MANILA, Philippines – The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is made up of countries with amazing cuisines, all sharing a common thread. One thing every ASEAN country has is a delicious noodle dish! With the oodles and oodles of noodles available in the region, there will always be something to warm your tummy during your travels.

Check out the following noodle dishes and tell us which one's your favorite!

– Rappler.com

#FridayFeels is a cartoon series by the Rappler Creatives Team. Cathartic, light, but relevant, it's a welcome break from your heavy news feed! You can pitch illustration ideas by sending a message to the Rappler Facebook page. 

Incentives play a key role in our daily lives. We can induce people to act in one way or another by changing the benefits and costs that they face.

The government also uses various carrots and sticks whenever it designs and implements public policies. The big difference is that such policies, when gone wrong, can have unintended (even fatal) consequences for society.

Incentives can be a powerful lens by which we can understand and analyze many public issues. In what follows, we look at the incentives surrounding 3 issues facing the Duterte government: the drug war, the Kadamay housing issue, and Chinese foreign policy.

Incentives in the drug war

How did deaths being linked to the government's war on drugs hit thousands, even reaching up to 9,000 people in just 10 months? By dangling a plethora of incentives along the way.

For one, the President said he used to kill drug suspects when he was mayor of Davao City. As president, he encouraged the Filipino people to do the same:

• To ordinary citizens, he said: “Kayong nandiyan sa neighborhood ninyo (those among you in your respective neighborhoods), feel free to call us, the police, or do it yourself if you have the gun, you have my support.”
• To the police, he said: “Do your duty and if in the process you kill 1,000 persons because you were doing your duty, I will protect you.”
• To OFWs in the Middle East, he said: “Tulungan mo akong patayin ang mga addict (help me kill addicts). Magpatay kayo ng addict araw-araw (kill addicts every day).”

Beyond mere words of encouragement, however, monetary incentives also seem to be involved.

In an insider report by anonymous senior police officials, cash rewards for killings are said to range from P10,000 per “troublemaker” (rapists, pickpockets, gang members, etc); P20,000 per street level drug pusher and user; P1 million per drug distributor, retailer, or wholesaler; and P5 million per drug lord.

Police officials are also said to impose quotas on “drug surrenderers” which the police go to great lengths to meet. Aside from the infamous “palit-ulo” scheme (where someone else is taken in exchange for the suspect), some policemen also round up random people in urban poor communities and force them to register as drug surrenderers (a documentary by National Geographic caught this on camera).

The ease by which people can be rounded up has incentivized some police into outright kidnapping for ransom. Just a few days ago, the Commission on Human Rights made a surprise inspection of Manila Police District Station 1 where they discovered a secret cell hidden behind a bookcase. There they found 12 suspected drug offenders allegedly held for ransom (reportedly from P40,000 to as much as P200,000).

The lists of drug surrenderers are also often turned into hit lists used by vigilantes. Documentaries by the BBC and the New York Times interviewed anonymous vigilante killers who admitted having direct links with the police, from whom they get these hit lists.

All in all, a cascade of perverse incentives explains how the President’s drug war has turned into a full-blown humanitarian crisis. To stop the killings, these incentives must be rooted out.

Incentives in the Kadamay housing issue

The President is also playing dangerously with incentives in the Kadamay housing issue.

In early March, around 6,000 families belonging to an urban poor group Kadamay occupied resettlement houses in Pandi, Bulacan. Such houses were meant for police and military personnel, but were left unoccupied for the longest time. President Duterte asked beneficiaries to give way to the Kadamay members “because they are poor.”

Recently, the National Housing Authority of Region 3 reported that collections from the Pandi housing sites have halved in March, following the occupation of Kadamay members. Current residents refused to pay the P200 monthly amortization after seeing that the Kadamay members were allowed to pay nothing. This, amid reports that legitimate residents could not freely access their own homes because of checkpoints set up by Kadamay members.

Almost as reprehensible as the occupation itself is the President’s reckless and ill-thought policy that sends the wrong message. By rewarding the unlawful occupation of socialized housing, not only will other militant groups be emboldened to conduct similar occupations nationwide, but legitimate homeowners will also lose any motivation to pay up.

Of course, we have to address the massive housing backlog of around 5.7 million units. But a policy that leads to a breakdown of property rights and rule of law is hardly the best way to go about it. The financial viability of other socialized housing projects could be compromised, making it even more difficult to reduce the housing backlog.

Incentives in Chinese foreign policy

Finally, incentives are also at play when it comes to our relations with China. But here, China is the one dangling the incentives, not President Duterte.

Following the President’s visit to Beijing last year, Chinese officials pledged around $6 billion in foreign aid plus $3 billion in loans to the Philippines, which the Duterte administration proudly said will help finance infrastructure development. This is the first time we will receive foreign aid from China.

At the same time, however, the President is projecting a decidedly soft stance when it comes to our sovereign claims in the disputed territories:

First, the President allowed a Chinese ship to survey Benham Rise and stay there for at least 3 months last year. Second, he said we cannot stop China from “doing its thing” and building facilities in Panatag Shoal. Third, he said “he can sell” islands in the West Philippine Sea if the Philippines becomes “very rich.”

In no way should President Duterte give the impression that we are trading away our sovereign claims for a few billion dollars of aid and loans. In the words of former foreign affairs secretary Albert del Rosario, such a submissive stance “puts us in a poor strategic position without the benefit of flexibility, especially if there is a need to negotiate.”

The ASEAN Summit is a great opportunity for the President to take a lead and show the world that our sovereign claims will not soften or yield, even as we receive a huge inflow of aid money and loans from China. However, the President already said he will not bring up the ruling of the international arbitral tribunal, claiming it’s a “non-issue.”

The power of incentives

Many social issues and public policies become clearer when viewed from the lens of incentives. In the same way that governments can dangle incentives to its citizens, governments can also dangle incentives to other governments.

As the congressional deliberations resume soon – and issues like the death penalty, lowering the age of criminal liability, and tax reform re-emerge in social discussions – our lawmakers should also bear in mind the direct and indirect effects their policies will have on the incentives people face. Otherwise, the laws they pass might only add to the nation’s problems, not its solutions.

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.

The Duterte regime should recall lessons from tragic history, but apparently it does not. The default is readily ascribed to the nation's prodigiously short memory, but that reason is itself underlain by a complex of other reasons.

The whole problem is cultural and pathological – and explosive, too, and President Duterte may just happen to be the one to detonate it.

There's something about Rodrigo Duterte that incites in one feelings so overwhelming one is rendered amnesic, witless. It's a power that lies in deviancy, a power that has divided the nation in his favor and yet has held both sides captive, one charmed, the other cowed.

Again, it should be alarming, if understood.

Duterte has partisans across the classes. The patron class and the rest of the upper classes embrace him as a fraternal fellow, being a dynastic patriarch himself, and naturally concede preeminence to him, being president.

Among the under-classes, on the other hand, he is the redeemer, the proper and true strongman who this time around will lift them from poverty, by shortcut, not by the already glacial-paced “development” methods that yet get derailed along the way; in their desperation, they are predisposed to grant him his crotchets; in fact they see them as hallmarks of genuineness.

To the partisans elsewhere on the class spectrum, he is a novelty worth trying.

And so Duterte gets away with his habitual flouting of the norms of propriety, civility, and decency. Not even the Pope was spared his profanities, nor the Pope’s Principal his denigration (“No one tells me what to do, not even God”), and this only Christian nation in these parts just about let both cases pass.

But it is his disregard for the rule of law and the right to life that has produced the direst consequences. The drug dealers and addicts, who to his one-track mind are the elemental scourge of the times and with whom he has made war, he has threatened, “I will kill you!” Sure enough, in 7 or 8 months more than 7,000 of them have dropped dead, and he says he’s not stopping; on the contrary, he says, he “will be happy to slaughter” the rest of the 3 million of them – that’s his own count.

A novelty Duterte is not; he is a mere variation on a theme of which in modern history Hitler is the primary figure, the very model of his promised happy slaughter; in fact a local counterpart and Duterte idol, too, lived until only a generation ago – Ferdinand Marcos.

Anyway, all that most instructive history has been lost in the nation’s selective memory.

