Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Jarius Bondoc and the Uphill Battle

One of the posters today thanked Mr. Jarius Bondoc for devoting precious column inches in his article today at the Philippine Star to the controversy enveloping Pacific Plans.

He starts his column with the key question, "...Should customers be punished for a company’s wrong business plan? That is the core of a tiff between Pacific Plans Inc. and thousands of holders of its pre-need education plan. "

He ends that section by saying, "...The legal tussle will boil down to interpretation and jurisprudence on contracts. But prolonged legal battle will hurt the entire pre-need trade. Customers will begin to suspect that all sales pitches will stop at nothing to get their money, then stop at nothing again to get out of promises. The issue can turn to the most basic element of business: trust..."

************************

He then goes on to fill his column with a seemingly unrelated essay on a pre-eminent establishment...

"It’s usual for fresh grads of UP-Law to partner together with dreams to become a legal institution. But few endure. One such is Carpio Villaraza Cruz, today called Villaraza Angangco, though better known to admirers and hecklers simply as The Firm, which celebrates its 25th year this week.

The title of "The Firm" is a tribute to its success in conventional and non-traditional law practice. It holds a standing for being tops in litigation. Aside from corporate and trade law, it has advised two presidents: Fidel Ramos in 1992-1998, and Gloria Arroyo from 2001 to the present. It has helped fracture monopolies in telecommunication, banking and insurance.

What sets it apart is The Firm’s contribution to government service. Antonio Carpio was appointed Supreme Court justice in 2001 after serving the Ramos administration in various capacities, including presidential chief legal counsel. The sixth-placer in the 1975 bar exams, he obtained his UP-Law degree in the same year as valedictorian and cum laude. Avelino Cruz Jr. was Arroyo’s chief legal counsel before his appointment to Secretary of Defense. He too was cum laude and salutatorian of UP-Law in 1977, had placed seventh in the bar exam, is a member of the New York Bar, and was president of the Philippine Bar Association.

Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo, a former partner, was handpicked by Arroyo for the anti-graft body after a stint as Solicitor General. He ranked fifth in the 1979 bar test, after seminary and then law schooling. Joe Nathan Tenefrancia also served as Arroyo’s chief legal counsel before becoming senior deputy executive secretary. He was UP-Law’s salutatorian in 1991.

At the helms of The Firm since its rapid growth in the early ’90s is managing partner F. Arthur Villaraza. Nicknamed Pancho Villa(raza), he has mentored dozens of partners, some of whom have moved on to form their own firms in the country or abroad, or branched out to other fields. He graduated third in UP-Law 1975. Assisting him is Reggie Angangco, one-time president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and UP-Law 1980 valedictorian. Together they lead The Firm of 60 lawyers. No matter what detractors say, industry leaders, decision makers and top politicians seek their counsel."


A happy coincidence and juxtaposition or is Mr. Bondoc trying to communicate something that he cannot explicitly discuss? Who knows? But as some of the posters have insightfully pointed out, the intersection of the battle between us and Pacific Plan's owners is the rehabilitation plan. The hearing date is fast approaching.

While we are steadfast in reiterating that blind hate never achieves anything, it is nevertheless incumbent upon us to vent righteous anger and to understand who and what we are up against. The readers of this blog may also wish to contribute useful background information on the Makati RTC judge who granted the TRO and will hear the rehabilitation case.

God works in mysterious ways, as the invocation goes. We may even be able to prevail on these lawyers to remember their burning ideals and their foresworn duty to use their talents to protect the weak and disenfranchised.

94 Comments:

At Wednesday, April 27, 2005 4:27:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We may even be able to prevail on these lawyers to remember their burning ideals and their foresworn duty to use their talents to protect the weak and disenfranchised."

Don't bet on it, buddy!

 
At Wednesday, April 27, 2005 4:58:00 PM, Blogger Sef said...

I am not a pacific plan planholder and unaffected by the issues. However, i am very much interested to know how this would turn out.

Meanwhile, I am wondering why no financial details of PPI are available in the media or even here in this blogsite when I thought they can be obtained from the SEC. Is anyone studying those aspects and looking for possibilities where the company could have commited fraud, if there is?

 
At Wednesday, April 27, 2005 5:46:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did the posting reflect the complete article of Mr. Bondoc. Is it possible to post the complete one in the web. Thank you.

 
At Wednesday, April 27, 2005 5:46:00 PM, Blogger corporate conscience said...

To Sef;

Details are indeed with the research and legal team. They are playing their cards close to their chests and may not want to unnecessarily disclose info that may reveal their strategy

 
At Wednesday, April 27, 2005 5:56:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since his column comes out only 3 or 4X a week, it is normal for Mr. Bondoc to tackle two issues. Unless he has complete materials on a particular issue then he can dedicate a whole column (or even a whole week's allocation) to that particular issue. Apart from his Gotcha column, he also has a talk show "Linawin Natin" in IBC 13 and a radio show "Sapol ni Jarius Bondoc" which airs in DWIZ. I think that we can help Mr. Bondoc get our message across by providing him with the necessary information on our plight. He may be reached by email at jariusbondoc@workmail.com, do try to reach him as he is known to be incorruptible.

 
At Wednesday, April 27, 2005 6:31:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The coalition is invited for tomorrow's DEBATE SHOW of Winnie Monsod and Oscar Orbos (GMA7). We need the SHOW OF FORCE again so please do join the group. You can bring your scholars to the show. Meeting time is 8:00p.m. at the Jamboree Gate of GMA7. Their main gate though is at Timog Ave.

Those who have the coalition tshirt, please wear them. For the others, please wear black.

Please text 0922-4188418 if you could come.

 
At Wednesday, April 27, 2005 8:50:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Be prepared to answer questions on the coalition's divisiveness. I heard PPI talking about that this morning in the news. They are harping that some planholders are okay to the 7%.

 
At Wednesday, April 27, 2005 9:00:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

At around 10am this morning, an interview with PPI came out of ANC News and they were harping on the issue that some planholders were in favor of the rehab plan.

AT around the same time, this board received the same type of messages, which went on for much of the day.

Coincidence or orchestrated? You decide.

 
At Wednesday, April 27, 2005 9:15:00 PM, Anonymous MOM said...

This is for our children. God is on our side.

Our children could not fight for themselves, we stand here, for them.

 
At Wednesday, April 27, 2005 11:53:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As responsible parents, it is our primary duty to ensure that our children have a bright future. this is one time we can all get together and make sure that our children will not grow up only to be taken advantage of by abusive and grossly selfish people like the yuchengcos and all its supporters and backers! we should not let them get away with this!!!

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 12:41:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To whoever posted re some planholders that are okay with the 7%...we can not please everyone. If they are happy with that, so be it. But I feel there are a lot out there who stand on the premise that a contract is a contract is a contract. It's the INTEGRITY of the Yuchengco's that we question.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 1:21:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I gathered from a reliable source that some lawyers working for The Firm are also PEP planholders, however it is also the Firm who are lawyering for the Yuchengco group. Maybe Mr. Bondoc is trying to tell us something when he mentioned the history and background of The Firm and its powerful connections in both the executive and judicary departments. We must therefore prepare ourselves for the legal battle to come because i am pretty sure the Yuchengcos and their cohorts will exert all efforts and use their connections to fight us every inch of the way.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 1:37:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dong Puno Live (ABS-CBN) will be shown tonight at around 11:30pm (or almost midnight). I was part of the audience during the taping. Planholders should not miss it. This is especially true for the so-called silent majority (i.e. those who want their money back). I hope that you will be enlightened and therefore, change your minds.

Please note that the DEBATE show of Monsod and Orbos (GMA) will be shown simultaneously with Dong Puno Live. This show will likewise tackle the Pacific Plan issue tomorrow.

This means that you may have to switch channels between the 2 channels.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 1:48:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here is the schedule of Dong Puno Live:

Channel 2 or Channel 8 for SkyCable
Thursday - 11:30p.m. or almost midnight (after Insider)

ANC Channel 21 for SkyCable
Friday - 3:00a.m.
Saturday - 6:00a.m.
Sunday - 1:00a.m.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 2:37:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Planholders,

To validate PPI's claim about the tuition fee increases, please get from your respective schools their tuition fees from 1990 to present (i.e. Elem, HS, College).

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:53:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

i am a member of the silent majority (non-ex) but i do believe and still believe that the organizers who are mostly exlusive planholders are just out to use our numbers and advance their own. I still believe that they can cope with the cost of education of their children now. To affirm their adherence to the supposedly ideals of the coalition, may I suggest that all of them sign a covenant that their children will not enrol during the pendency of this issue. I believe they cannot do it because kaya naman nilang magbayad ng matriculation ng mga anak nila kahit walang PEP. Sa mga non-exclu like me, we hardly make both ends meet but we compose the majority of the PEP planholders. Must we entrust our future and the future of our children to a few who we all know can have all the luxuries in life and still have excess of this.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 7:39:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To my kapwa non-ex member of the silent majority and to those satisfied with the 7% :

I am also a non-ex planholder (partially availing for Elem) and also have a pension plan with Lifetime.

The fact na ang Yuchengcos will not honor their commitment to our children is panloloko.

