Hidden numbers, hidden agendas

In the corporate world, EBITDA is short for earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization.  The number serves as a measure of the company’s operating performance by excluding financing costs, taxes, and certain non-cash expenses.

Of what use is EBITDA?  This item is excluded from the generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and its main utility is as a comparison tool to assess the financial performance of companies across a certain sector or industry.  

Over time, EBITDA has become a traditional measure of corporate profitability, although it is certainly not an accurate one.  There are economists who argue that EBITDA can even overstate profitability, which is why I said the measure is not flawless and thus should be taken with a grain of salt.

This is also the reason why the US Securities and Exchange Commission requires firms to reconcile their EBITDA to net income.

As this new column deals with business, politics, and showbiz—is there really a difference among the three?—EBITDA is a good enough name for this opinion piece.  This is because people, governments, businesses and institutions are good at hiding numbers, and even better at hiding agendas.

My EBITDA will try to unravel the simple truths in everyday goings-on in these areas of human activity.

—o0o—

This month of July marks the first full decade of the controversial Award of the Permanent Court of Arbitration rendered on July 12, 2026 which the Philippine government under Ferdinand Marcos Jr. along with its propagandists are blindly claiming as a “victory” for the country.

Once again, the American cabal of 14 so-called experts on the subject will hold an exclusive, by-invitation-only symposium or conference at a similarly exclusive venue in Makati.  The event is again sponsored by the Stratbase Institute with Dindo Manhit as president.

The lineup of speakers are Defense Secretary Gibo Teodoro, ex Justice Antonio Carpio, Judge Raul Pangalangan, Evan Garcia, Jay Batongbacal, Atsuko Kanehara, Gen. Romeo Brawner, Gen. Emmanuel Bautista, Vice Admiral Alan Javier, Roy Trinidad, Renato de Castro, Regina Lay and Richard Heydarian.  This event, as announced on social media, would miss Jay Tarriela, the loudest voice of them all if the topic is the West Philippine Sea.

The fact that they made this gathering or reunion in praise of stupidity exclusive is a testimony to their desire to keep their public position strictly for the perusal of their group.  They cannot convince the public that all their arguments about the legitimacy of the WPS had been debunked by the Chinese embassy in Manila, and that even Tarriela himself has cowardly declined to engage public intellectuals like Rigoberto Tiglao, Herman Tiu Laurel, Ado Paglinawan, etc. in a public debate on this issue.

Let me say that the July 2016 document is not a ruling, the PCA is not a United Nations agency or office.  It is not Permanent, as nothing in this world is permanent.  It is not a Court and by the panel’s admission, it won’t and could not touch sovereignty issues in the South China Sea, as these are beyond its jurisdiction.   And what the PCA did in more than 2 years of hearing was not an Arbitration, since arbitration presupposes the participation of at least two parties.  China, from the outset, refused to participate.

So what is the Arbitral Award?  

The government under President Benigno Aquino III, upon the prodding of the United States, initiated this arbitration case to assert its claim on certain areas in the South China Sea.  Aquino even used his legal powers to coin the term “West Philippine Sea” to strengthen this claim, which proved to be futile since China itself refused to go along with the arbitration.

The slogan “Atin Ito” of Rafaela David is stupid and misplaced and Commodore Tarriela’s claims on Philippine sovereignty cannot hold water, even if one peruses the 2016 Arbitral Award itself.

On the issue of sovereignty vs. maritime rights, the Tribunal found it could not rule on sovereignty over land features as this was governed by general international law, not UNCLOS.  What the panel could do is to determine whether certain features were islands or low-tide elevations and what maritime entitlements they generated.

By assessing the physical and legal characteristics of specific  features, the Tribunal ruled that no feature in the Spratly Islands legally constituted an “island” that could generate a 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).  They were legally classified as low-tide elevations or rocks.

The Philippines continues to maintain that the Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility and the subsequent 2016 Award on Merits remain vital components of modern international law, whereas it is understandable that China holds on to its intransigent policy that Huangyan Dao is its inherent territory.  China Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian is firm that “China enjoys indisputable sovereignty over Huangyan Dao and its adjacent waters.”

In fine, it is well to consider the question aired by Ka Mentong Laurel of the think tank Asian Century Institute for Strategic Studies.  Laurel asked what the 10-year-old Arbitral Award has done to the Philippine society, economy and culture during the last decade.

The Award and the concomitant incendiary debate it fostered divided the nation in ways that hampered its recovery and growth.  The Award promoted US interests and endangered regional peace and unity.  It also set back Philippine progress by a couple of years, even as a few Filipinos who are US lackeys are enjoying its monetary blessings.