Reminding the nation

But trust Duterte the narcissist to call attention to it in his own perversely confident fashion. At the 80th-birthday celebration of Joseph Estrada, the actor, impeached president, convicted plunderer, and now mayor of Manila, Duterte came and sat at the head table, there to be photographed for posterity, with him and two other characters of equal sterling reputation – Gloria Arroyo and Imelda Marcos.

Obviously the nation has to be reminded: Arroyo and Marcos are themselves accused of plunder, and that is not all. It was Arroyo who pardoned Estrada; it was also she who was the superior party in the infamous “Hello, Garci” phone conversation inciting the electoral commission to rig the vote for her retention as president. Now retired from her rigged presidency, she is a member of the House of Representatives, like Imelda, and is credibly rumored as being groomed as its Speaker. Imelda is who else but the surviving half of the 14-year conjugal dictatorship, mother of Ferdinand Jr, Duterte’s chosen heir to his presidency.

Duterte, Estrada, Arroyo, Marcos – they are our own Gang of Four, who, in the 60s and 70s, in its original Communist Chinese incarnation (another relevant lesson in history), was the ruthless power behind Mao Zedong. Upon Mao’s death, 3 of its members – one died in a plane crash, supposedly escaping, 5 years earlier – were tried for treason; two, one of them Mao’s wife, were sentenced to life in prison, the third to 20 years.

Our own gang would have been 5, but the aspirant fifth, Jejomar Binay, apparently did not make the grade. A multiple-term mayor of Makati, the country’s premier business town, and the last previous vice president, and accused of plunder, too, he'd had the proper reputation until he suffered his first electoral loss, and badly, in the last presidential race, the same one Duterte won. But one never knows. If his presence at the party signified a foot in the door, he might be in to some extent.

So, for now, make it Gang for Four and a Half. – Rappler.com

As enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, the government recognizes the valuable contribution of the private sector in attaining national development goals through public-private partnerships (PPPs). Further participation from the private sector is encouraged in the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) Law, which was passed in 1990 and amended in 1994.

Today, under the Duterte Administration’s 10-point socioeconomic agenda, PPPs are identified as one of the key strategies to accelerate infrastructure development.

Despite the success of PPPs in the Philippines, certain misconceptions continue to undermine the PPP program’s accomplishments. The PPP Center of the Philippines tackles some of these:

1. PPP is equivalent to privatization

There is a common misconception that PPP is equivalent to the privatization of projects. This, however, is not true. In PPPs, the government retains ownership of the facility, defines the extent of private sector’s participation and continues to hold regulatory oversight and control of the infrastructure project or facility.

In privatization, the government relinquishes its ownership of the asset to the private sector, who now owns and operates the asset—something PPP projects do not observe. Some examples of privatization include the power and water projects implemented under Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) and the Water Crisis Act, respectively.

2. The PPP Center is responsible for approving projects

The PPP center does not approve PPP projects. Instead, it is tasked to serve as the central coordinating and monitoring agency for all PPP projects in the Philippines.

The PPP center is attached to the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) and provides technical advice to Implementing Agencies (IAs) throughout the course of the project’s lifecycle.

The IA identifies an Investment Coordination Committee (ICC) Technical Working Group (TWG), who in turn evaluates the project. The ICC-Cabinet Committee and NEDA Board, which is chaired by the President of the Philippines, is the body that ultimately approves PPP projects.

3. The government provides guarantees to awarded PPP projects

While the BOT Law provides for several forms of government support or contribution such as government guarantees or direct government subsidies to a PPP project, the government has not provided guarantees to any of the PPP projects awarded since 2010. 

4. PPP projects are more expensive than other government procurement options

PPP projects are not necessarily more expensive, especially because the projects these undergo a value for money assessment during project development, evaluation and approval stages.

A PPP project is said to achieve value for money if it costs less than a public sector comparator (i.e. the same, if not similar, project delivered under the traditional procurement method).

Also, most PPP bids received in recent years cost less than the approved government costs. If in the instance an actual project’s costs turned out higher than approved government costs, the private sector partner shoulders cost overrun risk. 

PPPs can be more cost-efficient overall if one considers the project’s lifecycle cost, including operations and maintenance, and the transfer of risk to the private sector.

5. PPP contracts favor big conglomerates

In the Philippines, most of the signed PPP contracts were awarded to big conglomerates, prompting criticisms that the process tends to favor only the major player 

However, the existing PPP framework encourages open competition and ensures a leveled playing field for all PPP players through transparent and credible processes.

Both local and foreign investors, large and small companies, that choose to participate in PPPs undergo property scrutiny of their legal, financial, and technical capacities to ensure that they are able to finance, construct and implement large, complex infrastructure projects. 

6. PPP projects are anti-competitive

There are also allegations that unsolicited proposals, such as the recently awarded NLEX-SLEX Connector Road, do not undergo a competitive and transparent bidding process. 

But contrary to this, unsolicited projects are subject to a ‘Swiss challenge’ – where the government invites other private sector parties to match or exceed the unsolicited proposal or bid.

In the case of NLEX-SLEX Connector Road, the DPWH advertised in a newspaper of general circulation, an invitation to other interested parties to submit comparative proposals. Details of the unsolicited proposal process are posted in the PPP Center website for transparency.

Understandably, there are persistent concerns surrounding the treatment of unsolicited proposal process both internationally and locally. Policy efforts to institutionalize PPP best practices in this aspect are underway to further strengthen the PPP unsolicited proposal framework.

Golden Age of Infrastructure

The infrastructure push of the current administration is emphasized in the recent Dutertenomics' “Build, build. Build” initiative. PPPs are a way to achieve this.

PPPs free up the much-needed fiscal resources that can be used to fund other immediate needs including health care and other social services.

PPPs also offer alternative financing solutions to the country’s massive infrastructure needs.

For instance, the PPP for School Infrastructure Project (PSIP) of the Department of Education has contributed to immediately addressing the classroom shortage throughout the country. The PSIP-Phase 1 supplemented the existing initiatives on classroom building nationwide.

Here, the PPP track served as a viable option apart from the traditional procurement methods, which use government funds or Official Development Assistance (ODA)—both of which were both not available at the time the project was being developed.

In pursuit of President Rodrigo Duterte’s administration goal of accelerating infrastructure spending, there is a need to take stock of all available procurement options to determine the optimal solution that serves the interest of the Government and the public.

PPPs remain a significant and relevant player in attaining the Philippines’ vision of the Golden Age of Infrastructure, complementing the current thrust of using traditional procurement and tapping ODA. –Rappler.com

Ferdinand A. Pecson is the Executive Director of the Public Private Partnership Center of the Philippines. Pecson was the former vice president at Holcim Philippines for 7 years and senior consultant at PHINMA Corporation for 6 years. He also served as an assistant professor at the Department of Engineering of the University of the Philippines Diliman from 1981 to 1992.

The problem with the administration’s war on drugs, as illustrated in the back-to-back fiasco at the Manila police last week, is not just about the thousands of deaths in dirt-poor neighborhoods in key cities around the country. It’s also about the breakdown of the entire criminal justice system at the level of precincts and villages.

A surprise jail visit by human rights lawyers to a Manila police station yielded haunting images of drug suspects cramped in a windowless, secret cell hidden from the public eye by a bookshelf. As if that wasn’t inhuman enough, the detainees said they were being asked to cough up money for their release.

So we have a situation where families of suspected drug users and dealers are not only made to bury their dead, they’re also forced to pay insurance for their living.

The PNP justifies the existence of these cells, because the stations are bursting at the seams with suspects. It’s a situation that cops say is the ultimate proof that they’re doing their jobs.

But what kind of job is it?

A Rappler investigative report last week identified at least one Manila policeman, PO3 Ronald Alvarez, as behind alleged summary executions in Tondo, doing it with impunity and oblivious to consequences.

That eyewitnesses who have everything to lose have courageously come forward to blame a cop for the death of their kin should tell us that we have reached a new phase in this war. It is a phase where victims are getting fed up, where families are finding courage, where other sectors are finding their voice.

The Commission on Human Rights could not have conducted that surprise jail visit at Station 1 without insider information about the hidden cell’s existence. The timing of the visit, on the eve of the ASEAN Summit that Manila hosted, should also tell us that the institution has finally come to terms with the requirements of this new landscape: an aggressive promotion of human rights at the precinct level.

A community that is slowly finding its voice. Human rights workers who are now fighting the battle in the trenches. These are the much-awaited antidote to local police bosses sowing terror among the powerless.

