The Supreme Court’s majority opinion on the burial of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani validates once more the conflicting themes of the country’s postwar political experience: authoritarianism and democracy.

The SC decision likewise reveals the unfolding realignment of the various forces in the political spectrum, as shown by the political statements of leaders of varying political persuasions.

This perceived realignment of political forces would likely define the course of political developments in the coming months, as the perceived autocratic forces pursue an authoritarian agenda that centers on the political redemption of the Marcoses and their return to political power.

On the one end, authoritarianism, as represented by the disparate political groups and personalities identified with the failed constitutional authoritarian regime of Marcos, is seen to be staging a major comeback that goes beyond the unsuccessful vice presidential run of Ferdinand Jr. in the last elections.

This perceived comeback is illustrated in the autocratic tendencies to sanitize, or even justify the widespread world-class kleptocracy, or corruption, plunder, massive human rights violations and other abuses committed by and associated with the Marcos regime.

On the other hand, democracy, as represented by various political groups that have worked for the restoration of democracy and have been working continuously for the strengthening of those democratic institutions and processes, is talking a backseat to give way to these authoritarian tendencies. (READ: Duterte to suspend writ of habeas corpus if 'forced')

Democracy, which clings to the time-honored precept of rule of law and adheres to the strong democratic institutions and processes, and its associated concepts are being battered to give way to what seems to be a global resurgence of authoritarianism. 

The old school core values of freedom and respect associated with democracy are being challenged to make them appear irrelevant and unsustainable.

Marcos-Arroyo informal alliance

The SC decision on the Marcos burial has triggered shockwaves in public opinion, redrawing the emerging realignment of political forces in the political spectrum.

Forces of authoritarianism – former president and now Deputy Speaker Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her ilk; Ferdinand Jr. and Imee Marcos and their rabid supporters; and President Rodrigo Duterte and his coalition – have forged an informal alliance to press for an agenda with authoritarian tendencies.

They are joined by a group of Supreme Court magistrates, who always vote as one when it comes to issues involving the authoritarian agenda, and some civil society groups that support authoritarian tendencies. 

Mrs. Arroyo and the Marcoses were among the financial backers of the Duterte presidential run. The President is observed to have been taking taken steps to pay his political debts to the Arroyo and Marcos camps. 

At the moment, the authoritarian agenda is on the exculpation of dictator Ferdinand Marcos, his family, and cohorts from any responsibility or complicity of all abuses they had committed during the martial law era, the renewal of their tattered global public image, and their final political redemption through Ferdinand Jr.

They have yet to take the initiative to dismantle the democratic structures and processes that have been the result of 30 years of restored democracy and replace them with a new political system supportive of strongman’s rule. But they appear to be moving to the direction to lay down the preconditions to reimpose authoritarianism.

They seem to have been emboldened by Ferdinand Jr.’s strong showing in the last presidential polls, where he lost to Vice President Leni Robredo by slightly over a quarter of a million votes. They believe that the authoritarian agenda is within reach, as indicated by the political support of the millennials (18-35 year old) to the dictator’s son. 

Although weakened considerably by the losses of its candidates (they had two presidential candidates, who divided the votes of the democratic constituency) and Duterte’s plurality victory, the democratic forces have continued to oppose those autocratic tendencies, as indicated by their vehement objection and opposition to the Marcos burial at the Libingan and any political comeback by the Marcoses.

They are likely to consider and come out with every conceivable way to oppose the authoritarian agenda, although they are likely to stick to the rule of law and the legal processes, which they have championed for the past three decades.

Authoritarian coalition

The authoritarian coalition, led by no less than the President, would continue to push for their agenda of political redemption for the Marcoses.

The clash of these contending forces is expected to intensify by next year.

This is the coalition perceived to push further its luck by moving heaven and earth to push the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) to reverse the political victory of Robredo and award the political victory to rival Ferdinand Jr. 

Even Duterte has strongly indicated the possibility of Ferdinand Jr. to take over the presidency during his term of office. The democratic forces have been resistant to the prospect of Marcos comeback. 

Citing the implications of the decision on Marcos burial at the LIbingan, some quarters have likewise expressed apprehension that the Supreme Court could rule the return to the Marcoses of all confiscated ill-gotten wealth and the jewelry pieces of former first lady Imelda Marcos.

Journalist Mike Suarez said in his Facebook account that the Marcoses could pick from the SC decision “the cue” to file those cases before the High Court. “After all, as the SC ruling went, there has been no criminal conviction. Ergo the seizures were wrongful,” Suarez said.

From all indications, the SC decision on the Marcos burial would lead to a more problematic situation. The promised national reconciliation and ensuing healing is more rhetoric than actual. – Rappler.com

In the 2016 elections, the Left, particularly the party list groups and mass organizations under the Makabayang Koalisyon ng Mamamayan, did not endorse the candidacy of then presidential bet Rodrigo Duterte. Despite this, the new President appointed known leftist activists to his Cabinet, resumed peace talks with the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP), and released a number of political dissidents with the promise to release more. 

For those who know Duterte this was not surprising. After all, he always claimed to be a socialist. He was a former member of the Kabataang Makabayan and student of communist party founder Jose Maria Sison. In his years as mayor of Davao City, Duterte established close ties with the NDFP and New People’s Army (NPA) in Mindanao, often facilitating the release of prisoners of war and addressing the concerns of the communities where the revolutionary groups operated. 

As mayor, he gave members of progressive organizations full leeway in exercising their political and civil rights. He even partnered with them on various social projects and advocacies. Despite his sexist attitude towards women, he had good programs for gender equality and women’s empowerment in his city. The strongest and most profound disagreements between him and the Left was on his tolerance, even tacit encouragement, of extrajudicial killings of suspected criminals.

Unfamiliar ground

With Duterte as President, the Left now finds itself in a novel, if unfamiliar situation.

On the one hand, they know that Duterte has become the chief representative of the local ruling classes. He oversees a corrupt and elitist government that has, by and large, served the interests of the country’s oligarchs and foreign powers over that of the ordinary folk. His gutter language notwithstanding, Duterte comes from the same elite, reactionary class of politicians that have lorded it over the country for decades. With his fiery temperament, brutal approach to crime and admiration for the late president Ferdinand Marcos, many fear he is a budding dictator.

On the other hand, Duterte is a nationalist. He is a staunch critic of US imperialism, especially its military interventionism and hypocrisy in upholding human rights and democracy. His background as an activist, a public prosecutor and city mayor have given him profound insights on the plight of the ordinary people and the need for quick and decisive action to address their concerns. He is a populist who, in his desire to serve his people, is not afraid to antagonize the oligarchy or vested foreign interests. His desire for change and social reform has led him enter into serious negotiations with the revolutionary movement. He is open to progressive ideas and programs and even labels himself a socialist.

Thus there are two tendencies in the Duterte presidency: a mainly reactionary tendency and a small, if not narrowing, progressive tendency. In a situation where progressive and revolutionary movements are still given significant space and opportunity to engage with the administration, the Left have refused to simplistically consider Duterte as just another reactionary, US puppet that needs to be ousted. Against all odds, they are actively opposing what is reactionary and anti-people, and pushing for what is progressive and pro-people in his government.

Where the Left stands on issues

To be specific, the Left supports Duterte’s distancing from the United States and his pursuit of an independent foreign policy. This is what sets him apart from previous presidents who played the role as US puppets to the hilt. The Left has always called for an end to our neocolonial relations with the US and for the government to uphold Philippine sovereignty and the national interest above those of any foreign power.

As to China, many leftists are happy with the government’s constructive engagement with China but are wary that China will take advantage of our weaknesses and impose its own imperialist agenda on our country. This is something that they will have to struggle with Duterte and the local comprador class.

Leftists totally support Duterte’s efforts to resume the peace talks with the NDFP, MNLF and MILF in order to address the root causes of the armed conflicts. Negotiations with these revolutionary movements should lead to comprehensive and thoroughgoing agreements on political and socio-economic reforms for the benefit of all Filipinos, especially the marginalized and oppressed.

Leftists support Duterte’s position against the contractualization of labor and for lower income taxes for rank and file employees. They laud his planned policy to impose a moratorium on the conversion of agricultural lands, a policy now being undermined by some members of his cabinet. They appreciate his efforts to improve and widen social services, basic education and support for our overseas workers. They share his campaign against graft and corruption.

In general, leftists share Duterte’s vision of an industrialized Filipino economy that can feed and provide enough jobs and incomes to our people. But how to get there is another thing. They vehemently object to the neoliberal prescriptions of Duterte’s economic team. They are against continued efforts to privatize public utilities and government services, liberalize and deregulate the economy, and allow foreign banks and corporations to dominate and rule the Philippine economy. 

As a matter of principle and practice, the Left objects to Duterte’s endorsement of extrajudicial killings and other shortcuts in the campaign against illegal drugs and criminality. The Communist Party even formally declared its non-support for Duterte’s “war on drugs.” Various leftist organizations have repeatedly expressed their concern and objection to a brutal campaign that targets the victims, especially the poor. They want greater efforts in cleaning up the Philippine National Police, the Armed Forces and the Judiciary. They want more focus on rehabilitating drug users and educating the public on the dangers of drug use.

As the most persistent enemy of the Marcos dictatorship, the Left certainly objects to the burial of the former tyrant at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. They have been at the forefront of organizing rallies and filing petitions in the Supreme Court against the burial. This as a matter of principle and a deeply personal issue for many activists who suffered at the hands of the Marcos dictatorship. 

A constructive and principled struggle

After Marcos’ ouster In 1986, the Left also entered into a critical engagement with the Cory Aquino government. It was short-lived, however, due to the pro-US, pro-oligarch, and anti-communist stance of Mrs. Aquino and the increasing pressure from the Right, especially the AFP, to “unsheathe the sword of war” against the Left.

This time, it is unclear how long the critical alliance with Duterte will last. A key factor would be the peace negotiations with the NDFP and whether Duterte can deliver on existing agreements and pull off new ones on socio-economic and political reforms. He will need to hold back the rabid war mongers in the AFP who are itching for an all-out war.

Another crucial factor would be his efforts to end US neocolonial relations and uphold independence and sovereignty not only in military and security matters but on the equally important areas of diplomacy and economic policy. It is expected that there will be fierce but constructive debates on these issues. 

Of course the issue of extrajudicial killings and the Marcos burial will continue to be a recurring source of disagreement. It remains to be seen but so far, these burning issues have not been decisive in breaking the alliance with Duterte.

Ironically, the rabidly anti-communist Aquino-LP faction of the ruling elite are egging the Left to drop its alliance with Duterte and join them in a cynical effort to weaken Duterte and possibly replace him with Vice President Leni Robredo. Unfortunately for them, the Left is well aware of their duplicity and have refused to be used in such a ploy.

In the meantime, there will be no calling for Duterte’s ouster or burning of his effigies. Instead, expect heated but constructive engagements from the Left. The new government is only six months old. In this fluid period of unity and struggle, many good things can still happen. – Rappler.com

Teddy Casiño served as the partylist representative of Bayan Muna for 3 terms, from 2004-2013. Prior to his stint in Congress, he was secretary-general of the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan and was a columnist for BusinessWorld. He earned his degree in sociology from the University of the Philippines at Los Baños in 1993.

The initial result of the Senate investigation on the death of Mayor Rolando Espinosa shows that it is premeditated. Senators are inclined to believe it was a case of extrajudicial killing. A number of government agencies are poised to investigate the incident: the National Bureau of Investigation and the Ombudsman will look into the culpability of the police officers involved.

Despite the initial evidence of a rubout, President Rodrigo Duterte provided his support to his beleaguered police officers. He said that from day one, he promised them protection. As long as they dutifully and relentlessly carry out his campaign to eradicate drugs, he will take the cudgels for them. And judging from the statements and demeanors of the police officers who testified, it seems that they are fully convinced of the legality and righteousness of their cause. They repeated consistently the line: "Mayor Espinosa was a drug dealer, he destroyed so many lives, and he deserved death."

This kind of police mentality and behavior is what criminologists call "noble cause" police corruption. It is "noble" simply because the police officers believe in the rightfulness of their actions. They sincerely believe that they are forwarding the best interest of the public. In fact, they have nothing to personally gain from these actions. They do it out of love and passion for the country. And they resent the ungrateful critical public that dares to question their self-professed heroism.

Though it is noble, it is corruption nonetheless. Believing in the morality of their goals, they utilize illegitimate and even violent methods against their targets: they can plant evidence, they can torture, they can make appear that suspects draw guns and they were killed in legitimate police operations. It is corruption simply because the acts are against established police procedures, against precepts of human rights, against any notions of civility and humanity.

'Legally cynical'

Yet noble police corruption did not emerge from a vacuum.

It flourishes at a time when the criminal justice system has failed. It thrives when the courts take a number of years before they decide a case, when drug dealers can bribe police and prosecutors their way out and go scot-free, when convicted drug lords enjoy a luxurious lifestyle in prisons.

