In the United States, a mudslinging showdown between two would-be national leaders, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, is on track. This was made all the more evident by the sharp and contrasting rhetoric of the two presidential candidates following the horrific night club shooting in Orlando, Florida, a few weeks ago.

Trump doubled-down on his call for a temporary ban on Muslim immigrants to the US as part of his get-tough-on-terrorism persona.  Clinton was quick to continue her efforts to paint the billionaire as not having the temperament to be president.

And in the Philippines, the electorate in this one-time student of American democracy is bracing for its own leader in political incorrectness.

Who would have thought a man who vowed to kill criminals and grant himself a presidential pardon, who boasts of being a womanizer and has joked about wanting to rape a missionary and talked of the killing of journalists, would win a popular election and become head of state. Such is the dramatic turn of events in the Philippines, a nation shaped by centuries of Spanish and then by decades of American colonial rule. 

With the tough-on-crime Davao Mayor Rodrigo Duterte taking office as president, it seems, it is “more American” in the Philippines these days.

The Southeast Asian nation, however, is not alone. The demand for strong leaders is evident everywhere. Witness the rise of Vladimir Putin in Russia, Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey, Xi Jinping in China, Viktor Orban in Hungary and Narendra Modi in India. Somewhat late to the party but no less striking is the rising popularity of Trump. 

With the gradual increase in prosperity after World War II and the end of the colonial era, there was a notion, perhaps misguided, that the demand for freedom and democratic rights would follow a linear path. 

Today it would appear that people are increasingly ready to relinquish their rights for a measure of security. Fear and uncertainty are gripping the world and guiding a course that could lead to closed borders and markets, clamp downs on basic human rights and an erosion of empathy for the huddled masses still yearning to be free.

Fear and insecurity are a lethal combination. Leaders and would-be presidents are capitalizing on the frustrations of ordinary people and their understandable and increasing disgust with inequality, corruption, the concentration of wealth, and, collectively, the feeling that citizens are not better off today and may well not be so either tomorrow. 

In the West, economic prosperity and the certainty that hard work would be rewarded has fallen prey to globalization and digitalization. Manufacturing shifted from the West to countries that offered cheap labor. Technology further disrupted industries. 

More disruption is inevitable. Self-driving cars, robotic service personnel, Artificial Intelligence systems that replace financial analysts, paralegals and copy editors – the list goes on. 

Example of disruptions

A 2013 report out of the Oxford Martin School at the University of Oxford estimated that up to 47% of jobs are under threat of displacement by technology in the next 20 years. Add to this the potential impact of climate change, terrorism, the refugee crisis, and pandemics, and the fear factor multiplies. 

The recent vote by UK citizens to leave the European Union is perhaps just the latest example of disruptions to come in the established order. 

Across the world, political systems have performed poorly. In developing countries, governments are failing to provide jobs for growing populations. In developed countries, legions of underemployed face leaders who have not come up with a way to combat the displacement of the work force as a result of technology and globalization.

Broken promises and the failed policies on the part of the political actors have now led many citizens to reject the democratic political system altogether. Calls go out in the United States, in Asia and elsewhere for strong leaders to revive the old order and make once great nations “great again.”

Yet, no longer is the nation-state the only framework within which to work. Problems have to be solved in a global context. More than ever, our world needs bold leaders that also will double-down on multilateralism, strengthen regional alliances and global organizations to coordinate policy responses. We also need an inclusive global digital agenda that ensures a role for human labor that is economically and politically feasible.

The belief that interdependency can be defeated by isolationist politics is misleading. Building walls and imposing trade barriers will make the people they are meant to protect less adaptive and resilient than those outside them. They will weaken economies as they breed resentment and leave us ill-prepared for global threats that demand cooperation to solve.

In this time of fear, when people are willing to give up their power to the strongman – or strongwoman – democracy itself is under siege. But the forces they are seeking protection from are far beyond the abilities of one person to control. They will give up their freedom in exchange for security and they will end up with neither.

It is never too late for leaders or would-be leaders, and the people who support them, to change. – Rappler.com

Curtis S. Chin, a former U.S. Ambassador to the Asian Development Bank, is managing director of advisory firm RiverPeak Group, LLC. Follow him on Twitter at @CurtisSChin. Meera Kumar, a New York-based freelance writer, was formerly with the ADB.  Her commentary has appeared in journals throughout Asia.

Dear teachers and parents, administrators and staff, education partners and stakeholders: 

Not too long ago—six years to be exact—I remember making those first cautious steps as I entered the hallowed halls of our Bulwagan ng Karunungan here at the DepED Central Office in Pasig where I received the department’s colors from my predecessor. At noontime today, I will return home to my community of De La Salle Brothers to be assigned to yet to another ministry still in education after a year of sabbatical. 

At the start of my term, I was so stricken by the quixotic ideal to serve and change the system. At times I would be driven with a messianic complex and seek to be the savior of 47,000+ schools. I can’t help but take things personally when I would read about the travails of a student who would have to walk miles daily or the predicaments of a debt-ridden teacher on whom an extended family depends. Faced with the biggest bureaucracy in the Philippine government, it dawned on me after a while that I would end up disheartened if I even tried to singlehandedly overhaul the educational system just so I can leave my imprint in the department. (READ: DepEd's Luistro: A profile)

At one stage I thought it was about quick fixes like replacing broken glass on battered windows or painting over vandalized walls. At another time I thought about substantial changes such as addressing the backlog of 66,800 classrooms or even providing every learner with books they can actually bring home. But I also thought about radical changes such as the K to 12 reform which requires a complete restructuring of the educational system that we have gotten used to for nearly a century. 

Unforgettable 

I am glad that I made the conscious decision to make unannounced visits to hundreds of schools especially those which are farthest from the center. It may be a serendipitous move and yet it left the most profound change in me. I realized it was not about the change that I can make in the world. Those whom I was privileged to meet in those unannounced visits have become my mentors. As a disciple at the foot of his master, I learned from you that it was not only about fixing broken windows or cleaning up ala Brigada Eskwela style. You taught me that it is about caring for every student in class as though he or she were my own child, and as though he or she is the only one in the world.

I cannot forget Principal Fe who was among the first to welcome students when school reopened after Typhoon Sendong. While nursing an injured leg, she was dutifully making the rounds of the campus checking on her students and inquiring on those who have not yet reported that day. When I asked why she has not sought medical attention, her reply stunned me: “But Brother, let me first account for every student and teacher under my care. When I am sure they are all safe, I can start worrying about my leg.”

I cannot forget Teacher Lorna, a newly-hired Muslim teacher who used her body as human shield to safeguard her primary school students against a deranged man who ran amok in her school that day. She was the sole earner in her family but she never hesitated to offer her life so that her students may live. She died from multiple stab wounds on her back but her students survived.

I cannot forget Teacher Vangie’s calming words before an agitated police officer who threatened to pull the pin of a grenade inside her classroom. Disregarding his threats, she asked if he had kids of his own with dreams for themselves. Having engaged him thus, she then pleaded with him to spare her students who shared those very same dreams. Her plea made him come back to his senses and caused him to surrender peacefully.

I thought my task was to inspire and encourage you but your commitment and true-to-life stories gave me the courage and inspiration to pursue with audacity the multiple and varied needs of every learner and stakeholder. Providing classrooms and furniture, computers and equipment took on a whole new meaning. It was no longer just about filling the gaps and addressing the backlogs of the past. It was about knowing and touching the lives of 24 million learners and walking with them side by side to pursue their dreams. It was about taking care of my long-lost sister and my long-lost brother.

Throughout our six-year-long journey, our reform took on a life of its own—not without our share of critics and detractors. Yet, amidst all the challenges and controversies, it was your passion and optimism that kept me committed to run the race to the finish. Just as you believed in our students, you also believed in me, and you believed in what we were fighting for.

Goodbyes 

We watched this reform evolve from a young vision, to a myriad of policies and programs that broke barriers and reached for the farthest stars. But we were more than watchers; we were the catalysts for its growth, and in the process we too grew with it. It has been our life for the past six years. As you have also been my life for the past six years.

I will return to a more private life with my Brothers in a religious community setting. But every time I would pass by a public school, I will always remember all the good times we shared and the tears we shed in our pursuit of a better future for our learners, and ultimately, for a better Philippines. Six years is too short a time to see big results. The seeds we have planted need to be nurtured for years. We need patience and faith that underneath the dark loam, the seed is alive and is growing. We need to see it through before we can enjoy the fruits of our labor.

Everyone who has been with us in this journey will remember that it began with a simple dream to make a difference in the lives of our Filipino learners. Over time, we saw ourselves not just doing the tasks and responsibilities required of us but eventually investing of ourselves to make those dreams happen. And then one day we woke up to realize that we were not just working to reach our goals but have actually fallen in love with those whom we sought to serve. There were disappointments and disagreements along the way. We made mistakes and at times hurt those who shared the same dream. Our convictions were not always solid and we also wavered and doubted and compromised. When the road ahead does not seem as straight and clear, it is important that we return to the compelling reason for embarking on this journey—and bring it back to life. When the fervor wanes, we need to reconnect with an anchor for our dreams and create new fire.

I cannot bring myself to say goodbye to a family that I have learned to love and which has been my life the past six years. With you and for you, I have fallen deeply in love with the only country I know. For me as it is for you, one chapter ends but a new one is just about to begin. I am excited to see how much more you will be able to accomplish in the years to come.

With everything that I hold dear in my heart, I will always remain, your brother, – Rappler.com  

Br. Armin Luistro served a complete 6-year term as the secretary of the Department of Education under the Benigno S. Aquino administration. A feat only accomplished by two previous secretaries in the department's history. 

This letter first appeared on Br Luistro's Facebook page and is republished here with his permission.

It was a remarkable day to hear from the new president that there will be a new beginning. Not only will his administration be different from the previous ones, but also, its foundation will be built upon the quotations of two great American presidents, Abe Lincoln and FDR. It was a rare inaugural speech that cited American models for its economic, financial and political policies.

His message couldn't be clearer. He intends to be the people's president. (READ: WATCH: Duterte inaugurated as Philippine president)

While we wait for the specifics embodied in those quotations, we can turn to the economics portion and expect that the 8-point economic agenda revealed earlier by the transition team would be part of his overall economic policy.

During his speech, he focused on one point in that agenda that cannot be delayed: eliminating red tape and other bureaucracy-created problems in performing government functions, while providing transparency. These are meaningful changes for Day 1 – he directed his Cabinet and agencies to take  immediate action. Results better start showing up sooner than later, otherwise why would he be any different from any other politician with broken promises?

Another notable in the agenda, though this will require much more time, is the investment in human capital development by strengthening the basic education system, providing scholarships, and matching skills and training to satisfy business requirements. As Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez simply put it, "matching what is taught with what is demanded in the field." This will complement the new administration's overall goal of enhancing the country's global competitiveness and attractiveness to foreign direct investments (FDI).

Another crucial point in the agenda is accelerating public-private partnerships (PPP) to increase economic activities which will create more jobs. However, these jobseekers should have the required education, skills and training which would again depend on the success of human capital development efforts.

Once he's able to start delivering on the rest of the 8-point agenda, this will be a compelling sign that the people's president has jumped into action, as promised.

To get deep into the financial and political policies, we would need the qualifications of a 3-dimensional chess player trying to swat a swarm of bees heading his or her way. We're better off waiting for the specifics as these unfold.

Duterte made his point crystal clear when he paraphrased FDR, saying "adding more to the abundance of those who have much against providing for those who have little." As in the US, the widening gap in wealth inequality has never been more pronounced. Wall Streeters get richer while the Main Streeters remain stagnant. This a not an unusual situation elsewhere in the world and when it reaches the boiling point, we see food rationing and riots on the streets such as in the previously rich countries in South America.

What's the similarity between politics and a chameleon? You guessed it right. We're still waiting for a bold leader who will prove that wrong. And we hope that leader's already in the house.

Some say that if you inject enough poison into the political bloodstream, the chances of somebody getting sick is close to 100%. The new Malacañang occupant better get that medicine cabinet fully stocked with antidotes.

Our moral fabric

As a former prosecutor, he's seen it all – illegal drugs, corruption by high- and low-level officials, and a failed justice system that have, through the years, eroded the people's trust in government. Duterte has been forceful enough to make it known that it's his goal to restore that public trust during his campaign. He has walked the walk when he was Davao City mayor and to some extent, has been criticized on the methodology he'd used. But he did make his point then and during his speech that the moral fiber of the country is at stake. Many will agree with him but this remains debatable.

In the process of restoring the trust, he reiterated his commitment to due process – distancing himself from a feared dictatorship under his watch. With the people as witness, this "due process" promise has to pass the test of time.

He lamented over the abuse of taxpayers' money while leaving the poor unable to get up, in dire need of some help from the government. He's absolutely right that this tear in our moral fabric needs permanent mending.

President of the people

His commitment to maintain peace and order transcends all stakeholders and that includes indigenous peoples. As the president, he emphasized that the Moros are part of the people he has to serve. He's willing to go through legal reforms and constitutional amendments to fully implement the peace agreements.

However, in the back of our minds, why did he choose to hold the inauguration with only 600 in attendance within the Malacañang premises instead of the traditional venue, the Luneta Grandstand in front of as many people who would want come to witness and be part of the ceremonies?

Will he still maintain his unusual and un-presidential treatment of the press? In a democratic society and with the promise of transparency, it will be another test for the people's president to provide the press reasonable access to let the people he serves know what's going on.

The world view

Duterte reiterated his commitment that the Philippines will be an active participant in world affairs, and would honor treaties and international obligations. He hopes for a better and brighter tomorrow for the country. What was lacking though, was a reinforcement of leading us to a faster growing economy that most new presidents address to provide a glimpse of his or her path forward to achieve such goal. He promised a short speech which caught everybody's attention, but the entire world was watching and waiting for some definitive statement on our role in the global economy.

There are varying opinions around the world on where our country stands but in a global economy, GDP growth is a metric that is universally acknowledged on how a country performs. We have to assume that with his economic team laser-focused on getting into the details as guided by his leadership, we will soon hear about how the next 5 or 6 years will propel our country into a better position economically in the world stage.

