From curses to geopolitical talks, Philippine Foreign Secretary Perfecto Yasay Jr has a lot on his overflowing plate.

His boss has a now well-earned reputation of cussing anybody and everybody. Yasay said allies, partners and friends of the Philippines will have to grin and bear it when President Rodrigo Duterte cuts loose with a profanity-laced rant.

Duterte has torched the Pope, US President Barack Obama, the EU,and other assorted personalities with a mouth that his mother should probably wash out with soap.

Yasay's foreign affairs department has been stuck with the job of smoothing over the bruised feelings caused by Duterte's rough language.

They have a long 6 years since Duterte does not look like he'll be changing his manners soon, or ever.

"I don't have to explain…these are always uttered in anger, frustration and disappointment," Yasay said at a forum to Filipino-Americans in New York recently.

"These are not directed at any personality," Yasay said to applause by Filipino-Americans packing the auditorium in the consulate.

The dustup with Obama is just the latest example of what lies ahead for Yasay and his team.

Yasay already has enough to deal with Duterte's runaway vocabulary of purple prose.

"I do not know in what context one would say he is a colorful personality. Certainly it's not the color of his skin," Yasay quipped to chuckles from the audience.

"Many of the persons say 'no,' they are not bothered by these expletives, not even the Pope, not even Barack Obama. I have nothing to explain."

He did not say how he knew why the Pope or Obama were not bothered by the cursing.

But a lot of people still blanch at the inability of Duterte to "act presidential" by showing a deft touch in his manners or putting a lid on the expletives flowing out of his mouth.

Switching to the dispute with China over the South China Sea, Yasay defended the tack of holding bilateral talks with Beijing even though the Asian giants' size and economic influence gives small countries like the Philippines a sharp disadvantage in those talks.

Yasay criticized all other Philippine governments for failing to implement an independent foreign policy, saying it "has not been pursued in the manner contemplated (by the Constitution). We have always been subservient to some foreign country."

Does it mean choosing one or the other superpower– China or the United States?

Yasay believes foreign policy "does not mean…a closer friendship with China will be weakening our friendship with the US." (READ: Towards an independent foreign policy)

How to do that in the intensifying atmosphere of Sino-US rivalry, the Philippine official did not say.

Yasay said the decision by the tribunal "provided the legal platform to strengthen our claim and serves as basis for us now to move forward with diplomat processes to make sure the decision would be implemented."

The problem is that China has already said it will never negotiate on the basis of the tribunal's verdict.

"Let there be no doubts it is not easy to settle our disputes with China with respect to the West Philippine Sea. They claim the territory is theirs, they claim they will not talk to us if we will talk to them within the confines of the decision of the tribunal.

"We say we will only talk to them within the framework of that ruling. We will fight for our rights insofar as our EEZ (exclusive economic zone) is concerned."

Yasay cited Manila's defense treaties with Washington but obviously wants to refrain from leaning on the US in its dispute with China.

"We will not be influenced by irrationality and emotions in claiming – eh sa atin iyan, ipaglaban natin yan, alis kayo diyan (that is ours, we will fight for it, leave now). This not the way we settle international disputes," he said.

Just because the arbitral case was won against China does not mean we "can drive out anyone who is there. That is not how it works. We still have to engage in bilateral talks to make sure the decision can be implemented." – Rappler.com

Rene Pastor is a journalist in the New York metropolitan area who writes about agriculture, politics and regional security. He was, for many years, a senior commodities journalist for Reuters. He founded the Southeast Asia Commodity Digest. 

On September 19, the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) released its most recent nationwide survey on drug abuse in the Philippines showing 1.8 million current users of illicit drugs or 1.8% of our 101 million population.

The survey, conducted late 2015 to February 2016, had 5,000 respondents. DDB is a policy-making body under the Office of the President and is the repository of official data on illegal drugs. 

A few days after, President Duterte repeated in a talk before cops in Cagayan de Oro his old estimate of “3 million addicts” and even revised it to “4 million." 

Here’s how he arrived at the 4-million figure: Duterte cited years-old estimate of 3 million supposedly from Dionisio Santiago, former chief of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, and added 1 million based on “recent events,” the Philippine Star reported.

“So, 3 million plus 1 million is 4 million,” Duterte said. He did not cite any source for the additional “1 million addicts" he found.

It appears that Duterte wasn’t aware of the DDB survey. This is worrying because it shows the President’s apparent disregard for facts, for evidence as basis of policy. 

Other findings of the DDB survey are equally important. These include: 

• ¾ of the drug users thought of quitting but only 3% of current users has undergone rehabilitation program.
• Only 4% are aware of any rehabilitation facility located nearby.
• Prevalence of drug use is higher in Visayas than other regions.
• Respondents recommended conduct of raids, jailing of pushers, patrol of barangay tanod and police, rehabilitation of drug users, and an efficient justice system.

So far, we are not seeing a coherent policy-making process on drugs.

We are not even seeing a holistic policy, for example, linking reforms in the judicial system and law enforcement to curbing of drug use, coordination with the health department in the aggressive rehabilitation of users, and cooperation with international law-enforcement agencies as well as the Anti-Money Laundering Council to track down suppliers. (READ: War on drugs? Other countries focus on demand, not supply)

All these require processes that take time and hard work, beyond the current preference for quick, shock-and-awe fixes.

We are only seeing a tunnel focus on killing suspected users and traffickers, which has already reached alarming numbers: 3,338 since July 1, of which 2,140 (as of Sept. 20) were victims of extrajudicial killings.

Duterte has said he needs 6 more months to fight the war on drugs, realizing that he could not fulfill his campaign promise of reducing illicit drug use in 3 to 6 months. This means continuous killings or, simply, an extermination campaign.

Policy, based on facts and evidence, is missing in this war.– Rappler.com

Kung hahanapin ngayon sa mga bagong diksiyonaryong Filipino ang salitang “tokhang,” maaaring mabigo tayo.

Una, pagkat ang “tokhang” ay inimbento lamang.

Sa Ingles, alagad ng sining (at hindi alagad ng batas) ang imbentor ng mga salitang “blatant” ni Edmund Spenser, “blurb” ni Gelett Burgess, “chortle” ni Lewis Carroll, “cyberspace” ni William Gibson, “doublethink” ni George Orwell, “droog” ni Anthony Burgess, “eucatastrophe” ni JRR Tolkien, “intensify” ni Samuel Taylor Coleridge, “robot” ni Karel Capek, “sensuous” ni John Milton, “serendipity” ni Horace Walpole, “tattarrattat” ni James Joyce, at “witticism” ni John Dryden. O kahit ng mga salitang “superman” na isinalin ni George Bernard Shaw mula sa Alemang Übermensch ni Friedrich Nietzsche o “cloud cuckoo land” na isinalin ni Henry Francis Cary mula sa Griyegong Νεϕελοκοκκυγία.

Dito, kilala ba ninyo kung sino ang umimbento ng Textanaga na pinagmulan ng Dalitext, Dionatext, Tan-awit, Textsawikain, Textigmo, at Textpaktakon? Siya rin diumano ang nasa likod ng Araliwan, Awitulansangan, Conspiwriters, Literatour, Panitikabataan, Poetreat, Sangfil, Sawikaan, Sininggaling, at Tanghalinghaga. (Si Vim Nadera po. – Editor)

Ikalawa, pagkat ang “tokhang” ay mula sa pinaghalong Cebuano na “toktok,” na onomatopoeia ng “katok,” at “hangyo,” na ang ibig sabihin ay “hiling” o “patawad” o “pakiusap.”

Sa Filipino, kahanay ito ng “salumpuwit” o chair, “salongganisa” o brief, at “salungguhit” o panty, na nasundan ng mga kahawig nitong “bilnuran” o arithmetic, “haynayan” o biology, “miktinig” o microphone, “panginain” o browser, “pantablay” o charger, “pang-ulong hatinig” o headset,  “pook-sapot” o website, at “sulatroniko” o email.

Ikatlo, pagkat ang “tokhang” ay bagong kampanyang kontra-droga ng Philippine National Police (PNP). Kumbaga, kakambal ito ng bagong pangulo.

Katunayan, hindi lamang sa tabloid kundi sa Twitter ay ginagamit na ring pandiwa ang kanyang apelyido – e.g. na-Duterte o #naduterte – upang sabihin na ang isang tao ay naging bahagi ng operation plan na ito.

Sa pamamagitan nito at ng Project: Double Barrel, may mga napatay nang mahigit 1,000 armadong kampon ng droga na “nanlaban.”

Ayon sa paliwanag ng hepe ng PNP na si Director General Ronald ‘‘Bato’’ dela Rosa, ang “tokhang” ay kulang pa. Kailangang triplehin pa ng kanyang mga tauhan ang kanilang pagsisikap para pasukuin ang target na 1.8 milyong nagdrodroga’t nagtutulak ngayong nasa unang 6 na buwan na ng pamunuan ni Presidente Duterte.

Sa simula, ito ay binabaybay pa nang kapitalisado – TokHang – na parang isang restorang Tsino na ang espesyalidad ay “tokwang maanghang.”     

Pero ito ay naglahong tila file na na-virus!

Dahil kaya sa dalas?

Dahil kaya sa dahas?

Halimbawa, noong Buwan ng Wika, kung IGM, o “i-google mo,” higit sa kalahating milyon, o 700,000, ang resultang makukuha sa loob ng 0.36 segundo. 

Halos kasindami ng pinagsamang 13,000 inaresto at 628,000 sumuko sa pulisyang may 160,000 kawani.

Isa na rin ba ito sa maituturing na bahagi ng “Change Is coming” ng bagong liderato?

Katanggap-tanggap ito, lalo na sa pag-unlad ng wika, sapagkat isa ito sa mga bagong salitang nakapasok sa mas malawak na larang.

Ito rin, kung tutusin, ang layunin ng Konstitusyong 1987 pagdating sa Wikang Pambansa.

Ayon sa Artikulo XIV Seksiyon 6 ng ating Saligang Batas:

“Ang pambansang wika ng Pilipinas ay Filipino. Habang ito’y nabubuo, patuloy itong pauunlarin at payayamanin batay sa mga umiiral na wika sa Pilipinas at iba pang wika.

 At ito nga ang nangyari.

Lalo pa ngayong nasa ilalim ang buong bansa sa pamumuno ng isang presidenteng itinuturing ng higit pa sa 16 milyong botante na isang pangulong “pambansa.”

Bakit?

Sapagkat si Presidente Duterte ay isinilang noong Marso 28, 1945, sa Maasin, Leyte.

Sapagkat noong 1951, ang ama niyang si Vicente Duterte na isang Cebuano at ina niyang Soledad Roa-Duterte na taga-Agusan ay nagpasiyang manirahan sa Davao.

Sapagkat mula sa Sta Ana Elementary School sa Davao, ang batang si Digong ay lumuwas sa Maynila para magkolehiyo sa Lyceum of the Philippines at maging abogado sa San Beda College.

Kumbaga, mulàt siya sa bawat likaw ng bituka, kahit paano, ng mga Filipino mula sa Luzon, Visayas, at Mindanao.

Isa ito sa mga dahilan kung bakit ang dating ama ng isang buong bayan ay naging ama ng isang buong bansa!

Malayo na rin ang narating ng “toktok” at “hangyo.” Kung dati ang mga ito ay nasa antas-rehiyonal, ngayon ay pumasok na sila sa antas-nasyonal.

Walang ipinagkaiba sa kaso, halimbawa, ng “sutokil” mula sa sugba, tola, at kilaw.

O ng kasing-klasikal ng kantang “Usahay.”

O “Padayon.”

Bukod sa “ambot” na madalas marinig sa radyo at telebisyon na itinatapat natin sa “ewan,” nariyan din ang mga salitang dati-rati mas madalas ay maririnig lamang sa mga Bisdak: “adlaw,” “angay,” “atong,” “atubangan,” “buhi,” “buot,” “balak,” “balay,” “bulawan,” “butang,” “daghan,” “dalan,” “dapit,” “diay,” “diha,” “gani,” “gawas,” “gihapon,” “gugma,” “gyud,” “halad,” “hubòg,” “human,” “kaayo,” “kinabuhi,” “kalinaw,” “kalingawan,”  “kamot,” “kanimo,” “karon,” “kinsa,” “kasingkasing,” “katawhan,” “kinahanglan,” “lawas,” “nasod,” “nawong,” “sugbo,” “sugilanon,” “sulod,” “tanan,” “tingog,” “tinuod,” “tuig,” “ubàn,” “unsa,” “usab,” o “yuta.”

Sa panahong ito ng urbanisasyon, kung kailan kaliwa’t kanang bayan ang nangangarap maging siyudad, di natin dapat kalimutan na Cebuano talaga ang salitang “lungsod.”

Sino’ng nagsabing ang wikang Filipino ay Tagalog?

Walang iniwan ito kay Presidente Duterte na isang “pandaigdig” din.

Ito ay nang una niyang piniling pakasalan si Bb. Elizabeth Abellana Zimmerman na isang stewardess na may dugong Amerikano at Aleman!

Umabot na rin tayo sa antas internasyunal.

Sa tulong pa mandin ito ng wikang ating ikinahihiya.

