Press Release
October 25, 2021

ANC Headstart Interview of Senator Win Gatchalian with Karen Davila on Elections 2022, pilot face-to-face classes, oil price hike, Malampaya sale and 2022 budget


Q: Alright, starting off with a little bit of politics first. I interviewed you before and you said you were open to running for vice president under Davao City Mayor Sara Duterte. And now she has actually reiterated that she will not be running. I wanted to ask you your plans, are you running for NPC exclusively?

SEN. WIN: Karen, after our last conversation with Mayor Sara, she told me that she's running for reelection. So after that I decided to run for reelection, as well because I mentioned actually in your show that I'm only going to run for a vice president position under her if she decides to run for president and I will be drafted in her group. But since she decided to go back as Mayor, I decided to also go back as Senator under the NPC.

Q: And we were able to thresh things out with the Senate President.

SEN. WIN: Yes, yes we, I actually had a conversation with him and told him, since he is our chairman of the party in the NPC and I'm also a member of the party for a very long time ever since I started politics in 2001. It's just so befitting that we run together.

Q: And are there specific rules in NPC that you can only run with them exclusively, being a party member, or can you still be adopted at this point?

SEN. WIN: Actually, Karen, that's a very good question. In fact, this election cycle is quite different from the previous cycle. I've seen a lot of adoptions being made. Some of the senators, some of our friends have been adopted by three parties, probably even more this coming few months, and even the group that I joined, Senator Sotto's group, we have 15 candidates in our lineup out of 12. So this is actually quite different. I'm actually grabbing for some direction in this particular case, because in 2016, this has never happened. So I am sure a lot of candidates are still trying to navigate with this type of change.

Q: And there's been criticism on how the common candidates are already being abused. The concept of the common candidates, and the fact that you have parties fielding more than 12.

SEN. WIN: There's no hard and fast rule with this set up. Adopting and also having more than 12 candidates. This is really the choice of the tandem. In this particular case, the President and the Vice President, this is actually their principal and their decision. So, if they think that it's beneficial to them for their victory, then they will do whatever they can. There's no prohibition for example from one candidate being adopted by other roofs but then again to be honest, it creates a lot of confusion as of this point. From the voters standpoint. In fact, there are a lot of memes coming out already on how to put different senators together, especially like for example, in my particular case since we have 15 candidates in our lineup, typically, traditionally when we say both straight they both are 12 but in this particular case we cannot say vote straight anymore because we have 15. We were still trying to grapple with these changes in landscape.

Q: And do you believe this also weakens number one, the party system as a whole. And then number two, it blurs the lines on what the party actually stands for. And I wrote this on my Twitter. A classic example is Senator Manny Pacquiao standing against the Marcoses whereas Raffy Tulfo, senatorial aspirant Raffy Tulfo issued a strong statement for the Marcoses and it is in one slate, he is in Manny's slate. And you said it, it confuses the voters.

SEN. WIN: Karen, this is the barriers of a multi party system with very weak regulations and very weak systems. That's why, even in the past I've been advocating to reform our political party system. I don't mind having multiple parties as long as it's defined and the rules are very clear, and their governing principles should be enacted by the Comelec at this particular point. So it clears up who belongs to whom and, most importantly, it clears up in the voters mind, the values and the principles that one group stands for. It is absent right now because it becomes plain and simple now personality politics, and that's why people remember names rather than principles and values.

Q: And it is also the party's playing safe. Is that even logical to actually endorse 15 candidates when the Senate seats are only 12?

SEN. WIN: Definitely it's very difficult on our part, on the part of the candidates, it's very difficult. Especially when we have 15. Like I said, typically you want all of your rookies to win. But in this particular case, that's not going to happen because only 12 will be allowed to win so it's very difficult on the part of the candidate because instead of campaigning for everyone, unfortunately, we have to only campaign for 12.

Q: In terms of the substitution rule. There are legislators that already want to impose changes on the substitution rule, and no less than the Comelec says that in this election, there will be more substitutions than usual. Is there a mockery of the substitution rule?

SEN. WIN: The substitution rule has become a tool for political use and that's not supposed to be. And in fact, me and a few other senators will file this week a law that will remove the substitution criteria. Definitely the withdrawal criteria because there are two. The disqualification and withdrawal so we will remove the withdrawal. And the reason for that is, not only at the national level, all the way at the local level, that's not the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law, once you file, you file. And you don't place placeholders in order to prolong the deadline. That's not the spirit of the law and we will finally be able to remove that so that it's very clear that there's only disqualification, and probably will be allowed for substitutes.

