The EDSA People Power has been criticized these past decades as a failed revolution. Practically every year since 1986, various voices would chime in: no real change happened; we overthrew a dictator only to breed a new set of elitist oligarchs under each and every new president. 

EDSA 1 failed, we say, because a holier-than-thou clique claimed ownership of an uprising that rode on the back of ordinary people from a broad spectrum of society. Because some “leaders” painted the movement yellow, to the exclusion of other persuasions. Because some figures framed this entire chapter in our history as nothing but a rivalry between two political families, as siding with one or the other would benefit them politically. 

And so in 2016, when a populist local chief executive far from imperial Manila brilliantly wove his campaign messaging around the shortcomings of EDSA, we elected him. Change, real change, was coming, he promised.  

Halfway into this president’s term, the dictator who was ousted 33 years ago has been buried as a hero, his widow spared prison time despite conviction for graft, his son and namesake getting a boost for his electoral protest for the vice presidency, and his eldest daughter so far figuring in the winning circle of the 2019 senatorial race with the current president’s endorsement. 

Yet Rodrigo Duterte remains very popular – he who prides in his mother joining the oust-Marcos movement in Davao, but at the same time unabashedly declares Marcos the best president there was. 

Across socio-economic classes, there’s considerable trust in Duterte and satisfaction with how he is running the country: amid the killing of thousands of small fry and the lackadaisical hunt for the big fish in the war on drugs; amid his docile policy toward China, which has encroached on our waters; amid his government’s pattern of redeeming the reputation of plunderers; amid his disregard for human rights; amid his intolerance for dissent.  

It is one of the freedoms regained during EDSA 1 that has made Duterte’s rise and continued popularity possible despite his despotic tendencies: the freedom of speech.   

Social media has taken away the function of the press as information gate keepers. Instant, with barely any checks in place, practically unbridled in reach, social media gave the crowd a megaphone for the message that it felt the elite, Manila, and the media had ignored for the longest time. 

What started out as expression of legitimate sentiments have, however, quickly turned into an enormous power that citizens online could not handle – in very much the same way that they accused the so-called guardians of democracy from EDSA wielding their newfound political dominance. 

Empowered by the medium and the technology, they now largely dominate the conversation online with their comments that are offensive, provocative, and hateful, albeit illogical and ignorant. (READ: State-sponsored hate: The rise of the pro-Duterte bloggers)  

And just as quickly, political quarters and interest groups have hijacked this mad keen crowd to spread their lies and propaganda. Taking advantage of a new generation that wasn’t around when activists were tortured and the press was muzzled, the Marcos propaganda machine, for example, spreads lies like Ferdinand and Imelda not having stolen billions of pesos from Filipinos, or the Marcos years being the golden age of the Philipine economy, or that only one was executed and none was arrested during Marcos’ Martial Law.  

This twisting of facts, this rewriting of our experience, this altogether throwing of our history into a memory hole are serving Marcos-wannabe President Duterte two-ways: it keeps happy the Marcoses, whom he openly says his presidential campaign is indebted to, and it instills in the public a benign view of an iron-fist rule, which he has been intending to establish. (READ: Duterte: If I won’t be a dictator, nothing will happen PH)  

It is only getting worse, with these trolls and purveyors of lies and disinformation getting emboldened by a trash-talking president. They have trained their vitriol, beyond the political enemies of their principals, on critical media.  

The press, as history and the experience of other countries has shown, is the first line of defense against totalitarian rule. This is why Duterte and the Marcos spawn have particularly targeted unfriendly media from the time he came to power. (READ: From Marcos to Duterte: How media was attacked, threatened)  

Their minions hail libel cases and other forms of harassment and intimidation toward journalists. They’d declare: if you want freedom of the press, be responsible in exercising that freedom – except that their definition of “responsible “ equates to anything that doesn’t shine the light on what the Duterte government would rather hide in the dark.

The concept of responsible exercise of freedom is also lost in their double standards. Last week, a couple of Duterte supporters trespassed on Rappler premises, and broadcast the act live on Facebook, rousing their fellow fanatics to call for physical attacks on Rappler, its staff, and its offices. In quick succession, their video was shared by former and current communications officers of the presidential palace, and the trespassers were put on a government show to talk about the act they considered heroic. They only invoked freedom of expression, but not the “responsibility” that was missing when their act incited to violence.  

The challenge now is no longer to gather huge crowds at plazas to frighten a dictator and his sycophants. There would barely be a crowd of a few thousands or even several hundreds to answer a call to commemorate the EDSA uprising.  

The crowds, from among both its believers and scoffers, are engaged in a struggle in the virtual space. It may or may not be a case of what they call keyboard (lazy) activism, but it certainly is in recognition of the reality that for mass action to be eventually ignited, and sustained, the battle for hearts and minds must first be won – online.

President Duterte, in a statement for the 2019 anniversary of the People Power, said: "I am hopeful that this occasion will inspire all of us, especially the younger generation, to deeply value the freedom and liberty that we won in EDSA…. May we all have a profound sense of appreciation and understanding of what we lost and what we reclaimed.”  

Young people, let’s take him up on his challenge, and reclaim the online public space from the disinformation monster that he himself has unleashed. There is a new war, and it’s on disinformation. Let's own this revolution. – Rappler.com 

The Philippine House of Representatives caused national and global outrage when in early January 2019 it considered lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 9 years old. The House resolved to “compromise” and changed it to 12 in a revised bill, which it swiftly passed on 28th January 2019.

If the Philippine Senate discusses and approves a similar bill, the law could become effective in June 2019. 

Here are 5 reasons why a minimum age of criminal responsibility of 12 years old is hardly an improvement from the proposed age of 9, and needs to be reconsidered at the Senate: 

1. It does not account for children’s evolving capacities

Because they differ in their physical and psychological development, children in conflict with the law deserve to be treated differently compared to adults in the criminal justice system. Setting the minimum age of criminal responsibility at too low an age is not compatible with the evolving capacities of children.

Congress should enact measures that recognise both children’s abilities and vulnerabilities. (READ: [OPINION] Criminalization is not what we owe our children)

2. It is damaging for a child’s development  

Criminal punishments can harm children, damaging their future prospects at school or at work. What’s more, the current conditions in the Philippine penal and corrective system are already bleak: child corrective facilities and jails are some of the most overcrowded in the world and some children are placed in jails with adults; neither are the best environment within which to support children’s development and social integration.  

3. It is an ineffective deterrent against those who exploit children for crime 

Congress has correctly identified the problem of exploitation of children for crime – but lowering the age of criminal responsibility will not help to address it. It may encourage those who exploit children to target more children younger than 12. Children who have been exploited to commit crime should be treated as victims, not criminals. 

4. It does not address the cycle of violence that lawmakers claim to solve

Congress can better use its efforts in ensuring preventive measures that address the root causes of child offenses. It can make sure intervention is available to – and appropriate for – families everywhere, helping to support the inclusion and social integration of all children. (READ: [OPINION] The real syndicate behind lowering criminal liability age)

It can provide sufficient funding, personnel and expertise to social welfare  services where they are most needed. By investing in the realization of children’s economic and social rights today, Congress will be investing in a less violent future for all.

5. It does not protect children’s best interests

 A key theme of the government has been to “protect” the youth, but it fails to live up to its promise. It has continually restricted our rights and autonomy. 

The government already carries out random drug tests on high school students, where previously it had suggested making them mandatory for adolescents and children as young as 10 in grade schools. It was President Duterte who referred to children as “collateral damage” during the deadly drug war, when at least 74 young people lost their lives in the wave of state-sponsored killings. 

The kind of protection that’s needed is the actual and effective implementation of the current Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, protecting children’s best interests. – Rappler.com 

Manu Gasper is part of Amnesty International’s Global Youth Collective and has been a volunteer with Amnesty Philippines since 2014  

I remember the moment. I was in a jeepney in the probinsya (province) – you know, the packed-like-sardines kind with a wooden bench in the middle and men dangling on the back, sides, and roof. Sardines have better wiggle room.

I was finishing a master's of public health degree in California, and I was doing fieldwork for 3 months in Western Visayas. The fieldwork was a chance to evaluate mental healthcare. But more than that, it was a chance for a global health fellowship to pay for a ticket home. I was born in Iloilo.

Next to me was a man holding a live chicken with his bare hands. Right then and there, a light bulb popped: This is where I want to be.

A few months later, armed with a doctorate in clinical psychology and a newly-minted public health degree, I moved back to the home I left 24 years earlier.

I came back driven by one thing: I was going to do my part to help in mental health. I returned with the wish to write my own story different from that started by my parents when we moved to Los Angeles in 1991.

I benefited a great deal from this story. Like all our mothers, mine was a nurse, too, in Saudi Arabia for much of my early life. My father worked in local government. There have been many benefits of having one foot in one place and having the other somewhere else: accepting the dream of my parents without being bound by it.

That dream of living in the US belonged to my parents. It was their story, not mine.

In January 2015, I came back to where I was born to firmly plant both feet in one place. But more than two years as a professor at University of the Philippines (UP) Manila, I am fighting the urge to leave the university and holding steadfast to why I should stay.

I now know why my parents wanted to leave the country. Here, you receive low pay in a stressful work environment often plagued by job overload and slow promotion.

Abroad, there was a promise of higher income with better benefits and supportive working conditions – and for me at 10 years old and my brother only a few years older, a chance at a better life. My parents were pushed out by this country and pulled in by another.

This is only part of the story – and only now do I deeply know why.

The job can be stressful. Some days are toxic. This is part of the work. But there is something else: it can feel demoralizing. Stress comes and goes – a downward slope only to return to better days.

Disheartening work is not that. It is not an act or a decision to look at a situation differently, so I can feel less negative about it—like we can do with stress. Demoralizing work is a long sustained loss of some part of ourselves. We lose joy in the work, but most crucially, we lose meaning in it.

Why do meetings start 30 minutes late, yet I am expected to stay 30 minutes longer? Why do I need to canvas for lunch? Why do I need to write a letter and pass it “through channels” so that I can request someone else to write another letter? Why does an online form need to be printed out 3 times? What then was the point of doing it online? Why are degree programs so prescriptive, effectively diminishing the natural curiosities of students?

I waited 3 months for an ethics board review: The feedback was to correct one sentence. I am waiting for a reimbursement of personal money I spent nearly 12 months ago. I got approved for a research funding in September 2018. I am still waiting for that grant.

I am amazed at how parochial my experience is seen. It is viewed and dismissed as merely a culture clash, with an entitled, Americanized balikbayan butting heads, almost laughingly, against “things are just different here” or “that’s the way it is.”

What is missed is the larger issue – a thoughtful dialogue on why such mediocrity is tolerated and on how we can strategically do better for ourselves. An efficient, effective work environment is not “American,” it is not “Western.” We all deserve – and are entitled to – a supportive place to work. Because work is not just about earning money. We can count ourselves most fortunate when we are doing something meaningful and enjoyable.

My contract with the university ends next year. I am deeply committed to doing my part in closing the mental health gap. I have every intention of pushing for public health and public policy as critical drivers of this much needed transformative change. However, I sometimes wonder how much fire my passion has left and, truth be told, if such drive can be better nourished elsewhere – in another university or organization.

It saddens me to ask: is the university actually getting in the way of the reasons why I came back?

I remind myself that I did not come back here for UP. I returned to help the home I left.

I do wish to stay at the university. I interviewed at the “big” schools in the metro soon after landing in early 2015. But the choice was easy. UP demonstrated the genuine wish to help local communities, especially those most vulnerable. It mirrored the very same reason why I came back 4 years ago.

And a great deal of what we hear about the university is true – magaling, matalino, masipag (talented, smart, diligent). I am surrounded by colleagues who are excited about nation-building and by students who will stand by that commitment for generations.