Another panloloko is the discount rate of 12% (in Exhibit A of their letter) they will use to reduce the future availments left (for those partially availing). You will only need to discount if you will receive the money now. But 2010 pa nila ito ibibigay.

At bakit mas malaki ang ibabawas -12% kaysa idadagdag - 7% ?

Kaya dapat, magkaisa tayo!

Huwag nating pabayaang lokohin ni Yuchengco ang ating mga anak !

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 7:46:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ako ay isang OFW na mayroong anim (6) na PEP tradisyonal na education plan. Binili ko ang mga ito dahil sa sinabi ng PEP na babayaran nila ang edukasyon ng aking mga anak maski na anong halaga abutin ang matrikula nga mga paaralan. Binili ko rin ito noong panahong hindi hamak na mas mura nilang ibinebenta ang mga ito kaysa sa mga ibinebenta nila ngayon. Hindi ko maintindihan kung saan nanggagaling ang nagsabing kaya kong magbayad ng matrikula ng aking mga anak dahil ako ay humahawak ng tradisyonal na PEP education plan. Ito ay "non-sequitor".

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 7:48:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

for the parent of the non - ex policy , i am a exclusive parent , though non avialing , i stand to get hurt more than both of you because i got my plan from the secondary market , but i do believe regardless of what plan we have and what status we have , we are all shortchanged by the yuchengco's . therefore , may i suggest that we should all stand united against them and make a concerted effort , kaya kaya kung sama sama . let us not divide ourselves because this is the future of our kids we are talking about . let us fight towards one goal securing the future of our children today .

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 8:29:00 AM, Anonymous MBA STUDENT said...

I am an MBA student and just an avid observer. I think the COALITION forgot that after all the emotions, people will be thinking and looking at options. Plain and simple, if Pacific is not paying up(not a single cent), you will get 100% support. If pacific is returning money+plus interest, then the planholders will be divided.

In business school, the best guarantee to customers is "money back", and Pacific is doing exactly this .

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 8:29:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

to the parent who posted that he/she is a member of the silent majority (non-ex):
i don't agree with you that most member of the coalition specifically the organizers are parents of those children from exclusive schools. As member of the membership committee I can attest to you that there are so many parents who joined the group and still joining
are from middle income families who like you as you said bought the education plan from PPI just no matter what happened to them, their children can go to school no matter what the cost at the time of availment. We should at least be thankful to the organizers who are using their precious time, effort and money just to fight for our cause. It would be unfair for them to accuse them of using the majority of the planholders to advance their own. It does not really matter if you are a planholder of an exclusive or a non exclusive plan, what we need is to unite for the sake of our children's future; It is the EDUCATION of our CHILDREN which are at stake here and not anyones personal interest.... THE PEP's COALITIONS cause is OUR CAUSE.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 8:54:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To MBA student:

Before you butt in with your one-and-a-half cents' worth, you better read what Pacific's open-ended educational plan says. You obviously haven't and you also obviously don't understand the main issues involved.

After you read and understand someone's open-ended plan, come back here and tell us if your previous comment makes sense in light of the real issues. Don't make any other comment or suggestion until you do, because you will sound terribly uninformed again.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 9:25:00 AM, Anonymous MBA STUDENT said...

In fact, my classmates and I got a copy and reviewed the policy statement.
For your knowledge, a normal contract or policies is made up of (simplified):

1) Parties
2) Services
3) Limitation
4) Termination

In your case, everyone is stating what is in the services portion of the contract but not in the limitation and termination section. They go hand in hand:

Ex.
Services:
Pay me 10 Pesos, I will pay P2 for the next 5 years.
Limitation:
I will only pay you P2 if exchange rates are xxx
Termination:
We forget about this agreement if the interest rates are over x%

In PPI's case, the termination section is their Section XV and the guarantee that everyone is stating is in the services clause.

My 2 cents worth.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 9:35:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is the future of our country that is at stake here. If we let the Yuchengcos get away with this, this country is DOOMED. This will definitely set a precedent. Lalo na lang tayong aabusuhin at pagsasamantalahan ng mga mayayamang ito. The Y group keeps on saying that their other companies have their own shareholders to protect. But what did they do to the trad planholders? We put money in PPI so we are shareholders as well. Kaming mga trad planholders ay iniwan ng mga Yuchengco sa kangkungan. Do you call that protecting the interest of the shareholders?

Their refusal to infuse capital into PPI was not to protect the shareholders of their other companies. Sino ba ang mga shareholders ng mga YGC companies? Ang mga Yuchengco ang majority stockholders, right? So it is REALLY PROTECTING THEIR OWN INTEREST.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 9:36:00 AM, Anonymous WM said...

Now for those falling into the hands of the Yuchengcos and are lulled into accepting the window for encashment of their plans being set up, go ahead , make Yuchengcos day complete. Assuming you received a letter informing you of receiving 80,000 in 2010, do you think that’s the amount they’ll pay you for now. Definitely not, you’ll more or less get only about 60% of its value since your pre-terminating it.

Now to those claiming that they can hardly make both ends meet. so they’ll just go along with what Pacific wants. The more you should be siding with the coalition since what we are fighting for is for Pacific to pay the completion of our childrens education no matte what the cost is and not just enough money for 1 school year. If you go along with that, then please go ahead its your money anyway but where will you get the money for the next 3 years of education.

I would like to call also the attention of the person who set up the website to do some changes. Wouldn’t it be better if the comments are first screened before its posted. It has become evident that some comments are being suspiciously place just to cause division among our ranks. There are those claiming that they are the majority when its evident that the real majority wants PPI to fulfill its commitment to pay for our childs tuition no matter what it cost whether they are poor or rich.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 9:37:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the non- ex planholder:

I bought an Exclusive1 plan for my two kids. I have 3 kids, I did not buy any plan for my third kid. Therefore I have 3 kids going to school.

It is not true that we can easily send our childern to school. It is enrollment time and we haven't enrolled yet because we still have to raise funds for the 3 children. This problem with pacific is unexpected, it caught us unaware.

Th the MBA student:

I don't know your status in life. My position is simple. I need the tuition fee for my children now, in full, as agreed in the contract. Not partial tuition support, but benefits in full. Not in 2010, but NOW. This is urgent and I'm frantic. By that time,in 2010, dapat di ko na kailangan itong educational plan. That time, dapat, tapos nang gamitin. But what did these yuchengcos do?

This is what the yuchengcos actually want to see: for us to be divided and throw garbage to each other. They will easily take advantage of that.

But i am just wondering about those who seem to be supporting the move of the yunchengcos. Aren't you afraid for yourselves, for your children, that people like these yuchengcos can manipulate the financial system and might just get away with it?

Don't you have parents, bothers, sisters, friends who bought pre need plans (educational,pension, memorial, etc. )? Seemingly, you even are planholders yourselves. Is this okey with you? That these big business people especially in the financial services industry will simple manipulate situations for their own GREEDY BENEFIT? OKEY NA YAN SA INYO?

If there are more people like you, who support criminal acts of people like the yuchengcos, this country will go nowhere. We Filipinos will always be a poor country because we allow ourselves to be taken advantage of, and say AMEN.

KOWTOW AND KISS THEIR ASS.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 9:41:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's just really sad to know that there are people with NO CONSCIENCE and COMPASSION. And I'm talking about the masterminds of this PPI fiasco. Puro sarili na lang ang iniisip. Aren't they satisfied with all their riches and power.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 9:47:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the non ex planholder,

Why do we have to prove to you or to anyone that we cannot pay the tuition fee now? We bought educational plans to secure the education of our children. That's the ONLY reason we are here.

The Yuchengcos violated the contract. Whether we hold non-ex plan or the Ex1 plan is beside the point, you see?

The MBA guy doesn't know what he is talking about. I have a PhD.

I think you writers are yuchengcos redeeming your tarnished name.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 9:51:00 AM, Anonymous Techie said...

It is very obvious to me that while there are indeed sincere planholders in favor of the 7%, there are many more who are planted by YGC to sow dissent. Is there any techie genius here who can trace the IP addresses? I believe there is a recording facility that allows the blog administrator to do that. My IT person demonstrated it to me. Think of how great it would be (sarcasm intended) if you can trace it to any of the YGC companies, employee address, their lawyers or PR agents.

This may sound draconian but I would suggest everybody be required to log in before posting a comment, instead of just clicking anonymous. You don't have to log in your true name but it makes it easier to trace the IP address. All sincere posters (whether you are for or against the 7%) need not fear anything.

The downside to this is posting even from sincere parties may go down, simply b/c it is another step in the process, and some may feel wary or simply lazy. I'll leave it to the blog administrator to decide.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 9:53:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the person asking if it's possible to screen the comments prior to posting...

I don't think that this is advisable since this so-called silent majority will have more reasons to 'attack' the coalition. They will be wondering why their comments were not being published and ask where is the 'freedom of speech'.

Let them do their thing. We, in the coalition, should just stand firm and continue with our CAUSE. Anyway, what we are doing is for the GOOD and we believe that GOD is on our side.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 10:14:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To mba student:

Granted Section XV is their exit clause, it remains to be seen that they can legitimately invoke this as the reason for their actions. If you are referring to the "government legislation or regulation" as the fortuitous event which imperils their position, I think you will be on very shaky ground. That "government legislation" was in 1992, 13 years ago! Very late in the day for them to bring this up now.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 10:21:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I say only one thing:
STOP THE REHAB PLAN!

