prevent a public officer from doing his duty, he may be guilty of a crime called Direct Assault which carries a penalty of up to 6 years in prison (max) whereas if you tried the same stunt with a private person or a public officer who is acting in a private capacity, you may only be punished with up to 6 months in prison (max) [Art 148, 286, Revised Penal Code].

That night of the incident however, I want to claim that the Mayor was acting in a private capacity. This makes him an ordinary citizen. Why do I say this? He was attending what I presume to be a private party for the purpose of merriment, he did not appear to be doing anything official or important. He did not appear to be on his way to an important engagement or official business. There was no grave necessity for him to insist on that particular route. He has no right appurtenant to his duties.

For the purposes of this article, which is also my honest opinion, I believe that Junjun Binay was having a power trip. His exercise of authority was unwarranted, expecially since he was obviously acting in a private capacity. His reaction was clearly antagonistic as seen in the CCTV footage and his remedy was extraordinary and unreasonable—to summarily order theguard's arrest.

Did the village association have a right to enforce its rules within its property?

Yes. Since the property where the incident took place was private property, therefore pursuant to his right to possess (jus posidendi) and his right to exclude (jus vindicandi) as codified in Art. 429 of the New Civil Code which states:

The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property.

The Village association clearly made its intention to exercise its jus posidendi and jus vindicandi in implementing the rule that no one may use the gate past a certain hour. The reason for its exercise is reasonable—for the security of Village homeowners; its means were reasonable—a simple metal gate pole and the posting of security personnel.

Courtesy owed to a public officer or public figure does not trump jus posidendi and jus vindicandi. There is no courtesy involved in Art. 429 of the New Civil Code. Only necessity and right to life will trump these property rights. Nowhere in the circumstances of the occurrence does it show that it was necessary for the good Mayor to pick that particular route.

Thus Binay could not just waltz around the village like he owns the place.

Conclusion

What I am saying is that our Constitution allows us to own property. It allows us to form corporations and other associations, such entities has the power to own property and to exercise the rights of ownership. The Dasmariñas Village Association clearly ratified its act of exercising its rights of ownership when it gave its letters of commendation to the Security Guards. Thus, the Village and its Agents (the guards) were clearly within their rights during the altercation.

Binay was in the wrong. He was clearly showing blurred judgement, misapprehension of facts and law. His was very shameless behavior.

Post Script

The blogger benign0 and Nicole Curato are correct in pointing out that there is a socio-political aspect in having gated communities in the Philippines. I don't see anything particularly wrong or illegal with their existence.

The Corn: A Poem

The Corn

The corn so tall

Its height surpasses all

With tassels shaped like umbrellas

And cobs as big as papayas

Corn so proud and upright

In beauty all others it will smite

In usefulness it can't be surpassed

Only in seasons it can't outlast

Its stem is rigid yet supple

Like bamboo for example

Surpassed by sugarcane in rigidity

But corn comes in more variety

Corn is just a grass but take heed

It is best in fulfilling need

From food, shelter chemicals, paper and feed

Zea mays, the noble seed

-o0o-

Explanatory Note:  I wrote this poem when I was in high school.  I really like corn as a plant and as a crop.  I even made a geocities website on the topic.  In this poem, I believe I've captured all of Maize's virtues save for its productivity.  Which is a shame.

USA and Bradford v. Hon. Luis R. Reyes and Montoya

[219 SCRA 192, March 1, 1993]

G.R. No. 79253

Facts:

Private respondent [Montoya] is an American citizen was employed as an identification (I.D.) checker at the U.S. Navy Exchange (NEX) at the Joint United States Military Assistance Group (JUSMAG) headquarters in Quezon City. Petitioner [Bradford] also worked at NEX JUSMAG as an “activity manager”. There was an incident on 22 January 1987 whereby Bradford had Montoya’s person and belongings searched in front of many curious onlookers. This caused Montoya to feel aggrieved and to file a suit for damages.

Contentions:

Bradford claimed that she was immune from suit because:

1) (This) action is in effect a suit against the United States of America, a foreign sovereign immune from suit without its consent for the cause of action pleaded in the complaint; and

2) Defendant, Maxine Bradford, as manager of the US Navy Exchange Branch at JUSMAG, Quezon City, is immune from suit for act(s) done by her in the performance of her official functions under the Philippines-United States Military Assistance Agreement of 1947 and Military Bases Agreement of 1947, as amended.

