People who were touched by Alex Tizon's prose can adulate over his purported anguish and kindness, but no amount of lachrymose worship will erase the fact that Eudocia Tomas Pulido was worked to death by his family, and she worked libre (for free) for 56 years, and a measly $200 a week after she was moved to Tizon's house.

Ang dakilang si Alex

Tizon's supporters scrambled to his defense with counter-arguments. Some argue that the confession reveals to us how tormented he was and by writing about Pulido's slavery, he had sought forgiveness for what his parents did while laying out to the readers the many ways in which his siblings and their families tried their best to make up for the brutality heaped on Pulido by their parents. This made Tizon a noble soul; flawed, yes, but noble.

Others have lashed back at critics, especially those writing from the United States and other parts of "the West," accusing them of failing to understand "Filipino culture" and its complicated set of social relationships, ranging from the famed utang na loob (debt of gratitude) to the "exchange" between richer relations and patrons extending assistance to poorer kin and underprivileged clients and, in return, the latter offering them their free or heavily discounted services.

"Westjacking!", "Foreign meddling!", "Orientalism!", "Imperialism!", "Racism!" – so goes the cries of an odd array of actors: the known communist party's front organization Gabriela, American-Filipinos who want to ratchet up the myth that they suffer a similar fate as African-Americans, highbrows of the nation's literati reminding American critics of their own slavery scourge, distraught matriarchs of Manila's elites and middle classes who worry that Tizon may have – in the words of Manolo Quezon – "committed class and cultural treason" by exposing what happens inside their gated communities.

An academic variation of these "nuanced" positions contends that this distinct, very Filipino form of "slavery" is firmly anchored in our history, the practice going as far back as the 16th century. Just check out what the late eminent historian WH Scott said about slavery!

The last of these pitiable rebuttals is to invoke collective guilt. Tizon's exposé of his family's slaveholding ways has compelled us to look deep into ourselves, and admit that we have – in varying degrees and at various times – been nasty to the help. Admission of this sin is the first step towards communal clemency and making us good Filipinos again. It will be a long night, but if we persist, we will attain deliverance.

Eh, teka muna (Wait a minute)...

Of course, there is no sign of action beyond the remorse.

My friend and former colleague, Southeast Asian studies scholar Caroline Hau, has also methodically cut all these "nuanced" assertions to shreds, pointing out the exploitation often hidden in the practice of utang na loob. It is also not about racial identity or being Filipino, as some of my American-Filipino friends argue. It is not about this favored racialized label in American politics, it is about class: the struggling, model-minority Pinoy immigrant in the Tizon slaveholders' saga is also the greater exploiter. Not "the empire," not "white Americans." (READ: 56 years a slave)

For me, the suggestion that the Tizon slaveholders' wrongdoings have old 16th century connections is a lazy argument: it assumes that nothing else has happened and relations have not evolved since then. Should we look at the trafficking of women in Mindanao and Sulu to fill up the brothels in Singapore as 21st century versions of what WH Scott described? That is quite a stretch.

Most important of all, this uncritical reverence of Tizon's sensitive prose actually silences the voices of the Pulido family. Historian Leloy Claudio pointed out how selective Tizon was in the use of the great writing style: full throttle with The Atlantic, but mendacities – often awkwardly explained – to his newspaper and his own colleagues.

Kriminal

Hau and Claudio are nice people and hence more diplomatic. I am not, especially to exploiters and oppressors.

The Tizons committed a crime, and the author was himself a tortured but willing accomplice.

And let me repeat what these slaveholders did to her for 56 years. Eudocia Pulido worked as a slave while being promised compensation and a chance to go home. She slept in the laundry room, something her latter-day overseas-Filipino-worker counterparts still do in places like "modern" Hong Kong and Singapore. Since the children had delicate skin, she substituted in their behalf and absorbed the beatings of their parents. She was never allowed to go out (easy to impose since she was never taught English) and could not escape because she was an illegal.

Piniga.

Only after his parents died did Tizon try to help her recover her humanity: visits to the country she was forced to abandon, garden time, and a $200/week remuneration. But by then it was too late. Pulido had been so brutalized that at that point she knew of no other life save that of a slave. She knew nothing of her home now, most of her siblings were either dead or aging and in her old age what else was there to go back? She had been away for over a century now that she felt alien to and out of place. (READ: Finding Eudocia Pulido in her hometown in Tarlac)

Tizon did continue to struggle with his demons, but we do not know exactly about what, or why. Was it the guilt for not coming to her rescue? For not reporting his parents' slavery to the authorities? Or maybe the reticence to admit to Pulido that for all those 56 years she was nothing but their slave? And that the term "Lola" was merely pampalubag-loob (consolation)? In the meanwhile, the penny-pinching persisted.

And when Pulido died, Tizon, in his own words, brought her ashes back home in a "cheap plastic box" that was "about the size of a toaster." He claims to have teared up a bit while watching Pulido's relatives cry. But it was pilit (forced), for one cannot expect him to join in the mass howling for a "distant" (sic) relative.  Besides, why should one cry over a dead slave? 

Binarat.

As it turned out, Tizon was not keen on spending time at his "Lola's" place. Here is Pulido's niece Rosita Labador explaining to Rappler's Lian Buan– 46 seconds into the tape – why she missed the burial:

Noong nalaman ko, hindi naman ako nakasunod kaagad. Eh napunta pala sila kina auntie [at] Oyang, eh diretso na pala silang inilagay sa Bliss (the memorial park), sa sementeryo. Ang pagka-alam ko kasi magdamag pa silang anuhin sa bahay. Hindi naman pala – diretso na, kasi siguro apurado 'yung nagdala, pauwi na... si Alex.

(When I learned [that my aunt's ashes were being brought home] I was not able to follow them right away. They went to my auntie and Oyang and then went straight to Bliss, the cemetery. What I was told was that we would have an overnight wake at my aunt's place. Apparently that was not the case – they went straight [to the cemetery] because the one who brought her ashes was probably in a hurry... Alex.)

So much for the undying love.

What I find doubly duplicitous in Tizon's beautiful prose is that he did not only commandeer Pulido's muted voice, he also most likely was selective in his parsing of her supposed replies to make him look good! In the end, it was still his story, with Pulido the silent prop. Tizon, even in death, has maintained control of the narrative and his adoring-yet-guilt-ridden admirers are falling head over heels for it, with oodles and oodles of tears (a lot of the crocodile variety). In the end, it is still his story.

We have to hand it to Tizon – his plan of getting away with the crime and still keeping the public on his side is an excellent strategy that would make Niccolo Machiavelli proud.

"Eh, di ilabas ang suwerte!" (Dely Atay-Atayan)

But if we all agree that it was a crime, then, as the saying goes, crime must pay. But how? One cannot jail dead criminals save in Dante's Hell, but how about monetary reparations – the "back pay" owed Pulido for the 56 years of service? Hard to compute, one said; and besides, can pain be ever measured in monetary terms? 

One of the lovely things about millennials is that when given a puzzle, they immediately buckle down to work on it. To the question of how much, a friend referred me to the tweet of the fellow with the alias The Kryptonian Blerd who describes himself as "a future RN who's trying to make the world a better place one melanin-infused tweet at a time." Fascinated with the question of how much Ms Pulido is owed in terms of back pay ("and cost before inflation"), he came out with the figure $3,444,721.92. I hope KB would not mind if I repost it here.

Alas, it is a felony that the family has successfully dodged because the perpetrators and the accomplice are dead; the other Tizons were too young to be charged as co-conspirators; and, the most painful deterrent of all, the Pulidos are too poor, unfamiliar with American law, and unlikely to get a visa from the US consulate to pursue their case.

Hence all we have left is the moral outrage, which is much devalued these days, given how much internet hopping can bring us to the next moral outrage in a week or so.

Well, yes and no. This was what I wrote on my Facebook page: "OK...so now that many of those who recognize that they may have done something similar, albeit in various degrees of brutality, to what the slaveholding Tizon family did to Eudocia Pulido, then the logical next step is to confess these transgressions and bring them to the open. You want cathartic closure, then please, off with the hand wringing and cultural explanations and fess up the sordid acts you did to your maids. I will be happy to be your historian and make sure the UP Library Archives has a list of what you've done."

Kunsensiyahan na lang (Let's just guilt trip)...

But if this never worked with our politicians, why expect the rich and the middle classes to admit that there is some of that slaveholders' blood that Alex Tizon has brought out in the open? (READ: We are all Tizons)

It's back to the trenches. – Rappler.com

Patricio N. Abinales is an overseas Filipino worker, but unlike Eudocia Pulido, his place of work is not a slave plantation, and he receives his wages regularly and on time.

“Yaya, Yaya!” It’s a name every middle to upper class Filipino kid knows from the gut and can be as evocative and visceral as “Mama.” We love our mothers but our yaya belong to our heart of hearts, something we don’t dare to bring out on Mother’s Day lest we offend our real moms or appear uncool to our friends. And of course no one mentions their yaya on their Facebook posts. 

Isang linggo matapos ang komersyalismo ng Mother’s Day sa Pinas, tumambad sa atin ang kwento ni Alex Tizon. Walang ‘sing tapang niyang hinubaran ang krimen ng kanyang mga magulang: Ang pang-aalipin sa isang probinsyanang nais tumakas sa maagang pag-aasawa. Tinawag niya ito sa pinakaparak na ngalan: Pang-aalipin. Wala siyang pinatawad sa kanyang salaysay, ang lolo at mga magulang na pinagsimulan ng pang-aalipin at human trafficking. Ang nakapanlulumong pagtrato kay Lola na 'di sumusweldo, 'di pinauwi ng Pilipinas kahit namatayan ng magulang, walang tulugan, pata ang katawan sa maghapong trabaho, maya’t-mayang nasisigawan at napagbubuhatan pa ng kamay. Silang magkakapatid na bagama’t panaka-nakang nagtatanggol sa kanilang Lola ay kasabwat din sa pagtatago ng lihim.

Some say Tizon’s piece is an eloquent attempt to assuage guilt. Others put things in a socio-cultural perspective. Other comments are pure rabble-rousing, out for blood and holier-than-thou. Yet others turn inward and ask the hard questions.

Naglalagablab ang poot natin kapag nakaririnig tayo ng kwento ng pang-aabuso sa mga Pinay na domestic worker sa ibang bansa. Para sa atin sila’y OFW. Pero 'di sumagi sa ating isipan na kaliga sila ni Inday na ngayo’y nagpaplantsa ng ating jeans. 

We’ve set up so many rationalizations for our modern Asian lives and our modern day aliping sagigilid that we’re numb to the fact that like Alex Tizon, we benefit from this system. Would Alex have gone to a prestigious school had Lola not freed up his mom to work as a medical professional to support her kids’ yuppy ambitions? Would we have finished college in Ateneo, La Salle or UP if Mama had quit her corporate or teaching job to do the laundry, clean house and cook dinner?

Madaling makahanap ng palusot kung ikaw ay nakapag-aral: kasalanan ‘yan ng pagkabansot ng ekonomya sa kanayunan at malawakang kahirapan. Ito ba ang tinatawag na “damaged culture” ng mga anthropologist? 'Di ba’t matagal nang nabura ang pyudalismo?  

The story of Les Miserables' Fantine is so western, so romanticized that she will never translate in our heads to that bubbly chimay next door and certainly not to our own 'kasama'. Yet around the world, oppression of women and children, human trafficking and slavery exist in various forms – from flesh trades to overworking and underpaying menial employees and house servants. It's a form of slavery not only when a Middle Eastern madame shoves a hot iron into the face of an undocumented worker or a sex-starved Arab master asks the un-escorted (therefore disgraced) chambermaid for a massage. It's also slavery when employers hold on to passports, and when they send the help over to the mother-in-law's house to clean and then on to sister's house to do the laundry. It's abuse when masters deprive you of a day off and time to worship your God and yes, even to flirt. But the kasambahay-master dynamic is so ingrained in our culture that getting a maid for less than minimum wage never strikes us as taking advantage of the desperate and underprivileged.

In the end, “My Family’s Slave” honors the memory of Eudocia Pulido and Alex Tizon because it drags the ugly monster out of the closet and out into the light of day. And we’re all complicit in keeping that monster hidden. Our middle class lifestyles soared on the back of a servile system that takes advantage of the poverty pool. It’s a system that keeps a certain segment of society – the penniless, uneducated, docile women – indentured for a fraction, if not most of their lives. 

Sinimulan daw ni Alex Tizon ang isang delubyo sa internet sa kanyang kwento ng pang-aalipin. Hindi lang ‘yon, binuksan din niya ang isang bintana sa ating mga kaluluwa.

For journalists, this is a first-class lesson from Tizon, who died two months before the publication of his piece: to be vulnerable and be a truth-teller to the end. For advocates, activists and policymakers, this is a call to re-examine the compartmentalized boxes of our lives built to protect class privileges and rationalized by academic bullshit. And for all of us who’s ever been touched by the devotion of a yaya, a driver or a Lola – to re-examine who we really are as human beings. – Rappler.com

I have a lot of debt in the area of “writing about the University of the Philippines”. And it’s a debt that comes from several sources, has been unpaid for several years now, and has therefore accumulated.

I first began to seriously consider that I  should write when there was a call for essays during UP’s centennial in 2008. That call has been repeated through the years for various reasons. Recent calls have been more specific: can I please write about my memories of UP’s Faculty Center? This famous building burned down last year and it broke our hearts. The fire destroyed the thesis and dissertation drafts of many faculty members holding office there. Rare collections of senior faculty members in various fields of expertise also went up in smoke. Soon what is left of it will be demolished and the physical site connected to so many memories of generations of UP people will be gone.

The urge to write about UP returned recently because some in the UP community protested against giving the current Philippine President an honoris causa degree. The conferment of degrees on sitting officials has always raised a howl in the past, UP being home to the obstreperous. But this is the first one in the age of weaponized social media. The protest seemed sufficient to come to the attention of supporters of President Duterte so that UP was bashed on social media for being arrogant, conceited and elitist. The President eventually refused the honor, leading others to proclaim victory for their protests.

Alas, I find that having decided to sit down and write something about the university can no longer be so straightforward. This year I officially became a senior citizen. Arbitrary markers like a birthdays  or a senior citizen card do not necessarily reflect that a person is aging. But for me there is a confluence of both the outward indicators of aging and the mental and emotional processes that mark a different life stage.

I realized that the task of writing “something, anything” about UP at this point in my life is one that is overwhelmed by memory and the value of memory in the way that I now assess my experiences.

With regards to UP, my experiences are deeply embedded and long-standing. I came to its Diliman campus, the child of a faculty member.  I took all my schooling in UP.  And I now teach there. So this article can only cover a small part of my experiences.

Born and raised

My “memory” of UP predates my own capacity to remember. Two months after I was born, my mother moved me and my four-year-old brother into one of the first batches of cookie-cutter cottages in Area 1. The year was 1957. The house was awarded to my father, Horacio Estrada, who was then a faculty member (my mother was at that time still teaching at the FEU), but he was away at the University of Pennsylvania. So my mother, Rita, moved in without my father’s help.

