“Where’s the coco levy fund?” Quezon politiko asks PNoy
Quezon 3rd District Rep. Aleta Suarez is asking President Aquino to tell the public where the multi-billion coco levy fund is.
Suarez said that as the country’s chief executive, it is PNoy’s responsibility to account for the fund.
“It’s not enough that the Aquino administration would say that the multibillion coco levy fund is with the government. Where is it? How much really is the total fund?” Suarez said in a story published by Inquirer.
Farmers from Quezon, a major coconut producing province, are believed to have been the biggest contributors to the coco levy fund.
Suarez said she supports the call of different coconut farmers’ groups for the farmers themselves to decide how to use the fund for their welfare.
“The fund should be returned to the coconut farmers because the money really belongs to them. They have already waited for so long,” she pointed out.
On the other hand, Quezon board member Gary Estrada called for the revocation of President Aquino’s executive orders (EO) on the privatization and use of the coco levy fund.
He said the EOs should be junked so the farmers could finally reap the benefits of the coco levy funds.
On March 18, Aquino signed EO 179 that governs the disposition and privatization of coco levy-funded assets while EO 180 provides the guidelines for the use of P74 billion recovered from San Miguel Corp.
On June 30, however, the Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) stopping the implementation of EOs 179 and 180.
“There may be a TRO against EO 179 and 180, but we never know one or two days from now, the TRO could be lifted,” Estrada said.
Estrada, who heads the provincial board’s committee on agriculture, proposed a resolution calling on the government to junk EO 179 and 180.“Where’s the coco levy fund?” Quezon lawmaker PNoy Click To Tweet
The comments posted on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of POLITICS.com.ph. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.