PNP chief Ronald dela Rosa should be wise enough to crack the whip now, lest he finds himself – and the institution he leads – at the mercy of these autonomous units that make a mockery of rules laid down by their desk-bound commanders at headquarters. 

The PNP’s skeletons in this drug war, after all, are not just hidden in that now-infamous bookshelf by the office of sacked station commander Superintendent Robert Domingo. We have not seen the worst. – Rappler.com

Early on in the 2016 campaign period, then presidential candidate Rodrigo Duterte said that “labor contractualization is adopted in the United States and other developed with stable economies but for a country like the Philippines, when the economy is still building, you don’t practice this.” This statement was met with much applause. After all, no other candidate had spoken so passionately against labor contractualization. 

Now, early on in President Duterte’s term, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) had committed itself to significantly reducing endo within a few months. With the first Labor Day under this administration happening today, we must ask: what progress, if any, has there been made in addressing the problem of labor contractualization? 

As of October 2016, DOLE claims that more than 45,000 contractual workers have been regularized under the Duterte administration. However, these numbers still leave much to be desired given that, according to the Philippines Statistics Authority, more than 1.3 million Filipinos were considered non-regular employees in 2014. Hopefully, more progress has been made since then. 

Furthermore, DOLE has composed a list of "priority establishments" that will be scrutinized and, if found wanting, forced to comply with labor standards. PLDT and Philippine Airlines, among others, are on the list. It will be a great victory for the contractual workers if they attain regular status.

Fair enforcement

However, enforcement must be carried out in a fair and systematic manner. It is certainly possible that the anti-contractualization campaign will primarily target the businesses of political opponents, while, at the same time, turning a blind eye to the labor violations of allies. We must remember that Ferdinand Marcos, like President Duterte, promised to dismantle the oligarchy. What Marcos did instead was to strip his opponents of their company holdings and then subsequently turn them over to his cronies.

The most disputed of this administration’s labor policy is the DOLE’s order on contractualization. In the words of NAGKAISA, the broadest coalition of labor groups in the Philippines: “By ensuring continuity and stability of agency hiring, the new D.O. will never put an end but rather perpetuate the epidemic of contractualization.” Moreover, they argued that, among other things, it is ineffective because it “opens floodgates to agencies to set up shops” and “will enhance cutthroat competition among contractors bidding down salaries and benefits of their employees. Lastly, they point out that labor-only-contracting and the other practices mentioned are already prohibited. Given this, it seems as if DOLE is more intent on merely regulating contractualization, rather than eliminating it entirely.

I am hopeful that Secretary Bello will be able to fulfill the promises that he and the President have made to the workers. After all, as a lawyer, he knows that the rights of workers are enshrined in the Constitution: “They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage.”

Furthermore, as the Presidential Advisor on the Peace Process, he knows that the keystone of peace is social justice. This is the reason why the Comprehensive Agreement on Social and Economic Reforms is at the center of the peace negotiations with the CPP-NPA-NDF. We all know that insurgency and unrest will continue to persist for as long as exploitation and poverty remains unaddressed. 

What then must the government do to put an end to labor contractualization and uphold the dignity of labor? 

1. DOLE must start from scratch and come up with a department order that aligns with the demands of the labor groups. While the sentiments of other stakeholders must be taken into consideration, in the end, it is the laborers themselves who must have the greatest say. 
2. An acceptable department order, while a good start, is still insufficient because it could easily be overturned by future administrations. An anti-contractualization labor law, on the other hand, will be much harder to repeal. Therefore, President Duterte should certify as urgent the Security of Tenure Act, which will, in the words of Nagkaisa, “definitely prohibit and criminalize contractualization and all forms of fixed-term contracts.” 
3. A successful peace deal with the CPP-NPA-NDF and the subsequent ratification of the Comprehensive Agreement on Social and Economic Reforms is necessary in upholding the dignity of laborers. This is because laborers will also benefit from the rights that will be enshrined in the proposed agreement. Among other things, it promises to champion the right of all Filipinos to adequate housing, accessible and affordable utilities, and free education. 

More than 6 months have passed since the beginning of his term and there is still no end in sight for the bloody War on Drugs. Similarly, little progress has been made in putting an end to labor contractualization. This is despite the fact that any policy that will uphold the dignity of labor will have the overwhelming support of the populace. Undoubtedly, the President has the rare opportunity to put an end to a decades long injustice. 

More than any surprise package the President announces today, Labor Day, it is the real end of contractualization that will make a real difference to the working class.– Rappler.com

Would you trust your news from any source? How are we able to ensure that ‘fake’(d) news does not overtake the flow of information?

Journalism plays a vital role for society, bringing verifiable news and informed comment to the public. Every day, the news provides a basis for dialogue and debate, and to make informed decisions on the issues that affect us. It helps us build our identity and, as global citizens, better understand the world around us; it contributes to meaningful changes towards a better future.

Today, however, news producers face many challenges. In-depth and fact-checked news is being overshadowed by shared media content that is all too often far from this standard. On social media in particular, collecting clicks and being first reign supreme over properly verified news and comment. All this further compounds long-existing problems of unjustifiable curbs on press freedom in many parts of the world.

In these circumstances, where does the responsibility lie for ensuring that fact-based debate is not stifled? Whose duty is it to strengthen the media’s potential to foster a better future for all? And how do we protect the fundamental rights of freedom of expression and freedom of information, which are the preconditions for independent and free journalism?

The answer is that we must look to ourselves as agents of change – whether we are Government actors, civil society members, business people, academics or members of the media. Each of us has a role to play, because each has a stake in press freedom, which facilitates our ability to seek, receive and impart information.

What happens to journalists and to journalism is a symbol of how society respects the fundamental freedoms of expression and access to information. Society suffers whenever a journalist falls victim, whether to threats, harassment or murder. It affects us all when press freedom is curbed by censorship or political interference, or is contaminated by manipulation and made-up content.

When the free flow of information is hampered, the void is more easily filled by disinformation, undermining the ability of communities to make informed choices.

With this in mind, the global theme of this year’s World Press Freedom Day is Critical Minds for Critical Times: Media’s role in advancing peaceful, just and inclusive societies. This refers to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, an ambitious 15-year commitment of all UN Member States and stakeholders toward worldwide prosperity, peace and development. Journalism is central to achieving the agenda’s 16th goal, which aims for justice for all, peace, and inclusive institutions.

Free and independent journalism reinforces democracy, justice and the rule of law. It also serves as a prerequisite for combating gross economic inequalities, reversing climate change, and promoting women’s rights. But without audiences demanding well-researched and conflict-sensitive narratives, critical reporting will be increasingly side-lined. Every citizen has a direct stake in the quality of the information environment. ‘Fake’(d) news can only take root in the absence of critical thinking and the assumption that if it looks like news then in must be. Media and Information Literacy efforts have a central role in building the necessary defences in the minds of individuals to face these phenomena.

On World Press Freedom Day, let us all be reminded that fact-based journalism is the light that illuminates the pathway to a future where informed communities can work together, mindful of their responsibilities to each other and to the world we live in. – Rappler.com

Irina Bokova is the Director-General of UNESCO.

The secret police cell discovered in the Raxabago Police precinct of the Manila Police District is, indeed, a new low in the standards of the Philippine penal system.

We all know that detention centers are overcrowded, ill-maintained, and poorly funded. The Philippine National Police does not even have a budget for food, clothing, and other basic provisions for the detainees, who languish in these facilities for an average of 3 weeks before they are transferred to the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) or provincial jails.

However, this is my first time, after doing research in this area for the past 22 years, to have heard of such secret medieval-age type of cells.

There are two perspectives in explaining the occurrence of the secret cell.

One is the structural deficiency perspective: This type of cells occur due to the lack of facilities and space. Most police stations do not have the resources to build new cells. With the influx of new drug arrestees, all possible spaces are transformed into living spaces.

A dungeon-like space can thus be converted into a detention cell to maximize space. Such coping mechanisms had been utilized by police precinct commanders to justify their behaviors. They are doing this with a "presumption of regularity". I believe this "justification" will be utilized by the precinct commander to absolve himself from responsibility.

The other perspective is the cultural perspective: Given the structural deficits (argument above), police officers can utilize different coping mechanisms to augment their capacities. For example, due to lack of operational resources, police officers spend their own money when they investigate cases. In order to feed the inmates they arrested, they draw from their own pockets.