I recall seeing a picture of her standing in front of our new home, holding the infant that was me. The house is not the one I can remember because the garden was bare and both the house and the garden are inseperable from the road on which she was standing. The trees, grass and hedges my mother would plant later had not yet grown. On the back of that picture is her description which was obviously meant for my father.  My mother proudly notes that here was the new baby and the new house. There is something of it that captures the early enthusiasms of a new mother and a new couple about to begin their lives and their careers together. Their lives and their careers would turn out to be  intimately bound with the UP too, because my mother also joined the faculty when I was 8. And my parents did not leave Area 1 until they retired. Much, much later, my mother was one of the first professors to occupy the huge and modern rooms of the brand new Faculty Center. Her room was on the third floor where the Department of Psychology was assigned.

Old neighborhood

I and my younger sibling Cynthia, were some of the youngest of the first batch of kids that grew up on the campus in Diliman. And it was an odd childhood, albeit a happy one. National artists like NVM Gonzales or National Scientists like Reynaldo Lesaca were merely the friends of our parents and mostly just benign adults to us. They were at that time just building their life work.

We moved down the road 9 years later to a bigger house on 59 Agoncillo street. (When we moved into our first house the streets had no names yet and our house was designated “P16” because it was the 16th  house that UP  considered “permanent” housing as opposed to the earlier sawali huts built during the war by American forces.) Our next door neighbor on Agoncillo was a madcap musician named Jose (Pepe) Maceda. At least as an adolescent I though he was madcap. He would go off to strange places to study weird musical instruments and record  the music of various indigenous peoples. In 1971  we joined his four daughters and a hundred others, as we lugged tape cassettes around the Faculty Center in what I would realize was his avant-garde and now classic work, “Cassettes 100”. In 1997 Tito Pepe would be recognized as a National Artist. Though he is renowned for his work on indigenous music, I remember lazy evenings and afternoons sitting alone or with my parents on our porch while listening to him play classic piano concerts. Our very own private performances, for free.

These days, I see the works of Napoleon Abueva, the father of modern Philippine sculpture, and another National Artist (1976) and try to reconcile that with the man who used to ride around campus in a chariot and once promised me a ride. A promise that he never fulfilled.

There was also haute cuisine pioneer Nora Daza who lived 3 houses in to us in P16 and in whose kitchen I learned to eat, not fancy french food, but a raw egg over steaming white rice.

The last time I went to London I made sure to visit with “Uncle” Ted Crunden, his wife “Aunt” Margaret. The campus used to be home to UN expatriates and Uncle Ted was one of the first UNESCO experts. They became close to my parents because on one of those few days when my Dad was home from his never ending work in his laboratory, he saw this English couple all dressed up to go to the races in San Lazaro. Realizing that the Crundens were expecting the atmosphere to be like the Ascot races, my Dad had to intervene. He made them dress down and drove them to San Lazaro. That started a long friendship. Aunt Margaret was thrilled to be considered and addressed as an aunt,  and took comfort when they left for the UK that she had “family” in the Philippines.

I hope I have not given the impression that these people were any more prominent than the other neighbors. There were others who played larger roles in my life. Dolores Feria who taught in the English Department , Priscilla (Cil) Manalang of the College of Education, and Andrea (Andy)  Cailao, the wife of a faculty of the erstwhile College of Physical Education, come to mind instantly. Dolores Feria had to go underground when Marcos declared martial law but  my mother, Tita Andy (still  alive and kicking in her 90’s) and Tita Cil were close throughout their lifetimes and our families were in and out of each other’s homes. 

I remember also UP’s non-academic personnel who also populated my world. Though class distinctions can never be erased, their children were my playmates too. Sometimes I think the socialist part of my soul stems from those early years in Diliman. We lived in the similar houses, our parents had the same jobs. They worked in the same place, walked home through the same streets. Those whose parents were not professors were nonetheless part of the neighborhood and playmates.

Building a nation, one argument at a time

This neighborhood of scholars had no doubts about the nature of their job. They understood that they were providing expertise to help build a nation. They understood this meant continuing explorations and exchanges. For them it also meant that they had to teach people the ways by which they themselves learned – continuous inquiry, never-ending debate and critical thinking. It is also why they eventually became national artists and scientists. It is also why I am convinced that many more of them deserved these awards.

Having observed several generations of faculty, students and other personnel, I know we have never been united on any issue except perhaps our understanding that we are helping build a nation by being a rowdy bunch who will never really agree on anything but that we disagree. Perhaps our only arrogance is that we try to disagree in erudite and elegant ways. 

As for our pride in ourselves, some of it is indeed arrogance. But we aren’t all arrogant and we all disagree about what that means. Who among us are arrogant? Is the accusation well grounded? Where does it come from? Does the arrogance come from the limitations of our disciplinal canons? What is the difference between arrogance and conceit and pride? And how is that related to the concept of “yabang” which has been hurled at us repeatedly? And this goes on and on. It is in the nature of the UP beast.

Through the years UP has been threatened by high officials because it has challenged some desire of the powerful.  This latest anger over UP’s arrogance and the threats of defunding it leave me unimpressed.  So some of us opposed yet another President. So we managed yet again to irritate the powers-that-be. It is not the first time that a high official has cursed the University and then had to take cognizance of it’s rambunctiousness anyway. Nor will it be the last. 

In the succeeding decades of my life, because it remained intertwined with UP, I would experience first hand more events of greater national significance.  But these stories must be left left for another day.

Present is also the past

For now, as I write, I conjure a map of a neighborhood which now lives only in the memory of those who lived in that neighborhood in that era. The houses are still there. But UP personnel leave their houses upon retirement. The geography remains but the community that was in that place is long gone. 

In reunions with my childhood friends, we return to that community and its geography. We  still remember who lived in which houses. We can recall who left to go to a newer house down the road, who left permanently, who came back, who moved in to the houses that were left. We remember what houses stood in which lots, which were demolished and replaced by newer ones, which were demolished and not replaced. We have memories of what the elementary school was like, the high school and the colleges we attended.  We have memories of the infirmary, the Catholic Church and the Protestant Chapel and the shopping center. All these structures have changed. But as it is for us, so it will be for all those who come through the homes and halls of the University – we remember what it was like back then.

Once in a while, in walks around the campus, I pass the houses where I grew up. I look with a large amount of ambivalence at the homes, wondering what claim I have to them when that claim lies in a past that was not just about place but was about relationships, a way of life, and a purpose. Yet I know that the fire tree in that garden was planted by my mother and I am proud of the tall ylang-ylang that I noticed growing out of the gutter and I thought would never survive. Under that santol tree, I buried the umbilical cords of all my children because tradition has it that they would return to where I buried these and I never could imagine that this would not mean returning to their grandparents and to me.

I dare not stare long out of fear that I may bring suspicion upon myself. What if the current occupants speak to me? Would it not disturb them to know I feel a certain birthright over their home?

So I move on quickly. Though the pathways have changed, my old UP comes back to me. In overlayed memories of jaunts I have taken since I learned to walk, through teenage years of despair when walking gave me ease, through the robustness of early and middle adulthood, to the slower more sedate ramble of a senior. Dusk is when I love the campus best. When the Carillon sounds its melodies and the sunset marks its western border.

Often in the glimmer I am almost certain that as I turn the corner I will meet them all again. My mother and her friends taking their own walks and in furious discussions about baking or philosophy. Billy Abueva in his chariot. Jose Maceda in his ancient car  named “Trixie”. Danny Purple, one of our schizophrenics, shambles towards the Church to continue his argument with God. Engineer professors Dominador Ilio (who was also a poet) and Ernesto Pacheco come happily to the door because it is Saturday and they will play endless rounds of bridge with my parents. A neighbor walks up the road to seek my father’s medical advice. Another neighbor walks down the road to play a game of chess. And as I myself walk from Area 1 to Area 2 to Area 14, they are all there again – each family in each designated house.

I still go almost every day to teach or consult with a student or have a meeting or sign some document. And usually it seems all so ordinary. But when I have time to think about it, the University of the Philippines is not just for me a daily workplace and a current set of relationships. It is also a story that begins way before I was born, has brought me to where I am, and will remain when I myself walk with those spirits that I can almost see when I turn the corner at dusk.– Rappler.com

I laud the philosophical shift the Court has been taking in recognizing the need for greater access to justice for our fellowmen who are cash-challenged, distance-disadvantaged, and information-deprived.

For quite some time now, the Court has been looking not only at income levels to determine those whose access to courts we should facilitate; more broadly, we seek to reduce the operational barriers that have made justice elusive and difficult to obtain for most Filipinos. Considering the diversity of our roughly 108 million population, coupled with the fact that this population is dispersed throughout 7,641 islands at home, while over 30 foreign countries host 10% of this population abroad, the Court keenly understands a new paradigm is necessary. Part of this is the realization that we need more, not less, lawyers or law assistants, to help this burgeoning population. 

This population growth and dispersal will increase and diversify, necessitating a strategic rethinking of: (1) the kind of legal services that need to be provided; and (2) as a result of the classification that will be made on this account, whether it is time to evaluate the bar examinations’ ability to direct resources to the areas of need. 

In other words, can our bar examinations be reconfigured to be need-sensitive? Can this sensitivity to need account for geographical specificity in the differences between, for example, the primary concerns of agrarian areas versus urban areas, or the tyranny of distance disadvantaging remote locations? 

The implications of this question require a review of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, as to subject coverage, length, modality, schedule, and the kind of analytical and expressive abilities that are being measured by the examinations. This also requires an analysis of bar examiner behavior as to the carrying capacity of bar examiners to process examination booklets given their number and the kind and length of answers required by the examinations. As well as a cross-country comparison of how attorneys are accredited for practice could be useful for practice. 

We must also examine whether legal practice can be divided into sub-practices. if so, the manner of accreditation for these sub-practices; and whether limited license to practice in very simple procedural settings can be enabled. These questions will be the specific subject matter of our Sub-Committee on Admission to the Bar led by the Chairperson of the 2017 examinations, Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin and ably assisted by his sub-committee members, among whom are Associate Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo who is the Chairperson of the 2018 examinations, Estrella M. Perlas-Bernabe, and Mario Victor MVF Leonen. I believe everyone in this room will appreciate the possibility of dramatic changes that could take place in law practice accreditation as a result of answers to those questions.

Hopefully, you new lawyers will be able to participate in shaping this emerging landscape of law practice, and more generally, the administration of justice. 

Allow me then to speak to the numbers that have come out of the 2016 Bar Examinations and what they mean. You have heard the words “unprecedented,”  “exceptional,” “record-breaking” associated with your batch. 

Three weeks ago, the 3,747 of you made history as the biggest batch of passers since the Bar Examinations began in 1901. 

I note first that to the Filipino, numbers are just numbers unless they mean something in the context of their daily struggles to establish a hopeful future for their families, and in the midst of these struggles, to obtain justice when aggrieved. Second, no matter what the figures are, you are to be congratulated for having toiled to reach this point after years of hard work and stubborn persistence; after four November Sundays painfully scraping together answers to question after question. And now, here you are at last, having just taken your oath as lawyers, before the entire Court. 

Exceptional in diversity

Apart from your record-breaking number, your batch is exceptional in the diversity of your originating residence and law schools, especially with respect to those who did exceptionally well. The top ten bar passers represent no less than seven law schools and all three of the country’s island groups: an indication of the dispersal of quality legal education all throughout the country. May I ask all the new lawyers from Mindanao law schools together with their deans to rise to the applause of our audience? Now to the new lawyers from Visayas law schools and their law deans. To those from Luzon, except those from the National Capital Region. Now, to those from law schools in the National Capital Region. Now, without their deans, to the new lawyers from the NCR law schools who come from residences outside of the NCR.

Why do we need to recognize this diversity of originating residences and law schools? The answer is related to my points regarding the future of the legal profession.

If, as we recognize, non-Metro Manila law schools did well to break the dominance of the usual law schools topping the bar examinations, this could be the window of opportunity to talk about whether we can direct more and better legal services to areas outside Metro Manila and other major urban areas. We need to talk about encouraging more Mindanao, Visayas and non-Metro Manila lawyers to consider staying and rendering service where they are.

I understand that for a young lawyer wishing to provide his or her future family access to top-level education, Metro Manila is the business residence of choice. But, I ask you, batch 2016, to consider that it has been the historical neglect of the countryside that has created the understandably myopic view of the problem of justice in our country.

I speak of the fact that for long decades, our Congress crafted laws that seem to ignore our country’s geographical configuration as 7,000 islands with expansive maritime and fluvial spaces; recognizing terra firma, but not aqua corpus. And in light of this view of our physicality, our courts have lamentably been designed to operate in urban settings, where English, a language foreign to our heart and soul, is used.

I speak of the fact that certain problems in Mindanao are worlds apart from the problems that preoccupy the minds of Manilenyos. While the hardship of wars and other forms of violence assault Mindanaoans, these realities do not shape the minds of Metro Manila urbanites, especially in gated enclaves. I speak of the fact that in the Visayas, the threat of rising sea levels can wipe away entire coastal villages, and that their fishermen, despite having access to protein-rich sea resources, raise some of our most malnourished families; meanwhile, calamities and natural disasters visit Metro Manila in a more limited way. I speak of the fact that in parts of Luzon, agricultural contingencies arise with such dire urgency that a farmer must often borrow money to eat the rice he plants.

And I speak of what preoccupies many Filipino families’ dreams, the ideal of landing a job in a foreign country or a marriage to a foreign spouse as the ticket to Utopia. While dreaming, Filipinos are subjected to all kinds of criminal syndicates – human traffickers, slavers, sexual abusers, labor exploiters, and the lack of legal protection in other countries.

In other words, my dearest compañeros, compañeras, kababayans, we have forgotten how to dream beautiful dreams.

Will you walk with me, batch of 2016, along a path that looks at a fellow Filipino with the kindest of eyes, and with compassionate and generous hearts? Can we together dream of a future where we patiently listen to each other’s complaints and, as lawyers, contribute specific solutions to specific problems? You in Mindanao, tell the Court what Mindanaoan problems are in all their complexity and tell us how we should make courts and procedures work for Mindanao. You in the Visayas, enable us to devise solutions so that our courts allow people to live full lives despite the pendency of litigation without undue burden to your communities. You in the rest of Luzon, tell us how to make courts more accessible in the hinterlands of the Cordilleras, in the rising cities of Luzon, as well as in the congested cities of Metro Manila.

Dampen decibel of discord

Can we dream of a national conversation fueled by love of country and the ardent hope that we can dampen the decibel of discord, enough to understand each other, and define what justice truly means for our people?

The Court has big dreams for our people. For one, we are in the thick of discussions on how to make legal aid free for those who need it most, with this aid provided not only by seasoned lawyers, but by young lawyers as well. This discussion is being led by Justice Velasco. 

On September 1, 2017, the continuous trial guidelines, which we have been working on since 2014, take effect, and we expect great results from then on – Filipinos should be able to experience justice being delivered on-time. This effort is being spearheaded by Justice Diosdado M. Peralta. He is also leading our reform efforts on small claims, an initiative begun in 2008, which should help address most lower-income families and OFWs’ problems with uncollected debts and other similar aggravations. We have many more reform efforts that are changing the judicial landscape,especially the electronic court project and automated hearings, which are programs we began in 2013, but for now and for this audience, these I have mentioned should be enough.

