DAVAO, Philippines –  Muslim Religious Leaders and legal experts in Mindanao endorsed a new fatwa, a formal legal opinion, clarifying issues of early and forced marriage in the context of Islam.

The fatwa was endorsed by Mufti Abuhuraira Udasan of the Dar-al-ifta Bangsamoro after a comprehensive examination of different sources from the Quran and after referring to the other fatwa of Muslim Scholars in the Islamic world.

A Dar-al-ifta is an educational institute founded to represent Islam and is a center for Islamic legal research.

The fatwa covers four issues: early and forced marriage, pre-marriage counselling, comprehensive gender and health education for youth and gender-based violence

1. Early and forced marriage

Islam does not precisely fix any marriage age but Islam urges youth to get married when the necessary conditions of “mind-maturity” and “intellectual-integrity” are met. However, this urgency is not applicable if the child is still at pre-puberty age.

The medical doctors of the Bangsamoro have recommended that the appropriate marrying age for a male is 20-years old and a female is 18-years old. In instances where the bride is below 18-years old, the couple may use contraceptives to delay pregnancy.

On forced marriage, the Council has unanimously resolved that a virgin woman who has reached the age of puberty with sound mind and integral intellect will not be compelled to marry without her consent. However, her silence is also meant to be interpreted as compliance or agreement to the marriage.

2. Pre-marriage counselling

The Council agreed on the importance of marriage in life and urges those who intend to get married to have a physical examination prior to solemnization of marriage.

The prime objective is to screen, detect and thus, prevent the transmission of contagious, hemolytic and hereditary diseases from one spouse to another and possibly acquired by a couple’s child.

3. Comprehensive gender and health education for youth 

The Council recommends the resolute action on setting up a program for comprehensive gender and health education for youth and their related affairs. This also plays important role in orienting and guiding the Muslim youth to keep them more responsible.

4. Gender-based violence

The Council affirms the sublime status of women in Islam and affirms that gender-based violence and other forms of abuses against women are absolutely against the principle of Shari’ah.

Health and early marriage

“The fatwa is a timely way to arrest early marriage and improve the health indicators in the region,” said Dayang Carlsum Sangkula - Jumaide, assistant secretary of the Department of Health in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (DOH-ARMM).

The Code of Muslim Personal Laws (CMPL) states that a girl may be married at the age of puberty or the onset of menarche (first menstruation). A girl is presumed to have reached the age of puberty at 15. The CMPL prescribes the minimum age of marriage for boys to be 15-years old.

Citing statistics, Sangkula - Jumaide said that one in ten Filipino girls between the ages of 15-19 are mothers. “Early marriage opens up sexual activity at a time when girl’s body is still developing. Her uterus is not yet developed to nurture a new life.”

Sangkula-Jumaide added that early marriage also has other effects like depression and stress-related disorders brought about by taking on massive responsibilities like marriage and child-rearing at such a young age. (READ: Ending child marriages, teenage pregnancies, poverty)

National estimates show that 32% of women in ARMM between 15-24 have given birth. Fertility rates in the country are highest in ARMM with women having an average of four children, compared to women in the National Capital Region (NCR) who have an average of two.

Health experts welcomed the fatwa as a way of improving ARMM’s health indicators on maternal and infant mortality.

Klaus Beck, Country Representative of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), hailed the endorsement of the Fatwa by Islamic leaders, noting that early marriage and the consequent teen pregnancy are among the major causes of maternal mortality.

“Global medical evidence shows that adolescent girls 15 to 19 are twice likely to die during pregnancy and childbirth compared to women in their 20s. Likewise, infants of adolescent mothers are 50 per cent more likely to die during their first year of life compared to babies of older women,” Beck said.

Kidnap for passion

Women’s groups also gave their position on the fatwa.

“This (fatwa) will give Muslim girls a voice when it comes to forced marriage,” Sittie Jehanne Mutin, chairperson of the Regional Commission on Bangsamoro Women (RCBW).

Young Muslim girls being kidnapped is an occurrence in some parts of the ARMM. When a girl is kidnapped and held in the company of a man who is not her relative, she is urged by the family to marry her kidnapper to preserve the family’s honor as well as hers.

“There are various reasons why a girl is kidnapped. Sometimes it is because the boy cannot pay the dowry, sometimes it is to forge peace between two warring families. Other times, it is a case of “kidnap for passion” – a boy kidnaps a girl to coerce her into marriage,” said Mutin.

According to Mutin, the cases of kidnapping of women and young girls is on the decline, presumably due to better awareness and education, and this fatwa will further help in reducing this number.

Another women’s group expressed concern about a physical examination recommended as part of pre-marriage counselling just being an excuse to conduct virginity tests.

Nonetheless, the challenge now is “popularizing” the fatwa and cascading it down to the grassroots where early marriage is most likely to happen and where Muslim youth are least likely to have access to sexual health education. (READ: Inequality in Asia and what it looks like)

In 2004, a fatwa was released endorsing contraception and family planning, particularly to promote birth spacing and safeguarding the health of both the mother and child. – Rappler.com

For the first time in the post-Marcos years, a candidate has taken the route of substitution to run for president. After months of publicly displaying his indecision, swinging like a pendulum, Rodrigo Duterte officially joined the race: he filed his certificate of candidacy (COC) Friday, November 27.

In the past, substitution was resorted to when misfortune – death, accident – befell candidates or something unexpected happened that made it difficult for them to campaign. Political parties thus chose their benchwarmers or second-liners to fill in the vacuum.

But the case of PDP-Laban is different. Its candidate for president, Martin Diño, who is an unknown in national politics, filed a messy COC, showing lack of thoroughness and seriousness of purpose. He withdrew as the Commission on Elections (Comelec) was considering declaring him a nuisance candidate.

Voila! This paved the way for PDP-Laban to field the Davao City mayor who, in the course of his listening tour cum campaign, dropped broad hints about running and what he intended to do if he were president. He spoke before organized groups, danced on TV, gave interviews to the media, and titillated his followers with cliff-hanger pronouncements about his plans.

But he said he had decided not to run, after all, because of his age (70) and objections from his family.

One thing, however, changed all this: the Senate Electoral Tribunal decision throwing out the disqualification case against Senator Grace Poe because majority said she is a natural-born Filipino.

The legal soundness of whether Duterte can substitute for Diño has yet to be decided by the Comelec. If the poll body resolves the question that hangs thick in the air in favor of Duterte, then this would set a precedent.

Those aspiring for the presidency can now use substitution as part of a strategy rather than as a legitimate recourse, violating the spirit of the law. That’s an unwelcome addition to the toolkit of our already wayward politics.

There are other implications.

In his bid for the presidency, Duterte is capitalizing on a leading candidate’s deficiencies. He is out to fight Poe, he said, because this country cannot and should not have a president who does not meet a basic eligibility requirement. “Give me an Ifugao, Badjao. Give me a plumber, a carpenter, or an accountant as long as they are Filipino,” he said. “Don’t give me someone who is not Filipino.”

But two things arise here.

One, Duterte is doing exactly what his nemesis is doing. His candidacy is surrounded by murky substitution circumstances, as if he wants to game the system. Just as Poe has decided to run despite questions on her residency, she appears confident of winning it, backed by her surge in popularity.

Both candidates' behavior show how much they are part of our political culture that has little regard for rules, blurred by porous legal boundaries.

Two, if Poe is found to be amiss in her residency requirement or her citizenship (the case is bound to reach the Supreme Court) and is disqualified, does this mean that Duterte loses his raison d’etre for running? Will he back out? He is not beyond doing this as he flip-flopped his way into declaring his candidacy.

Of course, there’s the platform, what Duterte stands for, beyond his objections to Poe. This deserves hard scrutiny.

Of all the declared presidential candidates, Duterte is the only one who has openly talked about his preference to rule like a dictator, closing down Congress if it turns out uncooperative, and solving criminality by killing the bad guys. He has attracted a horde of followers eager for a strong leader to deliver quick fixes.

In this sense, he could be a game changer because he will make democracy and its future in the Philippines part of the campaign discourse.

But, for now, we await the verdict of the Comelec.– Rappler.com

What has been billed as the meeting that will determine the fate of the planet will take place in Paris from November 30 to December 10.

The outcome of the Conference of Parties 21 (COP 21) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will determine whether the world might be able to keep the average mean temperature for the 21st century to 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial average and perhaps avoid disaster, or it won’t and thus rush towards certain catastrophe. 

The stakes are high, the outcome is uncertain. (READ: Paris climate talks: By the numbers)

COP 21 is supposed to come up with a treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol of 1997. The original aim of the post-Kyoto negotiations, which have been going on for a number of years, is to produce a binding agreement that would have climate polluters undertake deep cuts in their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and provide the resources for poor countries to address damage already created by global warming and prevent or limit further negative impacts. The operative principle has been that of common but differentiated responsibility, that is, that those who have contributed the most to the volume of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere should carry the main burden of reducing carbon emissions and coming up with the resources to support the efforts of the poorer countries to protect themselves from global warming.

Unfortunately, the road to an effective climate regime to succeed Kyoto has, so far, been blocked. Foremost among the obstacles is the United States, the country that has contributed the greatest volume of greenhouse gases. The US refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, providing a terrible example to others, in particular, to the government of former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who took Canada out of the agreement last year.

The US and Canada, however, are not the only villains of the piece. The so-called Big Emerging Economies like India and China have risen fast up the ranks of climate polluters, while refusing to take responsibility for their role in deepening the climate crisis. If the US still holds the prize of having contributed the greatest amount of greenhouse gases historically, China is now the world’s biggest polluter on a yearly basis.

While tarring each other as climate villains, the US and China have, in fact, found each other’s opposition of great value since it has given the other an excuse for not agreeing to undertake deep, mandatory cuts in GHG emissions. Of the two, however, the US is the bigger problem since, unlike in Beijing, where there is a recognition of the climate crisis, Republican denialists, or politicians who do not believe that climate change is man-made, hold US climate policy hostage owing to their control of Congress.

A jarring setback to a viable accord was the US-China Climate Agreement, which the two powers sprang on the negotiations during the last days of COP 20 in Lima last year. The non-binding deal exempted China from reducing its emissions until 2030 and committed the US to a niggardly 26 to 28% emissions cut from 2005 levels. Essentially Beijing and Washington’s separate peace derailed the multilateral process since they were telling the world that they would not be bound in the unlikely event a tough deal emerged in Paris.

But what was perhaps most harmful in the US-China accord was the redefinition of the principle of common but differentiated responsibility to  “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in light of different national circumstances.”  This text was then reproduced word for word in the Lima Call for Climate Action that came out of COP20. In international negotiations where every word of the agreed text is decisive, this was a major, major change, a very significant watering down of the basic principle guiding the negotiations to the benefit of the big climate polluters. 

The folly of INDCs 

With the big climate culprits subverting the multilateral process, the UNFCCC has retreated from demanding the mandatory GHG cuts under Kyoto to accepting “INDCs” or Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). INDCs are voluntary.  They are unilaterally determined by a national government instead of being the outcome of a negotiating process.  Their implementation will not be monitored by any mechanism, nor will there be sanctions imposed should a government not meet its target.

Replacing mandatory targets with INDCs is not the only worrisome development in the COP process leading up to Paris.  While countries agreed to set up a Green Climate Fund of $100 billion yearly to support efforts by the poor countries to climate-proof themselves, contributions have been slow in coming, with only $10.2 billion raised as of May of this year.  Moreover, the amount is paltry compared to the tremendous needs for adaptation by poor countries on the forefront of climate disasters like the Philippines. Also, there are no guidelines on where the money will come from. The Green Climate Fund is a clear example of the aphorism that the devil is in the detail, or in this case, in the lack of detail.

