Last September 4, a letter by the Philippine President addressed to both houses of Congress vetoed the bill seeking the declaration of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP) as a “national university” – a National Polytechnic University, to be specific. 

Such declaration is no mere labeling.  The PUP administration, with the support of other sectors in the PUP community, has lobbied for it because it would mean very real support for the university as a whole.

Thus far, there are only two national universities by law: the University of the Philippines (UP) and the Mindanao State University (MSU).

In the letter, President Duterte said he has "serious reservations on the suitability" to grant PUP the "national polytechnic university" status and thereby have institutional and fiscal autonomy. "Its proposed designation as national polytechnic university needs to be reassessed in light of its current performance ranking among SUCs in the country," he wrote.

Duterte added there must also be a comparative performance of PUP's satellite campuses and extension programs as granting the school the privileged status will have a "significant fiscal impact on the government."

Fiscal impact?  Performance?  Let us take a quick-and-rough look at this – as millennials might put it – fiscal thingy. 

We wonder if the President has seen the data on these institutions: UP, the leading state university, and PUP. Based in the latest data available online, the UP system had about 60,800 students in 2013. Let us round this off to 61,000 for a more conservative estimate. 

Based on latest data available online, PUP already had 71,963 students as of 2016.  Let us round this off to just 72,000.

The General Appropriations Act of 2019 gave a budget of P17,005,362,000.00 for UP.  That is P17 billion.  However, P3,233,080,000 of this goes to “Hospital Services” or the budget of the Philippine General Hospital (PGH). That still leaves 13,772,282,000 or P13.7 billion for the UP academic sector.  Meanwhile, PUP got a mere P1,499,023,000 or just about P1.5 billion for 2019. UP with P13.7 B, PUP with only P1.49 B.

What this translates to is that we are spending about P226,000 for every UP student’s education this schoolyear and just around P21,000 for every PUP scholar.

Let those figures sink in. 

As for performance, is it not that PUP graduates are topping national licensure examinations like in Architecture, Engineering, Nutrition and Dietetics, Accounting, Education, and Library Science?  How many times have the Jobstreet site surveys reported PUP graduates as the most preferred by employers?

Performance? Bang for the buck. Value for money. Performance for cost.

Oh by the way, the other national university, that other good school which deserves an increased budget, MSU, has a P3-billion budget for its no more than 50,000 students. Again, PUP has 71,000 students but only P1.49 billion this year.

So, Mr President, can we be more factual and evidence-based?  

Now, just a few days after you rejected the NPU bill, you have been reported to have said this publicly: “Kayo diyan 'yang puwede nating sarahan 'yang PUP. Wala akong pakialam sa kanila. Go ahead.” Really?  Most students of PUP come from the lower classes.  You don’t care about the children of the poor?

Perhaps next elections you and your minions can have a change of heart?  – Rappler.com

Louie C. Montemar is an Associate Professor of Sociology at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines. 

After over two and a half years in detention on fabricated charges brought against her by the administration, Senator Leila de Lima has become the symbol of uncompromising opposition to President Rodrigo Duterte. To many, she has displayed a backbone that is absent among many in the ranks of the opposition. With very few people now taken in by Malacañang's tall tale that she was part of the drug trade, her persecution is turning her into what Duterte fears: a rallying figure against his rule.

De Lima's time in jail has yielded the same opportunity that prisoners like Nelson Mandela, Benigno Aquino, and Antonio Gramsci discovered: time to reflect on the problems of the country. In this wide-ranging interview, the senator shared her thoughts on, among other things, Philippines-China relations, Dutertenomics, Gina Lopez, Malacañang and the generals, Duterte's popular support, an alternative economic strategy, Metro Manila traffic, Nicanor Faeldon and the Good Conduct Time Allowance law, and what's in store for the opposition. The questions were submitted to De Lima in writing to avoid the constraints on her thinking aloud in a "reception room" at Camp Crame.

The Xi-Duterte bromance and Teddyboy as gofer

Bello: Let's start with foreign policy, Senator.

What do you think about the meeting of President Duterte and President Xi Jinping in Beijing? Some writers say he was almost apologetic when he brought up the Hague ruling on China's claim in the West Philippine Sea. Some people say the whole thing was scripted beforehand – for Duterte to bring up the Hague ruling, then Xi to say no, but with Beijing softening the blow by telling the Chinese skipper in the boat incident to apologize and China to offer compensation to the fishermen whose boat was rammed.

De Lima: We can only speculate. There is no official record of what was said in this meeting, and Malacañang is keeping it as is to evade scrutiny and accountability. Duterte could have already sold the Philippines to China for all we know, and we would not know anything about it. Duterte and his administration have raised the bar on impunity in public service. They have no concept of transparency and accountability. This is best exemplified in how they conduct business with China.

Bello: President Xi Jinping has asked the Duterte administration to ban online gambling on the grounds that it is encouraging crime in China and illegal migration of Chinese to the Philippines. President Duterte has refused. Is Duterte standing up for national sovereignty? Who do you think is right?

De Lima: We call this a zarzuela. Xi Jinping cannot care less if the Philippines becomes the Triad capital of the world because of the expansion of Chinese gambling interests in the Philippines. China is conducting an Opium War in reverse. By making the Philippines the center of mainland China's criminal activities, like shabu, gambling, human trafficking, and money laundering, the more our territorial integrity and national sovereignty are undermined to favor China's interests here.

A Philippines weakened by criminality care of Chinese triads makes it harder for us to stand up to China, aside from the fact that election money can be coursed through these triads to support candidates ready and willing to be Chinese puppets, as what happened in the last elections where Duterte won partly because of Chinese support.

Bello: What do you think about the administration's foreign policy? Some say that it's been badly handled by non-professionals like Teddyboy Locsin. Some say Locsin is more interested in defending the President rather than defending  the Philippines' national interests. What do you think about our top diplomat calling the Vice President "boba"?

De Lima: Loose tongues sink ships, not only in the national security sense, but in the sense that careless talk of demagogues undermines our international stature. Locsin is close to being one when he imitates Duterte's loose talk, although he has already been known for his own boisterous language. This might be due to Locsin's oligarch heritage, but either way it does not help in his conduct of our foreign relations, especially in the way he defends Duterte's human rights records before the international community, short of praising his boss' Hitlerite final solution to Philippine problems.

However, insofar as Duterte is concerned, Locsin is his best foreign secretary to carry out his administration's pivot towards China and all that the authoritarian superpower represents, i.e., disregard for human rights, absence of democracy, maltreatment of minorities, corruption, disdain for western values, etc. Ever since he himself pivoted towards Dutertismo, Locsin has started to embrace all these "values" propagated by Communist China.

Bello: Do you think those critics are right who say Locsin would be better on China's side of the negotiating table than the Philippine side? Are they just being mischievous, or do they have a point?

De Lima: Insofar as Duterte's Philippines is concerned, there is no longer any difference between Philippine and Chinese interests. Duterte has made it clear that under his administration, we are a Chinese vassal state. This explains the regularity of his trips to China to report to the PROC leadership, as a feudal lord would to a king. In exchange, China will continue to prop up Duterte with international support against the West and financial loans to sustain his debt-driven economic program.

Under Duterte, we have ended up mortgaging our national patrimony to China, with our children and grandchildren left to deal with a future where the Chinese Shylock comes demanding his pound of flesh. Locsin couldn't care less which side of the table he sits at, because as far as the administration he serves is concerned, there is no longer any difference.

Bello: If you were president, what would you do different from what President Duterte is doing in relation to China?

De Lima: First of all, I will work for the enforcement of the decision of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in Philippines v. China by asking all western powers to exercise freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. Second, I will beef up our troops in the Kalayaan Group of Islands where we maintain our presence and our claim. Third, I will ask the AFP to draw up a comprehensive strategic plan in enforcing Philippine sovereignty in the area, short of matching China's presence.

Fourth, I will engage in talks with Western allies how they can help in containing China's presence at Scarborough Shoal, including joint military exercises and loaning of naval and air assets which will be based in Subic Bay. Fifth, I will put an end to Duterte's economic pivot towards China by encouraging investments from other countries instead of only China. Sixth, I will put a stop to all onerous Chinese loans and their control over our public utility, communications, and energy infrastructure. All public utilities vital to national security and defense should purely be in the hands of Filipinos and not any foreign country.

Seventh, I will invite China to be an equal partner in development, not as the vassal state that it envisions us to be, but as a country and a government that the superpower will respect and treat with dignity. Eighth, I will put an end to the proliferation of Chinese nationals in our labor and capitalist sector, starting with the Triad’s gambling interests (POGOs).

Ninth, I will investigate and prosecute all Chinese nationals who have participated in any bribery or corruption of public officials in the Duterte administration, including the Filipino officials they bribed and corrupted. Finally, I will ask Congress to pass legislation laying down state policies on treasonous conduct vis-à-vis China or whatever foreign country, and expanding the crime of treason to cover peacetime collaboration with any foreign country that would undermine national security, sovereignty, and Philippine territorial integrity. You can say that this is my 10-point program in reversing Duterte’s pivot towards China.

Lest I be misunderstood and further pilloried by my detractors, let me clarify that I am not at all eyeing the presidency. Let us just take this response simply as an academic discourse.

Dutertenomics vs Delimanomics

Bello: But why not? You'd make a far better president than your predecessors, I think. But let's move on to the economy and related issues.

The rice tariffication law has become the subject of much controversy, with many rice farmers saying it is the final nail in the coffin of rice growing in the country. Why do you think the President signed the law after he made that memorable statement during his victory speech in Davao that the World Trade Organization's demands for liberalization of the rice trade was the main cause of the crisis of Philippine agriculture?

De Lima: Rice tariffication has long been one of our unfulfilled obligations under the WTO and the exemption has already expired two years ago. We have always operated with the eventuality that the quantitative restriction for rice would be lifted. That being said, the current administration did not do a good job in preparing our farmers for the inevitable enactment of rice tariffication law (RTL). The timing of the law was also problematic as it came on the heels of NFA mismanagement, which saw them use the funds for buying rice for payment of its past debts and failure of NIA to fully implement the free irrigation law. These are all supported by COA audit findings. The farmers were left vulnerable while the agencies are scrambling for quick solutions. The Department of Agriculture was not able to use the initial funds judiciously and focused their attention to rice industry development rather than helping farmers sell their harvest at reasonable prices.

The President and his administration did not give due consideration to the immediate effect of the RTL to the farmers and was just too focused on complying with our WTO obligation and the projected revenues that it will bring. They should have anticipated that the RTL would cause a flood of imported rice that would cause significant deflation in the local rice market. The initial fund from RTL should have been used to ensure that the local farmers would be able to sell with reasonable profit.

Bello: One of the President's campaign promises was to end contractualization.  Yet, he vetoed the anti-contractualization bill, which was already a watered-down bill. Do you think he's been captured by the employers' lobby?

De Lima: Yes. Duterte sees no problem in making promises and not keeping them. As a sociopath, he is a pathological liar. Words do not mean anything to him, so long as he gets what he wants. He is worse than a trapo, because at least a trapo keeps some promises in order to survive the next election. Duterte has no such scruples, especially now that he is president and in his mind he can do anything he wants.

In the case of endo, he realized it's just too much trouble going against the business lobby than keeping his promise to the workers. The choice was not difficult for him. He can afford to hoodwink the workers anytime, but not big business to which he is already beholden.

Bello: Do you think many in the labor movement were naïve in thinking Duterte would follow through on his promise to end contractualization?

De Lima: Yes. If they knew Duterte's strongman record as Davao mayor, they should have realized that you can never trust a strongman to take the side of the people. By its very definition, a strongman looks after himself and his interests first, before anything else, definitely not the workers and their interests.

Bello: The list of key promises that the President has retreated from is growing.  There's his abandoning the rice farmers he vowed to defend against the WTO, there's his backtracking on contractualization, there's his allowing the Commission on Appointments not to confirm the late Gina Lopez after she really went after the mining industry, which he said he was against.  

Speaking about Gina Lopez, what do you think about her?  Do you think she was naïve in thinking Duterte would really move against mining?

De Lima: She was hopeful that Duterte would support her all the way. But Duterte most probably just used her to gain leverage over the mining industry, possibly for purposes of a shakedown or whatever concession or favor he wanted to wring out of the industry. This is a man with no principles and no commitments, definitely not to the environment or any other cause that will not directly benefit his interests.

Bello: If you were president, how would you manage the economy differently from the President and his team?

De Lima: I will focus on programs that spread out economic opportunities for the majority of poor Filipinos. I will pay more attention to those who have been neglected in favor of macroeconomic targets. I will also place greater emphasis in protecting our food security by ensuring that the programs in agriculture are implemented properly. We need to protect our agricultural lands by minimizing, if not preventing conversion, as well as giving proper assistance to farmers by ensuring that their harvest reach the markets at minimal cost.

I will also focus more on attracting manufacturing industries in our country instead of casinos and offshore gaming. I will also ensure that economic development does not come at the expense of the environment by first and foremost making a comprehensive review of our mining and commercial farming policies. Finally, I will ensure that the exploitation of our natural resources, especially non-renewable ones, redound to the benefit of local communities rather than the big corporations.

Metro Manila traffic, mass transit, decongestion, family planning

Bello: Let's turn to what's turning out to be the country's biggest man-made disaster. It seems like the Metro Manila traffic has gone from bad to worse, despite the administration's claim in 2016 that it would solve it in no time at all. Is the blame largely the Aquino administration's, as Duterte's people claim? Is it largely the Duterte administration's? Is it insoluble? How do you propose to address it since Metro Manila is now becoming one big parking lot and people are reaching the limits of their tolerance?