My dear new lawyers, you who have come from all over our country and taken your oath – know that you will be part of the fulfilment of these dreams. You too will be vehicles of reform. From the moment you raised your hands and spoke those words, you have bound yourselves to your duty to society, the legal profession, the courts, and to your future clients. You have sworn to uphold the rule of law with integrity and professionalism, and to exercise the privilege of being members of the Bar not with self-interest foremost, but with unswerving dedication to the interests of the nation, the people, and the public good – wherever you may choose to serve.

The present shows us that lawyers need to understand how our history defines our identity. Our nation’s collective memory and collective forgetting shapes the workings of the legal system in the present -- and what it may be in the future. Parallel to this, the inequalities in material resources and infrastructure, access, and other regional specificities shape the system of justice throughout our nation: who achieves justice, where justice is served, and how swiftly this is done. 

In pushing for reform we must recognize the historic inequalities that have disadvantaged many regions and populations outside Metro Manila and other major urban centers – and in so doing seek to rectify them on all fronts: through rules and procedures, as the Court is doing; through continuous improvement of legal education throughout the country; and also through the presence of lawyers such as yourselves in regions that sorely need practitioners who are dedicated to addressing these inequities and contributing to their local communities.

For we must act on the core principle that the law is not merely a set of convenient formulae to solve specific problems; it is an overarching framework that embodies our people’s aspirations toward justice. And this framework exists not merely for the aspirations of one small set of people, but for all Filipinos, whether they be in remote rural areas or highly urbanized cities; whether they live in poverty or in wealth; whether they are in Luzon or Visayas or Mindanao. 

Yet we have seen that many components of our justice system do not take the incredible diversity of our nation’s people into account. My dear batch of 2016, I call upon you to commit yourselves with all passion and drive to join us in changing this.

For this is the heart of our reforms: that we must work to ever more closely hew to our people’s deep desire for justice throughout the entire Philippines, for all kinds of Filipinos.

Courage, integrity

In this work, I exhort you to:

Firstly, arm yourselves well: with idealism tempered by wisdom; passion strengthened by persistence; knowledge of the law honed by dedicated hard work. You are the lifeblood of the legal profession. Continue to revitalize the field.

Secondly, push forward with all courage and integrity as you take your place among your colleagues in our collective task to uphold, preserve, and defend the rule of law.

Thirdly, hold this foremost in your mind: the law exists to achieve justice for all, not merely a privileged few.

Lastly, when you choose where to serve, remember where the need is most urgent; remember your roots. Choose to serve where the need is greatest.

We find ourselves in times that call for lawyers who are more than skilled technicians trained merely to ply their trade. We need passionate and principled advocates; deep and thorough thinkers; philosophers, historians, and leaders in the law – not only in Metro Manila and other urban centers, but also – especially – in areas that have been historically under-served.

We need lawyers who will not back down from serving the rule of law even at great personal cost. We need lawyers who will not bend to pressures to set the law aside in favor of expediency.  We need lawyers committed to justice for all; dedicated to equal rights for the oppressed and disenfranchised; lawyers who serve where the need is greatest; lawyers who contribute to the conversation not only of their local community but to the national conversation as well, of how we might better serve our people.

I have called you to the service of all Filipinos. I will also add that the call to become a lawyer in these times is a call to sacrifice. In upholding the rule of law you will forego comfort for what will often seem thankless work. You may see peers who have forsaken their principles boasting about their wealth while you toil long hours for a far more humble wage. Your reward for continuing to act with courage and integrity may seem scant indeed. But it will endure past all wealth and luxury, when everything material falls away into dust. It will be for you a true and strong place on which to stand.

Great lawyers, like brilliant diamonds, form under the most crushing of pressures and the most terrible of conditions. For greatness lies not in what one chooses to do when one’s paths are easy. Greatness is proven when someone is confronted with dark and difficult ways – but forges ahead anyway to find the light. It is not on the mountaintops of grandeur and glory that greatness shines. It is in the valleys of the shadow of death, in the grit and dirt of the battle trenches. It is in your utmost extremity, when you find yourself overwhelmed by darkness, but continue to hold fast to your principles, that you blaze the brightest.– Rappler.com

These are excepts from Chief Justice Sereno’s keynote speech for the oath-taking ceremonies of the successful 2016 Bar examinees on Monday, May 22, at the Mall of Asia Arena, Pasay City.

The irony about President Rodrigo Duterte declaring martial law in the entire island of Mindanao is that he is not coming out as the decisive leader who will give Islamic terrorism and communist extortion their comeuppance. It is, in fact, the opposite.

It is an admission of how little Duterte has done to eradicate the root causes of these two acts of terrorism. 

The debut of another variety of Islamic terrorism is a major slap in the President’s face. The local (and still evolving) chapter of ISIS signifies that all those pledges Duterte made to reverse the setbacks to the peace process resulting from his predecessor’s  (mis)adventure in Tukanalipao, Mamapasano, is turning out to be empty promises. 

There is virtually no movement in the crafting of the necessary mechanics for the efficient functioning of the Bangsamoro Entity (or whatever new name it will assume) once it is established. 

The peace talks are in suspended animation since the new panel was organized (perhaps the regime is more concerned with bringing the communists to the fold), while Moro civil society leaders and management staff of government offices involved in the training of Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) guerrillas in the art of daily governance (from filling up forms to monitoring revenues and expenses, etc.) are increasingly being frustrated by the lack of guidance from the top. 

Ever the pragmatic organization that it is, the MILF has not commented on the government’s clumsiness, making just enough of a presence so that it would not be forgotten. It has not disbanded its armed force and has kept control over its territory, made possible in part by the continuing friendly relationship its field commanders have with their counterparts in the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). 

But the MILF is also a wounded organization, with the defection of many of its battle-scarred fighters to Umbra Kato’s more sectarian Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters. It is still unable to prevent its forces from being caught in the never ending rido that afflicts the ummah. It was only a matter of time that another breakaway faction of the MILF would make itself felt. The new actor, the Maute group, is showing some panache by latching to the cash-rich ISIS. (READ: What you should know about the Maute Group)

What about the AFP?

The AFP was like a deer caught in the headlights. It has units with designated security sectors to oversee, but it is clear that the Army’s 1st Infantry Division, whose mission is the security in Marawi and the environs, knew nothing of the  Maute group’s presence in the area. When the Maute group started its assaults, it was the initiative of local commanders that stopped the attacks.  

Neither is the line between field and headquarters clear: government spokespersons in Manila were minimizing the impact of the clashes, telling journalists and their audience not to believe what they see on social media. The latter, however, were sharing news from cellphone texts, photos, and videos sent by friends and kin in Marawi.

The most derisory spin was given by Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana. What happened was not a lapse in military intelligence that allowed the Maute Group to enter Marawi. It was a failure “to appreciate” whatever the local spies gave the intelligence unit of the 1st Infantry Division. Lorenzana did not say who failed “to appreciate” the intelligence reports. Keeping it vague exonerates Camp Aguinaldo, and, by extension, Malacañang.

Thus, for over 12 hours no one knew anything definite, including – I suspect – the President and his team in Malacañang (a side question: what kind of information was conveyed to the caretaker committee led by Budget Secretary Benjamin Diokno from Marawi and what did Diokno, in turn, tell the President?). The result is a proclamation that was hastily written and improperly formatted (Can a proclamation by the President of the Philippines be notarized with the statement: “Done in the Russian Federation”? Duterte thinks so).

Stoking the flame

More bothering is that the proclamation exaggerates the threat of the Maute Group and thus allows its author to endow the police and the military the carte blanche to do anything to individuals, groups, and communities. Muslim and Christian.

Duterte stoked the flame by warning that the police and army can shoot anyone who violates the curfew in the 4 Moro provinces where freedom of movement was curtailed. In his press conference upon arriving from Moscow, the President even suggested that he might just expand martial law to cover the entire country and for an extended period. His justification: droga, of course.

The panic over Marawi has not only turned into an anxiety over a failure to bring peace and continue the progress in Mindanao, but also into a disquiet that the promise he anchored his presidency on – the war on drugs – will never be fulfilled. 

What makes things doubly scarier now is that President Duterte has concocted this bizarre alliance that has the Maute Group linked to drug syndicates, human rights groups and their European Union patrons, and the US State Department. 

As the President expands his targets of opportunity and makes it easier for them to be attacked, thanks to his martial law declaration, it is once again Mindanao – yes, his beloved Mindanao – that will be the laboratory of this 21st-century version of Ferdinand Marcos’ war.– Rappler.com

Patricio N. Abinales is an OFW. 

As with their "war on drugs”, Duterte and his army of enablers are trying to rally support for martial law and their own version of the "war on terror" by claiming that, just as there is no other way to help and support victims of drug-related crimes but to curtail people's rights and exterminate drug peddlers/dependents, there is now no other way to help and support the victims of "terrorism" in Mindanao but to curtail people's rights and liquidate the "terrorists." Those who support martial law are the only ones who "care" about the people of Marawi; those who are against it are on the side of, if not in cahoots with, the "terrorists."

This is of course not only dishonest but ridiculous. We oppose martial law precisely because we stand in solidarity with the people of Mindanao, and because we know that martial law will not help but only harm, and indeed, terrorize them – ust as so many people from Mindanao themselves have said (See statement from over 20 Mindanao-based groups below, for example).

Duterte's "war on terror" will only allow and embolden state forces to perpetrate even more human rights violations against all those they suspect as the "enemies" and we know that, despite all the legal restrictions imposed on them on paper, they will tag and treat as enemies even ordinary civilians. It is bound to create or reinforce a climate of impunity that is likely to result in so many illegal arrests, arbitrary detentions, disappearances, torture, and other atrocities that, instead of resolving the conflict, will only drive even more people – the sons, daughters, brothers, sisters or friends of those they terrorize or slaughter – to join rather than reject the likes of the Maute Group, thus further perpetuating rather than ending the conflict.

We – and many people in Mindanao, especially – know this from experience (and common sense): Marcos also imposed official martial law in Mindanao in 1972 (and successive regimes imposed 'unofficial' martial law after) but, instead of ending the violence, their own wars of terror only led to more blood and tears. Instead of eliminating the "enemies," official and de facto military rule only drove many Moros and lumad to join, and fight with, the various resistance groups in the region.

The root of all the violence and suffering in Mindanao is all too clear (despite so many governments' attempts at Filipino-nationalist historical revisionism): The emergence and persistence of groups such as the Abu Sayaff or the Maute group – their continuing ability to draw recruits and keep fighting – has been the consequence not just of the spread of irrational ideologies such as "Islamic fundamentalism" nor of conspiracies hatched by the United States. It has been the result of the abject failure of all previous negotiations agreements between the government and various Moro/Muslim and other groups in Mindanao (the MNLF, MILF, etc.) to improve the conditions of life in Mindanao and to guarantee real as opposed to bogus autonomy to the Moros and lumad.

Those agreements failed, in turn, because politicians, landowners, capitalists, military generals, and other elites from the northern Philippines (and from other countries) have refused to give up even just a small portion of the vast lands and resources they took from the Moros/Muslims/lumad from the 19th to the 20th century through state-sanctioned land grabs and resettlement programs (itself an attempt to pacify all those whose lands they grabbed in the Visayas and Luzon).

“Conflict" has continued because instead of simply acquiescing as they were effectively subjected to colonial rule by Filipinos, the Moros/Muslims/and lumad organized themselves and formed various groups (the MNLF, MILF, etc), to fight for their rights – groups that, because their oppressors used arms and violence to subdue them, also felt compelled to use arms and violence to fight back. The history of Abu Sayyaf and Maute groups are nebulous, but available information suggest they were formed largely by rebels who felt betrayed after the government failed to deliver on its promise to grant them real autonomy, and who feel that they could only finally achieve their goals by fighting for an independent (and 'Islamic') state.

Oppression breeds resistance

It's easy to think of them as just dupes or stooges of ISIS (or of the CIA), but what more likely happened is that, isolated and desperate to attract support, they only adopted the language and ideology of ISIS (and perhaps accepted resources from them and other groups) in order to pursue their own homegrown goals. We may disagree with (and we should condemn) their methods, but it would be inaccurate to dismiss them all as mere "bandits" or "terrorists."

Oppression always breeds political resistance, and political resistance comes in many – sometimes ugly and detestable – forms.

This is why the "war on terror" now being being waged by Duterte – and being justified by his army of enablers – will not actually help but only further harm, and terrorize, those they claim to "care" about. Unable to once and for all pacify Mindanao, Duterte is once again unleashing the swords of war in yet another attempt to once and for all open up Mindanao to local and foreign investors and foster capital accumulation – something he could not quite do for as long as armed groups continue to fight the state.

But even if Duterte captures, tortures, or slaughters all the members of the ASG/Maute and other groups – just as Marcos and his henchmen tried to capture, torture, or slaughter members of the MNLF/MILF/etc in the 1970s, many of their sons and daughters will simply replace them, and much of Mindanao will only continue to be a valley of blood and tears, for as long as the injustices committed against the Moros/Muslims/lumad (and landless Christian settlers) in the region are not corrected.

The kind of military “solution” that Duterte is now pursuing—the same solution that Marcos (and Erap, GMA, etc) before him pursued, will therefore not work to end the violence; what's needed instead are political solutions – the same ones that Cory, FVR and others tried to pursue but ultimately failed to deliver. 

What's needed is for the government to conduct earnest and honest peace negotiations with the various armed groups in the regions and be willing to finally respect rather than suppress the right to self-determination of the Moros/Muslims/lumad in Mindanao. And the enemies or the "spoilers" here, let us be very clear, are not the oppressed but the landlords, investors, generals and other elites who, seeking to hold on to their stolen property, would rather that Mindanao continues to be ruled as a de facto colony.

There is another way to help, or be in solidarity with, the people of Marawi and the rest of region – just as there is another way to help, or be in solidarity with, drug dependents and the victims of drug-related crimes. 

We need to block rather than support Duterte’s martial law in Mindanao in order to pave the way for a different kind of peace that will not just benefit Mindanaoans but all Filipinos: the peace of the free and living, not the peace of the muffled, nor the peace of the graveyard. – Rappler.com

Herbert Docena has a PhD in Sociology from the University of California, Berkeley. He is a member of #BlockMarcos and the Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino, but his views do not necessarily represent said organizations.

Amid the crisis in Marawi City and the declaration of martial law in Mindanao, we reflect on these words from Islamic poet Jalaluddin Rumi:

Grief can be the garden of compassion.
If you keep your heart open through everything,
your pain can become your greatest ally
in your life's search for love and wisdom.

– 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.  

Close to marking its first year in office, the Duterte administration has turned around the country’s relations with China in a number of ways. Departing from the previous government’s strong opposition to China’s expansive claims and assertive actions in the South China Sea, President Rodrigo Duterte has downplayed the territorial and maritime disputes in favor of pursuing close economic and political ties with China. 

