Election fever is getting hotter as we get closer to election day. Social media is getting all heated up with discussions coming from all sides. Intellectual exchanges are happening alongside negative campaigning employed by candidates in an attempt to get better numbers on surveys. It is expected to sizzle more with the temperature rise of summer 2022.
In the sales trainings that I regularly conduct, I always pose the question “What is your definition of sales?” I get varied answers from an exchange of goods to sales being defined as “money” to sales being scary because of the perceived employment turnaround. These are typical definitions that we get from everyday people who understands sales as a mere transaction of exchange. There is truth to it but, on a deeper sense, I define sales as “influence”.
Sales is influence. It is a process where there is an exchange of ideas and thoughts between two parties and both of them work on influencing the other to understand their point of view. In the process, one party can be “won” over to the other or they can agree to disagree. I always push for a win-win situation where you find a common ground where both parties benefit. You see, influence is not about winning the exchange but making the other side understand where you are coming from so they get a better grasp of the situation or the conversation. You’d be surprised that, in most cases, you are both right but you are just looking at the situation in two different spectrums that, when you align the discussion, you would find that both of you stand on the same ground.
I liken this to teachers. Teachers do a lot of selling and, no, this is not pertaining to pastillas or longganisa. They need to influence their students towards understanding the lessons that they prepared, more than just downloading information and shoving it down on their student’s throats. Whilst it is easy to just tell their students that the lesson should be taken as it is, it takes more than that. They need to make their students understand the why for them to fully understand the how. This can only be done by open discourse with their students. In the end, they not only make their students understand the lesson but also teaches them critical thinking.
Similarly, with the election campaign, politicians are selling themselves and their platforms to the voting population. They are influencing us to choose them over the others using different approaches from platform presentation to negative campaigning. What most people don’t understand is that most of these influencing are done by the supporters within their circle of influence more than the candidate themselves. The supporters become the representation of their candidate on the ground. The level of influence by the candidate and their supporters, like doing sales, follow certain paradigms that align on human behavior and the corresponding responses.
There is one big rule in sales – “People buy from people they like and trust.” This is the paradigm that is at the core of influence. The like and trust will determine the level of openness and listening that the other party will allow. The higher level of “like” would translate to higher opportunities to be heard and, eventually, this would translate to being trusted. The chances of being liked and trusted is higher when communication happens. The goal is to be understood rather than being right. Once you get to understand the other party’s point of views, there is a better opportunity for you to “sell” your idea and for the other person to “buy” your idea.
Of course, the opposite effect of this paradigm is not being liked and trusted. This usually happens when you start on the wrong footing. I can attribute these to the intellectual and moral arrogance of some supporters and they start downplaying the other, worse part is insulting or disrespecting them. How do you expect to influence the people you wish to influence when you insult or cancel them. You would end up talking to a wall and getting shut off. Para kang nanliligaw tapos sinabihan mo yung nililigawan mo ng “amoy putok ka”. You think you would get a nod from the person. Not in a million years. In the end, you will end up with them not even giving you a chance to just be heard and pushing them away to other opportunities to even hear any of the propositions coming from your side.
Always remember that influence is all about connection more than credibility or credentials. People will only listen when you get to connect with them. When you get this right, that is when they will actually stop to listen to what you have to say. Without that link, no matter how long your credentials are, it will not matter. Always remember that people will not remember who you are or what you did for them but they will remember how you made them feel. That is why alienating people or downright canceling them will never succeed in influencing people because, by its nature, it disconnects you from your target audience.
To be able to influence people, one needs to listen more rather than speak. The goal is to understand rather than be understood. The application of this principle allows you to get a better grasp of the other person’s point of view. It would be easier to influence someone if you understand where they are coming from. You can never force a sale, in this case, an opinion but you can always influence them towards seeing your point of view. It should start from there. Giving them the liberty to understand, process, and make their own opinions based on the exchange is how it should end. You can never win when you force your opinions or decisions down on people’s throat.
The key to influencing people is the open exchange of ideas. The two-way communication, when done with respect, maturity, and within the boundaries of the contention, is a going to be a productive discourse and will directly reflect on the speakers themselves. The process starts with being liked and trusted so you can build the connection. Once you have the connection, the goal is to understand by putting yourself in their shoes. Influencing people, or making a sale, is easier done when their is proper and respectful exchange.
The current trend of cancelling and/or insulting others for not having the same presidential choice is not going to win votes. This action by the supporters will not benefit their candidate. At the end of the day, connection matters more and, without it, the candidate is on the losing end. Always remember that the intellectual and moral arrogance of the candidate and its supporters never made and will never make candidates win.