As emphasized in his 8-point agenda, FDI in a developing country such as ours have to increase to make a difference. For instance, we've been dwarfed in FDI inflows by Singapore for many years and it's about time that the new president does something about it. The world is watching and future investors will always flock to the greener pasture of lower-risk opportunities.

He has other challenges that he inherited. The South China Sea conflict is not going away anytime soon. But Duterte has projected a different image during his candidacy that gave Beijing something to think about. With the US as the strongest ally, militarily and economically, we now have to watch candidate Duterte transition himself to the president that Beijing will legitimately have to reckon with. Our alliance with the US is, by itself, a major deterrent for Beijing's decision to move unilaterally with its claims. But that's not enough to seal the deal, so to speak. Beijing will not only respect US military might but will also honor a strong conviction expressed by the Filipino people. 

President Duterte has to make that forceful and decisive move now as part of "starting his work for the nation." – Rappler.com

Rolly Calalang holds a BSME from UP Diliman and a BSEE from FEU Manila.  He has experience in the power industry.

More than a week after President Rodrigo Duterte has taken his oath, his government faces its first major foreign policy challenge.

On July 12, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) will issue its ruling in the historic case filed by the Philippines, seeking to annul China’s sweeping claim over the South China Sea. The Philippines claims part of these disputed waters, calling it the West Philippine Sea.

It is widely expected that the PCA, the UN-backed arbitral tribunal, will decide in favor of the Philippines, which won the first round of the case. The PCA, based in The Hague, Netherlands, had rejected China's argument that it had no right to hear the Philippines' case.

The upcoming ruling, or the final award, will resolve some of the legal issues that have to do with the “interpretation or application of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,” wrote international law expert Robert Beckman, but “not address issues of territorial sovereignty or delimit maritime boundaries.”

Thus, Beckman points out, it is up to the Philippines and China and other countries with a stake and interest in the South China Sea disputes to adhere to the tribunal’s decision and negotiate, in good faith, to resolve issues of military presence, protection of the marine environment, and sustainably managing the fisheries resources.

China has refused to participate in the case and has said that it will ignore the arbitral tribunal’s decision. 

Herein lies the primordial diplomatic task of the Philippines: to gather robust international support so that the ruling is enforced, so that China gets to sit with the new government at the negotiating table and abide by the tribunal’s decision.

Is Foreign Affairs Secretary Perfecto Yasay Jr up to the job? There is reason to be concerned as the country’s top diplomat displayed a tendency to be cowed by China during the first Cabinet meeting.

Here's what Yasay said: "The bottom-line question is, what will happen if the decision is in our favor, meaning that the arbitral tribunal will make a declaration about the legality of the 9-dash line, and will say that this is part of our economic zone, including Scarborough Shoal? What if, in the face of these circumstances, China will dig in and put us to a test? They will disallow again our fishermen from fishing in Scarborough Shoal.”

Yasay’s sensitive remarks appeared to be inadvertently aired by the state-run RTVM, which was broadcasting the meeting live. It abruptly went off the air as the foreign affairs secretary was speaking. 

In a press conference the day after, the foreign affairs secretary clarified that there is no reason to be afraid of China, saying the government will avoid making “provocative statements” so that both countries can enter into peaceful negotiations.

Yasay can take the cue from Justice Antonio Carpio, a leading expert on the issue. He has said that the new government can hold bilateral talks with China after the ruling is released and use it as leverage. 

Another move could be for the Philippines to go to the United Nations general assembly and sponsor a resolution and compel China to comply, Carpio also said.

The Philippines enjoys the support of many countries including the US, Japan, Australia and Vietnam in its case versus China. France has called for a “respect of the law of the sea” and urged Europe to push back against China in the South China Sea.

A recalcitrant China is bound to suffer a cost to its reputation if it persists in ignoring the arbitral tribunal. As Paul Reichler, the main Philippine lawyer in the case, has said, China risks being regarded as an “outlaw state.”

Yasay has little time left to study the country’s options—but there is no shortage of brain power and literature to consult. What he, backed by President Duterte, needs is the courage to stand up for the Philippines’ interest. – Rappler,com

On President Rodrigo Duterte's inauguration day, not a few friends from the media asked us what our role would be under the new administration. Will we still be watchdogs and critics? Will there still be rallies from the Left? I already made a previous post answering the latter. In fact, we already told the new President that we will be holding a rally on the day of the SONA and he is fine with it.

Still, there are those who question the Left's current relationship with the Duterte administration. They insinuate that the positive attitude towards Duterte is simply the result of getting positions in government and that the Left has already capitulated. They insist that the Left has swallowed its principles in favor of securing government posts.

They make these claims not because they are genuinely concerned for the Left but because they oppose the alliance and cooperation between the Left and Duterte. They either hate the Left, Duterte, or both. For them, there is no justifying any Left alliance with Duterte. These critics have already made up their minds.

I write this piece not for them but for those who are sincerely seeking answers, to those who want clarification because they see the need for an active mass movement that serves as a watchdog of government. This is for folks who do not hate the Left but have some misgivings or reservations about the Duterte regime. They want to understand where this new situation is headed.

Has the Left capitulated?

Let's get the obvious thing out of the way. Does accepting government posts mean the Left has capitulated? Definitely not. We have not abandoned the struggle. We are not about to fold our banners and streamers. We are more than ever determined to arouse, organize, and mobilize now given the favorable conditions. You will see this in the coming weeks.

We shall continue to oppose anti-people policies and programs wherever they exist. We shall continue to be visible in the streets. A big rally is already being planned for the State of the Nation Address (SONA) on July 25.

Government posts in a reactionary state have never been the end goal of the struggle. This is very clear to the mass movement. What may not be clear though to observers, allies, and friends is the context of the offer and acceptance of government posts. 

The posts were not originally offered to Bayan or the Makabayan Coalition or any of the legal personalities you may know. The posts were offered to the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), to the revolutionary movement. It was an offer in line with the President's thrust of reviving the peace talks towards achieving national unity.

The offer was unprecedented. No Philippine president has ever allowed the Left to have such a huge role in the reactionary state. But if you look at it from the standpoint of creating a favorable climate for the resumption of the peace talks, it makes sense. (READ: Joma: Left welcomes Duterte offers of Cabinet posts)

Now the CPP and the revolutionary forces could not just lay down their arms and join the government without having any meaningful peace agreement, because that would be capitulation. That would mean abandoning the struggle without achieving any meaningful socio-economic, political, and constitutional reforms.

So the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP), the organization representing the revolutionary forces in peace negotiations, nominated progressives to the government posts even as peace negotiations were still ongoing. That way, the progressives can help in implementing policies that would be beneficial to the people while maintaining a climate that is favorable to peace negotiations. 

Handling differences with Duterte

Let it be clear that the Left never sought these government posts. These were offered by Duterte. And that's what makes him different from other presidents. He has a 3-decade relationship with the Left, from his time as mayor of Davao City. He recognizes the strength of the revolutionary movement and the necessity of engaging it in peace negotiations. He knows that a purely military solution will not work.

It is this difference in the character and outlook of the President which has also necessitated an adjustment in our approach to his administration. To put it plainly, he is an ally. The alliance and cooperation with Duterte is based on his pro-people and progressive policies and pronouncements and on his track record and long-standing relationship with the revolutionary forces. It is the first time that we have this kind of an alliance with a sitting president.

As in any alliance, there are contradictions. To develop the alliance, there will always be unity and struggle. We have made this clear even in media interviews and public fora. However, the contradictions or differences are handled in a non-antagonistic way. There is a certain amount of restraint. Why? As we said, Duterte is unlike former president Benigno Aquino III. He is considered an ally.

There is really no point in insisting that we criticize Duterte with the same harshness that we criticized Aquino. (The Yellow diehards often insist that we should do to Digong what we did to Noynoy, not because they truly care about an issue but because they want to see the alliance break up. You know this to be true because the Yellows on social media do not mobilize for anything. They just want to see the Left and Duterte slug it out while they eat popcorn and watch their Twitter feeds.)

To be immediately confrontational with no quarters given every time the President said something disagreeable during the past month would have weakened the alliance even before Duterte could sit as president. In struggling out our differences, we will have to be firm, principled, and always conscious of what would be beneficial to the people. 

Appreciate the bigger picture

And when we talk of what is beneficial to the people, one of the most important things to consider would be the peace negotiations and the resolution to the roots of the armed conflict. There is a real chance for the peace talks to move forward farther than before. 

This is more important than any government post. This is about achieving land reform, national industrialization, a self-reliant economy, national sovereignty, and a just peace. Perhaps that is the bigger picture which we hope our friends and allies will be able to appreciate.

This is the context by which we should understand the Cabinet appointments. The new president somehow wants to bring about peace and national unity during his term. This much he told us when we met with him in Malacañang on his inauguration day. We should at least give him a chance. (READ: Jeans-clad Bayan leaders meet Duterte in Malacañang)

The mass movement is treading carefully even as we hope to maximize the new space for reforms. It will not be easy to say the least given that there are indeed policy differences with the new regime. We're keenly aware of the differences when it comes to the K-12 system, neoliberal economic policies, the Marcos hero's burial, and so on.

We may have disagreed with some of his pronouncements on media killings, but we should welcome his pro-active stand of creating a task force to address the problem of media killings. 

There are also many issues that Duterte and the Left agree on and we hope to highlight those as well. We have been struggling against contractualization, destructive mining, corruption, and for a greater budget for health services, for free irrigation, for the distribution of the coco levy funds, freedom of information and many more. 

Duterte's Health Secretary was criticized for her framework on corporatized health services. In his first Cabinet meeting, Duterte announced that the DOH should go to Cuba to study their free health care system.

Wow! Surely it would not be wrong to cooperate with the new administration on these issues. 

A little trust, please

To our friends and allies, we are in uncharted territory and we continue to learn by the day. There may be some rough patches along the way. I suppose that's only normal.

Sa aming mga kaibigan at alyado na may pagdududa, hiling ko lang po ay ito. Kaunting tiwala lang. (To our friends and allies who have doubts, this is my request. A little trust.) We have been struggling for more than 4 decades, and have made great strides in building people's power in many parts of the country. Why would the movement flush all of that down the drain? For Cabinet posts?

Parang hindi nyo naman kami kilala. Pag-ibahin nyo naman po kami sa Akbayan. Nagsisimula pa lang ang bagong kabanata. Natututo tayo sa araw-araw. Tignan natin hanggang saan tayo dadalhin nito. Huwag tayong matakot sa hinaharap. At humusga tayo 'di lamang batay sa salita kundi lalong-lalo na sa gawa.

(You know us better than that. We're different from Akbayan. This new chapter has just started. We learn every day. Let's see where this will take us. Let us not fear what is ahead of us. Judge us not merely based on our words but on our actions.)

We will remain an active and militant mass movement and we will continue pushing for change whether we are inside or outside the government. 

Salamat po sa inyong pag-unawa. (Thank you for your understanding.) – Rappler.com

Renato Reyes Jr is the secretary general of Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), a multisectoral alliance of progressive groups struggling for national and social liberation.

Sometime last year, I made a commitment to being non-partisan in the then upcoming elections. I wanted to play the role of the detached expert, commenting on electoral processes with minimal bias. The decision proved quixotic, however, when I began to learn about the campaign of Leni Robredo. For how can one be non-partisan if one is inspired? 

Leni’s appeal was both instinctual and intellectual. My gut liked the idea of a humble, relatively unknown woman taking on the namesake of a brutal dictator. My mind – that of an unapologetic Filipino liberal – was transfixed by someone who wished to restore faith in liberal government by making it more responsive to the margins, the laylayan. 

The liberal is always in a precarious position, because she occupies an ever-evolving ideological center. At times when people propose extreme solutions  (“Kill the drug dealer!”) and make extreme assessments (“Democracy has failed us! Disiplina ang kailangan!”), the liberal calls for moderation and humility. Unfortunately for liberals like myself, this moderation is going out of fashion. 

The recent election not only represents a repudiation of the Liberal Party; it also points to a growing impatience with liberalism as a whole. Imagine the burden this places on a liberal vice president. 

My favorite Filipino intellectual, Salvador “SP” Lopez, defined liberalism as a bias against the absolute. He also saw it as a belief in peaceful change that led to a “more just, more abundant, more humane system of political, economic and social relations among its members.” Implicit in this thinking is a belief in gradualism: change is coming, but it will come in fits and spurts. This gradualism was dear to SP, because it was rooted in a long Filipino liberal tradition that extends from Jose Rizal, to T.H. Pardo de Tavera, to Camilo Osias, to Ka Pepe Diokno. 

Despite the long tradition of Philippine liberalism, however, it undergoes periodic crisis. Its last major crisis was in 1972, when Marcos declared martial law. Without vigilance, it may go intro crisis once more. When everything is slow – especially traffic – liberalism’s gradualism becomes unappealing. Liberalism is also unappealing when you are poor: if a liberal government cannot feed people or send them to a hospital, what use are all these liberal “freedoms?” Makakain ko ba yang freedom of speech or yang human rights? 

Mocha Unson is a charlatan. But her voice represents a not insignificant portion of Filipinos who believe that freedom is overrated and that the country needs authoritarian discipline. It is this thinking that propelled (or “catapulated” in the idiom of our president) the electoral phenomenon known as DuBong or AlDub (Alyansang Duterte Marcos). We do not know yet how illiberal Duterte (or BBM for that matter) can be, but many of their supporters want them to disregard basic freedoms and rights. Just a few weeks ago, for example, DuBong followers shared a ridiculous meme calling for the abolition of the Commission on Human Rights. 

We are in a period of extremes. In such periods, distinctions such as Left and Right barely matter. What matters is the promise of absolute renewal. In such periods, moreover, believers in violent solutions gravitate more closely to each other. Recall last week’s presidential inauguration, when you had a killer president, being cheered on by Cabinet members sympathetic to the violent NPA, and the son of a man who enabled the “salvaging” of over 3,000 people. What unites them is not just a common disdain for the Liberal Party, but a mistrust of liberal democracy as a whole.  

Nation's conscience

Whether she likes it or not, Vice President Robredo is the country’s most prominent liberal democrat at a time when liberalism is going out of fashion, not just here but also globally. In this respect she takes on a role similar from the one Cory Aquino used to play, and one that PNoy will now play as well. 