O sinasalita lamang tuwing Agosto.

O maaaring hindi pa nga.

Noong Hunyo ng 2015, tinanggap ng Oxford English Dictionary (OED) ang mga salita nating “advanced,” “bahala na,” “balikbayan,” “balikbayan box,” “baon,” “barangay,” “barkada,” “barong,” “barong tagalog,” “baro’t saya,” “batchmate,” “buko,” “buko juice,” “buko water,” “carnap,” “carnapper,” “comfort room,” “despedida,” “dirty kitchen,” “estafa,” “gimmick,” “go down,” “halo-halo,” “high-blood,” “kikay,” “kikay kit,” “KKB” (o kani-kanyang bayad), “kuya,” “mabuhay,” “mani-pedi,” “pan de sal,” “presidentiable,” “pulutan,” “sari-sari store,” “sinigang,” “suki,” at “utang na loob.”

Noong Marso ng taong ito, napasama na rin ang mga salitang “kilig” at “teleserye.”

Nitong Setyembre lamang, kabilang sa 1,000 bagong entri sa OED ang 15 sa ating salita: “arnis,” “balut,” “bayanihan,” “kare-kare,” “leche flan,” “lechon,” “lechon asado,” “lola,” “lolo,” “pancit,” “puto,” “tabo,” “tita,” “tito,” at “yaya.”

Sa darating na update sa Disyembre, kasama na kayâ ng “tokhang”? – Rappler.com

Ang TOYM Awardee for Literature na si Vim Nadera ay kasalukuyang direktor ng Philippine High School for the Arts. Ang makatang Nadera ay ilang ulit nang nakatanggap ng Palance Award para sa kanyang mga tula, at nakapaglathala ng ilang libro. 

There is a season for everything, even for a woman I had described earlier as a woman for all seasons. Just a year ago, Leila de Lima was heroine to many, the face of Daang Matuwid in its war against corruption. Today, she is beleaguered, with the awesome powers of the presidency thrown at her relentlessly, mercilessly.

It is not the first time this has happened; we saw this in the case of the hapless Renato Corona, the impeached and convicted chief justice who died last May. We also witnessed this in what was done to former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who at least survived to see her acquittal by the Supreme Court in the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office case and the Sandiganbayan in the ZTE case.

Die-hard supporters of the previous administration have argued that De Lima's case is different because Corona and Arroyo were guilty. That is not my point (and Corona and Arroyo defenders would certainly contest the claim of guilt for both). It's the misuse of the powers of the president in all these cases that makes them similar. Injustice is injustice whoever does it and for whatever justification it is invoked.

And so now, it is Senator De Lima's turn. It's not just what happened in the Senate and the House of Representatives in the last week. It's what will happen in the next days when she could be charged with non-bailable crimes, a scenario that could lead to her detention in the next few years.

All I can say to Senator De Lima is the truth: seasons always pass, there is a season for everything. This is a difficult season for you but time will see you vindicated.

Let me also say to this brave senator: how you respond to what could be a long winter will have serious consequences not only on yourself, but also on our democracy and justice system.

Farce in the House

Many have forgotten the December 15, 2014 raid of the New Bilibid Prison (NBP), where it all started. The same drug lords, the so-called Bilibid 19, whom De Lima stripped of power when she brought them to the NBI detention facility, and later to a separate building inside the NBP, are the same witnesses whom Secretary Aguirre has produced to testify against her before the House hearing.

This includes the bank-robber and mass murderer Herbert Colanggo who prided himself in recording his own album in his own music studio inside the Bilibid, until De Lima swooped in with the NBI and the Special Action Forces to dismantle his whole music production set-up.

This is the kind of character and motivation of the witnesses Aguirre has lined up against De Lima, witnesses whom the House allowed to be directly examined by Aguirre himself, instead of the usual and standard practice of letting the congressmen ask the questions without the aid of any lawyer, whether coming from the government or as the witness' own private counsel.

The first sign that the House hearing was for the most part going to be a show-and-parade affair was when Aguirre was allowed to conduct the direct examination of the witnesses and help them in their testimonies by leading them to his desired answers.

Of course, in a court setting, the direct examination of a witness is indeed conducted by the counsel of the party presenting the witness. But here, the Rules on Criminal Procedure and Evidence apply. Counsels presenting the witness are not allowed to ask leading questions, or help the witness in any manner. Any leading question or one that is not based on a fact previously stated by the witness, or whose predicate has not been laid, can be objected to by opposing counsel.

At the same time, witnesses are allowed to answer only the specific question asked, and be responsive to the same without being given the opportunity to narrate in a free-willing manner. Finally, the competence of the witness to testify on his own personal opinions of the facts at issue is not allowed, as they are not expert witnesses, unless the very fact at issue essentially involves the personal opinion of the witness himself on the matter. They are only allowed to testify on facts based on their own personal knowledge.

However, having pointed this out, it does not mean that because these rules in direct examination were not followed, this already constitutes an anomaly in the House proceedings. Not at all. House inquiries are not court proceedings bound by the technical rules of procedure. Witnesses and resource persons are expected to be asked leading questions, grilled, and subjected to rigorous fact-checking of their accounts and tested on their recollection of events.

The only assurance that the witness or resource person will be telling the truth is that he is subjected to an impartial questioning by the congressmen themselves, and not by any official from the Executive whose sole purpose is to affirm the testimonies of the witnesses in the hearing, and who is, by no means, an impartial and disinterested party in the proceedings.

Being a body that dispenses of the rules in the direct examination of witnesses, the House's only assurance that it will eventually ferret out the truth in an inquiry is the active participation of its members in the critical deconstruction of the witnesses' testimonies. What we saw in the House proceedings is far from this critical deconstruction. What we saw is a rehearsed proceeding led by the justice secretary, with House members' participation limited to intervening, as if on cue, to heighten the drama of the narrative of the witness.

Absent any application of the Rules of Evidence on direct examination, the House allowing Aguirre to conduct the witnesses' examination is the real tragedy of the House inquiry. Needless to say, this tragedy, when repeated several times – like history – becomes a farce.   

We saw the most glaring example of this farcical nature of the House proceedings when Congresswoman Gwen Garcia rose up on cue to confirm that the telephone number witness Colanggo mentioned was, in fact, De Lima’s number as it appeared on her own phone’s contact list, without bothering with the simple fact that anybody could have given the Senator's cellular phone number to Colanggo previously, and that of course it would match the number of De Lima on Garcia's contact list.

As a result of the rehearsed drama, De Lima got 2,000 texts that day which she characterized as vicious. That whole portion of the House drama was designed to expose the Senator to harassment by the mob of her haters on social media, by giving them direct access to her private number.   

Drama in the Senate

The House's examination of the drug lords and the Senate questioning of alleged Davao Death Squad member Edgar Matobato is therefore a study in contrast. In the House hearing, Aguirre was given all the leeway to assist the witnesses in weaving their narratives on how they all pooled millions of pesos for De Lima.

This was supposedly in exchange for allowing them to continue with their trade and luxurious practices inside the Bilibid, without, however, explaining why – after mulcting so much from them – De Lima would suddenly decide to swoop down on their kubols. This would precisely cut them off from the drug trade inside the Bilibid that, in the first place, supposedly delivered to her so much cash. It simply does not make sense.

What triggered the raid and the sudden change in status from favored to – as the Bilibid 19 claimed – persecuted inmates? Did they stop delivering money to De Lima? If not, why would De Lima suddenly, and for no apparent reason, shut the faucet that was supposedly gushing out millions of pesos a month into her bank account and future campaign funds?

Why kill the goose that was laying the golden egg? These simple questions could have been asked by any of the congressmen who had the experience of at least appearing in court under the law student practice provision of the Rules of Court. Instead, they feasted on the significance of a witness knowing De Lima's cellular phone number, the uncomplicated circumstance of said number being previously handed to the witness by Aguirre being conveniently lost upon them.

In contrast, Matobato faced the extensive cross-examination of Senator Alan Peter Cayetano not once, but twice. The first was during De Lima's chairmanship of the Senate committee on justice and human rights, and the second during Senator Richard Gordon's first appearance as the new chairman.

The drama here was not the senators taking their cue on the rostrum to match Matobato's identification of the Davao policemen who are allegedly DDS members with the list of Davao policemen now on President Duterte's personal PSG detail, but the grueling cross-examination that senators are bound to subject a witness to – even to the point of misleading the witness to facts he has not testified to, or confusing him with contexts and circumstances that the senator merely presumed from the facts testified to.

Their presumption, of course, is that Matobato's testimony is too incredible to be believed, implicating as it does the highest official of the land as the mastermind in serial mass murders that occurred in Davao City in the past 28 years.

By itself, like the convicts' testimony in the House, Matobato's testimony is not credible. After all, he is a confessed killer. But what makes his testimony more credible is that it has already been corroborated on several points with information available outside the Senate hearing, but which are, admittedly, still extraneous evidence insofar as the Senate proceedings are concerned. 

First, there indeed exists a Ma-a Quarry in Davao City owned by retired SPO4 Bienvenido Laud, and which was testified to by another witness, a certain Ernesto Avasola, as the dumping ground of victims of summary execution. Avasola testified during an application for search warrant proceedings before a Manila RTC that he personally participated in the killing and burying of 6 victims in Laud's property. This account is now part of the records of the Supreme Court in the case of SPO4 Bienvenido Laud v People of the Philippines (GR No. 199032; November 19, 2014), where now Justice Secretary Aguirre served as counsel for Bienvenido Laud.

Second, is the "Sali Makdum" story, which was already corroborated via investigative journalism reports by CNN Philippines and other networks which traced the family of Mirasol Marquez, the common-law wife of Makdum and first cousin of Matobato's former common-law wife. Marquez or her family confirmed Matobato's testimony that she filed a case of kidnapping against Matobato for the abduction of Makhdum, and that the case did not prosper. The accounts of Matobato, Marquez, and their respective families only vary as to the motivation for the kidnapping, which is terrorism according to Matobato, or plain robbery disguised as a land transaction according to the families.

However, the substantial facts are the same on both accounts. Makdum was arrested in a carinderia uphill of the Penaplata Market in Samal Island while having breakfast with Matobato, and then was never heard from again, while Matobato showed up eventually. This jibes with Matobato's account that the DDS/police who abducted Makdum made the show of also arresting and putting handcuffs on him, to make it appear that he was being arrested with Makdum. This, despite his never being charged for anything, and his simply reappearing in Samal, to the anger and suspicion of Marquez whose own husband was never heard from again. Matobato's narrative provides the logical explanation for these circumstances. He was eventually freed because the abductors were his accomplices, while Makdum was the only real victim in the incident.

These are just some of the independently corroborated points in Matobato's testimony. It is certain that more will be corroborated through simple fact-checking, or research of available public documents, like the NBI records or police reports on the killing of the NBI agent Jamisola – the now famous gunslinger who single-handedly outfought 30 DDS men and who supposedly refused to die, only to be allegedly finished off by Mayor Duterte – and the police reports and records on the 4 supposed Nograles supporters abducted and killed in Samal Island. The latter was investigated with Matobato as prime suspect when two of the bodies floated and were discovered by fishermen, and due to rumors of strange things happening at IGACOS Mayor Roger Antalan's resort. Matobato was the Mayor's caretaker at the resort and, according to residents, also served as the Mayor's bodyguard.

What is of course exciting to watch is the eventual confrontation between Matobato and the 19 DCPO police officers he identified to be the core group of the DDS. It will also be interesting to know where these police officers are assigned now. Will he, in a modified police line-up, be able to identify each and every police officer by name? Will he be able to recite the personal details and circumstances of each and every police officer, or their character and reputation within the DDS? Will he be able to present proof of his past relationship with these men, like photos of family gatherings or birthday parties that he attended with them?

For all we know, and it is better to presume – in accordance with trial techniques – that whoever is handling Matobato's testimony is reserving evidence for confrontation, after the police officers have already denied on live TV any relationship or personal knowledge of Matobato. That was the risk PNP chief Ronald dela Rosa took, when he readily denied personally knowing Matobato, despite him immediately and directly addressing Matobato by his first name during the hearing, in all familiarity, as if he was just talking to him in the Davao-PAOCTF office.  (To be concluded)– Rappler.com

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

When President Rodrigo Duterte says the Philippines is not a vassal state of the United States of America, or when he insists that he wants to pursue an “independent foreign policy,” he is actually echoing a policy enshrined in the Philippine Constitution. 

Article II, Sec. 7, of the Constitution states: “The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other states the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self-determination.”

Interestingly, no Philippine president since perhaps Manuel Luis Quezon, who said he’d rather have a country run like hell by Filipinos than one run like heaven by Americans, has expressed adherence to such a policy in such strong terms as Duterte.

Why is it that in the Philippine context, an independent foreign policy is necessarily antagonistic to the US and its interests? A quick reading of history shows why.

Ever since the Americans duped Aguinaldo, Buencamino and Paterno et. al. in 1898, the US has practically dictated the way we relate with it and the rest of the world. This the Americans did as our colonial masters from 1902 to 1946 and as our neocolonial puppeteers from 1946 to the present. Pres. Duterte’s graphic photo of American soldiers stepping on the dead bodies of Moros in the massacre of Bud Dajo is but the tip of the iceberg of a long and brutal history of US domination and intervention in our affairs. 

