Remove illegal parking

The initiative of the Department of the Interior and Local Government to remove illegally parked cars on major roads is well-intentioned, but could be self-defeating if the outcome is only to give more road space to private motor vehicles. Because of the phenomenon of “induced demand,” any measure that makes driving easier by giving more space to cars only attracts further car (and motorcycle) use, eventually leaving our roads even more congested than before.

Because road space is limited, we need to use our roads so that they deliver the greatest good for the greatest number — this means prioritizing the most productive, inclusive and socially beneficial travel options on any road space. The desired outcome of the removal of illegal vehicle parking should be to enhance the safety, comfort and attractiveness of walking, cycling and public transport (instead of offering the added road space to private motor vehicles). Not only is this approach desirable from the standpoint of transportation science, it is what is required based on principles of equity and social justice.

Giving additional road space to private motor vehicles is, in effect, choosing the least efficient and most environmentally damaging application for a scarce resource; it would be a foolish and wasteful use of public assets. One road lane (3.5-meter width) used mainly by cars can move 600 to 2,000 persons per hour per direction. If the same space is converted into a pathway for pedestrians or cyclists, the same space can move five to 10 times more people. If the road space is dedicated to public transport (buses, jeepneys, etc.), the space can move from five to 20 times more people. Any investment in our roads should encourage a shift to these desirable, space-efficient and low-impact travel modes. It is a no-brainer.

Devoting any freed-up space for public transport, walking and cycling also make sense when one considers that car owners are only a small minority in the Philippines. Nationwide, only 6 percent of households own four-wheeled motor vehicles (11.5 percent of households for Greater Manila, defined as Metro Manila plus surrounding provinces). About one-third of Filipino households own motorcycles. This means that the majority of Metro Manila’s population depends on walking, bicycles or public transportation to get around their neighborhoods and cities. This segment is also the most vulnerable and disadvantaged — they should be the focus of measures to improve mobility using freed-up road space.

Pedestrians are endangered when they have to mix in the same road space with fast-moving motor vehicles. For this reason, safe pathways for pedestrians should be a part of any urban road. Sidewalks are essential because they save lives. Unfortunately, all over Philippine cities, many sidewalks have been illegally converted into parking spaces or have become part of the roadway for motor vehicles. In the absence of safe sidewalks, many avoid walking and shift to using a motor vehicle. If we want fewer motor vehicles on our congested roads, we need to rectify this anomaly and make our streets walkable.

With a wider sidewalk, shade trees and greenery can be planted. A tree-shaded street delivers many benefits for a neighborhood, foremost of which is the lowering of ambient temperatures by 5 to 10 degrees centigrade. Because a very large number of trips daily are for journeys of 3 kilometers or less (therefore, very walkable), many of these trips could be completed via walking as long as there are pathways that are safe, shaded and accessible by persons with disability.

The same arguments justify the creation of protected bike lanes out of the road space occupied by illegally parked cars. The owners of bicycles today outnumber the owners of cars by a factor of 4:1. Many more Filipinos would use bicycles to move around our cities if there were safe and continuous bike paths connecting residential neighborhoods to destinations with jobs, social services and markets. Millions of Filipinos are already using bicycles daily to travel — achieving shorter, more predictable journey times; adopting healthier, more active lifestyles; and generating savings in travel costs that can be used for food, health care, personal development or investment.

Freed-up road space should also be used to create dedicated lanes for public transport (which could include school transport and emergency vehicles), enabling them to have faster and more predictable travel times. National and local government planners should meet with public transport operators to discuss how buses and jeepneys can escape traffic bottlenecks and achieve more round trips if offered exclusive road space.

A recent concern is the fact that many jeepneys and buses are parked on public roads when not in use, mainly because they have no access to depots or garages. Instead of penalizing owners of these vehicles, local governments should help to organize common depot space for such units in every locality, so that transport services can also be better managed and coordinated. This is one way that a local government unit can help deliver better services to constituents by enabling public transport operators to be more efficient and financially viable.

Forget about removing illegally parked cars in order to offer more lanes to private motor vehicles. The focus should be on making walking, cycling and public transport safe, convenient and attractive, thereby facilitating a shift away from private motor vehicle use.

Source: Manila Times

CMEPA and the 20% tax: What it means for your bank savings

Netizens were in an uproar when banks implemented new tax rates on savings interest, prompting many to ask: “What’s going to happen to my savings?”

The changes stem from the Capital Markets Efficiency Promotion Act (CMEPA), a new law signed by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in May and enacted in July. It aims to introduce key reforms to level the playing field in trade and investment. One such reform is the reduction of the Stock Transaction Tax (STT) from 0.6% to 0.1%.

However, what triggered the uproar is the uniform 20% tax rate on interest income.

The Department of Finance (DOF) has since clarified misconceptions fueled by social media buzz, especially the mistaken belief that people’s actual bank savings are being taxed 20%.

In reality, it’s not the money in your account being taxed, but the interest it earns while sitting in the bank. The DOF also emphasized that this is not a new tax, but an existing one that has now been standardized under CMEPA.