In an October 2018 speech, Dr Jose Dalisay Jr, the university vice president for public affairs, quoted an editorial from the student publication, The Philippine Collegian. He eloquently and so poignantly reiterated the long-held university tradition of “protecting the freedom of intelligence from the infringements of lies, orthodoxy, and mediocrity.”

I sometimes wonder how well the university has been protecting that freedom. That editorial was from 1962. – Rappler.com

Dr Ronald Del Castillo is professor of psychology, public health, and health policy at the University of the Philippines Manila. The views here are his own.

The anti-illegal posters campaign of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) started on a high note, with spokesman James Jimenez calling out Bong Go, Mar Roxas, among other candidates, for violations.

This quickly fizzled out, however, when a commissioner published a list of 40 candidates with “illegal” posters, and it did not contain the names of two people whom everyone expected to be there: administration bets Bong Go and Bato de la Rosa. Their tarpaulins can be found all over Metro Manila, and in fact across the country. 

The Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism recently reported that President Rodrigo Duterte’s close aide had already spent P422 million on political advertisements even before the campaign period started on February 12. That amount was already almost triple the P150 million allowable campaign expense cap set by the law for national candidates. (READ: Political ads of top spenders worth more than their declared wealth) 

Perhaps irked by the fact that she was on the Comelec list and Bong Go wasn't, reelectionist Senator Nancy Binay threw a major shade toward Intramuros. She tweeted: “Kaduda-duda ang listahan na inilabas ng Comelec dahil wala akong campaign posters. Kung sino pa 'yung mukhang nagkalat sa buong Pilipinas, 'yun pa ang wala sa listahan.” 

(The Comelec's list is suspicious because I don't even have campaign posters. Yet the one whose face is all over the Philippines, he's not on the list.) 

In its defense, the Comelec explained that the “name and shame” list only covered candidates with “addresses within the area of jurisdiction of the NCR Regional Office” and excluded those whose mailing addresses were outside Metro Manila like Go. It made sense, but unfortunately the fire spread too fast and rebuke irreversibly reverberated on social media, accusing the poll body of bias toward the administration bets. 

What is the proper size of campaign posters? The Omnibus Election Code, as amended by Republic Act 9006 or the Fair Elections Act, prescribes the rules on campaigning. 

Let us starts with the meaning of “illegal” posters. Posters or campaign materials become illegal when they are bigger than the size prescribed by law or, even when they are of the right size, when they are posted at a prohibited place.

Campaign materials are illegal when they are:

• Oversized
• Misplaced
• Both oversized and misplaced

As to the size, the rule of thumb in the Fair Elections Actis that no campaign material should exceed 2x3 feet.

Now, can a smart aleck put these 2x3-feet posters next to each other, assemble them like a jigsaw to the size of a billboard? While not prohibited by the law, the Comelec in its implementing rules strangely said: “This regulation is also regulated by making single letters of names having the maximum size or lesser and then putting them together to form a size exceeding two (2) by three (3) feet.” 

Understood. But how about if I put two letters to make “Go” or split a name like “Binay” into “Bi” and “nay” or “Bato” into “Ba” and “to”? Does this mean that it can be done in this case since they are technically not single letters? 

By way of exception, tarpaulins or streamers up to 3x8 feet maybe allowed. But they can only be used to announce a public meeting or rally, and required by law to be displayed 5 days before the date of the meeting or rally and shall be removed within 24 hours after said meeting or rally. 

So posters cannot exceed 2x3 feet, and announcements cannot go bigger than 3x8 feet.  

Which are off limits to campaign posters? To make it easy to digest, the general rule is that it is illegal to post campaign posters just about anywhere. It is absolutely illegal to post at any government-owned buildings and properties (including its cars, patrol cars, and ambulances); government offices, barangay halls, health centers, schools and shrines; government-owned and operated public transport like MRT, LRT and PNR trains; and in public transport terminals, like bus terminals, airports, seaports, and piers.  

Though the rule is widely violated, yes, it is still illegal to post at waiting sheds, street and lamp posts, electric posts and wires, traffic signages, pedestrian overpasses and underpasses, flyovers, bridges, main thoroughfares, center islands, and highways.

The full and exhaustive list is in the second part of Section 7 of Comelec Resolution 10488. 

Anything posted on these structures and these areas are unqualifiedly illegal.

Where can candidates post their posters? The law only allows two places.

First, the law establishes the so-called “common poster areas” or those tiny slice of the public plaza, markets, or barangay centers designated by Comelec as such. Here candidates can post their campaign materials, but these should be smaller than 2x3 feet. Check your local Comelec offices on where are your city’s or town’s common poster areas. 

Second, the law allows campaign materials to be posted on private properties, but with the consent of the property owners. This means that a candidate can approach the owner of the private residence and ask for permission to put on his posters. If consent is given, then the posters should not be considered as “misplaced” even if they are not in Comelec’s common poster area.

Again it is very important to qualify, that if the poster is from or at the expense of a candidate, then it has to comply with the 2x3-feet limitation even if posted in a private property and even if the private owner consents.

But if the poster is fully at the expense of the private person, at his own instance and without collusion with any candidate, the Supreme Court ruled in The Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC (GR Number 205728, January 21, 2015) that the private person or entity is not covered by the size limitation.

Does this mean that a private person can put up a billboard in his private property to support a candidate he adores? So long as there is no collusion with any candidate, the Supreme Court said yes. It ruled that such expression is protected speech and beyond the regulatory reach of the Comelec. 

In the Diocese of Bacolod case, the Supreme Court ruled that Comelec can only regulate expressions of candidates, political parties, and franchise holders. The poll body has no legal basis to regulate posters made as legitimate expression of support by private citizens. – Rappler.com 

Emil Marañon III is an election lawyer specializing in automated election litigation and consulting. He is one of the election lawyers consulted by the camp of Vice President Leni Robredo, whose victory is being contested by former senator Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Marañon served in Comelec as chief of staff of retired Comelec Chairman Sixto Brillantes Jr. He is a partner at Trojillo Ansaldo and Marañon (TAM) Law Offices.  

We’re nearing the midpoint of the Duterte administration, yet we’re nowhere near solving the Philippines' drug problem. By all accounts, things even seem to have gotten worse.

For example, over the weekend, Duterte proclaimed, “There are seven to eight million Filipinos reduced to slaves to a drug called shabu. Seven to eight million lost souls.”

Last Monday, February 25, he said, “We are facing a serious problem… The Medellin Cartel of Colombia has entered the country so we will be seeing a lot of cocaine.” 

We don’t quite know how accurate these claims are. But in this article I want to argue that painting an ever-direr picture of the country’s drug problem is part and parcel of Duterte’s overall political strategy: by exaggerating the drug problem's extent and continually framing it as a national security issue, he is able to justify his war on drugs which caters to his authoritarian style of leadership.

In the process of manufacturing a drug crisis, Duterte has inexorably created a real one.

Manufactured crisis

Let me be clear at the outset: the Philippines does have a long-standing drug problem. That much cannot be denied.  

But Duterte has been, for the past few years, overstating its scale and scope.

Back in 2016, upon assuming office, he trumpeted that there were about 3 to 4 million drug users in the country. Yet this presidential guesstimate flew in the face of the official figures of the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB), which in 2015 estimated only about 1.8 million drug users nationwide.  

Duterte became extremely defensive when his guesstimate got challenged by his own men, so that when former DDB chair Benjamin Reyes stood by his agency’s 1.8 million figure, he was summarily dismissed by the President.

It’s easy to explain Duterte’s agitation. He could only wage a full-blown war on drugs – and sell it to the public – if he could point to a critical mass of drug users out there and paint them as public enemy number one. 

Absent that critical mass – or citing a mere 1.8 million – and his war on drugs will fail to look credible or even necessary.

Swelling ranks

But we’re almost 3 years into the drug war and Duterte is still at it. For some bizarre reason – and without any supporting study – the ranks of drug users just keep on swelling. 

In November 2018, the new DDB chair, retired police general Catalino Cuy, said that there were around 4 to 5 million drug users in the country. Just a few days ago, Duterte updated this to 7 to 8 million.

Table 1 below tracks the disquieting progression of these numbers. Supposing for a moment they’re accurate, then we’ve gone from just 1.8 million drug users in 2015 to as many as 8 million in 2019 – a whopping 344% increase in just 4 years. 

{source}

<iframe title="Chart: Estimated number of drug users in the Philippines" aria-describedby="From the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) and various speeches by President Duterte." id="datawrapper-chart-B0M99" src="//datawrapper.dwcdn.net/B0M99/1/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="width: 0; min-width: 100% !important;" height="303"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">!function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.getElementById("datawrapper-chart-"+t);e&&(e.style.height=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px")}})}();</script> 

{/source}

Table 1

You would think that these numbers alone are enough reason to stop the war on drugs immediately and indefinitely. Yet, perversely, Duterte is using these exact same figures to argue for the continuation of his drug war. 

Indeed, Duterte recently announced that, “The drug war I will extend to the last day of my term.” Asked by reporters whether it will be “bloodier,” he simply replied, “I think so.” 

But you can’t justify a program by citing numbers that point to its unmistakable failure. Duterte’s leap of logic is so epic that even the police are stumped: they don’t quite know what to make of Duterte’s figures, and are as clueless as you and I where they came from. 

The inflated and unverifiable statistics betray the fact that Duterte is manufacturing a drug crisis to suit his own ends.  

But aside from this, notice too that he recently elevated the problem “to the level of national security.” 

This is crucial since security crises are authoritarian leaders’ best friends.

In How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said, “Major security crises…are political game changers. Almost invariably they increase support for the government. Citizens become more likely to tolerate, and even endorse, authoritarian measures when they fear for their security.”

Security crises are so important to authoritarian leaders that, throughout history, many have invented them where they don’t exist. (Just think of the way the dictator Ferdinand Marcos justified his martial law declaration by citing the fake assassination attempt on Juan Ponce Enrile.)

The present war on drugs is no different: it’s the centerpiece of Duterte’s policies precisely because it’s an easy vehicle for him to consolidate power and execute his authoritarian style of leadership.

Real crisis

If you listen only to Duterte, you can’t expect to get an accurate handle on the country’s drug problem. He’s most likely exaggerating it as part of his overarching political strategy.

But at least one thing is certain: his manufactured crisis has undoubtedly morphed into a real one. 

We should have heeded the experiences of other countries early on: any war on drugs – a supply-side intervention – is doomed to fail. That’s why many countries today would rather approach their respective drug problems from the demand side of the market instead.  

Regardless of the approach, any drug policy is supposed to reduce the availability and affordability of drugs. Yet, if you consider recent events, exactly the opposite is happening in the Philippines. 

To wit, bricks of cocaine worth hundreds of millions of pesos were recently found floating off the shores of several provinces like Quezon, Camarines Sur, Surigao del Norte, Surigao del Sur, and the Dinagat Islands.  

Before that, prices of shabu (crystal meth) plummeted right after several tons of it came to our shores, got smuggled right under the noses of Customs officials, and eventually flooded the markets. 

Thus, we’ve come to a point where drugs can be literally fished out of our waters or are otherwise becoming cheaper and accessible than ever. How can anyone hear these stories and reasonably claim them to be signs of success? 

Insane policy

As his grip on power starts to slacken – whether because of ill health or his numbered days in office –Duterte is busy depicting an ever-grimmer portrait of the country’s drug problem. 

Yet after 3 long years – and several thousands of extrajudicial killings later – it should be obvious to anyone that Duterte has miserably failed to contain the country’s drug crisis, let alone eradicate it.

Filipinos do not deserve to have several billions of their hard-earned tax money spent on a program that has not just led to innumerable human rights violations but also, by all indications, allowed things to get out of hand.  

