PIRMA unregistered since 2004 — SEC
THE People’s Initiative for Reform, Modernization, and Action (PIRMA), the group that has come out and declared that it is behind the signature campaign for a people’s initiative (PI) to amend the Constitution, has been unregistered for 20 years already, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
PIRMA’s registration with the SEC was revoked on February 10, 2024 for its failure to comply with the agency’s “reportorial requirements,” Katrina Jean Miranda, Securities Review Counsel of the SEC’s Office of the General Counsel, told senators during the third hearing of the Committee on Electoral Reforms and People’s Participation on allegations that PI proponents bribed individuals with varying amounts of cash to sign the petition.
“Since the time of their incorporation, they have not submitted any reportorial requirements with the SEC based on our records,” Miranda said. PIRMA was incorporated on March 12, 1997.
Miranda also told senators that the names of Noel Oñate, who has been identified as the lead convenor of PIRMA, lawyer Anthony Abad, and the Gana law firm were not included in PIRMA’s list of incorporators at the time that it was registered with the SEC.
Abad is the lawyer whose name was seen in the printed PI signature forms that were submitted with the Commission on Elections (Comelec), while the Gana law firm represented PIRMA in its TV ad campaign “EDSA Puwera” which aired on three major television networks on the first week of January.
With Miranda’s disclosure, Sen. Imee Marcos, committee chairperson, asked officials of PIRMA who were present during the hearing: “What is your participation in this non-existent corporation?”
Lawyer Alex Avisado, PIRMA’s legal counsel, did not directly respond to Marcos’ query, saying instead: “With regards to the corporate registration of PIRMA, may we inform the committee that we made submissions in the online portal of the SEC updating the email and contact persons, and after that, (we are now) expecting a reply, giving us a schedule.”
Avisado said PIRMA updated its information filed with the SEC only this month “because it took time for Mr. Oñate to speak with his former associates in PIRMA,” adding that the group is expecting the reinstatement of its registration following its compliance with SEC Memorandum Circular No. 28.
But Miranda cut in and said that Avisado’s opinion that updating PIRMA’s records will immediately lead to its reinstatement is not true.
When Avisado insisted that updating PIRMA’s records is sufficient to reinstate its registration, Marcos warned him not to teach the SEC what it should do.
Miranda said: “The process is (to) file a petition to lift the order of revocation and not submit compliance for Memorandum Circular No. 28 that was mentioned by Atty. Avisado.”
‘FACE FOR PI’
Marcos suspected PIRMA could have been used to give the PI campaign a “face.”
“Baka naman last minute pahabol. May nakaalala na may PIRMA dati at saka kinaladkad na lang si Mr. Oñate na napakabait, na nag-volunteer na rin (Maybe it was a last-minute solution. Someone remembered PIRMA and they dragged Mr. Oñate who is very kind, and who subsequently volunteered [to organize the signature campaign] at the same time),” Marcos said, adding: “Ang gulo, bakit walang papel, walang korporasyon, walang resibo.
Ano ba ito, lahat kababalaghan? (This is ridiculous — they have no papers, there is no corporation, there are no receipts. This is very strange).”
Sen. Nancy Binay how PIRMA initiated the signature campaign if it no longer existed.
“When we checked the rules, we found out that for purposes of PI, it’s only a registered voter (who) file for PI and we’re hoping by the time we file the petition, baka nga po umabot na kami sa part na magbabayad nga (maybe we can reach the period when we will just have to pay [the penalty]),” Avisado said.
DONORS LIST
Oñate had earlier told senators that PIRMA paid P55 million for the airing of the television advertisements, which started on January 2 this year. Of the amount, he said half came from his own pocket while the remaining amount was allegedly shouldered by “donors” who believed in the Cha-cha PI advocacy.
Senators had directed the PIRMA convenor to submit the list to the committee to prove the veracity of his statement.
But during yesterday’s hearing, Oñate refused to turn-over to the committee the list of donors, citing the right of the donors to privacy and for safety concerns.
“I have all intention of fulfilling what I said. I think I told you that we will submit the list of donors, but I obeyed what Sen. Francis Escudero mentioned here, that ‘maybe you might want to consult your contributors,’ which I did. I did consult them over the last many days, and they didn’t want to reveal their names. The reason that they gave me is that they are concerned with their privacy, they are concerned with their security,” he said.
He added the donors have already withdrawn their support to the PI campaign.
Avisado said Oñate “was forced to return their contributions” but did not elaborate.
He said Oñate withdrew P28 million from his personal bank accounts last February 3 — a total of P9 million from the Bank of the Philippine Islands, P9 million from Banco de Oro, and P10 million from Union Bank – so he can return the donations.
Oñate also said another reason why the donors refused to be identified was their concern that they will be required to pay the donor’s tax.