De Lima: Traffic is a by-product of increased economic activity and an expanding labor force. It is an indication of an expansion of the economy. However, the kind of economic expansion in Metro Manila has also engendered the era of motorization due to the lack of efficient mass transit facilities. People started buying cars because government was not investing enough on mass transit systems. This resulted in traffic due to the proliferation of private vehicles.

There can be no real solution to traffic until government gives the people a better commuting experience through comfortable, clean, and efficient mass transport systems. Unless this is done, those who can afford cars will just keep on using their cars, thereby clogging EDSA and all metro thoroughfares. After building these mass transit systems, decongesting Metro Manila should be the next planned priority. And after that we should really start curbing our population growth rate.

– Rappler.com

(To be concluded)

Walden Bello is a former member of the House of Representatives and author of the recently published Counterrevolution: The Global Rise of the Far Right (London: 2019) and Paper Dragons: China and the Next Crash (London: 2019).

A global climate emergency is upon us.

UN Special Rapporteur on Poverty and Human Rights Philip Alston recently reported that the climate crisis will push 120 million people into poverty by 2030. Alston said we have a virtual "climate apartheid" where the poor are disproportionately affected, while the rich are able to buy their way out of its impacts. 

Scientists also note that climate disruption is a significant driver of the ongoing 6th mass extinction event, where roughly a million species of plants and animals are expected to perish, many within the next few decades. 

The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report reveals that we have as little as 11 years left before we start experiencing catastrophic consequences of fisheries degradation, coastal flooding, and extreme weather events, among others.

Time to declare an emergency

More and more people are describing this "11th hour" situation as a full-blown "climate emergency." It is an urgent situation that requires urgent action – a Climate Emergency Declaration.

Over 1,000 local governments and other political jurisdictions representing 222 million citizens across the world have already declared a climate emergency. The idea is to recognize the crisis situation we are confronting, and institute fast-track actions and programs on renewable energy, fossil fuel divestment, and adaptation and resilience, among others.

It is high time for the Philippines, consistently ranked as among the top countries most vulnerable to climate change and already experiencing catastrophic climate impacts such as 2013’s Super Typhoon Yolanda, to finally declare a climate emergency.

Our Climate Emergency Declaration should translate into a climate resilience program for the farming and working-class communities who constitute the overwhelming majority and the most vulnerable of our populace.

Our forests, farmlands, and coasts – our natural defenses to extreme weather events and our lifelines for food security – should be protected from destructive projects such as large-scale mines, mega dams, agribusiness plantations, and land reclamations. 

There should be a master plan for the just transition of our economy towards securing and enhancing the jobs and livelihoods of our citizens, establishing strategic basic industries, while offsetting our carbon emissions such as through a moratorium on coal power plants and greater state subsidies in our public mass transportation systems.

A diplomatic program should be instituted to demand climate justice from the top carbon emission-contributing countries and companies. Developed nations such as the USA and Japan account for 70% of global carbon emissions. The 2017 Carbon Majors report also revealed that just 100 fossil fuel corporations are linked to 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions since 1988. They must be held accountable.

Time to take the challenge

Make no mistake – such an ambitious declaration will be met with tooth-and-nail resistance from the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte. 

Duterte’s energy secretary, Alfonso Cusi, has already rejected the proposition of imposing a moratorium on new coal power projects. His finance secretary, Carlos Dominguez, is a mining mogul who seeks to overturn mining closures and suspensions. 

Duterte himself has repeatedly declared his intention to snub the upcoming 25th Conference of Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

But it’s high time for the Davids to bring down the Goliaths. It is high time for everyone to take the Climate Emergency Challenge.

First, we need to adopt a vision for system change to combat climate change. If there is anything we have learned from the studies of scientists down to the concrete experiences of frontline communities, it is that the global system of corporate greed that drives the exploitation of our people, environment, and climate.

We need to undo the centuries of laws, policies, and practices of our governments and societies that have wreaked havoc on our planet.

Second, we need to recognize that it takes everyone to change everything. The enormity of the tasks at hand require people to work together – from crafting innovative climate solutions to mobilizing thousands upon thousands to protest climate injustice. Get yourself organized by joining the nearest climate activist movement. 

Last, we need to show the powers that be that people power is alive and kicking. On September 20, millions of people from all walks of life across generations will be pouring into the streets for the Global Climate Strike. It is the collective ultimatum of everyone, everywhere, for everything that needs to be done to save our planet from this climate emergency.

Join us at the University of the Philippines – Diliman Campus College of Science Amphitheater, 3:00 to 6:00 PM, as we aim to set the world record for the biggest number of people to make a human earth formation. It is our message to President Duterte, and to all the leaders of the world: there is no Planet B. If you will not act to protect our common home, get out of the way. We will. – Rappler.com

Leon Dulce is the national coordinator of the Kalikasan People’s Network for the Environment (Kalikasan PNE), a national environmental campaign center established in 1997 to enable the coordination and complementation of people’s struggles for the environment. Kalikasan PNE is one of the co-organizers of the Global Climate Strike in the Philippines.

Nakayayanig ang mga nahalungkat sa mga hearing ng Senado tungkol sa katiwalian sa Bureau of Corrections.

• Papeles ng good conduct na binebenta 
• Certificates ng pagkakasakit na may presyo 

Marami ring kuwento ng pagpasok ng mga prostitute, kontrabando, marathon na pasugal, kidnap-for-ransom ng mga asawa o kasintahan ng mga convict – at sa malamang ay may katotohanan ang iba.

Ang siste, ang kinuhang subject-matter-expert ay si dating BuCor OIC Rafael Ragos, isa sa mga nagdidiin kay Senadora Leila de Lima. Ilang beses na rin siyang nasangkot sa korupsiyon, pero tila itinuring ng mga senador na busilak ang kanyang mga pasabog. Sana’y ‘di totoo ang bulung-bulungan na cottage industry na rin daw ang witness for hire sa BuCor.

Hindi na tayo nagtaka nang naging lynch mob ang Camara de Representantes sa ilalim ng dating House Speaker na si Bebot Alvarez, nang tambakan nito ng nakaiintrigang mga chismis at kaso si Senador Leila de Lima. Pero ngayon, mismong mga kasamahan na niya sa Senado ang kumakaladkad sa kanya sa putikan. 

Bakit? May kuro-kuro riyan si dating professor Solita Monsod – sa kanyang artikulo sa Inquirer na pinamagatang, “Three against Leila.” May axe to grind daw sina Dick Gordon, Ping Lacson, at Francis Tolentino. 

Totoong maraming dapat ipaliwanag si De Lima sa usaping command responsibility nung siya’y hepe ng Department of Justice. Ito ngayo’y lubhang nakomplika ng kuwento at kathang-isip ng mga convicts na nag-testify laban sa kanya. 

Pero paano na ang command responsibilty ng dalawang huling hepe ng BuCor – si Bato dela Roxa, na ngayo'y nakaupo sa Senado, at si Nicanor Faeldon?

Kung pinanood mo ang hearing sa ilalim ng giya ni blue ribbon Chairman Gordon, lihis na lihis sa dalawa at pawang nakatutok ang machine gun ng duda kay De Lima.

Tila limot na ng mga senador na si Faeldon ang muntik nang magpalaya sa rapist at murderer na si Antonio Sanchez? Tulad din ni Presidente Duterte na nagsabing “I still believe in him” sa kabila ng pagsisisante sa kanya?

Tila ibinaon na rin sa limot na minsang nagtangka si Bato na hingin sa DOJ ang kapangyarihang magpalaya nang maaga ng mga convict nang siya’y hepe ng BuCor?  

Ni hindi pinagpawisan si Faeldon at Bato sa hearing sa kabila ng trail of bread crumbs na dumaan sa pintuan nila. Tsk, tsk.

Ngayon ay sinasabi ni Bato na magulo ang IRR na isinisisi ng mga chuwariwap kay De Lima, dating local government secretary Mar Roxas, at dating Presidenteng Noynoy Aquino. Pero kung pagbabatayan ang sulat ni Bato, minsan ay kumpiyansa siyang panagutan ang pagpapalaya ng mga katulad ni Sanchez. 'Yan ba ang aksyon ng naguguluhan?

Siya rin ang nagsabing baka “changed man” na si Sanchez dahil nagpapalda at nagli-lipstick? Eto ba ang dunong na balak na ipamalas ni Bato sakaling naibigay sa kanya ang kapangyarihan?

Mga ginoong senador, paano malilinis ang gobyerno kung may blinders na suot kayong mga nag-iimbestiga at nakukulayan ang mga pananaw niyo ng galit sa mga dating nakatunggali sa pulitika? 

At ang sumatotal nito: napawalang-saysay at napulitika ang isang imbestigasyon na sana’y nagpanagot sa mga may responsibilidad at sa mga nagpabaya – kaibigan man sila ng Presidente o kaaway.

Sa isang special report ng Rappler, naging konklusyon ni Lian Buan na mga butas sa implementasyon ng mga administrasyong Aquino at Duterte ang ugat ng nabubulok na problemang may kinalaman sa good conduct time allowance (GCTA).

Noong 2014 lamang, nakalaya ang 1,663 inmates – 62 sa kanila ang nakonvict dahil sa heinous crimes.

Masalimuot ang problema ng GCTA. Bulok at talamak ang korupsiyon sa BuCor.

Simulan na nating gamutin ang nagnananang sugat na ito. Magsisimula 'yan sa walang kinikilingang paglalagom ng problema. – Rappler.com

Read Part 1 of former congressman Walden Bello's interview with detained Senator Leila de Lima here.

Duterte Cabinet, military, and the United States

Bello: Not all people in the Cabinet are dangerous clowns or Duterte puppets. There are honorable people like Liling Briones and Bebot Bello. Some people say, however, that they are risking the good reputations they built up by sticking with Duterte and can't understand why they continue to provide him moral cover.  What is your advice to them?

De Lima: I will not attempt to fathom the motivations of these people to serve Duterte. Maybe they think they can still do some good even under a Duterte administration. Maybe they can. Maybe they are indeed doing some good even under the circumstances of serving an unstable leader and a megalomaniac, and they see no conflict and contradiction in doing so without giving up their principles and values. People have such capacity to rationalize their judgments, even if such judgment goes against their core values. The fact that they serve Duterte shows their indifference to his policy of extrajudicial killings, and this does not reflect well on their innermost morality.

Bello: The President says the reason he's appointing so many military people to the Cabinet is because they "deliver." What do you think of that rationale? Or do you think he's trying to bribe the generals so they won't move against him?

De Lima: Some may be competent and deserve to be appointed. But largely it's because he wants to protect himself from a coup d'état. This strategy of appointing retired generals is for keeping them in line because they still have influence in the AFP. For active generals, there's the billions of pesos in OP intel funds which can be distributed to the generals largely at Duterte's discretion, without any auditing requirements. Like any tyrant afraid of the military suddenly cutting off his head in the middle of the night, Duterte has learned to buy the military top brass and keep them in his pocket, thereby making them accomplices to his own corruption.

Bello: Why do you think the President has harsh words for the United States but gives the Americans a free hand in their military movements in this country? Is this a case of a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde split personality? Or is he scared of what the military would do if he moves against the Americans by, say, terminating the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA)?

De Lima: Most of the military top brass are already in Duterte's pockets. This is where his billions of intel funds go, to bribe the AFP and PNP generals. So Duterte is already safe insofar as the AFP is concerned. Not so the US. He is still afraid of what the US might do in case he goes too far in countering US interests in the region, especially its military interests. Duterte will continue to let the US frolic in our backyard as an insurance that the US will not move against him, or will not intervene in putting in place a more reliable Filipino leader. So in the mind of Duterte, the threat to his reign is not so much the AFP anymore, but a disgruntled US who may one day consider him to have taken one step too far in putting US security interests in the region in danger.

Public complicit in Duterte's crimes?

Bello: The President has an 81% approval rating, despite all the EJKs and his going back on his key promises. Do you think most Filipinos have outsourced their politics to the President, so that he and his buddies can do anything they like? Do you think the people are complicit in Duterte's EJKs? Is it a question of being ill-informed or of people not wanting to be informed and to think? Daniel Goldhagen in his book Hitler's Willing Executioners said ordinary Germans were complicit in Hitler's crimes because they knew and approve of them. Do you see a parallel in the Philippines?

De Lima: This kind of reaction of the public is due to the slow pace of progress and equalization of economic opportunities under the liberal democratic regime of the post-EDSA governments. People have had enough of trickle-down development and want instant progress. They think a messiah can deliver this, especially one with an iron hand. I think they are starting to learn that no messiah can save them, and that progress takes time.

But at the same time, the opposition should take stock of the kind of liberal democratic regime that it wants to continue, either in its puristic form or an adjusted one in keeping with the "selective change" principle postulated by Jared Diamond in his latest book Upheaval. The alternative to Dutertismo is yet to be born. Until then the people will continue to hold on to Dutertismo's illusion of change because they still do not see any alternative. But at the same time, they are starting to realize that the same ills that characterized the post-EDSA liberal regime are only being accelerated under Dutertismo, which has introduced a rapacious kind of corruption probably even exceeding that of the GMA years. This tolerance won't last long, especially not in the last 3 years of this regime.

What the people choose next to replace Dutertismo depends upon the alternatives that would be presented as we move forward to 2022. But it is clear that whatever this alternative is, it cannot be the same business-as-usual liberal democracy that has frustrated the people since the 1990s.

Faeldon and his bosses

Bello: What do you think about the GCTA controversy? Is Nicanor Faeldon, the sacked BuCor chief, the guilty party or is he a fall guy for his higher-ups?