Essentials of an acceptable Paris accord

If an agreement on a post-Kyoto accord is reached on the basis of INDCs instead of deep mandatory cuts and on vague promises of financial assistance to those most in need, then we will surely be on the way to a 2 degrees Celsius plus world, indeed, perhaps even towards a 4 degree Celsius plus world, with all the catastrophic consequences of such a condition, with sea-level rise, super-typhoons, prolonged droughts, and massive flooding becoming the “new normal.”  One study of the INDCs submitted so far concludes that the total will not prevent global mean temperature from a planetary warming of 3 degrees Celsius, or one degree above the 2 degrees Celsius benchmark. 

At a minimum, a viable climate deal must have deep mandatory cuts in GHG emissions by all developed (“Annex 1”) countries and the Big Emerging Economies, and it must have secure commitments for massive funding for poor countries to compensate for the damage done by global warming to their ecologies and finance their current and future efforts to climate-proof themselves.  Over the next two weeks, global civil society must mobilize to pressure the representatives of governments assembled in Paris to produce a post-Kyoto agreement with these essential provisions.  

{source}
<div class="blob-left">
<blockquote>
<h4>#COP21: The Rappler climate coverage</h4>
<p class="caption">Follow Rappler's extensive coverage of climate change issues and the Paris talks. <a href="http://www.rappler.com/science-nature/environment/climate-change" target="_blank">Visit our #ClimateChange site</a>. Follow our <a href="http://www.rappler.com/science-nature/specials/114299-live-blog-cop21-un-climate-conference-paris" target="_blank">live blog</a> and <a href="http://www.rappler.com/science-nature/specials/114364-cop21-climate-conference-journal-notes-paris" target="_blank">trip journal</a> for daily updates courtesy of the Rappler team in Paris.</p>
</blockquote>
</div>
{/source}

Civil society must also tell the governments in Paris to stop wasting time on schemes favored by corporations like carbon trading, carbon offsets, and tree planting programs like REDD+.  These are false solutions that only deflect attention from the need for binding commitments. 

No deal is better than a bad deal

Without these binding commitments and sanctions for climate polluters that fail to meet them, the world must reject a Paris climate deal since such it will simply legitimize inaction and irresponsibility, thus accelerating instead of addressing the climate crisis.

Philippine civil society must insist that the Aquino administration not be party to such a dangerous and dishonest deal.

Faced with the greatest threat to our planet, we cannot afford a bad deal.  With such high stakes, no deal is better than a bad deal.

Towards a permanent solution

Even if an acceptable deal is reached, it will provide only a temporary solution to the climate crisis. A Paris deal must be followed up by an agreement to keep coal, oil, and other fossil fuels in the ground, with fair compensation to developing countries dependent part of their income. Strategically, the solution lies in the world’s turning away from capitalism, a mode of production that insatiably and incessantly transforms living nature into dead commodities, creates destabilizing growth, and promotes over-consumption. However, a mandatory Paris climate deal is a necessary first step away from this condition of uncontrolled production and consumption that has brought our planet to the edge of disaster.

We want a planet that sustains life, not one that is driven on the road to death by corporate greed. – Rappler.com

Walden Bello has been active in global civil society discussions and mobilizations around the climate. 

As world leaders converge on Paris from 30 November to 11 December, the importance of arriving at an ambitious yet implementable agreement on climate change action has been graphically underlined by the fact that, based on UK Met Office data for 2015, for the first time, the global mean temperature at the Earth's surface will have reached 1°C above pre-industrial levels (data from January to September shows 2015 global mean temperature at 1.02 °C [±0.11°C] above pre-industrial levels).

We are already experiencing the adverse impacts of a warming climate: 14 of the hottest summers since 2000; rising sea levels; changing rainfall patterns; increased droughts; and more erratic and destructive storms.

Only those who choose to willfully ignore the ample scientific evidence available – and the disturbing news coverage we see regularly – can deny that climate change induced by human actions is happening and its consequences are indeed very dangerous.

At stake in Paris

The Paris agreement will require compromise and importantly a recognition that the burden to take action will fall disproportionately between the developed and developing world. The key principle that has to be adopted with genuine commitment is that of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities."

This means that each and every one of the 200 or so countries that will be present will have to commit to take actions, the scope and scale of which will differ according to their technical and financial capacities. The richer countries will need to take on a greater share of that burden and support the lesser developed.

Over 150 countries have submitted their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) – the actions they will take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

The Philippines has committed to reduce carbon emissions by 70% from 2020 to 2030 but conditional on financial aid and associated technical support being provided by developed countries.

Based on today’s level of public and private investment and the stated climate mitigation actions, developing countries will need to bridge an annual funding shortfall of as much as $2.5 trillion from 2015-2030.

Even if these funds were secured, the reality is that the current combined mitigation actions will account for only 86% of green house gas emissions and still result in a temperature rise of 2.7°C. A below 2°C target – the minimum we should be striving for – will require considerably more in terms of funding and commitment.

Climate change action indeed should not and need not be seen as a sunk cost but rather as an investment in the future and a catalyst for a new era of innovation. Current technologies available to us will not be sufficient.

Governments will need to create the incentive structures through carbon pricing and greater subsidies to accelerate innovation and to create the break-through technologies. The private sector needs to see that these technologies will significantly add to their bottom line.

Everyone will also need to commit to low carbon lifestyles to set the market demand. This will require both a collective international and national vision of a below 2°C trajectory and a low carbon economy beneficial to people and the planet. (READ: UNDP Asia chief: To curb climate crisis, time to rethink values)

It should be understood that keeping global temperature rise to below 2°C of the average pre-industrial level may not be enough to avert dangerous consequences. But the 2°C gives us a target to focus upon, a rallying point to catalyse collective action.

UNDP's part

While we should continue to be hopeful for Paris, we should also prepare for the fact that we may not be able to move too far from the 86% of greenhouse gas emissions covered by the current INDCs.

If that is all we achieve, it is nevertheless a good first step. It is a foundation that can be built upon by putting in place transparent and robust mechanisms for measuring, monitoring and reporting progress. We should reconvene every 5 years and adjust INDCs.

The consequences of continuing increases in temperature hopefully will create the realization among leaders and their political constituencies to take much more ambitious action. UNDP has done what we can for now to accompany countries on the road to Paris.

From formulating INDCs, Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions, National Adaptation Plans, climate finance readiness, policies and legislation for low carbon futures and other programmes, UNDP has helped over 130 developing countries access and deliver over $2.3 billion in mitigation and adaptation initiatives.

UNDP has worked with vulnerable populations within countries, including women, girls, youth, indigenous people and remote communities to adapt and build their resilience to the inevitable consequences of climate change. Whatever the final outcomes of Paris, UNDP will continue to accompany countries as they work on their climate actions.

Secretary General Ban Ki Moon delivered a very clear message recently. He said: “Success in Paris depends on you.  Now is the time for common sense, compromise and consensus.  It is time to look beyond national horizons and to put the common interest first. The people of the world – and generations to come – count on you to have the vision and courage to seize this historic moment.”

For the sake of the world we will bequeath to our children, one hopes that Paris is listening.– Rappler.com

Titon Mitra is the Country Director of the United Nations Development Programme in the Philippines.

Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte has repeatedly declared that if he wins the presidency in 2016, his administration will be a dictatorship. For the first time in Philippine history, a presidential candidate is running on a platform of "dictatorship.”

Not even the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos claimed that he would install a dictatorship when he campaigned in 1965: he just did while in office through Proclamation 1081. Electoral democracy and dictatorship, after all, do not go hand in hand.  It is absurd to get people's consent for a dictatorship. It is akin to asking people: may I force (kill) you?  

Benevolent dictatorship: an oxymoron

Mayor Duterte's supporters have claimed that a Duterte dictatorship will be "benevolent." Benevolence and dictatorship – like electoral democracy and dictatorship – are diametrically opposed. The characterization of Duterte as a "benevolent dictator" is, therefore, an inaccurate one. At best, it is a play on words; a semantics game. At worst, it is an oxymoron that misleads people into believing that a dictatorship can be virtuous. It tells people, subliminally: I will force (kill) people for the greater good. 

Dictatorship is essentially governance by force. In a dictatorship, civilian rule ceases to be supreme and people's consent – that most central element in a democracy –  is disregarded. Thus, when Duterte runs on a platform of "benevolent" dictatorship, he is making a mockery of electoral democracy.   

The term "dictatorship" should not be used lightly or loosely. The term should not even be used in an electoral campaign. Now that someone has actually offered dictatorship as a platform of governance, we should subject such offering to intense scrutiny. If we downplay or refuse to debate on this issue, we dishonor those who gave up their lives during the Marcos dictatorship so we can freely debate today. We also dishonor the young who will have to live through our repeated mistakes. 

Feeding on frustrations over Daang Matuwid 

Despite Duterte's increasing popularity, there is no public consensus that a dictatorship is desirable. Mayor Duterte has his share of "haters." There seems to be growing consensus, though, that there is something fundamentally wrong with our democracy.  

The level of frustration is high and the Duterte campaign has been quick to feed on our collective despair. While Duterte's "official" reason for running is the SET decision which rendered Grace Poe qualified for the presidency despite citizenship issues, his narrative, thus far, has been "anti-corruption and anti-criminality." (WATCH: Duterte: If I have to kill you, I will kill you)

Support for Duterte, thus, is an indictment of the Aquino administration – of the latter's inability to stop corruption and criminality and its propensity to spew seemingly preventable problems (e.g tanim-bala, heavy traffic, inefficient MRT/LRT, Mamasapano, etc). Duterte, obviously, has been presenting himself as the worthiest of alternatives to the Daang Matuwid presidency.  

And Mayor Duterte has Davao City to show for it. Especially for Metro Manilans who suffer the urban chaos daily, the vision of a safe, orderly, clean environment is irresistible. Moreover, unlike Vice President Binay who has also been presenting his Makati as safe, orderly and clean, Mayor Duterte does not face allegations of corruption. Duterte is also not burdened with accusations of patronage politics. Davao has been touted to be one of the safest cities of the world because its mayor has been able to enforce the rule of law. 

Davao City is indeed impressive. Traffic is managed well. People feel safe walking the streets at night. Only in Davao City will one see motorists abiding by a 30-km/hr speed limit. Only in Davao City will one experience not having to pay parking fees in malls. Everyone follows the executive ordinances of the Office of the City Mayor. Everyone seems to be disciplined:  residents, businesses, politicians and the police. 

Empowered vs fearful citizenry

A rules-based regime may be what everyone is looking for.  The problem is, many think that someone – a strong man – has to deliver this regime. And Mayor Duterte seems to be the kind who will deliver.   

Vice presidential candidate Leni Robredo has claimed that they were able to do in Naga City what Mayor Duterte did in Davao City. Her claim brings a message that making rules stick does not require a strongman but strong institutions that shun the politics of accommodation (in our language "pag-aareglo") and rely instead on active people's participation. One is also reminded of Mayor Bayani Fernando's governance of Marikina in the early 1990s that turned the city around and produced not just an orderly, liveable city but proud Marikeños.    

Both Naga City and Marikina City have produced safe, liveable cities based on strong institutions. In Marikina City, the people were empowered but were fearful of their government.  Mayor Fernando was considered a "strong mayor" and people followed city rules primarily because city hall would exact punishment for non-compliance. (Fernando was perhaps a "softer" version of Duterte – he imposed rules but he did not have death squads). In Naga City, the people were empowered but they were not fearful of their government.

And there lies the difference between these two cities and between them and Davao City: the absence/presence of a fearful citizenry. 

The absence/presence of a fearful citizenry is also what marks the difference between and among developed countries.  One can see the same level of discipine and order in, say, Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore and the Scandinavian democracies.  In the latter, however, citizens are disciplined without being fearful.  More importantly, they are disciplined even without government breathing down their necks. In train stations in some Scandinavian countries, for example, one does not see police personnel. Paying for train tickets is a matter of "honesty." Of course, one has to pay stiff penalties when caught during random checks but everyone seems to pay even when no one is looking.     

