Photo from website of Amerasia International Terminal Services Inc.

Manuel Urbano Jr. sounded excited as always when he phoned on June 8th, his 84th birthday. I thought he would ask me like before to help tackle a hot issue on his hit YouTube channel “Mr. Shooli.” Then my jaw dropped when he said from out of the blue, “Mr. Shooli is losing steam.”

“It can’t be po,” I replied about his show that metamorphosed from mainstream television’s “Mongolian Barbeque” in the 1980s to “Mr. Shooli” in film and online. “It’s a YouTube sensation. Episodes go viral. Audiences mimic the gags, the intonation, even production styles. And it has many sponsors.”

Manong Jun hushed me: “I don’t mean Mr. Shooli the show, I mean me as Mr. Shooli.”

Fans knew it’s the inimitable Jun Urbano behind the comedic Mr. Shooli. But he always differentiated between himself as creator-director and Mr. Shooli as character. Program guests in the past three decades realized that. He’d tell them for example, “After Mr. Shooli introduces you and the subject matter, go right in as you wish.”

But on that morning he referred to Jun Urbano and Mr. Shooli as one. Odd.

Manong Jun expounded: “Todo ganado pa rin ako. But it’s becoming harder and harder to get up from bed, research the material, write the script, put on costume and make up and set up lights, audio-video and gear.” Naka-alalay pa ng husto niyan si Banot at Morado (two of his four sons.)

He ended the call with a wish, “Panahon na ng mga bata, sana sila naman.”

Manong Jun had undergone quintuple heart bypass in 2012. He was later diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. But that never seemed to bother his hectic work. Before and after his heart surgery, he produced more than a thousand television commercials.

He appeared weekly as Mr. Shooli in the TV satire “Mongolian Barbeque.” Viewers became familiar with his bright red regal attire, fu manchu moustache on the side of his lips and supposedly chinoy accent. They laughed as he told them their faults through comedy.

He also produced and starred in two movies. The titles hinted at the satirical content. “Juan Tamad at Mr. Shooli sa Mongolian Barbeque” was about the fabled indolent Pinoy who lay down under the guava tree and waited for the fruit to ripen and drop by itself into his mouth.

“Ang M.O.N.AY. ni Mr. Shooli” or “Misteyks op da Neysion Adres Yata” parodize politicos. Jun Urbano’s best friend Leo Martinez directed and costarred as Tongressman Manhik-Manaog. They obviously got away with it.

Jun Urbano had other projects in mind, including one on the sad-happy life of overseas Filipino workers. Another is about a US-born millennial balikbayan who learned that the good in the homeland outweighed the bad so decided to stay. Friends were eager to finance him. But in at least two press interviews he said he felt he was about to board his final flight.

He did last Saturday, Dec. 2. But not before two fitting tributes.

On Aug. 13, The Filipino Academy of Movie Arts and Sciences honored Jun Urbano with its highest accolade. The Dr. Jose R. Perez Memorial Award was for his “outstanding achievements and lasting impact on the film industry.”

FAMAS recognized Urbano’s dedication to the craft, “cementing his legacy in the annals of Filipino cinema.”

The University of the Philippines-College of Mass Communications revered him too. On Oct. 11 UP-CMC gave him the Gawad Plaridel 2023 for “outstanding accomplishments in the fields of television, advertising and film.”

The citation said it all: “For creating productions in television and film that elevated the substance and form of comedy that future generations of Filipino media practitioners can look up to as models for creating media productions with superior quality and social commitment.”

Gawad Plaridel is granted only to living communication artists and scientists. This is because it has a requirement – for the recipient to lecture on his craft.

Jun Urbano did just that right after accepting the trophy on stage. He was dressed as Mr. Shooli. And since it was in public, he dissociated the awardee Manuel Urbano Jr. from the recipient in bright red.

He said: “I’m sorry po, nahihiya humarap si Jun Urbano sa mga matatalinong propesor at estudyante dito sa UP. Ipinadala niya si Mr. Shooli para tanggapin itong parangal ninyo.” Then Mr. Shooli delivered what is perhaps Jun Urbano’s last way of making us laugh by telling us about our faults.

Read “Wha’ happen to you, Mr. Shooli asks Pinoys,” Gotcha, 1 Nov. 2023: https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2023/11/01/2308013/wha-happen-you-mr-shooli-asks-pinoys.