Montoya argued that:

(a) Bradford, in ordering the search upon her person and belongings outside the NEX JUSMAG store in the presence of onlookers, had committed an improper, unlawful and highly discriminatory act against a Filipino employee and had exceeded the scope of her authority; (b) having exceeded her authority, Bradford cannot rely on the sovereign immunity of the public petitioner because her liability is personal; (c) Philippine courts are vested with jurisdiction over the case because Bradford is a civilian employee who had committed the challenged act outside the U.S. Military Bases; such act is not one of those exempted from the jurisdiction of Philippine courts; and (d) Philippine courts can inquire into the factual circumstances of the case to determine whether or not Bradford had acted within or outside the scope of her authority.

The doctrine of state immunity is at the core of this controversy.

Doctrine of State Immunity:

The doctrine of state immunity and the exceptions thereto are summarized in Shauf vs. Court of Appeals, thus:

I. The rule that a state may not be sued without its consent, now expressed in Article XVI Section 3, of the 1987 Constitution, is one of the generally accepted principles of international law that we have adopted as part of the law of our land under Article II, Section 2. This latter provision merely reiterates a policy earlier embodied in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions and also intended to manifest our resolve to abide by the rules of the international community.

While the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits against the state without its consent, it is also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties. The rule is that if the judgment against such officials will require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the same, such as the appropriation of the amount needed to pay the damages awarded against them, the suit must be regarded as against the state itself although it has not been formally impleaded. It must be noted, however, that the rule is not so all-encompassing as to be applicable under all circumstances.

It is a different matter where the public official is made to account in his capacity as such for acts contrary to law and injurious to the rights of plaintiff. As was clearly set forth by Justice Zaldivar in Director of the Bureau of Telecommunications, et al. vs. Aligaen, etc., et al. "Inasmuch as the State authorizes only legal acts by its officers, unauthorized acts of government officials or officers are not acts of the State, and an action against the officials or officers by one whose rights have been invaded or violated by such acts, for the protection of his rights, is not a suit against the State within the rule of immunity of the State from suit. In the same tenor, it has been said that an action at law or suit in equity against a State officer or the director of a State department on the ground that, while claiming to act or the State, he violates or invades the personal and property rights of the plaintiff, under an unconstitutional act or under an assumption of authority which he does not have, is not a suit against the State within the constitutional provision that the State may not be sued without its consent." The rationale for this ruling is that the doctrinaire of state immunity cannot be used as an instrument for perpetrating an injustice.

In the case of Baer, etc. vs. Tizon, etc., et al., it was ruled that:

There should be no misinterpretation of the scope of the decision reached by this Court. Petitioner, as the Commander of the United States Naval Base in Olongapo, does not possess diplomatic immunity. He may therefore be proceeded against in his personal capacity, or when the action taken by him cannot be imputed to the government which he represents.

Also, in Animos, et al. vs. Philippine Veterans Affairs Office, et al., we held that:

. . . it is equally well-settled that where a litigation may have adverse consequences on the public treasury, whether in the disbursements of funds or loss of property, the public official proceeded against not being liable in his personal capacity, then the doctrine of non-suability may appropriately be invoked. It has no application, however, where the suit against such a functionary had to be instituted because of his failure to comply with the duty imposed by statute appropriating public funds for the benefit of plaintiff or petitioner. . . . .

The aforecited authorities are clear on the matter. They state that the doctrine of immunity from suit will not apply and may not be invoked where the public official is being sued in his private and personal capacity as an ordinary citizen. The cloak of protection afforded the officers and agents of the government is removed the moment they are sued in their individual capacity. This situation usually arises where the public official acts without authority or in excess of the powers vested in him. It is a well-settled principle of law that a public official may be liable in his personal private capacity for whatever damage he may have caused by his act donewith malice and in bad faith, or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction.

The agents and officials of the United States armed forces stationed in Clark Air Base are no exception to this rule. [footnotes omitted]

In the present case, it appears that Bradford was sued for acts done beyond the scope and beyond her place of official functions. Thus she may not avail of immunity.

She may not even avail of diplomatic immunity because Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations admits of exceptions. It reads:

1. A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and administrative jurisdiction except in the case of:

xxx xxx xxx

(c) an action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving State outside his official functions (Emphasis supplied).

Disposition:

Petition was dismissed.

One Moment You're Just Merrily Tootling Along Minding Your Own Business...