Marcos said revealing the identities of the donors do not have issues on privacy and security and is something that they should be proud of.
“It should be an activity that you take pride and honor in… There are no issues of security and privacy. I think it is a matter of pride as a committed citizen you are advocating for constitutional change,” Marcos said.
Oñate replied: “Maybe they thought about it and maybe they deemed it more important that their security, their privacy, and their family is higher than their concern about (the) people’s initiative… Because, I think right now there is controversy because there are anti and pro PI, they just did not want to get into this. They decided that they do not want their names revealed.”
Senate deputy minority leader Risa Hontiveros said there is nothing to hide on the donor’s part of their donations to PIRMA since politicians file their Statements of Contributions and Expenses after every election.
“Katulad din ‘yan ng isang constitutional process na kailangan may transparency, particularly sa ads… Wala namang nagtatanong pero sila ang nagsabi na it costs P55 million. I insist on the committee’s request which he promised, to submit them (That is like any constitutional process that needs to have transparency, particularly in placing advertisements… No one asked, but you said it cost P55 million. I insist on the committee’s request, which he promised, to submit them),” Hontiveros said.
Marcos said the committee has issued a subpoena for the submission of documents “out of its volition,” including the actual costs of printing the PI signature forms, list of donors, proof of payments, donors’ tax, and official invoices or official receipts of the EDSA Puwera advertisement.
Avisado said they have already submitted to the panel the requested documents, except for the donors’ list.
Sen. Nancy Binay said the donors should be aware that once they get involved on any advocacy, they should be transparent.
Marcos also said the committee would like to meet the donors in person in an executive session in the Senate so their identities will not be known to the public.
Avisado assured senators that “it will not end here” since Oñate is still trying to convince the donors to reveal their identities.
“Please allow Mr. Oñate to speak to these people,” he appealed.
A representative of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) said donors have 30 days to pay for the donor’s tax, which amounts to 6 percent of their respective contributions.
‘ADVISOR’
Abad told senators said he is not a member of PIRMA, contrary to Oñate’s statement during the first committee hearing.
“I’m really not part of PIRMA, not organically or a member of it. My role is really as an advisor on constitutional reforms, if this petition ever prospers,” he said.
At present, Abad said he is a professor of international economic law at the Ateneo de Manila University, after he recently retired from practicing law.
“I had been a long-time advocate of constitutional reforms. So, I have been promoting constitutional reforms and advocating it since the period of former president Fidel Ramos,” he also said.
Abad said his name was printed on the PI signature forms since he is the first on the list of those advocating for Cha-cha.
“I’ve become unexpectedly infamous for this… It’s actually the curse of my alphabet, my name you know being triple A (Anthony A. Abad). There are other petitioners… (like) former congressman Argel Cabatbat of Magsasaka (party-list), former congressman (Alfredo) Garbin, Ed Gulle of the Constitutional Reform Movement, former Justice Veloso,” he said.
“It happened that the signature form came out with only one name, just mine, and just an ‘et al’,” he added.
Abad said it was Garbin who drafted the text of the PI signature forms, which he later approved after review.
AKAP
During the hearing, senators said they were puzzled how the Department of Social Welfare and Development’s (DSWD) Ayuda sa Kapos sa Kita Program (AKAP) was allegedly used to entice the people to support the PI signature campaign.
The AKAP provides a one-time P5,000 financial assistance to “near poor” workers who receive a monthly salary of P23,000 or less a month, as announced by House Speaker Martin Romualdez last December.
Rep. Zaldy Co, chair of the House Appropriations Committee, said Congress has allocated P60 billion for the program under the 2024 budget, with P26.7 billion lodged in the DSWD for locally funded projects and the remainder under the unprogrammed funds.
Marcos, who defended the DSWD budget during the plenary discussions, said she was surprised with AKAP’s significant budget allocation since she did not hear of it during the budget deliberations last year.
“Nagulat din ako sa AKAP at mas lalo akong nagulat sa halaga, P26.7 billion. Isang programang ngayon ko lang natuklasan at ngayon lang narinig pero may bilin sa text: All soft projects, including AKAP, must go through the Office of the Speaker (I was surprised on this AKAP and was even surprised since it has a P26.7 billion budget. This is a program that I only learned just now, and it has a condition that all soft projects, including AKAP, must go through the Office of the Speaker),” Marcos said.
Marcos earlier said that P20 million was reportedly offered to each congressional district that could deliver the required number of signatures for the PI. She has alleged that the funds will be taken from government assistance programs under the DSWD, Department of Health, and Department of Labor and Employment.
Sen. Joseph Victor Ejercito asked DSWD Undersecretary for Legal Affairs Fatima Aliah Dimaporo of AKAP’s purpose and how it will be implemented.