Noble police corruption thrives when citizens are legally cynical. They approve of the following mantra: "It is okay to kill criminals as long as they are caught in the act; it is okay to kill criminals if they are given a warning and did not change, it is okay to kill criminals if they continuously repeat the act, it is okay to kill criminals if they are sure to evade punishments."

It is this legally cynical mentality that catapulted President Duterte to power in the first place.

The Filipino people are exasperated with the legalities, technicalities, niceties, and decencies of a broken justice and political system. They particularly despise the pretensions of the traditional politicians, particularly the Yellows, who, they felt, robbed the people blind. They also categorically deride the international media and leaders who, they claim, do not understand the intricacies of Philippine politics.

The Filipino people continue to approve of the bloody war on drugs because they support the notion that to change a broken system, we need to totally wipe it out and build from scratch.

Phase one, they say, is cleaning the house of its vermin.

Phase two, is when we can start to erect a new society. People who don’t see this strategy are branded as naïve. And any attack on President Duterte's methods is construed as a bitter attack against their hopes and wishes for a better Philippines. And the truth is, I empathize with their feelings of victimization, for I, myself, had been a victim of the failed criminal justice system.

Are we doing to be complicit?

This is the moral dilemma of the Filipino people: are we going to tolerate noble cause police corruption?

Are we going to let the police recklessly kill people, branded as criminals, in our name?

Are we going to let President Duterte trample upon due processes and human rights to keep our streets safe?

Are we going to be complicit to the genocide of our own people to have a bright new day?

For the past 4 months, the resounding answer had been yes. We have now close to 2,000 people killed by the hands of the police. Another 3,000 more were killed by Duterte-inspired vigilantes. And if this public sentiment will go unabated, then the happy slaughter of drug "personalities" will continue.

Short cut, myopic

But is noble cause police corruption the answer? Will killing all drug addicts, criminals, and the corrupt, improve trust to the criminal justice system? Will it lead to a crime-free Philippines?

Temporarily, yes. Its swift and severe action will deter criminals in the short-term. Our streets will indeed be safer, drug dealers will be on the run and hiding, and the criminals will be afraid. And this sudden reduction in street crime will be displayed as the achievements of the current brutal approaches.

But will it be sustainable? Will it be here to stay?

Time will tell.

If prudence is to be the guide, the answer is no. For two reasons: one, it does not address the very root causes that enabled people to engage in drugs, crime and corruption in the first place. For as long as we don’t care about the plight of the poor, we don’t educate our children, we have dysfunctional families, we have disorganized communities, and we espouse belligerent beliefs, our society will be at risk of these maladies. Two, it does not address the reasons why our criminal justice system is a failure. For as long the police, the courts, and correctional officers are underpaid, overworked, undertrained, under-appreciated, and overburdened, there are reasons for the criminal justice system to become inefficient, iniquitous, and corrupt.

As long as the root causes of these maladies are not addressed head on, new drug dealers and criminals will arise. Worse, children of fathers who had been killed in this gory war will grow hating us and perpetuate the cycle. Thus, once started, we will keep burning the house down.

Yes, we hate drugs, crime and corruption. But the long-term solution is to strengthen our social safety nets and improve our criminal justice systems.

Noble cause police corruption is a short cut and myopic solution to an endemic problem. And it makes the criminal in all of us. – Rappler.com

Raymund E. Narag is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Southern Illinois University. He recently spent time as a Visiting Professor at UP Diliman where he conducted training and research on the Philippine criminal justice and penal system. He can be reached at raymundenarag@gmail.com.

Extrajudicial killings (EJKs) suddenly became a phenomenon in the country by itself only because Senators Leila de Lima and Antonio Trillanes IV used it liberally in an effort to throw a monkey wrench at President Duterte’s war on drugs. 

The last time we heard a chorus from the two, they insist that some 4,000 drug suspects were killed by the police and the military, on orders of President Duterte. It’s uncontrollable EJK at its worst, they claim, a very serious charge, the kind that easily makes headlines. 

But something’s amiss. There’s no public outcry that normally quickly follows such headlines. No protest rallies. No chants. No red flags on the streets. No burning of effigies. Why mainstream and foreign media failed to note these in their reports escapes me. 

Why is EJK so serious a charge to the two but largely ignored by the populace?

Curiously, not even the daily dose of news from the field about more drug pushers dropping like flies after resisting arrests prompted any group to organize a protest rally. Only the possibility of seeing former dictator Marcos being buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani made some camp out at the Supreme Court grounds with their placards “Marcos is no hero!” 

Worse, when communities used to be alarmed by reports of dead bodies (accompanied by a “Hwag tularan…” message on a cardboard) found dumped in empty lots, many just shrug them off today, pleased with themselves. 

So, what’s happening? Let’s take it from a mother in Dagupan City whose son was a drug user who stole anything of value in their home. 

 “What EJKs are the two (senators) talking about? Tama lang yan! It’s our human rights that the government is protecting!” 

She and a thousand other mothers similarly situated couldn’t care less whatever EJK means. They’d probably be more incensed if they find out that De Lima took EJK out of its original definition and context for her own purposes – merely to harass Mr. Duterte.

Different EJK definition

Many are not aware that the Administrative Order No.35 Series of 2012 she issued as then Department of Justice Secretary, has a completely different view about EJK. 

Here’s the Philippine Daily Inquirer report in November 2102: 

“Justice Secretary Leila de Lima on Monday released to reporters Administrative Order No. 35 creating this body, which she said the President signed on Nov. 22, the eve of the third anniversary of the infamous massacre of 58 people allegedly by members of the Ampatuan clan and their followers in Maguindanao in 2009.

Under the AO, the President created a nine-member “Inter-agency committee on Extra-Legal Killings, Enforced Disappearances, Torture and Other Grave Violations of the Right to Life, Liberty and Security of Persons.”

Now read the accompanying operational guidelines she signed that pointed out the following:

1. Extra-Legal Killings (ELK) or Extra-Judicial Killings (EJK) – For purposes of operationalization and implementation of A.O. No. 35, the ELK/ElK will refer to killings wherein: 

a. The victim was:

• a member of, or affiliated with an organization, to include political, environmental, agrarian, labor, or similar causes; or
• an advocate of above-named causes; or
• a media practitioner or
• person(s) apparently mistaken or identified to be so.

b. The victim was targeted and killed because of the actual or perceived membership, advocacy, or profession; 

c. The person/s responsible for the killing is a state agent or non-state agent;

d. The method and circumstances of attack reveal a deliberate intent to kill; For purposes of the focused mandate of AO No . 35, killings related to common criminals and/or the perpetration of their crimes shall be addressed by other appropriate, mechanisms within the justice system.

(Translation: Killings related to illegal drugs involving drug lords, pushers; rape, homicide and murders perpetrated by persons under the influence of drugs, will have to be addressed by the police, not by the committee that looks into EJKs). 

It must be recalled that in 2012, national media was already reporting accounts of  torture and execution of known drug pushers by ‘vigilantes’ in many towns and cities.  But De Lima’s  A.O. chose to view these as mere “killings by common criminals,” not as EJKs. 

She added: "Our main challenge is make sure we have the full support of the PNP, NBI and the National Prosecution Service to see the spirit of A.O. No. 35 through… these institutional mechanisms, the perceived continuing culture of impunity." Well said. 

So what EJKs in the war on drugs is De Lima talking about? Another case of her whimsical arbitrariness? To cite 4,000 EJKs in four months is 743 more than the 3,257 persons reportedly killed during nine years of martial law. 

Is De Lima saying now that Duerte is worse than Marcos? Tell the mothers that. – Rappler.com

The author is editor-publisher of Sunday Punch in Dagupan City and consultant to Senator Alan Peter Cayetano 

Video clips of Chief Public Attorney Persida Acosta being grilled by the unflappable Angelina Sandova-Gutierrez have gone viral, and comments have not always been favorable to Persi, undoubtedly a very hardworking government official who has come to the rescue of many an unjustly beleaguered citizen.  

All was not well during the interview, because Persi had to admit repeatedly that she had not read the decisions of the High Court that Justice Angelina asked her about, and relied on what she had read from newspapers. Was this line of questioning fair? That's not an easy question.

If all that Justice Helen wanted to know was whether or not Chief Persi was updated in her readings, that question might as well have been asked of some justices now – for not all read leading judgments in all areas of law. It is just overwhelming. But the persistent Justice Helen wanted something more: "Would you have concurred or dissented?" She wanted to here how one aspiring to be a member of the High Court of the land would have reasoned her way to a conclusion. That, to me, is a fair question. (WATCH: JBC interviews)

I have this romantic notion of Supreme Court justices being embodiments of the most exalted forms of juristic cogitation. At least, that is how it should be. Thomas Kuhn says that science occurs in two phases. "Normal science" is when science proceeds by established laws and works on commonly accepted premises. "Revolutionary science" occurs after a scientific revolution – like thinking of planets orbiting around the sun not because the sun draws them – by gravitational force – towards itself, but because the space around the sun is curved space. The Supreme Court is most helpful when it launches a juridical revolution and initiates revolutionary jurisprudence.

When Justice Isagani Cruz, for one, ruled that courts did not have to choose between applying the law and being just – because what they had to do was to apply the law, construe the law, interpret the law according to principles that were to bring about just results, that was revolutionary, commonplace though it may have sounded.

Chief Justice Rey Puno's analysis of church-state relations in terms of "benevolent neutrality" and what it meant both for the ambit of free exercise as well as state interference in the practice of religion – that too was revolutionary, especially as it resulted in the dismissal of administrative charges against a court employee who was cohabiting with a married man, not her husband.

Chief Justice Hilario David's doctrine of "intergenerational responsibility,” his pronouncement that a State principle and policy on "healthful ecology" was in itself an executory provision of the Constitution and the children yet unborn had the standing to bring suit to protect the interests of the future, that has found its way into books on environmental law throughout the world.

Care for the poor? Not enough

High Court = high levels of cogitation. That much is expected. 

And so while it may not exactly be to the point to ask a candidate whether she knows the facts, the law and the disposition of the Court in some reported cases (computers do a much better job at storing and compiling such data), it certainly behooves a candidate for Supreme Court justice to be able to draw from the juridical insights of decided cases to craft novel, provocative – yes, revolutionary answers to new questions and challenges.

It is not enough to have cared for the poor. One can do that in the DSSWD. It will not do to be able to identify oneself with the 'masa' alone. There is a legitimate aristocracy in the world – the aristocracy of the mind, and justices must belong to that circle of aristocrats. It is what is expected of them. It is what they need to decide the cases that find their way to the highest reaches of our judicial system.

And there are concerns that the JBC has not being doing a very good job – the vigilance of a feisty Angelina Sandova-Gutierrez notwithstanding. Among circles of lawyers, law professors and judges, some appointments have raised eyebrows that have not yet returned to normal levels, and a collection of judgments penned will show just how strained the logic and the grasp of juridical concepts –  to say nothing of articulate language – is in some of those who sit on our country's superior courts.

Let's continue then asking candidates for the Supreme Court really tough questions – and more philosophy, please, after all the Supreme Court is a court of legal philosophy. Let's ask them if the "free exercise" clause should apply to atheists and agnostics, if the Constitution should be construed according to the framers' manifest intent or according to present-day exigencies, whether or not the "grave abuse of discretion" scope of judicial power has upset  the delicate balance between the three branches of government.

Let us discern the candidates' intellectual and personal aptitude for engaging in the "revolutionary juridical science" we need in a landscape of lengthening shadows! – Rappler.com

The author is Dean of the Graduate School of Law, San Beda College, and chair of the Department of Jurisprudence and Legal Philosophy at the Philippine Judicial Academy, Supreme Court of the Philippines.

MANILA, Philippines – What was supposed to be a typical Friday night to celebrate the end of a week became a night to mourn and rage about an act many find unforgivable: the burial of a dictator in a cemetery for heroes without fair warning.

Protesters of all ages and walks of life took to the streets and monuments to voice out their opposition, to support their friends and loved ones, or to feel part of a common cause.

{source}

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">LOOK: Candles lit here at the People Power Monument <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MarcosBurial?src=hash">#MarcosBurial</a> <a href="https://t.co/rzlgfMnDzk">pic.twitter.com/rzlgfMnDzk</a></p>&mdash; Bea Cupin (@beacupin) <a href="https://twitter.com/beacupin/status/799622688855629824">November 18, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>{/source}

{source}

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">WATCH: Sights and sounds at the People Power Monument. <a href="https://t.co/nBAmhAjpiD">pic.twitter.com/nBAmhAjpiD</a></p>&mdash; Bea Cupin (@beacupin) <a href="https://twitter.com/beacupin/status/799608088357531648">November 18, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>{/source}

In the People Power Monument in White Plains, Quezon City, protesters seemed to relive the revolution that inspired the shrine.