...The Next Moment You're Crushed!

I am writing about the ill-fated bus that fell off the skyway and killed 18 people. It fell thirty feet from the sky bridge and crushed a truck that was just minding his own business, likely trying to deliver some goods and products for the use of the one for whom it was destined.

Imagine the fury of that person whose contract for delivery could no longer be made.

What if that bus fell on a bus carrying young students from a rich kid school—the hope of our nation? The bus company will be shut down for sure. What if that truck was carrying a nuclear weapon? We'd all, literally, be toast.^*

The bus accidents just keep on coming and nobody is safe.  Neither is this bus accident the first time that road safety is brought to the public consciousness in recent memory.  Does anyone remember how the owner of Sarabia Optical  met his untimely demise?  Remember how all the years of rigorous training of UP Professor Chit Estela-Simbulan ended in vain?

So what are we trying to do about it and what solutions do I suggest?

The government has suspended the bus company. This is good for thirty days (December 16, 2013 – January 15, 2014). The authorities are going to investigate the bus company and conduct drug testing on the bus drivers. They will continue to investigate camera footage and eye witness reports to determine who is at fault. Using this, they may decide to cancel the public service franchise of the bus company.

It is worth mentioning that just last month, another bus company got into another fatal accident killing six pedestrians. This accident occurred last November 14, 2013, therefore the bus company's thirty day suspension has already passed so their buses are likely out there, barreling down the highways at the speed of sound, ready and waiting to slay the hope of the Nation. I wonder how their case is coming along now.

Authorities and the skyway operator is also looking into ways to improve safety on the skyway.

The victims are free to file charges against the driver (but he's dirt poor, so good luck trying to get damages from him) and/or the bus company. This is important because the Courts can order the company to pay exemplary and moral damages. This is important because it makes it expensive for bus companies to have accidents, they will be forced to conduct extraordinary diligence in picking bus drivers and in the maintenance of their rusting hulks of a bus.

Some legislators have suggested creating new speed limits for the roads and for each class of vehicle. I am of the opinion that this is un-called for and stupid. First, there are already speed limit laws. Second, the speed limits he's proposing are far too slow. He wan't 40 kph for an arrow straight boulevard! So, we should instead just enforce the current speed limits and perhaps install some speed cameras and radar traps—something that is already being done in rich countries.

A better suggestion which the authorities are investigating is the installation of an electronic speed limiter on the buses, so that they would never stray over 60kph. This is more feasible. It probably just entails the installation of a chip or a remapping of an engine's ECU. And there is no driver discretion involved. His bus will NEVER go over 60kph.

My suggestions:

1. Just pay the bus drivers salaries. This is the most obvious solution. In fact, the DOLE has already passed a memorandum on this which requires bus companies to pay their driver's fixed salaries. The bus operators were able to get an injunction over this for a time but the Court was able to rule against the bus operators, therefore busdrivers are now supposed to receive salaries instead of the old boundary system. However, the bus drivers are still paid on commission basis in over and above their salaries, so the competition for passengers and the “demonic racecar” mentality still remains.  (Note:  The Don Mariano Bus Company appears to have violated this order)

2. Sue the LTFRB and/or the LTO. I'm suggesting a taxpayers suit. Sometimes, government is so inutile in its implementation that a petition for mandamus is needed before it would so something so obvious. In MMDA vs. Concerned Citizens of Manila Bay, the Concerned citizens had to sue the MMDA and other government agencies to clean up Manila Bay—something which is obviously within their power as provided for under many laws already existing which protect the environment.

I am not the only one who shares this sentiment, the following passage is from a nationally syndicated opinion columnist, Atty. Batas Mauricio in his daily column Kakampi mo ang Batas, speaking on the Don Mariano Bus “frenzied flight of doom” says:

 LTO, LTFRB REMISS IN THEIR DUTIES: I do not want to engage in finger-pointing now, but I certainly blame both the Land Transporation Office (LTO) and the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB), and say they are greatly responsible for the death of 21 or more people after a passenger bus jumped off the Skyway toll plaza in Las Pinas City and pinned down a van at the South Luzon Expressway on Monday, December 16, 2013.

Why? Well, it is quite clear that the LTO and the LTFRB are completely remiss in their duties to see to it that only the psychologically and mentally-prepared are issued driver’s licenses and allowed to drive public utility vehicles such as the ill-fated Don Mariano Bus that fell off the Skyway.

