There are two contending stories about what occurred in Kidapawan last April 1, 2016.

The first is that farmers and indigenous people, starving from the effects of El Niño, organized themselves and went to Kidapawan to protest and demand that their needs be met by a cruel, incompetent and insensitive government.

The El Niño phenomenon started in October 2015. Government has been its usual slow and bureaucratic mess in giving out life-saving food support. The situation is dire and there are reports of farmers committing suicide due to hunger. In this telling, the blame is on a large number of government people from President Aquino (the “US-Aquino regime” in some accounts), to the National Food Authority that should release the rice, to the governor of North Cotabato, Emmylou Taliño-Mendoza and the mayor of Kidapawan, Joseph Evangelista.

None of these people even bothered to talk to the farmers. Instead, after three days of farmers barricading the Davao-Cotabato Highway and the failure of what were insulting and cursory negotiations, the police fired upon the peaceful assembly, causing death and injury because the business people complained about the economic costs.

Clearly, as one of the farmer leaders stated, what was 3 days of profits to the months of misery and number of lives at stake?

The other story is that the farmers were manipulated by front organizations of the Communist Party of the Philippines. The rally began a day after the New People's Army's (NPA) founding anniversary. Participants were told that rice was to be distributed in Kidapawan without informing them that they were going into a protest action.

Backed by the NPA and relying on confrontational tactics, the organizers instigated the clash with the police in order to put government in a bad light and create a situation where its favored allies (presidential candidate and Davao Mayor Rodrigo Duterte, Manny Piñol and his brother) as well as the Bayan Muna bloc were “pre-positioned” so to speak, to take advantage of the inevitable outcome of a demonstration never meant to be peaceful and negotiations where one party was not acting in good faith. It is also claimed that the New People's Army had operatives in the protest. This story points to the fact that two policemen were critically injured during the fray.

The feed on my social media account is rife with analysis, counter-analysis, documentation of the various themes in these two accounts. My head spins.

Moral outrage

The only common thing about these two narratives is the high level of moral outrage in them. Both are aghast that people are using the starving farmers for their political ends. Both bewail the senseless loss of lives, except one set seems to mention the farmers more than the policemen and another, the policemen more than the farmers.

“Bigas!” (Rice!),  the call and need of the farmers has now been framed around the hashtags “#bigashindibala” (rice not bullets) or “#bigashindipropaganda” (rice not propaganda).

The other common theme is that anyone who makes any statement at all about this is likely to be judged as to whether they conform to the narratives both in terms of what they say but also in terms of whether they have a “right” to the narrative.

This is true especially for those who dare to cross the line between the two narratives.

Vice presidential candidate and administration bet Leni Robredo, for example called for the immediate relief of those who fired into the crowd while calling for a thorough investigation. She also asked that immediate solutions be found to bring food to the farmers in need. She was condemned for this because, being an administration bet, she had no right to be among the “good” in the “#bigashindibala” narrative and was therefore accused of hypocrisy for echoing themes this group would have found acceptable if it came from one of them (that is, those who oppose Aquino, the Liberal Party, and LP bets Mar Roxas and Leni Robredo).

 A friend of mine and I condemned the killings but also asked why there were young children at the rally and wondered whether the organizers should have ensured that children were not in the line of fire. Firestorm! In this situation where the stories are about absolute good and absolute evil, any attempt to treat one side like ordinary persons who may have made mistakes (instead of treating them as either heroes or evil-doers)  are met with cyberbullying and name-calling.

The reactions indeed to those of us who straddled the middle (or at least were perceived to straddle the middle) were informative. We were immediately castigated as traitorous and coopted. For one thing, the owners of the narrative “cops bad, demonstrators good” want to throw us out of movements we have served for most of our adult lives. To these women (one of whom is so young I have been an activist longer than she has been a human being), we no longer deserve the terms we use to describe ourselves, namely, feminists and socialists.

As I write this, two days after the incident, in the rising tide of accusations and counter-accusations, this demonization of the differing other has taken a hysterical turn. 

Commentaries include words like “you in your comfortable houses,” or “you who hang out in Starbucks,” which I suppose contrasts the “you” that is being castigated with the hungry and suffering farmer. (To be honest I prefer my coffee at home so I did not feel referred to by the Starbucks comment. I did feel badly about writing this at my comfortable desk. I imagined the writer, who accused her opposition of being in a comfortable house, to be sitting in the blood-stained dirt of the Kidapawan highway while drinking coffee with that other commenter who doesn't think Starbucks is an appropriate space for activists.)

My family says at this point that I am asking for more grief by even touching this topic yet again. Especially as I said I had had enough and promised to engage no further. I always say this to my counselees who have to deal with such moral outrage: when the moral absolutes are being thrown about like knives flying in all directions, duck!

Assigning blame, claiming glory

But I am afraid that the the other commonality of these two narratives – “the farmers are being used” – is in fact happening.

I am afraid that so much energy is being spent on assigning blame and claiming glory that I wonder how we can actually begin to solve the problem now, and continue to do so when the news cycle has moved on to yet another bombastic issue. There is so much more to be said about both the dangers and the possible solutions. I wonder also how we can find justice for the farmers who were killed and hurt, as well as the policemen.

It is time, I think, for more people to weigh in and to have all who are riding their high horses come down. I believe more views are  sorely needed. It is time when other stakeholders should be heard. Given the stakes now, this means the entire nation.

I put my trust in the general public, you dear reader. It's time to hope that a sensible majority will stop making this about the elections and candidates and power blocs. It is time to make it about finding solutions and feeding those farmers. It's time to make it about the future of a democratic country were protest serves its proper function, differences can be treated with respect, and peaceful protest is the norm.

And so I will also take a page from the literature on peace studies: when two groups with completely different stories collide, call in other stakeholders. I take the bold risk of being again in the middle and saying neither of these stories could possibly be all wrong, neither possibly all correct. None of these two accounts will lead us to peace.

It is you, dear reader, who should weigh in now. My fervent hope is that the broad and often unheard public can talk some sense into us. At least the peace literature says this is a possibility. Please think about this impasse and tell the activists and the government what we should do and think. 

Thought piece? Yes. Here's one where you, the public, get to do the thinking. – Rappler.com

There are certain matters that are, and should be, beyond spin. Violence by government agents against civilians, for one.

When armed elements of state fire upon farmers, no matter what the provocation (assuming there was), the picture that that paints is, and should be, beyond spin. Only the plain and unvarnished truth will suffice. (WATCH: The drought protest that turned bloody in Kidapawan)

In an election season when sobriety has surrendered itself to silliness, the responsibility of government is not to offer justification (and certainly not spin) but to get the truth and determine accountability. But it can only hope to do so in an independent and credible atmosphere that allows such truth and accountability to be found – devoid of political noise.

Opponents of the administration will certainly make noise and point the finger all the way to the top. That is to be expected. Rebutting them should not be the task of government. Rather the task of government should be to verify the facts and validate its findings.

In this silly season, it is easy to make political noise – any troll who can save to jpg can do so. The burden of one who governs is however heavier and justifiably so, because all the powers of state relevant towards determining the truth and levying accountability are lodged with him. 

And these powers and instruments must be used judiciously and without regard for political color so that the truth that is determined is neither relative nor calibrated but simply the whole, unvarnished, unadorned truth. Which may, certainly, hurt politically, but is also, certainly, liberating.

The truth of Kidapawan, like others before it, ought not be left to the memes of social media nor the 140-word treatises of the experts inhabiting the Twitter-verse. Instead it ought to be determined independently, methodically, dispassionately, but also urgently.

Ka Pepe Diokno summed up the imperatives for peace in 4 themes during his short-lived stint as peace negotiator and first Chair of the Human Rights Commission of the first Aquino presidency: "Food and Freedom, Jobs and Justice."

In the twilight of the second Aquino presidency, the same 4 themes call out for urgent attention with this urgent subtext: "Bigas, hindi bala  (Rice, not Bullets)." – Rappler.com

This was originally posted on the author's personal Facebook page, and does not reflect an opinion representative of his office. It is republished with his permission. He requests that citations should be to his name, omitting title as well as current designation.

The farmers whose crops in Kidapawan were destroyed by the near record El Niño which has struck the country highlight a dangerous tendency by the agriculture department under Secretary Proceso Alcala.

Last month, the department issued a release declaring the impact of the El Niño hitting the country as “negligible.”

I have been writing and following El Niño for over 30 years. Nothing about this El Niño is negligible.

Kidapawan showed the impact is a lot worse than the government is admitting. The farmers were starving because of El Niño. Is that negligible?

By consistently shading the truth or avoiding it, Alcala and his cohorts in the government should be partly blamed for the bloodshed in Kidapawan. 

The Pagasa weather bureau said at one point up to 21 provinces were under drought. That is misleading. 

Pagasa defines a dry spell as three consecutive months of rainfall 21 to 60 percent below normal. A drought is when the number tops 60 percent.

What’s the difference in the number? Preciously nothing. 

Worst in recorded history

Dry spell/drought? It doesn’t matter for a farmer who depends on rain-fed irrigation. His crops wither and die.

One has to remember something about this El Niño. It is the strongest  since 1997/98, which just happens to be the worst in recorded history. 

The government says they have taken measures and the releases by the agriculture department kept emphasizing the preventive steps they have taken to mitigate its impact. 

The department also kept harping that the country is close to achieving rice self-sufficiency. (READ: DA: We did enough for drought-affected Soccsksargen farmers)

Philippine rice yields are stagnant at around 4 tonnes/hectare. In fact, it slipped to 3.9 tons/hectare in 2015, the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics said. 

Land planted to rice is around 4 million hectares scattered across the country of over 7,000 islands.

Vietnam plants about 7 million hectares and Thailand sows 10 million hectares. 

Given the slow adoption of new rice technology, shrinking farm land from urbanization and a swiftly growing population which is going to approach 110 million in a few years’ time – rice self-sufficiency is a Sisyphean task in the Philippines.

Now if you combine a near record El Niño with the average 20 typhoons which sweep into the Philippines every year, getting the country to produce enough rice becomes even more daunting.

The typhoon season in the Philippines normally runs into early October. The biggest rice crop in the country is harvested in the last quarter of the year.

Facts on the ground

Since 2012 though, out-of-season typhoons have regularly hit the country, with powerful typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda demolishing Tacloban in November 2013 before ravaging all of Leyte and then Iloilo, all major rice growing areas. 

So when typhoon Koppu/Lando barreled into the country last October, the damage to the major rice harvest especially on the main growing island of Luzon was in the words of an agricultural attache in Manila “extensive.”

Are all these late season storms related to climate change and an extra-warm ocean that spawns more powerful storms later in the year? For me, yes. 

Even then, the government sought to downplay the hit by Koppu/Lando.

The facts on the ground say otherwise. By the end of the year, the Philippines has imported over 2 million tonnes of rice in 2015, the highest in several years. 

Rice imports in 2016 are now approaching 1 million tonnes with the vagaries of the typhoon season yet to come.

Since El Niño will not completely dissipate until the end of June, the already bone-dry rice farms across the country will simply not get any relief. 

This is especially true since most water in the country’s dams are often allocated to the influential and politically powerful cities clustered around Metro Manila.

The plain implication if we may see more Kidapawans in the weeks to come.

The sooner the government realizes the Philippines cannot produce enough rice and is better off importing the staple food from Thailand, Vietnam, India and the United States, the better.

Farmers in the Philippines would be better off being given support and  training to grow other crops. 

Kidapawan is a failure of agriculture policy where the inability of the agriculture department and other parts of the government to come clean on El Niño resulted directly in lives being lost. – Rappler.com

Rene Pastor is a journalist in the New York metropolitan area who writes about agriculture, politics and regional security. He was, for many years, a senior commodities journalist for Reuters. He founded the Southeast Asia Commodity Digest, which is an affiliate of Informa Economics research and consulting. He is known for his extensive  knowledge of the El Niño phenomenon and his views have been quoted in news reports. He is currently an Online Editor of the international edition of the South China Morning Post in Hong Kong. 

When I listened to the presidential candidates express their views on climate change and renewable energy during the debate last March 20, I was extremely disappointed with their responses. (READ: Cebu presidential debate shows candidates' weak climate stance)

Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte had stated that the United Nations (UN) should not impose sanctions on low emitters of carbon dioxide such as the Philippines. He added that the UN should instead provide funding for the renewable development in these countries.

This statement perfectly captures why I want a future without fossil fuels for my country.

The Philippines is currently the fastest growing economy in Asia, characterized as "high-carbon growth" due to its reliance on non-renewable energy.

Fossil fuels produce 72% of the country's electricity requirement, nearly half of which comes from coal. Only 28% is sourced from renewable energy, which is predominantly geothermal energy and hydropower. (READ: PH reliance on coal contributes to climate change – groups)

The country, however, actually provides an ideal location for generating more renewable energy. Its location in the tropics, surrounded by oceans along the monsoon belt, gives the country tremendous potential for hydropower, wind, and solar energy.

The Department of Energy (DOE) lists a technical potential of 13,097 megawatts (MW) of hydropower, 7,404 MW of wind energy, and nearly 300,000 square kilometers worth of solar energy in the Philippines, which would be sufficient to provide electricity for the entire country.

This enormous potential gives the Philippines a great opportunity to capitalize on promoting investments in renewable energy, which is the fastest growing energy sector in the world.

However, efforts by the government to develop such resources have been underwhelming. The main argument of those in favor of continued reliance on fossil fuels has been that renewable energy is more expensive than fossil fuels.

The case for renewable energy

First, the cost of renewable energy has been dropping drastically in the past decade. Companies around the world, such as Apple, Amazon, Wal-Mart, and General Motors, have been making the shift.

The trend is also becoming more popular in the private sector in the Philippines, as more corporations express support for sustainable energy sources in advocacies and business ventures.