The structural deficiencies thus induce police officers to indulge in resource mobilization and money-making endeavors. Some of the resource mobilization activities are legal, such as solicitations from the local governments and civil society organizations. Some money-making activities, however, are unethical, such as asking money (pang-gasolina) from complainants to fast-track to investigation of cases. And some activities are downright illegal and corrupt, such us, extortion, palit-ulo, bribery, etc. Police officers can utilize the structural deficits as justifications to their behaviors, legal or corrupt.

In this case, the secret detention cell was utilized to extort money from the detainees but under the guise of a coping mechanism to cell overcrowding.

The Commission on Human Rights and the PNP should investigate systematically and pursue both perspectives in establishing the accountability of the police officers. This is a tricky issue and one should not immediately jump to hasty conclusions. (READ: #AnimatED: PNP's skeletons behind a bookshelf)

More bizarre practices

It becomes even more politicized in the context of the current drug war, as police officers may utilize the "drug war" as justifications to the punitive actions against drug peddlers. If heads were to roll, it should be after a thorough investigation that establishes the moral guilt of the offending police officers.

Egregious as it is, this should open the eyes of many Filipinos to the current state of the detention centers in the Philippines.

Many more bizarre practices are going on which are undocumented and which will shock our conscience once they are discovered. (Thanks to the CHR). This happens as almost all our detention facilities are overcrowded, ill-maintained, and under-resourced, made even more constrained by the current war on drugs. These deficiencies eventually provide justifications for our police officers to indulge in corrupt practices.

The solution, from a policy perspective, is two-pronged: address the structural deficits and confront the corrupt values it had espoused. For example, local governments must pour resources for the maintenance of the police precinct facilities. Sensitivity trainings must be conducted to alert our officers of their engagement in corrupt behaviors which had become acceptable way of doing things.

As peace loving Filipinos, we should do both. – Rappler.com

Raymund E. Narag attained his PhD degree from the Michigan State University School of Criminal Justice. He is assistant professor at the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice of the Southern Illinois University Carbondale. Dr. Narag’s research interest delves on understanding community-based processes that mitigate the proliferation of crime and delinquency. 

Gina Lopez is probably the only Cabinet appointee who has caught the imagination of the public. Over the last 10 months, people have cheered her on, inspired by the passion and determination with which she took on the Goliath that is Big Mining. 

Not surprisingly, the miners have thrown all their resources at making sure she is not confirmed as Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources by the Commission on Appointments. 

And on Tuesday, March 2, Big Mining will probably have the numbers to end Lopez’s brief but tumultuous reign, during which she closed down 22 mines, suspended 4, and issued show-cause orders to 77 others. 

There will be several theories that people will advance for her defeat. Some will say she pushed too hard, too fast. But then President Duterte’s main reason for appointing her was her being a passionate crusader, and he has said this several times. 

Some will say she didn’t play the appointments game. They’ll say she should have visited each member of the Commission on Appointments, played to their egos, and engaged in the game of making commitments and concessions, even if she did not mean to keep them. (READ: Are the odds stacked vs Gina Lopez in the CA?)

“Yasay visited me several, maybe 4 times,” said one congressman on the Commission, referring to the Duterte nominee, Perfecto Yasay Jr, who was ultimately turned down for the post of Secretary of Foreign Affairs. “Gina did not request even one meeting with me, and I doubt if she did with the others,” he commented. 

But at this stage of her life as an advocate, the last thing Lopez wanted was to be a politician.

The President's token lobby

But undoubtedly, what made the difference is that the President did not go out of his way to personally lobby for her.

In such as close fight against powerful interests, presidential lobbying was the only thing that could have tilted the odds in Lopez’s favor. President Duterte failed to do this, worried perhaps that this would antagonize the Mindanao Mining Mafia represented by Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez, who had played such an important role in financing his campaign for the presidency.  

In a commission where mining interests wield tremendous influence over politicians, especially in the House contingent, not lobbying for Lopez was taken as a signal by the politicians that the President was willing to ditch her.

But if the mining lobby thinks this is the end of the affair, they’re wrong.  

Lopez’s campaign has caught the public imagination and the movement against irresponsible mining will only be encouraged to redouble its efforts by this debacle.

The movement has momentum.

We have only to look abroad to see the future. The same dogged efforts to protect the people and the environment resulted in the historic legislative ban that El Salvador imposed on metals mining a month ago. 

Despite their effort to oust Lopez as DENR chair, the days of Big Mining in the Philippine are numbered. – Rappler.com

Walden Bello was co-author of the Mineral Management Bill in the 14th and 15th Congresses. He made the only recorded resignation-on-principle from Congress in March 2015 owing to principled differences with the Aquino III administration.  He is the author or co-author of 20 books, the latest of which is State of Fragmentation:  the Philippines in Transition. He is currently International Adjunct Professor at the State University of New York at Binghamton.

MANILA, Philippines – The world observes World Press Freedom Day 2017 on Wednesday, May 3.

This year's WPFD has the theme, "Critical Minds for Critical Times: Media's role in advancing peaceful and inclusive societies."

In this video message for this year's WPFD, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres calls on leaders and citizens to counter misinformation, and appeals to end threats to journalists worldwide.

"A free press advances peace and justice for all," Guterres emphasized. – Rappler.com

Trolls want to dominate social media and if they win, even those who support President Rodrigo Duterte will lose.

What are trolls? Trolls are online entities that derail normal online conversation by posting inflammatory, off-topic messages to provoke an emotional response. (READ: Propaganda war: Weaponizing the internet)

Being merely outspoken and opinionated doesn't make you a troll. But you are a troll if you attack others out of malice, and with no other goal than to attract attention or disrupt conversation.

You might already know that many trolls are fake – either they are paid hacks or bots that can generate thousands of social media posts.

The paid hacks are real people hired by a company or individual to post controversial or malicious things online, usually through multiple fake accounts, to provoke a response, for which they are paid more.

Bots, through programming, can post the same message thousands of times through different fake accounts.

Both bots and paid hacks can spread message and fake sentiment through the online sphere like wildfire. The bots do this by sheer number, the paid trolls do this by diligence since they are driven by profit.

Then there are trolls who are real people, who just choose to act like schoolyard bullies online. They hijack conversations, fling malicious insults, and make unfounded accusations for their own reasons, whether it be loyalty to their hero or a desire to be an Internet sensation.

These trolls are fewer in number than bots or paid hacks, but they are more influential, since they are real people who attract a following because of their perceived "authenticity."

Trolls aim to succeed in swaying your opinion or influencing your actions by doing any of the following:

• They use curses and hatred-fueled outbursts to win you over with their human-ness and authenticity. Their way with language is intentionally provocative to attract you to watch their videos or read their rants.

• They exploit confirmation bias, or your tendency to search for, favor, or interpret information in a way that affirms your pre-existing beliefs – for instance, your loyalty to Duterte, or hatred for Duterte. If you are a Duterte supporter frustrated with the negative news about Duterte, trolls play to your feelings by giving you someone to blame: the “bayaran” (paid) media who twist Duterte’s words or the “destabilizer” Vice President Leni Robredo. 

• They embellish hatred with the gleam of “patriotism.” Trolls will have you insult others, particularly those they deem as enemies, for the “good of the country.” They turn an act that is the epitome of baseness into one that is noble. 

The first step to resisting these trolls is to be aware. Be aware that though they claim to be fighting for some greater good (the country’s, for instance), they may be driven by less noble intentions – be it to make profit, increase their number of followers, or to construct a reality they want you and other netizens to believe (for instance, the narrative that the President can do no wrong and all those who say so are corrupt). 

What trolls are out to do

Trolls want to sway public opinion, not through sound logic or analysis, but by simply constructing opinion. Hundreds of thousands of bots tweeting versions of the same message can persuade real people that a certain sentiment is dominating, even if it’s not. 

They’re out to reduce your world into false dichotomies: Diehard Duterte Supporters vs Yellowtards, or Bloggers vs Corrupt Media.

But the real world, where we live in and breathe, where we suffer the consequences of our actions and choices, is so much more complex than that.