De Lima: What probably started as a business practice in the BuCor, i.e., "GCTA for sale," has been exposed because those being released are high-profile inmates like Mayor Sanchez. If not for this, this business would have gone on unnoticed. There is no doubt about Faeldon's role in this. If it goes higher is no longer a matter of conjecture. Duterte himself has extended privileges to drug lords and other criminals in exchange for testifying against me. This is just another kind of "GCTA for sale." I would not wonder if most of these convicts would be released, either via clemency or pardon, as soon as I am convicted based on their testimonies.

If the President himself has resorted to this kind of granting privileges to unreformed notorious convicts in exchange for their perjured testimonies, then what would prevent those under him from engaging in the same kind of business in exchange for money? Faeldon was just following Duterte's example, albeit for a different kind of consideration.

Bello: The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) that you as secretary of justice and then-DILG secretary Roxas crafted during the Aquino administration are said to have created the conditions for abuse by not explicitly excluding those convicted of heinous crimes from being eligible for GCTA. You, in fact, have been quoted as saying those convicted of such crimes should not be excluded in order to respect the "restorative" intent of the law, meaning the desire to reform the offender. Can you comment on this?

De Lima: As head of one of the departments tasked with preparing the implementing rules, my job was to ensure that the intent of the law is carried out and that we do not go beyond the letter of the law. The law does not exclude per se those convicted of heinous crimes from qualifying for GCTA. For the IRR to introduce such an exclusion would be ultra vires. An IRR cannot change the law. The Revised Penal Code itself, before the enactment of RA No. 10592, did not exclude those convicted of heinous crimes from entitlement to GCTA; neither did the amended provisions afterwards.

I challenge those who accuse me of making the IRR intentionally vague in favor of those heinous crimes PDLs to show what in the IRR goes against RA No. 10592. The IRR reflected the law. Any problem relating to its interpretation is traced back to the law, not the IRR. As a result, neither our version of the IRR, nor the Uniform Manual promulgated under this administration, placed such exclusion against PDLs convicted of heinous crimes.

That the law is abused now was not foreseen by our Congress, otherwise, they would have placed more safety nets and not leave it up to the IRR. We did our best to provide a certain level of protection against abuse when we created the Management, Screening, and Evaluation Committee (MSEC), to ensure that only those who truly have clean prison records or exhibit good conduct and exemplary behavior may qualify for release. Regardless of the nature of the crime, the most determinative factor is "good conduct." However, it appears that the said committee failed its mandate. Faeldon did poor enough to show how the law can be abused to the hilt.

Endgame for the opposition?

Bello: You and so many others have been implicated in the Bikoy case. Only the most fanatical Duterte supporters would think the government has a case. Why do you think the administration is so intent on pursuing it when most of the evidence is obviously fabricated and the whole thing is a joke? Is the intent pure harassment of the opposition?

De Lima: The objective is to crush any kind of opposition before 2022. One of the operations of Malacañang is also for the SC/PET to proclaim Bongbong Marcos as vice president and remove VP Leni Robredo as successor in the event Duterte croaks before 2022 or, lay the groundwork for VP Leni's impeachment. This is why the persecution of opposition figures will not stop, no matter how absurd and ridiculous the cases are. It is all about consolidating power in 2022 and beyond.

Bello: How come the prosecution in your case is proceeding so slowly and so many judges are inhibiting themselves from hearing the cases against you?  Do you think the administration really wants to prosecute you or simply wants to keep you in jail indefinitely? Do you think you will end up like Edmond Dantes, the hero of the Count of Monte Cristo? Forgotten by the people and in jail till kingdom come?

De Lima: Definitely Duterte wants a conviction and to see me in jail for the rest of my life. There is no longer any doubt about that. I just hope I do not suffer the fate he wants me to.

The prosecution is proceeding slowly because they are still having problems with the convict witnesses. Maybe they are still rehearsing and reconciling their testimonies for the courts while they are segregated either at the ISAFP or the Marines' facility.

There is also the matter of their qualification as state witnesses that we are questioning before the trial and appellate courts. Criminal convicts are disqualified from becoming state witnesses. Under the law, they are disqualified from testifying in my cases. The trial courts cannot ignore this law. If they do, we will raise the matter all the way to the Supreme Court.

– Rappler.com

Walden Bello is a former member of the House of Representatives and author of the recently published Counterrevolution: The Global Rise of the Far Right (London: 2019) and Paper Dragons: China and the Next Crash (London: 2019).

We now live in a borderless world. Information has become freely accessible at the click of a button wherever you may be in the world. The internet of things has made it possible for anything that happens on the other side of the world to become instantly available in the Philippines.   

Our Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has opined that a person is deemed engaged in mass media activities if:

1. it disseminates information to the general public, and
2. such information is designed to affect or influence the people’s way of thinking and lifestyle. 

Similarly, online platforms whose content is accessible from the Philippines, even if they are located outside  the Philippines, are considered as doing business, and is thus subject to the requirement of obtaining a license to do business in the Philippines. 

Administrative nightmare

Under such a broad and general definition, foreign-based online platforms such as the The New York Times, Financial Times, Washington Post, Amazon, Booking.com, Expedia.com, and  Facebook are mass media entities doing business in the Philippines.  

Not only is the interpretation an administrative nightmare for enforcement but also, quite frankly, preposterous.

We cannot imagine that when the Constitution and our Corporation Code were enacted, the framers intended to cut the Philippines off from the rest of world. 

Living amidst this technological phenomenon, where global information can be accessed instantaneously without need for face-to-face interaction and physical spaces, requires us to empower our people and businesses to benefit from the free flow information rather than stunt their development  and competitiveness. 

A liberal outlook will certainly not be without any basis in law.

Otherwise, we stand the risk of spiraling down a dangerous path of isolation from the rest of world.  – Rappler.com 

The author is a law professor in the Ateneo Law School. The views in this column are exclusively his. He may be contacted at francis.ed.lim@gmail.com.

We’re 3 years shy of the 50th anniversary of Marcos’ Martial Law declaration. Yet so many myths about the Marcoses still abound.

One is that Marcos supposedly holds the Guinness World Record for “World’s Most Brilliant President in History.”

Although that one’s false, Marcos does have a legitimate Guinness World Record to his name: “Greatest Robbery of a Government” to the tune of $5 billion to $10 billion. This record has yet to be beaten.

You might wonder: why such a wide estimate of the Marcos plunder?

Part of the reason is that, to this day, it’s hard to pin down the true extent of corruption during the Martial Law years. Corruption then was so rampant not just in the public sector but also – more insidiously – in the private sector.

In this article let’s look back at the horrific scale of corruption during the Marcos years.

“We practically own everything”

By no means did Marcos invent corruption. But you might say he perfected it.

When we talk of corruption in government we commonly think of bribes, rigged biddings, and kickbacks in overpriced public projects.

Sure, Marcos did his share of “traditional” corruption. But during Martial Law he wielded a trump card: absolute power. His regime’s subsequent corruption proved just as absolute.

To begin with, Marcos forcibly took over the businesses of political rivals like the Lopezes.

Meralco at one point was taken over by Imelda’s brother Kokoy Romualdez, who mismanaged and drained the company of its finances.

In fact, the expense of Imelda’s birthday celebration in Leyte in 1974 was shouldered by Meralco, and the company’s catering – including staff, silverware, and china – were flown from Manila all the way to Leyte using Meralco’s private planes. By the way, Imee Marcos’ fake graduation ceremony from UP Law was also staged at the Meralco Theater.

While he stamped out the opposition, Marcos appointed key cronies (friends and relatives) to monopolize key industries, thus forming the backbone of so-called “crony capitalism.”

To name a few of these captured industries, bananas were monopolized by Antonio Floirendo, sugar by Roberto Benedicto, and coconuts by Eduardo “Danding” Cojuangco.

Marcos also routinely issued presidential decrees that granted special privileges to his cronies.

For instance, Lucio Tan secured from Marcos substantial concessions for his beer and cigarette manufacturing businesses. Retail magnates Benny and Glecy Tantoco operated those famous duty-free shops.

Juan Ponce Enrile, whose staged assassination attempt was used to justify Martial Law, enjoyed several concessions in the logging industry.

Herminio Disini, aside from monopolizing the importation of cigarette filters, also brokered the construction of the useless Bataan Nuclear Power Plant and received $50 million in commissions (Marcos himself got $30 million out of that deal).  

Special levies, in lieu of regular taxes, fattened the pockets of Marcos and his cronies.

Arguably the most famous of these was the coco levy, essentially a tax imposed by Marcos on the coconut industry by presidential decree. Ostensibly, revenues from the coco levy – which amounted to about P93 billion – were meant to improve the welfare of coconut farmers. Ultimately, most of it got siphoned by the Marcoses and their ilk.

Multiply this scheme across the country’s major industries, and you begin to grasp the staggering degree of corruption that took place during Martial Law. Marcos and his cronies were co-conspirators in a systematic scheme to loot the Philippine economy, which, in their minds, was theirs for the taking.

In 1998 Imelda was even quoted as saying in an Inquirer interview: “We practically own everything in the Philippines, from electricity, telecommunications, airlines, banking, beer and tobacco, newspaper publishing, television stations, shipping, oil and mining, hotels and beach resorts, down to coconut milling, small farms, real estate, and insurance.”

Imelda also once said, “If you know how much you’ve got, you probably don’t have much.”

Bankrupted central bank

Besides the private sector, Marcos also prodigiously plundered the public coffers. But few people remember it came to the point where our Central Bank went bankrupt.

To understand how this seemingly impossible economic tragedy had happened, note that Marcos – again by virtue of his absolute power – routinely “raided” the treasury and other government financial institutions.

The regime was particularly infamous for its “behest loans”: Government banks and social security institutions like SSS and GSIS lent – at Marcos’ behest – huge sums to the cronies’ projects, even if many of them were wholly unfeasible. The Central Bank facilitated many of these behest loans.

In the early 1990s, prominent economist Paul Krugman came to the country and assessed what exactly had bankrupted our Central Bank.

He found that, “In essence the problem is that the Central Bank is itself insolvent. Abuse of its domestic credit creation during the Marcos era has left the Central Bank with a portfolio consisting largely of uncollectable loans…”

By the end of the Marcos regime, the old Central Bank had amassed about P300 billion in losses. On top of this, then-governor Jaime C. Laya was discovered to have overstated the Central Bank’s supply of foreign reserves.

In 1993 the Central Bank was abolished and replaced by a new institution, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, partly in a bid to leave behind its dark past.

The Central Bank’s bankruptcy was a key event in the run-up to the country’s worst postwar recession in the mid-1980s.

Excesses

The Marcoses not only ransacked the economy, they also flaunted their loot to the world.

Even in their last two years in power – at the height of the economic crisis – the Marcoses had spent a whopping $68 million: $11 million on clothes, paintings, antiques, and handicrafts; $2.4 million on food, hotel accommodations, and transport; and $1.6 million on flowers alone.

When the Marcoses were exiled and fled to Hawaii, they carted off in two C-141 planes a total of 23 wooden crates, 12 suitcases, and 70 boxes and bags.

Contained therein were, among others: $9 million in cash, jewelry, and bonds; P27 million in “freshly printed” bills; 24 gold bricks; 413 pieces of jewelry including tiaras, necklaces, earrings, and brooches studded in diamonds, rubies, and sapphires.

Imelda couldn’t bring everything, of course, and had to leave behind in Malacañang relatively less valuable things like 1,060 pairs of shoes (1,800 more pairs were at Tacloban), 508 floor-length gowns, 427 dresses, 15 mink coats, and even one swan feather gown.

Years before, the Marcoses had also bought 50 or so real estate properties in New York (including the 72-story Trump Building in lower Manhattan), New Jersey, and Connecticut. Some of these were bought using Panamanian shell or dummy corporations.

Imelda was also an infamous hoarder of rare paintings, including a Monet that fetched $43 million when it was resold at a London gallery in 2010, and jewelries (3 collections are now in the Bangko Sentral’s vaults for safekeeping).

Awash with cash, Ferdinand and Imelda had also stashed about $500 million in ill-gotten wealth in Swiss bank accounts using the pseudonyms William Saunders and Jane Ryan, respectively.

Post-EDSA, you can’t blame former president Cory Aquino for urgently ordering the creation of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), whose primary task was to recover the Marcoses’ ill-gotten wealth.

As of 2017 the PCGG has recovered P171.4 billion. Their work is far from over, yet President Duterte – a close ally of the Marcoses – wants the PCGG abolished.

Never again, never forget

We’ve barely scratched the surface. At the UP School of Economics it takes an entire semester to teach this and other economic aspects of the Martial Law years.

To be honest, researching this piece was emotionally draining. In spite of the wholesale corruption that took place during Martial Law, it’s baffling to think that the Marcoses today are firmly back in political power.

Carl Sagan once wrote, “If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken.”

Never again should Filipinos be bamboozled by the Marcoses. But to ensure that, all of us must never, ever forget. – 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 Jess Pasibe for generously sharing materials from his own research on the topic. For a suggested reading list on the economics of Martial Law, check out this Twitter thread. Follow JC on Twitter (@jcpunongbayan) and Usapang Econ (usapangecon.com).

I can only scratch the surface of the 5^th Annual Public Policy Conference, the subject of which is of much gravitas and challenges are formidable, characterized by VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity). 

I will start with a light-hearted parable of the stag hunt. A group of individuals go out to hunt a stag. They need cooperation to be able to catch this speedy, agile stag. However, like in any good story, the naughty devil dangles a temptation: each individual can renege, leave the group, and catch the less rewarding rabbit on their own. What do you think they will do, cooperate and hunt the great stag or take the easy way out by catching the feeble rabbit?  

