Restrained
It is not a victory yet; but it is reassuring.
Last Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued a restraining order against the cybercrime law. Fifteen separate petitions were filed contesting the constitutionality of the law, specifically those provisions that seem to restrict freedom of information and allows the Department of Justice to police online chatter.
That law seems to have crept through the legislative mill without really paying it the attention it deserved. The Senate passed it with only one senator objecting. The President signed it without any cautionary advice from his legal staff.
Soon enough, the law was met with massive protests from the online community, people’s organizations and even the Commission on Human Rights. Politicians, including those who authored the law, quickly distanced themselves from a political hot potato. The President found himself nearly alone, defending the law — although on the tepid excuse he must enforce it under the pain of impeachment.
The ink is barely dry on that law, yet everyone now speaks of amending it. The subtext, clear to most citizens, is that the legislative process has been sloppy. Here is another instance supporting the fear mediocrity now carpets the nation’s affairs.
By the force of the restraining order, the law’s application is suspended for 120 days. The Court asks the Solicitor General to reply to the petitions filed. On January 15, oral arguments will be held. It is the Solicitor General’s unhappy task to argue that this law is not repressive and does not violate the freedoms enshrined in our Constitution.
It is the methodology of popular resistance that is more interesting, however the legal issues might be resolved.
As things happen in this digital age, the public response to this law was instantaneous and massive. The blogs burned. The netizens were irrepressible.
In the good old days, we built proper barricades and fought pitched battles in the streets to make sure we were heard. Today, “hacktivists” simply stormed government websites to make sure they were heard.
And how they were heard! Government spokesmen alternately threatened and pleaded with the “hacktivists” as websites were brought down or defaced. The Secretary of Justice simply called them “vandals” — an echo from those days when rebels were dismissed as bandits.
This whole episode is unprecedented. It is also a turning point. Henceforth, we do not need posturing politicians to oppose government for us. The people can directly address government — and do so with the force of numbers backing up their side of the argument.
Unaccountable
Senator Gringo Honasan is asking the DTI to increase the number of monitoring teams deployed to check on the quality of products sold to our consumers. Given the abject failure of the Bureau of Customs to stop the flood of smuggled goods, the DTI is probably our last line of defense against the perils of substandard products.
Of particular concern to the senator is the rampant technical smuggling of steel products, especially from China where there is a burgeoning oversupply. These substandard products are mostly used by property developers building medium- and high-rise residential complexes.
Recall that in the past few earthquakes hitting China, numerous modern structures collapsed, multiplying the casualty toll. The collapsed structures very likely used steel from rouge plants using antiquated manufacturing technologies. We saw from the building in Binondo that collapsed without provocation a few years ago how dangerous substandard products could be.
“Every Filipino life is important,” Honasan reminds the DTI. “Substandard products pose a serious threat to life and health of our citizens.”
Because of the perils posed by substandard steel from China, our neighbors in the region have installed additional equipment to test imports. In our case, however, no such equipment for testing tensile strength of steel products are available at the ports of entry. Government must make the necessary investments in testing technology to protect the Filipino public.
Local steel manufacturers are subject to strict product testing procedures. Every 30 tons of production is checked for tensile strength. Local manufacturers are likewise accountable for any failure in product quality. By contrast, smuggled steel products hold no accountability. There is no one to sue for failure in quality.
In just one recent shipment monitored by the local steel industry, 30,000 tons of steel billets from China entered our market. The billets were misdeclared as “square bars” to avail of rebates given out by the Chinese government to encourage exportation. That single shipment alone is enough steel to build 20,000 socialized housing units.
Perhaps, Vice President Binay should be concerned about this. Remember the Cherry Hills tragedy where low-cost housing units washed down with the floods. The culprit there is substandard steel reinforcement bars.
Considering present capacity, it is doubtful if the DTI, vigilance notwithstanding, could properly police the quality of steel products used in the domestic market. The agency simply does not have the technology and the expertise to do that.
It will help if the property development industry joins the effort against substandard steel. Local builders should simply avoid patronizing uncertified steel products. On their construction sites, they should post the source of their steel bars.
Filipino consumers who invest their lifetime savings in developed property must be vigilant themselves. They should demand to know from sellers where the steel originated.
The effort to fight the flood of smuggled substandard steel must be a broad-based one. This is not just about government revenues foregone due to rampant smuggling. This is about the safety of our citizens.