Their anger was palpable in the constant screams and chants, the roughly written placards proclaiming disgust, but so was the camaraderie that linked protesters to each other.

College kids gave out cold bottled water for free to thirsty protesters, residents of nearby subdivisions like Corinthian Gardens offered parking spaces in front of their homes, trash bags were regulary filled to ensure the monument was clean.

{source}

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">LOOK: Protesters keeping People Power Monument clean so far. <a href="https://twitter.com/rapplerdotcom">@rapplerdotcom</a> <a href="https://t.co/n55gjRAjHX">pic.twitter.com/n55gjRAjHX</a></p>&mdash; Pia Ranada (@piaranada) <a href="https://twitter.com/piaranada/status/799611170076229636">November 18, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>{/source}

{source}

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">A protester giving free cookies to everyone <a href="https://twitter.com/rapplerdotcom">@rapplerdotcom</a> <a href="https://t.co/7GX0gn7AKV">pic.twitter.com/7GX0gn7AKV</a></p>&mdash; Camille Elemia (@CamilleElemia) <a href="https://twitter.com/CamilleElemia/status/799636748460376064">November 18, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>{/source}

{source}

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Protesters w/ &quot;Busina para sa hustisya&quot; here at People Power Monument. Passing cars oblige. <a href="https://twitter.com/rapplerdotcom">@rapplerdotcom</a> <a href="https://t.co/Sfegv7VCXl">pic.twitter.com/Sfegv7VCXl</a></p>&mdash; Pia Ranada (@piaranada) <a href="https://twitter.com/piaranada/status/799604727474290688">November 18, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>{/source}

{source}

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Motorists raising their hands to show support to protesters here at PPM <a href="https://twitter.com/rapplerdotcom">@rapplerdotcom</a> <a href="https://t.co/EPekjY3t3z">pic.twitter.com/EPekjY3t3z</a></p>&mdash; Camille Elemia (@CamilleElemia) <a href="https://twitter.com/CamilleElemia/status/799640176829964288">November 18, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>{/source}

{source}

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Cars passing by People Power Monument honk horns in support for rally. Protesters cheering them on. <a href="https://twitter.com/rapplerdotcom">@rapplerdotcom</a> <a href="https://t.co/L8M7ZCCaCC">pic.twitter.com/L8M7ZCCaCC</a></p>&mdash; Pia Ranada (@piaranada) <a href="https://twitter.com/piaranada/status/799605236516040709">November 18, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>{/source}

University students stood on traffic barriers shouting and carrying signs to urge passing vehicles to express their anger about the burial by honking their horns. 

Countless private cars, buses, and motorcycles obliged, to the cheers of the protesters.

The different chants gave voice to the aspects of the Marcos burial that people despised most.

"Tuta ni Marcos, Digong Duterte! (Lap dog of Marcos, Digong Duterte!)" rang one chant.

"Pera ng bayan, Botox ni Imee! (Money of the people, Botox for Imee!)" rang another. 

"Hukayin! Hukayin! (Dig him up! Dig him up!)" got the message across succinctly.

{source}

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">&quot;Tuta ni Marcos, Digong Duterte!&quot; shout the crowd here at People Power Monument. <a href="https://twitter.com/rapplerdotcom">@rapplerdotcom</a> <a href="https://t.co/1Eo0khKuts">pic.twitter.com/1Eo0khKuts</a></p>&mdash; Pia Ranada (@piaranada) <a href="https://twitter.com/piaranada/status/799609602765504513">November 18, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>{/source}

{source}

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">WATCH: Crowd chanting, &quot;Pera ng bayan, Botox ni Imee!&quot; at People Power Monument. <a href="https://twitter.com/rapplerdotcom">@rapplerdotcom</a> <a href="https://t.co/PvTLT30hbW">pic.twitter.com/PvTLT30hbW</a></p>&mdash; Pia Ranada (@piaranada) <a href="https://twitter.com/piaranada/status/799618692199759872">November 18, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>{/source}

{source}

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">LOOK: Protester takes...selfie with CDM personnel <a href="https://t.co/CogpEDbumc">pic.twitter.com/CogpEDbumc</a></p>&mdash; Bea Cupin (@beacupin) <a href="https://twitter.com/beacupin/status/799647655324327936">November 18, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>{/source}

{source}

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="tl" dir="ltr">&quot;Si Marcos demonyo, hindi sundalo&quot; <a href="https://twitter.com/rapplerdotcom">@rapplerdotcom</a> <a href="https://t.co/91UnKbRBem">pic.twitter.com/91UnKbRBem</a></p>&mdash; Camille Elemia (@CamilleElemia) <a href="https://twitter.com/CamilleElemia/status/799629222314582016">November 18, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>{/source}

Given the proximity of several schools and universities to the monument, it came as no surprise that millennials comprised a significant chunk of the crowd that night.

Many of these millennials never even lived through the Ferdinand Marcos dictatorship. Yet their anger showed this did not matter. The collective memory of Filipinos and the consequences of the Marcos regime still felt in society today provided the fodder for the flame of their outrage. 

It was a night to remember, a night not to go quietly into the dark but rage brightly so that future generations will know a fight was fought.

{source}

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Someone even canceled their Grindr date to be at the anti-Marcos burial rally at People Power Monument <a href="https://t.co/PW6GcLgR64">pic.twitter.com/PW6GcLgR64</a></p>&mdash; Pia Ranada (@piaranada) <a href="https://twitter.com/piaranada/status/799614153761517568">November 18, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>{/source}

{source}

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="tl" dir="ltr">&quot;Kay crush di ako maka move on. Paano pa kaya kay Marcos?&quot; sign here at People Power Monument <a href="https://twitter.com/rapplerdotcom">@rapplerdotcom</a> <a href="https://t.co/lg4jMVKOV3">pic.twitter.com/lg4jMVKOV3</a></p>&mdash; Camille Elemia (@CamilleElemia) <a href="https://twitter.com/CamilleElemia/status/799623762740068355">November 18, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>{/source}

{source}

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">WATCH: Crazy energy of a largely young crowd here at People Power Monument. <a href="https://twitter.com/rapplerdotcom">@rapplerdotcom</a> <a href="https://t.co/KK76P03vEo">pic.twitter.com/KK76P03vEo</a></p>&mdash; Pia Ranada (@piaranada) <a href="https://twitter.com/piaranada/status/799608525173338112">November 18, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>{/source}

– Rappler.com

Traffic congestion seems to have worsened more than a year since my original "Carmaggedon" piece here on Rappler. Today even the ordinary trip to the grocery or mall has the potential to become a living nightmare.

In response, many people have proposed various solutions to our traffic problems. One of the most common we hear is the need to build more roads to accommodate the growing number of vehicles.

Indeed, the Duterte administration plans to embark on major road infrastructure projects, including strategic expansions and linkages. The private sector is taking action as well: for instance, the builder of NLEX is already undertaking a massive road widening project costing P2.6 billion.

But will building more roads necessarily relieve traffic congestion and increase travel time in the long run?

Induced demand

Whenever we drive or ride a vehicle, we pay a price. We pay not only explicit costs like fuel or tolls, but also implicit costs in the form of money we lose by not working or relaxing. In other words, we also pay the "opportunity cost" for our travel time.

Back in 2013, JICA estimated that the total explicit and implicit costs of Metro Manila traffic amount to P2.4 billion daily. If we do nothing to solve this, such costs could swell to P6 billion daily by 2030.

New roads or highways, however, reduce the costs of driving. They make more room for vehicles, relieve traffic, and decrease fuel spending. They also reduce travel time and, hence, its opportunity cost.

But whenever the price of something goes down, we almost always purchase more of it. This "law of demand" applies not only to goods like coffee and movies, but also to driving.

For example, why would young professionals ride the crowded MRT when, because of wider roads, driving becomes much more comfortable and affordable? Or, why live in a crowded apartment near work when one can just buy a car and drive home to one's family every day?

The same argument applies to leisure driving. For instance, the opening of TPLEX (Tarlac-Pangasinan-La Union Expressway) has cut travel time to Baguio from 6 hours to 4 hours, making it easier and more convenient for families and friends to go on road trips and spend weekends there.

Hence, new roads could induce people to buy cars or take more road travels than they otherwise would. When most people think this way, then the construction of new roads could actually lead to more traffic volume and congestion, rather than less.

Evidence for induced demand

Among transportation experts, this phenomenon is also known as the "induced demand effect" or the "fundamental law of highway congestion", and this has been validated by numerous studies.

In the US, one prominent study found a clear and robust relationship between the creation of highways and traffic flow in several US cities: "The extension of most major roads is met with a proportional increase in traffic."

This finding applies to both private and commercial driving. Hence, creating new roads could also increase the flow of large cargo trucks plying urban thoroughfares.

Another recent paper summarized the extant literature on induced demand. It found that, on average, "a [road] capacity expansion of 10% is likely to increase [traffic flow] by 3% to 6% in the short-run and 6% to 10% in the long-run."

The paper also confirmed that the net increase in traffic flow originates not so much from vehicles which transferred from older and slower routes into the expanded roads, but instead from the addition of new vehicles on the road.

Lessening our dependence on cars

If building more roads could potentially cause more traffic, what alternative strategies can we resort to?

First, as a converse to the "induced demand effect", some studies suggest that reducing road capacity may actually prove beneficial for motorists, in particular, and society in general.

The idea is to reduce our dependency on cars and make our cities more pedestrian-friendly rather than car-friendly. Certain cities in Europe and the US have already closed off their central business districts to vehicles altogether, with wide-ranging benefits in terms of congestion and pollution.

Second, instead of building more roads, installing bus- or train-based public transportation could work better. Such projects are thankfully included in the Duterte administration's massive infrastructure plan called "Build, Build, Build."

But even if buses and trains are a more compact way of moving people, some studies show that they do not reduce road traffic significantly. Additional capacity induces people to take more bus and train rides than they otherwise would – the induced demand effect all over again.

New technologies

Third, we could make road users pay for the congestion they cause unto all other motorists. Such "congestion pricing" has, in fact, been successfully implemented in many parts of the world.

For example, when Singapore implemented congestion pricing back in 1975, it resulted in an immediate drop of traffic by 75%. Today, the system's electronic version earns an average net profit of $US40 million annually, which the Singaporean government uses to fund road improvements and other forms of public transportation.

Finally, perhaps we should expand our horizons and look deep into the future of transportation.

Rather than just building more roads, we should start thinking about the prospect of self-driving cars, inter-vehicle communication, and intelligent road networks in Metro Manila and other urban areas – no matter how farfetched these technologies may sound today.

For instance, by removing the human element altogether, self-driving cars will eliminate the pesky reaction time which causes "phantom traffic jams".

Conclusion: More roads will never be enough

A knee-jerk proposal to solve our daily Carmaggedon woes is to build more roads to make room for the growing number of vehicles.

But the evidence suggests that simply building more roads (or widening and expanding existing ones) will never be enough. Instead, they could actually cause more traffic by inducing people to purchase more vehicles and take more trips than they would otherwise take.

To be sure, we're not saying that the government's infrastructure plans are out of place. The Philippines is lagging when it comes to public infrastructure spending, and we should definitely ramp it up nearer the international benchmark of around 5% of GDP.

Instead, we should bear in mind that some types of infrastructure investments work better than others in solving congestion, and we should prioritize them accordingly. Planners should take into account the unintended consequences of building more roads and ask: "How many more vehicles will be added to the streets if we construct more roads?"

By answering questions such as this, we can overhaul our urban landscapes to accommodate our rapidly growing population. This is especially important since, for the first time in our history, more than half of all Filipinos are projected to live in urban areas in the next few years. – Rappler.com

The author is a PhD student and teaching fellow at the UP School of Economics. His views are independent of the views of his affiliations. Thanks to Kevin Mandrilla for valuable comments and suggestions.

I got on the phone with a retired general on Friday, November 18, hours after the heroes' burial of the late dictator. He was at the gates of the Libingan ng mga Bayani, wanting to go in to pay his last respects to Ferdinand Marcos.

At first I thought I’d misheard it. How could this man be there? He stood valiantly at Camp Crame with his troops in February 1986, fearless and proud to break away from his commander in chief.

So I said in a rather shrill voice that betrayed my disbelief: "What are you doing there, sir?" He sounded shocked that I asked. 

"Why, I’m here to visit my former president."

"But were you not at EDSA?" 

"Yes, I was."

"So why are you there?"

"I was also a loyal soldier."

Before things could get complicated, I wished him well and left it at that.

It was the perfect punctuation to a Friday morning that left us all in a daze. 

Marcos and his military

I spent the following hours wondering how many more among the soldiers who had revolted against the dictator also paid their respects last Friday, or are planning to do so in the coming days, weeks, months.

In his heyday, Marcos turned to the military to provide firepower to his ambitions.