Leni’s burden is a burden of serving as a nation’s conscience. This burden will be carried with little logistical support: a relatively poor Office of the Vice President with no Cabinet powers. But for what she lacks in finances and power, she can make up with the humility of her message and the generosity it inspires. And it is this generosity, which we will need in the years to come. For it is precisely a lack of generosity that informs a desire to kill our neighbors simply because they are poor victims of drug abuse. 

Beyond renewing Filipino fellow feeling, however, the Vice President must renew the country’s faith in liberal institutions and their belief in bottom-up, gradual, and peaceful change. She has an instinctive knowledge of how to do this: listening to the laylayan. When government can heal the sick, educate children, and ensure livelihoods, people believe in it. In Europe, this kind of government is called social democracy. To me, it is simple justice.

I do not wish to romanticize the Vice President. Nor do I intend to incessantly fawn over her message. Indeed, I await her policy positions to unfold more concretely as she tours the country listening to her various constituencies. But as a liberal and social democrat, I see her as a legatee of the political traditions I hold dear. I look to her and the movement around her to protect these traditions. I pray my faith is not misguided.– Rappler.com

Lisandro Claudio is assistant professor of Development Studies and Southeast Asian Studies, Ateneo de Manila University. He is also an affiliated assistant professor at the Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University. Tweet him @leloyclaudio.

Brexit was a popular move against what their future will be if no changes happen. It’s a historic event that echoed the current sentiment around the world to change the status quo. 

This was evident during the US primaries, being dissatisfied with what is referred to as the establishment. Duterte’s campaign was about changes to do what the people want especially in his adopted homeland, Mindanao. 

For instance, the Mindanao brownouts will be dealt with by dumping lots of coal plants. That will make the Mindanaoans feel better but do they really know what this will bring to their economic future?

The former mayor must have known about some new coal plants being built in Mindanao. But now as the President, he will see the enormity of the additional capacities from a regional and likewise national views.

Tons of coal. And more tons of coal. Some are already in and others coming to Mindanao in the near future.

A rude awakening that should give Duterte a pause to think for a moment. Do we really need all that new coal power? (READ: Energy chief to Gina Lopez: Find balance between coal, renewables)

According to the Department of Energy, 3,010 MWs for the next three years or around mid-2019, will power Mindanao’s projected users. This will more than double the current Mindanao’s installed generating capacity. 

Capacity is one thing but it will also represent up to 3,010 MW worth of additional daily coal burning. It will account for about 62.5% of Mindanao’s energy mix because there are no other significant energy sources that will be tapped. In perspective terms, today Mindanao has only 15.9% while Luzon has 34.5% and the world in 2014 has 39% of the energy mix in coal.

Do the Mindanaoans really know what’s coming to them?

The good, the bad

With the new capacities providing plenty of base load 24/7 power, brownouts will finally end. Since coal is less expensive than oil, it can potentially lower the composite levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), if done properly. Over capacity will result in inefficiencies and low utilization which will drive the composite LCOE up.

Now, what about bad side?

Three things quickly come to mind.

First of all, since coal prices fluctuate, there’ll be potentially twice as much cost vulnerability from coal in the Mindanao’s energy mix compared to that of Luzon’s. This goes both ways depending on the long-term contracted coal prices.

Another is the spike in GHG emissions that comes with coal burning and the public health risks from ash leachates that cause groundwater and aquifer contamination. From a long-term outlook, there’s the potential for another public health risk associated with the pollutant-laden smog. 

Lastly, the world’s cheapest of all fossil fuels is natural gas. Why have we not taken advantage of that?

In 2012, why was the golden opportunity missed by the DOE’s inaction on Brunei Darussalam’s proposed LNG (liquefied natural gas) facility in Macajalar Bay in Misamis Oriental? That included a 300 MW combined-cycle plant as the anchor load, based on the feasibility study conducted by the Canadian Gas Service International hired by the World Bank.

Since fuel contracts are long-term, Mindanao will be locked into using a more expensive fuel in coal for a long time. Could we be hit with a double-whammy since the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) from coal plants today is already more expensive than that from the combined-cycle plants?

Big rush to coal

We don’t know the details of the future demand that created this rather huge jump in capacity.

Duterte should once again take a pause and focus on what the previous team had in mind in approving these new capacities. What were they thinking? Are we putting all our new eggs in one basket again? The days of expensive oil and intermittently available hydros that eventually brought us the brownouts should stay in the rear-view mirror.

And the big picture question he should ask is, “what is this all about?” 

We can see that these new capacities are owned by the same big players including the Luzon power oligarchs. This would be expected as they approach their regional capacity limits in Luzon but would also bring the Luzon pricing scheme and unfair competition to Mindanao.

Another thing is, who’s watching the national capacity limit?  Is it too much of a research to unravel the complex web of layers of corporations, conglomerates and foreign tycoons spun together, to determine if limits are being exceeded?

What if turned out that there are not enough off-takers for the new capacities?

One option would be to run at lower loads though inefficient, driving the LCOE up. Another is to not run at all, the worst case because idle investment is more costly.

We cannot ignore one more option. Should Mindanao be interconnected to the L-V grids by 2019-2020, power can be wheeled over to Luzon or the Visayas. In such a case, prime land will be occupied with all the adverse environmental impacts with no benefits to Mindanaoans.

What to do

We could be wrong but he’s never been known to panic. He’s a “sets his goals and does it” kind of a leader.

Out of the 3,010 MWs, 1,610 are already committed or “done deal”. He can forget about that but the remaining 1,400 can still be scrutinized for potential bad consequences. Those future projects can be derailed due to inadequate funding, incomplete plant site acquisition, inadequate off-taker contracts and unsecured long-term fuel contracts. Duterte can evaluate on a project by project basis and delay such projects.

It not difficult to justify the cheaper combined-cycle plants against the remaining planned coal capacities. However, what was moving a molehill back in 2012 to introduce natural gas, will now be moving a mountain. 

But if there’s anybody who can do it, we’ll put all our bets on Duterte.

He can re-invite Brunei or any foreign investors to introduce natural gas not only for its lower LCOE against coal but also for the needed diversity in energy sources.

What about if Duterte looks into a model initiative that includes transforming the energy mix based mainly coal and gas which are reliable sources available 24/7 and some of the existing renewables? Since the LCOE from natural gas is 38% lower than from coal, that will drastically drop down the composite cost and will attract more foreign direct investments (FDI)

Low-cost power will spur sustained fast-track industrialization. Infrastructure building will get started from roads to bridges to airports and rail systems. More jobseekers from Luzon will gravitate to the long-term opportunities which will also alleviate traffic congestion in Metro Manila.

As more jobs are created including in the ARRM, peace and order will improve and political stability will be established.

Why wouldn’t such model initiative succeed? This is where the rubber meets the road.

Modularly-constructed combine-cycle plants will save on plant design costs, impact studies, permitting and O&M (operation and maintenance) training. Plant site locations in the northern part of Zamboanga with strategically located LNG terminals will ensure ease of docking and unloading from LNG transport vessels coming from the South China Sea. 

The modularly-built plants will cost significantly lower than coal plants, will occupy much less land area, emit half GHG from coal with no risks of groundwater contamination and will produce zero smog.

As an option, an LNG terminal could also represent a separate business endeavor for Mindanaoans that can be expanded in the future to distribute piped-gas to residential, business and industrial users.

Ownership partnering with the FDIs, will come from the local small IPPs, business communities, consumer groups and other associations.

For Duterte, the peace and order alone that will come with a robust economic growth and record low unemployment would be worth the challenge. His actions will make it a well-deserved rude awakening. – Rappler.com

Herminio R.S. Calalang holds a BSME and a BSEE and has extensive experience in the power industry. Danilo V. Sarmiento holds a BSEE and an MBA and has extensive experience in the non-power and power industries.

Since adulthood, Ramadan was an occasion for me to be thankful that I was given another year to fast and spend a month of prayers and spiritual reflections. For me, Ramadan is a privilege that I receive with humility and a fuller sense of dedication.

Ramadan is an opportunity for me to bond with the rest of the Muslims in the world, cleanse ourselves of hatred and remorse, and then return to our center, which is our undying faith in the Creator. Ramadan will promise us that patience, peace, and tolerance can be part of our daily lives, only if we have faith in and fear of Allah.

Taqwa—that conscious feeling that Allah is always present and one should always live a life that pleases the Creator through good deeds and intentions -- is heightened during Ramadan. It is also one of the two essential qualities of an ardent believer of Islam. The other, imaan, is simply ‘faith’ and has the same principle with other faiths.

Taqwa and imaan are my guiding forces for this month-long celebration on how to be a good Muslim, to be closer to Allah, and to embrace a renewed life afterwards.

In Filipino there is a word for it: banyuhay or metamorphosis. A contraction of 3 words – bagong anyo ng buhay (new form of life) – banyuhay is the most perfect word to describe myself after Ramadan. After a month of prayers and fasting, my life will take a new form, and for some Muslims who are very lucky or pious, their lives For me, Ramadan is always a kind of finality, the completion of a new cycle so I can move on to the next level.

But the process of metamorphosis is never an easy road, nor is it a promise to be blindly made. There are several challenges along the way: stop-overs, wrong directions and interim destinations. Banyuhay is a road that not all of us are comfortable to tread. It is always marred by slow, violent but beautiful movements, and when one finally reaches one’s destination: change—or for me, a renewed life and faith.

For almost a month, I went through the hurdles of juggling work and fasting, of re-arranging my work and personal schedules for the tarawi, waking up early morning for the suhoor, a meal to prepare for a day-long abstention from food and water. During Ramadan, every day, every hour, I thought of taqwa and my imaan as I waded through the banality of life as a young professional working in a city.

Since I am based now in Cotabato City, I am also a witness of how Muslim communities in this city and neighboring provinces adapt to change, for a communal banyuhay after the Ramadan.

Streets are prepared for the Eid al-Fitr, families and friends spend the night together in a masjid for prayers. On the level of personal engagements, I observed people are conscious of their words and deeds; some even temporarily closed their social media accounts to keep themselves away from spending time ogling food, bodies, gossip, and violence that is not filtered by the internet.

Abstain from worldly affairs, we are told.

However, it was still easier for me this year’s Ramadan to upgrade my imaan and keep my hold to taqwa intact. I was surrounded by a community that was willing to move forward, to embrace change, and let go of things that aren’t necessary for living a quiet Muslim life guided by Islam and its teachings.

To bloom in full potential is beautiful if you are in the right place, I was told when I was young. But bloom also wherever you are planted because the Creator is with you everywhere, for as long as you can find quibla, the direction of your prayer. Ramadan will always pull you back to places and circles of brethren so you will be together with brothers and sisters who are willing to embrace change or be that change. Life, like Ramadan, is also about movements toward the right direction: to continuously change for survival.

Muslims here are Muslims everywhere—this is the usual stereotype imposed by media on Muslims. Heightened Islamophobia is everywhere these days. Donald Trump uses it as an excuse to boost his campaign for the US presidency. It was this xenophobia also that pushed Britain to leave the European Union. Britons are now moving towards expelling migrants and refugees from their country.

The growing Islamophobia in the US, and Brexit, marred what was supposed to be a quiet month for Muslims. Some people just cannot let go of their hatred and xenophobia. Maybe they think their lives will be easier in stagnation, and moving on to banyuhay is something that they cannot comprehend, the way they fear their own life and its beautiful transformations.

As the week closed, the Muslim world encountered yet another setback, an act of violence in the middle of our prayers and fasting. The contradiction leaves me at a loss, still aghast by the reality that there are those who profess they are ‘Muslims’ as they murder 41, maybe more, people in Turkey, mostly Muslims observing the Holy Month of Ramadan.

Terrorist attacks in recent years have been devastating for Muslims around the world. The recent attack at the airport in Istanbul last Tuesday had me thinking, what kind of world will my children inherit? A world where Islam and innocent, god-fearing Muslims are targeted by terrorists who profess the same religion as my brethren?

I prayed for the families of those who perished in the attacks and for many others with whom I stand in solidarity, united in prayer as we seek justice for the victims. This collective struggle only strengthens the faith we share as Muslims, bound by hope that peace will soon reign for us who suffer the most.

That Allah will protect us from terrorists who murder Muslims who live by the faith which stands for peace, from terrorists who kill without fear and hesitation in the most holy month where we find refuge in Allah and his blessings.

What these terrorists lack is the ability to see that Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, and unity, and its faith in its purest form. These terrorists carry what they cannot let go, the burden that they consider redemption: a hatred of life and its never-ending banyuhay – so they destroy it.

As this Ramadan is about to close, I will put my knees together in exhaustion, close my eyes to shut this world from my senses even just for several minutes of peace, utter His name in a whisper loud enough so my fellow Muslims elsewhere can hear my prayers, I will slowly bow down as a gesture that I will accept all these hardships in life.

And lastly, to rest my forehead on the same ground beneath my feet as a gesture of surrender, that I am Muslim and I will bloom like life itself wherever I am planted. – Rappler.com

Amir Mawallil, 27, is a member of the Young Moro Professionals Network (YMPN), the country's biggest organization of Muslim professionals.

Hearing the foreign policy rhetoric of the Philippines’ newly inaugurated president Rodrigo Duterte, the only thing that is constant appears to be change. Needless to say, that’s not been very reassuring to those watching from afar, even if seasoned observers emphasize that it is still unclear how much of that rhetoric will actually translate into reality and that his advisers could serve as checks against the President’s colorful views once the administration actually gets going. 

Of the subjects Duterte has opined about thus far, none has attracted more interest than China and the South China Sea, with some worrying that he may seek to embrace Beijing and spurn Washington for reasons ranging from economic pragmatism to his own ideological biases. With the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) now confirming that it will issue its verdict on Manila’s case against Beijing on July 12, it is worth exploring how a Duterte administration might or might not alter the Philippines’ South China Sea approach, and the real risks inherent in such shifts for not only the country but also the region and other concerned actors as well.  

To be clear, the danger here is not that Duterte will open bilateral talks with Beijing on the South China Sea or undertake major foreign policy realignments like moving the Philippines closer to China, contrary to what some have suggested. Every Southeast Asian state is trying to pursue good ties with China to varying degrees despite concerns about its rise, and the Philippines is no different.

