Reports of deaths and damages from the two most recent typhoons (Onyok and Nona) that devastated the Philippines have raised the urgency of understanding how the new global climate agreement can particularly help Filipinos address disasters. We have noted how typhoons seemed to have always marked the UN climate change negotiations, with super typhoon Yolanda, one of the strongest storms to make landfall in history, hitting the country in 2013 while the climate change talks were happening then in Warsaw, Poland. In 2014, the negotiations transpired while typhoon Ruby was also battering Manila; thankfully, there were fewer casualties then, but one life lost is one too many.

Recognizing the eerie coincidence, Sec. Emmanuel de Guzman, vice chair of the Climate Change Commission and also head of the Philippine delegation, started his final plenary speech recalling this: “For each of the past 4 years, at this time when we come for annual climate meetings, as our Earth spins to another end and another beginning of her voyage around the sun, a powerful typhoon visited the Philippines, carving out an immense swathe of devastation, deprivation and death of many of our countrymen, persistently and rudely reminding us of the significance of our role and the urgency of mission in this Conference of the Parties.” 

He went on to describe how, for the Philippines, climate change means sorrowful catalogues of casualty and fatality; the countless voices of the homeless and the grieving – their very tears and screams carried to us by the winds and waves that blew their homes away. Secretary de Guzman pointed out also how "victim" is inadequate to capture the loss and damage visited upon us as each body counted “has a name and an age – is workmate or lover, neighbor or friend, son or daughter, father or mother:

Now typhoons Nona and Onyok came days after 195 countries – including the Philippines – adopted the climate change deal in the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) in Paris, France. What difference does it make now though that we already have a legally binding climate change deal? How could this agreement concretely impact the lives of people from the countries and communities most vulnerable to climate change? What did we fight for and win in the Paris conference?

United front

The Philippine delegation to Paris was ably led first by President Aquino who spoke at the leader’s summit and opened a big meeting of the Climate Vulnerable Forum on the first day of the conference. Aside from his presence being a big morale booster for the delegation, we considered Aquino’s two speeches as additional instructions for us, and as articulating our priorities for the two weeks of negotiations.

When the President left, leadership fell upon Secretary de Guzman whose stewardship of Team Philippines was visionary and exemplary. Servant leadership, dedication, discipline and adaptive management characterized Secretary de Guzman’s work in Paris. The result was a cohesive and united Team Philippines.

Aside from Secretary de Guzman, the presence of Environment Secretary Ramon Paje and Secretary Neric Acosta, presidential adviser on climate change, were also helpful, as we needed as many senior officials as possible for various engagements. Having several undersecretaries and assistant secretaries take on specific responsibilities made tasks lighter for everyone. Among others, we personally worked with Environment Undersecretary Jonas Leones, Assistant Secretary Joy Goco of the Climate Change Commission, Transportation Assistant Secretary Regina Ramos, and Science Assistant Secretary Raymond Liboro on several negotiation issues that required their expertise.

Our diplomats, let by Assistant Secretary and now Ambassador to New Zealand Gary Domingo, were also very competent and conscientious. We felt very assured that the country was represented in Paris by a sterling group of Foreign Service officers. It felt like going to battle and you had everything covered.

Critical also to our success in Paris was the presence of senior officials and technical experts from the Climate Change Commission, Office of the President, National Economic and Development Authority, PAGASA, and the Departments of Agriculture, Environment and Natural Resources, Transportation and Communication, Science and Technology, Finance, and Energy. We personally witnessed how our colleagues from government worked very hard to advocate our issues.

It would be fair to say that the Philippine delegation was enriched, its capacities substantially enhanced, by the inclusion of civil society advisers and experts from academe in its ranks. Indeed, some of us from civil society and the academe have been following and participating in these negotiations for many years and provided solid intelligence on what was happening, as well as strategic advice on what interventions would work best to promote Philippine interests. If in the future, civil society presence in climate change negotiations were challenged, Paris is the best illustration of why such presence is good, even essential for our interests. – Rappler.com

Conclusion: Part 2: The Philippines' influence on the Paris Agreement

Our interests since the beginning of the climate change negotiations in 1990 has remained constant: how to make sure that the threat of climate change is averted and its worst impacts does not affect us; and how to ensure that the global mitigation interventions to address climate change benefit our sustainable development and not hinder it. (READ: Part 1: The Philippines at its best at Paris climate talks)

Hence, the Philippine delegation pushed for certain points and fought against some – what we call our red lines – in the Paris agreement because they will affect our capacity to face climate change in specific ways. We crafted our position on mitigation, human rights, adaptation, loss and damage, technology transfer, finance, and capacity building with a vision on how their inclusion in the historic climate change deal would be captured in real programs and policies to be implemented on the ground.

Limiting global temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius

The Philippines, as chair of the Climate Vulnerable Forum, an advocacy alliance of 43 developing, middle-economy and small island states, has campaigned for the temperature cap of 1.5 degree-Celsius goal since COP20 in Lima, Peru. In Paris, we did herculean work to achieve this goal and our efforts paid off as 112 countries eventually supported it, with France and Germany joining the call by the penultimate day of the conference.

On the last day, the Philippines also joined the High Ambition Coalition, led by the Marshall Islands, which was composed of more than 100 developed and developing nations and included the United States, Brazil, Canada, and Australia, countries very big carbon footprints. The coalition also aimed to having the long-term mitigation goal of below 1.5 degrees Celsius.

As Secretary Emmanuel de Guzman told the Vatican delegation during our bilateral meeting with them, the difference between 2 and 1.5 degrees is the number of small islands all over the world (including some of our islands) and the millions of people that live in them that will have to be sacrificed with the higher threshold. A 2 degrees Celsius increase also means severe impacts on the agriculture and food security of many poor countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Mountains and deserts will be especially impacted as well.

Article 2.a of the Paris agreement now states that countries will “hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.” This is an important victory for the Philippines and other vulnerable countries. Going to Paris, we would have thought we had a 25% probability of achieving this language. After the first week, we thought we had a 50% probability of success. In the last two days, confirmed especially by a bilateral meeting with Saudi Arabia where they signaled that a compromise was acceptable, we knew that the victory was secured.

5-year review of mitigation commitments
 
How could greenhouse gas mitigation be made effective enough to limit global temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius? Countries have pledged, through their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC), to lower their emissions through measures that they themselves specified in consideration of their own national priorities and socioeconomic circumstances.  As of now, 185 countries have officially submitted their INDCs, with Venezuela adding their own to the list soon. The Philippines, for its part, aimed for a 70% carbon emission reduction by 2030 in its INDC, given substantive and adequate support from developed countries.

The Philippines agrees that much needs to be done to keep the temperature below dangerous levels. That’s why we supported a 5 year-review provision for the mitigation commitments. The adequacy of the pledges will be gauged in a global stocktaking to do be first done in 2023, or 3 years after the Paris agreement takes effect in 2020, and every 5 years thereafter. Countries anytime though could raise the ambition in their commitments, as stipulated in Article 4.11 of the agreement, and we urge them to do so in a way that will enable them to also attain equitable and sustainable development.

It is true that the current commitments will still lead to a 2.7 degrees Celsius increase in temperature. That is not acceptable. But this review mechanism agreed to in Paris and built regularly into the agreement is its saving grace. If we do it right, by the second or third cycle, we could be on track to the 1.5 degrees goal.

Support is critical

We need funds not only to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, but also to adapt to the effects of climate change, which could range from longer, drier spells to intense, more frequent rainfall. These events have potential pronounced impacts on the income of farmers and fisher folk as the former would have a more difficult time growing their crops, while it would be dangerous and too risky for the latter to brave stormy seas. Their decreased production could then harm food security and aggravate poverty.

Communities that also live in locations that are exposed to multiple hazards such as strong winds and storm surges would also have to be relocated.  These would entail funds, but the financial assistance should not come in the form of loans.  Alicia Ilaga, director of the Climate Change Office at the Department of Agriculture, said it well when she pointed out that countries already vulnerable to the effects of climate change such as the Philippines should not bear the burden of having to be mired in debt for funding that have been supposedly designed to help them.

Our adaptation team, led by Ilaga, worked hard to make sure that the funds would be grants-based. Complementing their efforts was the work of the finance team, which supported the inclusion of a provision in the climate change deal that aims to achieve a balance between mitigation and adaptation in the allotment of climate finance.  The technology transfer team, on the other hand, pushed for the provision of funds for all stages of technology cycle so as to guarantee that the support will not just be given for research and development but also implementation.  

On support issues, the Philippines worked closely with colleagues from the Group of 77 and China (G77), the coalition of developing countries led in Paris by South Africa. In the negotiations on finance, the G77 group was led expertly by veteran negotiator Bernaditas Muller, a Philippine national.

Loss and damage

Not all challenges posed by climate change could be adapted to, however. This is why we need to address loss and damage separately. It is one big win for us and other vulnerable countries that the Paris agreement contained a whole article (Article 8) about it.  Unlike in prior decisions by the Conference of Parties, developing countries succeeded in delinking loss and damage from adaptation.

Article 8.4 states that countries would cooperate and facilitate to enhance understanding, support and action in the areas of early warning systems, emergency preparedness, risk insurance and facilities and resilience of communities, livelihoods and ecosystems, among others.  

We first fought for the recognition of loss and damage in COP19 in Warsaw under the headship of then Commissioner Naderev ‘Yeb’ Saño (truly a global hero whose courageous acts as a government official and a pilgrim for climate will long remembered). Now that it is considered as a separate area of global priority from adaptation, it feels like we’ve come full circle, but we also agree that steps are yet to be taken for it to be fully translated to concrete measures.

Big victory for human rights and ecosystems integrity

Venezuelan Ambassador Claudia Salerno, who headed the coordination group for the Preamble, said that the preamble captures not only environmental concerns but also social, economic and cultural considerations as well. We couldn’t agree more. The preamble strongly pushes for countries to “respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights” with particular reference to rights of indigenous peoples, subjects that the Philippines has fought for to be recognized in the agreement.  As early as Lima, we have raised why the Paris agreement must be anchored on human rights, something that has been lacking in its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol.

Like the 1.5 goal, it did not seem likely on the eve of the Paris talks that we would get human rights language into the agreement. Building a coalition around this issue was critical and we worked on that the whole year long with Mexico, Chile and a handful of countries. By the first week of Paris, it was clear that most countries have come around to support the language we needed and by Thursday, coincidentally December 10 when human rights day is celebrated worldwide, we were sure that human rights would finally be integrated into a climate change agreement.

There is a reason why we wanted to emphasize this link between human rights and climate change. We will better understand why we are doing what we are doing – we want this agreement to be successful because we – including farmers, young people, survivors of disasters not just in the Philippines but in other countries – all of us, including the one reading this – have the right to a cleaner, greener world, and so do the generations to come.

Similar but less controversial to human rights was the Philippine leadership and advocacy of the inclusion of language ecosystems integrity in the Paris Agreement. We successfully argued that climate change was not just a carbon agreement but that its impacts and the impacts of mitigation interventions have serious consequences on ecosystems, natural resources, and biological diversity.

Paris and multilateral processes

Governments are not the only actors on climate change. Peoples and communities can and must work together to do something more and to get governments and the private sector to be more ambitious. But the way forward for that is not through a consensus based process, which is what multilateral processes are all about. Consensus means everyone, or mostly everyone, must agree. That’s a very high bar and because of that compromises have to be made.

The big question for us these past few years is whether we should even have these multilateral processes at all as they can be complex and unwieldy. Paris was a strong and loud confirmation for such processes. Without them, both small and the least powerful nations will have no say at all on global decisions. If you were a negotiator from those countries, as we were, It was very clear that we able to have a big footprint on the agreement, that we shaped it as much as the biggest players.

This influence in the Paris negotiations did not of course materialize from nowhere. From the early years of the climate negotiations, we were always a strong player as evidenced by our contribution as a country to the shaping of the Kyoto Protocol. In more recent years, we have also been looked up to for our leadership on forest and land use issues as well as for the role we played from 2011-2013 in catalyzing the coalition of Like Minded Developing Countries (LMDC). Although we did a pivot in 2014 and left LMDC, the success of this group in preserving the development space of developing countries will benefit us as well. Philippine national Vicente Yu, who works for the South Centre, played a critical role supporting the LMDC and we benefitted as well from his advice in the final stages of the Paris negotiations.

If global climate change politics were reduced to bilateral or regional relationships, only the big emitters and those with deep pockets would have a say. Who wants that?

While we believe Paris is the maximum and limit of what governments as a collective can agree on now, the Agreement is still not adequate to address climate change effectively. But while it is imperfect, the Paris Agreement is not bad; it is certainty not a least common denominator agreement where people leave the conference unhappy and depressed.

Those of us in Le Bourget the evening of December 12, 2015, were genuinely happy with what we have achieved but we were also acutely aware that the hard work must continue in the years ahead. But for a few minutes, if possible some hours, days or even a few weeks, we can rest and say – “Well done, for now at least, well done.” – Rappler.com

Last November, I was honored to speak at an integrity forum organized by Xavier University, the Brotherhood of Christian Businessmen and Professionals and the AIM alumni of Cagayan de Oro City, commemorating the life of Vice President Emmanuel Pelaez.

For those too young to remember him, “Maning” Pelaez was an Atenean and a bar topnotcher hailing from Mindanao (Misamis Oriental). He started as a clerk in the Senate and worked his way up the ranks to eventually become a professor of law in University of Manila, and later an aide to President Ramon Magsaysay, Sr.

Once his skill and integrity was noticed by Magsaysay, his ascent in politics was nothing short of astronomical – first serving as congressman of Misamis Oriental, then senator on Magsaysay’s 1953 ticket, then as vice president on Diosdado Macapagal’s 1961 ticket.