Even as the US granted us independence after the Japanese liberation, it attached a bundle of strings that tied our political and economic development to America’s imperialist agenda (e.g. The Bell Trade Act, RP-US Military Bases Agreement, RP-US Military Assistance Agreement, the Mutual Defense Treaty, among others.) This was followed by onerous agreements and harsh impositions under US-led multilateral agencies like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank (WB), and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade - World Trade Organization (GATT-WTO) which strengthened our neocolonial trade and investment policies, making us even more hostage to US economic policy. 

Ferdinand Marcos brought US subservience to a new low by forcing on our people a brutal fascist dictatorship in service of US imperialism. Thus did the US extend full political, military and economic support to his regime till its ouster in 1986. His successor Pres. Corazon Aquino could have, but refused to, implement an independent foreign policy. On the contrary, she vowed to pay every penny of Marcos’ odious debt to US, European and Japanese banks and vehemently opposed the Senate’s historic abrogation of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement in 1991. She followed to the hilt the IMF and WB’s conditionalities and structural adjustment programs.

Later on the Ramos government, through the USAID-funded Accelerating Growth Investment and Liberalization with Equity (AGILE) project, dismantled whatever support and protection was left for local producers in order for US and other foreign investments to expand and dominate the local economy. In our ascension to the WTO, Philippine negotiators were only too eager to lower our trade barriers to the detriment of our local producers, who until now have never fully recovered from globalization’s onslaught.

In 1999, the Estrada government allowed the return of US military troops under the RP-US Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). This was followed by the Mutual Logistics and Supply Agreement (MLSA) approved under Pres. Arroyo and the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) approved under Pres. Aquino. All together, these agreements now make it possible for the US to install a string of US military facilities all over the archipelago to serve as forward bases in its pivot to Asia, including it’s power play with China.

Cutting off ties with America?

To sum it up, our colonial past and neocolonial present have made the Philippines not only a US military outpost in Southeast Asia but a source of its cheap labor and raw materials, a steady market for its goods and a profitable investment site for its transnational corporations. All these at the expense of national sovereignty and our own development as a modern, self-reliant and industrial economy. No wonder that despite our overly rich natural resources and highly talented, young and growing population, we remain a poor and underdeveloped country, sliding in status from Asia’s number 2 in the 50s to it’s proverbial sick man today.

It is in this light that an independent foreign policy becomes so important. Such a policy should necessarily depart from decades of US-imposed political and economic programs and help us break free from the colonial mentality that has debilitated us as a nation. 

Does an independent foreign policy mean cutting off ties with America?

Only a fool would think that. But surely, it requires a much-needed and long-delayed redefinition of our “special relations” with the US. For no other country has trampled on our national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self-determination more than the United States of America. Not Spain, not Japan, not even China despite its illegal and despicable actions in the West Philippine Sea.

If President Duterte is serious in pursuing an independent foreign policy, he should go beyond bad mouthing Barack Obama or giving the EU the finger. Of course kicking out the US troops from Mindanao and engaging China in bilateral talks over the West Philippine Sea is a good start.

But to be truly meaningful, such a policy should be translated into bolder diplomatic actions and thoroughgoing political and socio-economic reforms that hold our sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest and right to self determination above any foreign power. – Rappler.com

The author is a former representative of Bayan Muna in the House of Representatives. 

President Rodrigo Duterte has been compared by some to the late Ugandan strongman Idi Amin, played by Forrest Whitaker in “The Last King of Scotland.” Were Amin alive today, he would probably send this note to Duterte.

Dear Comrade Duterte:

Greetings from the Great Beyond.. You do not know how much pleasure it has given me to finally have a worthy successor, and one who might even go beyond the work of the master! I, Idi Amin Dada, also known in my time as Big Daddy, had almost despaired of having an heir that would continue the traditions of our tribe.

Like me, you are now under attack from the western imperialist media. They have even compared you to me, thinking they insult you in doing so. Be firm. Spit on these hypocrites, for hypocrites they are. Do they not know that the philosophy and practices of our tribe are based on the teachings of the greatest western thinkers?

Do they not realize that as our father Thomas Hobbes taught us not too long ago, the fundamental law of the Sovereign is to kill or be killed?

Do they not know that, as the great Darwin instructed us, the basic law of life is the survival of the fittest?

Do they not realize that we are devotees of Adam Smith, who taught that competition is man's basic instinct – though we have made one important amendment, that while Smith prescribed killing off the competition with lower prices, we kill off the competition with the sword?

Do they not remember that the illustrious Nietzsche and Ayn Rand told us that Christianity, due process, human rights, and democracy are ideologies invented by the weak to protect them from the strong?

Spit on these hypocrites, Comrade Duterte. We are the true heirs of the West, not these sanctimonious bastards in New York and Washington and the local hacks that are on the payroll of the New York Times.

My only criticism, Comrade Duterte, is that three months into your reign, you continue to tolerate dissent from the corrupt media and incorrigible critics. I silenced these fools during my first month, sending some some of them as gifts to the bellies of the Kings of the River and the Kings of the Jungle.

Be firm. Do not hesitate. And, as always, shoot first, ask questions later.

Idi Amin Dada

– Rappler.com

Walden Bello made the only resignation on principle in the history of Congress in 2015, in protest at the double standards of the Aquino III administration. He has authored 20 books and is currently senior research fellow at Kyoto University and professor of sociology at the State University of New York at Binghamton.

She will rightly be long remembered for having dared the odds: She would not give the House Managers of the Corona Impeachment easy sailing – even if the tide was against him, and against her. PNoy had left no doubt: Corona was the hindrance to his promise of “daang matuwid” and he had to go, never mind that he was the Chief Justice. Speedily, the Lower House really acted low and filed the Articles of Impeachment. It was for Miriam and for Joker Arroyo to show the nation that the Chief Justice had been haled to the dock on trumped-up charges. 

“What were you thinking of?” she bellowed repeatedly when the prosecutors conceded that they did not have the evidence to support the litany of charges they had brought against the defendant.  There was nothing more they could do than cower like chastened sheep beneath the withering gaze of the feisty senator.

There were shadows, to be sure.

Her stint in the Cory Government was not altogether placid. She was plucked from the Bench – a judge who had won an award for writing not only legally correct but elegant decisions. She became head of the then Commission on Immigration and Deportation where she made some enemies who would charge her before the Office of the Ombudsman. She tried to fend off a preventive suspension meted her by the Sandiganbayan on the theory that as an elected member of the Senate – she was a senator by the time the charges were filed in court – she could be suspended only by the chamber of which she was a member. “Nice try,” the Supreme Court acknowledged – but not good enough.

Preventive suspension was not a penalty, and the fact that the Senate could suspend one of its members did not mean that only the Senate could! She was eventually acquitted of all the charges.  Before running for the Senate, she was DAR Secretary where she introduced bold measures, but earned a notable list of foes. (Read her obituary: Miriam Santiago: 'God is not out there but in you')

When she ran for President and lost to Fidel Ramos, she brought the matter up to the Presidential Electoral Tribunal and never really forgave FVR.  Every year, after each SONA, she would give FVR a worse grade than that of the preceding year.  Asked once what she thought of FVR’s announcements, she quipped: “It gets worse every year.”

She attended formal classes in theology at the Maryhill School of Theology, known for its progressive position on Church doctrine. And when, early in the PNoy regime, he wanted to send the CBCP a clear signal that he would not have the mitered heads speaking over his telemprompted discourses, much less speaking against his mantra of self-proclaimed righteousness, he dragged bishops he and his minions derisively called “the Pajero Bishops” before a Senate inquiry. Miriam took the floor at the very first turn, and gave the bishops’ detractors a severe spanking: Who, she thundered, had bused in the hordes that had taken their places on the Senate grounds to ridicule the bishops? And what, she demanded to know of her colleagues, really constituted separation of Church and State? – following that challenge to a debate (which no one wisely took) with a lecturette on American constitutional law as the provenance of our “separation clause.”

Exposing ignorance

Many admired her for her acuteness while some raised the question of her mental equilibrium. But she acted every inch a member of the Senate, except perhaps when she unleashed a barrage of very “unsenatoriable” remarks against Juan Ponce Enrile with whom she had engaged in a tussle. But she was sufficiently respectable to wallow neither in unquenchable vendetta nor in self-aggrandizement.  When she had fired her missiles, she quieted down and resumed working respectably and respectfully.

She held a doctor of juridical science degree from the University of Michigan – and not everyone holds such a degree. She was quick to expose the ignorance of those who claimed to know but in fact did not. She labelled as an “unrecognized creature” some lawyer who ventured to send the committee she chaired an unsolicited legal opinion. She may not have been a courtroom eagle, but she was a scholar of the law. One may be able to point at brighter lights, but she shone with a luminescence all her own.

One of her last political decisions raised many an eyebrow: She ran with Bongbong Marcos. Actually, it was more like she was Bongbong’s running mate because it was quite clear to all that the sickness had extinguished the roaring flame that once was there and that only embers were left.  But she stood her ground: She believed in Bongbong Marcos, and even after his questionable defeat, she did not change tune nor shift allegiance. She was, without a doubt, principled.

That brand of statesmanship, we shall miss. The feistiness we shall also miss, especially because most of the time, it unmasked hypocrisy, pretense and fraudulence! And we so badly need that today. – Rappler.com

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

How far back through history need we go in our search for clues to what may be wrong with us? And how much fault can be found there that will convince us that we are ourselves blameless?

Indeed, so much of that sort of excavating, yet so little diagnostic self-disembowelment, is going on that the sense is propagated that we’re all children of ill fortune. That, I must say, is the most ridiculous sense of copout I’ve heard.

At any rate, as with just about anything, you only have to insist on it to be able to turn up the culprits you’re looking for in history. The culture of patronage on which the society operates is itself rooted and also refined in history; it goes back half a millennium to the Spanish times or, again, if you insist, even further back to our own pre-colonial, closed-class system. 

For his own purposes, in any case, Rodrigo Duterte himself stops at the turn of the 20^thcentury, and focuses on two incidents in the United States’ colonial campaign, two massacres that have provoked in him an avowed hatred of the Americans, one victimizing Moros in Jolo, in the south, the other Visayans of Balangiga, in Samar, central Philippines. The latter, though, would seem the one that has left the more fatal impression on him – if you could believe moviemakers and Freudian clinicians. 

The officer in command in Balangiga was Jacob Hurd Smith. He made a reputation for indiscriminate brutality during the Indian Wars, and carried on with it in the war against Spain, which earned the Americans our islands as spoils, and was court-martialed for his atrocities in the Philippines.

I wonder what tricks “Monster Jake” (as the American press labeled him) played on Duterte’s psyche to make him hate the Americans with such a passion he has threatened to steer his nation away from the US and the rest of the West (“I’m anti-West”), diplomatically and commercially, and closer toward China and Russia (“They are waiting for me”). 

Run by authoritarian regimes, Russia and China are known to hound their emigrant dissenters to the ends of the earth and also, like the Americans, to exploit their weaker diplomatic partners. A singular example is China’s belligerent disregard of an international arbitral court verdict affirming our territorial jurisdiction over the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea from the opposite perspective). This is glossed over by Duterte, apparently because it does not fit into his narrative.  

But his point in the case of the US, however one-sided, cannot be disputed. Indeed, for all their avowals for democracy, the Americans have paid little more than lip service to it; they have simply picked up from where their colonialist predecessors left off and continued to sponsor elitist leadership and profit from the lopsided distribution of opportunities resulting from it. 

But, then, as a critic of colonial patronage – and what a spiteful critic he is! – Duterte himself lacks the standing. A dynastic patriarch in his native Davao City, he has carried his patron’s mentality into the presidency in ways that have looked very worrisome indeed lately; he has been lavishing his sponsorship on the police and the army particularly.

As he surveys history to find fault that will excuse himself, Duterte has also ignored the 14 years of murder, torture, and plunder under the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos only a generation ago (1972-1986); again, it does not suit him, being himself a Marcos admirer, to bring  it up; in fact, he quietly prepares to give Marcos a hero’s burial.

Allied now with Duterte, the Marcos partisans could not have been more pleased, naturally. The millennials among them in particular, too young as they are to have any firsthand memory of Martial Law, are themselves made to feel guilt-free; for their own pretext, they have laid the blame on the generation before them, for its failure to make them see Martial Law for what it truthfully was, thus opening history to doctoring. 

I’d be the first from that generation to admit to that default. But to heap all blame on us only portrays our successors to be so short on patriotic fervor and initiative and moral discernment – not to say deficient  in the simple sense of human curiosity – that they have allowed themselves to be kept in the dark about the time in their nation’s recent past in which freedom was dead.     

Need one yet be taught that history is there to learn from, not escape from? – Rappler.com

There seems to be some confusion about the economic impact of the peso’s recent depreciation against the dollar. Depending on who you listen to, the peso’s 7-year low would seem to be disastrous at worst or beneficial at best.