As things stand in both the LTO and the LTFRB now, anyone who can pay are able to get licenses, and then drive away. This is reprehensible because both the LTO and the LTFRB ought to know, if only they are properly doing their work, that many holders of driver’s licenses are not fit to drive, psychologically and mentally, as shown by their totally reckless driving, rude behavior, and, many a time, gross ignorance of even the most basic rules of road courtesy.

3. Women bus drivers. In my opinion, women drivers are more capable of compassion and driving precision.

4. Last suggestion is for the drivers themselves. The bus drivers should police their own ranks. They should realize that whenever one of them has a fatal accident, their bus company will get suspended, they will have no work for a month and they will have no pay. There should be lynching among themselves. If one of their fellow drivers causes their company to be suspended, his fellow drivers should gang up and lynch him, publicly humiliate him and dismember his remains in front of the barrio where he resides. This is not a time for pakikisama, it is a time for vengeance.

I know that being accountable for one's actions is a foreign concept to Filipinos and most Bus drivers would rather just tolerate the reckless ways of their own, but they should change. I'm sure the drivers and conductors affected by the suspension would very much love to slay the one who caused the accident.

Fear of reprisals from their peers should serve as an adequate deterrent to reckless driving.  A bus driver should at the back of his small mind remember that his fellow drivers, equally barbaric and small-minded, knows where he lives and will publicly dismember him if he causes an accident.  This should always be at the back of his mind whenever he is tempted to barrel down Commonwealth ave at twice the speed limit of 60kph.

-----------

*Nevermind the constitutional prohibition... this is merely a hypothetical.

TAÑADA vs. ANGARA

[272 SCRA 18, May 2, 1997]

Facts:

Petitioner sought to have the agreement to join the World Trade Organization (WTO) declared unconstitutional on the grounds that: “(1) that the WTO requires the Philippines .to place nationals and products of member-countries on the same footing as Filipinos and local products. and (2) that the WTO .intrudes, limits and/or impairs. the constitutional powers of both Congress and the Supreme Court, the instant petition before this Court assails the WTO Agreement for violating the mandate of the 1987 Constitution to .develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos . . . (to) give preference to qualified Filipinos (and to) promote the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally produced goods..”

Issues:

1. Whether or not the petition presents a justiciable controversy or involves a political question.
2. Whether or not the provisions of the Agreement contravene Sec. 19, Art II and Secs. 10 and 12, Art. XII, of the Philippine Constitution.
3. Whether or not the Provisions unduly impair or interfere with Legislative Power.
4. Whether or not the Provisions unduly impair or interfere with Judicial Power.
5. Whether or not the Concurrence of the Senate with the WTO Agreement and its Annexes sufficient and/or valid.

Held:

Justiciable Controversy

There is a justiciable controversy. A part of the Court.s decision reads:

“We should stress that, in deciding to take jurisdiction over this petition, this Court will not review the wisdom of the decision of the President and the Senate in enlisting the country into the WTO, or pass upon the merits of trade liberalization as a policy espoused by said international body. Neither will it rule on the propriety of the government.s economic policy of reducing/removing tariffs, taxes, subsidies, quantitative restrictions, and other import/trade barriers. Rather, it will only exercise its constitutional duty “to determine whether or not there had been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction” on the part of the Senate in ratifying the WTO Agreement and its three annexes.”

Contravention of the Constitution

The Court held that there was no contravention of the Constitution since Art. II or the Declaration of Principles and State Policies is not self-executory. Secs. 10 and 12, Art. XII, on the other hand, the Court said:

Secs. 10 and 12 of Article XII, apart from merely laying down general principles relating to the national economy and patrimony, should be read and understood in relation to the other sections in said article, especially Secs. 1 and 13 thereof which read:

Sec. 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all especially the underprivileged.

The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full and efficient use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets. However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices.

In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions of the country shall be given optimum opportunity to develop. . . .

xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 13. The State shall pursue a trade policy that serves the general welfare and utilizes all forms and arrangements of exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity.

The Court further stated that the WTO comes with safeguards to protect weaker economies and that the Constitution does not rule out foreign competition

The WTO Agreement and Legislative Power

The court held that:

The point is that, as shown by the foregoing treaties, a portion of sovereignty may be waived without violating the Constitution, based on the rationale that the Philippines “adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of . . . cooperation and amity with all nations.”