From there, he opposed Marcos as the presidential nominee of the Nationalista Party. On the night of July 21, 1982, he was ambushed and narrowly escaped an assassination attempt. He believed it was Marcos and his cronies who plotted this, and he decried Macros’ effort to cover up the crime by blaming it on Muslim separatists.

On the night he was ambushed, Pelaez famously asked General Karingal: “What’s happening to our country?” – referring to the deterioration of the rule of law, the unfairness and cronyism in the economy, and the growing poverty and inequality. Now many years later, and despite marked progress in growing the Philippine economy, it seems that the country has nevertheless stagnated on a number of fronts having to do with the quality of its leadership and public sector managers.

There are 3 governance patterns that bring us farther away from the ideals of professional leadership and management that Maning Pelaez stood for. And while the focus of this article is on the Philippines, it would be relatively easy to see that the question posed – Where are our leaders and managers? – applies more broadly and is quite relevant in many countries today.

Politicians instead of technocrats?

In most modern democracies, key government functions are led and managed by area experts – technocrats – who know how to run and regulate an increasingly sophisticated bureaucracy. Politicians like Pelaez appear to be an exception, since he started out as a technocrat and later ventured successfully into politics.

Pure politicians, on the other hand, may not necessarily bring the requisite expertise to certain positions in the government bureaucracy—and this could be detrimental to public services.

Politicians may also shy from tackling the more difficult but often necessary reforms that could eventually make them unpopular in the polls. Witness, for example, the many violations of local government regulations that remain unchecked, largely because politicians don’t want to anger potential voters.

This is no different from politicians in other countries avoiding especially difficult reforms – like debt reduction, climate change and healthcare and pensions reforms – because they know the difficult solutions to these issues will likely reduce their political support, even as decisive action may benefit future generations who have no vote yet.

In recent years, the balance between technocrats and politicians in top government office seems to have tilted in favor of the latter.

For comparison, the Ramos and Aquino cabinets provide much food for thought. One can see an increase in the percentage of officials who at some point in their career were elected into public office. A mere 5% of top officials under the 1998 Ramos administration possessed a political background.

Compare this with over 40% of top officials in the 2015 Aquino administration who occupied elected office in the past.

To be sure, politicians might possess special leadership skills that could – when applied properly – forge consensus and get countries to move forward.

In the case of the Philippines, one wonders whether the disadvantages (i.e. avoidance of any deep reforms for fear of political backlash) outweigh the advantages (i.e. ability to build political consensus).

Perhaps highlighting this point, in a recent article about the traffic management problem in the metropolis written by former NEDA Secretary General Cielito Habito, he reiterated the conclusion of a colleague: “The problem with MMDA is it’s run by politicians… I’m hoping (they’d) appoint a technical person who understands the dynamics of traffic planning and management so that issues and concerns like yours will be solved.”

Nepotism instead of meritocracy?

Professor Julienne Labonne of National University of Singapore and Professor Marcel Fafchamps of Stanford University recently conducted a study on appointment and employment patterns at the local government level in the Philippines.

In an examination of the occupations of individuals related to losing and winning candidates for mayor, vice-mayor, and councilor in 709 municipalities during the 2007 and 2010 elections, the two professors found that relatives of winning candidates are able to secure better paying jobs after elections. Furthermore, the return to political connections was higher for relatives of the mayor vis-à-vis the relatives of the vice-mayor or councilor.

Conversely, the family members of losing politicians were negatively affected by the defeat of their relative; their probability of getting a high-paying occupation after the elections was lower.

This pointed to a perverse incentive for incumbents who demonstrated nepotistic behavior to prolong their stay in power and secure the influence of their family. Meritocracy is indeed at risk when, as the famous saying goes, “It’s not what you know; it’s who you know.”

Dynasties instead of competitive elections?

Finally, it is by now well known that political dynasties dominate our government landscape. Perhaps only a few will care to defend the concentration of political power represented by political dynasties.

This pattern – even when comprised of decent individuals (which is less of the case, given decent leaders like VP Pelaez actually discouraged family members from running out of delicadeza) – represents anti-competitive and personality-based politics while also weakening the checks and balances in our political system (notably at the local government).

Constitutionalists like lawyer Christian Monsod and former Ambassador Wilfrido Villacorta; top policymakers like former and current NEDA secretaries-general Cielito Habito, Winnie Monsod, and Arsenio Balisacan; and various civil society groups and academics have reiterated how dynastic politics is anathema to our democracy.

Even young leaders from well-known political clans – including Joy Belmonte of Quezon City, JV Ejercito of San Juan City, and Mel Sarmiento of Eastern Samar – are on record acknowledging the necessity for reforms because the political playing field is not level, and our present political system perpetuates policy variability, turncoatism, and patronage.

Yet today, about 85% of our governors, 75% of our congressmen and almost 70% of our mayors all hail from political clans (Figure 1). In areas with particularly “fat” dynasties (i.e. sabay-sabay nanunungkulan or in office at the same time), many are running unopposed in 2016, mirroring their dominance already demonstrated in 2013. So when a famous dynastic politician recently quipped – “Why not let the people decide?” – the question in my mind is “Do the people really still have a choice?”

Is there hope in 2016?

If the past years convey any lessons, the challenge of our time is not so much bad policy; it's bad execution. We are paying the price for over-personalizing what should have been systems building, professional management, and meritocratic hiring and promotion.

Even our solutions reflect the same flaw – when we face governance challenges, people demand that heads roll, while failing to change the same chaotic system that remains largely in place.

We call for a new President to magically fix everything while replacing very few other government officials, some of whom have been in power over generations despite their failure and impunity. We in turn fail to see what each President has contributed (some more than others) to building a stronger nation.

Impatient, we opine for a return to a strongman who will take short cuts. We Filipinos run other countries' systems well, but we can't seem to build a fair one of our own. Ultimately, we need capable managers and effective and fair systems, not saviors.–Rappler.com

The author is Associate Professor of Economics and Executive Director of the AIM Rizalino Navarro Center for Economic Competitiveness (formerly AIM Policy Center). The author is grateful to Fred Cruz and Cara Latizano for their help in producing this article. Much of the data and evidence mentioned in this article is part of a recently published volume, Building Inclusive Democracies in ASEAN (http://buildinganinclusivedemocracy.org)

Just 5 kilometers away from the Syrian border is the busy Ar Ramtha hospital in Jordan where Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders/MSF) runs an emergency surgical department. The patients treated by MSF’s teams are often in a very critical condition, with the team frequently seeing people injured by the war in Syria, soon to enter its 6th year.   

The injuries we saw in Ar Ramtha hospital were really intensive. I could see from the patients I helped to treat that Syria is in a very serious war.  

I have seen the impact of conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and South Sudan, but the injuries sustained by our Syrian patients were so severe. Their injuries sually involved a large segment of their bodies. If they survived the first surgery, they often required subsequent operations.

Day-to-day operation

We did surgeries every morning, afternoon, evening, and even at dawn the following day. I was often the person who stayed in the hospital the longest because I had to work not only in the operating room, but also in the emergency room, the high dependency unit, the intensive care unit (ICU), and many others.  

Sometimes I just went home to take a shower and returned to the hospital to work. Every day, I only had between 3 and 4 hours sleep and I could be called into the hospital at any moment.

MSF also supports 14 small field hospitals in the nearby governorate of Daraa, just over the border in Syria. We  send medical supplies and medicines so the hospitals can continue their life-saving support to their fellow Syrians. However, the scale of the war is just too big; their capacity can easily be overwhelmed by the number of wounded patients.

They could only do basic surgery and only based on the limited resources they have had. There were also patients who developed complications which required highly specialized care in Jordan. So Ar Ramtha hospital served as one of the referral hospitals for critical trauma patients. But not all patients were successful to cross the border for medical emergency. Patients accessing the border aiming to enter Jordan for health care are normally screened by border authorities and only those patients who cannot be treated inside Syria would normally get access.

War-torn Syria is so close to Ramtha that we could hear the bombs whenever they were dropped. The sound of bombings and explosions were reminders to us medics to be ready for influx of patients from Syria in the next 15 minutes.

One patient I attended to suffered from an intensive injury caused by a bomb blast. The image of her was the best way for me to describe the impact of war. Though she sustained severe multiple injuries and underwent many surgeries, she was kept in a fairly stable condition for 5 to 6 weeks until she passed away due to complications. I noticed that she had a smile in her face when she was pronounced dead– maybe she smiled  because she knew she would finally be free of suffering. 

Effects of war 

On the medical side, I saw the effects of war on the human body by the injuries people sustained. But I also thought about the Syrians who were constantly running to safety. Even those who have not suffered physical injuries must be suffering tremendously.  Having an amputated leg is a reminder of the brutality of the war. Being forced to flee your home and have your life turned upside down is another mental anguish faced by many of our patients. Mental health support is an integral part of the healthcare that MSF provides.

We also help our patients who are unaccompanied children or those who have been orphaned by reuniting them with their family or relatives in Jordan’s Zataari refugee camp or with members of their family living in neighbouring countries. One example was a 14-year-old child patient and was reunited with his relatives in Turkey 6 months after staying in the hospital.

For some patients, no trauma will stop them going back to their family in Syria. One 18-year-old boy arrived at the hospital unconscious with aspiration pneumonia and stayed in the ICU for some time. When he finally woke up, we fitted him with a prosthetic leg.  He went for physical rehabilitation, coped emotionally well, and interacted well with other male patients in the ward. Five months later news came that another bomb had claimed the lives of his siblings. Inspite of his mother’s plea that he should remain outside Syria, he was completely resolute that he should go home.

As a doctor, my first reflex was to take care of the physical well-being of my patients, to keep them alive. I just wanted to drown myself in my work so I didn’t have time to reflect or become depressed by the suffering I saw every day in the hospital.

When I came home and saw my loved ones, I thought about how lucky I am not to live in a country at war. Imagine being helpless like many of the refugees now?

Each of our patients had his or her own tragic story – of survival, of strength, of resilience. And these memories with some of my patients are just small depiction of Syrians that I have treated and of their stories of survival. Nonetheless it made my mission in Jordan very unforgettable and rewarding. And I would not hesitate to go back again if needed. – Rappler.com 

Dr Reynaldo Soria Jr is an anaesthetist by profession and has been a veteran member of MSF. He has recently returned from a 6-month mission to Jordan and is now back at home with his loved ones in the Philippines 

In arguing against a Jejomar Binay presidency for the next 6 years, critics of the incumbent Vice President point to the numerous graft and corruption charges he is presently facing at the Ombudsman and the many investigations launched at the Philippine Senate inquiring into his allegedly illegal deals during his tenure as Makati City Mayor as determinants of a coming dark age.

To which Binay supporters respond, “Innocent until proven guilty,” or complain, “Well, who isn’t in Philippine politics anyway?”

While there is reason to expect, even fear a graft-ridden Binay presidency, arguing on the basis of his perceived character and supposedly “shadowy track record” does not only border on the ad hominem but also provides no standard for evaluating him in comparison with other similarly perceived corrupt officials. Not even variations in how deeply entrenched the acts of corruption are or how one is degrees away in terms of connection to the principal perpetrators would suffice as a standard.

In a previous piece, I have intimated that a politician’s projected political capital expenditure while in office can offer a more objective metric. In defining political capital expenditure, I referred to the influence, goodwill, and resources an elected official would have to disburse to pay off other actors or institutions and maintain a stable and governable coalition. Doing so would require inferring what possible challenges an elected official could face while in office, where these challenges could come from, and what payoffs may be necessary to neutralize them.

A politician running for office who will possess net political capital after assessing these expenditures is in this evaluative model, the most desirable in terms of guaranteeing political stability and governability that would have lesser incentives to engage in two clearly undesirable enterprises in a modern electoral democracy: one, dependence on extra-legal coercive mechanisms; and two, patrimonial plunder.

In this sense, perceptions of corruption allegations can be used as grounds for assessment without the outright appearance of partisan advocacy and can serve as a more objective predictive indicator.

Taking stock of Binay’s political capital

Before assessing expenditures, however, an inventory of a politician’s existing political capital should be in order. As a long-time local government official, particularly as mayor of the country’s financial district and then until recently as housing czar of the Aquino administration, Binay has no doubt dispensed sufficient concessions to fellow public officials and private actors contracting business with the government. The susceptibility of these strings to being pulled and pooled for and against a particular cause or person boosts Binay’s political capital both during and after the campaign period.

When he ran for Vice President in 2010, Binay found support from a side of the Cojuangco clan, particularly the power couple, Jose “Peping” and Margarita “Tingting” Cojuangco, who have remained by his side for this year’s campaign. The endorsement of the Cojuangcos not only provides Binay financial resources, it is also a form of symbolic power which leverages his humble origins with the country’s elite families. In addition, Binay’s purported relations with business tycoon Jaime Ongpin link him with powerful brokers in the Filipino-Chinese community whose support – public or otherwise – have often been courted to undermine or reinforce political administrations.

Binay’s political capital is further strengthened by his coalition with the Magdalo Party of Cavite’s Remulla dynasty. Now allied with the Revillas of the same province, the Remulla-Revilla partnership lords over 1.65 million or so voters – Cavite being the second most vote-rich province after Cebu. Even with the Garcias of Cebu splitting their allegiances between Binay and Senator Grace Poe, Binay still stands to gain.

The ability to corner votes and deliver a victory with a wide margin is crucial to any elected politician’s capital as the perceived legitimacy garnered through the polls is a critical security blanket against political adventurists and opportunists that can threaten regime stability.

To maintain this stock of political capital, Binay must spend on threats that endanger the alliances and capitalize on opportunities that would satisfy his support base.

Binay’s shopping list

Faced with multiple graft and corruption cases in various judicial and administrative venues, Binay should be expending a significant portion of his political capital stock preventing the process from gathering steam. Payoffs either during the campaign period or as guarantees once installed in office are costly, especially if they will involve dispensing spoils to actors whose interests or allegiances run against Binay’s main support base. This necessarily enlarges his governing coalition and in turn limits the expected shares of coalition partners from the prospective or current largesse.