Q: And will you want a shorter period? Because right now you have the filing from October 1 to 8 and then a substitution November 15, that's more than a month.

SEN. WIN: Actually Karen, this is another confusion. The deadline is really November 15 by all intents and purposes, it's not October 8 but November 15.

Q: But filing is only until the 8th.

SEN. WIN: Correct, the deadline is supposed to be October 8. But by allowing substitution in effect the deadline is November 15. So my view here is there should only be one which is November 15. Kung kaya ng November 15, November 15. The logic why Comelec allowed October 1 to 8 is because they said they will start printing the ballot already. But they cannot print the ballot until November 15, after which the substitution is completely over. So let's just make it November 15, and not prolong the agony of guessing who's gonna file.

Q: Kumbaga, naglolokohan pa.

SEN. WIN: Correct. This is logical. In fact, I don't even know how Comelec never made it just November 15. I mean it's common sense but then again nga, just to make it very clear, we will amend the law to remove withdrawal as one of the grounds for substitution.


Q: Moving now to the pilot implementation of face to face classes. Well, the start doesn't look, I wouldn't say promising but you already have 29 schools of the initial 59 schools in low COVID areas that have backed out. Okay, Senator, what issues are you seeing with a pilot implementation?

SEN. WIN: This is very disappointing. Initially, if you remember the history, the target was 1200 schools. Then it was reduced to 120 schools, then it was reduced to 60 schools, now only 30 Plus schools applied. So this is far cry from the original 1200 schools in the original target. I think there's still a lot of fear because the criteria is very strict. First of all, you need the LGU to agree. Second, you need the community, the stakeholders of the school to agree so there's still a lot of fear among LGUs and among community members of the school. So, it will take time for the community to adapt especially to this risk level system. I'm hoping that the risk level system will be cascaded all the way to the different parts of the country so we'll be uniform across the country. And we can use the risk level system to open the schools. I'm quite surprised and disappointed as well. Why only 30 schools were permitted according to the criteria but we will continue this advocacy. I'm hoping that we can get it up to 120 schools, and allow the private schools, the private schools are ready. I have talked to a lot of private schools and they're ready to invest and ready to open.

Q: So, the DepEd have identified 70 more public schools, but they couldn't publicize the schools. So we know that public schools tend to have a big class size, there's a bigger population. There have been questions, why not first pilot implement on these international schools and expensive private schools that have very small class sizes. You have schools with a class size of five. If it's an international school it's a class size of 15.

SEN. WIN: I agree, I agree. That's why in a couple of our hearings we mentioned to allow private schools because before private schools were not allowed, but let's allow private schools because number one, they are willing to invest in health protocols. Like for example, putting more hand washing facilities and the barriers. Number two, they have the space. You can even hold classes outside their classrooms because they have the luxury of space. So allow private schools, even in the areas that are for example level three or a little bit at that level. Let's allow private schools because they have the luxury of space and they're willing to put in the investment to make their school safe. The most importantly, is vaccination. A lot of our private schools have already vaccinated 100% of their staff, 100% of the parents that go there. And now, since we open the vaccination of our teenagers, private schools are one of the most, more aggressive ones to take advantage of that. So, in other words, let's allow private schools so that those schools that can open should be allowed to open and so the kids can benefit from this resumption of classes.

Q: Senator, what aren't we doing as well as other Asian countries, our neighbors have actually started face to face classes already even a few months back?

SEN. WIN: We became overly cautious when it comes to going back to face to face classes. We have to learn from our neighbors. Here in Southeast Asia all of our neighbors have gone back to face to face classes, and there will be risks, definitely it will never be a zero risk activity, but what we need to do here is to invest, to reduce the risk. And that's how other countries have done it. They launched in their own respective jurisdictions to make sure schools are safe. They put in a lot of protocols, and allow their schools to come in a safe manner so that's what's missing right now, we need to aggressively invest to make our schools safe.

Q: I know that they are already inoculating children and I think starting this Friday, they will be allowing 12 to 17 years old, with no comorbidities, that's with the ICTSI's pass. So, are you seeing that this will be the game changer in terms of face to face?