This shift has been rewarded by pledges of major fund infusions in support of the Philippine government’s infrastructure development, with a long wishlist of construction projects (including roads, bridges, railways, industrial zones, ports, flood control, etc.) now in the pipeline or in various stages of negotiation. Filipino fishermen have started returning to their normal fishing activities in the vicinity of Scarborough Shoal, albeit under close watch by Chinese Coast Guard vessels.

Instead of China’s past efforts to diplomatically isolate the Philippines after Manila filed an arbitration suit seeking to protect its own maritime entitlements under international law, it now sees the Philippines as a welcome partner in its major diplomatic initiatives such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). China has also apparently come around to the idea of signing with ASEAN a Code of Conduct to regulate activities in the South China Sea, although at best that is still bound to be a protracted process (and at worst, an exercise in futility).

While island construction activities in the reefs held by China continued unabated, including on Mischief Reef which the arbitration ruling acknowledged to be subject to the Philippines’ EEZ rights, there have been no reports of major provocative actions that had become almost daily media fare in previous years – PLA-Navy and Coast Guard presence, military exercises, harassment and intimidation of other countries’ resource-related activities,  massive fishing and coral reef destruction, oil rig challenges, psychological warfare conducted through official media mouthpieces, and the like.

No new construction activities are under way on Scarborough Shoal, which some would attribute to the United States and Philippines signalling that this would be a “red line” that China would do best not to cross. Instead, official channels of bilateral dialogue between Manila and Beijing have resumed and new ones have opened up, including early resumption of discussions on the dispute itself as announced during Duterte’s second visit to Beijing (May 13-15) to participate in the BRI Summit.

Can relations between Manila and Beijing truly have transformed overnight, considering how close the two governments came to the brink of outright hostility just a little over a year ago? Can the definition of the two nations’ vital interests change so drastically that they can simply turn a new page in history and start on a clean slate? Or do the goals remain the same – even though the strategies taken by both sides have taken a significant turn?

Duterte’s strategy of de-emphasizing and compartmentalizing, while not abandoning, the territorial and maritime issues, is a wise move that can pay off if done smartly.

By delinking economic relations from management of the disputes, Manila can benefit from economic links with Beijing at a time when sustained high growth and investor confidence in the Philippines coincides with a massive drive by China to invest in global infrastructure buildup and trade, industrial and financial connectivity programs as part of the BRI. The challenge will be to see that China itself separates the two aspects of relations, since we have seen it try to use economic leverage in the past (via travel bans and suspension of banana imports) for political ends.

Duterte’s shift in China policy also reduces what used to be open disagreement within ASEAN over handling of the disputes in the relations with China, but at the same time forces some of the other stakeholders (including some who were free-riding on the Aquino administration’s efforts) to shoulder more of the responsibility to ensure progress on the issue, thus easing pressure on the Philippines.

Fortuitous developments

Despite some minor revision, security and other relations with the US remain strong, being highly institutionalized, while security cooperation with Japan and other countries are growing.  Military-to-military contacts with China, which were quite active during the Ramos to Arroyo administrations, have also resumed, hopefully leading to renewed confidence-building and reduced risk of miscalculation.  

The policy shift may or may not reflect a fully thought-out strategy, but thus far its relatively successful outcomes have also relied on fortuitous developments well beyond Duterte’s control. Serendipity played a role.

One factor was the hard-won arbitration ruling itself, which came within the first twelve days of Duterte’s taking the helm of government. The favorable ruling for the Philippines is now part of international jurisprudence, whether the Duterte government pushes for full compliance now or later. Because the ruling is final and binding, Manila is as much duty-bound as China is, to comply with it and see it through. Aquino’s successful “lawfare” (or legal ‘warfare’) has opened a new platform for management and resolution of the disputes, one that the current or any future governments of the Philippines and China should pursue (preferably sooner rather than later, but when conditions are favorable), if they are genuinely committed to rule of law in the international system.

The second serendipitous event was the election of US President Donald Trump. China-US relations had been moving in a dangerous downward spiral, and in the course of Washington’s supposed show of support for its Philippine ally, Manila’s disputes with Beijing ran the risk of becoming less about the former’s maritime rights and resource entitlements and more about major powers’ competition for influence and right to conduct military activities at sea. With Trump at the helm, and considering his administration’s yet unclear foreign policy towards China (other than seeking China’s help in constraining North Korea’s renewed belligerence), Beijing has reason to act more studiously and with greater caution  in the South China Sea. After all, Trump may provide opportunities for China to attain strategic gains even larger in importance than control of the South China Sea (perhaps leading to its aspiration for a “new type of major country relations”). On the other hand, because US commitment to engage in the South China Sea is also unclear under Trump (whether on behalf of allies or purely on its own behalf), the Philippines has reason to push the thought of military solutions to the backburner and return to a mainly diplomatic track.

The third fortuitous development for Duterte is Xi Jinping’s launch of the bold and ambitious “Belt and Road Initiative”. BRI is a major campaign for China-led economic, industrial, financial, technological, and sociocultural connectivity (mainly through infrastructure support) that would link 65 countries from Asia, Europe and Africa, ostensibly to spur development and growth in light of the slow recovery of the global economy from the 2007 crisis. It is also intended to stimulate growth in China’s backward frontier provinces, and to put China’s excess manufacturing capacity and foreign currency surplus into profitable use. 

Good fortune for Duterte

The successful implementation of the program will elevate China further into the ranks of leading countries, but it relies as much on China’s powers of persuasion, soft power diplomacy and internationalist credentials as on its massive financial resources.

This will likely translate into China downplaying nationalist emotions and territorial claims, or restraining military adventurism, possibly giving Duterte breathing space both for repairing relations with China, and reorienting the alliance with the US away from a China focus and towards what he feels are more convergent objectives at the moment.

The overall interests of both China and the Philippines may not have changed, but the (rather serendipitous) changes in circumstances unarguably paved the way for adjustments in Philippine strategy in directions preferred by the new President, and no doubt by China.

If the 3 factors I mentioned together represent a spate of good fortune for Duterte, I dare argue that China, too, has serendipity to thank, for allowing it an opportunity to pull back from the brink and change course. Whether China fully makes use of this opportunity or not is still an open-ended question, but the opportunity is there. 

For China, good fortune’s name is Duterte. But that’s another story.

The author is a professor at the Asian Center, University of the Philippines and president of Asia Pacific Pathways to Progress Foundation.

Prez Digong alarmingly and needlessly cut short by a day his trip to Russia and took the mic energetically on arrival for another rambling performance. He talked of martial law (ML) in Mindanao where the vilified Muslims have been persecuted for centuries.

Those of us born in the last century may have fading memories of ML of 1972. Indeed, how many of us remember, or even just know about the Jolo Massacre of February 7-8, 1974 when 20,000 Muslim, Christian, Chinese, etc. lives were lost? (A PMA alum, No. 3 in his class, who joined the Navy and had attended Rizal High with me, first told me about the Jolo assault during ML.) Or the Palimbang, Sultan Kudarat bloodbath of September, 1974 when 1,500 Muslims were dispatched to paradise? Martyrs.

The captive press was silent then, not possible today, given modern technology and militance.

In our time, Joker Arroyo, TeddyBoy Locsin and I took bullets for Prez Cory. She may speak for a few minutes and then leave it to us or the Cabinet in general to clarify, elaborate or nuance.

But, how Digong loves the mic. Asked a simple short question, he would meander, ramble and cuss (PI! leche, gago, buang, etc.) and leave it to his confused subalterns to explain what he really meant to say. Cussing is not policymaking. And clenched fist is a human rights salute of victims, not of the oppressors. Mga uto-uto. Sipsip.

Now his Cabinet will have to deal with the warning to spread ML to Visayas and even Luzon, hoping to calm down our kin and friends abroad. There are also the investors, tourists and retirees who may need reassurance, let alone conservative Muslims who may be radicalized by a Marawi or Mindanao bloodbath in a faraway place with a strange-sounding name. Terrorism is now global. Not prudent to provoke needlessly with kanto boy braggadocio.

Outside help

To deal with evacuees and refugees we may need outside help, which Digong rejects, on the supposed advice of Sonny Dominguez, if there are human rights strings attached. Mild-mannered Sonny, a closet hawk? No donor would donate just because we are such nice guys. Gifts come with conditionalities, within reason, and human rights concerns are not beyond it, from our tiny places in the sun. Yet, Digong even wants us decapitated.

Sadly Digong's advisers are echoes, not voices, mainly from our common alma mater. "These days, Lex Talionis, Lex Leonum and alumni of San Beda College of Law have formed a united front behind Mr. Duterte, their most famous graduate." (Special Report, Bond of brothers, PDI, May 21, 2017, p. B11). "Most well-known"" perhaps?

Leila de Lima and I are also Bedan lawyers with a bias for human rights. We wish the President well, for his success is everyone's. We are not however behind, but in front of, to question and confront, him, if you will, on his attitude towards us, human rights advocates.

Yup, he now wants us decapitated? Rhetoric from the powerful may have a powerful influence on human conduct. He may be our law school's "most famous graduate," per the Special Report. But, if of the entire institution, I would nominate Ninoy Aquino, whose salvaging led me to know Digong's admirably brave Mom, Ma'am Soledad, Tia Chuling(?) with whom I marched in Davao in protest over that game-changing August 21, 1983 extrajudicial murder. (An aunt of mine was also named Soledad, a market vendor in Pasig, who I assisted in a mini-stall near hers. I sold eggs as a franchisee, ha ha.)

Ninoy helped Cory and Noynoy to be Numero Uno. Honeylet? Sara? Josme! Lex Talionis of the Old Testament marked a progressive liberal step-eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth, for exact equivalence, from a higher baleful 7-1, even, 77-1, exchange rate. But, the New Testament introduced the law of charity, of forgiveness, of turning the other cheek. I co-led the fight against the return of the rape-the-rapist anti-poor death penalty in my time in the Senate (1987-92).

War vs poverty

This penalty is one of several areas where the bloodthirsty Prez should change course, with his frat brothers, for all of whom I wish the best and the finest during their watch, for our people's sake.

But, the war should be against poverty, not the poor. St. Thomas More said: "No penalty on earth will stop people from stealing, if it is the only way of getting food." Sadly, Digong's brods seem to be echoes, not voices, who do not appreciate More who counselled: "It would be far more to the point to provide everyone with some means of livelihood." What the administration has done in livelihood I have not seen where I move about (limited, cuz of my health issues).

Thus, at 77, and ailing (St. Peter or Satan may get tired of my repeated motions to call later or to postpone; can go any time, like anybody else, including Digong), I can say that a most vital lesson I have learned in life, even if I have not always been able to live by it, is to be kind, not arrogant, and not make enemies where we can make no friends, per Don Claro M. Recto. I won't be harsh. Harshness against the Muslims has not worked across the centuries. They remain our brothers and sisters.

How has the administration done now in a little over a month in its first year, with understandable rookie errors? Good that the death penalty would not now be taken up partly cuz Manny Pacquiao is busy training and reading Genesis. There may be something here for the ethics panel but I doubt if anyone in the Senate cares about the glaring impropriety in Manny's misconduct. Kapakanang pansarili, di pambayan? Taga-Mindanao pa naman. Mga Datu, di datong.

Anyway, for Digong, In traffic, total failure. Bokya. It is worse than a year ago. No emergency powers please, like EJKing the first jaywalkers and reckless drivers.

Are we better off after a year? Did we have a Marawi situation last year?

Of course Russia would say it is not interested in the power situation here. In 1905, Japan beat the Russkies. In 1979, Vietnam beat back China, with 30,000 casualties, both sides. Earlier, Vietnam defeated France and the U.S..

Japan and Vietnam - may PUSO. Do we? Only against druggies, who are sick, not criminals. Digong is to me like how Churchill described Russia, a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

If Marawi will serve as a laboratory for Digong's private population reduction program, heaven help us.

Now, Digong shoots down Harvard Men and Yalies. If Digong questions the British royalty's past, he may even say the one behind Yale was a slave-owner, as Jefferson was, who romanced a Black slave, Sally Hemmings.

Digong, in a not unusual tantrum a week ago, in Davao City, talked about Ivy Leaguers and our ancestors. He blasted us as "buang, PI!, leche," and said he could toy with us.

In Harvard, I learned that one thing a university should teach, is that poverty is respectable. In San Beda, lo cortes no quita lo valiente. Courtesy does not detract from valor.

Digong has to widen and improve his vocabulary so that his allies would not have too much trouble deciphering and clarifying what he means.

China does not bully Vietnam, which defeated France and the U.S. and fought China to a deadlock in 1979,  incurring casualties of 30,000 (both sides). Here, we lose 44 attackers in Mamasapano and the finger-pointing has yet to cease - with government not caring for the Muslim victims, including Sara, 5, and other innocent Muslim civilians, which may partly explain Marawi. We have not defeated any major or minor power, with our long story as colony until we in the Senate decided to end our status as America's last plantation. But, we did not "unfriend" America.

Better the devil we know, than one we don't.

Just give us money, no questions asked? What about an awakened dragon saying not to raise the West Philippines issue or War? Do we tremble with Digong? Vietnam didn't, but resisted, and wasn't defeated.

We have a long history of captivity and slavery, which we thought we ended on September 16, 1991 when we in the Senate then terminated, by voting NO! – on the bases

Digong should talk less, his Cabinet, more, and take the bullets. They should be voices, not echoes. Di siya lang lagi ang bida.

And thank you Gemma Nemenzo for "The greatest Marcos horror story never told," through the eyes of a Moro filmmaker, on Palimbang, Sultan Kudarat. "Even as the AFP denies the existence of the massacre, according to [Teng] Mangansakan [II], the survivors still await reparation from the Commission on Human Rights for the loss of lives and property suffered by the villagers, now 42 years to this day."

Marcosian. Now Dutertismo? Susmariano! – Rappler.com
      

Very recent events in Marawi City are a stark reminder of the serious security and governance challenges facing the country.

This is not the first time the Maute group and others like it have threatened the lives and livelihood of Filipino citizens. Every attack is a reminder that our citizens, tourists and investors remain at risk in some parts of our country. The operative word here is “some.” All evidence so far suggests that the vast majority of our country is a safe place to live and invest in, where institutions can be trusted to function in support of democracy and the economy. 

This makes the Marawi City events even more pernicious. In the eyes of the global community, perhaps their perception of risk in our country – and most especially Mindanao – will probably deteriorate because of the attacks. And the declaration of martial law may or may not address this.

For our citizens in Mindanao, we have to break out of the cycle of conflict and underdevelopment that ultimately feeds conflict in that region. Resorting to extreme tools like martial law will not get us there, as long term investments are reassured not by a regime of fear and harsh policies, but by trust in enduring good governance and effective institutions.

Mindanao’s burden of negative perceptions

In conversations with Mindanawons and local government leaders in the region, they lament the sordid reputation foisted on this economically promising region in our country, in part due to the lack of nuance that media (sometimes both domestic and foreign) often fail to convey. This is Mindanao’s burden, and that is why it is a relatively easy target, since terrorists effectively hold it hostage with every attack that gives the entire island the risky reputation that it hasn’t really earned. 

Here, I recall a conversation with Mayor Beng Climaco years back, as she lamented how media reported on conflict incidents from Zamboanga City, giving the impression that it is always severely affected by conflict in other parts of Mindanao, such as Basilan and Sulu. 