“1998 pa lang, may 20% tax na ang interest na kinikita ng ating mga karaniwang deposito sa bangko,” the DOF said in a Facebook post. 

(As early as 1998, there was already a 20% tax on our interest being made by ordinary deposits in the bank.) 

The DOF summarized the new tax rates as follows: 

CMEPA and the 20% tax: What it means for your bank savings

The DOF argued that the old system favored those who are richer, as their studies showed that they are the ones holding long-term deposits (TD). 

Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. chief economist Michael Ricafort told Philstar.com that the impact will likely be felt more by those with Foreign Currency Deposit Unit (FCDU) accounts and US dollar time deposits.

“TD amounts become bigger, in terms of the larger interest income generated and now the higher 20% withholding tax that these are subjected to since July 1, 2025,” he said. 

“But for smaller amounts, the changes could be minimal/negligible,” Ricafort said. 

What can the public gain from the CMEPA?

While the CMEPA would certainly make the Philippines more appealing to investors after the lowering of several investment taxes, how could it help the common Filipino who wants to simply earn money? 

The DOF argued that the CMEPA would encourage ordinary Filipinos to invest and diversify their income sources. Other than the reduction of the STT, the CMEPA also decreased the documentary stamp taxes (DST) rate from 1% to 0.75%, as well as removing it completely from the collective investment schemes. 

“These measures are seen to cut transaction costs, encourage market participation and financial planning, boost market liquidity, make the country’s equities market regionally competitive, and increase capital market growth,” the DOF said in a statement. 

Ricafort agreed with the DOF, saying that local investors would have more choices in diversifying their investments with hopes of generating more returns.

While the CMEPA may ease investment, the question of whether or not the average Filipino is willing to invest their money in the current economic environment remains, especially amid inflation and global uncertainties. 

Ricafort said that now is still a conducive time for investing. 

“Bond yields near cycle/multi-year highs that are favorable for investors,” he said. 

What can the public do to mitigate CMEPA’s impact? 

While smaller savings accounts may not feel the effects of the CMEPA, some have raised that middle-class earners who wish to save more money in the long run are more likely to feel the effects of the CMEPA. 

Ricafort advised that they could seek alternative means to save or invest their money. He said that savers could try out a Personal Equity and Retirement Account (PERA). A PERA account is a voluntary retirement savings account that could supplement your SSS. 

Investment is also an option, but Ricafort warned newcomers to be cautious.

“This is investment related, not deposits, that are subject to market conditions or higher risk-higher return trade off as a source of diversification,” Ricafort said. 

Source: Philstar

The 2026 National Budget

Yesterday, the broadsheets reported the approval by President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. of the proposed P6.793-trillion national budget for 2026. Unfortunately, only the headline figures are available as of press time. It’s good the key message appears to be on the right track. The budget is said to be aimed at improving the quality of education in the Philippines and easing the lives of Filipinos.

But no matter how one looks at it, the proposed budget is still substantial as it is higher than this year’s budget of P6.326 trillion by 7.4%. Next year’s budget is some 22% of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP). After all, the Development Budget Coordination Committee had actually scaled down its growth target from 6-8% to only 6-7%. There should be less fiscal support essential to ensure the target is met. All international financial institutions (IFIs) could only go as far as saying that the global scenario this year and the next would be intractable. Trump’s puzzling tariff policy and the Middle East’s fragile proxy war are wild cards. They are known yet they can go whichever way.

Of course, based on the representation by Malacañang, the current budget proposal had descended from the P10.101 trillion original consolidated budget requests of various agencies and instrumentalities of government. Obviously, and this must be a good rationale, the fiscal space is just limited and therefore over 30% had to be trimmed.

At this point, perhaps Malacañang and Congress should consider the cautionary analysis of the U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Center, an independent, non-profit, multi-disciplinary research institute based on Bergen, Norway that the ideal of the public budget process is rarely met. Such an ideal is the allocation of public resources “in a strategic, transparent, accountable, fair and democratic way.”

Recall that the 2025 budget was previously challenged before the Supreme Court. The petitioners considered it to be the most corrupt budget ever, following the various questionable insertions and politicization of social welfare programs. Nothing was strategic about prioritizing minor and unprogrammed infrastructure projects over public education and public health. Nothing was transparent when the budget outcome was determined by an elite bicameral committee to the exclusion of key players in the budget process. Nothing, or even no one, is accountable when Congress allowed the Finance department to sweep government-owned and -controlled corporations’ (GOCCs) idle funds to cover the unprogrammed appropriations. Nothing is fair and democratic when the so-called idle funds of PhilHealth (Philippine Health Insurance Corp.) were sequestered while the objectives of universal healthcare are barely met; only a small segment of the population and a limited list of health challenges are covered.

It will serve the community’s interest if we hear from the Supreme Court soonest on whether the 2025 budget was a product of a constitutional process. Such a ruling will also be an implicit arbiter of an ideal budget process. Nobody in civil society wants a repeat of the same breach of an ideal budget process in the coming deliberation in Congress after the State of the Nation Address by the President this last week of July.