Even former energy chief Jericho Petilla stated that the electricity generated from rooftop solar panels is cheaper than electricity from a coal-fired power plant by as much as P3 per kilowatt-hour.

This development is crucial for the growth of solar energy, which currently covers less than 1% of the country's electricity needs. (READ: Coal-minded leaders left behind by green energy growth – Al Gore)

Second, the environmental and health costs of energy generated from fossil fuels are not included in the prices paid for such energy, which has fed the fallacy of renewable energy being too expensive to be considered a practical alternative.

Studies conducted by organizations such as Greenpeace, IMF, and GIZ reveal that these externalities ultimately cost both the government and the private sector billions of dollars that could have been used for other programs to promote sustainable development.

However, government policies have shown an indecisive, conflicting approach to shifting the country away from fossil fuels.

Despite the key role that the Philippine delegation played in drawing up the climate change agreement during COP21, the Aquino administration supports the construction and operation of 29 new coal-fired power plants by 2020.

A DOE official bluntly admitted during a workshop organized by the Health Care Without Harm coalition last March that health impacts are not included in assessing the costs of operating coal-fired power plants.

Such actions will undoubtedly put the population in an unsafe and unprofitable environment in the long run. (READ: Why PH should commit to being fossil fuel free)

Poverty, poor health care, and food security are only a few of the major issues that Filipinos have to face. These dilemmas will be exacerbated if we do not fully commit to the fight against climate change.

Dealing with the new climate reality requires leaders who do not rely on political agenda, outdated information, and economic interests for their decision-making.

Even though our contribution to the global carbon dioxide emission rate is very small, that is not an excuse for our leaders to continue supporting coal-fired power plants.

Regardless of how much greenhouse gases we emit, the Philippines will remain one of the most vulnerable countries to the impacts of climate change.

We need to take the initiative in switching to renewable energy and show the rest of the world that a greener energy system is worth the economic risks feared by both the public and private sectors.

Taking a moral stand

The fight against fossil fuels is more than just a political and economic issue; it has become a moral stand that our next leader must support for the betterment of the people. (READ: Climate change is the new battleground for human rights)

Now, more than ever, the Philippines needs a president with long-term vision who keeps up with current developments and capitalizes on new technologies. We need a leader who understands the plight of the people and implements appropriate and efficient measures to ensure their safety and prosperity.

We need a leader who has both the political will and charisma to inspire others to spark widespread change in a country that desperately needs it.

So why does the Philippines need a future without fossil fuels?

It is a future where the energy needs of a country blessed with an abundance of resources is in rhythm and harmony with nature.

It is a future that assures a healthy, sustainable life for all people, especially the poor and vulnerable.

It is a future where everyone, from the leader to the common man, understands the value of renewable energy, and uses it efficiently to create a world that will last for future generations.

A future without fossil fuels is already at our doorstep. Do we have the courage to go into the world waiting behind it? – Rappler.com 

John Leo Algo is a graduate student and climate researcher who also volunteers for WWF Philippines, the Haribon Foundation, and the Manila Observatory. He recently completed the Climate Reality Leadership Corps training hosted by Al Gore from March 14 to 16 in Manila.

Clearly, El Niño, dry vegetation, and fire don’t mix. Mt Apo, the country’s highest, Mt Kanlaon, tallest of all Visayan peaks, and Bud Bongao, the holy mountain of Tawi-Tawi, are in flames.

Mt Apo and Bud Bongao are burning because of errant campfires while Mt Kanlaon discharged superheated rocks to ignite vegetation baked dry by El Niño. In April 2015, Mt Kanlaon also lost 29 hectares due to an errant campfire.

Dry weather and wind can quickly spread fire to adjacent areas. Mt Apo already lost 300 hectares and the flames are still raging. The consequences are dire – in Indonesia, uncontrolled forest fires consumed millions of hectares of forest and have taken years to quell.

So what can be done to save our summits?

The first solution is to quickly create firebreaks when a brushfire begins. Firebreaks are unbroken lanes from 6 to ten feet wide, cleared of all vegetation. Looking like dirt roads, firebreaks can greatly reduce fires from spreading further.

The next solution is to enforce the ban on kaingin– the controlled but illegal burning of land which during El Niño spells, usually prove very hard to control. Wind can pick up embers and cause fires far away from kaingin plots.

The third solution is for mountaineers and trekkers to police their camps. Campfires should be immediately banned and stoves used only in open ground, at least 6 feet from dry vegetation. Spilled fuel or a knocked-over stove is all it takes to ignite dry tinder and turn a mountain into a giant pyre.

Smoking must be banned on mountains as cigarette butts smolder long after being snubbed out. Leave No Trace principles must be the lifeblood of all mountaineers: take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints, kill nothing but time.

What must be done when a brushfire abates? Reforest the area right before the rains come in, usually in June. Plant only native Philippine trees – species already naturally found in the area. Don’t introduce foreign tree species or biodiversity will be affected.

The summer has just started and already, 3 of the most famous Philippine peaks are ablaze.

Local government units, management bodies and communities must immediately look into firebreaks and education before more peaks join the conflagration.

SOS: Save Our Summits! - Rappler.com

Environmentalist Gregg Yan has climbed over a hundred mountains in the Philippines and Asia. He is an awarded wildlife photographer, a member of the Loyola Mountaineers, and a graduate of the Jungle Environment Survival Training Camp in Subic Bay. 

When people died because of Super Typhoon Yolanda, they were blamed for not evacuating early. When farmers were killed in Kidapawan, they were blamed for protesting to begin with.

To blame the victim is a reflex for many. It is by far an easier act than to ask questions why they happened the way they did.

To add insult to injury, the blame is often couched in righteous promulgations against the victim. After all, to ask questions about context and power relations is too much hard work.  

This is the job of the sociologist, often the party pooper in the public sphere. Pierre Bourdieu, a French sociologist, got it right when he claimed that the function of sociology is "to reveal that which is hidden." For the sociologist, the "hidden" lurks as taken-for-granted assumptions and behaviors that oppress people, especially those whose voices are largely unheard.  

The hard questions

Tacloban and Kidapawan, while far from each other, are not isolated incidents. These places have witnessed the disastrous convergence of natural catastrophes and government inefficiency. The impact is heaviest on the poor. And there's no reason for us to expect any sign of abating.  

As sociologists, we ask fundamental questions if only to reveal that which is hidden. These are not new but they need to be asked again and again.   

First, what are the living conditions of affected communities three years after Yolanda Second, what exactly has brought Kidapawan farmers to beg for that which they have been producing all their lives? 

Nothing can be more fundamental than the questions we are raising. Farmers in Kidapawan, together with the fisherfolk in Tacloban, are the have-nots who feed the haves. They are at the very bottom of the Philippine economic pyramid. Because we conveniently buy our food from air-conditioned groceries, many of us do not immediately see this reality.

To be fair, investigations have started and rehabilitation is still ongoing. But we bet these will take a long time. No wonder that in both places, people have taken to the streets.

Protest in Tacloban

“Hindi pa rin kami nakakabangon. Wala pa rin kaming maayos na hanapbuhay. Hanggang ngayon hindi pa naibibigay sa amin ang ipinangakong ESA (Emergency Shelter Assistance).” 

                                                                    - Tatay Selorio, 61, Tacloban (February 22, 2016)

It has been three years since Yolanda ripped through the province of Leyte, hitting Tacloban City the hardest. Issues on spoiled relief goods and missing funds remain unanswered, but the most striking has to do with the state of distribution of the ESA. According to the United Nation’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), shelter is the second most unmet need (next to livelihood) of Yolanda survivors. 

Despite the urgent need for long-term recovery through permanent housing projects, the National Housing Authority reported in October 2015 that only PhP 27 billion has been released (out of PhP 61 billion) to build 205,128 houses for all Yolanda affected communities. NHA officials have reported that these houses will be completed by 2017.  According to the Tacloban City Housing Office, as of November 2015, NHA has only built 572 out of its target 14,162 permanent houses in the city. Displaced families are still in various sites including evacuation centers, transitional bunkhouses, and makeshift settlements. 

To commemorate the second anniversary of typhoon Yolanda last year, People Surge, the broadest organization of Yolanda survivors, transformed San Juanico Bridge into a symbolic space of protest. They proclaimed that survivors from Eastern Visayas are united in demanding accountability from the government.

Protest in Kidapawan

“We bring our sentiments on the streets so that the provincial government will notice our demands.” 

                                                     – Pedro Arnado, KilusangMagbubukidngPilipinas (KMP) 

In January this year, North Cotabato was declared under a state of calamity due to the damage on crops caused by El Niño. Despite the board’s access to calamity funds, no distribution of food aid was made from February to March and farmers from different towns starved.  Kidapawan City, one of the towns severely affected by the dry spell, suffered losses of over PhP 1 billion.

In the last week of March, around 6,000 farmers and indigenous people from different parts of North Cotabato barricaded on the Cotabato-Davao highway to demand 15,000 sacks of rice and farm aid. 

But instead of heeding their calls, the state sent the police to disperse them.  Shots were fired on April 1, leaving at least 5 dead, 100 injured, and 87 farmers and 6 children missing, 78 illegally detained, and 4,500 trapped inside a Methodist church.

Anger and justice

Calamities are natural. Human disasters are not. When stakeholders fail to prepare, deaths happen. And in some cases, murder as well.

Must we blame then the victim?

Nobody takes to the streets on a whim. People cannot be simply deceived to take the heat and then the bullet. If at all, to protest, inasmuch as it can be violent, is paradoxically the last and perhaps only resort of the poor. When elected officials and bureaucrats fail to provide the most basic support, they betray the social contract between electorate and government. 

The disenfranchised are then compelled to organize themselves to protest. Nobody protests on a whim.  

In ordinary times, sobriety is necessary if only to listen carefully to the collective voices of the deliberately silenced masses. 

But when people are getting killed, punditry that justifies their death is travesty. Nor do we need at this time government apologists blabbering on what they have done. The facts remain: In Tacloban, survivors are dying due to adverse housing conditions. In Kidapawan, farmers were killed and those left behind are persistently harassed.  

At the end of the day, we ask hard questions not because we are just academics. We demand answers because we are angry.   

Especially because it is election year, these are not ordinary times. In perilous times like these, anger and a sense of urgency are virtues.  Anything less is a denial of justice and, therefore, a prolonging of people's suffering. – Rappler.com

Jayeel Serrano Cornelio, PhD is a sociologist and the director of the Development Studies Program, Ateneo de Manila University.  Veronica de Leon Gregorio is an incoming PhD student in sociology at the National University of Singapore.  They both work on Vote of the Poor 2016, an ongoing study funded by the Institute of Philippine Culture.  Follow them on Twitter @jayeel_cornelio and @nikkigregoriooo. 

This is how they silence a woman: first they tell you to shut up — because you are a woman and have nothing important to say.

And if that doesn’t work, they call you names like pokpok (whore) and bitch, or call you out for the size of your breasts or the imperfections of your face — because you are nothing but your body.

They call you stupid, to remind you of your inferiority. And if still you relent, they threaten you with rape and then tell you it’s your fault, for speaking up, for causing drama, for seeking attention.

A brief background about me: I am an opinionated woman. I usually express my thoughts through writing. I have also been working in the development sector and thus, hold some things of high value — human rights, climate justice, freedom of expression, gender rights to name a few.

Because of these deeply held views, I have outspokenly campaigned against Rodrigo Duterte and the way he wants to govern the country; how he blatantly says he will kill people; how he goes on kissing sprees in his campaign sorties. (READ: Duterte: Kissing women on lips a 'mistake')

In return I have gotten thousands of comments and messages from his supporters, some of whom I have engaged in constructive discussions, but most have attacked me as a person and have used my womanhood against me. (READ: A leader of bullies)

'One case too many'

A female friend who had the guts to reply to some of these comments have been called pokpok. She was also called out for the size of her breasts, saying her big breasts do not imply she also had big brains.

When this harassment was brought to a higher level of discourse, people tried to tone it down, saying it was an isolated case and that we should just let it pass. But violence is violence, and harassment is harassment. One case is one case too many.

Interestingly, another friend, who happens to be male, also posted against Duterte but was never told about how small or big his penis is, or was never called out for just causing drama or for seeking attention.

My point is this: we are in the 21st century, but we are still intimidated into silence when we speak out.

Blaming the victim

Last April 7, I posted an album of screenshots of messages I have received from these rabid supporters, hoping to make more people aware of what I have been going through for the past weeks.

These messages range from name-calling to grave threats. People have wished for me to be raped, and asked how much I cost for a one-night stand. (READ: 'Sana ma-rape ka': Netizens bully anti-Duterte voter)

If these weren’t disconcerting enough, some people still manage to say it was my fault, that maybe I had provoked these people to wish me harm, that I should have just kept silent. 

I cannot comprehend this logic — that by expressing my opinion, threats to my life are justified. We often see this attitude and behavior towards women.

When we get cat-called, when we get harassed, when we get raped, it is always our fault. It is because we acted in some way or said something that provoked others, and so it is okay for them to harm us.

Some say these threats are also just people freely expressing themselves. But let’s make this clear: opinion is different from threat and harassment. The latter is punishable by law.

In addition to all these, I have been blocked by Facebook for “violating community standards.” I was the victim of harassment and by speaking up against it, I get to be silenced by a social media platform that claims to support free speech. 

But the question is why?

Bigger problem

What we are seeing now is only a symptom of a bigger problem for women: we still have a culture of patriarchy where women are seen as inferior to men, where we can’t express ourselves unless we are told to do so, where our bodies and our sexuality are still used against us.

While this is becoming more obvious this election season, this is not just an issue of elections, we have to address the bigger problem that still allows for gender-based violence, sexual harassment, victim blaming, and deliberate silencing of women to continue.

Moreover, what concerns me most is how people can just wish to inflict you harm and say it so casually. Maybe it’s time to ask ourselves what we have become as a society that we need to be reminded to go back to our humanity.

