I stand as a character witness to the public life of Senator Leila de Lima. Although I am not close to Senator De Lima personally, I have observed her conduct for many years now – first as an election lawyer, and later as a public official. I am not privy to her private life and her love life is not my concern.

I must also say that I have not always supported Secretary De Lima’s official acts, including the Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (GMA) case, the problems at the New Bilibid Prison, and the ongoing Senate hearings. But none of my criticisms is enough to overturn my judgment of Senator de Lima as a good public servant. She is, following Saint Thomas More, patron saint of lawyers and public officials, a woman for all seasons.

At the outset, I must also say that I support many of President Duterte’s initiatives, particularly the peace process, constitutional change, the economic reforms being proposed, and the war against illegal drugs if pursued without human rights excesses.

I also support a strong leader with formidable political will as that is required by many of our challenges. But it is precisely because of that support, that I believe a strong opposition is important. As a governance person, I believe that it is in the conflcit of ideas, that the best solutions are found. The worst thing that has happened in our politics today is the lack of a strong opposition. Right now, Senator De Lima is one of the few politicans who has stood up to play this role. We need her to continue doing that.

De Lima as election lawyer

A San Beda College of Law graduate and bar topnotcher (ranking 8^th in the 1985 exams), Senator De Lima is known for her professionalism and courage, more than anything else. As one of the leading election lawyers in the Philippines, her clients included the likes of Senators Manny Villar, Alan Peter Cayetano, and Koko Pimentel.

She stood as the lawyer of Cayetano when a nuisance candidate with the same name as the senator, a dockworker from Davao, was fielded to undermine his candidacy as a result of his perceived opposition to then President Arroyo, as well as his exposés on the alleged corruption of former first gentleman Mike Arroyo. It was then said at the Comelec that the order to dismiss the case and allow the nuisance candidate to run came from the very top. De Lima nevertheless went on to win the case for Cayetano, and the senator got his Senate seat.

As early as her election law practice, De Lima was already recognized for her determination, at the risk of her own personal safety. She hazarded appearance at the very heart of the Ampatuan kingdom in Maguindanao, protesting manufactured election returns to contest the impending proclamation of the warlord family’s candidates, only to be told by fellow election lawyer and future Comelec Chairman Sixto Brillantes Jr that she has done enough, and that it was better if she left the canvassing center with him before it got dark.

Several years later, De Lima went back to Maguindanao, this time as Chairperson of the CHR (Commission on Human Rights) to see first-hand the tableau of 58 dead bodies found on a hilltop in Ampatuan, Maguindanao. It was the same danger she faced when she challenged the rule of the Ampatuans years earlier as their opponent’s election lawyer.  

Heading  the Commission on Human Rights

When she was appointed by President Arroyo to head the Commission on Human Rights, there was speculation that the decision was moved by the desire to deprive the opposition of its most effective election lawyer.

Whatever the reason, subsequent events showed that De Lima only ceased to be a thorn insofar as lawyering for the opposition was concerned. She proved to be a thorn in the Arroyo administration in another manner, when she proceeded to conduct serious investigations on human rights violations committed by the military which was then conducting extra-legal operations against known leftist militants.

One of these included the case of the two UP students who were abducted and went missing, which eventually led to the arrest and prosecution of General Jovito Palparan. It was also during De Lima’s stint at the CHR that the abduction case of Jonas Burgos was investigated by the CHR, as well as other cases of abduction including that of an alleged Abu Sayyaf member who was the victim of mistaken identity by the military.       

These stories showed that De Lima as CHR Chairperson was not inclined to be partial towards the background of human rights victims. As long as there was a human rights violation committed either by the State or a non-state actor, regardless of what the military made the victim to appear to be, she was bound to investigate and call the perpetrator to task.

It was this characteristic empathy for victims of human rights violations that led her to investigate a particular case that nobody dared touch until then, for the reason that the victims were the lumpen dregs of society, the alleged petty criminals, pushers and addicts of the slums of Davao City.

One thing that resulted from the CHR hearings on the DDS was the fact that the killings on the streets of Davao eventually decreased, if they did not totally stop altogether. The national spotlight focused on the Davao killings because the CHR investigation forced the DDS to lie low at some point, especially after the discovery of human remains inside the compound of a firing range owned by a former Davao policeman, which was also known as the DDS training ground.

De Lima’s tenure as justice secretary

As Secretary of Justice, De Lima continued to collect the enemies that would one day seek her “karma,” in the words of former first gentleman Mike Arroyo and, more recently, the daughter of Senator Juan Ponce Enrile.

Preventing GMA from going abroad, and eventually causing her arrest and detention through the entire term of President Aquino, was just the start of her colorful career in collecting enemies as secretary of justice. I have written that, in retrospect, it would have been better if GMA was granted bail, given the evidence against her which saw the Supreme Court acquitting the former president.

De Lima did not stop with the Arroyos.

In the aftermath of an NBI rescue operation of a kidnapping victim, Benhur Luy spilled the beans on a scandal that was to rock the entire country. The PDAF [Priority Development Assistance Fund] scam was investigated by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) under De Lima’s direct control and supervision, and resulted in the filing of cases, arrest and detention of congressmen and Senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Estrada, and Bong Revilla for plunder.

This earned her the ire of certain quarters for implementing selective justice, as only the opposition politicians were being singled out. This was inaccurate. The PDAF scam complaint sheets submitted by the NBI to the Ombudsman included administration officials and close Aquino friends and allies such as former Customs Commissioner Ruffy Biazon and now Senator Joel Villanueva.

Her list of enemies did not only include these powerful national figures. Ironically, she is now being linked by President Duterte to the same Bilibid drug lords whose hegemony in the national penitentiary De Lima broke apart when she personally led the raid on their “kubols” in December of 2014. In the aftermath of the raid, the drug lords filed administrative and criminal cases against De Lima, using top-caliber lawyers paid with drug money.

No fortune to show

One or two sent her death threats. That these same drug lords would give her protection money or finance her election campaign, after De Lima has destroyed their Bilibid drug network and isolated them in a separate detention building, does not add up.

For one, she has no fortune to show, at least none that we know of, that is commensurate to the imagined protection money that drug lords would give a Cabinet secretary.

With supposed millions in drug payoffs, why build a house in the middle of rice fields in Urbiztondo, Pangasinan, when you can very well buy a spot in Ayala Alabang?

De Lima does not even own the house she lives in, here in Manila. She is renting it.

President Duterte might have the so-called “intercepts” of communications between the Bilibid drug lords and De Lima’s driver, or he may even produce evidence against one or two DOJ officials linked to her.

But the most important question that the President should answer is, “Where is the money?”

Without evidence of the drug money in De Lima’s accounts, or without evidence of properties accumulated in her name that is not justified by her income as a public official or as a former election law practitioner, the accusations that De Lima received drug money from drug lords amounts to nothing but the persecution of the senator.

This is not to say that Senator De Lima is completely unaccountable for the state of the Bilibid prison during her tenure as secretary of justice. She could have been more aggressive, for example. If there were limitations, legal and political, that constrained her, it would be good to have that out in public.

The Senate hearings

The first two hearings of the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights show that, in spite of the personal attacks on her, De Lima is still capable of being objective in the inquiry on the extrajudicial killings, at least as much as a person who is obviously affected by accusations of graft and corruption can be against the government that is accusing her.

There were instances, however, when she could not avoid being defensive about her record as justice secretary who exercised supervision over the New Bilibid Prison, when charges of negligence and complicity in the proliferation of drugs at the Bilibid surfaced during the hearings. In my view, when she took on this defensive mode, the hearings became distracted.

No matter how affected the senator is, she must stand true to herself and her own record as a professional lawyer and public servant. The hearing is not about the accusations against her, but about the administration’s strategy in its war on drugs, and how this is coinciding with the unusual and alarming rise in the killing of drug suspects during police operations and the extrajudicial killing perpetrated by vigilantes.

I am hoping that President Duterte and his supporters will realize that a De Lima is needed as the administration moves forward in its agenda on illegal drugs, As I have written elsewhere, the possibility of an international criminal case against the President and his public safety officials cannot be ruled out. I am personally against such a case but the building blocks for it can now be assembled. The Senate hearings, if they result in a more rights-oriented approach to the illegal drugs problem, will help blunt such a case.

The lawyer’s oath

Five hundred years ago, in England, a lawyer and top government official had to stand up to his King. His name was Saint Thomas More, now recognized as patron saint of lawyers and government officials. More was not a perfect man; both his personal and public life were stained with personal flaws, including pride and being too harsh and judgmental on others.

But at the most important point of his life, More stood steadfast to his principles and conscience. That is why, Robert Bolt honors the saint with his play A Man for All Seasons. In one of the most memorable scenes from the movie adaptation of Bolt’s play, More tells his daughter: “When a man takes an oath, he's holding his own self in his own hands like water, and if he opens his fingers then, he needn't hope to find himself again.”

Senator De Lima is also a woman for all seasons. She is an imperfect woman, morally flawed for sure as many of us (author included) are. But like Saint Thomas More, she is only doing her duty.

It is a duty to uphold the Constitution, as the lawyer’s oath provides: “I, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, I will support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself these voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.” – Rappler.com

The author is former dean of the Ateneo School of Government

“The more it changes, the more it’s the same thing,” 19^th century French thinker Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr once lamented. In the realm of foreign policy, observers do tend to adopt a similarly skeptical attitude when new leaders come into power on the back of bombastic campaign-trail statements and cliché promises of transformative change. Yet, since the election of President Rodrigo Duterte, there has been a perceptive, though liminal, shift in Philippine foreign policy.  

While Duterte’s random rhetorical outbursts, most recently against the United Nations, have absorbed much of media attention, something more fundamental and strategic is actually at stake. 

With Duterte rapidly consolidating his position at the center of the Philippine political system, he is also, like none of his predecessors in recent memory, in a strong position to introduce a significant foreign policy reset, particularly with respect to China and the United States. 

Unlike his immediate predecessor, Benigno Aquino, he has extended an olive branch to China, deploying former president Fidel Ramos to conduct backdoor negotiations with the Asian powerhouse. He has also welcomed massive Chinese investments in the realm of public infrastructure and downplayed territorial disputes in the South China Sea, emphasizing the necessity of separating areas of conflict from zones of convergence in mutual interests.  

“I hope the Chinese may find a place in their hearts for the Filipinos. I hope you treat us [as] your brothers and not enemies and take note of our plight,” declared Duterte, facing Chinese Ambassador Zhao Jianhua, during his speech at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Now contrast this to how Duterte has mostly spoken vis-à-vis America and its highest representative in the country.  

Time and again, Duterte has shown limited reticence with expressing discontent with perceived lack of American military support amid the maritime spats.  With respect to relations with America, Duterte has broken one diplomatic taboo after the other. At one point, Duterte went so far as stating: “I would only ask the US ambassador, ‘are you with us [in the West Philippine Sea]?’”

His open expression of skepticism – a remarkable departure from his predecessors – seems to have gained growing support among the Philippine public as well as intelligentsia, even though America enjoys astronomically high approval ratings in the country. 

In fact, since the campaign period, Duterte, a self-described "socalist," has emphasized his preference for a more "independent" foreign policy, which effectively means less reliance on America. Shortly after his election victory, Duterte declared, "I will be chartering a [new] course [for the Philippines] on its own and will not be dependent on the United States." During the campaign period, Duterte called on both American and Australian ambassadors to ‘shut their mouths’ and threatened to sever ties if elected after the two Western diplomats expressed dismay over the Filipino politician’s controversial remarks.  

For fiercely independent-minded Duterte, foreign powers were "interfering" in the Philippines’ domestic affairs. More recently, Duterte’s insulting remarks, during another off-the-cuff episode, about US ambassador Philip Goldberg provoked diplomatic censure from Washington, which didn’t hesitate to also criticize Duterte’s full-fledged anti-crime campaign. 

But Duterte has refused to apologize. Upon closer inspection, what one discovers is not only some ephemeral quarreling among old friends, but instead a steady and gradual recalibration in Philippine relations with both America and China. Duterte could very well become the most consequential president in Philippine foreign policy -- and foreign powers and old allies should acknowledge it. The Philippines seems to have got its first truly ‘post-American’ leader. 

New strongman 

A month into office, Duterte has, in unequivocal terms, demonstrated his commitment to stand by his campaign-era promises – that he means what he says.

On the domestic front, we have already seen a dramatic uptick in state-led crackdown on organized crime and proliferation of illegal drugs. The country is in the midst of what Duterte has described as a ‘war on crime’, adopting a non-compromising approach to law and order challenges in the country, despite growing international outcry and criticism from human rights advocates in the country. 

Promising to also get rid of corruption, Duterte has even taken on alleged oligarchs, threatening to ‘destroy’ them lest they stop their rent-seeking practices and stop manipulating state institutions for narrow business interests.

Demonstrating his progressive bona fide, and willingness to confront abusive multinational companies, Duterte has also declared his willingness to end any large-scale mining in the country. Many mining conglomerates have seen their licenses either revoked or in danger of facing restrictions and heavy state scrutiny. Almost singlehandedly, Duterte has transformed the Philippine state into a pro-active agent, taking on organized crime, crony capitalists, and major extractive industries. 

To push ahead with his peace agenda in the troubled southern island of Mindanao, Duterte has considered controversial confidence-building measures (i.e., freeing key communist insurgent leaders), which has, so far, proven auspicious in terms of facilitating peace negotiations. Simultaneously, he has sought to win the hearts and minds of the armed forces by offering them constant moral support as well as the promise of increasing their paltry salaries. And the President is rapidly warming up to the armed forces. 

Though massively controversial outside the country, vast majority of Filipinos (91%) have expressed trust in and support for Duterte. Enjoying ‘super-majority’ support in the Congress, and set to appoint the bulk of the Supreme Court justices in coming years, Duterte is rapidly emerging as the Philippines’ most powerful president in recent memory. And this gives him significant leeway to shape the country’s domestic political landscape as well as foreign policy trajectory for years to come. 

Romance with Three Kingdoms

Far from alienating foreign powers, Duterte seems to be at the receiving end of a proactive courtship by all major powers in the region.

On one hand, the United States has indeed sought to gain the good will of the new president by deploying two of its most senior diplomats, Secretary of State John Kerryas well asState Department Counselor Kristie Kenney earlier this year. No less than U.S. President Barack Obama was the first foreign leader to congratulate and speak directly to Duterte upon his election victory.  

In response, Duterte has expressed gratitude to the United States, reiterated his commitment to honoring the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) signed between his predecessor and the Obama administration, and has reassured“our [Philippine] strong alliance with America,” Yet, it is unlikely that things will remain the same between the two allies. For Duterte, the priority is to expand Philippines’ strategic relations with fellow Asian countries, particularly Japan and China. 

As the former mayor of Davao City, a bustling metropolis in the island of Mindanao, Duterte maintained robust commercial with Japanese investors as well as close diplomatic ties with the Japanese consulate. Based on my exchanges with Japanese officials, it seems that Tokyo has considerable confidence in the new Filipino president and is more than willing to expand already-blossoming strategic ties with the Philippines. Just recently, the Japanese Foreign Minister Minoru Kiuchi visited Manila, with Tokyo pledging more than $2 billion to infrastructure development projects in the Philippines.  

Crucially, Japan offered to also invest in Mindanao, Duterte’s home island, which is in desperate need of infrastructure development. Japan also offered to lease a Japanese surveillance aircraft and promised two 90-metre (295-foot) long vessels for the Philippine Coast Guard.

