Official Factsheet

MCC Official Press Release

Statement of Ambassador Harry Thomas on the MCC compact signing

President Aquino had a hotdog sandwich in New York. Photo by: Official Gazette.

Here are the full texts of the remarks made by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Benigno Aquino III at the signing of the $434 M compact agreement between the Philippine government and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, held Sept. 23 at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City.

You may view the video of the event here. Get the factsheet and announcements here.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much. It is a true pleasure for me to be here and I want to thank Daniel Yohannes and the entire MCC team – we have board members and staff members here – for their hard work every day, but particularly for this compact. It is an exciting moment in the relationship between the United States and the Philippines, a very long relationship that is now focused on the future. And it is a great privilege and honor to welcome President Aquino here. Of course, my colleague, the Foreign Secretary Romulo, thank you for being here with me. And thank you as well, Secretary Purisima, Ambassador Gaa, and all of our distinguished Filipino guests.

One of the joys of my job as chair of the Millennium Challenge Corporation Board is watching countries make gains because of their own hard work, but with the help of the United States. The compact we are signing today is only possible because for the past few years, we have seen evidence of a commitment to deliver for the people that we believe is represented in the promise of President Aquino’s election. One of the projects supported by this compact, Kalahi, comes from a Tagalog phrase that means “linking arms against poverty.” I think it’s a wonderful phrase because that’s exactly what we’re doing with this Millennium Challenge Corporation compact.

We want to assist the people of the Philippines to be able to do more for themselves, and we also want to see results from our investment. This was a negotiated agreement. This was not a decision just to give the Philippines some money – although I’m sure that’s welcome to our friends – this was a negotiation. Because that’s the whole idea behind the MCC; there are certain principles that we believe in, and the Philippines has made a commitment to these principles. We believe that you can unleash the human potential in a country like the Philippines by tearing down the barriers to economic growth and fighting corruption, which is like a cancer in the economy and society.

Millions of people in the Philippines have left their native land for a better opportunity. They love the Philippines. I know because I know many of them. They try to go home when they can afford to do it. They retire back to the Philippines. They want to be sure their children and grandchildren are raised in the Philippines. We hope that, Mr. President, the people of your country will be able to make a good living in their own country. And in order to do that, there must be a partnership that creates the conditions for economic opportunity.

I know how smart the Filipino people are. I know how hard they work. I’m not sure there’s any group of people anywhere in the world that work harder than Filipinos. (Applause.) But let’s be very honest here. Too many of them feel that they cannot progress in their own country. Too many of them feel that the elite in business and politics basically call the shots, and there’s not much room for someone who’s hardworking, but not connected. Too many of them believe that even if they get the best education they can, that there won’t be an opportunity for them, and so they take that education and help build someone else’s economy, very often here in the United States.

So this work that we are agreeing to today has the potential for assisting in the transformation that President Aquino has spoken of. The work has already begun to show results, including new and improved roads so farmers and fishermen can get to market faster and new businesses can take route; a more effective and efficient tax collection system so the government can raise the revenue it needs to serve its people better; and a program that will partner with some of the country’s poorest communities to identify those development projects that will make the biggest impact. Because we know one size does not fit all; one community might need a school, another a health clinic, a third a water system. Each will be responsible for designing and driving its own project and for showing results.

Now, these are not American ideas, these are not MCC ideas; all of these ideas came from the Filipino people. They are designed to be self-sustaining and they build on efforts that have already begun. So we look forward to working with you and linking arms in the fight against poverty and on behalf of a better future for the people of the Philippines.

I look out at this audience and I see some dear friends who I have known for many years. When I was a senator from New York, I had the great privilege of working with many of you on behalf of a stronger relationship between the United States and the Philippines. It is my personal commitment that we will do everything we can to help you help yourselves. Because at the end of the day – (applause) – I know that the spirit of entrepreneurship, the drive to succeed, the love of family and commitment to the next generation has been a hallmark of Filipinos forever. And I am absolutely convinced, Mr. President, that under your leadership, your country will show great strides forward.

It is now my great honor to introduce the president of the Philippines, President Aquino. (Applause.)