This is perhaps the tactical objective of terrorists attacking democracies the world over: to force countries into draconian measures by increasing the trade-off between security and freedom. 

Security or freedom?

Perhaps it’s this trade-off that has triggered debate on the appropriate response to the situation, notably after the President’s declaration of martial law in Mindanao, and his vocal consideration of extending this to the rest of the country. 

I don’t believe there are many citizens or analysts who believe it is necessary to apply martial law on the entire country. I would argue that is a non-starter, and will credit this yet again to the President’s bravado (for which he is known).

The key question then would be whether a Mindanao-wide martial law is necessary. Here it would seem that the publicly available facts appear to fuel very mixed views.

Some believe that martial law in Mindanao could produce a stabilizing effect on the situation; and it could enable government forces to pursue and destroy these terrorists. In fact, there are businessmen and citizens who support this view, and at least one government official in the economic team, Secretary Ben Diokno, has defended the President’s call.

On the other hand, there are at least two counter-arguments. 

Much less prone to abuse

One is by those who believe that martial law augers back to the dark history of our country, and they worry that this signals a slide in our governance. 

The response to this, of course, is for government to clarify that martial law under the 1987 Constitution is much less prone to abuse, and includes safeguards that allow for the continued checks and balances from the judiciary and Congress. Nevertheless, the President’s own words appear to contradict this, by directly invoking the harshness of the Marcos Martial Law experience. Perhaps the President is prepared to pay the price of more negative perceptions just to drive home the point to the terrorists. 

Of course, the other argument is that martial law is not necessary at all – something the military actually publicly acknowledged earlier this year. Here, General Año is in an awkward situation of having to oversee martial law over Mindanao, when he (through his spokesman) claimed it would not be necessary just last February. In fact, many hailed that statement then as a signal of the AFP’s institutional strength and how far it has come since the dark years of Marcos’ Martial Law.

Further inconsistencies between pronouncements of the President (that we are fighting ISIS) and clarifications by the military and other security analysts (e.g. that these are homegrown terrorists, not ISIS, or at least not yet) add further to the confusion.

Institutions and governance vs terrorism

The mixed views on the President’s call for Mindanao-wide martial law will be difficult to unify, given information on the ground that is still emerging (and much is not made public for obvious security reasons). Nevertheless, we should recognize that true victory against terror lies in building enough capability – and hence trust – in our institutions (including the security sector’s ability to protect the population in part through an effective intelligence network) so that we will never have to wield martial law again. 

In the words of one security analyst, eventually martial law can create a chilling effect on the local economy, and even the broader economy. Under these conditions, terrorist groups will be able to recruit more idle young people. Resorting often to extreme tools like martial law could be self-defeating.

Hence, our national debate today lies in the dividing line between those who think our government institutions and the armed forces can get it done without declaring martial law, versus those who have had enough, and see martial law as the only solution left. 

To be forced into this decision leads me to conclude that while the terrorists lost the skirmish in Marawi City, they may have won a tactical advantage against our democracy. – Rappler.com

The author is a development economist and Dean of the Ateneo School of Government. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Ateneo de Manila University. 

The President must explain to Congress.

The Constitution obligates him to. He need not appear before the legislators in person, but he must, at the very least, send a written explanation. And whoever says that Congress need not convene to deliberate on the matter had better read the Constitution again. It is careless statements like these that confuse and confound.

The fundamental issue is what grounds to invoke to justify the declaration of martial law and thus how to characterize the actions of the Maute Group. The President's choices are limited to only two: Invasion or rebellion (which the Revised Penal Code makes synonymous with "insurrection"). On top of this, he must show that public safety necessitated the declaration of martial law.

Because of the supposed ISIS connection of the Maute group, the "invasion" track might at first seem plausible. But there are severe problems, foremost among which is the problem of fact. What, exactly, is the connection between Maute and ISIS, if any? Maute can claim that it pledges allegiance to ISIS.  That will not make it part of ISIS nor even an agent of this clearly terrorist organization. Then there is the problem of law.

International law provides a definition of “invasion”. Philippine laws do not, because invasion is not a crime punishable by our Revised Penal Code, although the acts connected with or in furtherance of invasion may be crimes under the RPC.  Under General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX), the following is the legal notion of invasion:

"Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression: The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof xxx."

Consequently, invasion is an act of “aggression” by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State. Clearly, under this definition, the acts of the Maute Group in Marawi do not constitute invasion. Even assuming that Maute and ISIS are allied, ISIS is not a state, although it calls itself “Islamic state” no other State recognizes it as a state.

Rebellion and prosecution

The only alternative left is to justify the declaration of martial law by characterizing Maute acts as “rebellion”.

And since the purpose of the group is to remove a part of the territory of the Philippines from allegiance to the government as well as to deprive the President of his powers over some part of the Philippines even if only partially (Art. 134, RPC), this position is tenable.

The next question is: How are the perpetrators to be prosecuted? This is of course an independent issue from the issue of the justification for the declaration of martial law.

First, the offenders may be prosecuted for the crime of rebellion. Please notice that under the amendment to the RPC brought about by R.A. 6968, rebellion need not involve murder, arson, and destruction to property. The gravamen of the crime of rebellion is “rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of the Republic or the Philippines or any part thereof xxx”.

Consequently, one charged with rebellion may be charged separately for whatever common crimes may be committed such as murder, homicide or arson, as long as it is not alleged that such acts were in furtherance of the rebellion – because there is no necessity to so allege.

In fact, it would be better to charge the offenders under the provisions of R.A. 9372, Section 3, “B”, also known as the "Human Security Act" of the Philippines, our version of the anti-terrorism law. Rebellion is one of the predicate offenses of terrorism – and the penalty is more severe: forty years imprisonment without possibility of parole.

There are equities to weigh.

On the one hand, it is never helpful to so constrict the powers of the President to cope with national emergencies. I have repeatedly sounded the warning: When you use the Constitution to shackle the President and he is faced with a grave threat (rightly or wrongly perceived), the temptation to break away from the letter of the Constitution increases until it becomes irresistible. 

But when, as under the Constitution of 1935, the provisions are few and so much is left to executive discernment – provided we elect the right officials – then the Executive has enough maneuvering space within which to act decisively and still remain within constitutional confines. This is not merely a question of keeping a written document in place. It is a matter of securing a framework that allows our citizens to continue invoking their rights.

And it will certainly not help to warn that martial law may be expanded to cover the entire country without showing why this is to be done – since the people of Luzon and most of the Visayas have thus far – God be praised – been spared from the threat that has made of Marawi City virtually a war zone.

This will only feed the flames of suspicion that martial law was planned long ago. And, while "Batas Militar" has been traditionally used to translate "martial law" that only muddles concepts because military law is one thing – the law that binds members of the military, including the system of military justice – and martial law is quite another, although it involves the participation of the military in suppressing invasion or rebellion and in the conduct of the daily affairs of government. – Rappler.com

The author is vice president of the Cagayan State University and Dean, Graduate School of Law of San Beda College.

Thirty seven years ago, dear Loyolans, I stood in your place, about to take a place of honor and privilege as a graduate of Ateneo.

Three years later, Ninoy Aquino would be assassinated; by 1986, the dictator Marcos would flee the country. But on my graduation day in 1980, it was difficult to be certain of a future outside of martial law. I was at once optimistic and fearful. Optimistic about my career prospects as any Atenean would be, but fearful lest the long nights of martial law overshadowing our country never end.

I had actually prepared to talk with you in a more lighthearted and general manner on themes of justice, democracy and what it means to be an Atenean, but the declaration of Martial Law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao this Tuesday impressed upon me a more urgent and specific subject matter. So yesterday I discarded my prepared speech and resolved that today I would try to address the questions that must be in your minds and those of your parents. I thought it behooved me to give you a lens through which you could view present events and make decisions regarding your participation in the making of Philippine history.

Allow me to guess at the questions in your mind: Will this Martial Law declaration bring back the human rights violations and the depredations that characterized the martial law regime of 1972? Will investors leave the country? Will young people still have enough good jobs? Will our labor force be squeezed into more painful contortions of diaspora? Will our voices still be heard? The answer, my dear graduates, is “It depends.”

Our hopes for the future depend on whether the Executive Department, led by the President, the leadership and the entirety of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police, Department of Justice officials and prosecutors, the Chief Public Attorney and her public defenders will take sufficient care to abide by the Constitution and the laws even while Martial Law is in place. It depends on whether there will be abuse of the awesome powers that Martial Law gives the Armed Forces and the police.

It also depends on whether Congress and the Supreme Court will exercise their review powers appropriately over the declaration of Martial Law and the suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus; and whether both houses of Congress and all courts will continue to function normally and well.

It also depends on whether certain independent constitutional bodies, namely the Ombudsman, the Commission on Human Rights, and the Commission on Audit will persist in discharging their proper functions.

Finally, it depends on whether you, my fellow Ateneans, together with the rest of the Filipino population, do your part to ensure that this declaration of Martial Law does not imperil your future.

Allow me to clarify that the powers to declare Martial Law and suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus are expressly granted President Duterte under the Constitution. When properly implemented, this should not by itself unduly burden our country. This power was granted to allow the President to resolve the situation “in case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.” There may be questions before the Supreme Court regarding whether this can be extended to encompass situations akin to invasion or rebellion, and what circumstances constitute rebellion, but we will not venture into that for now. Suffice it to say that the Martial Law power is an immense power that can be used for good, to solve defined emergencies; but all earthly powers when abused can result in oppression.

If the Martial Law power is expressly granted the President, why are there fears expressed in some quarters regarding the declaration of President Duterte?

You must understand the history of a previous declaration of martial law, which occurred over forty years ago at the height of President Marcos’ power. Former Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee in Dizon v Eduardo described September 22, 1972 – the night Marcos announced Martial Law – as a dark evening when military authorities moved throughout the city to arrest and detain journalists and members of the opposition, upon orders of the President-turned dictator. Over the next two decades, enemies of the Marcos regime “disappeared,” were tortured or summarily executed.

The fears stoked by the terms “Martial Law” and “suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus,” are therefore not surprising. But we must remember that these apprehensions were created by former President Marcos and the martial law that followed his 1972 declaration. If President Duterte and the aforementioned government authorities avoid the gross historical sins of Mister Marcos and his agents, then our country might reap the benefits of the legitimate use of the provisions on Martial Law in the 1987 Constitution.

You see, the 1987 Constitution in clear and unmistakable language rejects and absolutely prohibits the particular kind of martial law that began in our country in September of 1972. 

What do I mean by this? Allow me to refer to the decisions of our Supreme Court and other tribunals regarding the essential characteristics of the martial law dominating our country following its 1972 proclamation.

First, that period was characterized by widespread human rights violations in the form of murders, rape and other forms of torture, forced disappearances, arbitrary arrests and illegal detention, and forced isolation or hamletting of villages.

In the case of Mijares v. Ranada, the Supreme Court described the deep damage dealt to our institutions and the very fabric of our society as follows:

“Our martial law experience bore strange unwanted fruits, and we have yet to finish weeding out its bitter crop. While the restoration of freedom and the fundamental structures and processes of democracy have been much lauded, according to a significant number, the changes, however, have not sufficiently healed the colossal damage wrought under the oppressive conditions of the martial law period. The cries of justice for the tortured, the murdered, and the desaparecidos arouse outrage and sympathy in the hearts of the fair-minded, yet the dispensation of the appropriate relief due them cannot be extended through the same caprice or whim that characterized the ill-wind of martial rule. The damage done was not merely personal but institutional, and the proper rebuke to the iniquitous past has to involve the award of reparations due within the confines of the restored rule of law.”

Perhaps the most specific recount of the human rights atrocities during the Martial Law period beginning in 1972 can be found in a US Decision, specifically that of the Hawaiian District Court in the case of In Re: Estate Of Ferdinand E. Marcos Human Rights Litigation, Celsa Hilao, et. al v. Estate Of Ferdinand E. Marcos. The case was a class action brought by victims or victims’ family members against the Estate of Marcos, seeking compensation for torture, disappearance or summary execution. The court made findings of human rights violations including numerous forms of torture such as beatings while blindfolded, rape and sexual assault, electric shock, and solitary confinement. The court noted:

“All of these forms of torture were used during "tactical interrogation," attempting to elicit information from detainees concerning opposition to the MARCOS government. The more the detainees resisted, whether purposefully or out of lack of knowledge, the more serious the torture used.”

Second, the period of martial law that began in September of 1972 was likewise characterized by its heretofore unprecedented scale of plunder.

The case of Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Peña described the rule of Marcos as a "well-entrenched plundering regime of twenty years,” with respect to  “the ill-gotten wealth which rightfully belongs to the Republic although pillaged and plundered in the name of dummy or front companies, in several known instances carried out with the bold and mercenary, if not reckless, cooperation and assistance of members of the bar as supposed nominees.” The Supreme Court in that case “noted the magnitude of the regime's organized pillage and the ingenuity of the plunderers and pillagers with the assistance of experts and the best legal minds in the market.” The ill-gotten assets identified so far by both the Presidential Commission on Good Governance and the Solicitor General are valued at approximately $5 billion.

Third, the martial law following the proclamation of 1972 was extremely oppressive, concentrating power only in Mister Marcos and his group. At one point, the Supreme Court, quoting Chief Justice Teehankee, characterized the time as “a return to the lese majeste when the voice of the King was the voice of God so that those touched by his absolute powers could only pray that the King acted prudently and wisely.” The dictator amassed so much power as the Commander-in-Chief, that he was able to take “absolute command of the nation and… the people could only trust that he would not fail them.”

We know what happened. Marcos failed our people. Those of us who were alive at the time bore witness to the human rights atrocities and the corruption caused by such absolute power.

Fourth, the martial law period of 1972 put the Philippines in an economic tailspin that saw us go from the second most vibrant economy in Asia to its sick man. In Marcos v. Manglapus, the Supreme Court noted that excessive foreign borrowing during the Marcos regime stagnated development and became one of the root causes of widespread poverty, leaving the economy in a precarious state. In Republic v. Sandiganbayan, the Court described the economic havoc created by the authoritarian regime in this manner:

At the time that the government of former President Marcos was driven from power, the country's debt was over $26 billion; and the indications were that "illegally acquired wealth" of the deposed president alone, not counting that of his relatives and cronies, was in the aggregate amount of from five to ten billion US dollars, the bulk of it being deposited and hidden abroad.”

​These are only a few excerpts from some of the many decisions of the highest court of the land that memorialize for all of history the atrocities committed during the era heralded by the 1972 declaration of martial law. They may not be the most heart-rending of accounts due to the necessary haste with which I compiled them, but I encourage you to do further reading on these and similar cases. These excerpts together with unrefuted historical accounts are a testament to our country’s resolve to never again allow ourselves to return to those dark and terrible times.

Thus the 1987 Constitution clearly says:

​A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

As we face the days following President Duterte’s declaration of martial law in Mindanao, it behooves us to ask what we can do in the present, with the time that is given to us, to ensure that the horrors of martial law that followed the 1972 declaration do not happen again.