Duterte’s strategic compass will, however, largely point in the direction of Beijing in the meantime. 

The reason is because the Filipino president is concerned about a dangerous escalation in the West Philippine Sea, especially in light of Beijing’s growing military assertiveness, footprint in contested waters, and diplomatic offensive after suffering a massive legal defeat at The Hague.  After a five-day ‘ice breaker’ trip to Hong Kong, where he met some senior Chinese officials and scholars, Duterte’s special envoy, Ramos, has received an invitation to continue with high-level negotiations in the Mainland. This sets the tone for a potentially-rewarding meeting between Duterte and Chinese Premiere Li Keqiang on the sidelines of the ASEAN summit later this year. 

There are already discussions of Duterte choosing Beijing as his first official state visit, perhaps as early as next month. It is not clear whether negotiations could head towards any mutual-satisfactory deal in the near future, especially given China’s intransigent territorial position in the West Philippine Sea, but for the Duterte administration the priority, for now, is to navigate ways to de-escalate tensions and bring about a semblance of normality to bilateral ties with Beijing.

He knows very well that there is no alternative to diplomacy. There is no alternative to peace. – Rappler.com 

Richard J. Heydarian is the author of "Asia's New Battlefield: US, China, and the Struggle for Western Pacific" (Zed, London). An earlier version of this piece appeared on The National Interest. 

“Strike a balance between coal and renewables,” was the message Department of Energy Secretary Alfonso Cusi recently gave Environment Secretary Gina Lopez. But that’s not quite the true picture he’s trying to paint. He was only giving her a general perspective. 

On the other hand, she said clean energy is the way to go, proposing to even use strictly renewables in certain regions. What she had in mind is Palawan and claimed that Cusi is also going in that direction.

Lopez also said, “It needs patience, needs time. We’re getting there.” 

She must be well aware of the implications of solely on renewables such as hydro, solar and wind. Unless it’s geothermal or biomass, the intermittent renewables are unreliable because it’s under Mother Earth’s control. The most we can do is extend the services with the use of energy storage technology that has yet to fully-mature and still very expensive for utility-scale applications. The added costs of storage makes large intermittent renewables unattractive to utilities. So she’s absolutely right about exercising patience but we could be in for quite a long wait.

Plant utilization and utility-scale energy storage

Lopez must have envisioned energy storage in the near future for intermittent renewables in the form of heat storage or advanced batteries. This is probably more achievable for small areas such as Palawan but nevertheless, it could still be in some distant future.

A utility-size example is the Solana Solar Power Generating Plant in Arizona in the US which is a 250 net MW concentrating solar power (CSP) plant utilizing parabolic trough mirrors for solar heat collection and molten salt system for heat storage in a 140-ft diameter tank, to extend the services for up to 6 hours each day. Since some of the heat collected during daytime is stored, the net capacity to the consumers is reduced and depending on the weather and insolation (solar radiation), the extended service hours could be shorter. 

The station sits on 777 hectares with a total installed cost of around $2 billion, of which $1.45 billion were on DOE loan guarantees. So based on a 250 MW net output, it’s an astounding $8,000/kW, roughly twice that for advanced coal and more than 5 times that for combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plants such as the San Gabriel, San Lorenzo, Santa Rita and Ilijan plants in Batangas. The large land footprint would also be a concern. The extremely high initial cost is just part of the big problem because where the rubber meets the road is the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) in $/kWh or the break-even cost for the power producer.

LCOE is a comparative measure of the cost in today’s money, of the total money that will be invested and spent throughout the service life of the plant, to produce one kilowatt-hour of energy. It’s essentially using a net present value calculation, to come up with the levelized cost. In other words, if a plant is not producing enough of the expected kilowatt-hours, the price of electricity from that plant will increase. 

The worst case would be if a plant is down or idle with zero kilowatt-hours to show for. This is exactly what happens with solar and wind. With their naturally low utilization based on the season and available solar and wind energy, their LCOEs go up. 

The LCOE is greatly affected by capacity factor which is ratio of the net generated over a period of time to what could have been generated running continuously at maximum rated power over the same period of time, or in lay terms, the utilization of the plant. Idle investments cost money. 

So Solana saddled with a very high initial cost has to capitalize on the free-cost of solar energy whenever available. However even with up to 6 hours of heat storage, the Solana could only claim around a 38% capacity factor which is exceptionally high for intermittent renewables that generally hover at around 15-25% for the solar PVs (photovoltaic) and wind turbines.

The advanced battery storage technology is also in its infancy and not ready for “prime time” as they say. Solar PV plants and wind farms on the grid without energy storage, need emergency backup power such as diesels. That will effectively increase their LCOEs.

With some energy storage plant utilization or capacity factor goes up which in turn lowers the LCOE for intermittent renewables. However, based on the current and not too distant future, it will not be able to match the LCOEs from the baseload fossil fuels.

I know that it becomes too technical for many, but I believe that the consumers and the public in general, should be appraised of the importance of capacity factors which are in the 80% to greater than 90% for baseload fossil plants, making their LCOEs much lower than the intermittent renewables, resulting in lower electric bills.

Rebalancing energy mix

Going back to the energy mix, both chiefs should understand that specifically, it’s about optimizing the energy mix in terms of the composite levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), reliability, source diversity and environmental impact. 

Cusi said they’ve met with USAID for a discussion on formulating the ideal fuel mix and reserve requirements. Unfortunately the USAID is not an organization suitably staffed to handle other country’s energy mix problems. They help the poorest countries installing roof-mounted solar PVs for schools and homes with battery storage for extended services during nighttime or daytime with inadequate solar radiation. 

Our energy mix problem is national and regional (Luzon, the Visayas and Mindanao), and not in small specific or remote areas. It involves years of constantly rebalancing by retiring some and adding new sources. It calls for technical competence devoid of political taint. With lack of technical capability at the DOE, Cusi has to engage the services of U.S.-based power plant consultants. 

A balanced mix has to be the attainable optimum and not only based on sources abundantly available in each region. For instance, Mindanao, too dependent on hydros and land-based oil with barge diesels to bailout the hydros during the dry season, has recently been adding a lot of coal capacities. In anticipation of the depletion of the Malampaya gas fields, an imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal is being built by First Gen in Batangas to feed their CCGTs. 

So why is the DOE not looking into more CCGTs, especially in the Visayas and Mindanao, now that the price of imported LNG is competitively priced as Cheniere Energy is getting set to export LNG to Europe and Asia. 

An LNG terminal is a business on its own, just like the coal mines are, in supplying the coal plants. Installing LNG terminals in Mindanao and the Visayas with captive CCGT plants are low-risk investments that the DOE should provide loan guarantees for.

DOE Secretary Cusi said based on a study performed in 2015 by IHS, a U.S.-based think tank, 42.59% in coal, 24.9% in gas,13.3% in hydro, 12.7% in geothermal and 6.3% in oil, is a balanced mix for the total installed capacity of 18,765 MW. Without knowing the evaluation criteria and details used by the IHS, it’s difficult to understand with that balance why the Philippines has the highest electricity rate in the Southeast Asian region and has been suffering from persistent blackouts and brownouts for decades?

For a lower composite cost, more natural gas should be added. It’s the most efficient of the fossil fuel sources with lower LCOE and half the GHG emissions from coal. For instance, an advanced combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plant in Europe similar to First Gen’s San Gabriel Unit 1, ran a record efficiency of greater than 60% compared to around 40% for the advanced or clean-coal technology plants being built in Mindanao. 

Coal should be limited, if possible, to the already committed new units and the existing coal capacity gradually reduced through retirement of aging and inefficient units. 

Oil is no longer considered as one of the new electricity generating technologies and depending on the size and age, should be kept for emergency situations and possibly as baseload backups for some intermittent renewables on the grid. 

Except for geothermal and biomass, intermittent renewables such as hydro, solar and wind connected to the grid, will incur the additional cost of baseload backup power in the event the energy sources become unavailable. With the DOE’s original goal of 30% in intermittent renewables, the composite cost will rise due to their low capacity factors.

Of the non-intermittent renewables, geothermal would be the best choice but limited by the available heat source underneath the ground. Biomass fuels are more expensive than the other fossil fuels, due to the additional costs of raw material gathering, transport and processing.

Although renewables use free-cost energy sources, equipment to harness the energy and the facility that converts it into usable form, have to be built and maintained over the service life of the plant. Those expenditures have to be factored in. Due to the high initial costs, government subsidies often come into play, never cost-free but rather on the backs of the taxpayers, so this must be considered in optimizing the mix.

Availability and source diversity go hand in hand in providing a 24/7 reliable power to support the optimum mix. The existing coal, gas, oil, geothermal, hydro and other renewable sources available in each region will play significant roles in the rebalancing process. 

Without the benefit of nuclear power plants that other countries have, the DOE should aggressively pursue a mix starting with 45% gas, 25% coal, 15% geothermal, 7% hydro, 7% non-hydro (solar and wind) and 1% oil (mainly for emergency backups).

In the event of loss of intermittent renewables, the nominal 15% reserve margins should be able to stabilize the entire power system on the grid. A continuous rebalancing process based on new commercially available plant capacities and retirement of aging and ailing plants, must take place until an optimum mix is reached.

It’s high time for Cusi to roll up the sleeves and get serious in finding that right energy mix. – Rappler.com

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

When U Thant, former secretary-general of the United Nations, died in 1974, his remains were brought to Burma, as he had requested his family. At the time, Burma was under a military regime.

In death, U Thant, a global icon of peace, caused unrest in his country as students took to the streets to protest the government’s refusal to give him a burial fitting of his stature. This eventually led to the declaration of martial law.

One historical account describes the tug-of-war: “…university students… seized [the body] on Dec. 5, 1974, and buried it in a hastily built mausoleum in the grounds of the Arts and Science University, and police, who retrieved it by force on December 11, buried it privately, and sealed the tomb in concrete. Subsequent rioting led to the military regime’s declaration of martial law in the city and to several deaths.”

What was thought of as a routine ritual turned into a flashpoint in the turbulent politics of Burma.

Chile’s Pinochet

Many years later, in 2006, in another part of the world, the Chilean government refused to give a state funeral to former General Augusto Pinochet, who ruled the country as a military dictator for 17 years. Pinochet played a pivotal role in a coup that ousted the elected President Salvador Allende in 1973.

About 3,000 died during this regime and Michelle Bachelet, the president at the time of Pinochet’s death, was among those detained and tortured. She did not show up at the wake.

The occasion fanned the flames of anti-Pinochet groups who marched on the streets while supporters of the late dictator paid their respects. The divisions in Chilean society had not healed, even with Pinochet’s death, and, instead, rekindled old anger.

The tension his death had caused came to a point that Pinochet’s cremation took place in an undisclosed area to avoid protesters. His ashes were given to his family who, reports say, “did not want a grave or memorial lest it become a focal point for protest”.

Spain’s historical memory

In Europe, one country’s experience comes close to what the Philippines is going through – that of Spain. More than 40 years after Francisco Franco’s death, Spain is still in the process of coming to terms with the dictator’s legacy.

His remains lay in a memorial outside Madrid, where more than 33,000 bodies, all killed during the Spanish civil war, were buried. It was Franco who started what many regard as a  “bloody slaughter.”

Today, a group wants Franco’s remains in the Valley of the Fallen exhumed and transferred to a private resting place because, they say, public funds shouldn’t be used for his upkeep.

This monument remains a divisive reminder to Spain and, to many Spaniards, violates their historical memory, perpetuating the pain they went through during the civil war.

Burials matter

These 3 cases clearly tell us that, even in death, leaders who have made a mark in their countries, for good or bad, matter.

In Burma, U Thant was a positive force in international diplomacy but the military rulers refused to give him his due. His lifeless body became a symbol of Burmese aspirations for democracy.

Chile’s was a difficult experience as the country’s president, Bachelet, had to balance the pro- and anti-Pinochet forces, despite her own personal experience as a victim of the brutal military dictatorship of Pinochet. Violence was avoided and the family of Pinochet kept the burial out of the public eye.

The rumblings over Franco, long gone, continue to haunt Spain and the most prominent symbol of the dictator, his resting place, remains contentious.

All these show the power of history. As a novelist wrote, “History is the blood that keeps [us] alive. History separates [us] from the beasts."

But President Duterte dismisses the weight of history by insisting on transferring the remains of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos to the Libingan ng mga Bayani. His myopic argument is that he is simply enforcing the law.

Maris Diokno, chairperson of the National Historical Commission of the Philippines, puts it well: “History is important. You can move on after you have come to terms with the past. But if you bury the past – in this case, it would be, you literally bury it – I don't see how you can come to terms with it.”

Where Marcos’s final resting place will be goes beyond the pale of the law. At its core, it is about remembering our past and what the dark years of Marcos’ authoritarian rule have taken away from our nation: more than 3,000 lives, our dignity – 35,000 tortured, and our democratic spirit – 70,000 detained.

“Instead, Duterte chooses to forget this past, unmindful that such a mighty force shapes our future. Really, he doesn’t care about this part of our history.”

It would be good to remember John Le Carre’s words, “Tomorrow was created yesterday...To ignore history is to ignore the wolf at the door.” – Rappler.com

“The Philippines is deeply divided. One only needs to read the comments on online news articles and social media posts to realize this.”

This sums up the sentiments I often hear from some friends. Is this something new? This seems inevitable in a country with acute poverty and inequality. Fragmentation has been part of our history. But where does the discomfort come from? Why do people suddenly sound so affected?

Perhaps, the anxiety stems from the intensity and multiple expressions by which social polarization is played out every single day. Beyond the usual statistical analyses of socio-economic inequalities, fragmentation has become very intrusive.

One wakes up to emotionally-charged memes conferring one Senator or the President with new labels, which fuel the defensive mood, if not anger, of those who embrace these leaders and the values they represent. That some materials are a product of sheer malice devoid of any factual basis conflates the already spiteful atmosphere. In this situation, how does one convince fellow netizens that online propaganda confuses rather than sheds light on critical issues?

Even the complex drug problems and human rights (HR) violations have created a polarizing situation. HR advocates have gained a caricature status as defenders of criminal activities despite repeated efforts to explain that a person can respect human rights and still be against the systemic drug trading.

This is probably an unavoidable offshoot of a policy model that equates radical change to quick-fix solutions, which ignore our sense of social responsibility for fellow human beings. But the tendency to espouse this perceived bold approach is not something that has come out of nowhere.

Broader context

Failed by the rhetoric of elitist democracy, many people now feel trapped in two contrasting images that the President has effectively shaped.

One scenario is that of a chaotic life run by society's powerful bullies (drug pushers, oligarchs, criminals) and regulated by feeble state institutions.

The other portrait is an orderly society governed by a supposedly strong state - with obedient citizenry, free of criminals and drug addicts whose human rights are dispensable.

What many people overlook is that in this second idealized situation the state can become the single most powerful bully that is able to deprive its citizens of the most fundamental of human rights - the right to life.

Obviously, the reality is more complicated than this projected dichotomy. Yet, even among those who offer explanations, a dismissive tone frames the narratives. Some analyses express how the political energies of Duterte adherents are informed by flawed vision or distorted political agency.

However, we witnessed how, during the campaign period, grassroots organizations and individuals in poor communities pooled their resources together to produce tarpaulins for Duterte. This showed the level of investment that they put in his candidacy.

After the elections, it was unsurprising to witness the jubilation among those who worked hard for President Duterte to win. There seems to be a renewed optimism among those who are able to associate themselves with Digong; among those who have felt marginalized and muted by decades of elitist ‘imperial Manila’ rule.

