OTHER SOLUTIONS TO THE METRO TRAFFIC PROBLEM

OTHER SOLUTIONS TO THE METRO TRAFFIC PROBLEM Metro Manila’s traffic congestion is no longer just an inconvenience—it has become a full-blown crisis with severe economic, environmental, and public health consequences. The Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) estimates that the country loses billions of pesos daily due to lost productivity, wasted fuel, and time stuck in traffic. While infrastructure projects such as subways and expressways are often touted as long-term solutions, we must also explore other, less costly and more immediate strategies. Beyond building new roads, we need to rethink policies, behaviors, and enforcement systems. Here are four alternative and complementary solutions that can help mitigate the traffic problem in Metro Manila. 1. Stricter Enforcement of Emissions Laws One underrated but highly impactful approach is the strict enforcement of vehicle emissions regulations. A significant portion of vehicles clogging Metro Manila’s roads are old, poorly maintained, and are smoke-belching. Not only do they contribute to air pollution—exacerbating respiratory illnesses and harming vulnerable populations—but their deteriorating condition also makes them more prone to breakdowns, which cause further traffic delays. Enforcing emission laws more rigorously, including random roadside checks and annual inspections, would reduce the number of unroadworthy vehicles and encourage motorists to maintain their vehicles properly or retire them altogether. This policy simultaneously addresses both traffic and public health concerns. 2. Database of Traffic Violators Technology can play a vital role in enforcing discipline on our roads. A centralized, nationwide database of traffic law violators—linked to their license number and vehicle registration—would help ensure accountability. Through this database, drivers with multiple offenses can face escalated penalties, including license suspension or revocation. The current lack of coordination among enforcement agencies leads to inefficiencies and allows habitual violators to slip through the cracks. Integrating this database with a point system and publicly available records could deter bad behavior and promote more responsible driving. 3. Stricter Driver’s License Issuance At present, the standards for acquiring a driver’s license in the Philippines remain relatively lax. Too many unqualified individuals—some of whom may not even understand traffic signs or defensive driving practices—are given licenses. This contributes to erratic, undisciplined, and unsafe driving, which in turn causes accidents and gridlocks. The Land Transportation Office (LTO) should raise the bar by improving both the theoretical and practical tests, instituting psychological assessments, and requiring mandatory training through accredited driving schools. Quality, not quantity, must be the priority. 4. Higher Insurance Premiums for Errant Drivers Just as in other countries, insurance rates in the Philippines should reflect driver behavior. Motorists who have been involved in accidents or have multiple violations should be charged higher premiums. This will serve as a financial disincentive for careless or reckless driving. On the flip side, law-abiding drivers should be rewarded with lower premiums. Insurance companies, in partnership with government traffic agencies, can implement this system to help influence behavior through market-based mechanisms. In conclusion, solving Metro Manila’s traffic problem requires a multifaceted approach that goes beyond physical infrastructure. Discipline, accountability, and enforcement are critical pillars of effective traffic management. These complementary solutions, if executed properly, can bring about real and measurable change in our daily commuting lives—making our cities safer, cleaner, and more efficient for everyone. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-28-2025

WHO SHOULD BE IN THE CABINET-LEVEL ECONOMIC TEAM?

WHO SHOULD BE IN THE CABINET-LEVEL ECONOMIC TEAM? In today’s fast-paced, innovation-driven global economy, the Philippines must rethink how it defines and organizes its core economic leadership. A glaring issue that needs to be addressed is the exclusion of the Secretary of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) from the Cabinet-level economic team. Traditionally, the economic team has been composed of the Secretaries of the Department of Finance (DOF), the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), the Department of Economy, Planning, and Development (DEPDev), the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). While these agencies are essential, they are primarily focused on managing government revenues, spending, and debt. In essence, they are money managers — tax collectors, budget allocators, and loan negotiators. The question now is: Is that enough? These agencies typically concentrate on fiscal policy, monetary stability, and macroeconomic planning. While these are crucial pillars of governance, they are inherently reactive. They deal with what already exists — tax revenues collected, budgets proposed, and debts incurred. In some circles, the ability to borrow large sums of money is even framed as a measure of success, as though debt acquisition equates to economic growth. But real economic progress should not be measured by how much we can borrow, but by how much new value we can create. And that is precisely where the DOST should come in. Science, technology, and innovation are no longer auxiliary elements of economic policy — they are central to it. The modern economy thrives on value creation through innovation: new products, improved processes, disruptive technologies, and digital solutions. These innovations fuel productivity, improve efficiency, and create entirely new industries. In short, they generate real, tangible economic value. Countries like South Korea, Singapore, and even Vietnam have shown how investing in science and technology can transform a nation’s economic trajectory. Their growth is not just due to careful budgeting or clever borrowing, but because they invested heavily in research and development, incubated high-tech industries, and nurtured a culture of innovation. Their economic teams do not consist solely of accountants and financiers, but also of scientists, engineers, and tech entrepreneurs. In the Philippines, the DOST has been quietly doing impactful work — from promoting local R&D, supporting micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) through innovation hubs, to pioneering efforts in renewable energy and digital technologies. However, its absence in high-level economic decision-making means that science and technology are often treated as side issues, rather than central pillars of national development. If we are serious about transforming the Philippine economy, the President must consider institutionalizing the inclusion of the DOST Secretary in the economic team. This move would not only signal a shift toward innovation-led growth but would also ensure that science-based insights inform fiscal priorities, industrial policy, and infrastructure investment. Creating new value means creating new products, services, and systems — and only science, technology, and innovation can deliver that. If we want a future-proof economy, our economic team must go beyond balancing books — it must help build the future. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-27-2025

REVISITING POLICE RECRUITMENT AND TRAINING PROTOCOLS

REVISITING POLICE RECRUITMENT AND TRAINING PROTOCOLS Recently retired Philippine National Police (PNP) Chief Rommel Francisco Dayrit Marbil, publicly expressed concern over the seemingly endless stream of misdeeds committed by police officers during his watch. His frustration is understandable—despite disciplinary actions, administrative penalties, and dismissals, errant cops continue to tarnish the institution’s image. But perhaps the real solution lies not in merely reacting to misconduct, but in re-examining the very foundation upon which the force is built: its recruitment and training protocols. At the core of this issue is a crucial question: Who do we allow to become police officers? Recruitment is the first line of defense in ensuring the integrity of the police force. If individuals with questionable backgrounds, weak ethical foundations, or unchecked aggressive tendencies are admitted into the system, it is only a matter of time before they misuse their authority. The old saying, "Do not tempt the mortals," applies. Giving someone a badge and a gun without fully evaluating their mental, emotional, and moral fitness is like handing matches to someone without checking if they have pyromaniac tendencies. In theory, the PNP has a recruitment process that includes physical fitness exams, psychological tests, background checks, and panel interviews. But how rigorously are these being enforced? Are psychological evaluations merely formalities, or are they truly screening out potential liabilities? Are background checks being conducted thoroughly, or are personal connections and influence playing a bigger role in admissions? Even more critical is what happens after recruitment. Training is not just about physical endurance and marksmanship; it must also emphasize values formation, human rights education, community relations, and de-escalation tactics. Unfortunately, reports have emerged over the years about toxic hazing, outdated instruction styles, and rote learning dominating police academies. Worse, there seems to be insufficient post-academy supervision—field training officers are often overwhelmed or inadequately equipped to mentor new officers effectively. Additionally, refresher courses and continuous professional development must be institutionalized. Policing in a democratic society requires not just brute force, but discernment, empathy, and a solid grasp of legal limitations. Without ongoing education, officers may revert to authoritarian impulses or be swayed by the influence of corrupt peers. There must also be accountability in the training hierarchy. Are instructors themselves properly vetted? Are they teaching the correct procedures? Are there evaluations of the training programs to assess their effectiveness in real-world policing? If not, then reform is necessary not just at the bottom, but throughout the chain of command. Perhaps the newly appointed PNP Chief Nicolas Deloso Torre III should prioritize a full audit of both recruitment standards and training protocols. This should be data-driven, transparent, and ideally include consultation with civil society, criminology experts, and the Commission on Human Rights. If the PNP truly wants to regain and sustain public trust, it must ensure that only the most qualified and principled individuals are recruited, trained, and promoted. A stronger, cleaner force begins not in the field—but at the very gates of Camp Crame. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-26-2025