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 10:51:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

to the mba :

yes, money back guarantee for unsatisfied products or services purchased as per the law and receipt - to make your customer happy. in the case of ppi, the contract does not say money back guarantee but 100% tuition support no matter what the cost - also to make your customer happy

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:17:00 AM, Anonymous mba student said...

If I am running this business, and this thing happened to me. I will do exactly the same thing. I will stop selling this plans, Pacific Plans stopped it in 1992. I will try to service as much as I can and hopefully, I can fullfill all my obligations.

Would you stop all your operations in 1992? I will say no and so will some of you. You will try as hard and prolong it and see if you can fullfill your obligations.

As mentioned, I am not a planholder. Maybe I see more, without all these emotions and biases. You are getting back to Yuchengcos because they have other companies(btw, distinct and independent) . What will you do if Pacific Plans belonged to Mr. X with only one company? You will definitely take your money + 7%, no questions asked.

That is why businessmen have to put up several corporations so that if one of your company goes down, your other companies won't be affected.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:24:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

WE SHOULD ALL UNITE..WE ARE ALL IN THE SAME BOAT. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT THE YUCHENGCO/YGC/PPI GROUP WILL HONOR THEIR OBLIGATIONS AFTER THIS FIASCO?

IF THEY ARE ABLE TO GET AWAY WITH WHAT THEY DID WITH PACIFIC, THEY CAN EASILY DO THE SAME FOR LIFETIME AND ANY OTHER COMPANY FOR THAT MATTER.

THEY ARE VERY SHREWD AND UNETHICAL.

WHAT MAKES YOU THINK YOU ARE SAFE WITH ANY OF THE OTHER YGC GROUP OF COMPANIES?

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:31:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

to mba student:

I can now see that you are looking at this as just another case study for your MBA class. Well and good. I hope you will learn how to be unethical, ruthless and cold-blooded as the Yuchengcos in your pursuit of profit. I also hope that in the future, you will not have to endure the loss of any of your dreams for your children. May you also not suffer any injustice at the hands of other businessmen. But if you do, may you find sympathy from others when you cry for help.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:35:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TO MBA,
Even if Pacific stopped selling original plans, they still encouraged their agents to sell in the secondary markets.

Why didn't they recall the plans earlier and redeem at the market value? The truth of the matter is: pangit talaga ang pag-handle nila dito.

And why don't you take up Business Ethics 101?

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:36:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think what's best for all of us to do is try to sit down and negotiate with PPI. Perhaps in one forum where representatives from both PEP Coalition and PPI management would talk, air their sides, and come up with a better solution, which can be beneficial to both parties.

Let's stop being emotional and face the issue affront - just the real issue please.

And to our media friends. Please take a closer look at the issues and facts at hand before we start throwing our axes. Be fair to both sides please.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:37:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Very late in the day for them to bring this up now."

I agree. Their inaction for the last 12 years (up to 2004) may be deemed as waiver on their part to invoke the termination provision.

The declaration of dividends in those 12 years (to the pocket of the owners) plus other suspicious Cash outflows from PPI are aggravating circumstances that shows that they were not concerned about future liquidity problems.

Their move in creating Lifetime Plans which was tainted with deception, manipulation, and bad faith only shows their desperation to cover up their mismanagement of the situation.

Simply, they are struggling in a quicksand. If their cohorts - judges, govt officials, media persons are not careful, their career will be dragged down together with the Yuchengcos. If Gloria is not careful, her presidency maybe put in danger as well.

The SEC must therefore, undo what the Yuchengcos did and revert back to the point before Lifetime Plans was created. Then, we evaluate the total picture. Any negotiations must be based on the total picture and not just the virtually empty shell that PPI is right now.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:51:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

WE ALSO SHOULD LOOK INTO WHY NAPOCOR BONDS? WAS IT PURCHASED THRU RCBC?

IF SO, MAYBE RCBC WANTED TO UNLOAD THIS AT A PROFIT TO GET OUT OF THEIR BOOKS. NAPOCOR NOT BEING PRIME AS ONCE PERCEIVED.

WAS EVEN LOOKING AT BLOOMBERG AND NAPOCOR DOES NOT EVEN HAVE HISTORICAL PRICES..SO WHAT WAS THE BASIS.

MAYBE RCBC ALSO HAD TO SELL THE NAPOCOR BONDS SO THEY CAN REALIZE A GAIN TOO.

PUT ALL THE BASURA IN ONE BASKET.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:53:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are some news reports coming out that the Yuchengcos are studying a bailout plan.

DO NOT BE LULLED BY THIS. Unless I see it in writing, and in concrete specific plans, signed by the Yuchengcos in a binding contract, I DO NOT BELIEVE THEY INTEND TO GIVE A FAIR DEAL.

BLOCK THE REHAB PLAN!

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:53:00 AM, Anonymous mba student said...

mba student again here.

If you are claiming that Pacific Plans should have declared section XV in 1992, do you know that in your policy, if you have read it, termination value only amounts to 50% of original plan value.

Would that be a lot better for everyone compared to plan value + 7%?

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 12:11:00 PM, Anonymous MOM said...

MBA student,

Are you a parent of a Pacific plan beneficiary?

If not, you have no idea what we parents are going thru now.

Please don't add salt to our injury. We suffer sleepless nights because of this. The PEP Coalition gives us hope that something good can come out of this and we will be able to pay our children's tuition fee.

We are not a mere case you can discuss in your MBA class. This is suffering at its height. Maybe you should help assuage our pain through your high education.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 12:45:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

MBA Student,

It is very basic if PPI recalled their traditional plan in 1992, they are the ones terminating the contract therefore they have to pay the planholder in full plus interest. The fact thay they did not do this and encourage secondary market shows that SUAPANG talaga.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 12:52:00 PM, Anonymous mba student said...

mba student here again.

To answer above, look again in your policy. Due to section XV (government legislation or regulation), pacific plans could have stopped fullfilling obligations in 1992 and paid out the terminal value of 50% of ORIGINAL plan value (0 interest). It makes me wonder if most of the people her are policyholders.

This is my last post. I am sorry if I caused pain to some planholders but at the end of the day ,after all the emotions, you have to present your case based on facts and not emotions. Also, to remind you that your policy,that you signed, is your agreement with Pacific Plans so it should be reviewed carefully. It should be reviewed by not taking extracts one line at a time, but understanding the policy as a whole.

Good luck to all of you in whatever option you take.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 1:10:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I must say that although I do not agree with the sentiment of MBA, I do welcome his points b/c it helps us prepare for our own arguments better.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 1:30:00 PM, Anonymous Jo said...

Sayang naman.

Sayang ang website.

Some of us have misused this precious resource. This website should be used to help each other but it is becoming something else.

I hope, others will use this site properly. Isa lang ang objective natin- protect the education of our children. This is one of the tools we can use.

So we can forward faster, we work in a single direction.

Let us open our eyes, minds and hearts so we can see things clearly.

Sayang ang opportunity that we have in our hands to get ourselves heard by the yuchengcos. Ayaw nila tayo pansinin di ba? They sent us all to kamagong di ba.An office without phones. Let us not forget where we are coming from and where we are going.

Parents, let's work peacefully. That's the only way to get the results we want.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 1:47:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

hi!

just wanted to know where is the office of pacific plans located because i went to kamagong today to inquire but all i see are guards there, can anyone help me please.....

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 3:10:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

PPI offices had transferred its offices again at Philippine Trade Training Centter (PTTC) Roxas Blvd. corneer Sen. Gil Puyat Ave. for April 27-30 only.

After April 30, SAAN NAMAN KAYA??????????

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 3:33:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To MBA student:

You tell us to read our agreement, quoting sections from it when you yourself don't understand what you've read.

Section XIII on Plan Termination Value says: "PLANHOLDER may terminate his in force plan at any time by giving written notice to PACIFIC and he shall be entitled to termination value as follows..."

So, Mr. or Ms. MBA student, per this section, if it is the planholder who initiates the termination, he will be subject to the termination values laid out in the schedule. He gets back only a fraction of the total plan payments, the difference being the penalty levied on him for terminating the contract. This does NOT necessarily mean the same termination values would prevail if Pacific initiates the termination, as is the case now. That would be grossly unfair, as that would be unjust enrichment on the part of Pacific. You're way off base on this one, too.

You may be an MBA student but sorry to say, you're not going cut it with your lack of analytical skills. I never had an MBA but maybe that's good, too, because I can see things better without too many theories making my thinking as fuzzy as yours.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 3:52:00 PM, Blogger ceteris paribus said...

MBA Student,

the crux of the issue here is whether PPI was negligent and committed fraud.

forget for the moment as to whether sec. XV is legal or not. PPI knew that they could not meet up the obligations back in 1993 when the rules were changed. the question is, why did they not redeem these securities?

their subsequent action, to move profitable assets out of a company and leave it with the nonperforming ones is ILLEGAL in any language. this is mainly brought about by the fact that they allowed their problems to fester.

they were in effect, underwriting risks that they could not deliver on. i hope this clarifies your perspective.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 4:55:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

interesting why one would choose a monicker "mba student".
. . . think about it.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:07:00 PM, Blogger PARTY OF ENLIGHTENED PLANHOLDERS (PEP) said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 6:11:00 PM, Anonymous GIN said...