We’ve given the war on drugs a chance, but it’s high time we tried other solutions. 

As someone (not Einstein, apparently) once said, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.” 

This upcoming May elections, let’s all vote for candidates who vow to put an end to this protracted bout of insanity. – Rappler.com

The author is a PhD candidate at the UP School of Economics. His views are independent of the views of his affiliations. Follow JC on Twitter (@jcpunongbayan) and Usapang Econ (usapangecon.com). 

Just like many people, history and literature professor Leloy Claudio is making an effort to stick to his New Year's resolutions.

In this episode, he recommends 5 books that may help in achieving one's goals – and not breaking resolutions. – Rappler.com

Early this month, two United States Navy missile-guided destroyers sailed within 12 nautical miles off Mischief Reef, one of 7 man-made islands built by China in the disputed South China Sea, challenging Beijing’s excessive maritime claims in the East Asia and Pacific region. 

China’s claims are not recognized under international law after the Philippines won its case in July 2016 in the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, which questioned the legality of China’s nine-dash-line demarcation.

However, the government of President Rodrigo Duterte has yet to assert its sovereign rights over the disputed territory, particularly in Mischief Reef, which is locally known as Panganiban Reef and well within the country’s 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone.

Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Taiwan, which China considers a renegade province, also have conflicting claims on the strategic waterway where about $3 trillion worth of sea-borne trade pass every year. The South China Sea is also a rich fishing ground and is widely believed to have large deposits of oil and natural gas.

Since U.S. President Donald Trump was elected into office in November 2016, the United States Navy has stepped up its “freedom of navigation operation” patrols (Fonops) in the South China Sea, increasing tension between the world’s two powerful military and economic nations.

During the administration of Barack Obama, when China began building artificial islands, the United States Navy conducted only 6 Fonops despite his “rebalance of Asia” policy as Washington realized the real military and economic competition for global supremacy is in Asia.

Under Trump, U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyers had done 10 Fonops from 2017, including two operations in the first two months of the year. China, which has been protesting these patrols, has aggressively responded to US Fonops when it’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy destroyer Lanzhou nearly collided late last year with the American destroyer Decatur near Gaven and Johnson Reefs.

Shifting tactics

Beiing has shifted tactic from monitoring, shadowing and issuing warning against Washington’s warships to threatening to ram the vessels to force them to alter course and move away from the artificial islands. These islands, after all, are now virtually military bases with secured ports, airfields and missile platforms.

The U.S. and China’s shadow play in the South China Sea has increasingly made littoral states in the region nervous because of the potential accidents, like ship and aircraft collision, which could start a minor conflict in the area.

But it appears that the rivalry between the United States and China has gone beyond air and maritime space after Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) issued last month a report, “Challenges to Security in Space,” assessing Russia and China’s space capabilities and their threats to American’s interests.

The report is an eye-opener as it showed what China is capable of doing in the South China Sea, putting at risk not only the United States, which conducts Fonops, but all other states patrolling the waterway, including Australia, Japan, and now Great Britain, India and Russia.

On page 19 of the 46-page document, the DIA report said that “the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) owns and controls about half of the more 120 ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) and remote sensing satellite fleet” orbiting the planet, capable of “monitoring, tracking and targeting U.S. and allied forces worldwide, especially throughout the Indo-Pacific region.”

This could mean that the U.S. Navy Aegis missile-guided destroyers on Fonops are at risk of being hit accurately by anti-ship missiles directed by Chinese satellites.

“These satellites also allow the PLA to maintain situational awareness of potential regional flashpoints, including the Korean Peninsula, Taiwan, and the South China Sea.” the DIA report said, stressing that the number of Chinese satellites watching from the sky is second only to the United States.

China's eavesdropping

China also owns and operates over 30 communication satellites, including 4 dedicated to military use, increasing Beijing’s capability to eavesdrop on anyone in the world. It is now “testing multiple next-generation quantum-enabled communications, which supply the means to field highly secure communication systems,” the report said, propelling China to the forefront of the global satellite communications industry.

Before the DIA report was made public in January 2019, the world was awed by the satellite images made available by Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI) on China’s island-building activities as well as presence of warships and fishing boats in the South China Sea.

Now, the world knows China can match those AMTI photographs, probably with better resolution than grainy images, sometimes, published by the international and local media. And for the Philippines, the Chinese satellite capabilities added a new dimension to the country’s external security challenges.

Recently, there were reports in the local media, based on AMTI imagery, about a large flotilla of Chinese militia boats deployed around Pagasa  island (internationally known as Thitu island, the largest of 9 features occupied by the Philippines in the South China Sea), as Manila was busy building a beach ramp in order for equipment and supplies to move in to repair an airstrip which the sea is fast eating up.

The militia boats were sent to monitor the construction activities, but could be a cover for other Chinese activities in the area as there had been attempts by Beijing to occupy a sandbar very close to Pagasa island last year.

Top defense and military officials have thought of sending troops to occupy and protect the sandbar but former foreign affairs secretary Alan Peter Cayertano cautioned the defense and military establishments against blowing up the problem.

If China had advance satellite systems monitoring the Spratly, why would Beijing need dozens of militia boats around Pagasa? Probably to put pressure on the Philippines to halt its minor repairs and small reclamation activities.

Perhaps it’s also one way to show how a great power would treat a puny country, sending militia boats instead of frigates and destroyers. China is reserving its more sophisticated and modern platforms for an equally capable power. 

Well, let’s see if the U.S. and China duel moves to the next level, from the air and sea to space – the real star wars. – Rappler.com

A veteran defense reporter who won the Pulitzer in 2018 for Reuters' reporting on the Philippines' war on drugs, the author is a former Reuters journalist.

The #HoldTheLine phrase littered social media when news about the arrest of Maria Ressa broke out. What does this phrase mean?

One prominent explanation is that it means all of us are being called upon to defend press freedom and our ability to speak truth to power. But another meaning is that it is calling on all of us to defend against a state toying with fascism.  Although it can be argued that we are still enjoying democratic rule, there are clear signs that people in our government are using fascist politics and tactics to undermine democracy.

Reading the works of Robert Paxton (The Anatomy of Fascism), Jason Stanley (How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them), and Madeleine Albright (Fascism: A Warning), we can extract 5 crucial signs that we need to be aware when people in power are using fascist politics and tactics, so we are not caught off guard and are still able do something to hold the line against the complete transition from democracy to totalitarianism. 

1. Majority rule without any minority rights. The current position of the government is that it is more important to save the majority of human lives rather than safeguarding the human rights of a troublesome few. Thus, the government tends to divide and conquer its citizens by singling out and demonizing portions of Filipino society as being responsible for the ills of our nation. We started with persons addicted to drugs, then it snowballed to the political opposition, journalists, human rights activists, religious and consecrated persons, the tambays, and now we have the children in conflict with the law. Which group will be the next target? I guess it is only the President who knows. In the end, it is all about stirring people’s anger and giving the public someone to hate.

2. The supremacy of the leader. In the Philippines, we have what Randy David calls Dutertismo, a term to capture the complete surrender of trust to the nation’s “Tatay Digong.” In this phenomenon, love for one’s country is equated to love for one’s President, and vice-versa. Thus, criticizing the President connotes an attack on the country. This also implies that even if the President constantly contradicts himself, as shown many times in the puzzling Duterte vs Duterte public statements, the wisdom of the President cannot be questioned by those lesser than him or those who have no moral ascendancy over him. Thus, with Dutertismo brings forth anti-intellectualism, rejection of the free press, and dismantling of democratic structures that are seen as obstacles to the will of the President.

3. Propaganda and support of nationalist militants. The current administration has been excellent in making use of propagandists, as it appoints and employs the orchestrated acts of pro-government bloggers and spokespersons to promote and publicize the benevolent President as the nation’s ultimate provider. In terms of nationalist militants, we now have many appointed officials in key positions of power who act like thugs who are vigorously combative in supporting the cause of the President. These nationalist militants also take the form of an army of online trolls who viciously verbally attack those who openly oppose or criticize the President. (READ: Chief disinformation architects in the PH: Not exactly who you think) 

4. Working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites. In order to have a stronger clout and grip in the different parts of the Philippines, the current administration has brokered power with political dynasties who are happy to give their 101% support to the President as long as their privileges are unscathed, and their political clout intact and even expanded. This is why we see the comeback of the Marcoses, the Arroyos, the Estradas, and many more questionable political families who are emerging as new power satellites of the President.

5. The endorsement and use of hate and violence to achieve political goals.  The current administration has earned its reputation of enforcing a “Kill, Kill, Kill” approach to solving problems. The President makes use of vulgarity, hate, and misogyny in his extemporaneous speeches in the guise of jokes and protected by his privileged immunity.  But these jokes become serious in reality when we see that from July 2016 up to June 2018, the drug war has produced more than 20,000 homicide cases under investigation, equivalent to an average of 33 people killed a day. We also have a number of mayors and 6 vice mayors killed under the Duterte administration. Diehard Duterte Supporters would call this phenomenon as rightful cleansing, but in the eyes of human rights, these are state-induced murders.

These crucial signs and their contextualized explanation tell us that the current government has been extensively using fascist politics and tactics – things that are, ironically, possible to do under democratic rule. To complete the transition from democracy to totalitarianism, the only thing missing here is the use of the military and the police force to enforce discipline and order, deploy labor camps, and execute political enemies or critics. 

Given the extension of martial law in Mindanao and the increasing appointment of former military officials in key civilian government posts, we are inching closer to this. 

Thus, it is imperative to put all our acts together to hold the line against the creeping fascism, especially now in this coming election where we are given another opportunity to hold the line by not voting for those who embody fascist politics and tactics. – Rappler.com

Mark Anthony D. Abenir, DSD, is an associate professor and the director of the Simbahayan Community Development Office of the University of Santo Tomas, Manila. He is a development worker and currently serves as chair of the Community Development Society of the Philippines.

The question has been often asked since Rodrigo Duterte, upon becoming President, began demonizing and bullying it:

Is the Philippine press really free?

These days, that is asked with particular alarm, occasioned by a slew of implausible allegations — Securities Act offenses, tax evasion, and libel — either brought directly or incited by the Duterte regime against Rappler and its CEO, Maria Ressa. For herself alone, Ressa has had to post bail six times to remain free, at least while under prosecution.

Duterte has been threatening to close Rappler, although, probably to ease his impatience, he has been made to realize that, while yet remaining in business, Rappler has some use to him. Sure enough, the thinking fits the line of argument his apologists advance about press freedom:

If press freedom no longer exists, why does the press still do?

Of course, not only is it a simpleminded argument, it is an absolutely smart-assed one. The relationship between press and freedom is not anything like the cause-and-effect relationship between smoke and fire, such that where there’s a press there’s freedom. Press freedom is not automatically proved alive by the ability of the press to exercise its democratic right to publish without state interference; true proof lies in what happens to the press after exercising that right.

And if anything is proved by what’s happening to Rappler and Ressa it is the opposite of freedom; it is persecution. It is persecution pursued with cold-bloodedness and impunity, such vicious sense as reflected in the mockery and weaponization of the law.

Given the institutional role of the press as watchdog on the powers that be, it must have crossed the minds of even the most normal of leaders to restrict press freedom. What more in the case of a leader with a sociopathic compulsion to rule as a dictator?

Forty-six years ago, Rodrigo Duterte’s own professed idol, Ferdinand Marcos, killed press freedom. It happened on the very first night of his martial law, the crackdown itself serving as his surprise announcement. Duterte himself is now killing press freedom, and he’s also doing it without an officially declared emergency, although not for the same strategic reason as was the case with Marcos.