Unfortunately, the problem with Naga City and Marikina City is that they have remained the exception rather than norm. The inability of central governments, past and present, to create more Nagas and Marikinas is now used by the likes of Duterte to justify "strong rule.”

The fact that a Duterte, a self-proclaimed killer, has been allowed by central governments to thrive is testament enough of the failure of these governments to build strong institutions that can exact compliance from its citizens – politicians and non-politicians alike.  

Strong institutions, not a strong man needed

Perhaps, Duterte and his supporters can still be dissuaded from a type of governance that relies on a strong man and a fearful citizenry. (READ: Duterte, Cayetano proclaimed PDP-Laban bets)

Duterte himself has said that he will abide by rules. He has claimed to "accept the Comelec decision" regarding his disqualification case. He has also claimed (in his opposition to Grace Poe's candidacy) that one "must not mess with the Constitution.”  He ought to see that his envisioned dictatorship will be an aberration of the Constitution because nowhere in our fundamental law does it say that one is allowed to use force without legitimate ends and due process.   

Police power is an inherent power of the state and includes the power to make and implement laws and to regulate behavior and enforce order. This power also comes with limits:  (i) only the Legislative branch can determine laws including the scope of police power, (ii) everyone should be accorded due process, and (iii) everyone is equal before the law.  

A democratic state, thus, is one that has strong institutions – stronger than other social institutions – that can enforce limits on both politicians and citizens,  based on binding societal rules. 

Should Duterte install a dictatorship, he will have to abolish all the legitimate coercive arms of the state except our military and police institutions. And the military and the police will cease to be institutions. There will be no rules, just arbitrary decisions. Thus, even if Duterte wins the elections, his exercise of power will be illegitimate. 

While the political "stability" that we now have seems to be a farce, political "instability" that makes a mockery of the laws that bind us as a society is not preferable. That, too, will also be a farce. We already have proof of this. We have a shared history of a dictatorship that created a monster instead of producing its avowed "new order.” Yes, that has to be said out loud: Marcos was a monster. All dictators end up becoming monsters.

Mayor Duterte, we don't need another monster and we won't be better off with a fearful citizenry. Why not impress us with a "Duterte democracy" instead of a "Duterte dictatorship"?  The former will probably make a positive difference. The latter is just macho bullshit.– Rappler.com

The author teaches political science at the Ateneo de Manila University.  

This is the full text of the speech of US President Barack Obama at the UN climate change conference (COP21) in Paris-Le Bourget, Monday, November 30.

President Hollande, Mr. Secretary General, fellow leaders. We have come to Paris to show our resolve.

We offer our condolences to the people of France for the barbaric attacks on this beautiful city. We stand united in solidarity not only to deliver justice to the terrorist network responsible for those attacks but to protect our people and uphold the enduring values that keep us strong and keep us free. And we salute the people of Paris for insisting this crucial conference go on – an act of defiance that proves nothing will deter us from building the future we want for our children. What greater rejection of those who would tear down our world than marshaling our best efforts to save it?

Nearly 200 nations have assembled here this week – a declaration that for all the challenges we face, the growing threat of climate change could define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other. What should give us hope that this is a turning point, that this is the moment we finally determined we would save our planet, is the fact that our nations share a sense of urgency about this challenge and a growing realization that it is within our power to do something about it.

Our understanding of the ways human beings disrupt the climate advances by the day. Fourteen of the fifteen warmest years on record have occurred since the year 2000 – and 2015 is on pace to be the warmest year of all. No nation – large or small, wealthy or poor – is immune to what this means.

This summer, I saw the effects of climate change firsthand in our northernmost state, Alaska, where the sea is already swallowing villages and eroding shorelines; where permafrost thaws and the tundra burns; where glaciers are melting at a pace unprecedented in modern times. And it was a preview of one possible future – a glimpse of our children’s fate if the climate keeps changing faster than our efforts to address it. Submerged countries. Abandoned cities. Fields that no longer grow. Political disruptions that trigger new conflict, and even more floods of desperate peoples seeking the sanctuary of nations not their own.

That future is not one of strong economies, nor is it one where fragile states can find their footing. That future is one that we have the power to change. Right here. Right now. But only if we rise to this moment. As one of America’s governors has said, “We are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change, and the last generation that can do something about it.”

I’ve come here personally, as the leader of the world’s largest economy and the second-largest emitter, to say that the United States of America not only recognizes our role in creating this problem, we embrace our responsibility to do something about it.

Over the last 7 years, we’ve made ambitious investments in clean energy, and ambitious reductions in our carbon emissions. We’ve multiplied wind power threefold, and solar power more than twentyfold, helping create parts of America where these clean power sources are finally cheaper than dirtier, conventional power. We’ve invested in energy efficiency in every way imaginable. We’ve said no to infrastructure that would pull high-carbon fossil fuels from the ground, and we’ve said yes to the first-ever set of national standards limiting the amount of carbon pollution our power plants can release into the sky.

The advances we’ve made have helped drive our economic output to all-time highs, and drive our carbon pollution to its lowest levels in nearly two decades.

But the good news is this is not an American trend alone. Last year, the global economy grew while global carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels stayed flat. And what this means can’t be overstated. We have broken the old arguments for inaction. We have proved that strong economic growth and a safer environment no longer have to conflict with one another; they can work in concert with one another.

And that should give us hope. One of the enemies that we'll be fighting at this conference is cynicism, the notion we can't do anything about climate change. Our progress should give us hope during these two weeks – hope that is rooted in collective action.

Earlier this month in Dubai, after years of delay, the world agreed to work together to cut the super-pollutants known as HFCs. That's progress. Already, prior to Paris, more than 180 countries representing nearly 95 percent of global emissions have put forward their own climate targets. That is progress. For our part, America is on track to reach the emissions targets that I set 6 years ago in Copenhagen – we will reduce our carbon emissions in the range of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. And that's why, last year, I set a new target: America will reduce our emissions 26 to 28% below 2005 levels within 10 years from now.

'Long-term strategy'

So our task here in Paris is to turn these achievements into an enduring framework for human progress – not a stopgap solution, but a long-term strategy that gives the world confidence in a low-carbon future.

Here, in Paris, let’s secure an agreement that builds in ambition, where progress paves the way for regularly updated targets – targets that are not set for each of us but by each of us, taking into account the differences that each nation is facing.

Here in Paris, let’s agree to a strong system of transparency that gives each of us the confidence that all of us are meeting our commitments. And let’s make sure that the countries who don’t yet have the full capacity to report on their targets receive the support that they need.

Here in Paris, let’s reaffirm our commitment that resources will be there for countries willing to do their part to skip the dirty phase of development. And I recognize this will not be easy. It will take a commitment to innovation and the capital to continue driving down the cost of clean energy. And that’s why, this afternoon, I’ll join many of you to announce an historic joint effort to accelerate public and private clean energy innovation on a global scale.

Here in Paris, let’s also make sure that these resources flow to the countries that need help preparing for the impacts of climate change that we can no longer avoid. We know the truth that many nations have contributed little to climate change but will be the first to feel its most destructive effects. For some, particularly island nations – whose leaders I’ll meet with tomorrow – climate change is a threat to their very existence. And that’s why today, in concert with other nations, America confirms our strong and ongoing commitment to the Least Developed Countries Fund. And tomorrow, we’ll pledge new contributions to risk insurance initiatives that help vulnerable populations rebuild stronger after climate-related disasters.

And finally, here in Paris, let’s show businesses and investors that the global economy is on a firm path towards a low-carbon future. If we put the right rules and incentives in place, we’ll unleash the creative power of our best scientists and engineers and entrepreneurs to deploy clean energy technologies and the new jobs and new opportunities that they create all around the world. There are hundreds of billions of dollars ready to deploy to countries around the world if they get the signal that we mean business this time. Let’s send that signal.

That’s what we seek in these next two weeks. Not simply an agreement to roll back the pollution we put into our skies, but an agreement that helps us lift people from poverty without condemning the next generation to a planet that’s beyond its capacity to repair. Here, in Paris, we can show the world what is possible when we come together, united in common effort and by a common purpose.

A world 'worthy of our children'

And let there be no doubt, the next generation is watching what we do. Just over a week ago, I was in Malaysia, where I held a town hall with young people, and the first question I received was from a young Indonesian woman. And it wasn’t about terrorism, it wasn’t about the economy, it wasn’t about human rights. It was about climate change. And she asked whether I was optimistic about what we can achieve here in Paris, and what young people like her could do to help.

I want our actions to show her that we’re listening. I want our actions to be big enough to draw on the talents of all our people – men and women, rich and poor – I want to show her passionate, idealistic young generation that we care about their future.

For I believe, in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., that there is such a thing as being too late. And when it comes to climate change, that hour is almost upon us. But if we act here, if we act now, if we place our own short-term interests behind the air that our young people will breathe, and the food that they will eat, and the water that they will drink, and the hopes and dreams that sustain their lives, then we won't be too late for them.

{source}

<div class="blob-left">

<blockquote>

<h4>#COP21: The Rappler climate coverage</h4>

<p class="caption">Follow Rappler's extensive coverage of climate change issues and the Paris talks. <a href="http://www.rappler.com/science-nature/environment/climate-change" target="_blank">Visit our #ClimateChange site</a>. Follow our <a href="http://www.rappler.com/science-nature/specials/114299-live-blog-cop21-un-climate-conference-paris" target="_blank">live blog</a> and <a href="http://www.rappler.com/science-nature/specials/114364-cop21-climate-conference-journal-notes-paris" target="_blank">trip journal</a> for daily updates courtesy of the Rappler team in Paris.</p>

</blockquote>

</div>

{/source}

And, my fellow leaders, accepting this challenge will not reward us with moments of victory that are clear or quick. Our progress will be measured differently – in the suffering that is averted, and a planet that's preserved. And that’s what’s always made this so hard. Our generation may not even live to see the full realization of what we do here. But the knowledge that the next generation will be better off for what we do here – can we imagine a more worthy reward than that? Passing that on to our children and our grandchildren, so that when they look back and they see what we did here in Paris, they can take pride in our achievement.

Let that be the common purpose here in Paris. A world that is worthy of our children. A world that is marked not by conflict, but by cooperation; and not by human suffering, but by human progress. A world that’s safer, and more prosperous, and more secure, and more free than the one that we inherited.

Let’s get to work. Thank you very much. – Rappler.com

It was a gorgeous Sunday sunset that splashed vibrant colors against the stage, where organizers say, as many as 100,000 people waited for up to 7 hours for Davao Mayor Rody Duterte, the not-so-surprise candidate whose outspoken bluntness promises to enliven presidential campaigns in the next 5 months.

Among the early arrivals was Duterte’s pick for vice president, 45-year-old Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, whose doggedness and persistence made the partnership with Duterte possible.

“Senator Poe, Sec Mar, VP Binay can offer something better for the country,” Cayetano replied when I asked him why he believes Duterte is the right leader for the Philippines. “But they can’t offer something different. Not real change.”

Wearing a red Philippine flag collared shirt and black jeans, Cayetano found us a table behind the stage and gamely spoke into my cellphone, doing a live video conversation in the midst of the frenetic energy around the stage.

“Duterte stands out among them because he will really change things,” he emphasized. “Kumbaga nung panahon namin na Walkman pa lang, everyone’s just offering a new feature: may mic, may instant…you can change side A, side B…but Duterte is the iPhone. Duterte’s the iPad. He would change how things are done.”

(If during our time, when it was just the Walkman, everyone’s just offering a new feature: a mic, with instant…you can change side A, side B…but Duterte is the iPhone. Duterte’s the iPad. He would change how things are done.)

Cayetano’s national experience in politics – two terms as senator (which end in 2019) and the secretary-general of Nacionalista Party in 2010, fielding former senator Manny Villar for president – give some depth to what may be Duterte’s hastily organized national campaign.