This is a parable of social cooperation, originating from the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Its ending tells us that the more there is uncertainty – the more there is ambiguity – the more there is distrust – the more that the individuals will go off on their own and hunt the easy rabbit.

My dear colleagues, the lesson of this story tells us the importance of beliefs in a society.

Our mere beliefs and expectations can turn things around and enable us to get the highest reward. As Professor Kaushik Basu, former World Bank Chief Economist and Professor of Economics of Cornell University, wrote in his recent book, The Republic of Beliefs:

"In truth, the most important ingredients of a republic, including its power and might, reside in nothing more than the beliefs and expectations of ordinary people going about their daily lives and quotidian chores. It is in this sense that we are all citizens of the republic of belief."

Thus, to make any reform work, people must first believe in this society, in the administration.

Broad-based reforms

This administration is instituting a number of critical and broad-based reforms.

We have the new Philippine Innovation Act, the Innovative Startup Act, the Balik Scientist Act to partly deal with the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

We have the Ease of Doing Business Act and the Philippine Identification System Act, the latter aiming to give a National ID to each Filipino, to ease transactions and obtain faster delivery of social services.

For human capital development, we have the Universal Healthcare Law, Free Tuition for Tertiary Education, although some of us have mixed feelings about that, and the Executive Order to Attain Zero Unmet Need for Family Planning.

All of these will be nothing but ink on paper if the whole citizenry suddenly lose their belief in our society’s potential. Imagine making the monumental Bangsamoro Organic Law work if the Bangsamoro citizens themselves in the first place distrust the law.

What we need is a whole-of-society approach to meet the objectives of the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2017-2022, and eventually our Ambisyon Natin 2040 of a prosperous and predominantly middle class Philippines where no one is poor.

But it is only through cultivating a high-trust society that this whole-of-society approach could work. It is only through cultivating trust that we will make people believe in each other – enough to cooperate and achieve our goals. In an environment of great uncertainty, ambiguity, volatility and so on, where the next turn of events astounds and bewilders us, we need to reach out and build trust. 

Fortunately, we have recognized the importance of cultivating trust in our crafting of the Philippine Development Plan 2017-2022, which aims to “to lay down the foundation for inclusive growth, a resilient and high-trust society, and a globally competitive knowledge economy.” 

Underpinning, and resulting from a high-trust society is Malasakit—strengthening the social fabric (or, in a word, solidarity)—the first pillar of AmBisyon Natin 2040. Solidarity is needed between and among the citizenry for our country to achieve the objectives of the PDP 2017-2022 and the goal of AmBisyon Natin 2040.

Spadework for change

Trust and solidarity grease the wheels to make collaboration happen so that we can get the highest reward. I thank all of you for trusting us enough to turn up in this conference today.

I ask the sharp and searching minds in this gathering to collaborate and think of solutions on how to navigate this era of new globalization. Trust us enough to share your ideas as we do not have the answers ourselves. We are currently doing our Midterm Update of the PDP 2017-2022, so we would appreciate receiving a copy of the participants’ resolutions today to be incorporated in the updated Philippine Development Plan. 

The spadework for change still needs to be continued relentlessly. Let us stop ourselves being satisfied from catching the mediocre rabbit, the easy prey. Together, let us aim for the stag. – Rappler.com

Socio-economic Planning Secretary Ernie Pernia delivered this keynote on Thursday, September 19, at the 5th Public Policy Conference.

Kasama sa katangian ng kahit anong wika ang magtaglay ng konotasyon, o iba pang kahulugang hindi literal, ang isang mistulang pangkaraniwang salita. Napakadali sa ating gumawa o magbigay ng iba pang kahulugan. Idagdag pa na mahilig din tayo sa pahiwatig. Imbes na sabihin nang diretso, nais ipahayag ng marami sa atin ang mensahe sa pamamagitan ng talinghaga. O kaya ay idinaraan sa biro. O hindi kaya ay kinakabitan ng pantig para magkaroon ng ibang ibig sabihin. 

Ibigay nating halimbawa ang salitang "loob." Maraming inihanay na popular na kahulugan ang Hesuwitang si Paring si Bert Alejo hinggil sa salitang polysemic na "loob."  

Sa kaniyang luma ngunit patuloy pa ring makabuluhang aklat na Tao Po! Tuloy! Isang Landas ng Pag-unawa sa Loob ng Tao, na inilathala ng Ateneo de Manila University Office of Research and Publications, tinalakay ng kababayan kong pari mula sa Obando, Bulacan, ang iba’t ibang kahulugan ng salitang "loob," lalo’t may taglay itong panlapi o kung kasama ng ibang salita at kataga.  

Tinalakay niya ang napakasimpleng salitang "loob" bilang pinanggagalingan ng maraming pagkakakilanlan ng tao. Nakaugat ang "loob" sa ating kultura at kasaysayan, sa ating pinakamalalim na pag-unawa sa buhay. Ang salitang "loob" ang nasa mga salitang "saloobin," "niloloob," "nilooban," "looban," at marami – mahigit sandaan! – pang mga salita. 

Halimbawa, mas malalim ang salitang "kaloob." Sinasabi ng salita na galing ito sa loob o kalooban ng tao. Pagpapaubaya. Pagbibigay ng mahalaga, iyong nasa kaloob-looban ng pagkatao. Hindi gaya ng nakasanayan natin kapag panahon ng kapaskuhan, halimbawa, na ang pagbibigay ng regalo ay parang obligasyon, lalo kapag exchange gift giving. Isinasagawa ito nang may presyo, P500 pataas ang halaga, halimbawa. Magbigay ka at ikaw ay bibigyan. Obligado. Madali. Magbigay. Pero hindi ipinagkaloob. 

Ang pagkakaloob ay walang hinihintay na kapalit. Ang kaloob ay pagbibigay ng bahagi ng sarili. O mismong sarili nang walang puwersahan. Walang presyo. 

Ganito rin ang salitang "nilooban." Hindi lang ito basta pinagnakawan. Nilooban ka ng maaaring kakilala o pinagkatiwalaan mo. Kung kaya sa usapin ng hindi masugpong korupsiyon sa bansa, patuloy tayong nilolooban ng mga taong pinagkakatiwalaan nating maglingkod at pahalagahan ang ating yaman. Yaman, or what remains thereof.

Pinakikinggan nating mabuti ang saloobin ng isang tao. Lalo iyong hindi madalas nagpapahayag ng kaniyang saloobin. Higit sa kaniyang iniisip, mas malalim ang pag-unawa natin sa saloobin o niloloob.

Sayang at hindi nabasa ng marami ang isang napakagandang aklat na inilathala noon pang dekada '90. Hindi nagmamaliw ang bisa ng aklat na ito sa akin. Sa malaking bahagi ng aklat, tinalakay ni Paring Bert (ang gusto niyang itawag sa kaniya bilang palayaw, hindi Father Bert gaya ng pangkaraniwang pari), ang maraming salitang nag-uugat sa salitang "loob." Kaya bahagi ng pamagat ang "pag-unawa sa loob ng tao."

Ngayon, at napapanahon, kung bakit ko binabanggit ito ay dahil sa isa pang konotasyon o ang matalinghagang kahulugan ng "loob" ay ang paggamit natin ng salitang "ob-lo" o binaligtad na loob.  

Sa maraming nakakaunawa ng salitang "ob-lo," lalo iyong nasundan ang pagpapauso ng binaligtad na salita – yorme, etneb, erbi, jeproks, ermat, erpat – ang tinutukoy dito ay ang loob ng bilangguan o kulungan. Ob-lo o loob ng kulungan. Galing sa ob-lo kapag lumaya na.

Napapanahon ang usapin ng ob-lo lalo’t naghihintay tayong bumalik o pabalikin ang mga pinalayang bilanggo sa Muntinlupa o, sabi nga ng mga may alam sa kultura ng kriminalidad, sa Munti. Bilanggo ang nasa loob o ob-lo ng Munti. Samantala, malayang mamamayan naman ang nakatira sa Muntinlupa. Again, iba ang konotasyon ng Muntinlupa sa Munti. Munti has a negative connotation and can be considered as a pejorative term.

May negatibong konotasyon dahil sa pag-unawa na ang nakukulong sa ob-lo ay mga kriminal, may mabibigat na kasalanan. Kaya naman nagiging tatak sa pagkatao ang sinumang galing na sa ob-lo ng Munti. Kaya kapag sinabi ng isang bagong kakilala na siya ay taga-Muntinlupa, homorously, idurugtong, sa labas ng Muntinlupa nakatira dahil ang loob ay ang ob-lo ng kulungan.

Napag-uusapan na rin lang ang mga salitang may negatibong konotasyon kaya ang pamagat ng espasyo kong ito ngayon ay "nagkaisa, pinagkaisahan, naisahan." Malinaw naman sa atin na nasa ubod ng mga salitang ito ang "isa" – "one" sa Ingles. Kung paanong nagbago ang kahulugan buhat sa isang neutral na salita tungong negatibong konotasyon ay isang hiwaga ng sociolinguistics na patuloy na tinatalastas ng mga paham at pantas ng pamantasan – yes, ang salitang-ugat ng pamantasan o university ay "pantas." You’re welcome.

Nagkaisa. Naging isa ang marami. Nagkasundo. Nag-unite. Walang pagkakawatak-watak ang nagkakaisa. Positibo ito. Nagkaisa tungo sa isang makabuluhang layunin. Samantala, iba naman ang "pinagkaisahan." May bahid na ng negatibong konotasyon ang pinagkaisahan. Halimbawa, pinagkaisahang hindi dumalo sa isang pagpupulong, o pinagkaisahang saktan ang isang walang kalaban-laban. Collective action, gaya ng unity, ang pinagkaisahan, pero, generally speaking, nakatuon ito sa aksiyong isinagawa at hindi sa akto ng pagkakaisa. 

Samantala, lalong iba ang "naisahan." Kahit sinong pamilyar sa salita, sasabihin sa iyo na ang ibig sabihin niyan ay iyong nakalamang. Nakalamang o nanlamang o nanamantala sa kapwa. Ang sinumang naisahan nang higit sa minsan ay nalamangan na.

Madali nating makilala ang mga ganitong tao. Inasahan ka nang hindi mo inaasahan. Sa totoo lang, naiisahan tayo kapag naman talaga hindi natin inaasahan. 

Bakit nangyayari ang pang-iisa? Kapag may isang gustong manamantala sa tiwala ng kapwa. Puwedeng nakapang-isa ang nangutang kapag hindi nagbayad o walang intensiyong magbayad simula pa lang. Pero kapag naisahan ka, nagtatanda ka, para hindi na makaulit. Hanggang isa lang. Kaya naisahan.

Pero gayong may salitang inisahan, bakit walang dinalawahan o tinatluhan? Dahil ang taong laging nang-iisa sa kapwa ay hindi na makakaisa pa. Hindi na nakaisa iyon; nananamantala na. 

Marami ito. Halimbawa, hindi na tayo iniisahan ng mga corrupt na pulitiko. Dahil paulit-ulit na, kawatan na sila. Pero wala tayong kadala-dala. Sanay na tayong maisahan, kaya ang tawag na sa atin ay pinagsasamantalahan. Masama ito. Pero ang higit na masama yata ay ang hindi mahiwatigang pananamantala na sa atin ng ating mga pinuno natin. At hindi na kailangan ng pantas sa mga pamantasan para malaman ito. – Rappler.com

Bukod sa pagtuturo ng creative writing, pop culture, research, at seminar in new media sa Departamento ng Literatura at sa Graduate School ng Unibersidad ng Santo Tomas, research fellow din si Joselito D. delos Reyes, PhD, sa UST Research Center for Culture, Arts and Humanities. Siya ang coordinator ng AB Creative Writing Program ng Unibersidad ng Santo Tomas.

Hindi ko ma-imagine ang buhay namin kung hindi naghiwalay ang mga magulang ko.  

Maraming nagsasabi na ibinabasura ng divorce bill ang pagiging sagrado ng marriage, but as a person who had watched her parents go through the beautiful and damn horrible sides of it, isa lang ang gusto kong sabihin: hindi mape-preserve ng marriage certificate ang pamilya, mag-asawa, o pagmamahal. 

Naniniwala ako na walang gustong magpakasal para lang maghiwalay sa huli, puwera lang kung sapilitan ito dahil sa pagbubuntis o para sa pera. At some point, every couple wanted to be with each other. And I know my parents loved each other very much. 

Pero maraming nangyayari sa buhay, at minsan magugulat ka na lang 'pag na-realize mo 5 years later na hindi ito 'yung taong pinakasalan mo. In an ideal world, lubusan nating kilala ang asawa natin. In an ideal world, mahal din nila tayo, habang buhay. In an ideal world, walang problema na di 'nyo kayang harapin na magkasama. But we need laws that address our reality.  

Addiction can change a person. Drugs can change a person. Depression and mental illness can change a person. And the heartbreaking thing about abuse is that ni minsan di mo aakalaing kayang gawin 'yun sa 'yo ng isang taong mahal mo. But it happens. Domestic violence and rape happens. Baka sasabihin 'nyong worst case scenario lang ito.... Pero malala rin 'yung asawang tamad, 'yung hinahayaan kang magtrabaho at mag-alaga ng anak habang lumalandi siya sa iba. 