Legal deterrents have been installed precisely to prevent a repeat of the Marcos experience, and Duterte has yet to be able to go past them. To be sure, he’s been trying to go around them by coopting counterweight institutions like Congress and the courts. In the meantime, it seems to suit him to do his murder piecemeal (except in his properly declared war on drugs), to choose his targets, to pick on Rappler and Ressa.

Being the mere lesser half of the evil genius that Marcos was and being indeed a certified narcissist, with only his ego to serve, how can Duterte be expected to grasp, let alone grant, the principle of press freedom?

Press freedom may only derive from the more general one of freedom of expression, but, because of its institutional nature, it has a practical primacy over the other. It is relied upon not only to facilitate the search for truth but, by some process of distillation, to sort through the controversies attending that search. The intent is to afford the individual beneficiaries of the freedom of expression, the citizens themselves, a more or less informed mind before they even attempt to speak or act it.

Take away press freedom and other freedoms become useless. Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly make for nothing more than a free market of chatter and gossip. The press is replaced by one lone self-interested, self-installed sanctifying voice.

How real is that prospect for us?

Rappler and Maria Ressa are the test case: they are press freedom under siege personified. Mocked and beaten with a bent law, they won’t be intimidated, for they know only too well what the stakes are, and these stakes are not merely professional; these are moral.

In other words, the fight is not theirs alone. This is the fight of every freedom-loving and fair-minded citizen of this country. To leave Rappler and Maria Ressa alone, to leave their chances at justice where justice may well be guaranteed by the mere presence of a sitting judge, is to surrender to the wishes of a sick-minded regime. – Rappler.com 

Pananagutan. Isang amoy-binubukbok na baul na salitang, malamang, sa lumang pelikula ninyo pa huling narinig. Iyong tipong dialogue na: "Huwag kang mag-alala sa sasabihin nila Papa at Mama, Rosaura, papanagutan ko ang nasa sinapupunan mo. Dahil pananagutan ko ang anak nating nabuo dahil sa pag-ibig sa kabila ng hindi rin matingkalang pagkakasala."

O kaya, "Bilang ulo ng tahanang ito, may pananagutan ako kung bakit nagkaganito ang kinasapitan ng ating pamilya. Patawarin mo sana ako, minamahal kong asawa, minamahal kong Petra."

Pero, hindi, nagbibiro lang ako sa mga ibinigay kong halimbawa. Hindi naman ganyan kaluma. Bagamat alam kong malinaw pa rin naman sa inyo kung ano talaga ang ibig sabihin ng salitang "pananagutan." Dahil, palagay ko, marami pa rin namang gumagamit at sumeseryoso sa salitang "pananagutan," lalo sa mga usapin ng responsibilidad. Lalo na ngayong, now more than ever, kampanyahan.

Maaaring hindi nga lang direktang sinasabi ang salitang "pananagutan." P'wede rin kasi, at kasingkahulugan din, ang pariralang "Ako ang bahala," o ang mas popular na "Sagot kita." O kombinasyon ng dalawa, "Ako ang bahala, sagot kita." "Kapag walang nangyari, sagot ko." O para mas intimate at sensual, "Ako ang bahala, Beyb, sagot kita," o sa mas madaling salita, siya ang may pananagutan o responsable sa mangyayari. 

At alam kong malinaw sa atin ito bagamat bihira ang nagninilay, na ang salitang "sagot" ang nasa ubod ng salitang "pananagutan."

Sagot din ang nasa loob ng mga salitang mananagot, papanagutan, sasagutin. 

Sa amoy-baul at napakakupad na akademya, kung saan humuhugot ng kabuhayan ang inyong lingkod bilang propesor sa matandang unibersidad, ang tawag sa pagbabagong anyo ng salitang-ugat tungo sa mga salitang alam natin ngayon ay pagbabagong morpoponemiko. 

Morphophonemic Changes. Naks, lalim. Pero sa madaling sabi, nababago ang salita, bigkas, o baybay, upang mas madaling maipahayag bagamat hindi nagbabago ang kahulugan. Mas madali nga lang maiparating ang mensahe. 

Halimbawa nga ang "Sagot kita," na ang kasingkahulugan ay ako, o siya na sumasagot, ang may kargo/pananagutan sa kung anuman ang gagawin mo. Mananagot. Sagot ang mangyayari. Magbabayad. Paparusahan kapag sumablay. 

"Sagot kita, Beyb."

Balatan pa natin. Dalawa ang popular na kahulugan ng salitang "sagot" sa ating lipunan. Una, iyong kapag tinatanong, sumasagot. Answer, response, o reply sa Ingles. Tanungin at sasagot. 

Ang ikalawa, at ang mas malalim na kahulugan sa ating kultura, ay ang "sagot" bilang responsibilidad. Sagot kita. O kung anuman ang gagawin o sasabihin ko, sagot ko. Ako lang ang may kargo, ang may responsibilidad. Ako ang dapat parusahan dahil sinagot ko. 

Sagot ko ito. Anuman ang hindi ko tamang sasabihin, halimbawa sa espasyong ito, sagot ko. Mananagot ako sa aking mga mambabasa at sa publikasyong ito kapag may ibinigay akong maling impormasyon. O kung may mali ako sa mata ng batas, sagot ko. Sagot ko ang kamalian. Sagot ko, lalo na, ang kaparusahan. P'wedeng ang parusa ay pagkakakulong o multa kung legal na usapin. Kung may nagawa ang aking minamahal, at hinikayat kong gawin niya ito, "Sagot kita, Beyb."

P'wedeng ang parusa, medyo subliminal nga lang, ay ang pagkakamit ng maruming batik sa kapirasong pangalan ko. Naks. Dangal. At, mind you, mahalaga ito sa akin kahit papaano; kahit hindi naman talaga pupuwedeng ipambili ng bigas ang dangal sa panahon ngayon.

Pero, siyempre, ang sagot na tinutukoy ko, kung saan nagmumula ang salitang "pananagutan" ay hindi lamang sagot na aakuin ang kamalian o pagkukulang. Ang sagot ay sagot ng pangalan ko, na kahit papaano, na gaya ng nabanggit ko, may iniingatang katiting na dangal. 

Sagot ng pangalan ko, dahil nagtuturo ako sa isang matandang unibersidad, nagsusulat, may pamilyang nagdadala ng apelyido ko. Dalawa ang anak, isang asawa, na pawang nagdadala ng pangalan. Sagot ng aking pangalan dahil, sa totoo lang, wala naman akong yaman. Wala akong kinulimbat, wala akong tagong-yaman, wala akong malaking suweldo sa panghampas-lupang trabaho, ang magturo.  

Anumang kahihiyang dahilan sa pagkakamali at kakulangan sa isinulat kong ito, halimbawa na, ay sagot ko. Pananagutan ko. Taya ang kapirasong dangal na nakamit ko sa kahabaan ng pagsulat-sulat at pag-aaral. 

Pananagutan ko, halimbawang hindi legal ang aking ginawa, sa batas. Puwede akong maghimas-rehas nang matagal, o, kapag napatunayan ng hukuman na walang pananagutan, lumaya. Sagot ko sa batas. 

Lahat tayo ay may pananagutan sa batas. Matagal man ang proseso, matagal man ang paglilitis, pero ang pananagutan ng tao na may mali o hindi legal na ginawa, ay sa batas. Hindi sa kung sinong inilagay sa kamay ang batas.

Kung kasalanang moral, pananagutan ko sa Diyos na pinaniniwalaan ko ang ginawa ko. Kapag may ginastos ako mula sa suweldo nang hindi alam ng asawa ko, pananagutan ko kay misis. At madalas itong ganitong paglilitis.

Natatandaan ko noong nabubuhay pa ang nanay ko, madalas niyang sabihin, kapag may iniuutos, "Mananagot ka sa akin kapag hindi mo iyan nasunod." Bata pa lang, pinalaki na akong may malinaw na pagkilala sa pananagutan. 

Pero hindi lahat ay may pagpapahalaga sa pananagutan. Okay lang naman iyon, maliban kung kandidato ka. Maliban kung pulitiko ka. Mas malaki ang pananagutan mo dahil buwis ko ang gagastusin mo kapag nahalal ka; ginastos mo ang buwis ko kung nanalo ka na dati, at nagkamal, nang walang pananagutan. 

Alam ninyo kasi, sa ating pag-iral – naks, ang lalim na naman – may pananagutan tayo sa ating lipunan upang gawing mabuti at matalino ang ating kapwa sa pamamagitan ng ating ginagawa, ng ating sinasabi, sa ating ikinikilos, lalo ngayong panahon ng kampanyang kandidato kang nangangako na naman ng kaginhawahan gaya dati. Gaya noon.

Pero wala kang pananagutan. 

Ang malungkot, dahil sa eleksiyong paparating, ano ba kung mapatunayan nating nagnakaw o walang laman ang utak ng kandidato? Dahil ang mahalaga, puno ng pera ang bulsa: pambayad sa minuminutong patalastas, pampa-print ng niretokeng mukha sa kamiseta at tarpaulin, pampadulas sa lokal na kandidato, pambili ng boto. 

Pananagutan? Ang meron lang noon ay ang kakilala mong nasa mababang antas ng lipunan. Sa mga kandidato at pulitiko, wala kang batayan ng pananagutan. Boboto ka na lang. Na, ang totoo, wala ka namang masyadong pamimilian. – Rappler.com

Bukod sa pagtuturo ng Creative Writing, Pop Culture, and Research sa Unibersidad ng Santo Tomas, Writing Fellow din si Joselito D. Delos Reyes, PhD, sa UST Center for Creative Writing and Literary Studies at Research Fellow sa UST Research Center for Culture, Arts and Humanities. Board Member siya ng Philippine Center of International PEN. Siya ang kasalukuyang tagapangulo ng Departamento ng Literatura ng UST.

Let’s cut to the chase and call out reelectionist Senator Grace Poe for shunning public debates now that she does not need them, yet she benefited from the same in 2013, when she topped a senatorial race, and in 2016, when she almost became president.

Let’s cut to the chase and call out reelectionist Senator Sonny Angara who, as a newbie in the 2013 senatorial race and an initial tough sell, had to join debates and guest in all sitcoms and TV shows to court votes. 

Both first-time senatorial bets in 2013, Poe and Angara won that race – a victory that’s nothing to sneeze at: she landed number one; he was number 6. 

Today, banking on the enormous advantage of the incumbent, they suddenly don’t care about these debates. 

Poe argues she’d rather have questions asked of her directly by voters during sorties. She’s not being straightforward. To be frank, Poe and Angara, like the rest who have said no to any of the debates organized by the media for the May elections, are simply scared. 

This is what’s in their heads but will not spill through a soundbite: Why rock the boat when we have a steady hold of our numbers? Look at Imee Marcos’ fumble. She attended GMA News’ senatorial debate and got pummelled by survey bottom-dweller Chel Diokno.

Indeed, why fix what isn’t broken? 

This is what it’s in their heads but will not spill through a soundbite: Why waste time in an event we can’t control, when we can bus in a captive crowd to our own rallies, buy airtime, bribe journalists, photo-bomb our popular President, and spend our millions and taxpayers’ money on billboards and election-day fixers? 

It does not help that even President Rodrigo Duterte himself is suddenly describing these debates as “useless” as if he did not gain from attending them in 2016, when he was still the little-known mayor who needed to introduce himself to the rest of the country.

Of the 15 senatorial candidates within the so-called winning circle in the latest Pulse Asia survey conducted last January, at least 9 have skipped any national forum or debate organized by the media:

• Angara, Sonny
• Binay, Nancy
• Cayetano, Pia
• Estrada, Jinggoy
• Go, Bong
• Lapid, Lito
• Poe, Grace
• Revilla, Bong
• Villar, Cynthia 

Truth be told, candidates who say no to debates are scared.