* * *

Catch “Sapol” radio show, Saturdays, 8-10 a.m., dwIZ (882-AM)

            “Gotcha: An Exposé on the Philippine Government” is available as e-book and paperback. Get a free copy of “Chapter 1: Beijing’s Bullying and Duplicity”. Simply subscribe to my newsletter HERE. Book orders also accepted there.

Photo from website of Amerasia International Terminal Services Inc.

What are a freeport locator’s rights? A court answer to that simple question can settle turmoil in the sprawling economic zone. Perhaps assuage restive workers.

Cargo handler Amerasia International Terminal Services is a pioneer at Subic Bay Freeport. It petitions the Olongapo Court for “declaratory relief.” Such plea seeks “an authoritative statement of rights and obligations of parties.”

On a definition of rights depends Amerasia’s operation, capital and workers. Its case “is not to settle issues arising from an alleged breach [of rights and obligations, but] may be entertained before the breach or violation of contracts.”

Dire events prompted the court petition. In 2021 the Supreme Court 3rd Division upheld the Olongapo judge’s kicking Amerasia and fellow pioneers out of Subic. Although the five magistrates were split 3 to 2, the case was not raised to the en banc.

Thus, newcomer Harbour Centre Port Terminal Inc. is set to replace the pioneers, based on issues questioned 13 years ago.

The SC is not a trier of facts; it determines constitutionality, legality and procedural validity. So it’s back to the lower court for a factual declaration.

One of two respondents is Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA). The other naturally is Harbour Centre.

Since June 2023 Amerasia has been asking SBMA about its plans, given that previous chairmen, administrators and board members resisted Harbour Centre’s entry. Present SBMA chairman-administrator Jonathan Tan and director Jose Mari Ponce were mum. SBMA simply issued Harbour Centre notices of award and to proceed.

Foreign and domestic investors are closely monitoring the case outcome. They need proof of sanctity of Philippine contracts.

Other Subic pioneers, high-tech port developers Mega Subic Terminal Services and Subic Seaport Terminals, are watching too. Same with their thousands of employees who fear job losses.

Since 1994 Amerasia, Mega Terminals and Subic Seaport Terminals have contributed P2.7 billion to SBMA revenues. Suppliers who installed P1 billion in machineries and shops added more.

All now worry about being eased out. Unknown is how many of 145-thousand workers and entrepreneurs from surrounding provinces will also be adversely affected.

Harbour Centre in November 2009 unsolicitedly had proposed to operate Subic Freeport for P6.4 billion. By February 2010 the outgoing SBMA administrator signed a joint venture – stating only P200-million Harbour Centre investment over three years.

The three-month “evaluation” surprised locators. The joint venture came ahead of publication and conduct of competitive challenge, a breach of 2008 guidelines. It was also done during the 2010 election ban on government contracting.

Deadline was set on April 22, 2010 for submission of counter-proposals. SBMA received none, precisely because of the prohibition that insulates state projects from political partisanship.

The National Economic and Development Authority hadn’t studied the legal, financial and technical viability. The President as NEDA chairman and Cabinet secretaries in the board did not approve the deal. In July 2011 NEDA invalidated it for procedural breaches.

Still the Olongapo judge affirmed the joint venture. The Court of Appeals in 2013 reversed the lower court, and the Supreme Court 3rd Division in 2021 in turn reversed the CA.

Amerasia’s new case exhibits its 2007 Lease Agreement with SBMA over part of the freeport for 25 years. The cargo handling lease precedes the 2010 SBMA deal with Harbour Centre.

Amerasia further presents SBMA’s 2015 Amendment extending the 25-year lease by eight more. This shows that SBMA recognized Amerasia as cargo handler instead of the 2011 Joint Venture with Harbour Centre.

Another exhibit: SBMA’s issuance to Amerasia of Certificate of Registration and Tax Exemption in December 2021. This upholds Amerasia as a Subic Freeport cargo handler, in conflict with the concession granted to Harbour Centre.

The Olongapo Court must clarify the facts fast. From there Amerasia, Mega Terminals, Subic Seaport Terminals, SBMA and Harbour Centre can plot their next moves. Same with other foreign and domestic investors.

* * *

Catch “Sapol” radio show, Saturdays, 8-10 a.m., dwIZ (882-AM)

            “Gotcha: An Exposé on the Philippine Government” is available as e-book and paperback. Get a free copy of “Chapter 1: Beijing’s Bullying and Duplicity”. Simply subscribe to my newsletter HERE. Book orders also accepted there.