May mga batang umiiyak hanggang sa makakatulog sila habang nagwawala ang mga magulang nila sa kabilang kuwarto. Minsan sila pa ang pag-iinitan ng ulo. May mga batang umuuwi sa lola at lolo na lang dahil natatakot na silang umuwi sa bahay. May mga nanay na di na makaluto o makakain sa sobrang lungkot, di na magsisinding muli ang ilaw ng tahanan. Wala nang may oras kumustahin o kausapin 'yung anak nila dahil sobrang busy sila sa sarili nilang problema – kasi, ikaw ba naman, nakatira ka sa isang bahay kasama ang taong sinaktan ka? 

Worst case scenario, kailangan mo pang lumayas dahil nanganganib na sila. Titira sa ibang lugar kahit walang pera, ililipat ng school ang mga anak, bitbitin ang mahalaga dahil di madadala lahat. Tapos hahatakin ulit pabalik ng asawa, magde-demand ng pera, may karapatan ding mag-utos sa bata...dahil, legally, mag asawa pa rin kayo. May custody pa rin.

DSWD? The reality is some people can't even make it that far. At sa dami-dami ng cases, what makes you think maasikaso sila agad? Every moment matters. 

Marriage isn't just about religion or God. It's a legal matter. Tungkol ito sa hatian ng perang pinaghirapan, ng bahay na pareho ninyong binuo, ng karapatang maging legal na guardian ng mga anak 'nyo – ng tao.

Divorces aren't for fun. Magastos at masakit ito. Pero mas mabuti ito kaysa maglolokohan kayo pareho at palipat-lipat ang mga anak niyo. 

My parents are better people now. And for the first time in years, they're happy – separately. 

And it makes me still hope that someday I'll have a happy marriage too.  

You stay with a person because you make a choice every day to stay with them, not because you know there is no way out. 

PS:

Di ko sinasabi na hindi mahalaga ang simbahan o ang utos ng Diyos. We need the church too. People need a community where they can discuss their personal matters. People need hope and faith. People need to be with others older and younger and more experienced than them. We need to teach people to manage their emotions, to forgive, to have humility and patience. How to manage conflict. Kailangan din natin ang simbahan, di kayo cancelled. We just need to stop ostracizing those from broken marriages kasi, higit sa lahat, kailangan din nila ng pagtatanggap at pang-unawa. – Rappler.com

Malissa Agnes W. Strauch is a BS Development Communication student at the University of the Philippines in Los Baños. She loves eating pasta, buying clothes sa ukay-ukay, and lives to tell stories. 

September gives many of us opportunities to reflect on our relationship with the environment and our fellow human beings. This month, Filipino Catholics celebrate the Season of Creation, recognizing the “Web of Life”: the shared interest of all forms of creation in protecting our Common Home.

Similarly, youths across different nations will be mobilizing in the millions as part of the Global Climate Strike, which would call on global leaders to end the age of fossil fuels as a response to the worsening climate crisis.

This era is not just of catastrophes, however, but also of a renewed appreciation for the environment. In 2015, Pope Francis called on leaders and citizens in his encyclical Laudato Si to act as responsible stewards of our Common Home through concrete changes in policies and lifestyles. In that same year, many Islamic leaders, Evangelical leaders, and the Orthodox Church have also reiterated their calls for action towards caring for the environment in light of this ongoing crisis.

Yet, while unprecedented unities are being formed around the world, it seems that it still pays to abuse and destroy the environment. In the Philippines, it seems as if it is even encouraged.

Despite the President’s pronouncement to reduce coal reliance, the Department of Energy (DOE) still defends its continuation and expansion, arguing that it is still the cheapest, most reliable form of energy available. Yet we see its real cost in the diseases suffered by host communities, in the destruction of natural resources and ecosystems around coal plants and mining operations, and in the warming of the planet.

Coal is not cheap. We just pay in other ways.

Sadly, the well-being of the people is rarely considered in economies whose priority is economic growth. As long as the business and government policies value profit over people, coal dependence will continue to prosper. Coal investors will still be encouraged to take their business here because of the incentives given by the government and the financing provided by banks. This, despite many different countries already abandoning coal and developing more renewables.

This is why we call on Philippine banks to divest from coal.

Urgent call

Last July 16, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) released its pastoral letter, "An Urgent Call for Ecological Conversion." One of the concrete ways we committed to live the spirit and calls of Laudato Si is by disallowing the resources of our Catholic financial institutions to be used for coal plants, waste to energy, and destructive extractive activities. The letter stressed that the Church must divest for the sake of sustainability and invest instead in practices which honor and safeguard our Common Home.

We have extended this call to Philippine banks, especially BPI, BDO, and Metrobank, that have been found to have the most money lent and lodged to the biggest coal companies in the Philippines. As Christians, we know that where our resources lie, there also lies our hearts. By continuing to finance coal, Philippine banks will only muddle the conscience of their many depositors who love the Earth and their fellow Filipinos.

We laud the initiative of some Philippine banks in increasing their funding for renewable energy projects. Yet there are still no categorical pronouncements from these banks that they will transition into completely abandoning coal. No target dates have been made for such abandonment.

Globally, many banks and financial institutions, including HSBC and ING, have stopped funding coal projects yet remain profitable. This was mostly done by shifting towards cleaner, more sustainable renewable energy. There is no reason Philippine banks can’t succeed without coal. This is a time to prove their slogans true. That we're "in good hands” and that they “find ways” to “make it easy.”

Money is fanning the flames of climate change. And we do not want our money to be used to burn our planet. – Rappler.com

Bishop Broderick Pabillo is the Auxiliary Bishop of Manila. He has been actively engaging relevant social issues in the Philippines, including issues regarding the environment and human rights.

My birth came 16 years after the first People Power uprising in EDSA overthrew Ferdinand Marcos. Certainly, it appears uncanny for someone as young as myself to discuss something as far from our own generation as Martial Law, but we actually have our own martial law stories.

Allow me to start off with a family recollection. Friends and classmates alike grew astonished every time my own articulations on sociopolitical matters bordered on the bizarre – whether it was on Cory’s Mendiola debacle, Ramos’ scandalous Amari deal, or Marcos’ tyranny. I became a political enthusiast – and a staunch Marcos critic at that – specifically because of my family origins.

I will never forget my late father’s stories on his young anti-Marcos activism, after I delivered an innocent question during Cory Aquino’s funeral march 10 years and two Presidents ago. Being an alumna of the militant League of Filipino Students (LFS), commonplace in his stories was active participation in rallies for 3 years, from Ninoy’s long funeral march to EDSA, to resolutely achieve the dismantlement of the US-Marcos dictatorship.

In fact, when activists from Bagong Alyansang Makabayan and LFS had already opened Malacanang hours after the Marcoses-Vers-Cojuangcos’ departure from the Palace, my father spoke of an unforgettable anecdote: him and his comrades running toward the Marcoses’ grand dining room, where they caught a glimpse of the dictator’s 20 years of pomposity and power.

I thought that was it, until my father’s death opened more pandora's boxes of stories. Interestingly, my two grandfathers went opposite ways during the US-Marcos regime – my maternal one served as the personal chauffeur of Imelda’s powerful brother and Marcos crony Benjamin “Kokoy” Romualdez, while my paternal one both joined the National Federation of Labor Unions and, eventually, the militant Kilusang Mayo Uno, and led the urban poor organization Alyansa ng mga Maralita sa Taguig. (READ: Gone too soon: 7 youth leaders killed under Martial Law) 

Consequently, and as a result also of his purported rift with Marcos crony Geronimo Velasco, he was jailed in 3 different Marcos stockades – Villamor Air Base, Camp Crame, and Bicutan Rehabilitation Center. While he did not endure torture and slaughter, his comrades did. My uncles, too, had their share of the anti-dictatorship struggle – marching down Liwasang Bonifacio or Mendiola only to face tear gas, screaming “Imperyalismo, ibagsak!” (Down with imperialism!) at the top of their lungs, gunshots in the air. They could have been arrested by the Metropolitan Command had it not been for their quick intuition, which led them to leave the protest scene right away.

These were the stories that defined my growth from adolescence to today. And I have become an activist, too. One thing is noticeable though: We’ve been fighting for and against the same things and enemies up to now. While in Marcos’ time, social media, smartphones, and Twitter were inexistent, in Rodrigo Duterte’s age the should-have-been-already-dead notions of martial law, fascism against citizens, and the Anti-Subversion Law are having their resurrection. (READ: From Marcos to Duterte: How media was attacked, threatened) 

This generation may not have lived through the same fear of being swiftly arrested by the Metrocom for mere suspicion of radicalism, but thousands of poor Filipinos have been massacred already because Duterte’s mad “war against drugs” suspected them of involvement in illicit drug activities. Marcos’ Oplan Katatagan now resurfaces in Duterte’s “Whole-of-Nation” counter-insurgency handiwork Oplan Kapanatagan. This was patterned also after the imperialist United States’ model, rampaging the countryside the way Marcos did – through indiscriminate bombings in Mindoro, displacement of indigenous peoples, and countless trumped-up charges hurled against progressives for the “crime” of airing radical views and socioeconomic analyses.

Duterte’s Marcosian dictatorship manifests when press freedom and academic spaces are beleaguered by the military’s obsolete “anti-communist” tactic, when farmers receive bullets rather than land, and when Mindanao still resides under martial law. If Marcos had the US as his sole imperialist master, Duterte presently exudes a shameless servile attitude towards two imperialist masters – China and the US. And when the Marcos conjugal dictators built their longstanding empire through the edifice complex, Duterte aspires to impose his dubious legacy through an anti-poor Build, Build, Build infrastructure bonanza. (READ: [OPINION] Marcos and Duterte: Strongmen's changing playbook) 

While we’re at it, our generation also witnessed Imelda’s conviction for 7 counts of graft (without any imprisonment), the ascent of Marcos’ clan up today's staircases of power, and the Marcoses’ distortion of history through the dictator’s thief-like burial at the Heroes’ Cemetery.

Our generation of activists now bellow in the streets, “Marcos-Duterte, walang pinagkaiba (are no different)!” Indeed, these twin fascists had never differed. Marcos’ history continues to unfold in our time, with old and new sets of vile actors playing the same horrific scenes in the political arena, endorsing and executing Marcos’ timeworn fascism model much to our chagrin – even as 47 years have passed since Marcos’ Proclamation 1081.

So, shouldn’t we call ourselves “martial law babies,” too? – Rappler.com 

Karl Patrick Suyat is currently the editorial head of Fiat Publication (the official publication of University of Perpetual Help Systems - Jonelta campus), the Laguna provincial spokesperson for Youth UNBOUND - ST, and a national democratic activist staunchly advocating against historical revisionism, fascism, and injustice. 

(The following is an essay to be read in 2023 on the occasion of the 50th reunion of the author's high school batch.)

Fifty years ago, 121 boys and 177 girls graduated from high school in a country undergoing tumultuous changes brought about by Martial Law. We were those teenagers and this is our story.

It was a period of unusual anxiety for us – we worried about what the future held for us, what courses to pursue in what colleges and where, if the party we attended would end on time, when we could have our pants sewn in the bell-bottom style of those days, if our baby fat would show in our tube blouses, if the miniskirt was short enough to show off our leggy assets but long enough to pass the prescribed length measured by the rulers of Ma’am or Sister, if we could have those stiff-collared trubenized polo shirts with rounded tails to conceal the embarrassing bulges brought on by our raging hormones, if the shaggy hairdo was shaggy enough or shaggier than the others', if our crewcuts would grow fast enough so we could look like midget Atoy Cos or Robert Jaworskis.

We faced the usual growing-up problems of teenagers with shaky bravado: how to get rid of unsightly pimples, gain additional inches for our height and/or breast size, lose/gain weight, with whom to dance or who would ask us for a dance during parties, the desperate mission of finding a boy/girlfriend in time for Valentine’s Day, making up alibis for a clandestine romantic date, finding someone who could write love letters for us, trying on perfume/makeup to charm someone. 

Those were the dizzying days of hormone-driven puppy love, loss, or the agony of waiting for the right boy or girl to come along, rejection in courtship and frustration from getting courted by a boy while we pined for another, jealousy, theme songs and songs with which to cry our broken hearts along with (copied from the ubiquitous small songhits and Jingle Chordbook magazines). 

It was a simple world and life we had then. Our allowance was enough to buy several sticks of banana cue to be shared among friends, a fleeting glimpse of our crush was enough for us to have a natural high, dreams and ambitions were easier to conjure and looked just within our reach. We respected our elders and people in authority no matter what. Like our parents, they were to be trusted to look after our well-being. We trusted our friends, acquaintances, and neighbors.

But when Martial Law was declared in 1972 and changed the dynamics of our relationships; paranoia became the order of the day. And our lives were never the same again.

"Communists," specifically the Kabataang Makabayan (KM), became the new bogeymen in our collective nightmares. Saying the “wrong” words, doing the “wrong” things, associating with the “wrong” people could land us in the PC Barracks stockade. Boys rushed to the barbers to have their already short hair cut even shorter (white-side wall) after seeing pictures of local male celebrities’ long-hair snopaked in the government-controlled and censored newspapers. 

With the print media, radio, and television stations sequestered and controlled by the government, only the good side of Martial Law was shown to us. Being 1,582 kilometers from Metro Manila and with the censored media, we were practically ignorant of the activism and uprisings there. 

Our parents often talked about Martial Law in whispers. Our teachers and school officials never talked about it in our presence. One persistent rumor in the early days of Martial Law was that the boys taking the Philippine Military Training (PMT) would be enlisted to fight the "communists." However, it turned out to be untrue, and instead PMT was replaced by the Citizens’ Army Training (CAT). 