To anonymous who was wondering whether PPI bought Napocor bonds from RCBC. The answer is YES!!!! This was mentioned days ago here. Somebody please get the details of this transaction. Apparently the bonds was bought ONLY in 2003.. that's only 2 years ago. Research and legal group, please take note!

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 7:14:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TO PRO-REHAB Parents: party of enlightened planholders -- Please, do not claim to be the silent majority. No one can claim that... precisely because the silent group is not voicing out their position.

The silent group is likely to be a fence sitter... waiting to see who gets a better deal, then they will side with the better negotiator.

Also... why would the pro-rehab parents intentionally use the anti-rehab PEP COALITION initials? To sow confusion among the Coalition members? hmmmm.... why?

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 7:16:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TO PRO-REHAB Parents: party of enlightened planholders -- Please, do not claim to be the silent majority. No one can claim that... precisely because the silent group is not voicing out their position.

The silent group is likely to be a fence sitter... waiting to see who gets a better deal, then they will side with the better negotiator.

Also... why would the pro-rehab parents intentionally use the anti-rehab PEP COALITION initials? To sow confusion among the Coalition members? hmmmm.... why?

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 7:26:00 PM, Anonymous myrna said...

mba,
You need to make more research before saying those things. You are an mba student how about me am an employee of PPI?

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 7:37:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

pacific plans bought napocor bonds thru a dollar loan from rcbc.

the promise of pacific plans to give money back in 2010 is USELESS because the interest on the dollar loans will eat whatever interest is due to the bondholder. the bonds are worthless to begin with!

the loan is bigger than the worth of the bonds.

ginagago lang talaga tayo ng mga yuchengco.

check thoroughly the docs filed by pacific plans with the SEC last 2003.

pero, ika nga, the FIRM is the FIRM.
lawyers pa lang, matindi na.


buti na lang may IMPIYERNO pa rin para sa mga abogadong walang kunsiyensya. Ang lalakas ng mga sikmura ninyo!

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 7:38:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the one who suggested to withhold the children's education.... how can you even suggest that? Punish the kid's future to prove your point? medyo T--ng- ata yan a. Each parent's responsibility is to make sure the children go to school. It is their future at stake here.

The coalition is fighting for all availing and unavailing, exclusive and non-exclusive planholders.... that PPI fulfill its contractual obligations. Won't you be better off with that deal?

For those parents who want to accept the 7% interest.... you can go and do so, it is your choice. Why get upset at those who only wnt PPI to fulfill their obligations?

Strange.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 7:38:00 PM, Anonymous myrna said...

mba,
you better stop your studies in mba no company will ever hire you by the way. i have been an employee of PPI for more than 20yrs and a pep trad plan owner. I know more than you the in and outs of the yuchengcos. Do you own even at least a policy with PPI/lifetime? maybe you don't even have one? you better not make any comment that is for your own good.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 9:07:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"pacific plans bought napocor bonds thru a dollar loan from rcbc."

Did I get this right??? Pacific borrowed money from RCBC to buy these government bonds? Why would a company that does not do much but collect money all year round have to borrow money from somewhere else to buy government bonds? If this is true, this will definitely have to be looked into very, very closely. As the saying goes, "follow the money".

This is going to be fun, digging up all this dirt. We're going to have mudpies galore before this is over. Guess who will be the target of all those mudpies?

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 9:24:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To MBA

May I know what school are you studying from. I just want to make sure my sons never make the mistake of studying there.

 
At Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:35:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Any Lawyers here in this forum?
If so, please enlighten us on the legal background of this Makati Judge that rendered the Suspension of Payment Order.

Is it true that before he became a Judge, he was a Senior Partner at "The Firm" i.e. Carpio Villaraza Law Office?

Is it also true that the Firm is the legal counsel of the Yuchengco Group of Companies?

If so, is there conflict of interest in here. I mean, the Judge should have inhibited himself. Could he someday be made liable for his one-sided decision?

 
At Friday, April 29, 2005 12:24:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did you notice that while PPI is saying that they will pay in Year 2010 at 7% interest, in reality, PPI is offering negative, repeat, negative interest. All you need to do is look at your respective letters sent by PPI.

In my case, my high school scholar has availed of P70,014 in his 1st year. PPI estimates availments in the next 3 years at the same amount (completely ignoring possible tuition fee increases). Now, Pesos 70,014 for 3 years will amount to P 210,042. Deducting the P 35,000 tuition support, the resulting PPI obligation amounts to P175,042 over the next 3 years. Compare this amount to PPI’s computed Maturity Value on July 31, 2010 of Pesos 145,400.

If I am entitled to P175,042 in 2005-2007, and PPI delays these payments to 2010, and considering that there is an interest earning of 7%, shouldn’t the amount increase? Yet, PPI is going to reduce, not increase, the amount by giving only P 145,400 in year 2010.

It is easy to compute the correct maturity value in 2010. The P35,042 due in 2005 will earn 7% interest per year over 5 years to 2010. The P70,042 due in 2006 will earn 7% interest per year over 4 years to 2010. The final P70,042 due in 2007 will earn 7% interest per year over 3 years to 2010. The total of all these, or the correct maturity value in 2010 is P226,653. This is 56% higher than what PPI would have us believe as the proper amount.

How is PPI trying to hoodwink us into accepting their erroneous computation? Their method, as shown in their letters to us, is to multiply the amount of their future obligation by a low number, in my case by 64%. This is supposed to “de-escalate” their future obligations to 2004 values (not 2005), by assuming an interest rate, according to my computations, of over 20% per year. Then, they escalate the supposed 2004 value by 6.5% every year (not even 7%) up to 2010.

What is the concept behind PPI’s computation? The “de-escalation” to 2004 values is like theoretically advancing payments to us, and for that we are paying PPI over 20% interest per year advanced. (Note that even if the money is already due today in 2005, PPI is able to de-escalate by choosing 2004 as base). On the other hand, when the payment is delayed from 2004 to 2010, PPI is offering only 7% (I compute only 6.5% in their formula).

What crazy method is this? When PPI theoretically advances the amount to us, we pay them over 20%, but when PPI actually delays payment, they give us 6.5% interest.

While the delay in payment is in itself unacceptable, PPI even tries to cheat us by reducing the delayed amount by a very large percentage.

 
At Friday, April 29, 2005 12:33:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the MBA guy;

didn't they teach you ethics and moral in where you are studying?

From where I got my degree, we had that as one of the most important pillars and foundation! We were taught that profit is not everything!

By the way, I have some law units too! What they did was unlawful since it is a breach of contract (Law of Obligations and Contract). Criminally, they may be into Fraud or Estafa- depending on the evidences at hand. Mind you their officers and board members are accountable too! Not a lawyer though, and not pretending to be one.

But did pass a board exam and got a masters from a very reputable school that adheres to the sensitivity of being morally obligated to my fellow man (and women).

Unfortunately in our local setting- it will take years to resolve the case and we can't just allow our kids to sit idly and let their future slip away, just because the Yuchengcos decided to drop their obligations.

Let me know where your getting your degree- at least I know where I won't send my kids!

 
At Friday, April 29, 2005 2:42:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Saw the "DEBATE WITH MARE AND PARE". The Pacific Plan "consultants" or "sales persons" sure were up in arms ready to bite us off!

Can't blame them though. They have their job to protect. They seem to forget that it was they who solicit us for the Pacific Plan for the education of our kids! It was they who earned the commissions from the sale of such educational plan.

One such consultant was pointed out how greedy we are in terms of investing P50,000 and expecting to get P500,000 worth of educational support! If we had intended our money to make a mere 7%, we'd have done better by investing it in a cart of fishballs and squidballs, than those Napocor "no coupon" bonds.

The reaction of Ms. Monsod upon hearing that the funds were invested in those commercial paper was priceless!

Moreso is her ending statement- "Why should the planholders be punished for investing their money and trust the Pacific Plans?" and "Mas mayaman pa ang Pacific Plans (Yuchengo) kaysa sa gobyerno!"

Congrats to those who represented us! Bravo! Again- the time for action is now! All these talk show will surely help us (except when it's Ces Drillon whose handling her "no brainer" interviews while texting (who knows it may be Helen Yuchengco Dee that she's testing?) for exposure sake. But remember the Yuchengcos' have big pockets to sustain a counter PR effort. If you haven't notice it yet please read the Inquirer yesterday.

To the MBA student- pray tell what school you're taking your degree. I must ask my kids to avoid it at all cost! Plain and simple- your comments are off even the segments that you point out are misplaced!

Surely, my kids will condemn me if I allowed them to take their masters degree where you are taking it now! In the first place, if that school has any worth, it shouldn't have accepted you in the first place!

 
At Friday, April 29, 2005 2:43:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To all those who kept answering the MBA student. Please refrain from doing so because you are just giving that person satisfaction and its a waste of precious space. For all we know, that person is just a mole being planted by the Yuchengcos because what was being stressed by that person is also what the reps of PPI kept repeating as their defense.