PRESIDENT AQUINO: Your Honor, Secretary Hillary Clinton, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell, MCC CEO Daniel Yohannes, MCC Board members, U.S. Government officials, members of the Philippine delegation, ladies and gentlemen, tonight on behalf of the Filipino people, I am bearing witness to formal approval of a $434 million grant to the Philippines to help our fight against poverty and corruption. This is no ordinary aid agreement.

In the presidential palace in Manila, there is a painting titled the Blood Compact. It portrays the first treaty of friendship between a Filipino ruler and the representative of a foreign power. It is only fitting that tonight we are bearing witness to a modern kind of compact – a solemn agreement covenanted by its two entities in a common objective. Our common objective, our shared aspiration, is for poverty to be banished and for development and prosperity to take its place.

The American people and their government have put forward the financial means for developing nations to accelerate their development. And yet, as Ben Franklin reminds us, God helps those who help themselves. All the aid, all the assistance in the world, would be meaningless if it ended up stolen or misspent. We share the same view – a key to unlocking the potential for growth and prosperity among nations is good and honest governance. If the American people through their government can commit resources to their friends, their friends, owe it to those pledging assistance and to themselves to be worthy stewards of what they will receive – for this reason, the Philippine compact proposal has undergone a rigorous development and multi-stakeholder consultative processes, from the time the Philippines was introduced into the Millennium Challenge Account Threshold Program with the MCC five years ago.

Up to that time, up to the time that the country was selected compact-eligible from 2008 to 2010, the Philippine compact went through four congressional notifications, countless MCC missions to the Philippines, and a legislative concern on the Philippines compact eligibility due to income reclassification from a low-income country to a lower-middle income country. This agreement was made possible by Filipinos and Americans working together to give us the tools to finish the job of fighting poverty.
I commend Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo together with Ambassador Willy Gaa, the Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima, who first led the development of the Philippine Threshold Program in 2005 as then-secretary of trade and industry, and who is now responsible for the lead oversight in implementing the compact for the next five years under an accountable entity called the Millennium Challenge Account Philippines.

On the American side, the former members of the MCC Board and their staff – Lorne Craner, president of the International Republic Institute; Ken Hackett, president of Catholic Relief Services; former private sector member and managing director of Greycroft Limited Liability Corporation, Alan Patricof; and USAID Chief Operating Officer Alonzo Fulgham, who also served as Acting USAID Administrator – we appreciate your invaluable contributions.

We acknowledge as well the efforts of previous MCC CEOs – Ambassador John Danilovich, Rodney Bent, and Darius Mans for their exemplary efforts, as well as to the talented MCC Philippine transaction team led by Deputy Vice President Darius Teter and Country Director Troy Wray.

There are, of course, Madam Secretary Clinton, a true friend of the Philippines, and the members of the MCC Board – Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, U.S. Trade Representative Ambassador Ron Kirk, USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah, MCC CEO Daniel Yohannes, and private sector member, former Senator William Frist. All of you have made possible this vote of confidence in the Philippines.

The MCC Board of Directors has praised this Compact for its creativity, innovation and relevance. Each of the three projects in the Compact has integrated several key components to combat corruption.

The Revenue Administration Reform Project or RARP directly targets improvements in governance or internal integrity within the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). The Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan – Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services, or Kalahi-CIDSS, is designed to ensure that resources are provided to communities directly where they are needed most, and enforces transparency and accountability for local development investments.

The Secondary National Roads Project introduces a number of checks on construction standards and road contractors. And these are the Compact projects that, in the words of MCC executives, demonstrates my country’s “high capacity” as an MCC partner.
As I conveyed during my teleconference with Mr. Yohannes last August 9, we will do our part to use this grant wisely. We will continue the Revenue Integrity Protection Service or lifestyle checks programs. We will ensure that the Policy Improvement Process Plan of Action will be implemented in parallel with the Compact projects to effectively address performance issues such as Control of Corruption. We are currently refining our indicators for the Performance Governance System, which was already introduced in six national government agencies, namely education, health, public works, transportation, internal revenue and the police. We will revive the Philippine Development Forum this year so that the Philippines will remain on track when it comes to our 2015 Millennium Development Goal targets, especially in meeting targets in primary education and health services delivery.

My visit to the United States has a key objective – to inform investors that the Philippines is indeed open for business – not the under-the-table kind, but the legitimate kind; not the kind of business that thrives in corrupt deal-making, but which thrives because of sensible and enforceable and fair contracts. I have come with my economic team to share with our American friends the possibilities for doing business in my country, either through the Build-Operate-and-Transfer schemes or Corporate Social Responsibility programs.