The WTO Agreement and Judicial Power

A portion of the decision reads:

By and large, the arguments adduced in connection with our disposition of the third issue — derogation of legislative power — will apply to this fourth issue also. Suffice it to say that the reciprocity clause more than justifies such intrusion, if any actually exists. Besides, Article 34 does not contain an unreasonable burden, consistent as it is with due process and the concept of adversarial dispute settlement inherent in our judicial system.

So too, since the Philippine is a signatory to most international conventions on patents, trademarks and copyrights, the adjustment in legislation and rules of procedure will not be substantial.

Validity of the Concurrence of the Senate with the WTO Agreement and its Annexes

Excerpts from the decision read:

Petitioners allege that the Senate concurrence in the WTO Agreement and its annexes — but not in the other documents referred to in the Final Act, namely the Ministerial Declaration and Decisions and the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services — is defective and insufficient and thus constitutes abuse of discretion. They submit that such concurrence in the WTO Agreement alone is flawed because it is in effect a rejection of the Final Act, which in turn was the document signed by Secretary Navarro, in representation of the Republic upon authority of the President. They contend that the second letter of the President to the Senate which enumerated what constitutes the Final Act should have been the subject of concurrence of the Senate.

“A final act, sometimes called protocol de cloture, is an instrument which records the winding up of the proceedings of a diplomatic conference and usually includes a reproduction of the texts of treaties, conventions, recommendations and other acts agreed upon and signed by the plenipotentiaries attending the conference.” It is not the treaty itself. It is rather a summary of the proceedings of a protracted conference which may have taken place over several years. The text of the “Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations” is contained in just one page in Vol. I of the 36-volume Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. By signing said Final Act, Secretary Navarro as representative of the Republic of the Philippines undertook:

(a) to submit, as appropriate, the WTO Agreement for the consideration of their respective competent authorities with a view to seeking approval of the Agreement in accordance with their procedures; and

(b) to adopt the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions.

The assailed Senate Resolution No. 97 expressed concurrence in exactly what the Final Act required from its signatories, namely, concurrence of the Senate in the WTO Agreement.

The Ministerial Declarations and Decisions were deemed adopted without need for ratification. They were approved by the ministers by virtue of Article XXV: 1 of GATT which provides that representatives of the members can meet “to give effect to those provisions of this Agreement which invoke joint action, and generally with a view to facilitating the operation and furthering the objectives of this Agreement.” [Footnotes Omitted]

Disposition:

Petition was denied.

Memorandum of Ambassador Lilia Bautista

Ambassador Bautista submitted a memorandum as amicus curiae which contained a chronology of the GATT reproduced as follows:

1947 The birth of GATT. On 30 October 1947, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was signed by 23 nations at the Palais des Nations in Geneva. The Agreement contained tariff concessions agreed to in the first multilateral trade negotiations and a set of rules designed to prevent these concessions from being frustrated by restrictive trade measures.

The 23 founding contracting parties were members of the Preparatory Committee established by the United Nations Economic and Social Council in 1946 to draft the charter of the International Trade Organization (ITO). The ITO was envisaged as the final leg of a triad of post-War economic agencies (the other two were the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction — later the World Bank).

In parallel with this task, the Committee members decided to negotiate tariff concessions among themselves. From April to October 1947, the participants completed some 123 negotiations and established 20 schedules containing the tariff reductions and bindings which became an integral part of GATT. These schedules resulting from the first Round covered some 45,000 tariff concessions and about $10 billion in trade.

GATT was conceived as an interim measure that put into effect the commercial-policy provisions of the ITO. In November, delegations from 56 countries met in Havana, Cuba, to consider the to ITO draft as a whole. After long and difficult negotiations, some 53 countries signed the Final Act authenticating the text of the Havana Charter in March 1948. There was no commitment, however, from governments to ratification and, in the end, the ITO was stillborn, leaving GATT as the only international instrument governing the conduct of world trade.

1948 Entry into force. On 1 January 1948, GATT entered into force. The 23 founding members were: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Ceylon, Chile, China, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, France, India, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia, Syria, South Africa, United Kingdom and the United States. The first Session of the Contracting Parties was held from February to March in Havana, Cuba. The secretariat of the Interim Commission for the ITO, which served as the ad hoc secretariat of GATT, moved from Lake Placid, New York, to Geneva. The Contracting Parties held their second session in Geneva from August to September.