On the one hand, the President compounded public fears last Tuesday when he said, “Ina-undermine tayo ng mga Amerikano ngayon. They are manipulating na ang peso raw ay bumababa.” (The Americans are now undermining us. They are manipulating the peso to depreciate it.)

On the other hand, the government’s economic managers have taken a more sober stance. Budget Secretary Diokno allayed investors’ concerns by saying that the depreciation is “no cause for concern”. Finance Secretary Sonny Dominguez even claimed that the economy might even benefit from a “slightly weak” peso.

What’s really happening to the peso, and should we be worried or not? First, let’s review the facts and put things in perspective.

Perspective

Figure 1 below confirms that the peso slumped to a 7-year low this week. The last time the nominal exchange rate reached P48 per US dollar was in 2009 at the height of the global economic crisis. Note, however, that the peso has been generally depreciating since 2013.

The same data also suggest that the recent depreciation is nowhere near the massive swings in the peso’s value seen over the past 15 years. Figure 2 shows that the peso’s slump this September represents a small blip compared to its massive appreciation in 2007-2008 or its similarly massive depreciation in 2008-2009 at the height of the global economic crisis.

Not bad per se

The peso’s recent depreciation is not only relatively small, but also not bad per se. In fact, certain sectors can indeed benefit from it. To see this, let’s go back to what “depreciation” and “appreciation” mean.

When the peso “depreciates” (say, from P45 to P50 per US dollar), Filipino goods and services become cheaper in the eyes of foreigners, boosting the sales of the economy’s dollar-earning sectors which constitute as much as 40% of the economy, according to the finance department. These include exports, tourism, and BPOs, as well as OFWs (overseas Filipino workers) whose remittances take on larger values, thus increasing the purchasing power of their families back at home.

On the other hand, when the peso “appreciates” (say, from P45 to P40 per US dollar), Filipino goods and services become more expensive in the eyes of foreigners. Consequently, foreign goods become cheaper in the eyes of Filipinos, who then have greater capacity to purchase more foreign goods. It is in this sense that a peso appreciation is often quoted by the media as a “strengthening” of the peso.

Overall, a sizeable proportion of the country’s population stands to benefit from the peso’s depreciation. This episode of depreciation may also benefit the country on the whole, given that our global competitiveness ranking has slipped by 10 notches from last year.

Some have correctly pointed out that the recent depreciation could also mean that the country will have to pay more for its foreign debts. While true, this would be worrisome only if the peso continuously depreciates in the coming weeks and months.

A symptom of capital flight?

Perhaps a greater cause of concern is whether the peso’s depreciation is a symptom of capital flight – that is, an exodus of financial assets. There are two factors at play here.

First, some say that the peso’s slump is due to the US central bank’s impending announcement of raising their interest rates by the end of 2016, which implies greater returns for US investments. When investors sell their financial assets in the Philippines to invest in the US, they need to exchange their peso assets back into dollars. This floods the currency market with pesos and lowers the price of pesos in terms of dollars – hence, a depreciation.

Second, some argue that the peso’s slump is also due to investors’ increasing worries about doing business in the country. The President’s unpredictable and incendiary statements, his conflicting foreign policy, the internecine drug war, and the rise of extrajudicial killings – all these tend to turn off investors. Thus, when they sell their domestic assets, this similarly floods the market with pesos and further depreciates the peso. (READ: Duterte: I’m being portrayed as a ‘cousin of Hitler’)

Which factor holds more water? Thankfully, some indicators point to the former rather than the latter.

For instance, it’s true that the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE) saw a continuous net foreign selling of stocks since mid-August – meaning that for 6 weeks straight, foreign stock investors have sold more stocks than they have bought.

But Figure 3 shows that the sell-off seems to have peaked in early September and has already reversed this week. Could this indicate that the worst is over? Only time will tell.

What about the President’s claim of currency manipulation by the US? Currency manipulation is commonly understood to occur when a government actively weakens its exchange rate to make its goods cheaper to foreigners and to prop up exports.

But when the peso depreciates, precisely the opposite happens: the dollar becomes stronger against the peso, not weaker. This fact alone would debunk any claim that the US recently manipulated the peso-dollar exchange rate. (READ: Diokno contradicts Duterte: No manipulation of PH peso)

Conclusion: Let’s not read too much into it

While the peso’s depreciation to a 7-year low is no cause for concern, it remains to be seen whether it will persist due to sustained capital flight. The government need only ensure that the business climate improves in the coming months, and not worsens.

If anything, the kerfuffle caused by the peso’s slump gave us a rare peek into the President’s understanding of market forces and global economics – views that we have not had much chance to hear given the intense focus on the drug war.

Moving forward, it’s good that we’re monitoring the progress of the Philippine economy under the Duterte administration using indicators like the peso-dollar exchange rate.

But sometimes there’s danger in reading too much into it, and reacting disproportionately to otherwise regular daily or weekly movements in the exchange rate. More often than not, these are borne not by grand schemes of manipulation or conspiracy, but by plain old supply and demand. – 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 those familiar with Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, his string of insults directed at the United States – from the (mis)reported obscenity directed at outgoing US President Barack Obama last month which led to the cancellation of their bilateral meeting in Laos to a threat to end US-Philippine military exercises this week – has hardly been a surprise.

While the tough-talking mayor of Davao City may have hit the ground running on some of his national priorities, leaving insulted institutions and countries in his wake, he is still very much finding his footing internationally.

What is less clear, though, is what this will ultimately mean for the US-Philippine alliance, which will face another transition when a new US administration takes office in January 2017. If both sides are serious about moving beyond the rough start we have witnessed in the past few months and want to both seize the opportunities, as well as navigate the challenges in the relationship, they each need to keep in mind several realities that will help them recalibrate bilateral ties.

The real challenge

The attention to any one of Duterte’s comments directed at Washington or his rhetoric more generally misses the point. His personal distrust of the United States is deep-seated, and his rhetoric, offensive though it may be, taps into a broader, often understated sentiment within a segment of the Philippine population that has long been suspicious of the US role in the country. 

Furthermore, though headlines like the cancellation of the Duterte-Obama meeting or the Philippine president’s call for the withdrawal of US Special Forces continue to serve as distractions, officials from both sides emphasize that other high-level visits, as well as working level meetings that often do not make as many waves are nonetheless continuing to run, with some of them actually progressing smoothly.

US Secretary of State John Kerry’s July meeting with Duterte went quite well, while Philippine Foreign Secretary Perfecto Yasay’s visit to the US earlier this month provided an early opportunity to address lingering concerns in Washington about the direction of the alliance.

The longer-term question, however, is how the US-Philippine alliance will fare under new leaderships in Washington and Manila over the next few years. Under Duterte’s predecessor Benigno Aquino III, ties between the two allies had reached a level not seen in decades, with the establishment of new senior-level dialogues, the signing of a new defense pact, and Manila’s interest in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) being just some of the highlights.

Indeed, relations were so warm that irrespective of which candidate had triumphed in the 2016 Philippine elections, officials from both sides had braced themselves for a more complicated period for the alliance. “Really, we’d be happy if we can hold what we have,” one US official told me in a candid conversation shortly after the US-Philippine Bilateral Strategic Dialogue in March, when Duterte was still far behind his rivals in the race for the presidency.

Thus far, the trajectory of US-Philippine relations under Duterte has made even that reasonable expectation seem idealistic. From his softer line on the South China Sea to his hard-hitting insults at the outgoing US ambassador and Washington more generally; from rights concerns in his war on drugs to his wrong-headed views about external security (including questioning existing purchases like fighter jets and threatening to end US military exercises), the alliance has gotten a rather rude awakening, with little indication of how much worse it could get.

It is certainly true that the relationship has been through its share of ups and downs historically. But a familiarity with that checkered past should not lead to complacency about the future, and both sides need to work hard at recalibrating the US-Philippine alliance for a new era. 

Duterte’s rethink

The initiative must begin with Duterte and those advising him on foreign policy.

Those who know the President well say his views on the United States are the product of both broader beliefs – including his preference for independence and distrust of external interference – as well as specific concerns about US transgressions in the past from the colonial period up to his time as mayor of Davao City.

Apart from his own ideological inclinations, they say Duterte also does genuinely believe that pursuing his so-called “independent foreign policy” – which would mean more distance from Washington relative to Aquino and perhaps closer ties with Beijing – would be a pragmatic vision in Manila’s interest, and that he has a strong mandate to pursue this.

Though some are quick to dismiss Duterte’s hang-ups about past US actions, they are not without substance. For instance, too few Americans remember what some call the Bud Dajo massacre that took place near Jolo’s Bud Dajo volcano in 1906, which Duterte referenced during his oft-cited, offbeat intervention at the East Asia Summit earlier this month. During the incident, US troops, on the orders of Major General Leonard Wood, killed over 600 Moros – including unarmed women and children – sparking outcry not just among the Moros, but even anti-imperialists in the United States such as Mark Twain.

And when Yasay, the foreign secretary, told the Center for Strategic and International Studies that the Philippines was no longer America’s “little brown brother,” few Americans in the audience seemed to recognize that he was referring to the paternalistic term coined by former President William Howard Taft who had served as the first Governor-General of the Philippines. 

Besides, contrary to the knee-jerk reaction some might have, charting a more independent foreign policy is not necessarily all that bad for the US-Philippine alliance.

All Southeast Asian countries are trying to balance their alignments between the United States and China (and other states too) to some degree to maximize benefits and minimize risks, and the Philippines has not been an exception to this rule.

Indeed, Duterte is just the latest in a line of Philippine leaders who have tried to do so with varying degrees of success. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo initially and explicitly sought to deepen the Philippines’ hedging position vis-à-vis the US and China but ultimately ended up going too far in her engagement with Beijing, while the Aquino era saw Manila move closer to Washington in large part due to China’s growing assertiveness in the South China Sea. Duterte now appears to be trying to move the dial slightly back towards Beijing, a shift that was both ultimately bound to happen and far from assured. 

That said, assuming Duterte does end up charting this independent foreign policy, he also needs to acknowledge and factor in two key realities.

First, irrespective of his views on past US actions and his future foreign policy vision, at present the reality is that the Philippines is still heavily dependent on the United States. This is most clearly seen in the security realm, where, through capacity-building programs, engagements and the very exercises that Duterte called into question, Washington and its network of regional allies and partners have been critical in helping Manila address its internal and external security challenges. But even on the economic side, the US is Manila’s top foreign investor and third largest trading partner, which makes it central to the realization of Duterte’s economic goals laid out in his 10-point economic plan back in July. 

Indeed, if Duterte were truly pragmatic, given this reality, he would set aside his personal views of the United States and further his country’s interest by building on the US-Philippine alliance and then use that to secure better ties with other nations, including China from a position of strength. For inspiration, Duterte need only look to his predecessor Fidel Ramos, a close friend whom he has tapped as special envoy in Manila’s ongoing rapprochement with Beijing. Even as Ramos sought to engage China following the Mischief Reef incident in 1994, he also simultaneously worked to secure a Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) with the United States, recognizing that American hard power was necessary to at least slow down the pace of China’s "creeping assertiveness" in the South China Sea. 

Second, even if Duterte advances a domestic-first foreign policy and tries to enlist Washington’s help to achieve Philippine goals at home and abroad, he must realize that US-Philippine relations is a two-way street. US support is not a constant to be always assumed but a variable that is periodically assessed with each new administration. And the reality is that the degree to which a US administration can help Manila achieve its internal priorities is contingent on both the amount the Philippines is willing to contribute bilaterally, regionally, and globally, as well as the extent of domestic political support in Washington. 

On the former point, as the United States has more comprehensively engaged a growing list of countries in the Asia-Pacific under its “rebalance” and asked this network of friends to "do more." This has upped the ante for Washington’s older allies and partners in terms of their regional and global contributions.

Under the Aquino years, the Philippines was clearly pulling its own weight in the alliance to a level not seen in decades. This included not just focusing more on external defense within its own military modernization program and agreeing to the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), but also supporting the US rules-based order through various means, from pushing back against China in the South China Sea to expressing interest in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). 

Duterte has already said he will adhere to existing security agreements like EDCA, and on the economic side, negotiations on outstanding issues in the alliance like the General Systems of Preferences (GSP) program are also continuing. But the standard by which Manila will be judged will be much higher than just preserving the status quo on these items. If Manila now backtracks and appears to be of little value in advancing US regional interests relatively speaking, then it risks moving down the hierarchy of Washington’s allies and partners under an incoming administration.

In this sense, some of Duterte’s words and actions since coming to power – including skipping certain ASEAN meetings, downplaying the South China Sea issue, and minimizing human rights concerns – have understandably raised eyebrows in Washington, even though his advisers, diplomats, policymakers, and in some cases Duterte himself, have sought to subsequently explain them away.

US assistance in the advancement of Philippine interests also partly depends on the domestic political support in Washington, not just within the White House and its National Security Council (NSC) but also other actors like the US State Department and the US Congress. Irrespective of the merits of Duterte’s arguments, anti-US rhetoric and human rights concerns make it more difficult for various actors in US policy circles, as well as backers of the alliance to call for more support for the very goals the Philippine president is trying to advance. 