As of writing, I have filed a police report against those who have made threats against me. An investigation will ensue if I decide to bring this to court.

This is how they silence a woman and they try to silence me. But I am a woman not to be silenced. – Rappler.com

Renee Juliene Karunungan is the Advocacy Director of Dakila. Dakila has been campaigning for climate justice since 2009. She is also a climate tracker for Adopt A Negotiator.

By taking a leaf from a chapter on American partisan politics, we understand that presidential campaigns in the United States are like teasers of the administration that will govern once elected by their Electoral College system.

It may be a stretch but yes, their party system in place can set the direction the administration wants the country to take in 4 to 8 years. On our shores, however, campaigns take a different turn although we use the same tools and employ almost the same campaign strategies used by our counterparts in the United States.
 
While American democratic politics is broken on so many levels according to a 2014 study by two American academics from Princeton and Northwestern University, their party system underpinned by clashing ideology – or whatever is left of its occasional callousness – remains very strong. It’s so strong in fact that one party alone can hold the entire government hostage over a single program deemed inimical to that party’s interests.

So, what is a curse to American political partisanship could be a blessing for us here – the strengthened political parties. The fact is that none of the so-called strong candidates articulate the aspirations of the people better than a political party can.
 
Parties are personality-blind as they seek their first among equals who will advance their interests and that of the constituents they represent in a fair, transparent, competitive, and sometimes brutal and passionate debate that demands a fair amount of brain power more than a dash of face powder.

In the absence of real, strong and working political parties, however, our campaigns are reduced into battles of promises and inanities. And since it is extremely difficult, if not totally impossible, to demand accountability from parties vis-à-vis promises made by their respective candidates, we can only take a cursory look at how presidential campaigns are carried out to the homestretch.
 
The grueling campaign under the excruciating summer temperature has already taken a toll on presidential candidates and their supporters whose otherwise benign remarks and vapid exchanges have turned into swearing festival on social media with wishes for some to be raped and killed. This sorry phenomenon cuts across campaigns but some quarters are simply more vicious than the others.

Instead of escalating tension and prolonging online vulgarity, some campaigns focus on the prize and stand out for their sobering approach in wooing voters to their side. At least that's how they appear from the outside.

 
The less-aggressive-more-positive tact of Senator Poe's campaign seems to benefit her, despite taking all the mud being thrown her way. If recent opinion polls were any guide, it augurs well that her campaign maintains the tact.

Although her campaign wobbles occasionally on some issues, it remains largely on-the-message, courtesy of the experts advising her on finance and climate change, among other areas of concern. Her advisers seem to have made it clear from the start that do-dirty is not their game, hence the positive tone of her campaign. (This reminds me of the campaign similarly and consciously carried out by volunteers of then presidential candidate Gilberto Teodoro in the 2010 presidential elections.) 

Despite the positive tone, the campaign of Senator Poe is fair game to criticism such that her platform is neither here nor there. And while her campaign team has reasons for maintaining calculated ambiguity, the absence of a clear political demarcation line that should have differentiated her campaign from either Roxas or Binay had many thinking that Senator Poe is actually a Malacañang stooge, in what seems to be a revival of the infamous "Villarroyo" tag that haunted the campaigns of then Senator Villar and former defense secretary Teodoro.

 
Notable also is the tenacity of the Mar Roxas campaign in explaining, with great difficulty, why building on, improving, and expanding the gains of the second Aquino administration is the more realistic formula for the next  6 years. This difficulty is borne by perceptions of incompetence that mark appointees of the administration occupying key positions who didn't or couldn't deliver on their mandates.

At various points, the Roxas campaign has been reduced into defending the administration from a series of blunders and bad judgment calls by these appointees and the fallout in the recent shooting in Kidapawan is expected to add another layer to this difficulty.

At the moment, no amount of explanation by the government can sway public opinion against Daang Matuwid (Straight Path) and anyone, candidate or not, it is associated with. Yet the Roxas campaign plods on as the opportunity of making people understand clearly how the government can best respond to their needs is as important a goal of getting himself elected to serve them.

For its part, the campaign of Senator Miriam Santiago hews closely to the logic that launched her candidacy, which is that of a statement more than a firm resolve to win. Santiago’s reliance on virtual campaign will not help improve her 2% preference rating. From a logistical perspective, her little army of non-voting age Facebook warriors do not add much value as they could not bring in a million votes despite her topping countless school-based preference polls.

Our brand of politics pays premium to pounding flesh and demands a lot of what Professor Henry E. Brady calls energetic interactions between the representative and the represented. And so Binay treads where Miriam Santiago dared not go. Her numbers, too, are bad enough she’s probably considering foregoing attendance to her own book launch.
 
Gone also are the battalions of volunteers who pooled their resources to keep her campaign afloat aside from lending warm bodies to her provincial sorties. There’s also the question on winnability, something that does not seem to bother the rest of the cellar dwellers. Senator Santiago’s winnability may have gone past its shelf life at this moment in our politics where being knowledgeable in governance is an option rather than an imperative.

Winnability aside, the rest of the elements are just not there. I say the rest because the tandem with Ferdinand Marcos Jr is largely thought of as an element for victory. Sadly, the pairing will not cut it, or will ever propel her way to Malacañang. In the eyes of her many supporters, the tandem with Marcos Jr is Miriam's own reductio ad absurdum. For being out there and remain standing, Miriam's campaign may be holding still considering her frail health. But until when?

Meanwhile, Vice President Binay’s campaign is trying to wiggle it out between the crevices and the gaping cracks left open by his rivals, notably the shortcomings of the Aquino administration. Like the proverbial "madiskarte (enterprising)" that he is known for, Binay is quick to add one more "P" to the current 4Ps of the administration’s social protection program, virtually writing his own 5Ps without breaking a sweat.

His campaign platform can best be described as an improved version of "dagdag-bawas (add-subtract)" where adding some and removing some from an existing copy is better than writing it entirely from the ground up.

But if there is one thing remarkable in the Vice President's campaign, it is that ability to poke at emotions of people who really deliver the votes. Like an old-time mountain dweller, Binay’s campaign knows where and how to get food without making the necessary trip to the lowland. After all, he's a Boy Scout, whatever that means.

Finally, Mayor Duterte’s electrified campaign is approaching near-fanatical levels with boundless enthusiasm evident in his supporters, the most active group online and offline we have seen in the 2016 campaigns. His provincial sorties are phenomenal by the sheer number of people who came to listen to him speak about change, the theme upon which his campaign is rested.

But a closer look at his campaign promises – yes, Duterte made lots of them – shows only one item that may not be in his rivals’ platform: the switch to a federal form of government. The rest of the promises are either already done or currently being undertaken by the administration and part of the Roxas continuity platform.

Just like the other camps, the Duterte campaign is not without flaws. His views on climate change and telecoms sector reform are parochial at best; they are also lamentably inoperable in a complex system that requires thinking beyond centralist government planning that Duterte has become accustomed to following decades of ruling Davao City with nary an opposition.
 
At the second presidential debate in Cebu City, Duterte resurrected his infamous Whartongate to discredit once more the business education of Mr Roxas at Wharton, which already issued a certificate to validate claims that the former DILG secretary, indeed, earned his undergraduate degree in economics from the school.

But because he is a lalaki (male), Duterte can do anything he pleases unlike the bayot (gay) Mar Roxas who can’t because he is weak, according to Duterte. (READ: Duterte dares Roxas on anti-crime promise: Try me)

The supreme irony to the change narrative, after all, is in Duterte’s bull-headedness to stand his ground even if he is wrong. The hope, therefore, that people draw from him or his campaign is a shallow one and founded on the logic of the improbable. Regardless, the people adore him and that is what matters for now. – Rappler.com

Tony D. Igcalinos is an independent program development and management professional. He is engaged in political and education reform advocacies on the side. He is originally from Bukidnon.

The May 9, 2016 Philippine elections and the November 2016 US elections will not only be a test of candidates, but a test of our respective political systems. 

As Jill Lepore in a New Yorker article declared, “Outsiders are in. Insiders are out.”

In the United States, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have ascended, with Trump within reach (not certain yet) of the Republication nomination and Sanders presenting Hilary Clinton with a stiff, unexpected challenge.

In the Philippines, either of two outsiders, a neophyte senator Grace Poe and a mayor from Mindanao Rody Duterte has a good chance of winning the presidency. Two veteran national politicians, former interior secretary Mar Roxas and Vice President Jejomar Binay, could still win as they have the machineries for victory.

How will the 2016 elections shape the discourse on the validity of the Electoral College and the future of the US political system? In particular, what is the future of the Republican and Democratic parties?

For the Philippines, will these elections be a watershed moment for social and political change that would benefit the poor and excluded? Or will the prospective winners fall back again to maintaining the status quo?

To help answer these questions, the authors have written a 3-part series – this first piece will be on the respective electoral systems; the second will be on voting blocs in the US and in the Philippines that could matter this year – the youth and women’s vote; and the final one will be on the candidates.

Political parties in the US and the Philippines

The American two-party system was not born out of the provisions of the US Constitution. In 1796, President George Washington had warned of the dangers of political parties but was unable to prevent his own secretary of treasury, Alexander Hamilton, in leading the Federalist Party against the Democratic-Republicans. By the 1800s the two-party system was a mainstay in the US political arena, with the Democrats facing the Republicans (Hewson, 2002). 

Issues that dominated party divisions in these early years included slavery, corruption, tariffs and the extent of federal government growth and authority. There is a long and convoluted history of change in the US electoral system, from how the electors were chosen to how they voted for the country’s president and vice president.

The 2016 US elections will be held on November 8, the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Presidential candidates can declare the start of their campaign as early as they want to and there are no limits to the amount of funds they can spend.

Each party’s presidential candidate is selected through a series of primaries or caucuses which began this February. In the primary system, each state’s political party determines the method of choosing their presidential candidate. They can hold a primary where they vote for their candidate or hold meetings called caucuses that occur at smaller “precinct” divisions to nominate and vote for their candidates. The number of party delegates allotted to each state is then awarded to the winning candidate. 

Some states have a winner-take-all approach where the winning candidate for the state primary gets all the delegates bound to him.  Other states allot delegates in proportion to how their party members’ voted. 

The first Tuesday in March, called “Super Tuesday” saw 13 states and territories hold caucuses or primaries which were dominated by Donald Trump (Republican) and Hillary Clinton (Democrat). The more recent April 5th primary in Wisconsin was won by Ted Cruz (Republican) and Bernie Sanders (Democrat). 

Whoever wins the most number of delegates becomes their political party’s official presidential candidate. This candidate will also choose who will be his running mate for the vice presidency. In the summer, the Republican and Democratic parties will hold their respective conventions. These 3-4 days of speeches and roll-call of state delegates’ votes have become almost a ceremonial political rally to formally announce their parties’ candidates.

This year, however, we might see something different in the Republican convention if Donald Trump enters the convention without the minimum number of delegates to take the nomination outright. Under the rules of the Republican Party, delegates are freed from their pledges after the first or second round of votes.

A failure of a candidate to garner the necessary majority in early rounds could theoretically lead to a brokered convention and another person (Speaker Paul Ryan has been touted as such a compromise candidate) could conceivably be nominated.

There is also a possibility of third party candidacies. Donald Trump, if aggrieved by the Republican Convention result, could launch such a campaign. Bernie Sanders might also feel compelled to do the same.

No such complications will happen in the Philippines. Unfortunately, we do not have strong political parties in our country. Binay and Roxas have political parties and vaunted local machineries but conventional knowledge has members of those political parties and machineries abandoning them if they are deemed unwinnable.

Duterte is running as a PDP-Laban candidate but is relying heavily on volunteers, while Poe is running as an independent even as several political parties have endorsed her. Should either win, they will have to cobble a political coalition in Congress to get legislation and their national budgets enacted.

The American electoral college

Electing the next US president is not the straightforward counting of individual ballots of eligible voters such as in the Philippines. The Electoral College determines who will be the next US president. 

On November 8, individual voters will see the names of the candidates in the ballots, but they are actually voting for a group of electors who will choose their candidates. Each political party selects their slate of electors (who cannot be members of Congress, hold federal jobs or support enemies of the state). If a certain candidate wins the majority of the state’s popular vote, then his party’s electors represent the state in the Electoral College. 

Each state is given the same number of electors as the number of representatives they have in the Senate and House of Representatives. This number is determined by the population of the state based on a census taken every 10 years. With the exception of Maine and Nebraska, the candidate who wins the popular vote receives all of that state’s electoral votes. 

To win an election, a presidential candidate needs to garner a majority, or at least 270 of 538 electoral votes.

The members of the Electoral College meet at their state capitals to cast their separate votes for president and vice president in December. In almost all cases, the electors vote according to the candidate they have pledged for, though there have been a handful of times when an elector did not follow party lines. 

Both votes for president and vice president need to reach a majority for the election to end. If majority is not reached for a presidential candidate, the House of Representatives will elect the president, and if a majority is not reached for a vice president, then the Senate votes for the next vice president. The electoral process concludes with the inauguration of the new US president and vice president in January 2017.

In the US, voters cannot choose their own presidential and vice presidential (VP) tandem. A vote for a presidential candidate is automatically a vote for that candidate’s running mate. In the Philippines, voters can split their ticket.

The VP elections here is an election distinct from the presidential contest. In all but one of our post-1986 presidential elections, the winner of the VP race was not the running mate of the winning presidential candidate. This is unfortunate as it makes the election campaigns in the Philippines more complicated than it already is. It also makes for divided governance after the elections. A constitutional amendment is necessary to change this anomalous situation.

The Electoral College or the popular vote?

Who would you prefer to vote for – a party or a person, and are the lines becoming more unclear? What would the Philippines be like should we have a stronger party system with clear platforms and visions that are carried through election periods?  It seems that we keep getting stuck in the quagmire of personal politics that can be fueled by personal vendettas. The US is also now witnessing how a big personality can overpower the party. 