Limited shares and bigger governing coalitions are potential sources of threats to Binay’s future regime. Compounding these challenges are institutional restrictions that the present administration have installed against rent-seeking in government.

While an incumbent, Binay is the leader of the opposition bloc which puts him at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the ruling coalition’s control of official State resources. Unlike Mar Roxas’ Liberal Party which can control local officials by withdrawing their equity as incumbents or withholding necessary funds or access to funds, Binay would need a deep pocket, a hefty campaign war chest or an attractive post-election promise to match the administration’s offer.

While local officials may commit at the onset, the challenge lies in keeping them in toe until votes have been canvassed.

Cornering a congressional majority is especially critical for Binay’s candidacy. Although congressmen in presidential democracies and pointedly in the Philippines tail the coat of the victorious presidential candidate when the electoral noise has settled and budget calls released, Binay’s weak vice-presidential candidate, Senator Gringo Honasan whose candidacy is likely his swan song in the political derby, paves the way for a non-Binay ally at the veep seat. This in turn raises incentives for non-Binay allies to position themselves as his administration’s fiscalizers and casually use available impeachment opportunities. With House Speaker Feliciano “Sonny” Belmonte at the helm of the Liberal Party’s campaign, congressmen are hard pressed to stay in the coalition.

Bad for now, what about later?

Binay’s strongest suit lies in voter preference surveys. A strong lead at the pollsters reinforced by a consistently low showing of the administration bet should scare congressional and local officials and send them bargaining with Binay’s camp. Mar Roxas can spend all the capital he wants now but when push comes to shove, the instinct for future political survival is sure to make his local and congressional allies rethink their wagers. Again, this would involve embracing actors and groups whose coherence would require a careful balancing act. Any disturbance in his governing coalition could send Binay brandishing the dark side of the State’s force and having to bite more concessions than his regime could chew.

In sum, Binay’s victory is desirable only if he maintains the upper hand over and against the allies he has brought into the governing coalition. As it looks, however, rather than the self-made and autonomous politician his hagiography purports he is, Binay is deeply entangled in networks of potentially destabilizing and ungovernable preferences and interests.

The corruption allegations need not be proven true for anyone to predict the fate of a Binay presidency: if many perceive Binay bad now, his regime is bound to be badder. – Rappler.com

RR Rañeses is an instructor at the Department of Political Science, Ateneo de Manila University. He is also an independent political, economic, and security risks consultant and political management specialist.

Without fail, for the past 15 years, most Filipinos have been greeting every new year with hope. Survey after survey has shown that the lowest percentage of hopeful Filipinos was 81% (2004), still an overwhelming majority.

We hit the 80s only 5 times, Mahar Mangahas of the Social Weather Stations (SWS) pointed out; we were always cruising in the 90s. But never, never have the numbers dipped to below 80.

In Germany, where this kind of poll originated, the numbers have been low, from 31% – unimaginable in our country – to 58%, their highest. Since 1991, the SWS said, hopefulness among Germans for the new year has been at “50s levels in 9 out of 25 surveys.”

That we continue to be hopeful is a positive thing; we are not giving up on this country.

Cynicism and jadedness, we have little of even after we’ve been besieged by natural disasters, even as we live with our politicians’ failed promises, even after the struggles of daily life—from putting food on the table to commuting to work. Our hearts remain full. Hope is what we have lots of.

Look at the latest SWS survey: 92% of Filipinos embrace 2016 with hope. Similarly, Pulse Asia found 89% to be hopeful about the new year and only 1% utterly without hope.

The poorest among us, categorized as class E, have remained steadily hopeful, according to the SWS survey, even if “hope in the coming year fell slightly in all classes.” They, who are at the bottom, with the least in life, stood out as the exception.

The SWS numbers, through the years, apparently show that Filipinos’ hopefulness about a coming year is linked to the country’s leader.

The low period – the 80s – was during Joseph Estrada’s abbreviated presidency (2000, 2001), and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s years in office (2004, 2005 and 2009). Twice during the term of President Benigno “PNoy” Aquino III, a “peak of 95%” was reached.

How a leader governs, after all, impacts our lives. How he or she addresses inequality, corruption, poverty and insurgency is a people’s wellspring of hope.

2016 will be a defining year for us as we vote for a new president in May. The stakes are high.

The challenge is to harness our hope into action, to push for good governance in our communities, towns, cities, provinces, and country; to hold our public officials accountable; to do our share in making people’s lives better; and, in May, to make wise choices.

Hope shouldn’t be left at a pedestal, revered and preserved. It should be a trigger for us to unite and take continuing steps to build our young nation. – Rappler.com

I thought I might keep up my consistency about being the Season's grouch, by making new year's wishes that aren't full of positive things like health and prosperity and world peace. (Although I do wish that for you too, dear reader.)

So here is a list of 10 grouchy wishes for the coming year.

1. I wish that when I bump into someone in a public place and apologize as a form of good manners, they do not take that as an admission that I deliberately ran into them.

For me, humanity is divided into those who are well-mannered enough to automatically apologize at the slightest body contact (this group I call the “good-lookings”)  and those that stare at me blankly, sometimes with hostility, or walk away in the end (this group I call, “the uglies”). For some reason, the return of my automatic courtesy with such hateur, riles me no end.

For those who return the courtesy, it is often a pleasant exchange and we just go our happy way. For those who are like me, I hope you win the lotto.

To those who have returned and will return my good manners with bad ones, I hope you have a serious wart problem this year. (This means you too, woman at the high-end grocery on Katipunan who was irritated because my son was standing at the entry and blocking you. And though I pulled him out of the way and apologized, you gave me a sneer.)

2. I wish people would not stand at the entry way or at the foot of the escalator or at the top of it to have long conversations with their companions about where to proceed or what to do next.

Or, at the very least, apologize if I have to excuse myself in order to get past you. Don't worry, I will say something pleasant to you in return. After all, I am not like that nouveau riche lady who snubbed me at the high-end grocery.  I happen to be second-generation new poor and have no cacique airs whatsoever.

For people who do consider others walking behind them, I hope you get a free trip to your favorite foreign city.

To those who believe they own whatever place they happen to be standing in, I hope you get a serious case of frog infestation in your refrigerator.

3. I wish someone would give me a tank. I would crash into and run over all those cars parked on the road. 

In my case, I go to work using Congressional Avenue Extension, Luzon Avenue and Tandang Sora. You would think that a major highway and major roads like that would not be turned into parking lots. Apparently some people think responsible car ownership means buying a car and parking it on a national highway.

4. I wish that those who honk one second after the stop light turns green be taken by the Lord unto Him the minute they hit the horn.

Otherwise, I hope the Lord will give me the patience and the wisdom to obey my favorite etiquette guide, Judith Martin. She suggests that I engage my hand brake, step out of the car, and ask the honking driver what he needs of me.

5. I wish I had a crane big enough to lift badly parked cars.

You know, the ones that take two slots or park too closely to one side of the slot? I would take my crane, lift the car and put it down in its proper place. Of course, I wouldn't put the car down gently. I would probably want to release the crane at about ten feet up.

6. I wish for greater humility for those who sing videoke in the wee hours of the morning very loud and off key.

If they do not find this humility within the next year, I hope they can be sent to a place where they have to sit and listen to someone scratching their nails on a chalkboard for eight hours a day for at least two weeks.

7. I wish that any person who comments about another person's weight (either “fat” or “skinny”) be afflicted with bad hair. 

8. I wish this so that the fat (or skinny) person  can turn around immediately and say with as much concern or enthusiasm, "Hey, you're right, I haven't see you in a long time too, gee your hair looks bad."

9. I wish I had a hundred pesos for every text message I have sent that has been dropped by the phone company. 

I suspect they program this so that each subscriber gets a certain number at arbitrary drops.  In this way, it has now become absolutely necessary that you follow up on any person who doesn't send you an “ok” or “copy.” We can no longer really assume that reliable people will get back to us in good time or that silence means that the conversation was understood. If phone service was more reliable, think of the number of messages we would not have to send and the diminution in profit for our service providers.

10. Lastly, I wish that any politician who says "this is just a demolition job by my opponents" to any allegation of graft, corruption, sexism, ill-health or being unqualified be taken out and shot forthwith.

And a happy new year to all! – Rappler.com

An indigenous women’s group is calling for a review and repeal of local public health ordinances that prohibit and penalize home births.

At an annual gathering in October 2015, indigenous women from different provinces claimed that they were being threatened with fines, imprisonment and the non-registration of their children for choosing to give birth at home instead of doing so at a birthing facility.

“When the matter was first brought to our attention, women were just worried because of things they had heard. But now local ordinances have been passed prohibiting and punishing home births,” said Judy Pasimio, national coordinator of LILAK Purple Movement for Indigenous Women.

Punishing homebirths

LILAK shared copies of the local health ordinances of Brooke’s Point (Palawan), Midsalip (Zamboanga del Sur), Midsayap (Cotabato) and Cagayan de Oro City (Cagayan de Oro) which all state a fine or imprisonment for home delivery.

1) Brooke’s Point, Palawan

Births must be attended to only by skilled birth attendants such as doctors, nurses or midwives. Traditional birth attendants (TBA or locally known as “hilots”) are prohibited from the practice of birth delivery.

The penalty for violating this ordinance include a minimum fine of P1,000 and      imprisonment of not less than 3 months, but not more than 6 months.

2) Midsalip, Zamboanga del Sur

Home deliveries facilitated by a TBA are prohibited except for certain defined exceptions.

In the event of a violation, the mother and other persons assisting or influencing a home delivery will also be sanctioned. The mother will be fined P1,000, the parents, husband, and legal guardian will be fined P2,000 while the TBA will be fined P2,000 for facilitating a home birth without complications. In the event of maternal or neonatal death, the TBA will be fined P5,000.

A Municipal Maternal Investigating Team (MMIT) has been formed as an investigating body that will report cases and findings of home deliveries to the law enforcing agency.

Anyone who has witnessed a home delivery may report the incident to the MMIT for investigation.

3) Midsayap, Cotabato

Penalty for home delivery include a P1,000 fine or the equivalent of 50 hours of community service for the first offense. A third offense resulting in death of the mother or infant will be met with a P2,500 fine or imprisonment of 6 months.

The nearest of kin will also be held liable for failure to bring the pregnant woman to a birthing facility.

4) Cagayan de Oro City, Cagayan de Oro

Home delivery will be met with a fine of P2,000 or community service of 8 hours for 3 days. A fine of P5,000 will be issued for a second offense or other complications. Liability to be determined in legal proceedings.

Decreasing maternal deaths

In 2008, the Department of Health (DOH) issued Administrative Order 0029 known as “Implementing Health Reforms for the Rapid Reduction of Maternal and Neonatal Mortality” which “discouraged home deliveries."

The administrative order recommended facility-based delivery under the supervision and care of a mid-wife to lower the country’s maternal mortality ratio (MMR).

An estimated 60% of all births in the Philippines occur at home. Facility-based delivery under the supervision of a skilled medical professional with access to emergency obstetric care is considered an effective intervention in preventing maternal death.

Annually, more than 500,000 women around the world die from maternity-related causes. Some 99% of these deaths occur in developing countries.

An estimated 10 Filipino women die every day due to birth complications, which are mostly preventable. In the early 90s, MMR in the Philippines was 209 (per 100,000 live births). The Millennium Development Goals (MDG) called for the reduction of maternal deaths to 52.  The Philippines did not meet this MDG goal and MMR is estimated to have plateaued at 172.

In an interview, Zenaida Recidoro, DOH program manager for the National Safe Motherhood Program, clarified, “The DOH is not prohibiting home births. The order was meant only to encourage facility-based deliveries.”

However, under the devolved health system, the local government units have the autonomy to develop and implement their own health programs - based on their own interpretation of the DOH order.

“We need the support of the LGUs for any of our DOH programs - from immunization to maternal health. We recognize the support they are extending to help reduce maternal or infant death and they may know better than us (about local program implementation) but these measures are harsh,” said Recidoro.

Recidoro recognized that the choice to deliver at a health facility is influenced by many factors like proximity and geography. “There are areas in the Philippines where you have to walk two hours just to get to the main road or go from one island to another by boat,” added Recidoro.

While the ordinances do not single out indigenous women or their practices, Pasimio said that these ordinances affect IP women most because they ignore the spiritual beliefs and the every day realities of many indigenous women.

“Childbirth for many indigenous women is a deeply personal matter (rather than simply a medical one). For many indigenous peoples, there is a strong belief and attachment to nature. Western medicine is not something they are entirely comfortable with,” said Pasimio.

In addition to this, many birthing facilities are miles away from indigenous communities. Going to a birthing facility would take hours and waiting for actual delivery would take time away from the home and daily livelihood activities.

According to Pasimio, ordinances like this reflect that “even among reproductive health advocates and developmental people, the needs and feelings of indigenous women are not within their consciousness.”

Moratorium

LILAK is calling for a moratorium on the implementation of these ordinances penalizing home births.

Recidoro acknowledged that it is “time to review the policies and revise them, if needed." As a starting point, a forum between the DOH and tribal leaders from different indigenous communities will be conducted some time this January.

“There is a genuine desire to help in these communities, but there are other ways to encourage facility-based delivery. Through an approach that includes all communities, we will arrive at a win-win situation,” said Klaus Beck, country representative of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). - Rappler.com

It seems strange to start the New Year with an article about death and grief. But when those deaths are meaningful because of the lives that were led and when the people who loved them grieved and carried their loss with such dignity and love, surely there is something to celebrate there.

Maybe there is no such thing as a happy death but a good one, attended by peace and gratitude, is certainly possible. Such deaths and the lives behind them reveal the best in us.

