‘Brexit’ lessons for the Philippines

THE recent referendum vote held in the United Kingdom seems straight forward enough. The ballot had two choices: “Remain a member of the European Union” and “Leave the European Union.” The final result of last Thursday’s voting was 51.9 percent to “Leave” and 48.1 percent to “Remain.”

The outcome was fairly close, but still decisive, with the Leave getting 7.8 percent more votes than Remain. However, those numbers are deceptive.

The vote for Remain won in an absolute landslide victory. The vote for Leave won in an absolute landslide victory. It all depends on where you look.

 The United Kingdom is composed of England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, through centuries of treaties and to a certain extinct kingly conquest. And like every diverse nation, there are many viewpoints and biases.

In a postmortem of the vote, the Remain-inclined press pointedly mentioned that in an area of England with higher education, Remain was a big winner. London, for example, voted 60 percent to 40 percent in favor of Remain, a landslide. However, London is also home to the financial institutions that have a vested interest in staying part of the EU. Obviously, multinational banks tend to employ higher-educated people. So, of course, London would vote Remain, but not as a result of being “smarter,” but because it was in their financial interests.

The West Midlands region of England voted the opposite way—60 percent for Leave. The city of Birmingham is in the West Midlands and is England’s second-largest city. Birmingham used to be a manufacturing and engineering center. Today, its economy is dominated by the service sector, which in 2012 accounted for 88 percent of the city’s employment. Economic inequality within Birmingham is greater than in any other major English city.

The North East region of England also voted 58 percent for Leave. Thirty percent of the people there consider themselves in the “D” or “E” segment of the UK’s economic classes. England’s eastern area also went heavily—57 percent—for Leave. Here, youth unemployment is 33 percent.

This referendum was about an issue that significantly affected every citizen of the United Kingdom and a critical national policy. Yet, when you look at the results, the voters cast their ballots exactly as people always do: Based on their own personal interest. London bank employees voted for what was best for London banks. Lower-income classes in depressed areas voted for a change from the current situation, which they believe has failed them.

 In a short time, the Philippines will face deciding about some critical issues from the status of Muslim Mindanao, perhaps, a change to a parliamentary or federal form of government to changes in the Constitution regarding foreign ownership of businesses.

Will Filipinos push for a decision that they think will be best for the entire nation or for what will be best for their own personal interests?

source:  Business Mirror

Duterte inks first PPP deal of Davao

By Alberto C. Agra / Special to the BusinessMirror

Davao City—Before he steps down as city mayor, incoming President Rodrigo R. Duterte signed a landmark contract with the private sector on Tuesday worth about P39 billion.

On the sidelines of the end of the two-day business summit in Davao, the President-elect signed a public-private partnership (PPP) contract with a proponent on port development. This is one of his last acts as mayor of Davao City.

As local chief executive, Duterte—joined by representatives of the City Council and the members of the Davao City PPP Board (DCPPPB)—signed a 50-year joint-venture agreement (JVA) with Mega Harbour Port And Development Inc. This is the first PPP contract entered into by the Davao City under its 2015 amended PPP ordinance.

The Davao Coastline and Port Development Project aims to spur the economic growth of the city. Davao envisions to be the premier socioeconomic and tourism center in Mindanao, as well as in the East Asia-Pacific region. The project will support the city’s plan of becoming the gateway of commerce and trade in the Davao Gulf area, even for the whole of Mindanao region.

The project, which will be situated on a 214.61-hectare land to be reclaimed by Davao City as project owner and the proponent as project developer, shall accommodate a modern and state-of-the-art commercial port for containerized and noncontainerized shipments, with cargo-handling equipment and information-technology infrastructure. An industrial park, a commercial complex, and residential lots and houses will also be constructed thereon.

According to the project study submitted by the proponent, the unprecedented demand due to increased economic activity in the region requires better infrastructure and logistics support for its industries and services sectors, which the region’s main public seaport and secondary seaports cannot fully accommodate, especially bigger cargo-movement requirements.

Under the JVA, the reclamation and vertical development will be undertaken by the proponent at no cost to the city. The proponent shall also provide the relocation site for the affected residents at the commencement of the project. The informal settlers shall be tapped as source of skilled and unskilled laborers during the construction phase of the project.