Some batchmates, enrolled in a judo-karate club, talked about the janitor who suddenly disappeared. The janitor, later identified as writer-activist Eman Lacaba, was killed by the military years later in Davao del Norte. We would be hearing about skirmishes between the Christian Ilagas and the Muslim Black Shirts and how victory was influenced by their amulets (made of human ashes in small perfume bottles strung around their necks) and their ritual of making the proper steppings (like in a dance choreography) while fighting each other.

On the other hand, we were busy memorizing the "Bagong Lipunan (New Society)" song (May bagong silang, may bago nang buhay, bagong bansa, bagong galaw sa Bagong Lipunan, magbabago ang lahat tungo sa pag-unlad at ating itanghal, Bagong Lipunan!) which was later sung after "Lupang Hinirang" during flag ceremony. Student activism was still in the years ahead of us in this side of Mindanao, which was so far from the metro.

But being teenagers, we had creative ways of dealing with whatever came in the way of our having fun.  When people, young and old, men and women, were “invited” to stay overnight in the PC Barracks stockade for violating the 9 pm curfew, we were able to convince some of our parents to host the stay-in house parties (proms were canceled then).

These parties were tame: We danced, talked, ate all night, and went home when the curfew was lifted at 5 am the following day. Later, a general order was issued setting the curfew from 12 midnight to 4 am, but our stay-in parties continued nevertheless. In these parties, the favorite dance song of the boys was The Beatles’ longest 45 rpm single, "Hey Jude" (running time: 7 minutes and 11 seconds) which, of course, was most hated by the girls because their arms grew numb from maintaining their defensive triangular position propped against the boys’ chests. On the other hand, bouncy tunes were accompanied by our frenzied maskipops (maski papaano) dance moves. 

Weekends were usually devoted to afternoon group dates to watch movies (double program with two movies for the price of one ticket) at Capitol, State, or Golden City Theaters. We provided each other with alibis for our parents. 

Surprisingly, we found drug use uncool, although we were made aware of it by classmates who were transferees from Metro Manila. Yes, we were curious about it, but we never went beyond a few puffs of Maryjane. Mandrax, a sedative, was also common, but we’d rather spend our allowances on food and snacks like banana cue. Also, we were lucky to have eagle-eyed teachers and school officials who also had bloodhound-caliber noses to detect the peculiar smell of marijuana smoke. How they became familiar with its smell was one question that remained unasked. 

The Marist Brothers and Dominican Sisters ruled over us with firm but benevolent hands. In those turbulent times, while our parents worried about the near future, they were our anchors who made sure that we said our rosaries and attended the 7 am Sunday mass. Many of us remain prayerful to this day.

The fierce competition we faced from the rival school contingent only brought us closer together, especially in interschool competitions and meets. Scores not settled in these contests were quickly decided through fisticuffs in the cogon-choked areas of the vacant lot in front of the school, or in the banana plantation in Dadiangas Heights. 

As we eagerly awaited our College Entrance Test (CET) results, we discussed what college course we wanted to take in what university while taking sips of our Coca Cola/TruOrange/Lem-O-Lime or chewing Tarzan/Chiclets. Those of us who would be left behind envied those who would eventually be sent by their parents to college in Metro Manila, Cebu, and Davao. Promises were exchanged that letters and pictures would be sent to each other. We totally avoided talking about our impending separation after high school graduation. 

Graduation day at the Our Lady of Peace and Good Voyage Parish Church was a simple affair which started with a mass, punctuated by our singing of the splendid hymns composed by Sister Anunciata, SPC. The singing practice was well-attended weeks earlier because of the opportunities it presented to us to make a last-minute/ditch flirtation with each other across the aisles that separated us. 

As we sang our graduation song, "We Owe the World a Song," we became misty-eyed at the thought of our inevitable separation, of the final moments of our high school life, of the beginning of a new phase in our lives under the New Society, the euphemism given to Martial Law. Yes, we were “lucky” to have been teenagers during the early years of Martial Law, and as we went to college, we saw the horrors and evils of the New Society and the military abuses. We have relatives, friends, and schoolmates who were caught and killed in the crossfire between the military and the rebels, became victims of abuse and torture, and disappeared without a trace. Martial Law indeed left an indelible mark in our lives as its survivors.

Fifty years later, here we are – together again. We survived Martial Law! We are given this chance of renewing our ties, re-bonding our friendships, reminiscing about our high school life, laughing over “serious” matters that we now consider as trivial, crying for our classmates who had gone ahead and whom we sorely miss, being grateful for the lives we are leading now and for the impact our teachers and school officials had on us, finding opportunities to be of help to those batchmates whom we believe can use a helping hand, and rallying behind our alma maters.

We were the Martial Law teenagers and this is our shared history. – Rappler.com 

I was raised by my grandfather, a Marcos man, who was a police chief investigator during Martial Law. He was a strict man. This modifier is an understatement. I can vividly remember how framed certificates with titles like Outstanding Policeman of the Year, Most Outstanding Officer, among others, were displayed on the wall of our living room. Growing up, I looked up to him. I thought he was a noble man.

“Marcos is the best president.” This was a statement I used to hear before he passed away in 1998. He knew how to apply the law of averages. But after he died, talking about him, his beliefs, and his actions was not taboo anymore. During those lazy afternoon conversations with my grandmother, I learned how cruel he really was. 

I learned about how he pointed guns at anyone in the house, and how he placed his child in a chicken cage as a form of punishment. My grandmother was not spared from this domestic violence. She explained why, when I was in grade school, we needed to escape to my aunt’s house whenever my grandfather started to booze up on Tanduay. 

In college, I found a passion for reading through my literature courses. Dogeaters by Jessica Hagedorn opened my consciousness to Marcos and Martial Law. I became more inquisitive. I asked a lot of questions about my grandfather and his loyalty to the dictator. My aunt told me that she once had to erase a cast vote to favor Marcos. My grandmother told me that the first time she saw my grandfather crying was when Marcos and his family were chased out of the country in 1986. She narrated how my grandfather tore off a wall calendar and punched the wall out of disappointment and anger. (READ: Martial Law 101: Things you should know)

My grandfather was also so proud of having a man named Armin Gustilo as his close friend, believing this brought “prestige” to the family. I remembered him telling me that Gustilo’s house in Cadiz City was open, should I decide to study in Bacolod City. 

But this “prestige” turned eerie when I read about the Escalante Massacre in September 1985. Armin Gustilo was involved in that “Bloody Thursday” that took 20 lives and wounded 24 more. The question which I have deliberately avoided finding the answer to – “Was my grandfather involved in the Escam more than 3 decades ago?” – gives me goosebumps. I hope that when I finally have the courage to find the answer, I will get a NO.

In my grandfather’s house, the name Marcos and the idea of Martial Law was like a pill that could cure a malignant disease. But the pill is so bitter, and even unfit for human consumption.

I am not a Martial Law baby. But do I have to be in that darkest period of our history to tell what really happened? (READ: Heroes we must not forget) 

I don’t have to be with Archimedes Trajano in that forum to know he was found lifeless on the street. I don’t have to be in the same cell as Liliosa Hilao to understand the damage muriatic acid does to your throat. I don’t have to be with Johnny Escandor to see how one’s head is opened. The house where I was raised was like a small version of the country under dictatorship. It was full of bitter and violent memories. – Rappler.com 

Rio S. Aburido teaches Advanced Critical Reading to college students. His advocacy is to topple misinformation and disinformation, which defeat the reason why classrooms were built.

This week, I had the rare opportunity to listen to the stories of two women Martial Law survivors. Speaking before an awestruck audience of eighteen to nineteen-year-old university students in UPLB, Maria Cristina “Tina” Pargas Bawagan and Hilda Narciso proved the profound effects of stories. 

In studying the history of our authoritarian past, we are often presented with numbers and the numbers are compelling: more than 3,000 people killed, 35,000 tortured, and 70,000 killed, with $5 billion to $10 billion worth of government robbery to boot. 

Despite this, we still see an avid resurgence of historical revisionism and persistent pro-Marcos propaganda – and not a few people believe this. The election of Bongbong Marcos as senator in 2010, his close vice-presidential bid in 2016, and Imee’s easy senatorial win in the most recent national election are enough testament to the sordid effectiveness of their propaganda. In his musings, Ateneo de Manila’s Dr Filomeno Aguilar Jr, laments the collective failure of our schools and of the academia to embed the perils and brutalities of the Marcos regime in our memory. Dr Aguilar dirges how we forgot, that in the midst of the euphoria of EDSA I, “some cried when Marcos fell from power.”

We became too comfortable with what we thought was a liberal democratic consensus and neglected the fact that the two decades of Marcos presidency entrenched several legacies, not just in the affairs of the state, but also in the memory of the people. Such negligence made it easy for the Marcos families’ propaganda machine to twist the truth and spread deceit about the crimes of this despot, make up so-called achievements of the corrupt regime, and fabricate a narrative of a Golden Age in the time when funds were being stolen and people were being killed. Hence, despite the academic consensus on the failures of Marcos and his martial law, public opinion demonstrates an apparent forgetting or of simple nonchalance about what the dictatorship did to this country.

When confronted with the convincing and persuasive propaganda about Marcos, how do we push back? Listening to Tina and Hilda, I realized that the answer is simple – we need stories. 

Tina candidly shared her journey in the anti-dictatorship movement. She shared how she willingly sought after the struggle, abandoning the comfort of home and privilege, being parted from family and losing her husband in the struggle. Her story reminded us that in the peak of her youth and idealism, she is one of the many who chose to sacrifice her life and freedom for the struggle. Her story reminds me of another hero, Lean Alejandro, a leader of the student movement against Marcos who said that “(t)he next best thing to freedom is the struggle to be free.” 

Hilda did not mince words when she described the rape and molestation done to her for days by state agents in a safe house in Davao City, before being detained with other political detainees. Her voice did not falter when she shared how her tormentors laughed at her when she asked them to just kill her after her repetitive abuse. And she so bravely recalled how she willed herself to survive and live to tell the story. Now in her 70s, Hilda remains passionate on her resolve to help other victims and speak her truth before young people who are enjoying relative freedoms today because of the sacrifices of the generation before them.

After the forum, I asked my students about their experience listening to Tina and Hilda. One of them shared how different it was to listen to an actual person who went through such brutality from merely reading the stories from secondary sources. I remember feeling the same way when I had my first conversation with Susan Quimpo, another Martial Law survivor, as a college student in 2012. One detail that struck me in that conversation was how, after 3 decades since the dictator was overthrown, seeing soldiers with big guns still sends her shivers. It was a random detail that she shared but it left a hard impression on me: Martial Law is something that they carry every single day for the rest of their lives. For us, who had the fortune to not live through such period, it was just a historical detail. But for those who were tortured, detained, grieved for lost friends, families, and comrades, it was their truth. It is the responsibility of our generation to never let this truth be taken away from them – people died, women were raped, families were torn apart, the country was destroyed, Marcos is not a hero.

The stories of Tina, Hilda, and of countless other survivors of Martial Law remind us that our authoritarian past was not only an age of tyranny and oppression. More importantly, it was a period of unrelenting struggle, a history of indomitable resistance in the face of death, abuse, and injustice. While it is worthwhile to always be reminded of the mechanism of Martial Law, of the widespread corruption, of economic mismanagement, of the politicization of the military, and of crony capitalism, it is also important to remember that the strongest and the most sustained opposition against Marcos was propelled and mobilized by people who dared to fight back and to dream, albeit the imminence of death in such murderous regime. Marcos’ Martial Law is not only a story of how the oppressors oppressed. It is also the story of how the oppressed resisted. – Rappler.com

Vec Alporha  teaches History in UPLB. Before joining the faculty, she was Chairperson of the University Student Council of UP Baguio. She acquired her MA in History form UP Diliman.

Have you ever asked a friend to meet up or hang out in a park? Chances are very low, I would think.

Park development in the Philippines is in its infancy stage, and one wonders if it would ever mature due to the current state and standards of city officials. Have you heard our leaders promoting or paying attention to parks? Or do they just let companies convert parks into malls for profit? How sad this country has become – a playground for the oligarchs to make a buck and control government officials like trained puppets.

I, as a father, would choose to not bring my little boy to a park due to reasons such as inaccessibility, pollution, and poor aesthetics. Having no-good parks in Metro Manila is one of the reasons why my wife and I have started planning on leaving the capital in a few years and setting up a home base in one of the marvelous provinces in the Philippines. We want our child to experience bonding with nature. Isn't it more humane to meet comrades in a park, communicate, play sports, and laugh together, all while breathing fresh air?

A park could be the setting of a first date or first kiss; it could be the ideal place for a morning ritual like jogging or biking; it could be a spot for families to simply stroll around in. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen much in Metro Manila. We love our malls so much and we do everything in them. If only the late urban activist Jane Jacobs was born in this country to make our leaders realize the importance of parks.

I want to tell the advocates of parks in the Philippines: Please speak up. Let us all demand usable, safe, and aesthetically pleasing parks in our barangays – the smallest political and administrative units in the country. If we don't push for this, the future of this country won't have the best outlook in terms of having greenery in the midst of the urban jungle. If it can be done in Hong Kong, with more than 7,500 buildings standing in its urban space, I don’t see why it can't happen here. It's all about political will.

I set out to observe parks in Marikina City, and in the process got curious about the municipality’s vision statement. It says: "To be like the country of Singapore, moving towards a bright and better future, wherein its people are proud of who they are and where they are while being able to take care of themselves and others and being responsible of (sic) their actions."

Just like Singapore, Marikina envisions itself to have the following noteworthy attributes a first world country holds: discipline, self-sufficiency, effective governance, work ethics, environmental soundness, economic dynamism, and a corruption-free government. Such a grand vision for the city, but is it actualizing?