In the past few months, many candidates visited Duterte in Davao, including the ruling party’s presidential bet Mar Roxas, and until recently, Senator Bongbong Marcos. He also has a substantial track record but is burdened by the legacy of his father, former president Ferdinand Marcos, who ruled the Philippines for 21 years until he was ousted in a people power revolt in 1986.

Duterte calls Ferdinand Marcos one of the Philippines’ greatest leaders and says he wants his strength of will, minus the taint of corruption. (READ: Duterte’s end game for leadership)

“Mayor Duterte is a man with a plan – he is very strategic,” said Cayetano comparing Duterte to other politicians who, he said, pale in comparison. Like asking Filipinos to stop a practice like smoking: “any other politician” would get “maybe 10%” to stop. He explained how one man can trigger massive change.

“When Mayor Duterte says stop, 50% will stop,” Cayetano continued. “The other 50% that don’t stop, he will really bring the battle to them – to their doorsteps, to their homes, to their workplaces. And when he does this, it has a ripple effect, like a domino. Dominoes can knock off many more dominoes, and it can start a chain reaction.”

It’s a leadership style that’s worked for the mayor of Davao City, who’s never lost an election since 1988. The question is, can it translate to a national stage, the country’s top post?

“I’ve studied a lot of his proposals,” said Cayetano. “This is what’s amazing. It sounds doable from a man like him, but you also keep asking yourself how. The more time you sit with him, especially in private, then he starts telling you how he’ll actually do it. You realize that it’s really that simple: that it’s really just political will.”

Sunday night’s concert, MAD – Musicians and Artists for Duterte, lasted past midnight because Duterte said his plane was late. He makes clear his personal life and his policies are intertwined, throwing out details most candidates try to hide about his wives and girlfriends. He promises transparency, and he delivers. (READ: Duterte: Yes, I’m a womanizer)

This is in stark contrast to Cayetano’s devotion to his wife Lani, the mayor of Taguig. They also took different positions on the Bangsamoro Basic Law for peace in Mindanao, with Duterte supporting it and Cayetano helping turn public opinion against it. (READ: HIGHLIGHTS: House hearing on Mamasapano clash, April 8)

“I think my advocacies are consistent with Mayor Duterte,” said Cayetano. “Iba lang yung aming paraan. (We just have different methods.) It’s like he’s the guy in the ring. I’m the guy in the court. So I think we complement each other.”

Cayetano and Duterte, a former fiscal – and both lawyers – are in their honeymoon period, but it will be interesting to watch how they work together in the coming months.

“Every time I go home after a long night with him – because he finishes his night at 1, 2 or 3 am, you know – I’m excited the next day or even that night. I text my staff and say I want this researched because Mayor wants this done. The other day he was talking about contractualization, and I haven’t heard any politician…mainstream politician…those who are really there saying, ‘I will stop it.’ But after a 5-minute discussion with Mayor Duterte, I think we found a legal formula to make this happen.”

“Legal formula,” I interrupted. “So that’s the question: in order to make change happen, he’s proposing extra-legal measures, right?” [READ: Duterte, his 6 contradictions and planned dictatorship)

“Well, extra-legal now, but Duterte can change the legal framework,” Cayetano quickly replied. “For example, telling the police not to shoot under any circumstances and telling them na pag lumaban, barilin mo (that if they resist, shoot) are two different things, but the latter is still legal.”

“I think you articulated it well,” Cayetano said. “There are a lot of things about Duterte that seem to conflict but are actually not in conflict. In one sense, the group of policemen that he works with, he trusts very much, but in another sense, he knows you have to reform the whole police organization.”

On Sunday night, Duterte spoke candidly onstage, at one point saying, “Fuck human rights.” Shamelessly unapologetic, he said file the cases against him and prove them in court. After all, he is a man with a mission.

At the very least, the Duterte-Cayetano campaign will force each Filipino voter to discuss what people actually do – like have mistresses, commit violent crimes, or yearn for strong-man rule – instead of staying on the surface of wishful thinking about societal behavioral norms.

“It just came to me that unconditionally, I would support him whether or not he gets me as his vice president,” said Cayetano the night before PDP-Laban endorsed their tandem. “He has the political will. He will change the way things are done.” – Rappler.com

Marites, 37, was nine months pregnant when tropical storm Ondoy, one of the worst floods that hit Metro Manila, swept away her family’s house along a riverbank in Cainta, Rizal in 2011. Marites’ family was still living in an evacuation center when she went into labor a week later.

She did not have access to a health facility as the nearest birthing center was damaged by the floods. Fortunately, a medical mission organized by UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund, specifically for pregnant and post-partum women was happening at a nearby municipal hospital. Two midwives were immediately sent to Marites to assist her in the delivery.

Marites was lucky she was able to deliver with skilled birth attendance. In many communities affected by disasters, natural or man-made, women are completely cut off from health care and other support services, either because they have been isolated in their communities or the health facilities have been destroyed. (READ: Hard truth about disasters and women with disabilities)

On the average, women and girls of child-bearing age (15-49 years old) make up 25% of the over 50 million people worldwide who have been forcibly displaced from their homes by conflict and disasters. They face a great risk of reproductive health-related illnesses and death due to the lack of protection and an absence of aid delivery to address their needs. They are also exposed to abuse, sexual exploitation, violence, and forced marriage. (READ: How disasters affect women)

In the aftermath of typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan) in the Philippines two years ago, it was estimated that there were 250,000 pregnant women in the worst-affected areas and about 900 childbirths were expected daily. At least two maternal deaths were reported in the province of Capiz as damaged health facilities were unable to treat delivery complications.

Global experience also shows that about 2% of women 15 to 49 years old in an emergency situation are at an increased risk of gender-based violence. It is therefore essential to put in place prevention mechanisms and life-saving services to address GBV in such situations.

Other needs

Many years back, humanitarian response was mainly about meeting the basic needs of crisis-affected population such as food, water, and shelter. Other needs, including those related to sexual and reproductive health and childbirth, were seen by many as secondary. However as the story of Marites shows, in humanitarian situations we need to look beyond food and shelter. (READ: Women are key in tackling disasters)

The good news is, the sexual and reproductive health needs – including prevention and management of gender-based violence – of women and girls affected by disasters are getting better attention since 1995 when UNFPA and UNHCR led the formation of the Inter-Agency Working Group on Reproductive Health in Crises (IAWG). Vast improvements have been made in sexual and reproductive health response in humanitarian settings, from its virtual absence in 1994 to more comprehensive services and coverage today.

In the Philippines, under Government leadership, UNFPA’s response to sexual and reproductive health needs in humanitarian situations evolved from simply providing reproductive health supplies, equipment, and medicines to health facilities, and training of health service providers, to a more comprehensive approach beginning in 2009 with our humanitarian assistance for the Maguindanao conflict.

Today, UNFPA’s standard response to humanitarian crises involves the conduct of reproductive health medical missions where the following services are integrated:

• Pre- and post-natal care
• Newborn care
• Health information sessions on reproductive health and gender-based violence
• Family planning
• Adolescent reproductive health, and
• Provision of Dignity Kits, which are hygiene kits designed to respond to special needs of women and adolescent girls.

But while attention to sexual and reproductive health in emergencies has improved over the past 20 years, there remain challenges that need to be addressed, including the diminishing resources for humanitarian response.

These challenges and opportunities are the focus of the State of World Population 2015 report, Shelter from the Storm: A Transformative Agenda for Women and Girls in a Crisis-Prone World, which will be launched globally on Thursday, 3 December 2015.

Follow the live blog from the launch of the UN World Population Report 2015 in the Philippines on December 3, 2015 and join the #SWOP2015 discussion starting at 9:00 AM (Philippine Standard Time).

This year’s topic of the report is especially significant to the Philippines, being the fourth most natural disaster-prone country in the world. Aside from typhoons, floods, landslides, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions, some parts of the country are also experiencing armed conflict.

The State of World Population is the annual flagship report of UNFPA, which brings global focus on emerging population issues and presents good practices from various contexts in approaching these issues. – Rappler.com

Klaus Beck is the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) Philippine Country Representative.

My standing here before you today during this Climate Vulnerable Forum is really an unfortunate thing if you think about it, because it means my country from where I flew halfway from across the globe is hideously vulnerable to the elements. 

My name is Jose Sixto Dantes III—and I come from an archipelago that knows an average of 22 typhoons a year. On paper, I am a Commissioner representing the youth of the Philippines, but in my heart I feel like I am really just representing my daughter Maria Letizia who is 7 days (and 20 hours) old today. If any of you here are first-time parents, you know that I really shouldn’t have left her or her mother’s side at this time, even for a single minute. Yet here I am.

I am here because when I represent Maria Letizia, I represent the world. You are all also here for yours, your sons and daughters, and for those still without the children you are about to bear, should fate bestow you with them. You are here for the world as I am.

 

I may have a thousand photos of you already, but this one taken 8 days ago is definitely in my top 10. #MariaLetizia

A photo posted by Dingdong Dantes (@dongdantes) on Dec 3, 2015 at 1:08am PST

I am also here because, for the last year, many young Filipinos devoted their time launching and speaking of a campaign called #NOWPH. (READ: 3 million Filipino voices heard at #COP21 in Paris)

NOW—an acronym for “Not on Our Watch” is a movement that says the young Filipino is in charge of the task to be vigilant for the care of our planet.

The #NowPH campaign aims to raise the voices of the Filipino youth on a global level, in lieu of the COP21.

The movement used online and offline platforms to engage young people across the Philippines. Different initiatives were implemented such as group discussion, training, media promotions, workshops, and roadshows to encourage youth participation. Social media interactions were also put in place to gather and collate expressions of support and commitment from the different sectors.

This also resulted to the institutionalization of climate action in the country through the Presidential Proclamation No. 1160 declaring November 25 of every year as “National Day for Youth in Climate Action.”

There is big science talk behind this: a lot of theories, hypotheses, computations, numbers! Units of measurement like 2 degrees or 1.5; but in the heart of it all, it really is just caring for our planet—our common home—regardless of race, creed, color, stature, or capacity. And no one in the world can or must argue with that. NOWPH advocates for robust awareness, participation, new habit forming, and behavioral changes that will help—no matter how seemingly insignificant—care for the Earth.

NOWPH is our country’s informed voice that goes above the din of all these highly urgent, terribly important, globally relevant conversations swirling around Paris these past few days and especially in the coming week. I say “informed” because every Filipino that has survived a typhoon like Haiyan is a climate change expert in one way or the other. So please take our word for it—we know. To choose to be involved and get people involved is certainly the greatest contribution we can make in addressing the common problems we face in our common home.

With the reach of 221 million social media impressions and 3.6 million total pledges. We insist that you listen to all of these voices saying—NOW.

Today, on behalf of the Filipino youth, we would like to formally turn over the output of the campaign, proof that the we are committed to working together towards climate action  with one voice and one call.

So, your excellencies, honorable officials of the different governments in the world, we thank you for listening to us. On behalf of my country and all the countries who agree that the planet is our common home, I thank you for listening to us, I thank you for listening to us, now.

You have the Filipino people at your side; we hope to have you fight with us.

At the end of the day, this is not about us anymore, but the future of the generations to come. A future that is secured and ensured. No other time, no other way.

Thank you very much. – Rappler.com

#NowPH is an initiative of the National Youth Commission (NYC) and the Climate Change Commission (CCC), with support from USAID Building Low Emission Alternatives to Develop Economic Resilience and Sustainability Project (B-LEADERS). MovePH, Rappler's civic engagement arm, is a social media partner. 

I am one day away from flying to Paris, the city of love. I am thrilled and nervous, anticipating the best and the worst things that could happen. But I have no intention of falling in love with strangers, I'll save that for another trip. 