At this point, it is important to acknowledge this euphoria, and probably the fleeting sense of empowerment, expressed by many Filipinos. We need to understand what animates the collective zeal and how it can lead to more productive conversations.

Recognizing this enthusiasm, however, does not mean giving up on the importance of articulating contrary views on extra-judicial killings and other policy issues. After all, principled opposition is vital in our fragile democracy. (READ: #NoPlaceForHate: Change comes to Rappler's comments thread)

“But how do we deal with the bullying tendencies of Duterte’s overzealous allies?” I was once asked.

Engaging with President Duterte’s followers is no easy task especially for those who consider their arguments as naïve or fallacious.

“A lot of Duterte fans resort to ad hominem attacks”.

This is a usual complain from people who criticize his supporters. However, online statements require some contextualizing in the larger social milieu.

At a time when paid professional trolls can dominate the social media, people with vested political interests readily sow confusion and create mass hysteria around certain issues and personalities. Every netizen has to be more critical of the information being received and shared through personal online platforms.

Constructive conversations

Being a reflective netizen also entails seeing online comments as a mediated public engagement. To an extent, there is a class dimension to how some people appropriate the cyberspace. One writer even noted a statement from a Facebook user during the campaign period, which illustrates a class-oriented angst.

“You know what, you cannot understand us. You cannot understand poor people because you're elite. You cannot understand...why we keep on bashing Mar and LP and Binay. Hey, it's all we can do. We don't have any weapon against your money or guns that's why we resort to cyberbullying. Para kahit papaano, makabawi kami.”

Yes, some individuals see cyber bashing as a conscious political act. We rarely see it that way. If and when we do, we tend to dismiss the hidden emotions and focus on the rants.

Perhaps, part of the challenge arises from the need to reflect on how our own ways of knowing and responding either facilitate or undermine an open and meaningful communication. Unless we are able to constructively engage with fellow netizens many of us would most likely remain vulnerable to demagogues who peddle black-and-white views about our intricate political conditions. (READ: Social media user react to #NoPlaceForHate campaign)

The social scientist Andrew Sayer explains the importance of treating humans as sentient beings. For him, this not only urges us to interrogate people’s capacity to act but to gaze at their vulnerabilities as emotional beings.

To understand someone, Sayer argues, is not necessarily to agree with her or him. In our diverse country, the effort to understand someone goes beyond discussing the (in)ability of one person to reason out or offer an intelligent opinion. It compels us to examine how our divergent ways of knowing are situated in a highly inequitable society with complex power relations. It entails rediscovering the sentiments and hopes that we share with the individuals we normally call "Dutertards" or "Yellowtards".

In revisiting our shared aspirations, it is crucial to intently listen to what others have to say. In the process, we ought to recognize the limits of social media and explore other spaces for constructive conversations. As we unmask the destructive character of online bullies and nameless trolls, we also need to analyze how the traditional media and other avenues can generate common goals or further intensify polarization.

Ultimately, President Duterte has a huge role in addressing the deepening polarization and in creating an environment where everyone feels welcome to express dissenting opinions. One can only hope that the President and his devoted allies realize that in democracy, governing demands a lot of listening to the varied voices in our unequal society.  – Rappler.com

Redentor Recio is currently pursuing a research on development planning and governance in contested urban spaces.

Bobo ka.

Wala kang kwenta.

Putang ina mo. 

Sana ma-rape ka. Sana ma-rape buong pamilya mo.

Mamatay ka na lang. Mamatay kayong lahat.

Hurts, doesn't it?

Now imagine waking up every morning and being told these things again and again. You get texts, private messages, and even posts on your wall.

You ask them what you did wrong but, when you try to explain, you're either called a liar or ignored altogether.

What would you do then?

This is what every day feels like. We wake up each morning, tired from the long night before, with a sense of dread about the day ahead.

Every day we go to work to face a never-ending barrage of comments and messages filled with more hatred than you can imagine. Every day we monitor the social media accounts of our company and every day we are brutally attacked by complete strangers because something we published didn't suit their tastes.

You might tell me now, "But it's the writer we're attacking" or "It's the company as a whole."

"Don't take it personally, it's not like we're attacking YOU."

You may even think that nobody ever really reads the comments anyway, that the hundreds upon hundreds of comments posted on our pages daily go to some machine or are just simply ignored.

But, don't you get it? We are the ones who monitor the comments. The words you so easily typed out with so much venom will always be read. Those bullets you're trying to shoot at "the company as a whole" always, always, hit us first.

Even you would have a hard time not taking it personally if it's what surrounds you all day, every day. Even you would have a hard time not getting hurt.

"Fuck you."

"You're worthless."

"Go to hell."

"Get raped."

When is it ever all right to tell a person you hope they get raped? In what universe, in what context, is it ever okay to wish something so horrible on anyone?

I can only assume that perhaps the people who so carelessly throw that word around have never experienced such inhumane treatment or they don't personally know anyone who has. Someone who did would never wish that on anyone, no matter how much hate or anger they feel.

Before you go on a comment spree about freedom of speech, let me make one thing very clear: We WANT you to talk to us. We WANT you to tell us what you think and how you feel.

If an article makes you angry, tell us! If you think we could have done a better job at reporting something, say it!

But why would you include unnecessary insults in that discussion? Why would you start calling people names or wishing tragedy on others?

It doesn't matter which side you're on; hate speech is hate speech.

Everyone needs to understand that words do have power. It doesn't matter if a comment was said online or came from an anonymous user. If you're told someone hopes you get killed, it will scar you.

This isn't some hypothetical situation. This is actually happening to real people, and you may even know some of them. This is our daily life.

Now imagine if you were in our shoes.

What would you do to try and end this endless cycle of hate that you're struggling to break away from?

Please, I sincerely want to know.

I think everyone will agree that the social media environment has become toxic as far as political discourse is concerned.

Many have given up, avoiding politics altogether. Those brave enough to articulate their opinions run the risk of getting trolled and threatened with violence. People want to share their sentiments – but there is no safe space for them to do so.

In light of the divisive, fractured nature of social media today, how can we move the political discourse forward? How can we move towards an issues-based conversation?  

These questions are of particular importance today when people are divided between those who support President Duterte and those that are critical of him.

If we think of “polarization” as a spatial metaphor, then we should imagine people being forced to the opposite ends of the earth – the North and the South Poles – and then fighting, thinking that they are too far away to understand one another. Which is sad because most of us actually live closer to the equator of ideas, and being critical and supportive can actually co-exist. By being forced to the fringes, however, our hearts can only grow cold.

First of all, we need to stop the name-calling; the ad hominem attacks must end.

We should, in the language of the peace talks, declare a “unilateral ceasefire.” Regardless of how strongly you feel about your opinions, dismissing a contrary point of view as "idiotic" is a non-starter, and will plunge us deeper into our divided state.

At the minimum, we need to try to understand where people's views, no matter how irrational to us, are coming from. At best, we need to appreciate people’s efforts when they try to make a coherent case for what they believe in. Now more than ever, we need the spirit of Evelyn Hall, who once wrote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Second, we need to stop generalizing people's opinions – and avoid falling into the mental trap of false dichotomies.

J.R.R. Tolkien already provided a template when he, in the voice of Gandalf, told Frodo: “Not all those who wander are lost.” To which I may add: Not all who fight for human rights are pro-Aquino. Not all who support Duterte support Marcos. Not all who criticize Duterte's war on drugs is a drug lord sympathizer. If only we are willing to endow complexity on people and their worldviews, that’s already a great leap forward.

Third, we must all show some respect for facts – whether or not they favor us.

If the crime rate is truly going down, then we must accept it (even as we may reject its value in making arguments for the war on drugs). But if there emerges evidence to the contrary, then we must also accept that.

Of course this is much easier said than done because our epistemology – our way of knowing the truth – rests on trust (i.e., Who or what do we believe in? Foreign magazines? National dailies? The state media? Anonymous blogs?).

But there are times when the evidence is overwhelming and we cannot turn a blind eye to it. Simply dismissing anything as "biased" without basis is a bias in itself, and we must ask ourselves how many articles we liked or shared not because of their merits but simply because they affirm what we believe in.

Fourth, we need to strive for common ground, not just for coming up with motherhood statements we can all say with pride (i.e., “I love the Philippines!”) but to push for shared positions on issues.

This is the most challenging, because, as the past elections have revealed, even our fundamental principles have diverged (or have always been divergent).

Some seem to subscribe to the idea that ends justify the means, while many still hold fast to the principle that there are absolute values that we cannot transgress. Many others fall somewhere in between, supportive of the need to take stronger measures in the war on drugs, but uncomfortable with the dismissal of people’s deaths as mere “collateral damage.”

But sometimes, our disagreements are largely semantic. The mere mention of “human rights” may anger some people who have been led to reject them, but these same people, surely, will not condone the killing of the innocent.

Alas, even words like "decency" are getting a bad reputation, but "respeto sa kapwa" (respect for others) and even the much-needed “awa” (compassion) may still resonate with a majority.

Finally we must have the humility to acknowledge that we could be wrong. How can we even debate when we're not prepared to concede defeat? Pride in having staked our name on someone's side should not make us stick to them when they're clearly wrong, and neither should we be embarrassed to embrace the people we have attacked in the past when they are actually making sense.

Of course, this takes leadership, and President Duterte himself should lead the way by not being divisive and by being open to other perspectives. It also takes courage: Alas, trying to build bridges carries the risk of being hated by both sides, and of course, there will always be trolls that will try to undermine our efforts.

But what is the alternative? We can continue preaching to our own choirs, and mocking the others outside of our circles of like-minded peers, but to what end?

We have already failed when we think of each other as enemies. – Rappler.com 

Gideon Lasco is a physician, medical anthropologist, and commentator on culture and current events.  His essays have been published by the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Singapore Straits Times, Korea Herald, China Post, and the Jakarta Post.

Mga ilang taon na lamang noong bago bumagsak ang rehimeng Marcos, patuloy na namamayagpag ang tribu naming mga pulis reporter ng dekada 80. Ito ang mga panahong mas matagal pa ang oras na inilalagi namin sa mga presinto kesa sa aming mga sariling tahanan. 

Sa dami kasi ng malalaking balitang pumuputok, lalo na tuwing madaling araw, 'di na namin maipagsapalarang umuwi ng bahay dahil baka malusutan kami ng balita – "maiskupan," sa lenguwahe naming mga mamamahayag.

Nasa rurok ng kasikatan, mga bida 'ika nga, kaming mga police reporter ng mga panahong iyon dahil araw-araw na lang na mga byline namin ang nakikita at nababasa sa mga pahayagan. Martial Law pa rin naman kasi, kaya’t walang masyadong balita hinggil sa pulitika. Ang namamayani ay ang malalaking krimen na palaging banner story ng mga pahayagan, lalo na ng mga tabloid na parang mga kabuteng biglang nagsulputan. 

Kaya’t bantay sarado sa aming mga police reporter ang mga istasyon ng pulis, ang mga kampo, at lalo na 'yung operating units na nag-i-imbestiga sa mga kaso at humuhuli sa mga suspek.  

Pagyayabang pa nga ng isang beteranong police reporter na kasama namin noon: “Harangan man kami ng sibat, lambat, baril, at mga kanyon, susugod kami saan mang delikadong lugar, para lang makuha nang sariwa ang balitang babasahin sa diyaryo, papakinggan sa radyo, at panonoorin sa telebisyon ng sambayanang Pilipino. Ganyan kami katapang – walang atrasan sa pagkuha ng balita.” May karugtong pa 'yan: “Basta huwag lang uulan.”

Biruan lang 'yung takot sa ulan, nguni’t may bahid ng katotohanan. Dala marahil ng kapupuyat, karamihan sa aming mga pulis reporter ay mahina ang resistensiya ng katawan. Kaunting maambunan, agad nagkakasipon, inuubo, at nilalagnat. At ang pinakaayaw namin ay mauwi ito sa trangkaso na magiging dahilan para maratay kami sa kama at mawalay sa trabaho nang maraming araw.

Sakripisyo ang maghabol at magbantay ng malalaking balita lalo pa’t breaking ito at tuluy-tuloy na nagaganap. Nguni’t 'di ito trabahong panlalaki lamang. Maraming mga babaeng police reporter noon at, karamihan sa kanila, mas matatapang – 'ika nga sa ngayon, “mas may balls”– kumpara sa ibang lalaking reporter na madalas “natutulog sa pansitan” kaya’t palaging naiiskupan. 

May babaeng reporter na ayaw naiiskupan kaya’t ginagamit ang  kanyang “charm” sa pagkuha ng impormasyon. Saludo ako. Nakakabilib ang ganitong babaeng reporter na sobrang maparaan.

Gaya minsan nang sitahin ko ang mga barkadang ahente ng noon ay Criminal Investigation Service (CIS) kung paanong nalaman ng isang babaeng reporter 'yung nakabangko kong istorya na iniimbestigahan pa lamang nila. Ang sagot ng team leader: “Pare naman, paano ko iyon itatago sa nagtatanong na napaka-sweet na reporter na kasabay kong mag-dinner?” sabay tawanan ng mga nakarinig na operatiba.

Ganyan ang trabaho naming mga mamamahayag, ang laging nasa isip ay ang balitang kinakailangang maiparating agad sa mga mamamayan kahit na maisakripisyo pa ang sariling kapakanan.

Gaya nang maganap ang makasaysayang EDSA Revolution noong 1986. Sino ang mag-aakalang ang press con na gaganapin noon sa gusali ng Department of National Defense (DND) sa loob ng Camp Aguinaldo ay tatagal ng apat na araw – mula Pebrero 22 hanggang 25 – at walang uwian ang mga reporter dahil sa umpisa na pala iyon ng paglaban sa diktaduryang rehimen ni Marcos?

EDSA at gadgets

Bukod sa 'di lubos maisip ng mga mamamahayag kung ano ang kasasapitan nila kapag lumusob na sa kampo ang mga tangkeng nakaparada di kalayuan sa Camp Aguinaldo – na noo’y hudyat lamang ang hinihintay para bombahin ang kampo – kinakailangang tiisin din nila ang 'di kaaya-ayang pakiramdam ng isang taong apat na araw nang kulang sa tulog, hindi naliligo, hindi makapagpunas at hilamos man lang, hindi makapagsipilyo, at hindi nagpapalit ng damit pang-ibabaw at maging pang-ilalim man. Nguni’t dahil sa debosyon ng mga reporter sa trabahong ito, tiniis nila ang lahat ng hirap maihatid lang ang balita sa mga mamamayan.

Sa loob ng Camp Crame naman ako inabot ng EDSA 1986 Revolution at nagagawa kong maglabas-masok ng kampo dahil kakilala ko ang mga pulis na bantay sa Santolan Gate at EDSA. Kaya’t kung saan man may aksiyon sa loob ng 4 na araw na iyon, siguradong naroon ako, hindi para mag-usyoso kundi para kumuha ng detalye at mga retrato.

Kung uso na sana ang mga gadget ngayon noong EDSA1986 Revolution, siguradong panalo ang lahat ng reporter na nag-cover nito. Word processor pa lang ang silbi ng mga computer noon, wala pang Internet, at di pa uso ang email. At mas lalong wala pa noong cellphone, kaya’t ang aming mga istorya ay itinatawag namin sa telepono.