For if being an Atenean means anything, it is that each of us – individually, and as a member of the Ateneo as an institution and a community – bears a great deal of responsibility for the well-being of this country. And this responsibility entails leading not by possessing power for power’s sake, but by sacrificial example, by dying to ourselves and taking up our crosses daily. If power is to be granted to an Atenean, then such power must be exercised the way Christ exercised his leadership, by being a servant first, to the Father, and to His brothers and sisters.

These are times when everything that can be shaken is being shaken, when institutions are being challenged to their very foundations, and basic ideas of decency and human dignity are being violated with great impunity. These are times more than any other that will sorely test the Atenean’s capacity to distinguish right from wrong and the Atenean’s ability to act in service of what is right, and true, and good.

Do not be discouraged, for you are well-equipped for the challenges of these times. You only need to look within and around you and reflect on the Atenean principles inculcated in you over the years – Magis, or the constant pursuit of improvement and excellence, for difficult times require extraordinary people.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam, AMDG! All for the greater glory of God – for these are times when our faith will be tested, our paths will be dark and full of shadows, and only by surrendering all our actions to God may we continue towards the light.

One Big Fight! More than a cheer used in our basketball games, One Big Fight embodies the wholehearted passion and dedication that must fuel all our actions.

But the most fundamental Atenean value today is that of being a person for others. To be an Atenean is to serve – compassionately, selflessly, with unceasing dedication. To be an Atenean is to constantly continue the work of addressing others’ needs; to think broadly, not merely in terms of impact on one’s self, but impact on one’s community and country. 

To be an Atenean is to deeply and completely understand that it is in service to others that our lives take on their full meaning. To be an Atenean is to forsake a life of self-centered safety for a life of service.

To be a person for others is to commit to a just and noble cause greater than oneself.

Given the present day, when the possibility of history repeating itself looms imminent, no cause requires your commitment as much as the cause of human rights, justice, and democracy, themes you have aptly chosen.

For today, people’s fundamental human rights and freedoms, the core of our democracy, face grave and blatant threats. The culture of impunity is on the rise. People are pressured to favor the easy choice over the right choice: expediency over due process; convenient labeling over fairness; the unlawful termination of human life over rehabilitation.

You need to make a stand, dear Ateneans. And to make a stand you must act. More than merely ruminating on the idea of justice, I call on each of you to confront the common injustices of our society and seek to address them. I urge you to speak out with truth even against the overwhelming tide of popular opinion and reach out to the oppressed and disenfranchised. When you face threats to the sanctity of human rights or the stability of our democracy, give your all to protect these freedoms. Give your all to protect our nation and our people.

Stand up and give One Big Fight!

As I stated in my speech to the lawyers in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines National Convention last March 23, we are not fighting a person or an establishment but a culture, a pattern that pervades our society today. It is a pattern of apathy, rage, and despair: one that began when people learned to tolerate wrong, stopped hoping, and ceased caring.

I understand that the task before you is immense, but I have no doubt you are more than up to the challenge. For you have been honed over your years in the Ateneo to fulfill your calling in extraordinary ways.

That is why I do not feel only hope when I look at you – my heart is filled with grateful gladness. Throughout the countless calamities that have struck the country, Ateneans have always been among the first to respond and help. Unstintingly and without hesitation, Ateneans have reached out, time and time again, to complete strangers – giving of themselves to people they may never even meet.

Last year, when the history of our nation was subjected to attempts at revision, you were among the first to speak up. I saw young men and women from the Ateneo spill out into the streets, furious and indignant, speaking up against this distortion of our history and reaching out to show fellow Filipinos that they were not alone. As a fellow Atenean, I understood that this passionate outpouring of righteous anger sprang from a deep understanding of what it means to be a person for others.

Know that being a person for others and standing for human rights, justice, and democracy are one and the same. To stand for human rights is to value others’ freedoms as much as you value your own. To stand for justice is to oppose any attempts to value one group’s freedoms more than those of others. To stand for democracy is to love your country and your people so fully that you will act to ensure democratic processes are followed despite great personal cost. To stand for all of these is to sacrifice yourself so that others may know freedom, safety, and all the fullness of life.

Know that you are not alone. You will not be alone. Have the courage to stand.

My prayers are with you, young Ateneans. As you face this crossroad and move on to a new chapter of your lives, may the Lord bless and keep you; may He make His face shine on you and be gracious to you; may the Lord turn His face towards you and give you peace.

Mabuhay kayo, class of 2017! Make us proud! – Rappler.com

Upon his return from Russia, the President gave a press conference where he explained at length his decision to declare martial law across Mindanao.

But perhaps just as significant was his on-the-spot sacking of Secretary Benjamin Reyes of the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) for repeatedly saying there are about 1.8 million drug users in the country. This official figure contradicts the President’s own guesstimate of 4 million.

The President said: “And here comes a chairman…You’re fired. Today. Get out of the service. You do not contradict your own government…”

In this article we explain in detail the study that arrived at the 1.8 million figure. We show that even with a liberal estimate of 2.5 million drug users, the President’s 4 million figure is still off the mark and lies beyond the realm of statistical probability.

The 2015 drug use survey

The 1.8 million figure comes from the “2015 Nationwide Survey on the Nature and Extent of Drug Abuse in the Philippines” published by the DDB in September 2016 (see below).

The survey, conducted from December 5, 2015 to February 5, 2016, included a random sample of 5,000 respondents coming from 5 regional groupings nationwide: NCR, North Luzon, South Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. Each of these groups had a sample of 1,000 individuals.

The 5,000 nationwide sample size is quite large; SWS and Pulse Asia usually settle for just around 1,200 respondents. Moreover, the sample was constructed so that the overall results are nationally and regionally representative of the 77.22 million Filipinos aged 10-69 back in 2015.

Figure 1 shows the breakdown of the key results. Of the 5,000 respondents, 4,694 (94%) said they never used drugs, while 306 (6%) used drugs at least once in their lifetime. Meanwhile, 113 (2.3%) were “current users” or used drugs some time between January 2015 to February 2016.

Applying these rates to the 77.22 million people aged 10-69 in 2015, one can conclude that there are about 4.63 million people who used drugs at least once in their lifetime (6% of 77.22 million) and 1.8 million current users (2.3% of 77.22 million). This is the source of the controversial 1.8 million that eventually led to the President’s sacking of Secretary Reyes.

Margin of error

But remember that a survey yields a statistical estimate of the number of drug users – not the actual prevalence of drug use out there. As such, we have to take into account the so-called margin of error, which makes room for possible over- and underestimation.

The 2015 DDB study was conducted with a ±0.9 margin of error in mind (based on a 95% confidence interval). This means that we can be pretty sure that the actual drug prevalence rate falls in the interval 2.3±0.9%, or anywhere between 1.4% to 3.2% of the population aged 10-69.

These figures mean that in 2015 there could have been as few as 1.08 million drug users (the most conservative estimate) or as many as 2.47 million current drug users (the most liberal estimate). The 1.8 million figure lies between these two extremes, and in all likelihood the actual number of drug users cannot lie outside this range.

This range of estimates (1 million to 2.5 million) is crucial since it flies in the face of the President’s guesstimates on the number of drug users. In various occasions, he said that there can be 3 million, 3.7 million, or 4 million drug users in the Philippines. (READ: Is Duterte’s ‘4 million drug addicts’ a ‘real number’?)

But Figure 2 shows these presidential guesstimates (red lines) lie outside the confidence interval of the DDB’s study (blue lines). The President’s most conservative estimate of 3 million drug users is 22% higher than the DDB’s most liberal estimate of 2.5 million (and the 4 million figure is 62% higher).

Hence, the data suggest that President Duterte’s 4 million figure is most likely an overestimation.

Figure 2. Source: 2015 DDB study and various news reports. The DDB interval estimate is based on a ±0.9 margin of error on the prevalence rate (95% confidence interval). The Duterte data refer to his 3-4 million guesstimate (in between is his 3.7 million claim during his first SONA).

Where does the discrepancy come from?

Why is the President’s figure off the mark? There could be a number of reasons, all of them weak at best and absurd at worst.

First, does the President confuse the number of current drug users (1.8 million) with those who used it at least once in their lifetime (4.63 million)? If so, should the drug war also target the additional 2.83 million who stopped using drugs recently?

Second, does the President’s bloated figure account for the growth in the number of drug users since February 2016? This would imply a whopping 62% increase in the number of drug users from February to September 2016 (or in just 6.8 months).

For this, we can ask how the rate of drug use rose so fast, when two previous surveys by the DDB have shown that the number of drug users tends to be quite stable, never exceeding 2 million since 2008?

Third, is the President referring to drug users of all ages, even those aged below 10 and above 69? If so, this would imply (absurdly) that there are 1.53 million drug users among the very young (below 10) and very old (above 69). This also means that the prevalence of drug use for these age groups would be 6%, or twice the prevalence rate of those aged 10-69!

All in all, there seems to be no strong explanation that could justify the President’s 4 million figure. Government officials have also failed to give any detailed and satisfactory reason for the discrepancy.

The sacked Secretary Reyes himself tried to reconcile the data by saying that the DDB study’s margin of error is ±5 percentage points. Indeed, this would comfortably contain the President’s 4 million figure. But as we mentioned earlier, the DDB’s study was based on a margin of error of just ±0.9 percentage points. Sadly, even margins of error are no longer immune from alternative facts.

Let’s not lose our grip on reality

In sum, President Duterte’s estimated 4 million drug users is a bloated figure that lies beyond the realm of statistical probability and lacks any solid empirical basis.

But the debate over 1.8 million versus 4 million pales in comparison to the disturbing way by which the administration has brazenly misused statistics and ignored scientific evidence in its efforts to justify the brutal drug war.

The President’s sacking of DDB Secretary Reyes over contradictory data only raises further suspicion that the President is not being totally forthright about his numbers.

Fudging the numbers is disturbing for two main reasons. First, to the extent that the President uses drug use data to justify his brutal drug war, an overestimation could easily be used to justify an extension of the bloody drug war up to the President’s last day in office.

Second, if the President now disputes the drug user data, what other statistics could he dispute later? GDP growth figures? Inflation figures? Unemployment figures? If these figures contradict his own guesstimates, will he also fire officials of the Philippine Statistics Authority?

The pages of history are replete with despots who rose to power by altering the facts and gaslighting their citizens.

In historian Tom Snyder’s latest book (On Tyranny), he said: “To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle.”

With the descent of martial law in Mindanao (and maybe later throughout the country), never has it been more important to stick to the facts. In the end, a tighter grip on reality – through data and evidence – may be one of the best ways to brace ourselves against this new, rising wave of authoritarian rule. – Rappler.com

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

Passion has become a virtue in our day and age. We are asked to listen to our heart, go for our dreams, and be anything we want to be. A song even tells us that there can be miracles when you believe.

The message is clear: the pursuit of passion must drive our choices. Those attending graduation ceremonies in the weeks ahead will most likely be hearing the same message, enunciated in different ways.

What can be so wrong with such a heart-warming message? For many, it is an enviable feat to be able to accomplish that which you have long desired. 

The only problem is that passion is too often a misplaced virtue.

Generation Me

Jean Twenge, a social psychologist, considers young people growing up in the West today to belong to Generation Me. We generally call them millennials but by referring to them as Generation Me, Jean Twenge invokes the central attributes of today's youth. In her words, they are "confident, assertive, entitled". 

What accounts for the confidence?

It is because these young people grew up in an environment that celebrates individuality. The celebration is about the accomplishments of the self, the discovery of what makes one happy, and being true to one's soul. 

All joyful, these moments come together in the pursuit of passion. 

Indeed, passion has become the byword for dream jobs, hipster hobbies, and the cosmopolitan lifestyle. 

They have their Filipino counterparts – mobile urbanites – and they are not too far off. Or at least they aspire to the same set of accomplishments. There's a reason BGC is called the "home of passionate minds".

But there is a slight problem here. 

Passion, in this light, is an inward journey, a discovery and accomplishment of the self, so to speak. And when left unchecked, it is thoroughly more invested in the self than it is in the affairs of this world.

The origins of passion

But passion was never about the self, or at least its joys. An early rendering of the word passion was recorded in Old French in the 10th century. It specifically referred to the physical suffering of Christ. Later on it evolved to denote the suffering of the martyrs. Christian martyrdom, after all, was fashionable then. The faithful's passion for God was tested in terms of physical endurance. 

In the 14th century, passion became more about strong emotions as it was used to translate the Greek word pathos. In rhetoric, pathos is a mode of persuasion that appeals to emotions. In the 16th century, passion became about sexual love, long before the sexual revolution of the 1960s.

The trajectory of passion demonstrates for us that its origins were not about the discovery of the true, the good, and the beautiful. 

It was in fact about the very experience of suffering. Only much later did it become about happiness and adventure for you only live once. 

Reframing passion

Many of us are driven by passion. The ethos of the day compels us to pursue something that gives us joy, peace, and meaning. But passion needs to be reframed. The original passion of passion, as it were, was to suffer in view of something greater and beyond the self.

The words of Frederick Buechner, a theologian, come to mind: "The place God calls you to is the place where your deep gladness and the world's deep hunger meet." Passion can only be true to its cultural origins – the very reason the word was coined – is if it encounters suffering.

It is this kind of passion that matters most in a time of turmoil such as ours: When truth is deliberately foregone, when fears are allayed in a smokescreen of strength, when the poor are allured into a fantasy of liberty and peace, and when the youth – our vanguards of idealism and radical change – are mesmerized by the misleading promises of a self-centered future.

This is the time that we need to go back to the heart of passion – to make choices that make a lasting difference in this frail world into which we have all been born. Even if these choices are tough. Even if these choices cause us suffering. 

But it is all worth it. It is worth it if only to know and act upon the fact that we were born for such a time as this. – Rappler.com

Jayeel Serrano Cornelio, PhD is the Director of the Development Studies Program at the Ateneo de Manila University. He is currently at Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu in Romania on an Erasmus+ mobility grant. Share with him your thoughts on Twitter @jayeel_cornelio.

I am a Filipino born and raised in the outskirts of Mindanao. I grew up in a place where daily bloodshed is almost normal, where wars are a game of chess, and bullets are seen anywhere like stones.

In a small town in the province of Sultan Kudarat, I’ve experienced my first armed conflict. Late at night, firefight between government troops and rebel groups would start. They would cut the electric supply in our area, engaging in the battlefield of darkness.

The first gunshot would signal us to start crawling to a prepared fox hole underneath our house – an opening just enough to fit 5-6 persons. There, my mother would comfort us that everything would be okay, but I knew it would never be okay.

Under that dark shelter, we would let the evening pass with the sound of explosions and gunshots as lullabies. The next morning, everything would be back to normal – with some bullets and shrapnel scattered in the streets. Bloodstains would remain for a week or two, until the rain would wash away the mark of the unending battle.  

As a little boy back then, I was filled with questions no one could ever answer. Until today, I realized I was asking the wrong question – why, not how, should we stop these conflicts?

Marawi clash

The Marawi clash which started on Tuesday, May 23, stirred the social media world with a range of emotions and responses, from reactions of sympathy for the residents to blame on the government. Many condemned the Maute Group while others still argued with each other based on their political differences.