This coming week, I have one main mission and that is to spread love and awareness through stories, in the context of gender, climate change, and human rights.

Since late November, Paris has been hosting world leaders, scientists, advocates, NGOs, and journalists from all over the world all in the name of climate change.

The two-week event, known as COP21 or the 21st Conference of the Parties, mainly consists of negotiations, lectures, exhibitions, and debates on how the world should combat climate change.

At the end of COP21, a new climate agreement is expected to be born. For that to happen, countries have to agree on how they can keep global warming under 2°C. To do this, each government must commit to reducing its carbon emissions, among other steps they could take to save the environment.

So where does gender come in? Everywhere.

Women's rights and gender equality advocates are present during the negotiations, as they are pushing for the climate agreement to be gender-fair and inclusive.

This means minority groups such as poor women, indigenous women, among many others, must be included in the fight against climate change.

For example, the needs of women farmers and fishers must be heard. 

If the gender gap in agriculture is closed – if women have the same opportunities as men – their yields can increase up to 30%, significantly improving a country's overall rural economy, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization reported.

At the same time, increased agricultural outputs can help reduce the world's hungry by as much as 17%.

Women have a big role to play in this battle. In many parts of the world, especially in indigenous communities, it is the women who take charge of feeding families, caring for the environment, and passing on indigenous knowledge about nature.

And yet it is also the women who are badly impacted by events brought about by climate change such as lower yields due to extreme weather events and emergency situations after typhoons.

Aside from pushing for #GenderIssues to be included in the climate talks, I am also hoping world leaders will shed more light on the rights of indigenous peoples.

This year, I took two trips that expanded my views on the plight of IPs. First was in Oriental Mindoro to visit the Mangyans, then in Bukidnon to meet some Manobos.

I learned that these indigenous farmers are often blamed for the destruction of forests, dismissing the many other factors that are really at fault – illegal logging, violations of IP rights, land grabbing, climate change, poor governance, weak agricultural support, and so on.

In Southeast Asia, the issue of kaingin or shifting cultivation is a hot one. For years, kaingin has had a negative reputation, with many people taking in myths as facts. But there is so much that we do not know about their environmental knowledge and practices.

I am hoping that more discussions on this will happen during COP21. This is not only for the sake of IPs, but for everyone. 

So tomorrow, I fly to Paris and I take my advocacies with me.

I am looking forward to meeting like-minded groups, but more importantly, I am also very excited to meet those with opposing views. I want to learn their reasons for not supporting such advocacies, as much as I want them to hear the voices of women and IPs. 

To those who also care about the environment, as well as human rights, I encourage you to follow the negotiations, read what NGOs have to say, look out for what world leaders are not saying, and voice out what our sisters and brothers cannot say.

Be part of COP21 online and offline. Even if you are not in Paris, you can do something – read up, debate, support petitions, and share whatever you learned with others.

Au revoir, Manila. I'll be back soon, with several stories to tell. – Rappler.com

The life of the law is not logic, but experience, according to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. 

In the SET case against Senator Grace Poe, experience took hold when the majority upheld that foundlings can be natural-born citizens in accordance with the 1935 and 1987 Constitutions. However, the three magistrates of the Supreme Court who are members of the Tribunal chose instead to strictly apply the letter of the law, rather than the spirit that gives life to the law.

The three magistrates, all of whom I admire and respect, have the distinct impression that to grant foundlings the status of natural-born citizens is by itself already a violation of the Constitution, because it adds to the definition of the concept. What is basically overlooked is that the proposition that foundlings are natural-born citizens is not an additional concept to the character of natural-born citizenship in the Philippines, but a mere empirical presumption made in the course of evidence-based proceedings.

Poe’s natural-born status based on evidence

There are two common principles in law on how one acquires natural-born status as a citizen of a country. These are jus solis and jus sanguinis. 

One becomes a citizen either by accident of birth in a country, or by reason of the blood and nationality of the parents. The Philippines follows the latter. 

The reason why there is a problem with foundlings all over the world is because by definition, both their place of birth and parentage, the circumstances crucial in determining either jus solis or sanguinis citizenship, are unknown. There is a debate on whether they should be treated as citizens of the country where they are found not because they were not born in that country or that they were not born of nationals of that country, but precisely because of the fact that these circumstances surrounding their birth are not known. 

For all that anybody knows, they could actually have been born in the country where they were found, of parents who are nationals of that country, which, in the first place, is the most likely scenario based, maybe not on logic, but on experience. After all, what are the chances that a foundling infant found in the Philippines was actually born in another country, or that his parents were, of all people found in the Philippines, not Filipinos?

Foundlings found in the Philippines may or may not be Filipinos, but for some strict interpretation of the letter of the Constitution, the SC magistrates deemed that the balance of either possibility should be ruled in favor of the latter, on the rather disconnected theory that according them natural-born citizenship is a constitutional violation, instead of the problem being considered as a mere issue on the application of empirical, if not logical, presumptions.

In this sense, foundlings are not even given additional rights as if they are being given preferential treatment, they are just being given the benefit of a very common experiential presumption, that a child found in a country is, by all measures of chances and probability, born in that country of parents who are nationals of that country. Logically, of course, the presumption is a fallacy.

But that is why the life of the law is not logic, it is experience, it is reality, it is common day-to-day eventualities most naturally occurring without any, more credible, contrary supposition, much like the example given by Justice Carpio of the most common and well-taken path (which he discussed to establish whether a rule is customary international law or not but which, in his case, was used to conclude that there is no basis in international law for the empirical presumption in favor of foundlings).

The overlooked fact is this: what we are dealing with is not a violation of the constitutional provision on who are natural-born citizens, but the application of a well-grounded presumption in favor of foundlings. It is not even the same kind of unscientific, unproven and illogical presumption judges use every day in rape cases, when they rule that there is no rape because the woman did not resist or because she did not shout or she did not raise any alarm or she did not report the crime immediately (the hue and cry doctrine). Judges make these presumptions everyday in the courtroom to decide cases and to settle factual questions raised before them. And we accept them. But it is only in the citizenship issue of Grace Poe that the magistrates of the Court decide not to make a conclusion based on the presumption as to her nationality born out of the uncontested factual circumstances of her discovery, because according to them it would be a violation of the Constitution. 

There are bound to be more objections to presumptions based on Hale’s Warning in rape cases than there would be to a presumption that a child found in the Philippines must, in all probability, be a Filipino, or that an Aeta foundling discovered in Mt. Pinatubo after the eruption in 1991 or a child roaming the streets of Tacloban after Yolanda are, after all, Filipinos. And yet, judges who have not yet undergone gender-sensitivity trainings, or who have not taken gender equality principles at heart, continue to apply the illogical and unscientific Hale’s Warning in rape cases. (As an aside, there is no International Convention on the application of Hale’s Warning in rape cases. Even if there is one, definitely the Philippines is not a signatory to it. Yet, judges in rape cases apply these misogynist presumptions all the time, despite decades of expert and professional studies on rape trauma syndrome.) 

The problem with the dissents

In essence, the problem with the dissenting opinions is this: they cannot grant a very natural presumption, based not only on experience but on international humanitarian law, to countless child victims of natural disasters who lost their parents as infants or toddlers, even when judges apply less reasonable presumptions in court rooms everyday.

True, we are not obligated to the International Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. But this Convention is not even asking us to amend our Constitutional definition of natural-born citizenship. It merely asks us to apply a very sound presumption in the cases of foundlings. We do not even have to apply the presumption arbitrarily or wholesale to all foundlings, but only use it to arrive at a conclusion based on the factual circumstances of the discovery of the foundling and maybe, but to be racist about it, his physical features. 

As I said, judges make findings of fact based on presumptions because of inconclusive evidence produced everyday in the court room. For some disproportionate tendency to defend the letter of Section 2, Article IV of the Constitution, the justices refused to do so in the citizenship case of Grace Poe, and so failed to rule that in the absence of proof that a foundling found in the Philippines is not a Filipino, then he must be a Filipino. One does not even have to be a party to international conventions to apply this presumption. One does not even have to be particularly partial to humanitarian law to apply this presumption. One must only do what he does everyday as a judge and issue the most sound and equitable decision that he could make given a particular set of evidence. 

By these standards of soundness and equity, the disproportionate defense by the SC justices of the concept of natural-born citizenship, in order to strip a foundling of her natural-born status, is certainly alarming. After all, after everything is said and done, Grace Poe’s parents of course are most probably Filipinos based on the circumstances of her discovery. When the time comes that this is conclusively proven, can we say that justice was done by the SC Justices in the case of Grace Poe?

Naturalization not a solution

Justice Carpio, like Justices Brion and De Castro, raised a considerable amount of arguments why he has problems with applying the presumption that a child found in the Philippines is most probably born of Filipino parents. Yet, he has no qualms about inventing a totally new doctrine called “naturalization by customary international law” to rule that Grace Poe is a naturalized Filipino. There is nothing in our immigration and naturalization laws that supports this new-found doctrine. But Justice Carpio thinks that this great leap in legal reasoning that Grace Poe became a naturalized citizen when she was granted a Philippine passport poses no legal problems. It’s just as legal as he says it is, without being confounded with the problem of how novel theories or legal opinions are suddenly elevated to the status of law or jurisprudence. 

He cites his exchange with counsel for petitioner Rizalito David as follows:

J Carpio: The status of customary international law is (that of) municipal law, correct?

Atty. Luna: Yes.

J Carpio: It is municipal law.

Atty. Luna: Yes.

J. Carpio: So if you are naturalized by virtue of customary international law, you are naturalized under (Section 1.5 Article IV of the 1935 Constitution)?

Atty. Luna: Yes.

J Carpio: You do not become natural-born?

Atty. Luna: Yes.

Let me imagine a more reasonable and less legally controversial version of an exchange with Atty. Luna, which was actually the line of questioning of Senator Loren Legarda:

J Carpio: Grace Poe was found in Jaro, Iloilo, correct?

Atty. Luna: Yes.

J. Carpio: She was found an infant so it was impossible for her to know who her parents were, correct?

Atty. Luna: Yes.

J. Carpio: You have any evidence that a pregnant foreigner was in Jaro, Iloilo around that time in 1968?

Atty. Luna: No.

J. Carpio: In the absence of evidence that there was a pregnant foreigner in Jaro, Iloilo in 1968, it was therefore most probable that an infant found in Jaro, Iloilo at that time could only come from a Filipino mother residing in Jaro, Iloilo?

J. Carpio: Is there any reason for us to presume, without any proof of a pregnant foreigner in the area at that time, that an infant found in Jaro, Iloilo in 1968 was most probably given birth by a foreigner?

Justice Carpio has problems with this presumption, but not with the concept of “naturalization by customary international law.” Of course he goes on to say that in the first place, under the 1935 Constitution, it is the father, not the mother, who must be a Filipino in order for one to be considered natural-born. One born of a Filipino mother but alien father must still elect Philippine citizenship. 

The 1935 Constitution and World War II

The 1935 Constitution provision on election of citizenship was not meant for foundlings. In fact, the whole 1935 Constitution Article on citizenship was not crafted with foundlings in mind. Too bad, because World War II was to come to the Philippines six years later and produce thousands of Filipino foundlings. Based on the ruling of the dissenting opinions, thousands of Filipino children orphaned by World War II lost their natural-born citizenship by the sheer misfortune in life of having their whole families and known relatives slaughtered when they were infants or toddlers.

Reality and experience would tell us that these orphaned children were most probably Filipinos, and the reason why their parentage is unknown is because in the last days of the war, particularly during the liberation of Manila, their parents and everybody else who knew them were killed by the Japanese defenders and American bombs.

But does the 1935 Constitution say that they are not natural-born? It does not, it could have not, because nobody could simply lose his citizenship by the fact of the death of the parents. That is why there is a presumption for these children orphaned by war, and it is a presumption based on experience, on common sense, on the realities of war. 