Scared to be asked. Scared to be grilled. Scared to be exposed for their flip-flops, their liberal pretensions, their deafening silence over the killings, the blatant misuse of the law, the abuse of power. 

Scared to be made to explain their hallow justification for it: that they’d rather focus on bread-and-butter issues for their constituents, even if senators are not primarily tasked to take care of our bread and butter.

In full display is their cynicism and opportunism, the kind that reminds us of why we abhor politicians in the first place – they who are a step away from victory but would not subject themselves to voter scrutiny.

They want to buy their way to the Senate, at the expense of what, in essence, is the spirit of an election campaign: for voters to see through their paid ads, for voters to make sense of their answers to questions vetted by disinterested parties such as journalists, and for voters to catch them at their most vulnerable and see what they’re made of.

A public audit will serve candidates – and the people they are sworn to serve – well.

For, unlike the presidency or the mayoralty, the Senate is not a fiefdom. You do your constituents real service – and improve your political stock in the process – by battling it out there to push for your pet law or advocacy or conduct oversight on a malfunctioning agency.

A senator’s job, aside from crafting laws, is to check the tremendous powers of the executive and shine the light on what is hidden. One is able to do that only if one has the smarts – and courage.

So, shame on you, Mister or Miss Candidate, if you think you can do that by running away from debates that will not even test your courage, just your wits.

Political kingpin Sara Duterte will protest the word scared. She’s been saying the administration bets are ready and able – as long as the debates are not hastily organized, bara-bara.

Well, let's get on with it then. 

The law says the Commission on Elections (Comelec) can organize debates for presidential and vice presidential races – yet not for senatorial campaigns. But so what? 

The Comelec cannot invoke that to duck from its primary duty to voters, which is to give them a chance to choose wisely, past the circus and false advertising that they’re now inundated with.

We ask the Comelec to use all its moral suasion to organize one senatorial debate and compel all major candidates to attend. Or we wake up in May with a Senate slate that is purely bought and paid for.

Rappler is doing its part in this campaign, as we launch on Monday afternoon, March 4, the first of a series of senatorial forums. Watch it live here. – Rappler.com

We, at the Stratbase ADR Institute Incorporated, fully welcome the official US statement that, "As the South China Sea is part of the Pacific, any armed attack on Philippine forces, aircraft, or public vessels in the South China Sea would trigger mutual defense obligations under Article 4 of our Mutual Defense Treaty."

This, we view as one of the most important statements made in the many decades since the Mutual Defense Treaty was ratified in 1951. 

It behooved the Filipinos to finally be provided this specific assurance which we rightly deserve. 

It was also necessary for the US to strengthen, to reinforce, and to be more specific about its security commitment in light of the escalating situation.

It was furthermore an imperative for our disruptive northern neighbor to be forewarned of the significance of our mutual defense treaty alliance. 

Under the Trump administration, it was moreover timely and strategic for the US to send a clear message to all its allies of the full intention and quality of its security guarantees. 

Worldwide, it should be received as a positive and credible statement of US foreign policy that reaffirms its strong adherence to the rule of law.  

No need to review the MDT

We entirely concur with the decision not to review the MDT given this official assurance that the US will defend the Philippines against any attack in the South China Sea. 

Foregoing an official review of the MDT will avoid difficult challenges for us. It would, for example, serve the purpose of preventing our powerful northern neighbor from interfering in our internal affairs by promoting its unlawful expansion agenda in the South China Sea.   

Need to work with the US in redlining Scarborough Shoal

Beyond the positive US declaration, it is essential for us to work with the US in redlining Scarborough Shoal so that any plans of Beijing to build artificial islands and militarize the area can be arrested. 

There is vital urgency in doing this for the following reasons: on the one hand, to project its regional naval power, Beijing considers the Spratlys, the Paracels, and Scarborough Shoal as its security triangle in the South China Sea; on the other hand, from our standpoint, Scarborough Shoal is only 124 nautical miles from our nearest shore. 

Need for closer partnership with the US in defense modernization

As our only treaty ally, we need to recognize the significance and importance of this alliance. We need to recognize that we are required to strengthen our own defense and security capabilities. 

We as well need to recognize that, based on interoperability standards, a stronger and faster build-up of our military capabilities can only be achieved with the help and commitment of our treaty ally. 

Bilateral FTA with the US – a great opportunity for enhanced economic cooperation

We understand that the US is open towards developing a Bilateral Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with certain countries including Great Britain, Japan, Korea, and the Philippines. 

Such an agreement grants favored trading status between two nations providing access to each other's markets. It serves to uplift trade and economic performance. 

There are many challenges that will confront us if we do not improve our competitiveness. Bilateral Free Trade Agreements will, however, open markets to our successful industries, thus adding jobs and lowering costs. 

Our economic partnership with Japan can be deemed as a great success, which has resulted in improving foreign investment, increasing trade, expanding tourism, and adding more significant Official Development Assistance (ODA) programs. 

We must therefore explore how to successfully negotiate a beneficial bilateral trade agreement with the US. 

We need to do this. – Rappler.com

Ambassador Albert del Rosario is chair of the Stratbase ADR Institute Incorporated. He is a former Philippine foreign secretary and former Philippine ambassador to the US.

Last week, I bid goodbye to a job. It wasn't just any job. It was 7 years of my life, mostly during my 20s, that I spent learning about the complexities of service to others. Other twentysomethings would have preferred other jobs, I guess, but it was what I chose to do. (READ: Answering the call for Magis by serving others)

I chose to enter a bureaucracy that needed so much work, where systems were not perfect, where we were building more than infrastructure and systems. (READ: Working in the government: Stories from the frontline)

We had to learn hands-on what worked and what did not, and adjust accordingly. We had to trace and fix problems at the roots until each system worked.

During these 7 years, there were around 20 people under my supervision, with whom I spent most of my time – more time than I spent with my family. These people have become my family, too. The workdays were hectic, and we'd see each other handling large workloads – more than you'd ever expect as a twentysomething – but the synergy we felt kept us going.

This was for our people, our communities, our future. What better impetus can one have to do the work few others would find fulfilling?

On those rare days when we had less work, or when we'd finish our tasks ahead of schedule, we would converge to share our experiences on the job. These are conversations I have come to treasure, because it was during these breathing periods that I got to know my family at the workplace – each and every one of them. (READ: 3 things I learned as a millennial in government)

During breaks, we'd share fried bananas or camote (sweet potato) over cups of coffee. Others would say we should separate the personal from the professional, but I don’t subscribe to that view of things. More often than not, the friendships and sense of camaraderie lighten the workload and add much-needed fun to the tasks at hand. Knowing the people you work with and having good rapport with them go a long way toward making challenging work easier to do.

Many people tend to see their colleagues simply as people they work with in the same office, perhaps because they have their own struggles that push the concept of their coworkers' humanity to the subconscious. It is all too easy to forget that the people we work with are humans who have their own lives and struggles outside of the job.

Seven years in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) regional government taught me to be mindful that, behind every office, company, institution, or workplace are people who do their best each day to contribute something good to the world, in their own small ways, despite any personal difficulties we are not privy to. (READ: [OPINION] Yes to Bangsamoro)

Last week, my coworkers and I in the ARMM bid our goodbyes, both to the work we spent years doing and to the people with whom we did those jobs.

It was not sad. My heart was smiling because I was able to meet and work with these people who are now my extended family. I have seen the goodness of their hearts as well as the skill of their hands and the keen intellect they brought to the job each day. I have learned from them, and I certainly hope they've learned a thing or two from me. (READ: Choose: High-paying job vs chasing your passion?)

This is, at its root, more of a shift in gears than a goodbye, because I am sure life will bring us back together to work again. This is a "see you later." – Rappler.com

Amir Mawallil is the former executive director of the Bureau of Public Information of the now defunct Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.

The lesson of the Pacific Plaza strike is that workers’ solidarity, not presidential promise, will end contractualization. 

“Kung titingnan natin sa umpisa, pumasok ako ng Pacific nung construction pa lang, hanggang maintenance.” This isn’t an uncommon sentiment for the workers of Pacific Plaza. Most of them have spent almost two decades tending to the needs of the residents of the lush twin-condominium towers, only to find themselves bearing the brunt of what would turn out to be one of 2018’s major labor struggles. 

The Pacific Plaza workers union’s strike in the heart of Bonifacio Global City turned half a year old last February, having weathered so many challenges – from dispersal on the first day of the strike, typhoons, a steadily depleting strike, to TRO’s ignored by management. 

Caving in is, however, the furthest thing from the mind of these workers, who have held one of the longest hunger strikes by labor since the 80s,  as part of their campaign to pressure the Pacific Plaza management to regularize 17 contractuals terminated last July 2018. It is this perseverance in the face of the ruthless management of a prestigious institution that has attracted much attention from media, students, and even the Catholic Church. 

Unlikely union

In most establishments, management has strictly enforced legal distinctions between regular workers and contractual workers, the most important being the contractuals’ insecurity of tenure. Many workers have, unfortunately, internalized these differences in status. One of the features of the Pacific Plaza strike that has caught the attention of observers of the labor scene is the way its participants have united despite their status distinctions, something that rarely happens.

“Para sa akin, yung ginawa nila doon sa labing-pito na kontraktwal, gagawin din nila sa amin. Sa loob pa lang, kahit kontraktwal, kasama namin sila, ginagawa nila yung trabaho namin, at yung trabaho nila, ginagawa namin, (For me, what management did to the 17 contractuals, they will eventually do to us, regulars. Inside, we could see that the contractuals were with us, doing the same kind of work)” said Edgar Virtudazo, a regular employee and an officer of the Pacific Plaza union, Pacific Plaza United Action of Labor – SUPER (Punyal-SUPER, for short), when asked about why they formed the union with the contractuals.  

The distinctions don’t matter, Edgar emphasized, and said that the union had organized themselves in this way because it made sense for them to do so. To leave out the contractuals would have been to dilute the struggle and recreate the same kind of distinctions management has imposed on them. 

This wasn’t the first time the workers had tried to organize into a union. The first union in Pacific Plaza, composed of only the regular workers, was formed in 2015. However, during their first CBA (collective bargaining agreement) negotiations, management promised higher pay and better working conditions on the condition that the workers voluntarily dissolve the union. Under such pressure, the workers caved in, but it only took a short while for them to realize that they had been duped. Within that time period, management enforced more stringent rules, but no longer having a union, the workers were powerless to do anything about it.

It took almost 3 years for the workers to muster the courage to organize again, only this time including the contractuals. With the formation of their union with the contractuals, management made its move: on July 6, 2018, a total of 17 contractuals, half of the 34 members of the union, were terminated, with “end of service,” colloquially known as endo, as the officially stated reason. This was in clear violation of the rights of the contractuals whose contracts ran to December that year.

A month later, the union went on strike on the basis of union busting, when negotiations carried out at the level of the National Conciliatory and Mediation Board (NCMB) hit a dead-end.

On first day of the strike, the union was dispersed and the workers were detained by the police. The stated reason? That workers could not carry out a strike on private property--a senseless rationale since strike actions by workers are guaranteed by the constitution. 

After that fateful day, the union decided to come back to Pacific Plaza armed with a letter from Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Secretary Silvestre Bello III stating that the police and the Bonifacio Global City marshals could not intervene in the strike action since it was covered by DOLE guidelines drawn up with the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG).  The strikers felt confident management would come to terms.

6 months at the picket line

Six months passed. Six months at the picket is a feat, but also a struggle in and of itself. Perseverance has been accompanied by hardship, so that today, spirits are undoubtedly low. The picture of victory which seemed on the verge of attainment has begun to blur.

“Gusto na namin matapos ito, kasi…masakit na,” Ka Edgar said, managing to smile as he did so. 