1949 Second Round at Annecy. During the second Round of trade negotiations, held from April to August at Annecy, France, the contracting parties exchanged some 5,000 tariff concessions. At their third Session, they also dealt with the accession of ten more countries.

1950 Third Round at Torquay. From September 1950 to April 1951, the contracting parties exchanged some 8,700 tariff concessions in the English town, yielding tariff reduction of about 25 per cent in relation to the 1948 level. Four more countries acceded to GATT. During the fifth Session of the Contracting Parties, the United States indicated that the ITO Charter would not be re-submitted to the US Congress; this, in effect, meant that ITO would not come into operation.

1956 Fourth Round at Geneva. The fourth Round was completed in May and produced some $2.5 billion worth of tariff reductions. At the beginning of the year, the GATT commercial policy course for officials of developing countries was inaugurated.

1958 The Haberler Report. GATT published Trends in International Trade in October. Known as the “Haberler Report” in honour of Professor Gottfried Haberler, the chairman of the panel of eminent economists, it provided initial guidelines for the work of GATT. The Contracting Parties at their 13th Sessions, attended by Ministers, subsequently established three committees in GATT: Committee I to convene a further tariff negotiating conference; Committee II to review the agricultural policies of member governments and Committee III to tackle the problem facing developing countries in their trade. The establishment of the European Economic Community during the previous year also demanded large-scale tariff negotiations under Article XXIV: 6 of the General Agreement.

1960 The Dillon Round. The fifth Round opened in September and was divided into two phases: the first was concerned with negotiations with EEC member states for the creation of a single schedule of concessions for the Community based on its Common External Tariff; and the second was a further general round of tariff negotiations. Named in honour of US Under-Secretary of State Douglas Dillon who proposed the negotiations, the Round was concluded in July 1962 and resulted in about 4,400 tariff concessions covering $4.9 billion of trade.

1961 The Short-Term Arrangement covering cotton textiles was agreed as an exception to the GATT rules. The arrangement permitted the negotiation of quota restrictions affecting the exports of cotton-producing countries. In 1962 the “Short Term” Arrangement became the “Long term” Arrangement, lasting until 1974 when the Multifibre Arrangement entered into force.

1964 The Kennedy Round. Meeting at Ministerial level, a Trade Negotiations Committee formally opened the Kennedy Round in May. In June 1967, the Round.s Final Act was signed by some 50 participating countries which together accounted for 75 per cent of world trade. For the first time, negotiations departed from the product-by-product approach used in the previous Rounds to an across-the-board or linear method of cutting tariffs for industrial goods. The working hypothesis of a 50 per cent target cut in tariff levels was achieved in many areas. Concessions covered an estimated total value of trade of about $410 billion. Separate agreements were reached on grains, chemical products and a Code on Anti-Dumping.

1965 A New Chapter. The early 1960s marked the accession to the general Agreement of many newly-independent developing countries. In February, the Contracting Parties, meeting in a special session, adopted the text of Part IV on Trade and Development. The additional chapter to the GATT required developed countries to accord high priority to the reduction of trade barriers to products of developing countries. A Committee on Trade and Development was established to oversee the functioning of the new GATT provisions. In the preceding year, GATT had established the International Trade Centre (ITC) to help developing countries in trade promotion and identification of potential markets. Since 1968, the ITC had been jointly operated by GATT and the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

1973 The Tokyo Round. The seventh Round was launched by Ministers in September at the Japanese capital. Some 99 countries participated in negotiating a comprehensive body of agreements covering both tariff and non-tariff matters. At the end of the Round in November 1979, participants exchanged tariff reductions and bindings which covered more than $300 billion of trade. As a result of these cuts, the weighted average tariff on manufactured goods in the world.s nine major industrial markets declined from 7.0 to 4.7 per cent. Agreements were reached in the following areas: subsidies and countervailing measures, technical barriers to trade, import licensing procedures, government procurement, customs valuation, a revised anti-dumping code, trade in bovine meat, trade in dairy products and trade in civil aircraft. The first concrete result of the Round was the reduction of import duties and other trade barriers by industrial countries on tropical products exported by developing countries.

1974 On 1 January 1974, the Arrangement Regarding International Trade in Textiles, otherwise known as the Multifibre Arrangement (MFA), entered into force. It superseded the arrangements that had been governing trade in cotton textiles since 1961. The MFA seeks to promote the expansion and progressive liberalization of trade in textile products while at the same time avoiding disruptive effects in individual markets and lines of production. The MFA was extended in 1978, 1982, 1986, 1991 and 1992. MFA members account for most of the world exports of textiles and clothing which in 1986 amounted to US$128 billion.