Let’s look at the 3 elements that make Singapore a remarkable place: It's a walkable city, it has efficient public transportation, and it has usable parks. Currently, I don't see plans leading towards that direction. 

Government officials, please try to delegate urban planning decisions to actual urban planners. Stick to your core strengths, for the sake of this country. Best leaders accept the fact that they can't do it all, therefore the art of delegation is necessary in order to produce the highest and best use of a desired project. – Rappler.com

Kurt Austine G. Gabriel is an urban space critic by nature. He aspires for the Philippines to elevate its ways of working in terms of urban planning, education, social norms, and policy. 

James Fallows is depressingly precise, but not that accurate.

This is my take regarding his article "A Damaged Culture: A New Philippines?" published a little more than 3 decades ago in The Atlanta Monthly. Not surprisingly, the finalist for the National Magazine Award in the US has remained a subject of controversy and attention in the Philippines, especially among scholars in the academe, technocrats in the business world, and pundits in the complex world of politics. It is brilliant, therefore, that such is required literature in the University of the Philippines in the study of Philippine culture and society.

Fallows, an investigative journalist, stayed for only 6 weeks in the country, apparently the same period he had sourcing information for his highly divisive article. One of his most controversial comments in his 9-page sociopolitical thesis was when he said that the Philippines paradoxically illustrates that "culture can make a naturally rich country poor."

He also underscored how slow the country progressed (even regressed) compared to its neighboring economies. He cited "distressing" concerns regarding manufacturing, agriculture, services and other industries, "geographic fracture," natural resources, and population explosion as if he were describing the same pressing issues of today. Using Smokey Mountain as a metaphor, Fallows concretely showed how "Philippine poverty seems more degrading" than what was expected. 

All these, for Fallows, may have stemmed from one root, which is cultural. "It should be thought of as a failure of nationalism," he said.

This, for me, is easily agreeable a point. Culture is key to national progress. Up to this point – and perhaps colonialism, geography, and ethnicity may play a big part in this – Filipinos still cannot agree with what really is a Filipino identity. The still-unanswered essential questions are: Who is a Filipino? What makes a Filipino, Filipino? What is the collective Filipino heritage, culture, and history? Are Filipinos really worth dying for?

Many, until now, wish to live the American Dream and abandon their citizenship for a green card without blinking an eye. We have 15 million OFWs now all over the world, with some having no plans of returning to their homeland. What makes it depressing is that it is not their fault. The reality is that Filipinos, for survival and in pursuit of happiness, are compelled to go abroad, as staying home is a form of socioeconomic and (probably) political suicide.

Furthermore, with a disclaimer that some things have gotten better and that "the economy has stopped shrinking" after the EDSA Revolution and since the Marcos dictatorship, Fallows argued that the "change" that happened is not exactly an authentic "social change" as cried about by the Filipino majority in 1986, but sort of a mere changing of the guard, a proverbial switch of the same dogs with different collars.

The continued rule of the new elite, as Fallows insinuated, in this "post-kleptocratic economy" is simply affirming the Marxist appreciation of social dynamics. It is as if, 30 years hence, the rich are still getting richer and the poor, poorer. It is as if the very few capitalists and imperialists in the guise of business magnates and billionaires still govern the country's major industries (even clinically killing small businessmen, entrepreneurs, and producers in the process). These 20 or so ruling families practically lord over the tens of millions of workers and peasants who continue to sustain life with their meager salary. The social triangle, then and now, is still bleakly upright, and many believe that there seems to be no bright light on the horizon. In many ways, Fallows was precise in painting a picture of what had happened to the Philippines after the Marcos era. Indeed, the average number of middle class Filipinos has increased over the decades, yet the poor and the underprivileged are also increasing exponentially.

I had this feeling that, during the time of President Noynoy Aquino, the country was right on its way to healing. It was sort of an antithesis to Fallows' arguments. We were considered to be the most economically robust in Asia. Industries like BPOs, electronics, communications, transportation, property, and services were carrying a blue chip. The education sector had made a quantum leap in adding two more years to its basic education to be at par with the world. Trust in government institutions was slowly regained.

As to Duterte's over 3 years in government now? Well, his unorthodox ways of proceeding seem to be almost bringing us back to the Marcos era. Prices of basic commodities are skyrocketing; corruption in government is more of a norm than a thing to be appalled at; human rights are trampled upon; social institutions are degenerating; the words of the executive are now treated more as garbled rubbish than remarks to be taken seriously from a true statesman; principle-based politicians are a rare (almost extinct) species; Congress has transformed into the despot's rubber stamp; and our international relations with our traditional economic partners are strained. But there are still a few beams of light showing here and there in terms of infrastructure and crime prevention, somehow.

Nonetheless, I believe that the Philippines, with its flaws and limitations as Fallows observed, is still a country with a purpose, a country with a bright future. I have this feeling that as a people, we are slowly getting our "Filipino identity" more defined. We are slowly letting go of our ways that did not work for us in the past. Slow, but sure, I pray.

For one, Filipinos are more empowered now. This is a culture we must celebrate. In 1972, Martial Law was declared, only for Ferdinand Marcos – Guinness World Record holder for being the second most corrupt politician of all time – to be toppled by People Power in 1986. Today, we oust erring public officials (or at least make them aware that people ask for their accountabilities) through the equally aware and critical media as well as religious, non-governmental, and anti-graft institutions. Our weapons – social media and cell phones – are more sophisticated than ever. Everyone has equal say and everyone is somehow heard. For sure, Fallows did not anticipate this would happen. His social analysis was limited only to what had happened and what could happen given the old setting. 

Secondly, many from the middle class are now stepping up in the political and socioeconomic sphere. This is good evidence that the wheels of change are turning, albeit slowly. The hope that meritocracy, democracy, and decency prevail over plutocracy, partiality, and kleptocracy in national and local institutions is creeping in the halls of government. Perhaps the product of this is the increase in the delivery of social services not just in education, but also in health care and other advocacies. Much remains to be done, however, especially if the government is still being led by an executive with a masochistic and ludicrous penchant for promising things he cannot fulfill.

Thirdly, the country's educational system, no matter how challenging, is in the right direction. The K to 12 reform is on its way to full rollout. More scholarships are offered to poor yet deserving students by the Department of Education, Commission on Higher Education, and Department of Science and Technology, to name a few. Since culture is best molded through acculturation, enculturation, and socialization in schools, this kind of development will truly have a great impact on national development in the process.

Fourthly, government institutions are more stable right now than during the presidency of Cory Aquino. Despite all the imperfections of the present administration, the offices are more respected and self-sustaining. During Marcos' time, everything depended on the dictator. During Cory, the institutions were still in their infancy-transition state, hence the coups and major political squabbles. Stable government institutions beget a more productive economic and social atmosphere.

A country, to move forward, must need people – not just leaders – with a strong culture, a strong sense of nationalism. This, for Fallows, is essential.

I respectfully offer a counterproposal.

I agree that for a country to advance, its people must have a strong culture. But it need not necessarily be a culture with a strong sense of nationalism. I believe that what is needed is a culture with a strong sense of humanism that focuses more on the value of human beings, individually and collectively. Love of country is still of value. But this may mislead Filipinos into not loving other countries or preferring one country over another. This can even lead to a divisive or confused society. A country with a humanistic culture – like that of many first world countries – is a country that puts a premium on human dignity, objectivity, meritocracy, and reason.

The world is getting smaller and borderless. The peoples of different countries are now redefining themselves in terms of cultural sensitivity and diversity. It seems that nationalism is becoming an old slogan effective only for the old world. It had its purpose in the past and we truly appreciate that. But modern Filipinos, with all the new things and developments they experience, may find nationalism so abstract that it is difficult to embrace.

I propose that the Filipino people transcend from having a "damaged culture" to having a more "humanistic culture" that is relevant in today's world. If we have this change of framework, then we can have a new pair of eyes looking at the dynamics of boundary-less labor exchange, business transactions, research and technology, education, and the like. We will start opening our horizons to new possibilities instead of just getting stuck with domestic practices that are proven to be regressive and outdated. This does not mean letting go of one's lineage or identity. On the contrary, this means celebrating human brotherhood amid diversity.

James Fallows may have been precise in describing the state of the Philippines and its people then, over 3 decades ago. But I believe that he was remiss in generalizing that the antidote for such is nationalism. He was also marginally inaccurate in predicting what would happen to the Philippines after Cory. His cultural prescription, however, has made me want to diagnose the world in another perspective that may be applicable to the modern world, to the modern Philippines, and to the modern Filipinos. In fact, it has made me wonder and ask:

Why define Filipino identity in the language of nationalism, if we can redefine it in the dialectics of internationalism?

Why not aim for development as a nation for the world?

Why not act locally, but think globally?

Why not see things – economics, education, politics, society, ethics, and whatnot – in the universal eyes of love, service, and excellence?

Hence, for me, a Philippines with a life-giving humanistic-internationalist culture – free from the poison of narrow-mindedness, corruption, parochial mentality, oligarchy, violence, bigotry, prejudice, and greed – will surely turn the social triangle upside down and make this naturally rich country rich again.

This, I pray, we will able to do as a nation with a "repaired culture" in the near future. – Rappler.com

Herman M. Lagon, 44, is the principal of a private school in Iloilo. He is a licensed civil engineer, physical science teacher, and guidance counselor who believes that YouTube, if utilized wisely, can be one of the most empowering tools of the modern world.

As Filipinos, we take pride in being a predominantly Catholic country, and the only one in the world that still bans divorce aside from the Vatican. But what would the Vatican, a city-state with an area of 44 hectares and a population of about 1,000 (of which at least 70% are clergy and 50% are not even citizens), need divorce for? 

Divorce is no stranger to the Philippines. Pre-colonial Filipinos had a liberal attitude towards the termination of marriage. It was only from 1521 to 1898 that the Spanish Civil Code prohibited it. After that, we had divorce under American colonial rule, and even more grounds were allowed during the Japanese occupation in the '40s. This prevailed until the Civil Code of the Philippines was passed in 1950, which restored Spanish colonial rules and Catholic mores regarding marriage and family. Since then, only Muslims have been allowed to continue practicing divorce.

They say, "Divorce will destroy a family." But is it not abuse and lack of respect for your partner and for marriage that destroy everyone in the family? Is it more important to save the image of the family than to save the lives of everyone concerned? Isn't it hypocrisy that a religion ruled by leaders who took a vow of celibacy, which many cannot even keep, should dictate that couples stay in hell for taking marriage vows?

I grew up in Catholic schools, so despite witnessing violence in the family, I believed that we should stay together. I was afraid that the future would be full of uncertainties if my parents separated. But when it happened, I was actually in a better situation. Life might have been more difficult financially, but I felt peace staying with my grandmother.

I promised a different kind of life for my future children. But when I married my college boyfriend during my senior year and had a baby shortly after graduation, things turned sour. I persevered. Not only because I loved my children, but because I also loved my husband enough to endure the kind of life he chose for us. I was afraid of raising 4 girls alone. I didn't have a life. I just survived day after day. I got so used to the situation that I even thought I was happy just having the family together, until one day (23 years after we got married), he left without giving a clue that he was never coming back. He left me with 3 daughters in college and one in first grade. 

It took almost 7 years for me to find out what happened. Our former friend and neighbor called to say my husband was the father of his wife's (my friend's) 3rd child. His wife and my husband had been having an affair for 11 years.

In December 2017, during the child's 5th birthday, both dads (biological, my husband, and legal, my friend) were present in the same house for the celebration, and after that the truth could no longer be hidden. My friend had long sensed what was going on, but like me, he also chose to hold on for the family to stay together.

Now, is this the ideal image of a family? My friend has a new girlfriend, but cannot marry her. My husband has been hiding from us since 2012, and his mistress is still married to my friend, even though she and my husband aren't giving each other up. And even if they do, I do not wish to have anything to do with a man who made a fool out of me all those years that I dedicated my life to him. After my mind was opened to possibilities, I was grateful that he walked out on us. (READ: Relationship status: Happy and pro-divorce)

So for Senate President Vicente Sotto III to say that divorce, when approved, should not allow the one filing for divorce to remarry, how would that be fair for the aggrieved party? And if a senator insists that divorce should be allowed only once in a lifetime, how would that be fair to well-intentioned people who may fall for the wrong person more than once? And for those senators who are allergic to the term divorce, what difference do the words "dissolution of marriage," "annulment," and "divorce" make when they all end a marriage legally and officially, and allow remarriage? (READ: Hontiveros: Divorce bill is 'pro-family,' 'pro-children')

We have senators who have remarried after annulment, one who has become a husband to an annulled woman, and a few who have family members who have been granted annulment. Sadly, many of us cannot afford it. 

We, victims, are only seeking justice through the formality of ending a marriage which has long ceased to be.

Anti-divorce advocates fear that marriage "will then become trial-and-error until the so-called perfect partner is found" and that "till death do us part" will just become a meaningless phrase. Who on earth would want to spend for a wedding (no matter how simple) and take sacred vows for a lifetime commitment if they knew it would not last?

People marry the person they thought they knew. Sadly, there is much more that is revealed about them after the wedding. Even long years of engagement or live-in arrangements cannot always guarantee anything. It is that commitment and respect (including for one's self) which are often abandoned or forgotten by at least one of the parties that will eat up everything.

Is the ideal image of a physically intact "partnership" to be given more importance over a safe and sane parent who can take care of children even without the other parent? If nobody can offer a better option, they better accept the reality and respect the decision of people who are not as lucky as they are. 

If a mom commits suicide or resorts to killing her abusive husband, can these bigots protect this woman's children better than she could have, if she just had the chance to save herself?