In his burial at the heroes' cemetery last Friday, Marcos turned to the military to shield him from Filipinos who would not forget. (READ: Behind the scenes: 12 hours to prepare for Marcos burial)

To illustrate how times have changed, the Air Force commandeered not its vintage Hueys – flying coffins, as they were often called – but its newly bought Bell choppers to bring the remains of the dead dictator from Batac to the Libingan.

To show you how things have become, some of the officers who were made to attend the burial had known Marcos as a commander-in-chief when they were only cadets of the Philippine Military Academy (PMA). By the time they joined the battlefield, they were under the command of the country's first female commander-in-chief and Marcos had been disgraced and forced to live in exile in Honolulu. 

To push the irony further, the current chief of staff, Armed Forces General Ricardo Visaya, is a true-blooded Ilocano from the town of Bacarra, Ilocos Norte, who chose not be at the burial of the Ilocanos’ most revered son.

Contradiction?

The military is a strange animal in a system where the president is also the commander-in-chief. It is in its DNA to be compliant to its civilian master. It is in its mandate, spelled out so clearly in the Constitution, to respect civilian supremacy over the military. It is in its operating system to obey orders, not to question them.

This is where it gets its strength and character. But this is also where its strength and character are tested.

Marcos knew this very well and exploited it to the hilt. When he declared martial law in 1972, he did not need public acquiescence for it. He had the military. The troops not only jailed his opponents, they also picked up the garbage, manned the traffic, scrubbed the streets, guarded schools and hospitals, drove public transport – in short, acted as government. 

In exchange, the soldiers wore the badge of power, were allowed to dip their hands into an endless well of cash, and were given a free hand to flout the law.

Yet some of the young lieutenants who were deployed to the Martial Law machinery – 1971 graduates of the PMA – were the same officers who, two decades later, would plot the first military coup in Philippine history that would have failed – if not for the millions of Filipinos who decided to support it.

The EDSA revolt, and the subsequent botched mutinies that followed, exposed the deep-seated problems of the armed forces: corruption, nepotism, abuse, factionalism.

It has been a rough ride to reform from 1986. (READ: 'Welcome home, my soldiers': The AFP 30 years after EDSA)

Yet here we are – watching the military bury the commander-in-chief it had ousted.

One of those who stood up to the dictator was the retired general I spoke with on the phone last Friday. He revolted, yes. But he was also a loyalist, he said.

I do not see this as a contradiction. Neither do I see anything wrong with a military implementing orders without question – and doing it as precisely and as secretly as it had been trained to do so.

The Filipino soldier’s strength lies in his snappy ability to obey orders. His character lies in the many times it has also disobeyed them.

And woe to the president and commander-in-chief who will not know – or anticipate – the difference. – Rappler.com 

There’s no way President Duterte can escape being dragged into the controversy provoked by the sudden, premature burial of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos among heroes at the Libingan ng mga Bayani Friday, November 18.

The circumstances are just too pat. An admirer of Marcos, Duterte has always believed Marcos deserved a hero’s burial and, presumably for that conviction, did not mind admitting taking money from the Marcos family for his presidential campaign or wishing, openly, that Marcos’ son had been elected as his vice-president. It’s a wish that may yet be realized if Ferdinand Jr wins his electoral protest against Leni Robredo, whom he alleges to have won over him fraudulently.    

Although away on burial day – in Peru for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit – Duterte was not insulated from the fallout: he was the first person the eldest Marcos child, Imee, thanked in a statement she read right after the burial.

Moreover, the armed forces spokesman, Brigadier General Restituto Padilla, who succeeded her on the podium to take questions from news reporters – who had been barred until now – tended to give Duterte away when he said, “The President is aware of everything that’s going on.”

The statement could be taken to supersede the evasive ones that had gone before it – statements that circled around the excuse that the President had not given any specific order to let the Marcoses bury their patriarch at the time and in the manner they pleased.

 “He just told us there were no impediments” to the burial, and they – he and the other soldiers cast in the ceremony – simply picked it up from there, said Padilla.

In fact, the Marcoses preempted the Supreme Court, which, as a matter of due process, was supposed to have kept itself open to a motion asking that it reconsider its ruling allowing the burial; until that motion was heard and defeated, the ruling could not become final, and the burial could not legally proceed.

At any rate, the military, within whose territory the graveyard falls, simply provided “burial services…as instructed by the defense department,” Padilla added.

From his home province of Ilocos Norte, a Philippine Air Force helicopter had flown Marcos’s body straight to the cemetery, in Fort Bonifacio, the army headquarters. A horse-drawn caisson carried it from there to the gravesite, where a ceremony for a hero, complete with a 21-gun salute, was held. All was over by about noon.

Word of the secret burial, meanwhile, had traveled around, and university students and other youths, joined by some elders, began spilling out onto the streets of Metro Manila and some provincial cities, and holding out into the night.

I don’t recall any protests of comparable extent or quality, instantaneous, un-orchestrated, since 2001, when a popular street vigil ousted Joseph Estrada after the Senate, as an impeachment court trying him for plunder, had drawn suspicions of bias to itself. Marcos had gone out that way himself 15 years earlier, in a bloodless revolt copied by freedom movements in other parts and known worldwide as “people power.”

With his popularity at 76% and with an issue that somehow does not involve him directly, unlike in the case of Estrada or Marcos, it would be irresponsible to speculate about any comparable fate for Duterte himself. On the other hand, it would be heedless to presume he would come out of the controversy surrounding the burial unmarked.

Indeed, he has escaped being marked significantly as a Marcos champion. Neither have the Marcoses; they were back unrepentant yet unbothered after a mere 6 years of exile and managed in no time to re-entrench themselves socially and politically – Imee is governor of Ilocos Norte, the widow Imelda a member of the Lower House, the youngest child, Irene, a social butterfly and patron of the arts, as her own mother had styled herself when she was Ferdinand Marcos’ First Lady, and Ferdinand Jr, a senator until he ran for vice-president and lost.

But the burial may yet prove a major miscalculation. The Marcoses and Duterte have been promoting it as a path toward “national healing, closure, and unity.” Commenting from Peru, Duterte himself repeated those wish words.

But, judging by the outrage the burial ignited, no such mood seemed in the air. In the words of Congressman Neri Colmenares, a torture victim himself, at age 18, of Marcos’ martial rule, the burial “is the ultimate insult to Filipino dignity.”

Having been already favored with a court ruling, the Marcoses only had to wait a few weeks to make the burial at least legal, added Colmenares in a tone that implied a resignation to a reaffirmation of the ruling upon appeal.

But the burial, for the secrecy and air of impunity that surround it, would seem another matter altogether; if anything, it revitalized and, possibly, reunited the opposition against Marcos and his blood and political heirs. Colmenares and leaders of likeminded groups have called for sustained protests. If those protests happen in size and fervor comparable with Friday’s, Duterte and the Marcoses may have a fight on their hands. – Rappler.com

My voice against the Marcoses has been loud since the election days, making me gain virtual enemies and lose friends along the way. Nonetheless, I don’t regret anything, not a single moment of it. I am proud to say that I’m standing up for nothing but the truth. Besides, thanks to all the people who fought for our democracy, you and I are freer to voice out our opinions without ending up raped, tortured, and killed, which is a privilege that more often than not, we tend to take for granted. Hence, might as well use it for something worthwhile.

I am tired though. I’m tired of explaining and arguing why it is important to have our voices heard and why criticism is vital in our society. I’m tired of trying to make people understand why Marcos does not deserve to be buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB) and why his projects could never ever make up for all the billions stolen and for all the lives lost. So for now, I just want to say sorry. (READ: Timeline of the Marcos burial controversy)

To the victims of Martial Law, I’m sorry. I’m sorry the ones who hold power in our country seem to forget all the atrocities that you had to go through. I’m sorry that our leaders, who are supposed to protect and serve their people, are pirouetting on the palms of probably the vilest family this country has ever had the misfortune to produce. I’m sorry that we are taking for granted all of your sacrifices for us to have the freedom that we’re enjoying right now, the same freedom that was stolen from you. I’m sorry we are insulting your memory and everything that you fought for. (READ: Marcos burial: 'We hold Duterte admin responsible')

To the Marcos apologists, I’m sorry that you believe that people have to experience things firsthand before they can feel empathy towards others. I’m sorry that you think infrastructures and bridges and bonuses are more valuable than lives of people. I’m sorry that you believe that Marcos is tolerable though he killed and tortured and stole because other politicians are doing it anyway. I’m sorry that you find our call for justice as irrelevant rants coming from our biased judgments. I’m sorry that you think of us as “mga bayarang dilaw”. I’m sorry that you think being anti-Marcos is equivalent to being pro-Aquino. 

To the Marcos family, I feel so sorry for you. I’m sorry that when the world showered humanity with cowardice, you caught it all. I’m sorry that you’re so encapsulated by greed that you think it’s okay to steal billions from your people and still have the audacity to demand a hero’s burial for your father. I’m sorry that the word “repentance” seems to get lost in translation in your vocabulary. I’m sorry that you are not human enough to admit your faults, to apologize, and to make up for your mistakes. I’m sorry that you’re too desperate to cover up your crimes and shun away your guilt, you fool yourselves to believe that there is nothing to feel sorry for. I’m sorry that in your hunger for power, you have to live in the lies that you never get tired of creating. I’m sorry that you don’t have any conscience at all because that goes to show that you’re not even worthy to be called a human, much less a hero. (READ: Marcos supporters, critics face off after hero's burial)

Lastly, to all of you who want to unfollow me, unfriend me, make “parinigs” through Facebook status against me, I want to let you know that you can do all you want. But I’m sorry I’m not sorry that your petty “move on” statements won’t make me shut up. The fight is not over. And I don’t know about you but when the time comes, I want to be able to tell a story that I can be proud of - that once upon a time, I exercised the freedom of speech given to me, in the hopes of protecting this same freedom for the next generation to enjoy. – Rappler.com

Maria Shantelle Alexies Ambayec, Alecks for short, is a public servant by day, an aspiring theatre scholar and practitioner by night. She is currently taking up MA Theatre Arts at UP Diliman.

[This is an unfinished essay. I designed this so that others who were victims or were severely affected by the Marcos dictatorship, can add their stories. My hope is that if this pulls through we will have a site where the different voices that were silenced or eliminated by the dictator Marcos can be read by those wanting to know what happened during those 15 terrible years. Many have complained that one reason the Marcoses were able to resurrect themselves politically is that we do not have enough stories to share with people, especially the younger generation. This is an attempt to build that cache of stories.]

When I received the news of the stealth and celerity behind the interment of the dictator Marcos' defrosted carcass, I was crying in anger, but not so much over the billions that he and his family and cronies stole from the country. I was angry because the interment brought back painful memories of the violence that Marcos' 15-year autocracy had wrought upon my generation.

Three experiences are permanently seared in my mind.

I was a freshman when Marcos declared martial law. I still remember puzzling over why radio stations were silent, and upon going down the DM bus at the entrance of UP Diliman, for my weekend ROTC training, we were told by soldiers to go home. When I reached my aunt's apartment I saw her and her family glued to the television, watching the dull Francisco Tatad, Marcos' Josef Goebbels, read the declaration. An hour or two later, Marcos himself appeared on TV, and with his usual bluster, justify why he was establishing "constitutional authoritarianism" to the hapless Filipinos.

UP was closed for the rest of the semester, and when it reopened, some of the new friends I had did not return. I was later told that many of them decided to join the NPA or go underground to rebuild the communist party’s temporarily shattered urban infrastructure.  Those who resumed their classes found themselves in this strange, eerie environment: entrances into buildings had police checking everything, and sleazy looking men and women were hanging around the corridors ever on the lookout for "subversives." Some even tried to look like students. They were bad at it. Finally, new teachers had taken over certain classes, especially in the social sciences (but also in some of the physical sciences), informing us that their predecessors were unavailable at the moment.

The third happened closer to home. On the eve of martial law, evacuees from Lanao del Sur began crossing Panguil Bay to my hometown of  Ozamiz due to the worsening skirmishes between the cult group Ilaga and the Maranao Barracudas. After martial law was declared, however, these small arms fire between a nasty band of ear-cutters and live-eaters versus private armies of Moro politicos, had turned into a full-blown conventional war.

The national state had sent the bellicose might of its army to quell what was now an armed separatist rebellion that united the different Moro classes and ethnic groups and which was well-funded by Libya and Malaysia. The war shocked our sleepy town. The evacuee camp continued to grow and was a major source of discomfort for many of us, given the poor state of these families, especially the children. For a while the close ties between Maranaos and Ozamiznons were frayed and only after the AFP reduced its presence in Lanao del Sur were these restored.

The most painful memory for us Pingol Street habitués was the loss of two of our friends. They were conscripted into the military because their parents could not afford a college education for them. One joined the Army, the other the Constabulary. Both came back but in cheap wooden coffins and, we, Pingol Street habitués were never the same after that.