It will also be interesting to catch the drift of U4’s description of the budget process as “theater” in the worst-case scenario, “with no impact on the real allocation of public money.” U4 was describing the experience in another country where the “theater” actually masked the real distribution of revenues and disbursements.

If the budget process is a theater, let’s see how the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) did the shortlisting of the various requests from P10.101 trillion to P6.793 trillion on the basis of the announced criteria, namely, alignment with the Philippine Development Plan 2023-2028, “shovel-readiness,” absorptive capacity of agencies, and prioritization of programs that deliver the highest value and impact.”

Consider this. Malacañang announced yesterday that “the President himself sat down with the different agencies to ensure that all our priorities are aligned towards our common goal of achieving our vision of a Bagong Pilipinas.” Yet, Budget Secretary Amenah Pangandaman had to reiterate to state agencies “to stick to the agreed budget, and not ask for more once Congress deliberates on the 2026 National Expenditure Program (NEP).”

Is she afraid of the flexibility for theatrical maneuvering in Congress, Senate, and in the bicameral committee?

Ms. Pangandaman’s appeal should no longer be necessary, unless the process of elimination started and ended with her budget staff. By her own admission, though, she also disclosed that she had “been sitting down with department secretaries to check that they agree with their budget levels and priorities.” But Ms. Pangandaman’s appeal reveals a wish “that they won’t ask for more.” If the prioritization involved the agencies themselves at staff, secretary, and no less than the level of the President, what is implicit here is that the DBM itself is afraid the agencies may not keep to what has been agreed upon as to their respective agencies’ budgets. Knowing the officers and members of the Appropriations Committee is as good as having one’s foot in the door of budget additionality.

So, with whom did the President confer in pruning down the budget from P10.101 trillion to P6.793 trillion?

How well will the initial allocations hold?

An agency level breakdown is not yet available, but some other initial figures were disclosed to the public. For instance, maintenance and other operating expenses (MOOE) will get P2.639 trillion or 38.8% of the budget. Other objects of expenditure include personnel services (PS) at P1.908 trillion, or 28.1%; capital outlay, P1.296 trillion or 19.1%; financial expenses, P950 billion. By levels of government, the National Government agencies get P4.305 trillion or 63.4% and local government units will be allocated P1.350 trillion or 20%. GOCCs will be getting P188.3 billion in subsidy or equity support as well as net lending support.

One thing we all know at this point is that the fiscal space is indeed very tight.

In the last four years, the country’s fiscal deficit averaged over P1.5 trillion, with a deficit to GDP ratio ranging from a low of 5.7% in 2024 to a high of 8.6% in 2021. For the first quarter of 2025, the fiscal shortfall remained substantial at 6.8%. In fact, in the first five months of the year, the fiscal deficit already stood at over half a trillion pesos.

How this will be trimmed from a programmed deficit to GDP ratio of 5.5% this year to 4.3% by 2028 may be at best an aspirational target. Revenues have been quite steady at around 15-16% of GDP while expenditures have been way above, at more than 22%. With a presidential elections coming up in three years, it is to the interest of the ruling class to keep expenditure high — for infrastructure to keep the economic momentum strong, social services to develop our human capital and keep the living standards of the Filipinos more decent, for innovation to keep productivity rising and all productivity drags under control, not to mention the cost of winning votes.

But fund sourcing is equally stretched. Public finance is in a bind.

Increasing the tax effort ratio of around 14% of GDP could win or lose elections, especially when the nature of the tax imposed, or the rate to be collected, is not exactly popular. Borrowing could be the measure of last resort, but the National Government’s total outstanding loans are inching towards worrisome levels relative to GDP. Loans rose precipitously from P7.7 trillion before the pandemic to P16.1 trillion in 2024. At end-May 2025, the level further pushed to P16.9 trillion. When all the figures become available for the second quarter, we expect the ratio to exceed 62% of GDP.

Are we prepared then to tax wealth; collect levies on texting; collect on some families’ tax liabilities to the  Bureau of Internal Revenue  (BIR); clean up the BIR, Bureau of Customs, and other public agencies notorious for corruption, once and for all; prohibit automobile purchases unless people pay for the right to buy, which is anchored on the availability of a parking garage; implement the Supreme Court’s decision on pork barrel; and revise our legal framework on land aggregation and use?

If we are ready to bite the bullet, then we should be prepared to do away with the theatrics in the budget process.

The World Bank’s recent projection about the Philippines’ likelihood of hitting as much as 6.8% annually is not something we simply receive and not do anything to make it happen. If we listen to the World Bank’s presentation, and read carefully the press report, it is quite clear there are at least four reforms we need to do, and this has been the recurrent messages in the government’s report, the IMF Article IV consultation, ADB diagnostics, and in everything else that matters: strengthen infrastructure, improve human capital, enhance competition, and attract more private investment.

Unfortunately, in many of these official reports, one very important ingredient of accelerated, sustainable and innovative development is missing: good governance.

Good governance could very well secure all those reforms at the least cost, and without the theater of the budget process. Let’s get real this time.

Source: Business World