Furthermore, even members of the former Aquino administration – including his former foreign minister Albert del Rosario – have made clear that Manila had pursued the PCA case in response to China’s unlawful assertiveness but always left open the possibility of future talks with Beijing following a verdict. Additionally, for all Duterte’s posturing, seasoned observers know that like any president, he is hamstrung by other factors that govern Manila’s alignments with major powers, including popular opinion and the country’s weak military which in part accounts for the recent strengthening of its alliance with the United States and strategic partnerships with other countries like Japan.

Rather, the real danger of Duterte’s approach to China and the South China Sea is that his administration will seek to engage Beijing in a way that not only undermines Philippine interests in terms of its relationship with China, but undercuts the regional unity and global solidarity needed to constrain Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea. Before contemplating what various actors should do, which many commentators are quick to jump to, it is worth first spelling out exactly what the risks are in Duterte’s potential approach on this issue in the bilateral, regional and global domains. 

Misreading bilateral ties

Bilaterally, the risk is that Duterte might adopt an approach towards China that would undermine Philippine interests.

Post-PCA verdict, the task of any Philippine government – including one led by Aquino if he were still in power – would be to try to get Sino-Philippine relations back on track by better managing the South China Sea issue with China while also pursuing new opportunities with Beijing, largely in the economic domain. From a Philippine perspective, the key would be to enter talks with China ready to fully exploit Manila’s leverage across a range of areas in the bilateral relationship, using a mixture of carrots and sticks. 

The danger is that Duterte and his team will not adopt such an approach, thereby undermining instead of strengthening the Philippine position. Indeed, one could argue that this is already playing out. By sending out overly positive signals to China – including a desire to open talks, accept Chinese infrastructure projects, appoint a special envoy to China, downplay the PCA case, avoid military actions and adopt a more lukewarm stance towards the United States – before the verdict, Duterte is signaling that he is leaning in the direction of concessions without making clear what the conditions might be for them to occur or, more importantly, without any information as to how favorable the verdict will be in the direction of the Philippines and how that affects its bargaining position going into talks. It has not helped that parts of Duterte’s first Cabinet meeting, which included rather conciliatory remarks by his foreign secretary Perfecto Yasay Jr on how the Philippines plans to respond following the PCA verdict, were accidentally broadcast on live television.

This is important because, if China detects that Duterte is too amenable to negotiations irrespective of the outcome of the PCA verdict, it may conclude that the Philippines is no longer intent on making Beijing pay the price for its assertive behavior and that it therefore does not need to offer his administration all that much to get a more conciliatory position. Reading some Chinese accounts of the prospects for Sino-Philippine relations in the past few weeks, one is struck by the high expectations that have already been generated, in part due to Duterte’s comments. 

More arrogantly, some Chinese appear to be convinced that this merely confirms what Beijing already suspected: that while its assertiveness may lead it to pay short-term costs under Aquino, it can simply ride it out while hoping for a more conciliatory one like that of Duterte. As one Chinese expert told me on the sidelines of a recent meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Duterte “may prove ultimately that South China Sea is more in fact an Aquino issue than a Philippine issue.” Misguided as such a view might be, the fact remains that Duterte’s remarks could lead some in Beijing to overestimate the strength of their hand and underestimate Manila’s.

A less probable but still possible scenario is that Duterte’s initial outreach to China translates into an overly narrow economics-first approach towards Sino-Philippine relations on terms that are seen to be favorable to Beijing more so than they are to Manila. Such an approach would see both sides not only boost economic ties – which, again, ought not to be necessarily controversial – but also conclude suspicious infrastructure projects and perhaps even questionable joint development arrangements while shelving the South China Sea dispute. These are not mere musings: Duterte has himself suggested (or perhaps, more accurately, wondered aloud) that he would be willing to set aside the differences with China if Beijing would build the Philippines a railway as it has done in Africa and elsewhere. 

His advisers have been quick to quell any suggestion that this would actually be implemented. But if Duterte does so, he is likely to not only face domestic opposition and international scrutiny against his approach towards China and the South China Sea, but also his administration’s running of the country more generally. To close watchers of Philippine politics, such an approach would bear an eerie resemblance to one the Philippines pursued under Aquino’s predecessor, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. At the time, a controversial joint development deal in the South China Sea inimical to Manila’s interests was cut with Beijing in exchange for Chinese-backed infrastructure projects, which ended up being embroiled in one of the largest corruption scandals in Philippine history. If combined with domestic opposition to Duterte on a number of other fronts where he is challenging the established elite, or even sharp differences between different Philippine bureaucracies or institutions, the issue could end up being more than just a foreign policy misstep. 

Disrupting regional unity

Beyond domestic and bilateral effects, Duterte’s approach towards China and the South China Sea carries regional and global risks as well. Regionally, if the Philippines adopts an overly soft line towards China in spite of Beijing’s stubborn stance towards Manila on the South China Sea issue and/or its continuing assertiveness towards other countries in the region, the risk is that may undermine ASEAN’s ability to take a stronger position on the issue and play into China’s ongoing efforts to divide the regional grouping. 

Although the Philippines was pursuing the PCA case during the Aquino years, it had also been a key voice urging ASEAN to take a stronger position on the South China Sea issue. Manila’s stance was and continues to be important not only on its own, but also within the context of the regional grouping because it operates by consensus. To oversimply, since ASEAN has traditionally adopted the lowest common denominator position between claimants, interested parties (such as Singapore and Indonesia) and not-so-interested parties or laggards (most notably Cambodia), a forward-leaning position by the Philippines – without question the most active of the four Southeast Asian claimants – would provide interested parties cover to call for more aggressive action and push back against laggards. In contrast, a more cautious approach could see other states also adopt a softer line, either because this is in line with their own preference to downplay the issue or because they find it diplomatically unsound to get ahead of ASEAN’s most forward-leaning claimant. 

In this sense, Duterte’s approach could very well play into important, ever-shifting regional calculations on the South China Sea this year and beyond. As it is, 2016 is a particularly challenging year on the South China Sea for ASEAN, with the organization facing the triple challenges of grappling with the fallout from the PCA decision, managing the ASEAN-China relationship during the 25th anniversary of the establishment of the dialogue partnership; and being led by Laos, a landlocked country with little interest in the South China Sea and a lot invested in its relationship with China. One critical test will come during the next round of ASEAN summitry held from 21-25 July. With the ASEAN foreign ministers meeting just days after the PCA verdict, the world will be watching to see whether the regional grouping will choose to issue a separate statement on this important decision, as many ASEAN advocates hope, or whether it merely adopts a standard communique (or ends up not issuing one at all as it did recently). The voice of the Philippines will be important as ASEAN grapples with such tests. 

Further out, the Philippines will also officially assume the rotating annual ASEAN chairmanship which Laos holds in 2017, giving Manila an additional opportunity to affect regional outcomes on the South China Sea amongst other issues. As ASEAN chair, Manila will be subject to the routine mix of charm and pressure from China in the lead up to and during its chairmanship, a tactic Beijing hopes will seek to affect how it deals with issues like the South China Sea. Though pursuing Philippine interests will be the primary focus of any administration, as a founding member of ASEAN, Manila also ought to play a role in holding the grouping together, especially as it will be celebrating its 50th anniversary next year. A repeat of what occurred at Phnom Penh – which saw the first-ever non-adoption of a joint communique in ASEAN’s history owing to disagreements related to the South China Sea – would be a huge blow for regional solidarity. 

Undercutting global efforts

Globally, the risk is that Duterte’s approach towards China and the South China Sea undermines ongoing global efforts aimed at countering Beijing’s assertiveness.

Even though China has gained in some ways from its assertiveness in the South China Sea, Beijing’s behavior has also led regional states to strengthen their ties with other powers and prompted other countries to take an interest in the issue. That in turn has knitted together an ever-widening group of concerned global actors who have been increasingly willing to stand up against Chinese transgressions and made Beijing’s isolation from the rules-based international order ever clearer. 

Nowhere was this more apparent than at this year’s Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore in early June, where speaker after speaker, along with the participants there, raised alarm about China’s South China Sea approach before Chinese Admiral Sun Jianguo countered with the usual boilerplate response from Beijing, adding – bizarrely – that some regional states were actually less concerned by Chinese behavior this year than they were last year. Sun’s remarks, delivered exceptionally loudly and preceded by a comparatively conciliatory speech by U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter, were poorly received by many Southeast Asian participants present, myself included, and underscored just how unreasonable and isolated Beijing really was. 

That said, while this ‘coalition-of-the-willing’ – or, if you prefer, ‘principled security network’ – is encouraging to those who see value in the rules-based order, in truth it is also rather fragile. The strength of such a coalition lies in aligning policy perspectives and sharing operational burdens between claimants like the Philippines, intra-regional interested actors such as Japan, and extra-regional concerned parties like the United States in a calibrated way so that outside actors who have no direct claims in the South China Sea can do their part without seeming to get ahead of the claimants themselves. It also rests on a few actors who are willing to make China pay the price for its assertiveness through a range of diplomatic, military and, if necessary, economic actions as well. 

Over the past few years, the Philippines’ role in this regard has been essential, especially in the face of the quieter approaches by Malaysia and, to a much greater extent, Brunei. Through a series of moves– including, but not limited to: increasing its involvement in military exercises in and close to the South China Sea; initially holding out on its membership to the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB); strengthening ties with capable and interested actors like Japan and Australia; concluding a new defense pact with Washington giving it access to select military facilities; and, of course, filing the PCA case – the Philippines has helped knit together this global coalition against Chinese assertiveness and actively contributed to it. And contrary to what Beijing suggests, Manila has done so not out of coaxing by shadowy ‘outside actors,’ but because this serves Philippine interests. More global involvement also means more diplomatic attention, more economic diversification, and more military capability-sharing.

A pullback by Manila on its stance towards China and the South China Sea under Duterte – if done in a sudden and unjustified manner – could undercut the emergence of such a global coalition in several ways. First and most obviously, without the activism of the most forward-leaning Southeast Asian claimant, some other interested states in the region and beyond may have to either scale down their words and actions or risk bolstering the Chinese claim that ‘outside actors’ are trying to stir up trouble in the South China Sea even while Beijing is working out its differences with various claimants. Though some states may very well choose to stay the course irrespective of Manila’s actions, this dilemma would still be very much unwelcome. Neither outcome would be in the interest of the Philippines, but either would be favorable to Beijing. Indeed, as I have written previously, there have already been accounts of some in Beijing specifically studying how to contend with an adversary aligned with a greater power, with the Philippines and its alliance with the United States being a case study.

Second and more broadly, it could also send a dangerous message to some in Beijing about how a rising power conducts itself in the international system. Over the past few years, China’s actions in the South China Sea – which have included routinely harassing vessels, aircraft and fishermen, infringing into the waters of other nations and even seizing features, building artificial islands and advancing its nine-dash line claim that clearly violates international law – have hurt the interests of others and threatened the rules-based order. To caricature a much more complex debate, some in Beijing have argued that China’s strategy has been overly risky and costly, while others have concluded that this is a price worth paying to preserve Chinese interests. Simply wiping the slate clean would reinforce the thinking of more hawkish voices that while Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea may lead it to incur some costs in the short term, China’s military and economic might means it can simply absorb these costs for a while and then look to recover its losses by charming those who it has previously coerced. 

The arrogant assumption here is that no one in the international community can ultimately afford not to engage China irrespective of how badly Beijing treats them, and that regional states will eventually concede on disputes like the South China Sea. Following this line of thinking, the key for Beijing, therefore, is not abiding by the rules-based order like most other countries would like it to, but calibrating its opportunistic efforts to reshape and even defy it through alternating periods of coercion and charm to balance attendant costs and benefits. There is no better test of whether this is the case than the Philippines, which has endured the brunt of China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea over the past few years, taken a range of measures to counter Chinese actions, but is now led by a president that is calling for better ties with Beijing just a few years later. 

Much of the conversation so far surrounding Duterte and his approach on China and the South China Sea has overwhelmingly focused on his efforts to open talks with Beijing or reorient Philippine foreign policy towards China and away from the United States. Yet such a reading misstates and in some ways underestimates the risk that his approach could pose not only to the Philippines, but the region and the world as well. Scholars, experts, and policymakers, including Duterte and his advisers, would do well to grasp the full picture of the costs and benefits of the paths the Duterte administration has before it before takes steps that could ultimately prove misguided. – Rappler.com

Prashanth Parameswaran is Associate Editor at The Diplomat Magazine and PhD candidate at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He writes, researches and consults extensively on Southeast Asia, Asian security issues and US foreign policy in the Asia-Pacific. Follow him on Twitter @TheAsianist.

President Duterte’s war on crime has spawned a nuclear explosion of violence that is spiralling out of control and creating a nation without judges, without law, and without reason. 

Do we really want to give the man with the gun the power to judge who are criminals and to kill them? To decide who is bad and who is good, who deserves to live and who deserves to die?

We might as well disband our courts, dissolve the Department of Justice, and abolish Congress. For there really is no need for law when the barrel of the gun dispenses justice.

The bandwagon that the President has created is a bandwagon of hate – a mob mentality that not only condones but encourages the taking of lives “because they deserve it.” Yes, drug pushers destroy lives. Yes, criminals behave like animals. But are those who kill them any better? And will the killing stop there?

Our people have seen what a mob can do in the hands of a tyrant who knows no law but his own. Lest we forget, the first person that Marcos executed was a drug pusher. But did he stop there? By the time he was ousted, he was responsible for killing thousands upon thousands of people whose only fault was their belief in justice, the rule of law, and human rights.

President Duterte, do not kill in my name. That is not your mandate, that is not what you were elected for. Yes, go after the drug cartels and criminal syndicates, the corrupt, the criminals among us. But do it as an officer of the law you have sworn to uphold as a lawyer and a President. – Rappler.com

This was first posted on Attorney Diokno's Facebook account. We are publishing it with his permission.

It took a chance encounter between President Rody Duterte and Vice President Leni Robredo at the Armed Forces change-of-command ceremony to thaw the ice. Soon after, a formal, one-on-one meeting in Malacañang Palace, dubbed a “courtesy call”, took place.