For the next 40 years, I tried to forget these memories, or when I cannot, I write snippets of one or the other. The news of the interment brought all 3 stories back. And this time, instead of forcibly disregarding them, I decided to write about them. 

Now it is your turn. – Rappler.com

Last week, we saw aspirants to the Supreme Court interviewed for 2 vacancies by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). Images of men and women vying for the highest court of the land came to us via our mobile phones, laptops and television.

We had glimpses into their ideas, where they stood on certain issues, including:

Extrajudicial killings (EJK): a Davao judge said, "Legally, there is no EJK in our country because when we say EJK, it's a state-sponsored killing. The President says he's against killing extrajudicially, and he's for upholding the rule of law.”

Acquittal of former President Gloria Arroyo by the Supreme Court: a Sandiganbayan justice agrees with this decision.

Laws on adultery: the head of the Public Attorney’s Office advocates harsher laws for women than men.

Independence from the executive branch: a Court of Appeals justice, who was Duterte’s classmate in law school, said he does not expect the President to ask him favors.

Burial of dictator Ferdinand Marcos in the heroes’ cemetery: a legal academic agrees with this Supreme Court decision.

Apart from these interviews, the JBC has to give weight to the aspirants’ track record in the judiciary, private sector, government or academe. Overall, the JBC, in arriving at its shortlists, should aim for justices who are competent, have unsullied reputations, and have shown independence from powerful forces and vested interests.

Next month, President Duterte will make his first appointees to the Court as Justices Jose Perez and Arturo Brion retire.

By some quirk of fate, Duterte will appoint 8 more during his term. Justices Bienvenido Reyes and Jose Mendoza will step down next year. 

In 2018, Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr and Teresita de Castro will follow. 

And in 2019, four will leave the Court: Justices Antonio Carpio, Francis Jardeleza, Mariano del Castillo and Lucas Bersamin.

If Duterte does not abide by the appointments ban during the election period in 2022, he can appoint 2 more. Justices Estela Bernabe and Diosdado Peralta will retire by then.

What is disturbing is that Duterte can change the character of the 15-member Supreme Court through his 10 to 12 appointees. Independence of the institution will be the first casualty. We’ve seen how this has happened in the past, when Arroyo appointed 9 of the justices. 

A vital task falls on the shoulders of the JBC. Will they be able to insulate the selection process from politics? Will they be able to say no to pressure? 

We urge the public to watch them closely. Otherwise, democracy will tear to pieces if one more institution falls under the grip of the President. – Rappler.com

"Bakit ka pa kailangang magpaalam ulit ?,” my husband asked this morning. (Why do you have to say goodbye again?)

"Kasi kanina lang, may nag-tag sa akin tungkol sa isang may sakit na babae na iniwan ng asawa na may tatlong anak na kailangang tulungan." (Because someone just tagged me about a sick and deserted mother with 3 kids who needs help).

I have been a netizen for quite some time now. For me, I needed to become a  “digital migrant.” Those of us who grew up without the internet had to learn to come into the world of social media if we wanted to extend our activism. Certainly it helps to reach out to those who grew up in a world where the internet was always a reality, the "digital natives.” I rather liked the natives when I migrated, many were very welcoming. I also met a lot of migrants like me. We do cling to each other and our reactions to the new world are different in some ways. But I digress.

Thoreau Not Marx

After the Supreme Court decision allowed Marcos to be buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani and Hilary Clinton lost to a pussy grabber, I had decided to leave the digital world. Modernity, or if you like, postmodernity, had lost all its charm. I had even written to my editor that I was declaring a vacation from writing articles for Rappler.

The self-imposed hiatus was brought about by heartache at a world that no longer made sense to me. But it was also about a crushing reading and writing load. The retreat to the “old world” was enlightening. As I said to friends, "Thoreau rather than Marx." And, as I sought safety in my personal Walden pond, I did get the philosophical lessons that makes Thoreau an enduring philosopher.

There is a deep peace that comes when one turns away from the madding crowd . One comes to an understanding of the underlying rhythms of a world that endures beyond the temporary glitches of contemporary politics. And then you find time for yourself and realize the enjoyments missed.

Or, to make things less fancy, I managed to finish a major (major, major) research report; write a plenary talk for the Pamabansang Samahan ng Sikolohiyang Pilipino (National Association of Philippine Psychology); finish one book on philosophy (Foucault this time);  a really good book about the capitalist food industrial complex (Pollan’s Ominivore’s Dilemma); and 4 novels (a romance, 2 thrillers and a romance-thriller).

This was how I rolled before the internet. Nerd alert! Nerd alert! I have always felt that I am not really a citizen of the internet or the citizen of any country. I am actually a native of the printed page. I cannot forget a line in one of the books of Simone de Beauvoir, “books saved my life.”  Books have not only saved my life, they are very often my life.

Millennial love

Ah, but new habits die hard, too. 

And the sudden, sneaky, disrespectful burial of a disgraced dictator as a hero, forced my nose out of the book on estate planning I was reading.  

Delight of delights! I emerged back into a politics made hopeful by millennials fighting a dictatorship they did not directly experience. This generation – with its knowledge of history and its commitment to liberal principles; with its funny rally posters, “I gave up my date on Grindr to be at this rally;”  with its self-deprecating and yet self-validating yelp, “temperamental brats.” How generous these young spirits are and how very wise. They fight for all of us even as they fight for their future. They make activism fun again. 

I breathed a little word to the martyrs of Martial Law, “They know, they understand and your sacrifices are not in vain.”

On the day of infamy, I rushed home to pick up my millennials to take them to wherever it was we were supposed to rally.  Loser me. My millennials had gone off during various parts of the day to join one or another rally against the Marcos burial. Loser me, my husband and our eldest millennial ended up with the huge crowd at the People Power monument.

So I did the only thing left, I broke my social media silence, broke through my self-imposed temper tantrum, and went berserk on social media. 

Suddenly the world was beginning to make sense to me again. For one thing I never agreed with all those accusations about millennials. Never believed that millennials were apathetic and self-absorbed. Never believed they were temperamental brats.

A little bit Thoreau, a little bit Marx 

Suddenly it was cool again to be an activist. These young people helped me understand that I can never inhabit  the world to which they are natives. That world where the digital and the real have always been together. And It is this world they know how to transform. 

As my eldest millennial said, “Those trolls on social media are nowhere to be seen when it is time for the real commitment of marching in the streets.” Suddenly I understood that evil triumphs indeed, often these days because of social media, but resistance also endures and has as much to do with the real world than the empires of the demagogues.

But I need to say goodbye again to social media. Thoreau has a point.  My withdrawal allows me to see and enjoy the things I truly value. Even without me the world goes on as it will. History unfolds from the actions of the multitudes, and I am but a speck who must find my balances. I must fight when angered, retreat when hurt, but always  find my true self.

I must, as Thoreau said, “live deep and suck the marrow out of life.” Which means I won’t be postponing a Grindr date in order to go to a rally. It will mean that I will take my nose out of the  cozy mystery I am reading and go berserk on Facebook, but only when I think some passing political controversy is worthy enough to postpone finding out if the butler did it. – Rappler.com

The Marrakech climate change conference, the 22nd session of the Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, ended in a high note. The Marrakech Action Proclamation for our Climate and Sustainable Development signals a shift towards a new era of implementation and action on climate and sustainable development.

According to the Proclamation: “The Marrakech Conference marks an important inflection point in our commitment to bring together the whole international community to tackle one of the greatest challenges of our time. As we now turn towards implementation and action, we reiterate our resolve to inspire solidarity, hope and opportunity for current and future generations.”

Governments hailed the Paris Agreement, noting its rapid entry into force and its ambitious goals. The Proclamation acknowledged the great momentum on climate change worldwide, a momentum that is unstoppable, driven by governments, science, business, global and local actors. 

In a parallel meeting in Marrakech, the Climate Vulnerable Forum, which includes the Philippines, committed “strive to meet 100% domestic renewable energy production as rapidly as possible, while working to end energy poverty and protect water and food security, taking into consideration national circumstances.” They promised “to help each other with our respective transition plans to transform our energy, transport and other sectors, and together ensure support is made available in terms of capacity building, financing and technology.”

This CVF call is exactly right for the Philippines.

While President Duterte has already announced his decision to ratify the Paris Agreement, the Department of Energy (DOE) is not yet on board. This is because Energy Secretary Alfonsi Cusi is concerned that  the department  will not be able to fulfill its mandate to ensure energy security for the country if we implement the Paris Agreement.

In our view, this is a misappreciation of the Paris Agreement. In fact, if implemented properly, the Paris Agreement will lead us to a more energy secure future. 

Moving forward, when we ratify the Paris Agreement, we should accompany it with a declaration that the Intended Nationally Determined Contribution we submitted in Paris is not yet final. The wording of that commitment actually implies that but we should be explicit that we will finalize our reduction number by 2018 after a bottom up process where government departments will submit their contributions to the mitigation commitment based on their respective numbers. That should give comfort to the DOE whose first order of priority should be to ensure sustainable and energy access for everyone in our country, for the private and business sector and for poor and local communities. To achieve that, the right way forward is implementing an optimal energy mix.

Toward an optimal energy mix

In the past months, much has been said and is being done about the country’s optimal energy mix. 

The government has called for a review of the unofficial but widely known 30 coal-30 natural gas-30 renewable energy-10 oil energy mix policy to assess whether it meets quality, security, reliability, and affordability – the foremost considerations of this administration. 

The current energy mix is composed of coal, renewable energy, natural gas, and oil. Coal appears to be highly favored because it is the cheapest (at least for now) despite opposition mostly from environmental groups. The supply of indigenous natural gas is under threat because of the depletion of the Malampaya reserves.

Renewable energy (RE) (at least solar and wind) costs are rapidly decreasing while the feed-in tariff allowance charged to consumers has surged by 200% (and still faces the possibility of increasing).  These are some of the numerous issues facing the varying energy sources of the country amidst the national objective of achieving a rebalanced high-income economy by 2040.  

“Optimizing our Energy Mix”, part two of the three-part policy brief series “Getting Our Act Together”. zeroes in on the importance of energy in economic growth, and how an energy mix policy can support that growth. The brief reviews the current energy mix of the country using the internationally accepted standards of the energy trilemma (security, equity, and environmental sustainability).  Afterwards, it advocates initial steps for an easier transition towards an energy mix characterized by security, equity, and environmental sustainability.

The country’s energy mix is dominated by coal at 44.51%. 

In the short term, coal addresses security (the resource and the power plants are accessible and available) and equity (it is cheap at Php 2.9 to Php 3.5 per kWh) but not sustainability (its external cost to the environment and health is Php 2.78 to 2.82 per kWh). In the long-term, coal fails to satisfy all three components of the energy trilemma.  Majority of the coal is imported, and 70% is imported from just one country (due to the lower freight cost).  It is more expensive when operated at less than 60% capacity factor (specifically its cost increases to Php 4 to Php 4.8 per kWh). 

Still, the country expects a coal-dominated future (with 54% coal in the capacity mix and 66% coal in the energy mix by 2022). This compromises energy security, equity, and sustainability.  

Following coal in the energy mix is total RE at 25.44% comprising both of conventional (hydropower and geothermal power) and emerging (solar, wind, run-of-river hydro, and biomass) RE. In the short term, RE addresses sustainability but not security (due to its intermittency and uncertainty) and equity (at least for emerging RE since the cost is pegged to the feed-in tariff rate). 

In the long term, RE satisfies all three components of the energy trilemma.  Advancements in RE (i.e. capture, collection, and storage technology) have emerged to cope with intermittency and uncertainty.  Also, quick developments in technology are bringing the cost of emerging RE down (solar and wind are expected to decrease to about Php 4 per kWh and Php 3 per kWh respectively by 2020). This is followed by the question of whether or not FIT is still needed for solar and wind.  It is important to note that conventional RE, which makes up 23.92% of the RE share in the energy mix, has not received any subsidy. 

The third largest share in the energy mix is natural gas at 22.91.

In the short term, natural gas addresses the energy trilemma. It is sourced locally, is ideal as a mid-merit plant because of its flexibility, and can compete with coal when the latter is operated at less than 60% capacity factor.  It also produces only one-third of the carbon emissions of coal.  In the long term, natural gas fails to satisfy energy security (because the country will have to import natural gas once Malampaya is depleted), environmental sustainability (since it is after all a fossil fuel), and possibly equity (just like imported coal, imported natural gas exposes energy supply and price to volatile international market conditions).

The smallest percentage share of the energy mix is oil-based technology at 7.14%. In both the short and long term, oil based technologies fail to address the energy trilemma. Oil is imported. It is the most expensive among the fossil fuels, and its price is extremely volatile. Moreover, it is at par with coal when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. Still, oil plants are vital because they serve missionary areas and satisfy the peaking requirements of the country’s portfolio (although simple cycle gas plants may equally be capable of doing so.)  