Polytechnic University of the Philippines has among the country’s highest college enrollments – PUP Facebook photo

Congress forbade state universities and colleges (SUCs) from collecting tuition starting 2018. Same with local ones (LUCs) of provinces and cities. It was bandied as the first improvement under the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act.

Yet Congress forgot the basic ingredient for quality education: new money. In fact, its yearly allotments for tuition-free SUCs/LUCs has been diminishing.

The House of Reps recently approved P100.8-billion budget for SUCs/LUCs in 2024. It is 5.75 percent or P6.155 billion lower than this year’s P107 billion.

And that P107 billion is only half of what SUCs/LUCs need in order to maintain previous quality levels. Meaning, this year’s budget should be at least P214 billion.

That’s why there’s unrest in SUC campuses in Metro Manila. Professors and students are protesting deteriorating facilities and unfulfilled salary increases.

Affected are University of the Philippines, Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Philippine Normal University, Eulogio Amang Rodriguez Institute for Science and Technology and Technological University of the Philippines.

Demonstrators want P9-billion confidential-intelligence funds of high officials realigned to SUCs/LUCs. They demand payment of the last tranche of promised standardized wages for academic and nonacademic personnel.

Problem is that Congress miscalculated in 2018. That year it allocated only P65-billion subsidies for SUCs/LUCs. It was barely enough for maintenance and operations, salaries and training, new facilities and equipment, and scholarships.

Congress erred worse. The P65 billion was only for 2018’s graduating seniors and incoming freshmen. There were no sophomores and juniors. The decade-long implementation of the Kindergarten-to-Grade-12 program had interrupted college enrollments by two years.

Then Congress scrapped tuitions. In a flash it forfeited five to 12 percent of SUC/LUC funding. Rich students who used to pay tuition benefitted the most. Only 12 percent of college enrollees are penurious but scholastically deserving.

The P65-billion subsidy needed in 2018 was projected to swell 35 percent every three years. By 2021 it should’ve been P90 billion. And by 2024 it should be P120 billion.

Double the needed amount for 2024 to P240 billion – to cover the sophomore and juniors that the 2018 budget missed. Plus the eliminated tuition.

P240 billion is what SUCs/LUCs direly need for next year.

Urgently needed along with that amount is a review of the tuition-free policy and the supposed improved quality of tertiary schooling.

*      *      *

Jam for children’s rights. The Rotary Club of Malabon Highlands is organizing a folk-rock-pop dinner-concert on Saturday, Nov. 25,  6 p.m., at the UP-Diliman Bahay Ng Alumni.

Started by composer Paul Galang’s Abakadang Kayumanggi Community Development Foundation, the yearly fundraising benefits 150 underserved children of low income workers and poor families.

Featuring Noel Cabangon, Gary Granada, Color It Red, Gracenote, Edru Abraham with Kontragapi Ethnic Music Ensemble, and Paul Galang with Astarte Abraham and Lester Demetillo.

Paul is continuing his late mom’s “Every Child is My Child” mission in 1988. Abakadang Kayumanggi helps poor youngsters in Barrio Potrero, Malabon and Bagong Barrio, Caloocan. The aim is to prevent them from living in the streets and falling prey to child abuse.

For tickets and reservations: 09128592000 or 09062707804. Or email hello@imx.ph.

* * *

Catch “Sapol” radio show, Saturdays, 8-10 a.m., dwIZ (882-AM)

            “Gotcha: An Exposé on the Philippine Government” is available as e-book and paperback. Get a free copy of “Chapter 1: Beijing’s Bullying and Duplicity”. Simply subscribe to my newsletter HERE. Book orders also accepted there.

All dentists must know how to pull-out teeth. No physician can be an obstetrician, ophthalmologist or ear-nose-throat specialist unless able to do surgeries. More so general, orthopedic, neuro, cardiothoracic, plastic and reconstructive surgeons.

They’re most alarmed by what befell bone surgeon Benigno Agbayani Jr. Ninety-five thousand other physicians fear that “injustice done to Dr. Iggy” could open the floodgates to malpractice suits that would inflate the cost of medical care. Not to mention, discourage entrants to the medical profession.

Convicted for an operation gone wrong, Dr. Iggy was jailed in May 2023 then died of heart attack five months later, Oct. 5. Congestion in the facility likely distressed him physically, psychologically, emotionally. He was 58.