Public lives

Three Filipinos with public lives, who left us in this last quarter of 2015, stand out: Justice Florentino Feliciano, Inquirer editor in chief Letty Jimenez-Magsanoc, and legal luminary Alfredo Tadiar.

Earlier this year, Senator Joker Arroyo quietly passed on while Lumad educator Emerito Samarca with Lumad leaders Dionel Campos and Bello Sinzo were violently killed in Mindanao. We all remember of course how, at the beginning of the year, 44 young policemen from the Special Action Force of the Philippine National Police were brutally slain in Mamasapano. Some of our Moro brothers were also killed in that incident.

There were others who went to the good night quietly, with less drama, some like some Jesuits I know who went peacefully after spending more than a lifetime in this world. Others passed on courageously fighting cancer or other illnesses while loved ones waited and accompanied them, and in their grief and coping showed us the meaning of love and family.

For the public personalities, the fruits of their work are in the institutions they built and in the human beings they enabled, by their teaching and mentoring, to be the best they can be in their professions.

I had written before about Justice Feliciano and Senator Arroyo. Many have celebrated the life of Magsanoc. Not as many have wriiten about Professor Tadiar.

Professor Tadiar

Fred Tadiar was my first year law criminal professor at the University of the Philippines College of law. In senior year, he taught me again the whole year in our law practicum courses where we actually got to do real cases. As a teacher, Prof Tadiar was brilliant, both rigorous and imaginative; although he tried to be scary, he was never able to fully repress his kindheartedness.

When I joined the UP law faculty immediately after graduation, I experienced very directly the goodness of this man. Tadiar was a mentor on the ways of the academe and law practice. He never looked down on us, the younger ones in the faculty. He was gracious and supportive all the time. Even when you disagreed with him, it was never personal. I wished he were appointed to the Supreme Court but his footprint, in a good way, is all over our judiciary and legal profession.

Intellectually, Prof Tadiar was the undisputed leader in the Philippines and the region on appropriate dispute resolution while continuing to be a master of litigation. That is why he was the right person to lead the writing of the benchbook for judges, the primary reference for justices and judges. I will always be grateful that Tadiar asked me to join this continuing initiative and write with colleague Jojo Garcia the environmental chapter.

More than a year ago, Prof Tadiar asked me to collaborate with him on environmental cases he was concerned with in his home province La Union. It was such an honor to be consulted by your mentor on conflict resolution but even then, it was clear to me that Prof Tadiar was my teacher forever.

Violent, but meaningful deaths

I cannot write about deaths in 2015 without mentioning the deaths of Lumad educators and leaders. I did not know personally Samarca, Campos, and Sinco but I am intimately familiar with what they represented.

They were the hope of the indigenous peoples they led and worked with. Their deaths, while horrible, find meaning in the continuing struggle of those they left behind. I am particularly impressed by how the young of the Lumad, represented by Michelle Campos, daughter of Dionel, have taken up the struggle for their rights. Clearly, the death of their elders has not been in vain.

The deaths in Mamasapano were just as violent. The faces of the SAF 44 cannot be forgotten: so young, vibrant, the best of their generation. One hopes that they and our Moro brothers who were killed in the same incident did not die also in vain. By showing a cynical public heroic faces of our policemen, the SAF 44 has already done their institution a favor. Ultimately, a permanent peace in Mindanao would be the best guarantee that they had made a difference.

Pope Francis, on New Year’s Day, proposes what we need to do before deaths like that of the Lumad and Mamasapano: “The fullness of time seems to fade before the countless forms of injustice and violence which daily wound our human family. Sometimes we ask ourselves how it is possible that human injustice persists unabated, and that the arrogance of the powerful continues to demean the weak, relegating them to the most squalid outskirts of our world.”

Mercy and love

According to Pope Francis, this is an invitation: “All of us are called to immerse ourselves in this ocean, to let ourselves be reborn, to overcome the indifference which blocks solidarity, and to leave behind the false neutrality which prevents sharing.”

If there are people who said yes to this call to be apostles of mercy, it is the many Jesuits that left us this year to pass into eternal life. To mention a few, with whom I had personal connections: Bishop Federico Escaler (president of Xavier University during my high school days), Fr Bob Suchan (Ateneo de Manila librarian and XU theology professor), Fr Junie Jesena (a family friend), and Fr Chito Unson (my high school principal).

These Jesuit fathers served the people of God and the Church with total generosity; to the end, these Jesuits were faithful to the mission they have been called. Psalm 16 honors these men very well: “Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints.”

One does not have to be religious to die good deaths. Although social media has its excesses, one good thing it has done is to allow us to follow the lives of people and sometimes we are allowed to accompany them in moments of suffering, death, and grief.

This year, I had the privilege of following two friends and their loved ones going through these moments. With their permission, let me end this article by sharing the stories of Patty Loren and Men Sta Ana. How Patty and her mother lived in the latter’s last few months and how Men is coping with his grief in losing his wife can help all of us who are facing or could face the same situation now or in the future.

Tin Loren’s story

Patty Loren is a Harvard-educated lawyer working in New York City. Aside from her law degree, she also studied in Ateneo de Manila, University of Cambridge, and London School of Economics and Political Science.

She is one of many global Filipinos I have connected with, impressed by her world-class skills and notable achievements for someone so young. But the one thing I was impressed most about Patty is her relationship with her mother Tin.

Tin Loren was also very accomplished. Aside from obtaining a PhD in Business Economics in Harvard University, she also had degrees in the London School of Economics and the Asian Institute of Management. She taught Economics in Boston College and Harvard College as adjunct professor. She also held various positions in Cathay Pacific, Intercontinental Hotel Group, and the United Nations.

Nearly two  years ago, Tin was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer despite being a vegetarian for more than a decade and even if she did not smoke and drink.

What was striking about Tin’s illness was that she did not allow what was happening to her to stop her from living her life to the fullest. Since I was also her friend on Facebook, I was able to see how she struggled with and fought the cancer that had come upon her body. In fact, in her last Facebook post, 3 days before she passed away, she declared confidently: “Yesterday I dared to struggle. Today I dare to win. I cancer-vive!”

What amazed me with mother and daughter was their decision to travel together in Europe in these last few months. One day you see them in Barcelona, the next day in Santorini in Greece, and then later in Dublin and London. One can only imagine their conversations.

Eventually, Tin had to be confined in MD Anderson Cancer Center. From there,  she sent a message to Patty through Facebook: I came to arrive to this conclusion that I am ready to die anytime. This pain I've been enduring is too much to handle lately. Pain killers don't work anymore. I am happy that we made this Europe trip together and I am really proud of what you have become. It's been a trying year to our family but I wanna end this fight with gladness because I have achieved my goals in my lifetime – that is to see you succeed.”

On December 21, just a few days before Christmas, while mother and daughter were on their way back to Manila where Patty was going to celebrate her 26^th birthday that same day, Tin came to peace with her battle with cancer.

Aside from Patty, she leaves behind a son and many relatives and friends. They will always remember the courage of this woman in front of a serious illness, and also the zest she lived her life. By telling her story and making it accessible to many, I hope that others in the same situation can also be encouraged.

Men and Mae

Men Sta Ana, an economist and a columnist of Business World, is one of the country’s public intellectuals. His wife, Mae Manalang-Sta Ana, passed a few months ago.

In a column, Men described the illness of Mae: “She had diabetes, a most vicious disease that progressively debilitated her vital organs. Her weakened immune system made her vulnerable to various infections. In the end, pneumonia led to cardiac arrest. Hers was a sudden but peaceful death.” 

Men shared how up to the end how Mas coped with her bodily sufferings: “She was in fact radiant, smiling, forgiving. She kept singing, she attended social gatherings and reached out to people, and she frequently visited Belle, her bubbly niece who gave her much joy and inspiration. As a married couple, we had attained the state of full love. Still, I cannot vanish the thought that we could have further improved our relationship and her quality of life.”

Men himself has shown us how to grieve with dignity and hope. Those of us who are his friends have followed and cried with him in the last few months. How can one not empathize with words such as these from Men?

“One can move on by continuing to remember one’s departed love. It helps to recall the positive although reviving the memory of happy moments likewise makes one cry. Those who know Mae describe her as kind and empathetic, intelligent and articulate, friendly and chatty, beautiful and endearing. She had a natural gift for writing and singing. She was an emotive poet. She was one of the best editors and my editor.”

Small monuments of a good people

These final words of Men, from the column I have been quoting, capture what I have striven to illustrate in this article: “We will leave very few traces. Our monuments are shockingly small but all the more genuine and heartbreaking for being so. We can count ourselves lucky for living on in the hearts of a few for a half decade or so.”

I agree.

Mae’s, Tin’s and the other deaths I have written about, might be “small monuments”.  But certainly, they have a profound effect on those they left behind, making them live better and changing the world for the better. The best proof of this is the lives of Men, Patty, Letty Magsanoc, Michelle Campos and the other Lumad, the surviving Jesuits, the students, mentees, families and other loved one of those who passed to eternal life.

In this election season, the worst of our society is highlighted. It becomes fashionable to recycle that bad description of us having a “damaged culture”. From where I stand, with the gift of eagle eyes and a natural heart, I can only say that this is not true.

The deaths and lives I write about here may be small monuments, but the message is strong and clear: our society might have a lot of distortions, with many institutional defects, but we are a good people. Indeed, the best of us is the best in the world. – Rappler.com 

When it comes to kids, perhaps there's no bigger contrast than China and the Philippines. 

For decades, Beijing had an iron-clad edict that limited Chinese couples to one child. And from Vatican City have long come messages against artificial contraception, which continue to shape the Philippines' population – now more than 100 million strong.

Well, one of those positions has evolved.

Effective January 1, China is ending its highly contentious “one-child policy,” which dates to the late 1970s. 

Replacing that draconian policy is a “two-child policy” that now allows all Chinese couples to have two children. The demographic pressures leading to the policy change are clear. The change was "intended to balance population development and address the challenge of an ageing population,” the official Xinhua news agency reported at the time of the initial announcement in October.

China now faces a slowing economy, a rapidly aging population, and a dramatically shrinking workforce. While China’s population is nearly 1.37 billion, its working-age population – defined as 15- to 64-year-olds – is actually dropping. Demographics now constrain China’s once rapid growth.

This is just one unintended consequence of the nation’s drastic one-child policy, and its at times brutal enforcement. By 2030, China is expected to have more than 243 million people over the age of 65 – an 85-percent increase over today.

Yet, China is likely to find that policy pronouncements are insufficient to change anytime soon the social norm of a single child. As China’s citizens move up the income ladder, payouts and penalties are likely to have less and less power to change behavior.

That’s one clear lesson from across Asia. As nations have grown wealthier, more and more of their citizens have delayed having children, or any child at all, focusing on careers and other goals first.

The Singapore experience

When it comes to that most personal of decisions – how many children to have – at least one southeast Asian nation's experiences are particularly relevant to Beijing. Singapore’s struggles to first lower and then spur a higher birthrate are particularly instructive. Government policies even from the most effective of governments such as Singapore's do not necessarily generate the envisioned results.

In the 1960s and 1970s, as Singapore began its own march to developed nation status, government officials were worried about a growing population overwhelming the job market, housing, health care facilities and other infrastructure. A government campaign followed, with a core message: “Girl or Boy – Two is Enough.”

The government legalized abortion, offered cash incentives for voluntary sterilization and disincentivized having more than two children.

By the mid-1980s, the government campaign to persuade parents to “stop at two” children proved too successful. Labor shortages were projected. And officials changed tack and now offered financial incentives to encourage parents to have three children. Those “who can really afford it” were encouraged to have more. 

Special tax rebates, child-care subsidies and prioritization for government-subsidized housing and the removal of earlier disincentives that discouraged more than two children followed. 

Now, decades later, Singapore still struggles to address workforce issues.  A richer Singapore has developed a preference for small families that has proven resistant to change. And yet, Singapore still evolves and succeeds – ranking as the No. 1 place in the world to do business, according to the World Bank.

So too is likely to be China’s challenge: how best to evolve to address shrinking workforces and growth rates. Rethinking and harnessing the potential of what an “aging” population can contribute is one step. Changing to a two-child policy is not enough to address China's economic challenges.

As China has found with its stock exchanges, human behavior – like market forces – cannot be fully controlled or predicted, even by the most powerful bureaucrats of Beijing. A more confident China would understand that, and allow its citizens to live as they choose, and to compete, to fail and to succeed on their own.  

For the Philippines, the nation's now 100 million plus population is a far cry from China's more than 1.3 billion. Yet, a common economic challenge remains.

Whether In Beijing or Manila, governments must create a rule of law and a corruption-free environment for businesses to succeed. Doing so will enable each country to best leverage its greatest asset – its population – and put "people power" back to work building economies and creating good jobs. – Rappler.com

Curtis S. Chin, a former U.S. Ambassador to and member of the Board of Directors of the Asian Development Bank, is managing director of advisory firm RiverPeak Group, LLC.  Follow him on Twitter at @CurtisSChin.

Beyond the South China Sea disputes currently bothering the region, Southeast Asia is facing an evolving security challenge emanating from the growing presence of Uyghur militants.  

On 24 December 2015, the Indonesian main anti-terrorism police unit, Densus 88, raided a safehouse in Bekasi, West Java, located at the eastern outskirt of Jakarta. The raid resulted in the arrest of an Uyghur militant identified only as Alli.  

According to Indonesian Police Chief Badrodin Haiti, Alli was being trained in Indonesia to be a suicide bomber. Alli was the 11th personality arrested by Densus 88 for plotting terrorist activities in the country. Alli has been associated with Indonesian terrorist personalities who have pledged allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). He is also being investigated for his involvement in the Erawan Shrine bombing in Bangkok in August 2015.