Tone Beeper pa lamang ang gadget noon na karaniwang gamit ng mga doktor. Wala itong audio at di pa rin digital. Mayroon lang itong dalawang tone – isang mahabang beep at isang maikling beep. Ito lang ang basehan kung sino ang dapat tawagan ng mayhawak nito. Masuwerteng nakamana ako nito mula sa kaibigan kong doktor na nangibang bansa.

Naging malaking tulong ang Tone Beeper na ito sa coverage ko noong EDSA 1986 Revolution. Madali akong makontak ng aking mga editor at agad na pinapatakbo sa mga lugar na nababalitaan nilang may aksyon. Kantiyaw nga sa akin, “balagong” daw ako sa trabaho dahil sa beeper ko, pero iyon naman ang hinding-hindi ko naramdaman dahil nag-e-enjoy ako sa aking ginagawa.

Sa tulong ng mga gadget nila, sa tingin ko ay mas magiging magaang ang pagko-cover ng mga reporter ngayon sa police beat na medyo matagal na ring parang nanahimik. 

Kaya nga tiyempo ang mga reporter ngayon dahil buhay na buhay ang aksiyon sa police beat sa dami ng mga tinatakpan ng diyaryo na mga nakatimbuwang sa mga eskinita, bangketa, at kalsada, magmula nang magdeklara si Pangulong Rodrigo Duterte ng giyera laban sa mga sindikato ng ilegal na droga sa buong bansa. 

Bakit nga ba hindi magiging maaksyon ang police beat sa panahong ito – mantakin mong sa pinakabagong scorecard ng Philippine National Police (PNP) sa mga operasyon nito laban sa ilegal na droga ay umabot na sa 895 ang mga napapatay na drug pusher at user sa mga lehitimong enkwentro, may 12,920 ang mga naaresto, at 611,753 na ang mga sumuko sa awtoridad? Hindi pa kasama rito ang mahigit sa isang libong mga sinasabing biktima ng extrajudicial killings (EJK).

At ang lahat ng ito ay nangyayari sa kasalukuyan, araw-araw at gabi-gabi, sa buong kapuluan. Ano pa ang hinihintay ninyo? Pasko? Tara na mag-STAKEOUT na tayo! Email: daveridiano@gmail.com. Text or call at 09195586950. – Rappler.com

Dave M. Veridiano has been a police reporter for 30 years. He is a former senior news desk editor and currently writes a column for a daily tabloid.

The legend of Bernardo Carpio – the strongman imprisoned between two great rocks in the mountains of Montalban who would, upon his freedom, lead his people out of slavery and into salvation – may have lapsed into relative cultural obscurity in recent years, but even then, we Filipinos are still familiar with the story behind the name.

That is because Bernardo Carpio represents the messianic archetype, the hero-savior chosen by destiny to fulfill great deeds. It is, undeniably, one of the more recognizable figures across genre and medium. And its various manifestations, from King Arthur to modern-day cinema characters such as Neo of the Matrix and Harry Potter, have become icons of popular culture.

It is not surprising then that the messianic archetype has managed to influence our perspectives, particularly in the field of politics. After all, the original concept of messiah is very much political by nature. Jesus Christ himself, who many consider as the Messiah, was executed for purely political reasons. In our time, the so-called leader of the free world, Barack Obama, continues to be likened to John F. Kennedy, who, in turn, was touted to be the King Arthur of his time, presiding over a new Camelot on a hill called Washington D.C.

Philippine politics is, of course, no exception.

From mystico-political leaders such as Apolinario de la Cruz, Maestrong Sebio and Valentin de los Santos, to more popular and successful politicians such as Ferdinand E. Marcos and Joseph Estrada, we have had our fair share of hero-saviors, authentic or otherwise. And while their lives and inclinations may vary, the basic leadership premise is the same: chosen by destiny, they and they alone could uplift the downtrodden and deliver the people to the promised land. Maestrong Sebio had his New Jerusalem in the wilderness of Bulacan, Marcos his Bagong Lipunan during Martial Law. All promised new beginnings, and for brief moments, the future never looked brighter for the Philippines.

But still, for all that, the Philippines remain, well, the Philippines.

The same conditions of corruption, poverty and social injustice present throughout much of our history continue to persist; so we, in turn, continue to look for our long-awaited savior, much to the delight of our political leaders. In the last election alone, we all heard promises of the same old spiel. Bagong Umaga, Tunay Na Pagbabago and other such similar campaign slogans were really just repackaged versions of New Jerusalem, of Camelot, of instant salvation.

Folk hero

Sure enough, the messaging worked. Our longstanding search for a messiah has now brought us President Rodrigo Duterte, a man who, by most accounts (even his own) fall short of the usual standards reserved for the position. It is, admittedly, unusual even for a dysfunctional political environment such as ours.

But truth be told, he is more folk-hero than politician and, as such, is above all political norms. The clenched fist, the kissing of the flag, the blatant disdain for polite society – all these symbolic gestures, coupled with his reputation as a no-nonsense city mayor and crime-buster have done more for his political career than any amount of political patronage or machinery could ever hope to do.

He is, deservingly or not, the Bernardo Carpio of our times: the breaker of chains, the champion of the oppressed. And just as the legendary Carpio was said to free us from Spanish oppression, Duterte now looks to free us from drugs, criminality and corruption.

To be fair, Duterte is not all populist bluster. He does bring up valid points about decentralization, and his crusade for greater government efficiency and austerity is certainly laudable. But make no mistake, Duterte’s popularity rests not so much on political advocacies or sound government policies but rather on his ability to appear larger than life, to become the savior we have all been passively waiting for.

It is, sadly, a classic case of messianic longing, and we have long suffered for it. No less than Rizal understood this, and his writings provide for us nuanced warnings. Take, for instance, the following conversation between the kutsero and Basilio in the fifth chapter of the Fili:

“‘Do you know, sir,’ he asked Basilio respectfully, ‘whether or not his right foot is free by now?’

‘Whose right foot?’

‘The king’s,’ the driver replied in a conspiratorial whisper.

‘Which king?’

‘Our king, the King of the Natives…’

Basilio smiled and shrugged his shoulders.”

The king is, of course, none other than Bernardo Carpio, and it is, at once, a powerful portrait of the stymying effects of our enduring messianic fascination.

On one hand, Rizal shows the confident Basilio, who chose to rise above his station in life to pursue a life he believed he deserved; and on the other, the downcast and defeated kutsero, who, lost amidst desperate thoughts of freedom as only his King Bernardo could provide, forgot that his kalesa’s lights had gone out, thus bringing further troubles with the Guardia Civil.

Slave mentality

The subtle point here is that it is not so much slavery as slave mentality that afflicts us. Indeed, we could break our chains, but then what?

President Duterte may just accomplish all the things he has set out to do, and for our sake, let us hope he does so; but after he is gone, what do we do? Change is just one part of the equation; continuity is the other. The danger in putting all our faith, and fate, in one man, however strong, is the tendency to take a backseat, to let the savior save us, instead of us saving ourselves.

More than a century has passed since Rizal touched upon the Carpio legend in the Fili, and now, more than ever, the shadow of Bernardo Carpio looms over our staid political landscape.

In a way, this is why Leni Robredo’s entry into the national spotlight offers a breath of fresh air. Amid talks of destiny and change and a return to greatness, Leni instead offers a message of partnership. It is a sobering approach and is easily the most compelling narrative out there; more importantly, it just might be what we exactly need.

Maybe, just maybe, Bernardo Carpio has finally broken free and has come to set us free, sans penis. Or this could all be another episode in the long line of colorful hero-saviors. Either way, whatever happens, perhaps it is best to heed Rizal, and, like Basilio, take destiny into our own hands. – Rappler.com

Carlo L. Santiago is a member of the Anastasio Institute, a non-profit organization devoted to the understanding and appreciation of the Filipino experience through storytelling.

MANILA, Philippines – In recent days, we’ve heard more aggressive rhetoric against the Abu Sayyaf from President Rodrigo Duterte.

After hearing about the beheading of a teenage hostage, he ordered the military to “destroy” the terrorist group. The military lost no time in complying with his order. Thousands of soldiers are being deployed to Sulu, bastion of the Abu Sayyaf.

Duterte’s visits to military camps in Basilan and Sulu, from where the group actively operates, allowed me to peek into what it’s like to live under their shadow.

Though stringent security measures surrounding a presidential coverage and time constraints allowed me only limited exposure to these places and the people who live there, I was able to ask the vice mayor of the Basilan city of Lamitan how things are in his hometown. 

Lamitan is a 5th class city deemed a “hub” in Basilan because those from the southern towns pass through it to get to the port city of Isabela, Lamitan Vice Mayor Roderick Furigay told me in late July.

The city of around 74,000 residents is described as “generally peaceful” by Furigay, whose wife, Rosita, is the current mayor.

But military operations against the Abu Sayyaf in the southern, more mountainous parts of Basilan have forced some residents there to move to Lamitan. 

Urban terrorist groups

Though Lamitan fares better compared to towns like Al Barka, where encounters between the Abu Sayyaf and military forces often take place, its residents continue to live in fear of the group’s deployment of urban terrorist groups (UTGs).

Vice Mayor Furigay said the UTG is a smaller group “created” by the Abu Sayyaf to extort Lamitan residents through terror attacks in parts of the city.

The Abu Sayyaf needs the UTG to do the dirty work so it can avoid getting caught by the military and police who know their faces.

 “Karamihan sa kanila (Abu Sayyaf) hindi na bumababa dito (Most of the Abu Sayyaf don’t come down here), because they are known,” Furigay said.

He described UTG members as young people ordered by the Abu Sayyaf or ASG to plant bombs in vital places in the metro to extort money from people like businessmen or residents.

“Mga bago, mga teenagers na ito and they are the ones doing the, naglalagay ng bomba. Parang utos ‘yun galing ng ASG to the UTG,” said Furigay. 

(They are new, teenagers who are the ones planting the bombs. The orders appear to come from the ASG to the UTG.) 

In one incident, the UTG placed a bomb near an electric post of the Basilan Electric Company. They called the company and threatened to blow up the post if they are not given money.

The UTG would then just dial a number to detonate the bomb.

“This year alone, bale siguro 7 or 8 bombs na pumutok dito (some 7 or 8 bombs have already exploded here),” said Furigay.

Major Filemon Tan, spokesman of the military's Western Mindanao Command, said military intelligence shows these UTGs may indeed be part of the ASG or receive orders from the ASG.

The monetary “rewards” the UTG and ASG gain from these criminal activities far outweigh any vestige of religious principle they claim to espouse in their war against the Philippine government, said the vice mayor.

“They are for extortion, they no longer use their principles as their motivation,” he said.

Deploying drug addicts

Lamitan’s experience with the Abu Sayyaf also shows how closely entwined terrorism is with the illegal drug trade.

Furigay said the ASG often deploy drug addicts for acts of urban terrorism.

“They will hire these addicts para magdala ng bomba dito sa loob. Babayaran sila ng P3,000, P5,000, mga user 'yan eh,” he said.

(They will hire these addicts to bring bombs here. They will pay them P3,000 or P5,000 because they are drug users.) 

Aside from exploiting the addicts’ need for money to fuel their addiction, the terrorist group takes advantage of their state of mind as well.

“They use addicts because no one else has the confidence to bring bombs here unless they are high. That’s their modus,” said Furigay in a mix of English and Filipino. 

The so-called terrorism and drug trade nexus is a phenomenon long observed by law enforcement agencies.

According to the Serious and Organized Crime Threat Assessments (SOCTA) 2014, a study on anti-crime efforts by Philippine government agencies, the Abu Sayyaf sources some of its funds from the illegal drug trade.

For this reason, Furigay is thankful for the two wars Duterte is waging: one against drugs, the other against the Abu Sayyaf.

He said over 2,000 drug addicts in Lamitan have surrendered to the local government.  

He is hoping these professed addicts can soon enter the workforce given Lamitan’s need for more workers, which they presently fill by hiring people from Zamboanga City and surrounding towns.

Rehabilitation

The rising number of surrenderees has convinced Furigay and the mayor to talk to the Basilan provincial government about putting up at least one rehabilitation center in Basilan.

Furigay supports Duterte’s orders for an all-out war against the Abu Sayyaf. In his view, heightened military action against the group is the “ultimate solution” to the peace and order problems of his province.

“Ang gusto namin matapos lang itong gulo. Ibig kong sabihin, huwag na ihinto ‘yung operation, let us continue the operation. Ang gusto ko, kung operation man, operation na talaga – 'yan ang ultimate solution diyan,” he said.

(What we want is for the chaos to end. What I mean is, don’t stop the operation [against Abu Sayyaf], let us continue the operation. What I want is, if there’s an operation, it should be a real operation – that’s the ultimate solution.)

The reality on the ground is that in places like Basilan, local governments and civilians have only law enforcers to turn to against groups that sow terror.

“We cannot rely sa ibang tao except for the PNP [Philippine National Police] and military. Sila lang ang may armas. Nakikita mo ang civilian dito, iilan lang kami,” he said.

(We cannot rely on other people except for the PNP and the military. Only they are armed. You can see the number of civilians here, we are not that many.)

New Basilan

A new Basilan is rising. The Basilan I was able to visit is different from the Basilan of years ago, insisted Furigay. 

He boasted of the new roads linking major towns and cities that have drastically reduced travel time and improved the lives of residents. 

Villages that had once taken many hours to get to can now be reached in 20 or 30 minutes because of new concrete roads. Vegetables and fruits that would rot by the time farmers reached the town markets now arrive fresh.

The towns of Basilan are now faced with the happy problem of traffic in main thoroughfares.

“May mga kotse na nga. May kotse na Muslim brothers natin. Talagang kung titingnan mo in a macro persective 'yung Basilan, umaasenso na kami but because of itong mga grupo, eh napu-pull down,” said Furigay.

(There are cars already. Our Muslim brothers have cars. If you look at Basilan on a macro perspective, we are progressing but because of these groups, we are being pulled down.) 

I myself had the chance to marvel at Basilan’s new roads as my vehicle whizzed through orderly rubber tree plantations and views of forested mountains stretching into a sun-blazed horizon.

We residents of Metro Manila and places in other parts of the Philippines may only read about the Abu Sayyaf in headlines but those living in Basilan, Sulu, and other parts of Mindanao live in fear of the group every day. 

Duterte’s promise to eradicate the Abu Sayyaf means everything to them. 

Will Duterte’s fights against drugs and terrorism clear the way for life and prosperity in these places? – Rappler.com

Extraordinary powers are instituted to allow the President to wage a most efficacious defense of the nation in times of crisis, without being unduly straitjacketed by structural and bureaucratic restraints.

By establishing this framework, the Constitution expected that the process would be far more flexible, and capable of quicker, more decisive action, than the legislative process.

However, the framers of the Constitution, while recognizing the need to provide for such powers, also acknowledge the dangers that it entails. Constitutional safeguards, not the least of which is the instrument of judicial scrutiny, are in place to check against abuse.

The President is given a lot of leeway when it comes to the exercise of extraordinary powers. (READ: Duterte declares state of lawlessness)

What level of conflict demarcates the choice between ordinary police action and resort to emergency rule? What degree of punitive State action is necessary to address the emergency without exposing civil liberties to unwanted perils? Sadly, the answer to these questions depends largely on this wide presidential discretion; for which reason, emergency rule becomes fraught with opportunities for abuse; a gateway to constitutional shortcuts.

Once emergency rule is declared, the constitutional bonds are loosened that could create a window of opportunity for unrestricted power. As the Supreme Court said in David v. Arroyo, where President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s declaration of a state of national emergency (eerily resembling Proclamation 1081, the martial law declaration of President Marcos), “the power is by and large a discretionary power solely vested on the President’s wisdom.”