Dimaporo admitted that the program was unfamiliar to them since it still has no established guidelines, which is indicative that it is not a regular program.
She said AKAP has not been requested by the DSWD, which prompted Sen. Ronald del Rosa to butt in, saying that the tables have now been turned since it is the department who will decide on which project it will fund, which should be the job of Congress.
Senators expressed skepticism about the program’s “sudden appearance and substantial budget allocation.”
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
Binay asked PIRMA to submit to the committee its organizational structure as what is required from groups pushing for the PI.
“Maybe just for submission, for this type of initiative you need to have an organizational chart, right? So maybe we can ask Mr. [Noel] Oñate or Atty. [Anthony] Abad, ano po ba ang organizational setup ninyo pagdating dito sa people’s initiative (what is your organizational setup for the PI)? For example, dito sa (here in) Caloocan, in NCR: a certain proponent, Jose Isagani M. Gonzales, miyembro ba ng grupo n’yo itong si Gonzales (is he a member of your group?”)
Binay said the committee would also want to know if the 211 congressional districts which submitted the signed PI forms to the Comelec is part of the non-existent PIRMA.
Avisado said a certain lawyer Red Tuazon is in-charge of PIRMA’s operations and would be the one to answer Binay’s concerns.
Tuazon, however, was unable to attend the hearing.
“Si Mr. Oñate po kasi hindi naman niya kilala ang mga tao on the field, but the operations group would be able to answer all your questions po (Mr. Oñate does not know the people on the field but the operations groups would be able to answer all your questions),” Avisado said.
Oñate has said that he was not acquainted with Tuazon.
RBH 6
Meanwhile, Sen. Juan Edgardo Angara, chairperson of the Senate sub-committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes, said he is considering the conduct of countryside hearings to facilitate wider peoples’ participation and representation in the ongoing discussions on proposed Resolution of Both Houses No. 6, which calls for limited economic amendments to the 1987 Constitution.
Angara said Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri was open to the proposal of holding hearings in the Visayas and Mindanao regions, including in Cagayan de Oro City, Cebu, Iloilo or Bacolod City in Negros Occidental.
Angara said he has yet to set the dates of the hearings depending on the availability of his colleagues in the Senate to avoid wasted efforts and maximize the effectiveness of the discussions by seeking inputs from various stakeholders.
“I will have to consult the senators. Magtatanong muna tayo kasi sayang naman kung pupunta tayo tapos ako lang at saka ‘yung resource persons (I will consult with them so as not to waste our efforts because if we go there, and I am just alone with resource persons [it will be useless]),” Angara said in an interview after the second hearing on RBH 6 on Monday afternoon.
Angara said discussions on RBH 6 is very significant since the proposed amendments to the Constitution is tackled thoroughly in full view of the public.
“It’s the first time na pinag-uusapan natin ito. So, kapag hindi nagtagumpay ito, hindi natin nakuha ang 18 votes, nariyan ang records. So, future generations can decide kung napapanahon na o hindi pa napapanahon. Babalikan at babalikan nila ito kaya sinisiguro natin na komprehensibo at magagling yung mga kinukua nating resource persons (It’s the first time that Cha-cha is being discussed in the Senate. So, if this will not prosper, if we do not get the 18 votes [needed by the Senate to approve the proposed amendments], it will be reflected on our records. So, the future generations can decide if the Constitution needs to be amended or not. They can review [the records], that’s why we will make sure that the discussions will be comprehensive, and the resource persons are experts in their respective fields),” he said.
Last Monday, the sub-committee tackled the provisions on public utilities of the Constitution, while during the first day of the hearing, it tackled the modes for introducing amendments to the Charter.
Angara said he will hold another hearing focused on the provisions on public utilities next week before moving on the educational institutions and advertising sectors.
OUT OF TIME
At the House of Representatives, Deputy Speaker David Suarez of Quezon warned senators that Congress is running out of time in amending the Constitution’s economic provisions.
“Do your work and do your work fast. Time is not on our side and neither other countries in the world, and the businesses, and the investors, they are not gonna wait for the Philippines. We need to make sure the gates are open for them to come in,” he said.
When it comes to “efficiency and productivity,” Suarez said the House has been undoubtedly and unquestionably beating the Senate. “Ngayon, sa bahagi ng Senado (Now, on the part of the Senate, you know it’s a mix signals),” Suarez said.
Suarez said while Zubiri spoke of a “before the Holy Week break” timeline, Angara mentioned a possible October timetable.
“Tapos may mga ibang senators na nagsasabi na huwag daw mamadaliin (But some senators say let’s not rush it) so we really can’t hold on to a definitive timeline when it comes to how soon the Senate can act on RBH 6, that is why I am asking, what is their timeline,” he said. — With Wendell Vigilia