Little did we know that, in a matter of a few days, Robredo would be part of the Cabinet. This, after more than a month of being given the cold shoulder by the President, from rejecting the idea of a Cabinet post for her to the ultimate snub of refusing to have a joint inauguration.

This is a clear example of what to expect from the new president’s style of decision-making: his positions can shift through various gradations or swing from one extreme to another. His friends call him “unorthodox”. To this, we add unpredictable: the element of surprise always lurks somewhere.

Personal relations, public pressure

In the Robredo case, what changed? Two things apparently dented Duterte’s outwardly antagonistic stance toward the Vice President.

First, the personal factor, described by Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre as a “warming up” between the two top officials.

The President brought his guard down after personally meeting with Robredo who showed no rancor. She assured him of her support and he asked for her help in leading the nation.

Personal relations are important to Duterte, as clearly seen in most of his key appointments to government. They are his classmates and fraternity brothers at the San Beda Law School, high school classmates from the Ateneo de Davao, and long-time friends.

Second was public pressure. Duterte himself said he was on the receiving end of incessant questions from the media about what post the Vice President would hold in his Cabinet.

To stress the point, he talked to Robredo on the telephone and asked her to head the Housing and Urban Development Council in reply to a question by a reporter on whether the President was considering a Cabinet post for her. This happened during a televised interview on state-run PTV 4. (READ the transcript of the conversation here: Hello, Leni? How Duterte made the Cabinet offer to VP Robredo)

An earlier example of Duterte yielding to public pressure was when he took out Sal Panelo as his spokesperson and moved him laterally to the office of the chief presidential legal counsel. Media organizations had protested Panelo’s links to the Ampatuans – he was their lawyer – who were behind the 2009 massacre of 58 people, including journalists.

Caveat: Marcos connection

However, we cannot expect Duterte to steer clear of defeated vice-presidential candidate Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. Their friendship will continue and he may even give Marcos moral support in his election protest case.

Before Duterte and Robredo met, we gathered from sources close to the President that he was convinced Marcos was cheated in the elections. That explained his initial hardline stance, emphatically saying on national TV in one of his first press conferences that he was not keen on giving a Cabinet post to the Vice President because it would hurt the feelings of Bongbong Marcos. That was his way of showing solidarity with Marcos and, implicitly, not recognizing Robredo as the legitimate vice president.

After all, as Duterte took pains to explain, his ties with the Marcoses go a long way back, when his father served as Cabinet secretary of then President Marcos.

Moreover, he was grateful to the Marcos siblings, Imee and Bongbong, because they delivered for him in Ilocos, handily winning the race there. In contrast, he pointed out, he lost in Bicol, Robredo’s vote-rich turf. 

Loyalties to opposing parties

It seems that Duterte is comfortable with carrying loyalties to opposing parties. On a public plane, this emerged in the campaign when, in Ilocos Norte, Duterte said he would turn over the presidency to Bongbong Marcos if he is unable to reduce criminality in 3 months. His running mate, Alan Peter Cayetano, was not with him in this sortie. (Marcos, for his part, was running with Miriam Defensor Santiago as president.)

It came to a point when Duterte-Marcos supporters joined a few of the sorties, openly campaigning for their vice-presidential candidate in the presence of Cayetano. It was not clear if Duterte was aware of this.

In his private life, Duterte has been known to have extra-marital relationships, causing the annulment of his marriage.

Economic Planning Secretary Ernesto Pernia once described Duterte as a "black swan", referring to his surprising victory and his "unorthodox" ways. But what is important in the next 6 years is how the new president balances his unpredictability with achieving his administration’s core goals. – Rappler.com

It had tremendous shock-value: the President reading the names of generals off a list, ordering them relieved and directing that they be proceeded against forthwith.  He described them as coddlers and protectors of drug peddlers.

Many got the message that the dramatic announcement was calculated to make: This is a no-nonsense president who does exactly he promises. He had warned “narco-generals” to resign, or to face being shamed. Obviously, the seasoned prosecutor in him saw that there was “ground engendering a reasonable belief” that a crime – or crimes – had been committed, and that the people he named were probably guilty.

Probably. And that is just the problem others have. They were shamed nationally, and so were the members of their families. How is the son or daughter of one of the mentioned generals going to face the inquiring stares of schoolmates when academic sessions resume?

What justification, legal or moral, was there for having embarrassed them before a finding of culpability against them was reached? Probable cause – and I am sure, the President worked with that degree of proof, in the very least. But in our system of criminal justice, it is not for him to arrive at probable cause, but for the prosecutor – which he is no longer, because he is the Mayor of the Philippines!

To be sure, the public naming of suspects is not new. Officials who find themselves criminally charged before the Department of Justice or the Office of the Ombudsman also find themselves on the banner headlines of newspapers or on television primetime. That is one reason that it is wise to avoid public office when one can, unless one is sure to be upright at all times!  But this time, there was a special punch: It was the President himself who had named the generals malefactors, causing their stars to come quite awkwardly crashing down.

Proving one's innocence

Now, the State must make its case against them. It is not they who must prove their innocence. That is just  the way it works. Digong warned the National Police Commission against entertaining him with a zarzuela. I did not know they still staged zarzuelas in Davao City, but that to me is ominous.

Does that mean that he will not accept a finding of innocence, or accept a verdict, administrative or judicial, of exoneration?  In fact, insofar as the administrative system of appeals is concerned, the Office of the President is at the apex of the appeals ladder, and so it would behoove him from prejudging the case because he will, in the end, entertain appeals. A judge must not only be fair but must appear to be fair!

Some actions are calculated to elicit desired effects from spectators. These actions are called "dramaturgical." Drama, the Jesuit philosopher Bernard Lonergan wisely instructs, is not a respite from the business of daily living. It is part and parcel of the serious, the quotidian. That was what the announcement was all about – drama, for very salutary reasons. The scourge of drugs has reached unconscionable proportions, because PNoy and his minions were more intent at jailing Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and others for whom they harbored an irrational dislike rather than dealing with the menace.

And now the "what ifs."

Suppose the generals are found innocent – or the charges are found baseless, how does one restore the luster to a star so brusquely snatched and trampled underfoot?  That is the problem. A presidential apology would make some amends but it is our misfortune as a people that we prefer to believe the worst about others. And that is why it might be the better part of wisdom – as well as charity – for the President to make use of the whole load of intelligence data that has reached him, to superintend the prosecution of cases and to see to their speedy resolution.  

This should be no tall order for one who has promised to make short shrift of anyone who stands in his path. Police and prosecutors, after all, are fully within the reach of his now manifestly very hard executive left-hook! – Rappler.com

The author is Dean, Graduate School of Law, San Beda College and professor at the Cagayan State University

MANILA, Philippines – What a week it has been for Rodrigo Duterte and the entire country.

Though he has barely warmed his seat in Malacañang, the 16th president of the Philippines has given Filipinos quite an introduction to his brand of leadership. 

He shocked the wardrobe-conscious by pairing a barong and denim pants for the Philippine Air Force anniversary – an outfit most thought would not be seen after the Cebu presidential debate.

But that’s nothing compared to the boats he rocked when, in the same event, he announced the names of 5 police generals he claims protected drug lords. 

He and Vice President Leni Robredo titillated social media with their first public appearance and meeting together, culminating in a phone conversation broadcast nationwide in which Duterte asked her to be housing czar as bashfully as a high school boy asking a girl if she’d like to go out for a snack.

Those are just some of the most talked about activities of the new president in his first full week at the country’s helm. 

The events of the week give insight into Duterte’s leadership style and what the next 6 years he will spend calling the shots might look like.

Here are 8 observations:

1. His first EO grants special powers to his two most trusted men 

On the day he took his oath, one of the first things Duterte did was sign his first Executive Order– intending to streamline anti-poverty programs of various agencies of government. 

But another thing the EO does is bequeath two Cabinet secretaries – Leoncio “Jun” Evasco Jr and Christopher “Bong” Go – with special powers and tasks. 

These two appointees are special because they are two of Duterte’s most trusted men. Evasco used to be his chief of staff in Davao City and headed his presidential campaign. Go is his longtime aide and is known as the “gateway” to Duterte because of his unparalleled access. 

The EO basically allows Evasco and Go to resume their old tasks. By putting Evasco in charge of optimizing anti-poverty programs, Duterte ensures a man he trusts is leading programs that can be directly felt by the poor. 

By giving Go control over the Presidential Management Staff, security, and media, Duterte is simply empowering Go to have, as he had in Davao City Hall, full control over Duterte’s schedule, public appearances, and meetings. (READ: The man they call Bong Go)

This first EO is not surprising, given the premium Duterte puts on personal relationships. His Cabinet Secretaries are old friends of his. One reason he gave for hesitating to appoint Robredo to a Cabinet post was his not knowing her very well.

The fact that he signed this EO on his first day at work makes it obvious that he immediately wanted to impose his tried and tested work habits as mayor on his work habits as president. The less work he spends transitioning, the faster he can get things done.

The question is, will his methods as mayor work for the presidency? 

And what does it mean for a man like Go, who holds a new title of Special Assistant to the President, to have so much decision-making power, including the first pass at who gets to see the President?

2. He can bend to convention…

As he told Robredo during their first meeting, Duterte finds himself adjusting to the many protocols and security procedures that come with being president. 

His public appearances show that he is able to follow some of these protocols when truly necessary. He wore a modified barong to his inauguration, though paired with khaki pants that belied his preference for more casual wear. He continued to wear barong for other formal occasions like the change of command ceremonies for the military and police, and the anniversary of the Air Force (though that time he wore it with jeans).

Departing from his usual one-hour extemporaneous speeches, his inauguration message was a crisp 20 minutes and read from a teleprompter (which he supposedly enjoys using, according to Communications Secretary Martin Andanar).

3. …But he will flout convention if he can

But convention did not stop him from wearing his usual collared tops with rolled up sleeves when he met with Chinese Ambassador Zhao Jinhua and Robredo. Though most of his speeches after his inauguration were still shorter than an hour, he extemporized more often.

Notably at the PAF anniversary, as soon as he reached the podium, he announced that he would depart from the prepared speech given to him that morning because it was “all motherhood statements.”

Seconds later, he was baring the identities of supposedly drug-tainted police generals – definitely an unprecedented move for a president on his first week.

If Aquino wanted to promote simplicity among government officials by getting rid of “wang-wang,” Duterte is trying to do the same by taking commercial flights.  

Last Friday, he made headlines by taking a Philippine Airlines flight to Davao City in a premium economy seat.

4. It’s ‘stay out or die’ all over again

His supporters say, "If he did it for Davao, he’ll do it for the Philippines."

That’s definitely what we’re seeing in the anti-drug campaign.

When Duterte was a first-time mayor, his biggest headache was the communist rebels. He made deals with them that they stay out of his city or else face consequences. Later on, he made similar warnings to drug pushers and criminals.

Together with his disciple, PNP chief Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, he is doing the same thing in his nationwide war on drugs.

His presidency coincided with a spike in deaths of alleged drug addicts and pushers. He may not have pulled the trigger but is it a stretch to say his messaging did not embolden whoever did? 

But his presidency also coincided with the mass surrender of drug addicts in different towns and cities due to the nationalized Oplan TukHang, which was implemented in Davao City by Dela Rosa. 

Duterte’s message hardened when he shamed the 5 top cops and later on threatened 3 Chinese drug lords. 

Just as he did when he was mayor, he is using loud scare tactics to keep bad elements from his turf.

5. He just needed to ‘warm up’ to Leni

Just as people were starting to fear a rift between the President and Vice President, social media went abuzz with photos, memes, and videos of them warming up to each other.

{source}

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">WATCH: <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/PresidentDuterte?src=hash">#PresidentDuterte</a> offers <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/VPLeni?src=hash">#VPLeni</a> some of his favorite coconut water drink. <a href="https://twitter.com/rapplerdotcom">@rapplerdotcom</a> <a href="https://t.co/gwsSyR9jHP">pic.twitter.com/gwsSyR9jHP</a></p>&mdash; Pia Ranada (@piaranada) <a href="https://twitter.com/piaranada/status/748775232937168896">July 1, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

{/source}

In their first public appearance together, Filipinos watched as he offered Robredo a sip from his carton of coconut water (a move endearing to some, disgusting to others). He was all warm gazes and small smiles at her during their first official meeting, even walking her to her car after.

As the week drew to a close, he ended up offering her more than coconut water. Via phone call, he finally asked her to be his housing czar, claiming he did it out of impatience with media pestering him on Robredo. 

This shows how even tough-talking Duterte is affected by public pressure and how much he values personal relations with the people he chooses to work with. (READ: Duterte's decision-making unpredictable)

Of course, the next few months will show if the Duterte-Robredo onscreen chemistry will translate to a good working relationship.

6. No official First Lady, for now

There’s no rush to choose an official First Lady. In fact, it seems Duterte is comfortable not having one. His inauguration may have been a taste of things to come. Both his first wife Elizabeth Zimmerman and common-law wife Honeylet Avanceña did not play starring roles in the ceremony. That job went to his 4 children – Paolo, Sara, Baste, and Veronica or Kitty. 

But First Ladies have played critical roles in past presidencies. For instance, they often entertained guests of the president or held events for spouses of visiting dignitaries. In the time of Aquino, the country’s first bachelor president, this function of the First Lady was assumed by his sisters.

Will Duterte end up having to choose a First Lady after all?

7. His spat with independent media continues

Aquino held his first press conference with independent media only 4 days after his inauguration. With Duterte’s promise never to hold a press conference, things are going to be very different this time around. 

He brought up his beef with the media again on Friday night, claiming that Philippine media’s call to boycott him goaded him to boycott them as well. Never mind the fact that the call came from foreign media groups and not Philippine media.

So far, the only “press conference” he has given was one with state-run PTV4’s reporter Rocky Ignacio. Independent media are allowed to cover his speeches and public activities but are not allowed to ask him questions. 

Some, including Communications Secretary Andanar, believe Duterte will eventually thaw out. Various media groups, in a pooled editorial, decried how the current state of affairs is affecting both Duterte’s and their duty to inform the public on matters of national interest. 