What principles are being valued for each kind of electoral system? Where does power lie? In the popular vote it is the voice of the majority and representation of the individual. In the US system, it is the strength of the party and representation of states. The Electoral College was established at a time when the founding fathers did not expect the strength of political parties and that electors would pledge to vote for a party’s candidates. A strong two-party system also makes it difficult for a candidate of a third party to win.

Proponents of the Electoral College say that the system gives a voice to smaller states and special interest groups. Having a two-party system and primaries can also weed out “nuisance candidates”.  

However, there could also be a fear of letting go of the two parties’ power over the system. Perhaps the US electoral system prevents a rather expensive recount of individual votes. But would incidents where the Electoral College results do not match the popular vote make voters wonder if their votes count at all? And does an allocation of electoral votes based on a census held every 10 years reflect a big surge in a state’s population?

In US history, a popular vote winner has lost the US presidency 4 times, with the most recent being the infamous 2000 presidential contest between Al Gore and George W. Bush. 

Gore had around half a million votes more than Bush but the Electoral College votes was 271 for Bush and 266 for Gore. Hundreds of proposals to change or abolish the Electoral College have not been successful. It takes two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate to amend the US Constitution, and the approval of 38 state legislatures.    

The Philippine electoral system

There is no equivalent of an electoral college in the Philippines. In our system, the winners of the popular vote becomes the president-elect and the VP-elect. Elections are conducted at the precinct level with registered voters casting their ballots in schools, public centers, and similar places.

Under our automated system, those votes are immediately counted upon closing of the polls and the results electronically transmitted by machine to the provincial and city canvassing centers and to the Commission on Elections. Later, the results are brought to Congress, with the Senate and House of Representatives meeting jointly, for official canvassing.

Absent legitimate objections, Congress proclaims the winners once enough results are in, such that the losing candidates can no longer catch up with the winners.

The big elephant in the room for the Philippine electoral system is the reliability and credibility of the automation system we have chosen. There are many lingering questions regarding the system and there could be serious issues of legitimacy of results if the election results are close in the forthcoming elections. That seems to be the case so we are in for a tough month after May 9.

To sum up, in 2016, both the US and the Philippines could be faced with serious questions about our respective electoral systems. How our institutions, our politicians and ordinary voters respond to the challenges we have identified in this article will matter in finding good solutions to the problems we have identified.

Our next piece will focus on the last in this triad – the voters – and compare voting demographics in the US and the Philippines. This should be interesting, and could explain why outsiders have emerged as serious contenders in both countries. – Rappler.com

Dean Antonio G.M. La Viña is former dean of the Ateneo School of Government. He is an adviser to presidential candidate Grace Poe. His co-writer Denni Jayme Cawley is a Filipina ​based in Salt Lake City, U​tah, USA. Her main passion is being a wife and mother but she is ​​also an avid observer of public and international policy developments.

Last Saturday, April 9, with the release of the minute one-page resolution denying with finality the motions for reconsideration seeking to reverse its earlier ruling declaring Senator Grace Poe qualified to run for president in the May 9, 2016 elections, all obstacles to Poe’s candidacy for president are swept aside and she is now completely free to present herself before the people in the final month of the election campaign. The Court made it very clear that no new appeal or motion for reconsideration will be considered. (READ: Grace Poe: Nothing can stop me now)

The Supreme Court did an excellent job here upholding the rule of law and ensuring compassionate justice,  and it did this promptly and wisely. Now it is the people that must decide.

Without changing their original positions, the justices voted 9-6 to finally remove the legal roadblock to Senator Poe’s candidacy for president. But it was not just Poe and the people that are the victors in this case. Foundlings (and the families who have adopted them) and global Filipinos are even bigger winners. The rights of these Filipinos would have been seriously jeopardized if the Supreme Court granted the motions for reconsideration.

The primordial issues is whether or not a foundling who lost and reacquired Filipino citizenship be allowed to run for the presidency? Given her circumstances can she be considered a natural born Filipino citizen and have acquired the necessary 10 year residency, essential requirements for the position she is seeking.

In resolving the petition, the main opinion of March 8, 2016 found that there was no material misrepresentation on the part of Poe when she declared in her certificate of candidacy that she is a natural-born Filipino and a resident of the Philippines for 10 years. The high court, in the same ruling, also said that the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion when it ordered Poe’s certificate of candidacy (COC) to be cancelled.

As already mentioned, 9 sided with the majority while 6 dissented. The strong feelings generated by the controversy spurred the two camps to express their sentiments in public.

Even before the resolution came out denying the Motions for Reconsideration, the Chief Justice responded in different venues to the criticism by some colleagues on the lack of majority. She insisted that there is no room for doubt in the Supreme Court’s majority ruling. On the dissenting side, Justice Carpio also conveyed in various fora his dismay over the position taken by the majority and disclosed his belief on the Court’s failure to reach a majority that petitioner Poe is a natural-born Filipino citizen. He asserted that the SC’s voting on the issue of citizenship was 7-5-3 contrary to the claims by the Chief Justice.

The adverse decision of March 6 spurred the filing of motions for reconsideration by the Commission on Elections (Comelec), former Senator Francisco Tatad, Atty. Estrella C. Elamparo, Antonio Contreras and former University of the East Law Dean Amado Valdez.

The eventual junking of these motions for reconsideration is remarkable in that the Court did not settle with a mere minute pro-forma resolution but decided to include concurring opinions of some in the majority and the dissenting opinions of the minority who earlier expressed opposition to the ponencia.

Nine (9) justice submitted their separate concurring and dissenting opinions to the resolution denying the MRs. But for purposes of this article, we shall only discuss a number of opinions, specifically those written by CJ Sereno and Associate Justices Leonen, for the majority view and Associate Justices Carpio and Brion for the dissenting minority.

In her concurring opinion, CJ Sereno reiterates her belief that the denial is final and no new pleadings shall be entertained. She voices out her belief that the decision and the concurring opinions were strong indictments of the grave abuse of discretion that “infested” the Comelec’s assailed actions “from root to fruits”. The concurring opinion also dismisses as speculative the view expressed by the dissenters that the decision would lead to an absurd result. She likewise castigated, without mentioning names, the dissenters for their brazen attempt at tyranny, which to her, is destructive to the rule of law.  

Sereno trains her sights on her dissenting colleagues for trying “to cast uncertainty on an already tense situation.” With emphasis, she further adds, “the dissent gives excessive weight to the fact that there are 5 justices in the minority who believe that petitioner does not have the qualifications for the presidency, while ignoring the reality that there are at least seven justices who believe that petitioner possesses these qualifications.

According to her: “Since 12 justices took part and 3 did not on the matter of the citizenship of petitioner, it can be rightly said that a ruling has been made when a group of 7 emerged from the deliberations in favor of petitioner. It is offensive to the majority's pride of place that some in the minority are trying to belittle the Decision by saying that since only 7 and not 8 justices declared that petitioner is a natural-born Filipino, such position produces no legal effect. The reply to such position is simple: we are 7, you are 5. Seven is a majority in a group of 12. It is time that this reality be accepted. Whether such majority position   will be reversed in a quo warranto petition is a future matter, but the odds against its happening are quite telling.”

Chief Justice Sereno brands as misplaced the demand by some in the minority that all the members of the Court take a position on the intrinsic qualification of petitioner. Nonetheless, according to her, it is not unimportant that 7 out of the 9 already believe that petitioner possesses the intrinsic qualification for the presidency as opposed to a lesser number espousing a contrary view. She also dismisses the proposition that a full resolution instead of a minute resolution be issued. For her this would cause undue delay by 1 to 2 weeks to the detriment of national interest. Sereno did acknowledge that another case, post-election, could be filed against Poe.

Associate Justice Leonen in his own concurring opinion to the Resolution maintains that the MRs failed to aver any sufficiently compelling reason to deviate from what the Court has already decided. On the voting, Leonen states that 9 justices agreed that the petition should be granted; how each justice arrived at the conclusions is fully explained in the concurring opinions. Like Sereno, he characterizes as unfounded or baseless the fear by some that the decision would result in “chaos and anarchy.”

Justice Carpio, as expected, stuck to his original position in his dissent. In particular, he states that while a majority voted to grant the petitions, there is no ruling by a majority on the citizenship status of petitioner, since, only 7 justices voted to declare petitioner a natural born citizen. With 5 voting to declare petitioner not a natural born Filipino citizen while 3 who took part and voted to grant the petitions but did not have an opinion on petitioner’s citizenship.

Based on Carpio’s reckoning, all 15 took part in the deliberations. Eight justices concurred with the ponente to grant the petitions, 6 justices dissented. Five (5) justices wrote concurring opinions and 5 wrote dissenting while J. Peralta joined J. Caguioa’s concurring opinion and J. Bersamin and J. Mendoza merely affixed their signatures to the ponencia signifying their concurrence. He asserts that the CJ cannot validly exclude the 3 justices who took part and voted but had no opinion on the citizenship issue.

In objecting to the denial of the MRs, J. Brion subscribes to the proposition that the ponente should have at least issued a resolution explaining the majority’s view instead of disposing of the case in a minute resolution. This, to him, is a very strange stance coming from the Court whose decision is being questioned by different sectors. Brion’s dissent follows the line of reasoning taken by Carpio as regard the lack of majority on the issue of petitioner’s citizenship. By its decision, according to him, the Court committed grave abuse of discretion.

I have the highest respect for the Chief Justice and her fellow Justices, whether they concurred or dissented in this case. As I have emphasized with my constitutional law students, the highest court showed in this case the power of deliberation. We must respect that now and move on. – Rappler.com

Dean Antonio G.M. La Viña is an adviser to presidential candidate Grace Poe. He has served as the dean of the Ateneo School of Government since 2006.

April 9, a month before the elections, is the first day for overseas Filipinos to cast their votes. 

There’s a bright spot: more than a million have registered to vote (1.38 million), almost double the 700,000 registered voters in 2013.

But the lingering question is: will our OFWs turn up at the polls? In the 2013 mid-term elections, only 16% of those who registered voted. This is the lowest turnout since the overseas absentee voting law was passed in 2003.

The first time OFWs voted, in the 2004 presidential elections, 65% cast their votes. This dipped to 25% in 2010.

Why the lackluster interest?

The answers range from accessibility – OFWs have to physically go to the consulates and embassies to vote – to indifference, as Rappler’s online conversations with OFWs showed.

The Commission on Elections and some of the embassies have addressed the difficulties. In Hong Kong, the Philippine consulate offers free shuttle services to voters. 

In Italy, OFWs can either mail their ballots or go to the consulate and embassy. Singapore  also offers the same service.

Our embassies in Japan and Lebanon are fielding mobile voting precincts. 

It remains to be seen whether these efforts will up the number of voters.

Indifference is the tougher challenge. A number of OFWs say they feel their votes do not make a difference. Through the years, they say they have been neglected by government, anyway. Why should they care?

Living far away from the country has a way of detaching OFWs from politics. Survival becomes paramount and, understandably, the connection to home is focused on the personal and domestic level.

But there is a link between the personal and the political: choosing the right leaders can have an impact on the families they left behind. And on themselves: will they eventually have work opportunities in their homeland?

We hail our OFWs as heroes for shoring up the economy with their massive remittances. We look forward to a time when they can make their votes matter as much as their dollars. With their exposure to quality basic services in countries where they work, they can demand these from the leaders back home. They can enrich the national conversation with theirexperiences of good governance.

When translated into votes, they can be an influential force in shaping the future of the country.– Rappler.com

In a "minute resolution,” the Supreme Court denied the consolidated motions for reconsideration filed by those who had sought the disqualification of Ms. Grace Poe. A minute resolution is a one, two or three-liner that cites the minutes of the Court's session at which a resolution is reached without an extended opinion.

Some read it as the Court making short shrift of the motions by waving them off without so much as the favor of full argument. That is not how I see things, not especially in the light of circumstances publicly known.

It is known that while the majority of the Court maintains that the Comelec gravely abused its discretion in disqualifying Poe, it never ruled with finality on the issue of her nationality and her residence. 

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Philippine Bar Association – lawyers' associations both politically unaligned – have endeavored to make this clear, and they are to be commended for doing so. The public has the right to this information, especially as the pol ads of Ms. Poe are not exactly models of forthrightness!

What this means should be clear. Since there is no res judicata on the pivotal issues of nationality and residence, they may yet be raised – and most certainly will – in quo warranto proceedings, should she win the election.

I have said it before. I will repeat my position: The possibility of an adverse judgment in a disqualification case is one good reason not to vote a candidate to the Office of President. The Republic cannot afford a protracted period of uncertainty, with the sword of disqualification dangling over an elected president's head.

Poe would have reason to celebrate had the Court, as anticipated, ruled with finality on the twin issues of nationality and residence. It declined to do so, and so the votes remain as they were – finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Comelec but not holding her qualified either!

So, why the minute resolution? 

It was one way of setting the present dispute aside – for the moment, without having to re-enter the turbid waters of the debate on her nationality and residence. It was in effect keeping the door open to a legitimate contest – after the election.

One other reason, I surmise, is that the Court finds itself in a rather awkward position. It has found the Comelec to have acted with grave abuse of discretion.

2013 case

To arrive at this conclusion, the Court had to find what it required in a 2013 case, Malayang Manggagawa v. NLRC, to cite just one case.  

For grave abuse of discretion to be concluded the Court required this:

The term "grave abuse of discretion" has a specific meaning. An act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done in a "capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction." The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an "evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility."

Furthermore, the use of a petition for certiorari is restricted only to "truly extraordinary cases wherein the act of the lower court or quasi-judicial body is wholly void." From the foregoing definition, it is clear that the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 can only strike an act down for having been done with grave abuse of discretion if the petitioner could manifestly show that such act was patent and gross. x x x. (Citations omitted.)

