Author: J.A. Carizo

The Philippines is third most risky country in terms of natural hazards. These hazards include earthquakes, typhoons, volcanic eruptions, flooding and landslides.

While there are laws that help promote local disaster management, and provide guidelines of responding to disasters, the systems and procedures are so generic that all victims are treated alike. Unfortunately, biological and psycho-social differences exist. Children are among them.

This video was created to enlighten and call everyone to act and review current DRR systems particularly of local government units.

Last September 27, United States Senator Dick Durbin announced in Twitter that his and Senator Patrick Leahy’s proposed amendment prohibiting entry to any Philippine Government Officials involved in the imprisonment of Filipina Senator Leila de Lima was approved by the Senate Appropriation’s Committee. Hours after the tweet, high ranking Philippine officials who are allies of President Rodrigo Duterte issued statements lambasting Leahy and Durbin.

But why are they so agitated to the point that Senate President Tito Sotto called the senators as “pakialamero”?

1. Guilty feelings. The proposed amendment was clear. (T)he section “Prohibition on Entry” said the US Secretary of State “shall apply subsection (c) to foreign government officials about whom the Secretary has credible information have been involved in the wrongful imprisonment of…. Senator Leila de Lima who was arrested in the Philippines in 2017.” If some of these officials were not guilty, then the common reaction should be: “Who cares if I am not allowed in the US as long as I do my job?” And who are among those who were so noisy? Former House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez who caused the investigation and imprisonment of Delima.
2. Fear that they cannot anymore go to the United States. Well, many still look at the US as a “dreamland”. A number of Filipinos also have, in one way or another, a relative in the United States. The prohibition could be a guillotine for the dream or a scissor that could cut the passport to visit a kin. Worse, most of the games of Senator Manny Pacquiao are held in the US. How can they watch the boxing game then?
3. Ignorance. or stupidity. Every country and even a city has the right to choose who to admit or deny entry to its territory. Even Foreign Affairs Secretary Teddy Boy Locsin admitted this when he announced that United Nations (UN) Rapporteur Agnes Callamard will be denied entry to the Philippines. The UN was silent because it is plain and simple common sense. Note that even Davao City was able to declare an “undesirables” list which include Ramon Bautista who became infamous for his “hipon remark”?
4. Double Standards. The common reason, which was chewed on by Diehard Duterte Supporters (DDS), is the treatment of the amendment introduced by Leahy and Durbin as tantamount to intrusion on local affairs.  The wheels of justice is still moving for De Lima and the US Senators do not know what they are talking about. Unfortunately, those who condemned the amendment were silent when former Ombudsman Conchita Morales and former Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario were held by the immigration in Hongkong. Clearly, the Duterte allies respected China’s move to deny entry to those the latter calls as “undesirables” — a case of double standard. Lastly, if they are indeed serious in their “domestic intrusion” claim, why are they silent in the earlier move of the United States to use social media information to vet for visa applicants? This is far dangerous because one can immediately be denied entry for a simple statement liked, shared or made against the US.
5. Blind obedience. The worst reason is blind obedience to the “higher ups” so they condemned the move of Durbin and Leahy without using the God-given mental faculties. This is common among the trolls and blind followers who would just echo whatever message is downloaded from the top.

Do you also condemn the Durbin and Leahy Amendment? If so, what is your reason for doing so? Feel free to share your comments.

Jeepney drivers from the Pinagkaisang Samahan ng mga Tsuper at Operator Nationwide (Piston), members of the Alliance of Concerned Transport Organization (ACTO) and Stop and GO Coalition staged a nationwide transport strike on Monday, September 30, to protest government’s plan to totally phase out jeepneys by 2020. The strike, according to the jeepney drivers and operators, was considered a success while the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) and the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) described the effort as useless with the result as “an ordinary Monday morning rush hour”.

But while government agencies claim that the strike was not successful, they offered free rides to stranded passengers while the LTFRB threatened to cancel or suspend the franchises of participating jeepney drivers and operators. The public’s opinion was divided with some calling the threat as being insensitive to the plight of the operators and drivers.

But when one looks at the bigger picture, both the LTFRB and the jeepney drivers and operators are simply blackmailing each other. The former threatens to cancel franchises while the latter uses the plight of the commuters to intimidate. In the end, the commuters are the ones suffering. But why are they doing these?

First, some of the LTFRB personnel benefited largely from the issuance of colorum franchises so all the agency can do is threaten. While five LTFRB personnel have been sacked and 44 others have been transferred, this did not stop the issues hounding the agency that even prompted the senate last year to probe on new anomalies. In a sense, LTFRB seems to tell the drivers, particularly the colorum ones: Don’t join the strike or we’ll cancel the colorum franchises we gave you.

Otherwise, if the LTFRB is serious, it could have cancelled the franchises of those who joined the strikes since its officials are always bragging about the bases for cancellation. But how many franchises have been cancelled to date? Only 20 and that was for the strike done in 2017.No doubt LTFRB Chief Martin Delgra earned the monicker of “Boy Banta”. And, more so, it should have cleaned its database, posted the list of colorum vehicles, and let the traffic enforcers apprehend them.