But first and foremost, I am here to assure you that the Philippines is committed to good housekeeping practices in its domestic and international dealings with investors. We are committed to not just a fair, but a square deal for all. We will not abandon the poor to the markets, just as we will not distort markets by means of red tape or crony impositions.

Tonight, we bear witness to a partnership for development, a partnership built on good faith. We have paid our dues, you have given your pledge. We are in this together, which is only fitting, since we are two nations bound by a shared commitment to the same ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Good evening and Mabuhay to all. (Applause.)

Source: US Department of State website

The Department of Foreign Affairs said that Aquino’s US itinerary includes:

• A speech before United Nations General Assembly
• A meeting with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
• Bilateral meetings with leaders of Vietnam, Malaysia and Singapore
• Meetings with businessmen including those from Citibank and JP Morgan Chase
• An appearance at an event at Baruch College in New York with members of Filipino communities from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Massachusetts

The DFA also said that with the Philippines appointed by former President George W. Bush as country coordinator, Aquino is also set to attend the second US-ASEAN Leaders’ Meeting.

After this meeting,  US President Barack Obama will join Vietnamese President Nguyen Minh Triet and Aquino in an international press conference.

In his departure statement, Aquino said that “we have embarked on this journey to send a message to the world, and particularly to one of our biggest trading partners, the United States of America: The Philippines is open for business.”

Critics of the President said that saying the country is open for business actually meant that Aquino is not offering any change from foreign investment-led, debt-ridden economic policies adopted by his predecessors and that have shackled local businesses.

Aquino’s trip to the US comes at the heels of the release of a partial report on the Aug. 23 hostage crisis in Manila, his suspension of trips to two member-states of the ASEAN and to Belgium.

Aquino lived in Boston, Massachusetts with his family in the early 1980s when his father, Benigno Aquino Jr., went into exile. Upon the latter’s return, he was killed on the tarmac of the Manila International Airport purportedly by soldiers on orders of dictator Ferdinand Marcos.

The proclamation said that the “deaths are a great loss to the peoples of Hong Kong and the Philippines, and call for the most solemn commemoration and respect at a time of grief for our two peoples.”

It calls on all government offices and Philippine consulates and embassies abroad to lower the Philippine flag to half mast to signify national mourning.

Aquino’s issuance of the proclamation comes at the heels of strong national and international condemnation of the hostage-taking incident that killed  eight tourists from Hong Kong, and the response of Philippine authorities.

China and its Hong Kong Special Administrative Region have demanded that the Philippines make a thorough investigation and provide “satisfactory answers” to questions of the people of Hong Kong.

The questions now are these:

• Has the Aquino presidency done anything meaningful so far?
• Are you so far satisifed with how he is managing government?
• Do you think he should do more?

For one, his corrupt and tyrannical predecessor Gloria Macapagal Arroyo continues to evade accountability. She now holds court in Congress where her crimes and political record may not be mentioned.

Some say Aquino is wasting precious political capital by not doing anything profound and by not initiating bold reform measures.

What do you think?

All aboard? Aquino imposes tax on toll fees. (Photo by AP via Sulekha.com)

The administration of President Benigno Aquino III seems dead-set in violating a key campaign promise not to raise or introduce new taxes come Monday when the Bureau of Internal Revenue starts to impose the 12-percent value-added tax on toll fees on Aug. 16, on top of a whooping 250-percent toll fee hike in the South Luzon Expressway.

As of posting time, Malacanang has not ordered the BIR to hold the tax imposition which will result in increases in toll fees.

Liberal Party Sen. Ralph Recto, the principal author of the Expanded VAT Law who lost a reelection bid in the 2007 elections over the tax, assailed the VAT on toll fees.

In a hearing at the Senate, the country’s chief tax collector said the Arroyo administration is duty bound to collect taxes and that the law did not expressly exempt toll fees.