Alli is a 35-year old Uyghur, one of the 55 ethnic minorities officially recognized by the Chinese government. Uyghur communities are mostly Turkic ethnic Muslims who live predominantly in Xinjiang, a restive province of the People’s Republic of China in the Northwest. Because of the presence of some Uyghur separatist groups, the Chinese government granted the province an autonomous status through the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR).  

But some Uyghur organizations are not satisfied with autonomy as they aspire for complete separation from the Chinese government controlled by the Han ethnic majority. The most violent Uyghur group, the Eastern Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), has been involved in various terrorist activities in China. Thus, ETIM is listed by the United States as one of the Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs).

It is not yet clear if Alli is a member of ETIM.  But initial investigation by Densus 88 indicated that Alli was a follower of Abu Muzad, a Uyghur separatist leader operating in Indonesia. Densus 88 also arrested Muzad in Bekasi on December 22, 2015. The arrest of Muzad led to the arrest of Alli two days after.

Uyghur diaspora 

Indonesian authorities have accused Alli of being  part of the ISIS-linked terrorist cell in Indonesia being led by Bahrun Naim, an Indonesian ex-convict accused of various crimes associated with terrorism. An intelligence briefing from Densus 88 revealed that Naim went to Syria to fight with ISIS, an international terrorist group that claims to have 300 Uyghurs fighters both in Iraq and Syria. Naim encouraged Alli to become a Shayeed by carrying out a suicide mission.

Alli reached Indonesia via Batam, an island close to a neighboring state of Singapore. From Xinjiang, Alli went first to Thailand and Malaysia before reaching Indonesia along with two other Uyghur militants who are still at large.   

The arrest of Alli may be considered an outcome of Uyghur diaspora in Southeast Asia. 

Based on official intelligence estimates, a thousand Uyghur refugees are seeking asylum in various Muslim communities in Southeast Asia. Thailand already deported 109 Uyghurs to China but still more than a hundred Uyghur refugees remain in the country. Malaysia is also facing the problem of around 200 Uyghur asylum seekers who are said to be reaching 400 based on unconfirmed sources.  

Indonesia is also worried about the influx of Uyghur refugees whose numbers are estimated between 150 to 300. Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia have suffered the entry of Uyghur refugees but their numbers cannot be exactly determined. In 2014, the Philippines deported to Turkey 5 Uyghur personalities for violation of Philippine immigration laws. Brunei remains quiet on the issue of Uyghur refugees in the region.

There is an Uyghur diaspora in Southeast Asia because of China’ s strong policy against Uyghurs engaged in violence and terrorism. Though the vast majority of the Uyghurs remain peaceful, there are some ETIM-associated individuals who are engaged in various acts of terrorism in China, particularly in Xinjiang province. The Chinese government is pursuing a hammer approach against ETIM because of its members’ alleged involvement in separatism, extremism and terrorism. China’s decisive crackdown against ETIM members has affected some Uyghur communities in Xinjiang encouraging some Uyghurs, particularly those who felt being discriminated against, to flee and seek asylum in other countries.

China’s new anti-terror law

On December 28, 2015, the Chinese government enacted a new anti-terrorism law, which declares terrorism “public enemy of mankind.” This law empowers already existing anti-terrorism institutions in China to counter personalities engaged in separatism, extremism and terrorism. 

An Weixing, chief of the counter-terrorism division of the Ministry of Public Security, said that China’s new anti-terrorism law is required as the country faces a serious threat from terrorists, especially from "East Turkestan" forces.  But human rights observers worldwide express worries that China can use this law to further oppress the Uyghurs. There is also fear that China’s new anti-terrorism law can exacerbate the problem of Uyghur Diaspora in Southeast Asia that can unleash various security challenges.

Should the Philippines be worried?

There are reasons to be cautious.

First, the arrest of 5 Uyghur personalities in Manila on June 21, 2014 indicated Uyghur presence in the country. These 5 ethnic Uyghurs reached the Philippines using fake Turkish passports. Before reaching Manila, they went to Basilan from Sabah to meet personalities linked with the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG). They also visited Cotabato City where they met personalities associated with the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF). They also visited Davao City where they met personalities involved in militant activities.

Second, social media postings of some young Abu Sayyaf personalities have expressed sympathy with the plight of Uyghurs in Xinjiang. Their exchange of views via social media can result in cross-pollination of extremist ideas leading to violence and terrorism. If not abated, cross-pollination of extremist ideas between the Moros of Mindanao and Uyghurs of Xinjiang can pose security threats to the Philippines and China.

Third, Al Hayat Media Center of ISIS has released a video showing a chant in Mandarin entitled “Mujahid.” This video, intended to agitate the Uyghurs in China, has already reached followers in Mindanao, particularly those associated with the ASG, BIFF, Ansar Khilafah Philippines (AKP), and Khilafah Islamiyah Mindanao (KIM).

If neglected, the emerging Uyghur militancy in Southeast Asia can adversely affect the Philippines because of existing grievances of Muslims in Mindanao. The presence of some foreign terrorists in Mindanao can facilitate the entry of Uyghur militants who find Mindanao as an option to carry their missions, particularly in the context of China’s new anti-terrorism law.

Having said this, the Philippines and China should start talking together to find common ground to cooperate to counter the virulent threats of terrorism that they currently face. – Rappler.com

Dr. Rommel C. Banlaoi teaches at the Department of International Studies in Miriam College.  He is the Chairman of the Philippine Institute for Peace, Violence and Terrorism Research (PIPVTR) and Director of its Center for Intelligence and National Security Studies (CINSS).

It's Monday morning and you are late for work because your kid's yaya didn't make it to your house in time. Her son disappeared over the weekend while out with his friends, and she doesn't know where he is.

You're not worried, he's always been a troublemaker anyway. Rumor has it he even smokes outside his house.

You are rushing because you'll miss the mass transit bus that replaced the cars in major thoroughfares. You have a car but you can only use it around your neighborhood. You have to be careful because of the traffic enforcers you heard are very strict. You've seen by the look on their faces that they really don't mess around.

You'll be fine. The streets aren't congested after the president eliminated traffic by his strict regulation of vehicles. The public transport systems are affordable, and they are clean – thanks to the no littering, no smoking, and no gum-chewing ordinances in all public places.

Foreign investments are up because peace and order is evident. The crime rate is close to zero. All employees are versed in business math. Economic progress is unprecedented, and the president has made the Philippines great again, as he promised. At least that's how it's portrayed by media, whose positivity has been so refreshing, right?

You expected this. You voted for him. Despite his detractors who accused him of becoming another violent dictator, you knew he would follow through. He would clean up the Philippines' act.

A cleaned up act

One look at the city shows it. There are no street children, no vendors, no panhandlers, not even smokers. The streets are tidy enough for you to eat off them. There isn't even a blaring horn to startle you, not even a misplaced signal light.

On your ride you pass the statue of Ferdinand Marcos who was declared a hero by presidential decree. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is now the president's advisor. Bongbong Marcos is the vice president. It makes sense. The culture of this administration is in his blood.

Even the newspapers have no crimes to report. Everything seems fine and dandy thanks to a presidential memo to media on "positive" news. You ignore the rumors that defiant news reporters are being detained somewhere outside Manila, same with emergency room doctors who report violent crimes. Serves them right for creating trouble, you think. Things are really better when only the good things are publicized.

"Puro kriminal lang yung mga nakakulong (Only criminals are jailed)," say your like-minded friends. You agree. After all, your chosen candidate said he will eliminate crime no matter what, and not to expect him to follow the rules. He's just keeping his promise and you can't fault him for that.

You forget that this already happened 40 years ago, because you only heard stories and never studied martial law.

"Kailangan nating ng disiplina (We need discipline)," you insisted to those who disagreed with you in 2016, even if they all warned that this "disciplinarian" president would cause citizens doom.

There is no doom as far as you're concerned. The birth rate and unplanned pregnancies are down due to the president's aggressive population control initiatives. The church first opposed this, until the cardinal disappeared when he spoke up about the immorality of contraception and armed guards watched the content of homilies during mass.

Proud of your decision

You're proud of your decision to vote for a brave and proactive man. He's developed initiatives his opponents and former incumbents could only dream of. You were right all along that an iron fist is what the Philippines needed. People follow a strong leader. Citizens are disciplined if there are consequences. You are glad that petty thieves are removed from the streets. You don't really care where they end up, much less if they're alive.

After a day of work you get back home without traffic to be able to spend time with your son – something unheard of before this administration when city traffic made it impossible to get home in time. The boy talks about the day's school civic lesson about the president's "Citizen Justice System," where civilians are allowed to arrest, detain, and turn over offenders for community leaders to punish as they wish. You remind your boy how important it is to be good or else suffer the consequences of misbehaving. You warn him that "bad guys" are killed like the president wanted, and it doesn't matter how and why.

You fall asleep quickly and without worry of locking your doors or activating your security alarm. It's so quiet outside and you don't remember the last time anyone reported any break-ins or other crimes. You've slept soundly like this for a couple of years, without worry for yourself or your family night after night.

But this time, at 1:30 am, you are shaken from your sleep because your brother was arrested for breaking the curfew. Your mother is hysterical and wants you to find him, but forbids you to leave the house before morning lest you be arrested as well.

You insist on leaving because you're only looking for your brother and not doing anything wrong. There are cops patrolling everywhere, and soldiers man checkpoints. You get stopped by a plainclothes man with an AK-47, and you think that's a good thing. You can ask for help finding your brother – a teenager who was probably just late coming home from studying in a classmate's house – and maybe explain his side.

"Where do you think you're going?" he says.

"I'm looking for my brother who was just arrested for breaking the curfew," you say. A simple explanation should lead you to him in no time.

"So you're breaking the curfew as well?" he responds, sizing you up, nodding at his fellow enforcers in some kind of code they've developed doing this night after night.

"No, I just–"

"Get in the van," he says, pointing his gun barrel at a police vehicle nearby. You turn your head to find more armed men behind you. Lacking alternatives, you oblige.

The van is filled with street kids, homeless people, and those like you who were out after dark. The ones who are quiet are resigned. The ones who were angry have been beaten up. A guard silences anyone who makes a stir.

"You can't do this, you can't arrest me for nothing," you say.

"President's orders," he says, making room for one more by his side.

You look in the corner where a teenage boy lies lifeless on the floor. You take a seat and calm yourself, confident this will all be cleared up in no time. You're not a criminal. You're a good citizen. You've never even so much as littered or passed a red light.

You believe someone will eventually listen to your explanation, lead you to your brother, and you'll both have a good laugh.

But what if that doesn't happen? Who will look for you? Will anyone even know where you've been taken? Will anyone be brave enough to report your abduction or death? Is there a newspaper that will question your arrest, or a lawyer who will fight for your rights? 

Due process?

In the back of your mind you hear the warnings of those who mentioned terms you ignored when you pledged your full support for your president: due process, summary execution, death squad. You shrug it off, still believing those were all exaggerations. A noble leader cannot possibly allow injustice under his administration. Surely, like God, the president is all-knowing and has eyes on every single "law enforcer" of the hundred thousand he has appointed to maintain order on the ground. Of course they're all good, conscientious, and not corrupt. Of course they are specialists on wrong and right. The president said so. He is always right.

You relent and believe for a second that you'll be fine.

“Excuse me, sir–" you say one last time.

"Shut up or I'll shut you up," he says, cocking his gun.

You don't understand. You fully supported rounding up the undesirables in society and dumping them in Manila Bay. When your president bragged about the thousands he killed to eliminate criminality, you believed it was hyperbole and that he didn't really kill anyone. He was just so convincing that he scared people into behaving. Those were just rumors that hundreds disappeared because of the anti-crime initiatives in his hometown.

You appreciated the cleaned up streets and the visible peace that your idol has created. It's a system that works in favor of those who follow the law, like you do. As long as you were good, you believed, you would never be harmed.

Surely there's another way around this misunderstanding. This cannot be happening. Abducting an upright citizen like you cannot be in your idol's plans.

You want to speak up, but who will listen? You did approve of the rounding up of journalists who portrayed your beloved president in a negative light.

You didn't realize that giving power to anyone to arrest, detain and execute without due process means that any person may be taken on a whim. There is no paper trail to track their whereabouts, what crime they committed and what punishment is suitable for them. There is no accountability for the loss of life or serious injury. There is no press to report wrongdoings. There are no lawyers and judges brave enough to go against an administration that has abolished Congress to ensure power for as long as they want.

You keep your fingers crossed as the children in your van of "criminals" start crying. "Inosente rin po kami (We're innocent too)," they say to you, but the guard tells them all to shut up.

"Lahat kayo kriminal (You're all criminals)," he says, giving you a special glance. You know you're not a criminal and you have done nothing wrong, so you want to say it out loud. You scout the streets for anyone you can yell at who will listen to you, to hear what you say and help get you out of the danger of being a wrongly accused passenger in this van.

Peace and order

But alas, the streets are empty due to the curfew. It is quiet, crimeless, and very peaceful. No undesirables. No lowlifes. No troublemakers. No whistleblowers. No one could hear you even if you screamed or if you were shot in the head in plain sight.

The van speeds up to take you to your final destination. You still believe that it's only the "bad guys" that will be hurt and that somehow this is miraculously determined by vigilantes with guns without need for investigations or trials. Your beloved president cannot possibly allow injustice, and determining the fairness of executions is solely a divine act.

You voted for this, so you should be proud. This is how the president made the Philippines "great" again, and you fully supported it. Now it's your turn to pay the price that others have paid before you when you claimed this is what we needed. You didn't care about the lives previously snuffed because you were content in thinking that they were guilty and deserved death because they've been "bad."

Congratulations on being part and product of making the Philippines great again.  Don't even say you were not warned.– Rappler.com

MANILA, Philippines – I joined my father in celebrating the Feast of the Black Nazarene 26 years ago. My decision to take part in the procession drew a smile from my father, who had been a lifelong Nazareno devotee.