If they had survived the same ordeal before, may they remember that not all people have the same level of strength or are getting the same kind of support. If they have not been in the same situation ever before, then they are not in the position to deny those suffering from abuse the right to be totally free from the abuser.

Filipino values. Family values. But what do we really value? Life, safety, and sanity through divorce? Or that superficial image of a supposedly ideal marriage? – Rappler.com

Divide and conquer. This phrase describes an old tactic of war. Dominant groups use their weapons and authority to keep minorities segregated. A collective of minorities aware of the similarities of their experiences becomes a threat to the ruling class.  

In the past weeks, we witnessed passionate discussions on LGBTQ+ rights and farmers’ welfare. The former gained traction when LGBTQ+ activists used Gretchen Diez’s case as a way to highlight discrimination in schools, homes, and workplaces, among others. The latter became a national issue because of the dramatic decrease in the price of rice that some analysts associate with the Rice Tariffication Law. 

Heated discussions online set these two issues against each other. For many critics, the SOGIE Equality Bill should take a back seat to address farmers’ welfare. Some accused us of whining for insisting our rights amid the dire conditions faced by local farmers. These critics created a barrier between the issues of the two sectors. For them, one could not be addressed without abandoning the other. 

The clear winner

While there is no evidence of concerted efforts to pit us against farmers; the clear winner in this artificial cockfighting is the powerful, not us. In cockfights, even winning roosters remain slaves to their masters. To maintain the mentality that looks at minorities as competitors rather than allies is to blame the suffering of one on the other. 

This thinking loses sight of how powerful groups in society benefit from our misery. Instead of criticizing those who gain more from our struggles, we are made to direct our anger towards each other. Those who profit from our suppression are left out of the picture. Oppression, then, is harder to detect and cure since we leave the real oppressors untouched.

Not enough resources?

Of course, the most relevant anchor of the “prioritize narrative” is the lack of resources. We are compelled to give up some battles because we are made to believe there are not enough government resources to address both issues. Never mind the fact that the law requires 5% of the total budget for gender and development, which could be spent for SOGIE education. 

It is worth noting that, according to the Presidential Anti-Corruption Commission’s (PACC) 2018 Report, the Department of Agriculture tied with other agencies at 4th place in terms of the number of verified complaints of corruption received (see PACC Bares State of Corruption in the Philippines). Although not necessarily equal to conviction, verified complaints signal the likelihood of corruption occurring in these government agencies. 

In light of these allegations, the claim that there are no funds available for both sectors becomes questionable. These complaints lead us to ask: If there are cases of corruption in agencies meant to primarily address farmer’s welfare, is the “lack of resources” assertion valid?;  And if, indeed, there are many avenues of corruption, how can we trust these agencies to dispense services for both the LGBTQ+ and farmers?     

The “lack of resources” argument blurs our vision. Instead of directing our call to more transparency from the ruling elites, it distracts us by focusing our conversations on what to prioritize and what other minorities to blame for our misery. We lose sight of the real culprit hiding behind and feasting over the cockfight between minorities like us.  

Complementary, not competing

Resistance is more possible when we see each other not as competitors but as complementary actors. For example, the Lesbians and Gays Support Miners (LGSM) organization of Great Britain went to South Wales to help organize labor strikes in 1984. In turn, the National Union of Miners supported the 1985 London Pride March by showing up with one of the biggest contingents (see The True Story of "Pride").  

Only when we see our division as only beneficial to those who abuse power and not to our struggles that we can escape our respective and intersecting cages. Like in the case of LGSM, it serves us to work not only for our own salvation but also for other marignalized sectors. We must direct our battles not against those who, like us, are fighting in the ring, but rather against the masters enjoying seeing us in cockfights. – Rappler.com

John Andrew G. Evangelista or Andoy, for many, is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of the Philippines Diliman. His research interests include LGBTQ politics, social movements, queer theories, gender, and sexuality studies.

Many times, when President Rodrigo Duterte answers questions from the media or declares a new policy on controversies that have cooked up a storm, he does so without any background or consultation about the issues at hand.

Many times, he doesn't know what he's talking about. 

But because he is the Chief Executive, most of us, including the media, take his word for it and report what he says. Rarely is there any acknowledgment that Duterte missed an analytical step, made a dangerous assumption, or was simply ignorant about the subject matter. 

Duterte's mistakes can be harmless – publicly castigating actor Gabby Concepcion when he meant ABS-CBN chairman emeritus Gabby Lopez, or calling JV Ejercito "Jinggoy," the name of his estranged brother.

There are the bothersome misconceptions bordering on historical distortion, like when he keeps insisting Lapulapu was a Muslim, specifically a Tausug, based on the headgear in painted depictions of the hero, even when historians say there are no documents to support such a claim.

Then there are the mistakes that send ripples through society and change public policy. 

The most recent example was his faux pas with the SOGIE (sexual orientation and gender identity and expression) equality bill. When GMA reporter Joseph Morong asked him categorically if he would certify the SOGIE bill as urgent, Duterte said, "Yes, whatever would make the mechanisms of – what would make them happy."

Turns out, Duterte wasn't referring to the SOGIE bill. It was a more general "anti-discrimination bill" he had in mind, according to Presidential Spokesperson Salvador Panelo.

Which begs the question, did Duterte even know about the SOGIE bill? Did he even read versions of it? Because how could he have mistaken it for another bill? 

Maybe it would have been wiser to ask Duterte first if he knew about the SOGIE bill rather than go straight to asking if he would certify it as urgent.

Security and mixing it up

We can perhaps forgive a septuagenarian given to sexist slurs to be unaware of what the SOGIE bill is all about. But what to make of a Commander-in-Chief who once got the West Philippine Sea mixed up with the Philippine (Benham) Rise?

In a late-night press conference in March 2017, Duterte was asked to comment on China's statement that the Philippines cannot claim Philippine Rise as its territory. He responded by spooling out his usual monologue about the futility of asserting the Hague ruling. But the ruling covers the West Philippine Sea, and not the Philippine Rise, which lies on the other side of the Philippine landmass.

Duterte had to be briefed days later by National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon Jr about the difference between the two seas. Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana admitted with a chuckle, "Na-mix up niya (He got it mixed up)."

And what of the earlier debacle, when Duterte, in China no less, announced his military and economic "separation" from the United States? The President, no doubt, knew of the Philippines' defense alliance with the Western power, but he did not appreciate the impact that the word "separation" and the act of announcing from Beijing would have on diplomatic ties, security, and the economy.

His economic managers, Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez III and Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Ernesto Pernia, had to quickly piece together a joint statement clarifying that Duterte's "separation" was really just a "pivot" to neighboring countries, not an abandonment of ties to the West. 

Misguided orders

Duterte's confusion stretches to issuing orders. 

Confronted by a rice shortage in 2018, he announced he was going to "abolish" the National Food Authority Council, the country's decision-making body on food security. Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea and then-agriculture chief Emmanuel Piñol had to explain that this could not be done without Congress approval. Duterte recalibrated. 

Duterte is fond of "abolish" threats. In his 2019 State of the Nation Address, that's what he warned Landbank he would do, because he didn't like how they were acting "like a commercial bank,"  supposedly instead of providing financial assistance to farmers.

But it was an ill-informed accusation.

While Landbank was created to finance the government's acquisition to buy agricultural lands for resale to small landholders, it was granted universal banking powers in 1973, thus allowing it to function as a commercial bank as well. Today, Landbank is among the biggest universal or commercial banks in the country. As for Duterte's claim that it has not given loans to farmers? Landbank is actually their biggest lender, among commercial banks. (READ: FAST FACTS: What you should know about Landbank)

While the Agri-Agra Reform Credit act requires banks to allot 25% of the loan portfolios for agriculture and fisheries, the loans extended to agrarian reform beneficiaries and farmers reached 27.45% of the bank's total loan portfolio (P799.64 billion as of June 30, 2019). 

Economist Cielito Habito had said Duterte's accusations were "misplaced."

With the public seething over a water crisis in Metro Manila and Rizal in early 2019, Duterte ordered the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) to release 150 days' worth of water supply from Angat Dam.

A nonplussed MWSS Administrator Reynaldo Velasco said letting out this much water, equivalent to 600,000 million liters per day (MLD), is impossible since infrastructure allows the release of only 4,000 MLD from the Angat Dam. Also, there was a water crisis precisely because water from the Angat Dam could not reach the aqueduct gates.

The President was given the "wrong advice," said Velasco.

Was it wrong advice too that led Duterte to order a blanket suspension of all Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO)-accredited gaming operations only to walk back on the order days later? Duterte eventually decided to lift the suspension for lotto operations because he was told, again by Medialdea, that no anomalies were spotted in such operations.

But the 4-day closure of lotto operations cost the government P250 million in revenues. Would it not have been wiser to spare lotto games from the start? 

It's not as if Duterte had no way of knowing corruption is less likely in lotto games because of its automated systems. In fact, he had met with PCSO officials the night before issuing his blanket order. He could have consulted them, inquired about the extent of corruption in each of the gaming formats, and asked about the impact on livelihood and government revenue. 

Maybe he did do these things, but the order he issued lacked any nuance to show he did. 

Duterte speaks before fully understanding issues. He barks orders before analyzing the situation and considering all angles. 

PR solutions vs real solutions

Covering him since the start of his presidency, I've come to believe this is because he views public statements and declarations as public relations moves more than policy solutions.

Is it any wonder then that his most shocking policy pronouncements always stop at being verbal orders, instead of getting fleshed out eventually in executive orders or memoranda? Is it not concerning that his verbal orders may lack the legal basis necessary to turn them into formal document-based issuances?

Instead of losing sleep over this, government officials just say Duterte's word is law and that media reports about his speeches are enough documentation. 

Duterte, above all else, is a PR stuntman. He feels the pulse of ordinary Filipinos and is good at reacting to whatever angers, saddens, disappoints them – through shocking public statements, threats, or touching visits to victims of tragedies.

This is why he performs well in popularity surveys. But no survey quite captures how effective or ineffective a leader is at systematically fixing problems and finding long-term solutions. Duterte can fix PR debacles, but how good is he at addressing the actual problems underlying those debacles?

Image preservation is different from running a government.

It's worrisome when someone running the government speaks before thinking. Presidential statements are taken as government policy. One mistake reverberates down the line, impacting everything from national security (like in the Philippine Rise debacle) to funding for government charity programs (PCSO games shutdown).

For this reason, presidents are assumed to receive briefings from concerned government agencies, to be appraised on issues media will likely ask about in press conferences, and, at the most basic level, to exercise judgment on when to speak and not to speak on complex and sensitive topics. 

Duterte's advisers

Who advises Duterte on what he says?

Medialdea, a lawyer, certainly has his ear, but it seems his advice is sought only after the President makes public declarations. (READ: Evolution of the Duterte Cabinet)

Bong Go, though now in the Senate, still regularly speaks with Duterte and continues to have a say on who the Chief Executive appoints and where he goes.

Panelo, who is also chief presidential legal counsel, sends the Office of the President his advice on legal matters, such as on the Good Conduct Time Allowance law, but he does not make any inputs on Duterte’s messaging.

He often says the President does not need to confer with anyone on decisions because he is the Chief Executive. Or else he praises Duterte for his off-the-cuff, instinctual speaking style. 

The most Panelo does is ask Duterte how he, as his spokesman, should respond to reporters' questions, or else "clarify" that the President's latest outrageous remark was just a "joke" or a Bisaya-Filipino translation gone wrong.

Communications officials like Martin Andanar help in crafting speeches; so does Palace Undersecretary Melchor Quitain. They try hard to make these prepared remarks reflect Duterte's priorities and sentiments.

But when Duterte departs from the teleprompter or typed-up page in front of him, he is truly on his own, the captain of his own ship. No one can control what he says. And this is where he is free to be himself, to spread his wings and fly while his advisers anxiously wait on the sidelines. 

"You can't control my mouth. It's a gift from God," Duterte often declares.

But should Duterte really be allowed to speak as he does? Is it responsible for government officials to assume Duterte knows of what he speaks and be content with making adjustments later on if he turns out to be wrong? 

Duterte and his advisers have to work harder at studying problems, listening to experts, seeking different opinions and concerns, to arrive at better solutions – not just stop-gap, crowd-pleasing, yet often misguided announcements. 

More crucially, his advisers have to accept that Duterte, like all presidents, like all humans, can make mistakes, and it is their job to prevent such mistakes. One way to do that is to fix the messaging. 

When Duterte decides to go on-air to make an announcement on a new policy, can his advisers first recommend caution and a thorough analysis of the policy and how it should be explained to the public?

Reporters have to be aware of Duterte's shortcomings and tendency to speak before understanding headline-grabbing controversies. There are topics Duterte would likely be well-versed in, like his campaign against illegal drugs or the communist insurgency. But when it comes to liberal policies on gender equality, technology, or the economy, Duterte may need help from reporters to understand questions they are asking. 

When there is even a sliver of doubt about Duterte's answers, media should ask follow-up questions and constantly seek clarification. Perhaps news organizations should also refrain from writing reports based on Duterte's vague but alarming or important-sounding one-liners. 

When faced with the stickiest of criticism, Malacañang will pull out Duterte's popularity ratings as a one-size-fits-all response. But these numbers should not fool people into thinking popularity always translates to good, effective leadership. 

Duterte speaks very well. He's right, his mouth is God's gift to him.

But being president is more than looking and sounding good. It's having the patience to understand problems, the rigor to find the best solution, and the humility to listen to other people.– Rappler.com

Pia Ranada covers the Office of the President for Rappler.