Aiming to get P1.3-billion in new revenues, the new tax and a simultaneous 250-percent toll fee hike in SLEX, will result in higher toll fees:

SLEX: Alabang to Calamba, Laguna
P85, up from P22, for Class 1 vehicles
P170, up from P43 for Class 2 vehicles
P255, up from P65 for Class 3 vehicles

NLEX: Balintawak to Santa Ines
P195, up from P174, for Class 1
P487, up from P435, for Class 2
P585, up from P522, for Class 3

SCTEX: Subic to Tipo
P20, up from P18, for Class 1
P50, up from P45, for Class 2
P60, up from P54, for Class 3

Skyway  and Santo Tomas to Balagtas (Batangas)
P67, up from P60, for Class 1
P134, up from P120, for Class 2
P200, up from P179, for Class 3

R1 Expressway: Manila-Cavite Toll Expressway
P9, up from P8, for Class 1
P48, up from P43, for Class 2
P73, up from P65, for Class 3

SCTEX: Tipo to Tarlac
P203, up from P181, for Class 1
P407, up from P363, for Class 2
P609, up from P544, for Class 3

The Supreme Court meanwhile has not acted on a separate petition seeking to stop the toll fee hike.

Transport groups and commuters have criticized the toll fee hike and the imposition of VAT. They claimed the Toll Regulatory Board did not even consult the public nor has it justified the toll fee hike it approved for SLEX.

Ramon Ang, the San Miguel Corp. vice president who announced the bid, justified the buy-out in these terms:

The sale of Pagcor fits in well with the President’s agenda. We are not asking him for anything but be true to his campaign promise of ensuring a level playing field for all businessmen

Ang, who counts Malaysian big business as friends, also said:

Why wait for six years to have $10 billion when he can have $10 billion in just six months? His government does not have to sell anything else and he will make the country a tiger economy immediately. Isn’t this a spectacular deal?

Elsewhere, the US approved the first ever aid grant to the Aquino government to the tune of $434-million which would purportedly go to tax reform, the anti-poverty efforts of the Kalahi program first introduced by President Arroyo, and a road project in Samar.

It is easy to be happy over both developments because both more money for government and conceptually more money for things and services the nation badly need.

There is however no assurance that: 1) subsequent transactions related to them would be corruption-free; and 2) the money would go to the direly-needed social services.

Take the US aid, for instance. Of the total amount, a whooping $214-million would go to the construction and repair of roads running up to 220 kilometers and passing through 15 towns. That’s roughly $1-million/kilometer and hordes of local executives, contractors and subcontractors may now be salivating at this bonanza. Would this road project be a “daang matuwid”? We hope so.

The new US aid is only the latest in a string of foreign assistance going to the Philippines. There are also the many loans that have forever saddled the nation, no thanks to the automatic appropriations which places the single-biggest chunk of the annual budget to paying off these loans. Yes, the so-called “aid” mostly become handicaps in the long run.

Prior to this, previous governments have received millions of dollars in aid and sold many other lucrative and profitable businesses but the social services remain underfunded. Privatization has not translated to improved delivery of basic services. In most cases, only the buyers of government property, foreign creditors and their friends in government are, in the end, the only ones who are happy.

Many Twitter users meanwhile lamented that President Aquino did not certify as urgent measures such reform-oriented bills such as those on Reproductive Health and on Freedom on Information, with not a few raising a howl that Aquino was completely silent on the issue of land reform.

It is President Aquino’s responsibility to expose all perfidious acts committed by his predecessor. He owes it to the nation to find out all of those transactions, and to mobilize government to run after Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and her cohorts who cashed in on their positions and prerogatives.

It would have been a great combo had the President also certified as urgent the FOI bill which, side by side with the Whistleblowers’ Bill, would empower and encourage citizens to take a pro-active role in making government and government officials accountable and to help combat corruption that usually happens under the veil of secrecy.

One major highlight of the President’s speech was the idea of private-public partnerships which he claimed would help fund government and its operations and services. Nothing wrong really with the idea but this cannot be the determining factor of how the government would raise revenues and how these would be spent.

If there will be a serious battle against corruption, the money to be recovered or saved should be re-directed to vital social services.  The Aquino government would do better if it makes a vow to put people first in budgeting and spending and accounting for each centavo allotted and  spent. There are strategic areas of government and strategic services that, prudence and Constitution dictate, ought not be put under (financial) control of the private sector.

President Aquino also spoke on the “situation in Mindanao”. If only that phrase were half-true, that the Mindanao conflict is just “a situation”, there would have been no need for a peace process. Was it just a problematic choice of words, or a thinly-veiled admission that he is not at all knowledgeable of the long and deep roots of the conflict between Manila and the Bangsamoro people?