In particular, with the US Congress now back in session following its summer recess, there is a risk that such comments could put pressure on the administration to take punitive actions against Manila, which could result in funding cuts and a downward spiral of mutual hostility. There are already early warning signs, with US Senator Patrick Leahy saying on Monday that “additional conditions” may have to be attached to American aid to the Philippines, should extrajudicial killings continue. If Duterte wants the US to understand the domestic context under which he is operating, he must also demonstrate the same empathy for his interlocutors in Washington.

Washington’s balance

Just as Duterte must find the balance between achieving his ideal of a more independent foreign policy and the realities of Philippine dependence and US support, Washington, too, must find its own balance. In its case, the balance is between addressing its legitimate concerns about the future direction of the US-Philippine alliance while also keeping in mind the realities that inform the Duterte administration’s approach to the United States and shape what might be possible for both Manila and Washington to accomplish during his tenure.

If Duterte is entitled to raise old grievances about America’s half century-long colonial legacy and Philippine overdependence on its ally thereafter, then Washington is also right to express its anxieties about the relationship’s future given its turbulent past.

For longtime observers of the US-Philippine alliance, friction over the extrajudicial killings in Duterte’s war on drugs and worries about a return to a focus on internal security in Philippine military modernization strike raw nerves that have imperiled bilateral cooperation before. And suffice it to say that a return to the intermittent debates about human rights during the era of Ferdinand Marcos or burden-sharing that had only begun to subside during the Aquino period would be far from ideal for both sides.

Moreover, there is also a sense that the stakes are much higher now than they were in the past. From a US policymaker’s perspective, Asia is a region of both growing opportunities as well as rising challenges – from a more confident and assertive China to an increasingly troubled ASEAN, all amid a dizzying array of other global problems that Washington also has to contend with including the Islamic State, conflicts in the Middle East, a resurgent Russia, frail Europe, and a still weak global economy.

In such an environment, the recent gains made by Washington and Manila over the past few years have significant value not only for the alliance, but the region as well, and their reversal would similarly be viewed from that broader perspective.

To take but just one example, I have emphasized that maritime security cooperation between the US and the Philippines has a vital regional component as well, since the Philippines’ National Coast Watch Center is a key initial hub for Washington help build a networked, common operating picture in the South China Sea out onto the rest of the region through its Southeast Asia Maritime Security Initiative (MSI).

Given this, it is reasonable that Washington would draw red lines to ensure that progress in certain areas, such as on the EDCA, would not be held up as Manila engages China, which has been less than thrilled about the pace of US-Philippine security cooperation over the past few years.

That said, legitimate concerns about the future state of the US-Philippine alliance must be accompanied by the acknowledgment of two key realities on Washington’s part.

First, it is still early days. Duterte’s initial position on the US-Philippine alliance is an evolving one that is contingent on both popularity at home as well as shifting alignments with other states abroad, both of which need to be appreciated, but could also end up changing much faster than his administration perceives. That means that US policymakers will need to react proportionally when needed, but give the administration time to find its feet in the event that it eventually shifts its approach towards the United States.

It is worth recalling here that it is not uncommon for Philippine (or US) presidents to take a while to settle into their new position. Aquino took about a year, and Duterte could either take longer or shorter since things are much more unpredictable in his case. Domestically, since he is an outsider challenging the established elites on so many fronts simultaneously, he may very well alienate elements of certain bureaucracies or institutions such as the military or legislature, leading him to lose political capital and recalibrate (as it is, his comments on the United States have already alienated some domestically in the foreign policy and defense establishments). 

And internationally, his bold reset with China may end up sinking or sailing precariously amid continued uncertainty in the South China Sea, leading him to ultimately view keeping US-Philippine relations afloat as a key strategic objective. It is too early to tell whether this is, in fact, the case given that we have incoming new administrations on both sides, as well as fresh envoys from the two countries. But what is clear is that for all his rhetoric, Duterte knows – and, at times, has admitted rather grudgingly – that close cooperation with the United States in areas like maritime security is vital for Manila, even as it boosts ties with Beijing.

The Obama administration, to its credit, seems to have internalized this need for calm and patience thus far, acknowledging the domestic significance of the war on drugs while honing in on the rights concerns more specifically, or giving Duterte the breathing room necessary to repair Manila’s strained ties with Beijing. But officials also admit that this is becoming harder to do. And beyond this US president, the next administration might not find this task to be that easy to accomplish in practice.

For one, neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump share Obama’s cool temperament on matters foreign and domestic, and are likely to react more harshly in the face of any future transgressions by Duterte. Furthermore, beyond personalities, acknowledging this reality in the face of the Philippines’ ongoing transition – and probably a few more Duterte outbursts – will require not just patience on the part of the executive branch, but perhaps also restraining an angry US. Congress that sometimes has a mind of its own, and battling it out with other bureaucracies that may not be as tolerant of perceived transgressions against the US ideals or international principles. 

The second reality is much harder to acknowledge: that under the Duterte administration, the US-Philippine alliance, while still seeing some progress, may never ever reach a level anywhere close to the strategic alignment seen under Aquino. Given this possibility, and whatever its probability, Washington should not just hope and wait for Duterte to come around, but also simultaneously prepare for a more sobering outlook for the alliance, be it selective engagement on a number of areas or perhaps even minimal quiet cooperation amid public hostility. Doing so would not be an admission of potential defeat but an acknowledgment of possible – even likely – realities. 

The former scenario of selective engagement would see Washington and Manila continue to have key differences but nonetheless cooperate on specific areas where US and Philippine interests intersect, especially ones which are aligned with Duterte’s own domestic goals like counterterrorism and law enforcement (though even these areas admittedly have not been free of disagreement).

Indonesia, Malaysia

This would be along the lines of what we have seen thus far in US-Indonesia relations under President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, another Southeast Asian populist, where talk of a “strategic partnership” has vastly outpaced the reality of collaboration in specific areas such as maritime security and illegal fishing. 

A more difficult scenario might be a repeat of one we saw in US-Malaysia relations under Mahathir Mohammad in the 1980s and 1990s (or perhaps one we are seeing in US-Thai relations under the current junta) where there would be much fiercer public disagreements over a range of issues – from human rights to regional leadership – even as some security cooperation continues under the radar. 

Irrespective of which scenario actually materializes, Washington’s approach ought to be the same. It should first draw red lines to establish a clear floor for the alliance and preserve as much of the cooperation that has already been achieved, and then shape the contours of a reasonable ceiling by being direct about how it can contribute to the Philippines and its domestic priorities and what it expects in return.

If Duterte ends up wanting nothing more than a transactional relationship with the United States, then Washington must be prepared to bargain hard to ensure that it secures the best possible outcome for American interests. 

Alliances and partnerships sometimes go through periods of change under new leaderships, and the US-Philippine alliance is no different. Under the new Duterte administration as well as a fresh US administration next year, this process will take its course, with its own share of twists and turns.

But given the rough start we have witnessed thus far, the two sides should think carefully and creatively about how to manage an alliance that is important not only for them both, but increasingly the region as well.

For all the alarm in the chattering classes following Duterte’s threat to “cross the Rubicon” with the United States, what is needed in the US-Philippine alliance is ultimately more of a recalibration, rather than a reset or a rethink, and one that both sides are fully capable of undertaking if their leaders have the willingness to do so. – Rappler.com

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

This is the full text, both in English and Filipino, of the message of Archbishop Socrates B. Villegas on the Feast of the Holy Rosary, October 7, 2016 and First Friday of the Rosary Month. 

English version

Confused and sad yet hopeful

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ:

I am ashamed of the things I read about the Philippines in the international media and more ashamed of what I hear from our leaders when I watch local news.

I am sad that the cherished Filipino values maka-Diyos, makatao and makabayan are slowly eroding to be replaced by an open license for cuss words, orchestrated lies and vulgarity never heard before.

I am afraid that our children and youth will catch and embrace these twisted upside down values. I dread the thought they might carry these errors into the next generation and render tomorrow bleak and gloomy.

I am in this endless grief at the killings I have seen and heard. The well is running dry and I can no longer give a word of condolence to the bereaved families because I also need to be assured even a bit that things will get better and not become worse even more.

My brows have not been without furrows for some months now – worried, confused and sad. I cry as I pray alone. I am horrified at the new “things” that make my countrymen laugh.

How do I cope? I repeat and hold on to the saying: The darkest hour is just before dawn. The darkest hour is the hour before the sunburst!

We are afflicted in every way, but not constrained; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed (2 Cor.4:8-9)

This coming October 13, 99 years ago, our Lady appeared for the final time to the 3 children of Fatima. The miracle of the sun was seen by thousands even by those who were not at the apparition site. The sun appeared as a spinning disc, seemed like falling down to the earth before it zigzagged back to its position.

Our Lady said to Lucia:

I am the Lady of the Rosary. Let them continue to say the Rosary every day. The war is going to end, and the soldiers will soon return to their homes.

“It is necessary that they amend their lives, and ask pardon for their sins. Let them offend Our Lord God no more, for He is already much offended."

In my great shame at where our nation is going, in my confusion, in my doubts, in my grief, in my worry, in my fears, what can I do to change the downward course of my beloved Philippines?

In the message of Our Lady, the soldiers will go home and the war will end. We shall see peace restored and harmony regained. We shall see civility recovered and courtesy won back.

How?

Let us pray the twenty mysteries of the ROSARY everyday now for each and every province of the Philippines “A Million Roses for the World—Filipinos at Prayer for the Nation”. The rosary in our hands and on our lips are powerful weapons for our time. So simple we take for granted yet so powerful for world change.

Let us attend daily MASS for the healing of all Filipinos in the Philippines and abroad – healing from anger and indifference, healing from cynicism and apathy, healing from blindness and passivity, healing from unconcern and listlessness. The pious practice of receiving daily Communion for the country will heal our land. Do not ever forget that one Eucharist lovingly offered is enough to change the entire cosmos. How much more this nation!

Let us go to CONFESSION frequently at least once a month.  Our Lady said at Fatima: “Let them offend Our Lord God no more, for He is already much offended." Offer penance and sacrifice. Promise to obey all the Commandments and atone for all its violations and the profanities God is subjected to.

Let us fight the confusion and errors, let us resist the attacks of evil by the power of the daily ROSARY, the gift of daily HOLY COMMUNION and the humble PENANCE for sins.

Using these three-fold weapons from Fatima, let us work to restore our land.

I claim from the pierced hands and side of the Lord of Divine Mercy that these trials that we are going through as a people are just the darkest moments of the night. In time, before the radiant sunburst, we shall see the triumph of the Immaculate Heart when we celebrate the one hundredth year of the Fatima apparitions on May 13 next year.

Onward Christian soldiers marching us to war marching as to war with the Cross of Jesus going on before.

Christ the Royal Master leads against the foe. Forward into battle see his banners go!

Filipino version

Nababalisa at nalulungkot, ngunit puno ng pag-asa

Mga minanahal na kapatid kay Kristo:

Nakakahiya ang mga nababasa kong balita tungkol sa Pilipinas sa mga pahayag ng international media. Lalo pang nakakahiya ang naririnig ko mula sa ating mga pinuno sa mga balitang pambansa.

Nakakalungkot na naglalaho at gumuguho na ang mga itinatangi nating mga pinahahalagagan bilang mga Pilipino – ang pagiging maka-Diyos, makatao at maka-bayan – ay unti unting napapalitan ng garapalang pagsasalita ng masama, tahasang pagsisinungaling at malulutong na pagmumura.

Ikinatatakot ko na darating ang araw na tutularan ng mga bata ang mga binaluktot na pinahahalagagan.  Ikinatakot ko ang isang bukas na madilim at nakakapanlumo sapagkat maaring maipasa ang mga kabuktutang ito sa mga susunod na henerasyon.

Walang hanggan ang aking pamimighati  sa dami ng mga pagpaslang na aking narinig at nakita.  Nasasaid na ang balon. Hindi na ako makapagbitiw ng mga kataga ng pakikiramay sapagkat walang makapagbigay ng pag asa at katikayan kung bubuti pa ba at magiging maayos pa ba ang lahat.

Sa loob ng ilang buwan na, ang mga kilay ko'y kumukunot - sa pag-aalala, kalituhan at kalungkutan.  Sa panalangin kung nag-iisa, umaagos din ang luha. Nakakatakot ang mga bagay na ngayo'y pinagtatawanan at kinukutsa ng aking mga kababayan.

Paano ako nakapagpapatuloy sa buhay? Inuulit ulit ko at pinanghahawakan ang kasabihan: Ang pinakamadilim na bahagi sa magdamag ay bago magbukang-liwayway. Ang pinakamadilim na sandali ay ang mga sandali bago sumikat ang isang bagong umaga.

Sa magkabi-kabila ay nangagigipit kami, gayon ma'y hindi nangaghihinagpis; nangatitilihan, gayon ma'y hindi nangawawalan ng pag-asa; 
Pinaguusig, gayon ma'y hindi pinababayaan; inilulugmok, gayon ma'y hindi nangasisira (2 Cor.4:8-9)

Sa darating na ika-13 ng Oktubre, 99 na taon na ang nakakaraan, nagpakita sa huling pagkakataon ang Mahal na Birhen sa 3 bata sa Fatima. Nasaksihan ng libu-libong mga tao kahit malayo sa lugar ng aparisyon ang himala ng pagsayaw ng araw. Nagpaikot-ikot ang araw na tila babagsak sa lupa at nagpahakbang-hakbang bago bumalik sa dati nitong kinalulugaran.