SEN. WIN: Definitely Karen, this will be a game changer in fact, a lot of our parents are already ready to inoculate their teenagers and this will be a game changer. Not only because the kids are protected but it's also confidence building. A lot of our parents are still not very comfortable in going to the malls or bringing their kids to somewhere else, or outside of their homes, but with this vaccination of our teenagers, confidence will go up. It will not happen overnight but definitely as we go along it will go up. And this will improve the confidence of our parents to bring their kids back to school including public schools because I see the hesitancy more in our public schools when I go around. Our public schools are very important.

Q: My last question, do you support mandatory vaccinations? And the reason I'm asking this is that there are already universities in the United States that are mandating that students and teachers be vaccinated. And if they're not, they can't go to the campus, are you?

SEN. WIN: Karen, I'll answer that with the timeframe almost, because our vaccination inventories are already climbing to pushing about 30 to 40 million doses in the country. So reaching a point where vaccines are not the problem anymore. And once we have reached that point, yes I would support the mandatory vaccination in our schools. We have to wait until our provinces will get their fair share, and once we reach that point I think that it will happen around the end of November, then I will support the mandatory vaccination even in public places, like for example in shopping malls and in other areas.


Q: Okay. All right, now moving on to another issue very quickly. We have seen the prices of fuel skyrocket in the last few days, and jeepney drivers, PUV operators are calling for help. There are lawmakers that are asking for the suspension of excise taxes, and even yourself, you have called on the suspension, Senator?

SEN. WIN: Karen, the suspension will take time. Number one, it needs legislation because we need to enact a law to suspend that. Number two, administration, we have the entire bureaucracy who need to adjust to that suspension. And this is across the country. And three, monitoring will be very difficult. While I don't rule out suspension of excise taxes, what we need is immediate relief for drivers. My proposal is to reactivate the Pantawid Pasada Program which has been reactivated many times already to cushion the impact of price aberration. We computed around P1 billion to about P1.5 billion for the next three months, to support our drivers in increasing prices. Eventually prices will go down. This is really a temporary aberration because all the economies are opening up. But when supply comes in, later on, prices will go down and it will go back to the normal level of pricing.

Q: So itong P1 billion to P1.5 billion given that it has to be distributed in the next three months, where are you thinking, where will the money come from?

SEN. WIN: P1.5 billion is not so much. So it can come from a calamity fund, the calamity fund of the president, from the calamity fund of DOTr. These agencies have calamity funds, declare first of all a calamity, because this price aberration can really hurt the income of our drivers, and use those contingency funds to shield our drivers from this price hike. And the beauty of Pantawid Pasada, they have distributed cards in the past. 170,000 drivers have these cards already and they can launch this very very quickly. In a week's time, they can launch this already. Amending the law will take time. A lot of debates and of course income will also go down and DOF had computed P150 billion will be reduced in taking out excise taxes but with Pantawid Pasada, you only need to have P1.5 billion, and you can launch it next week, actually.

Q: How much are you thinking, Senator, what is the appropriate Pantawid Pasada amount? Because in 2016 it was P5000 each, in 2019 it became P20,500. What are you seeing for this year?

SEN. WIN: We were thinking of adding approximately P1700 to about P2000 on the current rate right now. So that is the amount that we're looking at $85 dollar per barrel level, it should not go beyond below P1700 as a subsidy.

Q: Politicians calling for the suspension of excise taxes, I think it was in your last hearing the DOF first, the question isn't even really feasible, the Department of Finance says by suspending up or suspending will have a substantial revenue loss of P131 billion in 2022. Something that the country can afford?

SEN. WIN: I do agree. If you look at suspending excise taxes, it amounts to about P130 billion plus or more, more or less, if you look at the other side which is Pantawid Pasada, that is P1.5 billion. Pantawid Pasada is targeted, targeting the drivers, we can expand that, like for example, let's say logistics providers of food and vegetables, we can expand that. But definitely it costs P130 billion to launch Pantawid Pasada. And again the most important thing is that we can launch it next week. This price hike will go up and down, and once it reaches, we've seen in the past, once it reaches $80 per barrel, supply will ramp up but it will go down again to around $60 and $50 per barrel. We've seen that in the past. And what we need now is that temporary relief for our drivers because they cannot absorb the brunt of that increase in prices. Prices of petroleum increases, but they cannot pass it on to our consumer, it's the government that needs to subsidize them.

