Pursuing reform amid resistance
I am a tax reform advocate. I am advocating the same tax reform that this administration is pushing.
Let me be perfectly candid. My mornings are usually spent trying to convince legislators and their staff why they should be supportive of the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion(TRAIN) bill; my evenings are dedicated to agitating my fellow youth to speak out against extrajudicial killing, impunity, and bumbling Cabinet members, and to resist martial law in Mindanao. Believe me, the irony is not lost on me.
In fact, some may even be put off by the idea of staunchly opposing the President on the war on drugs and yet working toward the attainment of some of his policy reforms — as if this is unthinkable, as if it’s either him or nothing, as if all of these reform proposals have solely emanated from one man.
Truly, polarization is prevalent in political environments with strong, controversial figures. We sometimes fall for our own propaganda and close ourselves to the possibility of finding common ground on reforms that will benefit our people.
Though TRAIN is tagged as Mr. Duterte’s tax reform, the idea of fixing our complicated, inefficient, and politicized tax system is a tale as old as time. There have been several attempts in the past, some of which were unsuccessful, to enact similar reforms. Two major tax reform programs have taken place since the end of the Marcos regime: the 1986 tax reform program (TRP) and the 1997 comprehensive tax reform program (Republic Act No. 9077).
Other notable tax reforms include the Expanded Value-Added Tax Act of 2005 (RA 9337) and the Sin Tax Law of 2012 (RA 10351). Though the E-VAT received a great many criticisms for increasing the VAT rate from 10 percent to 12 percent, it has spared the country from a then impending fiscal deficit. The Sin Tax Law proved to be a viable and reliable source of government revenue and an effective health measure.
The fact of the matter is that this reform is nothing new and cannot be exclusively claimed by this administration. It has been a longstanding struggle by government reformers and civil society advocates alike to enact a more just and equitable tax reform law when favorable opportunities appear.
Sadly, the reform has always been subject to the pressure of vested political and business interests and, hence, has been vulnerable to dilution.
This policy, as how all policy proposals should be, is a vision of how we want our future to be. It envisions a future where citizens are equitably and progressively taxed, where both people and the environment are healthier, and where the government has enough revenue to spend for public infrastructure, health, social services, and education.
This tax reform will lower and rebracket our personal income tax, relieving many of our workers from having to
pay unjust rates and increasing our take-home pay; it will rationalize the politicized VAT exemptions that, for so long,
have hampered us from reaching full collection efficiency, which might even make lowering the VAT rate feasible. It
will adjust the excise tax rates on fuel products and automobiles, the revenues of which would be used to curb pollution, build public infrastructure, and hopefully address the bane of our everyday existence—the urban traffic crisis.
This is just first among the comprehensive tax reform packages in the Department of Finance’s pipeline.
The entirety of this vision will not be actualized within the Duterte administration, and that’s all right. Perhaps it might take a few more years before we fully reap the benefits of the tax reform. But it is a vision that will not even be a possibility if constructive and substantive discussion of it is constrained by our outright refusal to engage this administration on this meritorious reform.
This President has indeed been very divisive, especially among advocates seeking to institute reforms. To repeat, we may have similar goals or converging positions, but we fail to see or hear amid the noise and rising political tensions.
In the case of tax reform, there are times I ask myself: Does seeking economic reform violate my other values that I do
not share with Mr. Duterte? No one but me can honestly answer that question.
I believe that engagement should not stop at protests, rallies and other forms of resistance; it should transcend that, elevate the discussion, and remain constructive. This is a culture of governance and engagement I wish to champion and impress upon my fellow youth in the business of advocacy. The government is not a monolithic entity that you either support or bring down; it’s a more dynamic and complex organism that you must, if you wish to attain consequential outcomes, constructively engage on some fronts and oppose on others.
My point is that I think tax reform is a worthwhile pursuit, and support for it, as for any other measure, should hinge on its merit rather than on who put forth the proposal.
Our pursuit for genuine reform must never be forgotten or relegated to the back seat in the face of political turmoil, especially when the opportunity to attain it presents itself. Political activism must remain grounded on the reality that some changes must be pursued under this administration, even if one belongs to the opposition. And that entails constructively working together with actors you may or may not despise.
It is no longer enough for opposition to be waged for the sake of opposition; rather, we must find ourselves at the center of the solution as well.
I remain critical of President Duterte and his coterie, as well as his administration’s stance on a great many issues. But I will not shy away from engaging this administration to attain meaningful reforms that I know will improve the lives of my fellow Filipinos.
* * *
Karla Michelle Yu, 22, is a research associate at Action for Economic Reforms and is coconvenor of Millennials Against Dictators.