The President meanwhile talked tough regarding the communists, accusing them of offering no solutions, only criticism. He then foisted the old idea of a long truce or ceasefire — basically the same offer made by Arroyo. Aquino again was silent on the eleven prior agreements signed by Manila and the National Democratic Front, and his peace adviser may have not told him about the NDF’s proposed draft for a Comprehensive Agreement of Social and Economic Reforms. That draft is as practical and as detailed as the NDF could get insofar as proposing solutions to the socioeconomic ills that are at the root of the conflict.

We citizens offer no apology for making such observations. That is both a right and responsibility. Yes, because while the President has the right to make his own determination of the current state of the nation, how we arrived at and how to veer away from the present crisis, citizens are well within their rights under this Republic to make it known where Aquino made serious or unforgivable omissions.

In a display of pique, Aquino scolded the state weather forecasters about their failure to provide an accurate forecast on typhoon Basyang, especially on its route that happened to include Metro Manila.

In so doing, Aquino articulated what the public feels about the work of the men and women of the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA). For many, PAGASA forecasts have become too limited or too inaccurate. It is no longer unusual for businesses and citizens to complement PAGASA forecasts with reports from foreign forecasting agencies. Some times, PAGASA forecasts are set aside totally.

Aquino, who ran and won a platform of change and hope, should bring the same to PAGASA. The state and the country depends so much on PAGASA but the agency is given too little to accomplish its tasks. For a country located in the “typhoon belt” and along the Pacific “ring of fire”, the Philippines should provide adequate support to PAGASA especially in the form of funding for the equipment they need and for the training and retraining of scientists and experts working there.

If state support for PAGASA remains unchanged, the agency would only be able to provide full service in 2013. That’s a long, terrifying wait.

President Aquino should support PAGASA by raising the government’s budget for the agency when he submits to Congress his proposed 2011 national appropriations act later this month.

Anything less than that would make Aquino no different from previous presidents who scold bureaucrats but do not equip and empower them to perform their jobs and functions, starting with adequate appropriations. The President must be able to lead in seeing this through.

PAGASA’s rank and file, the scientific community and the public would support such a move.

Davide (left) was Arroyo's envoy to the UN, deodorizing the former president's record until the 2010 elections when he switched support to Aquino. (Photo credit: Philippine Information Agency)

Under her 9-year watch (January 2001 – June 2010), Arroyo along
with many top officials were implicated in election fraud, major cases
of corruption, plunder, and gross and systematic human rights
violations. These allegations led to the filing of four successive
impeachment complaints against her and – in the case of the rights
violations – in the holding of a number of independent tribunals that
found the former president guilty. Although Arroyo was the alleged
principal perpetrator these cases could not have happened without the
complicity of her political allies, Cabinet members, generals,
business cronies, and others. Justice has been denied owing to the
inaction if not the complicit role of top officials of the Ombudsman,
prosecutors, and state investigators.

At this point, nothing is clear about the task of the Truth
Commission. This early, however, the independence of the commission is
being questioned given that it will be headed by a former Arroyo
appointee. Former Supreme Court chief justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
Davide, who once headed the fact-finding commission on the coup
attempts staged against President Corazon C. Aquino in the late 1980s,
served as permanent representative of the Philippine mission to the
United Nations and had sworn Arroyo to the presidency in 2001 upon the
ouster of then President Joseph E. Estrada.

The proposed presidential commission is not without precedent.
There was the Agrava Commission that probed into the assassination of
opposition figure Benigno Aquino, Jr. in 1983. Others were the Davide
Commission, Feliciano Commission (Oakwood mutiny, 2003), and the Melo
Commission (2006) that looked into political killings. Although the
Agrava commission linked military men to the 1983 assassination its
mastermind remains unknown to this day. The Davide commission only
resulted in a “kid’s gloves” approach to the coup plotters. Leaders of
the Oakwood mutiny were detained and tried but the issues they had
raised including corruption in the armed forces remain unheeded to
this day. The Melo commission became just a political ploy to
neutralize the growing international outrage over the political
killings.