TOWARDS SHARPER AND FASTER GOVERNANCE

TOWARDS SHARPER AND FASTER GOVERNANCE Let’s give good intentions a chance. In a recent statement, Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin described President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s cabinet reshuffle as a “bold reset,” signaling a shift in the administration’s approach to governance. According to Bersamin, this move is meant to usher in a new phase—one that is sharper, faster, and more fully focused on the people’s most pressing needs. While some observers remain skeptical of whether this vision will be realized, the President’s words and actions offer a glimmer of optimism that deserves attention. In an age where trust in government is fragile and many Filipinos have grown disillusioned by slow or ineffective public service; the promise of sharper and faster governance is more than just rhetoric—it’s an aspiration for meaningful change. But what does “sharper” and “faster” really mean in the context of governance? “Sharper” implies clarity of purpose, decisiveness, and precision in policymaking and execution. It means fewer vague directives and more measurable objectives. In a sharper government, every department knows its role, and every agency has a clearly defined mission. There is no room for guesswork or bureaucratic muddling. It calls for leadership that cuts through red tape and focuses on delivering outcomes rather than simply processing paperwork. “Faster,” on the other hand, speaks directly of efficiency. It is a cry against the sluggish pace of project rollouts, infrastructure implementation, and public service delivery. Filipinos are tired of waiting—for better roads, for more classrooms, for affordable healthcare, and for responsive disaster relief. To be fast is to be responsive, proactive, and agile: traits that the public sector must now urgently adopt. To the President’s credit, the call for realignment came with action. The call for courtesy resignations among his cabinet members—controversial as it may be—at least indicates that the administration is prepared to make difficult decisions to achieve its goals. While some may view it as political maneuvering, others see it as a necessary step toward performance-based leadership. Yes, there are valid concerns. Skeptics question whether this reset is driven by genuine reform or political consolidation. They wonder if underperforming officials will simply be reshuffled instead of replaced. These questions are fair, and transparency is essential moving forward. However, if the administration follows through with clear Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), accountability mechanisms, and open communication, this reset could set a precedent for more responsive and responsible governance. Admittedly, many Filipinos are feeling disillusioned. Rising prices, inadequate social services, and political noise have dimmed public trust. But in this context, even a spark of hope can be powerful. If the President is serious about realigning his administration with the needs of the people, then we should give this recalibration a fair chance. As citizens, we are not called to blind loyalty, but to hopeful engagement. Sharper and faster governance is not just a slogan—it is a challenge. And if the administration is truly ready to rise to it, then we, too, must be ready to hold them to it—with both support and scrutiny. After all, we have nothing to lose—and perhaps, everything to gain. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-25-2025

WHAT DOES THE CABINET CLEANSING MEAN?

WHAT DOES THE CABINET CLEANSING MEAN? Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin recently described the cabinet reshuffle initiated by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. as a form of “cleansing.” This choice of words, while possibly intended as metaphorical or symbolic, carries with it heavy connotations. Naturally, the public is left to ask: what exactly is being cleansed? Does this imply the presence of incompetence, underperformance, or worse—corruption—within the President’s official family? The original context of the cabinet revamp, as earlier stated by the Palace, was to “recalibrate” the administration—a seemingly more neutral term that suggests adjusting strategies and personnel to better align with the administration’s evolving priorities and the expectations of the Filipino people. This recalibration, we were told, aimed at achieving a faster, more efficient, and more results-driven government. It was framed as a technical and strategic move rather than a punitive or disciplinary action. Yet now, with “cleansing” introduced into the political vocabulary, it risks giving the impression that certain officials were removed not for being slow or underperforming, but for being unethical or untrustworthy. This narrative unfairly casts a shadow on those who were let go—particularly on former DENR Secretary Toni Yulo-Loyzaga, a well-respected figure in environmental governance. She was reportedly not even afforded the opportunity to explain or defend her record publicly. By framing her departure within a so-called “cleansing,” the administration opens itself to criticism that it has, wittingly or not, smeared the reputations of individuals without evidence of wrongdoing. It’s also worth examining how the other cabinet changes have been treated. Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development (DHSUD) Secretary Jerry Acuzar, for instance, was reassigned instead of being removed, despite having been widely reported as having “overpromised and underdelivered” on housing targets. If his shortcoming was primarily speed and execution, then is this considered a lesser offense than whatever Secretary Loyzaga was perceived to have done—or failed to do? Or does this reveal an uneven standard of accountability? Interestingly, the appointment of Foreign Affairs Secretary Maria Theresa “Tess” Lazaro has been met with praise. Her rise to the position is being viewed as a reward for her loyalty to the service and her good track record of diplomacy. Yet even her promotion raises a question: if some are being “cleansed,” are others being “purified” or rewarded on purely political grounds? Using the word “cleansing” in government reshuffles is dangerous because it is imprecise and suggestive. It invites speculation, casts doubt on the integrity of those replaced and often does so without transparent justification. If the real goal of this cabinet revamp is to improve governance through a merit-based evaluation of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), then let it be known as such. Government should strive for clarity, fairness, and transparency—particularly when public servants’ reputations and careers are at stake. Ultimately, Filipinos deserve to know: was this a recalibration, a reshuffle, or a purge? Words matter—especially when they affect public trust in governance and the dignity of those who serve. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-24-2025

ELECTRIC PLATE NUMBER IDENTIFIERS

ELECTRIC PLATE NUMBER IDENTIFIERS The term “No Contact Apprehension Policy” or NCAP has become a widely discussed issue in the Philippines, particularly in relation to traffic enforcement in Metro Manila and other urban centers. However, a closer look at the term reveals a significant misnomer: there is no actual apprehension taking place. In traditional traffic enforcement, apprehension involves a physical stop or an interaction between the traffic enforcer and the motorist. Under NCAP, that interaction doesn’t happen. Instead, the technology does all the work. What we’re really dealing with is a form of automated identification—and it would be more accurate to call it the Electronic Plate Number Identifier (EPNI). NCAP relies heavily on Optical Character Recognition (OCR), a technology that scans and reads the alphanumeric characters on vehicle license plates. Once the characters are read, the system cross-references the plate number with the database of the Land Transportation Office (LTO) to identify the registered owner. From there, traffic violations captured by closed-circuit television (CCTV) or surveillance cameras are matched with the vehicle's registration, and a notice of violation is sent directly to the registered address or through an online platform. This technology is not particularly new. In fact, it is quite like the technology used in the Vote Counting Machines (VCMs) during Philippine elections. In the VCMs, the OCR mechanism reads the “shaded dots” on the ballots to count the votes. In the EPNI, it reads “printed characters” on license plates to identify the vehicle owners. Both rely on image processing and automated interpretation. The similarity in technology, however, ends with the application: VCMs are used to count votes, EPNI (or NCAP) is used to issue penalties. While the technology is accurate and efficient, its implementation must be grounded in due process and fairness. Many motorists have voiced concerns about being unaware of their violations until weeks or even months later—by which time the penalty has already escalated due to late fees. In some cases, registered owners who no longer own the vehicle receive violation notices, creating a cascade of legal and logistical problems. This clearly shows that the accuracy of OCR is only as reliable as the accuracy of the LTO’s registration database. Moreover, even if the identification is technically sound, motorists should always retain the right to contest violations. This is a fundamental aspect of due process. While digital governance is crucial for modernization, it should not come at the cost of fairness. There must be a clear and accessible mechanism for appealing or questioning charges, ideally one that is user-friendly and does not require long queues or complex documentation. Ultimately, the goal should not only be enforcement, but also behavioral change. Transparency, public trust, and efficient dispute resolution must accompany technological implementation. If rebranded as “Electronic Plate Number Identifier” (EPNI), the policy may more accurately reflect its function and remove the confusion created by the term “apprehension.” In embracing automation, government authorities must remember that technology should serve the people—not punish them. With proper oversight and transparency, EPNI can be a step toward smarter, safer roads. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-23-2025

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR CABINET MEMBERS

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR CABINET MEMBERS President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.'s recent cabinet shake-up has generated interest not just because of who stayed and who was replaced, but also because of what the reshuffling says about measuring performance. After what was described as a “recalibration,” six Cabinet members were retained, two were reassigned, two were “promoted,” and one new appointee—Tess Lazaro—was brought in. The big question is: what was the basis for these movements? Were these decisions backed by a clear, objective performance review process? And if so, what were the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) used? In modern governance, performance-based evaluation is not just a best practice—it is a necessity. Cabinet members function as chief executives of their respective departments. Their roles are critical in achieving the administration’s goals, and as such, they should be held accountable using concrete, transparent metrics. The idea of KPIs is not new in government. In fact, the Performance-Based Bonus (PBB) and the Performance Governance System (PGS) were designed to encourage results-oriented public services delivery. If a performance review was indeed conducted, the public deserves to know what criteria were used. Was it a simple "pass or fail" system? Or were officials graded based on quantifiable outputs and outcomes, such as project completion rates, budget utilization efficiency, or improvements in service delivery? Were there qualitative assessments too, like leadership effectiveness, crisis response, and inter-agency collaboration? And crucially, who conducted the review—the Office of the Executive Secretary (OES), the Presidential Management Staff (PMS), or an external auditing body? Transparency is key. If this reshuffle was truly performance-driven, the public has every right to ask: will the results be published? Citizens are entitled to know who performed, who underperformed, and why. After all, Cabinet members are public servants paid with taxpayer money, and their departments directly affect national welfare. In private corporations, executive reviews are often internal, but in public service, accountability is a cornerstone of legitimacy. This brings us to the interesting case of Tess Lazaro, the newest face in the Cabinet. By all accounts, she is a competent technocrat with a track record in diplomacy. Her appointment may signal the President’s desire to bring in professionals who prioritize results over politics. If that is the new standard, then it's a step in the right direction. However, this moment also exposes a gap in the current governance approach. There must be a formalized, institutional performance monitoring system for all Cabinet secretaries—something integrated and published, perhaps quarterly or annually. Such a system would not only ensure accountability but would also foster a culture of continuous improvement. In the end, the call for KPIs is not just about evaluation; it's about transformation. It is about setting the tone for a results-driven government—one where service delivery is measured, excellence is rewarded, and the public is always informed. If PBBM wants a “fiercely intense” Cabinet, as Palace insiders suggest, then it must begin with performance indicators that are fierce, fair, and fully transparent. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-22-2025

SLOWNESS OR LAZINESS IN THE CABINET?