To wit: Not all Duterte supporters are “DDS” or “Dutertards.” There are many who are discerning and critical, who don’t resort to ad hominem attacks when defending the President. Not all people who are critical of the President are loyal to the “yellow” Liberal Party. Not all media are corrupt, and not all bloggers tell the truth. (READ: 'Fake news' is not journalism)

Don’t let trolls reduce your world into blank and white, when it actually comes in rainbow hues. Appreciate an issue for all its subtleties and complexities, and don’t let trolls impose a simplification that leaves out the complete picture.  

The trolls are desperate to stifle any attempt to question their manufactured reality. Those who voice out their misgivings about Duterte’s policies should feel free to do so without fear of getting bullied online. 

But trolls lost no time in threatening rape on a women’s rights advocate who spoke out against Duterte.

"Ul*l. T*ngina mo. UP ka man din galing, pero utak dilis ka. Bobo ka ang pangit mo. Sana ma-rape ka, manakawan ka. 'Yan gusto mo, 'di ba?" said one troll.

(Stupid. S*n of a b*tch. You are from UP but you have the brain of an anchovy. You're stupid and ugly. I hope you get raped, or get mugged. That's what you want, right?)

During Malacañang press briefings, trolls flood the Youtube or Facebook livestream with curses and threats directed at the reporter asking questions.

When, in a post-Marcos era, has it been wrong to question government policy or express a contrary opinion? It has become wrong again, in an era of trolls.

We all stand to lose

Netizens of all beliefs, be it Duterte defender or Duterte hater, stand to lose if the trolls win. (READ: Block a troll today)

This is obvious for the Duterte hater because the most active and vicious trolls are those that defend Duterte. Those who speak against the President are their obvious victims. 

But the Duterte defenders are victims of the trolls as well. Trolls feed those loyal to Duterte with lies and half-truths. Trolls make the rest of the world believe that all those who support Duterte are as vindictive and vulgar as they are. The President’s supporters who wish to point out his mistakes so as to help him be a better leader will stay silent, fearing foul-mouthed retribution.

Trolls make it impossible for healthy and constructive debate to take place online. They would reduce public discourse to who can type the meanest slurs or the most number of all-caps letters and exclamation points.

They do this because a world where respectful and logical argumentation takes primacy is a world where they are irrelevant.

Trolls, particularly the bots and paid hacks, are destructive also because they make us suspicious of who we engage with online.

Most of the time, I avoid responding to comments or tweets fearing I may just be addressing a fake person or rewarding a paid troll with more payment.

This is perhaps the most destructive aspect of the troll phenomenon. It has discouraged us from even listening or responding to each other because we suspect one another to be fake. Trolls have killed dialogue before a dialogue can even begin.

Trolls have no doubt found their way into your news feed. You may even come to realize that your own Facebook friends have become trolls or are echoing messages of trolls.

Resist the trolls by not spreading their message and not using their language. Don’t share fake news they spread. Don’t resort to crude attacks against people you disagree with, whether pro-Duterte or anti, or in between. Don’t condemn people trolls tell you to condemn, do your own fact-checking first.

Don’t be swayed by their siren’s call and don’t be cowed by their aggression. 

Trolls only shout to hide the absence of logic in their arguments, and resort to meanness because they have no other way to get your attention.

Instead of spending time on trolls, use your time wisely by really listening to those whose opinions differ from you. (READ: Is there limit to online hate?)

If you are a Duterte supporter, listen or read the views of a Duterte critic. If you are a Duterte hater, take the time to understand the position of those who defend Duterte.

Make it your personal policy to avoid those who argue using curses, threats, and malicious insinuations. Call out people who resort to this style of “debating.”

The best way to render trolls irrelevant is to insist they have no place in a healthy exchange of minds. – Rappler.com

We at Agham or Advocates of Science and Technology for the People support the confirmation of progressive Cabinet members Social Welfare Secretary Judy Taguiwalo, Agrarian Reform Secretary Rafael "Ka Paeng" Mariano, and Environment Secretary Gina Lopez.

After less than a year in office, the 3 Secretaries have implemented pro-people policies and programs. They have also proven their capability to head their respective departments.

Secretaries Taguiwalo, Mariano, and Lopez are facing the Commission of Appointments (CA) again after they were previously bypassed by the powerful body and reappointed by Duterte twice. Despite this, the 3 have continued pursuing policies and programs that have marked a good start for much-needed reforms in the government.

The Department of Social Welfare and Development under Secretary Taguiwalo has become more efficient in service delivery, guaranteeing that resources reach constituents fully and without delay. We can clearly see this in the present DWSD’s disaster response and relief efforts which have been more effective in reaching survivors in disaster-stricken communities compared to the past.

Secretary Judy has also been vocal in refusing to use so-called “disaster pork” for patronage politics where relief is distributed by local politicians to foster the people’s support for them in the next elections.

Agrarian Reform Secretary Mariano, on the other hand, has issued important resolutions such as the moratorium on land use conversion, previously used by landlords to reverse their land’s eligibility for land reform. He has also pushed for land reform and free land distribution as allowed under the limitations of current laws. Mariano has also pushed the same as part of the peace negotiations between the government and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP). The talks have recently reached a breakthrough agreement, in principle, on free land distribution.

Environment Secretary Lopez has also implemented unprecedented policies as head of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The DENR order for the closure of 23 big mining companies and suspension of 5 large-scale mining operations, along with the cancellation of 75 mineral production sharing agreements, is a positive step toward addressing the issues brought about by the current liberalized mining industry which has led to environmental destruction and displacement of communities. DENR's policy to rehabilitate fish pens in Laguna Lake is also a welcome development because this will help clear monopoly interests in the area.

In addition to their individual contributions, it is also necessary to note that the presence of progressive personalities in the Cabinet, particularly Taguiwalo and Mariano, is instrumental in the ongoing peace talks. They have been key figures who have championed the continuation of the peace talks after peace spoilers influenced Duterte to suspend the negotiations in March. Lopez also recently expressed support for the peace talks, acknowledging that “the way to peace is to address the social injustice on the ground.”

In keeping with the spirit of the negotiations on social and economic reforms, the progressive Cabinet members are already implementing immediate reforms that are within their capacity. Mariano’s distribution of land to peasants and Lopez's opposition to big mines, among others, are in tune with the pillars of agrarian reform and national industrialization envisioned by the Comprehensive Agreement on Social and Economic Reforms outline.

The staunch opposition to the 3 progressive Cabinet members have only shown that the interests of big businesses and landlords in the government are prevailing over the interests of the Filipino masses. We need to push for the confirmation of Taguiwalo, Mariano, and Sec. Gina who truly champion the people’s concerns. – Rappler.com

JM Ayuste is the acting deputy secretary general of Agham, an organization of patriotic and pro-people scientists and advocates. Agham supports the online campaign #ConfirmGina, #ConfirmKaPaeng, #ConfirmJudy, which was launched by activists and environmental advocates to call on the Commission on Appointments to give its nod to the appointment of the progressive Cabinet secretaries.

The 30th ASEAN Summit wrapped up in Manila on Saturday, April 29. Leaders in attendance shared pleasantries, posed for photo-ops, and talked about a more “people-centered” regional grouping. But they failed to address the elephant in the room: democracy is in grave danger regionwide. 

While all ASEAN countries face serious challenges in this regard, the Philippines and Cambodia have seen particularly dramatic backsliding in the past year. Although there are many differences between developments here in the Philippines and in Cambodia, which I recently visited last March as part of a mission to investigate human rights abuses and hear from different stakeholders, the two countries’ resemblance in their unrelenting attacks on fundamental freedoms is striking. 

Indeed, leaders in both countries have used a startlingly similar playbook to undermine the opposition and subvert democracy. 

Step one of this playbook: Take out the opposition; silence critical voices through harassment, arrests, and attacks. 

In the Philippines, we have all borne witness to the persecution of former human rights commissioner and now Senator, Leila de Lima, one of the most vocal critics of President Duterte’s brutal war on drugs. She has suffered from persistent attacks by the President and his allies both within and outside government, which culminated in her arrest and detention on highly dubious drug-related charges.

In Cambodia, similar blows have been dealt to opposition voices at a faster and more violent pace. ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR) reported in March that in the past 3 years, at least 17 members of Cambodia’s bicameral legislature have faced judicial harassment and other attacks, widely believed to be politically motivated and pushed by the government of Prime Minister Hun Sen.