The project, to be jointly undertaken by the city and the private sector, shall contribute to the government’s efforts to reduce the high underemployment rate by helping attract multinational business-process outsourcing companies and call-center operators to set up shop in Davao City through the provision of an industrial park.

Aside from these benefits, the city government is expected to increase its income, in anticipation of the new establishments and business enterprises to be catered in the industrial park and commercial areas. The city’s increased income will consequently translate into increased tax revenues for the city government. With more revenues, the city will be less dependent on the internal revenue allotment from national government and will have more funds for basic and social services.

This first PPP of the city truly advances the true north of PPPs —to promote the general welfare and provide for better quality of life of the people. The City Council and the multisectoral DCPPPB, in approving the terms of the JVA and recommending approval to the mayor, respectively, made sure this mandate and the pro-people and pro-change stance of the city will be respected and advanced.

After the signing of the JVA, the city government will forward the documents to the Philippine Reclamation Authority for its study and recommendation to the board of the National Economic and Development Authority for its approval.

Davao City joins 70 other local governments in pursuing PPPs using their own PPP ordinances. The provinces of Bataan and Nueva Ecija, and Calamba entered into JVs for their government center and capitol redevelopment, the province of Quezon on bulk water, hydropower and wind power, and the cities of Pasay, Parañaque and Manila, and Cordova Municipality on reclamation. Manila and Valenzuela cities entered into JVs for their markets, Iloilo City and Batangas City on terminals, and Cebu City and Cordova Municipality together for the third bridge in Cebu.

The message of the incoming President is clear. He believes in the importance and criticality of PPPs to plug infrastructure deficits. Dramatic change can be brought about through PPPs. He has demonstrated that local governments can be trusted and that they possess the competencies to pursue iconic and high-impact PPP projects. By signing the JVA, where the proponent was chosen through the unsolicited proposal route, he subscribes to this alternative route of selecting the proponent.

The future of PPPs in the country is bright. The nation is hopeful that under the Duterte administration, Filipinos will see a new international airport, waste-to-energy projects, more expressways, more water-related projects, monorail and subway systems, more socialized housing units, health-care facilities, more land development, more economic zones and more renewable-energy arrangements.

The signing of this JVA could not have come at a more auspicious time. It signals the “warm-up” to the realization of the 10-point socioeconomic agenda, the fourth agenda being to “accelerate annual infrastructure spending to account for 5 percent of GDP, with PPP playing a key role.” This showcases “Sulong Pilipinas: Hakbang Tungo sa Kaunlaran.” This is definitely a good first step not just for Davao, but also for the whole country.

Philippines joins list of most promising FDI destinations

THE PHILIPPINES has emerged as among the world’s most promising destinations of foreign investments in the next three years, according to the United Nations Conference of Trade and Development (UNCTD).

In its World Investment Report 2016, UNCTD said the US, China and India remain the top destinations of investments by multinational enterprises (MNEs) between this year and 2018. However, the US, which since last year has shown signs of economic recovery, displaced China in this year’s UNCTD survey among executives belonging to the 100 biggest non-financial MNEs.

China was the top choice when the UNCTD last held its survey in 2014, or before the world’s second largest economy showed signs of slowing down.

The Philippines joined the top 15 destinations, placing eighth, along with Australia, France and Malaysia, which in the previous survey round ranked 14th.

The report recognized the “noteworthy measures” of the Philippines to liberalize foreign investments, particularly in removing the foreign ownership restriction on lending firms, investment houses, and financing companies, as well as reducing the number of professions reserved for nationals.

Another Southeast Asian economy new on the list is Myanmar, which ranked ninth along with Vietnam, which in turn rose from the 18th spot during the 2014 survey round.

Seven of the top 15 choice locations belong to emerging Asia, of which 5 came from Southeast Asia, with Indonesia steaming ahead on seventh place, and like Malaysia was on the 14th spot in 2014.

FDI FLOWS SURGE IN 2015
Global foreign direct investment (FDI) flows in 2015 surged by 38 per cent to $1.76 trillion, the world’s highest level since the global economic and financial crisis of 2008 -- 2009, UNCTD said, adding that the growth rode on the increase of cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&As) to $721 billion, nearly 67% higher than the $432 billion in 2014.

Inward FDI flows to developed economies reached $962 billion, the UNCTD said.