In this case, nowhere in the petition did petitioner show that the issuance of the Decision dated July 1, 2002 of the Court of Appeals was patent and gross that would warrant striking it down through a petition for certiorari. Aside from a general statement in the Jurisdictional Facts portion of the petition and the sweeping allegation of grave abuse of discretion in the general enumeration of the grounds of the petition,35 petitioner failed to substantiate its imputation of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals.

Expedient?

Now, if, because the Court failed to muster the requisite majority, there was no definite ruling on nationality and residence – the very grounds Comelec rested its disqualification on, what basis was there then for a finding of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Comelec? 

In other words, the Supreme Court would have to show that the Comelec’s holding on nationality and residence in the case of Ms. Poe was patently abusive, despotic, whimsical, tantamount to an evasion of duty and a cavalier disregard for the law – a finding it could not make precisely because it refused (in the main decision) and has continued to refuse (in the Reso disposing of the MR) to resolve them, opening the possibility instead for a revival of these questions in a post-election quo warrants case.

Clearly, this was and is very awkward, and one expedient way of getting rid of it fast was through a minute resolution – to which nevertheless concurring and dissenting opinions were attached. 

It is really hard to see how one can dissent or concur with a minute resolution that merely declares what was resolved. But it has happened, probably for the first time in the history of Philippine jurisprudence. – Rappler.com

The author is Dean, Graduate School of Law, San Beda College

The global perspective on fossil fuels, one of the primary culprits of climate change, has always been focused on the immense energy it provides mankind.

However, its impact on biodiversity, while more devastating to humans than we realize, does not get as much attention. This is more pronounced in the Philippines, which is one of the 18 mega-biodiverse countries in the world.

The country ranks fifth in plant biodiversity, hosting 5% of the global flora, according to the 2014 National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity. It is also located within the global epicenter of marine biodiversity, with 22,500 square kilometers of coral reefs, which is  home to at least 3,214 fish species. The country also boasts of high species endemism, ranking fourth in bird endemism. Nearly half of its terrestrial wildlife is endemic to the country.

However, the Philippines is also one of the world’s biodiversity hotspots as many of its species face various threats or even extinction. Around 700 threatened species are found in the country, including 207 species of terrestrial mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and 76 fish species. Endangered species include the Philippine crocodile, the tamaraw, and the Philippine eagle, which are endemic to the country.

Plant biodiversity is also threatened in the country. According to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), there are 286 plant species that are either endangered or critically endangered as of 2007. A 2.1% annual deforestation rate was observed from 2000 to 2005, while the country’s agricultural biodiversity, including various crops and fruits, is also in decline.

Fossil fuels and biodiversity

Climate change is perhaps the biggest threat to biodiversity. If the Philippines continues to depend on fossil fuels, it will undoubtedly worsen the conditions of wildlife in the country and, subsequently, our well-being as a society. The entire process of converting fossil fuels to usable energy creates both direct and indirect impacts on biodiversity.   

Extraction of fossil fuels through various means such as coal mining, installation of pipelines, and construction of roads leading to the mining site causes direct damage to natural ecosystems.

According to a study by researchers from the University of Queensland, fossil fuel extraction results in noise disturbance, pollution of surrounding air, water, and lands, and destruction of forests and other landscapes that make them unfit for sustaining wildlife populations. The damage may be too drastic for these areas to return to their original states because of factors like invasive species, soil erosion, and illegal hunting.

Burning fossil fuels leads to the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, 93% of which eventually settles into the oceans. This leads to warming of the oceans, which has drastic impacts on marine life. Higher temperatures cause oceanic acidification that result in coral bleaching. This results in large-scale changes in migration and feeding patterns of fishes, turtles, and other aquatic organisms, which in turn has an adverse impact on economic activities that rely on marine resources.

Meanwhile, rapid deforestation rate caused by agriculture and infrastructure development in the Philippines does not only remove an important absorber of carbon dioxide from our atmosphere. It also deprives countless endemic species of birds such as the Philippine eagle of their natural habitat.

The resulting higher temperatures and changed rainfall patterns cause a change in migration patterns, affecting the ability of these species to reproduce. It also forces them to seek new homes in cooler, higher-elevated habitats. Their prey, however, may not relocate as fast, further threatening them to potential extinction.

The curious case of Mindanao

Despite its commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as a result of COP21 in Paris last December 2015, the Philippine government opted to rely on coal for its base load power supply in the future. The Department of Energy (DOE) has approved at least 25 new coal-fired power plants to be constructed across the country, contradicting the government's commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 70%. (READ: Coal-minded leaders left behind by green energy growth - Al Gore) 

While advocates cite the current lower cost of coal that makes it more viable to solve the current energy crisis in the Philippines, the calculated costs do not take into account its impact on biodiversity.

Most of the new coal plants will be built in Mindanao, with some of them located within or near the biodiversity areas that the government is mandated to protect.  

A coal-fired power plant operating in Maasim, Sarangani is located near the Tampoan Marine Protected Area. Fisheries expert Prof Dario Morastil explained that such a facility requires 34,000 gallons of seawater every hour to cool down its steam boiler. Removing this much seawater leads to the depletion of phytoplanktons, which is an important food source for animals such as dolphins and dugongs that can affect the marine ecosystem.

In Mindanao, an Aboitiz-owned coal-fired power plant is operating in the town of Binugao along the Davao Gulf. Another coal plant is planned to be built by the San Miguel Corporation in nearby Malita, Davao Occidental.

These waters are home to species of whales and dugongs, and is classified as a biodiversity hotspot. The release of warmer water from the pipes back into the sea can lower the presence of various fish species, which affects the fish catches in nearby coastal communities.    

Breaking free from fossil fuels is more than just an act to protect ourselves from its harmful consequences. We should also change our view that everything revolves around man.

For centuries, we have made our world adapt to us when what we should have done was to adapt to our environment. Mother Nature has reminded us of that fact in more extreme ways than we have ever expected.

The Philippine Constitution mandates the state to protect its natural resources and, in turn, protect the right of its people to a “balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature”.

The doctrines of various religions, which upholds the morality of humanity, teach that man has an obligation to preserve the world and every treasure it contains.

The time has come for us to realize that trading the long-term health of biodiversity for a short-term boost of cheap yet dirty energy is a deal not worth taking not only because it will ultimately haunt us but also because it is our duty to do so.

Life is essential, regardless of its form or appearance. If we wish to preserve our world, we need to value life outside of our own. – Rappler.com

John Leo Algo is a graduate student and climate researcher who also volunteers for WWF Philippines, the Haribon Foundation, and the Manila Observatory. He recently completed the Climate Reality Leadership Corps training hosted by Al Gore from March 14 to 16 in Manila.

Fossil fuel image and biodiversity image from Shutterstock.

Reporters who follow Vice President Jejomar Binay get used to many things on the campaign trail – hours-long motorcades under the scorching heat, rallies in cramped barangay courts, and of course, the classic lines Binay would utter at every sortie.

I started covering the United Nationalist Alliance standard-bearer as early as July 2015. I have listened to him speak in front of chief executive officers in Manila, poor residents in Pampanga, and barangay officials in Misamis Oriental.

I know that while debating on national television may not be his forte, Binay is at his most comfortable when speaking to his core group – those who belong to Classes D and E. 

Binay loves mingling with the masses, obliging requests for selfies, starting light conversations with market stall owners, and even letting senior citizens kiss him on the cheek.

His humor would come out as he cracks jokes about the elderly and when he mocks his own dark skin and shortness (even using the derogatory term “nognog” as part of his campaign strategy). 

But when he is facing business executives, Binay goes straight to the point, listing down his economic blueprint for the country. 

I also noticed that Binay always finds a way to connect himself to the crowd he's addressing, either by thanking people for voting for him as vice president in 2010 or by greeting them in the local language. 

At the core of every speech of the Vice President is the message that he would be the champion for the poor. (READ: Cinderella Man)

He would share his life story – from his childhood years when he would collect pig slop for his uncle’s backyard piggery to the days he fought martial law as a pro-bono human rights lawyer for political detainees. 

Binay would then trumpet his gains as Makati City mayor for 21 years, telling the people that what he did in Makati he would do for the rest of the country. He will also mention his stint as former chief of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority, public housing chief, and presidential adviser for overseas Filipino workers. 

He usually lambasts the administration of President Benigno Aquino III, telling audiences that he resigned from the Cabinet to protest its “crooked justice and failed leadership.” 

I have learned to listen to every speech of the Vice President, too, because he would sometimes tweak his stump speech in tune with the latest news cycle. 

In campaign speeches, Binay has brought up the allegations of corruption against him and his family, saying that these are just attempts to derail his presidential bid. (READ: The Bandit King)

He would slam the ruling Liberal Party (LP) for allegedly buying votes through existing government programs. Binay would also hit his rivals for the presidency, including LP standard-bearer Mar Roxas, Senator Grace Poe, and lately, Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte, the current poll front-runner.

Binay tells his supporters time and time again that the country needs a leader who will hit the ground running and get things done. “Giginhawa ang buhay kay Jojo Binay (Life will be better with Jojo Binay)” goes his tagline.

One needs to listen to at least two full speeches of the Vice President to understand his key message.

Here are 12 common elements in the campaign speeches of Vice President Jejomar Binay:

1. Poverty is the moral problem that needs to be addressed

{source}<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8gPm45W6Wi4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>{/source}

“Sa loob ng 5 taon, napakarami pa rin ang walang trabaho, mga nagugutom, at mga may sakit na walang magamutan. Mga kabataang hindi mapag-aral ng kanilang pamilya. Talamak na krimen at iligal na droga sa mga komunidad. Laganap pa rin ang kahirapan. Kaya ba ang tanong ng bayan: nasaan ang gobyerno?” (Makati City, July 1, 2015)

(Within the past 5 years, many continue to be jobless, hungry, and sick without the proper healthcare. There are children whose families could not send them to school. There is a high incidence of crime and illegal drugs in communities. There is widespread poverty. Is this why the nation is asking: where is the government?)

2. His 'connection' to the province he is visiting

{source}<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AgqtufJFv6Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>{/source}

"Ang tatay ko ay taga-Bauan, Batangas. Nagkataon lamang na ang napakangasawa niya, ang aking nanay, ay taga-Isabela. E minsan ang biro sa akin, ‘'Yang sa Jojo ay puno ng kakuriputan.' Bakit? Ang taga-Batangas ay talagang kilala sa mahilig mag-ipon ng pera. Tapos ang taga-Isabela, ganun din.”  (Nasugbu, Batangas, February 13, 2016)

(My father is from Bauan, Batangas. It so happened that he got married to someone from Isabela. People sometimes joke, 'Jojo is such a tightwad.' Why? People from Batangas are known for their habit of saving money. Those from Isabela are the same.)

3. His jokes

{source}<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xSiJG3pC57Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>{/source}

“Binabati ko ang aking mga ‘cousin’ – mga kasing-itim, kasing-tangkad ni Jojo Binay!”  (Manila, September 28, 2015)

(I greet my ‘cousins,’ those who are as dark-skinned and as short as me.)”

“Sa mga kapwa ko nognog, nasaan na ho kayo? Ang mga nognog, sa mga ‘di nakakaalam kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng nognog, sa Katagalugan, kapag tinawag kang nognog, bansot na, negro pa.”  – Makati City, February 9, 2016

(Where are the nognogs like me? To those who don’t know what nognog means, for the Tagalogs, that means you’re both short and dark-skinned.)

“‘Yung 4Ps, gagawin kong 5Ps! 'Yung panglimang P, libreng pustiso!”  (Bauan, Batangas, February 12, 2016)

(I’ll turn the 4Ps into 5Ps! The 5th P is free dentures!) 

“Pero diyan yata sa pagbati ninyo, nagmukha ata akong Piolo Pascual! (Makati, March 28, 2016)

(But from the way you greeted me, I think I even look like Piolo Pascual!)

4. His 'competence and decisiveness' as former Makati mayor

{source}<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Frapplerdotcom%2Fvideos%2Fvb.310621318958658%2F1181112201909561%2F%3Ftype%3D3&show_text=0&width=560" width="560" height="315" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true"></iframe>{/source}

“Pero dahil nga sa inyong suporta, dahil sa inyong dasal, naipakita ko ang aking kakayahan, naiangat ko ang buhay ng maraming taga-Makati. Naibigay ko po sa taga-Makati ang serbisyong naibigay na kailangan ng bawat mamamayan. Dahil ho sa tamang pamamahala, tayo ang kauna-unahang nakapagbigay ng libreng gamot, libreng paospital. Lahat ng pangangailangan ng mamamayan ay nagawa po natin dito sa Makati….Si Jojo Binay na taga-Makati, alam ko, lahat kayo ay tutulungan ako para malaman ng buong bansa kung ano ho ang klase ng aking pamamahala. Pakisabi lamang po sa kanila, 'di po sila magsisisi na ako ho ay iboto sa pagkapangulo dahil sa lawak ng aking karanasan sa pamamahala." (Makati City, March 28, 2016)

(Because of your support and prayers, I was able to show my capability to uplift the lives of people in Makati. Through right governance, I was able to provide free medicines and healthcare. I was able to provide what people needed in Makati.... Jojo Binay is from Makati. I know you would help me in telling the other people in the country about how I governed you. Tell them they won't regret voting for me because of my experience in governance.)

5. His rebuttal of corruption and unexplained wealth being hurled against the Binays

“Ako ho e, dahil din sa gusto ko e [matapos] ang problema ng kahirapan, ako ay siniraan, pinagbintangan ng mga bagay-bagay nang walang katotohanan. ‘Di pa sila nakunsiyensiya ‘dun! Nilait pa ko! Ang tawag sa akin, 'Si nognog!’” (Minalin, Pampanga, March 6, 2016)

(Because I wanted to help end poverty, they tried to taint my name and they made baseless allegations against me. And they did not stop there! They even insulted me! They called me nognog!’”) 