8. He spends his weekends in Davao City

For two Fridays now, Duterte has been flying to Davao City to spend the weekend there. He flew back to Manila the following Monday. If Duterte’s previous statements are to be believed, this is part of a “transitional period” which will eventually see him spending more and more time in Manila.

With his first week behind him, President Duterte now looks toward the 100-day mark and his 3 to 6 months deadline of suppressing crime, drugs, and corruption. His next big speech will happen on his 1st State of the Nation Address on July 25. Everyone is also waiting to see which country would be his choice for his first foreign visit as president. 

Like the start of any presidency, Filipinos will have to prepare themselves for the 6-year ride. – Rappler.com

In some ways, drug lords are just like entrepreneurs. They both face competition, management challenges, disruptive technology and pesky government regulations. That is the central thesis of Tom Wainright’s Narconomics: How to Run a Drug Cartel, a recently published volume explaining the economics behind the international nacrotics trade, a $300 billion a year business that caters to over 250 million narcotics users worldwide.

The drug lord as entrepreneur is a lens that could provide powerful insights on how to better understand, and perhaps eventually cripple, the narcotics trade.

Several insights from that volume and the emerging evidence on the war against drugs in Latin America might be relevant in our own country’s effort to stamp out crime and drugs. Here are some of the main lessons.

Supply side interventions alone may not work

Drug lords often oversee complex production chains. In Narconomics, the author reports how 350 kilograms of dried coca leaves worth $385 in Colombia could produce 1 kilogram of cocaine selling for $800 in that country. Yet this same kilogram increases in price to $2200 while in transit, and further to $19,500 once it reaches the hands of a mid-level drug dealer in the US.

With repackaging and further handling by various middle men, the same kilogram of cocaine effectively sells for up to $122,000 – an over 30,000% mark-up.

The war against cocaine trade rests on the idea that restricting its supply could drive up prices and trigger lower drug use. Yet clearly, attacking the supply of raw materials could have very little effect on the final street-price of drugs like cocaine. To illustrate, even if coca leaves were to increase in price per kilogram by $500, the final price per kilogram with complete pass through only increases by the same $500.

Trade and technology can keep narcotics prices competitive

In the Philippines, illegal drug groups with ties to China are said to manufacture shabu for eventual sale at P600,000 ($12,729) to P700,000 ($14,850) per kilo. But stopping this group alone will not solve the drug problem as both new players and new technology help to keep narcotics accessible and ever more affordable.

According to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), African and Mexican drug syndicates have been able to penetrate the Philippine market, selling cheaper and, in some cases, higher-quality types of shabu. Technology in drug production has also reduced its production cost by almost 70% in recent years.

A quick comparison of estimated drug prices between 2013 and 2015 suggests that prices for some drugs have in fact fallen in recent years, enabling drug dealers to penetrate even low income markets in the Philippines.

Just like the savviest of businessmen, drug dealers have effectively segmented the Philippine market – producing drugs of varying quality and affordability to cater to different levels of purchasing power.

Source: 2013 PDEA Annual Report

Sources: PDEA Press Releases and Newsletters

Drug lords can also win hearts and minds

In Latin America, well known drug lords like Pablo Escobar and Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzmain are local heroes in the areas where they operate, providing various public services (e.g. healthcare, doleouts, jobs, etc) to their communities.

This is essentially “corporate social responsibility” or CSR by drug lords, to soften the impact of their operations, and reduce the threat of local communities cooperating with the authorities.

Recall then how hundreds of people attended the funeral of alleged drug lord Jaguar Diaz of Cebu City recently. And given the poverty and inequality in the country, drug lords are well placed to serve as patrons to many poor and low income families whose allegiance can be secured.

Perhaps it’s not surprising that countries with high inequality and poverty also tend to be prime targets for the expansion of illegal drug operations. Professor Liling Patalinghug of the University of the Philippines analyzed Philippine provincial data from 1979-2008, and found evidence that rising unemployment and stagnant wages are the key factors that exacerbate crime.

If the economy fails to provide decent work for large numbers of unemployed and low-income individuals, then this could also frustrate crime- and drug-prevention efforts.

State and regulatory capture

The other side of narconomics is narcopolitics. Just like businessmen trying to influence or control government in their favor, drug lords could follow the same strategy and try to weaken state efforts to combat the drug trade.

The Latin American experience is replete with examples of how narcos have penetrated the political sphere, such as by financing and supporting politicians, or even fielding political candidates of their own. For instance, in Mexico key government appointments – notably those with oversight over border control and the police – allegedly proved useful for drug cartels in their effort to grow and expand their network into major markets like the US.

In the Philippines, the recent allegations of drug ties in the Philippine National Police, as well as a growing number of drug-related arrests involving local government officials both raise the specter of narcopolitics in the country. Earlier this year, the head of the PDEA reported that up to 200 government officials were allegedly involved the illegal drug trade.

Prisons supply drug lords with fresh recruits

Finally, Narconomics also emphasized how drug dealers faced severe human resource (HR) challenges, given the high staff turnover in the narcotics trade – mostly due to the mortal risks involved. Drug lords in Latin America and the United States have therefore turned to an unlikely source for talent and skills training: prisons.

In this light, lowering the age of criminality in the Philippines to 9 years old should be reconsidered. Throwing children in jail cells with hardened criminals may actually strengthen drug lords’ ability to recruit fresh talent – hardening youth who could have otherwise been saved from a life of crime and drugs.

We will end up strengthening their HR department.

International experience suggests that a whole-of-system approach is necessary to combat the narcotics trade. It requires international cooperation to combat smuggling and interdict drug flows. In addition, we need tighter financial regulatory reforms to make it more difficult to launder drug money and move this across borders. Economic development strategies that provide strong education and produce decent work for millions of young people should also be pursued. Finally, demand side interventions that strengthen community awareness, and assist drug-affected individuals and their families will be critical, in order to save young people from falling deeper into drug dependence.

Ultimately, the most destructive impact of narcotics on our country is through its effects on our next generation of citizens, by weakening them. It would be ironic if the effort to combat crime and drugs sacrifices young people, the very wealth we are trying to protect from this scourge.– Rappler.com

Ronald U. Mendoza is the Dean of the Ateneo School of Government.

*The views expressed in this article are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Ateneo de Manila University. Jose Carlos Alexis “Bugsy” Bairan provided inputs and research assistance for this article.

US$1 = P47.13

The desk has been cleared. The clutter – papers, books, things strewn deliberately all over to induce creativity – taken care of, gone forever.

After today, #‎freedom‬‬. Freedom to speak out, knowing it is my voice and without fear that my views might be misconstrued as that of my boss'.

Freedom to call out stupidity and inanity, without ever having to think that as a government employee I have to always comport myself with dignity because my actions and words reflect on the government. Which is loads of bull, really. Government is a rotten machine being coaxed to run smoothly by capable and compassionate people, on one hand, and at the same time being run to the ground by people who, while full of themselves, know not what they do.

Freedom to do anything else that I've mulled doing over the past 5 years but never found the time to do. I might try to enlist at Escuella Taller, their restoration work has always fascinated me. Give me that chisel and I might turn out a Pinoy Michelangelo after all, making pieces to last empires even as I let my terribilita get the best of me and confront persons of authority.

Or make myself better at cooking, maybe make a business out of it? Maybe a picnic-outdoor movie tie-up with the Cinematheque? Then expand it to do tours – Pasig Ferry lunch, regaling tourists with history while they inhale the malodorous vapors of the river.

Or with the rains coming in, maybe now's as good a time as any to embark on that dormant mission of discovering the archipelago's comfort food and writing about it?

The options are countless and make me giddy with excitement. And afraid, yes, shit-in-the-pants afraid of the possibilities.

You still with me? Your attention has not been diverted yet by that interesting Buzzfeed article on the things you might have missed in that #‎GoT‬‬ season finale? Good. Proud of you. Seems you still have that long attention span to tolerate a person's ramblings posing as witty literary banter.

Just hold on a bit longer. Just let me publicly say thank you to the man responsible for opening my eyes to the truth this country faces.

To the man who can't keep still, who can never do nothing. I am grateful that through you I was able to give my voice a wider range. Thank you for the messages of hope that, over 5 years, I had to force into a mind clouded by disillusionment, spoken by a man of the masa (masses) who embodies what they can achieve through hard work, guts, and thick skin to ward off hurtful words. What more can one ask?

To the man who always kept me on my toes, alert to every need whenever I was with him, thank you. Throughout the hectic out-of-town sorties you have made me appreciate more the value of stillness, and of seeing the beautiful amid the ugly and mundane.

Most of all, despite the weariness from travel that still lingers in my bones, thank you, because through those travels, I have seen the enemy. I have seen poverty in its many faces. I have seen mobs smeared with grime, and people shit on highways next to low-set bamboo tables showcasing the wares, vegetables, or fruits that they were peddling.

I have smelled the stench caused by the lack of running water or a day's hard labor, made more intense as laborers massed together to hear the things they deserve from their government. I have heard people from places rarely visited by government – way before Leni Robredo and her laylayan became in vogue – and witnessed their amazement that someone would deign visit them – as if it were a gift from the gods rather than a right guaranteed them by the state. (READ: Binay's dream: PH where the poor get free pedicure, manicure) 

"Ay, ang liit niya!" "Ang itim niya!" "Parang tayo lang!" (He is small! He has a dark complexion! He is just like us!) 

How many times have I stopped myself from bawling out, or from shouting that I was rooting for them, that I hope they could rise above the squalor and the dirt and the wretchedness that bow their heads and backs, and keep them from seeing the cold comfort of the moon and stars, and make them curse the sun as an added burden?

Throughout this shared experience I have seen you now and then secretly wipe away the tears that threaten to gush forth from having witnessed the cruel inhumanity that many of our fellow Filipinos suffer. (READ: Binay: I will bear suffering for poor)

You are not the villain your opponents tried to paint you to be. You are the doting grandfather whose eyes light up immediately after seeing your grandchildren, proceeding to grasp their cheeks with both hands. Gigil. You are the Nognog that the common person could tease, touch, and laugh with.

You are the man who would not lie still, even when beaten; a real-life Gandalf whose unbounded spirit is forced to tolerate the limits of an old body, yet always, always, overcomes.

All in all, not too shabby, I guess, for a first boss. – Rappler.com 

Hans Pieter L. Arao, 28, is a former writer and media relations officer of former vice president Jejomar Binay. As a hobby, Hans scours the metro for cheap street food.

“The islands and reefs in the South China Sea are Chinese territory since ancient times,” Chinese President Xi Jinping declared in an exclusive interview during his visit to London last year.

Evoking a sense of historical duty, the Chinese leader explained how the contested land features are “left to [modern China] by our ancestors,” vowing that the “Chinese people will not allow anyone to infringe on China’s sovereignty and related rights and interests in the South China Sea.” 

It was a defiant defense of China’s massive reclamation activities and increasingly frequent deployment of naval vessels, para-military forces, and militia-cum-fishermen contingents across what it calls its national “blue soil”. In a span of two years, China has built a sprawling network of dual-purpose (civilian and military) facilities on artificial islands, which have been hosting a a growing number of uniformed personnel and advanced military hardware like mobile artilleries, high-frequency radars, jet fighters, and surface-to-air-missile systems. 

Though China isn’t the first country to have engaged in reclamation activities in the area, no one matches the speed, scale, and technological sophistication of its emerging “Great Wall of Sand” in the West Philippine Sea. There is a profound fear across the region that Beijing will soon establish a de facto "exclusion zone" in the area – restricting freedom of navigation and over-flight of regional states and foreign powers, particularly their armed forces. 

One neighboring country, in particular, has decided to take China to international court. In late-2012, shortly after China forcibly wrested control of the Philippine-claimed Scarborough Shoal, which falls well within Manila’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) but is located 900 kilometers from the nearest Chinese coastline, Philippine President Benigno Aquino III decided to take the case to an arbitration body. 

Bereft of the necessary muscle to defend its claim, and absent any tangible military support from long-time allies like America, the Aquino administration undertook the unprecedented decision to settle the West Philippine Sea disputes under the compulsory arbitration clause (Art. 287, Annex VII) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). 

In coming days, the arbitral tribunal is expected to release a final verdict, most likely unfavorable to China, but it is ultimately up to the Philippines’ newly-elected President Rodrigo Duterte on how to leverage the ruling. It will be his first and arguably most important foreign policy dilemma. As much as the new president seeks better relations with China, it is of paramount importance that a likely favorable verdict will not be laid to waste in order to simply re-open communication channels with China. Bilateral talks should be unconditional. 

The Philippine government should ensure that the verdict would be optimized to advance the national interest by tangibly reshaping China’s behavior, enhancing the Philippines’ position in the disputed waters, and defending its territorial claims. We don’t want war, for sure, but appeasement is also not an option. 

Meanwhile, the Philippines should also seek maximum support and virtual strategic guarantee from international partners, particularly America and Japan, to enforce the verdict, which is binding but has been vociferously opposed by China. It is high time for the United States to clarify whether its mutual defense treaty with the Philippines means that it will come to its ally’s rescue if the situation gets out of control. The current policy of "strategic ambiguity" has created too much ambiguity without providing any significant strategic gains, since China has pushed ahead with its expansive claims in recent years without much self-restraint.

The West can’t expect the Philippines to shoulder the costs of confrontation with China on its own. The Philippines can’t take up the cudgels for international law singlehandedly. After all, the arbitration case is binding, but not enforceable unless the global powers step up to the plate. 

Trial of the century  

Since arbitration bodies under UNCLOS have no mandate to adjudicate questions of sovereignty (i.e., territorial claim), the Philippines skillfully repackaged its legal complaint against China as, primarily, a question of maritime entitlement zones (see Art. 121, Part VIII on “regime of islands”).

For the Philippines, it’s important to clarify, for instance, whether the disputed land features in the West Philippine Sea constitute low-tide elevations, which (generally) can’t be claimed as one’s territory, or rocks, which can generate their own territorial sea, or islands, which can generate their own EEZ -- an issue that carries immense strategic and territorial implications. 