SLOWNESS OR LAZINESS IN THE CABINET? President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.’s moves to ask for courtesy resignations from his Cabinet has stirred much discussion, particularly on whether this signals frustration with underperformance. A senator even remarked that the President made the right decision because some Cabinet officials are reportedly just “paupo-upo,” implying that they are sitting around, doing nothing. While such a statement makes for a sharp soundbite, it may be a misleading and overly simplistic take on the complex inner workings of the executive branch. Cabinet officials, unlike legislators, hold operational leadership over government departments and agencies. Their performance is judged not only by public appearances but also by internal milestones, policy implementation, and institutional reform. The idea that they are doing “nothing” is a strong accusation that requires proof. Unlike senators or congressmen who may face criticism for minimal legislative output, Cabinet members operate in a results-driven ecosystem—where they are expected to deliver programs, execute the President’s agenda, and respond swiftly to crises. What may be closer to the truth is that some Cabinet officials are slow, rather than lazy. This distinction is important. Laziness suggests unwillingness, lack of discipline, or indifference. Slowness, on the other hand, may arise from bureaucratic entanglements, poor systems, lack of inter-agency coordination, or simply being overwhelmed by the scale of governance challenges. In other words, slowness can often be a symptom of structural problems, not personal failure. President Marcos himself did not directly accuse any Cabinet member of being lazy or incompetent. His statement about “recalibrating” the administration signals a desire to realign performance with expectations, particularly in the second half of his term when the public increasingly demands concrete results. Recalibration may involve reassignments, replacements, or even restructuring—especially in areas where progress has stalled or bottlenecks have persisted. It’s also worth asking: what exactly does the President mean when he says he wants “faster execution” and a “results-first mindset”? Governance today demands agility. The challenges of economic recovery, digital transformation, infrastructure development, and social welfare require leaders who can act decisively. In this context, “slowness” is not just a performance issue—it can be a political liability. However, we must be careful not to conflate slowness with ineffectiveness. There are domains—like education reform, healthcare system upgrades, and agrarian modernization—where results naturally take longer to manifest. Leaders in these sectors must be evaluated not just by speed, but also by the quality and sustainability of their work. What the country truly needs is a Cabinet Performance Monitoring System (CPMS) that measures Cabinet output objectively based on timelines, deliverables, and real-world impact. Without such a system, decisions to reshuffle or replace officials may appear arbitrary or politically motivated. In sum, while there is merit in seeking a more responsive and energetic Cabinet, we should not reduce the discourse to a binary of “lazy” versus “hardworking.” The real issue is whether the administration has the mechanisms to track, support, and optimize the performance of its leaders. Only then can we expect a Cabinet that moves—not just quickly—but also wisely and effectively. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-21-2025

TOWARDS A FIERCELY INTENSE CABINET

TOWARDS A FIERCELY INTENSE CABINET President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.’s decision to revamp his Cabinet has sparked both praise and speculation. Some legislators lauded the move, saying it was a necessary step to remove so-called "lazy and corrupt" officials. But is that really the case? Are there Cabinet members who fit that description? While political rhetoric often seeks to dramatize reform, the truth may be far less sensational and more nuanced. It is unlikely that laziness or corruption is the core issue in the current Cabinet. After all, these positions are not only high-profile but also closely scrutinized by the media, watchdogs, and the public. What may be a more accurate diagnosis is that some officials are simply slow—not in intellect or intention, but in execution. In today’s fast-moving, hyperconnected world, sluggish implementation of policies and programs can be as damaging as overt misconduct. A reform that arrives too late is often no reform at all. This seems to be the crux of the President’s dissatisfaction. According to Palace insiders, what PBBM wants is a Cabinet that is “mabagsik”—a Filipino word that translates roughly into fierce, formidable, or intensely driven. In the context of governance, this means a Cabinet that acts decisively, responds rapidly, and operates with a palpable sense of urgency. It is not just about competence, but also about momentum. A “mabagsik” Cabinet does not tolerate complacency. It is a team that pushes the boundaries of bureaucracy, breaks bottlenecks, and cuts through red tape. It is goal-oriented and data-driven, with officials who are present on the ground, engaged with communities, and relentless in achieving results. This is especially necessary as the Marcos administration approaches the midpoint of its term—a phase where delivery, not promises, becomes the public’s main metric of judgment. Perhaps what the President envisions goes even beyond being "fierce." Perhaps he is aiming for a “malupit” Cabinet—a Filipino slang term which, in its modern usage, connotes something extraordinary, awesome, or impressive. He may be searching for a team that not only governs effectively but inspires confidence. One that is “hanep”—a term for something or someone that exceeds expectations. Such a vision is laudable, but it comes with a price. The culture of the bureaucracy must shift to match the tempo. Coordination must be seamless between departments. Monitoring systems must be embedded to track performance in real time. And most importantly, appointments must be based on merit, not merely loyalty or patronage. Recalibrating a Cabinet to become more “intense” is not just a matter of reshuffling people—it requires a complete shift in work ethic, management structure, and accountability mechanisms. It is about creating a team that works smart and fast—while upholding integrity and public trust. If PBBM succeeds in building such a team, it won’t just be fierce. It will be transformational. The country needs not just a Cabinet that works—but one that delivers, innovates, and inspires. In these critical years of governance, intensity may just be the edge that makes the difference between promises made and promises fulfilled. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-20-2025

THE CABINET SHOULD HAVE A PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM

THE CABINET SHOULD HAVE A PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM Reports from Malacañang indicate that President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. is continuing with the process of revamping his Cabinet. While these actions may be seen as a bold political maneuver or a form of executive recalibration, it inadvertently reveals a troubling truth: the absence of a functioning Cabinet Performance Monitoring System (CPMS) within the current administration. At nearly the halfway mark of PBBM’s six-year term, the lack of a systematic method to track Cabinet performance is deeply concerning. Governance, like any complex organization, demands accountability, measurable outputs, and timely evaluations. In the private sector, performance reviews are standard practice. In government, where public trust and national progress hang in the balance, they are even more critical. Asking for resignations as a proxy for performance evaluation suggests a reactive, rather than proactive, approach to leadership. The question must then be asked: who is responsible for this glaring institutional gap? First, the Office of the Executive Secretary (OES) must be considered. As the President’s right hand and chief implementer of presidential directives, the OES is tasked with coordinating among Cabinet members and ensuring that executive initiatives are carried out efficiently. If Cabinet coordination and policy implementation have slowed or drifted, part of the accountability must lie there. Second, there’s the Presidential Management Staff (PMS), whose mandate is to assist the President in managing the operations of the executive branch. As the internal think tank and performance review unit of the Office of the President, the PMS should be running metrics, dashboards, and real-time feedback systems to alert the President of bottlenecks and progress. If such tools are missing or underutilized, that’s a failure of both policy and execution. Third is the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), which plays a vital role in linking budgetary allocations to deliverables. It holds the power of the purse and should ideally ensure that projects are not only funded but also implemented as planned. Performance-based budgeting was once a central goal of budget reform—where did that initiative go? Let us also not forget the Commission on Audit (COA). Although its role is independent and focused primarily on legal compliance and financial propriety, its audit reports can serve as rich sources of performance data. Delays, fund misuse, or underspending are red flags that could—and should—feed into a broader performance monitoring framework. This situation reveals a deeper problem in our governance culture: a lack of institutionalized, data-driven management in the highest levels of the executive branch. It's not enough to base Cabinet reshuffles on perceived loyalty or political expediency. Appointments and dismissals should be grounded in measurable outcomes, timelines met, goals achieved, and impact made. Moving forward, the President would be better served by establishing a transparent, metrics-based Cabinet performance monitoring system. Such a system would not only empower him to make more informed decisions but also ensure that public officials stay focused on delivering real results—not just headlines. Only through clear targets, regular assessments, and strong coordination can we ensure a Cabinet that works, performs, and delivers for the Filipino people. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-19-2025