“As a result, developed economies tipped the balance back in their favour with 55% of global FDI, up from 41% in 2014. Strong growth in inflows was reported in Europe. In the United States FDI almost quadrupled, albeit from a historically low level in 2014.”

Developing economies drew $765 billion of FDI inflows, or 9% higher than in 2014, as said economies continue to compose half of the top 10 destinations of FDI flows.

Developing Asia remains the largest FDI recipient region globally, with inflows amounting to $541 billion, or a 16% increase.

Going forward, UNCTD expects FDI flows to decline around 10%-15% this year, mirroring the “fragility of the global economy, persistent weakness of aggregate demand, sluggish growth in some commodity exporting countries, effective policy measures to curb tax inversion deals and a slump in MNE profits.”

Growth is expected to get back on track in 2017, with UNCTD predicting FDI flows to go beyond $1.8 trillion in 2018. -- Roy Stephen C. Canivel

source:  Businessworld

PDI Editorial: When rivals cooperate

IN THE local corporate scene, few business leaders can match the rivalry—and sometimes, outright antagonism—between tycoons Ramon S. Ang and Manuel V. Pangilinan.

In their respective efforts to expand the country’s biggest conglomerate (San Miguel Corp.) and the country’s largest telecommunications empire (the PLDT Group), the two gentlemen have been tenacious competitors over the last decade.

This rivalry became even more pronounced in the last six years, when the Aquino administration unveiled the landmark public-private partnership (PPP) program, which was marketed to the private sector as a corporate gold rush: Companies that would sink in billion-peso investments in infrastructure projects would be rewarded with handsome financial returns.

And plunge into this PPP scheme the two conglomerates did. But their infrastructure projects have suffered frustrating bureaucratic and policy delays at the hands of the outgoing administration. After six years, they appear to have ended up with a mixed bag of results that left many wondering whether it was worth all the effort to outdo each other.

The good news is that Ang and Pangilinan seem to have discovered the virtue of cooperating with each other (in addition to the value of competing against each other). The latest pronouncement from the SMC side is that it is in talks with the PLDT Group for a possible joint undertaking to build a new—and sorely needed—international airport, possibly on reclaimed land along Manila Bay. And from all indications on the PLDT side, the talks are being taken seriously and will likely lead to other areas of cooperation between the corporate behemoths.

If the talks crystallize around the existing SMC proposal (which was all but ignored by the Aquino administration), the Filipino people will soon enjoy a $10-billion aviation facility with four runways that can accommodate all the flights local and international airlines want to operate in or out of Manila. To be built on an estimated 1,600 hectares of reclaimed land, such an airport would be able to accommodate up to 250 aircraft movements in an hour, dwarfing the 40-aircraft-movements-per-hour capacity of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport. That would be enough capacity to meet the country’s growing international aviation requirements for the next half century, at least.

Regarding the environmental debate surrounding the issue of land reclamation, what do the international airports of Hong Kong, Seoul, Osaka, Nagoya, Macau and Doha have in common? All these First World aviation hubs were built wholly or partially on reclaimed land, while managing the adverse effects on the surrounding marine environments.

In the case of Hong Kong’s Chek Lap Kok, two mountains on two adjacent islands were leveled, and the waterways between those islands filled with earth to come up with what is now one of the best airports in the world, again while limiting the impact on the area’s diverse and fragile ecosystem. It goes to show that reclaiming land to build large-scale infrastructure projects can be done in a way that mitigates the project’s environmental impact.

The talks between SMC and PLDT for the airport project are likely to open avenues for further cooperation between them. It may even set a trend for the other business conglomerates owned by the country’s wealthiest families to start cooperating in order to build key infrastructure—roadways, ports, mass transport systems, in addition to other international airports—that the Philippines needs to sustain its economic growth.

After all, the taipans have jostled for greater economic benefits during the last six years, with precious little to show for it (sometimes to the detriment of the public, while the administration sat on its hands, hesitant to use its political capital to break the deadlock).

Indeed, competition in business is good. But where the benefits of competition are limited, perhaps cooperation is a better alternative. Anyway, the ultimate goal is the same: to use the massive resources at the disposal of the rich not only to enhance their own wealth but to improve the lives of the Filipino people as well.

PPP: Infra program or fiscal measure?