Lawyer Saul Hofileña had sued Dr. Iggy in 2006 for reckless imprudence resulting to serious physical injuries. Allegedly the arthroscope that Dr. Iggy used on his left knee was unsterilized, thus causing pus and pain.

Hofileña had to be operated on thrice by a dozen doctors in another hospital: one to remove the knee infection, another to fix the wrist that broke from using a cane, the last to further remove infection. He was immobilized for a month and spent two years on wheelchair, affecting his income.

The case dragged on for nearly 18 years. The Manila Metropolitan Trial Court in July 2013 convicted Dr. Iggy: Res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself); complainant Hofileña underwent surgery and left with an infection.

Dr. Iggy appealed to the Regional Trial Court in September. The timeline is relevant:

• On Oct. 11, 2013 the RTC ordered him to file an appeal memo within 15 days. Receiving it on Nov. 19, he thus had until Dec. 4 to do so.

• Instead of such memo, Dr. Iggy’s lawyer, due to “heavy workload,” filed a motion for 15-day extension. The RTC granted it Dec. 16. The lawyer had until Dec. 19 to fulfill but didn’t. Instead he filed for another extension till Jan. 3, 2014.

• On Dec. 23 the RTC dismissed Dr. Iggy’s appeal for breaching the reglementary period. The lawyer again moved for reconsideration, which the RTC denied on Feb. 26, 2014.

Dr. Iggy ran to the Court of Appeals but the justices couldn’t evaluate his case. His lawyer had failed to submit 11 pertinent MeTC and RTC filings.

The lawyer admitted his lapse, yet still didn’t submit five of the documents. He stressed Dr. Iggy’s right to appeal. The CA reminded that appeal was a statutory privilege which may be exercised only in the manner and provisions of law.

Dr. Iggy questioned the CA ruling before the Supreme Court. On June 23, 2021 the SC upheld the CA’s adherence to court rules.

Reminding that it is not a trier of facts, the SC nixed the lawyer’s point that Dr. Iggy’s guilt had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Still, it shortened Dr. Iggy’s sentence to one year and one day from the MeTC’s two years and one day.

Detained at the Manila jail, Dr. Iggy insisted on his innocence. His sudden demise agitated medical professionals. Till his last week he kept warning medical groups about ambulance-chasers and vindictive patients preying on them. Doctors would be forced to take out medical insurance and impose more lab works on patients, all of which would lead to higher professional fees and consultation costs.

Not a few doctors now express wariness to take on lawyers and relatives as patients. Some instruct clinic aides to screen for potential “troublemaking patients.”

Not only unsterilized instruments can cause infections, doctors stress. There are also the possibilities of patients’ poor immunity and post-op carelessness. In Hofileña’s case, they say, he went to other doctors, which meant a cut in original doctor-patient relations.

Sought for his side early November, Hofileña declined in deference to the deceased family’s 40-day mourning. “I’ve forgotten about that criminal case. After I testified at the MeTC, I let the state prosecutor handle it because I also filed a civil-damage suit,” was all he told this column.

“My wife is a physician. Her parents and three siblings are physicians. I’m indebted to the physicians who removed my infection,” he added.

Speaking for Hofileña, Atty. Aldrin Quintana seeks to allay doctors’ fears: “The SC decision did not set precedent and will not affect doctors since the case is peculiar to Dr. Agbayani alone. This is because the ruling is based on the negligence of Dr. Agbayani’s counsel which led to the dismissal of Dr. Agbayani’s petition in the CA.

“A decision of the MeTC, the lowest in the judicial totem pole, does not set precedents. Only the SC can set binding precedents when it renders decisions. Not a trier of facts, the SC didn’t rule on the issues in the MeTC.”

* * *

Catch “Sapol” radio show, Saturdays, 8-10 a.m., dwIZ (882-AM)

            “Gotcha: An Exposé on the Philippine Government” is available as e-book and paperback. Get a free copy of “Chapter 1: Beijing’s Bullying and Duplicity”. Simply subscribe to my newsletter HERE. Book orders also accepted there.

Mainstream and social media checked Consing’s background as soon as he was appointed – PNA photo

Any news about the Marcos Jr. admin’s “sovereign” Maharlika Investment Fund sparks controversy. So when Malacañang aide Rafael Jose Consing Jr. was appointed Monday as MIF president, documents swiftly spread online about his two cases of financial fraud.

“Red flags!” texts warned. Critics repeatedly have been expressing doubts about MIF’s aim and viability. As Consing’s appointer, President Bongbong Marcos appeared to have broken the MIF Law’s ban against officers previously convicted of estafa.