The decision of the First Division of COMELEC was finally released and it dismissed the consolidated petition to disqualify BBM’s presidential candidacy for lack of merit.(1) With this decision, BBM moves forward smoothly towards the May 9 elections and is expected to generate a stronger momentum as the day of reckoning approaches. This decision, however, sparked another round of innuendos from those who were simply not happy to see that the decision did not swing towards their favor. They further implied that the decision sent a message that it was okay not to file ITR.
I consulted a Certified Public Accountant who works for an international brand and sought clarity on the issue. It was a good discussion between the two of us where we both agreed on a lot of things, with my basic knowledge on taxation and her more in-depth knowledge on the matter. It was also surprising to find out new information on our country’s laws on filing ITRs.
I have noticed, for this particular tax case of BBM, how some people were immediate to conclude that the case is about tax evasion. Clearly, the CA decision was very particular that it cleared Marcos of tax evasion but was asked to pay a fine for non-filing of tax returns. In fact, the CA affirmed, in the same ruling, that BBM has paid his income taxes from the same period of 1982 to 1986.(2)
To better understand the issue, let me first define the term “tax evasion”. There are two ways of circumnavigating around taxes – Tax Avoidance and Tax Evasion. Tax Avoidance is a legal way of reducing taxes by maximizing all non-taxable benefits of an individual – the De minimis. These are small benefits like the allowances and subsidies that are marked by the government as “tax free”. The intent is to lower down the taxable income by deducting the de minimis. This is allowed by the government and there are allowed ceilings for these benefits. The intent is to lower taxes in a manner allowed by the government.
Tax evasion, on the other hand, employs the manipulation of systems to not declare the correct taxable income. The goal is to lower down taxes by “hiding” income generated by the individual or company. The intent is to not file or file an incorrect return hereby paying a lower tax. A common example of evasion is the non-issuance of Official Receipts when you make purchases. The basis for tax computation is the Official Receipts issued by the individual or the company. The intent is to not pay the correct taxes by intentionally not declaring the correct income received.
Usually, tax avoidance are commonly used for those who are employed because the company files the ITR, in behalf of the employee. It is the the company who determines the allowances given hence it needs to be reflected on the ITR. Tax evasion are more common for those who file their taxes on their own or by companies. These entities have more “opportunities” to manipulate their ITRs since they have direct control on the declaration of the income they generate.
In the case of BBM, the contention of the DQ case was his non-filing of his Income Tax Return from 1982 to 1985. Does the non-filing constitute to Tax Evasion? For the sake of analyzing the situation, the answer to this is – there is a possibility of tax evasion by its mere definition. However, the BIR follows due process to prove first that there was an intent to evade taxes. In fact, the BIR issued notices to BBM on August 23, 1991 and September 12, 1991 which was sent to his registered Quezon City residence and confirmed received by his caretaker. The non-response on his side prompted the BIR to file 8 cases against him on September 20, 1991 and October 10, 1991. The cases were grounded on failure to file income tax returns and not paying tax dues to which the lower court convicted him on July 1995.(2)
But the buck does not stop there.
Remember that part of our judicial system is the right of the accused to appeal his or her case to the higher courts. BBM made an appeal to the Court of Appeals where the decision was promulgated on October 31, 1997. The CA’s decision was his acquittal from the criminal liability of his non-filing of his tax liabilities on the grounds that the BIR notices were not sufficient considering that BBM was out of the country, not on his free will. However, the acquittal does not absolve BBM of the civil liabilities hence he was ordered by the court to pay the deficiencies and penalties due.(3)
The contention for the disqualification case of BBM was based on this case to which he was acquitted. The court document stated clearly that he was absolved of the criminal liability of the cases and was asked to pay the deficiencies and penalties. It never said that he was guilty for not filing his tax returns. The document was very clear in stating that the BIR was not able to give BBM the due process to allow him to settle the deficiencies prior to the filing of the case.
The absence of the criminal conviction nullifies the contention of the DQ case. Plain and simple. This has been the basis of the COMELEC’s decision to junk the petitions to disqualify. The CA has already made the decision and COMELEC is just upholding the same. The commissioners never implied that it was alright not to pay taxes. They are upholding the decision of a higher court on the case of BBM so to make such generalization is simply immature and… well, idiotic.
The 1997 acquittal was another blow to the “BBM magnanakaw” narrative. I have attached all the links for you to make a cross-reference. Facts over hate. Again, if they hate Marcos that much, they should have done their assignment in the past 33 years ago.
I guess, they never understood the assignment.
2. https://www.manilatimes.net/2021/11/05/news/national/no-tax-evasion-vs-marcos-ca/1821056/amp
3. https://www.scribd.com/document/539058585/People-v-Marcos-Jr-CA-G-R-CR-No-18569
adobongpinoy 