Q: Senator, the Department of Energy is actually asking for an amendment to the oil deregulation law. Secretary Cusi has repeatedly said that he actually wants the unbundling of oil products. With the oil price hike, what difference would that make immediately for the consumer?

SEN. WIN: I'll make this very simple. I support it in so far as transparency is concerned. Meaning in times like this, we have to make sure that oil companies are not taking advantage of increase in oil prices. I've heard stories that after increases in oil prices in the Middle East, they will increase pump prices retail here. That's not supposed to happen, they are not supposed to increase it after 30 days. So in other words, because people don't understand the dynamics of oil. Some of the retail companies and some of the oil companies take advantage of that. So for purposes of making sure that companies are not taking advantage of this price aberration, yes, I do agree that we need to make it more transparent for the government. But the government should not disclose those prices because those are larger, to a large extent, trade secrets of the companies.

Q: I see but the DOE is also asking for some leverage or leeway in intervention, and Secretary Cusi said, for example in a situation like this, he wants the government to be able to intervene?

SEN. WIN: Intervene, for me, yes the government should intervene in a very cost effective manner. So the Pantawid Pasada is the most cost effective manner. I know that the Secretary has been advocating that the government should be allowed to import oil but that's dangerous insofar as corruption is concerned. Once the government starts buying something, then we have procurement issues and buy and sell issues. So the most simple way of approaching this type of intervention is the Pantawid Pasada, which is very simple, you just have to distribute P1700 to each driver and that's it.

Q: And just to close this. Pantawid Pasada actually you don't need an act of Congress anymore?

SEN. WIN: No more, no more, just executive issuances.

Q: And you're saying that P1.5 billion can easily be accessed through either the President's calamity fund or can you get it from an agency?

SEN. WIN: Yes, most agencies have a contingency fund, either through a form of calamity fund or other funds, but these funds are meant to really address aberrations, things that we cannot predict, things that we cannot forecast. So even LGUs can use calamity funds and contingency funds, they have that ability in their budgets.

Q: Okay, now there's also a proposal to allow higher passenger capacity. They said that this will help the PUVs, the Jeepney owners, at least earn more income. Do you agree with that?

SEN. WIN: This is where the balancing act comes in. We all know that we're still in a pandemic and drivers are still practicing 50% capacity, or even less in some areas. So this thing is the balancing act. In principle, yes I support that but not to be detrimental to our health protocols, because we might increase revenue but if people will get infected inside the PUVs or inside the buses then, we have a problem.

Q: You also have several transport groups now calling for a higher fare hike. I mean to raise the minimum Jeepney fare, by P3.

SEN. WIN: Correct Karen, that's where the jeepney drivers are really putting in a very tight squeeze because prices are going up, but fares are not going up so they're in between, and, in this particular case, it's important that the government steps in temporarily. I'm not saying this is for the long haul. This is just temporarily, probably 30 days maximum of 60 days. In order for drivers to not feel the pitch. Because if you increase fares, the commuters now will feel the brunt of the oil prices.

Q: And you believe P2000 per driver is enough. Or did you mean P20000 pesos a month?

SEN. WIN: P2000 a month. P1700 to P2000 a month depending on the location.

Q: So, roughly speaking, it's P6000 for the next three months?

SEN. WIN: More or less. And that's equivalent to about P1 billion or P1.5 billion in three months.

Q: In this call for Pantawid Pasada, I am curious, who's your advocate with the executive on this?

SEN. WIN: The DOF has released a statement calling for targeted programs instead of a sweeping suspension of excise taxes. And the agency, the DOF, in particular is on board with this one, I assume because of their press releases, but we're going to push this once Congress resumes, we're going to push for the reactivation of the Pantawid Pasada.


Q: Sentor, recently, three private citizens, actually filed a case against Energy Secretary Alfonso Cusi and 24 others on Udenna getting the Malampaya deal. Secretary Cusi on Headstart reiterated, they have nothing to do with that deal. It was basically a share sale wherein the DOE he would have no say on who Chevron or Shell chooses to sell the shares to?