But none of these will save Marawi from the destruction caused by false ideology and extremism that has imprisoned Mindanao for decades now.

It’s very awful seeing the irony of events. Instead of becoming one nation and helping those who are in need, once again, we are divided into strands of yellows, reds, etc.

There were individuals who blamed the President and another group who blamed the Vice President. But while these were happening, President Rodrigo Duterte headed home from Russia while Vice President Leni Robredo got a security briefing from the Armed Forces of the Philippines.

Taking off from that, I think it is safe to say that our leaders whom we elected are doing their respective jobs for the best interest of our country regardless of their political affilation.

This shocking event in Marawi is not a matter of politics, or deciding who steps out and who steps in Instead this about human security and safety, and every single Filipino must take part.

Becoming white

If you are unsure whom to side with – either the yellows or the reds – why not become white? We need more Filipinos who are white – those who agree with government actions, projects and agenda, and at same time are not afraid to hold the same government accountable when there is injustice or abuse of power.

In a democracy, we need citizens who can support good government and criticize when needed. If we can be both, we are an asset for the country.

I must reiterate, becoming white is not becoming neutral, instead it is becoming a more responsible citizen who always sides with what is right and true.

I ask for understanding. Understanding that we, the people of Mindanao are also Filipinos who deserve to be treated and respected like the people in Luzon and the Visayas. We deserve to sleep at night without any fear that terror groups may ransack our houses or rape our women anytime.

We deserve to dwell in a place where we can freely move, talk, and raise our family without any fear that they might be taken against their will one day. We deserve to be respected based on our culture, our faith, and our beliefs. Christians and Muslims in Mindanao live in harmony, and we would like to keep it that way.

Peace in Mindanao

The people of Mindanao are tired. We are tired of daily conflicts and of being told that Mindanao is a dreadful place. We are tired of telling ourselves that this war will soon come to an end. We are tired of our false hopes that one day, peace will reign in Mindanao.

Friends in Luzon and Visayas, let’s urge the administration to do all it can to stop this terror group – even if it means applying brute force. Most, if not all, Mindanaoans are ready to undertake all precautionary measures to aid government actions. We are ready to follow and obey if it means lasting peace in our land – something we’ve been dreaming of for so long.

Honorable senators, congressmen, privileged elite, oligarchs, and students, please allow us to feel what peace is. You are always entitled to your freedom of expression in contradicting the government, but we are also entitled to our right to security, our right to live in a peaceful home, without any fear or shame of who we are, what we are, and where we came from. 

Mr President, Madam Vice President, and all of the government troops, ignite our little hopes. Do what is right, what is legal under the Constitution, and what is necessary. We are counting on you.

Fellow citizens, I am looking forward to the day where all of us will unite to achieve a common goal for the betterment of our country. By then, I will write again addressed not to the Filipinos in Luzon, Visayas, or Mindanao, but to the Filipinos of the Philippines. – Rappler.com 

 Jieven Santisteban is a campus journalism advocate from Zamboanga City. He is one of the administrators of Campus Journalist Ako, the largest online organization of campus journalists in the Philippines. He is also an editor of Assortedge and JourKnows.

When Rodrigo Duterte warned early in his presidency that he might suspend the writ of habeas corpus to allow for arrests without warrants, human rights lawyer Chel Diokno remarked, “The train may have left the station.”

Duterte’s reputation as a strongman credibly preceding him, Diokno would not be caught missing any signs, as his father did in his own time.

Senator Jose Diokno, one of the sharpest critics of Ferdinand Marcos, doubted that Marcos would make good his threat to impose martial law, something never experienced, after all, in this postwar republic. On the very night it happened, in September 1972, Diokno was arrested at home and thrown into prison, there to languish for two years.

Now his son’s own fear has become real; Duterte’s martial-law train has set off on its initial run, in the south, across Mindanao, one of the country’s 3 main island groups.

Mindanao has been a hotbed of brigandage, rebellion, and other forms of syndicated criminality. To Duterte, all that constitutes terrorism, the modern-day scourge plaguing the world, and obviously he feels that the local situation has worsened to a point where normal presidential powers no longer work.

In fact, Mindanao had been under a “state of emergency” since September, after two bomb explosions killed 14 people in a night market in Davao City, where Duterte presided as mayor for more than two decades and built a reputation for death-squad justice. The emergency allows the army to come in and reinforce the police, but for Duterte that was not good enough; and neither a mere suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, which comes next in severity. He decided to go straight to martial law, which encompasses all emergency measures.

And as if the idea of a standard martial law were not dreadful enough, he warned he would be“harsh” with it. He further warned he would widen its coverage if the enemy could not be subdued or contained within Mindanao.

In fact some of the enemy has spilled into the next island group, the Visayas, driven across the sea to Bohol province by troops taking part in an offensive mounted in the Mindanao province of Lanao del Sur and concentrated on its capital, Marawi City, shortly before the declaration of martial law. How martial law for all of Mindanao could be justified by a provincial-city problem is a question Duterte has not begun to answer. (Only a few days ago in Manchester, England, a suicide bomber left 22 instantly dead, and the police have been getting results with normal powers.)

Out here in Luzon, right in Metro Manila, mysterious bombs are exploding in public places, although causing no deaths or serious injuries, and police alerts to equally mysterious bomb threats are being sounded.

These questions and mysteries raise reasonable and critical suspicions of pretexts (for Marcos’ martial law it was the stage-managed ambush of Juan Ponce Enrile) – reasonable and critical, indeed, considering the personal freedoms (of expression, public meetings, movement) and rights (the right to know, for one) to be lost to martial law. Why, martial law hijacks democracy itself!

Questions must be asked now, before the freedom to ask is itself lost. Alas, the precise organization expected to do that – probe for truth and justice – is defaulting. The leadership of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the national organization of lawyers, is suddenly, momentarily blind: it “sees no reason to question the declaration [of martial law] at this time.”

One reaction might be consoling if it did not come from the Speaker of the House. He says its members will review the declaration, but does not have to say – for it goes without saying – that it will be found, in the House’s sycophantic phraseology, “perfect in form and substance.” The Senate is just as useless as a counterweight; at least its majority, just as overwhelmingly for Duterte as in the House, has so far preferred to be prudently quiet.

As for the Supreme Court, anyone who has been keeping score should have an idea where it stands; one of its last important votes might be, by itself, enough indication: it gave Ferdinand Marcos, Duterte’s professed idol, a hero’s burial.

But where exactly is Duterte going with his martial law? For a quick, quantified idea: in Marcos’ 14 years of martial law, there were 75,000 documented cases of torture; in less than a year of Duterte’s war on drugs, undertaken yet with non-martial-law powers, there have been more than 7,000 deaths. – Rappler.com

I was 12 years old when my parents sent us to Dumaguete, my mother's birthplace, to escape an impending attack on Jolo by Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) fighters. I remember rehearsing for our graduation song and designing our graduation dress for our incoming commencement exercises in March of 1974.

But the tension between the Philippine military and the MNLF fighters often erupted in an exchange of gunfire. We were used to having our classes at the Mohammad Tulawie Central Elementary School interrupted by bomb explosions and gunfight that sounded closer and closer every day. The school authorities decided to have a mass promotion and told us that classes had ended in February instead of March and we were free to go home.

My sister and I were fortunate to have escaped the town earlier before the MNLF came stealthily in a group of small bancas deep into the night of February 7, 1974, paddling underneath the frail bamboo houses on stilts of the townsfolk of Jolo.

Dr Virginia Villanueva, a doctor at the Sulu Provincial Hospital, said members of the Philippine Constabulary (PC, now the PNP), welcomed the MNLF fighters as Muslim brothers and fellow Jolo residents. The battle to occupy Jolo was fought, the battlefields were the Notre Dame of Jolo, the airport, and the Chinese pier, which was the center of business. Commercial planes were no longer allowed to land, neither were commercial ships.

My parents were government employees. My father was an assistant provincial fiscal, while my mother was a clerk of court of Jolo. They walked toward the pier, past dead people in the streets. The stench was terrible.

The military questioned all the men, suspicious of them being members or sympathizers of the MNLF fighters. Those who were suspected of being MNLF rebels were taken to the Perlas Theatre, where they were tortured and shot. My father was interrogated and asked what his occupation was. When he answered that he was a prosecutor, the soldier spat on the ground. "Who cares? We do not recognize fiscals or mayors or governors! The military's in control."

This was martial law in Jolo, and the immediate focus was to crush the rebellion.

Some of my classmates' houses were razed to the ground. There was looting in the stores and homes of residents. A friend of mine, Wilhelmina Aluk, narrated that she saw bags containing gold jewelry just left on the streets. No one cared to bring them along as they were just added weight.

People fled for their lives. Most people waited for days for the naval ship to take them to Zamboanga City and then to Manila, where they stayed with relatives. From the chaos and the town's burning, my aunt, Carolyn Que, a teacher at Sulu Tong Jin Elementary School, gave birth on the naval boat earlier than her due date.

Dr Basil Jajurie and his cousin, Dr Utuh Isahac, were among those political prisoners placed behind bars in Jolo and Zamboanga. He was charged with helping treat MNLF fighters. The two-week ordeal behind bars, however, did not embitter him, but rather emboldened him to work for the people of Jolo.

Medical supplies were few and far between, and there was not enough facilities to conduct medical procedures. He and his fellow doctors at the Sulu Provincial Hospital had to improvise and use whatever resources they had to save lives and treat people.

Eventually, it was the 14th Infantry Battalion under General Mison that was able to take control of the town in mid-February. Sources noted that 20,000 civilians, military, and soldiers died during the battle for Jolo. The rebellion may have been crushed, but the sentiments of "liberation" wafted and waned through the years.

Rebellion and the response of government to declare martial law was done in 1972 and it did not work. The names of the rebel groups may differ – from MNLF to MILF to Abu Sayaff, depending on their leaning. But despite numerous panel discussions and peace talks, none has specifically addressed the fundamental root of the problem: economic development and income disparity.

Religious ideologies and the idealistic quest for liberation from the national government are also important, but are secondary issues. If educational, job, and business opportunities are created, supported, and sustained for the people of Jolo and outlying areas, then peace will be within reach.

Lives have been lost and, as tragic as it sounds, war and the declaration of martial law will never solve the problem. Not in a hundred years.

A survivor, Dr Villanueva, saw an MNLF fighter, fatally shot by a soldier during the fight at the Notre Dame School of Jolo, come crashing down the stairs. With his last breath, he wrote on the wall with his bloodied hand, "We will fight till the end."

The lengthy quest for peace goes on while there is still life. But until there is real economic development, war and martial law will never solve the problem. – Rappler.com

Burdening an already overstretched AFP with the responsibilities of administering and governing a civilian population of 22 million promises to divert military action against terrorists. Rather than give the AFP the upper hand against the self-styled local terrorists, martial law will instead pit the military against civilians.

The AFP as an organization, challenged as it is by internal and external armed threats as well as demoralization for its Commander-in-Chief’s capitulation to China and romance with the local communist movement, is completely unprepared to take over the functions of civilian government in Mindanao, much less in the entire archipelago. It simply was never trained for that. To add governance of civil society to its military role will only breach its already extended resources. This will only further result into a desire to shortcut its administration over civilians through the curtailment of civil liberties, as it will run Mindanao LGUs the same way it runs its military camps.

This is the nuance between the constitutional power of the President as black letter law and its practical but undesirable effect on civilian supremacy. More often than not, as proven by our own historical experience, martial law never defeats subversion, insurrection, or terrorism. Just because it is enshrined in the Constitution does not mean that martial law is a desirable option, especially when used by a president with authoritarian and dictatorial tendencies, who is anti-democratic and despises dissent in his most inner core, and who has displayed his capacity for enforcing a policy of social cleansing both as mayor and as president, resulting in the extrajudicial killing of more or less 9,000 human beings so far.

The martial law enshrined in the Constitution as an extraordinary measure definitely envisioned its use by an authoritarian president like Duterte. Thus, the Constitution likewise set in place check-and-balance measures of Congressional reporting and approval for extension as well as review by the Supreme Court. But already we are witnessing how these measures can be circumvented through the mere expediency of Congress, or the two heads of Congress, refusing to convene for a legislative deliberation on the propriety of the declaration of martial law and its geographical coverage. (READ: No joint session on martial law? Congress 'shields' Duterte)

The Constitution might be in place, but its Chief Executor’s desire to replace it even as he continuously undermines it with his authoritarian actions is also real. We are not reassured that this regime will respect the constitutional provisions on the check-and-balance measures on martial law, as it has now displayed its capacity to abuse this presidential power when Duterte invoked it beyond what is necessary, even as the AFP has repeatedly reassured the public that it is in control and capable of imposing law and order even without martial law.

Ironic

Ironically, the most libertarian and reassuring statement against an oppressive martial law comes to us from the AFP Western Mindanao Command under Lieutenant General Carlito Galvez, who guarantees continuing operation of the peace mechanisms with the MILF and MNLF as well as observance of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and human rights immediately after Duterte’s declaration.

Definitely we have already seen everything. The day has come when it is our men in uniform, our AFP, our soldiers, who give us the assurance that IHL and human rights are paramount, even as the civilian leadership in the person of Duterte can only guarantee that this martial law will be as harsh as Marcos’s martial law. The tables have turned. It is the AFP that is still interested in democracy, while its commander-in-chief and his political party cannot wait to impose a dictatorship.

What martial law definitely does is curtail civil liberties and, in the process, drive a wedge into the partnership between civil society and the military in their common goal to preserve peace, order and stability. More importantly, it does not help that the President’s model in its imposition is the dictator Marcos’s template, of martial law being harsh, and where, as he recently declared, he does not simply care how many are killed. According to Duterte: “So. be. It,” on the number who might end up dead. Duterte’s martial law will not be harsh on terrorists, but on civilians. It is the wrong option of social control, when what is immediately needed is military efficiency in surgical and precision operations against the terrorists, as what the AFP is now accomplishing in Marawi, while preserving democracy and civilian supremacy.

Without a doubt, there must be decisive action against terrorism in Marawi and the rest of the country. So far, this is what the AFP has displayed even without the implementation of martial law on the ground, after it has recovered from the initial shock of terrorist occupation of an urban center. This is what the AFP has displayed during the month-long Zamboanga City Siege in September of 2013, where the AFP focused on surgical military operations and containment strategies, without infringing on civilian government and civil liberties at the height of a massive urban warfare in one of the most populated centers of Mindanao. This was the AFP as protector of the people at its finest.

 
And then we have the martial law in Mindanao, with Duterte’s promise that it will be harsh, will only unravel an AFP at its worst as the oppressor of civilians. This is the logic of military government, and the consequences of giving the military absolute authority over civilians and their elected leaders. There will no longer be a partnership between the people and their soldiers, but only tension and enmity as the protectors gradually evolve into the hated oppressors.