Sinabi ng Mahal na Birhen kay Lucia: 

"Ako ang Ina ng Santo Rosaryo. Ipagpatuloy nawa nila ang pagdarasal ng rosaryo araw araw.  Matatapos din ang digmaaan at di lalao'y uuwi na sa kanilang mga tahanan ang mga kawal.

"Kailangan nilang magbagong buhay at humingi ng tawad para sa kanilang mga kasalanan. Huwag na sana nilang muling sasaktan ang Panginoong Diyos sapagkat sukdulan na nila siyang binigo at sinaktan."

Sa kahihiyan, kalituhan, pag aalinlangan, pagtangis, pagkabahala at takot sa kahahantungan ng ating bayan, anong maaring gawin upang mailigtas pa sa pagbagsak ang minamahal nating bayang Pilipinas?

Sa mensahe ng Mahal na Ina, matatapos din ang digmaan at magsisiuwi sa kanilang nga tahanan ang mga kawal.  Mararanasan natin na muling magbabalik ang kapayapaan at maitataguyod ang pagkakaisa. Makikita nating mapapanauli ang mabuting ugnayan at paggalang sa isa't isa.

Paano?

Magdasal tayo ng dalawampung misteryo ng ROSARYO araw araw sa lahat ng lalawigan sa Pilipinas. "Isang Milyong Rosas para sa Mundo - Mga Pilipinong nananalangin para sa Bayan."  Mabisang sandata ang pananalangin ng rosaryo sa ating nga kamay at labi. Kay simple na pinawawalang bahala natin ngunit gayung kamakapangyarihan na mapagbabago ang ating mundo.

Magsimba araw araw upang ang EUKARISTIYA ang pagmulan na paghihilom ng mga Pilipino dito sa Pilipinas at sa ibayong dagat – paghihilom mula sa mga sugat ng galit at pagkamanhid, pagaalinlangan at kawalang pag-ibig, pagkabulag at kawalang pakiramdam, kawalang pakialam at pananamlay. Hihilumin ang ating bayan kung sisikapin nating araw araw na tumanggap ng Banal na Komunyon. Huwag nating kalimutan na ang isang Eukaristiya na mapagmahal na inialay ay sapat nang papanibaguhin ang buong sanlibutan.  Paano pa kaya kung para sa ating bansa?

Dumulog din ng madalas sa Sakramento ng KUMPISAL kahit minsan sa isang buwam. Sinabi ng Mahal na Ina sa Fatima: "Huwag na sana nilang muling sasaktan ang Panginoong Diyos sapagkat sukdulan na nila siyang binigo at sinaktan." Tayo'y magtika at magsakripisyo. Ipangako na sisikaping tutuparin ang mga Utos ng Diyos at pagsisihan ang mga paglabag dito at mga paglapastangan sa Diyos.

Sa kapangyarihan ng banal na Rosaryo, ng dakilang handog ng Banal na Komunyon araw araw at sa mapagpakumbabang pagsisisi sa kasalanan, lalabanan natin ang mga kalituhan at pagkakamali

Taglay ang tatlong banal na sandata mula sa Fatima, magkaisa tayong hilumin ang ating bayan.

Mula sa sugatang kamay at inulos na tagiliran ng Panginoon ng Mabathalang Awa, inaangkin ko na ang pinagdadaanan nating mga pagsubok bilang isang bayan ay ang pinakamadilim na sandali ng gabi. Sa takdang panahon, sa pagsikat ng isang bagong umaga masasaksihan natin ang tagumpay ng Kalinislinisang Puso ni Maria sa pagdiriwang natin ang ikasandaang taong anibersaryo ng pagpapakita ng Mahal na Birhen sa Fatima sa ika 13 ng Mayo sa susunod na taon.

Sulong kawal na Kristiyano sa digmaan ng buhay tanghal ang Krus ni Kristo na gagabay sa ating landas.

Kristong Hari at Guro ang namumuno laban sa katunggali. Sulong sa digmaan, watawat niya'y iwagayway. – Rappler.com

Imagine this:

Person A was found to have 5 grams of shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride) at the back pocket of his pants. Is Person A guilty of drug possession?

Probably yes. Most of the time, Person A will be convicted of violating Republic 9165 or the New Dangerous Drugs Act of the Philippines.

But there are instances that Person A can be innocent:

1. When the shabu found in the back pocket of his pants was "planted" as evidence by the police;
2. When Person A is a minor (say less than 12 years old); not aware that it was shabu; and Person A was unknowlingly used as a courier by drug syndicates;
3. When Person A is insane;
4. Other legal factors that may exculpate Person A of the crime.

That is why, Person A may be factually guilty of the crime (there is drugs on his/her body), but he/she can be legally innocent (it is planted evidence, he/she is minor, insane, etc). As such, there is a necessity for an impartial body and an established procedure to determine both the facts and the law.

It is up for the police and the prosecutor to prove the factual guilt, for the defense lawyer to highlight the legal innocence, and for a judge to determine if the factual guilt had been established beyond reasonable doubt and had met the requirements of legal guilt. This is the due process mechanism that is enshrined in the Philippine Constitution.

And that is the moral dilemma of Extra Judicial Killings (EJK) by the police. Guided by a moral certainty that they are cleansing Philippine society from the dregs of drugs, the police are given the license to be reckless and absolute—the police power to investigate, to prosecute, to deny defense, to judge, and to execute people. By simply claiming that they were attacked by the suspects, (which needs to be factually and legally established as well), the police have abrogated and destabilized the whole procedure. While they may be killing factually guilty people (actual drug dealers and users), there is an undeniably huge chance that many of the dead people may turn out legally innocent, if only given the proper forum to defend themselves. (READ: Duterte on EJK: Better for criminals to kill each other)

Additionally, EJK is a uniform set of capital punishment that does not distinguish the level seriousness of the offense: a first time drug user is quite different from an incorrigible drug dealer but are treated the same way—they are both dead. As such, police EJK takes away the power from judges to determine the proportionate amount of punishments. EJK removes the opportunity for correctional workers to rehabilitate drug users. While EJK is swift and severe, it is procedurally flawed and invites and creates more injustices.

While we abhor crime and drug use in the country, and we recognize the slow procedures that afflict our criminal justice system, these should NOT be an excuse for reckless killings. While we denounce the corrupt practices of the prosecutors, defense lawyers, and judges, and the failure of the legal profession in the Philippines, these frailties should NOT be an excuse to undermine our already fragile laws and weak constitution.

Otherwise, we are all morally guilty in the wanton genocide of our own people. - Rappler.com

As expected, business groups such as the Employers Confederation of the Philippines and individual business leaders are claiming that the epidemic of contractualization plaguing the country is actually good for workers and for Filipinos.

They suggest that contractualization – or the practice of hiring workers as “contractuals” rather than as “regular” workers so as to avoid giving them the benefits that they are legally mandated to receive – allows capitalists to increase their profits, hire more workers, contribute to economic growth and therefore benefit all Filipinos.

If we ban or significantly limit contractualization, they argue, many companies will either close down or not be able to open to begin with. Their profits will fall, many workers will lose their jobs, the economy will contract, and all Filipinos will consequently suffer. Hence, to ban or limit contractualization is not only anti-worker but also anti-Filipino.

This argument is not only self-serving, it is also wrong.

By allowing capitalists to intensify their exploitation of workers, contractualization actually enables capitalists to pay workers less for the same work, stunt economic development, and therefore harm the interests of all Filipinos – including of capitalists themselves.

But, more than that, contractualization also enables capitalists to weaken the working class’s ability to resist exploitation, organize collectively, and fight for a better society.

Intensifying exploitation

Capitalists exploit workers by expropriating the “surplus” or the extra products they produce on top of what they produce in order to survive.

Capitalists are able to do this because, deprived of access to the means of subsistence under capitalism, workers are forced to sell the only thing they possess—their labor-power or their ability to work—to capitalists in order not to starve and die.

To buy this labor-power from workers, capitalists pay workers a wage which is more or less equivalent in value to the goods and services (food, clothing, housing, etc.) needed to produce the labor-power workers sell to capitalists—value that workers are typically able to produce during just part of the working day.

But in exchange, capitalists gain control of workers’ labor during the entire working day, enabling them to appropriate the value of all the goods and services they produce during the entire day—value which is greater than the wages they receive.

For example, the capitalist pays the worker a wage equivalent in value to commodities that the worker can produce in just 4 hours. But in exchange, the capitalist receives the value of all the commodities that the worker produced for all the 8 hours that he worked.

The capitalist, for example, pays the worker P491 for her buy to just enough to work for an entire day—equivalent in value to what the worker produces in, say, just 4 hours. But in exchange, the capitalist gets the total value of everything the worker produced that day, say, P1,000.

What the worker produces in the extra 4 hours that he is not paid by the capitalist, in this case P509 a day, is the surplus value: the product of “unpaid labor” expropriated by the capitalist from the worker.

Driven by competition, however, capitalists are also forced to intensify their exploitation of workers by extracting more surplus value from them. They usually do this in two ways: by making them work longer for the same wage or by making them work faster.

But they can do this by effectively reducing the value of their wages – i.e. by depriving them of all the additional benefits (13th month pay, SSS contributions, etc.) that they are otherwise obliged to give them.

This is effectively what contractualization amounts to: a wage cut or a de facto reduction of the value of the labor-power that workers sell to capitalists – an attempt to work around the minimum wage laws won by workers’ struggles.

This could increase the profits of individual firms and lead to hiring additional workers for a time but more people suffer as a result.

This is because by giving tens of thousands of contractual workers less than what they should be receiving had they been employed as regular workers, capitalists also effectively reduce demand for the goods and services that the workers would otherwise have demanded from the subsistence-goods sector, thus reducing the profitability of firms in these sectors and driving these firms to fire workers – or hire fewer workers than they might otherwise have.

Moreover, at least part of the additional value that would have otherwise gone to workers had they not been contractual goes instead to capitalists who – under conditions of reduced demand – spend this amount not on expanding production but on luxury goods and services or on speculation.

This cannot compensate for the reduced demand for subsistence goods and services – and for the reduced employment and reduced growth that ensues – since increased spending on luxury or speculation by a minority does not necessarily result in hiring as many workers as spending on goods and services demanded by the majority.

But with the reduction of demand for goods and services in the subsistence sector uncompensated by the increase in demand for goods and services in the luxury goods and services or in the financial sector, then economic growth also declines or fails to grow more than it otherwise would had demand for goods and services in the subsistence sector grown.

This does not only hurt the interests of contractual workers but even the interests of other workers and even other capitalists within the framework of really-existing capitalism.

Undermining working-class organization

But the practice of contractualization does not only hurt workers’ and capitalists’ immediate interests, it also undermines their long-term interests.

By giving tens of thousands of contractual workers less than what they should be receiving had they been employed as regular workers, capitalists are also depriving them of the resources they could use to lift themselves from abject poverty and perennial insecurity.

Insofar as freedom from destitution and insecurity enables or improves workers’ capacity or confidence to engage in politics, capitalists are therefore also depriving workers of the resources they could use to enhance their capacity to fight for their interests, resist exploitation, assert their democratic right to determine their own destinies, and build a different kind of society.

After all, workers who constantly worry about how they are going to feed their children or how they are going to pay rent are even less likely to have the time nor the drive to join workers’ groups, unions or political parties.

Workers who are constantly desperate to have their contracts renewed by their employers are likely to be even more fearful of antagonizing capitalists, let alone of engaging in political struggle.

Simply put, workers facing the axe are less likely to do anything that could make the employers remember their names.

And even if they were willing to fight for their rights, their ability to do so is even more constrained than usual since they are not even legally allowed to form or join unions as contractual workers.

And even if they did risk joining or forming workers’ groups, their ability to sustain these groups is also hindered since they typically aren’t allowed to stay long enough in the same firm or factory, and they are therefore also unable to form the lasting relationships with fellow workers that they need to enhance their political organization.

All these may be “good” for individual capitalists who want to crush unions or workers’ groups so they could keep their own workers’ wages low and increase their profits.

But this is bad for the larger society since strong, organized labor movements have proven to be a crucial precondition for advancing progressive social reforms which have proven to be beneficial to all – even to capitalists themselves.

Think, for example, of the 8-hour work day, social services such as public education, health care – or for that matter the right to regular and secure or non-contractual employment: all of these were won through the action of organized workers and all these have ended up actually saving capitalism from itself.

More importantly, however, weakening the labor movement is also bad for the larger society since strong, organized labor movements are necessary for the broader social transformations needed to create a better society – one that can save capitalists from themselves.

Not a just an economic but a political fight

Contrary to short-sighted business organizations, then, contractualization is actually bad not just for workers but for all Filipinos.

The question is: Why – after promising to immediately end this practice as soon as it assumes office – is the Duterte government still seeking a compromise with business groups which are unable to see, and which refuse to advance, the general interest?