SEN. WIN: Karen, I'll put this very simply and I'll put this in a way that people will understand what happened. After conducting three hearings and going through all the documents, which all came from the DOE. Ang masasabi ko lang lutong Macau itong transaction. And lutong Macau yung approval. And the problem here is DOE violated PD 87 which is the law that governs this type of transaction. It violated its own circular which is DC 2007. It customized its approval to make it appear that Udenna is qualified. And this came out in all the hearings, it came out in all the documents. In fact, we don't have a star witness or star document. Everything came from them, we just made sense of this document. So the Ombudsman case has a basis, and those things that they allege, in that case, which I read, all came from the document in the hearing that we conducted. So, in other words, the approval is invalid. The process is defective. Therefore, what we approved is invalid. This is where the problem comes in, energy security now is at risk. The whole point of the government, approving this is so that we are assured, tayo as consumers, as buyers of electricity are assured of energy security. We have to understand that Malampaya is no ordinary asset. It powers 4 million homes. It powers almost 30% of our generation mix. If that asset falls into the hands of unqualified operators, we have a big problem, our economy will be sacrificed. So that's why, after the three hearings we concluded that this is an invalid approval.

Q: So, you consider this, tinawag nyong Lutong Macau. Do you consider this a midnight deal?

SEN. WIN: My analysis on this is when you review a transaction, you have to make sure that the transaction is clear. And the rules applied to all. You don't customize the rule to certain companies, and make it appear that they are qualified. There's only one goal. There's only one company that needs to be evaluated and that should be the case. But in the hearing, we saw that for the technical evaluation, UC Malampaya is evaluated. For legal, it's UC Malampaya that is evaluated. Both are Udenna companies, subsidiaries, 100 percent subsidiaries. And then for the financial, it was UC 38 because we saw in their own evaluation that UC Malampaya has negative working capital so you don't customize an evaluation because one of the criteria, they will fall short. You have to be consistent. So in other words, the problem here is they didn't follow the law and didn't follow their own circular. And even in the hearings Karen, they manifested that there is confusion. And the exact word that they use that without the approval, they encountered insufficient foundation of legal basis. For a P28B deal, there should be no confusion. This is not a P1 million or 20 million deal. This is P28 billion. It should be very clear for us to consumers that the evaluation was executed in a transparent, and a prudent manner.

Q: Senator, could it be that the PNOC expanded its stake in Malampaya?

SEN. WIN: Yes, they can. In fact, this is where the confusion also comes in. During the budget hearing, we saw in the presentation of PNOC, we have seven service contracts, we want to explore. We want to be a premier oil and gas company. Here is an operating asset with zero risk because it's already producing. But they forewent, they didn't take the opportunity of investing in that asset. They forewent the opportunity of investing in that asset. That's why we're also confused. You want to be on one side, you want to be an oil and gas company but on the other side you didn't push through or you didn't take advantage of that opportunity.

Q: What happens now, there are cases brought against the energy secretary and also Udenna and based on your three hearings, you've already said that it's quite clear na lutong Macau ito. But what happens now technically to Malampaya? Does this mean that the sale from Chevron to Udenna is already at this point, a done deal?

SEN. WIN: Because of the approval of Secretary Cusi in the letter he issued, it's very clear, and again this is from the hearing, it didn't come from thin air. He cited in his approval that PD 87 was used. DC 2007 was used. And because these two laws and documents were used, I approved this transaction. An approval was made. So, that approval in turn, was used to close the Udenna-Chevron deal because that's the missing part of that deal. So because of that approval, in effect, the deal between Udenna and Chevron is already consummated. Now what is the next move, I'm still studying what's the next legal remedy for this transaction.

Q: So there is still a legal remedy, would a temporary restraining order from the Supreme Court, for example?

SEN. WIN: I have to study this case very carefully because there are two cases. Number one is the approval, which is the government side. Number one is the transaction between Chevron and Udenna. At what stage Chevron and Udenna have already consummated their deal, as far as my information is concerned, that's already consummated. But as to what legal remedy we can untangle that transaction, that's another issue that we need to study very carefully. But on the side of the government, accountability should be exerted. We have to remember there's another part of this, the Udenna Shell portion. Dalawa ito, Udenna Chevron and Udenna Shell.

Q: That's 90%.

SEN. WIN: Correct. If the same argument will be used here in the Udenna chevron portion, sigurado na itong Udenna Shell deal, 100% aaprubahan na yan ng DOE. What we're seeing is defective nga itong first approval ninyo, therefore you can't use whatever you use for this Shell Udenna deal. And there's still a big question mark whether this transaction between Udenna and Chevron can still push through if ever this has not been consummated. We don't really know what transpired.