One of those victims was Mu Sochua, who was gracious enough to join me and congressional colleagues at a press conference on the death penalty in Quezon City last February. She and 6 other opposition lawmakers were arrested in July 2014 for staging a protest in Phnom Penh and faced charges that could have landed them years in prison. Though she was released shortly thereafter following a political deal struck between the ruling party and the opposition, the charges were never officially dropped. 

As other MPs in Cambodia have been targeted, arrested, and imprisoned in the years and months by a judiciary that is widely seen as beholden to the Prime Minister, the fact that these charges could technically be revived at any time remains a serious threat, undermining Mu Sochua and her colleagues’ ability to do their job as parliamentarians. The arbitrary nature of these cases, as well as the manner by which they have been (mis)handled and used as weapons to silence political opponents, is all too familiar in the Philippine context.

Physical attacks

Other MPs in Cambodia have even faced physical attacks, including two lawmakers who were savagely beaten outside the National Assembly in Phnom Penh by a group of pro-government thugs that included members of the Prime Minister’s own military bodyguard unit.

Step two: Bully and intimidate lawmakers, and mute the opposition’s voice in parliamentary debates. 

Earlier this year, the Philippine House leadership oversaw the railroading of a bill restoring the death penalty, which, if signed into law would violate international agreements and all people’s inalienable right to life. Legislators endured arm-twisting, pressure, and outright threats from none other than the Speaker of the House, who has sought to appease the President’s whims come hell or high water.

Those of us in the minority, who have deliberately and consistently expressed our vehement opposition to the measure, found ourselves muted and muffled as the House leadership twisted parliamentary rules and manipulated the floor deliberations to ensure the bill’s passage. (READ: House on fire)

During debates on the bill, at least 25 lawmakers across party lines expressed their intent to interpellate, yet only seven were permitted to address the bill’s proponents on the floor. When the bill was finally put to a vote, members of the supermajority who voted against the bill based on their conscience, braving repeated threats from the Speaker, were stripped of their leadership positions as Committee Chairpersons and Deputy Speaker.

Meanwhile in Cambodia, the ruling Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) has made it a habit to ram through highly controversial bills with little or no time to debate, and often without the opposition even being present for the vote itself. Following a ratcheting up of rhetoric between the ruling party and opposition in 2015, then-Vice President of the opposition Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP) Kem Sokha was removed from a position equivalent to a deputy speaker, upon a unilateral decision of the CPP. The move, which lacked any legal basis, was followed by the expulsion of another opposition lawmaker, then-CNRP President Sam Rainsy, who was targeted on the basis of alleged “defamation” against the powers-that-be. 

Step three: Empower the government to legally crush the opposition.  

The Cambodian Parliament took a dramatic step this past February when, acting on Prime Minister Hun Sen’s request, it voted to amend Cambodia’s Law on Political Parties. The deeply problematic amendments enable the government and the courts to suspend and dissolve political parties for violating a series of vaguely worded prohibitions, as well as if a member of the party is convicte of a crime.

With the power to charge and convict opponents on one hand through the use of the judiciary as a political tool, and the power to dissolve opposing parties based on kangaroo court convictions on the other, the ruling party can crush all forms dissent and remain in power unchallenged. With Cambodia’s June 4 commune elections on the horizon, these moves have only cemented fears that the country will slide into outright dictatorship.

Thankfully, we have not reached this point yet in the Philippines; our democratic system is quite a bit more robust than Cambodia’s has ever been. But the striking similarities in approach between Prime Minister Hun Sen and President Duterte suggest that Filipinos should be watching Cambodia a little more closely to see what might come next.

It seems that both countries are keen on competing for who can kill democracy first. – Rappler.com

 Akbayan Rep. Tom Villarin is a neophyte member of the House of Representatives and part of the “authentic minority” bloc. He served as former DILG Undersecretary for Informal Settlers and Special Concerns and Chief of Staff and a former Undersecretary for Political Affairs. He is a longtime development advocate on participatory governance, peace-building, sustainable agriculture and rural development.

In the opening of Anna Karenina, Leo Tolstoy wrote: "All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." Having lived in several countries with varying levels of censorship and press suppression, I think the same principle applies to a free press: all free presses are alike; each restricted press is restricted in its own way.

When I was in junior high, I wrote for my schools short-lived 'newspaper' such as it was. My first story was about the time a district-wide blackout resulted in school being let out early. My second one, entitled "Viva La Revolucion" was about how students had reacted to an incoming principal. I'm not entirely sure what I expected, but I went all out, trotting such phrases as "our new principal's new principles."

The piece was heavily edited and was so neutered that there was really barely any point in publishing it at all. That was my first experience with press censorship.

At university in Singapore, I encountered censorship of a different nature. Singapore has notoriously draconian libel laws and ranks 154th out of 190 in this year's World Press Freedom Index. But as I found when I joined one of the university's papers, it is self-censorship that reigns supreme. As one article puts it, "In Singapore, the police is in your head." There was no need for any of the NTU Tribune's articles to be blocked or redacted; the offending words never reached the page in the first place.

The ties that bind

Now that I'm working in Indonesia in a Real News Organization^TM, I can feel sharply the limitations of the freedom afforded to the country's media. And though government clampdowns and military strong-arming are admittedly worrying issues, especially in West Papua – where foreign journalists are barred and reporters routinely receive rough treatment from security forces – to me, it is not The Powers That Be that pose the greatest concern. There doesn't need to be an Orwellian 'Big Brother'-esque government for censorship to exist. 

A great majority of Indonesian news organizations are owned by wealthy conglomerates. If shady oligarchs in other countries splash their cash on football clubs, here media companies are the vogue.

Aburizal Bakrie, Surya Paloh, Hary Tanoesudibjo, James Riady – very different men, from different political parties and industries. The one similarity between them, besides their wealth, is their ownership of a major media company.

These powerful men all have their own agendas and personal interests to look after, and it is difficult to believe that those agendas and interests do not affect the news that their companies report. Though the journalists themselves may be fair and objective, it is hard to not feel that their work is tainted by the obvious partisanship of their organization's owners.

And it's not just a hypothetical: back in 2014, Bakrie's son Anindya sent an e-mail blasting the editorial team of the news website he owned for allowing another party's campaign ads to be shown there. Several editors resigned afterwards.  

Vox populi, vox Dei

Besides ownership, the other thorn in the Indonesian press' flesh is the readers themselves. In many respects, readers can be harsher than censors in their judgment of what should or should not be reported on by the media.

For example, in Indonesia there has long been a taboo around discussing ethnic, religious or racial issues usually referred by the acronym SARA. Articles reporting on the discrimination of a ethnic or religious minorites are often accused of being provocative or divisive.

A case in point: in 2016, the discrimination that ethnic Papuan university students face in Yogyakarta was highlighted by several news organizations. Much of the discussion surrounding these articles was not on how such discrimination should be responded to, but how the articles were 'stirring up' ethnic conflict. These issues exist, is talking about them really the biggest problem?

Another common tactic in silencing uncomfortable reporting is calling it out as a 'hoax.' Like in the US and the Philippines, the proliferation of fake news is a big problem in Indonesia. But in my view, the tendency of Indonesian readers to call any news that does not support their personal viewpoints as 'hoaxes' is also a big problem. 

This type of wilful ignorance stifles opposition voices and stops us from having important conversations. It also discourages news organizations from reporting on the topics that most need it. How can we hope to fix Indonesia's many and varied problems, if even talking about them is seen as 'provocative' or as a 'hoax'?

Physician, heal thyself

Before we lament the constraints that the government and military sets upon the press, we should first look at how we ourselves are restricting the reporting done by our news organizations.

Indonesia is facing a critical juncture in its young democratic life; this is the time when we need fearless and aggressive reporting the most. Journalists have a tough enough job without worrying about censorship from within. —Rappler.com

A group called “Ateneans for Duterte” recently popped up on my Facebook feed. Its avowed goal, which I can no longer read since the group has been locked, was something to the extent of proving to the world that not all Ateneans hate the president.

With its 153 members, however, success has been elusive for the Dutertista Atenistas. I’m afraid many Atenistas are liberals, and a good number of us are even part of the much-derided yellowtard variant thereof.

For the first time in decades, Ateneo de Manila is out of sync with the political times (to the chagrin of our one-hit wonder alumnus, Jimmy Bondoc). In the years to come, it will explore unchartered territory, using principles it has honed over the last few decades. 