Compassion favors presumption of natural-born status 

If the dissenting opinions would point out, then yes, it is a presumption that should be based least of all on human compassion. But that only teaches us to separate the law from its very purpose, to preserve humanity, and to make us human.

Our international obligation does not tell us to change the Constitution. It does not even tell us to declare foundlings as citizens. It merely tells us to work on the most circumstantially empirical and real of presumptions to prevent the injustice of burdening those who are already the least fortunate of the most vulnerable of any demographic class, abandoned and lost children.

We do not even need to be a signatory to a hundred international conventions to consider the peculiar circumstances of foundlings for purposes of determining their citizenship and consequently, their rights. 

We only need to be human. – Rappler.com

If only the war against climate change involved a clash of superheroes, stupendous feats of karate, or a heart-stopping motorcycle chase through grimy alleyways.

But those spectacles are reserved for the movies. The defining battle against climate change takes place in a large conference venue in the outskirts of Paris.

It involves not men in tights, but men and women in suits and bright-colored ID straps. (READ: Standing up for PH in Paris climate summit: Meet 6 key negotiators)

It involves not days of hurling fireballs at each other but days of going through thousands of phrases of a document, deciding whether to use “shall” instead of “should.”

Instead of the power to move at the speed of light, the men and women of climate negotiations need to possess the power of determination and strength of will to stand up for their country’s interests; and open-mindedness and understanding to stand up for the interests of the entire world. 

The goal is not even to beat a foe. The goal of these negotiators is to forge the world’s plan on how to beat the foe: climate change.

What’s at stake here?

Literally, the world’s fate.

If negotiators fail to reach an ambitious agreement in Paris, the world could warm by about 5°C. To put it into perspective, 5°C is the same temperature difference between today’s world and the last Ice Age.

A world that much hotter would mean catastrophic heat waves in Africa, sea level rise that would submerge island-states in the Pacific, and much stronger typhoons in places like Southeast Asia. 

Tomorrow, I arrive in Paris with other Rappler journalists to cover this make-or-break conference.  

And though it really is just a conference (complete with press kits and exhibition halls), I feel like I’m going to war. 

The war we will wage is against apathy and ignorance, against despair and inaction.

Because though the odds seem insurmountable, humanity can still turn things around. But humanity needs to be unified. We need to make the shift to more sustainable lifestyles, more sustainable economies together. 

We will report from Paris so that you, our Rappler audience, will know how you can be part of this both global, and individual, call to action.

And if you want to wear tights and a cape while you’re at it, be my guest! – Rappler.com

Last weekend, I had lunch and dinner with my BS Psychology blockmates. While a few of us took different career paths, most of them ended up going to medical school. About 6 went to Ateneo, 1 went to FEU, 4 went to UE, 2 had gone UST, and 1 went to Cebu Institute of Medicine.

The entire day, like most times when we go out, was never short on medical terms - talking about the sheer length of what they had still had to study, and somehow managing to find the will and sanity to power through it.

The night after that, I had dinner with two of my closest friends—both, also, in the field of medicine. The first one was struggling with the first year of med school in Ateneo, and the second one was stressed over pulmonology into her second year. I was supposed to meet a friend for dessert shortly after—an incoming senior intern in UST Med, but he’d gone home earlier because he still had duty call the following morning.

It’s safe to say that a lot of my closest friends are med students. When we share dinner together, my question, “Are you still alive?”, is more often than not shortly followed by a bursting plethora of stories filled with med stress and struggle.

Though I’m certain different med schools give different workloads, the same answers manage to surface when I get to ask: lack of sleep, a large amount of knowledge that has to be learned in a very short span of time, giving up more outings than their contemporaries, getting sick about learning about sicknesses, and, of course, “Ang hirap talaga. Parang hindi ko na kakayanin.” (It’s so difficult. I don’t think I can do it anymore.)

But, somehow, test after test, these brave souls manage to power through, find a way to move forward, and still manage to meet for dinner. More than sharing food with me, they manage to keep on their plates not just schoolwork, but board games every so often, sports, the spoken word, painting and digital art, and to my surprise and very recently— even filmmaking.

From medicine to moviemaking

I spent one Saturday evening watching a full-length movie called “Mga Kwentong Tsubibo” (Merry-Go-Round Stories). It was an indie film created by Batch 2019 of the Ateneo School of Medicine and Public Health that showcased the dreadful yet very real problems and struggles of Filipinos when it comes to the health sector of the country. These problems include not having enough money to pay for medicine, the higher susceptibility of the poor to sickness, and even the occasional foregoing of ethical medical procedures—particularly because the rich can afford to do so.

Despite the very serious issues the film tackled, it didn’t come up short on comic relief. I easily counted the number of times it made me laugh and smile, as much as it saddened me and made me cringe. Throughout the entire viewing experience, however, and more than anything, I was left in awe—and that wasn’t just because the cast included Mercedes Cabral, Star Orjaliza, and Bernard Carritero.

At the end of the film, I was taken even more aback, having found out that all the editing, the entire soundtrack, the production, and close to every single aspect of the movie was done by all the med students of batch 2019.

After much praise and questions during the open forum, the last thing LA Rellora, the director and doctor-to-be, said when asked if they had any plans of showing it to other med schools was: “Yes, we do pero aral muna. May test pa kami sa Tuesday,” (Yes, we do but we’ll study first. We still have a test on Tuesday) and he broke into laughter with his batchmates.

At that moment, my standard for indie films that night got higher, and with it, the respect I had for med students.

Undying respect and life

I say “undying” respect for med students, because it best describes the lives they’ve willingly chosen for themselves—lives that endure the struggles of each day, test, module, and breakdown, because of a sheer value and love of life itself.

Lives that seem to never have any free time yet still somehow manage to make it for friends, family, and loved ones. Lives that tirelessly study and push the limits of the human body, and succumb to sickness and poor health because of the studying about sicknesses and poor health. Lives that willingly and seemingly sacrifice their own lives for the honorable sake of saving others’ in the future.

I say “undying”, because med students, particularly in this instant generation, have set such a high standard for what it means to be able to live. Their very lives are irrefutable evidence of what a millennial generation is capable of—capable of storing seemingly endless and immeasurable information willingly in an age where information is just a click away. Capable of balancing a life that includes study, play, and somehow even making a full-length film. Capable of keeping a heart willing to suffer, and capable of being and giving more than expected when so much is already asked of them.

I doubt I can mirror the feelings and frustrations of all med students but so long as people are willing to share meals with them, ask how they are, work to build the country in different ways, and uplift their spirits every so often, I hope that they never lose sight of what they’re studying and “dying” for—and, that is, life itself. I doubt that anything could ever be more beautiful. - Rappler.com

Serge Gabriel is a psychology graduate from the Ateneo de Manila University. He is an aspiring philosophy professor, triathlete, and restaurant owner. He currently juggles work in marketing, teaching, and writing while being a poet under Words Anonymous. He hopes that, whether within or after his lifetime, he can help make other people proud to call themselves Filipino.

We write with regard to recent reportage on President Noynoy Aquino’s speech at the UN COP21 climate convention. Aquino’s 3-minute speech failed to capture the harsh realities of the burgeoning climate crisis in the Philippines and the world at large.

Failing to recognize the deep-seated problems of climate change means we will fail in the search for genuine solutions. 

Aquino failed to discuss how chronic vulnerability in underdeveloped countries is rooted in "CO2lonialism" and globalization. The climate disruption we face today was driven by the "benevolent" captain John Smiths and Adam Smiths who fed their addiction to fossil fuels, timber, minerals, cheap labor – the metaphorical Pocahontas.

Begging for crumbs

The sad reality is that Aquino does not care about addressing the roots of the crisis – he is just happy with begging for climate financing crumbs. So far, of the target $100-billion Green Climate Fund for the adaptation of vulnerable countries, barely $10 billion has been committed by the big greenhouse gas-polluting countries.

The Philippines has yet to get approval for allocation. We have to toe the line to stay in line for the crumbs. These crumbs are grossly insufficient, as the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development estimates that vulnerable countries need more than $1 trillion to adapt their economies to climate impacts. 

Next, Aquino was deathly silent over the need to demand drastic, mandatory, and legally binding emission cuts and climate reparations from the US, China, and the other top 20 polluter countries. (READ: Credit scheme backfired, hiking greenhouse gases – study)

Aquino once again toed the polluters’ line that from emissions cut pledges to climate financing pledges, everything must simply be voluntary and not mandatory.

There are plenty of motherhood buzzwords such as "climate justice," "global
solidarity," and "fairness and equitability" that peppered his speech to
appease both those searching and those skirting accountability.

Did Aquino fear that any hint of assertion of common but differentiated  responsibilities will have the US do another Kyoto Protocol and simply refuse to sign the upcoming Paris agreement? This mentality that a watered-down climate protocol is better than none at all is yet another scramble for morsels.

Pinoy pride?

Aquino’s speech closed with deceitful "Pinoy pride" moments in responding to climate change. Aquino gushed over the National Greening Program, but it has been slammed for being corruption-ridden, for planting invasive exotic species, and for being used for land-grabbing of agricultural areas. (READ:Rethinking the National Greening Program)

Aquino spoke of cracking down on illegal loggers, but did not disclose that, under his administration, there are millions of hectares of timber plantations in the guise of forestry management agreements, large-scale mining tenements, and vast agri-industrial plantations that have encroached into old-growth forests, farm lands, and ancestral lands of indigenous people.

Aquino played the Super Typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan) card, but was silent over the thousands of Yolanda survivors displaced when Aquino implemented no-dwelling zones instead of swiftly relocating them to decent, safe, and livelihood-accessible sites. (READ: 'Iiskwaton kami': Displacement, resistance in Leyte 2 years after Yolanda)

Aquino was silent over the widespread corruption over the emergency shelter assistance fund, and instead prioritized big-business infrastructural projects, like the questionable tide embankment project in Leyte and various mining projects across the Eastern Visayas region.

Aquino harped about our country's pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 70%. When we actually do the math and reconcile Aquino’s commitment with our actual energy and carbon sink loss trajectories, as what scientific think-tank Climate Action Tracker did, it turns out that our emissions will likely double from 2000 to 2030.

As these realities have been pushed to the margins of Aquino’s COP21 speech, so were the frontline communities who continue to suffer from the crisis-ridden socio-economic, political, and now even the climate, systems. It is high time that we, the people, break out from these margins. – Rappler.com

Leon Dulce is the current campaign coordinator of the Kalikasan People’s Network for the Environment (Kalikasan PNE), a national network of people’s organizations, NGOs and environmental advocates that was established in 1997 to address environmental issues which continue to worsen the lives of the Filipino people.

With the arrival of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and the announcement that global temperatures have risen by 1 degree Celsius, scientists have predicted that 2015 will be the hottest year on record, according to the World Meteorological Organization. 

As home to over 600 species of coral, the Coral Triangle and its rich, life-giving reefs are particularly vulnerable to such temperature changes. Corals provide food and shelter for many forms of life, and are essential to the marine ecosystem.

“They are the building blocks of reefs,” says Filipino coral expert Wilfredo “Al” Licuanan of the Capturing Coral Reef & Related Ecosystem Services (CCRES) project, a professor of biology at De La Salle University in the Philippines. “Think of them as foundation or habitat-building species.”

Corals are also the most obvious indicators of any deadly environmental change, particularly as a result of increased seawater temperatures of as much as 2 degrees over the average, over a period of 2 to 4 weeks.

“Coral bleaching is one of the most visual indicators of thermal stress due to climate change,” states the website globalcoralbleaching.org.

“The plants living inside the coral animal’s body, called zooxanthellae, are expelled when the coral is stressed,” explains Licuanan. Corals eliminate these algae because the extreme heat and continuous exposure to sunlight can make them toxic. 