In 1990, I was just a 16-year-old skinny lad drowning in a sea of flesh, caught in the undulations of the ever-swelling crowd. I made my way through walls and walls of devotees, who seemed to be in perpetual motion, moving like intermittent waves, unpredictable in its comings and goings. (READ: The children of Nazareno)

To chants of The Lord’s Prayer, I swayed with the crowd in a strange dance that was more like frenzied back-and-forth stomping of bare-naked feet.

I prayed in silence, “Our Father who art in heaven…”

Many times, I tried to make my way to the carriage of the Black Nazarene, and get a hold of the “rope of faith.” In almost as many times, I was hurled away.

The crowd shouted, “Hila! Hila! Hila! (Pull!)" (READ: Learning Nazarene devotees' 'choreography' and staying safe)

One devotee shouted at me, "Maliit ka para dito! Humanap ka ng kapantay mo, kapatid! (You’re too small for this [group]! Find your height, brother!)"

I soon discovered I had to align my shoulder with the rope.

"Salya, kapatid! (Push, brothers!)"

The brethren helped me to get back into the rope.

"Balikatin mo ang pagpasok," a devotee told me, instructing me to use my shoulder to get in. He then pushed the person in front of him, while I pushed my shoulder towards the rope.

Finally, I was holding the rope. But getting to, holding onto the rope, and staying inside the cordon, is only half the battle. There were times when I lost grip of the rope, and times when I was driven out of the loop.

Someone from among the crowd inside the cordon shouted, "Otso! (Eight!)"

I learned that when the rope forms the infinity sign, it’s a warning. As force and tension comes from all directions, getting entangled with the figure 8 knot may lead to serious injuries.

Someone from the crowd holding on the rope commanded, "Baywang! (Waist!)"

Like dutiful soldiers of God, we place the rope by the waist. It meant no one is allowed to get in line as the entire length of the rope is getting fixed.

Meanwhile, we shouted "Tukod! (Support!)"

I was part of a group of devotees that went  down like an uprooted tree blown by a strong wind. In that case, do not fret. It may be a swarm of total strangers but these devotees are more than willing to give you a hand to help you get up.

When a wave died down, someone from among the marshalls will ask, "Taas kamay kung lalabas (Raise your hand, if you want out)."

Worn out, exhausted, and gasping for breath, I raise my hand. Someone pulled me out of the crowd.

Year after year, I feel the same exhilaration as I first did in 1990.

But 10 years ago, my father died. It was January 9, the Black Nazarene procession. It was the only time I missed it.

A year after that, I began to document the annual procession. For 26 years now, I have been joining a million other faithful Filipinos in celebrating the Traslacion. I am Hijo, devotee of the Nazareno. ∫ Rappler.com

Robert Reyes formerly works as a technical support in the IT Department of a seemingly regular office. An award-winning photographer, his interest in photography made him realize that the craft is worth his devotion. Rob graduated from Jose Rizal College and been doing photography for almost 10 years. A member of the Tokwa Collective and Photojournalists' Center of the Philippines, and a long-time devotee of the Black Nazarene.

Lorelie Cruz Melevo, a 30-year-old single mother of two young children, was killed after a government dump truck driven by Jonathan Silverio hit her while she was pushing her bicycle on a bike lane in Marikina. She died on the spot after being dragged by the truck along Mayor Gil Fernando Street in the early morning of Tuesday, January 5.

Every year, 10,379 people die on our nation’s roads; people on bicycles account for 2% of that figure. While that percentage seems small, Lorelie’s horrific death is unacceptable.

With her passing, we are called upon to think about the inhumane road conditions that we must take action to change. We must act, for those she left behind, and for those we could be leaving behind, if things don't get any better.

Let us take this opportunity to demand the following: 


• The strict implementation of the rule of law on our roads.

Those who break the law – whether a seemingly insignificant road violation or one resulting in death, whether that is you or I – must be apprehended and penalized. That includes the truck driver who killed Lorelie. Jonathan Silverio is now charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.

• The end of corruption in the issuance of driver's licenses in the Land Transportation Office.

It is common knowledge that the agency's employees systematically issue drivers' licenses without applicants undergoing or passing practical and/or written examinations. Let us demand the cleansing of the LTO, the removal of corrupt employees, and their penalization.

• The end of motorization, congestion, and road rage.

Let us call on our government to regulate the volume of motor vehicles, expand and improve public and mass transportation, and encourage the use of non-motorized modes of transport, such as walking and bicycling, by providing the people who walk and bicycle with protected walkways and bicycle lanes.

As long as people who drive remain without discipline and lack education on the rights of people who walk and bike, the facilities for these road users must be designed to protect them.

Not everyone knows that the road where Lorelie was killed used to be called A. Tuazon Street. It was a main arterial subdivision road that linked 3 subdivisions: New Marikina, Marikina East, and Marikina Midtown. Then, in the 1990s, the local government took over the road, reclassified it into a commercial zone, and renamed it Mayor Gil Fernando Avenue.

People who drive have come to think that the bike lane where Lorelie was killed should not, in the first place, have taken the space of motor vehicles. Please know that, in fact, it is motor vehicles that have eaten up the space where children used to ride their bicycles in the subdivisions.

I was one of those children. Today, I can no longer freely bike without care on the widened, reclassified road. But I use and celebrate its newly painted green bicycle lanes, which the Marikina Bikeways Office said they would separate from motor vehicle lanes with reflective “cat’s eyes.”

This area is my neighborhood. And I could have been Lorelie. Or you could have been Lorelie. And her children could have been your children, too.

As Lorelie is laid to rest, let us all say a prayer for her soul. And let’s hope that her death sparks the change we all need for a sane, safe place for people who walk and people on bicycles. – Rappler.com

Katti Sta. Ana is the convenor of The Firefly Brigade. The citizen’s group envisions a world where bicycling and sustainable transportation are a way of life.

In one of the far flung islands of Sulu live Bibing Antula, her husband and 5 children. For years, going to the town center in another island has been a perilous journey.

At the height of armed conflict, going to town, where markets, schools, pharmacies and government institutions are concentrated, must really be a matter of life and death.

For years too, Bibing and many other residents have been kept from participating in political processes and accessing social services, including those for sexual and reproductive well-being.

“Before we used to think that contraception causes terminal illnesses. We thought that it was haram,” she recalled. This, until she and other residents encountered a religious leader who clarified what family planning and birth control mean.

Since then, Bibing and the other women have benefitted from the discussions and services on these. Bibing herself had a contraceptive implant, a boon especially as her husband’s daily income of P65 from fishing could barely support a big and young family.

But with the impending zero budget for contraceptives, the other individuals who are just learning about sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), may not benefit as much from the Responsible Parenthood law. (READ: Health chief: No allocation for contraceptives in 2016 DOH budget) 

Instead it can expose them to unwanted and unsafe pregnancies which can have a long-term, if not fatal impact on both mother and child, especially in a context where the nearest hospitals are mountains or islands away.

At risk

Young women in urban poor areas are also at risk with the already limited public health services. Across the Philippines, one in 10 among young women aged 15 to 19 years old is already a mother as of 2014.

In 2011, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) reported that there were 53 births out of every 1,000 women in this age bracket, the highest in the region. 

In fact, we have seen an alarming 70% increase of teenage pregnancy in just one decade, which also covered the period when the Reproductive Health bill was repeatedly rejected by Congress.

By the time the RH bill was enacted in 2013, UNFPA raised the estimate of the number of women who are dying every day due to unsafe pregnancy from 11 deaths to 14 deaths per day.  

Several concessions were already made with the current Responsible Parenthood Law and its implementation. These include the limited scope of sexual and reproductive health orientation in public schools and the temporary restraining order for implants, which would have been an effective birth control measure.

Funds

Crossing out the P1 billion budget for contraceptives is diminution, if not a withdrawal, of government’s commitment to SRHR.

The P1 billion budget is part of an already inadequate health budget. In 2015, the Department of Health received P102.178 billion or just 4.5% of the P2.265 trillion national budget.

The P1 billion allocation for contraceptives is small compared to the full range of sexual and reproductive health needs of 104 million Filipinos. Of this number, more than 60% are considered youth. Given the scale of the need, the budget cut is unreasonable. 

But the needs are also intergenerational. About half of the rising number of the poor consist of women and girls who still encounter more forms of discrimination and require more resources to address the needs of their bodies.

More delays in government intervention on SRHR mean exponential risks that are far more complicated than population growth.

Aside from leaving risks, complications and deaths unmitigated, the delays have an acute impact on the quality of life of both mothers and children. The latter are likely to be exposed to the same vulnerable condition where they have to stop schooling, start working and engage in relationships with less capital and negotiating power. Clearly, the struggle for SRHR is historical.

Laws

It took 16 years for the RH bill before it was approved in 2012. That period saw a growing consensus, where surveys after surveys showed the Filipinos’ support for artificial birth control methods, where other segments of social movements embraced the flagship advocacy of the women’s movements, and where the support of international institutions for the legislative measure became more prominent.

Still, the Responsible Parenthood law has met barriers due to questions ranging from constitutionality to implants being seen as abortifacients to legal technicalities.

The manner of slashing this resource – which caught advocates even within the government by surprise – smacks of betrayal.

The Responsible Parenthood law is a step toward the right direction. As the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health Paul Hunt wrote in his 2006 report, “The right to health entitles women to reproductive health-care services, goods and facilities that are available in adequate numbers, accessible physically and economically, accessible without discrimination, and of good quality.”

The law offers us the opportunity and resources to harness its promising impact especially among the poor. It could have been consistent with the principle of sexual and reproductive justice which calls for duty-bearers – both state and non-state – to provide the enabling conditions for individuals to know and exercise their rights and reap the benefits from such exercise.

This principle envisions individuals and communities, who have been historically marginalized and rendered vulnerable, to have the means to take care of themselves and have the freedom to make informed choices. The budget cut simply robs Bibing and the rest of us this opportunity. – Rappler.com

Nina Somera is the gender advisor of Oxfam in the Philippines. Oxfam is an international confederation of 17 organizations working in 94 countries, as part of a global movement for change, to build a future free from the injustice of poverty. At the heart of Oxfam's work is women's rights because it believes that empowering women is vital to ending poverty.

While candidates for national posts have been making the rounds in the past months, wooing voters in various guises, election season actually begins January 10 .

(For a complete election calendar, read the Commission on Elections resolution here.)

No, they are not yet allowed to campaign – that will start on February 9 for president, vice-president, senator and party-list groups – but they are obliged to strictly keep to the confines of rules set by the Comelec. These also apply to bodyguards, aides, supporters of candidates, political parties, and the general public.

Foremost of these is a ban on bearing firearms outside one’s home and office. Note that the Comelec specified that a “motor vehicle, water or aircraft” is, by all means, not considered residence or place of business.

In its 25-page resolution, the Comelec spells out, in detail, all kinds of gun-related prohibitions, including suspension of permits to carry firearms outside residences, use of bodyguards by candidates, and transport of explosives and deadly weapons, “including its spare parts and components.” 

There are dozens of exemptions, from the president to cabinet secretaries down to  agencies whose job is to keep peace, law and order such as the Philippine National Police (PNP). It appears that there is a science to this gun ban: each of these exempted officials has a matching form to fill up to seek authority to carry firearms.

But the essence is plain as day: guns lead to killings and violate elections, where an overwhelming majority of Filipinos always turn up to vote. High participation in elections seems to be a mark of Philippine democracy.

Data tend to show that local elections (barangay and congressional levels) experience more violence than national contests. Thus, every election year, the PNP identifies “hotspots,” places where killings spike during the election races.

The roots of poll violence, however, lie beyond having firearms – licensed or not – grenades, knives and other deadly weapons. They are tied to the loose regulation of guns, weak law enforcement and the stubborn character of our society, where political dynasties thrive, intense clan rivalries result in violent conflict, insurgencies remain unresolved, and political parties are feeble.

A 2012 study on Philippine “electoral security” by the United States Agency for International Development said that election-related violence can be reduced by, among others, making political parties  “a viable as well as sustainable bulwark against political dynasties.”

Also, a more open political culture, one that gives opportunities to non-elites and non-dynasty members to run for public office, will be a step toward killing election violence.

Meantime, the public should be vigilant and watch out for violations of the firearms ban. After all, the digital age, a boost to democracy, has given us the tools to expose flagrant infractions. – Rappler.com

She slips into her heels, draped in pearls and cashmere cardigans. She smiles through kitchen windows with a hot, oven-fresh casserole on hand. She will invite you for brunch, or afternoon tea, but never for sound political debates. She will giggle over cute boys and whisper judgment over scantily clad girls but by 5pm sharp, and not a minute later, she will come home to her famished husband just in time to prepare dinner.

She is a woman: soft, tender, and easy to break. She is genetically hardwired to stand on the sidelines of strong, powerful men, elbow clutched on one hand and a shiny purse on another. Every X chromosome in her body, a signal for defeat; whose capacity to lead is apparently defined by whatever organ hangs between her legs; and whose sole purpose is to decorate, and by turns, domesticate this socio-political gulf saturated by angry men in black robes and wooden gavels. 

But she is also only a caricature; an image of a woman that mirrors more what society depicts of her than what she actually is. In her lies depth, intellect, and a capacity to govern so much more than the condiments and fabric conditioners disposed on her kitchen counter. For decades, this did not seem to persuade us as a society that has consistently lamented gender inequality, but cannot seem to bring it upon ourselves to elect a female leader without putting her vagina into question. For example, the way Hillary Clinton can principally author sanctions on Iran, create programs that expand health coverage to lower-income children, and actively participate in US foreign policy, and yet will always be, first and foremost, Bill Clinton’s first lady.

But now we see an emerging trend in global politics. One that entrusts upon women positions of power traditionally dominated by men, and all the responsibilities enshrined thereof. From German Chancellor Angela Merkel who led the campaign to open European borders to Syrian refugees, all the way down to the fact that the Queen of England is, well, the Queen.