6. His top 4 campaign promises

{source}<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OAwCIjB4HAk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>{/source}

“Sa mga nagsasabing hindi ito puwedeng mangyari dahil malulugi ang pamahalaan, simple lang ang sagot ko: bilyun-bilyon ang nawawala sa pera ng bayan sa smuggling. Bilyun-bilyon ang nawawala dahil hindi wasto ang pangungulekta ng buwis sa mga mayayaman. Bilyun-bilyon ang nasasayang dahil sa hindi wastong paggastos ng pamahalaan. 'Yan ang dapat asikasuhin, hindi ang pagpapahirap sa mga manggagawang Pilipino.” (Makati City, February 9, 2016) 

(To those who say this cannot be done as the government would incur significant losses, my response is simple: billions are lost to smuggling. Billions are lost due to inefficient tax collection. Billions are wasted because of improper government spending. That must be addressed, instead of adding to the sufferings of the Filipino workers.)

7. His tried and tested experience in public service compared to Duterte, Poe, and Roxas

{source}<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BXo_VYJdT4U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>{/source}

“Dapat ho ang magiging pangulo ay nakapagpakita naman ng kakayanang mamahala. Hindi ho ‘yung baka nga may karanasan e gusto ba ho ninyong traffic na namamahala? ‘Yung MRT na mamamatay kayo sa niyerbiyos? E ‘yun e may karanasan, pulos kapalpakan naman.” (Las Piñas City, Metro Manila, February 28, 2016)  

(The next president should be able to show that he can lead. Do you want someone who won’t be able to address traffic? Or the MRT problem that makes you worried to death? That’s experience filled with failures.)

“Ni minsan hindi ko iniisip na sumumpa, iiwanan ko ang pagiging Pilipino. I am so proud of being a Filipino. I never took a pledge; I never abandoned my country. I’ve been here sa hirap at ginhawa. Pilipino po si Jojo Binay.” (Calamba, Laguna, February 11, 2016)

(Not once did I think about pledging allegiance [to another country], or abandoning my Filipino citizenship. I’ve been here in bad and good times. Jojo Binay is a Filipino.)

“Meron ho sa inyo ay sa paghanga ninyo sa kanyang mga sinasabing, “Pinapatay ko ‘yan! Puputulin ko ang ulo niyan!” ‘Wag naman. ‘Yung paghanga niyo sana ay wag niyong ilipat sa pagboto. Sa pagboto ninyo, kailangan ang iboboto niyo ay maipagmamalaki ninyo na maging pangulo. Pero mali, uulitin ko ha. Responsbilidad ng bawat Pilipino na hindi dapat maging pangulo itong si Duterte!” (Caloocan City, Metro Manila, April 11, 2016)

(There are people who are amazed when he says, “I will kill him! I will cut off his head!” Please don’t. Your admiration should not translate into votes. When you vote, vote for someone whom you can be proud of as president. It’s the responsibility of every Filipino not to vote for Duterte!) 

8. His attack against the Aquino administration's underspending

“Matatapos ang administrasyong na ito, sasabihin niya (Aquino), 'Ang savings po ganito.' Wow, when you are given a budget, you are supposed to spend that! Anong klaseng executive ‘to? How can they defend themselves now doon sa underspending?…That is not the job of a good executive. I will be a spending executive. The government is there to spend.” (Binmaley, Pangasinan, February 17, 2016)

(At the end of this administration he'll say, 'This is our savings.' Wow, when you are given a budget, you are supposed to spend that! What kind of executive is he? How can they defend themselves now in terms of underspending?…That is not the job of a good executive. I will be a spending executive. The government is there to spend.)

9. His promise of 'salaried' barangay officials, more IRA for LGUs

“Kay Jojo Binay, ang unang priority ko, kayong mga barangay officials ay magiging suwelduhan na. Hindi na ho kayo magiging honorarium at allowance. Kayong mga kawani, alam niyo ba, tinanong ko sa NEDA, ‘NEDA, bakit ayaw niyong itaas ang suweldo sa mga kawani sa pamahalaan? E taun-taon nag-aaway po kami. Bakit? E ayaw ho talagang gumasta.” (San Rafael, Bulacan, March 3, 2016)

(Jojo Binay’s priority is to make barangay officials salaried employees. You will no longer just receive honorarium and allowance. I asked NEDA before, “NEDA, why won’t you raise the salary of our barangay officials? We fought every year. Why? Because they do not want to spend. Savings, savings, savings! My God!)

“Sa ngayon, sakal-sakal pa rin ng pambansang pamahalaan ang mga lokal na pamahalaan sa pamamagitan ng mga patakaran nito kaugnay sa internal revenue allotment o IRA, na inaasahan ng maraming LGU upang maisakatuparan ang kanilang mga serbisyo at proyekto….Trouble is, usually, the smaller the LGU, the smaller its local income, so it needs more allotments from the national government.” (Quezon City, December 11, 2015)

(Right now, the national government is holding the local government by the neck through its rules on the internal revenue allotment or IRA, which LGUs expect to use to implement their services and projects….Trouble is, usually, the smaller the LGU, the smaller its local income, so it needs more allotments from the national government.) 

{source}<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JTWHcOh9szo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>{/source}

10. His plans for the business community, sacking BIR chief Kim Henares

“From 16 steps over 34 days, we shall work towards reducing it to 6 steps over 8 days to further improve the country’s competitiveness….If the basic requirements have been met, provisional permits shall be issued. If there is no decision from a certain department or agency within a certain number of days, the application will be considered as good as approved so as not to stall the process.” (Makati City, September 3, 2015)

“Because there are businessmen here, I don’t want you to have any worries. Within 30 minutes, you will no longer have any Kim Henares.” (Manila, February 29, 2016) 

11. His pitch for running mate Senator Gregorio “Gringo” Honasan II 

“Kailangan ko po ang isang tao na katulad ni Greg Honasan na puwede po akong matulog nang mahimbing.” (San Rafael, Bulacan, March 3, 2016)

(I need someone like Greg Honasan who will let me sleep soundly at night),”

12. His reminder against the ruling party's alleged vote-buying

“Kaya lalung-lalo na 'yung mga namimigay ng sa 4Ps, kayo pag nahuli-huli namin kayo eh ihahabla ko kayo, kasi electioneering ‘yan.” (Pasay City, February 15, 2016)

(Those who are buying votes through the 4Ps, we will charge you if we catch you because that's electioneering.) 

“If you are handed money in the coming days, and I am sure they (politicians) will [do this], take the money, put in your pocket, and then vote for who you want, especially the likes of Binay and Honasan.” (Iligan City, Lanao del Norte, February 23, 2016)

The Vice President would then tell voters to accept the monetary bribes, but to vote for Binay and Honasan in the end. – Rappler.com

He has said it before and continues to say it anyway. He will apologize only for the mistakes he committed. That's a clever way of telling us no, he won't, thank you.

The moral injunction behind it is that an innocent child cannot be blamed for the sins of the father. That is correct.  

Except that Bongbong Marcos cannot claim innocence.  

What Ferdinand Junior can claim is the uncanny ability of deflecting issues hurled at him. His sleight of hand? Deny the accusation, blame someone else, and invoke selective moments of glory under his father's presidency. Cue cheers from his loyalists.  

Nothing can be more surreal – and simplistic – than his narrative. He has mastered the art of creating for himself and his followers an irrefutable fantasy. In his comic book, Mr Marcos wears a cape like a superhero as if to save the Filipino people.            

Whether he believes his account or not is not a fundamental issue. The bigger concern is that his narrative of denial has gained traction. It exploits the already weak collective memory of Filipinos and has hijacked the unread past.  

And to give it the sense of hope many long for, Mr Marcos wants to carry on the unfinished project of his father.  He promises to "lead a revolution in heart, mind, and action."  

For him, the past is long gone and the future is for us to seize. As in any religion, nothing can be more compelling than this eschatology of hope. Why then should Mr Marcos, the savior, apologize?  

Too many questions

In spite of his assertions, the son cannot claim innocence. The facts are incontrovertible. He was, to begin with, already a teenager when his father declared Martial Law and in his late 20s by the time People Power took place.    

Unless he was, of course, elsewhere. And he was. Although he finished his elementary education in Manila, he left in the 1970s to continue studying in England.  He then moved to the US to study some more. He went to Wharton (yes, that same school Mayor Duterte is fond of) but no record shows he ever finished his MBA there.    

But he was not away because he was a geek and loved "philosopy, politics, and economics." No, he did not finish that degree at Oxford either.  Like the children of other dictators, Ferdinand Junior was conveniently sent abroad. Understandably, the good senator from Ilocos was proud of his academic credentials.

Until he was exposed. So now, he does not like talking about his education (or the lack of it). 

And there are many other things he does not like to talk about.

He has denied responsibility for his family's hidden wealth even if he was oficially identified as a beneficiary. He has, of course, downplayed the cruelty of the Martial Law, preferring instead to talk about the infrastructural accomplishments of the time. Some people still think that he was too young when it all happened but, of course, he was not. He became vice governor and governor of Ilocos Norte in the 1980s, during which at least two extra-judicial killings took place in his province.  In 1985, Ferdinand Junior, at 27, was the chairman of the board of Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation.  Later on, investigators found out that Philcomsat was a conduit of the family's ill-gotten wealth.              

All these facts and more are simply dismissed by Bongbong Marcos as "politics."  

Time to move on

Marcos has now topped recent surveys. He is poised to clinch the vice presidency. Before we know it, he may already be the next president of the Philippines.  

For many, that is a scary thought, even a nightmare according to a colleague. To allay people's fears, he has repeatedly said, too, that it is now time to move on.  And in his closing statement at CNN's vice presidential debate, he presented himself as one who can unite people.

And yet there are many others rendered helpless by his unstoppable victory.  By no less than the same people who witnessed his father's atrocities. And make no mistake here. The youth, often accused of ignorance, are not in fact behind him.  

Simply put, Bongbong Marcos may win but won't have popular mandate.  This is a reality that neither Mr Marcos nor his loyalists can simply dismiss. How then can he unite a people so divided?

He wants us to move on. We also want to move on. But he first needs to take a step back. 

And for him to do so, he has no choice but to dispel the very myth he has come to believe. It will be difficult though because everything about him is myth.  

If he truly wants to be a unifying leader, he must admit that his family is responsible for the mess we are in. Otherwise, he, like his mother, will forever live in a fantasy that only he could have created for himself and his loyalists.  

And the rest of us will never move on. – Rappler.com  

Jayeel Serrano Cornelio, PhD, is the director of the Development Studies Program, Ateneo de Manila University and a member of the board of the Philippine Sociological Society.  He is an investigator on Vote of the Poor 2016, an ongoing study funded by the Institute of Philippine Culture.  Follow him on Twittter @jayeel_cornelio.

The answer is the same as many other vexing problems, it depends.

Analysts often say that we have a weak political party system, and that voters really make their choice based on “personality” rather than "platform." Our system of voting for the top two executive offices in the country is the first sign of these ills.

In many countries with strong party systems, voters don’t get to mix a president and vice president from two competing parties. If you have a pick for president, you are compelled to vote for her or his running mate. In essence, voters are selecting parties, not people.

Our system is more akin to that of some Latin American countries where “split ticket” voting is allowed, that is, combining on a single ballot two candidates on competing parties. The downside is we end up with the two top positions occupied by people who were not inclined to work together in the first place.

Do Filipinos split the ticket?

In the 2004 election, only a quarter of voters (25%) voted for a tandem (SWS Exit Poll data).  In 2010, this had significantly changed to over half of voters (53%). Even with the doubling of the rate of tandem voting, overall this is still not very high.

Table 1. 2004 and 2010 election tandem votes

How is it possible that the tandem of Arroyo-De Castro has a low percentage but both still won the election? This means that many people who voted for Arroyo picked a different VP to vote for, while many of those who voted for De Castro picked a different President to put on their ballot.

The Aquino-Roxas tandem of 2010 is probably the partnership to have experienced the highest level of tandem voting in Philippine history. Even the Estrada-Binay partnership enjoyed high tandem voting, higher than what is traditionally expected.

Who are more likely to vote for a tandem?

For both years, women are slightly more likely than men to vote for tandems. For both years as well, the middle “D” class is also much more likely to vote for a tandem than voters in the other socio-economic classes.

Those in Balance Luzon, for both elections, were disproportionately tandem voters compared to the rest of the country.

In 2010, urban residents were slightly more likely to vote for a tandem, but in 2004, it was widely a rural phenomenon.

Chart 1. Tandem vote by social economic class

Chart 2. Tandem vote by area

What of the 2016 tandems?

The picture for this year’s election remains vague, although this can easily be remedied with tandem-analysis by any of the survey firms that have been doing pre-election polls. To what extent are voters likely to select tandems in their vote? There is even a vice presidential candidate running without a president.

Tracking the trend of presidential and vice presidential candidates suggests that tandem voting is not likely to be as high in 2016 as in 2015, at least given polling information at this point in the election. While Duterte has been experiencing a steady rise since declaring his candidacy, Cayetano has not seen a similar rate of increase. The vice presidential debate may improve Cayetano’s numbers, gain that he would have earned through his own performance.

Poe has been gaining slowly as well, while her running mate loses ground the closer we get to May 9. Mar Roxas is the same, his numbers are stagnant while Robredo’s support swells.

You could see in the single VP debate of this election season, only two candidates repeatedly trotted out the name of his presidential running mate, Cayetano and Escudero. Many in this crop of hopefuls have their own strong agendas: Robredo for strengthening poverty eradication programs, Honasan for strengthening institutions, and Cayetano for crime prevention.

The campaign tandem vs the winning tandem

Right now you’re used to seeing Roxas with Robredo, Duterte with Cayetano, Poe with Escudero, etc. These tandems will disappear quickly from memory as soon as the next administration is installed. What will that administration look like?