 
At Friday, April 29, 2005 2:46:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One lesson I learned on internet forums. Don't wallow in the mud with pigs. You will lose and the pig loves it.

 
At Friday, April 29, 2005 3:17:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And also take note, our current SC Chief Justice is Carpio. This is the very reason they went directly to the courts, the judicial body. Siguradong wala silang talo. See the link with the so-called "The Firm"? And the so-called "The Firm" could be linked to you know WHO!

 
At Friday, April 29, 2005 7:23:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At Friday, April 29, 2005 8:30:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Both the Dong Puno Live and Debate shows last night exhibited how whomever manipulated all this fiasco thinks he/she or they are so damn clever to pull off practically swindling all the planholders out of serving their end of the deal but clearly NILAMPASO naman sila ng Coalition Group and the PPI was clearly exposed of the fraud they committed kahit pa nga sabihin nilang overpaid na sila, its not their fault, nag-deregulate etc. etc. etc. etc. hello? they are in the insurance biz and they really shouldn't be if they will not face up to their commitments once they felt the company's sinking and to think they orchestrated pa ba this sinking to give them leeway for the rehab... the issue is they are negating their contract and in the insurance business that's mortal sin 'coz precisely the business is based on trust... they should be charged and convicted not only of fraud, estafa even and economic sabotage 'coz they are in a sense killing the pre-need industry and SANA nga the Coalition prevails and rightly so indeed... I commend all the people working hand-in-hand in the Coalition group, sana walang magsawa, walang mag-turn coat o mapagod sa laban...

All planholders should support the Coalition in order for us to get served only for what we all paid and hoped for... the future of our children...

Come to think of it, it does seem that PPI has all the machinations of stealing the cake, eating it whole and laugh all the way to the bank (RCBC?), they actually believe they could get away with it what with the ever patient, submissive culture of the Filipinos, ever so forgiving and easy to forget the slights done them, they thought the planholders are so diversified they cannot unite and fight but they are so wrong, maybe they thought since they sold traditional plans traditional Pinoys bought them, beep - wrong... it was a plan for the modern minded Pinoys who are feisty and intelligent and knows and have the guts to fight for their rights and we should not take this sitting down... We do need to unite, all planholders, whether naka-avail na, mag-aavail pa lang, di pa mag-aavail, exclusive, non-exclusive... to win this we have to unite that's the bottom line 'coz masakit mang isipin it is indeed a virtual David and Goliath thing, but hey we all know who won then, we just need to a whole David in our midst, a whole David is a united Coalition...

I do wonder, for all the sleepless nights of all the parents who counted on this Educ.Plan, the stress and aggravations, paano kaya nakakatulog yung mga taga-PPI, paano nila nasisikmura yung ginagawa nila... There is a good GOD over all this... if the judicial systems fails or the gov't even, fails and PPI got away with it at the end of the day, God is there to judge them and they could not get away then... right now prayers, a lot of it would help...

and let's all support the Coalition Group, what they're doing no amount of money can buy...

 
At Friday, April 29, 2005 11:07:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The money all of us will be receving at the end of 2010 is equivalent to only one year of schooling for our children assuming tuition fees stays the same. But it will not. After i read all the comments, it seems some of our planholders do not understand the whole dilema of the situation. They simply do not understand the core issue: The issue here is that there is a contractural obligation between two parties. One party kept his side of the bargain, while the other did not. Its a simple "breach of contract." What we are fighting for is our rights under the contract. The issue of the middle-income class not bothered by this fiasco is not true. Economic conditions in the country is not that postive anymore. Businesses are not expanding and has remained at its present levels. All of us are in the same boat with a captain (the president) who is steering us everyday to our doom. The issue here is not who can afford to send their children to schooling even with the fall of PPI. The issue here is our right to enforce what PPI has "assured" us. Let our lawyers do the legal tussle. But in our own small way, let us support each other rather than say things to divide us. It cud also be that this website is already inflitrated with persons representing the YGC group to wreak havoc among ourselves. Let us not succumb to their evil scheme. They know that their days are numbered and they are desperate so that public opinion will go their way. But I say to you, dear PPI planholders, will we let them?

 
At Friday, April 29, 2005 11:33:00 AM, Blogger Harry Potter said...

The NAPOCOR bonds are dollar denominated bonds issued Dec 10, 2002. It is a zero coupon bond and was sold at a huge discount. $0.45/dollar. AT such a discount, this bond should realize a yield to maturity (YTM in bond terms) of about 15% to 16%. It has a maturity term until July 12, 2010. The reason why you cant get its historical prices is because it is an illiquid issue. Meaning there are no market makers or market takers out there in the secondary market to price it. Simply because this bond and the name it carries is not exactly a prime name. In fact, when it was issued, it had no credit rating. The only "good thing" about it is that it is guaranteed by the govt. (I wonder if the govt will also reneg on this?)Now, you think about it. A bond guaranteed by the gov't, who would you think would buy n support it? Think deeply about it.

 
At Friday, April 29, 2005 12:02:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I like to commend people like Mr Bondoc for providing fair and well written insights and commentaries on Pacific Plans. Two other commendable journalist are Victor Agustin (Inquirer "Cocktales") and Boo Chanco (Phil Star "Demand and Supply") who today, April 29,2005 gave their insight and comments.
Truly, it is not only the dreams of the planholders that will be shattered but the name that the Yuchengco's have built in the business community. Moreso, the Yuchengco's should recognize the impact to the financial business sector (insurance, banks,etc). As socially responsible corporation, they should not be greedy and only think of protecting their profits. While I understand that every corporation have the objective of gaining profits but this should be gained with integrity and not deceit. Let us all pray that the business community will not commit to the same mistakes that the Yuchengco Group did. The future of our children are at stake, let us work and pray together to enlighthen these people.

 
At Friday, April 29, 2005 3:17:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

READ THIS FROM PHILSTAR COLUMNIST Boo Chanco

The Yuchengcos must protect their name
DEMAND AND SUPPLY By Boo Chanco
The Philippine Star 04/29/2005

The Pacific Plan fiasco is a good case study in crisis management. How the Yuchengcos react, how they finally resolve the problematic situation will determine the level of trust the public will have on them as managers and guardians of people’s money in their banking and insurance businesses. The family has been eerily quiet for now.

While a Pacific Plans official told the ABS-CBN News Channel the Yuchengco Group of Companies will help Pacific Plans if only to keep the integrity of the other business units intact, he was unclear what form the assistance would take. It seems nothing short of direct infusion of fresh funds would be required to bail out Pacific Plans. While using resources of RCBC, for example, is not legally possible, nothing should stop the Yuchengcos from using family resources to rescue family honor that is now at stake.

Forget the legal aspects of the case for the moment. Forget even the money aspects in the short term. This is a public relations catastrophe, with very serious marketing implications moving forward. Pacific Plan itself is not as important as the Yuchengco brand name.

I am reminded here of the Tylenol case, a classic PR and marketing crisis management case study. Some psycho poisoned some Tylenol tablets and planted the product in a drugstore in the American Midwest some decades ago. I don’t remember the specifics of the case but I recall that there were at least one, maybe two deaths as a result of the adulteration.

Johnson and Johnson, disregarding the amount of money involved, ordered the recall of all Tylenol products still in the market all over the United States. This dramatic show of concern for the welfare of the consumer won it the respect of the public and eventually helped Tylenol recover as a brand. Money is not the issue. Lawyers are not the issue. Consumer safety is.

In the same way, the Yuchengcos must be aware by now, that at stake in this crisis is not Pacific Plans but their very ability to remain in a business that demands the total trust and confidence of consumers. For all we know, Pacific Plans may have followed the right legal procedures in filing for rehabilitation, but the public will judge the Yuchengcos based on how they take care of their clients. This is what the crisis is all about.

There is no doubt that Pacific Plans is a Yuchengco company. Its logo is the familiar logo shared by Yuchengco companies, like the very profitable and very solvent RCBC, Malayan Insurance, Great Pacific Life and a host of other companies. The trust and confidence the Yuchengco brand name enjoys was built through the years and its market value must certainly exceed the P300 to P600 million that is being quoted as the funds Pacific Plans need to get back on track and fulfill its obligations to clients.

It is also clear that in the case of education plans Pacific Plans promised to pay the cost of education, whatever it might be at the time the planholder needs it. So Pacific Plans as with CAP and many other education plans made some very wrong assumptions. Who could have predicted the Asian financial crisis? Who could have thought that government would deregulate tuition fees? But all that is beside the point. A promise was made and it must be fulfilled.

Making good on the promise is also socially important because the planholders are essentially from the middle to lower classes of society and have no other alternative to finance their educational needs but those easy to pay plans. A default has adverse impact on the trust our common people would have on our financial institutions and government.

If the Yuchengcos know what is good for them in the long run, they would make good on the promise, no matter what it would cost them now. That’s the only way they can protect the Yuchengco brand name, on which in turn, depends their bread and butter businesses in banking and insurance.