In 2014, the national government posted a budget deficit of P73.1 billion, less than half the P164-billion deficit incurred in 2013. The reason: revenues grew faster than expenditures. In December 2014 alone, the Department of Finance said the deficit dropped by 12 percent to P46.3 billion  from P52.6 billion in 2013 because revenues increased by nearly twice the pace of spending.

That’s good news, from the perspective of the finance people, whose goal is to keep the amount the government spends as close as possible to the amount it earns in terms of taxes. The bad news: the country and the people must pay the price in the form of slow economic growth, which affects the lives of Filipino families.

In contrast to the government’s healthier fiscal condition, the economy grew by a disappointing 6.1 percent in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2014, down from the record-high 7.2 percent posted in 2013 and short of the official GDP growth target of 6.5-7.5 percent for 2014.

Even before the official report on the economy came out, analysts were predicting a lower-than-target performance, mainly because of underspending by the government.

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) also blamed weak public spending as a contributor to the dismal GDP growth. Underspending continued in 2015, as a result of which GDP growth further slowed down to 5.8 percent, the slowest pace in four years.

Among the programs adopted by the government to reduce the deficit is the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) program. The PPP is supposed to be the flagship program to accelerate infrastructure development, but it was also used to rein in the fiscal deficit by spending less and keeping government borrowings low.

Thus, the outgoing administration has succeeded in establishing a healthy financial record for the government, but has failed to sustain GDP growth at the 7-percent pace, which is what is needed to spread the benefits of economic gains down to the socio-economic ladder.

With the incoming administration’s commitment to pursue infrastructure development, I believe it is time to review the PPP program. The primary objective of the government is to provide free basic services, such as roads, to the people. If that’s not possible, at least provide the services at the lowest possible cost.

The new administration has to decide whether to use PPP as a means to raise money for the government or to achieve its primary objective.

The PPP program will help accelerate infrastructure development but the government should not rely on it heavily because the profit motivation of private sector participants will mean more costly services to the public.

According to the PPP in Infrastructure Resource Center (PPPIRC) of the World Bank, the development, bidding and ongoing costs in PPP projects are likely to be more than for traditional government procurement processes, so the government must determine whether the greater costs involved are justified.

The PPPIRC also points out that there is cost attached to debt, referring to loans that PPP proponents will incur to finance their projects. “While private sector can make it easier to get finance, finance will only be available where the operating cash flows of the project company are expected to provide a return on investment (i.e., the cost has to be borne either by the customers or the government through subsidies, etc.),” the PPPIRC says.

Another problem with up-fronting all the big projects is that it limits the playing field to a few, the two or three biggest players, to the exclusion of the mid-size players.

Thus, it is creating an oligopoly, which I think runs counter to President Rodrigo Roa Duterte’s promise to level the playing field for businessmen.

That’s the problem when the government allows the finance people to run the infrastructure program.

(For comments/feedback e-mail to: mbv.secretariat@gmail.com or visitwww.mannyvillar.com.ph)

source:  Business Mirror

Duterte’s economic agenda: doable, inclusive, and comprehensive

President-elect Duterte was swept into the presidency not on the strength of his economic agenda but on the promise of law and order and the wiping out the drug menace everywhere, in urban centers and rural communities.

One can argue that Duterte won the presidency largely due to his reputation as a punisher and, at the same time, as a compassionate mayor -- an indirect repudiation of the supposed ineptitude and indifference of the Aquino administration.

Overall, Mr. Duterte’s economic road map is doable, inclusive, and comprehensive.

Below are my random notes on Duterte’s 8-point economic agenda.

1. Continue and maintain the current macroeconomic policies. However, reforms in tax revenue collection [within the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Bureau of Customs] efforts will be complemented by the reforms within the bureaucracy of these tax-collecting agencies.

Uncertain.

I don’t know what macroeconomic policies will be continued and maintained. If it refers to the low interest rates and low inflation rates, then the low interest rates are more the achievement of the independent Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, not the Aquino administration. Low inflation rates are more due to the low cost of borrowing money (thanks to the 2008/2009 Global recession) and the sharp fall in oil prices (of which the Aquino administration deserve no credit).

I disagree with Mr. Aquino’s contractionary fiscal (expenditure-tax) policy. It should be reversed. Past and future growth could have been faster had the Aquino administration allocated and spent more money for public infrastructure. For the last six years, the outgoing administration has underspent close to a trillion pesos.