In addition, the Philippines, in its thousands-paged-long memorial, raised concerns with respect to China’s purported harassment of Filipino fishermen and energy exploration operations in its EEZ, China’s reclamation activities on low-tide elevations in the Spratly chain of islands as well as their deleterious ecological impact, particularly for coral reefs and endangered species. Most crucially, the Philippines has also questioned the validity and precise nature of China’s 9-dash-line claim, which covers much of the West Philippine and the larger South China Sea, and its doctrine of historical rights/waters, which undergirds Beijing’s claim in the area but seemingly contradicts prevailing international law. 

China tried to procedurally undermine the Philippines’ arbitration case by raising both jurisdictional and admissibility questions: It cited exemption clauses under the UNCLOS (Art. 298, Section 2, Part XV); questioning the competency of the arbitral tribunal adjudicate what China characterizes as fundamentally sovereignty-related disputes; and argued that the Philippines violated prior bilateral and multilateral agreements by resorting to compulsory arbitration, a supposedly premature maneuver since both parties are yet to fully exhaust available avenues of conciliation. 

China even refused to participate in the arbitration proceedings. But the arbitration body (under Art. 9, Annex VII) proceeded with examining the Philippines’ complaint despite the absence of one party, though, in accordance to Art. 5, Annex VII, it consistently provided, in various stages, Beijing the opportunity to defend its case whether through official (i.e., counter-memorial submission) or indirect channels (e.g., public statements, position papers, etc.) 

Last October, the Philippines officially overcame both the jurisdiction and admissibility hurdles when the arbitral body announced that it will push through with examining the merits of almost half of the items in the Manila’s memorial, mostly concerning purely of bilateral significance, particularly the nature of disputed features in the Philippines’ EEZ; the ecological impact of China’s reclamation activities in the area; and the alleged harassment of Filipino fishermen by Chinese coast guard forces.  

With the respect to the remaining items, particularly the validity of China’s nine-dashed-line claims and its ‘historical rights/waters’ doctrine, the arbitral body will examine the question of jurisdiction and their individual merit simultaneously.

Tough choices

The verdict is expected to come out on July 12. Most experts agree that the outcome will be largely unfavorable to China, which has desperately sought to undermine the legitimacy of the arbitral body, claimed to have rallied up to 40 (poor and dependent) countries to question the Philippines’ legal maneuver, and has sought to reach out to President Rodrigo Duterte, who has expressed his openness to engagement and finding a modus vivendi with China in the West Philippine Sea. Of course, it remains to be seen whether the Duterte administration will fully leverage the arbitration verdict or, alternatively, decide to set it aside in order to revive frayed ties with China.  

A largely favorable outcome would give the Duterte administration great leverage to extract Chinese concessions -- non-imposition of an ADIZ, mutual disengagement from Scarborough Shoal, non-harassment of Filipino fishermen and troops in contested waters -- in the West Philippine Sea in exchange for not releasing a strong statement on the need for ‘compliance’ shun using the verdict to diplomatically embarrass China. But this will surely estrange America, Japan and other traditional partners. 

Of course, there is also the possibility that the verdict will not be favorable to the Philippines, especially if the court issues an indeterminate, obfuscated verdict and shoots down Manila’s arguments in terms of their merits, particularly the one concerning China’s nine-dashed-line claims and doctrine of historical rights. 

It is possible that the court will resort to very vague legal semantics to provide China some room to save face and not antagonize the powerful country, which has threatened to withdraw from UNCLOS altogether if it confronts a prejudicial outcome. In this case, Duterte has minimal leverage on China, but he can still open up communication channels, albeit form a weaker negotiating position, by disowning the whole arbitration proceeding as the folly of his predecessor. 

There is a third, middle-way option. Both parties can, upon mutual consent, agree to the creation of a “conciliation commission” (under Article 1, Annex V of UNCLOS), which allows both parties to project their supposed respect for international law, preserve diplomatic channels, and address their overlapping claims with the guidance of a mutually-accepted panel of legal experts, who can only provide legal advise but issue no binding verdict. Then again, this option also carries its own risks and there is no guarantee that alternative UNCLOS-based mechanisms will meaningfully alter China’s behavior.  

Much will also depend on how America and other major naval powers will utilize the arbitration verdict to justify more regular, wide-ranging and multilateral Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) in the West Philippine Sea, aimed at reining in Chinese assertiveness in the area. 

What is at stake is not only regional security in Asia, which has been heavily undermined by the increased militarization of territorial disputes, but also shared access to global commons in accordance to modern international law. 

It is a clash between China’s “territorial” and “closed seas” vision of adjacent waters, on one hand, and the international community’s call for “open seas” and rule of law in international waters, on the other. – Rappler.com  

Richard Javad Heydarian is the author of Asia’s New Battlefield: US, China, and the Struggle for Western Pacific (Zed, London). A version of this piece was published by Brookings Institution, Washington DC. 

The events of the last few weeks have engendered much goodwill towards the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte at the same that it has triggered apprehensions about where it is headed. (READ: Duterte's decision-making unpredictable)

Hopes

The naming and shaming of 5 former and current police generals for their alleged involvement in the drug trade  was only the most dramatic in a series of moves by the new president that elicited popular approval. 

Hopes for a new social dispensation were stirred by several fast-moving events, among them a promise that the administration would end contractualization and an announcement that an executive order would institutionalize Freedom of Information.  That a new deal was at hand for the marginalized sectors appeared imminent with the appointment of people associated with the National Democratic Front (NDF) to the top posts in the Department of Agrarian Reform, Department of Social Welfare and Development, and the National Anti-Poverty Commission. 

Perhaps the appointment that drew the most applause from civil society was that of anti-mining advocate Gina Lopez as head of Department of the Environment and Natural Resources.  Civil society also cheered when Mr Duterte blasted Lopez’s critic, mining magnate Manny Pangilinan, as “just a puppet of the foreign based Salim Group, while I am the chosen president of the Republic of the Philippines!”

Indeed, we seem to be entering not simply a new presidency but a new era.

Fears

Hopes, however, have mingled with fears.  The spate of killings of suspected drug pushers and users triggered suspicions that crooked cops were getting rid of their accomplices or that they were acting on the green light to kill drug pushers and addicts with no or minimal attention to due process that they feel they had gotten from the president.

Words matter, said human rights advocates, worried that Duterte’s statements prior to his ascent to the presidency that citizens had the right to kill drug pushers if they resisted and his offering a higher bounty for dead rather than living criminals might already have inaugurated a wave of vigilantism that might claim innocent lives.  This could easily degenerate, they said, into people settling scores with their enemies simply by branding them as pushers.

The numbers are grim:  according to the Philippine Association of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA), there have been 163 killings since the May 9 elections, most but not all of them in violent encounters with the police.

The curious conjunction of moves that apparently promote economic and social rights with advocacy of extrajudicial killings has provoked two interesting responses.  One is that we should not dwell too much on the president’s endorsement of extrajudicial killings or violations of due process since he is, after all, committed to taking measures that will advance the social and economic welfare of the marginalized masses.  The second response is that what matters are not individual rights but “class rights,” and we should not bother too much with the “so-called rights” of people that belong to the exploiting classes and the criminal class or “lumpenproletariat.”

These views are worrisome.  For one, the so-called social and economic reforms are still promises, and it may were well happen that they could  be blocked or diluted by compromises with vested interests.  But this is not the principal reason why these views are wrong and dangerous.

To focus first on the second response, one has only to recall the so-called “Ahos (‘Garlic’) Campaign” that ravaged the ranks of the left during the 1980’s to realize the terrible consequences of such a stance. Some 2000 people were killed with no regard for due process simply because they were arbitrarily branded as class enemies or “agents of the ruling class.” Although this view is now held by a distinct minority of progressives, its continuing influence in some sectors of the left must not be underestimated.

The first response – that we should give the President some leeway in his methods of dealing with crime since he is, after all, supportive of social and economic reform – is very popular. In fact, one can say that a very large number of those who voted for Duterte voted for him because they approved of his extreme measures to curb crime, along with his promise to root out corruption and his strong condemnation of poverty and inequality.

Now, given the poor record of previous administrations on law and order, one can certainly understand why people are fed up with and support drastic measures on crime and drugs.  But the popularity of Duterte’s law and order stance does not make it right.  One can definitely agree with Duterte supporters that the administration of justice is terrible, with too many crooks evading the law, but it is quite another thing to say that the way to deal with them is via extrajudicial execution and skipping due process altogether.

Fundamental rights and positive rights

When he first signaled his intention to run for the presidency last year, I said that Duterte’s candidacy would be good for democracy because it would force liberals and progressives to defend a proposition that they had long taken for granted:  that human rights and due process are core values of Philippine society.

Let us now address this urgent task.

The right to life, right to freedom, right to be free from discrimination, and right to due process have often been called fundamental rights because they assert the intrinsic value of each person’s existence and underline that this value is not bestowed by the state or society.  They are also  often called “negative” rights or “inalienable” rights to stress that other individuals, corporate bodies, or the state have no right to take them away or violate them.

What have now come to be known as “positive rights” such as the right to be free from poverty, the right to a status of economic equality with others, and the right to a life with dignity are those rights that promote the attainment of conditions that allow the individual or group to develop fully as a human being.  Positive rights – sometimes referred to as social, economic, and cultural rights – build on negative or fundamental rights. The recognition and institutionalization of fundamental rights may have been historically prior to the recognition and achievement of positive rights but the latter are necessary extensions of the former.  Rights, in short, are indivisible, and positive rights have a fragile foundation in a state where the basic right to life is negated by leaders who claim to be promoting them.

Liberal democracy vs authoritarian rule

One of the key functions of the state is to secure the life and limbs of its citizens, but this must be accomplished while respecting the full range of rights of its citizens.  There is a necessary tension between not violating individual rights and achieving security and political order. This healthy tension is what distinguishes the liberal democratic or social democratic state from the authoritarian, fascist, Stalinist, or ISIS state.

To progressives and liberals, recognition and respect for human, civil, political, social, economic, and cultural rights have been a fundamental thrust in the evolution of the Philippine polity, a process that has been influenced by landmark events in the history of democracy such as the French Revolution and the later struggles against colonialism, fascism, and Stalinism.  Individual rights have been won in interconnected global struggles against ruling classes, imperial oppressors, corporations, and bureaucratic and military elites.  This historical process has produced polities called liberal democracies and social democracies, the latter being distinguished by their greater stress on the achievement of the full range of positive rights, including universal social protection. 

However, one must acknowledge that there has been a counter-thrust, one that has periodically emerged to challenge the primacy of the individual and human rights.  This perspective places the state as the authority or arbiter of what “rights” the individual can enjoy, subordinates the welfare of the individual citizen to the security or needs of the state, and says that due process is principally one determined by the needs of the state and not by respect for the rights and welfare of the individual.  This historical counter-thrust became dominant during the martial law period from 1972 to 1986 and it threatens to become dominant today, with support from a significant part of the citizenry.

The perils of Dutertismo

Currently, President Duterte embodies the view that refuses to recognize the universality of rights and denies due process to certain classes of people in the interest of combating crime and corruption.  The majority of those who voted for him agreed with his stance.  They form the social base of Dutertismo, a movement based on mass support for a leader who personifies the illiberal, extreme measures they feel is necessary to deal with crime, corruption, and other social problems.

At the risk of repeating ourselves, let us make 3 points with respect to this trend.

First, we do not question the goal of fighting crime.  Indeed, we support it.  But it cannot be achieved by trampling on human rights.  No one has the right to take life except in the very special circumstance  and in a very clear case of self-defense.  Everyone is entitled to the enjoyment of those rights and their protection by the state.  And if these rights must be limited for the greater good, then there must a legally sanctioned process to determine this.  Wrongdoers must certainly be meted punishment, but even wrongdoers have rights and are entitled to due process. 

Second, denying some classes of people these rights, as Duterte does, puts all of us on the slippery slope that could end up extending this denial to other groups, like one’s political enemies or people that “disrupt” public order, like anti-government demonstrators or people on striking for better pay.  In this connection, remember that candidate Duterte threatened to kill workers who stood in the way of his economic development plans and made the blanket judgment that all journalists who had been assassinated were corrupt and deserved to be eliminated. That was no slip of the tongue.

Third, rights are indivisible.  Measures that purportedly promote positive rights and advance the economic and social welfare of citizens rest on a fragile basis and can easily be taken back if they are not recognized as stemming from and resting on the basic right to life.  Upholding positive rights while negating fundamental rights involves one not only in a logical but in a very real contradiction. To say I will liberate you from exploitation but hold your life hostage to your “good” behavior involves one in a contradiction that is ultimately unsustainable; this is the contradiction that unravelled the Stalinist socialiist states of Eastern Europe.

Strategic opposition

The President’s campaign and his program were driven by his depreciation of human rights and due process.  There is a fundamental political cleavage in the country between those who support his views on human rights and due process and those opposed to them.  Thus those of us who consider human rights and due process as core values cannot but find ourselves in strategic opposition to this administration.

Being in opposition does not mean denying the legitimacy of the administration.  It means recognizing the legitimacy conferred by elections but registering disagreement with the central platform on which it was won, that is, the control of crime and corruption not through the rule of law but mainly through extrajudicial execution and violation of due process. 

It is always difficult to be in opposition to a popular administration.  This is why one must commend proven human rights stalwarts  like Rep Teddy Baguilat and Edcel Lagman, who have stood up for principles and declared themselves in the minority or opposition even as the vast majority of their partymates in the Liberal Party jumped en masse into the Duterte bandwagon after the election to share in the spoils of the man they had opposed.  More than their erstwhile comrades, Baguilat and Lagman know that popularity is fleeting, and it is not worth going against your principles to accommodate it.

But with the disintegration of a viable opposition in the House and Senate, the unpredictable posture of the Supreme Court, and silence in the bureaucracy (with the notable exception of the Commission on Human Rights), it becomes imperative that civil society must become the central locus of opposition.

Opposition does not mean total opposition.  It means critical opposition, whereby one may support positive legislative measures proposed by the administration even as one maintains a strategic opposition to it owing to its violation of one’s core values and principles.  In short, one should definitely support measures such as agrarian reform, an end to contractualization, institutionalization of the freedom of information, and the phasing out of mining, for these are progressive measures that can only redound to the welfare of society and the environment.  But fundamental rights are fundamental rights, and since these basic rights are threatened by the philosophy and politics of the current administration, then one must stand strategically in opposition to it even as one supports its measures that enhance people’s positive rights. 