Poe-Robredo? Roxas-Cayetano? Duterte-Trillianes? Binay-Escudero? Tandems such as these are difficult to imagine, but they could be a reality, for better or worse.

In the interest of getting the best outcome for the country, even if as voters we don’t pick tandems created by political parties, we should pick two individuals who can work together. Otherwise, the Vice President becomes a wasted, powerless asset whose primary mandate is to get elected President in 2022. – Rappler.com

Notes: 2004 and 2010 exit poll data were collected by Social Weather Stations, Inc. Exit polls reflect voter-respondents’ choices of candidates after they have cast their votes.

Ma. Rosel S. San Pascual is the Chair of the Department of Communication Research of the UP College of Mass Communication.

Clarissa C. David is a Professor at the UP College of Mass Communication and a fellow of Social Weather Stations, Inc.

Under President Benigno Aquino III’s watch, there has been a dramatic uptick in bilateral tensions with China, which has gradually chipped away at the Philippines’ territorial claims in the West Philippine Sea. It's no wonder then that, for the first time in recent memory, foreign policy issues, particularly China’s maritime assertiveness in the West Philippine Sea, are expected to feature as a major election issue.

Some observers foresee a dramatic change in the Philippines’ foreign policy towards China once Aquino steps down from office in June.

A closer look, however, points in the direction of greater continuity rather than rapture in Philippine foreign policy, especially if China continues to press its advantage in adjacent waters by militarizing territorial disputes. Absent a major concession on China’s part, which seems unlikely in the foreseeable future, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the next Filipino president to effectively pursue a "reset" in bilateral relations with China.

Yet, one can’t also deny that the predisposition of the next Filipino president, depending on which candidate wins, should also be factored in. 

Roller coaster relations 

Within a decade, Philippine-China relations went from cordial to confrontational. Some (misguided) critics, in both Manila and Beijing, have heaped blame on the supposed naiveté and amateurish foreign policy disposition of the Aquino administration, which, on at least two occasions, likened China to Nazi Germany.

For sure, President Aquino as well as former Foreign Secretary Albert Del Rosario have often employed an overzealous rhetoric vis-à-vis China, which has dismissed the Philippines as a "real trouble maker" rather than a critical neighbor to engage with. And analysts, including the Chinese government, have often blamed Aquino for the dramatic deterioration in bilateral relations, pointing out the (short-lived) "golden age" of bilateral relations, under the stewardship of the Gloria Macapagal administration, in the mid-2000s. 

But this line of argument overlooks two crucial points.

First, the Aquino administration, especially in its earlier years in office, sought to engage China, to the point that President Aquino, the son of two democratic icons, chose to skip the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize award ceremony for Chinese dissident Li Xiaobo out of solidarity with Beijing. 

In response, then-Chinese Ambassador to Manila Liu Jianchao remarked, "I appreciate the understanding shown by the Philippine government of the Chinese people and the Chinese government." The following year, Aquino actually met Hu Jintao in Beijing as part of a bigger plan to expand bilateral trade and investment as well as explore a meaningful dialogue on the West Philippine Sea disputes.

Second, and more importantly, the Aquino administration has had to grapple with a new China, one that has been more aggressive in pursuing its territorial claims in adjacent waters, culminating in the de facto occupation of Philippine-claimed Scarborough Shoal in mid-2012. 

Without the requisite military capability to wrest back the disputed feature, and in absence of meaningful American assistance, the Aquino administration was left with little choice but to resort to an unprecedented legal arbitration case against China.

Nonetheless, Aquino still tried to reach out to his Chinese counterparts during the 2013 China-ASEAN Expo, where the Philippines was the "country of honor," before it was brusquely "disinvited" by Beijing. China didn’t only embarrass Aquino, who touted the trip as a potential diplomatic breakthrough, but it extinguished hopes for more effectively managing brewing bilateral disputes. 

Subsequently, the Aquino administration proceeded with filing its memorial against China at the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague and pursuing a new security pact, the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), with America.

The Aquino administration may have had its own shortcomings with respect to engaging China and defending its claims in the South China Sea. But its confrontational approach was largely a by-product of China’s reciprocal intransigence as well as aggressive push into Philippine-claimed waters.

So the question is: Will the next Filipino president be in a position to revive bilateral relations?

Limits of engagement  

There are at least 3 reasons for skepticism.

First of all, the brief "golden age" of bilateral relations has been replaced by widespread animosity and suspicion towards China. According to a 2015 Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey, Filipino trust in China hit an all time low of  -45 mid last year, compared to the -36 reported shortly after it wrested control of Filipino-claimed Mischief Reef in 1994.

A significant proportion of the Filipino population and much of the security establishment views China as an opportunistic power that tried to cut unfavorable deals with the Arroyo administration (2000-2010), which was hounded by one corruption scandal after the other. For instance, Aquino’s predecessor negotiated a Joint Maritime Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) with China and Vietnam, which was later found to be inimical to the Philippine Constitution and national interest.

Shortly after the signing of the JMSU, the Arroyo administration proceeded with China-funded/led big-ticket infrastructure projects, which would be at the center of one of the biggest corruption scandals in Philippine history. Most believed the kickbacks were a form of Chinese bribe for the controversial JMSU deal, which was challenged at the Philippine Supreme Court. (READ: Why China prefers Arroyo to Aquino)

It was very difficult for Aquino to even seriously discuss the prospect of joint development with China in disputed waters for fear he would be accused of being an Arroyo 2.0. The Aquino administration even dragged its feet, until the 11th hour, on joining the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).

When Vice President Jejomar Binay openly suggested the prospect of joint development in West Philippine Sea, he immediately provoked a firestorm of criticisms. Neither Senator Grace Poe nor Aquino’s anointed successor, former interior Secretary Mar Roxas, have, so far, dared to suggest a similar approach.

Secondly, unlike the Arroyo administration, the Philippines is grappling with an acute crisis in the West Philippine Sea, with Beijing establishing a sprawling network of dual-purposes bases and airstrips across both Paracels and Spratly chain of islands. There is a genuine fear that soon China will establish a military base in the Scarborough Shoal and/or start cutting off Filipino supply lines in the disputed waters.

No wonder then, the West Philippine Sea, is today a regular topic of animated discussion, if not outright sensationalisation, in the Philippine media and among ordinary citizens. Back in the Arroyo administration days, barely anyone knew much about the disputes. With rising popular nationalism in the Philippines, Aquino’s successor will face an even more critical and sentient public opinion, which will restrict his/her room for maneuver.

Lastly, the Aquino administration has overseen a massive upgrade in bilateral security relations with its key allies, the United States and Japan. It would seem certain that both of these countries, which are among Manila’s leading trading and investment partners and have stepped up their opposition to Beijing’s maritime assertiveness, will lobby hard to ensure that the next Filipino president will not dramatically alter the Philippines’ China policy.

Looking at the rhetoric and platforms of all the leading candidates, there are, however, indications that Aquino’s successor will use more measured rhetoric, and will likely try to leverage any favorable arbitration outcome, which is expected in coming months, as a springboard to exact certain concessions from, and improve bilateral relations with, China.

Duterte's stand

Interestingly, the currently-leading presidential candidate, Rodrigo Duterte, has not only echoed Binay’s joint-development proposal, but he has gone so far as suggesting that if China will "build me a train around Mindanao, build me train from Manila to Bicol... build me a train [going to] Batangas, for the 6 years that I'll be president, I'll shut up."  

Duterte has also, quite to the astonishment of many defense experts, effectively opposed ongoing plans at developing the Philippines’ minimum deterrence capability through the purchase of advanced fighter jets. The tough-talking mayor, who has built a legion of uber-loyal constituency, may have developed what Nassim Taleb calls (political) anti-fragility – that is to say, he seems to get away with saying many things considered unutterable.

But it remains to be seen whether he is just throwing out random proposals or instead uttering a foreign policy conviction that may demand tremendous political capital to actualize. (READ: Duterte's last resort on West PH Sea: Let's not insist on ownership)

The ball, however, is in China’s court.

The new Filipino president’s room for maneuver will expand if, for instance, China agrees to, say, a mutual disengagement from Scarborough Shoal, end the siege on the Filipino detachment in Second Thomas Shoal, and promises not to cut off Filipino supply lines the Spratly chain of islands. The two sides could also start discussing ways to revive bilateral investment relations, since China has a very limited footprint in the Philippines’ infrastructure landscape. 

All of these options seem a long way off.

Don’t expect a major or swift reset any time soon, unless the next Filipino president is popular enough to withstand any political backlash and willing to stake his political survival to revive relations with China. – Rappler.com

Richard J. Heydarian teaches political science at De La Salle University, is a columnist for Aljazeera English, and the author of “Asia’s New Battlefield: US, China, and the Struggle for Western Pacific” (Zed, London). A shorter version of this piece was published by Lowy Institute for International Policy, Sydney, Australia. 

Uy, malapit lang. Sa Herndon. Madaanan nga. (Herndon, it's just near. Why don't I pass by?)These are the first thoughts that ran through my mind when I read that Rappler article entitled, "What we know about Grace Poe’s house in Virginia." I have heard from friends here that Grace Poe and family once upon a time lived nearby but I did not know where or how glamorous the house was. It was time to visit it. The address was 2809 Winter Oaks Way, Herndon, Virginia 20171.

I checked Google Maps and it said 8.5 miles or 25 minutes from where I was in Tysons Corner, Virginia. It was a perfect getaway during lunch break as the weather has vastly improved, no more snow on the street, no more cold air. It’s almost springtime. I needed to get out to drive around. This was the perfect excuse.

Mostly I just wanted to see how elegant it is, as the photo on the Rappler article (obviously from an online real estate website) makes it appear like a mansion. Other online stories said it is one of the most expensive houses in the county.

I came, I saw, I took photos on my iPhone. I observed the community, too. Here’s the gist: no, it is not a mansion and it looks like any ordinary well-maintained house in a well-kept residential neighborhood.

Pretty but not 'million-dollar'

This is not to say that the house isn’t pretty from the outside. It is but it is not a “million-dollar” property nor is it located in a posh, ultra high end, gated community. It is not one of those 7,500 square feet or more elegant mansions situated on a 3 or 5-acre lot with many other mansions of similar size right next to it.

Just from the outside (I don’t think anybody was home) and assessing the surrounding residential community, the house appears to be a property that would typically be owned by a family with both parents working decent-paying jobs. (See photos below.) It is not a house that would strike you as owned by a multimillionaire, by someone who just sold his/her e-business to Microsoft for $$$ millions, or by someone who benefited from inappropriately secured wealth sourced elsewhere and stashed in the US.

In short, it was not ostentatious by any stretch. It pales in comparison to Janet Napoles’s daughter’s alleged property in Los Angeles, California, specifically Unit 37I at the Ritz-Carlton Residences that’s worth almost $2 million. It was nothing like that.

But note that this home is not a property that can be bought by just about anyone. Given the community, its location in Herndon, the short distance to Washington DC, the assigned public schools, its conduciveness in raising a family, proximity to commercial areas, and it being a part of an appealing cul-de-sac – interested buyers will need a certain amount of steady income.

If Grace Poe worked as a preschool teacher, in sales, and then as a procurement liaison officer with a government agency, while the husband worked in IT, there is no question that they can afford this house. Hindi lang ipon ang basehan kung di credit score din at lalo na ang current employment/income profile (The basis is not only one's savings but the credit score as well and most important, the current employment/income profile).

Sold for $947,000 in 2006, bought for $450,090 in 1999

The impression of many in the Philippines is that a house sold for almost a million dollars in 2006 is very expensive as that's about P46,000,000 at the current exchange rate. (In 2006, it was P53 to $1.) Who would buy a P46-million peso house? Only the very rich could possibly afford this, some would say. But see, there are a lot of factors that contribute to why a house costs this amount in this area but may cost far less in another area despite having the same house size, lot size, structure, architecture and amenities.

Grace Poe and her husband purchased the property on June 1, 1999, for $450,090 from the builder. In 7 years, the value of the property more than doubled and they were able to sell it for $947,000 in mid-2006. Again, because of the great location of the house, the highly rated public schools around it, and proximity to Washington, DC (Herndon is a DC suburb) and Tysons Corner, it is no wonder the property quickly appreciated in value. When they sold it, they most likely earned a handsome profit.

Remember, though, that they bought it for $450,090. This is the cost or amount that should be highlighted as that was what they were able to afford in 1999. It was Poe’s and her husband’s luck – perhaps foresight – that the house they bought for their family would have increased in value by almost half a million dollars in just a few years.

Yes, they were successful in selling it for $947,000 to a couple in 2006. But the reality is that homes in the Washington DC metro area belong to one of the most expensive housing markets in the US.

Here’s one thing that is not being discussed. Imagine if Grace Poe and Neil Llamanzares waited for another year or so before selling the house with the actual closing taking place in late 2007 or 2008. Do you remember what happened starting in late 2007 that sent the whole financial world crumbling (maybe not in the Philippines)? The most recent US recession that affected many global markets.

At that point, many properties lost their value. People couldn’t sell their houses or lots because no one would buy them. Even if somebody was interested, the value was so low (underwater prices) that it was best to simply hold on to the property until the market improves.

Had that scenario occurred, Poe and Llamanzares would not have been able to sell that property for $947,000. Assuming they still wanted to sell it in 2007 or 2008, the closing price would have dropped a few hundred thousand and there will not be a discussion today of it being a “million dollar home”.

Twice as large as neighborhood houses?

It doesn’t have 9 bedrooms. According to Redfin.com and other real estate websites, it has “9 rooms” but this includes rooms that are not bedrooms but are still part of the house. The house has 4 bedrooms.

At 3,468 square feet, 2809 Winter Oaks Way, Herndon, Virginia 20171 is not a small house anywhere in the US. That’s bigger than where my family and I presently reside. But it is not larger or twice larger compared to neighborhood houses. It is not the largest, most towering house in the hood, unlike those in the following photos:

Take a look at the photo below. That is the house on the immediate right of the former Poe/Llamanzares home. That house is larger than the home in question, appears more expensive and more stylish, and is a corner lot to boot. Those two houses and others near them form part of a nice cul-de-sac.