A FASTER CABINET MEANS BETTER GOVERNANCE

A FASTER CABINET MEANS BETTER GOVERNANCE President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. (PBBM) made headlines with a bold move: he called for the courtesy resignations of his cabinet members, stating the need to “recalibrate” the government. The word “recalibrate” is interesting—it suggests a machine that has drifted from its optimal settings. But semantically, there’s a small but important distinction to be made… it is not the government that needs recalibration; it is the administration. Governments are institutions that persist; administrations are temporary stewards. This rhetorical nuance matters, especially in times when public trust in institutions is under strain. So, what exactly does PBBM mean by “recalibration”? Is this an admission that some parts of his administration have veered off course or failed to meet their objectives? It would seem so. He emphasized the need for “renewed alignment, faster execution, and a results-first mindset.” That’s a polite way of saying some cabinet members may have become misaligned with the administration’s goals, are lagging in performance, or are failing to deliver meaningful results. From a governance standpoint, this self-awareness is both timely and necessary. The challenges the Philippines faces today—ranging from economic recovery to food security, energy sustainability to climate resilience—require a Cabinet that is dynamic, decisive, and deeply in sync with both presidential directives and public expectations. Bureaucratic sluggishness, political infighting, or a lack of initiative from key departments can quickly turn promising plans into unrealized blueprints. Calling for courtesy resignations is not unprecedented, but it is unusual at this scale and point in a term. It sends a strong message that complacency will not be tolerated. However, it also reveals a possible lack of internal cohesion in the administration. After all, if a Cabinet is well-selected, aligned, and performing effectively, such a sweeping move would not be necessary. Still, the President deserves credit for acknowledging the need for recalibration. Inaction would have been worse. This call also opens the door to appointing new faces—possibly technocrats, policy reformers, or even private sector veterans—who can bring fresh perspectives and greater urgency to national programs. The business of governance is not only about vision; it’s about execution, and execution requires speed, clarity, and unity of purpose. That said, transitions must be managed with care. Uncertainty or infighting during reshuffles can paralyze departments or delay key projects. A faster Cabinet must not only be quick to act, but also deeply rooted in expertise and public service ethos. Speed must not come at the cost of transparency or accountability. In the end, if this recalibration leads to stronger leadership, clearer direction, and faster, more inclusive development, then it will have served its purpose. The people will not judge PBBM by the number of resignations he accepts, but by the progress his administration makes afterward. Governance is not just about who sits in power—it’s about how effectively they deliver. A faster Cabinet may well be the key to better governance. But only if that speed is matched with integrity, competence, and results that uplift the everyday lives of Filipinos. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-18-2025

A CONDO FOR EVERY FILIPINO

A CONDO FOR EVERY FILIPINO Edgardo Gaddi Vazquez is no stranger to innovation. A prolific inventor, entrepreneur, and veteran of the housing industry, Gary—as he is known to friends—has introduced countless technological solutions over the years. But his latest idea isn’t a product you can hold in your hand. It’s not even a gadget or a patent. Rather, it is a methodology—a fresh approach to solving one of the most pressing problems in our country: affordable housing. At first glance, it seems almost too simple, too obvious. Yet somehow, it’s a concept that has eluded our brightest planners. Gary “discovered” that the cost of land alone accounts for about one-third of the total price of building a house. That’s a staggering portion—and it’s a truth that should have been plain to all of us. But as with many things in life, the obvious tends to hide in plain sight. So, what does Gary propose to do with this “discovery”? He suggests using government land for social housing, not for free, but on a usufruct basis—long-term leases of 25 years, renewable for another 25. In his view, that’s more than enough time for any hardworking Filipino family to transition from a lessee to a full-fledged homeowner. I couldn’t agree more. But Gary’s ideas don’t stop there. Affordable land is just the starting point. He envisions a housing model where labor costs are significantly reduced through community-driven construction. Imagine neighbors and friends coming together to build each other’s homes—taking turns in a fair cueing or raffle system. It’s bayanihan, modernized and institutionalized. Then there’s the matter of materials. Why not use what we already have in abundance? Gary champions the use of recycled plastics, coconut waste, bamboo, and other renewable materials. These are not only eco-friendly but also open a new frontier for livelihood opportunities in rural areas and urban poor communities alike. Some may dismiss these ideas as too utopian. But Gary is no armchair idealist. He has decades of experience in designing and manufacturing innovative housing materials. He’s a builder and developer with a track record, not just someone with lofty dreams. I’m proud to collaborate with him—not just because we both care deeply about social housing—but because we share a commitment to sustainable development, livelihood generation, and inclusive growth. Personally, my passion for this cause is rooted in the wisdom and mentorship I received from two towering figures in Philippine housing—Jose Conrado “Joly” Benitez and Jejomar Cabauatan “Jojo” Binay Sr.—both affectionately known in our circles as “JCB.” They taught me that shelter is not just a policy issue, but a matter of dignity. Gary and I firmly believe that this vision can be achieved through collaboration. Local government units (LGUs), national agencies (NGAs), NGOs, and the private sector must come together—whether through Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) or Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programs—to make this dream real. With hopeful nostalgia, I also call on my former mentors and colleagues at the old Ministry of Human Settlements (MHS): Jose “Tito” Osias, Bert Abling, Joe Cabazor, and Art Alvendia. Let us come together once more to make sure that someday soon, there will truly be a condo—or at least a decent home—for every Filipino. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-17-2025

THE POLITICS OF SELLING RICE

THE POLITICS OF SELLING RICE When President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. (PBBM) made the bold promise to bring down the price of rice to ₱20 per kilo, many Filipinos saw it as an ambitious yet hopeful campaign pledge. As both President and concurrent Secretary of Agriculture at the time, it was assumed that he had a well-studied strategy rooted in systemic reforms—perhaps one that addressed the inefficiencies in rice production, post-harvest losses, and middleman-dominated supply chains. The public expected a comprehensive, long-term agricultural development plan that would empower farmers while ultimately lowering consumer prices. Unfortunately, what has materialized thus far appears to be a short-term, politically convenient solution: subsidizing rice to sell it at lower retail prices despite high production and procurement costs. It seems that the government, through agencies such as the National Food Authority (NFA), buys rice at a relatively high wholesale price and sells it at a loss to achieve the promised price point. This approach may temporarily win public approval and provide relief to struggling consumers, but it is far from a sustainable economic policy. Subsidies in agriculture are not inherently bad. Many countries support their farmers to protect food security and rural livelihoods. However, subsidies must be smartly targeted and time-bound, paired with structural reforms such as improving irrigation systems, providing access to affordable credit and quality seeds, investing in farm mechanization, and reducing logistics and post-harvest costs. Without these parallel reforms, subsidies become a band-aid solution—unsustainable in the long run and potentially harmful to the market. What is troubling is that this subsidy-driven approach appears more political than economic. It creates the illusion of affordability while hiding the actual costs borne by the government and, ultimately, taxpayers. Worse, it could distort the rice market. Private traders might avoid competing with government-subsidized prices, leading to reduced investment in rice trading and distribution. Local farmers may also suffer if they are forced to sell palay (un-milled rice) at lower prices due to government-controlled market expectations, especially when input costs remain high. Moreover, the continued reliance on rice importation—used to fill supply gaps and stabilize prices—hurts domestic producers. Instead of building rice self-sufficiency, the country becomes more dependent on global markets, vulnerable to price fluctuations and supply disruptions. This situation highlights the intersection of agriculture and politics. Rice is not just a staple food in the Philippines—it is a politically sensitive commodity. Any rise in rice prices can quickly lead to public discontent. This is why administrations often prioritize short-term populist solutions over long-term agricultural investment. But these political calculations come at a cost: the neglect of meaningful agricultural reform, farmer welfare, and national food security. In conclusion, while the intent to provide affordable rice is noble and politically strategic, the current approach under PBBM lacks sustainability. For the ₱20 rice promise to become reality—not just a populist slogan—what is needed is bold agricultural reform, not just subsidies. Only by strengthening local production, streamlining the supply chain, and empowering farmers can the dream of affordable, homegrown rice be realized—beyond politics, and for the long-term benefit of the nation. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-16-2025

COULD THE PRESIDENT BE OFFERING AN OLIVE BRANCH?

COULD THE PRESIDENT BE OFFERING AN OLIVE BRANCH? In the volatile terrain of Philippine politics, signals of reconciliation are often met with skepticism. President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. (PBBM) has recently made overtures that some interpret as an attempt to reconcile with the Duterte camp—a political bloc that once aligned with him but has since shown signs of division. The question now hangs in the air: Is the President offering an olive branch, and if so, what does he hope to achieve? PBBM’s calls for unity and reconciliation, while sounding noble, raise more questions than answers. Are these statements a sincere move toward peace, or are they a calculated response to the shifting political landscape following the midterm elections, where administration allies suffered notable setbacks? In politics, timing is everything. With a potentially diminished majority in Congress and rising dissent from the Duterte-aligned bloc, reconciliation could be a strategy for survival rather than an act of statesmanship. But reconciliation in Philippine politics is rarely straightforward. What are the terms of the supposed truce? Could this be the President’s way of proposing a coalition government to reassert dominance and maintain stability? Historically, Philippine presidents have often relied on alliances to solidify their legislative agendas—this could be a continuation of that pattern. Sharing key committee positions in the Senate and House of Representatives may be part of the unspoken terms, aimed at diffusing opposition and preserving control over legislation. Another possible motivation is the rising tension surrounding Vice President Sara Duterte (VPSZD), who has become a focal point in the rift between the Marcos and Duterte camps. Calls for her impeachment, whether serious or speculative, threaten to ignite further political instability. If PBBM wants to distance himself from these moves or prevent escalation, reconciliation may serve as a strategic de-escalation tool. By stopping attacks and halting moves against the Vice President, he could be signaling a willingness to rebuild the alliance. From the Duterte camp's perspective, the calculus is different. What do they stand to lose? By engaging in reconciliation, they may secure protection for their key figures, maintain influence in Congress, and preserve their political capital for 2028. However, if they view the Marcos offer as a sign of weakness, they may choose to exploit the opportunity instead of embracing peace. The Dutertes, known for their hardball tactics, might see any hint of retreat as a cue to press forward. Ultimately, the idea of the President offering an olive branch could be both a political necessity and a strategic gamble. The definition of peace in this context is ambiguous: Is it merely the cessation of political attacks, or does it involve power-sharing at the highest levels of government? Does it include dropping investigations or providing safe passage for allies? In conclusion, if PBBM is indeed extending an olive branch, its acceptance and effectiveness depend on mutual understanding, clear terms, and sincere intent. Reconciliation, after all, is not just about silencing critics—it is about building a stable political future. Whether this gesture leads to genuine unity or remains a symbolic act will depend on how both camps choose to move forward in the months ahead. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-15-2025