The online documents were of two Supreme Court verdicts on a land sale involving Consing and mother Cecilia De la Cruz. Pleadings were similar. In the first, dated Jan. 16, 2003, five justices of the SC 1st Division unanimously ordered Consing’s trial by the Imus, Cavite Court for criminal fraud.

In the other, July 15, 2013, five new justices of the SC 1st Division again unanimously ordered Consing’s trial by the Makati Court for criminal fraud. Reversed twice ten years apart were his pleas to the Court of Appeals to be spared from lower court criminal trials till resolution of two parallel civil suits.

Then-Justice Lucas Bersamin crafted the 2013 decision. He is now Marcos Jr.’s Executive Secretary. In such position, he must vet appointees like Consing prior to presidential signature.

Lower court trials ensued on common facts. In Feb. 1997, real estate firm Plus Builders inquired to buy De la Cruz’s 42.4-hectare Imus lot with Transfer Certificate of Title T-687599. After due diligence, Plus Builders’ lawyers advised it to proceed. Its general manager, Mariano Martinez, Jr. would later testify he was satisfied with the legal opinion.

Martinez would also later testify that he was then in joint land ventures with ex-classmate Ricardo Fernandez, president of Unicapital. Fernandez was a former co-worker of Consing’s. Conferring with Consing that July, Fernandez and Martinez asked him to be De la Cruz’s agent/attorney-in-fact. Subsequently, Plus Builders lawyers asked De la Cruz to designate Consing as such.

Sometime later, a certain Po Willie Yu came forward to claim ownership of the entire land. Two titles appeared to previously cover the property: Po’s TCT T-114708 and one Juanito Tan Teng’s TCT T-191408. The Cavite provincial capitol and the Land Registration Authority declared TCT T-191408 “spurious.”

A week apart in Jan. 2000, Plus Builders sued Consing in Imus and Unicapital in Makati for Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents. They accused De la Cruz and Consing of conspiracy. As well, that Consing misrepresented himself as lot owner to entice them despite knowing that TCTs T-687599 and T-191408 were fake.

Both Imus and Makati Courts acquitted Consing, with the latter also absolving him of civil liabilities.

Excerpts from the Imus Court’s conclusions on July 3, 2006:

• “Several loose ends [exist] in the prosecution’s evidence to establish falsification.”;

• “When Consing started to deal with Martinez in July 1997, it was as attorney-in-fact for his mother. [Given] Plus Builders’ prior due diligence, there was nothing Consing could’ve added to or detracted from Plus Builders’ independent evaluation. … [Its] own investigations in Feb.-Mar. 1997 convinced it about soundness of property purchase.”;

• “Hence, it cannot be said that Plus Builders was induced to part with its money or property because of false pretense and fraudulent act means by Consing.”;

• On alleged misrepresentation as co-owner, “Nothing from the Deed of Absolute Sale, Memorandum of Agreement, and Agreement with Plus builders by Consing [shows that] he represented himself to be other than agent for his mother.”

From the Makati Court, Feb. 4, 2016:

• “A perusal of records would show that not a single proof was adduced to establish forgery and falsification of TCT T-687599.”;

• “This Court is convinced that [Unicapital’s] deciding factor to pay was not the presence of Consing … [But] the Mar. 1997 due diligence report of the law firm.”;

• “Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of Estafa Through Falsification of Public Documents under paragraph 2(a), Article 315, Revised Penal Code.”

Consing was as quick as his critics to send this column his rebuttal. Economists will continue to monitor how he runs MIF and who Marcos Jr.’s other board appointees will be. Transparency and accountability are needed because MIF’s P500 billion capital is people’s money.

* * *

Catch “Sapol” radio show, Saturdays, 8-10 a.m., dwIZ (882-AM)

            “Gotcha: An Exposé on the Philippine Government” is available as e-book and paperback. Get a free copy of “Chapter 1: Beijing’s Bullying and Duplicity”. Simply subscribe to my newsletter HERE. Book orders also accepted there.

Filipino seafarers were either stranded in foreign ports or overextended in shipboard stints during the pandemic – PNA photo

How can government ensure more overseas job placements for 490,000 Filipino seafarers? How can it lower their costs of boarding and debarking at international ports?

Here’s a quick way. Slash the atrociously high port rates for international ships to enter domestic harbors. That will encourage foreign shipowners to pick up and let off seamen in Philippine ports.