Addressing the energy trilemma

Considering the Philippines’ growth objectives, the government’s mandate to establish an energy mix that addresses the trilemma, and the current energy mix, it becomes clear that government’s priority should be to diversify. 

Three immediate courses of action are required:

1. Reduce overdependence on coal to address security and efficiency issues (insofar as coal plants that do not operate as baseload and/or operate at less than 60% capacity factor);
2. Increase, if not maintain, the share of natural gas (since it addresses the duck curve caused by intermittent RE); and
3. Set the stage for a flexible environment to capitalize on swift market and technological changes in RE.  

Optimizing the coal share in the energy mix and reducing the use of imported coal can be done through the following policies. 

First, set a cap on coal plant endorsements using a portfolio based approach. This can be done by limiting the endorsements of new coal plants to the projected baseload demand of each region taking into account the changing needs of the economy. 

Second, create a gold standard for coal plants. The gold standard for existing plants would be in the form of (1) performance guards because as coal plants age they become more inefficient and thus more expensive, and (2) implementation of Sec. 13 and 19 of the Clean Air Act. For new plants, the gold standard can be a policy that only ultra-supercritical plants can be built. 

Third, compliance of new plants with BOI environmental criteria set in the Investment Priorities Plan and BOI Memorandum Circular 2015-01.  

Allowing natural gas to compete

Once coal's share is reduced, natural gas will be allowed to compete and optimize the mid-merit or at the very least, maintain its share in the current energy mix given the expected depletion of the Malampaya reserves. 

First, a comprehensive natural gas policy and legislative framework has to be legislated to attract private sector investment. There is a natural gas bill filed in the Senate.  Hopefully it will be enacted into law, unlike natural gas bills in the past Congresses.  

Second, support for the construction of natural gas infrastructure has to be given. A low hanging fruit would be streamlining and fast tracking the processing of applications for permit for the construction, expansion, operation, maintenance and modification of pipelines, transmission and distribution related facilities of natural gas. 

Third, other indigenous natural gas resources have to be explored, developed and produced, and each Philippine Energy Contracting Round (PECR) has to be swiftly resolved. An existing roadblock to the past PECR (and any future PECR) is the tax issue of the Malampaya consortium with the Commission on Audit.  

Reducing overdependence on one energy source increases the flexibility to take advantage of rapid RE developments. Increasing both conventional and emerging RE can be done through the full implementation of policies in the RE Act, which include net metering, FIT, renewable portfolio standards, and the green energy option. 

Also, incentives and government assistance for development and construction of conventional RE can be provided. Nuclear power can be explored as a new resource in the energy mix since it is reliable and efficient, and can counter the intermittency of variable RE. However, there is a high set-up cost and long-term skill base required for nuclear plants, while special precautions must also be undertaken to avoid any radioactive leaks and/or accidents.  

All of these set the stage towards achieving a quality, reliable, affordable, and more sustainable energy mix, which can be easily adjusted to meet innovations in technology, and even unexpected changes in economic growth and population. 

It is the responsibility of the government to provide these aforementioned policy directions as it works with the market (contrary to the view of letting the market decide) in order to attain a high-income economy, and energy security, equity, and sustainability.  

It's time to ratify and implement the Paris Agreement. For energy, we begin with aiming for an optimal energy mix. – Rappler.com

This is the second of a three-part series on climate change and energy. The articles are based on policy briefs produced under the “Getting our Act Together,” project of the Ateneo School of Government in partnership with SSG Advisors. This project was designed to contribute to the discourse on Philippine climate and energy policies as the country tries to balance its economic growth targets with the exigencies of sustainable development.

Tony La Viña is former dean of the Ateneo School of Government. He served as spokesperson of the Philippine delegation to the Paris talks in 2015.

Teresa Ira Maris (Tim) P. Guanzon is currently the Senior Policy Advisor of the Reform Energy Project.  She is a lawyer who specializes in public policy with a special interest in energy.  

Lawrence Ang (left photo) is Director for Asia for SSG Advisors – a global development solutions firm and impact investment advisory. He brings nearly ten years’ experience at the nexus of sustainable development and private sector engagement in the region.

 The rights of lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) persons have seen progress within the UN, with resolutions aimed at protecting and promoting these rights being adopted in recent years. But the Philippine government apparently does not want to involve itself.

The Philippines has taken a position of “strategic silence” on LGBTIQ concerns. On June 30, 2016, the Philippines abstained on a Human Rights Council Resolution (A/HRC/32/L.2/Rev.1) vote to create a new Independent Expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI), a mechanism to help monitor, report, and call attention to governments on human rights violations against LGBTIQ persons in their states. The Resolution was approved by a majority vote despite strong opposition, and the special mandate was created.

On November 21, 2016, a strong move to challenge the legality of the Independent Expert on SOGI and to obstruct its work was defeated. A resolution (A/C.3/71/L.46) was filed at the Third of Committee of the UN General Assembly by conservative states, many of whom continue to harass and criminalize LGBTIQ persons. As a counter-response, several countries led by those from Latin America filed an amendment (A/C.3/71/L.52) to uphold the legitimacy of the Independent Expert on SOGIE and the credibility of the June 2016 Human Rights Council decision. Meanwhile, the Philippines, true to its position of silence, abstained.

Abstaining indicates a lack of political commitment to take a clear stance on the rights of LGBTIQ persons.

This was clearly manifest in the speech the Philippine Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, given during the June 30, 2016 UN Human Rights Council vote. Our Ambassador expressed that the Philippines was not ready to support a mechanism that would pursue a set of human rights standards that apply to persons regardless of SOGI. This is despite the fact that several national legislations already prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, such as the Magna Carta of Women (R.A. 9710), the Magna Carta of Social Workers (R.A. 9344), and the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the Anti-bullying Act of 2013 (R.A. 10627). Various local government units, including highly-populated cities such as Quezon City, Bacolod City, Cebu City and Davao City, have also passed ordinances penalizing discrimination against LGBTIQ persons. 

The fact of the matter is that our ambassador’s position simply refuses to give due recognition to our domestic realities, and trivializes the efforts of government and civil society to ensure that LGBTIQ Filipinos live with dignity.

Also contrary to the ambassador’s speech, agencies within the Executive branch have already taken key steps towards the fulfillment of the rights of LGBTIQ persons.

The Department of Education’s Child Protection Policy (Memorandum Order No. 40) guarantees the protection of all children from all forms of exploitation, violence and discrimination, regardless of SOGI. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) forbids discrimination against LGBTIQ people applying for civil service examinations (Office Memorandum 29-2010), and its Revised Policies on Merit Promotion Plan prohibits discrimination in the selection of employees based on various criteria, including gender. Very recently, the Department of Social Welfare and Development’s memorandum on Fostering a Gender-Inclusive Workplace recognized the right of every employee to wear a uniform consistent with their gender identity.

But these positive developments are not enough. The local LGBTIQ community, together with our allies in the government, will continue to advocate for laws and promote social inclusion.

It is important to note that even fellow Asian countries such as Japan, South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam, who have supported LGBTIQ-related UN resolutions, face problems back home. But unlike the Philippines, they have expressed a political commitment to ensure the enjoyment of universal human rights and fundamental freedoms by LGBTIQ persons worldwide.

Reliable sources have pointed out that the government’s abstain position is an outcome of an inter-agency agreement. But their excuse was uselessly vague. Which agencies were involved? What were the arguments? When was the agreement made? Were LGBTIQ activists and organizations consulted?

The only thing clear from this situation is sheer disappointment in an institution that continues to be silent when their duty demands otherwise. Their deliberate exclusion of the LGBTIQ community from meaningful participation on matters related to government’s external human rights policies must be called out. – Rappler.com

The author is regional coordinator of the ASEAN SOGIE Caucus

Death has always played a central role in Philippine life. The practice of mourning, or lamay in Tagalog, has long energized the families and communities of the dead, drawing them together around the corpse to send it on its way. 

The dead is an absent presence – an ineluctably paradoxical and powerful figure – the control of which is believed to lie at the basis of social life. In this sense, the loss of a loved one is both promise and threat. In the pre-colonial period, realizing the former while preventing the latter required rituals of mourning. The dead were transformed into figures of respect and deference – that is, into ancestors to whom the living address petitions for blessings and protection. At the same time, the living render offerings with which to ward off any malevolent ghostly returns. 

Spanish Christianity capitalized and altered this ancient practice of mourning the dead. Colonized lowlanders were compelled to celebrate less the resurrection as the passion: the humiliation and the bloodied murder of Christ as seen in the Pasyon, the Cenaculo, and the omnipresent depictions of his mangled, wounded body on the cross.

With the rise of nationalism, death became a potent political issue. As several scholars have pointed out, Jose Rizal's manner of dying proved to be far more significant than his way of living, spurring people to join the Revolution against Spain. Often referred to as the "Filipino Christ," his corpse was so powerful that his family sought to protect it, by burying it in a secret grave in Paco to prevent others, including the Spaniards, from digging it up and dumping it in some unknown spot. The singular importance of Rizal's death is such that his remains were eventually transferred close to the place of his execution where his monument is a kind of cemetery built for him and him alone. While details of his life are complex, the fact of his death is simple enough so that he could serve as the chief icon, some would say fetish, of the nation.

Compare the death of Rizal with that of other heroes. Bonifacio's judicial execution and Luna's extrajudicial killing were carried out not by the enemies of the revolution but on the orders of the first Filipino dictator, Aguinaldo. Their death, unmourned by the nascent nation, split the revolutionary forces apart and set the stage for collaboration with the American forces.

Ramon Magsaysay's death, because it was accidental, was widely mourned but was never politicized. By contrast, Ninoy's assassination by figures whose identities remain shadowy had tremendous historical consequences. His death echoed in the minds of many the execution of Rizal and the Pasyon of Christ. He was mourned for over three years, and at the end of it, people came together at EDSA (and other places around the archipelago) for a massive show of damay. Collective mourning as political expression spilled into the streets and evolved into practices of resistance that halted the military, impressed the world, and forced the Marcoses to flee in the dark, much like the hasty burial of Ferdinand a few days ago. Cory, his widow, infused by Ninoy’s martyred legacy, went on to govern in his name.

Death of OFWs

In the post-EDSA period, we witnessed the massive outpouring of mourning for Flor Contemplacion, the OFW accused of killing her Singaporean ward. Most Filipinos thought she was wrongly accused, and pleaded for mercy from what seemed like a callous Singaporean state. She epitomized for many the "heroism" of so many OFWs, especially women, forced to leave their own family (another theme in the narrative of heroism: departure, exile, persecution, and death so that others may live). Copious tears shed by Nora Aunor in the film version of her life and death tied together the country and translated into a collective feeling of being persecuted by the governments of both Singapore and the Philippines. Underlying this sense of persecution was also gendered feelings of guilt and shame for having allowed "our women" to be exploited by foreigners.

Yet, the death of Flor and other OFWs then as now never did escalate to calls for regime change. Why? Perhaps because OFWs, like many of the poor people daily gunned down, are seen as contractual workers with little or no rights, and so disposable in both material and symbolic senses. For that reason, compassion for them seems transient and episodic at best. As in life so in death: those on the margins are less likely to stir national compassion as those from the elite sectors of society.

And so it was with Cory Aquino’s own death exquisitely timed to coincide with the corruption scandals that beset the regime of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. In contrast to Gloria, Cory’s life was mythologized, her "sins" wiped away. Her saintliness was fully restored, thanks to the necrological aura that was deeded to her by Ninoy, whose own messy political past was sanctified by virtue of his assassination. As with all martyrs, death became the standpoint from which to regard their lives. Cory’s necrological aura was then passed on to her son, Benigno III. He combined the hallowed name of the father with the "innocence" of the mother. In a great show of damay, the people propelled him to the presidency over his more technocratic, corrupt and charisma-challenged opponents.

Rodrigo Duterte's ascendancy represents an inversion, but not an overthrow, of the political logic of mourning.

Among other things, he emerged from the growing disaffection over PNoy's inability to show affection, especially for the dead and their survivors: the victims of Yolanda, Zamboanga, the Mamasapano policemen, all the way back to the hostage crisis that marked his first year. Perceived to be emotionally inept, he seemed incapable of awa and unable to exercise the most elementary forms of consolation.

By contrast, Duterte not only showed he cared, but that he was willing to kill others to show it. Like the action star Fernando Poe Jr, his apocalyptic posturing was backed up by his murderous record. Speaking in the vernacular, his dark threats were inflected by the idiom of Old Testament revenge. Duterte came across as the prophet ready to reckon with evil-doers, or at least those he designated as such: drug lords and drug users. In the pursuit of his mission, he respected only one law – his own. 