As it is, there seems to be an ill-advised concerted action to precipitate a withdrawal of confidence on their other businesses through text messaging. If text messaging can bring down the Erap administration, it can bring down a business empire. The argument seems to be, if the Yuchengcos appear to have financially mismanaged Pacific Plans, how sure are we that the banking and insurance businesses are not in the same predicament? Only decisive action from the Yuchengco Group can save the entire conglomerate from the after effects of this crisis.

I see the Yuchengcos with having more to lose in a failed Pacific Plan than the Sobrepeñas in a failed CAP. The Yuchengcos, unlike the Sobrepeñas, have a record of financial success and public service. It would be a pity to see all that hard work of the venerable Al Yuchengco and his ever dependable daughter Helen, go down the drain. I am sure the value of what they have accomplished is worth more than P300 or even 600 million, specially in terms of future value.

The other thing I worry about is the loss of confidence people would have on investment instruments in general. Pinoys have a low savings rate and for some reason, education plans are just about the only formal savings and investment plans that ordinary Pinoys have put their trust on.

If they cannot trust the respected Yuchengco name, how can they trust any of the others? In fact, some of the planholders are saying they bought their education plan from Pacific Plans precisely because of the seal of guarantee the Yuchengco name offers. Itaga mo sa bato, so to speak.

This crisis of confidence, first with CAP and now with Pacific Plans, could make it more difficult to develop a capital market here with broad based participation, a pet dream of top RCBC official and former Prime Minister Cesar Virata. That would set back our economy’s ability to finance its growth through domestic capital formation.

I hope the taipan and statesman Al Yuchengco sees the big picture here and does what is right to protect his legacy, his brand name and the Philippine financial market. Masakit man, kailangan panindigan. It’s that simple, assuming of course, they still plan to do business in this country.

 
At Friday, April 29, 2005 5:25:00 PM, Anonymous Thank you, Boo said...

A great, big THANK YOU to whoever posted the article of Boo Changco. I don't get the Star so would have missed it if you hand't posted it.

Changco puts the case so exactly right. All planholders went from thinking "Oh no, how will I pay the tuition", or "Oh no, I lost so much money" to "I feel cheated - and I thought the future was secure" and finally "What is safe? Will I be cheated by my other insurance plans? There is no security in this country anymore ... "

Changco expressed in cool-headed business terms what we planholders felt in our guts.

 
At Friday, April 29, 2005 5:41:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Congratulations to those who represented us in The Dong Puno Live Show. The Coalition was both strong and firm. Especially, Mr Piccio and Mrs. Bonifacio. Cheers to you both for fighting for our cause. I strongly agree with Mr. Piccio's statement that we are not the ones who broke the contract but them. We definitely should continue fighting because we are in the right.

 
At Friday, April 29, 2005 5:45:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You should have heard the interview with the coalition spokesperson Philip (forgot the family name)on radio this afternoon at around 2:30pm.Even the interviewer raffy tulfo agreed with him. The Yuchengcos must have ran with the money. Saw him also on t.v. last night at Dong Puno Show. Keep it up sir. Your fighting for my college education. Thanks a lot.

 
At Friday, April 29, 2005 5:45:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You should have heard the interview with the coalition spokesperson Philip (forgot the family name)on radio this afternoon at around 2:30pm.Even the interviewer raffy tulfo agreed with him. The Yuchengcos must have ran with the money. Saw him also on t.v. last night at Dong Puno Show. Keep it up sir. Your fighting for my college education. Thanks a lot.

 
At Friday, April 29, 2005 8:52:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

we have a traditional high school plan for our son. for 5 years, i religiously paid our annual PEP payments using my Christmas bonus. this meant for 5 years, my bonuses where not spent on Christmas items but went to pay for my son's high school plan. it was rather sad not to be able to spend for Christmas but i knew it was for a good cause.

now, it seems all the sacrifices i made were all for naught. PEP isn't just cheating my son, it cheated me out of 5 Christmas seasons of my life.

i could have chosen other means of saving for my son's education, i could have bought a plan from another company but i chose to get it from PEP primarily because i trusted the Yuchengcos. no matter how hard they try to wash their hands off PEP, it is undeniable that majority of the planholders got their plans from PEP because of the trust and confidence the Yuchengco's name exudes. boo chanco of phil star said it very well;

"I see the Yuchengcos with having more to lose in a failed Pacific Plan than the Sobrepeñas in a failed CAP. The Yuchengcos, unlike the Sobrepeñas, have a record of financial success and public service. It would be a pity to see all that hard work of the venerable Al Yuchengco and his ever dependable daughter Helen, go down the drain. I am sure the value of what they have accomplished is worth more than P300 or even 600 million, specially in terms of future value"

at the end of the day, would Ambassdor Yuchengco, allow himself to be remembered as the "great cheat" who stole other people's dreams?

 
At Saturday, April 30, 2005 12:46:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kudos to Mr. Bondoc & Mr. Chanco for publishing their opinions in the newspaper. They really put it objectively & simply...thank you and more power to media people like them!

 
At Saturday, April 30, 2005 11:22:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

May I know when and where mr. Bondoc's article on Pacific Plans came out? Sorry for sounding so clueless. . .

 
At Saturday, April 30, 2005 11:58:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To MBA student,

What was your grade in ETHICS?

 
At Saturday, April 30, 2005 3:11:00 PM, Anonymous Gin said...

Saw Debate on Channel 7. I think the Coalition scored point after point. Even Mr Yasay was firm about his opinion about a need for investigation into what PPI did last year(transfering profitable products out to Liftime and then selling PPI to another company "kuno"). The other SEC guy was nobody to listen to about. He just doesnt know anything that was going on... always talking about his being new with SEC etc etc and all just lip service. All the PPI agents just didnt know what they were arguing about. Hey... with what happened now, did you now realize that YOU ALSO DECEIVED US? YOU SWEET TALKED US INTO THIS MESS. ALL OF YOU WILL HAVE YOUR KARMA ONE DAY I tell you.

I just loved our team!! BRAVO! and GO GO GO PEP COALITION!!! We need more people like you, always there from day 1 The show just proved that WE, as planholders did our homework while they, PPI agents, were just fed information from their boss .... TO PEP COALITION, KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.. LET US BE VIGILANT AND CONTINUE OUR FIGHT UNTIL OUT LAST BREATH. I know I can count on our team... GOD BLESS US ALL.

By the way, a direct source of information - as told to me by a Branch Manager (not RCBC) that there was a withdrawal of P200 million from RCBC by a Bacolod client last week. This depositor moved his whole P200 million placement to the bank of my BM friend, so much so that this bank was suddenly awashed with cash!!

This is the right thing to do... All those who have sufficient deposits and business transactions with RCBC.. move them to another bank fast... This will show the Yuchengcos that even the silent majority, and even those who do not have educational plans are supporting the COALITION. Although they may not be with us physically, they can boycott the YGC companies by just avoiding their businesses. One can talk to any layman on the streets. And eveybody will say the Yuchengcos did the wrong thing, they cheated us of our children's future.

 
At Saturday, April 30, 2005 4:30:00 PM, Anonymous wm said...

Mr. Bondoc article came out last Wed. April 27 together with Mary Ann Reyes. Mr. Puno and Phil. Star editorial came out with their own view Thurs. April 28 , while Mr. Chanco did his comment yesterday Fri. all in Phil. Star.

Our appreciation to Phil. Star for informing the public of the truth.

 
At Saturday, April 30, 2005 10:28:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To the poster who used his christmas bonuses to pay for the high school plan of his son. Kindly contact the coalition thru leo 0919-4235789. Thanks..

 
At Monday, May 02, 2005 10:46:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

if you have a yahoo address go to no2pep2010 in yahoo groups. Some interesting stuff in the files section. spread the word.

 
At Tuesday, May 03, 2005 9:31:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How do i go to no2pep2010? i have a yahoo address. Thanks

 
At Thursday, May 05, 2005 9:25:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Yuchengcos and their ilk, being the crocodiles that they are, were blinded by greed and forgot that we are now living in the Information Age. They under- estimated the power of the Internet in bringing together the affected parents. They thought we could not get ourselves organized. They thought we would just take all their lies sitting down. Boy, were they wrong.
Let's fight the good fight.
Someday we can proudly tell our kids that we, simple working parents, confronted a giant corporate villain, and we didn't blink!!
I am proud to belong to this coalition!!

 
At Friday, May 06, 2005 5:15:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GOTCHA By Jarius Bondoc
The Philippine Star 05/06/2005
* * *
Pacific Plans Inc. e-mailed a rejoinder to my piece on how it seemed to be made to fail on purpose (Gotcha, 2 May 2005). Its points:

"(1) On leaving 34,000 (traditional education plan holders) in a lurch. By filing for rehabilitation, PPI sought to protect the interest of the 18,000 plan holders who are still to avail of the benefits under the plan.

"(2) On PPI’s P1-billion profit in 2003. The reported P1-B gain is from trust funds of three product lines: education, pension and memorial. Trust Fund income accrues to the Trust Fund, and under SEC regulation cannot be disbursed for any purpose other than for the payment of benefits.

"(3) On the setup of Lifetime Plans and transfer of 99.6percent of assets. Based on audited financial statements at the time of transfer, only 70% was moved to Lifetime.