3 kinds of extraordinary powers

Strictly speaking, there are three (3) kinds of extraordinary powers provided under the 1987 Constitution.

The first is found in Article XII, Section 17, which states: In times of national emergency when the public interest so requires the State may, during the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest. This power was invoked by President Cory Aquino when she issued Proclamation No. 503, declaring a state of emergency after the December 1989 coup attempt.

The second provision is in Article VI, Section 23, which provides that 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 also provides that 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. FVR used this provision to deal with the power crisis early in his term. This is the provision being invoked by the Duterte government so it can respond effectively to the transportation crisis.

The third provision refers to the commander-in-chief powers of the President under Article VIII, section 18, which authorizes the President to call on the Armed Forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, impose martial law, or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in case of invasion or rebellion. The provision presupposes that there is an imminent or ongoing threat to public order or national security. To address the threat, the President is provided “a platter of graduated powers” to deal with the situation in accordance to its severity. Marcos used the martial law power in 1972 and Arroyo did the same in 2009 but limited to Maguindanao after the Ampatuan massacre. Both Estrada and Arroyo used the calling out powers which is what Duterte is now invoking with this declaration of state of lawlessness.

Most benign

The power to call on the Armed Forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence which may well be considered as the most benign of these powers while the most serious and carries the most impact on the social and political life of the nations is the martial law powers.

All of these are reviewable by the Supreme Court, including the legal and factual basis of such a declaration. Definitely, Duterte's declaration does not suspend the Bill of Rights, including the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus and certainly not freedom of expression and press.

I venture to say that for as far back as I remember, the calling out powers have been continuously invoked, even without official declarations, because the military has been routinely called to support the police in addressing internal threats.

The truth is that constitutions are primarily designed, not to achieve efficiency, but to create an intricate system of checks and balances among the branches of government. By and large, it reflects a great distrust on the part of government to exercise powers entrusted to it in a responsible manner, most notably the Executive branch. Nowhere is it truer than in the present 1987 Constitution, the pervading theme of which is to do away with all possibilities of strongman rule, no doubt a painful lesson of the Marcos dictatorship.

Avoid slippery slope

The problem arises then when an emergency occurs and the government is inevitably hampered with the deliberate pace of constitutional rule. Certainly, the President cannot be expected to wait for congressional deliberation before he can declare a state of war when it is staring at him in the face.

This is the dilemma many constitutional governments face. As a result, most constitutions incorporate provisions and unique power arrangements to deal with emergencies. These extraordinary powers however, can be considered, at best, a necessary evil. It should never be considered normal, must never be lightly granted by Congress, and if the right case or controversy comes, the Supreme Court has to scrutinize this carefully.

In a paper I co-authored several years ago, we cited the guidelines formulated by Clinton Rossiter in his seminal work Constitutional Dictatorship which are designed to avoid the slippery slope of frequent resort to extraordinary powers.

Let me paraphrase, for relevance, four of them here:

1. No extraordinary powers should be initiated unless it is necessary or even indispensable to the preservation of the state and society;
2. All uses of extraordinary powers and all readjustments in the organization of the government should be effected in pursuit of constitutional or legal requirements.
3. No extraordinary powers should be adopted, no right invaded, no regular procedure altered any more than is absolutely necessary defeat a particular crisis;
4. Extraordinary powers should never be permanent in character or effect, and should extend beyond the termination of the crisis for which it was instituted.

In sum, extraordinary powers should only be invoked as a last resort. If options, less ominous, are conferred to the executive by the constitution and the laws sufficient to meet the declared national emergency, then by all means they must be preferred.

Indeed, the slippery slope of frequent recourse to an emergency rule is the ever-present possibility that such will slide into a permanent and unconstitutional regime.

For now, Duterte's declaration does not appear to lead us to that slope. But we must be vigilant. – Rappler.com

The author is former dean of the Ateneo School of Government.

Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Socrates Villegas issued a pastoral message on the recent killings in the Philippines. Villegas ordered all priests in the Archdiocese of Lingayen-Dagupan to read this message in full on Sunday, September 4, in place of their regular homilies. 

Below is the full text of Villegas' pastoral message.

We are here because it is Sunday. Sunday is the day of the resurrection. Sunday is the day of the descent of the Holy Spirit. Sunday is family day. Sunday is our day of rest.

On the first Easter Sunday, the apostles, gathered in fear inside a locked room, were talking among themselves about the events of the first Good Friday.

The Teacher was killed last Friday. It was a violent death in the hands of violent men. Blood, sweat, and tears intermingled on His mangled face and body so severe that he looked more like a worm than a man.

The apostles were downcast. They were afraid, frustrated, angry, ashamed, guilty, and anxious altogether. Are we next to die?

It is Sunday again. The killers of Jesus didn't kill on Sundays. Dead bodies had to be buried before Sabbath. Even killing took its rest on Sundays.

Will there be no killing in the streets today? Will today be different from the other days? Like the apostles, we are afraid to be the next. We are anxious that a loved one will die next. But does killing still jolt us? Have the statistics numbed us?

Bloodied soil, ruined lives

Sin has not stopped. Violence has not ceased. Murders continue. The ground continues to cry with the pitiful voice of the blood of our brothers and sisters. Their blood cries not for vengeance. Their blood pleads for an end to violence. Every person killed is a brother and sister. They may be offenders but they are God's children nevertheless. The plan of the Lord for them is not death but life.

Innocent lives, young lives, promising lives have been ruined by drugs. When dealers offer drugs to our children, they kill our children even before our children die. Drug pushing is murder because drugs do kill. Narcotics kill dreams and hopes, drugs ruin lives and families; drugs destroy society and nations.  

To these sons and daughters struggling to be free from the chains of drug abuse, we offer the healing of the Lord. Peace to all whose lives drugs have destroyed.

Indeed we must protect our society from drug dealers. By killing them, there are many who think that such will prevent them from repeating their crimes. By killing criminals, justice will be restored to those they have been offended. By killing them, the other criminals will be discouraged from continuing their criminal activities.

So they think. But what does God think? Do we still care about God?

We offer hope, not despair

We can fight criminality without killing the law offenders. Who are we to judge that this offender is hopeless? Death ends all possibilities to change. We do not hold the future in our hands. There is no certainty that someone is beyond correction. The goal of justice is not revenge. The goal of justice is restoration of harmony. Hatred can only be appeased by love not vengeance. Who does not need mercy?

In our pursuit of criminals, innocent lives have become victims of mistaken identities. We know it. Nobody is perfect. Even those who work for peace and order can be mistaken. Our hearts grieve for the innocent murdered ones. Guns do not make mistakes. Trigger-happy vigilantes do.

It is Sunday. It is family day and yet there are nearly one thousand families grieving right now because the family is not complete. A parent, a promising child about to graduate, a wife or husband has just been killed. They are crying and they can see no light ahead. No one is there to console. No one is there to assure them their loved one's killing will be the last.

What shall we do? 

We shall pray for those who have been killed. Innocent or guilty, they need our prayers. Whoever has no sin be the first to kill!

We shall pray for those who kill. With the best of intentions or not, they have violated the Fifth Commandment and their brother's blood cries out from the bloodied soil.

We pray for those ruined by drug dealers now dead even if they still breathe. Let the Lord be their hope and God’s grace lift them up from darkness into light.

Shall we only pray?

If you agree with us that killing suspected criminals is a crime and a sin itself, why do you just stay seated there in comfort keeping quiet?

Whatever you do or not do for the least of your brethren, you do to Christ. At the sunset of life, the blood that has spilled all over our sidewalks and streets will judge us because when we could do something, we chose to be keep quiet.

There is no peace for cowards. The next life to be snuffed could be yours.

Wake up, my people! Wake up! – Rappler.com

This week, in the languid city of Vientiane, leaders of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) gather for their annual meeting, their first after the international arbitral tribunal struck down China’s expansive claims over the South China Sea, claims that competed with those of some ASEAN members.

Before this, the ASEAN foreign ministers also met in the capital of Laos where they avoided mentioning the historic decision in their joint communique. China looms large in the ASEAN, a global power that is source of both aid and investments.

Yet other countries are looking to ASEAN to take the lead in responding to the tribunal’s ruling. While none in ASEAN has openly opposed it, only the Philippines and Vietnam have come out with a strong support, calling for the decision to be respected. 

Cambodia, Indonesia, Myanmar, Brunei, Laos, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore have made neutral statements that did not directly address the tribunal’s ruling. No one wants to step on the giant toes of China.

And central to ASEAN and how it works is the principle of consensus. Even if only one or 2 members object to a certain position, the regional body cannot uphold the majority view.

What is certain, though, is that the issue will not fade away. The South China Sea ruling will continue to cast its long shadow on ASEAN.

On the sidelines of the ASEAN summit, the region’s leaders will also be holding one-on-one meetings with their counterparts from G20 countries, who are concluding their own summit  in Hangzhou, China on Monday, September 5.

For the Philippines, it will be President Duterte’s debut in the international stage. He has said that he will not bring up the tribunal ruling during the summit but, rather, in bilateral talks with China. 

President Xi Jinping, it has been reported, will not be attending the ASEAN summit but will be sending a representative.

Duterte is scheduled, though, to meet with President Obama  and other world leaders with whom he can raise the tribunal ruling as well.

This is just the beginning. The work of the Philippines in rallying ASEAN and international support to respect the ruling will take time. It requires strategic thinking and deft diplomacy.

Next year will be the Philippines’ turn to host the ASEAN. It comes at an important time as ASEAN celebrates its 50^th year. How we can parlay this into gains following our country’s victory at The Hague remains a challenge.– Rappler.com

Although the government declared a state of lawlessness, authorities have released little concrete information about the explosion that killed at least 14 people in Davao City’s night market Friday, September 2, 2016.

On Saturday morning, September 3, radio station DZMM said the Abu Sayyaf claimed responsibility for the blast in an interview with a self-proclaimed spokesman for Al Harakatul Al Islamiyah, the formal name used by the Abu Sayyaf.

By the afternoon, however, allegedly that same man, Muammar Askali, alias Abu Ramie, told the Inquirer that it was carried out by an ally he called Daulat Ul Islamiya.

“They are doing this to sympathise (with) our group, and we are sending a message to President Rodrigo Duterte that all the Daulat throughout the country is not afraid of him,” said Askali.

So who could be behind the explosion? To answer this question, let’s look at the facts we know and provide some context. 

Islamic Community

First, the name Daulat Ul Islamiyah is a slight variation of Jemaah Islamiyah, which literally means “Islamic Community.” From the late 90s to 2005, Jemaah Islamiyah acted like al-Qaeda’s arm in Southeast Asia, gaining global notoriety with the Bali bombings in 2002, which killed more than 200 people. 

The Abu Sayyaf was part of Jemaah Islamiyah and carried out a spate of bombings in the Philippines, including Southeast Asia’s worst maritime terrorist attack in 2004. It was blacklisted as a terrorist organization by numerous countries, including the Australia, Canada, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and the US for bombings, kidnappings and beheadings. 

During its heyday, authorities said the Abu Sayyaf had up to 1,200 members which after more than a decade’s presence of US troops, went down to as low as 240. Filipino officials say they estimate about 400 members today. 

President Rodrigo Duterte ordered this crackdown after the beheading of a Filipino too poor to pay ransom. That follows 2 high-profile beheadings of Canadians held for ransom. 

According to Rappler’s sources, there are about 8,000 troops chasing the Abu Sayyaf today in Jolo, Sulu – or about 20 soldiers for every Abu Sayyaf member, but the ground war is never this easy in this complicated terrain.

Abu Sayyaf and ISIS

It’s important to recognize that the most senior ideological leader of the Abu Sayyaf, Isnilon Hapilon, has pledged allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State or ISIS. At least 4 other groups in the Philippines have done the same and named Hapilon as their emir, one of the final steps for ISIS to declare a wilayat or province. (READ: Experts warn PH: Don’t underestimate ISIS)

Initial intelligence reports confirmed Sunday by the police said the explosion was caused by an IED, an improvised explosive device made from a mortar round.

The Sulu-based Abu Sayyaf tend to use ammonium nitrate for its explosives. A mortar round IED is closer to the signature bombs of two Abu Sayyaf allies who have pledged allegiance to ISIS: Ansar al-Khalifa, also known as AKP or Ansar Khalifa Philippines, based in southern Mindanao; and the Maute group in central Mindanao, also known as Daulah Islamiyah.

Both these groups evolved significantly since the time they worked with Jemaah Islamiyah. 

AKP and Indonesia

AKP is headed by Mohammad Jafar Maguid, more commonly known as Commander Tokboy, allegedly a former commander of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) 105th Base Command. (READ: Two ISIS-allied militants killed in Philippines)

Tokboy was trained by key JI leaders, including Malaysian Zulkifli bin Hir, better known as Marwan, the high profile target of the Mamasapano tragedy that derailed the peace talks. (READ: Marwan’s ties that bind: From family to global terrorism)

AKP under Tokboy has a direct link to Indonesian groups, especially MIT, Mujihidin Indonesia Timur, led by an Indonesian who trained in the Philippines, Santoso. 

Indonesian intelligence sources said they were investigating the flow of explosive materials from the Philippines to Indonesia after the January 14, 2016 Jakarta bombings.

In July, 2016, Indonesian forces killed Santoso, dubbed the “symbolic heart” of the Indonesian jihadi movement. Some warned that his comrades may join the Abu Sayyaf. (READ: After death of Indonesia’s top terrorist, comrades ‘may join Abu Sayyaf’)

AKP pledged allegiance to ISIS in a YouTube video in 2015, and is largely believed by experts to be one of the groups behind another video threatening the November, 2015 APEC Summit in Manila and later globally distributed by ISIS propaganda sites. (READ: ISIS’ global ambitions and plans for Southeast Asia)

ISIS claims Maute jail break

The Maute group, which also calls itself Daulah Islamiyah, has carried out bombings and kidnappings. It carries the black flag and insignia of ISIS, and has been very active this year.

From February 20 to March 1, 2016, the group, which pledged allegiance to ISIS, attacked a military camp and established 3 major strongholds, essentially displacing nearly 30,000 people until troops regained control of the town of Butig in Lanao del Sur. During that time, the group beheaded a soldier. It took 10 days for the military to regain control.

On April 21, 2016, a Facebook account posted two photos showing the Maute group beheading two of six sawmill workers kidnapped from Butig. They released four of the hostages six days after their kidnapping, but chose to behead the two because they were allegedly military informants.

The two beheaded were forced to wear orange jumpsuits, much like ISIS public executions. The post says, “Two spies beheaded by the Lions of IS ranao.” 

Finally, just last week on August 29, an ISIS propaganda arm, the Amaq news agency, claimed that ISIS was behind a prison raid at the Lanao del Sur jail in Marawi.

“Fighters from Islamic State stormed a prison in Marawi City in Philippines on Saturday, south of the country, and were able to free thirty prisoners and seizing weapons,” wrote Amaq news agency.

“Thirty fighters carried out the attack and were able to release 30 detainees, including fighters from the Islamic State and their wives. The fighters of the attack and all the detainees, who were freed, arrived to safe places without injuries,” it stated.

Those arrested were caught with homemade mortars, which they told interrogators, were to be used in bombing missions in Iligan and Cagayan de Oro.

In its report, the BBC said no shots were fired during the prison break, and that a military source said “the men had been allowed to escape.”