Swept up by a near messianic frenzy, he was elected by a plurality of Filipinos drawn to his tall tales and hyperbolic promises to kill, and kill pa more. In doing so, he also seemed to expose himself to death, frequently announcing his willingness to die for the country: a hero before his time. That he could joke and cuss his way to this kind of pre-emptive martyrdom was seen by his supporters as an added bonus, proof of his earthy passion for the common man.

Politicizing the dead

In the wake of his election and in the midst of his obsessive war on drugs, we have all become familiar with the collection of bodies executed nightly, the signs of what Duterte and his chief of police consider to be progress.

Duterte uses these corpses to his political advantage. However, he has politicized the dead differently. He sees in the abjected, marked figures not occasions for mournful reflections but clear evidence of his sovereignty in the face of international and local criticisms against possible human rights violations. Reveling in the remains of the dead, he stands up to foreign norms as a way of safeguarding the putatively imperiled lives of his people. He is the punisher and the protector whose campaign slogan, after all, was "courage and compassion."

Against the mounting numbers of the dead, mostly poor, mostly marginalized and forgotten, and thus unmourned except by those close to them, there now re-emerges another corpse: that of Ferdinand Marcos. While he has paid no heed to the sufferings of the families of those executed in his bloody drug wars, Duterte has been solicitous to a fault where the Marcos family is concerned. He had even made it a campaign promise to have the body of the father buried as a soldier and hero (in exchange, of course, for a yet to be disclosed campaign contribution from the eldest daughter).

Thanks to President Duterte, Marcos receives official awa and state-sanctioned damay. But this is not the case for others: those killed and left to bleed on the streets, and those who had been victimized by Marcos's forces – tortured, raped, and salvaged. There is nothing for them: no recognition, only condescension and enforced oblivion.

Thus the politics of death whereby corpses speak and stand for contending claims about power, rights, justice, and vindication. Breaking out of their neo-liberal graves, the dead have returned to haunt the living, bringing them towards the edge of something, perhaps towards some sort of reckoning.

In sanctioning the dictator's burial, the President has left other victims unmourned, re-politicizing the question of death that has long animated Filipino life. Unleashing the affective demands for pity and compassion, mourning has fueled yet again the calls for justice and accountability. – Rappler.com

Vicente L. Rafael teaches history at the University of Washington in Seattle. 

The controversial burial of Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani last week sparked a raging debate online about how the late dictator continues to affect Filipinos today.

On the one hand, the pro-Marcos camp has pointed out that Filipinos today benefit from a number of good things that Marcos championed, including the presidential decree on 13^th month pay and several big infrastructure projects.

On the other hand, the anti-Marcos camp has rebutted that Filipinos today continue to suffer from the billions worth of debt that Marcos accumulated and plundered, the egregious human rights violations he sanctioned during Martial Law, and his bastardization of our democratic institutions. 

We argue in this article that, 3 decades after he was ousted, Marcos continues to have a substantial yet invisible impact on Filipinos today: Were it not for his bad economic policies and mismanagement, the average Filipino today would now be enjoying an annual income 3 to 4 times larger than what he or she currently earns.

We lost two decades of development

In a previous Rappler article, JC Punongbayan and Kevin Mandrilla showed that one way to measure a country’s path to development is by looking at income per person (GDP per capita).

Although imperfect, GDP per capita is widely recognized as a useful proxy for measuring people’s welfare: The larger people’s incomes are, the more goods and services they can purchase and the freer they are in making choices for their own lives.

It bears repeating that, based on this metric, the Philippines lost two decades of development after the debt crisis in the early 1980s. Figure 1 shows that the Marcosian debt crisis put the country on a lower income trajectory. As a result, it took more than two decades for the average Filipino’s income to recover its 1982 level. 

Importantly, no such downturn was observed in our ASEAN neighbors. In fact, their incomes grew by 2 to 4 times during the time it took us to just recover. This suggests that the Philippines’ “lost decades of development” were not unavoidable and were borne directly by Marcos’ policies.

What if we did things differently?

Looking back, one might ask: What if we had done things differently? What if the country had stayed on its original income trajectory?

Such “counterfactual” thinking is common in everyday life. By using the right kind of data and statistical models, we can similarly imagine hypothetical scenarios of what the average Filipino’s income would have looked like.

Figure 2 compares the Philippines’ actual income trajectory (orange trend) and certain hypothetical scenarios from 1965 to 2014 (blue, green, and brown trends).

The blue trend answers the following question: If we had replicated or mimicked the growth of our large neighbors – Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand – from 1965 onwards, how much more income would the ordinary Filipino have enjoyed today?

The green trend is just a more conservative version of the blue trend. The brown trend is based on our neighbors’ worst-case scenario: What if the average Filipino’s income grew at the same pace as our worst-performing neighbor in each year?

We would have enjoyed higher incomes today

As you can see, the actual income trend we experienced as a nation fared worse than all hypothetical incomes.

The blue and green trends deviated from the orange trend (actual income) as early as the late 1960s. This suggests that even during the early years of Marcos’ first term as president, the Philippines had started to stagnate vis-à-vis its regional neighbors.

Meanwhile, the brown trend deviated around the time of the debt crisis, and since then it even fared better than our actual income trend. In other words, Filipinos’ incomes grew even slower than our neighbors’ worst performers.

Most importantly, Figure 2 shows that we would have enjoyed much higher incomes today had we done things differently since 1965. The blue and green trends show that in 2014 the average Filipino would have enjoyed an income 3 to 4 times larger than what she or he was actually earning.

Think of how different your life would be if you earned 3 to 4 times more than your current income. Millennials earning a monthly income of, say, P30,000 could instead be earning somewhere between P90,000 to P120,000. Generally higher incomes would have improved the living standards of a vast majority of Filipinos and lifted so many families out of poverty.

Put another way, our results show that the average Filipino’s income today is just a fraction of what it would have been. Around the time of the debt crisis, we already lost as much as 50% of our potential income. As a result, the average Filipino’s income in 2014 was just 27% to 36% of its potential.

We would have been one of ASEAN’s richest countries today

Furthermore, because of our deviant economic path during the Marcos era, we lost the opportunity to become one of the most prosperous countries in ASEAN. Figure 3 shows that by 2014 the Philippines would have been more prosperous than Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand.

Instead, we found ourselves becoming the region’s laggard, the “sick man of Asia”. One by one our neighbors overtook us, and soon, even Vietnam is poised to overtake us. Today we find ourselves needing to catch up with our neighbors rather than leading them.

Conclusion: Marcos stole our future as well

It’s bad enough that the Marcoses stole so much from the Filipino people already, from billions worth of ill-gotten wealth to last week’s swift and clandestine burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

But the data suggest one more important fact: Ferdinand E. Marcos effectively “stole” the Filipino people’s futures as well by ushering in a full-blown debt crisis and dragging the country to a much lower income trajectory.

Were it not for Marcos’ bad governance, the Philippines would’ve been more prosperous today. Put another way, Filipinos today continue to reel from the impact of Marcos’ regime in terms of the potential incomes we have lost.

How do we move on from this intergenerational treachery? While we can’t turn back time to rectify our mistakes in the distant past, we can still avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future.

To ensure that our futures will not be “stolen” again, we should never again surrender our economic and political freedoms to charismatic strongmen with authoritarian tendencies. We should also make sure that our leaders do not implement short-sighted policies with little regard for the future well-being of Filipinos.

Maintaining a democracy is hard work, and our liberties are more fragile than most people think. That is why we should continue to engage ourselves in the running of our country by remaining vigilant and keeping a critical mind. No less than the future of our country is at stake. – Rappler.com

Technical notes for Figure 2: The data refer to GDP per capita in 2005 international dollars PPP (RGDP^NA variable). Counterfactual trends for Philippine GDP per capita were generated using a Kalman-filtered state-space representation of the dynamic factor model (DFM) which extracts the shared co-movement of GDP per capita growth in Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia. Alternative scenario 1 shows the baseline DFM estimates. Similar results were obtained when the counterfactuals were computed using the simple average and median growth rates in our neighbors. Alternative scenario 2 assumes that the Philippines is, on average, less sensitive to the expansion of our neighbors’ GDP per capita. 

JC Punongbayan is a PhD student and Teaching Fellow at the UP School of Economics (UPSE). Manuel Leonard Albis is an Assistant Professor at the UP School of Statistics (UPSS) specializing in time series analysis, and also a PhD student at UPSE. Their views do not necessarily reflect the views of their affiliations. Thanks to Kevin Mandrilla for valuable comments and suggestions.

 I can still remember being in the student council in the ‘90s talking to student leaders who had come before us.

According to them, times had changed. Our generation was more apathetic, more concerned about material things and less willing to sacrifice for a better Philippines.

They were, after all, the student leaders that endured the tail end of Martial Law and marched on EDSA. They were student leaders who lived and served through more exciting times, when stakes were higher.

Sound familiar?

Is this how every preceding generation feels when it’s time to pass on the baton to the younger set?

Hopefully with this article, I will buck this trend and instead of talking about how millennials are the selfie-obsessed generation, I will share why I am confident our youth will make this country, maybe even the world, a better place.

1. Millennials can handle change

We live in the world of artificial intelligence (AI), self-driving vehicles, robotics, the internet of things (IoT), 3D printing, and so many other technological advancements that were mere science fiction to many of us some years ago.

It’s a rapidly changing world that inspires events like the upcoming OCEAN16 (Open Collaboration with East Asia New Champions) Conference, a biennial gathering happening on Nov. 24 to 26 in Bohol, that brings together multi-sectoral leaders to connect, discover new ideas, and shape a more creative and innovative future together.

We are in the midst of the “Fourth Industrial Revolution,” what World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab calls the “fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres.” 

And while older generations are still starting to make sense of these new realities, Millennials are “early adopters” who dive headfirst into these technologies and help us unlock its possibilities.

I am reminded of a young Filipino innovator named Matthew Cua and his multi-award-winning company, SkyEye. Matt and his team took the popular technology of “drones”, which is more popularly used to take photos and videos for creative content, and instead used them for aerial mapping, property surveying, and similar services. This year, SkyEye worked with the World Bank to identify areas in the Philippines that need to be prioritized for road construction. 

2. Millennials navigate through chaos and are “G” to take risks

Let’s face it: change can get messy. And the mess gets even more complicated when it’s amplified on social media and multiplied by millions of other voices. It’s sometimes easier to just tune out of all the noise than to dive into it and separate what’s worth tackling and what’s not.

Millennials, however, are undeterred. In a recently-released study by communications firms McCann Worldgroup Philippines, called The Truth About Youth, it was said that “96% of Filipino youth feel that we all have a responsibility to make a positive contribution to the community we live in (vs. 89% globally).” That study called Filipino youth, “community-driven activists.”  

That same study said that “Young people want agility and responsiveness when it matters.” Millennials are impatient and want quick answers—yes—but perhaps that is the key to also making positive change happen in our communities. 

What comes to mind here is the civic organization called Bantay.ph. Using the Anti-Red Tape Act (ARTA) as its legislative springboard, the group uses technology to monitor government services at the local government (LGU) level, and allows users to rate their LGU in terms of compliance, transparency, facilities, process flow, and officers.  

Bantay.ph even has a “fixer alert” that identifies if fixers were “spotted and/or reported lurking around in the city hall.” It also works with Contact Center ng Bayan  to allow people to report cases of poor governance through the website or a simple telephone number: 1-65-65. 

Our office has been supportive of Bantay.ph and we look forward to cutting more red tape and promoting a culture of efficiency in our government through the Government Efficiency Office Act or Senate Bill No. 348. 

3. Millennials navigate through highly connected networks

For a country of 101 million people, we have over 119 million mobile phone subscriptions. A multi-screening, “mobile-first” nation, we spend up to three hours (possibly even more) each day on our mobile screens, and over 55% of Filipinos have a mobile broadband subscription. 

We’re probably the most hyper-connected country in the region, but because we’re also one of the most disaster-prone and climate-vulnerable countries in the world, Filipino Millennials have put our connectivity to good use beyond typical business and social needs.  

#RescuePH, for example, uses the power of social media and crowdsourcing to report and monitor those who need rescuing in times of natural disasters. 

There is also Project Agos, a platform that uses the web, mobile technologies, and social media to help people prepare for and respond to natural disasters. A multi-sectoral effort launched in 2014, Project Agos releases geo-hazard maps and enables people to report disasters in order to direct help to where it is most needed. 

I’m also inspired by the example set by Young Pioneer Disaster Response, a non-profit organization established in Bantayan Island, Cebu, to provide ongoing rehabilitation efforts since Bantayan had been severely affected by Supertyphoon Yolanda in 2013. From an empty plot of land, YPDR put up a bamboo factory that now creates bamboo cups for a pizza brand named Isla Ora Pizza Co and also builds bamboo homes for Yolanda survivors. It’s a great way to combine social media, analog technologies (such as bamboo), and Pinoys’ love of food to fuel disaster response efforts.