LET COMELEC CLAIM THE SUCCESSFUL ELECTION AS A WIN

LET COMELEC CLAIM THE SUCCESSFUL ELECTION AS A WIN In any democracy, the integrity and efficiency of elections are cornerstones of public trust. In the Philippines, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has long been both praised and criticized for its role in administering national and local polls. As someone who has closely followed the agency over the years—both as a critic and a collaborator—I believe it is only fair, and timely, to acknowledge when the Commission gets things right. The successful handling of the most recent election under Chairman George Garcia deserves recognition. Let COMELEC claim it as a win. My relationship with the Commission has spanned decades. I have served twice as Chairman of the COMELEC Modernization Committee, once appointed jointly by both the Senate and the Commission itself. In the past, I have not hesitated to raise technical concerns about election automation, particularly regarding connectivity, data transmission reliability, and vote counting accuracy. I did so not out of antagonism, but out of a genuine desire to see a transparent, accountable electoral process that the public could believe in. For many years, these concerns dominated the public discourse, as electoral controversies eroded confidence in the system. However, in the most recent election, it appears that COMELEC has finally turned a corner. Under the leadership of Chairman Garcia, the Commission managed to administer a largely smooth, peaceful, and efficient electoral exercise. While no election is perfect and a few technical issues did emerge—as is expected in any complex, nationwide operation—they did not rise to the level of systemic failure or widespread disenfranchisement. In fact, the transmission speed and vote canvassing were notably faster than in previous elections. More importantly, these improvements were achieved without major allegations of fraud or manipulation. This success should not be brushed aside or minimized. In an age of increasing cynicism toward institutions, it is vital to acknowledge when a public agency fulfills its mandate with professionalism and competence. Doing so encourages continued improvement and sends a strong message to voters: that their participation matters and that the system is working to protect their voice. It is also time to move forward. The temptation to dwell endlessly on past controversies must be balanced with a constructive mindset that builds on institutional progress. While oversight and accountability remain essential, they must not become tools for undermining the very institutions we seek to strengthen. The COMELEC, like any government body, must be subject to criticism—but also worthy of praise when it earns it. Letting COMELEC claim this success as a win is not about glossing over past missteps or ignoring areas that still need attention. It is about recognizing that democratic institutions are capable of reform and growth. The Commission's achievement in the last election is proof of that. Now, with renewed public confidence, we can set our sights on more inclusive, transparent, and tech-enabled elections in the future. In conclusion, this recent electoral success is not just a win for COMELEC—it is a win for democracy. Let us acknowledge it, build on it, and move forward with a stronger, more resilient electoral system. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-14-2025

ABOUT CABINET REORGANIZATION

ABOUT CABINET REORGANIZATION Cabinet reorganization is a normal, though often politically sensitive, aspect of governance. It is a process whereby a President or head of government reviews, reshuffles, or replaces members of the executive cabinet. This action may be prompted by a need to improve public service delivery, streamline government functions, respond to public dissatisfaction, or assert leadership control. Recent developments have shown how even a simple directive from the President—such as asking cabinet members to submit their courtesy resignations—can reveal much about the character and political maturity of government officials. What is striking in this instance is how some cabinet members responded to the President’s directive. Several officials stated they were “willing” to tender their resignations, yet many hesitated or failed to do so promptly. This response, or lack thereof, borders on defiance or at least a failure to grasp the nature of public office in a presidential system. The language of being “willing” implies an option that does not truly exist. Cabinet members serve at the pleasure of the President. Their mandate is not independent; it is a delegated authority subject to recall or dismissal at any time. The call for courtesy resignations is not a judgment of character or capability per se. It is often a procedural mechanism that gives the President the flexibility to reorganize his team without the complication of outright dismissals. It allows for a graceful exit for some and the opportunity to refresh the administration with new energy or expertise. What the public expects in return is swift and professional compliance—evidence of loyalty not to the position but to the principle of service. In fairness, many cabinet members do appear to be making sincere efforts to fulfill their duties. Governance is a complex task, and the challenges are immense ranging from economic management to national security, education reform, and healthcare delivery. However, public service is ultimately judged not just by effort but by outcomes. If performance falls short of public expectations, then leadership has the responsibility to intervene. Cabinet reorganization becomes a practical and symbolic way to demonstrate that the administration is serious about accountability and progress. Moreover, the public reads such reorganizations as a signal of presidential resolve. A firm but fair shake-up of the cabinet can help restore public trust, recalibrate policy direction, and eliminate complacency within the bureaucracy. It is also a moment for the President to assert his vision and recommit to campaign promises. In this sense, cabinet reorganization is not merely an internal affair—it is a public declaration of renewal. In conclusion, cabinet reorganization should be understood as part of the dynamic nature of democratic governance. While it can create uncertainty among officials, it is ultimately a tool for reinforcing leadership accountability and performance. Cabinet members, as stewards of public trust, should not hesitate or qualify their response to such directives. They must always remember that their positions are privileges of public service, not personal entitlements. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-13-2025

IMPLEMENTING WASTE RECYCLING LAWS

IMPLEMENTING WASTE RECYCLING LAWS Who was that senatorial candidate who boldly declared that if elected, he would not propose any new laws because we already have enough? Crazy as he might have sounded to some, there is a ring of truth to his words. We do have enough laws. The real problem is that we are far too slow in implementing them—even though we are too fast in passing them. Yes, that is the grand irony of our legislative system: we keep churning out new laws, yet we neglect to implement them. Equally ironic is that we do not revisit our old laws that clearly need to be updated. In fact, the “new” laws we need are those that refine and modernize existing ones—not add to the pile of unread statutes collecting dust. Talking of ironies, one of the most glaring is how our environmental laws are being ignored—ironically treated like garbage. Republic Act No. 9003, the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000, is a prime example. Despite its clear and detailed mandates, it is often overlooked. Our waste management laws, in a literal and figurative sense, are being wasted. While there's nothing wrong with being passionate about fighting corruption, should we not be just as passionate about fighting pollution? In fact, pollution and corruption are often two sides of the same coin. There is a direct connection between the two—especially when it comes to solid waste. A lot of money changes hands in the hauling and dumping of waste by local government units (LGUs), which is precisely why some corrupt mayors resist implementing recycling and segregation laws. It is, as the legendary detective Sherlock Holmes would say, elementary. The more waste is segregated at the household level, the less there is to haul and dump. That means fewer trips for garbage trucks, which in turn means less money earned through hauling contracts. But here's the kicker: some mayors make money from both hauling and dumping—two separate revenue streams that thrive on inefficiency. So, what’s the solution? As naïve as it may sound, perhaps it starts with the people convincing their mayors to “moderate their greed.” The truth is, even with proper waste segregation and recycling, mayors and LGUs could still generate income—just not through corruption. They could follow the law by bringing waste not to dumpsites, but to Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs), as mandated by RA 9003. And it doesn’t stop there. Mayors should ideally push for segregation at the household level, which would ease the burden on MRFs. But even if they don’t, the waste can still be sorted at the MRFs. In theory, recyclables from MRFs are no longer “waste” because they have resale value. Organic kitchen waste should ideally be shredded and composted, but even without machines, it can still be composted—albeit more slowly. There’s already a legal basis for LGUs to support local cooperatives by donating funds and equipment as part of their livelihood programs. That means LGUs can legally donate land, buildings, and equipment for MRFs and authorize cooperatives to manage them. This just needs a municipal ordinance to be passed. Now imagine this: waste management programs that also serve as livelihood generation programs. Even better, they could double as public health programs, reducing not only poverty but pollution as well. This is not a joke. Methane gas escaping from unmanaged landfills is not only a serious pollutant—it also causes dangerous fires. Implementing proper waste management isn’t just a legal issue; it’s a matter of public safety. Surely, there are still enough upright mayors out there willing to act. But we need responsible citizens to lead the way—people who will speak up, bring these ideas forward, and demand action. Because in the end, implementing our waste recycling laws is not just about the environment. It’s about cleaner communities, livelihood opportunities, public health, and fighting corruption—all at the same time. Let’s stop wasting the laws we already have. Let’s start implementing them. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-12-2025

SOME NOTES ABOUT MODERN AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SECURITY