Why – after promising to make a clean break from the ‘yellows’ and to crack down on the “oligarchy” – is the Duterte government shirking from ending a practice that was effectively encouraged by the previous administration and that benefits some of the country’s largest oligarchs?

Why, after nearly 100 days in office, is the Duterte government still just hemming and hawing and now championing a win-lose deal – a win for capital, a loss for workers – that has been rejected by even the more conservative labor federations in the country?

Why, in short, is the supposedly progressive Duterte government helping perpetrate a practice that is patently anti-worker and anti-Filipino? – Rappler.com

Herbert Docena is a PhD candidate in sociology at the University of California, Berkeley and a member of the Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino.

I was the woman in the sex video.

You hoped a sex video would shame me. You thought it would humiliate me. You were certain it would silence me. (READ: Alvarez: OK to show De Lima's alleged sex tape in House probe).

You judged my performance and sneered at my imperfections. At my most exposed, you ridiculed me.

I could have been beautiful. I could have been voluptuous and sensual. I could have been young.

You would still have found a reason to vilify me. Others would have still heckled and jeered as you added more vile names to call me. You would still have found the same sadistic glee in harassing me.

Because what you really feel is fear.

It scares you that a woman can love and make love just as you do and like it just as much as you do.

You call for truth and justice when what you want is revenge. You want to punish a woman for her sexuality when what you really want to do is destroy her spirit, her spunk, and her sense of power over herself and her actions. (READ: Lady lawmakers oppose showing of 'De Lima' video in House probe) 

Yes, I was the woman in the video.

By now, thousands of other women online have made the same claim. 

We have all been that women in a sex video – put on display, our body used to debase us, our character dismissed, our intellect discredited.

Enough. Today we demand it stops. Today we say NO to slut-shaming of women every where. (READ: #EveryWoman: No to slut-shaming in Philippine Congress)

This is what happens when you try to slut shame a woman, she will stand up and fight. She will rise and others – compelled by their own decency and conscience – will rise with her.

This is what happens when you look between a woman’s legs. Only a fool would be surprised to find that she has a backbone.

This is what happens when you try to strip a woman of her dignity and reduce her to mere body parts. You will feel the full force of her mind and her body. You will discover that her vagina is made of steel. – Rappler.com

Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos and rebel leader Timochenko recently inked a peace deal that potentially has brought the last of the major Cold War conflicts to an end. It was perhaps the one positive in otherwise a largely desultory year for world peace. It underlined that long-running conflicts can be resolved if there is courage of conviction.

In the Philippines, arguably, the prospects for peace following decades of conflict is perhaps closer than ever before, precisely because there is courage of conviction.

A President from Mindanao with a deep understanding of centuries of injustice, an affinity and empathy borne out of blood ties to the Moros, the political will, and the means to deliver by virtue of a super majority in the legislature, gives cause for great optimism. He has set out a clear road map to close the deal on the various peace processes – with the Communist and Moro insurgents. There is indeed a palpable sense of urgency and momentum in the air.

As in Colombia however, closing denotes not the end of the endeavor but rather the beginning of another critical phase. President Santos remarked that the signing of the Colombian Peace Deal signifies only symbolically an end to the conflict. The hard work is just beginning to secure a lasting peace. He was reflecting intuitively what is now widely accepted as a truism among peace builders internationally: transitions from deep fragility to enduring stability are complex and long. They can be decades in the making. For the peace to endure, justice, economic opportunity and security have to be addressed thoroughly and concurrently.

Much attention in the Philippines is correctly focused on the political settlement to be delivered through enhanced autonomy, embodied in enabling legislation or through constitutional change ushering in a federal model – and through either route, providing for full participation in the political and administrative processes of the Philippines. Underlying these headline ambitions however are a set of historical drivers of conflict that are diverse and complex and which will also need to be addressed.

The experience of effective peacebuilding from around the world shows that the government of the Philippines and the leaderships of the armed groups will now have to work together to allow conflict affected communities to take charge of their own development, in a manner that empowers people rather than advancing the economic interests of a small feudal elite.

The older generation of leaders will have to make way for the young who will be able to reach across the traditional lines of division. The far-reaching recommendations of the Truth, Justice, and Reconciliation Commission will have to be implemented so that those who carry the scars of decades-long violence can move on, and a foundation is laid for a society that draws strength from diversity, including the tremendous resilience and innovation of its indigenous persons, youth, and women. Economic development should be achieved by integrating conflict affected areas with growth poles across the country to maximize the peace dividend and to bind communities irrespective of ethnicity.

Confidence in state institutions will need to be built steadily so these institutions are seen to be responsive, transparent, and accountable to the needs of its citizens. And creative means must be found to enable the government, communities, and former combatants to collaborate to guarantee safety and security for all.

The Philippines has a wealth of human and technical resources to draw upon to accomplish these tasks. In the same way the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) assisted the Colombian peace process and has worked to support consecutive Philippine administrations over three decades, UNDP can further help by sharing experiences and lessons learned internationally and nationally; assist as an impartial actor with the sometimes difficult conversations through which the necessary convergence can be reached and sustained; and support the delivery of peace dividends to conflict-affected communities.

Already a middle income economic powerhouse, the Philippines now faces a unique historical opportunity to achieve lasting peace and sustainable development for all its peoples. Sustained political will, a conspicuous willingness and capability to work across divides to generate creative solutions, and the involvement of all of its peoples will help the country achieve its ambition to secure enduring peace. – Rappler.com

Titon Mitra is the Country Director of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in the Philippines.

As someone who has counselled with women, I have noticed how some men use sex videos to abuse their female partners.

It’s a new form of violence. A new method found by these decrepit souls who never tire of thinking up new says of torturing others.

When a woman wises up to a man’s abuse and threatens to leave, he will threaten to release their sex video in order to shame her into staying. If she leaves, he indeed releases the video. Some men just release them for the glorification of their juvenile egos, all the while professing love for their partner. Others share the video with their friends without the woman’s permission. Then, of course, these dear “friends” may get hold of the videos and release it for money or kicks. 

I know any sane person would be totally grossed out by this, but remember we are talking about the machos here. It’s sick. Totally.

As a counselor I never blame women who end up in this situation. Sex is very much a part of deep love for many people. And taking a video, watching a film together, reading raunchy novels – all this can be part of a healthy sex life between two mutually-respecting and equal partners.

From my counselling I know that even the smartest and most moral woman can fall in love with these abusive men. Sometimes there are no danger signs. Often these guys behave decently until you’re in love and they have won your trust. Then they stop being decent towards you.

Brothel

You can imagine my revulsion when the men of Malacañang and the leaders of the House of Representatives were talking about showing an alleged sex video of Senator Leila de Lima in order to prove President Duterte’s accusation that the Senator had an affair with her driver who became her bagman for the drug money he alleges she received.

Any 10-year old might tell you that the sex tape has nothing to do with proving that her driver is her bagman, or even that she is receiving drug money. (The President in fact keeps harping on this affair. He seems really upset at the thought that someone he deems an enemy should be having sexual relations. But that is another sicko move I would rather not delve into.) 

Personally I find the nature of the evidence so far presented laughable. Which is probably why they are now resorting to this video.

But I leave the discussion of other aspects of  the reprehensible legal persecution of De Lima to another day. 

What sickened me was the abusive behavior of a group of men who ganged up on one woman. They used my taxes and the power our people gave to them as our representatives to do this. And the group nature of this abuse, done at the highest levels of government, makes it all the more tawdry.

As a friend says, imagine how this tape even came into the hands of the government. Perhaps the President summons Justice Secretary Aguirre to bring over the head of the National Bureau of Investigation to Malacañang and orders them to watch sex videos until they find that one. Perhaps the NBI agents scoured the internet and having found that one (or several) brought it back with the Secretary of Justice to Malacañang for the President’s perusal. And they watched it all together.

Perhaps they had a second viewing with Speaker Alvarez, Representative Lito Atienza and Representative Danny Suarez.

If President Duterte’s and Representatives Suarez's and Atienza’s remarks to the press about it are any indication they had the typical beer garden type viewing party, with cat calls and insults and who-knows-what other kinds of literal or figurative jerk offs. And, it would seem that Representatives Umali and Fariñas are wondering whether they should have a grand sceening where they all come together. 

We are sure that Representative Harry Roque is interested too. Wanting to do a “forensic examination” of the video. Woohoo for you, Harry my boy!

Yes, my dear readers. These are our current national leaders. Incontinent old men who never entered the new millenium and who are turning our country into a brothel. They certainly have done so with  Malacañang, the House of Representatives and the Department of Justice.

Sicko sexuality

I know why these sex videos are used against women. In macho culture, to be exposed as a woman having sex brings shame upon you while to be exposed as a man having sex is a matter to be bragged about. I do not know how these men can forget that they came from their mother having sexual relations.

In our country, men who call themselves the lovers of women (as evidenced by their many affairs and many wives, in other words most typical trapos) are really ones who hate women. These are the ones who see us only as sexual beings. Who feel they can say things about women on the basis of how they view us sexually. Who care only about us if we pleasure them sexually. Who can see us as exchangeable once they tire of us or see something higher up on their scale of desirable objects. If they truly loved us they would see ALL women as people and not judge most of us in this one-sided and often demeaning way.

As someone said, patriarchy is really a homoerotic relationship among men carried out through women. Who has the prettiest one, who has the youngest one, the most subservient one. Who was unable to protect the women they “own” (mothers, sisters, wives) from the depredations of other men. No wonder the worst cuss words among these sexual egoists are depreciations of “other men’s women”: your mother’s a whore, your sister is a slut, I bedded your wife, etc.

#Everywoman

I was am sickened by this display of muck at the highest levels of government. And I feel very strongly that this muck is not just being thrown at Senator De Lima but at all women.

So past midnight last Friday, September 30, 2016, I asked in a chat group of a few women, whether we could start a campaign of self incrimination to express our solidarity with Senator De Lima and all women victimized by sexual shaming. As I have tried to explain, such a mentality really victimizes all women. I had formulated it this way: “I wish to testify at the HOR. I am the woman in the sex video #Everywoman.” In this way we would not shame whoever was in that video or any woman seen in sexual displays. I should say here I don’t  think poorly of the women in the brothels, whether these be the ones  in Malacañang and Congress or otherwise.

Within hours we had mobilized more women. And when we simultaneously wrote that as our status, it took off and began to trend within minutes. Then it began climbing the ranks of trending topics through the rest of the afternoon and early evening. It also garnered media attention.

For a brief moment, social media was about women protecting other women from the misogyny and trolling we normally experience. It was about men who truly love and respect women as equal human beings. 

Despite the congratulatory messages I received, it is my contention that this message isn’t mine at all. It is the message of many decent Filipinos. In the light of the prevailing violent machismo, that decency is heartening.

Not even the vaunted and well-oiled social media machine supporting the President could do a thing. It was quick, unanticipated and it hit a lode of anger felt by decent men and women.

The smart politicians should take note of what happened last Friday. As the originator of the idea and one of the originators of the campaign, I can assure them this was not a paid operation. I met Sen. De Lima for the first time last Saturday, a day after the campaign, because a friend asked me to join a meeting with her. But then, you politicians already know that, don’t you? Unless you are both immoral and dumb. You know that the success of this hashtag campaign is because it is supported by ordinary people. Not by any ad agency, PR agency or yellow army. Your followers may still be naive enough to believe that, but you know very well what is true.

I believe you went too far, and in so doing, have served yourselves poorly. 

So let’s engage in a little bravado here. It seems to be what you machos understand. You demean women at your peril. You have been warned.

Get your heads out of the middle ages. It’s 2016, for goodness sake. – Rappler.com

President Rodrigo Duterte marks his 100th day in office on October 7, and truth to tell, they seem like a lifetime to many Filipinos.

A lifetime to Joseph Escaño, whose 5-year-old daughter Danica was shot dead as armed men aimed at her grandfather in their home in the wetlands of Dagupan, the youngest casualty in the government’s deadly war on drugs.

A lifetime to an American ambassador, who is now remembered as the gay diplomat outed no less than by a president of a gay-friendly nation.

A lifetime to Leila de Lima, who’s zoomed to notoriety in less than 3 months from being Bilibid’s drug queen to the House of Representatives’ sex video star, and whose biggest crime was to dig up the buried past of a long-forgotten death squad.

A lifetime to public servants and presidential spokespersons, who have spent most of their waking hours fighting fire than running a government. 

We say this without bias (pun intended): These have been the most exhausting and saddest first 100 days of any Philippine president since democracy’s rebirth in 1986.

Whichever side you’re on and whatever values you hold dear, President Rodrigo Duterte has changed our national conversation and collective thinking. He has blurred our view of what’s right and what’s tolerable. His pronouncements, throwback moments, jokes, and guffaws preoccupy us as we wait in line at an MRT station, as we toil for our wages, as we care for our children, as we imagine a better future for them.

He consumes us in a way we can’t even begin to explain. He commands and inspires the staunch support and blind loyalty of many. He scares others no end. And he either baffles or upsets the rest of the world.

But surely we must look beyond his rhetoric (or hyperbole, as his explainers would describe it)? 