I agree that the efforts of the Bureau of Customs have to be stepped up. Smuggling is at its historic heights.

2. Accelerate infrastructure spending by addressing, among others, major bottlenecks in the Private-Public partnership (PPP) program. Maintain the target of setting aside five percent of the country’s gross domestic products (GDP) to infrastructure spending.

Agree.

But public infrastructure spending should not be limited to PPP programs. There are many capital projects, especially in the countryside, which are not susceptible to capital-intensive PPP arrangements.

For a labor-surplus economy like the Philippines, the government should put equal emphasis on many small- and medium-sized projects. They create a lot of jobs and they are faster to implement.

The public infrastructure target of five percent of GDP should just be the beginning. It should be as high as seven percent by the end of 2022.

3. Ensure attractiveness of the Philippines to foreign direct investments by addressing restrictive economic provisions in the Constitution and our laws, and enhancing competitiveness (i.e., “ease of doing”) the economy.

Agree.

Foreign direct investments (FDIs), unlike footloose capital or ‘hot’ money, create decent jobs and introduce into the country modern technologies which, in turn, would improve the competitiveness of the economy.

Sadly, during the last 5 years (2011 to 2015), the Philippines attracted a total of $20.4 billion FDIs, a measly amount compared to Singapore’s $305.6 billion, Indonesia’s $107.6 billion, Malaysia’s $56.6 billion and Thailand’s $42.0 billion (see graph).

4. Pursue a genuine agricultural development strategy by providing support services to small farmers to increase their productivity, improve their market access, and develop the agricultural value chain by forging partnership with agribusiness firms.

Agree.

Under the Aquino administration, agriculture grew by a measly average of 1.6% and was practically flat (0.2%) last year. The sector is expected to contract by single digit level this year.

Given an annual population growth of about 2%, agriculture should grow by at least 3% every year. But for this to happen, it requires massive infusion of productivity-enhancing public infrastructure (farm-to-market roads, irrigation facilities including small water impounding projects), fertilizer, high-yielding seeds, and investment in research and development.

5. Address the bottlenecks in our land administration and management system.

Agree.

The World Bank notes that a big chunk of land in the Philippines is untitled. A majority of land owned by agrarian reform beneficiaries is in the nature of collective, not individual, titles. Titling of untitled land should be the focus of the next administration. If done, it would bring about additional capital in the countryside.

6. Strengthen our basic education system and provide scholarship for tertiary education which are relevant to the needs of private sector employees.

Agree.

The hard reality is that unemployment is highest among college-trained and college graduates. This implies a mismatch between what the education system produces and what the economy needs. Strengthening the basic education system is also a way of providing better foundation for technical-vocational and college work. Scholarship should be provided on the basis of academic performance and needs, not on political connection.

7. Improve the income tax system to enable those who earn little to have more money in their pockets.

Conditionally agree.

The existing tax structure is close to two decades old.

Through inflation, it is taking more money from individuals and firms now than before. The existing income tax system is uncompetitive compared to our ASEAN-5 neighbors. Tax breaks for big firms continue to proliferate.

The Philippine tax system requires a comprehensive overhaul, not minor tinkering.

8. Expand and improve implementation of the Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) program.

Agree.

There are several ways to improve the CCT program.

First, the program’s leakage has to be plugged. There are many deserving beneficiaries who are outside the program while, at the same time, there are many undeserving participants who are in the program.

Second, by creating a parallel organization to administer the program, its overhead cost is much too high.

Third, local government units, to which social welfare programs have been devolved, were totally shut out of the CCT program. The unelected DSWD officials are lording it over the elected local authorities.

Here’s an alternative arrangement: DSWD may continue to identify the recipients through scientific survey methods, but the administration of the program would be shared with local authorities. This new setup will enhance fiscal responsibility of both national and local officials, and will give the latter part ownership of the CCT program.

In sum, the 8-point economic agenda is an excellent start.

Yet, the devil is in the details.

In the next few weeks, Mr. Duterte and his team should put flesh and blood to the skeletal framework. Moreover, he should identify the men and women who will carry out the agenda. Finally, he should reveal the strategy for managing the reform process, the timing, and sequencing of reforms.