It’s very rare to find the words to describe a strike, but Ka Edgar phrased it well for the workers of Pacific Plaza. The battle is truly far from over for the Pacific Plaza workers, but it is costly in terms of human suffering. People have had to tighten their belts. Families’ incomes have been sharply reduced.  But even more serious than material privations was the demoralization that was lurking at the margins of the strike, ready to strike and spread if given the chance. 

Ka Edgar’s admission that things were hurting was followed, however, by a realization that the struggle was still worth pursuing. We asked him that if he had known that the strike would be this long-drawn out process, would he still have gone out on strike? After a pause, he said that if by some miracle he had foreseen how things would turn out, he would still have chosen to go out.

Management colludes with manpower agencies

Ka Edgar isn’t wrong when he says that strikes, much like the one at Pacific Plaza, are bound to happen.

The Pacific Plaza workers are a particularly interesting case for labor in the country. Their strike makes a pointed critique of the current DOLE Department Order 174 and the subsequent Executive Order 51 of the President, both of which were proclaimed as the solution to the contractualization issue.

Contractualization was a one of the main issues in the 2016 election campaign, with candidate Rodrigo Duterte promising to abolish it. Along with other promises, Duterte’s vow to end contractualization led to a whopping 16 million votes. Nearly 3 years into this administration, however, the promise remains unfulfilled.

Currently the law does not prohibit bilateral contractual arrangements (better known as direct hire). This arrangement includes the probationary 6-month period and covers seasonal and project-based workers. Controversy, however, attaches to the trilateral arrangements that involve a principal or establishment that is serviced, a manpower agency, and a contractual worker. 

Under the current department and executive orders, the only kind of trilateral arrangement that is banned is “labor-only contracting.” A manpower agency is considered a labor-only contractor if it does not have capital investment in the form of equipment, tools, uniforms, and other items necessary for the performance of work; it does not have direct power or control over its workers; and the jobs contracted out to its workers are not directly related to the main business of the principal, that is non-core functions. 

Compliance with these criteria would mean that manpower agencies providing janitorial, security, and other non-core functions would be the only ones that would be classified as legitimate subcontractors. 

The fact is that most workers in trilateral arrangements are either performing core functions, are under the direct control of the principal, or use equipment belonging to the principal. This is the issue at the heart of the Pacific Plaza strike: there is no difference in the work done by the Plaza’s regular workers and the contractual workers that are nominally under the control of a manpower agency. 

More broadly, manpower agencies providing contractual labor have become a convenient vehicle for management to avoid regularizing workers that perform core functions and are under its direct control.

What lies ahead?

Definitely all hope is not lost for the workers, although at times many feel as if there is no hope left.  “Bago ako lumabas naisip ko na obligasyon ko na ito. Papanindigan natin ito,” were Ka Edgar’s words of advice to workers who might be hesitating to fight for their rights.

Ka Edgar’s wife, Mildred Virtudazo, a housewife for most of her time before the strike, has become a de facto union member in the process. She has been to general meetings, has been part of every milestone and landmark of the strike, and even goes to shifts in the picket. When asked why she does this, when little to none is asked of her, she says, “Naisip ko na ang laban niya ay laban ko na rin.” 

If there’s anything to describe the incredible sense of solidarity of the Pacific Plaza workers, it would be Mildred’s sentiment. It is a deep understanding that struggles are shared and carried by those who see, understand, and care.

Ultimately, what keeps Edgar and Mildred going is the fervent belief that “winning” the labor dispute is possible. Certainly wins are possible, and the Pacific Plaza strike has created the blueprints for workers everywhere – that it is indeed possible for regulars and contractuals to be organized together, without thinking that they are detrimental to each other’s interests. That in itself is the Pacific Plaza workers’ biggest achievement so far.  But, of course, there is no substitute for victory in the strike.

Politically, what is there to do? With the broken promises of the Duterte administration, the Pacific Plaza workers teaches us that when we look to the most affected by these policies, there is much to learn about how we can make the country better for all of us, most especially for the workers. 

We are at a point in contemporary history where labor is resurgent. The struggle against contractualization has reignited the labor movement. In the last 3 years alone, more than 24 strikes have taken place, compared to the 15 strikes that occurred during the six years of the Aquino administration. 

Whatever may be the conclusion of the Pacific Plaza strike, there is little doubt that the practice of contractualization, which has done so much damage to labor in this country, is facing a mortal challenge from its victims. – Rappler.com

Ia Maranon is a labor activist and researcher.  Walden Bello is a former member of the House of Representatives.

Former Budget Secretary Ben Diokno’s appointment as new governor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) has sent shockwaves across economic policy circles.

On the one hand, Diokno is a PhD economist with decades of teaching experience and government service under his belt. (READ: FAST FACTS: Who is Benjamin Diokno?)

On the other hand, Diokno’s surprise appointment sent so much market jitters that the peso appreciably dipped against the dollar by 1% the day after it was announced.

The think tank Capital Economics also reportedly warned, “the surprise pick of Diokno as governor may raise questions about the bank’s independence in the future.”

In this article let’s lay down the pros and cons of this controversial appointment.

Central bank independence

A cherished virtue of modern central banking is independence.

That is, as much as possible, central banks and their conduct of monetary policy should be as free from political intervention as possible.

In the Philippines, one way we’ve achieved independence in the past was by appointing a BSP governor who rose through the BSP’s ranks.

This norm has prevailed since 2005. Amando Tetangco Jr, who repeatedly reaped global awards as an exemplary central banker, first worked in the BSP back in 1974. His successor, the late Nestor Espenilla Jr, was hired by the BSP as a fresh grad in 1981.

In the wake of Espenilla’s recent and untimely death, a number of UP economists suggested that we keep to this norm.

For instance, Prof Maria Socorro Gochoco-Bautista, an esteemed expert in monetary economics, said, “I believe that someone who has worked at the institution for many years is a far superior choice for governor than anyone from outside the institution who will undoubtedly face a steep learning curve on all fronts.”

Break from tradition

But in contrast to his two immediate predecessors, Diokno did not rise through the BSP’s ranks.

Having served as a budget secretary twice before, Diokno’s experience and expertise lie in fiscalpolicy (which deals primarily with the way government raises and spends money) rather than in monetarypolicy (which deals primarily with controlling the country’s money supply).

Although Diokno can be reasonably expected to know monetary policy too (being a bona fide economist, after all), several career officials within the ranks of the BSP – although much less known – already have decades of experience on the issues and tradeoffs at hand.

In this sense, Diokno’s appointment is not just a break from tradition but also less than ideal.

Note, though, that it could have been worse: in September last year Duterte alarmingly floated the idea of appointing a military chief to the BSP.

In a press conference, Duterte casually told former AFP chief Rolando Bautista (in a mix of Filipino and English) that, “In the meantime that I cannot put you in the Central Bank, you can be in the NFA perhaps…”

That shocking statement made clear that Duterte has no inkling at all about central bank independence and the need to maintain it.

(Bautista is now the new secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Development, which is an entirely different but no less disturbing appointment.)

Political baggage

Central bank independence also entails that monetary officials have as few links to politics as possible.

However, Diokno is not exactly apolitical.

First and most obviously, he was one of Duterte’s economic managers. Until recently he was beholden to, and advocating policies for, the present administration.

This alone could have far-reaching implications. Since Diokno is serving the unexpired term of the late Nestor Espenilla Jr., note that he can influence the crafting of monetary policy until July 2023 or until after the Duterte administration has passed.

Insofar as the BSP governor is also the chair of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), some also worry that Diokno’s appointment could hamper current and future investigations into the wealth and bank accounts of Duterte and his family members.

The manner of Diokno’s removal itself reeks of politics.

Several lawmakers recently beseeched Duterte to fire Diokno as budget secretary over allegations of “insertions” in the 2018 and 2019 budgets. They also hurled allegations of conflict of interest regarding the approval of road and flood control projects in Casiguran, Aurora, and Sorsogon.

Diokno denied all these claims. But some could not help but see that his removal from the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) could be nothing but a way to vacate the post of budget secretary and install a key Duterte ally. (Perhaps Speaker Gloria Arroyo herself?)

Clearly Diokno carries a lot of political baggage as he crosses the threshold of the BSP. Hopefully it does not weigh him down too much.

Which worldview?

Finally, many are still uncertain about Diokno’s worldview and the direction he wants to chart for the BSP.

Modern central banking is a devilishly complex business that requires a thorough grasp and careful consideration of both international and local events.

On the international front, the new governor will need to study the conflicting signals regarding the health of the US economy, the impact of the impending US-China trade war, and the fallout from Brexit.

On the domestic front, people wonder if Diokno’s recent experience in economic management could influence his new post.

For instance, being an advocate of the Duterte administration’s Build, Build, Build program, he might push for monetary policies that could advance this ambitious project (like keeping interest rates as low as possible).

Last year Diokno was also wont to dismiss the continuous increase in the country’s inflation rate. This attitude might further suggest that he won’t lean so much against the wind that is inflation.

Given all these issues, and if only to appease worries about his appointment, Diokno must articulate his perspectives and strategies to the public soon.

Wait and see

We’re almost halfway through the current administration and Duterte has visibly mangled enough of our social and political institutions.

The last thing we want is for him to exert considerable control as well over the conduct of monetary policy via Diokno’s appointment.

Yet there are at least 3 reasons to believe why this won’t happen so easily.

First, Diokno is but primus inter pares (“first among equals”) in the 7-member Monetary Board, which collectively and ultimately decides on monetary policy. The other members include: Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez III, former Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Felipe Medalla, former BSP deputy governor Juan de Zuniga Jr, former banker and trade secretary Peter Favila, former Metrobank president Antonio Abacan Jr, and former International Rice Research Institute deputy director general Bruce Tolentino.

Second, the BSP is staffed by a pool of highly-trained economists and analysts who silently but competently crunch the numbers and weigh the policy tradeoffs in the background. For all intents and purposes, we can still expect monetary policy to be based on good empirical data and solid analyses.

Third, I highly doubt that Duterte himself understands what exactly the BSP does, let alone how he can influence it to suit his own objectives.

Let’s just wait and see. – Rappler.com

The author is a PhD candidate at the UP School of Economics. His views are independent of the views of his affiliations. Thanks to friends for comments and suggestions. Follow JC on Twitter (@jcpunongbayan) and Usapang Econ (usapangecon.com).

The President loves his list, which is presumably a list of names  of those supposedly involved in the illegal drug trade.

“Presumably,” because no one, other than the President and a small cohort has seen it, and “supposedly,” because until cases are filed in court and judgments secured against those on the list, it is way too early to say that those on the list are “involved” in the illegal drug trade. These and other sticking points, such as the presumption of innocence, the right to due process, and defamation, have not prevented the President from referencing the list from the earliest days of his presidency.  

Now, the list is about to be made public, but not as the basis for criminal charges arising from their supposed involvement in the illegal drug trade but as a partisan campaign designed to favor the administration’s candidates. There are problems – a lot of them – with the President’s list and with the disclosure of the names on the list within the background of the elections. 

This week’s Deep Dive is into the President’s list and the problems that come with the list and the threatened disclosure of the names on the list.

Foreign Intervention

That the President has a list is old news. What's new is the admission of the President’s acting spokesperson, who is also the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel, that the list came from wiretaps conducted by an undisclosed foreign government. 

This violates Republic Act No. 4200, more commonly known as the Anti Wire-Tapping Law. (See box below)

The law punishes any person who aids, permits, or allows the prohibited wiretaps. This would include foreign agents as well as Filipinos, whether public officials or private entities, who aid, permit, or allow the wiretaps without authorization and/or consent. Even if the wiretaps were made abroad, those who assisted would still be liable.

The admission of foreign intervention makes it incumbent on the Philippine government to disclose fully the participation of these foreign agents, even if it were not for the purpose of charging them criminally.