LTFRB;s inefficiency and being prone to temptation now becomes the source of confidence of the drivers and operators. In fact, there are drivers who claim to have paid P288,000 to P300,000 to LTFRB personnel. Who will return the money, then? Even those sacked were not reported to have returned the money to their victims. So they seem to be saying: Cancel our franchise and we’ll open a can of worms.

The drivers and operators, too, find their confidence on the weakness of the Land Transportation Office (LTO). Annually, vehicles are being examined for their road worthiness. But, how come dilapidated jeepney units and those unfit for public transportation still pass the exams and continue to operate?

Lastly, while the commuters can just but complain, they find the situation hopeless. Whether they like it or not, the jeepneys still provide the cheapest and readily available source of transportation. The mass transit systems are always problematic and the buses, particularly those in Metro Manila, are not always available particularly in the arterial roads.

The problem in the public transportation industry are the bones in the closet of the stakeholders from the part of the government. If the government is really serious in preventing strikes and providing a convenient public transport system, the best way to start is to clean its closets. If it can really cancel the franchises of those erring jeepney operators and drivers, so be it. But at the same time, cancel or remove also from the government employee registry the erring personnel and not just transfer them. If the transportation franchise is just a privilege, so is serving the government.

Major local government units in the region and in some other parts of the country as well are actively implementing their car towing and clamping ordinances. While erring drivers can only whine and scratch their heads, local officials are getting their paychecks for inefficiency if not laughing their way for their negligence.

Republic Act 9160 otherwise known as the Local Government Code of the Philippines is clear:

Section 16. General Welfare. – Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among other things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and social justice, promote full employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants.

Along with that provision is a mandate that :

(c) The local government units shall, in conformity with existing laws, continue to prepare their respective comprehensive land use plans enacted through zoning ordinances which shall be the primary and dominant bases for the future use of land resources: Provided. That the requirements for food production, human settlements, and industrial expansion shall be taken into consideration in the preparation of such plans.

Among the laws local government units are supposed conform with, and implement, is the National Building Code of the Philippines. Said Code clearly provides the ratio of parking slot requirements for every building that is to be constructed and occupied.

No person or entity can begin construction without the construction permit from the local government. In most cases, no one can also occupy the building constructed without the occupancy permit, again, issued by the local government.

But while local government units are cashing in on these permits, the real intent of the National Building Code is sidelined. Buildings appear without full compliance to the requirements including the provision of car parking slots. And who bears the burden? The car owners especially those who faithfully complied with their obligations as they availed of the privileges of owning a vehicle.

Unfortunately, the balance always tilt in favor of the government particularly of local officials who have reserved parking slots in government buildings and in some commercial establishments when in fact, it is their very negligence that caused this car boom. Had they been strict with implementing the law, people would have second thoughts buying cars. (Note: we are only talking here about parking requirements and not even traffic management and public transportation.) And we won’t be wasting public debate and feeding also the inefficiency of Congressmen who have been considering time and again passing the “no-garage no-car” bill.

Below is the table of parking requirements per type of building or unit, or floor use based on Rule VII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the National Building Code:

TYPE OF OCCUPANCY	PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Low income single detached living unit with individual lots not more than 100m²	Pooled parking: 1 slot/10 units
Multi-family living units regardless of no. of stories with average living floor area of 50m²	1 slot/8 units
Multi-family living units regardless of no. of stories with average living floor area of above 50m² to 100m²	1 slot/ 4 units
Multi-family living units regardless of no. of stories with average living floor area of more than 100m²	1 slot/ unit
Hotels	1 slot/ 10 rooms
Residential hotels and aparteles	1 slot/ 5 units
Motels	1 slot/ unit
Shopping centers	1 slot/ 100m²
Markets	1 slot/ 150m²
Restaurants, fast food outlets, bars and beerhouses	1 slot/ 30m² of customer area
Nightclubs, supper clubs and theater-restaurants	1 slot/ 20m² of customer area
Office building	1 slot/ 125m² of gross floor area
Pension/ boarding/ lodging houses	1 slot/ 20 beds
Other buildings in business and commercial zones	1 slot/ 125m² of gross floor area
Public assembly buildings	1 slot/ 50m² of spectator area
Places of worship and funerary parlors	1 slot/ 50m² of congregation area
Elementary schools, secondary schools, vocational and trade schools	1 slot/ 10 classrooms
College and universities	1 slot/ 5 classrooms
Hospitals	1 slot/ 25 beds
Bowling alleys	1 slot/ 4 alleys
Amusement centers	1 slot/ 50m² of gross floor area
Clubhouses, beach houses, etc.	1 slot/ 100m² of gross floor area
Factories, manufacturing, mercantile, warehouses and storage bin	1 slot/ 1000m² of gross floor area
Tourist bus parking	2 bus slots/ hotel or theater restaurant

Parking slots are defined as follows:

• The size of an average automobile (car) parking slot must be computed at 2.50 meters by 5.00 meters for perpendicular or diagonal parking and at 2.15 meters by 6.00 meters for parallel parking.
• A standard truck or bus parking/loading slot must be computed at a minimum of 3.60 meters by 12.00 meters.
• An articulated truck slot must be computed at a minimum of 3.60 meters by 18.00 meters which should be sufficient to accommodate a 12.00 meters container van or bulk carrier and a long/hooded prime mover.

(Original Source here)