Benjamin E. Diokno is a former secretary of Budget and Management

bediokno@gmail.com

source:  Businessworld

M&As and the PCC’s billion-peso question

In the past few years, our country’s credit rating has improved. From being tagged as the “sick man of Asia,” the Philippines is currently rated “investment-grade” by three of the major global credit rating agencies. Based on the publications issued by the outgoing administration, the increase in rating can be attributed to the strong performance of the service sector, trade, real estate and business activities, and manufacturing and construction subsectors.

Improving the economy has always been a part of any administration’s objective. Thus, the government is always on the lookout for ideas on how to attract investors. However, while there are advantages to having competitive businesses in our country, measures to safeguard competitive conditions should still be put into place. This is among the goals of the long-awaited Republic Act (RA) No. 10667, otherwise known as the Philippine Competition Act, which was approved by the President last 21 July 2015. 

To implement the national competition policy and attain its objectives of protecting consumer welfare by penalizing all forms of anti-competitive agreements, abuse of dominant positions and anti-competitive mergers and acquisitions, the Philippine Competition Act created the Philippine Competition Commission (PCC) under the Department of Justice (DoJ). 

Prior to the organization of the PCC, applications for mergers were forwarded by the Securities and Exchange Commission to the DoJ to get the necessary endorsement, to prove that the proposed mergers will not result in violations of the national competition policy. Thus, the timing for getting the DoJ’s endorsement would also have to be considered in case of mergers.

It was just last 1 February 2016 that the PCC was organized. Within the same month after it was organized, the PCC issued two memorandum circulars which provide the transitory rules and guidelines for mergers and acquisitions. These rules and guidelines are to be implemented until such time the PCC has come up with the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of the Philippine Competition Act. 

Under the transitory rules, mergers and acquisitions are deemed approved if the value of the transaction is P1 billion or less, or if notice has been provided to the PCC, for transactions valuing more than P1 billion. These mergers and acquisitions are deemed to have received a favorable ruling from the PCC and may not be challenged under the Philippine Competition Act, except when the required notice contains false material information.

The notice to be provided by the parties to a merger or acquisition agreement with transactional value exceeding P1 billion should contain the following information: [a] the parties to the merger or acquisition; [b] the name and contact details of the authorized representatives of each party to whom the Commission may address any correspondence; [c] a brief description of the business of the parties; [d] the type of the transaction, whether a merger or an acquisition; [e] the consideration involved in the transaction; [f] the key terms of the transaction; and [g] the timing for the execution or implementation of the transaction. The transitory rules do not provide a specific deadline for filing the notice to the PCC except in cases where at least one party to the transaction is a listed company. However, in general, it would seem best to file the notice before the target transaction date since one of the information required in the notice is the timing of the execution or implementation of the transaction.

In case of mergers or acquisitions involving a company whose shares of stock are listed in the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE), and with a transactional value exceeding P1 billion (Covered Transaction), the deadline for filing the notice to the PCC would depend on whether the transaction is required to be disclosed to the PSE pursuant to the Securities Regulation Code and its implementing rules. In case disclosure to the PSE is required, the parties should notify the PCC prior to the execution of the merger or acquisition. On the other hand, parties to Covered Transactions that are not required to be disclosed to the PSE should provide the said notice to the PCC before the close of business of the first working day after the Covered Transaction occurred.

Mergers or acquisitions with transactional value exceeding P1 billion that fail to comply with the required notice do not only run the risk of being questioned, but may be subject to penalties provided under RA 10667. 

In case of mergers or acquisitions of special corporations governed by special laws, such as banks, banking institutions, insurance companies, public utilities and educational institutions, the required notice to the Commission should not be construed as dispensing with the requirement of securing a favorable recommendation from the appropriate government agency.

With the recently concluded elections, Filipinos and the international community are keeping an eye on how the next administration plans to improve our country’s economy. Hopefully, its proposed steps would include the needed measures to carry out the policy objectives of the Philippine Competition Act and its anticipated IRR.

The views or opinions in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Isla Lipana & Co. The firm will not accept any liability arising from the article.

Maria Ysidra May Y. Kintanar-Lopez is an Assistant Manager at the Tax Services Department of Isla Lipana & Co., the Philippine member firm of PwC network. 

may.y.kintanar@ph.pwc.com

source:  Businessworld