Defense of one’s core values, however, is not the only reason for being in opposition.  The existence of a strong opposition is the best defense of democracy, for nothing more surely leads to the dismantling of democracy than the concentration of power.  In this regard, we believe the president when he says that he has no intention of remaining in power beyond 6 years. But, if we have learned anything from politics, it is that good intentions can easily be corrupted by absolute power.  Paradoxically, the best way we can help President Duterte keep his promise is to provide him with a vigorous opposition.

In sum, a strong opposition based on the defense of universal human rights is the best way to ensure the future of Philippine democracy.  – Rappler.com

Walden Bello served as a member of the House of Representatives from 2009 to 2015.  He broke with the Daang Matuwid Coalition of President Benigno Aquino III and gave up his seat in the House  in March 2015 in what is regarded as the only resignation on principle in the history of the Philippine Congress.

I have been bothered by the news that President Duterte is thinking of resorting to emergency powers to solve the traffic problems of Metro Manila and the subsequent filing by Senator Franklin Drilon of a bill to grant him those powers.

My experience as a human rights activist, particularly as someone who has gone through martial law, makes me wary of any suspension of the normal procedures of government and the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution that effectively allows Congress and the Supreme Court to curb  the power of the President.

The framers of our Constitution think so too. Even a lay person would not mistake the tenor of its provisions which talk of emergency and war in the same breath. Thus in Section 23 (2), Article VI: 

SEC. 23. (1) The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war.

It goes on to limit the granted powers to a specific time frame and very limited powers set by Congress.

SEC. 23. (2) In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.

Personally, I understand the frustration of people with the bad traffic in Metro Manila and the economic, social and environmental costs of this situation.

Yet, because the grant of emergency powers is an unusual step and one fraught with grave dangers for abuse, I do not think it is something to be taken lightly.

Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to the proposition per se. My question is whether such a grant of powers would be effective in solving the problem. If this can be answered in the affirmative then, I would not necessarily oppose it.

Traffic expert

Being an advocate of seeking evidence-based advice from experts, I sought out a friend and UP colleague, Dr. Aurora Corpuz Mendoza, whose dissertation for her PhD was on factors leading to traffic violations by public and private drivers. She has been working on issues related to traffic ever since.

My interpretation of her advice is that the practical steps that should be taken in the short-term, medium-term and long-term can be accomplished without emergency powers. In fact, these powers maybe irrelevant to these necessary steps.

In the short-term, Dr. Corpuz Mendoza notes that an immediate step that should be taken is what she calls “high levels of enforcement” of traffic rules. This, I believe, is easy to grasp as most of us complain of the many traffic infractions that cause traffic build up. We all have vented our ire at public utility vehicles that stop at corners despite a green light to pick up passengers, people who own cars but no garages and therefore park their vehicles on even national roads, business establishments that encroach on sidewalks, jaywalking, people playing basketball in the middle of the street, politicians and religious institutions closing down major roads for their celebrations and so on.

It is also good to remember the experiment taken last September when EDSA was taken over by traffic cops. This resulted in immediate and significant improvement in traffic, though it did reveal the need for next steps, such as the deployment of similarly trained and empowered cops in other thoroughfares.

While this is an immediate solution, it will still take months. Traffic enforcers with no police powers need to be replaced with traffic police. These police need to be fully trained specifically for the job of traffic management and the enforcement of traffic laws. More importantly, corruption in the police force that allows violations like prolonged and illegal parking or even the setting up of semi-permanent commercial stalls on sidewalks and side streets is necessary.

When I think about it, none of these measures actually can be helped and accomplished by emergency powers. The President needs no added measures to recruit and train traffic cops. And he has the power to get rid of abusive cops as it stands. The EDSA experiment shows that it can be done without emergency powers.

I asked Dr. Corpuz Mendoza of other proposed immediate solutions that will require emergency powers such as the opening up of private roads. She does not believe this will be helpful. First, many subdivision roads are not built for high volumes of traffic. These roads are often narrow and residents park cars on these roads. Thus opening these roads will merely move congestion into these subdivisions without significantly reducing traffic.

She also adds that the trade-off is too high in terms of increased vehicular accidents that often take the lives of children. Studies have shown that the majority of kids in traffic accidents live in homes where they are exposed to traffic. There is a reason, after all, why we have zoning laws in the country specifying residential areas.

She also discussed short term solutions, such as the purchasing of more carriages for the MRT and LRT, which would also be of help.

According to some, this can be fast-tracked if the President can skip the tedious processes of government purchasing. But I take previous experience on this matter as a warning that the regular processes, if properly conducted,  are a safer route to take. During his time, President Ramos was given emergency powers to solve a power shortage crisis. This allowed him to contract immediately with independent power producers who dictated questionable terms that made government pay them regardless of whether it actually bought electricity from these producers as a PCIJ report notes. These unfair contracts continue to haunt us today. There is indeed a reason for these tedious purchasing procedures. Nonetheless it is the abuse of these procedures rather than in its implementation, as Pres. Duterte's own inaugural address implies, that problems arise.

Dr. Corpuz Mendoza says that proven effective medium-term solutions include putting bus drivers on professional salaries rather than on the boundary system. Bus drivers on the boundary system are forced to break traffic rules and cause congestion in an attempt to fill their buses at all times. A salary would allow them to drive in accordance to traffic rules. Additionally these will decrease their exploitation and lead to safer driving. As it stands, bus drivers are on the road 17 to18 hours a day and many become drug addicted to shabu (methamphetamines) in order to stay awake.

There is apparently already a DOLE order on this matter, something that has been strenuously opposed by bus operators. 

Other regulatory measures which will be opposed by bus operators will be a reform of the franchises issued by the LTFRB which has allowed three times more buses on EDSA than what traffic studies recommend. Trip generation studies will be needed to adequately determine franchises which is why this solution also needs time.

Dr. Corpuz Mendoza notes further that our roads are multi-use roads with a variety of vehicles from trucks, to buses, to jeeps, to tricycles and pedicabs on the road. Studies will be needed to determine the proper mix of vehicles, she notes. But she is convinced that in Metro Manila, tricycles and jeepneys will need to eventually be phased out.

Long term solutions for her include continuing traffic education for every citizen that can include modules included in the new K12 curriculum. She notes that current efforts at driver education are sorely inadequate and that it is not just drivers but everyone who needs to be educated on proper road use.

Being a proper academic, Dr. Corpuz Mendoza pointed out that other experts such as urban and rural planners will need to be consulted for yet other solutions.

Our discussion ended on the issue of how society must look at public transportation. Public transportation should be treated not just as a private enterprise but also as a public trust and this will require that this industry accept heavy regulation.

Which brings me back the issue of political will.

The current President came to power because it he has portrayed himself as a man of iron will in solving all the ills that have brought about the traffic problem: corruption, incompetence, monopolies for profit, poor police enforcement. He came to power proclaiming he is a socialist, which I interpret to mean he will treat public transportation as a public trust and will entertain policies for heavy regulation, if not outright nationalization. His ability to deliver on his promise to solve the traffic problem quickly and permanently, without resorting to emergency powers, will be a litmus test of the character of his leadership. – Rappler.com

 “As a lawyer and a former prosecutor… I know what is legal and what is not. My adherence to due process and the rule of law is uncompromising.”

                                                  President Rodrigo Duterte, inaugural speech, June 30, 2016

Yet days after President Duterte said these words, dozens of suspected drug traffickers and users were killed, a continuing trend in the Philippines, widely seen as the main response of the new president toward reducing drug-related criminality.

In fact, in the first 6 weeks after the elections, The Economist tabulates that the police shot dead suspected drug dealers and users  “at the rate of nine a week, over four times the rate in the preceding four months.”

Overall, since May, police have confirmed that more than 100 have been  killed in this take-no-prisoners campaign against drugs.

The police have the full support of Duterte.  He assured them during the change-of-command ceremony in Camp Crame, the day after he took over the helm of government: "Do your duty – and if, in the process, you kill 1,000 persons because you were doing your duty – I will protect you.”

Duterte’s war on drugs is leaving blood on our streets and violating, in his own words, “due process” and the “rule of law.” Don’t these suspects deserve their day in court?

As leading human rights advocate Juan Manuel Diokno pointedly asked, “Do we really want to give the man with the gun the power to judge who are criminals and to kill them? To decide who is bad and who is good, who deserves to live and who deserves to die?

We are alarmed by this unrelenting trend. If unchecked, it will lead to abuses and erode the foundations of our democracy, cherished values we have fought for since the dark years of martial law.

It is time Duterte learn from the experiences of other countries, starting with our neighbor Thailand. In 2003, when Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra launched a war on drugs, close to 3,000 were summarily killed in the first 3 months of the campaign. An official investigation later found, however, that more than half were not related to drugs.

In Latin America, 3 countries that have been fighting the drug trade – Mexico, Guatemala and Colombia – are rethinking strategies. “A war that has been fought for more than 40 years has not been won,” President Juan Manuel Santos of Colombia said. “When you do something for 40 years and it doesn’t work, you need to change it.” 

Duterte has still time to shift gears before it its too late and the country gets mired in rivers of blood.– Rappler.com

Crime role in politics merits examination as the Philippines regresses to a kamay na bakal (iron fist) presidency that today is gaining the appearance of strength through executive orders to summarily and extra-judicially execute suspected criminals.

Rapid normalization of “coffin policing” at the national level during the first days of the Duterte presidency has been welcomed with praise; newsfeeds of criminalized dead bodies have not mobilized protestors.

Examining the politicization of crime and the criminalization of politics in the Philippines can elucidate crime’s foundational role in shaping the Duterte presidency. 

Previous studies have defined the politicization of crime as a process through which politicians use crime control programs and law and order leadership to increase their electability and popularity (Fairchild and Web 1985, Oliver 2003). The Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (2004) characterizes the criminalization of politics as the active involvement and successful participation of corrupt leaders, alleged murderers, racketeers, and kidnappers and other criminal elements in political races.

Politicization of crime

Numerous Philippine politicians have effectively used “War on Crime” rhetoric to win election as mayor, councilor, governor, senator and now president. Crime is rich in political capital; crime as an issue can represent the anxieties of all while providing “little to no opposition—as no one is for crime” (Oliver 114). Anybody who opposes the war on crime easily can be labeled a supporter of criminals. President Duterte has raised the costs of that stance dramatically. 

President Rodrigo “Digong” Duterte has succeeded as a crime warrior politician by mining public discontent with a slow, weak, and corrupt justice system that favors economic and political power. He has brought profane words to an otherwise elitist political narrative – “putang ina mo” (mother fucker) and “papatayin kita” (I will kill you) – words that symbolize the frustrations of Duterte supporters with the ever-playable justice system. In spite of the Philippine media’s testy relationship with Duterte, its sensationalized street crime reporting has constructed a crime epidemic that is foundational to Dutertism, the new president’s political strategy of transforming crime victimization as a national paranoia into political capital.

Responding to demands for peace and order among his middle- and upper-class and overseas Filipinos, Duterte has promised to deliver a more retributive national justice. He has attacked the previous administration for its impotence in protecting citizens from robbery, scams, hostage-taking, massacres, rape and drug-related violence while portraying himself as a punisher ready to use lethal extrajudicial means to eradicate criminal elements. 

Criminalization of politics

Filipinos known as murderers, rapists, kidnappers, rebels, assassins, extortionists, warlords, drug-lords, gambling-lords and torturers have participated successfully in contemporary contests for political office.

In the 2013 national election, former coup plotters Antonio Trillanes IV and Gregorio Honasan won election to the Senate, and Joseph Estrada, who exited the Philippine presidency under charges of plunder, was elected mayor of Manila.

In the 2010 elections, Anwar Ampatuan, detained for his links to the Maguindanao massacre of 58 Filipinos, including 34 journalists, won the post of vice mayor in Shariff Aguak, Maguindanao; his wife was elected mayor. Vincent Crisologo, convicted of arson and murder, was reelected to represent the 1st district of Quezon City in Congress. Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (2001-2010), under hospital arrest for long-standing charges of corruption, bribery, human rights violations and cheating in the 2004 presidential election, was elected Congresswoman for the 2nd district in Pampanga in 2010. Former

President Ferdinand E. Marcos began and ended his political career in a blaze of court trials for heinous crimes and political controversies; his wife, Imelda Marcos, is now a congresswoman, his daughter is a governor, and his son is a senator who came very close to winning the 2016 vice- presidential election.

These examples represent a small portion of the many successful Philippine criminal politicians who began or furthered their political careers by capitalizing on their own crimes.

According to Boorhiss (2007), criminal charges do not keep Philippine politicians out of politics; delays arising from slow criminal justice processes, often abetted by political pressures, reduce the effects of convictions on resourceful politicians.

Criminal politicians seem to know that how they play their roles during arrests, trials, and incarceration is critical to winning the support of “the people,” or “the masses.” For example, Joseph Estrada’s mug shot photo and his arrest incited a revolution. Calculated, scripted and dramatic performances by politicians on every stage of criminal justice processes ensures that the legal assault on their crimes will heighten their attractiveness to supporters. Electoral success signals approval of their misconduct as an exercise of power.  

The elite who use their wealth, education, connections, and electoral machinery to ease the transformation of crime into political capital are assisted by a mass media that leads Filipinos to imagine their nation as comprised of criminals by habitually showcasing crime and violence.

Two of the Filipinos I have interviewed express this popular view in stating, “All the politicians are corrupt”; “Give me the name of a politician who did not use government money for his own interests.” And as the criminalization of politics and politicization of crime on stages of the justice system and mass media supersede undertaking economic and political reform, the poor become the threatening faces of crime and are left behind to serve not only as political producers and consumers but also as targets in a bloody war for political capital. – Rappler.com

Christopher N. Magno is an associate professor in the Criminal Justice Program at Gannon University. He earned his Ph.D. in Criminal Justice at Indiana University, Bloomington, his Master's in Sociology at the University of the Philippines, Diliman. His teaching and research specializations include urban crime, politics of crime, and law and society.