Once that’s done, seamen no longer will have to fly to and from Europe and the Americas to start or end nine-month shipboard stints. They can do it in Manila, Subic, Laoag, Batangas, Puerto Princesa, Legazpi, Cebu, Iloilo, Cagayan de Oro or Davao.

Boarding or debarking per seafarer cost hundreds of thousands of pesos. It includes roundtrip international airfare, hotel bookings, transfers and food. Upright shipowners absorb such costs. Shabby ones tacitly deduct the amounts from seamen’s pay.

Foreign shipowners and seamen will save such sums if picked up and dropped off in the Philippines. Former foreign secretary Teddyboy Locsin already fixed the process during the pandemic lockdowns.

At that time paranoid countries barred foreign vessels from entering seaports. Others required long COVID-19 testing for crewmen. Shipboard stints of Filipinos, the majority of international seafarers, were over-extended to 18 months. Meanwhile, countless replacement countrymen could not board because prohibited from landing in foreign seaports.

Despite circuitous treaties, Locsin swiftly arranged for Philippine stopovers of international vessels. Crisis abated.

Then came put-offs. Rent-seekers reinvaded the ports post-pandemic.

Example is what was reported in this column. One of the world’s most modern and equipped foreign ships was charged P500,000 to be towed into and out of La Union Harbor last March 31, 2023.

Strictly speaking, M/V Fugro Equator did not need any towing service. It can adroitly maneuver in and out of harbors, and simultaneously tow several submerged equipment.

M/V Fugro Equator did not even have to berth in La Union. It was in Luzon waters to search for a sunken World War II wreckage. To resupply, it could have accommodated choppers or speedboats while offshore.

But then, 19 Filipino crewmen were to board and four to debark. It was the first such event for La Union harbor, government-owned Poro Point Management Corp. (PPMC) hailed in its website. So Fugro Equator sailed into harbor, amid fanfare of Transport, Labor, Foreign Affairs, Customs, Coast Guard, Immigration and Quarantine officials.

Behind the scenes, Fugro Equator was made to hire a local tugboat to tow it into and out of the wharf. Cost: P500,000. Tug owner Polaris Top Marine Services Corp.’s “assistance duration,” as stated in its billing, usage slip and official receipt: 43 minutes, plus 18 minutes tug running time from base to ship and back to base.

That’s a staggering P8,196.72 per minute of unnecessary but forced tugboat towing.

Government requires such towing in the country’s international seaports supposedly for safety. It contracts private harbor pilots for the service. The pilots in turn subcontract the tugboats.

Contractors board but do not actually pilot the vessels entering the harbor. They merely give instructions to vessel skippers. They’re supposed to know the harbor like the palm of their hand. Still, shipowners complain of being misguided by harbor pilots to ram wharfs or scrape shallow bottoms, so must pay for own damage.

PPMC said in a Letter to the Editor that harbor pilotage is handled by San Fernando Pilots Association Co. It claimed to impose on foreign vessels the same rates as Philippine Ports Authority. SFPAC supposedly charged Fugro Equator P35,923.14 for harbor pilotage, from which PPMC received ten-percent cut of P3,592.31.

Fugro Equator’s shipping agent transacted the P500,000 tug towing with Polaris, PPMC alleged. Still, it said, it will investigate.

Such probe should delve into who required the costly tug rental and ties between SFPAC and tug owners. It has been five months, yet PPMC has not contacted me for documents in my possession.

Meanwhile, shipowners are still talking about that P500,000 affair. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Speaker Martin Romualdez said last June 25, National Seafarers Day, that they want to help them. Labor and transport bureaucrats must advise the two high officials that arbitrary port charges not only discourage pickups/drop offs of seafarers, but also inflate prices of food and goods.

*      *      *

Readers continue to share, comment and react to Mr. Shooli’s remarks, “Wha’ happen to you Pinoys?” (Gotcha, 1 Nov. 2023). Awed, FAMAS and Gawad Plaridel Awardee Manuel “Jun” Urbano thanks them and answers the oft repeated question, “What’s wrong with the Philippines?”

Watch: https://bit.ly/Jun-Urbano.

* * *

Catch “Sapol” radio show, Saturdays, 8-10 a.m., dwIZ (882-AM)

            “Gotcha: An Exposé on the Philippine Government” is available as e-book and paperback. Get a free copy of “Chapter 1: Beijing’s Bullying and Duplicity”. Simply subscribe to my newsletter HERE. Book orders also accepted there.