Now look at the Google map below. The red balloon with a dot in the middle is Grace Poe’s former house. Just by looking at the structures of the houses, it is not bigger than the other homes in the community. The lot sizes are also pretty much the same. With the lot size at 9,916 square feet (0.09 hectares), Poe’s lot is not very big but neither is it small. It’s just the right size to put up a backyard play area, a patio and maybe a grill.

House prices and house sizes are relative in the US. In some parts of Virginia, you can build or buy a very large house that costs only a fraction of Grace Poe’s house (as sold in 2006). But this would mean that such house is located far from city centers, very far from DC and Tysons Corner, with probably not so good public or private schools for your kids, limited employment opportunities, and perhaps needing to go through some rolling hills.

The same is true for other regions in the US. There is a premium to pay if a homeowner wants city or suburban living with great public schools.

Relatively easier to take a home loan in the US

Another thing that can easily be lost in the shuffle is the relative ease to take a home loan in the U.S. compared to the Philippines and elsewhere. Of course, this goes without saying that the person seeking the loan has a steady stream of income and has undergone strict background and financial investigation.

As Grace Poe and her husband were working in good-paying jobs during the time of their residency in Virginia (in the city of Herndon, in the county of Fairfax, in the Commonwealth of Virginia), it is no surprise that they were granted loans that enabled them to purchase the property. According to Rappler research, the couple was able to take out at least 4 mortgages using the house and lot as security.

Thus, it cannot be argued that they paid $450,090 in cash for the property in 1999 or that it can be assumed they actually had $450,090 in cash sitting in a bank (but most likely they had, given the husband’s background and Grace Poe being the daughter of two very famous and successful Filipino movie stars).

Ever heard of a relative’s or friend’s story about borrowing money in the US to finance the purchase of a Philippine property? It might not be very common but it does happen.

By the looks of it, it would seem that Grace Poe and her husband embodied the classic example of highly educated Filipino parents (or Filipino-American parents in their case) who worked in good paying jobs that allowed them to purchase a very decent home and raise the family in a quiet, suburban neighborhood.

Not McLean or Great Falls

If you want to know where the great mansions are in Northern Virginia, look to the cities of McLean and Great Falls. Not every house in either city are mansions, but they are generally concentrated there. If you drive through some of the neighborhoods in these adjacent cities, it is common to see soaring mansions with 5 to 10 bedrooms, great architecture, long or circular driveways, manicured lawns and landscaped gardens. Lot sizes vary but usually start at 2 or 3 acres. My family lives nearby – sa McLean gilid (periphery), just like houses in Ayala-Alabang gilid.

These McLean and Great Falls mansions do not have security guards as those are very uncommon in the US. Not many gates either but there are some gated estates. A few of these houses are so spectacular that they have full views of the Potomac River. Some have tennis courts, large pools, gazebos and sport courts. Median income is very high. Most of the owners are highly educated. As expected, the public schools assigned to these Northern Virginia cities are at the top end state-wide and country-wide.

Who lives here would be the question in your mind when you drive through. Many government contractors, defense contractors, diplomats, businessmen, members of Congress, and high-ranking government officials live in these two cities. Both cities are on the Capital Beltway.

But, no, Grace Poe did not live in McLean or Great Falls. If she did and it was in one of those mansions, then you and I might raise suspicions. Or raise eyebrows. But she didn’t. She lived nearby but still not in those two cities with the highest concentrations of mansions and wealthy people in Virginia.

I agree with the Rappler article: nothing seems fishy with the former house of Grace Poe. Well, nothing fishy at this point at least. – Rappler.com

Disclaimer: The ideas and content above are solely the opinion and perspective of the author. They are not representative in any way of the position, opinion or outlook of his past or present employment affiliations, nor should they be interpreted as any form of legal or tax advice.

Carlo Osi is a lawyer & writer based in Metro Washington DC and was educated by Georgetown Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Wharton School of Business, Kyushu Law, and UP Law. 

The vice-presidential debate organized by the Commission on Elections enriched the campaign discourse.

Overall, it was instructive in getting to know more about the 6 VP candidates. It gave the public a rich source of insight into their personalities, ideas and demeanor under time pressure and in the full glare of klieg lights.

The other VP debate on April 17, put together by ABS-CBN, wasn’t as engaging because 2 of the candidates – front runner Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr and Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan – did not show up. But Marcos' absence did not prevent his party mates Alan Peter Cayetano and Antonio Trillanes IV from hitting him.

Really, why should we care about these 2nd-tier candidates?

The foremost reason is that any of them can become president in case the incumbent dies or is unable to rule.

But should the affairs of state remain normal, the VP, in the Philippine context, is given a Cabinet post. Examples: VP Gloria Arroyo was secretary of social welfare and development during Joseph Estrada’s abbreviated presidency. Jejomar Binay was President Benigno Aquino III’s housing czar.

Arroyo eventually became president and Binay is toughing it out in the 2016 presidential campaign.

It should be logical that we vote for a president and vice president belonging to the same team so that they can work together to lead this country of more than 100 million forward. A president would need all hands on deck in addressing this huge challenge.

But our Constitution allows us to mix and match, to pick a president from one party and select a VP from another, to fulfill whatever our desire is.

This practice seems to fit in our unruly multi-party system where bizarre tandems have emerged.

Cayetano, a Nacionalista Party member, is running with Rodrigo Duterte of PDP-Laban. Same with Marcos, who is also with the NP, choosing Miriam Defensor Santiago of the People’s Reform Party as running mate.

We even have an orphan VP candidate, Trillanes, who likewise belongs to the NP. A VP candidate running solo is unprecedented.

Of the 6 VP candidates, Leni Robredo and Gregorio “Gringo” Honasan are running with their party mates.

Francis “Chiz” Escudero has declared himself an independent candidate and teamed up with Grace Poe. He used to be a member of the Nationalist People’s Coalition

The debates, thus far, have helped shine a light on the 5 gentlemen and 1 lady.

The bottom line is: the VP we choose should stand for good governance, values public interest rather than self-interest, does not have an abiding sense of entitlement, is not beholden to vested interests, has no history of stealing, is worthy of our trust, and has shown leadership skills. – Rappler.com

I could barely watch the short video clip of Davao Mayor Rodrigo Duterte, candidate for president of the Philippines, proving yet again that he is a sexist piece of ordure.

Here is my own transcription. 

“Ni rape nila ang lahat ng babae...Ang isa nito yung lay minister na Australyana. Problema na ito. Ang Australian (inaudible) sige ng tawag eh. Paglabas, binalot. Tinignan ko yung mukha. Tangina parang si.. mas..parang artista sa Amerika na maganda. Tangina, sayang. (Boisterous laughter.)  Ang pumasok sa isip ko, ni-rape nila, pinagpilahan nila doon. Nagalit ako. Kasi, ni-rape, oo, isa na rin yon. Pero, napakaganda. Dapat ang Mayor muna ang nauna (more laughter and catcalls).”

(They raped all the women. One of them that Australian lay minister. The Australian (inaudible) had been making repeated calls. They took out the body and wrapped it. I looked at her face. Son of a bitch, she was like..more like..like an American movie star. Son of a bitch, what a pity.  [Boisterous laughter.] It came to mind that they raped her, they queued up to rape her. I got mad. Because, rape, yes, that's one issue. But she was so pretty. The mayor should have gone first.” [More laughter and catcalls.])

A history of sexual offense

This is just the latest and perhaps most intolerable of the mayor's assaults on women. Even before his campaign began officially, he bragged about his two wives and two mistresses.

At the start of his campaign he kissed women, forcibly on the lips some of them with a french kiss. He even boasts about it: “I haven’t been to a place where I’ve kissed as many girls. Lips to lips, even with tongue, because it’s delicious. Never mind if I lose, as long as I get to kiss all the beautiful women.”

Later he admits to having been charged by a woman with acts of lasciviousness. He rationalizes it, as every sexual harasser does, my minimizing it, “I only pinched her arm.” He then goes on to gloat about it like a true sexual harasser and makes it appear that such wickedness is but natural to a man: “I was also charged with acts of lasciviousness. But you know the woman was really very, very beautiful that if you do not touch her, you will die. I was just saving my life.”

Other videos have surfaced where he admits to acts of voyeurism as a young boy. In the video he also implies that he masturbated after peeping. What makes this even more foul is that the victim was their house help.

Before his egregious remark about rape surfaced, his latest vulgarity was saying he would make leading vice presidential contender Leni Robredo, assistant president, on the grounds that she is beautiful.

Rape culture and denigration of women

What we are dealing with here is a man who believes what all rapists, sexual harassers, peeping toms and male chauvinist malcontents believe: that women are less than human. Women are placed on earth primarily for men's entertainment. Women are judged mainly on the basis of whether we are sexually appealing to men. 

In Duterte's misshapen world view, women are judged as to whether we are pleasing to him and his gang of slobbering, leering perverts. I mean, of course, the ones guffawing and catcalling all over his videos. He calls the death of the Australian lay minister a waste, not because a decent human being has lost a future where she could bring hope and joy to others, but because her death has closed his sexual access to someone he finds attractive. And they laugh at this. THEY LAUGH AT IT!  THEY THINK IT IS A JOKE!

In their thinking, women are mere objects of conquest. Objects to be amassed and acquired like money or cars. Like other commodities, women are perks that come with power, whether that power is that of the domineering man over his subservient wife and hapless children, or that of the mayor. They love Duterte, these petty tyrants, because in his world they can  live their fantasies through his tales of female conquests. They will allow the mayor to go first. They will indeed give him the privilege of being rapist-in-chief.

Thus, even a woman named Leni Robredo who is currently whipping his own running mate in the surveys, will get no respect from Duterte for her accomplishments. He won't take her into his government because of her accomplishments, but because she is pretty. A woman not as pleasing to him would not be deserving no matter what her qualifications. What women are as human beings, our virtues, accomplishments and potentials are nothing to him and his gang of leering lechers.

Any other form of masculinity is inconceivable to these rotting reprobates. Perhaps they are aware of what failures they would really be if they lost the unfair advantage they have over women in an equal society. Duterte's gang is so threatened by men, like presidential candidate Mar Roxas, who will not take the stances of an oversexed miscreant, that they rejoice when Duterte calls him “bayot” (gay). Gay men threaten these knuckleheads because they cannot conceive that “real” men would not want to enjoy the sexual dominion they have over women. 

Men who can treat women with respect, who do not take aggression against women (and the enemy) as a virtue, are so inconceivable to these debauched duds. They cling to the delusion that only they are the real men. Because they can kill, because they can rape, because they can sexually harass, because they can bash gay people.

Certainly Duterte cares not about women's feelings. Not the pain of the househelp he victimized as a young boy, the woman who charged him with acts of lasciviousness, his wife who has been psychologically abused by his repeated infidelities, his second wife and mistresses who put up with his unbridled lechery.

He cares not for the pain of the family of that Australian lay minister so he mocks her dead body. He cares not that such tasteless jokes are felt deeply by every rape survivor who sees that disgusting video. (Believe me,  I know. Rape survivors who are my counselees or friends are in pain because of this.)

What kind of honesty?

His supporters claim that when he makes these coarse remarks that he is at least honest and transparent. They have mistaken the virtue of honesty for the process of transparency. They have mistaken openness for decency. We want transparency so we may find out what a candidate is like. What his values are, his platforms, whether his mistakes are understandable and forgivable. Many times indeed, evil hides in the dark and silent places. But just because a man is open about his crimes and his lewdness does not make him worthy.

Thank you for the transparency, Mayor Duterte, now we know you are a shameless satyr.

What is proven by this unabashed celebration of his sexual incontinence is that Duterte is incapable of guilt or remorse. He has in fact refused to apologize for his calumny. Of his cruel and crass statement he says there is no need to apologize because it was “talagang (really) called for."

This is insensitivity one would expect of a person who has only one head and it is in his pants. This sense of impunity when putting down women, is worrisome. Little wonder he also brags about his capacity to kill people.

No sex for the lewd

I suspect that many of Duterte's supporters are those who believe as well in this macho rape culture. Sure, there are decent men and women who support him. But I don't think there are enough of these to drive his popularity. His campaign is bringing out the worst in men. This is a classic political trick. Many demagogues have ridden into the office on a wave of aggression which they themselves have evoked.

Ah, but Duterte has gone too far. Not all men are victims of machismo. Many are appalled by the culture of rape and violence that they know victimizes their loved ones because it victimizes every decent person. Many, many more women understand that Duterte's putrid ideas about women are a direct threat to their safety.

It is time that we bring Duterte and his salacious henchmen to heel. As of this writing I know of several efforts that are being planned by various women's groups.

But individual women can contribute at once  by resorting to a classic technique that has been used against violent machismo since antiquity to the present.

It is time we deny Duterte and any of his supporters sex. Yes, I mean it. People like Duterte live on the sexual privilege given to men by a decaying and immoral patriarchy. And while patriarchy has deluded, cajoled and forced women into giving sexual services to those who look down of us, it can never completely take away our power to refuse.

I am unsure as to whether the women who give their sexual services to Duterte can deny him. It is obvious that for whatever reasons, they choose to be with him despite his obviously repulsive character.  But his supporters are far more vulnerable.

I call on all women whose husbands and lovers continue to support this man to stop caring for them until they change their vote. Stop cleaning their rooms, ironing their clothes, cooking their meals. Most of all, bar them from your beds. I call on all sex workers to refuse sex to men who support Duterte.

We owe it to ourselves, our sons and our daughters to stop this degenerate candidate now. We owe it to to all women, children and men who have suffered violence because of the kind of sexual culture Rodrigo Duterte revels in. – Rappler.com