If the wiretapping is done electronically and through the use of a computer system, then Republic Act No. 4200 or the Cybercrime Protection Act of 2012 is breached. RA 10175 defines as “interception” in section 3(m) the act of  “listening to, recording, monitoring, or surveillance of the content of communications ….through access and use of a computer system or indirectly, through the use of electronic eavesdropping or tapping devices, at the same time that the communication is occurring.” In section 4(a)(2) of RA 10175, “(t)he interception made by technical means without right of any non-public transmission of computer data to, from, or within a computer system including electromagnetic emissions from a computer system carrying such computer data” is a cybercrime.

Fruit of the poisonous tree

The 1987 Constitution guarantees in Article III, Section 3 the inviolability of “privacy of communication and correspondence” save upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law, i.e., RA 4200.

The consequence of an unauthorized intrusion into the privacy of communication is that “any evidence obtained...(is) inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.”

Therefore, the contents of the list that arose out of unauthorized foreign or domestic surveillance, wiretapping, or electronic eavesdropping in violation of Article III, section 3, RA 4200 and RA 10175 are inadmissible. They cannot be used even to form the basis of a charge.

This would explain why there is no mad rush on the part of the government to charge people whose names are supposedly on the list. Filing cases would make the list and the sources thereof fair game to compulsory process and compel a validation of the sources.

Apparently feeling the heat, Mr. Panelo is now walking back his statement that the source of the names on the list were foreign agents; this, after the Secretary of Justice himself took cognizance of the supposed source by opining that any evidence obtained from foreign spying would be inadmissible. 

Simply another order of battle

Whatever the sources of the intelligence that led to the inclusion of the names on the list, it cannot be denied that the list is simply another “Order of Battle.”

An “Order of Battle”, which is defined in RA 10353 or the Anti-Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance Act of 2012, is “a document made by the military, police or any law enforcement agency of the government, listing the names of persons and organizations that it perceives to be enemies of the State and which it considers as legitimate targets as combatants that it could deal with, through the use of means allowed by domestic and international law.” (Section 3(c), RA 10353).

Under section 5, an “order of battle or any order of similar nature, official or otherwise, from a superior officer or a public authority [when used in relation to enforced disappearances] is unlawful and cannot be invoked as a justifying or exempting circumstance. Any person receiving such an order shall have the right to disobey it.”

It is defined in a similar manner in RA 9745 or the Anti-Torture Act of 2009. There, it is also characterized as unlawful and not justifying any act of obedience to the “Order of Battle.”

There is no specific law declaring all “orders of battle” unlawful but these two laws (RA 10353 and RA 9745), with their uniform treatment of “Orders of Battle” as unlawful and unjustifiable, provide a clear idea of how “Orders of Battle” are treated in law. 

At the very least, they should put on notice anyone who might be compelled to uncritically accept the supposed narco-list and act on it. – Rapppler.com

Theodore Te, Ted to many, is a human rights lawyer and advocate, law educator, font geek and comic book fan, occasional movie and music reviewer, a life-long Boston Celtics fan and a loud opponent of the death penalty, violations of human rights, government abuse, and social injustice. Deep Dive is his attempt at probing into issues of law and rights, politics and governance (and occasionally entertainment and sports) beyond the headlines, the sound bites, the spin, and the buzz.

Below is the message of United Nations Resident Coordinator in the Philippines Ola Almgren for International Women's Day 2019.

At the start of this year, a Filipino scientist became one of the directors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the world's preeminent organization for nuclear technology and its safe and peaceful applications.

The Filipino scientist is a woman – Dr Jane Gerardo Abaya. She now leads the IAEA's Department of Technical Cooperation Asia and the Pacific Division, which provides technical cooperation support to 37 countries and territories in Asia and the Pacific. 

Dr Abaya's appointment reverberated among Filipino communities around the world and was cited by the Philippine government as a remarkable achievement in the country's efforts to increase women's representation at national and global centers of power.

The theme for International Wome's Day 2019 is "Think Equal, Build Smart, Innovate for Change." The theme puts innovation at the center of efforts to build solutions that work for women and girls, and achieve gender equality.  

Last February 22, in observance of the International Day for Women and Girls in Science, the International Labour Organization cited 4 Filipino women that have distinguished themselves in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Aileen Judan Jiao, president and country general manager of IBM Philippines and the first Filipina leader of the company; Ambe Tierro, senior managing director for global artificial intelligence of Accenture Technologies; Maria Cristina Coronel, president and chief executive officer of Pointwest Technologies; and Michie Ang, founding director of Women Who Code Manila. 

Dr Abaya and these 4 other Filipina game changers in STEM are truly exceptional. Their achievements, and others with them, are examples of what has contributed to placing the Philippines among the top 10 countries  of the 2018 Gender Gap Report of the World Economic Forum that benchmarks 149 countries on their progress towards gender parity across 4 thematic dimensions: economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival, and political empowerment.

Still, as we congratulate the Philippines on this achievement, much remains to be done before the Philippines can truly claim to have attained Sustainable Development Goal 5 – to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls – with the other goals of the 2030 Agenda that also need to be achieved to support this objective. In fact and unfortunately, many women in the Philippines continue to face existential challenges on a daily basis. 

These challenges include threats to their lives from childbirth. Today, out of 100,000 Filipino women who give birth, 114 do not survive. This maternal mortality rate is higher than in other countries in Southeast Asia. It is a long way off from the Sustainable Development Goal 3 of reducing maternal deaths to less than 70 out of every 100,000 live births. The recent adoption of the Universal Health Care Act, or Republic Act 11223, if fully implemented, will go a long way in addressing weaknesses of the health system that have failed to prevent deaths resulting from complications related to pregnancy. As the Philippines moves forward, let's all join in the call that "no woman should die while giving life." 

They also include exposure to sexual violence. According to the National Demographic and Health Survey of 2017, 14% to 15% of Filipino girls as young as 13 to 17 years old have been sexually violated. The same survey showed that 2 in 5 women, from 15 to 49 years old, have experienced physical or sexual violence and have NEVER told anyone about what had happened to them nor sought help to put an end to their torment. And let's not forget that young boys have also been victimized. In fact, by almost 6 percentage points, more boys than girls in the ages of 13 to 17 have experienced sexual violence. We welcome ongoing legislative advocacy to strengthen the Anti-Rape Law in order to raise the age of consent from below 12 to 16, and to remove the "forgiveness clause" by which the subsequent marriage between the offender and the victim extinguishes the criminal action or the corresponding penalty. Let's all come together in a resolve that latest by 2030, all girls and women should be free of sexual violence, as should boys and men. 

The 4 dimensions of the WEF Gender Gap Report do not fully account for conditions that continue to hold Filipino women back in some areas, but they reflect unmistakable progress that has been achieved in improving the lives and well-being of Filipino women and girls over the years. They also affirm that an all-of-society approach involving the government, civil society, and other stakeholders can finally bridge a chasm that is as old as humanity itself.  

By the same convergence of purpose, outstanding contributions by women will continue to advance society; mothers will live to see their children being born; and all persons, regardless of gender, will be free from sexual violence.

This is the future envisioned in the Sustainable Development Goals, and with our shared resolve and action, by 2030 we will be able to celebrate the realization of full gender equality on every 8 of March, International Women's Day. – Rappler.com

“Totoo pa ba ’tong survey?”  

Noong isang araw ito. Bago ako umuwi mula sa unibersidad kung saan ako naglilingkod bilang katuwang na propesor at administrador. Tanong ito ng kasamang propesor na chairperson din ng isang departamento sa unibersidad this side of España Boulevard. 

Hindi siya makapaniwalang nasa tinatawag na Magic 12 ang mga kontrobersiyal na kandidatong kung tutuusin, kung mag-a-apply sa pangkaraniwang trabaho, batik-batik ang isusumiteng NBI clearance sa dami ng kaso at kontrobersiyang kinasasangkutan. Tingnan ko lang kung matanggap. O makarating man lang sa bahagi ng interview. 

Pero hindi kasi ito karaniwang trabaho. Kandidato ito sa pagkasenador. Let this sink in. Magiging senador. May milyon, o bilyon pa nga yata, na pondo na galing sa buwis natin. 

Ramdam ko ang parikala o irony ng tanong ng kasama kong propesor. Kaming naniniwala na ang isang pananaliksik – ang isa sa saligan at dahilan kung bakit kami propesor – ay dapat na may malalim na batayan, hindi makapaniwala sa survey o sa quantitative analysis hinggil sa mananalong senador kung gaganapin ang eleksiyon sa mismong araw kung kailan isinagawa ang survey? (BASAHIN: Scenarios: 2022 looms over tight midterm race) 

Dahil kung karaniwang trabahong pinapasukan ng karaniwang tao, itong sa aming larangan halimbawa, akademya, malabo pa sa tinta ng pusit na makapasok ang isang nameke ng degree. Malabong makapasok ang walang degree, period. Puwera pa ang batik-batik tiyak na NBI clearance. Pero iyon nga, senador kasi. 

Patas para sa nagnanais maging senador ang mga nakapag-aral o hindi. Kaya nga nakapagtataka na, hindi na nga requirement ang educational attainment, kailangan pang manloko hinggil sa academic degrees ng iba diyan.  

Hindi sa pagyayabang, marami kaming degrees. Maraming diploma para maging karapat-dapat sa pagtuturo ng higher learning. Korte Suprema na ang nagsabi na kailangan namin, bilang propesor, ang may higit na mataas na pinag-aralan. 

Mahalaga sa amin ang degree – totoong degree na nakamit sa pagsisikap. Pagsisikap na kaakibat ng dignidad. 

Mahalaga sa amin ang dignidad. Hindi ito napapatawan ng academic degree. Walang government licensure exams, walang kakayahan lalo na, ang thesis para masabing may pinangangalagaan kang dignidad at integridad. Ilang thesis man ang ipasa, kung walang dignidad, wala. Nakakamit ito nang kusa. Tulad ng respeto at dangal. Hindi awtomatiko. 

Hindi ko sinasabing lahat kami ay pupuwede nang maging banal at santo. Ang gusto ko lang iparating, habang nag-uumigting na maitaas namin ang antas ng karunungan, kung pupuwede rin lang sana ang kabutihan, gagawin namin dahil ito ang lubhang kailangan namin sa pag-e-educate ng mga estudyante.  

May mabigat kaming bagahe na gawing matalino at mapanuri ang sasailalim sa aming klase. Na minsan nga, kahit na wala sa klase, wala sa unibersidad, kahit dito na lamang sa internet, guro pa rin kaming dapat ipakita o umasta, lalo kung kinakapos, na may pinag-aralan. Kaya nga sorry na lang sa mga pumasok sa ganitong larangan. 

Gusto ko na tuloy sabihin sa susunod na may mag-a-apply na propesor nang walang taglay na minimum na master’s degree: “Ah, Hijo (o Hija kung girl), kulang ang academic requirements mo. Hindi ka puwedeng maging propesor, pero malay mo, puwede ka namang maging senador.” 

Dahil wala sa educational attainment ang pagnanais maglingkod. Naiintindihan ko ang Konstitusyon. Sa larangan namin, gaya ng karaniwang larangang kailangan ng degree o diploma, mahigpit sa pagsusuri.  

Hindi puwedeng ikatuwirang gusto mong maging manggamot lang, sincere ang iyong damdaming makatulong sa maysakit, kaya uubra ka nang tawaging doktor. Hinde. Delikado, lalo kung may maniniwalang manggagamot ka, o kung talagang may ignoranteng magpapagamot sa iyo. 

Hindi pupuwedeng umaapaw ang sinseridad mo sa pagnanais matulungang mapagtagpo ang dalawang lupang pinaglayo ng ilog kaya dapat ka nang gumawa ng maayos at matibay na tulay, at tawaging inhinyero pagkatapos. Hinde.  