SOME NOTES ABOUT MODERN AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SECURITY Modern agriculture is a relative term. It is “modern” only when compared to what came before—what we might now call old, traditional, or antiquated agriculture. Simply put, all the old ways of doing agriculture—plowing with carabaos, planting without improved seeds, relying solely on rain—do not fall under the banner of modern practices. What, then, distinguishes modern agriculture from the old? The answer lies in one word: innovation. Innovation is the key that unlocks progress in any field—including farming. Whether we’re talking about developing drought-resistant crops, using drones for pest control, or automating irrigation, it’s innovation that turns subsistence farming into sustainable agriculture. Innovation can take many forms: Incremental innovations improve existing tools or methods little by little. Disruptive innovations shift the game entirely—think of how mechanized farming changed everything. Radical innovations bring entirely new technologies to life. Social innovations address real-world problems like hunger and poverty with practical solutions. In short, innovation challenges the status quo and brings improvement. To borrow a familiar saying often attributed (perhaps inaccurately) to Einstein, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” If we want different outcomes in agriculture—such as more food, better nutrition, and higher incomes—then we must change the way we do things. That brings us to the crucial connection between innovation and food security. Let’s be clear: we cannot achieve food security if we continue practicing agriculture the same old way. Traditional farming, while admirable in its resilience and history, simply does not produce enough food to feed our growing population. If we want more food—not just today but for the generations to come—then we must innovate. And we must also redefine what food security really means. It's not just about having food on the table today. Food security should mean having more food reserves now than we used to, enough to withstand shocks like climate change, pandemics, and economic downturns. But using new technology alone is not enough. Innovation must go beyond equipment and infrastructure—it must include systems thinking, new farming methods, new ways of distributing food, and policies that enable farmers to thrive. We need to integrate agronomy, forestry, and agroforestry to create a sustainable, resilient agricultural landscape. Agronomy, the science of soil and crop management, is central to increasing yields and protecting the environment. Forestry and agroforestry, which involve the smart use of trees in agricultural systems, can enhance biodiversity, prevent soil erosion, and capture carbon—all while producing food and income. Still, food security isn’t just about quantity. It’s about quality. The food we produce must be nutritious enough to cure and prevent malnutrition, especially among children. Consider wasting, a form of acute malnutrition where a child has low weight for their height, often due to sudden weight loss. Unlike stunting, which results from long-term poor nutrition, wasting can be life-threatening in the short term. It weakens the immune system and makes children more vulnerable to infections. In the worst cases, wasting leads to death. Underweight children—who are both too thin and too short—suffer from the dual burden of chronic and acute malnutrition. These conditions are symptoms of deeper systemic problems: not enough food, not enough nutrients, not enough innovation. Unless we innovate—unless we find better, smarter, more productive ways of farming—we cannot solve these problems. We cannot treat or prevent wasting, stunting, or underweight if we do not first produce more and better food. This is why the future of agriculture must be anchored in innovation. We must push boundaries. We must invest in research, support our farmers with training and technology, and adopt systems that value both productivity and sustainability. Modern agriculture is not about replacing the old for the sake of novelty. It is about using the best of science, technology, and traditional wisdom to feed our people—today and in the years to come. So, the question now is: Are we ready to innovate our way to food security? Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-11-2025

SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD PROGRAMS VERSUS FOOD HANDOUTS

SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD PROGRAMS VERSUS FOOD HANDOUTS As I understand it, the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) has been implementing a Sustainable Livelihood Program (SLP) aimed at empowering individuals and families to break free from the cycle of poverty. This program has become particularly relevant for graduates of the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps), who are being offered the chance to start their own livelihood projects. The idea is simple yet profound: those who have been receiving assistance should eventually be able to stand on their own. This brings to mind the age-old proverb, "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime." At its core, the saying illustrates the enduring truth that teaching people skills is far more valuable than giving them temporary aid. The former empowers; the latter sustains only momentarily. It’s essential that we understand the distinction between poverty alleviation and poverty reduction. Food handouts, whether in the form of rice, canned goods, or cash, are a form of alleviation. They are necessary—especially in times of crisis or disaster—but they are not liberating. They ease the pain of hunger, but they do not solve the deeper issue of poverty reduction. Sustainable livelihood programs, on the other hand, represent poverty reduction. These programs aim to help individuals earn a living, climb above the poverty line, and stay there. They do not merely make poverty easier to endure; they help remove people from its grip entirely. That said, both approaches are important. Food handouts provide short-term relief, while livelihood programs build long-term resilience. But herein lies the challenge: how do we ensure that people move from relief to resilience? That those who are given "fish" eventually learn how to fish—and even start teaching others? For years, the question has lingered: Which agency should take the lead in livelihood creation? I used to think it should be the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), given its mandate. But over time, it has become clear that many agencies are now contributing in their own ways. Today, livelihood efforts are spread across a multitude of government institutions: DSWD with its SLP DTI through micro-enterprise support DA with agricultural programs DENR with eco-based livelihoods DOST through technology support DILG via community-based initiatives TESDA through vocational training And even CHED, indirectly, through its State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) that offer skills-based education Ironically, some of these same agencies—like DOLE, DSWD, and DILG—are also involved in distributing food or cash handouts. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. But it underscores the need for coordination and clarity. Wouldn’t it make sense to have a centralized system or website that tracks both livelihood and handout programs across agencies? Such a platform could help identify who is still receiving handouts and who has been given the tools to earn a livelihood. It could even monitor progress and outcomes, ensuring that people truly "graduate" from dependency to self-reliance. In the end, we must accept that sustainable livelihood programs and food handouts are not opposing forces—but complementary ones. Food handouts are the band aids; livelihood is the cure. Our challenge as a society is to ensure that those who are hungry today have something to eat; while working diligently to ensure they don’t stay hungry tomorrow. What are we doing today to teach more people how to fish? And just as important: who’s keeping track? Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-10-2025

LET US START USING PACKAGING MADE FROM CASSAVA

LET US START USING PACKAGING MADE FROM CASSAVA It is an idea whose time has come. Cassava-based packaging is such a simple idea that all along it was right under our noses, or should I say, it was right under our feet. And to add to that, it is not even rocket science. But as the saying goes, “this could be the greatest thing since sliced bread.” What is good about it is that the materials are not imported, because it is locally grown. From where I come from in Mindanao, cassava is seen as a poor man’s food. Over there, you are considered poor if you eat corn, and you are even poorer if you eat cassava tubers (kamoteng kahoy). Perhaps in the urban areas, you are considered rich if you eat Idaho potatoes, and you are considered poor if you eat sweet potatoes (kamote). But if you eat kamoteng kahoy, you might be considered poorer. But enough of that, because the way it is now, cassava could become the new gold. And what could be poetic justice, planting cassava instead of rice or corn or even Idaho potatoes could make farmers rich and richer. As we all know, plastic is made from petroleum, meaning to say that it is an oil-based product. Therefore, oil is the black gold that has made oil countries rich. But how much of that wealth comes from selling oil that is converted into plastic? It may not be much if compared to fuels and lubrication oils, but it is still money that goes into their bank accounts. How much will it affect the oil-producing countries if their incomes from the sale of oil for plastic processing go down? And how much will it benefit the cassava-producing countries if most plastic-based packaging is replaced by cassava-based packaging? But is the Philippines ready to become a leading cassava-producing country? The bad news is, the Philippines is not even in the top five of the list of top cassava exporters. Thailand accounts for 70% of world exports. Consistently showing in the list of top exporters are Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, Brazil, and the United States. What happened to the Philippines? Perhaps we looked down on the importance of cassava before, and now it is time that we looked up to it, because it could possibly become the new gold. The following countries are leading in developing cassava-based packaging as an alternative to plastic-based packaging: Indonesia, Thailand, South Korea, and the Philippines. Fortunately, we made it to the list, and that should encourage us to do more by producing more cassava crops. We should be on the lookout for Indonesia and Thailand, because they are not only leading in the cassava-based packaging industry, they have the raw materials for it also. Believe it or not, the Philippines even imports some of its requirements for cassava feed materials. There are now three companies in the Philippines that are making cassava-based packaging here. These are Oikos, Sachi, and AKO. The government should meet with them to find out what kind of support they need. Other countries are already setting targets for 100% freedom from plastic shopping bags. Why don’t we do that also? We should already set targets for increasing our cassava production targets, and we should match that with processing targets of Oikos, Sachi, and AKO. When can the DTI work on targets for raw materials and finished products using cassava? I met with an Aeta tribe in Zambales who told me they could produce unlimited amounts of cassava as long as there is a market. For those who are ashamed to be identified with kamoteng kahoy, just call it by its classy name of Tapioca. Cassava shopping bags are indeed available in the market. These eco-friendly bags are made from cassava starch, a renewable and biodegradable resource. They're a great alternative to traditional plastic bags, offering a sustainable solution to the global plastic waste problem. You can find cassava shopping bags in various online stores and marketplaces. For instance, Naturally Baby Philippines offers cassava biobags that are 100% compostable and biodegradable. Similarly, Oikos PH provides customizable cassava bags that are 100% plant-based and compostable. Some popular types of cassava shopping bags include: · Grocery bags: Ideal for carrying groceries and other daily essentials. · Mailer bags: Suitable for e-commerce packaging and courier services. · Trash bags: Designed for trash that naturally biodegrades in landfills and seas. These bags are not only eco-friendly but also customizable to fit specific business needs. Let's make the switch to cassava packaging and contribute to a more sustainable future! Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-09-2025