A military report obtained by Rappler states, “recruits of the Maute group were largely drawn from the MILF ranks, particularly disgruntled factions prompted by the failures in the Bangsamoro Basic Law or close associates and blood relatives.” 

Evolving landscape

These are only some of the possible groups behind the Davao bombing. 

What happened to the terrorist networks in the Philippines is exactly what happened to al-Qaeda globally: authorities gouged out their top and middle rank leadership, but the ideology and cells continued to burrow and evolve. 

Jemaah Islamiyah was an umbrella group that hijacked homegrown networks. Although the MILF turned away from global terrorism in 2005, other groups like the Abu Sayyaf, the Rajah Solaiman Movement, continued to push a terrorist agenda.  

There are still other groups like the al-Khobar, another MILF extremist splinter group that turned to criminal activities like bus bombings in 2011. (Read: Philippines’ evolving terrorism threat) 

What has happened to them today? 

A clear evolution is the clarion call of the Islamic State, which has its own Southeast Asian battallion in Syria called Khatibah Nusantara. (READ: ISIS and Jakarta attacks: What we need to know)

Part of the problem is that the strategy of the Aquino administration largely centered on denial. This is despite the June, 2016 call of a Malaysian jihadist in Syria, Mohd Rafi Udin, for ISIS followers to go to the Philippines, making it "the nucleus" in Southeast Asia. (READ: ISIS to followers in SEAsia: 'Go to the Philippines')

This month, President Rodrigo Duterte became the first Filipino official to publicly acknowledge the threat of ISIS. (Read: Duterte: ISIS followers radicalizing Filipinos in Mindanao)

Finding those behind the Davao bombing will give us a further idea of how terrorist networks have evolved. – Rappler.com

Maria A. Ressa is the author of Seeds of Terror: An Eyewitness Account of Al-Qaeda's Newest Center of Operations in Southeast Asia and 10 Days, 10 Years: From Bin Laden to Facebook. 

Below are excepts from the commencement address delivered by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen before graduates of the Ateneo School of Government on August 20, 2016.

The recognition you will receive today is well-deserved. To the Ateneo School of Government, its officers, faculty, and staff, I applaud you for your good work and entertain no doubt that you will continue to do more for our country.

Yet, my congratulations are with hesitations. I am aware of the grave responsibilities with which we all need to live with. I am aware of the patient and deliberate critical thinking that you will need to deploy and the courage you will have to muster to meet these responsibilities.

Let me clarify by starting with a controversial thought: unless we do something about it, we, as a people, are on our way to capitulating to a concept of democracy that does not empower.

Slowly, we are losing our collective power as sovereign. Powers entrenched in the status quo pay lip service to bedrock principles that have been paid for with the blood, sweat, and tears of our heroes. Fundamental sovereign prerogatives and protections are incrementally becoming shibboleths: enshrined in normative text, but devoid of true promise.

It is time that we revisit our culturally ingrained preconceptions. We have to act, individually and as a people, to reclaim and retain our empowerment. We cannot just succumb to things as they are. Human dignity cannot be had only because it is solemnly pronounced. That it is lived requires patient work, consistent advocacy, and vigilance. Our actions will surely cause discomfort for us and for others. But it is time that we discover the courage to do more what is right.

Let me explain further.

I start with a fundamental principle in our most basic law: the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Article II, Section 1 pronounces:

Declaration of Principles and State Policies

SECTION 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.

The worst thing that we have done to the spirit of this principle is to reduce its normative substance by considering it hortatory. In the words of some of the opinions of our Court: it is one of those provisions that are “not self-executory.” 

In my view, all the words and phrases in the fundamental law are effective. All are “self-executory.” It may not have the civil-law form of a prestation: that is, it does not prescribe what to do, not to do, or to give. Thus, it may not pass the Hohfeldian concept of an enforceable right. Nonetheless, it is, in my view, a powerful frame of reference that disciplines the various standpoints that can be taken in an actual case. Frames are as binding as prestations. They color and animate the construction or the search for meaning in legal provisions, given the facts established in evidence. Frames are powerful tools that fertilize interpretation. These are not trivial tools. They occasion points of view that inspire the Constitution's motive power: a state that is socially just.

To consider the concept of democracy as too broad or hortatory is to surrender to the dominant view of the essence of democracy that seems common but lacking in critical analysis. This view is often powered by a folk view of the fundamentals of the political philosophy of liberal democracy. In that received and dominant view, the casting of ballots, as well as its correct count, represents democracy. The seeming autonomous act of choosing as we complete our ballot in electoral exercises is not only the representation of the existence of an authentic democratic space. Casting a ballot is considered, in itself, the epitome of democracy. The complexity of democracy is, thus, principally reduced in the excitement of regular elections for political offices.

Viewed this way, democracy thus consists only as the political drama between personalities who are powerful and have the resources to engage in electoral contest. We track their every move, become fixated in their controversies and life stories. We are easily embroiled into meaningless chatter revolving around their reputations.

Trivializing our citizenship

This unfortunate preoccupation buries our fundamental duties as a citizen. It trivializes our citizenship. We fail to discern the ideologies they represent. We mistake conviction for the eloquent sound bite calculated with the proper spin by experts in propaganda. We do not critically evaluate the detail of the programs the candidates propose. The political drama dominates our attention and, thus, conceals from us the true nature of our relationship with our public officers. We lose out on fundamental agents of political programs and ideologies.

The framework with which we view elections reduces the complexity of our people. The electorate is not considered in its individual capacity. We become only a supporting cast. We are not considered in nuanced and historical collective groupings and identities that matter. Rather, we become the stuff that make the numbers, atomized and presented as statistical percentages of voters or demographics of voters. We are not our nuanced selves with strong convictions about various aspects of identity or public policy. Rather, we become categorized as among the A, B, C, D, or E crowd. We are particles reduced to being voters in Metro Manila or its surrounding environs in a survey. We are Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao in the statistics of polling pundits.

Authentic democracies are not solely equivalent to elections.

Democracy, reduced to the elections, becomes a recipe for entertainment, with eventual disappointment as dessert. It is only during the electoral exercises that candidates attempt to resonate their views with the opinions of the masses. Often, these views are in terms too general to be of any use for concrete assessment of credibility and workability. General statements are passed on as profound political platforms. They grab our attention almost as much as the song-and-dance numbers performed on a political stage.

During elections, we become mere spectators. We imbibe a culture of learned helplessness. We surrender our ability to do collective action after the elections.

After the elections, we endow the winners in an electoral contest with undeserved entitlement. We create kings and queens rather than public servants. We succumb to the narrative that the votes cast in an election legitimize their every program even before these winners have articulated their plans and implemented them.

This should not be the case.

Public officers who win elections are not our masters. They are our agents.

Democracy can be viewed in other ways.

Tolerance of dissenting views presents a more powerful view of democracy.

Dissent not a lonely project

Dissent takes many forms.

Dissent can take the form of the uncouth and impolite slogans shouted by those who take to the streets. It can take the form of the chants and the effigies burned in a manner that may challenge cultural conventions. There is no lack in passion among the mobilized. After all, they speak about their felt lives, their dissatisfaction, and their hope that things can be better. Their alternative may simply be a vision, and this may lack articulation. It may not yet take the form of a pragmatic workable program.

Still, it is dissent.

Dissent can also take the form of the uncomfortable single dissenting opinion expressed in a board or council meeting or written as a separate judicial opinion. In this form, its logic and rationale may be legible, transparent, and cogent. Usually, a dissent does not square with the premises of a majority view. It is uncomfortable when it challenges the status quo.

Dissent in this form is temporal. It is a suggested idea at its inception. It is a seed of subversion. For the time being, it is a view that may not capture the dominant view. It is a relevant idea tentatively articulated and waiting to be fully accepted.

However, there is the danger of putting dissent in the context of a very traditional liberal view that regards it only as a romantic symbolism of democracy.

Traditional liberal theory valorizes the radical individual. It is premised on the idea of the self as separate and autonomous from all others. It sees the dissenter as a lone wolf, a cry in the wilderness. The dissenter is the stranger. His or her ideas may sound different, but they are to be celebrated because they make this person human.

Characterized this way, dissent is marginalized as a curiosity. It foists a weak conception of democracy. It is subterfuge for the maintenance of the dominance of those who are already powerful. In a way, it legitimizes the victory of the status quo in the contests of ideas.

Political action is relevant only when done with others. Ideas become powerful when they can articulate the views of an identity or a community. Thus, ideas are relevant only when they find acceptance within a group.

Also, views become radical not by themselves but only in contrast to those that are considered conservative. Feminism is defined mainly by the patriarchy. Socialism becomes salient against the rugged individualism of liberal societies. The other – one who does not share our views and our identity – substantially also defines who we are.

Dissent is not a lonely project. It is a social one. It does not presuppose the absence of community. It requires mobilization.

Thus authentic democracies assume pluralism.

Pluralism is not a fixed descriptive fact. Allegiances for identities, groups, and communities constantly change as leaders emerge and positions become more articulated. The subversive idea evolves, and at some future time, it can become hegemonic.

Pluralism leads to common action within groups of individuals. Identities, groups, and communities sponsor different ideals, and many of these ideals and ideas contradict each other. Pluralism, therefore, makes conflict and intellectual antagonism inevitable. Contestation is necessary in a pluralistic society.

Communities for agrarian reform, or indigenous peoples, or the fundamental rights of women, or the special consideration given to children, or those who consider themselves human rights practitioners rather than ordinary lawyers, used to be marginalized by their numbers. Advocacy, mobilization, debate, and contestation moved their ideas into the forefront of social consciousness. They became politically relevant. In the past, their views might have been contained only in their speeches. Later on, however, they would become points of debate in legislative forums. They would find themselves congealed into law.

Later, the cogency of their ideals would be contested in the crucible of judicial cases. An interpretation of law emerges in jurisprudence. It is cited and used again in several cases and eventually becomes doctrine. Its genealogy becomes fixed and consistent; hence, it creates a canon of legal interpretation waiting to be dislodged again by more contemporarily relevant ideas, which may later win application in proper cases.

At any point in our history, ideas of some groups are subordinated. The comfort of a majoritarian social perspective or a dominant understanding of our culture can seemingly make the subordination of some ideas as natural and inevitable.

For example, the majority may believe that divorce may be immoral. Same-sex marriage is trumpeted as unnatural. The discomfort of those who believe otherwise is of the same nature as the discomfort in past ideas, such as: the woman’s place is in the home, or indigenous groups are uncivilized. The veracity of these ideas was, for a while, uncontested, until those who were affected were able to politically challenge the powerful who continued to sponsor the contrary ideals.

Dominant hierarchies or the hegemony are never permanent. Authentic and open democracies always have space to provide critical pause. Critical pause is essential to maturity.

The likelihood that this will happen lessens when we consider ourselves only as spectator voters or radically individual dissenters. Maturity in a democracy will not evolve when we choose to remain silent either due to apathy or the fear of being bullied in public discourse. In doing so, we lose the potential that we will matter to those who do not benefit the status quo.

Being silent, succumbing to bullies, or failing to work with others will not contribute to the struggle to achieve human dignity, less poverty, less corruption, and better leadership.

Every form of political consensus found in law, policy, or political decision is an offshoot of power. Power shapes culture as well. Power therefore entrenches the dominant narratives in our history.

Thus, conscious, organized, and effective collective action representing a subordinated standpoint is important, especially when the dominant ideas of those in power do not result in achieving human dignity or social justice.

Conscious, organized, and effective action should exist well beyond the politics of elections. Democracies should tolerate those who dissent. Public debate best shapes programs of government into their more rational, effective, and relevant forms. Meaningful dissent contributes to a collective longer view and a bigger picture.

Meaningful discourse

Mature democracies are not caused by the level of a society’s economy. Rather, it emerges as a result of meaningful discourse demanded by its citizens. Imagine if, instead of the focus on the drama of politician’s alleged adulterous or other scandalous behavior, our focus would turn to issues more relevant to the majority.

Allow me to present a sampling of these issues:

Should our economy graduate beyond low-skilled services modeled after BPOs and call centers? Instead, should we evolve stronger skill sets through an educational system that incubates critical and creative thinking? Should we focus more on manufacturing rather than services: factories rather than fast foods? Should we go beyond the extraction of our raw minerals? Should we require that we evolve the industrial base that follows the extraction of the raw products of our natural resources? Should we jumpstart our science and technology sectors through incentives towards finding energy and food security solutions, sensitive to the impact of climate change?

Should we go beyond colonial mendicancy and participate in the global dialogue in order to shape responses to impeding climate change as well as to recreate trade rules that will not benefit only large transnational and corporate interests but communities in emerging economies such as ours? Should we rebuild our agricultural base to produce real food for our local communities with the least carbon footprint?

Should we find solutions to a more responsible democratic space where serious voices and competing points of views are not drowned out by corrupted media or numbing internet discussions? Should we encourage critical – even dissenting – discussion that will be able to create leaders who can contribute to political maturity? Should government present a genuine public agenda to be debated by the public, and not be too focused on the slant and public relations stunts that trivialize the real problems? Should we encourage media not to be too reactive, not to be captured by the narrow, parochial, and personality-based concerns of those in power?

Should we reframe our understanding of the threats to our conception of national security? How should our foreign policy be recalibrated in order that we succeed in asserting the rule of law at the international level so that all international arbitrations, including those that take place under the aegis of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, are respected? How should our internal policies be recast so that we take advantage of our multi-cultural environment? How do we retell our national history without precluding the other experiences of colonial oppression as well as cultural and economic marginalization in other geographical spaces?

Should our government constantly find answers to the question: why are our people perennially poor?

Fostering intolerance

Instead of examining our social problems in all its complexities, regimes that fear democracy foster intolerance. Our history—through colonialism, post-colonialism, and martial law—teaches us that an effective means to stifle dissent is for the powerful to make false ideas part of the dominant culture. In many ways, this entails creating caricatures of target identities or articulate dissenters.

Iris Marion Young described phenomenon of cultural power imbalance vividly, thus:

The culturally dominated undergo a paradoxical oppression, in that they are both marked out by stereotypes and at the same time rendered invisible. As remarkable, deviant beings, the culturally imperialized are stamped with an essence. The stereotypes confine them to a nature which is often attached in some way to their bodies, and which thus cannot easily be denied. These stereotypes so permeate the society that they are not noticed as contestable. Just as everyone knows that the earth goes around the sun, so everyone knows that gay people are promiscuous, that Indians are alcoholics, and that women are good with children. White males, on the other hand, insofar as they escape groups marking, can be individuals.

Antonio Gramsci, known for his work on the concept of hegemony, suggested that certain individuals are “subalterns.” They are unable to participate in the creation of ideas that can dominate a particular culture because they are politically and culturally forced into the margins.

Successfully caricaturing a group leads to their dehumanization. Stereotyping another human being is itself an inhuman act.

We are familiar with these stereotypes: those who belong to non-Christian tribes are uncivilized and have a low level of intelligence. Muslims are terrorists who believe in a religion without ethics, always the legitimate subject of privacy violations and law enforcement. Communists are godless and, therefore, legitimate targets of fundamentalist religious crusades. A sexually active woman is a slut who could be publicly shamed and shunned. Drug pushers are dogs. Drug addicts are beyond redemption.

If drug pushers are dogs then they can be killed at the slightest provocation. If drug addicts are beyond redemption, then it is acceptable to segregate, marginalize, and shun them from society. Thus, they can be ferreted out through searches of homes and private spaces without warrants. If drug pushers are dogs and drug addicts are wasted homo sapiens, then those who coddle them are worse and, therefore, can be named and shamed without first assessing the testimony and the evidence of those who have provided their names in an impartial proceeding, which would afford them with the opportunity to be heard.