Not that the world is finally graced by a new breed of great women (because we’ve always had great women); but that the world now seems ready to loosen the scaly wings they have long tucked conveniently under petticoats, and finally give that innate greatness more power in fostering real change over our political landscape. 

Trudeau, Burma and diversity

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is famous for a few things. Among them are his brief stint at professional boxing, his electorally willed inheritance of his father’s former political post, and his masterfully chiseled jawline. But beyond his alleged novelty lies the first Canadian Prime Minister to appoint a cabinet with an equal number of seats shared by men and women, a first for the country’s history.

Placed in key positions, the cabinet stays true to its promise of diversity by including vital women in its roster. Among them are the likes of Afghan refugee Maryam Monsef, former journalist Chrystia Freeland, and veteran member of parliament Carolyn Bennet, who, as the newly appointed Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, will be looking into the cases of hundreds of aboriginal women that have either went missing or were murdered in a series of systematic crimes – a step that is not only integral towards embarking on a national conversation that seeks to eradicate a culture of racism and misogyny targeted against women of ethnic origins, but one that is fundamentally led by a woman.

Seven thousand miles away, in a country perched in the southeastern part of Asia, Burma’s ruling party concedes defeat to the National League for Democracy led by Aung San Suu Kyi. She is a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate recognized for her non-violent struggle for democracy and human rights, was once a political prisoner of Burma’s military Junta, and is, by every definition, a woman.

But to be a political player squarely prompted to stand against a mammoth of a dictatorial regime, we are forced to accept that there are problematic dimensions to her politics. The woman who spent her 1.3 million US dollar Nobel Peace Prize money on establishing a health and education trust for the Burmese people is the same woman who insists that her penchant for non-violence is not founded on moral reasons but rather, as a practical and political apparatus. The woman who promised to protect ethnic minority groups Karenni and Kachin is the same woman who chose to remain silent over the plight of the Rohingya in Rakhine in spite international clamor, theoretically, as a necessary bargaining chip in appealing to popular Burmese sentiments at the height of national elections. 

While not as glamorous and alluring as sticking to ideals that an “icon of democracy” stands for, to Suu Kyi, a woman must do what she can.

2016 challenge

In more familiar shores, the Philippines is faced with the possibility of electing women in the two highest positions in government come 2016.

On one end is a constitutional expert who has served in all three branches of government, an elected International Criminal Court (ICC) judge, and the poster child for Filipino pick-up lines. Miriam Defensor-Santiago is one of the only two women in pursuit of the highest office in the land. 

She speaks of the presidency as a birthright, and of the Filipino electorate as a tragic tale. Often lampooned by detractors who doubt her capacity to run the country because of her refusal to make public certain medical records that may confirm her narrative of surviving an alleged terminal illness, Miriam rises to national forums equipped with her trademark humor and spitfire political sound bites, persistent in her belief that with stage 4 lung cancer or not, she is precisely what this country of 100 million needs. After all, what is cancer to a woman who – as this country seems to forget – eats death threats for breakfast?

On the opposite end of the spectrum is a foundling, haunted by citizenship issues that threaten her legitimacy. Grace Poe is the second woman to round up the country’s roster of top presidential bets. She enters the race with her distinct crisp, white, button down shirt representing all that is simple and clear-cut about her platform – a welcome contrast to the showbiz glitz that her late father represented. And yet she still manages to harp on the popular appeal that his legacy has left behind.

Her enemies reduce her into nothing but an outcast, a foundling in its truest sense, as if this Teleserye-patronizing country detests stories like that of an abandoned child who will stop at nothing in order to bring honor to her name. Quite a story tailor fit for the soap opera-obsessed Filipino voter, don’t you think?

Trailing them is a woman who still grieves the death of her husband. Leni Robredo, advertised by the Liberal Party as the last bastion of moral conscience in Philippine politics in a bid to exalt her to vice presidency, fits comfortably in the same cradle that launched the Cory Aquino brand: widow to a political hero, single mother to her children, and servant to the people. 

In fact, she fits the mold so well that people tend to forget that she is also a lawyer and a legislator by profession; disparate from the plain housewife in yellow dress and shiny pearl earrings she is often compared to. 

Battling dynasties, oligarchs

For these women, running governments is not going to be easy. Not for as long as patriarchal dynasties and oligarchs continue to run the east while the west is still haunted by old fashioned politics that denigrate change. 

The stakes are much higher, too. Transition, after all, is a time for people to reexamine their choices. It is not just a matter of proving that women can manage economies, enforce foreign policies, and effect socio-political good just as well as any man could. The goal is to be able to create improvements stark and tangible enough to espouse a sustained support from the people in the land once only ruled by men. 

So much may have already changed in how society views its women, but there is work to be done, still. For as long as there are lurking entities in ivory towers that actively challenge the growing acceptance for women in global politics, we need to remain critical over structural inequalities that threaten whatever progress we have made so far. After all, it will always be in the interest of the weak to keep fire-breathing dragons caged in dungeons, if only to keep the iron throne for themselves.

But more importantly, let the fight be as much as women’s as it is men’s. Let them serve as human testaments to why we find ourselves in this battlefield to begin with. If I haven’t driven the point already, allow me to remind you that women are, in fact, much stronger than they have long been portrayed. 

Do not be fooled by her pastels and glitter, by her silk and spices. She may be soft, tender, but she is far from easy to break. She tightens her corset from the back of her spine, not to keep herself in shackles but to fight in all the curves she was born with. Her morals are not infallible, which is to say, her politics are formidable.

She is not made out of pixie dust and metaphors, not responsible only for domestic duties, or troubled only by monthly cycles. She is of flesh, bone, and crimson steel, and she will burst into this world in a rupture of stone and ember – as all dragons do. – Rappler.com

Alfonso Manalastas, 23, is a freelance photographer and writer from Butuan City, has competed in various debate competitions around the country, and also dabbles with graphic design and spoken word poetry. He is days away from moving to Manila to build a career in the art circuit.

Why is a government agency tasked to manage traffic also managing a film festival?

The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) is under fire from filmmakers and Congress for arbitrarily disqualifying Honor Thy Father from consideration under the Best Picture category of the Metro Manila Film Festival (MMFF). The recent investigations in the House of Representatives have exposed the MMDA’s tyrannical powers, such as not following its own rules of limiting film entries to 2 per genre. The MMDA chairman, a lawyer, even said that the funds of the festival are not subject to audit by the Commission on Audit (note: absolutely wrong)!

More than the tyrannical powers of the MMDA, the quality of films participating in MMFF have deteriorated over the years in the hands of the MMDA. The quality of film entries has steadily deteriorated due to poor screening of scripts, irrelevant criteria in awarding films (previously, box office success was a factor in awarding the Best Picture), and controversial awarding ceremonies that leave good films unrewarded. These can all be reasonably traced to the lack of expertise and competence of the MMDA in filmmaking and the arts.

So why is the MMFF under the power and control of the MMDA, a traffic agency? The answer: history and its predecessor – the Metropolitan Manila Commission (MMC).

But before that, let me tell you a shocking secret: the MMDA has absolutely no legal authority to organize and operate film festivals.

Case studies

In the case of MMDA vs. Bel-Air Village Association, Inc., the Supreme Court said that:

"There is no provision in R.A. No. 7924 (An Act Creating the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority) that empowers the MMDA or its Council to "enact ordinances, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare" of the inhabitants of Metro Manila. The MMDA is, as termed in the charter itself, a 'development authority.'"

Borrowing the words of the Supreme Court, the truth is, there is no provision in R.A. No. 7924 that empowers the MMDA or its council to "organize and operate film festivals" in Metro Manila!

Contrast this with the law creating the Film Development Council of the Philippines which in Section 5, R. A. No. 9167 is empowered “to establish, organize, operate and maintain domestic and international film festivals, exhibitions and similar activities.”

The Metro Manila Film Festival started in 1975. MMFF was established and organized by the then Metropolitan Manila Commission (MMC), a central government of Metro Manila created by the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos under Presidential Decree No. 824. MMC had the legal authority to create the MMFF because it was given legislative powers. When MMC was replaced by the Metro Manila Authority (now MMDA), the legislative powers given to the former were not given to the latter.

So while the MMDA is the successor of the MMC, only MMC had the power to organize and operate the MMFF or other film festivals. The MMDA, if it looked at its own charter, should have stopped operating film festivals or asked Congress to give it such powers.

Since MMDA does not have the legal authority to operate the MMFF, it should immediately stop operating the MMFF and any other film festival. The establishment and operation of film festivals is better left with the FDCP, a government agency with the expertise and competence in filmmaking and the arts. The MMDA should focus on managing traffic and other metro-wide services.

If MMDA continues to operate the MMFF, we should call it as the Metro Manila Dictatorship Authority. Disqualifying Honor Thy Father is just the tip of MMDA’s tyrannical iceberg. We stopped a dictator before; we can stop a dictator again. – Rappler.com

Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis is a debate coach, a full-time lecturer, and a public interest lawyer. He currently teaches Politics and the Constitution in Far Eastern University.

If we had a more mature democracy, choosing our country’s leaders would not be difficult. One would simply look at the political parties vying for position and vote according to one’s party affiliation or inclination.

Usually, it would be for a political party whose ideology a voter shared. Of course, the leadership of that party would matter but more important would be its positions on issues and its platform of government.

Unfortunately, we do not have strong political parties in the Philippines. As we have seen in the phenomena of the Nacionalista Party having several vice-presidential candidates and the proliferation of “guest” and “adopted” candidates in the senatorial and other races, our politicians easily swing from one party to another, with no other criterion but political convenience.

Indeed, this election is the strangest ever with the phenomenon of “guest candidates” and “candidate-sharing” becoming prevalent with all the political parties resorting to it.

It must be mentioned that two party-list organizations, Akbayan and Makabayan (which is a coalition of several party-list organizations) are real political parties, with members sharing a political ideology and with organized sectors forming their backbone. The Kapatiran Party likewise started as a promising ideologically-based political party.

But electorally, for nationwide elections, candidates from these 3 parties are not able to compete with other more established candidates. Indeed, up to now, Akbayan, Makabayan, and Kapatiran have not been successful in having members elected to the Senate. Makabayan and Akbayan are supporting presidential candidates in the 2016 elections while Kapatiran is calling for a boycott even as one its members has filed his candidacy.

Without political parties, we have no choice but to look at every candidate – their backgrounds, record, values, and positions – and compare them to each other based on a criterion that we could use as the lens for our decision.

This is what I seek to articulate in this two-part article – criteria for choosing whom to vote for in 2016. The first version of this article was published last December in Fabilioh, the alumni magazine of Ateneo de Manila. As I did in the earlier version, I will illustrate the criteria by giving examples from the presidential race. I will consider how these apply to the 5 main candidates: Jejomar Binay, Rody Duterte, Grace Poe, Mar Roxas, and Miriam Defensor Santiago.

It should be noted also that the criteria I propose is applicable to all candidates for all executive positions, and to some extent, also apply to candidates for legislative positions.

Sources of criteria

The criteria I propose come from 4 sources – the Ignatian tradition of leadership as articulated by Chris Lowney, the vision of a leader proposed by Fr Horacio Dela Costa SJ, and the concept of servant-leader by Robert Greenleaf. I will then propose a combination of these qualities of a good leader through the criterion that the Movement for Good Government (MGG) suggests for our electoral choices.

Heroic leadership as criterion

For the problems facing the Philippines, we have many proposed solutions. In most cases, we even have ample resources to spend on these solutions. There has been one critical factor missing in the equation, though, which is why many of these ideas – from the lofty goals of good governance and economic development, to the mundane tasks of getting roads paved and trash collected – have failed to take off. That missing factor is leadership.

Leadership is not just about the giving of good orders – though this will be expected of those placed in positions of authority. In looking at the history of how the Jesuits spread across the world, leaving lasting impacts on the societies they visited, former JP Morgan executive (and former Jesuit seminarian) Chris Lowney argues that practically every Jesuit exercised leadership, or at least was encouraged to do so.

He points out that the first Jesuits adopted the leadership style of St Ignatius of Loyola, a formula that now “has since been tested across generations, across continents, and across cultures”, serving “explorers, mapmakers, linguists, astronomers, theologians, scientists, musicians, social activists, writers of children’s stories, lobbyists, preachers – even school teachers and cannon manufacturers.”

How do you become a leader who makes the kind of impact on the world that Ignatius of Loyola had? Lowney suggests how:

• You appreciate your own dignity and rich potential
• You recognize weaknesses and attachments that block that potential
• You articulate the values you stand for
• You establish personal goals
• You form a point of view on the world – where you stand, what you want, and how you will relate to others
• You see the wisdom and value in the examen and commit to it – the daily, self-reflective habit of refocusing on priorities and extracting lessons from successes and failures

According to the former Jesuit, whatever their chosen or assigned mission, those living the Jesuit leadership way champion the following values:

• Understanding their strengths, weaknesses, values, and worldview
• Confidently innovating and adapting to embrace a changing world
• Engaging others with a positive, loving attitude
• Energizing themselves and others by heroic ambitions

Genuine leadership, from an Ignatian point of view, focuses on the possible, the future. It integrates 4 fundamental pillars: self-awareness, ingenuity, love, and heroism.

According to Lowney: “Love-driven leaders seek out and honor the potential in self and others. Heroic leaders seek to shape the future rather that passively endure whatever unfolds. And ingenuity-driven leaders uncover ways to turn human potential into achievement and a vision of the future into a reality.”

The first Jesuits, according to Lowney, were heroic leaders: “bold and daring, ready at a moment’s notice to sail forth to exotic locations, for God and for the salvation of human souls anywhere, anytime.”

He described them as “cunning, exploiting their knowledge of astronomy to gain the favor of the ultra-closed Chinese imperial court, or building Europe’s first universal and free secondary school system, with the gratitude of European townships, and as a breeding ground for potential Jesuit recruits.”