After all, for example, while he was busy dissing De Lima in Manila on August 17, the government and the communist New People’s Army prepared for a historic meeting that forged an indefinite ceasefire between both sides, raising hopes for ending Asia’s longest running insurgency.

True, Duterte’s heart is in the right place: it hates drugs, it seeks a more inclusive system of federalism, it shuns extravagance, among others.

In his Cabinet, too, are honest public servants who work outside the spotlight, crafting remarkable programs meant to help the poor, spending taxpayers’ money on the services we need, cutting red tape along the way.

We’re told that in meetings with his official family, the President listens. He leans on people who know their business. He is far from the bluster and frothing mouth we see on our screens.

But this is not what the public sees. 

The reality is that the good is drowned in the noise triggered by the President. The voices of peace are defeated by angry soundbites thrown from the presidential pulpit. The hard work is flushed by blasphemous language and erroneous drug lists courtesy of this country’s most powerful man.

The past 100 days for the entire government have been days of dogged, quiet public service.

The past 100 days for President Rodrigo Duterte have been days of calling attention to himself, not the labors of his fellow public servants.

It is not fair. Not to them. Not to the voters who chose him over the rest. Not to a country that for years has been the toast of Asia – warts and all.

The President needs to redirect national energy away from his whims, his dark humor, his veiled threats, and his often misplaced version of the past. 

He needs to start governing. Today, not any day later. – Rappler.com

If Hitler were alive today, he would probably send this message to his latest self-declared admirer.

My dear Rody:

You seem to have shocked the world with your comparing your plan to kill three million drug users to my slaughtering three million Jews. If I may make a slight correction, it was six million Jews. And please do not make the same mistake.

You adopted the right strategy. Shock and awe and disarm. Claim you will kill three million, and if you kill only a million, people will say, he's not so bad after all. He can be reasoned with. They might even call you a liberal. Psychological disarmament of the enemy, as I demonstrated in Munich, is half the battle won.

I want to inform you though that killing even a million undesirables takes organization. You can profit from our mistakes. We began with firing squads, but our troops just could not keep up with the great numbers of Jews, Slavs, and other sub-humans that had to be disposed of. It was only after three years that we hit upon the solution of industrial extermination via gas chambers and crematoria.

However, you lack the capital and time to build such facilities. So my suggestion is that you make use of the asset that the Philippines has such a great supply of: labor. 16 million people voted for you. If you can mobilize even just 100,000 of them, to supplement the 100,000 members of the Philippine National Police, you'll be well on your way to fulfilling your promise. Many of those who voted for you fit the profile of bullies, what you call "butangeros." Others are fanatics who will do whatever you say. These are the two personality types that you ought to recruit. Forget the rest; they're unreliable. Organize these selected types into a fraternity like my SS or SA and initiate them to their task by organizing manhunts for undesirables. There is no better method of learning than on-the-job training and nothing binds a group more tightly than the shared experience of shedding blood.

Like our comrade Idi Amin, I am worried that you continue to be lenient with the media. I disagree, however, with his recommendation that you terrorize all your critics into submission. Goebbels tells me you can actually buy off 90 percent of the press with money or appointments like diplomatic posts. In this regard, your appointing Locsin Ambassador to the UN was a master stroke. Now, this former human rights advocate is even justifying my getting rid of the Jews!  Goebbels was right: Everyone has his price. (READ: Advice for Comrade Duterte from the Great Beyond)

Or nearly everyone. There will always be that 10 percent that will resist bribery. These people can be framed on drug charges or simply eliminated through well planned "incidents" or "accidents." You are, of course, the expert in such methods.

On the Americans, I fully support your strategy of attacking them rhetorically but not moving to evict them. You have to score points with the nationalists, and the Americans understand that. Remember, you may be a fascist like me, but so long as you serve US security interests, they will back you.  Of course, you may be criticized by the human rights desk at the State Department, but you have many friends at the CIA and the Pentagon who prize stability above all in a socially turbulent country like yours and choke when they have to pay obeisance to such vapid concepts as "human  rights" and "democracy."

As for the Chinese, be very wary of them. I know their dictatorial style fits your temperament, but they are serious about driving the Americans from Asia. You might think you can manipulate them, but they will swallow you whole. You are better off with the Americans than with those cunning heirs of Stalin and Mao.

On the local communists, you know of course that the German Bolsheviks were my mortal enemies. But I understand the game you are playing with your communists in appointing them to key positions: you want to implicate them in your repressive actions so that they would lose credibility and legitimacy among the people and thereby cease to be a real threat. I also made a deal with Stalin, so I could secure my eastern front as I attacked in the west, so I understand you occasionally need to make a pact with the devil to achieve the greater good.

On your political opponents and allies, I admire the way you have destroyed the Liberal Party simply by offering them morsels like committee chairmanships in the House and Senate in return for their loyalty. They have been totally tamed, except of course for that woman de Lima, who I know you will permanently neutralize at the opportune time.

I would be more worried by some of your current "friends" – the people who have jumped on your bandwagon to advance their ambitions and could easily betray you at the opportune moment. I refer in particular to Gordon, Cayetano, and Marcos, who wear their ambition to be your successor on their sleeves. I had to order the extra-judicial execution of such ambitious freewheeling individuals like Rohm and Strasser during the Night of the Long Knives. You might have to do the same at some point.

I would like to end by congratulating you on your biggest coup, which was to call yourself a socialist. Little did your backers know that you meant a National Socialist like me. The big German capitalists like I.G. Farben and Krupp ended up enthusiastically backing me since I saved them from the Communists. I notice that Ramon Ang of San Miguel is now praising you to high heavens as the country's savior, and other oligarchs are falling in line. Of course, some of your followers who expected you to initiate a social revolution will be greatly disappointed. But they were willing dupes, and such people get what they deserve. They will never understand that supermen like us are beyond ordinary morality.

Oh, one last thing. Forgive me but my followers do not allow me to alter the racial hierarchy. They gave me so much trouble when I conferred the title of "honorary Aryans" to our Japanese allies during the Second World War. They have said that being Malay, you belong to one of the inferior Mongol races. But I think I can lobby successfully to at least make you an equal of the Mediterranean race. Anyway, what are a few racial sub-categories between friends? And the important thing, after all, is not to be classified a Jew or drug user or an anti-fascist dog.

Fraternally yours,

Adolf Hitler

– Rappler.com 

Walden Bello made the only resignation in principle in the history of Congress in 2015 in protest at the double standards of the Aquino administration. He is currently senior research fellow at the Center for Southeast Asian Studies of Kyoto University and professor of sociology at the State University of New York at Binghamton.

Ika-100 araw na ni Rodrigo Duterte bilang pangulo sa Oktubre 7. Sa totoo lang, kasinghaba na ito ng habambuhay para sa maraming Filipino. 

Buong buhay para kay Joseph Escaño, na ang 5 taong gulang na anak na si Danica ay napatay nang pagbabarilin ng armadong kalalakihan ang bahay nila sa latian sa Dagupan. Siya ang pinakabatang namatay sa madugong kampanya ng pamahalaan laban sa droga. 

Buong buhay para sa sugo ng Estados Unidos, na ngayon ay markado na bilang baklang diplomat. Ang nagbunyag sa kanya? Walang iba kundi ang pangulo ng bansang kilala sana sa pagtanggap nito sa mga kabilang sa tinatawag na ikatlong kasarian.

Buong buhay para kay Leila de Lima, na biglang sumikat – una’y bilang drug queen ng Bilibid; ngayo’y bilang sex video star ng Kamara ng mga Representante. Ang pinakamalaking kasalanan niya: hinukay niya ang mga nakalibing nang krimen ng isang death squad.

Buong buhay para sa mga lingkod-bayan at mga tagapagsalita ng pangulo, na naubos na ang oras sa pagpatay ng mga sunog na gawa ng kanilang puno kaysa pagpapatakbo ng gobyerno.

Wala kaming kinikilingan; kailangan lang sabihin: Ito na ang pinakanakakapagod at nakakalungkot na unang 100 araw ng isang pangulo simula nang mabawi natin ang demokrasya noong 1986.

Nasaang panig ka man, anomang mga bagay ang iyong pinahahalagahan, iniba ni Pangulong Rodrigo Duterte kung paano mag-usap at mag-isip ang bansang ito. Malabo na ngayon kung alin ang tama at alin ang puwede lang palampasin o tiisin. Habang nakapila tayo sa MRT station, nagpapagal para kumita, nagpapalaki ng mga anak, at nangangarap ng magandang kinabukasan para sa kanila, nagsisilbing pampalipas-oras natin ang mga pahayag, balik-tanaw, biro, at halakhak ng Pangulo.

Ni hindi natin maipaliwanag kung bakit para siyang nakakaadik. Bulag ang pagsunod sa kanya ng nakakarami. Namamatay sa sindak sa kanya ang ilan. Nalilito’t naguguluhan sa kanya ang ibang bansa.

Pero ang tiyak ay hindi siya dapat sukatin lang ayon sa mga satsat niya (o eksaherasyon, kung tatanggapin natin ang sinasabi ng mga tapagapaliwanag niya).

Halimbawa, habang binabakbakan niya si De Lima noong Agosto 17, naghahanda naman ang pamahalaan at ang komunistang New People’s Army para sa makasaysayang miting kung saan napagkasunduan ang tigil-putukan. Nabuhay ang pag-asa ng lahat na maaari nang matapos ang pinakamatagal na rebelyon sa Asya.

Totoo, nasa tamang lugar ang puso ni Duterte: galit ito sa droga, isinusulong nito ang sabay-sabay na pag-unlad sa pamamagitan ng pederalismo, ayaw nito ng karangyaan, marami pa. 

Nakaupo sa Gabinete niya ang mga tapat na lingkod ng bayan, tahimik na nagtatrabaho, bumubuo ng maiinam na programa para maiahon ang mahihirap, inilalaan lamang ang mga ibinabayad nating buwis para sa mga serbisyong talagang kailangan ng taumbayan, pinabibilis ang proseso sa mga ahensiya.

Ang alam namin, sa mga miting sa kanyang mga opisyal, nakikinig ang Pangulo. Sumasandig siya sa mga taong alam ang kanilang ginagawa. Walang paghahambog; walang paglilintaya.

Pero hindi ito ang nakikita ng publiko.

Ang magagandang nagaganap ay natatabunan ng ingay na sinisimulan din naman ng Pangulo. Ang tinig ng kapayapaan ay natatalo ng mga umuusok niyang tirada. Nauuwi sa wala ang pinaghihirapan ng pamahalaan dahil sa mapaglapastangang pananalita at mali-maling drug list ng pinakamakapangyarihang tao sa bansa.

Nitong nakaraang 100 araw, matiyaga, bagaman tahimik, na ginawa ng mga lingkod ng bayan ang kanilang tungkulin. 

Nitong nakaraang 100 araw, inagaw ni Pangulong Rodrigo Duterte ang pansin mula sa mga nagpapakahirap sa gobyerno.

Hindi ito makatarungan para sa mga lingkod-bayan. Hindi rin para sa mga botanteng naniwala sa kanya kaysa iba. Hindi para sa bansang tinitingala na sana sa Asya. 

Sumisikad ang bansa, puno ng pag-asa, handang magpakitang-gilas. Ito ang direksiyong dapat pangunahan ng Pangulo. Tigilan na niya ang kanyang mga sumpong, mga birong wala sa lugar, mga pahaging na banta, at kadalasan ay ligaw na kuwento ng nakaraan.

Simulan na niya ang pamamahala. Hindi sa ibang araw pa. Ngayon na. – Rappler.com

Enough!

I've reached the limit of my tolerance for those who bash the Catholic Church as hypocritical when our bishops ring the alarm bells about egregious violations of human rights.

The usual invective against the Church – hypocrisy (which is of course an echo of the President's earlier tirade).

But exactly how has it been hypocritical?

Hypocritical because it condemns wrongdoing while many members of the clergy and its laity are engaged in wrongdoing? Then, you don't understand the Church. It speaks not because its leaders and its members think themselves a cut above the rest of humanity, but because the Church has been constituted "to root up and to tear down, to build and to plant.”

When Jesus chose the Twelve, he knew they were not the best of material. Judas and Peter were traitors. James and John were impetuous. Matthew was an extortionist. But he sent exactly these to turn people away from evil to good. If this is hypocrisy, then Jesus was the author of hypocrisy.

Hypocritical because many chapters of its history are dark and shameful chapters? It has never concealed these, as some are wont to conceal their wrongdoing. In humility it acknowledges the sins of the past and of the present, but it cannot silence itself, nor be silenced by others because it is sent forth precisely to teach, to reprove, to admonish to warn, not its own righteousness but the righteousness of God, a righteousness it cannot come close to approximating.

Ever wondered why the Mass always begins with "I confess?" 

Now, how many times have we heard that from government, no matter how egregious the error?

So, here’s what I think of those who call the Church hypocritical whenever it sounds a note grating to the ears of sycophants: You are either stupid, because you do not know the nature of the Church, or you are hypocritical, because you know exactly what the Church stands for and what it must preach, and condemn it for doing what it is supposed to do.

And, yes, you are always welcome into the Church that you call a community of hypocrites, because there is always room for one more hypocrite – and you perfectly fit! – Rappler.com

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