LOCALIZING THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

LOCALIZING THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS As I recall, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations were initially crafted for member countries to strive towards a global blueprint for peace, prosperity, and sustainability by the year 2030. But here's a thought: what if we localized these goals? What if provinces, cities, and even barangays adopted these targets as their own? After all, development doesn’t only happen at the national level—it also happens in local communities. The SDGs cover 17 broad objectives, from ending poverty to protecting biodiversity. If we wait for national agencies alone to achieve them, we may find ourselves, once again, falling short. Remember the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)? Those were the eight targets set by the UN to be achieved by 2015. Unfortunately, the Philippines, despite being one of the founding members of the UN, failed to meet most of them. That’s not just a missed opportunity—it’s a national embarrassment that we should not repeat. Now, with just five years left before the SDGs’ 2030 deadline, the question is: are we on track? More troublingly, do we even know where we stand? There seems to be little public information on how many goals we have achieved so far—or how far we still need to go. Frankly, I have no clear idea how our government is structured to ensure we meet these goals. Is there a central agency leading the charge? Is there coordination between national and local levels? Are regional and provincial leaders even part of the conversation? In theory, the Department of Economy, Planning, and Development (DEPDEV)—formerly NEDA—should be the prime mover here. It was created precisely to manage long-term economic planning and could well be the country’s main coordinator for SDG efforts. Under its purview, the Regional Development Councils (RDCs) and Provincial Development Councils (PDCs) should be vital players in tracking and advancing SDG progress. That’s where localization comes in. If we truly want to see progress, we should embed the SDGs into the development agendas of each province. DEPDEV should lead this coordination effort, but success will depend on empowering local governments to act. Every governor and provincial director of a National Government Agency (NGA) should be present in RDC meetings—and not just for attendance’s sake, but to seriously discuss their progress on SDGs at every session. For instance, take SDG 15: Life on Land, which focuses on protecting terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity. Wildlife protection efforts can be more effectively enforced at the provincial level, where local officials understand their ecosystems best. The same applies to SDG 1: No Poverty. After all, poverty is most visible—and solvable—at the local level. There’s also SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth. This goal promotes job creation and entrepreneurship—something that’s best driven by local economic development offices. Or consider SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities, which covers socialized housing and disaster preparedness—critical issues that LGUs tackle firsthand. Yes, five years may not be enough to achieve everything. But five years is still something. We must act with urgency. Localizing the SDGs doesn’t mean transferring all responsibility to the provinces. It means empowering them—giving them ownership of their own progress, while ensuring support and coordination from the top. Because if we fail again—after having 15 years to prepare—it will not just be a policy failure. It will be a failure of vision, of execution, and of commitment to the kind of future we all claim to want. Let’s not let that happen again. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-08-2025

COORDINATION OF INNOVATION

COORDINATION OF INNOVATION Innovation and invention are words often tossed around interchangeably, yet they are far from being one and the same. This confusion mirrors another common mistake: thinking that an entrepreneur and a businessman are also identical creatures of commerce. These terms represent distinct roles that, while sometimes overlapping, are fundamentally different. True, all innovators could be inventors, but not all inventors are innovators. In the same way, all entrepreneurs could be businessmen, but not all businessmen are entrepreneurs. An innovator refines or reimagines an existing idea, while an inventor creates something entirely new. Consider the smartphone: it wasn’t an invention, but an innovation building upon the earlier mobile phone. Similarly, entrepreneurs take the bold steps to build something new—often paired with innovation—while businessmen manage enterprises, sometimes without a shred of innovation, simply following well-trodden paths to profitability. With that distinction made clear, we turn to the question at hand: Which government agency should coordinate innovation in the Philippines? According to Republic Act 11293, it is the National Innovation Council (NIC) that is tasked with “steering” government coordination and collaboration on innovation. But what does “steering” really mean here? To steer implies not just guiding, but actively leading and coordinating the efforts across a vast government machinery—no easy task when innovation must touch all areas of society. The NIC operates under the newly created Department of Economy, Planning, and Development (DEPDEV), established through Republic Act No. 12145 in 2025. DEPDEV, which evolved from the old National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), is now a full-fledged executive department, no longer chaired by the President, as NEDA was. Interestingly though, the NIC remains chaired by the President of the Philippines, and technically, still sits under DEPDEV. This setup begs several important questions: What will happen to the NIC now? Should it remain under DEPDEV? Should the President continue to chair it? In my humble opinion, the NIC should now be chaired by another cabinet official—and it should no longer be placed under DEPDEV. That is in line with my advocacy that the President should no longer chair any agency or council, but have the chairmen of these agencies or councils report to him instead. Innovation, by its very nature, cuts across all sectors and departments. It is not a "line function" like finance or agriculture, but rather a "staff function" that supports and enhances all government activities. In the private sector, the differentiation between line and staff functions is widely practiced; sadly, the same cannot be said for the public sector. All government departments must innovate—thus, innovation should not be locked within any single department’s turf. If DEPDEV oversees innovation, it risks narrowing innovation to economic planning and development alone, when in truth, it should permeate health, education, infrastructure, defense, and every other area of governance. Therefore, I propose that the NIC should be placed directly under the Executive Secretary. In many ways, the Executive Secretary acts like a Prime Minister—coordinating Cabinet activities and ensuring the smooth flow of government operations. Having the NIC directly under the Executive Secretary would guarantee that innovation remains a top agenda item across all departments, visible at the highest levels of government decision-making. This change would ensure that innovation is not only preserved but is elevated to the importance it deserves—strategically coordinated, properly prioritized, and deeply integrated into every fiber of government service. The Philippine Innovation Act already lays out a strong foundation, encouraging an ecosystem that supports micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs), investing in education and research, and fostering a knowledge-based economy. Agencies like the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) have their vital roles too, particularly in boosting research and development in universities, ensuring that the next generations are not just educated but innovative. But coordination is key—and for innovation to truly thrive across our nation, it must have a central, empowered, and visionary home. In closing, innovation is not just about creating new gadgets or apps; it is about making our systems, institutions, and lives better. It is too critical to be left fragmented or siloed within a single department. Let us give it the leadership, the visibility, and the coordination it truly needs. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-07-2025

EXPORTING PHILIPPINE PRODUCTS WITH LOWER PRICES AND LOWER TARIFFS TO THE UNITED STATES

EXPORTING PHILIPPINE PRODUCTS WITH LOWER PRICES AND LOWER TARIFFS TO THE UNITED STATES While many countries around the world are facing the brunt of America’s protectionist policies, with some suffering tariffs exceeding 25% on their exports to the United States, the Philippines — surprisingly — seems to have gotten off a little easier. We will be hit with a 17% tariff on certain exports, after the temporary rate of 10%. It’s not a gift, but relatively speaking, we could call ourselves “lucky.” No, I’m not saying we should be celebrating the imposition of tariffs. A 17% charge is still a burden, especially considering that some of our products used to enter the U.S. market duty-free or with minimal duties. But when compared to how hard other countries — especially China — have been hit, we must admit: the situation could have been worse. So rather than crying foul as mere bystanders caught in a global trade war, it’s time we stand up and ask ourselves what we can do to make the best out of this situation. We live in a fiercely competitive global market. Every country is fighting for a bigger share of the export pie. So, let’s ask the tough questions: What is our competitive advantage? What can we produce better, faster, or cheaper than our rivals? What is our comparative advantage? Where do we hold the lowest opportunity cost compared to others? These two concepts — competitive and comparative advantage — are the twin engines that drive successful export strategies. And when they intersect, that's where our true sweet spot lies. Fortunately, in many cases, Philippine exporters have already found that sweet spot. But now, with this new tariff landscape in the U.S., a fresh window of opportunity has opened. Because American importers now face significantly higher costs when sourcing goods from other countries, they will be looking for cheaper alternatives. That alternative could very well be us. Take electronics and semiconductors — the pride of our export economy. We’ve long been a key player in the global tech supply chain, and with relatively lower tariffs, we could take an even bigger slice of that pie. Coconut-based products like virgin coconut oil and desiccated coconut are another strong suit. These are niche items where quality matters — and we have both the expertise and the natural resources. Tropical fruits such as bananas, mangoes, and pineapples have long been favorites in the U.S. market. With consistent quality and lower costs, these can easily outshine pricier imports from Latin America or elsewhere. And let’s not forget seafood — especially canned tuna and other high-value marine products. These are staples in the U.S. market where price and consistency are key. I also have a strong hunch about coffee and cacao. Philippine-grown beans have rich potential, and if properly marketed, they could tap into the ever-expanding American demand for specialty and ethical coffees and chocolates. One more sector we must seriously look at is garments and textiles. With the recent exposure of deceptive branding practices in other countries, particularly China, the door is now open for the Philippines to reintroduce itself as a trustworthy source of high-quality apparel. To seize this opportunity, we need more than just ambition — we need a clear, cohesive export strategy. That’s why I propose the creation of a multi-agency Export Strategy Task Force, made up of the new DEPDEV (formerly NEDA), DTI, DFA, DA, DOST, FNRI, PHILEXPORT and other stakeholders. Their mandate? To identify, prioritize, and promote the product categories where the Philippines has both a comparative and competitive advantage in the U.S. market. The situation isn’t ideal, but it’s workable — and maybe even advantageous, if we play our cards right. The world is shifting, and while trade wars may rage on, they also create new openings. Let us be bold enough to step into them. Lower prices, lower tariffs, and strategic focus could just be the winning formula to expand our export footprint in the world’s largest consumer market. So, let’s not sit back and sulk. Let’s strategize, mobilize, and export more — and better. The future might just be in our hands. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-06-2025