"(4) That holders will be given anywhere from P7,000 to P35,000 to cover part of tuitions which actually amount to P50,000-P150,000. Tuition support ceiling is given based on school category, ie., exclusive, non-exclusive and government-subsidized. Tuition support for those enrolled in non-exclusive and government-subsidized schools is estimated to cover 90-95% of their last tuition. Admittedly, tuition support for exclusive schools are less because of their higher tuition costs.

"(5) That balance will be paid only in 2010 with 7% annual interest. PPI is currently negotiating for a liquidity window where plan holders can encash the fixed value plan before 2010.

"(6) That investment in Napocor, which has been losing P100-B a year, was PPI’s lookout. Napocor bonds are unconditionally and irrevocably guaranteed by the Republic of the Philippines.

"(7) On stock replies to anticipated questions. These were meant to address questions by plan holders about the spin-off. This is usual for any organization undergoing changes."

One of the major developments in the PPI saga came not with the rejoinder but in the form of a terse announcement on May 4, entitled "AY comes to PPI’s rescue," to wit:

"Amb. Alfonso Yuchengco said that he is raising funds from personal resources to assist Pacific plan holders. He stressed that although this is a corporate matter for Pacific Plans, he is doing this in his desire to help parents pay their children’s tuition requirements for this year’s school opening. The fund to be raised, which shall be up to P250m, will be used to provide additional tuition support, details of which are being finalized and will be announced shortly. With the end in view of resolving the issue, PPI shall meet and dialogue with the concerned plan holders."

 
At Sunday, May 08, 2005 3:06:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Pacific Plan holders:

I am a Mapuan. Our message board before a scheduled student rally was flooded with fake Mapuans trying a divide and conquer strategy. Be forewarned. I see the same thing in your blog.

Dear MBA student, you write like Nina aka Carrie Ong in our message board trying to persuade the Mapuans to drop the fight by taking care of their studies not to join rallies, boycotts and LOA (Leave of Absense) and instead blame the student, alumni and faculty leaders as the trouble makers who are selfish and trying to sacrifice the welfare of the students.

Be forewarned again:
When they failed in persuasion, some of our sites began be to attacked and hacked.

The internet is a very powerful tool. WE couldn't get media coverage even when some alumni paid PhP50k for PR people so we resorted to the internet.

We're already asking people to boycott all Yuchengco companies. Please advice people you know not to enroll in Mapua which by the way is now 'Malayan colleges operating under the name Mapua Institute of Technology'

Good luck to us all. Anti-yuchengco, Anti-Malayan

 
At Monday, May 09, 2005 12:57:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

could someone please enumerate the companies owned by the yuchengco's para maiwasan ko na. thanx.

 
At Monday, May 09, 2005 9:47:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

College Education in Crisis

Five years from now, the Philippines’ tertiary
education will likely face a crisis if the current
trends in college enrolment and dropouts will
continue. Due to continuing tuition hikes more and
more students enrolled in private colleges and
universities find themselves either dropping out or
forced to transfer to state institutions.

By Carl Marc Ramota
Contributed to Bulatlat
(First of two parts)

Five years from now, the Philippines’ tertiary
education will likely face a crisis if the current
trends in college enrolment and dropouts will
continue.

Citing recent studies, the Anak ng Bayan Youth Party
revealed over the weekend that due to continuing
tuition hikes more and more students enrolled in
private colleges and universities find themselves
either dropping out or forced to transfer to state
institutions.

But the state universities and colleges (SUCs) are
plagued by similar problems: Not only are they few now
and their enrolment quotas limited, they are also
haunted by increases in tuition and other fees thus
forcing many state scholars to leave.

As a result, Raymond Palatino, vice president of Anak
ng Bayan (nation’s youth) said, students who can no
longer afford to study in expensive private tertiary
schools and are planning to transfer to public higher
education institutions may just have to give up their
dream of earning a college diploma.

Palatino also predicted an upsurge in the rate of
college dropouts and number of out-of-school youth in
the coming school year, a situation that will worsen
in 2010.

Recently, the United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) National Commission
of the Philippines reported a measly 22 percent
overall student survival from 1st to 4th year college.
In June 2004, the Wallace report revealed that the
dropout rate in college is at a staggering all-time
high of 73 percent.

A similar study – a primer on the country’s education
system - was made by the National Union of Students of
the Philippines (NUSP) also in June last year.

Palatino said that access to public higher education
institutions, which are the last resort for students
who want to obtain a college degree, has become
impossible to many college hopefuls. While it is true
that SUCs offer a tuition lower than private schools,
educational expenditures in state schools and
universities have seen the biggest increases in recent
years, thus making it also inaccessible to ordinary
students.

Exodus from private school to public

A new report by the Commission on Higher Education
(CHED) shows that the number of tertiary population in
schoolyear 2002-2003 was 2.4 million compared to 1.87
million in 1994-1995. It cites however that while
state institutions had their population soar by
415,972 (from 399,623 to 815,595 during the same
period), private colleges and universities could only
absorb an additional 139,357 enrolees (or from 1.472
million to 1.611 million).

It is true that in 1997, enrollment in private
tertiary schools grew by 6.47 percent. By 2002 however
the figure plunged drastically to a -2.8 percent.
Enrollment figures in private schools fell by 46,354
in schoolyear 2002-2003 from 1,657,735 in the previous
year.

The exodus of college students enrolled in private
schools to state universities and colleges (SUCs) over
the last two decades is also shown in other CHED
records. In 1980, only 10 percent of college students
were studying in SUCs. By 1994, the number went up to
21 percent and in school year 2002-2003, it already
accounted for 34 percent of tertiary population.

Apparently, Palatino said, many college students have
been going in droves to SUCs in recent years because
of the incessant tuition and miscellaneous fee hikes
in private schools as mandated by the Education Act of
1982.

This is aggravated by the low priority that government
places on state education as manifested not only by
constantly chopping down education budgets but also by
reducing the number of public tertiary schools in the
country. From 271 in 1996, the number of public
tertiary institutions was down to only 173 by 2002.

As a result, enrollment figures in public tertiary
schools have also seen a sharp decline since 1997,
from a growth rate of 20.75 percent that year to only
0.9 percent by 2002.

Biggest tuition increase in SUCs

In recent years, the shift from public to private
funding of SUCs has resulted in the jacking up of
tuition and miscellaneous fees in all these
institutions. The biggest increase in tuition took
place in the Philippine Normal University (PNU) last
2003, from P10 to P50 per unit or 400 percent.

Ladderized tuition hikes are also ongoing in SUCs in
Central Luzon and Bicol until 2006. The

Central Luzon State University (CLSU) plans to
increase tuition and other fees by as much as 298
percent. Similarly, the Aklan Polytechnic Institute
will implement a 400 percent tuition increase within
four years, which effectively doubles tuition every
year.

Most of these increases were the result of the
imposition of a tuition scheme similar to the
Socialized Tuition Fee Adjustment Program (STFAP)
implemented in the University of the Philippines (UP)
in 1989. Under the program, the UP tuition shot up by
nearly 300 percent, from P11 to P300 per unit today.
This scheme is also now being implemented in public
technical and vocational schools in the country.

While some SUCs increased their tuition by more than a
hundred fold over the last years, some feigned by
pretending to maintain the same rates. What they did
however was to increase miscellaneous fees as well as
tuition in graduate schools.

At the Polytechnic University of the Philippines
(PUP), for instance, tuition remains at P12 per unit.
But the same university has imposed a 67-100 percent
hike in processing fees this school year. The biggest
increase was for the fine for late enrolment, from P10
to P100. And there are new fees charged: for shifting
form, verification of grades per subject, re-admission
fee and change of subject or schedule.

Other SUCs such as the University of Northern
Philippines in Vigan, Ilocos Sur and Samar State
Polytechnic College in Eastern Visayas collect a P200
development fee.

In UP, laboratory fees in five departments and
colleges have increased from P50 to P600. In its
graduate schools, tuition increased in 2001, from P300
per unit to a maximum of P700, a 66.67 to 400 percent
hike.

Anak ng Bayan Youth Party’s Palatino said that with
educational services now being treated as a mere
“commodity for trade,” educational institutions
previously insulated from market forces due to
relatively stronger state support in the past must
from now on bow to the "harsh discipline of the
market."

“By ‘privatizing’ institutions of higher learning, the
state must now clamp down on the proliferation of
non-viable campuses and course offerings,” he added.
“Apparently, the ideal of ‘non-viability’ is not
connected to any other concept than that of
profitability.”

Paying scholars

Overall, Palatino said, expenditures for public
education including tuition, lodging, food,
transportation and books have soared in recent years.
He cited the findings of the 1998 International
Comparative Higher Education Finance and Accessibility
Project of the University of Buffalo on Philippine
higher education which reveals that a student in a
local university or college (LUC) who lives with his
or her parents needs at least P46,950 every semester.
On the other hand, an iskolar ng bayan (state scholar)
who lives as an “independent adult” will need as much
as P101,650 a semester.

So now, most Filipino families can’t anymore afford to
send their children even to public schools, especially
given the stagnant wage level and declining income, he
said.