As an outgoing member of the faculty (this piece doubles as my farewell letter), I can affirm that Ateneo’s politics today is broadly anti-authoritarian, making it an easy target for populists who claim that society needs dictatorial disiplina. Many of our faculty were active in the anti-dictatorship movement, and we venerate them for their contributions. These older faculty have imparted to us young teachers and students a sense of the past attuned to the machinations of unbridled power.

Because many of them fought Marcos, they are critical of state authoritarianism. Because many of them are social democrats and Christian humanists, they are critical of communism’s totalitarianism. And because of its rootedness in Catholic social teaching (liberation theology, to be honest), many contemporary Ateneans are serious about the Church’s preferential option for the poor. Which is why they criticize a drug war that targets the poor. 

The university was not always oriented this way. Ateneo’s annoying arrogance draws from its avowed duty to train the nation’s leaders.

In the '60s, this claim to leadership created entitled blowhards, who, to this day, confuse public service with self-aggrandizement, while annoying everyone with fake a rrrrooollling, Hispano-American English spoken from the jowls (the much-derided Arneow accent). Consider the Dutertian coward Dick Gordon, who, along with his boss, now stands accused of crimes against humanity. Or the other Dutertian, RJ Jacinto, whose Atenean sense of entitlement manifests in believing that owning a radio station makes one a talented musician and that owning a steel business makes one a qualified economic advisor. 

These alumni from the Arneow of yore would be ill-placed in the Ateneo of today, basketball cheers notwithstanding. The university, while still attracting some rich kids, is no longer as elite. Many of the super wealthy now have international schools and the southern gentry (read, Alabang) have Opus Dei/PAREF schools. Upon graduating high school, students from these more expensive high schools go abroad and skip Loyola. Meanwhile, the school “on the hill” has attempted to increase the number of its scholars. 

More importantly, Ateneo’s intellectual DNA began to transmute from the late 1960s onwards. A confluence of factors – Vatican 2’s admonition towards a more engaged Church, Pope Paul VI’s 1967 encyclical Populorum Progressio which called attention to economic inequality, the blossoming of liberation theology in Latin America, the Filipinization movement in pedagogy – led to the creation of the socially aware Ateneo I have spent the last 27 years with, an Ateneo that sees “sin” not simply as consisting of individual acts, but also created by socio-political structures that systematically disadvantage the poor. It is a form of spirituality that even a godless heathen like myself can value. 

In 1968, five student leaders published the landmark manifesto “Down from the Hill” on the college newspaper, The Guidon. The manifesto condemned the “power elite” for appropriating “unto itself the fruits of the country’s economic resources.” It likewise condemned Ateneo for serving the rich, and enjoined the university to reimagine its goal of leadership to one that served “the oppressed masses” of the country. 

Breeding ground

By 1975, the university had set up its Office of Social Concern and Involvement (OSCI), which, until today, anchors our efforts at community involvement. At around this time as well, Ateneo became the breeding ground for an incipient Catholic, humanist socialism, which condemned Marcos, but also the violent methods of the Communist Party. 

None of this is to say that Ateneo became a school of the masses. The university continued to attract the power elite. This power elite continued to govern the nation. And the university supported many of them.

Sometimes the symbiosis went too far, as when former university president Fr. Bienvenido Nebres allowed Ateneo to be used as a deodorant for the corrupt Arroyo regime (at the height of her unpopularity, GMA continued to mention her numerous projects with Ateneo). Providentially, Noynoy Aquino replaced Arroyo in 2010, and his college friend, Fr. Jose Villarin, replaced Nebres in 2011, thus continuing congenial cooperation between the university and the Palace.

I maintain, at the risk of being labeled pro-Aquino (which I am in a limited capacity), that the Aquino-Ateneo connection was born out of principle; it was an affirmation of the university’s continued faith in the country’s liberal-democratic experiment – an experiment that is undergoing significant strain under a budding dictator. 

Today, for the first time in more than a decade, Ateneo finds itself a castaway from the halls of power. The most powerful man in the country despises us as a haven of the yellowtards and oligarchs he despises. Many of our young alumni have been eased out of government positions they once occupied. And, naturally, we are trolled.

What will Ateneo’s intervention in national life be in the next few years? I really don’t know. But we have a proud tradition of social involvement and anti-authoritarianism that will anchor many of our students, faculty, and alumni. 

When Ateneo students dragged their teachers out to the streets to protest the Marcos burial, I knew that tradition was alive. On my last school year as a member of the faculty, I had never been prouder to be an Atenista. – Rappler.com

Lisandro E. Claudio is an outgoing faculty member of the Ateneo de Manila University. Though he is looking forward to the “greener” pastures at Taft, he will miss his alma mater. 

The rejection of Gina Lopez as Department of Environment Natural Resources (DENR) secretary by the Commission on Appointments (CA) is very disappointing and worrying, and shows how destructive industries continue to hold Philippine lawmakers by their necks.

We were made to believe, through her appointment last year, that reforms, environmental protection, and social justice are still possible in this country. We thought that this administration is serious in implementing change by appointing a true environmentalist in the DENR.

But the CA, dominated by politicians with questionable loyalty, some of whom are receiving campaign contributions from various mining interests, blocked what could have been the golden era of Philippine environmental rehabilitation and protection under Lopez.

The rejection undermines the reforms the current administration is pushing and could be an indicator of factions between those who have benefited from old corrupt practices and those who are genuinely advancing for true, genuine, and people-centered changes.

As a country with scarce forests left, and with dwindling natural resources, turning to extracting minerals as a solution to poverty is superfluous at the very least, and glaringly reveals the short-sighted mindset, if not corrupt interests, of our politicians. With mining having a serious impact on our water resources, the situation demands that we weigh which is more important: money or life.

The next major battle will be fought over water, not gold. And Lopez has chosen right: she must stand proud over those who choose the foolish and obtuse option of trying to solve poverty by destroying the environment.

While the CA members were worried about the legality of Lopez’s mining audit and ignored the other reforms she has officiated in the agency, they seem to forget about the Filipino’s constitutional right to a clean and healthful ecology. The Commission’s double standards show where the true loyalty of its members’ lie: nitpicking on legalities and standards when Gina chose to protect the environment, when those laws and standards were not applied when big industries were destroying the environment. Lopez but upheld and pushed for our right to breathe clean air, to drink clean water, and to live in a clean and safe environment.

Her appointment inspired us last year. Her rejection today inflamed us to do more, and to further push for other urgent environmental issues,:

• Stopping the proliferation of coal
• Arresting coastal reclamation
• Pushing for a pollution release and transfer registry (PRTR)
• Addressing plastic pollution
• Wildlife trafficking
• Waste importation and the ratification of the Basel Ban Amendment
• Oposing waste-to-energy (WTE) technologies
• Going after illegal fishers and supporting small fishermen and poor Filipinos

When someone is ill and dying, you don't take his wallet and rob him. You try to do everything you can to revive him. Our environment is dying, and our politicians choose to rob it more.

The greed of the powerful few has won this round, but we consider this a temporary setback. We at the environmental movement will carry on boldly, for our rights, our environment, and our future. – Rappler.com 

Naderev 'Yeb' Saño is the Executive Director of Greenpeace Southeast Asia.  

Social media was up at arms on May 3, after Philippine Senator Tito Sotto insulted a senator for being a single mother, suggesting she was just knocked up. Sotto dismissed it as a joke, but netizens made it clear they did not find his statement funny calling him “sexist” and “misogynist.”

Sotto, in reacting to the backlash, said it was just “street language” (a familiar defense in similar sexist offenses), and that “some people are overly sensitive.” He also said, "everybody in the hall, almost everybody laughed.”

While he apologized for offending people, his arguments are of course insensitive, and raise the question as to whether he understood his wrongdoing. But his third point, on those in the hall laughing, is something worth discussing.

After the incident, my initial reaction was not just to call out Sotto, but also those in the room who laughed at his joke. This is the precise culture after all, that breeds and normalizes misogynistic comments. The laughter in the room is a sign of acceptance, a permission, that jokes or comments like these are okay. 

Shame Sotto but also shame those in the room who laughed. It's that culture that permits misogynistic comments, which make it seem okay.

— Natashya Gutierrez (@natashya_g) May 3, 2017

Had nobody in the room laughed, perhaps Sotto may have been embarrassed or would’ve learned his lesson – and maybe will be more thoughtful and sensitive in the future.

This culture of misogyny is something that is encouraged every single day on social media.

