Breaktime: Hidden cross of business

Every year, the World Bank releases ratings of what it calls “ease of doing business” in some 189 countries. In the latest one, the Philippines slipped from 86th place in the previous rating to 95th place.

Three of the original members of the Asean, namely Singapore (No. 1), Malaysia (No. 18) and Thailand (No. 26) beat us. Even our closest competitor for foreign investments nowadays, Vietnam, took the 78th spot to pull away from the Philippines’ rating.

The World Bank rating looked into the dealings of the business sector with state offices, such as getting permits and paying taxes. Its latest rating indicated that the business sector must bear its cross in “starting a business” (No. 161), “protecting minority interest” (No. 154) and “paying taxes” (No. 127).

Could this spur the Aquino (Part II) administration to take stock of its accomplishment in the slogan “straight and narrow path” of our leader Benigno Simeon, aka BS?

*   *   *

On one bright spot, I heard the Civil Service Commission, or the CSC, gave an “excellent” mark to the Metro Manila office of the National Telecommunications Commission in its frontline services.

As we all know, except perhaps our busy senators, the law called Arta, or the Anti-Red Tape Act, mandated the CSC to conduct surveys on the delivery of service by government outfits perhaps as a way to minimize corruption.

Clearly the Arta (otherwise known as RA 9485) required those CSC surveys to gather feedback from the public, perhaps aiming to lessen bureaucratic red tape and thus cut the “hidden costs” of doing business here.

The legislature enacted the law some seven years ago in 2007, and from the looks of it, at least based on the World Bank “ease of doing business” rating, the law simply did not create much of an impression to the World Bank survey respondents.

In its report card, the CSC gave the Metro Manila office of the NTC the highest rating of “excellent,” as the office scored almost 93 percent, based on interviews with people who had transactions with the a particular office.

The NTC office also garnered a rating of almost 95 percent in the core area of Arta, obtaining a perfect score of 100 percent in the subtopic “anti-fixer campaign.”

From what I gathered, all respondents to the CSC survey claimed that no “fixer” approached them when they transacted with the NTC office and that they paid only the fees that the NTC set for their particular transactions.

By the way, in charge of the NTC office is Delilah Deles; it is located on the BIR Road in East Triangle, Quezon City—if you happen to be interested in the way Deles handles NTC business with the public.

According to the CSC report, the respondents actually reported that they saw “anti-fixer” posters that were displayed rather prominently at the NTC office. They also described that frontline personnel in the office as “knowledgeable,” who even wore all easy-to-read IDs the size of billboards on Edsa.

The respondents also said the NTC office not only observed the “no lunch break” rule for government offices, but it always—as in “without fail”—issued official receipts.

From what I gathered, the CSC did the survey among NTC clients right after they transacted with the office, indicating that the respondents actually did business with the office, who were just like the guys down here in my barangay – you know, guys such as applicants for radio operator certification.

*   *   *

In the World Bank rating category called “protecting minority interest,” as I said, we failed miserably by landing at the 154th spot out of some 189 countries.

That was the same sad story of the small stockholders of the listed Uniwide group, which the SEC ordered for liquidation, after some 14 years of receivership under the SEC itself, which in turn forced the small stockholders to file cases against Uniwide and its partners in the Metromall project on Roxas Boulevard in Las Piñas.

Here is the latest: It was the turn of Uniwide, through subsidiary Uniwide Sales Realty and Resources, to file another case against the partner, MBDC, or the Manila Bay Development Corp., supposedly controlled by Jacinto Ng Sr., who also owns National Biscuit Co., or Nabisco.

In effect, the Uniwide group wanted to compel PEA, or the Public Estates Authority to take back the 40-hectare property in the reclamation area on Roxas Boulevard, which the PEA supposedly sold to MBDC in 1988.

The Uniwide group alleged that the PEA sold the property at concessional rates.

At that time reputed to be the biggest retail business in the country, operating more than 50 retail outlets in Metro Manila, enjoying yearly cash flow of about P20 billion, Uniwide entered into a lease agreement with MBDC to build the mall at the reclaimed property.

MBDC supposedly promised to compliment the development with construction of office and commercial leasable projects—in particular a “Greenhills” type commercial district—which the Uniwide group latter alleged in another court cases was nothing but an empty promise.

The latest case was docketed as Civil Case No. 14-0288 at the Parañaque City Regional Trial Court (RTC), asking the court to order to the PEA to cancel the deed of sale between the PEA and MBDC, executed way back in 1988.

The Uniwide group alleged that MBDC violated the terms and conditions of the sale, while it noted that MBDC acquired the prime property with a bid of only about P470 million—or about P1,150 per square meter.

The reason for such a “very low” price, according to Uniwide, was that the buyer was to follow a certain condition, which was that MBDC would have to develop the property in five years.

That was in 1988, and the deadline should have been in 1993, which was the peak of the property boom in the 1990s, way before the Asian financial crisis of 1997.

Anyway, Uniwide alleged that since MBDC failed to follow the terms of the sale, it should be declared “in default” of deed of sale issued by PEA, adding that the MBDC acquired the property not for actual development but for speculative purposes.

MBDC president George Chua claimed in the court cases that MBDC did not make any “development commitment” to the Uniwide group when the two companies entered into the lease agreement.

It seemed that the new case, in which Uniwide sought to attack MBDC on the “terms and conditions” of its purchase of the property from the government, making the argument on “development commitment” immaterial.