Kailangan ng degree, kailangan ng lisensiya para makapag-practice ng propesyong doktor o inhinyero. For better or worse, hindi ganyan sa Senado. Lalo ngayong paparating na eleksiyon.  

Kaya nga medyo kinikilabutan ako nang minsan akong padalhan ng mensahe ng aking editor. Magsulat daw ako para sa voters’ education. Ibig sabihin, bigyan ng gabay ang mga botante, pangaralan kung kinakailangan. Bigyan ng leksiyon para sa matalinong pagpili ng magiging lider at kakatawan sa atin sa pagbalangkas ng batas sa Senado at Kongreso.

Madaling sukatin ang katalinuhan. Lisensiya o diploma, baka nga puwede na. Ang problema, walang panukat sa sinseridad at kabutihan, na requirement, kung requirement pa ngang matatawag, para ka mahalal sa posisyon bilang lingkod-bayan.  

Madali kasing masapawan ng mukha, musika, sayaw, at katatawanan; matabunan ng maayos pero retokadong patalastas ang kakayahan ng gustong manalo sa eleksiyon. 

Hindi baleng batik-batik ang pagkatao. Ano ba kung kulang ang talino. Basta mukha namang sinsero at sumikat dahil sa pagganap sa kathang-isip na palabas. O dahil lang malakas sa malakas na pulitiko ng bayan. 

Puwede ring nagmumura, o nagpapatawa. Madali lalo na ang bumigkas ng kinabisado at masarap-pakinggang iskrip buhat sa bayarang consultant.  

Dahil sa panahon ngayon, sorry na lang sa aking editor, hindi na kailangan ng edukasyon ng botanteng hibang sa karnabal ng kampanyahan. O kung may mangangailangan man, mas madaling lumaganap ang kampanyang gawin at panatilihin silang mangmang.  

Wala na tayong magagawa kung walang educational qualification para sa nagnanais maging senador, congressman, gobernador, mayor, bokal, o konsehal. O sa mga posisyong inihahalal sa pagipagitan. Wala na tayong magagawa kapag ayaw magpahalatang wala silang alam. Gagamitin din lang na panakip ang kahit anong usaping legal. Ikakalakal ang katarungan. 

Wala na tayong magagawa kung bawat puna ay sasabihing “kakampi namin ang batas.” Lalo na iyong sa mga inugat na ang lahi para maging pulitiko sa lugmok-sa-kahirapang bayan. 

Dati, ang tangi nating magagawa ay bumoto nang naaayon sa matalino nating paglilimi. Hindi na ngayon. Ang mahalaga, laman sila ng bawat patalastas, pakulo ng media, endoso ng mas makapangyarihan.  

Dati, may pagpipilian naman talaga tayo. Pero ngayon, malungkot mang aminin, tila nauubos na ang ating pamimilian. Dahil – pagbalik ko sa tanong ng aking kasamanag propesor kung “Totoo pa ba ‘tong survey?” – ang mahapding katotohanan ay baka nga oo. Totoo. 

Ang masakit pa nito, mistulang walang edukasyong makapagpapabago sa gusto ng marami sa atin, na ang batayan sa pagpili ng lider ay iyong madalas makita sa telebisyon, sumasayaw, kumakanta, umiiwas itanghal ang talino (kung mayroon man), iparada ang kara at ngiting retokado. Ngumisi, magkunwari. At tawagin ang sariling handang maging lingkod ng bayan.  

Kahit pa higit silang naging tanyag dahil sa pagiging salbahe’t pagkakamal ng yaman. – Rappler.com 

Bukod sa pagtuturo ng Creative Writing, Pop Culture, and Research sa Unibersidad ng Santo Tomas, Writing Fellow din si Joselito D. Delos Reyes, PhD sa UST Center for Creative Writing and Literary Studies at Research Fellow sa UST Research Center for Culture, Arts and Humanities. Board Member siya ng Philippine Center of International PEN. Siya ang kasalukuyang tagapangulo ng Departamento ng Literatura ng UST.  

For a day, I became a student again. University of Santo Tomas assistant professor and Rappler columnist Joselito delos Reyes announced on Facebook that he could accommodate sit-ins for his class discussion on poetry that day.

He mentioned Lang Leav, and so I got even more interested because of a recent controversy sparked by how a Filpino poet wrote about her interview with the New Zealand-based best-selling author.

"It is rare for literature to be involved in an issue, or to be talked about," Prof Jowie said in Filipino, as he opened his class.

Mookie Katigbak Lacuesta had written an article for ANCx about her interview with Leav, who was in Manila to promote her latest book, Love Looks Pretty On You. Mookie said Leav "qualified as an ally and not a figure of literature," implying that Leav's work may not be literary but it's women-empowering. (READ: Q & A: Lang Leav on love, critics, and how she gets over writer's block)

Many netizens found Lacuesta's tone condescending, as if Leav's works were a disdain to the world of Shakespeare, Oliver, Forché, Rich, Berryman or Plath. Leav herself tweeted to imply it was unbecoming of a journalist to have written about the interview that way. Writer Michael Faudet joined the long thread of tweets replying to ANCx in defense of his partner, Leav. Mookie's husband, fictionist Sarge Lacuesta, also slammed the instapoet for her "substance over style" argument. 

So is instapoetry not poetry? What constitutes a poem? Who says what is poetry and what isn't? Based on what standards? 

There's formalism – and then there's social media

The word "instapoetry" is not in the dictionary yet, but we mainly use it to refer to poems posted on Instagram or any social media platform, any poem written and posted in an instant. It is commonly written in short and free verse format. Its topics include but are not limited to romance, sex, self-help, and friendship. 

Some believe that instapoetry became popular because of Rupi Kaur, a Canadian poet. Others give credit to Lang Leav. Many online readers patronize the writings of these two authors because of their emotionally striking and relatable lines. From Tumblr to Instagram posts, their works have become available offline as they were able to sell millions of copies of their books: Milk and Honey (2014) for Kaur and Love and Misadventure (2014) for Leav.

Aside from Leav, Faudette, and Kaur, Tyler Knott Gregson and Robert M. Drake have also made names as instapoets.

Easy access to social media platforms – such as Tumblr, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram – has made recognition as instapoets possible for anyone and everyone who express themselves in stanzas sketched with abstract objects.  

For Prof Jowie, instapoems are just aphorisms and clichés: "Hindi porket may verse, tula na. Hindi porket nagra-rhyme, tula na." (It doesn't become a poem just because it's written in verse form. It doesn't become a poem just because the lines rhyme.)

He's not alone in that view. Critics from the academe look at these verses through the lens of literary criticism.

Here is where formalism enters. Formalism is the foremost approach to examining a poem or a narrative in literary criticism. It standardizes how the language is aesthetically used in the structure, rhyme, and symbols in the piece. 

In the eyes of Ivor Armstrong Richards, TS Eliot, and Roman Jacobsen, good poetry involves the intricate use of language enveloped with critical thinking. 

Prof Jowie also said during his class discussion, "A poem should imply.... It should make me ponder."

Instapoetry won't make anyone ponder; it does not even use language in a subtle way for its readers to think critically. 

One can also critique a poem using reader response. The meaning of the poem depends on reader's interpretation of the symbolism in the poem.

But instapoems are straightforward, they do not give any symbols to interpret.

Writing to express 

However, we cannot deny the influence of instapoetry in creating a community of new writers and readers. They express themselves in the most convenient way that they can and have. Perhaps, they write to express and not to impress.

Professor Delos Reyes ended the class with a piece of advice: "P'wedeng hikayating magsuri ang mag-aaral sa kabila ng laban komportableng ease-of-use ng teknolohiya at social media platform."

(We should persuade the students to examine [literature] amid the ease-of-use technology and social media platform.)

There is no harm in attempting to bring back the culture of reading especially in the age of scrolling. 

Then, of course, what follows is another debate: while, instapoets get people to read and buy books, should this now be our standard for good literary work? I'd make my way to another talk to sit in and be enlightened. – Rappler.com

Paid in hugs, kisses, and tears, single parenthood is a full-time job. It takes everything, and more. You have to be the strongest person she knows – tougher than her heartaches.

You will really love being a parent. At some point, you will even feel like you deserve it, but most days, you won't recommend it. Parenthood is like signing up to feel like a failure for at least 60% of the days of the rest of your life. (READ: Single mothers: Different faces, same struggles)

In our society today, people are fond of attaching stigma to something that is already difficult. They are having the perspective like it is not hard enough to be the sole arbiter of someone's life: where she studies, where she should live, what she can and cannot eat, what she should believe in, how much she can know about the world, which people she should have in her life, and who is the one she can love. Handling these alone is not that easy, so you don't need people's awkward politeness when you introduce yourself as a single parent, just respond with a high five instead. Do not patronize, pity, or smile to hide judgments.

Signed contract

There's an implicit binding contract you might not be aware you signed when they pulled her out from you. That's the deal.

First, you must be better than you were yesterday. The time to find yourself and make mistakes was the last 9 months of carrying her in your womb, but that book is closed now, to be reread and revisited for 5 drunk nights a year. Second, you must love yourself. Forgive yourself on the days when you are less than what she deserves. Third, your child must be loved – she must be fed and clothed, she must be surrounded by people who loves her. She must be taught how to love. She needs to be loved unconditionally. (READ: A love letter to single moms from a single mom)

Forgive all your past, present, and future transgressions. Parenthood is daunting, and at the risk of sounding self-congratulatory, single parenthood is herculean. One needs superpowers: read minds, be invisible, fly. But it is the best thing there is.

'The one they have is why you live'

What they don't tell you when you get pregnant is that the baby doesn't develop its own heart. It takes yours. So when they are born, you enter a whole new existence where your heart is now outside of your body. Make no mistake, the one that you feel beating inside you just lets you continue to breath. The one they have is why you live. 

Your list of fears are no longer the flying cockroaches, bills, or jerks. They are being transformed into ledges, sharp corners, and her future jerks. Also, your frustrations become the fuel to enroll her in every imaginable co-curricular activity such as ballet, piano, kung fu, archery, and debate. She will be everything you weren't. She will be pressured and pushed to conquer the world, if it's the last thing you do. (READ: The challenges and triumphs of single moms)

You will revel in her milestones like the ones other parents put in expensive baby books – her first, step, her first tooth, and her first haircut, but the ones not in the book were her first heartbreak, and the first time the rose-tinted glasses came off. When you see innocence slowly seep from her eyes as she inevitably gets acquainted with the evils of this world, your heart will break too. You will attempt to prevent this, cover her ears and eyes, keep her pure. But you will fail. The world will get to her. But the world doesn't have to win. After teaching yourself to be strong, you must also teach her to be tough.

Understand that single parenthood is a choice. The choice to be a good parent or to be a selfish person is a choice you make on a daily basis. In times when you're tired and overworked but she needs you to read her that book for the nth time, her shrill yell rings, "Maaa! Keep reading!" Your choices are to be her mom or give in to the lethargy and sleep.

Ignore those misinformed lumps who congratulate you for having a kid, those who say you're lucky for having the temerity to procreate. Look, any fertile prat who forgot to use a condom can reproduce. A kid is not a trophy nor an achievement. You are lucky but not for the reasons they think. You are lucky for the opportunity to help leave this world a better place through a child. Parenthood is a huge and lifetime responsibility. It brings so much joy and fulfillment but only if you choose to honor the gift of their life. You can just easily mess them up and that is the line we avoid crossing every day. This is our daily struggle. This is my divine quest. If you will believe me, it is glorious. – Rappler.com

Mara Barbra Nanaman is a 33-year-old single mother who hails from Iligan City. She is an English teacher and debate coach in an international school in Jakarta, Indonesia.