On social networks, this sort of culture, or acceptance, comes in the form of likes or shares. Sexist comments which call women names, or slut-shame, or discuss their physical appearance, get hundreds of likes or shares. This is how this culture continues online. Sotto's comment garnered much attention, but this backlash should be sustained on a daily basis on social media.

Coincidentally, the Sotto incident happened on World Press Freedom Day. The most common targets for these sexist attacks? Female journalists.

Harmful likes

Studies on online harassment have consistently shown that hate speech directed towards women are different from those received by men. Particularly, they are misogynistic, meant to intimidate women into silence.

When trolls attack women, what sticks out is the nature of the comments: deeply sexist, and targeted specifically at a woman’s gender. “I hope you get raped, you attention-seeking whore,” one Facebook commenter said to me. Another was more creative in his threat. “You deserve this,” he said, and attached an image of anal penetration. Still another was straight to the point: “Shut the slut up.”

Often, they are sexually-laden names – whore, cunt, a cock sucker. All terms that suggest women are beneath men, or can be dominated. They are meant to demean. Men, when they get attacked online, also get death or physical threats as women do, but are spared comments about their bodies, or their sexuality.

Most recently, our CEO Maria Ressa was misquoted as saying she received 90 rape threats per hour. Her actual quote was “An average of 90 hate messages an hour.... That's what I dealt with for a month“ but trolls (who unsurprisingly did not take the time to watch the video and hear her actual quote) used it again in brutal sexist attacks.

“Who would be desperate enough to rape her?,” one asked, while another said, “Even if anyone were so drunk, no one would rape you.” As if rape were a compliment.

But what was even more bothersome was the amount of likes and replies comments like these got. Some may be bots, or paid trolls, but many are also real – even coming from the least expected sources.

These likes, which netizens may think are innocent, have the exact same effect as the laughter in that room when Sotto made his statement. Laughing, and likes, are the affirmation that keep this behavior, this culture going. They encourage and normalize misogyny, even rape, and tell the sexists that their thoughts are valid.

This sort of online vitriol targeted at female journalists has a goal: to intimidate. It aims to silence crucial voices of female journalists, which is a direct attack on media freedom. And this happens all the time, around the world.

Women journalists react differently to these attacks. Some have chosen to avoid social media or stay silent. Others change beats, decide to be less critical, or change their topics of coverage. But silencing female voices, means silencing half of society. It does not just narrow perspectives, it affects our democracies.

I salute all those who cried foul online, who called Sotto out for his behavior. It is crucial this awareness continues – that we defend women from misogynistic attacks, and civilize the conversation, even when we don’t agree with the views of the woman in question. Defend women, even if it's as simple as not liking a sexist comment.

To be incredibly clear, female journalists don’t mind being questioned about our articles, or being challenged. By all means, hold us accountable, be critical of our work.

But keep our bodies and physical appearance out of the conversation. – Rappler.com

I have died every day, waiting for you

MRT, sobra na ang perwisyo

Kay tagal ng tren

Planado man ay late pa rin

( I wrote this post in my personal capacity. My views here are solely my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the institutions where I work.)

I admire Gina Lopez's passion as an environmentalist, but this is also why she is not right for the position of Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Secretary. In her zealous drive against mining, she has unilaterally arrogated unto herself powers she doesn't possess as a Cabinet official, starting with disregarding laws and government policy she disagrees with and then inventing her own.

Lopez wants mining stopped in the country, but forgets that mining is a legitimate activity regulated by the Mining Act. If she has a problem with this policy, she should lobby with Congress to repeal the law, instead of shutting down mines left and right, even those that passed the audit she herself ordered. Or, as other similarly-minded individuals did, she can challenge the constitutionality of the Mining Act before the Supreme Court. (Incidentally, one such case filed by Senator Risa Hontiveros is now pending resolution.)

Those who support Lopez should make me understand why it is permissible for her to just ban open pit mining wholesale (but notably excluding quarrying which her family is into) when the Mining Act expressly allows this method of extraction of minerals. With just this one order (that was not subjected to consultations with stakeholders, contrary to DENR practice), she has exposed the Philippine government to arbitration losses to reach billions of dollars for what essentially amounts to expropriation of investment without payment of just compensation.

Her actions also signal to foreign investors that the Philippine government's regulatory framework is unstable and unpredictable, that the rules of the game can change midstream, and that doing business in the Philippines is too risky and therefore not a good idea.

Lopez's supporters should also justify why it was okay for her to cancel mining contracts for purportedly being located in watershed areas when the DENR's own maps show that these mines are NOT within proclaimed watershed forest reserves or critical watersheds and thus not closed to mining. Incidentally, these DENR maps DISAPPEARED from the DENR website shortly after Gina's Valentine's Day gift to 75 mines of threat of cancellation.

I get that there is an urgent need to protect the environment; that abuses happen; and that our environmental laws must be enforced.

Yes, irresponsible miners should be made to pay and should be shut down. But for the DENR Secretary to deliberately flout current law and policy and justify it as love for the Philippines and the poor is the same unacceptable explanation for extrajudicial killings (EJKs). The ends do not justify the means. We are governed by the rule of law, and Lopez is not the law.

There are environmentalists who respect the law and are willing to work within its confines. They love the country and the poor no less than Lopez but abide by the rules. I hope one of them next leads DENR. Let Lopez remain an advocate; what we need is a good regulator.– Rappler.com

Joan de Venecia is a professor at the University of the Philippines College of Law and is the general counsel of a mining company that passed the DENR's recent audit.

Doubtless many of us, not just in this town but in many other places, have become anxiously preoccupied by the thought of freedom.

Indeed, there would seem an anti-freedom virus going around if you observed the temperament of present-day leaders; these, by the way, are no power-grabbers, as were the previous kind, but leaders installed by popular vote, which is why the phenomenon is called populism, a generous, though not altogether unsuitable, description.

Strictly, populism is a kind of party movement in itself, as such organized; it’s not people making an accidental common choice.

At any rate, we have, as it happens, an example of each kind. Of the previous kind, there was Ferdinand Marcos, who simply took power one day and ruled for 14 years as a martial-law dictator. And of the present kind, there’s Rodrigo Duterte, who received his popular mandate under no pretense; those who may regret having voted for him have no excuse: from the beginning, he has not only professed idolatry for Marcos, but anointed Ferdinand Jr. as his successor.

The phenomenon proving intractable, it is put down to "something in the air", and, World Press Freedom Day falling around this time, it should particularly concern the very profession called upon by the Constitution to stand up to the likes of Duterte and Marcos – the press.

As a journalist who has known no other profession, thus always anxious for self-assurance and jealous with his freedom, I seize freedom as a birthright. Admittedly, freedom does not work so simplistically; it has to be fought for, constantly. Anyway, what choice do I really have? What choice does the press have?

Enemy of freedom

On May 3, the day declared by the United Nations as World Press Freedom Day, two journalists asked me for a meeting for the same day for whatever I, as an old hand, might have to say of any worth about press freedom. One came, the other cancelled, saying “they” – whom I took to be his superiors – voted down, “for obvious reasons”, his idea for a commemorative piece.

The reasons are not really so obvious to me, but, observing how the press covers President Duterte, I may have an idea. I’ve watched the press let him say anything little challenged. If only it felt less cowed and probed more, his word might just prove not good enough, if not outright inaccurate.

As it is, much of his word stands as he has passed it off, as fact – drugs are the plague of the times and that plague translates into 3 million addicts and, until those 3 million are exterminated, this nation will continue to languish in poverty (where did he get that number when the last credibly sourced one was 1.8 million?); or as credible promise – 8 trillion pesos will be spent on infrastructure during his six-year term (where will he get that money?) and there will be no poor Filipino by 2040 (wouldn’t he be safely dead by then?).

To be sure, Duterte could be an intimidating figure – profane, narcissistic, authoritarian. But then he is precisely the sort of character press freedom is ranged against. In fact he personifies power, the natural enemy of freedom, in the extreme.

And, under Duterte’s draconian regime, press freedom in particular is under siege. He keeps shoving it, and it keeps retreating, not even digging in, or defending, much less fighting back.

Yes, indeed, part of the exercise of any democratic freedom is fighting back, and, for the press it consists in asking questions in the very least. As one newspaper motto goes, “If you ask no questions you will be told no truths.”– Rappler.com