Specific investigations

What is common among these past commissions is their investigation
of specific cases, whether incidents of political assassination, coup
attempts, or the summary execution of activists. The proposed Truth
Commission is more than this: It is expected to look into cases of
corruption, plunder, electoral fraud, and human rights violations.
Similar to the past commissions, the new Davide-led body will
investigate but can only recommend the prosecution of perpetrators.
What happens after that is an entirely different story.

Even if it is formed as a superbody with powers to summon both
alleged perpetrators, co-conspirators, and witnesses the proposed
commission’s mandate will likely be so vast that fulfilling its
mission would be agonizingly long if not nearly impossible.
Theoretically, a truth commission should only look into a specific
incidence of inter-related crimes. Thus it has the choice of probing
into corruption, electoral fraud, plunder, or human rights cases.
Among others, the professed goal is to put an end to a heinous crime
committed over a period of time, deliver its perpetrators to justice,
and bring about a major transformation. The prosecution of Arroyo and
other officials for corruption, for instance, can be a definitive step
toward fulfilling Aquino III’s campaign pledge to end the culture of
corruption in government.

However, in any of the possible areas of investigation, evidences,
documents, and testimonies are already ample and available these
having been gathered in numerous hearings and investigations done by
both government and constitutional bodies as well as by credible
independent groups and international organizations. The truth that the
commission seeks to find and consolidate is distilled in these data
that can be used to build a strong case. With all the information
available, it would be redundant for the Truth Commission to conduct
another lengthy investigation especially when what is needed at this
time is speedy justice.

Regardless, the Truth Commission will conduct its own inquiry. For
investigation to be credible it will have to summon not only the
principal respondent but all other authorities and individuals without
whose complicit role the alleged crimes would not have been committed
and several laws violated in a period of nine years. These elements
are still entrenched in government, hold powerful positions whether in
the civilian or military-police institutions and, who knows, a number
of them have been appointed or re-appointed in the Aquino cabinet.

Then, what?

Granting an investigation is done, how will the prosecution then
proceed? Aquino III needs all the political will and support he can
muster just to overhaul the Arroyo-appointed Ombudsman and other legal
bodies so that the judicial process can move forward. Without
congressional enactments, however, the agencies concerned cannot just
be made to act accordingly these being constitutional bodies. The
Philippine justice system is weak and unreliable yet too politicized
that legitimate cases not to mention charges involving the powers that
be will not prosper.

With all these gridlocks, there are courses of action that the new
president can – and should – do without even waiting for the Truth
Commission to begin its herculean task. For instance, he should now
rein in the military and assert civilian authority by terminating the
counter-insurgency program that continues to involve political
killings and buckle down to serious peace talks with the armed Left
and MILF. He should order the justice department to proceed with the
first complaint filed against Arroyo instead of holding it in abeyance
in deference to the Truth Commission. He can ask Congress to act on a
pending bill increasing the powers of the Commission on Human Rights
(CHR) for the prosecution of erring military and police forces.

A historical lesson is worth mentioning at this point. Ferdinand
Marcos was ousted by people power in 1986 following years of
corruption, plunder, and human rights violations. But the first
directive issued by Corazon Aquino when she took over the presidency
is to provide immunity from prosecution to all Marcos officials and
generals involved in human rights cases. There was “reconciliation”
with the oppressors; victims have long been forgotten to this day.
With all this betrayal, thousands of torture victims filed a class
suit against the Marcoses in Honolulu and succeeded in getting a
conviction later.

Justice

This only proves that justice cannot await any government action.
It is up for victims of rights violations and those directly or
indirectly affected by corruption, plunder, and electoral fraud to by,
their own efforts, let justice bear upon the perpetrators. Legal
alternatives can be mulled on how and where legitimate cases against
Arroyo and company can be filed. Hope is not lost; only the collective
will of the people can make it happen.

Truth Commissions emerged from civil strife and transitional
periods in some countries of South America, Africa, and Asia during
the 1970s. Generally, they dealt with human rights with investigations
focused on patterns of mass killings and state-sponsored terrorism.
Their role is as part of the “healing process” that aims to put
closure to a history of repression and provide trauma healing and
restorative justice to its victims and their surviving families. These
high expectations were, however, not generally met because some of the
commissions lacked impartiality or independence. In other countries,
amnesties were given right away to perpetrators at the expense of the
victims themselves. Some transitional governments used the truth
commission as a means of reconciling with the past – without
necessarily allowing justice to prevail.