On the other hand, those who do not belong to these categories are endowed with the social privilege of being seen as complex human beings enduring within nuanced contexts and endowed with precious souls.

Non-Muslims – especially Christians – within our dominated culture cannot be reduced to a single essence. They are privileged and complex human beings. Those who do not belong to non-Christian tribes are civilized. They are capable of complex thought. Those who are not drug pushers or drug addicts may commit mistakes. They can sin but their sins do not define the totality of their person. They can atone for their sins and can be redeemed.

Dangerous stereotypes

The public will be blind to the fundamental human and constitutional rights of those who are dehumanized by stereotypes if those of us who can fail to critically assess these assertions. Not only should we contribute our critical faculties; we also need to publicly speak against government action founded on these false ideas. We are complicit when we are not critical. We are part of the conspiracy of the powerful if we remain silent.

Stereotypes are dangerous. Stereotypes should be stopped. Intolerance grows on fertile ground when the public ceases to be sensitive to the humanity of others. An intolerant society is breeding ground for violent secular fundamentalists. Death squads – for whatever cause – are valorized and protected rather than condemned and arrested. Impunity legitimizes abuse. Fear, not good governance, will become the foundation of our government.

So that I am not misunderstood, let me be absolutely clear: I do not condone criminal acts. It is my duty as a lawyer and an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court to uphold the rule of law. Conviction of an accused should follow when there is evidence that can occasion the inference that a crime has been committed beyond reasonable doubt. Crimes should be rooted out aggressively, professionally and with due process of law.

I have taken very definite positions in recent cases. Those who commit the crime of plunder should not be easily pardoned. When the evidence is clear, those who conduct raids of the public treasury should not be easily acquitted. Those who peddle prohibited drugs should likewise suffer the penalties provided by a valid law. Most of the resources of government should be focused on dismantling the cartels that make it possible to import and manufacture prohibited substances rather than on the lowly street retailer.

As a citizen, I also believe that government should direct its efforts to understanding the complexity of addiction: not simply the effects of drugs on our bodies, but the effect of marginalization, oppression, and poverty on the psyche of those who choose to be addicted.

I am of the belief that to fully unleash the coercive, violent resources of the state without ensuring effective and efficient means to address the weaknesses of our law enforcement, prosecutorial, and judicial institutions is a recipe for disaster. Impunity for public officers at any level – from former Presidents, to prosecutors, to judges, to tax collectors, to police officers – will cause untold abuses when state violence is unleashed and encouraged.

Due process of law should be respected. The State cannot claim divine omniscience.

Deliberate killing is a universal moral wrong. In our jurisdiction, it is a crime.

Murder is murder

One who deliberately takes the life of another without the required legitimate and legal provocation assumes an undeserved superiority over the victim. The perpetrator assumes that the acts of the victim define his or her whole humanity. Never mind the conditions under which he or she lived. Never mind if, in the soul of the victim, there still exists the possibility for rehabilitation. Never mind if he or she is capable of atonement. Never mind his or her role and relations with family, friends, and community. To those who kill deliberately, the grief of others is irrelevant.

One who kills deliberately judges with irreversible finality. It is without appeal. It is the exercise of unsanctioned absolute power.

It is my conviction that a policy of deliberately taking human lives—no matter what the justification—is not sanctioned by our laws.

Murder is murder.

Today, you will accept the titles and academic degrees that will set you apart from others. Today, you too will accept grave responsibilities expected from you by your society. You will carry the burden of ensuring a meaningful democracy because your titles signal the potential for critical analysis. Your degrees will be platforms for you to achieve positions of leadership. I have faith that your institutions, the Ateneo School of Government and the Ateneo de Manila University, will always serve as your conscience. It will insist that you should not be silent when you learn of violations of the humanity of others. It will insist that you should not be complicit. It will insist that you contribute to our collective search for social justice and meaningful freedoms.

Your people have suffered intolerance in the past. The suffering from that intolerance is part of our collective history. Learn from history. Never again.

Be critical. Find compassion. Be passionate about everything there is about being human and living a meaningful life. Be passionate that every human being should have that hope and potential to define meaning in their own lives. Find the courage to dissent when necessary so that we can truly enjoy genuine freedoms.

Live with what is enough and no more. Thrive on less if you can. Dare to speak out in defense of others.

Always, serve the people. – Rappler.com

These are excepts from the commencement address delivered by Supreme Court Associate Justice Marvic Leonen before graduates of the Ateneo School of Government on August 20, 2016.

President Rodrigo Duterte achieved a whole new level of notoriety after various media groups reported that he called President Barack Obama a “son of a whore” right before departing for his first international summit.

Upon touchdown in Laos for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Summit, he was besieged by media about his remarks. In a matter of hours, his meeting with Obama was "moved to a later date."

The events that unfolded demonstrate the power of media reports to determine events of regional, even global bearing.

No doubt the most captivating angles of news reports were centered on the premise that Duterte was referring to Obama when he had said “son of a whore.”

But a comparison of articles, both of Philippine and international media, shows how the same incident was covered in different ways. While a few articles, notably written by or quoting foreign news wire services, indicated Obama was the “son of a whore,” other articles did not.

Before going into the different articles themselves, let’s go into what led to Duterte’s infamous remarks.

He gave those remarks during the question and answer portion of a press conference he gave minutes before boarding his plane to Laos. It was held on Monday, September 5, at the pre-departure area of the Davao International Airport.

The question came from Jerome Morales, a correspondent of international news wire service Reuters. He asked if Duterte has prepared any line of communication to address issues on extrajudicial killings that may be raised by some leaders during the ASEAN Summit.

Duterte proceeded to answer in his typical hot-headed, curse-laden fashion whenever asked about human rights violations. His tirade was against Obama but also about the United States as a whole and “columnists” supportive of the US.

Rappler published the complete transcript of this part of the press briefing.

Different angles, same remarks

The dizzying array of articles generated by this single press conference shows the different ways media outlets here and abroad reported on Duterte’s remarks.

An ABS-CBN News online article, sourced from news wire service Reuters, carried the headline, “Duterte calls Obama a ‘son of a w****’.” 

A slightly different angle was taken by an Inquirer reporter whose article bore the title, “If Obama raises rights issues, Duterte says he will use ‘P’ word.”

But another Inquirer.Net article on the same press conference but written by a different writer mentioned the curse word but did not say if it was directed at Obama. 

This article, with considerably less shares than the “P word” one, was entitled, “Duterte to Obama: Don’t lecture me on rights, PH not a US colony.”

A similarly angled article was written by GMA News Online: “Duterte on discussing human rights with Obama: Nobody has the right to lecture me.”

PhilStar.com chose to angle their headline this way: “Duterte on possible confrontation with Obama: Who is he?”

Rappler’s article on the incident, written by this reporter, bore the title, “Duterte: Who is Obama to ask me about human rights?” 

CNN Philippines’ article was the safest of them all with the title, “Duterte: I am not beholden to Obama, my master is the Filipino people.” 

Foreign media coverage

The online articles of foreign media groups CNN International, The Guardian, and Al Jazeera were not about Duterte’s remarks themselves but about the events that unfolded after: Duterte’s response to the backlash and Obama’s postponement of their meeting.

But the articles still of course had to refer to Duterte’s controversial statements. All 3 media groups reported that Duterte cursed Obama.

Notably, The Guardian and Al Jazeera quoted news wire service Agence France-Presse (AFP) in making their report.

“Duterte called Obama a "son of a whore", saying that he would not be lectured by the US leader on human rights, according to AFP news agency,” read a sentence in the Al Jazeera article entitled, “Barack Obama cancels Rodrigo Duterte talks after insult.”

The Guardian also quoted AFP in their article, “Barack Obama cancels meeting after Philippines president calls him 'son of a whore.’”

AFP, Reuters, and other news wire services like Associated Press are subscribed to by most media networks to receive news reports from all parts of the world.

That's why two different news networks can publish the exact same article, both attributed to the same news wire service.

The ABS-CBN News online article also used an international wire service, Reuters, for their story.

Rappler also received AFP’s story since it subscribes to their services. True enough, it’s first sentence read, “Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte called Barack Obama a ‘son of a whore’ on Monday as he vowed not to be lectured by the US leader on human rights when they meet in Laos. 

But Rappler decided to keep our original story as is, instead of adding other quotes from AFP.

Who's the target?

In all the articles written by the media groups mentioned above, the way they used and explained a specific quote by Duterte was critical to how they angled their stories.

The quote I am referring to is this: “You must be respectful. Do not just throw away questions and statements. Putang-ina, mumurahin kita diyan sa forum na iyan. Huwag mo akong ganunin (Son of a whore, I'll curse you at that forum. Don't do anything like that to me).”

A look at the transcript of the question-and-answer portion of Duterte’s press conference shows it’s far from clear that Duterte referred to Obama as the “son of a whore.”

Reporters who were present at the press conference or those who watched the whole thing live observed that Duterte was not only ranting about Obama that time. He was ranting about the United States as a whole and “lapdog columnists” who are too pro-America for his liking.

In fact, Duterte’s sentences immediately before and after the “son of a whore” quote referred to these “columnists.”

Journalists who are used to covering Duterte know that his ramblings tend to go in different directions. He has a tendency to talk about different topics one after the other, leaving journalists or the public to determine what he meant by certain statements.

Duterte’s spokesmen often carry the burden of explaining the President, as what happened after the Obama remarks. 

In Laos, Presidential Spokesperson Ernesto Abella and Communications Secretary Martin Andanar had to convey Duterte’s “deep regrets” for his statements.

It will be interesting to know what Duterte’s communication team has learned from this and if they think a few tips for the President are in order.– Rappler.com

Sabado ng madaling araw nang mapanood ko sa telebisyon ang balitang may sumabog na bomba sa night market sa Davao City. Mula nang pumutok ang balita, napagkit na ako sa panonood ng telebisyon at pagbabasa sa mga update sa pagsabog sa mga posting sa social media, hanggang sa maging pinal na ang bilang ng mga naging biktima: 14 na ang namatay at 68 ang mga sugatan.

Sa telebisyon, marahil sa sobrang antok, may iba’t ibang imahe ng mga pagsabog din ang aking parang napapanood, halos parang kapareho ng nagaganap sa Davao City nang gabing iyon. Ah…heto na naman ang malikot kong imahinasyon na wari ko’y may gusto na namang ipaalalang mga pangyayaring maaaring maiugnay sa nagaganap sa kasalukuyan.

Bigla itong nagkadetalye – magkakasunod na pagsabog dito sa Metro Manila – mga taong 2000 na tinawag na Rizal Day bombing, at 2005 na tinawag namang Valentine’s Day bombing. (Dalawa sa mga pagsabog noong Pebrero 14 na iyon ay sa Mindanao nangyari at ang huli ay sa Makati.)

Sa mga pagsabog na ito, ang mga salarin ay pawang mga aktibong miyembro ng mga teroristang grupong Jemaah Islamiya at Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) at ang target na hiyain ay ang mga nakaupong pangulo ng bansa, na noon ay sina Pangulong Joseph “Erap” Estrada (2000) at Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (2005). 

Ang Rizal Day Bombing ay 5 magkakasunod na pagsabog sa Metro Manila na ang pinakamatindi ay ang pagsabog sa LRT1 station sa may Abad Santos at Rizal Avenue, Maynila, na umabot sa 22 ang kabuuang bilang ng mga namatay at halos 90 ang sugatan. Sa Valentine’s Day Bombing umabot sa 8 naman ang namatay at 30 ang sugatan.

Mentang’s signature

Sa bawat pagsabog ay may naiiwang palatandaang kung tawagin ay “signature” o marka kung sino ang gumawa ng bombang sumabog. Sa Davao City, iisang grupo ang itinuturo ng mga palatandaan – ang Improvised Explosive Device (IED) ay may pagkakahawig ang pagkakagawa sa mga bombang ginamit sa Valentine’s Day bombing at Rizal Day bombing.

Sa post-blast investigation na isinagawa ng mga bomb expert sa lugar na pinagsabugan noong Biyernes ng gabi, Setyembre 2, lumilitaw na ang signature ng IED na ginamit ay kahawig ng mga bombang gawa ni Abdul Manap Mentang, isang dating miyembro ng Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) at eksperto sa paggawa ng IED na ang triggering device ay cellular phone.

Si Mentang ay sinasabing pinuno ng isang grupo ng mga bandidong kaalyado ng mga bandidong ASG, at siya rin ang itinuturing na utak sa isa sa 3 pagsabog sa Valentine’s Day Bombing. Naganap ito sa Ecoland bus terminal sa Davao City na ikinamatay ng isang 12-taong gulang na bata noong 2005. 

Hindi ordinaryong terorista si Mentang. Tinitingala siyang miyembro ng MILF-Special Operations Group (SOG), ang grupo ng mga dalubhasa sa paggawa ng mga IED at ang pagtatanim nito sa mga lugar na tinatarget noon ng mga rebeldeng Muslim.

Ang pagiging eksperto niya sa paggawa ng mga IED ay nasubukan nang gamitin niya ang cellphone bilang trigger at mga mortar na 60mm at 81mm na matindi kung sumabog dahil sa dami ng ibinabato nitong shrapnels na kayang bumaon sa matitigas na pader. 

Ang pinangangambahan ng mga operatiba na nakakakilala kay Mentang ay ang pagiging instructor nito sa paggawa ng mga IED. Sa galing niyang magturo ay maraming natuto ng kanyang pamamaraan. Hindi lang mga lokal na terorista ang mga naging istudyante niya, kundi maging mga banyagang ipinadala rito para matutuhan ang estilo sa paggawa ng bomba ng MILF-SOG, na sumikat noon sa hanay ng mga terorista sa buong mundo, bago pa sila tuluyang na-disband.

Nang magkahiwalay-hiwalay ito, hindi na na-monitor ng intel community kung saan-saan napunta ang mga miyembro, nguni’t may mga ilang sumama raw sa bandidong ASG at mga kaalyado nitong grupo gaya nga ng sinaniban ni Mentang.

Puspusan na ang paghahanap ng mga operatiba mula sa militar at pulisya kay Mentang dahil naniniwala silang hindi lamang sa kanya ang signature ng IED na sumabog sa Davao City. Malamang pa nga raw, isa siya sa mga utak ng pagsabog dahil sa kaalyado ng kanyang grupo ang mga ASG na nakabase sa Jolo, Sulu.

May hawak ng larawan ni Mentang si PDDG Ronaldo “Bato” dela Rosa, Philippine National Police (PNP) chief, at inaasahang iuutos niya ang pagsasa-publiko nito sa darating na mga araw para makatulong ang publiko sa paghahanap. May mga artist sketch na rin ang 3 suspek na pumasok sa Spa Parlor at nag-iwan ng backpack na pinaniniwalaang pinaglagyan ng sumabog na bomba.

Kasabay pa rito ang pag-aanunsiyo ni Davao City Mayor Sara Duterte na magkakaloob siya ng P2 milyong pabuya sa sinumang makapagbibigay ng impormasyong makakatulong upang madakip ang mga suspek sa pagbobomba. (READ: Davao blast: What we know so far)

Disinformation

Sa mga ganitong pagsabog noon ay palaging may kabikabilang disinformation na pumapasok sa mga text message: mag-ingat sa mga malls, mataong lugar at maging sa mga pampublikong sasakyan – dahil magsasabog daw ng lagim dito sa Metro Manila ang mga rebeldeng Muslim para makaganti sa ginagawang pag-atake sa kanila ng militar at pulis.