1982 Ministerial Meeting. Meeting for the first time in nearly ten years, the GATT Ministers in November at Geneva reaffirmed the validity of GATT rules for the conduct of international trade and committed themselves to combating protectionist pressures. They also established a wide-ranging work programme for the GATT which was to lay down the groundwork for a new Round 1986. The Uruguay Round. The GATT Trade Ministers meeting at Punta del Este, Uruguay, launched the eighth Round of trade negotiations on 20 September. The Punta del Este Declaration, while representing a single political undertaking, was divided into two sections. The first covered negotiations on trade in goods and the second initiated negotiation on trade in services. In the area of trade in goods, the Ministers committed themselves to a “standstill” on new trade measures inconsistent with their GATT obligations and to a “rollback” programme aimed at phasing out existing inconsistent measures. Envisaged to last four years, negotiations started in early February 1987 in the following areas tariffs, non-tariff measures, tropical products, natural resource-based products, textiles and clothing, agriculture, subsidies, safe-guards, trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights including trade in counterfeit goods, and trade-related investment measures. The work of other groups included a review of GATT articles, the GATT dispute settlement procedure, the Tokyo Round agreements, as well as the functioning of the GATT system as a whole.

1994 “GATT 1994” is the updated version of GATT 1947 and takes into account the substantive and institutional changes negotiated in the Uruguay Round GATT 1994 is an integral part of the World Trade Organization established on 1 January 1995. It is agreed that there be a one year transition period during which certain GATT 1947 bodies and commitments would co-exist with those of the World Trade Organization.

Dredge Laguna de Bay

Latest reports show that the siltation in the Laguna de Bay is simply terrible and out of control. It now has an average depth of only 2.5meters or about 8 feet.

The Shallow Lake

The oft interviewed architect and urban-planner Felino Palafox has also called for the dredging of the Philippine's biggest lake. Now, Mr. Palafox has many great ideas: he's the guy pushing for the amendment of the building code; advocating the building of more suitable structures in typhoon and earthquake prone areas. But nowhere have I seen or heard of his ideas being implemented in any scale.

Felino Palafox

Back to Laguna de Bay.

Since government is unwilling to do the dredging, it is up to the private sector to do the work. So there needs to be something in it for the private sector.

My idea is that the silt in the lake has to be good for something. Now a certain Mr. Emmanuel“Manny” Alkuino has come up with a way to turn silt into bricks. This is a very environmentally friendly solution. It can make someone rich and Filipinos will have strong sound building materials with which to build their hovels.

Gawad Kalinga Project

This could be your house

Check out this cool video

These bricks are really innovative since they are made using a mixture of silt and rice hull ash, as opposed to the usual clay, slate or fly ash.  This is an environmentally friendly solution since rice hulls are basically by products of rice milling and silt would just otherwise clog our waterways, or create a mess of our houses during a flood.

Apparently, these bricks have been in use for decades already in Bukidnon. I wonder why they haven't caught on yet in the other parts of the Philippines.

Here's the former Vice President Noli de Castro laying a brick.

Under this program the benefits are:

1. No more flash-floods.
2. An entrepreneur/s will get rich.
3. Some workers will get jobs.
4. Buildings can be built more cheaply.
5. Everyone will be happy.

We just need a very enterprising person/company willing to undertake this.

I'd do it myself but I'm still saving my money for the venture, and this may take a while.

Will this be the fruit of Laguna Lake dredging?

Update and Correction (June 29, 2014):

My research was a little off.  Apparently, a project to dredge Laguna de Bay has been in the works during the previous administration (Gloria Macapagal Arroyo 2001-2010) and which was scheduled to take place sometime 2010.  The project was to be undertaken by a Belgian contractor which specializes in dredging projects.  Unfortunately, the current administration (without any good reason, I might add) axed the project and now we face an international suit from the Belgians over this.  Read more about it here.  This is just a little disheartening because this project should have been a priority of the current administration, and all the groundwork had been laid down and all that the President had to do was sit and watch.  It is also disheartening because, just like the German company Fraport AG in the NAIA 3 project whose contract was declared null and void, Filipinos just seem to have trouble fulfilling their contractual commitments--this is simply not the mark of a progressive country.