4. Millennials care about the environment and sustainability

When we speak of natural disasters and climate vulnerability, we also need to address the sustainability of our planet, our country, and our communities. 

As a member of the World Economic Forum and OCEAN communities, I am proud to see that many Filipino Millennials from these communities have committed themselves to addressing some pressing issues that affect the earth and the way we live in it. These include Anna Oposa of Save Philippine Seas, a movement that works on marine conservation through information, education, communication activities, and community-based projects; Cherrie Atilano of Agrea, a Marinduque-based social enterprise that promotes sustainability by ensuring that farmers and fisherfolk are treated with dignity, as critical players in our supply chain. 

I am also inspired by Rachel Villa of Cropital, an innovative crowdfunding platform that allows people to grow their money by providing small, bankable loans to farmers. There are also the likes of young Filipino inventors Aisa and Raphael Mijeno of SALt (Sustainable Alternative Lighting), the sibling tandem who developed a sustainable lamp made out of saltwater ; and Amin Hataman, the Basilan-based, 15-year old inventor who created biodegradable plastic made of the coconut by-product, nata de coco. (Source: http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/issues/mindanao/124045-basilan-forbes-young-scientist-amin-hataman-biodegradable-bags) 

They all prove that youthful ideas, when combined with the heart for the environment and the right technologies, can make a huge impact on the future of our country and our planet.

5. Millennials are passionate about purpose

Contrary to what other generations think, young people are not always self-obsessed. There are many out there who use their knowledge, skills, and talent to lift up other people and create communities of change.

In the same McCann youth study, it was revealed that “92% of young people in the Philippines believe that global brands have the power to make the world better.” Here at home, there are already some young entrepreneurs who are using the power of great design and brand-building to directly empower communities while producing products that people want to buy.

These include Reese Fernandez-Ruiz of Rags2Riches, a social enterprise that turns rags into upscale bags and home accessories, now available in many parts of the world; Bryan McClelland of Bambike, a social enterprise that hand-makes bamboo bicycles with fair-trade labor and sustainable building practices; Anya Lim of Anthill Fabric Gallery, a fashion retail brand that makes it chic to wear our own indigenous weaves and patterns; and Koh Onozawa of Loudbasstard the eco-friendly bamboo speaker amplifier that made the world sit up and take notice of ingenious, Filipino product design.

Challenge of empowering the Millennial Generation

The examples above barely scratch the surface of the great work that’s already being done by Filipino Millennials butwe also know that there are two sides to a coin—that social media and technology come with their own pitfalls and dark corners that may put some of our youth at risk.

For instance, we know for a fact that trolls and cyberbullies exist, and that there is now the proliferation of fake news sites and a lot of paid, false propaganda that prey on the innocence of our youth.

McCann’s Truth About Youth also reveals  that 22% of the Filipino survey respondents said that they had written negative comments online about people they knew. This puts our Filipino Millennials above the global average of 16%.

How are we going to deal with this as a community? How are we going to ensure that the youth’s strengths are harnessed, while protecting them from influences that seek to make them more cynical, even hateful?

More than protecting our youth, I’m a firm believer in empowerment and giving people the tools and proper support to overcome challenges on their own.

In the case of social media, we filed a senate resolution on responsible social media use and recently conducted a senate hearing with the Department of Education to explore the role of our schools and education system in combating misinformation and cyberbullying.

For our Millennials who endeavor to make a difference through social enterprises and progressive businesses, we’ve passed laws in support of local businesses and continue to file bills to encourage start-ups and social entrepreneurship.

We’ve filed the Innovative Start-up Act, the PRESENT Bill, and the Inclusive Business Act, among others, to create an enabling environment for young entrepreneurs raring to improve communities through enterprise.

The Youth Entrepreneurship Act has already been passed into law and mandates the inclusion of, not only financial literacy, but also entrepreneurial training and the introduction of social enterprise development in our basic education in the hopes of molding the conscientious Filipino businessmen of the future. 

There is  so much potential in the Filipino youth. The McCann youth study says that 91% of Filipino youth agree with the statement, “It is important to be inclusive and welcoming to all kinds of people.” The study also shows how “younger people are far more focused on social equality,” paying attention to issues such as racial and gender equality, and even LGBTQ rights and transgender issues. 

Filipino Millennials also over-indexed when it came to talking about leaving a legacy, with 26% of them saying, “I’d like to be remembered as a person who changed the world in a positive way.”

Clearly, there is a desire and a drive among young Filipinos to create a better world. 

With our trust and support, I am hopeful that our millennials will not only stand up for the values and ideals that they hold dear by speaking out on social media and trending hashtags, but also through relentlessly pursuing positive change in the real world. – written with Niña Terol and Janine Ramirez/Rappler.co

The contradictions are beginning to show, and it is unfortunate that – for me at least – they go back to Mindanao, President Duterte’s home island. 

When the President deemed Marcos a hero and a soldier who fought with honor in World War II, it was bizarre how he overlooked what the dictator did to Muslim Mindanao while remembering General Leonard Wood and Bud Dajo.

The war, argues a couple of the President’s supporters, was a rebellion by a community that wanted to leave the Republic in the first place, and the MNLF was getting military assistance from Libya (a terrorist state) and Malaysia (which refused to return Sabah to us, its rightful owner). Thousands of Moros were killed, wounded and forced to leave their homes – but these were the consequences of war. Besides,  Marcos’s war never affected the Christian/settler side of the island. 

Alas, not true. 

The dictatorship weakened the MNLF by convincing Libya to compel the MNLF to accept arbitration, but it did not anticipate the growth of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). The CPP had overcome its initial setbacks, and through sheer determination and creativity, it expanded in areas where communists had not gone before. 

The details of this incredible expansion are still incomplete, but we know its general contours. The Party created a Mindanao Commission to oversee the development of the NPA and the urban underground in the Christian provinces. There were attempts to organize among the Maranaos and Magindanaos, but these fizzled out, with one cadre abandoning the Party and joining the MNLF.

The dictator responded by just expanding the AFP’s killing zone to the entire eastern Mindanao seaboard, the two Misamis provinces, Zamboanga del Norte and Bukidnon. Other parts of the country were not spared: where the revolution spread, the military followed. Soon much of the archipelago had become a militarized zone.

In his book, "The Philippines: People, Poverty, and Politics" (published by St. Martin’s Press in 1987), Leonard Davis included the following statistics on disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and arrests between 1977, the year when the MNLF war receded and 1985, the eve of the fall of the dictatorship.

Disappearances (1977-1985)

Total: 703

Manila: 27 (3.8 percent to total)

Luzon: 142 (20.1 percent to total)

Visayas: 89 (12.6 percent to total)

Mindanao: 445 (63.3 percent to total)

Extrajudicial killings (1977-1985)

Total: 2,384

Manila: 12 (0.5% of total)

Luzon: 490 (20.5% of total)

Visayas: 371 (15.5% of total)

Mindanao: 1,511 (63.3% of total)

Arrests (1977-1985)

Manila: 2,968 (15.4% of total)

Luzon: 2,613 (13.6% of total)

Visayas: 1,728 (9.0% of total)

Mindanao: 12,888 (67.1% of total)

The figures show which part of the country had suffered the most under the dictatorship. Over half of the disappearances, extrajudicial killings and arrests happened in Mindanao. The sufferings and deaths were not as intense as in the Muslim zones, but these were still devastating, given that before Martial Law, there was relative peace in these areas. 

Moreover, the good thing was that despite the cruelty heaped on them, Mindanawons found a way to fight back. There were the NPA and the MNLF, but there were also ordinary folks who resisted in their small ways – denying the enemy local resources, invoking religion to shame the occupation army to guilt, to appealing to civilian leaders and, in certain cases, Marine commanders, to defend them.

By 1984, the tide had turned.

The AFP had lost its fighting capacity, the rank-and-file questioning why they were in Mindanao. Factionalism had weakened the institution as middle level, and younger officers began to challenge the senior leadership and their civilian bosses. The Reform the AFP Movement that the writer Criselda Yabes and historian Alfred W. McCoy wrote about was born in Mindanao. The Young Officers’ Union (YOU) and the Magdalo leaders also earned their spurs in Mindanao, and their politicization was no different from the RAM. It was in response to the unbridled corruption on top and the unclear yet extremely politicized mission to Mindanao.

The CPP’s growth stopped when its leaders reined in then purged the Mindanao Commission. The latter also unraveled because of KAHOS – the internal campaign to weed out military infiltrators that deteriorated into the indiscriminate torture and killing of the revolution’s own. The party’s national strategy was never the same again since it eliminated a disobedient regional subordinate.

It is therefore incomprehensible how the Duterte administration can ignore these facts. It was not just the Moros who suffered from the brutality of the Marcos dictatorship; all of Mindanao suffered. One would expect the country’s first Mindanawon president to at least acknowledge that.  

It was Marcos. Today, being Mindanawon comes with blinders, as the President’s political loyalty to a family trumps fidelity to the home island.– Rappler.com

Patricio N. Abinales is a teacher.

The following piece has been exhumed from the June 12, 1998 issue of BusinessWorld; it is also in the writer’s collection of essays Worse than free (Anvil, 2005). It appears here untouched but for a few corrected literals and bracketed additions for amplification. The exhumation was inspired by the hero’s burial for Ferdinand Marcos.

It seems that Marcos will get a better deal than The Manila Chronicle. 

Despite his plundering past, he may yet get his widow’s brazen wish for him to lie among heroes. After all, no less than the incoming president himself [Joseph Estrada] has offered to be his undertaker.

The Chronicle, on the other hand, has no prospects of even a decent burial, in spite if its more illustrious record of public service. It won as many awards as the next newspaper, if not more, and was in fact disqualified for a prestigious one after winning it four straight times [as Newspaper of the Year]. And even if you say that its motives were less than patriotic, it fought Marcos.

Marcos and the Chronicle are comparable not only for their lopsided luck in death; indeed, they shared each other’s luck in life. He and the paper’s original owners were one-time political partners. They used their president-making powers, most blatantly through their paper, to get him elected in 1965, and, no doubt, got presidential favors in return.

A falling-out toward the end of the sixties bloomed into an open and bitter fight. Marcos prevailed, declared martial law, closed the paper, jailed its editor and publisher, impoverished its owners, and caused, they say, the heartbreak that killed its founder, Eugenio Lopez Sr. (Actually, Marcos closed all except two papers – the old-timer Bulletin and the newcomer Express.)

When the Chronicle returned in 1986, after Marcos had been bounced off into exile in Hawaii by a popular rising, it found itself struggling in a younger and crowded market, little remembered and, for all its conceded quality, hardly profitable. All the same, it struggled on.

On the seventh year, the majority, led by Eugenio Lopez Jr. [the son who had gone to Marcos’s prison], sold to Antonio Cojuangco Jr. and Robert Coyuito. Coyuito ran the already floundering paper, taking what residual glamor and power he thought it still gave, and eventually foundered it. When the unionists struck at the beginning of the year, over unpaid salaries and entitlements, they struck an already hopelessly dead paper – it had run up debts amounting to more than P100 million, with no redeemable assets.

Much earlier, Marcos had died scandalously wealthy, with billions of dollars to his Swiss number, if not exactly to his name. Back now in his native Batac town, in Ilocos Norte, awaiting his transfer to the heroes’ grounds in Manila, he lies preserved in a glass case, made up to look good (so good he looks more like a mannequin than a corpse) and made comfortable in an air-conditioned, light-studded mausoleum at the further expense of the very nation he had ruled as a dictator for 14 years and mortgaged to international creditors for generations to come. His family, friends, and associates have managed meanwhile to worm their way back into power. Joseph Estrada does not count himself among them – he is just an undertaker [a position he would be unable to discharge, at any rate – he would be kicked out of the presidency himself for plunder before midterm; Rodrigo Duterte would fulfill it 18 years later.]

But for the Chronicle and its employees, who have been left in the lurch all these months by its death, no one seems to care. The mere matter of burial has been complicated by differences between the owners. An executive who speaks for Cojuangco says that, while he is ready to do his share, Coyuito does not appear ready to do his. In fact, he does not appear at all, according to the strike leaders who have been trying to see him. My own efforts, made for the purpose of his column, have been similarly unrewarded.

Sharing in this case is reckoned of course in terms of money one must part with, and, surely, leaving the Chronicle unburied should suit the owners fine; it means the issue hangs, the debts go unpaid, and the employees remain on the street. Even if the issue were forced, the prospects would not be much brighter: court cases cost and drag.

What do people who don’t have jobs afford – people who, furthermore, belong in an industry overcrowded and approaching redundancy?

Certainly they can’t afford to owe or be owed to. Other than plead and wait, even for something that is due them, what can they really do?

[Meanwhile, the Chronicle stays dead but unburied.] – Rappler.com