“Bleaching also occurs when the pigments inside these algae are degraded. In both cases, the coral’s tissues become transparent, and the white skeleton shows,” Licuanan explains. “In some intermediate stages, the pastel colors of the secondary pigments are revealed – pigments that are important for photosynthesis at different depths, where light is modified by the water.”

The corals first appear to “bloom” with bright colors, before eventually turning white and dying.

Mass bleaching occurs when entire reef systems, and not just individual corals, turn white. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Coral Reef Watch recorded such an event in 1997-1998, which killed 16% of the world’s coral reefs. 

In 2010, WWF reported a mass bleaching in the Coral Triangle, where 76% of the Earth’s known coral species can be found. The destruction of reefs was seen in Batangas and Palawan in the Philippines, Tioman and Redang in Malaysia, Aceh and Bali in Indonesia, and other areas.

Third event

This year, NOAA is already predicting a third global bleaching event, which has begun in the United States and Hawaii and is expected to spread globally because of El Niño. “We’re very likely to see the bleaching that’s going on this year go on into 2016, and even be worse in 2016,” said NOAA Coral Reef Watch coordinator C. Mark Eakin in an interview with the New York Times, for the article “The Pacific Ocean becomes a caldron” by John Schwartz. 

“One phenomenon appears to be the result of a combination of El Niño, the Blob [a persistent zone of warm water off the coast of North America], and climate change,” wrote Schwartz. “NOAA this year announced that the world was in the midst of only the third global coral bleaching event ever recorded. Severe bleaching can lead to the death of reefs, and the loss of habitat for marine life and shoreline protection from storms.” 

Globalcoralbleaching.org estimates that the bleaching will hit 38% of the world’s coral reefs by the end of 2015, killing over 12,000 square kilometers and jeopardizing the livelihoods of 500 million people and over $30 billion in income.

Developing island nations in the Coral Triangle are particularly vulnerable to climate change-related disasters, which impose serious constraints on food security. According to a WWF report, The Coral Triangle and Climate Change: Ecosystems, People and Societies at Risk, without action on climate change, coral reefs in the Coral Triangle will disappear by 2100, the ability of the region’s coastal environments to feed people will decline by 80%, and the livelihoods of around 100 million people will have been lost or severely impacted.

Though some still stick to the notion that temperature rise is a natural phenomenon unrelated to human activity, Licuanan points out, “Corals are more likely to bleach if they are weakened by stressors like sedimentation and pollution.” 

There is also ocean acidification, a result of the excessive absorption of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and a main cause of bleaching. 

“In extreme cases, ocean acidification makes it difficult for corals to build their skeleton, which is made of calcium carbonate, and which, like limestone, can dissolve in acid waters,” says Licuanan.

Not that simple

While corals are also believed to be “durable,” recovering easily from damage under ideal conditions, Licuanan says it is not that simple, and scientists have yet to determine what factors come into play. “We have detailed data showing recovery in reefs in some parts of Taytay Bay, Palawan. Other reefs in the same bay have not recovered since 2010. What allows corals in some places to ‘bounce back,’ and what keeps them from doing so, is only partially understood.”

What WWF has consistently pushed for in the Coral Triangle are long-term conservation strategies than can address many environmental stressors simultaneously. The establishment and proper management of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) can help prevent coastal and marine pollution, keep fisheries healthy, and control indiscriminate or harmful development in areas of high conservation value, resulting in the building up of an area’s climate resiliency. Through MPAs and accompanying awareness campaigns, areas affected by coral bleaching can also be protected while in the process of recovery.

WWF is using its global experience in policy and advocacy to push for on-the-ground investments in actions that enable people and natural systems to adapt to a changing climate. Reports on a new mass coral bleaching event could only emphasize the importance of the 2015 Paris Climate Conference or Conference of Parties (COP21), to be held from November 30 to December 11 in France, where the leading agenda is an international agreement, involving developing as well as developed countries, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius. Beyond this temperature, scientists believe the earth’s communities and ecosystems will be unable to survive.

One of WWF’s expected outcomes from Paris is the “protection of the vulnerable,” specifically the protection of forests and ecosystems. WWF proposes that this be supported by an independent loss and damage mechanism to deal with any threats, and adaptation goals that can be universally applied.

While El Niño is expected to persist way into next year, the range of its effects remains hard to predict. It is, however, not too late to act to keep the situation from worsening, Licuanan says.

“There may not be any impacts in some places, while impacts will be worse in others, so it would be difficult to make general statements. What is clear, though, is that we need to reduce the stresses that we impose on reefs. Reducing sedimentation from activities on land such as coastal construction, controlling pollution from garbage and untreated sewage, and addressing unregulated fishing – these will have a tremendous impact.” – Rappler.com

This piece first appeared on www.panda.org on Dec. 1, 2015. Paolo Mangahas leads communications for the WWF Coral Triangle Programme. Follow the WWF Coral Triangle program on or sign up for the monthly newsletter.

Howling winds terrify me.

I trace my fear to the first time I experienced a super typhoon. It was Typhoon Rosing (international codename Angela), back in 1995: I was a 9-year-old kid, and I remembered the deep, horrific, monstrous growl of 215-kilometer-per-hour winds trying to rip off the roof of our house in Virac, Catanduanes. I still feel a sense of dread whenever I recall that long, cold, sleepless night when Rosing hit.

Fortunately, back then, super typhoons were somewhat a rarity, even for our hometown – right smack in the middle of the typhoon belt, where dozens of storms usually pass every year.

Well, that was then.

In recent years, just here in the Philippines, we’ve been experiencing stronger and fiercer typhoons. We don't need to look far: just look at Yolanda (Haiyan). Or Pablo (Bopha).

Scientists don’t explicitly link these individual extreme weather events to climate change. The evidence, however, points to a strong connection between extreme weather events and a disrupted climate. And scientists are warning us: If we don't do anything to limit our damage to our climate, millions of people will be at risk of more weather-related disasters.

In the 8 years that I've been working as a desk editor, it feels like it has become increasingly common for me to edit stories that show the horrors of these monstrous storms.

And when I do, it's like 1995 all over again. I imagine countless kids, even adults, cowering in fear, as storms destroy everything around them.

I imagine these kids growing up to fear nature, because it has turned against them; stronger, angrier, more terrifying at every turn – all because of what we're doing to our home.

We don’t want this to be the “new normal.”

I certainly don’t want this to be the new normal.

This is why climate is a personal issue for me, and I actually believe climate should be a personal issue for all of us. I do not want future generations to suffer the wrath of Mother Nature, especially since we can actually do something about it.
 
I fly to Paris wearing 3 hats: as a journalist covering the climate negotiations; as a trained environmental scientist; and as a human being who cares about our planet's survival.

I hope to witness history being made, but not as another historic blunder, as it was in Copenhagen in 2009. I badly want to see the world come together again and clear the path for a better future for our species and the entire planet.

US President Barack Obama, in his speech during the COP21 opening event Monday, November 30, told his fellow leaders assembled at Le Bourget: "Our generation may not even live to see the full realization of what we do here. But the knowledge that the next generation will be better off for what we do here – can we imagine a more worthy reward than that?"

I hope these leaders heed that call, and that someday, children in our hometown and elsewhere around the world would grow up not traumatized by howling winds, and Mother Nature. – Rappler.com

I woke up this morning wishing I hadn't. Trying to force myself to go back to sleep until my head began to throb. The pain in my head forced me to get out of bed, and I was disappointed that I had to face the world and my reality once again.

I've already sought professional help, but the past several weeks have been an on-and-off battle with something I've had since I was a kid: depression.

Some days I can bring myself out of bed without a hitch, go for a run or go to the gym, have breakfast on time, share a laugh with friends, get work done, and have a perfect day. But at any moment, a sound, a word, a picture that triggers a memory can cause the progress I've made to make me go spiral back to square one. So this time it was a photograph and an old song that sent me rolling down the mountain.

Here I am again, struggling to get out of my room, not wanting to communicate with the outside world, not eating, or eating too much. Overthinking, then spacing out for hours. Then the sun goes down again and I've accomplished absolutely nothing.

"What do you have to be depressed about?" someone recently asked me in an elevator. The answer is, nothing.

Depression is not always about being sad. Most of the time it's about feeling too much, or feeling nothing at all. It's about not having the drive to do things you normally enjoy doing, and not understanding why. It's about being fixated on something, and ignoring everything else. Or not being able to focus at all.

I've previously written about battling depression and anxiety, and where I went wrong was thinking that once I was able to manage those conditions, the battle was over. It's never over.

Instead of learning to manage, I learned to mask my inner feelings with a smile. The cleaner and put-together I looked, the more I was trying to hide the emptiness inside. Besides, what right do I have to be depressed when there are people who can't even eat 3 times a day in this country yet still manage to laugh? What is their secret? 

Those questions made me feel like a guilty, entitled – as they say in Manila – "coño."

But what brought me here to the Philippines in the first place was my passion for journalism and rediscovering my ancestral motherland. While I've had great memories, it hasn't been an easy road.

These days remind me of a time when I was younger and didn't know what I was good at, and was constantly reminded and told by bullies that I wasn't good at anything, which contributed to the anxiety and depression.

College happened, then an internship at a Filipino-American weekly newspaper changed all that. For the first time ever, I had a sense of purpose and the confidence to say I was doing what I was put on earth to do.

From a shy boy who couldn't introduce himself to his classmates, I was ambushing government officials for interviews or asking to schedule sit-downs with high-profile individuals. It was like a dream, my saving grace, falling in love with a profession that was loving me back. Journalism helped me feel whole and lessened the feeling of emptiness.

But as I moved across the world, it was a whole new game. New rules, new environment, I had to unlearn and relearn everything I knew. There have been a lot of rough days and truth be told, I've fallen out of love with journalism, but I'm learning something else: to fall in love with myself first.

Recently I figured out why I've slipped into isolation and depression more often lately. For 5 years, I've latched my identity to my profession. This is wrong in so many ways.

I am not only my profession. I realized that who I am is the sum of the people I've learned to love, and share my life with me, my friends, and family, they are my true saving graces.

After I learn to be whole as a human, hopefully everything else will follow. – Rappler.com 

The Comelec’s Second Division, in its decision cancelling the certificate of candidacy of Grace Poe, did a big disservice to all global Filipinos, those of us who have left the country out of need, professional, or personal motivation.

The Division went out of its way to commit this injustice by  making up a new doctrine when it ruled that Poe failed to meet the 10-year residency requirement for presidential candidates. It states that for election purposes, residency means residency as a citizen, and not residency by the fact of actually living in the Philippines.(READ: FULL TEXT: Why Comelec division cancelled Grace Poe's candidacy)

This is new doctrine on a novel question of law. When the law requires a period of residency in order to qualify as a candidate for elective office, does it require residency as a Filipino, or does it also include residency before repatriation? Neither the law nor jurisprudence provides a ready answer.

The purpose of the residency requirement is to exclude a stranger or newcomer, unacquainted with the conditions and needs of a community and not identified with the latter, from an elective office. It is rooted in the desire that officials be acquainted not only with the metes and bounds of their constituencies but with the constituents themselves – their needs, difficulties, aspirations, potentials for growth and development, and all matters vital to their common welfare. The Constitution presumes that for the position of president, one has to be a resident of the Philippines for 10 years in order to be “acquainted with the conditions and needs” of the Filipinos.

On the one hand, from the black-letter law standpoint, neither law nor jurisprudence categorically states that a foreigner residing in the Philippines, who is eventually repatriated under RA 9225, is incapable of being “acquainted with the conditions and needs” of the Filipinos during the years he lived in the Philippines before his repatriation. On the other hand, the new doctrine pronounced by the Second Division states that for repatriated candidates of elective office, the earliest they can be considered residents of the Philippines is the day they re-acquire their Philippine citizenship under RA 9225.