Based on the 2003 Family Income and Expenditure Survey
(FIES), the average Filipino family income went down
by 10 percent compared to year 2000 figures. The
inflation-adjusted average family income in 2003 fell
to P130,594 in 2003 from P145,121 in 2000.

Province of the elite

The current crisis in tertiary education, Palatino
said, should also be blamed on government’s policy of
rationalization. The policy allows SUCs to be treated
no longer as national agencies performing
socially-oriented activities and hence entitled to
government subsidy, but as income-earning entities.

“This further translates into incentives for
money-making tertiary schools, thereby fully
encouraging the commercialization of education,”
Palatino said. “The policy has ensured corporate
dominance even in public education, making tertiary
education the province of the elite.”

He said government’s own education policies further
inflate the ballooning uneducated population. “If it
will continue its present thrust on education, the
government will be driving more and more students out
of school every year,” he said. Bulatlat

Profit-makers Produce Mediocre Graduates

If the average tuition rate increase of 12 percent
continues for the next five years, the national
average per unit would reach P590.20 by 2010. By then
tuition would have increased by as high as 1,257.41
percent since 1990.

By Carl Marc Ramota
Contributed to Bulatlat
(Conclusion)

Many college students are dropping out of school, but
there are no similar danger signs as far as some
private universities and colleges are concerned. Their
new corporate owners are raking in profits as they
continue to hike tuition and other fees.

But the question is, do higher college costs mean
quality education? Not necessarily, if recent reports
about the results of board or licensure exams are any
indication.

In the current schoolyear, 381 out of 1,321 private
higher education institutions - or 29 percent of the
total – have applied for tuition increase. The
national average tuition increase is 11.37 percent or
P33.15; the current rate per unit is P334.89.

In the National Capital Region, the average tuition is
pegged at P614.54 posting a 10.83 percent increase
compared to last year’s figures.

A study made by Anak ng Bayan Youth Party on the
rising cost of tertiary education showed that in just
five years, from academic year 2000-2001 to the
present, the national average tuition rate has
increased by as much as 63 percent. The National
Capital Region (NCR) average rate, on the other hand,
went up by 57 percent.

Based on the Commission on Higher Education’s (CHED)
records on tuition increases, tuition was steadily
increasing by an average of almost 12 percent for the
last five years.

Deregulation of tuition

Raymond Palatino, vice president of Anak ng Bayan,
blamed the Education Act of 1982 for the staggering
tuition hikes in the last two decades. “By giving them
a free hand in determining tuition rate, the Education
Act effectively bestowed private school owners
limitless powers,” he said.

Batas Pambansa (national law) No. 232, otherwise known
as the Education Act of 1982, laid down the guidelines
and regulations governing the collection and
application of tuition and other fees by all
educational institutions. In particular, Section 42
gave private schools a free hand in determining
tuition rates thus allowing private schools to
increase the fee every school year.

The deregulated environment set by the Act ensured the
wholesale commodification of a fast-expanding private
tertiary education, Palatino said.

“This was also the reason behind the unexpected
collapse of the College Assurance Plan (CAP),”
Palatino said. “CAP’s downfall merely highlights how
the cost of education, particularly in the tertiary
level, has dramatically increased after the
deregulation of tuition.”

From 1990-1995 just before the Asian financial bubble
burst in 1997, tuition jumped to 275 percent. For the
last 15 years since 1990, tuition has swelled by a
whopping 670 percent.

Anak ng Bayan projects that if the average tuition
rate increase of 12 percent continues for the next
five years, the national average per unit would reach
P590.20 by 2010. By then tuition would have increased
by as high as 1,257.41 percent since 1990.

But these figures only speak of the average tuition
rate per unit in private schools. Most exclusive
schools charge tuition five times higher than the
average.

At present, Jose Rizal University (JRU) in
Mandaluyong, Metro Manila imposes the highest tuition
rate with P2,600 per unit. The runners-up include De
La Salle University (DLSU)-Manila (P1,506/unit); Asia
Pacific College (P1,240/unit); and Mapua Institute of
Technology (P1,254.64/unit).

Based on the average tuition increase every academic
year in these schools, tuition per unit in JRU would
reach P4,582.09 in five years; DLSU-Manila with
P2,654.10; Asia Pacific College with P2,185.31; and
MIT with P2,211.10. In 2010, a student with a full
21-unit load have to pay P96,223.89, P55,736.10,
P45,891.51 and P46,433.10, respectively.

“Clearly, the relentless hikes in tuition and other
fees have earned for private school owners millions of
profits over the last two decades,” Palatino says.
“This largely explains why some business tycoons like
Lucio Tan and the Yuchengcos are now venturing into
tertiary education.”

Most of these schools have consistently landed among
the country’s top 1,000 corporations since 1996. By
the end of 2003, nine schools were included in this
list. Their combined profits amounted to P1.13
billion.

Private schools frequently listed among the top
corporations in the country in terms of profit are the
Centro Escolar University (CEU), MIT, Far Eastern
University (FEU), UE, Philippine Maritime Institute
(PMI), Technological Institute of the Philippines
(TIP), AMA Computer University and STI College.

Substandard education

So, does expensive education mean quality education?
This is not so in the country: While the cost of
tertiary education has increased, the results of the
licensure examinations showed a continuous decline in
the quality of higher education in the last few years.


In 1995, the Task Force on Higher Education even said,
“College education in the Philippines is comparable to
top science high schools in the country and regular
secondary education in Europe and Japan.” This comment
is reflected by the pathetic results of annual
licensure examinations.

In the list of most popular programs, according to
CHED, are Teacher Education, Accountancy, Criminology,
Marine Transportation and Electronic and
Communications Engineering (ECE). However, records of
the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) show that
only a fraction among the thousands who flock to these
courses are able to attain their dream professional
career.

The national passing average for these courses and for
most programs offered in the Philippines has not even
reached 50 percent. From 1997 to 2001, the passing
rate for Accountancy was only 18.40 percent;
Criminology was better with 47.60 percent; and ECE was
the highest so far with 48.20 percent.

In the 2003 licensure exams, Accountancy remained the
lowest at 19 percent. Teacher Education, both in basic
and secondary level, had only a 26 percent passing
rate.

So mediocre were the results that in the same year,
CHED ordered the phasing out of 115 higher private
institutions that had a five percent or lower passing
rate in the licensure exams. Of these, only 17 schools
have followed the order.

Some schools are offering programs without government
permit. The most notorious of these, according to
CHED, is the ABE international School of Business and
Economics. ABE is currently offering degrees in Hotel
and Restaurant Management, Business Administration,
Tourism and Accountacy in its Caloocan, Taft and
Makati branches with no standard permit from CHED.

Dim future

Palatino urged lawmakers to repeal the Education Act
of 1982. “Our lawmakers must immediately act to stop
these tuition and miscellaneous fee increases and put
a moratorium on the proposed new round of hikes for
the next school year. Unless the government starts to
flex its muscles on these increases, we will be seeing
a higher drop-out rate and bigger number of
out-of-school youth in the next five years.”

Even CHED admits that “unless BP 232 (Education Act of
1982) is repealed or amended, the most viable course
for all concerned is to take a close look at where the
increases are going.”

“Unless the government reverses its present education
policies and its thrust to hand over tertiary
education to private sector and until it flexes its
muscles to stop the incessant hikes in tuition and
other fees, it will certainly bury the confidence,
hopes and great faith of the Filipino youth and the
nation for a brighter future ahead,” Palatino warned.

 
At Monday, May 09, 2005 6:00:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since the incident in Mapua erupted, they've been trying to pull out references to member companies of YGC and list of their board of directors in the internet. Mapua and Pacific Plan / Lifetime shares almost similar board members. Don't even think of CHED to help, brother Dizon of DLSU who is heading CHED is board member of Mapua and the Mapua name change was railroaded there. YuchengCons group of companies and affiliates includes:

GREPALIFE,Lifetime Plans,Bankard,Pan Malayan Management and Investment, Pan Malayan Travel and Tours,Pan Pacific Computer Center, YGC Corporate Services, Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC), RCBC Savings Bank, House of Investments, Malayan Insurance Company, The First Nationwide Assurance Corporation, Malayan Reinsurance Corporation, Malayan Zurich Insurance Company,, Tokio Marine Malayan Insurance , EEI Corporation, Nippon Life Philippines, AY Foundation, Honda Cars Quezon City, Honda Cars Manila, Mapua Institute of Technology, Manila Memorial Park, First Malayan Leasing and Finance Corp,
Pacific Plan, ABN-AMRO, Malayan Insurance, Manila Memorial, Bankard, Funeraria Paz, iPeople, Honda cars Kalookan, QC and Manila, Isuzu cars Makati, Subic power, Philippine Integrated Ad agency, Nippon Life, IE Works, Network Plus Referral Program.

companies with significant Yuchengco holdings:
Manila Peninsula Hotel, China Banking Corporation (said to be at least 30% owned by the Yuchengcos)

Companies with some Yuchengco investments and them sitting as board of directors:
Smart Communications (one of the Yuchengco sons or grandson is a director); PLDT (where Helen Gree-Dee is a director)

YuchengCons are said to be buying into Centro Escolar University (CEU). REports also of ownership of Emilio Aguinaldo College.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home