Another inflation-driven multimillion-peso irregularity hit port stakeholders

database Cecilio t. arillo

ANOTHER inflation-driven multimillion-peso irregularity hit port stakeholders after the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) issued in March 2016 the Vehicle Booking System (VBS) to ease traffic following the horrendous port congestion at the Manila piers in 2014 and 2015, which was the result of a Manila City ordinance.

Juan C. Sta. Ana, PPA general manager, sent a letter in March 2016 to Asian Terminal Inc. (ATI) and the International Container Terminal Services Inc. (ICTSI) requiring them to implement VBS in their area of operations at the Port of Manila (POM) and the Manila International Container Port (MICP), respectively, to avoid another traffic congestion. Sta. Ana later resigned.

Strangely, out of this VBS came a controversial Terminal Appointment Booking System (TABS) that gravely prejudiced the stakeholders.

Under the TABS, customs brokers transacting with POM and MICP were required to enroll in the TABS to enable them to release with ease their cargoes from ATI and ICTSI and to return their empty containers back to said cargo handling operators.

To use the system, a customs broker must choose an available slot in the system where a corresponding time is indicated for the

release or return of containers. For every successful booking, a customs broker must pay P300 or P1,000 per container. The amounts depend on the booked slot. A broker will also be fined P1,625 per container as late penalty fee if his delivery truck arrived beyond two hours from the booked time and P3,251 per container as no-show penalty fee if his delivery truck arrived beyond three hours from the booked time.

In case of arrival beyond three hours from booked time, a customs broker will be required to book again, forfeiting his previously paid booking fee and paying anew another booking fee per container. Said fees imposed and collected by ATI and ICTSI plus several surcharges under TABS are massive burdens on customs brokers and other affected port stakeholders who continuously shoulder the arbitrary charges without the right to resist.

According to sources from these two biggest ports, at least 2,500 containers are processed daily in the said ports. Assuming said number of containers is accurate, a P300 processing fee per container would yield P750,000 daily. So, if multiplied by 365 (days a year), this would amount to a whopping P273,750,000.

And since the same containers, when emptied, must be returned to the ports, then, in a year, another multimillion-peso worth of VAT will go to the pockets and bank accounts of individuals.

When TABS was implemented, there was no law, executive order, administrative order, circular, or a notice from the PPA authorizing the imposition and collection of the said TABS fees and penalties.

Despite repeated complaints by port stakeholders and the rampant calls by other sectors to the PPA to stop the imposition of fees and penalties without the imprimatur of a law, PPA refused to heed their calls and complaints and, instead, allowed the said questionable impositions to go on.

Curiously, on May 8, 2018, PPA under incoming General Manager Jay Daniel R. Santiago issued Administrative Order (AO) 6-2018 specifically defining and regulating TABS to the surprise and dismay of the hapless port stakeholders. Thus, they asked why this is being done only after two years?

For the port stakeholders, the delayed issuance by the PPA of AO 6-2018 clearly validated their consistent cries that TABS, most specially the collection of fines, may have been illegal.

With President Duterte’s persistent call to root out corruption and abuses in the government, it is about time his office takes a look at this TABS, among others:

1. To determine the parameters of arrangement between and among the PPA, ATI and ICTSI, insofar as the implementation of this TABS is concerned, taking into consideration that the operations of ATI and ICTSI as cargo handlers/ terminal operators are imbued with public interest for being grantees of administrative franchises issued by the PPA;

2. To review the charter of the PPA (PD 857), vis-à-vis the ominous silence and/or refusal of the PPA to tackle the issue prior to the issuance of PPA AO 6-2018;

3. To determine as to how much really were collected, who benefited from the TABS fees, late penalty fees, early penalty fees and no-show fees prior to the issuance of PPA AO 6-2018;

4. To determine if these collected VAT were remitted to the government; and

5. To determine whether the recipient of these TABS fees collected prior to PPA AO 6-2018 have paid the corresponding taxes.

Isn’t this a clear case punishable under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act? Certainly, it also has a damaging inflationary effect on the economy as fees collected from stakeholders are definitely passed on to the consumers.