It does not matter if the repatriated candidate has been a resident of the Philippines for the past 10, 20, or 30 years as a foreign citizen. For purposes of the residency requirement in election laws, these years or decades of residency do not count for anything insofar as “being acquainted with the needs and conditions” of the Filipinos is concerned. The years of residency that count are only those spent as a repatriated citizen.

This theory of the Second Division is novel to what jurisprudence provides. To cast a semblance of legal basis, the Second Division cites 3 cases of Filipinos deemed to have abandoned their domicile of origin when they became residents of either the United States or Canada as a citizenship requirement. However, what these cases only say is that by acquiring a new citizenship, a former Filipino is deemed to have abandoned his domicile of origin in the Philippines. They do not say that such an individual is incapable of acquiring anew residency in the Philippines unless he is first repatriated. In fact, if any, the cited cases are unanimous in saying that residency is determined by evidence of physical acts that show intent to effect a change of domicile, not by some arbitrary cut-off period such as the day of repatriation.

What the Second Division therefore added to jurisprudence in one legal leap is this: Former Filipinos can never be deemed residents of the Philippines ever again, unless they are first repatriated under RA 9225.

Jurisprudence does not support this interpretation of the Second Division. The question of residence in election law is largely one of intention. It means intention to reside in a fixed place, personal presence in that place, and conduct indicative of such intention. In order to acquire a new domicile by choice, there must concur bodily presence, an intention to remain, and an intention to abandon the old domicile. In technical legalese, there must be animus non revertendi and an animus manendi.

The key word therefore in determining issues of residency in election law is INTENT. Nowhere in the 34 pages of the Second Division Resolution was there ever a discussion of Poe’s intent to abandon her residence in the United States and live in the Philippines when she and her husband sold their house in the United States, bought a family home in the Philippines, enrolled their children in Philippine schools, and explored prospects for their livelihood in the Philippines – acts that were done in 2005, even before Poe took her oath of allegiance to re-acquire Philippine citizenship on July 7, 2006.

Instead, the Second Division relied on a single document, Poe’s 2012 Certificate of Candidacy for Senator. The Second Division held this as conclusive evidence on the number of years of Poe’s Philippine residency, because it is an admission against interest that can neither be altered nor denied. There is even no discussion in the Resolution on the applicability of this rule of evidence to declarations which are more of conclusions than objective fact, arrived at from reckoning with a difficult question of law, such as this novel issue which hitherto even the Supreme Court has not yet come across.

Because of the novelty of this question of law, the starting point of the residency of a repatriated Filipino will always be more a conclusion of law rather than a statement of fact, hence the rule on admissions against interest cannot apply. This is proven in the Second Division Resolution itself when it made its own conclusion of law, much like what Poe did in her 2012 COC, that Philippine residency of a repatriated Filipino can only be counted from the date of repatriation. This is what makes the issue a difficult question of law, because even the Second Division’s conclusion is contrary to jurisprudence. Jurisprudence holds that the question of when a change of domicile is effected is always a question of animus manendi and animus non-revertendi, not an arbitrary cut-off period such as the date of repatriation.

Can there be deliberate misrepresentation on the part of Poe, when it would take the Supreme Court to settle with finality the question of when does residency of a repatriated Filipino start?  

Finally, the Second Division thinks Poe is estopped from claiming a residency period different from what she stated in her 2012 COC. Estoppel, for its part, is a technical legal concept with contextual applications that is always based on equity. In its Resolution, the Second Division applied estoppel not as a tool of equity, but as a punitive measure against “cavalier” assertions in COCs. It is highly doubtful if the principle of estoppel can be so lightly applied in such a layman manner as it was used in the Comelec Resolution.

To do justice not just to Poe but to millions of Filipinos in the global diaspora, the Comelec en banc must reverse the Second Division’s wrong decision. If not, Grace Poe – not just for herself but for all global Filipinos – must appeal to the Supreme Court for final redress. – Rappler.com

Dean Antonio G.M. La Viña has served as the dean of the Ateneo School of Government since 2006.

The criticisms by Manila’s and Cebu’s finest of Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte’s dirty mouth may be morally upright, but they also miss the point. Duterte could get away with his curses and threats because this is how politicians “talk” at the local level.

It appears that the critics have not or rarely go out of their metropolitan perch to and check the political oratory in the probinsya. For if they did, they will be amazed at just how normal this “Digong-ian” discourse is.

I grew up in a small northern Mindanao frontier town watching and listening to politicos - campaigning for a mayor, provincial governor, and councilor seats - regale their crowd. Words like “tambaloslos,” “walay ulaw,” gadako lang ang baba,” “gi-bugi kay corrupt man,” and “ga-yasmi lang ang nawong” are frequently heard on the platform.  

I cannot post sexually explicit metaphors in this site, but I hope to get away with this campaign song against Senator Fernando Lopez’s who was then campaigning for the Vice-Presidency. It is sang to the tune of the popular children’s song, “On Top of Spaghetti”:

Si Fernando Poe Lopez

Walay karsonis

Ang otin talinis

Sa public service

(ask a Visayan friend or relative to translate for you).

I could never get the song out of my mind even if it was sang over a decade ago because as we children listened to it repeatedly sang by the emcee (with audience participation) in between the bomba speeches.

In local campaigns there are no grand criticisms of the incumbents’ programs, or promises of economic development. Ad hominem is given (John Osmena once referred to his cousin rival as Osmena bin Laden).Politicians try to outmatch each other on the radio and television with the substance and the sting of their expletives. Cursing, along with acts like dancing the Me-Me as a 65 year old, are what can get people’s attention and – hopefully – their votes.

Digong stood out among his peers not because he was the nastiest of them all. He was master of the political invective because he was the first to exploit the power of television.

The nationalization of television, the loosening of central controls over local affiliates and the creation of free networks had opened new access for politicos, especially the moneyed one. They now could reach even the remotest of barangays and voters in these places, in turn, could – as it were – put a face to candidates who normally would only send their ward bosses to campaign in the barrios.

These new advantages have made it possible for the candidate to speak the local dialect, which includes the above metaphors and irreverent ballads. But when necessary this revolution in mass communication can also enable a politician to explain in detail his program of action to watchers. Local affiliate or free TV in short, allow the politicians to be the chico de calle as well as the visionary.

Digong pioneered all these in his popular TV show Gikan sa Masa, Para sa Masa which airs every Sunday. The 45-minute Q and A has all the elements I mentioned above and my Davao friends brag that Digong’s sermon is far better understood and much more appreciated when compared to the Sunday sermon. His imageries are very Dabaweno and his English has that vintage Visayan accent, which is music to the ears of his constituents.

Here is a sample YouTube video of Duterte talking directly to the laglag bala syndicate:

Listen to his response between 8:40 and 9:50 into the tape, and you have this very local argot that is music to a poor or middle class Visayan, Dabaweno, Magindanao, Zamboangueno, Maranao and Ilonggo.

“Ako wala gyud ko mang-ambisyon sa tinuod lang. Pero kung ako’y ma-presidente, ipatulon gyud nako nang bala sa inyo, mamatay man. Ipatulon ko na ug mobabag na sa inyong butbot dinha pa-operahan ta mo. Padak-an nako nang inyong buslot diha sa lubot aron moagas na lang nang hugaw diha nga…

[Rough translation: In truth, I am not aspiring (for the presidency). But if I am president, I will make you (members of the syndicate) swallow that bullet. I will make you swallow it and if it blocks your anus, I will have you operated on. I will widen the hole in your anus so that the dirt would easily flow out (of it)….]

Now compare his oratory to a priest giving sermons on Sunday or, worse, the nightly 5-centavos worth of ideas coming out of a pundit’s mouth, and the contrast is quite clear. Duterte’s lingo is the antipode to that of the urbane English or Tagalog of the taga-siyudad.

If Duterte’s critics are serious about censuring the mayor in public, they should keep in mind that for this to be effective they have to be constantly aware of who comprise that public and, more importantly, how that public talks and listens.

The best of luck – Rappler.com

Patricio N. Abinales is an OFW

Grace Poe. Anak ng Panday. Minamahal ng (halos) lahat. Mabango sa publiko. Namamayagpag ang ratings. 

Pero kahapon 'yan.

Biglang nagising si Grace na makulimlim ang bagong umaga (pahiram ng campaign jingle niya). Hindi pala bangungot lamang ang kinasasadlakan niyang gusot sa residency at citizenship. 

Okey lang sana kung kasama niyang lumuluha ang masang Pilipino, pero tila keber lang ang mga tao sa problema niya.

Bakit tila kumukupas ang dati’y maningning niyang bituin? Dahil ba salawahan ang publiko at pinagsawaan na ang unica hija ni FPJ?

Balikan natin ang kasaysayan ng mga "darling of the masses." Andyan si Gloria Arroyo na habang senadora at bise presidente ay itinuring na Nora Aunor ng pulitika. Di nagtagal, nahulas ang La Aunor maskara at naiwan sa alaala ang ringtone na "Hello Garci." 

Si Loren Legarda, bitbit sa Senado ang ningning ng pagiging brodkaster nang mahabang panahon. Lagi rin siyang topnotcher sa popularity surveys. Hanggang nag-ambisyon siyang magbise-presidente at humarap sa mga TV camera na lumilipad ang buhok (dahil sa bentilador) na parang dyosa.

At lalayo pa ba tayo sa ka-tandem ni Grace na si Chiz Escudero? Inasam ni Chiz ang maging pangulo noong 2010 nguni’t biglang nag-iba ang kwento nang mismong pamilya ng dati niyang ninong sa pulitkika ang nagsabing “ingrata” siya.

Lahat sila, tila naniwala sa sariling press release.

Kailangang patunayan ni Grace na di siya nasilaw sa sariling kasikatan at nag-ambisyong maging presidente kahit “bagito” pa. Kailangang ipakita niyang bisyon para sa bayan at hindi gatong ng mga nakapaligid ang nagtulak sa kanyang tumakbo.

Ayaw ng Pinoy ng ambisyoso. Ayaw din ng Pinoy ng di nakatapak sa lupa. Authenticity – eto ngayon ang buzzword sa Internet. Pero sa Pinoy, dati na itong bukambibig. Dati na itong pundasyon ng matibay na pagsasama. Kaya nga sumikat ang linyang “Magpakatotoo ka!”

Eto rin ang sangkap sa pagsikat ni Rody Duterte. Sa kabila ng mga kontrobersyal niyang asta sa Papa, sa human rights violations at sa marami niyang nobya, walang kupas ang pagsamba ng kanyang mga tagahanga. Dahil sawa na sila sa puro kwento na wala namang kwenta. Sawa na sila sa puro porma.

Mula teflon biglang naging velcro ng problema si Grace. 

Sa kabila ng paulit-ulit niyang hinaing na siya’y inaapi, hindi pa rin maka-relate ang masa. Gagap ba ng pangkaraniwang tao sa kalye ang #richproblems ni Grace? 

Residency issues ba 'ka mo? Hindi 'yan ka-level ng walang matirhan dahil nawasak ng bagyo ang barong-barong.

Mahirap talakayin ang natural-born status sa isang taong natural-born dirt-poor at kumakalam ang sikmura.

Ibang iba ang pagdurusa ng DH sa Dubai na inaapi ng amo sa isang immigrant na sumumpang maging mamamayan ng Estados Unidos at ngayo’y binabara sa pagtakbong pangulo.

Kahit pa tawagin ni Grace ang sarili na OFW, sa mata ng dukha, iba ang OFW sa nag-migrate sa 'Tate.

Panahon na para baguhin ni Grace ang “narrative” ng kampanya niya. Ibalik niya ang nagustuhan ng tao sa kanya at sa kanyang tatay: matapang at hindi nagpapaapi, hindi lugmok sa sariling problema, at may panahong ipagtanggol ang masa. 

Grace, tuloy man o hindi ang iyong kandidatura, ibalik mo na ang kwento sa taumbayan. Sabi nga, "It's not about you." – Rappler.com