It's been a while since my last post, but no excuses. I'll just get to the point: ang kakapal talaga ng mga mukha ng ilang mga kongresista. Still they refer to themselves as "honorable" congressmen/women.
I'm referring to the supposed "consolidated" bill that Rep. Eric Singson, Jr. (Ilocos Sur) and nine other supposed representatives of the Filipino people railroaded last January 30 through the National Internal Revenue subcommittee (chaired by Singson) under the Ways and Means Committee of the Lower House.
This substitute bill consolidates the versions of Singson and Rep. Hermilando Mandanas (Batangas) but intentionally excludes the versions that seek to implement genuine reforms, those of Rep. Henedina Abad (Batanes) and Rep. Neil Tupas, as well as the administration bill filed by Rep. Joseph Emilio Abaya (Cavite), which is the same as the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council (LEDAC) sin tax reform bill. In summary, Singson's substitute bill provides for only minimal tax increases, maintains the current cumbersome multi-tiered tax system, and is not indexed to inflation, all of which will neither discourage consumption by the poor or young people nor provide substantial revenues to government. It is very obviously a pro-tobacco-industry bill.
As we all know, the tobacco industry's goal is to make as much profit as possible by making, promoting, and selling a product that is addictive, harmful to health and the environment, and causes disability and premature death. The substitute bill of Singson allows the tobacco industry to continue its "business as usual" of victimizing more of our fellow Filipinos, especially the poor who cannot afford to become sick, pay for healthcare, or lose their jobs because of ill health/disability.
For a more detailed discussion, I refer you to AER's op-ed "Singson’s Sin Tax Bill: Anti-Reform, Anti-Poor", available on AER's website or on Business World
Thankfully, the Ways and Means Committee, led by its chair, Rep. Isidro Ungab (Davao), wisely rejected this substitute bill because of many questions it raised, as well as the lack of consultation of other authors such as Rep. Abad.