LET US GIVE CHEAPER MEDICINES A CHANCE

LET US GIVE CHEAPER MEDICINES A CHANCE In theory, price controls have no place in a free market economy. The idea is simple: let supply and demand determine market prices, and let healthy competition do the rest. In such an ideal world, the government would play referee, not participant. Suggested Retail Prices (SRPs), for instance, should logically be set by manufacturers or distributors—not by government agencies. And yet, as with many things, theory doesn’t always line up with reality. In the Philippines, the concept of the Maximum Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) appears to be something of a local innovation. It’s not widely seen—or even recognized—in other countries. While the term “suggested” implies a degree of flexibility, the inclusion of “maximum” adds a controlling tone that veers uncomfortably close to a mandated ceiling. This duality conflicts with the principles of a free market economy, where private businesses ideally have the autonomy to price their products based on value, cost, and demand. This raises a fundamental question: Should the government be setting SRPs or MSRPs on products it does not sell? My position is that it should not—unless there is a specific law allowing it. Otherwise, this would be a contradiction of free market principles. But there are exceptions. When the government assumes the role of a distributor—like in the case of Kadiwa stores or the National Food Authority (NFA)—then setting SRPs makes sense. The government is both seller and regulator in such instances, and thus within bounds to set prices to protect public welfare, as an exemption, not as a rule. In the case of medicines, however, things become more complex. The Universally Accessible Cheaper and Quality Medicines Act of 2008 (RA 9502) gives the President, upon recommendation of the Department of Health (DOH), the authority to impose Maximum Drug Retail Prices (MDRPs). This is a legal tool meant to regulate the cost of medicines that treat diseases which are the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the country. The goal is noble: to make life-saving treatments more affordable and accessible. Still, even with this law, implementation seems uneven. I was surprised to see that a medicine like Xagulant (Apixaban), manufactured by Viatris, Inc., carries a clear label stating: “Retail price should not exceed PHP 91.17 under drug price regulation.” That’s admirable transparency. But I can’t help but ask: Is it just me, or are there a lot of other medicines under this law that don’t carry similar notices? Where’s the uniformity? Even more intriguing is what my doctors have told me. One admitted that, aside from generics, there are other branded alternatives to my prescribed medicines that are just as effective. Another introduced me to the concept of “branded generics”—medications that sound contradictory in name but are essentially high-quality generics manufactured by reputable firms. They may not carry the cachet of top-brand drugs, but they work just as well, often for a fraction of the cost. Here lies an opportunity. If people were better informed about these branded generics—who makes them, how they perform, and where to find them—we might finally see a meaningful drop in out-of-pocket medicine expenses. These alternatives are already on the market. What’s missing is awareness. So why not launch an information campaign? One that makes use of social media, public health platforms, and even community outreach. If given the resources, I would gladly take part in this mission. The point is to arm the public with knowledge, so they can make informed decisions—not just depend on whatever brand their doctor or pharmacist happens to mention. Yes, we should strive for a free market economy. But we must also recognize that health is not just a commodity—it’s a right. And when the system doesn’t deliver, responsible regulation becomes necessary. So, let us give cheaper medicines a chance. Let’s demystify “branded generics”. Let’s demand transparency in price labeling. Let’s inform, educate, and empower. After all, good health shouldn’t be a luxury. It should be an accessible choice for every Filipino. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-05-2025

PLANNING FOR SECURE GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS

PLANNING FOR SECURE GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS In the United States, there exists a dedicated federal agency that is solely responsible for building, managing, and maintaining government facilities: the General Services Administration (GSA). Within the GSA, the Public Buildings Service (PBS) takes charge of acquiring, constructing, leasing, and maintaining a vast portfolio of federal properties. Their mission is not only to meet the evolving needs of government agencies but also to ensure sustainability, cost-efficiency, and even the preservation of historic buildings. Here in the Philippines, we have no such equivalent. There is no single agency that handles the development and management of government buildings in a centralized and strategic manner. Instead, each government agency is left to fend for itself—either building its own facilities or perpetually leasing private ones. This fragmented setup has led to a curious and costly phenomenon: many national government agencies (NGAs) end up leasing privately owned buildings for decades, despite the reality that they could have already purchased or built their own spaces for less. These leases go on and on, and the money that could have been used to build government-owned infrastructure gets siphoned off into rent payments. Take a walk around any city hall or municipal center and you’ll see the pattern: satellite offices of NGAs scattered across various privately owned buildings. Most of these, of course, are rented. What if, instead, there were government-owned buildings where these agencies could lease space under the umbrella of the national government? It would be both economical and, in today’s world, more secure. Gone are the days when security was a minor concern for government offices. In an era where terrorism is a real and present danger, every public office—no matter how small—can be a potential target. Security must now be integral to the planning and management of government infrastructure. That’s why we must ask: Shouldn’t the Philippines have its own version of the GSA? If we were to designate a government body to take on that role, one strong candidate comes to mind—the Department of Budget and Management (DBM). Contrary to a common misconception, DBM doesn’t stand for "Department of Budget Management." But names aside, DBM is strategically positioned to manage government buildings due to its direct control over the budgetary allocations of NGAs. Imagine if DBM owned and operated government office buildings. It could directly deduct rental fees from the budget allocations of its tenant agencies. Even Local Government Units (LGUs) could have their rentals deducted from their Internal Revenue Allotments (IRAs). This system would simplify fiscal management while eliminating redundant overhead costs. More importantly, centralizing NGAs and LGUs in government-owned complexes would drastically improve security. With exclusive government-use buildings, we can implement modern technologies such as QR codes, RFID tags, NFC access, facial recognition, and other biometric systems to monitor entrances and exits effectively. And it doesn't end with security. Centralized, government-operated buildings open the door to more advanced, integrated systems—shared data centers, fiber optic networks, satellite connectivity, and robust local area networks (LANs). We could also deploy smart building management systems (BMS) and Internet of Things (IoT) applications to optimize operations and utilities. The benefits stretch even further: these buildings could serve as testbeds for sustainable government infrastructure. Solar panels, rainwater collection systems, sewage treatment plants (STPs), biogas digesters, and materials recovery facilities (MRFs) could all be implemented and maintained under a shared sustainability plan. It’s high time we rethink how we plan, build, and secure our government buildings. If we want to maximize our resources, improve public service, and protect the lives of government workers and the public they serve, then a unified approach to government infrastructure isn’t just wise—it’s essential. Is the DBM up to the task? Should a new agency be created? Should Congress take a closer look at this issue? These are questions we should be asking—urgently. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-04-2025

STANDARDS FOR BUILDINGS OF THE FUTURE

STANDARDS FOR BUILDINGS OF THE FUTURE Nearly half a century ago, the Philippines laid down the foundation for its construction industry through the National Building Code of the Philippines, officially known as Presidential Decree No. 1096. Signed into law in February 1977, the Code was groundbreaking for its time, offering standardized guidelines to ensure the safety and welfare of people inside buildings. Yet, 47 years later, it remains virtually untouched—except for an update to its Implementing Rules and Regulations in 2004. That’s right: while the world has charged ahead with green buildings, smart technologies, and climate-conscious design, our code has stood still. The question is: will the Philippines ever catch up? In a world where skyscrapers now harvest solar energy and office buildings use artificial intelligence to optimize everything from lighting to air quality, the Philippine building code still doesn’t mention what most modern developers now see as essential: sustainability, connectivity, and security. Yes, the current Code addresses structural safety, especially against natural disasters such as typhoons and earthquakes—a commendable and critical focus. But safety is no longer enough. Today, we need security: surveillance systems, automated access controls, and smart technologies that protect not just the integrity of buildings, but the people and assets within them. To be fair, security wasn’t top of mind in 1977. It’s understandable that the Code would be silent on biometric scanners or programmable logic controllers (PLCs). But we don’t live in 1977 anymore. Now, buildings must be green, smart, safe, and secure. And that means catching up to global benchmarks. For green construction, standards like Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) are already widely accepted. When it comes to smart buildings, however, global standards are still emerging—though the standards for smart cities are clearer and more robust. Perhaps we can argue that a smart city can’t be smart if its buildings aren’t smart too. And a smart building can’t be called “smart” without fast and stable internet, integrated systems, and intelligent automation. In this context, we must also talk about technology. Smart buildings should be equipped with Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs), Building Management Systems (BMS), Local Area Networks (LANs) and Internet of Things (IoT). They should automate HVAC systems, manage lighting intelligently, and monitor energy consumption in real time. Entry and exit points should use biometric systems—facial recognition, voice recognition, and Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems (AFIS). These technologies also aid in contact tracing, a lesson we've learned the hard way during the COVID-19 pandemic. More than that, the buildings of the future must produce and manage their own energy and waste. Think solar panels, wind turbines, biogas digesters, sewage treatment plants (STPs), and materials recovery facilities (MRFs). Sustainability isn’t a buzzword—it’s a necessity. Which brings us to what must happen next. Revising the National Building Code should be a national priority. Our risks—earthquakes, floods, and tsunamis—are real and growing. But so are our opportunities to build better. We need a multi-agency task force to take this on, comprising the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development (DHSUD), Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA), Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT) and the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS), among others. But it can’t stop there. Major internet service providers—PLDT, Globe, Smart, Dito, Now Telecom, Starlink—must be at the table. So should architects’ groups like the United Architects of the Philippines (UAP), NGOs, tech firms, and anyone with expertise in smart, clean, and secure buildings. The bottom line is this: The buildings of the future are already here—but not in the Philippines. Until we update our outdated code, we are building on borrowed time. So let us not ask if the Philippines will catch up. Let’s ask: When? And more importantly: Why not now? Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-03-2025