Q: You mean Shell. Okay. Because you're saying the Shell-Udenna sale has not been consummated.

SEN. WIN: Yes, it hasn't been consummated. So that is still under review. The only thing that is lacking in that deal is the government approval. Which, again, there's a lot of problem with the process that they use because they didn't follow their own law.

Q: So, legally speaking, just quickly, is there a way to actually halt the sale with the DOE, actually having an oversight function?

SEN. WIN: Yes, we will not allow DOE to use the defective process. We will not allow the DOE to evaluate the Shell-Udenna deal, using the process they used in the past. Because that's clearly defective. And unfortunately, we're now in a very risky position because what they approved is a transaction wherein entities did not comply with the law, So, the law is meant to mitigate risk, its meant to eliminate risk for that matter, but now we're in this situation where risk is high because the proponent is not qualified.

Q: Okay and in your last hearing, you actually had a little drama there. This was the energy budget hearing where you have Senator Manny Pacquiao, asking about the alleged tongpats or mark up with WESM you hadn't asked Mr. Matibag, you don't recognize him at all after that, what he had implied during the hearing. But what transpired in the end, what was discovered from Sen. Pacquiao's concern?

SEN. WIN: Karen, senators are allowed to ask questions even though it's a budget hearing. Senators are allowed to ask policy questions, especially in agencies where their budgets are not not that big. The budget of DOE is only P2 billion so relative to the entire P5 trillion budget it's not so big. That's why policy questions are normally asked during those sessions. In my view, Senator Pacquiao asked a very valid point. I won't go into the details, but his point is, because of that policy, our prices, the prices of electricity might jump up, because instead of having one entity, which is PEMC we have now PEMC and IEMOP which is also in my point of view, there's a reason to pursue his issues. And in fact I said in the committee that we will pursue it on a separate hearing. But, of course, the resource persons accused the committee of turning the budget hearing into a political hearing, you cannot do that because senators are allowed to ask. That's disrespectful of the process, accusing the senators of turning it into a political hearing.

Q: So you'll be having another hearing on this because Secretary Cusi actually explained that PEMC manages IEMOP because it was created in 2018 as part of that transition stage. So if it's a transition stage, it means it won't be forever.

SEN. WIN: I'll narrow down the issues into two now because it's very complex. There are issues here, number one, is electricity prices might go up because instead of having one entity, there are now two entities. That's number one. Number two, in the creation of that new entity, there are no allegations of impropriety. For example, unqualified people being appointed, the whole IEMOP is not qualified under EPIRA. And the manner in which it was created, should it be bidded out or should it be appointed. So those are very valid issues that Senator Pacquiao raised and I don't think that's political because common sense will dictate that you have to get the discharging rates, so obviously our electricity rates will increase, eventually, so we need to look at that.

Q: But then is it even legal to create those two entities, is it legal to create an entity to begin with.

SEN. WIN: That's a good question. The DOJ actually said no in 2012, there should only be one entity. That's why the ERC now doesn't recognize IEMOP. In their eyes, there's only one. The ERC followed the DOJ's opinion. That's why Senator Pacquiao's concern is valid because there's really, all of these things that came out in the past that led him to the conclusion that there should only be one.

Q: So what do you think was the motivation to actually or the intention in putting, are you smelling something fishy there?

SEN. WIN: I'll reserve my comment on that because I haven't really gone into a deeper analysis on that but these are just cursory reviews of the documents and statements from Senator Pacquiao and from other stakeholders.


Q: Okay, my last question, we don't have enough time but I do hope to speak with you at length about the budget. What is your biggest red flag with the 2022 budget?

SEN. WIN: In my entire analysis of the budget, for example, I was looking at transitioning from a COVID budget to an opening up of the economy budget. Definitely by the end of the year we'll be hitting 70% vaccination rate. And I'm looking at opening up the economy hopefully by the middle of next year to the fourth quarter of next year and I don't see that. For example in the DepEd's budget, it seems to be still a COVID budget. Meaning, we should already remove some of the items there, that is for example related to closing of classes, closing of, no face to face classes so these are the details that we need to tweak for the 2022 budget.

News Latest News Feed