And finally: “These heroic leaders, last but not least, knew themselves: what they were capable of, what their weaknesses were, their place in the world, and their deeply-felt mission to make that world a better place.”

Dela Costa’s qualities of leadership

More than half a century ago, in 1953, Fr Dela Costa spoke before the graduating class of Ateneo de Davao and identified the characteristics of an Ateneo or Jesuit college graduate. I think these apply to leaders as well.

Leaders should be persons of practical excellence, what Fr Dela Costa described in his 1953 speech as “persons of judgment”. Practical excellence means having a set of competencies that will enable leaders to do their jobs effectively.

Leaders should be persons of principles. They must be guided by moral values, to stick to them, and navigate properly the dilemmas of politics. In my own career as a public servant, the most difficult challenge has been – how can I do the right thing the right way? It is not enough to do the ethical thing; it is just as important to do it the right way so that you are able to implement decisions, defend your actions, and actually solve problems.

Leaders should be persons of the people, and especially for the poorest in our society. A pubic servant is a person-for-others.

That is why Fr Dela Costa writes how we need not just national leaders but good local leaders as well: “We need national leaders; the best we can get. But make no mistake: it is local and regional community leaders that our people need most of all. Not leaders who reside in some distant capital, out of touch with them, out of their reach, but leaders who are right here with them, who know them and whom they know; who understand their problems, their hopes, their dreams, and who can, because of the education they have received, give substance to these hopes and dreams.”

Servant leadership will be good

"Servant Leadership" was coined by Robert K. Greenleaf in “The Servant as Leader”, an essay that was first published in 1970. Greenleaf defined the servant-leader as “servant first…It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions…The leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types. Between them there are shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature.”

Greenleaf further differentiated between the two types of leaders: A servant-leader always shares power and puts the needs of others first while the leader-first is about the accumulation and exercise of power by one at the “top of the pyramid”.

According to Greenleaf: “The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served. The best test, and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society? Will they benefit or at least not be further deprived?”

In another essay, The Institution as Servant, Greenleaf articulated what is now called the “credo” of servant leadership.

This is how he articulated it: “This is my thesis: caring for persons, the more able and the less able serving each other, is the rock upon which a good society is built. Whereas, until recently, caring was largely person to person, now most of it is mediated through institutions – often large, complex, powerful, impersonal; not always competent; sometimes corrupt. If a better society is to be built, one that is more just and more loving, one that provides greater creative opportunity for its people, then the most open course is to raise both the capacity to serve and the very performance as servant of existing major institutions by new regenerative forces operating within them.” (To be concluded)– Rappler.com

(READ: Part 1: Choosing for 2016: Kapitan, lingkod, katiwala)

For the 2010 elections, the Movement for Good Governance, a coalition of individuals and organizations led by Winnie Monsod and Nene Guevarra, developed criteria for making our electoral choices.

I think that MGG’s 3 qualities of a leader combine best the leader that Lowney, Dela Costa, and Greenleaf describes. These pillars are: (1) the effective leader (kapitan ng bayan); (2) the empowering leader (lingkod ng bayan); and (3) the ethical leader (katiwala ng bayan).

The effective leader

We must elect visionary, competent and effective leaders in 2016. We cannot afford to have leaders who do not know where to bring us, or will bring us to the wrong place, or not bring us anywhere at all. Our leaders must be physically, intellectually, and morally fit for the positions they are aspiring for.

The description the MGG uses for the effective leader is that of a Kapitan ng Bayan. As former Fidel V. Ramos frequently says, we must see ourselves as Team Philippines and the president as the captain who will steer us to the right direction.

An effective leader has a clear and comprehensive platform of government; has consistent and clear positions on key issues; must work hard and be smart; must demonstrate political will, have the ability to take risks, and the courage to implement reforms.

Concretely, to be visionary means having a solid understanding of the challenges before us: poverty, lack of jobs, war in Mindanao and internal conflict in other areas, inequity in taxation that unduly burdens the poor and the middle class, and climate change and disaster. These are among the most important.

More specifically for the presidency, I would like a leader who will prioritize programs for the poor, continue educational reforms that will position young people in better jobs, support tax reforms that will reduce burdens for the poor and the middle class, while making sure the rich pay their just share.

That leader must complete the peace process with the communist insurgency and all Moro revolutionary organizations (passing a good Bangsamoro Basic Law that is both constitutionally compliant and meeting the aspirations of our Moro brothers and sisters).

The same leader must have a coherent and smart strategy for our OFWs, make sure that mitigation and adaptation programs on climate change are adopted and implemented, and push for the creation of an independent disaster agency.

In a more personal way, as a resident of Metro Manila and as an academic and lawyer, I will vote only for a leader, who I am convinced, can solve the problem of lack of mobility and connectivity that plagues the capital of our metropolis. This is not for selfish reasons but are major reasons why we are and will be uncompetitive.

Thus, it is fair to ask whether Mar Roxas has some responsibility for the dismal state of transportation and communication in the Philippines, given that he was head of these portfolios in the early years of the Aquino administration.

But Roxas’ record must be comprehensively assessed – from his experience as a legislator (what bills did he author) to his cabinet stint as trade and industry secretary and later, interior and local government secretary.

It is also appropriate to look at the local government records of Binay and Duterte. How is Makati now after decades under the control of the Binays? How is Davao faring under Duterte’s leadership? 

For Santiago, she has her record in the Senate, and before that, in the cabinet as agrarian reform secretary and immigration chief, to speak for her. And of course, she also left a mark in the judiciary.

While I have a lot of respect for Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, it is important to have up to date information about her health before voting for or against her. Among others, we must know how she will manage the physical demands of the presidential office and whether she will last the full term of 6 years. For the record, I do want her to be in the pink of health and to survive many more years beyond the term of the next president.

It is more challenging with respect to Grace Poe because of her shorter record of public service. We have of course her MTCRB and Senate stints to look at to see her style of leadership.

In addition to their record of service, it is important to look at how the candidates are handling themselves in the campaign. Presidential campaigns are grueling and challenging, beset by crises. The behavior of the candidates – their fortitude, determination, discipline, ability to communicate, etc – is a good way of assessing their effectiveness as leaders.

The resilience of Binay before unrelenting attacks against his character is, in my view, a plus for him. If he wins in the elections, it will be because he is the candidate who consistently reached out to the grassroots, pressing the flesh, embracing babies, showing the voters he cared for them.

Duterte stumbled early in the campaign with his cursing of the Pope and other excesses. But lately, he has recalibrated and has promised that he will be a president we can be proud of.

I was actually taken aback by his earlier behavior and his rhetoric; those who have talked to Duterte and seen him up close will see right away that he is not a threatening figure. We will have to see how consistent he will be with this new posture and how that will be reconciled with the “punisher” image that was spread earlier.

Like Binay, Poe has not been rattled by the disqualification cases filed against her. She has continued to campaign in the regions, speaking out about the issues. No crisis is big enough to deter her or push her to panic mode. This clean campaign, focused on what matters to the country, is being appreciated by the voters.

The Roxas strategy is to bring the candidate as near to the people as possible. Even the reactions to Duterte are influenced by this strategy. Certainly, Roxas has been able to link successfully to local politicians and has set up, together with Binay, a formidable machinery at the local level.

It's difficult to assess Santiago’s conduct in the campaign as she is running essentially a virtual campaign, visible in traditional and social media, but without sorties that are expected in election campaigns.

The empowering leader

We must elect leaders who have proven records of service to people, who show in their records and campaigns empathy for the concerns of the ordinary people, and who can recruit and bring into government the best and the brightest.

The empowering leader is participative and inspiring. He or she is a good listener and understands the concerns and shares the values of the ordinary Filipino. Such a leader knows and appreciates Philippine culture and thus is able to communicate well to all Filipinos.

The MGG description of the empowering leader is one who is a Lingkod ng Bayan. Will we be the bosses of this leader? Will she or he listen to us? Will he or she bring out the best in us, and by example, unify the country?

In terms of platform, the empowering leader will promote social justice and prioritize the basic needs of the people (food, health, education, shelter) and will go out of his or her way to protect the interests of marginalized sectors of our society (workers, farmer, women, indigenous people, people with disabilities).

Specifically, I would like a leader who will fully implement agrarian reform, prohibit contractualization of labor, stop the killings of Lumad, and respect indigenous peoples’ rights.

An empowering leader is one who builds institutions. Unfortunately, many of our governance institutions are in bad shape. Some good happens when the right leaders are at their helm but that is never assured.

I would like to see a leader who consciously reforms our institutions and leaves power with them much improved and refreshed with people who are capable and committed to their mission.

Finally, I would like a leader who is able to unify the people, one who has a compelling vision, and who inspires hope and enables us to work with each other for a common purpose.

How do I apply this criterion to those who have declared their candidacies for president? Again, the record of service – this time of empathy and ability to inspire – is important.

But how they are campaigning now provides critical data to assess whether the candidate is an empowering leader. Is the campaign of that candidate too negative, condescending, disrespectful, and angry? Or does that candidate make us feel good about ourselves and about our country? Is the vision he or she proposing inclusive, unifying and engaging?

Applied to the candidates, this criterion could be used to evaluate Poe. On one hand, she is able to communicate very well with voters and especially with millennials. She certainly has charisma, both because of her parental legacy as well as in her own right.

Binay also blends in well with political leaders and voters. He never tires of shaking hands, embracing babies, and meeting ordinary people. But his style illustrates what we call traditional politics, a patron-client approach to politics.

Roxas admits that he can be perceived to be snobbish, elitist. Voters will have to judge whether he has empathy and whether he gets what they need and how they see things.

Duterte and Santiago have strong appeal to their followers. They are certainly charismatic and can move many to action. At the same time, both these candidates have strong personalities that do not seem to give room for serious listening and feedback.

The ethical leader 

The leaders we elect in 2016 must have unquestionable moral character and fiber. They must have no conflict of interest and when elected, act consistently with integrity and be beyond reproach. They must show personal and family compliance with the country’s laws and rules and must have the ability to sacrifice personal, familial, and other vested interests.

The leaders we want must also advocate and practice meritocracy in government. We need to be assured they will prosecute and punish offenders.           

For the presidential candidates, the leader we should choose must commit to the immediate enactment of the Freedom of Information Act, including issuing an executive order as one of his or her first acts.

I expect the candidate I will support to commit to appoint competent and trustworthy Supreme Court Justices (10 of them will be appointed by the next president) and an Ombudsman with similar qualities of competence, integrity and courage as Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales (whose term will expire in 2018).

MGG describes this leader as the Katiwala ng Bayan. Can we entrust this leader with public funds and resources? Will this leader be a good steward of such funds and resources? Will he or she appoint people who will be as trustworthy and accountable?

One application of this criterion is whether or not Binay, given all the corruption charges against him and his family, is an ethical leader. He has not been convicted, of course, and should be presumed innocent from a criminal law perspective. In my view however, we have enough evidence to decide politically whether or not VP Binay is worthy of our trust and our vote.

There are no serious personal integrity issues that can be raised against Roxas, Poe, Duterte and Santiago. However, some have questioned whether the Araneta family will be advantaged by a Roxas victory, whether Poe’s former renunciation of her citizenship does not speak well of her patriotism, whether Duterte’s human rights record and rhetoric disqualifies him for the presidency, and whether Santiago’s alliance with Bongbong Marcos stains her candidacy.

Conclusion: leadership for the future

The Philippines is a country in perpetual crisis. To quote from the Italian Marxian philosopher, Antonio Gramsci, in our country, “The old is dying but the new cannot be born."

The last 5 years under the Aquino government have been good in many ways. Certainly from a macro-economic point of view, it is hard to dispute the progress that has been made as seen in the credit ratings upgrades we have been getting.

The anti-corruption campaign has also had some success with the Ombudsman filing a record number of cases, including very powerful political figures. Budget, social welfare, and educational reforms are in full swing and they augur well for the future. We are in better shape now in disaster preparation than we were in 2013 when Haiyan/Yolanda devastated the Visayas.

But not all is good. Metro Manila is certainly in shambles, with citizen mobility paralyzed by bad decisions related to public transportation. Our airports and seaports are congested and that is having an economic impact. Internet connectivity is bad in many places, slow where they are available.

Development has not been inclusive, and workers, farmers, and indigenous peoples, to count a few, continue to be marginalized. Corruption continues to prevail at many levels of government, including apparently in our main international airport. And the state of human rights, as we have seen in the Lumad killings and other extrajudicial murders, is dismal.

Finally, there is uncertainly whether we will have honest and credible elections. Many questions have been raised against the automation technology we have adopted.

I have trust in Comelec Chair Andres Bautista but we must be vigilant. In a close election, the outcome might not be accepted by the people. It will not be the first time when elections in our country divide and not unify the country.

As we participate in the elections, we should not be ruled by fear. Our choices are imperfect: all of them have strengths and weaknesses. Personally, I can live with whoever among the 5 wins in May.

Contrary to what some think of particular candidates, I do not think any one of them will be a major disaster as long as citizens are vigilant. If the 2016 elections are honest and credible, I will support and work with the winner.

Fr Dela Costa once pointed out that democracy would survive in our country only if people have confidence in the ability of democratic government to reform itself.

According to him: "They will lose confidence, they will lose hope, not only in their government but in themselves if our ship of state continues to be, in the words of T.S. Eliot, 'a drifting boat with a slow leakage'. He ended that speech with these classic words: 'We must stop the leakage; put an end to drift; find a direction, and steer.'"

I repeat what I frequently emphasize in commencement speeches I deliver: Stopping the leakage; putting an end to drift; finding a direction; steering: We need leadership for this. Not just by the next president or a few elite politicians, but by many others across the many islands of our country. Only then, as Dela Costa wrote, can we solve what is perhaps our most critical challenge we must overcome: the restoration of hope.– Rappler.com