Decisive action vs preferred response

Duterte’s declaration of martial law is not decisive action. It is an authoritarian leader’s preferred response to social problems, as shown by the fact that even without the Marawi siege by the Maute group, Duterte has long professed his desire to declare martial law, with or without the constitutional basis for its imposition. It is his policy for social control without consensus, and PDP-Laban’s declared path towards “peace and development.” There is even no longer pretense in Duterte’s and PDP-Laban’s pronouncement on their preference of martial law as a strategy for political domination and social control. This is creeping authoritarianism espoused by the largest political party in the Philippines, as its leader mulls imposing it on the rest of the country, regardless of any constitutional basis that there exists rebellion beyond what the AFP has been dealing with on a daily basis in the past 30 years.

We have come to this. The party of Ninoy Aquino and Nene Pimentel that launched the first legal and parliamentary opposition against Marcos’s and his Kilusang Bagong Lipunan’s (KBL) martial law is now assuming the mantle of KBL as the dictator wanna-be’s vehicle in pushing for martial law as this regime’s political and social mechanism for authoritarian development. Ninoy Aquino must really be turning in his grave.

This brings us to the very motivation behind Duterte’s and PDP-Laban’s preference for martial law. Martial law is now the ruling party’s strategy for political domination, and its President’s much long-awaited opportunity for absolutism and one-man rule. If Marcos has used communism as the bogeyman, Duterte is now using terrorism, and of course drugs – even straining to establish a link between the two with nothing but his usual anecdotal flare for excruciating drug monologues – to scare the population into accepting the curtailment of their civil liberties and submitting to martial law’s doctrine of social control imposed through the barrel of a gun. A terror threat that can otherwise be competently dealt with militarily by an efficient and motivated AFP, is now being used by Duterte to pit the military against civilians, by letting the military take over the civilian function of governance, thus perpetuating an authoritarian mindset that is only beneficial to his authoritarian designs.

This therefore explains why Duterte is using a sledgehammer to take on a job that is properly accomplished with precision tools. It is the convenient but indiscriminate weapon of an authoritarian leader. Why else declare martial law over the entire island of Mindanao, when the immediate disturbance is limited to a few hectares of a hundred-thousand square kilometer island? Because a leader who despises democracy, dissent, and popular participation in governance will always choose control and domination, rather than preserve civil liberties and democracy, given the excuse that the Marawi incident has presented to him. More than panic response, Duterte’s martial law in Mindanao, which also now threatens Visayas and Luzon, has always been his design for social control and political domination, on his way to absolute dictatorship.

What is new in this crossroads of our history is not the terrorism in Marawi or the Maute insurrection. We have dealt with such incidents in the past, oftentimes successfully given the spirited motivation and support to our armed forces. What is new is this President’s unabashed and unapologetic intention and policy of using martial law to perpetuate an authoritarian rule, regardless of the actual urgency for introducing the extraordinary and polarizing option of asking the military to rule over our daily lives, as martial law already did during the Marcos regime.

Unless we want to live once again in a society run like a military camp, we must resist and oppose Duterte’s desire to coopt the AFP into another authoritarian project. To our friends and colleagues in the AFP: your partners in peace and democracy are the people you swore to protect, not another dictator wanna-be. – Rappler.com

As a matter of inviolable principle, the Philippines should incorporate in its terms of reference for bilateral talks with China the July 12, 2016, award by the Ad Hoc Arbitral Tribunal constituted under Annex VII of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos).

The bilateral talks weave inextricably with the framing and eventual adoption of the draft Code of Conduct on the South China Sea between ASEAN and China. The Philippines needs to assert the arbitral award in its negotiations with China as a non-negotiable item, lest the principle of estoppel militate against Philippine interests in South China Sea.

The Philippines has yet to officially and boldly demand China’s immediate and unconditional compliance with its legal obligations arising from the award issued by the tribunal in The Hague. It’s the height of irony that the one without lawful rights over its 9-dash line claim over the South China Sea barks the loudest in militarily asserting China’s “core national interests.”

In contrast, the Philippines, which legitimately possesses sovereign rights and jurisdiction, and secured the final and legally binding arbitral award, is unduly timid and even solicitous of China. It has avoided muttering even anything that remotely hints at its own inviolable sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the West Philippine Sea. Yet China has been to trying to control and bar Philippines from areas in the Spratly Islands, even though those are situated within the Philippines’ 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

Sleeping over its rights might prove inimical over time to the Philippines’ sovereign rights and jurisdiction over its 200-nm EEZ and continental shelf. It’s akin to laches, a doctrine recognized in civil actions. Worse, in the face of China’s continuing brazenness, it constitutes a betrayal of the Constitution and the Filipino people.

7 Chinese-held features in Spratly Islands

In his article "South China Sea: Who Occupies What in the Spratlys?" Alexander L. Vuving identifies the following as the features occupied by China in Spratly Islands:  

• Subi Reef (Chinese: 渚碧礁 Zhubi Jiao) 
• Gaven Reef (南薰礁 Nanxun Jiao) 
• Hughes Reef (东门礁 Dongmen Jiao)
• Johnson South Reef (赤瓜礁 Chigua Jiao) 
• Fiery Cross Reef (永暑礁 Yongshu Jiao) 
• Cuarteron Reef (华阳礁 Huayang Jiao) 
• Mischief Reef (美济礁 Meiji Jiao)

Portions of the Philippine EEZ completely and effectively controlled by China include:

• Mischief Reef (Meiji Jiao (美济礁)); Panganiban)
• Johnson Reef (Chigua Jiao (赤瓜礁); Johnson Reef South; Mabini)
• McKennan Reef (Ximen Jiao (西门礁); together with Hughes Reef, known as Chigua Reef) 
• Hughes Reef (Dongmen Jiao (东门礁); together with McKennan Reef known as Chigua Reef) 

Policy and enforcement strategies 

As the one in charge of the country’s foreign policy, the Chief Executive needs to immediately and explicitly direct the Department of Foreign Affairs to take the lead in strategizing and ensuring that all diplomatic and legal enforcement measures are threshed out, outlined, and developed into coherent and strategic foreign policy positions. This is to fully and peacefully implement and enforce the arbitral award to safeguard the national patrimony in the immediate, medium-, and long-term in all fronts. 

Those policies should be formally formulated and critiqued with the help of various stakeholders, particularly governmental organs, military commands, scientists, experts, citizens, and civil society organizations. The government needs to convene such a multi-sectoral group tasked to carry out this mandate.

The overarching foreign policy framework should embody the following key rulings by the arbitral tribunal:

• “as between the Philippines and China, the Convention defines the scope of maritime entitlements in the South China Sea, which may not extend beyond the limits imposed therein”
• “as between the Philippines and China, China’s claims to historic rights, or other sovereign rights o rjurisdiction, with respect to the maritime areas of the South China Sea encompassed by the relevant part of the‘nine-dash line’ are contrary to the Convention and without lawful effect to the extent that they exceed the geographic and substantive limits of China’s maritime entitlements under the Convention”  
• “that the Convention superseded any historic rights, or other sovereign rights or jurisdiction, in excess of the limits imposed therein”

Philippines’ inviolable EEZ rights

In formulating its policy positions and strategies, particularly with respect to the 4 Chinese-held reefs in Spratly Islands forming part of Philippine EEZ, the government needs to follow through and assert Article 56(1) of Unclos (Rights, jurisdiction and duties of the coastal State in the exclusive economic zone), which provides:

In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has:

(a)  sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds;

(b)  jurisdiction as provided for in the relevant provisions of this Convention with regard to:

(i)  the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures;

(ii)  marine scientific research;

(iii)  the protection and preservation of the marine environment;

(c)  other rights and duties provided for in this Convention.

Unequivocally, those policy positions need to be adopted, articulated, and transmitted through diplomatic channels to China by proper offices of the government to further preserve and protect Philippine rights in perpetuity. The President is bound by the 1987 Constitution to fulfill this compelling duty relative to the In the Matter of the South China Sea Arbitration case. 

Economic compensation

The Philippines needs an expert assessment of the deleterious and harmful impact, both direct and indirect, of China’s continuing denial of access by the Philippines to at least 4 reefs the former is occupying. China has usurped and continues to usurp those economic benefits emanating from the Philippines' own marine resources, including those found in the sea, seabed, and subsoil.

The Philippine government needs to officially demand that China vacate these islands and pay economic compensation for for these lost economic benefits. 

Not only that. As the arbitral tribunal ruled, China violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights and jurisdiction over its own EEZ. 

Both the direct and indirect impact of the Chinese encroachment, which prevented the Philippines' enjoyment of its sovereign rights over its 200-nm EEZ, need to be factored in assessing the compensation.

Condition-setting power

The Philippines should set conditions upon China over the duration and terms of its complete and effective control and use of the Philippine EEZ, particularly in the Mischief Reef area. Such condition-setting is legally justifiable in accordance with Unclos, which both China and the Philippines ratified, and further affirmed in the arbitral award.

Demanding that China leave and pay economic compensation over its unauthorized and illegal appropriation and use of the Philippines' reefs and their surrounding areas will be an important first step in standing up to China and demanding its respect and fulfillment of its binding obligations under Unclos and the arbitral award. – Rappler.com 

Note the author’s adoption of the arbitral tribunal’s treatment of McKennan Reef and Hughes Reef as two entities for clarity.  However, both McKennan Reef and Hughes Reef, together, are known as Chigua Reef in the Philippines.

A Doctor of Juridical Science (SJD) student, Perfecto Boyet Caparas serves as the Associate Director of Graduate Programs of Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law (stated only for purposes of showing affiliation).  He is a lifetime member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.  All views expressed here exclusively belong to him.

Not me.  Martial law targets lawless elements, so why should anyone be?

I was 24 when I experienced Marcos’ martial law.  I was already running the Sunday Punch, then a 17-year old community newspaper in Pangasinan founded by my father Ermin Sr., in Dagupan City.

Besides the targeted alleged subversives (political opposition) at the time, I can say without fear of contradiction that journalists under the Marcos martial law were targeted to suffer the brunt of martial law. If having your news reports censored by a sergeant in the constabulary or being sent on exile as a condition to keep one’s newspaper running could not be considered an agonizing experience, then I don’t know what is.

But these past experiences are not, and cannot be invoked to object to the proclamation of martial law in Mindanao.

In the first place, the situation was without precedence The Constitution then did not provide safeguards for its implementation and coverage.

Clearly, the motivation for the Marcos martial law was political, not about rebellion, uprising or terrorism. It was about keeping power for the sake of keeping it for as long as Marcos could.

There lies the basic difference between what was declared in 1972 and this year’s proclamation. In contrast, President Duterte has invoked terrorism and lawlessness in the region, and the terms its implementation are regulated by the constitution.

And is the imagined fear of abuses by implementing agents enough justification to oppose it? Let’s answer that with this question: Should it take precedence over the fears felt daily by the citizens in Mindanao who are being abused, tormented and terrorized by armed groups and bandits?

So, is martial law in Mindanao necessary?

I believe so. Our government and the rest of us can no longer ignore the following facts about life in Mindanao:

• Mindanao has been the hotbed of armed conflicts for generations involving the secessionist groups: MNLF, MILF and BIFF.

• It has become the haven for armed bandits and terrorists: Abu Sayyaf and Maute (both pledged allegiance to ISIS) and NPA.  

• The combatants of the above groups, particularly, the groups that commit atrocities (kidnap for ransom, extortion, killing of hostages, raiding of police stations, terroristic bombings, etc.) have been able to operate with impunity with the help of sympathizers and relatives in many communities. Their sympathizers and protectors include barangay, town, and provincial officials.

• Many major military and police operations in the past against above groups have failed and cost many lives because sympathizers in the communities always found ways to alert the groups of planned military offensive operations.

• Military and police officers are vulnerable to corruption because they have more to gain from covert alliances with the armed groups and nothing to gain from operating against the latter. It has been a no-win proposition for them since government never demonstrated the political will to fully contain the situation.

• The flow of investments and implementation of development programs have been impaired by continued lawlessness and violence in the region. Many infrastructure projects continue to be sabotaged by the armed groups.

• Poverty in Moro communities have lured many to illegal drug trading, now a major source of funding for the criminal activities of the separatists and bandits.

Why should the martial law be implement in the whole of Mindanao region and not limited to Marawi City?

• The confirmed infiltration of ISIS operatives in Mindanao can be expected to gain more following in the months ahead from both the secessionist groups and bandits. Unless government shows it is determined to stop ISIS, more groups with extremist leanings will be emboldened to organize. (When government tolerated MNLF’s existence, splinter groups surfaced, among them the MILF. And when government decided to tolerate MILF, BILF came into being).

• Terrorism knows no boundaries. Before, Maute planted a bomb in Davao City. ASG kidnapped victims in Zamboanga. BILF engaged government troops in Cotabato. Today, Maute wants Marawi City as a stronghold. The NPA attacked police stations, burned equipment of plantations in Mindanao. Which town or city will be attacked and under siege next in Mindanao?

• The armed groups have influence and presence in many towns and cities in Mindanao.

• With technology and caches of high powered guns in their hands, the secessionists and bandits can wreak havoc in any targeted town and city in Mindanao (and in Luzon and Visayas where they have cadres and sympathizers) on demand.

What hopefully will martial law in Mindanao accomplish?

• Armed groups will finally be on the defensive because the full might of the Armed Forces will be thrown at them, and they will have difficulty operating outside of their comfort zones. (The failed attempt of ASG to sabotage the ASEAN meeting in Bohol is the most recent example of how the absence of sympathizers in communities can impact on the armed groups’ operations).

• Sympathizers (relatives and local government officials) who’ve long been protecting the criminal activities of the separatists and the bandits will finally be exposed and arrested. (The assumption here is the government will seek the lifting of the writ of habeas corpus).

Without martial law, military and police have to go through the tedious process of applying for search and arrest warrants before the suspects can be detained and interrogated.

• Since the military and police finally see a chance to finally win the war particularly against the bandits, the morale of operatives and combatants will be high.

• The armed groups will finally have difficulty recruiting in their communities for their criminal  activities.

• With real peace and order in place, investments will begin to flow into Mindanao, more infrastructures can be constructed and the region’s economy will finally begin to improve.  

• The sincerity of the CPP-NPA-NDF in its pledge to support the peace talks will be tested. 

What makes us believe President Duterte will succeed?   

• No president in the past was as resolute nor expressed a desire to end the generational armed conflicts in Mindanao. The situation in Mindanao was deemed too complex by past administrations that they decided to focus on development in Luzon only, a tact that led to the reference to the national government as “Imperial Manila.”

• We finally have a Mindanaoan, a Christian with Moro blood in his veins, as president, who more than anyone, knows and understands the complexities of the problems of Mindanao and is committed and determined to end the armed conflicts in Mindanao.

• Mr. Duterte, for all his perceived lack of statesmanship with his often ill-advised off-the-cuff remarks, has not shown an inclination to stay in power for decades but a political will to improve the peace and order in the country.

• The Duterte administration has already launched massive infrastructure plans for Mindanao and foreign trade investments have already been secured.

• Foreign countries have committed to provide funds and initiate programs for Mindanao’s development.

• Abuses will likely be checked and minimized because Congress, the Commission on Human Rights and the courts will continue to function.

• The freedom of the press is not being curtailed.

I believe Mr. Duterte’s martial law in Mindanao, minus widespread abuses, is finally our first and only chance at real peace in Mindanao.

I pray he will succeed, and I hope you, too, will. – Rappler.com