Ganito rin ang nangyari rito bago may sumabog sa Davao City noong Biyernes ng gabi – ang daming disinformation. Nagpi-PM, nagte-txt, nag-e-email, at tumatawag para magtanong kung totoo ang kumakalat sa social media tungkol sa bombahang magaganap dito sa Metro Manila at ang target ay ang mga mall. May mga nagsasabi pa ngang ang babala raw ay galing mismo sa kamag-anak ni CPNP “Bato” dela Rosa.

Bigla kong naalala na nag-warning din ang ASG na lulusob sila – ito ay makaraan ang dalawang araw matapos pasukin ng mga militar ang balwarte ng mga bandido sa Sulo noong Agosto 26, 2016. Sa naturang sagupaan 30 ASG at 15 kawal ng pamahalaan ang napatay. Ang warning ng ASG ay nakapaloob sa text na ipinadala sa mga taga-media. Galing daw ito sa tagapagsalita ng mga bandido at nagbabanta na lulusubin din nila ang mga “sundalo ni Duterte” sa September 1, 2016.  

Sa palagay ko hindi mapapalusutan ng mga teroristang ASG ang AFP at PNP, at hindi magaganap ang trahedyang ito sa Davao City, kung nabigyang pansin lamang ng mga intelligence expert ng pamahalaan ang napakahalagang impormasyong ito, na naglabasan din naman sa mga pahayagan at nai-broadcast sa mga radio at telebisyon.

Kadalasang sa mga bantang katulad nito, Metro Manila ang laging target dahil nandito ang “seat of government,” nguni’t sa pagkakataong ito, hindi mahirap isiping dahil sa sobrang galit ng ASG sa Pangulong Rodrigo Duterte, hihiyain nila ito sa ipinagmamalaki nitong “crime-free” ang Davao City at dito sila magsasabog ng lagim – at naganap na nga.  

Sa lahat ng pagbabantang binibitiwan ng mga kaaway ng pamahalaan, palaging ang ipinupukol ay diretsong patama sa militar o mga pulis – nguni’t ngayon ko lang narinig ang pagtukoy sa AFP o PNP na mga “sundalo ni Duterte.”

Ang mga katagang “sundalo ni Duterte” ay tuwirang pagpapakita ng galit nila kay PRRD, kaya’t para sa akin, kung pipili man ng lugar na lulusubin ang mga bandidong ASG, hindi mahirap isiping ito ay maaaring ang Davao City na alam nating lahat na katali na halos ng puso ni PRRD.

Nguni’t sa di maipaliwanag na dahilan ay nakapagtatakang hindi yata ito “nabasa” ng ating mga ekspertong nag-aanalisa ng mga intelligence information. Sa halip, itinuring na lamang nila itong propaganda o diversionary tactics ng mga terorista.

Dito tipong napalusutan sila ng teroristang grupong ito ng ASG kaya’t di na nila namonitor ang planong paglalagay ng bomba sa lugar ng night market sa Davao City.

Dalawang araw matapos ang pagsabog ng bomba sa Davao City, agad inamin ni Abu Rami, tagapagsalita ng ASG na nakabase sa Jolo, Sulu, na kagagawan nila ang pagsabog, at ito ay may mensahe raw na dala para kay PRRD. "'Yun ay pauna lamang, dahil kung titingnan natin ay parang itinarget niya talaga ang Jolo, Sulu, kaya gaya nga ng sinabi namin na itatarget din namin kung saan siya nanggaling," sabi ni Rami. – Rappler.com

Dave M. Veridiano has been a police reporter for 30 years. He is a former senior news desk editor and currently writes a column for a daily tabloid. Email: daveridiano@gmail.com. Call or text him at 09195586950.

For the next couple of years, drug and crime reduction will likely remain at the forefront of the national development agenda.

So for many people, rather than ask why this drug war should be waged, perhaps the more important question to ask is how.

There are two main strategies. On the one hand, President Rodrigo Duterte is pursuing an aggressive drug war that aims to reduce the supply of illegal drugs entering and circulating in the country.

On the other hand, some – like Vice President Leni Robredo – advocate alternative measures such as rehabilitation and education among the youth to curb the demand for drugs.

Indeed, just like any market, the market for illegal drugs follows the laws of supply and demand. But which will work better to reduce drug use and its ill effects on society?

Does supply reduction work?

Let’s start with the traditional way of tackling illegal drugs: by limiting its supply through prohibition. This immediately creates a shortage that raises its price in the black market.

Indeed, reports show that the Duterte drug war has already raised drug prices in certain areas. In Manila, one report said that the price of shabu has “doubled because of the drug war”. In Central Visayas, the PDEA reported that as of September 1 the price of shabu has risen from P1,500/gram to P6,500/gram because of the intensified crackdowns.

However, drugs are addicting. So even if they become much more expensive, this will not make a proportional dent on the quantity of drugs demanded by users. In other words, the demand for drugs is not very responsive to changes in drug prices.

Several empirical studies have shown this to be true. Estimates vary, but a 2006 study cowritten by Nobel Prize winner Gary Becker found that, on average, for every increase in the price of drugs (say, 10%), drug purchases tend to decrease only by half that magnitude (in this case, 5%).

So when a government imposes a prohibition that reduces supply, drug suppliers sell more or less the same quantity as before, but at higher prices. This often leads to even larger drug sales and revenues than before.

This combo of higher prices and revenues allows drug suppliers access to larger stashes of cash which they can spend on more manpower, weapons, bribes, etc – all of which only serve to expand their operations and escalate overall violence.

Furthermore, by making drug production and importation more difficult, only the biggest and most efficient drug syndicates can survive in the market. This drives away their competition and grants them monopoly power in the black market, making them thrive.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the US, which has waged an intensive drug war since the 1970s. More than 40 years have elapsed and a trillion dollars have been spent since the war started. Yet drug cartels are larger than ever and continue to earn billions of dollars that they invest in R&D and expensive equipment like giant catapults and “narco-submarines”.

Therefore, a drug war that focuses disproportionately on supply reduction tends to strengthen and enrich – rather than weaken and impoverish – the operations of drug suppliers.

Does demand reduction work?

The country’s drug war can be fought not only on the supply front, but also on the demand front.

Education and prevention campaigns among the youth, or rehabilitation among drug users, eventually lead to a surplus of illegal drugs in the market. For drug suppliers, the only way they can eliminate their stocks is by charging lower prices.

As a result, demand reduction not only reduces drug use (like supply reduction does), but more importantly, drug prices and revenues as well. The amount that drug users need to pay their suppliers necessarily decrease, and this obviates the need for drug users to commit more crime, leading to fewer drug-related crimes.

Demand interventions also tend to be cheaper: one report says that, “A dollar spent on drug education in US schools cuts cocaine consumption by twice as much as spending that dollar on reducing supply in South America; spending it on treatment for addicts reduces it by 10 times as much.”

As a testament to the relative effectiveness of demand reduction over supply reduction, more and more countries are rethinking their drug policies in recent years.

In 2017, for example, the US is proposing to spend more on demand reduction than supply reduction for the very first time since their drug war started (see the graph below). Similarly, a number of governments in historically drug-ridden countries in Latin America – including Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, and Uruguay – are also rethinking their approach to drugs.

Conclusion: Drug addiction as a public health problem

The two arms of drug policy – supply reduction and demand reduction – are not incompatible. But supply reduction tends to increase drug sales (and strengthen suppliers), while demand reduction tends to decrease sales (and weaken suppliers).

Hence, rather than pursue tougher raids, arrests, and crackdowns, perhaps a more fruitful, lasting strategy in this drug war would be to strengthen prevention, education, and rehabilitation.

President Duterte already made promising statements in this direction. In his first SONA, he said that the government is “planning to increase spending on basic education and incorporate mandatory education about the evils of drugs”. 

More and more countries are treating drug addiction as a public health problem, rather than a law enforcement problem. Let’s hope that our own policymakers take heed of this global rethink, and realize that the war on drugs can be fought not just on the supply side, but also – perhaps even more effectively – on the demand side. – Rappler.com

The author is a PhD student at the UP School of Economics. His views are independent of the views of his affiliations. 

For this year's World First Aid day, the focus is all about children.

Aside from being the most vulnerable members of our society, child injuries (or violence to children) have become a global health issue.

Every year, nearly 1 million children around the world die from injuries, while tens of millions more require serious medical attention for non-fatal injuries – some resulting in permanent disabilities.

Even more disturbing, most of these deaths (and this is true for about 950,000 children under the age of 18), are due to unintentional injuries – the result of traffic accidents, drowning, burns, falls, and poisoning.

In some countries, these incidents have become the leading cause of death for children after their first birthday.

Drowning, in particular, is among the  leading causes of death of children and young people, with kids under the age of 5 reported to be most at risk.

And while the statistics can seem bleak, there is a lot that we can do to make a difference in these children's lives.

First aid for children, by children

For us at the International Federation of the Red Cross (IFRC), addressing these issues are of paramount concern, and we believe that children themselves represent our best hope in having a significant impact on this problem in the long term.

In fact, this year's theme for World First Aid day is  “First aid for children and by children,” which reflects both the reality that today's children face when it comes to the dangers of everyday life, as well as our best hope in resolving these problems.

 In 2015, 26% of the world’s population was under 15 years of age. By 2050, there will be nearly 10 billion people of which 2.6 billion will be under 18. This means that a significant portion of today's global population consists of children, and they will be the ones in the forefront of our society in the near future.

And this also means that if we want to protect the future generations of humanity, we have to train today's children in First Aid so that they can be engaged, along with their parents, in their own health and well-being.

These accidents that take their lives, or injure them, cannot entirely be avoided – but we can train our children how to react effectively in emergencies and provide assistance to other kids or their and families, if it becomes necessary.

Even at an early age, kids have shown the world that they can learn First Aid, and often, these skills are retained as they grow up to become productive members of society and their communities.

In short, whatever resources we can allocate for their First Aid training will one day yield concrete benefits in terms of having a more resilient society with capable and healthy citizens.

This, of course, is true all over the world, and our focus should be on ensuring that this learning process is begun at an early age.

In fact, citizens from all countries should urge their governments to make first aid training and education for teachers and students mandatory in schools.

First Aid PH

For its part, the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement have taken on a global role in reaching tens of millions of people each year with first aid and preventive health messages.

In 2014 alone , approximately 15 million people were trained by the National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies in 116 countries around the globe by more than  180,000 active first aid trainers.

National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies also have First Aid courses specially designed for children, and some have come up with innovative ways to reach them.

For instance, the Philippine Red Cross recently released a free app called “First Aid PH” that gives anyone, even young children, instant access to pertinent information about common first aid emergencies. The app, which can be accessed offline and without an internet connection, has videos and animation to make learning first aid fun for children. It also contains safety tips, and simple step-by-step instructions to take them through everyday first aid scenarios. 

But this is just the beginning. We can definitely do more. And we can start by teaching our children that First Aid is an important life-saving skill that may one day save their lives or people around them in times of emergencies, especially the ones they love.

Dr Gwen Pang, the former Secretary General of the Philippine Red Cross (PRC), now heads the East Asia Country Cluster for the International Federation of Red Cross (IFRC).

I have often been asked on nationwide television as well as in radio interviews to explain one legal concept or the other – the latest, on the writ of habeas corpus.  I was told by my friend that one netizen had bashed me for proferring my opinions despite the fact that I am not a lawyer.  He even went so far as to question my eligibility to be dean of a graduate school of law without being a member of the Bar.  In the first place, I do not offer my opinions.  I am asked for them, and an educator at heart never passes up an opportunity to educate.  This is not the first time a challenge like this is hurled my way, but I am no longer flustered.  What it does make clear, though, is that we have cultivated this deleterious mentality that treats disciplines like enclaves of professionals, jealous about the profit realized from the exercise of their professions.

Each year, our law schools churn out so many law graduates and the severity of the Bar Examinations notwithstanding, we really have more lawyers than we need, and not enough scientists.  That is one reason that instead of putting qualified technocrats and skilled technical experts in government offices that need their expertise, our bureaucracy crawls with members of the Bar.  I have every respect and regard for the profession. My father was an associate justice of the Court of Appeals. My mother has been a law dean. My brother is an RTC judge.  I could have become a lawyer, even after being ordained a priest, but I did not want to. I chose not to. But the study of the law delighted me – which is why I worked for two doctorate degrees in the subject.

There is an elementary proposition that should not be too difficult to grasp: A jurist – one who engages himself in the scholarly examination of the law – need not be a lawyer, and a lawyer may not be a jurist, especially if his cases are confined to collection of a sum of money, accion reinvindicacion, forcible entry, unlawful detainer, and getting people off the hook when they issue bad checks!  

A jurist is one for whom law is a science, not the trade of taking up the position of a client, and making money from the advocacy.  Not that the jurist is spared the human lot of being in need of money, but he makes it by publishing, by lecturing and by teaching whomsoever may want to learn from him.  The jurist is a theoretician.  The lawyer is a tradesman; a craftsman.  This is not to say that one is lowlier than the other, but it certainly is to say that we need both.

And that is the reason I am dean of a graduate school of law, the best that there is in the country, in fact.  A graduate student of law is one who asks questions about the philosophy of the law, who asks what it is to be just – and examines the answers so far proffered in the history of thought, who scrutinizes the provisions of the law to find out whether or not they indeed serve the ends of justice, who inquires into the precepts that a reasonable interpretation of law should abide by, who asks about the coherence of the law, and the underlying reasons for incoherence, if any there might be.  That is the gulf of a difference between a college of law and a graduate school of law.  The first trains the lawyer; the second hones the critical cognitive skills of a jurist!

Justinian’s famed Corpus Juris Civilis did not necessarily flourish in the 6th century AD when he first promulgated it, after he had ordered the compilation of all extant laws and legal norms.  It was rather in the Middle Ages, when the universities of Padua, Bologna, Paris, and others that dotted the intellectual countryside took it up as a distillation of quintessential Roman thinking on the law.  It was jurists who made the Corpus flourish — and the result of their disputations were treatises, opusculae, pandects, and tomes. 

Slowly, the work of academics – of jurists – found its way into the world of courts and law practitioners.  Slowly, lawyers quoted the jurists and leaned on their authority.  This is the reason that in the civil law system, "doctrine" is more highly regarded as a source of authority for courts and lawyers than precedent to which we, who have always had a fondness for things Americana – no matter that sometimes we speak nastily of their presidents – tend to rely on, rather inordinately.  It is also to the cogitation of jurists that the Statute of the International Court of Justice refers when it points to "the writings of publicists" as a secondary source in the resolution of international legal disputes.

So, I am not a lawyer.  I have not relished taking up other’s problems and making money from them.  I do not have the title "Attorney."  If I were pathologically fixated to titles, I would be entitled to "Dr Dr Dr" – in the style of European professors – but I do not like what the nursery rhyme attaches to that iteration: "I am sick."  But I have always found delight in reading, study, disputation, teaching, writing and reflection. 

We need more jurists in the Philippines – which is to say that we need more thoughtful people for whom law is the object of serious study, and its recondite problems, for which the lawyer may have very little time or interest – or talent, and for whom the philosophical and theoretical issues are to be taken up if the law is to be thoughtful, useful and just.  After all, in many matters of supreme importance, there is often nothing more practical than a good theory. –Rappler.com

The author is Dean, Graduate School of Law, San Beda College; and Chair, Department of Jurisprudence and Legal Philosophy, Philippine Judicial Academy.